Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on February 06, 2019, 03:41:04 PM
-
Hi everyone,
Just happened to read an analogy about two babies in the womb and their possible vision of the outside world. I found it quite interesting.
***********
The Parable
In a mother’s womb were two babies. The first baby asked the other: “Do you believe in life after delivery?”
The second baby replied, “Why, of course. There has to be something after delivery. Maybe we are here to prepare ourselves for what we will be later.”
“Nonsense,” said the first. “There is no life after delivery. What would that life be?”
“I don’t know, but there will be more light than here. Maybe we will walk with our legs and eat from our mouths.”
The doubting baby laughed. “This is absurd! Walking is impossible. And eat with our mouths? Ridiculous. The umbilical cord supplies nutrition. Life after delivery is to be excluded. The umbilical cord is too short.”
The second baby held his ground. “I think there is something and maybe it’s different than it is here.”
The first baby replied, “No one has ever come back from there. Delivery is the end of life, and in the after-delivery it is nothing but darkness and anxiety and it takes us nowhere.”
“Well, I don’t know,” said the twin, “but certainly we will see mother and she will take care of us.”
“Mother?” The first baby guffawed. “You believe in mother? Where is she now?”
The second baby calmly and patiently tried to explain. “She is all around us. It is in her that we live. Without her there would not be this world.”
“Ha. I don’t see her, so it’s only logical that she doesn’t exist.”
To which the other replied, “Sometimes when you’re in silence you can hear her, you can perceive her. I believe there is a reality after delivery and we are here to prepare ourselves for that reality when it comes….”
***********
Cheers.
Sriram
-
https://www.defenseofreason.com/analogy-two-babies-womb/
-
If it were possible for a baby to observe a birth from inside the womb, that baby would observe the baby being born being pushed/dragged through a small hole and the being born baby would no longer be present in the observer baby's "Universe". It would be a reasonable assumption for the observer baby to infer the existence of an outside.
When somebody dies, they don't get extruded through a hole in the Universe, they stay here but they stop functioning. Clearly your analogy doesn't work.
-
If it were possible for a baby to observe a birth from inside the womb, that baby would observe the baby being born being pushed/dragged through a small hole and the being born baby would no longer be present in the observer baby's "Universe". It would be a reasonable assumption for the observer baby to infer the existence of an outside.
When somebody dies, they don't get extruded through a hole in the Universe, they stay here but they stop functioning. Clearly your analogy doesn't work.
I agree with you.
-
When somebody dies, they don't get extruded through a hole in the Universe, they stay here but they stop functioning. Clearly your analogy doesn't work.
What I get from the analogy is that if we are told there is a God and an afterlife - lets say someone says they have seen the transfiguration or the resurrection - we should be open to that possibility and live in the light of it. Well done, Sriram.
-
What I get from the analogy is that if we are told there is a God and an afterlife - lets say someone says they have seen the transfiguration or the resurrection - we should be open to that possibility and live in the light of it. Well done, Sriram.
So, Spud, if I say I have a dragon in my garage are you open to that possibility too?
-
Spud,
What I get from the analogy is that if we are told there is a God and an afterlife - lets say someone says they have seen the transfiguration or the resurrection - we should be open to that possibility and live in the light of it. Well done, Sriram.
No, the analogy is stupid for the reasons set out in the link NS posted and no-one's not "open to the possibility" of something be it a resurrection, unicorns or the Loch Ness monster. The problem for those who would assert such things as objective truths is to bridge the gap from the possible to the probable.
-
What I get from the analogy is that if we are told there is a God and an afterlife - lets say someone says they have seen the transfiguration or the resurrection - we should be open to that possibility and live in the light of it. Well done, Sriram.
More likely they are deluded.
-
Spud,
No, the analogy is stupid for the reasons set out in the link NS posted and no-one's not "open to the possibility" of something be it a resurrection, unicorns or the Loch Ness monster. The problem for those who would assert such things as objective truths is to bridge the gap from the possible to the probable.
The alternative is believing that things came into existence on their own. If you can't accept that, then the only alternative is God, so openness to the possibility of the Bible being true is imperative.
-
The alternative is believing that things came into existence on their own. If you can't accept that, then the only alternative is God, so openness to the possibility of the Bible being true is imperative.
God is the only alternative?
Really?
-
The alternative is believing that things came into existence on their own. If you can't accept that, then the only alternative is God...
Nonsense.
...so openness to the possibility of the Bible being true is imperative.
Even if (for some bizarre reason) we were to postulate a god, why would the bible (an incoherent, often self-contradictory mess) have anything to do with it?
-
What I get from the analogy is that if we are told there is a God and an afterlife - lets say someone says they have seen the transfiguration or the resurrection - we should be open to that possibility and live in the light of it. Well done, Sriram.
So you are open to the possibility that Mohammed is the true prophet and the Koran is God’s word dictated through him.
If you are not open to that possibility, think about why not and then you’ll understand why I dismiss your assertion.
