FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > IIDB ARCHIVE: 200X-2003, PD 2007 > IIDB Philosophical Forums (PRIOR TO JUN-2003)
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 05:55 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-01-2003, 08:16 AM   #51
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah
Posts: 1,945
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Normal
emotional, you claimed that you couldn't provide a reasonable basis for your faith in a deistic god but I don't see how you couldn't.


Actually I used to be an atheist and found no problem with it, except for the Cosmological/ First Cause Argument, where the Christian apologist Metacrock always got the better of me. It goes like this: I believe in the afterlife (because I need to), so I read spiritualist literature to bolster my belief, and one conspicuous feature of spiritualist literature is that it talks about a God of Natural Law, a Deistic God. So all I have to do is rationalise. So I tout the arguments of First Cause and Cosmic Design.

Quote:

The universe has a beginning.


Atheists would say this is only one possible interpretation of what the Big Bang means. And they'd add that Stephen Hawking composed a model allowing for the universe to have an uncaused Big Bang. I reject it because it sounds too convoluted to me.

Quote:

The laws of the universe allowed for life to occur.


Yes, I see design here, but atheists don't. Atheism is a complete model in which, according to Richard Lewontin, you can't allow a Divine Foot in the door anywhere. I just don't have that constraint.

Quote:

Aren't these two reasons good enough to form a reasonable basis for belief?
They're good enough for me, but not good enough for those who adhere to the philosophy of metaphysical naturalism. Once you think up a supernatural action anywhere, you have destroyed metaphysical naturalism and opened a crack for spirits, angels and demons to creep in. It's the integrity of a philosophical system at stake here.
emotional is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 08:21 AM   #52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 639
Default

But just because they don't fit into a certain philosophy does not make the reasons all of a sudden irrational. First Cause/Design are two reasons why metaphysical naturalism is unreasonable, and the deistic interpretation is more reasonable. Just because metaphysical naturalists have ad hoc explainations for them does not make them unreasonable.
Normal is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 08:35 AM   #53
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah
Posts: 1,945
Default

The main atheistic rationalisation against all theistic arguments, including First Cause, is this: "We have, thanks to scientific research, found out that the theory of gods is unnecessary to account for anything - look how evolution did away with creation by divine fiat. So it seems reasonable that the last bastion of god-belief - the beginning of the universe - is also untenable". The naturalist enterprise, the scientific enterprise, is one of trying to explain everything about the universe without recourse to supernatural agency. I submit that the naturalists have been given a free ride so far, because the universe really does behave according to strict natural law. Indeed I agree with the atheists that there is no need to invoke God for thunder, lightning, disease and origin of life. But when it comes to the origin of nature itself, of the universe with all its natural laws (or behaviours, for the pedants), here is where I part with the metaphysical naturalists, and argue that there was a supernatural, intelligent hand behind all that.

The argument between Deism and atheism can't yet be won, because the natural universe is the same whether the one or the other is true. But I do expect a few scientific surprises to rock humanity in the future and render the materialistic way of thinking untenable. Maybe not in my lifetime, but in the future nonetheless. All the phenomena of which I read in the spiritualist literature (such as mediumship and materialisation) will have to be given a scientific explanation one day. The Randiisation of such phenomena (meaning: ignoring them, dismissing them as delusions) will not continue forever.
emotional is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 09:14 AM   #54
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: U.S.
Posts: 4,171
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by emotional

I think it rests upon logic, but if you disprove the logic, I shall have to retreat into faith.
Try actually adressing the entire message and not just the conclusion line.

DC
Rusting Car Bumper is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 10:18 AM   #55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Posts: 503
Default

Emotional, I will no longer debate with you due to the fact that you really aren't debating at all. You make extraordinary claims and yet you say the burden of proof is on me. You make an elimentary mistake regarding the laws of physics, and you retreat into your faith. So keep your beliefs, but don't expect anyone around here to cut you slack.
Jake
SimplyAtheistic is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 11:01 AM   #56
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 639
Default

It all depends on which claim you consider more extradonary.

"The laws of the universe were random developments"

is extradonary considering that life has arisen.

"The laws of the universe are intentional"

is extradonary considering we can't speak of what intent they have.

Both claims are extradonary.
Normal is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 11:23 AM   #57
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah
Posts: 1,945
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by JakeJohnson
Emotional, I will no longer debate with you


Wow, that makes a first! A first time it's not me who's backing from a debate, but the one I debate with.

Quote:

You make extraordinary claims and yet you say the burden of proof is on me.


I make extraordinary claims?! Who's the one who claims all the natural laws/behaviours just came of themselves, with the ability to make evolution possible, without any guidance at all?

You're the one who makes extraordinary claims. To claim matter can have the property of self-organising without being preprogrammed to do so is an extraordinary claim. The burden of proof really is on you.

Quote:

You make an elimentary mistake regarding the laws of physics,


I don't. Whether you call them "laws" or just "behaviours described by laws", they still need a guiding, programming hand in order for evolution to be possible.

Quote:

and you retreat into your faith.


The reason I retreat into faith is that there's no hard scientific support for my beliefs ... yet. That may change in the future.

Quote:

So keep your beliefs, but don't expect anyone around here to cut you slack.
Same to you: so keep your beliefs, just don't be surprised when you find out I'm right in the end.
emotional is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 11:41 AM   #58
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: U.S.
Posts: 4,171
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by emotional

...just don't be surprised when you find out I'm right in the end.
In the end the deist retreats into the veiled threats of the theist...

DC
Rusting Car Bumper is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 11:50 AM   #59
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah
Posts: 1,945
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by DigitalChicken
In the end the deist retreats into the veiled threats of the theist...
It wasn't a threat. I don't believe anyone will go to hell for unbelief. It's just a statement of confidence that, some day in the future, science will pull out of the materialist scam and discover whole new worlds.
emotional is offline  
Old 08-01-2003, 12:19 PM   #60
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: In the land of two boys and no sleep.
Posts: 9,890
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by emotional
Are you suggesting all the natural laws just popped out of nothing?
I'm not sure this is directed at me - but I never suggested natural laws "popped out of nothing."

But there are two problems with this statement in any case - "nothing" is a meaningless concept. It's like asking what time it was before the universe began.

Second, even if I conceded that god existed, it would still remain problematic - "are you suggesting god popped out of nothing?"

I know the response - god is eternal. And we are back to a meaningless concept of time before time existed.

Quote:
Just as a programmer is needed to dictate the laws that such simulations follow, so too the real universe was programmed with natural laws to follow.
Why do you suppose this? What relationship does a ones and zeros program have to the universe?

Quote:
The whole universe is an immense feat of programming. The laws cannot have emerged of themselves.
Again, why not? You seem to be saying that you cannot fathom a universe where laws emerge without a programmer, but there is no reason to think this is the case.

Quote:
There is a limit to how much atheism can be taken seriously.
I'm not sure what any of the above has to do with atheism, beyond the fact that you need a "goddidit" solution to ensure a level of your personal comfort.

You needn't take any of it seriously to study physics or cosmology.

Quote:
I think it rests upon logic, but if you disprove the logic, I shall have to retreat into faith.
Retreat to wherever you like. The origin of the universe is not subject to the laws of the universe. That much should be easy to understand.

Therefore, one cannot apply the natural observable laws to it. If it makes you feel more comfortable to call that puzzling situation "god", then that is your choice.

But just because the scenario is complex (so much so that we can admit we do not yet have the answers - if we ever will) that does not mean god remains the best plausible solution, much less the only one.

There really is a limit on how much theism can be taken seriously.
Wyz_sub10 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:00 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.