SethFWF
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Feb 14, 2005 15:30:21 GMT -5
Good arguements and interesting reading as far as the belief vs. faith debate. I would like to get deeper into the meat of the debate though and also use some of your sites arguments Andrey. Obviously until earth shattering events happen to prove one side or the other, there will be no winner in this debate. In my opinion, much of the problem is that we as humans are very simple minded and can only comprehend very little of what's really going on in our bodies, this planet, and the universe. That isn't to say that there's a lack of intelligence on this board with you guys, there's no doubt you're both very educated and well read. Also among the many scientists, historians, and theologists...there's an abundance of intelligence that allows their respective arguments to have merit. But in the big picture and grand scheme of things, we as humans really don't know very much. Which makes it difficult for me to have any "faith" in mans scientific theories, science has developed from mans growing intelligence...but that intelligence is miniscule compared to what "can" be known. Doctors admit that they can't explain much of how the body and brain work, and that we use a very small amount of our potential brain capacity. So how can we as humans pretend to know the facts about how we came about, how the universe works, and what or who may or may not be out there? This works against theists also of course, they go on faith and what they perceive to be logical...they still can't explain anything in the long run. That being said, I do subscribe to the theory(and belief) that our bodies, planet, and universe are far to complex to have arrived from chance and that no higher intelligence created them. That's the only point I'll deal with now. On your site Andrey, you had the "The Perfect World Argument (or the Deist Argument)" section. In the statement section you have the line... "The world is so perfect that it couldn't possibly come into being without some intelligent design." Using the word perfect allows you to pick apart this logic in your rebuttal. But without that word, your rebuttal doesn't work. Not using the word perfect, we still have an arguement that the complexity of our surroundings could not have come about by chance. So it's not a matter of perfection not being able to be defined because of nothing to compare it against, just a matter of realizing that such an amazing universe must have had an architect. That left to chance(being the manner in which most atheists claim we came about), the universe would be much more chaotic and possibly(most likely) would not have allowed for our race to progress to where we have. I'll also comment on your "The Creation Arguement" section. Here of course we have the biblical account vs. the fact that atheists will give no credence to the bible problem. But in your section you debate the idea of whether God was created. Not believing the bible to be valid would discount this for you, but it's clear that God is said to have had no beginning and will have no end. How can that be, again we as feeble humans can't comprehend this...but it's no reason to believe it's not possible. So how can this debate have any conclusion when one side believes the creation account(or some version) and the other believes the Bible is ficticious? Therefore, the never-ending dicussion, but still interesting nonetheless... This leads also to your debate over whether God would "choose" to create the universe and why. I'll comment on that later. Seth
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Feb 14, 2005 19:25:17 GMT -5
Seth,
I'm gonna have to disagree on a very fundamental point. It's true that we dont know many things yet. But I think it's a mistake to throw your hands up in the air and declare the unknown as unknowable. There are many things we actually do know, and they are sufficient to have a serious discussion about this. I dont claim to have all the answers, but I claim to have enough answers for the purposes of this discussion.
In the statement section you have the line..."The world is so perfect that it couldn't possibly come into being without some intelligent design." Using the word perfect allows you to pick apart this logic in your rebuttal. But without that word, your rebuttal doesn't work. Not using the word perfect, we still have an arguement that the complexity of our surroundings could not have come about by chance. So it's not a matter of perfection not being able to be defined because of nothing to compare it against, just a matter of realizing that such an amazing universe must have had an architect. That left to chance(being the manner in which most atheists claim we came about), the universe would be much more chaotic and possibly(most likely) would not have allowed for our race to progress to where we have.
I think without the word "perfect", there is no argument. You say that the world couldnt have come about by chance. But that doesnt require the existence of God. The theory of evolution, for example, explicitly states that humans did NOT evolve by chance, but by a rather deterministic process of natural selection. The Big Bang theory is also pretty deterministic. You see, to say that the world is perfect is to assign the world some kind of intrinsic value, which implies some higher power that gave it that value. To say that the world is not random is just to say that there are some natural laws, which is the case, but has nothing to do with existence of God.
Further, when you say that "such an amazing universe must have had an architect", you are making some value judgement of the universe. I remember the first time I saw a computer. I thought it was amazing. Now it's as common as bread. So I think this feeling of amazement, which I too have with respect to the universe, comes from our lack of understanding. I dont see how this could be a proof of anything.
And I'd like to again emphasize a very common misconception about atheists, which you also seem to have. Atheists dont believe that anything came about by chance. There are natural laws in the universe. Evolution is not a random process. It operates on very well-defined principles.
I'll also comment on your "The Creation Arguement" section. Here of course we have the biblical account vs. the fact that atheists will give no credence to the bible problem. But in your section you debate the idea of whether God was created. Not believing the bible to be valid would discount this for you, but it's clear that God is said to have had no beginning and will have no end.
Actually, I dont debate the idea that God was created. I derive the conclusion that God MUST have been created from a theist argument. It's a common argument that theists try to sell to atheists, and they specifically avoid using the Bible because they know atheists dont buy it. It goes like this:
Theist: obviously, everything that exists must have been created Expected answer: uh, yeah, sure Theist: so the universe was created Expected answer: ummm yeah I guess Theist: so somebody created it! Therefore God exists Expected answer: hallelujah!
Unfortunately, by claiming that EVERYTHING that exists must have been created, and claiming that God exists, they necessitate the conclusion that God must have been created. That's my whole point there.
I dont dispute the idea that something could exist forever, without beginning or end. But if you allow that possibility, why cant the universe itself have that property? Maybe the universe exists without beginning or end... then we dont need God to create it.
Andrey
|
|
SethFWF
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Feb 14, 2005 19:53:08 GMT -5
Just one point for now....
But I think it's a mistake to throw your hands up in the air and declare the unknown as unknowable.
I also think that's a mistake and should have stated that. My only point is when we as humans with limited understanding try to prove our theories, we all come up short simply because we can't be aware of all the facts and laws...and can't possibly learn everything in our lifetimes. But certainly we should and always will strive to learn as much as we can, and we should always challenge each other on all topics...in order to learn and teach. Or in some cases, put our thoughts out there for scrutiny whether they can be proven or not.
Just one more...
So I think this feeling of amazement, which I too have with respect to the universe, comes from our lack of understanding. I dont see how this could be a proof of anything.
My statement isn't really meant to prove anything, again proof in this debate will be hard to come by especially when we both feel strongly in our own beliefs. It's more a feeling within myself that I can't imagine anything so complex as just our bodies alone could not have a higher intellect behind it's construction. Proof only comes from a faith/belief and understanding of the bible which as you say really can't be used to convince an atheist...but serves as a basis of proof for those who believe it was divinely written for us. Kind of a catch 22, but I will look for some writings that I've read before that have many scientific reasonings for creation. I'm sure you've read and studied them also, but couldn't hurt to interject them here.
Seth
|
|
Fox
Monument http://www.fateswa
Posts: 368
|
Post by Fox on Feb 15, 2005 11:22:38 GMT -5
I'm gonna have to disagree on a very fundamental point. It's true that we dont know many things yet. But I think it's a mistake to throw your hands up in the air and declare the unknown as unknowable. There are many things we actually do know, and they are sufficient to have a serious discussion about this. I dont claim to have all the answers, but I claim to have enough answers for the purposes of this discussion. Sir Van Talvin, This paragraph best describes the enigma that is Progrocker. So prepare for lots of hand waiving, thread drift, and general contradictions. Read the highlighted statement, read the rest of Progrocker's points in the thread, and wonder how the same mind concocted them both. And think that when confronted with the unknown, the answer could be anything....except God. (which takes more faith to say than 'the answer could be anything' - but somewhere along the way athiestism requires no faith) Ok my head hurts. good day.
