[PureX]

Originally Posted by Lost Comet

Why order rather than disorder? What must be in order for what is to be as it is?

It has been suggested that anything that can happen does happen because probabilities require it — except “God,” of course. Can’t have that. A self-organizing and self-evolving universe can just pop into existence from chaotic, atemporal and aspatial quantum fluctuations, but it is impossible for chaotic, atemporal and aspatial quantum fluctuations to self-organize, stabilize, self-evolve and transcend itself (become self-aware).

Some folks are as irrationally devoted to philo-scientific meaninglessness as others are irrationally drawn to "God did it all", I think. And the rest of us ... most of us, I'd say, land somewhere in the "I don't know but I lean toward ...", category.

I, personally, just can't get around the fact that existence as we know it (complexity) is being expressed through order (the limitations inherent to expressed energy). To me, that implies purpose. So much so that I would need someone to explain to me how I'm wrong in thinking that.

On the other hand, I can't go so far as to ascribe intelligence, or a 'personality' to that implied purpose. That would just be anthropomorphic projection, in my opinion. So I've had to learn to let the mystery stand as it is.

[Lost Comet]

Originally Posted by PureX

Some folks are as irrationally devoted to philo-scientific meaninglessness as others are irrationally drawn to "God did it all", I think. And the rest of us ... most of us, I'd say, land somewhere in the "I don't know but I lean toward ...", category.

I, personally, just can't get around the fact that existence as we know it (complexity) is being expressed through order (the limitations inherent to expressed energy). To me, that implies purpose. So much so that I would need someone to explain to me how I'm wrong in thinking that.

On the other hand, I can't go so far as to ascribe intelligence, or a 'personality' to that implied purpose. That would just be anthropomorphic projection, in my opinion. So I've had to learn to let the mystery stand as it is.

Any scenario that aims at explaining why there is order rather than disorder is metaphysical, but it seems to me that when we take into account non-spatial and non-temporal ("pre-universe") realities and consider what must be in order for what is to be as it is, attributing existence as we know it in space-time to some kind of intelligence is unavoidable.

In his book Behold the Spirit, Alan Watts made the point that "to argue that Reality is not a blind energy but a "living principle," an "impersonal superconsciousness," or an "impersonal mind" is merely to play with words and indulge in terminological contradictions. A "living principle" means about as much as black whiteness, and to speak of an "impersonal mind" is like talking about a circular square. ...From many points of view the term "personal" is badly chosen, but it means simply that God is alive in the fullest possible way."

Nevertheless, IMV, the term "personality" is appropriate given a proper conceptual frame.

I strongly object to the question "who made God" since to ask that is to suppose "God" is a being alongside other beings and thus anthropomorphize him. The UB destroys that "argument" by simply stating in a matter-of-fact way, 3:0.3 Creatorship is hardly an attribute of God; it is rather the aggregate of his acting nature. I agree, but there is a way to understand how God came to qualify as a personality -- but only hypothetically because, as the statement implies, there is really no beginning.

[Cleekster]

Originally Posted by alwight

Yes perhaps but people often seem rather too keen imo to conclude whatever they would prefer it to be from some actually quite unspecific and general evidence.

general evidence is all i need to conclude whether or not I believe a certain outcome is probable.

Originally Posted by alwight

That’s good, as long as people can and do think for themselves is the main thing afaic, whatever they eventually conclude, and that they continue to discuss it openly without becoming too dogmatic.

agreed.

Originally Posted by alwight

when to my mind you don’t actually need to conclude anything supernatural from natural evidence.

I'm a Deist so i tend not to put much stock in blind faith and revelation....i've come to my conclusion based on natural evidence.

Originally Posted by alwight

I only seek evidence to take me up to and beyond my own threshold of reasonable belief;

and i as well.

Originally Posted by alwight

I don’t think we need any specific proof though that would be good. Proof is for whiskey and mathematics not science.

well, i see evidence as subjective based on ones interpretation of the data which leads one to a probable outcome where proof is objective fact that is testable and falsifiable.

Originally Posted by alwight

Disbelief is simply the default until we are convinced otherwise

my veiw is that we are born neither believing or disbelieving. we except what is as what is without any of the prejudice and bias we project on things as we get older.

Originally Posted by alwight

so I really don’t need to try to convince anyone, while a positive belief otoh rather demands a rational explanation imo.

a pointless venture in my opinion. countless people have pointed out the evidence and made sound rational arguments and yet still you guys disbelieve.
imo, Atheists(in general) choose not to except any evidence that conflicts with their preconcieved notions in much the same way a Christian does.