|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 4/8/2008 4:17:41 PM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 150
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
I just chose the subject header as a hook for atheists to join this thread to discuss the existence of God. But instead of opening with a quick argument, I will leave my point to this:
I believe that God exists.
I haven't seen any good reason to doubt this.
So, all ye God doubters, proveth my ill-fated beliefs a curse. Draw thy sword of empirical investigation and thy shield of rigorous logic and thus prepare thyself for battle. For the King hath called His humble knight to defend the honor of His Kingdom with manly vigor and winsome fervency!! 
< Message edited by cognitivemagic -- 4/8/2008 4:24:30 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 4/11/2008 11:47:26 PM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 96
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: online
|
Hi cognitivemagic,
Wouldn't you say that God is neither proveable nor proveable?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 4/11/2008 11:52:25 PM
|
|
|
PROPHETSONG
Posts: 106
Joined: 9/21/2006
From: PHILADELPHIA
Status: offline
|
The truth that God is is written in hearts of men. To deny is to live a lie
quote:
ORIGINAL: abraxas
Hi cognitivemagic,
Wouldn't you say that God is neither proveable nor proveable?
_____________________________
JER 1: 18 Today I have made you a fortified city, an iron pillar and a bronze wall to stand against the whole land--against the kings of Judah, its officials, its priests and the people of the land.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 4/12/2008 12:06:05 AM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 96
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: online
|
I know a lot of folks are of that opinion. Do you think that's what the OP was getting at?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 4/12/2008 4:11:15 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 263
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
The existence of God is a topic I would gladly discuss, but not on these forums. By starting the discussion by positing a challenge to convince you, you have automatically disbarred anyone from responding. This is, unfortunately, because, " 15. You will not promote by repeated statements, by provision of URLs to other Web sites, by recommendation to engage in non-community activities such as watching programs, reading books, or attending events, or by any other means, beliefs or teachings contrary to those of Christianity as articulated by the historic creeds, as understood by Evangelicalism, and as interpreted by Salem Web Network in its sole discretion."
I can not, by any means, attempt to dissuade you from Christianity. I can not, by any means, attempt to persuade you to any other belief. I can only state my opinions as my opinions, without attempting to influence others.
If we were to have an open discussion about this, I would have to be able to recommend numerous books, a program or two, and quite a number of Youtube videos that all are in direct opposition to Christianity. Due to the TOS, I can't.
I believe the best that I can say on these forums without being banned from further discussion is this; I do not believe in God for two reasons. The first is that I see no reason, no need to believe in a god. The second is that I have seen no evidence, nor experienced any revelation that would compel me to believe in a god.
See how limited I am in my ability to speak?
Instead of letting this thread die, allow me to turn the question back on you. What makes you believe in God that could be used to convince an atheist of God's existence? Since I can't try and convince you that God doesn't exist, attempt to persuade me that he does.
And just to help you out... (Oh, and I stole this list from. I can't cite the source, because of the same TOS rule)
Things that would absolutely convince me of the truth of a specific religion:
*Verified prophecies that could not have been contrived.
--If the prophecy is: vague (Nostradamus), trivial, contrived for other reasons, self-fulfilling (Jews returning to Israel), predicts an event that already happened, and the writing of the prophecy can not be shown to have preceded the event), a lone success among many failures (shot in the dark).
*Scientific knowledge in holy books that was not available at the time.
--Again, there must be verification that it was in the text before it was known scientifically. The knowledge can not be vague, and retro-interpretation doesn't help your case. (Such as the Quran's supposed evidence for a non-perfect sphere Earth, or an expanding universe.)
*Miraculous occurrences, especially if brought about via prayer.
*A direct manifestation of the divine.
--Must be verifiable, eg. No hallucinogenics present, multiple witnesses.
*If an extraterrestrial civilization held the same religion, and had the same holy text.
Circumstantial evidence that would tend me towards belief:
*A truly flawless and consistent holy text.
*A religion without internal disputes or factions.
*A religion whose followers have never participated in atrocities.
Things that won't work:
*Pseudo-miracles. (Speaking in tongues, things due to the placebo effect)
*Other's conversions stories.
*Any subjective experience. (The beauty of a rainbow)
*The Bible code.
