Who's afraid of a godless universe?

And neither does any scientific theory of the history of the universe or of life on earth rely on "random assortment of chemicals" doing stuff.I think "random assortment of chemicals" is the evangelical code word for "something that contradicts my preferred creation myth."

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Invoking personal incredulity: the fallacy when no personal incredulity is involved is a fallacious application of the fallacy. I'm not saying it is unbelievable, I'm asking on what basis one might suppose it happened so. The RC church when asked on what basis they say the Bible is the infallible word of God reply "because we say so" "What gives you the authority to say so?" we ask back. To which the reply "Because the Bible says we have that authority".The same bootstrap argument is used here. "I'm and accident and by accident I happen to know I am an accident" requires a little more that than invoking "personal incredulity fallacy" to defend itself.By what mechanism does one step outside the accidental loop to comment in any objective way on the proceedings. To me, it seems a philosophy that shoots itself in the foot right away

Off topic reply deleted.I hit the wrong button and submitted it by mistake.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 20-Feb-2006 02:45 PM

Ive always felt more comfortable when someone who knows what they are doing is in charge. Humans fill the bill quite nicely in small roles...such as school principal, Bus driver, Store Manager, or such....but even when it gets to the point of President of a country, I do not trust human behavior totally. The idea of a God in charge of everything, including my own destiny, was unsettling before my conversion experience where I "met" God. In a Universe as big as the one we dimly conceive, I find comfort in a God in charge whom I have met but am only beginning to know.

Isn't it fascinating the way each individual deals with such feelings? Wherever they come from, they can certainly inspire us to do something with our lives.

The chemicals that happened to be lying around got together in which ever way they must (if not randomly) have gotten together and so produced all we see today. Whatever happened to be lying around was I take it the product of random chance. If not they had a reason to be in the concentrations and locations they were. And the reason they happened to be that way and react that way....And so it goes back to...what precisely? The bootstrap argument doesn't work whereever you decide to push it back to. Its a bootstrap argument until some solid ground is reached from which to pull itself upwards. You have as little as myself except kicking the ball into first cause touch. If I sail upon the good ship myth CP, there is one who rows with as much effort beside me. None other than your good self...you random bunch of accidental chemical reactions you.Now if only you would row in the right direction...

quote:

---

Because that would involve us believing that a random assortment of chemical accidents resulted in a creature that is able to decide that they are a random assortment of chemical accidents.

---

The question was, "Why couldn't it be possible that certain feelings could have come to exist from a creature that is the result of purely biochemical processes?"You haven't answered it.

When you look at earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricane Katrina, bird flu, tornados, forest fires, mud slides -- it sometimes looks as if either there is nobody in charge, or else whoever is in charge is asleep at the switch.

The reason "why not?" is that the only answer seemingly available (if poorly expressed - you can pick at the details but we'll only end up back at first cause mysteries) would lead you into an argument that has to pull itself up by its bootstraps. I'm not saying it is not possible but that the thinking generally is that bootstrap arguments are not valid defences against any "why not?". I was asking thus, is there a way to break out and release yourself from invalid argument.

quote:

---

I'm not saying it is not possible

---

Good.Since Faith claimed it was not possible, and you now disagree with her and say that it is possible, then I have no argument with you.

For it to be possible however, it must be possible that an argument can pull itself up by its own bootstraps. I'm not saying that that is impossible but just that it kind of makes nonsense of any discussion about things if we accept that bootstrap arguments should be admitted into the realm of possible?You didn't strike me as someone content to reside in the realm of "absolutely anything at all is possible".

I find a certain ambiguity between the content of the OP and the topic title.GOD, if GOD exists, exists regardless of anyones beliefs.GOD, if GOD does not exist, does not exist regardless of anyones beliefs.We have absolutely no control or effect on whether or not GOD exists and so the best course is to just live your life to the best of your ability. IMHO the whole discussion of whether or not GOD exists is a complete waste of time. It's equally futile to worry about some individuals personal version of God. If GOD does exist, then this is the world She has given us to live in. If GOD does not exist, then this is the world we live in.In either case, this is the world and universe we got, whether we like it or not. There just ain't no other options. The best course is to try to make this as pleasant a journey as we can.PS:

_{if we do that, it will take care of any possibilities of the next life anyway.}

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Ive always felt more comfortable when someone who knows what they are doing is in charge. Humans fill the bill quite nicely in small roles...such as school principal, Bus driver, Store Manager, or such....but even when it gets to the point of President of a country, I do not trust human behavior totally. The idea of a God in charge of everything, including my own destiny, was unsettling before my conversion experience where I "met" God. In a Universe as big as the one we dimly conceive, I find comfort in a God in charge whom I have met but am only beginning to know.

---

Very well put, Phat.

True The logic doesn't follow from the premise Fair enough Worry is probably futile but if it is possible that a person can have an inside knowledge about God which exceeds you own then it might be wise to check it out. How one does this is another question Not necessarily especially if the Fall occurred and it was a function of mans action TrueP.S. if I was going hunting it would your party I'd want to be in

Hi iano.

quote:

---

if it is possible that a person can have an inside knowledge about God which exceeds you own

---

But who would ever be so arrogant as to make a claim like that?

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt