lenfini

Such paradoxes are irrelevant. God is a supernatural power, not a physical human being. It is a common, indeed classic mistake to attribute human characteristics to it.

Contrary to other participants in this discussion, I take the position that the belief in a higher power is indeed rational. Allow me to briefly explain why.

(1) The decomposition, or lack thereof, of matter demands a spiritual world. Put another way, matter must have a non-material base. True, I suppose this could be gravity or some naturally-occurring cosmic force. But that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense given that gravity is a consequence of matter and not vice-versa.

(2) Likewise, there must be a spiritual world beyond the physical universe because the universe, by definition, is infinite. True, some scientists say that the notion of an "infinite" universe cannot be tested. Furthermore, others have declared that new technology has demonstrated that the universe is bounded. But that's all hogwash. First of all, the notion of a bounded universe defies common sense. Anyone familiar with theoretical metaphysics knows that this realization alone constitutes sufficient grounds on which to reject the evidence, or lack thereof, of scientists. Besides, most astrophysicists will tell you that the universe is not bounded, or at least that nobody has conclusively demonstrated that it's not. In fact, I've heard various astrophysicists declare that the rush to conclude that the universe is not limitless is based on a faulty interpretation of CMB and other new technologies. My understanding is that the latest wave in astrophysics is to assume that the universe is actually a multiverse. One should anticipate more waves given the inherent unpredictability and historical fickleness of science.

(3) To many people’s surprise, evolution demands a higher power. Darwinists call this the “purposefulness” or “directedness” of evolution, an cogent yet overrated theory that utterly fails to explain jumps from one species to the next. Yes, small changes at the genetic level can lead to remarkable changes in appearance and behavior. But wow, I really want to know who programed that DNA to behave as such! Oh, let me guess, it was just an accident, like everything else in evolution. If made to choose between the positions that (1) intelligent and accomplished people arose from the sea by or accident or that (2) some higher power programmed the world as such, it seems to me entirely more sensible to err on the side of intelligence. So what if engineers in theory can design a better body? No engineer can design a human being–it took mother nature to do that. Besides, maybe God didn’t want people to be machines–just people. That is to say, maybe how we get along with one another is more important than how efficient our bodies are.


(4) The notion of a Big Bang (assuming that ever happened) demands a higher power. All right, if something was there before the Big Bang, what came before it? No matter the derivations of the physical world, it simply cannot exist in and of itself. This is the natural impression of intelligent minds on the world, and, therefore, such implications should not be taken lightly.

I will conclude my remarks here. However, rest assured that there are other reasons wherefore I believe in God, none of which are religious. However, if religion is what is going to take to get people to see the light again, then we need to bring it back.

__________________
John

The_FD

Lenfini, I have been reading your post pretty fast... but still I have noticed that at all times you suppose that spiritual world is above physical universe... which means spiritual does not need matter to exist. However, how can something exist without anything material and even though it would, it could not be expressed through anything and then would be a non sense.
how come you never even supposed that physicial universe could be above spiritual world... and that you need a universe to have a spiritual world? (or at least to give a full meaning to it)

__________________
L'histoire de la famille Bourdillon
Les fêtes d'Hébé
The flying dancer dancing

lenfini

"I have noticed that at all times you suppose that spiritual world is above physical universe."

Not quite. I suppose God created the universe, and that the spiritual realm and material world are in effect different. But do not assume that God and the "spiritual realm" are one in the same. I do not mean this. Besides, I suppose God is above the universe because God created and programed it.

"(The) spiritual does not need matter to exist."

No it doesn’t. I think the universe came into existence, which presupposes a realm of a different sort. However, just because the spiritual realm doesn’t need matter to exist doesn’t mean the spiritual realm cannot coexist with the material world. In fact, my theory concerning the decomposition of matter presupposes that they be connected in some way.

"(H)ow can something exist without anything material and even though it would, it could not be expressed through anything and then would be a non sense."

Easy. Spiritual existence is not the same as material existence. It is not governed by the same laws of the material world and, likewise, it is not apprehended by the human mind. It does not need matter through which to express itself. Again, just because I think the spiritual realm underlies the material world doesn’t necessarily mean that it cannot exist on its own. I consider the material world to be an outgrowth of the spiritual realm, not vive-versa.

"(H)ow come you never even supposed that physicial universe could be above spiritual world?"

Because I assume a higher power created and programed it. I don’t see how the Rolex watch could be above its designer. Generally speaking, the material world doesn’t have the same power and intelligence as its maker. If the material world could make a beta universe and program it, I suppose I might change my mind.

