[_ Old Earth _] ...

[JoelW]

I find it interesting that many atheistic evolutionists say that they don't believe in the outrageous assumption that there is a Creator, while they believe in the outrageous assumption of time and chance.

It is remarkable that the very universe we inhabit speaks so much of intricate design, yet Creationists are thought to be wishful thinkers by many. Not on the level of true atheism however. True atheism is not this psudo-agnostic philosophy that many self-proclaimed atheists boast today. Pure atheism is not a "Lack" of belief in God, but an outright "Denial" of God's existance.

Webster's Online Dictionary gives this meaning to the atheist... "Someone who (Denies) the existance of God." Not someone lacking faith in God, as the true agnostic would be.

The reason atheists today are trying to adopt a more agnostic philosophy is simply because, atheism in it's purest sense is an absolute failure. There is simply no way of proving the validity of an atheist's claim, anymore than there is for the Christian to prove God's existance.

On the contrary however, the Christian view is superior to that of true atheism. In order for a true atheist to deny the Creator's existance they would have to believe that the laws of the universe, and everything produced and sustained by those laws were entirely self-made without the help of an (Intelligence). The Christian viewpoint acknowledges the overwhelming "Connectedness" in the universe as having an intelligent origin. That is why today's atheists are moving more and more into agnosticism. It's a much more comfortable position to be in.

Science is all about following the evidence. Well, (Evidently) the universe has incredible design to it. You can't say otherwise without being blind. And, you can't affirm such a statement without being biased either. So, Christians really are biased. So are atheists. Nevertheless, the universe seems to favor the Christian viewpoint far more than the (True) atheistic viewpoint. You don't look at a Ford Mustang after never seeing anything resembling a car before and call it an accident. You see design to it. You may not understand it's (purpose), but you know enough to recognize that it was unusually fashioned,... designed.

So, as a belief-system, true atheism is not a more "Intelligent" position than Creationism. True atheism has no choice but to deny the direction that the evidence is pointing, while Creationists do not.

 

[JoelW]

Ummm OK.

I thought I was posting this in another thread rather than starting a whole new thread. Sorry bout that

 

[ThinkerMan]

I find it interesting that many atheistic evolutionists say that they don't believe in the outrageous assumption that there is a Creator, while they believe in the outrageous assumption of time and chance.

I find playing the state lottery an "outrageous assumption of chance", yet there is still a winner.

Just because something is left to chance doesn't mean its impossible.

It is remarkable that the very universe we inhabit speaks so much of intricate design, yet Creationists are thought to be wishful thinkers by many. Not on the level of true atheism however. True atheism is not this psudo-agnostic philosophy that many self-proclaimed atheists boast today. Pure atheism is not a "Lack" of belief in God, but an outright "Denial" of God's existance.

I think it is interesting you use "God" with a capital "G" in this claim.

As an weak atheist, I simply have no reason to believe in god, any god. That is distinctly different from a "strong atheist", which absolutely asserts there is no god.

I find that argument logically untenable.

Regardless, I will say I do not believe in your god...which I'm sure is the point of your post.

After all, I doubt you are terribly concerned that I don't believe in Allah, Zeus or hundreds of other deities.

Webster's Online Dictionary gives this meaning to the atheist... "Someone who (Denies) the existance of God." Not someone lacking faith in God, as the true agnostic would be.

The reason atheists today are trying to adopt a more agnostic philosophy is simply because, atheism in it's purest sense is an absolute failure. There is simply no way of proving the validity of an atheist's claim, anymore than there is for the Christian to prove God's existance.

So...I can't prove "nothing" and you can't prove "something".

I agree.

Now, why should I agree to accept a very, very specific "something". After all, without proof, you want me to worship and accept your Christian god.

That is a very specific prescription, compared to the thousands of other deities. And with, as you admit, without proof.

On the contrary however, the Christian view is superior to that of true atheism. In order for a true atheist to deny the Creator's existance they would have to believe that the laws of the universe, and everything produced and sustained by those laws were entirely self-made without the help of an (Intelligence). The Christian viewpoint acknowledges the overwhelming "Connectedness" in the universe as having an intelligent origin. That is why today's atheists are moving more and more into agnosticism. It's a much more comfortable position to be in.

So I can't believe in a universe without help of intellegence...

Yet you can believe in a perfect, omnipresent, omnipowerful, eternal, perfectly just, perfectly loving, inerrant, god that didn't orginate without intellegence?

If everything has a cause....then everything has a cause.

If you get to exempt "god" from that basic fact...then I get to exempt the universe....seems fair.

