David Mathews

Hello Helen,

I appreciate your interest in my religion but I cannot be drawn into this sort of conversation as it bear little relevance to the subject matter.

As to certain people's dissatisfaction with my responses: Why should I care if they are satisfied or not? I don't write to satisfy those people. I don't write to fulfill the expectations of others.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello MadMax,

David: Perhaps consciousness is a byproduct of the brain's functioning, or perhaps it is not. This is a matter of speculation which has little relevance to the theism/atheism dispute.

David: How much knowledge do you need to convince you that God does not exist?

David: You might begin by looking within yourself, and from there proceed to examine the Universe at all scales from subatomic to cosmic. Then perhaps you might want to consider how many things you cannot perceive within and outside of yourself.

David: I suppose that your ignorance may serve to indicate that your support for atheism and naturalism are merely an opinion or preference on your part.

David: I bring it up to point out the analogy between atheism, naturalism, theism and supernaturalism. There is no advantage to any side in this argument.

David: We can only perceive a very small segment of the electromagnetic spectrum only within a limited range of distance within an exceedingly short span of time.

David: Experience indicates that misperception is a common problem among humans.

David: I am not writing about criminal investigation and the judicial process, although both of these are impacted by the fallibility of human perception.

David: That humans routinely fail to notice obvious things is testified by universal experience.

David: Of course, perceptions have a role in the transmission of faith. The Bible says as much.

David: I did not determine the supposed fact of God's existence, I accepted that fact as a matter of faith in response to the great mystery of existence.

David: What things has naturalism explained? Why has naturalism's limited success caused you to believe in naturalism's ultimate ability to explain the existence of everything?

David: Atheism is a reasonable position but not a superior position.

David: No.

David: Supernaturalism is more appealing to me than naturalism specifically because all those natural forces and their accomplishments are not excluded by theism.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello emphryio,

David: That's great. I must say that you and your type do not scare me.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Theli,

David: You do see the whole point of my comments about atoms. Your atoms, those atoms which compose your physical body and all of its organs, are in no sense self-aware, conscious, intelligent, creative or even alive. You could even say that atoms are neither alive nor dead, they are just atoms.

I think it also a reasonable thing to say that molecules, even complicated molecules such as DNA and RNA, are not alive in any intrinsic sense. Taken out of the context of the living cell these molecules are just molecules.

Therefore when you say "I exist", "I think therefore I am" and any other expression of self-awareness or intellect, you are speaking about something different from the physical components of your body.

David: The whole point is that atoms are not similar in any fashion to living, conscious, intelligent and self-conscious beings.

David: These questions demonstrate that you understand the implications of my comments. In answer to your questions:

1. I don't have any objective knowledge of who "I" am. My identity and self-consciousness is a purely subjective perception of the mind.

2. If I am not made of atoms perhaps I do have a soul, i.e. a non-physical component.

3. My brain is not "me" or at least I am not aware of any proof that the physical organ is "me".

David: All three of the arguments which you have offered are intrinsically subjective.

David: Exactly, therefore only God is real.

David: Yes and yes.

David: Yes and yes. I must add that all belief systems, including atheism, naturalism and materialism, are based upon unfounded assumptions.

David: The Hindu scriptures are of use to me, all scriptures are of use to me. You are of use to me, all atheists are of use to me.

David: A being with two contradictory attributes can exist. We are speaking here of human perception of God and human attempts at describing and understanding God. There is no law against humans perceiving Fod as possessing seemingly contradictory qualities.

David: I am a Christian. My failure to comprehend God's attributes, thoughts and existence is perfectly compatible with the limitations placed upon human intellect. There are a whole lot of things which humans do not understand.

David: A strong theist is a person whose faith in God does not demand or require validation or verification by atheists such as yourself.

David: "Strong atheism" is dogmatic insistence that God does not and could not exist.
I defined "strong theism" above.

[quote]In your imagination, god doesn't have to be tied to any logic, he doesn't need to be comprehensible and he doesn't need to be proven.
[/quote}

David: God is not tied to human logic, God is not comprehensible by humans, and God has no need to prove His own existence to us humans.

David:

The answer to question #1: Physical things, including you and I, are real in a provisional and temporary sense. Ultimately, only God is real because God's existence is intrinsic, eternal and unprovisional.

The answer to question #2: Spiritual beings are not physical, nothingness is not physical, hence from a physical standpoint God and nothingness are not distinguishable. I don't really know what "nothingness" is, perhaps you might want to define your terminology.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

HRG

Just to give an example: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (to 14 decimals).

Because otherwise you just explain an unknown by postulating another unknown.
Because otherwise you haven't explained why we observe X and not Y. Without further information/hypotheses about God, he could as well have created Y.
Please note that I was talking in terms of explanations. "God did X" is just a shorthand for "God is the ultimate cause about X"; but it doesn't help in the least our understanding of X.

