Response to newspaper stupidity
Dec. 23rd, 2005 01:22 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eveglassI was all set to write a nice, long RNS response to a letter to the editor in today's Gazette: Paul Vaudry, "It all started with the big guy," The Gazette letter to the editor, 23 December 2005, A30. It's a creationist's view of the origin of the universe, in which he dismisses the ideas that the universe is an illusion, eternal, or self-caused, leaving only the possibility that it was created. He concludes, "If everything has a cause, what caused the initial existence of the first event in the universe? The answer -- a perfect, infinite, unchageable, all-knowing, personal god. The god of the Bible."
I'm sure you can see my problems with this article already. So I won't go on long, but will only point out briefly a few blantant problems (from the several dozen I could have chosen):
1. If the universe must have a cause, so to must god. What caused god?
2. The universe need not be created by anything perfect. In fact, looking at the universe, I'd say that if it was created, it was created by a being with its fair share of flaws.
3. The universe could not have been created by something unchangable. The very act of creation is an act of change. There is the "you" before created (who is not a creator) and the "you" after creation (who is a creator).
4. The universe certainly need not have been created by a personal being. The act of setting the universe in motion in no way requires that whatever being created it stick around and direct the mutations that evolved on a one of the planets.
5. The god of the Bible is neither perfect nor unchangeable. This is certainly true of Jesus, who goes from being a baby into a man, and changes every second (just like all people). And, since perfection requires a lack of change (because change would either be from or to something that is not perfect), Jesus cannot be perfect. The god of the Old Testament is also not perfect -- he is anthropomorphic, showing emotions like jealosy, anger, frustration, etc.
6. There is no reason that the creator of the universe manifested himself through a book revealed only to a certain section of the population (ie: the Bible).
SPECIAL BONUS NITPICK: In response to Mr. Vaudry's statement: "The origin of the universe, and mankind, must rest on one of four ideas: It's all an illusion, a notion Descartes countered with his formula 'Cogito ergo sum'..." [three furher ideas snipped]
a) Descartes wasn't thinking that the ORIGIN of the universe was an illuion, but its EXISTENCE. Now. Here.
b) Descartes' statement "cogito ergo sum" did not answer this problem, it merely showed that he himself (a thinking thing) existed.
c) In order to prove that the universe (here, now) existed, he needed to posit the idea of God. So, in Mr. Vaudry's schema, this would result in the statement "God exists. Therefore the universe isn't an illusion. Therefore God exists." I think we can all see the flaws in this.
d) If Mr. Vaudry feels comfortable using a now-refuted (fairly thoroughly, I might add) 17th century philosopher for his proofs about the existence of the universe (not to mention a 2000-3000 years-old-book), perhaps we should return to Newton's physics or William Harvey's medicine. No takers?
Okay, that's it for that. I now return you to your regularly scheduled LJ.
I'm sure you can see my problems with this article already. So I won't go on long, but will only point out briefly a few blantant problems (from the several dozen I could have chosen):
1. If the universe must have a cause, so to must god. What caused god?
2. The universe need not be created by anything perfect. In fact, looking at the universe, I'd say that if it was created, it was created by a being with its fair share of flaws.
3. The universe could not have been created by something unchangable. The very act of creation is an act of change. There is the "you" before created (who is not a creator) and the "you" after creation (who is a creator).
4. The universe certainly need not have been created by a personal being. The act of setting the universe in motion in no way requires that whatever being created it stick around and direct the mutations that evolved on a one of the planets.
5. The god of the Bible is neither perfect nor unchangeable. This is certainly true of Jesus, who goes from being a baby into a man, and changes every second (just like all people). And, since perfection requires a lack of change (because change would either be from or to something that is not perfect), Jesus cannot be perfect. The god of the Old Testament is also not perfect -- he is anthropomorphic, showing emotions like jealosy, anger, frustration, etc.
6. There is no reason that the creator of the universe manifested himself through a book revealed only to a certain section of the population (ie: the Bible).
SPECIAL BONUS NITPICK: In response to Mr. Vaudry's statement: "The origin of the universe, and mankind, must rest on one of four ideas: It's all an illusion, a notion Descartes countered with his formula 'Cogito ergo sum'..." [three furher ideas snipped]
a) Descartes wasn't thinking that the ORIGIN of the universe was an illuion, but its EXISTENCE. Now. Here.
b) Descartes' statement "cogito ergo sum" did not answer this problem, it merely showed that he himself (a thinking thing) existed.
c) In order to prove that the universe (here, now) existed, he needed to posit the idea of God. So, in Mr. Vaudry's schema, this would result in the statement "God exists. Therefore the universe isn't an illusion. Therefore God exists." I think we can all see the flaws in this.
d) If Mr. Vaudry feels comfortable using a now-refuted (fairly thoroughly, I might add) 17th century philosopher for his proofs about the existence of the universe (not to mention a 2000-3000 years-old-book), perhaps we should return to Newton's physics or William Harvey's medicine. No takers?
Okay, that's it for that. I now return you to your regularly scheduled LJ.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-23 09:49 pm (UTC)i will though argue one point with you. the fact that yo seem to think that the universe is not perfect. you state that since there are abnormalities within the universe then that means they are flaws (correctly me if i miss understood you)
i like to believe that these flaws exist for a reason. they are there to creat a balance. after all is not balance the very meaning of perfection. just because man does not understand the reason behind these abnormalities does not make them flaws.
i am also going to argue numbers 3,4 and 6 with you.
3- your example of change is viewed from the point of view of someone who views time in a linar frame.
4,6 both of them have the same answer, even though i agree with you we can not understand the thinking of such a being for all we know it is bored and thus feels the need to meddle. the point is by you refusing the argument out of hand you are making the same mistake the other side is doing by accepting so easily. simply say that we can not know.
kyn
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-12-23 10:35 pm (UTC)first about time, since we can both agree that god is unboundable by any understanding of man, then placing him within the confines of time is impossible. if something exsists outside of the universe we live in we can not argue truthfully of its changablity. in other words just because something went from non-being to being is not enough of a reaosn for us to say that its crator went from non-creator to creator; after all if it has always been meant to exsist that means that he was always the creator.
as for the perfection of the universe: one must first argue is the universe ever going to end; if so then it is flawed and that is why it will end. but if it is a cycle of beginning and ending then it is perfectly balanced. since balance is perfection you can not make it more perfect. but the argument fallows what is perfection? since we can not know arguing it any further would simply fruitless.
as for the personal god/ bible god argument, since it is YOU that is arguing; it is up to you to convice them that they are wrong. and since you can in no way come up with 100% proof that god is NOT communicate with them, short of being a messiah, then this too is fruitless.
huumm not like me to block myself but oh well
kyn
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-12-24 01:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:Descartes was a sell out.
Date: 2005-12-27 04:13 pm (UTC)Descartes was looking for the ultimate truth, the one unshakable point upon which to base all other truths. The three argumens ending with the Evil Genius argument gave him the idea of Cogito Ergo Sum, however....
It is argued that his implanting of a God was more political than philisophical. For him to have not done such he would have been a social pariah and ended up in the boat with Francis Bacon. Most of the works from these time were saddly influenced like this. Think of the Church and the Pope of the time being what George W. Bush wants to be.
Oh wait... am I getting political?
Re: Descartes was a sell out.
From: