Something of a problem, though, isn’t it, rejecting the idea of existence from nothingness, and then complaining that those who posit a creator God violate Occam’s razor (if I understand skeptic griggsy correctly)? If not nothing, then something. If something, what? Given some of the elaborate theories I have read of regarding the origin of the universe (multiverse, for example) and given the complexity of explanations based on quantum theory, can a believer in a single creator God be accused of multiplying enitites unnecessarily, in comparison?
I’m just a casual reader of popular accounts of physics, and so may simply not understand the theories being promulgated. And I do not claim to know God created the universe, or that I can prove that God exists. But I question whether Occam’s razor is a useful tool in attacking those who believe in a creator God, at least when the issue is how the universe came into existence, unless it is assumed that the universe has always existed, and was never created.
Ciceroianus, that is also Richard Swinburne’s thought, so you are in good company. Now we naturalists use the Razor to show that He requires convoluted ad hoc assumptions while we can explain mere natural forces without multiplying entities . That He might be simple does not gainsay the challenge it poses. Those assumptions are what are the multiple entities!
In March will come out Rudy Vass’s anthology on the multiverse. Check Amazon for information on it.
And Existence is indeed eternal as I’ll anon at one of my other threads. I welcome challenges to them as I want us not to talk past each other. As a fallibilits, I find that others can find naturalists’ argumentation defeasible. One philosopher enjoys the ripostes that he and his colleagues ever do with arguments. Let us do likewise!
Thanks for having me clarify that the assumptions are that way.
Double depression is so depressing. Your happy neurotic depressive and schizotypal.
Blessings and goodwill to all!
In The New Republic, Jerry Coyne, author of “Why Evolution is True,” reveals that Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson try to maintain that God would have tweaked evolution to produce new beings through convergence like us had we disappeard, but there are no hints of that whatseoever.That is just another god of the gaps argument from them. That is a use of pareidolia, like seeing Yeshua in a tortilla.
The naturalist [positive atheism] atelic argument is that the weight of evidence shows no cosmic teleology, thus God is out of work.
Fr. Grigggs’s previous posts here adumbrate on this.
Theists, why do y’all have to posit this superstition? Is it your argument from angst at work on you?
And now my friend Dr. Jerry Coyne, joins Drs. PZ Myers, Paul Kurtz, Frederic Crews, William Provine and me with his masterful essay ” Seeing and Believing, ’ in noting that theistic evolution is indeed an oxymoron! Now it is his case that counts, not his being an authority, that one should consider. Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson try to make the case for theistic evolution in that either God could have wanted a being of our stature or else He could have intervened in sub-atomic events. They have no evidence for that, just the customary guesses, it must be’s and begged questions.
Dr. Coyne and some writer in a recent issue of Skeptic magazine note that there was no guarantee of that whatsoever. Yea, they beg the question that He wanted us when they just guess that and think it must be so.
Selection did not plan for us, and there is no reason to posit Him to contradict selection, the non-planning, anti-chance agent of Nature.
Also get Amiel Rossow’s take on Miller@ Talk Reason.
There is no need for obfuscatory theistic evolution,folks!
From the side of religion, one can be both theist and evolutionist, but from the side of science, one then compartamentalizes the scientific with the superstitious!
We new atheists prefer the truth. I see I redo some of the previous post.
I now call the first argument the teleonomic/ atelic one. Google teleonomy to see Ernst Mayr’s take on it,please.
Please Google my friend , Jerry Coyne, to find his ‘‘Seeing and Believing,” where he adduces that creation evolution is an oxymoron. Had we not appeared he notes that no comparable species would have arrived [ Someone in Skeptic magazine makes this point.]. Kenneth Miller argues that convergent evolution would have produced such a species. Nay! There is no reason to postulate that perhaps God acts in the sub-atomic realm. Coyne keelhauls Miller and Karl Giberson for their obfuscation. Obfuscation is what theologians ever do with their guesses, it must be’s and begged questions.
Dr. Scott is my Facebook friend! I adore and love her! Her husband- lucky.
We new atheists, anti-theists, contemn the obfuscation of science. Ours is the program to enshrine reason and demolish faith whilst the accommodationists’ is to bridge the gap betwixt believers and science. I maintain that fundamentallists”‘see through that” as I told me-: they still resits. The still open to evolution won’t look askance at evolution because of us, but would probably embrace creation evolution, preferring the accommodationists’ program to ours.
