Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
08-01-2003, 08:16 AM | #51 | ||||
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah
Posts: 1,945
|
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
|
||||
08-01-2003, 08:21 AM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 639
|
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.
|
08-01-2003, 08:35 AM | #53 |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah
Posts: 1,945
|
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. |
08-01-2003, 09:14 AM | #54 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: U.S.
Posts: 4,171
|
Quote:
DC |
|
08-01-2003, 10:18 AM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Posts: 503
|
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 |
08-01-2003, 11:01 AM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 639
|
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. |
08-01-2003, 11:23 AM | #57 | |||||
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah
Posts: 1,945
|
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
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:
|
|||||
08-01-2003, 11:41 AM | #58 | |
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: U.S.
Posts: 4,171
|
Quote:
DC |
|
08-01-2003, 11:50 AM | #59 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah
Posts: 1,945
|
Quote:
|
|
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
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
You needn't take any of it seriously to study physics or cosmology. Quote:
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. |
|||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|