tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post116263930800736927..comments2024-03-28T00:48:19.961-07:00Comments on Metacrock's Blog: Materialism VanishesJoseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1163352286119141202006-11-12T09:24:00.000-08:002006-11-12T09:24:00.000-08:00The gist of your post is that emerging scientific ...<B>The gist of your post is that emerging scientific understandings do not conflict with the idea of the existence of God and even support it. I took it you were endorsing these new understandings.</B><BR/><BR/>that's basically the jist of the argument. I am not necessarily supporting these new ideas. But in general I do. There is, however, more to the argument than that. I'm saying that science is coming to support these ideas too, and most of them were ideas that would have been rejected as supernatural one hundred years go.<BR/><BR/>The point is that the ideas of the SN ar gradually being absorbed into the paradime of naturalism. Thus naturalism is becoming meaningless and we are on our way to grand paradigm shift.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><B>I re-read your section on cause and effect in science. Now I take it you are not endorsing the specific idea of a self-caused universe, but saying that those who accept the idea give up the reason for rejecting the idea of the existence of God.</B><BR/><BR/>I am saying that "final cause" is not the only way to think about the cosmological argument. The Cos argument is not about causes but about necessity and contingency; that invovles cause and effect, but is not necessraily preidcated upon it.<BR/><BR/>Of cousre i believe that a self caused anything is pure idocy. The very concept of paradoxical and logcially contradicts itself. The point is not about self cause but <B><I>prior condtions.</I></B> God being the condition prior to all. And by "prior" I do not mean chronologically prior to <B><I>ontolgoically</I></B>.<BR/><BR/><B>I do not think that this does justice to the argument made by the other side. The argument was never that God did not exist because it is possible to explain the existence of the universe without him.</B><BR/><BR/>Yes it sure as hell has been! <BR/><BR/><BR/><B>The argument was that God's existence was not shown by the existence of the universe because it was possible to explain the existence of the universe without it.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>The difference in that and the previous statement is merely smeantic. You show one you show the other. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><B>This was an argument against the cosmological argument (as made by Aquinas and others). There is no contradiction between believing in a self-caused universe and rejecting the cosmological argument.</B><BR/><BR/>why would anyone want to believe in a self casued universe? Aqinas did not reject the cos argument, he rejected the ontological argument. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><B>When you say, "in the Religious a pirori argument, and in the innate religious instrict argument I say that belief was never predicated upon a need for explaination in the first palce," are you not denying the cosmological argument which deduced the existence of God as a necessary first cause of the universe?</B><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Well, sure, but since I've jazzed up the argument with a new version that is not contingent upon causes then It's like I'm rejecting the cosmoloigcal prnicple itself. I'm rejecting the old version of the arugment but I'm replacing it with a new one anyway, so it's irrelivant.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/> <B>Is not the cosmological argument for the existence of God predicated upon a need for explanation?</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>Good questions. Depends upon what You mean by "explaination." The whole of my argument on that score states that Athists want a scientific explaination for things, so just automatically assume that God arugment must emody a scientific expalianation. One of the their chief arguments against God arguments as a whole is that they are not empirical, and thus lack the explainitory power of a scientific explaition. I am saying that God arguments are <B><I>existential expalinations</I></B> not attempts at science. They do not have to be emprical becasue they do have to emody the kind of certainty we look for in scinece becasue they are not seeking to expalin thigns on that level. They are seeking expain on the level of one's own personal existential question thats' why the ultimate payoff for God arguments is faith and not certainty.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><B>Also, I think you are mis-stating the position of others or using a great deal of hyperbole when you say, "The self causing universe, something from nothing, multiple universes, all beyond the pale of scientific investigation, all assumed as totally proven facts by the materialists."</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>I dont' think so. I can show you on almost any board where atheists argue attitudes embracing these things as though they are fact. HRG on CARMath always indicated to me that multiverse is a proven fact. He would quote a physicists. I looked up the guy's site and he listed the idea in a section called "just for fun>" But Hans continues to sepak as though it's provne. Since Hans claims to be a phsycist and has credentials in physics I assume this is a valid idea of phsyciists. Unless he's just the pretender I think he is.<BR/><BR/><B>The language of "totally proven facts" does not sound like that used by the scientists I know of, who generally state their opinions as contingent theories that best explain the available evidence.</B><BR/><BR/>Yea the one's who publish and do the real work. I was speaking of the dilataunts who claim to be qualtified but just do the arguing on message boards.<BR/><BR/>Thanks,Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11516215.post-1163303784181337712006-11-11T19:56:00.000-08:002006-11-11T19:56:00.000-08:00I am having trouble seeing where you got that idea...I am having trouble seeing where you got that idea?<BR/><BR/>(this is me, Meta, I prefur to be known by my real name now).Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.com