The point is of course that the mysteries of God remain constant, while the naturalistic mysteries have become less and less mysterious over the years.

Regards,
HRG.

David Mathews

Hello Jobar,

I would like to comment on one statement made in your post which is of special interest to me:

David: Naturalism has demonstrated tremendous explanatory power and has led to wonderful practical knowledge which humans have used to create all sorts of gadgets and the Internet.

I must say that the naturalism which possesses explanatory power is not atheism, nor is it theism. The scientific method is not equipped to resolve ultimate philosophical questions.

To say that science can effectively answer questions such as the properties and behavior of subatomic particles is not the same as saying that science can effectively answer the question of God's properties and behavior.

Science is not atheism. Natural explanations for natural phenomena are not atheism. Atheism is not science, atheism is not the natural explanation of all natural phenomena.

I believe that atheism in its simplest form is strictly an opinion altogether divorced from evidence, proof, logic, philosophy and reason. Atheists may utilize all of these in order to justify their opinion in their own mind or as a means of converting people to that opinion, but atheism is not intrinsically established by any of these.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

madmax2976

Hello David,

<strong> Right, then why the hell did you bring it up and why did you attempt to use it as having relevance to the theism/atheism dispute??

<strong> As you said yourself, we don't prove negatives, so your question is illogical as it contradicts your earlier stated position.

However, I have given enough evidence and arguments to shed considerable doubt on the existence all the definitions of "God" that have been presented to me so far. I'm not going to repeat those arguments.

If you have a definition or concept that you believe you can support with facts, then by all means, stop dilly-dallying and do so.

<strong> I am unable to "look within myself" as I don't have the appropriate tools available to me. Not to mention it would probably hurt as I cut myself open.

No doubt you meant this in some kind of poetic, introspective sense, but if that is the case, then I have already "looked within myself". No deity or supernatural entities or forces were detected.

As for the universe I do examine it as much as is possible for me. Is there some specific location in the universe where you can suggest I might look to find the supernatural or this deity you speak of?

As for considering things that I cannot perceive, within or without myself, - you've got be joking.
If I did consider them I would be perceiving them - please try to think a little harder before you give such illogical advice David.

<strong> David, I suppose some day you might actually make a logical argument against atheism or for theism, but I'm not sure I'm going to wait around for that day.

You've already received my arguments that favor atheism and naturalism, so you know the above statement is nothing but sheer bunk.

<strong> Please David, at least try to be explicit in your statements. What you meant to say was: "There is no advantage to any side in regards to comprehending the entire universe". Because that has been the context of your question all along and you know it.

And given that context, I fully and completely agree that there is no advantage since no view can support comprehending the entire universe. Thus I ask yet again, since you've admitted there is no advantage on this particular issue, why did you bring it up???

I doubt very highly that your as dumb as your statments make you out to be David, so I'm starting to lean towards the idea that your just dishonest in the way you discuss the issues.

<strong> Yeah, and? Whats your point? All this entire line of argumentation gets you David is a "God of the Gaps". Thats not much of an argument.

<strong> Really? And just how much experience have you had with the 6 billion people on earth? My experience has been that my perceptions are generally quite reliable. As a matter of fact, there have only been a few incidents in my entire lifetime when they have not been. (I got drunk a couple of times) You must be hanging out with the wrong crowd.

But if you would argue that your own experience is otherwise, thats fine. I guess you must then include your belief in God as one of those likely misconceptions.

<strong> Of course they are. Thats why I took your argument and considered the practical implications of it. The practical considerations are that the entire justice system should be done away with because, according to you, our perceptions are too unreliable to base anything on. For that matter lets do away with all of science as well, as that relies heavily on our perceptions.

You've double talked yourself into a corner with no way out David. You can't even trust your perception of your deity or your faith in that deity, according to your arguments.

<strong> Universal Experience? What is that?? Something you just made up?

Perhaps its lost on you David that "testified by universal experience" would be something that would rely on - you guessed it - our perceptions! So it looks like you have to use our faulty perceptions to reach the conclusion that our perceptions are faulty, but of course if they are faulty, our perception that they are faulty could be faulty, and it might be that they are not really faulty, ..Get the picture David?

I repeat David, you have tied yourself up into a great many knots with your illogic.

<strong> Uh-uh David. According to your arguements our perceptions are highly unreliable. You can't trust what the bible says or what you read as you certainly can't trust your perception of sight or even your perception of the words as you read them. Your perception of faith and what its built on is equally unreliable. In other words, you have nothing.

This is what happens when you attempt poorly thought out arguments against atheism or naturalism. You don't fully consider the implications for your own worldview.

<strong> Illogical. God will not be considered a "fact" until such time as you prove it is. You have utterly failed in that regard.

