Arguments against atheist arguments against God

[Eucharisted]

“Hypothesis dose not equal theory”

When an atheist argues against God using science, the first thing you will notice is that he uses hypothesises. It dosen’t matter if the hypothesis is built on a solid foundation - such as a law - because a scientific hypothesis, in and of itself, is an educated guess. Frequent hypothesises espoused by atheists include Infinite Universes (multiple universes exist), Eternal Universe (the Universe has always existed), Impossible Knowledge (no one can know where the Universe came from), Self-Creation (the Universe made itself), and The Force (an unknown force created the Universe). Less frequent hypothesises used include Alien Creation (extraterrestrials made the Universe), Mind Trick (nothing is real, it’s all in the mind), and Crunchverse (the Univere came from another universe). Not all atheists hold these hypotheses, only some. But there is a very easy to refute all of them: Knowledge! As far as science knows, the time before the Universe is unknown. Moreover, while something might be possble, it dosen’t necessarily mean it is real; for example: there is a possibility that aliens might exist. But this dosen’t mean that they do exist. Atheists tend to forget the distinction between possibility and reality. But they do bring up the fact that, the possibility of God existing dose not mean He dose exist. This is true. However, the hypothesis that God created the Universe dose have evidence to back it up. This evidence is the Big Bang, Evolution, and Human Reason. Ultimately, though, it comes down to whether God created the Universe, whether a force created the Universe, or whether the creator of the Universe is unknown.

“The Big Bang”

The theory of the Big Bang is frequently used to show that the Universe always existed. But the Big Bang actually shows that the Universe, far from being eternal, had a beginning. Something had to cause the Big Bang. What is it? Science dosen’t know. At least not yet. But we cannot evalute the present facts by a possible future finding. The evidence and knowledge we already have is our friend. Currently, we know some things about our Universe: everything in it has a beginning and an end; matter cannot be created or destroyed; and mostly everything abides by the laws of the Universe. Based on these facts, we can know that, whatever caused the Universe, had to be eternal, had to be able to create and destroy matter, and had to be above the laws of the Universe. Why? Because of exhaustion. You yourself cannot create or destroy matter because you are under the universal laws. You are less than the Universe. Something that cannot exhaust itself, that can create matter and destroy matter, and that is immune to the universal laws had to create the Universe, even if it means we go from this Universe to a previous universe, and from that universe to another universe, and so on and so forth, down the line, until we arrive at the “point” of no universe. Matter cannot create or destroy itself. Some atheists speculate that the previous universe had its own laws, but, while this may be true, it is nevertheless just a speculation. It is another hypothesis to support a hypothesis. But hypothesises cannot be supported by hypothesises; to be taken seriously, they must have facts, data. The theory of the Big Bang shows that something eternal and infinite in power and nature created the Universe, but what that is, science dosen’t know. However, if we move onto evolution, it will throw some light on the matter.

(c)

 

[Eucharisted]

“Evolution”

The theory of Evolution is used by atheists to show that man wasn’t created by God, either because they assume we read the Bible literally or because they assume that God couldn’t create man from animals. But just as God could have created the Universe in a calculated process, from stars to galaxies to planets, so too, He could have created man in a calculated process, from bacteria to plants to sea creatures to land and air creatures. Christians put no limit to God’s good power; He who is Goodness itself can do all good things. Some atheists believe this limits God, but what they propose is a duelist divinity, which is not philosophically possible (unless you’re a relativist). But let’s get back to science! Evolution is an ordered process, so that means, whatever started it, whatever brought order into the Universe, whatever created an ordered Universe, had to know order. Was it a force? No. Forces do not have intelligence. Why is intelligence necessary for order? Because it is intelligence that creates order. Human intelligence, for example, has created governments, symmetric objects, flow charts, computer processing - even the way the mind works is order! So did a man create the Universe? No. Man is, as far as science knows, finite and temporal. He is bound by laws, even the laws of life and of death. So whatever causes order cannot be a man. Its intelligence cannot be equal to a man’s, either, because our human minds cannot comprehend the order of the Universe. So the intelligence had to be superhuman. Some believe it was a superman, or an angel, or a creature from another universe that created the Universe. But these are only hypothesies, and they are not based on facts. Could it be order itself? Yes! It could be order itself that created the Universe. But how can order have intelligence and power? Unless order was a living thing. This is more evidence for God’s existence. We Christians believe God is order itself. But just because belief matches up with hypothesis dosen’t mean belief is true. This is where human reason comes in.

