Two babies analogy

[Sriram]

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

[Nearly Sane]

https://www.defenseofreason.com/analogy-two-babies-womb/

[jeremyp]

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.

[Roses]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Gordon]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[Roses]

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]

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.

[Sebastian Toe]

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?

[Stranger]

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?

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

God is the only alternative?
Really?

That is not what Spud means. Spud means that the Christian god is the only alternative.

[Sebastian Toe]

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.

[torridon]

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.

[Roses]

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?

[Spud]

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.

[BeRational]

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?

[Roses]

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?

[torridon]

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.

[Robbie]

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.

[Sriram]

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.

[torridon]

'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.

[Sriram]

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?!