religious debate

[Guest]

God did show himself for sure, you personally didn't see him and are saying he doesn't exist. As I said, even some people in the Bible who saw Jesus said that he was not God. They saw God and still said he didn't exist. Showing himself is not proof enough for everyone. There's actually a parable in the Bible about it "The Rich Man and Poor Lazarus" in which a man in Hell asks for a man in heaven to return from the dead to warn his still living brothers of their doom if they do not repent. The man in Hell is told that they have all they need, they have Moses and the Prophets (The Old Testament of the Bible). If they do not believe the prophets, they will not believe even someone who comes back from the dead.

I've always had a question about that particular parable. The rich man ends up in hell for nothing other than being rich. "Poor Lazarus" ends up in heaven, despite breaking the Twelfth Commandment (coveting food scraps from his neighbor's table, which did not belong to him). What's up with that?

[Guest]

... on the proof of a God. the thing that has always bothered me about the big bang theory is this. If a truck driver with his truck full of bricks backed up to an empty lot and dumped them all out, would a house ever, ever automatically form? No, so from this analogy, someone or something had to at least facilitate the original creation of the universe.

it's not that simple you should really study cosmology

[unreality]

God did show himself for sure, you personally didn't see him and are saying he doesn't exist.

which means he didn't show himself for sure

I do believe that only God is God. There is only one true God. Regardless of what any man says his religion is, in the end there are only believers and unbelievers - those who believe in the one true God as revealed by the Bible, and those who don't. That is the division between Hellbound and Heavenbound people.

Because there is no logic to prove it, you say it is irrational. Okay. Still true. I don't know how to go more in depth. I believe in God even though he defies logic. That's the difficulty in having a debate about it. That's why it's not possible to have a logic-based debate at all about God's existence or many of the other great truths of the Bible, like miracles and the resurrection.

Is there anywhere else we can go with this?

Then why do you believe in god? Yes, it's irrational, as you said. So why do you think He exists? You believe in Him because priests and a book told you so. There is no proof, no evidence. Your faith has no basis. God doesn't exist.

... on the proof of a God. the thing that has always bothered me about the big bang theory is this. If a truck driver with his truck full of bricks backed up to an empty lot and dumped them all out, would a house ever, ever automatically form? No, so from this analogy, someone or something had to at least facilitate the original creation of the universe.

Then where did God come from? God would be infinitely more complex than the universe if he existed, and therefore infinitely harder to just exist

as "i am a liar" said, you should read up on cosmology, Noa. It is my belief that the universe has existed forever, and always will (I think this is the belief of most atheists too)

[Guest]

... on the proof of a God. the thing that has always bothered me about the big bang theory is this. If a truck driver with his truck full of bricks backed up to an empty lot and dumped them all out, would a house ever, ever automatically form? No, so from this analogy, someone or something had to at least facilitate the original creation of the universe.

okay, so let's pretend that this analogy holds water

how does this prove God?

once again, not having an explanation for something doesn't mean god must exist

There's been a lot of posts since I last checked, so I'm gonna read as much as I can and try to respond

[Guest]

Hypothesis 1. A being called Mickey Mouse, created the entire Universe on November 18, 1928. There is absolutely no independent observational or physical evidence to back this up.

Hypothesis 2. A being called Bugs Bunny created the entire Universe in 1939. There is absolutely no independent observational or physical evidence to back this up.

Hypothesis 3. An invisible being called god, who has not been seen by any human being created the entire Universe 6,000 years ago. There is absolutely no independent observational or physical evidence to back this up.

Hypothesis 4. The Universe came into being about 13.75 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. Our planet was created approximately 4.5 billion years ago from a contracting cloud of interstellar dust and gas. There is a great deal of independent observational and physical evidence to support this hypothesis.

Now, what we have here is a series of conflicting hypotheses.

Interesting. You have four conflicting hypotheses, and I, being the irrational theist, immediately reject the first three as both unsubstantiated and having no explanatory merit. Let's ignore all the argument about cartoons and hypothetical dates and just proceed with your last hypothesis ...

The universe is expanding. This means it is was at one time, 13.75 billion years ago, give or take, an infinitely dense singularity. Where did it come from, and how did this chaotic explosion result in our present world? And why? Science has revealed a lot regarding the details of what happened afterwards, but has done nothing, other than to suggest a few wild, unsubstantiated theories, to answer these questions. In fact, answering "Why?" really doesn't fall into the realm of science, and yet it's the question we humans seem so anxious to know. But that's another discussion. Here are some logical possibilities:

1. There was a first cause. OR

2. There was not a first cause, in which case you would be asserting that a foundational element of naturalism, cause and effect, does not hold.

