The Priest, The Philosopher, and The Physcist: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » The Priest, The Philosopher, and The Physcist » The Priest, The Philosopher, and The Physcist

The Priest, The Philosopher, and The Physcist
An dialogue on the existence of a supreme personal God.

Page: 1 2

The Priest, The Philosopher, and The Physcist

ben_tam64
An inquisitive individual

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 63

Posted 08/30/09 - 03:11 PM: Subject: The Priest, The Philosopher, and The Physcist	#1
The scene opens with three men. A philosopher, a priest, and a physicist: Priest: Good evening gentlemen, I have asked us to gather here today for a little purpose of mine. You see, I have always felt that it is important to converse with minds that do not share the same beliefs as I do. Being a devote believer therefore, I would like to talk with you about the existence of God. Philosopher: Sure. We, as men of the mind, are always open to debate. Physicists: I concur. Please, where do you wish to start? Priest: First off, I would like to start by defining our terms. When I speak of “God” I am speaking of the supreme personal being who is responsible for the creation of the universe. And when I say universe, I mean everything that has ever existed” Philosopher: Fair enough, go on Priest: People have an idea of a supreme personal being, which is the greatest possible being. Suppose this idea of a supreme personal being exists only in people's mind. It is safe to say that existence in reality is greater then simply existence as an idea. Now we can conceive of a being greater then the greatest possible being in reality. But there can be no being greater then the greatest possible being. And so, a greatest possible being must exists. The philosopher does not look as amused as the physicist. With a mocking tone, he starts: Philosopher: Okay, people have an idea of a the greatest possible pineapple. Suppose this idea of the greatest possible pineapple exists only in the person's mind. Existence in reality as you say, is greater then existence in the mind. So, we can conceive of a pineapple greater then the greatest possible pineapple. But there can be no pineapple greater then the greatest possible pineapple. Therefore, a greatest possible pineapple exists. Your argument is mere wordplay and it is designed to prove the existence of anything(Pineapples). Also, you use the term greater, and greatest too causally. It is a very subjective word.” Priest: I see, perhaps the ontological argument was not a good example to start with. Let me try a different approach. Turn your attention to the building we are in right now. Imagine what it takes to raise a building like this. Initially, the parts of this building were all separated entities: the wooden beams grew from a forest, the metal for the plumbing started out as rock ore, and the glass on the windows were once sand. It was only through the designs laid out by the architect that this building remains intact today. Without a design, it would be impossible for the random minerals and trees to order themselves into a house. Isn't that right?” Physicist: That is reasonable. Priest: Now consider the universe we live in, there is a high degree of order apparent in nature. I believe the universe has been designed from the very start. As every house has an architect to design it, so does the universe. And God is the architect of our universe. Physicist: I can see the correlation you are trying to draw with your analogy, but in what way is the totality of the universe like this house we are in? When you study the interactions of elementary particles at the quantum scale, you will notice that things do not work so orderly and nicely as an architect would expect with a house. An architect can expect a brick to always cement a certain way, but quantum mechanics show that one can never expect an electron to behave in the same way all the time. The universe is simply not a giant orderly house you know. Priest: Okay, the analogy of a house is a weak in comparison to the universe. A better example to demonstrate natural order in the universe is the existence of life and and the patterns of physical nature. The genetic design of life, DNA, dictates the complex arrangements of cells, flesh, muscle, sinew, and bone to form a cohesive working body which is capable of reproducing and adapting to it's environment. In physical nature, an example of natural order can been see in geology. The molecular structure of a crystal determines how the particular crystal will grow in size, shape, and form. And so, we can always predict it's properties, like how a rock or crystal will always fissure and break at certain angles respective to it's molecular form. If that is not natural order, then I don't know what is. Philosopher: Interesting, I did not know that about rocks. Anyhow, some