Subject:
|
inconsequential creator
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:55:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2537 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> Put another way, you have no valid reason not to accept that the universe was
> created by God...
No valid reason not to accept that the universe was created rather than
always existed or spontaneously appeared... AS LONG AS that creator has had
no other effect.
As soon as you claim the creator has had other effects which are apparent or
measurable, you're in the realm of science, and if you claim these effects
happened, the onus is on you to prove they did, and then prove that they are
not the result of natural processes.
It is a huge leap from an inconsequential creator (who got things started
but has had no other visible or measurable effects) to any particular (and
specifically, your particular) god. You have a lot of intermediate forms to
work through.
Note also that systems in which the universe either always existed or
spontaneously arose (the two non creator alternatives) are at least one
moving part simpler than systems in which the universe was created by a
creator who either always existed or spontaneously arose (the two creator
alternatives). Therefore they are simpler explanations, by that one moving
part. Therefore, they are (at least slightly, possibly significantly) more
plausible.
Your preference for the more complex explanation, absent any evidence (and I
think we agree no scientific evidence is possible on this topic at this
time) is just that, a preference. It's counter logical since simpler
explanations tend to be the correct ones, in general (not always, but it's a
pretty good rule of thumb when talking about natural phenomena)
My preference for the simpler explanation is a rational preference, but I
admit that it could be either way. I have little bias or stake in the
outcome, as it matters not to me, really. Not relevant to my belief system
where the universe came from, it's only an intellectual curiosity.
You on the other hand have a great deal of bias/stake, as if there is no
creator (and I'm not clear you admitted that possibility even exists yet)
your entire edifice is washed away... either your god doesn't exist at all,
or he arose naturally and is not the creator. Either those would, I suspect,
be mortal blows to your religion were it possible to demonstrate that they
were true.
But that explains why you argue so vehemently for a creator. You have no
choice but to, else you have no rock to stand on.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) No, you can't by definition inquire about the starting point of a starting point. (...) To what degree? A "larger" leap of faith? Nothing what we are talking about is "logical" We are talking about something out of nothing. We don't have any (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
