View Single Post
Old 04-06-2007, 03:26 PM   #96
Next-Gen Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3,575
Rep Power: 0 Nicato is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

From a purely rational perspective, we can ascertain that God's existence is plausible, if not provable. And no, not as plausible as a bazillion other things, but uniquely plausible.
I can agree that your god's existence is plausible, but not uniquely plausible (and forgive me if I laugh at the term "unique" because it was arbitrary when I was using it). The fact remains that your assertion is intrinsically equally probable because it is (perhaps in principle) unknowable.

No, I did not. I made a statement of faith.
Now whose bitching about semantics?
I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Yeah, you basically argued that if the big bang had been 0.0000000000000000000000000001% different then the universe would lack the capacity for life. My point with the butterfly effect is that even the most seemingly trivial events can, over time, have profound effects. So the idea that the universe is the way it is is evidence of design and purspose--simply because it could have been different--is specious. More directly put: Yeah, and if my Aunt had a dick she'd be my uncle.
At no point did I ever say it was. I'm dumbfounded at how you can accuse me of this given the first thing you quoted in this post.
Cut the crap and hold the mustard, you are a making a false dichotomy when you say the that the "only alternative" to your god hypothesis is that the universe was an "accident."
Right. But how people feel connected to the spiritual isn't a condition of believing in God. People worship in different ways, connect in different ways. The fundamental concepts that define God are remarkably similar throughout religion.
How are there similarities remarkable and what are the implications of such similarities?

When speaking of what is "outside" the universe, we have no concept of causality, physical law, etc. Those properties are intrinsic to our universe. Debating the nature of those properties in the supernatural is futile. What we do know, however, is the laws that govern our own universe. Nothing can have a reaction without an action, no cause without effect. The universe began at a finite point. Given these things, we can see that there is necessarily a beyond. No finite point can exist with a "before".
Careful, Mike, you're just one step away from saying that the universe was self-causing.

Here you are saying that according to natural law, no effect can occur without a cause. But, if there is a "finite point" within the universe, as you say, then that "finite point," being within the universe, must also have a natural cause.

As I've said numerous times, theology is not a static worldview. It can be dynamic and adaptive, as it should be as our world gets smaller and our knowledge changes and grows. The Christian God you're mocking isn't impossible, only impossible when constrained by the boundaries you set for it to suit your cynicism.
If by my suited cynicism, you mean The Bible then yeah.

But the fact that the supernatural itself can't be naturally observed or quantified (for obvious reasons) does not mean we can't see evidence of its existence.
Yes it does. (But y'honor, look all the people who didn't see me rob the bank!)

I never made any assertion that the universe has a singular purpose, only that our existence within it has purpose.
No matter, there isn't any evidence for that either.

Really? The laws of physics made themselves just now?
I don't know. (Man, that felt good. You should try it.)

The point here is that nothing that happens in this universe is random. The structure of the universe facilitates all events as inevitabilities.
Only if the universe is infinite--truly infinite--are all events inevitable. Besides that, things which occur in our universe may be bound to laws, but they certainly show no evidence of intent.

What makes you assume the universe has a singular purpose?
What makes you assume that there must be any it all?

"Perfect" meaning ordered...
As opposed to what? Anything which doesn't defeat itself is going to be ordered to some degree.

Natural laws don't arbitrarily change, and their order has allow this vast universe and us to exist.
Natural laws don't change, period; and it's order ultimately says nothing toward a creator.

Right, but they didn't. That's the point. Don't confuse probability with randomness.
What's to confuse?

No, I'm not making a scientific claim because I'm talking about something that is intrinsically beyond the understanding of science and beyond the natural world. That the laws of physics indicate that these things likely do exist does not render their existence wholly reducible to naturalistic observation since these things are intrinsically supernatural.
The problem, of course, is that your boundary of science is arbitrary. The only reason science is bound to the natural world is because there isn't any evidence of anything beyond it. To declare that science is "intrinsically" bound to the natural world is just another unfortunate side effect of your NOMA doctrine.

Anyway, if you really believed that then you shouldn't care about what Hawking thinks about what occured before the Big Bang because he'd have to forefit his authority.

The only way you're able to make any of your arguments work is by defining God as something constrained by the laws of the universe he created, which is in complete conflict with any culture's definition of what God is. You do a great job of disproving God's existence when you change God's defintion to suit your intentions.
I pale in comparison to you; redifining God to make your theology seem more sophisticated when in fact its just as faith-based as any other. Using logic and science to boast your claims yet slow to have it examined scientifically or logically is especially a neat touch.

There's a distinction between illogical and beyond logic.
No, Mike, there isn't. Either something is logical or illogical--ther is no middle ground.

I did not say God was a logical necessity.
"First Cause is a necessity of physics."

" based on what physicists have discovered about the universe over the last few hundred years, we can infer [that the supernatural's] existence as a logical necessity."

So the supernatural is a logical necissity, and the first cause is a necessity of physics, but your god isn't? Please.

This, of course, is just another instance that I've perfectly represented your argument where you've said I haven't.

You believe only in what you can quantitatively know. That's not really believing anything, it's just an affirmation.
You are wrong. It is belief--not merely faith--in something infinitely more elagant than your imaginary friend.

Last edited by Nicato; 04-06-2007 at 07:08 PM.
Nicato is offline   Reply With Quote