Atheists: Why aren't you theists?

[MerryAtheist]

As far as emprical evidence is concerend, we are all “agnostic” about the question of God, but we can have “faith” based on the “probabilities” of one of either side being true.

I just stumbled upon this post. I must have missed it before, but you seem to be saying here that science does not, in fact, prove the existence of God.

In addition, you place faith as the primary means of knowing God. Something I have been saying for pages and pages…

This stuns me, since you have been so strident in your assertions to the contrary.

All I can say is, welcome to the club! Your Atheist Membership Card is in the mail…

Heh. Heh.

 

[nucatholic]

I didn’t get an atheist membership card when I joined the club…bah! I’m going to start my own atheist country club. There will be golf, booze, and communal readings from the works of Russell, Darwin, Dawkins, Dennet and Quentin Smith. Anyone who brings an attractive, single, ethical and funny secular young woman will get free booze and golf for life because I’m convinced there’s maybe two in this world. Maybe I should get out of Oklahoma…

 

[MerryAtheist]

I didn’t get an atheist membership card when I joined the club…bah! I’m going to start my own atheist country club. There will be golf, booze, and communal readings from the works of Russell, Darwin, Dawkins, Dennet and Quentin Smith. Anyone who brings an attractive, single, ethical and funny secular young woman will get free booze and golf for life because I’m convinced there’s maybe two in this world. Maybe I should get out of Oklahoma…

Add a softball team and I’m in…

 

[Gareth]

Oh my. Well, to begin with, Gareth, thank you for your evident good will. I’m in Wales now for a while, and I’m just now figuring out that “Cheers!” doesn’t automatically mean, “Let’s have a drink!”

My good will isn’t very evident I admit. I am sorry about that. Some approaches to this subject bring out the worst in me. I like your approach, I don’t know why but it doesn’t bug me.

After all, Gareth, you yourself are unknowable as you are in yourself. Unless you choose to reveal yourself to others, as God has done.

Interesting, I wouldn’t even say I know myself. Maybe others know me better than I know myself. Those are interesting questions for all of us. If God exists, I guess he could know himself as he is all knowing, but he would be the only one who truly knew himself.

I wonder if that proposition is true, if it means then none of can ever really know anything.

I might stop coming in here, it’s making me hard hearted.

Thankyou for your good will.

 

[cpayne]

Interesting, I wouldn’t even say I know myself. Maybe others know me better than I know myself. Those are interesting questions for all of us. If God exists, I guess he could know himself as he is all knowing, but he would be the only one who truly knew himself.

)

This is why Plantinga argues that knowing God’s existence is no more nor less difficult than “knowing” the existence of other minds. Yet we tend to think of the latter as rather simple and the former as “impossible.”

Cheers! (to steal a line)

 

[cpayne]

This is the logical consequence of that statement: If there was no time before the universe, then there was no time at which the universe did not exist. Hence the universe has always existed.

I may have mentioned this once or twice or three times before , but Aquinas’s cosmological argument assumes for the sake of argument that the universe has always existed. He still arrives at God as the cause of the existing universe.

 

[freesoulhope]

This is the logical consequence of that statement: If there was no time before the universe, then there was no time at which the universe did not exist. Hence the universe has always existed.

Thats a good head banger.

The idea that the universe has always been here, contradicts the universe beginning. There was a point when there was no universe; thats the point. If there is no time, then theres no universe; so that fact that time began, cannot mean that the universe has always been here, since we can see that the universe began. The expansion of space and time contradicts an eternal universe; even if there was no “before” the universe, theres still a beginning. The universe has not always been here, since you would need “time” to have an “always”

Anything that begins to exist, needs, and implies, a cause.

 

[freesoulhope]

I just stumbled upon this post. I must have missed it before, but you seem to be saying here that science does not, in fact, prove the existence of God.
.

Does not prove “emprically” the existences of God; however it does point to God as far as the universe having a beginning.

There can be no natural cause; if there is a cause, then it must be one that is timeless, immaterial, and with out quantity or space. That is more reasonable to me then the universe having no cause or the universe “expanding out of non-time”.

 

[MerryAtheist]

There can be no natural cause; if there is a cause, then it must be one that is timeless, immaterial, and with out quantity or space.

