Hello Brandon.
I thought about your statements and questions and here are my responses.
Any rational list of the possible ways the world began would not include god. So why assume that until you have omniscient knowledge of the universe you have to suspend judgement about god?
I think the basis of scientific inquiry on the part of many of the most brilliant inventors and scientists is to exclude nothing from the range of possibilities when looking for a solution. So the "rational list of the possible ways the world began" should exclude little, in my opinion, until someone comes up with a proof. What you may think is a rational list may not coincide with what another thinks is a rational list, and although some lists may appear and in fact be totally irrational, which of the better seeming choices is the most rational cannot be known until a proof is submitted as to the actual way the world began. I think it is rational to think such proof will never be submitted although I don't entirely exclude that possibility. Most great inventors went "outside" the box which is why they were the ones who came up with the solutions.
Whereas someone who thought that thunder was caused because the gods were angry could be refuted with the evidence which proves otherwise, any theory about how the world began cannot be refuted with similar hard, cold evidence.
I do not assume that I will ever have omniscient knowledge of the universe. I also don't assume anyone else will have ominiscient knowledge of the universe. I wouldn't describe it as "suspending judgment about god" because it appears none of us are ever going to have omniscient knowledge of the universe so none or us are going to ever have to make a final judgment on the origin of the world in order to live a rational life.
<i>I am not aware of anyone who has proved or disproved difinitivly that there is a convention of gremlins on the far side of the moon studying Hegel's writing. What is your stand on the gremlin convention?</i>
I'm not aware of any gremlin proof either. I'd bet most of my money, but not my life, that there are no gremlins on any side of the moon. Judging from some recent revelations about the things of which large numbers of US citizens are capable (as a "for instance") I wouldn't drop dead from shock to hear gremlins have been found to be living on the far side of the moon. So my stand on the gremlin convention is that there certainly is no reason to think moonie gremlins exist and there certainly is no reason to think some sort of non-interventionist god exists (which is the type of god many think may exist if one does) but stranger things have probably happened than either of those possibilities. As a matter of fact I think know of some.
<i> Or do you suspend judgment of the issue because you don't know the history of the universe yet?</i>
No, I choose not to spend time making a judgment because I know that neither I nor nobody will ever know the entire history of the universe.
<i>I wasn't around when the world began either, but that doesn't mean I need to accept as plausible the idea that a god created it. That is bazaar.</i>
I don't think anyone is asking you to accept anything as plausible. Each person decides for himself when and if he wants to make a judgment about any particular thing. I think we can both agree that there were many things about which Einstein never made judgments and would have no doubt resisted even if pressed to do so. I don't think he probably would have been all that amused if someone said he was a coward because he failed to make those judgments, although perhaps, taking into account that famous picture of him sticking out his tonuge, he may have been amused. I am not saying I agree or disagree with Einstein's thoughts about religion because I never gave them enough thought to decide but I do find certain statements of his interesting:
It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and, above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only profoundly religious people.
It's a thought for another day, maybe never, but I wouldn't be suprised if the type of concept about which Einstein is talking above had a lot of bearing on the psychological reasons Ayn Rand was depressed {she who was not given to depression] after the publication of her massive and monumental effort Atlas Shrugged. Much would depend on what exactly Einstein meant by "cosmic religious feeling" which if such a discussion ever took place I would examine in relation to the concept of "audience" in Ayn Rand's case.
<i>And what exactly have you studied that leaves you unconvinced of evolution? The bible? </i>
Lol, no, I never studied the bible or any other religious text as I have always thought since I can remember all were fictional works written by various human beings and not reflective of "the word of god." As the bible contains many acts of completely depraved violence it's not a work I would enjoy reading in entirety, much less studying. There are parts of the bible which contain (rational and benevolent) ideas with which I agree and what's more I can see how those particular ideas would be inspiring to many people. If one concedes that the thesis of the Golden Rule underlies a great many (but obviously not all) religious precepts, then I think one would have to agree that those particular religious precepts and Ayn Rand's ethical philosophy were not in contradiction.
To be precise, I didn't speak to the concept of "evolution". I said that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is something which I have to reject based on the evidence I have at this time. Why?
Do you see or are you aware of any Cro Magnon men still around? However, are you aware of any apes still around? I'll leave it at that.
<i>Those who deny [Aristotle’s] first principle should be flogged or burned until they admit that it is not the same thing to be burned and not burned, or whipped and not whipped. - Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Metaphysics</i>
By citing this you appear to be more of a fan of the initiation of violence than I am. I prefer a more laissez faire approach to life and do not go around suggesting it would be a good thing if anyone is burned or whipped---even in jest---even to make a point. I can think of other more benevolent suggestions to get a person to come to see and acknowledge that A=A.
I think someone in this thread may be violating or forgetting or ignoring (i.e. denying) this very valuable axiom.
Who's that? And should council be convened to vote on whether they agree with you that such a crime has taken place? Otherwise why do you bring it up in that way? Your smiley faces were not smiling but indicated displeasure and alarm. If a guilty verdict is found should the person be burned or whipped or merely instructed not to post anymore?
Finally, my main point is that although you define god in certain ways, there are many different definitions of god as I am sure you are aware. Certain Deist concepts of god would not seem to involve the rational contradictions that you believe other definitions a priori suggest.