1.A. The first cause was someone eternal (i.e., an intelligent mind) OR

1.B. The first cause was something eternal (i.e., a cosmic force of sorts)

So at this point it would be reasonable to consider the evidence in the world around us to decide which of the two options better explains what we observe. This isn't a case of positing cartoon characters willy nilly for no reason, but a simple logical process that takes into account the possibility that there is a creator. I'm planning to get into more detail on this topic later on, but suffice it say that I don't agree that the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of the second option as to make the first unworthy of consideration.

[Guest]

Hiya. Another ringer here, invited from the richarddawkins.net forum to participate in this rather lively discussion. I'm also a regular moderator and contributor on Ask the Atheist. Both sites are great resources for this kind of back-and-forth, even if I do say so myself.

This first post is an unashamed pot shot; I'm replying purely to Duh Puck's last post because it's the first thing that jumped out at me.

The universe is expanding. This means it is was at one time, 13.75 billion years ago, give or take, an infinitely dense singularity. Where did it come from, and how did this chaotic explosion result in our present world? And why? Science has revealed a lot regarding the details of what happened afterwards, but has done nothing, other than to suggest a few wild, unsubstantiated theories, to answer these questions. In fact, answering "Why?" really doesn't fall into the realm of science, and yet it's the question we humans seem so anxious to know. But that's another discussion. Here are some logical possibilities:

1. There was a first cause. OR

2. There was not a first cause, in which case you would be asserting that a foundational element of naturalism, cause and effect, does not hold.

1.A. The first cause was someone eternal (i.e., an intelligent mind) OR

1.B. The first cause was something eternal (i.e., a cosmic force of sorts)

So at this point it would be reasonable to consider the evidence in the world around us to decide which of the two options better explains what we observe. This isn't a case of positing cartoon characters willy nilly for no reason, but a simple logical process that takes into account the possibility that there is a creator. I'm planning to get into more detail on this topic later on, but suffice it say that I don't agree that the evidence is so overwhelmingly in favor of the second option as to make the first unworthy of consideration.

Before I start on the meat, the question "Why?" in fact begs the question. It assumes the presence of intelligence, and specifically motivation, so there's no way to answer it without invoking some entity with thoughts and desires. In the absence of this, "Why?" becomes synonymous with "How?" and is well within the realm of science. If you ask why the universe began, or exists, or is a nice place, you have already stated your ultimate opinion. If you ask how, you're actually trying to work it out.

Anyway, to details: I disagree with your deduction in posssibility 2, which I assume you stuck in there to steer the discussion towards 1 and segway into the First Cause (cosmological) argument. It is indeed possible that cause and effect does not always hold (and the lack of explanations for the observed probabilistic behaviour of quantum particles, for example, does present a chance that they're not caused at all, giving some connection to the "quantum foam" origin theory). However, cause and effect can hold in the absence of a first cause if time extends backwards infinitely.

An infinite number of sequential finite causes could have existed in an infinite timespan before the present instant; say, a series of universes in a multiverse. All that need be eternal is the sum total of matter and energy in the universe or multiverse; only its arrangement has changed. Philosophy and theology aside, this is directly implied by the law of conservation alone: matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, therefore it never was created. An exception to this needs to break one of the most established laws of physics.

Having established that a First Cause is far from a given, let's suppose it regardless and ponder its nature. What specific "evidence in the world around us" points to an intelligent Cause? In other words, to what version of the Argument from Design do you subscribe? Beauty, perhaps? Or increasing complexity in apparent defiance of the laws of thermodynamics? (Apologies if that one's beneath you; it's still trotted out regularly.) Maybe the "fine-tuned universe"? Don't talk about evidence without pointing to it, give us something. (That goes for both sides.)

Thanks, Puck, for giving me a jumping-off point.

[Guest]

... on the proof of a God. the thing that has always bothered me about the big bang theory is this. If a truck driver with his truck full of bricks backed up to an empty lot and dumped them all out, would a house ever, ever automatically form? No, so from this analogy, someone or something had to at least facilitate the original creation of the universe.

As suggested, this is a gross over-simplification of the event. But okay; This is a variety of the "Order out of Chaos" argument. The claim that order cannot arise from an explosion is a common way of putting it.

A few points:

1. The "Big Bang" wasn't exactly an explosion, what it was was a rapid expansion event.

2. This is often linked to the second law of thermodynamics:

"The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium."

Basically in this argument; that disorder or entropy will win out over time = less order not more. This is true (it is a law or nature after all) BUT it does not disallow pockets of increasing order. All such pockets require is an influx (constant or otherwise) of new energy and/or matter to replenish it.

One way this is put is that the second Law only applies to "closed systems" - Not exactly accurate, but it makes the required point. For the record, the Earth (and thus all life on it etc.) is not a closed system, we call the source of our influx of energy The Sun - Constantly barraging us with more energy allowing us to stave off, even reverse the natural entropy which we otherwise would face.

A more local example is simply this: If we don't eat, we die. This is that law in action; we must receive extra, external sources of energy or the "forces of entropy" will have their way.