As you can clearly tell, the preceding arguments center on the notion of God as a maker and programer. I already told you waht I consider to be the best proofs for such a God: (1) decomposition, or lack thereof, of matter; (2) infinite universe; (3) the Big Bang, or, that is, the creation of the universe (or multiverse); (4) the purposefulness and directedness of evolution.

Philosophically, I believe in the controversial theory of intelligent design.

__________________
John

Chevaliertuc

Hi lenfini
I tried to understand what you meant (you speak too well english for i can all understand)
If you already read my posts, you may now i don't agree with you at all.
But i don't think you are wrong by thinking it.
But i think you are wrong to think ti's a rationnal point of view ^^
There is a lot of "it's a self-evidence", "it must be so" and so on.
The argument of the infinite, of the Big-Bang are not enough to say there's a god. You interpret these results (and i don't agree with your results, but it's not important, i'm not a physicist), but they are not a proof. You can't make a rationnal demonstration with "it must be so": im sure about that, because my math teacher don't agree with this argument. And he is a good one ^^
And also, it must not be so. You can imagine something others. And actually, it's the reason why i stopped believing in god.
You spoke about darwinism. But I think what happened is exactly what you said that's false.
"But wow, I really want to know who programed that DNA to behave as such! Oh, let me guess, it was just an accident( YES, I THINK), like everything else in evolution (EXACTLY: IT COULD BE ANOHTER WAY, BUT WITH HASARD IT BECAME SO). If made to choose between the positions that (1) intelligent and accomplished people arose from the sea by or accident or that (2) some higher power programmed the world as such, it seems to me entirely more sensible to err on the side of intelligence. So what if engineers in theory can design a better body? No engineer can design a human being–it (NOT YET) took mother nature to do that Besides, maybe God didn’t want people to be machines–just people . That is to say, maybe how we get along with one another is more important than how efficient our bodies are. "
So, I choose the possibility 1): Intelligence is not so complex. We don't need "supernatural" to have a notion of it. I don't know if you have some notion of biology ,i studied just a little that, i saw there are some cycles in the human bodies, to regulate the quantity of sugar in blood for instance, that don't need any intelligence of the cellules: when there to much sugar, there are other modification (pH or i don't know, speed of some reactions... just examples, i don't remember, but maybe a biologist could explain it), so that the cellules can regulate the quantity, but exactly if they were stones which roll from a side to the other. And so, you can imagine that, with milliards of milliards of milliards of possibility given by the hasard, it came one who gave to an animal this faculty: it worked, so it remained!
Something so abstract as the sensation of rhythms can be given by such transformations: It exist some chimical transformations wich are cyclic, "with a regular time" (can't explain it better) so you can imagine they are some in your head, and so you can feel rhythms.
And everything can so have appeared thanks to hasard, with an infinite number of possibility "tested" by the years. molecules became cellules thanks to a great number of constructions from it (it took milliards of years, until the good shape is found), then it's something who can reproduct, because there was a big modification given by the years, then it can move, then... and so on.
Don't you think it's possible?

But the most important for me, is that the argument of "self-evidence" can be turned against you: if you think it's self evident, i can think the contrary, so self evidence is not an argument for "humanity".

See you soon,
Olivier.

Jean Fred

Olivier, now there you made some points!Moussaka's good for your brain.
You're damned right : there was, there is NO PLAN whatsoever and the only name of the game is TRIAL and ERROR.
Our pal, Lenfini (to close to the french for infinite and the metaphysical connotation of it to be a coincidence ?) draws all his conclusions from the axiomatic presumption that there is purposefulness and directedness governing the Universe. We can argue against his position with a few more or less convincing cases, but we will never establish who's right because the very root of our mutual reasonings is undecidable by nature. It's "heads" or "tails" and never ever the "edge" of the coin.
So let's enjoy the pleasure of an endless and somewhat pointless discussion just for the charm and warmth of it, remembering what good old Bill back in Stratford said about this "tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".
Another helping of moussaka, Olivier ?

Chevaliertuc

I wonder what is your nationality: from where comes such a bad humor??
But i think, at the end you understood something from my opinion: philosophy is useless... and what i experiment when i speak about that: explaining is useless.
Ok, have a nice day, Jean Fred...
O.

Jean Fred

I view Philosophy as the second most important invention of human brain after Writing.
And I would certainly trade it all for Humor if I had to.
Apparently humor is to me what moussaka is to you :
sometimes a little thick but so invigorating.