lpetrich

First, how does one distinguish design from non-design?

I've recently been doing a fair amount of research into animal behavior and the question of animal intelligence, as a result of my recent posting on whether spiderwebs are intelligently designed. We all know about pet owners who anthropomorphize their pets, and the late-19th-cy. biologist George Romanes collected an abundance of seeming evidence of animal intelligence, such as ants rescuing a fellow ant which had gotten trapped by some dirt. I don't know what he concluded about spiderwebs, but I'm sure that he had thought that spiders are intelligent designers.

However, more careful research reveals a lack of intelligence -- most animal behavior is a combination of instincts and simple sorts of learning, though these can sometimes be complicated, as in the case of a spider building a web. "Insight learning", where the subject pauses a bit before going ahead with a solution, is rare, though chimps are clearly capable of it and some bird species seem to be capable of it. Insight-learning solutions may be interpreted as evidence of intelligent design by the solvers; a chimp that stacks crates to reach an out-of-reach banana might be said to be intelligently designing that crate stack.

I now return to AF's comments.

Second, our Universe could be a bubble in some super-Universe; maybe some entity's experiment.

And in reference to Romulus, I note that he also was described as the son of a god and a virgin (sound familiar?). And that some wicked king wanted to kill him when he was a baby (also sound familiar?).

DMB

Atheists are not required to believe in the Big Bang. As a non-physicist and non-cosmologist, I don't feel qualified to get involved in the arguments of those who are so qualified. I am prepared to accept the Big Bang provisionally on the basis that there is a degree of scientific consensus on the outline of the subject. But it could all collapse tomorrow without worrying me.

But I don't have to have an explanation for the existence of the universe. If no atheist could explain it, it still wouldn't help to justify your sectarian religious explanation. Goddidit because someone says so. Well how about if it was caused by the enormous fart of a giant titan? You couldn't disprove that either, but it doesn't make it true.

You say:
Large numbers of people worldwide are not so convinced, including adherents of other religions as well as atheists. It can't therefore be taken as inherently convincing. So your conviction is simply faith, deny it how you will.

Stephen T-B

Hello Atticus-Finch.
I thought someone would point out that his/her Faith as a Christian involves something other than believing in the existence of God, and thank you for doing so.
In your original post you wrote: "I am convinced that Christianity is based on history and evidence. I am convinced that God exists, that Jesus lived, worked miracles, claimed to be God incarnate, was crucified, died, was buried and rose again (bodily) on the third day."
Of course you are or you wouldn't be a Christian.
But do these same things convince me? Of course not or I wouldn't have raised the subject in the first place.
If I were to tell you that I am convinced that there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, how would classify that statement? As an observation of fact on which everyone can agree, or as a declaration of belief?
If I were to state that there is a tree at the bottom of my garden, how would you classify that statement? As an observation of fact on which everyone can agree, or as a declaration of belief?
How, then, should I classify your declaration about God, Jesus et al?
Because your belief is real, you are bound to think that what you believe in is real or else you wouldn't believe in it. But aren't you at all perplexed by the fact that although it is real to you, it is not real to me?
OK. That"s a rhetorical question: you know that since god exists I must know it too; you know that it is out of perversity and/or wickedness that I claim not to, and that the way I have chosen to exercise the free will god gave me is going to dump me in hell
That certainty is part and parcel of all your other certainties.
There is, unfortunately, a circularity in your reasoning: the only support for what you believe in is provided by what you believe in. And what you cannot believe is that I or anyone else can possibly be outside that circle of belief which so completely encompasses you.
You would like to clinch the argument by proving that god does exists, in the same way you can prove a tree does. Don't try. Firstly you cannot; secondly, as I have stated, if you were to succeed, your faith would collapse.

Duvenoy

"If you saw a man do miracles and raise from the dead don't you think you would remember it 20 years from now?"

I'd instantly suspect a grift and hide my wallet in my boot. Damn straight, I'd remember it!



Doov

Automaton

A better question is, "If there is a God, how did the universe come into existence?"

1. God would not allow totality of reality to be anything less than the maximal state it can be.
2. God (and only God) is the maximal state reality can obtain.
3. Therefore if God exists, then nothing other than God exists.
4. Something other than God exists (the universe.)
5. Therefore God does not exist.

1 and 2 follow from God's moral/ontological perfectitude, and his primacy over all things.

