# I don't think I'm an Atheist anymore...



## pnome (Apr 15, 2011)

Credit goes to Anthony Flew...

http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335290

I've read a lot of books on this subject, but this is the first time I've been left actually questioning not just atheism, but rationalism itself.  He pretty well destroys the "Presumption of Atheism" that I have been hanging my hat on for a while.

Now, this is still a LONG way from the Judeo-Christian God.  Much more akin to an Aristotelian God.  But it has me believing.  Not "knowing" of course, because that's not possible from inside our universe, but enough to "believe".  

You should read the whole book, but I will try to sum up the arguments that I found most compelling.  Basically it is a collection of several arguments.  Design, First cause, Cosmological, etc...  It is not any one individual argument, but rather the sum of them that points to a deity.

"God" is a more simple and elegant answer to "Why is there something rather than nothing?" than "No God."  In fact, you cannot come up with a naturalistic answer to that question without getting into an infinite regression.  Because the universe is natural, it must obey causality by having a cause (we are all aware of the effect).  I used to stop right there and say, "Well, why not just accept that the Universe just exists then."  But that doesn't account for why the universe is.    There is, at least, one more step to take.  

Dawkins posits the multiverse idea here to explain the apparent laws of nature.  Flew dismantles this one and shows how it only leads one to ask how the laws that govern the multiverse came to be?  Again, in order to explain it, you will eventually get to the uncaused cause.  The prime mover.  God. 

Why isn't this just another "argument from ignorance"?  Because, I am not suggesting this prime mover is any particular deity.  Only when you look at all of the arguments together, do you see that the best fit for an answer is something supernatural.  Indeed that the mere presence of the natural can only be explained by the supernatural.

We have free will.  There is no scientific law to explain why I am typing this.  Science can explain how my fingers move, or how the data gets transferred to text on your screen.  But it cannot explain why I write what I write.  I could write the word giraffe, or maybe onomatopoeia.  No law of nature decided that.  Just me.  And if that's so, then scientific determinism can't explain it.  Because what I type is never necessarily determined by any previous action.  It is 'supernatural' for all intents and purposes.

He goes on to provide a very strong argument from design for DNA.  

Highly recommend this book for the skeptical and the believers.  I would never have thought that a book could change my mind.  But here I am now.....


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 15, 2011)

|


_On Leaping Over the Moon


I saw new worlds beneath the water lie,
New people; ye, another sky
And sun, which seen by day
Might things more clear display.
Just such another
Of late my brother
Did in his travel see, and saw by night
A much more strange and wondrous sight;
Nor could the world exhibit such another
So great a sight but in a brother.

Adventure strange! No such in story we
New or old, true or feigned, see.
On earth he seemed to move,
Yet heaven went above;
Up in the skies
His body flies
In open, visible, yet magic, sort;
As he along the way did sport,
Over the flood he takes his nimble course
Without the help of feigned horse.

As he went tripping o'er the king's highway,
A little pearly river lay,
O'er which, he dared to swim,
Swim through the air
On body fair;
He would not trust Icarian wings,
Lest they should prove deceitful things;
For had he fall'n, it had been wondrous high,
Not from, but from above, the sky.

He might have dropped through that thin element
Into a fathomless descent;
Unto the nether sky
That did beneath him lie,
And there might tell
What wonders dwell
On earth above. Yet doth he briskly run,
And, bold, the danger overcome;
Who, as he leapt, with joy related soon
How happy he o'erleapt the moon.

What wondrous things upon the earth are done
Beneath, and yet above, the sun!
Deeds all appear again
In higher spheres; remain
In clouds as yet,
But there they get
Another light, and in another way
Themselves to us
above
display.
The skies themselves this earthly globe surround;
We're even here within them found.

On heav'nly ground within the skies we walk,
And in this middle center talk:
Did we but wisely move,
On earth in heav'n above,
Then soon should we
Exalted be
Above the sky; from whence whoever falls,
Through a long dismal precipice
Sinks to the deep abyss where Satan crawls,
Where horrid death and despair lies.

As much as others thought themselves to lie
Beneath the moon, so much more high
Himself he thought to fly
Above the starry sky,
As
that
he spied
Below the tide.

Thus did he yield me in the shady night
A wondrous and instructive light,
Which taught me that under our feet there is,
As o'er our heads, a place of bliss.

Thomas Traherne _


Art sometimes make me think there is a God.  The Political Forum makes me think there isn't.   

Best of luck on your new found path.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 15, 2011)

Many of these same topics were discussed in a debate between Lawrence Krauss and William Lane Craig held about 2 weeks ago at NC State (if I remember correctly...). I'd be curious to know if you still found them as convincing after watching that debate.

The argument from design for DNA is covered very well in Dawkins book The Greatest Show on Earth.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Many of these same topics were discussed in a debate between Lawrence Krauss and William Lane Craig held about 2 weeks ago at NC State (if I remember correctly...). I'd be curious to know if you still found them as convincing after watching that debate.
> 
> The argument from design for DNA is covered very well in Dawkins book The Greatest Show on Earth.



I really know where he's (Pnome) coming from.  There are things that just can't be answered with our limited knowledge.  The position of "I don't know" holds no real comfort.  It's the acceptance of that lack of comfort that allows one to maintain that position.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 15, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I really know where he's (Pnome) coming from.  There are things that just can't be answered with our limited knowledge.  The position of "I don't know" holds no real comfort.  It's the acceptance of that lack of comfort that allows one to maintain that position.



I agree. I would only add that "I don't know" carries with it a responsibility to not assume we do know based on what appears the most logical at first glance, and I know that isn't what Pnome is saying here. And I would also add the silver lining that not knowing provides the excitement that we might one day be able to discover the answers. Life would be pretty boring if there was nothing that we didn't know.


----------



## Sargent (Apr 15, 2011)

Thanks for the recommendation, Joe.  

I have heard of this book and anxious to read it.  

You'll be speaking in tongues in no time


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

Sargent said:


> Thanks for the recommendation, Joe.
> 
> I have heard of this book and anxious to read it.
> 
> *You'll be speaking in tongues in no time*


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 15, 2011)

pnome said:


> Credit goes to Anthony Flew...
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335290
> 
> ...


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Apr 15, 2011)

Hello pnome, thanks for sharing. Keep us informed where this leads you.


----------



## pnome (Apr 15, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> The position of "I don't know" holds no real comfort.



It's not exactly that.  "I don't know" or pure agnosticism has never held much appeal to me.  It's basically a non-starter.  No one really "knows" anything.  We all make judgements based on the information we have.  We use our cognitive abilities to ferret out the most probable answer.  Now, I've just come to think that the most probable answer to "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a prime mover.

Sure, we can say "I don't know" then we can go and turn our minds to other thoughts.  We can talk about Turkey Hunting or some such.  But if we are going to think about these things, we need to do better.


----------



## pnome (Apr 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Many of these same topics were discussed in a debate between Lawrence Krauss and William Lane Craig held about 2 weeks ago at NC State (if I remember correctly...). I'd be curious to know if you still found them as convincing after watching that debate.



Are the videos to that debate on youtube?  I'll have to check it out.



> The argument from design for DNA is covered very well in Dawkins book The Greatest Show on Earth.





The idea that, given enough time, DNA could develop on it's own is dealt with in the book. There just isn't enough time or material in the universe to account for the number of attempts it would take before you had something viable.  Incidentally I think this is his weakest argument.  We can maybe agree that DNA is the product of design, or rather is more probably the product of design over chance.  But there is no reason to believe that the same power that created the universe also created DNA.


----------



## pnome (Apr 15, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello pnome, thanks for sharing. Keep us informed where this leads you.



I will continue to "Follow the argument wherever it leads"


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 16, 2011)

pnome said:


> Are the videos to that debate on youtube?  I'll have to check it out.



It is. Just do a search for "Evidence for God Craig Krauss".


You said the agnostic position never held much appeal for you. Would you now consider yourself a deist or something else?


----------



## JFS (Apr 16, 2011)

pnome said:


> "God" is a more simple and elegant answer to "Why is there something rather than nothing?" than "No God."



So maybe there really are turtles all the way down?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 16, 2011)

pnome said:


> "God" is a more simple and elegant answer to "Why is there something rather than nothing?" than "No God."



If you saw a ceiling fan spinning all by itself with no electricity and no wind would your first explanation be "ghosts"?


----------



## pnome (Apr 16, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It is. Just do a search for "Evidence for God Craig Krauss".
> 
> 
> You said the agnostic position never held much appeal for you. Would you now consider yourself a deist or something else?



Deist of a sort.


----------



## pnome (Apr 16, 2011)

JFS said:


> So maybe there really are turtles all the way down?



Interesting that you bring that up.  And I will have a lot more to say on this as soon as I can get to a regular keyboard.   And not this smartphone im using now.


----------



## Thanatos (Apr 16, 2011)

This thread has truly made my day. I will look for the book and read it. Good luck on your journey Pnome.


----------



## Thanatos (Apr 16, 2011)

Sargent said:


> Thanks for the recommendation, Joe.
> 
> I have heard of this book and anxious to read it.
> 
> You'll be speaking in tongues in no time



If you need help handling snakes I can show you the ropes...


----------



## pnome (Apr 17, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It is. Just do a search for "Evidence for God Craig Krauss".
> 
> 
> You said the agnostic position never held much appeal for you. Would you now consider yourself a deist or something else?



Changed my mind.  We'll call it an "agnostic theist".


----------



## pnome (Apr 17, 2011)

JFS said:


> So maybe there really are turtles all the way down?





Turtles are a good example of a naturalist answer to "Why is there something rather than nothing?  A wildly speculative one, to be sure.  But it suffers from the same infinite recursion of somethings that Dawkins' multiverse idea does.  

To escape the recursion we need an uncaused cause. A prime mover.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 17, 2011)

pnome said:


> To escape the recursion we need an uncaused cause. A prime mover.



Why assume the prime mover would be a deity rather than something natural?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Apr 17, 2011)

pnome said:


> Changed my mind.  We'll call it an "agnostic theist".



Just make me a promise that you won't go baptist and it's all good, friend.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 17, 2011)

pnome said:


> Turtles are a good example of a naturalist answer to "Why is there something rather than nothing?  A wildly speculative one, to be sure.  But it suffers from the same infinite recursion of somethings that Dawkins' multiverse idea does.
> 
> To escape the recursion we need an uncaused cause. A prime mover.



Read page 106, then Chapter Eight in its entirety of "Godless" by Dan Barker.
Quickly.


----------



## JFS (Apr 17, 2011)

pnome said:


> To escape the recursion we need an uncaused cause. A prime mover.




I never could figure out why "where did god come from?" is any less of a conundrum than the material regresson and kind of favor Hume on this one:

_How can we satisfy ourselves without going on in infinitum? And, after all, what satisfaction is there in that infinite progression? ...  It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world._

I can at times contemplate a neoplatonic "One" or the like, but find it adds nothing predictive or normative, it's merely a placeholder for the unknown.  I can't get my head around where things come from, but I've never found adding something else that I can't understand to resolve the orignal uncertainty.


----------



## pnome (Apr 17, 2011)

JFS said:


> _How can we satisfy ourselves without going on in infinitum? And, after all, what satisfaction is there in that infinite progression? ...  It were better, therefore, never to look beyond the present material world._



That would just be avoiding the question.  

We can always shrug our shoulders and say "I don't know, so let's talk about something else."  But if we address the question.  A creator seems to me a more simple answer than no creator.


----------



## pnome (Apr 17, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Just make me a promise that you won't go baptist and it's all good, friend.



If that day ever comes, I assure you, you'll be the one dunking me in the river.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 17, 2011)

pnome said:


> A creator seems to me a more simple answer than no creator.



No, it is simply the old traditional cosmological argument, explaining complexity with more complexity, answering a mystery with a mystery.
It answers nothing.  It is a "god of the gaps" stance or argument.


----------



## pnome (Apr 17, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> No, it is simply the old traditional cosmological argument, explaining complexity with more complexity, answering a mystery with a mystery.
> It answers nothing.  It is a "god of the gaps" stance or argument.




Certainly the origin of all creation is currently unknown to science.  A gap.  But it is more than that.  It is an unknowable gap.  (hence the agnostic part of "agnostic theist") Pure scientific rationalism won't get us there.  So, let's try to take our best guess.  Occam's razor instructs us that the more simple answer is most often correct.  So, which is more simple?  That causality has an ultimate cause, or that there exists an infinite string of causes?


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 17, 2011)

We have yet to see everything which scientific rationalism brings.
It simply may take many generations to find more proofs and answers.  Just a few hundred years ago, man thought the Earth was flat.  Fifty years ago, man physically set foot on our Moon.

Who knows what has been before?  Who knows what will be after?  Can we say with all certainty there is no other type of life outside our universe?  In the entire Cosmos?
Even if one attempts to get a prime mover off the hook by arguing that a prime mover needed no cause or creator itself, it still does nothing to explain that prime mover's reason for existance...
Or any evidence or proof thereof.

At best, intelligent design and the teleogical argument is a mythical answer to a mystery, like lightning, thunder, fertility, infections and various other things man had no answer for at various times in history.  Some of that is answered today.

Have you read "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong?  I highly suggest it.


----------



## JFS (Apr 18, 2011)

pnome said:


> That would just be avoiding the question.
> 
> We can always shrug our shoulders and say "I don't know, so let's talk about something else."  But if we address the question.  A creator seems to me a more simple answer than no creator.



Not avoiding the question, just not letting the existence of the question lead to erroneous answers. Adding a speculative creator of which we know nothing doesn't solve much, at least not for me.   And pondering the origins, preferences and implications of a supreme being isn't really more simple than just dealing with the information at hand, is it?  More likely an invitation for all kinds of religious mischief as people jockey to be sure the god of the gaps favors them.  Not knowing is more simple than postulating based on no evidence.

But hey, there are no answers, just theories.  Glad you found a line of thinking you like and good luck with where it goes.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 18, 2011)

I think I'll use a small screen capture program to archive a digital picture of post # 27. God has a delicious sense of irony and humor..... and He calls people from the most unlikely "places" to accomplish His will. I think I'll also wear this smile all day long thinking about this thread.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 18, 2011)

JFS said:


> Not avoiding the question, just not letting the existence of the question lead to erroneous answers. Adding a speculative creator of which we know nothing doesn't solve much, at least not for me.   And pondering the origins, preferences and implications of a supreme being isn't really more simple than just dealing with the information at hand, is it?  More likely an invitation for all kinds of religious mischief as people jockey to be sure the god of the gaps favors them.  Not knowing is more simple than postulating based on no evidence.
> 
> But hey, there are no answers, just theories.  Glad you found a line of thinking you like and good luck with where it goes.


It's just a small leap of faith to go from prime mover to realizing we know more of Him simply because of the universe in which we live. God has left more than a trail of bread crumbs. We have His Word and we have access to Him through Jesus, His Son.

"Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth."
         Psalm 46:10


----------



## JFS (Apr 18, 2011)

gtparts said:


> It's just a small leap of faith to go from prime mover to realizing we know more of Him simply because of the universe in which we live. God has left more than a trail of bread crumbs. We have His Word and we have access to Him through Jesus, His Son.
> 
> "Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth."
> Psalm 46:10



Thanks for illustrating my point.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 18, 2011)

JFS said:


> Thanks for illustrating my point.



Didn't know that was where you were going with your comment, but glad I could help.


----------



## dawg2 (Apr 18, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Why assume the prime mover would be a deity rather than something natural?



Because there are far too many "designs" for it to be completely random.  If it were completely random, then there would most likely only be one or two life forms, albeit primitive.


----------



## pnome (Apr 18, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> Even if one attempts to get a prime mover off the hook by arguing that a prime mover needed no cause or creator itself, it still does nothing to explain that prime mover's reason for existance...
> Or any evidence or proof thereof.



Correct.  We haven't discussed any of those things.  Only the "Primordial Existential Question"



> At best, intelligent design and the teleogical argument is a mythical answer to a mystery, like lightning, thunder, fertility, infections and various other things man had no answer for at various times in history.  Some of that is answered today.



I think you're missing my point.  Let's take lightning as an example.  Science can tell us all manner of information about it.  That it's static electricity generated between clouds and the ground, etc... We can set up experiments to test our theories about it.  But it will still be "something" no matter how accurately described or predicted.  The PEQ just isn't meaningful to science.

Only religion and philosophy are capable of attempting an answer.  And a prime mover is a philosophical answer.  While, Allah would be an example of a religious answer.  But all under the category "supernatural." Which means that if I accept the prime mover argument, I can no longer rightly be called an atheist of any stripe.



> Have you read "A History of God" by Karen Armstrong?  I highly suggest it.



Consider it on my reading list.  Just started reading a book on the Agile software development process.  *EXCITING*


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> Because there are far too many "designs" for it to be completely random.  If it were completely random, then there would most likely only be one or two life forms, albeit primitive.



Looks pretty random from what I can see.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2011)

pnome said:


> Certainly the origin of all creation is currently unknown to science.  A gap.  But it is more than that.  It is an unknowable gap.  (hence the agnostic part of "agnostic theist") Pure scientific rationalism won't get us there.



I wouldn't be so confident that it is unknowable. It may or may not be. Science has answered questions that many thought were unknowable.




pnome said:


> So, let's try to take our best guess.  Occam's razor instructs us that the more simple answer is most often correct.  So, which is more simple?  That causality has an ultimate cause, or that there exists an infinite string of causes?



I would break the first cause answer into two, natural and supernatural. So you've got infinite string, natural first cause, supernatural first cause. Of the three I find the last to be the least likely and least simple.

I also look at it this way. If there was a supernatural prime mover, an intelligence that wanted to be known, it would be. The fact that it isn't tells me that either it doesn't want to be in which case that really is an unknowable for all of us, or there is no such intelligence. Either way it's really up to that intelligence whether we are made aware of it or not. It's not like a physical phenomenon that has no choice in whether or not we discover it.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2011)

JFS said:


> Thanks for illustrating my point.


----------



## pnome (Apr 18, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I would break the first cause answer into two, natural and supernatural. So you've got infinite string, natural first cause, supernatural first cause. Of the three I find the last to be the least likely and least simple.



Let's define "natural" here.  If we define it as "obeys some set of rules or laws" then all "natural" answers have a problem.  

If we say that our universe obeys certain rules, then we can rightly ask, well where did those rules come from?  We could say, like Dawkins, that there are a large number of other universes with different rules and we just happen to be living in this one.  But then where did the rules that govern this multiverse come from?

There can be no "natural first cause" because in order to define it as "natural" we have to subject it to rules which we must then account for. 




> I also look at it this way. If there was a supernatural prime mover, an intelligence that wanted to be known, it would be. The fact that it isn't tells me that either it doesn't want to be in which case that really is an unknowable for all of us, or there is no such intelligence. Either way it's really up to that intelligence whether we are made aware of it or not. It's not like a physical phenomenon that has no choice in whether or not we discover it.



You're right.  It's not like a physical phenomenon at all.


----------



## Achilles Return (Apr 18, 2011)

pnome said:


> That would just be avoiding the question.
> 
> We can always shrug our shoulders and say "I don't know, so let's talk about something else."  But if we address the question.  A creator seems to me a more simple answer than no creator.



Except the supernatural doesn't answer the question either. Imagine if our ancestors has simply rested with the ideas that God controlled the weather, or movement of the sun across the sky. You're merely taking the unknown and replacing it with 'god' - that's not an answer at all. It's still unknown all the same.


