Ehm. Yeah, I think I am a nice guy. But I am also keenly observant of human nature. And knowing history, knowing weaknesses of human character, knowing the pressures and cicumstances of human life and trying to be honest with myself I feel obliged to do more ten just rise my eyebrows anytime 2+2 gives me 5...
The fine-tuning argument for God's existence
- Thread starter Unicorny
- Start date
Ehm. Yeah, I think I am a nice guy. But I am also keenly observant of human nature. And knowing history, knowing weaknesses of human character, knowing the pressures and cicumstances of human life and trying to be honest with myself I feel obliged to do more ten just rise my eyebrows anytime 2+2 gives me 5...
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Meaning what exactly? Either you understand how it's possible for atheists and others to be good people, or you don't. And if you don't, you need to read some things - there is information out there that will help you understand.
I can only speak for myself. We know that everything has its value and that value is changing depending on circumstances and the person who is the judge. Regarded some universal/ spiritual concepts such as love, gratitude, compassion I take their value from my practical understanding of spirituality within the worlds circumstances.
What is the difference between spirituality and atheism? Spirituality tell you we are one on the strenght of our souls infinite capacity. Spirituality will encourage you to embrace and develope compassion to its fullest simply becouse for spirituality infinite free consciousness is what we inwardly are.
Materialism is different. It tells you we are many. Many different and too great extent exclusive egos. If materialism has enough subtlety it will recognise the need for compassion to serve its ego based goals but unless it gets more light from spirituality it will never encourage you to try to bring it to its fullest.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Ehh equating atheism and materialism is a very strange thing to do.
What reading would you recomend?
That again? Any graduate level textbook on the topic will back me up, but I suppose you never looked at any of those.
Now you are the one who is reformulating statements in his head. I said that religious people tend to assume that these claims go beyond the available evidence but never check what these claims actually mean and what evidence is out there. Instead they turn to liars (and to be fair, never actually check out what is behind those claims, either)
And here you go totally off the rails. You look at a few atheists who claim that there must be no God and project that onto all who have less belief in God's role in evolution than you do. There is a huge difference between claiming that there must be no God (because evolution?!?) and the idea that God is not necessary for life to evolve.
So you developed your faith on your own, with no other people and sources involved? Why would you even reference the Bible if your faith has nothing to do with the religious people who wrote it?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I'm not an expert, but this seems to be a good starting point. Can't vouch for any information you come across, but as always wikipedia is good as a research starting point and summary of things as they are, and usually not more than that.
I'm not 100% sure but I get the impression that "materialism" is meant to be the opposite of "spiritualism," where spiritualism = theist... So "materialists" believe only in "material" things they can see and touch and measure ... At least what he is saying makes more sense to me when I interpret it that way.
For reference the 4 point position was this:
Spoiler :
On point #2 - You said:
So let's accept that as true as well. Now evolution works through mutation as I understand it. And the advantageous mutations procreate, eventually giving rise to new species.
For the sake of discussion lets say that the mutations are not random, but instead are caused by God, just as a computer programmer would make small changes in the coding to test out how small changes would affect the program. In this way, evolution is God's tool to gradually create all living things.
Now because God is perfect and God's creation is perfect, every species created has a perfect purpose, fully intended by God. Dinosaurs for example were possibly "coded" into the evolution by God, so that humans could enjoy the fossil fuels they left behind when they became extinct... Any problem so far? Is this correct in your view?
On point #4 - How does the cosmological constant tell us that Jesus is Lord? I am accepting point #1 (Fine Tuning proves God exists) for sake of discussion. Let us now discuss how Fine Tuning proves that Christianity is the one true faith.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
The problem with that of course is that just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean that you are a materialist.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
@Mechanicalsalvation
I thought you might find this interesting. It's a good explanation of the emergence of morality via evolution. It's a lot more concise than that wikipedia link. I saw it here - It's someone asking how come all the psychopaths in society don't outcompete everybody else and eventually take over - and thus - why has evolution not weeded out morality?
