jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (63 posts)

Cosmology and Psychology- Arguments for God's existence

  1. A.Villarasa profile image78
    A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago

    Multiple arguments have been presented in various forums (inside and outside of HubPages) to argue for  the existence of God. They  run the gamut from the Cosmological ( Efficient Causality, Contingency, Design, Ontology, Kalam) to the Psychological (Moral, consciousness, conscience, Pascal's wager).

    Empirical proof(s) is(are) what non-believers insist on being presented with, and nothing would dissuade them from their non-belief,  short of God presenting Himself to them for scientific experimentation and erudition. My usual response is "Good luck with that."

    I would propose another argument... the argument from Enigma, best propounded by the Evolutionary Psychologist John Tooby: In an Essay, he wrote: "How are living things at all compatible with a physical world governed by chaos (entropy), and given entropy, how can natural selection lead, over the long run, to the increasing accumulation of functional organization in living things? Living things stand out as an extraordinary departure from the physically normal, i.e.  the earth's metal core, lunar craters or the  solar  wind).  What set all organisms- from blackthorn and alder to egrets and otters- apart from everything else in the universe is that woven through their designs are staggeringly unlikely arrays of finely tuned inter-relationships - a high order that is functional. Yet as highly ordered physical systems, organisms should tend to slide rapidly back toward a state of maximum disorder. As the physicist Erwin Schroedinger put it, "It is by avoiding that rapid decay into the inert state of 'equilibrium' that an organism appears so enigmatic.'"

    1. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Learn how living things evolve to survive in a given environment and you will understand "How are living things at all compatible with a physical world ..."  It doesn't matter if the world is "governed" by entropy or not.  You will also learn how entropy is "defeated", if you will, and why the slide to maximum disorganization does not occur as long as there is energy to organize with. 

      Rather than living organisms standing out, isn't it really the case that the earth's core (there is only one) and lunar craters (there are only thousands, not trillions as there are organisms) is what is standing out?

      1. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        @wilderness:
        The physical/material construct of the universe are just that...nothing more, but ultimately given meaning and  importance and purpose  not by another material  construct but by biologic ones i.e.organisms, most specifically intelligent/sentient organisms like you and me. So if you tell me that the earth's core, volcanoes, lunar landscapes stands out more than living organisms... then I suppose your existence is truly non-sensical. Which then belies the concept of a creator... but then you say.. my existence have a sense and purpose, which then verifies the concept of a creator.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Of course your existence has purpose - whatever purpose you give it.  Which has nothing to do with a creator, of course.

          But I said nothing about your chosen purpose; I just said that if you understood the evolution of living organisms you would also understand why they fit the physical universe and why entropy appears to be backwards.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image78
            A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            @wilderness:
            The appearance of life on earth (and subsequent progression from non-intelligence/non-sentience to intelligence/sentience) is the ONLY Enigmatic part of nature. Even empiricists are won't to say anything definitive about why and how life was initiated on earth... thus the ENIGMA. Life, as you and I are typing our thoughts into our respective PCs, continues to be Enigmatic, because  biologic entities, be they sentient or non-sentient, continues to go against the second law of thermodynamics that  entails/results  in  entropy and chaos.

            You and a lot of Hubbers have contended that life is just the accidental/happenstance result of bio-chemical reactions that happens under certain  physical parameters. Nothing to do with temerity and perspicacity, thus nothing to do with intelligence.  If true, then why does LIFE  insists on continuing despite the natural  entropic/chaotic flow of matter and energy. As far as I am concerned,  life continuing despite natural laws against its propagation, as ENIGMATIC as it is, is an excellent argument for the existence of a Creator.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Why is it an enigma?  Chemical reactions take place all the time, what makes it so strange that the ones that first started what we call "life" did the same?  (Assuming they did, of course, and did not arrive on an asteroid or other interstellar debris.  Nothing enigmatic about it - just another chemical reaction, out of trillions of other possible reactions.

              Which natural laws prohibit the continuation of life, by the way?  Never heard THAT claim even from the most rabid theist!