----------



## HawgJawl (Apr 18, 2011)

Where does the belief originate that there had to be a time when there was nothing?


----------



## pnome (Apr 18, 2011)

Achilles Return said:


> Except the supernatural doesn't answer the question either. Imagine if our ancestors has simply rested with the ideas that God controlled the weather, or movement of the sun across the sky. You're merely taking the unknown and replacing it with 'god' - that's not an answer at all. It's still unknown all the same.



So why is this not simply an "Argument from ignorance" as you suggest?

Because I am not trying to argue for any specific answer.  Just saying that there is an answer.  An ultimate answer.  And that answer isn't a natural one.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2011)

pnome said:


> Let's define "natural" here.  If we define it as "obeys some set of rules or laws" then all "natural" answers have a problem.
> 
> If we say that our universe obeys certain rules, then we can rightly ask, well where did those rules come from?  We could say, like Dawkins, that there are a large number of other universes with different rules and we just happen to be living in this one.  But then where did the rules that govern this multiverse come from?
> 
> There can be no "natural first cause" because in order to define it as "natural" we have to subject it to rules which we must then account for.



We know that our universe had a beginning. We don't know what preceded that beginning or if that question even makes any sense. At some point you're going to get to something that always was and always is. At least it appears that way to me. A theist calls that God. It's a nonsensical question to a theist to ask where God came from. The answer will be he is eternal. A scientist might call that the multiverse. Why could there not be an eternal multiverse which was the natural first cause of the universe?

Both the multiverse and God are speculative. But the difference I think is that the multiverse idea _may_ be testable and falsifiable. The God hypothesis will never be. Also when it comes to explaining the universe and everything in it "God" is batting a big goose egg. There have been many things about the world around us that we didn't understand, that was attributed to God, and later replaced with a natural explanation. Maybe the prime mover is the one exception to that rule but again, how do you test that if it is true? The best you can do is say "it must be because we haven't yet been able to find a natural explanation". As has already been pointed out though you really haven't proven or explained anything when you do that, you've just plugged a gap with a deity.


----------



## pnome (Apr 18, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Where does the belief originate that there had to be a time when there was nothing?



Oh, there may not be a "time".   "Time" would be something, not nothing. Time is just a particular something our universe has.


----------



## HawgJawl (Apr 18, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> We know that our universe had a beginning.



How do we know that?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2011)

pnome said:


> Because I am not trying to argue for any specific answer.  Just saying that there is an answer.  An ultimate answer.



Agreed




pnome said:


> And that answer isn't a natural one.



How do you know that?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Apr 18, 2011)

Acts 17:22-34 takes it from Aristotle to the living God.  

Hope you're path leads you there pnome.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> How do we know that?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence


----------



## HawgJawl (Apr 18, 2011)

pnome said:


> Oh, there may not be a "time".   "Time" would be something, not nothing. Time is just a particular something our universe has.



Magicians seem to make things appear out of nothing.  Other than magicians, our natural world and all that we experience and learn in life are not consistent with the belief that things appear from nothing.  That's the basis of my question.  If it were normal for things to come from nothing, then it would be logical to apply that thinking to the entire universe and life.  But since that concept is not consistent with our everyday life, why do choose to apply it to our universe?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 18, 2011)

pnome said:


> So why is this not simply an "Argument from ignorance" as you suggest?
> 
> Because I am not trying to argue for any specific answer.  Just saying that there is an answer.  An ultimate answer.  And that answer isn't a natural one.



To a God, "Abra Cadabra-ing" the Universe into existence may be as natural to him as taking a walk is to us.  It may not even be that impressive of a feat to any other Gods that may be watching.  It's only supernatural from our perspective.

It seems to me that what you have concluded is that there is/was some kind of "consciousness" at work in the formation of "stuff".  Is that correct?


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 18, 2011)

"There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics."

"The major premise of this argument, "everything had a cause," is contradicted by the conclusion that "God did not have a cause." You can't have it both ways. If everything had to have a cause, then there could not be a first cause. If it is possible to think of a god as uncaused, then it is possible to think the same of the universe."

"Some theists, observing that all "effects" need a cause, assert that god is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove."

Dan Barker


----------



## pnome (Apr 18, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> We know that our universe had a beginning. We don't know what preceded that beginning or if that question even makes any sense. At some point you're going to get to something that always was and always is. At least it appears that way to me. A theist calls that God. It's a nonsensical question to a theist to ask where God came from. The answer will be he is eternal. A scientist might call that the multiverse. Why could there not be an eternal multiverse which was the natural first cause of the universe?



I prefer to think of this prime mover not as "eternal" but rather "timeless"  or operating outside of the constraints of time.



> Both the multiverse and God are speculative. But the difference I think is that the multiverse idea _may_ be testable and falsifiable. The God hypothesis will never be.



We may be able to test for the multiverse some day, but in order to do so, we must have a set of rules with which to run our tests.  Where do those rules come from then? (and so on....)



> Also when it comes to explaining the universe and everything in it "God" is batting a big goose egg. There have been many things about the world around us that we didn't understand, that was attributed to God, and later replaced with a natural explanation. Maybe the prime mover is the one exception to that rule but again, how do you test that if it is true?



You're right.  It's not an answer science can confirm.  The question itself has no real meaning in scientific terms.  The "Primordial Existential Question" is an inherently philosophical question.


----------



## HawgJawl (Apr 18, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Observational_evidence



The  Big Bang / Big Crunch  theory is an endless cycle with no beginning.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 18, 2011)

Seems to me if you think of God as a "natural process" you're back to square one.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 18, 2011)

pnome said:


> Oh, there may not be a "time".   "Time" would be something, not nothing. Time is just a particular something our universe has.



Time is not a thing, but merely the measure of distance between events.  What was the "event" that would start a deity on its way to create?  What was it doing beforehand?
Did a "prime mover" start that deity into action?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2011)

pnome said:


> I prefer to think of this prime mover not as "eternal" but rather "timeless"  or operating outside of the constraints of time.



How exactly would something "operate" outside the constraints of time? Without time there can be no thought and no action. A thoughtless actionless prime mover? 




pnome said:


> We may be able to test for the multiverse some day, but in order to do so, we must have a set of rules with which to run our tests.  Where do those rules come from then? (and so on....)



The rules come from us based on what works. PEARL has a pretty good track record for answering questions about our world.




pnome said:


> You're right.  It's not an answer science can confirm.  The question itself has no real meaning in scientific terms.  The "Primordial Existential Question" is an inherently philosophical question.



I think it's a scientific question (how did all of this get here? where did it come from?). There may not be enough evidence out there for us to acquire the correct answer or we may not have the capacity to observe the evidence but that doesn't change the nature of the question. 

I'm still curious to know how you know that whatever the explanation is, it can't be a natural one.

You really need to watch that debate if you get the time. You're doing exactly what Krauss was talking about.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> The  Big Bang / Big Crunch  theory is an endless cycle with no beginning.



What I linked to was evidence for the big bang. What is the evidence for the big crunch?


----------



## HawgJawl (Apr 18, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> What I linked to was evidence for the big bang. What is the evidence for the big crunch?



It's in the same link you cited.
Scroll down to "The future according to the Big Bang theory" and also "Speculative physics beyond Big Bang theory".

It is a theory of what occurred immediately prior to the Big Bang and what may occur in the future leading to another Big Bang.  This could be a continuous cycle of collapsing and expanding.


----------



## JFS (Apr 18, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove.



Exactly.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2011)

I see what you are saying hawgjawl. I was referring to the big bang which was the beginning of the universe as we know it. What if anything happened prior or outside of that we don't know.


----------



## pnome (Apr 18, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> "There is design in the universe, but to speak of design of the universe is just theistic semantics."
> 
> "The major premise of this argument, "everything had a cause," is contradicted by the conclusion that "God did not have a cause." You can't have it both ways. If everything had to have a cause, then there could not be a first cause. If it is possible to think of a god as uncaused, then it is possible to think the same of the universe."



This has often been my response to first cause arguments for God.  That the God side was "Special Pleading" to exempt God from causality.  

But this is not exactly true.  I'm only saying that, somewhere along the line, an exemption needs to be inserted to avoid an infinite recursion of causes.  That's all.



> "Some theists, observing that all "effects" need a cause, assert that god is a cause but not an effect. But no one has ever observed an uncaused cause and *simply inventing one merely assumes what the argument wishes to prove."*
> 
> Dan Barker



That is correct.  We are assuming here.  Not proving anything.  The whole point of this First Cause exercise is to change the presumption.   

Where before, I would always presume "No god" or atheism.  Even though I had no proof that there was, in fact, no god out there.  Thinking myself logical for doing so.  But if we have a something.  Then to presume that this something caused itself seems spurious.  It is correct then, I think, to presume that this something had an ultimate cause outside of itself.  

What we know of our universe supports this assumption quite well.   The big bang is a pretty good candidate for the "starting point" of "something."


----------



## pnome (Apr 18, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> It's in the same link you cited.
> Scroll down to "The future according to the Big Bang theory" and also "Speculative physics beyond Big Bang theory".
> 
> It is a theory of what occurred immediately prior to the Big Bang and what may occur in the future leading to another Big Bang.  This could be *a continuous cycle of collapsing and expanding*.



That would still be "something" and not "nothing".


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2011)

Personally, I'm open to the possibility of an infinite regression being the reality. I'm also open to a creator or many creators. It's possible this particular gap could really hold a real life figure that otherwise would have been considered mythological. But I see no reason to think that answer the most probable.


----------



## HawgJawl (Apr 18, 2011)

pnome said:


> That would still be "something" and not "nothing".



Why couldn't there always have been "something" instead of thinking that at some point in the past there had to have been "nothing" that somehow materialized into "something"?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2011)

pnome said:


> That would still be "something" and not "nothing".



A prime mover is something too.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Apr 18, 2011)

pnome said:


> If that day ever comes, I assure you, you'll be the one dunking me in the river.



Cool.  I'm just pickin' of course.  I honestly don't mind anyone believing whatever they want so long as they don't disgust me in some way.  The agnostic and even deist stance is 1000x more respectable than the distinct declarations of any of the organized religions we know of, in my opinion.  It's much more humble and honest.  Rock on.


----------



## pnome (Apr 18, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Why couldn't there always have been "something" instead of thinking that at some point in the past there had to have been "nothing" that somehow materialized into "something"?



Because that would be avoiding the question.  I'm not asking how long "something" has been around.


----------



## HawgJawl (Apr 18, 2011)

pnome said:


> Because that would be avoiding the question.  I'm not asking how long "something" has been around.



"Why is there something rather than nothing" assumes a default position of "nothing".  If the default position is "something" then no explanation is necessary to explain why things aren't in the default position.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2011)

In other words you're assuming that there was nothing but then you assume a prime mover which is already something to create the something you're looking for. Ya dig? Haha


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 18, 2011)

Y'alls KA-RAZY!!!  

Someone dealt it, I smelt it.  End of story.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 18, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Y'alls KA-RAZY!!!
> 
> Someone dealt it, I smelt it.  End of story.



 ..... can always count on ol' ambush for a good chuckle


----------



## pnome (Apr 18, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> "Why is there something rather than nothing" assumes a default position of "nothing".  If the default position is "something" then no explanation is necessary to explain why things aren't in the default position.



Good point HJ!

I was waiting for someone to get to this.

Because "nothing" is simpler than  "something".   There is nothing in "nothing" that needs to be explained.


----------



## pnome (Apr 18, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> In other words you're assuming that there was nothing but then you assume a prime mover which is already something to create the something you're looking for. Ya dig? Haha



I am assuming that there is an ultimate cause beyond the physical.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 18, 2011)

pnome said:


> Good point HJ!
> 
> I was waiting for someone to get to this.
> 
> Because "nothing" is simpler than  "something".   There is nothing in "nothing" that needs to be explained.


Everyone should catch the whole episode if you get a chance, it called "what happened before the big bang?" on the science channel
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IVwirDNFQnI?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IVwirDNFQnI?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>


----------



## CAL (Apr 18, 2011)

pnome,
pay no attention to negative comments!Hold tight to ya faith where it is and watch the Lord work in ya life.You will see in time. It just don't get no better than living for the Lord.I figure the Lord must have something for you to do for him.Time will tell.Thanks for telling about your change of heart,you have lost nothing but just look what you have gained.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 18, 2011)

pnome said:


> I am assuming that there is an ultimate cause beyond the physical.



Not me.  (Although I believe you are pulling our legs here...)

No need to assume anything, especially that which can not be proven scientifically.  No need to invent or dream up answers.  That serves only to answer the mystery with another mystery.

I accept the simplicity of existance.  We know of no other ability to do so outside of the cosmos in which we find ourselves part and parcel of.  And, we have yet to even scratch the surface of what else is out there.

It's not hard to imagine the cosmos energy as always existing, in various forms with various worlds/universes.
Why replace that idea of infinate existance with an imaginary deity or prime mover?
It simply is what it is.  We are closer to understanding the cosmos today than we were 2000 years ago.  But it might take another 2000 years to get a good handle on how it developed and continues to develop.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2011)

pnome said:


> I am assuming that there is an ultimate cause beyond the physical.



I think that's where the wheel fell off.


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Apr 18, 2011)

CAL said:


> pnome,
> pay no attention to negative comments!Hold tight to ya faith where it is and watch the Lord work in ya life.You will see in time. It just don't get no better than living for the Lord.I figure the Lord must have something for you to do for him.Time will tell.Thanks for telling about your change of heart,you have lost nothing but just look what you have gained.



Did you read his posts?


----------



## Six million dollar ham (Apr 18, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Everyone should catch the whole episode if you get a chance, it called "what happened before the big bang?" on the science channel



That's a big negatory.  Questions like that and "what's out there past space?" make my head hurt.

Seriously though, maybe one day.


----------



## CAL (Apr 18, 2011)

Six million dollar ham said:


> Did you read his posts?



Yes I did!Reason for mine.I think the Lord is dealing with him.It is a beginning anyway.Would be good if our Lord would deal with you and all other atheist.I really hate to see you all miss Heaven.Gonna try to be there myself,it is free ya know.Don't cost nothing to participate.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2011)

Cal, if the lord made us all then he is fine with how we think and act. We are all just ants in his ant farm. We are here for his amusement. Like a kid and his ant farm he can do something to change things, sometimes he does, and other times turns a blind eye. Sometimes he will pile more sand in the holes to make them work harder, sometimes he will shake it up and watch the colony scramble. Ants must have free will too because they do what they do despite having the kid watching over them. I am getting from these posts that when there was nothing god created something. For what? Nobody knows for sure including him. If he had all that power to create everything and is satisfied then it is for amusement. If he did create everything and only gave a few cryptic clues to a few people then it is an experiment for his amusement. If he created us solely to worship him then it sounds a little needy to me. 

Cal as "right" as you think you are there are others that feel the same way that their beliefs are as "right". I can assure you that you or anyone does not have a monopoly on God, heaven or the exclusive "in" to a better afterlife.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2011)

That was a good show string. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## pnome (Apr 18, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> Not me.  (Although I believe you are pulling our legs here...)
> 
> No need to assume anything, especially that which can not be proven scientifically.  No need to invent or dream up answers.  That serves only to answer the mystery with another mystery.
> 
> ...






atlashunter said:


> I think that's where the wheel fell off.



OK, so let's recap and sum up to try to clear up.

Previously, I had always presumed atheism.  Thinking, like you, that was the logically right way to approach it.

I'm now saying that presumption is not as reasonable as it may first appear.  Because when you apply "No god" answers to the PEQ, you get back infinite nonsense.   

Maybe though it's because I'm limited by human capacity for understanding.  Hence the "agnostic" part of "agnostic theist".

Anyway...

Now, I can see you two don't accept that position, but imagine, for a moment, that you do.

What can we say, given our current knowledge, are the properties of this "something" we find ourselves in?  Well, whatever they are, they certainly are such that life can exist. So, now here is where we get into questions about the apparent design of this "something."


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 19, 2011)

pnome said:


> OK, so let's recap and sum up to try to clear up.
> 
> Previously, I had always presumed atheism.  Thinking, like you, that was the logically right way to approach it.
> 
> ...



Design can be found IN nature.  It has evolved so that what works continues, what does not has been lost.  Simply because it appears so complex to us does not mean it is anymore complex than what we have not discovered.
Attempting to discuss intelligent design OF nature is simply "begging the question" and is purely theistic.  Who's description of a creator, prime mover or a deity would one follow?  A flying spaghgetti monster or a sky god?
Careful there!  It is a minefield of guesswork and fables.
You MUST read Karen Armstrong's work as soon as you can.

Why must the default position be one of supernatural speculation?  I guess it is OK to say ANYTHING is possible, in an agnostic style, but what evidences can be found to support ANY belief or possibility in the supernatural?

If one can believe a invisible, unproven supernatural creator or prime mover has always existed, it is not so hard to instead believe the cosmos has always existed.  Universes come, universes go.


----------



## pnome (Apr 19, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> Design can be found IN nature.  It has evolved so that what works continues, what does not has been lost.



Certainly this applies to life as we know it.  But do the laws of nature evolve?   There is no reason to believe that they do.  Yet they are set up in such a way as to allow for life.   Most call this "anthropic principle" but I prefer to remove the "anthro" and call it Biopic principle.   

This fine tuning of the universe argument can be rationally avoided.  I should know, I've rationally avoided it many times.  But if I take a new look at it, without an atheist presumption, I get a much more compelling argument.



> Attempting to discuss design OF nature is simply "begging the question" and is purely theistic.  Careful how you *shape your idea* of a creator, a prime mover or a deity.



This is exactly what I am doing now.  Fleshing out this prime mover.  What are some things we can deduce about it given what limited information we have about the creation.



> You MUST read Karen Armstrong's work as soon as you can.



So, you want me to read "Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time"?  



> Why must the default position be one of supernatural speculation?  I guess it is OK to say ANYTHING is possible, but what evidences can be found to support ANY belief or possibility in the supernatural?



For sure, we are entirely a priori here.  But the presumption of atheism is based on an a priori argument as well.  



> If one can believe a creator or prime mover has always existed, it is not so hard to then believe *the cosmos has always existed*.



2 weeks ago I would have completely agreed.  In fact I'm fairly sure I've written that exact same sentence before.

My point in this thread has been that that presumption cannot be squared with the PEQ. 



> Universes come, universes go.



They do?  Says who?  Who set up the rules that say that universes can come, or go, or even be?


----------



## gtparts (Apr 19, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Cal, if the lord made us all then he is fine with how we think and act.



Why would you assume that the "lord" is in accord with both the good and the evil of this world? Just because that is the way things are? 

Even most humans have some sense of right and wrong and support the right and denounce the wrong. Could it be, as you say, that "if the lord made us all", He created us with minds that were initially focused on good (pure) things, but when presented with the power to choose (for ourselves) to think and do things that were evil (impure), we did exactly that? It simply does not ring true that the evil that men contemplate and do is consistent with a "lord" whose character is righteousness. Nor would it be consistent for the goodness and kindness of people to originate from a "lord" whose character was evil.




bullethead said:


> We are all just ants in his ant farm. We are here for his amusement. Like a kid and his ant farm he can do something to change things, sometimes he does, and other times turns a blind eye. Sometimes he will pile more sand in the holes to make them work harder, sometimes he will shake it up and watch the colony scramble. Ants must have free will too because they do what they do despite having the kid watching over them.



