On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 03:39:08 GMT, "Victor Borras"
<victormb@earthlink.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<wX6Cc.22958$Y3.3924@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Slate" <let_me_know@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vc9ed09k8fldbqg83sb2kn0dpsd6cmf7am@4ax.com...
On 11 Jun 2004 12:52:55 -0700,
(ChalkItUp)
wrote:
Slate <let_me_know@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<gcmhc09rhc6e745448gib40r8ghurudg39@4ax.com>...
On 7 Jun 2004 12:47:06 -0700,
(ChalkItUp)
wrote:
Slate <let_me_know@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<63q6c09sqkidotpcb4e0imk4l5npr18hna@4ax.com>...
On 5 Jun 2004 10:35:17 -0700,
(ChalkItUp)
wrote:
Slate <let_me_know@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<46n1c0ph4uhfgquokqq38vfebbqatovs16@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 04 Jun 2004 18:40:03 GMT, Dave Oldridge
<doldridg@leavethisoutshaw.ca> wrote:
"James Q. Morrissey" <mellon_collie2003@btopenworld.com> wrote
in
news:c9plcs$f3j$1@titan.btinternet.com:
How minimalistic of you. The bible is written by men but it
is the
word of god pass to those men.
I slap you now and resume my initial ranting.
this is a little off-topic here but i'd be intereseted to
know - why
is it that people who believe in god also believe that
neccesary to
believing in him is worshipping him? why does anyone need to
worship
him at all? if God is perfect you'd think he'd have some
humility and
humbleness in there too. just wondered.
We don't worship God for HIS benefit, but for our own.
Would you be willing to admit that the gods that were invented
thousands of years before and after the god of monotheism are
as valid as yours? If not, why not?
In order to answer your question, the implicit assumptions and
biases
must first be discussed. First, you say that "gods...were
invented".
Implicit in this statement is the suggestion that gods do not
exist,
but are inventions of man. This is ~your~ personal bias. I have
no
problem with you taking this position and holding this bias...but
you
seem to be unaware of it. You have made many statements about
being a
freethinker, being a skeptic, etc. Yet when we discussed evidence
for
the existence of a god (not "proof" mind you, but "evidence" in the
form of logical, syllogistic arguments in the philosophical,
teleological and cosmological vein), you seemed unwilling to accept
the mere ~possibility~ that a god exists. This is not the hallmark
of
one who is thinking freely.
What is stated to be "evidence", I see as unsubstantiated theory.
As I understand it, 'The first cause argument' is the most popular
of
the cosmological proofs (evidence).
Ok, it seems that you have zeroed in on the Kalam argument....one
among many, and not necessarily "the most popular". That's fine,
let's discuss.
Every existing thing has a cause, and every cause must be caused
by a prior cause, which in turn must be caused by a still prior
cause,
and so on, until we reach one of two conclusions:
(a) either we have an endless chain of causes.... an infinite
regress,
or
(b) there exists a first cause, a being that does not require a
causal
explanation.
According to this argument, it seems that an infinite regress of
causes is impossible. Without a first cause, there could be no
second
cause; and without a second cause, there could be no third cause,
etc.
We would then reach the absurd conclusion that nothing presently
exists. But since things do exist, we must reject an infinite
regress
and conclude that a first cause exists, a cause which they call
"god."
It is assumed by theists that God is the "first cause".
You (and the authors of the geocities sites from which much of your
research seems to be gleaned) omit some very pertinent premises of the
argument. As you are aware the argument has three main components.
They are:
1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b)
uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not
personal.
Your rebuttal doesn't mention third premise, the logical method used
to deduce why this "first cause" is deemed personal agent, rather than
an impersonal physical cause. The following is taken from Bill
Ramey's discussion of Kalam:
".....This leads us to the final dilemma: if the universe had a cause,
the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal. Even if one
should accept the (a) option of the first two dilemmas, why should one
believe that the cause of the universe is a personal being? Some
argue, for example, that even if the universe had a cause, its cause
could have been a natural one. Presumably this means that the universe
could be the product of an impersonal physical cause. The problem with
this is twofold. First, what does it mean to say that the cause of the
universe is a natural one? Natural causes exist within the universe,
not outside of it. If something preceded the universe, then by
definition it is not a natural cause, because the laws of nature came
into existence after whatever preceded the universe.
