Philosophy Lives.doc

8/9/2019 Philosophy Lives.doc

1/134

Philosophy LivesWhy Stephen Hawking’s attempt to banish natural theology only showswhy we need it.

John Haldane206 COMMENTS »

Philosophy, Étienne Gilson observed, “always buries its undertakers.” “Philosophy,”according to Stephen Hawking and Leonard lodinow, in their new book The Grand Design,“is dead.” !t has “not kept up with "odern develop"ents in science, particularly physics,#and$ scientists have beco"e the bearers o% the torch o% discovery in our &uest %orknowledge.” 'ot only, according to Hawking and lodinow, has philosophy passed away( so,too, has natural theology. )t any rate, the traditional argu"ent %ro" the order apparent inthe structure and operations o% the universe to a transcendent cause o% these, na"ely God, is

wholly redundant*or so they clai"+ “#ust$ as -arwin and allace e/plained how theapparently "iraculous design o% living %or"s could appear without intervention by asupre"e being, the "ultiverse concept can e/plain the %ine tuning o% physical law without theneed %or a benevolent creator who "ade the 0niverse %or our bene%it. 1ecause there is a lawo% gravity, the 0niverse can and will create itsel% %ro" nothing. Spontaneous creation is thereason there is so"ething rather than nothing, why the 0niverse e/ists, why we e/ist.”

'otwithstanding their death notice %or philosophy, in introducing their idea o% a %unda"entalphysical account o% the universe, 2theory, the authors the"selves cannot resist engaging inevident philosophi3ing about the nature o% theories and their relationship to reality. 4oaddress the parado/es arising %ro" &uantu" physics, they use what they call “"odel2dependent realis",” which “is based on the idea that our brains interpret the input %ro" oursensory organs by "aking a "odel o% the world.”

hen such a "odel is success%ul at e/plaining events, we tend to attribute to it, and to theele"ents and concepts that constitute it, the &uality o% reality or absolute truth. 1ut there"ay be di%%erent ways in which one could "odel the sa"e physical situation, with eache"ploying di%%erent %unda"ental ele"ents and concepts. !% two such physical theories or"odels accurately predict the sa"e events, one cannot be said to be "ore real than the other.

hile a pro%essional philosopher "ight disa"biguate and re%ine so"e o% these e/pressionsand %or"ulations, Hawking and lodinow are describing a position %a"iliar within thephilosophy o% science and known variously as “constructive e"piricis",” “prag"atis",” and“conceptual relativis".” 4hey are not replacing philosophy with science. !ndeed, theirdiscussion shows that, at its "ost abstract, theoretical physics leaves ordinary e"piricalscience behind and enters the sphere o% philosophy, where it beco"es vulnerable tore%utation by reason.

5ertainly their argu"ent %ro" 2theory to the redundancy o% the God hypothesis, %ore/a"ple, is open to direct philosophical criticis". !% the necessary conditions o% our e/istencedid not obtain, we would not e/ist, and i% the necessary conditions o% the necessary

conditions o% our e/istence had not obtained, then neither we nor "any other aspects andele"ents o% the present universe would have been. )ny scienti%ic theory that is inco"patible with things having been as they had to have been, in order %or the universe to be as it is, isthereby re%uted.

'one o% this "ay be very pro%ound or took science to establish, but it does raise a &uestion+ !sthe obtaining o% the necessary conditions in &uestion e/plicable, and, i% so, how6 hat weknow about the observable universe, and what we can in%er about what is unobservable,indicate that it is co"posed o% a nu"ber o% types o% entities and %orces whose "e"berse/hibit co""on properties and are sub7ect to a s"all nu"ber o% si"ple laws.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/12/philosophy-lives#commentContenthttp://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/12/philosophy-lives#commentContent


2/134


3/134

that way.” ?ortunately, however, 2theory provides a scienti%ic answer, and it is analogous tothe "any2solar2syste"s response to 'ewton9s wonder at the habitability o% our solar syste".Hawking and lodinow write+

)ccording to 2theory, ours is not the only universe. !nstead 2theory predicts that a great"any universes were created out o% nothing. 4heir creation does not re&uire the intervention

o% so"e supernatural being or god. @ather these "ultiple universes arise naturally %ro"physical law. 4hey are a prediction o% science. >ach universe has "any possible histories and"any possible states at later ti"es, that is, at ti"es like the present, long a%ter their creation.ost o% these states will be &uite unlike the 0niverse we observe and &uite unsuitable %or thee/istence o% any %or" o% li%e. :nly a %ew would allow creatures like us to e/ist.

!n short, and sparing the detail, ours is but one o% an inde%inite nu"ber o% universes withdi%%erent laws and %orces, each universe being a spontaneous creation out o% nothing+“1ecause there is a law such as gravity, the 0niverse #that is, ours$ can and will create itsel%%ro" nothing.”

4here are two telling ob7ections to this+ the %irst to the idea o% spontaneous creation, thesecond to that o% "ultiple universes.

hat o% spontaneous creation6 hen )&uinas and others in the estern natural2theologytradition argued %ro" the character o% the universe to the e/istence o% its transcendent cause,they were acute enough to describe that original source o% the being and character o% thingsas an uncaused cause and not as the cause o% itsel%. 4hat was a "atter o% logical coherence,since the idea that so"ething could create itsel% %ro" nothing si"ply "akes no sense*bethat so"ething God or the 0niverse. !n order to create, one %irst has to e/ist.

hat then o% “"ultiverses”6 How e%%ective is this response to the argu"ent %ro" cos"icorder6 !% there are in%initely "any other universes, ordered either in parallel or in te"poralse&uence, it "ay see" inevitable that at least one like ours should e/ist, but all one can say isthat, as the nu"ber o% universes proceeds towards in%inity, the probability o% a di%%erence

between the actual distribution and the probable one di"inishes al"ost to 3ero. ?urther,

unless the theory clai"s that all possibilities are or "ust be reali3ed, it concedes that a %inelytuned universe "ight not have e/isted and thereby allows a probability argu"ent %or design.

:ne "ay &uery directly the coherence o% the "any2universe hypothesis, however. hat is"eant by talking about "any universes6 !t "ight "ean unobservable regions o% the universe*the one spatio2te"poral2causal continuu"*or, although this is "uch harder to "ake senseo%, entirely distinct cos"ic setups, wholly discontinuous with the universe we inhabit. 4he%irst possibility %ails to serve Hawking and lodinow9s purpose. )ny evidence we could have%or these distant regions would necessarily be evidence %or situations e/hibiting the sa"eorderliness whose e/istence see"ed to call %or e/planation.

4he second possibility*that there are "any universes, entirely distinct realities, whollydiscontinuous and sharing no co""on ele"ents*%ails also. 4here can be no e"piricalevidence in support o% the hypothesis, nor could it be derived as a necessary condition o% thepossible e/istence and character o% the only universe o% which we have or could havescienti%ic knowledge.

Hawking and lodinow write that the “"ultiverse idea is not a notion invented to account%or the "iracle o% %ine tuning.” hether or not it was invented as such, its deploy"ent in thisconte/t appears ad hoc, introduced only to avoid the conclusion that the general regularitiesand particular %ine2tuning are due to the agency o% a creator.


4/134

4he basic co"ponents o% the "aterial universe and the %orces operating on the" e/hibitproperties o% stability and regularity that invite e/planation*the "ore so given the narrow

band within which they have to lie in order %or there to be intelligent ani"als able toinvestigate and re%lect on the conditions o% their own e/istence. Science cannot provide anulti"ate e/planation o% order.

)s Hawking and lodinow occasionally see" to recogni3e, %ar %ro" philosophy being dead,having been killed by science, the deepest argu"ents in this area are not scienti%ic butphilosophical. )nd i% the philosophical reasoning runs in the direction ! have suggested, it isnot only philosophy but also natural theology that is alive and ready to bury its latest would2

be undertakers.

John Haldane is pro%essor o% philosophy at the 0niversity o% St. )ndrews and authoro% Faithful eason ;ABBClse that

is sel%2e/istent, eternal, and creative, and call it by a na"e we %eel "ore co"%ortable with.

!t is rather like the 7oke that Shakespeare never wrote all those plays 2 it was so"eone elsena"ed Shakespeare.

http+==assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.co"

EA.AE.ABEB F +a"artin Snigg says+

http://www.firstthings.com/print/article/2010/12/philosophy-lives?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=500&width=700http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20http://www.firstthings.com/send.php?url=http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/12/philosophy-lives&keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=425&width=350http://www.firstthings.com/print/article/2010/12/philosophy-lives?keepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=500&width=700http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/


5/134

) silly "arketing ploy KPhilosophy is deadK K0niverse created itsel%K.

'early hal% the book is philosophy and apparently vacuu" &uantu" energy and to areneeded %or the universe to %or" 2 %ar %ro" the idea o% sel% creation %ro" nothing.

Pro%. Haldane elegantly uses silly 7ournalis" on the predictably clownish philosophising o%

atheists scientists to write an easy to understand essay about the truly perennial and the truly eternal. Kust where does the order that we see in the universe co"e %ro"6K )nd we knowthis can only be a "ind.

1ack to )ristotle and St 4ho"as we go 2 i% we didnJt already know. +<

Gracias Pro%. Haldane and !J" happy he has been "ade President, 4he @oyal !nstitute o%Philosophy "ust, at heart, care about our good.

EA.AE.ABEB F EB+BAa"Gri%%in says+

So"e people %ail to note this oddity in K!ntelligent -esignK theory+ even i% we %ind intelligentdesign in the universe, that doesnJt prove the e/istence o% speci%ically, the 5hristian God.

!n %act, E< there are "any intelligently2designed things in the universe+ ! have one o% the", aHonda, sitting in "y driveway. 1ut "an "ade it.

4here are in %act, intelligently designed things in the universe( but "oreover, A< that doesnJtprove that the udeo25hristian god "ade the".

aybe a%ter all, Meus "ade the universe6

People "istakenly assu"e that !ntelligent -esign proves their own god( but why not so"eother god, a%ter all6

EA.AE.ABEB F E+Np"?red says+Gri%%in,

)ni"is" posits that everything is alive. !t has nothing to say about who or what created theuniverse. Polytheistic paganis" ;your Meus e/a"ple< usually posits a collection o% gods, eacho% which is in charge o% so"e aspect o% nature or the soul, e.g., Meus was god o% thunder andlightening, )thena was goddess o% wisdo", )phrodite was goddess o% love, etc. 'ot even thepagans the"selves ever clai"ed that any individual god created the universe. 4he gods werethe"selves creatures. 4here%ore, the "ost likely candidate %or creator o% the universe is a

single, "onotheistic god at least akin to the udeo25hristian=usli" God ;all three"onotheistic religions believe in the sa"e God, the God o% )braha", hence the ter"

)braha"ic %aiths


6/134

EA.AE.ABEB F +Ep"Gri%%in says+

)ni"is" in %act, along with "any other Kpri"itiveK religions, has its own creation story(indeed, )nthropology tells us that K5reation "ythsK are characteristic o% "any, perhaps"ost, hu"an cultures. Look up a %ew do3en o% the", i% you want.