*Creationism (Or any other scientific theory that is rejected by the scientific community)
Those are for a specific religion. There are other things that would probably convince me that aren't listed, but that don't come to mind. Theism would also be an easier task, and Deism even easier, but the above guidelines still apply.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 4/12/2008 6:22:21 PM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 150
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Wouldn't you say that God is neither proveable nor proveable?
Perhaps He is. Perhaps He is.
quote:
If we were to have an open discussion about this, I would have to be able to recommend numerous books, a program or two, and quite a number of Youtube videos that all are in direct opposition to Christianity.
I'm thinking that perhaps it is you who needs to read some material, before you will be suitably up to the task that lay ahead of you. Such as:
quote:
"Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" and "The Case Against Christianity" by Michael Martin. Also his ed. work of "The Cambridge Companion to Atheism".
"The Existence of God" by Wallace Matson.
"The Miracle of Theism" by J.L. Mackie.
"The Non-Existence of God" by Nicholas Everitt.
"Humanist Manifesto 2000" by Paul Kurtz.
"Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism" and "The Encyclopedia of Unbelief" ed. Gordon Stein.
"Critiques of God" by Peter Angeles.
"Ethics Without God" and "Philosophy and Atheism: In Defense of Atheism" by Kai Nielsen.
"God and Philosophy" by Antony Flew.
"Arguing For Atheism: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion" by Robin Le Poidevin.
"How We Believe" by Michael Shermer.
"Breaking the Spell" by Daniel Dennett.
"Critique of Religion and Philosophy" by Walter Kaufman.
"Thus Spake Zarathustra" and "The Will to Power" by Friedrich Nietzsche.
"The Future of an Illusion" by Sigmund Freud.
"The Essence of Christianity" by Ludwig Feuerbach.
"The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine.
Free Inquiry and Skeptical Inquirer magazines.
But you are also going to have to read stuff that isn't atheistic, so that you'll have some idea of what you will have to contend with:
quote:
"The Resurrection of Theism" and "The Reconstruction of the Christian Revelation Claim: A Critical and Philosophical Apologetic" by Stuart Hackett.
"Reason to Believe" and "Philosophically Speaking" by Richard Purtill.
"C.S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea" by Victor Reppert.
"Miracles" by C.S. Lewis.
"Why Believe? God Exists!" by Terry Miethe and Gary Habermas.
"Naturalism" ed. J.P. Moreland and William Craig.
"The Case Against Accident and Self-Organization" by Dean Overman.
"The Divine Lawmaker: Lectures on Induction, the Laws of Nature and the Existence of God" by John Foster.
"The Road of Science and the Ways to God", "The Absolute Beneath the Relative" and "Angels, Apes and Men" by Stanley Jaki.
"World Without Design: The Ontological Consequences of Naturalism" by Michael Rea.
"Reasonable Faith" by William Lane Craig.
"Scaling the Secular City" by J.P. Moreland.
Of course, I didn't include specific articles from journals, magazines, etc., because that would bog us down into academic trifles that are better left to professional disputation.
Now, if you have a specific non-Christian site that you would care to pick up this discussion, I have no problems going there to do it.
But I have to be honest with you, those sites aren't going to like me; but I am not trying to win popularity contests anymore.
I've been to plenty of debates and I've attended many regional "skeptics" meetings that have featured such guys as "Edward Tabash" and "The Amazing Randi".
I don't even care if I'm ambushed or bullied anymore....that's how epistemically weak I think atheism is.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 4/12/2008 9:10:07 PM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 96
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: online
|
Okay, we have our reading lists. Let's meet back here in 18 months and begin the discussion! 
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 4/12/2008 10:25:43 PM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 263
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
On the pro-Atheism side, I've read:
"Breaking the Spell" by Daniel Dennett.
"The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine.
"The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins
"Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris
"The End of Faith" by Sam Harris
"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins
"God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor J. Stenger
"Varieties of Scientific Experience" by Carl Sagan
"Letters from the Earth" By Samuel Clemens
On the pro-Theistic side, I've read:
"Miracles" by C.S. Lewis.
