As a child I was introduced to the chicken and egg paradox by my grandmother – a very wise woman, despite (because?!?) the fact that she had very little formal education.
As I grew up I found out that even the adults are passionate about it. Just Google it if you don’t believe me. Last time I checked the search engine had come up with 26 million (26 000 000 000) entries….
Then I was introduced to a slightly more interesting version of it.
Who is responsible for what is going on around us.
“Who created the World”, that is.
Apparently we have three three camps.
The theists, of various denominations – some of whom would cut each-other’s throats attempting to convince the ‘others’ that their God is the true one, believe that an outside agent is wholly responsible for the ‘Big-Bang’ and all its consequences. Or, at least, for ‘jump-starting’ the process.
The atheists, some of whom are ‘rabid’ enough to be as obnoxious as some of the theists, who blame it all on Lady Luck.
And the agnostics, like myself, who cannot make their minds one way or another.
Now, and I hope you won’t mind, I’m going to enumerate some facts.
- We, the humans, are the ones who came up with the Big-Bang theory.
Which is nice. It offers a generous canvas on which we might eventually thread a lot of ‘science’, but doesn’t, in any way, shape or form, offer even the slightest opportunity for the most imaginative amongst us to propose the flimsiest hypothesis about what started the whole process.
Hence those of us who follow a far longer tradition feel free to consider that a Divine interference is the sole rational explanation. For everything that hasn’t yet a ‘scientifically proven’ one. As if science ever offered us a definitive answer to anything… - The Big Bang Theory was initially devised by a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre, as yet another attempt to understand God’s ways.
- No matter what the various prophets and religious teachers have told us, all books – including the ‘holy’ ones – have been written by people. They might have been inspired by (a ?!?) God, there is no way of telling what happened in the minds of the writers, but all those books have been written by human hands.
- We, the humans, are the ones who consider this problem to be a very important one.
So important, in fact, that even a newspaper otherwise busy with economic and political issues occasionally looks (up ?!?) at it.
In its Christmas Day edition the Wall Street Journal published “Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God” by Eric Metaxas.
Basically he author tells us the story of how Sagan started the hunt for ‘Extraterrestrial Intelligence’ and how the seemingly simple task ended up in a cul-de-sac.
While Good Old Carl thought “that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star” in time “our knowledge of the universe increased” and “it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed”.
So many in fact that some of us, Eric Metaxas included, now believe that “Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here”.
In this context I’d like to bring to your attention the words uttered by Lord Kelvin in 1895 – by that time already elected president of the Royal Society: “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”
“Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about us existing here.”
Do you see the pattern?
“The usual claptrap, because something can’t be explained, it must be God.” (Mark Baxter’s comment on my FB wall) Or outright impossible, I might add, following Lord Kelvin’s example.
In other words ‘if WE cannot figure it out then it either doesn’t exist or has been made by God’.
But who made ‘God’ in the first place? And why?
Are we even aware that what we call ‘God’ is nothing but an image?
I’m not going to delve far into such intricacies like reminding you that no Orthodox Jew would ever pronounce the ‘true’ name of God but this is a powerful indication that our Elders were aware of the difference between reality and our ability to figure it out.
So why do we keep making this mistake? Why do we still try to ‘invent’ an ‘outside agent’ whenever we don’t have enough information about how something came to be?
That outside agent might very well exist, of course. Someplace, ‘out there’…. Or not. For all we know some things might happen just by pure chance. However improbable that might seem. To us!
We cannot determine, as of now at least, either way.
Then why insist? Any way?
Some of you will tell me, quite appropriately, that ‘believing’ has brought us where we are now.
That ‘faith’ has guided us through the dark nights when we would have otherwise lost our hope. That following the ‘ten commandments’ has kept us from killing each-other much more ‘passionately’ than we’ve done it.
But now that we’ve understood what religion has done good for us, what’s keeping us from behaving ‘as if’?
Without ‘God’, or whatever name you want to use for the reality that harbors us at its bosom, having to ‘strike’ us down from time to time?
Your argument contains a fallacy. You suggest supplies God because we humans can’t figure it out. That’s not what the article suggests. It posits God from the know facts that what we have today is statistically impropable. The coin toss analogy. The author did not posit it on human speculation. He posited a mathematical likelihood based on objective facts. Your plane quote is does not apply as y out do not present the objective facts that lead to the belief the flight was impossible. If the objective known facts for no flight created a statistical I’m probability that flight was impossible on the order of what math states it took to create the universe and then the guy says no flight, then the analogy apllies. Otherwise it simply doesn’t.
