In arguing why God was no better a reason for the First Cause than the Universe, famed atheist Bernard Russell said, “There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.”
This was said at a time when Hubble was only making preliminary observations about the expanding universe. Russell had died long before the Big Bang became popular and well-accepted scientific theory.
Now that it is well-accepted that our universe did indeed have a beginning, and it's not due to the poverty of our imaginations, do you think Russell would have changed his argument if he had lived long enough? Does Russell's first cause argument still have legs? Why or why not?
Bernard Russell and the First Cause
Moderator: Moderators
-
Beto
Post #51
See how you automatically relate the teachings of Jesus with those of the orthodox church? I think THAT is the gross misconception, that they're one and the same.Catharsis wrote:It's a gross misconception that the (Orthodox) Church teaches that it's useless to search for God.
People are misguided to assume that Christ taught that we should be unquestioning believers; that it was a mistake to believe that we should exert no effort in searching for evidence of the reality of God.
-
Catharsis
Post #52
>>>See how you automatically relate the teachings of Jesus with those of the orthodox church? I think THAT is the gross misconception, that they're one and the same.<<<
But you do not even know the teachings of the Orthodox Church, so how can you comment?
Any Orthodox priest that tells a person it's pointless to search for God would be considered highly ignorant.
But you do not even know the teachings of the Orthodox Church, so how can you comment?
Any Orthodox priest that tells a person it's pointless to search for God would be considered highly ignorant.
-
Beto
Post #53
Is this something you have "faith" on?Catharsis wrote:>>>See how you automatically relate the teachings of Jesus with those of the orthodox church? I think THAT is the gross misconception, that they're one and the same.<<<
But you do not even know the teachings of the Orthodox Church, so how can you comment?
Why would you assume that?I see what you mean. There's a misunderstanding. I'm not talking about "searching" for God in the way you mean. I'm talking about trying to KNOW the nature of God, if you will. Scientifically speaking, the orthodox church claims that God is unknowable, do you agree? And all I'm saying is that, the existence of the church as an institution depends on that fact. Knowing God, you don't require "faith" in God, and the church has no reason to exist. It's in that regard that I understand why the church would say it's pointless to try to KNOW God.Catharsis wrote:Any Orthodox priest that tells a person it's pointless to search for God would be considered highly ignorant.
Post #54
Because, in the context of human reasoning, concepts like cause become axioms that other ideas are founded upon. I tend to think that, through time, humans (at least as far back as those documented in history) all experience thoughts, and arrive at their convictions, through the same sort of processes. Different sets of ideas will therefore emerge when different axioms are present.Catharsis wrote:So what...QED wrote:Because at the back of his mind, his concepts of causality were rooted in classical mechanics (whether he knew it or not).
Are you suggesting that discoveries in Quantum Mechanics do not change any of our axioms?Catharsis wrote:Quantum mechanics? I don't think so.
If God's existence has any influence on us at all then, in principle, his existence is testable. By defining him in your terms I think you'll find that he becomes a complete irrelevance as he can have no influence at all. No matter how supernatural God is, there has to be an interface with the natural and that will always be explorable from "our side".Catharsis wrote: God hides Himself from searching eyes, not allowing Himself to be "tested" or His existence to be "proven."
You appear to be subscribing to the anti-scientific straw-man that science keeps changing its mind about everything. Most changes represent refinements or generalizations of some former theory with lesser scope. Quantum Mechanics is unusual in that it describes what goes on at the tiniest of scales yet -- as what goes on at this scale determines what goes on at the scale of the entire universe -- it has an extraordinarily large scope. This is why, when we see immutable changes to our axioms, we can re-visit questions like cause with a reformed version of common-sense.Catharsis wrote: In 200 years we will advance even further in the field of science, develop and formulate new theories, and discard old ones.
