Blind nature is not the same as God. Of course. Blind nature is blind.
Discuss.
Discuss.
Blind nature is not the same as God. Of course. Blind nature is blind.
Discuss.
I don't know about any one else, but I only find it annoying when someone throws out what they suppose is a provocative statement and orders a discussion. The OP offers no other remark than the obvious that God and blind nature are not the same. A six-year old can say that! Then he informs us that blind nature is indeed blind.
Naturally, the first intelligent respondent asks what is meant by 'blind'. I say, 'intelligent,' but excuse me, exchemist, maybe not intelligent enough. I suggest that we don't feed the troll.
Suppose the first thing is to establish what is meant by "blind". I would take that to mean an absence of teleology.
There is order in nature, which some people find divine, but it is questionable whether this order exists for a particular purpose.
If we are a product of blind nature then there is no purpose to our existence. Yet we create purpose. Those who believe in God definitely create purpose whether delusional or not.
Yes. Every human being, atheist or not, is trying to fulfill some sort of teleology. Whether it is working a factory job or writing about science on sciforums. I don't know whether you believe in God or not, but whatever it is I won't waste my life on earth.
Well that is not what I was saying. This was that some people see the order in the universe as evidence of a divine creator - with whatever teleological or other implications they associate with that.
Most religions provide an aspect of such a purpose, bound up with culture and tradition. Non-believers also seek purpose to their lives, but have to work out for themselves what they think that should be. The degree to which they articulate this, even to themselves, seems to vary widely from person to person.
Blind nature sounds like the theory of randomness, whereas God is more about order and determinism.
If you look at humans, we prefer order and control. Very few people prefer to live in the chaos of war where nothing is permanent for very long, and one has to react to a constant flux of unpredictable change beyond your control. Humans try to create order; habits, structure and personal possessions, so the main capacitance of things is ordered, but with some flux of change for excitement and fun.
Since humans like order and control, and if we assume God is higher than human, a simple extrapolation implies order at the top of the food chain. One would logically conclude that if humans like order and God made man in his image, God also liked order first and would design his universal house to be full of order. This allows the universe to make sense to humans, who like order, since a random universe has no cause and effect. This is not the case.
Right, nature actually exists.Blind nature is not the same as God. Of course. Blind nature is blind.
Discuss.
This requires an a priori assumption that there is a purpose to "blind nature".One of the major differences between blind nature and God is that blind nature makes mistakes whereas God ultimately fulfills the purpose of Its design.
Your argument here seems to imply that there is an objective purpose to life... which would be yet another a priori assumption.A person can fail to achieve their purpose to life by following blind nature as opposed to God.
One of the major differences between blind nature and God is that blind nature makes mistakes whereas God ultimately fulfills the purpose of Its design. A person can fail to achieve their purpose to life by following blind nature as opposed to God.
Well, yes, in as much that laws and theories can be derived from action and reaction, continuity and existence. Reality operates with certain coefficients. These can be estimated and tested, and predictions and planning made therefrom.
Hell, isn't that why God gave us statistics?
Interesting point. Here is a question for anybody: Is Langan's work any good? I mean is it testable? How can a God in the imagination become real? How can a spirit be real?
He is definitely correct and that is easy to demonstate.... I know of a Quantum theorist who believes that we can know more than what our 5 senses tell us. A priori knowledge gained in lieu of the empirical. I'm not sure whether or not this is a false belief.
What is this God you're speaking off?Blind nature is not the same as God. Of course. Blind nature is blind.
Discuss.
Wow, I was wondering how long it would take...Interesting point. Here is a question for anybody: Is Langan's work any good? I mean is it testable? How can a God in the imagination become real? How can a spirit be real?