biological evolutionist may argue that it was the process of natural selection that gave rise to the complex structures of living organism. In fact, they have even come up with archeological evidence to support their claims. What would you say to that? Priest: Survival of the fittest does not contradict natural order. It is only rational to believe that a more adaptable animal will survive over a slower one. It may be possible that natural selection is simply part of God's ultimate design. Maybe natural selection is natural order manifested in the continuation of the life process. I believe that is the case, for God designed the universe such that everything within it has a degree of order. Philosopher: If everything which exists has been designed. Then who designed the designer? If there is order in the way God works, then there must have been a design as you say. So who or what would be the intelligent principle behind the design of your God? Furthermore, if everything in existence as you say is created by intelligent design and has order. And if all you are possibly capable of perceiving is everything in existence, then you would never have seen anything which is unordered. If you have never seen anything which is unordered, then how can you draw a distinction that the universe in fact is ordered? How can you tell what is truly ordered or disordered? The physicist laughs Priest: The Bible teaches me these thing. God is responsible for order. If a system is logically coherent, there is order. If a system is not logically coherent, there is disorder. Satan is responsible for disorder. Physicist: But I thought you just claimed that the universe is designed orderly, and if the universe is everything in existence, that does not leave room for the notion of disorder. Philosopher: Meh, one could say that there is truly no disorder in the universe, and only when there is a lack of understanding, is there perceived disorder. Priest: So then, what do you presume “Order” to be? Philosopher: Cause and effect. Every thing in existence is subjective to cause and effect. That is how I see order manifest itself in nature. Cause, and effect. Priest: Interesting. Lemme ask you this. Everything in existence is subjective to cause and effect right? Then that means that everything in existence currently is dependable on something else. These contingent entities have causes or explanations of their existence. And since these contingent entities by virtue of their contingency cannot cause their own existence, they must be either a effect of other causal beings or a non contingent being. And also since dependable entities cannot explain or cause themselves, a non contingent being (God) must exist. If everything had a cause, then for everything to exist, there must be a first uncaused, God, to start it all off. Physicists: Interesting. But your argument supposes that contingent beings cannot cause their own explanation. What if there was actually no beginning at all? What if the concept of time and creation is just a myth? Things could simply have always existed and hence need no explanation or cause for it. Or maybe the matter/energy in our universe constantly exists in different shifting time frames, causing the possibilities of theoretical alternate realities. Hence it may be a possibility for an object to break cause and effect by existing in a different time frame, when there has been no apparent cause observable in that perceived reality. I believe in this hypothesis for when you see observe electrons at a quantum level, you will notice that they do not follow any noticeable patterns of cause and effect. In fact, some physicists argue that electrons pop up out of nothing, say hello, and disappear back into non existence. Heck, the best we can do is only graph the probability of the electron's existence in a specified time and space into wave models. In relation to our argument, we can only try to understand the possibilities of a God in this universe. Priest: My belief is that God is. God is undeniable, no matter how I look at it. God appears to me every day, with every gust of wind, ray of sun, or drop of rain. I have felt the presence of God in my very life, it inspires me to understand him. Philosopher: And that is your belief as a Christian priest. Though the possibility of a supreme personal God seem alien and distant for me, I am convinced that you have felt what you perceive to be God. If you ever get confused in your faith, the only advice I can offer as a philosopher is: Do not be afraid to reexamine your premises. even of the existence of God. For an unquestioned faith can only be ignorance. Priest: Now that my philosopher friend, is very reasonable. Thank you for you time and thoughts gentlemen. It has been quite an discussion. I shall have much to ponder upon for the days to come. And now, I take my leave. Scene ends

