sidewinder

There has been much discussion on these boards lately by theists claiming that since no human knows the origin of the universe, then their faith in a god as the first cause is similiar to the "faith" of an atheist that there is no god as the first cause. The claim by the theist seems to be that theists and atheists are at the same starting point and must choose either a first cause (god) or some other theory other than a first cause. Yet, as others have already pointed out in these discussions, there's no reason why any human has to choose one or the other. Humans can live perfectly happy and fulfilling lives without knowing the origin of the universe.

Even if, for the sake of discussion, a majority of scientists concluded that the universe does appear to be intelligently designed, that there is an intelligence with a purpose behind the universe, it still does not obligate humans to pay any attention to this designer. First, we know nothing about this designer. All we know is what this designer created, the universe. The universe is what we perceive with our senses. From this standpoint, I would contend that any facts we learn about the universe, which includes facts about life on earth, would be the "truth" according to this designer. Furthermore, there are many things yet to discover and learn about the universe. This designer seems to have left it to humans to figure it out for themselves. My conclusion is that any knowledge that humans try to gain about the universe would not be offensive to this designer at all because we are simply making an effort to learn more about the universe so that we can make human life as good as it can possibly be. At least, I think that's the goal. So for example, if evolution is fact, which the evidence seems to overwhelmingly prove that it is, then evolution is the "truth" about how the designer brought humans into existence. If a designer exists, then by all appearances, this designer has left humans to figure things out for themselves. (I think this would be a deist type god.)

Any thoughts? Happy Thursday

Daydreamer

How can this be a happy Thursday? I never could quite get the hang of Thursdays, and on top of that the Vogon's demolished the Earth to make way for a hyperspace bypass on a Thursday.

Anyways, you raise a good point, and one that is too often ignored - IDers often make the leap from Designer --> Jehovah without any logic better than the post hoc "The bibble sez the world was created, and the world was created according to ID, ergo it was created by the bibble's creator".

eh

I should point out that theists and atheists are in fact, not on equal grounds of faith when considering the origins of the universe. The atheist typically believes that the universe is all there is. The theist believes in a being with magic powers who created this visible universe. So one has faith in a universe, while the other has faith in a creator of this universe, right?

Well, no. It takes no faith to say that the universe exists, as we know it does. Already knowing the universe exists, we don't need the leap of faith theists take to talk about origins.

The Messiah

Sidewinder

An excellent start point for a religion, and I don't mean this in a derogartory sense. Traditional theists have the monopoly on religion and frankly I think this is unfair. They seem to enjoy extremely good financial rewards and the delivery from their practice is very poor. I don't see why scientists cannot be considered practictions of a modern religion. If the universe around us can be understood and manipulated I can easily see science to be the pious and dedicated practice of reading the scripture, the book of life.

We could borrow a fundamental principle from religion and state that only through the study of the book (the universe) can we possibly hope to understand his purpose.

Seb_Maya

In opposition to you eh I would say that theists and atheists are on similar grounds of faith when considering the origins of the universe. If someone was "born" in a room and no one entered or ventured out of it, then that room is all that the person will know. Your argument is: how can you talk about the existence of something when you haven't seen it. This person has no knowledge of what is outside, to him the room is all that exists. You believe that this universe is all that exists, you can tell me that the universe is infinite, but again isn't this a faith in something that you do not know and cannot see?

Autonemesis

The atheist will try to poke a hole in the wall to see what is outside.

The theist will sit on the floor and pray for understanding.

Who is more likely to learn the true nature of his situation?

BTW, the universe is not infinite, nor do astronomers say it is infinite. They say it is finite, but unbounded. Strike one strawman.

rebelnerd

A simplistic example would be gravity, I can't see it yet I know it exists. I don't have to have faith to believe in it. As far as how the universe as we know it began, I really don't know. I agree that even if there was a creator as opposed to a creating event, this creator has apparently not deemed it fit to show itself and is most likely unconcerned about how we choose to interpret it.


Filo

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: Filo Quiggens ]</p>

rebelnerd

rebelnerd

Hit the wrong button, I guess my design isn't so intelligent today.

Filo

Tercel

It's always seemed to me to take a lot of faith for the atheist to declare the universe is all there is. It seems like a man on a small island in the middle of the ocean proclaiming that since he can't see any other land, his own island is all there is.

I've never quite been able to fathom either how trillions of tonnes of energy spontaneously exploding itself into existence and forming into exactly X quintillion finite particles moving in arbitrary directions could be considered as a necessary existent or as having no cause.
No doubt I lack the imagination of many athiests.