Second, if the cause of the universe is a sufficient cause, meaning
that the existence of the cause alone guarantees the existence of the
universe, the universe would always have existed. To make this clear
consider the sufficient cause of lighting a match. When a match is
struck against the proper surface, it ignites, and thus striking the
match is the sufficient cause of an ignited match. Note that as soon
as a sufficient cause exists, the effect follows immediately; there is
no gap between the cause and the effect. This raises a question: if
the sufficient cause of the universe has always existed, then why has
the universe not always existed?
The answer to this question is that the cause of the universe is a
personal agent who willed the creation of a finite universe."
Mr. Ramey claims that this is "the answer to the question".
However, his answer is based on conjecture. Neither he or
anyone else can support the "personal agent" scenario with
verifiable evidence. The "Big Bang" theory is a good example.
It was initially suggested because it explains why distant galaxies
are traveling away from us at great speeds. It provides a reason;
"evidence" that supports the theory. (Doppler effect).
Of course, I'm not suggesting that the "Big Bang' theory is
correct, only that the theory is based on solid evidence.
Ramey's answer is not "based on conjecture", it is based on simple
logic. He explains how the universe must've had a beginning (as
opposed to being eternal), and was caused (as opposed to uncaused).
You have no quarrel with this assessment, as is evidenced by your
comment below that your belief on the origens of the universe leans
heavily on natural causes. Through use of his "lit match" example, he
goes on to show that if the universe had a cause, that it must be
personal (as opposed to natural) because natural causes exist within
the universe, which of course did not exist yet and because a
sufficient cause to "light the match" was needed. Therefore the
Uncaused Cause must be a personal agent acting outside of natural laws
of the universe. His case is not conjecture, it is logic which has
yet to be refuted (because an ~act~ of sufficient cause must have
taken place). This logic is the evidence which supports the theory.
Until it can be disproven, the theory must be accepted as a
possibility in the quest for the origens of "everything". The same is
true of the Big Bang example that you use. (Note: I have no problem
with this theory. It seems to be the best theory available as to the
beginning of our universe. Of course, it doesn't purport to explain
the beginning of ~everything~, as there must've been ~something~ which
set the apparatus for the Big Bang in motion. In addition, it too is
unverifiable. The ~effect~ of galaxies moving apart is verifiable,
however the Big Bang theory as to the cause is not.) As you said, the
Big Bang would definitely explain why galaxies are traveling away from
each other. Of course, there could possibly be other reasons of which
we are as yet unaware. The universe could be spinning with such a
force as to push everthing within it to the outer edges. There could
be a humungous mass with an incredible gravitational pull at the edge
of our universe which pulls everything toward it. Now, I grant you
that these are somewhat ludicrous propositions, and I certainly don't
advocate them. My point is that the Big Bang is a theory with little
or no physical evidence but yet is a good way to explain the effect of
an expanding universe. In fact, in trying to explain this ~natural~
phenomenon, we accept this unproven theory almost universally, and
without much supporting evidence because it appeals to our logic &
what we know of how things work. For the same reason, Kalam must be
accepted as a ~possibility~, until evidence emerges which would
disprove it.
The problem is that Ramey doesn't state his position as a
"possibility", he states it as fact. Quote:
"The answer to this question is that the cause of the universe is a
personal agent who willed the creation of a finite universe." <end>
Ramey's opinion based on his "logic", is inconclusive. For the sake
of argument, I'll say that it's a "possibility", but it certainly has
no bases in fact as alleged by Ramey. It's conjecture. A guess.
If everything
must have a cause, then the "first cause" must have a cause.
The question still remains: 'Who made God'? To say that God
is the "first cause" and has always existed, is to deny the basic
assumption of this theory (The first cause argument).
This is a common protest against Kalam. Without getting too
long-winded (again), the reason for this is due to the
misunderstanding of the terms "infinite", "potential infinite" and
"actual infinite". You can research these if you like, but I don't
think that will have an impact on the course of this discussion.