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Feb 15, 2005 11:33:48 GMT -5
Fox,
when confronted with the unknown, the answer could be anything except a supernatural man-made concept that has no ground in reality, such as invisible pink unicorn or God. You seem to think that any fictional character I might come up with is a legitimate possibility.
|
|
Sir Van Talvin
Monument http://www.fateswa
The Barbarian at the Ivory Gate
Posts: 460
|
Post by Sir Van Talvin on Feb 15, 2005 22:16:18 GMT -5
I'm asserting complete lack of evidence AS FAR AS SCIENCE GOES. Of course I cant assert complete lack of evidence anywhere in the universe. But that's an unrealistic standard to require. I'm not saying that there is absolutely no way any evidence of God could exist somewhere in the universe. What I'm saying is that it is RATIONAL to think that there is none, assuming that our cosmic vicinity is representative of the universe as a whole, which as far as we know is true. This paragraph is quite amusing to me. I got a good chuckle from it. Let me count the ways....
1. Backtracking from your previous "complete lack of evidence" assertion. You had to modify it to "as far as science goes", which is also funny for a different reason which I'll explain later.
2. Asserting that I'm foisting an "unrealistic standard" upon you. I highlighted that sentence because that got the most laughter out of me. More on that later.
3. Your continued use of the word "rational", as if you're alluding to yourself as a paradigm of rational thinking. More on that one, too.You seem to be missing the suble difference between "believe", "think", and "have faith". I believe in my assertion, in the sense that I think it to be true. I dont "believe" in it in the sense of ignoring all the evidence against it and blindly marching on. That's the religious belief. The only "suble" (pffft.... your typo ) difference I see lies in the definition of "believe" according to the Dictionary of ProgRocker's English. In my research of the word in other dictionaries I did not find any reference to "ignoring all evidence to the contrary". Gravity is a constant. It's probability is 100%. Everyone is under it's constant pull and everybody is a constant witness this constant effect. It's a provable fact, not just a "theory". Really? Can you prove that? We THINK it's 100% probability, because it has worked every time so far. But what if it doesnt work tomorrow? It could happen. Prove that it couldn't. And dont cite our experience on Earth. I bet there is a planet out there that we cant see in our telescopes where gravity just doesnt exist Now it's my turn to backtrack. I admit I should have clarified that gravity on earth is a provable fact. For the sake of being consistent with my arguments I deliberately did NOT use the scientific term "universal gravitational constant", but that apparently was not enough. I also should have put my sentences in the past tense rather than the present tense (which implies the future).
Of course no one can prove a future event! However, your challenge is another puerile attempt at sidetracking the issue. The issue was your ill-fated attempt to discredit my logic through the use of a bad analogy. Deal with that! 1. ProgRocker says: "I'm asserting complete lack of evidence as far as science goes."Ha-Ha! As far as science goes there is no complete lack of evidence of the existence of God. In order to reach that conclusion modern science has to be able to positively rule out every interpretation of data that points to the existence of God. Has science REALLY done that, or is it your assertion (remember how that word is defined?) that science has already done that? Seems to me that you are saying the latter, which means that you are committing an act of faith. 2. ProgRocker says: "that's an unrealistic standard to require."The standard of acknowledging a great and many unknowns in the universe is not "unrealistic". It is also NOT "unrealistic" is to expect any rational person to acknowledge the inability to scrutinize the whole universe. But it is unrealistic to expect anyone to try (which is probably what you meant to say--you see why I found it funny?). 3. ProgRocker's numerous uses of the word "rational".I infer from the way you use that word that you're holding yourself up as a paradigm of rational thinking. The problem is that you keep trying to deny the logic that atheism is an act of faith through the use of bad analogies and attempts at redefining words. Just how "rational" are you truly being?
