Theism Vs Atheism

[wavy]

Your words:

That [the supernatural] is necessary follows logically from the premise that the universe had a beginning and has no natural explanation.

That sounds like an argument to me Eric.

No, you misunderstand the context of this assertion. You were trying to dismiss any supernatural explanation by saying it was unnecessary and that we couldn't know anything about it, not understanding that the argument Paidion gave was deductive, meaning the conclusion could not be false while the premises were true. In other words, a necessarily true conclusion follows from true premises in a valid deductive argument (and Paidion's argument wasn't formally put into a deductive form, but it could be).

It doesn't matter if you can know anything about what the supernatural entity is or whether you personally think a natural explanation is preferable. If the premises of Paidion's argument are true, then it follows logically and inescapably that the universe is contingent upon a supernatural source.

Paidon's argument does not prove that a natural explanation does not exist.

Paidon's argument boils down to this very issue: that there is not at the moment a natural explanation for the origin of the universe. (All of the issues relating to the laws of thermodynamics are really extraneous since they only serve to bring us to this conclusion, which really is obvious.)

We ought to stop there, which is exactly what I have been arguing all along.

It does not follow logically that a supernatural explanation is necessary because this excludes the logical possibility that a natural explanation exists but is not known to us yet. This is relevant because of the countless times when our species, in our ignorance, has attributed unexplained phenomena to supernatural sources and been absolutely wrong. This has, in fact, been a one-way, zero sum game between supernaturalism and science

An insistance on this rigid logic is wishful thinking. To put any significance on this argument is to wish that science will not discover a natural explanation, or to ignore the possibility that it will. You asked me earlier what I meant when I said "thank goodness science doesn't work this way". Now you know what I meant: science doesn't employ wishful thinking.

I never said Paidion's argument was proof of anything. You're confusing the truth value of the premises with the validity of the argument. The soundness of an argument and an argument's validity are two different things.

The argument above ought to read as follows:

[/quote]

The 'argument' you're reading out of my assertion ought not to be read as anything...since it does not exist.


Thanks,
Eric

 

[Silver Bullet]

Your words:

That [the supernatural] is necessary follows logically from the premise that the universe had a beginning and has no natural explanation.

That sounds like an argument to me Eric.

No, you misunderstand the context of this assertion. You were trying to dismiss any supernatural explanation by saying it was unnecessary and that we couldn't know anything about it, not understanding that the argument Paidion gave was deductive, meaning the conclusion could not be false while the premises were true. In other words, a necessarily true conclusion follows from true premises in a valid deductive argument (and Paidion's argument wasn't formally put into a deductive form, but it could be).

It doesn't matter if you can know anything about what the supernatural entity is or whether you personally think a natural explanation is preferable. If the premises of Paidion's argument are true, then it follows logically and inescapably that the universe is contingent upon a supernatural source.

Paidon's argument does not prove that a natural explanation does not exist.

Paidon's argument boils down to this very issue: that there is not at the moment a natural explanation for the origin of the universe. (All of the issues relating to the laws of thermodynamics are really extraneous since they only serve to bring us to this conclusion, which really is obvious.)

We ought to stop there, which is exactly what I have been arguing all along.

It does not follow logically that a supernatural explanation is necessary because this excludes the logical possibility that a natural explanation exists but is not known to us yet. This is relevant because of the countless times when our species, in our ignorance, has attributed unexplained phenomena to supernatural sources and been absolutely wrong. This has, in fact, been a one-way, zero sum game between supernaturalism and science

An insistance on this rigid logic is wishful thinking. To put any significance on this argument is to wish that science will not discover a natural explanation, or to ignore the possibility that it will. You asked me earlier what I meant when I said "thank goodness science doesn't work this way". Now you know what I meant: science doesn't employ wishful thinking.

I never said Paidion's argument was proof of anything. You're confusing the truth value of the premises with the validity of the argument. The soundness of an argument and an argument's validity are two different things.

[quote:2rtm6258]The argument above ought to read as follows:

The 'argument' you're reading out of my assertion ought not to be read as anything...since it does not exist.


Thanks,
Eric[/quote:2rtm6258]

Ok Eric. I feel like I have to learn a new language to participate in a discourse with you.

Nevertheless, I have laid out the reasons why Paidion's argument ought not be considered proof of a supernatural explanation for the existence of our universe, and nobody here, including you, has provided me with any good reasons to conclude otherwise.

