Terry

"The problem remains that even Fredism doesn't actually explain anything. We don't know how it all started except to say that, "Fred did it".

- Yes, you're repeating what I said: "Atheists tend to find Fredism uninteresting because it gets them no closer to understanding the first cause. This is a scientifically valid perspective which leads them to declare of Fredism, incredulously, "Wow, that's useful!" "

To which I reply that Fredism, unlike science, does not seek an answer about "how" it all started, and the concept of an all-pervading unity and purpose makes the objection irrelevant to the Fredist:

"It allows them to conceptualise - based upon their experience, and however vaguely - an actual first cause, lying at the 'point' of infinite regression , i.e. in absolute transcendence, that necessarily determines the purpose of all else. They therefore have what one might call a specific and ultimate spiritual 'location' or 'being' for all that they see as having real value."

The objection is raised from the scientific sphere. However, as stated, Fredism is not about how it all started in scientifically explicable terms - that, I maintain, will never be known. Fredism is 'intangible' to science, yet although a metaphysical hypothesis, it conforms to scientific reality. The only deviation is faith. The faith exists in the belief that the hypothesis is true.

"Regarding another point you make. "A God hypothesis clearly does matter to vast numbers of people because it does, equally clearly, have a very great influence on their lives". Is that statement correct?"

- Well, I think so (it's most noticeable in fundamentalism), but what kind of influence will of course depend, among other things, upon what kind of hypothesis they hold.

"A God hypothesis may provide some meaning to their life..."
- For many people, I think it most certainly does. There is certainly a huge database for scientific investigation on the subject. But, there are so many hypotheses, and I'm trying to stick to Fredism here.

"...but probably hardly alters it from any external perspective."
- I think that's both a matter of conjecture and a generalisation that would be hard to substantiate.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler