Based on probability, if one had to make a choice, is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist

[Aloysium]

. . . And Science seems to be supporting this view, eh?

That is exactly what science shows. Going back in time, tracing causal connections for everything that is, doing what it does, we find that they just simply . . . disappear. There was a time before mankind, before animals, before plants, before one-celled creatures, before molecules, before atoms, before subatomic particles existed, before the existence of space. Putting the projector of temporal cause and effect into reverse, it all vanishes into a singularity. And then, poof creation is gone. The Cause? Obvious, outside of time and within all time as its eternal Source. That is what science reveals. Pseudoscience on the other hand, abounds with fanciful fictions.

 

[Bradski]

If atheism offers no answers…

And it doesn’t. It’s simply a lack of belief.

 

[PRmerger]

And it doesn’t. It’s simply a lack of belief.

And it takes a great deal of faith to embrace it.

 

[Nixbits]

Yep. I’m sure it was you: I remember everything I read, Nix.

It seems in this case that you’ve mis-remembered or misinterpreted. Nowhere in the post you linked to do I make any statement about what extrapolations can be made about the beginning of the universe.

 

[Nixbits]

Precisely** how **have awareness and self-control emerged from molecular structures which lack awareness and self-control, remembering that there is a vast difference between inanimate objects and rational beings who have a right to life?

I haven’t a clue how awareness and self-control emerged. I’m not an evolutionary biologist. But I understand from the leading scientists in that field that there is no reliance on a supernatural source to explain these attributes. Incidentally, what do you mean by ‘beings who have a right to life’? What is your evidence for that?

The term “emergent” is a cloak for ignorance which doesn’t explain the origin of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

I don’t think so. It’s just a descriptive adjective. It doesn’t attempt to provide an explanation for any of these things.

It is absurd to believe impersonal, purposeless molecules can accidentally become purposeful entities and explain their own existence because circular arguments are worthless.

This seems like an argument from personal incredulity. “I can’t believe that there are swans that are not white, so it must be impossible.”

We are all in the “egocentric predicament” and all our empirical knowledge is derived from introspection and sense data but it is subordinate to abstract reasoning, moral discernment, spiritual insight, the power of self-control and the capacity for love.

I don’t agree with this word salad. How is all of our empirical knowledge subordinate to moral discernment, spiritual insight, self-control and love?

 

[Nixbits]

ISo to be an Atheist who is consonant with Science as well as common sense, one must espouse the belief that the universe began to exist, and that something outside of this universe is its proximate cause.

I agree with your first clause, but not the second. I don’t think that we necessarily even know whether ‘outside the universe’ has any meaning.

The universe–all matter, time, space and energy–came from something.

I would tentatively agree with this, but note that we don’t know what the ‘something’ was.

You need to look for the answer–perhaps religion, philosophy and science can assist you here.

Yes, perhaps they can. But, whereas science has proven itself to be the most consistently reliable method of determining truth, I have found the little philosophy that I have encountered to be a mixed bag, and the few religions that I have encountered to be somewhat less useful than that.

And Science seems to be supporting this view, eh?

I don’t think so. Science does not support the view that the universe was created by God from nothing. I am unaware of any aspect of science that supports the view that God exists.

 

[Nixbits]

And it takes a great deal of faith to embrace it.

Oh, no. Not this again. Give the turntable a nudge someone, please. The record is stuck. (Showing my age, there.)

 

[IWantGod]

Oh, no. Not this again. Give the turntable a nudge someone, please. The record is stuck. (Showing my age, there.)

Nixbits when are you going to realize that believing in God is going to be the most intelligent decision you ever made?

 

[tonyrey]

Precisely** how **

Your implication that awareness and self-control have a biological origin is self-destructive and undermines any claim you have to be a reasonable person because mindless processes are notorious for their lack of insight and intelligence.

Incidentally, what do you mean by ‘beings who have a right to life’? What is your evidence for that?

It is not surprising you ask that question because obviously freaks of nature have no rights whatsoever. Thank you for confirming your view that they are worthless human conventions.

The term “emergent” is a cloak for ignorance which doesn’t explain the origin of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love.

I don’t think so. It’s just a descriptive adjective. It doesn’t attempt to provide an explanation for any of these things.

In other words it is an argument from ignorance, an impressive expression which is valueless and meaningless…

It is absurd to believe impersonal, purposeless molecules can accidentally become purposeful entities and explain their own existence because circular arguments are worthless.

This seems like an argument from personal incredulity. “I can’t believe that there are swans that are not white, so it must be impossible.”

On the contrary your participation in this forum implies that you **believe **your behaviour is purposeful yet you attribute your origin to purposeless molecules which you believe have somehow become capable of ultimately explaining how all purposeful activity is ultimately purposeless! In other words you are trying to get something for nothing and thereby contradicting yourself.

