Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[Bradski]

Ebola virus is not evil in itself, evil is considered the absence of the good.

Of course it’s not evil. No more than a lightning bolt or a flood. But there was a rather simplistic argument that there must be a God because…well, look a tree. And a kitten. How charming*.

There is a lot more misery, pain, anguish, terror and death in this world (and has been since Day One) than we have the ability to comprehend. It’s only been very recently indeed that some people are lucky enough to have access to pain relief for even minor ailments.

Ever have a bad toothache? Well, prior to dental care, which means just about all the time we’ve been on this planet, everyone would have it at some time. Cure? I dunno…put up with it until it drove you crazy or infected your whole face, smash the tooth out with a rock, throw yourself off a cliff. Who knows.

Have a little imagination. I doubt if it’ll do much for your faith but it will help you come to terms with reality. This planet is not more horrifying that you think. It’s more horrifying than you can think. All designed, apparently.

 

[ynotzap]

Of course it’s not evil. No more than a lightning bolt or a flood. But there was a rather simplistic argument that there must be a God because…well, look a tree. And a kitten. How charming*.

There is a lot more misery, pain, anguish, terror and death in this world (and has been since Day One) than we have the ability to comprehend. It’s only been very recently indeed that some people are lucky enough to have access to pain relief for even minor ailments.

Ever have a bad toothache? Well, prior to dental care, which means just about all the time we’ve been on this planet, everyone would have it at some time. Cure? I dunno…put up with it until it drove you crazy or infected your whole face, smash the tooth out with a rock, throw yourself off a cliff. Who knows.

Have a little imagination. I doubt if it’ll do much for your faith but it will help you come to terms with reality. This planet is not more horrifying that you think. It’s more horrifying than you can think. All designed, apparently.

There is more to life than what we experience which can lead us to lose hope for humanity. There are many cases where there was no hope, from a human point of view, but personally, as well with the testimony of others we found hope, faith, and love from Jesus Christ who gave us understanding of why the world is the way it is, it made a real change in our lives and attitude, even gave us some degree of happiness, although life keeps trying to discourage us. It is not a natural strength that keeps us going, but a supernatural one. Love our enemies is so contrary to our natural instincts that we find Christianity so radical yet we are impelled by our conscience to do so for the love of God, even in some cases to die for that cause. That’s the power that come from belief in Christ, and that’s not the product of imagination, that’s reality, a reality that the secular world is not familiar with. So where you might see no hope, we do, and that’s a virtue that comes from God. You have to believe, before you can experience it. We have faith in what we do not see, the reward of faith is seeing what we believe.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nope - the ‘God of the Gaps’ argument tries to use the lack of a definitive answer to conclude that God did it, by some unknown and possibly unknowable means. ‘We don’t understand therefore God’ as you put it.

The problem with this analysis is that I haven’t found anyone with a ounce of sense who would make the argument. In fact, the converse – ‘we can make complete mathematical sense of the universe, therefore God’ – is the argument far more likely to be proposed.

Certainly, fundamentalist atheist types like to strip this ‘God of the Gaps’ naked and parade him down the street, but it seems the only real outcome is to demonstrate their inability to engage with actual arguments from the tradition of classical theism.

Scientists (atheist or not) just admit ‘we don’t know for certain, but these are our best guesses and this is what we are doing to test them and look for better ones.’

There is a huge difference between asserting that “God did it by magic” as an answer to all unsolved questions and pointing out the process we are using to find and evaluate potential answers.

Again, I know of no one who makes the claim (except a few deluded atheist types) that God is restricted in his methods to “magic” or that what God does is necessarily incomprehensible. The vast majority would argue that what God does is open to human investigation precisely because intelligibility, consistency and order are aspects of his nature.

This whole line of argument is bogus precisely because it seeks to saddle theism with a first principle that has never existed anywhere in any works of classical theism, except in the minds of those anxious to construct straw men they can easily dismantle. Clearly, the real arguments are far more formidible – which is why they, more often than not, go unmentioned.