The bottom line is that all Paidion's argument does is indicate that we have no natural explanation for the origin of our universe. So what? There are potential natural explanations. Time and again in the history of civilization have we offered supernatural explanations for phenomena where no natural explanation was available only to be proven wrong.

To conclude that Paidion's argument is proof of a supernatural explanation for the origin of our universe is wishful thinking. Plain and simple.

I'm surprised Paidion himself has not chimed in to defend it.

Thanks,
SB

 

[mechanicdb]

How would the naturalists on here comment about irreducible complexities?

 

[Silver Bullet]

How would the naturalists on here comment about irreducible complexities?

Such as?

My understanding is that as these are proposed, they are serially debunked. I'm not aware of any that have been convincingly demonstrated.

There is a nice episode of NOVA about the trial of Intelligent Design in Dover (available here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/3416_id.html ). Michael Behe, who coined the term, testified about the concept of irreducible complexity. I believe his examples were the bacterial flagellum and the human immune system (there may have been others as well).

His idea was demolished.

If you are interested in creation vs evolution, I strongly recommend Jerry Coyne's magnificent and easy to read new book, "Why Evolution is True". It very nicely outlines all of the different lines of evidence supporting the evolution of all life on earth from common ancestors by natural selection. Its great if you already understand evolution, and its also great if you are a creationist who wants to know the evidence supporting the other side of the debate.

SB

 

[animal]

There was a time when we believed everything was irreducibly complex.

Behe touches on blood clotting as well. I don't think he brings up the eye.. That argument is getting so old I think answersingenesis is even warning creationists to not make fools of themselves by bringing it up. Anyway, thank God ;) Kenneth Miller was there to set everything straight.

 

[Saerules]

I have to participate in a debate for my philosophy class this week. I am on the Theist's side, debating an Atheist and an Agnostic team. My topic is on truth claims....I have never done this before and I was wondering if any of you had suggestions that might help. So far I have this...

* We feel morally guilty because we are morally guilty
*We seek to lead a purposeful life because life is purposeful and has meaning
*We use words like "Mother Nature" that suggest design because the universe was designed
*We recognize the different obligations to animals because humans do have value above that of animals

Am I on the wrong track?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions :yes

You've got it dead on. Always resort to circular reasoning for your 'arguments' and you will appear to be perfectly theistic. Anything else, and your arguments will be torn down and ripped appart by the atheists and the agnostics. Oh, and don't feel bad when you lose the debate on the grounds of circular reasoning... nobody else can do any better.

It is good to see that you are in a philosophy class... although i don't envy your position in the debate...

 

[Drew]

If I were taking the theist side in such a debate, I think I would want to make the argument that the position of the theist is really no more guilty of "appealing to mystery" than that of the atheist.

Sometimes I get the impression that some atheists think otherwise - that their position provides a tidy explanation that does noy have a drawback similar to the theist's assertion that God, as creator of the universe, "just is". However, this is not really the case. It is certainly true that there is something "incomplete" about arguing that God created the universe without giving some kind of account of how God came to exist.

But the atheist is in the same boat. S/he can argue that the laws of quantum mechanics can explain the creation of a universe "out of nothing". But this still leaves open the matter of explaining "where the laws come from".

If one thinks of explanations that appeal to the principle of cause and effect, I suggest that both theist and atheist ultimately run up against a wall of utter mystery.

 

[flipingsweet779]

First of all I wonder why this section of forum is in the christian section and not in the general disscusion section as if theology can only be open to belivers. Anyway the best way to debate against atheists is to not debate at all because if the atheist is intelligent he can easily win with the following.

First: The question of morality. Its an augument that Christians often turn to. Do we need a God to be Moral? An atheist can defeat this aurgument by asking the theist these questions.

1. Do you belive we need a god in order to be morale
( if thiest awnsers no aurgument is over if not countinue)
2. If there were no God would you rape, murder, and burn things

if they awnser yes you can conclude that they are an evil immoral person, if they awnser no then they have proved that you dont need a god to be moral.
Next: Augument from something out of nothing: Theist: well if there is no god where did the universe come from. actualy this is an aurgument that is against theism. Allthough it is attempted to be put to use by many theists. The probloem with this aurgument is that if somthing complex must be created by something else complex like a God. you would have to follow the same logic and ask what created the God and what Created that creator and so on. So this aurgument actually raises more questions than it asks and only works and a slow down of are attempt to understand the universe.

 

[GojuBrian]

If I were taking the theist side in such a debate, I think I would want to make the argument that the position of the theist is really no more guilty of "appealing to mystery" than that of the atheist.

