Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How come we have all this razor edge teleology, complexity , great order, harmonious solar system , beauty, the highly personal, logic, extreme wonders in the animal kingdom such as the Monarch Butterflys migrational habits, direct informational messages in the DNA molecule as a blueprint for building, and some 60 independent anatomical systems to the Human Body all working in unison , et al, ad infinitum....when we are expected to believe it is all by chance, for no ultimate purpose, and derived from Nothing ?
In consideration of this, doesnt an atheistic worldview require a ton of blind faith that it all 'just happened' without a shred of guided direction ?
Why is it so hard for people like you to understand that we don't leap to Goddunit when we're faced with a question we are unable to answer. My gods are gravity and time.
I'm comfortable with "I don't know" Why aren't you. Why fall into bronze age thinking?
How come we have all this razor edge teleology, complexity , great order, harmonious solar system , beauty, the highly personal, logic, extreme wonders in the animal kingdom such as the Monarch Butterflys migrational habits, direct informational messages in the DNA molecule as a blueprint for building, and some 60 independent anatomical systems to the Human Body all working in unison , et al, ad infinitum....when we are expected to believe it is all by chance, for no ultimate purpose, and derived from Nothing ?
In consideration of this, doesnt an atheistic worldview require a ton of blind faith that it all 'just happened' without a shred of guided direction ?
You speak of "guided direction" as if it were a reasonable alternative, when it is not an explanation at all.
We have no evidence that there is anything that can even give guided direction, or what it is if it does exist, or where it came from, or how it acquired the ability to give direction. Nor do we know what exactly "guided direction" means or entails when we start looking at specifics.
The construct of god as an explanation for anything causes more problems than it solves.
1) One has not given an explanation if one has not proposed a mechanism. Giving god credit for something leads to the illusion that one has offered a satisfactory explanation, when one has actually not said much of anything. To illustrate, allow me to use "gremlins" for the word "god".
Where did the matter/energy for the Big Bang come from? "Gremlins did it". It sounds like I gave an explanation, but I proposed no mechanism, so I never really answered the question or explained where the matter/energy came from. So the question still remains. Yet, some theists criticize atheists for not having a definitive answer for this question. My point is that theists don't have an answer either. "God" by itself is not an answer. Where did god get the matter/energy from? "Oh, he is omnipotent so he can just do things like that". That is not an explanation. I could claim the same for Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Invisible Pink Unicorns.
2) Immaterial and material gods. People have many different concepts of god, so it makes showing the problems with god’s properties difficult, because not every theist believes he has such and such a property. But, allow me to address the problem immaterial beings have.
How does an immaterial being interact or have any influence on a material being? Being immaterial, god has no weight (i.e., no gravitational pull), no electrostatic charge (he can't touch or hold any material thing), no electro-magnetic waves (he is not light, cannot be seen, and cannot influence things that can be influenced by light), he has no molecules that can hold heat energy, etc. If he is immaterial, he has no physical force or energy with which to interact with the physical world. Mind powers don't cut it. How would an immaterial mind exert a physical force to move a planet, etc? What makes the physical world physical is that it responds to physical forces. And energy and light are physical. Remember E=mc^2? Matter/energy is one thing. Kinetic energy, heat, etc, are natural and part of the physical world.
By this point, some theists are saying, "OK, an immaterial god won't work because although we can dream of beings that can move physical objects with their mind, there is no mechanism to make it happen, so I changed my mind and now my god is a material god". So, now the problem is how does a material god do all the things people claim he does through natural means? And why haven’t physicists detected any physical forces of unknown origin doing everything from altering the rate at which neurons fire in human brains (supposedly god giving someone a thought that they normally would not have had) to stopping bullets from going through garments (or some other divine miracle).
Look, a neuron does not fire unless the charge on the inside of neuron reaches -70 mV. Since we have already established that it would take some physical force to do that, why do we not find any out of place electrical charges targeting certain neurons so that God can give you a thought that you would not have had without his interference? That is just one issue. You name whatever you think god has done and tell me why we cannot find any trace of physical evidence that he did or is doing something.
Someone yells, “We just haven’t discovered it, yet”. Well, my friend, everything is happening naturally and normally according to the natural laws of physics. There is no evidence that the system is being acted upon. If god is physical then he is an actor in the physical universe and we should be able to detect him doing things that change the normal course things would follow. Now, someone will bring up the strange behavior exhibited by sub-atomic particles in which quantum mechanics rules supreme. The strange behavior of mesons and such does not help the theist out. I am willing to show how it is not helpful if someone posits a coherent theory of how god uses quantum mechanics to answer prayers, etc.