              If you don't understand cellular biology, you might study up on it - it should answer your questions as to why life continues despite the laws of entropy   That and evolution of course.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                @Wilderness:
                If you think the second law of thermodynamics is part and parcel of the natural laws (or as empiricists call them, laws of physics), then you should be made aware that it is one law that leads to matter and energy dispersing into abject chaos or entropy.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  If you think the second law prohibits life, where environmental conditions permit it, you definitely need some more education into just how it works and what it says.  It's like saying that ice crystals cannot form, or stalagmites.  Or anything else except widely separated atoms, scattered unevenly about the universe. 

                  The second law does not indicate any of those, including that life cannot exist.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                    A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    @wilderness:
                    I did not realize until now that you could lump together,  you and me... with stalagnites and ice crystals, the formation of which have nothing to do with the biologic process called life.

          2. A.Villarasa profile image78
            A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            @wilderness:
            Of course, you giving specific purpose to your own life, has everything to do with a Creator. If you insist that life is nothing but an accidental/coincidental bio-chemical reaction.. then your life bears no meaning or purpose. But you insist that you have assigned meaning and purpose to it... Why would you if you think your life is just an accident?

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I give purpose to my life for the same reason you do - it makes me happy to do so.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                @wilderness:
                Giving or assigning myself purpose in life has nothing to do with happiness... it has a lot to do with responsibility and dependability and respectability. Now the question of whether we, as human beings,  have a larger purpose and meaning could only be gleaned by believing  that one's existence has greater meaning and purpose than the ones one have assigned to it.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  If it does not please you do assign a purpose to your life, why do you do it?  I do it because it pleases me, but why do you do if there is no happiness to having a purpose?

                  But the question of having a purpose can only be achieved by believing a myth is true?  You must be speaking for yourself - the large majority of people in the world will not only give a purpose if asked, but will also deny believing the Christian myth to be true.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                    A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    @wilderness:
                    What myth are you referring to?

    2. bBerean profile image60
      bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      As I have stated before, ( http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2603934 ), there is no proof they would accept.  If God appeared before them and did tricks, they would always request one more...at what point would they concede He was God?  If an atheist contends there is proof they would accept, what would it be?  The street they grew up on?  Or would they want more.  How would that prove they were being confronted by God?

      1. Jomine Jose profile image79
        Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Special pleading, argument from ignorance and invincible ignorance are not proofs.

    3. oceansnsunsets profile image90
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, we do see a lot of what seems to be opposite of what should be the case, if this whole universe and all of us are just products of uncaused materialistic processes playing out.  There is too much hope in the unexplained, yet we do have explanations that are just not acceptable to many, even though they WOULD be a sufficient explanation.  A sufficient cause for the effect we see.

      We have a guy in history that spoke out about these matters, that also exhibited reasons for being listened to, and I think this is quite impressive.  Just enough, with science, reason, logic, history, to accept or deny those same things, just as they were presented by this person.  Demanding more than what has been given by such a being is not lost on that being, I don't think.  He expected it and it has all been addressed, and all have freedom to respond and seek or not.  To each his own, and like with all life, we get what comes with our choices, because logic and reality work in such ways.  I personally think its a huge gamble when the odds are so high, and things have been so laid out.  To demand of a possible intelligence what he/she exactly ought NOT to do, seems to be a favorite recurring thing.  If there is one, its totally fair considering all that has been given to each and every one of us, to set terms for the part that comes after.  To expect that we, the recipients of intelligence and life GET or OUGHT to be able to dictate to that giver of life, OUR TERMS, seems overstepping at the very least.  The patience alone is amazing, and it makes me thankful and happy as I had not one bit of cause in my own existence.  I can't account for it, but reap the benefits and get to ponder it also.  We all do, most of us.  That is pretty awesome.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        @ocean:
        The second paragraph of your post elucidates clearly the idea that humans are not just the sum of their physical parts but also and more importantly, that they are spiritual beings with moorings to the transcendental etiology of the cosmos.

        A lot of folks in and out of HubPages are more than happy to deny humans their spiritual moorings... and that denial, I totally reject.

    4. tsmog profile image83
      tsmogposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      IMHO, Evolution and entropy both have different meanings depending on application. To argue biological evolution explained by Shannon's entropy is not a valid argument. Just as to argue the second law of thermodynamics for that purpose is controversial. However, to argue entropy and evolution is a valid argument. Yet, then it is not arguing a specific usage of either. It is arguing one whole concept explaining another or dispelling another.

