Evidence for God from Science

Banky wrote:The "proof" IS sound reasoning, but there are many assumptions that are made. The conclusion is only valid if the assumptions are valid. The correct conclusions, IMO, are 1) The universe was caused by something that exists outside of the rules that we have assigned the universe, or 2) we have assigned the wrong rules to the universe.

I have taken exception your "outside the rules" statements. Just because you only wish to accept physical rules that can be observed working, does not mean logical rules are not just as real or somehow exist "outside the rules." Furthermore, any Post modern critique would point out positivists place an awful lot of trust in their own senses and perceptions being truthful (through which they observe their truths), although according to their own standards of justification there seems to be no reason to accept our senses are giving us a correct view of reality.

Banky wrote:BTW, my first degree is in math. I appreciate the proofs you have offered and, as i've stated earlier, they are sound and logical. So don't assume that it is a lack of understainding of the proofs on my part. I understand them just fine. However, unless you want to tackle the subject of how you can simply assign a quality to one thing that is completely intangible while, at the same time deny that same quality to something else that is, quite probably, not fully understood by us, then we are at an impass.

The quality you talk of me assigning to one thing (i.e., God) I am assuming is the "timelessness" I have mentioned? I have actually dealt with why I can assign timeless to a sentient being, while this property of "timelessness" can not be assigned to a universe (unless that universe remains unchanging). If you want to explore my reasoning to make this more clear, I would perhaps suggest we focus on where I wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I believe change is only possible by the timeless "something" if it has a will to bring about change in itself (and a will requires sentience). For example, if we have a timeless universe of atoms, for that universe to really possess the quality of timelessness, all those atoms must remain static. If they did not, then there will be states before and after other states, and as such the universe is really temporal and does not ever really possess the quality of timelessness. If we have a timeless universe, it ought to be stuck forever in its static state for there is nothing in it to bring about change. On the other hand, a sentient being who has a will and power, could exist in a timeless state and then enact upon its will to change its state to enter into temporality. Thus, given temporality exists, I argue only a sentient being can be the timeless causer - the Prime Mover.

Banky wrote:I am perfectly happy to accept that both scenarios are plausible, and that one makes more sense to you than another, but I will not agree that you have *proven* the existence of a supernatural sentient diety (though "belief" in one is perfectly reasonable).

I have not set out here to prove the existence of a God, and in fact see such attempts as futile. I do not believe a magical argument exists which will change or thoroughly solidify the opinion of anyone who hears it towards a belief in God's existence.

"Proving something" is not done in isolation away from a subject who receives and weighs the argument or evidence. Whether something is "proved" is therefore something very subjective to the person receiving. If anything, the most I would hope for from my dialogue with an Atheist or Agnostic, is that their conception of all Christians being irrational, illogical and not having thought out there beliefs properly, be put to rest. Yes, you do have many who might be irrational and illogical (as with any belief system), but this does not mean all people are who are Christian or believe in God. I often find many non-Christians have a very narrow perspective of what Christians believe, and why they believe, and so they often talk to all Christians as though they are imbeciles who have never reasoned through or thought about the challenges raised since the rise of Modernity.

For example, and this is simply to show what I mean and is not intended as any sort of attack. You initially declared that to reject the universe is infinite based on the impossibility of an actual infinite, yet then believe in God who is infinite, that such is contradictory. Christians have never thought about this before, if we even think! We much prefer to just accept our beliefs regardless of whether there are contradictions right? I know it may not have been intentional, yet with your making the statement it was contradictory as though such would be a revelation, your subconscious comes through quite clearly that it believes Christians do not think through their beliefs.

Yet, what in fact happened? The burden of proof was taken up by myself, a Christian, who disagreed with your assertion that there is a contradiction. I then went about providing a solution. My whole response until perhaps the end of my last post was to reveal that this statement of yours to be wrong. Theists are not at all being contradictory when they believe an actual infinite series of cause and effect (temporality) is impossible, while believing God as the Prime Mover who is also infinite (albeit in a different sense). One must be careful not to equivocate on the term "infinite".

