A Fair and Open Discussion (Athesim V.S Religion)

[dadof10]

[quote="F4i†h?":p8o3a22w]In all fairness, how did God come into being?

God has always been. He is a necessary Being.

I think what F4i+h was trying to get at was this: The argument in favor of God's existence was that the universe is so complex, that it could not possibly have come into existence by chance. It had to have an intelligent designer, which must be God. So, following that logic, the next question is... who created God?

God is so complex, that He could not possibly have come into existence by chance. God had to have an intelligent designer, which must be... who? Then if we can figure out who created God, we find ourselves asking who created the creator of God. And then who created the creator of the creator of God. And so on and so forth. This is known as the "infinite regress".

So it sounds like the Christian argument can be summed up as... nothing can exist without a creator. And that creator is God, who just happens to exist without a creator.[/quote:p8o3a22w]

OK. Now we know what you DON'T believe, how about letting us know what you DO believe. If there is no Creator, how did we come into existence?

 

[Guest]

Yes, I am well aware of what an infinite regress is and it is a problem with your argument, not the Christian's.

My argument, Free? What is my argument, exactly? I haven't made any specific claims one way or the other. The reason for this is that I see claims that are full of holes on BOTH sides of the fence. My position right now is that I don't pretend to know anything that I don't know. One of these days, perhaps it can be proven whether or not a God exists. Until then, my intellectual honesty prevents me from believing things unless there is enough evidence to justify doing so.

OK. Now we know what you DON'T believe, how about letting us know what you DO believe. If there is no Creator, how did we come into existence?

I Believe... that which can be proven beyond REASONABLE doubt. I notice that your question, dadof10, is prefaced by "if there is no Creator". That's funny, because I never made that claim. My contribution to this thread is to question the certainty of the claims made on BOTH sides. You say that there IS a God... how do you honestly KNOW that? TheAtheist says that there is NO God... how does he/she honestly KNOW that?

How did we come into existence, you ask? My answer as of right now is: I honestly don't know.

 

[Free]

Yes, I am well aware of what an infinite regress is and it is a problem with your argument, not the Christian's.

My argument, Free? What is my argument, exactly? I haven't made any specific claims one way or the other. The reason for this is that I see claims that are full of holes on BOTH sides of the fence. My position right now is that I don't pretend to know anything that I don't know. One of these days, perhaps it can be proven whether or not a God exists. Until then, my intellectual honesty prevents me from believing things unless there is enough evidence to justify doing so.

The argument to infinite regress. Unless, of course, you were making the argument on behalf of Faith?. But it sure seems as though you actually believe what you wrote.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Agnostic, I'm curious as to how you would respond to my previous post which lays out some of the contributing factors to both theories. The Christian theory of an all powerful God requires far less inexpressible varibles than chance creation or any other scientific theory.

 

[Rick W]

For the non-believer looking for God in evidence of those things seen or observed will never be a fruitful undertaking.
Looking at the physical is the wrong place until one finds God within. Then the physical nature of Creation is viewed through a different lens. Christ taught matters of the heart. It's not an outward search but an inward one. Some find what they are looking for when turning their focus inward and of course some don't. How can I prove to anyone what I see within myself? How can I prove the reason for my faith when it's the spirit within me that has it?

 

[samuel]

To contend for Jesus existence, is to contend for the existence of God. Jesus; was the way God choose to reveal himself to man. And Josephus, was not the only historian that wrote of Jesus.

I personally know of his existence I have felt his presence, and seen a small child healed, that no power on earth could have accomplished. But you see that is personal, by a person, who has a personal relationship with God. So of course that would mean nothing to you!.

It seems the bottom line here, is for you to prove there is no God, or your argument is invalid. Others here have stated why they believe, but you cant state why you don't. It seems to be a very uneducated statement, by someone who claims to know so much ???. I guess the better word is DOUBT.

1Co:1:27: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1Co:2:14: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

I guess that about sums it up.

 

[Guest]

Agnostic, I'm curious as to how you would respond to my previous post which lays out some of the contributing factors to both theories. The Christian theory of an all powerful God requires far less inexpressible varibles than chance creation or any other scientific theory.

I don't think that the amount of inexpressible variables proves anything one way or the other. Like I said before, there are discrepancies on both sides of this debate. Scientists are saying "it's complicated, but we're working on it", and religious people are saying "God did it". I pointed out the infinite regress as one problem with the creation theory, and you pointed out the variables which cast doubt on the scientific endeavor to figure things out.

I just don't know how it all began. Hopefully we WILL know one day, and put debates like these to rest.

 

[Guest]

It seems the bottom line here, is for you to prove there is no God, or your argument is invalid. Others here have stated why they believe, but you cant state why you don't. It seems to be a very uneducated statement, by someone who claims to know so much ???.

Samuel, are you confusing me with TheAtheist, the one who started this thread? Go back and read MY posts, and you'll see that I never "claimed to know so much". However, I'll state right now why I currently lack belief in your theistic claims... intellectual honesty. Like I said earlier, I don't pretend to know things that I don't know, until all the facts are in. And I think that one day we WILL have all the facts in, and be able to say whether or not there is a deity. Until then, I'm not going to claim to have all the answers, when I know that I don't.

Your invitation for me to prove that there is no God is NOT the bottom line here. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. I haven't claimed that there is or isn't a God; I'm not making a claim at all here. You claim that there is a God. The burden of proof is on you.

If I was to tell you that low-fat yogurt will turn me invisible, you would either write me off as insane, or you would ask for proof. What if I then said that it was YOUR responsibility to DISPROVE my claim? You'd probably laugh me right out of the room! There is an excellent analogy by Bertrand Russell, called "Russell's Teapot", which beautifully illustrates where the burden of proof truly lies. Maybe I'll post that later, but I'm out of time now. I'll check back in later for your responses.

TheAtheist should come on back here, because I have some questions for him/her too.

 

[mondar]

It seems the bottom line here, is for you to prove there is no God, or your argument is invalid. Others here have stated why they believe, but you cant state why you don't. It seems to be a very uneducated statement, by someone who claims to know so much ???.

Samuel, are you confusing me with TheAtheist, the one who started this thread? Go back and read MY posts, and you'll see that I never "claimed to know so much". However, I'll state right now why I currently lack belief in your theistic claims... intellectual honesty. Like I said earlier, I don't pretend to know things that I don't know, until all the facts are in. And I think that one day we WILL have all the facts in, and be able to say whether or not there is a deity. Until then, I'm not going to claim to have all the answers, when I know that I don't.

Your invitation for me to prove that there is no God is NOT the bottom line here. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. I haven't claimed that there is or isn't a God; I'm not making a claim at all here. You claim that there is a God. The burden of proof is on you.

If I was to tell you that low-fat yogurt will turn me invisible, you would either write me off as insane, or you would ask for proof. What if I then said that it was YOUR responsibility to DISPROVE my claim? You'd probably laugh me right out of the room! There is an excellent analogy by Bertrand Russell, called "Russell's Teapot", which beautifully illustrates where the burden of proof truly lies. Maybe I'll post that later, but I'm out of time now. I'll check back in later for your responses.

TheAtheist should come on back here, because I have some questions for him/her too.

OK, I would agree that TheAthiest has major questions he should be answering. The first thing I noted is his failure to even grasp a proper concept of deity. He asked "when God came into existance." To answer that question would be to assume a certain character for God that I do not believe even represents deity.

On the other hand, you bring up the point of evidence. If I understand your position correctly, you deny sufficient evidence that demonstrates that there is no God, and you deny that there is sufficient evidence that the existence of God can be demonstrated.

I think before we even begin to present evidence, we should ask the question what is evidence. Let me ask what kind of evidence do you feel would be acceptable proof that deity exists? Or what kind of evidence do you feel would prove that no deity exists?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Albert Einstein determined that there WAS a God, because the universe has an order to it.

Not really going to jump into this discussion, but I just wanted to point out that Einstein did not believe in a personal deity.