Science is all about following the evidence. Well, (Evidently) the universe has incredible design to it. You can't say otherwise without being blind. And, you can't affirm such a statement without being biased either. So, Christians really are biased. So are atheists. Nevertheless, the universe seems to favor the Christian viewpoint far more than the (True) atheistic viewpoint. You don't look at a Ford Mustang after never seeing anything resembling a car before and call it an accident. You see design to it. You may not understand it's (purpose), but you know enough to recognize that it was unusually fashioned,... designed.

Imagine an infinately large car lot filled with mustang parts. Streching out in all directions. All the time it was shifting and moving about.

A bumper part and a tail light happen to come together...boom...you have one part of a car.

Given enough time....a Ford Mustang will likely be built.

And I agree with you....we are all fundamentally biased. The best we can do is strive to be intellectually honest.

So, as a belief-system, true atheism is not a more "Intelligent" position than Creationism. True atheism has no choice but to deny the direction that the evidence is pointing, while Creationists do not.

You have offered nothing more than a philosophical argument, which in my opinion is rather weak.

But hey, opinions are like....well....rear ends. We all have one and they all stink.

Opinions matter little in the face of overwhelming empirical evidence. And the preponderance of the evidence supports the evolutionary theory, big bang and other scientific theories.

 

[Asimov]

Well.....that wraps things up I guess.

*begins praying*

 

[JoelW]

Yes,
my reason for writing that specific post was to show where atheism today is taking on a more agnostic flavor.

I am glad that you affirmed the position that we are all biased to our own viewpoints. That is honesty.

Your example of an infinately large car lot however needs to be checked. For instance, how did it ever become an infinately large car lot? You may say that it is wishful thinking to believe in a Creator, but actually the structure of the universe supports a "Designer" more than it does blind chance. Remember the method of numbers,... the higher the numbers involved, the higher the odds the will increase.

In order for an infinately large car lot to come into being there (Has) to be laws that are there to be able to bring it about. Well, where did those laws come from? And, what were the laws that created the laws whereby an infinately large car lot can come to be?

In that area there can only be speculation and personal conviction. But, the infinately large car lot could never have happened without structuring laws. Laws that are so (Precise) that to believe they could come into being by chance alone is to actually put yourself at enmity with the impossible odds against you. A small tree can withstand a little breeze, but it can't withstand an F5 tornado.

Now, multiply the odds of a small tree withstanding an F5 tornado to astronomical proportions, and that is what a person who believes in blind chance is attempting to withstand. The very structure of the universe has a hand in the formation of an F5 tornado. The structure of the universe makes life that is stunningly complex, possible. The laws and structure of the universe are so precise that it almost directly points to a Creator. The only way not to (Honestly) see that is to have an abysmal lack of knowledge on the subject.

So, in that case... since the greatest argument in favor of a Creator is the universe itself,... you can't honestly say that you have no reason to believe. You give yourself a reason not to believe, the reason is not given to you. In that way, you are a biased person.

Yes, I am also biased. But, I am biased to another viewpoint. The less illogical viewpoint. My view may not be entirely "Logical",... but it is flowing in the direction that the impossible wind is blowing, rather than being broken and toppled by it's stubborn resistance.

In that sense, when a person recognizes enough of the universe to see it's mind-blowing connectedness, it is even more illogical to deny the direction that it is pointing, assuming that it all happened by chance.

Look at it this way, if you are right then I have nothing at all to lose. If I am right then you have everything to lose. And, since neither of us will ultimately know until we are dead, the only thing we can do is "Believe" that our viewpoints won't let us down.

Nevertheless, when we die there will be no returning. Faith really is important. There is no human progress without it. It's not that you "Can't" believe. It's that you choose not to.

So, in fact, there can be no "Intellectual Honesty" when all is said and done. What it all boils down to is that neither of us have all the answers. But, both of us are relying on faith. I hope in the God of the Bible, and you hope He does not exist. Neither of us can prove either way. But, the cosmological evidence overwhelmingly favors a Creator rather than blind chance.

 

[Asimov]

In order for an infinately large car lot to come into being there (Has) to be laws that are there to be able to bring it about. Well, where did those laws come from? And, what were the laws that created the laws whereby an infinately large car lot can come to be?

Haha...let's throw away infinitely large car lots for a second. I assume this is the "first cause" argument? Let's just say that no one is really ever able to know, and if that is true, then the universe could just as easily caused itself, the laws fall into place and everything happen as it happens, without a God, rather than a God designed it. First cause arguments fail on the basis that you always end up shooting yourself in the foot.

So, in that case... since the greatest argument in favor of a Creator is the universe itself,... you can't honestly say that you have no reason to believe. You give yourself a reason not to believe, the reason is not given to you. In that way, you are a biased person.

Well, no. Because where you see "intelligent" design, I see that the universe is structured based on laws of physics that formed after a singularity expanded.

