3 ms·

So, since you seem to have the answers, where did humans come from? If humans evolved from other primates, where did those primates come from? How far back ca

So, since you seem to have the answers, where did humans come from? If humans evolved from other primates, where did those primates come from? How far back can you go? To a pile of goo? Where did the pile of goo come from? Where did the solar system come from? What about the universe? There are necessarily missing links in the chain of causality, ones which science cannot fill. Even if you believe popular theories of the origin of the universe, such theories only go back so far, and they do not explain what caused the events they describe. For example, where did the big bang's matter come from? Which requires more faith: to believe that a being set in motion the processes we observe today, or that they happened by chance? Who is the fool: one who believes that someone must have created this universe, or one who believes that it exists without a cause? If you tell me that something can exist without having been created, where is your proof? Is not your belief in that theory itself a matter of faith? How, then, do you call others fools who have their own faiths? Of course, you answered this question yourself: compartmentalization.

flukus 10y ago
God/creation doesn't solve any of the mysteries we still have left, fewer than you seem to think. All it does is create an infinite regress of what created god.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  > God/creation doesn't solve any of the mysteries we still have left Really? So, tell me then, why are we here? What is the purpose of our life, if there is one? What happens after we die? Or are these mysteries not still left? > All it does is create an infinite regress of what created god. Yes, that's right. But saying that, "Since we then cannot answer the question of where God came from, God must not exist" is not logical. The existence of another turtle does not disprove the previous turtle. By your logic, since we cannot explain what created the universe, the universe must not exist.
  - grzm 10y ago
    "> God/creation doesn't solve any of the mysteries we still have left" "But saying that, "Since we then cannot answer the question of where God came from, God must not exist" is not logical." I see what you're saying, but I think GP may be arguing whether or not that is useful. For example, what does it say about God beyond that God exists? You ask some good questions, in particular what is the purpose of our life. Does the existence of a prime mover help us decide this? I think we need something more.
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      Whether it's useful is, of course, a matter of opinion and presuppositions. If one, for whatever reasons, thinks that there might be an afterlife, then nothing could be more important. > You ask some good questions, in particular what is the purpose of our life. Does the existence of a prime mover help us decide this? I think we need something more. That depends on whether you believe the prime mover has communicated with us. If you do not, then there would not be much you could do with the knowledge of its existence, so it would not be very useful or relevant. But if you do, then it would surely help us decide, wouldn't it?
      - grzm 10y ago
        "That depends on whether you believe the prime mover has communicated with us. If you do not, then there would not be much you could do with the knowledge of its existence." I think you've hit the nail on the head here. This brings us to the question is how do you move from the existence of a prime mover to the belief that the prime mover has communicated with us. It's not clear to me that existence implies such communication. And if it doesn't, it's not clear to me that the existence of the prime mover in and of itself is doing any useful work. On the other hand, proving that there is no prime mover is a well-known difficult problem as well :)
        alphapapa 10y ago
        > This brings us to the question is how do you move from the existence of a prime mover to the belief that the prime mover has communicated with us. It's not clear to me that existence implies such communication. I think you're basically right: it doesn't necessarily imply that. So, since there are so many claims in this world of evidence of the creator's communication with us, it's up to each person to examine the claims for himself--or to not do so: ignorance is bliss, until the moment of truth.
CamperBob2 10y ago
Where does all that skepticism go when Sunday morning rolls around?
- alphapapa 10y ago
  I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Could you clarify?
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    It just sounds like you're holding priests to one standard of evidence, and scientists to another.
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      Well, first of all, you're assuming that priests have anything to do with this. In Christianity, they don't, because the role of priests was to intercede between God and humanity, and Christ has interceded once and for all, with the result that all people are equal before God. Anyone who claims to be a priest now is inserting himself between God and man. Having said that, you seem to be implying that the same standard of evidence should apply to both science and philosophy/religion, which doesn't make sense. For example, trying to use a computer-related analogy, demanding scientific evidence for an afterlife would be like trying to access VM host memory from within a guest: what happens in the host happens outside the realm of the guest, and the guest cannot (or should not be able to, if properly implemented) directly access host memory. The bottom line is that you cannot prove or disprove philosophy with science.
      - CamperBob2 10y ago
        But you don't know anything about Christ that you didn't hear from other men. You can't claim to be a Christian while dismissing the priesthood with a rhetorical hand-wave like that. Other faiths seem to have found workarounds for this problem. Islam, for instance, has no Nicene creed. There's just the "There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet" thing. Instead, Muslims empower their imams to interpret the religion at the local level. This, of course, leads to violent conflict when leaders from different sects disagree with each other. The progress made by Christianity over the centuries can arguably be credited to the prescriptive tradition shared by almost all of its denominations. Christ supposedly appointed Peter as his vicar on Earth. It seems perilous -- historically, if not spiritually -- to dismiss the importance of that act.

