Is this a theistic or atheistic universe?

[harvey1]

When I first started debating with atheists many moons ago, I was actually surprised that there were atheists. The reason is because I sincerely thought the discovery of the big bang and all those cosmic coincidences sort of finished off atheism for good. After having come to see the atheists perspective, I've enjoyed looking at the world from both perspectives. I can see the world through the eyes of a theist, and I can see the world through the eyes of an atheist.

The atheist looks at the world, and sees it as WYSIWYG world. There's cruelity, tsunamis, supernovas destroying multiple worlds, natural selection where more than 99% of all species that lived are no longer here, and the huge time-lengths and spatial scales from the history of world since the big bang. In their eyes, things just sort of happen without any meaningful reason, at least one that would satisfy most of us when we look for answers to life's tragedies. (We should be grateful that there atheists and not jumping off buildings given their outlook!)

The theist looks at the world, and doesn't see WYSIWYG. The theist sees the beauty of the universe. A theist knows that things like chocolate cake, vanilla ice cream, babies that cry for mama, blue sunny skies, majestic mountain ranges, the touch of a loving hand, the taste of water on a hot day, and so many other pleasures are not the result of a slot machine. The theist sees a unity in the world that indicates something Good is overseeing the world, and doesn't much get the atheist who simply ignores the beauty of the world and looks only at the grime which, although it exists, doesn't take away from the splendor of the beautiful world in which we live. The theist hears of news of cosmic coincidences in the origin of life and the physical universe with a smile. No surprise to the theist. An undesirable surprise to the atheist.

So, here's my question, what is it about the world that requires one to have a WYSIWYG view of it and what is it about the world that requires us to look deeper and find God? I realize that WYSIWYG is compelling if things are really that simple, but hasn't the world taught us already that nothing is as it appears? Why be so easily fooled by WYSIWYG?

[harvey1]

Who exactly thought this? ...relied even more heavily on the predictability of the seasons and the signs of impending bad weather

Don't mistake predictability for determinism. Determinism doctrine means that the universe is 100% predictable in principle.

But chaos theory does not say that it is not deterministic.

I didn't say it did. I only said that chaos theory shows that the first case fails, and therefore there is no physical evidence to favor determinism over indeterminism.

While particles might exhibit wave like behaviour these "particles" must first exist to exhibit this behaviour. The evidence I believe points more strongly to the wave theory than the particle theory but this is really a moot point here.

I think the important issue is how wave-like and particle-like behavior manifest themselves. The path integral interpretation has an explanation that predicts quite well whereas a wave interpretation does not. In addition, the path integral approach has been found effective in other quantum theories (e.g., QED, QCD, QC, inflation, strings, loops, etc.).

Your assertion that the function is precedent to fact is neither proved nor disproved by this theory.

Nobody said it was. It's still a hypothesis.

Surely the function is merely the behaviour of the fact. I really don't see how you conclude that the function comes first here.

Because the function coming first offers a better overall explanation.

But isn't Tao said to be beyond definition and precedent to God?

Yes, that's right it is beyond definition, but it is God.

Tao is not said to be without origin but of unknown origin.

I beg to differ.

If creation is an attempt to define the Tao then is it your belief that God wishes to understand the Tao by this action

The Logos of God seeks to define Tao. The Logos is the wisdom of God, or philosophy of God.

that Tao seeks understanding of itself, or that Tao seeks understanding of what it is not?

Tao perhaps does both. Negative theology holds some interesting possibilities, but I couldn't comment either way on that issue. I just know there are times when negative theology offers a better means to grasp theological issues.

So, if I am correct in my evaluation here, you view the Tao as equivalent to God(although a rather impersonal one)

I don't think personal or impersonal apply to the Tao (or Absolute or Father). The Tao is nameless and all the Logos can do is mirror it's existence which it is a part.

and the Logos is, as in Christianity, the Word or active principle. What I still don't get though is how you come to this conclusion by analysing the material universe without having to make certain assumptions.

The main assumption is a logico-causal principle. Everything else follows deductively. What don't you think follows?

This is my only real bone of contention here. You make numerous assumptions throughout your dissertation which I have tried to point out but which have not been explained sufficiently for me to follow logically from start to finish.

I think I've answered all of your questions. Perhaps you have questions that have not been stated explicitly.

While I cannot argue with your final analysis here I fail to see how the material evidence can lead us to this conclusion without relying on at least some level of spiritual gnosis to guide us in our assumptions. Pure logic falls almost at the first hurdle.

I don't think I need spiritual gnosis. If you have an argument please present it.

[Curious]

Don't mistake predictability for determinism. Determinism doctrine means that the universe is 100% predictable in principle.
... I only said that chaos theory shows that the first case fails, and therefore there is no physical evidence to favor determinism over indeterminism.

I am not sure why you think I mistake the two here. Predictive accuracy is dependent upon knowledge and understanding of all the variables and determinism is the belief that outcomes are due to the antecedent causes.
The fact that our forefathers used prediction so commonly clearly demonstrates they had the belief that effect followed cause(although prediction does not require the cause to be known but might just as easily be derived from precedent effect of the same cause). The belief that disasters were caused by the god's displeasure and the attempted appeasement by blood sacrifice also shows this to be the case. They may have been unaware of the natural causes but they certainly didn't believe that it happened by accident or randomly.

Surely the function is merely the behaviour of the fact. I really don't see how you conclude that the function comes first here.

Because the function coming first offers a better overall explanation.

Maybe to you, but to the atheist, who is relying on material evidence to support the idea, I doubt it.

If creation is an attempt to define the Tao then is it your belief that God wishes to understand the Tao by this action

The Logos of God seeks to define Tao. The Logos is the wisdom of God, or philosophy of God.

that Tao seeks understanding of itself, or that Tao seeks understanding of what it is not?

Tao perhaps does both. Negative theology holds some interesting possibilities, but I couldn't comment either way on that issue. I just know there are times when negative theology offers a better means to grasp theological issues.

But this suggests that Tao has intent. Isn't that contrary to Taoist philosophy?

and the Logos is, as in Christianity, the Word or active principle. What I still don't get though is how you come to this conclusion by analysing the material universe without having to make certain assumptions.

The main assumption is a logico-causal principle. Everything else follows deductively. What don't you think follows?

But logical deduction requires much greater certainty than we have in this regard. Anything that follows the assumption does not follow, not logically anyway. You use the premise of cause then completely ignore this in regard to the cause requiring cause.

While I cannot argue with your final analysis here I fail to see how the material evidence can lead us to this conclusion without relying on at least some level of spiritual gnosis to guide us in our assumptions. Pure logic falls almost at the first hurdle.

I don't think I need spiritual gnosis. If you have an argument please present it.

It is a strange Taoist who rejects the validity of gnosis. Many of your arguments have shown intuitive rather than purely logical reasoning. There is nothing wrong with that but it does present problems when used as a basis for logical argument which does not accept the validity of assumption based on feeling. In logic, it is not acceptable to choose an option based on it's superiority over an alternative. That an explanation seems better is not a valid logical choice, the option must be shown to be correct or the logic fails.

[Undertow]

In your OP you seem to have highlighted two different ways of looking at the world. Niether is exclusive to the group you assigned it to. The way I look at things is that this could be a theistic universe, but trying to say we know that it is or if it is, what the qualities of the supreme being are, isn't really being honest. But as you pointed out, people look at things through different glasses and those that see the beauty of the world can either chalk it up to nature or to god. One of them we can define and become knowlegable of because we are part of it, senses and all. The other we can not.

I guess we all find out in the end, but again, that's an assumption I'm making because I don't actually know. It's a comforting thought, if nothing else.