Originally posted by phank
View Post
This is exactly backwards. In a complex universe with countless independent processes occurring simultaneously, the result is guaranteed to be one preposterous coincidence after another. Now, if we ring in a superman (and let's be real again - the Christian god is treated as a person with human emotions and motivations, but great physical powers),
What you need to try to do is back away and look logically at the situation. There are two ways for anthropomorphisms to appear in a description of a superior being. One is for the being to be produced by the imagination of the inferior being (this is your belief/assumption). The other is for the inferior being to describe their interactions with the real superior being using their own language and experience.
I submit that to tell the difference is a non-trivial exercise.
presumably that superman will impose predictability and coherence onto that universe. We see little of this, and the future remains as opaque as ever.
Except of course that ANY conceivable universe is so improbable as to be near impossible. So we're back to the "every bridge hand is a miracle" argument. Just THINK of the infinity of ways the puddle's container could fail to precisely fit the puddle. Could it possibly be that the exact shape and size of the puddle's container came first, and that any water that filled it HAD to be an exact fit? Could it not also be the case that any universe is necessarily going to constrain what is possible within it?
This gets annoying. Why do you never identify the particular god you wish, and explain why any of the other gods, equally devoutly believed in, are disqualified? At the very least, you could refer to "the Christian God", to distinguish it from the Islamic or Hundu gods.
And of course it's sheer coincidence that nearly all believers accept the god of their parents and their culture, and take THAT god for granted while ignoring all the others. If I had been raised from infancy believing in the Great Green Arkleseizure, and everyone around me did the same, and there were Green churches on every other street corner, and prayers were submitted to the GGA before public meetings, and so on ad nauseum, then it would be amazing if my experience and life did NOT tell me that the GGA is real. Of course, there are potentially other explanations (the least complex of which need not explain the origin or existence of the GGA), but TO ME no other explanation would be remotely as satisfying as the GGA, whom I know in my heart of hearts is as real as sunshine.
I agree. Beliefs not based on evidence, cannot be altered with evidence. But here we're getting into the discussion of whether the lack of utility of a superfluous god matters, except in the imaginations of those trained to believe in them. So we can say "here is how this works" OR we can say "here is how this works AND there is this god I believe in." Nothing is added to the explanation, but perhaps a great deal is added to the emotional requirements of the explainer.
Perhaps you would benefit by shelving your caustic and superior attitude towards belief and trying to lay aside your own preconceived notions and look rationally at what it is you are observing. There is no need for the attitude you display in these discussion - it is in fact a hindrance to understanding - on both sides.
Jim
Comment