The universe is undergoing the effects of entropy (increased disorder), otherwise we would not have noticed it and discovered the Law in the first place But there are pockets of the reverse all over the place. Not that many in the scheme of things, it is a great big universe and we are really puny - To quote Yakko from Animaniacs fame

You are only seeing the local increasing complexity and equating it with the whole, this is a mistake.

3. A look at Cosmology and Astrophysics would show you how, just by the natural laws of nature, the forces of the Universe (Gravity, Electromagnetism, Weak Nuclear Force and String Nuclear Force), just how all of the wonderfull complexity you see (planets, stars, elements etc.) could arise. Add Evolution to that, and voila all life as well

There are a number of good little videos on You Tube on the origin of the universe that show some of this. Also a number of excellent books on the subject, written for us non-scientists:

A Short history of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson (the linked copy is the Illustrated Hardback which I have , and is simply beautiful) is an excellent book, as is:

Cosmos by the late Carl Sagan is both excellent and moving, and it has a DVD documentary as well. (Parts of which can also be found on YouTube.)

And there are many more besides. The First Three Minutes is apparently very good as well. I could go on.

[Guest]

Before I start on the meat, the question "Why?" in fact begs the question.

No argument there. I still think it's of interest that we have a natural desire to know "why?" if there's no reason to ask it, but that's a different angle and I'd rather stick with the one we're on.

Let me first reply to the second half of your next statement ...

Cause and effect can hold in the absence of a first cause if time extends backwards infinitely.

That's true, and it would make good sense if the universe weren't expanding. That there was clearly a starting point is what forces us to ask "what was before the starting point?" You might try to sidestep this by postulating unprovable theories of parallel universes, cyclical universes, etc., but those are just guesses with no more foundation than positing an intelligent creator.

I disagree with your deduction in posssibility 2, which I assume you stuck in there to steer the discussion towards 1 and segway into the First Cause (cosmological) argument. It is indeed possible that cause and effect does not always hold ...

Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, therefore it never was created. An exception to this needs to break one of the most established laws of physics.

Hmmm. Seems like a double standard. You're willing to give up cause and effect before you give up the conservation of energy and matter? I can't agree with you there. The argument that there were infinite causes prior to the Big Bang is far more palatable than suggesting that there were conditions in which cause and effect didn't apply. That would just be wishful speculation, and you certainly don't let us theists get away with that, so I'm not accepting that as meaningful.

In other words, to what version of the Argument from Design do you subscribe? Beauty, perhaps? Or increasing complexity in apparent defiance of the laws of thermodynamics? (Apologies if that one's beneath you; it's still trotted out regularly.) Maybe the "fine-tuned universe"?

Do I have to choose a single argument? There are so many good ones, of which you mentioned a few. I particularly like objective morals, beauty, the intricacies of the human mind, consciousness, fine-tuning, animal instinct, human language, art, music, and on and on. Of course you've heard them all before and have an answer prepared for anything I could say, so I'm not sure what the point of discussion would be, but I'm equally certain that you will not prove that these were not the product of an intelligent designer. You will merely do your best to provide a reasonable explanation for how such anomalies could arise by natural causes, frequently invoking the "if you give it enough time" maxim. That's fine, but my initial point was that, in view of the huge number of reasons that lean most people in the direction of belief in a creator, it is unreasonable to reject the notion of an intelligent designer a priori. It's one thing to examine the evidence and come to conclusion that God is not the best explanation for what we see, but it's another to treat the possibility as a ridiculous and extraordinary claim which would require more extraordinary evidence than the alternative.

Thanks, Puck, for giving me a jumping-off point.

Sure thing. I'm used to it by now.

[Guest]

It is generally accepted that the laws governing Physics break down when related to black holes. How does the theory of rapid expansion differ from the same breakdown?

The universe as a whole would be a closed system. What force was acting on it to cause expansion?

No matter how small you separate concrete physical reality it owes its existence to something other than itself. Every physical state has a necessary condition in some specific type of state that precedes it in time and is fully in existence prior to the emergence of the state of the condition. Before an apple can exist, a tree must be exists. Before a tree can exist soil must exist? One cannot have an infinite series of causes in time because; if you had an infinite series of causes you would never have arrived at this moment. If you have domino X and before it fell an infinite number of dominos before must fall before it does, it will never fall.

For the universe to exist a non physical entity had to act upon physical. That entity is God.

No amount of time can consume an infant series of events to bring you to the present.

A physical quantity explains its own existence.

[Guest]

Hmmm. Seems like a double standard. You're willing to give up cause and effect before you give up the conservation of energy and matter? I can't agree with you there. The argument that there were infinite causes prior to the Big Bang is far more palatable than suggesting that there were conditions in which cause and effect didn't apply. That would just be wishful speculation, and you certainly don't let us theists get away with that, so I'm not accepting that as meaningful.