EA.AE.ABEB F +p"-ave says+4he %act that there are "any di%%erent Jcreation "ythsJ is irrelevant. 4he point o% the currentdiscussion is the speci%ic philosophical points we draw %ro" the", and in this conte/t"onotheis" is the only non2naturalistic contender %or a su%%icient, necessary e/planation o%reality %or the %ollowing reason. !"agine that @o"an polytheis" is true and upiter and'eptune get into so"e sort o% %ight. )ny J%ightJ will involve so"e sort o% interaction betweenthe two deities, and these interactions "ust the"selves be governed by so"e sort o% e/ternalconditions. )nd since this holds %or any polytheistic account, it "eans that polytheis"i"plicitly "akes i"personal e/planation %unda"ental by necessitating constraints that

govern the interactions o% respective deities, "eaning that these e/ternal constraints beco"eJ"eta2lawsJ that the"selves re"ain une/plained. 4hus we "ust either bite the bullet andsi"ply not ask %or an e/planation o% the "ost %unda"ental laws and regularities governingthe whole o% reality, whatever they "ay be, or we choose to ask in which case we are led to

belie% in so"e sort o% necessarily e/isting thing with certain traits that ad"ittedly bearstriking rese"blance to the traits attributed to God in the estern "onotheistic tradition. !neither event, when considering the issue philosophically, the anthropological %act that "ostcultures or traditions have creation "yths is o% utterly no conse&uence( so"e are,philosophically speaking, superior to others, and philosophers are per%ectly 7usti%ied insorting out which are which.

EA.AE.ABEB F +Ep"

1ret Lythgoe says+Pro%. Haldane provides e/pert analysis, to this issue. ! would propose that, Pro%. Haldaneconsider debating Pro%. Hawking, on this and related issues. ust as Pro%. Haldane had a

wonder%ully intellectual discussion ;and a very respect%ul one, too


7/134

A2 2theory is hardly a solid base to build your case upon 'on all physicists accept String4heory. Lee S"olin ;whoJs an atheist as %ar as ! know< %or e/a"ple, re7ects the String 4heory,"ultiverse hypothesis... and he9s not the only physicist who thinks String 4heory is nonsense.

1esides Hawking, in spite o% his popularity and genius, has hardly brought so"ethingconcrete on the scienti%ic table the last several years. His J%indingsJ are highly debatable and

so"e o% the" have been re%uted ;such as his theories on in%or"ation loss in black holes


8/134

that structural co""onality is the sa"e as your 5atholic God6 ;)nd not the Protestant one6<

5anJt do it6 1egging o%%6 @elying 7ust on raw assertions o% personal superiority and na"e2dropping )&uinas6

)nd then+ how can any )&uinas answer, stand up to all o% "odern Philosophy6

8ouJre got an aw%ul lot to prove( and so %ar, you havenJt even re"otely touched the sur%ace.'or would that be possible, in a co" bo/.

!n any case, all that would be slightly o%% topic. ore relevant here( as a "atter o% %act, !partially agree with the author, that retaining respect %or the KnaturalK world would helptheology. 1ut ! donJt agree with the author, that the KK or "ulti2universe theory necessarilydistracts %ro" that. Since indeed, "utli2universe or "ulti2di"ensional KstringK and othertheory, is being used to e/plain practical e%%ects, in the natural world. )t the level o% ato"sand below.

?urther"ore, regarding the alleged superiority o% an Kuncaused %irst causeK6 'ote that thisanswer does not work as a casual e/planation o% the universe. ?irst because E< it begs the

&uestion( we are asking %or a KcauseK o% the universe, and then suddenly you "erely beg o%%,and si"ply assert there is so"ething Knot causedK that started it.

4hen too A< is the notion o% an Kuncaused %irst cause,K pass the test, o% being really clear6 -o you really get a clear i"age in your "ind %ro" it6 ost analytical philosophers today suggestit is KincoherentK( it Kcannot be located in logical space.K !t "erely inter7ects an incoherence,in the hope that people will not see through it( so that there%ore, they will "istake it as solid.

4he author and co""entatorJs re"arks do not answer anything at all( but "erely raise %ar,%ar "ore &uestions than they resolve. >ven as they attack what "ay be one o% the "ore%ruit%ul new avenues o% current sub2ato"ic theory.

EA.A.ABEB F Q+Qa"-ianelos Georgoudis says+:ne o% the do"inant "odern "yths is that science supports naturalis". !n %act naturalis"9sgravest proble"s have their roots in "odern discoveries o% science, including the apparent%ine2tuning o% the %unda"ental constants, the deep "athe"atical elegance o% physical laws,the %act that ele"entary particles such as the electron without any internal "oving parts and

without access to any co"puting "achinery are capable o% displaying co"putationally highlyco"ple/ behavior, the %act that despite all we know about "atter there is nothing that as"uch as suggests that "atter when organi3ed in a particular way would beco"e conscious,etc. 'ever "ind the order present in &uantu" "echanical pheno"ena which has "ovednaturalists to propose ontological interpretations, such as the "any worlds interpretation,

which are so i"plausible as to de%y credulity.

)nd beyond the proble"s o% naturalis"Js co"patibility with science there are the gravephilosophical proble"s about the nature o% e/istence, the nature o% ethics, and the nature o%%ree will, which still bedevil naturalis". Given how naturalis" contradicts not only our senseo% li%e, but also "odern science, ! %ail to understand how so "any knowledgeablephilosophers "anage to keep %aith that naturalis" is true.

EA.A.ABEB F T+a"


9/134

7ohn chiarello says+Jbrains interpret...by "aking a "odel o% the worldJ U knowledge co"es to us when the brainoragni3es the input %ro" the Q senses2Vant Hawking &outes philosophers in an atte"pt tosay Jwe dont need philosophyJ2 )h2 God takes the wise in this world and turns thing wisdo"into %oolishness #apostle Paul$

http+==www.corpuschristioutreach"inistries.blogspot.co"EA.A.ABEB F N+BEa"

7ohn chiarello says+2 le%t the last co""ent and then went back and %inished the article2 really %irst class stu%%thanks %or the 5atholic intellectual heritage2 the church #protestants and all the othergroups$ need it God bless you guys2 these are 7ust a %ew si"ple posts %ro" a lay"en #"e$

#EQAA$ asn9t sure which way to go today( %elt like re%uting #or as Sarah Palin saysWre%udiating9$ the recent Stephen Hawking book2 he9s basically saying nothing new, and whathe is clai"ing has been shown to be Wless than true9 #heck, you don9t want the call the "ansenile, though who knows6$. !n a nutshell the book clai"s that Gravity itsel% needed nooriginator, that it created all things, even itsel% 8ikes 4his is a co"plete violation o% the Law

o% 'on contradiction2 which states Wa thing cannot be and not be at the sa"e ti"e and in thesa"e relationship9 %or gravity to have created itsel% #which Hawking is saying$ then it had toWbe, and not be9 at the sa"e ti"e2 not only is this not good science, it is lunacy. ?or "y new%acebook readers !9ll try and post a %ew notes at the botto". ! also 7ust walked passed "y 4.I.

while going into the study, sure enough there was a television evangelist on the tube doingthe whole "oney thing2 "an i% ! get into that it will be bad. So %or today let "e stick a %ewrelevant posts at the botto" and lets all re"e"ber the %allen heroes o% D2E2ABBE. !t9s thereday %or sure.

2#EQEC$ 8:0 G:44) 1> V!--!'G > :kay, the other week ! watched a ton o% stu%% on wor"holes, the universe and "odern theories o% cos"ology. ! do really get into this stu%%, but! couldn9t stop laughing #crying6$ at so"e points. 4hose o% you who have read "y evolutionsection have read posts on -ark "atter=-ark energy. !n those posts ! e/plained how dark"atter, an idea espoused by )lan Guth %ro" .!.4., beca"e a necessary Wevil9 #or unknown$in order %or "odern physics to e/plain the %unction o% the universe. 1asically physics teachesus that you need so "uch "atter to generate enough gravity %or the planets and everythingelse to %unction properly( the proble" is we have never detected the "atter. So Guth said W!know, let9s co"e up with the word9s Wdark "atter9 and bla"e everything on that9 >/cellentidea isn9t it6 1ut i% so"e 5hristian did so"ething like this you would laugh hi" out o% theroo". So anyway dark "atter eventually beca"e the word to describe this 0'V':'ele"ent that holds the universe together2 "uch like the way 5hance is used by "any in"odern theory. So as ! watched the progra"s narrated by organ ?ree"an, ! %ound itinteresting that in one show they ad"itted that -ark atter really isn9t anything, it9s 7ust a

word we use to %ill in an unknown blank2 e/actly what ! have been saying %or years. 1ut thenin the ne/t show in the series, you had a bunch o% scientists re%er to -ark atter as a real,proven thing. 4hey were contradicting the"selves. 1ut the clincher ca"e when they ran theshow called Ware we wrong about everything9. 4his one dealt with all these new up and co"ingscientists who are actually challenging all o% the old theories, they even debunked the wholetheory o% -ark atter #so ! was right all along6$. !t would be %unny i% it weren9t so sad. 4hen%or the grand %inale they spoke about a new theory called -ark ?low #these guys 7ust can9t getaway %ro" dark stu%%$. 4his idea says there is this W%low9 in the universe that see"s to be allgoing in one direction( that is they think there is so"e outside %orce #in theology we call this

http://www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com/http://www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com/


10/134

transcendence$ that e/ists outside o% the known universe, and this unseen %orce "ightactually be the cause %or the %unctionality o% our known universe. !n essence they are sayingWit9s not -ark atter that causes things to %unction properly, but it9s this Wthing9 that e/istsoutside o% the universe that is doing it9. @eally, this is too good to be true( "odern theory isnow saying Wso"e being=thing is causing this to happen9. :% course 5hristians knew this allalong. 4he bible says that 5hrist is holding all things together by the power o% his word, this

language speaks e/actly to the proble" o% -ark atter2 that is we have never been able todetect by natural "eans, anything that is Wbig9 enough to be responsible %or holdingeverything together. 5hristians have believed that the very nature o% God is responsible %ordoing this( he e/ists and %ills in the e"pty space2 the so called %unction o% dark "atter. ! don9t"ean to ridicule these %ine "en who have given their lives to the worthy pursuit o% "odernscienti%ic theory, it9s 7ust when their own scientists begin to tells us Wlook, these other guyshave been wrong all along9 then we really need to take a second look.

EA.A.ABEB F N+EEa" 7ohn chiarello says+Gri%%in2 your Honda sitting in your garage did not Jget thereJ %ro" nothing2 an intelligent

J"indJ created it2 "an. 4hats the whole argu"ent "y %riend

EA.A.ABEB F D+Qa"ohn 5u""ins says+Pro%. Haldane,

How is a sane person, co"petent with language, to interpret this,

“1ecause there is a law such as gravity, the 0niverse #that is, ours$ can and will create itsel%%ro" nothing.”

as anything but e"barrassing nonsense6 !n various %or"s, it has been presented bycos"ologists to the public in various popular intellectual %oru"s since at least the EDNBs.

!% there is a Klaw such as gravityK, then there is not KnothingK. !n the su""er, Stephen 1arraddressed the new Hawking book here and pointed out that KuniverseK "eans one thing to usand another to cos"ologists+ a sel%2contained real" o% speci%ic physical laws, but notnecessarily the only such real"( K"ultiverseK is a collection o% universes. hatJs the universein standard usage is the K"ultiverseK to the".

!t see"s that, by never e/plicating this non2standard, speciali3ed use and de%inition o%KuniverseK, Hawking hopes to %ake out the public by sti%ling critical thought, by %ostering thei"pulse to wonder, by pro"oting the state o% %ascination. 1ecause he i"plies that nothingand Klaws such as gravityK e/ist at the sa"e ti"e, does that "ean that this is a non2standard

KnothingK, "eaning only KnothingK relative to our KuniverseK6

EA.A.ABEB F EB+EEa"oe 4he Hu"an says+4his is discussed in the co""ents to the recent ?irst 4hings article, on the day that 'othing5reated >verything. 1y oe 5arter6


11/134

4he consensus see"s to be that the 1ig 1ang theory e/plains a lot( but %inally there is a %law.!n that indeed, there is nothing in K'othingK to e/plode and create the universe.

)t the sa"e ti"e though,, to say KGod2did2itK doesnJt ulti"ately e/plian anything either( where did God co"e %ro" anyway6 4o 7ust say he was, or is, is to beg o%% all e/planation.

4he best answer as to the ulti"ate origin o% the 0niverse there%ore6 !s Kwe donJt know.K

EA.A.ABEB F E+BQp"harry says+oe the Hu"an,

8ou ad"it that the 0niverse had an origin 22 that at so"e point it wasnJt. )nd you ad"it thatthere was nothing be%ore that origin. So, you "ust believe so"ething ca"e %ro" nothing. !%that is indeed the case, %ar %ro" concluding that Kwe donJt know,K we can very reasonablyconclude that so"eone=so"ething that transcends nature, is distinct %ro" it, and thee/istence o% which is not in any way dependent upon nature, is responsible %or it. 4hat

e/istence, be it a KwhatK or a Kwho,K evidently has the power re&uired to bring %orthso"ething %ro" nothing, and the knowledge re&uired to bring it about such that thatKso"ethingK would eventually lead to intelligent, sel%2aware beings and the environ"ent tosustain the". 4hat would re&uire a lot o% knowledge, enough that it is also reasonable toconclude that that being is a KwhoK and not a Kwhat.K )%ter all, KwhatsK are co"posed o%"atter, and this being was around be%ore there was "atter. 4his being "ust be pure Kwho.K!Jll call that being KGod.K 8ou call it whatever you want.

EA.A.ABEB F Q+QTp" )aron @as"ussen says+!Jve never %ully understood why religion and science %eel the need to play on each otherJs tur%.

@eligion is really about "eaning and purpose. Science is about applying a particular skeptical"ethodological process to the natural world in order to discover how it works.

1ut religion insists on "aking clai"s about the natural world that it has no business "aking2 i.e., that the sun circles the earth, that oses really parted the @ed Sea, etc.

?unny story about the @ed Sea 2 when ! was in church school ! was %orced to watch a videoabout how God had acco"plished the parting o% the @ed Sea using the %orces o% nature 2there was a big %ish tank %ull o% hair gel and a high speed %an that blew at %ull speed across it ,K"iraculouslyK causing the hair gel to divide in two. 4his was supposed to give so"eKscienti%icK e/planation %or how so"ething like the parting o% the @ed Sea could beacco"plished KnaturallyK. ! re"e"ber thinking how insulting the whole %arce was to both

science and religion.

)nd science, too, see"s hell bent ;e/cuse the pun< on trying to delegiti"i3e the purpose and"eaning that a religious view o% the universe gives to individuals, de"onstrating in theprocess that it does not understand the li"its o% skepticis" as a tool %or e/plaining thehu"an spiritual condition.

!Jve always thought that what both science and religion need is a good dose o% hu"ility( theability to accept the %act that neither one provides all o% the answers. 4he argu"ent between


12/134

the" is "uch like a discussion o% who would win i% Spider"an and 1at"an were to get in a%ight. >ach side will have an entrenched position guarded with an ironclad argu"ent( there

will be con%lict without "uch hope o% persuasion. hy not appreciate both %or what theyprovide, without %eeling threatened by the other6

http+==www.rlolegal.co"

EA.A.ABEB F C+p"1ill says+Harry wins. hen oe the Hu"an writes Kto say KGod2did2itK doesnJt ulti"ately e/plainanything either( where did God co"e %ro" anyway6 4o 7ust say he was, or is, is to beg o%% alle/planationK is to arrive at the point o% wisdo" but to then close oneJs eyes. )s best ! can tell,HawkingJs God is gravity, which appears to be an Kuncaused causeK %or hi". !% gravity werean uncaused cause, then it would be God. @egardless o% whether it is or not, so"ething;so"eone< got the uni;"ulti


13/134

inco"prehensible. e have learned things about our universe that were previously thoughto% as "ere chance. >ven though we theori3e that there "ay be "illions or billions o% planetsin the universe, as %ar as we know the only one that has the unbelievable delicate balance o%air and at"osphere to support li%e is ours. :ur uni&ue place"ent in our gala/y #ilky ay$allows our solar syste" to be in a position where we can Wsee9 our actual location in space#thru telescopes o% course$ there are "any other Wspots9 that we could have been placed in

that would not have allowed our own viewing o% our position. -id God reali3e #did$ thatthere would co"e a ti"e in hu"an history as "an advanced in wisdo" where he would%igure out the absolute need %or a designer to have done these things6 @ichard -awkins andother atheists reali3e what a losing ga"e they are playing. 4hey see how it is i"possible %orall o% this co"ple/ity and design to be in our universe and %or all o% this to have happened%ro" no thing So in sheer %antasy they have co"e up with a solution. ) W"ulti2verse9. 4hat isi% the probabilities o% our e/istence in our own universe are so co"ple/, then instead o%ad"itting the astrono"ical odds #i"possibility$ o% all this happening by chance, they 7ustWchanged the odds9. How so6 !% you %lipped a coin and it landed on heads, all day every day %orthe rest o% your li%e. hat conclusion would you co"e to6 8ou would check out the coin to"ake sure it doesn9t have A heads :r in other words the %irst reasonable, logical conclusion

would be Wso"eone designed the coin to "ake this happen9. 'ow say i% you had so"eone whosaid W! don9t believe that so"eone designed this to happen9. ! would ask Wthen how else can

you e/plain, that by pure chance this unbelievable result has occurred9 he could then sayWwell, say i% right now as you were %lipping the coin, at the sa"e ti"e there are an untoldnu"ber o% other people all over the world right now %lipping coins. Let9s say the wholepopulation o% C.Q billion people on the planet are %lipping coins9. ell, ! would have to ad"itthat the odds o% one person getting heads every ti"e 7ust went up. >ven though it would still

be highly unlikely that out o% all C.Q billion people you would still have one who hit heads nonstop %or AQ years in a row, yet the %act is the odds have changed in %avor o% "y %riend whodoes not believe in Wan intelligent designer who caused the unbelievable odds to happen9. 4hisin a nutshell is what the W"ulti verse9 brothers believe. 4hey have si"ply changed the odds bysaying Wthere are an in%inite nu"ber o% universes9. 'ow, what evidence do we have that thereare "ultiple universes e/isting outside o% our present universe6 'one 'o wait Wabsolutelynone9. ell ohn, do you "ean to tell "e that these geniuses o% intellect are trying to pass o%%so"ething as ridiculous as this without any evidence96 8es. 4he %act is by de%inition there can

be no evidence. :ur universe is described as all that is presently e/isting in our space=ti"econtinuu". )nything that we could ever learn or see is by de%inition Win our universe9. 4his is

why science has proven that %or all things #space and ti"e included$ to have had a beginning#which is scienti%ic %act$ then there "ust have been an outside causal agent, who hi"sel% wasnot li"ited by ti"e or space #our universe$ who acted upon his own purpose and will to

bring into e/istence all things. ?or -awkins or Hawking to si"ply say Wwell, we believe thereare untold nu"bers o% in%inite big bangs and in%inite universes9 is as ridiculous as sayingWeveryone else on the planet are %lipping coins9 ':4>2 the W"ulti2verse9 idea is gainingground as an answer to the intelligent design proble" seen in our universe. 4he increasedco"ple/ity and %ine tuning that science is discovering in our universe poses a tre"endousthreat to the old Wit 7ust happened9 theory. 4he obvious Wsilliness9 o% the "ulti2 verse theory isits absolute contradiction. !n essence it says Wwe have been saying %or years that the highi"probability o% our universe co"ing into e/istence %ro" a Wbig bang9 which has no priorcause, is ne/t to i"possible9. 1ut this Wi"possible9 supposition is now e/plained by sayingWthere have been an in%inite nu"ber o% big bangs and an in%inite nu"ber o% universes9. !% theodds on all o% this co"ing into e/istence %ro" Wnothing9 are s"all #i"possible$ what are theodds that this ne/t to i"possible pheno"ena has been going on %or ever6


