One Final Post About God and Religion

[David Sklansky]

I made a decision not to post anymore about religion, partly because of personal reasons, and partly because I now see more downsides than upsides.

There are however, a few thoughts that I have had recently, that I think are both clearly correct, and also should be accepted by everybody. So I felt I had to make this last post explaining them.

There are at least four reasonable reasons, even if there was no bible, for humans to think that there is an intelligent higher power out there. Basically they are:

1. There is something rather than nothing.

2. The universe and especially this planet, contain an amazing array of incredibly complicated living and non living things.

3. There is a "you" that knows it is alive in ways that animals or computers don't.

4. The spookiness of some aspects of relativaty and even more so, quantum theory.

Of course only a tiny fraction of religious people have ever pointed to number four as a major reason for their theistic beliefs. In spite of that, I do not think anyone has a right to be a firm atheist if they haven't studied this advanced physics and concluded that the spookiness can easily be explained away without the need for any sort of higher power (even a deistic one that is not omnipotent}.

Anyway, the fact is that three of the four reasons above are still good arguments for some sort of theism. The creation of something from nothing is not something scientists understand. Neither is the existence of human consciousness. (I'll say no more about modern physics.) And if computers can never be made conscious, it not only argues for a God, it also argues for a God that considers humans, and perhaps other conscious beings, special.

Since there seems to be good reasons (especially in the past) to think it not unreasonable that there is a higher power, (and maybe not just a deistic one), people have invented hundreds of religions, seeking to explain this higher power in more detail. The inventors are sometimes charlatans, sometimes philosophers, and sometimes under the influence of some sort of hallucination. But these details that were espoused, otherwise known as "religions" are of course wrong. Let me correct myself. All of these religions, save perhaps one, are of course wrong.

But so what? Most of the debates on this forum are about whether God exists, especially a non deistic one. Even if all the religions are erroneous attempts to explain him and his goals, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist and has goals for us. So athiests shouldn't point to the silliness of specific religious beliefs to make their point.

But their is something else that atheists can now point to that appears to make their case stronger. I speak of #2 above. The argument that the complexity of the universe and this planet is proof, or strong evidence, of an intelligent designer. But it isn't. And those who say otherwise play into atheist's hands with this foolish argument. An argument that is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. For two reasons. Firstly, just because things could happen without a designer doesn't mean that there wasn't a designer. Same way that just because a poker player can (rarely) become great without reading my books doesn't mean he didn't read my books. Secondly, even if things came into being merely through the laws of physics, (including, perhaps, the randomness of quantum theory), doesn't mean there wasn't a God who got the ball rolling and still occasionally gets involved, perhaps only after death.

It is important to understand that the subject of whether these things (eclipses, pancreases, etc) could happen all because of a couple of original logic and physics laws and without a designer is NOT a religious question. It is a pure math and science question. A very technical one. And too many religious people make fools of trhemselves when they argue that it couldn't (or that the probability is miniscule) when they don't have the expertise to make these arguments. They are not serving their cause when they are both wrong and they deflect the debate from the three issues that the atheists do not, at least as of now, have good explanations for.

Changing the subject, I would now like to talk about those religions that seem to say that they believe that God will punish those who do not believe in him. This almost cannot be true. But before I explain why, I would say that there is a good chance that the religions in question are not actually making the error I ascribe to them but are rather explaining their beliefs innacurately. If so, they need to change their words a bit.

The point I am making is related to the concept of free will. Many religious people like to emphasize that God can get angry at his creations because he has created them with free will. (Unlike animals who I'm sure can't anger God). OK fine. Except that free will only applies to what you do and perhaps what you feel and desire. Not what you THINK. You can't help that. My father used to tease me when I was very young by imploring me not to think of an elephant for the next ten seconds. And of course I couldn't. On a more probalistic note, take the case of a Seattle Seahawk fan. If he thinks that the Steelers will probably beat them in the Super Bowl, that's just what he thinks. He can lie and say otherwise but it is still what he thinks.

But guess what? No Seahawk player is going to be angry with him. Not if he is out there cheering for them, crying when they lose and jubuilant when they win. Not to mention him travelling to all the road games they play in spite of the fact that he intellectually makes them the underdog.

Given that you don't have free will regarding your thoughts, it seems inconceivable that God would not be like the Seahawks players. Even if it is true that God requires more than good works for him to reward you, it can't be true that he would withold that reward for an intellectual thought that he was less than 50% in your mind to exist. It's conceivable that one of God's requirements relates to how you feel about him. But if so the requirements would be along the lines that you LOVE him, that you WORSHIP him, that you ASSUME that he exists and HOPE with every fiber of your being that he does.

Actually I believe it is possible that many members of the religions being addressed will not dispute me. They might admit that the confusion arises because in the old days everyone assumed that there had to be a God, so professing non belief was equivalent to professing a defiance toward God. But nowadays there are almost certainly people who have studied the evidence and with a heavy heart concluded that the God, or Jesus, that they desperately want to exist probably doesn't. But even though they have no free will to change this THOUGHT, they continue to worship, adore, obey, etc. this entity that they have intellectual doubts about. How could that not be enough?

[Darryl_P]

Nice post. It shows a lot of very deep reflection.

If there is one aspect which you have either not emphasized adequately or fail to see accurately, I'd say it's the distinct possibility of heaven and hell (or the related concepts of reward and punishment by God) not being two absolute, predefined states but rather just the names of two extremes on a continuous range, any point of which could be where a given person "ends up".

Having said that, if I were God's decision-making assistant, I'd give you a lot of points for your heartfelt effort to understand His ways and these issues, even if you didn't believe in Him. I'd reserve a spot for you at at least the 90th percentile on the heaven/hell scale, which would clearly put you ahead of a lot of believers.

I think your next stage of development will be to recognize that, while thoughts can't be willed directly (ie. I want to think this now), they can be altered very slowly by altering your own psychological state via similar kinds of reflection that you have undergone in recent weeks and/or significant external events that "force" such reflection on you. If you agree that you can slightly alter what it means to be "you", then you are also altering the thoughts that automatically pop into your mind.

Despite these two minor inaccuracies I see, I'd say this was easily your best post I've ever read on this forum.

[Charon]

[ QUOTE ]
4. The spookiness of some aspects of relativaty and even more so, quantum theory.

Of course only a tiny fraction of religious people have ever pointed to number four as a major reason for their theistic beliefs. In spite of that, I do not think anyone has a right to be a firm atheist if they haven't studied this advanced physics and concluded that the spookiness can easily be explained away without the need for any sort of higher power (even a deistic one that is not omnipotent}.


[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading after this. I have studied both, and I can surely see why you're fascinated by those subjects, but I really can't see why you use it as an argument for a theistic believe. So, and I hope you DID study those subjects intensively (since you require it from atheists as well) please enlighten me why QM (relativity is IMO not "spooky" at all IMO) does need a higher power. And please don't use arguments like 'we don't/can't fully understand the collapse of the wavefunction', because:

-A theory about how the wavefunction collapses can not be verified experimentally (at least, as far as we know, different theories about the collapse of the wavefunction yield the same verifiable statements).

-An argument in support of a higher power can not be based on the mere fact that modern physics is still incomplete.

Looking forward to your answer.

[Prodigy54321]

It's great to hear from you around here again.

I'll be heading to bed now and will no doubt be thinking over what I had just read.

I'll be moving up in playing level ($11 STTs to $22 STTs)tomorrow but I'm sure my concentration will now be thrown off and I'll be spending more time in here going over this post with the others. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif thanks

clicking back to SMP one last time before going to sleep and seeing DAVID SKLANSKY in bright red letters was a great surprise /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I'll leave with a notable (out of context but true /images/graemlins/smile.gif) quote from your post..

[ QUOTE ]
...a poker player can (rarely) become great without reading my books...

[/ QUOTE ]

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, even if things came into being merely through the laws of physics, (including, perhaps, the randomness of quantum theory)...

[/ QUOTE ]
My complements on a typically well-reasoned post. I do not plan on commenting on your main point. However, bearing on the particular and oft-repeated possibility mentioned above, I should point out that quantum theory as we understand it is in no way "self-creating." If you want the randomness of quantum theory, you first need a universe which is functioning according to the rules of quantum theory.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, even if things came into being merely through the laws of physics, (including, perhaps, the randomness of quantum theory)...

[/ QUOTE ]
My complements on a typically well-reasoned post. I do not plan on commenting on your main point. However, bearing on the particular and oft-repeated possibility mentioned above, I should point out that quantum theory as we understand it is in no way "self-creating." If you want the randomness of quantum theory, you first need a universe which is functioning according to the rules of quantum theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats right and you need no special technical understanding to realise that whatever the particulars of the laws that allow spontaneous creation, it still doesn't explain the existence of the laws in the first place.

Nothing, including god, can explain why there's anything in the first place.

chez

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Nothing, including god, can explain why there's anything in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's assuming there is a beginning and an end of time. I'd say it's possible to have both theistic and non-theistic theories which don't use such an assumption. Don't ask me for details, though /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[keikiwai]

[ QUOTE ]

1. There is something rather than nothing.

2. The universe and especially this planet, contain an amazing array of incredibly complicated living and non living things.

3. There is a "you" that knows it is alive in ways that animals or computers don't.

4. The spookiness of some aspects of relativaty and even more so, quantum theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

My problem w/ all of these is I don't understand why a deity is the only solution or a solution at all.

For example if the deity had something to do w/ there being something instead of nothing, how did the deity come about?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nothing, including god, can explain why there's anything in the first place.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's assuming there is a beginning and an end of time. I'd say it's possible to have both theistic and non-theistic theories which don't use such an assumption. Don't ask me for details, though /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not assuming anything about time. Stuff exists and any explanation about why stuff exists will include stuff that itself requires its existence to be explained.

chez

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, even if things came into being merely through the laws of physics, (including, perhaps, the randomness of quantum theory)...

[/ QUOTE ]
My complements on a typically well-reasoned post. I do not plan on commenting on your main point. However, bearing on the particular and oft-repeated possibility mentioned above, I should point out that quantum theory as we understand it is in no way "self-creating." If you want the randomness of quantum theory, you first need a universe which is functioning according to the rules of quantum theory.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thats right and you need no special technical understanding to realise that whatever the particulars of the laws that allow spontaneous creation, it still doesn't explain the existence of the laws in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
Completely correct, but unfortunately it seems that the somewhat "spooky" rules of quantum theory have caused many with partial understanding to abandon this point, with the impression that "quantum physics allows creation from nothing."

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Its not assuming anything about time. Stuff exists and any explanation about why stuff exists will include stuff that itself requires its existence to be explained.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that there being something requires more of an explanation than there being nothing? Why? Why is "nothing" the default state? It would make more sense to me if the current state were the default state, simply because we haven't experienced anything else.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
My problem w/ all of these is I don't understand why a deity is the only solution or a solution at all.

For example if the deity had something to do w/ there being something instead of nothing, how did the deity come about?

[/ QUOTE ]
A deity is not a self-contained explanation -- it merely implies an essential discontinuity in the understanding of the universe. That is, better measurements and better theoretical models can never lead to the whole story.

Presumably, your particular take on the nature of this kind of discontinuity constitutes (at least some of) your religious beliefs.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its not assuming anything about time. Stuff exists and any explanation about why stuff exists will include stuff that itself requires its existence to be explained.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that there being something requires more of an explanation than there being nothing? Why? Why is "nothing" the default state? It would make more sense to me if the current state were the default state, simply because we haven't experienced anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think I'm saying that, just that any explanation of stuff has to include stuff that still needs an explanation.

If there was nothing then an explanation would be impossible for different reasons /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[keikiwai]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My problem w/ all of these is I don't understand why a deity is the only solution or a solution at all.

For example if the deity had something to do w/ there being something instead of nothing, how did the deity come about?

[/ QUOTE ]
A deity is not a self-contained explanation -- it merely implies an essential discontinuity in the understanding of the universe. That is, better measurements and better theoretical models can never lead to the whole story.

Presumably, your particular take on the nature of this kind of discontinuity constitutes (at least some of) your religious beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. I get this, but then I've been completely misunderstanding what deity means.

I clearly see discontinuties in our understanding, but a lot of these, I don't think will ever be resolved, or can be resolved. Speculating about them may be interesting, but ultimately fruitless... except maybe as growth as a person.

Also I don't get the whole death/deity link. Why on earth would you have a better chance of unlocking these unreasolvable things after you die?

[ QUOTE ]
God who got the ball rolling and still occasionally gets involved, perhaps only after death.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if there is a deity chances are very high that our death is much more important to us than to the deity.