I don't think you can reasonably dismiss this with one-liners like "Quantum mechanics? I don't think so"
Isn't what I've been trying to explain all along here that the dichotomy of the created and the uncreated may well be false? Faith in the uncreated may therefore be misplaced. I can't pretend to understand much of what George Metallinos is saying thouhg so please feel free to decipher anything you think is still relevant.Catharsis wrote:It's my turn to provide a link:
Faith And Science In Orthodox Gnosiology and Methodology
http://www.romanity.org/mir/me01en.htm
-
Catharsis
Post #55
Hello QED,
>>>Because, in the context of human reasoning, concepts like cause become axioms that other ideas are founded upon. I tend to think that, through time, humans (at least as far back as those documented in history) all experience thoughts, and arrive at their convictions, through the same sort of processes. Different sets of ideas will therefore emerge when different axioms are present.<<<
>>>Are you suggesting that discoveries in Quantum Mechanics do not change any of our axioms?<<<
The reason I said 'I don't think so' or 'so what' is because I'm trying to communicate my position that people can not experience the reality and knowledge of God through science, math, logic, intellect, etc. I believe I've said this many times on this forum already.
>>>If God's existence has any influence on us at all then, in principle, his existence is testable. By defining him in your terms I think you'll find that he becomes a complete irrelevance as he can have no influence at all. No matter how supernatural God is, there has to be an interface with the natural and that will always be explorable from "our side".<<<
Testable indeed, but only by proper 'tests' and 'instruments'. Those who wish to investigate whether God exists must employ the appropriate methodology which is the purification (catharsis) of the heart from egotistical passions and impurities. If people manage to cleanse their hearts and still fail to see God, then they are justified by concluding that indeed God is a lie, that He does not exist, that He is just a grand illusion. Such people can reject God in all sincerity by saying: I followed the method that the saints have given us and failed to find God. Therefore, God does not exist.'
>>>You appear to be subscribing to the anti-scientific straw-man that science keeps changing its mind about everything. Most changes represent refinements or generalizations of some former theory with lesser scope. Quantum Mechanics is unusual in that it describes what goes on at the tiniest of scales yet -- as what goes on at this scale determines what goes on at the scale of the entire universe -- it has an extraordinarily large scope. This is why, when we see immutable changes to our axioms, we can re-visit questions like cause with a reformed version of common-sense.<<<
I'm not anti-science. My degree from university says honors BSc.
I majored in statistics and economics, minored in comp science, and I took physics, and all sorts of math and stats courses, some of which I still have nightmares from.
Theories get 'updated', and certain theories get discarded through new discoveries. Science always grows and expands. Some things which we hold as truth today, may not be valid tomorrow. In any case, quantum mechanics is an inappropriate method for 'studying' God.
>>>Isn't what I've been trying to explain all along here that the dichotomy of the created and the uncreated may well be false? Faith in the uncreated may therefore be misplaced. I can't pretend to understand much of what George Metallinos is saying thouhg so please feel free to decipher anything you think is still relevant.<<<
May be false - maybe not. The Orthodox Saints and monasteries have a continuous and empirical proof of the Uncreated (or the Uncreated Light) for the last 2000 years. It is the mystical experience of Moses on Mount Sinai, of Jesus on Mount Tabor, of the apostles at Pentecost, and of all the saints throughout the ages. However, not all have to 'work' to experience the Uncreated Light. The Light can befall any human being, regardless of their station in life. Saul was a persecutor of Christians until he was blinded by the brilliance of the Uncreated Light. That experience 'converted' him in an instant, and catapulted him to fulfill his mission as Saint Paul.
The vision of the uncreated light, which offers knowledge of God to man, is sensory and suprasensory. St. Maximus says that the Apostles saw the uncreated Light "by a transformation of the activity of their senses, produced in them by the Spirit". The vision of the uncreated light and the knowledge that comes from this are not an unfolding of the rational power, they are not perfection of rational nature, but they are superior to reason. They are knowledge offered by God to the pure in heart. Anyone who asserts that the deifying gift is a development of the rational nature puts himself in opposition to Christ's Gospel.
The dichotomy of uncreated/created is not an issue in Orthodox theology. I'm sorry, but how can people speak of the dichotomy being false if they have no knowledge or experience of it? How can people philosophize about the uncreated light if they do not know what it is? It's like quack-doctors dealing with real doctors on equal footing, and talking about their profession.
I realize the things I write sometimes may be hard to stomach for a scientific and logical mind. But feel free to ask.
>>>Because, in the context of human reasoning, concepts like cause become axioms that other ideas are founded upon. I tend to think that, through time, humans (at least as far back as those documented in history) all experience thoughts, and arrive at their convictions, through the same sort of processes. Different sets of ideas will therefore emerge when different axioms are present.<<<
>>>Are you suggesting that discoveries in Quantum Mechanics do not change any of our axioms?<<<
The reason I said 'I don't think so' or 'so what' is because I'm trying to communicate my position that people can not experience the reality and knowledge of God through science, math, logic, intellect, etc. I believe I've said this many times on this forum already.
