Paradox of Nothingness (Creator, Deists, virtual, contradiction, evolution)

[gmelrod]

Originally Posted by Jistyr

The human race isn't based on the principal of logic. If we, as people, were entirely logical and rational in every action, thought, and trait, then we would cease to be human. It is our emotions and often our irrationality that compose our humanity. So if we tried to base everything off of mathematic equations and what is most logical, then we would lose our humanity.

We would loose what we define as our humanity. It possible that due to the non-transparence of our minds and the insuficient measuing ability of our tools that we have not been able to study the interactions of chemicals that govern non logical modes of thought ie emotion. Our concept of matter is based on logical interactions and in the physical world people are made of matter. We have yet to find a location in the body where the soul, spirit, or whatever term you want to use for a supernatural acting agent, interacts and governs the actions of the body. Every event has a cause, even though those causes may be unknown to use. Therefore our emotions too must have a logical cause. Nothing cannot come out of nothing, therefore there can be no uncaused events.

As to somthing arising out of nothing it is not my understanding of the big bang theory that there was nothing prior, only that prior to the big bang probabilty and other metaphysical underpinings (such as the nature of existance) to this universe cannot be said to work as they do now. We are not sure nothing existed but we are sure that we can say nothing about what (if anything) did exist.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by Alumno deVerum

But is the world logical? I don't know. But I must assume it is because I can only think logically and it appears to behave logically and that is all the evidence I have to go on.

It's been shown that we tend to see patterns even when no such patterns exist. Thus, what you may think is "logical" may not be at all. In fact, some question the validity of "cause and effect" altogether.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

I agree that chance implies no agenda. It also implies that "just because" constitutes a reasonable explanation. I think it's funny that "God in the gaps" is criticized by the same people who think "chance" has explanatory power.

I'm not criticizing either position. My only opinion would be that chance does not require "divine magic" to create new scenarios, while the "God in the gaps" theory almost always relies on God performing some feat of divine magic to make the world carry out his will.

If God exists, and does have a plan for creation, I don't believe that it will be carried out by feats of divine magic. Instead, it will have been built into the structure of existence right from the start, as was chance.

[Rolling_Stone]

Sorry, PureX. I don't believe "chance" is a causative force.

[Alumno deVerum]

Originally Posted by lilithu

It's been shown that we tend to see patterns even when no such patterns exist. Thus, what you may think is "logical" may not be at all. In fact, some question the validity of "cause and effect" altogether.

Your right. The world may not be logical. But I have to go with the evidence I have and it all says it probably is.

And as an idealist I also question the materialist notion of cause and effect. I think "logical contingency" offers a better explanation of how the world works.

P.S. Rolling Stone esse est percepi is also my signature over on the Positve Deism and Panendeist forums. I go by the name stretmediq there.

[PureX]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Sorry, PureX. I don't believe "chance" is a causative force.

Ever been to a casino?

[Alumno deVerum]

Yes I have. Mostly on calls as an emergency medical technician. In fact I see alot of what may appear to many as chaos but in my profession you have to be able to see the underlying order. And there is order. That is why science has been so successfull in explaing the world.

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Sorry, PureX. I don't believe "chance" is a causative force.

The law of large numbers disagrees with you. Your defintion of chance is also useless.