“Human reason”

One of the things that seperates man from beast is reason. Man, it appears, was made not for survival but something else. He can create great works of art, and help the world grow, and observe the stars. Some might say this is man’s purpose, but, when you put it all together, you see man’s purpose is greater. Man must exist for something greater than what he can do. Certainly all things exist to do things, but nothing exists simply because of what it can do. Things exists because of a purpose that escapes our reasonable minds. A man plants a tree,and it grows. Why? Dose it have a purpose? Yes. It contributes to the good of the Universe, and it makes the man happy. Again, this is where hypothesis and Christian belief unite: Christians believe God created all things for man. But again, simply because a hypothesis and belief agree, it dosen’t mean that that belief is true. However, if we add up all the evidence - an infinite and eternal order, all things existing for man - than we come to a startling discovery: Order created all things for man. Why? Some believe it is coincidence, that all evidence points to this, but coincidence is just a fancy way of sweeping the issue under the rug. It is certainly no coincidece that the Earth is just the right distance from the Sun, with just the right elements and conditions necessary for life. It is purpose. But what purpose, and why? We come back to the question of why would order create things for man - let alone at all. What is the purpose that this intelligence has in mind? In truth, science cannot answer the question. So we must go to philosophy. Philosophically speaking, there are as many answers to the questions as there are stars in the sky. But the truth is still the truth; we just have to weed out the ideas that aren’t it. This requires a great deal of searching, pondering, and examination. Atheists tend to use this journey as an excuse to say the truth cannot be proven or disproven; but if they do not wish to know the truth, or can’t find the truth, than they should state this instead of creating a hypothesis out of it.

I think I went off topic while writing this, and I doubt it makes much sense. But I’ll post it anyways. Feel free to bash and critique. But don’t leave the pool of common sense; the water’s fine.

 

[AnAtheist]

“Hypothesis dose not equal theory”

When an atheist argues against God using science, the first thing you will notice is that he uses hypothesises. It dosen’t matter if the hypothesis is built on a solid foundation - such as a law - because a scientific hypothesis, in and of itself, is an educated guess.

Well, do you have a theory regarding your god? Then we can about it not relying on hypothesis.

The theory of the Big Bang is frequently used to show that the Universe always existed.

By whom? This is the first occasion ever I have heard that.

 

[Darwinsbulldog]

Well, for a start most atheists do not say that god are impossible. Just unlikely. I don’t think that fairies or dragons are likely either, and that is why I do not search for them] What atheists most object to is the assumption by theists that god exists. Theists [understandably enough] assert that god is real, and god exists-no ifs, buts, or maybes-god is asserted to exist as a matter of faith. *.

Strictly speaking, one cannot use science to disprove god. Part of the reason for this is the scientific process itself, which demands the presentation of a falsifiable hypothesis as the first stage of scientific inquiry. The second stage of science is the gathering of data [evidence] both for the for and against case. After folks like Popper, we reject hypotheses that have contrary evidence. Only hypotheses that have no known contrary data, and yet robust evidential support, are tentatively accepted as valid scientific theory.

As god is posited as being non-material *, then material investigations are unlikely to prove anything either way. HOWEVER, the question is really not that simple, as we would expect god to be interactive with the world. But, guess what, there is nothing to confirm the existence of god in the world, or indeed, the universe. This evidence of non-participation is not proof of god’s non-existence, of course, but it is rather damning, as it does contradict belief that god is interactive with the universe.

If a theist asserts that god is interactive with the universe, then god must obey the laws of the universe [even if he invented them]. Furthermore, if god is interactive with the universe, and therefore part of the universe, then he could not possibly be the creator of the universe.

But there are many further difficulties with the god, even as a concept. Saltation of species by a creator does not explain adaptation. In fact, if saltation did occur, then it would require god to intervene to create every variation known to exist in every species on earth throughout time. Kind of a dumb way to organize things if you ask me. Even an ape like myself can come up with something better than that. If you are a creator, with lots of moxie in the brain department, * then the thing to do would be to automate the production of species. One way to do this is -wait for it- EVOLUTION! So not only do you have a view of a smarter god, it also follows that adaptation is explained. No contradiction with science [yet] either. So its all good.

The most probably [false] assumption of a “spirit world” goes back to Plato and Aristotle, and then [as now] there is no evidence to support this fanciful idea. We all have fanciful ideas from time to time. In fact science thrives on the imagination to be able to suggest new modes of inquiry. However, the rationalist or scientist does not stop at the fancy, but tries to compare the fancy to reality. if there is no fit, or only a poor fit between observation and hypothesis, then it is back to the drawing board to think again.

But perhaps the most objectionable thing an atheist finds in the theist is the horror of knowledge. Well, this goes back to Genesis and the “Garden of Eden Tale”. Knowledge is seen as evil, or at least not as “proper” as faith or religious experience. To caricature a little, on the presentation of a “mystery” [something not known or immediately explained], these are the differences in reaction between the religious and the scientist.

The Theist: My god, what a wonder! What a mystery, god did it!

The scientist. Wow, cool, a mystery! How does that work?

Granted, both those stances are caricatures…you can have a theist scientist for example, who responds in both ways. Nevertheless, it can be seen that the theist approach is the one that tends to stop asking questions, and start making assertions about cause. Proclamation rather than investigation.

In other words, the theist tends to find mystery as a threat. To try to reduce the impact of the threat, it is “explained” in terms of god. So thinking tends to stop, and non-thinking, or faith and ignorance takes over. That is bad enough, but when a scientist cannot offer an immediate explanation to a problem, then science is seen as being irretrievably flawed. [In some cases, like with creationists, even known scientific facts are questioned!]