Let's cut through all the rhetoric. Since an infinite regress is
impossible, then there must be a first cause. We'll call this "the
Uncaused Cause". Theists maintain that this Uncaused Cause is
personal an call it "God". The theist would then ask for your theory
on the origens of the universe. As a good atheist, you would reply "I
don't know, it is an unknowable conundrum". The theist then says
that, for lack of a better theory, that you should be, at the very
least, open to the mere possibilty that his theory is correct. Are
you?
When I was growing up, I was taught that anything is possible.
Through my experiences in life, I've found this to be incorrect.
There are many things that aren't possible. Above you ask if I'd
be open to the "mere possibility that his theory is correct" yet I
find his theory (and other "god" theories) that claim "god" is
the "first cause" empty, and void of any verifiable "evidence"
to support their claims. That said, I'll answer your question
this way. Until evidence is supplied that supports his theory,
I will reserve my opinion and lean heavily towards a natural
cause. If such evidence materializes, I will certainly rethink
my position.
First of all, "evidence" has been supplied which has yet to be
refuted. The Kalam argument that you have cited is such evidence.
Now, that being said, I ask why does your opinion "lean heavily toward
a natural cause". Please supply evidence of a ~natural~ cause of the
beginning of ~everything~. Explain to me how there can be a natural
cause for the existence of nature itself. By definition, a natural
cause must exist ~within~ the universe. Why do you believe that
nature could produce a cause prior to the time that nature even
existed? It simply does not make sense, as it goes against everything
logical...eveything of which the mind can conceive. Of course, if you
can provide verifiable evidence that supports your theory of natural
causation, then I will certainly rethink my position as well.
Obviously, there is no such evidence, or else we would know the answer
to our origens. This is due to the simple fact that natural evidence
can be tested to ensure its reliability and validity to prove what it
purports to prove. Why you are more disposed to accept the illogical
concept of natural causation (without evidence) than a supernatural
cause (which has evidence, even if you do dispute it)?
Perhaps something impersonal is ~out there~ that made god, if it
exists. Above, the analogy is made with "lighting a match" as the
sufficient cause. In this case, God is equivalent to the "match".
If something else exists, then it would not be dependent on God, and
therefore God would not be creator and master of everything. Until
theists can satisfactorily eliminate this ~something else~, they
cannot conclude that a personal god is the cause of the universe.
Now once again, when you frame a
question the way you did, you are not openly and freely discussing
an
issue or trying to get another's pov. What you are doing is trying
to
set a trap in order to "win" a point. You are asking for the
writer's
view of the validity of one god versus another, all the while
implying
that gods are man-made inventions. Obviously your question is a
logical fallacy. For if a god does not exist then they are ~all~
equally INvalid. Before going further, allow me to ask a question
of
my own. Do you think that it is ~possible~ that those who believe
in
a god (call him what you will, Allah, God, Jehovah, Yahweh,
Creator,
Supreme Being, etc.) are correct, and that this being actually
exists?
If so, then why? If not, why not?
Knowing what one is talking about is of inestimable value in any
dialogue, so you must first explain what you mean by the word "god."
What are you attempting to establish the existence of?
What is the nature of god? How are we to identify him (or it)?
At least some of the attributes of this supposed "god" must be
known
before anything can be considered relevant to establishing his
(it's)
existence.
It is quite telling that you have skirted my question as to the
possibility that theists could be correct in their assertions.
However in response to your questions above I'll point out that in our
various conversations concerning evidence for the existence of god, I
have only responded to your denial that there is evidence for said
existence. That being the case, I put it to you; what do you mean by
the concept of "god" for which there is no evidence? For what are you
denying the existence of evidence? Exactly what is it that you
continually rail against? What type of evidence would you accept?
I didn't skirt your question, I asked you for more information about
this "god" you want me to except the "possibility" of.
Read my text above once more. I have always responded to ~your~
contention that there "is no evidence for the existence of a god".