"The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel
"The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel
"Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel
"The Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis
"Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis
"Pilgrim's Progress" by John Bunyan
I've probably read a few more on both sides that I can't recall, but those are the ones I still have on my shelves, or come to mind. I'm a bit under-read on the pro-theistic side, at least as far as books go. Though I've read numerous books worth of text from both sides here on our good friend the internet. But, having been raised in a theistic household, I'm fairly familiar with that side of the argument to begin with.
quote:
Now, if you have a specific non-Christian site that you would care to pick up this discussion, I have no problems going there to do it.
Sorry, I don't frequent many websites. I have no suitable board for this type of discussion.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 4/14/2008 12:57:54 PM
|
|
|
RangerForGod
Posts: 107
Joined: 1/3/2008
Status: offline
|
I too believe in God, with all my heart. Although I have questioned Him many times during the rough periods of my life, I now know that these were just His way of testing me. It took me a long time to comprehend this, but now I know the truth.
The problem I have with atheists is this: why push your agenda? Why denigrate a group that holds fast to a belief that betters themselves? You will never win.
And why is it that Christianity is the main target of your agenda? Why have atheists not pushed their agenda in the Muslim world? You paint our Savior and his mother using feces and urine, but will not do the same with Muhammad? This is because you are too cowardly to do so. You look upon Christians as the weakest and you spit forth your venom thinking we do not notice. When in fact it is us that come out on top. We acknowledge your opinion and we pray for your souls. I do not think Islam would be as kind.
My own opinion is that atheists are just too scared to believe; and like a scared and cornered animal, become overcome with rage and lash out when others to not agree with their beliefs.
_____________________________
The world of strangers cannot judge me, for they do not know me.
God alone will judge me.
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."
-- GK Chesterton
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 4/15/2008 9:23:18 PM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 263
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RangerForGod
The problem I have with atheists is this: why push your agenda? Why denigrate a group that holds fast to a belief that betters themselves? You will never win.
Exchange the word "atheists" with "Christians" and see if you can answer the same thing. You probably won't agree that atheism is an attempt to better yourself, but a lot of atheists probably wouldn't agree that Christianity really is an attempt to better yourself. Personally, I wouldn't be an atheist if I thought that it was a degradation to my character. I do not believe in a god, therefore, atheism is what I see as being true. To accept what is true is, in my opinion, a good thing. You can say the same thing about Christianity, or any theism, but simple asking the questions you did won't help anything.
Moreover, 'atheists' don't really push their agenda. Atheist is a term to describe any person who does not believe in a god. Some atheists do push their agenda, and there are groups of atheists who do the same thing. However, there is not singular 'atheists' that push a non-religious agenda. The basis of atheism is not a positive, it's not that we do believe in something, it's that many people believe in something that we don't. There is no call to spread our beliefs. You could say that 'Christians' on the whole don't try to spread their message, because there is a high percentage of people who claim Christianity that don't evangelize. However, it is a core tenant of Christianity that its followers attempt to tell others about Christianity.
quote:
And why is it that Christianity is the main target of your agenda? Why have atheists not pushed their agenda in the Muslim world?
I would disagree that Christianity is the main target of atheism in any sense other than that it is the largest religion. To the extent that it is a prominent target of atheism, I would guess you see it as the biggest for two reasons. The first is cultural, you live (presumably) in a Christian majority nation. Unless you actively keep up with the local or national news of countries with non-Christian religious majorities, the only news of atheist agenda you will see is that which details attacks against Christianity. The second is high-profile atheists that most English-speakers are aware of speak English as a primary language. A majority of countries that speak English also have Christianity as their religious majority. Therefore, there is a greater likelihood that the prominent English-speaking atheists will have been raised in a more Christian society. Christianity will be what they 'know', the form of religion with which they are most familiar. It is easier to speak about that which you are familiar with that that which you are not.
A third reason may be that, in the modern era, Christianity no longer persecutes 'heretics' to the Church. Most Islamic-majority nations, however, have laws against speaking against their faith. If this is true, then the only place in which atheism will be 'allowed' to arise is in Christian-majority nations. (I'm only using Christianity and Islam here because, together, they have a majority rule over the world.) Therefore, the majority with which most atheists will be familiar, and therefore more able to criticize, is Christianity. I'm not sure about Islam, but I know that in India there are rationalist societies that attempt to debunk the gurus and witchdoctors.
quote:
You paint our Savior and his mother using feces and urine, but will not do the same with Muhammad? This is because you are too cowardly to do so. You look upon Christians as the weakest and you spit forth your venom thinking we do not notice. When in fact it is us that come out on top. We acknowledge your opinion and we pray for your souls. I do not think Islam would be as kind.
