Plantinga: The God Delusion

[orbital]

This is good sense;  and you are endorsing a traditional boundary to Science's field of inquiry.

Some people suppose that only that which is within Science's field of inquiry, is real, and therefore anything that won't fit onto that Procrustean bed, is without merit.

Sure, I'd be very cautious of a scientist who pondered on the question unless s/he is making a philosophical inquiry outside her/his field of work.
I'd like to think that if there was a reason for everything, it would either have to be impossible to find or so easy that it would be right here in front of us. It should not be something that we can find out by research.

[orbital]

No, I don't. It may have no answer for you as an atheist, but I am a theist and for me it is a very important question and an answerable one at that.

But, it is you [us] who have invented the question. It was not based on an observable phenomenon. You are asking science to find the answer to it, and if it can't (and it can't) answer it, why should it take the blame for it? A good method to question the validity of existence of anything may be to ask what if it didn't exist? What if there was no reason for the universe to exist, what would be different in the universe as a whole except for some civilization on a small planet in the outer reaches of a very small galaxy?
That we are intelligent enough to be able to ask such a question does not merit its validity IMO.

Besides, if someone in the 13th century asked "How can man fly?" or "How can tuberculosis be cured" he would have received exactly the reply you made.

They are not the same type of questions, you do realize that. These questions were asked after there was an observable phenomenon. People were dying of tuberculosis so to find a cure was an answer to that problem. Or they have observed birds and other flying creatures in the nature, examined it, blueprinted the mechanism of wings and other tools, then asked "How can we make a machine that can fly us in the air?".
You can ask, "why is there a gravitational pull?" It is a valid question, and it is based on an observation. There is the scientific explanation for it (spacetime bending with the presence of particles, etc) but there is not a philosophical reason for 'why, oh why do objects pull each other?". You can apply the same non-existence test to it and draw the conclusion that if there was no gravitation, universe would not be what it is today, and you have the philosophical answer if you need one.

In other words, there may be a reason, which you have no idea about, but you feel safe saying it has nothing to do with us. Your logic is seriously flawed.

I personally think there is no reason, I don't see the reason for a reason in fact  I might be wrong of course, who knows? I am only leaving the option out because it is not something I know for a fact. What do you think the reason is? and how would it affect the rest of the universe in your opinion?

Not if the reason is a timeless God, a God outside time, for whom everything can exist with the same actuality, be it 14 billion years ago or now or 14 billion years in the future. If there is a timeless God who created the universe, He already knew at the start of the Big Bang how all evolution -- physical and biological -- would eventually turn out. In that sense, time is irrelevant for God.

Yet we are bound by time, we are not God. Our solutions will always have to include the notion of time. If it is revealed to all of us today without leaving any trace of doubt that God created the universe for the reasons that were foretold in the scriptures, wouldn't it dawn on anyone to ask what the rest of the universe was for? and why it took 14 billion years to shape to what it is today?
I guess what I want to ask is, "What reason for why universe came to be would wholly satisfy you ?"

And no, the "timeless" notion is not something invented by theistic philosophy to come up with a "solution" to modern science and the vast time spans it puts before us, but classical philosophy from many centuries before the scientific revolution.

No arguments there. Thankfully it also credits the "No Creator" view as well, for it discredits the need for an action for the original reaction 

[Catison]

These questions were asked after there was an observable phenomenon. People were dying of tuberculosis so to find a cure was an answer to that problem. Or they have observed birds and other flying creatures in the nature, examined it, blueprinted the mechanism of wings and other tools, then asked "How can we make a machine that can fly us in the air?".

Surely the most basic observation of any self-aware creature is that he has been created.  Is it then not an observable phenomenon which may be questioned?

[Norbeone]

The laws of complex matter don't apply because God is not matter. He created matter.

God does not come from anywhere, rather, He is the eternal basis where everything comes from.

Al, as a self-proclaimed scientist, you can't seriously think this is an acceptable answer, can you?

How do you know he doesn't come from anywhere? How can that make sense, as a scientist? And please don't say 'these things are outside science', because they happen to be VERY scientific questions. It is completely ignorant to just think these explantions up without having any actual proof for it. If you DO have proof or at least some rationalisation, however, please present it, because that's the only way that you could begin to convince anyone of this (so far) baseless claim.

This is exactly the type of thing that frustrates me, because it's an easy way out for the believer when they say something that they claim needs no explanation. EVERYTHING needs an explanation.

EDIT - not that i'm saying everything can be explained right now, but it still holds true that there should be some solid reaons to really believe in something.

[orbital]

Surely the most basic observation of any self-aware creature is that he has been created.  Is it then not an observable phenomenon which may be questioned?

That's why we have medicine and, more recently, psychology. To investigate how we function, and how we can function better, no?

We do not have any questions hanging about our physical existence. I know "how" I was created (sexual intercourse), and to a large extent, -if I must know- "why" I was created (sexual pleasure or planned parenthood or both).