 

[PRmerger]

Have a little imagination. I doubt if it’ll do much for your faith but it will help you come to terms with reality. This planet is not more horrifying that you think. It’s more horrifying than you can think. All designed, apparently.

And Christianity has an answer to this suffering.

Atheism’s is: I dunno. It just *is *horrifying. It’s actually more horrifying than you can think.

 

[You]

Of course it’s not evil. No more than a lightning bolt or a flood. But there was a rather simplistic argument that there must be a God because…well, look a tree. And a kitten. How charming*.

There is a lot more misery, pain, anguish, terror and death in this world (and has been since Day One) than we have the ability to comprehend. It’s only been very recently indeed that some people are lucky enough to have access to pain relief for even minor ailments.

Ever have a bad toothache? Well, prior to dental care, which means just about all the time we’ve been on this planet, everyone would have it at some time. Cure? I dunno…put up with it until it drove you crazy or infected your whole face, smash the tooth out with a rock, throw yourself off a cliff. Who knows.

Have a little imagination. I doubt if it’ll do much for your faith but it will help you come to terms with reality. This planet is not more horrifying that you think. It’s more horrifying than you can think. All designed, apparently.

whats wrong with pain and suffering and horror?
you are a castaway on an apparently godforsaken raft on the ocean of suffering. what do you do; rant and rail?; cower and cry?; search and find?; find peace in the horror; find mercy in the pain; find cheerfulness in the sadness.

those things are possibilities, we can think about them and even do them. its what makes a possibility a reality, and a reality has a real value, its not an imaginary thing.

 

[PRmerger]

It is evidence based.

Then so is Deism/Christianity/Catholicism.

Science has an excellent record at solving such problems, so it is reasonable to** ‘have faith’** that it has a good chance of finding answers to as yet unsolved physical mysteries.

Excellent. I am heartened to see you use “have faith”.

That’s exactly what we are saying here.

Atheists have this double standard–“it’s ok for us to have faith!” And “Oh, you silly Believers. You have your faith, don’t you?”

Blind faith, in contrast, has an abysmal record there.

Were you under some misapprehension that “blind faith” is anything at all sanctioned by the CC?

Blind faith is a HERESY, Taffy. A heresy.

Charlemagne’s assertion notwithstanding (C3, you are misinformed that blind faith is required for “theological mysteries”), we are to use our intellect to comprehend and attempt to apprehend the revelation of God.

Those religious figures who have made significant contributions to our understanding of the physical universe have done so using scientific methods.

Indeed.

And you can thank the Catholic Church for this scientific method.

Nope - the ‘God of the Gaps’ argument tries to use the lack of a definitive answer to conclude that God did it, by some unknown and possibly unknowable means. ‘We don’t understand therefore God’ as you put it.

Yep.

It’s not an argument for God that any thinking person has ever proferred.

Rather, it’s an example of the dismal understanding atheists have of the apologia offered for belief in God.

Atheists reject arguments that Believers reject as well.

Would that they were able to actually articulate an argument for God’s existence, and then offer a rebuttal to it.

Scientists (atheist or not) just admit ‘we don’t know for certain, but these are our best guesses and this is what we are doing to test them and look for better ones.’

There’s that glaring double standard again.

Would that atheists were as permissive of Believers offering that same paradigm as they are for themselves.

There is a huge difference between asserting that “God did it by magic” as an answer to all unsolved questions and pointing out the process we are using to find and evaluate potential answers.

Indeed.

And it’s a good thing no thinking Believer asserts “God did it by magic”.

“God did it by magic” = example number 35072478054780 of my statement in red

#dismal

 

[DrTaffy]

The problem with this analysis is that I haven’t found anyone with a ounce of sense who would make the argument.

‘With an ounce of sense’, maybe not. but these arguments have been and still are made. Further, the point I was making is that they are not analogous to the scientist saying “I don’t know, but here are my best guesses and what we are doing to test and improve them.”

