David Mathews

Hello Answerer,

David: I have never said this and don't believe it. I have a tremendous respect for atheists and the utmost desire that they live happy, content and prosperous lives no matter what they believe about God. I also hope that all atheists will ultimately find a home in heaven, with God and everyone else saved by God's grace.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Bible Humper

Hello David, thanks for going back and hunting down this post.

But you said that:

Is a universe where Yahweh exists indistinguishable from one where he does not, or are these two universes only identical in the sense that Theists and Atheists occupy both universes?

If the latter, you have indeed changed your mind because you were defending the former from my critiques earlier.

What I am talking about is that everything humanity has discovered and understands about the universe at this point has proven to be naturalistic. Theist used to point to rain, stars, disease, insanity, and much else as "proof" of the supernatural. A dark age skeptic would have been at a complete loss if he was called upon to explain these phenomena naturalistically, but these have all been found to be naturalistic nonetheless.

"God in the gaps" is a type of argument with a very poor track record indeed, everywhere science peers, religion recoils. Nothing at all has proven to be supernatural, and the assertion that something something one day will is completely groundless.

Empirical observations of the universe have not yet resolved the question of the universe's origin and how and why it originated. You are as convinced that there will be a supernatural explanation for these questions as a dark age theist was convinced that there was a supernatural explanation for rain, disease, insanity, stars, etc.

What do you base the assumption on that these questions will at long last prove the supernatural? There is no reason at all in fact, it is only because supernature is already presupposed in your belief system that you conclude that abiogenesis, the origin of the universe, and human consciousness will all turn out to be phenomena that when the scientists unravel, will cause them to exclaim "Damn! we didn't expect to find out that these were supernatural phenomena!"

None of these phenomena have to be proven to be supernatural for God to exist, but even theists are uncomfortable with the fact that there belief lacks any factual support whatsoever. Thus, the appeals to "God in the gaps", the only possible avenue for the theologian to try to find "room" for God.

I would like to hear why, David. A brain-in-a-laboratory scenario has as much evidence as your theism, and explains reality in the same way. Both are groundless, speculative scenarios that deflect falsifiability by positing that their truthfulness is impossible for us to discern empirically.

What evidence does theism have that makes it more probable than B.I.A.Lism? I can make "B.I.A.Lism in the gaps" arguments that are just as strong as "God in the gaps" arguments, simply because it has not yet been proven that either argument is wrong, and that is all either one has going for it.

That was indeed a beautiful hymn, but that doesn't make it true!

It is true that atheists face many mysteries. Naturalism includes questions that may never be answered(in our lifetime at least), religion includes answers that may never be questioned(ever!). This is the basic difference between naturalistic and theistic methods of explaining the universe.

"Naturalism includes questions that may never be answered(in our lifetime), theism includes answers that may never be questioned(ever!).

I would like to see evidence supporting your claim that the existence of the universe will not prove to be a naturalistic phenomenon when the mysteries are at last unraveled. Is this claim based on nothing more than the fact that since you have presupposed God, you feel that there must be some manifestation somewhere or other, or do you indeed have evidence that suggests that naturalism will at last prove inadequate?

See above.

Even a thousand years from now? They have already done simulations of stars, and many more phenomena besides.

The point was to have you identify where a hypothetical simulation that takes only naturalistic phenomena into account would fail. I'm basically just asking, from a different angle, what you base your assertion on that abiogenesis, human consciousness, and the existence of the universe will prove to be supernatural.

Since human consciousness is a mystery yet unravelled, we will both have to wait for these answers, alas.

I would like to see the evidence that leads you to the conclusion that it is doubtful that conciousness is a strictly physical phenomenon, please.

I agree 100% with what you are saying here, but this is not at all what I was asking. I should have been more clear when I said "we", because I meant me and the other naturalists when I said "we".

I asked "You mentioned earlier that you believe that human consciousness and the existence of the universe contain proof of God, but since these "proofs" are in areas of knowledge that humanity is relatively ignorant of, how did you conclude that the evidence for God will be found there? Is there something we have overlooked?

What leads you to believe that naturalism will be unable to account for these phenomena? Surely it is based on something!

I totally missed why this is worthy of note, please elaborate.

If consciousness is seperate from the brain, why do we lose consciousness during judo matches if strangulation and choking techniques are applied against us? It seems that we should be conscious, though helpless, if our "souls" are seperate from our brain.

I don't actually think that theologians haven't cooked up an answer to this simple question, I'm just trying to figure out what leads them to believe that consciousness is not a phenomenon of the brain.

Looking forward to an eternal life in a celestial utopia.

