The Hat of Love wrote:
@Mator - You're pretty good at this debating thing but I'll see what I can come up with.
Whai thank you kind Hat person!
The Hat of Love wrote:
So, I'm glad you accept the science, the evolution and everything. It bugs me when theists refuse to accept all this stuff, backed up, and just cite the Bible for everything.
Bugs me a bit too.
The Hat of Love wrote:
Your post is really interesting though. I do think that atheists do generally need evidence to have certainty - I, certainly, am not going to believe something solely on faith. So you tell me to look to myself for certainty. But, you know what, I look at the world, and the universe, and all these people and I think it's perfectly believable that no higher power was involved. The universe began (we don't know how (yet)) and from there everything's pretty simple, the way matter forms the elements in the nuclear fusion reactors of the stars, the way accretion disks form themselves into planets, the way life began (several different theories) and how evolution has taken us so far.
But a lot of things in science and philosophy require faith before evidence can be found. Faith is a reality of life. Sometimes you don't have all the information necessary to come to a conclusion regarding a certain issue, and must stretch yourself in order to come to some conclusion or another. Some people say this is where "Occam's razor" comes in, which states that the simplest solution to the issue is likely the correct one. This may be so, and if it is I would say that God is the simplest solution/explanation to universal order/origins.
I agree with you every step of the way on the Universe's origins. Big bang, formation of stars, thermonuclear furnaces in stars form new elements through nuclear fusion of simple elements such as Hydrogen, stars supernova and become either black holes or stardust, heavier elements get scattered across the universe, gather around younger stars and form accretion disks, matter in the accretion disks is brought together by gravity (and whatever other forces are at play), planets form, some planets are in the goldilocks zone... etc.
However, when I look at this, I don't see a universe which is governed only by the laws of science, I see a beautiful order to the universe, and the mark of a creator. Maybe you have to look deeper to find this, but for me the cosmic beauty of the universe is enough to imply the existence of God.
The Hat of Love wrote:
All our emotions, our thoughts, ourselves can come about by evolution - natural selection has picked these things, our compassion, for example, as the best things to help us and our species survive. That's what I see, it's the 'Truth' as far as I know.
But why this path? And do these things really help our species to survive? I'm sure you can come about some difficult-to-construe connection between our survival and any trait I can come up with. I'm sure you can negate the origin of religious beliefs to any sort of psychological phenomena. However, in the end, when primitive man looked up into the primitive night sky and saw the stars circling above, he felt awe and inspiration. Though we can explain now that these stars are sizzling hot balls of gas/fire that are many light years away from us, there are still so many things which we can't explain. I'm not saying that the lack of explanation for certain phenomenon should lead us to turn to a ridiculous assertion that is God, but that, from the very beginning, we have felt dwarfed by the scale of the world, and now the universe. For all the scientific explanations we can offer, some things cannot be objectively quantified. (Like the human mind, for instance. See the discussions regarding Philosophy of Mind that have been ongoing over the past 4 centuries).
Science is a great tool and one which I love with all my heart, but I also recognize that the world is not just as science describes it. I recognize that, as a conscious creature with emotions, hopes, and fears, there is something more to this reality than atomic nuclei, quarks, leptons, and bosons. I recognize that there is Truth in this universe, and that Truth is immutable, integral, and incredible. Truth leads to order, and order leads to God.
Everything we do in science assumes order in the world. We look at data and we search for some order which governs it. But why is there order? We assume in science that the universe is ordered, but if the universe is free from the force of any greater being such as we might describe as God, then why would order ever prevail? For every state of order that exists there are an infinite number of states of disorder in between. If we consider the birth of the universe a random event, then it is impossible for the universe to have been created with order.
There is only one argument I know of to this which I have presented, and that is that we exist in a universe with order, so order is present in the universe. This, I feel, returns the argument from a level of cognizant speculation to a certain level of perceptual realization. I feel this is fallacious, but you're free to have whatever stance you wish on it. I have no real argument as to why our existence doesn't imply universal order... yet.
The Hat of Love wrote:
If you weren't brought up by theists, would you still believe what you believe today? Because most religionists have parents who are religionists, they've been brought up to believe in something beyond this world, a higher power. If everyone always had been atheists and you'd been brought up to believe solely in the science, I think you'd believe, like I do, that the world and its people and its beauty can come about naturally, without influence from whatever we conceive God to be.
Probably not! That doesn't make it any less true though. I might hope with all my might that I would have some understanding of the truth as I do today, for I believe what I consider the truth today is true, but no amount of yearning can change the fact that in a possible world in which I wasn't brought up by theists or surrounded by spiritual ideas I may have not come to the beliefs which I have today.
It can't really be said that a world in which a purely atheistic society exists any individual would not have spiritual hypotheses or thoughts. I could in fact argue that, if what I believe is true, we all have a deep yearning to discover spiritual truth. In this way I could purport that a purely atheistic society could not exist for long, for I would state that it is human nature to believe in something supernatural. I could go as far to say that it is in our blood, our DNA (ok, maybe not DNA, but possibly implied by society as formed according to behaviors inadvertently created from our genetic structure?). It's who we are. Of course, I don't really have any direct evidence of this because I can't really create a whole world in which everyone has no belief in God to perform any tests, can I? So this is, in the end, a useless hypothetical situation.