Furthermore you cannot count on your faith as it is built upon unreliable perceptions - according to you.

<strong> Because it is the only thing that has been demonstrably successful at all. Supernaturalism hasn't been in the least. If you don't see the reasonableness of going with what works and rejecting or at least being highly dubious of what doesn't, then I can't help you.

<strong> As it is more in tune with the evidence available to us, I disagree - it is reasonable AND it is also superior. At least you certainly haven't provided anything here to counter this conclusion. I've been waiting patiently for over 14 pages of posts and still nothing.

<strong> In other words, your know your not consistent. You don't care to consider what supernaturalism succeed or fails at, even though you do care in regards to naturalism. At least you admit the illogic of your position.

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

David: As a theist I consider the origin of the Universe a great mystery which the creation account of Genesis 1-2 only introduces without attempting to explain in any way. As far as scientific descriptions of the Universe go, I believe that the Big Bang model is at present the most consistent with the evidence, but there is not sufficient evidence to determine with absolute certainty how the Universe began.
------------------------------------------------
Intensity: Nobody needs "absolute certainty" in order to make a decision concerning something. Even in courts of law, whats considered is "reasonable doubt". One has to go beyond the bounds of good reason to demonsrate for example that "there is a possibility that we dont exist". And we then find ourselves in outlandish grounds of solipsism and other concepts.

But that again does not mean we need to use blind faith.

Thank U for accepting that the bible provides no useful explanation concerning "creation" and only serves to mystify the question of how the universe came to be.

-----------------------------------------------
David: The quality of the self which seems the greatest mystery to me is self-awareness, intellect, morality, ethics and aesthetics.

-----------------------------------------------
Intensity: Unless you relish having some issues tucked under your armpit called "mysteries", self-awareness, and the other three "items" you have mentioned all have very naturalistic explanations.

My only mystery has been "how could a being as complex as God just pop into existence?"
Of course after turning it around in my mind, I reach the firm decision that there is absolutely no basis to even think God exists.

We are only as complex as we think we are. Our complexity is a viewpoint not a fact.
Even bacteria can claim complexity.
------------------------------------------------
David: I don't know the answer to those questions.
-------------------------------------------------
This (above), is what I call progress.
--------------------------------------------
David: I think that your logic is flawed because you have an incomplete set of facts as your sample of the Universe is contained in that small amount of space which is perceptible to you and your observation of that space is limited to that small amount of time which constitutes your lifetime up to this point.
--------------------------------------------
So, unless we have a complete set of facts we should believe in a fairy God because the fairy God does not need a complete set of facts? How wise!
Why bother about facts at all if faith is an available alternative in the absence of a complete set of facts?
-----------------------------------------------
David: Secondarily, I don't know what sort of evidence for God that you are looking for, failing to find and therefore concluded that God does not exist.
-----------------------------------------------
God only needs to make sense. That is the only evidence.
I find the inadequacy objection to be a very compelling argument against the existence of God.
----------------------------------------------
David: I want to know how you go about determining facts about the Universe, and also how you comprehend the whole thing. I am certain that you have not gathered all the facts about the Universe because the Universe is a very big place filled with a great many things, and I am also certain that you do not comprehend the whole Universe because there are a lot of objects in the Universe which are not explained adequately by science, and some which are at the present moment completely unknown to science.
----------------------------------------------
This is called appeal to ignorance and it is a very weak argumment.
---------------------------------------------
David: Are you aware of the limitations upon human intellect and perception? Our bodies are not equipped to perceive everything, our sensing tools are very limited and our mind easily becomes confused and overwhelmed by perceptions. People routinely misinterpret what they see, and more often than not we absolutely fail to perceive even obvious things.
------------------------------------------------
Another appeal to ignorance.
------------------------------------------------
David: My confidence in the deity comes by faith.
-----------------------------------------------
I knew this. Its the last straw.
------------------------------------------------
Question: How do you go about comprehending facts about the universe?
David: In essentially the same way that you do, with all of the same limitations.
-------------------------------------------------
You use faith. What limitations does faith have?
Faith has no limitations because it is what people resort to when they give up trying.
It is the path of least resistance. In fact, the "limitations" make faith meaningful.
So, NO, it is not the same way sir.
------------------------------------------------
David: Do you really believe that naturalism will explain everything? In a sense you have faith, you have merely substituted faith in the human intellect for faith in God.
-----------------------------------------------
Naturalism will explain everything that we need to know in order to function effectively in our environment.
Naturalism will not explain for example whether a pig has a soul or not.
-------------------------------------------------
David : I find naturalism and materialism particularly ineffective as ultimate explanations for all things which exist.
-------------------------------------------------
An example please.
-------------------------------------------------
David: Reality's incomplete, temporary and transitory nature does not scare me at all
-------------------------------------------------
Please define realiy and provide evidence for its being temporal
-------------------------------------------------

REPOSTED(4th time)
David,

I would appreciate it if you provided feedback concerning what your impressions are concerning the "Two Dozen or so Good things about atheism" and whether you still feel that atheism offers nothing positive.

