Why does God solve the problem of existance?

[drakim]

From what we can see, everything comes from something. I exist because of my parents, which exists because of their parents, and so on. Everything has an origin that caused it to be. If we find a rock, then there is a history to why the rock ended up just there.

But, if we trace it all back, we come to a problem. What caused the first thing to happen? This argument is often used against atheist, in the form of "what caused the big bang?" or "where did the ball of matter that exploded into the big bang come from?".

What I don't get really, is why the existance of God is supposed to solve this problem. I just don't see why throwing a chunk of omnipotent intelligence on top of the chain of events suddenly solves the problem of the origin of existance.

To me, it sounds kinda like this scenario: We go to Neptune, and discover that it's populated by robots. How the heck did these advanced machines come here? Our conclusion is that there is a magical eternal super machine who built them. It's absurd, because now we are left with an even greater problem than we started with, namely the origin of this super machine. The only solutions to avoid this problem is to come with explanations like that "this super machine exists outside of time and doesn't need an origin". But that explanation is hardly satisfying, as it's essentially a leap of faith which says, "that's just the way it is".

Yet, this is the explanation that I get from religions. The reason we humans exists? There is an omnipotent eternal human-like God who created the universe. This, for me, just makes the origin of mankind that much more complicated and harder. It doesn't solve the problem at all.

If we are going to do things like that, then, to me, it sounds less likely that in the beginning there was an intelligent, loving, compassionate, just, omnipotent, being which has three diffrent forms, as the Father, Son, and Holy spirit, who disapproves of homosexuality and sex outside an union called marriage....

....rather than just a chunk of compact matter.

The Christian "it just started with this" sounds a lot more unlikely, to the point where it's absurd.

[drakim]

To better explain my point, I made a picture.



Now, both versions here simply have to assume that God/matter exists, just out of nothing.

My point is, if I had to pick, I'd pick the bottom one, because God seems really complex and unlikely, I mean, he is an omnipotent loving three part divine being. While matter is really simple and does not have any of these complex attributes.

Thus, to use God to explain the problem of existance only makes things harder and more complex. The problem of existance is basically the last picture, "Life as we know it". Well, to me, that question is nothing compared to the problem of God existing. He is even more complex and advanced than the nature we are trying to explain! It feels like using a nuclear bomb to crack an egg.

[reformeddogmatist]

Well, what you are positing is the eternality of matter, not merely "matter simply exists". Stating it that way does not even deal with origin at all.

You should explain "existence" first before saying that it is a problem.

[reformeddogmatist]

"he Christian "it just started with this" sounds a lot more unlikely, to the point where it's absurd".

Sir, something can only be rendered "absurd" if it has violated some already well established truth, but the very nature of your post is not even constructive; it is merely showing two views on the origin of matter. To put it bluntly, you have not established anything, therefore nothing can be seen as "absurd" at this point in the discussion.

[drakim]

Apr 1, 2009 14:52:00 GMT -5 reformeddogmatist said:

Well, what you are positing is the eternality of matter, not merely "matter simply exists". Stating it that way does not even deal with origin at all.

You should explain "existence" first before saying that it is a problem.

Fair enough. I wasn't really aiming for the ethernal matter idea, but was rather just using it to contrast the God idea. The point I was simply trying to make is the number of assertions that the God version requires is a lot higher. Which makes it a harder to swallow for somebody who has heard neither solution before.

Apr 1, 2009 14:54:40 GMT -5 reformeddogmatist said:

"he Christian "it just started with this" sounds a lot more unlikely, to the point where it's absurd".

Sir, something can only be rendered "absurd" if it has violated some already well established truth, but the very nature of your post is not even constructive; it is merely showing two views on the origin of matter. To put it bluntly, you have not established anything, therefore nothing can be seen as "absurd" at this point in the discussion.

Well, let's see.

I'll pose a third alternative then,


Your mind emediatly rejects this as absurd because there is no logical following. We simply assume that there is a bear, and that it shoots an arrow, and that this creates life as we know it. As long as I call these things "magical" and "holy", there is necessary no violation of some established truth. But that doesn't mean it's not absurd.