We don’t make the rationalist fallacy that with more education, there would be less superstition when people use their education to embrace more fully ” The Transcendent Temptation,” of which Paul Kurtz speaks.
Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson try to maintain that God would have tweaked evolution to produce new beings through convergence like us had we disappeard
That is an absolutely ridiculous idea. It contradicts the theory that we are all part of God’s plan. If a perfect all powerful all knowing deity creates a plan, why does he need a backup plan? He’s perfect! The more they try to defend their religion, the more flaws they provide us with to exploit.
thoswm, faith doth that to people! Theists ever beg the teleological arguments- from reason, design, fine-tuning and probablity- that divinity had such a species as ours in mind. So, logic is the bane of theists!
Which other arguments do theists use to hoist God onto Nature? See arguments for Him, please.
thoswm, yea, they go from one trap to another, but one expects that on something built on shifting sand. The teleonomic/ atleic argument reveals that since the weight of evidence reveals no cosmic teleology, then to postulate divine teleology contradicts natural selection and other natural cause; they are the sufficient reason.
Are tsunamis the result of teleology? Ah, the special pleading that all the good is teleological whilst the bad is there for free will and soul-building!
thoswm, t’is that the religious follow that bane!
Really, this is all a matter of coherence and correspondence. The latter arises through experimentation and observation, while the former is essentially a coherent body of knowledge or set of concepts that correspond to the experience arising from the experiment. That’s how science progresses.
But if you do not separate yourself from divine cosmic being (that is the cause AND effect simultaneously by both happening in the timeless now), then it will be easier to see how a conception of future could develop into past, and that these words are essentially meaningless when not separated from each other and viewed in contrast. It is actually very possible to see through time as an illusion and there are many people today that have done it, myself included. With a small shift of identity from the idea of body to consciousness itself (that is contrasted with non-being in the ineffable non-dual truth of the present moment), you will have a better foundation for seeing things as they are, rather then how you would like for them to be. The body may very well be the the cause of consciousness, but it may very well be the other way around. There is no way to tell because matter and spirit belong to the same reality and it’s all one. I’m really talking outside of myself and nothing that I can say can really point to who I am. If you are confused by what I’m saying it’s because you’re looking at the finger pointing towards the moon. The shift in perception will have to come about by your own effort, all I’m saying is that it is possible.
Einstein himself said, although he preferred to complicate things with his vivid imagination:
“Since there exist in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent “now” objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.”
Existence is the repository of natural causes, which themselves are the sufficient one. Nothing can cause it.
The atelic - without purpose, teleology- eviscerates not only teleological arguments but others as well: there can be no divine intent to start Existence, none to play a role in history as the Divine Protector of Jewry [ the Shoah comes to mind.] and no divine intent for miracles!
Please study the thread Existence -arguments about Him- the square circle, sir and others.
As noted there, intent begs the question.
Pleae don’t use the argument from incredulity!
One supernaturalist uses the new Omphalos argument that indeed God hides Himself behind atelic causation- causalism as Weisz puts it. So, despite the actual appearance of teleonomy, supernaturalists, in order to get over their angst that we inhabit a purposeless world just have to have God. So, out comes what I note in the argument from pareidolia that they see intent and design when only teleonomy and patterns are at work. So, they come up with all kinds of arguments involving intent, but never could they ever adduce evidence for that intent, only by that pareidolia can they feel right.
Scientists are studying the evidence for why people have the pareidolia of that intent, and so here is an argument that does not depend on the genetic fallacy but rather evinces why supernaturalists see what they see. Those well-trained eyes of faith!
I maintain that we gnu atheists must ever put forth the teleonomic argument that no directed evolution exists, and that notion,besides violating the Ockham, contradicts science rather than complementing it, and would be a parasite on it as it cannot say how He directs it: God id it,eh?
Google Greta Christina’s article about three silly arguments of serous people. She notes no directed evolution.
Theistic evolution is cant for those poor “souls” like Ayala who cannot fathom that we ourselves make our own values and purposes.
’ Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate.” Inquiring Lynn