Sheldon Liberman <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406A5BE9.4020203@sympatico.ca...
sAnToLiNa wrote:
Sheldon Liberman <sheldon.liberman@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:406A2A3D.90003@sympatico.ca...
Skepticus wrote:
Nomen Nescio wrote:
... let the
matter of creation remain unanswerable. ...
But it is not 'unanswerable', Russell showed that there cannot possibly
be a first cause/creator of everything (call it X), due to the fatal
problem of a logically inconsistent special pleading for X inherent in
the very idea of it:
"The argument that there must be a first cause is one that cannot have
any validity. If anything must have a cause, then God must have a
cause.
If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the
world [universe, everything that exists] as God." -- Lord Bertrand
Russell (1872 - 1970)
The idea comes in dead on arrival (DOA) due to that fatal problem.
If you doubt it, just try to craft any logically consistent argument
for
any imaginable first cause/creator, one that does not have an inherent
special pleading.
Post it here:
Russell's arguments are built on a foundation the first cause argument
cannot be extended to its logical conclusion; that is, if we accept the
idea that the universe had a cause in G-d then we would be left to
question G-d's origins. In other words, something has be be infinite,
therefore let it be the universe. But why?
No, Russell says that if something is infinite it "may just as well" be
the
universe. It's a more parsimonious explanation than positing a personal
being for whom no evidence exists.
You mean other than eye witness accounts by over 2 million Jews at Sinai?
Are you telling me that you and two million Jews experienced God, whatever
that may be, at Sinai?
Look at it another way: For G-d to have created the universe, He must
neccesarily have the ability to shield Himself from detection by
whatever science man, in his limited ability, could derive as a means of
discovery.
Why?
Self-evident. To create the universe is to have created the physical
laws that govern it.
More like nonsensical. A being that creates a world that operates under
certain laws, yet he himself is entirely outside those laws -- why even
consider such a silly notion.
Alternatively, He could chose to make science the means by
which man would be aware or His existence.
Why might G-d chose to hide Himself from physical detection? In dealing
with this question, we need to understand that our concept of Him is
that of an infinite being. In other words, He has no needs or wants.
So why act at all?
Ask Him. You children might ask the same of you.
God has no needs or wants, yet acts. You don't see the illogic in that?
Therefore, all of His actions are for the benefit of man, whether or not
man is able to understand the benefit at the time of his having
received it.
Why would one create beings and then act for their benefit if one has no
needs or wants?
I don't don't why He would do anything.
Yet you are perfectly comfortable positing the existence of a being with no
needs or wants, yet acts, though you have no idea how or why he does any of
it. That's just a wee bit absurd, you know.
I'm not at His level. Just
because we don't understand doesn't make it false.
In fact, it DOES make it false in a sense. There is no point in wasting
time positing beings for whom there is no evidence, who act for no reason,
in ways that are unintelligible to humans. You have a limited time on
earth, you know, why don't you spend it investigating things that you CAN
know, rather than unknowable nonsense?
But what man certainly knows the benefit of is personal freedom.
God has no needs or wants, yet created man in order that man might
experience personal freedom? Why?
I'll
leave it you to consider the alternative scenario: a world where there
is no longer a free will choice between good and evil.
This is in fact what christians long for most.
Projecting what, exactly?
Since this is cross-posted to alt.religion.christian I just thought I'd
point out that the ultimate goal of christians is to reach a place where
there is ONLY communion with good and no possibility of evil. That would
describe the vast majority of christians, at least.
Back to Russell. He chooses the belief that the universe is infinite in
age.
No, he points out that the "First Cause" argument is not preferable to
this
position.
We could therefore put the question back to him: why is it that man
has only shown up at this late hour, rather than billions of years ago?
What does this have to do with anything?
Pointing out that there are obviously reasons for things that man's
limited abilities hasn't access to.
Are you saying that there are unknowable reasons for why the history of life
on earth has played out the way it has? How can one even discuss such a
proposition?
The quote above was made in 1927. That was some 38 years before two
scientists named Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson stumbled upon the most
conclusive evidence to date of the validity of the "Big Bang" theory, by
which the universe was created at a fixed point in time
No, this is not what the BBT says.
Yes, it is.
No, the BBT only extrapolates to a point that it can reasonably understand.
--in truth, the
beginning of physical time. The Big Bang is the most widely embraced
explanation of the genesis of the physical universe, but is itself a
what physicists call a "quantum singularity". This is the point at which
the laws of science converge, such that any explanation of observed
phenominon would necessarily have to come from outside of science.
No, it is a point beyond which current theory is unable to see.
What lies outside of science. A priori, we couldn't begin to fathom the
possibilities,
Nothing lies outside science, by definition, at least as far as humans
are
concerned. Science encompasses all that humans can conceivably know.
I'm afraid science itself doesn't share that point of view.
Look up the root of the word.
.
