madmax2976

Yes, but you might notice I didn't say it "automatically equals" anything. I said "need not necessarily".

The wonderful thing about the supernatural is that you can define it anyway you wish, just as you can define a deity as not needing to have a beginning. Who's going to prove you wrong? You just define a deity as being different than biological lifeforms and the problem is solved...according to some theists anyhow.

David Mathews

Hello Philosoft,

David: Yes, God is all knowing.


David: Why do you hate God?

David: God doesn't care if you hate him. Do you htink that God is obligated to care about your opinion of Him?

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello MadMax,

David: I don't have a hypothesis about how the universe came to be. The origin of the Universe is beyond the reach of both science and theology. All I know is that the Universe does exist, I believe that God created it. As to the method of God's creative act, it could have taken the form of the Big Bang.

At the present moment there is just not enough information to resolve these questions.

David: What is "truth" and how can atheism have any interest in it? If atheism does not possess any positive content, it cannot make any "truth" claims.

David: I am happy that you keep an open mind.

David: I suppose that God can mean a whole lot for humankind even if humans do not acknowledge His utility. God's importance is not dependent upon human approval.

For example, humans existed for thousands of years without acknowledging or even knowing that their brains possessed wonderful complexity of structure and function. Though humans never appreciated the importance of the brain's structure, the brain still functioned because the brain's function is not dependent upon human awareness of its role.

David: Well, there {I}is[/I] a legal distinction between a fire which starts naturally and a fire which starts as a result of human activity.

Secondarily, the point of the illustration is that the existence of natural explanations does not exclude or forbid other explanations for events -- explanations such as human and Divine acts.

David: God's activity in the Universe is not dependent upon the continued existence of "the unknown." I suppose that the God who created the Universe could activity interact with the Universe in a manner which humans would interpret as purely natural. I don't think that God is obligated to place a perceptible signature upon any of His activities in the Universe.

I think that this is a useful illustration: God could shuffle the proteins in your cells without you ever becoming aware of God's activity within you. God could play solitaire with the cells of your brain and you would never notice. God's activities can occur in subtle manners absolutely beyond all human tools of perception.

David: Would it make any difference to you if I did try to demonstrate that viewpoints were better than yours? I don't imagine that it would.

David: I say that those things which you are certain about are nowhere near 100% certain even in your own estimation. I don't know how you would guage the relative probability of your own conclusions, anyhow. I am confident that you are overly merciful to your own conclusions, judging their merits according to your own emotional attachment to them rather than objectively against some empirical test of probability.

David: I don't argue about my core beliefs as they are not available for negotiation or validation. I would never ask you to argue on behalf of your own core beliefs.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

[QUOTE]

David Mathews

Hello John Page,

David: I look at the Universe is all of its immense size, filled with beauty and wonders at all scales from subatomic to cosmic, and the whole thing appears to testify to the creativity of God. I look within myself and find my body filled with complexities and beauty, and everything within testifies to the creativity of God. I search within my soul and find an eternal longing for union with the soul's Creator.

That's why I believe in God.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Sandlewood,

David: My explanation for hell's existence was merely a guess. I suppose that on the final day everyon may ask God why such a place exist. If we ask God, God may answer, or God may choose to allow the mystery to remain.

David: I have no use for threats and don't see any benefit whatsoever from threatening you with hell for any reason. Perhaps hell will be empty or perhaps someone may find an eternal home there. I don't really know.

Would you prefer that atheists spend eternity in hell? Do you think that God should condemn atheists to hell?

David: If atheists get their morality from religion, I suppose that means that there religions do have some merit. Would you say that atheists do get their morality from religion?

David: I wrote that document on my web page many years ago. I suppose my viewpoints now differ in some way from my viewpoints them. I suspect that ten years from now my viewpoints will differ dramatically from my viewpoints expressed today.

I don't fear change in myself or anyone else. I believe that change is good.

David: the laptop is used for illustrative purposes, I was not saying that laptops are not formed naturally. The point of the illustration was that humans are not equipped to comprehend everything natural, so we should not suppose that we can comprehend supernatural things.

