Atheist/non Christian

[RickD]

MBPrata,

I'll let Mallz address your post, but I just wanted to throw a thought at you. You bring up the issue of evil, with regards to babies dying. It's a really good issue to talk about, and it's an issue that I'm not going to claim I have some kind of new revelation about, that will get you to agree with me.

But just think of this...

There are two possibilities regarding the existence of God.

1) He exists

2) He doesn't exist

Either way, you still have the problem of evil. But if God exists, there is hope that what we see and know as evil, will one day be eradicated.

Without God, we still have evil. But there's no hope.

[Kurieuo]

God wants us (?) to believe He exists while filling the universe with evidence against Him. For starters, creating a universe in which things can appear from nowhere while wanting people to believe the universe came from God and not nowhere is...sort of stupid. Or contradictory, to say the least.

Sorry, I normally do try to reserve myself. BUT, really feel a need to say that this has to take the cake of one of the most incredibly stupid things I've seen someone say.

If God doesn't want us to believe the universe came from "nowhere" then He shouldn't make it appear as such?
Gosh. Just take a moment to pause and reflect. If there was really "no where" then the universe most certainly couldn't have come from it.

Yes, it is sort of stupid or contradictory to say the least MBPrata.
You're so proving and taking after those in Romans 1:20-22.

[Philip]

MBP: Anyway, what I meant was that God wants us (?) to believe He exists while filling the universe with evidence against Him. For starters, creating a universe in which things can appear from nowhere while wanting people to believe the universe came from God and not nowhere is...sort of stupid. Or contradictory, to say the least.

Um, how do you get that God wants people to think the universe and "things can appear from nowhere," when he prolifically tells us through so many prophets and apostles quite the inverse - that HE is the source of ALL created things! And, yet, you apparently believe that the universe can "appear from nowhere BY ITSELF - and that is no problem for you.

MBP: Then, there are human-like creatures. Please don't start with that demagogy saying Neanderthals and Erectus where very different from us; expecting people to believe in creation in a planet where there are both human-like creatures and DNA mutations is pretty much stupid. Like I said once: it's like watering a flower expecting your friend to notice you watered it...in a zone where it rains a lot!

Oh, the precious evolutionary arguments - why do atheists obsessed with such arguments always want to argue about processes whose very beginnings happened and were dependent upon what happened over 12 billion-plus years BEFORE - meaning, what they REALLY need to explain - how just the right, previously non-existing " elements popped" into existence and immediately began self organizing with tremendous design and complexity, and according to specific laws (remember, LAWS don't create themselves, they are merely observations on how things work). So, arguing about evolution is pointless! And it changes nothing about what evolution would have been dependent upon, that immediately began and suddenly appeared nearly 13 billion years BEFORE. Let's not have pointless arguments about events and DEPENDENT subplots that take place nearer the END of the movie.

MBP: Then, the test thing. Most christians say God made us pass through this cruel universe to test us. Ok, so why letting babies die? And children? People who haven't been tested yet? Jeez, God is the king of mixed signals!

So, babies and children, who I believe Scripture shows go instantly to heaven - they're better off living to a ripe old age and slowly dying of some disease? No, this is not an easy subject. But you are trying to determine, from an exceptionally limited knowledge base, what an eternal, all-knowing Being does.

MBP: This is the "stupidity" I was talking about. I can believe that a god created the universe, but all these factors (and some more) prevent me from believing He wants us to know he exists. Sometimes I think a god sent us these mixed signals just to laugh by watching us confused. That makes more sense. Otherwise, I can only think of 3 alternatives: 1. God, despite His power, is no more intelligent than us; 2. God is actually the most intelligent, but arrogant enough to think we should believe in Him despite all His mixed signals; 3. There's no God and the apparent intelligence of the universe is just that - apparent. But this is me...