Now, when I responded to you, I thought that we were both talking
about the same thing (and of course, we both know that we were talking
about the same thing). Apparently, now you are confused as to what
this "god" thing is for which you say that there is no evidence. How
can ~you~ possibly be making statements that there is no evidence for
something, when you are not sure what this "something" is? Shouldn't
you ask what it is that the person is talking about prior to saying
that there is no evidence for it? How much more disingenuous can you
be, than to be saying in effect that "there is no evidence for this
thing, though I'm not sure what this thing is that you're talking
about, but I know that there is no evidence for it"? C'mon....cut the
BS.
BS.? Hardly. You appear to be confusing "who" god is, with "what" god
is. I was raised in the USA, and the god I was taught to believe in
was the Judeo-Christian god. You yourself imply that "god" is the same
regardless of his name: "(Allah, God, Jehovah, Yahweh, Creator,
Supreme Being, etc.)" I know quite well "who" god is supposed to be,
but I have no information as to "what" this god is. Christians always
describe god as "He", "Him", "the Father", etc. This without question,
implies that this "god" is a male. How do we know this? Has god's
genitalia somehow been reveled, or is it just assumed that this god
is a male? If so, why is this assumption made? Why not call this god
Mother, Her, She? Without knowing "what" god is, referring to god as a
"male" is presumptuous at best. Why don't YOU cut the BS, and tell
me "what" god is? It's a fair question Chalk'.
If I told you
that a theory exists stating aliens seeded the Earth with life forms
tens of millions of years ago, wouldn't you (reasonably) demand
evidence to support such a claim? Where you see evidence, I
see a theory suspended in mid air with no foundation to support it.
To quote Carl Sagan:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Yes, I would expect to see evidence to support a claim of alien life.
Since aliens seeding the earth should be in some way naturally
observable, I would expect empirical evidence. When discussing a
supernatural entity such as god, then I would not expect empirical
evidence (since, by definition, "supernatural" is beyond the natural),
but I would certainly expect to see some type of evidence. One type
of evidence (among many others) is of the cosmological variety, which
is the one that you chose to address here. Now, you don't have to
accept this evidence, as you say that you "see a theory suspended in
mid air with no foundation to support it." But in order to feel the
way that you do, you must be able to adequately refute the theory.
You have yet to do so. I'll ask once again, what type of evidence
would you accept as "evidence for the existence of a god"?
How about "god" letting itself show some indisputable evidence
to us. It's not a novel idea; according to the Bible(s) he/she/it
has shown itself, and spoken to individuals in the past. This god
allegedly made itself known for over one thousand years, through acts
of vengeance, miracles, etc. The Bible(s) are claimed to be the word
of God. Could it be that this god is dead, , hiding, lost, etc.? We
don't know for sure, however the invisible and nonexistent are pretty
much the same. It's true that science can't produce empirical evidence
for any gods, yet if god can create a universe, surely it can give
irrefutable proof of its own existence. After all, this should be a
simple parlor trick for one who is supposedly omnipotent.
Obviously, to answer your question as to the validity of the gods
of
monotheism vs. those of prior ages, one must start with the premise
that a god (or gods) exists. Otherwise the question makes no
sense.
Now, this being the case, then I would say that it one is as valid
as
the other. Man's understanding of any idea progresses over time.
Assuming god exists (which we MUST do in order to answer the
question)
it is certainly no stretch of the imagination to opine that the
understanding of "the gods (of) thousands of years before" has
progressed and developed into the understanding of the god of
monotheism.
It is my opinion that all gods are man-made.
The above is a statement that gods are inventions of man, and hence do
not exist in reality. It is tantamount to saying "There is no god".
This is a positive assertion that will require evidence. Please
provide proof. Remember, the lack of proof that gods exist is not
proof that gods do not exist.
I can't prove that the countless gods don't exist, anymore than you
can prove that they do. The real question should be what is more
likely...... did things happen naturally, or is it necessary to
invoke a supernatural deity.
Based on the evidence presented in our discussions, I think it is more
likely that a supernatural entity is responsible for everything. You
have never given any evidence for natural causation, nor have you even
attempted to do so. As was discussed earlier, natural causation
necessitates the existence of nature. You cannot say that nature
caused the existence of itself.
It means nothing to be open to a
proposition we don't understand. You have said in the past,
that gods from many thousands of years ago, have evolved into
the gods of the present (or something to that effect).
