# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Can belief in God be supported by logic?

## Ecurb

In the closed thread, The Atheist said, "Belief in god/s cannot be supported by logic." I don't agree. 

P1: Many people far better educated and more intelligent than I insist that God exists.
P2: I should believe what people who are better educated and more intelligent than I insist is true.

Conclusion: I should believe that God exists.

I can think of thousands of other ways in which belief in God can be supported by logic (after all, philosophers have been "proving" the existance of God for several millenia)  I simply offer this as one of a great many possible examples.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

P1: The universe and all that is in it contain a brilliant design that is far greater than man can completely understand.
P2: Intricate design comes from an Intelligent Designer.

C: The universe was created by an Intelligent Designer.

----------


## Ecurb

The great Catholic apologist G.K. Chesterton pointed out, “You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.”

Nobody can prove anything about the world with logic – logic is inevitably circular. Scientists have long been aware of this – in the philosophy of science it’s called “the problem of induction”. Science is basically an inductive enterprise, and the rules of logic do not allow logical inference based on inductive observation. That’s why Popper posited the principle of “falsifiability” as essential to the scientific endeavor.

----------


## G L Wilson

> In the closed thread, The Atheist said, "Belief in god/s cannot be supported by logic." I don't agree. 
> 
> P1: Many people far better educated and more intelligent than I insist that God exists.
> P2: I should believe what people who are better educated and more intelligent than I insist is true.
> 
> Conclusion: I should believe that God exists.
> 
> I can think of thousands of other ways in which belief in God can be supported by logic (after all, philosophers have been "proving" the existance of God for several millenia) – I simply offer this as one of a great many possible examples.


The appeal to authority is a refuge from proper reasoning.

There is no way of proving or disproving the existence of God, therefore he is an untenable hypothesis.

----------


## Ecurb

> The appeal to authority is a refuge from proper reasoning.
> 
> There is no way of proving or disproving the existence of God, therefore he is an untenable hypothesis.


No it isn't. I believe the world is a globe orbiting the sun because authorities whom I trust have told me that it is. I'll grant that an appeal to authority doesn't "prove" anything -- but that wasn't The Atheist's claim. He claimed "Belief in god cannot be SUPPORTED by logic." We all believe things that haven't been proven -- and we believe many of them for the perfectly good reason that we've been told they are true by authoritative sources. For example, I believe that Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs in his major League career because the Baseball Encyclopedia so informs me.

----------


## G L Wilson

> No it isn't. I believe the world is a globe orbiting the sun because authorities whom I trust have told me that it is. I'll grant that an appeal to authority doesn't "prove" anything -- but that wasn't The Atheist's claim. He claimed "Belief in god cannot be SUPPORTED by logic." We all believe things that haven't been proven -- and we believe many of them for the perfectly good reason that we've been told they are true by authoritative sources. For example, I believe that Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs in his major League career because the Baseball Encyclopedia so informs me.


Lies are no proof of truth.

----------


## JCamilo

Seriously, 

Logic does not proof anything, it is a form of construction. Existence of God is supported by logic - Appel to authority is a logical falacy, but it is logical. St.Thomas was very logical in his arguments. Someone with enogh cleaverness can use logic to argue towards god existence. But it does not proof anything.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Lies are no proof of truth.


Lies? The world isn't a globe orbiting the sun? Babe Ruth didn't hit 714 home runs?

----------


## G L Wilson

> Lies? The world isn't a globe orbiting the sun? Babe Ruth didn't hit 714 home runs?


Name one fact about God.

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Name one fact about God.


Why? My response clearly was asking you to elaborate which part you feel Ecurb lied about? So your response is a red herring to what I actually was questioning.

But sure, if you insist. God is a character in the Bible. There, I just named a fact about God. See, not so hard.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Why? My response clearly was asking you to elaborate which part you feel Ecurb lied about? So your response is a red herring to what I actually was questioning.
> 
> But sure, if you insist. God is a character in the Bible. There, I just named a fact about God. See, not so hard.


"God is love."

"The Lord is a man of war."

From The Bible.

----------


## Ecurb

> Lies are no proof of truth.


But truth is the proof of lies.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> "God is love."
> 
> "The Lord is a man of war."
> 
> From The Bible.


What is your point by quoting, "The Lord is a man of war"? The context is the song of Moses, whom the Lord had just delivered Moses and the Israelites from the oppression of the Pharaoh and his chariots. These thoughts are not contradictory. You really should do more research next time.

----------


## YesNo

> In the closed thread, The Atheist said, "Belief in god/s cannot be supported by logic." I don't agree.


I agree that belief can be supported by logic. 

Although I'm puzzled why someone would actually risk making such a statement, I think the reason writers do write things like this is to exercise power over their readers. They are basically saying: "Here's some nonsense and you better accept it, or else I'm going to label you 'stupid', 'dumb' or 'irrational'."

Of course, such labeling may backfire, but if you respond to the nonsense you will surely get labeled and if you do not respond, they will assume they have won something. It is no consolation, but it is amusing human interaction.

----------


## Calidore

> In the closed thread, The Atheist said, "Belief in god/s cannot be supported by logic." I don't agree. 
> 
> P1: Many people far better educated and more intelligent than I insist that God exists.
> P2: I should believe what people who are better educated and more intelligent than I insist is true.
> 
> Conclusion: I should believe that God exists.
> 
> I can think of thousands of other ways in which belief in God can be supported by logic (after all, philosophers have been "proving" the existance of God for several millenia)  I simply offer this as one of a great many possible examples.


The above isn't logic, though. P1 ignores the fact that many highly intelligent and educated people insist that there's no God. Re. P2, many politicians and corporate executives are better educated than me, but automatically believing what they tell me would be a bad idea. Using the above argument, you're using your beliefs to choose who and what to believe. Understandable, but not necessarily logic.




> P1: The universe and all that is in it contain a brilliant design that is far greater than man can completely understand.
> P2: Intricate design comes from an Intelligent Designer.
> 
> C: The universe was created by an Intelligent Designer.


This P1 is an assumption, though it can be made true with a small change at the end: "...than man understands right now." P2 is purely opinion.

Going back to Ecurb, some philosophers claim that they can prove the existence of God (or, more accurately, _a_ God), but had it been provable, there'd be no debate. Some people can give good reasons why there might be some form of higher power/creator that we'd call God, but as it stands now, this being is invisible, undetectable, and if it's even aware of us, seems to have a non-interference policy. Without a discernable effect, it's hard to prove a cause.

----------


## YesNo

> The present scientific explanation for the Big Bang is *very unsatisfying*, it is a big fat "*I don't know*". But this is at least *more satisfying than the idea of creation and a creator*, for a God creates more questions than he answers.


The problem that the Big Bang presents is you now have to account for the origin the universe. That was not necessary before when the universe itself was viewed as eternal and its laws were deterministic.

The "I don't know" is an acceptable choice, but that should move one from promoting atheism to a humbler agnosticism especially in light of the evidence that something did happen 14 billion years ago that started our universe.

I suspect the Big Bang is unsatisfying for both the creationist as well as the atheist since the time frame violates the creationists' view that it all started less than 10,000 years ago and the fact that it started at all forces the atheist to consider a cause. For others, it most satisfyingly confirms what their religions have taught them about the universe.

----------


## G L Wilson

> *
> turn your sword into ploughs
> IF that's what comes your mind
> AND watch for the result
> Surely that would be to Heart an insult!
> Mind says let's pass a camel
> Through the eye of a needle
> let's do the impossible but
> Mind is limited to a hole
> ...


The mind cures.
The heart heals.

----------


## mazHur

> The mind cures.
> The heart heals.


*The Cobra of Mind 
spews poison
takes away the breath
but sometimes act as an antidote
for yet another poison.
So handle the Cobra with care
Do not fiddle with him
He is the King of Thoughts
good and bad
ever ready to spit its venom
or leap at his victim
like a hungry leopard
sucking his morsel's blood.

Heart, O heart,
that gentle folk
that knows no cunning
that is so naive and gullible
which has no boundary
to what he aspires for
He that is selfless
Or selfish sometimes
if bitten by the fangs
of the marbled Cobra mind
Heart is the entire world
Nay, it's all the Universe
embedded in a little beating mass
Heart's the giver of life
And all that goes to make life
and relationships
regardless of being True or False 
but only one-way
as its sincere or wicked emotion may discern
It's true to its salt
Mind will perish and die
When the Heart shall halt!
*

----------


## G L Wilson

> If a cause is a handle we can manipulate, its clear the universe is not causal.


Man is not God. Therefore I say that he is free.

----------


## G L Wilson

> *The Cobra of Mind 
> spews poison
> takes away the breath
> but sometimes act as an antidote
> for yet another poison.
> So handle the Cobra with care
> Do not fiddle with him
> He is the King of Thoughts
> good and bad
> ...


