Atheism

[Djevv]

No, it is you being naive. Natural selection* is such a simple concept that my 7 year old understands it. When I first learned of it as a young adult my first reaction was, why wasn't this described earlier?!? It is self evident and remarkably simple. An extremely simple mechanism that can lead to the appearance of 'designed' complexity.

Yep I agree it is a possible explanation. In my question - which I note, nobody answered - the obvious answer is a). The ID option. I tend to think the universe and life is of the order of sandcastle complexity (to say the least). Natural selection explains small amounts of complexity - perhaps like ripples on the beach - but not sandcastles. Call me naive if you like - but that is my opinion.

Please point out the "monumental leaps of faith, logical fallacies and belief in absurdities".

OK. Monumental leaps of faith - Abiogenesis, star and planet formation, the uncaused origin of the universe, life/conciousness is completely explained by natural selection, multiple universes.
Logical fallacies: nothing = everything. On my calculator if you divide something by nothing you get an error, if you multiply by 0 you get nothing. Same with universes IMO.
Absurdities: existance and everything having its origin in non-existance (this is my understanding of the Big Bang).

OK I know this is Dawkinsism but at least he attempts a coherent explanation.

What predictions do your 'simple' theological arguments make? If they are to be explanatory than they should also make testable predictions.

OK.
That there is something as opposed to nothing. Do I really need to go on?

An all-seeing all-knowing power is a simpler explanation?!? :hihi (Of course this being is exempt from your analysis).

You are correct here God the uncaused cause is the root of my explanation and beyond that I don't know. I hope to find out one day though. Anyway God is both a sufficient and necessary explanation for the universe in classical Christian theology. I think it beats the heck out of a 'null' being the explanation.

*Natural selection is not the only force driving evolution, but it does play an important role.

What are the other forces? You do realise that there is no issue with God having created using evolution?

 

[Disco08]

There is the life experience of Billions of people plus the writings of people who actually met Him. But I understand that you can;t come to terms with that and that is fine. It is your choice and your life to lead.

None of which is proof by any means. Millions of people claim to have seen UFO's or to have been abducted by aliens, does this prove that there are beings in the universe building spaceships capable of traveling at millions of miles per hour?

As I've said before, other religion's followers claim similar experiences and assurance in their God's existence so obviously, unless all these Gods actually exist the ability of people to delude themselves into belief is quite evident.

God helps everyone who calls on him. That doesn't mean He stops them from going through hard times, torture or even death, it just means that He gives them the means to cope with those situations.

Thanks to missionary work, some of the most Christian nations on earth today are in Africa. Do you think these people ever ask God to help cure them of AIDS, or provide food for their families that are starving to death?

You've posted before about the help God gave you when you needed it, getting a better job. Don't you think it's strange that God would intervene in a situation like this but routinely deny the prayers of people asking for help in far more drastic situations?

 

[evo]

Yes, yes, I see now Grasshopper.

You've been asking alot of questions, I might ask you one if i may.

Is God unknowable-- Yes/No?

 

[glantone]

............. If the non-believer decides he needs material proof to believe then there is no burden at all for the believer, except to know the destiny of the non-believer, i.e. it is everyone's choice and if you won't believe given the information available then that is your choice and chosen fate.

Sorry to butt in on page 103 but if I may, ….exactly what fate would that be for non-believers, jayfox? You make whatever that fate be sound so generic.

 

[Disco08]

Jay is offline, so I'll answer that for you glantone. Our (non-believers) fate is to spend eternity suffering without God.

 

[glantone]

What sort of suffering are we talking about here?
….name calling, … the Bee Gees ….. commercial tv?

I think we need to clarify the consequences with a little more detail.

 

[Disco08]

Details are something The Bible isn't great at. Presumably it's some sort of fire lake.

 

[glantone]

A lake on fire... ah ha (this is suddenly sounding very chemically driven). ... and what?

 

[1eyedtiger]

I like the Bee Gees! 8)

I'd like to know if the theists of the thread have considered how god himself came into being.

If it's unacceptable to believe in scientific theories such as the big bang or existence from non-existence, then surely the existence of god cannot be considered to be without cause or prior existence.

Maybe god himself is the result of natural selection?

By the way, I don't necessarily believe any current theories relating to the origin of the universe. Unless something is about to change any time soon, then it's not really a priority for me.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Yep I agree it is a possible explanation. In my question - which I note, nobody answered - the obvious answer is a). The ID option. I tend to think the universe and life is of the order of sandcastle complexity (to say the least). Natural selection explains small amounts of complexity - perhaps like ripples on the beach - but not sandcastles. Call me naive if you like - but that is my opinion.