Actually Duh Puck the reason for "giving up Cause & Effect so easily" is an easy one; recent efforts in quantum have been at least strongly suggesting that at that level, cause & effect might in fact not hold true. One example is encompassed in this quote from Nobel Laureate physicist Frank Wilczek:

"The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would then be that 'nothing' is unstable."

It's based on a lot of physics and mathematical work of course, but as is often the case some bright spark comes along and sums it up in a neat little sound-bite like that

The upshot is that something can come from nothing (possibly) and due to nothing more than the simple fact that "Nothing" in its extreme simplicity is almost bound to collapse into something (matter or anti-matter [or energy of course]).

This does not mean that this is necessarily true, but it does seriously weaken the hold of the Cosmological argument's main premise. Enough to put it even further into serious doubt. Not that it was that convincing anyway - Well not to those who didn't already believe the conclusion (God exists) beforehand through other means.

Do I have to choose a single argument? There are so many good ones, of which you mentioned a few. I particularly like objective morals, beauty, the intricacies of the human mind, consciousness, fine-tuning, animal instinct, human language, art, music, and on and on. Of course you've heard them all before and have an answer prepared for anything I could say, so I'm not sure what the point of discussion would be, but I'm equally certain that you will not prove that these were not the product of an intelligent designer.

You are correct, heard them all, in varous forms as well, before. They are no more convincing.

And, no it doesn't prove there is no intelligent designer (or even a first cause). What it does do is once again show that the arguments FOR such a thing are hopelessly flawed. With no good arguments for the existence of this extraordinary postulated entity, the default rational position is to not believe in it. As put by a certain member of the forum from whence a few of us have come:

"If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence supporting the postulated existence of entity X is present, the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said substantive evidence is present."

This is classic God of the Gaps stuff, Duh Puck.

You can't explain X?

Well, GODDIDIT!

What, no evidence that God did do it (or even exists)?

Well, then God Could have done it, you can't prove he didn't, so he still could have!

That God could have done it in no way adds any credence to the claim that it did, or that this "God" is real at all. Failure to provide evidence AGAINST does not count as evidence FOR.

God-of-the-Gaps is of course a sub-set of the Argument from Ignorance - A Logical Fallacy you will see by following that link. Coincidentally the example given is of the God-of-the-Gaps variety so I will let it sum it up:

"This argument is fallacious because the non-existence of God is perfectly consistent with no one having been able to prove God’s non-existence." to add: so too is the failure to disprove God consistent with it's non-existence.

You will merely do your best to provide a reasonable explanation for how such anomalies could arise by natural causes, frequently invoking the "if you give it enough time" maxim.

Perhaps, there are a lot of them now. Less and less room for that God-of-the-Gaps to hide. But there is no real need - we only do it because we realise that certain apologists are never satisfied with less - It is enough to demonstrate that your arguments fail. And so far they always have, not surprising since they all seem to be rehashes of the same old ones over and over

That's fine, but my initial point was that, in view of the huge number of reasons that lean most people in the direction of belief in a creator, it is unreasonable to reject the notion of an intelligent designer a priori. It's one thing to examine the evidence and come to conclusion that God is not the best explanation for what we see, but it's another to treat the possibility as a ridiculous and extraordinary claim which would require more extraordinary evidence than the alternative.

Ah lost it at the end there

You are correct dismissing the God-Hypothesis as absolutely false, out of hand, would be a mistake. But there comes a point where all the current arguments FOR this hypothesis dry up - That point is long past - At that point it is safe to say that pending any future evidence or NEW arguments the God-Hypothesis is a complete failure, and a waste of serious scientists time and effort. There will always be those who wish to pursue it - The theists, the Faithful, as such the rest of us can safely dismiss it until (and if) they come up with something new. Then, and only then would it be worthy of our time to investigate it once more.

You are assuming that we dismiss it out of hand (a priori as you say) but many of us have investigated the hypothesis in depth. Some as believers trying to understand all they can about their cherished faith, and "maker", often to better argue the point with theists - On that other forum for example the ranks of Atheist posters (we aren't ALL atheists over there though) include ex ministers, theologians, JWs and Mormons; all who studied their faith long and hard. Others (like myself, I left my religion at about 15-16 years old) have studied the arguments for the existence of god(s) through more rational means. I, from my philosophy background (degree) tend to examine the logic, the rationality of the claims. No matter what the subject or argued position might be, is the argument valid, sound or at reasonable, does the argument actually work and do what it proposes to do? In every single case of argument for the existence of God the answer has been a resounding NO.

The only reason I can imagine that even certain otherwise rational apologists fail to see that is that they find themselves incapable of divorcing the subject, and the conclusion which they so desire to be true and proven true, from the structure of the argument - Often the key to good Critical Thinking and Logic.

Leaving my position as such:

There may or may not be any god(s), who knows? But there is as far as I can tell , no remotely good reason to believe there is. As such it is a mistake in my opinion to believe in any god(s) . This is true no matter what the actual truth-value of the question might be.

