By 
-
Subscribe
4,900 subscribers. 10,000 daily views.
Recent Comments
Entropist: These idiots are wrong on so many different levels, its hard to... Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” Rally – Interviews With Participants
Just a Guy: Me an my wife have negotiated infidelity. Meaning she can be with other guys as long as she doesn’t hide... Negotiated Infidelity
Gwenny: Absolutely not! The world has plenty of people having kids. A child consumes HUGE amounts of resources, which from both a... QotD: Kids?
Siberia: Or maybe they know they have neither patience nor inclination to deal with the fruit of their loins and thus, rather than be... QotD: Kids?
DDM: Repubs and Dems. He’s saying they only take first impressions and... Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” Rally – Interviews With Participants
CM: Good point, most religions encourage having a lot of children. From an evolutionary standpoint you sort of owe it to your... QotD: Kids?
Jasowah: “They don’t go beyond those emotions, and that’s the... Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” Rally – Interviews With Participants
-
9 Comments
This was on the Chicago ARML T-shirt a while ago, and in many other places too.
That’s my life in a nutshell.
On my most recent blog post (Does God Go Poop?), I’ve been engaged in a debate about something very similar to this… namely infinite regression.
I just don’t understand how magical thinking can be anything more than an excuse. It seems to me that God is merely a placeholder for what we don’t know yet.
The only use for magic (God) is to try to explain away that which we don’t understand – such as the origins of the Universe. It seems only logical because the magic (God) hypothesis doesn’t explain anything that we do understand.
**The only use for magic (God) is to try to explain away that which we don’t understand**
1.There is a difference between magic and God – magic is a sort of pseudo-technology, mag pretend to control some supernatural powers and use it for his own ends.
God – biblical God at least – is a Person, who nobody can control.
2.When we speaking about “understanding” we can speak about two different things, about answers for a two different questions – question about method and question about purpose.
For instance, we can give two answers for a question “Why car is moving?”
We can say, a)car is moving because of some chemical reaction in it’s engine. b)car is moving, because John decided to take his family to the seaside.
We don’t need John to eхplain chemical process in the engine – and we don’t need God to explain natural process in nature. Moreover, we don’t need Bill Gates to explain processes in Windows:)
But it doesn’t proof non-existence of John, or Bill Gates, or even God:)
At the same time, it doesn’t prove there is a God. It’s a non sequitor.
Meaning is, like beauty, a personal interpretation or opinion. It doesn’t give a truth value. It’s completely possible for one person to find “beauty” in one thing, while another person feels completely different about it.
You’d still have to make the leap that God is using magic. In the naturalistic sense, I say that we don’t understand yet.
I think it would be much more reasonable to admit lack of knowledge than to say that you know that God used magic to create the Universe.
I think it would be much more reasonable to admit lack of knowledge than to say that you know that God used magic to create the Universe.
That’s part of the reason I’ve taken to calling myself a “radical agnostic.”
At the same time, it doesn’t prove there is a God.
Yes. Science can’t prove or disprove God’s existence.
Meaning is, like beauty, a personal interpretation or opinion.
I’m not sure. Using a previous example, I can ask John where is he going. I can get information from him personally. It wound not be scientific knowledge – but still knowledge.
You’d still have to make the leap that God is using magic.
I’m not sure what you call “magic” here. I believe, that God is using natural processes; for example, In Psalm 139 natural process, pregnancy, described as God’s work.
I think it would be much more reasonable to admit lack of knowledge than to say that you know that God used magic to create the Universe.
May be I don’t understand, what you mean by “magic”
Well, if everything was the result of “natural processes,” then there really is no need for God. It’s a natural process.
Occam’s Razor eliminates the need for God.
It’s the same as with Psalm 139. To describe something like pregnancy as “God’s work” adds extraneous information to a proposition that works completely on its own, without God.
You could say the same thing about the C++ programming language. Is it “God’s work?” All it needs is a compiler and God? Logically, the argument is no different.
All pregnancy needs is a man, woman and God?
When Laplace showed Napoleon his model of the solar system, and the Emperor asked where God was in his model, Laplace responded thus:
As far as what I mean by magic, I’m implying “supernatural powers.” I would be the only means by which God would work. Otherwise, it’s just normal, natural processes with no need of input from God.
Correction…
As opposed to “I would be…”