24 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MarinkatombI can tell you what my perspective used to be when I was an atheist... I considered the bible's claims to be utter foolishness, and I enjoyed to no end disparaging the beliefs of the few Christians which I knew (who were, in retrospect, patient enough not to disown me as a friend altogether for the constant antagonism). I remember the faith of my Christian acquintances to be maddeningly enduring despite my mockery, and I resented the conclusions of the Christian faith as it applied to me, which led me to despise Christians themselves for what I perceived as being 'holier-than-thou'. In short, I would believe anything negative about the bible and about Christians in general, and ignore everything else. That was my perspective without faith, and I imagine it would not be any different today.
Which brings use full circle. Out of interest, if you were to say, address the bible with an absense of faith, what would your perspective be?
24 Jun 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasOk, i will just say this, i don't feel this resentment towards people of faith, despite the maddening insistence on faith in God. Just as you wonder whether i based my faith in the true essence of God, i question whether you truly based your atheist beliefs in science itself, rather than simply having an absence of faith (so to speak).
I can tell you what my perspective used to be when I was an atheist... I considered the bible's claims to be utter foolishness, and I enjoyed to no end disparaging the beliefs of the few Christians which I knew (who were, in retrospect, patient enough not to disown me as a friend altogether for the constant antagonism). I remember the faith of my Chris ...[text shortened]... e. That was my perspective without faith, and I imagine it would not be any different today.
24 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MarinkatombScience is the tool mankind uses to understand the way the universe works. It neither supports belief nor denies belief, in and of itself. If I believe the world is flat, science is the tool which reveals to me the truth of the matter, and therefore denies the legitimacy of my belief in a flat earth; yet science does not make any grand claims of its own.
Ok, i will just say this, i don't feel this resentment towards people of faith, despite the maddening insistence on faith in God. Just as you wonder whether i based my faith in the true essence of God, i question whether you truly based your atheist beliefs in science itself, rather than simply having an absence of faith (so to speak).
If I believe the world was not created by God, science can affirm my atheistic beliefs through the standard scientific process, but science itself without evidence lends nothing to my cause. I may adopt the stance of refusing to believe a creator exists until proof of one is provided, but such a stance has nothing to do with science itself.
Scientific technology is hundreds of years away from even coming close to being able to prove or disprove String Theory, and onwards from there toward a Theory of Everything, which means mankind's application of the scientific method toward understanding the universe is still in its infantile stages; our theories far outstripping our observational abilities. We know a scant few things for sure, and that probably won't change for centuries to come. If our intrumentation is still far too crude even to affirm our theories about the observable universe, how much further are we away then from developing the intrumentation to affirm or deny the existence of God?
After the next couple thousand years when and if we finally understand the way the universe works, how then might we turn our scientific method toward the question of whether or not the universe has a creator? What sorts of questions might we ask? What evidence might we seek?
Science is what it is. I appreciate it as much now as I did when I was an atheist. I see nothing in it that gives immediate credence to atheistic beliefs.
26 Jun 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasI am not quite sure what you are saying. But I can guarantee that some of your theistic beliefs are equivalent to a belief in a flat earth in that science has revealed the truth of the matter and it doesn't match your beliefs.
If I believe the world is flat, science is the tool which reveals to me the truth of the matter, and therefore denies the legitimacy of my belief in a flat earth; yet science does not make any grand claims of its own.
If our intrumentation is still far too crude even to affirm our theories about the observable universe, how much further are we away then from developing the intrumentation to affirm or deny the existence of God?
If God has observable effects on the universe (as you claim) then why cannot such effects be studied now with current instrumentation?
After the next couple thousand years when and if we finally understand the way the universe works, how then might we turn our scientific method toward the question of whether or not the universe has a creator?
Hopefully by then most people will be intelligent enough to know that such a question does not need to be asked unless there is a reason to believe that there might be a creator.
26 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not quite sure what you are saying. But I can guarantee that some of your theistic beliefs are equivalent to a belief in a flat earth in that science has revealed the truth of the matter and it doesn't match your beliefs.
I am not quite sure what you are saying. But I can guarantee that some of your theistic beliefs are equivalent to a belief in a flat earth in that science has revealed the truth of the matter and it doesn't match your beliefs.
If our intrumentation is still far too crude even to affirm our theories about the observable universe, how much furt on does not need to be asked unless there is a reason to believe that there might be a creator.
Give me some examples.
If God has observable effects on the universe (as you claim) then why cannot such effects be studied now with current instrumentation?
Here are a few excerpts from C. S. Lewis' "Miracles" which address this issue:
"The laws of Nature . . . We are in the habit of talking as if they caused events to happen; but they have never caused any event at all. The laws of motion do not set billiard balls moving: they analyse the motion after something else (say, a man with a cue, or a lurch of the liner, or, perhaps, supernatural power) has provided it. They produce no events: they state the pattern to which every event--if only it can be induced to happen--must conform, just as the rules of arithmetic state the pattern to which all transactions with money must conform--if only you can get hold of any money. Thus in one sense the laws of Nature cover the whole field of space and time; in another, what they leave out is precisely the whole real universe--the incessant torrent of actual events which makes up true history. That must come from somewhere else. To think the laws can produce it is like thinking that you can create real money by simply doing sums.
"It is therefore inaccurate to define a miracle as something that breaks the laws of Nature.
"A miracle is emphatically not an event without cause or without results. Its cause is the activity of God; its results follow according to Natural law. In the forward direction (i.e. during the time which follows its occurrence) it is interlocked with all Nature just like any other event. Its peculiarity is that it is not in that way interlocked backwards, interlocked with the previous history of Nature."