Kurieuo wrote:There seems to be no reason why they necessarily need to be as we experience them and so appears to be the case that they are contingent. But upon what?

Banky wrote:The uncertainty of the answer to your question does not lead to a certain answer. I think someone else on this forum called that "God in the gaps," though their use of the term applied to evolution, I believe.

Yet, this argument was put forward by Davies, a well respected Agnostic and Naturalist philosopher. Surely he does not believe in a "God of the gaps"? I also purposely left it open-ended so that if you were interested, then you could respond with a solution from your beliefs as to what you think the physical laws of our universe are contingent upon.

First of all, thank you for your considerate and informative response.

I'll snip and quip a bit for some clarification, but hope to wrap up a more complete message by the end of my reply.

Kurieuo wrote:I have taken exception your "outside the rules" statements. Just because you only wish to accept physical rules that can be observed working, does not mean logical rules are not just as real or somehow exist "outside the rules." Furthermore, any Post modern critique would point out positivists place an awful lot of trust in their own senses and perceptions being truthful (through which they observe their truths), although according to their own standards of justification there seems to be no reason to accept our senses are giving us a correct view of reality.

By "outside the rules" I was not referring to the rules of logic, I was referring to whatever qualities you believe that the universe (or even reality) must have that God is an exception to. If we were to speak about this 70 years ago, it would be too easy to use an argument about our understanding of time and the "obviousness" of how steadily progressive time is. But then following the work of Einstien and his Theory of Relativity we have come to accept that time does not follow the same "rules" that we had previously thought that it must......and these are rules that this real physical universe must follow.

Also, please explain what you mean by "positivists." You seem to assume that I am one and keep pointing out my flaws as if I was one.......I don't really like being labled and then held to the standard of that lable....especially if I don't know what the lable is.

Kurieuo wrote:Kurieuo wrote:
I believe change is only possible by the timeless "something" if it has a will to bring about change in itself (and a will requires sentience). For example, if we have a timeless universe of atoms, for that universe to really possess the quality of timelessness, all those atoms must remain static. If they did not, then there will be states before and after other states, and as such the universe is really temporal and does not ever really possess the quality of timelessness. If we have a timeless universe, it ought to be stuck forever in its static state for there is nothing in it to bring about change. On the other hand, a sentient being who has a will and power, could exist in a timeless state and then enact upon its will to change its state to enter into temporality. Thus, given temporality exists, I argue only a sentient being can be the timeless causer - the Prime Mover.

Again, I agree that it is sound reasoning, but never gets beyond the theoretical stage. IOW, I agree that it "makes sense if, in fact, it really works that way." However, you are now assigning a new rule that says it must be "timeless and unchanging, yet have the ability to change at a certain time." Again, not that that is necessarily an impossibility, only that it is a large assumption that something can exist in this manner, what that something is, what that something does, and that the universe behaves differently than that something (not to mention that the something actually spoke to moses via a burning bush, destroyed th eworld by flood because it was dissapointed, and came to Earth in human form, etc. etc........but that is a whole different topic all together).

As I'm sure you are aware, there are pleanty of scientific theories AND science fictional theories that are equally plausible.

Kurieuo wrote:I have not set out here to prove the existence of a God, and in fact see such attempts as futile. I do not believe a magical argument exists which will change or thoroughly solidify the opinion of anyone who hears it towards a belief in God's existence.

"Proving something" is not done in isolation away from a subject who receives and weighs the argument or evidence. Whether something is "proved" is therefore something very subjective to the person receiving. If anything, the most I would hope for from my dialogue with an Atheist or Agnostic, is that their conception of all Christians being irrational, illogical and not having thought out there beliefs properly, be put to rest. Yes, you do have many who might be irrational and illogical (as with any belief system), but this does not mean all people are who are Christian or believe in God. I often find many non-Christians have a very narrow perspective of what Christians believe, and why they believe, and so they often talk to all Christians as though they are imbeciles who have never reasoned through or thought about the challenges raised since the rise of Modernity.

If your goal is to show that your beliefs are reasoned and thought out, then IMO you have accomplished your goals. Perhaps I have come off too strong for you or maybe you are being too sensitive, I don't think assigning any blame will really accomplish anything.

The existence of God is based on just as many assumptions as the lack of a supernatural is. At this point one has to decide what is most reasonable to believe. I have no problem with that provided the individual accepts that a *belief* is exactly what it is, and nothing more.

The reason why this is important is because there is a strong belief out there (not necessarily by you, but by many) that athiests are bad people who hate God, therefore *choose* to defy him. I never hear them described as "stupid or uneducated," probably because many of them are succesful scientists......and also because many Christians seem to believe that the answer is "clear as day." So, by process of elimination, they conclude "hateful and defiant." As I stated before, fortunately they can't be identified by the color of their skin.

Kurieuo wrote:your subconscious comes through quite clearly that it believes Christians do not think through their beliefs.

I think you assume too much. If two people are in disagreement, then they BOTH think the other person is wrong. It's awfuly ironic for the first to *assume* prejudice from the second because their opinions differ. What then should the second assume about the first, as he is in disagreement as well?? Shall I take you at face value and conclude that you DO think that I have not thought through my beliefs? After all, you have attempted to correct my logical fallacies every bit as much as I have attempted to correct yours.

Kurieuo wrote:Yet, what in fact happened? The burden of proof was taken up by myself, a Christian, who disagreed with your assertion that there is a contradiction. I then went about providing a solution. My whole response until perhaps the end of my last post was to reveal that this statement of yours to be wrong. Theists are not at all being contradictory when they believe an actual infinite series of cause and effect (temporality) is impossible, while believing God as the Prime Mover who is also infinite (albeit in a different sense). One must be careful not to equivocate on the term "infinite".

"The burden of proof was taken up by myself....."

Shall I assume you think you are above this? Are you, like, royalty or something?

"My whole response until perhaps the end of my last post was to reveal that this statement of yours to be wrong. "

See my above statement about the irony.

"Theists are not at all being contradictory when they believe an actual infinite series of cause and effect (temporality) is impossible, while believing God as the Prime Mover who is also infinite (albeit in a different sense). "

It's not a contradiciton to conclude that it is *possible*, it is a contradicition to conclude that it is necessary. This is only the first step in the thought process. Steps 2-116 include then proving that there is exactly one creater, that he occasionally talks to people in dreams, that he came in human form, that he will send Christians to heaven but Muslims and Mormons to hell, etc.


Anyway, once again, I appreciate your in depth responses. Believe me, they are way more intelligent and thought out than I am used to. In fact, you are one of the very few people that HAVE taken the burden of proof upon themselves. I really am used to having to defend each and every missing link and gap in science in order to prove that an athiest might have a reasonable position is his beliefs, and that they don't stem from being hateful, evil, defiant, immoral people (you know.....like Carl Sagan).

Banky wrote:First of all, thank you for your considerate and informative response.

I'll snip and quip a bit for some clarification, but hope to wrap up a more complete message by the end of my reply.

Kurieuo wrote:I have taken exception your "outside the rules" statements. Just because you only wish to accept physical rules that can be observed working, does not mean logical rules are not just as real or somehow exist "outside the rules." Furthermore, any Post modern critique would point out positivists place an awful lot of trust in their own senses and perceptions being truthful (through which they observe their truths), although according to their own standards of justification there seems to be no reason to accept our senses are giving us a correct view of reality.

By "outside the rules" I was not referring to the rules of logic, I was referring to whatever qualities you believe that the universe (or even reality) must have that God is an exception to. If we were to speak about this 70 years ago, it would be too easy to use an argument about our understanding of time and the "obviousness" of how steadily progressive time is. But then following the work of Einstien and his Theory of Relativity we have come to accept that time does not follow the same "rules" that we had previously thought that it must......and these are rules that this real physical universe must follow.