One really does need heart to cure a sick mind, and mind to heal a broken heart.

----------


## Rores28

> *If I understand you correctly, you are an atheist because you dislike the politics of some people who claim to be religious.* I suggest that you will be able to find those same political views held by people who consider themselves atheists if you look hard enough.
> 
> It doesn't make sense to me to base a generic atheism on particular political disagreements with others. I can see how one would not want to be part of that religious group, but to dismiss all religious experience as a result of it appears to me excessive.


You do not understand me correctly. I am atheist/agnostic, and as I've explained earlier in the thread and directly in that post, because I don't think it is logically justified. 

I was pointing out, however, that the brand of "theism" if it can even be characterized as such is not what most people who are involved in the debate are speaking out against. And except for one sentence, the brand of non-atheism you promote is much more defensible than these, though still not, a logically preferred explanation.





> However, you are promoting a generic atheism. It doesn't matter what personally motivated you to promote that. People need to examine what you promote just as they would any other religious or philosophic system asking does it make sense considering the current description of reality that science presents.


I agree. 




> I claim atheism does not make sense unless the atheist can provide a explanation for the Big Bang.
> 
> Either you have to deny current scientific evidence or you need to side with one or the other of the explanations that scientists have come up with. This will then characterize your atheism.


Let me say first that some failures in other areas of science (diet and exercise advice prominent among them) leave me a little dubious about any explanation of something as uncertain as the origin of the universe. Therefore, I will discuss from the position that the big bang is in fact the infallible explanatory framework for the origin of existence, but keep in mind my skepticism.




> As far as my view goes, I accept that there was a Big Bang, and what I mean by that is that the space-time universe with all of its matter and energy had a beginning about 14 billion years ago. Before that there was nothing. There wasn't even any time or space. For that to happen there needs to be something that caused it


Why? What if it was the first thing ever.





> and I postulate a dimension of consciousness that is free and eternal that is not composed of space, time, matter or energy. Our human consciousness is within that dimension and is the main justification for postulating it. This dimension caused the space-time universe to have its beginning and permeates it replacing "chance" with "choice" at all levels of the universe. Upon this the various religions can be defined.


*Alternative Explanations*

The big bang is the beginning.

Infinite regress of big bang type events

Loop of big bang type events

Before the big bang was a universe just like ours (matter, energy, etc..) except that it had infinite time.

So first you'd have to ask yourself if any of these explanations from a logical standpoint is more preferred than yours... 

*Our human consciousness is within that dimension and is the main justification for postulating it.*

We agree to an extent here about human consciousness being the main driver for postulating that there might be something profoundly funny that we just do not fundamentally understand about reality / existence.

*This dimension caused the space-time universe to have its beginning and permeates it replacing "chance" with "choice" at all levels of the universe. Upon this the various religions can be defined.*

This is where the logic seems to break down though. 

Why would consciousness have to be permeated with chance instead of choice?

Why upon this are various religions defined / what exactly do you mean by this statement? (If you ignore the rest of the post ... answer this question).

*As I said earlier I'm semi with you that there may be some sort of over arching consciousness / uber-conscious echelons that exists in a hierarchical way compared to us.* 

But why would we call it God. And why would we think this has any specific relation to anyone specific religion, or even all religions.

Also where would we draw that line at what is or isn't a religion.

And would this even mean anything to us? If we simply new there was some uber-consciousness we would still know nothing about its intent or wishes.... if it even possessed intent or wishes.




> I suspect the Big Bang is unsatisfying for both the creationist as well as the atheist since the time frame violates the creationists' view that it all started less than 10,000 years ago and the fact that it started at all forces the atheist to consider a cause. For others, it most satisfyingly confirms what their religions have taught them about the universe.


I think you are mis-characterizing atheists, or perhaps I am giving them to much credit.

An atheist doesn't, or at least shouldn't care* very much about shifts in scientific understanding. If tomorrow there was unequivocal proof that a God-type entity existed, I think atheists would certainly feel a lot of emotions, but I don't think they would be dragging their heels like "damn I was wrong," or "crap I really didn't want a God to exist"

In other words I don't think atheists are routing for there _not_ to be a more powerful entity than humans, they just legitimately haven't seen any reasonable evidence for it.

*Note they care about them but not in the way you seem to be implying*

----------


## G L Wilson

> I think you are mis-characterizing atheists, or perhaps I am giving them to much credit.
> 
> An atheist doesn't, or at least shouldn't care* very much about shifts in scientific understanding. If tomorrow there was unequivocal proof that a God-type entity existed, I think atheists would certainly feel a lot of emotions, but I don't think they would be dragging their heels like "damn I was wrong," or "crap I really didn't want a God to exist"
> 
> In other words I don't think atheists are routing for there _not_ to be a more powerful entity than humans, they just rightfully haven't seen any reasonable evidence for it.
> 
> *Note they care about them but not in the way you seem to be implying*


If God was to happen tomorrow, I would be a quaking mess.

----------


## YesNo

> You do not understand me correctly. I am atheist/agnostic, and as I've explained earlier in the thread and directly in that post, because I don't think it is logically justified.


I may be misunderstanding what you are promoting, so I'll focus on some of the comments below and ignore whether you need to take a position on the Big Bang or not.

In what I mention below, this is just a guess on my part. I like to think that I change my mind a lot, but who knows?




> *This dimension caused the space-time universe to have its beginning and permeates it replacing "chance" with "choice" at all levels of the universe. Upon this the various religions can be defined.*
> 
> This is where the logic seems to break down though. 
> 
> Why would consciousness have to be permeated with chance instead of choice?


In trying to make sense of the Big Bang, and the Uncertainty Principle, I go with "consciousness" since we all can experience it and assume other species experience it in their way. I will assume that everything, in its own way, has a kind of consciousness. I don't _want_ chance to have any role in this and so work backward assuming that my experience of free will is valid and can be found throughout the universe. That is what I mean by replacing "chance" with "choice": this makes the trending of evolutionary changes make sense to me. They are caused by internal conscious choices within the universe rather than chance.

This does not assume there is an external consciousness that is making these choices.




> Why upon this are various religions defined / what exactly do you mean by this statement? (If you ignore the rest of the post ... answer this question).


My assumption of a dimension of consciousness in which space-time is embedded is a minimal way to allow an external cause for the Big Bang and an internal cause for the trending of evolutionary changes. 

I think the current neurological research has located the religious experience in the brain and associated it with REM sleep. This is like finding a physical basis for the "third eye" or the "inner eye". The dimension of consciousness allows for religious experience to have a valid object and not be a delusion of the brain. From these experiences religious beliefs can be formed. That is what I mean by "defining" religions on this dimension on consciousness. It doesn't imply that every definition is correct. There is free will involved in this system which can make mistakes.



> As I said earlier I'm semi with you that there _may be_ some sort of over arching consciousness / uber-conscious echelons that exists in a hierarchical way compared to us.
> 
> But why would we call it God. And why would we think this has any specific relation to anyone specific religion, or even all religions.
> 
> Also where would we draw that line at what is or isn't a religion.
> 
> And would this even mean anything to us? If we simply new there was some uber-consciousness we would still know nothing about its intent or wishes.... if it even possessed intent or wishes.


There may be an uber-consciousness, but I don't have any experience of it except as I watch my own consciousness which is looking at the "God within" from a Hindu perspective. I don't think it is necessary to call any such consciousness "God", but it may not be inappropriate either. Alternatively, when considering this uber-consciousness, we could view ourselves as part of it and then when asking who created the universe a bizarre but interesting response might be: we did.

----------


## blithe spirit

God is not the author of confusion. The Big Bang theory is just that...a big explosion of chaos. There is certainly no logic as to how this chaotic explosion just up and organized itself into, for example, a structured human body with functioning organs, DNA, brains with highly intelligent potential, senses of touch, taste, hearing, sight, smell, and feelings of love, happiness, sadness. What an amazing amount of faith one whould have to exercise to believe that. I prefer to place my faith in something more logical...intelligent design.

----------


## The Atheist

> God is not the author of confusion. The Big Bang theory is just that...a big explosion of chaos. There is certainly no logic as to how this chaotic explosion just up and organized itself into, for example, a structured human body with functioning organs, DNA, brains with highly intelligent potential, senses of touch, taste, hearing, sight, smell, and feelings of love, happiness, sadness. What an amazing amount of faith one whould have to exercise to believe that. I prefer to place my faith in something more logical...intelligent design.


I find it sad that your knowledge if logic and science is so shockingly poor that you could come to this conclusion.

There are whole libraries full of hard evidence as to the age and evolution of both planets and species, all of which is completely supported by logical argument using facts.

