Question of the Day

[waynepii]

I don't know how matter first originated. Since you (theists) are claiming you DO know, it seems the onus is on you to prove your explanation. Of the number of hypotheses for the origin of all matter, I find a preexisting magical being powerful enough to cause everything else to come into existence from nothing to be very highly unlikely. There is very little (I would say no) credible evidence for the existence of magic, or magical beings.

One, please stop using the term 'magical'. I hope we both know better terms than that.

Just out of curiosity, what is the problem with "magic" or "magical"? According to Webster, they seem to fit.

Second, you know full well what the evidence is. You want absolute proof? None of us have it! The problem is, you have to acknowledge that SOMETHING is necessary for the existence of all that is.

That's right - NONE of us has any proof. Everything that is came into existence somehow, but the "how" didn't necessarily involve a "who".

[Byblos]

You (theists) DO claim to know the origin of matter (you even made the claim in this very post) - so what is your evidence? How are you sure you know the answer?

Reason and metaphysics. A brilliant physicist such as Steven Hawking could use a few lessons in metaphysics he sorely lacks.

[B. W.]

...That's right - NONE of us has any proof. Everything that is came into existence somehow, but the "how" didn't necessarily involve a "who".

Hmmm, waynepii, I am curious – aren’t you a who – whom wrote the above?

How did you learn to write?
-
-
-

[MarcusOfLycia]

Just out of curiosity, what is the problem with "magic" or "magical"? According to Webster, they seem to fit.

Well, for one thing, the connotation is negative and you know it. Usually people only stack the vocabulary in their favor when they lose the debate with evidence or if the reason for the argument has nothing to do with the evidence but with emotion. Could you try to be more respectful and more accurate? It isn't very hard I think. Plenty of the non-Christians on this forum seem to have no problem with it, and plenty of the Christians have no problem in the reverse direction.

Second, you know full well what the evidence is. You want absolute proof? None of us have it! The problem is, you have to acknowledge that SOMETHING is necessary for the existence of all that is.

That's right - NONE of us has any proof. Everything that is came into existence somehow, but the "how" didn't necessarily involve a "who".

I said none of us have absolute proof. Did you miss that? How in the world did you get 'NONE of us has any proof' from that, especially considering the first sentence (you know full well what the evidence is; implying that I acknowledge evidence)? Is misquoting and misinterpreting going to be the modus operandi here? If it is, I want no part in it and you can talk to someone else.

[waynepii]

Second, you know full well what the evidence is. You want absolute proof? None of us have it! The problem is, you have to acknowledge that SOMETHING is necessary for the existence of all that is.

That's right - NONE of us has any proof. Everything that is came into existence somehow, but the "how" didn't necessarily involve a "who".

I said none of us have absolute proof. Did you miss that? How in the world did you get 'NONE of us has any proof' from that, especially considering the first sentence (you know full well what the evidence is; implying that I acknowledge evidence)? Is misquoting and misinterpreting going to be the modus operandi here? If it is, I want no part in it and you can talk to someone else.

OK, my bad - sorry. What proof DO you have?

Remember, the name of this site is "Evidence for God from Science". And yes, I've read the main site, in detail, several times.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Second, you know full well what the evidence is. You want absolute proof? None of us have it! The problem is, you have to acknowledge that SOMETHING is necessary for the existence of all that is.

That's right - NONE of us has any proof. Everything that is came into existence somehow, but the "how" didn't necessarily involve a "who".

I said none of us have absolute proof. Did you miss that? How in the world did you get 'NONE of us has any proof' from that, especially considering the first sentence (you know full well what the evidence is; implying that I acknowledge evidence)? Is misquoting and misinterpreting going to be the modus operandi here? If it is, I want no part in it and you can talk to someone else.

OK, my bad - sorry. What proof DO you have?

Remember, the name of this site is "Evidence for God from Science". And yes, I've read the main site, in detail, several times.

Are you kidding? If you've read the main site, you should know a great deal of evidence. I recommend you stop misquoting and misusing terms, though. Once again, I talked about evidence - not proof. Proof is a discrete mathematical concept (or logical concept if you'd rather think of it that way). There are plenty of 'proofs' of God's existence.

The evidence presented on the main site, as well as the existence of anything in the universe when there should be nothing (how can nothing produce everything?), the human condition and the human heart longing for something greater, the mindset humans have of an eternal perspective, meaning, hope, love, joy, and a plethora of other things demand the existence of God if they have any merit within themselves.

What in particular are you having a hard time with? Do you think every piece of evidence is wrong? Do you have definitive proof in the other direction? The problem with that position is that having definitive proof of any kind rests on a knowledge that is beyond human attainment without outside influence. Christianity regards revelation with considerable respect because it allows that sort of outside opinion. I'm not aware of any atheistic outside evidence (that would imply a source of information outside human attainment by human effort alone). Do you have any? What sort of non-God gave it to you?

