Thread: Explain what the Holy Spirit is???
Another quality post by Pentangeli that showed a gift for the gab and said it well for me too.
|I cannot explain general relatively, you're correct. I haven't read that much about it and I found the rudimentary training I received on it in school aged 14 to be less interesting than the girl sat in front of me. I don't feel this limits me in this debate though as I'm not talking about general relativity, I'm talking about what transpired before. And we know there's a before. You and me both. We differ in that I find a satisfactory explanation pertaining to an irrational irrationality (creationism dogma be damned) and you don't have one at all (big bang dogma, not inclusive). It's my contention, as you've raised the question of 'what logically facilitates God'? (More, more or less), that you're 'playing devil's advocate' in a sense saying effectively, 'Ok, God did it, what created God?' and that seems logical, but see, it's not. Because a being capable of this (as I illustrated) is not compromised by this logic, or any other logic for that matter. A being capable of being outside of the time, space continuum, and actually having the ability to create it, like I believe, is not answerable or accountable to it. And this appears to be your logic too. Which is kind of strange how we disagree on it. It's a sort of rational way of looking at irrationality, from the only way I can, as a being confined within it's logic. You are correct. The notion of a deity is "essentially irrational". And this only lends itself to belief of what created the universe, characteristically, rather than throwing any spanner in it's works.
To put it in a less irrational way (which isn't required when dealing with extreme rationality), you hear about a ghost walking through a wall, and you then say something like, "that's not possible, matter cannot do that, and it would be made of matter, not energy, because Newton's laws of physics state that if a ghost can walk upon a floor, it cannot pass through the similar solid material of a wall, since a still object will remain so until it's manipulated by an external force and for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction...etc etc," using the atypical rationality that you've been educated by, completely (and in my opinion, unforgivably, in both cases) over-stepping the fact that we are talking about a spirit of non-corporeal substance possessing a momentum of free will and actuality. Whether you believe this ghost to exist or not, simply saying that it cannot pass through 'because it would require such and such'... is illogical and doesn't negate the account of the existence of the ghost. "Logic" may remove the ghost all together, but saying it cannot walk through walls doesn't. In the case of God creating the universe and time and life however, I see no reason why this is illogical at all. I've never been offered anything more logical and within the spectrum of logic itself, an irrational answer is the only rational one acceptable. Irrational from your side of the fence, I mean. To me, it's always been rational to presume that anything capable of said feats, would have to be way beyond what you may deem as "logical rationality". I think the space/void of what is currently offered as an alternative, isn't irrational or rational, because much like it's view on it, it's been swept under the carpet. It's a great mystery. Thee biggest mystery of all. It will probably never ever be satisfied to inhabitants of this planet. However, the current view of science, 'it just...did' is more miraculous, fantastical, irrational, illogical and nonsensical than a being defined by it's very ability to do it, doing it. No?
This was the response to it - also a quality post:
|No, Newtons laws don't say anything of the kind. This is the problem - your knowledge of science is not sufficient to critically evaluate the options available, so you cannot really get a handle on how likely the science is, compared to the 'God hypothesis'. This is true of most creationists - they often like to use scientific sounding terms but don't really understand what they mean.
You start from the assumption that there is a supernatural deity, and you fit your thinking around that. That is not a rational way to proceed - we call it begging the question, or presupposing the outcome, or, more often, just fiddling the data to fit a preconceived theory - a heinous crime in science.
There are many plausible hypothesis concerning the origin of the universe. I'm actually writing a paper on it at the moment - but it is more aimed at the science forums than here.
Here's just a few possibilities (that don't involve magic):
a) Eternal Universe. There are several cyclic models of the universe which would mean that the universe has always been, in one form or another. There is the 'bounce' hypothesis from Param Singh, as well as the 'eternal inflation' model currently being developed by Roger Penrose and others. If true then there is no need for a creator because the universe is eternal. This is similar to the notion of an eternal God, but it doesn't need magic and contains one less entity.
b) M-Theory and other multi-verse hypotheses. Here our universe is just one of many and is nothing particularly special. True, these theories don't get as far as explaining where the first universe originated, but it is still very early days and the notion that God created billions of universes just to get us coming into being in one of them - well that pushes the bounds of credibility beyond the breaking point.
c) Classic Quantum Fluctuation theory. We know that something can come out of nothing - happens all the time. It is perfectly reasonable to suppose that billions of years ago 'nothing' split into +1 and -1 and that the universe is a combination of that +1 and -1. If so then it will, eventually, cancel out back to zero. We see it happen all the time on the quantum scale, and there is no a-priori reason to suppose that we are not just a quantum event in a larger macroscopic 'nothing'.
The point is that there are loads of possible explanations without needing to resort to magic and superstition and the rather far-fetched notion of a God who is interested in us.
In this post Pentangeli challenges Bikerman (Indi and Bikerman robust style), except no doubt since it's on the other side of the fence, probably would not have been considered robust:
|You strive for logical explanations beneath accusing me of lacking scientific knowledge to assert that the God theory would need to exists outside of both. Why cannot you not see the rationality/irrationality of this? And why for the love of M-Theory, can you not simply accept it? Rather than writing internet bound treatises designed specifically for lower intellects than your own? My scientific intellect, by the way, is lower than your own. And I even I can see the resounding flaw in all three 3 of your examples, without doing any research whatsoever, without visiting any credible sites, without opening one science book. And I'm afraid you're just going to have to come to terms with the unknowable (the very foundation of the "faith" phenomenon, shared by theists, atheists and agnostics alike) . Not... the "unknown" (this should be paramount to any thinker), but again, the "unknowable" aka: The complete disinterest of the scientific world as we "know" it. And rightfully so!
b) Nonsense. No exclamation mark
c) Comical Nonsense! HAHAHAHA
Come along now. C is in fact worse than me creating the universe from blu-tack and sellotape and sending it in to Blue Peter or Tony Hart. Pentangeli, aged 9, split nothing into something.
0 blog comments below