>>>If God's existence has any influence on us at all then, in principle, his existence is testable. By defining him in your terms I think you'll find that he becomes a complete irrelevance as he can have no influence at all. No matter how supernatural God is, there has to be an interface with the natural and that will always be explorable from "our side".<<<
Testable indeed, but only by proper 'tests' and 'instruments'. Those who wish to investigate whether God exists must employ the appropriate methodology which is the purification (catharsis) of the heart from egotistical passions and impurities. If people manage to cleanse their hearts and still fail to see God, then they are justified by concluding that indeed God is a lie, that He does not exist, that He is just a grand illusion. Such people can reject God in all sincerity by saying: I followed the method that the saints have given us and failed to find God. Therefore, God does not exist.'
>>>You appear to be subscribing to the anti-scientific straw-man that science keeps changing its mind about everything. Most changes represent refinements or generalizations of some former theory with lesser scope. Quantum Mechanics is unusual in that it describes what goes on at the tiniest of scales yet -- as what goes on at this scale determines what goes on at the scale of the entire universe -- it has an extraordinarily large scope. This is why, when we see immutable changes to our axioms, we can re-visit questions like cause with a reformed version of common-sense.<<<
I'm not anti-science. My degree from university says honors BSc.
I majored in statistics and economics, minored in comp science, and I took physics, and all sorts of math and stats courses, some of which I still have nightmares from.Theories get 'updated', and certain theories get discarded through new discoveries. Science always grows and expands. Some things which we hold as truth today, may not be valid tomorrow. In any case, quantum mechanics is an inappropriate method for 'studying' God.
>>>Isn't what I've been trying to explain all along here that the dichotomy of the created and the uncreated may well be false? Faith in the uncreated may therefore be misplaced. I can't pretend to understand much of what George Metallinos is saying thouhg so please feel free to decipher anything you think is still relevant.<<<
May be false - maybe not. The Orthodox Saints and monasteries have a continuous and empirical proof of the Uncreated (or the Uncreated Light) for the last 2000 years. It is the mystical experience of Moses on Mount Sinai, of Jesus on Mount Tabor, of the apostles at Pentecost, and of all the saints throughout the ages. However, not all have to 'work' to experience the Uncreated Light. The Light can befall any human being, regardless of their station in life. Saul was a persecutor of Christians until he was blinded by the brilliance of the Uncreated Light. That experience 'converted' him in an instant, and catapulted him to fulfill his mission as Saint Paul.
The vision of the uncreated light, which offers knowledge of God to man, is sensory and suprasensory. St. Maximus says that the Apostles saw the uncreated Light "by a transformation of the activity of their senses, produced in them by the Spirit". The vision of the uncreated light and the knowledge that comes from this are not an unfolding of the rational power, they are not perfection of rational nature, but they are superior to reason. They are knowledge offered by God to the pure in heart. Anyone who asserts that the deifying gift is a development of the rational nature puts himself in opposition to Christ's Gospel.
The dichotomy of uncreated/created is not an issue in Orthodox theology. I'm sorry, but how can people speak of the dichotomy being false if they have no knowledge or experience of it? How can people philosophize about the uncreated light if they do not know what it is? It's like quack-doctors dealing with real doctors on equal footing, and talking about their profession.
I realize the things I write sometimes may be hard to stomach for a scientific and logical mind. But feel free to ask.
-
Catharsis
Post #56
Hi Beto
>>>Why would you assume that?<<<
From your comments below.
Don't take this negatively. Most Orthodox do not know either the specifics of the faith or theology. Not everyone knows details of specific subjects. I do not know chemistry for example, so I can't really talk about it.
>>>I see what you mean. There's a misunderstanding. I'm not talking about "searching" for God in the way you mean. I'm talking about trying to KNOW the nature of God, if you will. Scientifically speaking, the orthodox church claims that God is unknowable, do you agree? And all I'm saying is that, the existence of the church as an institution depends on that fact. Knowing God, you don't require "faith" in God, and the church has no reason to exist. It's in that regard that I understand why the church would say it's pointless to try to KNOW God.<<<
I'm not sure how to answer your questions. I will only deal with your statement about knowing the nature of God, which is complicated enough and for which there are entire volumes written. However, below is from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence-En ... istinction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncreated_Light
Essence-Energies distinction
The Energies of God are a central principle of theology in the Eastern Orthodox Church, understood by the orthodox Fathers of the Church, and most famously formulated by Gregory Palamas, defending hesychast practice involving the vision of a "Divine Light" against charges of heresy brought by Barlaam of Calabria.