So rather than having the patience to wait for a rational explanation, the theist will take his “leap of faith” and “attribute” the unexplained phenomena to god. [Or perhaps the devil]. Science is seen by many theists as 'wishy-washy", “indefinite” and somehow of evil intent. Theists are used to absolutes: an infinite god, explanations for everything, an omnipresent protector, and so on. The claims of science, by contrast, are sober and tentative. I can see how this can be unsatisfying. However, the nature of the world is not based on our preferences and wishes, it just is.

By the way, Eucharisted. This forum has a spell-checker. Perhaps you could use it. It does not help your arguments to see numerous spelling errors, which can be distracting.***

 

[Charlemagne_II]

***So rather than having the patience to wait for a rational explanation, the theist will take his “leap of faith” and “attribute” the unexplained phenomena to god. [Or perhaps the devil]. **Science is seen by many theists as 'wishy-washy", “indefinite” and somehow of evil intent. Theists are used to absolutes: an infinite god, explanations for everything, an omnipresent protector, and so on. The claims of science, by contrast, are sober and tentative. I can see how this can be unsatisfying. However, the nature of the world is not based on our preferences and wishes, it just is. *

What you have just said is atheistic and bears no resemblance to science. Stop pretending that the scientific mind is superior to the religious mind! Think of Isaac Newton, or Charles Darwin, or Albert Einstein who all approved the idea of God and can hardly be said to have put aside their search for scientific solutions because they recognized God’s intelligence in the universe.

The nature of the world is not based on your preference either … that there be no God.

Get real.:tsktsk:

 

[JohnT58]

(1) If a theist asserts that god is interactive with the universe, then god must obey the laws of the universe [even if he invented them]. Furthermore, if god is interactive with the universe, and therefore part of the universe, then he could not possibly be the creator of the universe.

(2). One way to do this is -wait for it- EVOLUTION! So not only do you have a view of a *smarter *god, it also follows that adaptation is explained. No contradiction with science [yet] either. So its all good.

(3)But perhaps the most objectionable thing an atheist finds in the theist is the horror of knowledge. Well, this goes back to Genesis and the “Garden of Eden Tale”. Knowledge is seen as evil, or at least not as “proper” as faith or religious experience.
.

(1) To make a wee parable of my own, if I plant a garden, I can still weed, care and nuture it, that is interact with it after I planted it. It does not negate the fact that I planted it in the first place. It does not follow that the creater of the universe, could not interact with it.

(2) Intelligent design.

(3) The garden of Eden tale, depicts a maturation of man. Before man developed a moral compass he was innocent. When he started questioning, searching for knowledge, then issues of morality come into play. He has to make decisions, knowingly, right or wrong. Prior to this, there was no right or wrong. Knowingly, making wrong decisions and actions,
is what is evil, not the knowledge itself.

 

[Darwinsbulldog]

Charlemagne II wrote:

What you have just said is atheistic and bears no resemblance to science. Stop pretending that the scientific mind is superior to the religious mind! Think of Isaac Newton, or Charles Darwin, or Albert Einstein who all approved the idea of God and can hardly be said to have put aside their search for scientific solutions because they recognized God’s intelligence in the universe.
The nature of the world is not based on your preference either … that there be no God.

My Dear Charlemagne. If you re-read my post a little more closely, I proposed that we can argue that the existence of god is uncertain. *. The theist however, claims that god is certain to exist. Can you not see that there is a difference between claiming that god definitely exists to an idea that god may exist? Irrespective of Newton, Einstein or Darwin’s opinions about the existence or non-existence of god, none of those scientists required god to exist for their theories to work. The existence of god was an unnecessary condition for their scientific theories.

I hope you can also see logically that my preference for there being no god, or your preferences for there being a god is logically irrelevant to the actual existence of god ?

One must look outside our own opinions for evidence of god or the non-evidence of god. Can you also agree with me here? If we can get that far, we can proceed on further philosophy. But I have already stated some of my reasoning and evidence for doubting the existence of god, so for the moment I will not repeat myself.*

 

[Darwinsbulldog]

JohnT58 wrote:-

(1) To make a wee parable of my own, if I plant a garden, I can still weed, care and nuture it, that is interact with it after I planted it. It does not negate the fact that I planted it in the first place. It does not follow that the creater of the universe, could not interact with it.

(2) Intelligent design.

(3) The garden of Eden tale, depicts a maturation of man. Before man developed a moral compass he was innocent. When he started questioning, searching for knowledge, then issues of morality come into play. He has to make decisions, knowingly, right or wrong. Prior to this, there was no right or wrong. Knowingly, making wrong decisions and actions,
is what is evil, not the knowledge itself.

(1) That is true, but you invite a reply of infinite regression. Did god always exist, or did something create god. If you argue that every cause has a prior cause, which eventually traces back to a first cause called god, then god as a first cause breaks the causal chain. You are therefore left with a logical special pleading that god is a special case. If god is a special case, then what evidence can you present for the special pleading?