      Example: Arguing the the second law of thermodynamics and biological evolution. To make that argument the bare bones basic is a single living cell in an isolated system. As far as I am aware that would mean the isolated system is in a vacuum and there is not any light. However, one must ponder additional laws of science occurring within that isolated system.

      The bare bones basics of biological evolution could occur by definition most likely through mutation within the accepted definitions. Or, a change in genetic composition. Biology is the study of life specific to organisms. With biology life is a characteristic and not necessary for a single cell to exist. However, to study a lifeless cell is to study it as having the preexistence of life or the potential of life of least within the discipline of biology.

      However, evolution as a concept does occur within that isolated system - a vacuum and no light. In that case evolution occurs when one state changes to a more complex state or is different from an earlier state. If the single cell in an isolated system instantly is subjected to absence of light and a vacuum then biologically it may become lifeless or no longer has that characteristic, although mutate. At question is cause for mutation to occur.

      Evolution as defined occurs when a state arrives from an earlier state to a new state. Complexity occurs. (1n is different than 1 and is more complex) Or, if the single cell becomes more than one part or changes in any form or format it is then more complex and the earlier condition is simpler. The concept of evolution is explained and the concept of entropy is explained. The only thing not explained is Life until time is interjected. Or, how long to become lifeless or have life and how long to become isolated or not longer isolated.

      That, IMHO, has enigmatic as a property, while being open to interpretation. Yet, offers no explanation for God, a god, or gods.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        @Tsmog:
        Life can not exist in a vacuum....that in itself is enough reason to think that intelligence, (God to most of us)

        created life with direction and purpose.

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Life can't exist in a vacuum? Who told you that and what does it have to do with intelligence?

          1. A.Villarasa profile image78
            A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            @radman:
            Rhetorical questions generally should be answered rhetorically.... but isn't it self-evident that life can not and in fact does not exist in a vacuum?

            Intelligence has a lot to do with meaning and purpose, and for life to continue to exist, meaning and purpose must be attached to it. Another self-evident truth: without intelligent life to interpret that the cosmos exist and then ultimately give it meaning and purpose, does the cosmos really exist? As Hilary Clinton so famously said: " ....what difference does it make?" In fact, a lot, be it Benghazi in particular, or Life in general.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Tardigrades can withstand the vacuum of space, as researchers discovered when some tardigrades were sent on a space mission in 2008.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                @radman:
                I'm sorry, but if you think "space" is a vacuum, then I suppose the "space" between your  two ears are vacuous as well.

                1. Jomine Jose profile image79
                  Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  There is no "space" between two ears only distance.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                    A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    In this particular discussion, space and the distance between two points are one  and the same thing. But when one introduce time into the equation,  where does distance get into the conversation. Nowhere  really, because space has a more congruent relationship  with time..... thus the term "space-time continuum".

            2. Jomine Jose profile image79
              Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                What purpose a prion's or virus' s life serve?
              What purpose does your life serve?

              Existence doesn't depend on what you or me think!!!

              1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Existence and its  meaning and purpose, whether assigned  by yourself,  someone else, or the Creator of that existence, is what makes its perplexities and complexities, amenable to investigation, interpretation and introspection.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Meaning and purpose, being 100% subjective and differing with every person alive, cannot be investigated beyond gathering the opinion of every person.  How then does it make something amenable to investigation?

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image78
                    A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Investigation is the process of finding out the veracity and applicability of those that one has identified as one's life meaning or purpose. Without it, the interpretation and introspection could and would  not soon follow.

                    On the more than personal scale... life obviously has objective meaning and purpose. For humans it is to gaze at and follow the stars from where he came from.... to explore the cosmos because he was given the cerebral capacity to do so.

    5. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, everything decays, everything dies, but in the mean time we have to do something with the energy we get from our decaying sun.

  2. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 2 years ago

    I don't think entropy is what you think it is.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image78
      A.Villarasaposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      @Psyche:
      And what do you think is entropy as applied to the current discussion?

  3. Jomine Jose profile image79
    Jomine Joseposted 2 years ago

    Can anyone state the second law of thermodynamics?
    Isn't it "The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy."?

 
working