In other words whether a deity exists is a completelly independent problem of whether there is anything after death.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think I'm saying that, just that any explanation of stuff has to include stuff that still needs an explanation.

If there was nothing then an explanation would be impossible for different reasons
/images/graemlins/smile.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but let me ask you, apart from simply being possible, what criteria are there for explanation to be required? Is it a rule of etiquette? Is it a pre-requisite to have a complete explanation for everything?

If it's the latter, then I'd say theists have an advantage because, in their world, it is accepted that humans will never fully understand God. Those who adamantly believe there is no god OTOH often claim that science, practiced at a high enough level, will eventually lead to a full understading of the universe.

Are you sure the requirement (or desire) to have an explanation isn't related to atheism and, therefore, is not part of an objective view incorporating both theism and atheism?

[$_DEADSEXE_$]

This is why i love this forum...I make crib notes of this [censored] and throw it out at Hollywood Hills dinner parties and totally freak people out who think I'm some kind of super genius.

[keikiwai]

[ QUOTE ]
Those who adamantly believe there is no god OTOH often claim that science, practiced at a high enough level, will eventually lead to a full understading of the universe.


[/ QUOTE ]

You will have a very hard time getting any good scientist to say this, or think/believe this, today. Science leading to a full understanding of the universe was a view of the world in the era of Newtonian physics. Relativity, quantum mechanics, observation of chaotic systems, etc. has drastically changed this point of view until now most scientists would say that we will never have a full understanding of the universe (and they will contend this completely irrespective of their religious beliefs).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, but let me ask you, apart from simply being possible, what criteria are there for explanation to be required? Is it a rule of etiquette? Is it a pre-requisite to have a complete explanation for everything?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not sure what you mean. There no requirement to explain anything. However anyone who attempt to offer an explaination of everything is attempting the impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure the requirement (or desire) to have an explanation isn't related to atheism and, therefore, is not part of an objective view incorporating both theism and atheism?

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe people just like explanations. I do but in this case its logically impossible.

Its really just an extension of gap-filling. Some people seem to think that because they don't understand something, it is reasonable to make up an explanation. In this case it's not even possible to make something up.

chez

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what you mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said this (emphasis added):

[ QUOTE ]
.. any explanation of stuff has to include stuff that still needs an explanation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Basically I'm asking why?

[Darryl_P]

If we take your statement at face value, ie. that everything that is used in an explanation still needs an explanation, then that's a pretty good argument for all explanations of anything being pointless. Surely you don't agree with this statement, do you?

Another way to interpret it (a more reasonable way IMO) is to say the stuff needs an explanation if ...(fill in the blank)

The blank might be

"if you want to have a complete explanation for everything", or

"if you like explaining stuff", or

"if you don't have any axioms like God existing with certain properties",

etc.

Basically I was wondering what belongs after the "if".

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what you mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said this (emphasis added):

[ QUOTE ]
.. any explanation of stuff has to include stuff that still needs an explanation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Basically I'm asking why?

[/ QUOTE ]
We're talking about any stuff at all. If you want me to write a longer sentence /images/graemlins/grin.gif

'Any explanation of why there is any stuff at all has to include stuff that itself needs an explanation'

chez

[Darryl_P]

To be a good scientist you have to leave all possiblities open unless there is very, very strong evidence to rule it out. It's strange that so many smart people would exhibit such inquisitive thinking in real-world matters yet have their minds stubbornly made up on the supernatural.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
'Any explanation of why there is any stuff at all has to include stuff that itself needs an explanation'


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that's better http://webforum.mweb.co.za/images/graemlins/img56.gif

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
To be a good scientist you have to leave all possiblities open unless there is very, very strong evidence to rule it out. It's strange that so many smart people would exhibit such inquisitive thinking in real-world matters yet have their minds stubbornly made up on the supernatural.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your have a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Science is based on a philosophy of naturalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29).

P.S. Do you believe in Santa? Is there very,very strong *EVIDENCE* to rule out his existence? If not, would you support research funds for determining the existence of Santa?

[Copernicus]

While this is the first time Ive heard or read 4. I dont see it as being much more than a subset of complexity, though I will have to think about it more.

1-3 are being presented as "reasonable reasons" to believe in a higher power, and I dont see them as being reasons at all.

I think the most interesting thing about the OP is that DS has abanadoned the tradition that he almost certainly once followed of not writing God, but G-d.

Does that indicate just a simple break with tradition [God surely knows living in Vegas and avoiding trafe is nearly impossible, and the use of an "o" is just a small step beyond that] or a more fundamental change in beliefs?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Your have a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Science is based on a philosophy of naturalism.

P.S. Do you believe in Santa? Is there very,very strong *EVIDENCE* to rule out his existence? If not, would you support research funds for determining the existence of Santa?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you took my response to keikiwai out of context. He was responding to my statement:

"Those who adamantly believe there is no god OTOH often claim that science, practiced at a high enough level, will eventually lead to a full understading of the universe."

I assumed leading scientists were not in this group precisely because the philosophy of naturalism is not about making bold, sweeping unfounded statements. Even the link you gave mentions that ...

"Naturalism does not claim that phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural necessarily do not exist or are wrong"

He was the one who mentioned scientists and I responded by being surprised that scientists had such seemingly contradictory views. Your post just strengthens what I already thought.

Regarding Santa Claus, there is plenty of very convincing evidence that he can't exist with the qualities that are normally assigned to him. I think you know this too and are doing your best to be a pain in the butt with such a comment.

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
1. There is something rather than nothing.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean matter, then this is just a fundamental tenet, much like Descartes 'Cogito'

If you mean there must be some diety rather than none, that's the fundamental argument of a religious optimist. It's a good assertion in the sense it's probably unshakeable, but it's not something you can argue against with any degree of success any more than you can persuade a brick wall it would be better for all if it was alongside the road rather than across it. Tenets of faith are like that.

[bunny]

You make a good point that it is not only fruitless but counter-productive to argue for a particular religious belief when it contradicts well tested science. There is no reason that your theism should be any different from your other beliefs - if your theology comes into conflict with the other collection of facts you know about the world you shouldnt assume it is the religious bit that is correct.

[bocablkr]

Welcome back (this one time, David).

1. There is something rather than nothing.
<font color="blue">Why does this logically follow? Because that is what we have always experienced? Something can't come from nothing? Sounds reasonable but how does the existence of god from nothing get explained? <font color="blue"> </font> </font>

2. The universe and especially this planet, contain an amazing array of incredibly complicated living and non living things.
<font color="blue">So what - it also contains an incredible array of less complicated things all the way down to uncomplicated. </font>

3. There is a "you" that knows it is alive in ways that animals or computers don't.
<font color="blue">Are you sure that some other higher level animals (perhaps apes, dolphins) don't have an awareness of 'self'? </font>

4. The spookiness of some aspects of relativaty and even more so, quantum theory.
<font color="blue"> I have a fair understanding of general physics but am also confused by QM. However, I never considered its 'spookiness' as a reason to believe in god. I am confident when I say you would find most experts on QM are atheists. </font>

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]

1. There is something rather than nothing.
<font color="blue">Why does this logically follow? Because that is what we have always experienced? Something can't come from nothing? Sounds reasonable but how does the existence of god from nothing get explained? <font color="blue"> </font> </font>



[/ QUOTE ]

For what its worth ive recently been thinking that if God does exist then spacetime might go along way to answering this question. If things exist that are outside of the constraints of space and time then.........well who the hell knows what happens when notions of before and after or here and there are removed.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Same way that just because a poker player can (rarely) become great without reading my books doesn't mean he didn't read my books.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blasphemy! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[keikiwai]

[ QUOTE ]
To be a good scientist you have to leave all possiblities open unless there is very, very strong evidence to rule it out. It's strange that so many smart people would exhibit such inquisitive thinking in real-world matters yet have their minds stubbornly made up on the supernatural.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. I think we actually agree on this one.

I'm just saying that most scientists do not believe that everything about the universe can or will ever be understood.

Additionally, quiet a few scientists (don't know if + or - 50% but quiet a few) are religious. Science is just a tool for understanding the world around us using observation, experimentation, the laws of logic, often guided by intuition and serendipity. It doesn't conflict with most religious beliefs in any way.

[Peter666]

"It is important to understand that the subject of whether these things (eclipses, pancreases, etc) could happen all because of a couple of original logic and physics laws and without a designer is NOT a religious question. It is a pure math and science question. A very technical one. And too many religious people make fools of trhemselves when they argue that it couldn't (or that the probability is miniscule) when they don't have the expertise to make these arguments."

Although with great effort we can begin to understand the logical and physical laws behind creation, I don't think this dissuades from the religious argument, for the religious person is more interested in HOW those laws came into effect rather than their EFFECTS. The HOW question is something that atheists cannot explain except with "it just happened for no reason" which is a giant leap of faith.

PS: I see that this reiterates Metric's post.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course only a tiny fraction of religious people have ever pointed to number four as a major reason for their theistic beliefs. In spite of that, I do not think anyone has a right to be a firm atheist if they haven't studied this advanced physics and concluded that the spookiness can easily be explained away without the need for any sort of higher power (even a deistic one that is not omnipotent}.

[/ QUOTE ]
By the same token why does anyone have the right to be a firm theist if they lack the understanding to conclude that the "spookiness" can NOT easily be explained in any other way? And since our understanding is not and probably never will be complete how can anyone be firm either way? Why does an atheist have less of a right to believe there is a purely scientific explanation while a theist has the right to believe there isn't a purely scientific explanation when neither knows for sure?

[BluffTHIS!]

Some of you atheist guys, who engage in intellectual contortions more convoluted than that of many cult believers in order to deny that it is reasonable to posit a God, even while saying there is no absolute proof of same, especially in regards to first cause arguments, are missing something regarding David's 4 points. And that is, in order for it to be in fact unreasonable to believe there is a God/Creator of some type (details don't matter for this), you have to win a 4 team parlay where all 4 points are wrong (unreasonable).

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
4. The spookiness of some aspects of relativaty and even more so, quantum theory.
<font color="blue"> I have a fair understanding of general physics but am also confused by QM. However, I never considered its 'spookiness' as a reason to believe in god. I am confident when I say you would find most experts on QM are atheists. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]


That they are atheists, indeed if every single one of them is, isn't really a reason for not believing that physics can be a reason to believe in God. It only means that they, like so many scientists in history, can't take that science further than the latest discovery.

For myself, I stated in David's God - A Summary (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Board=scimathphil&amp;Number=433438 2&amp;fpart=1&amp;PHPSESSID=) thread why I believe that physics indeed is a reason to believe in God and quote the relevant part of my long post there:

"And the history of particle and cosmological physics is indeed a very good way to examine this whole question. Not only as David has pointed out in his post here, has science not produced a scientific explanation of the origin of the primordial quantum singularity that produced the big bang and thus the basis of causality, but in the "spooky" realm cannot explain either quantum entanglement or the nature and operation of the so-called "God particle", i.e. the Higgs-Bosun particle and the Higgs Field in which it operates. When you add to this the question of the cosmological constant and dark matter and energy, along with the question as to why there does not exist in our universe equal parts of anti-matter and matter as seems likely to have been produced by the big bang, then it is clear that something very permeates the entire universe and sustains its existence. For without the Higgs particle and field nothing can exist since every action that happens in the universe is a result of particle interactions (vertices) in which that particle and field is always a necessary part.

As christians we believe that God sustains the universe in existence from moment to moment and indeed is present in all things. Thus He is not standing outside the universe He created, but permeates it. And this belief of the underlying reality of things corresponds to our ever increasing knowledge of cosmological physics. Even Stephen Hawking calls the First Cause "God", even while not believing in a personal god. But the reason so many non-believers resist this terminology or even "first cause", is because of the implications of doing so. And yet, there is not now nor can there ever be an alternative explanation, because of the non-existence of observable data anywhere in the universe of the things and time that preceded the big bang."

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of you atheist guys, who engage in intellectual contortions more convoluted than that of many cult believers in order to deny that it is reasonable to posit a God, even while saying there is no absolute proof of same, especially in regards to first cause arguments, are missing something regarding David's 4 points. And that is, in order for it to be in fact unreasonable to believe there is a God/Creator of some type (details don't matter for this), you have to win a 4 team parlay where all 4 points are wrong (unreasonable).

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try Bluff, but the parlay example doesn't work here and if it did then I stand by my earlier post - all 4 points are not necessarily true.

1. There is something rather than nothing.

Why does this logically follow? Because that is what we have always experienced? Something can't come from nothing? Sounds reasonable but how does the existence of god from nothing get explained?