|
|
Sir Van Talvin
Monument http://www.fateswa
The Barbarian at the Ivory Gate
Posts: 460
|
Post by Sir Van Talvin on Feb 15, 2005 22:32:45 GMT -5
Sir Van Talvin, ...... prepare for lots of hand waiving, thread drift, and general contradictions. Not only does he look ridiculous when he does that but it's also rather annoying. That is why there's been a shift in my tone towards him. And think that when confronted with the unknown, the answer could be anything....except God. (which takes more faith to say than 'the answer could be anything' - but somewhere along the way athiestism requires no faith) Allow me to clarify that I'm no student of yours, and that my arguments have been formulated completely independent of anything you have ever posted. That said, I agree completely with your assessment and would also add (sarcastically) that he considers himself to be a rational thinker.ProgRocker: when faced with the unknown, any man-made concept is a legitimate possibility--it's not rational to preclude anything (especially not your unfathomable fixation with unicorns)!
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Feb 16, 2005 9:32:00 GMT -5
Sir Van Talvin, I would expect at least a minimal effort on your part to try to understand what I'm saying. All your energy seems to be directed at misinterpreting what I said in as many ways as possible. It's really quite annoying. I have no idea why we got into this argument in the first place. I dont have any issue with agnostics, so if you want to pretend for the purposes of this discussion that I'm an agnostic, that's fine. I've yet to see any argument from you that I SHOULD believe in God. That's really the only thing worth arguing over. If you ask any agnostic, though, I dont think they go to church every other sunday, so I wonder how "unsure" they really are. Backtracking from your previous "complete lack of evidence" assertion. You had to modify it to "as far as science goes", which is also funny for a different reason which I'll explain later.
Not backtracking, but making more precise. The only acceptable evidence is scientific evidence. I dont believe in clairvoyants, so of course I'm talking about the lack of evidence TODAY. The only "suble" (pffft.... your typo ) difference I see lies in the definition of "believe" according to the Dictionary of ProgRocker's English. In my research of the word in other dictionaries I did not find any reference to "ignoring all evidence to the contrary". Really? Then how do you explain this? onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/BeliefA tenet, or the body of tenets, held by the advocates of any class of views; doctrine; creed. Ultimate belief, a first principle incapable of proof; an intuitive truth; an intuition. --Sir W. Hamilton.
and The conviction of the mind, arising from evidence received, or from information derived, not from actual perception by our senses, but from. the relation or information of others who have had the means of acquiring actual knowledge of the facts and in whose qualifications for acquiring that knowledge, and retaining it, and afterwards in communicating it, we can place confidence. These correspond exactly to my meaning #1 and #2 in the previous post. Now it's my turn to backtrack. I admit I should have clarified that gravity on earth is a provable fact.Really? Well I'm eagerly awaiting your proof. I'll nominate you for a Nobel prize even. For the sake of being consistent with my arguments I deliberately did NOT use the scientific term "universal gravitational constant", but that apparently was not enough. hahaha, this is really funny. Gravitational constant was derived from observation. I'm specifically postulating a theory that cannot be observed (or can it??). Of course no one can prove a future event!Oh, so now I am imposing an unrealistic standard? How does the shoe fit the other foot? However, your challenge is another puerile attempt at sidetracking the issue. The issue was your ill-fated attempt to discredit my logic through the use of a bad analogy. Deal with that! I think it's a perfect analogy. Both my new gravity theory and your God are unobservable, non-physical man-made ideas. You are yet to point out why this is a bad analogy. What you are telling me here is that I should think my "90% gravity" is as acceptable a theory as the current theory of gravity. As far as science goes there is no complete lack of evidence of the existence of God. In order to reach that conclusion modern science has to be able to positively rule out every interpretation of data that points to the existence of God. Has science REALLY done thatYES, science has done that! Science deals only with natural entities. It's a closed system under this principle. It cannot possibly point to an entity outside the natural world. The standard of acknowledging a great and many unknowns in the universe is not "unrealistic". It is also NOT "unrealistic" is to expect any rational person to acknowledge the inability to scrutinize the whole universe.I agree on both points. I infer from the way you use that word that you're holding yourself up as a paradigm of rational thinking.I wish, but unfortunately I've been wrong a number of times. However, I do hold my arguments to be rational for the following reason: nobody has been able to point out a logical flaw in them (I dont mean handwaving like your attempt here). That's really the criteria. I'm open to any arguments you have, but "we should wait and see if any coin we drop fails to fall" (i.e. "we should wait for physical evidence of a non-physical concept of God") really doesn't cut it. I'm sure you'll come up with another way to miss my point, so I propose this instead: pretend that I'm an agnostic, and try to prove to me that I should believe in God.