The ID option? Based on what...some perceived compromise position? What is the evidence for such a position? What does the universe have to do with natural selection? Your argument from incredulity doesn't mean that natural selection can't lead to the complexity that we see around us.

OK. Monumental leaps of faith - Abiogenesis, star and planet formation, the uncaused origin of the universe, life/conciousness is completely explained by natural selection, multiple universes.
Logical fallacies: nothing = everything. On my calculator if you divide something by nothing you get an error, if you multiply by 0 you get nothing. Same with universes IMO.
Absurdities: existance and everything having its origin in non-existance (this is my understanding of the Big Bang).

Again arguments from incredulity. My question referred specifcally to evolution and you again bring up stars/planets/universe which are completely unrelated. As for abiogenesis and life/consciousness what specifically do you object to in the scientific explanations of these? You answer that and your argument might carry some weight.

OK I know this is Dawkinsism but at least he attempts a coherent explanation.

???

OK.
That there is something as opposed to nothing. Do I really need to go on?

Um, I'm pretty sure that materialist explanations postulate that there is something as opposed to nothing. Where are these predictions that your theological arguments make?

You are correct here God the uncaused cause is the root of my explanation and beyond that I don't know. I hope to find out one day though. Anyway God is both a sufficient and necessary explanation for the universe in classical Christian theology. I think it beats the heck out of a 'null' being the explanation.

What is this 'null' strawman that you continue to pound on?

Your explanation raises more questions than it answers.

What are the other forces? You do realise that there is no issue with God having created using evolution?

genetic drift, sexual selection, gene flow to name a few.

I certainly know some people who reconcile their belief in God with evolution. IMO why introduce God into the equation...it isn't neccesary.

 

[evo]

Too bad we never got that "argument from incredulity" emoticon we requested 6 months ago ,Pantera.

It would've saved us alot of typing.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I could have responded to that last post with a single button!

 

[jayfox]

What about other religions that can (and do) make similar claims? Understand why you consider their claims invalid and you will understand why I consider your's likewise. Surely you must see the flaw in your logic? Believe what you like Jay, but don't try to convince others that you have compelling evidence that they are choosing to ignore. You have blind assertions, nothing more.

Hah, hah, hah. And I am accused of being arrogant. Hah, hah, hah!

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Hah, hah, hah. And I am accused of being arrogant. Hah, hah, hah!

What do you dispute in my post?

 

[AngryAnt]

No I haven't lost interest, I have been busy and can't respond to everything I would like to immediately. One thing I cannot be accused of on this topic is losing interest. I have answered questions for hundreds of pages now. I just can't respond to everything in the time that everyone would like.

Thanks jayfox, I appreciate that.

Fair enough. Thanks.The Bible is referred to by Christians as "the Word of God" and "His Word" so I don't think it is really considered any differently by it's followers than the Koran. Everyone knows that Mohammed was the author of the Koran even if he didn't write it down himself.

It is actually very different. The Koran is considered to be literally the Word of God - Mohammad merely transcribed what God said to him. (Whether this is true or not, this is what most muslims believe - in fact the Koran had many authors, just like the Bible.) This is not the case with the Bible which does not pretend to be written by one person.

On authorship, I note you haven't responded to the modern scholars opinions that many parts of the Bible were not written by the purported authors.

I disagree completely. The story of Noah is fact and I am not sure how a Christian could think otherwise? It is written as fact, completely differently to when Jesus is telling stories to get across His point, for example. If it was a metaphor, what is it a metaphor for, i.e. what is it's point?

Actually, many liberal Christians see much of the Bible as a guide written in metaphor. There is no problem for them in accepting that the Noah story didn't actually happen and still remaining good Christians. The metaphor is clear - those who are righteous and good will be protected by God as they do God's work. Those that don't or who don't believe God's warnings will perish unsaved. It is the Old Testament, after all. God is a vengeful God in the Old Testament.

3- God may have acted Supernaturally in some way. He did in so many other places in the Bible so why not here?

OK, but why not just stick to this explanation rather than come up with spurious pseudo-scientific attempts to pretend that a few lines in Genesis is a comprehensive blueprint for a floodworthy vessel when it clearly isn't? Why attempt to pretend that Noah could have literally taken a pair of every species on Earth? Why pretend that this task is physically possible?

How many does several mean? I'd have thought 27 is several?

I'd say 27 is many, 3 or 4 is several. But I'm being pedantic now.

 

[jayfox]

It is actually very different. The Koran is considered to be literally the Word of God - Mohammad merely transcribed what God said to him. (Whether this is true or not, this is what most muslims believe - in fact the Koran had many authors, just like the Bible.) This is not the case with the Bible which does not pretend to be written by one person.

Fair enough, one is considered by its followers to be the literal transcription of God's actual words and the other is a God inspired transcription written by men, in their own words.