LikeLike
Your argument contains a fallacy. You suggest supplies God because we humans can’t figure it out. That’s not what the article suggests. It posits God from the know facts that what we have today is statistically impropable. The coin toss analogy. The author did not posit it on human speculation. He posited a mathematical likelihood based on objective facts. Your plane quote does not apply as you do not present the objective facts that lead to the belief that flight was impossible. If the objective known facts for no flight created a statistical Impobability that flight was impossible on the order of what math states it took to create the universe and then the guy says no flight, then the analogy apllies. Otherwise it simply doesnt.
LikeLike
The simple fact that it was “he” who “posits God from know facts that what we have today is statistically impropable.” makes the whole thing a mere speculation.
Only if he would have been convinced of his own arguments we could have spoken of a demonstration, or at least of a dictum – as was the case with Lord Kelvin.
Absence of proof doesn’t demonstrate that that proof doesn’t exist at all.
The mere fact that we don’t know how something came to be doesn’t mean that an outside agent must have done it. Nor that that outside agent exists or not. Pretending either is stretching reality way past the point of no return.
LikeLike
Here is the trouble with your logic. The crux of your argument is that we are saying”if it can’t be explained it must be God”. That isn’t accurate. The best and brightest on the planet are saying ” no science supports this mathematically “. It’s not that we don’t know yet like you insinuate. It’s that we do know and can rule it out as impossible per the odds. Big distinction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“per the odds” I rest my case.
LikeLike
Cull the sac? Really?
LikeLike
Not really, indeed.
Apparently.
As in how much WE are able to make of the present situation.
LikeLike
It’s called a cul-de-sac, not a “cull the sac.” Good grief.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cul%E2%80%93de%E2%80%93sac
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks!
LikeLike
I find your stance interesting. However, asking the question of ‘who made God’ would only push it back one more step. And then one more step. And one more step. When did God have to be made anyway? This whole stance doesn’t solve anything. You’re just saying that something or someone else made God. That doesn’t solve anything. Something that’s infinite has no beginning and has no end. So the question in and of itself makes no sense. You have some interesting points and I actually was quite interested in what you have to say. But it doesn’t really help or solve anything. Rather it pushes the question of who made us back one more step more than anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Rather it pushes the question of who made us back one more step more than anything.”
Exactly. In fact this question – where did it all started ?- had been nagging me for a considerable amount of time.
Then I started to ask myself ‘does it really matter’?
Now I’m more interested in the difference between the real God – if it exists at all – and the image we have build for ourselves about it. And I’m wondering ‘what if that’s all there is to it?’ – an image we’ve been constantly changing to fit our needs.
At the same time I cannot stop chuckling at the thought that there might be a sort of ‘Deus ex Machina’ who sits somewhere and has a lot of fun watching us.
LikeLike
“Are we even aware that what we call ‘God’ is nothing but an image?”
Jesus (fully man), as he revealed himself to those of his day and to us through the Bible, was more than just an image of God. He was more than a representative, or a good teacher. He was fully God – Emanuel, God with us – as evidenced by miracles, defeating the grave, and changing the hearts of even the worst among us for thousands of years after his death and resurrection.
Check out the New Testament. Compare it to the old as it describes the savior to come. Get to know Jesus, God the Son. It’ll blow your mind and change your life. He loves you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe you missed the entire point of the article. I read it to say the mathematical probability of life on other planets diminishes with advances in scientific and study. Although every one of us has a philosophy in line with being a theist, an atheist or an agnostic, I believe the point of his article is in support of an omnipotent God and to counter, through the use of science, the atheist’s continuous use of the same to bolster their philosophy.
One of the major fallacies of the atheist argument against God in their argument for evolution is that they almost universally refuse to discuss, in any meaningful manner, the subject of the beginning of life, or what we call “creation”. It is just a plain fact that every chemical, every compound and solution that sustains life has never been enough to create life, even the most basic life form. I believe the author of the article wrote it specifically to point out the existence of God becomes a little clearer when one examines the failure of science to prove otherwise. Of course there will always be those that refuse to believe no matter what the facts because so much of their lives are determined by their non-belief, their entire life philosophy.