Certainly, fundamentalist atheist types like to strip this ‘God of the Gaps’ naked and parade him down the street, but it seems the only real outcome is to demonstrate their inability to engage with actual arguments from the tradition of classical theism.

Again, it was Christian preachers and theologians such as Drummond and Bonhoeffer who coined the term, not atheists.

Again, I know of no one who makes the claim (except a few deluded atheist types) that God is restricted in his methods to “magic” or that what God does is necessarily incomprehensible.

If they offer evidence and argument, it ceases to be the God of the Gaps surely?

This whole line of argument is bogus precisely because it seeks to saddle theism with a first principle that has never existed anywhere in any works of classical theism, except in the minds of those anxious to construct straw men they can easily dismantle. Clearly, the real arguments are far more formidible – which is why they, more often than not, go unmentioned.

The only straw man I’ve seen here is PR representing the atheist point of view as “we don’t understand therefore Science”

 

[PRmerger]

The only straw man I’ve seen here is PR representing the atheist point of view as “we don’t understand therefore Science”

Then perhaps you should PM Nixbits and tell him not to assert such things here:

I more often hear or read atheists say: “We don’t know, but scientists are working on it. Perhaps one day we will have a better idea.”

#scienceofthegaps

 

[PRmerger]

Again, it was Christian preachers and theologians such as Drummond and Bonhoeffer who coined the term, not atheists.

You do understand that they were not endorsing the view, yes?

 

[DrTaffy]

Originally Posted by DrTaffy View Post
It is evidence based

But is that evidence sufficient to prove the claims being made? You clearly think so, but you have equally clearly failed to convince the scientific establishment.

Excellent. I am heartened to see you use “have faith”.

Sure. Reasonable, justified faith. Not blind faith, or faith beyond what the evidence justifies. That, I am informed, would be heresy!

Atheists have this double standard–“it’s ok for us to have faith!” And “Oh, you silly Believers. You have your faith, don’t you?”

Nope. You are misrepresenting the other side again.

For that matter, you are the one with an objection to blind faith. I only object if I am expected to also accept that article of blind (or inadequately supported) faith.

Charlemagne’s assertion notwithstanding (C3, you are misinformed that blind faith is required for “theological mysteries”),

I don’t see that he said that. He just said that blind faith should be reserved for theological mysteries, not that it was required for them.

And you can thank the Catholic Church for this scientific method.

Interesting that whenever a Catholic does something good, we are told that we should thank ‘the Church’ for it, but when a Catholic does something horrible, even a priest acting as such, we are told that it is nothing to do with the church.

I’ll stick to thanking the individuals involved.

It’s not an argument for God that any thinking person has ever proferred.

‘Thinking’, maybe not. But it is one that has been and still is made.

Rather, it’s an example of the dismal understanding atheists have of the apologia offered for belief in God.

That seems to be a ‘dismal understanding’ of the apologia that have been offered. Again, the term was coined by christians. Referring to arguments that have been made.

Atheists reject arguments that Believers reject as well.

Would that they were able to actually articulate an argument for God’s existence, and then offer a rebuttal to it.

They are, and have done so. You are naturally free to not be convinced by all their objections, but misrepresenting them like this seems unworthy of you.

Scientists (atheist or not) just admit ‘we don’t know for certain, but these are our best guesses and this is what we are doing to test them and look for better ones.’

They are. Those who offer evidence and argument, as opposed to mockery and animated GIFs, are very welcome in most atheist fora I have frequented.

And it’s a good thing no thinking Believer asserts “God did it by magic”.

They have - not in so many words, but “God did it by unkown and/or unknowable means” is harder to type.

In contrast no atheist I know of has argued anything reasonably reducable to “we don’t understand therefore Science” as you claimed.

 

[DrTaffy]

Then perhaps you should PM Nixbits and tell him not to assert such things here:

He doesn’t - he says thing like “We don’t know, but scientists are working on it. Perhaps one day we will have a better idea”. Can you really not understand the difference?

 

[DrTaffy]

It’s been my experience that many, if not all, atheists subscribe to the abuse of science called scientism. They demand, for example, proof of God that can be verified.