The principle is that God's essence (ousia) is distinct from his energies (energeiai) or activities in the world, and it is the energies that enable us to experience something of the Divine. These energies are "unbegotten" or "uncreated". These energies can not be created or destroyed. They are unbegotten or uncreated, because they are a natural by-product of something which is beyond existence. Orthodox theology holds that while humans can never know God's "Essence" and that direct experience of God would simply obliterate us (much as Moses could not survive seeing God's face), God's "Energies" can be directly experienced (as Moses could see God's back and live). These energies are considered to be uncreated in nature. The presence of the energies is not to be taken as denial of the philosophical simplicity of God. Therefore, when speaking of God, it is acceptable within Eastern Orthodoxy to speak of his energies as God. These would include kataphatic or positive statements of God like the list of St Paul's energies of God. God being love, faith and hope and knowledge (see 1Cor. 13:2 - 13:13).[1]As is also the case of Gregory of Palamas that God is grace and deifying illumination.[2]
The important theological and soteriological distinction remains that people experience God through his energies, not his essence. Traditionally, the energies have been experienced as light, such as the light of Mount Tabor that appeared at the Transfiguration. Orthodox tradition likewise holds that this light may be seen during prayer (Hesychasm) by particularly devout individuals, such as the saints. In addition, it is considered to be eschatological in that it is also considered to be the "Light of the Age to Come" or the "Kingdom of Heaven" which is the Christ.
Hope that helps.
>>>Why would you assume that?<<<
From your comments below.
Don't take this negatively. Most Orthodox do not know either the specifics of the faith or theology. Not everyone knows details of specific subjects. I do not know chemistry for example, so I can't really talk about it.
>>>I see what you mean. There's a misunderstanding. I'm not talking about "searching" for God in the way you mean. I'm talking about trying to KNOW the nature of God, if you will. Scientifically speaking, the orthodox church claims that God is unknowable, do you agree? And all I'm saying is that, the existence of the church as an institution depends on that fact. Knowing God, you don't require "faith" in God, and the church has no reason to exist. It's in that regard that I understand why the church would say it's pointless to try to KNOW God.<<<
I'm not sure how to answer your questions. I will only deal with your statement about knowing the nature of God, which is complicated enough and for which there are entire volumes written. However, below is from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essence-En ... istinction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncreated_Light
Essence-Energies distinction
The Energies of God are a central principle of theology in the Eastern Orthodox Church, understood by the orthodox Fathers of the Church, and most famously formulated by Gregory Palamas, defending hesychast practice involving the vision of a "Divine Light" against charges of heresy brought by Barlaam of Calabria.
The principle is that God's essence (ousia) is distinct from his energies (energeiai) or activities in the world, and it is the energies that enable us to experience something of the Divine. These energies are "unbegotten" or "uncreated". These energies can not be created or destroyed. They are unbegotten or uncreated, because they are a natural by-product of something which is beyond existence. Orthodox theology holds that while humans can never know God's "Essence" and that direct experience of God would simply obliterate us (much as Moses could not survive seeing God's face), God's "Energies" can be directly experienced (as Moses could see God's back and live). These energies are considered to be uncreated in nature. The presence of the energies is not to be taken as denial of the philosophical simplicity of God. Therefore, when speaking of God, it is acceptable within Eastern Orthodoxy to speak of his energies as God. These would include kataphatic or positive statements of God like the list of St Paul's energies of God. God being love, faith and hope and knowledge (see 1Cor. 13:2 - 13:13).[1]As is also the case of Gregory of Palamas that God is grace and deifying illumination.[2]
The important theological and soteriological distinction remains that people experience God through his energies, not his essence. Traditionally, the energies have been experienced as light, such as the light of Mount Tabor that appeared at the Transfiguration. Orthodox tradition likewise holds that this light may be seen during prayer (Hesychasm) by particularly devout individuals, such as the saints. In addition, it is considered to be eschatological in that it is also considered to be the "Light of the Age to Come" or the "Kingdom of Heaven" which is the Christ.
