Atheists and theists are the same.

[Lightwave]

Regarding Lightwave's last post, Agreed!

That is because an atheist finds it absurd that an intelligent person can so confidently believe that all of this was created on the whim of some magical being. If said person is truly intelligent, then I would think they should be able to use their reason and logically deduce that creationism is not only unlikely, it is simply wrong. I stopped trying to convert people once my view of religion changed. I used to think it was an evil thing, but now I realize that it gives millions of people a reason to do the right thing everyday. Some people need a system of rewards and punishments (heaven and hell) to do the right thing. Also, some people need answers to questions that have no answers. How did all this come to be? An religious person will have the 'answer'. An atheist will only have theories. I would like to know the answer, but for the moment the theories alone are enough for me.

Speakers you do realise that you are starting to sound like the Georgians and Victorians that viewed religion as a good thing for providing the general populace with a reason to lead a good and productive life even when many of them considered it misguided?

 

[Rabbie]

But if those superior beings are in "a world" that has different natural laws to us then they might be supernatural as compared to us, that is, above our natural laws.

When you can produce any evidence that natural laws vary within the universe I will consider your suggestion.

 

[speakers_86]

Speakers you do realise that you are starting to sound like the Georgians and Victorians that viewed religion as a good thing for providing the general populace with a reason to lead a good and productive life even when many of them considered it misguided?

I am not familiar with the views of the Vicorians nor the Georgians, however, that is essentially what I believe. If religion did not serve a good purpose, then it would have faded out years ago.

 

[Mike375]

When you can produce any evidence that natural laws vary within the universe I will consider your suggestion.

What if Hawking and Co suggest it as a theory/possibility. Would that move you from the atheist camp to the agnostic camp

 

[Rabbie]

What if Hawking and Co suggest it as a theory/possibility. Would that move you from the atheist camp to the agnostic camp

Assuming you mean theory in the scientific sense Yes.
If just as a possibilty then NO

 

[Galaxiom]

Certainly some people are taking it too seriuosly.

Definitely. Many have died at the hands of the faithful who took it so seriously that insisted that the book was an unquestionable manual of how one must lead a life. Its esoteric wording allows the delusional to see whatever they want to see.

Many still insist that their religious views should prevail in public policy.

The Biblical massacres are still used today as a model of violent domination. First vilify those you wish to dominate. Then paint them as a threat that must be stopped. Then invade, murder and plunder.

The supposedly Christian parts of the world use exactly the same methods despite it being profoundly contrary to the teachings of Christ.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

How does knowing the universe conforms to structures make it more ridiculous to think of it as conceived?

The trick is whether the structures themselves were designed by intelligence or are the result of natural (non-sentient) forces. In other words, that question merely moves the dispute to a different level.

I strongly tend to not believe in supernatural explanations. I always come back to Occam's Razor a.k.a. the Law of Logical Parsimony: Which is easier to believe?

(1) An eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being intervened at the time of the creation of the universe so as to push the laws of physics (and therefore, chemistry and biology) in a direction that led to us.

(2) An eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being created the entire universe about 6000 years ago, planting evidence to appear otherwise so that we would think the universe is far, far older than it really is. This evidence includes laws of physics (and therefore, chemistry and biology) that appear to have led to us.

(3) The laws of physics (and therefore, chemistry and biology) lead to us without a push from any external agency.

#3 wins every time.

 

[Alc]

The trick is whether the structures themselves were designed by intelligence or are the result of natural (non-sentient) forces. In other words, that question merely moves the dispute to a different level.

I strongly tend to not believe in supernatural explanations. I always come back to Occam's Razor a.k.a. the Law of Logical Parsimony: Which is easier to believe?

(1) An eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being intervened at the time of the creation of the universe so as to push the laws of physics (and therefore, chemistry and biology) in a direction that led to us.

(2) An eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being created the entire universe about 6000 years ago, planting evidence to appear otherwise so that we would think the universe is far, far older than it really is. This evidence includes laws of physics (and therefore, chemistry and biology) that appear to have led to us.

(3) The laws of physics (and therefore, chemistry and biology) lead to us without a push from any external agency.

#3 wins every time.

I think there's a certain amount of circular logic applied by those who use the famous 'watch on the beach' analogy (the watch didn't just appear, so it must have been created by someone, therefore the same applies to everything else).

We know that the watch - as is the case for everything man-made - was created for a reason. That reason may be to perform a task, for aesthetic purposes, just to see what would happen, as a by-product of producing something else, and so on. The point is that there is always a reason for the thing existing. We don't know that about the universe in general.

If we assume that the universe has no actual reason for existing, it's very difficult to understand why some being would have bothered to create it.

If we assume that it does have a purpose - without any evidence to suggest that (so far as I'm aware - we have to assume that someone made it for that purpose.
Hence, God exists because he made the universe.
How do we know he made the universe? It exists.
Why does it exist? It was made for a reason.
What reason? We can't possibly know, because God made it.
How do we know he exists?
etc.
etc.

 

[Lightwave]

If we assume that the universe has no actual reason for existing, it's very difficult to understand why some being would have bothered to create it.

err...... I think that's an easy one to answer.

