View Single Post
Old 02-09-2007, 07:40 AM   #43
Mike Doolittle
Telling people how it is
Mike Doolittle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a shoe with my old lady
Posts: 3,758
Rep Power: 21 Mike Doolittle is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Mike Doolittle
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Originally Posted by Nicato View Post
Mike, it just isn't enough to rhetorically place your god outside of natural law.
By definition, God has to be transcendent of natural law. If he wasn't he wouldn't be God.

Must it? You've failed to demonstrate that premise as well.
I've talked a great deal about the necessity of transcendent causality because our universe can be neither infinite nor self-causing. To believe either would stand in contradiction to the natural laws you purport to hold as your criteria for belief.

Where is your evidence for a "transcendent" agent?
The problem here is what you consider evidence is insular.

And how is it that your said agent can violate the laws which you've come to base it's existence on? Also, just how strict are those laws if they are able to be defied? Wouldn't the fact the laws are capable of being defied be sufficient evidence to prove that your premise doesn't necessarily follow your conclusion?
I don't recall saying anything about defying natural law, like miracles or something. Being the architect of natural law requires transcendence of it, but not violation of it.

Who says that an eternal must "logically exist" if there had to be a "creator?" Doesn't the very idea of a first uncaused cause contradict your notion of an eternal? What created the "creator?"
God, being absolute and eternal, requires no cause. Our universe, being finite and governed by strict natural laws, does. You yourself said you are not trying to argue the universe is either eternal (self-perpetuating) or self-causing. If this is the case, you must concede that something transcendent of our natural laws exists. You argued that calling the cause of the universe "God" was arbitrary because, in your words, "there is no evidence" for it. But since you are basing your criteria for "evidence" strictly on observation of natural law, you must also concede that you will obviously never find your "evidence" of the supernatural, since "supernatural" is by definition transcendent of natural law.

Now, you may choose to speculate that whatever caused our universe is unknowable, random, or whatever. But our universe exploded into existence from "nothing", and is constructed of the most complex and perfect order of physical laws that, with energy and matter down to each and every atom in the universe performing its own unique function, have allowed vastly complex worlds to form and life to evolve. Without the supernatural, the natural could not exist; and without consciousness, there could be no order, only chaos.

I refuse to acknowledge it because you haven't provided one shred of positive evidence to prove any of your hypothesises. Further, you suggest that I'm somehow missing something when I refuse to acknowledge your unfalsifiable, supposedly objective entities (your god, the supernatural, etc) yet you've repeatedly missed opportunities to demonstrate that these ideas are even worth considering, yet have the audacity to call your position reasonable.
Whether you find these ideas worth considering is your choice. Your mode of thinking is narrow and insulated. I'm suggesting you broaden your horizons, not that you should expect my perspective to change to fit your preconceptions.

Finally, throughout your blog and this thread, you've assigned many presupposed attributes which most do not necessarily apply to all atheists. I find this especially interesting because you are so quick to discard the pigeonholing theism. Why not accept atheism as a big tent?
Atheism is a rejection of God and the supernatural. If you hold the possibility of the supernatural but believe you just don't
know either way, you are an agnostic.

EDIT: I should amend that to note that the idea of what atheism is exactly is subject to debate. Some people get into all kinds of nuanced subcategories like "strong" and "weak" atheism, the latter of which could be semantically swapped with agnosticism. Wikipedia lists a plethora of various definitions of atheism. To that end, the only practical solution is for each self-proclaimed atheist/agnostic/theist to clarify their own beliefs.
RIP "littledoc"!

My MySpace Page
My Gaming PC Blog

Last edited by Mike Doolittle; 02-09-2007 at 01:18 PM.
Mike Doolittle is offline   Reply With Quote