religious debate

[Guest]

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

Hot off the press.

Wow!

[Guest]

Christians may have different views, old earth or new earth. It’s not a point to divide over, just debate. Either view does not discredit the message carried by the Bible.

[Guest]

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

So the Bible places the age of humanity at 6,000 years, not the earth.

Christians may have different views, old earth or new earth. It’s not a point to divide over, just debate. Either view does not discredit the message carried by the Bible.

Exactly. My point in making the blunt statement that "the Bible does not say the earth is 6,000 years old" was to highlight the error of using a particular human interpretation as a basis for invalidating the Bible. I'm pretty sure there are enough controversial or debatable statements in the Bible that opponents don't have to resort to that. To me, a young earth is not logical, and neither are hellfire or the Trinity, all of which I believe to be misinterpretations of the Bible. So, if atheists want to argue the Bible, they're not going to get anywhere with me by saying that hellfire is inconsistent with a good God, or that the Trinity doesn't make any sense, or that a 6,000 year old earth is inconsistent with scientific evidence. I already agree with that.

[Guest]

Hot off the press.

Wow!

Ugh. I'm right there with you in finding that sort of thing annoying. The only good to come out of such selective and biased presentation is that some children will learn not to accept scientific theory as proven fact, but the manner in which it's done is sad. If they develop faith in God based on faulty reasoning, then they simply set themselves up as dupes for any illogical and unfounded religious thought. The search for God ceases to be a search for truth.

[unreality]

So the Bible places the age of humanity at 6,000 years, not the earth.

Crude weapons and other tools were found and dated to almost 10,000 years ago or more. I dont wanna argue this point, cuz it's true, but I'm just letting ya know, cuz you never said you actually agree with that part of the Bible

Exactly. My point in making the blunt statement that "the Bible does not say the earth is 6,000 years old" was to highlight the error of using a particular human interpretation as a basis for invalidating the Bible. I'm pretty sure there are enough controversial or debatable statements in the Bible that opponents don't have to resort to that. To me, a young earth is not logical, and neither are hellfire or the Trinity, all of which I believe to be misinterpretations of the Bible. So, if atheists want to argue the Bible, they're not going to get anywhere with me by saying that hellfire is inconsistent with a good God, or that the Trinity doesn't make any sense, or that a 6,000 year old earth is inconsistent with scientific evidence. I already agree with that.

good, we're on the same page then You should be proud... you are one of the most open-minded theists I've seen. Writersblock was up there too. You guys are the guiding light for your religions (or not, maybe that's why you're open-minded )

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.

You are correct in that many religions all reference a flood that wiped out their civilization, which a god told a specific person that the flood was coming so they had time to build a boat and survive (or a gourd, in Japanese myth). Christianity, Greek, Japanese- all of those mythologies, and probably others, noted great floods as being disastrous and great killers.

Do you think it's a coincidence that all of those civilizations are situated right next to great bodies of water?

Find me an isolated religion set in the middle of the desert or plains with no rivers or big bodies of water nearby that references a flood, and I'll believe you. But you won't find it- if such a religion exists, the people that fabricated its myths wouldn't even know what a flood was.

People talked about the destructive power of floods in awe and myth and made floods 'the wrath of the gods' because they were ancient peoples and they didnt understand WHY the flood was flooding and killing so many people. Was Hurricane Katrina an act of God? Did all those poor people sin? Was God cleansing New Orleans?

So whether or not the flood is factual, which there is mounds of facts to support it and just as much to rally against it,

I agree, much to rally against it. First of all, there's not enough water in our hydrosphere. Not even close. Do you know how much water that is?

which there is mounds of facts to support it

I'm listening

the idea was an essential part of our human development as a species and should therfore remain untouched.

the Aztecs were a big civilization, and their empire influenced much of South America. The Aztec culture, and thus all the blood sports and sacrificing they did were part of our human developement as a species. Are you going to practice sacrifice now?

The Romans had blood lust games too.

In the South (of the USA) they kept slaves, as they did all around the world for a while.

Yes, everything in culture is important, but that doesn't mean we need to DO or FOLLOW our historic cultures. Are you going to expect a black man to do your dirty work for free cuz your ancestors did? Will you sacrifice a human to the Aztec gods?

Yes, our culture should be revered and studied, but not necessarily practiced. Just because ancient cultures believed that floods were caused by the wrath of gods doesn't mean we should too

[Guest]

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?

Rather than looking at is a conclusion, I'd look at it as a possible starting point. There might be a God, or there might not. Which explanations best fit what we observe? I understand this runs the risk of sliding into an argument from ignorance, so a person needs to be careful not to suppose that something requires a creator simply on the basis that we don't have a natural explanation. But neither does it mean that one is not allowed to ask the question: "Is this phenomenon better explained as the product of an intelligent being or as the result of complicated but blind natural processes?" You seem to think the very question is inappropriate. In any case, from my vantage point, the theories proposed to explain the stated phenomenon are at best highly conjectural, and not very convincing. Even if we accept evolution as true, I still don't think that adequately demonstrates that natural causes are sufficient. Of course, the idea that God would direct evolution is no more acceptable to you than specific creation, so I fortunately don't have to argue against it.

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.

This is precisely why I argued at length a couple weeks ago that atheism, while perhaps not being a belief of itself, requires belief. If there is not supernatural intervention, then what we observe has to be the result of natural causes, and you should be able to support this with evidence. Since there is plenty of reason to suppose the possibility of a creator (Cosmological argument, as one example), it is perfectly reasonable to look at the available evidence to see which view is better supported. The evidence can support atheism by showing that supernatural causes are unnecessary, and hence so is belief in God, but if supernatural intervention is necessary, this would clearly support belief in a creator. For example, if it turned out there were only a few thousand distinct animals with no shared traits or genetic material, which suddenly appeared out of nowhere 10,000 years ago, would we be having this discussion? No, because that evidence would heavily favor belief in a creator, due to the inability of natural processes to provide an explanation. Yet, according to your argument, there would still be no reason to believe in a creator; such a scenario merely implies that we don't yet know the answer!

If you want to rehash the same old arguments, I expect you to first rebut the points I raised in post 342. Otherwise we're both just talking into the air.

[Guest]

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.

Actually, this makes my point fairly well. Do you mean to tell me that if David Blaine performed an unbelievable magic trick that nobody could explain that you, as a non-believer, would have less explaining to do? "I'm not worried about how he did that, since I don't believe in magic." How is that less absurd than believing in magic without irrefutable evidence? If you are going to insist that magic is not responsible for his trick, then you are obligated to explain how it could be done in a natural way. Your default position may be to assume it's not magic, but simply not believing does not in any way validate your viewpoint when confronted with evidence.

