A good argument that atheists use, and one that fumbles me

[Peter_Plato]

Actually, I think it boils down to the First Cause. Did it require some sort of intelligence in order that things should “exist?” And if it did, then what is the nature of that intelligence? What could be said about God?

Thomistic theology is generally well-defended in Orthodox circles. I’m particularly impressed with the Radical Orthodoxy movement. Look into John Milbank and his ideas. It’s solid theology and very rationally explained.

On the other hand, atheism relies a lot on arguments from parsimony. Atheists are inclined to say that existence is attributed to natural phenomena rather than intelligence and that there is no need to introduce a God into any of it since nature is sufficient to explain everything. Wolframm has a model that demonstrates how complexity and order can indeed arise spontaneously from chaos given the existence only of very simple rules and entities. Atheists also point out other logical problems with the teleological arguments or arguments from order (one of Aquinas’ five pillars). Dawkins criticizes Thomistic theology for “running away” to an abstract, philosophical safety zone where the issue can’t be proved one way or the other. Then Russel’s Teapot is invoked to place the burden of proof on the theists.

What about you? Are you inclined to see things as miraculous or mundane? There are no definitive answers to be found in reason or evidence. I find myself persuaded by arguments on both sides (admittedly, I do think the atheists have a little more Reason favoring them). It seems that, as far as God is concerned, we are meant to walk more by faith than by sight–at least for a time. I think these religious quests for truth require more of the mind than mere logic.

Thoughtful reflections.

How do you reconcile these thoughts with traditional Mormonism? Are the multiple gods, as cosmic physical entities, merely avatars or demiurges in relation to a meta-creator god?

Does the Big Gang Theory have any appeal?

 

[sophion]

Hi, I’m new here, and I thought that this was an interesting topic, as it has been on my mind lately.

I’m undecided in my faith, and so far many arguments have made me lean toward one religion, but then a counterargument is made and I just keep getting myself confused. But my curiosity and young age have brought me to this forum. The argument at hand is one that is used to disprove theology and used to describe creation in the atheist’s eye. The Big Bang Theory is one example of this, and on paper it sounds very believeable. Atheists point out what are interpreted as “errors” in the Bible, and use these as a defense in their lack of faith. But what makes me scratch my head is that what science teaches us is that everything comes down do coincidence after coincidence after another, all leading to humanity and existence itself. But this seems just too fishy to me, and I’d like to know what counter there is to this argument that just seems flawed?

Thanks, everybody.

The problem isnt really the existence of God. Nothing can prove or disprove the existence of God. The real problem is religion itself. Which religion is the right one and how can anyone say that any of them are from God when they are all so full of errors, absurdities and moral atrocities!

That is why I am an agnostic. I still believe in God but not in religion. If God wants me to change Im sure he will tell me so himself. Right?

 

[buffalo]

Actually, I think it boils down to the First Cause. Did it require some sort of intelligence in order that things should “exist?” And if it did, then what is the nature of that intelligence? What could be said about God?

Thomistic theology is generally well-defended in Orthodox circles. I’m particularly impressed with the Radical Orthodoxy movement. Look into John Milbank and his ideas. It’s solid theology and very rationally explained.

On the other hand, atheism relies a lot on arguments from parsimony. Atheists are inclined to say that existence is attributed to natural phenomena rather than intelligence and that there is no need to introduce a God into any of it since nature is sufficient to explain everything. Wolframm has a model that demonstrates how complexity and order can indeed arise spontaneously from chaos given the existence only of very simple rules and entities. Atheists also point out other logical problems with the teleological arguments or arguments from order (one of Aquinas’ five pillars). Dawkins criticizes Thomistic theology for “running away” to an abstract, philosophical safety zone where the issue can’t be proved one way or the other. Then Russel’s Teapot is invoked to place the burden of proof on the theists.

What about you? Are you inclined to see things as miraculous or mundane? There are no definitive answers to be found in reason or evidence. I find myself persuaded by arguments on both sides (admittedly, I do think the atheists have a little more Reason favoring them). It seems that, as far as God is concerned, we are meant to walk more by faith than by sight–at least for a time. I think these religious quests for truth require more of the mind than mere logic.

** What is IDvolution? **

**IDvolution **- God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Just read it…it is really an excellent book.

Stephan Barr, a professor of physics from University of Delaware, wrote a similar book a few years ago…also excellent.

Yes. here it is:

amazon.com/Modern-Physics-Ancient-Faith-Stephen/dp/0268021988

Before I read that book I had read several of Barr’s writings on First Things. They helped me avoid slipping into atheism when I was at a critical crossroads a few years ago. Today my faith is stronger and more informed than ever before.

