Is Atheism Positive?

[zyzz]

For the sake of argument, we will agree that God instigated everything.

Well said, but you need to remember that the other party also has a “plan B”. On one hand they say that God started the whole shebang, and then everything else “folds out” according the laws of nature. But when it suits them then they change their tune. They say that God is not the generic, deistic creator, he is not just the first cause, but also the “sustaining cause”. They say that the universe must be sustained from second to second… if God would not pay attention, the whole universe would flicker out of existence.

So, we cannot “win”. The game is rigged, they payout matrix is simple: “if it is heads, they win, if it’s tails, we lose”. I must admit that this is the sign of a “genius”. And when the street urchin exclaims that the emperor is stark naked, they pretend that they never heard it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Oreoracle:
Oreoracle,

What is the flaw of eating and breathing through the same orifice?

Or reproducing and eliminating through the same organ?

Seems eminently efficient to me.

 

[Bradski]

Creationism is an attempt to get the focus back on God and away from the godless evolutionists. The reason evolutionists are so contemptuous of Intelligent Design is that it challenges their atheism.

People, including Christians, are contemptuous about ID because it, and the people who push it, ignore basic science. They are charlatans.

However, the subject of evolution is banned in this forum so I won’t be answering any more posts on the subject. I advise others to do likewise or this thread is likely to be closed.

Who’s talking evolution? We’re talking abiogenesis. I know you know the difference. And what you are trying to claim is that everything has been created by God using His natural laws, except for this one aspect of existence. His natural laws weren’t able to produce life.

My money is on God in this instance. I say His natural laws have, from the very instant of creation, been able to bring us to this point. You say: ‘No, His natural laws weren’t able to do that’. You say life is unnatural. So be it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well said, but you need to remember that the other party also has a “plan B”. On one hand they say that God started the whole shebang, and then everything else “folds out” according the laws of nature. But when it suits them then they change their tune. They say that God is not the generic, deistic creator, he is not just the first cause, but also the “sustaining cause”. They say that the universe must be sustained from second to second… if God would not pay attention, the whole universe would flicker out of existence.

So, we cannot “win”. The game is rigged, they payout matrix is simple: “if it is heads, they win, if it’s tails, we lose”. I must admit that this is the sign of a “genius”. And when the street urchin exclaims that the emperor is stark naked, they pretend that they never heard it.

Once it is given that God (and only one God) exists, it follows that the one God must be omnipotent. Omnipotence means that every creation at every moment requires God for not only its creation, but its continued existence. Any notion to the contrary negates the omnipotence of God. Only atheism can be so negative that, even if it allowed the existence of God, it would never allow God’s omnipotence. In other words, the theists cannot be allowed to win.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You say life is unnatural. So be it.

Life is natural, but without God’s mind and will directing the whole order of Creation, there would be no Creation.

“I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations.” Albert Einstein

 

[Charlemagne_III]

People, including Christians, are contemptuous about ID because it, and the people who push it, ignore basic science. They are charlatans.

Well, that’s just your opinion. The world is full of unproven opinions.

 

[Bradski]

On one hand they say that God started the whole shebang, and then everything else “folds out” according the laws of nature. But when it suits them then they change their tune. They say that God is not the generic, deistic creator, he is not just the first cause, but also the “sustaining cause”. They say that the universe must be sustained from second to second… if God would not pay attention, the whole universe would flicker out of existence.

To be honest, I have no problem with this.

When ice melts, it isn’t God who is actively melting it. One could say that God is maintaining the laws of nature that causes it to happen. When a star is formed, it isn’t God flicking a divine switch and the star just appears. It is God sustaining the very nature of the universe so that the star will form naturally.

We know a lot about how the universe works. Yes, there’s a long way to go. But what we do know we can say happens because of the laws of nature. We can work out the method that God has used to make it happen.

We know how stars appear. We know why ice melts. We know why creatures evolve. We know how mountains are formed. And all this we call nature. If a child asks why ice melts, we don’t say: ‘Because God melted it’. If the child asks how mountains are formed, we don’t say: ‘God made it’. We teach them the processes that result in these things happening. And we call these processes ‘natural’.

If you are religious, then you can explain that you personally believe that God created these natural processes and sustains them so the world works as we see it. That things don’t simply appear by divine will (although God wills it).

But for something that we yet don’t understand, for some people this is simply not good enough. For life to start, they feel the need to deny that it happened just the same as everything else. That is…naturally. They feel the need to claim that God’s laws weren’t able to run the programme from start to finish. That it stops half way through and just stalls. That at that point there is no life and that nature, brought into existence and sustained by God, couldn’t take the next step.

They demand a ‘Kazam!’ moment. They want a miracle. The fact that nature itself is the greatest miracle of all is not good enough.

 

[cornbread_r2]

It’s apt. APT! youtube.com/watch?v=3MpRt41tPoc

Actually you’re making an argument from ignorance (“that a premise is false because it has not been proven true”), have a look at the article you linked.

That was my intention. I was hoping Charlemagne III would indict me for using his argument.

Proofs are only possible in deductive reasoning, such as in math, whereas inductive reasoning, as in science or history, only allows a probable conclusion. No one can prove that the Sun will rise tomorrow. It’s highly likely, but it can’t be proved. You have to make your own decisions based on evidence.

I quite agree, which is why I used the term “demonstrate”, as opposed to “prove”, later. I considered explaining the difference, but since I knew that it’s been explained in these parts umteen times before – without leaving a mark – I doubted my explanation would leave one either.

btw love the positive arguments you guys are using against ID, but as Charles just said, don’t forget the ban on discussing evolution.