-
Spud,
No, the analogy is stupid for the reasons set out in the link NS posted and no-one's not "open to the possibility" of something be it a resurrection, unicorns or the Loch Ness monster. The problem for those who would assert such things as objective truths is to bridge the gap from the possible to the probable.
The trick is to have an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.
-
God is the only alternative?
Really?
That is not what Spud means. Spud means that the Christian god is the only alternative.
-
That is not what Spud means. Spud means that the Christian god is the only alternative.
I know that. I assumed that Spud would reply on that basis.
-
The alternative is believing that things came into existence on their own. If you can't accept that, then the only alternative is God, so openness to the possibility of the Bible being true is imperative.
So your alternative is to believe in a universe creating god that came into existence on its own, with no explanation.
Don't pat yourself on your back for such a transparent and worthless exercise in goal-post shifting.
-
The alternative is believing that things came into existence on their own. If you can't accept that, then the only alternative is God, so openness to the possibility of the Bible being true is imperative.
Science may come with an alternative explanation, besides which what created god?
-
Science may come with an alternative explanation, besides which what created god?
Wrong question. It should be, what is God like? Can we know?
We know there must be a creator: If there was a point in time when nothing existed (including No Creator), then nothing would exist now, since something cannot come from nothing. And things could not have always existed, because the nature of the universe is that it is using up energy without replacing it, so there would be no energy left.
So for things to come into existence, there must have been a Creator.
-
Wrong question. It should be, what is God like? Can we know?
We know there must be a creator: If there was a point in time when nothing existed (including No Creator), then nothing would exist now, since something cannot come from nothing. And things could not have always existed, because the nature of the universe is that it is using up energy without replacing it, so there would be no energy left.
So for things to come into existence, there must have been a Creator.
Why a creator and not just a process.
How do you know there was a time when there was nothing?
Perhaps it is not possible for there to be nothing?
-
Wrong question. It should be, what is God like? Can we know?
We know there must be a creator: If there was a point in time when nothing existed (including No Creator), then nothing would exist now, since something cannot come from nothing. And things could not have always existed, because the nature of the universe is that it is using up energy without replacing it, so there would be no energy left.
So for things to come into existence, there must have been a Creator.
So what created the creator?
-
Wrong question. It should be, what is God like? Can we know?
We know there must be a creator: If there was a point in time when nothing existed (including No Creator), then nothing would exist now, since something cannot come from nothing. And things could not have always existed, because the nature of the universe is that it is using up energy without replacing it, so there would be no energy left.
So for things to come into existence, there must have been a Creator.
That's just a pointless exercise in goal post shifting. You've just replaced "where did the universe come from" with "where did the universe-creating god come from".. That's just a head game, not a serious answer.
-
So, Spud, if I say I have a dragon in my garage are you open to that possibility too?
Brian Patten wrote, "I found a small dragon in the woodshed". Not a garage but he did come from Liverpool.
-
That's just a pointless exercise in goal post shifting. You've just replaced "where did the universe come from" with "where did the universe-creating god come from".. That's just a head game, not a serious answer.
'Where did the universe come from?'... will take us into infinite regress as much as... 'Where did God come from?'. Both are unanswerable.
But there is a difference. In the former it is all accidental. No Intelligence or purpose involved. In the latter there is purpose and Intelligence involved. Lot of love and peace and personal comfort also.
I would therefore prefer the second form of Infinite regress to the first one.
-
'Where did the universe come from?'... will take us into infinite regress as much as... 'Where did God come from?'. Both are unanswerable.
But there is a difference. In the former it is all accidental. No Intelligence or purpose involved. In the latter there is purpose and Intelligence involved. Lot of love and peace and personal comfort also.
I would therefore prefer the second form of Infinite regress to the first one.
Nice example of sloppy thinking there. The notion that the universe was 'created' by something prior clearly does imply some sort of regress and thinking that way avoids the harder puzzle of why things just are, without imagining some sort of simplistic regress. So long as we keep thinking in terms of simple mythological explanations and anthropocentric explanations for things, we'll never approach real insight.
-
Nice example of sloppy thinking there. The notion that the universe was 'created' by something prior clearly does imply some sort of regress and thinking that way avoids the harder puzzle of why things just are, without imagining some sort of simplistic regress. So long as we keep thinking in terms of simple mythological explanations and anthropocentric explanations for things, we'll never approach real insight.
You're presupposing what 'real insight' is, aren't you?!
-
'Where did the universe come from?'... will take us into infinite regress as much as... 'Where did God come from?'. Both are unanswerable.
But there is a difference. In the former it is all accidental. No Intelligence or purpose involved. In the latter there is purpose and Intelligence involved. Lot of love and peace and personal comfort also.
I would therefore prefer the second form of Infinite regress to the first one.
I prefer that my beliefs are true, rather than comforting false beliefs.
-
You're presupposing what 'real insight' is, aren't you?!