You're most welcome to believe an entity is responsible for creation of the universe, but the idea that "intelligent design" is supported by any logical argument is laughable. So called "intelligent design" is a position of pure faith.

Have a banana.

----------


## YesNo

> *I find it sad that your knowledge if logic and science is so shockingly poor that you could come to this conclusion.*
> 
> There are whole libraries full of hard evidence as to the age and evolution of both planets and species, all of which is completely supported by logical argument using facts.
> 
> You're most welcome to believe an entity is responsible for creation of the universe, but the idea that "intelligent design" is supported by any logical argument is laughable. So called "intelligent design" is a position of pure faith.
> 
> Have a banana.


So what is your view on the Big Bang? I don't believe I have heard it. 

I think blithe spirit makes a good point. The anthropic argument is a valid justification for considering a Design explanation for the universe. Although I don't agree with all the details, George Ellis, _Before the Beginning_, presents this view very clearly. There is nothing illogical or unscientific about it.

On the face of it, to have current scientific theory claim that the universe had a beginning at all is devastating to atheism. You need to explain how that could happened without a theistic argument.

----------


## G L Wilson

> So what is your view on the Big Bang? I don't believe I have heard it. 
> 
> I think blithe spirit makes a good point. The anthropic argument is a valid justification for considering a Design explanation for the universe. Although I don't agree with all the details, George Ellis, _Before the Beginning_, presents this view very clearly. There is nothing illogical or unscientific about it.
> 
> On the face of it, to have current scientific theory claim that the universe had a beginning at all is devastating to atheism.  You need to explain how that could happened without a theistic argument.


YesNo, you clearly know nothing about atheism, so don't go on about it as if you do know something. It is becoming rather annoying.

----------


## blithe spirit

Significant to note is that both TheAtheist and GLWison are so busy telling everyone how stupid they are that they forgot to post anything intelligent. It's boring when members only attack the poster instead of the post. 

There's not a whole lot to know about atheists, GLWilson. Atheists don't believe that dieties exist, nuff said. Absence of belief, btw, is a belief in itself. 

As far as evolution goes...so we started in a mud puddle that contained all that's needed for highly evolved order and design and all matter...talk about laughable. Where did the DNA come from in this ancient mud puddle that formed the first living cell? Little green space men? DNA is passed from living cells to living cells. That is true science, not speculation.

..and where did the mud puddle come from...oh yeah, the Big Bang that had an unexplained start...must have been a powerful force to light that switch...or a series of miracles on a grand scale. Evolutionists believe that something came from nothing...that's like 0 + 0 = 1. Is that in your library of facts, TheAthiest?

----------


## G L Wilson

No atheist ever claimed that they knew everything unlike some.

----------


## mazHur

Failing to reason out the existence of god, angels, miracles, etc tends to drive some people into loss of faith not only in divinity but also among them and resultantly they tend to call them so called atheists?

----------


## G L Wilson

> Failing to reason out the existence of god, angels, miracles, etc tends to drive some people into loss of faith not only in divinity but also among them and resultantly they tend to call them so called atheists?


The Atheist and I don't usually get on but when the chips are down we know which side we're on.

----------


## The Atheist

> So what is your view on the Big Bang? I don't believe I have heard it.


My view on it? That it probably happened will cover it. I'm happy enough that an event that occurred billions of years ago and billions of light-years away is still largely unexplained. 




> The anthropic argument is a valid justification for considering a Design explanation for the universe. Although I don't agree with all the details, George Ellis, _Before the Beginning_, presents this view very clearly. There is nothing illogical or unscientific about it.


Well, if you accept the anthropic argument, you can accept anything. I thought Douglas Adams had pretty well made people give up on it, but there you go.

If you think it has anything to do with science, you're sadly mistaken, and as to logic, it only works insofar as the premises and conclusion are the same, which is why it's a favourite of biblical scholars.




> On the face of it, to have current scientific theory claim that the universe had a beginning at all is devastating to atheism. You need to explain how that could happened without a theistic argument.


This is complete nonsense. The universe having a beginning is no threat to atheism and certainly does not call for a creator.

Do you really believe that, or just playing devil's advocate? I ask because it is incredibly naive to describe atheism in that form.




> Significant to note is that both TheAtheist and GLWison are so busy telling everyone how stupid they are that they forgot to post anything intelligent. It's boring when members only attack the poster instead of the post.


It's not attacking you personally, but your statement that logic cannot explain that which science already has - to the unanimous approval of actual scientists - is not the kind of thing I will allow to stand unchallenged. 

You can only make those statements through lacking education or malice and I don't think your being malicious. Ergo, the only possibility is that your science education is seriously lacking.

I'm perfectly happy that you have faith, but please do not use your faith as a means to blind yourself to actual facts and evidence that have existed for some considerable time.

I'm pretty sure I haven't told anyone they're stupid at any time.




> There's not a whole lot to know about atheists, GLWilson. Atheists don't believe that dieties exist, nuff said. Absence of belief, btw, is a belief in itself.


Here we go again - a claim and an egregious error. Absence of belief is not a belief. You can even test this yourself using Zeus, Osiris or Thor. 




> As far as evolution goes...so we started in a mud puddle that contained all that's needed for highly evolved order and design and all matter...talk about laughable. Where did the DNA come from in this ancient mud puddle that formed the first living cell? Little green space men? DNA is passed from living cells to living cells. That is true science, not speculation.


First off, you're talking about abiogensis, which is not evolution.

Regardless of that, if you want a lesson in relicating molecules, I'm happy to help, and we can start by looking at other proteins to see how they replicate and could have formed DNA. Where would you like to start? RNA? Prions? Lots of choices.

You are aware that chemicals can react with each other and form new molecules, aren't you? The molecules that exist now are not those in existence 1 second after the big bang.

As with the big bang, I'm quite happy that we have incomplete knowledge of an event [abiogenesis] that happened ~4 billion years ago. That we have not been able to copy the effect as yet does not make me want to grasp for an entity.




> ..and where did the mud puddle come from...oh yeah, the Big Bang that had an unexplained start...must have been a powerful force to light that switch...or a series of miracles on a grand scale. Evolutionists believe that something came from nothing...that's like 0 + 0 = 1. Is that in your library of facts, TheAthiest?


Is that what it breaks down to? That because science has not yet formed testable and tested theories for the big bang and abiogenesis you put your faith in an invisible entity? Man, he must've been bored for the ~13 billion years between kicking off the big bang and seeing humans walk about.

What the hell are you going to do if next week CERN tells us how the universe started and Stanford introduces a single-celled organism that they produced from elemental ingredients?

----------


## YesNo

> My view on it? That it probably happened will cover it. I'm happy enough that an event that occurred billions of years ago and billions of light-years away is still largely unexplained.


That is not an adequate explanation.




> This is complete nonsense. The universe having a beginning is no threat to atheism and certainly does not call for a creator.
> 
> Do you really believe that, or just playing devil's advocate? I ask because it is incredibly naive to describe atheism in that form.


If you do not find it a threat, you should. 

As an "atheist", you need a cause for that event or you forfeit the ground to theists. The attempts to come up with such a cause without a creator present us with absurd speculative multiverses or very improbable explanations that can be summarized as 'it just happened that way'. Since theistic design arguments better account for human ethics and consciousness than any of the alternatives so far, you need to do better than that or admit it is _Game Over_ for whatever you are promoting as "atheism".

I want to remind you: this is the 21st century, not the 19th. Science and logic are not automatically on your side.

----------


## G L Wilson

> That is not an adequate explanation.
> 
> 
> If you do not find it a threat, you should. 
> 
> As an "atheist", you need a cause for that event or you forfeit the ground to theists. The attempts to come up with such a cause without a creator present us with absurd speculative multiverses or very improbable explanations that can be summarized as 'it just happened that way'. Since theistic design arguments better account for human ethics and consciousness than any of the alternatives so far, you need to do better than that or admit it is _Game Over_ for whatever you are promoting as "atheism".
> 
> I want to remind you: this is the 21st century, not the 19th. Science and logic are not automatically on your side.


Science and logic has never been on your side. And it is the 21st century, why don't you get out and enjoy it, and leave the serious thinking to your betters?!

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Science and logic has never been on your side. And it is the 21st century, why don't you get out and enjoy it, and leave the serious thinking to your betters?!


I believe that he/she presented you with a realistic consideration. I do not think that personal attacks upon YesNo's thinking ability helps your argument in the slightest. The cosmological argument does in fact present atheism with some serious considerations at best, and at worst atheism falls apart completely without a reasonable answer to explain how, where, & why matter originated.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I believe that he/she presented you with a realistic consideration. I do not think that personal attacks upon YesNo's thinking ability helps your argument in the slightest. The cosmological argument does in fact present atheism with some serious considerations at best, and at worst atheism falls apart completely without a reasonable answer to explain how, where, & why matter originated.