To finish, something I'd like to note which is a subtlety of definition which a lot of people are unaware of. Atheist means you are aware of the notion of theism (the idea of there being a God), and have chosen to hold the belief/theory that such a God does not exist. That is to say, your "religion" is "God is an idea created by man and has no real standing in the world. This is what I believe." I personally find atheism to be highly ironic, for it negates the idea of something that cannot be proven by asserting another belief which cannot be proven (the non-existence of that thing). For this reason I don't really respect people who call themselves "atheists" so much as I respect people who call themselves "agnostics" (these are people who have decided they cannot be certain of God existing or not existing, and thus believe in neither, leaving them on some sort of middle ground.)
You're free to call your beliefs however you wish, but I just wanted to let you know that "atheism" is rather ironic, at least, in my opinion.
Edited by Mator on 06/29/2012 13:00:37
But a lot of things in science and philosophy require faith before evidence can be found. Faith is a reality of life. Sometimes you don't have all the information necessary to come to a conclusion regarding a certain issue, and must stretch yourself in order to come to some conclusion or another. Some people say this is where "Occam's razor" comes in, which states that the simplest solution to the issue is likely the correct one. This may be so, and if it is I would say that God is the simplest solution/explanation to universal order/origins.
Sometimes we don't have all the information necessary, correct. In these situations we have to choose the most likely option, based on the information that we do have. For you, this would appear to be God. For me, God, like Ninja said, complicates things. It's a simpler explanation, the scientific one, I think/
However, when I look at this, I don't see a universe which is governed only by the laws of science, I see a beautiful order to the universe, and the mark of a creator. Maybe you have to look deeper to find this, but for me the cosmic beauty of the universe is enough to imply the existence of God.
I disagree with you there, I think that nature on its own is enough to be beautiful. the universe has unfolded from its beginnings and created something which we consider to be beautiful. It can, as we've established, be created by science, physics, etc. so why should God be involved at all? We consider it beautiful, but why is nature on its own incapable of creating beauty?
But why this path? And do these things really help our species to survive? I'm sure you can come about some difficult-to-construe connection between our survival and any trait I can come up with. I'm sure you can negate the origin of religious beliefs to any sort of psychological phenomena. However, in the end, when primitive man looked up into the primitive night sky and saw the stars circling above, he felt awe and inspiration. Though we can explain now that these stars are sizzling hot balls of gas/fire that are many light years away from us, there are still so many things which we can't explain. I'm not saying that the lack of explanation for certain phenomenon should lead us to turn to a ridiculous assertion that is God, but that, from the very beginning, we have felt dwarfed by the scale of the world, and now the universe. For all the scientific explanations we can offer, some things cannot be objectively quantified. (Like the human mind, for instance. See the discussions regarding Philosophy of Mind that have been ongoing over the past 4 centuries).
No, I probably can't explain everything. I did read somewhere about how emotions like envy, sympathy and guilt would have helped us and our group survive, but I can't remember the explanation. And again, just because I can't explain it, doesn't mean there's not an explanation.
I think the human mind can be quantified, theoretically. It's just that at the moment we don't understand it. I believe (and this comes back to the first point I made about using what information we have) that the human mind can evolve to what it is today.
Science is a great tool and one which I love with all my heart, but I also recognize that the world is not just as science describes it.
It's not as we describe it with science.
Everything we do in science assumes order in the world. We look at data and we search for some order which governs it. But why is there order? We assume in science that the universe is ordered, but if the universe is free from the force of any greater being such as we might describe as God, then why would order ever prevail? For every state of order that exists there are an infinite number of states of disorder in between. If we consider the birth of the universe a random event, then it is impossible for the universe to have been created with order.
Order would prevail because without order it's unlikely that the world(s) we have would develop. Without constant laws of physics, etc., if gravity decided to reverse every Tuesday or something, would we have all this?
Probably not! That doesn't make it any less true though. I might hope with all my might that I would have some understanding of the truth as I do today, for I believe what I consider the truth today is true, but no amount of yearning can change the fact that in a possible world in which I wasn't brought up by theists or surrounded by spiritual ideas I may have not come to the beliefs which I have today.
I have grown up having discussed this kind of thing very little with my family. My mum once mentioned that she believed there was some greater power (but then she believes a lot of things) but that's it. Coming from this background, I've been able to make my mind up older; I only really started thinking about it at about 15, when I'm more able to make a better decision.
It can't really be said that a world in which a purely atheistic society exists any individual would not have spiritual hypothesis or thoughts. I could in fact argue that, if what I believe is true, we all have a deep yearning to discover spiritual truth. In this way I could purport that a purely atheistic society could not exist for long, for I would state that it is human nature to believe in something supernatural. I could go as far to say that it is in our blood, our DNA. It's who we are. Of course, I don't really have any direct evidence of this because I can't really create a whole world in which every has no belief in God to perform any tests, can I? So this is, in the end, a useless hypothetical situation.
Exactly - it's our nature to want to believe in something. That is why we created God. We once had an atheist society I imagine but one day we decided that we wanted to believe in something and God was created. That is the origin of God and that is why, once we get rid of that instinct of believing in something higher we can see more clearly that the world probably is just as it appears, with no God.
To finish, something I'd like to note which is a subtly of definition which a lot of people are unaware of. Atheist means you are aware of the notion of theism (the idea of there being a God), and have chosen to hold the belief/theory that such a God does not exist. That is to say, your "religion" is "God is an idea created by man and has no real standing in the world. This is what I believe." I personally find atheism to be highly ironic, for it negates the idea of something that cannot be proven by asserting another belief which cannot be proven (the non-existence of that thing). For this reason I don't really respect people who call themselves "atheists" so much as I respect people who call themselves "agnostics" (these are people who have decided they cannot be certain of God existing or not existing, and thus believe in neither, leaving them on some sort of middle ground.)
