100 degrees. I would say that was how hot it was when I got home, but I'm quite sure it was much more than that. My apartment was an oven. I got third degree burns on my fingers when I grabbed the doorknob. So I kicked the fans on and went for a walk.
I got almost a half block when I came across some neighbors and other friends hanging out. Had a good time and now a few hours later I've returned to this furnace that has dropped into the low 90's. Since it's well past mignight and I don't want to be up this late two night in a row, I'm going to write tonight instead of tomorrow. This way I can be awake enough to rotate every fifteen minutes and make sure I cook evenly.
So before I go forward I need to take a step or two back and clarify or rework a few things. Some is because when I first sat down to write it was for me and now I have the mixed goal of working out my thoughts and ideas as well as sharing the process with others. In doing so I now have to expand on some ideas or allusions that make no sense without a prior understanding that is part of my personal mental framework. The other reason is because I either don't fully agree with an idea, don't like the process through which it was formulated, or don't feel like I properly put to paper what was going through my mind.
In "Who Am I" I made reference to the Pendulum Problem with regards to the limitations of science and math. Using mathematical equations and the laws of physics, I can determine exactly when and where a pendulum will reach the pinnacle of it's next arc. I can also work backwards and see where it completed its previous arc, and the one before that, and the one before that. The problems arise when I go too far in either direction. Although each arc will get smaller and smaller I can never predict if and when the pendulum will come to complete rest. Also, factors that are initially considered negligible will come to have a greater and greater effect and some of these factors (humidity, air pressure, wind, etc.) we have no way of accurately predicting in advance.
Similar problems occur working backwards. Something at some point in time set the pendulum in motion, but science has no way of determining that event since it was a single, non-repeatable happening. I could work hypothetically beyond that event and determine when and where the peak would have been had such an event not have occurred, but if I were not there to see and record it, I would have no way of knowing when the swing began. Going too far back also leads into ridiculouos situations as eventually you will have multiple arcs swinging on this theoretical pendulum simultaneously.
Now imagine I am the pendulum, or rather, I am a part of it. It is all I know. It is my universe. I can see and observe that it is in motion and I can deduce to a degree where that motion is going and where it came from. My entire life and existence will occur within a fraction of an arc. I might be able to formulate some theories on when the pendulum was first set in motion but they would likely all be wrong. After all I might be able to grasp the concept of my "unmoving mover" but since it is not a part of my known existence, I have no true observable knowledge of it.
This is where, in my opinion, Enlightenment philosophers and theologians fell on their head. This is also why I am overhauling my corollary that I concluded "Who Is The God That Is" with. There were two things wrong with my reasoning at the end: 1) I was assuming that all these great thinkers were right, and 2) I was picking and chosing parts of each system of thought that were most agreeable with a confortable, orthodox view of God. There weren't right (or at least it cannot be assumed that they were), and even if they were, for me to arbitrarily pick and choose flies in the face of everything I am trying to accomplish with these late night quests I'm shamelessly turning into blogs. (BTW, it's dropped down into the 80's in my apartment)
The problem with Enlightenment theologians (as well as most throughout history) is that they are formulating, or defending proofs for or against a god who if part of the pendulum (or at least of the same "stuff" as it). I believe their attempts at doing so are a direct cause for why atheism is so prevalent today. Ultimately their attempts were doomed to fail because the god they tried to prop up does not exist. God is not of the same "stuff" we are or of anything in the world around us. Therefore it is impossible for us through introspection or observation to come to a true understanding of who God is. I want to reiterate that point:
It Is Impossible For Us Through Introspection Or Observation To Come To A True Understanding Of Who God Is.
I Know, at this point some Biblical scholars are pulling out their Bibles ready to call me a heretic while quoting Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." First of all the word in the NIV "qualities" or in the NKJV "attributes" and in the KJV "things" does not exist in the Greek. [Second, I haven't reached a point in this foray that I am willing to accept anything from the Bible as proof.]
What [point 1] means for me is that the two *things, qualities, or attributes* listed: power and Godhead, are the sum total of what can be seen, not just examples of some greater mythical list. All we really know from nature is that God is. Even that we don't really know from any positive proof as much as from the logical absurdity of trying to comprehend this universe without God. That God is powerful goes without saying. Well it should, except it appears to be that I am trying to rebuild my understanding of who God is. I guess I should use that as my new first corollary. So after two full weeks of thought on this subject here is where I stand:
1) Everyone must take something on faith because our limited minds and experiences prevent us from knowing anything with absolute certainty.
2) It is a more reasonable leap of faith to accept God's existence than to deny it.
3) That God is, and that He is powerful is all we can truly deduce from our observation of ourselves and the world around us. Anything beyond this is conjecture.
This is very true. Sometimes people ask me about God (I don't know why they ask ME) and I say, "I can't begin to try and guess what God is thinking/doing". God exists in a way that we can't know for certain.
