I have decided that my duty as a good host is to allow the guest to have the last word. I will make a breif general comment, but not try to "debate" the matters further. At the end fo JD's Rebuttle is a statment about accepentence and understanding of others. I agree with almost everything in that statment without any real qualification. So i will set that part out and make note of it, and just state here and now I think it's excellent.
Metacrock,
I would like to start out this time by saying that I am actually really
enjoying this! I have numerous other dialogues open at this moment and none
other is nearly as stimulating as this one. You posted a comment to my
latest response and I agree with your thesis, that there needs to be a
discussion about understanding and acceptance. This is a very important
topic and I have written a response to it and will include it at the end of
this response.
I am going to go along the points that you made and give a short response, I
am not going to try and debate your points I am going to try to respond in
generality; however there are some topics that I will respond to directly.
When you speak of innate ideas of god and the idea that god is pre-wired
into the human mind I whole heartedly disagree and there is nothing short of
experimental proof that would even sway me. I am immersed in psychological
study and neuroscience and there is no such evidence that would suggest what
you believe. There is no harm in believe this as do you, but I do not and
there is no outstanding evidence or circumstantial reason for me to do so.
I would like to leave this topic at that and go on.
You ask me why I believe that all causes and effects are natural. You say
that I do not have direct proof of first cause, which is correct nobody does
least of all fundamental Christians. You assert that there is a need for a
first cause due to your arguments about the impossibility of an eternally
existing universe. I do not claim that the universe that we reside in
needed a first cause (widely called the ‘Big Bang’) or that the universe
itself is eternal. As I mentioned in my last response the science seems to
be showing that the universe is actually finite and will eventually spread
itself far enough as to cease to support itself. What I claim is that
before our universe came into existence there was an eternally existing
realm of naturalism, now I do not claim that there is evidence of this or
that this idea is indisputable, however, when you assert that before our
universe there was a god of supernatural ability there is equally no
evidence. Where as your theory of the beginning of existence requires
religious thought and hypothesis, my theory requires scientific thought and
hypothesis through theories stemming from the super-string theory of the
universe.
I never claimed that there was evidence behind the fact that all we firmly
know to exist is natural, this being evidence for it just because it’s all
that we know of. What I was getting at is that all that we can prove and
show to exist is natural, and that the supernatural cannot be proven or
shown to exist; this along with all of the supportive evidence on
naturalisms side being enough reason for me to accept it, I do not expect
others to do the same especially the inherently religious.
You speak of having an ace up your sleeve; please by no means feel that it
would be unfair to play it. As far as Paul Tillich I know of him and
disagree with his theology, from what I remember he was an existentialist
and had theories similar to Kierkegaard and Freud when it came to being; he
believe that people had an anxiety of nonbeing or of their inherent
mortality and death, this may be the only aspect of his theology with which
I would agree with.
When I explain what I was meaning with regards to there being natural
existence before the singularity seen in the Big Bang scenario you assert
that saying this is asserting something of which we have no knowledge of,
true but we have mathematical based theories to support it; and in any case
your theory of god is also something that we have absolutely no knowledge of
too. Your opposition to my theory can be applied to yours without any
tampering.
The fact that you attempt to turn Spinoza into a man that believed in god
almost makes me angry. Spinoza was known as both the greatest Jew and the
greatest Atheist. There is no way in the world you can claim that Spinoza
believed in a monotheistic god of any religion. As a matter of fact he was
excommunicated from the Jewish community for his claims that all god really
is would be that of the mechanisms of nature and the universe, and that god
had no personality. When Spinoza used the word god to help describe
anything he was not meaning god in any religious sense he meant god as the
underlying essence that bound all of existence and to him this was nature,
if you don’t believe me reread his argument I provided. He wrote that, I
have not changed or altered a bit of it, he is clearly arguing that god is
merely nature and that people who believe otherwise have been misled. When
physicists and intellectuals in general use the word god to describe things
every now and again this does not mean that they are religious or that they
believe in a monotheistic god, it simply means that they are using a word to
help describe the underlying essence that binds all of existence. Einstein
used the word god numerous times when speaking of science and the universe;
however he was a secular humanist and did not believe in a monotheistic god.
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological
concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or
goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining
morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based
effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious
basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. • ALBERT
EINSTEIN.
In any case to attempt and assert that Spinoza was religious would be an
egregious deception; two of his formost philosophical position were, god is
the natural world and has no personality, and that the natural world created
itself. Now if he uses the word god in any of his writing (which he did) he
was obviously using it to mean the natural world (which he made very clear).
Supernaturalism does subvert science. Science is a system of acquited
knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological
naturalism aimed at finding out the truth (italics mine). Supernaturalism
is superstitious.
I was about to go into a long argument for this but I feel that it would be
wholly uneseccary for you are religious and believe in the supernatural, and
in any case I will not be able to deter these beliefs. So let me just say
that, to me, supernatrualism is superstitious. Science and SN are in
competition (for if genesis isn’t a scientific theory on the creation of the
universe then what is it?). Religion is a scientific theory it is just a
really bad one. To me SN is irrational, and you make this evident in you
defense of it. You say that if we cannot understand it how do we know it is
not there. Well I cannot prove that god does not exist, I also cannot prove
that yellow fairies live in invisibilty surounding my physical body but this
surely does not mean that I should believe they do just because I cannot
prove otherwise.
You try and make it appear that I am opperating on faith when I say that we
should await the day when science is able to dispell these arguments and put
to rest any doubt or hesitation we may have about existence. This is not
faith it is reason, to conceed that one does not know the answer and that
one may be able to in the future and then to await this day (if it comes or
not) with out subscribing to SN. That is the epitomy of reason and
sensibilty, imagine being able to say “Yes I do not know, I may never know,
however, I will not subscribe to a theory or idea with absolutly no evidence
supporting it, I will not become discouraged at not knowing and attempt to
fill this lack of knowledge with religious superstition.”
You say that what I call weak in your argument is only what I am used to or
expecting to hear; you are completely wrong, so so wrong. My good friend
Eli believe in a very bizarre god, one that seems to change in definition
over time and depending on the discussion. He has asserted that god is a
pool of consciousness and that we as humans tap into this pool in order to
acquire consciousness ourselves, I then illustrated to him how we as humans
acquire consciousness through the phsyical body via the brain. He makes
statements such as: “When the totality of all existence pulsates through our
being and constitutes our being, we receive messages from it, but only those
messages that we can process given our receptors and our particular level of
consciousness.” This is a wild statement and what I had to say is as
follows: “God pulsates through our being and gives us messages that we can
process and understand? What are you talking about? How can you say
something such as this and not include an example or give any support? You
should include some form of representative illustration. Obviously this
isn’t true for no such entity is pulsing through me giving me messages.
Though if you would like to argue that god only pulsates through certain
individuals and sends them “messages” I would ask what messages? What do
these messages consist of? How are they viewed and understood by the
receptive individual? Are the messages akin to an idea, thought, or impulse
and if so how does one differentiate a message from god from that of an
idea, thought, or impulse? I have to say that it seems to me that you are
deriding fantastical explanations and definitions from otherwise easily
understood mechanisms of human functioning. Your statement implies that god
ebbs and flows through our being such as consciousness and states of self
awareness, and that god provides us with ideas, thoughts, and impulses
rather than the functioning of the human organs, hormones, chemicals, and
all of these things in continual interaction with one another. To me it is
simply illogical to believe these things and refuse to study the science
behind such mechanisms and functioning through psychology, physiology, and
neurochemistry. I am not degrading your commitment to such beliefs rather I
am challenging you to study the science behind some of your mystical
beliefs.”
He has made many more wild claims and definitions of and for god and I have
opposed them all equally. Your views of god are not new and/or unexpected,
quite the opposite. I have studied many religions, many gods, many
mythologies, from the Egyptian-Chaldean Hellenistic universal consciousness,
alchemy, Islam, Greek and Roman mythology, Viking mythology, Buddhism,
Hinduism, to that of Scientology. So in reality your views of god are not
new to me quite the contrary, and to make this statement is quite
condescending, I would be offended if I were to not give you leeway based on
the fact that you were responding to a discomforting argument against your
beliefs.
My view of existence and naturalism is not circular, and your attempt to
show that it is does not even make sense: “nature is what is and is natural
by virture of the fact that it is.” What in the world is this illustrating
and how is it proof of my circular reasoning? Nature is natural because we
can prove that it is, when I see a rock I can prove that it is natural, when
I encounter wind or rain I can prove that it is natural. I have read and
reread that quote and it is similar to reading L Ron Hubbards book
Dianetics, it is so incomprehensible that it is astounding. Yes nature is
what is (we can prove natures existence) – “and is natural by virtue of the
fact that it is” no it is not natural merely because it is natural, it is
natural because we can interact, measure, view, and experiment with it, that
is why it is natural.
If you don’t have to define god then why in the world should I believe in
something that cannot be defined or explained? That is the “poppy cock” my
friend. You say that god is a mystical reality and that we may only
experience god, sounds quite familiar to what my friend Eli said and I again
reject such notions. Ultimately I do not believe in god for there is
insufficient evidence, and that any major religion already established
claiming to know god is historically wrong about numerous major issues; the
bible was written by a nomadic and savagely unsophisticated society of
people and I do not, have not, and never will subscribe to almost everything
written in the bible. “You can't dictate to people about their most sacred
bleiefs, those have to be formed of thier own properly basic experinces of
the world.” You can, you can show people the implausibility of their
religious belief in larger or lesser degrees. If ones sacred belief
involves animal sacrifice you can and should show them that this is wrong.
From this quote it seems to me like your idea of god isn’t based on science
but on personal experience and revelation, dare I say that internal
sensation, revelation and insight is quite subject to faulty functioning.
You claim that myself and most atheist are in a box dated in the 19th
century, how offensive and wrong. If any group of people were in a box
dated by history it would be all of the major monotheistic religions, your
faith is terribly archaic and outdated, my friend, you still subscribe to
14th centurey beliefs. In any case I do not believe that religion and
science are in competition overall, obviously there are numerous cases in
which this really is the case (Dover PA, Kansas, Saudi Arabia, Iran, to
mention a few). Obviously there are religious moderates that are capable of
reconciling their faith with science, I do not dispute that, never have and
never will. I am an atheist and I am in a box, a box free of
supernaturalism and the boxes date is not the 19th century it is the 21st.
Despite the offensiveness of some of your response I enjoyed reading it and
responding to it. It is good to have your belies challenged. I enjoy the
discourse that we have had thus far and I feel no hostility towards you or
your beliefs for that matter. At the end of the day we are both merely two
different people with differing views of the world. I think you are an
intelligent person with the best intentions, you have come off as offensive
a few times but I ascribe this not to your personality but to the subject
matter. For I find that topics such as these seem to inculcate the heat of
passions flame which may then ungulf the sensible mind, I know I have been
as guilty of this as anyone else. Despite our different views I feel that
we are both good people and that we both would like to see more hormony
within the human race which leads me to my response to your comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acceptance and Understanding
I agree that talking about acceptance and understanding is far too sparse
and should be undertaken to a fuller extent. As the both of us have
effectively demonstrated two individuals with opposing viewpoints may still
get along with one another by subverting intolerance and hateful bigotry.
People with differing viewpoints and beliefs about the world in which we
live does not negate the fact that we are all human beings that share a
common humanity, we are all connected and bound to one another through the
similarities of the human experience. Ethnocentrism, racism, and bigotry
are all expressions of human iniquity and failure; these shortcomings
expressed in any fashion should be exposed and reformed. The human race in
general is subject to any of these given faults and no race, country, or
group may be exempt.
In order to help rectify such intolerance and hostility the entire world
needs progress, every nation needs to acknowledge and accept differing
religious views, philosophic beliefs, and cultural traditions. There are
certainly specific nations in greater need of these items than others, Saudi
Arabia being a prime example. Here in the United States we need to bolster
elementary education on up with more classes and programs dealing directly
with cultural and racial diversity. There also needs to be more effort in
redistributing the wealth so as to help end intolerable poverty and
starvation within our own country. The two greatest factors that inculcate
irrational hatred and intolerance would be ignorance and poverty. There
needs to be a greater focus on ending poverty and increasing education
standards, not only in middle class America but through out the impoverished
areas even more so. One must start from the beginning, it would be
impossible to teach an individual racial and cultural harmony while they
lived in an environment of increasing hostility, senseless violence, poor
education standards, lack of resources, and the adulation of achieving
success by way of illegal and destructive means. We must start here by
increasing the focus on education, on economy, and social reform. Only then
may we be able to work towards a social harmony for all humanity. The goal
is terribly difficult and will require hard work but it is a goal that is
both obtainable and worth the effort.
There are also little things that the individual can do on a daily basis.
There are things such as expanding your horizons, visit a Jewish synagogue,
read the Koran, read a book written by a humanist philosopher, talk and
interact with people outside of your world views comfort zone. These things
help the individual come to understand that people that are different are
only different to certain cultural and social degrees; in fact we are much
more similar than one may even fathom. The next time you run across a Hindu
or Muslim women take time out and speak with them, and there is no need to
talk of religion or world views talk about ever day human life, ask about
their family, their jobs, how they’re doing, etc. Simply make the effort to
understand where these people are coming from, how and why they are the way
they are or believe the way they believe, come to understand that these
people are merely people. Come to know that despite differences (especially
religious) we are all equal and that we all have something to offer worth
value, we are no better or worse than the next based merely on beliefs, we
are better or worse than the next based on the way we interact with one
another and conduct ourselves not only within the confines of familiarity
but within the boundaries of difference.
To help make a difference and effect positive change we all must foster
undying empathy, unconditional positive regard, and the general concern for
the well being of other people and life in general. We must strive to
champion human rights and ability and work towards creating a tranquil
world-state for all of humanity.
Sincerely
JDHURF
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Thursday, December 15, 2005
My second rebuttle
JD:First of all thank you for posting my first response and thank you for
posting such an intricate and intelligent response yourself! Here is my
resonse to yours:
Metacrock,
I am pleased to see that you felt my post warranted a long response. Again
I disagree with the larger bulk of it. Clearly you are intelligent and you
make strong cases for the supernatural, however, the case for the
supernatural always comes with inherent implausibility and an impetuous
assertion. This assertion being that nature and the material universe is
reliant upon or caused by supernatural forces unseen and/or unknown. There
is much to discuss with regards to your long response and I would like to
begin with the more mundane.
Meta:I thank you for the kind words. Its' is nice to have a dialogue partner of good will with I can discuss and who is obvioulsy a man of intelligence and reason. Now to get down to it:
First, it seems a lot more likely that this would be the case since we know so little about relaity. You are weighing our little experince of this one dust mote floting in an endless sea of space, to the vastness that far out spans our ablity to even conceive of it; and you expect to know what's out there and to be able to exclude options you don't like. To me that seems rather arrogant, and rather short sighested, No offense.
Secondly, we know our uinverse exists in space/time which is a four coordiante system and that beyond the event horizon of our big bang is something beyond our cotninuum of space/time. So that would seem in and of itself to reaise qeustions of worlds beyond this one, and the possilbity of a supernatural.
thirdly, as I have marked out in my own essays on the Supernatural, I think there is a great deal of confussion about what exactly is meant by the term. Essentually it is God's power to transform the natural. So that is a far cry from another ralm you can go to or a realm of dark forces and so forth. At that rate SN would just be a consequence of belief in God per se.
JD: In the beginning of your response you spend a good deal of time discussing
the hatred and hostility visited upon you by atheists. You talk about how
atheism has an inherent subculture of hatred. While these observations are
both true and false in differing degrees I would like to discuss this matter
further. First of all I do not doubt the accuracy of experiences recounted
in your post. There are many people (especially within the blogosphere)
that feel empowered by the anonymity and negate any responsibility that they
would otherwise assume ownership of.
Meta: Excellent point! I wasn't trying to say that just the act of not beleiving in god makes you like that.Not only do I know many atheists who aren't like that, but I was an atheist and I don't think I was like that. so I'm sorry if I was misunderstood.
JD:To single out the atheists as a group
of people and claim that they are guiltier of this than any other group is
irresponsible and biased. Atheists are people first, before they made the
decision to believe what seemed more plausible to them (that there is no
god) they were people just as everyone else; and as such they are subject to
the inequity, animosity, and failings of the human being in general. To say
that atheists represent more of these failings than any other group would be
biased and hateful in and of itself. Surely there are atheist blogs and
boards in which the atheists are all of the above negative attributes but
surely there are blogs and boards in which they are not; furthermore it is
also equally true that theists and deeply religious individuals exhibit
these shortcomings themselves. As is my personality I don’t care to
illustrate the malign and depraved rather I like to illustrate the kindness
and compassion, and if necessary the wrongness of an individual. It hardly
seems beneficial to speak of a group so derogatorily; especially a minority
group that still faces inequality. You provide examples of atheists being
hateful and negative, while this is true there are many examples of atheists
being positive and compassionate, hopefully I am an example of this also
check out the blog jewishatheist.blogspot.com for further proof. For proof
that theists are malign and hateful just as much as atheists visit the
website concernedcatholic.blogspot.com and witness depravity in it’s truest
form. I will not provide specific quotes for as I said I would rather focus
on semblance and positivity rather than the contrary. I am glad that your
one act of solidarity is that you attribute this behavior with the net more
so than the individual. I would agree, for the sense of anonymity seems to
harbor feelings of ‘anything goes’ and that what one does one is not
entirely responsible for. The internet (especially the blogosphere) is
notorious for fostering such ignorant and blatant hostility; and atheists
are no guiltier than theists themselves.
Meta:Sorry I was misunderstsood in that way.
JD:My main issue with this portion of
your response is, why even include it? Obviously there are going to be
hateful and irresponsible atheists just as there are theists. Why include
this fact as if it was more congruous with atheism?
Meta: Well, first because it just happened and I was angry, I flet that I should make outgrages known. Secondly, I guess I feel that if I tell enough people they will stay away from those boards or demand that they change or soemthing.
JD:It just seemed like a
very negative and biased issue to include. When I illustrate disagreement
with the assertion that many atheists believe that infants are born atheist
you suggest that I visit more message boards. This is almost condescending,
for you do not know my track record with respects to visiting blogs, if you
did you wouldn’t have made this comment. I frequent numerous blogs and
continually search out new ones, as I did with you own blog. I do not know
how many atheist blogs you have visited but I would seriously doubt the
number surpasses mine.
Meta: Not at all. I've seen that on boards many many times.
JD: With respects to the brain being wired for god and/or the inert ideas of god
residing in the brain, these are true and false in larger or lesser degrees.
Where as it is true that many of us are predisposed to religiosity and to
god through the neuro-pathways of the brain this says nothing of the truth
behind religiosity and/or god. Look up Paul Kurtz, especially his book
entitle “The Transcendental Temptation”, or Richard Dawkins (any of his
books or essays will suffice). The fact that evolutionary upsurge may have
culminated in the side effect of religiosity surely does nothing in proving
the truth behind such superstition.
Meta: I woulnd't expect Dawkins to agree with me. I would expect him to try and expalin it through evoution. What else could he do? But I think a good argument is there to be made that evolution shouldn't be able to produce that affect. It should require innate ideas. Why should the feelings incurred just produced religion and not merely produce unity or social cohesion or any of the other opporative explains used. The theory is religion is a vehicle to some other thing, such as social cohesion. But that doesn't expalin why the warm fuzzies buzz for God talk and no other talk. Why not for talk of social cohesion? It would really require an innate knowledge of God to do that.
JD:On a note of armistice I do like the
reference you made with Andrew Newberg for he is definitely a decent source
of information upon this subject; his studies are usually within
neurotheology or also known as biotheology. He has conducted a good amount
of tests and has done extensive research (none of which claims there is an
inert idea of god in anyone). He is a distinguished scientist and his
research is valuable he is certainly not the top researcher in the field. I
would also like to note that his research has never illustrated an innate
belief in god and he surely doesn’t promote his research or findings as
such.
Meta: having a warm fuzzy when you heard Godtalk is an illustration of an innate beilef in God. Newberg is good because he doesnt' try to claim more than he can pull off. He did become a beilever due to his research, he does think it proves God, but in a subtle way. He knows its not enough to prove it to others. There are other things that go with a leap of faith than just proving some facts. But the mateiral is there if one seeks a rational warrant for belief.
JD:The rest of your response deals with cosmology and astrophysics, I would
like to make a few points. The first being that I am in no way a
credentialed astrophysicist my field of scientific knowledge is generally
held within the confines of theoretical psychology. The second being that
you misconstrue a good portion of what my ultimate thesis was, and this is
not to say that you are to blame I was guilty of being too vague.
First you ask why it would be fair to assume that natural existence is
eternal, I would answer because if something is the effect then it must have
a cause and as far as I see it there are only natural causes and effects, so
the cause of the material universe must be natural and obviously the effect
of such as cause is natural;
Meta: But there you are just begging the question. You assume all C&E is naturalistic, why? Because you don't have direct proof of first casue, but here is direct proof of the need for a first cause; the cosmological arguments that I made before, the impossiblity of an eternally exsiting universe. So your assumptions about C/E is just quetion begging.
JD: it is fair to assume that natural existence is
eternal, assuming that any form of existence is eternal, for if anything
would be eternal it would be that of what we know to be true and actually
existent, that of natural existence.
Meta: Sorry if I misunderstand you, but this sounds like more question begging.You seem to saying "since all we know for sure is natural existence, that's all we can assume existence is." But that's of course begging the question because the question is "is it it true that all we know is the natural world?" A lot of us think not. So that's up for grabs, you can't use it as proo of itself when it is the question being debated.
At this point we could go off into some very interesting discussions about the nature of Being if we were willing to leave behind the constrictive debate forematt. So I hesitate to metion it because I don't want it to be construed as an attempt at pulling some ace out of my sleve. But I do want to mention the idea of Paul Tillich's God as being itself. I'll discuss that more latter, because I don't want it to be part of the debate for rasons already stated. Just suffice to say we have a very heavy question about the nature of being and reality, and we can't resolve that just with ideologies. It's going to be a matter of one's metaphystics, thus no somehting one can resolve in a debate.
JD: You say that scientists tell us the
universe is finite, I do not claim the contrary for all one must do is look
up the Hartle-Hawking boundary condition and come to their own conclusions;
however this is no proof that existence itself is finite or that existence
itself is subject to a beginning or end. I know this all sounds amorphous
but bear with me. When you give proof that our universe will come to an end
as we know it I would not disagree, for again I am aware of the science
behind this. What I was meaning to illustrate was that existence in its
fullest sustenance will not cease to exist that there is no beginning nor
ending in time in this regard; to say that time either began or ended is
proof of the lack of knowledge with regards to relativity as espoused by
Einstein.
Meta: That's just a trick of language. There is no begining or end in time, because time itself is not eternal. time has a beging, that's established by the Big bang. That's what t=0 means. All Hawking does is change direction from going back chronologically to going down along that last moement; he constructs an infintessible in which one can pin down the exactly second at which there is a begining. This is no way means that the univese is sitting around forever and doesn't require creation.
If that's what you argue, you have to show how it overcomes arguments like the fininite stock of order of energy/matter being created in the Big Bang.
JD:One way in which you completely misconstrued what I was intending would be
when you go off on long tangents attempting to discredit chaotic inflation
(which is widely held) and the oscillatory universe, both of which I don’t
believe. What intrigues my rationale is the theory of brane cosmology which
stems from the string theory of the universe; I won’t describe in searing
detail as you have in your post. If you would like to review it do so, if
you would like guidance on where to review it say so and I will help, or
maybe you already know of it and just decided not to mention it in your
response.
Meta: I didn't discredit it. I said it doesnt' change my argument. Both of those still preserve the big bang as part of their major senerio. Of cousre there is no data to support the chaotic inflation part, there is only the t=0 and that's all. we have no data from "before" that. Becuase that's when time begins. Our space/time envoleope began at that point, so there can be no data form "before" or "beyond" that point. Thus all of those theoreies are unproven and can be just as easily plugged into my senerio of creation.
JD:Brane cosmology asserts that existence is in fact eternal and that a
collision of branes is what created the universe as we know it today;
whether or not this universe is itself infinite doesn’t negate that fact
that existence outside of it is. That was my main point and it was my fault
for not vocalizing as well as I should have. The only cosmological theory
for which I feel any commitment to would be the brane theory, not the
oscillatory universe I was merely allowing multiple theories be shown. I’m
sorry that you spent so much time disproving or illustrating evidence
against theories that I do not even subscribe to, although you did do a
magnificent job!
Meta: You are always going to be dealing with contigneicies. naturalistic pheomena are always contingent. But to deal with a world of contingencies with no necessity is nonsense. So to posit an eternal universe doesn't change anything God wise, there still is a need to posit and siealteniously eternal creator who is the ground of being and who makes possible the etneral contingnecies. An analogy would be an eternal flute player. As long as the floutist plays the music exists. So if the floutist palys eternally, the music is eternal. But if the player stops, the music stops. So the mustic, though eternal, is contingent upon the player. The reason for posulating that vis "the universre" would be the fact of necessity and contingency, naturalisitic phenomena are contingent. But That's assuming we just ingore the questions about finite stock of order and heat death.
If the universe will eventually die a heat death, it can't be eternal. Eternality cannot cease to be, it cannot ever change. And given eternal changces if it will do it it would have already done it.
This last point, think of this. If I had a billion billion chances I could flit enough coins enough times that the letters on them (use coins from all nations) would sepll out the play Othelo. But it would take of cousre anstronominal amouhnts of time. yet if the unverse is eternal we have already had astronmical amounts of time so it should have already done it.
JD:When I made the statement – “The theory certainly can be interpreted as the
beginning of the magnificent explosion and expansion of the material
universe, that before this extreme change there was the dense-hot state of a
gravitational singularity, and that prior to this singularity and explosion
there was an eternal state of natural existence.” I did not mean that prior
to this singularity there was only natural existence residing within this
singularity, I apologize for the vagueness of such a statement; all I mean
is that prior to the expansion or ‘creation’ or our universe there was an
eternally existing natural realm present, outside of our universe.
Meta: I see, but that's still asserting something of which we have no knowledge.
JD:Our
universe may be but one brane in a realm consisting of numberous branes, our
universe is the way it is and has been developed by the collision of two
such branes within this vast and natural realm.
You question the authority of Corliss Lamont the only explanation for this
is that you don’t know who he is and have done no investigation into it, he
was a highly esteemed humanist philosopher he taught at Columbia, Cornell,
and Harvard. He was the director of the ACLU from 1932-1954 and was then
the chairman until his death in 1995. He successfully challenged Senator
Joseph McCarthy's senate subcommittee and other government agencies. In 1965
he secured a Supreme Court ruling against censorship of incoming mail by the
U.S. Postmaster General. In 1973 he discovered through Freedom of
Information Act requests that the FBI had been tapping his phone, and
scrutinizing his tax returns and cancelled checks for 30 years. His
subsequent lawsuit showed the surveillance had no justification in law, and
set precedent for other citizen's privacy rights. He also filed and won a
suit against the Central Inteligence Agency for opening his mail.
Meta: sounds like a great guy, but it's still unncessary appeal to authority; what credentials has he as a cosmologist?
JD:You claim that god is necessary refering to “him” (sexist and egoistic) and
that matter-energy is a contingency.
Meta: I actually got out of the habit of refurring to God as "HE" in semianry! It was the feminsts in my secular history of ideas program when I went for my doctorate that got me back in the habit. I kid not!
JD: I disagree and I will provide a
paradigm put forh by one Benedictus De Spinoza helping me illustrate this
fact: Spinoza contended that God and Nature were two names for the same
reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than
"matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are
actually modes or modifications.
Meta: You make it hard to argue with you, as I am a big Spinoza fan mytself. However, as a Christain I can't quite go along with him, but I admire his intelligence and his lens grinding too.
JD:The argument for this single substance runs
something as follows:
1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its
existence.
2. No two substances can share an attribute.
Proof: If they share an attribute, they would be identical. Therefore they
can only be individuated by their modes. But then they would depend on their
modes for their identity. This would have the substance being dependent on
its mode, in violation of premise 1. Therefore, two substances cannot share
the same attribute.
3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something
that shares its attribute).
4. Substance cannot be caused.
Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself,
in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise
2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be
caused.
5. Substance is infinite.
Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by
something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However,
substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore
substance is infinite.
Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other.
But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each
other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore
there cannot be two substances.
Meta: But Spinoza beileved in God.Now, it's true people think "not much of a God." but it was god enough for Spinoza. He was not an atheist and did not see himself as such. I like his take on the ontological arugment and it forms the baisis of my understanding of it. Spinoza did not say the universr and existence is only natural and there is no supernatural. He's more like combining sort of immanent transcendence or a naturalsitic supernatural. This is way after the concept has been degraded anyway. Ture he didn't believe in the conventional concept, but neither did he just consian existence to naturlism and become an atheist.
It's always amazing to me when I find people who have gotten other things out of a thinker and reached diametrically oppossite consclusions. I am not saying you are wrong even to look at his work the way you do. But I see there is a differnce in the way we each read Spinoza.
JD:My ultimate thesis and strong beliefs is that existence in its entirety is
natural, that there is no reason to conclude that supernatural phenomena are
the causes of natural effects, and that when scientific understanding and
ability has reached its furthest limits we must concede that we are not able
to understand such phenomena and resist subverting science and embracing the
irrationality of superstition and occult phenomena;
Meta: That satement is loaded with all sorts of presuppostions that are not in evidence and unproven, and in fact I don't think you can prove any of them. That they mark your feeling about the world I am prepared to be friends and agree to disagree. Those presupes include:
(1) that SN subverts science so the two are competing rather than represeting different magesteria.
(2) that SN is superstition: superstition opporates by a senes of dread at tresspass upon the realm of unseen forces; supernatural is a ratiaonl ontology that sketches out how divine power can affect and transform human nature. It has nothing to do with fear of illelutable forces.
(3) that SN is irrational: SN is more rational that you can imagine, it's the ultimate form of rationality because it says that relaity istself has a supersturcture and that superstructure is reason! there is an ordering pricniple, a logos that orders and manages the natural as its ground and end; the natural moves toward it teliologically; that is ratianolism that is not irrational forces.
btw if we can't understand it how do we know there is no supernatural? you say "and that when scientific understanding and
ability has reached its furthest limits we must concede that we are not able
to understand such phenomena": so we can't understand it but somehow we know the SN is not true?