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3285

Posted 08/30/09 - 04:01 PM:	#2
ben_tam64 wrote: Priest: The Bible teaches me these thing. God is responsible for order. If a system is logically coherent, there is order. If a system is not logically coherent, there is disorder. Satan is responsible for disorder. (snip) Priest: My belief is that God is. God is undeniable, no matter how I look at it. God appears to me every day, with every gust of wind, ray of sun, or drop of rain. I have felt the presence of God in my very life, it inspires me to understand him. Well which is it, priest? Did you experience God, or read a book about it? Did a gust of wind tell you to believe the bible? The wind always tells me to believe the I Ching.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1020

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 08/31/09 - 08:06 AM:	#3
Well, if your intent was to summarize in a very basic fashion some of the arguments on this issue which have been made for a very long time in a kind of vignette, I suppose you have succeeded.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

Aceedwin
Default Rank Rejecter

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 22, 2009
Location: The universe. Possibly.

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 121

Posted 08/31/09 - 08:28 AM:	#4
Maybe we should try one the other way round, as an atheist attempts to justify his own beliefs? I expect it'll end in a similiar fashion. So what do either prove?
Some people enjoy finding answers, but I dislike losing questions.

ciceronianus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 20, 2008
Location: USA

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1020

Last Blog: Trials in which "Failure is not an option"

Posted 08/31/09 - 09:12 AM:	#5
Aceedwin wrote: Maybe we should try one the other way round, as an atheist attempts to justify his own beliefs? I expect it'll end in a similiar fashion. So what do either prove? I suppose that someone other than ben_tam64 can summarize in a very basic fashion some of the arguments on this issue which have been made for a very long time, but in a slightly different kind of vignette.
"Let us not pretend to doubt in philosophy what we do not doubt in our hearts."--C.S. Peirce "There is nothing so absurd but some philosopher has said it."--Marcus Tullius Cicero "Philosophy recovers itself when it ceases to be a device for dealing with the problems of philosophers and becomes a method, cultivated by philosophers, for dealing with the problems of men."--John Dewey

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5123

Posted 08/31/09 - 01:44 PM:	#6
Aceedwin wrote: Maybe we should try one the other way round, as an atheist attempts to justify his own beliefs? A scene with two figures huddled around a third lying in a hospital bed. One is a Priest who offers to take Confession & give Late Rites to a dying Philosopher. The other is a beautiful woman with a luxuriant mane of red hair, smartly dressed in black & wearing a name tag with "Lucy" written on it. Incipit. Philosopher: Father, why are you here? How'd you find me? Lucy: I'm to blame, dear. I called him. Priest: (Crosses himself.) There was a message left with my secretary and came as soon as I could. I'm told the end is near but it's not too late, child, to reconcile yourself with Christ. Lucy: You're in the perverbial foxhole after all. Philosopher: (looks at Lucy) W-Who are you? Priest: (eyes closed, with a hiss) Lucifer. Lucy: Ms. Lucinda Fer -- from Legal Aid. Call me Lucy. Philosopher: "Fer". Where's that name from? Priest: (cough) The Old Testament I fear ... Lucy: Catalonia, dear. Spain ... Philosopher: I know where it is. Sorry, but I don't need legal aid or a priest. My affairs are in order. Priest: Not with The Lord, my child. You've been away from The Church for a long time, though Jesus still loves you and it's not too late to -- Philosopher: Yes it is, Father. It's been too late for decades, since I started thinking for myself. Lucy: Good. Always think for yourself. No one knows better than you what you need. Philosopher: Then why are you here? Lucy: Simply to offer my services as an advocate for you in this time of gravest need against those (slight nod at the Priest) who might be tempted by your suffering to persuade you to say & do things you won't live to regret but will regret nonetheless. Priest: Bull-shit. Lucy: Father! Philosopher: Father! Priest: It's all lies! All of it. Even her appearance -- "she" is really a he, for Chrissake. Lucy: (under her breath) Bigot. Philosopher: Stop. (chuckles) Please. This little kabuki isn't ... it's unnecessary. (sigh) Priest: Yes. There is no argument here. Whatever you've believed, however you have lived, you will soon face your Maker and I only wish to help you prepare yourself. Philosopher: (hoarsely) No afterlife, Father. No god. I'm prepared to sleep one last time and not wake up. Priest: Suppose you're wrong. Lucy: Pascal again? False dilemma. Priest: But suppose you are wrong? Philosopher: Like she said. Besides, hedging my "spiritual" bets at the last minute has gotta count for less than maintaining my integrity to the end, even if I am wrong. Lucy: Job's wife couldn't have said it better. (smiles) Priest: Job did just fine, as you'll recall, ignoring that woman's prideful advice. Had Adam only been so wise ... Lucy: Spoken like a truely resentful celibate. Philosopher: But I'm not wrong, Father. If there's a god and it or he -- (glancing at Lucy) -- or she loves me -- purely, or ultimately, or whatever -- then god would come here now, or