Also, please explain what you mean by "positivists." You seem to assume that I am one and keep pointing out my flaws as if I was one.......I don't really like being labled and then held to the standard of that lable....especially if I don't know what the lable is.

Hopefully it was not thought my desire was to simply label you into a position to dismiss your beliefs. Yet, by constantly referring to my logical arguments as talking of things "outside the rules", it appeared to me that you only wish to accept only what can be observed. It was not my intention to label you a Positivist for the purpose of pointing out "flaws." However, you certainly do appear to be oriented towards Positivism which contends "that sense perceptions are the only admissible basis of human knowledge and precise thought." I take exception with this position which would deny the validity of reasoning about metaphysics to produce truth about reality.

Banky wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Kurieuo wrote:
I believe change is only possible by the timeless "something" if it has a will to bring about change in itself (and a will requires sentience). For example, if we have a timeless universe of atoms, for that universe to really possess the quality of timelessness, all those atoms must remain static. If they did not, then there will be states before and after other states, and as such the universe is really temporal and does not ever really possess the quality of timelessness. If we have a timeless universe, it ought to be stuck forever in its static state for there is nothing in it to bring about change. On the other hand, a sentient being who has a will and power, could exist in a timeless state and then enact upon its will to change its state to enter into temporality. Thus, given temporality exists, I argue only a sentient being can be the timeless causer - the Prime Mover.

Again, I agree that it is sound reasoning, but never gets beyond the theoretical stage. IOW, I agree that it "makes sense if, in fact, it really works that way." However, you are now assigning a new rule that says it must be "timeless and unchanging, yet have the ability to change at a certain time." Again, not that that is necessarily an impossibility, only that it is a large assumption that something can exist in this manner, what that something is, what that something does, and that the universe behaves differently than that something (not to mention that the something actually spoke to moses via a burning bush, destroyed th eworld by flood because it was dissapointed, and came to Earth in human form, etc. etc........but that is a whole different topic all together).

I would much prefer to say I am using logical rules of deduction to say it (the beginner) must be timeless and as such unchanging. The assumptions involved in my premises deal with accepted pieces of reality, such as, we exist inside a universe where time exists as such that cause and effect happens. Everything else is a deduced from this one premise using logic.

Banky wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:The reason why this is important is because there is a strong belief out there (not necessarily by you, but by many) that athiests are bad people who hate God, therefore *choose* to defy him. I never hear them described as "stupid or uneducated," probably because many of them are succesful scientists......and also because many Christians seem to believe that the answer is "clear as day." So, by process of elimination, they conclude "hateful and defiant." As I stated before, fortunately they can't be identified by the color of their skin.

I think you are down-playing somewhat the distaste for God and those who believe God exists. There is certainly a disgust towards believing in God, which gets expressed through books by predominant Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens, and the unquestioning applause or support such people receive through the media and many of their persuasion. Many Christians in my experience do not think Atheists are all bad people, but understand they can be just as good and even more moral than many Christians. Yet, there is no denying there exists a disgust towards belief in God being recorded through a long line of predominant non-believers like Kant, Freud, Nietsche, Russell and great deal others.

Banky wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:your subconscious comes through quite clearly that it believes Christians do not think through their beliefs.

I think you assume too much. If two people are in disagreement, then they BOTH think the other person is wrong. It's awfuly ironic for the first to *assume* prejudice from the second because their opinions differ. What then should the second assume about the first, as he is in disagreement as well?? Shall I take you at face value and conclude that you DO think that I have not thought through my beliefs? After all, you have attempted to correct my logical fallacies every bit as much as I have attempted to correct yours.

