View Single Post
Old 04-03-2007, 01:46 AM   #87
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: 19 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
Your points:

(A) Your god is not demonstrable according to natural law, yet it is necessary and logical.
That's not what I said. I said that a supernatural cause is required. It may or may not be God.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your god need not be falsifiable by natural law--it still needs to be such from a logical standpoint, since you are claiming it to be logical.
No, I'm claiming belief to be logical.

Indeed, one can have faith an anything for any (or no) reason, can they not?
Sure, but faith in God is based on how we interpret what we know an observe. It's not an arbitrary construct.

Addressing (C): It is, of course, important to note that I have left room for the possibility of a supernatural--because if one did, it would become pretty obvious pretty quickly that I do not endorse an "ultimate truth."
Yes, but your "room for the supernatural" only allows the supernatural to be believable if you could verify its existence via natural law, reducing your position to a non sequitur.


These should all send a chills down your spine, yet you marginalize it.
Oh, they do. I'm not "marginalizing" it. I'm pointing out that fundamentalism is neither the majority of believers in this country nor in this world. Additionally, the fact that someone reads "The Purpose Driven Life" or attends a mega-church does not make them a fundamentalist. The number of people hell-bent on putting Christian prayer in schools and booting evolution, while not insignificant, should not be taken as a representation of all or a majority of believers on this planet.

First of all, science has demonstrated a secular theory for the evolution of the Earth itself. I've seen the computer model of it; you should look it up. Your assertion that "science demonstrated that God didn't created the world in six days, not that God didn't create the world" is specious. God simply isn't in the equation it all.
So why did you assert that science disproved God as a creator?

Secondly, where is the evidence that the Bible's account of Creationism was taken as anything but literal truth for most of Western history?
When a culture has no other means of understanding their world, myth may be substituted for inquiry. However, many cultures -- the ancient Greeks for example -- rejected mythology as absolute truth.

What you have just read was how theology goes about ascertaining the "why" so untouchable by science. This is to say nothing of the religious parsing the claims of science to find those which are compatible with their beliefs, the obvious fact that religions do actively assert objective "how" claims, and the growing fields of science which are beginning to explore "why" questions.
The two aren't mutually exclusive, but "why" as a purely scientific question is meaningless. As a secular humanist, "why" you exist is a nonsensical question. You know yourself only as a product of a chain of events which you hold as purposeless.

Science is in conflict with The Bible because the Good Book makes many, many claims which are incompatible with the nature of the universe--far too many of which cannot to be dismissed as allegories.
I'm not sure why you're going off on some tangent about the Bible, but it has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about.


but I do give a damn when you distort my position.
To clarify, I did not distort your position. I clearly stated how your position sounded to me. If there was misunderstanding, you can simply clarify and spare the hostility.

I do not an any way suggest that you are making it up, only that your use of the word is "misleading." Hell, I even concede that limitations do exist: "It isn't enough, for the purposes of this debate, to assert that there are limitations to the natural world. It being finite and all (in time if not space), that fact is patently obvious."
The problem again goes back to your agonizingly circular reasoning: You do not deny the possibility of a supernatural, but you would never "positively" (as you say) profess knowledge of such a thing without being able to affirm it within the natural.

Also, your statement is somewhat incorrect. There is, by definition, limitations in space, not time alone. Space and time are inseperable, which is why they are modernly referred to as "the space-time continuum" or "spacetime". Think of spacetime as a continually expanding balloon. It may be expanding infinitely, but our universe itself has definite boundaries. Wiki the "shape of the universe".

Perhaps you should check out Deepak Chopra's flick "How to Know God" which deals with quantum physics and their representation of divine consciousness.

And nevermind the fact that you completely ignored the point, which is that said limitations ultimately say nothing as to the plurality or singularity of the universe.
I didn't ignore the point, you just didn't go anywhere with it. I agree with this. So... ???

If something is either logical or illogical, then if your god is logical, a lack thereof is not.
Throughout this discussion, you continually distort my words. "Logic" is a tenant of naturalism. God is transcendent of naturalism and his existence from a logical perspective is impossible to define. The question is whether faith itself has some basis in logic, or whether it's an arbitrary construct.

If the Big Bang marked the beginning of space and time, what does it mean to say that there was something "before" the Big Bang if we have no sense of time with which to assert a "before" and no space for that something to occupy? The answer is that it should mean little if anything, and as a consequence of that realization, no first-cause is required. Swallow that.
Because our universe exists in a finite continuum of spacetime, there was necessarily a "before" or perhaps more aptly a "beyond" since it had a finite beginning. Beyond the finite universe of space and time is infinity. First Cause is still required because of our universe's own natural laws by which it is defined and bound. Nice try though.

Of course, we ultimately do not know (and perhaps cannot know) if similar rules of space and time applied "before" the universe was birthed--but that is exactly the point: we don't know. There is no more reason to reject or accept that hypothesis as there is yours [1]. You are right to assert that your god hypothesis is no more absurd than a chance hypothesis--they are in fact equally absurd and thus equally plausible (though NOT equally probable). This is why we are simply in no position to make any definitive claims as to the birth of the universe.
Indeed, I fully agree. Good thing that at no point did I make "definitive" claims, and in fact spent numerous posts explaining in detail that I was not making such claims.

Simply put, any leaning toward one non-exhaustive conclusion over another cannot be considered logical, by any measure, only arbitrary favoritism.
On the contrary, belief in God is founded on not only the logical necessity of a supernatural, but on the organization, design, and cohesiveness of the universe. I'm a fan of the truth of the gravitational constant: that if it were off by a millionth of a degree, nothing as we know it could exist. I suppose you could call it an argument from incredulity, but I'm astounded at how anyone can observe the construction of the universe and all its physical laws and not believe in God. The only other alternative, regardless of supernatural this or that, is that it was simply an accident. Poof! Here it is, a perfect universe out of nothing.
RIP "littledoc"!

My MySpace Page
My Gaming PC Blog

Last edited by Mike Doolittle; 04-03-2007 at 11:33 AM.
Mike Doolittle is offline   Reply With Quote