The type of "why" questions I question are those that ask not "why do the birds fly" which is essentially asking "how do the birds fly", but those that ask "why am I here" which is a different type of "why" which has nothing to do with "how is it that am I here". And those types of questions are invented not observed. Meaning, they presuppose a reason, then try to find an explanation for it.

[Norbeone]

Well stated, orbital.

[Catison]

The type of "why" questions I question are those that ask not "why do the birds fly" which is essentially asking "how do the birds fly", but those that ask "why am I here" which is a different type of "why" which has nothing to do with "how is it that am I here". And those types of questions are invented not observed. Meaning, they presuppose a reason, then try to find an explanation for it.

Physics, as we know it today, is unanchored at the limits of space and time.  We have started at a, more or less, arbitrary point defined by our ability to observe.  At the fringes of our perception, physics is cloudy.  We don't understand the universe at the time of the big bang and we don't understand subsubatomic particles completely.  Perhaps we will one day.  But questions will always remain.  The limit of these question is the big one: why is it the way it is?  That is a perfectly reasonable question.  And prospecting there is no answer is just as much of a problem as saying God did it.  Both answers have no scientific evidence and would be equally illogical.

But isn't that exactly the type of thing people ridicule the Church for?  Don't ask us that question.

[Al Moritz]

Al, as a self-proclaimed scientist, you can't seriously think this is an acceptable answer, can you?

How do you know he doesn't come from anywhere? How can that make sense, as a scientist? And please don't say 'these things are outside science', because they happen to be VERY scientific questions. It is completely ignorant to just think these explantions up without having any actual proof for it. If you DO have proof or at least some rationalisation, however, please present it, because that's the only way that you could begin to convince anyone of this (so far) baseless claim.

This is exactly the type of thing that frustrates me, because it's an easy way out for the believer when they say something that they claim needs no explanation. EVERYTHING needs an explanation.

EDIT - not that i'm saying everything can be explained right now, but it still holds true that there should be some solid reaons to really believe in something.

You're wrong, this is not a scientific question, because science deals with the material world, not with the immaterial.

EVERYTHING needs an explanation? At some point one thing must be the basis for everything, for the atheist it is eternal matter, for the theist it is God. Where does matter come from?

Don't say from quantum fluctuations, which produce matter "from nothing". That theory is complete nonsense, since a quantum vacuum which produces fluctuations is a field, i.e. not nothing. So where does that field come from?

So just like an atheist is forced to concede that there must be a basic reservoir of eternal matter, energy or fields, the theist says that the basis for all is God.

One thing must be the ultimate explanation.

[Norbeone]

So just like an atheist is forced to concede that there must be a basic reservoir of eternal matter, energy or fields, the theist says that the basis for all is God.

One thing must be the ultimate explanation.

Ok, but why is that thing God?

[Al Moritz]

Ok, but why is that thing God?

I think I have explained sufficiently by now (maybe you want to read my posts again) why
a) the Designer hypothesis satisfies me most *)
b) the concept of eternal matter (fine-tuning of the laws of nature aside) does not satisfy me


*) in the context I find the evidence from divine revelation, i.e. declarative evidence, an additional satisfactory element. Whereas we have no evidence for the multiverse or other naturalistic explanations of ultimate origins whatsoever, neither scientific nor otherwise.

[orbital]

Physics, as we know it today, is unanchored at the limits of space and time.  We have started at a, more or less, arbitrary point defined by our ability to observe.  At the fringes of our perception, physics is cloudy.  We don't understand the universe at the time of the big bang and we don't understand subsubatomic particles completely.  Perhaps we will one day.  But questions will always remain.  The limit of these question is the big one: why is it the way it is?  That is a perfectly reasonable question.  And prospecting there is no answer is just as much of a problem as saying God did it.  Both answers have no scientific evidence and would be equally illogical.

But isn't that exactly the type of thing people ridicule the Church for?  Don't ask us that question.

So if everything is known one day, that question will still prevail  The question will remain because we invented the question. It is like asking  me the final decimal digit of Pi, or better yet,  the numerical representation of the square root of -1, I can't answer it because there isn't an answer -unless I answer it with something I can only suppose. I can say the answer is i . Just think of i as the answer and you can base your theories on it, but it wasn't the real answer. You invented the question and I invented the answer.

One thing must be the ultimate explanation.

If there is an explanation, that is.

[Al Moritz]

Yet we are bound by time, we are not God. Our solutions will always have to include the notion of time. If it is revealed to all of us today without leaving any trace of doubt that God created the universe for the reasons that were foretold in the scriptures, wouldn't it dawn on anyone to ask what the rest of the universe was for?

For the glory of God. Already in the 15th century the theologian and astronomer Nicolas of Cusa said that only an infinite universe would be worthy of the Creator. Well, our universe may not be infinite, but it is unbelievably vast.

