Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re: OT:Thanksgiving



"Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0jSgj.43755$Mu4.5848@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"tim Josling" <tejgcc_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Judson McClendon wrote:

I follow Clark's logic, but don't agree, because I believe it is
incomplete.
For several months my mind has been gnawing around the edges of some
ideas
that I have strong suspicion can be formulated into a formal logical
proof
that, for a Creator to have created a consistent universe, that Creator
would, of necessity, have to be "good", and could not be "bad" or
inconsistent. I haven't quite "got my teeth into it" yet, but the
comments
above are so closely related, I thought I would mention it.

Observation:
------------

One of the arguments for religion is that without god there
is no basis more morality.

More accurately, without God, there is no absolute basis for morality.

So that makes me immoral, according to you. If I was the kind of person who
resented such impugnment, I'd probably march to war on you and those like
you...

See how Religion causes wars?


I have not seen you make this argument, but he implication of your post
is
that you have a standard for goodness / morality that is independent of
any god.

Those parameters would have to be defined in any proof, of course.

Argument from first cause:
--------------------------

In earlier posts you used the first cause argument for the
existence of god. Let me summarise the flaws in this argument.

1. Even in physics, not everything has a cause. According to modern
physics, only probabilities are determined. The result of an experiment
is
fundamentally indeterminate. Numerous experiments to probe the nature of
this indeterminacy have confirmed it at every stage. Look up the EPR
paradox.

The takeout is that not everything has to have a cause, even in physics.

Invalid reasoning.

No it isn't. It is observable fact. You just refuse to accept it. (Do you
wonder why I won't present hard evidence in support of OO... :-)?)

Result doesn't have to be absolute for there to be a
cause. Firing a gun at someone's head may not kill them, but if it does
kill them it is the cause of death. Influencing probability is sufficient
"effect" for a "cause".

2. The first cause argument conflates two different meanings for the word
"cause". A cause in physics is a set of circumstances that invariably
lead
to a following set of circumstances at a later time.

Already invalidated above.

Only in your mind.

Result need not be absolute for there to be
a cause. Simply influencing probablity is quite sufficient. That's a real
no-brainer, Tim. :-)

You certainly seem to using no brain to demonstrate it... :-)


The "cause" of the
universe as a whole is a different thing. When considering the universe
as
a whole, you are outside time and therefore outside causality as we know
it.

On what logical basis do you say it's a "different thing"? If nothing in
this universe happens without a cause (fact), by what flight of illogic
does one *assume* that the universe itself did not need a cause? Just
make it up and claim it as fact? ;-)

Er... it was YOU who claimed that God created the Universe by being outside
it...

The takeout is that the idea of "first" cause has nothing to do with
causality and the attempt to use causality in this way is bogus.

Again, invalid reasoning on faulty (actually missing) premise.

Only invalid reasoning here is yours...

3. Even in physics there is no need for a first cause. Each event can be
caused by a prior event. There need not be a first event. (We don't know
what was before the big bang, assuming it did happen). Consider this
analogy. Each integer has an integer before it. Eg 3 is preceded by 2.
-100 is preceded by -101. There is no "first" integer. Similarly there
need not be a "first" cause.

Physics has nothing to say about things external to the universe.

That's right. Physics is based on real observable phenomena and rightly
recognises that events outside a frame of reference do not affect that frame
of reference.

Supposing
a series of (obviously and provably) connected events "just happened"
without
any cause is, on the face of it, preposterous.

As has been noted here on a number of occasions, with examples, by myself
and others, there is nothing "preposterous" about it (other than the
consideration that most of what happens in Quantum Physics is "preposterous"
when considered in the light of our perception...). Nevertheless,
"preposterous" or not, these effects DO occur. It IS a wave AND a particle,
photons DO go through both slits simultaneously unless you don't want them
to, the cat is neither alive nor dead until you open the box, and simply
observing what is going on affects the results. There is much more here than
we perceive and it has nothing to do with God. It simply reflects our, as
yet, imperfect understanding of the Universe. But we are getting there, and
the requirement to make some Supreme Being responsible for it all,
diminishes as our understanding increases.

I like the story in Genesis. The fruit of the Tree of Knowledge is indeed
powerful. One day (when we have acquired the necessary skill and
understanding), we'll tell God to sod off and build our own garden...


Mention physical principles,
then throw them out the window by fiat with no basis in observable fact?
One
can "prove" any number of things using such methods. ;-)

4. Even if you got past all this and believed you had shown there must be
a first cause, there is no information to link such a first cause to the
author of any of very many texts purporting to represent the
definitive word on spiritual matters.

Got past what? You have yet to state even a flimsy valid opposition.
Sorry Tim, I fail to see any revelance to the discussion.

Is that a problem with his argument or with your ocular perception?


No-one knows why the universe is as it is and not some other way. I would
love to know, but these sorts of arguments don't help.

If God created it, He knows.
And if He didn't, then He doesn't. So what?

If you a priori chuck that explanation out
window, as you blithely did physical principles above, and it's the
correct
one, then you'll never know, will you? :-)

And if it is NOT the correct one, continued investigation will lead to
better understanding of it, so he WILL know, won't he? :-)

Guess which horse I'm backing...

Pete.
--
"I used to write COBOL...now I can do anything."


.

Loading