madmax2976

Hello David,

Let me first commend you for keeping up with so many posts. Its refreshing not to see a hit and run poster.

<strong> I refer to red light shift measurements and cosmic background radiation tests that are used as the primary arguments for the Big Bang theory. There is also a new "cyclic" theory that has been recently discussed in the news. You can look up these things on numerous websites.

Now, what evidence would your present for your hypothesis assuming your interested in supporting your hypothesis at all?

<strong> Big Bang theory, cyclic theory, steady state theory (not as popular though), some even conclude the universe infinitely old.

<strong> Read up on the Big Bang theory with red light shift measurements, cosmic microwave radiation and the COBE satellite, and here's a link to a new theory:

<a href="http://http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/new_universe_020425.html" target="_blank">web page</a>

<strong> Then I would assume the natural explanation is yet to be discovered, as the evidence is highly in favor of naturalist answers where mysteries are concerned.

If you meant what I would do if the supernatural were proven to exist, then I would no longer be a naturalist.

<strong> Not necessarily. There are many atheists who believe in the supernatural but don't believe in any personal, intelligent deity.

<strong> I suppose we could simply assume that the supernaturalistic cause is "hidden", but still present even after we find a natural cause. But the question remains, how will anyone verify the existence of supernatural entities or forces? Or is it just to remain an unsupportable possibility, like unicorns or leprechauns? I wonder why we would complicate the issue so needlessly. If the supernatural exists, but it is impossible for us to confirm it exists, then it is irrelevant and useless to us, as it wouldn't impact us in any way.

<strong> So you define a person starting a fire as a supernatural event? Strange. Are you attempting to make a distinction between "non-natural" and supernatural here? Do you consider humans unnatural or supernatural?

<strong> So if we sought to explain some disease, isolated the offending bacteria and developed a cure, this explanation for the disease would not preclude that evil demons might still be the ultimate cause?

I suspect your right. It could still be possible that the evil demons caused the bacteria to form in the first place. Of course we could then explain the origin of the bacteria - perhaps some cesspool under the street? We could explain why the bacteria mutated and caused the disease. But of course the evil demons could have caused the thing that cause the bacteria to mutate. Then we could go on to explain the cause of the mutation factor - but those pesky demons could have been the case of that - and on and on we go.

As my original point indicates, whenever we have actually explained some phenomena, we have arrived at a natural explanation. If you wish to hope that the supernatural exists, in spite of the lack of evidence for it, then your free to do so of course.

I count it as good evidence for naturalism that whenever we do explain something, the explanation is a natural one.

<strong> Yes and could it be that we are all brains in vats being fed electrical stimuli? Sure. Could it be that the universe was created 6 seconds ago, with everything just as it is? Sure. Could it be that this is all just a dream in the head of some child god who hasn't woken up yet? Sure.

I'm not too interested in what "could" be as that is practically endless. I'm interested in what I can actually determine to likely be true.

<strong> If there is a "similiarity" then you couldn't argue that your view is superior so thats something. However, why you would equate natural events with magic I have no idea.

<strong> Nice diversion attempt, but no cigar. There is evidence against the supernatural in general. The point being that you cannot justifiably attack atheists as being "compelled" to believe in evolution or whatever, as theists are just as compelled to believe in magical powers and the supernatural with much less evidence - no evidence from what I have seen so far. Your argument would be illogical and hypocritical.

You cannot accuse atheists of adhering to some atheist "dogma" when such is not the case and when theists are the ones who typically do hold to "dogmas". Again, hypocrisy.

<strong> Of course a God could have originated life. An evil demon could have originated life. There could be an invisible dragon in my garage. Life could be just an illusion. I just have no good reason to believe such things are true.

<strong> Show me yours for once and I'll show you mine. Continually answering questions with other questions to avoid having to answer any questions can be viewed as rude and/or even deceitful.

<strong> Thanks. As long you wouldn't attempt to argue that your view is the view I should adopt, then we have no problem and it would seem, little to diccuss.

Jobar

David Mathews, from your posts here I adjudge you a Christian of the type we see here far too seldom. Sadly, what we usually see- both in this forum and in society at large- is Doug Bender-

"Sorry to say, but you are an apostate (if you ever were a true Christian), and it is not unlikely that you could soon end up an atheist as the former Church of Christ poster here had become. But, what difference would that make, if you are correct, eh?"

