ilgwamh,
I can't choose. I don't know what is "outside" of this universe. It would be an untestable speculation on my part and would fall outside of the realm of science. But I can say that logic applies within our universe. ... It seems I can keep my religion and also touch your argument. I would just have to have good internal reasons for my religion to be logical.
There is indeed no question that logic applies within our universe (I should hope so!) However, you are not asked to speculate about applicability of logic outside of our universe, if such a thing exists. What you are asked to do, is to realize that your reasoning has led you into a trap. If logic applies outside of our universe, then you indeed can't touch my argument, unless you devise a logical refutation for it. You cannot touch it in the sense of claiming that it is not applicable to God. On the other hand, if logic does not apply outside of our universe, then of course my argument wouldn't apply either. But neither would your religion! In that case, you can't pretend to understand <u>anything</u> about the outside of our universe -- including "presense" or "absense" of any "entity" within that "realm". I put all of these words in quotation marks because none of them would have a meaning within a context that does not support logic. This is what I mean when I say you can't keep your religion in this case -- you cannot claim to possess <u>knowledge</u> of anything that does not obey logic -- as a creature existing within a logical world, you are simply incapable of "knowing" anything within a realm where logic does not apply. Which means that, if logic does not apply to the outside of our universe, nothing contained in the Bible is true. As I've previously suggested -- decisions, decisions....will lead you nowhere, but toward a realization that religion in general makes about as much sense as a flying pink elephant.
Who created God? You are asking a question that is outside of our cognitive domain.
Sure, and what makes you think that it is within our cognitive domain to ask, "who created the universe"?! What's the ultimate difference between "God" and "universe", in terms of existence and creation??
Gods told us He has always existed (I am).
Oh? Please, don't tell me this is proof enough for you! Besides, who cares what "God" tells you, if what you are told makes <u>no sense</u>. After all, given that, and even assuming you believe in God: either God is not wise enough to convey to us what he really means, or we are not smart enough to understand what God really says. Whichever you choose, you are forced to discard everything your "God" tells you as meaningless. So you still can't keep your religion. And as an afterthought, notice that the very existence of "God", not to mention communication from it, is not an apriori truth in this forum.
You say, "I can't comprehend what 'beyond' actually means in the deepest sense but I understand the point." Yet, are you really sure that you "understand the point"? How do you know that your so-called "understanding" is not merely a form of <u>misunderstanding</u>? The only way to test such things, is with empirical facts and logic. So unless you are able to formulate "what 'beyond' actually means" -- you cannot claim that you "understand the point."
Once again, do universal laws and parameters apply to a God who is not contained by this universe? Without addressing this issue you don't really have a leg to stand upon. All your material is well thought out and logical but it seems to apply to a god who is contained inside of this universe or implys the same logic outside of this universe.
Once again, I restate that all <u>any of us</u> have to go on, is what we know from within the confines of our universe. You are no different from me in this respect; you are just as limited in your cognitive reach as I am; we are both prisoners of our reality, being a mere part and parcel of it. This is precisely the leg I stand on. We don't have to assume that God, if it exists, "implys the same logic outside of this universe." All we have to do is realize that if our logic does not apply to the outside, then we cannot know <u>anything</u> about the outside -- including presense or absense of God. On the other hand, if we know even that tiny little bit about the outside -- that God exists there, for example -- then it is automatically true that our logic applies to the outside as well. There are no maybes here, no in-betweens. And either choice leaves you without ammunition.
If I found an answer that completes a puzzle and produces a very consistent world view and goes along with other established facts then I'd choose it. There would have to be good evidence for me to do so.
My claims regarding this statement of yours, are:
1) your answer is not a "very consistent" world view (which is the point of this entire thread)
2) your answer does not go "along with other established facts" (a minor point of this thread)
3) there is no "good evidence" for you to choose your particular answer
If there is no 'outside' how do you explain the universe being here?
If there is an 'outside', how do you explain the 'outside' being here?
It is possible (though by no means certain) that the very question of origin is improper, only we don't realize that yet. (improper, I mean, in a way analogous to such questions as "where lies the end of the world")
There must be a reason for the universe being around.
Once again, we don't know. If logic applies outside of our universe, then there indeed must be a reason. However, if logic does not apply outside of the universe, then causality does not apply either. In fact, while all this time we have been talking about an "outside" -- we must realize that if logic fails at some point, we cannot even discuss such a concept (inside vs. outside are logically coupled ideas.) So you see, if logic fails at some point, we cannot even begin to discuss an ultimate "origin".