Believing that all of the down points of your life will be repaid with interest in the hereafter.

The hope that those who piss you off will really regret it while they sizzle in hell-fire.

Meeting deceased friends and family in utopia.

The fear of death at least somewhat eased.

Belief that a loving deity is watching over your life

All of these and more offer psychological comfort to the theist, what psychological factors offer comfort to atheists? Nothing.

Social factors are just as tilted towards theism, if not more. What social factors encourage atheism?

Psychological and social factors are all that seperates the popularity of theism from the unpopularity of B.I.A.Lism, both have the same amount of proof.

Well, B.I.A.Lism could not even be conceived until computers were invented, whereas magic is unsophisticated enough that cavemen could conceive it, and anthropomorphise it, to explain the unknown.

When B.I.A.Lism is a million years old, will it become more true than it is now?

Please elaborate, I don't see how atheism serves to fill any emotional or psychological needs, quite the contrary.

Hehe, you are confusing atheism with theism here, David. Unless there is a single example of theistic evidence, from all those millions of years of theistic thought, that would require me to resort to the apologetic acrobatics that theists need to perform daily to rationalize away the myriad contradictions, and complete and utter lack of any evidence for their claims whatsoever, I will say that it is theism, not atheism, that must rely on psychological and social forces to propagate the faith.

If the Yahweh myth disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, it would never be revived because of a complete and utter lack of evidence any kind that points to it being the truth about reality. If atheism disappeared tomorrow, it would be back as soon as someone was unsatisfied with "answers that may never be questioned" a la "God in the gaps".

Since in the history of science, not a single phenomenon has ever been found to be anything other than 100% naturalistic. It does not require a "leap of faith" to assume that this will continue, especially since theistic assertions that naturalism will ultimately fail are completely unsupported by any evidence at all.

The fact that the "God in the gaps" argument has a historical track record of complete and utter failure in 100% of its assertions about unknown phenomena that science has since unraveled means that it requires a GIGANTIC leap of faith to doubt naturalism's ultimate success unless there is any evidence whatsoever to suggest that naturalism will indeed fail to explain these phenomena.

Indeed, it neither contracts nor refutes B.I.A.Lism either so this is extremely weak as evidence for theism.

I agree completely.

How not? It explains how the universe came to be in a manner that parallels christianity exactly, "created by an agent outside of our reality".


It is irrefutable actually, in the same way as your theology. And since we can see how a B.I.A.L scenario could be done, when technology progresses enough, it is in fact more likely than theism by orders of magnitude, because theism has yet to demonstrate that there is indeed a supernatural reality, much less that it conforms to their conception of it.

Simple: The universe was created to run a B.I.A.L scenario.

Yes, that was the one. Thanks for responding David.

David Mathews

Hello Helen,

David: I am not aware of any Biblical scripture which specifically speaks about atheists or claims that they want to believe in God. My statements were not inspired by any scripture, just a speculative theory regarding the motives of atheists.

David: I change my opinions all the time and will change them in the future as often as I wish to do so.

David: I said it to atheists directly specifically so that they would have the opportunity to disagree.

David: A sensed some insecurity and doubt among atheists which seemed to indicate that some atheists really do want to believe in God. I am speaking about those atheists, not all atheists.

David: I didn't start there. There were about four hundred posts in the present discussion before I got to this point.

David: I would become frustrated or troubled in the least if an atheists said that. In the present discussion, some atheists even claimed that I am a strong atheist.

David: I am just floating a baloon, testing the waters. The responses of the atheists to this comment are very informative -- I do listen to atheists very closely.

David: I am speaking to a diverse group of atheists. Some things that I say might apply to one a small percentage of atheists, even so I still need to say it.

David: The truth about what?

David: There are more than 7000 members of the Internet Infidels discussion board. I suspect that my comments were applicable to more than one or two of that large group.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Sandlewood,

David: When you speak about yourself, I can assure you that I do believe what you say. If you say that you don't believe in God and have never believed in God, I am confident that you are correct in saying so.

Would you believe in a God?

Would you change you mind about atheism?

Have you thought about what would change your mind?

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Vorkosigan,

David: Atheists are a diverse group, are they not?

David: Communists from China who have never heard of God or read the Bible would have no desire to convert. I agree with you absolutely in this case.

David: That is true, no doubt about it whatsoever. I think that religious students want to become atheists for the same reason that some atheists really do want to become Christians. Those people who are devoted to the search will no remain locked into one system of thought.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello emphryio,

David: It serves little purpose to speculate as to my motive. If you read the initial post in this thread you would know that I came here because I was invited by an atheist. I didn't come here to convert you or anyone else, I don't feel that it is my responsibility to convert any of you.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Starspun,

David: I think it most unfortunate that the children of atheistic parents don't appreciate the mystery of existence. That's really unforunate because those mysteries still remain unsolved today.