You're free to call your beliefs however you wish, but I just wanted to let you know that "atheism" is rather ironic, at least, in my opinion.
Well, we're basically saying 'there is no God.' That's what being an atheist is about, by definition. You can turn this around and say that theists, by definition, don't believe in the belief that is atheism because they believe in God. Theists say to atheists that the existence of God can not be proven while believing in something that also can not be proven. It's more subtle, but the principal is still there.
It also comes back to that first point - let's use the information we have to come to the most likely solution. That brings us to the probability that God doesn't exist.
my signature broke, here is a fox snek:
The Hat of Love wrote:
Sometimes we don't have all the information necessary, correct. In these situations we have to choose the most likely option, based on the information that we do have. For you, this would appear to be God. For me, God, like Ninja said, complicates things. It's a simpler explanation, the scientific one, I think?
And here we disagree.
The Hat of Love wrote:
I disagree with you there, I think that nature on its own is enough to be beautiful. the universe has unfolded from its beginnings and created something which we consider to be beautiful. It can, as we've established, be created by science, physics, etc. so why should God be involved at all? We consider it beautiful, but why is nature on its own incapable of creating beauty?
But can it? Really, in the end, can the most foundational laws of physics lead to creation of such beauty? I dunno, I suppose you could purport that it is some ephemeral thing called "nature", but I feel that cold and simple laws cannot yield a universe such as that in which we live.
The Hat of Love wrote:
No, I probably can't explain everything. I did read somewhere about how emotions like envy, sympathy and guilt would have helped us and our group survive, but I can't remember the explanation. And again, just because I can't explain it, doesn't mean there's not an explanation.
This is true. But for the explaining you do do you really actually get anywhere closer to the truth of the matter? This is making me think about Nagel's "What is it like to be a Bat?", a philosophy of mind paper.
The Hat of Love wrote:
I think the human mind can be quantified, theoretically. It's just that at the moment we don't understand it. I believe (and this comes back to the first point I made about using what information we have) that the human mind can evolve to what it is today.
Philosopher's of Mind disagree on the first point. The quantification of the human mind may not be attainable.
I'm not sure if I agree on the second point. When I purport the work of God, I only mean to say that there is some force which guides certain processes of the universe which is distinctly supernatural, benevolent, and intelligent. The way in which this God guides these processes is through his toolset, those physical phenomena which are visible to us and recognized by us through science.
The Hat of Love wrote:
It's not as we describe it with science.
I don't think it's even necessary to introduce ourselves into the equation. Science is an objective approach to a non-objective reality. All throughout physics we are forced to assume certain things about systems, about the universe. Things about order, gauge, etc. This becomes distinctly philosophical at a certain point, and has led to the introduction of Philosophy of Physics (one of my favorite courses from freshman year). I feel that these quirks in reality demonstrate the cracks in the facade that is science. We continue to have to introduce more and more illogical ideas into science to try to maintain the objective mathematical order which we seek. We claim that this is just the nature of reality, that it's alien nature is only due to the fact that we are slow-moving, medium-sized creatures (and thus think about things from the perspective of our environment). I claim that science cannot give a complete picture of reality. This isn't to say that a unified physical "theory of everything" is impossible, but rather that science can never explain the entirety of the universe. Hell, according to physics we don't even know if we're in some shadow-of-a-universe.
The Hat of Love wrote:
Order would prevail because without order it's unlikely that the world(s) we have would develop. Without constant laws of physics, etc., if gravity decided to reverse every Tuesday or something, would we have all this?
This is the counterargument I presented to my own argument. I disagree with it because it is, in some sense, begging the question (it's distinctly circular).
A lot of people will claim fallacies in an argument for the existence of God, but there are equally many fallacies in any argument against the existence of God.
The Hat of Love wrote:
Exactly - it's our nature to want to believe in something. That is why we created God. We once had an atheist society I imagine but one day we decided that we wanted to believe in something and God was created. That is the origin of God and that is why, once we get rid of that instinct of believing in something higher we can see more clearly that the world probably is just as it appears, with no God.
I feel that because it's in our nature it must have some shred of truth to it, that's why I was bringing it up. If it is in our nature to believe in something supernatural then couldn't that be the work of something supernatural?
I doubt you can get rid of the "instinct" because it is not an instinct, but rather an intellectual dilemma with no solution save faith in some sort of impossible to prove idea or another.
How does the idea of God obscure the world? I suppose it may have in the past, but my personal beliefs in regards to God do not obscure anything at all. I personally feel that God clarifies the world and establishes the truth which I know to be true, that there is a higher order by which our lives are governed, truth.
The Hat of Love wrote:
Well, we're basically saying 'there is no God.' That's what being an atheist is about, by definition. You can turn this around and say that theists, by definition, don't believe in the belief that is atheism because they believe in God. Theists say to atheists that the existence of God can not be proven while believing in something that also can not be proven. It's more subtle, but the principal is still there.
I'm not saying that theism is not something that is difficult to believe, I'm saying that atheism is actually quite similar to theism, and those who claim to be atheists are guilty of the very logical "sin" which they claim to be the greatest problem with theism, lack of evidence/certainty. The fact of the matter is, both atheism and theism are matters of faith.
Mator wrote:
I'm not saying that theism is not something that is difficult to believe, I'm saying that atheism is actually quite similar to theism, and those who claim to be atheists are guilty of the very logical "sin" which they claim to be the greatest problem with theism, lack of evidence/certainty. The fact of the matter is, both atheism and theism are matters of faith.
