Does there exist a deity?

Frank - :-) "Do you accept that humans are capable of making meaningful judgments as to the laws of physics, the nature of matter, the constitution of the universe, the origins of life, the nature of existence, the interplay between matter, energy, time and space, the nature and constituion of logic and mathematics, and the origins of the known universe?"I look forward to your response :-)

To clarify that question in the light of your answer, I am asking whether you accept that humans are capable of making meaningful judgments as to the probability of things in relation to those matters being true.

I think humans ARE capable of making meaningful judgements as to the laws of physics, the nature of matter, the constitution of the universe, the origins of life, the nature of existence, the interplay between matter, energy, time and space, the nature and constituion of logic and mathematics, and the origins of the known universe.

I think the kinds of judgements they can make are severely limited by the severely limited perspecitive we have of all those things.

With regard to Ultimate Questions -- I am an agnostic -- and that holds whether I am in discussion with theists, atheists, OR SCIENTISTS. I am as skeptical of scientific proclimations as I am of theistic or atheistic proclimations.

I'm going to do some guessing here:

I would guess that if all the information needed to make a truly meaningful statement about the origins of the universe -- and indeed, about what constitutes the universe -- were a yard stick -- what we know right now probably would take up space on that yardstick so small that a magnifying glass would have to be used to discern it.

So although I am pursuaded that humans CAN make meaningful judgements on all those things you asked about -- anyone making judgements other than "we honestly do not know enough right now to make any kind of truly meaningful statements about those things presently" -- is probably overstating what he or she THINKS he or she KNOWS.

Scientists talk about the Big Bang the way scientists of the past talked about Earth flatness and Terracentricity -- as though it is something we can look at and determine it to be the case. But almost everything except the most elemental aspects of astronomy and cosmology now being suggested as THE ANSWERS -- could easily be every bit as far off base as the thoughts at one time proposed about Earth flatness and Terracentricity.

We do not know what the universe is -- what elements comprise it. We do not KNOW if the Big Bang occurred -- or, if it did, whether it is only one in a series that have been happening throughout all eternity, etc.

We certainly do not know if the product of the Big Bang is the universe -- or if it is just a tiny dot in the real universe.

During the lifetime of people I regularly debate [sic], Hubbel discovered that what we now call the Universe was not just this mass of stars surrounding us -- but consisted of vast Island Universes strewn throughout a much, much greater space than even imagined earlier in the century.

Something as fundamental and important as galaxies -- were discovered during the lifetime of people posting on A2K!!!

So the answer to your question is: Yes, my guess is humans ARE capable of understanding -- and making meaningful judgements about these things -- but they are also capable of misunderstanding and making completely inaccurate judgements about these things also.

And right now, we really have no idea of which is occurring within the field of science and cosmology.

james: I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are a well meaning and good natured fellow.

Having said that, please re-read my post.

Now, with what part of "No" are you having a difficult time comprehending?

During the lifetime of people I regularly debate [sic], Hubbel discovered that what we now call the Universe was not just this mass of...

I am still not clear as to whether you are asserting that the existance of a deity is something which is true notwithstanding what may or may not exist in your mind, or indeed notwithstanding whether or not your mind exists, and in what sense that you contend it to exist. Nor do I understand the basis upon which you chose to make what you described as an "invitation" if the only bases, as you assert, for suggesting that there even might exist a deity reveal themselves only after such an "invitation" is made.

I am still not clear

James

As to your post:

Please don't do the Socrates re-invented thing with me.

You essentially were asking how much I trusted science -- and I responded that when science is trying to deal with Ultimate Questions-- I trust it about as much as I trust theism or atheism -- which is to say that I do not trust it at all. Guesses are guesses whether made by theists, atheists, or scientists.

Apparently you accept science in this area as (you will excuse the expression) gospel. If you intend to base any of your arguments for "the probability of a deity is infinitesimally remote...we are going to have lots of laughs at your expense.

But let's forget about your questions for a bit, because I was rather explicit about how I felt -- and like I said, I am not into someone trying to backdoor me by using the Socratic method to sidetrack debate.

Give us your thoughts, James, as concisely as possible, for why you think science somehow shows that the probability of a deity is infinitesimally small. We'll deal with the science as we go along. And this will give me a chance to interrogate you the way you have interrogated the few people who have responded to you.

It is a beautiful day - sun is shining; it is reasonably warm; and little wind. A perfect golf day - and I still can't play golf because of the hip problem. Damn!

When really you could have stopped at:

Quote:

I am still not clear

No, obviously you aren't, and unfortunately there is nothing that I can do about it.

Sorry.

To those who believe, no explanation is possible,
To those who do not believe, no explanation is necessary.