Harbal wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 3:08 pm
But why can't the laws be the "first cause"?
That's like asking why traffic laws can't be the cause of roads. The "laws" are not agents. They don't do things, or cause things to happen. They're descriptions of how materials regularly behave, when they're already present. But we're trying to talk about the origin of the materials, of the universe itself...which means we're asking the question, "What gave rise to the material conditions that produced what we call our scientific 'laws' and made these 'laws' became observable to us?"
What you're asking is much like wondering why It would be the laws that brought the material entities into existence, so that makes sense.
Right. 'Laws' don't make things happen: they're descriptions of how things that already exist behave, after the fact.
God can only be assumed to be there, with no means of confirmation.
I don't believe that's true at all. And Creation is but the first of the many evidences for it. But you've already pre-decided there is not allowed to be any "means of confirmation," so it's not surprising if you continue to believe there isn't.
However, it's also clear that as a mere person, a mere individual, you have no basis for your conclusion that they do not exist. All you can rationally say is, "Harbal doesn't know any evidence," which I have no reason to doubt is true, in this case. Maybe you don't.
Harbal wrote:IC wrote:
Well, I could show you how all of these depend on the thesis that mere chance plus time can create order...in other words, on mere "accident." So "accident" is the essential dynamic behind each of these alternatives. I'm just keeping things simple for us, because when the ultimate cause is assumed to be "accident," then the rest of the nomenclature here becomes mere window dressing.
How do you know how many versions of the ideas in the above list might not involve accident?
I've encountered them all before, and thought them through. But let's make it even simpler. The dichotomy is this: either something intelligent created the universe, or the universe came into existence by something unintentional (i.e. an "accident"). If you pick one, I can give you details.
For example, take the Multiverse Hypothesis. It's a non-answer to why the universe exists, because all it does is push back the explanation one step. It assumes that there are an infinite range of "universes" we cannot see, of which this universe is only one. Never mind the unscientific nature of believing in infinite universes we cannot ever see, or experience, or test for: let's leave that huge fault aside. And never mind the mathematical contradiction of a supposedly "infinite" set of universes that don't have "infinite" alternate possibilities, which is a crippling rejoinder to the MV. Let's disregard all that, for the moment.
Even the most ardent proponents of the Multiverse Hypothesis have had to propose some sort of "universe generator" pre-existing all the alleged universes, and accounting for their having been produced. So what they've essentially done is push back the question only one step, and said, "The multiverse is created by the generator, and the generator exists by mere accident." Which then means that the ultimate reason for the existence of all the alleged universes is still accident.
Got time? We can do more.
But in point of fact, there's a true dichotomy here: either things were created by some sort of Intentional Agent, or they were not. If there was no Intentional Agent behind creation, then things were a product of accident. There really is no third alternative there.
Well, technically, all we can really say is that we can't, at this moment in time, think what a third alternative might be. But I think the term, "Intentional agent", could be applied to a variety of alternative concepts to the one you hold about God.
That's a secondary question, and a legit one. Essentially, it's the question, "What
kind of God?" But so long as we haven't even established that
any God exists, we're not in a position to pose it, are we?
And if we don't know of any third explanation, what sense does it make to invest our present theory in a third explanation we can't even imagine right now?
IC wrote:Harbal wrote:God does not bother with the laws of physics. According to the Bible, he simply suspends them when he wants to get something done.
It's funny...you're making a common mistake there. You're thinking that the "laws" have some sort of force or demand of their own, as if you can't contravene the "laws" of physics without becoming some sort of bad or irrational entity.
What I am thinking is that the laws of physics cannot be be contravened, full stop. Are you saying that such a thought is to be regarded as a mistake?
Absolutely. It's a mistake on two fronts: one, to think that scientific laws are somehow insulated against contravention by a greater Force, and two, to think that something's been violated if a greater Force changes the outcome you expect.
But that's an error of amphiboly. A real scientist is going to understand that "law," when used in regard to material entities, means merely the regularity we seem to observe in a given case, after the fact. If it seems to hold generally, we call that phenomenon a "law": especially if it repeats under experimental and observational conditions.
This is too complicated, or something, for my simple mind to understand your point. Could you do a dumbed down version for me?
The word 'law' is a miswording. We should call them "observed regularities," because that's all they actually are. They don't have some sort of quasi-legal authority or right to always hold.
But it's not some kind of moral fiat handed down by the universe itself, you know...it's just a pattern of observation. And if we observe something different to happen, we just need a different category of explanation. No crime has been committed. And the law that generally holds for the phenomenon is not "violated" thereby. It's merely intercepted by something greater than itself.
For example, if I leave ￡10 in change in my dresser drawer, and then return later and find only ￡5, it's not that the "laws of mathematics" have been violated, or that they've failed to hold: it's merely that my wife has buzzed in and borrowed ￡5, and hasn't told me yet. Likewise, if the Creator of all the scientific laws wants to intervene and change how things work out, what's your objection to Him doing so? He's not obligated morally to submit himself to the laws He creates for the mere material universe, you know, and to prevent them ever being contravened, even by Him.
How does the fact that your wife is able to open a drawer and take out some money demonstrate that the laws of physics can be ignored? [/quote]
Not "ignored." The laws of physics or mathematics here are not even being challenged. Rather, what's happened is your wife has entered and borrowed the cash, and so your expectation was defeated. But it did not mean maths failed: it means that your understanding of what 'laws' were involved in the transformation were faulty. You didn't know your wife would intervene. So what you observed did not mean that ￡10 can magically transform itself into￡5, or that 10 = 5. The 'laws' didn't fail. Another kind of physical 'law,' the law of deduction of cash by your wife, intervened.
So if He wants to raise a man from the dead, it's no good protesting, "But the laws of biology show that dead men don't rise." The answer is, "Yes, we know that: and that is exactly why we see in that resurrection the hand of One greater than the law He created."
But the point is, we don't see it.
The point is, we did.
Sorry: it means "contradict," or "say the opposite of." If you have evidence that Jesus was more than a bog standard human being, you are welcome to produce it.
How about the resurrection?
I am aware of some old story in some old book that tells of a resurrection, but I know of no actual resurrection.
Well, again, that speaks to the limitations of one man's experience, but not to anything else, obviously. I also have no actual evidence of Boston. Would I be wise to remain Boston-cynical until future notice?