Everyone is born an atheist. At birth, we know only three things
(instinctively) how to breath, cry, and suck. Everything else is
learned, and the concept of a god is taught to us by our parents
with few exceptions. Personally, I too was taught to believe in God.
I was also taught that Santa was real, as was the tooth fairy (put
your tooth under the pillow, and the tooth fairy will leave you a
quarter). I guess I'm dating myself.. I here they get five bucks
today! : -) I became a questioner of God and religion in my early
teens to the dismay of my parents.
I didn't say "There is no god", as I have many family members and
friends who believe without question that there IS a god. To them,
god is as real as the Earth. I've seen nothing to convince me that
their god exists anywhere but in their minds, but god DOE'S exist
for them.
Whether "everything...is learned" is debatable.
You are arguing for a
relativist morality, rather than an absolute morality. Rape & murder
for example are absolutely immoral.
They are not ok in one community
and shunned in another. Now you may argue that there have been
instances in human history where murder was the norm, therefore it was
not immoral in that particular society. The fallacy here is in the
distinction between what a particular society is doing versus what it
ought to be doing. Obviously, contradictory sets of of moral codes
cannot both be "right". If each society's codes were "right", then
there could be no way to judge conflicts between different groups.
Now, you might say that whoever wins the conflict ultimately decides
what is right. The fallacy here is in the distinction between "might"
and "right", or "power" versus "goodness". One can be powerful, but
not good. As they say, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely". No, there must be some moral absolutes. From whence do
they come?
Can't "might" also be "right"? Can't one be "powerful" AND "good"?
Do you make a distinction between murdering and killing?
The Judeo-Christian God has commanded "rape & murder" in the Bible.
Would you consider that a moral absolute because God says it's ok?
Personally, the only absolute I've found in this world is death.
Everyone gets a turn sooner or later. You asked "From whence do they
come?" (moral absolutes). Moral values are directly related to the
society that one is born into. We are having this discussion on
alt.abortion (of all places) and I've been called murderer by many
different people, as have others. Just because I take a pro-choice
position, I'm also called "baby killer", "baby butcher", and or I'll
"burn in hell", etc., etc. All of these people who use labels such as
these, are theists. Every one of them. They are hypocrites one and
all. They condemn others because they don't conform to their narrow
religious views on abortion (among other things) yet do nothing to
help save the 30,000 or more children under the age of five, that die
everyday from malnutrition and disease.
I've seen no meaningful
evidence to the contrary, and I'm sure that the person
to whom I asked the question, would have been more than
happy to supply evidence if he had any to offer.
I have no reason to believe that Zeus threw lightening bolts,
Poseidon ruled the sea, or Jesus walked on water. I also have
no reason to believe that any of the above gods existed anywhere
but in the minds of men.
The problem, as I see it, is the intolerance held by theists &
atheists alike against those who do not share their views. Many
theists of one religion tend to have a condescending attitude
against
theists of other religions in the form of "my god is the true god,
yours is not". (Why they can't accept the possibility that they
could
~both~ be the true god, yet understood by different peoples in
different ways, is beyond me).
Many atheists have the equally
condescending attitude that theists are somehow less intelligent
than
atheists because they don't hold the atheistic view. Yet, in most
cases, the atheist holds his position (i.e. that evidence for a god
doesn't exist) as stridently as the theist even when presented with
evidence which he is unable to refute.
The atheists are still waiting (patiently) for credible evidence to
emerge.
All you have to do is look. I haven't seen solid refutations of the
many arguments which have been provided as evidence. (The geocities
sites are weak. They only try to refute portions of arguments such as
Kalam, the one you cite above.)
All of the arguments I've read, presuppose the existence of a god,
with no supporting evidence. ~Faith~ is all that's required.
Completely untrue. The Kalam argument which you cited has no such
presupposition.
Then why is "god" the only listed possibility for the universe?
Every argument I've read from theists always ends with ~God did it~.
These are ~people~ problems,
and do not speak to the validity of one god versus another versus
no
god at all.
I'll try to respond to whatever comments you make when time
permits.
I'll be rather busy for the next few weeks.