Like ants? For his amusement? More conclusions, not in evidence. If the"lord" is to mankind as little boys are to ants, you have little regard for the "lord" or ants. You are quite the cynic.




bullethead said:


> I am getting from these posts that when there was nothing god created something. For what? Nobody knows for sure including him.


Unless, of course, you believe what He has revealed to man through His Son and His Word.




bullethead said:


> If he had all that power to create everything and is satisfied then it is for amusement. If he did create everything and only gave a few cryptic clues to a few people then it is an experiment for his amusement.



Again, personal assumptions. Why would you assume He is satisfied with the world as it is? Or that is for His amusement? Why would He experiment? To gain some heretofore unknown information? So, your concept of a god is one that is not omniscient?



bullethead said:


> If he created us solely to worship him then it sounds a little needy to me.



We were created because it brought Him joy to do so. When people respond positively to you or your performance, do you not find that gratifying? God is thrilled when we adopt His value system and seek to live a life that reflects His character. God created because creating is His nature. It sure wasn't a matter of need.



bullethead said:


> Cal as "right" as you think you are there are others that feel the same way that their beliefs are as "right". I can assure you that you or anyone does not have a monopoly on God, heaven or the exclusive "in" to a better afterlife.



There is a big difference in being accorded righteousness by the Lord of creation when it is undeserved and thinking that you are "right". Exactly how does your assurance work? What backs it up, gives it weight, instills great confidence in what you say? 

If there is any effort to monopolize God, heaven  or the exclusive "in" to a better afterlife, how is it that Christians are freely giving this information away to anyone and everybody that will listen?


----------



## gtparts (Apr 19, 2011)

pnome said:


> I am assuming that there is an ultimate cause beyond the physical.





atlashunter said:


> I think that's where the wheel fell off.



When all efforts to establish a primary cause for the cosmos, by way of science, fails to produce THE ANSWER, it sometimes dawns on the one with the question, that they have just "completed another lap on the Mobius Strip. The reality is that if a primary cause is to be found, it must be "ex cosmos". Call it "religion", the "supernatural", "whatever", but the physical world does not hold the answer. Science is simply the wrong tool for grasping this fundamental truth.

You go, pnome!! I'm praying and cheering for you!! 

And AH, where did the wheel .....or the axle come from?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 19, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> Design can be found IN nature.



Does nature design things, or can design just be found in nature?


----------



## HawgJawl (Apr 19, 2011)

pnome said:


> Good point HJ!
> 
> I was waiting for someone to get to this.
> 
> Because "nothing" is simpler than  "something".   There is nothing in "nothing" that needs to be explained.



Actually there is something in "nothing" that needs to be explained.  According to Genesis in the KJV, the something would be God who had existed infinitely in darkness until He decided to create the heavens and the earth and light.

It is actually simpler to believe that material has always existed in some form.  What we know of our current natural world supports the concept of material existing and being converted into different materials or energy, etc.

The book of Genesis does not say that God created man out of "nothing".  It says that God formed man out of the dust of the earth.  This is yet another example of the concept of transforming one material into another material as opposed to willing material into existence from "nothing".


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 19, 2011)

gtparts said:


> And AH, where did the wheel .....or the axle come from?



Same place your God came from.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 19, 2011)

> Even most humans have some sense of right and wrong and support the right and denounce the wrong. Could it be, as you say, that "if the lord made us all", He created us with minds that were initially focused on good (pure) things, but when presented with the power to choose (for ourselves) to think and do things that were evil (impure), we did exactly that? It simply does not ring true that the evil that men contemplate and do is consistent with a "lord" whose character is righteousness. Nor would it be consistent for the goodness and kindness of people to originate from a "lord" whose character was evil.



Your whole argument here is wrong.  We are not born with the inherit knowledge of what is good or evil, right or wrong.  It is knowledge that is learned, and it differs across cultures and societies.  The only thing that were are all created with is the same instict all life has, is to survive. Everything else has to be taught, or learned through experience. I can sight examples from all over the globe and throughout time were definitions of good and evil differ. 



> We were created because it brought Him joy to do so. When people respond positively to you or your performance, do you not find that gratifying? God is thrilled when we adopt His value system and seek to live a life that reflects His character. God created because creating is His nature. It sure wasn't a matter of need.



So your sure it wasn't a matter of need, and that our creation brought him joy?  So by your own admition he created us out purely amusement? Was he bored? So all the suffering, trials, and tribulations are purely for entertianment?   Or does this god suffer from low self esteem and need the positive reinforcement to feel joy? So what exactly is his character? A diety that needs to see most suffer, becuase he refuses to give unrefutable proof of his exsistence and a path to avoid suffering? 

Our nature compels us to do things, it is my nature that I eat, So I need to eat.  So if creating is in his nature, does he not need to create?    



> There is a big difference in being accorded righteousness by the Lord of creation when it is undeserved and thinking that you are "right". Exactly how does your assurance work? What backs it up, gives it weight, instills great confidence in what you say?



Logic.



> If there is any effort to monopolize God, heaven or the exclusive "in" to a better afterlife, how is it that Christians are freely giving this information away to anyone and everybody that will listen?



By the very fact you will not accept the possibility you are wrong when everything logical points that way.  I accept the possibility I am wrong but logic tells me what I believe makes more sense. I find the exclusivity christians claim irritating, for numerous reasons, if not their main proposition that: "God Loves everybody but will easily see most of his children burn in haites if they don't accept what we say is the truth."


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 19, 2011)

pnome said:


> OK, so let's recap and sum up to try to clear up.
> 
> Previously, I had always presumed atheism.  Thinking, like you, that was the logically right way to approach it.
> 
> I'm now saying that presumption is not as reasonable as it may first appear.  Because when you apply "No god" answers to the PEQ, you get back infinite nonsense.



When you apply "god" answers to the PEQ, what do you get back?


----------



## pnome (Apr 19, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> When you apply "god" answers to the PEQ, what do you get back?



A postulate that, by definition, avoids recursion.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 19, 2011)

pnome said:


> A postulate that, by definition, avoids recursion.



That doesn't require a god nor is there any necessary reason that the recursion wouldn't apply to god other than a decision that "we're just not gonna go there". Either way the answer you're trying to get to is something that is eternal. That something that had no cause. It makes no more sense to say that god is eternal and always was than it does to say the cosmos always was. And by the way, the infinite nonsense you are dismissing may be the reality. In fact I'm not sure how the god concept avoids it.

"God" seems a bit of a cop out to a very difficult, possibly discomforting question. It answers nothing and at best provides a way of not losing sleep over the question.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 19, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> That doesn't require a god nor is there any necessary reason that the recursion wouldn't apply to god other than a decision that "we're just not gonna go there". Either way the answer you're trying to get to is something that is eternal. That something that had no cause. It makes no more sense to say that god is eternal and always was than it does to say *the cosmos *always was. And by the way, the infinite nonsense you are dismissing may be the reality. In fact I'm not sure how the god concept avoids it.
> 
> "God" seems a bit of a cop out to a very difficult, possibly discomforting question. It answers nothing and at best provides a way of not losing sleep over the question.



Do the cosmos and nature have a mind?


----------



## JFS (Apr 19, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> nor is there any necessary reason that the recursion wouldn't apply to god other than a decision that "we're just not gonna go there".... It makes no more sense to say that god is eternal and always was than it does to say the cosmos always was.



I think that's it in a nutshell.  Except I can see there is a cosmos now, which at least gives it a leg up on god as to being eternal.


----------



## HawgJawl (Apr 19, 2011)

I believe it to be erroneous to compel a choice between the concept of a diety creator and the concept of an infinite cosmos.  The two concepts are not exclusive of each other and can easily be viewed as contemporaneous.  Like I cited earlier, Genesis states that God created man from the dust of the earth.  The belief that a diety initiated, created, organized, developed a set of natural laws, or anything else that a "creator" could be credited with, does not necessarily require that "nothing" but the diety existed prior to that event.  The cosmos could have existed infinitely along with the diety.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 19, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> The cosmos could have existed infinitely along with the diety.



In such a scenario could the deity be considered the creator of the cosmos? Doesn't the term creator suggest that the creator precedes the creation?


----------



## VisionCasting (Apr 19, 2011)

pnome said:


> Because "nothing" is simpler than  "something".   There is nothing in "nothing" that needs to be explained.



Now my head hurts.  

A few random thoughts:
(1) I must have been gone from AAA Forum for a LONG time.  What's next?  Ham gets some televangelist gig?  I need to stay away more often, for longer.
(2) Pnome, kudos to you for being honest enough with yourself to genuinely seek answers.  Seems like most folks (on both sides of the equation) simply want to exclaim they have all the answers, and just seek to  or    I like your style. Good luck on your journey, no matter where it takes you.   to you.

I will close with this.  Truth is true, regardless of our experiences, biases or prejudices.  Seek it, and you will get closer that those who don't.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 19, 2011)

VisionCasting said:


> (1) I must have been gone from AAA Forum for a LONG time.  What's next?  Ham gets some televangelist gig?  I need to stay away more often, for longer.



I hear it pays pretty well. 




VisionCasting said:


> (2) Pnome, kudos to you for being honest enough with yourself to genuinely seek answers.  Seems like most folks (on both sides of the equation) simply want to exclaim they have all the answers, and just seek to  or    I like your style. Good luck on your journey, no matter where it takes you.   to you.
> 
> I will close with this.  Truth is true, regardless of our experiences, biases or prejudices.  Seek it, and you will get closer that those who don't.



x2


----------



## HawgJawl (Apr 19, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> In such a scenario could the deity be considered the creator of the cosmos? Doesn't the term creator suggest that the creator precedes the creation?



A person can be credited for creating something from raw materials even though the person did not make the raw materials "poof" into existence.  The creator could have created the cosmos as we know it from what existed and it would be no less of a creation.  

If the creator was all alone in the darkness, but did not create "Himself", is "He" still the initial creator?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 19, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> A person can be credited for creating something from raw materials even though the person did not make the raw materials "poof" into existence.  The creator could have created the cosmos as we know it from what existed and it would be no less of a creation.
> 
> If the creator was all alone in the darkness, but did not create "Himself", is "He" still the initial creator?



To say something is created suggests a beginning, at least that seems to be the case when a theist uses the term. You might get some of them to go along with the idea of God "creating" a cosmos out of eternal pre-existing "stuff", maybe. But ask them if God could have come from some other eternal stuff and see what kind of response you get.

For me, it would be easier to buy the idea of an eternal deity coinciding with an eternal cosmos than an eternal deity creating an eternal cosmos.


----------



## HawgJawl (Apr 19, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> To say something is created suggests a beginning, at least that seems to be the case when a theist uses the term. You might get some of them to go along with the idea of God "creating" a cosmos out of eternal pre-existing "stuff", maybe. But ask them if God could have come from some other eternal stuff and see what kind of response you get.
> 
> For me, it would be easier to buy the idea of an eternal deity coinciding with an eternal cosmos than an eternal deity creating an eternal cosmos.



I guess it all depends upon a person's definition of "create".  To bring a "thing" into being is to create that "thing".  As long as the "thing" created did not exist prior to the event, it was created.  If something new is created, whatever "stuff" it was created from should not effect the validity of the creation.  Just my opinion.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 19, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Why would you assume that the "lord" is in accord with both the good and the evil of this world? Just because that is the way things are?
> 
> Even most humans have some sense of right and wrong and support the right and denounce the wrong. Could it be, as you say, that "if the lord made us all", He created us with minds that were initially focused on good (pure) things, but when presented with the power to choose (for ourselves) to think and do things that were evil (impure), we did exactly that? It simply does not ring true that the evil that men contemplate and do is consistent with a "lord" whose character is righteousness. Nor would it be consistent for the goodness and kindness of people to originate from a "lord" whose character was evil.



I am saying that if we were created by a being that knows all that has happened,is happening and will happen , he'll also know how many people do not follow his followers line of thought. If he thought it was a big deal, he would have foreseen the problem and corrected it.





> Like ants? For his amusement? More conclusions, not in evidence. If the"lord" is to mankind as little boys are to ants, you have little regard for the "lord" or ants. You are quite the cynic.



That conclusion is as good as any conclusion that you have come up with. I have not seen a shred of evidence that is solid about an existence of a lord, god, heaven or that we were created by a higher power. Cynic, YOU BET!





> Unless, of course, you believe what He has revealed to man through His Son and His Word.



Well now your in the wrong forum for that aren't you?






> Again, personal assumptions. Why would you assume He is satisfied with the world as it is? Or that is for His amusement? Why would He experiment? To gain some heretofore unknown information? So, your concept of a god is one that is not omniscient?



Again personal assumptions/conclusions. I know exactly as much about God and religion as you do which is nothing. You assume what you believe is true. I assume my beliefs are true.





> We were created because it brought Him joy to do so.


Did he tell you that or is that an assumption on your part?




> When people respond positively to you or your performance, do you not find that gratifying? God is thrilled when we adopt His value system and seek to live a life that reflects His character. God created because creating is His nature. It sure wasn't a matter of need.


REALLLLLLY? I am glad to not have the assumption/conclusion market cornered.





> There is a big difference in being accorded righteousness by the Lord of creation when it is undeserved and thinking that you are "right". Exactly how does your assurance work? What backs it up, gives it weight, instills great confidence in what you say?


My assurance works EXACTLY like yours. My inner self, gut feelings, deep thoughts and Bull Detector lead me to lean towards what makes sense in my own mind.



> If there is any effort to monopolize God, heaven  or the exclusive "in" to a better afterlife, how is it that Christians are freely giving this information away to anyone and everybody that will listen?


Because Christians feel that there is only ONE exclusive club in the world and if you are not a member then you do not receive the benefits. Right now no one alive knows for sure so we all do what we do to hopefully make it to an afterlife of happiness. How we believe and what or who we believe in, in order to get there is A-OK. You go to Christian heaven and I'll go to mine and don't worry about it.


----------



## Nicodemus (Apr 19, 2011)

Two times, posts in this thread have had to be deleted or cleaned up. Let`s not make it three, folks. Be mindful of what you post.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 19, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Why would you assume that the "lord" is in accord with both the good and the evil of this world? Just because that is the way things are?



Yes.  All the clues lead me to conclude that if there is a God, he likes the way thing are or he would change them.  He would put a leash on his pet Satan and he would have made it clearer to Adam and Eve what would happen to them.   



gtparts said:


> Even most humans have some sense of right and wrong and support the right and denounce the wrong. Could it be, as you say, that "if the lord made us all", He created us with minds that were initially focused on good (pure) things, but when presented with the power to choose (for ourselves) to think and do things that were evil (impure), we did exactly that? It simply does not ring true that the evil that men contemplate and do is consistent with a "lord" whose character is righteousness. Nor would it be consistent for the goodness and kindness of people to originate from a "lord" whose character was evil.



If He made us in His image then He too must have similar traits.  I can buy that. He does some mean things that I could see myself doing if I had that kind of power.  He also does things that I would never consider doing, even with my underdeveloped sense of right and wrong.






gtparts said:


> Like ants? For his amusement? More conclusions, not in evidence. If the"lord" is to mankind as little boys are to ants, you have little regard for the "lord" or ants. You are quite the cynic.



Why not? And if He did, according to you, His actions would be beyond reproach.





gtparts said:


> Unless, of course, you believe what He has revealed to man through His Son and His Word.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, He does some pretty weird/mysterious things, why would I put it past Him to mess around with people and why would you question His authority when He does?


----------



## pnome (Apr 19, 2011)

Nicodemus said:


> Two times, posts in this thread have had to be deleted or cleaned up. Let`s not make it three, folks. Be mindful of what you post.



Really?  And here I thought we were all being remarkably civil.


----------



## Nicodemus (Apr 19, 2011)

pnome said:


> Really?  And here I thought we were all being remarkably civil.





It was language oriented. 

If you have found what you are lookin` for in Spirituality, I offer you my congratulations.


----------



## moonpatrol (Apr 19, 2011)

John 3:16. Have a nice night gentlemen.


----------



## pnome (Apr 19, 2011)

Nicodemus said:


> It was language oriented.
> 
> If you have found what you are lookin` for in Spirituality, I offer you my congratulations.



Thank you Nic.  Though, I'm not looking for anything in particular. Just looking to see what there is to see.


----------



## TTom (Apr 20, 2011)

Welcome to the murky middle pnome, LOL

You'll find yourself targeted by both sides of the arguments now.

But you'll also find a sense of wonder and humility that increases and that more than makes up for the additional people wanting to change your mind.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 20, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Yes.  All the clues lead me to conclude that if there is a God, he likes the way thing are or he would change them.  He would put a leash on his pet Satan and he would have made it clearer to Adam and Eve what would happen to them.



His method of changing "the way things are" is to change the hearts of men, one at a time. Telling the truth of the Gospel is the Christian's job. The process seems slow and archaic, but it is the only one that works to really make a difference.



ambush80 said:


> If He made us in His image then He too must have similar traits.  I can buy that. He does some mean things that I could see myself doing if I had that kind of power.  He also does things that I would never consider doing, even with my underdeveloped sense of right and wrong.



 Do you believe in justice for wrong doers? Some of what you label "mean" is simply justice, punishment. 

Do you believe in discipline to correct improper behavior? Some of what you label as "mean" is discipline, caring enough to correct someone for their sake. 

Do you believe in natural phenomena that is destructive, such as hurricanes and earthquakes? Carl Sagan did. He recognized that nature gives no consideration to mankind. He said, "The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent."      So it is that, natural forces, that exhibit great power, sometimes collide with a village or a country, without intent or purpose. God apparently does not spend mush effort "tweaking" these systems for our benefit or detriment. He allows them as part of the fallen world we corrupted.




> Like ants? For his amusement? More conclusions, not in evidence. If  the"lord" is to mankind as little boys are to ants, you have little  regard for the "lord" or ants. You are quite the cynic.





ambush80 said:


> Why not? And if He did, according to you, His actions would be beyond reproach.



Why not? The answer is in His Word. Most here don't care to have Scripture quoted to them, so I'll let you track down the specifics. His actions being beyond reproach is an integral part of being the sovereign God. If you or I were to ever rise to that position, we would get to do things our respective ways.... but that ain't happening.



ambush80 said:


> Again, He does some pretty weird/mysterious things, why would I put it past Him to mess around with people and why would you question His authority when He does?



I don't question His authority to do so. His character is what convinces me that I can trust Him. That He uses some rather amazing and dramatic ways to communicate is well noted in Scripture. He knows exactly how to relate to us, so that we get the message and His will is accomplished at the same time.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2011)

gtparts, in this forum scripture is not considered a source of fact or is it believable. If you want to make your point(s) in ways that can make sense to some of us then you are going to have to do it without referring to scripture. Scripture works for you, not everyone in the A/A/A forum though. That is why we are here and not in the other forums. You are always telling us the hows, whats and whys of gods behavior, thoughts, reasoning, and actions, without knowing for sure any of it is really true. It is your opinion. Yet in the next breath you dismiss our thoughts stating they are assumptions and conclusions without facts. 

If HE knows exactly how to relate to us then I am getting it loud and clear with NO message.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 20, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Do you believe in natural phenomena that is destructive, such as hurricanes and earthquakes? Carl Sagan did. He recognized that nature gives no consideration to mankind. He said, "The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent."      So it is that, natural forces, that exhibit great power, sometimes collide with a village or a country, without intent or purpose. God apparently does not spend mush effort "tweaking" these systems for our benefit or detriment. He allows them as part of the fallen world we corrupted.