|
|
Fox
Monument http://www.fateswa
Posts: 368
|
Post by Fox on Feb 16, 2005 9:33:38 GMT -5
Hmmm...no futher comment I just can't believe I wrote athiestism instead of atheism.
|
|
BenMech
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
The One You Warned Me Of
Posts: 1,470
|
Post by BenMech on Feb 16, 2005 18:31:26 GMT -5
Hmmm...no futher comment I just can't believe I wrote athiestism instead of atheism. And yet you decided to write it again. Why???
|
|
Fox
Monument http://www.fateswa
Posts: 368
|
Post by Fox on Feb 17, 2005 9:32:27 GMT -5
Progrocker,
I would expect at least a minimal effort on your part to try to understand what I'm saying. All your energy seems to be directed at misinterpreting what I said in as many ways as possible. It's really quite annoying.
I would most likely postulate, God is not a natural entity, so using science to find/disprove him would be a lot like trying to pound a nail in with a screwdriver. Futhermore science only looks inside a system to answer the question "how?" is does not answer "why" (excepting that the cause and effect relationship and mechanics there of, why can be a subset of how), but then since science cannot answer the catalyst of a system, or any potential influential factors outside of said system, then it is limited. And using a limited system to make assumptions about a (seemingly) limitless universe is obtuseness at its finest.
If God is natural, then science still hasn't done anything. Its not possible to disprove the existence of something, only prove.
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Feb 17, 2005 9:48:36 GMT -5
I would most likely postulate, God is not a natural entity, so using science to find/disprove him would be a lot like trying to pound a nail in with a screwdriver.
I agree. Now I'd also postulate this: anything that can't be proven/disproven by science is not real, because we cannot possibly define "supernatural existence" in a meaningful way.
Futhermore science only looks inside a system to answer the question "how?" is does not answer "why"
Just asking "why" shows your inherent bias. How do you know there is a reason why at all?
but then since science cannot answer the catalyst of a system, or any potential influential factors outside of said system, then it is limited. And using a limited system to make assumptions about a (seemingly) limitless universe is obtuseness at its finest.
Yes, science is limited, by physical reality. But science is complete with respect to knowledge, we cannot actually know anything by any other method. So it makes no sense to speak of things not knowable by science.
If God is natural, then science still hasn't done anything. Its not possible to disprove the existence of something, only prove.
If God is natural, then it shouldn't called God. It should be called nature. I have no problem with such a thing existing.
Basically, the problem with your reasoning is this: can you define what it means to exist outside of physical reality? If not, then it makes no sense to speak of it (since we dont really know what we are speaking of)
|
|
SethFWF
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Mar 15, 2005 19:53:47 GMT -5
Maybe a change of direction for this thread...
What are your opinions or predictions of the fate of the physical world and the human race factoring in both the God and no God sides of the coin? This opens up the debate to everyone no matter how they believe, but really isn't an atheism vs. creation thing.
I'll start with what I think our fate would be with no God for now. If we have no chance of divine intervention, I of course believe we have a very bleak future. Likely not in my lifetime, or any of us here for that matter...but our childrens, childrens, children will face it, if not sooner. You can say that life finds a way, but many species go extinct for many reasons. Maybe life could always find a way on this planet, but not necessarily human life at some point. There are many factors obviously that could lead to this conclusion, first...the environment. Humans have been left on their own to maintain this home of ours for Gods own reasons...but we're assuming there is no God for now. So either way, we've run it into the ground just by our imperfection...not necessarily on purpose. Pollution has caused serious problems in many areas, and as big business and technology grows...it will get much worse. There's global warming(depending on how much you agree with that), the ozone problem which is tied to that to a degree, deforestation, and water problems/shortages that cannot likely be reversed.