LikeLike
” I read it to say the mathematical probability of life on other planets diminishes with advances in scientific and study.”
The mathematical probability of anything is a number. One that is calculated by (some of) us according to our knowledge/understanding about/of that something.
So yes, your proposition is correct.
Only it doesn’t mean that the likelihood of life appearing on other planets diminishes “with advances in scientific and studies”.
It means solely that Carl Sagan was too optimistic and that we still have a lot to learn. Among others about what life really is.
As to whether God exists or not please read what I have replied to Ben.
LikeLike
Erica,
Lets examine one thing.
A flower.
I look at a beautiful flower. I smell it, I enjoy its marvellous colours. Yet all I have is a representation of that flower. My senses don’t give me full access to the entire reality of that flower. All I can do, using my senses, my memory, my imagination and my reason is to build a representation of that flower.
And if more of us get together, examine, using the state of the art scientific instruments, that flower, and pool the results we’ll still not be able to build more than a representation, albeit closer to its true nature, of the true reality of that flower.
I’m not debating here whether Jesus was God or not.
All I’m wondering here is whether we are aware of the fact that what we are discussing about is the image we have build ourselves about something we call God.
LikeLike
I completely agree – as humans we’ll never fully understand or have a totally accurate image of God. Isaiah 55:8 says “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.” He is so much higher than we can imagine! But as Tim said, Jesus is who he said he is, and we can trust that. Thanks for the good observations and discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I probably going to regret commenting on this. Because after reading your comment. I can till
You are lot more intelligent then myself. But here I go. I do not believe there is a God because someone told me or a book show me! No! I believe there is a God because in the Fifty eight years I have been on this earth. God has done things that only could have been Him! You say it was coincidental. Maybe so ,but when your in trouble or need something and you ask for help. Then something happens that is exactly what needs to happen to solve the problem or need. This happens time and time and time again. I have a hard time placing it in the ” it just happen category. May I suggest you try this little test. Get alone and ask the God your not sure of to reveal Himself to you. Then pay attention to what happens next in the days that follow.
LikeLiked by 1 person
read c.s. lewis… his discussion in “Mere Christianity” regarding what Jesus said about himself, i.e. the flower discussing itself… will shed light on what image and representation we are to have, “The Truth”. This is the ultimate purpose of all the prophecy regarding Jesus from the old testament, Jesus’ testimony about himself, the father, the spirit, and the consequent revelation of all 3 in believers’ lives as told in the new testament… to inform our view of the object being scrutinized… you are right, our mere observations always and only give us a partial version of the wholeness (assuming our inspection is honest and true). therefore, many in jesus’ day who adhered to specific partial interpretations of what, who, how the messiah would be had skewed vision of the object under inspection. example… your grandma has one and only one picture of a flower in her house. you have never seen a flower for yourself. the picture is of a yellow daisy. you look intently at the picture time and time again, even ask questions about the picture and all your information leads you to believe the essence of a flower is in exact correlation to the features of a daisy. then one day, you see a strange plant, a red tulip, and you think, surely this cannot be a flower, i know all about what a flower is, should and will be. clearly you see the problem here. this is not a perfect analogy as i am discussing a scenario where two different plants are involved and Jesus is a singular person. Main point being, that were a flower a sentient being that would truthfully convey it’s nature to us, all observation should be in accordance with and support its analysis. I therefore do not solely trust my experiences and interpretations of Jesus’ interaction in my life as I know I have not experienced the fullness of his person. I do trust his analysis of himself, however limited or cryptic, to be a true telling of the essence of himself. (this is where c.s. lewis’ writing is crucial… he deftly discusses many, seemingly all, possibilities for interpreting what Jesus said of himself) I also find that the representation of him ascertained from my experiences, (senses and study) are consistently in line with his analysis of himself (the true essence). I may not be distinguishing clearly what i’m trying to say, but this is in response to those discussing “the image we have built ourselves about something we call God.” Jesus was not the only one to define himself. God the father gave several names for himself that distinguished him from other peoples’ God or gods. The spirit, once you experience him, defines himself very personally for each individual. Anyway, that’s my two bits. enjoyed all the discussion and was refreshed to find very little negativity, bickering, or insults here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A couple of things.
