Why Couldn't the Universe Exist Without a Cause?

[PRmerger]

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.

The point is, Taffy, that no thinking believer asserts this.

So unless you want to have to defend bratty teenage atheists making ridiculous and absurd arguments for atheism, let’s move on.

 

[DrTaffy]

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

That has to go two ways though. At the moment we are struggling to get you to address what atheists have actually said, as opposed to inventing straw men.

Case in point:

Originally Posted by DrTaffy View Post
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?

Now , can you not see the difference between what Nixbits wrote and what you pretend he said? Or the hypocrisy of mocking atheists for their ‘dismal’ understanding of theist arguments then posting the above?

 

[PRmerger]

That has to go two ways though. At the moment we are struggling to get you to address what atheists have actually said, as opposed to inventing straw men.

Case in point:

Now , can you not see the difference between what Nixbits wrote and what you pretend he said? Or the hypocrisy of mocking atheists for their ‘dismal’ understanding of theist arguments then posting the above?

Let me just clarify: you reject this position: we don’t know the answer to that question today, but Science will figure out the answer tomorrow.

(And please understand I am not talking a literal “today” and “tomorrow”).

 

[DrTaffy]

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

Since noone has asserted that, and since that was very clearly not what my post said, your reply is otiose and inutile, as you would put it.

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

…answer it. Clearly.

The scientific establishment clearly does not agree that the existence of God is proven.

Excellent.

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

Great, so can we look forward to you responding constructively on topic, as opposed to posting straw men and animated GIFs?

 

[DrTaffy]

The point is, Taffy, that no thinking believer asserts this.

But at least some believers do. You raised the topic of the God of the Gaps, and claimed that atheists made a parallel argument - an assertion that you have signally failed to support.

Let me just clarify: you reject this position: we don’t know the answer to that question today, but Science will figure out the answer tomorrow.

(And please understand I am not talking a literal “today” and “tomorrow”).

I reject your assertion that that is what Nixbits said. I also feel that you should acknowledge that.

As pointed out repeatedly on this thread, the closest equivalent that I have seen atheists/scientists use is along the lines of: we don’t know the answer to [a physical question] but here are our best guesses and what we are doing to test and improve them. This is radically different to “we don’t understand therefore God did it”

 

[PRmerger]

But at least some believers do. You raised the topic of the God of the Gaps, and claimed that atheists made a parallel argument - an assertion that you have signally failed to support.

Oh, dear.

Then…

Some atheists do assert the Science of the Gaps absurdity, too,

Now, what?

I propose, again, that we just talk about the actual good arguments proposed by believers and atheists, rather than the ridiculous ones.

Science has all the answers = a faith based assertion.

Science can’t prove that it has all the answers.

QED

 

[PRmerger]

But at least some believers do. You raised the topic of the God of the Gaps, and claimed that atheists made a parallel argument - an assertion that you have signally failed to support.

Nixbits.

He made that assertion, not me.

 

[DrTaffy]

Nixbits.

He made that assertion, not me.

Nope, you claim he did, but what he wrote was crucially different to what you claim. See post #226

But by all means get back to discussing the topic, as you clearly will not comprehend or admit to the misrepresentation.

 

[PRmerger]

Great, so can we look forward to you responding constructively on topic, as opposed to posting straw men and animated GIFs?

I am going to use my amateur psychology skills and determine that these 2 things get your knickers in a knot whenever you see me post them:

-GIFS

-the words otiose and inutile (I’m guessing you had to look those words up initially?)

My psychological skills aren’t good enough to figure out why that is.

But I do wonder why those things bother you so much…

 

[DrTaffy]

I am going to use my amateur psychology skills and determine that these 2 things get your knickers in a knot whenever you see me post them:

-GIFS

-the words otiose and inutile (I’m guessing you had to look those words up initially?

Nope, the advantages of a classical education. Just as I knew the correct meaning and usage of quid pro quo.