2. The universe and especially this planet, contain an amazing array of incredibly complicated living and non living things.

So what - it also contains an incredible array of less complicated things all the way down to uncomplicated.

3. There is a "you" that knows it is alive in ways that animals or computers don't.

Are you sure that some other higher level animals (perhaps apes, dolphins) don't have an awareness of 'self'?

4. The spookiness of some aspects of relativaty and even more so, quantum theory.

I have a fair understanding of general physics but am also confused by QM. However, I never considered its 'spookiness' as a reason to believe in god. I am confident when I say you would find most experts on QM are atheists.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some of you atheist guys, who engage in intellectual contortions more convoluted than that of many cult believers in order to deny that it is reasonable to posit a God, even while saying there is no absolute proof of same, especially in regards to first cause arguments, are missing something regarding David's 4 points. And that is, in order for it to be in fact unreasonable to believe there is a God/Creator of some type (details don't matter for this), you have to win a 4 team parlay where all 4 points are wrong (unreasonable).

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try Bluff, but the parlay example doesn't work here and if it did then I stand by my earlier post - all 4 points are not necessarily true.

[/ QUOTE ]



All you did was regurgitate your previous post which I didn't requote above. The parlay example does work because all 4 have to be unreasonable in order for it to be unreasonable to believe in some type of God, though not necessarily the type believed in by any current/past religion.

[bocablkr]

My point is that it is easy for me to find all 4 of them unreasonable. But you are allowed to believe they are reasonable. There is a difference of opinion. But in a parlay, the team wins or loses, it is not up to the discretion of the person playing the parlay as to whether the team won or lost.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some of you atheist guys, who engage in intellectual contortions more convoluted than that of many cult believers in order to deny that it is reasonable to posit a God, even while saying there is no absolute proof of same, especially in regards to first cause arguments, are missing something regarding David's 4 points. And that is, in order for it to be in fact unreasonable to believe there is a God/Creator of some type (details don't matter for this), you have to win a 4 team parlay where all 4 points are wrong (unreasonable).

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try Bluff, but the parlay example doesn't work here and if it did then I stand by my earlier post - all 4 points are not necessarily true.

[/ QUOTE ]



All you did was regurgitate your previous post which I didn't requote above. The parlay example does work because all 4 have to be unreasonable in order for it to be unreasonable to believe in some type of God, though not necessarily the type believed in by any current/past religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense, even if all 4 are reasonable (which they arent), since when is a preponderence of "reasonable reasons" anything near a proof?

My car wouldnt start this morning and none of the lights or horn work, and I have been feuding with the neighbors:

It is reasonable that the neighbor turned my lights on to kill the battery.

It is reasonable to that the neighbor cut the battery cable in some unseen spot.

It is reasonable that the neighbor drained all the acid from the battery.

It is reasonable that the neighbor has a machine that interferes with electrical currents and hid it under the hood.

The reasonableness of all 4 comes nowhere near a proof that the neighbor was involved and I didnt just forget to turn the lights off myself.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason that your theism should be any different from your other beliefs - if your theology comes into conflict with the other collection of facts you know about the world you shouldnt assume it is the religious bit that is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

A logical conclusion about faith against science would have to be on the basis of a third system that is neither faith nor science.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of you atheist guys, who engage in intellectual contortions more convoluted than that of many cult believers in order to deny that it is reasonable to posit a God, even while saying there is no absolute proof of same, especially in regards to first cause arguments, are missing something regarding David's 4 points. And that is, in order for it to be in fact unreasonable to believe there is a God/Creator of some type (details don't matter for this), you have to win a 4 team parlay where all 4 points are wrong (unreasonable).

[/ QUOTE ]

Not Really. 200 years ago that list might have included some 100 points that would make belief in theism reasonable. Those 4 are more like your last grasps as they are currently unexplained.

Alot of people like to believe in a God of the gaps type theory. Problem is those gaps get shut by reason and religion just comes up with a new philosophy to fit the current state of knowledge.

5000 years ago it would be reasonable to think that 1.God physicaly rose and set the sun each day. 2.had a direct role in the changing of seasons. 3. created all life in one fell swoop. 4. sculpted the mountains by hand. Was that such an unreasonable parlay?

[BluffTHIS!]

chris,

We are talking about today and those 4 specific points which are logical/scientific/probalistic in nature.

And the "gaps" we are talking about here in regards to the matter of first cause and the origin of the quantum singularity that produced the big bang, can never now or in the future be explained otherwise by science because there is no observable data for same.

Plus I am not stating that for non-believers there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of God, but that it is not the case where there is no logical/scientific evidence at all for same, which is David's point.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Nonsense, even if all 4 are reasonable (which they arent), since when is a preponderence of "reasonable reasons" anything near a proof?

[/ QUOTE ]


You missed my point regarding a parlay, and your analogy shows that.

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
chris,

We are talking about today and those 4 specific points which are logical/scientific/probalistic in nature.

And the "gaps" we are talking about here in regards to the matter of first cause and the origin of the quantum singularity that produced the big bang, can never now or in the future be explained otherwise by science because there is no observable data for same.

Plus I am not stating that for non-believers there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of God, but that it is not the case where there is no logical/scientific evidence at all for same, which is David's point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and I concur that there is not sufficient evidence for a hard line athiest viewpoint. But since the begining of human history the story is the same. Whatever we can not explain with reason we explain with something supernatural until that is shown not to be the case.

Incidentaly, doesnt the Catholic church teach that we know God through his revealed word and not through any naturalistic deduction? I hope that doesnt sound like a smartass question, btw, as that is not my intent at all.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
chris,

We are talking about today and those 4 specific points which are logical/scientific/probalistic in nature.

And the "gaps" we are talking about here in regards to the matter of first cause and the origin of the quantum singularity that produced the big bang, can never now or in the future be explained otherwise by science because there is no observable data for same.

Plus I am not stating that for non-believers there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of God, but that it is not the case where there is no logical/scientific evidence at all for same , which is David's point.

[/ QUOTE ]

If aftrer getting through the double or triple negatives you are saying "there is logical/scientific evidence for the existence of a god", point me to it. Ive never seen any.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree and I concur that there is not sufficient evidence for a hard line athiest viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris, you need evidence to be an hard atheist? It is the lack of evidence that makes me a firm atheist. Don't you need evidence to support the existence of something that we can't see? Why do I need evidence to support my non-belief in something I can't see any evidence of?

[keikiwai]

[ QUOTE ]
And that is, in order for it to be in fact unreasonable to believe there is a God/Creator of some type (details don't matter for this), you have to win a 4 team parlay where all 4 points are wrong (unreasonable).

[/ QUOTE ]

Could someone explain what parlay is.

The only context I know of parlay is:

http://www.thespiannet.com/actresses/K/knightley_keira/potc.jpg

PS: This is not a discussion between believers and atheists. There's agnostics too!

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of you atheist guys, who engage in intellectual contortions more convoluted than that of many cult believers in order to deny that it is reasonable to posit a God, even while saying there is no absolute proof of same, especially in regards to first cause arguments, are missing something regarding David's 4 points. And that is, in order for it to be in fact unreasonable to believe there is a God/Creator of some type (details don't matter for this), you have to win a 4 team parlay where all 4 points are wrong (unreasonable).

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/smile.gif
and on-line poker's rigged as well.

chez

[PastorDavidDD]

Great post!

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
An argument in support of a higher power can not be based on the mere fact that modern physics is still incomplete.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your missing the point of David's post. Its not an argument for or against the existence of God.

Stu

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree and I concur that there is not sufficient evidence for a hard line athiest viewpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

Chris, you need evidence to be an hard atheist? It is the lack of evidence that makes me a firm atheist. Don't you need evidence to support the existence of something that we can't see? Why do I need evidence to support my non-belief in something I can't see any evidence of?

[/ QUOTE ]

I need evidence to form a strong opinion. Maybe there is a God, I think there is at least that possibility. As to the accuracy of any religion expressed by man at any point in time, I do have a strong opinion that that is wrong as there is evidence aplenty of that.

[HLMencken]

[ QUOTE ]
But even though they have no free will to change this THOUGHT, they continue to worship, adore, obey, etc. this entity that they have intellectual doubts about. How could that not be enough?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe its the opposite. Maybe God if he exists gave us this wonderfully powerful mind--that is really where we were created in his image. And those who choose to ignore their intellectual doubts and cling to false illusions which they themsleves know at some level are false but ignore these signs--these may in fact be the greatest of sinners. Not saying that's the way it is, but that certainly is as possible.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentaly, doesnt the Catholic church teach that we know God through his revealed word and not through any naturalistic deduction? I hope that doesnt sound like a smartass question, btw, as that is not my intent at all.

[/ QUOTE ]


Thomas Aquinas taught that the existence of a god in general, as well as many of his attributes, could be deduced from reason and nature alone. However, beyond such a general theistic knowledge of same, specific details can only be known through revelation.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]

and on-line poker's rigged as well.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually it has been proven to be partially so here recently with the ZJ/JJ tourney cheat threads. And mankind has a cheater to be worried about as well, who is called Satan. He would trick you into not believing in his existence, or God's, in order to try to cheat you of an eternal life with God. C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters is the best psychological treatment of this through fictional means.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
chris,

We are talking about today and those 4 specific points which are logical/scientific/probalistic in nature.

And the "gaps" we are talking about here in regards to the matter of first cause and the origin of the quantum singularity that produced the big bang, can never now or in the future be explained otherwise by science because there is no observable data for same.

Plus I am not stating that for non-believers there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of God, but that it is not the case where there is no logical/scientific evidence at all for same , which is David's point.

[/ QUOTE ]

If aftrer getting through the double or triple negatives you are saying "there is logical/scientific evidence for the existence of a god", point me to it. Ive never seen any.

[/ QUOTE ]


You have turned David's argument around, which is about there not being any such reasonable basis for a belief in a Creator/God at all. You are in the position of denying all 4 points he made as reasonable, when there only has to be 1 to be so to prove the contrary.

[MidGe]

Actually, I often wondered if a lot of theistd do not under-rate the cleverness of satan. It seems to me quite logical and possible that it is the work of satan that gets people to believe that their conception of god is the correct one. I mean the bible mention god as vengeful, angry etc... One's existence seems to display by it suffering, a less than kindly disposed god. Let's not mention the concept of eternal damnation. Yet, most theists, seemingly in denial (or under the influence of satan) seem to think that the god they worship is all-loving.

Go figure!

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

and on-line poker's rigged as well.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


Actually it has been proven to be partially so here recently with the ZJ/JJ tourney cheat threads. And mankind has a cheater to be worried about as well, who is called Satan. He would trick you into not believing in his existence, or God's, in order to try to cheat you of an eternal life with God. C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters is the best psychological treatment of this through fictional means.

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/smile.gif not quite the point.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I often wondered if a lot of theistd do not under-rate the cleverness of satan. It seems to me quite logical and possible that it is the work of satan that gets people to believe that their conception of god is the correct one. I mean the bible mention god as vengeful, angry etc... One's existence seems to display by it suffering, a less than kindly disposed god. Let's not mention the concept of eternal damnation. Yet, most theists, seemingly in denial (or under the influence of satan) seem to think that the god they worship is all-loving.

Go figure!

[/ QUOTE ]
Its wierd that folk like BluffThis use this idea without realising that it doesn't help them at all.

Those that believe that a good god condemns those who he created unable to believe in him without reason, are in the thrall of the devil.

chez

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The point I am making is related to the concept of free will. Many religious people like to emphasize that God can get angry at his creations because he has created them with free will. (Unlike animals who I'm sure can't anger God). OK fine. Except that free will only applies to what you do and perhaps what you feel and desire. Not what you THINK. You can't help that...

.....But nowadays there are almost certainly people who have studied the evidence and with a heavy heart concluded that the God, or Jesus, that they desperately want to exist probably doesn't. But even though they have no free will to change this THOUGHT, they continue to worship, adore, obey, etc. this entity that they have intellectual doubts about. How could that not be enough?

[/ QUOTE ]

If God created the universe in a manner that absolutely proved his existence, would we really have free will? If God revealed his plan for us in a manner that left absolutely no doubt, how could our worship not be uncoeirced? The more I think and learn about how the universe was created, the more it reflects the work of the god I was taught to know and worship.

[ QUOTE ]
...in the old days everyone assumed that there had to be a God, so professing non belief was equivalent to professing a defiance toward God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some atheist in this forum are simply athiest, others make it point to be quite defiant towards God. Do the latter have more to worry about than the former?