JD:that in any case what we
cannot yet understand today may surely be understood in the future and to
await this day accordingly.
Meta: seems to me that you are just opporating on faith. Isn't faith a bit on the irrational side?
JD: Religion has in the past opposed the fact that
the sun was the center of our galaxy, they opposed the fact that our planet
is a sphere,
Meta: that's actaully guilt by assocaition (some religious people did x, therefore, religious people do x). It's also ahistorical. No The Chruch never oppossed teh idea tha thte sun was the center of the galaxy. What they oppossed was rejecting the authority of Arosttle. Others had aruged that the mathematics of the Copernican system made more sense of the calender and epicyles and all the fiddely bits of ptoemaic system, and and Copernicus never got in any trouble as long as he propossed it as a mathematical theory. The trouble only came when the authority of the chruch was questioned via the authoritiy of Arostotle (who had been installed by the chruch as a kindof previent saint). The chruch had no real interest in the center of the galaxy or where the sun was in relation to the earth.
I don't think you can show that they oppossed the idea of the earth being a sphere. But even so, Milton whent o see Galileo when he was young and told him "the Christians of Engalnd are with you." They never had any such persecution in Engalnd where science and chrsitaintiy were identified as one. So that's just a matter of chruch politics and not religious ideas per se.
JD:they oppose consciousness being an extension of the physical
body via the brain, and they oppose the idea that god did in fact not create
existence. These oppositions are fine and to believe in god and what “he”
has done is okay but to talk about physics and the ‘evidence’ that this
science gives in favor of god is incongrous with the scientific method and
reality.
It's a fond steriotype to think of the Monty Python scene where the woman weighs the same as a duck. "what do we burn apart form withces?" "More withces!" The truth is the middle ages were not filled with budding Enstines who were being burned at the steak fro their attempts to do science. There are really only a couple of examples. In fact the chruch did a lot to keep learning alive nd modern scinece was born in monesteries and it was the chruch that created it.See my essay I wrote in grad school:
JD (quoting Meta)-“But eternally existing anything would have to be ontologically necessiary,but naturlism requires ontolgocal congingency for all natursiltic
phenomena.” – Why is this? In what way does the supernatural or god resolve
this conflict? What is the evidence of such gratuitous interactions from
the supernatural?
Meta: break it down:
eternally eixsting anyting would have to be ontologically necessary
Because necessary means "cannot cease or fail to exist, and not dependent upon anything else for its existence. If it could cease, or if it could have been otherwise that would mean it is dependent upon something else, and that is contingency. It can't be necesary if it is contignent. It's contingency because if it could cease it isn't etenral and if it could be otherwise that would have to be becuase the circumstances that bring it about could have been otherwise. that means anything that is eternal would have to be either eternally contingent upon an ontotoglally "prior" cause or condition, or it would be a necessity (not contignent).
JD:-“THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE!
THE BEGINNING OF TIME!"” – The beginning of the universe that we know not of
existence as a whole. Didn’t you speak of time in relativity just prior to
this, time is relative and really doesn’t have a beginning or an end.
Wouldn’t you say?
Meta: I quoted sources saying time begins with the big bang. I could theorize that tmie is running eternally. But the evidence I've seen susggests it begins with the Big bang.
JD:I read your argument for god as a cause under why God doesnt' need a cause
and the universe does, your god here doesn’t seem to be an actual defining
being or substance, I could easity isert the word nature for god within this
argument and change absolutely nothing; this is a vague, weak, and
ineffectual argument for god.
Meta: You said in the first deal it was the best you'd seen. I think you are just used to dealing fundies and you can only think in terms of one concept of God; the big guy in the sky. Spinoza is not known as an atheist, he had his own version reilgious life, and he believed in God, he just had his own ideas about God. Would you call that "weak and ineffectual." IF it's so weak why can't you beat it? You haven't come close. you haven't got your foot in the door. IN fact your only arugment is just that it seems strange to you because I'm no saying things you expect to hear, and that's what you call "weak."
JD:By the way what is god? What do you believe
god is? A being? A pool of conscioussness? Energy? A being that resemble
humans? Your definition of god is so vague in this argument that it could
be refering to nature itself, do you not see the transience within this
argument?
Meta: Can't refur to nature because nature is contingent. God can't be contignency. God has to be necessity. But here I think the truth comes out that actually your definition of nature is weak. You seem to have a circular defition where by nature is what is and is is natural by virture of the fact that it is. That doesnt' tell us anything and it could potentually include God.
For the big lo down on my views about God read my essay on God as the Grond of Being. Essentually my concept of God is in line with that of Paul Tillich, the German theological emegree to America in the 50's.
JD: You must firmly define what god is, how it acts, etc. Otherwise
your giving an argument for nothing, this sort of god seems to encapulate
many individuals psyche now days, the god of everything and yet nothing.
Meta: I don't mean to offend you, because I feel that we have the basis for a good friendship. Nevertheless I think that argument is poppy cock. I do not have to define God in any way that pre-determines or pre-conceieves our understanding; and that would be contrary to my views anyway because my whole "thing" is that God presciley is not predicatble and is not something we can pin down to neat little categories. God is a mystical reality that blows away all our preconcieved notions and pre-set categories. All we can really do is experince God, or opporate within a tradition that calims to already understand something of God's will.
Now that's exactly my ratiaonle for being a christian, and it means that rather than trying to define God in some pesudo-sceintific way, all we really need to do is sketch out God as a proper object of religious devotion. God is the transcendental signifier, and as such we need only understand how that plays out in any given tradition as the object of devotion.
This is nature of one's belief, you can't dictate to people about their most sacred bleiefs, those have to be formed of thier own properly basic experinces of the world.
JD:Over all I was impressed with the cosmological argument you put forth, I
congradulate you! However, you were opposing theories that I do not
subscribe to.
Meta: but thank you for your kind words.
JD:Cosmologically I would subscribe to brane cosmology (not the
oscilliotory universe), and even if this theory proves to be false this
hardly means that god has won out by default; ultimately there is no proof
of the existence of a god or of supernatural phenomena, the best the
religious can do is discredit and find faults within scientific theory and
insert the supernatural and god into convienient holes that are the as yet
unknowns of science (they are doing this with evolution right now with ID).
Meta: Why do you put it in terms of conflict? This is one of the things that I think puts atheists in the box. Rather than thinking outside the box, you are still in the box, and that box is full of 19th century peraphenalia. The idea that science and religion are in competition and are somehow conflifting is sympematic of that sort of thinking. I think that weakens atheism beasue it puts it behind the times. While I agree that there is no absolute or direct proof of God, there is certianly more than amle rational warrent for belief. That can be adhuced from reading the back pages of this blog. But religion can do a lot more than just discredit scientific theories. There is more than ample reason to believe. Also see my list of God arguments: I'm up to 39 but I'm shooting for 42.
JD:Ultimately I was just wanting to say that existence is natural, always has
been and always will be, and that the supernatural should be heavily
scrutinized and doubted. I am impressed by the extent of your knowledge
pertaining to astrophysics. I would be intrigued to hear your views on
brane cosmology.
Meta: It's good to have our presups shaken up once and awhile and I respect your views and appreciate your attidue to ratioanl and plesant discussion.
I'll do some reading on brane cosmology and let you know.
posting such an intricate and intelligent response yourself! Here is my
resonse to yours:
Metacrock,
I am pleased to see that you felt my post warranted a long response. Again
I disagree with the larger bulk of it. Clearly you are intelligent and you
make strong cases for the supernatural, however, the case for the
supernatural always comes with inherent implausibility and an impetuous
assertion. This assertion being that nature and the material universe is
reliant upon or caused by supernatural forces unseen and/or unknown. There
is much to discuss with regards to your long response and I would like to
begin with the more mundane.
Meta:I thank you for the kind words. Its' is nice to have a dialogue partner of good will with I can discuss and who is obvioulsy a man of intelligence and reason. Now to get down to it:
First, it seems a lot more likely that this would be the case since we know so little about relaity. You are weighing our little experince of this one dust mote floting in an endless sea of space, to the vastness that far out spans our ablity to even conceive of it; and you expect to know what's out there and to be able to exclude options you don't like. To me that seems rather arrogant, and rather short sighested, No offense.
Secondly, we know our uinverse exists in space/time which is a four coordiante system and that beyond the event horizon of our big bang is something beyond our cotninuum of space/time. So that would seem in and of itself to reaise qeustions of worlds beyond this one, and the possilbity of a supernatural.
thirdly, as I have marked out in my own essays on the Supernatural, I think there is a great deal of confussion about what exactly is meant by the term. Essentually it is God's power to transform the natural. So that is a far cry from another ralm you can go to or a realm of dark forces and so forth. At that rate SN would just be a consequence of belief in God per se.
JD: In the beginning of your response you spend a good deal of time discussing
the hatred and hostility visited upon you by atheists. You talk about how
atheism has an inherent subculture of hatred. While these observations are
both true and false in differing degrees I would like to discuss this matter
further. First of all I do not doubt the accuracy of experiences recounted
in your post. There are many people (especially within the blogosphere)
that feel empowered by the anonymity and negate any responsibility that they
would otherwise assume ownership of.
Meta: Excellent point! I wasn't trying to say that just the act of not beleiving in god makes you like that.Not only do I know many atheists who aren't like that, but I was an atheist and I don't think I was like that. so I'm sorry if I was misunderstood.
JD:To single out the atheists as a group
of people and claim that they are guiltier of this than any other group is
irresponsible and biased. Atheists are people first, before they made the
decision to believe what seemed more plausible to them (that there is no
god) they were people just as everyone else; and as such they are subject to
the inequity, animosity, and failings of the human being in general. To say
that atheists represent more of these failings than any other group would be
biased and hateful in and of itself. Surely there are atheist blogs and
boards in which the atheists are all of the above negative attributes but
surely there are blogs and boards in which they are not; furthermore it is
also equally true that theists and deeply religious individuals exhibit
these shortcomings themselves. As is my personality I don’t care to
illustrate the malign and depraved rather I like to illustrate the kindness
and compassion, and if necessary the wrongness of an individual. It hardly
seems beneficial to speak of a group so derogatorily; especially a minority
group that still faces inequality. You provide examples of atheists being
hateful and negative, while this is true there are many examples of atheists
being positive and compassionate, hopefully I am an example of this also
check out the blog jewishatheist.blogspot.com for further proof. For proof
that theists are malign and hateful just as much as atheists visit the
website concernedcatholic.blogspot.com and witness depravity in it’s truest
form. I will not provide specific quotes for as I said I would rather focus
on semblance and positivity rather than the contrary. I am glad that your
one act of solidarity is that you attribute this behavior with the net more
so than the individual. I would agree, for the sense of anonymity seems to
harbor feelings of ‘anything goes’ and that what one does one is not
entirely responsible for. The internet (especially the blogosphere) is
notorious for fostering such ignorant and blatant hostility; and atheists
are no guiltier than theists themselves.
Meta:Sorry I was misunderstsood in that way.
JD:My main issue with this portion of
your response is, why even include it? Obviously there are going to be
hateful and irresponsible atheists just as there are theists. Why include
this fact as if it was more congruous with atheism?
Meta: Well, first because it just happened and I was angry, I flet that I should make outgrages known. Secondly, I guess I feel that if I tell enough people they will stay away from those boards or demand that they change or soemthing.
JD:It just seemed like a
very negative and biased issue to include. When I illustrate disagreement
with the assertion that many atheists believe that infants are born atheist
you suggest that I visit more message boards. This is almost condescending,
for you do not know my track record with respects to visiting blogs, if you
did you wouldn’t have made this comment. I frequent numerous blogs and
continually search out new ones, as I did with you own blog. I do not know
how many atheist blogs you have visited but I would seriously doubt the
number surpasses mine.
Meta: Not at all. I've seen that on boards many many times.
JD: With respects to the brain being wired for god and/or the inert ideas of god
residing in the brain, these are true and false in larger or lesser degrees.
Where as it is true that many of us are predisposed to religiosity and to
god through the neuro-pathways of the brain this says nothing of the truth
behind religiosity and/or god. Look up Paul Kurtz, especially his book
entitle “The Transcendental Temptation”, or Richard Dawkins (any of his
books or essays will suffice). The fact that evolutionary upsurge may have
culminated in the side effect of religiosity surely does nothing in proving
the truth behind such superstition.
Meta: I woulnd't expect Dawkins to agree with me. I would expect him to try and expalin it through evoution. What else could he do? But I think a good argument is there to be made that evolution shouldn't be able to produce that affect. It should require innate ideas. Why should the feelings incurred just produced religion and not merely produce unity or social cohesion or any of the other opporative explains used. The theory is religion is a vehicle to some other thing, such as social cohesion. But that doesn't expalin why the warm fuzzies buzz for God talk and no other talk. Why not for talk of social cohesion? It would really require an innate knowledge of God to do that.
JD:On a note of armistice I do like the
reference you made with Andrew Newberg for he is definitely a decent source
of information upon this subject; his studies are usually within
neurotheology or also known as biotheology. He has conducted a good amount
of tests and has done extensive research (none of which claims there is an
inert idea of god in anyone). He is a distinguished scientist and his
research is valuable he is certainly not the top researcher in the field. I
would also like to note that his research has never illustrated an innate
belief in god and he surely doesn’t promote his research or findings as
such.
Meta: having a warm fuzzy when you heard Godtalk is an illustration of an innate beilef in God. Newberg is good because he doesnt' try to claim more than he can pull off. He did become a beilever due to his research, he does think it proves God, but in a subtle way. He knows its not enough to prove it to others. There are other things that go with a leap of faith than just proving some facts. But the mateiral is there if one seeks a rational warrant for belief.
JD:The rest of your response deals with cosmology and astrophysics, I would
like to make a few points. The first being that I am in no way a
credentialed astrophysicist my field of scientific knowledge is generally
held within the confines of theoretical psychology. The second being that
you misconstrue a good portion of what my ultimate thesis was, and this is
not to say that you are to blame I was guilty of being too vague.
First you ask why it would be fair to assume that natural existence is
eternal, I would answer because if something is the effect then it must have
a cause and as far as I see it there are only natural causes and effects, so
the cause of the material universe must be natural and obviously the effect
of such as cause is natural;
Meta: But there you are just begging the question. You assume all C&E is naturalistic, why? Because you don't have direct proof of first casue, but here is direct proof of the need for a first cause; the cosmological arguments that I made before, the impossiblity of an eternally exsiting universe. So your assumptions about C/E is just quetion begging.
JD: it is fair to assume that natural existence is
eternal, assuming that any form of existence is eternal, for if anything
would be eternal it would be that of what we know to be true and actually
existent, that of natural existence.
Meta: Sorry if I misunderstand you, but this sounds like more question begging.You seem to saying "since all we know for sure is natural existence, that's all we can assume existence is." But that's of course begging the question because the question is "is it it true that all we know is the natural world?" A lot of us think not. So that's up for grabs, you can't use it as proo of itself when it is the question being debated.
At this point we could go off into some very interesting discussions about the nature of Being if we were willing to leave behind the constrictive debate forematt. So I hesitate to metion it because I don't want it to be construed as an attempt at pulling some ace out of my sleve. But I do want to mention the idea of Paul Tillich's God as being itself. I'll discuss that more latter, because I don't want it to be part of the debate for rasons already stated. Just suffice to say we have a very heavy question about the nature of being and reality, and we can't resolve that just with ideologies. It's going to be a matter of one's metaphystics, thus no somehting one can resolve in a debate.
