Jkrebs
Posts: 590
Joined: Sep. 2004
|
ftk writes,
| Quote | | What it comes down to is this. I understand all the mumbo jumbo science talk about what can or cannot be considered "design", what is or is not an "accident", whether the "rain that fell yesterday" was designed or not. I get it. |
I don't understand why ftk refers disparagingly to "mumbo-jumbo science talk" - for one thing, we are discussing philosophy here, not science.
And I'm not sure she "gets it," because she goes on to say,
| Quote | Here's the bottom line though...99.9% of the people in the world at some point in their lives contemplate the origins of our universe.
When you take all the information we've learned about science and consider the *first cause* of our magnificent complex existence, we have only two avenues in which to look toward. Either there was a designer or there was not. Simple as that. If the universe was not the ultimate result of a designer, the only other option is an accidental event which resulted from nothing. Nothing became that first something. [my emphasis]
So you can frame these topics in any way you wish, but you're not going to get around the ultimate question. |
I agree that the origin of the universe is an interesting ultimate question, and that many people have thought about it. But Bill and I are not trying to "get around" it - we are trying to discuss it.
And what we disagree with ftk about is the part I bolded above. So let me be clearer.
1. ftk writes, "Either there was a designer or there was not." This is a logical truth that could be stated about anything, from things that definitely exist (there are either trees, or there are not) to think that most assuredly don't exist (flying teacups around Mars.) So let's move on to the next sentence.
2. ftk writes, "If the universe was not the ultimate result of a designer, the only other option is an accidental event which resulted from nothing. Nothing became that first something."
This is what is wrong, and what ftk doesn't get: an "accidental event" is not the only other option. One other option (out of several) is that there are metaphysical entities, forces and laws (analogous to what we find within our universe) that cause universes to happen (analogous to the forces which cause it to rain.)
More broadly, and this was the point I was making, there are two broad philosophical views about metaphysical reality. One, the more-or-less Western monotheistic view, sees the the metaphysical background of the world as a "person" - a conscious, willful divine entity. The other view (some parts of Eastern religions, various Platonic views, quite a few views in Western philosophy) is that the metaphysical background is a set of principles, laws, or abstract concepts that pervade the universe. In this view, personhood is a result of the universe, but not a cause.
Now I know ftk is a theist and doesn't accept this second view, but that is not the point: we are not discussing which view is correct. The point is that it is another legitimate philosophical view, held deeply by millions of people and examined at length by many thoughtful people over the centuries. This makes it clear that "the only other option is an accidental event" is definitely not true.
|
