Famous Atheist Now Believes in God

[parkening]

From this story

"A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God — more or less — based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday."

"At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England."

"...if his belief upsets people, well 'that's too bad,' Flew said. 'My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato's Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.'"


Read about it and see the other leading atheists doing damage control!

[BurtWorm]

1. Oh, well if Flew says it, it must be true.

:eyes:

[parkening]

2. Flew has been "da man"

for the last fifty years. Bears at least a cursory look.

[varun]

3. the trend...

..is definitely in the direction of more people leaving organized religion...

I dont know about the trend on increase or decrease in the number of atheists, but most churches in Europe (and USA) are seeing declining attendance.

[BurtWorm]

5. I looked cursorily.

It still boils down to opinion, of course.

[parkening]

7. He says he's basing it on science

not opinion. "Following the evidence where ever it leads."

I have to agree with him on this. When all is said and done you cannot escape the need for a First Cause --- and it must be an entity capable of choice, a Person. Regardless of what one believes that First Effect was, the great uncaused First Cause must exist.

We discussed the other day the probability of life arising from non-life and it came out to winning the powerball 40 times in a row --- under massively simplified and favorable conditions.

[Caution]

8. Saying it is based on "evidence"

doesn't make it so. Please point out the evidence. He is taking a leap of faith just like every other theist out there.

my take on this is BFD. He certainly isn't the first atheist who had a later in life, scared of death conversion. As one's sense of mortality becomes more accute, one naturally looks for anything that might extend one's consciousness.

[parkening]

12. The evidence that turned Flew

"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism," --Flew

He believes in evolution and does not by any stretch accept the 'standard' God of Christianity but he like me has looked at the likelihood of life arising by itself, naturalistically, and found it an impossible position to hold intellectually.

That and the First Cause issue should be enough for most deep thinking people to at least become agnostic.

[trotsky]

14. The "first cause" argument is completely bogus.

It doesn't solve anything! If the universe needs a "first cause," then why doesn't god? If god can be infinite and uncaused, why can't the universe?

On edit: Here is a much more complete rundown of the faulty logic of the "First Cause" argument, from http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/firstcause.htm

The Cosmological Argument, also known as the First Cause Argument, is one of the most important arguments for the existence of God, not only because it is one of the more convincing, but also because it is one of the most used. The thought that everything that happens must have a cause, and that the first cause of everything must have been God is widespread. In my honest opinion it is not, however, valid.

The First Cause argument might be used as follows:

1. Everything that happens has a cause. (Axiom)
2. At one point, something came from nothing, the Universe came into existence. (Axiom)
3. This must have had a cause. (From 1 and 2)
4. Since no matter existed at that moment, the cause must have been God.

First, we should look at the two axioms. The second axiom, that the Universe once came into being, is the least doubtful. It is almost certain that our Universe did come into existence some 10 to 12 thousand million years ago. It can, however, be said that time did not exist before the Big Bang, and that it is therefore impossible to speak of anything happening before the Big Bang. Therefore, it is not entirely correct to say that something ever came from nothing, because there was no time when there was nothing.

The first axiom is very doubtful indeed. Quantummechanics works with events in nature that are, or at least seem to be, completely random. Particle/anti-particle pairs can come into existence and annihilate again without any apparent cause. Many quantum-processes seem to happen without cause. Saying that everything must have a cause is a very bold thing to do, and would require some major scientific theories. Until and unless these theories are presented, I call the first axiom a falsehood.

This alone should be enough to invalidate the First Cause Argument, but there is more. The first axiom suffers more attacks. Hume showed that humans cannot perceive 'cause' and 'effect', but construct these notions from past experiences. It is impossible to prove that A was the cause of B. We can only see that B happened after A, anything else is just something we think up. This casts doubt upon the notion of 'cause'.

Even if we agree that everything we see has a cause (which for quantum reasons I won't) how can we infer from that that everything has a cause? This is mere speculation, it is not knowledge we can ever have.

And just suppose that every thing has a cause, then the argument is still invalid, for the Universe is not a thing, it is the set of all things. And a set cannot be a member of itself, so a conclusion about things in the Universe is not necessarily valid for the Universe itself.

So, since not everything seems to have a cause, and the Universe is not a thing at all, the First Cause argument fails. But suppose that it doesn't, that everything does have a cause. Then, I'm afraid, we have to say that God had a cause too, and that that cause had a cause too, ad infinitum. If someone protests that God did not have a cause, we see that this person denies the first axiom, and the entire argument falls. The First Cause argument simply fails.

[parkening]

27. This is a poor representation of the Cosmological Argument

The real argument goes:

A1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

A2: The universe began to exist.

C1: The universe has a cause.

I agree with your author that it's hard to say "begins to exist" before there is time. But we can agree that there is a state where nothing existed. And then a state where stuff existed. So A2 holds up pretty, yet could be worded better.