[Guest]

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?

<sigh> What?!

Okay; the "Extraordinary claims" cliche is a simple truth; the more extraordinary (incredible, veering from the understood norm...) a claim is, the more extraordinary (detailed, convincing, precise, data-filled...) needs be the evidence. Little would be needed to support a claim that you were late because you slept in and missed the bus for it to be believed and/or accepted. More that terrorists held your bus up for an hour. Quite a bit more that a 600 kg Pink cigar Smoking Canary sat on your bus. The claim of there being a supernatural intelligence from beyond space and time that designed and created the universe and takes an active interest in our day to day lives and listens to our thoughts, and perhaps is willing to alter his divine plan a little and/or defy the laws of physics if we ask (through telepathy) nicely enough, is at the very least in the realm of the Pink Canary level of claim and evidence requirement.

Actually Cause & Effect was simply the argument that had been brought out when I arrived here. And as it is probably the best argument left for the God-Hypothesis (as poor as it is), I chose to discuss that particular one. But yes I think I shall offer one more argument on it here - Not mine this time, I shall defer to another with a bit of knowledge in the area. I shall add this at the end of the post.

Perhaps one day. Certainly not yet.

Huh? Yes it does. You see I don't have to prove it false or anything, simply posing a natural (thus less extraordinary) possible alternative is enough. That is all that is required to render the GODDIDIT hypothesis far less likely than would otherwise be assumend.

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.

I was just quoting another there, you do realise that? That is how he put it, directly arguing against a version of the God-Hypothesis. So the "Entity" term was appropriate. As "atheists" we are arguing with Theists (Duh), people who are arguing for a God, not just a "First Cause" (or even the simpler version of a god postulated by deists), as such it IS about an entity, one with certain claimed qualities, such as those I offered above.

But yes that revamped wording is fine. What of it? It too is correct. And as you suggest those other postulations (multiverse etc.) should be deemed false until sufficient evidence arises. Or at least not worthy of being believed in - No true scientist believes them anyway - Not in the way people believe in God anyway. They rely on the evidence and accept the postulations, hypotheses, theories just as much as the evidence and rational argument etc. allows: This is a a strong hypothesis, this has some merit going for it, this is weak yet results in some spectacular accuracy of certain calculations, this is a nice idea but needs something more for us to take it seriously....

The God-Hypothesis, and it's arguments like the Cosmological argument, are very (logically and scientifically, weak, evidence and value free in fact). Are the others? Perhaps - some do have certain merits. But the point is that hey are no worse than the God-Hypothesis, and them being "natural" as opposed to supernatural are more plausible. But even if we were to accept them as equal, it defeats the God-Hypothesis explanation as the lead contender, and thus these arguments as any reason at all to believe the God-Hypothesis at all.

Anyway none of that matters; the point is that if another solution can be postulated as well, it means that this particular argument is not Sound. It is not necessarily the case that the universe was caused (certainly not by a God). It doesn't matter that it could have been, it is enough to say that this argument fails to prove that it must be the case.

This "entity" is a huge added postulated thing to the situation. So huge in fact that it looks to demand as much if not more than it was postulated to explain!

Actually a 14th century scholar would be either an idiot or a victim of the Christian Church's efforts to hide the evidence (which they managed quite well for 1500 years or so) if he were to believe that the earth was flat. It was well known (by certain intellectuals) before your little religion ever saw the light of day that the earth was a sphere. The Church squashed such assumed heresy for centuries.

But your point is otherwise correct - it would be a rational error to believe something with out sufficient evidence - This includes your God-Hypothesis. Don't believe the other hypotheses (openly admitted as such) either, just don't believe that one on such flimsy arguments.

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.

You claim to be familiar with it, and thus that it IS a logical fallacy, yet commit it anyway?! You clearly fail to grasp the point of the argument from ignorance at all! The ignorance is in the claim you made that essentially says that as The God-hypothesis has (and can?) not be disproved (therein lies the ignorance "we don't know"), that that is enough reason to believe it is (or might) be true. Which is committing that logical Fallacy pure and simple. IT IS NOT a claim in any way of the arguer being ignorant, or believing something to be true because they are in some way too ignorant to see the error in the argument; It simply isn't.

Too bad if "it doesn't work for you". You are twisting it anyway. The only logical high-ground is the grounding in Logic and reason. You ARE postulating an extra entity, a supernatural one at that, with all manner of extraordinary attributes. Simply by Occam's Razor for a start yours is the less tenable option. We (Atheists or Naturalists if you must label us as such) are simply saying that the current evidence is at least suggestive of there being a solution that requires nothing more than the known (to a certain degree) laws, forces, energy and matter of nature - That is; of what we know to actually exist. As a simple matter of parsimony such a solution is the most likely to be true, certainly the most rational to consider, as it requires no unknown, evidence-free external entities (or any objects, forces etc.) to be postulated to make it work. No we don't have all the answers, but so what? I am not asking you to accept multiverse theory or any such hypothesis; merely to realise that based on this (and all I have seen) argument you shouldn't believe in the God-Hypothesis either!

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.

As long as it doesn't come into conflict, fine. In fact believe whatever garbage you want if this remains the case. The problem is that it is coming to conflict - Education is suffering because of the religious rhetoric being thrown around. Especially the evangelical, creationist, Intelligent Design crap of course. But not only that - arguments for the existence of God are thrown around a lot. I feel it is our duty as Reasonists - lovers of reason - to make our voices heard when these arguments utilise logical fallacies, and at all violate and abuse reason, and the publics understanding of it; they after all are being convinced by this pseudo-reason, and then pass on the arguments, reinforcing the acceptance of such fallacies and abuses. Worse yet is summed up in the ridiculous phrase "Faith is a Virtue"; this is the promotion of the idea that it is not only acceptable, but an actual moral good and/or duty to Willfully Abandon Reason itself! This disgusts me and I for one will not let it stand!

If your cherished little beliefs get caught in the crossfire, then tough. I have no problem with theism if it is reason based or at least does not abuse or dismiss reason in its dealings. If and when it does however, look out. It just so happens that I have yet to see an example of theistic belief or 'reason' thereof that has not committed this abuse, not one. And that is the reason I do not, and can not, believe.

"Many of history's...": In societies emerged and constantly indoctrinated in the stuff, who can be surprised! It most certainly did slow them down. Sure individuals came up with brilliant bits of scientific discovery and understanding. But whenever it was seen to conflict with the established religious doctrine, watch out! "God" only knows how much further ahead we would be now without that stifling influence hanging over us! -

Spherical Earth? No problem; Plato for example took that as a given 1400 years before your "14th century" idea above (the intellectuals all knew that at that time, it was the peasantry who, via the church's indoctrinating, believed the lie).

Galileo presents his Heliocentric model etc. - Without the "power of the Church" - No worries, brilliant work that man! Here's a wad of cash and whatever else you need, let's get some others to help you work on that and spread it to the masses right away!

"Do you think the theist...": What besides you bias and assumption that GODDIDIT? Besides the fact that you are so focused and desirous that that one thing in particular actually be the ultimate answer. You seem interested in understanding the workings and nature of the universe, sure. But seem excessively committed to a certain conclusion, to the exclusion of all else! Therein lies the potential (and actual in many cases) problem; Strong theistic belief biases and blinds one to a CERTAIN answer, and only that answer. It is as if you are not interested, as "science" as a whole is, in discovering the nature of the universe, so much as discovering as much as you can in support of your particular belief of that nature. Too many theists seek the truth but only as long as that truth is their Truth^TM. You see the problem I am talking about?

"I've never suggested...": Good. But does or could that include accepting the possibly that the God-Hypothesis might be scientifically worthless, at least as present information, evidence and data stands? Understand I am not here saying that this is the case, only that if it was determined as such by scientists as a whole could you accept it? It is clear that many many religious apologists could and would not. Cdesign proponentsists trying to push their religious pseudo-scientific rubbish into science classrooms is a prime example of such an inability/unwillingness.

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.

Nope, it is an irrational postuation to add to such arguments, at least without a hell of a lot to back up the validity of said postulated thing.

A naive, yet common version of the cosmological argument, for example, goes.

...Thus there was a first cause for the universe.

We call this First cause God.

That's it! No reason why we should call it God. And from there all the attributes of their particular god just sneak in - Intelligent creator, omnipotent blah blah blah...

In such a case, and all of those "God-of-the-Gaps types, "God" is very much an irrational postulation to add. If you make an argument and it develops logically up to the point that such an entity is something of a natural consequence of it, then fine, go right ahead. And we will listen and examine your argument like all others. But doing little (or nothing) more than throwing God into fix the holes is sloppy, lazy, and bad reasoning indeed.

"Of course I realize that many...": No, it is illogical to posit God or a creator in these cases. Cases where despite the fact that it is apparent that "God is Real" is the real objective of the arguer, "God" is actually thrown in to solve the given problem - Need a cause for the Universe? GOD! For the first replicators? GOD! I have never heard a good argument that is just for God, they all seem to be "God is required to explain this...". Again we come back to God of the Gaps territory. These arguments are all of the nature of: "God explains this, therefore God exists." They are all insufficient for the simple reason that such an entity as this God thingy, requires a hell of a lot more explanation than "he" would explain this unknown. We need actual explanation OF and FOR God.

"And you assume...": Not exactly. If they all use all the tools of Reason an Logic correctly, I tend to think so, yeah. BUT the conclusion is NOT that God does not exist, or whatever. It is simply this: We don't know the answer (to what? The universe, life...?)." That's about it really, along with the conclusion that the God-Hypothesis just doesn't hold up at present. None of the arguments for it are near good enough. Most if not all are actually guilty of committing major logical fallacies, rendering them wholly unsound. And thus that there is no good reason to believe in God (of any variety). AND that this is the case regardless of whether God actually exists or not. I also fully accept that I could be wrong. Having made a logical error myself, or simply failed to consider or have yet to hear that elusive sound argument. This is something I have often asked for from theists, and looked for in their posts and arguments. To date with zero success. Oh, they have tried, but their arguments have all suffered from the very flaws I have mentioned.

"Obviously there are plenty...": Sure, that happens. We are all human, with a desire to be right. But My position (and that of many, but hardly all atheists) is not a position of claiming to have the right answer, is it? That is why I prefer "Reasonist" to "Atheist" if I were to wear a label. I care about reason, I care about combating abuses of reason. To be perfectly honest I don't give a crap if God (You version or anyone's) is real or not. I am only an atheist by default - I am not a theist, I don't share your belief in a god (or anyone else's) thus I am an Atheist, it's really that simple; Not-a-theist = Atheist.

What I do care about is the truth. And about Reason as the only viable path to gasping some hint of that truth. Without it we have absolutely bupkis - Even if by some happy chance we are correct, we have exactly squat, if we believe it based on faulty attempts at reasoning or worse through the abandonment of same.

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

<snip>

I don't. It assumes that the "arguments from atheists" are arguments for the non-existence of God, as if we were two opposing sides each arguing the opposite case. We are not (some of course are, but I ain't one of 'em) You (theists) are arguing that there is a God (your God usually), we are arguing, not that there isn't, but simply that your arguments do not work.

It is not "You are Wrong, we are Right" as you may like to believe, many theists do.

It is a more simple "You are Wrong." - So as to avoid confusion; I mean "You are wrong" in your belief that those reasons are good enough to prove god exists, or even that there is good reason to believe it is so.

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.

Funny that, as I said and you accepted and claimed to realise, that many of us came to this conclusion, from the very same starting point; Belief and a desire to believe and know that God is real.

The evidence for design (another argument of course) was compelling (although still logically flawed - that's why even back then there were those who wouldn't and couldn't buy it) until one Charles Darwin came along and showed us how the wonders of the complexity of life, of our every organ and feature, of those of all the multitudes of forms of life out there, could all be explained by, as it happens remarkably simple, natural events and forces!

Stronger evidence?! What than our belief that your evidence and arguments are insufficient?! Do you even hear yourself (or read your own words)?! Can you not get this simple point? - Our "belief" is not that there is no God. Atheism is not this belief, Our only belief is that the arguments FOR such an entity (or whatever) are not logically or rationally sufficient to be believed in.

Look, you theists make a claim: GOD EXISTS.

Our response is: I don't believe you (Note: not; No it does not )

You are the only one making a positive truth claim, thus you are the only ones with the Burden of Proof

And as your claim is a doozy, the burden is a big one , and therefore (you know what's coming)

Extraordinary Claims Demand Extraordinary Evidence.