The origins of matter matters not to an atheist, that the universe exists is enough to disprove the existence of God in his or her mind.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> The origins of matter matters not to an atheist, that the universe exists is enough to disprove the existence of God in his or her mind.


Such a statement shows that you are not prepared to answer the issues of origins. I guess there's not point in discussing it if you won't address it. The fact that the universe exists is enough to PROVE there is a God, but you can't see that. Good bye

----------


## ralfyman

Likely not, as the aspect considered defies logic.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Such a statement shows that you are not prepared to answer the issues of origins. I guess there's not point in discussing it if you won't address it. The fact that the universe exists is enough to PROVE there is a God, but you can't see that. Good bye


I am not prepared to answer the issues of material origin because I have no answer, the religio seems to. As in all things, the religious want atheists to answer what atheists cannot and see no fault in their own side. For instance, the origin of God is carefully cloaked amidst myth and earnest feeling to reveal nothing of danger. Let us hope that the aliens don't land because those idiots will begin to worship their three heads as the Trinity in no time.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Likely not, as the aspect considered defies logic.


He has no need of logic, he has faith: and faith tells him that there is a God, and that is the end of the argument as far as he is concerned. It is no good talking to these people, they are ignoramuses - the lot of them.

----------


## The Atheist

> That is not an adequate explanation.


You'll have to wait until there is one then. Considering we've only had computers for ~60 years, radiotelescopes for 70 and particle accelerators for 80, I'm not too fussed.

Why do you think it's so important?




> If you do not find it a threat, you should.


Nope, you're making this up as you go along.

I'll give you an example:

Are you atheist about the existence of Thor, Osiris and Neptune? If so, why doesn't the origin of the universe work the same for them? 




> As an "atheist", you need a cause for that event or you forfeit the ground to theists.


This is nonsensical and is just a misuse of the term "atheist".

As I've been at enormous pains to point out, atheists include panspermians, those who believe life was brought to earth by aliens, Buddhists and David Icke. Just as there is no "cause" of atheism, the cause of the universe is completely irrelevant.




> The attempts to come up with such a cause without a creator present us with absurd speculative multiverses or very improbable explanations that can be summarized as 'it just happened that way'. Since theistic design arguments better account for human ethics and consciousness than any of the alternatives so far, you need to do better than that or admit it is _Game Over_ for whatever you are promoting as "atheism".


This is more pure nonsense. Even the unproven theories around the creation of the universe have some evidence which points in the direction of a big bang, while only anthropic arguments advance a creator.

Human ethics, consciousness and emotions are actually very easy to demonstrate as scientific fact since the use of MRI scans became widespread.

I find it amusing that you make wild claims without any scientific knowledge whatsoever. Biology and neurology combine neatly to arrive at a rational explanation for sentient beings and I'm surprised anyone other than a hardcore fundamental would try to deny that. Maybe you are just unaware of scientific advances over the past 50 years?




> I want to remind you: this is the 21st century, not the 19th. Science and logic are not automatically on your side.


Science doesn't have a "side".

Do you even know how science works or what it actually is?

----------


## G L Wilson

Of course she doesn't, otherwise she/he wouldn't be making these ridiculous claims.

----------


## prickly_pete

Yeah, I don't see why our inability to explain something that happened 10 Billion years ago makes theism more probable by default.

----------


## blithe spirit

> I find it sad that your knowledge if logic and science is so shockingly poor...





> you clearly know nothing about atheism, so don't go on about it as if you do know something. It is becoming rather annoying.





> You can only make those statements through lacking education...the only possibility is that your science education is seriously lacking.





> it is the 21st century, why don't you get out and enjoy it, and leave the serious thinking to your betters?!





> I believe that he/she presented you with a realistic consideration. I do not think that personal attacks upon YesNo's thinking ability helps your argument in the slightest. The cosmological argument does in fact present atheism with some serious considerations at best, and at worst atheism falls apart completely without a reasonable answer to explain how, where, & why matter originated.





> The origins of matter matters not to an atheist, that the universe exists is enough to disprove the existence of God in his or her mind.





> It is no good talking to these people, they are ignoramuses - the lot of them.





> Such a statement shows that you are not prepared to answer the issues of origins. I guess there's not point in discussing it if you won't address it. The fact that the universe exists is enough to PROVE there is a God, but you can't see that. Good bye


Amen, BienvenuJDC. I think people who resort to personal attacks do so from their own frustrated inadequacies while they scramble to defend their statements with nothing to substantial to say. It's a cheap, ineffective, and immature defense mechanism. Do they not know that all readers recognize this age-old technique of putting others down to make themselves look superior when in fact it has the opposite affect? Mature readers only respect intelligent responses.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

It seems that the discussion has drifted from the original purpose. The question is if a belief in God can be supported by logic. It is not whether it can be PROVEN by logic. It is NOT about atheism proving their side, or disproving the theist's side.

I can believe in God, and I can support it with logical conclusions. What I do NOT understand is why there are so many atheist that seem threatened by other's belief in God.

----------


## prickly_pete

> Amen, BienvenuJDC. I think people who resort to personal attacks do so from their own frustrated inadequacies while they scramble to defend their statements with nothing to substantial to say.


In their defense though I don't think it inaccruate to characterize religious folks - probably a majority - as monsterously arrogant. I'm sorry, I've tried to give religion a shot, but everything I've seen in the last ten years from 9/11, to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, to Jerry Falwell, to actually having personally been to Iraq and seen with my own eyes the streets flowing with blood because of religion - I'm done. I'm sorry, but nothing has more power in this world with less objective worth and evidence than does religion. I gave it a sincere effort, but now I'm ready to go all Richard Dawkins onthis, seriously lol.

----------


## YesNo

> Yeah, I don't see why our inability to explain something that happened 10 Billion years ago makes theism more probable by default.


Since this is a literature site, I'd like to quote James Joyce's _Ulysses_ written in the early 20th century:

"You're not a believer, are you? Haines asked. I mean, a believer in the narrow sense of the word, Creation from nothing and miracles and a personal god."
What amazes me is how much things have changed in the past 100 years. The previously ridiculed religious view that the universe had an origin out of nothing is now the current scientific theory.

What science has done with finding empirical evidence for the origin of the universe out of nothing is validated an ancient religious belief. 

The atheists now need to scramble to save their theories. Attempts are made to invoke chance to save them. Unfortunately getting chance involved at this stage often implies the existence of infinitely many alternate universes which conveniently no one could ever see leaving such explanations indefinitely speculative. They might as well just say, "God did it."

----------


## G L Wilson

YesNo, how does "chance" evoke this multiverse of yours?

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> In their defense though I don't think it inaccruate to characterize religious folks - probably a majority - as monsterously arrogant. I'm sorry, I've tried to give religion a shot, but everything I've seen in the last ten years from 9/11, to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, to Jerry Falwell, to actually having personally been to Iraq and seen with my own eyes the streets flowing with blood because of religion - I'm done. I'm sorry, but nothing has more power in this world with less objective worth and evidence than does religion. I gave it a sincere effort, but now I'm ready to go all Richard Dawkins onthis, seriously lol.


I believe that there are arrogant people in both camps. You can choose to give up on religion, but that still doesn't change that one can have faith based on logic. It seems that much arrogance has been shown in this thread by the atheists...NOT the theists. Your argument seems to be without support.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I believe that there are arrogant people in both camps. You can choose to give up on religion, but that still doesn't change that one can have faith based on logic. It seems that much arrogance has been shown in this thread by the atheists...NOT the theists. Your argument seems to be without support.


BienvenuJDC, what logic could you have?

----------


## prickly_pete

> What science has done with finding empirical evidence for the origin of the universe out of nothing is validated an ancient religious belief.


You're writing from a fundamentally mistaken opinion of how ancient cosmology actually worked largely because of a mistaken assumption that Aristotle's - and by extension the Church's - concept of "cause" is synonymous with our own ideas about causality. This simply isn't true. 

Take the classic example of two billiard balls. Under our concept of causality Ball 1 colliding with Ball 2 creates a change in BOTH balls (Ball 1 while previously moving is now at rest. Ball 2 while previously at rest is now moving). Important here is the idea that when a thing acts on another thing it cannot do so without changing it's own constitution. 

Now if we take this concept of causality and apply it two God it creates a problem. Namely how God (supposedly omnipotent, eternal, and changeless) can act on thing and interact with things without him/herself being changed. Hmmmmm...