David, if all Christians were like you I don't know if this forum would even exist- certainly it would be vastly different. We have a few other reasonable and consistent Christians here- if you get a chance, talk to seebs or HelenSL. You will like both of them, I'm sure.

Which is not to say that we will not continue to disagree with the philosophical and theological positions you espouse! I call myself an atheist/pantheist- I see no evidence for the existence of a God except for existence itself. And as is stated in the classic works of Vedanta, Buddhism and Zen, trying to explain the whole universe with the whole universe is like trying to grasp your hand with your hand, or see your eye with your eye.

For the Christian God, I am an atheist- and I stand at the verge of strong atheism, because Yahweh seems to be logically impossible. In a universe with any sort of imperfection, perfection is impossible; in a universe with evil, omnibenevolence is impossible.

I will bow out of this present discussion; you have far too many people talking at you as is! I will however read it closely. I hope you stick around for further conversations.

And if you feel that you are being treated unfairly by any member of II, please contact me privately. Just as theists have their Doug Benders, we atheists also have our share of mannerless thugs and barbarians. My job as a moderator is to keep such under control. J.

Bible Humper

Good afternoon, David

Nothing compels you to reject Dionysus, and you could choose to have faith in him, but have chosen not to. You seem to me to believe that all religions are human interpretations of a single supernatural truth, and your allegiance to one particular religion is inertia rather than anything else.

I have to agree with Douglas Bender, that you are an apostate in regards to Christianity, since you both reject the idea that Christianity is exclusively the truth, and accept that non-christian religions also contain truth. Your view is certainly the more rational if supernature exists.

Well, at a certain point my explainations for the origin of the universe and consciousness are the most mundane of all explainations, "I don't know". I should have said speculative instead of extraordinary I guess, and materialistic instead of mundane, so I'll try to be more precise from now on.

Ok, well by the strict definition nobody knows anything, and it is impossible to ever change this fact. If we are going to apply this standard to empirical data though, for every increase of doubt that truth can be discerned empirically, unfounded speculation must suffer an equal amount of additional doubt, if not an exponential amount more. Thus, it all stays the same and empiricism remains superior.

Theists often have trouble with this, for whatever reason. Atheism has no positive content whatsoever, it simply means "not a theist", nothing more, nothing less. Metaphysical naturalism, on the other hand, contains positive content and is subject to validation and empirical proof.

Alright, since you don't assert that Christianity has a monopoly on truth, but that it is the only religion you follow, is it fair to say that this is inertia that keeps you defining yourself a christian as I did earlier?

It makes no difference whether you don't believe in deities because you have never heard of them, or if you have heard of them but don't believe in them anyway, these are both atheists! Atheism is lack of belief in a deity, nothing more, nothing less.

I believe that the theistic inability to conceptualize this can be traced back to religious instruction being indoctrination rather than teaching. "Yahweh exists" is hardcoded to the centre of the believers' thoughts through positive reinforcement during his formative years, and all other thoughts lead back to this directly or via rationalization. Even though the fact that "Yahweh exists" is a positive assertion does not itself imply that it isn't true, the christian insists that it is the atheist making positive assertions, and that atheism must be learned.

It is fascinating and frustrating at the same time.

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Splashing Colours Of Whimsy ]</p>

Theli

Madmax & David...

Isn't this whole question abit bogus?
Isn't god reffered to as a conscious, living being and cannot "originate" life?
Or, perhaps I'm being just abit too pedantic.

madmax2976

The context of the point was biological life forms. As "God" is defined as a supernatural being, this presumably wouldn't apply to such an entity - at least not directly.

Of course God is just defined that way. There's no evidence to back up such assertions, so eventually this would cause problems.

David Mathews

Hello Goliath,

David: You have free will in this life. Your ultimate destination after this life is over is a decision that belongs to God entirely.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Goliath

David Mathews,

So, if your god forces me to go to heaven, even though I'd rather be in hell, then why should I love such a god? Why should I do anything except hate and spit upon such a god?

Sincerely,

Goliath

David Mathews

Hello Rainbow Walking,

David: The idealism that I am speaking about here applies to both believers and unbelievrs. Ultimately both groups reach conclusions about reality which are impossible to verify.