The main reason I'm a Christian isn't the evidence, its the revelation. The evidence just helps me to talk to people who don't have the revelation and to help me support what I know to be true. Do I have 'proof'? Well, as I said, there are plenty of 'proofs' about all sorts of things. Do I have 'evidence'? Again, what's the name of the site? I've also found plenty of evidence elsewhere. Do I have 'Absolute Proof'? No, I suppose not; at least not in such a way that I could ever explain it well enough that you'd accept it based on what I have to say alone.

[Byblos]

It's called absolute skepticism. Not even 1 + 1 = 2 so how can anyone be sure of anything.

[MarcusOfLycia]

It's called absolute skepticism. Not even 1 + 1 = 2 so how can anyone be sure of anything.

Heh... the trick with absolute skepticism is that if someone was truly consistent and not hypocritical, they'd be skeptical of their own skepticism to such a degree that they wouldn't even be skeptics... if that makes any sense.

[Reactionary]

Heh... the trick with absolute skepticism is that if someone was truly consistent and not hypocritical, they'd be skeptical of their own skepticism to such a degree that they wouldn't even be skeptics... if that makes any sense.

Agreed... One more thing I'd like to add: Since "absolute skeptics" tend to be materialists (naturalists), I always wonder - If everything that exists is material, and material substances are subject to the laws of physics and chemistry, then how can you trust your thoughts as they'd be material in that case as well? It would mean that you came to your worldview not because it's rational, but because chemical reactions in your brain made you do so. So, materialism seems self-refuting as well because if it's true, it would be impossible to obtain any knowledge, and therefore, to understand your origins...

[Canuckster1127]

I understand your point about how many things could have prevented life as we know it by being slightly different. But given that the known universe contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, the probability of at least one star having a planet with the correct parameters doesn't seem quite so daunting.

The real question is: What are the odds that matter and energy spontaneously came into existence? And then, what are the odds that process occurred enough times to generate the 'billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars'?

What are the odds that a magical being powerful enough to create everything from nothing spontaneously came into existence (or always existed)?

Wayne, If you mark off a path of Ocean from Los Angeles to Hawaii about 1/2 a mile wide as the flight path for a jet and then calculate the odds that any particular square mile of ocean will be the one that that plane would crash into should the plane lose altitude, the odds are pretty long that any given square mile would be the one it hits. The chances that the plane will hit the ocean are 100%. Christians sometimes engage in logical fallacies against this backdrop and misuse the odds to somehow "prove" that God exists and this is a form of a God of the Gaps type fallacy, which even as a Christian I recognize exists. Christians aren't the only ones who use this type of fallacy however. The odds that the universe originated as it did are 100% whether we understand them completely or not. When we speak of odds outside of that we're using logical tools, not creating our own reality whether Theistic or Atheistic.

[waynepii]

...That's right - NONE of us has any proof. Everything that is came into existence somehow, but the "how" didn't necessarily involve a "who".

Hmmm, waynepii, I am curious – aren’t you a who – whom wrote the above?

How did you learn to write?
-
-
-

I said (emphasis added)

Everything that is came into existence somehow, but the "how" didn't necessarily involve a "who".

[waynepii]

OK, my bad - sorry. What proof DO you have?

Remember, the name of this site is "Evidence for God from Science". And yes, I've read the main site, in detail, several times.

Are you kidding? If you've read the main site, you should know a great deal of evidence. I recommend you stop misquoting and misusing terms, though. Once again, I talked about evidence - not proof. Proof is a discrete mathematical concept (or logical concept if you'd rather think of it that way). There are plenty of 'proofs' of God's existence.

According to Merriam-Webster (and many others), "proof" is a result of sufficient evidence. I'll (try to remember to) use "convincing evidence" for "proof" from now on since the terminology seems important to you.

The evidence presented on the main site, as well as the existence of anything in the universe when there should be nothing (how can nothing produce everything?), the human condition and the human heart longing for something greater, the mindset humans have of an eternal perspective, meaning, hope, love, joy, and a plethora of other things demand the existence of God if they have any merit within themselves.

I find the "evidence" on the main site less than compelling, consisting of such as the fact that parts of the bible have been correlated with archeological findings, that some biblical "prophesies" were fulfilled (it would be very easy to "backdate" the "prophesy" so it appears to have been written before the "prophesied" event and/or to have "tuned" reports of an actual event so that it appears to fulfill a prophesy), many "hearsay" descriptions of events written years after the actual events (supposedly) took place, etc. I'm not claiming the evidence is not valid, simply that it could be the result of "creative writing".