Looked at from a certain (perhaps overly pessimistic) perspective, we can't really know anything. I think you've already mentioned Cartesian Doubt - a strong philosophy in the sense that it's pretty much irrefutable, but it leaves us stranded. It's important to make some (as rational as possible) assumptions about the world around us. I believe that I'm sitting, typing at a computer but I could well be a brain in a vat, wired up to a computer of an evil genius in a 6-dimensional universe. The former, besides being much more practical, appeals to me as the more likely scenario.
I don't think that God's existence is a rational assumption to be made about the universe. We should try not to accept hypotheses without decent grounds to support them. The logical conclusion to draw from uncertainty about the existence of something unknowable and unprovable is, surely, to doubt its truth.
You probably haven't read the previous posts in this debate, but I invite you to read this extract from an earlier post of mine about the difference between arguing for the proposal of a hypothesis and denying it.
ninja wrote:
The trouble here is, it's not up to the atheist to prove God doesn't exist. A classic demonstration of this is Russell's teapot. It would be pointless paraphrasing Bertrand Russell's argument, so I quote:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Replace the teapot with any figment of the imagination, and the argument still stands. Consider God and you'll see that the burden of proof lies not with the atheists but with the theists who propose the existence of God.
Mator wrote:
But a lot of things in science and philosophy require faith before evidence can be found. Faith is a reality of life. Sometimes you don't have all the information necessary to come to a conclusion regarding a certain issue, and must stretch yourself in order to come to some conclusion or another. Some people say this is where "Occam's razor" comes in, which states that the simplest solution to the issue is likely the correct one. This may be so, and if it is I would say that God is the simplest solution/explanation to universal order/origins.
I agree with you every step of the way on the Universe's origins. Big bang, formation of stars, thermonuclear furnaces in stars form new elements through nuclear fusion of simple elements such as Hydrogen, stars supernova and become either black holes or stardust, heavier elements get scattered across the universe, gather around younger stars and form accretion disks, matter in the accretion disks is brought together by gravity (and whatever other forces are at play), planets form, some planets are in the goldilocks zone... etc.
However, when I look at this, I don't see a universe which is governed only by the laws of science, I see a beautiful order to the universe, and the mark of a creator. Maybe you have to look deeper to find this, but for me the cosmic beauty of the universe is enough to imply the existence of God.
"[T]he simplest solution to the issue is likely the correct one. This may be so, and if it is I would say that God is the simplest solution/explanation to universal order/origins."
The trouble with this is that God isn't actually a simple solution to the origins of the universe. It simply begs another, even more difficult-to-answer question: what are the origins of God?
Again, I wrote a response to Josh earlier, to which he hasn't yet replied. Perhaps you could indulge me by attempting to explain?
ninja wrote:
You say that the God approach "seems more logical". You think it's unlikely that life happened to come about on Earth and that it evolved into what we can experience today.
You'd be right in thinking that the chances of life coming into existence on any particular planet are pretty slim. But there are billions upon billions of planets and we're talking on a huge time scale, so it was bound to happen. Evolution itself isn't even effected by chance, so you can't really say it's unlikely.
But the real question to ask is ... is the God 'explanation' more likely? No.
Josh, let's indulge you for a minute and pretend that God does in fact exist and that he created the world in 6 days or whatever.
Now, 6 days really isn't a very long time to do such a vast amount of things. Clearly, according to Genesis, he had a timetable worked out: Day 1: Distinguish light and dark. Day 2: Separate land from water ... etc. Let's assume also that this was actually possible.
Any being capable of planning and carrying out this huge project must clearly be highly complex and therefore improbable. In fact, extremely improbable. The chance of such a complex existence far out-weights any number you could put on the improbability of life on Earth.
Far from solving the problem, creationism makes it worse.
I appreciate that, being from a scientific background, you've probably long ago rejected the literal 'interpretation' of the Bible and opted for a pick-and-mix-type 'interpretation'. The argument still stands, nonetheless.
ninja wrote:
Looked at from a certain (perhaps overly pessimistic) perspective, we can't really know anything. I think you've already mentioned Cartesian Doubt - a strong philosophy in the sense that it's pretty much irrefutable, but it leaves us stranded. It's important to make some (as rational as possible) assumptions about the world around us. I believe that I'm sitting, typing at a computer but I could well be a brain in a vat, wired up to a computer of an evil genius in a 6-dimensional universe. The former, besides being much more practical, appeals to me as the more likely scenario.
I love Cartesian doubt because it's a call back to what we really actually know. We're free to assume certain things, but so long as we do we should be aware that everything past that point is mere speculation based upon assumption.
ninja wrote:
I don't think that God's existence is a rational assumption to be made about the universe. We should try not to accept hypotheses without decent grounds to support them. The logical conclusion to draw from uncertainty about the existence of something unknowable and unprovable is, surely, to doubt its truth.
Not accepting the existence of God is not the same as believing he does not exist. There are three stances in this debate. For the existence of God, against the existence of God, and neutral in regards to the existence of God. If you are to avoid making "irrational" assumptions you must take the neutral ground and say we cannot know whether or not God exists.
ninja wrote:
You probably haven't read the previous posts in this debate, but I invite you to read this extract from an earlier post of mine about the difference between arguing for the proposal of a hypothesis and denying it.
I haven't because I didn't feel up to reading 10 pages when I posted.
ninja wrote:
The trouble here is, it's not up to the atheist to prove God doesn't exist. A classic demonstration of this is Russell's teapot. It would be pointless paraphrasing Bertrand Russell's argument, so I quote:
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Replace the teapot with any figment of the imagination, and the argument still stands. Consider God and you'll see that the burden of proof lies not with the atheists but with the theists who propose the existence of God.
The burden of proof is an age-old argument I've seen many times. The negation of an object is as much an object as the object itself. In this way we find that as long as you are purporting something about the nature of reality you have the burden of proof. In this situation you're making a categorical fallacy - that purporting God does not exist is not purporting something about reality. The burden of proof lies on both the atheists and the theists, and is only not necessary for the agnostics.
ninja wrote:
"[T]he simplest solution to the issue is likely the correct one. This may be so, and if it is I would say that God is the simplest solution/explanation to universal order/origins."
The trouble with this is that God isn't actually a simple solution to the origins of the universe. It simply begs another, even more difficult-to-answer question: what are the origins of God?
I've already dealt with this question personally, I think it makes complete sense the way I envision it. God, being an omnipotent omnipresent being, exists outside of time. He can still extend into a time-based reality, but being independent of time he need not have a beginning or an ending. This is the only way to resolve the origination problem.
ninja wrote:
You say that the God approach "seems more logical". You think it's unlikely that life happened to come about on Earth and that it evolved into what we can experience today.
You'd be right in thinking that the chances of life coming into existence on any particular planet are pretty slim. But there are billions upon billions of planets and we're talking on a huge time scale, so it was bound to happen. Evolution itself isn't even effected by chance, so you can't really say it's unlikely.
Evolution is most definitely affected by chance! If chance affects anything in reality than it most certainly affects evolution. Not directly by means of the mechanic itself (not as far as I'm aware anyway), but rather through the environmental circumstances which lead to the evolution of certain traits. Everything as it has happened up to this point has been highly unlikely.
1. Universe forms with physical laws which can support the formation of stars, and eventually planets.
2. Planets form.
3. Life begins on a given planet (we don't yet fully understand the beginnings of this)
4. Life evolves to reach humanity.
5. Humanity arrives at the belief in a creator.
6. We argue regarding the existence of such a creator, as we are now.
There's more details in there obviously, but I see that and I see billions of highly unlikely, yet integral events conspiring to bring about the world which we live in now. A world in which we debate the existence of a creator.
ninja wrote:
But the real question to ask is ... is the God 'explanation' more likely? No.
Why not? There's no way to explain the origins of the universe without introducing an entity which can either exist outside of time, or which created itself by means of time travel (a paradox which would result in the creation of an infinite number of entities creating themselves, so we dismiss it).
ninja wrote:
Any being capable of planning and carrying out this huge project must clearly be highly complex and therefore improbable. In fact, extremely improbable. The chance of such a complex existence far out-weights any number you could put on the improbability of life on Earth.
A being that exists outside of time would have an eternity to go about gaining such complexity.
ninja wrote:
I appreciate that, being from a scientific background, you've probably long ago rejected the literal 'interpretation' of the Bible and opted for a pick-and-mix-type 'interpretation'. The argument still stands, nonetheless.
I have taken little from the bible. In fact, my beliefs are fairly original. I don't "pick and mix" so much as recognize truth everywhere I can, integrating whatever I recognize as true into my ideology.
Edited by Mator on 06/29/2012 20:08:09
Mator wrote:
Not accepting the existence of God is not the same as believing he does not exist.
Please explain the difference. The way I see it, the former is saying "God does not exist." The latter, also, is saying "God does not exist." English is a great language; we have lots of synonyms.
Mator wrote:
There are three stances in this debate. For the existence of God, against the existence of God, and neutral in regards to the existence of God. If you are to avoid making "irrational" assumptions you must take the neutral ground and say we cannot know whether or not God exists.
So you agree that your assumption is irrational? I'm glad to hear that. I wouldn't say that I'm strongly against the existence of God - rather I accept that I probably will never know for certain the answer but it seems to me highly unlikely that God does exist. I used to be completely neutral, an agnostic, but having learnt more about the universe through science classes, reading, discussing with people, and thinking I would now consider myself a moderate atheist.
Mator wrote:
The burden of proof is an age-old argument I've seen many times. The negation of an object is as much an object as the object itself.
No, it's not. A house exists - it's an object. An un-house does not exist by definition - it's not an object but simply a figment of the imagination.
Mator wrote:
In this way we find that as long as you are purporting something about the nature of reality you have the burden of proof. In this situation you're making a categorical fallacy - that purporting God does not exist is not purporting something about reality. The burden of proof lies on both the atheists and the theists, and is only not necessary for the agnostics.
Proposing that someone's hypothesis that something exists is wrong is not saying anything about reality. It doesn't affect reality, rather it leaves reality as it was beforehand. Only the assumption of something's existence changes anything. You shouldn't have to refute an argument which isn't based on anything (evidence/reason-wise as opposed to blind faith).
Mator wrote:
I've already dealt with this question personally, I think it makes complete sense the way I envision it. God, being an omnipotent omnipresent being, exists outside of time. He can still extend into a time-based reality, but being independent of time he need not have a beginning or an ending. This is the only way to resolve the origination problem.
Why does this simplify matters? It doesn't. We might as well cut out the middle man and say that the universe popped into existence and time 'started'.
Mator wrote:
Evolution is most definitely affected by chance! If chance affects anything in reality than it most certainly affects evolution. Not directly by means of the mechanic itself (not as far as I'm aware anyway), but rather through the environmental circumstances which lead to the evolution of certain traits. Everything as it has happened up to this point has been highly unlikely.