14/134

2#EQN$ 5:'4)54 4he other night ! caught the "ovie 5ontact( ! have seen it be%ore but%igured !9d re2watch it. 4he "ovie pits science against religion( the religious %igure #athewconaughy$ is talking to the scienti%ic atheist #odie ?oster$ as she "akes her case againstGod she asks the religious %igure Ware you %a"iliar with :ckha"9s @a3or9 #wow, isn9t shes"art$ and the e/2priest says Wno, is it so"e sort o% porno "ovie69 and o% course the atheist

goes on to &uote the %a"ous saying. :ckha"9s ra3or is the principle developed by illia" o%:ckha" that says when you have "ultiple solutions to a proble" that the si"plest answer isusually the correct one. Sounds good, what9s the proble"6 4he proble" is illia" o%:ckha" was indeed a 5hristian philosopher( he was a conte"porary o% 4ho"as )&uinas andohn -uns Scotus. 4hey all lived in the high "iddle ages #Eth2Eth centuries$. So %or odie?oster to have appealed to hi" while trying to "ake the point that religion and science don9t"i/, well it would be like "e debating so"eone on Halloween. ! say it never e/isted as apagan holiday( you insist it did )s we debate, ! say Whave you ever heard o% the ter" trick ortreat9 and you say Wno, what9s that9. ! then changed the channel to the news and they weredoing a story on so"e scientist who supposedly invented synthetic -'), they then gave the

various state"ents %ro" religious groups who were against it and thought it violated ethics.!t was a replay o% the sa"e the"es o% the "ovie, pitting science against religion. Science andreligion are not ene"ies, the scienti%ic "ethod was invented by the church, "ost o% the

greatest "inds in science have been 5hristian #or religious$ and even till this very day "anyo% the great "en o% science are believers. )t the end o% the "ovie they gave a short dedicationto 5arl #Sagan$. Sagan was the %a"ous atheist who said the universe is all there ever was andall there ever would be. 4he apostle Paul said W"en chose to worship and serve the creationrather than the creator, there%ore God gave the" up to reprobate "inds9. 4he other night !

watched the special called WHawkingJs universe9 ! don9t know why they called it Hawking9s, it was a si"ple rehash o% the idea o% cos"ological evolution, nothing new at all. Let9s "akeso"ething clear, those who espouse the idea that because we have discovered that "ost all o% the base ele"ents o% creation and "an are also %ound in the stars, this in no way proves that"en and creation all evolved %ro" stars 4his is one o% the "ost ridiculous ideas ! have everheard, and yet "any learned "en are "aking this case. So"e are saying that when starse/plode #novas$ that these base ele"ents then %or" planets and people and "onkeys andelephants and2 well you get the idea. hat "echanis" are they giving us that shows us that

so"ething like this is even possible6 )bsolutely none. 4hey are si"ply "aking the clai" that because we share "ost o% the sa"e "atter, that there%ore the stars the"selves createdeverything. 4his is not only not true science, but it doesn9t pass the s"ell test o% ele"entaryschool !t would be like "e stu"bling across so"e co"puter disk, and then %inding aco"puter to pop it into. Lo and behold ! have %ound the co"plete works o% Shakespeare onthe disk. How did they get there6 Sure enough so"e analyst %igures out a way to e/a"ine the"atter that "akes up the disk #not the intelligence on it$ and lo and behold he identi%ies the"akeup o% the disk. He then proclai"s Waha, ! have %igured out where the works o%Shakespeare ca"e %ro"9 and he then goes on to give us the ele"ents that "ake up the disk.

hat9s the proble"6 He si"ply identi%ied the "atter o% the disk, he did not identi%y wherethe actual intelligence on the disk ca"e %ro". So when people espouse the idea that the starsW"ade everything9 they are talking absolute nonsense. 4he only true e/planation %or thecontents on the disk #or the intelligence %ound in the universe$ is the reality that anintelligent agent put the contents there. 4here is no other rational e/planation. odie ?oster

was right2 when you have "ultiple solutions to a proble", the si"plest is usually correct.>ither the stars "ade everything #i"possible$, or God. !9ll go with God.

http+==www.corpuschristioutreach"inistries.blogspot.co"

EA.A.ABEB F Q+BAp"1ill says+

http://www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com/http://www.corpuschristioutreachministries.blogspot.com/


15/134

ohn 52!% aliens %ro" another gala/y showed up to"orrow, or i% we discovered "ultiverses actuallye/ist, it would in no way negate the e/istence o% God. ! think that itJs i"portant not tooverburden our %aith with unnecessary things. How "any people throughout historyabandoned their %aith ;wrongly< because they learned that the >arth was not CBBB years old,

but a "illion ti"es that6 >ven i% there are in%initely "any universes that arise by probability

and gravity, that still begs the &uestion o% where those two %orces ca"e %ro" and, "orei"portantly, what sustains their e/istence ;and thus ours


16/134

)lso go here %or "ore %un reading+http+==www.%acebook.co"=photo.php6%bidUEATEAACABCDDEAOsetUa.EATEBBDBCQENCQ.ETBTQ.EEDCNQEEDNA

http+=="easuringhistory.co"=waves

EA.AC.ABEB F E+a">ras"us de? says+'ot the "ultiuniverse theory LetJs go back to :cca" who says that given two theories thatatte"pt to e/plain so"ething, generally the si"pler one is "ore o%ten the best.

EA.AC.ABEB F A+EAp"oe the Hu"an says+So, since the phrase KGod did it,K can answer >I>@84H!'G...+ hy is the sky blue6 hy isgrass green6 hy is there air6 KGod did itK6 4here%ore we donJt need any co"plicated scienceor e/ploration, or any reason. :r any intelligence at all. @ight6

ust one si"ple answer %or >I>@84H!'G( right6

Li%e 7ust got very, I>@8 si"ple. @ight6

EA.AC.ABEB F Q+QBp"@ichard says+5al" down, oe. ost o% the readers on ?irst 4hings, ! would wager, are %ir"ly pro2science. !certainly a". 4hat does not "ake "e less a 5hristian. 8ouJd better read 1illJs post again.

1est,

@ichard

EA.AC.ABEB F EE+QNp"-ave says+oe the Hu"an2

hy would ! want to re%ute PlatoJs Par"enides dialogue6 ) J"onotheistic :ne that "ade theuniverseJ sounds a whole lot like KGodK in the estern "onotheistic tradition does it not6

)nd ! donJt need to re%ute KQBB other creation "ythsK because the point ! was "aking is that,%or the debate at hand, a "onotheistic view o% ulti"ate reality is %unda"entally superior in

ter"s o% rational e/planation than a polytheistic view, at least i% youJre bound to think thereis so"e underlying ulti"ate reality at all. 8ou incorrectly assu"ed that ! a" 5atholic andthat ! believe ! could rationally prove the 5hristian creation story to be correct( ! "erelynoted that as %ar as this debate is concerned, polytheis" is in%erior to "onotheis", andsi"ply noting that lots o% di%%erent cultures have di%%erent opinions does not constitute anysort o% argu"ent in %avor o% )theis".

KHow can )&uinas stand up to all o% "odern philosophy6K ell "odern philosophy has givenus the proble" o% induction, the proble" o% personal identity, the appalling, repugnant

http://measuringhistory.com/waveshttp://measuringhistory.com/waves


17/134

"etaphysical doctrine that is no"inalis", the "ind2body proble", and the radical division between the world as it is and the world as we know it, so !J" not altogether too i"pressed with "odern philosophy, nor do ! see why you should be. !J" assu"ing youJre a "an wholikes science, which is great, e/cept that ! donJt see how "uch o% it you can buy into i% youJre aJ"odernJ philosopher, re7ecting, as you would, ob7ective causal connections between events,ob7ective connection between our ideas and &ualities o% ob7ects and the J"indJ itsel% in any

"eaning%ul sense. !% you know anything at all about philosophy you probably know that inthe )"erican analytic tradition we tend to arrogantly dis"iss the >uropean JcontinentalJtradition as sophistry or nonsensical, as it o%ten strays %ar %ro" or is altogether unconcerned

with the %indings o% science, but we ought to praise that >uropean tradition %or at least beingconsistent. 4he ancestors o% Hu"e and Vant recogni3ed the i"plications o% their radicalskepticis" and conceptualis" and continued accordingly( analytic philosophers havegenerally conveniently ignored the disastrous conse&uences o% the proble" o% induction orHu"eJs account o% causation generally and si"ply gone on pretending it wasnJt a proble" inthe %irst place.

Particularly, i% you buy into Hu"eJs skepticis" o% causation, or VantJs transcendental theorythat entails that cause=e%%ect relations cannot take us out o% observed e/perience, younecessarily re7ect any sort o% cos"ology at all2 scienti%ic or theological. 4he reason ! believe

Pro%essor Haldane and "any philosophers are la"basting Hawking here is that he is arguingthat philosophical, theological speculation on the origin o% the universe is "eaningless ori"possible, and then engaging in a great deal o% it hi"sel%. 4he %act that Hawking "ight"athe"atically "odel out so"e theoretical construct such as J2theoryJ or the J"ultiverseJ ingeneral is irrelevant( "athe"atics is si"ply another species o% the language o% logic, which;at least in theory, though ! will concede to you o%ten not in practice< is how argu"ents innatural theology are supposed to be laid out. ?ro" a J"odernJ perspective then, J2theory,JJstring theoryJ etc. are no "ore valuable or de%ensible than the worst argu"ents %or thee/istence o% God. 1oth, at least %ro" a "odern perspective, seek to answer &uestions lyingoutside o% the real" o% what it is even possible %or hu"an beings to i"agine, let alonee/perience. !% youJre really so i"pressed with J"odern philosophyJ then, you ought to bere7ecting Hawking on skeptical grounds 7ust as "uch as youJd re7ect )&uinas, Haldane oranyone else.

)dditionally, with regards to the so2called Jcos"ological argu"ent,J youJre presu"ing thatJ%irst causeJ re%ers to J%irst in a seriesJ where a series is being understood as a te"poral chaino% events. !n %act the J%irstJ re%ers to that which is J"etaphysically pri"aryJ or J"etaphysicallynecessary.J Let us agree on one thing here( there is so"ething that has always e/isted andalways will, whether itJs God or not. String theory says JnoJ to God and instead argues %or aclass o% one di"ensional Jstrings,J essentially a variant on the )to"is" o% -e"ocritus, andclai"s that this is the J"etaphysically necessaryJ level o% reality, upon which everything elsethat e/ists depends. 'ow "aybe a rational person would buy this, "aybe he wouldnJt( but

what is wholly irrational to believe is that there is no necessarily e/isting thing or class o%things at all. :% course you "ay choose to rhetorically ask Jwell why would be believe the

world to be rational anyways6J 1ut i% you ask this you certainly betray the spirit o% scienti%icin&uiry, which %ro" your writings ! would presu"e you value.