Again, this is from what you've seen. Other religions get their fair share of kicking in as well, from their own skeptics, but you only hear about it when there's a massively outraged response. You only hear about the Danish cartoons or the Muhammad bear because there's were riots and bloodshed because of them. Do you really think that those were the only affronts against Islam? I've seen Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens ridicule Islam up and down, but your average Christian won't have heard these speeches because they only care when it's their own religion being spoken against. You only see the abuse that Christianity receives because it's the only abuse you care about.
quote:
My own opinion is that atheists are just too scared to believe; and like a scared and cornered animal, become overcome with rage and lash out when others to not agree with their beliefs.
Too scared to believe? Don't make me laugh. How hard is it to tell your parents that you're a Christian? Have you, immediately and without reprieve had friends and family cut you off and refuse to speak to you because you believe in Jesus? Do you have, every time you see your family, attempt to tactfully get out of religious discussions because you don't want to loose more of these connections? Do you have to go through the motions of another's religion because you fear they might suspect you're a Christian?
Try being a fourteen year old atheist and being told, by your parents who don't know you've lost your faith, that all atheist go to hell. Sit through church services where your beliefs are, without reason, condemned as the most sinful thing on earth. Watch your uncle's marriage almost break when he announces his atheism, and your parents criticize his decision in vehement terms. Hold that fear in your heart as you announce to your parents that you've become an atheist, because you hate having to lie to them every time they pray at dinner. Watch your mother almost burst into tears every time she thinks about how you've lost your faith. Then tell me about fear. Tell me about pain and loss when you loose relationships you've had for your whole life simply because you have different opinions about an event that happened two thousand years before your birth.
Christians in the past may have lived in fear of announcing their faith. People in other countries may fear of announcing their Christianity because they are surrounded by a different religion. But don't you who live in a Christian nation attempt to tell me about the fear of holding beliefs. Don't attempt to tell us of fear who have been a minority through history. We who have been persecuted not by a single faith, but by all. Not in one era, but in all.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 4/15/2008 9:43:16 PM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 150
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
On the pro-Atheism side, I've read:
"Breaking the Spell" by Daniel Dennett.
"The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine.
"The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins
"Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris
"The End of Faith" by Sam Harris
"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins
"God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Victor J. Stenger
"Varieties of Scientific Experience" by Carl Sagan
"Letters from the Earth" By Samuel Clemens
On the pro-Theistic side, I've read:
"Miracles" by C.S. Lewis.
"The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel
"The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel
"Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel
"The Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis
"Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis
"Pilgrim's Progress" by John Bunyan
On the pro-atheist side, you haven't selected the best representatives in the subject. I believe that the list I provided is about the best of the best, in terms of atheistic argumentation. I doubt a knowledgeable skeptic would disagree.
As for the pro-theist side, you haven't read nearly enough; nor have you selected the weightiest treatments of the subject. Again, the books I cited are much better representative samples of theistic argumentation.
I only bring this up because it's not fair or fun to spar with someone who isn't prepared to debate...any more than it would be fair or fun for an experienced Mixed Martial arts fighter to challenge an out-of-shape couch potatoe to a fight in the UFC Ocatagon.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 4/16/2008 12:53:37 AM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 96
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: online
|
Okay, that comes across as arrogant. It looks like real_solitude has done a respectable amount of reading.
As for me, I'm a couch potato where all those books are concerned, but I'm more than happy to discuss matters and I think I do just fine. But if your OP challenge is, "I believe in God--prove me wrong!" Discussion is dead in the water. Or have a misunderstood.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 4/16/2008 1:03:03 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 263
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
I'll probably end up reading most of the books you recommended, but my local library is out of commission right now due to a move, so I can't start until at least the 20th. However, I agree with abraxas as well. I may not be able to quote authors or specific arguments as well as others, but I've done my fair share of research and discussion, and usually 'do fine' in debates. In formal debate, I'd probably loose to someone who had read all of those, but in discussion I have a good grasp on most proposed arguments.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 4/18/2008 6:31:09 PM
|
|
|
cognitivemagic
Posts: 150
Joined: 1/14/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Okay, that comes across as arrogant
No, it comes across as someone who likes to be fair.