(2) Intelligent design. Hmmm…well, you are assuming that something that works, and is complex, that a sentient creator is the designer of that working design. First of all, this ignores the argument for naturally emergent complexity from simple beginnings. A snowflake is very complex, but it arises from very simple beginnings. Secondly, not all adaptions in nature are perfect. Adaptations of animals, plants, bacteria only have to be good enough to survive and breed to produce fertile offspring. Some “design” in nature is remarkably jury-rigged and unintelligent. There are numerous examples, such as the meandering of the nerves of the giraffe’s neck. Natural selection is the designer here, unless you want to concede that god is an extremely incompetent designer and engineer. Or pathogens that kill their hosts to quickly. Ebola, apart from being a horror disease, is inefficent, as it kills it host within a week.

(3) Ah, the book of Genesis used as a source! Wonderful! Could you please explain the contradiction here:-

Genesis 2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man’s rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him and help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; **And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.**

and

Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

**So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. **

Or in the order of creation:-

Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)

Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)

You would think that such an important document would have some consistency about creation if it were the word or god, or divinely inspired. Surely such an important message about our creation should be unambiguous?

So if the message about creation was garbled, how do we know that man was innocent in the garden of Eden, or that there even was a garden of Eden? How interesting that you say the Garden of Eden is a tale. In what sense do you mean it to be a tale?

1. A recital of events or happenings; a report or revelation: told us a long tale of woe.
2. A malicious story, piece of gossip, or petty complaint.
3. A deliberate lie; a falsehood.
4. A narrative of real or imaginary events; a story.
5. Archaic. A tally or reckoning; a total.

Source:
answers.com/tale

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*You would think that such an important document would have some consistency about creation if it were the word or god, or divinely inspired. *

You would also think it might say something truthful that no one else in the world ever new, and that modern science only recently discovered: such as that the world was after all created and did not exist eternally (Einstein thought the universe was eternal until the Big Bang was discovered); that light was the first thing that emerged in the order of creation (see the atheist Carl Sagan’s account of the Big Bang producing a light-filled universe); that a series of days (periods of time) passed during which various life form were created (evolved) culminating in Man, and that life began in the ocean and moved from there to mammals and birds. Pretty lucky guesses, you perhaps think?

By the way: ’

What’s with lower casing the first letter of God’s name? Would you do that also for Zeus, or Athena, or Allah, or Mithras? You are, after all, referring to a specific God, the God of Christians and Jews. Is this an attempt to belittle the Christian God? If so, it won’t win you any respect in this forum … assuming you want respect.

 

[JohnT58]

JohnT58 wrote:-

(1) That is true, but you invite a reply of infinite regression.

 

[GoodKingW]

“Well, for a start most atheists do not say that god are impossible. Just unlikely.”

*Not the atheists I know. This may be your position and the one presented by (to take a page from Terry Eagleton) “Ditckins” but it has not been my practical experience that most atheists think God to be unlikely. They think him to be an absolute lie. I also doubt whether anyone who devotes much time to publicly disbelieving God really does think Him to be unlikely. If I thought it even remotely likely that a omnipotent and omniscient being had created me in order to love Him and His creation I doubt very much if I would spend much time openly talking about how he probably doesn’t exist because I cannot find him using a barometer. Seems rather unwise.

“Theists [understandably enough] assert that god is real, and god exists-no ifs, buts, or maybes-god is asserted to exist as a matter of faith. *.”

*This taking God’s existence as a matter of faith is, I think, a mistake that both theists and atheists make. Why have faith in the first place? I certainly did not join the Catholic Church for all the social activities nor did I join it because of some vague emotional compulsion. I joined because I believe in God and I believe in God because, after doing a lot of reading of a lot of esteemed, intelligent people and opening myself to what was being said. Faith isn’t the first step in theism, it is a response to theology (or an experience of God).

“Strictly speaking, one cannot use science to disprove god.”

*Of course not. One also cannot use science to disprove that liking the color green is bad for me. Whenever this is put to me, I always wonder why we would bother proving or disproving God with some science or other in the first place. The proof I have for God is largely borne out of my reading in Catholic teachings and prayer experiences. What then, is the point of scientifically proving the existence of God? What is the aim?

If, as some of my atheist friends reasonably suggest, it is to get the question of God’s existence out of the way once and for all then I would suggest that if we are made to love God and to have faith in Him then scientifically sussing him out begs the question. I also think that the idea that science has much to do with proving or disproving the existence of God is to misconstrue the whole project of the sciences. Your average scientist is concerned with whether or not some mold will or will not grow in such and such place, not whether or not such and such mold’s existence is evidence of divine intervention. We have theologians, philosophers and poets for that.

“As god is posited as being non-material *”

*This is a Cartesian misconception, I think, and one that does have some basis in various Protestant faiths. Catholic teaching tends to acknowledge that, in line with Genesis, God walked in the Garden of Eden and that when Jesus walked around Jerusalem, his feet were both human and divine. God is as material or non-material as He wishes to be.