Stu

[MidGe]

Heya Stu,

[ QUOTE ]
Some atheist in this forum are simply athiest, others make it point to be quite defiant towards God. Do the latter have more to worry about than the former?


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it is possible at all for an atheist to be defiant towards god. There is a contradiction in that statement.

[Dominic]

David,

That was the most level-headed and enlightening essay on the existence of God I have ever read. You should certainly think about expanding this into an article of some sort and perhaps get it published.

Thank you for your thoughts,

D.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]

Those that believe that a good god condemns those who he created unable to believe in him without reason, are in the thrall of the devil.
chez

[/ QUOTE ]

i know this applies more to previous posts than yours, but yours is recent so i'll quote you.

i'm hoping the following might help people understand how a christian might deal with this issue, i'm not trying to argue for it.

i used to think that everyone "in their heart" believes in god, but some people "deceive themselves" into "believing that they don't believe." so when people say they "can't believe," it's really that they are lacking some characteristic (something to do with humility) that enables others to recognize their own knowledge of god, and it's this characteristic that god really cares about. (this was intended to be consistent with romans 1, specifically the part about "men being without excuse" for saying god doesn't exist because god's existence is "plain to them" from nature.)

so as far as god is concerned, there are ulitimately two kinds of people: those with the characteristic (saved) and those without (unsaved).

if that were true, then it would be impossible for an atheist to tell the difference between being unable to believe and being able to "stop deceiving himself," so atheists' claims of being "unable" would be completely expected under this model.

the only remedy for "unbelief" would be to acquire that certain characteristic, i guess by an act of will (it makes sense that everyone has a "chance").

my ultimate problem with this was, what motivates such an act of will? it would seem that in order to become "humble" or whatever is necessary to stop the self-deception you would need to stop deceiving yourself first and see that you lack humility. maybe god gives people a "moment of clarity" where they have an opportunity to see their "true thoughts," but it seems like as soon as you're "able" to see things clearly, you've already made the "right" choice.

i still believe in the power of self-deception. i think people mistakenly "believe they believe" a lot of things. (actions inconsistent with "beliefs" are evidence of this.) and i still hold that the preceding theory could "possibly" accurately represent the world (it should be noted i believe in the possibility of a wider range of things than most do, because i also believe in my time-tested ability to misjudge and misinterpret the world i live in).

another thing that is very hard to swallow is that people could deceive themselves so completely that they could TRY to be open to "recognizing" the existence of god (as it seems both sklanksy and i are) and still "not allow" themselves to be. this implies that DS has tricked himself into believing that he's entertaining the possibility of god when no such thing is actually happening.

since i've always agreed that (as far as we can tell) we don't choose what we believe, this was the only way i could reconcile god punishing people who don't "believe in" him with my own idea of justice.

i never could figure out exactly WHY god would reward people who had the necessary characteristic so that they could have "faith," because it always seemed to me that if i believed in god it was because god "gave" me the necessarily humility to believe in him. (i also always struggled with the strong correleation between being the offspring of a believer with being a believer. if we really had a fundamental, free choice, why should children of the "saved" make the "right" choice so much more frequently? and why would entire societies make the "wrong" choice? seems like not everyone has the same chance. unless god determines that people who intrinsically lack the characteristic that would make them "choose him" be born into lives where they won't recognize him? the bad souls are born philistines?)

but anyway "as a christian" i believed that god gave everyone a choice, and you could either choose to recognize god and "have a relationship with him" (heaven) or not and be separated from him (hell), and i think this view is pretty prevalent.

by the way, people should understand that the pressure on a christian to accept things that conflict with his or her sensibilities (about things like justice) is great, because if the christian god did exist it would be reasonable not to expect everything about him or what goes on in his "head" to make sense to us.

i know i rambled a lot and i kind of mashed it all together, but i hope this helps people understand what a lot of people think (i know a lot of people who do anyway). and sorry for my possibly excessive use of quotation marks and parentheses, they seemed appropriate.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Those that believe that a good god condemns those who he created unable to believe in him without reason, are in the thrall of the devil.
chez

[/ QUOTE ]

i know this applies more to previous posts than yours, but yours is recent so i'll quote you.

i'm hoping the following might help people understand how a christian might deal with this issue, i'm not trying to argue for it.

i used to think that everyone "in their heart" believes in god, but some people "deceive themselves" into "believing that they don't believe." so when people say they "can't believe," it's really that they are lacking some characteristic (something to do with humility) that enables others to recognize their own knowledge of god, and it's this characteristic that god really cares about. (this was intended to be consistent with romans 1, specifically the part about "men being without excuse" for saying god doesn't exist because god's existence is "plain to them" from nature.)

so as far as god is concerned, there are ulitimately two kinds of people: those with the characteristic (saved) and those without (unsaved).

if that were true, then it would be impossible for an atheist to tell the difference between being unable to believe and being able to "stop deceiving himself," so atheists' claims of being "unable" would be completely expected under this model.

the only remedy for "unbelief" would be to acquire that certain characteristic, i guess by an act of will (it makes sense that everyone has a "chance").

my ultimate problem with this was, what motivates such an act of will? it would seem that in order to become "humble" or whatever is necessary to stop the self-deception you would need to stop deceiving yourself first and see that you lack humility. maybe god gives people a "moment of clarity" where they have an opportunity to see their "true thoughts," but it seems like as soon as you're "able" to see things clearly, you've already made the "right" choice.

i still believe in the power of self-deception. i think people mistakenly "believe they believe" a lot of things. (actions inconsistent with "beliefs" are evidence of this.) and i still hold that the preceding theory could "possibly" accurately represent the world (it should be noted i believe in the possibility of a wider range of things than most do, because i also believe in my time-tested ability to misjudge and misinterpret the world i live in).

another thing that is very hard to swallow is that people could deceive themselves so completely that they could TRY to be open to "recognizing" the existence of god (as it seems both sklanksy and i are) and still "not allow" themselves to be. this implies that DS has tricked himself into believing that he's entertaining the possibility of god when no such thing is actually happening.

since i've always agreed that (as far as we can tell) we don't choose what we believe, this was the only way i could reconcile god punishing people who don't "believe in" him with my own idea of justice.

i never could figure out exactly WHY god would reward people who had the necessary characteristic so that they could have "faith," because it always seemed to me that if i believed in god it was because god "gave" me the necessarily humility to believe in him. (i also always struggled with the strong correleation between being the offspring of a believer with being a believer. if we really had a fundamental, free choice, why should children of the "saved" make the "right" choice so much more frequently? and why would entire societies make the "wrong" choice? seems like not everyone has the same chance. unless god determines that people who intrinsically lack the characteristic that would make them "choose him" be born into lives where they won't recognize him? the bad souls are born philistines?)

but anyway "as a christian" i believed that god gave everyone a choice, and you could either choose to recognize god and "have a relationship with him" (heaven) or not and be separated from him (hell), and i think this view is pretty prevalent.

by the way, people should understand that the pressure on a christian to accept things that conflict with his or her sensibilities (about things like justice) is great, because if the christian god did exist it would be reasonable not to expect everything about him or what goes on in his "head" to make sense to us.

i know i rambled a lot and i kind of mashed it all together, but i hope this helps people understand what a lot of people think (i know a lot of people who do anyway). and sorry for my possibly excessive use of quotation marks and parentheses, they seemed appropriate.

[/ QUOTE ]
but if some of us cannot believe without reason (and we have far better evidence that this is the caes than you do that it isn't) then it's at least as likely that your belief is the work of the devil.

Add to that, that there is no good reason why it would matter to a good god whether we believe in him or not and we clearly see the devil at work.

chez

[Sephus]

also, on the subject of christians being closed-minded, if you're going to be a christian you can't be constantly reevaluating the core tenets of your faith. being a christian (usually) involves professing and believing that you have a relationship with god, that there is two-way communication and affection. it's supposed to be their greatest source of joy and strength; it's suppposed to have completely changed their lives. if it were even possible to acheive the same results by pretending to have a relationship with god, it wouldn't be such a great, amazing thing, would it? that's how they "know for sure" it's real. doubting the existence of the relationship to any real degree is pretty much the same thing as denying it, because it's god, if you "know" god you know for sure.

so asking a "born again" christian to be open to the possibility that christianity is "wrong" is like asking him to deny it. so if you think it's always stupid to be closed-minded, then you think it's stupid to be a christian, and you if you believe that you can just say it.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
but if some of us cannot believe without reason (and we have far better evidence that this is the caes than you do that it isn't) then it's at least as likely that your belief is the work of the devil.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think you understand what my post was meant to accomplish.

[ QUOTE ]
Add to that, that there is no good reason why it would matter to a good god whether we believe in him or not and we clearly see the devil at work.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's like you didn't read my post and that makes me unhappy, because i know you are smart and it seems like my attempts at communication have failed miserably.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but if some of us cannot believe without reason (and we have far better evidence that this is the caes than you do that it isn't) then it's at least as likely that your belief is the work of the devil.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think you understand what my post was meant to accomplish.

[ QUOTE ]
Add to that, that there is no good reason why it would matter to a good god whether we believe in him or not and we clearly see the devil at work.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's like you didn't read my post and that makes me unhappy, because i know you are smart and it seems like my attempts at communication have failed miserably.

[/ QUOTE ]
Txs for the smarts compliment but I'm often dumb at comprehension.

I've read it again but not really sure which bit I've misunderstood so completely. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

chez

[Sephus]

i'll try to clarify.

[ QUOTE ]
but if some of us cannot believe without reason (and we have far better evidence that this is the caes than you do that it isn't) then it's at least as likely that your belief is the work of the devil.

[/ QUOTE ]

i wasn't trying to say anything about how you or i should judge the probability of anything being true or anything being the work of the devil. i didn't want to suggest an alternative that was better or worse (than god punishing people for being unable to believe), only one that i know a lot of people believe. (did it even come across as an alternative? it's supposed to be)

also saying "we can't believe without reason" means nothing to someone who has presupposed that you really do believe, but you just don't "know it." so there's no way at all to convincingly argue against it (to a believer), because atheists are "deceiving themselves" anyway.

[ QUOTE ]
Add to that, that there is no good reason why it would matter to a good god whether we believe in him or not and we clearly see the devil at work.

[/ QUOTE ]

this disappointed me because i thought i communicated that according to a lot of christians' worldviews, everyone believes in god. so it's not that god cares about that at all. what god supposedly cares about is people being humble enough to make themselves his "servants."

and i think reasonable people could imagine that it does matter to a good god whether people are humble enough to "submit to him."

[Sephus]

heh i just want to clarify that i believe you when you say you don't believe in god.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
also saying "we can't believe without reason" means nothing to someone who has presupposed that you really do believe, but you just don't "know it." so there's no way at all to convincingly argue against it (to a believer), because atheists are "deceiving themselves" anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
Either it matters whether you believe or it doesn't. If everyone belives then as you say it doesn't matter. Then it either matters whether you believe you believe or it doesn't matter etc ad infinitum. At some point you have to stop if the idea of deceiving themselves it make any sense. When you stop, you end up with the same thing as just saying
they believe in god or not.

[ QUOTE ]
and i think reasonable people could imagine that it does matter to a good god whether people are humble enough to "submit to him."

[/ QUOTE ]
No, requiring submission is more obviously a bad thing than a good thing which was the point of the original post.

Humble seems good but whats more humble then attaching no importance to yourself in the scheme of things.

chez

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
also saying "we can't believe without reason" means nothing to someone who has presupposed that you really do believe, but you just don't "know it." so there's no way at all to convincingly argue against it (to a believer), because atheists are "deceiving themselves" anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
Either it matters whether you believe or it doesn't. If everyone belives then as you say it doesn't matter. Then it either matters whether you believe you believe or it doesn't matter etc ad infinitum. At some point you have to stop if the idea of deceiving themselves it make any sense. When you stop, you end up with the same thing as just saying
they believe in god or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with you.

supposedly there is somehow a level of control you have when you're talking about "believing that you believe" that you might not have when it comes to just believing.

i have the same problems with it you have, i was just trying to explain how people are thinking about it. i think i even talked about why i struggled to make that distinction. i'm assuming it matters to people not just what's true but what's going on in other people's heads.

if you can't see how the distinction could possibly make a difference to anyone, maybe i didn't do a good enough job playing devil's advocate.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
and i think reasonable people could imagine that it does matter to a good god whether people are humble enough to "submit to him."

[/ QUOTE ]
No, requiring submission is more obviously a bad thing than a good thing which was the point of the original post.

