There is no God

[Alois]

This is a tautology, since you define existence as itself. Moreover, since by definition the atheist does not believe in a Creator, what existence you observe must be purposeless, without plan, and therefore meaningless.

Or no? The definition of existence is all that exists.

Would you like a more accurate definition?

So why are you trying to make sense out of anything?

Why shouldn’t we? I’m not trying to find meaning in the universe, I’m trying to find out the ways things work. In other words, make sense of it. Knowledge is what drives human, it is even more powerful than blind faith.

What you really mean to say, if I’m not mistaken, is that the existence we know is the only existence there is. This statement cannot be necessarily true since it presupposes that you are personally in touch with all forms of existence, and that you know from all eternity that existence is eternal because you have been in existence from all eternity to observe it.

This is an easily refuted position. Do you need to know all there is in the universe before you conclude that there aren’t any square circles? Of course not.

Keep in mind that the position I take is that there is no logical, rational, or reasonable reason to believe in a God. Not that there is no God period. Stop strawmanning.

There is no room for possibilities in the atheist universe, and in particular the possibility that there might be a kind of Existence prior to the universe.

Wow, I’ve already shown you this many times now. Open your closed mind for a change, because you’re not picking up any of the things we are telling you. You’re arguing yourself into circles.

An atheist has room for possibilities, but we require evidence to logically and rationally consider them. If we do not, then we have to consider an infinite amount of possibilities as truths. Now tell me, which position is more reasonable and logical? Do you assume there is an undetectable hitfromazed under your bed?

Atheism never doubts it own infallibility in this regard. God does not exist. Dogma. Not revealed from on high, but from within … with not a shred of evidence to back it up.

Here you are again with the wild misconceptions. I’ve stated this before, I’m a weak atheist. I believe it is illogical to believe in a God, not that one could never exist. Stop throwing out this ridiculous strawmen.

 

[Alois]

alms:

Alois, check this essay out…just published this morning:

“Darwinism on Defense”

wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47973

Any thoughts?

Please cite the specific arguments you wish to use. I will not refute an entire paper for you, but if you’re willing to take these arguments and form a thought-out debate, I will.

 

[Alois]

hurst:

It is mainly “like” an infinite set in that it is infinite, complete, and eternally existent. And it is “not like” an infinite set in that it does not consist of a collection of things. The things created “exist” outside of it, yet depend upon it.

You’ll have to show this before you assume it to be true. If it’s an infinite set, then it is made up of an infinite amount of “things”. This is not a subjective situation, this is an objective one. This is the truth of an infinite set. If existence holds all possible possibilities, then it is also an infinite set. So by comparing the two, you MUST take their similarities into account, and you MUST take their differences into account. So which is it? Like an infinite number set, which would disprove your last few posts as illogical in basis alone. Or unlike an infinite number set, which would invalidate your entire argument thus far?

I have now said what I intended multiple times. Please stop bringing up your perspective of what an infinite set is in order to dispute the case.

This isn’t perspective, it’s truth. You go on to admit it later on in this very post! You can’t use two things, change their properties so that they are not what they use to be, and then try to force an analogy between the two. Would you like me to make an analogy for the case of God being pizza?

Either take it as I meant it, or refer to another simile. The eternal existence can not “consist” of manifested objects. Those objects “subsist” in that existence (the “perfect somethingness”).

You are again refering to existence as some sort of outside entity. This is not the definition you were proposing earlier. Have you changed it?

This is precisely why we cannot directly observe “perfect somethingness” in our manifested nature. Our “nature” is nothing of itself, even though it subsists in “supernature”, which is existence of itself.

You again make the same fallacy. Existence is defined as all that is. We (this universe) are. Therefore, we are part of existence. You are trying to classify existence as another thing, maybe… God? Didn’t I warn about that earlier?

And yet it can reveal itself to us in more depth if it so chooses, by forming in us more of a likeness to itself. But again, this knowledge is by participation, for we will never ever “be” this “perfect somethingness”.

You assume it is sentient again. Haven’t we gone over this?

