GunnerJ

Don't know, don't care. I don't give a damn what you believe, and the burden of proof is still on you.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Rimstalker ]</p>

DMB

Andrew poses a dichotomy where none exists. There is no forced choice between believing in god and believing in any particular list of events. Most of us on this board probably do think that evolution in particular supplies a completely convincing explanation of speciation, but we don't hold it as a religious belief.

It seems obvious to me that theist beliefs stem from a horror of the vacuum. Gods are invented to fill in for all the things we don't know. Humans are amazingly curious, and I would love to know the answers to all sorts of burning questions, but I am quite comfortable with the fact that not all these questions have found satisfactory answers at present and even with the thought that some of them may never be satisfactorily answered. In fact, science and other kinds of research would vanish if we knew everything, so life is more satisfactory while we can still seek answers.

So I would say that what Andrew has omitted is the choice between believing what he believes (whatever that might be, but he mentions a single god), believing in some other religious solution, accepting (not believing in) certain scientific theories, and admitting that at present some questions have no answer.

I am always amazed that theists think that their myths supply a satisfactory answer to anything. Oh yes, goddidit. End of questions and doubt, because anything further requires more unanswerable questions about what god is.

joedad

Hi Andrew,

It's obvious that you've already chosen to "believe in" the uncreated, but just haven't - hypothetically speaking - made up your mind as to what that uncreated truly is.

Well, crap some uncreated nature into one hand and wish some uncreated god into the other, and see which one fills up first.

Little joke...very little.

Welcome back.

joe

Andrew_theist

Greetings all,

Thanks for all the responses I have received thus far after all the point of all of this is to spur thinking and discussion. Let me address one of the main themes in the responses thus far the idea that the onus or burden resides with me or that I have the cart before the horse. This might be true of some boards but surely not the Sec Web whose mission statements says in part,

Our goal is to defend and promote Metaphysical Naturalism, the view that our natural world is all there is, a closed system in no need of explanation and sufficient unto itself. (emphasis mine.)

So to Cosym who says,

The idea that you would need "fill in" for what is attributed to God only shows how backwards you have things. The question, the only really relevant question, is whether there are justifiable reasons to believe that God exists and actually is the answer to the various questions one has about reality: as opposed to any other possible answers. To accept one explanation just because of a lack of imagination for alternatives is just plain silly.

On boards that merely bash theistic thinking this would be valid. On a board with the aforementioned statement the only relevant question is this; is naturalism an observable fact or a belief? If belief what value has it over competing beliefs? If fact then I am asking for convincing evidence.

To Typhon,

* Convincing evidence that abiogenesis can occur unaided.

[b]1. It did, and there is no evidence, convincing or otherwise, that it had any aid or design or interference from some imaginary fellow at all.[b]

Do you have more than a sweeping assertion to back your claim? Or is this a doctrinal statement? I am not promoting or defending my point of view in this thread. I am asking those who abide by the mission statement to step to the plate.

* Convincing evidence that the present theory of evolution can cause the speciation we observe today.

2. Tons of good evidence for this already. If you're not convinced then you either don't understand the evidence or most likely, have allowed your unwillingness and desire for a god blind you from accepting what most folks in the scientific world already know and accept, namely, the plentiful evidence that supports both evolution and speciation.

There is evidence that change occurs with time. There is evidence that a favorable change prevails at least temporarily over an unfavorable one. I don’t see repeatable or observable evidence that change and selection alone can produce the range of speciation observed today. It could be that some folks are blinded by their belief in naturalistic or materialistic philosophy which assumes some mechanistic explanation for life must be true.

* Convincing evidence a universe can form or come into existence unaided.

3. As it did, and there is no evidence to the contrary, it's a very fair and logical assumption that there is nothing so surprising about this in the first place.

This is the point of it I am not asking for assertions of your conviction I am looking for evidence. Of course if we assume natural causes then such would be logical and fair.

No matter how hard we look, we've yet to see any "fingerprints" pointing towards a conscious or active creator/designer. If this isn't convincing, then see #2 for what this likely means about your beliefs.

The game of science today is to assume natural causes and only ‘look’ for those explanations no one is looking ‘hard’ for other explanations.

But all this aside, you're just again trying to shift the obvious burden of proof where it clearly doesn't belong. We need convince you of nothing. The burden of proof lies upon the plate of the theist believer.