JD: You say that scientists tell us the
universe is finite, I do not claim the contrary for all one must do is look
up the Hartle-Hawking boundary condition and come to their own conclusions;
however this is no proof that existence itself is finite or that existence
itself is subject to a beginning or end. I know this all sounds amorphous
but bear with me. When you give proof that our universe will come to an end
as we know it I would not disagree, for again I am aware of the science
behind this. What I was meaning to illustrate was that existence in its
fullest sustenance will not cease to exist that there is no beginning nor
ending in time in this regard; to say that time either began or ended is
proof of the lack of knowledge with regards to relativity as espoused by
Einstein.
Meta: That's just a trick of language. There is no begining or end in time, because time itself is not eternal. time has a beging, that's established by the Big bang. That's what t=0 means. All Hawking does is change direction from going back chronologically to going down along that last moement; he constructs an infintessible in which one can pin down the exactly second at which there is a begining. This is no way means that the univese is sitting around forever and doesn't require creation.
If that's what you argue, you have to show how it overcomes arguments like the fininite stock of order of energy/matter being created in the Big Bang.
JD:One way in which you completely misconstrued what I was intending would be
when you go off on long tangents attempting to discredit chaotic inflation
(which is widely held) and the oscillatory universe, both of which I don’t
believe. What intrigues my rationale is the theory of brane cosmology which
stems from the string theory of the universe; I won’t describe in searing
detail as you have in your post. If you would like to review it do so, if
you would like guidance on where to review it say so and I will help, or
maybe you already know of it and just decided not to mention it in your
response.
Meta: I didn't discredit it. I said it doesnt' change my argument. Both of those still preserve the big bang as part of their major senerio. Of cousre there is no data to support the chaotic inflation part, there is only the t=0 and that's all. we have no data from "before" that. Becuase that's when time begins. Our space/time envoleope began at that point, so there can be no data form "before" or "beyond" that point. Thus all of those theoreies are unproven and can be just as easily plugged into my senerio of creation.
JD:Brane cosmology asserts that existence is in fact eternal and that a
collision of branes is what created the universe as we know it today;
whether or not this universe is itself infinite doesn’t negate that fact
that existence outside of it is. That was my main point and it was my fault
for not vocalizing as well as I should have. The only cosmological theory
for which I feel any commitment to would be the brane theory, not the
oscillatory universe I was merely allowing multiple theories be shown. I’m
sorry that you spent so much time disproving or illustrating evidence
against theories that I do not even subscribe to, although you did do a
magnificent job!
Meta: You are always going to be dealing with contigneicies. naturalistic pheomena are always contingent. But to deal with a world of contingencies with no necessity is nonsense. So to posit an eternal universe doesn't change anything God wise, there still is a need to posit and siealteniously eternal creator who is the ground of being and who makes possible the etneral contingnecies. An analogy would be an eternal flute player. As long as the floutist plays the music exists. So if the floutist palys eternally, the music is eternal. But if the player stops, the music stops. So the mustic, though eternal, is contingent upon the player. The reason for posulating that vis "the universre" would be the fact of necessity and contingency, naturalisitic phenomena are contingent. But That's assuming we just ingore the questions about finite stock of order and heat death.
If the universe will eventually die a heat death, it can't be eternal. Eternality cannot cease to be, it cannot ever change. And given eternal changces if it will do it it would have already done it.
This last point, think of this. If I had a billion billion chances I could flit enough coins enough times that the letters on them (use coins from all nations) would sepll out the play Othelo. But it would take of cousre anstronominal amouhnts of time. yet if the unverse is eternal we have already had astronmical amounts of time so it should have already done it.
JD:When I made the statement – “The theory certainly can be interpreted as the
beginning of the magnificent explosion and expansion of the material
universe, that before this extreme change there was the dense-hot state of a
gravitational singularity, and that prior to this singularity and explosion
there was an eternal state of natural existence.” I did not mean that prior
to this singularity there was only natural existence residing within this
singularity, I apologize for the vagueness of such a statement; all I mean
is that prior to the expansion or ‘creation’ or our universe there was an
eternally existing natural realm present, outside of our universe.
Meta: I see, but that's still asserting something of which we have no knowledge.
JD:Our
universe may be but one brane in a realm consisting of numberous branes, our
universe is the way it is and has been developed by the collision of two
such branes within this vast and natural realm.
You question the authority of Corliss Lamont the only explanation for this
is that you don’t know who he is and have done no investigation into it, he
was a highly esteemed humanist philosopher he taught at Columbia, Cornell,
and Harvard. He was the director of the ACLU from 1932-1954 and was then
the chairman until his death in 1995. He successfully challenged Senator
Joseph McCarthy's senate subcommittee and other government agencies. In 1965
he secured a Supreme Court ruling against censorship of incoming mail by the
U.S. Postmaster General. In 1973 he discovered through Freedom of
Information Act requests that the FBI had been tapping his phone, and
scrutinizing his tax returns and cancelled checks for 30 years. His
subsequent lawsuit showed the surveillance had no justification in law, and
set precedent for other citizen's privacy rights. He also filed and won a
suit against the Central Inteligence Agency for opening his mail.
Meta: sounds like a great guy, but it's still unncessary appeal to authority; what credentials has he as a cosmologist?
JD:You claim that god is necessary refering to “him” (sexist and egoistic) and
that matter-energy is a contingency.
Meta: I actually got out of the habit of refurring to God as "HE" in semianry! It was the feminsts in my secular history of ideas program when I went for my doctorate that got me back in the habit. I kid not!
JD: I disagree and I will provide a
paradigm put forh by one Benedictus De Spinoza helping me illustrate this
fact: Spinoza contended that God and Nature were two names for the same
reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than
"matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are
actually modes or modifications.
Meta: You make it hard to argue with you, as I am a big Spinoza fan mytself. However, as a Christain I can't quite go along with him, but I admire his intelligence and his lens grinding too.
JD:The argument for this single substance runs
something as follows:
1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its
existence.
2. No two substances can share an attribute.
Proof: If they share an attribute, they would be identical. Therefore they
can only be individuated by their modes. But then they would depend on their
modes for their identity. This would have the substance being dependent on
its mode, in violation of premise 1. Therefore, two substances cannot share
the same attribute.
3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something
that shares its attribute).
4. Substance cannot be caused.
Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself,
in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise
2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be
caused.
5. Substance is infinite.
Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by
something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However,
substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore
substance is infinite.
Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other.
But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each
other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore
there cannot be two substances.
Meta: But Spinoza beileved in God.Now, it's true people think "not much of a God." but it was god enough for Spinoza. He was not an atheist and did not see himself as such. I like his take on the ontological arugment and it forms the baisis of my understanding of it. Spinoza did not say the universr and existence is only natural and there is no supernatural. He's more like combining sort of immanent transcendence or a naturalsitic supernatural. This is way after the concept has been degraded anyway. Ture he didn't believe in the conventional concept, but neither did he just consian existence to naturlism and become an atheist.
It's always amazing to me when I find people who have gotten other things out of a thinker and reached diametrically oppossite consclusions. I am not saying you are wrong even to look at his work the way you do. But I see there is a differnce in the way we each read Spinoza.
JD:My ultimate thesis and strong beliefs is that existence in its entirety is
natural, that there is no reason to conclude that supernatural phenomena are
the causes of natural effects, and that when scientific understanding and
ability has reached its furthest limits we must concede that we are not able
to understand such phenomena and resist subverting science and embracing the
irrationality of superstition and occult phenomena;
Meta: That satement is loaded with all sorts of presuppostions that are not in evidence and unproven, and in fact I don't think you can prove any of them. That they mark your feeling about the world I am prepared to be friends and agree to disagree. Those presupes include:
(1) that SN subverts science so the two are competing rather than represeting different magesteria.
(2) that SN is superstition: superstition opporates by a senes of dread at tresspass upon the realm of unseen forces; supernatural is a ratiaonl ontology that sketches out how divine power can affect and transform human nature. It has nothing to do with fear of illelutable forces.
(3) that SN is irrational: SN is more rational that you can imagine, it's the ultimate form of rationality because it says that relaity istself has a supersturcture and that superstructure is reason! there is an ordering pricniple, a logos that orders and manages the natural as its ground and end; the natural moves toward it teliologically; that is ratianolism that is not irrational forces.
btw if we can't understand it how do we know there is no supernatural? you say "and that when scientific understanding and
ability has reached its furthest limits we must concede that we are not able
to understand such phenomena": so we can't understand it but somehow we know the SN is not true?
JD:that in any case what we
cannot yet understand today may surely be understood in the future and to
await this day accordingly.
Meta: seems to me that you are just opporating on faith. Isn't faith a bit on the irrational side?
JD: Religion has in the past opposed the fact that
the sun was the center of our galaxy, they opposed the fact that our planet
is a sphere,
Meta: that's actaully guilt by assocaition (some religious people did x, therefore, religious people do x). It's also ahistorical. No The Chruch never oppossed teh idea tha thte sun was the center of the galaxy. What they oppossed was rejecting the authority of Arosttle. Others had aruged that the mathematics of the Copernican system made more sense of the calender and epicyles and all the fiddely bits of ptoemaic system, and and Copernicus never got in any trouble as long as he propossed it as a mathematical theory. The trouble only came when the authority of the chruch was questioned via the authoritiy of Arostotle (who had been installed by the chruch as a kindof previent saint). The chruch had no real interest in the center of the galaxy or where the sun was in relation to the earth.
I don't think you can show that they oppossed the idea of the earth being a sphere. But even so, Milton whent o see Galileo when he was young and told him "the Christians of Engalnd are with you." They never had any such persecution in Engalnd where science and chrsitaintiy were identified as one. So that's just a matter of chruch politics and not religious ideas per se.
JD:they oppose consciousness being an extension of the physical
body via the brain, and they oppose the idea that god did in fact not create
existence. These oppositions are fine and to believe in god and what “he”
has done is okay but to talk about physics and the ‘evidence’ that this
science gives in favor of god is incongrous with the scientific method and
reality.
It's a fond steriotype to think of the Monty Python scene where the woman weighs the same as a duck. "what do we burn apart form withces?" "More withces!" The truth is the middle ages were not filled with budding Enstines who were being burned at the steak fro their attempts to do science. There are really only a couple of examples. In fact the chruch did a lot to keep learning alive nd modern scinece was born in monesteries and it was the chruch that created it.See my essay I wrote in grad school:
JD (quoting Meta)-“But eternally existing anything would have to be ontologically necessiary,but naturlism requires ontolgocal congingency for all natursiltic
phenomena.” – Why is this? In what way does the supernatural or god resolve
this conflict? What is the evidence of such gratuitous interactions from
the supernatural?
Meta: break it down:
eternally eixsting anyting would have to be ontologically necessary
Because necessary means "cannot cease or fail to exist, and not dependent upon anything else for its existence. If it could cease, or if it could have been otherwise that would mean it is dependent upon something else, and that is contingency. It can't be necesary if it is contignent. It's contingency because if it could cease it isn't etenral and if it could be otherwise that would have to be becuase the circumstances that bring it about could have been otherwise. that means anything that is eternal would have to be either eternally contingent upon an ontotoglally "prior" cause or condition, or it would be a necessity (not contignent).
JD:-“THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE!
THE BEGINNING OF TIME!"” – The beginning of the universe that we know not of
existence as a whole. Didn’t you speak of time in relativity just prior to
this, time is relative and really doesn’t have a beginning or an end.
Wouldn’t you say?
Meta: I quoted sources saying time begins with the big bang. I could theorize that tmie is running eternally. But the evidence I've seen susggests it begins with the Big bang.
JD:I read your argument for god as a cause under why God doesnt' need a cause
and the universe does, your god here doesn’t seem to be an actual defining
being or substance, I could easity isert the word nature for god within this
argument and change absolutely nothing; this is a vague, weak, and
ineffectual argument for god.
Meta: You said in the first deal it was the best you'd seen. I think you are just used to dealing fundies and you can only think in terms of one concept of God; the big guy in the sky. Spinoza is not known as an atheist, he had his own version reilgious life, and he believed in God, he just had his own ideas about God. Would you call that "weak and ineffectual." IF it's so weak why can't you beat it? You haven't come close. you haven't got your foot in the door. IN fact your only arugment is just that it seems strange to you because I'm no saying things you expect to hear, and that's what you call "weak."
JD:By the way what is god? What do you believe
god is? A being? A pool of conscioussness? Energy? A being that resemble
humans? Your definition of god is so vague in this argument that it could
be refering to nature itself, do you not see the transience within this
argument?
Meta: Can't refur to nature because nature is contingent. God can't be contignency. God has to be necessity. But here I think the truth comes out that actually your definition of nature is weak. You seem to have a circular defition where by nature is what is and is is natural by virture of the fact that it is. That doesnt' tell us anything and it could potentually include God.
For the big lo down on my views about God read my essay on God as the Grond of Being. Essentually my concept of God is in line with that of Paul Tillich, the German theological emegree to America in the 50's.
JD: You must firmly define what god is, how it acts, etc. Otherwise
your giving an argument for nothing, this sort of god seems to encapulate
many individuals psyche now days, the god of everything and yet nothing.
Meta: I don't mean to offend you, because I feel that we have the basis for a good friendship. Nevertheless I think that argument is poppy cock. I do not have to define God in any way that pre-determines or pre-conceieves our understanding; and that would be contrary to my views anyway because my whole "thing" is that God presciley is not predicatble and is not something we can pin down to neat little categories. God is a mystical reality that blows away all our preconcieved notions and pre-set categories. All we can really do is experince God, or opporate within a tradition that calims to already understand something of God's will.
Now that's exactly my ratiaonle for being a christian, and it means that rather than trying to define God in some pesudo-sceintific way, all we really need to do is sketch out God as a proper object of religious devotion. God is the transcendental signifier, and as such we need only understand how that plays out in any given tradition as the object of devotion.
This is nature of one's belief, you can't dictate to people about their most sacred bleiefs, those have to be formed of thier own properly basic experinces of the world.
JD:Over all I was impressed with the cosmological argument you put forth, I
congradulate you! However, you were opposing theories that I do not
subscribe to.
Meta: but thank you for your kind words.
JD:Cosmologically I would subscribe to brane cosmology (not the
oscilliotory universe), and even if this theory proves to be false this
hardly means that god has won out by default; ultimately there is no proof
of the existence of a god or of supernatural phenomena, the best the
religious can do is discredit and find faults within scientific theory and
insert the supernatural and god into convienient holes that are the as yet
unknowns of science (they are doing this with evolution right now with ID).
Meta: Why do you put it in terms of conflict? This is one of the things that I think puts atheists in the box. Rather than thinking outside the box, you are still in the box, and that box is full of 19th century peraphenalia. The idea that science and religion are in competition and are somehow conflifting is sympematic of that sort of thinking. I think that weakens atheism beasue it puts it behind the times. While I agree that there is no absolute or direct proof of God, there is certianly more than amle rational warrent for belief. That can be adhuced from reading the back pages of this blog. But religion can do a lot more than just discredit scientific theories. There is more than ample reason to believe. Also see my list of God arguments: I'm up to 39 but I'm shooting for 42.
