True. However, it's only one assumption. Whereas proving that the universe is fathomable takes many, many more. So many I don't think any religion really offers a full explanation for things. There are always mysteries. An unfathomable universe simply takes that idea to an all encompassing extreme.B) Assuming the Universe is unfathomable is itself an assumption.
Well, as you said, there's really no way to prove or disprove many of these hypotheses. Occam's Razor is just a generalized way of thinking about the soundness of a hypothesis.C) Counting the number of assumptions on a topic like this probably isn't the best way to determine the plausibility of a theory.
It's not meant to offer an explanation. Why must you have an explanation?D) It's still a bit of a cop-out that doesn't really offer anything in the way of explanation.
I was once a normal kid
Till the Devil came down and flipped my lid
He gave me a switchblade and he gave me a muse
Then he vomited acid all over my shoes
I'll expand on that point. The "first cause" thing is common line believers use against non-believers, as it's generally taken as an axiom going back at least to Newton that everything has a cause. Therefore you roll back farther and farther until finally you get to the Big Bang or the Beginning or whatever you want to call it. If it can't cause itself, then who or what caused it? The people who believe in God point to God as the cause. The problem with that is that God -- or whoever -- also has to have a cause. Believers like to say that God is God's own first cause, but that sort of defeats the purpose of the argument.
Anyway, I do suppose my theory is a bit short of follow up explanation, but where do you go from "randomness"? I think it's more about how you get there.
So what would be a non-religious form of higher consciousness?You also don't have to be religious to acknowledge the possibility of some higher form of consciousness.
When you get into a back and forth like this the whole idea of what "certainty" means gets a bit murky. That was the ultimate nail in Statler's argument. "Knowledge is possible" wasn't something he could prove. It only sounded true if you use "knowledge" in a colloquial way.I couldn't say with any degree of certainty that the "God" possibility (or whatever you may call it) is any more or less possible than any number of plausible theories, & as I'm sure you'd agree, anyone who claims they can is full of hot air.
So yeah, I don't consider myself certain about anything, really. Other than the fact I exist. Once you start to relax the standard then I would personally say I don't find the idea of Gods all that plausible. It's not implausible -- even on that standard of implausibility -- but I don't consider it all that plausible.
Nothing to add. Except maybe that a Big Bang doesn't have to preclude a "God", and a "God" doesn't have to preclude a big bang. Whether you're religious, or whether you're a scientist, you're basically asking for one free miracle (the birth of the universe), and take it from there.Originally Posted by TheWalrus
I'd like to hear your opinion on why you feel that way. Personally I can't find one legitimate reason to dismiss it as any less possible than any other plausible explanation. Also what's your image of a "God"? Is it a distinct separate being from the rest of the universe that created it like a sculptor would a sculpture? It's always possible I suppose, but if that's what we're dealing with then I'd agree with you. Westerners tend to associate the word, or idea of God, basically with magic tricks and supernatural occurrences. For a lot of Indians that couldn't be father from the case. I've posted this clip before, but it's Watts giving a short gist of the Indian concept of God. It's a very coherent and logical possibility.Originally Posted by TheWalrus
The details that science has revealed to explain how this happened may be incomplete, but at least they rely on the scientific method. And even then -- despite the fact that science's explanation is more rigorously obtained than religion's -- science has the good manners to call their explanation a "theory". Religion, on the other hand, is by nature didactic. Here is how it happened. I think you're selling science short by comparing the two so evenly.
My image of God is anything beyond the immediate nature of experience. Anything spiritual, whether in the form of a personified consciousness, or a life force, or any of that. Even something as simple as Gandhi's statement that it's not God that is truth, but Truth that is God. It sounds nice, but Truth can just be Truth. Any of it -- all of it -- requires belief, a certainty or kind of certainty about something where there can be no direct knowledge. As I've said, I don't describe to belief. I don't see why I should. I spend too much time trying to be actually informed and apply critical thinking to things to simply accept wholesale any supernatural system as being the true nature of the world.I'd like to hear your opinion on why you feel that way. Personally I can't find one legitimate reason to dismiss it as any less possible than any other plausible explanation. Also what's your image of a "God"? Is it a distinct separate being from the rest of the universe that created it like a sculptor would a sculpture? It's always possible I suppose, but if that's what we're dealing with then I'd agree with you. Westerners tend to associate the word, or idea of God, basically with magic tricks and supernatural occurrences. For a lot of Indians that couldn't be father from the case. I've posted this clip before, but it's Watts giving a short gist of the Indian concept of God. It's a very coherent and logical possibility.
Yeah, Brahma makes a certain amount of sense. It's supposed to. Religions evolve just like anything else, to fill a role. Christianity makes a certain amount of sense, too. So does Buddhism and Shinto. Even Greek and Roman and Norse Gods make sense. No religious system has ever done a better job explaining evil in the world than the Greeks and Romans. It's all storytelling to me, trying to fill in the gaps beyond our ability to perceive... a byproduct of humanity's unlucky lot to be intelligent enough to perceive our own limitations in perception.
That also sounds like something Statler would tell you as evidence of God. Our existence does nothing to prove that the Big Bang definitively happened. There isnít a scientist alive that would tell you that the universesí existence is proof of the Big Bang. If you canít even prove that the Big Bang Theory is correct, then you certainly canít assume thatís the only possible explanation for the Universeís existence. Us being here, and the nature of how we arrived here, are two completely different things that need not be confused.Originally Posted by TheWalrus
I certainly didnít intend for it to be interpreted that Iím waging a Science vs. Religion debate. Iím not anti-science by any means, or pro-religion for that matter. You can still use the Scientific Method to determine how things happen, but again one doesnít preclude the other. I keep getting the impression from you (and please do correct me if Iím wrong), that you believe that if we could somehow prove the Big Bang definitively happened, it would disprove any theory of some unintelligible higher force of consciousness.Originally Posted by TheWalrus
Iím also not putting them on equal footing. They serve two completely different purposes. Science focuses on ďHowĒ, and Religion on ďWhyĒ. This doesnít even have to concern religion, really. Judging by your reaction earlier, I get the feeling that you have a hard time separating the concept of a higher form of consciousness, from made-man religious ďstory-tellingĒ, as you put it. I only bring up various religious theories because people are more familiar with them. The Big Bang theory isnít even the only widely debated Scientific Theory out there; Simulation Theory, Multiverse Theory, etc. As I said, donít get hung-up on religion.
The fact remains (for now, at least), that any dismissal of any legitimately plausible theory is on no more solid ground than subjective feelings and experience. Which is fine, donít get me wrong, but itís no more or less than that.