The Ancients were aware of this problem probably because they - in contrast to most of us it seems - were capable of sober thinking. Indeed Aristotle's cosmology (and thusly Church cosmology) doesn't conceive of the Universe as something created because this tends to raise more questions than it answers primarily because thought takes place in time which pretty much makes talking about a "beginning" and "end" of time unintelligible.

Rather Aristotle's universe had always existed and extended infinitely forward and backwards in time (which, sensibly avoids the rather ridiculous question of where time "started" or "came from".). The planets and stars had ALWAYS existed and always moved in a uniform manner. This is why the Church acted in such a violent manner when Galileo came along. I mean, it makes sense - if the Church had believed back then (as you claim) that the universe had been created out of nothing then how or why the planets moved would've been of no importance. In reality though the Heliocentric view of the universe was a direct challenge to the Church's conception of the universe and time.

Aristotle's "cause" is based way more on telos with the "ultimate cause" being an object of desire, the Platonic "idea" that the whole universe is trying to aspire to an emulate. Doesn't have anything to do with our notions of causality. Two completely unrelated things.

----------


## G L Wilson

David Hume's idea of causality is that it couldn't be known, therefore a cause's effect couldn't be known. It springs free will from captivity at least.

----------


## prickly_pete

Philosophy of science is interesting but I don't think it's much use to the common man like myself. This will likely be the only discussion I'll have for the next decade where Ancient cosmology can even be mentioned.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Philosophy of science is interesting but I don't think it's much use to the common man like myself. This will likely be the only discussion I'll have for the next decade where Ancient cosmology can even be mentioned.


I hadn't thought of that before about a cause having an aim, at least not seriously, that everything was moving to a plan. Today I can say that it is a very curious idea but in its heyday it must have been very convincing.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> BienvenuJDC, what logic could you have?


It seems logical to me that every effect would have a cause, and that anything that has a intricate design would have an intelligent designer. It doesn't seem logical to assume that everything that exists came about without purpose, without knowledge, and without a force that is above natural means. You may not agree with my assumptions, nor my conclusions, but to say that there isn't any logic in those thoughts, demonstrates a clear bias against a particular conclusion and a desire to reject an opposing side without giving any consideration. A reasonable individual should be able to give consideration to a differing view while still possessing the freedom to disagree.




> YesNo, how does "chance" evoke this multiverse of yours?


You seriously can't see that? Well, it seems that it this universe is one in a billion, then it stands to reason that there are a billion other universes out there...somewhere. Otherwise, if there is just one universe that happened to have everything happen JUST RIGHT, the odds for that are so astronomically minute that we might as well just say that it is impossible.

Now you're questioning the believer's logic?

----------


## G L Wilson

> You seriously can't see that? Well, it seems that it this universe is one in a billion, then it stands to reason that there are a billion other universes out there...somewhere. Otherwise, if there is just one universe that happened to have everything happen JUST RIGHT, the odds for that are so astronomically minute that we might as well just say that it is impossible.
> 
> Now you're questioning the believer's logic?


What does YesNo mean by chance? What does YesNo mean by a multiverse?
That is what I am asking.




> It seems logical to me that every effect would have a cause, and that anything that has a intricate design would have an intelligent designer. It doesn't seem logical to assume that everything that exists came about without purpose, without knowledge, and without a force that is above natural means. You may not agree with my assumptions, nor my conclusions, but to say that there isn't any logic in those thoughts, demonstrates a clear bias against a particular conclusion and a desire to reject an opposing side without giving any consideration. A reasonable individual should be able to give consideration to a differing view while still possessing the freedom to disagree.


Would you see craftsmanship in a weathered rock?

----------


## prickly_pete

> You can choose to give up on religion, but that still doesn't change that one can have faith based on logic.


Wouldn't it - assuming for the moment you have any clue of what you're talking about - cease to be faith at that point though? 'If all A's are B's, and all B's are C's then all C's are A's.' 

If this was all your 'faith' amounted to, conclusions that easily followed from their premises then (1) faith becomes reducable to a syllogism and isn't very special or inspiring and (2) it isn't actually faith at all because it required no suffering or 'soul searching' to attain it. It would be like saying you need faith to complete simple arithmetic. Ridiculous.

----------


## G L Wilson

"There is a God, this or that proves God exists, therefore there is a God." I don't call it logic, I call it a circular argument.

----------


## The Atheist

> I think people who resort to personal attacks do so from their own frustrated inadequacies while they scramble to defend their statements with nothing to substantial to say.


I don't accept that it is a personal attack to describe someone who has posted flagrant fallacies about scientific knowledge as "having a poor understanding of science".

I will re-quote your post:




> As far as evolution goes...so we started in a mud puddle that contained all that's needed for highly evolved order and design and all matter...talk about laughable. Where did the DNA come from in this ancient mud puddle that formed the first living cell? Little green space men? DNA is passed from living cells to living cells. That is true science, not speculation.


You are making egregious misrepresentations of actual science to try to prove that the bible is correct and evolutionary science wrong. At a time when even the Roman Catholic Church - by an enormous margin, the world's largest christian church - fully accepts that man evolved from single-celled organisms, your posting in that manner can only result from lacking knowledge of what the science actually shows.

----------


## G L Wilson

The Catholic Church is not the paragon of virtue that it makes itself out to be.

----------


## The Atheist

> The Catholic Church is not the paragon of virtue that it makes itself out to be.


Yeah, I do realise that, but I used it solely to display that only fundamental christianity cannot accept evolution. 80-90% of all christians are able to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence and believe evolution. 

Anti-evolutionary beliefs are an extreme minority, so I'm always amused by the "it can't be possible" references.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Yeah, I do realise that, but I used it solely to display that only fundamental christianity cannot accept evolution. 80-90% of all christians are able to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence and believe evolution. 
> 
> Anti-evolutionary beliefs are an extreme minority, so I'm always amused by the "it can't be possible" references.


I fear that it might be us who are in the minority, truth be told.

----------


## The Atheist

> I fear that it might be us who are in the minority, truth be told.


If you're talking about atheists, then yes, we are a minority, albeit a fast-growing minority. 

Either way, there are still a lot more atheists than young earth creationists.

Over a billion atheists, agnostics and non-theists, but <300,000,000 fundamental church members, not all of whom are YECs.

----------


## G L Wilson

> If you're talking about atheists, then yes, we are a minority, albeit a fast-growing minority. 
> 
> Either way, there are still a lot more atheists than young earth creationists.
> 
> Over a billion atheists, agnostics and non-theists, but <300,000,000 fundamental church members, not all of whom are YECs.


The public has more interest in their next beer and bonk than it has in perpetual conflict. It is the fundamental difference between us and them that is serving us wrong, we can never hate the way they do, there is no end to the hate that they are prepared to dish out, it serves them well. We may very well lose.

----------


## The Atheist

> The public has more interest in their next beer and bonk than it has in perpetual conflict.


And rightly so. 

When I was young and single and a party-boy, I was a full-on atheist, but the subject never came up, because you don't generally do metaphysics at the kind of parties I went to.

Now I wake up next to a babe every day, so I have more time for the eternal verities. I have no problem with apathetic agnostics though.




> It is the fundamental difference between us and them that is serving us wrong, we can never hate the way they do, there is no end to the hate that they are prepared to dish out, it serves them well. We may very well lose.


Oh, I think it's an almost-certain loser. They breed so much faster, and look at the different sales pitches:

Theist: You won't die and you will be happy and surrounded by your loved ones forever and ever!

Atheist: You're going to rot in the dirt and in 100 years' time, nobody will even know you existed.

----------


## G L Wilson

I am not certain that theism will lose. No-one on our side can question their cunning. The enemy is a sly dog that knows when to cower. Atheists are always too brave for their own good, that's the truth for certain. I will never grow tired of the fight, it's the cause that seems lost.

----------


## The Atheist

> I am not certain that theism will lose.


I was saying it won't.

----------


## G L Wilson

> I was saying it won't.


Oh, I'm sorry. Damn it, I refuse to lose.

Spirituality. I know that I have never felt it.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> You are making egregious misrepresentations...


The same could be said about most of your statements also...

----------


## YesNo

> YesNo, how does "chance" evoke this multiverse of yours?


It's not _my_ multiverse. If you are interested, Paul Davies, _Cosmic Jackpot_, provides a view of it that an atheist would find tolerable. George Ellis, _Before the Beginning_, provides an alternate approach. 

Since there is now empirical evidence that the universe actually had a beginning, the atheist needs to either acknowledge the reality of something else or use chance to claim that there are many universes (multiverse). This multiverse concept essentially makes 21st century atheism a religion. Personally, I am an atheist with respect to the multiverse.




