I agree with you that it would take extreme conviction--and indeed, faith--to assert definitively that there is no first mover of any kind. However, consider the fallibist view of things... a view that strikes me as both useful and honest. If one has the intellectual courage to operate from "I don't know" as a first principle, then one is willing to respond to the question of how the universe originated by saying "I don't know." This is not the same thing as saying with definitive certainty that there is no God... but how different is it, in the end? If you start from an objective position of "I don't know," do the best you can to assess all the evidence, and come to the conclusion that if there is a God then he / she / it has deliberately chosen concealment, where do you go from there? It is like coming to what looks like a closed door, knocking on it repeatedly, and getting no answer whatsoever. There may be a sentient being behind the door. This being might be asleep, or dead, or laughing. Or there may be an intelligence wholly alien to us. Or there may be nothing. But because there is no real answer, we have no idea. And because we live in a closed system, there is no way to open the door. This is why, I believe, the whole "is there a God" question is something of a red herring. Better to ask "why are we here," and try to figure out the answer to that question instead. The nice thing about "why are we here" is that the question can be posed and answered effectively without getting hung up on cosmic uncertainty. Maybe this is what God wants--for us to get about the business of why we are here. Maybe He intentionally sealed himself off so that we would ultimately learn to evolve morally and culturally without the distraction of a benevolent nanny figure. Or maybe that's bullshit. Point being, we can pursue the "why are we here" question, and formulate intelligent answers, without worrying about who or what, if anything, is behind the door at the end of the universe. And if God wanted to insert himself into the "why are we here" equation, he could very easily do so by way of creating some compelling evidence or circumstance. So far He hasn't done that yet. Or has he? To debate this is to debate the consistency and feasibility of religious answers, again leaving aside the first mover question. Another point, re the low probablity of the universe's existence. You realize that probability is something of an illusion right? In actuality there is no such thing as probablity. There is only an infinite series of one-time events. This is why the gambler's fallacy stops making sense when you think about it for more than thirty seconds. How can a coin maintain a 50 / 50 probability of heads every time and yet not see the probability of tails increase after 75 heads in a row? Re improbable events that have already occurred, imagine you are hit by a meteor in your bed. A fragment of some passing comet comes through your roof and amputates your legs. What are the odds? Something absolutely ridiculous, no doubt, with many zeroes involved. But are you going to look at the smoking ruins of your bed and say, "this can't have happened, the odds were too much against it?" Much of reality is contingent on the occurrence of highly improbable events. What were the odds of single-celled life forms advancing enough to have discussions of probability assessment, and furthermore, that you and I specifically would be two of the life forms engaging in discussion? Ten billion to one? Ten trillion to one? A hundred trillion to one? It doesn't really matter, because the probability discussion itself is contingent on the long-shot odds being fulfilled in the first place. The same is true of man's improbable existence. Re atheists being forced to believe in a multi-universe theory, that sounds like another diluted version of Pascal's Wager, i.e. a false dichotomy. When someone with an agenda rigidly declares that inaccessible complex phenomenon A can only be the result of previously existing conditions B or C, what are the odds that many other potential conditions / explanations / possibilities are being overlooked? I'd say quite good.
This was written to vhehn. And this new writing of yours addresses the logic of my argument in what manner. Man I did not even get to ask you the difference between a ramdom draw and getting dealt a royal straight flush a billion times in a row. it seems to me that when world famous physicists start proffering an untestable (unfalisifiable) hypothesis - I would get a little worried that they are countering design with faith. But you are welcome to believe anything you wish. I have to return later to respond to archimedes
Something I would like to add. So far as I'm reading the thread I am on page 25 I have noticed that alot of you are making comments that have already been answered by lkh. For example of the comments was about a breakthrough in technology to restore limbs. However lkh already covered that topic by saying something along the lines of why the idea didn't come earlier, and how all christians will say "god gave the idea to man." I just had to make this post because so many of you are trying to contradict lkh yet you don't even read his words. On top of that many of the replies from christian believers are often immature. For example I have seen a few posts like "shut up who cares" or "stop wasting your time no one cares" there have been meaner posts. If you cannot handle a discussion then don't post here please. I've noticed that believers always get very offensive when you question the bible. It kind of says something about religion doesn't it.
Countering design with faith-hmm. you have basically stated, your beleif is gnostic in nature, but there are zero mainstream religions that address this, as has been pointed out by many , the typical response is "its not for us to know" mysterious ways etc. You would in fact be heretical to beleive this, via any mainstream RLGN. That is a "faith" allright, but a faith in being deliberately ignorant. But to address your assessment of odds so incredible as to implicate a grand design, what do you think about this link? http://www.agribiz.com/merchdiz/cointoss/cointoss.html Random occurences do trend-and they go where they feel like. To me, this could suggest a random, spontaneous event being the "designer", with no particular purpose or path. So why beleive in "it", or trust "it"?
