Not completely right. It depends on your definition of "theist". I don't believe in the existence of the Judeo-Christian god, or probably of any other kind of god that has been defined by mankind. I don't know whether the universe was created by an intelligent being or it came to be by itself. If it was the first, it was definitely not in order to generate mankind; accomplishing it in that manner would be too stupid. Even the question of how it all came to be makes no sense, because there cannot be a first cause, in a cause and effect logical system. That would be an event without cause which is forbidden by the logic. So the only allowable answer in such a logical system is that the universe always existed in some form or another. On the other hand, maybe this is not a cause-and-effect universe. Maybe it is something different, in which case our entire scientific way of reasoning, and indeed our science itself, may be in error. Bohm proposed somehing along these lines.
Returning to theism. Theism is usually asssociated with a creator god. Take away that property, and all other properties which mankind has arbitrarily bestowed upon him, and then I am open to his existence. In fact, based on my personal experiences, I believe that is very probable that some other power exists in the universe which our science has not recognized. Some power that is capable of affecting events in this universe. That power, however, may not be external to us, but a secret part of us. Just as our very observations affect the properties of the basic constituent particles of our universe, maybe our desires somehow affect the real world around us. Maybe our future is what we make it to be in more ways than we usually assume.
I never said that I believe in supernatural beings.
Yahweh, Jesus, Holy Ghost, Gabriel, Michael, Satan ...
I believe that there are somethings in this world that science does not accept because it has not been able to test their existence satisfactorily.
In the case of supernatural beings, no examinable evidence suggests they have objective existence at all. There's nothing to test. They behave in all respects like imaginary beings.
My profile describes satisfactorily who I am, what I believe in, and how I came to my beliefs. I do believe in god, but I don't claim that he created the universe. I only claim that he (sometimes) answers prayers. For all I know he may be nothing more than Carl Jung's collective unconscious.
That's fine. All I was trying to get some hint as to why you put such unjustified faith in science and why you felt cheated when you found the truth.
And why you see the origins of the universe described by science as antithetical to a created, purposeful universe.
And why you think the anthropic principle dilemma is a dilemma for anyone besides those who hold with the anthropic principle to begin with.
Questions like that. I'm tired of trying to convince you that scientists are not proclaiming that the science of today is absolute truth. Clearly they are not.
This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
Regarding the "anthropic principle," it is not a thing but a definition of some people's observations, including of the person who made the speech I was discussing.
It is not a problem, not a dilemma, and there's nothing to solve.
I never said that I believe in supernatural beings. I believe that there are somethings in this world that science does not accept because it has not been able to test their existence satisfactorily. Regarding the "anthropic principle," it is not a thing but a definition of some people's observation, including of the person who made the speech I was discussing.
Amcolph,
My profile describes satisfactorily who I am, what I believe in, and how I came to my beliefs. I do believe in god, but I don't claim that he created the universe. I only claim that he (sometimes) answers prayers. For all I know he may be nothing more than Carl Jung's collective unconscious.
Ken,
Regarding the "anthropic principle," it is not a thing but a definition of some people's observations, including of the person who made the speech I was discussing.
Whatever makes one happy. If you believe that an infinte number of universes, each with its own different physical laws, is a satisfactory "scientific answer" to the anthropic principle dilemma who am I to question your judgment. After all you are thinking as a "scientist," so you must be right.
The anthropic principle dilemma, oh my!
"You are a theist, so you must be wrong."
The atheists on this board are a fair-minded bunch by and large.
But you have made theism look ignorant, so you can expect no mercy from them now .
And not much from the rest of us either, come to that, as long as you continue to be coy about it.
You give the impression that you think science has betrayed you by offering you a kind of certainty which it did not--and cannot, by its nature--deliver. I expect you are some kind of a Protestant. You might as well tell us all--the damage has already been done:
What did it cost you to put this unjustified faith in science?
This post contains no advertisements or solicitations.
.