Humble seems good but whats more humble then attaching no importance to yourself in the scheme of things.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

firstly, requiring submission may be obviously bad to you but it's not as obvious to some. if god created us to have a relationship with him and it just isn't possible without submission (perhaps because of god's own nature that he can't change), then submission to god is required to fulfill our purpose.

as for the second point, supposedly your attaching no importance to yourself in the scheme of things comes from your desire to deny god's existence, which comes from your desire to "rule yourself," which comes from pride.

i know it may seem absurd to you but reasonable people (in my estimation) believe this. if you want to believe that i'm wrong in thinking that such people can be considered "reasonable" that's fine, i only wanted to put the ideas out there.

[chezlaw]

We agree about most of it so I'll just tackle this bit:
[ QUOTE ]
i know it may seem absurd to you but reasonable people (in my estimation) believe this. if you want to believe that i'm wrong in thinking that such people can be considered "reasonable" that's fine, i only wanted to put the ideas out there.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think its a different meaning of reasonable. I mean unreasonable in that they cannot justify their belief with a reasoned argument. Maybe they can, but they never do it just comes down to faith that an interpretation of some book reflects the nature of god.

The point about submission to god being good is that not that it cant be so but all our experience of people who demand submission would suggest its a bad thing. We were talking about the being deceived by the devil and it works both ways, so if they say people may be being deceived into believing a good god cannot demand submission then as a matter of reason they cannot exclude the at least as equally likely possibility they they are the ones being deceived.

So no person guilty of using reason can make use of the devil argument to bolster their claim that they are right and others are wrong.

chez

[peritonlogon]

[ QUOTE ]
Except that free will only applies to what you do and perhaps what you feel and desire. Not what you THINK. You can't help that.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not true. It is possible to decide rationally what one thinks. However, most people have not exercised this ability and for nearly everyone it takes practice and mental training.

Also, to think about 'free will' as this inherent property of humans is problematic. Free will is better conceived of as a potency that takes work and discipline to achieve, and their are varying states of it as well. Most people cannot simply and freely change their lives, or think about things outside of their habitual belief structure, but some can. They are people who spend time being reflective and take time and effort to be consciously aware of themselves. As an example of what I mean, people who play poker and employ a winning strategy that differs from how they would naturally play(folding more, raising more or what have you)exhibit a bit of free will. Those who 'know' how to play well, want to, but can't get themselves to(for example, unable to fold KQ for 3 bets when 2 tight players raise and reraise, when they know their beat pretty bad), do not exercise free will. They are, rather, following a bad habit, and are not using their will at all, or put another way, their will is not free.

[Charon]

Maybe I never understand David, but what does he mean by this then:

There are at least four reasonable reasons, even if there was no bible, for humans to think that there is an intelligent higher power out there."

IMO this implies that he thinks those four reasons are supporting a theistic believe. But, if you think this is wrong, please explain to me what he does mean.

Thanks.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I never understand David, but what does he mean by this then:

There are at least four reasonable reasons, even if there was no bible, for humans to think that there is an intelligent higher power out there."

IMO this implies that he thinks those four reasons are supporting a theistic believe. But, if you think this is wrong, please explain to me what he does mean.

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he means that people who believe because of some combination of those four reasons are not completely nuts. He doesn't mean that every reasonable person will believe by considering the four reasons.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't mean that every reasonable person will believe by considering the four reasons.


[/ QUOTE ]

I hope so. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Shandrax]

[ QUOTE ]
My father used to tease me when I was very young by imploring me not to think of an elephant for the next ten seconds. And of course I couldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course you couldn't, because you had to check on every thought that it wasn't about an elefant, thereby thinking about what defines the class/object "elefant".

Anyways, there is something that might be even more important than the pure existance of God and that's the question if he/she/it can and will make an impact on our lives. Many religions use God to describe a way around the ultimate definition of worst case called death, but what if God exists and you are still going to die (forever)?

Personally I can (and may even have to) live with the idea of a super-creature existing in this universe or somewhere else. Once people (priests) start drawing positive (or negative) expectations for future from that, I feel inclined to disrespect them for being "unrealistic".

Even if all of this could not have happend without God, it is not clear if he/she/it is still alive (maybe he/she/it died in the Big Bang) and if yes, if he/she/it really cares about the human race (anymore).

Since God hasn't shown up for quite a while, humans have more or less been forced to replace the ruling of God with their own rules. Therefore our modern priests are sitting in the Supreme Court.

[ QUOTE ]
David,

That was the most level-headed and enlightening essay on the existence of God I have ever read. You should certainly think about expanding this into an article of some sort and perhaps get it published.

Thank you for your thoughts,

D.

[/ QUOTE ]

I too am impressed by it.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
David,

That was the most level-headed and enlightening essay on the existence of God I have ever read. You should certainly think about expanding this into an article of some sort and perhaps get it published.

Thank you for your thoughts,

D.

[/ QUOTE ]

I too am impressed by it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I don’t have anything to disagree with regarding the OP, nor anything to really add, I’ll just post a comment for what it’s worth.

David’s writing has been very keen lately, indeed. I noticed this in his article in the forum's magazine. There’s something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear.

[IronDragon1]

[ QUOTE ]
There’s something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to conjecture (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4429909&amp;page=)

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">I think your next stage of development will be to recognize that, while thoughts can't be willed directly (ie. I want to think this now), they can be altered very slowly by altering your own psychological state via similar kinds of reflection that you have undergone in recent weeks and/or significant external events that "force" such reflection on you. If you agree that you can slightly alter what it means to be "you", then you are also altering the thoughts that automatically pop into your mind. </font>

But you must have a sound reason that makes sense for wanting to alter your thoughts. Otherwise, the name for this is called brainwashing.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> For example if the deity had something to do w/ there being something instead of nothing, how did the deity come about? </font>

This is key. There almost can't be a god, unless you believe he willed himself out of nothing. I'm amazed anyone, regardless of religion, can get past this very simple, yet poignant point.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its not assuming anything about time. Stuff exists and any explanation about why stuff exists will include stuff that itself requires its existence to be explained.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that there being something requires more of an explanation than there being nothing? Why? Why is "nothing" the default state? It would make more sense to me if the current state were the default state, simply because we haven't experienced anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I'm not sure why, but that strikes me as incredibly profound and worth some thought. Why IS nothing the default state? Probably because most every thing we know of (except for first cause), we can simulate how it came into being. I have an idea of how everything I'm looking at (keyboard, monitors, wall), came into being. We also know how a tree somes into being, etc. What we don't know is how the very first atom came into being, hence the universe itself. We just assume it couldn't always have been. I think it must have fault, but very good point Darryl.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> For example if the deity had something to do w/ there being something instead of nothing, how did the deity come about? </font>

This is key. There almost can't be a god, unless you believe he willed himself out of nothing. I'm amazed anyone, regardless of religion, can get past this very simple, yet poignant point.

[/ QUOTE ]

They will respond that he exists outside of normal space/time or some other such nonsense. How do you argue with that?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Why IS nothing the default state? Probably because most every thing we know of (except for first cause), we can simulate how it came into being. I have an idea of how everything I'm looking at (keyboard, monitors, wall), came into being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you simulate how your capacity to understand everything you’re looking at (keyboard, monitors, wall) came into being?

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
it not unreasonable that there is a higher power...

All "religions" are of course wrong, save perhaps one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hi David,
If by "higher" power, you mean not well understood by modern science, than I understand your use of the term. If by "higher power" you mean higher than people, that would seem incongruous because we have the power within us.

All religions probably get some things right. Probably no religion gets it all right. The biggest problem with most religions as far as I can tell is that they don't understand that a lot of what is in their scriptures is mythological and/or metaphorical. See Joe Campbell's 6hr PBS TV interview for a good explanation of that (also available on DVD.)

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There’s something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to conjecture (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4429909&amp;page=)

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
…I’ll just post a comment for what it’s worth.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
…There’s something happening here, what it is ain’t exactly clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was just having some fun with words. (The last quote here is the opening line of the song “For What It’s Worth”, by Buffalo Springfield.)

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
partly because I now see more downsides than upsides.


[/ QUOTE ] David, everyone seems to love your post. I am in the minotiry, and wrote a very long reponse to it, that i abbridged. A hifalouting 1st cause arguement, an ID arguement, an I think, therfore I am, therfore God, and I don't know arguements aren't very good reasons to believe. They are after the fact "stories" for an irrational belief.

However, any chance you could share the pros and cons of religous debate? Anyone else want to speculate on the pros and cons, as I am sure most would find that very interesting and informative.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why IS nothing the default state? Probably because most every thing we know of (except for first cause), we can simulate how it came into being. I have an idea of how everything I'm looking at (keyboard, monitors, wall), came into being.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you simulate how your capacity to understand everything you’re looking at (keyboard, monitors, wall) came into being?

[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot. But then, I am not a neurologist or a psycologist. Nor can you adequately explain how my inability to simulate such a thing points towards God's existence. In fact, if you re-read David's post, I believe this was one of his points which I completely agree with. We both (but more so theists), make fools of ourselves using science we don't understand, to debate our points. Just because neither of us can simulate our ability to understand what we do, is a very weak argument for there having to be a god. You're better off sticking to other points.

[Shandrax]

If there was a God, would he/she/it search for an even superior creature?

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its not assuming anything about time. Stuff exists and any explanation about why stuff exists will include stuff that itself requires its existence to be explained.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that there being something requires more of an explanation than there being nothing? Why? Why is "nothing" the default state? It would make more sense to me if the current state were the default state, simply because we haven't experienced anything else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I'm not sure why, but that strikes me as incredibly profound and worth some thought. Why IS nothing the default state? Probably because most every thing we know of (except for first cause), we can simulate how it came into being. I have an idea of how everything I'm looking at (keyboard, monitors, wall), came into being. We also know how a tree somes into being, etc. What we don't know is how the very first atom came into being, hence the universe itself. We just assume it couldn't always have been. I think it must have fault, but very good point Darryl.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely. Take the watch in the field example, you assume a maker. You see the universe amazingly complex, you assume a creator. However, we have only experienced things being made from prior material by creators, there has never been any reason to believe that things could be made from nothing or should have to be.

-JP

[Sharkey]

Why do you suppose a watch is obviously artificial, while a snowflake, which is of at least comparable complexity, is not?

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
But you must have a sound reason that makes sense for wanting to alter your thoughts. Otherwise, the name for this is called brainwashing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it only makes sense if you have a reason, but that's beside the point here. DS' point is that God cannot punish you for your thoughts because you have zero control over them. My point is that this is not true -- you have some control, even if it is only a small amount and it takes a long time and a lot of effort before it takes effect. The assumption is that avoiding God's punishment would be the reason.

I'm not sure where brainwashing fits in here since that usually applies when someone's mind is altered by another person (or group or institution or whatever), and not by oneself. My comments only applied to someone wanting to alter his own thoughts.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think it is possible at all for an atheist to be defiant towards god. There is a contradiction in that statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Midge,

Can you point out the contradiction becuase I just don't see it.

Stu

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
...very good point Darryl.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. It's nice to be able to twist some brains around from time to time. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you suppose a watch is obviously artificial, while a snowflake, which is of at least comparable complexity, is not?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea why, but I never had any difficulty in recognizing the difference between the two and knowing that one was designed (the watch, just in case /images/graemlins/smile.gif ), where the other was the result of natural processes and definitely not designed.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you suppose a watch is obviously artificial, while a snowflake, which is of at least comparable complexity, is not?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea why, but I never had any difficulty in recognizing the difference between the two and knowing that one was designed (the watch, just in case /images/graemlins/smile.gif ), where the other was the result of natural processes and definitely not designed.

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea why? Okay, at least you recognize the distinction.

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you suppose a watch is obviously artificial, while a snowflake, which is of at least comparable complexity, is not?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea why, but I never had any difficulty in recognizing the difference between the two and knowing that one was designed (the watch, just in case /images/graemlins/smile.gif ), where the other was the result of natural processes and definitely not designed.

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea why? Okay, at least you recognize the distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont understand really what youre getting at either. I used a watch because a classic version of this argument appears in William Paley's 1802 Natural Theology.

Holla.

JP

[Stu Pidasso]

Hi Charon,

You have to read all the paragraphs in David's post in order to understand the point he trying to make. Basically David is making an argument that if God exist, God will still reward many athiest becuase an athiest cannot control what he thinks. However God may still hold athiest accountable on things they can control, such as feelings and attitudes.

I can't think of any argument why this is not true.

edit:

Actually, I think an argument against David's point can be made. I'll post it later.