“If a theist asserts that god is interactive with the universe, then god must obey the laws of the universe [even if he invented them].”

*Again, why? I think you and I have probably read the same people on this subject, but even when I was an atheist this always seemed to beg the question. If God created the universe why must He obey its laws? If I have a dog that I feed every day, the dog will come to expect me to feed it every day; that doesn’t mean that tomorrow I cannot replace the meals with kicks. I do not think it is difficult, if we acknowledge God to be the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe, to also acknowledge that He may well have a means of interacting with the world in ways we cannot properly comprehend, ways which defy the laws of the universe.

“The most probably [false] assumption of a “spirit world” goes back to Plato and Aristotle, and then [as now] there is no evidence to support this fanciful idea. We all have fanciful ideas from time to time. In fact science thrives on the imagination to be able to suggest new modes of inquiry. However, the rationalist or scientist does not stop at the fancy, but tries to compare the fancy to reality. if there is no fit, or only a poor fit between observation and hypothesis, then it is back to the drawing board to think again.”

• There are whole fields of science which function almost purely in theoretical realms. Mathematics is perhaps the best example. I believe in heaven and hell because I believe in faith, justice, and love. They seem coherent counterparts to my understanding of those three things. There is plenty of great Catholic apologetics on this front. My experience of the existence of the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia leads me to believe that not only is the State of Alaska theoretically possible, as indicated to me by a map, but perfectly reasonable.

[to be continued]**

 

[GoodKingW]

“In other words, the theist tends to find mystery as a threat.”

• This whole bit of your post is, I think, hanging from a false notion of Christianity which is often propagated by Christians. I don’t think the teaching of the Church supports this notion (that is: “mysteries” are taken as threats to the Church). After all, the Church’s embrace of the Aristotelian dialectic via the enshrinement of Aquinas necessarily leaves everything up for debate. Let’s not forget that the scientific method is even around because so many in the Catholic Church thought it was the best way to go about things. A fundamental element to Catholic teaching is that, while the Catechism is full of statements believed to be absolutely true, it is the Catholic person’s job to not just accept them but to realize them to be true.

I do not doubt that the Church has frequently failed miserably at this particular bit.

I think you also fall trap to the misconception that faith and rationality are mutually exclusive. Only the relatively recent popular conception that to be rational one must also be a “rational individual” free from the constraints of intellectual traditions, able to argue with Locke or against Spinoza. I don’t understand why the two cannot go hand in hand.

I also very much doubt that most people actively engaged in a prayerful, Catholic life would find much in the way of absolutes in their faith. Like any other loving relationship, a deep, prayerful, even mystical relationship with God is characterized by sobriety, tenderness, doubt, confusion and that love. It is not about absolutes. I love my girlfriend but after years she often still surprises me. Indeed, to really believe in an unchanging, compressible absolute is to put God to the test. While we have many good assurances otherwise, he might well decide to drastically change how the world works tomorrow (like say, we all start breathing CO2).

 

[Darwinsbulldog]

Well, I think we can all agree that I am of a minority opinion here!

Charlemagne II wrote:-

What’s with lower casing the first letter of God’s name? Would you do that also for Zeus, or Athena, or Allah, or Mithras? You are, after all, referring to a specific God, the God of Christians and Jews. Is this an attempt to belittle the Christian God? If so, it won’t win you any respect in this forum … assuming you want respect.

Ah, yes-that is a custom on several atheist/agnostic forums. Believers think that god exist, and non-believers don’t. I don’t specifically mean any personal offense or anyone. Can you imagine how insulting the word atheist is to a non-believer? The term implies negativity, even evil, in most theist eyes. As I don’t believe that god are real, then there is no need for the capitalization that is customary in a proper noun. Do you capitalize ghosts or fairies?

I am challenging ideas and assumptions here. To do that one must call a spade a spade, as it were. So language is important. Most, if not all cultures, are dominated by religious systems. The language reflects that, so I am working at a disadvantage here, I hope you will agree. My role of the “Devil’s Advocate” is to attack ideas that I think are flawed, not people.

To my mind, if ideas are really sound, then they should be able to withstand scrutiny and criticism. If they cannot withstand reasonable criticism, then perhaps the ideas may be flawed?
GoodKingW Wrote:-

*Not the atheists I know. This may be your position and the one presented by (to take a page from Terry Eagleton) “Ditckins” but it has not been my practical experience that most atheists think God to be unlikely. They think him to be an absolute lie. I also doubt whether anyone who devotes much time to publicly disbelieving God really does think Him to be unlikely. If I thought it even remotely likely that a omnipotent and omniscient being had created me in order to love Him and His creation I doubt very much if I would spend much time openly talking about how he probably doesn’t exist because I cannot find him using a barometer. Seems rather unwise.

Well, I share Richard Dawkins view that god is not impossible, just very, very unlikely. Any person of intellect, and especially science, realizes the limitations of human knowledge. A monotheistic god, such as in the Abrahamic traditions (Catholic, Protestant, Islamic, Jewish) would by definition, know all things. Again, I am not opposed to the idea of god or god , just the belief that they definitely exist. There is a difference. BTW, note the capitalizations, I know these faiths exist.