So, a God so intelligent that He has the ability to create the most brilliant minds amongst us, Who has the knowledge and ability to create all that exists, and YOU are second-guessing HIS intelligence and motivations? MBP, what you have are EMOTIONAL blockages to faith - they are NOT scientific and they are NOT rational. Your only alternative is "pop metaphysics" - the perfect elements necessary to build a universe "pop" into existence and THEN they brilliantly and instantly begin a mind-blowing self-organization of unfathomable complexity, design and immense power. THAT, my friend, is NOT a belief in science, but one that believes impossible METAphysics are not only possible, but around 14 billion years ago, these innumerable metaphysical processes and mechanisms, which still operate today, weren't here one moment, and then the very next they were - not to mention the PHYSICAL things that weren't in existence, one moment, but the next, were. But the rest of what you assert is an emotional argument. So, YOU are an emotional thinker. Christians are rational, in that, they don't believe things can create themselves, they believe ALL physical things had to come from something prior existing, and we don't believe in "pop metaphysics!"

[Kenny]

Why not just say something we all agree on: Something has always existed at a foundational level
Right? Otherwise there would be nothing.

The fuller response that you gave is interesting and something I'd typically expect from Atheistic quarters re: belief in God being really god of the gaps and that.
Personally, I see God as the most clear and logical explanation until shown an alternative coherent understanding of reality and the world we live. How so? Well... here are a few short questions given we accept something has always existed (otherwise nothing would exist).

Question: Is the 'something that has always existed' sentient or non-sentient?

Don't know. Unclear right?

Question: Do we see sentience or non-sentience in the world?

Both.

Therefore, the something that has always existed must either be sentient, or have potentiality for expressing sentience.

From here, it is hard to see how sentience could truly arise from non-sentient inanimate matter. Rocks will forever be rocks, maybe dust, perhaps convert into energy is some way via external forces or the like, I don't know. But, otherwise, non-sentient. It seems to burden of proof are on those who'd argue sentience is entirely possible from pure matter.

If you put a non-sentient sperm and a non-sentient egg together, it can evolve into the most brilliant mind the world has ever known.
True; we only know of this happening when the non-sentient egg and sperm comes from an intelligent being; but how do we know there isn’t another way this can happen and we just haven’t discovered the piece of the puzzle that proves this?

I'm all for going with the evidence where it is heaviest.
Our beliefs are always open to correction; such is the nature of human knowledge.
So then, when I go with the weightiest side for any given belief I hold, such isn't giving an answer based upon "a gap in knowledge" but rather an answer based upon what we do know.

What I see in your words, actually creates a very weak position for a "no sentient" belief.
You ultimately agree that we only experience sentience arising from sentience. Indeed, ToE itself deals with life evolving from a common ancestor, rather then new life starting here and there -- precisely because of the logic "life comes from life," a similar line of thinking to "sentience coming from sentience".

Given what we actually do know, and given our experiences in our world of both sentient creatures and non-sentient things, it seems quite natural to believe sentience has always existed like physical matter. Yet, we see a bias. A bias that claims we ought to only assume physical matter is all there is to the exclusion of sentience -- although both are clearly expressed in our world. A wont to go with a "no intelligence of gaps" if you will. For what reason? Certainly not the "illogic" of belief in an all-existing sentience or intelligence.

Rather, your argument of "illogic" is based upon the loadedness of religious beliefs associated with whatever this sentience might be. You are not starting with what we do know and experience to deduce what would otherwise be quite natural and logical, but you are loading into the equation your knowledge of religion/s and distaste thereof.

Science claims to only knows of 4% of the Universe. That is 96% that we have no clue about. What you are saying makes sense only if we assume the 96% that we have no clue about is consistent with the 4% that we know about.
That is like going to a library picking up 1 book, reading and studying it; then making the leap that all the other books in the library are like the one you’ve read and studied.

I prefer to admit I only know of the 1 book I’ve read and currently have no clue about all the other books, but I continue reading all the other books with the goal of one day knowing all the books in the library.

[Kenny]

MBPrats sais


The flexibility he is talking about is to go outside logic,reason and reality to reject the facts -ALL things have a cause and ALL things that have a cause are caused by something else and ALL things are willed into existence and infinite regression cannot be broken.

If ALL things have a cause, that would include God as well. So who caused God?