What in particular are you having a hard time with? Do you think every piece of evidence is wrong?

No, but much of it seems less than convincing.

Do you have definitive proof in the other direction?

I've already said I didn't. I'm open to any credible evidence as to where everything came from. As I said before (in other terminology), I find the hypothesis that a supernatural being (happy?) "poofed" everything into existence from nothing to be highly unlikely, but given sufficient, credible evidence, could and would embrace the hypothesis.

The problem with that position is that having definitive proof of any kind rests on a knowledge that is beyond human attainment without outside influence. Christianity regards revelation with considerable respect because it allows that sort of outside opinion. I'm not aware of any atheistic outside evidence (that would imply a source of information outside human attainment by human effort alone). Do you have any? What sort of non-God gave it to you?

See above.

The main reason I'm a Christian isn't the evidence, its the revelation. The evidence just helps me to talk to people who don't have the revelation and to help me support what I know to be true. Do I have 'proof'? Well, as I said, there are plenty of 'proofs' about all sorts of things. Do I have 'evidence'? Again, what's the name of the site? I've also found plenty of evidence elsewhere. Do I have 'Absolute Proof'? No, I suppose not; at least not in such a way that I could ever explain it well enough that you'd accept it based on what I have to say alone.

I guess my question comes down to how do you know what is true?

[waynepii]

I understand your point about how many things could have prevented life as we know it by being slightly different. But given that the known universe contains billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars, the probability of at least one star having a planet with the correct parameters doesn't seem quite so daunting.

The real question is: What are the odds that matter and energy spontaneously came into existence? And then, what are the odds that process occurred enough times to generate the 'billions of galaxies, each with billions of stars'?

What are the odds that a magical being powerful enough to create everything from nothing spontaneously came into existence (or always existed)?

Wayne, If you mark off a path of Ocean from Los Angeles to Hawaii about 1/2 a mile wide as the flight path for a jet and then calculate the odds that any particular square mile of ocean will be the one that that plane would crash into should the plane lose altitude, the odds are pretty long that any given square mile would be the one it hits. The chances that the plane will hit the ocean are 100%. Christians sometimes engage in logical fallacies against this backdrop and misuse the odds to somehow "prove" that God exists and this is a form of a God of the Gaps type fallacy, which even as a Christian I recognize exists. Christians aren't the only ones who use this type of fallacy however. The odds that the universe originated as it did are 100% whether we understand them completely or not. When we speak of odds outside of that we're using logical tools, not creating our own reality whether Theistic or Atheistic.

I've made a very similar argument myself - against theist claims that calculate the probability of arriving at the exact universe we have by chance, and using how improbable our universe is as "proof" of a god (or designer, or ... ). The odds that a universe would be suitable for life are considerably better than the odds for one specific universe (ie ours), but are much harder to compute.

[MarcusOfLycia]

I've already said I didn't. I'm open to any credible evidence as to where everything came from. As I said before (in other terminology), I find the hypothesis that a supernatural being (happy?) "poofed" everything into existence from nothing to be highly unlikely, but given sufficient, credible evidence, could and would embrace the hypothesis.

Why do you find it unlikely that there was a necessary first cause? Do you have an alternative explanation? You have said you don't, but then why do you find my explanation 'unlikely'? What about it makes it unlikely to you?

I guess my question comes down to how do you know what is true?

A combination of revelation, evidence, reason, and experience gives me the best possible set of information with which to formulate my worldview. Fundamentally if you dig deep enough, everyone (including myself) has to make certain assumptions, like trusting in the reliability of logic or the 'real-ness' of reality. Beyond those few basic assumptions, I look to those first four things I mention.

[waynepii]

I've already said I didn't. I'm open to any credible evidence as to where everything came from. As I said before (in other terminology), I find the hypothesis that a supernatural being (happy?) "poofed" everything into existence from nothing to be highly unlikely, but given sufficient, credible evidence, could and would embrace the hypothesis.

Why do you find it unlikely that there was a necessary first cause? Do you have an alternative explanation? You have said you don't, but then why do you find my explanation 'unlikely'? What about it makes it unlikely to you?

My admitting I don't know doesn't validate your explanation. I still find your hypothesis highly unlikely, as I said.

I guess my question comes down to how do you know what is true?

A combination of revelation, evidence, reason, and experience gives me the best possible set of information with which to formulate my worldview. Fundamentally if you dig deep enough, everyone (including myself) has to make certain assumptions, like trusting in the reliability of logic or the 'real-ness' of reality. Beyond those few basic assumptions, I look to those first four things I mention.

So I guess "reading" OM depends on each individual's personal experience, reasoning, and thus preferences - that doesn't sound very objective to me.