Yes while I did not know that point of view had a name, I also think the Fallibist point of view is the reasonable point of view. It s the point of view I think must be taken unless one admits to having faith. Regarding long shot odds. The whole thing depends on your prespective and to me is independent of whether I am alive to witness the specific universe or not. To me this is not really one random hand in a collection of universes. It is a collection of equisitely dealt hands. Regarding athiests and the multi-universe theory. Hey Athiests could choose to be fallibist. Until they back the rhetoric down and make that choice it seems Hawking and some of the other scientists are their best horse in their anti design race So it seems to me the choice is fallibist, infinite luck or design. They are the ones who pushed the random chance agenda.
intelligent design is really just a fallback position of the theists who know that biblical creation has been debunked. it gives them a slim thread to hang on to and not face the overwhelming evidence of evolution. one would assume that the theist could see the problems intelligent design creates for their faith but evidently not. the biggest hurdle for the intelligent design crowd to overcome is bad design. we are told biblegod is all knowing and perfect in everything he does. if so why are there so many examples of bad design in nature? why are there vestigial organs in nature? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html Some of the most renowned evidence for evolution are the various nonfunctional or rudimentary vestigial characters, both anatomical and molecular, that are found throughout biology. A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms. Vestigial characters, if functional, perform relatively simple, minor, or inessential functions using structures that were clearly designed for other complex purposes. Though many vestigial organs have no function, complete non-functionality is not a requirement for vestigiality (Crapo 1985; Culver et al. 1995; Darwin 1872, pp. 601-609; Dodson 1960, p. 44; Griffiths 1992; Hall 2003; McCabe 1912, p. 264; Merrell 1962, p. 101; Moody 1962, p. 40; Muller 2002; Naylor 1982; Strickberger 2000; Weismann 1886, pp. 9-10; Wiedersheim 1893, p. 2, p. 200, p. 205). For example, wings are very complex anatomical structures specifically adapted for powered flight, yet ostriches have flightless wings. The vestigial wings of ostriches may be used for relatively simple functions, such as balance during running and courtship displaysâa situation akin to hammering tacks with a computer keyboard. The specific complexity of the ostrich wing indicates a function which it does not perform, and it performs functions incommensurate with its complexity. Ostrich wings are not vestigial because they are useless structures per se, nor are they vestigial simply because they have different functions compared to wings in other birds. Rather, what defines ostrich wings as vestigial is that they are rudimentary wings which are useless as wings. Vestigial structures have perplexed naturalists throughout history and were noted long before Darwin first proposed universal common descent. Many eighteenth and nineteenth century naturalists identified and discussed vestigial structures, including Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), Georges-Louis Leclerc, Compte de Buffon (1707-1788), and Georges Cuvier (1769-1832). Over sixty years before Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species, the eminent French anatomist Geoffroy St. Hilaire (1772-1844) discussed his observations of the vestigial wings of the cassowary and ostrich during his travels with Napoleon to Egypt: "There is another species that, like the ostrich, never leaves the ground, the Cassowary, in which the shortening [of the wing] is so considerable, that it appears little more than a vestige of a wing. Its arm is not, however, entirely eliminated. All of the parts are found under the skin. ... Whereas useless in this circumstance, these rudiments of the furcula have not been eliminated, because Nature never works by rapid jumps, and She always leaves vestiges of an organ, even though it is completely superfluous, if that organ plays an important role in the other species of the same family. Thus, under the skin of the Cassowary's flanks are the vestiges of the wings ..." (Geoffroy 1798) Geoffroy was at a loss for why exactly nature "always leaves vestiges of an organ", yet he could not deny his empirical observations. Ten years later, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) identified several vestigial structures in his Zoological Philosophy (Lamarck 1809, pp. 115-116): "Eyes in the head are characteristic of a great number of different animals, and essentially constitute a part of the plan of organisation of the vertebrates. Yet the mole, whose habits require a very small use of sight, has only minute and hardly visible eyes ... Olivier's Spalax, which lives underground like the mole, and is apparently exposed to daylight even less than the mole, has altogether lost the use of sight: so that it shows nothing more than vestiges of this organ. Even these vestiges are entirely hidden under the skin and other parts, which cover them up and do not leave the slightest access to light. The Proteus, an aquatic reptile allied to the salamanders, and living in deep dark caves under water, has, like the Spalax, only vestiges of the organ of sight, vestiges which are covered up and hidden in the same way." (Lamarck 1809, p. 116 (more) http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/top10_vestigial_organs-2.html Male Breast Tissue and Nipples The subject of male nipples is a sensitive, and maybe confusing, topic to many. Those who wish to invalidate evolutionary theory might pose the question, âWas man descended from woman?â The answer, of course, is no. Both men and women have nipples because in early stages of fetal development, an unborn child is effectively sexless. Nipples are present in both males and females; it is only in a later stage of fetal development that testosterone causes sex differentiation in a fetus. All mammals, male and female, have mammary glands. Male nipples are vestigial; they may perform a small role in sexual stimulation and a small number of men have been able to lactate. However, they are not fully functional and, because cancer can grow in male or female breast tissue, the tissue can be dangerous.
Just a quick note, it is actually fallibilist, not fallibist, as in fallible / fallibilism. My fault for the original typo, typing too quickly.
If you are referring to the artificial limb article I posted, that was actually a bit of irony relating to the title of the thread, pointing out man's diligent efforts to solve a problem that prayer has not helped. Re the "shut up who cares" posts, most of those actually came from atheists, and one or two non-religious posters in particular if I recall. Perhaps you yourself should be reading more closely...
God IS governed though, there is no way around that. Whatever you say God is , then It is governed by what It is. An all powerful God which can change or do anything, is governed by the way it can be - by the way it is. How do you know about subatomic. By faith or by science? More description only repeating the ritual you describe and defend as literal , which nevertheless is formed upon grotesque perverted deviant ideas. For some reason you have been convinced by a Church and its medievil teachings that holding those debased inhumane notions is good . Handed onto children too. How passive folk are that they can be so easily convinced and allow their babies to be taught such perversions and deviancy as acceptaable in the name of a fantasized deity. What on earth would posses people to do so, other than a blind unthinking faith born of excuses, fear, magic, superstition and voodoo