soon, instead of sending only the help. (back to the Priest) No offense. Priest: None taken, child. I am His servant after all. Lucy: (sweetly) And so am I. Philosopher: But there is no god and I won't entertain this morbid fairytale just for the sake of argument, I don't have time for that. My life is more than the sum of the arguments I've won or lost, and death will prove that. Living, how I've lived, the way I've left things with family friends colleagues & fellow citizens, these have made my having lived significant in some measure. Significant to those who survive me, and in some small way even, significant to the world as I've found it. If there's a "soul", Father, that's what it is, those changes which one leaves behind in the lives of others, that of oneself which remains alive. Not what "survives" death. (shakes head) I've always thought the pseudo-Platonic doctrines of the Church had gotten this "soul"-business backwards. No, Father, as Camus would say, I wish to die as I have lived -- unreconciled. Lucy: Well said. Well said. (still sweetly) And even if the works you've left behind come to naught and you're soon forgotten, what else can you do? You've done your best. Priest: (crosses himself and glares at Lucy) Philosopher: Despair. Is that all you've got, Ms. Fer? Lucy: On the contrary. Just pointing out how brave you are. (feline look at Priest, licks full lips) Priest: (clears throat, takes Philosopher's hand) The Devil is here, but I won't leave you. Whatever you feel, your Lord won't leave you either. I witness to His Glory and Mercy and Love by reminding you with my presense that you are not alone. (glaring again at Lucy) I will not abandon you. Philosopher: No. You'll patronize me instead. Lucy: Don't be so hard on the Padre. After all he does have a quota. Philosopher: (chuckles) Priest: Cunt! Lucy: (mock shock) Philosopher: (hand over mouth, quiet laugh) Priest: DO NOT BELIEVE HIS LIES! Lucy: Her ... Philosopher: Just like I don't believe yours either, Father. My own "lies" will have to do. Priest: YOU CANNOT SAVE YOURSELF! Lucy: I must agree ... Philosopher: (closing eyes) Well, I don't need "saving", nobody does. That lie has never tempted me, I've never believed it. You're both right, but for the wrong reason. No "god", no "Fall", no need for "salvation". Priest: And the Devil? You keep saying there is no God yet don't disavow Satan. So your "atheism" declares a world without God where the Devil runs amok? (adjusts collar and quietly clears throat) Lucy: (sighs) Lucifer ... Philosopher: (eyes still closed) Probably the oldest lie is that there is no Devil. Diabolos, in Greek, means slanderer, liar. There are lies, Father, and liars are devils. Only a in godless world does it make sense that there're so many lies & liars. By the way, I think Lucy prefers Milton to the Bible ... Lucy: Actually I do ... Priest: And the easiest lie is the one that says "there is no God". Lucy: "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Philosopher: Hmmm, Psalms? Priest: Ah, the honey-tongued serpent finally quotes Scripture. Don't be fooled! Philosopher: Scripture is the last refuge of scoundrels, is it? Lucy: Why? Because I use it to mislead ... or because it is a lie?! Are you really deluded enough to believe, Padre, that there are no unbelievers, atheists, who do good or have done good? (Looking at the Philosopher) Do you believe that? Priest: You twist, you rip from context, you misquote The Word! Philosopher: Indeed she does. As do you too, Father. As do we all. It's in the nature of language to be hyper-sensitive to shifting contexts that misreadings and mutually contradictory interpretations are the rule. Meanings are terribly fragile. And it's a wonder that your god became an author since it wishes to be understood clearly. Why'd god hand her (nod at Lucy) such a powerful weapon to confuse us with, Father? Not too bright this Yahweh character, now is he? Or Allah for that matter? I can respect Jesus though, like Socrates & Buddha, for not becoming an author. Lucy: (smile) Priest: (crosses himself) My child -- Philosopher: Enough. Please. (sigh, whispers hoarsely) Now, if you'll both excuse me ... Finis. Edited by 180 Proof on 09/01/09 - 01:11 AM. Reason: Cui bono?
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 08/31/09 - 02:03 PM:	#7
Heh.... Nothing to think about. Anyways... how can the experience of reading "God" not equivocate to the experience of God himself? My answer? Since you are reading, you are definately not listening to the Word of God....
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Yahadreas
YHDRS

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 02, 2006
Location: Awesometown

Total Topics: 54
Total Posts: 1903

Posted 08/31/09 - 02:11 PM:	#8
Wow. That was brilliant, 180.
I am awesome.

TempletonEsquire
Irrationally Biased

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2009
Location: Close To Nil

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 315

Posted 08/31/09 - 02:20 PM:	#9
That was a good read, 180. Your inclusion of the devil's advocate made for an interesting device in the argument.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 08/31/09 - 02:39 PM:	#10
Ohh... I did find something to think about! YAY! It has to do with both Lucy's and the Priest assumptive of 'after I am dead.' While we pretend we adequately know what the after-life in the 'christian' sense is - we don't often do not even bat an eyelash when an athiest claims a similar function of 'after I am dead.' Very interesting addition 180 Proof.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.