Okay, this ran long. I might post that promised argument against the Cosmological argument in a separate post tomorrow. It's late and I've had a long hard day.

[Guest]

So the Bible places the age of humanity at 6,000 years, not the earth.

Riiiight. The problem is, there is so much evidence that modern humans have been around for much, much longer than that, that it is a fact that the Bible is wrong.

http://www.fsmitha.com/timeline.html

Rather than looking at is a conclusion, I'd look at it as a possible starting point. There might be a God, or there might not. Which explanations best fit what we observe? I understand this runs the risk of sliding into an argument from ignorance, so a person needs to be careful not to suppose that something requires a creator simply on the basis that we don't have a natural explanation. But neither does it mean that one is not allowed to ask the question: "Is this phenomenon better explained as the product of an intelligent being or as the result of complicated but blind natural processes?"

It's a ridiculous starting point. Natural processes aren't "blind" which is why all snowflakes have the same complex pattern. What you keep forgetting is that if you require there to be a god to explain what we on a message board can't explain, then you must also require that your god which can be responsible for creating such complexity must also have an explanation, and according to you, that would be that He also has a creator.

Even if we accept evolution as true, I still don't think that adequately demonstrates that natural causes are sufficient.

Why?

This is precisely why I argued at length a couple weeks ago that atheism, while perhaps not being a belief of itself, requires belief. If there is not supernatural intervention, then what we observe has to be the result of natural causes, and you should be able to support this with evidence.

So every non-scientist like me must believe in a god because he doesn't have the education and omniscience to explain everything? I'm content with not knowing. I believe things happen through natural processes because that's the pattern there seems to be. The more we learn about how things work, the more we learn that it happens without supernatural intervention. I see no reason to believe that a god is required for things us humans have yet to explain. Lots of evidence for natural processes- zero for your one God or any supernatural event ever taking place.

Since there is plenty of reason to suppose the possibility of a creator (Cosmological argument, as one example)

Please. The Cosmological argument is rubbish! It's debunked very well in the very article you linked to.

The evidence can support atheism by showing that supernatural causes are unnecessary, and hence so is belief in God, but if supernatural intervention is necessary, this would clearly support belief in a creator.

This is getting really, really old. Atheism requires no support! It is the lack of a belief- it requires NONE! What is it going to take to get this to sink in? We don't have to show that supernatural causes aren't necessary. It seems that you think a supernatural entity is necessary if humans (or I) can't explain everything. You say a supernatural entity is necessary- you have to prove it. And then don't forget- prove that a supernatural entity isn't required to explain the supernatural entity.

For example, if it turned out there were only a few thousand distinct animals with no shared traits or genetic material, which suddenly appeared out of nowhere 10,000 years ago, would we be having this discussion?

In your hypothetical example, is there proof that they actually appeared out of nowhere, or does it just appear that way? Yes, we would be having this discussion. Do you think we would all jump to the conclusion "God did it" because there was a mystery to solve?

When are you going to give us just one good example of something that has happened or exists that requires God? Please, don't give us an entire list that we have to do a homework assignment on- just give us one example that we can concentrate on.

No, because that evidence would heavily favor belief in a creator, due to the inability of natural processes to provide an explanation.

You mean due to humans not yet having an answer. Mysterious phenomenon don't heavily favor belief in a creator for the rational. You would still have to come to the conclusion that the most mysterious phenomenon- God- must have a creator.

[Guest]

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

The Bible doesn't say anywhere that the world is 6,000 years old. That would be kind of like that coin with the date 4 BC on it, wouldn't it? Unless you mean there's a passage that says "in the year 2008, the world will be about 6,000 years old". The idea of the world's age is based on people nowadays adding up the ages of people in geneologies in the Bible, which I don't think anyone claims to be 100% certain as there's not geneology going from Adam to someone living now, it's all pieces put together in what seems correct. There's nothing divine about that, that's men trying to use logic, which on an individual basis may or may not be flawed.

[Guest]

Actually, this makes my point fairly well. Do you mean to tell me that if David Blaine performed an unbelievable magic trick that nobody could explain that you, as a non-believer, would have less explaining to do?

Where did I say "that nobody could explain"? You've been twisting words around this entire debate. I said, "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."

And yes, as someone who is without belief in magic, I do have less explaining to do. I have zero explaining to do. Magic tricks fool people all the time- that's what they're supposed to do. Something amazing happens that makes it seem as if the supernatural has taken place. Lots of evidence for tricks happening without supernatural means- zero for them happening due to actual "magic" being performed. I don't have a belief in magic because I see no reason to have that belief. It most likely was a trick or there's that small chance that someone can actually perform magic. I don't need to explain how every trick is done- even one that seemingly "no one but one other person" can perform- to be absent of belief. It is the one that affirms that magic actually took place that has the explaining to do. That belief needs justifying. Not believing doesn't.

"I'm not worried about how he did that, since I don't believe in magic." How is that less absurd than believing in magic without irrefutable evidence?

How about taking actual quotes that I made to respond to instead of making up your own in order to give a little twist to what I actually said?

Do you know how every magic trick is done? If not, do you give equal weight to the claims that "it was a trick" and "it was real magic"?

If you are going to insist that magic is not responsible for his trick, then you are obligated to explain how it could be done in a natural way.

I really should accept the fact that this is never going to sink into your brain:

I never insisted that magic is not responsible for any magic tricks. I never insisted that God doesn't exist. Stop twisting words in order for your arguments to appear stronger. I said that I am without belief in either because there is no good evidence for anything supernatural occurring.

I can explain how many tricks are performed. Why do I have to explain how every trick that I don't know the secret to is done in order for "it's just a trick" to be as rational as the explanation "it was magic"? That it was a trick is a more rational explanation as there is a pattern of magic tricks having logical, rational, teachable explanations.

I'll ask again, do you think actual magic is responsible for any magic tricks? If not, why? According to you "you are obligated to explain how it could be done in a natural way".

Your default position may be to assume it's not magic, but simply not believing does not in any way validate your viewpoint when confronted with evidence.

What viewpoint- not believing? What evidence? Not having the explanation for a magic trick is evidence for actual magic?

[Guest]

Well books/bible/Koran, knowledge/science etc to one side. This is about truth, as far as I can tell. Some feel comfortable where they, others need proof.

Science may prove or disprove the existence of a deity of some kind or even that we are in some way interconnected or maybe something else that we chose to call god but didn't know what it was at the time. Is it comforting to know there may be a scientific answer or comforting to leave the responsibility with a supernatural entity.

