Kenny wrote:Kurieuo wrote:Why not just say something we all agree on: Something has always existed at a foundational level
Right? Otherwise there would be nothing.
The fuller response that you gave is interesting and something I'd typically expect from Atheistic quarters re: belief in God being really god of the gaps and that.
Personally, I see God as the most clear and logical explanation until shown an alternative coherent understanding of reality and the world we live. How so? Well... here are a few short questions given we accept something has always existed (otherwise nothing would exist).
Question: Is the 'something that has always existed' sentient or non-sentient?
Don't know. Unclear right?
Question: Do we see sentience or non-sentience in the world?
Both.
Therefore, the something that has always existed must either be sentient, or have potentiality for expressing sentience.
From here, it is hard to see how sentience could truly arise from non-sentient inanimate matter. Rocks will forever be rocks, maybe dust, perhaps convert into energy is some way via external forces or the like, I don't know. But, otherwise, non-sentient. It seems to burden of proof are on those who'd argue sentience is entirely possible from pure matter.
If you put a non-sentient sperm and a non-sentient egg together, it can evolve into the most brilliant mind the world has ever known.
True; we only know of this happening when the non-sentient egg and sperm comes from an intelligent being; but how do we know there isn’t another way this can happen and we just haven’t discovered the piece of the puzzle that proves this?
I'm all for going with the evidence where it is heaviest.
Our beliefs are always open to correction; such is the nature of human knowledge.
So then, when I go with the weightiest side for any given belief I hold, such isn't giving an answer based upon "a gap in knowledge" but rather an answer
based upon what we do know.
What I see in your words, actually creates a very weak position for a "no sentient" belief.
You ultimately agree that we only experience sentience arising from sentience. Indeed, ToE itself deals with life evolving from a common ancestor, rather then new life starting here and there -- precisely because of the logic "life comes from life," a similar line of thinking to "sentience coming from sentience".
Given what we actually do know, and given our experiences in our world of both sentient creatures and non-sentient things, it seems quite natural to believe sentience has always existed like physical matter. Yet, we see a bias. A bias that claims we ought to only assume physical matter is all there is to the exclusion of sentience -- although both are clearly expressed in our world. A wont to go with a "no intelligence of gaps" if you will. For what reason? Certainly not the "illogic" of belief in an all-existing sentience or intelligence.
Rather, your argument of "illogic" is based upon the loadedness of religious beliefs associated with whatever this sentience might be. You are
not starting with what we do know and experience to deduce what would otherwise be quite natural and logical, but you are loading into the equation your knowledge of religion/s and distaste thereof. I quote of your words in particular (bold and underline mine):
Kenny wrote:... the origin of the universe must have been very peculiar. But I find it a leap of illogic to conclude the universe was created by God.
Might one call whatever brought the universe into existence God? Well, maybe, but God is such a loaded term. 'God' implies an entity with a personality, with consciousness and desires and preferences. For some, it even implies an entity that 'so loved the world he gave his only begotten son' etc., and who provides a home for dead souls. I find it going beyond valid logical inference to suppose all that is true just because the origin of the universe was a distinctly odd event.
That the religious elements go beyond valid inferences for you, being a "leap of illogic", is the reason why I believe Apatheism towards religion and by extension "God" better describes your position:
An Apatheist is a person who regards the question of the existence or non-existence of a god or gods to be essentially meaningless and irrelevant. However, some define the term more broadly to refer to apathy towards all religions or belief systems, not just toward a belief in god.
Seriously, Craig leaves no stone unturned!
