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 15:36:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2910 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> 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?
Given the right conditions (and we are talking about an incomprehensibly
high number of planets with varying conditions), it may well be that the
odds against life happening somewhere are the longshots. Atoms and
molecules like to form certain patterns: it's just inherent in their
structure. Organic chains are a natural pattern. This doesn't preclude
intlligent life being behind it all, but it does not confirm it, or even
particularly suggest it.
>
> <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.
It merely means that God does not directly and observably enter the world of
science as we have been able to determine so far. Maybe someone will come
up with a reliable, observable, and repeatable God-test and science will
adapt to new information. As it stands, God seems to be in the realm of
philosophy and not science. Science does not pretend to answer all the
questions we have in life, and there are many, many scientists who believe
in God.
>
> 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.
Rather that the physical world around us can be be explained by applying the
scientific process of observation and test to see if results are consistent
and repeatable and what conclusions you can derive from that information.
Science does not make the conclusion that you place on it, it would be
better stated: God's existence has not been proven so far by the scientific
process, so it cannot be claimed that science confirms the existence of God.
One can hypothosize from there down several routes: there is no evidence of
God because there is no God; our tests are inadequate to the job; God works
in a way wholly consistent with the scientific process (i.e. He is by
definition undectable). There are undoubtedly other theories that exist
besides those I mentioned.
> 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.
There are assuredly some who feel that way but hardly all or even an
overwhelming majority. Yours is still essentially a "the grapes were sour"
argument. The conclusions were not the ones you wanted to hear (that
science proves the existence of God) so you denigrate that which you don't
really understand. There are many scientists and intellectuals that believe
in God.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