Hope that helps.
Post #57
Thanks for the clarifications Catharsis.
I have indeed heard it said often, by many. But it makes no sense except on a psychological level -- where it makes plenty of sense. Unfortunately for the theist, this makes it all the more difficult to convince the non-believer that we're dealing with anything that truly transcends the individuals own mental states.Catharsis wrote: The reason I said 'I don't think so' or 'so what' is because I'm trying to communicate my position that people can not experience the reality and knowledge of God through science, math, logic, intellect, etc. I believe I've said this many times on this forum already.
With all respect, this doesn't actually address my point. I'm suggesting that to be of any real relevance, God must have influence that is more tangible than the mere passing of "memes" between humans. Sure this much makes God have an influence on us, but I think you'll see quite clearly that this does not make him actually exist in a creative role that explains our existence. Whenever we do interface with "creation" in a real way, we can bring our scientific instruments and examine the process -- and possibly see that it is not a process that is compatible with intentional creation.Catharsis wrote:Testable indeed, but only by proper 'tests' and 'instruments'. Those who wish to investigate whether God exists must employ the appropriate methodology which is the purification (catharsis) of the heart from egotistical passions and impurities. If people manage to cleanse their hearts and still fail to see God, then they are justified by concluding that indeed God is a lie, that He does not exist, that He is just a grand illusion. Such people can reject God in all sincerity by saying: I followed the method that the saints have given us and failed to find God. Therefore, God does not exist.'QED wrote:If God's existence has any influence on us at all then, in principle, his existence is testable. By defining him in your terms I think you'll find that he becomes a complete irrelevance as he can have no influence at all. No matter how supernatural God is, there has to be an interface with the natural and that will always be explorable from "our side".
I'm pleased to hear that. I think Economics has much to say about the kind of creation that we could be part of. I wonder if you agree?Catharsis wrote: I'm not anti-science. My degree from university says honors BSc.
So you say, but it's the closest we've come to understanding the mechanism of his supposed creation. I still don't get how this can't tell us anything about him.Catharsis wrote: Theories get 'updated', and certain theories get discarded through new discoveries. Science always grows and expands. Some things which we hold as truth today, may not be valid tomorrow. In any case, quantum mechanics is an inappropriate method for 'studying' God.
-
Catharsis
Post #58
Hi QED,
>>I have indeed heard it said often, by many. But it makes no sense except on a psychological level -- where it makes plenty of sense. Unfortunately for the theist, this makes it all the more difficult to convince the non-believer that we're dealing with anything that truly transcends the individuals own mental states.<<
What do you mean by mental states?
>>With all respect, this doesn't actually address my point. I'm suggesting that to be of any real relevance, God must have influence that is more tangible than the mere passing of "memes" between humans. Sure this much makes God have an influence on us, but I think you'll see quite clearly that this does not make him actually exist in a creative role that explains our existence. Whenever we do interface with "creation" in a real way, we can bring our scientific instruments and examine the process -- and possibly see that it is not a process that is compatible with intentional creation.<<
You're suggesting......God must have influence that is more tangible...
I hope you realize what you're saying.
I'm not sure what you mean by this: I think you'll see quite clearly that this does not make him actually exist in a creative role that explains our existence.
God or Holy Spirit is surely not 'created', for he is the Creator. His energies, through which He communicates with ('some' of) us, are uncreated and ever-present. These energies can't be created or destroyed (as outlined in wikipedia).
>>I'm pleased to hear that. I think Economics has much to say about the kind of creation that we could be part of. I wonder if you agree?<<
From a 'theological' point of view, Creation is already in existence.
From an 'eco' point of view, I assume you mean how economics can explain and improve our societies in various aspects (?)
>>So you say, but it's the closest we've come to understanding the mechanism of his supposed creation. I still don't get how this can't tell us anything about him. icon_confused2<<
My friend, God is not so complicated as you make Him out to be. Quantum Mechanics?!
All we need to start off is some humility and faith.
>>I have indeed heard it said often, by many. But it makes no sense except on a psychological level -- where it makes plenty of sense. Unfortunately for the theist, this makes it all the more difficult to convince the non-believer that we're dealing with anything that truly transcends the individuals own mental states.<<
What do you mean by mental states?
