Jayhawker Soule

Atheism, defined as the absence of a belief, may be perfectly consistent with any number of things. It is unclear to me, however, how the Deist's proposition is in any way consistent with "Metaphysical Naturalism, the view that our natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself." [from II - About Us].

luvluv

I think you guys are premature to state that evolution does away with the need for a creator God. Scientists still know of no natural mechanism for the creation of the universe or the creation of life. It is premature to state that God is not necessary for both occurances if you cannot demonstrate how.

I've noticed a great gap between the confidence with which people on this board proclaim how the universe and life could have originated quite easily without God and the statements of actual scientists who study these fields. I just read a few articles about the origin of life conference that just happened and the people closest to the problem at this point seem the most perplexed by it. This is not to say that there won't one day be a natural explanation that fully covers all of this. However, in the absence of such evidence it is very premature to say that God, or at least some force other than nature, is unecessary.

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Bible Humper

No, it isn't premature to dismiss the Great Magic Sky Juju as creator just because the mystery of the universe's origin hasn't yet been unraveled. The possibility that the universe is surrounded in grape jelly is more credible than the theory that we are all the pets of The Great Magic Sky-Juju.

"God in the gaps" has the distinction of being a line of argument that in trillions of uses by billions of believers not having been right even one friggin time when the mysteries of the phenomenon in question were at last unraveled. Naturalism has yet to suffer it's very first failure under the same conditions.

You'll need to do much better than that....

Philip Osborne

"Metaphysical Naturalism, the view that our natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself."

Atheism is certainly not limited to accepting metaphysical naturalism. It seems to me that any belief system that denies the existence of a religiously significant deity can appropriately be called atheism. Not all atheists need be metaphysical naturalists.

-Philip

Jayhawker Soule

Quite the contrary, it is long overdue. Be that as it may, did you have anything to contribute relative to Deism?

luvluv

Bible Humper, that's a little disengenious.

First of all, I would think that the origin of life field is one big collosal failure to date. In fact, I am not aware of a single field of scientific endeavor that has so long and consistent a record of total futility. So far, they have come up with a very large number of means by which it is impossible for life to come about naturalistically, and not one way in which it is possible.

Can you name a serious claim of Christianity that has been undone by science? Certainly, the conjecture of witch doctors and the like has been, but what Christian claim has been undone by science? What is this unbroken string of success that science has over Christianity?

The bottom line is that if you do not know how something happen, you cannot rule out any means by which it could have possibly happened. You are no more justified in believing that the earth popped into existence out of nothing than I am of believing that it was created with a purpose. The grape jelly problem could just as easily be applied to your assertion that the universe popped into existence out of nothing.

The old god of the gaps complaint makes one crucial error: it assumes that all gaps are equal, and it assumes that we can overcome all gaps. It's quite possible that the question of how the universe originated can never be answered by humanity. Then what? Suppose this particular gap is NEVER bridged. What makes your belief more justified than mine?

I say this with all the respect I can muster: Are you telling me it isn't magic to assume that the universe, and all it's laws, popped into existence out of nothing?

Jayhawker Soule

That is not in question. At issue is whether or not Deism is consistent with metaphysical naturalism. I suspect that a similar question may, by extension, be asked of agnosticism.

Jayhawker Soule

And I ask with all due respect that you do not coopt this thread. Again, if you have nothing to say on topic, I would sincerely appreciate it if you would simply shut up.

luvluv

I might if you asked nicely.

You can skip my responses if you like.

By the way, didn't you start this thread by stating that:

I'm trying to explain to you why the existence of a God, or some supernatural force to get the universe started, might still be considered by some to be a necessary conclusion.

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

In retrospect, I think you're correct. I apologize.