David: Your reference to an "invisible super-blorb orbiting Sirius" is appropriate because, as a matter of fact, there is a remarkable little star which orbits Sirius, a star which remained invisible and undetectable to human perception for the majority of human history. I suppose that two hundred years ago someone might have speculated, "perhaps there is something invisible in orbit around Sirius" and people at that time could very well have refuted the claim, "I don't observe anything in orbit around Sirius."

The argument against God's existence which is based upon human failure to perceive God and God's activities is weak. The unstated assumption of the argument is that God's existence and activities must be perceptible to humans. I can find no evidence for that necessity and therefore it seems perfectly reasonable to me that God could remain absolutely beyond human perception, beyond even the most powerful sensing devices of science.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews

Hello Splashing,

David: I can't trouble myself with how other people classify me. I can only say that I classify myself as a Christian.

David: I have to confess that I have not read Douglas Bender's posts, so I am in no position to evaluate his evidence that my beliefs contradict Christianity. I could argue with Douglas Bender if I wanted to do so, without any fear of failure. I have chosen not to argue with Douglas Bender because my intent for coming on this forum was discussion with atheists, not dispute with fellow Christians.

Douglas Bender can have whatever opinion of me that he wishes. I still don't answer to him. I never asked him to approve of my faith. I don't have any intention of seeking his approval in the future.

David: I am an honest person, I have nothing to fear. That is why I don't need to make any claim of God's "obviousness." Besides, "obvious" is a subjective statement from the outset and therefore possesses little meaning.

David: You should keep in mind that these are scenarios that you have imagined. They have meaning to you, but no relevance to the question of God's existence.

David: We can speculate about how the ancient people would have reacted to modern technology. I doubt that any of them would have been satisfied by merely saying "I don't know."

David: This is a very important statement, so let me repeat it again in bold type: A reality where God exists is indistinguishable from one where he does not.

I must say that this is exactly what I believe. I think that we have found a truth here, a matter of agreement between theists and atheists.

David: Yes, certainly.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Philosoft

Except, of course, for all that wasted space and matter.

<strong> Except, of course, for those axons poking out from the light-sensing side of your retinae, causing the absence of a portion of the receptor cells so that the optic nerve can pass back through the retina. And those legs that are relatively poor at supporting a bipedal frame. And those toes that are completely useless for grasping. Yep, really gotta hand it to old God. Sure took his time creating us.

<strong> Maybe you should try searching a psychology textbook.

Bible Humper

Hello David, just wanted to toss in my $0.02 regarding a couple of your replies to Madmax.

Speaking for myself, and only for myself, it would make all the difference in the world if you could demonstrate that your belief is more than ungrounded assertion. If God could be proven to be most likely to exist, I would immediately renounce my atheism.


Why the heck not? If a belief is held to be unnegotiable, and validation is superfluous, it is ungrounded. It is especially surprising since you displayed such an open mind when you examined other religions that you now believe that there is religious truth to be found outside of christianity!

Why won't you open your mind the same way towards these current beliefs? If a belief cannot survive critical examination, it should be discarded. It seems to me that you have doubts, and wish to shield your faith from examination that could multiply those doubts.


Why should someone get so defensive about their beliefs that they feel it is improper to ask a person's beliefs unless they have doubts?

Bible Humper

Hello again, David

Fair enough, it really doesn't make much difference what label you attach to your beliefs anyway, but if I called myself a Christian merely because I believe in the wisdom of one or two of the ten commandments, I don't think that the label would be accurate...

Doh! I should not had used the word "obvious", "apparent" is much more accurate.

You are right about being honest, I can't believe some of the things that you can admit not just to us, but to yourself! Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm convinced that if you stick around these forums you'll be an infidel in no time!

Since you admit that your belief is based on the merest possibility that God does exist, what clear reason is there for you to remain a "christian" and not a "brain-in-a-laboratoryist"?

I am not advocating Brain-in-a-laboratoryism, David, I am simply showing that it is equally likely to be true as Yahweh since realities where either one is true are indistinguishable from a reality where neither one is true. The point is that choosing one over the other is arbitrary if both are unverifiable and unfalsifiable empirically.

