Evidence for God from Science

StMonicaGuideMe on Mon Nov 21, 2011 10:41 am

And how truly sad that is for them, to be in such denial. And that denial may cost them their souls.

Their anger towards God or religious people, often bad people, lands them in such denial. Most often, there is less rationality and more emotion behind it.

That is so true, Neo! This is remarkably evident in the aggressive statements they make about the nature of God, " why would a loving God (dripping with sarcasm) massacre millions of people with a flood? why would that same God let all this suffering continue? " etc etc etc. They are mostly ignorant statements, fueled by hateful sentiment and influenced most likely by one of the Four Atheists of the Apocalypse

Echoside wrote:the second scenario has purpose imo, which is the reason I disagree with the idea that it's a purposeless existence. I don't believe that the concept of purpose requires a God to give us that purpose, rather the only way to have purpose is live in an existence created by God. It's a subtle difference, which is why I said the point is moot; you gave a hypothetical scenario which I think is an impossibility.

Since this thread was bumped up, I thought I'd add my input here.

I am rather surprised that no one has pointed at this with any sort of microscope.


Life either has a purpose or it doesn't and is absurd. When you give your life purpose when there isn't one, that is called the noble lie. That's all I have to contribute here.

domokunrox wrote: Life either has a purpose or it doesn't and is absurd.

Agreed

domokunrox wrote: When you give your life purpose when there isn't one, that is called the noble lie. That's all I have to contribute here.

This may just be a difference in definitions, I'd say being eternal is one of the prereqs for purpose. And since I don't believe this type of existence is possible without God I was just playing the hypothetical. If the only thing absent is God then all the things needed for purpose still exist, but can that happen? I don't think so.

Echoside wrote:This may just be a difference in definitions, I'd say being eternal is one of the prereqs for purpose. And since I don't believe this type of existence is possible without God I was just playing the hypothetical. If the only thing absent is God then all the things needed for purpose still exist, but can that happen? I don't think so.

Hmmm...well, can you explain further? You say theres a prereq for being eternal, but how did you come to that conclusion?

Your hypothetical just seems half baked and doesn't seem like you gave it a whole lot of extended thought.

Theres plenty of things you should define first. Like...

What is a person?
What does it mean to be a person?
How do you know what a person is?
What is the character of a person?
Where does cause of persons end?

I mean, unknowingly to you, it seems like you're taking 2 sides for "who created God?" but just rewording it.
Even the most famous radical epistemologist and empirist (David Hume) would not concede that events happen without a reason.

To him causality (constant conjunction) exists only inside nature. He results to only say that "The order of the world is not perfect" despite conceding that the order of the world justifies that it is designed. His justification for denying personhood of creation is that the universe is "partly ordered" and not "completely ordered" thus "limited in intelligence and power". Which is just a sort of antique atheist's way of saying the problem of evil.

The ideas from the epistemologist can only be quantity or impression. This is a grave error in reason. Yet, how can anyone who buys into this say they believe their impressions and ideas are rational or right? Resorting to the naturalist fallacy and call it a principal?

Its a constant dodge. It goes round and round. The causality can only exist IN NATURE like a 1 circle view. Ultimately, it is saying that nature caused itself unless you can count it or see it.

domokunrox wrote:Hmmm...well, can you explain further? You say theres a prereq for being eternal, but how did you come to that conclusion?

Most theists deny the opposite, for example they say an atheist cannot have purpose because their lives are rather fleeting on the grand scheme of things.

domokunrox wrote:Your hypothetical just seems half baked and doesn't seem like you gave it a whole lot of extended thought.

I'm responding to the questions asked by the OP, and one of them to me is just a hypothetical since I don't believe the condition can exist in the first place (without God).
I didn't invent anything.

You didn't really answer my question.

How do you figure that a prerequisite for being eternal is that it must have purpose? I would like to hear about that.

2nd, your answer to the question is in fact hypothetical. However, you didn't really put effort. Again, the noble lie.

