SteveD

Good Point Jobar. Everything is constantly in motion. I don't see how you can logically get from what we observe, everything moves, to the idea that something exists that doesn't move.

Steve

Badfish

What caused the Universe to move? If it is moving, and all indications from radio telescopes indicate that it is expanding (and headed into a state of entropy, seemingly), then it is a fair assumption that there was a first cause.

Either the Universe created itself ("First Cause") from a singularity with all the ingredients and building blocks to create life, or an intelligent designer caused a "First Cause".

Science and laws of thermodynamics demand that a first cause is necessary for matter to be put into motion (energy)

But where did the singularity come from?

On one hand we have the pure speculation that the Universe created itself or has always existed, or we have some evidence (historical document) that a being caused a first cause who claims to have always existed.

We have the testimony and alleged written witness of God, we have nothing to base any Alpha Universe or evidence or observations that nothing can arise from nothing without a first cause.

Badfish

In this world, there are three groups of people: gnostics, atheists, and agnostics.

The first group believes in some sort of God or unifying force.

The second group is diametrically opposed to the first, while the third waits for incontrovertible evidence that one of the other two groups is telling The truth.

History shows a preponderance against the atheist.

Man has always attributed the unknown to a divine source or purpose, Plato and his students through the ages have done that most of all.

To be diametrically opposed to theism or an intelligent designer, one must have a better theory with some observable evidence to discount the possibility of God.

Darwin's "Origin of Species" in particular gave momentum to atheism (despite Darwin's insistence that evolution could be the work of a Divine Creator), on the grounds that no all-loving, omni-potent Creator would take the ruling race of the world from the rib of a species deemed to have less intelligence.

But the bible never says the rib in question was taken from an inferior or less intelligent being.

So what it boils down to is spirtualism, because there is no observable, physical proofs of anything.

Philosoft

Maybe. Now what does the evidence show?

What does "diametrically opposed to theism" mean? I don't consider it in my worldview, but I'm not a member of the "anti-theism movement." I'd say theism is orthogonal to naturalism, because it attempts to usurp it, not replace it.

pz

"Insistence"? Cite, please. Darwin was a self-declared agnostic who flatly stated that he had given up on christianity because "It is not supported by the evidence." The one reference to a creator made in the Origin was added to the second edition solely to placate the clerics, and he later wrote "I have long since regretted that I truckled to public opinion and used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really meant 'appeared' by some wholly unknown process."

It really is stretching the facts to try and argue that Darwin favored your theological view of evolution.

Wyz_sub10

No quite. 'Gnostics' believe that it is possible to know god. 'Agnostics' believe that knowledge of god is not possible. 'Atheists' do not believe in the existence of a god.

‘Gnostics’ and ‘agnostics’ are really the ones diametrically opposed. Atheists don’t involve themselves with whether knowing god is possible or not.

Colloquially, we often use ‘agnostic’ to mean someone that is unsure of god. Particularly, that they doubt current myths that god spoke to Moses, etc., but believe that they may exist a god somewhere.

Preponderance of what? If you mean that theism has been more common than atheism, that is true. But if you mean that theism has had a superiority in explaining the world around us, then that would have been true centuries ago, but is becoming less and less so now.

I would say most men had always done so. But we don’t do that anymore. For the most part, neither do you. (unless you think an anonymous note taped to your door was left by god, or god hid your car keys while you weren’t looking).

Our society overflows with discussion on ‘why’. Whether it’s the situation in Iraq, or the spread of SARS, or global warming, we constantly ask, discuss and debate ‘why’. At no time to we resolve this debate by saying ‘goddidit’. One may think that god is involved, but if you started rapidly gaining weight, I doubt you’d just shrug it off and chalk it up to god. Hopefully you’d consult a physician for some explanation (and he ain’t going to tell you god did it either).

No. As an atheist, I am not diametrically opposed to an intelligent designer. If one could define what would constitute evidence of an intelligent decision, and that evidence could be produced and supported, then I might believe it. You cannot use god as a sweeping “solution” to everything you do not know, and accept it as fact until proven otherwise. This is a classic argument from ignorance.