I have two issues with your line of reasoning.

1. The statement “there can be no natural cause” is self evident if by “natural” you mean within the laws of physics of our universe. Obviously if our universe did not yet exist, any cause would, by definition, be non-natural in the sense of “outside our universe”. But that does not rule out some other *“natural cause” *that operates outside the bounds of this universe, utilizing some other laws of physics unknown to us. Since we cannot observe anything beyond this universe, clearly we shouldn’t be so quick to make absolute statements about what can and cannot occur.
2. How can anything exist that is timeless, immaterial, without quantity or space, and how is that different from “nothing at all”?

 

[Suat]

There cannot be a natural cause, because in order for there to be a “natural cause”, one needs “time” existing prior to the existences of the universe. You seem to over look that fact in your post.
We disagree as to whether or not there needs to be a cause or even a beginning, and whether or not your God qualifies as said cause or beginning. I doubt that will ever change.

 

[freesoulhope]

We disagree as to whether or not there needs to be a cause or even a beginning, and whether or not your God qualifies as said cause or beginning. I doubt that will ever change.

If you want to believe that the world has no cause, then thats up to you; but niether does does the arguements, that you have failed to provide, or logical reasoning, oblige me to agree. As far as the universe beginning, you can take that up with the scientists.

I think i have put forward many logical arguements based upon Scientific and logical premesis. I have seen no real attempt to refute them; all i heard is assertions; something like " there could possibly be another way" or that something is unlikely, or is not supported by, the evidence. Its like the athiests on this thread, keep repeating something somebody has told you, yet you have believed it based upon absolutly no good evidence.(At the very worst; that is something we are both guilty of). Yet, I have shown you logical formulas that makes my belief at least one that is based upon a logical premiss, even though it is ultimatly a matter of reasonable faith; at the very least the theist admits that the position is one of faith; alot of athiests do not admit their faith.

In the end its about probabilities. God is more probable, based on the fixed, ordered-laws we see in universe, rather then the universe appearing out of nothing by its own steam. If the athiest wants me to believe in a miracle with out a miracle worker, i simply have to reject such beliefs, because ultimatley, that is not a reasonable thing to believe in.

If you disagree with my arguements; thats fare enough, but if all you can provide me with is a disagreement; then i think its best that we move on to something else; since i find this debate to be one sided in attempts to show ones faith to be reasonable; its a waste of my time and energy.

 

[freesoulhope]

I have two issues with your line of reasoning.

But that does not rule out some other *“natural cause” *that operates outside the bounds of this universe, utilizing some other laws of physics unknown to us. Since we cannot observe anything beyond this universe, clearly we shouldn’t be so quick to make absolute statements about what can and cannot occur.]?

This is your first arguement; and you have failed to take in to consideration, the evidence. There was no time, according to bigbang cosmology; it began.

I think that it obvious enough to reasonably assume that for anything natural to come in to being and be active, one would need the lubricant of time. Thats all im intrested in. What your talking about as far as there being a “natural” cause out side of the universe, is self refuting, for two reasons…

1.The universe is the natural being we are speaking of, and there is no other if we are to talk about a natural cause.

2.Anything working out side of space and time simply doesn’t have the same nature by which it can be call a natural cause, or cause a temporal universe into existents, since a “natural cause” is based upon other universal laws that have to exist in order for it to take effect, and it has to exist as apart of the unifying whole of our universe, the elements do not exist alone apart from eachother. There is cause and affect within this universe so far as such a thing as cause and affect conforms to other laws in the cosmos; it is how this universe works; and all laws have to be harmonised in order to work.

Cause and effect is not of its own nature; it is apart of the unifying universal whole; otherwise it won’t work . Time and space, began together and are two of the same thing; it is not reasonable to think of them working apart from eachother.

What you have given me is not a proof against God; it is a product of wishfull speculative thinking, that isn’t even logically possible. My proofs are based on the laws for this universe, and this universe demands a timless creator; as you well know, other wise you wouldn’t feel the need of conceiving of a natural cause out side of time and space. Your arguement would convince those who do not understand the universe; but not me.

1. How can anything exist that is timeless, immaterial, without quantity or space, and how is that different from “nothing at all”?