Stu

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you suppose a watch is obviously artificial, while a snowflake, which is of at least comparable complexity, is not?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea why, but I never had any difficulty in recognizing the difference between the two and knowing that one was designed (the watch, just in case /images/graemlins/smile.gif ), where the other was the result of natural processes and definitely not designed.

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea why? Okay, at least you recognize the distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

"...consider a snowflake. Snowflakes do not spring into being by mere chance - by a spontaneous "poofing" into existence ex nihilo. Rather, they arise as a result of the chemical and molecular properties of water as it freezes. Likewise, it may be that life arose as a result of the chemical and molecular properties of various naturally occurring substances. As various substances bonded together, they acquired new properties and therefore new and different ways in which they could interact and bond with other substances. Over millions or billions of years such combinations may have given rise to simple self-replicating structures, and eventually to DNA. Thus even if there was some chance involved in the genesis of living things, such chance need not have been mere chance - the possibilities were restricted by the objective (and lawlike) properties of the chemicals and molecules in interaction with one another."

Taken from : Here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/alex_matulich/why_i_believe/3_apndx.html)

[Alex-db]

I think Sharkey is suggesting the watch representing design and the snowflake representing natural occurence is an arbituary distinction and the snowflake could have been designed.

he is missing the point though. The reason we know the watch was designed is because we know people make watches and they don't exist in nature. We also know that physical laws create snowflakes without intervention. So the distinction is not at all arbitrary. Its not that we know the watch was designed because it is complex, its because we know that watches are designed.

If someone were to see a watch and a snowflake without any prior knowledge of technology or science he might have a point, but that clearly isnt the case here.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you suppose a watch is obviously artificial, while a snowflake, which is of at least comparable complexity, is not?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea why, but I never had any difficulty in recognizing the difference between the two and knowing that one was designed (the watch, just in case /images/graemlins/smile.gif ), where the other was the result of natural processes and definitely not designed.

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea why? Okay, at least you recognize the distinction.

[/ QUOTE ]

"...consider a snowflake. Snowflakes do not spring into being by mere chance - by a spontaneous "poofing" into existence ex nihilo. Rather, they arise as a result of the chemical and molecular properties of water as it freezes. Likewise, it may be that life arose as a result of the chemical and molecular properties of various naturally occurring substances. As various substances bonded together, they acquired new properties and therefore new and different ways in which they could interact and bond with other substances. Over millions or billions of years such combinations may have given rise to simple self-replicating structures, and eventually to DNA. Thus even if there was some chance involved in the genesis of living things, such chance need not have been mere chance - the possibilities were restricted by the objective (and lawlike) properties of the chemicals and molecules in interaction with one another."

Taken from : Here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/alex_matulich/why_i_believe/3_apndx.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
We also know that physical laws create snowflakes without intervention. So the distinction is not at all arbitrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s just where I was going.

[JMP300z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We also know that physical laws create snowflakes without intervention. So the distinction is not at all arbitrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s just where I was going.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear, youre arguing then that god created physical laws? I do not know of any way to argue against that as it is your own belief. However, I can say that I do not believe natural laws are to be ascribed to a god let alone a god of any of the major religions.

-JP

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We also know that physical laws create snowflakes without intervention. So the distinction is not at all arbitrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s just where I was going.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear, youre arguing then that god created physical laws? I do not know of any way to argue against that as it is your own belief. However, I can say that I do not believe natural laws are to be ascribed to a god let alone a god of any of the major religions.

-JP

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
"...consider a snowflake. Snowflakes do not spring into being by mere chance - by a spontaneous "poofing" into existence ex nihilo. Rather, they arise as a result of the chemical and molecular properties of water as it freezes. Likewise, it may be that life arose as a result of the chemical and molecular properties of various naturally occurring substances. As various substances bonded together, they acquired new properties and therefore new and different ways in which they could interact and bond with other substances. Over millions or billions of years such combinations may have given rise to simple self-replicating structures, and eventually to DNA. Thus even if there was some chance involved in the genesis of living things, such chance need not have been mere chance - the possibilities were restricted by the objective (and lawlike) properties of the chemicals and molecules in interaction with one another."


[/ QUOTE ]

Snowflake is a bad example. A snowflake doesn't evolve. There isn't a difference between snowflake produced 4 billion years ago and snow flakes produced today.

What if took a purely mechanical watch and broke it down into all its componet parts. Then suppose we took all those parts and put them into a shoe box. Every second we could shake the shoe box and then check to see if any of the componets have began to combine into assemblies of parts. We could keep on shaking and checking the box to see if any of the assemblies combined with other parts and assemblies. If we kept doing this, how long do you think it would take before our mechanical watch was completely re-assembled?

Stu

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"...consider a snowflake. Snowflakes do not spring into being by mere chance - by a spontaneous "poofing" into existence ex nihilo. Rather, they arise as a result of the chemical and molecular properties of water as it freezes. Likewise, it may be that life arose as a result of the chemical and molecular properties of various naturally occurring substances. As various substances bonded together, they acquired new properties and therefore new and different ways in which they could interact and bond with other substances. Over millions or billions of years such combinations may have given rise to simple self-replicating structures, and eventually to DNA. Thus even if there was some chance involved in the genesis of living things, such chance need not have been mere chance - the possibilities were restricted by the objective (and lawlike) properties of the chemicals and molecules in interaction with one another."


[/ QUOTE ]

Snowflake is a bad example. A snowflake doesn't evolve. There isn't a difference between snowflake produced 4 billion years ago and snow flakes produced today.

What if took a purely mechanical watch and broke it down into all its componet parts. Then suppose we took all those parts and put them into a shoe box. Every second we could shake the shoe box and then check to see if any of the componets have began to combine into assemblies of parts. We could keep on shaking and checking the box to see if any of the assemblies combined with other parts and assemblies. If we kept doing this, how long do you think it would take before our mechanical watch was completely re-assembled?

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly as long as god wanted it to. The parts might even have edges shaped so they will only fit a particular other part in a particular direction so that continued shaking has more than random potential of re-assembling.

[MDoranD]

I emailed my friend the OP's post and he responded with this.
-----------------------------------------

My friend wrote:

All right, the first thing you have to keep in mind is that this is not me
with no street cred vs. this guy who has credentials. Just think of me as a
conduit for the PhDs that I read that are way smarter than me or Sklansky.
M'kay?

I honestly don't know what to make of this guy. He's flip-flopping all
around. He starts to make a case for a designer of the universe, then
jettisons that train of thought just because you can't "prove" design. It
seems like his main argument for a creator is sentience (a "you" that knows
it is alive), but that road is probably the weakest of all, so I don't know
why he goes there. Then he attacks the major faiths without any real cogent
argument, and then after saying what God cannot be, doesn't go on to say
what God might be like. Confusing. Let me make a few points to try to
clean up this mess.

1. You can't prove anything. Ever. Outside of mathematics nothing can be
"proven." So just get that word out of your head. We have to treat this
issue like a court case. No defendant has ever been "proven" guilty or
innocent in the history of trials (DNA and video evidence nonwithstanding).
The jury just weighs the evidence for and against and makes an educated
guess. That's what we have to do. Weigh the evidence and make a decision
(and, by the way, a non-decision is a decision "against").

2. He's right that "just because things could happen without a designer
doesn't mean that there wasn't a designer." But he's wrong about the
anthropic principle (our planet, solar system, life, cells, etc. being so
ridiculously improbable points to a designer). That stuff IS evidence for a
designer. Think about it. What we're talking about is the origin of
information. The only thing that has been able to account for the origin of
information is intelligence. Why when we see hieroglyphics on cave walls do
we assume that people (read: intelligence) put it there, rather than natural
random processes like wind and erosion? Because what's there is complex and
specified, and the only thing able to cause specified complexity is
intelligence. Dig? Same thing with DNA, protein molecules, gravity, and
all that stuff. It's all specified complexity that can't originate on its
own. Something had to cause it into existence.

3. So he then skips quantum physics and goes to a more philosophical
question -- and a trite one at that -- about how could a benevolent God
punish people, blah blah blah. So clearly we're now talking about either
Judaism, Christianity or Islam, since hindu and buddhist religions don't
believe in God that way. Let's just focus on Christianity.

a. First, he's wrong that you can't control your thoughts. Some
thoughts, like the elephant example, fine. But if I sit here and say, "I'm
going to think about that New Year's Eve where you and Jiech wrote that poem(a brilliant work, by the way)" I can do that. I
can control my thoughts. You can sit at the poker table and voluntarily
think, "I wonder if he has the straight or not." See? That claim of his is
nonsense.
b. It's tough to comment on his thoughts on religion since he doesn't
seem to know much in that area. But let me try anyway. When you think
thoughts about God or heaven or punishment or anything like that, you have
to ask yourself where those thoughts or opinions came from. Most of the
time, we mishmash little pieces or sound bytes over the course of our lives
from all over the place, and then come up with some kind of personal
worldview, which it appears Sklansky has done. But introspection can only
get you so far. I prefer empirical observation. So a good place to start
on these questions is the original document. I won't believe the Koran or
the book of Mormon, for instance, because they have obvious mistakes in
them. The Bible, on the other hand, has been right about everything it has
ever claimed, documented, or predicted (except for the stuff that hasn't
happened yet, like the apocalypse). So, if it's right about everything
else, maybe it's also right about the character of God and how you get to
heaven. Dig? Well, what does the Bible say about these things?
Basically, God is the perfect God of love and of judgment. If you
break his laws, you must be judged. The only way sin can be forgiven is by
shedding blood -- it's been that way since the beginning (this is why the
Jews sacrificed lambs and goats for centuries ... also why Jesus is called
"lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world"). If you break the law
and are not judged, then God is a liar and hence not perfect. So you sin
once -- just once -- there is no salvation for you. The sentence must be
carried out. But here's the good news. God will not relinquish the
sentence, BUT -- and this is why He's the God of love too -- He will allow
someone else (Jesus) to take your place. Jesus dying was just like the old
lamb sacrifices, except it allowed anyone for all time to be forgiven.
So this means that anyone, no matter what kind of person you are,
can go to heaven if you just allow Jesus to take your place. Just say
you're sorry and give props to the Lord for taking your punishment for you.
And then you're in. It's so easy, it's ridiculous. But, on the flip side,
this is the only religion on earth where good works do not bring heaven (or
nirvana, or paradise, or whatever all the other cults and false faiths
believe). If, after all that Christ went through, you still don't give Him
His props ... well you're basically saying, "F--- you, God" ... and so how
people who do that expect to spend eternity with God I have know idea.

Let's sum this whole thing up. You can introspect and pontificate all you
want about the universe and God and physics and heaven. But it won't get
you anywhere. Examine empirical evidence. That means something. What does
science say? What does the Bible say? That's what we should be looking at.
Trying logical proofs and philosophical gibberish will just confuse
things. And it's all opinion anyway. We need to look at facts instead.
Let me know if this makes sense.

-------------------------------------------------

[Copernicus]

Its too bad he ruins an otherwise well thought out response with:

"It's all specified complexity that can't originate on its
own. Something had to cause it into existence."

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's sum this whole thing up. You can introspect and pontificate all you
want about the universe and God and physics and heaven. But it won't get
you anywhere. Examine empirical evidence. That means something. What does
science say? What does the Bible say? That's what we should be looking at.
Trying logical proofs and philosophical gibberish will just confuse
things. And it's all opinion anyway. We need to look at facts instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

All in all, the same all tired arguments in favour of id, but then what else could they be but tired, a few more standard avoidances in adismissing arguments and in that last paragraph quoted the stupid advice that one should look at science AND at the bible, even before one is convinced that the bible is the word of god. What about all the other sacred books purporting to be messages of god? We may find it amazing that some seem to have fewer internal contradictions.

Also, earlier in his post, the author say that one has to make an eductaed guess, yet show absolutely no evidence of his educated guessing by the arguments he puts forward.

To me it is just another boring preacher who is probably glad he gets another audience.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> Let me know if this makes sense. </font>

Nope.

[KingNeo]

Whoever your friend is, he is a moron. That is possibly the worst post I have read on religion in a very long time.

Pass this on to your friend and let him know he is an idiot.

[MDoranD]

[ QUOTE ]
Whoever your friend is, he is a moron. That is possibly the worst post I have read on religion in a very long time.

Pass this on to your friend and let him know he is an idiot.

[/ QUOTE ]

You disagree with him. I get it. Care to elaborate as to why?

[MidGe]

Why hijacking Sklansky post with comments from your friend. Aren't you capable of your own comments. They may be less moronic than you friend. This is a novel way of trying to introduce preaching in the forum. But it is worse as it is using the established OP's (Sklansky) intelligence and comment to find an audience.