I think the problem that people run into is they study the bible/torah/quran/etc and they start to see all of the flaws in it. All of the contradictions and some of the radical notions that they logically can't believe. I think that's why so many of the religious studies professors are athiests (at least the ones I've run into). I think what a person needs to do is accept the basic tenets and beliefs of their religions and build on that in a way that enhances their modern lifestyle. I like to keep in mind that these religious works, even if divinely inspired, were filtered through human minds and hands that were flawed with biases and individual perceptions.
i concur. i think a primary folly when seeking an understanding of God, is the method of looking for qualities characteristic of ourselves in Him, when we should be examining those qualities in ourselves and work in reverse to determine why they exist. A Creator cannot create a thing without leaving traces of Himself in that thing. This perspective leads to many segues, one of which is that the gender of God is an irrelevant fact (though typcially the masculine has been designated to include all humanity--it does not insinuate sexual dominance), since God created both male and female, who, while capable of occupying any and varying points on the personality spectrum, have certain fundamental qualities and roles intended by God that establish gender differences. This being said and the former point kept in mind--God possesses all the qualities of both genders, the entire range of human emotion, because human emotion is a faint fingerprint of His personality. Thus, though we can never truely define or fully comprehend God, we have a basis for understanding Him within ourselves and others.
A few points. One, you refer to the unmoved mover, and say that it's absurd to consider the possibility of a universe without a god, but I put it to you that gods do not help to answer any question about the origins of the universe.
If you can't imagine the universe existing without being created, how do you imagine a GOD existing without being created?
And any god capable of creating the universe would have to be much more complex, orderly and interesting - and, by default, much more difficult to explain.
If you study chemestry, biology and physics you will see that they explain the cosmos in terms of a simple universe which over time became more complicated.
The fantastic complexity of biological life (which really is the only thing that seems to need designing at first glance, the rest is dust and rocks and mostly empty space) is explained by biology in terms of simple chemicals becoming more sophisticated and complicated over time.
Gods do not avail themselves of any such explaination - they have to exist right from the start, fully-awesome.
They are not eligible for our explainations.
So really when you invoke a god to try to explain something, one - you still haven't actually explained anything, you have no clue what the mechanism is, how god "did it" etc, and now you've got a deity to explain and the universe.
Also, to answer a question like "how can you get something from nothing" (which is a genuine mystery) with the answer "god did it", not only are you exempting the deity from having to be explained by the very same logic, but you're answering a "how" question as if it were a "who" question. As if I asked who created the universe, Allah or Vishnu?
I didn't, I asked how did it happen. How does it work. How is it possible.
When did it happen, if god did it, how the hell did he do it? That's an explaination.
Gods answer no questions at all, whatsoever. They just offer what seems like an explaination if you don't dig too much.
After all, has anyone else's god explainations survived the test of time?
Zeus seemed like an awefully good explaination for lightning once upon a time. Was he?
Was "Zeus did it" really an explaination to "how" does it work?
If your religious belief gives you any inkling as to how these things happened and not just the claim of "who" did them, I'd like to know how.
Plato described the two ways of gaining knowledge as mythos and logos. Myth and logic.
One was to invoke the supernatural, the other was to find rational, testable, naturalistic explainations.
And you sound like you ought to be a materialist the way you talk about what is and isn't knowable, materialism is the philosophy that either matter is all that is, or all that matters since it is all that is knowable.
As it stands you ought to be an agnostic materialist deist. But you're still hanging on to theism.
"If you can't imagine the universe existing without being created, how do you imagine a GOD existing without being created?"
Everything in the universe has a beginning and an ending with the possible exception of the universe itself and on that our understanding cannot go beyond certain points so we cannot truly know. But we do know that it is aging. Therefore it makes sence that those event horizons we cannot measure are its beginning and ending (as I explained in the blog, science cannot study non repeatible, unquantifyable events).
It would take something transcendant to create the created. That transcendence would place the creator outside the limitations (space and time) imposed on the created. Being not limited by space and time it would not necessarily have a beginning and ending as we understand it. Like you said, "They are not eligible for our explainations." They are beyond our understanding.
And in answer to the question, "How can you get something from nothing"... you can't.
"If something cannot come from nothing than neither can god accomplish it."
There is a major problem with this: 1) God cannot come from nothing because He is, by definition, eternal. He always was therefore He did not "come from". In narrowing your thinking to that within the universe. That which you can understand. I am sorry you live in such a small world.
"I was picking and chosing parts of each system of thought that were most agreeable with a confortable, orthodox view of God" I belive that this is the right thing to do. Many belif systems have different truths and bring forth something positive to one's spirituality. I think we should learn these good lessons and messages from every different religious system, and apply them to our own views.
Mark's comment confirms the logical point of view of God everything we can't explain it must be God, That's why the greeks, romans, indians even, attributed unexplainable events with a different deity, more unexplainable events happened, that's the new god/dess that was never mentioned.
God isn't the problem and neither it's existence, but the fanatism that comes from this idea, RELIGION, a man made concept, politics, organization, set of rules, on how to be in peace with the Supreme. If Jesus had met Buddha, they would've been a nice duo. A message of love for oneself and thy neighboor, along with letting go of attachments would've made a very grat spiritual revolution.
I keep my stand from the other blogs, as human beings we need to belive in God to feel safe, and that there's someone maintaining some kind of balance.