Sometimes I get the impression that some atheists think otherwise - that their position provides a tidy explanation that does noy have a drawback similar to the theist's assertion that God, as creator of the universe, "just is". However, this is not really the case. It is certainly true that there is something "incomplete" about arguing that God created the universe without giving some kind of account of how God came to exist.

But the atheist is in the same boat. S/he can argue that the laws of quantum mechanics can explain the creation of a universe "out of nothing". But this still leaves open the matter of explaining "where the laws come from".

If one thinks of explanations that appeal to the principle of cause and effect, I suggest that both theist and atheist ultimately run up against a wall of utter mystery.

Right! The beauty of that is faith, both parties have to have faith is something, or nothing as it were.
I have faith that God exists and theist philosophy does not require proof to have that faith. In fact, if we have proof, then faith is irrelevant. The atheist has faith as well, but atheism relies on their so-called proof......through their faith. lol. they have faith in nothing, meanwhile we have faith in our sovreign God.

 

[JoJo]

I would just like to add that mystery itself contributes to a love relationship, whether with God or between individuals. Think about it. When you first met your spouse or boyfriend/girlfriend, didn't the mystery involved (getting to know each other and slowly becoming aware of the depths of each others' love) enhance the whole relationship? One aspect of falling in love and even maintaining that love is enjoying the mystery of each others' minds, souls and bodies.

 

[Vic C.]

First of all I wonder why this section of forum is in the christian section and not in the general disscusion section as if theology can only be open to belivers. Anyway the best way to debate against atheists is to not debate at all because if the atheist is intelligent he can easily win with the following.

First: The question of morality. Its an augument that Christians often turn to. Do we need a God to be Moral? An atheist can defeat this aurgument by asking the theist these questions.

1. Do you belive we need a god in order to be morale
( if thiest awnsers no aurgument is over if not countinue)
2. If there were no God would you rape, murder, and burn things

if they awnser yes you can conclude that they are an evil immoral person, if they awnser no then they have proved that you dont need a god to be moral.
Next: Augument from something out of nothing: Theist: well if there is no god where did the universe come from. actualy this is an aurgument that is against theism. Allthough it is attempted to be put to use by many theists. The probloem with this aurgument is that if somthing complex must be created by something else complex like a God. you would have to follow the same logic and ask what created the God and what Created that creator and so on. So this aurgument actually raises more questions than it asks and only works and a slow down of are attempt to understand the universe.

Our God is not just one of many intelligent beings in a some sort of singularity. So, there's no need to follow your rule of logic. It's you that cannot grasp the belief that there is no other before God and that HE is eternal.

Now as far as your first paragraph goes, why does it bother you where we decided where to put this sub forum? Since it is in the Christian Category, one must assume discussion of theology by non believers is allowed. Therefore your statement is illogical and one meant to be a protest of sorts. Why? I haven't got a clue.

Oh I answer no to both of your questions. I'm fully aware that without God, I have no morals and would act upon my emotions accordingly. It's like in the absence of heat there is only cold and in the absence of light, there is only darkness. Civilization would have killed itself off eons ago. Whether or not one believes in God is inconsequential. HIS moral laws have been passed on to mankind and then from generation to generation. Any argument is futile. You can't disprove God and I can't make HIM go away, so removing HIM from the equation just to see if morality abounds is impossible.

My point? Why bother coming to a Christian site to even try to prove something that can't be proved by you if not just to start arguments with we Christians? Why come and argue against something you don't believe in and then say we are the ones who are illogical? LOL

 

[Veritas]

This does not for an instant imply that there must be a "pattern-maker" or that the pattern had to come from somewhere, or that there is a "phenomenon relation maker" or that the relation of phenomena had to come from somewhere.

Yes it does imply as such. It is called "causality". The postulation of causality is quite valid, and it makes up the groundwork for the type of thought that has made it possible to bring our knowledge of the universe to where it is today, including the subject of physics. Interestingly, the following reply seems to appeal to the very concept above denied:

....cannot grasp the possibility that the universe itself may be eternal, or that the universe was created by one of 2 God's who lost a game of rock/paper/scissors, or that the universe we experience is just the imagination of a cat in a cosmic Disneyland, or a computer simulation on an ice world in Vega, or, most likely, that there is a completely natural explanation that we haven't discovered yet. The atheist is open to consider all possibilities. S/he only rejects the one you believe....