I feel this is not present in the worldview I'm normally presenting because there is nothing magical or special. I'm dealing normal things which we see in everyday life (such as matter), even though it suffers, like all other worldview, with the problem of how it came to start.

[reformeddogmatist]

The above does not even convey meaningful propositions: "there is a magical bear, it shoots a holy arrow, life as we know it" do not tell us anything. It is not "absurd"; it is meaningless.

For an atheist, I do not see why the above should be rendered absurd if it was put in meaning propositions. Again, you have established nothing to be able to judge one thing absurd or another not absurd. Of course I see the above as absurd but that is because I am a Christian operating off of the teachings of Scripture. The Scriptures tell us that the universe was created by God; not a magical bear. Life as we know it is the out workings of Divine Providence.

"I'm dealing normal things which we see in everyday life (such as matter)"...Are you an Empiricist?

[drakim]

Apr 2, 2009 22:42:38 GMT -5 reformeddogmatist said:

"I'm dealing normal things which we see in everyday life (such as matter)"...Are you an Empiricist?

Well, from what wikipedia returns on "Empiricist", then I'd say so.

[reformeddogmatist]

But do you believe that what you "see" necessarily corresponds with external objects?

[drakim]

Apr 3, 2009 23:13:11 GMT -5 reformeddogmatist said:

But do you believe that what you "see" necessarily corresponds with external objects?

That is one of the ultimate questions which we can never really get an answer for. No matter how hard we try, we can never truly know if what we see actually matches with reality.

However, I do know this. What I see doesn't fail me, or crash with logic. For example, I've never in my life seen an empty hallway, and as I walked across it, dripped over an object that was there anyway. Although I cannot verify my senses, they have never really failed me, and constantly given a consistent image that corresponds to reality.

I've never seen a cake and as I'm to eat it, found out it's a rock. I've never seen a half a foot hole, and as I dropped a rock in it, found out it's bottomless.

In short, my senses keeps giving me consistent data. If senses was not reliable, then, one would not expect such systematic perfection in it's interpiration of reality. You would expect a lot more failures.

[reformeddogmatist]

Actually, this is not the case. If we take the more general idea of "sensations" then of course they contradict. If one sees what they see, obviously no contradiction occurs for it is mere tautology, but if one claims that what one feels and what one sees is the same thing, then indeed this can be proven to contradict. Take an oar in the water: what you see with your eyes is that it is bent. What you feel with your hands is that it is straight. Your senses have contradicted each other, thus they have, as you put it, crashed with logic.

I find your testimony incredible, but from personal experience as well as the experience of many many others, we would doubt you. Mirages are instances when what one "sees" is not "there". Now, as you said we may never get an answer for this ultimate question of whether our sensations correspond to external objects. It could be that the mirages are "real" things, yet if this is so, again we would have a contradiction in sensations. The sight says that such and such a thing is present, but our feeling tells us it is not there. Is that consistent? How do you know that your senses are giving you consistent data? Do you realize that that is something you have just assumed and not something you have demonstrated? Be a bit more skeptical.

Practical success in science does not prove the theorems of science. That is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. How do you know that the interpretation of science is perfect let alone if it even corresponds to reality at all?

[drakim]

Apr 5, 2009 20:21:17 GMT -5 reformeddogmatist said:

Actually, this is not the case. If we take the more general idea of "sensations" then of course they contradict. If one sees what they see, obviously no contradiction occurs for it is mere tautology, but if one claims that what one feels and what one sees is the same thing, then indeed this can be proven to contradict. Take an oar in the water: what you see with your eyes is that it is bent. What you feel with your hands is that it is straight. Your senses have contradicted each other, thus they have, as you put it, crashed with logic.