Another factor is natural disasters, we've always had them...but at some point I believe that the worsening conditions of the environment will start to manifest in worse and more frequent disasters. Any combination of "super movements" could cause catastrophic problems. This isn't meant to sound like calamity hollering...IMO it's really just a matter of time before the earth revolts enough to bring the human race to it's knees. Another environmental factor could be outside of earth...conditions in space could obviously cause an extinction scenario also.
Then there's us. Humans since the beginning of recorded history have done nothing better than kill each other. Look for all the good you want...the bad is in all of our faces and our imperfection could easily lead us to the annihilation of ourselves. We all worried about nuclear war because it's so destructive, and it could still be a threat. But even without it as a possibility, World Wars escalating beyond what they did in the past could easily cause a worldwide anarchy. That likely would not cause extinction, but certainly would change the world for the worse. Without divine intervention to direct us how to live with each other and not kill each other...we will wipe ourselves out at some point if the environment doesn't first. Then there's pestilence that we can't control, and some that we directly cause. Not to mention experiments in science that can cause adverse reactions, as noble as it is to try and better ourselves with science...eventually we'll go overboard.
I can't see any logical arguement that could say we as humans can turn things around and have peace on earth as well as a planet that functions better without serious health and mortality reprecussions. Whether it's in our lifetime or not...it's inevitable.
Now, I sound like a huge pessimist(which I actually am to a degree)...but the point is to explain your prediction of the future of the planet without God factored in. And with also, but that will wait for another post. For the record, if there were no God and this is what we were facing...all of this would be a monumental waste of friggin' time and absolutely pointless...IMO of course.
Seth
|
|
|
Post by ProgRocker on Mar 15, 2005 20:45:25 GMT -5
Well, Seth, this is actually a very easy question. The Sun will stop shining in about 5 billion years from now. It will expand and engulf the Earth a while before that. So long-term, our only hope for survival is long-distance interstellar travel, and it's too early to say how good our prospects are there. A little bit shorter term (i.e. millions of years), if we manage not to kill ourselves, we will probably evolve into a more advanced species, but we'll never notice because evolution occurs so slowly. Extinction is not a bad thing. It's like a software update You dont want to still be using DOS, do you? Actually, I'm betting on the scenario where we computerize and mechanize ourselves (kinda like in Terminator). I think it's only a matter of a couple of centuries before we understand how the brain works. We have all the tools, we just need a couple of brilliant insights. We can't even begin to comprehend the political, philosophical, and scientific consequences of such knowledge.
|
|
SethFWF
At Fates Hands http://www.fat
"Rattle your God damn head!"
Posts: 1,405
|
Post by SethFWF on Mar 16, 2005 7:08:49 GMT -5
All of those are pretty good bets, I'm just a bit too skeptical with the current conditions to think we could last long enough for any of those scenarios.
The current state of the environment, disease, and worldwide human society leads me to believe we won't be looking at centuries. I still think it's a progression quite far off yet, but it's hard for me to accept that we will completely understand the brain and make significant improvements in ourselves before our destructive nature does us in first.
IMO, we're already teetering on another World War that could be a grander scope than before. Like I said, doutful that would ever cause extinction...actually a reforming of society on a worldwide scale may help the race continue longer. Without mass amounts of radiation that is. But over the course of a few centuries I think we would cause something mammoth to bring us to the brink before we bettered ourselves. I don't think we can control and manipulate ourselves to not continue this domination and destruction of each other.
If I had to, I would really bet on the environment being the culprit before that. Many scientists predict(with their imperfect science of course) that major occurences here or from space are only a matter of time.
So I feel without God, we have little to no chance of bettering the planet and ourselves to the point of turning things around for good.
Seth
|
|