GoodKingW wrote:-

• There are whole fields of science which function almost purely in theoretical realms. Mathematics is perhaps the best example. I believe in heaven and hell because I believe in faith, justice, and love. They seem coherent counterparts to my understanding of those three things. There is plenty of great Catholic apologetics on this front. My experience of the existence of the State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of Virginia leads me to believe that not only is the State of Alaska theoretically possible, as indicated to me by a map, but perfectly reasonable.

Ah, mathematics! Indeed! Well, there are branches of pure mathematics which explore things that are NOT found it nature. For example, you can do maths on 22 dimensional space-time if you want. Higher dimensional space-time maths is useful as an exploratory tool. [So-called] “String Theories” use higher-dimensional mathematics. “M-Theory” uses an 11-dimensional mathematical model. Strictly speaking, of course, M or String theory is not theory at all-YET. Until these theories have been confirmed experimentally, they remain [strong] hypotheses. Mother nature is the final arbiter here, I hope you will agree. Einsteins theories were just mathematical physics until the experimental evidence came in.

Well, the existence of the US states you mentioned can be proven, so I don’t dispute you there. I have been to California and Hawaii which tends to confirm what can be found on google maps. I am having difficulty locating heaven and hell though. So logically, your argument falls into the “straw man” category, I think. I don’t see how faith, justice and love have anything to do with heaven or hell, except as symbolism for these things.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Can you imagine how insulting the word atheist is to a non-believer? *

No, not really. Here is an atheist website that calls itself atheist. So how can the word “atheist” be insulting to a non-believer?

atheists.org/

 

[reggieM]

Well, I share Richard Dawkins view that god is not impossible, just very, very unlikely.

Likelihood is a measure of probability. Mr. Dawkins said it was over 90% probable that God does not exist. Then when questioned he said it was at least over 50%.

You conclude that it is very, very unlikely. How did you measure the probability on this matter? What observations did you use and what metrics did you develop?

Most importantly, what evidence did you evaluate and how did you validate or dismiss it?

In order to determine the “likelihood” of the existence of God, you do need to consider and measure all of the evidence – both that you can discover on your own and that others have claimed (filtered by some weighing of authority, knowledge, experience, credibility, support, etc.).

 

[JDaniel]

Well, for a start most atheists do not say that god are impossible. Just unlikely.

Why are they “unlikely”? This statement would seem to imply “probability”. What are the parameters of the probability? What were your tests? What were their outcomes?

I don’t think that fairies or dragons are likely either, and that is why I do not search for them

An unwarranted, argumentative statement the purpose of which is to belittle the theist reader. Not a good idea IF you want any sympathy for any of your assertions.

What atheists most object to is the assumption by theists that god exists. Theists [understandably enough] assert that god is real, and god exists-no ifs, buts, or maybes-god is asserted to exist as a matter of faith. .

Perhaps believing that the “assumption by theists that god exists,” is the reason you fell from Grace. Perhaps?
Darwinsbulldog;5309795:

Strictly speaking, one cannot use science to disprove god. Part of the reason for this is the scientific process itself, which demands the presentation of a falsifiable hypothesis as the first

stage of scientific inquiry. The second stage of science is the gathering of data [evidence] both for the for and against case. After folks like Popper, we reject hypotheses that have contrary evidence. Only hypotheses that have no known contrary data, and yet robust evidential support, are tentatively accepted as valid scientific theory.

Actually, that’s hardly even “part of the reason…” The reason is purely and simply that science deals with describing the structural regularities of the corporeal (or, theoretic) and philosophy and theology deal with the incorporeal. What theists dislike is the occasional scientistic atheist who “. . . [understandably enough] assert that god is not real, and god does not exist - no ifs, buts, or maybes - no god is asserted to exist as a matter of faith. *non-*Christian friends].”

As god is posited as being non-material , then material investigations are unlikely to prove anything either way.

As I previously stated.

HOWEVER, the question is really not that simple, as we would expect god to be interactive with the world.

How and why? (Then, there’s another list of questions coming.)

But, guess what, there is nothing to confirm the existence of god in the world, or indeed, the universe.

So you postulate.

This evidence of non-participation is not proof of god’s non-existence, of course, but it is rather damning, as it does contradict belief that god is interactive with the universe.

So, you understand all theists to be “creationists”?

If a theist asserts that god is interactive with the universe, then god must obey the laws of the universe [even if he invented them]. Furthermore, if god is interactive with the universe, and therefore part of the universe, then he could not possibly be the creator of the universe.

Two misguided assumptions, on your part. Of course, you did start your paragraph with the word, “If”. Nevertheless, what law is it that says, “An incorporeal thing MUST obey the laws it creates for a corporeal universe.” Furthermore, what other law states that, “(an incorporeal) interactive (thing) = part of (a corporeal thing)”?