But I will use my amateur psychology skills to hazard a guess that getting people’s ‘knickers in a twist’ is in fact your desired goal in using such florid language and the animated GIFs. Hence my pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

[Solmyr]

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

As DrTaffy said, this is just another boring straw man. No one… but NO one would be idiotic enough to assert that “science” will be able to answer the problems of mathematics.

This whole “scientism” nonsense is just an invention of some half-educated apologists, who assert that the absolute, breath-taking beauty of Snoop Doggy Dogg’s rap music is evidence for God’s existence…

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.

Again the “ALL”… you are just in love with creating straw man “arguments”. And you don’t understand that epistemological methods are NOT subject to some formal verification method. As long as they work, and as long as there is no better, alternative method, they are accepted PROVISIONALLY. What kind of track record can you point out in solving the real problems of the physical world?

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. 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.

So all of us, who say that we are OPEN to God’s manifestation are simply liars?

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?

Elementary my dear Charlie. We observe the millions of Christians, who utter tens of millions of supplicatory prayers every day, and also observe that those prayers go unheeded. Thousands of children die in Africa from diseases and malnutrition, and God does not interfere. Parents pray for their children, children pray for their parents… many, many Christians pray indiscriminately for others - to no avail.

And before you bring up that it is OUR job to help, I would like to remind you that we DO - to the best of our abilities. Many people sacrifice their time, money and energy to help the sufferers - but it is simply not enough. Our knowledge is deficient, our resources are scarce. And God does not help. He could give some insight or intuition to the researchers who would find the cure for cancer, or for AIDS, or the method to prevent heart disease…

 

[Peter_Plato]

‘With an ounce of sense’, maybe not. but these arguments have been and still are made.

You keep claiming this, but unless you “pony up” by providing the names, titles of works and dates of respected theists who actually have or “still are” making “these arguments” we shall safely ignore your claim since it amounts to an “I say it, therefore true” bald-faced assertion.

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

I think PR was presenting a parody of your bald-faced claim that “we don’t understand, therefore God” is or has been used as an argument by respectable theists.

Again, the closest I’ve seen to that form of an argument for God is “the universe is intellectually comprehensible, therefore God.”

For example, check out Peter Kreeft’s Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God:

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

I don’t see “we don’t understand, therefore God” anywhere on that list.

Now it might be true that some believers have stated that there are incomprehensible things about the universe that are so profoundly mysterious that only an omniscient God could understand them, but surely that is never proposed as an argument FOR God, but rather as a mere observation concerning the inscrutability of the universe.

The fact that you choose to reframe an observation as an argument seems a trifling matter to you – as trifling I suppose as reframing the meaning faith as “belief without evidence” – but surely taking such liberties with what your opponents think, propose, or are willing to defend would appear to be unseemingly behaviour for anyone wanting to be thought fair and truthseeking in discourse, no?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Elementary my dear Charlie. We observe the millions of Christians, who utter tens of millions of supplicatory prayers every day, and also observe that those prayers go unheeded. Thousands of children die in Africa from diseases and malnutrition, and God does not interfere. Parents pray for their children, children pray for their parents… many, many Christians pray indiscriminately for others - to no avail.

Well, I suppose a true scientist would not presume – and, therefore, beg the question – that those “millions of Christians, who utter tens of millions of supplicatory prayers every day” make no difference in the first place. Perhaps it is only BECAUSE of the millions of Christians doing so that only “Thousands of children die in Africa” rather than millions? I mean what kind of scientist would presume as a control group the very conditions which are supposed to be in question?

Again, you could only claim prayers are “to no avail” when, in fact, there are no prayers being made and judge by those consequences. I mean if science is truly your schtick.

You can’t possibly know what difference prayers actually make unless you presume – and, therefore, beg the question – that they are making no difference in the first place. But you don’t really have that data, do you?

Now, of course, we do have the experience of atheistic states – where prayer and God were outlawed, and hundreds of millions died as a consequence – that official atheism doesn’t exactly bring about heaven on earth.

We also have officially secular states in the modern world where public prayer is frowned upon or made illegal and the government sanctioned deaths of preborn infants dwarfs the death toll of “children in Africa.” But, of course, being the properly trained progressive that you are you don’t count those statistics as being very significant in your determinations, do you?

 

[Solmyr]

Well, I suppose a true scientist would not presume – and, therefore, beg the question – that those “millions of Christians, who utter tens of millions of supplicatory prayers every day” make no difference in the first place. Perhaps it is only BECAUSE of the millions of Christians doing so that only “Thousands of children die in Africa” rather than millions?

Gotta love that “perhaps”. As if “perhaps” would be an argument.

You guys are soooo predictable. Is the suffering of those many thousands STILL not enough? Without those prayers the “loving and caring” God would kill even more infants? In even more painful circumstances?

Sheeesh!

If you wish to point out those “miraculous” events when millions of suffering infants all of a sudden HAVE become healthy and when manna HAS fallen out of the sky to feed them, THEN and only THEN would you have an argument. But that is not going to happen, right?

“Perhaps”? Bah, humbug!

 

[DrTaffy]

You keep claiming this, but unless you “pony up” by providing the names, titles of works and dates of respected theists who actually have or “still are” making “these arguments” we shall safely ignore your claim since it amounts to an “I say it, therefore true” bald-faced assertion.

I have already cited the Christian preachers and theologians who were responding to fellow christians making such arguments. Are you calling them liars? For that matter, are you claiming never to have seen arguments for ‘Intelligent Design’ or abiogenesis that boil down to “we don’t understand, therefore God”? Or, given the topic of this thread, arguments about the first cause?

I think PR was presenting a parody of your bald-faced claim that “we don’t understand, therefore God” is or has been used as an argument by respectable theists.

Gosh. So not only can she read my mind, but she can do so before I’ve thought it? (Hint, look at when she said that and when I joined this thread)
As Elan would put it, she’s not just psychic she is a future psychic!

For example, check out Peter Kreeft’s Twenty Arguments for the Existence of God:

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

I don’t see “we don’t understand, therefore God” anywhere on that list.

Actually several of those, such as no. 9, arguably boil down to “we don’t understand, therefore God”.

However, since my argument was just that atheists do not commonly make the equivalent “we don’t understand, therefore Science” argument, the point is moot.

The fact that you choose to reframe an observation as an argument seems a trifling matter to you – as trifling I suppose as reframing the meaning faith as “belief without evidence” – but surely taking such liberties with what your opponents think, propose, or are willing to defend would appear to be unseemingly behaviour for anyone wanting to be thought fair and truthseeking in discourse, no?

You mean like claiming that atheists assert that science answers all questions?

 

[DrTaffy]

Well, I suppose a true scientist would not presume – and, therefore, beg the question – that those “millions of Christians, who utter tens of millions of supplicatory prayers every day” make no difference in the first place.

True dat. There has been a scientific trial of the efficacity of prayer. While it found no difference when the recipients did not know they being prayed for, it actually made matters worse if they did.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Gotta love that “perhaps”. As if “perhaps” would be an argument.

You guys are soooo predictable. Is the suffering of those many thousands STILL not enough? Without those prayers the “loving and caring” God would kill even more infants? In even more painful circumstances?

Sheeesh!

If you wish to point out those “miraculous” events when millions of suffering infants all of a sudden HAVE become healthy and when manna HAS fallen out of the sky to feed them, THEN and only THEN would you have an argument. But that is not going to happen, right? "

I suppose the presumption here is that human beings have more to be gained by God miraculously feeding millions with manna from heaven than by God morally moving human hearts to endeavor to feed and house millions by human free agency.

This all depends upon what it means to be human in the first place. Clearly, if the end goal is merely keeping as many physical organisms alive for as long as possible with no regard for the nature of what it is that is being kept alive, you may have a point. However, if God has a vested interest in forming that nature with regard to its eternal character and potential, then your calculus regarding what God ought to do or not do may be wildly off the mark.

“Perhaps”? Bah, humbug!

Well, “perhaps” is certainly less wordy and ostentatious than your…

…you don’t understand that epistemological methods are NOT subject to some formal verification method. As long as they work, and as long as there is no better, alternative method, they are accepted PROVISIONALLY.

Which, essentially, means the same as “perhaps,” but with the rather unwieldy and unnecessary addition or, more precisely, the bloat of several hundred characters.

 

[Peter_Plato]

True dat. There has been a scientific trial of the efficacity of prayer. While it found no difference when the recipients did not know they being prayed for, it actually made matters worse if they did.

Yes, these “trials” do show that God does not function as a sky genie dispensing wishes from the heights – i.e., that what humans desire, want or plead for is not necessarily what comes about – but how is that a significant finding with regard to ascertaining what it is that might be conducive to our eternal well-being? That is, after all, the stated interest that God has in us.

I would suppose the “conclusions” of science should be rather restrained or modest when it comes to things it, admittedly, can’t assess in the first place.

But, of course, you will make the accusation of special pleading as if God really did promise to any mercenaries signing on, a “rose garden” or Osteen-style “rewards” aplenty, but such a declaration isn’t, anywhere, made in precisely those terms, now is it?

I would suppose that the word “PROVISIONALLY” means something quite different for human beings faced with the prospect of the incomprehensibility of death than it does for God who knows implicitly what death means or signifies.

Certainly, from a purely human perspective we might view it as within our “rights” or interest to completely control our formation and moment to moment circumstances in life, but I am not clear that from the perspective of absolute knowledge and goodness that such control really should be ours to assume or expect.

 

[meltzerboy]

Gotta love that “perhaps”. As if “perhaps” would be an argument.

You guys are soooo predictable. Is the suffering of those many thousands STILL not enough? Without those prayers the “loving and caring” God would kill even more infants? In even more painful circumstances?

Sheeesh!

If you wish to point out those “miraculous” events when millions of suffering infants all of a sudden HAVE become healthy and when manna HAS fallen out of the sky to feed them, THEN and only THEN would you have an argument. But that is not going to happen, right?

“Perhaps”? Bah, humbug!

Ye of little faith! Yes, the problem of suffering and of evil in the world is a rather hard nut to crack. Rather than trying to explain it or explain it away, depending on your point of view, let me simply state that the faithful are such DESPITE all this pain and suffering. In Judaism, we do not share in our suffering with Jesus and we do not think of our suffering as a means to lessen the time that souls spend in Purgatory. Nor is suffering considered a test from G-d of our faith in Him, as some believe. No, all suffering is bad and we are meant to alleviate it in all its forms. But, at the same time, Jews are taught to thank G-d for EVERYTHING in life, including the suffering. This may sound like a contradiction but there it is. We do our share in “repairing the holes” of the universe that G-d intentionally created imperfect and G-d does His. This is the partnership of faith.

 

[DrTaffy]

Well, I suppose a true scientist would not presume – and, therefore, beg the question – that those “millions of Christians, who utter tens of millions of supplicatory prayers every day” make no difference in the first place. Perhaps it is only BECAUSE of the millions of Christians doing so that only “Thousands of children die in Africa” rather than millions?

I would suppose the “conclusions” of science should be rather restrained or modest when it comes to things it, admittedly, can’t assess in the first place.

Your example (how many children die in Africa) is a good example of where science can make conclusions. Limit yourself to pronouncements about the afterlife and you are pretty safe, but as soon as you make statements about physical reality you run the risk of seeing those statements subject to scientific scrutiny.

We also have officially secular states in the modern world where public prayer is frowned upon or made illegal and the government sanctioned deaths of preborn infants dwarfs the death toll of “children in Africa.” But, of course, being the properly trained progressive that you are you don’t count those statistics as being very significant in your determinations, do you?

Abortion is more common in Africa than in Western Europe, despite the strong anti abortion laws in Africa. But of course you don’t count those statistics as being very significant in your determinations, do you?