(March 3, 2013 at 12:26 am)genkaus Wrote:(March 2, 2013 at 10:53 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: And then on the other side of the coin we have the assumption that there is no god. It is what it is!
No one starts from that assumption - it is usually the conclusion one gets at.
Hypothetically, one could get to Deism just as easily from the same starting point.
Quote:That's the point you are missing. Given that everything is based on the same fundamental laws, it would all necessarily work in unison. If it was some alternate universe based on another set of fundamental laws, then everything in it would be different, but it'll all still work in unison. The only place "thinking-out" is required to make things work in unison is when things which do not occur naturally are brought together to work in a way they wouldn't naturally.
I see what you're saying.
Quote:(March 2, 2013 at 10:53 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Hmm? No idea where you got this from:
FtR Wrote:I'm not saying that life is in anyway proof of a Creator/God.
From your assumptions such as an all-knowing being would make this universe and no other. Or the one about products of natural laws working in harmony appear to have thought behind it.
Fair enough.
Quote:(March 2, 2013 at 10:53 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: I'm not too sure about one of your fundamental propositions here:
"[The universe] is not governed by specific principles or ideas or concepts. Simply put, it is what it is."
Science is like a flashlight that lights up a room and shows us e.g. the furniture that was already there. I think it's obvious that the universe is governed by laws, whether we give it a label or not. Science has simply shown us those "principles, ideas & concepts" much like the flashlight shows us what was already in that room. So in essence, I agree that the "mode of enquiry" obviously started with us -- the conscious beings -- but what's contained within the findings of this enquiry has always existed i.e. the laws of the universe, which is the point I was first making. They are the things independent of us that are elegant and intricate.
The point you are missing is that these "laws" are the labels we attach to natural processes and events. We are the ones who make these labels and change them if and when better descriptors become available.
And as I just explained, the labels themselves are irrelevant.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
