HelenM

Would you mind sharing briefly about your conversion?

How come you have 18 hours a day? Are you not working at present, at anything else? Are you retired? If you don't mind me asking...

love
Helen

Autonemesis

This philosophy is morally bankrupt. Mohammed Atta and his 18 accomplicies used the same philosophy to justify their flight plans on 9/11.

Your pedantry is uninspiring. I will bow out of this "conversation" now, since it is obvious that no communication is possible. Have a nice "life", whatever that means.

madmax2976

<strong> Based on being an atheist, I don't even try to explain the universe or my "own self". It wouldn't even make sense to try, as atheism does not address those issues.

As a naturalist, I may very well attempt to explain features of the universe. I have mentioned several naturalistic models that do just that. I currently have insufficient information to determine which one is actually the correct explanation, though models like the steady-state theory seem less likely as it tends to run counter other evidences.

As for explaining my "own self" you'll have to be more specific. I could explain many aspects of myself, though certainly not all of them. Which did you have in mind?

Are you able to explain the universe or your own self? If so, please do. I'm intrigued.

<strong> Is this your methodology - straw man fallacies? The "facts and logic" reference was in regards to your attempt to disparage atheism, not in reference to atheism itself and I'm sure you know this. It is YOUR arguments that lack facts and logic. But hey, I'll give you a point for trying such deviousness.

However, I'll answer anyway. It is through facts and logic that one arrives at the conclusion of atheism. The lack of evidence (facts) for any deities leads to the logical conclusion that there are none, or at the very leasst it is reasonable to believe there are none. (Plus I also listed several facts in a post way back that lead to the conclusion of atheism. I've yet to see you post a single fact that points to theism)

<strong> As a naturalist I do indeed comprehend parts of the universe. But I am unsure as to what you mean by "how" I comprehend it. Please clarify - are you looking for how we go about determining facts about it? Are you asking about how I go about comprehending the whole thing or just some things?

As for confidence in human intellect and perceptions, this comes about through positive feedback from our environment.

How do you go about having confidence in your belief there is a deity and other perceptions? How do you go about comprehending facts about the universe?

<strong> I'm not asking for your opinion of how things "appear". I'm asking you to prove your assertion that naturalism cannot ever explain everything. If this is just your unsupportable opinion, then thats fine, just say so. Again, without absolute knowledge of all that is natural, I'm not sure how you will ever justify such a claim.

<strong> Actually no. I believe naturalism can explain all things. I believe this because naturalism actually has many things going for it - it is not a faith - its where the evidence points. Supernaturalism (your God) apparently has nothing to point to its likelihood and it runs contrary to my experiences and knowledge. It has never explained a thing, so it is very dubious at this point.

Thus you can now take the opportunity to show me some supernatural events do occur, or increase my knowledge such that I can conclude the supernatural does indeed exist. I eagerly await your evidence. I've waiting for any evidence you have for a long time now.

<strong> This point is completely irrelevant unless by "cannot explain" you mean that it can never explain those things. The fact that it can't currently explain everything is a trivial observation, so I conclude you mean the latter. Of course I've said this several times now, so I'm sure you know this already.

If you mean that it cannot ever explain these things, then I ask you one again, Please Support this assertion.

We both know you can't of course. I therefore expect you to attempt to wiggle out again. But we'll see.

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>

Bible Humper

Hello David

No, God is as likely to exist as Brain-in-a-laboratoryism because both scenarios are speculative.

Naturalism is the doctrine that scientific laws are adequate to account for all phenomena, since you yourself have conceeded that a reality where Yahweh exists is indistinguishable from a reality where he does not, you agree that methodological naturalism and empirical evidence are the proper tools to use for discerning truths in reality because in a reality without Yahweh these tools would account for everything.


Brain-in-a-laboratoryism and your theism both make ungrounded speculations about what could be true outside of reality, but yet you don't believe in Brain-in-a-laboratoryism.

When you explore why you don't believe that Brain-in-a-laboratoryism is fact, you will discover why I don't believe that the Yahweh scenario is fact.