Consider your following statement:

Banky wrote:1) The Prime Mover Argument (which is what you are referring to) is self contradictory. The logic follows that something must have been the first cause because nothing can be infinite, and then assigns that first cause to "God." However, the concept of an infinite God leads to a logical fallacy. If nothing can be infinite, then neither can God. If *something* can be infinite, then there's no need for a first cause.

Does this not presume that the argument in question is obviously contradictory? And if so, an implication seems to be that Theists continue believing in God despite problems with their logic, that is, they are irrational. On the other hand, if it was assumed Christians may be rational and have thought through such challenges, then a question would have been posed like: "How do you resolve the apparent contradiction in the Prime Mover Argument that..." The question format shows a respect for our rationality, that we don't necessarily believe in spite of evidence and logic, but rather that such challenges may have been thought through and had responses generated.

Certainly the stereotype of the irrationality of those who believe in God may be subtle or perhaps non-existent to you, but it is something that I see evidentially shows itself consciousness of our society. Science is considered an Atheist affair today, but never mind that many Christians also practice science, and that its foundations actually appear to be laid by Christians. This stereotype is one reason why people such as C. Hitchen's says, "atheism is in my view only a necessary condition for clarity of mind." He just follows a long trend of non-believers who set the stage for perceiving believers in God's existence as irrational and merely wishful thinkers. Such shows a contempt towards, and an unwillingness to dialogue and listen to, the rational responses and arguments that have always been produced by Theists.

Banky wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Yet, what in fact happened? The burden of proof was taken up by myself, a Christian, who disagreed with your assertion that there is a contradiction. I then went about providing a solution. My whole response until perhaps the end of my last post was to reveal that this statement of yours to be wrong. Theists are not at all being contradictory when they believe an actual infinite series of cause and effect (temporality) is impossible, while believing God as the Prime Mover who is also infinite (albeit in a different sense). One must be careful not to equivocate on the term "infinite".

"The burden of proof was taken up by myself....."

Shall I assume you think you are above this? Are you, like, royalty or something?

No. The intention of my comments appear lost on you. I am only one of many Christians, even quite insignificant when compared to a great deal of other Christian thinkers, who do not fit the stereotype of an irrational, non-thinking person who believes in spite of evidence.

Banky wrote:"Theists are not at all being contradictory when they believe an actual infinite series of cause and effect (temporality) is impossible, while believing God as the Prime Mover who is also infinite (albeit in a different sense). "

It's not a contradiciton to conclude that it is *possible*, it is a contradicition to conclude that it is necessary. This is only the first step in the thought process. Steps 2-116 include then proving that there is exactly one creater, that he occasionally talks to people in dreams, that he came in human form, that he will send Christians to heaven but Muslims and Mormons to hell, etc.

Contradiction means two opposites are considered to be true at the same time. The Prime Mover argument, which is what you initially said was clearly contradictory, is not concerned about your "Steps 2-116" of weighing different faiths. Such steps are irrelevant to the Prime Mover argument which you initially declared was contradictory.

Banky wrote:Anyway, once again, I appreciate your in depth responses. Believe me, they are way more intelligent and thought out than I am used to. In fact, you are one of the very few people that HAVE taken the burden of proof upon themselves. I really am used to having to defend each and every missing link and gap in science in order to prove that an athiest might have a reasonable position is his beliefs, and that they don't stem from being hateful, evil, defiant, immoral people (you know.....like Carl Sagan).

Yet, by constantly referring to my logical arguments as talking of things "outside the rules", it appeared to me that you only wish to accept only what can be observed.

I can't, for the life of me, figure out why you think it appears that way. That is not at all what I have stated.

1st off, the problem is not with your "logic." The logic you use works just fine. The problem is the contingency that you base your argument on is a GIANT assumption. The entire contingency leading you to conclude that there IS a God (not that God is possible, but that you have proven that he is a certainty) is that there is a "rule".....not a rule of logic, but a rule of nature....a rule of physics...a rule of reality...a rule that this universe must follow........it is this very rule/quality/attribute that you are assuming that the universe does not posses, based entirely on what YOU can observe, that leads you to a conclusion in a supernatural sentient diety that has created the universe.

