What do you say when.....?

[bluebird1 (Robin)]

It’s dinner time, Mark…but thanks for the new term “panspermia”…I agree that it kicks the can down the road (or back up the road) and puts off consideration of the whole concept of beginnings and "how did we get here…? " which I think would require oodles of quadrillions more billions of quintillions of years if it were just all an accident…unplanned, unforeseen, unexpected…

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@bluebird1

if it were just all an accident…unplanned, unforeseen, unexpected

Well since I just finished dinner I’d say there must surely be something which just is. To my way of thinking imagining that which just is as implicit properties of what there is stresses me less than imagining a cosmos-wide mind assigning those properties as part of a grand scheme. That doesn’t mean I think I’ve made any kind of argument to settle the matter. Far from it. That is just the way it looks from over here.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Mervin_Bitikofer

it came into being … out of nothing

That phrase is interesting and after pondering it a while I think I see why such a thing should ever occur to anybody. It isn’t that we ever witness anything coming into being out of nothing. All we ever see are transformations of one thing into another, sometimes in round about and difficult to observe ways. But something does come into being from nothing - us. I don’t mean our bodies. Those are easy to account for with biology and our parents. But the us we take ourselves to be, that emerged somewhere along the way and certainly didn’t exist in any form before then. That’s my best guess why that phrase ever caught on. Not even going to use a lifeline. Final answer.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@MarkD

…there must surely be something which just is.

I reminded myself of C.S. Lewis’ Miracles when I asked what the source of logic is, and you just did, too. I had just decided I should start rereading it.
 

The difference between Naturalism and Supernaturalism is not exactly the same as the difference between belief in a God and disbelief. Naturalism, without ceasing to be itself, could admit a certain kind of God. The great interlocking event called Nature might be such as to produce at some stage a great cosmic consciousness, an indwelling ‘God’ arising from the whole process as human mind arises (according to the Naturalists) from human organisms. A Naturalist would not object to that sort of God. The reason is this. Such a God would not stand outside Nature or the total system, would not be existing ‘on his own’. It would still be ‘the whole show’ which was the basic Fact, and such a God would merely be one of the things (even if he were the most interesting) which the basic Fact contained. What Naturalism cannot accept is the idea of a God who stands outside Nature and made it.

We are now in a position to state the difference between the Naturalist and the Supernaturalist despite the fact that they do not mean the same by the word Nature. The Naturalist believes that a great process, or ‘becoming’, exists ‘on its own’ in space and time, and that nothing else exists—what we call particular things and events being only the parts into which we analyse the great process or the shapes which that process takes at given moments and given points in space. This single, total reality he calls Nature. The Supernaturalist believes that one Thing exists on its own and has produced the framework of space and time and the procession of systematically connected events which fill them. This framework, and this filling, he calls Nature. It may, or may not, be the only reality which the one Primary Thing has produced. There might be other systems in addition to the one we call Nature.

That last sentence allows for the hypothesized multiverse and possible extradimensional realities such as the spiritual.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Dale

Naturalism, without ceasing to be itself, could admit a certain kind of God. The great interlocking event called Nature might be such as to produce at some stage a great cosmic consciousness, an indwelling ‘God’ arising from the whole process as human mind arises (according to the Naturalists) from human organisms.

You had to know I’d find that intriguing. But, yeah …

@Dale

What Naturalism cannot accept is the idea of a God who stands outside Nature and made it.

Whatever it is which have given rise to God belief is first and foremost a mystery. I can imagine things natural, I cannot imagine things supernatural. No idea what that is even supposed to mean. Something like magic but equating one incomprehensible idea with another doesn’t really shed much light. I look forward to the day when religions can just let origins be the unknown that it is. Why insist on what cannot be demonstrated?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Christians believe in revelation. We can learn some things about God through nature, but other attributes and truths about himself he has to choose to reveal. We believe he has so chosen.

You have read about his interacting in present-day people’s lives through providence. Those interventions are extraordinary and consistent with a loving and omnipotent Father. I’m sorry that you disbelieve their source. I am somewhat amazed that you disbelieve their source. The way the events Maggie’s and Rich Stearns’ lives were ordered makes your disbelief seem unreasonable, but maybe rather a choice?

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

No, I don’t think any of us choose what makes sense to us. It does or doesn’t. As to providential events in people’s lives … sometimes bad things happen, sometimes good things do. Not really anything there to think about.

@Dale

…but other attributes and truths about himself he has to choose to reveal. We believe he has so chosen.

I guess I see why you would wonder whether my disbelief was a simple choice.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@MarkD

As to providential events in people’s lives … sometimes bad things happen, sometimes good things do.

Sequences of multiple events that are otherwise disjunct from each other but are infused with meaning are not just “sometime things happen.” That is not explaining, that is just explaining away, and dismissal. Have you read either account lately?
 

@MarkD

Not really anything there to think about.

That sounds like a decision not to think. Do you really not see the connectedness?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@MarkD

As to providential events in people’s lives … sometimes bad things happen, sometimes good things do.

My getting kidney cancer was a good thing. The conclusion of Maggie’s job with NASA was a good thing.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Dale

That sounds like a decision not to think. Do you really not see the connectedness?

Dale we just evaluate the world using different templates. I am always happy to hear good news and I’m glad you’re here to share yours. But I just don’t put any weight in what other people attribute their good fortune to.

1. Maybe yours was just a case out on the fortunate whisker of your cancer’s distribution of outcomes.

2. Maybe your faith was instrumental in achieving your outcome owing to some mysterious mind/body effect. Power of positive thinking and all that.

3. Or maybe God just winked at you and said “take a mulligan, Dale”.

In the absence of conclusive evidence we either have a way to explain unusual outcomes or else we just file it under “don’t know”. I certainly don’t know but my template doesn’t include anything like #3.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

I can only hope something compelling will happen to you. Some templates are walls that need to be broken down.

“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” Luke 16:21

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

Sorry you feel that way. Wish you didn’t find our differences so upsetting.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

I don’t think I’m upset. But it is concerning that your ‘template’ doesn’t allow for the reality of God, period.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

“The phenomenon of God belief” is not just an academic curiosity. On the other hand, God (not God belief) does some phenomenal things in the here and now.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@T_aquaticus

@NickolaosPappas

Till scientific proof comes out that a mass amount of nergy can be created alone with that much complexity,the logical potision here is someone created it.

Why not the opposite? Until scientific proof comes out that a massive amount of energy was created by a supernatural deity, the logical position is that it emerged out of nothing.

Not so. This is the ultimate false dichotomy. Energy is infinite and eternal. There has never been nothing.

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@MarkD

No, I don’t think any of us choose what makes sense to us.

That is interesting to ponder, regarding belief and understanding. I think “hope” begins to have perhaps a bit more choice about it, and you, Mark, seem like the quite hopeful person to me. I’m reminded of the native proverb of the grandfather telling his child that each person has two wolves inside him: one that is kind and considerate - wanting to see others flourish, and the other a selfish wolf that doesn’t care about others and sees them only as tools to be used for selfish purposes. And these two wolves are locked in a fight with each other. The child asks “which wolf wins?”. The grandfather’s answer: “the one you feed.”

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

That’s mighty nice of you to say Mervin and I feel like I am hopeful. But what I hope for is to know whatever it is which gives rise to God belief on its own terms directly, unprejudiced by convention. Maybe I’m aiming too high -or just plain off the mark- but I’d hate to miss out on the real deal. I wonder if that is worth losing the company of my fellow blindmen?

[Mervin_Bitikofer]

@MarkD

Maybe I’m aiming too high

I doubt it’s possible for any of us to aim too high when it comes to ultimate life hope.

@MarkD

I wonder if that is worth losing the company of my fellow blindmen?

I’m not sure what that means … but keeping good company is fuel for good hope.

[bluebird1 (Robin)]

Mervin, I think I have heard something of that example before —thought it was something like a native group saying they had a black dog and a white dog inside them (nothing racial meant by those colors, btw>>just sayin’) fighting…at any rate, interesting debate between you and Mark D…

As for Mark D knowing “whatever it is which gives rise to God belief on its own terms directly, unprejudiced by convention…” well, hmm…do not most religions at some level ascribe the genesis (small g) of their beliefs to some sort of divine revelation? that is, to an outside “intervention,” if you will? I have heard that when the youthful (but blind and deaf since infancy) Helen Keller was first “communicated with” in some form and the subject came to God, she said she already knew about Him. This is something I have “heard”—I read a lot but not everything. This also would give some credence to “whatever it is which gives rise to God belief” being somewhat revelatory — however defined. And this does not really suppose any special “thing” about the person who developed this knowledge or belief…

OK…my two cents worth…

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

We can choose what we allow as evidence. That means being careful not to disallow legitimate evidence because of habitual ways of thinking.