Fw: Mithras

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

> RON (mimicking Ricardo)

>    That most of humanity in the twentieth century thought that science 

> held all the answers to ultimate questions is understandable. I could 

> have reached the same conclusion. But they were wrong. 


RICARDO

This doesn't work. We know that they were wrong but you don't know
that we are wrong (except if you just made a quick trip to the
future). What do we have then?:

- You say that my position is understandable. Thanks.
- You have no evidence that my position is wrong.

I would say that you just acknowledged that my position is very
reasonable. Thanks.

RON


> No matter. Many people today believe that science can explain the

> ultimate reason for everything.


RICARDO

That's not exactly what I said. What I said is that there doesn't seem to
be reasons to conclude that there must be an ultimate reason at all. I
*hope* that science can produce a completely unified theory, but if that
doesn't happen, well, that's life. Why should we expect otherwise?. We are
just human beings.

RON


> Why, I don't know. Revelation, both Christian and non-Christian,

> teaches us that God designed, created, and sustains the universe.


RICARDO

Yes, that's what they believed. So what?. As I said, it is understandable
that they thought so. 

RON


> Astronomy only reveals what finite beings can observe with their

> limited physical senses; an enormous universe.  Quantum mechanics

> shows us that many facts need causes.


RICARDO

You are missing the point. The important point is that not all facts
need causes. Hence, ultimate causes might not be needed. Causality is not
absolute any more.

RON


> General relativity predicts a singularity (the Big Bang) beyond

> which science, with its limited scope, cannot go.


RICARDO

As I said, the singularity is a point beyond which space-time cannot
be extended. It's not that we cannot go beyond it in the sense that
there might be a place to go, it's just that space-time ends
there. There is no place to go beyond it. Even if there was such a
place, we wouldn't notice the difference. No ultimate causes are required
in this case either.

RON


> An ultimate cause cannot be disproven. 


No, but currently no ultimate cause seems to be needed.

RICARDO


> The more we know about the universe, the more we discover we don't

> know.


RON

The more we know about the universe, the more we know that previous
reasons to believe in gods were naive. In any case, it is encouraging that
you base belief in gods in what we don't know yet or in what might be the
case in the future. Current evidence seems not important to you.

RON


> Blind faith is needed to believe and conclude absolutely that this

> is an accidental world.


RICARDO

Today, we don't need blind faith to conclude that this is an accidental
world. Thousands of years ago, they didn't need blind faith to conclude
that there was a god either, although it seems to be required today. 
Absolutely?. No, I am not concluding anything absolutely. You are accusing
me of scientific pride, of claiming to know everything absolutely, etc.
but actually it is *you* who is claiming that ultimate reasons *must*
exist. Why?.

RON


> Some people wish to exclude God from their paradigm of reality for 

> various reasons, perhaps they comfort themselves with the belief that 

> nothing is required of them. 


RICARDO

If that was true, atheists would be very bad people indeed. In
general, they are not, so you are wrong. I hope you never stop
believing in God anyway.

RON


> And they do. But ultimately they cannot explain the existence of the

> universe.


RICARDO

That's only a problem is you believe that ultimate reasons are absolutely
necessary. This only proves my point: that many people believe in gods in
order to have intellectually comforting ultimate causes.

RON


> And they most certainly have not disproven the existence of

> God. 


That's true. Almost nothing has been disproved to exist, so God is in
good company. In an infinite company, actually. 


> They have only limited their search to the extremely finite

> area observable by their physical senses.


RICARDO

I have no other senses. And wherever we look at, all we find is matter,
obeying the rules of matter. Many people thought that mere matter could
not explain life, the stability of the solar system, biological diversity,
the movement of the planets, etc. Hence, gods, spirits, etc were needed.
We know they were wrong. Why do you expect we'll find God somewhere else?. 

Ricardo.
--------
mailto: "Ricardo Aler Mur" <aler@inf.uc3m.es>
http://grial.uc3m.es/~aler

• Previous message: Fw: Mithras
• Next message: Fw: Mithras
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]