I find your testimony incredible, but from personal experience as well as the experience of many many others, we would doubt you. Mirages are instances when what one "sees" is not "there". Now, as you said we may never get an answer for this ultimate question of whether our sensations correspond to external objects. It could be that the mirages are "real" things, yet if this is so, again we would have a contradiction in sensations. The sight says that such and such a thing is present, but our feeling tells us it is not there. Is that consistent? How do you know that your senses are giving you consistent data? Do you realize that that is something you have just assumed and not something you have demonstrated? Be a bit more skeptical.

I understand your argument, but, I have a very diffrent start in the reasoning which results in a diffrent conclusion.

For example, when you present the oar problem, you present the eyes and touching giving two diffrent versions of the oar. One says that the oar is twisted, while one says that the oar is straight.

However, here is where I fundamentally don't agree. The senses doesn't "tell" you anything. It simply gives you data. It's up to your mind to actually interpretative the data. When you say that the oar is not straight, it's your mind that has decided upon this information, not your eyes. It's in your mind that the contraction arises.

For example, if you are holding a figurine, and looking at it at the same time, then your eyes and touch are both giving you data on how big the figurine is. However, due to the eyes being a foot away from the figurine, it's data is actually indicating that the figurine is smaller than the data from the touch sensors. This however, and I think you'll agree with me, doesn't mean that the eye sensors are broken, nor that the eye sensors are being deceived. Instead, we think that the mind should take into account that eyes operate based on varied distances, while touch does not. If you end up confused because your senses cannot verify the size of the figurine to each other, then it's in fact your mind that is flawed, not your sensors.

In that way, one must keep several factors into account when using your sensors. There are tons of these things that we do automatically every day. Your nose can't smell underwater, but we don't interpret this as meaning that there is no smell whatsoever in the water.

Taking the varied areas of the sensors, and the modifications that reality presents, is part of using the sensors. There is never a situation where you simply "see" an object without any fuss. There are always such modifiers such as distance, lighting and angle. These are inherit parts of what it means to see, not a limitation.

In that sense, the oar is supposed to be broken. That's how sight and water works. It would be the oar wasn't broken that we would be in a lot of trouble, not because it is.

Practical success in science does not prove the theorems of science. That is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. How do you know that the interpretation of science is perfect let alone if it even corresponds to reality at all?

Well, I would guess it comes from an imperialist approach, where experience confirms it over and over. (and I never claimed that science was perfect, just the best

Anyways, one thing I'm wondering then is how this doesn't apply to you? How do you know that your knowledge of God is correctly? How do you know that your eyes are reading the Bible correctly? How can you verify anything?

[reformeddogmatist]

How do you know it is your mind and not your senses that are flawed? It seems rather arbitrary to say that it is the mind and not the senses. If it is your mind that interprets sensations, and apart from the mind sensations are useless (we talked about this in another thread about a blank mind not being able to understand anything), then you cannot say validly that it is the mind that is flawed since is it on the basis of the mind that sensations are made possible.

Your distinction between the senses "telling you" and "receiving data" does not alleviate the problem. So you have two conflicting data, thus they are rendered unreliable.

I will finish responding later. I have a rather massive headache at the moment. Gooday.

[drakim]

Apr 6, 2009 16:56:33 GMT -5 reformeddogmatist said:

How do you know it is your mind and not your senses that are flawed? It seems rather arbitrary to say that it is the mind and not the senses. If it is your mind that interprets sensations, and apart from the mind sensations are useless (we talked about this in another thread about a blank mind not being able to understand anything), then you cannot say validly that it is the mind that is flawed since is it on the basis of the mind that sensations are made possible.

Your distinction between the senses "telling you" and "receiving data" does not alleviate the problem. So you have two conflicting data, thus they are rendered unreliable.

I will finish responding later. I have a rather massive headache at the moment. Gooday.

Oh, there is a bit of confusion here because we are adressing diffrent problems. I was mainly dealing with the "the senses doesn't give unbiased data" and not the "you have no way of verifying anything" problem in my post. I guess I'm to blame because I posted those questions at the end to you since I sorta implied I was talking about it earlier.