The universe need not display any evidence whatsoever of Brain-in-a-laboratoryism for it to be fact either. Why isn't you Brain-in-a-laboratoryistic belief equal to your theistic belief?

David, if you would have included abiogenesis you would have had the modern "trinity" of "God in the gaps" arguements.

The human brain is so complex that it is not understood very well at all. What do you base your assumption on that consciousness will never be explained natualistically?

If at some point the human brain is completely understood but the neurologists say "Hmm, we now understand the brain can't account for human consciousness!", then you could point to this as proof of a soul.

Since God in the gaps arguements are always found deep inside the darkness of human ignorance, and forever retreat as the light of knowledge shines upon them, I'm not going to just take it on faith that consciousness will someday be proved to be the work of a deity.

It is notable that theologians can't offer evidence using what we know, but can only assert that somewhere within what we don't know lies the elusive proof at last.

Atheism is the "ugly truth" I was talking about, just because it is less desireable than an eternal life scenario doesn't mean it isn't true anyway.

What we would like to be true has no relation to what actually is true. If you disagree, I would like to repeat what I said in my first post, that we might as well choose to believe in Dionysus and "worship" Him by being hedonistic.


Theism may reject Brain-in-a-laboratoryism for lack of proof, but that in itself does not demonstrate that theism is truth.

Are you equally a Brain-in-a-laboratoryist as you are a theist? I didn't think so. Explore why you reject Brain-in-a-laboratoryism, and you will discover why I reject theism.

David, you didn't address the point of the statement that theism owes its existence to psychological and social factors. Since you agreed with me that a reality where Yahweh exists is indistinguishable from a reality where he does not, what besides psychological and social factors contribute to theistic belief?

I assert that there is nothing more, but you are welcome to prove me wrong

---------------------------------------------------

I'd like to add my thanks for all the effort you put into answering me and everyone else on this thread, David. Keep up the good work!

rainbow walking

Hello Rainbow Walking,

Hi David,

David: You have a car and a job, but you don't have your own life.

Rw: Why do you say that David?

Let�s consider your life for a moment. According to your testimony here, your life is predicated on a certain amount of belief in facts beyond reality. You call this god. This god, you say, dictates your attitudes. Let�s consider some basic facts about your life and beliefs, where those beliefs originated and what that says about you for having adopted them:

1. You didn�t invent this explanation for everything, it was taught to you by someone who in turn learned it from someone else and so on and so forth all the way back to primitive man. Though a bit more sophisticated, basically your beliefs mirror those of ancient man since he began to comprehend some fundamental use of fire.

2. Unlike you, primitive man had no naturalism or materialistic view of life because he simply had no knowledge of such things. Surrounded by matter and nature, primitive man faced the same basic challenges inherent in our universe as you and I: conflict and change. He had to face these conflicts and changes daily, just as you and I still do, only without science and technology. His experiences and contemplation of them eventually led to his understanding that they needed some sort of explanation to comfort his fear of them. He couldn�t spend his life crouching in caves hiding from every inexplicable act of nature so he began to create primitive explanations for thunder, lightning, wind, volcanic activity, earthquakes, rainbows, meteors, eclipses, floods, bands of competing tribes, etc. etc., to assuage his fears and allow him to venture forth from hiding long enough to prolong his life. His method of explanation involved assigning them human characteristics since his own humanness was about all he was familiar with. Thunder became a sign of anger, rainbows of contentment, wind a sign of something passing close by, earthquakes a sign of hunger, volcanic activity a sign of being summonsed, floods a sign of sadness and grieving, meteors a sign of death or childbirth, and these assignments, as they grew and were passed along began to take on more attributes until they became entire methods of explaining the present and predicting the future. How do you think astrology originated? Eventually, in the absence of science, primitive men developed religious expressions replete with rituals designed to appease and rites initiated to curry favor from these forces of nature that later became referred to as baals or gods. All along the way, as men began to observe certain consistencies in their experiences they occasionally hit upon some natural truths and as these began to merge with time man finally came to the conclusion that everything must be regulated by one single powerful, all knowing, ever present, super being. Different cultures came up with different explanations that eventually culminated in diverse yet single entities, (in most cases).