Ken

Straw-man god,God is eternal,we do not worship or believe in a created God,soit does not apply to the God we believe in.It is a straw-man god. You're still outside reality in order to deny God but you just refuse to acknowledge it.But you cannot name anything in our universe that does not apply to these facts - ALL things have a cause and ALL things that are caused are caused by something else and ALL things are willed into existence also infinite regression cannot be broken. You cannot name anything in our universe that does not apply to these facts and yet hold out hope somehow that man can somehow prove these facts wrong,just to deny God. Or either you just do not know,but regardless even if you don't know this for sure nothing in our universe leads you to believe that these facts are not true,it is just deciding to take the long way around and believe things contrary to what logic,reason and reality tells us or hold out hope that man can somehow show these facts do not apply.You have alot of faith outside logic,reason or reality in order to deny God. and youkeep ignoring the fact that our God is eternal.

If you are going to believe everything except your deity has a cause, that's fine; but until you can prove it, not everybody is going to simply take your word for it

Ken

I said you cannot name anything in our universe that does'nt apply to these facts and you can't because you are denying logic,reason and reality in order to deny God.Because you don't believe in God and choose to ignore the God we believe in, it still does not make these facts go away.They still apply even if you do reject God. ALL things have a cause and ALL things that have a cause are caused by something else and all things are willed into existence,infinite regression cannot be broken.These facts apply to EVERYTHING in our universe but God is in heaven outside our universe.

How do you know that which you are calling "facts" are true? I admit I don't have all the answers, but you seem to insist that you do. So outside of using your faith, how do you know what you call facts are true?

Ken

[Kenny]

The example posted in the article I linked ( By John Wright) about the supernatural is a perfect one.
People will use science to show that nothing existed outside of nature, how there is no evidence of any "supernatural" activity and YET science tells us of at least ONE event that was outside nature, that was driven or caused or came to be via an event that can be defined as "supernatural" and that is the beginning of the universe.


su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

How does the Big Bang/expansion of the Universe constitute a supernatural event? And where did you get that definition from? The definition I found (dictionary.com) says:
of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
If we are going to label anything science doesn't understand as supernatural, then 96% of the Universe is supernatural. Seems to kind of take away from the meaning of the word to me.

Ken

[RickD]

The example posted in the article I linked ( By John Wright) about the supernatural is a perfect one.
People will use science to show that nothing existed outside of nature, how there is no evidence of any "supernatural" activity and YET science tells us of at least ONE event that was outside nature, that was driven or caused or came to be via an event that can be defined as "supernatural" and that is the beginning of the universe.


su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

How does the Big Bang/expansion of the Universe constitute a supernatural event?

Ken

The definition of supernatural is right above your question. What caused the Big Bang, is beyond scientific understanding. That makes it supernatural.

[RickD]

Kenny wrote:
Science claims to only knows of 4% of the Universe. That is 96% that we have no clue about. What you are saying makes sense only if we assume the 96% that we have no clue about is consistent with the 4% that we know about.
That is like going to a library picking up 1 book, reading and studying it; then making the leap that all the other books in the library are like the one you’ve read and studied.

I prefer to admit I only know of the 1 book I’ve read and currently have no clue about all the other books, but I continue reading all the other books with the goal of one day knowing all the books in the library.

Kenny,

Please read this:

Observations to date support the idea that the Universe is both isotropic and homogeneous. Both facts are linked to what is called the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle derives from the Copernican Principle but has no foundation in any particular physical model or theory, i.e. it can not be `proved' in a mathematical sense. However, it has been supported by numerous observations of our Universe and has great weight from purely empirical grounds.

corollary to the cosmological principle is that the laws of physics are universal. The same physical laws and models that applies here on the Earth also works in distant stars, galaxies, and all parts of the Universe - this of course simplifies our investigations immensely. Note also that it is assumed that physical constants (such as the gravitational constant, mass of the electron, speed of light) are also the unchanging from place to place within the Universe, and over time.