It is important to keep in mind that we are as different from existence as light is to darkness. To equate our “existence” with that of the “perfect somethingness” would be idolatry. To call this universe or our own nature “essential somethingness” is giving the name of self-sufficient existence to a manifested object, and is indicatative of “idolatry”.

We are not. We are calling it a part of existence. If we remove this part of existence, this possibility of existence; existence would no longer contain all possibilities.

For we only “exist” by participation. It is likewise the reason why it is appropriate for us to worship and value this “infinite somethingness” in which we subsist and yet are outside of - we look up to that from which all our existence comes. By honoring this inifinite source, we bring honor to ourselves in truth.

You assume that it will just “show” us the way by worshipping it. You have not established sentience. You have no established will. You have not established much but your own say-so.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Sorry I’ve been gone for the past week or so; I’ll try and make good on my promise to some questions regarding abiogenesis.
John Doran:

EnterTheBowser:

Frankly, science doesn’t fully understand what happened all that time ago (yet). Given that, it’s foolish to speculate on what exactly the chances of abiogenesis are. I wanted to point out that even if it is very unlikely to happen on a specific planet, there’s more than a few planets and more than a little time out there.

ok. so maybe abiogenesis will turn out to be proven impossible.

right now, however, it seems to me that you believe that it is more likely than not that it happened, and not undecidable, or 50% likely…on what do you base that conviction?

EnterTheBowser:

I’m curious how you would go about supporting the argument that it is extraordinarily unlikely for any form of life to arise. Your link - and I imagine most sources - talks about the probability of life as we know it arising in conditions as they exist on Earth. What kind of odds should we be looking at for different forms of life in other environments?

the only life we know of is carbon-based, so the only biological science we do involves carbon-based lifeforms; we can’t do any science regarding lifeforms with biologies about which we haven’t any knowledge. including formulate statistical models for the likelihood of their spontaneously forming from inanimate matter.

Now, if we don’t know what the conditions were like, and we don’t know what sort of possibilities for life there are in such conditions (for non-carbon based life), and if we don’t know the distribution of various conditions on other planets, and the liklihood of life in those conditions, then it is in fact foolish to make an argument for an intervening deity based on abiogenesis. One of the major premises of the argument from abiogenesis is “Life is so unlikely that natural forces cannot explain it.” But this premise cannot be supported without knowing these things.

As an analogy, imagine a prisoner forced to play a game of chance by their jailer. They roll a die, and it comes up 6. “You win!” says the jailer. “You get to live - for today.” And the prisoner thinks, “Thank God! It is so unlikely for me to win, that God must’ve saved me!” But the prisoner doesn’t know the rules of the game. He doesn’t know how many sides the die has. He doesn’t know what other numbers are on the sides. He doesn’t know what other numbers can win. He doesn’t know how many rolls he gets. So it’s pretty stupid of him to assume that his win was unlikely.

Given that you have admitted we don’t know all these things, you cannot support the argument from abiogenesis.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

John Doran:

EnterTheBowser:

I’m reading through this stuff, and it seems odd: the author makes a point that the development of a modern protein under certain ideal conditions is unlikely. His response to the criticism “Well, we probably shouldn’t be talking about modern proteins” is to say “Well, these ideal conditions make the development more likely than it would otherwise be.”

theory-of-evolution.net/…teorites-2.html

Now, this seems to be a strange sort of response, because it’s not actually a response to the argument against his position. The other sections in the abiogenesis section also seem to take examples of modern proteins in idealized conditions. So I don’t really see how this supports your position. The odds calculated don’t actually have to do with abiogenesis.

read chapter 9 and chapter 15 for the quick-and-dirty…

I have read these chapters. Chapter 15 utterly ignores gene duplication - the phenomenon by which a certain stretch of DNA is duplicated entirely, allowing for the functionality of the original and mutations on the new copy. It also assumes that early biology is like modern biology, with its talk of ATP synthesis.

