I wrote my last post in response to a debate I'm having over at the Young Australian Skeptics blog (after stumbling across their article on a martial arts forum). Anyway, I thought my readers might like to read the debate that promoted the posts so here's a link to the original article and the latest comments. Please feel free to go back and read the earlier comments too to get everything in context.
http://www.youngausskeptics.com/2009/11/the-catholic-church-itd-be-good-for-a-laugh-if-it-wasnt-so-serious/
EDIT - OK - it looks like the debate is over now - they look like they have closed it (edit edit - actually they haven't so I got in a goodbye, but it's fairly clear they'd like to close it). Over the course of it I argued against abortion and contraception in my first instance and had a mind to challenge anti-Catholicism along the way as and when it emerged, which it was always likely to given the initial subject matter. That said, I tried to keep the debate on track and limit it to the abortion issue to start with. As time went on though, I felt that the abortion and contraception argument had been won and so let the debate move on to the question of the proof of the existence of G_d. My main angle here was to argue through the logic of the arguments and to try to present logic along with philosophy, theology and religion as worthwhile mental pursuits and indeed other avenues for finding truth. As the debate neared its end, I tried to point out that science also requires faith, that faith is not such a bad thing anyway, that people shouldn't jump to conclusions, that people should avoid prejudice, that religion is not just a force for evil and that atheism can be... hopefully the readership of the blog will have been given some food for thought, even if just one point goes in - they might become freer thinkers for it, instead of turning into jeering atheist thugs. There is a dangerous trend in our current popular cult of secularism to recruit and cultivate a kind of "Hitler Youth" that do their best to raise up the modern atheist fuhrers and drown out any opposition by clashing cymbals and blowing whistles.
I think it's "funny" how the atheists so often start gibbering meaninglessly and calling on pagan gods when they want to shut out your words, seemingly losing all ability to spell or say anything other than random chaos at the time - a reason I'm also wary of xenoglossia. "DISEMSOCKETED" is a new word on me - I can't even make out what it's meant to be.
EDIT Mk II
Actually they kept it open after all - it seems to be fizzling out though, and in reasonably good spirits (though they still haven't answered my main argument).
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Evidence of G_d
What does science - what does experience and evidence tell us about the essential nature of the universe?
Firstly we can say that we have never experienced anything bringing itself into being by itself. Everything we see being created is created or caused by something else. That is significant because rationally speaking it suggests very strongly that the universe itself cannot logically have brought itself into being.
Let's take as a basis the idea of a finite universe because science currently understands the universe to be finite. Where is the universe? When is the universe? It cannot be anywhere finite because that just creates the problem again of where and when within infinity a different finite entity might exist. Of course, if the universe is finite, as we suppose, there must be something outside of it and beyond it in terms of time and space precisely because a finite universe has edges - it runs out. What is beyond that? You might say "nothing" OK - so there is an infinite nothingness outside of the universe.
Now this infinite nothingness is the setting for our finite universe.
Returning to the original question, what was the catalyst that brought our finite universe into being? It cannot logically have brought itself into being because in order to do so it would have had to have existed before it existed in order to be able to bring itself into being and that is a contradiction. So the finite thing must have somehow been brought into being from outside of itself by something outside of itself. If we decide that the entity that brought the universe into being was another finite entity, we have to keep going back until we get to an uncaused cause - a prime mover - an infinite entity. Given that it brought the universe into being, it is fairer to perhaps call this infinite nothingness a somethingness but it doesn't matter a lot - it is infinite and we are not. Religious folk call this uncaused cause God. He has many names, not of all of them male. A Hindu saying states "there is only one truth but the wise speak of it in many different ways". We know He cannot be more than one because if He was more than one, none of them would be infinite - each would have limits of some kind.