But there are many further difficulties with the god, even as a concept

.

Such as? (I took the liberty to bold the important part of the above sentence.)

Saltation of species by a creator does not explain adaptation. In fact, if saltation did occur, then it would require god to intervene to create every variation known to exist in every species on earth throughout time. Kind of a dumb way to organize things if you ask me. Even an ape like myself can come up with something better than that. If you are a creator, with lots of moxie in the brain department, * then the thing to do would be to automate the production of species.*

Seems to be not very unlike the position of the Catholic Church - except, perhaps, for the word “automate”. In current usage, “automate” implies assembly line production of something unable to be modified by “adaptation”.

One way to do this is -wait for it- EVOLUTION! So not only do you have a view of a smarter god, it also follows that adaptation is explained. No contradiction with science [yet] either. So its all good.

Yes; all is good - providing one does not lose sight of who set it in motion.

The most probably [false] assumption of a “spirit world” goes back to Plato and Aristotle,

Wrong. The rumor of God goes back much, much farther than Plato and Aristotle.

and then [as now] there is no evidence to support this fanciful idea. We all have fanciful ideas from time to time. In fact science thrives on the imagination to be able to suggest new modes of inquiry. However, the rationalist or scientist does not stop at the fancy, but tries to compare the fancy to reality. if there is no fit, or only a poor fit between observation and hypothesis, then it is back to the drawing board to think again.

And you again make an assertion without grounds, other than your poor understanding of philosophy and theology.

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

But perhaps the most objectionable thing an atheist finds in the theist is the horror of knowledge. Well, this goes back to Genesis and the “Garden of Eden Tale”. Knowledge is seen as evil, or at least not as “proper” as faith or religious experience. To caricature a little, on the presentation of a “mystery” [something not known or immediately explained], these are the differences in reaction between the religious and the scientist.

Once again, a scurrilous distortion - this time of Genesis. The Tree contains the knowledge of Good and Evil. Nowhere does Genesis say “knowledge is evil.”

The Theist: My god, what a wonder! What a mystery, god did it!

The scientist. Wow, cool, a mystery! How does that work?

Silly and argumentative.

Granted, both those stances are caricatures…you can have a theist scientist for example, who responds in both ways. Nevertheless, it can be seen that the theist approach is the one that tends to stop asking questions, and start making assertions about cause. Proclamation rather than investigation.

The best way to refute a categorical assertion is to categorically deny it, which I do.

In other words, the theist tends to find mystery as a threat. To try to reduce the impact of the threat, it is “explained” in terms of god. So thinking tends to stop, and non-thinking, or faith and ignorance takes over. That is bad enough, but when a scientist cannot offer an immediate explanation to a problem, then science is seen as being irretrievably flawed. [In some cases, like with creationists, even known scientific facts are questioned!]

I don’t think you will find many “creationists” herein. Nevertheless, again, you make unfounded assertions. Unfortunately, you ground your entire statement on such assertions, which tends to make your “science” wrong from the beginning. If it is wrong from the beginning, it will be wrong at the end.

So rather than having the patience to wait for a rational explanation, the theist will take his “leap of faith” and “attribute” the unexplained phenomena to god. [Or perhaps the devil].

Can you cite a good, recent example of this.

Science is seen by many theists as 'wishy-washy", “indefinite” and somehow of evil intent.

Which set of theists do you mean?

Theists are used to absolutes: an infinite god, explanations for everything, an omnipresent protector, and so on. The claims of science, by contrast, are sober and tentative. I can see how this can be unsatisfying. However, the nature of the world is not based on our preferences and wishes, it just is.

Unfortunately, more assertions springing forth from the unfortunate mis-assumptions that you started your “science” with.

By the way, Eucharisted. This forum has a spell-checker. Perhaps you could use it. It does not help your arguments to see numerous spelling errors, which can be distracting.

Perhaps he who is without sin should cast the first stone. Try re-reading your soliloquy. Check it for syntax errors. By the way, “does” and “dose” are both the correct spellings of words, so, how would a spell checker discover the error of them?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Charlemagne II wrote:

My Dear Charlemagne. If you re-read my post a little more closely, I proposed that we can argue that the existence of god is uncertain. *. The theist however, claims that god is certain to exist. Can you not see that there is a difference between claiming that god definitely exists to an idea that god may exist? Irrespective of Newton, Einstein or Darwin’s opinions about the existence or non-existence of god, none of those scientists required god to exist for their theories to work. The existence of god was an unnecessary condition for their scientific theories.

I hope you can also see logically that my preference for there being no god, or your preferences for there being a god is logically irrelevant to the actual existence of god ?

One must look outside our own opinions for evidence of god or the non-evidence of god. Can you also agree with me here? If we can get that far, we can proceed on further philosophy. But I have already stated some of my reasoning and evidence for doubting the existence of god, so for the moment I will not repeat myself.*

Ummm. I read a bunch of assertions, not evidence. If you don’t mind, would you mind repeating one piece of “evidence” that God does not exist?

