Subject:
|
Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 14:43:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2734 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> Here's another way of looking at it: how, when faced with an eerie
> coincidence like the hypthetical bus accident, are we able to know that
> there *is* a karmic/metaphysical/transcendent reason behind it?
Sorry to be a buttinski here, but I just thought of something. What about the
odds angle? Sometimes coincidences are too great; that is, that the odds of
something happening a certain way are way beyond normal expectation. Say, for
instance, the beginning of life on earth. I'm a little rusty on the numbers,
but IIRC the odds of the events happening that led up to the creation of life
are incomprehensible. Would such "coincidences" suggest anything intelligent
behind them?
<snip>
> Ah-hah! Okay, I can accept[1] that in principle. It is, in a manner of
> speaking, an act of transcendent faith (as opposed to mundane faith) to
> assume that absolutely no god/deity exists. But in my case, given the
> evidence available to me, it is not reasonable for me to conclude that a god
> exists or must exist.
> The position you describe (which I'll call Y) is: "I believe that God does
> not exist." Instead, my position (which I'll call Z) is: "I do not believe
> that God exists." Y is the presence of belief, but Z is a lack of belief.
> Do you see how they're different, and how each requires a different
> framework for defense and rebuttal?
And this is my final issue with the position of those who hold up Science as a
filter for information about the world-- they *cannot* believe in a God,
because, as scientists, they need evidence and proof of His existence. That by
definition will never come, and so the whole conclusion is predetermined to be
that God doesn't exist.
Even if one's position is that "God doesn't exist", one still uses the lack of
evidence as one's criteria for making such an assertion-- evidence that, once
again, by definition can never come. It is a rather circular position to take:
Posit: God's existence by definition is unprovable
Posit: All things knowable come through the process described by the scientific
method
Conclusion: God's existence cannot be proved through the scientific method,
therefore God doesn't exist.
But I fear I have ploughed plowed ground, but add this, and I think it goes
back to my earlier question to you, Dave! You take a leap of faith by assuming
God doesn't exist (lack of evidence that He does doesn't necessary mean He
doesn't); how is this different than believing He does (lack of evidence that
He doesn't not necessarily meaning that He does).
As I mentioned before, it seems to be a mere toss up. I have a theory that the
answer lies in the arrogance of the academic world-- no self-respecting
intellectual would adhere to such a primitive and ridiculous notion, and any
who do are not taken seriously. Belief in God is gauche.
My little theory anyway.
JOHN
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
200 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
