RE: Why Atheism is Incoherent & You Aren't as Smart as You Think You Are
March 3, 2021 at 6:24 am
(This post was last modified: March 3, 2021 at 6:26 am by Belacqua.)
Welcome. You raise some interesting questions.
This is a little bit of a straw man, since educated Christians don't believe in the bearded guy either. Christianity for grownups, with God as ground of being, God as Logos, etc., is not so far from what you're describing. Basically, educated Christians say that God is much as you describe him, plus infinity. They don't want to say that God is equal to and contiguous with the universe, for various reasons.
It does look as though a lot of less-educated Christians stick with the cartoon version, and this is certainly the type that a lot of anti-religion people spend their time complaining about.
But I think that's not your main topic here.
This may be true; I don't know. I'm certainly willing to entertain the idea.
This part, I think, could use further explication.
Let's say for the moment that the laws of nature point in one direction, and that it is fair to use the word "determined," and even "purpose." We'd be defining "purpose" as that end toward which the laws of nature inevitably point.
How do we get from saying "the universe has a purpose" to "this purpose is the will of God"? Isn't it simpler just to have a natural purpose without God?
And if there is a good reason for calling the laws of nature God, does this add anything to our understanding? For example, would it suggest any of the traditional aspects of religion, like prayer or revelation? Or would it leave us, practically speaking, as we are now, with the addition of calling nature God?
(March 2, 2021 at 8:18 pm)Seax Wrote: I am not talking about the Judeo-Christian spook of a bearded man in the sky, I'm talking about the the laws of nature themselves.
This is a little bit of a straw man, since educated Christians don't believe in the bearded guy either. Christianity for grownups, with God as ground of being, God as Logos, etc., is not so far from what you're describing. Basically, educated Christians say that God is much as you describe him, plus infinity. They don't want to say that God is equal to and contiguous with the universe, for various reasons.
It does look as though a lot of less-educated Christians stick with the cartoon version, and this is certainly the type that a lot of anti-religion people spend their time complaining about.
But I think that's not your main topic here.
Quote:If nature is deterministic, and one of the fundamental assumptions of science is that it is, then we must assume that the rise of life from proteins, and the ever upward development, through struggle, of life from these early proteins to complex, highly advanced lifeforms like men has been predetermined by the very laws of nature themselves. Nature then is not meaningless, without purpose, but has goals and ends.
This may be true; I don't know. I'm certainly willing to entertain the idea.
Quote:The laws of nature themselves are an expression of God. [...] Nature; the universe, is directed by Divine Will. That is what the laws of nature, whether they be the laws of gravity, chemistry or biology, are; the Will of God!
This part, I think, could use further explication.
Let's say for the moment that the laws of nature point in one direction, and that it is fair to use the word "determined," and even "purpose." We'd be defining "purpose" as that end toward which the laws of nature inevitably point.
How do we get from saying "the universe has a purpose" to "this purpose is the will of God"? Isn't it simpler just to have a natural purpose without God?
And if there is a good reason for calling the laws of nature God, does this add anything to our understanding? For example, would it suggest any of the traditional aspects of religion, like prayer or revelation? Or would it leave us, practically speaking, as we are now, with the addition of calling nature God?
