Who designed the designer?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Dec 6, 2017.

  1. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Because gaps are apparently getting smaller due to the vigourous application of empiricism.

    As far as empiricism is concerned it is unknowable ... and thus supernatural, at least in your books ... unless we bring along a big juicy box of "science of the gaps", eh?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    I'm not "incorrect' and it's not "unknowable". It is currently unknown.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    Feel free to indicate how you propose one could validate the veracity of an object with eternal qualities. I mean, what you measure it against? An eternal stopwatch? Where would the regression end?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    I didn't say I could do it. Everything doesn't have to be directly measured however. I said the current answer is "we don't know".
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2018
  8. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    If everything doesn't have to be measured (directly or indirectly), on what other basis can one establish veracity?
    It seems obvious that the only means to qualify an eternal phenomena is with something else that is also eternal. Which then begs the question how one could escape the regression in this problem?

    By the same logic, the current answer is that a circle is not a triangle.

    Its kind of quaint how you trip over yourself to shrink down to this pure form of agnosticism the moment we discuss the universe, but pike out with terms like "supernatural", "myth", "doesn't exist" etc the moment God is described in an identical manner.
  9. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    That's not the same logic.

    Why is it that some "theists" become "super scientists" in many discussions. Your "side' has no evidence for anything and yet you attempt to poke holes in scientific discussions when absolutely everything isn't currently known?

    You can use direct, indirect observations, you can derive, deduce, make "educated" guesses based on future discoveries, etc. What is there to argue about here?

    Do you have problems with all "knowledge" or just anything that interferes with your religious views?

    Regarding how "God" is described, some theists describe "God" as loosely as they need to, to be "right" even though that's not how they actually think of "God".

    To "win" an argument they will dilute "God" to the point where "God" is just "Love" or "Peace" or "Nature" or whatever. That's not how most of them actually think of "God". This is the same "God" that doesn't want poor, illiterate Africans to use condoms, doesn't want poor illiterate Mississippians to treat evolution as science, who want to consider that the Earth might only be 6,000 years old because ... "how do we know, we weren't there and anyway 'Science' changes its mind all the time".
  10. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 70 years old Valued Senior Member

    Can you make ANY direct or indirect observations of god?

    Can you make a educated guess about god and follow up with a future discovery?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    I cannot regarding the first question. My educated guess is that there is no God (and all the rest of the supernatural realm) and I'll leave the future to the future.
  12. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    What’s there to remain obedient to? One simply has to acknowledge the quality of their propositions, whether presented as subjective speculation or scientific theory.
    If they’re different, then why compare them as if they’re qualitatively similar?

    Realistically there is no other basis other than empiricism to contemplate any subject. How does one speculate, theorize, or reason the existence of anything without relating it to the empirical knowledge of one’s own existence?
  13. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    It is exactly the same logic.

    Its more the case that many people who argue against God on the authority of science are really dumb philosophers, historians or sociologists. They think that because they know something of an expert in a field of science that this automatically conveys authority in other fields.

    If one wants to raise a (dubious) claim on the authority of science, it is unreasonable to expect others not to bring the scientific method to assert the veracity of that claim. I haven't diminished science in any way. I am just pointing out how what some are talking about is not science. Given that science is a big thing in many people's books, one would hope they would have the integrity to recognize this as such.

    But if you want to talk about trashing a view with blatant disregard of the epistemology that supports it, we could look at how atheists deal with the subject of God and religion.

    So if one has nothing educated to venture about the regressive problem of validating an eternal quality, one has to assume such guesses are not educated. As such, one could just as easily talk about circles not being squares being but the mere current standard. In both cases, there is a complete lack of ideas on what would have to be introduced to change this current standard.

    It would probably be more pertinent to ask you that question. You see, I don't perceive "knowledge" as something that challenges my religious views. You, on the otherhand ...

    I guess common decency should dictate that theists first inquire from an atheist how to think of God correctly.

    As far as this topic has progressed, my non/diluted ideas of God are of no consequence. You are declaring a certain framework being sufficient to label certain things as "myth", "false", "supernatural" etc. I am bringing your standard to the notion of an eternal universe and showing how you are applying a double standard.
    This points to the crux of the problem lying elsewhere.
    Seattle likes this.
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    I don't considered that Science has anything to do with Religion. It's just when certain theists try to bring religious ideas into science that there is an issue.

    The Universe may be infinite or finite. I don't know. Until I see better evidence I tend to think that there are no infinities of this sort and therefore I think space is probably finite...but I don't know. It could be infinite.

    Religion is a completely different matter. I don't personally think it is about "truth", "reality" but rather just what you bring to it. You can have whatever personal code or belief system you want. It's a subjective things. Just keep it personal and don't legislate your personal religious views so that they affect others. That would be my manta.

    Regarding atheists being "dumb historians" who don't know anything about science...I've found that many theists have much less scientific knowledge or interest than the average "man" on the street.

    The "dumb" aspect of this is that it doesn't matter. I don't personally care how much scientific knowledge someone has. It shouldn't be an issue in a religious discussion. The only reason it's ever an issue is when people try to get their "science" from a religious book.

    Why do that? Quite doing that and you eliminate most of your problems.
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2018
  15. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Every time science explains something well enough, that is good evidence that a god is not needed for that, at least.

    IF 1 or 2 or even most science theories turn out to be wrong, that would be absolutely no evidence of any god.
    Trying to criticize science does not help support any god claims.

  16. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    I guess the devil lies in the details of establishing such "acknowledgment".
    Is it sufficient to placate sweeping generalizations about "reality" and assertions of "myth" and "supernatural" by interjecting period lip service to "theoretical conclusions subject to periodic reform and refinement"?