You made fun of it but the declaration still stands:

Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Evidence.

[Guest]

It is generally accepted that the laws governing Physics break down when related to black holes. How does the theory of rapid expansion differ from the same breakdown?

The laws of physics that are oft quoted relate to our current understanding. The fact is our understanding of these things is always improving. I get annoyed with both theists and atheists for assuming that the current state of knowledge is final. This is clearly not the case. In regard to the question above, I am not sure what you are actually asking or why.

The universe as a whole would be a closed system. What force was acting on it to cause expansion?

There is not necessarily a "force" acting on the Universe to cause expansion. What we call expansion of the Universe could simply be a property of the Universe. The term expansion in itself is misleading, the implication being that the Universe is expanding into something outside itself. This has no particular meaning. Theoretically, rather than the Universe expanding, it could be of a fixed size but contracting internally. Now there are many possibilities that could operate to give the effect of Universal expansion, such as adding extra dimensions of time or space. Another factor could be the direction in which time "flows". It is too early to be able to definitively say.

No matter how small you separate concrete physical reality it owes its existence to something other than itself. Every physical state has a necessary condition in some specific type of state that precedes it in time and is fully in existence prior to the emergence of the state of the condition. Before an apple can exist, a tree must be exists. Before a tree can exist soil must exist? One cannot have an infinite series of causes in time because; if you had an infinite series of causes you would never have arrived at this moment. If you have domino X and before it fell an infinite number of dominos before must fall before it does, it will never fall.

I'll have to come back to this, but my intuition tells me that this argument is fallacious. I would like to see more of your reasoning for making this statement.

For the universe to exist a non physical entity had to act upon physical. That entity is God.

Now you go and ruin a perfectly good debate by making a completely unfounded statement. You like to talk in rational statements and then make an obviously irrational one. On what basis do you say "a non physical entity had to act upon the physical"? What is the logic process that leads to such a statement?

Then you go on to say "That entity is God." Again, what process of logic leads to this conclusion? What other possible explanations are there? What process of elimination has been used to remove the other explanations? That statement has no more relevance, standing alone as it is without any supporting evidence, than saying "That entity is Mickey Mouse."

How can you expect to be taken seriously on such an unsupported statement?

No amount of time can consume an infant series of events to bring you to the present.

Please provide a rationale for this statement.

A physical quantity explains its own existence.

Please clarify this statement. You seem to be a bit random here.

Edited March 24, 2008 by Poydah

[Guest]

The reason for "giving up Cause & Effect so easily" is an easy one; recent efforts in quantum have been at least strongly suggesting that at that level, cause & effect might in fact not hold true. One example is encompassed in this quote from Nobel Laureate physicist Frank Wilczek:

"The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would then be that 'nothing' is unstable."

It's based on a lot of physics and mathematical work of course, but as is often the case some bright spark comes along and sums it up in a neat little sound-bite like that

Naturally, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, good sir. Bright quips are nice, but I'm pretty sure there's significant speculation taking place to arrive at that conclusion, and no testable evidence. We can return to that topic when someone makes falsifiable predictions based on the hypothesized breakdown of cause and effect. That's the realm you expect our discussion to stay in, isn't it?

This does not mean that this is necessarily true, but it does seriously weaken the hold of the Cosmological argument's main premise. Enough to put it even further into serious doubt.

Perhaps one day. Certainly not yet.

You are correct, heard them all, in varous forms as well, before ... What it does do is once again show that the arguments FOR such a thing are hopelessly flawed. With no good arguments for the existence of this extraordinary postulated entity, the default rational position is to not believe in it. As put by a certain member of the forum from whence a few of us have come:

"If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence supporting the postulated existence of entity X is present, the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said substantive evidence is present."

This is the premise which of course lies at the heart of most atheist arguments. The statement, as such, is certainly not flawed, but the problem is that it draws an imaginary line in the sand between explanations which involve an "entity" and those which involve equally unsupported, non-entitative explanations. Why can't we word it this way?: "If theory X is postulated as an explanation for phenomenon Y, and no substantive evidence supporting postulated theory X is present, the default position is to regard theory X as invalid until said substantive evidence is present." On that basis, I can toss out pretty much any theory involving multiverses, the spontaneous generation of life, or arguments against First Cause.

Further, in lieu of substantive evidence for any contrary theory, I see no reason to suppose that our intuitive inclination should be inherently rejected as fallacious simply because it involves an "entity." After all, a 14th century scholar would have been absolutely correct to expect evidence of the Earth's roundness before adjusting his faulty supposition. I have not been provided with convincing evidence that I'm making some blind leap of faith to suppose a creator is a logical possibility, and I get weary of repeatedly facing this dogged assertion that the atheist position is the obvious default and all the burden of proof is on the believer.

This is classic God of the Gaps stuff, Duh Puck.

