DMB

Your point number 4 presupposes that "creation" (I prefer "the existence of the universe") is something that must be explained. To the atheist it seems that the theist is so uncomfortable with unanswered questions that s/he will grasp at any explanation, however, bad. My position, and I think that of many other people here, is that isn't it wonderful how many questions science has been able to answer in its short history! Of course, it would be metaphysically wrong to extrapolate from the past and assume that scientific progress will continue at the same rate, but if it were to do so, we would be in for exciting times.

We cannot know how far science will take us or whether we will always have some unanswered questions. I am thankful that there are still plenty, despite occasional claims of the end of science.

Theists frequently claim that atheists "reject" god(s). That kind of begs the question of what there is to reject in the first instance. To the theist one presumes that god appears to have some objective reality and therefore we are rejecting that reality. But we simply don't see anything to reject in the sense that I suspect you are using the word. Do you reject flying pigs? -- the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Peace be upon Her Holy Hooves)? -- leprechauns? -- pixies? -- djinns? (etc.) If you answer, "yes", then please examine your understanding of "reject" in this context. Is it exactly the same as the way in which you are using it when you refer to my "rejection" of your god? Certainly you are right that in essence these ideas belong in a different thread.

To get back to the topic in hand, you may be misled by the fact that the founders of this board support metaphysical naturalism. That does not mean that most atheists do, even if we are sympathetic to the aspiration. I am sure, however, that virtually all of us embrace methodological naturalism, which is a different animal. If you care to call methodological naturalism metaphysics, then do so. As far as I am concerned it is a preferred practical approach without any ideological baggage.

With regard to the uniformity of natural laws, you yourself have suggested that our understanding of them is hardly time-invariant. I think if you asked physicists from the early 18th century, the early 20th century and now what the natural laws were, you would get some pretty divergent answers. I'd actually be very interested to know what you, as a physicist, think a natural law is. But once again that is something for another thread.

With regard to your comments about DNA, I would strongly suggest that you post them in the Evolution/Creation forum. Although abiogenesis is strictly speaking outside the remit of that forum, many of the regulars there have a lot of biological, geological, archaeological or anthropological knowledge and can help you explore this topic.

BTW, I am relieved that you only refer to the hypothesis that Boeing 747s might roll off the production line unaided and not to the one that a hurricane in a junkyard might assemble one.

Shadowy Man

Because we all know that it really takes a tornado to assemble a 747. A hurricane just isn't precise enough.

DMB

Shadowy Man:

:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

TomboyMom

I repeat: See my post of yesterday.

Rene

enfant terrible

1. Of all the things I wrote in this thread, what specifically do you claim is metaphysical? I cannot think of any.

2. What the hell is a "metaphysical belief"? Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, it does not deal with beliefs. Your expression is an oxymoron.

3. Finally, what does metaphysics have to do with religion?

Biff the unclean

Because we all know that it really takes a tornado to assemble a 747. A hurricane just isn't precise enough

I must admit that it has always seemed very odd to me that the exact same people who think that a 747 cannot be assembled out of spare parts by a strong breeze are the ones who insist that humans were spontaneously assembled from a pile of dust that a god sneezed on.

Oh well, I suppose it's no more odd than a Ph D in physics not understanding the workings of, and off handedly rejecting as useless, the scientific method.

enfant terrible

My question, to remind the readers was why anyone would need to explain the existence of the world. You did absolutely nothing to address the question, the only meaningful part of your answer is the first sentence, in which you basically concede that everything you've said in this topic is BS. Now look at the rest:

"You could say you don't know"

I don't know what? What is the question to which I would know or not know the answer?

"and have no beliefs on the subject"

What subject? You haven't defined one.

"You have a specific, well-defined, particular belief on the subject."

If there isn't even a subject, what belief (let alone a belief with all those adjectives) can "we" or anyone have about it?

"You believe that God (or at least those gods which have been defined) did not create the world."

I also believe that you did not create the world. There is no more evidence that a god created it than that you did. There is no more evidence that you did not create it than that a god did not. (There is, in fact, no more evidence that you are not a god than that, say, Jesus was not a god.) So, is my belief that you did not create the world a religious belief?

enfant terrible

This is the kind of nonsense that makes me really doubt your claim about a PhD in physics. The universe does not have to be infinitely old to exist from the beginning of time. A layman might not have enough knowledge to grasp this point, but a physicist cannot be ignorant of it.

enfant terrible

Do you have a problem with this? Do you have any argument to the contrary?

I, however, have a problem with your confusing and biased vocabulary. What do you mean by "supporters" and "foes"? You play with straw an awful lot.

Philosoft

Well, I'm terribly sorry about all this, but if you're going to insist that atheism is a religion for whatever daft political purpose, you have to demonstrate that atheism necessarily contains elements of one or more definitions of religion. As there are at least two ways shown thus far that atheism generally avoids being definitively religious, your argument fails. Again, I'm sorry if it doesn't seem fair to you.

Let me ask you something. What political advantages does atheism enjoy via its status as a non-religion? Is there some science being taught in public schools that is purely metaphysical in nature, inasmuch as it has little or no empirical support (as do all religions' supernatural claims)?