1. Universe forms with physical laws which can support the formation of stars, and eventually planets.
2. Planets form.
3. Life begins on a given planet (we don't yet fully understand the beginnings of this)
4. Life evolves to reach humanity.
5. Humanity arrives at the belief in a creator.
6. We argue regarding the existence of such a creator, as we are now.
There's more details in there obviously, but I see that and I see billions of highly unlikely, yet integral events conspiring to bring about the world which we live in now. A world in which we debate the existence of a creator.
1. Yes, this is unlikely (but no more unlikely than the existence of God). But as I've already pointed out, we are in a universe with such physical laws and that is the only reason why we're able to be here discussing this. We might be in 1 in a (infinitely?) long stream of universes and this one was suitable so we're here. Or perhaps there are many universes all in existence at the same time? There are many plausible explanations which don't resort to introducing a more complex and unlikely 'solution'.
2. Will happen over time, given 1.
3. Again, there are loads of planets. Hardly surprising that (at least) 1 supports life.
4. It's in the nature of evolution by natural selection that organisms will become more complex in order to be better adapted to their environment. It's been a significant amount of time since first life on this planet. Humans are suitably complex.
5. Oops.
6. Debate, please. Arguing sounds so vulgar.
Mator wrote:
Why not? There's no way to explain the origins of the universe without introducing an entity which can either exist outside of time, or which created itself by means of time travel (a paradox which would result in the creation of an infinite number of entities creating themselves, so we dismiss it).
Even if something 'exists out of time', it must have got there somehow.
Mator wrote:
I have taken little from the bible. In fact, my beliefs are fairly original. I don't "pick and mix" so much as recognize truth everywhere I can, integrating whatever I recognize as true into my ideology.
ninja wrote:
Please explain the difference. The way I see it, the former is saying "God does not exist." The latter, also, is saying "God does not exist." English is a great language; we have lots of synonyms.
There's a slight difference, as I point out later. Not asserting something is true (or not accepting it) leaves you with two options:
1. Saying you don't know whether or not it is true. OR
2. Saying you believe it is not true.
The former implies an inability to have certainty on the subject, which is something which will often be the case in philosophical/metaphysical arguments.
The latter implies certainty on the subject, and implies having direct knowledge about it being clearly and distinctly NOT true. E.g. "Water is not fire."
ninja wrote:
So you agree that your assumption is irrational?
I used quotes to show that I was writing as the information would be interpreted from your perspective. I'm pretty sure I've arrived at my beliefs in God by rational means...
ninja wrote:
I wouldn't say that I'm strongly against the existence of God - rather I accept that I probably will never know for certain the answer but it seems to me highly unlikely that God does exist.
Then, by definition, you're an agnostic, not an atheist. You're taking the middle ground which is a ground which I respect.
ninja wrote:
I used to be completely neutral, an agnostic, but having learnt more about the universe through science classes, reading, discussing with people, and thinking I would now consider myself a moderate atheist.
If you don't think you know the answer to the question "Does God exist?" with 100% certainty I'd say you're still an agnostic. Although how one defines "beliefs" can vary I suppose, to some people having even partial certainty of something makes it a belief. Iunno.
ninja wrote:
No, it's not. A house exists - it's an object. An un-house does not exist by definition - it's not an object but simply a figment of the imagination.
Being an object does not imply existence. I'm using the word "object" here in an abstract/formal sense. Any argument is comprised of "objects", viz., conceptual constructs. A non-house is as much a conceptual construct as a house.
ninja wrote:
Proposing that someone's hypothesis that something exists is wrong is not saying anything about reality.
No, it most definitely is saying something about reality. If I say that Mars does not exist am I saying something about reality? Yes. If I say cows are not white, they're purple, am I saying something about reality? Yes. If I say I am not a human being am I saying something about reality? Yes. Any statement that assigns categories/revokes categories from an object is saying something about reality. In the case of 'not' statements I am saying that certain categories/traits do not correspond to an object. In this case, existence is the trait and God is the object.
ninja wrote:
It doesn't affect reality, rather it leaves reality as it was beforehand.
There is no causality in the conceptual world of argument. There is no beforehand or afterhand (not a word, whatever). While it is your perspective that a "not existing" statement leaves reality as it was beforehand, someone who believes in God would say the "existing" statement leaves reality as it was beforehand.
ninja wrote:
Only the assumption of something's existence changes anything. You shouldn't have to refute an argument which isn't based on anything (evidence/reason-wise as opposed to blind faith).
This is absolutely 100% fallacious, as noted before.
ninja wrote:
Why does this simplify matters? It doesn't. We might as well cut out the middle man and say that the universe popped into existence and time 'started'.
It most certainly does. If you have an entity that exists outside of time there is no longer any need to have an origination to that entity. I think it is conceivable based upon all previous definitions of God to envision him functioning outside of time. In fact, it greatly clarifies many beliefs/ideas about him.
The universe popping into existence and time "starting" leaves the question of where it came from. You need to have some entity (doesn't have to be a spiritual one!) which exists outside of time in order to "begin" anything within "time".
ninja wrote:
1. Yes, this is unlikely (but no more unlikely than the existence of God). But as I've already pointed out, we are in a universe with such physical laws and that is the only reason why we're able to be here discussing this. We might be in 1 in a (infinitely?) long stream of universes and this one was suitable so we're here. Or perhaps there are many universes all in existence at the same time? There are many plausible explanations which don't resort to introducing a more complex and unlikely 'solution'.
2. Will happen over time, given 1.
3. Again, there are loads of planets. Hardly surprising that (at least) 1 supports life.
4. It's in the nature of evolution by natural selection that organisms will become more complex in order to be better adapted to their environment. It's been a significant amount of time since first life on this planet. Humans are suitably complex.