> You're writing from a fundamentally mistaken opinion of how ancient cosmology actually worked largely because of a mistaken assumption that Aristotle's - and by extension the Church's - concept of "cause" is synonymous with our own ideas about causality. This simply isn't true. 
> ...
> Now if we take this concept of causality and apply it two God it creates a problem. Namely how God (supposedly omnipotent, eternal, and changeless) can act on thing and interact with things without him/herself being changed. Hmmmmm...


That is an interesting idea of how God could act on something without being changed. I'll have to keep it in mind. Perhaps causality, as you describe it, requires space and time which wouldn't have been around prior to the big bang.

Although I suspect Aristotle believed the universe was eternal, I don't think most religions do, but I haven't checked them all out. The creation out of nothing is I believe an explicitly Catholic formulation of this. And that is what current science now believes as well. 





> Oh, I think it's an almost-certain loser. They breed so much faster, and look at the different sales pitches:
> 
> Theist: You won't die and you will be happy and surrounded by your loved ones forever and ever!
> 
> Atheist: You're going to rot in the dirt and in 100 years' time, nobody will even know you existed.


Between us there is nothing to win or lose. I'm just clarifying my thoughts.

However, what _meaning_ is found in death and life and how human freedom should be exercised is a major difference between atheists and theists. The atheist says there is neither meaning nor freedom and uses that to build the kind of universe(s) needed to make sure there is neither meaning nor freedom. If that is not your particular viewpoint, what is?

The theist is free to look for something else.

----------


## prickly_pete

> That is an interesting idea of how God could act on something without being changed. I'll have to keep it in mind. Perhaps causality, as you describe it, requires space and time which wouldn't have been around prior to the big bang.


Its kind of difficult to think in terms of a "before" time.

----------


## G L Wilson

> It's not _my_ multiverse. If you are interested, Paul Davies, _Cosmic Jackpot_, provides a view of it that an atheist would find tolerable. George Ellis, _Before the Beginning_, provides an alternate approach. 
> 
> Since there is now empirical evidence that the universe actually had a beginning, the atheist needs to either acknowledge the reality of something else or use chance to claim that there are many universes (multiverse). This multiverse concept essentially makes 21st century atheism a religion. Personally, I am an atheist with respect to the multiverse.
> 
> 
> That is an interesting idea of how God could act on something without being changed. I'll have to keep it in mind. Perhaps causality, as you describe it, requires space and time which wouldn't have been around prior to the big bang.
> 
> Although I suspect Aristotle believed the universe was eternal, I don't think most religions do, but I haven't checked them all out. The creation out of nothing is I believe an explicitly Catholic formulation of this. And that is what current science now believes as well. 
> 
> ...


YesNo, I disagree with your characterisation of atheists as somehow trapped within a bleak outlook. Atheists know that philosophy is not always life-affirming and that we must move out of it into real life to get our senses back. As far as I can see, there is no getting out of religion, bleak as it may be, it is something that is always with you.

----------


## The Atheist

> The same could be said about most of your statements also...


I disagree. As long you accept that science works - and since you are using it, by way of computer, electricity and the internet, you must agree that at least some of it works - then my statements have been valid.




> Since there is now empirical evidence that the universe actually had a beginning, the atheist needs to either acknowledge the reality of something else or use chance to claim that there are many universes (multiverse).


This is still wrong. Repeating it won't make it true, either.




> The atheist says there is neither meaning nor freedom and uses that to build the kind of universe(s) needed to make sure there is neither meaning nor freedom.


Can you display evidence that atheists have said those things, please, as I don't believe I've ever seen them stated.

----------


## G L Wilson

Pure agitprop, The Atheist, they're full of it.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> I disagree. As long you accept that science works - and since you are using it, by way of computer, electricity and the internet, you must agree that at least some of it works - then my statements have been valid.


This is totally unrelated to the comment. You can disagree all you want, that doesn't change the reality of it. It seems that you have confused "science" with "technology".

----------


## prickly_pete

> It seems that you have confused "science" with "technology".


Yeah, because technology has nothing to do with scientific development lol.

----------


## G L Wilson

Yeah, now the magic trick of Catholic Mass is real science, right, JDC?

----------


## The Atheist

> This is totally unrelated to the comment. You can disagree all you want, that doesn't change the reality of it. It seems that you have confused "science" with "technology".


You're kidding, aren't you?

Otherwise, can you specify a technology that doesn't use science?

----------


## YesNo

> Its kind of difficult to think in terms of a "before" time.


Yeah, it is. 

Your point about causality is good. No matter how the big bang was triggered, it was not a normal cause and effect event. I like to think of there being a dimension that is eternal from which the finite universe was somehow triggered to start. Consciousness would have to be in that dimension and what this gives me is a place where freedom and consciousness can reside.

The "eternal" part of this dimension should not be a problem. Previously people thought the universe was somehow eternal even after the 2nd law of thermodynamics was formulated in the 19th century. The idea of the multiverse is also a way to make the collection of universes eternal again, but now with the mechanism of "eternal inflation", that is, Big Bangs just keep happening all over the "place" and "time", whatever that means in the context.




> Can you display evidence that atheists have said those things, please, as I don't believe I've ever seen them stated.


Actually, I'm getting the idea that atheists support a worldview that is meaningless from Paul Davies, _Cosmic Jackpot_. Here is a sample (page 15):

Many scientists who are struggling to construct a fully comprehensive theory of the physical universe openly admit that part of the motivation is to finally get rid of God, whom they view as a dangerous and infantile delusion. And not only God, but any vestige of God-talk, such as "meaning" or "purpose" or "design" in nature.
The part about freedom I picked up from conversations in this thread. Realize that when freedom goes, so does any "meaningful" discussion of ethics.

If that is not your view also, what is?




> Yeah, now the magic trick of Catholic Mass is real science, right, JDC?


Although I did introduce Catholicism in this discussion, it was just to illustrate that the idea of the universe having a beginning is a general religious idea. It is not peculiar to Catholicism. This is one place where the religious dimension makes itself manifest. That the universe had a beginning is enough to justify various religious positions.

The additional idea of "creatio ex nihilo" has a long history and now appears to be mainstream scientific theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

----------


## Scheherazade

*~

W a r n i n g

Please show respect towards those whose views differ from yours.

If you find yourselves unable to do so, please do not hesitate to ignore these discussions.

~*

----------


## CellarDoor

I'll give this one a shot:

A. (Causality and determinism are not synonymous,) the universe is causally non-deterministic (this is supported by quantum mechanics) and it's beginning cannot be predicted by science or the laws of nature.
B. A Miracle is an event that is not predictable by science or the laws of nature, and must therefore be caused by god.
C. The universe is a miracle, and must therefore be caused by god.

This is a logically valid deductive argument A implies B, B implies C, therefore A implies C. But the truth or fallacy of a logically valid argument lies in the truth of the assertions. 

A non-secularist/spiritualist may find B to be true and accept the existence of god while an Atheist will find B false (just because something is not predictable by science, doesn't imply the existence of god as it's likely we do not yet have enough information to understand the cause of said event) and deny the existence of god.

I wanted to touch briefly on the deterministic argument and how this relates to free will. Causality is the key in this argument, and current thought in Quantum Mechanics implies that it's possible to have a causally non-deterministic universe (see radioactive decay). In the case of causal non-determinism, one option is that each state of the universe implies a set of possible outcomes and probability determines what the outcome will actually be. This still doesn't leave room for true free will, but it starts to open some wiggle room for science and free will to co-exist. The real purpose of this is to illustrate that causality is not a fact, but a theory, and that belief in science also requires a leap of faith of it's own (an inductive argument with one true example is just as strong as an inductive argument with billions of examples, both require faith -- typically founded on theory -- that you will not find an exception to the rule).

In any case the above deduction is only for illustrative purposes. In this and every case in which logic is used to support belief in god/free will, the truth of the assertions will always come down to a matter of faith. Therefore logic can neither prove (support), nor disprove (erode) the existence of god.

Atheism or any non-secular/spiritual belief will always required a leap of faith. Agnosticism on the other hand, is just dodging the question and hedging your bets.

----------


## prickly_pete

> The "eternal" part of this dimension should not be a problem.


How does postulating the existence of a paralell time sphere - which so far exists only in our imaginations - do anything but obsfucate and obstruct the issue?

----------


## The Atheist

> Actually, I'm getting the idea that atheists support a worldview that is meaningless from Paul Davies, _Cosmic Jackpot_. Here is a sample (page 15):
> 
> Many scientists who are struggling to construct a fully comprehensive theory of the physical universe openly admit that part of the motivation is to finally get rid of God, whom they view as a dangerous and infantile delusion. *And not only God, but any vestige of God-talk, such as "meaning" or "purpose" or "design" in nature.*


(bold mine)

That isn't what you said, which was:

"The atheist says there is neither meaning nor freedom"

Which is completely different from what you quoted. He is clearly not even on the same subject as you. The man couldn't be clearer; he even put quotation marks around the key words. What he says is correct, by the way.