In other words bullet... hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, asteroid impacts, tornadoes, tsunamis, gamma ray bursts, black holes that can devour anything that comes too close, all of this didn't exist before mankind came along and corrupted the world.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 20, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Do the cosmos and nature have a mind?



Dont forget about me AH, I'm trying to learn me somein'


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 20, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Do the cosmos and nature have a mind?




There are people who believe that trees have spirits like you believe that people have spirits and they're proof is based on the same thing as yours.  But to answer your question (which wasn't directed to me): "I don't know, but I don't think so."


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 20, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> In other words bullet... hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes, asteroid impacts, tornadoes, tsunamis, gamma ray bursts, black holes that can devour anything that comes too close, all of this didn't exist before mankind came along and corrupted the world.



Nay, the entirety of the Universe, no less.  (Don't forget mosquitoes.  We caused them too.)


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 20, 2011)

Hey Pnome,

If you don't mind me asking,  How does your new philosophical alignment make you feel?  

Truly curious.


----------



## pnome (Apr 20, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Hey Pnome,
> 
> If you don't mind me asking,  How does your new philosophical alignment make you feel?
> 
> Truly curious.



My head hurts.  

Just kidding... I can't say I _feel_ much different.  Though I am spending a lot of "thought cycles" on it.  Trying to poke holes.  Trying to root out possible bias, etc....  Reading other opinions of different philosophers on the PEQ.

I guess I'm excited by the idea of thinking about this sort of thing in a new way.  Gives me something to put my thoughts to.  I like working on problems and conundrums. 

For example, yesterday, as I was exercising on my elliptical, I thought about how this idea of mine applies to the Indian concept of the "Veil of Maya." Is all reality an illusion?  Does an illusion count as "something"? If so, who has pulled this veil in front of our senses?  It makes the 30 minutes go by faster anyway.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 20, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Nay, the entirety of the Universe, no less.  (Don't forget mosquitoes.  We caused them too.)



That's right. It's all about us. The whole universe was established with us in mind and we messed it up.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 20, 2011)

pnome said:


> Just kidding... I can't say I _feel_ much different.  Though I am spending a lot of "thought cycles" on it.  Trying to poke holes.  Trying to root out possible bias, etc....  Reading other opinions of different philosophers on the PEQ.
> 
> I guess I'm excited by the idea of thinking about this sort of thing in a new way.  Gives me something to put my thoughts to.  I like working on problems and conundrums.





It's a good thread you started. What interests me the most is that these arguments are nothing new and I'm sure you have heard them before so the book must have somehow painted them in a different light for you. Spent some time yesterday reading reviews of the book on Amazon and a bit about PEQ.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 20, 2011)

pnome said:


> My head hurts.
> 
> Just kidding... I can't say I _feel_ much different.  Though I am spending a lot of "thought cycles" on it.  Trying to poke holes.  Trying to root out possible bias, etc....  Reading other opinions of different philosophers on the PEQ.
> 
> ...



have you developed any notions about the nature of The Prime Mover?  Do you still think "He" "Doesn't care if you believe in Him or not"?


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 20, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> There are people who believe that trees have spirits like you believe that people have spirits and they're proof is based on the same thing as yours.  But to answer your question (which wasn't directed to me): "I don't know, but I don't think so."



The reason for the question is I see nature given this "intelect" in alot of post. Almost as if nature is some kind of "god" or has this awarness of what is happening around us. A good example is the thread about natural selection and gay people, the overwhelming response seemed to be "maybe natures way of keeping the population down" How in the world does nature "know" that we have to many people on this earth and that some need to be homosexual in order to keep the population in check?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 20, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> The reason for the question is I see nature given this "intelect" in alot of post. Almost as if nature is some kind of "god" or has this awarness of what is happening around us. A good example is the thread about natural selection and gay people, the overwhelming response seemed to be "maybe natures way of keeping the population down" How in the world does nature "know" that we have to many people on this earth and that some need to be homosexual in order to keep the population in check?



Sometimes words are used to describe a characteristic of something that would sound as if that something was sentient even though that isn't what was originally intended. A prime example is the title of Dawkins book The Selfish Gene.


----------



## Dixie Dawg (Apr 20, 2011)

pnome said:


> For example, yesterday, as I was exercising on my elliptical, I thought about how this idea of mine applies to the Indian concept of the "Veil of Maya." Is all reality an illusion?  Does an illusion count as "something"? If so, who has pulled this veil in front of our senses?  It makes the 30 minutes go by faster anyway.




It's thinking about things like that, that make people end up in the looney bin     

Awesome thread!


----------



## pnome (Apr 20, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> have you developed any notions about the nature of The Prime Mover?  Do you still think "He" "Doesn't care if you believe in Him or not"?



Yes.

I'm not convinced there is an after life at all, much less one where we will be judged on whether or not we believed something in this life.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 20, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Sometimes words are used to describe a characteristic of something that would sound as if that something was sentient even though that isn't what was originally intended. A prime example is the title of Dawkins book The Selfish Gene.


Is there any other way to describe nature without giving it some kind of intelligence?



stringmusic said:


> The reason for the question is I see nature given this "intelect" in alot of post. Almost as if nature is some kind of "god" or has this awarness of what is happening around us. A good example is the thread about natural selection and gay people, the overwhelming response seemed to be "maybe natures way of keeping the population down"* How in the world does nature "know" that we have to many people on this earth and that some need to be homosexual in order to keep the population in check?*



I'm not assuming you do, but do you have an answer for this question?


----------



## pnome (Apr 20, 2011)

Dixie Dawg said:


> It's thinking about things like that, that make people end up in the looney bin



Do they have internet access in the looney bin?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 20, 2011)

pnome said:


> Yes.
> 
> I'm not convinced there is an after life at all, much less one where we will be judged on whether or not we believed something in this life.



I must admit that your revelation titillates me. 

I was a deist for a long time after I gave up on Christianity (and Transcendental  Buddhism and Animism).   One of the biggest issues I had as a deist was "What is the nature of God?" It's one thing to take an a priori position of a God (which I can do easily) and another thing entirely to try to determine God's nature or temperament or what my relationship to God is.  

As a deist, I found myself adopting some simulacrum of historic notions of God's nature; applying the notions that "made sense" and dismissing the ones that seemed fantastic or implausible.  I realized that I was allowing MY personal  preferences determine what God was like; indeed, as it turns out, I determined "God" by the same process.  

For a while, I vacillated, depending on my mood, as to whether or not God and if so, what He was like.

I guess I still do.  I rub Buddah's tummy every time I leave a Chinese restaurant and I own several lucky, "blessed by God" fishing lures.  

Today, maybe just for today, I'm a figment in some extraterrestrial's comatose  mind.  Sure seems real.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 20, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> Is there any other way to describe nature without giving it some kind of intelligence?



Sure. But people use those sorts of words because of their explanatory power. Describing a winter as cruel may help communicate to you what the winter was like. But it's assuming too much to think that I meant that the winter was engaging in cruelty as some kind of a sentient phenomena.




stringmusic said:


> I'm not assuming you do, but do you have an answer for this question?



No, it's not a claim that I would make.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 20, 2011)

bullethead said:


> gtparts, in this forum scripture is not considered a source of fact or is it believable. If you want to make your point(s) in ways that can make sense to some of us then you are going to have to do it without referring to scripture. Scripture works for you, not everyone in the A/A/A forum though. That is why we are here and not in the other forums. You are always telling us the hows, whats and whys of gods behavior, thoughts, reasoning, and actions, without knowing for sure any of it is really true. It is your opinion. Yet in the next breath you dismiss our thoughts stating they are assumptions and conclusions without facts.
> 
> If HE knows exactly how to relate to us then I am getting it loud and clear with NO message.



Did I quote Scripture? I am pretty sure I constrained myself from doing so. Perhaps that fact was not apparent to you. I'll try to type slower. Would you like a larger font? Just trying to be helpful.

How is it that if truth comes by way of my personal relationship with the one, infallible God, it is somehow invalid, yet things that you conjure out of your own mind or borrow from the minds and works of fallible humans has such integrity and validity? Would the personal testimonies of a thousand...... ten thousand..... ten million credible witnesses to the reality of God satisfy you? Such testimony against an accused murderer would get the defendant life imprisonment and no one would question it. You would, no doubt, discard the testimony of each witness because you don't want to hear, you don't want to consider that you have a need for a Savior or that you will ultimately have to answer for rejecting God. You are welcome to your own delusions of preeminence in your life. I know the truth and neither of us is qualified for that position.

As for your inability to grasp the message, it isn't my fault that you are deaf and blind. For example, your glaring omission of these few words from my post on  God relating to us: " and His will is accomplished at the same time." I included two conditions in my statement, yet you declined to address the statement, as written.

Could it be that you overlooked them? Got something in your eye? Or do you get real selective in your observations when you see the truth in print because it makes you uncomfortable? 

Bottom line: If I am to choose between your opinions and prejudices and the indwelling presence and assurance of God in my life, you will finish second every time. In a two person race, that puts you dead last.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 20, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Did I quote Scripture? I am pretty sure I constrained myself from doing so. Perhaps that fact was not apparent to you. I'll try to type slower. Would you like a larger font? Just trying to be helpful.
> 
> How is it that if truth comes by way of my personal relationship with the one, infallible God, it is somehow invalid, yet things that you conjure out of your own mind or borrow from the minds and works of fallible humans has such integrity and validity? Would the personal testimonies of a thousand...... ten thousand..... ten million credible witnesses to the reality of God satisfy you? Such testimony against an accused murderer would get the defendant life imprisonment and no one would question it. You would, no doubt, discard the testimony of each witness because you don't want to hear, you don't want to consider that you have a need for a Savior or that you will ultimately have to answer for rejecting God. You are welcome to your own delusions of preeminence in your life. I know the truth and neither of us is qualified for that position.
> 
> ...



GT,

I for one am just not afraid of your God.  I don't believe He exists and no matter how much you claim that He does I just don't feel 'ya. Do the testimonies of tens of thousands of Muslims give you pause?

(By the way, I'm not afraid of ghosts either.)


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 20, 2011)

The problem with theists "truth" claims is that they tend to be neither verifiable or falsifiable. On the occasions when their claims became falsifiable they are almost always falsified. Not exactly what one would expect of truth claims supposedly coming from an all knowing deity. They destroy their own credibility and then react indignantly when you don't accept the "truth" of the remaining unfalsifiable claims.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2011)

gtparts said:


> Did I quote Scripture? I am pretty sure I constrained myself from doing so. Perhaps that fact was not apparent to you. I'll try to type slower. Would you like a larger font? Just trying to be helpful.
> 
> How is it that if truth comes by way of my personal relationship with the one, infallible God, it is somehow invalid, yet things that you conjure out of your own mind or borrow from the minds and works of fallible humans has such integrity and validity? Would the personal testimonies of a thousand...... ten thousand..... ten million credible witnesses to the reality of God satisfy you? Such testimony against an accused murderer would get the defendant life imprisonment and no one would question it. You would, no doubt, discard the testimony of each witness because you don't want to hear, you don't want to consider that you have a need for a Savior or that you will ultimately have to answer for rejecting God. You are welcome to your own delusions of preeminence in your life. I know the truth and neither of us is qualified for that position.
> 
> ...



Typical personal attack response when all other avenues fail.

You did not quote scripture but you did refer to it:



> That He uses some rather amazing and dramatic ways to communicate is well noted in Scripture.



That is the ONLY place it is noted.

You could type sideways, upside down and backwards and you would not lose me. I can read, follow and understand just fine.



> Would the personal testimonies of a thousand...... ten thousand..... ten million credible witnesses to the reality of God satisfy you?


 One or ten million people that THINK god is real does not prove a thing. Because they link a certain happening to god is just the same as linking it to the flip of a coin or spitting off a bridge, worshiping the Sun or anything else.



> As for your inability to grasp the message, it isn't my fault that you are deaf and blind. For example, your glaring omission of these few words from my post on God relating to us: " and His will is accomplished at the same time." I included two conditions in my statement, yet you declined to address the statement, as written.



I think the message is as flawed as the messenger. What exactly is "His Will"?



> Could it be that you overlooked them? Got something in your eye? Or do you get real selective in your observations when you see the truth in print because it makes you uncomfortable?



No truth seen, nothing to comment on. I didn't see anything important enough to require a response, let alone anything truthful.



> Bottom line: If I am to choose between your opinions and prejudices and the indwelling presence and assurance of God in my life, you will finish second every time. In a two person race, that puts you dead last



That's odd because when I look behind me I see you.


----------



## Thanatos (Apr 20, 2011)

I would like each of you to send me a resume. We are trying to hire a new manager and if I could get one of y'all who knows everything on board...the value you would generate for me would be astonishing. Please send all resumes to idontknowwhattheheckimtalkingabout@gmail.com

Thank you and I look forward to reading your resumes.  O, since you know every thing I hope you are fluent in Spanish.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 20, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> I would like each of you to send me a resume. We are trying to hire a new manager and if I could get one of y'all who knows everything on board...the value you would generate for me would be astonishing. Please send all resumes to idontknowwhattheheckimtalkingabout@gmail.com
> 
> Thank you and I look forward to reading your resumes.  O, since you know every thing I hope you are fluent in Spanish.



Wrong forum friend. Try one of the theist forums, preferably a spanish speaking one.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 20, 2011)

Thanatos said:


> I would like each of you to send me a resume. We are trying to hire a new manager and if I could get one of y'all who knows everything on board...the value you would generate for me would be astonishing. Please send all resumes to idontknowwhattheheckimtalkingabout@gmail.com
> 
> Thank you and I look forward to reading your resumes.  O, since you know every thing I hope you are fluent in Spanish.



Sorry, I'm self employed Amigo.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 21, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> GT,
> 
> I for one am just not afraid of your God.  I don't believe He exists and no matter how much you claim that He does I just don't feel 'ya. Do the testimonies of tens of thousands of Muslims give you pause?
> 
> (By the way, I'm not afraid of ghosts either.)



You need not be afraid, but you may be regretful. Your belief is based on unverifiable conjecture. My belief is based on a relationship. 

And to what have Muslims, particularly tens of thousands given testimony?  If they are truthful about their beliefs, Allah is not knowable, one cannot have a personal relationship with him, and in the end, regardless of how you have lived your life, Allah is not in anyway obligated to follow through with anything he has promised. He is totally capricious and unreliable. These are verifiable facts of the Muslim religion. You only need to read their "holy books" to know the truth of my statements.


----------



## gtparts (Apr 21, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Typical personal attack response when all other avenues fail.
> 
> I asked a few questions that may suggest a problem exists with your ability to comprehend. Your lack of a response to most of them serve to support that observation.
> 
> ...



(Responses in blue.)


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 21, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Sure. But people use those sorts of words because of their explanatory power. Describing a winter as cruel may help communicate to you what the winter was like. But it's assuming too much to think that I meant that the winter was engaging in cruelty as some kind of a sentient phenomena.


what are some of the ways? Just trying to learn.


----------



## JFS (Apr 21, 2011)

gtparts said:


> My belief is based on a relationship.



Can you elaborate on this a little?  Do you call each other? Exchange email?  Hear voices in your head?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2011)

GT, I am done playing along with your elementary school tactics.

No one can argue YOUR personal feelings for god and in your head your right. Your in the wrong forum to constantly keep thinking that you are going to change someones beliefs by condemning theirs while you use the same tactics to promote yours. Your the king of question dodge ball when asked questions yet your the first to point out when someone doesn't answer a question you THINK you asked or does not comment on something you said.

I'll be happy to answer any question you have, just make it clear. I am not reading through back posts to see that I caught and addressed 15 of your comments only to be heckled for the one insignificant one I missed or chose not to address.

Your gonna have to play too though and not pick and choose which ones you overlook.

I'll start:

What is "His Will"?


----------



## gtparts (Apr 21, 2011)

JFS said:


> Can you elaborate on this a little?
> 
> Sure. Not sure you will understand communication between spirits unless you have experienced it yourself. It is sharing on the most intimate level. No, it is not sexual; it is not physical. I realize this is probably not satisfying to you, but it is true and it is real. It is completely spiritual. It does not require any logic or reasoning for us to exchange, to express ourselves to each other. He just knows and I just know.
> 
> ...



Responses in blue.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 21, 2011)

gtparts said:


> How is it that if truth comes by way of my personal relationship with the one, infallible God, it is somehow invalid, yet things that you conjure out of your own mind or borrow from the minds and works of fallible humans has such integrity and validity?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If humans along time ago were to blindly accept the things you believe as true, instead of realizing what we don't know and seeking the answers, we still would be living in the dark ages.


----------



## stringmusic (Apr 21, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> If humans along time ago were to blindly accept the things you believe as true, instead of realizing what we don't know and seeking the answers, we still would be living in the dark ages.



In what ways Bishop?


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 21, 2011)

Boy I butchered the quote system.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 21, 2011)

Your points within were well done though.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 21, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> In what ways Bishop?



If we to blindly accept the bible as fact there would be no reason to seek the answers to lifes mysteries. Such as all things bad, including natural disasters,are a result of mans departure from god. The reason for the dark ages was mans strict adherence to faith and religion.


----------



## TheBishop (Apr 21, 2011)

bullethead said:


> Your points within were well done though.



Thank you, I find most posts in here enlightening and thought provoking. His just makes me want to !


----------



## centerpin fan (Apr 21, 2011)

TheBishop said:


> The reason for the dark ages was mans strict adherence to faith and religion.



No.

The Dark Ages began with the fall of the western Roman Empire.  Add to that a generous dose of plague, and you have all you need to produce a very dark age.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 21, 2011)

pnome said:


> So, you want me to read "Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time"?



No.  I'd not recommend anything I myself have not read.

My suggestion is simply one of honest support in your research.  I feel it is quite applicable, as I found it was for me.
I'm still working on understanding it myself.


----------



## ted_BSR (Apr 21, 2011)

Pnome- wow, I read all these threads and the only thing I can say is, don't pay any attention to them (from either side) except for the ones that encourage you to find your way.

You are couragous to make the statement you have made here.

I applaud you.

Search well my friend!


----------



## pnome (Apr 21, 2011)

WTM45 said:


> No.  I'd not recommend anything I myself have not read.
> 
> My suggestion is simply one of honest support in your research.  I feel it is quite applicable, as I found it was for me.
> I'm still working on understanding it myself.



Oh I'm just messing around with you.  It's on my list.


----------



## WTM45 (Apr 21, 2011)

I know!  Just giving you some motivation!


----------



## The Original Rooster (Apr 21, 2011)

pnome, I wish you an good voyage, whatever you may choose. My belief is the Judeo-Christian God, so if you ever want to talk about that, I'll be glad to.


----------



## atlashunter (May 31, 2011)

Pnome did you ever watch that debate? I'm curious to know how you would respond to what Krauss says.


----------



## Tim L (May 31, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> No.
> 
> The Dark Ages began with the fall of the western Roman Empire.  Add to that a generous dose of plague, and you have all you need to produce a very dark age.



Good point; if the empire in the west had not fallen, the next thousand years or so would have turned out alittle differently...of course we use the term dark ages as if it was world wide when in fact Europe was the hardest hit...The term dark ages has no meaning when applied to the mayan culture from that time; any of a number of dynasties in China, persian culture in present day Iran, and hindu and muslim cultures on the Indian subcontentent...It did impact the empire in the east (Byzantium) and north Africa, but nothing like what happened in the west and northern Europe...

I know this is all just speculation, but lets say the west had been able to beat back the barbarians and/or Justinian had been able to consolidate his gains alittle later and the west more or less became a part of Byzantium (which at that time was still pretty Roman rather than Greek only)...What would have been the result?


----------



## pnome (May 31, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Pnome did you ever watch that debate? I'm curious to know how you would respond to what Krauss says.



No, not yet.  But I promise I will and will respond in this thread.


----------



## CAL (May 31, 2011)

pnome,I think the Lord is dealing with ya heart and mind.Apparently He sees something none of us know about and something for you to do for Him.Allow Him in and feel His power,it is awesome!Keep on searching and you will find Him!I applaud you also.


----------



## Asath (Jun 1, 2011)

I think this might be my first post ever, but I've been lurking here and reading for quite some time, so hopefully I'll make a little bit of sense . . .

pnome -- really?  It took me a week, but I read the book that sparked the OP here, and I have to ask -- really?  You've been one of my champions over the course of my reading here, and this turnabout is so abrupt that it took me off-guard.

You said:  "Sure, we can say "I don't know" then we can go and turn our minds to other thoughts. We can talk about Turkey Hunting or some such. But if we are going to think about these things, we need to do better."

True.  If we are going to think about these things we need to do much better.  Certainly better than to regress, and far better than to be seduced by shallow arguments.

You said: "To escape the recursion we need an uncaused cause. A prime mover."  

But this is not true unless there is first posited a need for a cause.  No such need exists.  There is certainly a great deal of curiosity, which has led to everything from telescopes to the space station, but we have learned from our inquiries that even our own small corner of our own galaxy is unimaginably gigantic, and that much of even what we can see behaves in ways we might never understand from our tiny and limited perspective.  So perhaps it is only our own egotistical desire to be correct that demands a conclusion.  Perhaps the question itself is internally recursive, and thus unanswerable. 

You said: " So, which is more simple? That causality has an ultimate cause, or that there exists an infinite string of causes?"

Causality is easily falsifiable, and ends up being meaningless when faced with a universe as vast as the one we are currently able to see.  There is actually no 'infinite,' and we instinctively grasp that idea, but our idea of limits hold no truck next to the universe.  It isn't interested in our ideas, obviously.  Mathemeticians proposed the idea of 'infinity' to account for what is simply too huge to hold in our rather underdeveloped brains.  From our perspective, it might as well be 'infinite,' since we cannot (in any practical way) see anything from anyplace other than where we currently reside.  Unsurprisingly, the view from our planet offers few clues as to 'causes,' regardless of how one wishes to theorize.  A 'prime mover' argument, in this view, is certainly premature, and suffers from a paucity of evidence.    

You said: "There can be no "natural first cause" because in order to define it as "natural" we have to subject it to rules which we must then account for."

This is the one that prompted me to post, finally.  Whence arises the presupposition that the 'natural' has rules? Just because most of the 'natural rules' we have observed and made obtain here on our little planet?  

Space and Time and everything we observe in the vastness around us end up astounding us every time we develop a method to look deeper into it and find that we were wrong.  Humans observe trends, and try to make 'laws' that we think, at the time, govern natural processes.  But, since we are simply the result of those processes, and since those processes pre-date our observations by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of years . . . well, hey, we're doing the best we can.  But the 'rules' we wish to make are currently rudimentary at best.  I know it isn't really satisfying to finally realize that we are tiny insignificant specks on a tiny insignificant planet in a tiny insignificant solar system contained in one of a few hundred million galaxies, but the fact seems to be that that is the case.  I don't remember when the universe around us promised us that we would be the center of it.  We have taken on that responsibilty ourselves, and we alone have tried to make the 'rules.'

Positing a 'cause,' from the limited knowledge we have, and making a conclusion on the basis of 'rules' that we alone have made, is the sort of exercise that dooms itself.  I can't offer you an answer, if the question is so broad as to encompass the age-old 'why are we here,' but I can say that as of now the question itself is meaningless, and argues neither for nor against anything at all.  We ARE here.  Then what?  A regression into superstition?  Or a continued inquiry into the few things we can see and try to understand from the 'here' in which we find ourselves?


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 1, 2011)

Asath said:


> I think this might be my first post ever, but I've been lurking here and reading for quite some time, so hopefully I'll make a little bit of sense . . .
> 
> pnome -- really?  It took me a week, but I read the book that sparked the OP here, and I have to ask -- really?  You've been one of my champions over the course of my reading here, and this turnabout is so abrupt that it took me off-guard.
> 
> ...



That's so beautifully stated I might cry.  Well done.

That gave me more comfort than any Sunday sermon I've ever heard.


----------



## pnome (Jun 1, 2011)

Asath said:


> I think this might be my first post ever, but I've been lurking here and reading for quite some time, so hopefully I'll make a little bit of sense . . .
> 
> pnome -- really?  It took me a week, but I read the book that sparked the OP here, and I have to ask -- really?  You've been one of my champions over the course of my reading here, and this turnabout is so abrupt that it took me off-guard.



I can see how it seems abrupt.  Think about it like this:  There really is no reason for loyalty to atheism. Just a simple, "Hmmm, maybe I'm wrong." and you too can be an "Agnostic Theist."  It really wasn't all that monumental a decision for me really.  I haven't changed anything in my life.  I'm still the same person, just with a slightly different perspective.



> You said:  "Sure, we can say "I don't know" then we can go and turn our minds to other thoughts. We can talk about Turkey Hunting or some such. But if we are going to think about these things, we need to do better."
> 
> True.  If we are going to think about these things we need to do much better.  Certainly better than to regress, and far better than to be seduced by shallow arguments.



You call it shallow, I call it simple.



> You said: "To escape the recursion we need an uncaused cause. A prime mover."
> 
> But this is not true unless there is first posited a need for a cause.  No such need exists.  There is certainly a great deal of curiosity, which has led to everything from telescopes to the space station, but we have learned from our inquiries that even our own small corner of our own galaxy is unimaginably gigantic, and that much of even what we can see behaves in ways we might never understand from our tiny and limited perspective.  So perhaps it is only our own egotistical desire to be correct that demands a conclusion.  Perhaps the question itself is internally recursive, and thus unanswerable.



It is unanswerable, for science.  Which is one of the points made in the book. It is a question for religion and philosophy. Abandon all hope of empirical evidence.  That would just be more and more something that exists.  We're asking why anything would bother to exist at all.



> You said: " So, which is more simple? That causality has an ultimate cause, or that there exists an infinite string of causes?"
> 
> Causality is easily falsifiable, and ends up being meaningless when faced with a universe as vast as the one we are currently able to see.  There is actually no 'infinite,' and we instinctively grasp that idea, but our idea of limits hold no truck next to the universe.  It isn't interested in our ideas, obviously.  Mathemeticians proposed the idea of 'infinity' to account for what is simply too huge to hold in our rather underdeveloped brains.  From our perspective, it might as well be 'infinite,' since we cannot (in any practical way) see anything from anyplace other than where we currently reside.  Unsurprisingly, the view from our planet offers few clues as to 'causes,' regardless of how one wishes to theorize.  A 'prime mover' argument, in this view, is certainly premature, and suffers from a paucity of evidence.



How is causality falsifiable?



> You said: "There can be no "natural first cause" because in order to define it as "natural" we have to subject it to rules which we must then account for."
> 
> This is the one that prompted me to post, finally.  Whence arises the presupposition that the 'natural' has rules? Just because most of the 'natural rules' we have observed and made obtain here on our little planet?



How else can you claim that it is "natural"?



> Space and Time and everything we observe in the vastness around us end up astounding us every time we develop a method to look deeper into it and find that we were wrong.  Humans observe trends, and try to make 'laws' that we think, at the time, govern natural processes.  But, since we are simply the result of those processes, and since those processes pre-date our observations by hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of millions of years . . . well, hey, we're doing the best we can.  But the 'rules' we wish to make are currently rudimentary at best.  I know it isn't really satisfying to finally realize that we are tiny insignificant specks on a tiny insignificant planet in a tiny insignificant solar system contained in one of a few hundred million galaxies, but the fact seems to be that that is the case.
> 
> I don't remember when the universe around us promised us that we would be the center of it.  We have taken on that responsibilty ourselves, and we alone have tried to make the 'rules.'



I never suggested we were a significant part of this something we find ourselves in.  We may be barnacles on the hull of an aircraft carrier.  The fact seems to be that we simply do not know.  



> Positing a 'cause,' from the limited knowledge we have, and making a conclusion on the basis of 'rules' that we alone have made, is the sort of exercise that dooms itself. I can't offer you an answer, if the question is so broad as to encompass the age-old 'why are we here,' but I can say that as of now the question itself is meaningless, and argues neither for nor against anything at all.  We ARE here.  Then what?  A regression into superstition?  Or a continued inquiry into the few things we can see and try to understand from the 'here' in which we find ourselves?



Correct.  The primordial "Why are we here?"  

My answer is now this:  I don't know, but whatever the reason is, it is beyond physics.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jun 1, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> That's so beautifully stated I might cry.  Well done.
> 
> That gave me more comfort than any Sunday sermon I've ever heard.




Amen!!!


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 1, 2011)

It might simply be beyond the physics we know and understand today.

"Seduced by shallow arguments" is just that.  No way can the word "shallow" be confused with the word "simple," at least in the Occam's Razor use of the word.


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 2, 2011)

The last couple of post are amazing reads. Thank you.

Asath since you seem to be knowledgeable about how small we are relative to this universe...how much do you know about our planets specific place in the universe. Yes we are positioned just right to allow carbon based life to exist and flourish, but what do you know of how we started measuring our place in the vastness? 

It is truly amazing to understand the dice roll that it took us to exist on this rock, but what screams at me almost as loud as our presence here is how we had to be perfectly PHYSICALLY and CHRONOLOGICALLY positioned to develop our laws of science that told us how insignificant we are relative to the vastness. The number of variables that come together that allowed us to create the laws that allow these measurements is extreme.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 2, 2011)

Doesn't that scream random chance rather than intelligent design? An intelligent design could design creatures to live on any of the other planets no matter what the composition of those planets. The designer would just make something to survive in those conditions. Random chance would need perfect conditions to get it all started.


----------



## Dr. Strangelove (Jun 3, 2011)

Time is space, and space is time.  We define it within the limits of our imaginations, down to the nanosecond or better, but our definition of time and space is simply an arbitrary measurement by which we measure our lives.

Religion is a way of explaining things to and controlling the population.

So, if we knew god created the universe, or it just started in the big bang, where does that leave us?  What came before that? Who created god? Where did the material for the big bang come from?  Are we just a 5th graders' science project from some distant galaxy?

Neither science nor religion can explain where we came from, arguing with someone locked to either point is futile.


----------



## Asath (Jun 3, 2011)

I didn't really expect a response, honestly, and can only offer a few thoughts: 

To Thanatos, who said: "The number of variables that come together that allowed us to create the laws that allow these measurements is extreme."

True. No argument there.  If you look up the Hubble Telescope images and scroll through them you see things that are beyond extreme, and challenge the limits of imagination -- BUT -- we took pictures of those things.  I can't explain most of them.  Hardly anyone can.  But once again we end up having to say, of the Hubble photos and of ourselves -- THEY ARE THERE and WE ARE HERE.  We can't deny it.  Lacking an explanation doesn't erase the actuality.  It is true simply because it is true.    

And I may say that there were, and are, no 'laws' that 'allow' us to 'measure' anything, nor is there anything that 'allowed' us to create those 'laws.'  We did that all by ourselves.  Being grown-ups, we went ahead and tried to figure things out for ouselves, and forgot to ask permission from anyone. ('Allow' is such a parental word to use in this context.)  Scientific 'laws' are conditional, based on observation, and change regularly when knowledge advances.   

But pnome asked: "How is causality falsifiable?"

This one arose in about the fifth century BC, and it needs to be broken into usage -- 'causality,' in the sense that some form of uniformity governs the play of events in the world we live on and observe, scientifically, still holds a little bit of traction -- but the usage that those few scientific events that obtain here are thus 'universal,' and so point to a 'higher' cause is a well and truly abandoned bit of conjecture. We simply don't have anything nearby that explains quite alot of what we can clearly see. This does not indicate a sudden leap to a supernatural or spiritual 'explanation.'  All it means is that we just don't get it, yet.  No shame in that, unless we regress into the position that there is no reason to keep trying.     

pnome asked: "How else can you claim that it is "natural"?"

Well, I didn't use the phrase 'natural first cause,' and never made that claim.  And as you said, if we are barnacles on the hull of an aircraft carrier, for all of that, what cause do barnacles have to ask how they arose?  Would it matter?  Or would they still be there?  Do fish consider water to be a philosphical problem?  We are here, is all we know for sure.

Again to pnome: "My answer is now this: I don't know, but whatever the reason is, it is beyond physics."

Agreed, but with one additional thought -- it is beyond CURRENT physics.  I can't provide any answer to that, but to say that a few hundred years ago everything we now know is beyond what they knew then. And even a few decades ago, this message board alone was beyond anything anyone could have conceived, scientifically or spiritually.

But don't get me wrong -- just as I feel that the 'scientific' is limited by our perspective, so do I feel about the 'spiritual.'  Just as we cannot assign or blame a 'higher power' for the simple facts of the unexplained 'natural' world all around us quite yet, nor can we make such a leap in the other direction to explain the actually 'spiritual.'  

We can tackle the structure of the atom, and wrestle it to the ground, but we haven't done so well with ideas such as desire, hope, optimism, love, hatred, or envy, to name a few.  Certainly these are all human capacities, and the feeling one has upon hearing a certain bit of music - composed and performed by other humans -- or upon viewing a piece of art, the same, are transcendent, and are again beyond the explanations of current 'science.'  Emotions can be no better explained than Black Holes, but they are no less real. Does that idea, that one can have 'feelings' that have no physical basis in a materialistic, hard-nosed 'scientific' world view suddenly indicate the supernatural?  I can't think so. 

I suspect, if one looks at it as a whole, that the 'scientific' is merely what you see, and that the 'spiritual' is simply what you feel.  It really doesn't need to be any more complicated than that, and requires on both levels less 'faith' than it requires honest inquiry.

Just my two cents worth.


----------



## ambush80 (Jun 3, 2011)

Asath,

Once again, an elegant post.  

Relegating one's feelings to the realm of the Spiritual seems strange.  Much has been learned about the physiology of feelings, sensations and even thoughts.  Indeed, feelings can be induced by chemical or electrical stimulus.  Then there are feelings that are caused by physical injury or chemical imbalance.  I'm not sure these conditions should be considered spiritual in nature.


----------



## pnome (Jun 3, 2011)

Asath said:


> But pnome asked: "How is causality falsifiable?"
> 
> This one arose in about the fifth century BC, and it needs to be broken into usage -- *'causality,' in the sense that some form of uniformity governs the play of events in the world we live on and observe, scientifically, still holds a little bit of traction *



That's what I'm talking about.




> -- but the usage that those few scientific events that obtain here are thus 'universal,' and so point to a 'higher' cause is a well and truly abandoned bit of conjecture. We simply don't have anything nearby that explains quite alot of what we can clearly see. This does not indicate a sudden leap to a supernatural or spiritual 'explanation.'  All it means is that we just don't get it, yet.  No shame in that, unless we regress into the position that there is no reason to keep trying.



I think you're missing the forest for the trees here.   Or you are misunderstanding me.  Or, more likely, I am misunderstanding you.  So, let me rephrase...

Science can only tell us more and more about something.  And no matter how accurate it is, it is still just a description.  The idea that this creation must have had a creator is simple and direct.  It is perfectly reasonable on it's face.  So, let's just take that as the assumption.  Instead of the assumption that this creation is an infinite series of accidents.  The presumption of theism rather than the presumption of atheism.



> pnome asked: "How else can you claim that it is "natural"?"
> 
> Well, I didn't use the phrase 'natural first cause,' and never made that claim.  And as you said, if we are barnacles on the hull of an aircraft carrier, for all of that, what cause do barnacles have to ask how they arose?  Would it matter?  Or would they still be there?  Do fish consider water to be a philosphical problem?  *We are here, is all we know for sure*.



That's what Descartes said.   But we never know anything "for sure" anyway.  



> Again to pnome: "My answer is now this: I don't know, but whatever the reason is, it is beyond physics."
> 
> Agreed, but with one additional thought -- it is beyond CURRENT physics.  I can't provide any answer to that, but to say that a few hundred years ago everything we now know is beyond what they knew then. And even a few decades ago, this message board alone was beyond anything anyone could have conceived, scientifically or spiritually.



No, I mean it is beyond physics.  We're asking "Why physics?"



> But don't get me wrong -- just as I feel that the 'scientific' is limited by our perspective, so do I feel about the 'spiritual.'  Just as we cannot assign or blame a 'higher power' for the simple facts of the unexplained 'natural' world all around us quite yet, nor can we make such a leap in the other direction to explain the actually 'spiritual.'
> 
> We can tackle the structure of the atom, and wrestle it to the ground, but we haven't done so well with ideas such as desire, hope, optimism, love, hatred, or envy, to name a few.  Certainly these are all human capacities, and the feeling one has upon hearing a certain bit of music - composed and performed by other humans -- or upon viewing a piece of art, the same, are transcendent, and are again beyond the explanations of current 'science.'  Emotions can be no better explained than Black Holes, but they are no less real. Does that idea, that one can have 'feelings' that have no physical basis in a materialistic, hard-nosed 'scientific' world view suddenly indicate the supernatural?  I can't think so.



Not in and of itself.  But with some altered existential presumptions, it is much more compelling.



> I suspect, if one looks at it as a whole, that the 'scientific' is merely what you see, and that the 'spiritual' is simply what you feel.  It really doesn't need to be any more complicated than that, and requires on both levels less 'faith' than it requires honest inquiry.
> 
> Just my two cents worth.



Don't get me wrong here, I'm not about to join a church.  I haven't decided yet on the existence of spirits or souls, the after-life or anything like that.  Just the simple notion  that we are an effect that had to have an ultimate cause.


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 3, 2011)

Asath said:


> To Thanatos, who said: "The number of variables that come together that allowed us to create the laws that allow these measurements is extreme."
> 
> True. No argument there.  If you look up the Hubble Telescope images and scroll through them you see things that are beyond extreme, and challenge the limits of imagination -- BUT -- we took pictures of those things.  I can't explain most of them.  Hardly anyone can.  But once again we end up having to say, of the Hubble photos and of ourselves -- THEY ARE THERE and WE ARE HERE.  We can't deny it.  Lacking an explanation doesn't erase the actuality.  It is true simply because it is true.
> 
> And I may say that there were, and are, no 'laws' that 'allow' us to 'measure' anything, nor is there anything that 'allowed' us to create those 'laws.'  We did that all by ourselves.  Being grown-ups, we went ahead and tried to figure things out for ouselves, and forgot to ask permission from anyone. ('Allow' is such a parental word to use in this context.)  Scientific 'laws' are conditional, based on observation, and change regularly when knowledge advances.



I miscommunicated my point to you. What ALLOWS us to  figure out these laws ourselves is the observations of our environment. What I am telling you is that if we were somewhere else or sometime else in our universe (heck even our own galaxy) we would have been prohibited from knowing exactly where and when we are in space and time.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 3, 2011)

pnome said:


> The idea that this creation must have had a creator is simple and direct.  It is perfectly reasonable on it's face.