He never quite pinned down what he believed, but said it was akin to pantheism. You can read about pantheism here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Here is a quick snip from the wiki:

Pantheism (Greek: Àάν ( 'pan' ) = all and θεÌ ( 'theos' ) = God, it literally means "God is All" and "All is God") is the view that everything is part of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the Universe, or nature, and God are equivalent. More detailed definitions tend to emphasize the idea that natural law, existence, and the Universe (the sum total of all that is, was, and shall be) is represented in the theological principle of an abstract 'god' rather than a personal, creative deity or deities of any kind.

In regards to him believing there to be an order to the universe (often quoted "God does not play dice."), his objection was mainly to quantum mechanics. He had a hard time accepting the notion of the probabilistic nature of the very small.

Much evidence has found since his time to show that his objection was wrong.

 

[dadof10]

I Believe... that which can be proven beyond REASONABLE doubt.
How did we come into existence, you ask? My answer as of right now is: I honestly don't know.

Fair enough. Now, which side seems more reasonable to you? As far as I see it there can only be two options for our existence, purposeful creation or random chance. Which one is more reasonable? Can you think of a third option?

 

[Ivy]

TheAtheist only made the one post - do you think he's paying attention anymore?

What I love is what an atheist interviewed by Ben Stein in the movie "Expelled" said, when he was pushed to explain the very front of his theory about how the world and life came about, he replied, "Aliens." If an Atheist can believe in aliens, which no one has seen, what's so hard to believe about
God?

 

[Blazin Bones]

[quote="Blazin Bones":2dy20v82]Agnostic, I'm curious as to how you would respond to my previous post which lays out some of the contributing factors to both theories. The Christian theory of an all powerful God requires far less inexpressible varibles than chance creation or any other scientific theory.

I don't think that the amount of inexpressible variables proves anything one way or the other. Like I said before, there are discrepancies on both sides of this debate. Scientists are saying "it's complicated, but we're working on it", and religious people are saying "God did it". I pointed out the infinite regress as one problem with the creation theory, and you pointed out the variables which cast doubt on the scientific endeavor to figure things out.

I just don't know how it all began. Hopefully we WILL know one day, and put debates like these to rest.[/quote:2dy20v82]

Phillipians 2 says we all will know. ;)

As for the notion of Infinite regress, all it takes to dispute this idea is faith. Evolutionists very openly contend that there can be self created life, why then is it so hard to believe that there would be a being which is uncaused? This is helped by the fact that God claims of himself in scripture that he is not flesh as we are, but spirit. If this is the case, why does a spirit need cause? Haven't you even been happy just becauyse you felt happiness? That is an uncaused feeling, or some would contend an uncaused spirit.

 

[Pogo]

Vault -

I agree!

Please note that I didn't say that Albert Einstein was a Christian. As far as I know he never identified the God that he determined there is!

That job falls to us!

In Christ,

Pogo

 

[wavy]

Agnostic, I'm curious as to how you would respond to my previous post which lays out some of the contributing factors to both theories. The Christian theory of an all powerful God requires far less inexpressible varibles than chance creation or any other scientific theory.

Riiiight...

Just imagine a really really really really really powerful being, one that can do absolutely anything--with no explanation for why he has these properties, how they work, or any way to observe them directly outside of ad hoc assumptions.

Naturally this is more relaiable than repeatable experimentation and the determination to arrive at the truth through tangible evidence.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[mondar]

Agnostic, I'm curious as to how you would respond to my previous post which lays out some of the contributing factors to both theories. The Christian theory of an all powerful God requires far less inexpressible varibles than chance creation or any other scientific theory.

Riiiight...

Just imagine a really really really really really powerful being, one that can do absolutely anything--with no explanation for why he has these properties, how they work, or any way to observe them directly outside of ad hoc assumptions.

Naturally this is more relaiable than repeatable experimentation and the determination to arrive at the truth through tangible evidence.


Thanks,
Eric

Sarcasm?

Can you put the idea that all truth can be found by "repeatable experimentation and determination to arrive at the truth through tangible evidence" in a test tube and repeat an experiment?