>>With all respect, this doesn't actually address my point. I'm suggesting that to be of any real relevance, God must have influence that is more tangible than the mere passing of "memes" between humans. Sure this much makes God have an influence on us, but I think you'll see quite clearly that this does not make him actually exist in a creative role that explains our existence. Whenever we do interface with "creation" in a real way, we can bring our scientific instruments and examine the process -- and possibly see that it is not a process that is compatible with intentional creation.<<
You're suggesting......God must have influence that is more tangible...
I hope you realize what you're saying.
I'm not sure what you mean by this: I think you'll see quite clearly that this does not make him actually exist in a creative role that explains our existence.
God or Holy Spirit is surely not 'created', for he is the Creator. His energies, through which He communicates with ('some' of) us, are uncreated and ever-present. These energies can't be created or destroyed (as outlined in wikipedia).
>>I'm pleased to hear that. I think Economics has much to say about the kind of creation that we could be part of. I wonder if you agree?<<
From a 'theological' point of view, Creation is already in existence.
From an 'eco' point of view, I assume you mean how economics can explain and improve our societies in various aspects (?)
>>So you say, but it's the closest we've come to understanding the mechanism of his supposed creation. I still don't get how this can't tell us anything about him. icon_confused2<<
My friend, God is not so complicated as you make Him out to be. Quantum Mechanics?!
All we need to start off is some humility and faith.
Post #59
What I mean is that our minds are capable of generating an unlimited number of hypothetical entities irrespective of whether they have any existence outside our minds or not.Catharsis wrote:What do you mean by mental states?
Yes, and I don't think it's what you think I'm thinkingCatharsis wrote:You're suggesting......God must have influence that is more tangible...QED wrote:With all respect, this doesn't actually address my point. I'm suggesting that to be of any real relevance, God must have influence that is more tangible than the mere passing of "memes" between humans. Sure this much makes God have an influence on us, but I think you'll see quite clearly that this does not make him actually exist in a creative role that explains our existence. Whenever we do interface with "creation" in a real way, we can bring our scientific instruments and examine the process -- and possibly see that it is not a process that is compatible with intentional creation.
I hope you realize what you're saying.
I'm saying that for God to be real rather than imaginary, it's not sufficient to say something like "God has an influence over us" -- as a purely imaginary idea of God can do this much. To be demonstrably real God must have a tangible, and hence scientifically discernible influence on the world. All those proposing God as the "first cause" are putting God in this demonstrably real position.
Your opinion seems to be that this aspect of God's influence is inaccessible to instrumentation -- a view which I would strongly disagree with.
I hope this is a little clearer now: Simply imagining something does not make it real.Catharsis wrote: I'm not sure what you mean by this: I think you'll see quite clearly that this does not make him actually exist in a creative role that explains our existence.
Fine. So at least one "entity" can enjoy the privileged status of being "uncreated". But why just one, and why this particular one and not some other entity with the capacity to create universes? I think the scientific finding that our universe had a "beginning" encourages people to assume the existence of Aristotle's final cause. But there are other potential efficient causes that can result in universes that are devoid of intent.Catharsis wrote: God or Holy Spirit is surely not 'created', for he is the Creator. His energies, through which He communicates with ('some' of) us, are uncreated and ever-present. These energies can't be created or destroyed (as outlined in wikipedia).
No, I was thinking along the lines of the failure of command economies relative to free-markets being relevant to the arguments over intelligent design vs. evolution.Catharsis wrote: From a 'theological' point of view, Creation is already in existence.
From an 'eco' point of view, I assume you mean how economics can explain and improve our societies in various aspects (?)
If God created the universe then he surely understands QM. That makes him more complicated than any man alive today!Catharsis wrote: My friend, God is not so complicated as you make Him out to be. Quantum Mechanics?!
All we need to start off is some humility and faith.
But I'm most intrigued by your appeal to humility: I would suggest that the faithful are tending towards hubris by believing their existence to be the product of some kind of intent. After all, when the various theistic/atheistic arguments have run their course, the theist's case always seems to rest on faith. I think it's fair to say that this faith includes the idea that our existence is a product of divine intention -- and I think it's rather obvious that there are far humbler ideas that we could rest our faith in.
-
Catharsis
Post #60
Hi QED,
Thought you'd find this 'interesting':
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html
Thought you'd find this 'interesting':
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/nihilism.html