Hopefully by then most people will be intelligent enough to know that such a question does not need to be asked unless there is a reason to believe that there might be a creator.
How about the world itself? How did everything get here? Does time, space and matter naturally arise out of nothing and coalesce into order amid chaos, or was it made? Existence inherently gives rise to such questions. The universe itself is a reason to believe that there might be a creator, no matter how intelligent we are.
26 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasIf something begins to exist, there must be a cause for its existence.
[b]I am not quite sure what you are saying. But I can guarantee that some of your theistic beliefs are equivalent to a belief in a flat earth in that science has revealed the truth of the matter and it doesn't match your beliefs.
Give me some examples.
If God has observable effects on the universe (as you claim) then why cannot such effects is a reason to believe that there might be a creator, no matter how intelligent we are.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore there must be a higher power behind its existence.
We can therefore call this power God.
26 Jun 07
Originally posted by EinsteinMindAnd what caused god?
If something begins to exist, there must be a cause for its existence.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore there must be a higher power behind its existence.
We can therefore call this power God.
First-cause arguments are sometimes described as self-refuting. For example, the philosopher Theodore Schick suggests that an argument by Thomas Aquinas can be formulated in the following terms:
1. Everything is caused by something other than itself
2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
3. The string of causes cannot be infinitely long.
4. If the string of causes cannot be infinitely long, there must be a first cause.
5. Therefore, there must be a first cause, namely god.
– and suggests that this is self-refuting because "if everything has a cause other than itself, then god must have a cause other than himself. But if god has a cause other than himself, he cannot be the first cause. So if the first premise is true, the conclusion must be false."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#First-cause_arguments
26 Jun 07
Originally posted by StarrmanThe key word here is 'thing'. Every 'thing' is caused by something other than itself. But God is not a 'thing' as we know 'things' to be. God has an eternal, uncreated being out of which 'things' arise. This is how Aquinas' first-cause argument is not self-refuting, because it highlights the essential no-'thing'ness of God. Premise (1) applies to 'things' only. A 'first cause' is not a 'thing', so premise (5) does not refute the argument.
And what caused god?
First-cause arguments are sometimes described as self-refuting. For example, the philosopher Theodore Schick suggests that an argument by Thomas Aquinas can be formulated in the following terms:
1. Everything is caused by something other than itself
2. Therefore the universe was caused by something other than itself.
...[text shortened]... n must be false."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea#First-cause_arguments
26 Jun 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasThat is just plain nonsense, I cannot fathom the perversity of epistemology required to hold such a view. First, god is a thing, whether you like it or not. Second, what on earth could 'as we know things to be' even mean? Simply in virtue of creating the universe, god becomes reified as at the very least a thing that creates.
The key word here is 'thing'. Every 'thing' is caused by something other than itself. But God is not a 'thing' as we know 'things' to be. God has an eternal, uncreated being out of which 'things' arise. This is how Aquinas' first-cause argument is not self-refuting, because it highlights the essential no-'thing'ness of God. Premise (1) applies to 't ...[text shortened]... 'first cause' is not a 'thing', so premise (5) does not refute the argument.
27 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by StarrmanGod is not a thing, He is a being.
That is just plain nonsense, I cannot fathom the perversity of epistemology required to hold such a view. First, god is a thing, whether you like it or not. Second, what on earth could 'as we know things to be' even mean? Simply in virtue of creating the universe, god becomes reified as at the very least a thing that creates.
Well since God caused the universe, and we can assume that time is a constraint of the known universe (as said by Augustine of Hippo),
We can assume that God is outside of time.
Therefore, God had no cause since he created time. What can create God if God created time?
oh and "as we know things to be" means that they can be fathomed with the human mind. Try to fathom God with the human mind. If you can, then it is not God. God is beyond the human mind.
27 Jun 07
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanFirst, god is a thing, whether you like it or not.
That is just plain nonsense, I cannot fathom the perversity of epistemology required to hold such a view. First, god is a thing, whether you like it or not. Second, what on earth could 'as we know things to be' even mean? Simply in virtue of creating the universe, god becomes reified as at the very least a thing that creates.
Wait, I thought you said God doesn't exist! J/K.
Second, what on earth could 'as we know things to be' even mean? Simply in virtue of creating the universe, god becomes reified as at the very least a thing that creates.
A 'thing' that creates? Do you go around calling people 'things'? God created us, so why is he a 'thing' and we are not? At the very least we can consider him a 'person', due to the intelligence and attention to detail he displayed in creating such an amazing universe.
That aside, I must ask: is the only God which you can conceive of, the only God that can exist? Just because it's difficult to fathom doesn't mean it is a perversity. It's like you're saying, "God, if he exists, can only be this certain way, but this certain way is absurd, therefore God doesn't exist." That is nonsense. God may not exist as you conceptualize him, yet he still may exist. Right? Right?
27 Jun 07
Originally posted by epiphinehas
A 'thing' that creates? Do you go around calling people 'things'? God created us, so why is he a 'thing' and we are not? At the very least we can consider him a 'person', due to the intelligence and attention to detail he displayed in creating such an amazing universe.
People are indeed things, as are clouds, stars, insects, unicorns, farts etc.
That aside, I must ask: is the only God which you can conceive of, the only God that can exist? Just because it's difficult to fathom doesn't mean it is a perversity. It's like you're saying, "God, if he exists, can only be this certain way, but this certain way is absurd, therefore God doesn't exist." That is nonsense. God may not exist as you conceptualize him, yet he still may exist. Right? Right?
That's a different argument altogether, if god has some conceptualisation, whatever it might be, he is a thing.