No clearly the burden of proof resides with those making such claims as Our goal is to defend and promote Metaphysical Naturalism, the view that our natural world is all there is, a closed system in no need of explanation and sufficient unto itself.

To Jamie_l

What would it take to persuade me there is a personal designer creator and that naturalism is not actually true?

Jamie then goes on to reverse my question asking me the things I asked. Does anyone here stand by what this board promotes? This board doesn’t merely express skepticism of theistic beliefs it promotes a naturalistic explanation. Is anyone willing to defend it or is it rhetoric? Is naturalism an evidenced observable fact or a type of religion?

I believe you hit the nail on the head with this question. I believe Andrew_theist is unable to fully appreciate his own reliance on the gaps. He fails to recognize that even if clear concrete natural explanations were offered for each of his challenges he would simply use "God of the Gaps" to account for the explanations. He fails to appreciate that if a natural and reproducable method of abiogenesis is descovered he will simply view the method as God's creation. He fails to recognize that no matter what knowledge we obtain we will always be able to ask why and how. And the ever ill defined invisable and all powerful God will always have a home in the minds of those who seek it.

I am not promoting my viewpoint of theism I am asking for evidence of naturalism as a counter explanation of what some attribute to God. I don’t think I am asking anything remotely unreasonable of those on a website that enters into the market place of the ideas the philosophy of metaphysical naturalism that they produce evidence in favor of their convictions. Unless they are entering these ideas as ‘faith statements’ in which case I would ask why I should abandon one faith proposition in favor of another? If there was a forum called the existence of naturalism I would have placed my post there.

For sprited but friendly discussion Please visit <a href="http://pub22.ezboard.com/bgwnn" target="_blank">Challenging Atheism</a>

MadMordigan

What would it take to persuade me there is no personal designer creator

Well, none of your questions deal with the 'personal' part, so I assume you are a Deist.

As far as I am concerned, the Deist god cannot be ruled out. I don't see why a belief in this sort of deity is neccessary, compelling or even rewarding, but to each his own.

seanie

A naturalistic approach is the only one that offers a real explanation. Naturalistic explanantions can be tested, evaluated, shown to be correct or otherwise. They're useful.

Attributing something to God isn't any better than no explanantion at all. It doesn't take you forward. It can't be tested or evaluated. It's not a useful explanantion in any way. It adds nothing to our knowledge.

MrDarwin

Why do we need "evidence of naturalism" when everything we see in the world around us has natural explanations? We know why we don't fly off into space (gravity), we know where light comes from (the sun), we know where each of us came from (our parents gave birth to us). We keep finding natural answers to our questions about the natural world. In the absence of evidence of the supernatural, supernatural explanations are simply unnecessary. And I'm always curious why people seem to think they are not.

But anyway, none of the things you list, if demonstrated, are proof of the nonexistence of God(s). All of them could be true, and God(s) might still exist. All that would have been disproved is one particular creation myth.

Have you considered another alternative: that God was created by the universe, and not vice-versa? Perhaps God is a natural property of the universe, like the existence of matter.

How would you possibly choose one possibility over the other?

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Dr S

But you have to admit that the idea of a personal designer for the universe is an appealing image. A pan-dimensional Martha Stewart who can show you how to get those nasty rings off your gas giant planets. Or maybe an omnipresent Mr Bruce who frets over the lack of mauve in the Milky Way and has come up with a darling window treatment for black holes. I like it.

rebelnerd

What he said.

Filo

Autonemesis

What if instead there were evidence that it was aided by aliens?

What about theories we haven't thought of yet? What if they explain things where current theories fall short? Adopting Theism hinders us from inventing or discovering them.

Planck time. Look it up.

Look around you.

Before you can answer that question, you need to answer this one: Can you tell the difference between acting as if you believed you had free will, and actually having free will?

Once again, Planck time. Look it up.

Of course - you made it as formidable as you could imagine. But skepticism applied indiscriminately becomes cretinism. Be careful of that.

No, and this is the crucial difference between you and me. I don't need or want to backfill ignorance. I prefer my ignorance naked and unadorned, otherwise it does not bother me that I am missing something, and I am less inclined to consider the problem.

If there is no God, then maybe there is something to "take his place" or maybe there isn't. Having a replacement thesis makes no difference to whether the current thesis is correct or erroneous. If you are in possession of an erroneous thesis, you must discard it, replacement or not.

False. If there is no replacement, then you replace it with nothing until a suitable replacement is invented or discovered.