We may not have the ability (yet or never) to let go and trust another human being with something as precious as our own personal existence. Can it be possible that one feels at peace amongst all people or are we simply animalistic, coping with a civilised society that may not have been meant to be.

What lengths are people willing to go to explain what they 'believe' to be true (no matter how the truth came to them or what form it is in). Many people feel they receive satisfaction because they are in there comfort zone - that which now feels familiar and that which they can trust. Nothing wrong with it other than the separation of people into sects, chapters, creeds etc., which makes then biased or prejudiced and separatist to the point where we don't consider trust and have faith in each other and our own self.

Human nature is a complex thing, are we meant to fight for territory, food, and women etc just to ensure survival of the species or have we 'developed/evolved'' further than that.

There may always be the call of nature written into our genes/DNA that becomes overwhelming in extreme or harsh conditions, where people have found or lost there faith, or maybe we have to react with violent and deception for another reason that was planted or developed. The requirement by man to believe in an omnipresent entity in the ether of heaven/space may simply be to keep harmony within themselves to carry on their existence for a reason other than 'to be,' that they find unacceptable (in a shocking revelation way).

I can go on but I am only breaking down some of the issues, my own beliefs are more natural than supernatural.

Something variable http://www.spaceandmotion.com/pantheism.htm at the moment. Maybe it has been discussed or kicked around/into touch.

Trust in god but keep your powder dry - sums it up to me. Faith may keep you balanced, but there's still a lot you have control of, and on we go on to destiny - ouch!

No disrespect for any belief systems - or personal beliefs - just my two cents worth, not an investment financialy or otherwise.

[Guest]

This is precisely why I argued at length a couple weeks ago that atheism, while perhaps not being a belief of itself, requires belief. If there is not supernatural intervention, then what we observe has to be the result of natural causes, and you should be able to support this with evidence.

As many times as this has been said, I'll say it again: Atheists aren't saying there's no supernatural intervention. We're saying we have no belief in gods. This is usually, but not always, because we don't have evidence for such beings.

Why doesn't your argument work both ways?: If natural causes aren't responsible for everything, then what we observe has to be the result of supernatural intervention, and you should be able to support this with evidence.

[Guest]

Where did I say "that nobody could explain"?

You didn't, and I'm sorry you misunderstood my point. I was taking what you said and extending it further. We basically accept that pretty much any magic trick we see performed is within the realm of natural causes, even if we don't know how it's done. When Chris Angel walks on water, we speculate "ah, he must have hidden plexi-glass supports" or something of the sort. If it's a really good trick we aren't able to identify the explanation, but we generally accept that there is one, because that's what magic is all about. It's the art of illusion, the ability to trick the observer into drawing incorrect conclusions based on manipulated sensory input. I wasn't saying that we need to explain every trick in order to disbelieve a supernatural explanation for magic.

But what if the magician did something that was extraordinarily beyond what we accept as likely to be within the realm of natural causes? What if you personally stood next to him and saw and felt him dissolve into the air and re-materialize 100 meters away a second later? Would it then make sense for you to say "I'm not worried about how he did that, since I don't believe in magic."? Please note that this has nothing to do with establishing the validity of evidence for God. My sole point in responding to your illustration of magic was to show that non-belief is not an end-all answer. It doesn't free you from ever having to provide an explanation. If you don't believe in magic, then you believe in natural explanations, and if you are unable in any fashion to provide a naturalistic explanation, then you can't just sit back and idly invoke non-belief.

How about taking actual quotes that I made to respond to instead of making up your own in order to give a little twist to what I actually said?

I wasn't attempting to quote you. I was making a point by presenting your argument in the form of a statement, but giving it a different context to show how it would not work in altered circumstances. Sorry if that bothered you.

I really should accept the fact that this is never going to sink into your brain:

I never insisted that magic is not responsible for any magic tricks. I never insisted that God doesn't exist. Stop twisting words in order for your arguments to appear stronger. I said that I am without belief in either because there is no good evidence for anything supernatural occurring.

I'm sorry that you feel it should sink into my brain and settle down comfortably in an easy chair somewhere in my cerebrum. I long ago understood your statement, and I have never accepted that this somehow frees you from the responsibility to defend the rationality of beliefs which are the logical inverses of the ones you reject, whether or not you claim to hold those beliefs. If you reject supernatural causes, you accept natural causes. It really is that simple. It doesn't mean you have to be able to provide naturalistic explanations for all the phenomenon that the theist attributes to God, but it does mean that you have something to defend. Non-belief is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Anyhow, it seems to me that most atheists, including yourself, seem quite up to the task.

I'll ask again, do you think actual magic is responsible for any magic tricks? If not, why? According to you "you are obligated to explain how it could be done in a natural way".

I think it's possible, yes, but by default, I assume that they are simply illusions. If I encountered magic as I described above, I would attribute it to supernatural causes.

[Guest]

I agree, much to rally against it. First of all, there's not enough water in our hydrosphere. Not even close. Do you know how much water that is?

Yes, our culture should be revered and studied, but not necessarily practiced. Just because ancient cultures believed that floods were caused by the wrath of gods doesn't mean we should too

First of all, I'm not insinuating a great flood covered our earth, but if you look at the mental growth of our civilization as a whole and compare it to the mental growth of a solitary human being, you can see a lot of similarities. Of course ancient religions thought that the flood covered the whole world, because their country was their world. It's like a child in a backyard- that is their world, they don't know anything else until they've aged and seen more. Our societies had to do the same thing. But to call hundreds of mythologies, including the Aztecs, all telling the same story, a coincidence, seems like clutching air. I don't believe it to be proof that either which way some god exists, but it's a weak claim for disproving one religion.

Mythologies are stories, a way of interpreting our world when we have a limited knowledgeable basis. Why does the wind blow, why do the trees go, why did this huge flood drown us all? Just because children don't know the answer, doesn't mean they don't ask, and we as humans have been doing the same thing. We once knew the world was the center of the universe, we knew the world was flat, and today we know that we are in an ever changing universe. Imagine what we'll know in a few years.

And where did I say that it should be practiced? I don't believe that anywhere I insinuated we should glob the world with water for a few days and let natural selection have its day. I just believe that essential brackets to mythologies should be left out of this debate.

[Guest]

If you reject supernatural causes, you accept natural causes. It really is that simple.

This is getting ridiculous! Not having a belief is not the same as rejecting! Please, stop arguing against something that's not there!

