Question from an athiest: How would you respond?

[Writer]

My preference is a multiverse, not an intelligent designer. A multiverse easily explains why we live in an “improbable” universe.

Kind of reminds me of the arguments I’ve heard for “dark matter”. Both the multiverse and dark matter ideas are interesting, but their basis or origin simply lies in scientists flailing around for answers and trying to creatively address what they can’t quite get their brains around. These ideas have less to do with demonstated facts than the existence of troubling questsions. Reminds me of my old astronomy professor who wasn’t afraid to give credit where credit is due. The theories also consistently fail to suggest the nature of the first cause. That is, if we accept that our universe began with a big bang (or a little squeak–whatever the case may be), what originated that creation of matter from nothing? As far as you can take your arguments back, we can always go one step beyond you. What was the orginating cause? Multiple universes are simply an inventive approach skeptics seem to latch onto to make themselves more comfortable. Fine–I liked Heinlien and Asimov as much as the next science fiction fan. I still don’t see that, if even demonstrated as true, it really advances your argument. After all, it takes more faith to be an athiest (at least in the beautiful Pacific Northwest ) than it takes to be a simple Christian. You, sir, need to justify your faith, and, so far, you have fallen pretty flat.

Actually, in thinking about this topic yesterday, your arguments are very reminiscient of C.S. Lewis prior to his conversion (with the help of this Catholic guy named Tolkien). We’ve all heard the gist of your arguments before. There is nothing new or inventive. What can you tell us to justify your faith in science over God?

 

[corvidae]

The fact that there are natural laws points to a natural creator.

That is what intelligent design is about. If there are these laws that apply to nature, there had to be someone or something to set them down or design them.

As Einstein said, The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible.

The fact that there are laws is a miracle

A lone Raven

 

[mlchance]

If their conjecture is correct, it would leave little space for a so-called creator God.

Nonsense.

But, more interestingly, yet again in order to avoid having to honestly debate theological questions, you resort to mere conjectures for which there is no evidence. Jesus didn’t rise from the dead because the Apostles hallucinated the Resurrection, and this is supposed to be believeable just because you say it is. God didn’t create the universe because somebody dreamed up a scenario for which there is no evidence that supposedly makes God unnecessay to explain the fact of existence rather than nonexistence.

Everything you’re saying is just one “Yeah, but what if…?” after another. I thought atheists were supposed to be driven by evidence, hard facts, demonstrable examples, et cetera, rather just basing conclusions on a bunch of wishful thinking.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t know the details of Turok and Steinhardt’s proposal. The answer is probably they had no beginning, thus, we do not need to explain their origin.

Gee, and I thought that idea has pretty much gone by the wayside.

 

[ribozyme]

Nonsense.

But, more interestingly, yet again in order to avoid having to honestly debate theological questions, you resort to mere conjectures for which there is no evidence. Jesus didn’t rise from the dead because the Apostles hallucinated the Resurrection, and this is supposed to be believeable just because you say it is. God didn’t create the universe because somebody dreamed up a scenario for which there is no evidence that supposedly makes God unnecessay to explain the fact of existence rather than nonexistence.

Everything you’re saying is just one “Yeah, but what if…?” after another. I thought atheists were supposed to be driven by evidence, hard facts, demonstrable examples, et cetera, rather just basing conclusions on a bunch of wishful thinking.

– Mark L. Chance.

Fine, if I will state directly that science has not disproved the existence of god. My point in my previous posts is that there are alternative possiblities that could explain the creation of the universe without god. I do not know if they are true, and as far as I am concerned, I am an agnostic. I would also like to add that science does not prove the existene of a god too. Deism seems to be perfectly reasonable too, as Anthony Flew is now a deist.

But I am an atheist regarding the existence of the Christian God. So I believe that if a god exists, it is not the Christian God. My main reason is the problem of evil, but that seems to be a topic for another thread.

 

[buffalo]

Fine, if I will state directly that science has not disproved the existence of god. My point in my previous posts is that there are alternative possiblities that could explain the creation of the universe without god. I do not know if they are true, and as far as I am concerned, I am an agnostic. I would also like to add that science does not prove the existene of a god too. Deism seems to be perfectly reasonable too, as Anthony Flew is now a deist.

But I am an atheist regarding the existence of the Christian God. So I believe that if a god exists, it is not the Christian God. My main reason is the problem of evil, but that seems to be a topic for another thread.

Then start another thread about evil.

 

[ribozyme]

Gee, and I thought that idea has pretty much gone by the wayside.

What do you mean “gone by the wayside”? Could you elaborate.

 

[buffalo]

What do you mean “gone by the wayside”? Could you elaborate.

I thought the concept of the “big bang” shows the universe had a beginning, putting the infinite universe to rest.

 

[mlchance]

Fine, if I will state directly that science has not disproved the existence of god. My point in my previous posts is that there are alternative possiblities that could explain the creation of the universe without god.

Explanations for which there is very to no scientific evidence. Hardly seem like explanations to me, but, again, are just wishful thinking. It’s seems to much like, “I prefer that God not be, so I’ll believe X, Y, and Z, but not for any reasons based on any sort of evidence.”

I would also like to add that science does not prove the existene of a god too.

Of course not. That’s a given.

Deism seems to be perfectly reasonable too, as Anthony Flew is now a deist.

Deism is intellectually indefensible, but that’s another thread. Rather than that, check out this delightful article:

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0501/articles/dulles.htm

But I am an atheist regarding the existence of the Christian God. So I believe that if a god exists, it is not the Christian God. My main reason is the problem of evil, but that seems to be a topic for another thread.

Then you ought to really pay attention to what Christianity says, especially the Catholic expression of Christianity, which answered the so-called “problem of evil” hundreds of years ago.