That's a HUGE assumption.  That this is even a creation at all.


----------



## StriperAddict (Jun 5, 2011)

pnome said:


> Just the simple notion  that we are an effect that had to have an ultimate cause.


Finding the _purpose _in the ultimate cause is a great journey to have also. 
I wish for you the very best.


----------



## Asath (Jun 7, 2011)

Off Topic:

Thanatos responded: “What ALLOWS us to figure out these laws ourselves is the observations of our environment. What I am telling you is that if we were somewhere else or sometime else in our universe (heck even our own galaxy) we would have been prohibited from knowing exactly where and when we are in space and time.”

I suspect, from reading here, that this idea ought to warrant an entirely new thread, but I find the thought fascinating, and am forced to ask – why?

I mean, if we were someplace else in the universe, we wouldn’t be us – we’d be, well, whatever life in that someplace else developed into.  And if we were sometime else, similarly, we wouldn’t be us – we’d either be far behind or far ahead.  

But, as far as I can see, even fish manage to observe their environment, and realize from even that limited perspective that staying in the water is a good idea.  I guess I don’t understand the thought that if anything at all were different we’d be actually ‘prohibited’ from observing. 

What form would that prohibition take?  A lack of ability, a lack of perspective, or a lack of permission?  I am of the same opinion that our position is actually unique, or so close that it hardly matters – out of the observed universe, so far, the odds of any species advancing as far as we have are incredibly small.  Stars explode, planets and entire galaxies collide, asteroids smash into things, atmospheres form and then evaporate, nebulas congeal and then scatter again, formerly congenial suns suddenly reach critical mass and send out killing radiation . . . so, yeah, I’m with you on that thought – the universe is hardly a friendly place, and we’ve been incredibly lucky so far.  But if we were someplace else, or sometime else, what would have ‘prohibited’ us from observing?  

And I am also fascinated by the implications of, “ . . .  we would have been prohibited from knowing exactly where and when we are in space and time.”  Are you saying that we DO know this?  Or merely that we have the cognizance to try to figure it out?  

So far as I know, we’ve figure out that time is relative to speed (motion), so if we were on Venus (aside from being burnt to a crisp) a year would be 1.6 of our observed years.  I can’t see where that means that we know where WE are in time, but only that we know that time is a variable rather than a fixed function of anything at all (apparently space is curved as well, which makes motion relative to the observer also).  We can only measure time relative to ourselves. 

Where we are in space is anyone’s guess.  Space, at least what we can see of it, is so incredibly huge that I fear the big red arrow that says ‘YOU ARE HERE’ is too far away for us to have homed in on it just yet.  So far, my understanding of where we are is space is best answered with a single word: Lost.

So if we really do not, and cannot, really, know where we are in Time OR Space, relative to any point other than ourselves, then what would prohibit us from lacking the same knowledge if we were someplace else or in sometime else?

Just wondering.

Maybe this discussion ought to be a whole different thread though.


----------



## Asath (Jun 8, 2011)

Sorry pnome.  I actually set out to respond to your thoughts, but got sidetracked by an interesting, but off topic, set of ideas.

Causality, even in the very limited scientific usage, isn’t really all that descriptive, and increasingly intensive testing keeps eroding the thought of any uniformity.  In both directions, the deeper we look within the sub-atomic structure, and, conversely, the deeper we look into the universe around us, the less sense the behavior of things makes.  One needn’t look much further than popular journals to see that modern scientists are grasping at all manner of odd theories, only to find that testing those theories leads to yet more confusion.  

We can’t make any presumptions, if only because testing those presumptions leads us deeper into what is, and will always be, our own ignorance.  Nearly every presumption, whether arrived at scientifically or by spiritual intuition, has changed over time.  This is the definition of ‘falsifiable.’  NOTHING has ever been ‘known’ that has not subsequently been revised.  Not science, not gods, not intuition – nothing.

So you are right when you say that we never know anything, “for sure.”  We just don’t.  Anyone who says otherwise is blowing smoke and fishing for our money so that they can make a living off of our fears and uncertainties.  All of history, including current events, is chock full of that thought.

Thereby, “The idea that this creation must have had a creator is simple and direct,” is not so simple nor direct.  We can’t call much of anything a ‘creation,’ short of music and architecture, and even those things, while representing the inspired and directed efforts of humans, can be shown to derive from rhythms and patterns and emotional responses that are not only based in our natural world, but are by now well established as based on entirely emotional and instinctive ‘cues’ that are fairly easily triggered.  As a sequence, then, ‘created’ suddenly becomes a synonym for ‘developed.’

Similarly, if one puts forward a ‘creator,’ the sequence becomes endless regressive.  The ‘creator’ becomes simply one who developed, advanced, and creatively manipulated things that were already there.  Inspired thoughts by odd thinkers are the only reason we are not still living in caves.  Ask yourself this: “Would I have ever picked up a rock off the ground, and thought, ‘Geez, if I gather about two tons of these, melt them at 2,000 degrees, toss off the parts that don’t melt, and then cool off what is left, I could make some Iron?”

At the time, a couple thousands of years ago, it was ‘Magic.’  But somebody ‘created’ iron out of rocks.  The fact that, to this day, hardly anyone can do that, or would have thought of it, does not make it a ‘creation,’ so much as an inspiration.  The element already existed, but in an unrefined form.

That is “Why physics.”  All we have to rely upon are the static relationships of things as they work from our small perspective and in our small bit of the cosmos.  It might not work this way anyplace else.  We can’t know.  Maybe if you try to smelt iron ore two galaxies away it turns into hen’s eggs.  Maybe.  But is that a reason to ignore what we CAN see?

I’ll stand right next to you on the line, and shout aloud that clearly there was a cause for us ending up being here.  But ‘causality,’ as a well developed philosophical idea certainly had nothing to do with it, no more than theosophy, teleology, consequentialism, pangenesis, or Hegel’s objective idealism.  

No comfort to offer, really, but I suspect that, given how huge the universe we have discovered really is, and given how tiny we are even relative to our own planet, that answer will remain forever beyond our grasp.  Some, perhaps most, see this uncertainty as something they must replace with rituals and superstitions and wild assumptions.  Personally, I don’t see where it’s going to change my dinner plans much, since one million years of difference in the estimates of when the Sun explodes, one way or the other, will still leave me plenty of time to craft a dignified exit.

Knowing would be far better than not knowing – agreed.  But we don’t, and probably never will.  Certainly not in time for it to make a difference to you and I. 

So my scorecard reads: Cause – 1; Creator – 0.  It’s only about the Third Inning, but the Creator team hasn’t had a hit yet, and their fans are leaving the stadium in droves.


----------



## pnome (Jun 8, 2011)

Asath said:


> Sorry pnome.  I actually set out to respond to your thoughts, but got sidetracked by an interesting, but off topic, set of ideas.
> 
> Causality, even in the very limited scientific usage, isn’t really all that descriptive, and increasingly intensive testing keeps eroding the thought of any uniformity.  In both directions, the deeper we look within the sub-atomic structure, and, conversely, the deeper we look into the universe around us, the less sense the behavior of things makes.  One needn’t look much further than popular journals to see that modern scientists are grasping at all manner of odd theories, only to find that testing those theories leads to yet more confusion.



I would think this information only serves to strengthen my case. 



> *We can’t make any presumptions,* if only because testing those presumptions leads us deeper into what is, and will always be, our own ignorance.  Nearly every presumption, whether arrived at scientifically or by spiritual intuition, has changed over time.  This is the definition of ‘falsifiable.’  NOTHING has ever been ‘known’ that has not subsequently been revised.  Not science, not gods, not intuition – nothing.



Pure agnosticism then?  If we cannot presume theism or atheism, then we are simply agnostics.



> So you are right when you say that we never know anything,



That should at least count for a hit, don't you think?  



> Thereby, “The idea that this creation must have had a creator is simple and direct,” is not so simple nor direct.  We can’t call much of anything a ‘creation,’ short of music and architecture, and even those things, while representing the inspired and directed efforts of humans, can be shown to derive from rhythms and patterns and emotional responses that are not only based in our natural world, but are by now well established as based on entirely emotional and instinctive ‘cues’ that are fairly easily triggered.  As a sequence, then, ‘created’ suddenly becomes a synonym for ‘developed.’



Ok, so you and WTM seem to find my use of the word "creation" to be problematic.  And I see your point, so let me rephrase.  The idea that the effect we find ourselves in had an ultimate cause is simple and direct.



> Similarly, if one puts forward a ‘creator,’ the sequence becomes endless regressive.



All naturalistic explanations are similarly regressive.  The idea of a prime mover is there to put a stopper on the regression.  To end and simplify the sequence.  



> The ‘creator’ becomes simply one who developed, advanced, and creatively manipulated *things that were already there.*



No, I'm speaking of the one who put the things there in the first place.  




> Inspired thoughts by odd thinkers are the only reason we are not still living in caves.  Ask yourself this: “Would I have ever picked up a rock off the ground, and thought, ‘Geez, if I gather about two tons of these, melt them at 2,000 degrees, toss off the parts that don’t melt, and then cool off what is left, I could make some Iron?”
> 
> At the time, a couple thousands of years ago, it was ‘Magic.’  But somebody ‘created’ iron out of rocks.  The fact that, to this day, hardly anyone can do that, or would have thought of it, does not make it a ‘creation,’ so much as an inspiration.  The element already existed, but in an unrefined form.



For the most part I can agree with you here, but it wouldn't take a stroke of genuis to notice a strange looking hard thing at the bottom of a firepit and wonder, "what's this then?"



> That is “Why physics.”  All we have to rely upon are the static relationships of things as they work from our small perspective and in our small bit of the cosmos.  It might not work this way anyplace else.  We can’t know.  Maybe if you try to smelt iron ore two galaxies away it turns into hen’s eggs.  Maybe.  But is that a reason to ignore what we CAN see?



I'm not sure where you are going with this thought, but no, that wouldn't be a reason to ignore what we can see.



> I’ll stand right next to you on the line, and shout aloud that clearly there was a cause for us ending up being here.



Looks like a grand slam to me. 



> No comfort to offer, really, but I suspect that, given how huge the universe we have discovered really is, and given how tiny we are even relative to our own planet, that answer will remain forever beyond our grasp. [ Some, perhaps most, see this uncertainty as something they must replace with rituals and superstitions and wild assumptions.



Theism is no more wild an assumption than atheism.  My point in this thread is to show that it is actually less wild.



> Personally, I don’t see where it’s going to change my dinner plans much, since one million years of difference in the estimates of when the Sun explodes, one way or the other, will still leave me plenty of time to craft a dignified exit.
> 
> Knowing would be far better than not knowing – agreed.  But we don’t, and probably never will.  Certainly not in time for it to make a difference to you and I.
> 
> So my scorecard reads: Cause – 1; Creator – 0.  It’s only about the Third Inning, but the Creator team hasn’t had a hit yet, and their fans are leaving the stadium in droves.



Dang hometown scorekeeprs!


----------



## TheBishop (Jun 8, 2011)

Man I like this thread.


----------



## WTM45 (Jun 8, 2011)

pnome said:


> Ok, so you and WTM seem to find my use of the word "creation" to be problematic.  And I see your point, so let me rephrase.  The idea that the effect we find ourselves in had an ultimate cause is simple and direct.



It's not that "simple and direct" when one looks at just how much things have evolved and changed.  One would have to assume a "start" which was MUCH different than what we have today.  Ice ages, meteor impacts, species extinctions, eras and even simple weathering has been the tool which has shaped what we see today.


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 8, 2011)

Asath said:


> Off Topic:
> 
> Thanatos responded: “What ALLOWS us to figure out these laws ourselves is the observations of our environment. What I am telling you is that if we were somewhere else or sometime else in our universe (heck even our own galaxy) we would have been prohibited from knowing exactly where and when we are in space and time.”
> 
> ...



All good points. 

I was miss spoke when i said "where we are are in time and space". What I meant to convey is that where we are in time and space allowed us to use our mental capacity (that would not have grown to the point it has in a different environment) to create the laws of measurement we use. 

I have been talking about this for YEARS on this forum. The best book to read if you are truly interested in the subject is called The Privileged Planet. Here is a brief synopsis of the different topics the book educates us about. 

From: http://www.privilegedplanet.com/

Q #1: Is the fact that we can see "perfect" solar eclipses related to our existence?
A: The Earth's surface provides the best view of solar eclipses in the Solar System. The Earth's surface is also the most habitable place in the Solar System. Is this coincidence just that? In The Privileged Planet, we argue that it isn't. The conditions that make a planet habitable also make its inhabitants more likely to see solar eclipses.


Q #2: Is our existence related to the transparency of the atmosphere?
A: Atmospheres come in many forms, but not all allow for complex life or clear views of the wider universe. Complex life requires a certain type of atmosphere. It turns that this same type of atmosphere provides a remarkably clear view of the near and distant universe. Complex, intelligent beings are unlikely to find themselves on a planet with an opaque atmosphere or deep in a murky ocean. We explain this relationship in detail in The Privileged Planet.


Q #3: Can life be based on any liquid substance, or is water somehow special?
A: Water is common on Earth's surface, but one might suspect that on other planets, there are complex, intelligent beings that are not based on water, but liquid ammonia, methane, or nitrogen. But that's very unlikely. As it turns out, water is endowed with life-support capacities lacking in other substances. Together these capacities make water the most anomalous compound known to science. In The Privileged Planet, we also explain how important water has been to the rise of science.


Q #4: Is Earth a data recorder?
A: A walk through a Redwood forest is like a walk through the Library of Congress. Trees, along with corals, polar ice, marine sediments, and lake sediments contain vast storehouses of detailed information about Earth's past climate. Is this a typical feature of planets? On the contrary, we argue in <="" a=""> that, as planets go, Earth (or, more precisely, the Earth-Moon system) is a quite high fidelity recorder of the past.


Q #5: Is the appearance of the night sky related to our existence?
A: Not only is our atmosphere transparent, but we also enjoy dark nights. Several happy coincidences, from having a planet that rotates on its axis, to our location in the galaxy, to the age of the cosmos, conspire to make this possible. And those dark nights have been vital to many scientific discoveries, as we argue in The Privileged Planet.


Q #6: Why are there so many planets in the Solar System?
A: Isn't just one planet (Earth) all we need? Doesn't it seem like a waste of space and materials to have all those other barren worlds? Well, not if those worlds are players in the games of life and scientific discovery. In The Privileged Planet, we discuss how the other planets serve as Earth's protectors while at the same time helping us in our quest to learn about the nature of the cosmos.


Q #7: Did Copernicus remove us from the center of the cosmos?
A: In most introductory astronomy textbooks and popular descriptions of the history of science, students are told that until Copernicus, the West believed that Earth and its human inhabitants viewed themselves as being in the most important place in the cosmos. Copernicus, we are told, demoted us by making Earth merely one of the planets. As it is usually presented, this popular story is mostly mythology rather than historical fact. In Pre-Copernican cosmology, the "center" of the cosmos meant something entirely different from what it is now taken to mean. We explain why in The Privileged Planet.


----------



## Thanatos (Jun 8, 2011)

Asath said:


> So my scorecard reads: Cause – 1; Creator – 0.  It’s only about the Third Inning, but the Creator team hasn’t had a hit yet, and their fans are leaving the stadium in droves.



I forgot to add this...

My scorecard reads: faith in your belief -1; no faith - 0.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 12, 2011)

pnome said:


> Credit goes to Anthony Flew...
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335290
> 
> ...



interesting....

Bandy


----------



## pnome (Jul 13, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Pnome did you ever watch that debate? I'm curious to know how you would respond to what Krauss says.



I forgot to tell you.  I did watch that debate on youtube.  It made for good 'running on the treadmill' entertainment.

Without getting into details I would say that neither side convinced me.  Though both had some good points.  I think Craig is fighting an uphill battle from the start though.  Philosophical arguments are NOT empirical evidence.  Not matter how convincing.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 13, 2011)

bought Andrew Flew's book on Ebay yesterday.   Can't wait to read it.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 14, 2011)

pnome said:


> I forgot to tell you.  I did watch that debate on youtube.  It made for good 'running on the treadmill' entertainment.
> 
> Without getting into details I would say that neither side convinced me.  Though both had some good points.  I think Craig is fighting an uphill battle from the start though.  Philosophical arguments are NOT empirical evidence.  Not matter how convincing.



The point I was hoping would hit home for you was that just because we don't understand something doesn't mean we should fill the gap with God but we must strive to conform our understanding to reality honestly admitting what remains unknown. There may or may not be an ultimate cause. We don't know. And without knowing the answer to that how can we say anything about a first cause not even known to exist? We can come up with all sorts of theories, the most useful of which for expanding our knowledge being those which are falsifiable. Any that are intentionally constructed to be unfalsifiable should be viewed with great skepticism. Especially if they originate in a field such as religion that has already been found to be wrong about so much.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The point I was hoping would hit home for you was that just because we don't understand something doesn't mean we should fill the gap with God but we must strive to conform our understanding to reality honestly admitting what remains unknown. There may or may not be an ultimate cause. We don't know. And without knowing the answer to that how can we say anything about a first cause not even known to exist? We can come up with all sorts of theories, the most useful of which for expanding our knowledge being those which are falsifiable. Any that are intentionally constructed to be unfalsifiable should be viewed with great skepticism. Especially if they originate in a field such as religion that has already been found to be wrong about so much.



Undeniably so.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The point I was hoping would hit home for you was that just because we don't understand something doesn't mean we should fill the gap with God but we must strive to conform our understanding to reality honestly admitting what remains unknown. There may or may not be an ultimate cause. We don't know. And without knowing the answer to that how can we say anything about a first cause not even known to exist? We can come up with all sorts of theories, the most useful of which for expanding our knowledge being those which are falsifiable. Any that are intentionally constructed to be unfalsifiable should be viewed with great skepticism. Especially if they originate in a field such as religion that has already been found to be wrong about so much.



I agree with that, too.    We should all "go where the evidence leads" Andrew Flew


----------



## pnome (Jul 14, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The point I was hoping would hit home for you was that just because we don't understand something doesn't mean we should fill the gap with God but we must strive to conform our understanding to reality honestly admitting what remains unknown. There may or may not be an ultimate cause. We don't know. And without knowing the answer to that how can we say anything about a first cause not even known to exist? We can come up with all sorts of theories, the most useful of which for expanding our knowledge being those which are falsifiable. Any that are intentionally constructed to be unfalsifiable should be viewed with great skepticism. Especially if they originate in a field such as religion that has already been found to be wrong about so much.



A scientific theory must be falsifiable.  I'll agree.  A philosophical assumption does not.  "No God" is just as unfalsifiable as "God".  

Don't get me wrong, I'm not, in any way, advocating religion.  Or any particular view of "God".   I simply do not think that the chain of causes for existence go on infinitely.  Dr. Krauss would say I was just uncomfortable with the concept of infinity.  Maybe so, but only because I find the finite more simple that the infinite.  And I have a bias for simplicity.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 14, 2011)

So, are you saying you believe in a 'designer' of some kind?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 14, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> So, are you saying you believe in a 'designer' of some kind?




Fascinating, isn't it?