3. But this changed nothing. The universe still functioned as it always has; as a series of conflicts breeding changes and changes creating conflicts. Tribes battled for territory and the loser�s idols and tools of religious expression were assimilated or destroyed. Gods came and went. And this continues to be the precedent of man in conflict with himself and his environment. Only, man has learned a great deal about himself and his environment through the conflicts and changes. But he, like you David, still fears the inexplicable about himself and his universe and he still clings to the need for his universe to have some purpose or meaning that transcends his fear. He, like you David, is uncomfortable without an explanation for the seemingly incomprehensible random daily experiences of conflict and change so he, like you David, must assign some special purpose to every conflict and derive some special meaning from every change. It�s all a part of his deities plan. Conflict gets interpreted as a trial of faith and change (actually produced by conflict), depending on its effect, gets interpreted as a lesson yet to learn or an act of your deity�s benevolence.

4. All you�ve done David is assign human attributes to the inexplicable random forces of nature and hid this fact from yourself somewhere beyond reality.

David: That's why you need God.

Rw: No David, that�s why you believe I need god. I don�t fit into your worldview.

Rw: How did you determine that facts beyond reality are actually facts? Have you considered that they may not be factual?

David: Yes, I have considered that they may not be factual.

Rw: How did you determine that facts beyond reality are actually facts?

How did you come to this conclusion David?

What intellectual or rational or reasonable method did you apply to making this decision?

If you have considered that they may not be rational then you apparently have given it some thought. What guided your thought processes to conclude that there even is a �beyond reality� much less facts to be derived from there: because it seems to you a plausible explanation to the question of origins?

Why does it seem so?

What is it about godunnit that attracts you more than �we don�t know yet but we are learning more everyday�?

Do you have a difficult time living with uncertainty?

Does it bother you that our universe is predicated on conflict and change?

Maybe you fear the conflicts or doubt your ability to face them and the challenges they produce?

Does your faith bring stability into your mind about these facts of reality?

How and why?

These are just a few of the questions that your claims cause me to wonder about David.

rw: By what epistemological means did you gather these facts beyond reality?

David: Reality, as it is described and understood by humankind, appears incomplete, temporary and transitory.

Rw: So what? Why does that frighten you David? Why have you allowed fear to drive your mind into the incomprehensible imaginary protection of a non-existent deity?

David: Therefore, the need for something beyond reality.

Rw: Don�t you find it curious that you�ve expressed it as a need?

David: "Facts beyond reality" are necessary and unavoidable.

Rw: Only for someone who has a reason for discounting the facts about this reality, their necessity and un-avoidability, David.

rw: Saying they are necessary and unavoidable only adds, to your ever-growing list of baseless assertions, another mystical quality about your unique ability to �know� that these are indeed facts, in the true sense of that term. If they are necessary and un-avoidable then why did you have to seek them out?

David: Ideas which are necessary and unavoidable need not be self-evidently true.

Rw: I can see why you would say that David. Once you succumb to fear it drives your self esteem beneath the ebb and flow of reason and forces you to seek an anchor beyond the conflict and change. These ideas you�ve embraced are not yours David. You�ve stolen them from primitive minds that had no other recourse but to conclude that their explanations need not be true, but served a purpose nonetheless. But you have another recourse. You can face the conflict and change on your own merits. You probably are of sound mind and body, worthy of any such happiness as you might derive among your fellow man in your position at the top of the food chain in an ecosystem that can be manipulated. By coming to terms with the lie that you are a depraved creature damned for the furnace unless you cowtow to your imaginary pacifier, you can realize that you, and you alone, are responsible for your attitudes and behavior. You don�t need a dictator. Neither do I.

David: I suppose that there is a mystical element in this line of reasoning, if so that is not troublesome to me at all.

Rw: Neither should it be David. In fact, there is something mystical about our universe. It�s contained in those elements of it that we haven�t yet learned to explain. Ascribing that mystical quality to the existence of an incomprehensible deity contributes nothing to the ongoing search for an explanation since it cuts off any further need of one. Taking refuge in the mist as though that explains everything isn�t mystical, it�s an escape route from reality.

rw: Are you saying we have no choice but to accept your beliefs as true?

David: When I say that an idea, belief or concept is necessary and unavoidable, I am speaking of myself and not about anyone else. You do have a choice.

Rw: So do you.

rw: Why don�t these same denominations just send ministers to effect miracle cures and leave modern medicine out of it?

David: That's a good question, perhaps you should address it to those denominations.

Rw: If it�s so good, since it relates to your beliefs, perhaps YOU should investigate it further. Unless you aren�t really interested in truth�

nyx

I too would like to hear more about David's conversion. Were you new to the COC?

Nyx

emphryio

David said:
-----------------------------------------------
David: No, I did not choose to become a Christian because it would make me happy. I do remember my conversion and the time in which I contemplated conversion. Desire for happiness was not a motive for my conversion.
-----------------------------------------------

I have just asked you the equivalent of what does 2+2 equal and you have answered 5.
On the basis of this answer it becomes apparent that you do not understand yourself particularly well. Considering that you previoiusly said you "don't even speculate about your motives.", this isn't surprising.

David said:
-------------------------------------------------
David: I do deny these three possible reasons. Have you undertaken some sort of statistical analysis of the motives of Christians? Are these supposed motives anything more than your own speculation?
-------------------------------------------------

So you deny the reasons without giving your reason. As you like.
No, I haven't taken a statistical analysis of the motives of Christians. Based on your own "answers", can you understand why?

Concerning your last question, you have a very strange idea of the word "speculation". Apparently it is a bad thing to be avoided. I'm guessing you would consider quite a bit of intellectual thought, "speculation". And yes based upon your unusual definition of speculation, these motives I have given our indeed "speculation" and actually there is nothing wrong with that. (But I doubt you'll ever realize that.)

David said:
---------------------------------------------
David: I denied your possible reasons and then I asked questions. I hope that you are inclined to answer questions.
---------------------------------------------

Actually you gave so little meaningful information compared to what I gave you that I shall quit this thread now. Your "we can't really know anything attitude" reminds me of Kant. It is a downright evil, anti-thought, anti-human attitude. With more of you, the dark ages would still be here.

David said:
----------------------------------------
David: There is no special challenge in fielding questions from ten different atheists at one time, and of the two theists there is only one whose comments are of any relevance to myself.

I have engaged more people in concurrent discussions in the past and I have the time, energy and stamina to do so. I have eighteen hours in the day and am not particularly devoted to sleep.
------------------------------------------

Maybe in the future you should slow down a bit and think about your answers? You don't get special points for responding so quickly.

I hate to be rude. But I don't feel you've really come here to exchange information in an effort at cooperate learning.

David Mathews

Hello Helen,

David: I became a Christian by obeying the gospel at approximately age 12. My family is a Christian family but I always knew that the decision to become a Christian was my own to make. I got to a point at which I realized the importance of becoming a Christian and did so.

David: I am far away from retirement. I have got a full time job and I am also very active. Eighteen hours in a day seems an ideal length of time to accomplish everything that I need to accomplish in a day. I am not devoted to sleeping.

All I am saying is that I am prepared to respond to posts at any time of the day or night and that I will spend as much time as necessary to respond to all posts directed at me.

Best Regards,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Madmax,

David: As a theist I consider the origin of the Universe a great mystery which the creation account of Genesis 1-2 only introduces without attempting to explain in any way. As far as scientific descriptions of the Universe go, I believe that the Big Bang model is at present the most consistent with the evidence, but there is not sufficient evidence to determine with absolute certainty how the Universe began.

David: The quality of the self which seems the greatest mystery to me is self-awareness, intellect, morality, ethics and aesthetics.

David: I don't know the answer to those questions.

David: I think that your logic is flawed because you have an incomplete set of facts as your sample of the Universe is contained in that small amount of space which is perceptible to you and your observation of that space is limited to that small amount of time which constitutes your lifetime up to this point.