I'm quite familiar with the God of the Gaps and the Argument from Ignorance, thank you, and I believe my point was that positing a God as an explanation is not born out of any more ignorance than positing the spontaneous generation of life or any other unfounded hypothesis intended to answer those difficult questions. There are many things we can't yet explain, and both sides propose possible explanations which appear to have little evidential support, yet the atheist claims the logical high ground on the overly simplistic basis that he's not "postulating the existence of entity X." It doesn't work for me.

There comes a point where all the current arguments FOR this hypothesis dry up - That point is long past - At that point it is safe to say that pending any future evidence or NEW arguments the God-Hypothesis is a complete failure, and a waste of serious scientists time and effort.

If it weren't for the inveterate political wrangling regarding education, I don't see why there would be much wasted effort. Why should there be a conflict between the pursuit of scientific truth and the belief of the scientist? Many of history's greatest scientists were theists, and this certainly didn't slow them down any. Do you think the theist is somehow less interested than the atheist in understanding the fundamental workings of our universe? Am I inherently less curious because I view the countless causes for wonder within nature to be a testament to the wisdom of a creator, rather than the marvel of blind natural mechanisms? I've never suggested that scientists should change their approach (provided it is honest and objective), in order to somehow prove/disprove the existence of God.

You are assuming that we dismiss it out of hand (a priori as you say) but many of us have investigated the hypothesis in depth.

Doesn't this belie the strength of your previous assertion regarding the obvious irrationality of positing a creator? Of course I realize that many, if not most, atheists have given consideration to the available evidence. In my experience I've found that they've done so much more than has the average theist, which is why the atheists usually have the upper hand in logical discussions. But why bother if it's evident that positing Entity X is clearly ridiculous? You (and I am referring here to ardent atheists who are critical of theistic belief) may have concluded after much consideration that there's insufficient evidence to support belief in God, but then you turn around and consistently attack with the argument that it's illogical to posit a creator in the first place. And you assume that every reasonable person, after considering the same information as you, would clearly come to the same conclusion. Obviously there are plenty of theists who make the same mistake, but I believe it's this self-assured pride in our own reasoning that leads to heated differences, not the inability of one side to see the wisdom of the other due to obstinance or inferior reasoning capabilities.

I appreciated this paragraph from the wikipedia article on the Existence of God:

"One approach, suggested by writers such as Stephen D. Unwin, is to treat (particular versions of) theism and naturalism as though they were two hypotheses in the Bayesian sense, to list certain data (or alleged data), about the world, and to suggest that the likelihoods of these data are significantly higher under one hypothesis than the other. Most of the arguments for, or against, the existence of God can be seen as pointing to particular aspects of the universe in this way. In almost all cases it is not seriously suggested by proponents of the arguments that they are irrefutable, merely that they make one worldview seem significantly more likely than the other. However, since an assessment of the weight of evidence depends on the prior probability that is assigned to each worldview, arguments that a theist finds convincing may seem thin to an atheist and vice-versa."

Hence we can look at exactly the same evidence, but because we have different starting points, we come to different conclusions. So it makes sense that the atheist argument always comes back to trying to undermine the starting point of the theist, because otherwise the evidence for design can seem pretty compelling. Therefore, I see no particular reason why I should need to provide stronger evidence for my belief than the atheist does for his.

Edited March 24, 2008 by Duh Puck

[unreality]

It wouldnt matter if you tallied up all the likelihoods in the world in that method you described and it came out to Atheist 500000, Theist 2.7. The theists would say the world is how it is because God made it that way. They would say 2.7 is enough

Coming around to another point, theists seem to think that us atheists are "denying" the existence of God or something, but that's wrong. Most atheists leave the option open, but just cuz there are two possibilities (generalizing here, I'm talking about theism and atheism) doesn't mean the possibilities are 50-50. It's called the "Gambler's Fallacy" or something like that

yes, it's POSSIBLE that God does in fact exist. BUT very unlikely.

Some game theory here:

* You have a dice with 'd' sides on it. the chances to roll a specific number are thus 1/d

* If you roll that specific number, the payback is $x

* However in order to roll the dice once, you have to pay a fee of $y

Would you roll the dice? How many times?

Clearly your answer depends on the values of d, x and y, as well as personal intuition

actual evidence of a God existing hasnt appeared here yet, no matter how many theists say they have it, and various logical and philosophical thinkings point away from existence of a God, so I'd say 'd' is a very high number. The chances of God existing are low. Very low. 1/d is very low. I dont see how a theist can deny THAT

but then the theist (rightly so) says that the payoff, $x, is very high if they win. if a God exists then it would be rewarding for a person to have 'rolled the die'. If the cost was 0 to roll the die, then everyone should 'roll the die' and believe in God (i think that's Pascal's Wager)

but there's a cost to rolling the die. Pascal's Wager doesnt take that into account. see this website:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~ssyreeni/atheist/no-ghost-c-04

