24:35 - Dawkins: L has't explained where logos came from in the first place. (L agrees - Of course not, the logos didn't come from anywhere.) Then in what sense is it an explanation? (L - The question "what created the logos" shows D thinks in terms of a created god. The God of the Bible is not created but eternal, and he is the logos. Which makes more sense: that there is an eternal God, and the laws of the universe, including mathematics, and mind are all derivative from the logos? Or the belief that there is no explation for the existence of the universe? Does D just believe in the universe as a brute fact?) The universe is an easier brute fact to accept than a conscious Creator. (L - Well, who made it?) It's L who insists on asking that question.
D doesn't see the parallel yet, i.e. both of them are asking the same type of question.
25:48 - 27:04 Lennox: D asked who made the Creator. The universe created D, so who created the universe? (D - God is a complicated entity that requires a much more sophisticated and difficult explation. The universe, according to modern physics, is a very simple entity, a simple beginning, that has got to be easier to explain than a god.) You can't explain the existence of God, but D may have missed the question, i.e. that there is a parallel: D suggests it's ridiculous for L to believe the universe, including him, was created by God, because you have to ask the question "who created God?" L is just turning the question around. D admits the universe created him, because there is nothing else. Well, then who created it? (D - Both of them are faced with the problem of "How did things start?") (L agrees.) (D - It's much easier to start with something simple than to start with something complex. That's what complex means. (L disagrees.)
D now sees the parallel, but still thinks there is a way out by invoking complexity. There is no way out. The ancient Greeks thought 'atom' (visible to the naked eye) was the smallest indivisible unit out of which the entire universe was built. Modern physics has shown that atoms are divisible into lots of smaller components, most of which behave in extremely counterintuitive ways. So, matter is anything but simple. That doesn't validate L's argument though, it just means both parties are faced with the problem of a seemingly complex and inexplicable (by-definition) eternal entity whose beginning is contrary to anything anyone has ever experienced in their life. In the human experience, things have beginnings and ends, and nothing comes from nothing. Both God and eternal matter fly in the face of that experience. Spoiler: ultimately, this boils down to "Does the universe in some complicated and inexplicable way have a human-like face or is it entirely non-human? And while we're groping in the dark, because the jury is likely to be out till the end of time, what are the implications of either assumption, and how can they be optimised?"
Nincsenek megjegyzések:
Megjegyzés küldése