William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland (two leading theistic apologists) won't bother to publicly debate anyone who doesn't have a relevant Ph.D. Does that make them arrogant?
Oxford University Press won't publish a book by a lay author. Is that arrogant?
State Universities will not hire a professor to teach without the requisite education. Is that arrogant?
Mike Tyson would never fight me in Las Vegas. Is he arrogant?
Again, I wasn't attempting to be arrogant; but rather, I was trying to be fair.
What qualifications have made you the judge of what counts as "arrogant" or not? Doesn't that make you sort of arrogant?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 4/19/2008 1:08:26 AM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 96
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: online
|
Well, it seems to me that you are arrogating yourself to a position akin to Mike Tyson, Oxford UP, etc. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though I would like to point out that everyone brings different things to the table from their experiences, so you might reconsider using your reading list as the litmus test to who is a UFC champ and who is a couch potato. 
quote:
What qualifications have made you the judge of what counts as "arrogant" or not? Doesn't that make you sort of arrogant?
No, I don't see any hypocracy there. Are you suggesting that anyone who observes arrogance in another's actions/words is being arrogant?
It's possible that the reason this thread hasn't really gone anywhere is that the OP is difficult to address. My first thought was, Cool, if that's what you believe, go for it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 4/19/2008 8:04:56 PM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 263
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cognitivemagic
I went to my local library today, and unfortunately they only had two of your recommended books (And only a handful of the authors). They had "Critiques of God" and "The Age of Reason."
One thing I did note though, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the authors that your recommended seemed to be of the theological/philosophical bent. This is bothersome to me as the main reason I turned from Christianity, and all of religion, was because I'd found out things I had been told had happened (Hebrew Slaves in Egypt, Biblical Flood, Age of the Earth, etc...) are things that are either in serious question as to their validity in the scientific/historic community, or that things I had been told were lies (Modern Evolutionary Synthesis [and indeed all of evolution] [and no one start on an anti-evolution thing here, there's a Science folder for that], Radiometric dating, Big Bang) are held as true by the greater majority of their relevant communities. The thing that tainted religion in my mind wasn't the philosophical/theological aspects, it was the scientific/historic ones.
What one religion says being in question isn't grounds for discarding the whole thing, but I found those sorts of arguments much more persuasive than something someone can think up while sitting in a chair. Logical and philosophical arguments are fun, but they don't always have validity in a realistic context.
That said, the logical and philosophical arguments I have heard for theism are easily countered. (The same can probably be said of the atheistic or agnostic arguments, but that simply illustrates my point about armchair philosophy. Who is 'right' ends up being based on which arguments you find to be more compelling, rather than who actually is.) I'm not saying that I've read them all, and I'll check out any of those books if ever I get the opportunity, but if they're fill with purely philosophical arguments, then it's probably not going to affect my outlook all that much.
Also, I agree again with Abraxas. Unless you do have a relevant degree, it's not of much use to demand knowledge on a layman-layman basis. I do see your point, but as long as were just discussing for the purpose of exchanging viewpoints and the reasons for those viewpoints, and not in some formal debate with points attached, it really doesn't matter if you're discussing it with me, or a five year old. (Not to insult any five year olds that may be reading. Children often have interesting and valuable contributions when you can get them to discuss anything deeper than Pokemon.)
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 5/4/2008 10:30:17 AM
|
|
|
MusicianDad
Posts: 77
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
Things that would prove atheism:
1) disprove cause and effect
2) show that order comes, unaided, from chaos
BTW- I love the title of this thread. Way to tweak Marx and Darwyn at the same time!
< Message edited by MusicianDad -- 5/4/2008 10:37:56 AM >
_____________________________
Heartland Rocks!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EK9opsMo0jg
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 5/4/2008 12:07:26 PM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 96
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MusicianDad
Things that would prove atheism:
1) disprove cause and effect
Keep in mind theistic answer is that it began with God, who is eternal and therefore causeless. Why is it so much more of a stretch to say that the universe itself is eternal?