[ QUOTE ]
All right, the first thing you have to keep in mind is that this is not mewith no street cred vs. this guy who has credentials. Just think of me as a conduit for the PhDs that I read that are way smarter than me or Sklansky. M'kay?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, your friend gives the impression that he is not able to grasps the contents of all the PhD he reads. His arguments are really at the puerile level.

[ QUOTE ]
Let me make a few points to try to clean up this mess.

[/ QUOTE ]

No you are just really messing it up with your attemps.

[ QUOTE ]
You can't prove anything. Ever. [sic] Weigh the evidence and make a decision

[/ QUOTE ]

Weigh ALL the evidence and don't restrict yourself to the baaaaa-ble.

[ QUOTE ]
That stuff IS evidence for a designer.

[/ QUOTE ]
orly

[ QUOTE ]
and the only thing able to cause specified complexity is intelligence. Dig?

[/ QUOTE ]

WRONG.. Dig. (plus it is a mistake to call something "specifed" after the event, but that's probably way beyond the intellectual capability of your friend).

[ QUOTE ]
and a trite one at that -- about how could a benevolent God punish people, blah blah blah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trite? The most fundamental contradiction in christianity?

[ QUOTE ]
It's tough to comment on his thoughts on religion since he doesn't seem to know much in that area.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still looks like he knows more than the very narrow knowledge of your friend.

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the
time, we mishmash little pieces or sound bytes over the course of our lives from all over the place, and then come up with some kind of personal worldview, which it appears Sklansky has done.

[/ QUOTE ]

The mishmmash approach is much more apparent in your friends view than in Sklansky.

[ QUOTE ]
I prefer empirical observation. So a good place to start on these questions is the original document.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it abandon the empirical evidence immediately and go and look up a book for direction. (Double talk)

[ QUOTE ]
I won't believe the Koran or
the book of Mormon, for instance, because they have obvious mistakes in
them. The Bible, on the other hand, has been right about everything it has ever claimed, documented, or predicted (except for the stuff that hasn't happened yet, like the apocalypse).

[/ QUOTE ]

As has been posted on this forum many times, one of the reasons your friend should read the forum first, and make his own answers/preaching after, are the number of contradictions in the bible.

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, God is the perfect God of love and of judgment. If you break his laws, you must be judged. The only way sin can be forgiven is by shedding blood

[/ QUOTE ]

Notice the contradiction.. Your friend doesn't, he laready has come to his decisions and now will do anything to justify them even contradicting himself. As a debater he is lost. He has left logical debate behind.

[ QUOTE ]
and this is why He's the God of love too -- He will allow someone else (Jesus) to take your place

[/ QUOTE ]

God of love? Will also get me to pay for my parents sins... Very sophisticated justice! Seems like primitive tribal justice to me.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's sum this whole thing up. You can introspect and pontificate all you want about the universe and God and physics and heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well there was very little sign of introspection from your friend but a lot of pontification.
[ QUOTE ]
Examine empirical evidence. That means something. What does science say? What does the Bible say? That's what we should be looking at. Trying logical proofs and philosophical gibberish will just confuse things. And it's all opinion anyway. We need to look at facts instead. Let me know if this makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looking at the bible is the reverse of empirical eveidence as I said before. Maybe your friend just hope people will not notice and it will make him look more reasonble. LOL

Yes lets look at the facts... But why should the same standard not be applicable to your friend.

Anyway, enough said. Don't bother posting more preaching from your friend. He is way behind the not too high quality of posts that can be expected on this forum.

[MDoranD]

[ QUOTE ]
Why hijacking Sklansky post with comments from your friend. Aren't you capable of your own comments. They may be less moronic than you friend. This is a novel way of trying to introduce preaching in the forum. But it is worse as it is using the established OP's (Sklansky) intelligence and comment to find an audience.


[/ QUOTE ]

Wheres the hijack? He was responding to Sklanskys comments....I believe thats what people do in a thread like this. As far as my own views, I have recently begun contemplating some of the things I have posted in this forum. I have not made any definite decisions, but I thought that I could learn a lot from the educated people in this forum.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, enough said. Don't bother posting more preaching from your friend. He is way behind the not too high quality of posts that can be expected on this forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like you cant stand anyone elses opinion being expressed. Im sorry to hear that. Most adults can debate things without playing the "My way or the highway" card. Ive received several PMs from people expressing that they like the posts I have made. Im sorry you dont. So, I will keep posting my and my friends posts.

Lighten up.

MDoranD

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
All right, the first thing you have to keep in mind is that this is not mewith no street cred vs. this guy who has credentials. Just think of me as a conduit for the PhDs that I read that are way smarter than me or Sklansky. M'kay?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a good technique from the ID crowd. Anonymous email from someone whose read the work of others who are way smarter then everyone else.

Congrats.

chez

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Wheres the hijack? He was responding to Sklanskys comments....

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he was responding to your e-mail that quoted sklansky's e-mail.

[ QUOTE ]
I thought that I could learn a lot from the educated people in this forum. I have not made any definite decisions...

[/ QUOTE ]

Good thought. So try to learn before imposing answers that yourself are not even sure about yet, on others.

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like you cant stand anyone elses opinion being expressed. Im sorry to hear that. Most adults can debate things without playing the "My way or the highway" card. Ive received several PMs from people expressing that they like the posts I have made. Im sorry you dont. So, I will keep posting my and my friends posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can stand debate, I can't stand preaching. I find it the height of arrogance and don't expect it in a secular forum.

I suggest you group e-mails future preachings to those people that e-mailed you their interests or liking. This way there will be no polluting of debates on the forum itself.

I consider it rude to post without having read the forums. Your preacher friend has obviously not read the forum sufficiently to participate in them in the manner in which they are meant to be particpated, without repeating and without bringing arguments that have already been answered. How many time are they suggestion to do a search on forums before posting.

Stop obscuring and polluting.

[bunny]

Personally I find it unsatisfying to debate "at a distance" with someone through an intermediary because I dont have any context to place their comments within. I dont know the kinds of views your friend has on other topics, the way he argues, etc etc. It is hard to muster the energy to argue with him because I have no idea what background knowledge he has or what he regards as "obvious" about the world. I think I am agreeing with MidGe here - although I dont expect everyone to read the entire SMP archive before posting I think it is common courtesy to lurk for a little while before posting.

So - I would like to argue with your friend but dont really feel connected to him and what he is saying.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I find it unsatisfying to debate "at a distance" with someone through an intermediary because I dont have any context to place their comments within. I dont know the kinds of views your friend has on other topics, the way he argues, etc etc. It is hard to muster the energy to argue with him because I have no idea what background knowledge he has or what he regards as "obvious" about the world. I think I am agreeing with MidGe here - although I dont expect everyone to read the entire SMP archive before posting I think it is common courtesy to lurk for a little while before posting.

So - I would like to argue with your friend but dont really feel connected to him and what he is saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

This pretty much sums up my sentiments as well. I wouldn't put it as strongly as MidGe but the general direction is correct IMO.

Your friend is obviously accustomed to dealing with people of inferior intellect to himself, thus his arrogance. To his credit, though, the arrogance is not directed at us since a) he doesn't even know us and b) it was a private email to begin with. Still, if he agreed to put it on a public forum, then it's more or less the same as if he posted it himself.

I'd suggest to him to join and start posting. The responses he'd get would do him some good IMO.

[MDoranD]

[ QUOTE ]
This pretty much sums up my sentiments as well. I wouldn't put it as strongly as MidGe but the general direction is correct IMO.

Your friend is obviously accustomed to dealing with people of inferior intellect to himself, thus his arrogance. To his credit, though, the arrogance is not directed at us since a) he doesn't even know us and b) it was a private email to begin with. Still, if he agreed to put it on a public forum, then it's more or less the same as if he posted it himself.

I'd suggest to him to join and start posting. The responses he'd get would do him some good IMO.




[/ QUOTE ]

After further consideration, I will stop posting responses from my friend. I posted his comments simply to generate discussion, and hopefully for me to learn something from it. It accomplished that, as the two responses I posted taught me a lot, while also both threads received over 100 replies.

I did not realize so many SMP posters had a problem with it, so I will stop. He will not start posting here most likely, because he feels he needs to be a poker player to "qualify". Thanks for your input.

MDoranD

[RJT]

Doran Doran,

I do understand how some find it difficult to respond your post from your buddy – they can’t discuss it directly. But, I did not find your attempt to add to the discussion via a third party’s remarks so egregious. It is akin to someone quoting anyone else. For example: Augustine says this, Aquinas looks at it this way, Dawkins feels…

Had you quoted any famous person’s views, no one would have criticized you or doing so. Had I anything to really say about the subject of your buddy’s e-mail, I would simply retort to it and continue some dialogue. We would then banter back and forth about the thoughts.

It really wasn’t such a big deal that you posted his remarks. I understand you were simply trying to add thoughts to the discussion (and since you have not formulated your own ideas thus far, it was ok, imo, to try to add something to the discussion). No harm done as far as I am concerned.

RJT

[chezlaw]

Hi RJT

I guess you think I was bit harsh, maybe I'm getting cynical but someone referring to someone else who says they should be taken seriously because they've read the work of the cleverest people ...

Its not the same as referring to someone famous. The famous are normaly renouned for their expertise so are worth hearing about and more importantly we all have access to their work, can examine it for ourselves and can read the criticism of other experts.

chez

[RJT]

chez

Not to hijack David’s thread (but, it has been up here for a while now – so I see no great harm)…

[ QUOTE ]
…but someone referring to someone else who says they should be taken seriously because they've read the work of the cleverest people ...

[/ QUOTE ]

is a perfectly fine statement for you to make and not at all inappropriate.

I do have to disagree with your contention that it is ok to argue famous folk’s opinions and not unknowns. I suppose if I review the e-mail, I can find some points to agree with and/or disagree with. (That, of course, is not my point.) I don’t get because he is an unknown his thoughts should be dismissed out of hand. You seem to be suggesting that one can only discuss “The Blind Watchmaker” because there is other criticism out there and Dawkins has published other works. Harper Lee only wrote one book, <u>To Kill A Mockingbird</u>. Do we not discuss this (great) book in and of itself - in its own context?

RJT

p.s. Btw, I did not have you in mind with my post – just the general responses Doran has received.

[RJT]

chez,

p.s. If Andy Warhol is correct then the guy in the e-mail has already reached his 15 minutes, ergo already famous (or one day will be). Can we discus him if he has been famous for 15 minutes or can we discuss him once he becomes?

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
chez

Not to hijack David’s thread (but, it has been up here for a while now – so I see no great harm)…

[ QUOTE ]
…but someone referring to someone else who says they should be taken seriously because they've read the work of the cleverest people ...

[/ QUOTE ]

is a perfectly fine statement for you to make and not at all inappropriate.

I do have to disagree with your contention that it is ok to argue famous folk’s opinions and not unknowns. I suppose if I review the e-mail, I can find some points to agree with and/or disagree with. (That, of course, is not my point.) I don’t get because he is an unknown his thoughts should be dismissed out of hand. You seem to be suggesting that one can only discuss “The Blind Watchmaker” because there is other criticism out there and Dawkins has published other works. Harper Lee only wrote one book, <u>To Kill A Mockingbird</u>. Do we not discuss this (great) book in and of itself - in its own context?

RJT

p.s. Btw, I did not have you in mind with my post – just the general responses Doran has received.

[/ QUOTE ]
To some extent I agree as arguing for some point just because some expert says its true cuts no ice with me. However it's very useful to give an argument and then suggest reading Dawkins to understand it better as its an aid to clarity - Dawkins is renowned for explaining the issue clearly and it provides a common point of reference for all including those who disagree with evolution.

I'm not saying its not okay to post anyway people like but here it's just confusing and possibly deliberately so.

Talikng about 'to kill a mocking bird' would be fine as well. I'm ashamed to say I've never read it, but I could if I wanted to discuss with you some interesting issue that it raises.

chez

[Lestat]

Yeah, I can't say it bothered me that much either. It was just a little irritating that I couldn't respond. I mean, who am I responding to? I disagreed with much of what he wrote, but all I could do was give a one word answer ("no"), to his last question, "Does that make sense?".

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
…but here it's just confusing and possibly deliberately so.

[/ QUOTE ]

chez,

This I think could be what is bugging some. I saw no mal-intent by the Doran. I took it as a sincere attempt to add input to the discussion. Others have already expressed their suspicions. If that is the real issue, then we should just let it go.