3) The probability of the existence of a god complex enough to be able to create physical laws and constants is less likely than the probability of the physical laws and constants existing without a creator. As difficult as it is for some of you to believe that something as complex as the universe exists as it is without a creator, it is even a bigger leap to believe that something way more complex, a god that can manipulate the constants of the universe, exists without a creator. Now, Mormons believe god did have a creator, namely a father god, but this only moves the same question back a step and does nothing to solve the problem. You are attempting to solve the problem of how something complex can exist without a creator by supposing something even more complex existing without a creator. This does not prove that a god does not exist, because even highly improbable things can happen if given enough trials. But, it does make moot the argument for the existence of god due to the probabilities of the universe being the way it is without a creator. And you have made the whole matter worse by introducing a god whose existence and properties must be explained.
In conclusion, using the concept of god as an explanatory factor for anything that happens in the universe creates more problems than it solves. Without a stated mechanism by which god does his miraculous deeds, using god as an explanation explains nothing. Immaterial beings have to have some interface by which to influence physical things. The question of how one gets an immaterial thing to influence a physical object is a lot more difficult than explaining whatever you need to explain without god. And finally, using a god to explain the origin of the universe just moves the questions back one step and makes the task even more difficult because now you have to account for something even more complex than the original question.
If you can believe a complex god can exist without a creator, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to believe the universe could exist with a creator.
Last edited by Hueffenhardt; 05-17-2012 at 10:01 AM..
Excellent post, Hueffenhardt! Sorry I can't rep you again.
But our OP has had this same conversation on numerous threads and is not willing to learn from them, or he would not keep bringing the same subject up over and over again.
How come we have all this razor edge teleology, complexity , great order, harmonious solar system , beauty, the highly personal, logic, extreme wonders in the animal kingdom such as the Monarch Butterflys migrational habits, direct informational messages in the DNA molecule as a blueprint for building, and some 60 independent anatomical systems to the Human Body all working in unison , et al, ad infinitum....when we are expected to believe it is all by chance, for no ultimate purpose, and derived from Nothing ?
In consideration of this, doesnt an atheistic worldview require a ton of blind faith that it all 'just happened' without a shred of guided direction ?
If you break everything down into tiny little pieces, then you can understand how complex things come from very simple things.
Our entire solar system came from a vast cloud of molecules that existed billions of years ago. Just think about that.
Why is it so hard for people like you to understand that we don't leap to Goddunit when we're faced with a question we are unable to answer. My gods are gravity and time.
...........
Because you never ever get the highly personal, nor things like logic/reason/truth/love/abstract thinking/etc... from gravity or time. So how come you prefer the illogical ?
You speak of "guided direction" as if it were a reasonable alternative, when it is not an explanation at all.
We have no evidence that there is anything that can even give guided direction, or what it is if it does exist, or where it came from, or how it acquired the ability to give direction. Nor do we know what exactly "guided direction" means or entails when we start looking at specifics.
The construct of god as an explanation for anything causes more problems than it solves.
1) One has not given an explanation if one has not proposed a mechanism. Giving god credit for something leads to the illusion that one has offered a satisfactory explanation, when one has actually not said much of anything. To illustrate, allow me to use "gremlins" for the word "god".
Where did the matter/energy for the Big Bang come from? "Gremlins did it". It sounds like I gave an explanation, but I proposed no mechanism, so I never really answered the question or explained where the matter/energy came from. So the question still remains. Yet, some theists criticize atheists for not having a definitive answer for this question. My point is that theists don't have an answer either. "God" by itself is not an answer. Where did god get the matter/energy from? "Oh, he is omnipotent so he can just do things like that". That is not an explanation. I could claim the same for Flying Spaghetti Monsters or Invisible Pink Unicorns.
2) Immaterial and material gods. People have many different concepts of god, so it makes showing the problems with god’s properties difficult, because not every theist believes he has such and such a property. But, allow me to address the problem immaterial beings have.
How does an immaterial being interact or have any influence on a material being? Being immaterial, god has no weight (i.e., no gravitational pull), no electrostatic charge (he can't touch or hold any material thing), no electro-magnetic waves (he is not light, cannot be seen, and cannot influence things that can be influenced by light), he has no molecules that can hold heat energy, etc. If he is immaterial, he has no physical force or energy with which to interact with the physical world. Mind powers don't cut it. How would an immaterial mind exert a physical force to move a planet, etc? What makes the physical world physical is that it responds to physical forces. And energy and light are physical. Remember E=mc^2? Matter/energy is one thing. Kinetic energy, heat, etc, are natural and part of the physical world.
