Atheism

[evo]

Where there's smoke theres fire! Certainly many stories of supernatural occurances are dodgy, but are you sure they all are? There have been scientific studies of NDEs.

Meh,not much to hang your hat on.People who's heart has stopped,you don't think that would do weird things to the brain?

Remember, if theres a supernatural, theres a God.

Yeah,I haven't forgotten.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I also believe that part of objective reality is the concept of a self-existant God - the initiator, creator and sustainer of this universe. Materialist scientists, who go no further than the evidence, have realised the universe must have a beginning, but refuse to speculate further. I believe it is both scientifically reasonable and nessecary to postulate a sufficient cause for the universe. Start from this point and you quickly deduce a Judeo-Christian concept of God.

You believe it is scientifically reasonable to postulate a cause more complex than that which it creates? I think that raises far more questions than it answers.

Why the Judeo-Christian God? What about the other Gods created by humans? They all meet your criteria.

Do you find it odd that you just happen to subscribe to the idea of a Judeo-Christian God given that you were raised where this God is worshipped? Doesn't the scientist in you become a bit sceptical about this?

 

[t-rob]

You believe it is scientifically reasonable to postulate a cause more complex than that which it creates? I think that raises far more questions than it answers.

Why the Judeo-Christian God? What about the other Gods created by humans? They all meet your criteria.

Do you find it odd that you just happen to subscribe to the idea of a Judeo-Christian God given that you were raised where this God is worshipped? Doesn't the scientist in you become a bit sceptical about this?

"scientifically reasonable to postulate"

hmmm

The term postulate indicates a statement or assumption that is agreed by everyone to be so obvious or self-evident that no proof is necessary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulate

Isn't being scientifically reasonable then a completely unreasonable requirement?

The "cause more complex than that which it creates" (ie God) is widely agreed by the vast majority of the world's population.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I was pointing out why it would not seem 'self evident' and hence inappropriate to postulate.

So what created God?

 

[t-rob]

I was pointing out why it would not seem 'self evident' and hence inappropriate to postulate.

So what created God?

But it is still a reasonable postulation given the wide spread belief.

By the very definition of the word (and who could possibly argue with wikipedia :hihi )

 

[t-rob]

I was pointing out why it would not seem 'self evident' and hence inappropriate to postulate.

So what created God?

Surely if it is suggested that the universe has always existed then God could get the same treatment.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

But it is still a reasonable postulation given the wide spread belief.

By the very definition of the word (and who could possibly argue with wikipedia :hihi )

No....this is a common misconception. Popularity of belief has no bearing on the truth of the proposition. It is an interesting phenomenon, worthy of study in its own right, but says nothing as to the legitimacy of the belief.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Surely if it is suggested that the universe has always existed then God could get the same treatment.

Any being complex enough to create everything in the universe must be more complex and demands an explanation. If you subscribe to causation, which Djevv has alluded to in his posts, then you don't get a free pass when it comes to the God that supposedly created everything. This answer raises more questions than it addresses.

 

[evo]

Any being complex enough to create everything in the universe must be more complex and demands an explanation. If you subscribe to causation, which Djevv has alluded to in his posts, then you don't get a free pass when it comes to the God that supposedly created everything. This answer raises more questions than it addresses.

The 'no ultimate first cause' propostion should actually be easier for a theist to accept than a materialist;because it's the same argument they're forwarding.The only difference is it has one less step.Instead of God being eternal,'everything' is.

It's counter intuitive, but seems to me the only logical conclusion.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

The 'no ultimate first cause' propostion should actually be easier for a theist to accept than a materialist;because it's the same argument they're forwarding.The only difference is it has one less step.Instead of God being eternal,'everything' is.

It's counter intuitive, but seems to me the only logical conclusion.

I understand your point, but the problem is that they resort to causation in other parts of the argument.

 

[jayfox]

What about if you enjoy it more with someone other than your wife?

You shouldn't know the answer to that question! ;D

 

[jayfox]

Why the Judeo-Christian God? What about the other Gods created by humans? They all meet your criteria.

The Judeo-Christian God wasn't created by humans but the complete opposite actually.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

The Judeo-Christian God wasn't created by humans but the complete opposite actually.

However all other Gods were man-made? A few people might disagree (ie adherents to those other Gods)....how you could you justify your surety that would be any more convincing than their own justification?

 

[evo]

I understand your point, but the problem is that they resort to causation in other parts of the argument.

Yes,I agree of course.It's a 'cake and eat it' scenario,they want it both ways.I was just using your post as a launch.

 

[purepoweryouth]

I'm being flippant of course but it's a feature of Christian theology that bad things are "animalistic" and that God gave us souls and free-will and this places us above animals. In fact animals are never cruel - they act out of necessity to survive. We also don't often see animals taking drugs, having illicit sex etc etc.

Like cats?

 

[AngryAnt]

Like cats?

See http://www.puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29160.msg700218#msg700218

 

[purepoweryouth]

See http://www.puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=29160.msg700218#msg700218

yep. saw that.

 

[Disco08]

You don't have to have watched many animal doco's to know that all cats, small to very big will use their prey to hone their senses. It's purely to develop and maintain skills that are vital to wild cats' survival. Of course domestic cats still show this in-bred trait too, although probably not forever. Whilst it seems cruel judging it on a human level, as antman says it's pointless to judge these actions anthropomorphically. The cats need this exercise to survive so the trauma suffered by their prey is inevitable if the cats' species are to thrive. If anyone was being cruel it's the being that created this situation.

 

[ToraToraTora]

I think chimpanzees and gorillas are documented as having taken revenge on physically and even murdering other apes. Anyone who can back me up there?

 

[ToraToraTora]

BTW for all you heathens here is the link to Dawkins GODLY website with a great new update .....a round table discussion with the "4 Horsemen"! Of course they being the 4 big guns of the "new atheism", Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and Dennet. Great stuff.

http://richarddawkins.net/