JD:Ultimately I was just wanting to say that existence is natural, always has
been and always will be, and that the supernatural should be heavily
scrutinized and doubted. I am impressed by the extent of your knowledge
pertaining to astrophysics. I would be intrigued to hear your views on
brane cosmology.
Meta: It's good to have our presups shaken up once and awhile and I respect your views and appreciate your attidue to ratioanl and plesant discussion.
I'll do some reading on brane cosmology and let you know.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
JD's Rebuttle to my rebuttle
First of all thank you for posting my first response and thank you for
posting such an intricate and intelligent response yourself! Here is my
resonse to yours:
Metacrock,
I am pleased to see that you felt my post warranted a long response. Again
I disagree with the larger bulk of it. Clearly you are intelligent and you
make strong cases for the supernatural, however, the case for the
supernatural always comes with inherent implausibility and an impetuous
assertion. This assertion being that nature and the material universe is
reliant upon or caused by supernatural forces unseen and/or unknown. There
is much to discuss with regards to your long response and I would like to
begin with the more mundane.
In the beginning of your response you spend a good deal of time discussing
the hatred and hostility visited upon you by atheists. You talk about how
atheism has an inherent subculture of hatred. While these observations are
both true and false in differing degrees I would like to discuss this matter
further. First of all I do not doubt the accuracy of experiences recounted
in your post. There are many people (especially within the blogosphere)
that feel empowered by the anonymity and negate any responsibility that they
would otherwise assume ownership of. To single out the atheists as a group
of people and claim that they are guiltier of this than any other group is
irresponsible and biased. Atheists are people first, before they made the
decision to believe what seemed more plausible to them (that there is no
god) they were people just as everyone else; and as such they are subject to
the inequity, animosity, and failings of the human being in general. To say
that atheists represent more of these failings than any other group would be
biased and hateful in and of itself. Surely there are atheist blogs and
boards in which the atheists are all of the above negative attributes but
surely there are blogs and boards in which they are not; furthermore it is
also equally true that theists and deeply religious individuals exhibit
these shortcomings themselves. As is my personality I don’t care to
illustrate the malign and depraved rather I like to illustrate the kindness
and compassion, and if necessary the wrongness of an individual. It hardly
seems beneficial to speak of a group so derogatorily; especially a minority
group that still faces inequality. You provide examples of atheists being
hateful and negative, while this is true there are many examples of atheists
being positive and compassionate, hopefully I am an example of this also
check out the blog jewishatheist.blogspot.com for further proof. For proof
that theists are malign and hateful just as much as atheists visit the
website concernedcatholic.blogspot.com and witness depravity in it’s truest
form. I will not provide specific quotes for as I said I would rather focus
on semblance and positivity rather than the contrary. I am glad that your
one act of solidarity is that you attribute this behavior with the net more
so than the individual. I would agree, for the sense of anonymity seems to
harbor feelings of ‘anything goes’ and that what one does one is not
entirely responsible for. The internet (especially the blogosphere) is
notorious for fostering such ignorant and blatant hostility; and atheists
are no guiltier than theists themselves. My main issue with this portion of
your response is, why even include it? Obviously there are going to be
hateful and irresponsible atheists just as there are theists. Why include
this fact as if it was more congruous with atheism? It just seemed like a
very negative and biased issue to include. When I illustrate disagreement
with the assertion that many atheists believe that infants are born atheist
you suggest that I visit more message boards. This is almost condescending,
for you do not know my track record with respects to visiting blogs, if you
did you wouldn’t have made this comment. I frequent numerous blogs and
continually search out new ones, as I did with you own blog. I do not know
how many atheist blogs you have visited but I would seriously doubt the
number surpasses mine.
With respects to the brain being wired for god and/or the inert ideas of god
residing in the brain, these are true and false in larger or lesser degrees.
Where as it is true that many of us are predisposed to religiosity and to
god through the neuro-pathways of the brain this says nothing of the truth
behind religiosity and/or god. Look up Paul Kurtz, especially his book
entitle “The Transcendental Temptation”, or Richard Dawkins (any of his
books or essays will suffice). The fact that evolutionary upsurge may have
culminated in the side effect of religiosity surely does nothing in proving
the truth behind such superstition. On a note of armistice I do like the
reference you made with Andrew Newberg for he is definitely a decent source
of information upon this subject; his studies are usually within
neurotheology or also known as biotheology. He has conducted a good amount
of tests and has done extensive research (none of which claims there is an
inert idea of god in anyone). He is a distinguished scientist and his
research is valuable he is certainly not the top researcher in the field. I
would also like to note that his research has never illustrated an innate
belief in god and he surely doesn’t promote his research or findings as
such.
The rest of your response deals with cosmology and astrophysics, I would
like to make a few points. The first being that I am in no way a
credentialed astrophysicist my field of scientific knowledge is generally
held within the confines of theoretical psychology. The second being that
you misconstrue a good portion of what my ultimate thesis was, and this is
not to say that you are to blame I was guilty of being too vague.
First you ask why it would be fair to assume that natural existence is
eternal, I would answer because if something is the effect then it must have
a cause and as far as I see it there are only natural causes and effects, so
the cause of the material universe must be natural and obviously the effect
of such as cause is natural; it is fair to assume that natural existence is
eternal, assuming that any form of existence is eternal, for if anything
would be eternal it would be that of what we know to be true and actually
existent, that of natural existence. You say that scientists tell us the
universe is finite, I do not claim the contrary for all one must do is look
up the Hartle-Hawking boundary condition and come to their own conclusions;
however this is no proof that existence itself is finite or that existence
itself is subject to a beginning or end. I know this all sounds amorphous
but bear with me. When you give proof that our universe will come to an end
as we know it I would not disagree, for again I am aware of the science
behind this. What I was meaning to illustrate was that existence in its
fullest sustenance will not cease to exist that there is no beginning nor
ending in time in this regard; to say that time either began or ended is
proof of the lack of knowledge with regards to relativity as espoused by
Einstein.
One way in which you completely misconstrued what I was intending would be
when you go off on long tangents attempting to discredit chaotic inflation
(which is widely held) and the oscillatory universe, both of which I don’t
believe. What intrigues my rationale is the theory of brane cosmology which
stems from the string theory of the universe; I won’t describe in searing
detail as you have in your post. If you would like to review it do so, if
you would like guidance on where to review it say so and I will help, or
maybe you already know of it and just decided not to mention it in your
response.
Brane cosmology asserts that existence is in fact eternal and that a
collision of branes is what created the universe as we know it today;
whether or not this universe is itself infinite doesn’t negate that fact
that existence outside of it is. That was my main point and it was my fault
for not vocalizing as well as I should have. The only cosmological theory
for which I feel any commitment to would be the brane theory, not the
oscillatory universe I was merely allowing multiple theories be shown. I’m
sorry that you spent so much time disproving or illustrating evidence
against theories that I do not even subscribe to, although you did do a
magnificent job!
When I made the statement – “The theory certainly can be interpreted as the
beginning of the magnificent explosion and expansion of the material
universe, that before this extreme change there was the dense-hot state of a
gravitational singularity, and that prior to this singularity and explosion
there was an eternal state of natural existence.” I did not mean that prior
to this singularity there was only natural existence residing within this
singularity, I apologize for the vagueness of such a statement; all I mean
is that prior to the expansion or ‘creation’ or our universe there was an
eternally existing natural realm present, outside of our universe. Our
universe may be but one brane in a realm consisting of numberous branes, our
universe is the way it is and has been developed by the collision of two
such branes within this vast and natural realm.
You question the authority of Corliss Lamont the only explanation for this
is that you don’t know who he is and have done no investigation into it, he
was a highly esteemed humanist philosopher he taught at Columbia, Cornell,
and Harvard. He was the director of the ACLU from 1932-1954 and was then
the chairman until his death in 1995. He successfully challenged Senator
Joseph McCarthy's senate subcommittee and other government agencies. In 1965
he secured a Supreme Court ruling against censorship of incoming mail by the
U.S. Postmaster General. In 1973 he discovered through Freedom of
Information Act requests that the FBI had been tapping his phone, and
scrutinizing his tax returns and cancelled checks for 30 years. His
subsequent lawsuit showed the surveillance had no justification in law, and
set precedent for other citizen's privacy rights. He also filed and won a
suit against the Central Inteligence Agency for opening his mail.
You claim that god is necessary refering to “him” (sexist and egoistic) and
that matter-energy is a contingency. I disagree and I will provide a
paradigm put forh by one Benedictus De Spinoza helping me illustrate this
fact: Spinoza contended that God and Nature were two names for the same
reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than
"matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are
actually modes or modifications. The argument for this single substance runs
something as follows:
1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its
existence.
2. No two substances can share an attribute.
Proof: If they share an attribute, they would be identical. Therefore they
can only be individuated by their modes. But then they would depend on their
modes for their identity. This would have the substance being dependent on
its mode, in violation of premise 1. Therefore, two substances cannot share
the same attribute.
3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something
that shares its attribute).
4. Substance cannot be caused.
Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself,
in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise
2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be
caused.
5. Substance is infinite.
Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by
something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However,
substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore
substance is infinite.
Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other.
But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each
other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore
there cannot be two substances.
My ultimate thesis and strong beliefs is that existence in its entirety is
natural, that there is no reason to conclude that supernatural phenomena are
the causes of natural effects, and that when scientific understanding and
ability has reached its furthest limits we must concede that we are not able
to understand such phenomena and resist subverting science and embracing the
irrationality of superstition and occult phenomena; that in any case what we
cannot yet understand today may surely be understood in the future and to
await this day accordingly. Religion has in the past opposed the fact that
the sun was the center of our galaxy, they opposed the fact that our planet
is a sphere, they oppose consciousness being an extension of the physical
body via the brain, and they oppose the idea that god did in fact not create
existence. These oppositions are fine and to believe in god and what “he”
has done is okay but to talk about physics and the ‘evidence’ that this
science gives in favor of god is incongrous with the scientific method and
reality.
-“But eternally existing anything would have to be ontologically necessiary,
but naturlism requires ontolgocal congingency for all natursiltic
phenomena.” – Why is this? In what way does the supernatural or god resolve
this conflict? What is the evidence of such gratuitous interactions from
the supernatural?
-“THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE!
THE BEGINNING OF TIME!"” – The beginning of the universe that we know not of
existence as a whole. Didn’t you speak of time in relativity just prior to
this, time is relative and really doesn’t have a beginning or an end.
Wouldn’t you say?
I read your argument for god as a cause under why God doesnt' need a cause
and the universe does, your god here doesn’t seem to be an actual defining
being or substance, I could easity isert the word nature for god within this
argument and change absolutely nothing; this is a vague, weak, and
ineffectual argument for god. By the way what is god? What do you believe
god is? A being? A pool of conscioussness? Energy? A being that resemble
humans? Your definition of god is so vague in this argument that it could
be refering to nature itself, do you not see the transience within this
argument? You must firmly define what god is, how it acts, etc. Otherwise
your giving an argument for nothing, this sort of god seems to encapulate
many individuals psyche now days, the god of everything and yet nothing.
Over all I was impressed with the cosmological argument you put forth, I
congradulate you! However, you were opposing theories that I do not
subscribe to. Cosmologically I would subscribe to brane cosmology (not the
oscilliotory universe), and even if this theory proves to be false this
hardly means that god has won out by default; ultimately there is no proof
of the existence of a god or of supernatural phenomena, the best the
religious can do is discredit and find faults within scientific theory and
insert the supernatural and god into convienient holes that are the as yet
unknowns of science (they are doing this with evolution right now with ID).
Ultimately I was just wanting to say that existence is natural, always has
been and always will be, and that the supernatural should be heavily
scrutinized and doubted. I am impressed by the extent of your knowledge
pertaining to astrophysics. I would be intrigued to hear your views on
brane cosmology.
Sincerely
posting such an intricate and intelligent response yourself! Here is my
resonse to yours:
Metacrock,
I am pleased to see that you felt my post warranted a long response. Again
I disagree with the larger bulk of it. Clearly you are intelligent and you
make strong cases for the supernatural, however, the case for the
supernatural always comes with inherent implausibility and an impetuous
assertion. This assertion being that nature and the material universe is
reliant upon or caused by supernatural forces unseen and/or unknown. There
is much to discuss with regards to your long response and I would like to
begin with the more mundane.
In the beginning of your response you spend a good deal of time discussing
the hatred and hostility visited upon you by atheists. You talk about how
atheism has an inherent subculture of hatred. While these observations are
both true and false in differing degrees I would like to discuss this matter
further. First of all I do not doubt the accuracy of experiences recounted
in your post. There are many people (especially within the blogosphere)
that feel empowered by the anonymity and negate any responsibility that they
would otherwise assume ownership of. To single out the atheists as a group
of people and claim that they are guiltier of this than any other group is
irresponsible and biased. Atheists are people first, before they made the
decision to believe what seemed more plausible to them (that there is no
god) they were people just as everyone else; and as such they are subject to
the inequity, animosity, and failings of the human being in general. To say
that atheists represent more of these failings than any other group would be
biased and hateful in and of itself. Surely there are atheist blogs and
boards in which the atheists are all of the above negative attributes but
surely there are blogs and boards in which they are not; furthermore it is
also equally true that theists and deeply religious individuals exhibit
these shortcomings themselves. As is my personality I don’t care to
illustrate the malign and depraved rather I like to illustrate the kindness
and compassion, and if necessary the wrongness of an individual. It hardly
seems beneficial to speak of a group so derogatorily; especially a minority
group that still faces inequality. You provide examples of atheists being
hateful and negative, while this is true there are many examples of atheists
being positive and compassionate, hopefully I am an example of this also
check out the blog jewishatheist.blogspot.com for further proof. For proof
that theists are malign and hateful just as much as atheists visit the
website concernedcatholic.blogspot.com and witness depravity in it’s truest
form. I will not provide specific quotes for as I said I would rather focus
on semblance and positivity rather than the contrary. I am glad that your
one act of solidarity is that you attribute this behavior with the net more
so than the individual. I would agree, for the sense of anonymity seems to
harbor feelings of ‘anything goes’ and that what one does one is not
entirely responsible for. The internet (especially the blogosphere) is
notorious for fostering such ignorant and blatant hostility; and atheists
are no guiltier than theists themselves. My main issue with this portion of
your response is, why even include it? Obviously there are going to be
hateful and irresponsible atheists just as there are theists. Why include
this fact as if it was more congruous with atheism? It just seemed like a
very negative and biased issue to include. When I illustrate disagreement
with the assertion that many atheists believe that infants are born atheist
you suggest that I visit more message boards. This is almost condescending,
for you do not know my track record with respects to visiting blogs, if you
did you wouldn’t have made this comment. I frequent numerous blogs and
continually search out new ones, as I did with you own blog. I do not know
how many atheist blogs you have visited but I would seriously doubt the
number surpasses mine.
With respects to the brain being wired for god and/or the inert ideas of god
residing in the brain, these are true and false in larger or lesser degrees.