Do you really believe that you have answered all of the questions and found the solution to all of the mysteries which humans have thought about for the last ten thousand years?

If you have the answer to the mystery, I want to hear it.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Typhon

This, has to be one of the most personally insulting and monumentally baseless accusations I've heard as an atheist.

I challenge you to either show, in some convincing, credible manner, that this is true, or else retract or at least refrain, from any such unsupported and similarly insulting claims of this sort.

I can assure you, that my disbelief is real and total, and my enjoyment to cutting through tripe like this which is a common staple from theists of all stripes in lieu of real, sustentative, reasoned arguments, is genuine and not a subterfuge for some hidden god-wish.

Sigh.

.T.

Starspun

Nothing mysterious about it, really. A cum shot, a fertilized egg, voila'. Existence.

David Mathews

Hello Splashing,

David: Yes.

David: The problem with your critique of religion in the above paragraphs is that your locked into the "dark ages" form of religion. As a matter of fact, religion had a long and noteworthy intellectual legacy prior to the Dark Ages, and religion has made many gains since the Dark Ages.

I look at religion from the standpoint of its expression on six continents throughout many thousands of years of human history. The "dark ages" do not characterize the whole of religious thought.

David: There are no empirical means of observing the origin of the Universe or any Universe. Origin questions are outside the jurisdiction of science.

David: Perhaps scientists will unravel all of these mysteries, but their success is by no means guaranteed.

David: I don't need or believe in a God of the gaps. I believe in a God of everything. God is ultimately responsible for all explainable andy any unexplainable phenomena in this Universe.

David: If you choose to believe Brain-in-a-Laboratoryism, there are no means by which I can refute that belief. I don't accept the belief, by any means, but you can accept or reject it if you wish.

David: You have a way with words:

Naturalism includes questions that may never be answered ...

Religion includes answers that may never be questioned.

In reality, religious people have questioned their answers and asked unanswered questions for thousands of years.

David: When someone speaks about a "naturalistic explanation of the Universe" I really don't know what they mean and have some doubts about whether that phrase actually means anything. What do you suppose that the phrase means? How would anyone verify the naturalistic scenario?

David: Technically speaking, computer models do have intelligent creators separate, distinct, isolated and altogether different from the Universe of the model. Perhaps this might have some relevance to the Theism?

David: Consciousness is not a quality of atoms, nor is it a property of molecules. Consciousness is also not a property of cells, nor is it a property of organs. If consciousness is a property of the brain, is it a property of the individual brain cells or it is a property contained in one small portion of the brain or is it a property of the whole brain?

From the standpoint of my own perceptions, it seems very unlikely that consciousness is a physical phenomema. I don't perceive that my toes are conscious, nor do I perceive my arms as conscious. I don't perceive my ears as conscious nor even my mouth. I must say that about 95% of my body is not conscious, the majority of which I could lose altogether or lose the use of without impacting my consciousness in any manner.

Consciousness and self-awareness are two great mysteries and I do not anticipate their solution within my lifetime.

David: I am speaking intuitively. From a practical standpoint at the present moment naturalism hasn't accounted for all of these phenomena. Naturalism will not account for them in my lifetime, I expect. What naturalism accomplishes after I am dead is of little relevance to me.

David: The "loss of consciousness" during a judo match might merely represent the state of deep sleep, though in this case induced by violence rather than relaxation. I do not pretend to solve all questions related to the nature of consciousness.

David: Perhaps these concepts do offer some psychological comfort to some theists. I suspect that the religious impulse is a lot more powerful than these trivial considerations.

David: Perhaps none. Would you prefer it if the social factors did encourage atheism?

David: In a million years we will know.

David: If atheism does not fulfill any emotional or psychological needs that means that atheism is, essentially, nothing. Do you believe that atheism is nothing? Do you believe that atheism has no positive qualities whatsoever?

David: Until the experiment is performed I suppose the outcome is doubtful.

David: I would not expect that science would reveal anything except for 100% naturalistic phenomena. God's activities are not subject to scientific investigation as they are not perceptible nor comprehensible by humans.

David: I think that naturalism, materialism and empiricism must fail when they confront questions regarding transcendent matters. These methods are simply not equipped to handle such questions and that is why they must fail.

David: Don't you see that all naturalistic origin scenarios are irrefutable just as brain-in-a-laboratoryism is irrefutable?

Sincerely,

David Mathews