Chapter 9 spends a good deal of time attacking theories that it also seems to admit are no longer held by many scientists. Why it should do this is beyond me - particularly when it ignores some of the theories that are held by modern biologists. Some of these can be found here:

talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Lastly, the argument from abiogenesis - or, for that matter, any sort of “unexplainable” phenomenon - is flawed. Let’s sketch the argument:

1- Phenomenon X happened
2- Our current scientific theories can’t explain X
3- Therefore God made X happen

Now, let’s replace X with, say, the orbit of Mercury, and current scientific theories with Newtonian mechanics. At that time, Newtonian mechanics could not explain the strange orbit of Mercury. But we can clearly see that it would be stupid to conclude that God exists for that reason. And this is due to a neat thing about science: it’s all about explaining the previously unexplainable.

Now, science has a few options when it tries to explain as-yet unexplained phenomenon. It can try to reduce X to some more basic laws - for example, friction is explained by intermolecular forces. Or it can say that X is just a basic law - we can’t explain it in terms of other things; it just is (things like those intermolecular forces). (Or in the case of chance, they just happened).

Now, let’s look at the way science and theism would try to explain the “brute” phenomenon - basic laws and random events. Science would say, “It happened that way.” Theism would say, “It happened that way, and God made it happen that way.” Some find the theistic answer more satisfactory, because it seems to explain the brute facts that science is stuck with. But in reality, it just adds a new entity and retains the brute fact. Why did God make it happen that way? Is there a reason? And what’s the reason for that reason? A parsimonious person ought to recognize that neither explanation can avoid brute facts, and the theistic one assumes new entities into existence - and therefore the theistic one ought to be rejected.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Lastly, I have a few things I want to say regarding the cosmological argument.

1- Everything that begins to exist is caused
2- The universe began to exist

Now, atheists point to QM to attack one, and theists retort that there might be some unknown variables and entities which are causing, for example, vacuum fluctuations. Atheists speculate about cosmological theories that do not have a begun universe, and theists argue that this is mere speculation.

In other words, at the very least, it seems that both premises are dependent on future scientific discovery. They can both be called into question, and cannot be accepted or rejected without further evidence - which physicists have yet to provide. So the argument is inconclusive (and given that this is a positive theistic argument, I would call that a victory for the atheists).

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Oh, and one more thing - TySixtus was suspended.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Alois

Remember, the burden of proof rests on the one making the claim. You have to show a rational, logical God with evidence of its existence, but yet again you are spewing out the nonsense of “You have to be a Christian to be a Christian.”

You still don’t get it.

I don’t have to show any such thing because I have already said that God is by the very nature of conceiving Him a supra-rational Being. If God’s logic is vastly superior to ours, which is what anyone would naturally claim, how could we show “a rational, logical God.” You are asking us to show that which we cannot grasp except by our natural instinct and imagination and through Revelation. It would be as if you were asking an ant to explain and prove the existence of the universe. The ant isn’t up to the job based on the limitations of insect logic.

“You have to be a Christian to be a Christian.”

These are your words, not mine.

You have to follow what Christ taught to be a Christian. Yes.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Remember the burden of proof? It’s on you.
The burden of proof is equally on you to prove the claim that God does not exist. You can’t do it.

Or it is your way to save face through lying. I have doubts that you’ve ever even spoken to an atheist face-to-face, with all of the misconceptions you carry, and willful ignorance you tout.

Not only have I spoken to atheists, I have been one … and for a long time.

Alois, I’m sorry to say that your arguments have less and less weight as you become angrier and angrier. I can only assume that you haven’t got reasonable answers, so you have turned to language that you think will hurt the other side. I am familiar with this as a typical atheist tactic.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Alois

***The definition of existence is all that exists.

---

But you can’t possibly know all that exists. And therefore God may exist. So how can the existence of God be illogical the way a circular triangle may be illogical? A circular triangle cannot be imagined. God can be imagined through our yearning for Him, but not by our running away from Him like a scared child.

You don’t want to confront God. There are many reasons atheists do not want to confront God. The straw man of your own making is that you attack God as an irrational or illogical concept. But that is simply because you don’t want a relationship with God.

I know a man who was angry that his father did not live up to his expectations of him. He went so far as to move to another country to avoid having to confront him. This reaction reminds me of my own brand of atheism. I only saw that God was logical when I ceased to be disappointed in him, angry with him for my own suffering.