How can a material natural cause exist that is timeless, immaterial, and with out cause?

Nothing at all, suggests something like a material universe not existing; it has no bearing on the immaterial; a timeless being without quantity or space. To believe that such a thing is impossible, you must assume, with out any evidence to the contrary, that the universe is all there is, if you are to convince your self of this. You your self say that they may be things in reality that work according to different laws; so why reject Gods existences?

If we are to believe the world is logical, we must posit a cause, and in order for there to be a cause, such a cause would need to be with out matter, time, and space. Whether or not we can concieve what it would be like to be with out time, space or matter, it still doesn’t change the fact that there can be no natural cause, and that there would have to be some kind of supernatural cause that is unlike this universe in every way. Thats what the evidence demands; i haven’t suggested anything else.
If i am to believe that the world began in a contradiction, then please tell me how such a belief, is any more reasonable then believing in a immaterial timeless being? At least God is something, regardless of immateriality.

If you wish to argue that the world has no cause, you have to at least try and attempt to explain to me why it is rational to think as such, and why it supports the evidence.
I do not believe that pink elephants pop out of nothing; we don’t live in that kind of universe, so why should i think that it came from no-where if i can see that anything “natural” that begins to exist, has a cause?

 

[MerryAtheist]

You call that a reply?

I can see that further discussion on this topic is pointless, since you seem to have ignored the content of my post (not the first time). And so, I say farewell to this thread and discussion.

Good day.

 

[john_doran]

This is the logical consequence of that statement: If there was no time before the universe, then there was no time at which the universe did not exist. Hence the universe has always existed.

no. the universe did not exist at t=0.

 

[john_doran]

I have two issues with your line of reasoning.

1. The statement “there can be no natural cause” is self evident if by “natural” you mean within the laws of physics of our universe. Obviously if our universe did not yet exist, any cause would, by definition, be non-natural in the sense of “outside our universe”. But that does not rule out some other *“natural cause” *that operates outside the bounds of this universe, utilizing some other laws of physics unknown to us. Since we cannot observe anything beyond this universe, clearly we shouldn’t be so quick to make absolute statements about what can and cannot occur.

1. “natural” means anything existing that exists in some pnysical universe; you can’t avois an actually infinite regress of causes and effects simply by shifting “universes”.

MerryAtheist:

1. How can anything exist that is timeless, immaterial, without quantity or space,

what kind of answer are you looking for here? i mean, “how” do you exist? you exist in the way embodied, spatiotemporal beings exist; in the same way, numbers, propositions, properties, and god exist in the way abstract entities exist: non-concretely, and without spatiotemporal location.

of course, they are self-unitary and self-identical, so each has quantity: 1.
MerryAteist:

and how is that different from “nothing at all”?

by being something.

 

[nucatholic]

Freesoulhope,

Your arguments from cosmology don’t work and here is why.

I will outline the argument and then state my objections.

The new and improved cosmological argument is presented as such:

        1. Everything that begins to exist had a cause.
        2. The universe began to exist.
         Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Theists like to tack on at the end “Oh and that cause is the Judeo-Christian God.” wait a minute…you are not allowed to just tack on stuff at the end in a formal argument. The nature of the cause is not proved by this argument in any way because the nature of the cause is not even mentioned in this argument. If you want to prove the nature of the cause, you must make another argument proving that the cause has the characteristics of a creator like the Judeo-Christian God.

Secondly, this argument still does not evade the regress objection as it was meant to. This argument was formulated in this way so you could reply “Ah ha! but God did not begin to exist!” Then you must accept that it is possible for things to be eternal and thus you must accept the possibility that the universe could be eternal.

Next. to evade the regress objection, you claim that since God did not begin to exist, the regress stops with him. Wait a sec, theres that unjustified assertion again. You can’t simply assert things whenever they are convenient, especially if you are using a logical argument. If you assert something, you have to have an argument that its possible for something to just exist without ever beginning.

Lastly, it seems as if we do have evidence that there are things which can neither be created not destroyed…if you consider energy a thing. So far the best theory we have is that energy exists and the first law of thermodynamics is applicable without being bound by time (Noether’s Theorem). Thus we can see the beginning of the current universe as a change in the nature of energy irrespective of time and therefore this would be the creator and not anything like the Judeo-Christian God.