Also, you can look at God as an artist instead of an engineer. If physical evolution demanded that during its course the universe would grow so big, why would it bother the artist if it is the most elegant way of creation?

But wouldn't that be wasteful? Efficiency applies only to designers with limited resources. God is unlimited, so in this case the question doesn't make much sense.

and why it took 14 billion years to shape to what it is today?

Because that is how long the natural processes take that the Designer chose. Again, in a sense time is irrelevant to God.

[drogulus]

But what if the biblical authors actually were telling the truth? Wouldn't that be evidence?

     No, the evidence they were telling the truth would be evidence.

     We are talking about supernatural realms and the entities in them. Al says the rules don't apply (except his rule that they don't apply. I wonder where that came from?). So, in the spirit of adventure, let's play along.

     One distinction that can be made in the world we live in is the distinction between real and imaginary entities. Does this distinction hold in the supernatural realm? No, it can't, since we have no knowledge with which to make it. In like manner there is no distinction between a real and imaginary theology in this world that is about another world for which there are no rules. Rules are observed regularities, so no observation, no rules.

     If you want to populate this other world, you have to make it up. Therefore there is no distinction upon which to make the judgment that a religion is fake. Zeus isn't more fake than Allah, he's just more lonely.

     If in some manner evidence about an alternative realm different from ours should come to light, then we will get a chance to observe, discover rules and make all the distinctions that we can't make now. Until then, the believers console themselves with the notion that what they believe can't be disproved. But think of all the undisproved things. There are an infinite number of them. How many are real? A tiny fraction, surely. Without evidence, how do we know which ones are? So I think this notion that lack of disproof is a license to believe is overrated.
     
     

One thing must be the ultimate explanation.

     I don't think there will be an ultimate explanation. Explanations are always interpretations based on a particular state of knowledge, and total knowledge doesn't seem possible. So we'll always be stuck with non-ultimate explanations. Since they can do useful things, that's OK.

[Norbeone]

Because that is how long the natural processes take that the Designer chose. Again, in a sense time is irrelevant to God.

It's strange that when someone appears so assertive about these things, it seem that it should be taken less seriously.

My point is, Al, that you appear to know for certain the things of which you speak. I'd love to know how anyone can be so sure about such things as time being irrelevant to God etc.

[Ten thumbs]

Either there is nothing or there is a universe (in some stage of development). Without a universe there cannot be a reason.

[drogulus]

It's strange that when someone appears so assertive about these things, it seem that it should be taken less seriously.

My point is, Al, that you appear to know for certain the things of which you speak. I'd love to know how anyone can be so sure about such things as time being irrelevant to God etc.

      Because it can't be disproved. Al has a Get Out Of Jail Free card. I could have one too if I wanted, but I prefer to have truth defined within some limits and live with the uncertainty of disconfirmation. That's been a good way to go for a long time now. I don't see any reason to change horses. Maybe someday science will come to an end and there will be no more new knowledge, but this seems unlikely to me. Anyway, we haven't reached that point.

      The proposal that there's another path to knowledge that doesn't require confirmation by transparent methods has gone nowhere. All it amounts to is an assertion that you have a right to call what you say true because you say it. Nothing is true without something making it so, so let's get past the assertion and go directly to what warrants it. When you get there, what you find is belief. The supernatural is true because it is believed. That's the ultimate Rope Trick, the one you play on yourself.

[Al Moritz]

      Because it can't be disproved. Al has a Get Out Of Jail Free card. I could have one too if I wanted, but I prefer to have truth defined within some limits and live with the uncertainty of disconfirmation.

That should make you an agnostic rather than an atheist.

[Al Moritz]

My point is, Al, that you appear to know for certain the things of which you speak. I'd love to know how anyone can be so sure about such things as time being irrelevant to God etc.

If you accept God's existence, then His timelessness is a basic philosophical conclusion. If you don't accept God's existence it's a different matter.

Just like with the multiverse: if you believe in the multiverse idea then the randomization of the laws of nature between the individual universes contained in the multiverse is a basic philosophical conclusion to explain the apparent fine-tuning of our particular universe.

Only that I personally find the God idea far more persuasive.

[drogulus]

That should make you an agnostic rather than an atheist.

    That's a good point. My atheism is not having a religion. My affrmative belief is that materialism models how true beliefs are found.* But they don't have to be consistent with what materialism says now. A real god, in the process of being discovered, would reveal many things not imagined as possible now. But I don't think the intuitions relied upon by believers are a good guide to what a real god would be.

    Another thing to consider is that a real god would collapse the distinction between the natural world and the purported supernatural one. In the process of formulating rules to acccount for a real god we'd have to abolish a distinction that would have been rendered inoperative.

     *You can take that operationally, rather than metaphysically. I like to speculate, though. 

[Norbeone]

Only that I personally find the God idea far more persuasive.

Then you are - and I know you've repsonded to this before - left with the problem of where God came from, something that should be scrutinized in the same way as all other material things are, whether you you agree or not.