Andrew_theist

First, I'd like to thank you for the length and honesty of your reply.

Your welcome.

Entirely untrue. When you first appeared here I treated you with respect. But you are still making the same claims you made months ago, as if they had never been decisively refuted, both in informal discussion and in formal debate, again and again.

Here in lies the rub. Decisively refuted is in the eye of the beholder. Of course you raised objections and naturally you continued to disagree. However it is not up to those who argue a point to declare victory or chalk up a decisive win. It is up to those listening to decide in their own mind if a person is ill informed or flat out ignorant of the issues or if the opponent secured a ‘win’. I lost the debate to Max primarily because of a poor opening and I failed to clearly define our respective views. On a popular vote Max received 14 votes from atheists and none from theists. I received 14 from theists and 3 from atheists. Since then I have continued to have long fruitful discussions with Max on my board. We still disagree but a lot of understanding has taken place and our respective views are not nearly as polarized. This could never happen if every time we chat Max should throw his debate victory in my face and use it as a form of argument. Secondly how can there be a decisive victory? Have you shown once and for all that the belief in a designer/creator of the universe is false? Have you provided smoking gun evidence that this natural material world is all that exists? The day this happens my board and the Sec Web would be about as busy as a discussion board debating if the world is flat or not.

Your "it's theism vs. atheism" claim is a good example. We get tired of pointing out that there are several major views of the universe -- Plump DJ just identified nine in a post in the philosophy forum -- but you reduce this to just two. Metaphysical naturalism is one claim among thousands. So is your brand of "theism."

I think this is a poor example. Realistically do I really need to qualify the word theism on this board? Certainly no one else does including many atheists who write articles for this board. Do you think that when I use the word theism some folks might think I am referring to the belief the world was vomited by some god? The three major ‘brands’ of theism are Islam, Christianity and Judaism. The rest put together are so small in comparison they don’t raise a blip on a radar screen. Bringing up other small forms of theism merely obscures the issue. Is this an example of a decisive victory?

Yet before you left other people who you now claim to have respect for were questioning your statements.

Who would that be? When I was posting regularly on your board, the last conversation I had was with Louis Booth, a man who had clearly never been near a book.

Bede wanted to question your dismissal of fine-tuning arguments. I think Metacrock was asking things also but I would have to look.

Regarding SETI…

A methodology would include an a priori method for determining whether a signal is coded. Do they (SETI)have that? No. They are hoping it will be obvious.

I agree their hope for detecting intelligence is predicated on some assumptions. If they or others believed these assumptions to be unwarranted chances were the plug would be pulled on SETI. Lets do a simple thought experiment. If aliens developed the technology to listen to the universe as we do, do you think if they detected our emissions they would fail to recognize it as an intelligent source? I opine that your assumption that alien intelligence would be unrecognizable is unwarranted.

But you put your finger on the issue right here. You don't believe in a Designer of limited power. So there is no need to trade-off between different constraints, because your Designer faces NO constraints. Designers of Palaces and Cathedrals have to trade off between engineering costs and gravity, or between material availability and the desire for beauty, etc. Your deity doesn't.

No you are mistaken. I am not arguing for a particular type of God. The scope of the issue is whether the universe is apparent design or actual design. Or if the universe is a product of unguided mechanistic forces or planned by design. On my own board I am not advocating or promoting any particular God or creed of belief. Your argument at face value is theological in nature. True if there is a God of unlimited power such a God could create a universe in which every square inch were inhabitable. By the same token a sovereign God may elect not to. Certainly the people who built cathedrals and such could have opted for a more optimal design. So it was not limited resource, it was choice. I usually don’t offer up for argument my particular theology with folks who are convinced there is no God to begin with. What would be the point? I will offer this. I believe God deliberately created a physical material world that would normally operate on its own. Secondly, God didn’t create us for the sole purpose that all would have a good time. I enjoy good times as much as another. I also know that personal growth and maturity often occurs in times of trouble and tribulation.

Wrong again, Andrew. The difference between us is that I do not hold that my subjective perceptions are the basis for an entire philosophy. Your perception is that the entire universe was constructed for the benefit of one insignificant ape living on a small planet of a nondescript star in a galaxy that is fundamentally like other galaxies. You are welcome to that point of view, but there is no evidence to support that view. In point of fact, if any single person held that view about themselves, we would lock them up for insanity. But apparently what is insane individually is sane collectively. Go figure.