It doesn't mean you have to be able to provide naturalistic explanations for all the phenomenon that the theist attributes to God, but it does mean that you have something to defend.

Then what did you mean when you said this?: "If there is not supernatural intervention, then what we observe has to be the result of natural causes, and you should be able to support this with evidence."

What would you like us to give evidence for? And are you going to give us any evidence for a god?

I did defend my reason for not believing. I said multiple times that claiming there is a god is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I don't need to prove how everything happens without gods. Gods may be responsible. Nature may be responsible. Aliens may be responsible for putting my brain in a jar and programming all of my memories. I tend to believe that natural explanations are more plausible, as there is a pattern of natural things happening through scientifically explainable means, and God and aliens require a more complex solution to explaining the unknown, but I accept that even those answers are possible. However, until I see evidence of the more complex theories, I see no reason to have belief in either explanation, just as you don't need to believe in actual magic to explain David Blaine tricks you don't have the answer to.

[Guest]

If you reject supernatural causes, you accept natural causes. It really is that simple. It doesn't mean you have to be able to provide naturalistic explanations for all the phenomenon that the theist attributes to God, but it does mean that you have something to defend. Non-belief is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Yes, it is.

As has been brought up multiple times, non-belief is not the same as rejecting.

I was speaking with a co-worker the other day about the Big Bang. He doesn't have a belief that the Big Bang actually happened. When I asked why, he told me that he didn't know enough about it or if there is even enough evidence to support it. Does he have to explain why the Big Bang theory isn't worthy of belief? Of course not. He's not saying he's ruled it out (or rejected it); he's saying that he doesn't have a good reason to believe it's a good explanation for the universe. Sounds like a damn good get-out-of-jail-free card. It's the one who claims the Big Bang did happen that the burden of proof rests on.

[unreality]

First of all, I'm not insinuating a great flood covered our earth,

what are you insinuating? Just curious, what are your personal beliefs? Theist? Atheist? Pantheist? (it was something like that, belief in the earth or something)

but if you look at the mental growth of our civilization as a whole and compare it to the mental growth of a solitary human being, you can see a lot of similarities.

How so? I'm not arguing this point, I think I agree with you, but I'm curious. "our civilization"- which civilization?

Of course ancient religions thought that the flood covered the whole world, because their country was their world.

I agree. That's exactly what I'm saying, that the flood didn't cover the whole Earth. So we're saying the same thing

But to call hundreds of mythologies, including the Aztecs, all telling the same story, a coincidence, seems like clutching air.

I didn't say it was a coincidence, ever. (btw I dont think the Aztecs told that story, but MANY religions did, I know what you mean ) But I did say it wasn't an act of God. Since I'm not sure your position in this debate (theist, atheist, etc) I'm not sure if we agree or disagree on this point, but what I said is that floods devastate early civilizations, they are horrible and kill many people, so people need a reason for this terrible natural disaster that they can't explain. So they make up an explanation. They say the God/Gods did it. It's certainly not a coincidence- just the opposite. In all civilizations that floods have effected (almost all of them) they have myths about floods.

[Guest]

T: I believe in God?

A: Why?

T: Three basic reasons. First, I believe the phenomenon we observe in our universe provides evidence of intelligent design. Second, I believe God has revealed himself to man in various ways. Third, my personal experiences and the experiences of others have confirmed for me that God is actively involved in human affairs.

A: Seriously? Regarding your second reason, I hope you're not referring to the Bible. It has clearly been shown to be full of holes. As for personal experiences, I have never heard anything that couldn't be attributed to human imagination. If you're going to provide evidence for God, you better stick with your first point. Personally, I have seen zero evidence of intelligent design.

T: Ok, while I think such carte blanche dismissal of the rationality of so many people is a bit heavy-handed, I'll work with it. In nature we see countless phenomena which are so complex, intricate, interdependent, fine-tuned, etc., etc., that I believe it is reasonable to propose that they are the product of intelligence. It would follow that if there were not an intelligent cause, these would instead have to be explainable by blind natural mechanisms. From what I've seen, there have not been adequate explanations to show that such natural mechanisms can generate life, or are capable of resulting in consciousness, abstract thought, syntactical language, objective morals, or any of the many other lines of "evidence" that are frequently presented as the basis for intelligent design.

A: Aha! You have fallen into the classical God of the Gaps. You assume that if we cannot explain something, it must have been the product of God, and thus you use this proposed entity as a catch-all for the unknown or as-yet unexplained.

T: Using belief in God as a catch-all for the unexplained would indeed be an argument from ignorance, but you didn’t argue what I said. Are you saying that the following statement is not true?: “It would follow that if there were not an intelligent cause, these would instead have to be explainable by blind natural mechanisms.”

A: First of all, it’s ridiculous to call those natural mechanisms “blind.” They’re certainly not random; they follow set rules which produce a specific result. As for your statement? No, I don’t think it’s reasonable. As an atheist, I simply don’t believe that the evidence of which you speak is justification for positing an intelligent designer. I’m not saying that we have, or need to have, an alternative explanation.

T: When I say “blind,” I am highlighting that without intelligence, natural mechanisms are not guided. They cannot foresee the outcome of their actions. They cannot work toward a goal, since the word implies purpose. It may be that a pattern emerges of accomplishing a certain outcome (e.g., survival), but the processes that resulted in those patterns are indeed blind.

Your proceeding response poses a logical dilemma. The “evidence” posed for a creator follows from the dichotomy of possibilities, based on the law of the excluded middle. Either there is an intelligent designer, or there is not. If there is not, then non-intelligent causes must be responsible for our universe. I didn’t think it was much of a stretch to equate non-intelligent causes with natural causes. Is there something else you had in mind?

A: Fine, but that doesn’t mean we have to be able to explain those causes to conclude that the opposing possibility is not sufficiently supported.

T: Ok, but then how to we ever resolve this disagreement? My argument for intelligent design rests upon showing that natural causes are insufficient. You argue that it is not necessary to show such causes are insufficient to reject my argument. Any suggestions on how we can move forward?

[Guest]

As promised, the cosmological argument as tackled by an expert.

Namely Victor Stenger, in his book God: The Failed Hypothesis:

I'll start it off.

He offers the kalam cosmological argument, as drawn from Islamic theology:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Prof. Stenger in this book concentrates on the science, so that is how he tackles it. There are plenty of challenges in philosophy as well.