And before I go on, I'll let you in on a little known fact about science: science cannot disprove the existence of Santa Claus or Sasquatch either, but that is not an argument to believe in them. Science cannot disprove any imaginary claims - it doesn't work that way.

The scientific process is a tool. When used properly it is very effective; however, it is only a subset of our "Reason". Scientific inquiry is limited when occurrences or substances cannot be measured or cannot be repeated. Historical methods of inquiry, for example, rely partly on scientific evidence. However, much of what we consider to be valid is due to insight and acumen of the individual that is not quantifiable in any scientific terms.

You make claims you cannot posibly know to be true ("there is no other before God and HE is eternal"). This is the height of human arrogance.

Your arrogance is again on full display when you claim to confidently know that humanity's morals must come from your God. This is the very type of thinking that adds to human suffering in the form of religious wars, policies that stifle medical research, policies that oppress humans on the basis of their sexual orientation, etc. - a type of thinking that itself is patently immoral because it puts more emphasis on the alleged moral rules of an alleged supernatural father-figure than it does on the actual well-being and suffering of actual human beings.

Your arrogance is highighted by and rooted in the absence of good reasons for these beliefs.

but that the onus is one them to provide evidence of their claims - arrogant claims that they cannot possibly know to be true.

(That arrogance by the way, is the reason some atheists come here.

I saw another thread on the topic of elitism. Before I begin I would like to define something here. As Christians we affirm egalitarianism with regard to people and their worth. However, the same does not hold true to ideas. Some ideas are fundamentally better than others. So it is good to affirm an elitism in the realm of ideas. Egality in regards people is separate from elitism in ideas.

And I don't find it arrogant at all that Christians, or any other religious man, acknowledges and bows down to an eternal God. That is a humble place to put yourself in. And as far as morals, by what terms are you defining them by to claim someone arrogant in following theirs?

 

[Rick W]

1-2-3-4-5...

 

[Silver Bullet]

Veritas:

You are combining comments that I have made from different posts and different threads, thus taking my comments out of context.

This does not for an instant imply that there must be a "pattern-maker" or that the pattern had to come from somewhere, or that there is a "phenomenon relation maker" or that the relation of phenomena had to come from somewhere.

Yes it does imply as such. It is called "causality". The postulation of causality is quite valid, and it makes up the groundwork for the type of thought that has made it possible to bring our knowledge of the universe to where it is today, including the subject of physics.

That water is a liquid at standard temperature and pressure can be considered a law of science. Nothing about that statement implies that there is a lawmaker who assures that that is always true, or that this law "has to come from somewhere". This "law" is just a human observation of nature.

Interestingly, the following reply seems to appeal to the very concept above denied:

...cannot grasp the possibility that the universe itself may be eternal, or that the universe was created by one of 2 God's who lost a game of rock/paper/scissors, or that the universe we experience is just the imagination of a cat in a cosmic Disneyland, or a computer simulation on an ice world in Vega, or, most likely, that there is a completely natural explanation that we haven't discovered yet. The atheist is open to consider all possibilities. S/he only rejects the one you believe....

These comments were directed at someone who claimed to know that the universe was created by his particular eternal God. They are meant to address the concept that there are any number of possible explanations, including non-supernatural ones and the concept that the universe itself may be eternal. I'm advocating having an open mind. If you search my posts here, that is what I have consistently been advocating. There is nothing about this concept or what I have written that addresses the logical fallacy of implying that the "laws" of science need a lawmaker.

The scientific process is a tool. When used properly it is very effective; however, it is only a subset of our "Reason". Scientific inquiry is limited when occurrences or substances cannot be measured or cannot be repeated. Historical methods of inquiry, for example, rely partly on scientific evidence. However, much of what we consider to be valid is due to insight and acumen of the individual that is not quantifiable in any scientific terms.

That is why we must put less weight on historical claims, such as those made in the first century Roman empire.

Some ideas are fundamentally better than others.

Agreed.

And I don't find it arrogant at all that Christians, or any other religious man, acknowledges and bows down to an eternal God. That is a humble place to put yourself in.

The arrogance is not in bowing down before God (and I never said it was - you are misconstruing my posts), but in making claims about the universe, about virgin birth, about the benevolence of God, about someone else's eternal future - claims that one cannot possibly know to be true. These claims themselves are elitist (follow my omnipotent God and be part of my special club because we know the real God and you will get eternal life, follow that false God and you will be in an inferior club and get eternal hell).