I agree completely, "I don't know" is not at all satisfying to our curiosity!

I am glad we have found this common ground, though we disagree about its implications.

Brain-in-a-bottleism is also indistinguishable from a reality where God exists, so where do we go from here? The fact that you are a christian and not a brain-in-a-bottleist is not because christianity has more proof, since realities where either of these is true would be indistinguishable from a reality lacking both, points to the fact that social and psychological factors are at the root of your theistic assertions, and nothing more.

Time for bed, so I'll post more tomorrow.

Goodnight David.

rainbow walking

Hello Rainbow Walking,

Hi David

David: The idealism that I am speaking about here applies to both believers and unbelievrs. Ultimately both groups reach conclusions about reality which are impossible to verify.

Rw: Impossible? That’s a rather conclusive statement don’t you think? Let’s see if it’s possible to falsify it.

Humanity has made much progress in verifying many facts about our reality. The existence of a god is not one of them. Theologists have had many thousands of years to produce some evidence to support its claims. Naturalism has barely begun and has already, via research and technology, saved more lives than theism could ever hope to duplicate. Naturalistic methodologies are making tremendous in-roads into the human condition and are beginning to address many human maladies that once resulted in death, with far more effectiveness than when they were relegated to the priest. Holy water and prayers have no effect on a simple infection compared to penicillin. The truth-value here to be considered cannot be negated by philosophical hand waving. Medicine, technology and science are not based on idealism but a realism that has more than verified its truth-value. In addition, and a very crucial addition worthy of noting, theistic ideologies engender an idealism that is anti-thetical to reality by asserting many absolute conditions upon the human mind that weaken its resolve and dedication to this life in anticipation of a future life outside of reality.

We share a common enemy, you and I, David: DEATH. Your worldview holds it to be a natural inevitability. My worldview does not cave in to it. Your worldview offers only conciliatory comfort in the hope of an after-life. My worldview labors to identify the many faces of this monster and find ways to beat it back.

When a child becomes sick with a fever, in my world, its mother takes it to a physician where it can be examined, diagnosed and treated with medications that have been thoroughly tested and proven effective. To be consistent to your worldview its mother aught to be taking it to the pastor for prayer. Whose methods prove out their truth-value? Where is the salvation promised by your worldview? Where is the love? Instead, your teachers encourage the mother to take her child to the physician and when the child recovers they loudly proclaim the truth-value of prayer. See anything wrong with this picture?

Wouldn’t it be wiser to address my questions directly than appealing to these whimsical philosophies that make it appear as an attempt to tip-toe around the obvious? While “impossibility” has been a definite characteristic of your worldview in relation to verification, it has shown no signs of being a part of mine. That which has not yet been verified cannot logically be held to be impossible to verify in light of all that has been verified thusfar. So your claim of impossibility is not equally shared and is showing evidence of being a derivative of your idealism that must, by necessity, establish its authority in absolute terms rather than practical usage.

David: All people throughout history have sought for some explanation for the universe and mankind. I must say that atheists have engaged in this sort of speculation just as much as any Christian.


Rw: However David, there is a fundamental difference between seeking an explanation and advertising one as though it were true without a shred of evidence to substantiate the claim. People without a belief in god would have to seek other explanations to these questions and be honest enough to admit when they don’t know. This is not a trait one generally finds among believers who already assume they know. When one hangs a shingle on a building and calls it a church they are advocating a hand-me-down explanation from a primitive people whose only alternatives were choosing between deities to define their existence. I wouldn’t want to bank my view of the world on the accuracy of their choice and even less on their lack of any alternatives.

David: I find it difficult to believe that you have thoroughly examined information from religion regarding its explanatory power. There are hundreds of thousands of books and millions of pages devoted to religion. There are hundreds of thousands of books and millions of pages devoted to the Universe and its components.

Rw: You may find that hard to believe David until you saw my library. Besides, it isn’t necessary to exhaust every page of every book to get the gist of things. It simply boils down to a multitude of people believing what they want to believe and investing millions of man-hours into developing those beliefs systematically. But the entire artifice resides upon an incomprehensible foundation. Its explanatory value is inconsistent to man’s reality, even detrimental to it. Of course, from your perspective you may not be able to grasp the implications of this.

