Alex_P said:
Trace2010 said:
However, if this is true then everything being done on this earth to civilize it is a waste of time...time started, but there is no overall goal of life, no purpose. What people argue as "purpose" being an abstract idea, I find preposterous. Without purpose, all we have is instinct. Some scientists would actually interchange the words "purpose" and "instinct"- I find that silly. Assume we are the chimps: we eat, drink, mate, survive, thrive, born again. Maybe we develop complex social structure; maybe even something regarding speech patterns or songs to attract a mate. But we don't build or paint the Sistine Chapel; we don't compose Marraige of Figaro- there is no purpose to these things for a chimp. A chimp cannot be taught what art is, or what music is, or even what architecture is- and comparing a termite fishing rod to a screwdriver, or a sand burrow to the Palace of Versailles, is the complete definition of insanity- yet it is done by scientists all the time. That's the same arrogance as saying on the basketball court, "you're pretty good for a girl".
Also, if we are chimps, we do not have complex thoughts; we do not ask complex questions; we have no need of complex moral ideals. Evolution tells me these things would eventually come in time- but not if there is not an immediate need, a cause for the change (the scientific term escapes me for the moment). What was the basic cause for science to be developed in the first place? Quite frankly, the answer was organized religion- (on one side the attempt to prove its existence, on the other to discredit it entirely).
If there was no God (poly or monotheistic), there would be no reason to create anything: Art, Literature, Fashion, Architecture, Music, - what other species do you know that does THOSE things for pleasure.
Your entire argument boils down to equating "should be" with "is." "Oh, I would much prefer if God existed. Therefore, he must!" Aesthetic arguments certainly have a place in theology and philosophy but, well, you need something with more substance as well.
At best, you're looking around and saying "Hey, here is some stuff we don't know! Lets fill it in with the same stuff that people two thousand years ago used to fill in stuff they didn't know, despite the fact that what we do know now has consistently shown that their beliefs make much more sense as metaphors than as statements about the direct objective nature of reality -- probably because they were just big ol' guesses to begin with."
Heck, even aesthetically, the "God of the gaps" rather sucks. Fundamentally, he's a God who's constantly in retreat, shirking away from every new particle, every new fossil, every new AI algorithm -- a God that is doomed to wither and die. There's gotta be some other conception of God that, at the least, isn't being slowly strangled by our own growing abilities to perceive the very universe that he supposedly created.
-- Alex
Aesthetic arguments do not have a place in science as well? AHA, I have now proven that something exists outside the quantifiable realm of science!! lol..
I guess this is how you and I differ- you, Mr. Tom Masters(whose paper I have read and I believe you are quoting), and all the non-believers believe that human discovery is strangling the existence of God...when I believe He is actually being revealed and mankind is too slow to understand this, because within themselves, they are secretly hoping that God can one day be disproven with finality. But really: How is my God being strangled by our depth in human understanding? I understand that the wind, the rain, the forest, etc. all had their own gods back in the days of polytheism until monotheism came along and debunked them. The ultimate problem with many gods: they were given human qualities and were supposedly in constant struggle with eachother- which did not ultimately reflect the balance of life. The problem with the new god called science is, even if we find an underlying answer to a question, it does not present the ultimate answer- it only adds more questions. I firmly expect when a scientist dies for them to find God- have Him look at them and say "What took you so long?"
Stimulus-Response-Stimulus-Response-Adaptation-Stimulus-New Response-New Stimulus
The wheels on the bus go round and round, but they had to start somewhere- and we had to jump on, fully in rhythm, ready to evolve with the planet, but given a completely different skill set (both in size and in capacity), than the other animals. That takes talent, not trial and error, and not blind luck.
No Alex...God is not in retreat- He has always been there. People are in the state of constant retreat- the same people who subverted the word of God that caused the Inquisition and the Crusades; that caused Reformation; and Counter Reformation; that placed the King of England back in control, and have recently been the source of everyone's "control issues". Me, I am not a scientist, nor a theologian, which is why it is very easy for you to punch holes in my science or in my religious history and doctrine- but not my logic or my reasoning...I am an artist and creator, which makes it much easier for me to understand God who is both.
Oh one more question/observation: Even if Evolution were proven, would it actually refute God anyway? Or is science on the single most slippery sloped fallacy of our time?
