Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith · 02-18-2003, 04:54 PM

Quote:

[i]Originally posted by Dr Rick

"Using your own reasoning, a god that had made the universe a certain way today wouldn't be restricted from changing it tomorrow. You have provided no rationale to assume he won't."

Well, actually I did provide a reason to think that the uniformity will continue. I appealed to God's purposeful, unchanging nature.

So the logic you use is this:

1. Keith says, God made the universe to behave in a certain regular way.

2. Keith says that God isn't restricted from changing the regularity of nature.

3. It then logically follows that if Keith's God exists, and he can change the uniformity of nature, he will change the uniformity of nature.

Keith

Keith · 02-18-2003, 04:59 PM

Quote:

[i]Originally posted by Dr Rick

"It is not atheists that pray to gods to heal sickness or keep their children from getting medical care while waiting for divine intervention. It is not atheists that oppose teaching science in the classrooms. It is not atheists that have fought sceintific advancement for centuries. It is not the Bible that teaches us about relativity or genetics. It is not the churches or mosques that have discovered antibiotics and invented computers.

It is theists that have a hard time seperating fantasies about make-believe gods from reality.

Nonsensical beliefs about gods, talking serpents and donkeys, and a universe 6000 years old don't make too much sense."

O.K., so you are saying that talking serpents and donkeys can't happen?

How do you know what is possible and what is impossible? Please explain this.

Keith

Dr Rick · 02-18-2003, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
It then logically follows that if Keith's God exists, and he can change the uniformity of nature, he will change the uniformity of nature.

Strawman

Quote:

O.K., so you are saying that talking serpents and donkeys can't happen?
How do you know what is possible and what is impossible? Please explain this.

...and another one. No one said that they were "impossible;" but these stories in your holy book do put your gibberish about "making sense of the universe through the god of the Bible" in perspective.

Rick

Keith · 02-18-2003, 07:12 PM

Quote:

[i]Originally posted by Dr Rick

"No one said that they were "impossible;" but these stories in your holy book do put your gibberish about "making sense of the universe through the god of the Bible" in perspective."

I still don't follow this. If you're not saying that talking serpents and donkeys are impossible, what is wrong with my asserting that these things might have happened?

Keith

Keith · 02-18-2003, 07:23 PM

Quote:

[i]Originally posted by Philosoft

"I dismiss this entire tirade as religio-emotional wishful thinking. It has no basis in fact whatsoever."

I want to ask you three simple questions about morality:

1. Is murder objectively a "moral wrong"? (wrong for everyone regardless of their own personal feelings about it).

2. If it is, why is it wrong?

3. If it is wrong, how do you know it?

Keith

Keith · 02-18-2003, 07:59 PM

Quote:

[i]Originally posted by Philosoft

"But all you've done is push your problems back one level; you have solved nothing. If you answer the question, "Why does the universe have properties X, Y and Z" with, "Because it reflects the creator's properties X, Y and Z," you still have the problem of explaining the existence of something with properties X, Y and Z. I ground X, Y and Z in the universe, you ground them in God. Both ideas have the same epistemic justification, but I have the Razor's edge, so to speak."

I also would generally prefer the simpler explanation. But sometimes simpler doesn't explain anything. When that situation arises, why not consider some answer that is "pushed back" another level?

It is no answer to say that the universe "just is" this way, because the whole idea is to try to understand what is, and why it is the way it is. In this particular case, atheism is stuck. It has no ability to explain the intelligent design, order, purpose, etc., so the atheist must assume that the answer that the universe "just is" makes the final point--that no one can take things back any further. Atheists simply make this assumption without any justification or explanation. If knowledge is to be gained, we must keep pushing back--all the way to God, who by definition is the ultimate source.

Keith

Shadowy Man · 02-18-2003, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
It has no ability to explain the intelligent design, ..., purpose, etc.,

But there is no intelligent design or purpose that needs to be explained.

Intelligent design and purpose are interpretations of the facts, not facts themselves.

Luiseach · 02-18-2003, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
It is no answer to say that the universe "just is" this way, because the whole idea is to try to understand what is, and why it is the way it is. In this particular case, atheism is stuck. It has no ability to explain the intelligent design, order, purpose, etc.

Atheists don't often seek to 'explain the intelligent design, order, purpose, etc.' of the universe, frankly because atheists don't see the universe as designed or ordered by a supernatural intelligence. On the other hand, theists often argue for the position that the universe betrays signs of intelligent design.

Luiseach · 02-18-2003, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
But there is no intelligent design or purpose that needs to be explained.

Intelligent design and purpose are interpretations of the facts, not facts themselves.

Oops...I posted my reply (which is similar to yours) without first seeing your post.

Philosoft · 02-18-2003, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
I want to ask you three simple questions about morality:

1. Is murder objectively a "moral wrong"? (wrong for everyone regardless of their own personal feelings about it).

2. If it is, why is it wrong?

3. If it is wrong, how do you know it?

I don't believe morality is objective and, to be honest, I don't think you do either. You might call what you believe "objective morality" but that does not make it so.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.