David: All people throughout history have sought for some explanation for the universe and mankind. I must say that atheists have engaged in this sort of speculation just as much as any Christian.

David: I find it difficult to believe that you have thoroughly examined information from religion regarding its explanatory power. There are hundreds of thousands of books and millions of pages devoted to religion. There are hundreds of thousands of books and millions of pages devoted to the Universe and its components.

After reading through all of this material, there is an additional tens of thousands of pages written every day about these matters. If that is not enough, consider the many thousands of things that humans do not yet comprehend, and those things which humans have not yet even imagined.

We're dealing with a big subject here and everyone should appreciate its complexity.

David: Correct answers are provisional on all things, including both beliefs and facts.

As to the viability of my own beliefs: I wake up every morning, I spend the day involved in the activities of life, and I fall asleep at night. I suppose that my beliefs are viable.

David: It matters little that religion has a greater impact on the world relative to your judgent of its merits. All these other people have every right to adopt the religions that they follow and so we cannot help but live in a world filled with religion. They don't answer to you and they don't answer to me, either.

David: The last sentence contains a question which appears legitimate but in reality it is not. People who have faith in their religion are rational because they presume the truth of their religious convictions. Opponents of the faith assume that all followers of that faith are irrational specifically because they deny the truth of that religion's teachings.

The same principle which applies to any religion also applies with equal force to atheism. I have heard Christians say that atheists are irrational. They say that because in their own judgment the atheists reject self-evident truths (God's existence).

I assume that all people are rational in their own judgment, because all people assert the truth of their own beliefs and convictions. I don't consider anyone irrational based upon their religious convictions, even when those convictions are different from my own.

David: That's a difficult question. You would have to bring something up for me to evaluate its relevance to myself.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello MadMax,

David: I am aware of the evidence for the Big Bang and must say that it is convincing to me. My opposition to the Big Bang theory ended when they found the predicted variations in the Cosmic Background Radiation.

Yet I must say that there are still a lot of unanswered questions and science has a lot of work left on the subject of cosmology. Nothing is settled at this time.

David: If atheism offers all of these explanations for the origin of the Universe, it would seem that atheism does have positive content.

David: So there is some evidence that would convince you that a God existed?

David: I would consider believers in an impersonal deity to be deist, but the distinction of terminology is of no consequence.

David: I don't believe that God must be relevant or useful to us. God is not applying for a job, God is not campaigning for the role of supreme deity of the Universe. God's existence is not dictated by God's utility to humankind.

David: I am not considering humans supernatural in this illustration. I am just demonstrating that non-natural explanations for natural events are possible.

A forest fire can occur naturally or it may occur by arson. If a scientist demonstrates that forest fires can occur naturally, that scientist has not proven that natural explanations are the only explanations for forest fires.

The supernaturalist analogy: Life can (theoretically) originate naturally, or it might originate supernaturally. Supposing a scientist were to demonstrate life can originate naturally, the scientist still has not proven that life on earth originated naturally.

David: A natural origin of disease and the transmission of disease from pests to humans is, in my opinion, a fact. For those people who believe in the operation of evil demons, the mere existence of a natural explanation will not lead them to reject their alternative explanation.

David: For those things that humans can explain, natural explanations are available. For those things which humans have not yet explained, a natural explanation is anticipated. For ultimate things, no natural explanation is available, or at the very least no natural explanation is provable.

David: I am interested in finding out what it is that you can actually determine to likely be true. What are these things and how did you determine that they are true?

David: It is not necessary for me to claim that the supernatural explanation is superior to the natural explanation. I also don't consider the supernatural explanation to be "magic."

David: If atheism has no positive contents whatsoever, and if atheists are not dogmatic, it would appear reasonable to conclude that atheists do not have any sort of argument against Christianity.

What is this evidence against the supernatural that you are speaking about here? I would really like to know.

David: I have answered a lot of questions, so I think that I am allowed to ask questions. I have some interest in your viewpoint, that is why I am asking these questions.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Jobar,

Thanks for your kind comments. I have enjoyed your contributions to this discussion and look forward to future participation in other discussions.

Best Regards,

David Mathews