So yeah -- I appreciate the willingness to listen to different opinions and still respect people as individuals Christy -- I feel the same way. And I had fun that year too :)
I actually think Pete's exploration of the concepts was very intellectually honest and interesting. I feel like there are a couple of core assumptions that seem without foundation though:
1. That just because we are, and that we attribute meaning and value to our existence, there must be some 'entity' that defined our existence (regardless of whether we are part of that entity or if it actively created us).
2. That the existence of some entity outside of our realm of understanding or perception *requires* that entity to have omniscience of and omnipotence over our existence.
To point 1 - There are plenty of 'results' over the course of human history that we have been unable to determine the 'causes' for. As we have discovered direct causal relationships and identified the physical reasons for things, the often ethereal or magical explanations for the causes of those specific things have disappeared and are now considered silly. For us to assume that at some point the unknown turns into some hyper-complex elaborate conscious entity, just because we can't explain where we come from seems to me to be a way to either make ourselves feel more secure (the unknown is destabilizing), or to attempt to aggrandize our own sense of knowledge about the nature of our existence. Don't get me wrong - I accept that it is a possibility, but I have no more reason to believe it than any other explanation... including the idea that we are simply the physical results of an infinitely long progression of physics interactions.
2. Even if I did assume that a god existed, that fit the criteria of something outside of our 'dimension' or time-space existence, there is no reason that mandates that the entity has omnipotence or omniscience regarding me. It's like saying that just because I exist in 3d, that I occupy and exert full control over all 2d space.
Hopefully one or both of you might actually continue this conversation :)
Michael Hines at 5:45pm June 20 Interesting read Pete. I personally think defining the unknown as god, or assuming an originator to explain existence doesn't hold water, but it is an interesting viewpoint. I like to leave the unknown as defined as the unknown until I have a clear reason to define it as something else. I like taking the point of omniscience/omnipotence to its natural conclusion, but I think it should be followed by the logical question at the end... "If that's the case, then what's the point?" You have essentially talked yourself out of any reason for caring about the existence of a god. I love talking about this stuff though -- if you have time, check out my repository ;) --http://thatmikehinesguy.blogspot.com/ and feel free to leave comments :)
Pete Gage at 6:08pm June 20 that paper was an attempt to tie down a lot of wandering thoughts in my mind, as I'm sure you can appreciate. It definitely needs another pass or two to tighten it up. You are right, defining "outside of our existence" as "God" is somewhat redefining terms, but as for "assuming an originator" I stand by my assertion that to assume anything else flies in the face of every single aspect of the existence we know - all things have an origin...except everything? To me that is an ultimate leap of faith. Nothing in all existence we have ever observed or experienced suggests something can have nothing pre-existing it.
As for omniscience/omnipotence - I think there is merit to the VR analogy. Existence can no more spins on its merry way without the continuous "frame by frame" input of something outside of it ("god?") than a video game can keep operating without its computer platform.
now as to reasons for caring...clearly debatable :D
Christy Gipson West at 6:24pm June 20 Hey Pete, interesting essay. One glaring issue that I see is that you say you have written your essay based on what you've taken from scripture. My exception is that scriptures throughout define God as Holy; therefore, He is incapable of creating any vile action. He can't be both Holy and creator of sin. James 1:13, James 1:17, Habakkuk 1:13 - just a few examples of God not being able to sin as well as a brief reason for our being.
Christy Gipson West at 6:25pm June 20 This also gives God the authority to judge the world - because He is without sin.
Pete Gage at 6:54pm June 20 @christy: I don't think its accurate to say the paper is based on the Bible outside of maybe the last 20%. I may draw further personal conclusions based on my beliefs, but the bulk of the arguments in the essay attempt to be based in generally accepted fact and simply follow those things to logical conclusions. I wasn't trying to define a god, only suggest that there must in some fashion be one.
And Mike, as for the "unknown," I don't think we can dismiss being unable to know something about a creator or originator so easily. Thats like suggesting I can study all of your art and then declare "based on this body of work, it's impossible to surmise one thing about the artist."
Christy Gipson West at 7:25pm June 20 Pete, there are a couple assumptions that you've made that I'm not sure are generally accepted facts. Free will versus predestination is a very difficult thing to rationalize, but regardless of our ability to do so, both exist. Most of what you say is an excellent logical conclusion of what God is. If you're not a Christian or have not studied apologetics, I'm amazed at what you've written.
Michael - regardless of any differences we have regarding why we're here, I respect you as an individual, like you as much as I ever have, think you're a very cool person, and loved my first year of college hanging with you and some of our other friends.
Michael Hines at 7:37pm June 20 Heheh... see, this is what happens when I update my status with statements of actual substance ;)
The world would be an insanely boring place to live if we had no differences of opinion :) Everything we are discussing is entirely composed of ridiculous levels of monumental assumption and personal opinion... nothing here of a really 'provable' or fact based nature. Hence the endless historical argument ;)
So yeah -- I appreciate the willingness to listen to different opinions and still respect people as individuals Christy -- I feel the same way. And I had fun that year too :)
ReplyDeleteI actually think Pete's exploration of the concepts was very intellectually honest and interesting. I feel like there are a couple of core assumptions that seem without foundation though:
1. That just because we are, and that we attribute meaning and value to our existence, there must be some 'entity' that defined our existence (regardless of whether we are part of that entity or if it actively created us).
