Andrew_theist

Greetings all,

What would it take to persuade me there is no personal designer creator and that naturalism is more than a philosphy and is actually true?

To me thinking there is no God would have to be more than mere skepticism of the existence of God. In my opinion that would only make me a skeptic. If there is no designer/creator some naturalist or materialist viewpoint must be correct. Therefore there would have to be

* Convincing evidence that abiogenesis can occur unaided.
* Convincing evidence that the present theory of evolution can cause the speciation we observe today.
* Convincing evidence a universe can form or come into existence unaided.
* That universes have a realistic chance of forming in a configuration that allows life to occur unaided.
* Convincing evidence that what would appear to be volitional thought apart from materialistic causes is really an illusion and I just think I have 'freewill'
* The discovery of some uncreated phenomena from which all other contingent events flow.

This might seem like a formidible list, yet if I am to really be persuaded that no God or creator exists I should have at least a modicum of evidence that natural causes can fill in for what is attributed to God. Otherwise I am merely exchanging a belief in God for a belief in naturalism true?

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

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

Cosym

---Convince me there is no God---

No.

---This might seem like a formidible list, yet if I am to really be persuaded that no God or creator exists I should have at least a modicum of evidence that natural causes can fill in for what is attributed to God.---

Why should I want to persuade you of anything?

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.

---Otherwise I am merely exchanging a belief in God for a belief in naturalism true?---

No. If you stop believing in god, you stop believing in god, no more. Whatever else you believe, if anything, has to survive on its own merits.

Typhon

Aside from the fact that you've put the cart before the horse, again, this boils down to some very simple refutations of your claims for the supposed "scarcity of evidence" for naturalism.

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.

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.

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. 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.

4. We *are* that realistic chance, and again, there is not reason or evidence to suggest this is not what might be expected.

5. This one doesn't even begin to make sense. What freewill? You are not entirely free of influences on your decision making process, likely ever. You have biological, environmental, evolutionary, societal, and even random (perhaps quantum) factors involved in your choices and behavior. Nothing magical here or to suggest that some designer or creator has his hand on the switch. Are your thoughts an illusion? Doubtful I would say, but perhaps you just aren't being clear.

7. Another completely nonsensical statement. Look out, you're starting to sound a lot like Walrus! Define "uncreated" please. Uncreated (save by naturalistic forces) events and objects abound all around us, what are you looking for, an uncreated spontaneous cup of tea? A perfectly formed handheld pc growing under a bush? A nice bit of seed cake appearing like manna in your previously empty cupboard? I'm curious.

Formidable? Hardly. If your list was a cosmic scavenger hunt, I'd entrust it to a bright ten year old with few qualms.

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. Theists claim that the world is the result of non-naturalistic causes. The burden of producing evidence for this rests squarely on their shoulders, or if you will, yours. Naturalism, like atheism, is a default position. We rest our foundations on this as this is what is supported by the observable world. If there was evidence for gods, designers, and creators, we would have something to say about them. There has yet to be any evidence for these produced or found, so until then, a non-designed, naturally occurring universe is our best and most logical bet.

.T.

"Religion is a shell game, without the pea."

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

Theli

AndrewTheist...

You already made a false statement.
Naturalsists/Materialists theories doesn't even have to exist for the christian creator-theory to be false.
You don't judge the validity of a theory based on other theories lacking validity. That would be presupposing the first theory as a standard.

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

scumble

Yes, it's not a question of having an alternative explanation at hand. The points you mention don't have much bearing on our present existence, even if they are quite interesting.

Let me put a point to you, Andrew - even if the emergence of life isn't spontaneous, it's possible to think of other supernatural influences which have nothing to do with the conception of a God. It really depends what God you're talking about, for a start.

It seems Theli and Cosym are right that the only reason you hang on to God is the lack of anything else to provide convenient explanations. Atheists are mostly comfortable living without everything having an answer.

Vorkosigan

Hi Andrew! Good to see you again!

Just stoppin' by to say hello. See ya 'round the boards!

Vorkosigan

Jamie_L

To use a tired method of analogy:

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

To me thinking there is a God would have to be more than mere suggestion of the existence of God. In my opinion that would only make me a dreamer. If there is a designer/creator some theist viewpoint must be correct. Therefore there would have to be:

* Convincing evidence that a supernatural force created life.
* Convincing evidence that supernatural creation caused the speciation we observe today.
* Convincing evidence our universe formed or came into existence with supernatural aid.
* Convincing evidence that universes have no chance of forming in a configuration that allows life to occur unaided.
* Convincing evidence that volitional thought apart from materialistic causes is not really an illusion and I that I actually have 'freewill'
* The discovery of some uncreated phenomena called "God" from which all other contingent events flow.

This might seem like a formidible list, yet if I am to really be persuaded that a God or creator exists I should have at least a modicum of evidence that supernatural causes can fill in for what is attributed to naturalism. Otherwise I am merely exchanging confidence in naturalism for belief in stories about God. True?

Jamie

Koyaanisqatsi

If intelligent, applied critical analysis to the (lack of) facts in evidence won't do it, then you're not capable of being "persuaded," IMO, so good luck with that.

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

MrDarwin

Why would any of these convince you that there is no God?

Hans

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.

Ultimately his challenges are useless, even and espessially to his theism.

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