Let's assume you manage to find one atheist that agrees with you - that would in no way prove you're right, because you are applying it to all atheists and it's patently obvious that not one of the several atheists in this thread believes it.




> The part about freedom I picked up from conversations in this thread. Realize that when freedom goes, so does any "meaningful" discussion of ethics.


Can you point to them, because all I've seen are discussions on "free will", that I've avoided because I think it's a pointless debate, so it may be in one of those posts. Note: freedom and "free will" are not the same.




> If that is not your view also, what is?


My view on the Meaning of Life?

42 or Monty Python's movie of the same name. The message is much the same and said far better than I could manage.





> I'll give this one a shot:
> 
> A. (Causality and determinism are not synonymous,) the universe is causally non-deterministic (this is supported by quantum mechanics) and it's beginning cannot be predicted by science or the laws of nature.


Incorrect.

It is causally deterministic as proved by every molecule we've met so far. In case you hadn't noticed, the nature of subatomic particles has not actually changed anything. Wheels still turn and electricity still works. U239 decays at non-deterministic intervals. And its affect on the universe has been?

It's hard to get one's head around particle physics, which is why people study it for decades.

Best leave it for them.




> The real purpose of this is to illustrate that causality is not a fact, but a theory, and that belief in science also requires a leap of faith of it's own (an inductive argument with one true example is just as strong as an inductive argument with billions of examples, both require faith -- typically founded on theory -- that you will not find an exception to the rule).


You're almost right here - there is one article of faith required to accept science: that reality exists. It doesn't require, as you state " a leap of faith" just a choice between solipsism and not. I can crawl past that one, never mind leaping.

Nice try though.

I'll at least give you kudos for taking on the actual subject of the OP!

 :Thumbsup: 




> Atheism or any non-secular/spiritual belief will always required a leap of faith.


Sadly, you're wrong again - about atheism anyway.

Atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief and requires no logic, no proof, no nothing. You don't need anything to _not_ believe.

----------


## BienvenuJDC

> Atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief and requires no logic, no proof, no nothing. You don't need anything to _not_ believe.


Well, at least you have admitted that atheism cannot be supported by logic.

----------


## The Atheist

> Well, at least you have admitted that atheism cannot be supported by logic.


No, I said "requires".

Atheism _can_ be supported by logic, but it doesn't _need_ to be.

----------


## Ecurb

The logical reader of atheist's posts will notice that "no nothing" means "something". Does atheism require something or nothing? 

To quote Rhett Butler, "Frankly, my dear...."

----------


## prickly_pete

Yeah, _prove_ to me there's nothing in this room! lol

----------


## G L Wilson

How do you justify your atheism to yourself, The Atheist?

----------


## CowabungaChrist

One among many reasons Atheism will have difficulty claiming a majority is because it is a belief system based on a lack of conclusive evidence. Christianity, I believe, would have failed as well if it hadn't been forced upon the masses by political powers during an age of rife instability. Interestingly atheists assert the same flaw upon Christians, but only we can be wrong I take it. We are also blamed for our hubris, interesting indeed. 

Science has done nothing, not one thing in all its history as an asset to our enlightenment and preservation, to disprove the existence of an alternate entity or dimension beyond our own. In fact scientists have recently found legitimacy for several theories that alternate dimensions with their own forms of energy and matter do in fact exist. On top of that, I think anybody will have a great deal of difficulty finding someone (anywhere in the world) who really disagrees with the moral principles instructed by Jesus Christ. We have seen even in Arab and non-Christian countries that the practice of non-violence and empathy for your enemy has won international sympathy and respect for a person and their cause. I wonder why that is.

----------


## prickly_pete

> On top of that, I think anybody will have a great deal of difficulty finding someone (anywhere in the world) who really disagrees with the moral principles instructed by Jesus Christ.


I think even within Christianity you'll have a great deal of difficulty finding agreement on what the moral principles instructed by Jesus Christ actually are.

----------


## prickly_pete

> One among many reasons Atheism will have difficulty claiming a majority


Is atheism not a majority in practice in most European countries where less than 10% of the population practices religion in any substantive way? I think most people that oppose organized religion are less concerned with finding conclusive proof of non-existence (insofar as such a thing is even possible) than they are preventing a hoard of religious idiots promoting bigotry, beating the drums for war, and seizing control of government. Casting serious doubt appears to be enough to accomplish this goal given the massive decline of religion just in the last century.

People can sort of passively be "spiritual" or believe in a transcendent "life force" - so long as they're staying home to watch _NFL Countdown_ on Sunday's instead of going to Church, I doubt Atheists could really give two ****s. What a man believes in the deep recesses of his mind doesn't really seem to be the issue. Clubbing everyone over the heads with religious fervor seems to be what people find really offensive.

----------


## The Atheist

> One among many reasons Atheism will have difficulty claiming a majority is because it is a belief system based on a lack of conclusive evidence. Christianity, I believe, would have failed as well if it hadn't been forced upon the masses by political powers during an age of rife instability. Interestingly atheists assert the same flaw upon Christians, but only we can be wrong I take it. We are also blamed for our hubris, interesting indeed.


First and foremost, atheism isn't a belief system. There is no conclusion to require evidence for.

It's no surprise theists want to say that is so, but it is demonstrably wrong.

Also, as noted by Pete, many European countries, and the UK, have a majority of atheists. Oddly, those European countries - Holland, Sweden and the like, that are overwhelmingly secular, have the fewest negative social conditions. 




> On top of that, I think anybody will have a great deal of difficulty finding someone (anywhere in the world) who really disagrees with the moral principles instructed by Jesus Christ.


Oh, please.

Even in USA, over 90% of armed forces personnel self-describe as "christian".

yet, despite having read the bible very carefully, I can find no place where Jesus says it's ok to wage war. In fact, all the passages I find state exactly the obvious. Christians clearly don't believe it or act upon, so why would anyone care.

As to the relevance of Jesus' teachings nowadays, I doubt many people would see adultery as a "sin".




> How do you justify your atheism to yourself, The Atheist?


Nothing. What's to justify? 

If I had a belief, I'd need to justify it, but not having a belief takes no effort at all.

(saves a lot of time & money as well.  :Wink: )

----------


## G L Wilson

> First and foremost, atheism isn't a belief system. There is no conclusion to require evidence for.
> 
> It's no surprise theists want to say that is so, but it is demonstrably wrong.
> 
> What's to justify? 
> 
> If I had a belief, I'd need to justify it, but not having a belief takes no effort at all.


Your atheism is taken on faith then, The Atheist?

----------


## The Atheist

> Your atheism is taken on faith then, The Atheist?


 :Smilielol5: 

Exactly the opposite. 

No faith in the existence of deities = atheism. That's how mine works, anyway.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Exactly the opposite. 
> 
> No faith in the existence of deities = atheism. That's how mine works, anyway.


What makes you so sure there are no gods?




> Nothing.


Right, nothing makes you think that there are no gods? Well, at least that's something.

Why is nothing something?

You won't ask me that question, will you? Because I will have to discontinue this conversation otherwise.

----------


## YesNo

> (bold mine)
> 
> That isn't what you said, which was:
> 
> "The atheist says there is neither meaning nor freedom"


What Davies wrote about meaning is what I said. It is amusing how you try to dodge the question.




> Let's assume you manage to find one atheist that agrees with you - that would in no way prove you're right, because you are applying it to all atheists and *it's patently obvious that not one of the several atheists in this thread believes it.*
> 
> My view on the Meaning of Life?
> 
> 42 or Monty Python's movie of the same name. The message is much the same and said far better than I could manage.


So, what is your view on meaning and human freedom and what do those several atheists in this thread, whom you seem to represent, believe in or not believe in regarding it?

----------


## G L Wilson

Man is naked, why should he feel wretched?

----------


## Ecurb

> As to the relevance of Jesus' teachings nowadays, I doubt many people would see adultery as a "sin".
> 
> )


Huh? Why not?

If breaking solemn, public promises, made not only to one's spouse but to both "God and this company" isn't a sin, what is?

----------


## The Atheist

> What makes you so sure there are no gods?


Have you got time for me to write a book?

Let's stick to the blindingly obvious:

Zero evidence to suggest they exist.

Overwhelming evidence that every god is a human construction.




> What Davies wrote about meaning is what I said. It is amusing how you try to dodge the question.


Dodge what question?

If you're saying that what you originally said has been amended to what Davies wrote, then I agree with you. It is not what you originally said. Do you want me to quote it again? Maybe it's what you _intended_, but it is emphatically not what you _said_.