Where as it is true that many of us are predisposed to religiosity and to
god through the neuro-pathways of the brain this says nothing of the truth
behind religiosity and/or god. Look up Paul Kurtz, especially his book
entitle “The Transcendental Temptation”, or Richard Dawkins (any of his
books or essays will suffice). The fact that evolutionary upsurge may have
culminated in the side effect of religiosity surely does nothing in proving
the truth behind such superstition. On a note of armistice I do like the
reference you made with Andrew Newberg for he is definitely a decent source
of information upon this subject; his studies are usually within
neurotheology or also known as biotheology. He has conducted a good amount
of tests and has done extensive research (none of which claims there is an
inert idea of god in anyone). He is a distinguished scientist and his
research is valuable he is certainly not the top researcher in the field. I
would also like to note that his research has never illustrated an innate
belief in god and he surely doesn’t promote his research or findings as
such.
The rest of your response deals with cosmology and astrophysics, I would
like to make a few points. The first being that I am in no way a
credentialed astrophysicist my field of scientific knowledge is generally
held within the confines of theoretical psychology. The second being that
you misconstrue a good portion of what my ultimate thesis was, and this is
not to say that you are to blame I was guilty of being too vague.
First you ask why it would be fair to assume that natural existence is
eternal, I would answer because if something is the effect then it must have
a cause and as far as I see it there are only natural causes and effects, so
the cause of the material universe must be natural and obviously the effect
of such as cause is natural; it is fair to assume that natural existence is
eternal, assuming that any form of existence is eternal, for if anything
would be eternal it would be that of what we know to be true and actually
existent, that of natural existence. You say that scientists tell us the
universe is finite, I do not claim the contrary for all one must do is look
up the Hartle-Hawking boundary condition and come to their own conclusions;
however this is no proof that existence itself is finite or that existence
itself is subject to a beginning or end. I know this all sounds amorphous
but bear with me. When you give proof that our universe will come to an end
as we know it I would not disagree, for again I am aware of the science
behind this. What I was meaning to illustrate was that existence in its
fullest sustenance will not cease to exist that there is no beginning nor
ending in time in this regard; to say that time either began or ended is
proof of the lack of knowledge with regards to relativity as espoused by
Einstein.
One way in which you completely misconstrued what I was intending would be
when you go off on long tangents attempting to discredit chaotic inflation
(which is widely held) and the oscillatory universe, both of which I don’t
believe. What intrigues my rationale is the theory of brane cosmology which
stems from the string theory of the universe; I won’t describe in searing
detail as you have in your post. If you would like to review it do so, if
you would like guidance on where to review it say so and I will help, or
maybe you already know of it and just decided not to mention it in your
response.
Brane cosmology asserts that existence is in fact eternal and that a
collision of branes is what created the universe as we know it today;
whether or not this universe is itself infinite doesn’t negate that fact
that existence outside of it is. That was my main point and it was my fault
for not vocalizing as well as I should have. The only cosmological theory
for which I feel any commitment to would be the brane theory, not the
oscillatory universe I was merely allowing multiple theories be shown. I’m
sorry that you spent so much time disproving or illustrating evidence
against theories that I do not even subscribe to, although you did do a
magnificent job!
When I made the statement – “The theory certainly can be interpreted as the
beginning of the magnificent explosion and expansion of the material
universe, that before this extreme change there was the dense-hot state of a
gravitational singularity, and that prior to this singularity and explosion
there was an eternal state of natural existence.” I did not mean that prior
to this singularity there was only natural existence residing within this
singularity, I apologize for the vagueness of such a statement; all I mean
is that prior to the expansion or ‘creation’ or our universe there was an
eternally existing natural realm present, outside of our universe. Our
universe may be but one brane in a realm consisting of numberous branes, our
universe is the way it is and has been developed by the collision of two
such branes within this vast and natural realm.
You question the authority of Corliss Lamont the only explanation for this
is that you don’t know who he is and have done no investigation into it, he
was a highly esteemed humanist philosopher he taught at Columbia, Cornell,
and Harvard. He was the director of the ACLU from 1932-1954 and was then
the chairman until his death in 1995. He successfully challenged Senator
Joseph McCarthy's senate subcommittee and other government agencies. In 1965
he secured a Supreme Court ruling against censorship of incoming mail by the
U.S. Postmaster General. In 1973 he discovered through Freedom of
Information Act requests that the FBI had been tapping his phone, and
scrutinizing his tax returns and cancelled checks for 30 years. His
subsequent lawsuit showed the surveillance had no justification in law, and
set precedent for other citizen's privacy rights. He also filed and won a
suit against the Central Inteligence Agency for opening his mail.
You claim that god is necessary refering to “him” (sexist and egoistic) and
that matter-energy is a contingency. I disagree and I will provide a
paradigm put forh by one Benedictus De Spinoza helping me illustrate this
fact: Spinoza contended that God and Nature were two names for the same
reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than
"matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are
actually modes or modifications. The argument for this single substance runs
something as follows:
1. Substance exists and cannot be dependent on anything else for its
existence.
2. No two substances can share an attribute.
Proof: If they share an attribute, they would be identical. Therefore they
can only be individuated by their modes. But then they would depend on their
modes for their identity. This would have the substance being dependent on
its mode, in violation of premise 1. Therefore, two substances cannot share
the same attribute.
3. A substance can only be caused by something similar to itself (something
that shares its attribute).
4. Substance cannot be caused.
Proof: Something can only be caused by something which is similar to itself,
in other words something that shares its attribute. But according to premise
2, no two substances can share an attribute. Therefore substance cannot be
caused.
5. Substance is infinite.
Proof: If substance were not infinite, it would be finite and limited by
something. But to be limited by something is to be dependent on it. However,
substance cannot be dependent on anything else (premise 1), therefore
substance is infinite.
Conclusion: There can only be one substance.
Proof: If there were two infinite substances, they would limit each other.
But this would act as a restraint, and they would be dependent on each
other. But they cannot be dependent on each other (premise 1), therefore
there cannot be two substances.
My ultimate thesis and strong beliefs is that existence in its entirety is
natural, that there is no reason to conclude that supernatural phenomena are
the causes of natural effects, and that when scientific understanding and
ability has reached its furthest limits we must concede that we are not able
to understand such phenomena and resist subverting science and embracing the
irrationality of superstition and occult phenomena; that in any case what we
cannot yet understand today may surely be understood in the future and to
await this day accordingly. Religion has in the past opposed the fact that
the sun was the center of our galaxy, they opposed the fact that our planet
is a sphere, they oppose consciousness being an extension of the physical
body via the brain, and they oppose the idea that god did in fact not create
existence. These oppositions are fine and to believe in god and what “he”
has done is okay but to talk about physics and the ‘evidence’ that this
science gives in favor of god is incongrous with the scientific method and
reality.
-“But eternally existing anything would have to be ontologically necessiary,
but naturlism requires ontolgocal congingency for all natursiltic
phenomena.” – Why is this? In what way does the supernatural or god resolve
this conflict? What is the evidence of such gratuitous interactions from
the supernatural?
-“THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE!
THE BEGINNING OF TIME!"” – The beginning of the universe that we know not of
existence as a whole. Didn’t you speak of time in relativity just prior to
this, time is relative and really doesn’t have a beginning or an end.
Wouldn’t you say?
I read your argument for god as a cause under why God doesnt' need a cause
and the universe does, your god here doesn’t seem to be an actual defining
being or substance, I could easity isert the word nature for god within this
argument and change absolutely nothing; this is a vague, weak, and
ineffectual argument for god. By the way what is god? What do you believe
god is? A being? A pool of conscioussness? Energy? A being that resemble
humans? Your definition of god is so vague in this argument that it could
be refering to nature itself, do you not see the transience within this
argument? You must firmly define what god is, how it acts, etc. Otherwise
your giving an argument for nothing, this sort of god seems to encapulate
many individuals psyche now days, the god of everything and yet nothing.
Over all I was impressed with the cosmological argument you put forth, I
congradulate you! However, you were opposing theories that I do not
subscribe to. Cosmologically I would subscribe to brane cosmology (not the
oscilliotory universe), and even if this theory proves to be false this
hardly means that god has won out by default; ultimately there is no proof
of the existence of a god or of supernatural phenomena, the best the
religious can do is discredit and find faults within scientific theory and
insert the supernatural and god into convienient holes that are the as yet
unknowns of science (they are doing this with evolution right now with ID).
Ultimately I was just wanting to say that existence is natural, always has
been and always will be, and that the supernatural should be heavily
scrutinized and doubted. I am impressed by the extent of your knowledge
pertaining to astrophysics. I would be intrigued to hear your views on
brane cosmology.
Sincerely
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Response to Guest Commentary
I would like to think JD for his kind and thoughtful commentary. I do have a few comments just by way of observation, but I have no inentino to "beat him" or "show him up."
JD:I enjoyed reading your post on atheism, although I do not agree with all of
it. I am a secular humanist hence I am also an atheist so this post was
certainly relevant to me. I do not believe in a god, a supernatural entity,
or any form of supernatural phenomena. I believe you are mistaken with
large portions or your diatribe; I would like to show you in what ways I
believe you are mistaken and how and why you are mistaken.
Meta: I know atheits in real life and we don't sit around putting each other down. But, certain borads seem to create an atmosphere of hatred. The banners, the services offered, the tone of the posts, what people get away with, these things are a clear and dead give away. The first time I went on the board that started all of this one the very posts I made, which was very modeate and with just enough infor to let them know I was a christian, was met with "haul your self reightous ass out of here!" I labared for days on long posts with plenty of facts and thoughtful arguments and all they would say is "you are pathetic, you could not have been to gradate school if that's how you reason." They actaully never attacked the arguments themselves, just my personality. This is a major board and I'm told one of the cheif offenders is a doctroal student at Ruttgers!
So I think its clear there is a subculture of hatred. They dehumanize christians and talk about us like we aren't people. The signature of the Rutters guy (I am not saying he doesn't go there just because he disagrees with me) basically implises that Christians are Nazis and we would send Anne Frank to the gas chmaber. The other guy said in a blaket stament, "all christians are machiavellians." These may be extreme cases by they are by no means the only one's like them. But I do realize not all atheists act this way. The one's I know in real life don't. I balme the net more than atheism per se.
JD:However, let me begin with armistice; I do agree with your definition of
atheism: the rejection of a belief in god, not merely the lack of belief,
for as you said that would be agnosticism. Atheism is merely an epithet
used by people to define and describe ones disbelief in a god, or
supernatural entity. Atheism is also a negative-reactionary belief it does
not affirm anything rather it repudiates. Atheism relies on theism to
exist; without a belief in god, there cannot be a disbelief in god, in this
manner atheism is reactionary.
Meta: It's rare I find an atheist who agrees about it being a rejetion rather than just a lack.
(Meta--before)“Atheists love to think that all people are born natural atheists, which is
obviously disproved by the recent studies about brain structure and innate
ideas of God.”
JD:Most atheists, that I know, do not assert that individuals are born atheists
naturally; this cannot be true.
Meta: You should go on message boards more often
JD: The newborn infant has not yet been exposed
to the idea or notion of god and therefore cannot reject and/or disbelieve
such and idea or notion. What atheists and theists alike do say is that
infants are born with out the belief in god, not that they are atheists and
reject the idea of god rather that they do not believe nor disbelieve such
an idea or notion; for they are infants and have not yet developed the
cognitive capability to do either.
Meta: I agree
JD: You mention that the idea of natural
atheists has been disproved by recent studies regarding brain structure and
an innate idea of god. What are these studies? Who has conducted them?
Where can I review these studies and view the results myself?
Meta: Many researchers. The best way to chatch up on the evidence is to see the book Why God Wont go Away by Andrew Newberb who may be the top reseracher in the field. The basic findings are that we are wired for God talk. When expossed to many different kinds of statments the only one's that excite certain areas of the brain and get "warm fuzzies" for respondents were "God talk (religious words)" and "sex talk." Newberg says an actaul phsyical change takes place in the brain when we hear talk about God. Of course you are right babbies are not born being christians or believing, but the capacity is there innately. That's all I was really suggesting when I said what I did about innate belief.
JD:For I am
aware of modern research into such topics through psychology and
neuroscience and I have never heard of such a study and outcome.
Meta: Perhaps my satement was a bit Hyperbalic.
I would also like to address your assumption that Big Bang cosmology either
contradicts itself or needs a supernatural force or god to justify it.
Meta:Not really what I said. I said it contradicts iself if we assume the notion of something from nothing and use quantum particles to suggest evidence for that. I didn't say it needs a supernaturl force to justify it (what would that mean to "justify it?"). I said it is indicative of the cosmological argument for God's existence.
JD: The
Big Bang does not require the belief that before it there was nothing or
merely a supernatural existence, all it explains is the beginnings of the
universe, as we know it today.
Meta: True, but it does leave open the possilbity since the engery in the Big Bang is thought to have been created in the big band, and there seems to be no real evidence that anything did come before it. But the major point is that shows the univese is contingent. Why? Because it came into being and it requires the prior conditoins since the elements that make it up are contingencies themselves.
JD:The Big Bang theory postulates that the
universe originated in an extremely dense and hot state, and since then
space itself has expanded with the passage of time carrying the galaxies
with it. The theory does not, however, force one to assume that before this
extremely dense and hot state there was nothing or only a supernatural
existence, it is surely fair to assume that material or “real natural”
existence is in effect eternal and has no beginning nor ending in time
meaning that there was no “creation” of the universe merely a growth and
transormation.
Meta: why would it be fair to assume that natural existence is an eteranl effect? The universe has a beginig, we know of beyond that event horizon, the elemetns that make it up are not eternally existing, but finte and contingent. Moerover, scientists tell us the universe has an end, therefore it must have a begining. The ened is the result of heat death wihch eventually will result even blacks holes leaking and all energy becoming radent and useless for work. Thus the universe as whole will disove into a cold of space. IF material universe was some sort of eternal becoming woulnd't it have met this heat death eons ago? In fact there are mechinsms working to hasten us to that end:
(1)Lambda force which speeding up expanding of the cosmos
(2) angular momentus
(3) flat universe
(4) missing mass.
All of this means we will continue to expland, we don't have the g forces to pull it all back, and eventually all energy will burn up in heat death and we find ourselves in the ciy cold forever. The thing is, if the universe were eternal it woudl have gone to this end a long long time ago. In other words, it couldn't be eternal because it's an open sysetm.
2) Cyclial Universe The concept that the universe is eternallay ocillating between big bangs and big crunches. When the matter from the explosion of a Big Bang reaches a certain point the gravitational pull draws it back, it callapses into superdense black hole and pops back out again. This notion does not require an initial cause, the cyclical universe is just always there always going through its cycles.
a) Universe continuing to expand
Evidence from three recent studies reveals that the final fate of the universe will be to drift apart and cease all useful functions capable of supporting life due to missing mass, which can't produce gravitational pull to bring it all back together and start again, and heat death in which case energy is useless for work. Several major studies show this to be the case.
[New Scientist Magazine, archive 11, April 98, archive; originally Oct. 96] you should be able to click here, but here's the url just in case) [http://www.newscientist.com/ns/980411/features1.html
"ON THE night of 5 March last year, the huge telescope of the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile intercepted a message from deepest space. Transmitted a billion years before the Earth was born, its contents have proved to be of truly cosmic significance. The message was barely readable after its journey halfway across the Universe, and an international team of experts laboured for months to decode it. In January, Saul Perlmutter of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California and his colleagues revealed to the world what they believe to be its gist: "The Universe will never end." A month later, a team led by Brian Schmidt of the Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories near Canberra in Australia published the decoded contents of more of these cosmic missives, which arrive as bursts of light from supernova explosions in far-flung galaxies. The message was the same. Now Chris Kochanek and his colleagues at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, are about to publish more evidence, this time from light that has been bent and sculpted by the gravity of unseen galaxies."
* Omega force = Continued expansion forever (no Big Cruch)
"These three sets of cosmic missives all suggest that instead of collapsing in on itself in a big crunch, our Universe will go on expanding forever. And that's not all. They also hint that the expanding Universe is in the grip of a mysterious force that is fighting against gravity--a force that pervades the entire cosmos and springs literally from nothing."(Ibid.)
[mysterious force = "omega" ie the equasion of gravitational force vs. mass needed to close the universe; omega must = 1 to close]
* Missing Mass.
[New Scinentist article April 1999] "If it [the universe] contains enough matter, gravity will eventually slow its expansion, stop it, and reverse it--producing a cataclysmic big crunch billions of years hence. But if there is too little matter--or if there is an extra source of "oomph" at work in the cosmos--then the Universe will expand forever.... Cosmologists call the ratio of the actual density of matter in our Universe to this critical density 'Omega.' And whole armies of astronomers have spent decades trying to work out if Omega is less than, more than or equal to 1.,... "Studies of the gravitational effects of clusters of galaxies have revealed that there must be at least 10 times as much mass tied up in invisible "dark matter" in the Universe as there is in the familiar form of luminous stars and gas. Yet even when all this dark matter is thrown into the equation, it still doesn't make the theorists happy. Despite searching every cosmic nook and cranny, astronomers have never found anything like the amount needed to make Omega equal to 1."
"So the take-home message looks the same as that now emerging from the supernova and quasar surveys: the Universe is going to expand forever, and it may yet prove to be flat. Certainly the idea of the big crunch seems to have gone for good, but the exact values of Lambda and Omega, and the fate of the cosmologists' theories, are still up for grabs. These values may finally be nailed early in the next century, with the launch of NASA's Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP) and the European Space Agency's PLANCK missions. These will use the heat left over from the big bang to try yet another way of measuring Omega and Lambda, which may lay the question to rest for good ("Genesis to Exodus", New Scientist," 19 October 1996, p 30).
Flat Universe means no contraction
Andre Linde, Scientific American, Sept 1997
"A second trouble spot is the flatness of space. General relativity suggests that space may be very curved, with a typical radius on the order of the Planck length, or 10^-33 centimeter. We see however, that our universe is just about flat on a scale of 10^28 centimeters, the radius of the observable part of the universe. This result of our observation differs from theoretical expectations by more than 60 orders of magnitude." [Messuer is a leading physicist and one of the first to invent the inflationary universe theory]
ABC News.com: Scientists: Universe is Flat another link Physics. ucsb.edu
Wayne Hu of the Institute for Advanced Studies, School of Natural Sciences in New Jersey said "temperature maps of the CMB form a snapshot image of the Universe when it was extremely young." "The...result supports a flat universe, which means that the total mass and energy density of the universe is equal to the so-called critical density," Wu wrote. "A perfectly flat universe will remain at the critical density and keep on expanding forever, because there is not enough matter to make it recollapse in a 'big crunch.'"
c) End of Universe reveals begining--universe would have already ceased.
Energy of the universe is being expended, as it burns up,it becomes useless for work. The fate of the universe will be eventual death in ciy darkness as all of its suns burn out and their energy disipates][New Scientist, April 1999, oct. 96
"But even if the Universe lives forever, its inhabitants will not be so lucky. A mere thousand billion years from now, all the stars will have used up their fuel and fizzled out. There will still be occasional flashes in the perpetual night: the death throes of stars so large that they have collapsed in on themselves to form black holes. Even these will eventually evaporate in a blast of radiation. For the next 10122 years, this Hawking radiation will be the only show in town. By then even the most massive black holes will evaporate, leaving the Universe with nothing to do for an unimaginable 10 to the power of 1026 years. Quantum theory then predicts that atoms of iron--the most stable of all elements--will undergo "tunnelling" and disappear into tiny black holes, which will themselves end in a final fizz of Hawking radiation. In the beginning there may have been light, but in the end, it seems, there will be nothing but darkness. ".[New Scientist April 1999]
Given infintie time and possibility all potentialities would have already come to fruition, the chain would have already been broken before our universe came into being. This just illustrates the impossibility of an infinte series of events. (being a series of events it would be "in time" so it's really redundant to say "an infinite series of events in time.") In other words, if this universe drifts apart because it lacks mass to produce omega, than the last universe would have too because energy and matter would be the same amount, just formulated differenlty (energy cannot be created or destroyed). The absurdity of the notion of an infinite series of big bang/cruches is driven home; how could there be an "infinite" series if one of the links in the chain can't make it? It can't "already be infifinte" and then stop because infinite means no begining and no end.
Note: If the Skeptic does not agree to this principle, that given infinite time every possibility comes to fruition than he can neither argue infinite chances nor multiple universes against the Antrhopic argument.
d) Universe contains finite stock of order, connot be eternal (because it would have burned out by now)
*Scientific conesnsus:
Paul Davies, in his article, "Space-time Singularities and Cosmology," says,"If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme,we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of space-time, through such an extremity. For this reason, most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view, the Big Bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the MATTER and ENERGY in the universe, but also of space-time itself."[ P. C. W.Davies, "Space-time Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1978), pp. 78-79.]
* Laws of Physics break down at singularity
The laws of physics break down at the singularity. 1st Thermo. would apply after the Big Bang, then the fixed amount of energy that is "put in" to the universe (as Davies puts it) would be finite (in quantity) and subject to 1st and 2nd Thermo.
* 1 LTD applies to matter also. Thirdly, the 1st Law of Thermo. applies to matter ALSO. If you argue that energy is eternal, you've got to argue that matter is eternal, which goes against all the empirical evidence we have for the Big Bang.
* 2 LTD Energy burn to heat death
Fourthly, if you opt for 1st Thermo. before the Big Bang, try being consistent and applying 2nd Thermo. as well. If the energy (AND matter) of the universe is eternal, it would have reached MAXIMUM heat death an INFINITE amount of time ago.
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies, in his book God and the New Physics, states:
"If the universe has a finite stock of order, and is changing irreversibly towards disorder - ultimately to thermodynamic equilibrium - two very deep inferences follow immediately. The first is that the universe will eventually die, wallowing, as it were, in its own entropy. This is known among physicists as the 'heat death' of the universe. The second is that the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist."
If you deny that the universe has a finite stock of order, you are essentially denying the 1st law of thermodynmics, as it requires a fixed finite amount of matter and energy. (check your Encyc. Britannica)
In your wider universe, does the 1st law of Thermodynamics apply WITHOUT the second? What reversed the entropy of this eternally existent universe? As we saw above, a universe containing eternal matter and energy would have reached maximum entropy an INFINITE amount of time ago. What organizing principle intervened 11-15 billion years ago and organized all that energy and matter that was no longer available for work? What or who (or Who) woundthe universe up?
Fifthly, we observe that the universe is expanding uniformly in all directions. Had the universe existed for an infinite period of time, the density of matter would have become zero. (Koons) How do you explain the observable expansion of the universe? We measure the recession velocity of distant galaxies by using Cepheid variables, type Ia supernovas, and now Red Clumps as standard candles. And the microwave background radiation and redshift (doppler effect that skews the red portion of thespectrum of starlight in proportion to the distance of the star) confirm this expansion also. Futhermore, within the very field equations of General Relativity, is embedded the fact of the expansion and decceleration of the universe. There are now 19 proofs of General Relativity in 12 isolated areas of Physics,making it the most exhaustively proven principle. Are you saying that General Relativity does not apply to our universe as a whole?!! It is accurate to better than a trillionth of a percent precision. Where is your scientific evidence for A) seperate portions of the universe which General Relativity does not describe B) seperate universes? If its not falsifiable, and there's no evidence for it, then its just not a threat to the standardBB model as it is not scientific.
JD:A few scientific proposal to submit this theory would be as
lined out as follows: 1) chaotic inflation 2) brane cosmology models,
including the ekpyrotic model in which the Big Bang is the result of a
collision between branes 3) an oscillatory universe in which the early
universe’s hot, dense state resulted from the Big Crunch of a universe
similar to ours. The universe could have gone through an infinite number of
big bangs and big crunches. The cyclic extemsion of the ekpyrotic model is
a modern version of such a scenario.
Meta: Sorry, the cyclical universe, or the "inifnite number of bangs and cruches" has been basically disproven and is all but abandoned. It is disproven by the lambda force and the other three things I spoke of. Chaotic inflation is just a theory with no facts to back it up. None of those theories really disprove the necessity of prior conditions meaning the universe is contingent upon an eternal origin, not that is etneral itself.
JD:Obviously there is no reason to assert that Big Bang cosmology either
contridicts itself or requires supernatural explanations to justify iteslf.
Meta: Again I didn't say eihter of those.
JD:The theory certainly can be interpreted as the beginning of the magnificent
explosion and expansion of the material universe, that before this extreme
change there was the dense-hot state of a gravitational singularity, and
that prior to this singularity and explosion there was an eternal state of
natural existence; that in any case matter-energy is eternal and
indestructible as defined by the Law of the Conservation of Mass and
requires absolutely no supernatrual force or miracle.
Meta: Sorry, you could say that, but no scientific theory postulates that mater-energy sat around in the singulairty etenrally; the major idea is that it was created in the Big bang itself, see Odewald from NASA. Also I suggest that an the idea of a natural contignecy being eternal is a contradiction in terms. All natural existants are contingencies, the very meaning of naturlism is contingnecy.
JD:Here is a quote from
the humanist Corliss Lamont: “Thus creative matter needs no ultimate
theistic power to sustain it, no Divine Principle to impregnate it with the
capacity of flowering as a whirling nebula containing billions of stars, as
a warming and light giving sun or as a fertile planet that produces all the
wondrous forms of life, and at their apex the human race and it’s
indomitable powers of the mind. Matter is self-existent, self-active, self
developing, and self-enduring. It is auto-dynamic. Intellectually, there
is nothing to be gained and much to be lost for philosophy by positing a
supernatural Creator or First Cause behind the great material universe.
Meta: And this source you are quoting is authoritative why? What are the scientific credentials here?
JD: If
everything has a definite cause, the God, too, must have a definite cause
and so on ad infinitum.
Meta:I've this babby to rest so many times I neglect to give it much work. Suffice to say: God is a necessity, thus needs no cause since "he" is eternal. Mater-energy is contingency and thus need a cause.M/E could fail or cease to be, and require dependence upon something ontolgocially prior (which is gravitational field) but God is eternal, meaning, cannot cease or fail or be.
JD: The fact is that regardless of how far we push our
inquiries, at one point or another we are compelled to assume something self
existent that possesses certain powers and potentialities. Otherwise we
become involved in a never ending regress of explanations and assumptions.
Meta: That's not really an argument for your side, because it's frank admittion that we need something like God, and that you have to demonstarte a neger neding regerss of explanation, which you haven't done; you try to leave it all rest in the hot dense gas of the singulairty.
Actually, my own cosmolgoical argument has moved beyond the concept of "cause." I argue "prior conditons." But I put up an early page on why God doesnt' need a cause and the universe does. I would be obliged if you would read it.
JD:God as a First Cause simply constitutes a large-scale miracle gratuitously
intruding at the alleged starting point of everything.
Meta: and that's bad? Why? What do you have to compre it to prove it's bad?
JD: Furthermore, the
argument form a First Cause takes for granted that there must have been a
beginning of the cosmos. However, no logical necessity forces us to the
conclusion that there is a beginning in time, and indeed it would seem more
sensible to accept Aristotle’s opinion that the universe is eternal.
Meta: the Big bang is beging of time and is predicated upon the idea that the universe, space/time began at a single point.
Most scientists see it this way.
Terry Herter, Cornell University, says:
"The present location and velocities of galaxies are a result of a primordial blast known as the BIG BANG. It marked:
THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE!
THE BEGINNING OF TIME!"
Astronomy 101/103 Lecture 29: Cosmology
It's real tempting to look at the singualrity like a seed with a little universe inside it just eternally wating to open. That's not the way scientiss see it, and it's not even logical because its contradiction in temrs. It can't sit around eternally and suddenly change and not be eternal anymore.
JD: In
fact, those who postulate a supernatural God as Creator or First Cause
usually attribute to it a state of eternal being and are therefore assuming,
like most nontheists, an eternally existing reality.”
Meta: But eternally existing anything would have to be ontologically necessiary, but naturlism requires ontolgocal congingency for all natursiltic phenomena.
JD:Obviously, there is no reason to assert that Big Bang cosmology or
naturalism is contradictory or reliant upon supernaturalism and theism to
justify itself and ultimately make coherent sense.
Meta: As I've already discussed, that's a rather inaccruate way of putiting it.
thanks for your views, your contribution to the blog. Rebuttle is welcome.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Guest commentary by JDHurf
This guest commentary was sent to me by a well known bloger, JDHURF. I thank him for his contribution and am happy to offer it as it is very reasonable and reasoning. I like the idea of creation understanding rather than more anger:
Metacrock,
I enjoyed reading your post on atheism, although I do not agree with all of
it. I am a secular humanist hence I am also an atheist so this post was
certainly relevant to me. I do not believe in a god, a supernatural entity,
or any form of supernatural phenomena. I believe you are mistaken with
large portions or your diatribe; I would like to show you in what ways I
believe you are mistaken and how and why you are mistaken.
However, let me begin with armistice; I do agree with your definition of
atheism: the rejection of a belief in god, not merely the lack of belief,
for as you said that would be agnosticism. Atheism is merely an epithet
used by people to define and describe ones disbelief in a god, or
supernatural entity. Atheism is also a negative-reactionary belief it does
not affirm anything rather it repudiates. Atheism relies on theism to
exist; without a belief in god, there cannot be a disbelief in god, in this
manner atheism is reactionary.
“Atheists love to think that all people are born natural atheists, which is
obviously disproved by the recent studies about brain structure and innate
ideas of God.”
Most atheists, that I know, do not assert that individuals are born atheists
naturally; this cannot be true. The newborn infant has not yet been exposed
to the idea or notion of god and therefore cannot reject and/or disbelieve
such and idea or notion. What atheists and theists alike do say is that
infants are born with out the belief in god, not that they are atheists and
reject the idea of god rather that they do not believe nor disbelieve such
an idea or notion; for they are infants and have not yet developed the
cognitive capability to do either. You mention that the idea of natural
atheists has been disproved by recent studies regarding brain structure and
an innate idea of god. What are these studies? Who has conducted them?
Where can I review these studies and view the results myself? For I am
aware of modern research into such topics through psychology and
neuroscience and I have never heard of such a study and outcome.