(Prof. Stenger is arguing specifically against William Lane Craig at this point)

In his writings, Craig takes the first premise to be self-evident, with no justification other than common, everyday experience. That's the type of experience that tells us the world is flat. In fact, physical events at the atomic and sub-atomic level are observed to have no evident cause. For example, when an atom in an excited energy level drops to a lower level and emits a photon, a particle of light, we find no cause of that event. Similarly, no cause is evident in the decay of a radioactive nucleus.

Craig has retorted that quantum events are still "caused," just caused in a nonpredetermined manner - what he calls "probabilistic causality." in effect, Craig is thereby admitting that the "cause" in his first premise could be an accidental one, something spontaneous - something not predetermined. By allowing probabilistic cause, he destroys his own case for a predetermined creation.

We have a highly successful theory of probabilistic causes - quantum mechanics. It does not predict when a given event will occur and, indeed, assumes that individual events are not predetermined. The one exception occurs in the interpretation of quantum mechanics given by David Bohm. This assumes the existence of yet-undetected subquantum forces. While this interpretation has some supporters, it is not generally accepted because it requires superluminal connection that violate the principles of special relativity. More important, no evidence for subquantum forces has been found.

Instead of predicting individual events, quantum mechanics is used to predict the statistical distribution of outcomes of ensembles of similar events. This it can do with high precision. For example, a quantum calculation will tell you how many nuclei in a large sample will have decayed after a given time. or you can predict the intensity of light from a group of excited atoms, which is a measure of the total number of photons emitted. But neither quantum mechanics nor any other existing theory - including Bohm's - can say anything about the behaviour of an individual nucleus or atom. The photons emitted in atomic transitions come into existence spontaneously, as do the particles emitted in nuclear radiation. By so appearing, without predetermination, they contradict the first premise.

In the case of radioactivity, the decays are observed to follow an exponential decay "law." However, this statistical law is exactly what you expect if the probability for decay in a given small time interval is the same for all time intervals of the same duration. In other words, the decay curve itself is evidence for each individual event occurring unpredictably and, by inference, without being predetermined.

Quantum mechanics and classical (Newtonian) mechanics are not as separate and distinct from one another as is generally thought. Indeed, quantum mechanics changes smoothly into classical mechanics when the parameters of the system, such as matter, distances, and speeds, approach the classical regime. When that happens, quantum probabilities collapse to either zero or 100 percent, which then gives us certainty at that level. however, we have many examples where the probabilities are not zero or 100 percent. The quantum probability calculations agree precisely with the observations made on ensembles of similar events.

Note that even if the kalam conclusion were sound and the universe had a cause, why could that cause itself not be natural? As it is, the kalam argument fails both empirically and theoretically without ever having to bring up the second premise about the universe having a beginning.

The Origin

Nevertheless, another nail in the coffin of the kalam argument is provided by the fact that the second premise also fails. As we saw above, the claim that the universe began with the big bang has no basis in current physical and cosmological knowledge.

The observations confirming the big bang do not rules out the possibility of a prior universe. Theoretical models have been published suggesting mechanisms by which our current universe appeared from a preexisting one, for example, by a process called quantum tunneling or so-called quantum fluctuations. The equations of cosmology that describe th early universe apply equally for the other side of the time axis, so we have no reason to assume that the universe began with the big bang.

in The Comprehensible Cosmos, I presented a specific scenario for the purely natural origin of the universe, worked out mathematically at a level accessible to anyone with an undergraduate mathematics or physics background. This was based on the no boundary model of James Hartle and Stephen Hawking. In that model, the universe has no beginning or end in space or time. In the scenario I presented, our universe is described as having "tunneled" through the chaos at the Planck time from a prior universe that existed for all previous time.

While he avoided technical details in A Brief History of Time, the no boundary model was the basis of hawking's oft-quoted statement: "So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place then for a creator?"

Prominent physicists and cosmologists have published, in reputable scientific journals, a number of other scenarios by which the universe could have come about "from nothing" naturally. None can be "proved" at this time to represent the exact way the universe appeared, but they serve to illustrate that any argument for the existence of God based on this gap in scientific knowledge fails, since plausible natural mechanisms can be given within the framework of existing knowledge.

As I have emphasized, the God of the gaps argument for God fails when a plausible scientific account for a gap in current knowledge can be given. I do not dispute that the exact nature of the origin of the universe remains a gap in scientific knowledge. But I deny that we are bereft of any conceivable way to account for that origin scientifically.

in short, empirical data and the theories that successfully describe those data indicate that the universe did not come about by a purposeful creation. Based on our best current scientific knowledge, it follows that no creator exists who left a cosmological imprint of a purposeful creation.

He continues. I wil leave that out, but will add this as I touched on it earlier:

Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?

If the laws of physics follow naturally from empty space-time, then where did that empty space-time come from? Why is there something rather than nothing? This question is often the last recourse of the theist who seeks to argue for the existence of God from physics and cosmology and finds that all his other arguments fail. Philosopher Bede Rundle calls it "philosophy's central, and most perplexing, question." His simple (but book-length) answer: "There has to be something."

Clearly many conceptual problems are associated with this question. how do we define "nothing"? What are its properties? If it had properties, doesn't that make it something? The theist claims that God is the answer. But,then, why is there God rather than nothing? Assuming we can define "nothing," why should nothing be a more natural state of affairs than something? In fact, we can give a plausible scientific reason based on our best current knowledge of physics and cosmology that something is more natural than nothing!

In Chapter 2 we saw how nature is capable of building complex structures by processes of self-organization, how simplicity begets complexity. Consider the example of the snowflake, the beautiful six-pointed pattern of ice crystals that results from the direct freezing of water vapor in the atmosphere. Our experience tells us that a snowflake is very ephemeral, melting quickly into drops of liquid water that exhibit far less structure. But that is only because we live in a relatively high-temperature environment, where heat reduces the fragile arrangement of crystals to a simpler liquid. Energy is required to break the symmetry of a snowflake.

In an environment where the ambient temperature is well below the melting point of ice, as it is in most of the universe far from the highly localized effects of stellar heating, any water vapor would readily crystallize into complex asymmetric structures. Snowflakes would be eternal, or at least would remain intact until cosmic rays tore them apart.

This example illustrates that many simple systems of particles are unstable, that is, have limited lifetimes as they undergo spontaneous phase transitions to more complex structures of lower energy. Since "nothing" is as simple as it gets, we cannot expect it to be very stable. It could likely undergo a spontaneous phase transition to something more complicated, like a universe containing matter. The transition of nothing-to-something is a natural one, not requiring any agent. As Nobel laureate physicist Frank Wilczek has put it, :The answer to the ancient question 'Why is there something rather than nothing?' would then be that 'nothing' is unstable."

