Theism vs Atheism

abasile said:

The Creator need not have a beginning anytime/anywhere or an end anytime/anywhere.

Click to expand...

Why ?

Bassman said:

Great presentation. I've been to the Maldives twice. I'm going to miss them when they're gone in 2050 due to sea level rise. More importantly, where are the 250,000 inhabitants goning to live?

Click to expand...

IIRC, The government of the Maldives has purchased land (in India) for this very purpose.

abasile said:

I think you are basically correct. "Evolution", though, is somewhat different from AGW in that it can become a religion in its own way. It often represents an attempt to explain existence with zero involvement from a transcendent Creator, through entirely random, unplanned processes.

Click to expand...

It is not entirely random - that is the whole basis of "natural selection". No - it isn't an ideology - there is solid evidence for evolution - as much as what we are going to get for any biological sciences.

Let us compare the evidence for Evolution vs evidence for transcendent Creator, for eg.

I suggest reading Richard Dawkin's books on evolution, like the one below.

"The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" (ISBN : 1416594787).



BTW, I'm amazed/amused at all the folk who want to benefit from all that modern medicine has to offer and yet not believe in the basic foundation of modern medicine - Evolution. Just like Fox News pundits hurl abuses at "scientists" without who there wouldn't be a television. :lol:

evnow said:

Most of us not directly involved in climatology do not understand the exact science - has nothing to do with being dumb. Afterall those climatologists probably don't understand a lot of things you or I know well. Just the nature of modern science.

Click to expand...

While I may understand some of the elementary principles behind climatology, I sure don't have a deep understanding. At some point, one simply has to trust that the scientific establishment, and the scientific process, is doing what it is supposed to. Restating an earlier point, it can be tough to get people to trust that science is right on climate change when they already distrust science for other reasons.

evnow said:

No - it isn't an ideology - there is solid evidence for evolution - as much as what we are going to get for any biological sciences.

Click to expand...

Let me be clear. I have no problem with the science of Evolution, which is itself evolving as we study more. What I really take issue with is the ideology of evolution espoused by folks such as Dawkins. Saying that God is a delusion is not a scientific statement, it is an ideological statement.

evnow said:

abasile said:

The Creator need not have a beginning anytime/anywhere or an end anytime/anywhere.

Click to expand...

Why ?

Click to expand...

I think it is clear that *something* must be eternal, that is, without beginning or end. From what I understand, our universe had a definite beginning, that is, the Big Bang. Then that begs the question, where did the Big Bang come from? These days, there is much conjecture that the Big Bang somehow came from another universe. Okay, fine. Where did that prior universe come from? And so on.

The Bible calls God eternal. It also calls God/Jesus the "First" and the "Last", i.e., nothing came before Him and nothing comes after Him. I am not trying to prove that this is true, however, just illustrate how this is a reasonable interpretation of reality.

abasile said:

evnow said:

abasile said:

The Creator need not have a beginning anytime/anywhere or an end anytime/anywhere.

Click to expand...

Why ?

Click to expand...

I think it is clear that *something* must be eternal, that is, without beginning or end.

Click to expand...

Any time "why" is answered with "it must be" I find myself wondering how anyone can say that with a straight face. It would be more honest to say, "because I can't imagine it any other way". It's an opinion not supported by evidence.

davewill said:

abasile said:

I think it is clear that *something* must be eternal, that is, without beginning or end.

Click to expand...

Any time "why" is answered with "it must be" I find myself wondering how anyone can say that with a straight face. It would be more honest to say, "because I can't imagine it any other way". It's an opinion not supported by evidence.

Click to expand...

It is true that I can't imagine that there's nothing eternal. That would seem to imply that "something" arose from "nothing".

abasile said:

I think it is clear that *something* must be eternal, that is, without beginning or end. From what I understand, our universe had a definite beginning, that is, the Big Bang. Then that begs the question, where did the Big Bang come from? These days, there is much conjecture that the Big Bang somehow came from another universe. Okay, fine. Where did that prior universe come from? And so on.

Click to expand...