?inally, ! would like you to na"e so"e o% the J"any analytical philosophersJ who suggest thatthe notion o% an Juncaused %irst causeJ is incoherent, and !Jd also like to ask what Jgetting aclear picture in your "indJ has to do with so"ething being incoherent or not. 4ell "e, can

you get Ja clear picture in your "indJ o% a EB,BBB sided %igure that is distinguishable %ro" aD,BBB sided %igure or a EB,BBE sided %igure6 1ecause ! canJt and !Jll bet you canJt either, butthe concept o% a EB,BBB sided %igure is per%ectly coherent. >&uating Ja picture in the "indJ

with logical coherence is si"ply an e/tension o% the tre"endous "odern %allacy o% e&uatingthe intellect with the i"agination2 a %allacy introduced by Locke and see"ingly never


18/134

corrected. 8ou yoursel% have a long way to go in "aking this con%lation at all reasonable, sothis serves as no real obstacle to the idea o% an uncaused %irst cause.

So you do not inaccurately perceive "y own stance again, let "e "ake it clear here. ! a" a"oderate 5hristian whose "other is a scientist. ! do not buy into JGod o% the gapsJ reasoningand consider "ysel% tolerant and open to disagree"ent and opposing points o% view. y own

irritation at HawkingJs book ste"s %ro" the %act that !J" a philosophy "a7or hoping to %ind a 7ob, not %ro" "y religious belie%s. Please bear this in "ind when you respond.

EA.AT.ABEB F EA+Ea"Sa". says+Roe the Hu"an )s )aron @as"ussen above said, K@eligion is really about "eaning andpurpose. Science is about applying a particular skeptical "ethodological process to thenatural world in order to discover how it works.K Pretty straight%orward, no6 Let scienceanswer the Khow6K, and let religion answer the Kwhy6K.

1esides, even i% God is the "ost prior answer to the &uestion o% cause, there are still other

secondary, "ore direct causes, which can and ought to be investigated and discovered.

http+==wasteyourti"e."tga"es.org

EA.AT.ABEB F EA+ADp" )ndrew Lyttle says+R -ave O sort o% R oe Hu"anus,

-ave,-onJt hold your breath %or a good answer %ro" the H. !snJt it rather obvious %ro" his poststhat he doesnJt generally understand the philosophical issues involved6 >very contributionhe "akes, to every colu"n, tends to repeat e/actly the sa"e basic logical error o% which youare trying to disabuse hi". )%ter a while, shouldnJt one 7ust give up and recogni3e invincible

ignorance when one sees it6

)nyway, he clearly knows only dribs and drabs o% philosophical argu"ent to begin with. His bluster aside, he clearly doesnJt have the background necessary to debate the argu"ents, because he doesnJt actually know what the argu"ents say. hen he tells us that "odernphilosophy has so"ehow put paid to )&uinasJs account, you 7ust have to shake your head, aseveryone in the guild knows that "uch o% the "ost dyna"ic work being done in philosophydepart"ents today ;in the )nglophone world< goes in precisely the opposite direction. 4hischapJs a %raud+ all patter, no guns. -rop the argu"ent, %or sanityJs sake.

EA.AT.ABEB F E+Bp"

harry says+Here are the thoughts o% one who readily ad"its he is an a"ateur. (o<

5urrently, “God did it” is a better e/planation o% the %ine2tuning o% the 0niverse than is “e were the lucky winners in the "ultiverse lottery.” 4here can be, by de%inition, no observableevidence %or the e/istence o% other universes. ultiverse theory is a desperate atte"pt toavoid the conclusions that co""on sense de"ands we reach, and is based upon atheisticreligious = philosophical assu"ptions, not on relentlessly ob7ective, religion2neutral science.

http://wasteyourtime.mtgames.org/http://wasteyourtime.mtgames.org/


19/134

!ntelligence is a reality. 4o deny that it is, is to e/hibit its de%iciency in oneJs own instance. )sa reality, it is legiti"ate %or true, religion2neutral science to consider it as a causal %actor inthe e/planation o% pheno"ena. !n so"e instances it is the obvious e/planation, as in the@osetta Stone and prehistoric cave paintings. !n others it is the best e/planation currentlyavailable to science. 4hat is the case with the digitally encoded instructions e"bedded in the-') "olecule, and with the X “"iraculous,” as Hawking puts it X %ine2tuning o% the

0niverse. Li%e itsel% being astoundingly co"ple/ technology that is beyond our own X i% it werenJt we could build it %ro" scratch X is also currently best e/plained by includingintelligence as a %actor in its origin. ;!% one doesnJt know at least one way a pheno"enon can

be intentionally brought about, one cannot have an e/planation o% how "indless, naturallyoccurring processes "ight bring it about, "uch less any strictly scienti%ic basis %or insistingthat that is the case. !n that situation, the assertion that it was brought about "indlessly canonly be based on religions = philosophical assu"ptions.<

!t is only science perverted by religious atheis" that denies what co""on sense "akesevident to everyone else. ;!t is “religious” atheis" because the belie% that God is not therecannot be proven. !t "ust be taken on %aith. 1elie%s about God taken on %aith are “religious”

belie%s.< @elentlessly ob7ective, religion2neutral science will continue to %ollow the evidence wherever it leads, regardless o% whose religious = philosophical o/ is gored by its doing so.

-arwinJs proposal o% how li%e as we know it could have co"e about "indlessly wascontroversial. 4he reaction o% theists to it was reasonable co"pared to the reaction o% atheiststo the discoveries o% "odern science "entioned above. ?rantically co"ing up with "ultiversetheory is an unreasonable, desperate response. 4he atte"pts to e/plain how "assivea"ounts o% digital logic "ight have been "indlessly written into the -') "olecule are notany better. 5reation "yths see" reasonable in co"parison X at least their authors o%tensee"ed to reali3e that an intelligent being o% so"e kind was the best e/planation based onthe %acts currently available to the".

EA.AT.ABEB F Q+Np"

ohn 5u""ins says+1ill,

:% course ! agree with you. 4he pheno"enon o% this or that scientist, even great scientist,%eeling that their discovery i"plies thereJs no God or God isnJt necessary is a para"ount caseo%+ i% youJve only a ha""er, every proble" is a nail. 4heir proble" is what we all have withGod and with egotis". 4heir %ocus "akes the" stupid be%ore disciplines not their own andthey end up treading in those disciplines when they "ake conclusion such as that o% ?reudJs.;1y the way, ?reud and his insights are very greatly to be valued within their sub7ect area,and 5ivili3ation and its -iscontents, say, is not to be tossed out 7ust because so"e o% ?reudJsconclusions arenJt necessitated by his pre"ises.<

hat is i""ediately incendiary is the see"ing utter denial, or, to be charitable, ignorance,

Hawking shows o% the i"perative o% de%inition. Pretending that KnothingK and Klaws o%physicsK are what he says and not what language says is tanta"ount to dishonesty. Suche"inences as he should be grabbed by the scru%% and have their noses shoved into theirse"antic nonsense, until they ad"it their inco"petence or their lie, or both o% the".

)ctually, itJs "ore than this+ itJs cri"inal to %oist this upon a public with %ew resources orti"e, or even the idea that they can, e/a"ine his crap critically.

EA.AT.ABEB F T+Qp"


20/134

-5r"c" says+K...“1ecause there is a law such as gravity, the 0niverse #that is, ours$ can and will create itsel%%ro" nothing.”...K1ecause there is a law 666666

1ecause there is gravity ... e/trapolate as you wish.

4he law o% the universe is aggregation.Yuantu"2is" has con%used everyone.K:ur universeK, which we call 4he @ational, is a co"ple/ity.4here are underlying si"plicities.4he in%initely co"ple/ re&uires the in%initely si"ple.:ne could also de%ine God as the in%initely co"ple/ and the in%initely si"ple.4his would allow our understanding o% God to si"ply, truly, and sa%ely ignore the statistical,the speculative, and the &uasi scienti%ic.4he &uestion KwhyK is and always will be, a prayer.

respect%ully

http+==rational"echanis"s.co"=le/icon

EA.AT.ABEB F D+EDp"te"po dulu says+

hilst religion is obviously bogus, the real secrets o% the universe, creation etc are probablystill well beyond the understanding o% even the brightest hu"an "inds. !tJs like e/pecting a"ouse to understand 'iet3sche. ! still struggle on understanding basic &uantu" physics. !%

we canJt really understand, how can we 7udge6

http+==al2terity.blogspot.co"=

EA.AN.ABEB F E+BTa"

5huck says+4here are so "any liars about and the sub7ects are so co"ple/ that we will never %igure it out. )ll we can hope %or is to keep the arrogant and dog"atic people on all sides %ro" taking overand closing our "inds.

EA.AN.ABEB F Q+Da"i" says+“ake curtains o% goat hair %or the tent over the tabernacle*eleven altogether.K>/odus AC+Thttp+==lhQ.ggpht.co"=Z3Iv8/Lpo7GB=So8M:PG!=)))))))))>o=r7g&G&DV"e!=sNBB=5overingA2a.7pg

?ive see"ingly contradictory sets o% e&uations to describe the sa"e thing+http+==www.bu33le.co"=articles=%ive2"a7or2world2religions.ht"l

?alsi%iable JSuper 24heoryJ "odel+http+==www.youtube.co"=watch6vUy%QC78-vA%c (


21/134

EA.AN.ABEB F T+QCa"Sa"c says+K!% that is indeed the case, %ar %ro" concluding that Kwe donJt know,K we can very reasonablyconclude that so"eone=so"ething that transcends nature, is distinct %ro" it, and thee/istence o% which is not in any way dependent upon nature, is responsible %or it. 4hat

e/istence, be it a KwhatK or a Kwho,K evidently has the power re&uired to bring %orthso"ething %ro" nothing, and the knowledge re&uired to bring it about such that thatKso"ethingK would eventually lead to intelligent, sel%2aware beings and the environ"ent tosustain the".K

Harry, where did the god co"e %ro" then6 4he only reason that this argu"ent holds any water with theists is they are preconditioned to believe in a god. 4hey start %ro" the positionthat their god is real, not Jwhat is the state o% the universeJ.

K!t is “religious” atheis" because the belie% that God is not there cannot be proven. !t "ust betaken on %aith. 1elie%s about God taken on %aith are “religious” belie%sK

Harry, ever head o% probability6 !t is what science is "ostly based on. Saying that we cannot

disprove a god is a straw "an 4here is nothing religious about atheis", it is the nullhypothesis. How about so"e evidence to re7ect it6

?eel %ree to believe in a god, but 7ust accept that it is based on %aith. -ont try to drag scienceand reason down to the level o% %aith.

