Sorry for the long delay. I was busy and when I did have time, the site was down.
Lance_Iguana said:
If a Christian/Theist claims that a diety or God exists, burdon of proof is on them. If a Naturalist/ Atheist claims that there is no god (s), then the burdon of proof is on them. Neither side is in perpetual need of proof, its all context The burdon of proof is on who poses the question.
I agree. Both sides should share some burden of proof, and the context should dictate. However, that hasn’t been my experience when debating Atheists.
Reason is relative to experiance and ignorance. Evidence is the deciding factor. The only default
position is ignorance. A person isn't born knowing what anything is. It can sense, but not define. So
Atheism and Agnosticism take that arena.
But as a person grows and learns, he doesn’t stay ignorant. I would agree that the default position is ignorance, until a person matures enough to understand and questions are asked. The question here is not “does God existâ€, it’s “what are the origins of the universeâ€, which is even more basic. Once the question is asked and understood, the person looks at the evidence at hand and decides which is the most reasonable theory. If the answer is still “I don’t know for certainâ€, he will usually come down on the side which seems most reasonable to him. To me, the creation side makes the most sense. No matter which “side†you take, both creation and randomness take some amount of faith to actually believe.
[quote:3b1e23qb] My question for you is, which is the more reasonable position, that the universe was created by a Divine Cause, or that it it was due to a random set of events?
Well both are out there. I think we need to explain what those random events are though. They
where random then, but now we have an idea of how they work.
[/quote:3b1e23qb]
Even if we know HOW things work, doesn’t mean we know what started them or Who the “Worker†is. Even though our knowledge has grown, that doesn’t change the fact that we are still left with only two options, creation or randomness. Either there is a Mind behind creation or there isn’t.
My point of view is that the universe is Eternal and always was, so the random events make the most reasonable argument to me.
You are showing a lot of faith,
but I think your working hypothesis is wrong. I’m sure we would both agree that it’s a scientific fact that all matter is in decay, after all, that is what time is, the measure of decay. Since the universe is made of decaying matter, I think it’s impossible for it to be eternal. Is this the only reason that “randomness†makes the most sense to you, or is it the most obvious reason?
The Big Bang took place when there was no time, so eternal existence and the laws of physics clicks with me, though I can't be for certain, so I wait to see what more can be descrived and tested.
And here is another example of your “faithâ€. You believe in an unproved theory, until “more can be described and tested.†I think this is reasonable, though I think the creation theory is much more plausible. I’ll believe it until it’s PROVEN incorrect. This is my point. Atheists actually BELIEVE in things they can’t see (have faith), based on evidence, yet take the position in the argument of; “If you say there is a creator, the burden of proof is on you. I don’t believe in the tooth-fairy or bigfoot, so someone has to prove they exist, I don’t have to prove they don’tâ€. As you said above, we share the burden if we are asking the question “what is the origin of the universe?â€
I think you need to show why it is more resonable. As I explained above reson is reltive based on
world view. Nothing to comples is needed, just an explanation of why oyou take the position.
There is a famous quote by an Atheist who was asked the question “If you died and were wrong, and there IS a God, what would you say to Him?†I’m sure you’ve heard his answer before. “Why didn’t you give us more evidence?†In short, I think our entire human experience is “proof†for the existence of a Creator. From the fact that our universe is orderly and there is not one example EVER of order coming from chaos, to the gravitational pull of the earth, to the pollination of flowers, to the fact of swirling atoms, all point to a divine Mind behind our universe. The only other option is randomness, and I don’t have enough faith to believe that.
If you believe in randomness or creation being brought into existence without a Guiding Force, you have to prove why it’s a more reasonable theory also, right?
Lance_Iguana said:
Here is a question. Do you as a Atheist look at the watchmaker argument with any significance? Not necersarily as pure creation, but as a way of symbolizing all that is.
Example being, a creation that had to be made out of its complexity, or an eternal entity with continuos revolutions and no battery life known. The idea of possibly an absent watchmaker, or possibly us being the continuos maintaners of the watch?
I'll take a stab.
If the universe is created by God, it was created out of what? If God is the Cause of ALL creation, then He made matter out of nothing, right? If a person makes a chair and walks away, it remains a chair because it's made out of wood and the wood has certain properties that allow it to stand alone. Not so with the properties of “nothingâ€. If God walked away, so to speak, everything would revert back to nothingness. That's why the Catholic Church teaches that God is constantly holding us in existence and all existence, in whatever form, comes from Him. Therefore, the "watchmaker" theory is wrong.
- who talked in exactly the same way. Both would use the word Chrestus instead of Jesus.