TED Conversations

Cheyenne Archuleta

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

The Existence of God

Is there really a God? Or did everything just poof?

+4
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 15 2013: Wil, re:

    I'll recant when science can show me incontrovertibly that it has sourced mind in brain and life in body. But, frankly, I'm not holding my breath.

    This is reminiscent of a classic fallacy. An argument from ignorance. You will believe what you want until science figures out the real explanation. Like god of the gaps.

    Your speculative view is not the only speculative view possible while we have a partial understanding.

    But I commend you in that you will at least revise your speculative beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary. I would like to think I would do the same if we found compelling evidence of some spiritual realm or agency.

    Where we differ then is more just around whether your position is justified given our current state of knowledge.
    • thumb
      Jun 15 2013: "You will believe what you want until science figures out the real explanation. Like god of the gaps."

      Are we really different in this regard? You're willing to accept science's incomplete explanation, which, from all I've read, is as speculative as how you regard my explanation.

      Yes, I will accept my knowledge of what is rather than wait for science to catch up to prove, or disprove, my claims.

      Even the "partial understanding" you accord science is as "magical" as any I've proposed, and is as redolent of the supernatural. If M-theory, which posits self-generating matter, and several dimensions of spacetime, doesn't fit that description, nothing does.

      "But I commend you in that you will at least revise your speculative beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary."

      Yet, I'm assured that my knowledge of Life and of Mind, and my brief presentation here, which you've characterized as "speculative beliefs," aren't threatened by science.

      "Where we differ then is more just around whether your position is justified given our current state of knowledge."

      Where we differ is in how we interpret the evidence, and the "current state of knowledge" before us. There's nothing coming forth from theoretical physics which I would regard as sufficiently compelling to persuade me to jettison either my knowledge, my position, or my experience.

      From what I gather, theoretical physics, including quantum physics, is barking up my supposed "supernatural" tree, and is hunting in my "magical" fields. Just think: If the physical properties of the universe are so amazing, how amazing then are the properties of that which brought it all into existence?

      By the way, I have no problem with "your position." Given what little science knows about the totality of the universe, it's more than "justified."
      • thumb
        Jun 15 2013: The origin of the universe is not an area where I have a good understanding of even the best science we currently have.

        I am aware certain parts of science are more speculative than others
        E.g my understanding is we don't have any comprehensive and established theories on the origin of life, whereas evolution is well established.

        And some things change as we learn more.

        It seems reasonable to provisionally accept what is well established and be aware that in some areas, frankly we don't know.

        I work in a research facility, so I'm aware of the practicalities. Its not really blind faith., although it seems to me that science is one of the best tools we have for understanding the universe, albeit imperfectly and with gaps etc.

        As stated before my position is we don't know if agency brought the universe into being. And if we assume for a second that some agency did, you have the same questions about the agency, and this is where theists often start making a special cause that there cause does not need a cause.

        I also acknowledge you may have it mostly right. I would guess though that your beliefs have refined over the years and are probably identical to what you might have believed in the past.

        And you are probably right about the interpretation of evidence thing. I don't know precisely what evidence you are referring to but there are many different revelations or subjective experience interpretations and they can not all be correct. But they could all be wrong in some way.

        Yes plenty of weird and wonderful stuff in the quantum world. I'm not aware of the science pointing to any agency. The material universe in all its glory and complexity is stranger than we could imagine in some ways.
      • thumb
        Jun 17 2013: Truly, I just think that this response proves that religious people just don't understand science as thoroughly. Nor do they trust it.
        • thumb
          Jun 17 2013: Brendan, I'm certain that I don't understand science as well as you, although I did excel in biology, geology (and can tell schist from Shinola), and chemistry, and read a college-level book on physics while in grade school.

          Further, I try really hard to keep up with new scientific breakthroughs, and I know the difference between a belief in God and a belief in the god particle (the theorized Higgs Bosan), which was recently detected using the Large Hadron Collider, a prediction of the standard model.

          And you're also right again about my "trust" of science. I don't trust it. What science giveth, it can also taketh away, providing a downside for every upside. For example, science provided nuclear energy--a source that can provide abundant energy, or "make our day."

          So I plead for a little understanding and a little slack. We can't all be scientific whizzes, or have science quotients to rival every top scientist in every scientific discipline.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.