 

[Gareth]

My point above was that unless one understands the terms of the subject in question, one tends to sound a bit “under-educated” in the subject in question.

Keiliolu you’ll like this link I promise, if it doesn’t raise a smile at least nothing will. I’m sure you’ll guys will love this if you haven’t seen it before.

scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

 

[freesoulhope]

Freesoulhope,

Your arguments from cosmology don’t work and here is why.

I will outline the argument and then state my objections.

The new and improved cosmological argument is presented as such:

        1. Everything that begins to exist had a cause.
        2. The universe began to exist.
         Therefore, the universe had a cause.

Theists like to tack on at the end “Oh and that cause is the Judeo-Christian God.” wait a minute…you are not allowed to just tack on stuff at the end in a formal argument. The nature of the cause is not proved by this argument in any way because the nature of the cause is not even mentioned in this argument. If you want to prove the nature of the cause, you must make another argument proving that the cause has the characteristics of a creator like the Judeo-Christian God.

Secondly, this argument still does not evade the regress objection as it was meant to. This argument was formulated in this way so you could reply “Ah ha! but God did not begin to exist!” Then you must accept that it is possible for things to be eternal and thus you must accept the possibility that the universe could be eternal.

Next. to evade the regress objection, you claim that since God did not begin to exist, the regress stops with him. Wait a sec, theres that unjustified assertion again. You can’t simply assert things whenever they are convenient, especially if you are using a logical argument. If you assert something, you have to have an argument that its possible for something to just exist without ever beginning;

Why not prove it wrong? If if you are to claim that i am just making assertion, then you should have no problem proving it wrong.

If you accept that the world began

Lastly, it seems as if we do have evidence that there are things which can neither be created not destroyed…if you consider energy a thing. So far the best theory we have is that energy exists and the first law of thermodynamics is applicable without being bound by time (Noether’s Theorem). Thus we can see the beginning of the current universe as a change in the nature of energy irrespective of time and therefore this would be the creator and not anything like the Judeo-Christian God.

Can You actually back up anything that your saying here?

Why not prove it wrong? If you are to claim that i am just making assertion, then you should have no problem proving it wrong.

If you accept that the world began; and if you accept that time began with it; then the cause cannot have the nature of the universe; it has to be a timeless immaterial cause; and if you are to accept that, then you have to accept that the cause would have to have a will, since it is not bound by natural law, and therefore cannot be moved by natural law. Its a matter of must, not want. You simply cannot logically posit a natural cause, with out contradicting logic.

A “natural cause”, cannot be by its very definition, “timeless”. A “natural cause” is something acting in and with the passing of time. Hence the cause of the universe cannot be one that is bound by natural law. I’m not going to explain here again why that is, since i have done so on numerous ocassions; and far from being proven wrong, they have all been ignored.

The universe began, so the idea of energy not having a beginning is false; plus you haven’t shown me anything that suggests to me that your assertions about energy not needing the passing of time in order to act and “change” in to diferent types of energy, is in fact correct and is in conformity with current accepted scientific theories. The concept that energy lasts forever, does not constitute that it has always been here. For anything to change, you need the lubricant of time for such a possibility to take place. It seems completly obvious to me, that anything that is bound by natural laws must act in relation to them, and that if you are to posit a natural cause to the universe, you have to depart from logic and suppose a contradiction. Energy exists so far as other laws in nature exists. If positing a contradiction is how far one has to go to prove a natural cause, then i think the evidence speaks for its self.

When did i say that the “Judeo Christian God” is what necessarly follows from my arguements? If there is a God, regardless of who that God is, you cannot be an athiest; you have to be a deist by default. Your disbelieve in Christianity does not Add up to a disbelief in God.

 

[freesoulhope]

You call that a reply?

It wasn’t just a reply, it was a refutation of your arguements for an infinite or timeless “natural cause”. Thats no reason to go of in a tiff.

 

[freesoulhope]

of course, they are self-unitary and self-identical, so each has quantity: 1.

Interesting; you speak of God having quantity. Please tell me more. Why do you think God must necessarely have quantity: 1.