Do we have purpose?
Yes? So why do you presuppose that an eternal being has purpose and that its a prerequisite for eternal being?
No? How do you conclude that life doesn't need meaning?

domokunrox wrote: How do you figure that a prerequisite for being eternal is that it must have purpose? I would like to hear about that.

I think that eternal things at the very least are capable of having purpose. I'm just operating off of conventional wisdom, that atheism is purposeless because of it's finite nature and theism purposeful because of an afterlife.

I am curious though, what do you think the requirements of purpose are?

Conventional wisdom? Ok. That's...uh....what exactly?

What do I think is the requirements of purpose? You are talking about everything or just persons?
first off, the excluding of persons from purpose would commit the taxicab fallacy.
On that note, purpose is tricky. However, I hold the view that ALL CREATED people, actions, and "objects" have an author AND purpose. It is a metaphysical requirement. Also, to elaborate on authorship. All authorship HAS evidence of order and displays intelligibility. All authorship does NOT require observational evidence, and authorship of itself. Authorship CANNOT have subjective purpose or meaning in its propositional content.

That's pretty much off the top of my head. I am probably missing a few details because im sleepy.

domokunrox wrote:Conventional wisdom? Ok. That's...uh....what exactly?

What do I think is the requirements of purpose? You are talking about everything or just persons?
first off, the excluding of persons from purpose would commit the taxicab fallacy.
On that note, purpose is tricky. However, I hold the view that ALL CREATED people, actions, and "objects" have an author AND purpose. It is a metaphysical requirement. Also, to elaborate on authorship. All authorship HAS evidence of order and displays intelligibility. All authorship does NOT require observational evidence, and authorship of itself. Authorship CANNOT have subjective purpose or meaning in its propositional content.

That's pretty much off the top of my head. I am probably missing a few details because i'm sleepy.

I don't think Echo is wrong and i don't think he has said anything contradictory to you, it seems rather you've just elaborated more on the subject.

Hmm yeah i definitely agree with you about All Created things have an author and purpose as it is a metaphysical requirement.

Quick question/clarification though, would that mean that it does not make sense to say that God has a purpose ? it seems to make sense since all created things have purpose for their existence but it ummm lol sounds weird hmm....

Cet-to

The statements Echoside makes clearly show he likes to play on both teams. My involvement is that I am simply pointing out that he concludes correctly finding THE truth, but quickly turns around asserts a sort of subjective naturalist position.

I clearly see that his analysis is purposely half baked. It doesnt fool me at all. All the cogs and sprockets in the machine of inductive reasoning work only when he wants it to. He doesn't want an narrow, exclusive, absolute answer. He simply refuses to conclude that meaningful actions are objective, and rather implicitily "play the part".

I give him the benefit that he may or may not know what he wants to pressupose. However, I safely assume he presupposes nature and the cogs only turn in that circle.

You make a point though.

Perhaps we should define casualty and purpose(meaning). Are they the same?

Echoside wrote:I disagree with (2) as all the things absent in (1) still exist, but I can't imagine an afterlife scenario that doesn't include some sort of God so the point is moot anyways.

I can't really see anyone disagreeing with (1).

Dom, this is my original response to the question. Reasons were given as to why scenario (1) is purposeless, going off the OP's definition. Clearly, scenario (2) has all the things which the absence of make (1) lack in purpose.

However, even getting to the hypothetical world where scenario (2) exists IMO requires God. So while the scenario itself isn't invalid, I don't believe it is possible.

This is just for clarification, as I'm really not sure what you seem to be arguing against. Could you give me an example of something I said rather than just asserting that I am incorrect? I may very well be mistaken on an idea I put forth, but telling me I'm being dishonest or two-faced in my opinions without something for me to examine myself isn't very helpful.

I think am I being misunderstood here or maybe I did express myself wrong.

I am not picking on you Echoside. I don't even feel like I am disagreeing with you. I was just pointing this thread into the right direction and make obvious corrections.

Impossible scenarios shouldn't stop us from bringing us back to reality.

1 word here: Authorship