Confronting God face to face at last, my atheism ended. I have been ashamed of it ever since … because it was the ultimate insult to spit in the face of my Creator by denying His very existence.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Gilbert Keith:

…

I don’t have to show any such thing because I have already said that God is by the very nature of conceiving Him a supra-rational Being. If God’s logic is vastly superior to ours, which is what anyone would naturally claim, how could we show “a rational, logical God.” You are asking us to show that which we cannot grasp except by our natural instinct and imagination and through Revelation. It would be as if you were asking an ant to explain and prove the existence of the universe. The ant isn’t up to the job based on the limitations of insect logic.

…

I guess my question then is: why should we believe in the Christian supra-rational deity, as opposed to (for example) the FSM supra-rational deity? I mean, since we shouldn’t expect any kind of rational argumentation in support of either, and rational arguments against their existence are foolish (they’re both supra-rational, after all), shouldn’t we believe in both? Or should I rely on my instinct? But why should I expect my instinct to be able to percieve this supra-rational being?

And more importantly… what in the world does it mean to say that something is supra-rational?

Oh yes, one more thing - would you assert that there are no rational reasons for believing in the existence of the Christian God, and furthermore that such reasons cannot exist as a matter of course?

 

[hurst]

Alois:

The issue is, the scripture contains many things that you have not yet proven, or shown at all. …

That is not the issue. The issue is whether it is “logical to believe in a God”.

Alois:

The God of the scriptures is such a God. The God in the Scriptures has sentience, has power over what composes it, and is said to be “all-loving”. That is not consitent with what is “naturally knowable”.

It exceeds it, but is not contradictory to it.

Alois:

I still contend that the “logically knowable” parts you’ve shown me are nothing more than traits of existence. It’s like pointing to a lump of coal, showing that it has some traits of a diamond, and trying to sell it as a diamond. That doesn’t work.

I agree with you regarding the coal and the diamond, but that is not what I am doing. Our discussion has been very fragmented and it is likely that there are going to be some misunderstandings.

In post #735 I have given the beginnings of an investigation into existence and what it must be. We should focus on this and go from there.

Alois:

The same reasoning I applied above applies here. You can’t simply show some traits of a being that can be knowable and assert that it, therefore, is. …

No, but I gave those in a different context of foreshadowing what has been discovered, and not for it to serve as the proof.

Alois:

What I have been saying all along:

1. that it is logical to believe a God exists, and we can base this on the use of our senses and human reasoning.

1.) This is not true. You have shown me existence, not God.

It is true that I have been saying it all along. I now say, to make it explicit, that the “perfect somethingness” in the 4-step demonstration (post #735) should be called “God”.

Alois:

1. that our existence is “in Him”: we don’t really exist except insofar as we participate in His existence.

2.) This is not true of a number system, or any infinite existence as I have already shown.

I am not sure what you are trying to say here.

I used the set of Integers as an analogy or simile to show that if it is ok to accept an infinite set as the source of numbers, then it is also logical to accept an infinite set of concepts. And I went further to say it should be logical to accept an infinite God as a source of everything. It is simply logical. It was a sort of answer to your question.

But you reject the conclusion because of a technical discrepancy in the way I understood an “INS”. You likewise demur on the allegation that I am trying to sell you a lump of coal as a diamond.

In fact, I am only showing that it is logical to “believe in a God”. I am not saying the INS is God, nor did I say that since an INS exists that God must exist. I said it would be logical to believe it. And that is the whole point of the discussion with you. You yourself said you didn’t care if “a God” exists or not. You only care to debate whether it is logical to believe.

Alois:

This is a false conclusion in of itself. You can not logically believe the existence of such a God, because you have not shown it to be a God.

Let’s stick with your stated concern. You don’t care about whether “a God exists”. Therefore, I don’t need to show one exists (even though I can). I only need to show that it would be logical to believe. But I can go further and show that “a God” exists, without even requiring faith. You still need to “believe” your eyes and reasoning, though.