Because its beautiful and because you can... and because creation is the ultimate test of knowledge

If you could create universes how could you stop yourself???

Given that it pretty much seems to have grown instantaneously in a chain reaction from a single small point I imagine creating one may be a darn sight easier than taking care of everything living thing in one from the act of creatuion until eternity.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Ah, but now we get to motivation.

Why do people climb Mt. Everest? Because they can.

Why does God create a universe? Because He can.

What about that comparison makes God any different than us in that narrow context? The motives and actions attributed to God in all of this are all too human, which is where I find myself with the greatest doubt. And the answer "We are not able to know God's motive" is a cop-out. "God works in mysterious ways" is a cop-out. "God always has a plan but we don't always know what it is" is a cop-out. Common to all of them is the reply, "If you don't know, why don't you just say so instead of being 'mysterious' about it?"

I've always taken the viewpoint that the ability to do something is independent of the motive. So we can climb Mt. Everest, but why? We can go parachute jumping, but why jump out of a perfectly functional airplane? We can make babies, but why?

In each case, the answer is "to satisfy a need." What needs can a perfect being possibly have? And if He has them, doesn't that need make Him imperfect?

I guess I'm far too skeptical and too analytical to accept on faith what others accept on faith. I just don't see the "wonder of creation" as anything but the natural interplay of complex physics, chemistry, and biology. Further, since "creation" carries the baggage of a creator (big or little C, since we're talking language here), I prefer "natural development" or "natural growth" of those phenomena.

 

[Mike375]

The trick is whether the structures themselves were designed by intelligence or are the result of natural (non-sentient) forces. In other words, that question merely moves the dispute to a different level.

I strongly tend to not believe in supernatural explanations. I always come back to Occam's Razor a.k.a. the Law of Logical Parsimony: Which is easier to believe?

(1) An eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being intervened at the time of the creation of the universe so as to push the laws of physics (and therefore, chemistry and biology) in a direction that led to us.

(2) An eternal, omniscient, omnipotent being created the entire universe about 6000 years ago, planting evidence to appear otherwise so that we would think the universe is far, far older than it really is. This evidence includes laws of physics (and therefore, chemistry and biology) that appear to have led to us.

(3) The laws of physics (and therefore, chemistry and biology) lead to us without a push from any external agency.

#3 wins every time.

The problem with No 3 is "where did "The laws of physics (and therefore, chemistry and biology)" come from.

 

[Mike375]

If we assume that the universe has no actual reason for existing, it's very difficult to understand why some being would have bothered to create it.

It is has been said many times before and the simple fact is there is no way we could even begin to understand the reasons for a being of such power to what it/he/she did or does. As is also the case of the young child who simply can't understand the action of its parents.

But as a side note, the creation of the universe or anything else for that matter would indicate such a being (or beings) are not perfect and all knowing. If they were then there would be no need to alter their stuation by creating something "new".

 

[Lightwave]

Well lets face it the story so far has been pretty amazing and its taken the best minds of the world 2,000 years to incrementally build it up bit by bit.

quantum field theory & mechanics, claissical mechanics and relativity...

And in the process , as a by product they've had to invent maths with which we find ourselves a part of here...

I expect we'll learn a lot more but I very much doubt we'll ever know the full story but they're never going to give up are they?

 

[Mike375]

Of course the other possibility is a supreme being or supreme beings who did create the earth etc but using the available natural laws. In other words there are "gods" but not of infinite power and knowledge. Perhaps they relate to us as we relate to ants. For a young child its father is like God. However as the child gets older it learns there are even bigger gods than its father.

I have always thought the Bible in general is portraying a god of limited power. His need to offer temptation for testing, his need to tell parables to get a message across etc.

Perhaps the ideas of an all powerful god or there being no superior being that can influence our lives are like most extremes in the sense the truth lays in the middle.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mike375

The problem with No 3 is "where did "The laws of physics (and therefore, chemistry and biology)" come from.

I return you to the typical theist answer: Has always been that way. If theists can demand that God has always been here, I demand equal consideration that the natural laws have always been here.

Except, of course, I don't need a higher being to have brought those laws into play.

 

[Mike375]

Mike375



I return you to the typical theist answer: Has always been that way. If theists can demand that God has always been here, I demand equal consideration that the natural laws have always been here.

Except, of course, I don't need a higher being to have brought those laws into play.

But the problem with accepting the natural laws have always been there is you enter the word of a superior being or beings at work.

 

[Rich]

But the problem with accepting the natural laws have always been there is you enter the word of a superior being or beings at work.

Why?

 

[Mike375]

Why?

Is there anything with natural laws that supports them always having been there? Big Bang would surely say No?

 

[Rich]

Just because we can't fathom a reason for existance doesn't mean there has to be one

 

[Mike375]

But if we accept Big Bang then that adds a "beginning" to the equation.

In my opinion if you start with a position of no bias or wishful thinking then there are two answers that are the most logical:

1) A set natural laws exist which are not available to us...for whatever reason or

2) A superior being or superior beings

In either case thaye are both supernatural when measured against our natural laws.