We are all in the “egocentric predicament” and all our empirical knowledge is derived from introspection and sense data but it is subordinate to abstract reasoning, moral discernment, spiritual insight, the power of self-control and the capacity for love.

I don’t agree with this word salad.How is all of our empirical knowledge subordinate to moral discernment, spiritual insight, self-control and love?

The expression “this word salad” reveals that you don’t understand the meaning of those terms and it is a waste of time and energy trying to explain them to you.

 

[IWantGod]

On the contrary your participation in this forum implies that you **believe **your behaviour is purposeful yet you attribute your origin to purposeless molecules which you believe have somehow become capable of ultimately explaining how all purposeful activity is ultimately purposeless! In other words you are trying to get something for nothing and thereby contradicting yourself.

I like this one.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I like this one.

Yes, I believe that atheists and/or agnostics who would take the time to come on a religious forum to start up the discussion/fight are actually the most likely to be searching for God. I did this as an atheist myself; I was really terrible to Christians about their faith. It was a weakness of mine, a bit obsessive even. I came to see it as resisting the pull.

It is the ones who don’t care either way - ones you will never see posting here - that should be the cause of concern. “too far gone” category… imho

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, no. Not this again. Give the turntable a nudge someone, please. The record is stuck. (Showing my age, there.)

Yeah. It’s almost as if it can’t be…

refuted.

Faith eschewed by atheists. Yet faith is appealed to.

How can this be a cogent paradigm?

 

[PRmerger]

I agree with your first clause, but not the second. I don’t think that we necessarily even know whether ‘outside the universe’ has any meaning.

Of course it has meaning.

Logic tells us so.

The universe is all space, matter, time and energy.

For it to have been created, it means, LOGICALLY, that what created it was NOT space, matter, time and energy. That is, OUTSIDE the universe.

 

[tonyrey]

I like this one.

I had to reread more than once to make sure it’s correct because a circular argument can tie the critic up in knots!

 

[tonyrey]

And it takes a great deal of faith to embrace it.

Indisputable! Ultimately we all have to have faith in something even if it’s only the fact that we exist. If we deny that it would be impossible to go on living!

 

[Skeptic92]

Based on probability, if one had to make a choice, is it more reasonable to be an Atheist or a Theist. Which is more likely to be true given human experience and the evidence.

Which way does the pendulum of probability swing and why.

I do not deal in probabilities. Theism has been philosophically demonstrated to be true and thus establishes that Atheism is of itself absurd.

 

[goout]

And it doesn’t. It’s simply a lack of belief.

Wouldn’t this require some re-definitions of the word belief?
Typically when an atheist claims they have no belief, it is meant they have no subscription to organized belief systems. Ok.

To profess you do not believe in a God is not the same thing as saying you have no beliefs.
Everyone believes something. Everyone seeks to find truth and give it their credence. We are able to function in the world because we give our trust, or assent and our response, to things and people we know to be true.

A person could hardly walk out the door in the morning without some sort of beliefs.
You couldn’t have relationships without belief.

 

[Nixbits]

Nixbits when are you going to realize that believing in God is going to be the most intelligent decision you ever made?

I’ve been puzzling over the answer to this. I don’t think your question is sensible. Believing in something is not a conscious decision. Either I will be convinced or I will not. There is no decision involved. I’ve spent the last 35 years thinking about it and so far I’ve not found anything,- evidence, logical argument or philosophical ‘proof’ - to convince me.

 

[Nixbits]

It is not surprising you ask that question because obviously freaks of nature have no rights whatsoever. Thank you for confirming your view that they are worthless human conventions.

That’s not my view, merely the straw man that you’re attacking…

In other words it is an argument from ignorance, an impressive expression which is valueless and meaningless…

If the word ‘emergent’ were truly meaningless, then how could you claim it is an argument from ignorance? You clearly understand what the word means, so it must have meaning.

On the contrary your participation in this forum implies that you **believe **your behaviour is purposeful yet you attribute your origin to purposeless molecules which you believe have somehow become capable of ultimately explaining how all purposeful activity is ultimately purposeless! In other words you are trying to get something for nothing and thereby contradicting yourself.

I think we’ve been through this before. Getting some property from molecules that do not themselves have that property is trivially obvious. Given a sufficiently complex arrangement of complex molecules and sufficient time for advantageous variations to be favoured by evolutionary pressures, the property that may become present could also be complex.

The expression “this word salad” reveals that you don’t understand the meaning of those terms and it is a waste of time and energy trying to explain them to you.

I’m deeply grateful that you’ve chosen not to.

 

[Nixbits]

Faith eschewed by atheists. Yet faith is appealed to. How can this be a cogent paradigm?

We’ve been through this before. It’s not a cogent paradigm. But it’s not the paradigm of any atheist I know of. It’s a straw-man argument that mis-characterises the views of atheists.