Further, what group of theists, “. . .claim(s) that god is certain to exist . . .” And, how do they claim it without evidence?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

(1) That is true, but you invite a reply of infinite regression. Did god always exist, or did something create god. If you argue that every cause has a prior cause, which eventually traces back to a first cause called god, then god as a first cause breaks the causal chain. You are therefore left with a logical special pleading that god is a special case. If god is a special case, then what evidence can you present for the special pleading?

Does no one around here understand what an efficient cause is? Does anyone around here know why there must permanently exist an efficient cause? Does anyone around here understand why there can’t be an infinite regress of efficient causes?

(2) Intelligent design. Hmmm…well, you are assuming that something that works, and is complex, that a sentient creator is the designer of that working design. First of all, this ignores the argument for naturally emergent complexity from simple beginnings. A snowflake is very complex, but it arises from very simple beginnings. Secondly, not all adaptions in nature are perfect. Adaptations of animals, plants, bacteria only have to be good enough to survive and breed to produce fertile offspring. Some “design” in nature is remarkably jury-rigged and unintelligent. There are numerous examples, such as the meandering of the nerves of the giraffe’s neck. Natural selection is the designer here, unless you want to concede that god is an extremely incompetent designer and engineer. Or pathogens that kill their hosts to quickly. Ebola, apart from being a horror disease, is inefficent, as it kills it host within a week.

(3) Ah, the book of Genesis used as a source! Wonderful! Could you please explain the contradiction here:-

Genesis 2:18-22
(The man was created first, then the animals, then the woman from the man’s rib.)

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him and help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them.... And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; **And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.**

and

Genesis 1:27
(The first man and woman were created simultaneously.)

**So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. **

Or in the order of creation:-

Genesis 1:25-27
(Humans were created after the other animals.)

Genesis 2:18-19
(Humans were created before the other animals.)

You would think that such an important document would have some consistency about creation if it were the word or god, or divinely inspired. Surely such an important message about our creation should be unambiguous?

So if the message about creation was garbled, how do we know that man was innocent in the garden of Eden, or that there even was a garden of Eden?

You might want to read up some one your own. You might discover how the original books of Genesis are put together and why. Read here, for example:

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM

jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Originally Posted by Darwinsbulldog
By the way, Eucharisted. This forum has a spell-checker. Perhaps you could use it. It does not help your arguments to see numerous spelling errors, which can be distracting.

“By the way, Eucharisted.” is a sentence fragment. Fragments are also distracting.

I see you are persistent also about not capitalizing the name of the Judeo-Christian God. Your grammar check won’t help you there either. It appears the reason you refuse to capitalize God is that you need to belittle His name. Then we know you intend to show disrespect.

In other words, the theist tends to find mystery as a threat. To try to reduce the impact of the threat, it is “explained” in terms of god. So thinking tends to stop, and non-thinking, or faith and ignorance takes over. That is bad enough, but when a scientist cannot offer an immediate explanation to a problem, then science is seen as being irretrievably flawed.

So do you think Einstein, who posited the existence of a superior reasoning power he called God, had “stopped thinking” and was a victim of “ignorance”?

Nevertheless, it can be seen that the theist approach is the one that tends to stop asking questions…

Isaac Newton was certainly a theist. Did he stop thinking because he believed in God?

Science is seen by many theists as 'wishy-washy", “indefinite” and somehow of evil intent.

This would certainly depend on which science and which scientists we are talking about. I don’t think very highly of the good intentions of scientists who created the first nuclear weapons, nor of the intentions of scientists who are still lending themselves to that enterprise. I also don’t think very highly of scientists who stupidly use evolution as a weapon to beat up on religion. But I will concede there are stupid theists, even if I cannot find an atheist who will concede there are stupid atheists too.

Well, for a start most atheists do not say that god are impossible. Just unlikely.

This is a dangerous admission! You have opened the door a crack to let God in!

But, guess what, there is nothing to confirm the existence of god in the world, or indeed, the universe.

If you mean that we can only confirm God by meeting him in Person inside the universe of His making, you are right. However, He can be met up close and personal in the gospels. And when you die … maybe?

Theists are used to absolutes: an infinite god, explanations for everything, an omnipresent protector, and so on. The claims of science, by contrast, are sober and tentative.

Surely you jest. Most of the scientists I know are drunk with science.

Only hypotheses that have no known contrary data, and yet robust evidential support, are tentatively accepted as valid scientific theory.

Well, that excludes the hypothesis of abiogenesis by accident!

If a theist asserts that god is interactive with the universe, then god must obey the laws of the universe [even if he invented them].

How so? Why is it not possible for the God who creates the laws of the universe to supend them at will? What goes up must come down? Even man has escaped that law!

Furthermore, if god is interactive with the universe, and therefore part of the universe, then he could not possibly be the creator of the universe.

If God is infinitely powerful enough to create the universe, why is He powerless to enter His own creation in a way we cannot fathom with our finite intellects?

In short, you seem to take great delight in judging what God cannot do, when you might be a bit more concerned with what He can do. :hug1: