Question For Metacrock

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator:Metacrock

User avatar
Metacrock
Posts:10046
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
Location:Dallas
Contact:
Re: Question For Metacrock

Post by Metacrock » Tue Oct 14, 2008 8:52 pm

fleetmouse wrote:
Metacrock wrote:that's all fun and game.s something to throw back at those who keep saying "there's no proof for your God." But really I think that whole thing is very juvinile and I'd like to get away from it.
Ha ha, me too. I'm reluctant to respond point by point to your long post above because I'm tired of it and it doesn't really prove anything either way. We should probably stop banging on about it.

I can't help thinking about this angle though - the argument from temporal beginning reminds me of the game of mouse trap, with God being the guy who turns the little crank that makes the boot kick a marble and so on...

Image

You know what I mean? The idea of God as first cause just seems so silly, and trivial, and primitive, like a remnant of the genesis myth. And it's at odds with the conception of God as the immanent cause - being itself - rather than first cause. Yet you want to reserve a place for him to turn that little crank...
Tillich agreed with you actually. He said cos argument was making God into a being, rather than being itself. That's a pretty sharp QT.



The problem with the temporal beginning argument is if you don't accept temporal begining then the argument is screwed. I can answer that guy on CARM easily enough, because he's using the works of his professor, who is just starting out. His ideas are not accepted, he's not a big major thinker and the consensus is not with him.

first cause makes perfect sense if cause and effect make sense. ICR is irrationality personified. It accepts the need or cause then tries cheat with circular reasoning.\

The problem is, I can see this reading up on those alternative cosmologies Dante was talking about, there's obvious a paradigm shift coming. It's not the consensus now, but the paradigm is problaby going to shit.

come gather round thinkers wherever you roam
and admit that the consensus around string theory is grown
and accept it soon you'll be counting QM particals
for the paradigms they are a shifiiiiiiting.

(Dylan parody)

So it's fluid. while that backs up thing about science as a construct and proves my observations on Kuhn, it might just blow the hell out of the cosmological argument if the shift happens. If it doesn't it still means the argument is only operational at best. Because it means the relative nature of our knowledge is such that we can't really prove anything about anything.

It is not true that no major modern thinker liked final cause. Alfred North Whitehead not only liked it but he said it was sheer hypocrisy of science not to see the contradictions in not accepting it.

but that's only good as long the paradigm doesn't shift. I think the argument that don't rely upon cosmology are a lot better. Better yet why have "arguments?"

arguments are only focal points to illustrate what we find convincing in belief.They are not really proofs.


My friend had mouse trap many many years ago when I was a little existentialist.
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Post Reply