Again you make unwarranted assumptions of what my line of thinking maybe on an issue rather than ask me. I have no idea if we are the sole living sentient creatures in the universe. It would be arrogant of me to assume we are. On the other hand I don’t know. Whether God created an entire universe for us alone is a theological question, something worthwhile for those who believe in God to argue about. It is not a salient point for those who question God’s existence. Also the teleological argument notes that in order for they’re to be stars, galaxies and planets like ours the universe does have to be roughly this size. Other wise there would be no second generations’ stars that create rocky planets like our own. Inflation theory suggests the universe needs to be such a size in order for galaxies and planets to form. I am curious why you so easily dismiss the teleological argument. Other atheists have looked at it as a genuine mystery and some worth puzzling over.

Metaphysical naturalism is based on methodological naturalism, whose success is well known. I base my worldview on that because it is successful at producing useful and reliable knowledge about the world. Note that this is a subjective preference. Others might not think reliable and useful are important values to hold, or may define them differently.

And my worldview doesn’t come at the expense of yours. Methodological naturalism is successful at producing knowledge about things without reference to whether such objects are one’s of actual or apparent design. For instance science would use the same techniques to figure out why a Stradivarius violin sounds so good as they would to find out how biological systems work. One is assumed to be actual design the other apparent design but the same techniques are employed and the same results expected! Methodological naturalism isn’t good at telling us if things are actual design because in the case of the universe and biology it assumes on philosophical grounds such is not. Lastly in the case of Stradivarius violins scientists don’t shrug their shoulders and say Stradivarius did it and walk away. They reverse engineer his design and figure it out if they can. If suddenly tomorrow all biologists decided species are created do you think they would abandon finding cure for cancer or aids? Would their techniques change? Why?

However, I am profoundly moved by your sincere anger at me. There is truth in what you say. I promise I will treat you better in the future.

I appreciate that much. Agreement between you and I may be a bridge too far. Understanding is certainly obtainable. Learning something a given.

The Other Michael

Andrew,

according to adherents.com Hinduism is the #3 religion in terms of size (900m) behind Christianity (2b) and Islam (1.3b).

Secular/nonreligious/agnostic/atheist is next at 850m, Buddhism at 360m and Judaism is way down at 12th spot with 14m.

According to their pie chart Christianity/Islam are 55%, Hinduism 15%, nonreligious etc 14% and Judaism is so small it doesn't even show up.

Just over 55%, plus 14% nonreligious still leaves about 30% of the world's population to deal with, so I think you are being a bit hasty in dismissing all those "piker" theisms as beyond consideration. If nothing else, if you are going to go on numbers you need to deal with Hinduism which isn't a huge amount smaller than Islam.

cheers,
Michael

Goliath

Andrew Theist,

Why do you continue to confuse atheism with strong atheism? Are you aware that weak atheists exist? Are you intentionally confusing atheism with strong atheism?

Sincerely,

Goliath

(Note to Self: Don't compose posts for the II bulletin board immediately after waking up from a nap).

[ June 03, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

Liquidrage

Other wise there would be no second generations’ stars that create rocky planets like our own. Inflation theory suggests the universe needs to be such a size in order for galaxies and planets to form. I am curious why you so easily dismiss the teleological argument


To butt in:

I dismiss it because it is like winning the lottery and deducing the game was rigged for no other reason except for the fact that you won.

To add:
Really, for all it's marvels, the universe is pretty damn empty it seems and the one known spot with life isn't that great either.
I'd hope if we shoved it all back and started over with a different value assigned to some early variable that it came out better next time.

madmax2976

I think its important to note that the numbers don't really mean anything anyhow. Unless argumentum ad populum all of the sudden ceased to be a fallacious argument.

During its first few centuries, Christianity was hardly even noticable among all the various faiths. Would a Christian concur that during that time it wasn't worth much consideration?

I don't see anything more reasonable about a being wishing, thinking, or snapping its fingers to bring the universe into existence, rather than a being "vomiting" the universe into existence. If there is a reason to think otherwise, someone will have to explain it to me.

Ron Singh

I find it interesting you say this. Tell me please, why the variables of this universe were the way that they were opposed to any other variables, in which life was so marvelously created?

~Your friendly neighborhood 15yr old sikh.

Liquidrage

First, I believe you are asking the unanswerable.
I cannot make up other possible variables of an early universe.

Second, my point was not to explain how those variables got their values, but to state that there is no reason suggest life would only arise from our specific set of values.

Jayhawker Soule

Talk about a leading question!

In fact, the answer to a lot of "why" questions is "I/we don't know." In my opinion, this answer imparts precisely the same amount of information as does the answer "God did it", but does so with greater clarity, humility, and, in some cases, honesty.

Vorkosigan

Sure Sikh, as soon as you explain why it is "life" we have to explain.

luvluv

Andrew I really enjoy your site. Is there a more catchy url for a main page so I can reccomend it to friends? Thanks.