Now let's quickly address the concept of an infinite universe. Personally I think this is another reasonable proposition, at least theologically. We know that all matter is energy moving at a given speed. The faster energy goes, the closer it is to light and the slower it goes, the closer it is to matter. Light energy alone is both wave and particle. It is the stuff of the universe. This tells us that everything - everything is light. Everything is energy. Nothing is really ever created or destroyed it only changes into something else. Such an infinite universe has simply always existed and will always exist, changing ad infinitum. Everything in such a universe is part of one big energy field manifesting in all manner of permutations of finite distinct entities including ourselves. In such a universe everything is the same as God is the same as the universe. We are one and distinct at the same time but ultimately there is nowhere and no when for us to go outside of the universe because it goes in forever in all directions ad infinitum. Such a universe is in itself at least as sentient as the sum total of the beings it manifests itself as, and possibly more so, perhaps having the benefit of collective as well as individual simultaneous consciousnesses. Even if we decide that there is a finite amount of energy or matter in such a universe, it is set within an infinite space and so we just need to include that space within our definition of what constitutes the universe.
Believers in a finite universe have a theological problem with the second thesis because it proposes that the universe itself breaks the rule of nothing being able to bring itself into being. This would be a problem if the universe was finite but if the universe is synonymous with G_d it wouldn't, which is why I don't have too much of a problem with it.
Firstly we can say that we have never experienced anything bringing itself into being by itself. Everything we see being created is created or caused by something else. That is significant because rationally speaking it suggests very strongly that the universe itself cannot logically have brought itself into being.
Let's take as a basis the idea of a finite universe because science currently understands the universe to be finite. Where is the universe? When is the universe? It cannot be anywhere finite because that just creates the problem again of where and when within infinity a different finite entity might exist. Of course, if the universe is finite, as we suppose, there must be something outside of it and beyond it in terms of time and space precisely because a finite universe has edges - it runs out. What is beyond that? You might say "nothing" OK - so there is an infinite nothingness outside of the universe.
Now this infinite nothingness is the setting for our finite universe.
Returning to the original question, what was the catalyst that brought our finite universe into being? It cannot logically have brought itself into being because in order to do so it would have had to have existed before it existed in order to be able to bring itself into being and that is a contradiction. So the finite thing must have somehow been brought into being from outside of itself by something outside of itself. If we decide that the entity that brought the universe into being was another finite entity, we have to keep going back until we get to an uncaused cause - a prime mover - an infinite entity. Given that it brought the universe into being, it is fairer to perhaps call this infinite nothingness a somethingness but it doesn't matter a lot - it is infinite and we are not. Religious folk call this uncaused cause God. He has many names, not of all of them male. A Hindu saying states "there is only one truth but the wise speak of it in many different ways". We know He cannot be more than one because if He was more than one, none of them would be infinite - each would have limits of some kind.
Now let's quickly address the concept of an infinite universe. Personally I think this is another reasonable proposition, at least theologically. We know that all matter is energy moving at a given speed. The faster energy goes, the closer it is to light and the slower it goes, the closer it is to matter. Light energy alone is both wave and particle. It is the stuff of the universe. This tells us that everything - everything is light. Everything is energy. Nothing is really ever created or destroyed it only changes into something else. Such an infinite universe has simply always existed and will always exist, changing ad infinitum. Everything in such a universe is part of one big energy field manifesting in all manner of permutations of finite distinct entities including ourselves. In such a universe everything is the same as God is the same as the universe. We are one and distinct at the same time but ultimately there is nowhere and no when for us to go outside of the universe because it goes in forever in all directions ad infinitum. Such a universe is in itself at least as sentient as the sum total of the beings it manifests itself as, and possibly more so, perhaps having the benefit of collective as well as individual simultaneous consciousnesses. Even if we decide that there is a finite amount of energy or matter in such a universe, it is set within an infinite space and so we just need to include that space within our definition of what constitutes the universe.
Believers in a finite universe have a theological problem with the second thesis because it proposes that the universe itself breaks the rule of nothing being able to bring itself into being. This would be a problem if the universe was finite but if the universe is synonymous with G_d it wouldn't, which is why I don't have too much of a problem with it.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Evidence of Lack...
