h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Pedro. <... by assuming that the forces we see at work today are the ones which happened in the past. There is an absolutely enormous amount of evidence for this, I can't think offhand of any other coherent explanation at all to be honest.>

Sorry bud, but I think you're just wrong here. The standard scientific model suggests that it all started with a singularity. That is a spatio-temporal region where the laws of physics do not apply. Hence there would be no resemblance to the current state.

I don't quite see why your argument would be a problem for me. Are you referring to God as the force that is no longer around? If so, then lots of folks think that He is!

<'something immaterial, personal and eternal' must have started it. Why? Surely this only follows if you believe the premises of your agrument. If you don't, then perhaps it doesn't.>

So please do the obvious thing and challenge the premises of my argument. That's why I try to spell things out clearly - just so that there's a structure that can be challenged if anyone thinks they see a weak point.

toxx

Hello Az

I've thought further about your question. I think that for me the belief in a creator came first. I didn't feel any prior need as such, because I remember learning about it very young. I still don't feel any psychological need, any more than I feel a desire to believe any truth in the field of metallurgy or accountancy.

My background was originally scientific (sort of). Maybe your 'feeling' question is suited to a more humanities kind of person, like a pianist who feels a passage has to be played in such a manner. But it just bounces off an engineering type, to judge by my own reaction. I hope you don't think I'm strange.

Nice one, Noggin!

Andrew S. Hi. We seem to be broadly allied in this discussion, so I haven't addressed you before. I tend to give priority to those who disagree.

There was an earlier discussion on this thread about a psychological need to believe, or a 'God-shaped hole' in the head. I reject that and take a more rationalist view. I'm delighted to hear that you take a similar line against az. I don't think either of you are particularly strange. I do think that you, AS, are doing something right!

toxx

Regress of X

The problem with the Eternal preexisting state would seem to me linked to entropy, or put another way an infinitely stable system, This would seem to be a contradiction in terms, if the system was infinitely stable it would have no dynamic within it leading to change, therefore what brought about the change which created the universe? which leads back into the regression of X. Which links to another point.

Observation of the system.

True the observation becomes a part of the system, but can the observations which have not yet been made be a part of the system? I would argue not, which implys that where 'X' represents observation unless you regress 'X' to infinity (To do which you would need the perceptive capacity of an omniscient being {How does Omniscience differ from Omnipotence?[Surely if you know all you can achieve all]} )the system describing what has been observed is still a closed system when compared to the referent reality, such comparison being only possible through abstraction as a result of the infinite regression of 'X'.

I really wish my keyboard had a 8 on it's side, then I could try and turn that into an equation , because it sounds like it could be one.

<>

I asked why you felt you needed to believe in a creator. Is this a particularly 'feeling' question? Perhaps you could back your need up with a more 'scientific' idea if you prefer.

Meanwhile, you totally sidestepped the Opus stuff.

And the fact that Opus Dei are extremist Catholics.

And that you are a member of Opus Dei.

Why are you trying to hide this on a thread about whether god(s) are fact or fiction?

I think it rather important and honest that people lay all their cards on the table, so to speak, in this sort of debate. But you've been holding back. Why is that?

az

Theists are ahead of you, SD. What preexists or, more strictly, exists eternally is a *person*. While a physical system has to act immediately it is present in such a state as to cause something, a person can choose to act at will. This is why the first cause has to be an eternal person, as I said earlier.

toxx

<>

Delighted are we? Well, that's nice.

So you are quite in keeping with Opus Dei policies then are you, toxx? Curious.


az

Az, I have not been hiding anything. In my first post I spoke down to you, but that was not intentional. Your reaction since has been out of all proportion to the offence. In my second post I apologised, and then did my best to answer your question - and tried again in a third post.

I didn't address the fact that I am a member of Opus Dei, which you brought up in your second rather bruising post, because I didn't realise there was a further question there. But I am a member of Opus Dei. In fact I work some of the time in its Information Office in London. This is recorded in my personal space. You might have had first-hand experience of Opus Dei, in which case you can add me to that experience.