By this point, some theists are saying, "OK, an immaterial god won't work because although we can dream of beings that can move physical objects with their mind, there is no mechanism to make it happen, so I changed my mind and now my god is a material god". So, now the problem is how does a material god do all the things people claim he does through natural means? And why haven’t physicists detected any physical forces of unknown origin doing everything from altering the rate at which neurons fire in human brains (supposedly god giving someone a thought that they normally would not have had) to stopping bullets from going through garments (or some other divine miracle).
Look, a neuron does not fire unless the charge on the inside of neuron reaches -70 mV. Since we have already established that it would take some physical force to do that, why do we not find any out of place electrical charges targeting certain neurons so that God can give you a thought that you would not have had without his interference? That is just one issue. You name whatever you think god has done and tell me why we cannot find any trace of physical evidence that he did or is doing something.
Someone yells, “We just haven’t discovered it, yet”. Well, my friend, everything is happening naturally and normally according to the natural laws of physics. There is no evidence that the system is being acted upon. If god is physical then he is an actor in the physical universe and we should be able to detect him doing things that change the normal course things would follow. Now, someone will bring up the strange behavior exhibited by sub-atomic particles in which quantum mechanics rules supreme. The strange behavior of mesons and such does not help the theist out. I am willing to show how it is not helpful if someone posits a coherent theory of how god uses quantum mechanics to answer prayers, etc.
3) The probability of the existence of a god complex enough to be able to create physical laws and constants is less likely than the probability of the physical laws and constants existing without a creator. As difficult as it is for some of you to believe that something as complex as the universe exists as it is without a creator, it is even a bigger leap to believe that something way more complex, a god that can manipulate the constants of the universe, exists without a creator. Now, Mormons believe god did have a creator, namely a father god, but this only moves the same question back a step and does nothing to solve the problem. You are attempting to solve the problem of how something complex can exist without a creator by supposing something even more complex existing without a creator. This does not prove that a god does not exist, because even highly improbable things can happen if given enough trials. But, it does make moot the argument for the existence of god due to the probabilities of the universe being the way it is without a creator. And you have made the whole matter worse by introducing a god whose existence and properties must be explained.
In conclusion, using the concept of god as an explanatory factor for anything that happens in the universe creates more problems than it solves. Without a stated mechanism by which god does his miraculous deeds, using god as an explanation explains nothing. Immaterial beings have to have some interface by which to influence physical things. The question of how one gets an immaterial thing to influence a physical object is a lot more difficult than explaining whatever you need to explain without god. And finally, using a god to explain the origin of the universe just moves the questions back one step and makes the task even more difficult because now you have to account for something even more complex than the original question.
If you can believe a complex god can exist without a creator, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to believe the universe could exist with a creator.
Based on your treatise then, a bicycle which is FAR more simplier than our cosmos/solar system/earth/and everything in it .... doesnt necessarily require any guidance by way of intelligence, the personal, or blueprint. How logical is your deduction then ? Do you make it necessary for some ulterior motive that you may have perhaps (?)
If you break everything down into tiny little pieces, then you can understand how complex things come from very simple things.
Our entire solar system came from a vast cloud of molecules that existed billions of years ago. Just think about that.
So we are told by the ever shrinking circle of stellar evolutionists. How logical is it that a vast cloud ultimately gave us non material entities like reason, logic, truth, reason, love, an a human brain touted as THE most complex thing in the universe....when intelligent world reknown Scientists cant even begin to duplicate it ? I dont think you have the enormous faith required to believe in the common atheistic mantra of molecules to Man puerility.
Having a hard time seeing any evidence of a Cosmos/Earth coming about naturally without a personal touch
Oh, will let us try a theist response shall we....
'There is masses of evidence!! You just refuse to see it.. You are scientifically (replacing the word spiritually) blind. You need to open your eyes and look around you'.
Quote:
we are expected to believe it is all by chance, for no ultimate purpose, and derived from Nothing ?
It is only theists who believe that things come from 'nothing'. You don't appear to have any problem with your god coming from nothing or it creating everything from nothing.
Quote:
In consideration of this, doesnt an atheistic worldview require a ton of blind faith that it all 'just happened' without a shred of guided direction ?
Just what is it with you theist constantly harping on about atheists having 'faith'?? It's as if you realise just how stupid and illogical it is to hold beliefs based on 'faith' and so you wan't to try to pin faith-based beliefs on us too, just so you can say ...'see you atheists are just as stupid and illogical as we theists because you believe things on 'faith''!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
