The Narnia Code

[Alc]

Your staring to speak for those with religion now too? How do you do that?

True to form: taking a good religious fallback position as opposed to answering anything.

I wasn't speaking for those with religion. Go back and reread the post. Sound out the words slowly, if it helps.

I was saying that unless there is a reason for everything existing, it can't have been intelligently designed, since intelligent beings do eveything for some reason. Therefore, it's impossible to argue for God having created everything without also arguing that it was done for a reason.

Feel free at any point to start swearing, get kicked off, and come back under yet another username.

 

[Alc]

The fact that mechanisms like gravity are not fully understood but still 'glue' our universe together practically forces us to question why.

There is order in the universe. There are mechanisms that exist that allow concepts (shape, color, rotation etc) to exist in a way that we can perceive.

Though we may never know the answer, the order that we see everyday attracts us to the question why. Doesn't order on a scale of such magnitude attract you to question why though it may be prove fruitless?

No it doesn't. Any more than a mountain being present forces everyone who sees it to climb it. People who are predisposed to do such things will do so, others won't. If someone is able to accept that things just exist, they can do so perfectly happily without a need to believe there is some cosmic reason for them.

 

[dan-cat]

Over several thousand posts on or around this subject - thats the most eloquent one I have read. But hey what do I know.

Thank you.

 

[JamesLast99]

True to form: taking a good religious fallback position as opposed to answering anything.

I wasn't speaking for those with religion. Go back and reread the post. Sound out the words slowly, if it helps.

I was saying that unless there is a reason for everything existing, it can't have been intelligently designed, since intelligent beings do eveything for some reason. Therefore, it's impossible to argue for God having created everything without also arguing that it was done for a reason.

Feel free at any point to start swearing, get kicked off, and come back under yet another username.

Continue to act like an illogical know it all - and I may decide to?I was hoping for a more intelligent response than yours frankly. Theres always a spoiler around though!

 

[JamesLast99]

Thank you.

You're welcome.I fear praise from me , may damage you rep though! Shhhh - time for another name change!

 

[dan-cat]

No it doesn't. Any more than a mountain being present forces everyone who sees it to climb it. People who are predisposed to do such things will do so, others won't. If someone is able to accept that things just exist, they can do so perfectly happily without a need to believe there is some cosmic reason for them.

I didn't say anything about adopting a belief or a faith as a result. That's not required at all though history has shown that it has proven very popular.

I simply said it forces us to entertain the possibility of the existence of reasoning behind such order.

That's how human beings work. We crave order and require a solid rational grounding to underpin it. Every intelligent individual demands solid reasoning behind the laws they have to abide by. It's perfectly reasonable and indeed very attractive to apply the same rationale when faced with order on a universal scale.

To argue that it is unreasonable contradicts how the human rationale actually works.

 

[Alc]

I didn't say anything about adopting a belief or a faith as a result. That's not required at all though history has shown that it has proven very popular.

I simply said it forces us to entertain the possibility of the existence of reasoning behind such order.

That's how human beings work. We crave order and require a solid rational grounding to underpin it. Every intelligent individual demands solid reasoning behind the laws they have to abide by. It's perfectly reasonable and indeed very attractive to apply the same rationale when faced with order on a universal scale.

To argue that it is unreasonable contradicts how the human rationale actually works.

I didn't say it required a faith, either (I was careful to avoid that). I did say that a faith requires believing that a reason exists.

I would agree with you that humans require order, but I don't believe that everyone needs to feel that there is a reason for everything. As long as there is an explanation of how things work it is entirely possible to be confident in the fact that they wil continue to work, without questioning why.

It isn't necessary to think of things as happening for a reason, unless that is how an individual's mind works. I've never met anyone who needed to think of some reason for gravity to work, nor have I met anyone who didn't have faith that it does. I have met some who would be curious as to how it works, but that's sufficient.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

I was speaking soley as a being capable of intelligent thought. I count myself as a member of that group, as are creationists.
Everything done by everything capable of reasoning is done for a reason.

Y-eeeah, but you know deities are (in religious debates) always argued to have a free pass so that they can be an exception to whatever happens to be a universal for mere mortals.

Either God created everything for a reason OR he didn't.
If he is infinitely intelligent and knows everything that will happen, it would be impossible for him to not know the outcome of his actions well in advance, so impossible for there not to be a reason behind them. Accordingly, he couldn't act in an arbitrary way if he wanted to.

Unless, being a deity, he was somehow able to selectively make exceptions to everything he would know - omniscience could be argued to be the capacity to know everything - and that capacity could be argued to be less than fully exploited.