Alois:

As I have said countless times over in this debate, you can not reclassify God as existence. If there are other traits that further seperate God from existence, you must show them.

It is in fact the essence of existence that we must be concerned with first, for that is something we have direct experience with. After we deal with that, we can deal with the other attributes of “a God” that is consequential. But why the need to show “other traits” in order to establish the logic of believing in “a God”?

Alois:

…Furthermore, there is no logic or reasoning in the supernatural, so to say it is logical from the perspective of it is an oxymoron of sorts.

I don’t think you know this for sure.

Alois:

Is this an admission that you can’t logically show me God? Remember, you still have yet to classify Him as anything more that the definition of existence, you have not shown the traits of a God.

It is an admission that I cannot show you the “naturally unknowable” aspects. I already have been saying that I can demonstrate that it is “logical to believe there is a God”, which is all you care about. We can know that much by our natural reason. But I cannot demonstrate to you that which may only be known supernaturally.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

I looked at the evidence I saw, and concluded that existence is what it is, that there isn’t a need for a God above it, and that if existence were to be a God it does not have the traits of anything that could be considered a God.

Ok.

I wonder how you would view it now, after seeing the 4-step demonstration I made regarding existence.

The reason I say this is because it establishes something more than what is typically called “existence”. It establishes that a “perfect somethingness” always existed, and thus must be the “essence” of existence. So if anything “exists”, it is as a result of this “perfect somethingness”, but is not a part of it inherently. It is precisely the manifested “existences” that we know do not inhere in the “perfect somethingness”, and thus only participate in it. This participation must logically be in such a manner that it takes its form from the “perfect somethingness” without being inherently part of that perfect somethingness, for something perfect cannot be improved or degraded. And since there is nothing besides this perfect somethingness, a manifested “existence” must be nothing in itself. This is all logical. So you see there must be the “existence” of the p.s. and the “existence” of the manifestations. So we must distinguish between two modes of “existing”. One is the essence of existence, the other is the creation thereof. One is intrinsic, the other extrinsic.

Intrinsic : \Intrin"sic\ (ntrn"sk), a. [L. intrinsecus inward, on the inside; intra within _ secus otherwise, beside; akin to E. second: cf. F. intrins[`e]que. See Inter-, Second, and cf. Extrinsic.] 1. Inward; internal; hence, true; genuine; real; essential; inherent*; not merely apparent or accidental

Extrinsic : \Ex*trin"sic, a. [L. extrinsecus; exter on the outside _ secus otherwise, beside; akin to E. second: cf. F. extrins[`e]que. See Exterior, Second.] 1. Not contained in or belonging to a body; external; outward; unessential; – opposed to intrinsic.

I think these terms really show it well. Perhaps I will start using “intrinsic existence” and “extrinsic existence” from now on.

Alois:

The definition of the God I’m debating is the same of all monotheistic Gods.

I would give this “perfect somethingness” the name “God”. It particular, it is the naturally knowable God. That is, knowable in the sense that we know whether it exists. For we cannot know it intrinsically, but only extrinsically. Similarly, we can know whether the center of the earth exists, but not precisely what is there.

We can know that this p.s. contains all power, all knowledge, all perfections, etc. This follows from the simple fact that it alone exists intrinsically from eternity. Anything we see manifested in our lifetime is some extrinsic existence based on the intrinsic p.s. That includes love and glory. But evil is not in it, and cannot be, for evil is the turning away from this intrinsic existence, and is thus nothing; it is only experienced in the extrinsic existences, which are nothing in themselves. Said another way, evil is the selfishness of turning inward toward oneself, and since we only exist extrinsically and are nothing intrinsically, we turn toward nothing and find ourselves opposed to “perfect somethingness”. (This explains why evil causes destruction).

Thus it can be seen that this naturally knowable “God” is consistent with the “Christian God”, but one cannot know for certain whether it is actually the same because one has no way to know that such a “God” would join itself to an extrinsic existence and suffer the evil therein in order to justify keeping those extrinsic existences, and to do so as an expression of love.