5. Oops.
6. Debate, please. Arguing sounds so vulgar.
1. Responded to this somewhere in my post as to why it is fallacious. It's begging the question. "We exist. Why do we exist? Because we exist."
2. If all starting variables are correct and there is no chaos in the universe then yes. However according to quantum mechanics/probabilistic physics a lot of what happens in the universe is random.
3. See 2.
4. However there are many different ways organisms can become more complex and many times during which organisms can die off completely halting progression in a certain direction evolutionarily.
5. It's not an accident.
6. Potato Tomato.
ninja wrote:
Even if something 'exists out of time', it must have got there somehow.
Nope! That's the beauty of it. If something exists independent of time (out of time, independent of time, same difference) it need not obey deterministic/causal laws. Thus there is no need for it to have "gotten there somehow". It just is.
The Hat of Love wrote:
@Phoenix - I think if you're going to believe something, you do have to believe in it, not just say 'I believe in you God, let me into heaven when I die, ok?' while you're actually just saying it as an insurance policy. Continuing the metaphor, sure, you can prepare your house for a hurricane and you'll be fine either way but now you can't see out of your windows 'cos they're all boarded up and that was a lot of effort for nothing. The same with God - you spend all your life going to Church every Sunday and praising him at every available opportunity and then you die... and nothing happens. If I'm right and there is no such thing as an afterlife then you won't care but it does seem kind of a lot of your life spent for nothing.
Hat, as you stated, if you truly believe in something, the rest of your paragraph in invalid. But to continue, you asked for a reason, and while it is rather crude and rough, if is true. While this is not the MAIN reason people believe in God, the belief, gives people hope, motivation, something to look forward to, and many other things depending on their own personal situation. As I said, not the only reason one believes.
The Hat of Love wrote:
If I'm right and there is no such thing as an afterlife then you won't care but it does seem kind of a lot of your life spent for nothing.
When you leave or when ZA goes down, what did you get out of all of this? HOURS AND HOURS of your used time are being poured into here. But we have also all gained friends, joy, excitement, and memories. In my life as a Christian, and I am pretty sure most others will agree, I have also received all of this from walking the Christian life.
hmmm it seems it has strayed aways from the original topic haha . but i am not very good at debating lol as probabl proven by m other posts. so xfire me questions about god nd stuff cause then i can answer whebever i get on it. but if nature created something what created nature? nd what are you basing your beliefs on? nd how can you prove them
I got a big blue star for posting. i must be special
Posts: 1634 Joined: 10.04.12
i love god,i always take a prayer before sleep lol
So i dont have to repeat it that often: Im from Poland and i live in Germany lol
You can tellem that ive been through hell and back
PirateKing wrote:
hmmm it seems it has strayed aways from the original topic haha . but i am not very good at debating lol as probabl proven by m other posts. so xfire me questions about god nd stuff cause then i can answer whebever i get on it. but if nature created something what created nature? nd what are you basing your beliefs on? nd how can you prove them
I don't think we strayed from the topic, rather, we resolved the topic. (to an extent and most likely temporarily, and probably only between those people who participated in the last page or so, and only as far as I'm aware).
That's a lot of conditions.
We've been over the "what created" argument many times. It's not a feasible argument because it leads to "what created God".
Beliefs don't need any basis. They simply are. As for why you believe something, most people believe things because they think they are true.
Proof is one of the most ephemeral things in this world. We are sorely lacking it in many areas of our lives. Beliefs regarding God seem to lack any definitive non-personal proof.
GrinReaper wrote:
If children are dying in Africa it is for a reason. It's called the 'Big Picture' concept, say an artist creates a work of art (a painting) and then shows it to abunch of people...The people who see it can only see the stuff that is on the canvas but the artist envisioned so much more that the viewers cannot see.
this makes god a bit of a dick then
forcing people to suffer whilst we are happy and free. what kind of a monster does that sorta thing?
the amount of evidence atheists have as a pose to inferior evidence provided by religion and the bible is immense. All you have is a bible that has been morphed over time by superstitious people who want a good story out of it.
We have years and years of scientific research and evidence to back up our claims.
And even if there are some things we cant explain we dont resort to some mythical being in a sky as an explanation, we strive to find a LOGICAL scientific solution.
All this might appear that I am not open to the fact that I might be wrong. However I am very open to that idea. However so far there is logic (science) and magical superstitions about people in the sky that goes against all logical reasoning of years and years of research.....
I think ima stick with logic for now until there is actual evidence with logical conclusions that outweigh the logical conclusions of science.
Edited by ledapus on 07/03/2012 23:19:56
-Xfire: ledapus-
-Xbox Live gamertag: Ledapus-
LEDAPIE FOR THE WIIIIINNNNNNN!!!!!!!
GrinReaper wrote:
If children are dying in Africa it is for a reason. It's called the 'Big Picture' concept, say an artist creates a work of art (a painting) and then shows it to abunch of people...The people who see it can only see the stuff that is on the canvas but the artist envisioned so much more that the viewers cannot see.
this makes god a bit of a dick then
forcing people to suffer whilst we are happy and free. what kind of a monster does that sorta thing?
the amount of evidence atheists have as a pose to inferior evidence provided by religion and the bible is immense. All you have is a bible that has been morphed over time by superstitious people who want a good story out of it.
We have years and years of scientific research and evidence to back up our claims.
And even if there are some things we cant explain we dont resort to some mythical being in a sky as an explanation, we strive to find a LOGICAL scientific solution.
All this might appear that I am not open to the fact that I might be wrong. However I am very open to that idea. However so far there is logic (science) and magical superstitions about people in the sky that goes against all logical reasoning of years and years of research.....
