Board index ‹ Creation and Evolution

[Random Word]

OK, so I think we're actually back to where we started. You're setting up a false dichotomy between so-called "pure randomness" (whatever that means) and some sort of rationality that you've decided is God. I haven't said and wouldn't say that the universe is like a "shuffle playlist." And honestly, throughout this whole conversation I haven't seen you do anything more than argue by definition and play word games.

I'm also disappointed that you refuse to conclude the previous thing we were discussing before moving on to this new thing—I'm not interested in just switching subjects without finishing them. I don't think you should feel like you HAVE to have an answer, but you should acknowledge when you don't (and I should do the same).

In answer to this post, let me reiterate: I don't care whether something is mechanistic or random or rational or what. Those are just words. Reality is what it is, and we have cognitive faculties that allow us to make incredibly precise predictions about it. If we launch a ball into space at a particular velocity, we can know its precise trajectory as long as we know the masses and velocities of the objects around it. And if we're not sure our assumptions are true, we can toss the ball out and see what happens. Truth isn't some substance -- it's a word we use to describe ideas with strong predictive value. If we doubt our rationality (and I think this is a very good thing to do), we test our predictions and see if reality supports them or not. That's how science works, and that's why I think science is better than religion.

Given that we seem to be going in circles at this point, I think it's time for our conversation to draw to a close. You've given me a lot to think about and I've enjoyed talking to you, so I thank you for your time.

[jimwalton]

Sorry, I didn't mean to keep ignoring your previous thread, I was just following the conversation where it led us. Is this the piece to which you wanted a reply?

> it sounds like you're saying that entities with free will can be first causes and entities without free will cannot be first causes. I guess I have to agree with you because you've essentially just made an argument by definition. If all God is in your scheme is an entity that's capable of being a first cause (i.e., a free-will-having entity), then I suppose in your scheme I might be a theist.

Uh, it's hard to think it all through to its extremities, but I guess I'd agree that entities without free will can't be first causes. It makes sense, but in the course of the dialogue I might have to revisit my thoughts.

> If all God is in your scheme is an entity that's capable of being a first cause...

Well, I certainly wouldn't say that ALL God is. In such a scenario, a slug qualifies as deity.

> Then why do we need to posit a first cause at all, if the laws of physics are not operative before the big bang?

Because we have observed an effect. Before there was an effect there was no reason to advance a cause.

> Those are just words.

Our whole conversation is a matter of semantics. Words are the tools of our understanding, the grounds on which we unravel agreement and disagreement, and the definitions of the truth or falsity of our beliefs. Our words are the ideas by which we comprehend reality. To me, "It's just semantics" is a statement of avoidance (just being frank, not mean). Philosophers, lawyers, theologians, and scientists all work very hard to define their terminology — because it matters. Just my opinion.

> that's why I think science is better than religion

Science is great. No arguments there. But science has its limitations (cosmology, for one), and its appropriate arenas (science really can't tell us much about politics, morality, and such, not to mention religion). So also religion has it appropriate arena. In a sense your statement strikes me as a little odd, as if we have to choose one over the other. To me, truth is truth, regardless of its arena. Science tells us what; religion tells us why (I know that's simplistic, but it will serve its purpose for now.) It's like a layer cake: we can have both. Science can't tell me much about teleology, and religion doesn't try to teach me about physics and chemistry. The question at hand was explaining the sense of the fine-tuning argument, which I felt I did. Whether or not people agree is obviously the wonderful diversity of humanity that creates engaging discussion. I too have appreciated the discussion and thank you for all the stimulating dialogue.