X-Message-Number: 16462 Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 10:37:21 -0700 From: Max More <> Subject: God as That-Which-Is I must be crazy to step into this one given my current schedule... Louis Epstein wrote: >I just consider that there has to be a reason >for That-Which-Is,that this reason is by definition >"God",and that "it just is" is no explanation,but >a refusal to explain.(The correct answer to "Why?" >is "God",not "because!"). >(Pay close attention to that word "Infinitely" >above...it completely negates the tired old >then-who-created-God riposte). This ontological argument for the existence of God has been thoroughly discredited. For example, read the chapters on The Ontological Argument and The Cosmological Argument in J.L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism. Unlike you, I do not pretend to know why the universe exists. I aim to live long enough to find out. Perhaps there is a creator, though that raises further questions, since simply adding "Infinitely" to God does not explain anything, it just *sounds* like it settles the issue. We non-theists can just as well say the universe is infinite and so needs no further explanation. That would be preferable by Occam's Razor. Furthermore, *if* there are rock-bottom fundamental laws, there could be no answer to "why do those laws exist" since there would be nothing left to explain them in terms of. Another possibility is that only one set of basic physical laws is possible for some undiscovered reason. Or our universe may be just one in an infinite multiverse with diverse physical laws. The infinite multiverse, if it exists, may have no further explanation. Adding God to "explain" it and then saying God is Infinite (presumably that means God "necessarily exists" or "God's essence includes existence" -- each version of this has been demolished) accomplishes nothing. >But there has to be an answer to >"why are there laws of physics?" that >isn't just a ducking of the question. As above, no, there does not *have* to be an answer to that question. I think we would do best to assume there is an answer and keep looking for it, but it's possible that there are fundamental laws that cannot be further explained. >I call that answer God. That's not an answer. It's the avoidance of looking for the answer. Now some words from our sponsors: It's time to stop worshipping gods and aim at becoming gods. -- Markoff Chaney It is a matter of course with me, from instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable, too exuberant to stand for any gross answer. God is a gross answer, an indelicacy against us thinkers at bottom a gross prohibition for us: you shall not think! Ecce Homo II 1; cf. On the Geneaology of Morals III 27 Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding: If forced to describe myself negatively, I call myself an atheist since I lack theistic belief (a-theism). If we are talking specifically about the traditional theistic God, then I can give reasons for not only lacking belief, but denying such a belief. Deism claims less, and so to a deist I would say that I lack belief in their God, but would not say that I can argue strongly against the possibility. (A deist god who does not intervene, and whose morals differ greatly from ours may be compatible with what I observe on this planet and in the universe, though I would question even that God's design capabilities.) A further clarification, since people tend to assume all my personal views reflect extropian principles: The Extropian Principles say nothing against belief in God or gods. They do include Rational Thinking which, in my view, tends to lead to lack of theistic belief, but that's not an inevitable result. While they are unusual, there is more than one theistic extropian. Louis, I have no doubt that these comments will not satisfy you. But I'm unlikely to reply until after Extro-5. If so, please don't interpret that as lack of interest. Onward! Max _______________________________________________________ Max More, Ph.D. Futurist, Speaker, Consultant. or http://www.maxmore.com ________________________________________________________________ President, Extropy Institute. http://www.extropy.org Chair, 06.15.01, Extro-5: Shaping Things to Come, http://www.extropy.org/ex5/index.htm ________________________________________________________________ Senior Content Architect, ManyWorlds Inc.: http://www.manyworlds.com "The Premier Business Strategy Source" _______________________________________________________ Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=16462