Perhaps it is the fact that I called the argument a "contadiction" when instead I should have said that it was continegnt on unverifiable assumptions. If that is the crux, then lets move past that.

The real irony, IMO, is that these contingencies are based entirely on, "well, duh, of course things work this way," yet the counter argument to the idea that a Christian God is not necessary to the existence of the universe is, "you wish to accept only what can be observed."

This entire time I have argued that the complete physical properties of the universe are beyond our understanding, thus to make an assumption about what MUST exist based on how you *perceive* the universe from your vantage point, simply does not hold water.

Again, you have simply assigned a quality to the universe and then conviently allowed God to be exempt from that quality. If God can be non-temporal, and then all of the sudden temporal, why do you deny that quality to the universe? If it is because you *observe* the universe to be only temporal, then I'll kindly refer you to your own quote above.

Regarding Hitchens and Dawkins, they don't work for me.

1st off, the problem is not with your "logic." The logic you use works just fine. The problem is the contingency that you base your argument on is a GIANT assumption. The entire contingency leading you to conclude that there IS a God (not that God is possible, but that you have proven that he is a certainty) is that there is a "rule".....not a rule of logic, but a rule of nature....a rule of physics...a rule of reality...a rule that this universe must follow........it is this very rule/quality/attribute that you are assuming that the universe does not posses, based entirely on what YOU can observe, that leads you to a conclusion in a supernatural sentient diety that has created the universe.

It is just as much a giant assumption as claiming Gods existence and claiming there is no God. There is simply good reason to believe in God, the logic implies that a creation would leave good clues for the creators existence, in terms of the physical properties. You seem to be stating the same old thing, as many here before you have stated, and will undoubtabely repeat . It IS ofcourse based on observation, but that is not directly limited to Keurio's or my observations, the observations to form a hypothesis or evidence surrounding God's existence is not subject to 100 percent scientific evidence, but is subject to much more than that.

The real irony, IMO, is that these contingencies are based entirely on, "well, duh, of course things work this way," yet the counter argument to the idea that a Christian God is not necessary to the existence of the universe is, "you wish to accept only what can be observed."

If you base everything on physical observations, then you have definetely fallen out of physical reality. Can my next thought or feelings be measured physically? Can a complex cell performing a incredibly improbable task be subject to physical fluff, or is it subject to much more than that? Can the human mind be recognized as a matter of emitting brain waves, and nothing more? In terms of observation, observations especially scientific ones and philosophical ones end up leading to a conclusion, not absolute however. The key thing here is that it is the choice and not the actual evidence that will base the faith of the individual. You may not believe in Gods existence for x reason, but that is still a reason, in your case, the reason is to accept only physical observations, and if physical observations indicate design patterns, then design is omitted as well.

This entire time I have argued that the complete physical properties of the universe are beyond our understanding, thus to make an assumption about what MUST exist based on how you *perceive* the universe from your vantage point, simply does not hold water.

Once again, why does science HAVE to base the faith of an individual in God? It is the human mind that (the supposed creation of God) that is the only known element in the Universe that struggles to explain why we are here, what is our purpose, why there is even the idea of a God). The bible is the ONLY source that explains these with good reasoning, and meanwhile science is trying explaining the impossible, which is what you stated: the complete physical properties of the universe, which will most likely never be known, as time and physical constraints will probably not allow us to know.

If you base everything on physical observations.........

For the FIFTH time, I have not nor have I ever stated that I did. Kurieuo, and now you, keep telling me that I do. I can't tell if this is simply a gross misunderstanding, if if you are cleverly (or not so cleverly) using politician style debate tactics. As usual, I will assume the better of the two scenarios, but you continue to build a strawman argument.