I think we were at this point a few posts before, but to state it more clearly:
At this point you have reduced God to simple semantics. Congratulations! You might still become an Atheist in the end (which does not require any faith at all...just simple application of logic and reason).
The "something" that is eternal is "reality" and you may call it "God' (or whatever other name pleases you). There is nothing wrong with that.
But when it comes to describing properties of that entity, you can take very different approaches.

You can do science, and make these properties transparent, understandable and demonstrable to all your fellow sentient beings.

Or you can make a lot of unfounded claims, that are impossible to prove or disprove, which lead to fun activities such as burning of heretics, holy wars, suicide bombings etc...

Lots of words, but you're still trying to define the problem from within the problem. Even 'man' is intelligent enough to not do this...generally...

Look at math. When fingers didn't do what we wanted, we expanded the tool set - went 'outside' the limits - and added a zero. Integers were expanded with real and later complex numbers. Each time 'we' stepped outside the current limits in order to evolve to the next level.

Seems to me that the ants in the ant farm really aren't in a position to have an intelligent conversation about nuclear physics...

klapauzius said:

At this point you have reduced God to simple semantics.

Click to expand...

Not so fast. Belief in the historical person of Jesus as God in human flesh, and in the Bible as his Word, is not what I would call reducing God to simple semantics. With respect to understanding God from a broad, cosmological, impersonal standpoint, you might have a point. But I believe in a personal God who is involved in our lives via the very fabric of creation. How that works exactly, I don't know. Out of curiosity, I'd like to know more. But I'm okay with the fact that I will never know everything.

klapauzius said:

Congratulations! You might still become an Atheist in the end (which does not require any faith at all...just simple application of logic and reason).

Click to expand...

Being a pseudo-agnostic might not require faith, as you are open to any possibility with respect to the existence or nonexistence of God. However, being an atheist (correct me if I'm wrong) requires one to definitively believe that there is no God. Scientifically, we don't know enough to be able to make that claim. So you are exercising faith.

klapauzius said:

The "something" that is eternal is "reality" and you may call it "God' (or whatever other name pleases you). There is nothing wrong with that.
But when it comes to describing properties of that entity, you can take very different approaches.

You can do science, and make these properties transparent, understandable and demonstrable to all your fellow sentient beings.

Click to expand...

I am all for using science to learn whatever we can about reality. This need not be mutually exclusive with having faith.

klapauzius said:

Or you can make a lot of unfounded claims, that are impossible to prove or disprove, which lead to fun activities such as burning of heretics, holy wars, suicide bombings etc...

Click to expand...

I would not call Christianity unfounded. According to the Bible, for which we have very good manuscript support, hundreds of people saw Jesus following his resurrection. Thousands witnessed his miracles. It is not unreasonable to accept the historicity of these accounts, unless of course one is categorically unwilling to accept the possibility of God intervening in a "miraculous" manner. While I accept these miracles, I also believe that God typically works through the "natural" laws.

None of the "fun activities" that you mentioned would be condoned by Jesus. Neither would the countless atrocities perpetuated by atheist and pagan dictators. All of humanity is sinful, falling short of the glory of God.

abasile said:

However, being an atheist (correct me if I'm wrong) requires one to definitively believe that there is no God. Scientifically, we don't know enough to be able to make that claim. So you are exercising faith.

Click to expand...

Just the opposite. It's the lack of faith which leads to one being an atheist. Having faith means believing without scientific evidence or knowledge.

Just like some people like to think that believing AGW is an act of faith - in reality there is more than enough scientific evidence to show that it's true beyond any level of reasonable doubt. Hey look - I brought this thread back on topic!

PS - I have rather enjoyed this OT diversion as it has remained quite civilized - so often these types of discussions can get quite nasty for no good reason!

abasile said:

Let me be clear. I have no problem with the science of Evolution, which is itself evolving as we study more. What I really take issue with is the ideology of evolution espoused by folks such as Dawkins. Saying that God is a delusion is not a scientific statement, it is an ideological statement.

Click to expand...

Atheism is not an ideology - just like religion is not - and has nothing particularly to do with evolution. Dawkins just happens to be an evolutionary biologist. Being a theist you probably won't agree that God is a delusion - but that is fine.