Secondarily, I don't know what sort of evidence for God that you are looking for, failing to find and therefore concluded that God does not exist. There are a lot of physical things in the Universe which we routinely fail to observe, and many more things which we have not even imagined.

That is why I suspect that your logic relative to atheism is flawed.

David: Was that the link to the web page? I have not read it yet, but I will read it very soon and comment.

David: I want to know how you go about determining facts about the Universe, and also how you comprehend the whole thing. I am certain that you have not gathered all the facts about the Universe because the Universe is a very big place filled with a great many things, and I am also certain that you do not comprehend the whole Universe because there are a lot of objects in the Universe which are not explained adequately by science, and some which are at the present moment completely unknown to science.

David: Are you aware of the limitations upon human intellect and perception? Our bodies are not equipped to perceive everything, our sensing tools are very limited and our mind easily becomes confused and overwhelmed by perceptions. People routinely misinterpret what they see, and more often than not we absolutely fail to perceive even obvious things.

David: My confidence in the deity comes by faith.

David: In essentially the same way that you do, with all of the same limitations.

David: From a practical standpoint, all those things which naturalism fails to explain within the time frame of our lives are never explained by naturalism. While it is impossible to anticipate what will happen in the next ten thousand years, there are legitimate reasons for expecting that questions will still remain unanswered ten thousand years from now. From that standpoint, naturalism cannot ever explain everything.

Do you really believe that naturalism will explain everything? In a sense you have faith, you have merely substituted faith in the human intellect for faith in God.

David: God "runs contrary" to your "experience and knowledge"? Of course, God runs contrary to your experience and knowledge. You are not God and you cannot perceive God.

I have faith in the existence of the supernatural, I can point to no evidence (either direct or indirect) which conclusively proves that the supernatural exists. I consider the supernatural a philosophical necessity, without which the Universe would not exist.

David: It is impossible to prove a negative. I suspect that naturalism will not ever explain everything, and I am certain that within my lifetimes naturalism will not succeed at explaining everything.

I will form my opinion of naturalism based upon what it presently succeeds and fails at doing, not upon grandiose promises by naturalists that they will eventually explain everything in the future. That promise doesn't mean much.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Splashing,

David: A Universe in which God exist and a Universe in which God does not exist are identical in the sense that Theists and Atheists occupy the same Universe. In saying that the two Universes are identical all I am saying is that we live in the same Universe.

As to the comparison of two Universes and their structure, composition and natural laws:

Universe #1: Created by God or a god.

Universe #2: Originated naturalistically without God or any god.

I don't know that these two Universes are identical. There is a distinct possibility that the two Universes would differ dramatically. Whether or not that is the case is a matter of pure philosophical speculation.

We don't have any means of performing the experiment. We can't intelligently design a Universe in a laboratory and compare it to another Universe which originated in some mysterious naturalistic manner.

All we have is one sample, namely the Universe which we both occupy. I suppose that the Universe which you live in is the same as mine, although you are an atheist and I am a theist, our Universe remains one and undivided.

I do not know that "in a reality without Yahweh these tools [naturalism and empirical evidence] would accout for everything." I don't think that you know that, either.

David: The reason why I don't believe Brain-in-a-laboratoryism is because it lacks emotional and intellectual appeal, has never had widespread acceptance and does not have thousands of years of history. Are those the reasons why you don't believe the Yahweh scenario is a fact?

David: I think that what you have is a naturalism-of-the-gaps in which you resolve great mysteries of existence by hoping that naturalism explains them in some far-distant future.

I don't present God as only an explanation for what we do not know about reality, I believe that God is ultimately responsible for all of the Universe. God is Creator of the Known Universe, the Unknown qualities of the Universe and those mysterious qualities of the Universe which humans will never know.

David: I acknowledge the reality of psychological and social factors relative to theism. I don't believe that theism owes its existence to psychological and social factors. I think this is at best speculation, perhaps even misinformed speculation.

Sincerely,

David Mathews