We can be pretty sure that genuine insights will not flow from sloppy self referential thinking.
-
We can be pretty sure that genuine insights will not flow from sloppy self referential thinking.
You are presupposing lots of things.
-
We know there must be a creator: If there was a point in time when nothing existed (including No Creator), then nothing would exist now, since something cannot come from nothing. And things could not have always existed, because the nature of the universe is that it is using up energy without replacing it, so there would be no energy left.
So for things to come into existence, there must have been a Creator.
Let's pretend that your argument isn't full of holes and accept that this "creator" exist(ed).
How do you get from some creator entity to the Christian god? As far as I can see, there's no requirement that this creator have agency, never mind be the Christian god, only that it is (in our terms) eternal.
-
We know there must be a creator: If there was a point in time when nothing existed (including No Creator), then nothing would exist now, since something cannot come from nothing. And things could not have always existed, because the nature of the universe is that it is using up energy without replacing it, so there would be no energy left.
So for things to come into existence, there must have been a Creator.
Wow - so much wrongness in so few words.
Firstly you have a quaintly Newtonian view of time. Secondly, the universe isn't using energy, energy is conserved. You could make an argument from entropy but there are many possibilities around that. Thirdly, (as has already been said) you've just replaced "why the universe?" with "why this creator?". Fourthly, even if we were to accept the analysis (laughable as it is) it just tells us that there is something about existence we don't understand, it doesn't tell us that there is a (god-like) creator. Fifthly, even if there was a god-creator, why would it have anything to do with the (rather obviously human-made) religions?
-
Why a creator and not just a process.
How do you know there was a time when there was nothing?
Perhaps it is not possible for there to be nothing?
Okay, I think I may have tuned in to your wavelength. Your view is that something has always existed, and that a process has always been acting on it to turn it into what we have now?
The process that formed stars must in my view be different to any process that is occurring now, because we never see new stars appearing, only clouds of material that are assumed to be stellar nurseries. We only observe star death.
That doesn't mean there was a time when there was nothing. Perhaps it isn't important whether there was or wasn't. What we know is that things are moving from a state of order to disorder, and we don't know how they got into that state of order.
But like you said, why not a natural process rather than a creator?
I suggest we must be open to both?
-
Okay, I think I may have tuned in to your wavelength. Your view is that something has always existed, and that a process has always been acting on it to turn it into what we have now?
The process that formed stars must in my view be different to any process that is occurring now, because we never see new stars appearing, only clouds of material that are assumed to be stellar nurseries. We only observe star death.
That doesn't mean there was a time when there was nothing. Perhaps it isn't important whether there was or wasn't. What we know is that things are moving from a state of order to disorder, and we don't know how they got into that state of order.
But like you said, why not a natural process rather than a creator?
I suggest we must be open to both?
They are not equivalent - a creator introduces more things to explain than a creatorless situation - you also now need to explain the creator. Where did it come from. The idea of a being with powers to create universes just springing out of nowhere with no provenance is harder to comprehend than a natural universe.
-
The process that formed stars must in my view be different to any process that is occurring now, because we never see new stars appearing, only clouds of material that are assumed to be stellar nurseries. We only observe star death.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2010-06-astronomers-witness-star-born.amp
-
https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/news/2010-06-astronomers-witness-star-born.amp
Having recently watched a sped-up film of the inhabitants of a rock pool recorded over the course of a day, I can see how it is easy to look at stars and not see them in the context of long periods of time.
Aquatic creatures make for rock pools when the tide goes out, in order to avoid drying out on the beach. They are constantly hunting or being hunted, as opposed to just sitting there as they appear to do (eg starfish).
Similarly, stellar objects are interacting, not just sitting there. Logically this would include being born and dying. However, hypotheses as to how they form within gas clouds rely on the assumption that dark matter is present to provide enough gravity to allow them to collapse:
"Giant clumps of dark matter act like gravitational wells that collect the gas and dust needed for making galaxies. When a mixture of gas and dust falls into a well, it condenses and cools, allowing new stars to form. Eventually enough stars form, and a galaxy is born."
https://tinyurl.com/y6snwck8
-
Having recently watched a sped-up film of the inhabitants of a rock pool recorded over the course of a day, I can see how it is easy to look at stars and not see them in the context of long periods of time.
Aquatic creatures make for rock pools when the tide goes out, in order to avoid drying out on the beach. They are constantly hunting or being hunted, as opposed to just sitting there as they appear to do (eg starfish).
Similarly, stellar objects are interacting, not just sitting there. Logically this would include being born and dying. However, hypotheses as to how they form within gas clouds rely on the assumption that dark matter is present to provide enough gravity to allow them to collapse:
"Giant clumps of dark matter act like gravitational wells that collect the gas and dust needed for making galaxies. When a mixture of gas and dust falls into a well, it condenses and cools, allowing new stars to form. Eventually enough stars form, and a galaxy is born."
https://tinyurl.com/y6snwck8
Hooray for dark matter (and rock pools too).