    I wasn't aware I belonged to the party that was demanding they both be held as qualitatively similar.

    This is not a conclusion accepted by anyone remotely familiar with philosophy and/or epistemology.

    If you have ever sought professional assistance (doctor, lawyer, accountant etc) to deal with a problem that is beyond your personal means to solve, the answer should be obvious.
  17. Capracus Valued Senior Member

    When you state a qualitative equivalence of science of the gaps and god of the gaps you are. We know science has a capacity to explain aspects of reality, but no such capacity has been demonstrated in respect to gods or religion.
    Why wouldn't empiricism be the basis for rational contemplation of all things? All that we personally and collectively know has been derived through empirical means. Our minds would essentially be blank slates without the use of our senses, rendering meaningful contemplation of any kind an impossibility.
    You mean professionals that specialize in the interpretation of empirical data? Yes, all of the above. I can’t recall the last time I had any use for the professional assistance of a religious philosopher.
    Xelasnave.1947 likes this.
  18. river

    The designer was not designed , rather , was a consequence of the enviroment in which this being is in .

    Think of this being or designer , as you like , as this Universe , in which we are in.

    We are all a consequence of the enviroment in which we are placed .
  19. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    The equivalence is not coming from me. You have people saying that mysteries of the universe are filled with the stop gap medium of God. I am pointing that, regardless of their ideas about God, they are doing the exact same thing in the name of science. I say "in the name of" because there is a legitimate field for science, but one will certainly struggle if they bring such an epistemologically poor tool to the grander problems of cosmology.

    Take this thread OP as an example : there is the suggestion that the idea of God is problematic since it lacks a cause and stands outside of empirical investigation. Yet in the same measure, peope have no problem with an eternal universe, even though the exact same problems of definition and veracity are present.

    So on one hand, you have the presence of a problem that highlights the apparent shortcoming of an approach ("How can God exist if He has no cause?"), yet the same problem, far from being merely glossed over or swept under the carpet, assumes airs of self importance and authority when (inappropriately) coupled with science ("An eternal uncaused universe is fully compatible with a scientific model" ... nevermind that the scientific model has neither any means to verify or need for an eternal, uncaused universe).

    Therein lies the synonymity.

    Because our senses are limited. The best hope empiricism can deliver on is but a miniscule, self referential slice of the full gamut of the macro and microcosm.

    As mentioned already, not a fact. There are many ways to disect or interpret epistemological fields, but as an offering :

    Pratyakṣa means perception.
    Anumāna means inference.
    Upamāna means comparison and analogy.
    Arthāpatti means postulation, derivation from circumstances
    Anupalabdi means non-perception, negative/cognitive proof
    Śabda means relying on word, testimony of past or present reliable experts.

    Out of those, which field, if applied correctly, do you think is capable, given equivelent employment of reserves of time and determination, of delivering the greatest returns?
    Or to put it another way, what epistemology do you think has recourse to subject matter above and beyond the other five?

    Generally you will find that epistemological applications function according to particular circumstances or problems. IOW successful application is more about bringing the correct epistemology to the correct problem, rather than enthusiastic fist pumping that one particular approach kicks ass for all problems.

    Unless you are also sufficiently qualified to critique such interpretations, the situation does not present itself as a problem solved by (your) empirical prowess. I mean technically the ins and outs of the universe and more are accepted as being directly perceived by God, yet I'm pretty sure you would not accept that as grounds for establishing religion as empirical.

    I think Buddha said it nicely when he said he had come to only teach two things : suffering and relief from suffering. If someone is not interested to learn about part 2 it means they are still trying to make the grade on part 1.
  20. Musika Last in Space Valued Senior Member

    If that was the case, one would not be labelling God as "myth", "supernatural", etc on the strength of science ... or, as the OP played out, discrediting God by the same credentials that one holds cosmological (scientific?) definitions of the universe as valid (eternal, uncaused, etc)

    The actual point, as per the OP, was about being uncaused, but infinity occupies a similar set of problems as eternity (although the ramifications of an eternal phenomena are probably more ponderous than an infinite one).

    I'm not sure what that means. It would be more worrying if people didn't bring things with them in the name of reality or truth.

    But this is also a "thing" you are bringing to reality. If you want to say "Reality is ok, just keep it subjective" you are relegating it to a relative field.
    This may be convenient in empiricism but is very detrimental in philosophy, justice, etc.

    There is quite a bit one could say about this, but I guess it would be better to first ask what you mean by "affecting others".

    Since our societies develop, for better or worse, by the give and take of ideas, it seems absurd that you would request religion be relegated to a sphere where it has no influence.
    For instance, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't appreciate having your atheism given the green flag, provided you don't go about voicing opinions about it that might affect others.

    If you read what I said, I didn't assign dumbness to a creed. As for talking about philosophy on the street, I'm not surprised with your findings. Its kind of like sciforums : most atheists are simply lurking around to play pinata with a fanatic rather than open any pathway of discussion.

    It works both ways. People also like to get their religion from a science book, even though the connection to atheism is dubious at best (although in reality, they are just bringing their atheism to science).

    Quote me where I have done it.
    As previously mentioned, I have only brought claims of cosmology/cosmogyny before the scientic method. Some people are discrediting God for being labelled uncaused and beyond empirical veracity. I am merely pointing out they are doing the exact same with many of their ideas about the universe.
  21. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    No one knows anything about the Universe before the Big Bang. "Science" isn't anything that comes before that at this point. People have ideas or guesses but that isn't "science" at this point.

    Pick something that "science" does apply to such as evolution and then attack that with religion and you'll get my point (which I'm sure you already do get).
  22. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I would say similar about some theists.☺
  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    And yes my atheism borders on fanatical.

Share This Page