The other aspect is justness. Such a p.s. would be intrinsically just, and could certainly be displeased with what it sees happening in the extrinsic existences. So the parable of a King who comes to punish those who did not want Him to be their King, and other such parables, are quite consistent with the naturally knowable “God”. We can easily see that the intrinsic existence would seek to find a likeness to itself in the extrinsic existences. Not all things have the same dignity, but we can see that mankind is the most dignified earthly creature. The “Christian God” is said to have made man “in His image”. This is again very consistent. We are like His shadow in a sense. We have a similar form, but in a lower dimension and without color or intrinsic life.

Alois:

Let’s first establish an understanding of the inherent nature of existence.

Haven’t we done so already?

Not sufficiently. But I hope the above elaboration clarifies it much.

hurst*

 

[hurst]

Alois:

I have said that existence is infinite, and has always existed. I am not saying that the universe has come from nowhere.

We seem to agree here, except that the term “existence” is a stumblingblock. I have now p(name removed by moderator)ointed the issue and will distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic existence.

Alois:

Yes, and I have said that this “something” is infinite existence. It contains all that it is possible, including the universe manifested. It contains logical mathmatical theories, such as string theory, that could explain our manifested universe.

Ok, here is where we diverge. As I have shown (previous post #791), one must distinguish between intrinsic existence, which is truly “somethingness”, and extrinsic existence, such as the manifested universe. One exists of itself, for it existed from eternity by itself. The other only exists insofar as it is in something else, as an image is in a painting.

Alois:

Filling in every gap in our understanding with God. It is a step behind string thoery because it is not based on mathmatics like string theory is. It is simply a claim with no support, while string theory is a claim with mathmatical support, but no empirical evidence yet.

And what about the gaps in string theory that don’t have mathematical support yet? Isn’t that where they would tend to say “something comes from nothing”, rather than “God did it somehow”?

In fact, anything that exists extrinsically can reasonably be said to come from the intrinsic existence somehow. That we call such existence “God” should not be ridiculed, but respected. (Nevermind the cases where people make excuses for their laziness to study natural causes by saying “God did it”).

So until a better understanding is gained, then yes, “God did it”. And even after the better understanding is gained, “God” still did it. Because anything that exists, exists from the intrinsic existence one way or another.

Alois:

As for your fourth post, I completely agree. I think we both have an understanding on that point, and that there is no reason to continue discussing it.

Are you talking about the 4-point demonstration?

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

A combination of manifested concepts and forms, among other things. And even the manifestations are compositions: atoms only exist while the electrons orbit the nucleus, for example. We only physically exist as long as our bodies stay alive with breath, water, heat, etc.

And what is your point in stating this?

Compositions do not exist of themselves.
The “perfect somethingness” exists of itself.
This shows two modes of existing.

hurst

 

[hurst]

Alois:

Originally Posted by hurst
First of all, I did not create this God. I am creating analogies to express what I have come to know, and I am trying to stick with what anyone can know solely through reason.

So you admit the fallacy of your statements earlier about defining a God?

Fallacy? You mean that a definition of God implies invention? We already cleared that up by distinguishing between definitions based on knowledge or revelation, and definitions based on assertions or misunderstandings etc.

Alois:

What power? Give me some examples of it. And what do you mean by divinity?

An example of His power is the manifestation of the universe and all that is in it.

By divinity may be understood His supernatural and perfect existence separate from us.

Alois:

You can not simply define God as existence, you must show that he is indeed a God under every sense of a God.

See previous post #791 for a start.

hurst

 

[john_doran]

EnterTheBowser:

Lastly, I have a few things I want to say regarding the cosmological argument.

1- Everything that begins to exist is caused
2- The universe began to exist

Now, atheists point to QM to attack one, and theists retort that there might be some unknown variables and entities which are causing, for example, vacuum fluctuations. Atheists speculate about cosmological theories that do not have a begun universe, and theists argue that this is mere speculation.