I think ima stick with logic for now until there is actual evidence with logical conclusions that outweigh the logical conclusions of science.
Maybe God did that to see what WE, the ones living better lives, would do to help them from suffering. We are doing a very bad job
ZA BrickSquad wrote: Maybe God did that to see what WE, the ones living better lives, would do to help them from suffering. We are doing a very bad job
... and suddenly everything isn't God's fault. It's the 'imperfect' humans messing up God's blueprint for a perfect world.
This argument is entirely unconvincing. If there was a God who really was omnibenevolent, he wouldn't allow children to starve to death, babies to be born with hindering disabilities, and loving, caring people to fall ill. Besides, what would he get out of so-called 'testing' us? A sadistic pleasure? "Let's make some unfortunate humans suffer so that even more can suffer as a result of feeling inadequate in their aid."
You need to either accept that God isn't the loving, caring being that many religions teach, or accept that God doesn't exist.
Mator wrote:
I don't think we strayed from the topic, rather, we resolved the topic. (to an extent and most likely temporarily, and probably only between those people who participated in the last page or so, and only as far as I'm aware).
Yes, I accept your argument that the question itself is rather trivial in the sense that either answer will rely somewhat on gut instinct or belief. However, that's not to say that reason can't also be employed.
Your hypothesis seems fairly plausible and I've failed to think up any contradictions that can't be brushed off with your "out of time" argument. That said, I don't find this to be the most inherently believable solution. It begs questions of the nature of why a supernatural being would make our universe, and the possibility of existence outside of time. Of course you could claim that these are irrelevant, but to me that isn't satisfactory.
Mator wrote:
Proof is one of the most ephemeral things in this world. We are sorely lacking it in many areas of our lives. Beliefs regarding God seem to lack any definitive non-personal proof.
I wouldn't say that Proof is ephemeral. In fact, it's the complete opposite. The very natural of a proof is that it will last forever - it's irrefutable and always will be. We do undoubtedly lack it, but that's hardly surprising because we have so few facts to base it upon. In fact, nothing really can be taken for granted. Every single proof is based on assumptions.
I'm intrigued, by the way, that you advocate agnosticism as the best view, but seem to be a theist. Why is this?
ninja wrote:
... and suddenly everything isn't God's fault. It's the 'imperfect' humans messing up God's blueprint for a perfect world.
This argument is entirely unconvincing. If there was a God who really was omnibenevolent, he wouldn't allow children to starve to death, babies to be born with hindering disabilities, and loving, caring people to fall ill. Besides, what would he get out of so-called 'testing' us? A sadistic pleasure? "Let's make some unfortunate humans suffer so that even more can suffer as a result of feeling inadequate in their aid."
God being omnipotent (all knowing) must recognize that the nature of human beings is to live and die. Everyone has a time and place to die, as is the natural order of the universe, but many religions attest that their lives go on (and some claim reincarnation as a factor). In this way death isn't necessarily evil/bad, even if it does involve people who we consider to be good or innocent.
As for suffering... I don't have much to say on suffering. I don't know much about it myself so I can't really say whether it is the work of balance within the universe or something else entirely. I don't have all the answers, you know.
ninja wrote:
You need to either accept that God isn't the loving, caring being that many religions teach, or accept that God doesn't exist.
False dilemma, as argued before.
ninja wrote:
Yes, I accept your argument that the question itself is rather trivial in the sense that either answer will rely somewhat on gut instinct or belief. However, that's not to say that reason can't also be employed.
I'm glad you recognize certainty is something we must abandon in matters such as this.
Reason can most certainly be employed, but it need not be regarding things which are only scientifically recognized as factual.
ninja wrote:
Your hypothesis seems fairly plausible and I've failed to think up any contradictions that can't be brushed off with your "out of time" argument. That said, I don't find this to be the most inherently believable solution. It begs questions of the nature of why a supernatural being would make our universe, and the possibility of existence outside of time. Of course you could claim that these are irrelevant, but to me that isn't satisfactory.
I don't think they're entirely irrelevant, but I don't think they're necessarily answerable either. I'm glad you recognize my argument as allowing for some separation in belief without the abandonment of logic, reason, or scientific facts.
ninja wrote:
I wouldn't say that Proof is ephemeral. In fact, it's the complete opposite. The very natural of a proof is that it will last forever - it's irrefutable and always will be. We do undoubtedly lack it, but that's hardly surprising because we have so few facts to base it upon. In fact, nothing really can be taken for granted. Every single proof is based on assumptions.
I mean to say that when we think we have proof of something we often discover that it was not enough to make that something certain. This is well shown throughout science, which is a field that is continuously advancing and changing as new proof (or evidence/data, as it may be) arises. "Proof" of a given hypothesis/theory is often not always as substantial as we think it is, for it is quite likely that more "proof" will be uncovered in the future which contradicts our ideas.
So perhaps proof isn't really ephemeral, but rather the conclusions we think we reach from proof/data are ephemeral.
ninja wrote:
I'm intrigued, by the way, that you advocate agnosticism as the best view, but seem to be a theist. Why is this?
The best/easiest view isn't always the right one. Also, agnosticism is the view I advocate as the most neutral of views and thus being the one I can respect the easiest (and since I haven't been exposed to any beliefs similar to my own, this is not strange, I think). It is the one which is most between extremes (though my view is fairly neutral as well in some ways, I feel).
Edited by Mator on 07/05/2012 00:56:59
. but i am not very good at debating lol as probabl proven by m other posts. so xfire me questions about god nd stuff cause then i can answer whebever i get on it