Complexity arguments also fail as well. You state that the universe is so complex, and so precise that an intelligence MUST have created it. That intelligence would be more complex than the universe (incomprehensibility) that it too MUST have been created. If you argue that complexity comes from intelligence, then all complexity must come from intelligent design.

Yes, I am also biased. But, I am biased to another viewpoint. The less illogical viewpoint. My view may not be entirely "Logical",... but it is flowing in the direction that the impossible wind is blowing, rather than being broken and toppled by it's stubborn resistance.

And that is true bias. Where you state that your side is less illogical than the other side. Oh wow...saddle me up Jesus, I'm ready.

In that sense, when a person recognizes enough of the universe to see it's mind-blowing connectedness, it is even more illogical to deny the direction that it is pointing, assuming that it all happened by chance.

The even funnier thing is, that it is entirely by chance that God chose to create a universe this particular way, with you in it, making weird arguments like these. It's mind-boggling how amazing it is that God could make a Universe happen this special particular way, instead of some other non-specified way. :roll:

Look at it this way, if you are right then I have nothing at all to lose. If I am right then you have everything to lose. And, since neither of us will ultimately know until we are dead, the only thing we can do is "Believe" that our viewpoints won't let us down.

BOONNGGGGG!!! What a gong-show. You whip out the ol' Pascals 'Wafer' at the end. You have everything to lose as well, what if Islam is the true religion? Or Hinduism? Or Buddhism. You're gonna have fun being reincarnated as a dung beetle over and over again while you contemplate how amazingly ridiculous your assertion is.

Nevertheless, when we die there will be no returning. Faith really is important. There is no human progress without it. It's not that you "Can't" believe. It's that you choose not to.

I assume you're talking about religious faith. Well, it's not that you "can't believe" (in Krishna), it's that you choose not to. Why? Well, I guess because you want to go to hell, because Krishna certainly doesn't send you there.

So, in fact, there can be no "Intellectual Honesty" when all is said and done. What it all boils down to is that neither of us have all the answers. But, both of us are relying on faith. I hope in the God of the Bible, and you hope He does not exist. Neither of us can prove either way. But, the cosmological evidence overwhelmingly favors a Creator rather than blind chance.

Nope, I rely on what reason tells me is so. And right now, reason is telling me it's time to eat.

 

[JoelW]

I'm glad that you admit ignorance and bias as I do. I guess you can say that ultimately the opinions we hold to is all about faith, since neither of us can prove otherwise. No one can.

Hmm, as far as your stating that I have everything to lose in light of other religions possibly being true, I will dwell on it for a while.

First off, what is a hypocrite? It is someone who does not practice what they preach. That is why I will never serve Allah. Because, if he were real then he is demanding my dying allegiance while refusing to offer me the same devotion. That makes Christ superior to Allah in my book, because He did not tell people to do for Him what He was not willing to do for them.

Buddism is not about God necessarily. Inherently I don't find too much wrong with Buddism. (But then again, I confess that I know only very little about it). There are some good teachings in Buddism, as there are in Islam. But, where I fault Allah for not practicing what he preaches, I also fault Buddism for it's view on human desire. We will never be able to even be "Enlightened" without desire. Yes, human desire has been the cause of horrible suffering through the ages,... but without it we would never acheive anything. So, human desire is not the enemy. The corruptive nature in fallen humanity however, is.

Hinduism also has some good teachings, but I see no reason to accept it because of the fact that I don't "Remember" any past lives. That would not be right to condemn me to another life without me knowing what I did wrong in a past life. "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." If I have no knowledge of a past life, how can I gleen wisdom from it and grow to another stage of enlightenment? I might actually become "Worse" than I was in a previous life because I have no memory of it. Human nature only gets worse when it is not taught by it's own mistakes. So, Karma actually perpetuates human misery rather than solves it.

Why do I accept Christ to be the only way then? I accept Him to be the only way because,... unlike Allah... He actually showed His dying allegiance to me before He asked it (Of) me.

And, unlike Buddism, Jesus did not teach that the death of desire is the way to enlightenment. As a matter of fact Jesus knew that the only way to see results in people was to "Appeal" to their' desires. Now, He did make it clear that human desire is tainted. But, He never taught us to abandon it. He taught us to use it in our relationship with God. In that way, our desires could actually (Aid) us in relating to and knowing God.

And unlike Hinduism, Christ offered the removal of guilt through His sacrifice. When you stop to think about it, Christ's way is far better than Karma. Once a person accepts Him there is no more guilt to bear. In that way, a person can go on to embrace Christ's teachings without the fear of losing their present identity in another life in order to pay for past sins they can't even remember.

Jesus offers the removal of all our sins through His sacrifice. We don't have to pay for them.

