They had no other means of explaining lightning, so I don’t see the harm.
Was it right to do so?
What do you mean by “right”? Do you honestly want me to judge a primitive civilization’s intelligence?
Is it right to believe in things that arent true such as cause of lightning back then?
“Ignorance is bliss” They were ignorant to the true cause of lightning. Does that make them immoral? No. Like I said, they just didn’t know back then what we know today.
<p style=“text-align: center;”>Does that make them wrong to believe it something that wasnt true?</p>
In my opinion, no, it doesn’t make them wrong.
So to extend this to our definition, God doesn’t fault humans for being agnostic.
Ok so you dont care about truth.
If I were in ancient Greece, I would believe that as truth.
But you would have been wrong. Correct?
What almost everyone seems to overlook is that there is a third possibility which actually resolves all questions about an apparent intentional creation.
Suppose creation is a result not by pure chance (random) nor by motivated action (intentional design), but is a mathematical probability?
Consider the presence and functional mathematics in all the workings of the universe. Al Universal laws (constants) are of a mathematical nature.
Mathematics give the appearance of some intelligent ordering, but in reality mathematics are an expression of impersonal logical orderings. A fundamental essence of spacetime.
Consider this new hypothesis by Renate Loll et al, named; Causal Dynamical Triangulation (CDT)
Causal Dynamical Triangulation
Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.
This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.
There is evidence [1] that at large scales CDT approximates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but shows spacetime to be 2-dimensional near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation
But you would have been wrong. Correct?I would have been scientifically incorrect based on what we know today. If that's what you consider as "wrong", then yes, I would be wrong.
Suppose creation is a result not by pure chance (random) nor by motivated action (intentional design), but is a mathematical probability?I like what you're suggesting. So how would you define "luck" under these conditions? Say someone winning the lotto. Is that random, intentional or just a mathematical probability that "happened" to work out favorably?
Luck has three aspects:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luck
- Luck is good or bad.
- Luck is the result of chance.
- Luck applies to a sentient being.
I tend to agree with this definition and believe the Big Bang was caused by “luck”. But saying God lit that fuse, makes for better storytelling. ?
I like what you’re suggesting. So how would you define “luck” under these conditions? Say someone winning the lotto. Is that random, intentional or just a mathematical probability that “happened” to work out favorably?Exactly, it is a mathematically probability within a range of .0000000000001% to .999999999999999%, but that is meaningless when there is a timeless permittive condition and eternity has the same value as instantly . Therefore there was a 100% probability that something would occur eventually.
I was necessary that something would occur. I is axiomatic that there was sufficient causality for something to be caused and that made it necessary for something to occur. All belief systems are based on that axiom.
This is a logically and mathematically correct proposition , IMO. But it does not require motive or intent. It is a stochastic process. And therein lies the difference. Motive is not required for a cause and effect chronology.
I think it can be likened to Abiogenesis, where life emerged from innate biochemical molecules. And on earth it didn’t take all that long as compared to the age of the universe itself.
A wonderful examination of Necessity and Sufficiency and Abiogenesis by Robert Hazen in his excellent lecture at Carnegy Intitute for Science
ROBERT HAZEN - CHANCE, NECESSITY, AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFE (start viewing at 12:00 to avoid a lengthy introduction)
I watched the video, and it reaffirmed what I already knew about Natural Selection, but the questions the people asked at the end were more fascinating than the lecture! ?
The most interesting one was about the physical location of the origin of life, and how he said it most likely occurred at either the north or south poles, due to the water availability.
Another cool takeaway was the possibility of non Carbon-based life, such as clay-based life. If we discover one other alien species, we can find more.
And what is God if he were to physically exist? A superintelligent, xenophobic, alien species to Earth, trying to communicate from some origin light-years away. That’s my “sci-fi” definition of him anyway. ?
It is a stochastic process. And therein lies the difference. Motive is not required for a cause and effect chronology.Unfortunately, the scientific community would never accept what you just said. To say the universe was "randomly" created and nothing extraordinary caused the series of chemical reactions and insane probabilities eventually leading to life itself... Let's just say it would piss off those of us with an insatiable thirst of knowledge for ontology and cosmology. ?
I mean, it’s possible that it’s random, or it’s equally possible that it could be pseudorandom – something that appears random for all intents and purposes, but is in fact deterministic and initially seeded by God. And given how fine tuned the probabilities are in life in order for us to survive, I’m more likely to believe in pseudorandomness than randomness.
And what is God if he were to physically exist? A superintelligent, xenophobic, alien species to Earth, trying to communicate from some origin light-years away. That’s my “sci-fi” definition of him anyway. ?I accept Hazen's proposition that other life exists in the universe and that this life may even be more evolved than we are. But the speculation that these alien life forms have anything to do with us or our existence is highly unlikely.
Just the distances involved where the light from galaxies has taken millions of “light years” to reach us, any connection or communication between us becomes unimaginable. In order to make that work our current physics would have to be discarded altogether, and I am not prepared to do that merely on the basis of “wishful thinking” by a handful of ancient sheepherders.
Just the distances involved where the light from galaxies has taken millions of “light years” to reach us, any connection or communication between us becomes unimaginable. In order to make that work our current physics would have to be discarded altogether, and I am not prepared to do that merely on the basis of “wishful thinking” by a handful of ancient sheepherders.There are technological advances all the time. Just because faster-than-light travel seems like "wishful thinking" today doesn't mean it will never occur. It will just take some ingenuity.
Also, unimaginable isn’t the right word. Science fiction makes it imaginable. ?
I should probably state that my background is in Software Engineering. As an engineer, we create solutions hence my fascination with having a Creator. Scientists theorize and observe but don’t really “create” things from scratch the way we do – the way I assume God did.
Continuing this train of thought, creation stories are important. Not because they’re scientifically accurate – they aren’t. They’re important because they attempt to explain phenomena that fascinated humans. Their intent is to explain, but also to inspire.
The Tree of Knowledge = Google/Wikipedia, and never has an ? tasted so sweet!
Scientists theorize and observe but don’t really “create” things from scratch the way we do — the way I assume God did.And science did not create the knowledge contained in Wikipedia?
And what exactly do you assume God created? Physical reality consists of three fundamental values which interact via mathematically based processes.
Where does God come in and can you define what God is and why it is required that a God must exist?