Why Is Anybody Convinced There Is A God?

Why Is Anybody Convinced There Is A God? Aug 21, 2017 23:32:51 GMT

Quote

Post by gadreel on Aug 21, 2017 23:32:51 GMT

Aug 21, 2017 19:57:24 GMT ArArArchStanton said:

Aug 21, 2017 19:47:39 GMT gadreel said:

The short answer is that I would. But the point I was making was that if nothing about my model changed then my end interpretation would not change, even if it was proven to be wrong. To be fair if it was proven to be wrong my model would almost certainly change, but the point I am making is that the interpretation of intelligence is an interpretation thing in terms of how I interact with the universe, not necessarily a model to represent truth.

Ahh. Personal preference is a factor because it is a subjective decision, it is about how I interpret the universe.

But it's not subjective. There is a certain amount of matter in the universe. There is a certain amount of energy. The universe is formed a certain way. Wormholes either exist or they don't. Whether we know those these things or not is a different story, but they are objective factors, not subjective.

Regarding your model, I understand that you're talking about your interpretation of the various elements that go into that. But what I'm asking is why your interpretation is of intelligence being a factor where there are no elements of the equation that involve intelligence being a factor. In short, why does your model conclude there is intelligence?

For example, I don't hold any views about reality and say I'm going to hold them until are they are proven wrong, unless those views are already supported by demonstrable evidence. So I don't know why you're holding to the view of intelligence until it's proven wrong. Shouldn't you wait until it's proven right to include that in your model?

Yes the end truth is not subjective, there is an overall truth that is objective, an interpretive model that is to say a model that a person uses to interpret the universe is subjective though.

A model would not be complete unless a determination on source was included, as I say it is merely interpretive so the actual truth does not matter to the model and is unknown at this point anyway. So yes I suppose it is speculation, and to be fair I am following the Jewish practice of thinking of that which is beyond the point of creation (either I am or the sudden expansion of the big bang, or maybe the gutting of the great cow of the universe, whatever you hold to be true) as unknown and unknowable. So given that I hold that the source is unknown (and I am pretty certain that it is unknowable), the determination of what started it can fall into three categories:

I don't assume (your stance I think)
I interpret it as natural
I interpret it as intelligent

I don't think there is any harm in landing on whatever suits your model as long as you accept you could be wrong.