2. That the existence of some entity outside of our realm of understanding or perception *requires* that entity to have omniscience of and omnipotence over our existence.
To point 1 - There are plenty of 'results' over the course of human history that we have been unable to determine the 'causes' for. As we have discovered direct causal relationships and identified the physical reasons for things, the often ethereal or magical explanations for the causes of those specific things have disappeared and are now considered silly. For us to assume that at some point the unknown turns into some hyper-complex elaborate conscious entity, just because we can't explain where we come from seems to me to be a way to either make ourselves feel more secure (the unknown is destabilizing), or to attempt to aggrandize our own sense of knowledge about the nature of our existence. Don't get me wrong - I accept that it is a possibility, but I have no more reason to believe it than any other explanation... including the idea that we are simply the physical results of an infinitely long progression of physics interactions.
2. Even if I did assume that a god existed, that fit the criteria of something outside of our 'dimension' or time-space existence, there is no reason that mandates that the entity has omnipotence or omniscience regarding me. It's like saying that just because I exist in 3d, that I occupy and exert full control over all 2d space.
Hopefully one or both of you might actually continue this conversation :)
Pete Gage at 5:23pm June 20
ReplyDeletewww.gagelabs.com/temp/existence.doc
Michael Hines at 5:45pm June 20
ReplyDeleteInteresting read Pete. I personally think defining the unknown as god, or assuming an originator to explain existence doesn't hold water, but it is an interesting viewpoint. I like to leave the unknown as defined as the unknown until I have a clear reason to define it as something else. I like taking the point of omniscience/omnipotence to its natural conclusion, but I think it should be followed by the logical question at the end... "If that's the case, then what's the point?" You have essentially talked yourself out of any reason for caring about the existence of a god. I love talking about this stuff though -- if you have time, check out my repository ;) --http://thatmikehinesguy.blogspot.com/ and feel free to leave comments :)
Pete Gage at 6:08pm June 20
ReplyDeletethat paper was an attempt to tie down a lot of wandering thoughts in my mind, as I'm sure you can appreciate. It definitely needs another pass or two to tighten it up. You are right, defining "outside of our existence" as "God" is somewhat redefining terms, but as for "assuming an originator" I stand by my assertion that to assume anything else flies in the face of every single aspect of the existence we know - all things have an origin...except everything? To me that is an ultimate leap of faith. Nothing in all existence we have ever observed or experienced suggests something can have nothing pre-existing it.
As for omniscience/omnipotence - I think there is merit to the VR analogy. Existence can no more spins on its merry way without the continuous "frame by frame" input of something outside of it ("god?") than a video game can keep operating without its computer platform.
now as to reasons for caring...clearly debatable :D
ah to be back at cafe delicioso on a sunday night
Christy Gipson West at 6:24pm June 20
ReplyDeleteHey Pete, interesting essay. One glaring issue that I see is that you say you have written your essay based on what you've taken from scripture. My exception is that scriptures throughout define God as Holy; therefore, He is incapable of creating any vile action. He can't be both Holy and creator of sin. James 1:13, James 1:17, Habakkuk 1:13 - just a few examples of God not being able to sin as well as a brief reason for our being.
Christy Gipson West at 6:25pm June 20
This also gives God the authority to judge the world - because He is without sin.
Pete Gage at 6:54pm June 20
ReplyDelete@christy: I don't think its accurate to say the paper is based on the Bible outside of maybe the last 20%. I may draw further personal conclusions based on my beliefs, but the bulk of the arguments in the essay attempt to be based in generally accepted fact and simply follow those things to logical conclusions. I wasn't trying to define a god, only suggest that there must in some fashion be one.
And Mike, as for the "unknown," I don't think we can dismiss being unable to know something about a creator or originator so easily. Thats like suggesting I can study all of your art and then declare "based on this body of work, it's impossible to surmise one thing about the artist."
Christy Gipson West at 7:25pm June 20
ReplyDeletePete, there are a couple assumptions that you've made that I'm not sure are generally accepted facts. Free will versus predestination is a very difficult thing to rationalize, but regardless of our ability to do so, both exist. Most of what you say is an excellent logical conclusion of what God is. If you're not a Christian or have not studied apologetics, I'm amazed at what you've written.
Michael - regardless of any differences we have regarding why we're here, I respect you as an individual, like you as much as I ever have, think you're a very cool person, and loved my first year of college hanging with you and some of our other friends.
Michael Hines at 7:37pm June 20
ReplyDeleteHeheh... see, this is what happens when I update my status with statements of actual substance ;)
The world would be an insanely boring place to live if we had no differences of opinion :) Everything we are discussing is entirely composed of ridiculous levels of monumental assumption and personal opinion... nothing here of a really 'provable' or fact based nature. Hence the endless historical argument ;)