- This topic has 106 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I guess once we decide there is a supreme being, we will probably want to think about what form it might have. That sort of philosophy is way beyond me. There probably are rishonim who go down that road until concluding that it must have no form.
Re: form: Rambam Raavad.
Gavra, The point is that upon who is the burden of proof? Maybe it is upon the agnostic to prove that a complex system can self-assemble. Therefore, if he can’t, then G-d must exist.
The only alternative to G-d is self-assembly. If that is impossible, then we have conclusively proved by elimination that G-d does exist. To conjure up a process of self-assembly, it would help to have some evidence that a working device has successfully been built using that method. If one cannot point to such a device, then it is only a figment of the questioner’s imagination. He is relying on a belief in some imaginary process as a viable alternative to G-d.
If he turns around and says prove that G-d exists, since that is only a figment of your imagination, the refutation is that since you are proposing something physical in our world, it can be tested. However, we cannot test the existence of a supernatural being who exists outside of our world.
Note, let me just clarify the concept of self-assembly. Suppose you wanted to design a bookshelf that was easy for the buyer to put together. You pack the pieces which have magnets attached into a box. You instruct the user that all he needs to do is open the box, dump the pieces on the floor, and the magnets will automatically pull all the parts together into a nice sturdy bookshelf. (Note some magnetic forces will be designed to turn screws or whatever, so it will not just be held together by magnets which could pop apart. But even if you could only get the thing into the right shape and held together magnetically, that would be quite a mean feat.)
You might choose to place electrical charge instead to guide the parts, or chemical interactions among atoms. Whatever you like.
Do you think this has been successfully done in any useful device? Now, even if one did it, he is starting with parts that were initially designed a certain way. If he had only a random jumble of atoms, how much more difficult is the problem?
Note that I have deliberately avoided the word evolution. That word is often used to obfuscate and obscure the essential problem of self-assembly which applies to both living and nonliving things. People erroneously believe that living things have a greater power to self-assemble because of the theory of evolution.
In fact, evolution only says that certain morphologies (structures) will in the long term be more stable than others, and will survive at the expense of the less stable. But it says absolutely nothing how those structures came into being in the first place. In fact, from the point of view of chemistry, dirt (or plain carbon) is probably more stable than any organism, to begin with.
Self-assembly is an equally difficult problem for living or non-living things. Maybe more so for living things, since they are so much more complex.
Gavra, The point is that upon who is the burden of proof? Maybe it is upon the agnostic to prove that a complex system can self-assemble. Therefore, if he can’t, then G-d must exist.
Whomever is attempting to convince the other to change their mind has the burden of proof.
When the Agnostic comes to convert me, I will use your logic.
i recently skimmed through a really old binah and rebbetzin feiga twersky gave some really good advice there on kiruv. maybe read up on some of her books.
If one had to give one overall purpose to the world one could say it is the maintenance and production of life. Until Avraham it seems it was difficult for many to link seemingly conflicting forces together to understand they in fact work together to maintain and produce life. Therefore Not only the survival (and influence) of the Jews is evidence but the blessed growth of all humanity is evidence there is one force, driving it, the logic is one purpose indicates one force scientists seek one unified theory, but do they work consistently with the purpose of this force which we are saying is a blessed life for man?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.