Darwin gave momentum to biology and begat a new area of scientific study, but Darwin wasn’t trying to make any comment on god. He did have personal views of god, of course, but they were irrelevant to the validity of his work.

Did Darwin make atheists out of theists? Maybe. Maybe not. I know many Christians who accept evolution. But your last sentence should not speak to atheists, but to Christians. They are the ones who would object to the inheritance.

In other words, it did not strengthen the atheist position. It weakened the fundamental Christian position.

Okay. So?

Wow. This is a huge jump to a point out of the blue! I didn’t see this coming at all (and no, I’m not being sarcastic).

I thought you were going to make a point that linked evolution to the historical tendency of man to accept the interference of the gods.

Instead, you conclude by saying there are no observable proofs of anything.

Well, clearly there are observable proofs of many, many things. (Watching me throw a rock through your window is a pretty good observable proof that I’m the one that broke your window).

So I’ll assume you mean that there are no observable proofs of evolution. Well, that’s not true either. There are proofs in the fields of geology, palaeontology, embryology, cytology, petrology, and so on and so on…which is why evolution is a fact accepted by the global scientific community.

IN case I am misunderstanding your points, what do you mean by “there is no observable, physical proofs of anything”?

Badfish

No physical proofs of observations about the existence and/or beginnings of the cosmos.

For me, I would start at the beginning of the Universe and work forward, but science has to backtrack and in doing so, any evidence gathered may be unable to date or correctly chronologically or otherwise determine the beginnings of anything.

Somewhere, somehow, whether a long time ago or more recent than you think, there was a beginning.

SteveD

Originally posted by Badfish

No this is not a fair assumption. This is the problem with any cosmological argument. It is observed that everything has a cause. Therefore, there is something that doesn't have a cause. It just doesn't follow.

Based on the premise that everything has a cause all we can conclude is that everything has a cause. You have no logical basis to make an exception.

Steve

Christopher13

Jobar, when confronted with modern scientific theories (and, HRG, fifty years is still what I call recent), I can only say that the proof of individual beings is before our eyes. Everyone likes to bring up quantum theory, and these kinds of discoveries do impact philosophy, but showing the randomness of things, while problematic for Aquinas' fifth proof (the one from intelligent design), does not show that things are uncaused. Nothing happens without reason/cause. Those, and I'm no longer just thinking of you, Jobar, who think that they can may wish to leave the argument here because this is, as I've said, a first principle. It cannot be proven, only accepted upon metaphysical insight.
Welcome, Angrillori. You have concisely stated the main problem. But infinite regression is not incompatible with an eternal universe. In fact, Aquinas was basically assuming an eternal universe in the proof . He did not think reason alone could posit a Creation. Also, this proof does not, indeed, prove a Christian God, only a Prime Mover(s) (see above posts).
Silent Acorns, I didn't have your sarcasm in mind. You're cool. Can you be more specific about why you insist on the being/event distinction?
Welcome Badfish, et al. I cannot make posts as frequently as desirable about Aquinas' First Proof, so I don't mind the tangential nature of the last posts. Please carry on.
There is something humorous though about Jobar's remark about atheists not involving themselves in the God question. What exactly does he think he's moderating? Atheists, above all, are interested in the God question. Everyone should be interested in it, so I don't fault them for the slight hypocrisy. To just shrug one's shoulders at the tough questions and say that things are because . . . they just are is the classic anti-intellectualism of the skeptic, the true agnostic, agnostic about the intelligibility of the reality before him, making real progress in knowledge impossible.

Christopher13

Sorry, Jobar. Of course, it was Wyz I meant to jokingly accuse of anti-intellectualism in the above post. But it is a trait I've noticed in the moderators, another classic skeptical pose--It is I alone against the world! Too much reading of Sartre I guess. One does not, in fact, invent oneself in such fashion. We do have perduring natures that happen to benefit from the progress made in philosophy and the sciences through the centuries and across many cultures. I recall Diana above acting as if I had made a preposterous request that someone help me out by reading Aquinas. To think that someone needs convincing that the great thinkers in the history of philosophy might be worth a gander is discouraging. I was talking about Aquinas after all, not some second-rater like, for example, Sartre.