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 14, 2011)

pnome said:


> A scientific theory must be falsifiable.  I'll agree.  A philosophical assumption does not.  "No God" is just as unfalsifiable as "God".
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not, in any way, advocating religion.  Or any particular view of "God".   I simply do not think that the chain of causes for existence go on infinitely.  Dr. Krauss would say I was just uncomfortable with the concept of infinity.  Maybe so, but only because I find the finite more simple that the infinite.  And I have a bias for simplicity.



Can you expound on this; particularly on the nature of the finite?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 14, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Fascinating, isn't it?



absolutely.    it's a Pnome I've never seen before.


----------



## pnome (Jul 14, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> So, are you saying you believe in a 'designer' of some kind?



No.  I think that would be presumptuous. 

Caused.  But not necessarily by design.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 14, 2011)

Hmmmm.    You didn't think the universe was caused before?    Thought that was a given.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 14, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Hmmmm.    You didn't think the universe was caused before?    Thought that was a given.



I think the notion of something eternal is easier to swallow than the infinite regression for sentimental reasons.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 14, 2011)

pnome said:


> A scientific theory must be falsifiable.  I'll agree.  A philosophical assumption does not.  "No God" is just as unfalsifiable as "God".



Which is why you'll hear very few atheists say with certainty that there is no God. 




pnome said:


> Don't get me wrong, I'm not, in any way, advocating religion.  Or any particular view of "God".   I simply do not think that the chain of causes for existence go on infinitely.  Dr. Krauss would say I was just uncomfortable with the concept of infinity.  Maybe so, but only because I find the finite more simple that the infinite.  And I have a bias for simplicity.



But a first cause doesn't get you out of that difficulty because you're still faced with the cause of the first cause. You ultimately come to something that is eternal, that always was and always will be. Craig calls that God, Krauss calls that the multiverse. The difference is that Craig and so many like him claim to have acquired and confirmed their knowledge by revelation. The history of such claims is enough to dismiss them absent some observable confirmation which if their claims were true (ie prayer) we would have. Krauss and other scientists have come up with all sorts of theories of what, if anything, is beyond our universe. Some of these may be falsifiable. Time will tell. But at the very least they have the honesty to admit where knowledge ends and speculation begins. They don't just concoct a magical explanation and assert it as truth.


----------



## pnome (Jul 15, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You ultimately come to something that is eternal, that always was and always will be.
> 
> Craig calls that God, Krauss calls that the multiverse. The difference is that Craig and so many like him claim to have acquired and confirmed their knowledge by revelation. The history of such claims is enough to dismiss them absent some observable confirmation which if their claims were true (ie prayer) we would have. Krauss and other scientists have come up with all sorts of theories of what, if anything, is beyond our universe. Some of these may be falsifiable. Time will tell. But at the very least they have the honesty to admit where knowledge ends and speculation begins. They don't just concoct a magical explanation and assert it as truth.



I am asking you to speculate.  Let's speculate that the universe was not created by random forces.  Then look at the blunt facts.  We are here.  We have some degree of free will.  Our universe exists in such a way as to allow our existence.  Cosmological, Teleological, Ontological etc...Each of these arguments are "rationally avoidable" in and of themselves but taken as a whole, and with a different _presumption_, they amount to something far more convincing.  I think that is what Craig is trying to get at.  He calls it probability theory or some such.  Whatever. That's not important.  

Now, if we grant this "non-random force of creation" omniscience concerning it's creation. A leap, I'll agree.  But if we do, then that would imply we were an expected result.  

I think it was Carl Sagan who said that "we are a way for the universe to know itself."   It's hard for me not to believe that might just be the true meaning of life.  That our purpose is to learn as much as we can about this place and then report back. I can't say that I truly believe that.  But I hope that's right.


----------



## pnome (Jul 15, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> Can you expound on this; particularly on *the nature of the finite*?



You're gonna have to let me think some more about that. 

I'll use some of my extra thinking time during deer season while waiting on Mr. Big Buck.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 15, 2011)

pnome said:


> Cosmological, Teleological, Ontological etc...Each of these arguments are "rationally avoidable" in and of themselves but taken as a whole, and with a different _presumption_, they amount to something far more convincing.



Can you elaborate on this?


----------



## pnome (Jul 18, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Can you elaborate on this?



Ok....

So, let's presume that there was an ultimate cause to existence beyond the physical.

Now, let's look at the Teleological argument. Specifically, the fine tuning argument.

If we presume this ultimate cause, rather than presuming an infinite series of natural causes, the fact that the Universe is set up such that it can contain life, makes it more likely that it was created for that purpose.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 18, 2011)

I think where you lost me was where you said that each of these could be rationally dismissed but they were some how stronger when put together. A string of fallacious arguments don't some how add up to be more persuasive, at least not for me. Yes if we presume enough we can get to an "ultimate cause". We can get to a lot of other explanations if we presume enough as well. So why make the presumptions? Because it gets us to an answer we are more comfortable with? Why is it more likely that an ultimate cause would generate a universe that can contain life rather than one that doesn't?

I'm not at all convinced that the universe is fine tuned. Some points to consider...




It seems to me that on this particular argument the theists have stacked the deck. If the universe is such that the odds are incredibly slim that intelligent life would develop then clearly the fact that we are here must point to some intelligent force at work. If on the other hand the universe is such that intelligent life is certain to develop, then again that must point to the hand of an intelligent designer making the universe to be that way. We are making presumptions that will in any case get us to the desired end and what we have done in the process is exclude the possibility that there was no intelligent designer at all. I know you aren't necessarily asserting an intelligent ultimate cause but I think the point is still valid.

If we should remain open to the possibility of an ultimate cause because we haven't been able to eliminate it as a possibility then surely the same must hold true for other possible explanations yet to be eliminated.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 21, 2011)

Just a thought (first time posting in here, but have been reading all of your arguments for quite some time, and have enjoyed it):

If matter created matter from nothing, shouldn't matter then be defined as the "prime mover" because of it's creative ability?

In the end, something had to come from nothing.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 21, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Just a thought (first time posting in here, but have been reading all of your arguments for quite some time, and have enjoyed it):
> 
> If matter created matter from nothing, shouldn't matter then be defined as the "prime mover" because of it's creative ability?
> 
> In the end, something had to come from nothing.



Good question.


----------



## pnome (Jul 21, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Just a thought (first time posting in here, but have been reading all of your arguments for quite some time, and have enjoyed it):
> 
> If matter created matter from nothing, shouldn't matter then be defined as the "prime mover" because of it's creative ability?
> 
> In the end, something had to come from nothing.




Something didn't have to come from nothing.  Nothing would be just fine staying nothing forever.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 21, 2011)

"Nothing would be just fine staying nothing forever."

Sure, but it didn't.  I will rephrase:

In the end, nothing became something.


----------



## pnome (Jul 21, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> "Nothing would be just fine staying nothing forever."
> 
> Sure, but it didn't.  I will rephrase:
> 
> In the end, nothing became something.



In the beginning....  

But, if nothing became something, then the cause must be beyond the physical.  Wouldn't you agree?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 21, 2011)

Yep.  In my quest for answers I eventually had to reduce the thought process to it's simplest form, which I just posted (because I was driving myself crazy trying to get past the original cause issue).  

IMHO nothing had to become something in order for anything to exist.  At that point you have to assign "prime mover" power to that which created, whether it is matter, energy, or God.  From there, well, its a guessing game.  Some choose faith as their "best guess" and others rely on a form of agnosticism.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 21, 2011)

pnome said:


> In the beginning....
> 
> But, if nothing became something, then the cause must be beyond the physical.  Wouldn't you agree?



....as we presently understand it. Or it may be a very natural phenomenon that we don't understand yet.  I think it's premature to introduce a "consciousness" or a "will" to the discussion.  

That's what we're talking about, right?  Some kind of something had a notion or an impulse and got the ball rolling?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 21, 2011)

"As we presently understand it."

Christians use a similar argument claiming "a finite human mind" cannot understand God's ways.  

The two arguments become quite similar when you get down to the original cause (or the uncaused cause).  If this cause did not exist, we must then assign all of the "prime mover" power to matter which believers assign to God.  Christians believe God exists outside of time.  In order to be atheist, an individual must believe matter is creative and exists outside of time (uncaused).  At that point isn't matter "God?"


----------



## JFS (Jul 21, 2011)

I don't think they are similar at all.  If our limited minds can't comprehend the origins of our known world, the reasonable conclusion is simply uncertainty, not an anthropomorphic projection.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 21, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> "As we presently understand it."
> 
> Christians use a similar argument claiming "a finite human mind" cannot understand God's ways.
> 
> The two arguments become quite similar when you get down to the original cause (or the uncaused cause).  If this cause did not exist, we must then assign all of the "prime mover" power to matter which believers assign to God.  Christians believe God exists outside of time.  In order to be atheist, an individual must believe matter is creative and exists outside of time (uncaused).  At that point isn't matter "God?"



Matter is matter and it could have been here in some form forever, if your in to the notion of forever (like: God has existed forever).   Matter ("anti-matter", "Does-it matter"...) could have existed in this other dimension  "outside of time".  When you call it God, I think you imply a whole lot of things that just have no basis beyond personal experience.  All the commonly accepted notions of God seem suspect to me.

What I think it really comes down to, all "evidence" aside, is that either one wants to believe something is at the helm or that something is not.



JFS said:


> I don't think they are similar at all.  If our limited minds can't comprehend the origins of our known world, the reasonable conclusion is simply uncertainty, not an anthropomorphic projection.



It's easily accepted for sentimental reasons.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 21, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> "Nothing would be just fine staying nothing forever."
> 
> Sure, but it didn't.  I will rephrase:
> 
> In the end, nothing became something.



How do you know that?

If it is true that there is an ultimate cause with no beginning, then there never was nothing.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 21, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> How do you know that?
> 
> If it is true that there is an ultimate cause with no beginning, then there never was nothing.



Winner Winner, Chicken Dinner!!!


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 21, 2011)

"How do you know that? If it is true that there is an ultimate cause with no beginning, then there never was nothing. "

Doesn't that kind-of reinforce the concept of a prime mover?  Either nothing became something (self creating matter, anti-matter, or whatever), or something is uncaused.  I might be missing something, but I don't see another alternative.  Either way, isnt the self creating something, or the uncaused something the prime mover by definition?

"Winner Winner, Chicken Dinner!!!"

Depends on the judges, I guess.  How do any of us know anything we are saying for sure.  We don't.  We just let logic lead us where it will.  Some folks end up with God or the flying spaghetti monster, other folks say it has to be nothing.  Prove it one way or the other.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> "How do you know that? If it is true that there is an ultimate cause with no beginning, then there never was nothing. "
> 
> Doesn't that kind-of reinforce the concept of a prime mover?  Either nothing became something (self creating matter, anti-matter, or whatever), or something is uncaused.  I might be missing something, but I don't see another alternative.  Either way, isnt the self creating something, or the uncaused something the prime mover by definition?
> 
> ...



Another alternative is that life has always existed.  Theology is the only area where the concept exists of something being "poofed" into existence.  Every other aspect of our normal lives deals with matter that has always existed in one form or another.  The whole concept of a time when matter didn't exist is created in our minds, as we have no example of that actually occuring in real life.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2011)

"Every other aspect of our normal lives deals with matter that has always existed in one form or another."

Okay, so we are back to my original point.  If matter, or life, did not "poof" into existence, and always existed, then it is uncaused and creative (you and I came from somewhere, but are not infinite).  It is and always was. Isn't that what people say about God?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> "Every other aspect of our normal lives deals with matter that has always existed in one form or another."
> 
> Okay, so we are back to my original point.  If matter, or life, did not "poof" into existence, and always existed, then it is uncaused and creative (you and I came from somewhere, but are not infinite).  It is and always was. Isn't that what people say about God?




Most people who believe in creation by a diety never consider what the diety was doing for eternity prior to the creation.  Folks who believe that this entire universe was created solely for man, usually do not consider the possibility that the present universe might be just one more "lab project" out of many.

Also, there is no reason that a diety would have always had to be "here", because what we consider to be the location of our universe is a speck in unlimited space.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 22, 2011)

While walking in the woods, maybe on your hunting club property, you come across a plant that you can positively identify as not being native to that region.  I can't imagine that you would limit the possible explanations for it being there to:

(1) It was poofed into existence at that spot by a deity.
or
(2) It created itself in that spot. 

There are many other possible explanations.  Maybe the plant was actually native to the area in the past and this is the last one left.  Maybe it was planted there in the past and has long since been abandoned by the one who transplanted it.  Maybe the seed was accidentally spread there by creatures migrating or by a tremendous natural disaster.  The possibilities are only limited by our imagination.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2011)

I get what you mean about most people who believe in creation by a deity never consider the possibilities.  

I guess what I am getting at is that people, atheist, agnostic, deist or whatever, have to put faith in something.  That something might be infinite matter or a God.  Both go beyond our understanding of natural, and neither can be proved or disproved.  From my perspective, you either argue for a creative infinite matter or a creative infinite God, otherwise you believe everything "poofed" into existence (nothing becoming something which is also beyond our understanding of natural).


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2011)

And the "God" one argues for could be whatever, really.  But a prime mover is the concept I am referring to.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> And the "God" one argues for could be whatever, really.  But a prime mover is the concept I am referring to.



In your view of the prime mover option, does the prime mover "poof" anything into existence or merely put into motion the "matter" that has always existed?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> "Every other aspect of our normal lives deals with matter that has always existed in one form or another."
> 
> Okay, so we are back to my original point.  If matter, or life, did not "poof" into existence, and always existed, then it is uncaused and creative (you and I came from somewhere, but are not infinite).  It is and always was. Isn't that what people say about God?



JB, I know you haven't posted much so I just wanted to throw this out there. If you want to quote someone just hit the blue quote button at the bottome right of that persons quote. If you dont want the whole quote there just erase whatever you don't want inside the quote.

 If you already knew all of this.... sorry!


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 22, 2011)

String,
I know how to multi-quote separate posts into one response, but if I want to quote the same post more than once in a response so that I can erase parts and address different points separately, how do I do that?


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 22, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> String,
> I know how to multi-quote separate posts into one response, but if I want to quote the same post more than once in a response so that I can erase parts and address different points separately, how do I do that?



At the beginning of whatever you want to quote just put  





> at the end of whatever you want to quote  put [/quote.]
> 
> PS. dont put the period at the end of quote with the forward slash, I just had to do that so that it would'nt actually quote me. Is this what your talking about? If not PM me and I'll try to show you how to do it.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 22, 2011)

Thanks String.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2011)

Thanks stringmusic, I didn't know how to use that.  This is the first conversation I have jumped into (it looked fun).  I haven't used many of the controls.  I will need to learn it all moving forward.

HawgJawl, I believe you asked my opinion of the prime mover option.  If matter always existed, it would be the prime mover, wouldn't it?  Because everything we see now came from something else.  The matter would then be our "creator."  The plant in the forrest you mentioned earlier came from a seed.  But to imply it comes from nothing is to believe it created itself.  

You asked for my opinion, and it is just that, but I find it more logical to assume a prime mover "poofed" matter than matter "poofing" itself and being infinite.  This position requires no more faith than an atheist placing belief in creative infinite matter.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Thanks stringmusic, I didn't know how to use that.  This is the first conversation I have jumped into (it looked fun).  I haven't used many of the controls.  I will need to learn it all moving forward.
> 
> HawgJawl, I believe you asked my opinion of the prime mover option.  If matter always existed, it would be the prime mover, wouldn't it?  Because everything we see now came from something else.  The matter would then be our "creator."  The plant in the forrest you mentioned earlier came from a seed.  But to imply it comes from nothing is to believe it created itself.
> 
> You asked for my opinion, and it is just that, but I find it more logical to assume a prime mover "poofed" matter than matter "poofing" itself and being infinite.  This position requires no more faith than an atheist placing belief in creative infinite matter.



Like I stated in my plant example, those aren't the only two options.  Even with a prime mover, matter could have always existed along with the prime mover and nothing was poofed into existence.  Or the prime mover merely "transplanted" matter (that had always existed) from some other place.

If you'll remember, even in the creation story in Genesis, God did not poof man into existence.  God formed man from the dust of the earth.  Similar to a potter "creating" a clay jar, where the potter does not poof into existence the jar or the clay.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 22, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> Like I stated in my plant example, those aren't the only two options.  Even with a prime mover, matter could have always existed along with the prime mover and nothing was poofed into existence.  Or the prime mover merely "transplanted" matter (that had always existed) from some other place.


I don't really have a clue, but this could be a strong possibility. Either way, I don't see how anyone doesn't see a prime mover in the equation. This kinda goes back to my thread about consciousness, without a prime mover or God, how do inanimate objects become conscious?


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 22, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I don't really have a clue, but this could be a strong possibility. Either way, I don't see how anyone doesn't see a prime mover in the equation.



If one can except the possibility that matter has always existed, then it's not a huge leap to consider the possibility that life has always existed too.


----------



## stringmusic (Jul 22, 2011)

HawgJawl said:


> If one can except the possibility that matter has always existed, then it's not a huge leap to consider the possibility that life has always existed too.



I added to my post after you quoted.

I think matter alone and life with consciousness are along ways apart. When I picture just matter that long ago, in my mind I just see a bunch of rocks flying through space.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 22, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> I added to my post after you quoted.
> 
> I think matter alone and life with consciousness are along ways apart. When I picture just matter that long ago, in my mind I just see a bunch of rocks flying through space.



If you believe that space and time have no end, it seems rather conceited to believe that the "one and only master plan for everything" focusses on this one tiny speck in the cosmos and this one tiny fraction of time.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2011)

> If one can except the possibility that matter has always existed, then it's not a huge leap to consider the possibility that life has always existed too.



Any observable life has a beginning and end.  This is why I do not believe it can be infinite. You seem to indicate that there are too many possibilities to narrow things down.  This is only true when you remove the concept of beginning and end, which some might argue is as irrational as the belief in God.  

People who study the Earth conclude it began 14 billion years ago as a dust cloud around the sun.  That dust cloud came (it is widely assumed) from something else or it "poofed" into existence.  We get into an endless string of causes.  I have read theories which indicate the universe is always expanding and contracting.  But one constant to all of these theories is a beginning and end to the cycles.

I just find it more logical to assume matter also has a beginning because this is what is known about matter and life.  Outside of that is speculation.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Any observable life has a beginning and end.


Life does have an observable end but not an observable beginning.  We can't create life.  All observable life today is a continuation of prior life through reproduction, mutation, etc.  


> You seem to indicate that there are too many possibilities to narrow things down.  This is only true when you remove the concept of beginning and end, which some might argue is as irrational as the belief in God.


My initial point was that the concept of beginning and end should not be the default because it goes against what we know and see in our normal lives.  Can you think of any object or substance that you see today that did not come from some other pre-existing matter?


> People who study the Earth conclude it began 14 billion years ago as a dust cloud around the sun.  That dust cloud came (it is widely assumed) from something else or it "poofed" into existence.  We get into an endless string of causes.  I have read theories which indicate the universe is always expanding and contracting.  But one constant to all of these theories is a beginning and end to the cycles.


The Big Bang / Big Crush cycles (in theory) do not have a beginning or end.  It is a never-ending cycle.


> I just find it more logical to assume matter also has a beginning because this is what is known about matter and life.  Outside of that is speculation.


I disagree that it is known that matter has a beginning.  Again, what object or material do you know of in the world around you that did not come from pre-existing matter?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2011)

> The Big Bang / Big Crush cycles (in theory) do not have a beginning or end. It is a never-ending cycle.