And as far as morals, by what terms are you defining them by to claim someone arrogant in following theirs?

When one makes the claim that he knows that morality can only come from the God that he worships, arrogance is indeed on display. This is a claim that one cannot possibly know to be true, and which demeans others who derive their morality from other means.

More on this particular topic (of whether objective moral truths require a cosmic moral lawgiver) in this terrific debate, including one of the foremost Christian thinkers of our time, WIlliam Lane Craig:

http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/693

SB

PS. It seems that the Forum Mods are preparing to excommunicate me. I would only like to point out that my posts above are in a thread on Atheism vs Theism that I did not start. I have engaged numerous people in what I hope has been an intelligent way. If you search my history, you will see that I only post in Apologetics/Theology and Q&A because these areas are about defending the foundations of Christianity (not just proclaiming them) or specifically for non-believers. Nevertheless, I have offered to leave before, so if that is your wish, it will be my command.

 

[Vic C.]

Oy!

When one makes the claim that he knows that morality can only come from the God that he worships, arrogance is indeed on display. This is a claim that one cannot possibly know to be true, and which demeans others who derive their morality from other means.

You call that arrogance when it's really humility. It takes a humble person to admit his morals come from a source higher and greater than themselves. It takes a self righteous, arrogant person to say, "I decide what is moral and what is not."

Luke 18:10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
Luke 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
Luke 18:12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
Luke 18:13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
Luke 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

 

[shad]

PS. It seems that the Forum Mods are preparing to excommunicate me. I would only like to point out that my posts above are in a thread on Atheism vs Theism that I did not start. I have engaged numerous people in what I hope has been an intelligent way. If you search my history, you will see that I only post in Apologetics/Theology and Q&A because these areas are about defending the foundations of Christianity (not just proclaiming them) or specifically for non-believers. Nevertheless, I have offered to leave before, so if that is your wish, it will be my command.

What you are doing is nitpicking. You can nitpick forever about Christianity since you are not Christian.

.

 

[Silver Bullet]

You call that arrogance when it's really humility. It takes a humble person to admit his morals come from a source higher and greater than themselves. It takes a self righteous, arrogant person to say, "I decide what is moral and what is not."

All I can do is encourage you to watch the debate which I provided the link to above.

The person who says "I decide what is moral" is deciding what is moral by assessing the impact of his/her actions on others. This is the key point: this consideration, if it is moral, ought to always involve thinking about others.

If one's actions increase the suffering of others, they are basically immoral. If one fails to help others when he/she can, it is immoral.

I don't mean to imply that moral questions are always easy, but they should always involve a consideration of the impact upon others.

To not think of the impact on others - that is immoral.

To claim that that one knows the only real moral instructions and that they come from one particular God whose existence one cannot provide good evidence of - that seems arrogant to me. That is also morally dangerous because one can begin to follow the moral instructions of that God without considering the impact on others. Was Abraham acting morally when he followed the instructions of God, determined to murder his son?

SB

 

[shad]

Was Abraham acting morally when he followed the instructions of God, determined to murder his son?

SB

Abraham believed God. He did not use his own judgment. This is called "faith" which you dont seem to know.

Thats why it is useless and meaningless to discuss about faith with non-believers.

Christians believe God is all-knowing and we trust He is much better than us humans in judging anything. God calls it humility.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Was Abraham acting morally when he followed the instructions of God, determined to murder his son?

SB

Abraham believed God. He did not use his own judgment. This is called "faith" which you dont seem to know.

Thats why it is useless and meaningless to discuss about faith with non-believers.

Christians believe God is all-knowing and we trust He is much better than us humans in judging anything. God calls it humility.

You can call it what you want in your special club, but it is clearly the pinnacle of arrogance to put human life beneath that which you claim to know by the mysterious process of "faith". I'm quite certain shad, that you cannot explain or describe this process of knowing (ie. faith) in plain language, yet you think that it deserves respect, even when it leads to decisions that could include taking human life.

Are you also prepared to murder your dearest loved one for God?

What if you are wrong? That's what's arrogant about it. You seem unable to consider the possibility that you are wrong. You claim to just know things that nobody can possibly just know.

SB

 

[shad]

Are you also prepared to murder your dearest loved one for God?

God does not contradict Himself: He commands us not to murder.

What if you are wrong? That's what's arrogant about it. You seem unable to consider the possibility that you are wrong. You claim to just know things that nobody can possibly just know.

SB

I trust God. If I believe in possibility of God being wrong I will not be His believer anymore.