A statement I heard this morning got me thinking.
That statement was "Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."
The implications of this statement are profound, significantly challenging the myth of secular objectivity.
Were I to say to someone "I had 6 corn crackers for breakfast today - 3 with peanut butter and 3 with strawberry jam" they would probably believe me, even though I could provide them with no evidence at all. Because it wouldn't challenge their world view in any way, they could probably just accept the statement as a fact.
However, were I to tell the average person that I saw an angel this morning, most people would say "no - that did not happen". I might even be able to produce an eye-witness - a friend who saw the angel too, but the sceptic would in all likelihood still say "no that did not happen."
I'm not suggesting that every statement that anyone could make is equally credible. Nor am I suggesting we should not exercise discernment when trying to ascertain truth. What I am saying is that this fact strongly calls into question the often accepted objectivity of the secular materialists.
Not that I can prove it, so you'll just have to trust me.
That statement was "Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack."
The implications of this statement are profound, significantly challenging the myth of secular objectivity.
Were I to say to someone "I had 6 corn crackers for breakfast today - 3 with peanut butter and 3 with strawberry jam" they would probably believe me, even though I could provide them with no evidence at all. Because it wouldn't challenge their world view in any way, they could probably just accept the statement as a fact.
However, were I to tell the average person that I saw an angel this morning, most people would say "no - that did not happen". I might even be able to produce an eye-witness - a friend who saw the angel too, but the sceptic would in all likelihood still say "no that did not happen."
I'm not suggesting that every statement that anyone could make is equally credible. Nor am I suggesting we should not exercise discernment when trying to ascertain truth. What I am saying is that this fact strongly calls into question the often accepted objectivity of the secular materialists.
Not that I can prove it, so you'll just have to trust me.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Proof Of God
You want proof for the existence of God?
You're looking at it and you're thinking with it.
There is no other explanation for existence.
Note that I do not say there is no other credible or acceptable explanation.
There simply is no other explanation.
Those who deny the existence of God, merely evade the issue since evasion is the only option open to them. Denial of God is a deliberate act that flies in the face of reason.
You're looking at it and you're thinking with it.
There is no other explanation for existence.
Note that I do not say there is no other credible or acceptable explanation.
There simply is no other explanation.
Those who deny the existence of God, merely evade the issue since evasion is the only option open to them. Denial of God is a deliberate act that flies in the face of reason.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Another One Bites The Dust
Tragic to say that another relative has just died - this one aged 17 months - a case of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Those closest to her are keeping pretty quiet about the cause of her suddenly stopping breathing but I know the statistics. 81% of SIDS cases are connected to smoking in some way - whether the mother smoked during pregnancy or the child was subjected to smoke inhalation subsequently.
It is important people know the truth so that future similar events can be prevented, but from my dealings with them in recent years, i know that our customer-centred health service is very disinclined to tell people things they might not want to hear.
How many more innocent children will have to die before tobacco is banned completely?
Incidentally, I was raised in a smoke filled womb and a smoke filled house after that and now need supplemental oxygen 24 / 7. My prognosis due to parenchymal lung disease is rather pessimistic. I remain hopeful, but despite being just 41 years old, the chances of my ever living without oxygen and permanent steroid treatment are very slim (medically considered impossible).
It is important people know the truth so that future similar events can be prevented, but from my dealings with them in recent years, i know that our customer-centred health service is very disinclined to tell people things they might not want to hear.
How many more innocent children will have to die before tobacco is banned completely?
Incidentally, I was raised in a smoke filled womb and a smoke filled house after that and now need supplemental oxygen 24 / 7. My prognosis due to parenchymal lung disease is rather pessimistic. I remain hopeful, but despite being just 41 years old, the chances of my ever living without oxygen and permanent steroid treatment are very slim (medically considered impossible).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