I'm in the same position. With the nice weather, I'll be flying or
sailing. Today was a rainy day. ;-)
Hope you have fun up in the sky or on the water!
I've been flying the past few days, as the winds were calm.
You are right, LOTS of fun! (a powered parachute)
Remember to always play safe!
Everything has risks. Safety is free, use it generously! ; -)
Sorry for the delayed response, but I've been taking calculated
"risks" for the past week.
Slate
This whole premise of 'causes' and 'effects' and 'Big Bang Theory' to me is
really beautiful but its much too weak to offer a 'real' solution.
Every time I see the concept of evolution explained I always see how it
explains almost clearly how from a 'freak'
Your term. The theory of evolution says nothing about any freak
accident.
accident a cell evolved and
somehow after filling up the ocean with all its creatures 'some' began
walking out of the ocean and evolved to every creature that exists on earth,
insects, birds, butterflies monkeys, pigs, horses, etc. etc. But I also have
to think that these scientists that believe in this theory also must believe
that from the ocean something else crawled out or was deposited by animals
deposits, the Fruit Trees and all the different types, those that provide
fruits and those that just provide beauty like flowers.
What? That is so poorly constructed I am not sure what you are
saying, but evolution does include plant life.
Yet the uniqueness of just one human being is so miraculous and unique that
its really TOO perfect to believe an accident created all this on this
earth.
Why? Other than it's level of intelligence and reasoning ability what
makes humans different from any other animals? After all, that
intelligence is only a matter of degree and we may well be replaced
someday by some other species. That is what usually happened in the
past.
I believe in the process of evolution, infact it is GODs way of providing
'defense' system within every animal and its will to survive.
Which god? Please include you proof any god exists.
But the way
that scientists describe it, that from one totally different type of animal
a totally different one evolved. In thinking of this I wonder if the DNA of
a butterfly changes from caterpillar to butterfly.
No. The DNA would stay the same since caterpillar and butterfly are
simply different stages of the same animal. Much like tadpole and
frog.
That is, as they say, certain species of birds evolved a long beak in order
to survive and feed itself from the nectars of the flowers so now this bird
is called a 'Humming Bird'. So I wonder if we took the DNA of this bird
prior to the thousands of years that it developed this long beak, did its
DNA also change?
Probably since it appears DNA sets all the physical characteristics.
A long beak would probably require different DNA than a short beak.
The DNA, however, could indicate the degree of relationship between
the two species just as it does between man and chimps.
Because if not, then the apes that we evolved from must have the same exact
DNA as we have. For example, if a humans DNA looks in a certain way, if a
child born with six fingers on each hand or born in such an evolutionary way
as to look different to us, would their DNA look unhuman like?
No. That small a change would not require totally different DNA.
Remember the DNA of every individual (except identical twins) is
different.
It just doesn't make sense...since I was a child I've heard in class that
scientists are looking for THAT missing LINK that will finally prove man
evolved from apes.
Then you heard wrong. The missing link is the common ancestor of both
man and apes.
A famous Neanderthal fragments was believed to be the best find to prove
this theory, not the missing link, but close enough for scientists. It was
kept in the NY Museum. Some ten or fifteen years later it was learned that
it really wasn't a Neanderthal specimen but a young girl of around her 20s
who had deformaties such as chronic arthritis, and so an article (small one)
was written in the Newspaper to explain the new discovery.
So? History abounds with both errors and deliberate hoaxes. See the
Piltdown Man.
Note: The location of where supposedly
According to who?
Sodom & Gomorrah was located was
being researched, after much escavating large deposits of sulfur were found
and even deposits of salt, Archeologists claim that there must have been
some kind of explosion of sort with intense heat, almost nuclear in
characteristics due to the melted items found that were welded together,
they also said that it seems as if a meteor of sort came from space and
landed there causing the extreme heat and fusion they found.
But the Bible records that a great destruction of fire descended from the
skies and destroyed everything.
This would hardly be the first time a natural occurrence was hijacked
by myth and made part of the local folklore.
"If you search away from GOD, you'll never learn about the truths of GOD,
but if you search for GOD's truths, you will find it!"
And your proof of that is what?
Vic from the Bronx
.