You must read TKAM (to us mockingbirds, i.e. fans of the book). It is an American classic (not to mention my favorite book of all time – not necessarily the best book of all time, although, I could probably make a case for that - just that I am quite fond of it). We can then discuss. Btw,the film (in case you have or can see it) is very true to the book, a few minor changes, but the film captures the essence of the novel.

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
chez,

p.s. If Andy Warhol is correct then the guy in the e-mail has already reached his 15 minutes, ergo already famous (or one day will be). Can we discus him if he has been famous for 15 minutes or can we discuss him once he becomes?

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
Its not a Waholien fame I'm talking about. Dawkins is famous for his work in the field we would refer to him about.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
This I think could be what is bugging some. I saw no mal-intent by the Doran. I took it as a sincere attempt to add input to the discussion. Others have already expressed their suspicions. If that is the real issue, then we should just let it go.

[/ QUOTE ]
More duped then duping perhaps. The email reeked of the usual obsfucation from a breed of creationists who are determined to avoid clarity. The indirection of via an email that makes pinning down the arguments even more difficult than usual just adds another layer of confusion.

I apologise if its all innocent but it seems to follow the trend of those determined to confuse the issue rather than argue a position logically.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I can't say it bothered me that much either. It was just a little irritating that I couldn't respond. I mean, who am I responding to? I disagreed with much of what he wrote, but all I could do was give a one word answer ("no"), to his last question, "Does that make sense?".

[/ QUOTE ]

Stat,

I certainly see your point. I on the other hand, if I felt passionate one way or the other, would have posted some remarks agreeing or disagreeing with what was said. Others on the forum would then respond in kind and a discussion might have continued. Issues were brought up by the e-mailer – the points are either valid or invalid in themselves. We are the judges of those points by further discussing said points. I don’t see it necessarily incumbent upon one person defend ones own ideas (even if they were the poster’s instead) by himself.

For example, I find it comforting to know that Bluff, NotReady, bigdaddy, et al are around to either back up my points or correct me from the context of “our” point of view. I would be a bit hesitant to post some thoughts if I had to rely only on myself. I know I would fall short of a good argument sometimes. Perhaps, I would do myself (and any hypothetical good points I wanted to make) an injustice if my shortcomings would arise. It is good to know that others can help carry an argument when this takes place. We aren’t defending our own thesis here.

RJT

p.s. Btw, I enjoyed your original one word response, especially as originally written: “Nope”.

[RJT]

I would be the first to admit that I can be naive sometime (not often, but I have been blindsided before - by frontal attacks even.) /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[bunny]

Just to be clear - I also see no problem with quoting a third person's remarks to further a debate, no matter who they are. What I found frustrating with this case was the fact that this is the third (I think?) email from the same person on a similar theme. It felt like he was participating in the discussion but in an indirect way - I would generally like to argue with him but feel unable to directly engage him in debate.

[RJT]

bunny,

Had not realized there were other e-mails. That is kind of odd. Does put things in a different perspective for me. Thanks for the heads-up, "buddy".

RJT

[BluffTHIS!]

MDoran's "friend's" email, was nothing other than a fundamentalist street corner preach dumped in this thread for no good reason. His "friend" hasn't the requisite logical or scientific knowledge to intelligently discuss the points raised here. And it is very weak indeed to post a 3rd party's reply to something so that the author of same cannot be directly engaged in discussion of his post here.

[jogger08152]

Indeed. Your friend is an arrogant idiot. Please humbly ask him not to breed.

[RJT]

Probably true Bluff. I hadn’t really read the e-mail thoroughly.

My point was regarding the form. I have no problem debating a third party’s comments. I certainly see how others might not want to. Again, in this particular context (I understand now that this has been done prior) it seems it is even more futile for you guys.

I don’t think it should be absolutely verboten is my point. Just my opinion.

[JonCash31]

Very reflective post Mr. Sklansky. I disagree with your first three reasons, and as for your fourth reason I am completely unsure on this one. Could you elaborate on why you believe quantum theory implies an intelligent entity created the universe? Your Reason #1: I don't think this points in favor of or disputes that there is an intelliegent creator. There is a universe of information around us, which we know is there because humans are conscious beings, and thus we can interpret this information to a very high degree. But does this say whether or not an intelligent designer is responsible for this sea of data around us? If there were nothing around us, then it would either mean that nothing exists, in which case there is obviously no creator, or that we could not interpret the information around us to a high degree and thus be unaware that it is there. I remember reading somewhere that humans differ from animals in that we have a part of the brain that allows us to take in information from multiple sources simultaneously, in turn allowing us be aware of time, giving us a much higher degree of being aware of our surroundings. For this reason, I think your Reasons #1 and #3 are equivalent. In other words, "There is something rather than nothing." = We are a species evolved enough to be highly aware of the something around us. = "There is a "you" that knows it is alive in ways that animals or computers don't." But was the something around us an intended result or caused unintentionally? This seems to me to be purely a question of what the nature of the "event" that caused the "Big Bang" was. But this event would seem to have occurred outside of time, and thus outside of our interpretation? So I wonder if proving this is even possible. One reply says that proving anything in reality is impossible in the true sense of the word (the example of trials was used), but that educated guesses to a high degree of certainty should be made. This seems to be a very valid point. But how about making an educated guess about something beyond existence and time? This is the reason why I don't think the Bible can make an educated guess about this as suggested. I hope no one is offended by this especially since my simple observations and logic here has basically led me to the conclusion that we can't conclude the most important question of all with a high degree of certainty, so all-in-all that isn't really saying much.
Your Reason #2: Ok, you actually seem to eventually disagree with this reason yourself for the fact that over time it is possible for complicated patterns to emerge from simple data just through simple laws or through that of a brilliant designer.
As for your point about free will, it seems like you are dead on here that this means that it would be illogical for an intelligent creator to punish a human for not coming to the logical conclusion that an intelligent creator exists, should this in fact be the case. I really enjoyed your Seahawks analogy here btw, very apt /images/graemlins/smile.gif As for someone worshipping the god regardless, I think this would be going above and beyond that and also certainly would be more than enough for it to be illogical for the creator to punish that person.
One last point I would like to address is the one you made about whether conscious life could be reproduced. What are your reasons for thinking that this implies an intelligent creator? I have no idea whether making a computer conscious is within the realm of possiblity, but assume for a moment that it isn't, and that the only way that matter that can interpret its surroundings can spring up is through evolution in a place with the necessary initial conditions, does this really tell us about whether or not the cause of the universe was an intelligent creator? Once again thanks for this post, very intriguing and thought out ideas and it made for an interesting afternoon that was otherwise going to be an extremely boring one at work lol.

[Duke]

Look, a shark!

Where?

That one that David just jumped over!

Oh I see it now.

~D

[godBoy]

I think a case for eternity can be reasoned quite logically.
bocablkr, Lestat, What do you think of my conclusion here?
Something Eternal (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4221838&amp;page=)

Just curious about your obvious disagreement.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
0 + 0 = 0

If there were ever a time in the history of the universe that there was absolute nothing, zip, nada. Then I am convinced there would still be nothing. This proves to me that there must be something that trancends time and is Eternal. Nothing has ever just popped into being without a cause, so I can logically reason that that sort of thing doesn't occur.

Your thoughts..

[/ QUOTE ]

Godboy,

I thought you'd gone for good, or at least understood that this is not a preaching forum.

Instead of 0 + 0 = 0, the equation should be x = something + nothing else. You are describing what is not (ie. 0). The second equation shows that if ther can be something, its cause can also be, simply something.

You are convinced but have no evidence or reason for your conviction except your wishful thinking (and that is an ego inflation.. wanting to be right and have a justification for your existence.. a puerile need to be center of attention).

I also find it very interesting that I haven't, and I am sure you haven't either, ever observed anything permanent in the universe. Everything is always changing. Why would a cause be any different. Let just say the mechaniosm is there the characteristics of things, including god, are the same, subject to change.

PS you came back just as I was about to get rid of my avatar. Ah well, it will stay a bit longer, since it was directly targetted at your first one. Your current one is too coarse and childish for me to respond in kind (robotic sex simulation... All you are capable of, right? LOL).

PPS why posting a reference to an early post of yours. If anyone had been interested they would have replied to the original one.

[godBoy]

I'm not preaching in the least Midge,
Neither did I direct my question to you.

[ QUOTE ]
I also find it very interesting that I haven't, and I am sure you haven't either, ever observed anything permanent in the universe. Everything is always changing. Why would a cause be any different. Let just say the mechaniosm is there the characteristics of things, including god, are the same, subject to change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maths is one example where there are unchanging constants.

Ahhh predictable MidGe, I can rely on you to post something completely without reason or purpose. Please don't continue , there's really no point point.

[Copernicus]

I dont understand why you have such a hard time with something arising from nothing, it happens all the time when particle/anti-particle pairs are produced in a vaccuum all the time.

[godBoy]

Well I don't know a lot about vacuums, but I don't think where these "particle/anti-particle pairs" are produced in a vaccuum, there would be absolute nothingness. I know that creation of electron-positron pairs in a strong EM field has been observed in heavy-ion collisions, but as for complete nothingness.. enlighten me.

[AlphaWice]

[ QUOTE ]
But even though they have no free will to change this THOUGHT, they continue to worship, adore, obey, etc. this entity that they have intellectual doubts about. How could that not be enough?

[/ QUOTE ]

GG christianity.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
intelligent higher power

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the key term. I think it is irrefutable that there is a source of power beyond our control, although perhaps not beyond our knowledge. The central debate is whether or not this power has intentions unaffected by the world in which we live.

[Jdanz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no reason that your theism should be any different from your other beliefs - if your theology comes into conflict with the other collection of facts you know about the world you shouldnt assume it is the religious bit that is correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just glancing at this, but quoted for truthery.
A logical conclusion about faith against science would have to be on the basis of a third system that is neither faith nor science.

[/ QUOTE ]

[jws43yale]

It is actually a trend for the smartest men on the planet to come to a belief in god. Stephen Hawking gained a belief in god after years of studying the universe. He states that he realized that there had to be something else. This is a man who is one of the smartest of the century.

As a true genius studies more and more, they realize the is infinitely more they will never be able to grasp. When they come to terms with this reality, the are able to open their mind to belief in something greater


But ultimately I think the most important question is where did existence come from. Just as I would say that the need for some beginnning begs for an ultimate creator, the argument can be reversed in the question who created the creator. I don't think the human mind is truly able to grasp the enormity of what we are trying to quantify and may never be able to.

[guesswest]

That's an interesting point - this regress argument is normally refuted by theists with the assertion that god simply 'is', so requires no creator. But, if that is true, why can't they/we accept the same argument and say that the world just 'is' and not only doesn't require a creator, but even a beginning?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
It is actually a trend for the smartest men on the planet to come to a belief in god. Stephen Hawking gained a belief in god after years of studying the universe. He states that he realized that there had to be something else. This is a man who is one of the smartest of the century.

As a true genius studies more and more, they realize the is infinitely more they will never be able to grasp. When they come to terms with this reality, the are able to open their mind to belief in something greater


But ultimately I think the most important question is where did existence come from. Just as I would say that the need for some beginnning begs for an ultimate creator, the argument can be reversed in the question who created the creator. I don't think the human mind is truly able to grasp the enormity of what we are trying to quantify and may never be able to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its a myth that Steven Hawking gained a belief in god

[jws43yale]

Actually this is not a myth per se. If you look greater into into, he makes many references to god and was only known to have said he did not believe in a personal god. At the same time, he never specifically addresed his continuing reference to an impersonal creator. So although it is not known, if you put in research and not just look at mainstream articles immediately crucifying this belief, valid evidence is found supporting some kind of belief in a creator.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually this is not a myth per se. If you look greater into into, he makes many references to god and was only known to have said he did not believe in a personal god. At the same time, he never specifically addresed his continuing reference to an impersonal creator. So although it is not known, if you put in research and not just look at mainstream articles immediately crucifying this belief, valid evidence is found supporting some kind of belief in a creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have researched it quite extensively in fact. He frequently denies being an atheist, but he assails any attempt to use cosmology and quantum physics to infer the existence of a creator. Since he knows that god cannot be disproven he takes the stance of an informed agnostic when directly questioned about it.

The closest you will find him saying anything about his belief in "god" is a statement to the effect of "some people will see god in the beauty of the fundamental laws of the universe". That is not a reference to a supernatural being, but an appreciation for the logic behind everything, and he further clarified that in an interview after the lecture that he said it in. In several other interviews after Brief History of Time he was quite vociferous in his objections to it being hijacked to justify a belief in god.