There are very good reasons for moving away from the taboo around religion and subject it to the same rigorous scientific evaluation we use for any other idea. Afterall religion claims to be telling certain truths about certain facts. So, we need to be able to study and ascertain whether those claims are true or not.

AndyH said:

Lots of words, but you're still trying to define the problem from within the problem. Even 'man' is intelligent enough to not do this...generally...

Look at math. When fingers didn't do what we wanted, we expanded the tool set - went 'outside' the limits - and added a zero. Integers were expanded with real and later complex numbers. Each time 'we' stepped outside the current limits in order to evolve to the next level.

Seems to me that the ants in the ant farm really aren't in a position to have an intelligent conversation about nuclear physics...

Click to expand...

Do you mean to imply that we will discover religion, when we will have become hyper-intelligent (not sure if this ever will happen, but some say the Singularity is mere decades away..) ?

Currently the trend seems to go the other way, i.e. smarter societies are less religious..

abasile said:

I would not call Christianity unfounded. According to the Bible, for which we have very good manuscript support, hundreds of people saw Jesus following his resurrection. Thousands witnessed his miracles. It is not unreasonable to accept the historicity of these accounts, unless of course one is categorically unwilling to accept the possibility of God intervening in a "miraculous" manner. While I accept these miracles, I also believe that God typically works through the "natural" laws.

Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, historicity of Jesus is itself has little evidence. There is absolutely no comtemporaneous records of Jesus.

BTW, it is interesting how you seemlessly transition from arguing about a a creator because there needs to be one (!) i.e. a "philosophical question" to more mundane matter of miracles involving a particular faith.

abasile said:

Neither would the countless atrocities perpetuated by atheist and pagan dictators. All of humanity is sinful, falling short of the glory of God.

Click to expand...

Pagan and Christian are the same to an Atheist.

The only true atheist Dictator/mass murderer that comes to mind is Stalin...all the rest had some sort of faith, which also frequently was used to justify their atrocities.

abasile said:

Neither would the countless atrocities perpetuated by atheist and pagan dictators. All of humanity is sinful, falling short of the glory of God.

Click to expand...

Hardly - this God seems to be incapable of creating a proper earth. I'd blame it all on Him.

BTW, let us get back on topic.

evnow said:

There are very good reasons for moving away from the taboo around religion and subject it to the same rigorous scientific evaluation we use for any other idea. Afterall religion claims to be telling certain truths about certain facts. So, we need to be able to study and ascertain whether those claims are true or not.

Click to expand...

I agree. I would encourage everyone to rigorously examine their worldview, as well as any worldview they are considering adopting. In my opinion, that does not mean that absolutely every question has to be answered, or that there is no room for faith. We need to look for reasonableness and consistency, among other things. Of course there will be differences of opinion.

evnow said:

As a matter of fact, historicity of Jesus is itself has little evidence. There is absolutely no comtemporaneous records of Jesus.

Click to expand...

The New Testament itself contains a lot of information, including eyewitness accounts. Josephus, the first century Jewish historian, came a little after Jesus but close enough to provide some corroboration. Then we have a number of early Christian writers, Roman references to Christians, etc. Usually it is the case that where there is smoke, there is fire. It is my understanding that we have more documentary evidence for Jesus than for many other ancient figures whose historicity is rarely questioned.

evnow said:

BTW, it is interesting how you seemlessly transition from arguing about a a creator because there needs to be one (!) i.e. a "philosophical question" to more mundane matter of miracles involving a particular faith.

Click to expand...

To me they are connected. Examining that "particular faith" is what motivated me to consider questions as to the existence of a Creator.

evnow said:

this God seems to be incapable of creating a proper earth. I'd blame it all on Him.

Click to expand...

I'd say this Earth is very, very amazing, and an awesome gift from God. That is all the more reason to be good stewards of it, not simply trash it. Alas, people do not always use their freewill for good.

evnow said:

BTW, let us get back on topic.

Click to expand...

I promise I won't add further posts to this thread on this subject if no one else does! :lol: (You could relocate this discussion into a thread of its own if you like.)

klapauzius said:

AndyH said:

Lots of words, but you're still trying to define the problem from within the problem. Even 'man' is intelligent enough to not do this...generally...