To be fair, I have not read Hitchens or Dawkins, but I have read Harris. The arguments that he makes against the belief in God is not what you are arguing against. It is just as incorrect as it is to reduce evolution to "randomness" and then discuss the odds of molecules "randomly" falling in place to create humans. It's an argument that is irrelevant to the points being made.


The real funny thing is just the other day I heard a Hindu on the radio who was just as certain about his beliefs as you are of yours. He TOO had proof........and his very first sentence began with, "If you accept that...........then you must conclude....."

You can prove ANYTHING given the right contingency, and this is where ALL philsophical proofs colapse. To assume A in order to prove B is no differnet than assuming B in the first place.

Kurieuo has assumed a certain temporal quality of the universe. You have assumed that the Bible is the evidence that God has left for us to know his existence. They are both assumptions......which is why it is called a "belief."

You guys are not gonna continue this? it was interesting. I learn better with debates.

God bless

TFC

Banky,

I won't pretend to be as precise and astute in this filed as is Kurieuo. He can speak for himself obviously and very well so this is just my two cents.

There probably is a little confusion as to positions taking place here. I think where some of the confusion may be coming in is as follows:

1. We get a steady stream from time to time of the more militant variety of atheists a la Dawkins and crew through here and many of the points and articles we maintain are skewed in that direction.

2. Many of the atheists we have come through here do adopt a purely materialistic point of view, which in effect declares that only that which is physical, observable, measurable etc. can be used as a basis to establish truth or reality.

If I can reflect back a little on what I'm hearing here in order to be fair, I believe you are stating that this is not your position. You are affirming that there are and must be presuppositions and/or a framework established outside of that which is strictly material in order to interpret that which is in the universe. As such, I hear you saying that you would believe that to assume the existance of God in that framework is an option but that you do not see it qualitatively as necessary.

You didn't raise it but I think what I'm hearing in the background is perhaps an appeal to the principal of Occam's Razor, (the simplest explanation with the fewest contingencies available is to be preferred over more complex ones).

Frankly, as a believer, I don't have a problem philisophically with what you're saying, although obviously I've come to different conclusions than you have. In the matter of first causes, by definition the cause would not be limited to the framework of the results. Therefore, to my understanding, the appeal to simplicity is more a reflection of our observable universe back upon the question than a particularly salient point, but that, of course, is a qualitative assumption on my part rather than anything that is purely logical or demonstrable to a skeptic's satisfaction.

I'm sure this lacks specificity and please feel free to clarify if I've done your position any injustice.

I think it is fair to say, by my observation anyway, that even most atheists, and certainly not the more militant ant-religious lot as of late, don't really have a strong grasp on that level as to what the mechanics of their belief system are. Of course, most Christians don't as well, but in fairness, much of the philosophy and development of this type of thinking and categorizing finds its roots and development from Christian Philosophers many times.

Just as an aside that may be better dealt with on another thread, how familiar are you with Antony Flew and his recent "conversion" from Atheism to a form of Deistic Theism?

Bart

Banky wrote:

If you base everything on physical observations.........

For the FIFTH time, I have not nor have I ever stated that I did. Kurieuo, and now you, keep telling me that I do. I can't tell if this is simply a gross misunderstanding, if if you are cleverly (or not so cleverly) using politician style debate tactics. As usual, I will assume the better of the two scenarios, but you continue to build a strawman argument.

I really do not see how we keep on telling you that you base everything on physical observations, but I do find it curious you do not deny such. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it often is a duck.

In any case, what is wrong with basing beliefs on physical observations? I have only made mere mention that you appear to have been a positivist, and yet you appear to take a sharp exception to it. So I am left wondering why you do, since I do base a lot of my own beliefs on what I observe, and even scientific observation. Clever, or not clever, political style tactics, or not, I do not really see what the exact issue is with which you are taking exception. I just thought I was entering into a discussion, and now I have completed what I set out to do - to show the First Cause argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite is not contradictory for the reason you gave - I really do not see any point in further pursuing this topic of discussion.