That point aside, I’m still befuddled that you put so much stock in things that ultimately mean so little. Just once I want to meet an atheist/agnostic whose reservations about revealed religion aren’t tissue thin.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[mlchance]

I thought the concept of the “big bang” shows the universe had a beginning, putting the infinite universe to rest.

Even if Big Bang cosmology isn’t viable, it doesn’t matter. Thomas Aquinas, for example, never thought the beginning of the universe at a certain point in time could be arrived at via philosophy, but rather was accepted by Christians as a matter of revelation. If God is eternal, he could, if he so choose, eternally maintain the existence of the universe. Philosophically, this idea is tenable. God’s revelation to man, Aquinas wrote, confirms a beginning point, but reason alone need not do so.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vz71]

If their conjecture is correct, it would leave little space for a so-called creator God.

And your hard evidence for the non-existance of God is???

All of your arguments for the non-existance of God fall into the catagory of conjecture, there does not seem to be anything of any substance to what you are saying.

As far as the idea that there are alternative explanations…well, an alternative explanation would also require evidence. Conjecture does not equal evidence.

I could easily claim a large blue turtle carries the earth around the sun in orbit. This would not be an alternative explanation, it would be fantasy. Why? Because there is no evidence to support the claim and there is evidence against it. So…if you want to have an alternative explanation to God creating the universe, you need evidence. Thus far all you have is fantasy.

 

[ribozyme]

Then you ought to really pay attention to what Christianity says, especially the Catholic expression of Christianity, which answered the so-called “problem of evil” hundreds of years ago.

That point aside, I’m still befuddled that you put so much stock in things that ultimately mean so little. Just once I want to meet an atheist/agnostic whose reservations about revealed religion aren’t tissue thin.

– Mark L. Chance.

If you really want to know some of my reasons, I would recommend you to type this on Google search engine: “professor joyce orgel shapiro bartel” and good to the top result.

Gerald Joyce, David Bartel, Leslie Orgel, and Robert Shapiro have influenced my views and I respect them as competent scientists. But look at that page and tell me if me reasoning is thin.

You could ignore everything about the Bartel polymerase as it is not the point (it is discussed their and it is in my signature), but if you want to talk about it, go ahead.

Most of the relevant material is in the first part of that exchange.

 

[ribozyme]

And your hard evidence for the non-existance of God is???

All of your arguments for the non-existance of God fall into the catagory of conjecture, there does not seem to be anything of any substance to what you are saying.

As far as the idea that there are alternative explanations…well, an alternative explanation would also require evidence. Conjecture does not equal evidence.

I could easily claim a large blue turtle carries the earth around the sun in orbit. This would not be an alternative explanation, it would be fantasy. Why? Because there is no evidence to support the claim and there is evidence against it. So…if you want to have an alternative explanation to God creating the universe, you need evidence. Thus far all you have is fantasy.

Well, could you test the idea that God created the universe? Could you tell how that is not accepted on a matter of faith too? Fine, everything about the origin of the universe is currently conjecture.

 

[Nullasalus]

I could easily claim a large blue turtle carries the earth around the sun in orbit. This would not be an alternative explanation, it would be fantasy. Why? Because there is no evidence to support the claim and there is evidence against it. So…if you want to have an alternative explanation to God creating the universe, you need evidence. Thus far all you have is fantasy.

Haven’t you heard, vz71? It’s turtles all the way down!

(Sorry, I saw that on Uncommon Descent, and have been dying for an opportunity to use it.)

I will say that, regarding this thread, conjecture is conjecture. But once you’re proposing MWI and the tenth dimension without any evidence - mind you, this is only if you believe in such a thing, as an atheist - then the old ‘Atheism is the most rational option’ claim fractures even by atheist standards.

 

[mlchance]

If you really want to know some of my reasons, I would recommend…Gerald Joyce, David Bartel, Leslie Orgel, and Robert Shapiro have influenced my views and I respect them as competent scientists.

Well, could you test the idea that God created the universe?

Make up your mind. Didn’t you just say a few posts ago that science can neither prove nor disprove God’s existence? If so, why now ask that the proposition be testable? Why should I look at what scientists say about God when science can neither confirm nor deny God’s existence?

But look at that page and tell me if me reasoning is thin.

Okay, I’ve looked, and the reasoning is thin. I see nothing there that poses the least bit difficulty to a proper Catholic understanding of the answers to the questions addressed.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[buffalo]

Even if Big Bang cosmology isn’t viable, it doesn’t matter. Thomas Aquinas, for example, never thought the beginning of the universe at a certain point in time could be arrived at via philosophy, but rather was accepted by Christians as a matter of revelation. If God is eternal, he could, if he so choose, eternally maintain the existence of the universe. Philosophically, this idea is tenable. God’s revelation to man, Aquinas wrote, confirms a beginning point, but reason alone need not do so.

– Mark L. Chance.

I have been a little distracted today. I should have said the “steady state” universe.

 

[Writer]

Fine, if I will state directly that science has not disproved the existence of god. My point in my previous posts is that there are alternative possiblities that could explain the creation of the universe without god. I do not know if they are true, and as far as I am concerned, I am an agnostic. I would also like to add that science does not prove the existene of a god too. Deism seems to be perfectly reasonable too, as Anthony Flew is now a deist.

But I am an atheist regarding the existence of the Christian God. So I believe that if a god exists, it is not the Christian God. My main reason is the problem of evil, but that seems to be a topic for another thread.

I suggest you read the Problem of Pain.

 

[ribozyme]

I suggest you read the Problem of Pain.

I will do it after I read The God Delusion by Professor Richard Dawkins. I cannot wait to read that book.

 

[buffalo]

I got one for you - the latest thriller by Sungenis

Galileo was Wrong

 

[Niz]

think about it from a prespective of order