I thought you might find this interesting. It's a good explanation of the emergence of morality via evolution. It's a lot more concise than that wikipedia link. I saw it here - It's someone asking how come all the psychopaths in society don't outcompete everybody else and eventually take over - and thus - why has evolution not weeded out morality?
You're talking about "spirituality" as if it's some kind of defined system of thought. It's not. I'm not sure what the word even means! But there are certainly many "spiritual" people who would reject what you say here. The notion that "we are one", for example, was condemned in the thirteenth century as "Averroism". Thomas Aquinas wrote extensively against it. Was Aquinas not a "spiritual" person? Was he, perhaps, an atheist, then?
Why must a "materialist" believe only in "ego-based goals" any more than a theist must?
Warpus is quite right to say that an atheist is not necessarily a materialist. John McTaggart was an atheist and an idealist, which is the opposite of a materialist. It's also the case that some religious people, including some theists, are materialists. The Stoics were, and today the Mormons are. They believe that God is physical.
The amusing thing is that evolution has already produced perfectly working societies of animals based on instincts such as ants and bees. Do ants and bees have an empathy?
Sure spirituality can mean different things to different people but perhaps we can agree that spirituality deals with infinite on the strenght of recognising that the source of reality is infinite.
Thats simple. If you believe in transcendent reality you are in position to relate to everything through that faith. Eventually you will want to abandon limited form of existence which is the definition of ego.
Atheist idealist (I was one of them till my 16th years) cant escape from the ego trap becouse they dont have conscious acces to anything beyond mental world which is where is ego formed. They can at most sublimise the ego (which is in itself pretty good no doubt) but they cant go beyond it.
Spirituality deals with infinite? Infinite what? As Plotinus mentioned, you seem to have a strict definition of spirituality. Unfortunately, that doesn't necessarily apply to spiritualism as such, or people who consider themselves spiritual.
Ifinite consciousness. Its either God, Nirvana, inner being/Atman/soul depending what aproach you take. Jainism for instance is known as atheist religion. Honestly I dont think I can make it any more broader then that. The fundamental here is capacity for transcendence. If itsnt present I dont think you can talk of spirituality.
Origen, and other early Christians, thought that God is finite. Does that mean they weren't "spiritual"?
I don't see any logic to this at all! A person who believes that the universe is finite can still relate to things outside themselves. It's not like you have only two choices: either I am the only thing that exists, or there's an infinite something out there. I can escape from solipsistic obsession with myself by focusing on other people. I don't need to believe that there's an infinite number of them, or that one of them is infinite (in some ill-defined sense), to do that. All I have to do is think that they're distinct from myself. And everyone thinks that whether they're an atheist, a theist, a materialist, or an idealist.
Plus of course you could be a materialist and still believe in infinity. You might think that the material universe is infinite in extent.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I guess that's your way of saying you "don't buy no part of that hogwash 'bout 'volution" ?
I am going to check out Origen but I have already mentioned above that one even doesnt have to believe in God and still be spiritual...
Yes you can relate to things outside yourself no matter the creed but I repeat the point is not to relate to yourself and the outside as a limited ego but to envision and eventually grow into something vaster and infinite. Thats the truely spiritual atitude.
Nice however you need to make that practical reality. Not just theoretical concept. I do not want to underestimate capacity of physical science but I am sure inclined to proceed towards that goal rather through spiritual/ psychic realisation.
Thats my way saying this is wast and complex issue so lets try not to jump to quick conclusions...
Yes, but you did say that belief in the infinite is essential to being spiritual. My point was that Origen and other ancient authors - whatever they thought about God - didn't believe in the infinite. To the classical mind, infinity was necessarily imperfect, because what is infinite is unspecific, and being unspecific would be an imperfection. A perfect thing would have to be a perfect specific kind of thing, e.g. a perfect horse, a perfect house, etc. That's why God, too, was typically thought of as finite until the third or fourth century CE.
Similar threads
- Locked