And, how would God's existence even explain the universe? It seems, by all measures, impossible (although apparently Swinburne has solved it, I must get around to reading his book on the subject some time ) for a timeless state of affairs (God) to result in a temporal state of affairs (the universe), through atemporal "causal" action.

Finally, what properties of God as creator of the universe would have virtue over say, an impersonal, mechanistic and naturalistic force? Why is one faith position over another (unless you can deduce the logical impossibility of all other options) any better than simply stating you lack knowledge?

Stephen T-B

To get back to Creation/Evolution...
The mind that cannot perceive the threshold between the rational and the irrational is out of control. That is why Ed is able to make his wonderful assertions about the Flood and how Noah managed the tricky task of ensuring that every life-form on Earth not only managed to get its representatives aboard, but to keep them alive so they could carry on from where the Flood had made them leave off.
The objections to this daft tale are so numerous, so obvious, so overwhelming (one supposes, for instance, that God was pretty disappointed by the outcome of his clean-slate approach: after wiping out so much, what did he end up with? Animals that ate each other and people who did the same. Ever heard of cannibals, Ed?) that to believe in it requires a detachment of the thought process from everything experience teaches us about life and the world around us.
Ed demonstrates the complete absence in his mind of a boundary between the plausible and the implausible.
If The Flood and the creation myth as told in Genesis 1 and 2 – and we note with interest that God created light (Day One) and the "herbs, the trees, the animals and all creeping things," (Day Three) BEFORE he created the sun (Day 4) – seem to him to be perfectly reasonable accounts of actual events, then his detachment from reality is complete.
He is in the realm of fantasy, but no doubt perfectly happy there.
But before leaving him to his bliss, I must ask him if there is anything in that first chapter of Genesis which would have told an ignorant and simple people, without telescopes or microscopes, anything that their un-aided observations of their situation and surroundings had not already suggested.
Genesis 1 & 2 are not remarkable for what they reveal; they are remarkable – in terms of Divine Revelation – for how much they leave out. Like the actual nature of the sun and the moon and the real reason for day and night and the changing seasons, and the fact that among god's creations were invisible bacteria and viruses. How many lives might have been saved, Ed, had people known from an early date that sickness and plague are caused by contaminated water or the bites of fleas or the preparation of food with ditty hands rather than by Divine judgment?

scigirl

Nice, very nice, Stephen T-B! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

scigirl

Atticus_Finch

I am a relative newcomer to infidels.com but I am amazed by the arrogance shown here. So many here boldly state what they believe to be "fact" and belittle what others believe as "faith".

Each one of us looks at the evidence around us and we interpret it in different ways. I have interpreted the evidence to lead me to the conclusion that God exists and is revealed in the Christian scriptures. Many of you have looked at the same evidence and decided that God does not exist. Just because we interpret the same evidence differently does not mean that only one side is rational.

I accept that there are many points with respect to creation, the flood and other biblical accounts for which I do not have a suitable explanation. (For that matter, I do not believe that one must strictly/literally interpret Genesis in order to be a Christian). The existence of a creator god does not require that he reveal every detail of the universe. Likewise, materialists do not have suitable explanations for the existence of the universe, the transformation of non-living matter into life and other questions. Until you have a proven theory of how the universe came into being, or that it has always existed, you must accept the possibility that God exists.

Faced with that possibility, my examination of the existing evidence leads me to the conclusion that the truth statements of Christianity are correct and leads me to have faith in the promises of the Christian God. That is my "faith".

Regards,

Finch

sidewinder

I'm guessing that many non-theists on this board (perhaps not all)would concede your point that it's possible that a god exists, and I count myself among those who allow for the possibility that a god exists. I think the major disagreement is over the assertion that the Christian God is the god of the universe. I agree with you that it comes down to how one evaluates the evidence for the Christian religion. My question to you is why is it necessary to prove a theory of how the universe came to exist? It's possible humans may never be able to plainly know how the universe came to exist. Does this mean that in the absence of this knowledge, we should all believe in the Christian God? Finally, you've said that you've examined the evidence for Christianity and you believe it's the absolute truth. Have you fully examined the evidence for Islam and concluded that it's not the absolute truth?

hezekiah jones

I'm puzzled as to why so many Christians perceive requests for evidence and/or clarification of misleading analogies as "arrogance."

Especially puzzling, for obvious reasons, is that an attorney would consider a request for evidence "arrogance." Evidence, as to the scientist, is your meat and potatoes, no?