I don't believe non rational processes can form rational life. Nor can non-order form order. God gave the universe a jump start, as well as evolution and mankind, and keeps everything going.
Last edited:
Why an atheist, naturalist should NOT trust their thoughts to be true.
- Thread starter Caroljeen
- Start date
Tiburon
Well-known member
Belief in truth comes from a believing mind. The truth itself does not. If you are aiming at specifying a particular believing mind, God's, then I'd say you are wrong there also. If there is he God, then that God would have a level of certitude far beyond what we are capable of achieving. He would not therefore need to 'believe'.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
Also not proof.
NO.
Please don't put assertions in my mouth - I am challenging your assertions that
1. the laws came into existence, and
2. this could only have been due to a conscious being.
Challenging an assertion is not the same as asserting the opposite - this is a common way of attempting to shift the burden of proof.
The unproven premise is
"a godless universe would be utterly random"
It is not even known whether they "materialize" at all.
But you have asserted not only that they did, but also that a god is the only possible reason.
"Natural laws must have been the result of a god."
Temujin
Well-known member
Belief without a reason to believe, blind unthinking belief, is worthless. The reason to believe may be evidence based, it may be reached through discussion or argument, it may simply be the way you were brought up. The point at which any given person becomes convinced and believes that they now know the truth, will vary from one person to another. The evidence that convinces one person, may not touch the incredulity of another. This is all basic, obvious stuff, well illustrated within these threads.
A person convinced by evidence that their belief is true, may still be mistaken. The evidence may be misleading, or misapplied or misunderstood. Belief doesn't denote truth. It is necessary to recognise and accept the truth, but just as all that glitters is not gold, not all that is believed is true.
I will not answer any more posts on this subject by you, Tercon because I know how obsessed by this subject you are, and it would be a shame to derail an intelligent thread. There's another open thread where we can continue if you wish.
Whatsisface
Well-known member
In our case, some aggression is, or perhaps now was, a good thing to hunt and fight off predators and competing tribes. But too much aggression in individuals would lead to a break down of social cohesion. Our survival, particularly in our early days would also depend on being in a successful group.
Temujin
Well-known member
Aggression and strength are not advantageous in every evolutionary niche. Rabbits are very successful. Every trait has a benefit and a cost. The cost benefit analysis differs for every evolutionary niche.
Whatsisface
Well-known member
But we see this all the time. We are made of atoms which operate according to the laws of physics, atoms are not rational. Genetics describes a chemical process that determines how each of us are built and turn out. This process is not in itself rationally aware.
I don't think a universe could exist if it had no properties that would give it order. A natural universe would have to have order. The universe we find ourselves in is ordered by the laws of physics, what we are debating is why that universe exists.
When we look at the physics of the universe and the process of evolution, nowhere in them do we see the hand of God. God has to be inferred from what we don't know.
The universe is running down towards heat death, and the Earth and everyone on it will be destroyed long before that when the sun expands as it nears the end of it's life. That's not God keeping everything going.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
We know you don't believe it, but why shouldn't we?
Why, besides your belief that the contrary is not possible, should we believe this?
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
A god who designs a universe where he has to step in to prevent its destruction, is either
a) beholden to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or
b) inept.
...completely unguided *Without* a rational mind
I apologize for missing this jewel of a post. My laptop is a small mac air that doesn't format a response well so I don't use it to answer longish posts that I have to break up to answer. I use my desktop PC for that. When I work at home my desktop screens are being used for work...anyways this post was inadvertently missed.
I can understand somewhat how organization on a micro and macro level took place during the expansion of the universe with charged particles of electrons and protons and gravitational fields forming from larger objects that became ordered and work the same way throughout the expansion...natural laws.
I also understand that you believe that through the expansion of the universe those patterns of interactions formed "laws" without rational guidance from a Designer. You present a reasonable explanation. Not one I can agree with. I believe a Designer started the process and caused matter to have certain properties that once in motion would react certain ways and do certain things. I believe this because I've met the Designer not because I was there at the beginning of the universe.
This explanation is "rational" but, imo, it takes a leap of faith, to believe a nonrational process (like the big bang or evolution) can produce a rational product. As rational beings who are creative and can think beyond our bounds, we haven't been able to replicate a rational product from nonrational matter. Why should we think that is how we came to exist with a rational mind?
I don't blindly believe that God "just" exists. You would have a convincing case if that were true. I've interacted with Him many times over the course of many years. He is not a figment of my imagination nor do I believe because of blind faith. In order to make sense of the universe, for me, God has to be included in it because He exists.
The existence of God violates Occam's razor ...as if that is the be all and end all principle of all things. I don't accept that it has that status.
From a google search "Is Occam's razor valid?"
"Ockham was not the first to discover this principle. It has been referenced as far back as Aristotle, who wrote "the more limited, if adequate, is always preferable." Ptolomy also used the principle to guide his explanations: "it is a good principle to explain phenomena by the simplest hypothesis available." Occam's razor was first attributed to Ockham in 1852 by philosopher Sir William Hamilton as he referenced the works of Ockham.
Occam's razor makes no absolute assertions. It does not claim that the simplest answer is always correct. It merely suggests that, among all possible answers to a question, the best bet is generally the one that requires the fewest assumptions.