First of all, the role of science is not to determine first causes, but to measure and classify things that presently exist, and to try to determine their immediate causes.
Science is all about measurement – how far, how fast, how big, how hot, how much, how many, etc. Radio telescopes and the Hubble telescopes can now see back to the beginning of the universe – and what they see is hydrogen, the first matter formed after the big bang. They also determined the rate of expansion of the universe and backtracked it to a beginning 14.8 billion years ago. Nothing can be measured prior to that time, so that’s where science must stop.
But this doesn’t mean that seeking for non-measurable and non-material truths has to stop. Humans are good at reasoning. Even in the absence of exact measurements or even definite facts they can still reach valid conclusions.
Let’s take the question that has been posted, “who created God and the God before that?” Here is the argument that answers that question:
(1) an effect is always less than its cause
(2) a created God would be less powerful than the God that preceded him
(3) if this sequence were continued, you would end up with a God of zero power.
Therefore we reasonably conclude that the question is nonsense. Therefore, nothing could have created God.
Using similar logic, we can prove that whoever or whatever created the universe must be greater than the universe itself in all respects such as size, power, intelligence, etc.
Again, using similar logic, we can show that God is a person not just a force. If we are persons, i.e., we have “personhood”, and if we agree that personhood is “good”, then our creator must be even more of a person, not less.
LikeLike
‘An effect is less than its cause’.
A physicist might agree with you, taking in account the reality of the fact that during any transformation something gets lost in the process.
On the other hand some transformations start in one ‘dimension’ and end up in another one.
For instance a cloud of hydrogen, if big enough, might end up forming a star – smaller than the original cloud, both in dimension and in mass, but something totally different.
Or the process that transformed us into what we are today. Still apes, but what a difference from our cousins…
“Using similar logic, we can prove that whoever or whatever created the universe must be greater than the universe itself”.
The cloud of hydrogen I was speaking about earlier was transformed in a star by gravitation and humans are a result of evolution – at least until proven otherwise.
Similarly, it was us who – by putting two and two together – have combined whatever knowledge we had and came up with the notion of God. Again, until proven otherwise. The simple fact that prophets have claimed their words came from ‘God’ is just that – a claim. Not at all a proof.
“Again, using similar logic, we can show that God is a person not just a force. If we are persons, i.e., we have “personhood”, and if we agree that personhood is “good”, then our creator must be even more of a person, not less.”
Gravitation is a force yet its effects can produce a star. Evolution is a process which produced Man.
Humankind had been able to put everything together and name it God.
Is any of this ‘good’? I don’t know. It just is.
It’s ‘good’ in the sense that without any of this I wouldn’t been able to type on a computer today. But is it ‘good’ as in ‘does it fit any purpose’?
I really don’t know.
And one other thing. ‘Personhood’ can be had only individually. In the sense that a hive of bees can be conceived as a single ‘person’ but a pack of wolves is composed of individual animals.
Similarly, a human community is composed of many different individuals. Any attempt to treat them as a single entity ends up horribly. The Inquisition, Communism, of all flavors – including Hitler’s national-socialism, and radical Islamism are just a few examples of what happens when people give up their individuality and try to hide themselves into something bigger.
LikeLike
If I could prove to you that I have met the creator and you believe me based on my proof your first question may be well who is it?
If I said “it’s a little green man with huge black eyes…” A large portion of the world would interrupt me saying “I knew it I told you so!”
But if I finish my sentence
“…who wrote the bible through men and the Ten Commandments and his name is YHWH.”
Than a huge portion of the world would say “haha we knew it.”
And a small portion of the world have me killed.
LikeLike
“If I could prove to you that I have met the creator and you believe me based on my proof”
Apparently proving doesn’t need any believing so they do not belong in the same sentence.
In practice there are situations when the the proof is not compelling but accepted anyway or rejected despite it being rock solid.
Same thing here. You first spoke about proving something and then used ‘if I said’.
Words are not convincing enough if they don’t contain a narrative that fits to the facts already known to the audience.
The narrative that God had written the Bible using people as his calligraphers was fine until Occam coined his Lex Parsimoniae:
“Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected.”
According to this law no one can deny the existence of a transcending force but additional proof is needed in order to confirm it.
A simple narrative that contains all the previous ones is not enough anymore.
LikeLike