Hi pnoom, Corno Dolce, Sybarite, and all others who are still there at this thread.
Just wanted to answer herewith to the last post of pnoom.
Now, first of all -
No problem, I've had my bad days, too.
Thanks. Great that you understand. Insomnia is a terrible thing, concerning its consequences.
Well, I will not better try to answer the specific points of you, but will just explain generally, how I do understand the subject. Hope it's Okay.
Let's look -
For the record, I will say that I don't discount the idea of a creator. I merely think that it is highly unlikely.
Well, pnoom , actually you are saying almost the same I was trying to affirm. You don't discount it – means, it may still be regarded as possible. In this light, it does not matter how do they definite Him – Creator, God, or Universal Reason ( comes up sometimes ). The essence is the same – an Uncreated Unmaterial Reason, giving birth to matter.
Then, even if you are saying -
The existence of matter implies eternal matter, unless matter somehow popped into existence spontaneously (which I am not discounting, necessarily).
- you do mean, in fact, that the matter could begin somehow without any help „from abroad“ - from an unmaterial world. Well, this would mean, logically, an eternal matter anyway – this „popping“ could be only some transformation of the matter, or energy, because the matter can not begin from nothing – it contradicts to the law of the preserving of the energy.
So we have thus, once again, two initial points of view – materialistic and idealistic.
A little bit of history now – I promise to cut it as short as possible.
The idealistic point of view had existed, evidently, as long as the mankind itself. The first ever registered materialistic work was
De Rerum Natura,
On the Nature of Things ( Titus Lucretius Carus , ca. 70 BC ). The both world-views coexist , therefore, more or less peacefully throughout 2000 years - at least. We know about the order of the Universe much more, than the ancient Romans did, but we still do accept both possibilities.
In the history of the European philosophy, there were many attempts to prove the existence of God on the way of pure logic ( Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Acqiunas,...) . These arguments were, on obvious reasons, widely supported by the Catholic church.
Immanuel Kant ( XVIII C ) in his works Critique Of The Pure Reason and Critique Of The Practical Reason had refuted all existing arguments, and had proved, in turn, that the existence of God can not be discovered on the way of a pure reason ( i.e. using the objective knowledge, or material experience ).
Well, such things were rather tough for that times – Vatikan had in 1827 added Critique.. to the list of the prohibited books. Lenin has referred very often in his works to Critique..., using the quotations of it, as providing the philosophycal basis for the atheistic world–view. The fact, that the coin had, actually, two sides, was, as always, simply ignored. The opposite consequence of Kant's arguments is the same fair : the NON-existence of God can not be proved basing on the material experience as well. Which means, actually, that the science, researching the material world, can never be able to deliver the sufficient arguments to prove or refute God's existence. Regadless of the state of science – it is logically impossible.
Furthermore, Kant himself was not an atheist and tried to find the needed arguments, researching the subjective matters. The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God was published in 1763. Kant shows the logical tie between such conceptions as „freedom“ and „God“.God is the only possible origin of the human freedom. Even if both „freedom“ and „God“ are only imaginary things, they are inalienable from each other. This work is killingly logical – though, not rather convincing from the materialistic point of view, because „freedom“ is itself subjective.
Now how it all can work in practice.
Inserting God into the equation would explain the existence of matter, but you are still left with explaining the existence of God.
Let us just consider both these equations.
Say, we assume one of the versions of the beginning of the Universe as a proven fact. It could be a Big Bang, for example, does not matter . Then the equation would look like:
Eternal matter ( regardless in which form ) - Big Bang – Universe – Solar System – Earth – organic forms – life.
The origin of the Big Bang could be explained as a consequence of the various random factors, having led to it. Well – random does not mean impossible.
Let's consider the „idealistic“ variant of our equation:
Eternal God ( Creator ) - Big Bang – Universe – Solar System – Earth – organic forms – life.
Only the first member is now different. It makes sense, though, because Eternal God ( as an unmaterial essence ) is regarded here as the cause of the Big Bang. The deviation from the law of preserving of energy is herewith explained – God is not subject to the laws of the material world.
Well, inserting God into the equation has now two important concequences. First one – if I accept God , understood as the Universal Reason, as the cause of the Beginning – I must clear realize now that the process of Creation was not random. God should have a reason to create the Universe. Which means, I don't have to see the evolution ( as a special case ) as a random process anymore. Even if I am not aware of the aims of God – I nevertheless can begin to understand, WHY the evolution went in this way and not in any other.
The second concequence - accepting Eternal God, or Creator, and considering the first concequence mentioned – I must come to the conclusion, that the most of all known religions were ( or are ) , in their essense, true – because it is , for example, exactly the picture of the process of Creation, as it is described in Genesis.
I don't want to argue here which of the two world-views is „true“. I guess such debate is rather useless. I only wanted to show that, since we still can not discount the idea of Creator, the religion has an absolutely sensible basis. The rest is a matter of belief.
Now , a little bit more – concerning how this discussion began. I don't understand, in this light, the arguments of Charles Dawkins. Surely I am not saying I can be an expert in his special field – but , as much as I could understand, he argues more with the DETAILS of the Old Testament, not with its ESSENCE. And it doesn't make any sense . Because if I still have a logical opportunity to insert God into our equation, his place can be only at the very beginning of it – before the Big Bang, long before the beginning of the evolution . All the details are thus secondary. I will logically consider the evolution itself as one of the concequences of the Creation . I know , herewith, WHY had evolution chosen this way and not another. HOW did it work , which were the details – this is the field of science, not religion.
Okay, I guess I am over now with my explanation. Once again -
I am not necessary saying that only my views are true. My point is – since we are not sure about the Origin of the matter – the attempts to prove or refute the existence of God, discussing the details ( Dawkins ) are useless.
Pnoom, I hope I have answered your points herewith, and I want to quit this thread with this post at last. I can not add anything more to the discussion.
Still – if I have missed anything – just let me know, I am ( usually ) here.
Cheers,
Andrew