If you check back, I said:




> What he says is correct, by the way.


There is no general meaning that applies to everyone, and I think - along with some far greater brains than mine, Hawking and Einstein*, for instance - that it is childish to think so.

We give our own lives meaning.

*OMG!!!1! an appeal to authority!





> So, what is your view on meaning and human freedom and what do those several atheists in this thread, whom you seem to represent, believe in or not believe in regarding it?


I am making no claim to rperesent anyone but myself and I think it's pretty dishonest of you to format your statement that way. I haven't ever tried to claim anyone else agrees with me. 

As to your question, I just said what I think about "meaning".

Freedom? What is your actual question? Humans are free to do pretty much anything they like. What part are you struggling with?




> Huh? Why not?
> 
> If breaking solemn, public promises, made not only to one's spouse but to both "God and this company" isn't a sin, what is?


I have no idea - the concept of "sin" is entirely made up, if you ask me.

Whatever method you choose, I won't be able to fit "having sex with someone you are not married/partnered to" is going to be a Bad Thing.

What about couples who choose to swing? Are they committing adultery? What about the man married to a woman who will not have sex with him that visits hookers? Even in the most blatant adultery, it can be a good thing because it can shake some complacent wife out of the house and into a loving relationship, or at least an independent life.

I take it you believe women are committing a sin if they refuse to leave abusive relationships because they've promised their god in public that they will stay together "for better or worse"? What's a bit of biff in the mouth against an eternity of fire?

----------


## Ecurb

> I have no idea - the concept of "sin" is entirely made up, if you ask me.
> 
> Whatever method you choose, I won't be able to fit "having sex with someone you are not married/partnered to" is going to be a Bad Thing.
> 
> What about couples who choose to swing? Are they committing adultery? What about the man married to a woman who will not have sex with him that visits hookers? Even in the most blatant adultery, it can be a good thing because it can shake some complacent wife out of the house and into a loving relationship, or at least an independent life.
> 
> I take it you believe women are committing a sin if they refuse to leave abusive relationships because they've promised their god in public that they will stay together "for better or worse"? What's a bit of biff in the mouth against an eternity of fire?


Obviously, 'sin' is a religious word. Nonetheless, it can certainly mean a transgression against a requirement of duty, correctness, or propriety. Surely it is true that if we make a solemn, public promise, then it is our "duty' to fullfil that promise (if possible). 

The concept that the adulterer is 'sinning' only against his or her spouse is erroneous, I think. The promise (if, indeed it was included in the marriage vows, which it often is) was made before "God and this Company" -- which, figuratively at least, includes every member of the public. So any promise that is broken is a promise made to you and to me and to every other member of "this company", which comprises all of society.

Obviously, sex with someone to whom one is not married is a completely different can of worms. No promises have been made or broken. 

I don't doubt that adultery can be a positive thing in many ways --as you say. No doubt (also) sometimes sinning is better than an alternative (a spouse may rationally choose to sin rather than to live the rest of his or her live in a sexless, loveless marriage). However, breaking promises is surely a breach of "duty", and as such a sin. What is constituted in the word "duty", if not (among other things) being true to one's sworn word?

In the case of civil marriages where no vows of sexual fidelity are made (I have no idea if such marriages exist), I'll grant that adultery is not necessarily a sin.

----------


## G L Wilson

> Have you got time for me to write a book?
> 
> Let's stick to the blindingly obvious:
> 
> Zero evidence to suggest they exist.
> 
> Overwhelming evidence that every god is a human construction.


Okay, we have established that nothing supports your argument for atheism, that it is an amusement at best. What use is it to others?

----------


## The Atheist

> Okay, we have established that nothing supports your argument for atheism, that it is an amusement at best.


I'm just going to ignore this. You asked, I gave a brief answer; you choose to ignore it, no problem.




> What use is it to others?


What do "others" have to do with it? It's a purely personal position.




> So any promise that is broken is a promise made to you and to me and to every other member of "this company", which comprises all of society.


This is why Jesus is reputed to have said "He who is without sin may cast the first stone".

I doubt anyone hasn't broken a promise at some stage and the idea that a borken promise is a "sin" is quite alien to me. It's like doing the high jump and starting the bar at 3m - nobody passes.

----------


## Ecurb

> This is why Jesus is reputed to have said "He who is without sin may cast the first stone".
> 
> I doubt anyone hasn't broken a promise at some stage and the idea that a borken promise is a "sin" is quite alien to me. It's like doing the high jump and starting the bar at 3m - nobody passes.


Why is the idea that everyone has sinned "quite alien" to you? It's certainly not alien to Christians, who know "there is none righteous, no, not one." Everyone bhas sinned in a great many ways -- not just by breaking promises. 

But redemption is possible -- even in the atheist world. The sin of adultery can be redeemed by (you guessed it!) love.

----------


## ftil

> The Atheist wrote:
> 
> First and foremost, atheism isn't a belief system. There is no conclusion to require evidence for.


HmI wonder why do you say that. Whether we believe in deities or not is our belief. Our reality is based on beliefs.

----------


## prickly_pete

> But redemption is possible -- even in the atheist world.


No it isn't, that's exactly what makes Christianity so radical or revolutionary. You sin in the secular world you goto jail, you lose your wife, you lose your house...its over! There's no chance for atonement!!! If there was then banks would ignore my credit score!!!

----------


## Ecurb

> No it isn't, that's exactly what makes Christianity so radical or revolutionary. You sin in the secular world you goto jail, you lose your wife, you lose your house...its over! There's no chance for atonement!!! If there was then banks would ignore my credit score!!!


Sometimes you lose your wife, sometimes you don't. I didn't say that redemption is automatic, simply that it is possible. 

The reason Christianity is revolutionary is not because redemption is impossible for atheists (we "redeem" a debt by paying it, for example), but because the Christian is redeemed through no merit of his own, but by the sacrifice of Christ. Our financial debts are redeemed with money; our moral debts (for the Christian) are redeemed by Jesus' love and sacrifice.

----------


## prickly_pete

> Our financial debts are redeemed with money.


WRONG! If I go in debt that record stays with me for the rest of my life...If I goto jail that record stays with me for the rest of my life...If I check into a rehab clinic that record stays with me for the rest of my life... 

Secular society doesn't forgive!!! It couldn't survive if it did!!! Loans might be granted to irresponsible people...jobs might be given to ex-convicts...drivers liscenses might be granted to drug addicts...this isn't efficient!!! Its a betrayal of the entire secular system!!! The whole thing would come crashing down in a matter of weeks if we operated this way!!!

A Christian loans his/her money and doesn't worry about getting a return on the investment!!! The Brotherhood of Man!!!

----------


## Ecurb

> WRONG! If I go in debt that record stays with me for the rest of my life...If I goto jail that record stays with me for the rest of my life...If I check into a rehab clinic that record stays with me for the rest of my life... 
> 
> Secular society doesn't forgive!!! It couldn't survive if it did!!! Loans might be granted to irresponsible people...jobs might be given to ex-convicts...drivers liscenses might be granted to drug addicts...this isn't efficient!!! Its a betrayal of the entire secular system!!! The whole thing would come crashing down in a matter of weeks if we operated this way!!!



Huh? If you go into debt (as everyone does whenever he uses a credit card) you redeem the debt when you pay the bill. Also, loans ARE granted to irresponsible people and drivers licenses to drug addicts. That's obvious. 

You can't change history -- if you welch on a loan, you have welched on a loan. But you can redeem the welching. It's easy. You send a check to the people to whom you owe money. (Make sure you have money in your checking account, or it doesn't count.)

----------


## prickly_pete

> Huh? If you go into debt (as everyone does whenever he uses a credit card) you redeem the debt when you pay the bill.


Ever heard of a credit score? You get a negative rating when you miss payments and that just doesn't go away when you pay a bill.




Religious people are ****ing stupid!!! Even when you're willing to meet them half-way!!! They're Right with a capital "R"!!! Nobody else in the world knows a thing!!! Trust them - they know more than you do!!!

Ecurb,

I was trying to make a point about some of the merits of Christianity but you just couldn't leave it alone. **** you and your Bible-thumping. **** you and your Church! Stay the **** away from my children!

How's that? Happy now?!?!?

----------


## Ecurb

Since I am an atheist, your rants make me feel guilt by association -- like a sophisiticated Christian might feel hearing the rants of a Fundamentalist.

----------


## Scheherazade

> *~
> 
> W a r n i n g
> 
> Please show respect towards those whose views differ from yours.
> 
> If you find yourselves unable to do so, please do not hesitate to ignore these discussions.
> 
> ~*


Since the warning above has not been taken seriously enough, this thread will now be closed.

----------