The clearest modern evidence for the cosmological principle is measurements of the cosmic microwave background (shown above). Briefly (we will cover the CMB in a later lecture), the CMB is an image of the photons emitted from the early Universe. Isotropy and homogeneous is reflected in its random appearance.
The greatest consequence of the cosmological principle is that it implies that all parts of space are causally connected at some time in the past (although they may no longer be connected today). Thus, a homogeneous Universe leads to the conclusion that the whole Universe appeared at a single moment of time, a Creation.
Lastly, we is we extend the cosmological principle through time we have the `perfect' cosmological principle, that the Universe is isotropic and homogeneous, and has been for all time. This means that the laws of Nature are unchanging and that things we observe from the past can be assumed to operate under that same physics as things toady.

http://physwiki.ucdavis.edu/Cosmology/C ... _Principle

[RickD]

The example posted in the article I linked ( By John Wright) about the supernatural is a perfect one.
People will use science to show that nothing existed outside of nature, how there is no evidence of any "supernatural" activity and YET science tells us of at least ONE event that was outside nature, that was driven or caused or came to be via an event that can be defined as "supernatural" and that is the beginning of the universe.


su·per·nat·u·ral
ˌso͞opərˈnaCH(ə)rəl/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

How does the Big Bang/expansion of the Universe constitute a supernatural event? And where did you get that definition from? The definition I found (dictionary.com) says:
of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
If we are going to label anything science doesn't understand as supernatural, then 96% of the Universe is supernatural. Seems to kind of take away from the meaning of the word to me.

Ken

Kenny,

They mean the same thing. And as far as not understanding 96% of the universe, see my post above regarding the Cosmological Principle.

[Kurieuo]

Why not just say something we all agree on: Something has always existed at a foundational level
Right? Otherwise there would be nothing.

The fuller response that you gave is interesting and something I'd typically expect from Atheistic quarters re: belief in God being really god of the gaps and that.
Personally, I see God as the most clear and logical explanation until shown an alternative coherent understanding of reality and the world we live. How so? Well... here are a few short questions given we accept something has always existed (otherwise nothing would exist).

Question: Is the 'something that has always existed' sentient or non-sentient?

Don't know. Unclear right?

Question: Do we see sentience or non-sentience in the world?

Both.

Therefore, the something that has always existed must either be sentient, or have potentiality for expressing sentience.

From here, it is hard to see how sentience could truly arise from non-sentient inanimate matter. Rocks will forever be rocks, maybe dust, perhaps convert into energy is some way via external forces or the like, I don't know. But, otherwise, non-sentient. It seems to burden of proof are on those who'd argue sentience is entirely possible from pure matter.

If you put a non-sentient sperm and a non-sentient egg together, it can evolve into the most brilliant mind the world has ever known.
True; we only know of this happening when the non-sentient egg and sperm comes from an intelligent being; but how do we know there isn’t another way this can happen and we just haven’t discovered the piece of the puzzle that proves this?

I'm all for going with the evidence where it is heaviest.
Our beliefs are always open to correction; such is the nature of human knowledge.
So then, when I go with the weightiest side for any given belief I hold, such isn't giving an answer based upon "a gap in knowledge" but rather an answer based upon what we do know.

What I see in your words, actually creates a very weak position for a "no sentient" belief.
You ultimately agree that we only experience sentience arising from sentience. Indeed, ToE itself deals with life evolving from a common ancestor, rather then new life starting here and there -- precisely because of the logic "life comes from life," a similar line of thinking to "sentience coming from sentience".

Given what we actually do know, and given our experiences in our world of both sentient creatures and non-sentient things, it seems quite natural to believe sentience has always existed like physical matter. Yet, we see a bias. A bias that claims we ought to only assume physical matter is all there is to the exclusion of sentience -- although both are clearly expressed in our world. A wont to go with a "no intelligence of gaps" if you will. For what reason? Certainly not the "illogic" of belief in an all-existing sentience or intelligence.

Rather, your argument of "illogic" is based upon the loadedness of religious beliefs associated with whatever this sentience might be. You are not starting with what we do know and experience to deduce what would otherwise be quite natural and logical, but you are loading into the equation your knowledge of religion/s and distaste thereof.