Banky wrote:The real funny thing is just the other day I heard a Hindu on the radio who was just as certain about his beliefs as you are of yours. He TOO had proof........and his very first sentence began with, "If you accept that...........then you must conclude....."

You can prove ANYTHING given the right contingency, and this is where ALL philsophical proofs colapse. To assume A in order to prove B is no differnet than assuming B in the first place.

Kurieuo has assumed a certain temporal quality of the universe. You have assumed that the Bible is the evidence that God has left for us to know his existence. They are both assumptions......which is why it is called a "belief."

I am really shocked to hear that people who enter into rational forms of enquiry can hold to different opinions. Maybe this is actually where philosophical proofs shine? For arguments are presented for, arguments are presented against, and in the end we each weigh which side we find more convincing. This certainly seems more epistemologically beneficial to me than believing both sides are wrong (or equal) if rational arguments exist on both sides, and as such, I do not have to put forward any justification for my own beliefs even if freely criticising every other position I disagree with.

Why not simply believe that the universe itself is God and the big bang is the majestic expression of God itself. This removes any need for a creator since the creation and the creator is one and the same. If you think about it long enough and are able to accept that we are all part of God then it resolves alot of difficult questions. Doesn't necessarily fit in with the Bible's idea of a separate deity however.

Elastic wrote:Why not simply believe that the universe itself is God and the big bang is the majestic expression of God itself. This removes any need for a creator since the creation and the creator is one and the same. If you think about it long enough and are able to accept that we are all part of God then it resolves alot of difficult questions. Doesn't necessarily fit in with the Bible's idea of a separate deity however.

I think you answered your own question there, didn't you?

The Bible was written by people in a different time with a limited understanding of the universe. When Jesus said that he was the son of God he was misunderstood. He recognised that each of us are the sons and daughters of this majestic creation called the universe.

Elastic wrote:The Bible was written by people in a different time with a limited understanding of the universe. When Jesus said that he was the son of God he was misunderstood. He recognised that each of us are the sons and daughters of this majestic creation called the universe.

The Bible was written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in a different time within the context of the understanding of the time which in terms of today is by no means deficient to meet the purpose it was written to address. When Jesus said that he was the Son of God those hearing him understood very clearly what he was saying. That is why many took up stones to stone Him for what they believed was blasphemy and why charges were brought against Him which led to his crucifiction.

Each of us are made in the image of God, but sadly that image has been marred by sin. Jesus atoning death and resurrection are the means by which God redeems and adopts sons and daughters to him. Apart from that, there are elements of common grace that tie to the original image conferred to us, but Jesus knew exactly what he was saying when in the Scriptures he boldly proclaimes in John 14:6 "I am the Way, the Truth and the life. No one comes to the Father, except through me."

If you wish to continue this discussion further, I recommend you read the board purpose and discussion guidelines. Feel free to message me or any of the board moderators if you need further clarification.

Bart

Elastic wrote:Why not simply believe that the universe itself is God and the big bang is the majestic expression of God itself. This removes any need for a creator since the creation and the creator is one and the same. If you think about it long enough and are able to accept that we are all part of God then it resolves alot of difficult questions. Doesn't necessarily fit in with the Bible's idea of a separate deity however.

If everything is God then there is no God, is what you are saying. But if there is no God what caused the universe? The creator and the creation cannot be the same thing. Something that is created cannot create itself, because it means that it has to exist before it exists so that it can create itself. So there has to be an uncaused cause, or we face infinite regression, which still does not solve the problem.

Elastic wrote:Why not simply believe that the universe itself is God and the big bang is the majestic expression of God itself. This removes any need for a creator since the creation and the creator is one and the same. If you think about it long enough and are able to accept that we are all part of God then it resolves alot of difficult questions. Doesn't necessarily fit in with the Bible's idea of a separate deity however.

To ask the most obvious and I think important question - what do you mean when you say "the universe"? Secondly, what qualities for you make "it" God?