I appreciate that, especially as it’s coming from one of my favorite contributors here.

 

[Bradski]

Well, that’s just your opinion. The world is full of unproven opinions.

But the proponents of ID are not offering opinions. They are offering (have to offer) what they describe as scientific facts. Which are all too easy to refute.

And why, in any case, are to trying to support these people? It has been pointed out what their aims are. And not someone’s opinion of what their aims are, but a quote from the very people who push this sort of stuff. And you don’t believe what they are saying.

What on earth makes you argue for something in which you don’t believe?

 

[Bradski]

Life is natural…

Sustained and maintained by God. But natural nevertheless. Part of the natural process of existence. Sustained and maintained by God.

Good. We have reached agreement.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Good. We have reached agreement.

We are not here solely as a result of natural processes set in motion at earlier phases of creation.
Humanity constitutes a significant leap forward into a new type of being altogether.
We have free will which allows us the capacity to love as an attribute of our eternal soul.
These are the basics, revealed in scripture and found within us and through our relationship with God.

 

[Oreoracle]

What is the flaw of eating and breathing through the same orifice?

The risk of choking on food comes to mind. Also, since foreign agents most often enter your body through the mouth, your throat is a prime target for allergic reactions, which can lead to swelling and suffocation. And of course one can swallow their tongue or choke on their vomit.

This is just my lowly mortal opinion, but if I knew my creations would need one pathway in their bodies to be clear at all times, I would probably make sure that they’d never need to force anything down it, especially not several times a day.

Or reproducing and eliminating through the same organ?

I could point out the obvious hygiene issues, but here’s a fun one: The proximity of the sex organs to the rectum makes sodomy pleasurable. If God despises sodomy so, why hook up the nerves in the rectum and genitals to the same pleasure center?

 

[Bradski]

We are not here solely as a result of natural processes set in motion at earlier phases of creation.
Humanity constitutes a significant leap forward into a new type of being altogether.
We have free will which allows us the capacity to love as an attribute of our eternal soul.
These are the basics, revealed in scripture and found within us and through our relationship with God.

We are not talking about humanity, but specifically abiogenesis. If you believe that man is the ultimate aim of the natural processes that God put into action and sustains constantly, then ok.

God created the world in one day. Well, no, it was formed by natural processes. Here’s the evidence. OK, say the Christians. Fair enough. But…those natural processes were instigated by God and are maintained by Him constantly.

Does that fact lessen God?

God created Man fully formed. Well, no, we are the result of natural processes. Here’s the evidence. OK, say the Christians. Fair enough. But…those natural processes were instigated by God and are maintained by Him constantly.

Is God less of a deity because of that?

Life was created by supernatural means. Well, no, it was formed by natural processes. Here’s the evidence. OK, say the Christians. Fair enough. But…those natural processes were instigated by God and are maintained by Him constantly.

If we fill in the blank in the last scenario, the bit where we don’t yet know the natural processes involved, will that mean that God is diminished in some way?

Why on earth do people insist that that would be the case?

 

[zyzz]

Once it is given that God (and only one God) exists, it follows that the one God must be omnipotent.

Nope, that does not follow. The continued existence of the creator does not follow from the existence of the creation. The existence of “Hamlet” does not imply the continued existence of Shakespeare.

Omnipotence means that every creation at every moment requires God for not only its creation, but its continued existence.

That is NOT what omnipotence means. As a matter of fact, omnipotence is not even a rigorously defined term. Literally it would mean the ability of being able to do anything and everything. But this literal meaning has been discarded by the philosophers AND the theologians a long time ago. It is usually stated that “omnipotence” is the ability to do anything and everything THAT CAN BE DONE. And that is simply meaningless.

 

[Bradski]

Once it is given that God (and only one God) exists, it follows that the one God must be omnipotent.

I’m with zyzz here. It’s not a given. It’s just an assumption. Which starts with an assumption.

God created the universe (the first assumption), therefore He must be omnipotent (the second).

Let’s assume the first is correct. Then why does that make God omnipotent? It just makes Him powerful enough to have started everything. Saying that He then controls it all is yet another assumption. That He was able to guide what happened is still another.

If I start a bush fire I have no control over it. I don’t know what the results will be. The same with almost everything I create. Why not the same with God? It’s simply assumed.

 

[tonyrey]

…The fact that nature itself is the greatest miracle of all is not good enough.

If you believe nature itself is the greatest miracle of all you’re not justified in dismissing it as the product of fortuitous combinations of molecules and random mutations of genes. There are limits to what the mindless Goddess can achieve - given that we are aware of her and she isn’t aware of us. Reasoning isn’t the kind of thing you can create with the wave of a magic wand nor would any bookie in his right mind accept a bet with such tremendous odds - unless of course you favour her…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

What on earth makes you argue for something in which you don’t believe?

Specifically what am I arguing for that I don’t believe in?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If God despises sodomy so, why hook up the nerves in the rectum and genitals to the same pleasure center?

Might it be so that God could let us choose between God and Satan?

Oh, you probably don’t believe in free will, heaven, or hell.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is usually stated that “omnipotence” is the ability to do anything and everything THAT CAN BE DONE. And that is simply meaningless.

I would be satisfied to define omnipotence as the ability to create universes.

Something we are impotent to do, though doubtless there are scientists somewhere who will say “Just you wait and we’ll see about that.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If I start a bush fire I have no control over it. I don’t know what the results will be. The same with almost everything I create. Why not the same with God? It’s simply assumed.

Are you toying with me here?