Science claims to only knows of 4% of the Universe. That is 96% that we have no clue about. What you are saying makes sense only if we assume the 96% that we have no clue about is consistent with the 4% that we know about.
That is like going to a library picking up 1 book, reading and studying it; then making the leap that all the other books in the library are like the one you’ve read and studied.

I prefer to admit I only know of the 1 book I’ve read and currently have no clue about all the other books, but I continue reading all the other books with the goal of one day knowing all the books in the library.

So then, it sounds like logic/illogic or evidence has nothing to do your unbelief.
For given we know so little, it seems you feel this provides a right to either:

1) Cherry pick what to believe, or
2) Advance solipsism -- the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

Or perhaps it is more a case of both 1 & 2.

Indeed, the more I discuss with people, it seems their beliefs are more based upon emotion than logic, reason or this or that evidence. What is truth, right Kenny?


As a Christian, I find it quite intriguing that Jesus claimed to be the Truth. He told Pilate anyone on the side of truth would listen to him. Pilate rhetorically responded, "What is truth?" Indeed, that is the question since the beginning. Funny, that our world is geared towards our having to seek it out, take faith to believe this or that, risk being gullible and wrong. A world with such uncertainty that we find ourselves within.

Yet one person either very crazy, egotistical or self-deluded claimed to be the Truth (the truth that ultimately mattered in life?) Or was this person actually wise and loving? How we see and respond to Jesus' statement to pilate, you know is what I see as crucially important for each of us to decide in life. And, I think, you're to be a little credited for staying the time here as you have... say what you will, you just don't seem able to kick this question to the side once and for all can you?

[abelcainsbrother]

The flexibility he is talking about is to go outside logic,reason and reality to reject the facts -ALL things have a cause and ALL things that have a cause are caused by something else and ALL things are willed into existence and infinite regression cannot be broken.

1. Please don't talk about me as if I wasn't here, I don't like it.
2. That is false. I'm not asking to go outside logic, reason and reality - I don't even believe we know reality to begin with!
All things have a cause...says who? That's the flexibility I'm talking about: to let go your strongest convictions for a while if "reality" can be explained outside of those convictions.
Infinite regression can not be broken...says who?
I think you should keep in mind that 60% of scientists (I did the math from mr. Deem's 40%) do not believe in the God of the Bible. And these, for the most part, are no ordinary people; they're usually quite intelligent people that probably have to reinterpret "reality" every week due to what they find out.
Are these 60% (remember you are a minory) going outside logic and reality? These 60% from a group of the most intelligent people in the world? Excuse me, but I don't buy it.

Well even if it is 60% of scientists they still cannot produce truthful science by ignoring ALL things have a cause and ALL things that have a cause are caused by something else and ALL things are willed into existence and infinite regression cannot be broken. No amount of imagination or speculation can change these facts of logic,reason and reality. I was not trying to offend you but it is just a fact that those who reject God reject these facts of logic,reason and reality,which is why you say you don't know about reality. You are outside logic,reason and reality in order to reject God even if you don't realize it,so don't be offended because I'm just telling the truth. I'm not making up stuff when I say that those who reject God must step outside logic,reason and reality in order to deny God. Hopefully you'll realize it and can then make a logical decision.

[abelcainsbrother]

If ALL things have a cause, that would include God as well. So who caused God?

Ken

Straw-man god,God is eternal,we do not worship or believe in a created God,soit does not apply to the God we believe in.It is a straw-man god. You're still outside reality in order to deny God but you just refuse to acknowledge it.But you cannot name anything in our universe that does not apply to these facts - ALL things have a cause and ALL things that are caused are caused by something else and ALL things are willed into existence also infinite regression cannot be broken. You cannot name anything in our universe that does not apply to these facts and yet hold out hope somehow that man can somehow prove these facts wrong,just to deny God. Or either you just do not know,but regardless even if you don't know this for sure nothing in our universe leads you to believe that these facts are not true,it is just deciding to take the long way around and believe things contrary to what logic,reason and reality tells us or hold out hope that man can somehow show these facts do not apply.You have alot of faith outside logic,reason or reality in order to deny God. and youkeep ignoring the fact that our God is eternal.