David: After reading through all of this material, there is an additional tens of thousands of pages written every day about these matters. If that is not enough, consider the many thousands of things that humans do not yet comprehend, and those things which humans have not yet even imagined.

Rw: And all of it just proves that men have not yet learned the value of trees. As to things humans have not yet comprehended or imagined, this is a fallacy know as an argument from ignorance. There are many more pages written about subjects we have learned and none of them reflect the existence of a god or serve to verify it. It’s going to take more than just men “saying so” in books, that begin from a presupposition that their say-so is based on truth, to verify the value of their say-so.

David: We're dealing with a big subject here and everyone should appreciate its complexity.

Rw: Not really David. Before we get to the bigger issues we aught to define the parameters. The first step in verification is identification. How do you define this god you claim allegiance to?

David: Correct answers are provisional on all things, including both beliefs and facts.

Rw: What factual knowledge can you present us to support your belief that a god exists? If you have none then your provisional answers cannot be considered correct.

David: As to the viability of my own beliefs: I wake up every morning, I spend the day involved in the activities of life, and I fall asleep at night. I suppose that my beliefs are viable.

Rw: And what practical value do your suppositions contribute? Do they wake you up in the morning? Do they provide you with a means to fulfill your daily activities? Do they cause you to go to sleep at night? How do you connect your suppositions to these daily activities and the rituals of your nature?

David: It matters little that religion has a greater impact on the world relative to your judgent of its merits. All these other people have every right to adopt the religions that they follow and so we cannot help but live in a world filled with religion. They don't answer to you and they don't answer to me, either.

Rw: Would this include the religion that facilitated the justifications for 9-11? Historical precedence has factually established that people who adopt religious views tend towards religious intolerance that ultimately leads to violence and bloodshed. This matters to me a lot David. I am concerned for my future well-being and that of my family and nation. It is true in America people are free to believe anything they wish, but they also attempt to manipulate the legal, political and constitutional rights, guaranteed to everyone, to enact provisions forcing me to comply with their religiously generated standards. This too matters to me David. I think religion is a disease that people need an inoculation for. I see no good in it.

David: The last sentence contains a question which appears legitimate but in reality it is not. People who have faith in their religion are rational because they presume the truth of their religious convictions.

Rw: Then you hold that rationality derives from presumption? Do you think the Muslims who flew jets to their destruction, and the destruction of many innocent people, were rational? They presumed the truth of their religious convictions and that presumption led to mass murder and suicide. Is that rational?

David: Opponents of the faith assume that all followers of that faith are irrational specifically because they deny the truth of that religion's teachings.

Rw: I deny that any truth resides in their religious teachings to be opposed. I challenge religious tenets as to their truthfulness. Demonstrate them to be true, based on truth, verified as factual, and I will cease to oppose.

David: The same principle which applies to any religion also applies with equal force to atheism. I have heard Christians say that atheists are irrational. They say that because in their own judgment the atheists reject self-evident truths (God's existence).

Rw: David, if god were a self-evident truth there’d be no atheists. The “self” claiming god to be self-evident has nothing to base this claim upon other than his say-so. That is why truth, facts and verification are essential to these questions.

David: I assume that all people are rational in their own judgment, because all people assert the truth of their own beliefs and convictions.

Rw: Well, sure David, it is true that everyone, at some point in their lives, assert their beliefs and convictions. But this doesn’t assure us that the beliefs and convictions they assert are true. I’m sure they believe them to be true but that is as far as I can go with it.

David: I don't consider anyone irrational based upon their religious convictions, even when those convictions are different from my own.

Rw: Then you must have been comatose when those religious convictions, different from your own (I assume), culminated in 9-11.

David: That's a difficult question. You would have to bring something up for me to evaluate its relevance to myself.

Rw: I have David…truth. Is the statement “god exists” a true statement? Is that relevant enough?

Thank you David for your continued devotion to this discussion. I appreciate the effort you’re putting forth and look forward to your next reply.

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: rainbow walking ]

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: rainbow walking ]</p>