|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper



Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 22 hours
|
"God" 1
#22364905 - 10/11/15 06:49 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
My friend told me had to write a paper responding to William Paley’s teleogical argument for the existence of God. He told me he wanted to argue in favor of God. I said, well, let me just write some stuff and tell me if you can use any of it. I ended up getting carried away with it, as usual, but here it is:
Paley’s argument is
1. The complex inner workings of a watch necessitate an intelligent designer. 2. As with a watch, the complexity of X (a particular organ or organism, the structure of the solar system, life, the universe, anything complex) necessitates a designer.
He states that the complexity of X can be determined by simply observing it. An eye, or a galaxy- like a watch- seems to be more complex than a rock; therefore- like a watch- it must have been intentionally designed.
This is the beginning of the “God of the gaps” theology:
Quote:
“God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the argument from ignorancefallacy.” (Wikipedia)
So Paley’s argument essentially just says: “Some things are the kinds of things that seem to be so simple that we can describe them without talking without talking about how they are designed, and some things are the kind of things that have to be discussed in terms of their design in order for us to understand how they work.”
But this does not mean that eyes and galaxies are in fact designed. It only means that the kind of dialogue in the English language was set up in such a way in the early 1800s that we talked about them using those kinds of words.
So, Paley’s argument is far from convincing. At the same time, it doesn’t shut the book on the possibility of intelligent design . First and foremost, philosophical arguments have suffered from the lack of recognition of one simple fact: God is just a word- a symbol. The symbol “God” or “Designer” signifies different things to different people. Trying to prove or disprove the existence of God as such is therefore a fruitless exercise unless the meaning of the word “God” or “Designer” is given a strict definition.
If we define “God” as “That which determines what is True”, we can begin to examine the two principal lines of evidence in favor intelligent design. • According to the Big Bang theory, the leading scientific account of universal origins, the beginning of the universe is said to have begun when the space-time of the Universe, which existed in the form of a singularity, began to spontaneously expand at a rate much faster than the speed of light. The acceleration and mass of the expansion were precisely those that allowed for cosmological constants which would facilitate a stable universe in which increasingly complex levels of order could exist. If the mass or acceleration had differed by even the slightest amount- trillionths of a second- the universe would exist in complete chaos. To date there is no satisfactory explanation for A) why the singularity expanded at all or B) why the cosmological constants are what they are (typically the answers to this question are, “because if they were any different, then we wouldn’t be around to experience them!”- Which is obviously circular reasoning- or “We are the one stable universe in a set of infinite mostly chaotic multiverses” ).
• Natural selection does not appear to adequately explain the physiology of the human brain. The human brain rapidly expanded regions completely that appear to be devoted to abstract reasoning, like Brodmann area 10 (which appear s to be correlated primarily with abstract reasoning) and Brodmann areas 44 and 45 (which appear to be correlated primarily with language use). While these brain regions are very useful in modern society, the selective advantage of relative encephalization among them in prehistoric eras remains unclear, particularly because the use of symbols did not develop until the last 7000 years or so, and the rate at which they and other brain regions developed is uncharacteristic of natural selection. Simply put, evolution appears to be speeding up in highly complex systems like humans.
Now, the astute atheist may say that we are simply doing the same thing Paley did, playing “God of the Gaps”: He may say that the fact that we don’t understand some facts about the big bang, or about physical anthropology YET is not a reason to invoke “God” as an explanation. And perhaps he is right.
Perhaps one day, scientists will create a complete and consistent mathematical model of the universe. HOWEVER, there is one problem: it’s already been proven that it is impossible to do so. In 1910, Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead began publishing a book called Principia Mathematica: “PM, as it is often abbreviated, was an attempt to describe a set of axioms and inference rules in symbolic logic from which all mathematical truths could in principle be proven.”
In other words, they were trying to show that any and all mathematical truths which are possible to prove can in fact be proved. To their dismay, in 1931 Kurt Godel set forth the incompleteness theorems, which state that: “Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.”
Simply put, no system of math can prove all truths without contradicting itself. Conversely, if a system of math is established with no contradictions, then there are Truths which it cannot prove. The linguistic corollary to the Godel’s theory, the undefinability theorem was set forth in 1936 by Alfred Tarski: “The undefinability theorem shows that this encoding cannot be done for semantical concepts such as truth. It shows that no sufficiently rich interpreted language can represent its own semantics.”
In science, not only is the universe modeled mathematically, but observations are designated using semantic concepts (words): “electron”, “mass”, “calcium”, “energy”, etc. The definition for each of these words is given in the same semantic set (language) in which the word exists: English. But Tarski shows that after you have defined every single word, there is one word you cannot define in English itself: “Truth”. In order to define “Truth”, you have to start giving examples of things you consider to be true. But this is circular. The point is that no complete proof can ever be constructed with an assumption that everyone agrees about what the Truth is.
And now we return to our working definition for “God”: “That which determines what is True.” Some may object, “WE determine what is true!” But most scholars would disagree: we attempt to dis-cover what is True.
This, of course, proves no-thing. But perhaps that is the point. Perhaps we can determine only determine truths when we slice up our experience into bits and pieces and start naming it, “this thing” and “that thing”, and asking ourselves questions about them, and how they relate to each other. Perhaps what ought to be- but isn’t- the obvious resolution to the descriptive incompatibility between special relativity and quantum mechanics, to the incompleteness theorem, to the undefinability theorem, is that there are no things. Perhaps the only way to get a conceptual sense of the Truth is to analogize, as with Plato’s Ouroboros, Hinduism’s Brahman, and Lao Tzu’s Tao:
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal name The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth The named is the mother of myriad things Thus, constantly without desire, one observes its essence Constantly with desire, one observes its manifestations These two emerge together but differ in name The unity is said to be the mystery Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders Tao Te Ching, Chapter 1

|
Bill_Oreilly
ANIMALS (the RAINBOW SERPENT)


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 26,370
Loc: Boston
|
|
here we go again.
-------------------- Something there is mysteriously formed, Existing before Heaven and Earth, Silent, still, standing alone, unchanging, All-pervading, unfailing, I do not know its name; I call it tao. If forced to give it a name, I call it Great (ta). Being great, it flows out; Flowing out means far-reaching; Being far-reaching, it is said to return. It's just a shot away..
|
Rocket

Registered: 03/06/10
Posts: 3,653
Loc: Land of the Freaks
|
|
Quote:
Bill_Oreilly said: here we go again.

|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper



Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 22 hours
|
|
Quote:
Bill_Oreilly said: here we go again.
It isn't meant to begin a debate about the existence or non existence of God. If you read the OP, it is quite clear that I take neither stance. I do not even take the agnostic stance; it is not even precisely clear what stance I take, in my opinion. Perhaps you could call it the "critical thinker" position.
|
Bill_Oreilly
ANIMALS (the RAINBOW SERPENT)


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 26,370
Loc: Boston
|
|
But the title itself is more than enough to make everyone argue about gods existence or non existence
-------------------- Something there is mysteriously formed, Existing before Heaven and Earth, Silent, still, standing alone, unchanging, All-pervading, unfailing, I do not know its name; I call it tao. If forced to give it a name, I call it Great (ta). Being great, it flows out; Flowing out means far-reaching; Being far-reaching, it is said to return. It's just a shot away..
|
Janky Tits

Registered: 06/19/14
Posts: 4,037
Last seen: 5 years, 6 months
|
|
I don't believe there is a "god" per say but there could very well be some sort of life force out in the universe. I would hesitate to call it "god" but whatever life force is out there could have the term "god" applied to it. As for biblical gods I don't believe in such a thing
|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper



Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 22 hours
|
|
Do you see the word bible or biblical anywhere in the OP?
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
God is the movement, not the thing itself.
|
Bill_Oreilly
ANIMALS (the RAINBOW SERPENT)


Registered: 11/12/11
Posts: 26,370
Loc: Boston
|
|
see what i mean morrowasted? nobody is even referring to your post they are just giving their opinions on God..
-------------------- Something there is mysteriously formed, Existing before Heaven and Earth, Silent, still, standing alone, unchanging, All-pervading, unfailing, I do not know its name; I call it tao. If forced to give it a name, I call it Great (ta). Being great, it flows out; Flowing out means far-reaching; Being far-reaching, it is said to return. It's just a shot away..
|
Achillita
Back to the basics



Registered: 05/26/14
Posts: 4,565
Last seen: 3 years, 10 days
|
|
And janky starts it... I wonder who's gonna respond...
--------------------
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
|
everything is already addressed in the OP without anyone's input.
oh nice job Morrow, good helping your friend, good getting carried away.
God also isn't real, and isn't a truth. and truth isn't a thing, it's an idea, and the idea here is to connect God to "the truth" which is that it is not a thing, it's a no-thing...or as i so deftly put it, "God is the movement, not the thing itself" meaning it is no thing, it's just obscure physical/psychical data.
should that giant OP be critiqued line for line, or something?
i mean we've got logic and philosophy and semiotics and symbolism and anthropology...you got some scripture in there...what else can anyone do but postulate something for him to respond to; glean some tiny little extra spark from his interest...no one is going to write a disquisition of all the subjects to break them all down one by one, as they're already fairly posited, accurately, and encapsulated perfectly.
Quote:
...YET is not a reason to invoke “God” as an explanation. And perhaps he is right.
and thus the topic is about God and what it means.
it means the movement of nothing.
there. perfect,...
Quote:
Perhaps one day, scientists will create a complete and consistent mathematical model of the universe.
ordinate,...
Quote:
The unity is said to be the mystery Mystery of mysteries, the door to all wonders
ultimate.
PS: and the OP is awesome. nice job morrow, really well worded and substantiated.
Edited by akira_akuma (10/11/15 09:32 PM)
|
qman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 34,927
Last seen: 5 hours, 57 minutes
|
|
Jesus is god, Jesus was Jew, so god is Jewish?
|
zZZz
jesus


Registered: 12/28/07
Posts: 33,478
|
|
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: "God" [Re: zZZz]
#22365760 - 10/11/15 09:38 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
yeah trying to understand all the attempts to understand God from the beginning of time and thereon 'til now, it is quite boggling to try and think about it. take your time. let the shit seep out of your brain first, and then try and think; you can do it.
ahhh, there's two different halves of God...thinking, and doing!
most everybody can't do both uniformly...real trouble maker that Ego.
|
zZZz
jesus


Registered: 12/28/07
Posts: 33,478
|
|
did ur homie need it for a science project or sumthing?
|
akira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: "God" [Re: zZZz]
#22365781 - 10/11/15 09:42 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
|
zZZz
jesus


Registered: 12/28/07
Posts: 33,478
|
|
what a goof
|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper



Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 22 hours
|
Re: "God" [Re: qman] 1
#22365866 - 10/11/15 09:56 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Part II

“There was neither aught nor naught, nor air, nor sky beyond. What covered all? Where rested all? In watery gulf profound? Nor death was then, nor deathlessness, nor change of night and day. The One breathed calmly, self-sustained; nought else beyond it lay.
“Who knows, who ever told, from whence this vast creation rose? No gods had then been born — who then can e’er the truth disclose? Whence sprang this world, and whether framed by hand divine or no — Its lord in heaven alone can tell, if even he can show.”
Rig Veda, Chapter IX
What does this mean for us, practically speaking? Should we become religious? If so, which religion should we choose? The philosopher Alfred North Whitehead posits that religion can be universally defined as that which one does with one’s own “solitariness”. This presupposes that the human condition is, at least in some cases, characterized by a sense of “separateness”. Whitehead’s notion of religion is therefore, “whatever one does in response to the sense of separateness.” The theologian and philosopher Alan Watts once observed: “I’ll tell you what hermits realize. If you go off into a far, far forest and get very quiet, you’ll come to understand that you’re connected with everything.” However, it is not necessary to go into the forest in order to achieve this state of being. Most people, at one stage of life or another, become mentally and emotionally solitary- disconnected from those around them- even when they are right in the middle of a crowd. Now, I don’t necessarily agree that if you go into solitude you’ll definitely feel connected with EVERYTHING (which turns out to be the other face of NO-THING), but I do think that solitude precipitates a state of awareness about one’s relation to EVERYTHING, rather than to EACH THING. The way in which one relates to EVERYTHING varies between individuals. The MORE connected one feels to EVERYTHING- whatever that connection looks like, be it immanent, or subservient, or something else entirely- the less interested one becomes in pursuing individual truths. This is not to say that one becomes dispossessed of truths. Instead, it means that truths are used as means to what are seen as more important ends, and are not sought after as ends in themselves. What falls out of this definition of religiosity is a paradigm in shift in one’s categorization of the world. One no longer thinks of religion as an organization you belong to, with rituals you participate in. Instead, religion is an attitude about one’s relationship to the Truth. It is about doing whatever one can to actively align oneself with the Truth. This does not mean that one seeks truths as explanatory ends in themselves, like an atheistic cosmological physicist. It means that one attempts to respond to each and every situation in a way truthful way. This is not new-age psychobabble. It means having integrity at work. It means being faithful to your loved ones. It means keeping your promises. It means not being lazy. It means doing as much as you’re capable of doing to help other people. There was a time when people perhaps needed the promise of Heaven in order to have the incentive to do all the things just mentioned. This is no longer the case. This does not seem to be necessary anymore. The Truth rewards Truthful behavior (or rather, Truth is always perpetuating itself, but when you come into alignment with the Truth, you experience that perpetuation as personal reward). If you don’t believe me, try it for yourself. To conclude, I’ve argued for an extralinguistic conception of Truth that cannot be caged or grasped. It could be said that the fundamental fabric of experience is Truth, rather than matter or space-time. We can interpret Truth as the implicate order of the universe behind the explicate order we describe using language and models. Most importantly, remaining persistently conscious of the Truth causes us to grow in character. Quote:
”But you cannot understand life and its mysteries as long as you try to grasp it. Indeed, you cannot grasp it, just as you cannot walk off with a river in a bucket. If you try to capture running water in a bucket, it is clear that you do not understand it and that you will always be disappointed, for in the bucket the water does not run. To “have” running water you must let go of it and let it run.”
- Alan W. Watts
|
morrowasted
Worldwide Stepper



Registered: 10/30/09
Posts: 31,377
Loc: House of Mirrors
Last seen: 4 days, 22 hours
|
Re: "God" [Re: zZZz]
#22365873 - 10/11/15 09:57 PM (8 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zZZz said: did ur homie need it for a science project or sumthing?
philosophy of religion class.
|
poke smot!
floccinocci floofinator



Registered: 01/08/03
Posts: 5,248
|
|
Post deleted by poke smot!Reason for deletion: x
|
|