I would also like to address your assumption that Big Bang cosmology either
contradicts itself or needs a supernatural force or god to justify it. The
Big Bang does not require the belief that before it there was nothing or
merely a supernatural existence, all it explains is the beginnings of the
universe, as we know it today. The Big Bang theory postulates that the
universe originated in an extremely dense and hot state, and since then
space itself has expanded with the passage of time carrying the galaxies
with it. The theory does not, however, force one to assume that before this
extremely dense and hot state there was nothing or only a supernatural
existence, it is surely fair to assume that material or “real natural”
existence is in effect eternal and has no beginning nor ending in time
meaning that there was no “creation” of the universe merely a growth and
transormation. A few scientific proposal to submit this theory would be as
lined out as follows: 1) chaotic inflation 2) brane cosmology models,
including the ekpyrotic model in which the Big Bang is the result of a
collision between branes 3) an oscillatory universe in which the early
universe’s hot, dense state resulted from the Big Crunch of a universe
similar to ours. The universe could have gone through an infinite number of
big bangs and big crunches. The cyclic extemsion of the ekpyrotic model is
a modern version of such a scenario.
Obviously there is no reason to assert that Big Bang cosmology either
contridicts itself or requires supernatural explanations to justify iteslf.
The theory certainly can be interpreted as the beginning of the magnificent
explosion and expansion of the material universe, that before this extreme
change there was the dense-hot state of a gravitational singularity, and
that prior to this singularity and explosion there was an eternal state of
natural existence; that in any case matter-energy is eternal and
indestructible as defined by the Law of the Conservation of Mass and
requires absolutely no supernatrual force or miracle. Here is a quote from
the humanist Corliss Lamont: “Thus creative matter needs no ultimate
theistic power to sustain it, no Divine Principle to impregnate it with the
capacity of flowering as a whirling nebula containing billions of stars, as
a warming and light giving sun or as a fertile planet that produces all the
wondrous forms of life, and at their apex the human race and it’s
indomitable powers of the mind. Matter is self-existent, self-active, self
developing, and self-enduring. It is auto-dynamic. Intellectually, there
is nothing to be gained and much to be lost for philosophy by positing a
supernatural Creator or First Cause behind the great material universe. If
everything has a definite cause, the God, too, must have a definite cause
and so on ad infinitum. The fact is that regardless of how far we push our
inquiries, at one point or another we are compelled to assume something self
existent that possesses certain powers and potentialities. Otherwise we
become involved in a never ending regress of explanations and assumptions.
God as a First Cause simply constitutes a large-scale miracle gratuitously
intruding at the alleged starting point of everything. Furthermore, the
argument form a First Cause takes for granted that there must have been a
beginning of the cosmos. However, no logical necessity forces us to the
conclusion that there is a beginning in time, and indeed it would seem more
sensible to accept Aristotle’s opinion that the universe is eternal. In
fact, those who postulate a supernatural God as Creator or First Cause
usually attribute to it a state of eternal being and are therefore assuming,
like most nontheists, an eternally existing reality.”
Obviously, there is no reason to assert that Big Bang cosmology or
naturalism is contradictory or reliant upon supernaturalism and theism to
justify itself and ultimately make coherent sense.
I am a secular humanism and an atheist, I believe that the universe is
entirely natural and requires absolutely no supernatural definitions in
order to understand it. Scientifically there is no reason to resort to
supernatural and occult postulates. You put forth one of the most
intelligible arguments against atheism, naturalism, and for theism that I
have read, however, it was flawed and does not, in any case, make a solid
case or prove your thesis. Again I would ask what studies and experiments
you where referring to in the beginning? I want very badly to review these
studies for myself and view the procedures and results, please share.
Sincerely
Jeremy
Metacrock,
I enjoyed reading your post on atheism, although I do not agree with all of
it. I am a secular humanist hence I am also an atheist so this post was
certainly relevant to me. I do not believe in a god, a supernatural entity,
or any form of supernatural phenomena. I believe you are mistaken with
large portions or your diatribe; I would like to show you in what ways I
believe you are mistaken and how and why you are mistaken.
However, let me begin with armistice; I do agree with your definition of
atheism: the rejection of a belief in god, not merely the lack of belief,
for as you said that would be agnosticism. Atheism is merely an epithet
used by people to define and describe ones disbelief in a god, or
supernatural entity. Atheism is also a negative-reactionary belief it does
not affirm anything rather it repudiates. Atheism relies on theism to
exist; without a belief in god, there cannot be a disbelief in god, in this
manner atheism is reactionary.
“Atheists love to think that all people are born natural atheists, which is
obviously disproved by the recent studies about brain structure and innate
ideas of God.”
Most atheists, that I know, do not assert that individuals are born atheists
naturally; this cannot be true. The newborn infant has not yet been exposed
to the idea or notion of god and therefore cannot reject and/or disbelieve
such and idea or notion. What atheists and theists alike do say is that
infants are born with out the belief in god, not that they are atheists and
reject the idea of god rather that they do not believe nor disbelieve such
an idea or notion; for they are infants and have not yet developed the
cognitive capability to do either. You mention that the idea of natural
atheists has been disproved by recent studies regarding brain structure and
an innate idea of god. What are these studies? Who has conducted them?
Where can I review these studies and view the results myself? For I am
aware of modern research into such topics through psychology and
neuroscience and I have never heard of such a study and outcome.
I would also like to address your assumption that Big Bang cosmology either
contradicts itself or needs a supernatural force or god to justify it. The
Big Bang does not require the belief that before it there was nothing or
merely a supernatural existence, all it explains is the beginnings of the
universe, as we know it today. The Big Bang theory postulates that the
universe originated in an extremely dense and hot state, and since then
space itself has expanded with the passage of time carrying the galaxies
with it. The theory does not, however, force one to assume that before this
extremely dense and hot state there was nothing or only a supernatural
existence, it is surely fair to assume that material or “real natural”
existence is in effect eternal and has no beginning nor ending in time
meaning that there was no “creation” of the universe merely a growth and
transormation. A few scientific proposal to submit this theory would be as
lined out as follows: 1) chaotic inflation 2) brane cosmology models,
including the ekpyrotic model in which the Big Bang is the result of a
collision between branes 3) an oscillatory universe in which the early
universe’s hot, dense state resulted from the Big Crunch of a universe
similar to ours. The universe could have gone through an infinite number of
big bangs and big crunches. The cyclic extemsion of the ekpyrotic model is
a modern version of such a scenario.
Obviously there is no reason to assert that Big Bang cosmology either
contridicts itself or requires supernatural explanations to justify iteslf.
The theory certainly can be interpreted as the beginning of the magnificent
explosion and expansion of the material universe, that before this extreme
change there was the dense-hot state of a gravitational singularity, and
that prior to this singularity and explosion there was an eternal state of
natural existence; that in any case matter-energy is eternal and
indestructible as defined by the Law of the Conservation of Mass and
requires absolutely no supernatrual force or miracle. Here is a quote from
the humanist Corliss Lamont: “Thus creative matter needs no ultimate
theistic power to sustain it, no Divine Principle to impregnate it with the
capacity of flowering as a whirling nebula containing billions of stars, as
a warming and light giving sun or as a fertile planet that produces all the
wondrous forms of life, and at their apex the human race and it’s
indomitable powers of the mind. Matter is self-existent, self-active, self
developing, and self-enduring. It is auto-dynamic. Intellectually, there
is nothing to be gained and much to be lost for philosophy by positing a
supernatural Creator or First Cause behind the great material universe. If
everything has a definite cause, the God, too, must have a definite cause
and so on ad infinitum. The fact is that regardless of how far we push our
inquiries, at one point or another we are compelled to assume something self
existent that possesses certain powers and potentialities. Otherwise we
become involved in a never ending regress of explanations and assumptions.
God as a First Cause simply constitutes a large-scale miracle gratuitously
intruding at the alleged starting point of everything. Furthermore, the
argument form a First Cause takes for granted that there must have been a
beginning of the cosmos. However, no logical necessity forces us to the
conclusion that there is a beginning in time, and indeed it would seem more
sensible to accept Aristotle’s opinion that the universe is eternal. In
fact, those who postulate a supernatural God as Creator or First Cause
usually attribute to it a state of eternal being and are therefore assuming,
like most nontheists, an eternally existing reality.”
Obviously, there is no reason to assert that Big Bang cosmology or
naturalism is contradictory or reliant upon supernaturalism and theism to
justify itself and ultimately make coherent sense.
I am a secular humanism and an atheist, I believe that the universe is
entirely natural and requires absolutely no supernatural definitions in
order to understand it. Scientifically there is no reason to resort to
supernatural and occult postulates. You put forth one of the most
intelligible arguments against atheism, naturalism, and for theism that I
have read, however, it was flawed and does not, in any case, make a solid
case or prove your thesis. Again I would ask what studies and experiments
you where referring to in the beginning? I want very badly to review these
studies for myself and view the procedures and results, please share.
Sincerely
Jeremy
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Monday, December 05, 2005
Merry Christmas to message boarders
Well I tried a humarous post, but it seems my brother was right when he warned me not to expect many people to relate to my sense of humar. it seems a lot of people have understanidng or relating to my humar. So I think it best that I just give a serious message. I am deeplly concerned about what I see happening on message boards. I find it much harder to communicate or build trust with people who have different views than my own. I am thnking that is the result of something that has happened the sub cluture of atheists. It's probably a backlash to the major culture of Bush world. That's the rub, I find that atheist and fundametnalists are just flip sides to the same coin.
But as christians we are called to love. Love is the center, it's the basis of it all. In my opinion love is the background of the moral universe. that means morality is tested and understood and is only meaning amid a context of love. Love is the basic character of God. As christians we are to open our hearts to the Holy Spirit so that he will pour God's love into our hearts and then we take it out into the world. (Romans 5:1).
it's easy to be side tracked from this when people don't want our love and or don't seem to want God's love. It's easy to overlook how people have been hurt. I think the anger and bitterness I see in the atheist world now is a reflection of a reation to what they see in the main stream cluture dominated by a political truth regeieme that fancies itself the messerger of God and the kingdom of God, and which is odious to all those who are not willing to play it Bushes way.
I would have thought that the atheists would appreciate liberal theology more, but somehow they seem to resent it more. I don't understand that. They seem stuck in this idea that only the fundies can be the true christians and seem to resnet attempts to make christain doctirne more intelligeable to the world. On one such message board they call that "Jesus lite." As though it can only be treuly of Jesus when it is narrowminded and angry.
To be assuailed by 30 people calling you names and cursing at you just because you wanted to tell them about other ways of looking the gospels, asidie from committing them to flames, is very disconcerting and tends to make it hard to give a loving response. When I have time to think about it, however, I have to because I was an atheist and I have to undersatnd something of where they are coming from.
I am hoping we can bury all of this in Christmas and just get into good vibes. Try to remember what Christmas is about. It's about redeemption, it's about saving the world.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Atheism Vanishes
Atheists sure insist upon the notion that atheism is just a natural lack of belief in something, yet nothing could be further from the truth. Almost every dictionary definition before the 1990s said that Atheism was the rejection of belief in God.
Now most include two things (1) rejection (2) mere lack. Why? Because with he advent of the Internet age atheism got a new lease on life and was given this organizing tool, it began crowding out agnosticism. Agnosticism began to appear in the guise of "weak atheism." Then atheism became a mere lack of belief that sees itself as a natural default position. Atheists love to think that all people are born natural atheists, which is obviously disprove by the recent studies about brain structure and innate ideas of God.
Atheism has never been merely a lack of belief. If you were honest about what you really think, your behavior and tendencies, it always accompanies certain assumptions about the nature of the world, about naturalism and about physical laws.Athemis is clearly more than just the lack of a belief, which really should be called "agnosticism."
Among the many assumptions that go into atheist position is the one about a default assumption. Atheists like to tell themselves that since atheism is merely a lack of belief, babies are born with no belief, thus babies are born atheists. They like to say that because they are so overwhelmed by the general population that's the only way they can feel good about their numbers. Seriously, that's a joke, but really it is indicative of the notion of a "default" assumption. They think that since atheism is merely lack of belief then there must be a default, a position one falls back upon in the abases of proof, and that position is, of course, atheism since lack of proof should logically yield lack of belief--i.e. "atheism" in their view.
Of course the default assumption is undermined by the evidence on "God Pod" and other evidence which makes it clear that there is a religious instinct.
I've always thought the atheist default position was pretentious and presumptive, and designed by someone who just lionized atheism. But there should be a religious default position to the extent that there's no particular reason to assume naturalism over any other position. The world doesn't come to us wrapped in philosophical labels. We have to go to school and teach them, and most of the time they play on our prejudices. There's no reason to validate one over another form the outset.
But my religious a prior argument would argue that religion is not derivative from other disciplines but is a valid thing in itself own right. As such we can assume the properly basic nature of religious belief as a 'default" position
1) The notion of something from nothing violates basic assumptions of materialism
a. Materialism based upon cause and effect
Dictionary of Philosophy Anthony Flew, article on "Materialism"
"...The belief that everything that exists is ether matter or entirely dependent upon matter for its existence." Center For Theology and the Natural Sciences Contributed by: Dr. Christopher Southgate: God, Humanity and the Cosmos (T&T Clark, 1999) Is the Big Bang a Moment of Creation?
"...Beyond the Christian community there was even greater unease. One of the fundamental assumptions of modern science is that every physical event can be sufficiently explained solely in terms of preceding physical causes. Quite apart from its possible status as the moment of creation, the Big Bang singularity is an offense to this basic assumption. Thus some philosophers of science have opposed the very idea of the Big Bang as irrational and intestable."
b) Something from nothing contradicts materialism
Science and The Modern World, Alfred North Whitehead
NY: free Press, 1925, (1953) p. 76
"We are content with superficial orderings form diverse arbitrary starting points ... science which is employed in their development [modern thought] is based upon a philosophy which asserts that physical cassation is supreme, and which disjoins the physical cause from the final end. It is not popular to dwell upon the absolute contradiction here involved."[Whitehead was an atheist]
c) Causality was the basis upon which God was expelled from Modern Science
It was La Plase's famous line "I have no need of that Hypothosis" [meaning God] Which turned the scientific world form beliving (along with Newton and assuming that order in nature proved design) to unbelief on the principle that we don't' need God to explain the univrese because we have independent naturalistic cause and effete. [Numbers, God and Nature]
2) Materialism Undermines Itself
a) Big Bang contradicts causality (see quotation above)
b) QM theory seems to contradict cause/effect relationship.
c) Rejection of final cause
3) Probabilistic Justification for assumption of Cause
We still have a huge justification for assuming causes inductively, since nothing in our experience is ever uncaused. The mere fact that we can't see or find a cause isn't a proof that there isn't one.
4) Therefore, we have probabilistic justification for assuming Final cause
Thus, the basis upon which God was dismissed from scientific thought has been abandoned; the door to consideration of God is open again. The reliance upon naturalistic cause and effect in consideration of ultimate origins is shattered, but this does not make it rational to just assume that the universe pooped into existence with no cause. Since we have vast precedent for assuming cause and effect, we should continue to do so. But since naturalistic cause and effect seems unnecessary at the cosmic level, we should consider the probability of an ultimate necessary final cause.
I've been attacked by atheists saying that this position betrays modern science. But it is modern atheism that betrays modern science, because this position flows right out of a historically conscious take on materialism. The problem is atheist ear OT historically conscious. They have already abanonded the basic philosophical premises which took them into the modern world and which seemed to give them an edge over Christianity and religious thought, and most of them don't seem to care. Like my argument on "Materialism vanishes" I think modern atheism vansihes.
We don't have atheists anymore. What we relay have is a bunch of people with a default assumption for not having a belief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)