Look at math. When fingers didn't do what we wanted, we expanded the tool set - went 'outside' the limits - and added a zero. Integers were expanded with real and later complex numbers. Each time 'we' stepped outside the current limits in order to evolve to the next level.

Seems to me that the ants in the ant farm really aren't in a position to have an intelligent conversation about nuclear physics...

Click to expand...

Do you mean to imply that we will discover religion, when we will have become hyper-intelligent (not sure if this ever will happen, but some say the Singularity is mere decades away..) ?

Currently the trend seems to go the other way, i.e. smarter societies are less religious..

Click to expand...

No. Religion is a man-made...device. The masters came to teach and to lead us to our next evolutionary step or awakening - not to start a religion. I do think that those that stay 'stuck' at the level of any current 'religion' are likely to miss the next evolutionary step because just like climate deniers (and any other peer group) - the next step won't fit with their interpretation of what's 'supposed' to happen. Looking at the problem using my poorly-attempted math analogy, we'll know more when we drop the body and float out of this dimension.

So...the question REALLY is... We KNOW for a fact that the earth is warming, we know for a fact what's causing it and how at least most of the feed-backs work, and we know that things are starting to accelerate. What is it going to take for either 1. our leaders to pull their heads out and declare an immediate 'end of carbon' 'moon shot', or 2. to mobilize almost ALL of the planet's population to force the required changes from the bottom up?

If one of those doesn't happen, then I'm thinking it's time to sell our sweaters before they're worthless and give up seafood (unless one likes peanut butter and jellyfish sandwiches)...

edit..spelling...

AndyH said:

So...the question REALLY is... We KNOW for a fact that the earth is warming, we know for a fact what's causing it and how at least most of the feed-backs work, and we know that things are starting to accelerate. What is it going to take for either 1. our leaders to pull their heads out and declare an immediate 'end of carbon' 'moon shot', or 2. to mobilize almost ALL of the planet's population to force the required changes from the bottom up?

If one of those doesn't happen, then I'm thinking it's time to sell our sweaters before they're worthless and give up seafood (unless one likes peanut butter and jellyfish sandwiches)...

Click to expand...

Look at Germany...they just decided to get out of nuclear power, scared by one single event this year. So 180 degree turns are possible, even in a fairly large democracy (also this particular turnaround does not make any sense at all). Unfortunately, the global meltdown happens on a much longer timescale than nuclear accidents...so, I would start selling the sweaters now...I wonder, if global warming will lead to more sunshine in the Northwest, which will mean more free electricity for me...

abasile said:

However, being an atheist (correct me if I'm wrong) requires one to definitively believe that there is no God. Scientifically, we don't know enough to be able to make that claim. So you are exercising faith.

Click to expand...

Having studied both philosophy and science for over 50 years now, I cannot resist putting my $.02 into this off-topic discussion, especially since abasile asked someone to "correct me if I'm wrong." The statement above is incorrect in that it depends on a definition of "atheism" as someone who "knows" there is no God, in the same way that a believer "knows" that there is a God. The inference is that since neither position can be proven scientifically, they both require a leap of faith. In that strict interpretation, the statement is true. However, it ignores the less than precise nature of language. The trouble with this statement is that such a rigid definition of atheism is not practical or correct, either historically or in present practice. There is a "spectrum of theistic probability" that must be applied to adequately explain the degree of one's atheism, agnosticism, or theism. Dawkins has proposed a continuous "spectrum of probabilities" between the two extremes of opposite certainty, which can be represented by seven "milestones". These "milestones" are:

1. Strong theist--100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist--Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism--Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial agnostic--Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism--Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist--Very low probability, but short of zero. "I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist--"I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

Dawkins argues that while there appear to be plenty of individuals who would place themselves as a #1, no "thinking" atheist would consider themselves a #7, as atheism arises from a lack of evidence and evidence can always change a thinking person's mind. Dawkins has characterized himself as a #6.9, precisely to avoid this kind of accusation of being a "believer" himself. He does not deny any and every possibility that there is a God, he just suggests that it is very, very small (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fUYUvvJiW0).

Personally, I love these kinds of discussions and could go on for pages, but out of respect for the original topic, I will stop with this single correction.

TT
"Physics is not just another good idea, it's the law."