RE: Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism
August 1, 2013 at 2:18 pm
(This post was last modified: August 1, 2013 at 2:41 pm by pocaracas.)
(August 1, 2013 at 11:41 am)Esquilax Wrote:Yep, irresistible it was...(August 1, 2013 at 10:16 am)pocaracas Wrote: Damn you Esquilax.... always replying while I sleep...
Sleep is a weakness.
I don't mean to poach your fun, but it was just too irresistible.
Keep it up!
(August 1, 2013 at 1:38 pm)Undeceived Wrote:Why propose a theory that can't be verified?(August 1, 2013 at 4:20 am)Esquilax Wrote: Universe as it currently is. Nobody has provided a reason to discount an eternal universe yet.
But can you imagine such a universe? It would have to be a universe that changes, yet does not decay or lose positive energy. No one has discounted it, but then no one has discounted flying unicorns either.
(August 1, 2013 at 4:20 am)Esquilax Wrote: Why are we discounting plain old infinity?
Why hold to a theory that can never be explained, when another answer lies before you? If we are intelligent beings, is it so hard to accept that there might be an intelligent being outside our universe, in the "eternal universe," unrestricted by our laws?
If there is such a being, it is trying its damnest to keep away, to remain hidden from us.
Also, if there is such a being, how did it come to be? Did it evolve on some substrate (like humans on Earth) accompanied by other such beings... or what?
(August 1, 2013 at 1:38 pm)Undeceived Wrote: Do you believe that answers must begin and end with science? Why not reason past our observational limitations? Because if there is even a possibility of a God who wishes to communicate with us, wouldn't we be idiots not to try?Many have tried.... and have only "succeeded" when they become self-convinced of the reality of such a being. Leading to total absence of evidence for others to be convinced without that prior requirement of already being convinced.
(August 1, 2013 at 1:38 pm)Undeceived Wrote:I'd go with the kid and the ant farm.(August 1, 2013 at 4:20 am)Esquilax Wrote: Oh, and once again, even granting the premises of your argument, "personal cause," doesn't equal "your god." It doesn't even equal "purposeful creation." Maybe this first cause just sneezed, and bam, universe?
Can a changeless being accidentally cause change? While you think about that, let's say "No" so we can move on with the argument. If this being purposely creates something, would it not be perfect in its/his sight? If you had the power to create the very laws of a new universe, would you not make it exactly as you wish it to be? Why build anything you would be unsatisfied with? And if this being is satisfied with our universe, it/he pays great attention to it, and to us. In five billion years, our universe will be dead. Would you complete a work of art to see it destroyed? This is the anti-Deist argument. A God creates a perfect world and withdraws his support to watch it die... Can you think of anything less fulfilling?
I'm sure the image of the kid and the anthill is appealing right now. But the kid grows up, and realizes he would much rather be needed by his family than destroy insects who don't even understand.
Kid builds the farm, puts some ants in... sees them go about for a few days... grows tired, gets a new toy, lets the ants be until his mom forces him to dispose of the farm, because he's going to move out.