Barry Parker Cosmologist
“Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed.” (h/t y-origins.com)
Canadian-born Barry R. Parker (Ph. D.) is a professor emeritus of Idaho State University. His major research interests were relativity, biophysics, and cosmology.
In addition to his scientific pursuits, he enjoys playing the piano (pop, jazz, blues, classical, western) flyfishing, boating and skiing. He lives in Pocatello with his wife, and has a cabin in Island Park, near Yellowstone.
You can check out this renaissance man's website at:
http://barryparkerbooks.com/index.htm
3 comments:
Seriously? I just explained this laws thing to you, like, 3 weeks ago"
"Why does god exist instead of not existing? Why does god have the traits and qualities he has instead of other traits? Why is god's will effective rather than ineffective? As a Christian, these are things YOU cannot account for.
You believe god is the default condition that is proceeded by nothing. We obviously can't give god credit for his own existence as god has no power over whether he exists, since if he did not exist he couldn't cause himself to exist. He'd have to exist first to do that. So you must believe that this god just IS and is the way it is FOR NO REASON, WITH NO CAUSE. You think you're accounting for the laws of logic with god but if god only exists because god just happens to exist and god has the traits and qualities he has just because he happens to have those traits, all for no reason or cause then the laws of logic you claim are contingent on this being are also just what they are for no reason or cause. So you've accounted for nothing at all. You're in the same boat as the materialist, only you've got a far bigger thing to explain the purpose of than the materialist. Laws of logic are not laws at all. We use the word "laws" to make it easier to understand. Rather, laws of logic are merely a tool and a language we use to describe how all things that exist consistently and reliably behave. For instance, it is a precondition of existing that something cannot be both X and not X at the same time and in the same respect. It is a precondition of existing that something is itself; if it weren't itself it would be something else. And that something else is itself. And if something is not itself or something else, it isn't. The laws of logic are not for the universe but rather are how we understand the universe. It's not that things follow these "laws." It's that we have created these laws to follow things that exist. Concordantly, things just behave the way they behave."
"Why does god exist instead of not existing? Why does god have the traits and qualities he has instead of other traits? Why is god's will effective rather than ineffective? As a Christian, these are things YOU cannot account for."
I think you are probably right. God is beyond explanation. God is beyond comprehension. The mind boggles.
But here's my point.
The universe, because it a) had a definite beginning, and b) is improbably and exquisitely fine-tuned for life, and c) is known to have a cause-effect reality, requires an explanation outside of itself and a cause outside of itself.
God, being by definition outside of the finite material universe, is by definition immaterial and not necessarily finite.
It is OK to have an uncaused God, because God is not known to have begun to exist, and is not known to be subject to the cause-effect reality.
"You believe god is the default condition that is proceeded by nothing."
True.
"We obviously can't give god credit for his own existence as god has no power over whether he exists, since if he did not exist he couldn't cause himself to exist. He'd have to exist first to do that. So you must believe that this god just IS and is the way it is FOR NO REASON, WITH NO CAUSE."
Exactly.
"god just IS"
Which is probably the point God was making when he revealed his name as "I AM" to the Hebrews. He is a superior being to humans because we are contingent; he is not.
As for his nature, I once marvelled at how "lucky" we are that God is who He Is, merciful, redemptive, with love at the heart of his essence, rather than all the other possibilities. That God is who he is and as he is is the most wonderful of realities. It really does lead to what we call "worship".
"You think you're accounting for the laws of logic with god but if god only exists because god just happens to exist and god has the traits and qualities he has just because he happens to have those traits, all for no reason or cause then the laws of logic you claim are contingent on this being are also just what they are for no reason or cause. So you've accounted for nothing at all. You're in the same boat as the materialist, only you've got a far bigger thing to explain the purpose of than the materialist."
This is where we disagree for the reasons I cited above - a temporal, contingent, finite universe requires an explanation because of its temporality, contingency, and finiteness; God, does not because there is no evidence or necessity that God be temporal, contingent, finite, or subject to a cause-effect continuum.
"Laws of logic are not laws at all. We use the word "laws" to make it easier to understand. Rather, laws of logic are merely a tool and a language we use to describe how all things that exist consistently and reliably behave. For instance, it is a precondition of existing that something cannot be both X and not X at the same time and in the same respect. It is a precondition of existing that something is itself; if it weren't itself it would be something else. And that something else is itself. And if something is not itself or something else, it isn't. The laws of logic are not for the universe but rather are how we understand the universe. It's not that things follow these "laws." It's that we have created these laws to follow things that exist. Concordantly, things just behave the way they behave."
I understand the point that you are making here, and I think that it's a good one.
Still, if there was no intelligence behind the universe, wouldn't it be much more likely that there would be utter chaos rather than mathematically elegant "laws" of physics?
Michael: Thanks for the reasoned response.
Post a Comment