HelenM

Originally posted by David Mathews:
Hello Helen,

I appreciate your interest in my religion but I cannot be drawn into this sort of conversation as it bear little relevance to the subject matter.

I didn't ask about your religion; I just wanted to know what you meant, more specifically, when you alluded to some type of pivotal event that 'made you a Christian'.

If you think that's not relevant, then I wonder why you went so far as to tell me that happened at age 12. You seem to have changed your mind mid-stream - to have back-tracked - on what you want to talk about.

That's your right, of course. But I'm disappointed you wouldn't at least be clear on just one thing, having gone so far as to mention it in the first place.

As to certain people's dissatisfaction with my responses: Why should I care if they are satisfied or not? I don't write to satisfy those people. I don't write to fulfill the expectations of others.

This sounds very selfish, to me, actually. It sounds as if you post here merely for your own amusement.

I expect you know that Jesus said the greatest commandments are 'love God' and 'love other people'.

I don't see how you can claim to love them if you don't care whether they are satisfied or not.

If what you meant was that you don't see that you are required to satisfy them, then I understand that. Some people will never be satisfied, I daresay. We can't live our lives based on the expectations of others, can we?

But on the other hand, how can we claim to 'love others' if we don't even care?

But I suppose you'll say this is irrelevant too.

One way of not being angry at people is to not care but I don't think that's the way that leads us into loving others. If your accomplishment of learning not to be angry is at the expense of caring, then - well, with all due respect, it's not one I aspire to. I want to not be angry AND to care, speaking for myself.

love
Helen

Theli

Jobar...

One thing I have never understood about supernaturalism is how do you seperate a false claim from a true claim?

David...

Yes, and your point in this is still unknown.

Yes, when I say "me", I'm not reffering to the atoms wich my body consist of, but the awareness they create. Just like atoms cannot by themself calculate, but a calculator/computer build up by atoms, can.

Not by themselfs, no. But the human mind is a construct wich is (like anything else in our nature) built from building blocks of our physical universe. Particles.

I agree.

How is this soul constructed?
Does it's individual construction have any impact on your behavour? Or is your brain responsible for your behavour?

That all depends on what you reffer to as "me".

The first point is based on definition of the words we use. Whats subjective about that?

The second point is based on my observations. This one is subjective. Does this make it meaningless? You should try to refute them instead of putting labels on them.

The third is not an argument, it's a question.

David:
Exactly, therefore only God is real.[/QUOTE]

What??!?!?!
You told me god was not real!
Do you even know what you are talking about?
Do you even have a worldview/belief?
It seems to be changing for every post you make.

Ok

What have I learned from this?

1. Knowledge is insufficient to even for marginal conviction.
2. You are pretty convinced that your nonexistant, real/unreal god exist.
3. Your belief is based on knowledge of god taken from the bible.

Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?

So how can we know enough to utilize our knowledge if it is just unfounded assumptions?
Have a nice life.

Didn't you say that Hindu scriptures had no impact on your beliefsystem? So what use does it have? A good night reading?

When did this become a legal issue?
You can beieve in whatever you want to, how dumb it might be. But now you have made statements of your belief, saying they are true. And you must expect people who disagree with you will do so.
An imagined creature can have contradictory attributes, I agree. There's no law against believing in ghosts, elves or santa.

Yet you call him eternal. Even if that is something your limited human mind cannot comprehend (your own words). So, by claiming that god exist, and is eternal you are actually lying.

I would call that deluded theist. But ok.
Where did you get this definition from anyway?

Both false and incomplete at the same time.
There's no dogma for atheism. And strong atheism doesn't just regard to your particular god.

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

Now temporal things are real?
First they were not real, and now they suddenly are.
The same goes with god. First he was unreal, now he's real.
The humanity!

You haven't answered my question yet. Is there anything that can distinguish god from nothing? Anything at all?

The simple syntax definition I think should do fine. No Thing. No events, no structure, no order, no cause, no effect, no time, no space and no popcorn.

So, once again. What is the difference between nothing and god?


David to Jobar...

No it's not atheism, nor theism. Although it's a tool for atheists and theists to seperate thruth from falsehood and obtaining new info.

What is?

No it cannot answer questions regarding fictional beings. Basicly because they don't exist.

Atheism is no explaination at all. It's simply a position held by some people who reached that position by the use of natural explainations.

You're the one to talk? You can't even decide if god is real or not. Who are you to talk of reason?

I will take Jobar's advice and leave this thread for awhile. I can't stand much more of this rantings.