So, while I can't prove that Jesus really is the only way, I can show that in comparison to other deities or philosphies, He is by far superior. He offered His life for humans, and His philosophies are not sublime, but are actually grounded and within every human's reach. For instance, if everyone on earth obeyed just one of His commands... "Love your enemies"... it would end virtually every form of human-inflicted suffering on the planet. It's not a hopeless command. It's within reach. The only problem is that we don't want to obey it.

So, if any of the other religions you referred to were true, then the fantasy of Christ would still be a much better path to take than any of them. And, if I lost everything it would not be because I was to blame, but the blame would rest with the hypocritical gods for not practicing what they preach, and the bad philosophies that actually restrict my growth toward enlightenment rather than aids it.

Only in Christ can the blame (Rightfully) be placed on me if I reject Him, because there is absolutely no good reason for me to do so. He is not a hypocrite, and His philosophies are actually beneficial to human development rather than harmful. The only harm there is to be found is in rejecting Him and His words. He offers to do away with all of my guilt if I will accept Him, and that frees me up to live a whole new life without having to worry about my past. Neither Allah, Buddism, Hinduism or any other ism's out there offer me what Christ offers.

So, if I am only trusting in a fantasy it's not because there are any "Better" offers shown to me. In fact, there are no better offers. Yes, that is a biased statement, but it's mine to make. Jesus is the Best and (Only) way there is to God. That is what He said, and that is what I believe.

By the way,... since I have entertained your assertion that my faith could possibly be wrong, let's look at it another way for a moment. What if I am right? What if Jesus really is real, and He's the only way to the Father? You might say that you would prefer the fantasy of not believing in Him, but that would still make you the one who ultimately lost everything.














[/quote]

 

[Pale^Rider**]

Well....that wraps things up..I guess.

Well done, Joel....and very good reading I might add.

 

[Sophistress]

By the way,... since I have entertained your assertion that my faith could possibly be wrong, let's look at it another way for a moment. What if I am right? What if Jesus really is real, and He's the only way to the Father? You might say that you would prefer the fantasy of not believing in Him, but that would still make you the one who ultimately lost everything.

I can add that to my list of "100 innovative and exotic ways to present Pascal's Wager". Thanks.

 

[Asimov]

I'm glad that you admit ignorance and bias as I do. I guess you can say that ultimately the opinions we hold to is all about faith, since neither of us can prove otherwise. No one can.

Proofs are for math.

Hmm, as far as your stating that I have everything to lose in light of other religions possibly being true, I will dwell on it for a while.

I'm simply saying that your argument can fall back on you, and that other religions are saying the same thing, so why should I listen to you?

First off, what is a hypocrite? It is someone who does not practice what they preach. That is why I will never serve Allah. Because, if he were real then he is demanding my dying allegiance while refusing to offer me the same devotion. That makes Christ superior to Allah in my book, because He did not tell people to do for Him what He was not willing to do for them.

1. God did not die for you, he is still alive. There is no sacrifice.
2. God can do whatever he wants, how dare you question him. You're the creation, he's the creator.

The corruptive nature in fallen humanity however, is.

I don't accept that humanity is fallen, or corrupt. So where does that leave us?

That would not be right to condemn me to another life without me knowing what I did wrong in a past life.

Maybe you do, subconsciously. Hinduism states that there are many paths to God, and that each path is basically right. Hinduism is accepting of all religions, as far as I've studied it.

So, Karma actually perpetuates human misery rather than solves it.

Karma simply states that whatever you do has a consequence. Cause and effect.

Why do I accept Christ to be the only way then? I accept Him to be the only way because,... unlike Allah... He actually showed His dying allegiance to me before He asked it (Of) me.

So? That means nothing. Your religion is just as flawed as every other religion you just listed.

Jesus offers the removal of all our sins through His sacrifice. We don't have to pay for them.

Why should we have our sins removed? Why should we have to pay for them? Why should they be paid for?

So, while I can't prove that Jesus really is the only way, I can show that in comparison to other deities or philosphies, He is by far superior.

Hardly.

Only in Christ can the blame (Rightfully) be placed on me if I reject Him, because there is absolutely no good reason for me to do so.

What blame? Blame for what?

By the way,... since I have entertained your assertion that my faith could possibly be wrong, let's look at it another way for a moment. What if I am right? What if Jesus really is real, and He's the only way to the Father? You might say that you would prefer the fantasy of not believing in Him, but that would still make you the one who ultimately lost everything.

What if? What if Allah is right? What if Krishna is right? What if Cthulhu is right? What if Satan is actually God? Who cares? You shouldn't base your arguments on what-ifs, that was the whole point of what I was saying. I haven't lost anything, I have a great life, and when I die, I die. If God thinks it necessary to punish me for being human, then I'll tell him where to stick it.













[/quote][/quote]