But I still don't know why you put a bad construction on my responses. A bat in your living room gets better treatment from you than I do!

Thanks Toxx!
I'm afraid I seem to lack your ability to write postings that can't be easily assailed!

"I would quite like to see a polytheist 'take' on creation (to give it a term), not to argue against it, but just to know what they think about it."

I draw a line between myths - designed to reflect a deeper spiritual reality or else to offer a simple explanation in terms of what was then known - and science.

As to when, and how, my gods came into existence, along with all the other apparatus of the 9 worlds: wyrd, orlog and wights, ettins and people, I don't know. But I can say that the two seem to interlock at the point of wyrd, which underpins the Anglo-Saxon/Norse/Germanic religion. Wyrd is the tie of cause-and-effect whcih keeps the world together; every action and reaction impacts on wyrd, travels up and down wyrd, and has its effects elsewhere.

I don't know much about chaos theory, but what I do know doesn't sound dissimilar.

"Pragmatically, and for most everyday purposes, this is of course how explanation works.

But it can't be sufficient for questions like "Is the questioner's satisfaction justified?""

Well, no, Noggin. But there are two categories of satisfaction: the personal and the actual. Most people don't care what is real; it is what feels emotionally right for them at any given moment which persuades them of the reality of something. Most of the time, you can only change someone's views slightly; major changes (conversions) come at points of fracture and vulnerability, and happen relatively rarely.

So, in person terms, the answer to your question will usually be 'yes'. But in actual terms, it may be either 'yes' or 'no'. However, the person who asks the question may not always be capable of making a judgement: many think they are, but make the judgement not in 'real' terms but in emotional (personal) ones themselves.

Not so, az. However, if they prefer rationalism to psychologism in this context, that's one point in their favour as far as I'm concerned. I don't really have much of a view on their policies in general. Dammit, I haven't a bloody clue what they might be. I'm just discussing the present issue.

toxx

<>

Really? Do you often unintentionally talk down to people then?

<>

Was it? I though my response was well measured and well thought out. In fact it was just a few comments and questions. Oh well.

<>

I didn't. I was just curious as to why you were avoiding the questions I asked. You now tell me you weren't. Well, okay.

<>

Really? How do you know that? And what would actually possess you to say such a strange thing to me?

And how have I 'mistreated' you other than suggest that you own up about being Opus? Are you ashamed or embarrassed to admit this? It's one thing to say one is a Catholic, another to say one is Roman Catholic, another to say one is Opus Dei. Yes, it is on your PS but you didn't mention it here on a thread about whether God is fact or fiction. So I thought I'd mention it for you. That's all.

Have I over-stepped?


az

Not easily, AS. But az can slag anything off by her style of innuendo. Just because I've agreed with you on one point, I seem to be saddled with all of your views; which might be fine, but I don't have a clue as to what they are! Doh!

toxx

Thanks for the explanation, az.
I am sure I mentioned my membership of Opus Dei on this thread within the last week or so. Does that change things a bit? I don't think I need to keep on about it.

<>

Do you really think so, toxx? Well, I love you too!

<

Not at all, I simply asked you if you agreed with them.

<>

Right, you are going to tell me you have never heard of Opus Dei or what they stand for?

Okey-dokey.


az

AS. It's good to have an actual Theist on the thread. I defend a form of 'bare' Theism. I'm sceptical about the OT, don't care for organised religion and I'm extremely sceptical about divine intervention/miracles unless they consist of a constant, but unnoticable, sustaining of the universe.

On second thoughts; there's Adelaide but she gets into too many fights somehow. Dunno whose fault that is!

toxx

I've heard of 'em az. But that's about it! OK, I guess they're some kind of RC, but beyond that I'm clueless - honest!

toxx

prezzie for you toxx,

http://www.mond.at/opus.dei/




az