 

[Alc]

Continue to act like an illogical know it all - and I may decide to?I was hoping for a more intelligent response than yours frankly. Theres always a spoiler around though!

So the full extent of your answers is going to be to avoid the questions, threaten to throw a tantrum, and wait for someone like Dan-Cat to post reasoned responses? Okay, I stand forewarned.

On the off-chance that that position changes, please explain where the logic is flawed? How is it possible to believe in God without believing that everything was created for a reason?

 

[Alc]

Y-eeeah, but you know deities are (in religious debates) always argued to have a free pass so that they can be an exception to whatever happens to be a universal for mere mortals.

Always a grey area, I know, and an easy out, along the lines of 'Because I said so'

Unless, being a deity, he was somehow able to selectively make exceptions to everything he would know - omniscience could be argued to be the capacity to know everything - and that capacity could be argued to be less than fully exploited.

That makes sense. So is that how it works? He doesn't know everything, he just could if wanted to?

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Everything done by everything capable of reasoning is done for a reason.

Must there not also then be a reason underlying that reason? If not, where does the reason come from?

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

So is that how it works? He doesn't know everything, he just could if wanted to?

No idea. Christianity might tend to support such a notion - on account of the whole thing about Jesus allowing himself to be limited to human(ish) form.

I can't immediately see any reson not to permit a definition of omniscience along those lines, other than the logical problems that already exist for the stronger definition of omniscience.

 

[Alc]

Must there not also then be a reason underlying that reason? If not, where does the reason come from?

The reason could, presumably, be based on the use of his omniscience to view the future and see what would hapen if he did such-and-such?

No idea. Christianity might tend to support such a notion - on account of the whole thing about Jesus allowing himself to be limited to human(ish) form.

Possibly. I've never heard anyone refer to God as all-knowing-when-it-suits him, just all-knowing.

I can't immediately see any reson not to permit a definition of omniscience along those lines, other than the logical problems that already exist for the stronger definition of omniscience.

Not to mention omnipotence.

 

[dan-cat]

I would agree with you that humans require order, but I don't believe that everyone needs to feel that there is a reason for everything. As long as there is an explanation of how things work it is entirely possible to be confident in the fact that they wil continue to work, without questioning why.

I would argue that this is because they presume that the reasoning already exists because the order is to their satisfaction. Once the order falls short of this standard (ie when taxes get a little high) then the questioning of the reasoning quickly becomes more popular.

It isn't necessary to think of things as happening for a reason, unless that is how an individual's mind works.

No but history says that it is extremely popular.

When people get wiped out by natural disasters, the question of why is extremely attractive to ask yes? It is not easily dismissed by anyone. The human mind craves reasoning behind order. Especially when that order is threatened.

It is not irrational to project this line of thought onto the order of the universe (though it may prove incorrect to do so).

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

The reason could, presumably, be based on the use of his omniscience to view the future and see what would hapen if he did such-and-such?

I meant for humans (or at least, reasoning beings in the general sense). Humans as thinking beings do things for reasons, and only when they have reasons (even if they are not consciously aware of those reasons), was the gist of what you said, I think... but where do those reasons originate?

What reasons underly those reasons, and can there ever be such a thing as a reason with no underlying reasons of its own - and if so, what is the difference between that reason and something that is random?

 

[Rabbie]

What reasons underly those reasons, and can there ever be such a thing as a reason with no underlying reasons of its own - and if so, what is the difference between that reason and something that is random?

Ah the foundations of philosophy

Human minds have evolved to think along logical lines looking for reasons because this seems to work better from a survival point of view than just doing random things. because we do not know everything we can make incorrect decisions and come to incorrect conclusions.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

True - we're scraping the question down to the age-old problem of free will now.

 

[Alc]

When people get wiped out by natural disasters, the question of why is extremely attractive to ask yes?
It is not easily dismissed by anyone. The human mind craves reasoning behind order. Especially when that order is threatened.

Yes, the same way that people don't like to think of good things happening to bad people (or vice versa). We know that we do things for a reason, so it's far easier to understand things if we assume that the universe/God does the same. Isn't this some variation on the anthropomorphic fallacy?

It is not irrational to project this line of thought onto the order of the universe (though it may prove incorrect to do so).

Not irrational, if it's an extension of something that's already been attributed to random events. As you say, though, not necessarily correct.

 

[Alc]

True - we're scraping the question down to the age-old problem of free will now.

Or, perhaps, He just wants us to think that.....

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

Or, perhaps, He just wants us to think that.....

But then we have to ask: What made him want us to think that?