"In conclusion, there is a marvelous anecdote from the occasion of Russell's ninetieth birthday that best serves to summarize his attitude toward God and religion. A London lady sat next to him at this party, and over the soup she suggested to him that he was not only the world's most famous atheist but, by this time, very probably the world's oldest atheist. "What will you do, Bertie, if it turns out you're wrong?" she asked. "I mean, what if -- uh -- when the time comes, you should meet Him? What will you say?" Russell was delighted with the question. His bright, birdlike eyes grew even brighter as he contemplated this possible future dialogue, and then he pointed a finger upward and cried, "Why, I should say, 'God, did you gave us insufficient evidence?'" Bertrand Russell
killthesunshive is proof that there is a god, because, in spite of all the evolutionary strikes against him, he still lives.
THERE MUST BE LIGHTS BURNING BRIGHTER SOMEWHERE GOT TO BE BIRDS FLYING HIGHER IN A SKY MORE BLUE... IF I CAN DREAM OF A BETTER LAND WHERE ALL MY BROTHERS WALK HAND IN HAND TELL ME WHY, OH WHY, OH WHY WON'T MY DREAM COME TRUE -If I Can dream oh why won't my dream come true!
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence. Bertrand Russell ain't it true i wonder why zombies for Christ
Well, I will take this statement as my entry back into this argument. On the contrary, the debate between Stu and WaveStrider has been a joy to follow. Both parties have executed the art of mental combat perfectly. Stu, your original reply to my "...nothing can pre-date the Creator...." was "..Existence must have predated a Creator. Creators cant exist unless existence exists. No Creator could exist were there no existence..." Your reply was concise, compact and direct. My many attempts to reply were unsatisfactory due to the length and multi-pronged avenues I needed. I could not match the profound simplicity of your statement. I could match the argument, no doubt, but not the compactness. WaveStrider carried the "potentiality" water in a very effecient and logical manner. This was one of the avenues I would have needed [potentiality], and WaveStrider presented the argument better than I could have. You have intimated that a large portion of the "existence v. potentiality" argument is philosophical, and this is correct, in my opinion. You and I are virtually in agreement regarding the cold hard "fact" of existence. I still contend, that our positions meet at the edge of that "chasm" of pre-beginning. You view that gulf of darkness as "...existence of the possibility existed. Then existence existed..." whereas I view the darkness as the instant prior to creation, time and knowability. None the less, the argument between yourself and WaveStrider, has cleared the way for me to enter my position of "knowability", as you have already deduced with your comment "..knowing about whether it is unrealized or realized, is a seperate matter altogether.....", but is it ? In the Biblical account of creation, G-D blesses the creatures of the sea and the winged fowl. I find this poignant, because these creatures operate in an enviroment that man cannot, without the aid of mechanical devices. Man, for the most part, is "designed" to operate on the firm footing of the earth. Those creatures whose potential and possibilities are found in the sea or in the air, required, according to the Biblical account, a special "blessing" to "operate" in these inhospitable environs. So, allow me, at the risk of my argument being critiqued as "..for the birds..", too use our feathered friends regarding "knowability" of existence AND existences, as opposed to the Kantian precept that "..all of our knowledge must conform to objects...". I would assume, that whether our beliefs state that we are created entities or we have evolved to our present state, agreement would be had in the assumption humans are the pre-eminent creature in our present "time / history"... We look at birds, as objects or as created entities, and analyze what we observe. We can "know" the habits, bone structure, muscle structure, mating, speed and distance of flight, etc.. We paint pictures, take photographs, make sculptures and other representations of birds. We "know" that a bird stays aloft because of the pressure of the air on top of its wing is less than the pressure below, much like the aerodynamics of airplane flight. But, does the bird "know" this. I would doubt it. It operates purely within its organic potential and possibilities. It is airborne when it desires to be, and lands when it decides to do so. The bird, I would venture to say, is oblivious to our cataloguing of its "existence". We may "know" the how, but the bird can be the only "knower" of the why. Why did the one bird endeavor to catch the grasshopper in mid-flight, when the companion did not. Why did one bird land at the water source and decide to fly away, when another lands with it and revels in the water. These birds are living within the proscribed perimeter of their potential and possibilities. Our observations do not impact their living, or their "why" or, may I say, their "known" existence, as they understand it.[Obviously, as the "pre-eminent" creature, we can impact their existence by various means, but not by our detached observations]. Birds , via our observations, are "known" by man, to be very sensitive to temperature, pressure, humidity, wind currents and light. We know, as the pre-eminent creature, the why and how of these factors, the mechanics of these factors. The bird does not "know" the mechanics, but rather, the bird "knows" its required and optimum responses to these enviromental stimulus. Our knowledge of the mechanics, does not alter the birds "knowledge" of its existence, and its natural instincts. Therefore, if the bird, operates within the truth of its "known" existence, potential and possibilities, and is oblivious to an "unkown" entities observations and cataloguing, and said observations have no impact on the birds "known" existence, why would the same truth not also be a "potentiality" for man, even within the sphere of the cold, hard, logical statement by man that nothing can or does lay outside of "known" existence and its objects ? The dividing line between what the bird can "know" and what man does "know" would seem to be valid for my argument, if in fact an entity did exist outside of the perimeter of our "knowing"and our existence. Since we can see the validity of my argument with lesser creatures, are we being presumptuous, when we endeavor to state that "we" are the end of the line of this particular argument ? " He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not " John 1:10
Thx for the comments. A summation of my thoughts at this point would be: 1) "Potential" can be viewed as an expected outcome from an observation in hindsight of an event. 2) "Potential" can also mean "possible", in which a possibility is postulated without benefit of an observed occurrence (hindsight). #2 is where I say uncertainty is, and where "potential" is not sufficient to define it's existence. Therefore, the existence of a "potential" is not an adequate test. Definition 2 allows for "non-existence", otherwise the "imaginary sky faeries" mentioned previously could be described as existing. Though finally, I would argue that the entire argument on both sides may be fundamentally flawed because it is using Time as it's benchmark. To use that one dimension as the limiting degree is like using only Height or Width in the argument, leaving out the other 2-3 dimensions, and would be fatally flawed by defining the problem in a self-imposed box. In dimensionality beyond our senses, the entire discussion is likely moot. Just MHO...
I agree, certainly, that the argument in its entirety is speculative. Neither an atheist, agnostic, theist or any other -ism or -ist, can breech that line of demarcation of beginning / pre-beginning. What allows for the debate is what system of reason / logic / faith do we attach ourselves with, which therefore allows for an individual and corporate interpretation of those concepts which escape our ability to observe. I would somewhat disagree with your comment on "time". Time in my opinion, man's "time", is the full catalogue of all our movings and acting within this physical realm. How is it, in your opinion, that "time" adds a fatal flaw to the argument ?
Models have a way of taking on a life of their own. Don't allow an unnecessary proliferation of the same. verify, verify, and verify again. then verify