 

[JMM]

I Believe... that which can be proven beyond REASONABLE doubt.
How did we come into existence, you ask? My answer as of right now is: I honestly don't know.

Fair enough. Now, which side seems more reasonable to you? As far as I see it there can only be two options for our existence, purposeful creation or random chance. Which one is more reasonable? Can you think of a third option?

The way you word your question, obviously the former sounds more reasonable than the latter. However, the whole notion of “random chance†is a straw man. The theory of evolution does not say that anything happens by chance. They say that each event is caused by a specific series of preceding events. If any of the preceding events are different enough, then the outcome event is different. We must not make the mistake of assuming that without a conscious entity controlling the universe, that events happen randomly or accidentally, as if the concepts of action and reaction did not exist.

The chain of events conception of causality is a consequence of the fact that things act according to their nature. Things behave the way they do because of what they are, their identity, which is defined in terms of their nature. Any event involves things acting, and interacting, according to their nature. The claim of "random chance" implies that things have no nature or identity.

So if I was to re-word the question, and ask which is more reasonable: (1) purposeful creation by an uncreated creator, or (2) formation by a causal chain of events with each thing acting according to its nature/identity... what would you say? And as for a third option... maybe the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) created everything.

 

[JMM]

Please note that I didn't say that Albert Einstein was a Christian. As far as I know he never identified the God that he determined there is!

That job falls to us!

There are 1.5 billion Muslims, nearly a billion Hindus, and a few hundred million Buddhists out there who would disagree with you on to whom exactly that job falls. ;) They all seem to think that the job falls to THEM, and they have their own Holy Books (Quran, Vedas, etc.) to back them up.

So I guess it's up to us to clarify what gives us more authority on who exactly God is, than their conception.

 

[dadof10]

The way you word your question, obviously the former sounds more reasonable than the latter. However, the whole notion of “random chance†is a straw man. The theory of evolution does not say that anything happens by chance. They say that each event is caused by a specific series of preceding events. If any of the preceding events are different enough, then the outcome event is different. We must not make the mistake of assuming that without a conscious entity controlling the universe, that events happen randomly or accidentally, as if the concepts of action and reaction did not exist.

The chain of events conception of causality is a consequence of the fact that things act according to their nature. Things behave the way they do because of what they are, their identity, which is defined in terms of their nature. Any event involves things acting, and interacting, according to their nature. The claim of "random chance" implies that things have no nature or identity.

You're not going back far enough. Where did the "things" that "act according to their nature" come from? Were they created or did they just happen to exist? However you want to phrase it, it still breaks down to randomness. You still have only these two choices, the FSM notwithstanding .

So if I was to re-word the question, and ask which is more reasonable: (1) purposeful creation by an uncreated creator, or (2) formation by a causal chain of events with each thing acting according to its nature/identity... what would you say? And as for a third option... maybe the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster) created everything.

Again, you're starting in the middle. What (or Who) started the "causal chain"? Did it just start by itself? Using your reworded question above, I would choose 1. It is FAR more reasonable to believe in a Creator for matter, space and time, chains of events and eventually us than not. We will never be able to prove either view beyond a doubt, but we should ask ourselves which "theory" is more reasonable. What do you think?

 

[JMM]

Using your reworded question above, I would choose 1. It is FAR more reasonable to believe in a Creator for matter, space and time, chains of events and eventually us than not. We will never be able to prove either view beyond a doubt, but we should ask ourselves which "theory" is more reasonable.

Don't get me wrong here, dadof10; as a Christian, I'm on your side! My post to you was a response to what I perceived as a questionable choice of words in your question to Agnostic Airman. I wanted to point out that evolution does not teach that we came about by "random chance", and that your question could have been worded differently, that's all.

What do you think?

I believe that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. When that beginning was, or how He did it, doesn't matter to me. I don't care if creation was billions of years ago, or in October of 4004 BC. I don't care if God used evolution to get us to where we are today, or if He made Adam instantaneously appear in a fraction of a second. However He did it, I still believe that He did it. So I would choose option 1 as well.