?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Comments

( 12 comments — Leave a comment )
deckardcanine
Apr. 19th, 2010 03:21 pm (UTC)
I don't see why a primary mover is the most complex solution. Seems perfectly simple to me. In fact, I'd sooner expect atheists to object to its simplicity.
sleepyjohn00
Apr. 19th, 2010 04:32 pm (UTC)
Because positing a primary mover means now you have to ask where did that primary mover come from, what was the purpose of creation, what does it want, why is there evil, what is evil, why is evil for some good for others, in short, all the unanswerable theology. If you just deal with what *is*, the whole thing becomes a lot simpler.
ccdesan
Apr. 19th, 2010 04:47 pm (UTC)
The only flaw in that premise is that you don't have to ask. One can remain in awe of the complexity of the universe that surrounds us, and still attribute it to intelligence rather than chaos, without needing to understand the whichness of the why.

Calculus is a reality. I will never understand that, and I'm OK with it. But I know it's there, and we build bridges and launch satellites because of it.

For me, a personal creator is a reality. I will never understand how or why or what or who, and I'm OK with that. But I feel its influence in my life daily.

In the meantime, I'm spending my energy building a world that works for everyone, with no one left out, and I leave the theological details to those who feel a need to obsess about being right.
sleepyjohn00
Apr. 19th, 2010 05:00 pm (UTC)
I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together

One of the most succinct statements on theology/philosophy I've ever read, courtesy John Lennon. No more is needed.
deckardcanine
Apr. 19th, 2010 07:17 pm (UTC)
If we just deal with what is... and assume that time (in the sense of movement) goes back infinitely, in spite of the logical quandary that that presents? Yeah, it's simpler, but so is Mona Lisa with a big hole punched in the middle.
sleepyjohn00
Apr. 19th, 2010 07:32 pm (UTC)
De gustibus non est disputandum. I'm happier if I don't have to worry about being constantly scrutinized by some bearded paranoid patriarch, but knowing that I am a bit of the world around me. YMMV.
torakiyoshi
Apr. 20th, 2010 06:12 am (UTC)
There is no from. Alpha, and omega. Beginning and end. The primary/unmoved mover has no source from which to come because it is primary. Philosophically, such an idea is simple, elegant and acceptible. "It's just turtles all the way down" is far more complex and difficult to explain or imagine.

As for the rest of his essay, I find it to be a lot of banal, well-spoken but fairly childish kicking and screaming against something he doesn't want to believe in. I also find it insulting ("to say that morality comes from God is being defensive," for example, which is not the same thing that morality comes from religion), and his logic is flawed. "There's logic in the universe, therefore, there is no God." Uh, well, actually logic supports the idea that if there is a message (logic) there is a message sender (God). Sorry, Mister Savage, but your argument falls to the usual anti-nihilist arguments. Perhaps if he quit worshipping himself he might see God's handiwork in creation.

-=TK

Edited at 2010-04-20 06:13 am (UTC)
sleepyjohn00
Apr. 20th, 2010 01:48 pm (UTC)
'sfunny, how all your postings about your deaconage pass by with respectful acceptance, but my one post about what I think calls out the artillery.

Ah, well, I was pretty much expecting it. There's not a lot of use in debate here, so I wish you the best.
torakiyoshi
Apr. 20th, 2010 10:42 pm (UTC)
Have my posts about serving as a deacon brought tears to your eyes?

-=TK
sleepyjohn00
Apr. 21st, 2010 03:48 am (UTC)
They have made me smile, because you are doing something that you deeply love. How could anyone argue with that?
torakiyoshi
Apr. 22nd, 2010 07:33 am (UTC)
Unfortunately, reading that essay left me wiping away tears, hence why I responded the way I did. I did not cry for myself, but for the people who would be turned away from belief by logic that, on the surface is convincing enough. However, he's making the same type of sweeping generalizations that he's accusing believers of making. That's why I found it offensive.

But I was pierced to the heart tonight in Bible Study by a passage in which God reminds Christians not to worry about what teachers of differing beliefs (including unbelief) say. God's wisdom is not shared by unbelievers, and will appear as foolishness. That's exactly what this man was saying in his article. So I guess I should not cry when he is living up to scripture.

Anyway, I'm sorry that I snarled. You're right that I should not have been so sharp with my response.

-=TK
jordan179
Apr. 19th, 2010 03:52 pm (UTC)
That would be an argument for deism, not for any of the three monotheisms, nor for polytheistic faiths such as Hinduism or Shinto. It might be compatible with Buddhism, but there is no particular reason why we should believe in reincarnation.
( 12 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

November 2015
S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Keri Maijala