EA.AN.ABEB F D+ENa"oe the Hu"an says+ust %or clari%ication+ "y position is not that science o%%ers a sure cos"ology. !t is rather thatneither religion or science either, has a good answer to the &uestion o% the origin o% theuniverse.

y position is that the co"ple/ity o% the universe is so great, especially the "atter o% itsorigins, that the best answer to Kwho or what created the universe,K will always be ... KwedonJt know.K

EA.AN.ABEB F EE+EAa"harry says+Hi, Sa"c,

KHarry, where did the god co"e %ro" then6K 22sa"c

:ne o% the reasons God is God is because He didnJt Kco"e %ro"K anywhere. He is the :ne ho si"ply K!s.K He is the %unda"ental reality, the essence o% being. !% He were to conciselye/plain Hi"sel% to you, He "ight say so"ething like, K! ) H: ),K or "aybe 7ust K!

).K

4here is nothing religious about atheis", it is the null hypothesis. How about so"e evidenceto re7ect it6 22sa"c


22/134

)theis" certainly is religious in the sense ! "entioned+ it re&uires %aith because its basicpre"ise, GodJs none/istence, cannot be proven to be true, and is a belie% about God, even i% itis that God does not e/ist. 1elie%s about God taken on %aith are religious belie%s.

4here is no Ki% the lit"us paper turns red ...K type proo% %or or against GodJs e/istence. 4here

is, in "y opinion, an overwhel"ing a"ount o% circu"stantial evidence %or His e/istence anda hand%ul o% reasonable, but not insur"ountable, argu"ents against it.

4hanks %or your re"arks.

EA.AN.ABEB F EE+Qa" )ndrew Lyttle says+R Harry

)theis" isnJt a religious hypothesis22it isnJt rational enough to be religious. @eligions "ayabound in dog"as, "any o% which are worthless and absurd, and in any nu"ber o% silly

trappings that are there to catch the eye rather than engage the "ind. 1ut at the ground o% allreligious yearning is the rational recognition that the contingent order o% things re&uires atranscendent cause in order to e/ist. >ven Jpri"itiveJ ani"is"s %low %ro" this recognition,even i% they lack the philosophical sophistication to "ake the distinction between being assuch and contingent beings.

)theis" on the other hand proposes a "odel o% reality that is &uite obviously ludicrous+ purecontingency generating pure contingency ab nihilo. !t desribes a universe that cannotpossibly [be[. 4here is no way o% phrasing such a vision in ter"s o% clear "odal logic thatdoes not reveal it to be a "ani%est nonsense. !t "ay be rational to say, J! donJt understandGod and ! donJt %ind any religious doctrines convincing.J 4hatJs "y position on "ost days;though ! think there are such things as "ystical e/perience and revelation as well


23/134

harry says+Hello, oe the Hu"an,

KSo e&ually ! can say the universe, K0S4 !S.K 22 o% H

'ot really. 4hink about what )ndrew Lyttle 7ust posted.

4ake care.

EA.AN.ABEB F A+Qp"1ill says+4his is a lot o% %un. !9ll have to stop in again. ) %ew stray thoughts.

E. ohn 5.24hank you %or your kind co""ents. ! agree that ?reud was a very interesting guy who had so"e good things to say. !t always struck "e as a bit ironic that so"eone whohelped create such an elaborate ;and use%ul in an e/planatory sense< "etapsychologyappeared to have a bit o% an aversion to "etaphysics.

A. Harry. ! agree that )theis" appears to be a religion in a %aith based sense. )gnosticis""ight not &uali%y as a religion unless one were too certain about it +<

. oe the Hu"an2Perhaps the li"it o% “ust !s” as “!s” approaches 0nity ;and 4rinity


24/134

4hough to be sure, ! %ind the KoneK attractive( but even there, ele"ents o% it see" still,parado/ical. here %or e/a"ple did the KoneK co"e %ro"6 4o assert that there was noKnothingK %ro" which it ca"e, nothing be%ore it ... see"s like a rather raw ... )SS>@4!:'.'othing solid.

!t K7ust isK6 !s that solid Philosophy6 !s that an argu"ent6 !s that really better than 7ust

saying the universe 7ust is6 !ndeed, here the KoneK is iso"orphic with ... ! ) in %act. 1ut thatis not to valori3e either.

EA.AN.ABEB F Q+Np"an?ro")ltair says+!tJs easy to prove God doesnJt e/ist.

)ssu"e, %or the sake o% argu"ent, that God e/ists.! shall take the liberty o% writing down the %ollowing sentence, call it P.

P+ God does not know that this sentence is true.

'ow, either God knows P to be true, or God does not know P to be true.!% God knows P to be true, then P is %alse and God is "istaken.!% God does not know P to be true, then P is true and ! have %ound a truth which God does notknow.Since both o% these cases lead to a contradictory result, "y original assu"ption "ust be %alse.Hence, God does not e/ist. @>-054!: )- )1S0@-0

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[

)lright, so God doesnJt e/ist. !s that the end o% it6 5an God love the world i% he doesnJt e/ist6! donJt know, because this is a di%%erent kind o% &uestion.

[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[

Since todayJs philosophy is psychology, Steven Hawking is i"plying psychology is a dead endpursuit.

EA.AN.ABEB F T+EBp"ohn 5u""ins says+

)ndrew Lyttle,

4his is very nicely done+ Kat the ground o% all religious yearning is the rational recognitionthat the contingent order o% things re&uires a transcendent cause in order to e/ist.K

EA.AN.ABEB F T+ACp"harry says+Hello, an?ro")ltair,

)nd 7ust what is the assertion in sentence KPK to be known is true or known to be %alse6


25/134

God "ay not know how to "ake s&uare circles 22 but as soon as you can co"e up withintelligible, coherent plans %or a s&uare circle, !Jll bet He can "ake it. !n the sa"e way, i% youco"pose a sentence containing an intelligible, coherent assertion, God will know whether itis true or not.

8our post was "ildly a"using, but ! a" a%raid you havenJt overwhel"ed everyone with

ine/orable logic. (o<

EA.AN.ABEB F EB+ECp"artin Snigg says+Ran%ro")ltair.

See Godel. See e&uivocation. See stipulated de%inition. See classical theis". See GodJs nature.See J"arried bachelorJ.

EA.AD.ABEB F D+BBa"

oe the Hu"an says+Lyttle O 5u""ings+

Sounds nice ... at %irst. 1ut E< why is reality KcontingentK6 ightnJt all things be e/actly asthey are, necessarily6 )s so"e %or"s o% -eter"inis", even 5hristian religion, suggest6

A< )nd why would e/isting or even contingent things, say "aterial things, re&uire aKtranscendentalK cause6 4hey would re&uire so"e cause other than the"selves6 1ut what isto say that cause is Ktranscendental,K in the sense o% being say, non2"aterial6

atter canJt create itsel%6 1ut God can create hi"sel%6 !s that really an answer6 4he ne/t&uestion is+ how6 ithout an e/planation, you have "erely "ade yet another series o% bald,

unubstantiated assertions( not proo%s.

?:r this and other reasons ! a" an agnostic, as regards the conventional priestly idea o%KGod,K and his role in the alleged creation o% the universe. Personally, !J" looking %or a betterde%inition o% KGodK( one that "akes "ore sense.

4o be sure, the notion o% the K:neK is interesting, in that way. :r a di%%erent concept o% Godthan "ost hold.

EA.AD.ABEB F EE+QDa"4o" says+

Roey understanding is that reality is called contingent because it could be otherwise than it is.4his point has been argued over and over on the internet+ atter is created by the laws o%nature through &uantu" %luctuations. 1y why should there be laws o% nature at all6 !% KnoGodK is an appealing hypothesis because itJs si"ple, isnJt Kno universeK even si"pler6 8etthere is a universe, and there are laws o% nature which, so %ar as we know, could be other thanthey are. Given this the hypothesis o% a transcendent being who causes these laws to e/ist isno less rational than the hypothesis that these laws so"ehow create the"selves. 'one o% ourknowledge o% the physical world supports one hypothesis over the other.


26/134

EA.AD.ABEB F EA+Np"harry says+R1ill

hile accepting the assertion that atheis" is a religious viewpoint, so"e would ob7ect that itis not an organi3ed religion. ! "aintain it is the "ost organi3ed religion 2 our govern"ent has

beco"e, to a large e/tent, its organi3ation. 4hrough an overreaction to a &uite reasonableaversion to living under a theocracy, we have inadvertently allowed the state to e"brace aparticular religious viewpoint. )theis" has beco"e the de %acto state religion. e are livingunder one o% the %ew syste"s worse than a theocracy+ an Katheocracy.K !s the utterly religious

viewpoint 22 the belie% that there is no God which "ust be taken on %aith 22regulated=suppressed the way theis" is regulated=suppressed6 4hink about it. (o<

R)ndrew Lyttle! 7ust want to say ! a" very i"pressed with your re"arks.

EA.AD.ABEB F +BTp"1ill says+Harry25oncur. 'ot %or nothing did they call Stalin the K@ed Pope.K

EA.B.ABEB F N+Ba"Papalinton says+ohn Haldane, no doubt a brilliant philosopher. !t is a pity he is blighted with the catholic

virus, so noticeable in the "anner that a%ter posing his &uestions on cos"ology, on theprocess by which the universe ca"e into being, the regularity o% the cos"ic constants and the

observable order in che"istry( that is, right at the cutting edge o% investigation, he thende%aults, reverts, relapses and regresses to the pri"itive re"nant o% our geneticpredisposition %or i"agining the supernatural and surrender to superstition, and respondthat the only reasonable answer to these &uestions is the e/istence o% a spectral nu"en, acreator god.

)s a consultant to the Iatican, ! probably should not have e/pected anything di%%erent o% -rHaldaneJs religio2philosophical take on this topic.

) reading o% his article clearly posits the notion o% a sophisticated, but nonetheless, Kgod o%the gapsK conclusion.His argu"ent is an Jargu"ent %ro" personal incredulityJ, that such order, such regularitycould not possibly have occurred on its own. ell we know thatJs rubbish. hy should order

not be a natural characteristic in this wonder%ul universe. 4he attribution o% an JuncausedcauseJ si"ply because so"ething looks neat and tidy is a spurious and tendentious clai". 4he"ore honest response would be to ad"it, K! donJt know, but letJs %ind out, shall we.K )ndthatJs where science co"es in. !t is our pri"ary "echanis" %or discovering the secrets o% our

world and universe. )nyone who posits the ideation o% a supernatural real" %illed with gods,de"ons, angels, spirits, is perhaps putting the horse be%ore the cart. !n doing so, thispre"ature approach only places unnecessary barriers in the way o% that e/ploration.


27/134


28/134

ancient ;and "odern< argu"ents regarding ontological contingency is.

)s %or PapalintonJs re"arks, theyJre 7ust silly. 4here could not possibly be a "oreJsuperstitiousJ or "agical idea than that the universe o% contingent things is so"ehow ;by"ore e"inent co"position, to use the language o% the school"en< a sel%2subsistent reality

whose [e/istence[ can be e/plained by the sciences. ;5Lue to "r P+ "odern science deals

with things that e/ist, and %or that reason does not22cannot22deal with e/istence( "oreover,the e/istence o% the universe o% contingent things cannot P:SS!1L8 co"e about e/ceptthrough the actuality o% that which is not contingent or is co"posed( and i% you do notunderstand this distinction, then you have nothing use%ul to say on the "atter.<

Guys, i% youJre going to bluster on in this silly way, canJt you try to rein%orce your pre7udices with even a slight [appearance[ o% philosophical sophistication6 4here are books out there, you know. !% you want to argue these "atters, i""erse yoursel% in a %ew o% the"22"aybe@obert Spit3erJs recent K'ew Proo%sK volu"e or so"e o% illia" Lane 5raigJs things, or so"eo% the "ore easily digested books on these "atters by philosophers who have taken the ti"eto "ake the argu"ents. !% you can understand at least part o% what youJre reading, you "ightat least grasp how utterly ridiculous the things youJre saying here are. )t the "o"ent, youJre

babbling like nursery2school re7ects.

-ouble cheers.

EA.B.ABEB F EA+BAp" 8e :lde Statistician says+oe the Hu"an says+So, since the phrase KGod did it,K can answer >I>@84H!'G...+ ... 4here%ore we donJt needany co"plicated science or e/ploration, or any reason. :r any intelligence at all. @ight6

8:S rong. 5onsider the %ollowing assertions by religious school"en o% olden ti"es+

illia" o% 5onches#4hey say$ Ke do not know how this is, but we know that God can do it.K 8ou poor %oolsGod can "ake a cow out o% a tree, but has He ever done so6 4here%ore show so"e reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so.

)lbertus agnusK!n studying nature we have not to in&uire how God the 5reator "ay, as He %reely wills, useHis creatures to work "iracles and thereby show %orth His power( we have rather to in&uire

what 'ature with its i""anent causes can naturally bring to pass.K #-e vegetabilibus etplantis$

4ho"as )&uinas

K'ature is nothing but the plan o% so"e art, na"ely a divine one, put into things the"selves, by which those things "ove towards a concrete end+ as i% the "an who builds up a ship couldgive to the pieces o% wood that they could "ove by the"selves to produce the %or" o% theship.K #5o""entary on Physics !!.N, lecture E, no. ACN$

'icholas :res"eK! propose here to show the causes o% so"e e%%ects which see" to be "arvels and to showthat the e%%ects occur naturally 4here is no reason to take recourse to the heavens, the lastre%uge o% the weak, or de"ons, or to our glorious God, as i% he would produce these e%%ects


29/134

directly #-e causa "irabiliu"$

)nd so on. oe has con%used the act o% creation with e%%icient "aterial causation.\ \ \oe Hu"anust one si"ple answer %or >I>@84H!'G( right6

Li%e 7ust got very, I>@8 si"ple. @ight6 8:S rong, and wrong.\ \ \Sa"c says+

where did the god co"e %ro" then6 7oehu"anparado/ical. here %or e/a"ple did #PlatoJs$ KoneK co"e %ro"6 4o assert that there was noKnothingK %ro" which it ca"e, nothing be%ore it ... see"s like a rather raw ... )SS>@4!:'.'othing solid.

7oehu"anatter canJt create itsel%6 1ut God can create hi"sel%6

8:SSuch weird &uestions get repeated so o%ten #and so o%ten in the sa"e words$ that ! suspectthey are a %or" o% prayer, learned %ro" so"e revered teacher=source and repeated by rote. !read the sa"e bi3arre &uestion in a newspaper colu"n by the science populari3er, @.-awkins.

1ut the train o% logic runs thus %or so"e QBB pp.+ ) essentially2ordered causes cannotproceed without li"it. 4here%ore, there "ust be an uncaused cause #an un"oved "over. etc.$4his uncaused cause "ust be purely actual( otherwise, it would possess a potential and would

be "ovable #causable$ by another. ?ro" this once "ay deduce %urther properties+uni&ueness, si"plicity, essence U e/istence, eternal, i""aterial, outside o% nature=space2ti"e, all2power %ull, etc., etc. )%ter a while, it beco"es clear that this being is pretty "uch the

traditional vision o% God.

!:, God is not the hypothesis, arbitrarily asserted to have the necessary properties( God isthe conclusion deduced %ro" the necessary properties. Since it is a being whose essence issi"ply its e/istence, the &uestion as to what KcreatedK God is "eaningless. 5reation is 7oiningan essence with an act o% e/istence( but this being has been deduced as one who essence 7ustis to e/ist. Hence, its sel%2description as K! ).K !n "odern ter"s, K>/istence >/ists.K !t is

very hard to deny the e/istence o% >/istence !tsel%.\ \ \sa"cever head o% probability6 !t is what science is "ostly based on.

8:S>ek. )re you really clai"ing that "odern science is a house built upon the sand6 Probabilityis a state"ent o% ignorance( any science Kbased upon itK is a Kscience o% the gapsK kinda thing.!Jve "ade "y living in prob=stat %or near %orty years now, and have noticed how poorlyunderstood it is by scientists, engineers, and business "anagers. ;)s %or social scientists #sic$,ach<\ \ \sa"cHow about so"e evidence to re7ect it #non2e/istence o% God$6


30/134


31/134

up the %aith re&uired to attribute all we donJt yet understand to the “creative power o%"indlessness o% the gaps.” aybe ! could i% there werenJt an in%inite gap between"indlessness and a "ind, between a “what” and a “who” X but there is. aybe ! could i% !didnJt reali3e that "assive a"ounts o% digital logic ;like that %ound in the -') "olecule< canonly spring %ro" a source capable o% being logical, that in%or"ation can only originate %ro" asource capable o% being in%or"ed X a “who.” 4he notion that nature has its origin in :ne ho

could say o% Hi"sel%, “! ) H: ),” is very plausible co"pared to the alternatives, and works "uch better %or those o% little %aith like "ysel%.

EA.B.ABEB F EA+Ep"1illy says+Lyttle+

8ou "ake lots o% assertions, and you say they are abolutely certain. 1ut every one o% yourassertions is &uestioned in current and classsic philosophy. here do you get the idea theyare all settled &uestions6 -id God tell you6

8ou throw out do3ens o% assertions. So letJs start %irst, with one si"ple point+ !S it really truethat the contingent nature o% the universe is settled6

5ontingency "eans ... the universe could be other than it is. 1ut i% the universe was %oundedon laws ... then the universe is ruled, controlled. Possibly, in every aspect. :r K-eter"ined,Kas one school o% philsophy says.

So letJs start with this one+ how and why are you so sure, the universe is contingent6 !n lighto% say, classic -eter"inis", speci%ically.

!s it your opinion that !nternet Philosophy has decisively disproven deter"inis"6

EA.B.ABEB F EA+Tp" ). 1ailey says+! have en7oyed this discussion. :n other %oru"s this kind o% dialogue, such as it is, rapidlydeteriorates, with the atheists calling the theists K?o/ 'ews watchersK and the theistspro"ising to pray %or the souls o% the apparently -a"ned.

! particularly en7oyed -aveJs co""ents. !% ! were running the philosophy depart"ent o% aninstitution o% higher learning !Jd hire you in a heartbeat.

!n any case this has been book"arked %or %urther perusal.

EA.B.ABEB F EA+QEp"ohann says+

8:S+

hy e/actly, canJt a series o% causes, e/tend in%initely6 hy "ust there be a %irst cause6 !%God is in%inite, so nature "ight be as well. !n which case, no need %or a K%irstK cause.


32/134

4his issue, like all the others, is settled, only %or the dog"atic %ew 2 who went to 5atholicschools, that told the" it was settled, only.

EA.B.ABEB F E+Dp"

harry says+Rohann,

8ou wrote+Khy e/actly, canJt a series o% causes, e/tend in%initely6K

4here are "any others who have posted on this %oru" who ! a" sure could answer your&uestion better than !, but ! will take a crack at it, "ore to a"use "ysel% than anythingelse. (o<

!% a series o% causes and e%%ects e/tended back in%initely, it wouldnJt have a beginning. !% itdidnJt have a beginning, it couldnJt be at all. Since it is, it "ust have a beginning. 5learly,

because we observe a series o% causes and e%%ects, there "ust be so"e reality or e/istence that

is uncaused, that caused everything else. 4his strikes "e "ore as co""on sense than5atholic thought.

EA.B.ABEB F A+Ep" )ndrew Lyttle says+R ohann

)s has been pointed out ad nausea", and as )&uinas pointed out with peculiar clarity, evenan in%inite series o% causes e/tending backwards without beginning would still be an in%initese&uence o% contingent causes and e%%ects, and as a whole would still not be able to account%or its own e/istence. !t would still as a whole re&uire an in%inite uncaused actuality to give it

being. 4his is why )&uinas and others were very clear to "ake sure that the argu"ent %or aJ%irst causeJ was not con%used with an argu"ent %or the e/istence o% a %irst cause in a series o%causes, or one cause a"ong others. !t is an argu"ent %or the necessary reality o% that which isuncaused being logically prior to every series ;no "atter how %ar that series e/tends %orwardsor backwards


33/134


34/134

EA.B.ABEB F +AEp"Papalinton says+-id ! note so"eone "ention illia" Lane 5raig as re&uired reading6

y case rests.

EA.B.ABEB F +ATp" 8e :lde Statistician says+ohann says+

hy e/actly, canJt a series o% causes, e/tend in%initely6 hy "ust there be a %irst cause6

8:S'ot 7ust any series. )&uinas %a"ously allowed %or accidentally2ordered series to proceedin%initely %ar into the past ;because there was no philosophical proo% that the world was noteternal.< 1ut an essentially2ordered series is di%%erent. !n an essentially2ordered seres, eachcause derives its causal power %ro" the conte"porary action o% a prior cause. ?or e/a"ple,

o3artJs 5larinet 5oncerto in ) is caused by the air waves, which are caused by the clarinet, which is caused by the vibrating reed, which is caused by Sharon Va".http+==www.youtube.co"=watch6vU/ra1vNh_!