The Argument Against Occam's Razor
Occam's razor is a very helpful heuristic tool for deciding between theories. However, relying on a simplified version of Occam's razor could potentially lead to oversimplifying a situation.For example, if a doctor is examining a patient with a high fever and cough, they may settle on the simplest explanation: the patient has a cold. But without examining all the evidence, the doctor may miss other symptoms that reveal possible infections, allergic reactions or other life-threatening conditions.
Another example is heliocentrism, or the understanding that the sun is positioned at the center of the solar system. Astronomers Nicolaus Copernicus and Galileo Galilei had very difficult times convincing their Renaissance contemporaries that the Earth was not actually the center of the universe. It was much easier to believe that the sun revolved around the Earth and seemed to require fewer assumptions. However, with more evidence, the more complex heliocentric model is the correct one."
No, I can't because I cannot prove to you that God exists. I sincerely wish I could. I'm often frustrated that I can't.
It makes more sense, imo, that we, as rational beings, are derived from a rational source.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
Then we each believe in a rational being/s that does not have a rational source - I don't see how your footing is any more secure than is ours.
Besides, if you allow for rationality as a spectrum, and not a binary on-off quality, rationality can arise from non-rationality in the way that "lots" can arise from "few".
docphin5
Well-known member
Technically, Socrates said it. The idea is expounded in the “Analogy of the Sun”, Wikipedia. Here is a snippet.
Instead, Socrates continues, knowledge is to be found in "... that region in which truth and real being brightly shine..." (508d) This is the intelligible illuminated by the highest idea, that of goodness. Since truth and being find their source in this highest idea, only the souls that are illumined by this source can be said to possess knowledge, whereas those souls which turn away are "...mingled with darkness...". This subject is later vividly illustrated in the Allegory of the Cave (514a–520a), where prisoners bound in a dark cave since childhood are examples of these souls turned away from illumination.
In my own words, I think it means that a virtuous soul has the perfect in mind or at least working towards it, whereas, a completely sensual person is focused on pleasing his lusts, passions, desires, etc. Translated to a practical application, the criminal who steals, rapes, or pillages, IOW, acts irrationally, is seeking visible, material things to the detriment of the greater good, whereas, the virtuous soul sees the bigger picture, the greater good, maybe even the perfect good and acts accordingly. The irrational animal acts primarily to please temporary lusts of the flesh, whereas, the wise human acts primarily to please unchanging, eternal, goodness.”For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides to the aeon [English: eternity].” (1 john 2:17)
Last edited:
docphin5
Well-known member
The God or “aeon” of this material world is the devil per the New Testament. It is why the material world is defective. Orthodoxy does not know the difference between the devil who created this material world and true God who created the aeons before this material world. One or more of those aeons rebelled and formed this material world, aka, “the God of this world”.
which once ye did walk according
1) to the aeon of this world, according
2) to the ruler of the authority of the air,
3) of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience,” (Eph 2:2)
“the God of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers [and arguably orthodoxy],” (2 cor 4:4)
“For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers [Greek: kosmocrator] over this present darkness,” (Eph 6:12)
“he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the aeons (translated “world.”) (Hebrews 1:2)
“By faith we understand that the aeons (translated “universe”) was created by the word of God (Hebrews 11:3)
Therefore, according to the Bible, before the foundation of this material world, ie., before the Big Bang, an aeon, aka, devil, rebelled against Joshua, and subsequently formed this material world. Presently, Joshua has entered the devil’s house (entered this world via a moral consciousness) and is looting it of pious, virtuous souls, for his kingdom to come. In this sense, Joshua is rising IN his saints, whom he calls friends, and leading them to a perfect land flowing with milk and honey. I have given you the keys.
Last edited:
We both believe the same thing with regards to this very elegant statement.
Algor
Well-known member
Why can't order form from non order?
In any sufficiently large system, you will have areas where random fluctuations can give rise to inhomogeneities in the distribution of matte and energyr, such that energy can be locally lost or gained in a manner as to produce order within the system. Take a bunch of lithium atoms, cool them, and they will condense and even solidify into crystalline structures. Gas goes to crystal: non order to order.
Last edited:
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
The first principle is that Occam’s razor should never be reduced to, “the simplest explanation is usually the best.” It is definitely not a question of simplicity or complexity, it is always a question of rejecting hypotheses with unnecessary assumptions.
This addresses the difficulty in your doctor patient scenario. Also, any hypothesis has to address all the relevant observations and evidence.
Regarding heliocentricism, there is no violation of Occam‘s razor once all the relevant evidence is accounted for.
I don’t know if Occam’s razor is the end all and be all, but I do know it is always essential to consider when you have competing hypotheses, because applying it is just logical, that is, it is the logic of choosing hypothesis A over hypothesis B when they both explain all relevant observations, they both account for all the evidence, but hypothesis B includes an assumption that A doesn’t. That’s all Occam’s razor is.
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
nt
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
Crystallization is a change in form, or in the case of lithium atoms a change in state from gaseous to solid, not necessarily order from non order, any more than the transformation of soggy meatballs and spaghetti into the more solidified state of a turd within our bowels is such.
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
Actually, lithium is a metal, not a gas, if I'm not mistaken.