If you are going to believe everything except your deity has a cause, that's fine; but until you can prove it, not everybody is going to simply take your word for it

Ken

I said you cannot name anything in our universe that does'nt apply to these facts and you can't because you are denying logic,reason and reality in order to deny God.Because you don't believe in God and choose to ignore the God we believe in, it still does not make these facts go away.They still apply even if you do reject God. ALL things have a cause and ALL things that have a cause are caused by something else and all things are willed into existence,infinite regression cannot be broken.These facts apply to EVERYTHING in our universe but God is in heaven outside our universe.

How do you know that which you are calling "facts" are true? I admit I don't have all the answers, but you seem to insist that you do. So outside of using your faith, how do you know what you call facts are true?

Ken

They are the facts of our universe,we know this based on logic,reason and reality. Without philosophy we can't think logically and with reason.We know these are facts based on everything in our universe,we can see how and why these facts apply but also how since the 14th century when St Thomas Aquinas came up with this philosophy to confront materialism they still remain the facts even today despite all of the rhetoric we've heard from atheists and even materialistic science,despite these facts being ignored in order to believe things outside the realm of logic,reason and reality nothing has been produced by materialism to make these facts wrong,not even materialistic science and what's worse is everyone of these scientific ideas we hear from materialistic atheistic scientists have not even been peer reviewed.These facts might be ignored but materialism has not and cannot refute them,which is why they remain the facts of logic,reason and reality even today.This is one reason no matter what theory science comes up with God is still the most logical cause because ALL things have a cause and ALL things that have a cause are caused by something else and ALL things are willed into existence. Whether its the Big Bang or even Evolution,they still point to God being the most logical cause eventhough I reject evolution. It shows that science cannot get around these facts and Aquinas was right way back in the 14th century and is still right today.

I guess you could choose to take your chances to wait and see if materialistic science is ever able to refute them,but materialistic science is no where close,so to do so in order to reject God? would be based on blind faith or blind hope.There is nothing to point to that would lead you to believe they will and yet they are still the facts now.

[Kenny]

So then, it sounds like logic/illogic or evidence has nothing to do your unbelief.
For given we know so little, it seems you feel this provides a right to either:

1) Cherry pick what to believe, or
2) Advance solipsism -- the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

Or perhaps it is more a case of both 1 & 2.

As I said before; I believe whatever happened back then, intuition and simple common-sense logic is not going to tell us anything very useful. We must be missing an essential piece of the puzzle and until someone finds it, the origin of he universe is going to - or rather will appear to - defy logic.

If there were evidence that pointed to an intelligent creator, I’m sure someone outside the religious community would have made a case for it by now. I don’t know enough about astrology to make any kind of a case; I just think those who do study it would make the case for an intelligent creator if evidence pointed in that direction.

Ken

[Kenny]

They are the facts of our universe,we know this based on logic,reason and reality

Can you demonstrate these facts?

I guess you could choose to take your chances to wait and see if materialistic science is ever able to refute them,

I'll take my chances with science

Ken

[RickD]

So then, it sounds like logic/illogic or evidence has nothing to do your unbelief.
For given we know so little, it seems you feel this provides a right to either:

1) Cherry pick what to believe, or
2) Advance solipsism -- the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

Or perhaps it is more a case of both 1 & 2.

As I said before; I believe whatever happened back then, intuition and simple common-sense logic is not going to tell us anything very useful. We must be missing an essential piece of the puzzle and until someone finds it, the origin of he universe is going to - or rather will appear to - defy logic.

If there were evidence that pointed to an intelligent creator, I’m sure someone outside the religious community would have made a case for it by now. I don’t know enough about astrology to make any kind of a case; I just think those who do study it would make the case for an intelligent creator if evidence pointed in that direction.

Ken

Astronomical Evidences For The God Of The Bible

An atheist finds evidence for God, after she gets her phd in astronomy and astrophysics:
http://winteryknight.com/2015/05/17/ath ... e-for-god/