But I said there was a beginning and an end to the "cycles."  It is my assumption that there must have been a first beginning if there ever was a first end.  Which cycle are we in now?  Either way, you still must deny a beginning in order to assume it always was.  If there is never a beginning, how can there be an end?



> I disagree that it is known that matter has a beginning. Again, what object or material do you know of in the world around you that did not come from pre-existing matter?



The "pre-existing" portion is my point.  What pre-existed before the matter we see now?  Paper comes from a tree which comes from a seed which comes from a tree.  But, the Earth which contains the dirt which grows the tree did not always exist (can we at least agree on that?).  It came from somewhere.  

Like I said before: you end up with infinite causes.  Same situation with life: all life must come from life.  But you have the same logical problem as the "chicken or the egg" argument.  

Everything we see and know came from something we do not see and know, I don't think that is debatable.  I can prove the creation of matter no more than you can prove the infiniteness (if that is even a word) of such.  

Some choose to believe that is an infinite regress of matter and life, and others believe "prime mover" better fits the logical problem here.  You and I are just on different sides of the fence.  But it's been fun....


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> The "pre-existing" portion is my point.  What pre-existed before the matter we see now?  Paper comes from a tree which comes from a seed which comes from a tree.  But, the Earth which contains the dirt which grows the tree did not always exist (can we at least agree on that?).  It came from somewhere.


It is possible that the matter which makes up the earth and the entire cosmos has always existed in one form or another.  Regardless of what caused any given action or reaction, I do not believe that the matter that makes up the cosmos ever poofed into existence.



> Like I said before: you end up with infinite causes.  Same situation with life: all life must come from life.  But you have the same logical problem as the "chicken or the egg" argument.


The only people who have a problem with the chicken/egg question are the folks who demand on having a beginning or a time when something did not exist.



> Some choose to believe that is an infinite regress of matter and life, and others believe "prime mover" better fits the logical problem here.  You and I are just on different sides of the fence.  But it's been fun....



I haven't picked a side in this particular debate today.  The argument that I am making is that there are more options than just the two you stated, like life being transplanted here from somewhere else.  If the universe that we're aware of and consider to be "here" is larger than we can comprehend, then just how much more is out "there"?


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2011)

> like life being transplanted here from somewhere else.



Wouldn't that which transplanted it be "God?"



> The only people who have a problem with the chicken/egg question are the folks who demand on having a beginning or a time when something did not exist.



Okay, we are back to my original post,.....if something always was, and all we are and have came from that something, isn't that something the "prime mover" with very similar qualities that people assign to God (creative, infinite)?

However, how are there more options than either matter had a beginning or matter always existed?  Beyond that, the thought is that if matter is the infinite creator of all then matter is also the prime mover unless another prime mover exists (insert whatever form you like here).


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Wouldn't that which transplanted it be "God?"


If a construction company is hired to build a terrarium filled with live plants and small reptiles in the lobby of a building, which one of the construction workers should the turtles view as God?



> Okay, we are back to my original post,.....if something always was, and all we are and have came from that something, isn't that something the "prime mover" with very similar qualities that people assign to God (creative, infinite)?


No, because if life always existed, there is no need for a prime mover that created anything.  The usual view of God is a diety that existed alone in the dark for an infinite amount of time until one day the diety decided to create "poof into existence" everything we know of today.



> However, how are there more options than either matter had a beginning or matter always existed?  Beyond that, the thought is that if matter is the infinite creator of all then matter is also the prime mover unless another prime mover exists (insert whatever form you like here).


Prime mover indicates a start, prior to which something did not exist.  Matter always existing eliminates a prime mover creating matter.  Life always existing eliminates a prime mover creating life.  If something always existed, it was never created.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 22, 2011)

Try to imagine a rock floating somewhere way out in space that has always existed.  There was never a time in the distant past when it did not exist.  It has always been.  The term "prime mover" does not apply to this rock because there was no prime move.  There was no time when the rock was created.  There was no thing or action that created the rock.  It has always been.  It is not appropriate to call the rock it's own prime mover, because the rock did not create itself and there was no prime move.  There was never an act of initial creation of the rock.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2011)

> which one of the construction workers should the turtles view as God?



I guess whichever one thier existence depended on.



> Prime mover indicates a start, prior to which something did not exist



Well, okay, but you have to insist that there was no beginning in order for such a belief system to work.  A lack of a beginning, or assigning "infinite" qualities to inanimate objects might appear unreasonable to many who witness the natural cycles of the universe.



> Matter always existing eliminates a prime mover creating matter. Life always existing eliminates a prime mover creating life.



Except that you must accept it is infinite, which is also a necessary characteristic of God (again, whatever form you choose, it could be the construction worker in the terrarium).  

It seems that matter is then the God of such a belief system.  Without its infinite and creative powers (of those things which we know have a beginning such as the earth), we have nothing.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2011)

> Try to imagine a rock floating somewhere way out in space that has always existed. There was never a time in the distant past when it did not exist. It has always been



I just have trouble believing that as a more reasonable approach than any other belief system out there.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> Well, okay, but you have to insist that there was no beginning in order for such a belief system to work.  A lack of a beginning, or assigning "infinite" qualities to inanimate objects might appear unreasonable to many who witness the natural cycles of the universe.


My point is that witnessing the natural cycles of the universe should not lead anyone to believe that everything had a specific beginning point.  A cycle by definition is a recurring sequence of events.  The entire concept of a time when nothing existed should be the extreme position since we have no evidence of it whatsoever in our natural world.



> Except that you must accept it is infinite, which is also a necessary characteristic of God (again, whatever form you choose, it could be the construction worker in the terrarium).


Why does God not have to have a specific point of "beginning" or a time when God did not exist?



> It seems that matter is then the God of such a belief system.  Without its infinite and creative powers (of those things which we know have a beginning such as the earth), we have nothing.


That's one possibility.  There have been religions based upon worshiping nature.  Another possibility is that there is no need for a religion at all.


----------



## HawgJawl (Jul 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I just have trouble believing that as a more reasonable approach than any other belief system out there.



I'm not asking you to believe it, just to accept that it's a possibility.


----------



## JB0704 (Jul 22, 2011)

> Another possibility is that there is no need for a religion at all.



Well, I can agree with that.  Christians often forget that it was the religious zealots of his time which had Jesus executed.



> Why does God not have to have a specific point of "beginning" or a time when God did not exist?



That would eliminate the most "god-like" quality of God, the infinite and creative characteristic which you assign (or claim it is assignable in the realm of possibilities) to matter.



> A cycle by definition is a recurring sequence of events.



...which start and finish.

I will leave it with that, and give you the last word.  Again, it's been fun.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 22, 2011)

Off Topic - You guys are multi-quotin' mad men now! Good work String!

On Topic - Thanks for a really civil and enlightening conversation. It is refreshing.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 22, 2011)

JB0704 said:


> I get what you mean about most people who believe in creation by a deity never consider the possibilities.
> 
> I guess what I am getting at is that people, atheist, agnostic, deist or whatever, have to put faith in something.  That something might be infinite matter or a God.  Both go beyond our understanding of natural, and neither can be proved or disproved.  From my perspective, you either argue for a creative infinite matter or a creative infinite God, otherwise you believe everything "poofed" into existence (nothing becoming something which is also beyond our understanding of natural).



Why does one "have to put faith in something"? That is only true if you presume to know that which you don't. If we acknowledge our ignorance, continue searching for answers, and remain open to all possibilities what place does faith have?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Why does one "have to put faith in something"? That is only true if you presume to know that which you don't. If we acknowledge our ignorance, continue searching for answers, and remain open to all possibilities what place does faith have?



Wouldn't one of those possibilites include the fact that some things are unknowable?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 23, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Wouldn't one of those possibilites include the fact that some things are unknowable?



I would agree with that.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I would agree with that.



So that would leave room for faith.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 23, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> Wouldn't one of those possibilites include the fact that some things are unknowable?





atlashunter said:


> I would agree with that.



That would take faith too.  Maybe someone knows it all.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 23, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> So that would leave room for faith.



Only if you claim to know things that you don't and can't. Doesn't take faith to say "I don't know".


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Only if you claim to know things that you don't and can't. Doesn't take faith to say "I don't know".




What if you do know and you're too stubborn to admit it?


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 23, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Only if you claim to know things that you don't and can't. Doesn't take faith to say "I don't know".



If you say,"I don't know." then you are having faith that the answer exists, but you just don't know it.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 23, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> What if you do know and you're too stubborn to admit it?



That is called "Stubborn".


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 23, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> If you say,"I don't know." then you are having faith that the answer exists, but you just don't know it.



No, it's simply an admission of knowledge that you lack. That holds true whether there is an answer or not.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 24, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> No, it's simply an admission of knowledge that you lack. That holds true whether there is an answer or not.




There may be no answer.  Why is it so easy to latch on to an answer that feels good, even if it goes against everything you understand to be true?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 24, 2011)

Just because something is unknowable it doesn't mean there is no answer. Maybe there is a question for which there is no answer but I can't think of one. Here are a few that do have an answer that may be unknowable to us.

Is there a god?

Is there a multiverse?

Is there intelligent life somewhere else in the universe?

There is a correct yes or no answer to these questions. But the evidence required to discover that answer may be unavailable to us.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 24, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> There may be no answer.  Why is it so easy to latch on to an answer that feels good, even if it goes against everything you understand to be true?



The answer I have "latched" on to tells me I will be persecuted (to death) for my beliefs. Why does that seem easy?

It does not go against anything I understand to be true. I suppose we have different understandings.


----------



## JFS (Jul 24, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> The answer I have "latched" on to tells me I will be persecuted (to death) for my beliefs. Why does that seem easy?



1.  Come on now, there really isn't any persecution to death on the horizon for you now, is there?

2.  Christianity is in line with the other great religions in developing its sine qua non of a antidote to mankind's greatest issue- the fear of death.   Some deal with it straight up, but Christianity is a feel good cop out that placates the  fearful with snake oil.


----------



## ted_BSR (Jul 24, 2011)

JFS said:


> 1.  Come on now, there really isn't any persecution to death on the horizon for you now, is there?
> 
> 2.  Christianity is in line with the other great religions in developing its sine qua non of a antidote to mankind's greatest issue- the fear of death.   Some deal with it straight up, but Christianity is a feel good cop out that placates the  fearful with snake oil.



Death is but a doorway, however I come to stand in front of the door, I must pass through it. Christian or not, every human must have a certain degree of fear about it. My Grandfather passed away last month. He was a devout Christian. He was 100 years and 7 days old. I don't know what was going through his mind (which was still sound). None of us know until it is us passing through that door. Calling religion a cop out, is a cop out.

As for statement #1, yes, there is, for you and for me. It is called,"kill all infidels".


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 24, 2011)

ted_BSR said:


> The answer I have "latched" on to tells me I will be persecuted (to death) for my beliefs. Why does that seem easy?
> 
> It does not go against anything I understand to be true. I suppose we have different understandings.



You know a talking donkey?  (I just love that one, don't ya know.)


----------



## pnome (Jul 25, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> J
> Is there intelligent life somewhere else in the universe?



Tell me something.  What do you _believe_ the answer is to this?


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2011)

pnome said:


> Tell me something.  What do you _believe_ the answer is to this?



I think the answer is yes because I know there is intelligent life here so that proves it is possible and the universe is unimaginably big. But I don't claim to know.


----------



## pnome (Jul 25, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I think the answer is yes because I know there is intelligent life here so that proves it is possible and the universe is unimaginably big. But I don't claim to know.



So, without an ounce of empirical evidence, you've come to believe, or "think" that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.  I agree with you. We are both agnostic-lifeists.  

And in much the same fashion, I am an agnostic-theist.  At least for now anyway.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2011)

pnome said:


> So, without an ounce of empirical evidence, you've come to believe, or "think" that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.  I agree with you. We are both agnostic-lifeists.
> 
> And in much the same fashion, I am an agnostic-theist.  At least for now anyway.



No I cited two pieces of empirical evidence in my answer. 

1. Intelligent life exists in the universe so we know it is possible. We know that it can happen and that in at least one case, it has.
2. The universe is incredibly vast. It's been said that the number is stars in the universe outnumbers the grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth. I don't know if that is accurate but if it's anywhere near that number then it means there are an incredible number of rolls of the dice for intelligent life to develop.

So it really just boils down to a numbers game. What are the odds for intelligent life developing vs the rolls of the dice?

What is the empirical evidence for theism? It seems to me that you've gone as far as deism. I have yet to see you make a case for an intelligent being that is still intervening in the natural world. And your deist case is pretty mild in itself because you've favored a prime mover but not detailed why that prime mover should be an eternal being as opposed to an eternal natural construct.


----------



## dawg2 (Jul 25, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> No I cited two pieces of empirical evidence in my answer.
> 
> 1. Intelligent life exists in the universe so we know it is possible. We know that it can happen and that in at least one case, it has.
> 2. The universe is incredibly vast. It's been said that the number is stars in the universe outnumbers the grains of sand on all the beaches of the earth. I don't know if that is accurate but if it's anywhere near that number then it means there are an incredible number of rolls of the dice for intelligent life to develop.
> ...



What are the odds of intelligent life developing without assistance?  Same argument.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> What are the odds of intelligent life developing without assistance?  Same argument.



Yes that is what I meant. I'm not accounting for intelligent life by way of a sky daddy making a clay model and breathing it to life. If that were reality then rolls of the dice wouldn't factor into it.


----------



## pnome (Jul 25, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> So it really just boils down to a numbers game. What are the odds for intelligent life developing vs the rolls of the dice?



You might just call it "Probability Theory" like Dr. Craig does.


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 25, 2011)

pnome said:


> You might just call it "Probability Theory" like Dr. Craig does.



Plug in the right assumptions to the probability equation and you can get any answer you want. In his debate with Bart Ehrman over the historicity of the resurrection he assumes God in order to make the resurrection more probable. In other debates he uses the historicity of the resurrection to show a high probability for his god.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 26, 2011)

Currently reading the book you mentioned by Antony Flew.  I find it interesting that he discusses probability as well.   He obviously considered the odds stacked against life from nothing, too.

The first few chapters were deep.   lol     Lots of philosophical stuff....


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 27, 2011)

Pnome, 

I'd like to ask you a public question here if you don't mind.

Before you read the book by Flew, what would you say, if anything, was something that tended to 'sway' you the most?   Surely something that you had heard or read was having an affect?   

you may have already addressed it in this thread....sorry....I didn't read the posts...just your original post.

Bandy


----------



## pnome (Jul 27, 2011)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Pnome,
> 
> I'd like to ask you a public question here if you don't mind.
> 
> ...



Well, my sister sent me three books.  And I promised I would read them.  The first one was by Christopher Hitchens' brother.  It wasn't very good, and he spent most of the book talking about how bad he thought secularists were and only very little on why he believed in God.  

The second one was Reason For God by Tim Keller:
http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/0525950494

This was a well written book, and Tim Keller gives an excellent defense of the Christian faith, but I did not found it ultimately compelling.  

The third was obviously the Flew one.  I think it's because he gets right to the root of the question.  And the way that he explains his previous views read like I was reading my own mind.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Jul 28, 2011)

pnome said:


> Well, my sister sent me three books.  And I promised I would read them.  The first one was by Christopher Hitchens' brother.  It wasn't very good, and he spent most of the book talking about how bad he thought secularists were and only very little on why he believed in God.
> 
> The second one was Reason For God by Tim Keller:
> http://www.amazon.com/Reason-God-Belief-Age-Skepticism/dp/0525950494
> ...



Thanks.   I'm sure there was a lot you could relate to...being kindred spirits.   I'm about halfway through the Flew book.    As you might expect, I REALLY enjoyed one of the appendices.


----------



## bzb (Aug 2, 2011)

Man I wish I didn't find this subforum, lol.

We're all atheists in the United States.  Well, some more so than others.  Being an atheist doesn't have to be perpetual.  The definition of atheist is simply that you don't believe in a god at a particular moment in time.  Obviously faith can be liquid, as the topic of this thread is exactly about that.

So at any given point in time:

If you ever wear a life jacket on your boat, you're an atheist.

If you ever put the safety on your gun, you're an atheist.

If you ever stop at a stop light, you're an atheist.

Your faith in god(s) to protect you from drowning, a shotgun blast to the chest, or a bunch of cars to plow into the side of you is obviously overcome by logic at those independent moments in time.

Then you go right back to believing after the light changes green.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Aug 2, 2011)

bzb said:


> Man I wish I didn't find this subforum, lol.
> 
> We're all atheists in the United States.  Well, some more so than others.  Being an atheist doesn't have to be perpetual.  The definition of atheist is simply that you don't believe in a god at a particular moment in time.  Obviously faith can be liquid, as the topic of this thread is exactly about that.
> 
> ...



is this laughable only to me?   lol    

believing in God and having faith are two entirely different things!        Hebrews 11:1 and 6  

i put my safety on not only to protect me but others

I don't run a red light not only to protect me but others

I keep a life jacket on my boat because its the law....I never wear it.  

hilarious...


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 2, 2011)

I don't know about hilarious, but it doesn't make much sense to me.


----------



## bzb (Aug 12, 2011)

Perhaps your thoughts on what words mean differ from what words mean.  Ever seen The Princess Bride?

faith/fāTH/Noun
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. 

Quoting the Bible isn't really a defense for questioning the Bible.  That's one thing I never understood about any religious people.

Non-believer: "The bible is wrong, here's why."
Believer: "No, it says in book xx:xx that it's right."

That's the polar opposite of saying the Holocaust didn't happen because the Germans left it out of their history books.

On the note I posted above, religious folks also attribute anything, bad or good, that happens due to the "will of God".  If this were the case, then why does it matter that you put the safety on the gun or stop at a stoplight?  If God's plan was actually to make you wreck, or someone else to, and you stopped at a stoplight, didn't you ruin his plan?

Or in that case, God's plan was to have you stop so that didn't happen?  Very convenient!

People always tell me that God supposedly gave man free will.  But then doesn't allow them to have free will, at least a few people in the Bible.  But on the other hand, anything that happens was because God wanted it to.  So what's the point of free will?

You're an atheist if you don't believe.  Plain and simple.  If you think God will do what he planned to do, then you don't abide by laws, common sense, and logic.  You just do whatever you please, because God will control everything to his plan.

Make sense?


To be clear: I'm an agnostic who believes that gods (not a single one) quite possibly exist, but not as something we can comprehend.  Goes back to the discussion on the last page that bled into this one.  My thoughts aren't entirely fleshed out, and change on a weekly basis.  But one thing remains, as a product of a multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-religion family... my brain is warped


----------



## TripleXBullies (Aug 13, 2011)

I'm not a theist, but a god could have put the safety on the gun or put the seatbelt in the car so that it would be used and the fatal accident wouldn't have happened. That's why it doesn't make sense to me.

"INCONCEIVABLE!"
"You keep using dis wor. I don't i means what you think i means."


----------



## Israel (Nov 26, 2017)

"I don't think I'm an atheist anymore" may, at some particular point cross paths with "I don't think I believed the way I thought I did".
Two men can be reconciled.


----------



## JFS (Nov 30, 2017)

Israel said:


> "I don't think I believed the way I thought I did".



You've finally seen the error in your thinking?


----------



## Israel (Dec 1, 2017)

JFS said:


> You've finally seen the error in your thinking?



If I told you I am very often finding errors in my thinking, what that might mean to you, and what it means to me...would have to be discussed


----------