'otice that all the other causes in the chain are si"ply [instru"ents and would lack anycausal power whatever i% they were not being "oved by a %irst "over, in this case, SharonVa". Since each inter"ediate cause derives its causal power %ro" its predecessor, there "ust

be a %irst cause. :therwise, none o% the other causes would have the power to act.

Si"il at&ue, an in%inite series o% %orwarded e"ails would still re&uire a %irst cause, not in thesense o% an initial %orwarding act, but in the sense o% a writing o% the content. 'o a"ount o%%orwarding can account %or the content. So"ething outside the accidental series "ustaccount %or it.

Post2"odern critics o% the cos"ological argu"ents always get wrong the nature o% the causalseries. 4his enabled the" to "isstate the argu"ent, and thus Kre%uteK it. 1ut what they re%uteis an argu"ent that none o% the traditional theologians ever de%ended. !tJs like re%utingGalileo by dropping a cannonball and a %eather %ro" a tower and pointing out that they donot %all at the sa"e rate.

EA.B.ABEB F +QEp"ohann says+

8ouJre still begging the big &uestion+ where did God or the ?irst 5ause co"e %ro"6

!% so"ething outside the syste" "ust have caused everything 2 then what caused it6 How didthat thing outside the syste", co"e into being6 ho or what "ade God6 How is it that hee/ists6 See"s like co""on sense.

)nd so, does an uncaused %irst cause, e/ nihilo or otherwise, really "ake sense, or e/plainanything at all6 here, how, did it co"e into e/istence6 !t ... 0S4 !S6

>ver read @ichard @orty, on the K"yth o% the givenK6


35/134

4he old 5atholic school answers 2 )&uinas 2 7ust wonJt do.

8ouJre still begging the &uestion+ where did the %irst cause co"e %ro"6

4o be sure, as so"eone already pointed out earlier, there really are no good argu"ents. yown tentative argu"ent is in in%inite regress, or a circle. 1ut yours is in the rawest kind o%

dog"atic arbitrariness+ the %irst cause, 7ust is. 1ecause they told you so in parochial school61ut where did the %irst cause co"e %ro"6 !t ...7ust is.

Philosophy has "oved on( very, very %ar. Since )&uinas.

Look up @orty, on the K"yth o% the given.K

Get real.

EA.B.ABEB F Q+EDp"a"es . says+

an ?ro"+

HereJs a better one+ K5an God "ade a rock so heavy, that God cannot "ove itK6

!% he can, then there is so"ething God cannot do.

!% he cannot, then ... again, there is so"ething God cannot do.

EA.B.ABEB F Q+AQp"ohn P. -unn says+

Scienti%ic e/planations are necessary, but not always su%%icient.

EA.B.ABEB F Q+p"@ichard says+Papalinton,

PythagorasJ theore" is very old. )nd still as good as gold.

)s %or )&uinas, it wonJt do to say heJs old hat. >ngage the argu"ent or pass. )s %or ohannJsassu"ption that those who believe in God were i"printed in a 5atholic Grade school andnever got over it, that is a %eeble "ove. ! "ight as well say that he read )yer or @yle or Sartre

when he was young and i"pressionable and never recovered. 1est to be polite to oneJsinterlocutors. 4hey "ight be right.

!t is i"possible to get a consensus view on )&uinas 7ust now. He is &uite variously appraised by that vast horde o% cats, "odern philosophers. 1ut ! thought one &uote in "y readingparticularly surprising and thought%ul. !t is %ro" the revised second edition o% ) -ictionary o% Philosophy by )nthony ?lew, published in EDN, when he was still the God o% )theists, andshows a %airness that surprised "e+


36/134

4e/tbook 4ho"is" presented theories such as the analogy o% 1eing, the doctrine o% naturallaw, the real distinction between essence and e/istence which represented hardenings o% a%luid and nuanced position in )&uinas hi"sel%. 1ut in recent decades the work o% dedicated"edievalists, secular as well as 5hristian, and the waning o% o%%icial 5atholic 4ho"is" #this

was a%ter Iatican !! and the philosophical repositioning o% 5atholic thought+ @.$ have begunto "ake roo" %or a 7ust appreciation o% )&uinasJ genius based upon purely philosophical

criteria.\\\\\\\

!% this is true it is %atal to your reduction o% )&uinasJ thought to "erely 5atholic tradition thatholds no "ore water than a sieve.

Let science prove what it can and "ay the %ates be with it. 1ut the dog"atic assertion that thetranscendental is a chi"era beyond a shadow o% a doubt is utterly unconvincing to "e. !know you think otherwise. 8ou are not a bash%ul "an. 1ut ! wish that you were a "orehu"ble and gentle one.

)s )ristotle said long ago, truly, the "ark o% an educated "an is not to de"and o% a sub7ect

"ore precision and deter"inacy than it can provide.

)nother %avorite &uote o% "ine is %ro" an online source ! do not re"e"ber, but it takes "y%ancy+ the greatest triu"ph o% "odern science is the de"ateriali3ation o% the "aterial.

)nd another, by ?rost+

e dance around in a ring and suppose,1ut the secret sits in the "iddle, and knows.

1est,

@ichard

EA.B.ABEB F Q+QQp"4ho"as ones says+! %ear this discussion, albeit satis%ying, is in danger o% in%inite regress itsel%. ;! guess that"akes ohn Haldane God, which at least clears one thing up


37/134

EA.B.ABEB F C+Dp"oe the Hu"an says+4ho"as O @ichard+

y position is indeed, that neither science nor religion, really have the %inal answers, when itco"es at least to origins. !n the end, in "any situations, @eason runs out .. and we 7ustchoose to accept, rather arbitarily, this or that "etaphysical cos"ology. hile religion see"sto generate endless parado/es and raw assertions.

However, i% the origin o% the universe 7ust doesnJt "ake sense, in neither the religious nor thescienti%ic account6 !% both see" 2 as regards coso"ogeny at least 2 to be arbitrary, orcircularr6 4hen let us turn there%ore, to things we 5)' "ake sense o%. Like looking to see

what works, in our real, daily lives. )nd there, as a practical "atter, science and technologyhave been in%initely "ore %ruit%ul, than sitting around praying %or "iracles.

4here%ore, given a choice between two di%%erent ways o% thought, advocating two e&uallyi"ponderable "etaphysical sche"es6 )t that level indeed, @eligion ande Science are e&ually

speculative, and you "ight as well choose one, as the other. 1ut , since both are e&uallyhelpless at 4H)4 level o% analysis, it "ight be best to pick the one that see"s to deliver best,in other i"portant areas, other spheres.

hile science delivers, %ar, %ar, %ar better, when it co"es to the KprosperityK that even Godpro"ised.

S!nce "etaphysics cancels out, as an i"ponderable constant ,in both religion and science,put the &uestion o% orign aside. )nd then co"pare the other virtues o% each %ield. hile there,science wins ...by a %actor o% "illions.

!n %act, it wins big enough, to suggest that whatever the "etaphysical basis o% the universe"ight be, "ost likely, it is %ar %ar closer to things as described by Science, than by @eligion.

)t least @eligion, as "ost understand it today.

EA.B.ABEB F N+BNp"4ho"as says+Science and 5o""on Sence ;with apologies to 4ho"as ones


38/134

institutions o% science so"ehow co"pel us to accept a "aterial e/planation o% thepheno"enal world, but, on the contrary, that we are %orced by our a priori adherence to"aterial causes to create an apparatus o% investigation and a set o% concepts that produce"aterial e/planations, no "atter how counterintuitive, no "atter how "ysti%ying to theuninitiated. oreover, that "aterialis" is absolute, %or we cannot allow a -ivine ?oot in thedoor.

\\\\\\\\\\\

How utterly delicious. )nd %or once ! can truth%ully say, ! knew it all the ti"e.1est,

@ichard

EA.B.ABEB F N+AEp"harry says+Hi, Papalinton,

8ou wrote+

“... 4he start o% this universe "ay well have been 7ust one o% a series o% events o% an evolvingprocess. !t is reasonable to e/trapolate that i% energy cannot be created or destroyed it would

be logical to suggest this universe is a product o% an earlier cos"ic process. 4his see"s tohave greater e/planatory power, consistent with what scienti%ic evidence has been discoveredand veri%ied, although it is speculation at best. ...”

4he 0niverse is e/panding. So ! donJt see how it will ever collapse in on itsel% so it can bring%orth another 0niverse with a “1ig 1ang,” but letJs say that is what has been going on. LetJssuppose this 0niverse is 7ust the latest in a long series o% 0niverses, each o% which eventuallycollapsed into a singularity which then began a new one with a “1ig 1ang.” !% that were

proven to be the case, we still wouldnJt know how the process got started. So"ebody wouldstill be asking “hy does the chain o% 0niverses, each one being the cause o% the ne/t, have tohave a beginning6 hy canJt we assu"e "atter=energy J0S4 !SJ6” ! a" not sure where yousee greater e/planatory power in an evolving cos"ic process in ter"s o% the &uestions beingdiscussed here.

!t see"s to "e that to answer so"e &uestions is si"ply outside o% the real" o% science.Science e/plains what e/ists X not why there is e/istence. ! think what it can do, and hasdone, is to provide us with circu"stantial evidence which overwhel"ingly indicates that it is%ar "ore likely that there is a reality that transcends nature than that there isnJt. Scienceindicates that the 0niverse did indeed have a beginning, and its ever e/panding 0niverserules out the chain o% 0niverses idea.

Science never observes in nature a case o% so"ething arising %ro" nothing. !% the 0niversehad a beginning, and you canJt get so"ething %ro" nothing in the natural order o% things, thee/istence o% a supernatural order as the ulti"ate cause o% nature see"s necessary. ! suspectthe vitriolic reaction to thinking such as this is not due to a hatred o% the idea o% an order o%reality that transcends nature, but to a lot o% baggage that has been attached to it ;thetraditional idea o% God and His rules %or us


39/134


40/134

5heers

EA.B.ABEB F D+Tp"

@ichard says+Papalinton,

K!ncidentally, ?lew was a deist.K

! was right. 8ou al"ost certainly donJt know "uch about philosophy ;! %reely ad"it that !donJt either22but ! do have a keen interestdgar )ndrews says+

)lthough ! a" a scientist and not a philosopher, ! inadvertently answered "ost o% StephenHawkingJs atheistic argu"ents in "y own book Kho "ade God6 Searching %or a theory o%everythingK published EA "onths be%ore K4he grand

Documents

Philosophy Lives.doc