Also, if God created the universe, where did God exist before the universe was created? So again we have a concept which, whether it included God or not, alludes to "place" outside the universe as we know it. So, whatever preceeded the big bang, could have occupied that "place".
2) show that order comes, unaided, from chaos
Not sure how much energy there is in the universe, but I'm sure it's quite a bit, and isn't energy the key ingredient in order coming from chaos?
edit to add: I'm agnostic and for all I know God could be behind all of it. Who knows??
< Message edited by abraxas -- 5/4/2008 12:25:20 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 5/5/2008 12:28:49 AM
|
|
|
MusicianDad
Posts: 77
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: abraxas
quote:
ORIGINAL: MusicianDad
Things that would prove atheism:
1) disprove cause and effect
Keep in mind theistic answer is that it began with God, who is eternal and therefore causeless. Why is it so much more of a stretch to say that the universe itself is eternal?
Also, if God created the universe, where did God exist before the universe was created? So again we have a concept which, whether it included God or not, alludes to "place" outside the universe as we know it. So, whatever preceeded the big bang, could have occupied that "place".
2) show that order comes, unaided, from chaos
Not sure how much energy there is in the universe, but I'm sure it's quite a bit, and isn't energy the key ingredient in order coming from chaos?
edit to add: I'm agnostic and for all I know God could be behind all of it. Who knows??
Scientists used to believe that the universe was eternal. Eistien showed that it is not. It's finite.
The theistic answer says that every beginning has a beginner. God had no beginning and therefor needs no beginner. The same cannot be said for any physical time, place, or object, whether it's inside or ouside the universe.
I said order would have to spring ,unaided, from chaos, not aided by energy. By the way, energy cannot produce itself. It's a product of something else, just like everything we see in our universe.
I respect agnosticism. It's logcal to say "I don't know", unlike the religious belief of atheists who say they know the unkowable and that something can come from nothing.
_____________________________
Heartland Rocks!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EK9opsMo0jg
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 5/5/2008 4:52:32 AM
|
|
|
Real_Solitude
Posts: 263
Joined: 5/9/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MusicianDad
Scientists used to believe that the universe was eternal. Eistien showed that it is not. It's finite.
The theistic answer says that every beginning has a beginner. God had no beginning and therefor needs no beginner. The same cannot be said for any physical time, place, or object, whether it's inside or ouside the universe.
I said order would have to spring ,unaided, from chaos, not aided by energy. By the way, energy cannot produce itself. It's a product of something else, just like everything we see in our universe.
So... Scientists thought that the universe was infinite... until a scientist proved them wrong. So the system works!
The fun thing about space/time is that it didn't used to exist in the form that it did. Before Planck's constant we really don't have an idea of what things looked like. The laws of physics as we know them didn't exist. If I understand things properly, time didn't exist either. So time did have a beginning, but it came from something else that is, conceivably, understandable. It came out of something chaotic. It also doesn't preclude an 'eternal universe.' That is, the energy could have been doing something else that wasn't our universe. 'Before' the expansion of the tiny point of infinite density, we don't really know what there was.
Also, speaking from an atheist perspective, you can't simply posit an uncaused God without sufficient reason. You also can't restrict cause from one thing and yet say that it is required for another thing. We also do know of things that are uncaused, with the advent of quantum physics. Well, with no cause that we can identify, at least.
Also, from what we know, order did not spring unaided from chaos. Chaos sprang unaided from chaos. After a while it calmed down enough to start becoming order. Following the laws established after the Plank Epoch, it has produced higher and higher order as the universe becomes cooler and cooler.
You are correct that energy can not produce itself. Well, to an extent. We do see energy randomly pop into and out of our universe, though it seems to maintain an average. However, from what we know energy can not be created by anything. Even with the big bang, the energy was there, it was just all hanging about in one spot, rather than as the universe we know.
_____________________________
"Instead of feeling alone in a group its better to have real solitude all by yourself."
~Faye Valentine
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 5/5/2008 10:23:01 AM
|
|
|
MusicianDad
Posts: 77
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real_Solitude
quote:
ORIGINAL: MusicianDad
Scientists used to believe that the universe was eternal. Eistien showed that it is not. It's finite.
The theistic answer says that every beginning has a beginner. God had no beginning and therefor needs no beginner. The same cannot be said for any physical time, place, or object, whether it's inside or ouside the universe.
