agapeo

[Yes, it's about as dumb as god not revealing itself in its totality.

Don't care either. You are unable to give us compelling reasons to accept miracles, and so hvae descended to hacking on us for not having open minds.

I didn't assume you were a theist because you were defending Andrew. I assumed you were a theist because your discussion of the problem lacked depth.]

Naw, nevermind. Why waste my time. The only "burning" question I have remaining in my OBSERVATION of this discussion is -- Just how long is that atheiastic nose of yours? You know what they say when you assume, don't you? But I'll depart from further discussion in this topic so as to remove the "me" from the equation, thus leaving only "u" to prove my point.

[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: agapeo ]</p>

HRG

So Becquerel and the Curies should have concluded that the rays their uranium samples emitted were due to a supernatural cause, an intelligent ray-maker etc. ? At the time of their discovery, no known natural process was able to account for it.
Almost all observations we've made have been explained on the basis of natural causes. No (credible) observation whatsoever was explained on the basis of supernatural causes.

IOW, the default assumption for any observation should be "explainable by natural causes", unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.
Absence of evidence for a specific natural cause is not evidence for the existence of non-natural causes.

And who can say with assurance that the universe was caused ?

Regards,
HRG.

Vorkosigan

Originally posted by agapeo:

Naw, nevermind. Why waste my time. The only "burning" question I have remaining in my OBSERVATION of this discussion is -- Just how long is that atheiastic nose of yours? You know what they say when you assume, don't you? But I'll depart from further discussion in this topic so as to remove the "me" from the equation, thus leaving only "u" to prove my point.

Good post! Full of strong arguments and evidence laid out in a clear and cohesive manner. An example to us all.

Michael

Jayhawker Soule

Masterful! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Andrew_theist

To HRG,

The model I am describing is a universe created and engineered by design. The design was to put laws of nature into motion in a self-sustaining way. We see examples of this everywhere. When I get into my car in the morning I don’t expect to pop the hood and find the creator of the car in there working pedals to make the car go. Nor does the fact I can’t observe the creator of the car anywhere lead me to conclude the car must be a manifestation of nature.

To all,

I think through the course of this thread I have demonstrated convincingly (not that I expect anyone to admit it) the thought that atheism is due to a lack of evidence is a myth. As has been shown atheism is most decidedly the result of a very strong and almost unshakable belief in naturalism. So strong that to the contrary when there is no evidence for natural causes a natural cause is invoked anyway in faith that it will be vindicated later. This also deals a serious blow to the idea that atheism is not a worldview because naturalism is most certainly a philosophical worldview. What I find disturbing is many atheists will continue to convince themselves they are merely calm rational reviewers of fact with no axe to grind, no belief system or intellectual commitment one way or the other. However once it can be shown that theism and atheism are competing belief systems a real dialog and discourse can occur.

To that end MadMax has graciously consented to debating me on theism/naturalism as a rational basis for reality. I intend to spend some time preparing for that. I hope all who have contributed here have a chance to check in. Opening statements are scheduled for March 1st.

phlebas

Even if you could get someone to admit this is true, one of the reasons it is true is because the naturalistic view has been vindicated TIME AND TIME AGAIN throughout history.

We see an phenomenon we don't understand. Is it more sensible to assume that phenomenon is a natural occurance that we do not yet understand, or that it is some kind of breadcrumb trail leading to God?

People have assumed the latter when dealing with rainbows, eclipses, earthquakes, shooting stars, and countless other explainable (to we who understand them) natural phenomena. NOT ONCE has the alleged supernatural stood up to scrutiny. Or do you believe that an earthquake is a sign that God is angry?

Stick with what works -- it's a simple enough philosophy.

It's more of a scientific principle. It has demonstrated a much greater predictive power than divine revelation, so we tend to stick with it until something with better predictive powers comes along. If you have something, please share.

BTW, atheism and naturalism aren't synonyms, although it's true that many of us are both.

I guess I'll leave this to whomever you're talking about. I don't have a belief in God, but I am also a naturalist and a secular humanist -- neither of those are necessary components of disbelieving in the supernatural. Nor are either of them incompatible with all forms of theism. (It would probably be tough to be a secular humanist naturalist Christian fundamentalist, though.)

What sort of "real dialog and discourse" is impossible now? Please tell me that you're not treading the tired old "atheism is a religion too" line.

Have fun, Max. But I don't think the two are incompatible with each other. Still, it's unfortunately uncommon to find a theist with a mind that open.

[ February 09, 2002: Message edited by: phlebas ]</p>

lpetrich

However, for all we know, that cause could be Tootchko the Magnificent, who likes creating Universes just for the fun of it, and who has no special interest in humanity.

Now where does the burden of proof fall? On the Tootchkoites, as they might be called, or on the non-Tootchkoites?

Pure extrapolation.

Even if ID did happen, there is no guarantee that it would have happened in a manner specified in some theology. And given the track record of theologies, I would not count on them to suddenly score a huge success.

What is "specified complexity"?

However, "intelligent design" does not really explain very much. Consider the hypothesis that the origin of Earth life and major events in its evolution are driven by the efforts of genetic engineers from another planet or our future or somewhere else inside our Universe. And that some of the worse designs resulting are examples of their fallibility.

What would falsify that hypothesis?

Datheron

Andrew_theist,

This is a non-sequitur. All you're doing is tacking "God" at the end of naturalism so that whenever naturalism gains another point for correct explanation, you claim yourself a point in thinking that God is ultimately behind this. You have not shown any good reason to believe that God is indeed behind the otherwise naturalistic world, and in saying that you have no good reason not to believe it's from God is only arguing from ignorance.

Or, one can simply take the reverse position: The fact that God exists must mean that there is some sort of naturalistic process to create him. Everyday I see evidence in 90% of the world's population in their theism.

Here you equivocate the term "belief". While it is certainly true that most atheists are naturalists, and strong ones at that, there is no comparison in "belief" between naturalism and theism; if anything, the "belief" that naturalists must take in order to validate their position is immensely fewer in number and more acceptable than the theist's position.

Moreover, you also go on to claim that atheism is naturalism (and thus a worldview), and that rational and intellectual integrity is lost because of this. First off, you have not "proven" the first - even if you are to ask a group of atheists and every single one of them are to believe in naturalism, that is not proof that atheism itself is a naturalistic system. You seem to be arguing from popularity.

And of course, the crux of the naturalism itself is an extension of scientific evolution (not the theories of evolution, but rather the evolution of science), whereby the "belief" is backed up by the success of modern science. If we are to argue which system is more "logical" in terms of rationale, it is easily seen that naturalism overcomes any theistic system. Indeed, that's what "free-thinking" and intellectualism means - making an informed conclusion after reviewing evidence. The fact that you chose to play with sementics to trick atheists to believing that you had this evidence is, once again, not proof of anything.

I'm again tempted to pull an analogous situation for the theist:

Hypothetically, I can show that the Universe is completely and utterly natural.

And it's a double-edged sword. If you agree, then you have shown to have doubt in your God, which weakens your faith. If you disagree, then I can claim that you lack rational thought in the face of unwavering evidence, and thus there is no rational debate possible. Either case, the loaded question does not help us advance any.

I definitely look forward to that debate.

Vorkosigan

I think through the course of this thread I have demonstrated convincingly (not that I expect anyone to admit it) the thought that atheism is due to a lack of evidence is a myth. As has been shown atheism is most decidedly the result of a very strong and almost unshakable belief in naturalism. So strong that to the contrary when there is no evidence for natural causes a natural cause is invoked anyway in faith that it will be vindicated later.

Andrew, if naturalism is merely a belief NOT based on evidence, where does it come from? Almost none of the atheists here were raised atheists; we were all indoctrinated in various superstitions at a young age.

If you examine the history of science, all of the people who contributed to the development of methodological naturalism in the first two hundred years of Western science were theists. It was the theists who decided gods had no explanatory power, and implemented naturalism as an explanatory strategy, with the results we utilize every day. How do you explain this development, if you reject evidence and argument as its foundation? Is it your claim that men like Copernicus, Agricola, Galileo and Kepler were closet skeptics?

This also deals a serious blow to the idea that atheism is not a worldview because naturalism is most certainly a philosophical worldview.

Among the many misunderstandings and confusions you have displayed in this thread, this one stands out and is worth discussing.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Confucians, total skeptics, certain Buddhists, many new agers, supporters of psychic powers, some Wiccans, some pantheists, and many others, may all be thought of as atheists. These groups do not share a common philosophy or world view. They just have the same stance toward gods.

Naturalism is a philosophical position that may or may not entail atheism. Some naturalists are not atheists (are you familiar with Martin Gardner?). Most atheists are NOT naturalists. Most atheists believe in some sort of supernatural power, like my Buddhist wife, who does not believe in gods, but does believe in ghosts and bodhisattvas. Only a tiny minority of atheists are total skeptics like myself. Even at Infidels people with my beliefs are a minority, although a sizeable one.

What I find disturbing is many atheists will continue to convince themselves they are merely calm rational reviewers of fact with no axe to grind, no belief system or intellectual commitment one way or the other. However once it can be shown that theism and atheism are competing belief systems a real dialog and discourse can occur.

Unfortunately that cannot be shown, because it is clear that you do not understand what you are talking about. Atheism is a single stance, a lack of belief in gods. That's it. No other philosophical position unites atheists. Can you think of any worldview that unites Confucians, Buddhists, skeptics, pantheists, Wiccans, etc?

As far as your original case goes, you haven't demonstrated anything. Hypotheticals are interesting, but prove nothing. I can only echo Koy in asking for evidence, arguments and methodologies to prove your case.

Michael

Koyaanisqatsi

Andrew, you have shown nothing of the kind. Every one of your arguments has been soundly defeated and demonstrated false. Whether you accept this or not is irrelevant.

So, once again the burden of proof crushes the theist, forcing capitulation by denial.

Advantage: Atheist, yet again.

Break out the bubbly boys and girls. Wee.

What a pointless waste of all of our time.