In other words, at the very least, it seems that both premises are dependent on future scientific discovery. They can both be called into question, and cannot be accepted or rejected without further evidence - which physicists have yet to provide. So the argument is inconclusive (and given that this is a positive theistic argument, I would call that a victory for the atheists).

this isn’t quite right: premise 1 - the causal principle - is a proposition that is almost self-evidently true; it can be “called into question”, as you say, only at the ultimate expense of reasonableness. i mean, there’s nothing that can’t be questioned in the way you’re suggesting: the principle of non-contradiction, identity, excluded middle, modus tollens, modus ponens, the existence of the real world, and so on. but that doesn’t make belief in any of these things any less warranted, or disbelief in them any more reasonable.

but at any rate, it’s not clear to me how there could be anything like “evidence” for or against the causal principle, since it’s one of the basic motivating assumptions for the whole scientific enterprise: if science isn’t the systematic attempt to discover the causal structure of the world, what is it? if you don’t assume that the marks in a cloud chamber are caused by the subatomic particles you hypothesized would leave them, then what’s left? if you don’t assume that your measuring devices are caused to react by the phenomena you’re studying, how far can you get? if the causal principle isn’t true, then the scientific method is impossible to practice.

given the pivotal role played by the causal principle in our reasoning about the world, it’s just not reasonably rejected or limited; whatever “evidence” there might be for its falsehood is automatically better evidence for the falsehood of the theory calling it into question.

so. “calling into questtion” premise 1 is not equally as reasonable as accepting it.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

BROWSER

And more importantly… what in the world does it mean to say that something is supra-rational?

supra=beyond rational=reason

Not understandable by reason alone.

This means that God is not subject to the rules of logic He has created for us. It means the finite creation cannot fully grasp the Creator who is Infinite. It means our puny intellect cannot judge God as we judge the things of this earth.

Atheism denies all of the above. Atheism wants to discuss and juddge the existence of God only if God is assumed to be as rational as we are. But that is precisely by definition what God cannot be.

God relates to us not purely by intellect, but by instinct as well. God plants in us the desire to know Him, and to be restless untill until we find our rest in Him ( Augustine). The denial of this instinct causes us to suffer, because we are denying our own nature.

Religious art reflects this knowledge of God that is heartfelt, rather than headfelt. Some of the greatest art ever conceived is religious art, and I have come to learn that I will take a great religious hymn over a great secular song every time. Religious art (through the imagination) is in tune with something the head cannot by itself grasp. Try to write a great hymn to Newton or Einstein. Never been done and never will be done. Yawn. The heart cannot know or love Newton and Einstein the way it knows and loves and yearns for God.

When I look at modern art emptied of God, of the sacred, I am struck by how bland it truly is. Put anything secular by Picasso beside anything sacred by Michaelangelo and the point is undeniable unless one’s intellect is in denial of the sacred altogether.

 

[john_doran]

EnterTheBowser:

Now, if we don’t know what the conditions were like, and we don’t know what sort of possibilities for life there are in such conditions (for non-carbon based life), and if we don’t know the distribution of various conditions on other planets, and the liklihood of life in those conditions, then it is in fact foolish to make an argument for an intervening deity based on abiogenesis. One of the major premises of the argument from abiogenesis is “Life is so unlikely that natural forces cannot explain it.” But this premise cannot be supported without knowing these things.

As an analogy, imagine a prisoner forced to play a game of chance by their jailer. They roll a die, and it comes up 6. “You win!” says the jailer. “You get to live - for today.” And the prisoner thinks, “Thank God! It is so unlikely for me to win, that God must’ve saved me!” But the prisoner doesn’t know the rules of the game. He doesn’t know how many sides the die has. He doesn’t know what other numbers are on the sides. He doesn’t know what other numbers can win. He doesn’t know how many rolls he gets. So it’s pretty stupid of him to assume that his win was unlikely.

Given that you have admitted we don’t know all these things, you cannot support the argument from abiogenesis.

but we do know these things when it comes to carbon-based life, so the calculation of a reasonably accurate staistical model i simple: there are x possible molecules, and x possible combinations; moreover, conditions a, b, and c need to be present to facilitate those combinations, and a, b, and c are highly unlikely in and of themselves.

hey presto. you have the odds.