To convince them, naturally you need to provide evidence or arguments they will find convincing. That is not scientism.

This kind of proof, of course, is not going to be forthcoming for most atheists because they are not open to the experience of God in the first place. Anyone who has an authentic experience of God does not put God in the dock or in a test tube or on a petri dish or at the end of a telescope. Since the atheist does not pray, how is he to know whether there is a God who listens and answers? And if he answers that he once upon a time listened and heard nothing, how does he know that God answered but he was blind or deaf to the answer?

So what are you expecting here - that they should ‘just believe’ without reason?

 

[PRmerger]

He doesn’t - he says thing like “We don’t know, but scientists are working on it. Perhaps one day we will have a better idea”. Can you really not understand the difference?

That’s exactly the Science of the Gaps, Faith-Based Paradigm.

“We don’t know today, but Science is going to figure it out tomorrow, dude! Science, man. It’s got it going on!”.

#faithbased

[SIGN1]Science Alone! [/SIGN1]

[SIGN1]Nothing but Science![/SIGN1]

Amusingly, ironically, peculiarly: faith based assertion.

Not a single study has ever shown that Science Alone is the paradigm by which to evaluate the universe.

 

[PRmerger]

But is that evidence sufficient to prove the claims being made?

Are you talking about evidence to prove that Science will be able to answer the all questions posed today some time in the future?

If not, then you have demonstrated that peculiar and amusing double standard again.

If so, then, please cite the studies that demonstrate that Science will be able to answer the all questions posed today some time in the future.

You clearly think so, but you have equally clearly failed to convince the scientific establishment.

This is a statement so borne of ignorance I can’t even…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

#failedtoconvince–obviouslyNOTEVENCLOSE

 

[PRmerger]

Sure. Reasonable, justified faith. Not blind faith, or faith beyond what the evidence justifies.

Excellent.

You have just summarized the beautiful words of Isaiah: Come, let us reason together!

That, I am informed, would be heresy!

You should have known that already, after being on a Catholic forum for as long as you have.

 

[PRmerger]

Interesting that whenever a Catholic does something good, we are told that we should thank ‘the Church’ for it, but when a Catholic does something horrible, even a priest acting as such, we are told that it is nothing to do with the church.

I’ll stick to thanking the individuals involved.

This is fair.

I don’t have a problem with that.

 

[PRmerger]

‘Thinking’, maybe not. But it is one that has been and still is made.

Well, why don’t we just agree to discuss arguments offered by Thinking Believers, then.

It’s inutile to discuss arguments offered by fools.

So, each time you bring up a position offered by a Non-thinking Believer, I’m going to offer arguments made by folks like this guy:

http://www.1055theriver.com/sites/g...mages-featured/325191-23411.jpg?itok=MDbyDaz0

Look it up. Bratty kid has a tantrum on Thanksgiving.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

To convince them, naturally you need to provide evidence or arguments they will find convincing. That is not scientism.

So what are you expecting here - that they should ‘just believe’ without reason?

They seem to be pretty good at that, since they disbelieve without reason.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Have a little imagination. I doubt if it’ll do much for your faith but it will help you come to terms with reality. This planet is not more horrifying that you think. It’s more horrifying than you can think. All designed, apparently.

It may be your experience that the world is a horrible place. Fortunately, that is not the experience of the world at large. Almost everyone clings to life as to a lifeboat that prevents them from dying. If life were so horrible as you say, why wouldn’t everyone just gladly sink under the waves?

Which preaching of despair and suicide by the way was the Albigensian heresy of the Middle Ages that the Catholic Church snuffed out in its cradle.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;13602003:

Again, it was Christian preachers and theologians such as Drummond and Bonhoeffer who coined the term, not atheists.

You do understand that they were not endorsing the view, yes?

That was the point PR.

Christians raised the objection against arguments that were, and still are, being made. So the assertion that it is a strawman invented by atheists is shown to be false on at least two counts.