The biggest for me is truth. I dont want to waste my life worshipping something that doesnt exist. And I dont. Some theists think that atheists live in a meaningless world, but they couldnt be more wrong. The universe is a wondrous place

back to logic arguements:

yesterday I asked my sister. "How can you be so sure Jesus exists? Cuz the Bible says so?"

and she said "well, yeah"

So I just thought of a good analogy: if God existed cuz a book says so, then every single movie would be extremely good, because it says so on the back of the DVD case

[unreality]

Just to clarify, that d, $x and $y thing is NOT a reason for me (or anyone else) to be an atheist, at all, it's just a vague thing I thought of just now to disprove Pascal's Wager. But we already know his Wager has been debunked. So ignore that lol, my thoughts were off, kinda. Yeah. Just ignore that lol

but theists, reply to my thing about the Bible. I'm curious as to why you think the Bible is more special than any other book (Bible/Quran/Torah/etc you know what I mean)

[Guest]

Wow who rallied up all these atheists for us? Martini? Scraff? Ploper?

wasn't me, but good point

I mean, I can barely meet any atheists in person, everyone I know is theist

but most of the people posting here seem to be atheists

I want to reply to something Lausus said, though I can't find the post again to quote his exact words

but I think it was something like this

every word in the bible is true

that took some stones to say, actually, I think you're our first theist who thinks so.

to disprove this, I only need to find 1 flaw in the bible

the earth is 6,000 years old

carbon dating has showed us the Niagra falls alone is older than that

oh wait

it must've been the Flying Spaghetti Monster changing the data with one of his noodely appendages

even though I've missed about 100 posts, (WOW) It seems like most posts have already been covered by unreality or scraff or any of our other atheists

so I guess I'll wait for more posts

Edited March 24, 2008 by Ploper

[Guest]

to disprove this, I only need to find 1 flaw in the bible

the earth is 6,000 years old

The Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6,000 years old.

[unreality]

Good point, though Ploper wasn't being specific, he was just making a point. Duh Puck, are you saying the Bible is total truth?

for example, what about a Flood that covered the entire Earth? Never happened in the history of our planet

[Guest]

It wouldnt matter if you tallied up all the likelihoods in the world in that method you described and it came out to Atheist 500000, Theist 2.7. The theists would say the world is how it is because God made it that way. They would say 2.7 is enough.

Nah. We're a more reasonable bunch than that. If the Atheists have 500000, I would personally require that we have at least 50.

Coming around to another point, theists seem to think that us atheists are "denying" the existence of God or something, but that's wrong. Most atheists leave the option open, but just cuz there are two possibilities (generalizing here, I'm talking about theism and atheism) doesn't mean the possibilities are 50-50.

...

actual evidence of a God existing hasnt appeared here yet, no matter how many theists say they have it, and various logical and philosophical thinkings point away from existence of a God, so I'd say 'd' is a very high number. The chances of God existing are low. Very low. 1/d is very low. I dont see how a theist can deny THAT

I briefly listed a whole pile of things (nowhere near complete, of course) which are frequently used as evidence of an intelligent designer, but which atheists do not accept as evidence. Similarly, I simply don't think evolutionary theory provides a sufficient explanation for human consciousness, abstract thought, art, music, appreciation of beauty, objective morals, etc. etc., just as you don't think belief in God is a satisfactory explanation for these. The whole point of my argument was that you don't get the default win simply by virtue of not believing in a God. You still have to demonstrate that the beliefs you do hold stand up to scrutiny. I'm not asking you to disprove God, which we all agree is impossible. I'm asking you to prove that your alternative explanations are reasonable, because they have to be in order to assert that belief in God is illogical.

And I just saw your follow-up, so I won't comment further on the game-theory comments, but I agree that Pascal's Wager never made sense.

[Guest]

Good point, though Ploper wasn't being specific, he was just making a point. Duh Puck, are you saying the Bible is total truth?

for example, what about a Flood that covered the entire Earth? Never happened in the history of our planet

I believe the Bible is inspired by God, and is therefore truth in the sense that it conveys what God wants us to know, which could not be a lie, but there's a difference between a lie and allowances made for human writers to convey descriptions of events in terms that were meaningful to them at the time, but which can therefore appear to be incomplete or even contradictory. That the Genesis creation accounts and the various gospel accounts describe events in different order are a couple examples of this. None of these apparent discrepancies hinder readers from getting the benefit from the message.

So what about the Flood? Yes, I believe that God used a catastrophic flood to destroy mankind, and preserved Noah's family and animals through the ordeal in an ark. I do not believe this was allegorical, at least in part because Jesus, who I believe to be the son of God, used this event as a parallel to events that would take place at a later time. Since I am convinced by my study of the Bible in the divinity of Jesus, I would therefore consider corroboration by him to be fairly authoritative. Was every mountain on the planet covered by water? I don't know. I think it's possible that the "earth" in the account was not the entire planet, but the area in Mesopotamia inhabited by humans, or some other subset. Was every land animal species on the planet preserved on the ark? I seriously doubt it, but I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that God could have intervened following the flood to repopulate the earth's wildlife, but that's just complete speculation.

