Subject: Re: Music, religion, etc.
AntiUtopia@aol.com
Date: Sat Jan 15 2000 - 22:39:09 EST
In a message dated 1/15/00 10:25:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, shok@netcom.com
writes:
> Something must exist that was not proceeded by a cause; that thing is
> either the Universe, or God.
Remember my original comment was, "Nothing we have ever seen." The point is
that matter just doesn't Act without cause, so the first cause must be
non-material. It doesn't really have to have any characteristics other than
this.
>
> If the addition of God was necessary to explain the Universe, and did
> not add more unanswerable questions (complexity), then I would but it.
> But the addition of God is not necessary to explain the Universe, and it
> does add more unanswerable questions (on the origin/nature of this
> God). It fails my criterion on both counts, so I don't buy it.
>
I don't see how you can compare the "more" here to anything. More problems
than what? Does postulating a God with no other characteristics cause more
problems with accounting for the existence of the universe than theories we
now possess? No, not so long as you are only seeking an origin for this vast
effect we witness on a daily basis. Unanswered questions such as, "what is
this God like?" does not bear on the "God-thesis" as an account for the
existence of matter. It is a reasonable question, but not one we can leave
unanswered without violating our initial thesis.
But let me compare the "more" here to something specific -- the Big Bang
theory. In the Big Bang theory a certain amount of matter is necessary to
account for the effect it is trying to describe. None of our observations
account for nearly enough matter. It would also presuppose fairly uniform
background radiation throughout the universe, but we do not observe that.
Recent data acquired from the Hubble space telescope led one astronomer to
assert that "we may have to abandon the theory completely," but he may have
just been a bit excited about the data at the time.
But beyond this, it does not explain the origin of the Singularity which
caused the bang to begin with. So yes, Viriginia, we still do have plenty of
unanswered questions. The Catholic Church likes the BB theory because it
still leaves plenty of room for God...and apparently something is still
needed to account for the existence of matter anyhow.
But I don't see why we're arguing on these grounds. We should only believe
something because it is true.
> Again, maybe one day I'll have a personal revelation. But I havn't had
> one yet, and over the years, I've come to doubt the
> sincerity/credibility of all such revelations I've heard of
> second-hand. So, until then. . .
>
>
> -robbie
>
You can't rationally argue from your own experience to someone else's. If
you can, so can others, and those who have had the experience can then doubt
your sincerity. It's more responsible to say you're an agnostic...
Jim
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 08:38:05 EST