Believers in a God hate telescopes?

Kinda like peering closely at the screen of computer game in the anticipation of seeing the programmer.

Students at pub

Put this on facebook last night after I'd had about 5 or 6 pints.

Been to pub. Interesting talking to students in there. The two guys I was talking to gave the impression they were very much convinced that the world as revealed by science is the correct one. They were talking about the "enlightenment" etc, and seemed to be hostile towards any type of religion or God. And the strong impression I got was that they thought that their position was sensible, and indeed, obvious. That they were smart, intelligent and educated.

I think they've been sucked into thinking about the world in certain ways, arguably in a comparable manner to what religious people have been. Namely they've passively soaked up the prevailing "wisdom".

I didn't say that! I just suggested that perhaps there might be some creator of some description even if not corresponding to any organised religion.

Gave me a bit of a the cold shoulder after that. But then I was talking to them later about the pubs near here, and what Grimsby, Lincoln, and other places are like etc, and got on with them quite well. Moral of all this is don't start talking about intellectual stuff to strangers!

Was the Universe caused?

Suppose we observe a chain of toppling dominoes. Which would be the best explanation for why they are all falling over?

a) The very first domino just fell over all by itself without any cause whatsoever.

b) The chain of dominoes is infinitely long so no first falling domino is required.

c) An external agent pushed the very first one over.

"a" is to give up on a rational explanations. If the first domino falls all by itself, then why can't all the other dominoes just fall by themselves?


"b" simply leaves unanswered as to why an infinite chain of dominoes exist. It either exists without a cause -- in which case again we have to give up on a rational explanation -- or they were caused by an external agent.

Opting for "a" or "b" is to give up on providing an explanation. Only "c" is viable.

The same goes for the entire physical Universe (and no, what caused God is not a valid refutation).

Stephen Hawking continues to demonstrate his philosophical cluelessness

God did not create the universe, says Stephen Hawking

Article says:

"God did not create the universe and the “Big Bang” was the inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, says eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking".

Either physical laws:

a) Merely describe what happens.
b) They make things happen.

If "a" then the Big Bang wasn't caused by physical laws. For that would be like saying sleep is caused by sleeping pills via their soporific effect. So in this case we have no explanation for why the Big Bang occurred, nor indeed anything after the Big Bang.

If "b" then why do physical laws exist? Did they somehow acausally spring into being? Or perhaps they were brought into being by something else, some conscious agent? If that's not possible then why isn't it? What's the alternative explanation?

It would be helpful if physicist tried to understand that science merely describes reality.  See my own:
Do scientific explanations actually explain?

The deadening spirit of secular materialism

I read the following article:

The Reasonableness of Religious Belief

I emphatically agree with just about everything she says!  Especially interesting is when she says:

I myself believe that the most epic spiritual battle of our time is . . . with the deadening spirit of secular materialism, which cloaks itself in the guise of reason and enlightenment, and ultimately consumes all its children into a black pit of nothingness.

 She sounds like me after a few drinks! I agree with her though, and I also agree that it is not hyperbolic.

An Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God

I just watched this lecture.  It was excellent!  Whether I agree with it will take a lot of careful thought.  But an objection such as "what caused God" will not suffice!

Most Norwegians are apparently atheists

Independent newspaper article:

Majority of Norwegians 'do not believe in God' for first time in country's history

It should have asked "do you believe in "God" construed as some kind of all-embracing awareness or intelligence lying behind all things as a whole".

In the poll by the Independent, 70% of readers vote that it's a positive change for fewer and fewer people to believe in a God. Are they being serious?? More than 2/3rds of people think that it's a positive change thinking that the Universe and all it contains is simply a brute fact and that the Universe and all our lives are purposeless and ultimately absurd? It's not as if we even have any good reasons to believe such a thing.

What I'm really interested in.

I am interested in what the world is, what I am, what we all are. I'm interested in why I'm here. Did I have a choice in being here? Am I supposed to be doing something now I am here? If so, then what? Is it possible I might never have existed? Does the Universe have a purpose? Do we have some ultimate purpose? Do all things have some ultimate purpose? Or are our lives and the Universe ultimately absurd? Is this the only reality? Or are there many realities or dimensions, whether afterlife realms, parallel Universes, or even magical lands like Narnia? I want to know what all things mean. These are the questions I'm interested in.

Atheists claim we are born atheists.

[Y]oung children, regardless of their cultural background, are inclined to believe that they have an immortal soul – that their essence or personhood existed somewhere prior to their birth, and will always continue to exist.

Will Religion ever Disappear

Yes, I remember how utterly shocked I was when at a very young age I asked my father what happens when we die, and he said we cease to exist.

Interestingly atheists frequently claim we are born atheists and we are indoctrinated into believing otherwise. But it seems that we are born with the innate supposition that there's an ultimate purpose to our lives, the Universe and all things. Such an innate supposition seems very far removed from the family of beliefs associated with modern western atheism.

Silly notions of God

From here:

The God attacked by most modern atheists, Hart argues, is a sort of superhero, a "cosmic craftsman" – the technical term is "demiurge" – whose defining quality is that he's by far the most powerful being in the universe, or perhaps outside the universe (though it's never quite clear what that might mean). The superhero God can do anything he likes to the universe, including creating it to begin with. Demolishing this God is pretty straightforward: all you need to do is point to the lack of scientific evidence for his existence, and the fact that we don't need to postulate him in order to explain how the universe works.

I would add they think that such a notion of "God" either acts against physical laws or, alternatively, provides explanations for phenomena which physical laws are unable to account for (this latter being known as the "God of the gaps").  Personally I think this is an absolutely ludicrous conception of "God".

Nevertheless it is this concept that all atheists I have heard seem to espouse.  See a blog entry by me in my other blog:

A ridiculous conception of God Part 2


The author quotes Damon Linker who says: 
 

… according to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God "exists" in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all.

This seems to reflect my own concept of God.

 
The author exactly expresses the view I've always expressed; namely that atheists only ever attack utterly ludicrous simplistic conceptions of "God". This includes people like Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkings et al.

The excuse they inevitably give is that most people believe in the type of "God" they attack. That's an interesting strategy . . ignore what the most sophisticated thinkers that have ever lived have said about the concept of "God" and attack the most silly and simplistic conceptions of "god" imaginable . .  And attack straw men versions of what the most sophisticated thinkers have said (yes Dawkins, I'm looking at you!)

This is a strategy employed not in just this area but elsewhere too. I get the impression that most people just want to give the appearance of "winning" the argument rather than actually engage with the ideas themselves and seeking to discover the truth about the world.

So much for the rationality of human beings . .

Stephen Hawking and God

From here:

God did not make the universe and the “Big Bang” was the certain consequence of the laws of physics, says well-known British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking.

And that is as much an explanation as saying that I stooped down to pick up a £20 note that I spot on the ground because in the past it has been observed that I pick up £20 notes when I see them.