Since I accept the Bible as God's word, it follows that my default position when there are apparent conflicts is to assume the Bible is probably accurate, and that any misunderstandings are either a result of overeager interpretation and extrapolation of meaning, or else the contrary view is not based on complete information. This does not mean that I don't examine contrary viewpoints, it just means that I'm skeptical by default, much in the same way that an atheist is skeptical when presented with evidence of God's existence or the divine inspiration of the Bible. This goes back to my previous point regarding how differing starting points shape our response to presented evidence.

[Guest]

The Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6,000 years old.

sorry, my mistake

[Guest]

sorry, my mistake

No prob. I didn't mean to be cranky.

I guess I just get a little touchy when debates that hinge on accuracy get waylaid by misinformation. Honestly, it happens more often in the other direction, with uninformed theists making unsupported assertions. I just want to keep it on the level. Make sure you know where your information is coming from.

[Guest]

The Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6,000 years old.

The ancestry from Adam to Jesus is given in the Bible. It takes place in about 4,000 years.

I briefly listed a whole pile of things (nowhere near complete, of course) which are frequently used as evidence of an intelligent designer, but which atheists do not accept as evidence.

And neither does any branch of science.

Similarly, I simply don't think evolutionary theory provides a sufficient explanation for human consciousness, abstract thought, art, music, appreciation of beauty, objective morals, etc. etc.,

What are you basing this on? Judging from your posts in a thread you started about macro-evolution, you don't really know that much about evolutionary science. If humans don't have an explanation for "everything", positing the existence of a god has enough weight backing it to be a reasonable conclusion?

The whole point of my argument was that you don't get the default win simply by virtue of not believing in a God. You still have to demonstrate that the beliefs you do hold stand up to scrutiny.

What beliefs? Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods and for most of us (in the Western world, anyway) it's because there's no evidence of such a being. We "win" because we're not the one's positing the existence of a magical being with no evidence to support the claim.

I'm not asking you to disprove God, which we all agree is impossible. I'm asking you to prove that your alternative explanations are reasonable, because theym have to be in order to assert that belief in God is illogical.

We have alternate explanations? Most of us conclude that there seems to be quite a pattern of explanations for previously mysterious phenomena being explained without any supernatural means. That's enough for most of us to conclude things happen in nature all by themselves. Or maybe they don't. But coming to the conclusion that any gods exist is illogical because it's an extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence backing it. Claiming that until we have to have an explanation for how everything in the universe works in order for not having a belief in gods to be equal to or less than equal to having a belief in God/gods makes no sense.

I don't have to have an explanation for how David Blaine performs every trick in order for my conclusion that there's no reason to believe he performs actual magic to be the more reasonable stance than someone who claims he can. I'm aware tricks can be done that are convincing. I'm aware that many others can perform similar tricks without using real magic. Does that mean he can't perform actual miracles? No. But it does mean having no belief that he can is more reasonable than believing that he can. Not having the explanation for the tricks does not give the belief that Blaine performs actual magic equal weight to the absence of that belief. The one making the claim that something supernatural is happening has a lot of explaining to do. The one not having a belief has nothing to explain.

[Guest]

The Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6,000 years old.

I don't believe that is a reasonable point to argue, even though the possibility of Noah's ark is incrediablly small, there are too many different religions and mythologies that refer to a montsrous flood that wiped out their civilization- and the object of the flood was by many accounts the same. To cleanse. So wether or not the flood is factual, which there is mounds of facts to support it and just as much to rally against it, the udea was an essential part of our human development as a species and should therfore remain untouched. A fundamental part of numerous societies mental growth probably shouldn't be fair game to attack one particular religion, you would be up against thousands of years and countless other lifestyles.

[Guest]

I don't believe that is a reasonable point to argue, even though the possibility of Noah's ark is incrediablly small, there are too many different religions and mythologies that refer to a montsrous flood that wiped out their civilization- and the object of the flood was by many accounts the same. To cleanse. So wether or not the flood is factual, which there is mounds of facts to support it and just as much to rally against it, the udea was an essential part of our human development as a species and should therfore remain untouched. A fundamental part of numerous societies mental growth probably shouldn't be fair game to attack one particular religion, you would be up against thousands of years and countless other lifestyles.

O s***, I quoted the wrong thing. Sorry. I meant to quote the rebuttal to the whole statement about the great flood. My apologies.

[Guest]

The Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6,000 years old.

That is correct. It was James Ussher, an Irish archbishop, who made that claim, based on the lineages and known dates of landmark events in the Bible, along with an adherence to six literal 24-hour days of creation. He pinpointed the date of creation in circa 4004 BCE (evidently, sometime in October of that year).