In the nonboundary scenario for the natural origin of the universe I mentioned earlier, the probability for there being something rather than nothing actually can be calculated; it is over 60 percent.

In short, the natural state of affairs is something rather than nothing. An empty universe requires supernatural intervention - not a full one. Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there was no God.

[Guest]

Any suggestions on how we can move forward?

Yeah, it's already been suggested a few times. Give us your best piece of evidence for a creator and we'll discuss just how reasonable it is to conclude He must exist based on that. You brought up that the universe provides evidence of intelligent design. Want to go with that? We'll give you plenty of evidence how it is more an illusion of design and tell how complexity can come from disorder on its own. You said, "I believe God has revealed himself to man in various ways". Want to go with that? We can take care of that one in pretty short order. You said, "In nature we see countless phenomena which are so complex, intricate, interdependent, fine-tuned, etc., etc., that I believe it is reasonable to propose that they are the product of intelligence". Want to go with that? We'll demand that if the complexity in the universe were designed by a being, then by your own rationale you must believe your creator has a creator. Pick your best argument and we'll discuss it.

As promised, the cosmological argument as tackled by an expert.

Namely Victor Stenger, in his book God: The Failed Hypothesis:

Great book! I've taken it out from the library a few times and I'm going to have to purchase it as it comes in handy when arguing with theists. I may have to also order The Comprehensible Cosmos: Where Do the Laws of Physics Come From? so I can have more answers for Duh Puck. Apparently if I don't have all of the scientific answers for how the laws of physics work without a Creator, there must be One (yet that Creator exists without having been created. Hmmm.).

[Guest]

My argument for intelligent design rests upon showing that natural causes are insufficient.

I missed where you proved that natural causes are insufficient to explain the universe. Can you repeat it for me?

And then please respond Scraff's comment as it is relevant to believing natural causes are an insufficient explanation:

"What you keep forgetting is that if you require there to be a god to explain what we on a message board can't explain, then you must also require that your god which can be responsible for creating such complexity must also have an explanation, and according to you, that would be that He also has a creator."

Any designer capable of designing and creating something as complex as the universe surely also is complex enough to require its own designer. Indeed any designer, by definition, would have to be complex; the very act of “designing” requires the presence of a mind. This is because design, by definition, is planning/executing something with a specific goal with respect to the end result. Mind, the only entity capable of design work, simply is too complex to arise by pure chance.

So how do you resolve this conundrum you've gotten yourself into?

[Guest]

God does have a Designer, but I don't think Logic can explain God. If it could, if He let us find evidence of Him at every turn, faith would have no purpose. We have free agency in this life to CHOOSE, so He leaves enough room for us to doubt Him, even deny Him, if we want. If evidence were found to prove God incontrovertibly, then all those who chose not to believe would be damned for doing so. Our choices would all be unforgivable, because we would KNOW; knowledge is responsibility. I have faith, and I believe God exists, I would even say I know- but its not something I can prove. And on the subject of God being eternal, never beginning or ending. We don't have a beginning or ending either. Our spirits were created by God from intelligences, we then gained bodies and came to earth to prove, not to Him, but to ourselves we are worthy to live with Him forever. He also was created by His God, and lived a mortal life to prove His worthiness. So while time does not exist in the same way for Deity and so He has been forever and always will be God, He once wasn't.

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." Doctrine & Covenants 130: 22

Man is as God once was, and God is as man may become.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Noa

[Guest]

God does have a Designer,

Really, care to explain that? You just through it out there. Who or what designed God? Who or what designed this "God designer"?.....

but I don't think Logic can explain God. If it could, if He let us find evidence of Him at every turn, faith would have no purpose.

So what is this supposed purpose of Faith you allude too?

We have free agency in this life to CHOOSE, so He leaves enough room for us to doubt Him, even deny Him, if we want. If evidence were found to prove God incontrovertibly, then all those who chose not to believe would be damned for doing so. Our choices would all be unforgivable, because we would KNOW; knowledge is responsibility.

That is ridiculous mindless drivel of religious rhetoric. It saddens me all the more to realise that that is far from the first (or last I would bet) I have heard it

That's like not telling you child not to steal cookies, because then we couldn't forgive her if we caught her at it Your twisted 'logic' makes no sence whatsoever!

I have faith, and I believe God exists, I would even say I know- but its not something I can prove.

No, if you did know, then you wouldn't need Faith (the willful abandonment of reason) would you? By declaring that this is a matter of faith for you, you are essentially counting yourself out of any rational discussion on the matter. And perhaps all rational discussions ever; who wants to try to have such a discussion with someone so willing to abandon reason when it suits them - When reason won't give them the answer they want to believe?!

It's like this - I'll investigate all the reasons available for God's existence. But if those reasons fail to provide sufficient reason to believe in God, and since I so cherish that belief, rather than accept the FACT that there is simply not enough reason to do so, so I shouldn't, I will instead simply abandon Reason itself rather than let go of my cherished irrational belief

And on the subject of God being eternal, never beginning or ending. We don't have a beginning or ending either. Our spirits were created by God from intelligences, we then gained bodies and came to earth to prove, not to Him, but to ourselves we are worthy to live with Him forever.

Any evidence for this, any reason at all why we should buy into it in any way shape or form? Or is MERE ASSERTION enough for you? Should we take that on Faith as well

He also was created by His God, and lived a mortal life to prove His worthiness. So while time does not exist in the same way for Deity and so He has been forever and always will be God, He once wasn't.

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us." Doctrine & Covenants 130: 22

Man is as God once was, and God is as man may become.

Oh you're a Mormon? Oh brother! I'm sorry, I can't even pretend to take that one seriously.

But let's see here. So God was created by God as Jesus. In order to prove himself as worthy to himself?!

And, he has and will exist forever (immortal and transcending al of time) AND he wasn't for a while?!

From the quote: God has a blood and bone Body (Why?) as does his son (that makes [a kind of twisted] sense as Jesus is his own father, and God is his own son after all ). But the Holy Ghost doesn't (why does he not need it if the others do?). So God and Jebus can't "dwell in us"? Whatever the hell that means.

[Guest]

If you have no desire to listen to my answers because I believe on faith and am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints then what is the point of this discussion continuing? Why try to speak to someone with a different view if you are just going to shut them down solely because of that view?

And I have one question Can you PROVE there is no God?