Barr’s book is not just excellent on physics, but on the human mind as well. In fact, he makes one of the best and most incisive series of arguments against a materialistic account of the human mind that I have read.

By the way, as a scientist I enthusiastically embrace Big Bang theory, evolution and an origin of life by natural causes.

 

[pmccombs]

Thoughtful reflections.

How do you reconcile these thoughts with traditional Mormonism? Are the multiple gods, as cosmic physical entities, merely avatars or demiurges in relation to a meta-creator god?

Does the Big Gang Theory have any appeal?

In a recent General Conference talk, one of our twelve apostles made an uninformed comment about a printing press exploding and thus creating an encyclopedia. I think he meant it as criticism of the Big Bang theory.

My opinion is that modern Mormonism is rather theologically poor. Joseph Smith was investigating a theory of God (Eugene England later continued to expound it) which put God as an advanced Man who still progresses and gains ever greater power and glory. In this sense, God can’t be completely omnipotent and so forth. He exists univocally with His creation, which is limited rather than infinite.

I find the theory very interesting and compelling in certain ways. However, Mormonism today distances itself from that particular idea and prefers a much more “orthodox” version of God with perhaps a few of our own “revealed” attributes (Godhead vs. Trinity, corporeal form, etc.) tacked on as distinguishing features of our faith.

I don’t reconcile the various competing views, though I find hope in aspects of each of them. I simply don’t believe we really know very much about God at all–and maybe there is nothing to know. That’s just my opinion.

 

[clem456]

The problem isnt really the existence of God. Nothing can prove or disprove the existence of God. The real problem is religion itself. Which religion is the right one and how can anyone say that any of them are from God when they are all so full of errors, absurdities and moral atrocities!

That is why I am an agnostic. I still believe in God but not in religion. If God wants me to change Im sure he will tell me so himself. Right?

So you believe in God, but cannot prove or disprove there is a God. Why do you believe in God then? It seems God has already spoken to you. Right?

 

[Giants]

But what makes me scratch my head is that what science teaches us is that everything comes down do coincidence after coincidence after another, all leading to humanity and existence itself. But this seems just too fishy to me, and I’d like to know what counter there is to this argument that just seems flawed?

Thanks, everybody.

The argument seems flawed to you because you’ve unnecessarily assumed that humanity’s existence has an Ultimate Purpose beyond our mortal lives. I would agree with you that if humanity did have such a purpose, then it would suggest (quite strongly) that some sort of Personal Creator was involved. But the fact is, this Ultimate Purpose must be demonstrated to exist rather than simply assumed to exist. And until you do demonstrate it, you can’t just build it into your argument.

 

[thewanderer]

The argument seems flawed to you because you’ve unnecessarily assumed that humanity’s existence has an Ultimate Purpose beyond our mortal lives. I would agree with you that if humanity did have such a purpose, then it would suggest (quite strongly) that some sort of Personal Creator was involved. But the fact is, this Ultimate Purpose must be demonstrated to exist rather than simply assumed to exist. And until you do demonstrate it, you can’t just build it into your argument.

I’m not sure that follows… that is, I don’t know why you think an ultimate purpose beyond the present life would need to be assumed. The OP is talking about just the mortal existence of things and the coincidences that led to their existence, not some further purpose after death.

 

[Giants]

I’m not sure that follows… that is, I don’t know why you think an ultimate purpose beyond the present life would need to be assumed. The OP is talking about just the mortal existence of things and the coincidences that led to their existence, not some further purpose after death.

The OP spoke of the “coincidence after coincidence after another, all leading to humanity and existence itself” as being a fishy argument. Well, it seems to me that there’s nothing fishy about it, provided that you aren’t building the assumption of an Ultimate Purpose into your counter-argument. If you don’t assume that going in, then all you’re left with is the coincidence after coincidence after coincidence as the simple fact of the matter. And if those coincidences hadn’t happened, we perhaps would not be here at all (and consequently, not be around to bemoan that fact).

The fish looks around and says - “How convenient that the Universe is made entirely of water!”
And the fisherman replies - “If the Universe wasn’t so convenient, then you wouldn’t be around to remark upon it.”

I’ll happily grant to anyone that the chain of coincidences leading to our existence is amazing in itself. But the amazingness of it all doesn’t suggest a Creator.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’ll happily grant to anyone that the chain of coincidences leading to our existence is amazing in itself. But the amazingness of it all doesn’t suggest a Creator.

This particular chain of coincidences is linked by an invariable causal structure. If each coincidence, being coincidental, could have been “anything” why are the linkages between them also, likewise, not coincidental? Coincidence B invariably follows coincidence A. Why wouldn’t the linkages between coincidences in the chain be coincidentally variable, as well? They aren’t and that is why we have an ordered universe.

Coincidences might “just happen” and be dismissed as no need to account for them, but order cannot simply be lumped in and likewise waved off.

Furthermore, the order is not merely consistent and predictable, it leads to an incredible, apparently “purposeful” structure in human beings called intelligence that can then reflect on and alter the originating chain of coincidences. That pesky fact may be casually “waved away” as another “coincidence,” but more plausible is the question of, “Is there a purpose underlying it?”

That is surely not an unreasonable question given that your coincidental explanation would allow any explanation as plausible?

 

[mymamamary]

Hi, I’m new here, and I thought that this was an interesting topic, as it has been on my mind lately.

I’m undecided in my faith, and so far many arguments have made me lean toward one religion, but then a counterargument is made and I just keep getting myself confused. But my curiosity and young age have brought me to this forum. The argument at hand is one that is used to disprove theology and used to describe creation in the atheist’s eye. The Big Bang Theory is one example of this, and on paper it sounds very believeable. Atheists point out what are interpreted as “errors” in the Bible, and use these as a defense in their lack of faith. But what makes me scratch my head is that what science teaches us is that everything comes down do coincidence after coincidence after another, all leading to humanity and existence itself. But this seems just too fishy to me, and I’d like to know what counter there is to this argument that just seems flawed?

Thanks, everybody.

This is in fact, the undoing point of the Atheistic arguement. Here is their fatal flaw, one that is easily detected when one has had quite some expierence in debating them. According to Quantam Physics, the odds for a world being created out of chance, for nothing, and randomly are slim to none. The odds for a Creator created world are MUCH higher. So, if they are as logical, rational and knowledgeable, then why do they shoot themselves in the foot when even Quantum physics will reassure them their NON-beliefs are illogical. The world HAD to have a Creator. It is only logical. Think of this: A Car cannot conceive and create a car. A human engineer has to. So then, why something as complex as this planet, something we only know 4-6% about, and even our own bodies, to think that they were created out of PURE chance and for no good reason is not only illogical and irrational at best, but pure stupidity. Sorry to be blunt, but that is how it is.

 

[Poseidon]

If “everything comes down to coincidence after coincidence,” then why are the connections between the coincidences also not coincidental? Why does one coincidence lead in some intelligible way to a coincidence that follows it? Why aren’t the connections also coincidental and random if the coincidences themselves are? Apparently the connections are not coincidental but in some way purposeful.

This seems pretty obvious from the fact that according to the second law of thermodynamics entropy should be increasing in a closed system (the universe) so we ought to be seeing a breakdown in the organization of the universe, but evolution of life demonstrates the opposite: increasing complexity. Why should that occur under a strictly coincidental view of the causal structure of the universe?

:doh2:
No, no, no , no, NO!

The universe is a closed system, and entropy is increasing in it. The earth, however, where evolution is taking pace, is not a closed system. Both energy and matter can enter and exit it, and do so every day.

It is the energy coming into our (open) system that allows evolution and increasing order and complexity to happen. Evolution is fueled by the sun. I understand that you may have other issued with evolution, but entropy is clearly and unequivocally not in contradiction with it.

 

[thewanderer]

The OP spoke of the “coincidence after coincidence after another, all leading to humanity and existence itself” as being a fishy argument. Well, it seems to me that there’s nothing fishy about it, provided that you aren’t building the assumption of an Ultimate Purpose into your counter-argument. If you don’t assume that going in, then all you’re left with is the coincidence after coincidence after coincidence as the simple fact of the matter. And if those coincidences hadn’t happened, we perhaps would not be here at all (and consequently, not be around to bemoan that fact).

The fish looks around and says - “How convenient that the Universe is made entirely of water!”
And the fisherman replies - “If the Universe wasn’t so convenient, then you wouldn’t be around to remark upon it.”

I’ll happily grant to anyone that the chain of coincidences leading to our existence is amazing in itself. But the amazingness of it all doesn’t suggest a Creator.

See, I still think your missing the point I was trying to make. We see one thing after another happening to make our world be exactly as it is. The question now is, are these all coincidences or not? The answer is something that we cannot know definitively, so instead we have to decide which side we see as more believable. Seeing as it is so unlikely that this complex world would exist if all of the actions which caused it to be as it is were mere coincidences why can’t one say, hey, thats pretty unlikely, so I’m going to go with the more likely, that is, that things exist as they do because something made them to be that way specifically". This is still refering to current existence and has nothing to do with the idea of a further existence at all. It is incorrect to assume that the only reason one would accept purpose in the current world is by connecting it to some purpose in a life beyond this one because it ignores the above possibility.

 

[Giants]

This particular chain of coincidences is linked by an invariable causal structure. If each coincidence, being coincidental, could have been “anything” why are the linkages between them also, likewise, not coincidental? Coincidence B invariably follows coincidence A. Why wouldn’t the linkages between coincidences in the chain be coincidentally variable, as well? They aren’t and that is why we have an ordered universe.

Coincidences might “just happen” and be dismissed as no need to account for them, but order cannot simply be lumped in and likewise waved off.

Furthermore, the order is not merely consistent and predictable, it leads to an incredible, apparently “purposeful” structure in human beings called intelligence that can then reflect on and alter the originating chain of coincidences. That pesky fact may be casually “waved away” as another “coincidence,” but more plausible is the question of, “Is there a purpose underlying it?”

That is surely not an unreasonable question given that your coincidental explanation would allow any explanation as plausible?

The only apparent coincidence in the Universe is that the laws which govern it are as they are. But knowing the laws in play, nothing in the chain of events that ultimately leads to humanity’s existence is coincidental. They are exactly what you’d expect to happen, given the laws in play.

It really isn’t “my” coincidental explanation - I’m just using it as a strawman to address something implicit in the OP.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The Big Bang Theory is one example of this, and on paper it sounds very believeable.

I’m not sure why that one would be bothersome. The Big Bang theory explains the distribution of matter in the observed universe. It may be problematic for those that take a very literal interpretation of the Genesis creation. But I am making a guess that you are not a literalist.

But what makes me scratch my head is that what science teaches us is that everything comes down do coincidence after coincidence after another, all leading to humanity and existence itself.

I think that may be a misunderstanding. As an example, let’s take the example of what I’ve heard described as the perfect billiard ball scenario. In this scenario there are perfectly round billiard balls on a frictionless pool table. One ball is quickly accelerated and and collides with another transfering some of it’s momentum. After a short period of time some one observing this simulation might describe the balls’ movements as “random” event though the balls react in a predictible way when they collide. Because of the complexity from there being so many balls most would be overwhelmed when trying to calculate the movements of the balls over some interval of time. So such a scenario is treated as random and at most may be discussed in terms of statistical distributions.

The real world tends to be much more complex than this scenario; there are quite a few more variables at play many of which may be unknown to us. I think that because of the overwhelming number of known and unknown influencing factors some scenarios and incidents may be discussed as being random or coincidental[1]. This can occur even for rather deterministic systems when the complexity of the system is more than one can manage.

Also the meaning of “random” is a bit different when used by most people than it is when talking about something that is being analyzed in terms of statistics. In the every day sense “random” is used to describe something with no specific pattern. But it may also be applied to something that has a specific pattern of behaviour that hasn’t yet been identified. In fields that use statistics one may be talking about a probability distribution. I suspect that if you heard of coincidents and randomness in a scientific context it may have been touching on a probability distribution.

[1] - here I am assuming that when you originally used the word “coincident” you were talking about more than the literal meaning of simultaneously occuring events or colliding paths.

 

[Al_Moritz]

:doh2:
No, no, no , no, NO!

The universe is a closed system, and entropy is increasing in it. The earth, however, where evolution is taking pace, is not a closed system. Both energy and matter can enter and exit it, and do so every day.

It is the energy coming into our (open) system that allows evolution and increasing order and complexity to happen. Evolution is fueled by the sun. I understand that you may have other issued with evolution, but entropy is clearly and unequivocally not in contradiction with it.

Correct.

 

[Peter_Plato]

:doh2:
No, no, no , no, NO!

The universe is a closed system, and entropy is increasing in it. The earth, however, where evolution is taking pace, is not a closed system. Both energy and matter can enter and exit it, and do so every day.

It is the energy coming into our (open) system that allows evolution and increasing order and complexity to happen. Evolution is fueled by the sun. I understand that you may have other issued with evolution, but entropy is clearly and unequivocally not in contradiction with it.

The fact that the earth is an open system and merely “allows” for the possibility of a decrease in entropy is only to say that a necessary condition for evolution to occur has been brought about by that fact. That is far from explaining why increasing order and complexity have actually occurred. Meeting one necessary condition is far from supplying all the necessary or sufficient conditions for ordered complexity.

 

[atheistgirl]

So, if they are as logical, rational and knowledgeable, then why do they shoot themselves in the foot when even Quantum physics will reassure them their NON-beliefs are illogical. The world HAD to have a Creator. It is only logical.

Yeah, I can see that being the knockout argument for atheists

Sarah x

 

[clem456]

It’s interesting that atheism admits the existence only of what it can observe or imply by reason, and rejects faith as a quaint expression of imagination or emotions.
Christian Theism admits that faith in the existence of a creator is real and reasonable, PLUS it admits the existence of eeeverything atheism admits.
Atheism, is a very small philosophy.

 

[Crescentinus]

To say that science explains everything is not a scientific statement.