I said order would have to spring ,unaided, from chaos, not aided by energy. By the way, energy cannot produce itself. It's a product of something else, just like everything we see in our universe.
So... Scientists thought that the universe was infinite... until a scientist proved them wrong. So the system works!
The fun thing about space/time is that it didn't used to exist in the form that it did. Before Planck's constant we really don't have an idea of what things looked like. The laws of physics as we know them didn't exist. If I understand things properly, time didn't exist either. So time did have a beginning, but it came from something else that is, conceivably, understandable. It came out of something chaotic. It also doesn't preclude an 'eternal universe.' That is, the energy could have been doing something else that wasn't our universe. 'Before' the expansion of the tiny point of infinite density, we don't really know what there was.
Also, speaking from an atheist perspective, you can't simply posit an uncaused God without sufficient reason. You also can't restrict cause from one thing and yet say that it is required for another thing. We also do know of things that are uncaused, with the advent of quantum physics. Well, with no cause that we can identify, at least.
Also, from what we know, order did not spring unaided from chaos. Chaos sprang unaided from chaos. After a while it calmed down enough to start becoming order. Following the laws established after the Plank Epoch, it has produced higher and higher order as the universe becomes cooler and cooler.
You are correct that energy can not produce itself. Well, to an extent. We do see energy randomly pop into and out of our universe, though it seems to maintain an average. However, from what we know energy can not be created by anything. Even with the big bang, the energy was there, it was just all hanging about in one spot, rather than as the universe we know.
So...yeah, sometimes. But there is always a bunch of fiction thrown in with the facts, so it is not very dependable. Example? Einstien hated that his thesis showed a finite universe. He understood that every befinning has a beginner and that didn't fit with his worldview. He denied the truth for a while and floated a theory that could cover his atheism. In the end his integrity won out, but for a time he was the champion of a total falsehood. There's a ton of politics and false religion in "science".
Energy was doing something else? Wha? As I said, energy doesn't create itself. It's an effect, just like everything in the universe.
Oder does not appear when chaos calms down. That's the kind of mystical ****olla that should be beneath science. Sadly, it isn't.
< Message edited by MusicianDad -- 5/5/2008 10:30:43 AM >
_____________________________
Heartland Rocks!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EK9opsMo0jg
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Atheism Is The Opiate Of The Jaded. - 5/5/2008 12:36:32 PM
|
|
|
abraxas
Posts: 96
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MusicianDad
Scientists used to believe that the universe was eternal. Eistien showed that it is not. It's finite.
This is my bad for misusing the word 'universe'. I should have said 'existence' or 'matter/energy' or something. In any case what I was getting at was that our understanding can't penetrate beyond this universe, or beyond the 'big bang', and it's clear that there's a lot we don't understand. Theists will point to an uncaused creator, fair enough, but there are other speculations and plenty of question marks.
quote:
The theistic answer says that every beginning has a beginner. God had no beginning and therefor needs no beginner. The same cannot be said for any physical time, place, or object, whether it's inside or ouside the universe.
How can the same not be said of whatever is outside the universe? It boggles the mind what "this" is all about. Why is there anything? But then, how could there be nothing?
quote:
I said order would have to spring ,unaided, from chaos, not aided by energy. By the way, energy cannot produce itself. It's a product of something else, just like everything we see in our universe.
Well, energy is one of those things that exists. Where did it come from? How long has it been around? Does it have a beginning, ultimately? I remember reading about an idea that Hawkings had about a constantly expanding and collapsing universe. I don't know if that particular idea still carries any weight, but it points to, um, "extra-universal" possibilities?
quote:
I respect agnosticism. It's logcal to say "I don't know", unlike the religious belief of atheists who say they know the unkowable and that something can come from nothing.
But let's be fair--what you wrote sounds quite a bit like theists' beliefs of God and ex nihilo.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
How did Daniel know all this in 535B.C. unless God really did speak to him after all? 
Now I`ve heard critics argue and say this Book was written around 100B.C. after these undisputable events had taken place. Yet all believe they were written before Jesus` time because Jesus quotes from this Book in Matt.24:15. 
This Book just blows my mind in confirming that there must be a God out there after all. What is your opinion about the Book of Daniel?