On authorship, I note you haven't responded to the modern scholars opinions that many parts of the Bible were not written by the purported authors.

I don't remember reading your comment on that?

Actually, many liberal Christians see much of the Bible as a guide written in metaphor. There is no problem for them in accepting that the Noah story didn't actually happen and still remaining good Christians. The metaphor is clear - those who are righteous and good will be protected by God as they do God's work. Those that don't or who don't believe God's warnings will perish unsaved. It is the Old Testament, after all. God is a vengeful God in the Old Testament.

I just absolutely can't see how they can think this way and can honestly say that every Christian that i know, which is hundreds , take it as fact. Okay so continuing on with your metaphor explanation, if it is a "those who are righteous and good will be protected by God as they do God's work" then what is the point of going into description of the measurements of the ark or describing getting the animals 2 by 2 etc? Besides, the parables etc. in the Bible are written differently anyway. I just can't possibly see how a Christian could believe it didn't happen. I can understand them wondering how it happened, why there isn't conclusive evidence for it etc. but there is no doubt whatsoever that the author was describing an event that happened, not making a point using a metaphor. If you believe in a Supernatural, omnipotent God then it is no stretch to believe that He is capable of doing such a thing. And Noah was capable of doing it as well as I believe that it took Noah and his family over 100 years to build the ark and the Bible tells us that God brought the animals to him. If you don't believe that the story of Noah is the actual truth, then why believe any of the rest of the stories? The story of Jesus on the cross could be some sort of metaphor and if that is the case the whole basis of the faith is gone.

OK, but why not just stick to this explanation rather than come up with spurious pseudo-scientific attempts to pretend that a few lines in Genesis is a comprehensive blueprint for a floodworthy vessel when it clearly isn't? Why attempt to pretend that Noah could have literally taken a pair of every species on Earth? Why pretend that this task is physically possible?

Because we like to try and work out how God might have done it.

I'd say 27 is many, 3 or 4 is several. But I'm being pedantic now.

Well there are 27 books but only about 10 authors so it is not as many as you may think. Paul alone wrote 14 of these books himself.

 

[Djevv]

I like the Bee Gees! 8)

I'd like to know if the theists of the thread have considered how god himself came into being.

If it's unacceptable to believe in scientific theories such as the big bang or existence from non-existence, then surely the existence of god cannot be considered to be without cause or prior existence.

Maybe god himself is the result of natural selection?

By the way, I don't necessarily believe any current theories relating to the origin of the universe. Unless something is about to change any time soon, then it's not really a priority for me.

Theism doesn't make any claims about where God comes from. God is the supernatural uncaused cause of the natural caused universe. IMO. It is the beginning of all theological discussion.

 

[Djevv]

I could have responded to that last post with a single button!

Yeah, sounds good to me too!

 

[hutstar]

Hah! Still going!
It is all funny stuff. 'Many liberal Christians believe this and that'. Theology is like listening to my three year old justify drawing on the mirror with crayon- any explanation that fits my political and cultural needs will do!
Seriously, you guys give religion too much courtesy - it is a medieval JOKE - no different to burning witches and worthy of no higher respect.

 

[Djevv]

The ID option? Based on what...some perceived compromise position? What is the evidence for such a position? What does the universe have to do with natural selection? Your argument from incredulity doesn't mean that natural selection can't lead to the complexity that we see around us.

Again arguments from incredulity. My question referred specifcally to evolution and you again bring up stars/planets/universe which are completely unrelated. As for abiogenesis and life/consciousness what specifically do you object to in the scientific explanations of these? You answer that and your argument might carry some weight.

So I get a little incredulous about everything being a result of nothing and matter being the explanation for its self. Sorry. Some might call it healthy skeptisism .

You are the one banging on about evolution, not me .

Stars, planets, galaxies and even matter its self are all examples of non-biological complexity.

Um, I'm pretty sure that materialist explanations postulate that there is something as opposed to nothing. Where are these predictions that your theological arguments make?

OK. My hypothesis predicts that a whole bunch of atheists, to who religion allegedly means nothing, would turn a Q&A thread started by an earnest Christian into a 400 page slanging match, simply because God has made us naturally (as we are made in His image) interested in religion.

What is this 'null' strawman that you continue to pound on?

The _____________ you believe resulted in the universe we live in.

Your explanation raises more questions than it answers.

I think religion, philosophy science and many other subjects are like that. The more you learn, the more you realise there is to learn.

genetic drift, sexual selection, gene flow to name a few.

I certainly know some people who reconcile their belief in God with evolution. IMO why introduce God into the equation...it isn't neccesary.

OK. Perhaps TEs believe god is the organising principle behind all the complexity. I don't know of any scientific principle that states that things get more complex and organised with time, so its a bit of a mystery.