flukus 10y ago

God/creation doesn't solve any of the mysteries we still have left, fewer than you seem to think. All it does is create an infinite regress of what created god.

alphapapa 10y ago
> God/creation doesn't solve any of the mysteries we still have left Really? So, tell me then, why are we here? What is the purpose of our life, if there is one? What happens after we die? Or are these mysteries not still left? > All it does is create an infinite regress of what created god. Yes, that's right. But saying that, "Since we then cannot answer the question of where God came from, God must not exist" is not logical. The existence of another turtle does not disprove the previous turtle. By your logic, since we cannot explain what created the universe, the universe must not exist.
- grzm 10y ago
  "> God/creation doesn't solve any of the mysteries we still have left" "But saying that, "Since we then cannot answer the question of where God came from, God must not exist" is not logical." I see what you're saying, but I think GP may be arguing whether or not that is useful. For example, what does it say about God beyond that God exists? You ask some good questions, in particular what is the purpose of our life. Does the existence of a prime mover help us decide this? I think we need something more.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    Whether it's useful is, of course, a matter of opinion and presuppositions. If one, for whatever reasons, thinks that there might be an afterlife, then nothing could be more important. > You ask some good questions, in particular what is the purpose of our life. Does the existence of a prime mover help us decide this? I think we need something more. That depends on whether you believe the prime mover has communicated with us. If you do not, then there would not be much you could do with the knowledge of its existence, so it would not be very useful or relevant. But if you do, then it would surely help us decide, wouldn't it?
    - grzm 10y ago
      "That depends on whether you believe the prime mover has communicated with us. If you do not, then there would not be much you could do with the knowledge of its existence." I think you've hit the nail on the head here. This brings us to the question is how do you move from the existence of a prime mover to the belief that the prime mover has communicated with us. It's not clear to me that existence implies such communication. And if it doesn't, it's not clear to me that the existence of the prime mover in and of itself is doing any useful work. On the other hand, proving that there is no prime mover is a well-known difficult problem as well :)
      - alphapapa 10y ago
        > This brings us to the question is how do you move from the existence of a prime mover to the belief that the prime mover has communicated with us. It's not clear to me that existence implies such communication. I think you're basically right: it doesn't necessarily imply that. So, since there are so many claims in this world of evidence of the creator's communication with us, it's up to each person to examine the claims for himself--or to not do so: ignorance is bliss, until the moment of truth.

CamperBob2 10y ago

Where does all that skepticism go when Sunday morning rolls around?

alphapapa 10y ago
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Could you clarify?
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  It just sounds like you're holding priests to one standard of evidence, and scientists to another.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    Well, first of all, you're assuming that priests have anything to do with this. In Christianity, they don't, because the role of priests was to intercede between God and humanity, and Christ has interceded once and for all, with the result that all people are equal before God. Anyone who claims to be a priest now is inserting himself between God and man. Having said that, you seem to be implying that the same standard of evidence should apply to both science and philosophy/religion, which doesn't make sense. For example, trying to use a computer-related analogy, demanding scientific evidence for an afterlife would be like trying to access VM host memory from within a guest: what happens in the host happens outside the realm of the guest, and the guest cannot (or should not be able to, if properly implemented) directly access host memory. The bottom line is that you cannot prove or disprove philosophy with science.
    - CamperBob2 10y ago
      But you don't know anything about Christ that you didn't hear from other men. You can't claim to be a Christian while dismissing the priesthood with a rhetorical hand-wave like that. Other faiths seem to have found workarounds for this problem. Islam, for instance, has no Nicene creed. There's just the "There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet" thing. Instead, Muslims empower their imams to interpret the religion at the local level. This, of course, leads to violent conflict when leaders from different sects disagree with each other. The progress made by Christianity over the centuries can arguably be credited to the prescriptive tradition shared by almost all of its denominations. Christ supposedly appointed Peter as his vicar on Earth. It seems perilous -- historically, if not spiritually -- to dismiss the importance of that act.