The Interacting god

thomas wrote

I do agree with you that saying that the non-naturalistic processes which created energy and matter are God is a long way away from saying that the God described is the Christian God. In fact, if you read my previous post you'll see that I made this exact point myself earlier. Remember, this issue is only one of the several issues that I laid out as the reasonable basis for supporting a belief in the Christian God. As part of that argument I think it is useful to point out that one of the reasons that I am not an atheist is because the denial of the non-naturalistic seems an absurdity when the very existence of the universe seems to absolutely require non-naturalistic processes.

I think the confusing issue here is what you would describe as non-naturalistic causes. Sure, universes don't spring up every day and so we cannot physically measure the process although we can measure effects such as expansion. However, just because we cannot fully characterise the process, it doesn't automatically mean that it is a non-natural process. The holy grail of a unified theory in physics, if achieved, may well shine some light in this direction. There are a number of things that have been outside our physical understanding through history and so, by your definition, would have been non-naturalistic processes AT THE TIME. The origin of man is one such example. However, as our understanding grows and different strands of scientific understanding build on each other, who knows what we will decipher about our universe. This process has worked very well up to now which is no reason why we should give up on this most trustworthy of routes to the truth. Just because the origin of the universe does not occur everyday and the relevant laws which governed it are not fully understood, does not mean that there were not a specific set of integral rules governing it.

thomas wrote

The difference, as I said in my last response, is that the creation of matter and energy must be have a non-naturalistic cause, by definition, mustn't it ? Or do you think that current scientific theory is wrong and that there is a way to create energy, rather than just transform it from one form of energy to another ? Can you please address this point, rather than railing against points that I am not making.

If you agree that it must have a non-naturlistic cause then hopefully you must also agree that science can never say anything at all about non-naturalistic causes.

You seem to be suggesting that if one current naturalistic theory is wrong, then it must be true that naturalism itself cannot explain the origin of the universe. If I'm wrong in interpreting your statement, please excuse me, but you do seem to be making quite the logical leap there.

I don't see why it is entirely impossible that matter and energy cannot be created out of nothing. It is actually my understanding - although my knowledge of QM is limited to operational concepts such as the workings of the diode/transistor, etc. - that this happens all the time, just that Uncertainty necessitates that such particles are quickly annihilated.

We should remember that, until fairly recently, it was believed that matter and energy were completely separate, and that energy could only be transferred in the conventional sense. So, for instance, if a nuclear explosion were witnessed by people who didn't know that there was a relation between mass and energy, they could add up all the chemical energy going in, and estimate the energy coming out, and would probably consider that such a massive explosion was physically impossible. They may even go so far as saying it is beyond the scope of naturalism, as you suggest.

But that would just be silly. Furthermore, it would be absolutely retarded if they then suggested that their invisible friend caused the explosion.

Again, all I'm saying is that whatever the explanation involves, science cannot be part of the answer, because it is the wrong set of tools. It has no way to tackle problems unless they are about the natural world. So science can of course discover what happened right back to the first moments after the creation of energy and matter, but can never say anything about the processes that created energy and matter.

The scientist in me is cringing right now, thomas. Please tell me you're not trying to suggest that meditation and praying will reveal what happened.

thomas wrote

Again, all I'm saying is that whatever the explanation involves, science cannot be part of the answer, because it is the wrong set of tools. It has no way to tackle problems unless they are about the natural world. So science can of course discover what happened right back to the first moments after the creation of energy and matter, but can never say anything about the processes that created energy and matter.

Neither can you.

Goddidit is not an explanation for the processes that created energy and matter. What processes did God use? How exactly did God create something out of nothing? It doesn't explain an awful lot does it? In fact it doesn't actually explain anything, so why do you regard it as such? You are taking something and calling it something else which is intellectually lazy.

Let me guess, God did it, by means which we can't comprehend for reasons which are according to his will which works in mysterious ways. That is no explanation. How can you be satisfied by this as the ultimate 'explanation'?

And once again.... who or what created God? I suspect that you would deem this question unnecessary (uncaused cause and all)... and a lot of people would argue that the very question, "Why is there something instead of nothing," is unnecessary. What is north of the north pole? Why is it inconceivable that the universe did not need a cause?

The Power of Greyskull wrote

Lily, my initial statement was in response to Thomas' post (#496) in which he was discussing uncaused causes. He then replied (#437) and you agreed with him (post #443). So my last post was in response to that. I knew what the thread was about but often in such threads, other points arise. I didn't just barge in here and bring up a completely unrelated topic. It was in response to Thomas and something that you agreed with. I quoted you in my previous post because yours was the most recent comment related to that 'aside'. If the quote that I used of yours was not related to the 'uncaused cause' side discussion then I apologise but that is how I understood it.

Oh don't apologize. I was just being a little snarky (in a friendly way!). I was actually responding to #441 but that darned Choobus managed to get a comment in before my response showed up, so it was no longer clear what I was responding to.

I am so confused!!

[Choobus]

thomas wrote

Ah, the old argument by enigmatic responses trick. Very cunning.

not really, I just don't have the time or inclination to get intro a discussion with you about quantum physics. The essential point you can take from my comments on this matter is simple: the existance of matter or energy or anything at all is no more proof of the existance of your god than is the image of the "virgin" mary on a piss stained wall.

[Choobus]

Lily wrote

I was actually responding to #441 but that darned Choobus managed to get a comment in before my response showed up, so it was no longer clear what I was responding to.

you would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for that darned Choobus!

thomas wrote

Well where you seem to be is proposing that all things are naturalistic and deterministic, despite the fact that there is no theory or mechanism that explains how such a system could produce constituent parts of itself that are conscious. As I said earlier, part of the reason that I choose to believe in non-naturalistic processes is that the universe as I experience it seems to be incapable of being explained in any other way.

God of the gaps. Nothing in principle says that conciousness won't be figured out, we already have some of it given that we can control conscious experience quite directly through purely materialistic means. However, I take your point not to be about the process of the development of consciousness as much as consciousness itself. Correct me if I'm wrong.

OK, Thomas, I claim victory because silence = assent.

That was easy.