In fact, logic cannot fail in any trivial fashion. For example, if you suppose a dichotomy between a logical "inside" and an illogical "outside", then that very dichotomy, which is logical, disproves the existence of such a boundary (from the point of view of the "outside", such a boundary is paradoxical.) Within an illogical super-universe, no concepts whatsoever could survive; for example, existence is logically coupled to inexistence, so neither can have a definition within an illogical domain. In short, you cannot have a logical sub-universe embedded within an illogical super-universe just for the heck of it. In fact, you will have to work very hard to even begin to understand how that could possibly be. And in fact, it may very well be that such a situation is downright impossible.
On the other hand, if we assume that logic applies everywhere and at all levels, then we are led down an infinite regress of "what created what".
Either way, no traditional religion provides satisfactory resolution to either of these conundrums. In fact, the very seeming intractability of both scenarios may in itself be an indication that the question of ultimate origin is meaningless -- and the only reason some of us claim to possess answers to such a question, is because they or their ancestors were simple-minded enough to ask -- which certainly would indicate that any and all religious knowledge is generated purely by simple-minded human cultures.
Very few Christians and non-Christians understand how Genesis is compatible with the findings of modern science. And this is without distorting the text.
Let's focus on the Christians. If the majority of them cannot accept the findings of modern science, and deem certain theories to be in conflict with their religion, then could it indeed be that they are correct, "without distorting the text"? What makes you think that you are more in touch with God than the majority of practitioners of your own religion? Yet, if they are more in touch with God and its "word" than you are, then your interpretation is obviously false! Either way, you are in a somewhat difficult position here, won't you agree?
My position is more commonly known as progressive creationism, thiestic evolution, or old earth creationism
You don't seem to understand how nonsensical "theistic evolution" sounds. You cannot mix religion and science, simply because science does not allow any assumptions that cannot be empirically refuted. "Theistic evolution" is equivalent to something like "pseudoscientific science". Thank your for contributing yet another self-contradiction to the long list of this discussion.
<h3>
<center>with regard to your second post:</center></h3>
Lets say for arguments sake that God does not know everything. ... God may not know everything and be all powerful in a way that he can do absolutely anything but what does this mean? How does it hinder Christianity.
Right off the top of my head, this means:
1) God is not the ultimate origin of everything
2) God knows what it's doing no more than any random one of us
3) God would have to have his own "God" of some kind, which begs the question: which one of all that infinite hierarchy of Gods is it truly proper to "worship"?
4) Why worship some stuck-up hyperdimensional alien?
In short, such a retreat on your part reduces God to merely a powerful and intelligent lifeform not fundamentally different in its nature or limitations from any one of us. In that view, we are simply weaker and more limited than God, but not fundamentally distinct from him. The distinction between God and a lowly bacterium becomes merely a matter of degree, rather than a matter of genuine dissociation.
This is all precisely the kind of "blasphemy" that certain Christian members of this discussion board actively crusade against. So, at least evidenced by their reactions, the implications for Christianity would be very dire indeed. That's why in showing absolute omniscience to be paradoxical, I claim to disprove one of the central tenets of Christianic faith.
Remember, if this God stuff is true where did our logic, laws, and reasoning power come from? Or should I say who did they come from?
Our logic and reasoning power, at least according to me, came purely out of those very "laws" that you mention. So, as far as origins are concerned, the source of the "laws" is the only thing that needs explaining.
The Big Bang does not assume that the universe or its laws did not exist in their entirety prior to the "bang". In the Big Bang, the universe merely expanded from an infinitely compressed state. And, with respect to the aforementioned Big Bang, I must caution you that you are trying to use an empirical theory to support a non-empirical framework. The Big Bang is merely a model; it is by no means (and is not claimed by anybody to be) the real, absolutely correct, interpretation of what "happened". And actually, in that view, it is especially amusing to see people trying to reconcile their religion with an intermediary scientific working model, and claiming that to be the "true" interpretation. Not an entirely original enterprise, by the way, since in the past Christianity had been equally perfectly "reconciled" with everything from alchemistry, to Newtonian physics, to mathematics, to slavery, to cellular biology. Just goes to show you how conveniently flexible the process of "interpretation" can be, when the only constraint is a desire for perfect agreement.
Now, even if the laws were originated, why does it have to be a "who", instead of a "what"? This is a very deep and important question; yet religious folk simply assume an answer to it seemingly without giving it any thought. It's one of the traits of religion that irks me greatly. After all, even within our own universe, there are a whole unimaginably large lot more of different possible "whats" in existence, than there are different "whos".
Finally, I once again reiterate the difficulties with defining an ultimate origin. I suspect that even as a modern civilization we simply have not yet developed the wherewithal to properly debate such an issue, much less reach conclusions on it some 6000 years ago in the bronze age.
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited January 23, 2000).]
Oops. lol