Your author contends that quantum particles appear and annihilate each other. I submit that the quantum particles constitute from the available energy field. Thus not springing forth ex nihilo.

If, per Hume, we cannot perceive or assign cause and effect, we may as well throw out all of science as cause and effect are foundational to all science.

The universe is not the set of all things. It is all things. A subtle yet important difference.

Your author's last line of reasoning fails in that he has improperly stated his first axiom. As you can see from A1 only things that begin to exist need a cause. There, by definition, must be an uncaused First Cause. This is a common straw man representation of the cosmox argument.

[trotsky]

28. You still don't get it.

A1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

This is not an axiom, this is a hypothesis. Everything you have seen begin to exist has appeared to have a cause. Did you see the universe begin to exist?

[parkening]

32. no it's an axiom

something that for this arguments sake is taken to be true. It's up to you to poke holes in this assumption. Which you're trying to do and that's great. That's what debating is all about.

A couple of quick comments. If you give up the principle of causality, you must give up science.

The universe must have begun to exist as one cannot construct an infinite regression of events into the past. It is a necessary conclusion that the universe must have begun to exist. It's also what every scientist will tell you.

[trotsky]

34. Not at all true.

If you give up the principle of causality, you must give up science.

As pointed out to you, Quantum Mechanics has no "principle of causality," yet millions of scientists study QM. Have they given up science?

I'm afraid that you've ventured into areas where you do not have the knowledge necessary to conduct a discussion.

[parkening]

38. QM has poorly understood causality

quantum entanglement -- action at a distance. Very weird stuff. Poorly understood yet subject to causality none-the-less. It becomes pointless to study something if you don't suspect there is some causality.

[trotsky]

56. Poorly understood, yet you feel confident enough in your understanding?

:eyes:

[parkening]

62. Seeing as how you're basing

your deconstruction of the Cosmx Argx on this argument alone (the others have been slaughtered today and through the ages), you're putting an awful lot of confidence in this very poorly understood phenomenon.

Causality is one the most well supported pillars of science. I am quite confident that weird causality instructs QM also.

[trotsky]

64. Causality is an observation *within* our universe.

If you knew what you are calling the "pillars of science," you wouldn't make such a statement.

B happened after A, therefore we SAY that A caused B. I'm glad you are confident in your ignorance, but don't expect it to convince anybody else.

Your argument talks about the universe itself - not about how things behave *within* it. Since the universe by definition includes all physical laws, "causality" has no meaning when talking about the beginning of the universe itself.

Get it yet?

[parkening]

71. We need to be careful of

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies when discussing causality. But I maintain that science only has validity if causality is actual.

There is no reason causality along with other "universal laws" could not transcend the universe.

I've about had it guys, it's been fun. Follow the truth, where ever it leads.

[trotsky]

73. You are so close! Don't quit now!

I maintain that science only has validity if causality is actual.

Yes! And the key here is that science is only applicable INSIDE our universe. You are trying to take a principle of science and apply it OUTSIDE the universe.

You cannot logically do that.

[parkening]

77. I can't SCIENTIFICALLY do it

but I can do it logically. I just did.

[trotsky]

92. See post #91.

n/t

[BurtWorm]

37. I got an "axiom" for you right here!

;)

Seriously, that's no way to have a discussion if you want to come to an understanding of something. Don't you think there's a chance you're wrong? So why should we accept your axiom just because you thrust it on us? That's called begging the question. It's a fundamentally flawed argument.

[parkening]

39. That's the way logical arguments work

I submit something I hold to be true. In this case two axioms and a conclusion that validly follows. Your job is to find weaknesses in the two axioms, not accept them but point out where they're wrong. Y'all've been attacking A1 and A2 and I've been defending it. That's just healthy public discourse --- what makes America great.

The conclusion, I'm sure you realize, is off limits for this discussion. If the axioms are true then the conclusion automatically is true. That's just the way it works. No question begging here.

[BurtWorm]

40. You've seen the fundamental flaw in A1, so game's over, right?

Now what?

[parkening]

42. Maybe I missed it

Run that by me again.

[BurtWorm]

44. What caused the First Cause?

:shrug:

If you concede that something could have been un-caused, your whole argument against a causeless universe crumbles.

[parkening]

45. You miss the whole point

see A1 again. Does it say that everything that exists has a cause? No, it doesn't. Argument still intact.

[BurtWorm]

46. So what didn't begin to exist to cause the First Effect?

Why doesn't this amount to the same as "What caused the first cause?"

[parkening]

48. No, it's not the same thing.

The answer to the first question is: the First Cause.

The answer to the second question is: Nothing, by Cosmx Argx.

[mdhunter]

99. You're being evasive.

A1 states, "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."

It's true, it does not say, "Everything that exists has a cause."

If those two statements are different, and I grant that they are, it is because you're holding that there exists a thing which did not begin to exist.

I think you think that is God. So, if God did not begin to exist, but rather always was, then God did not have a cause.

But, your argument doesn't prove that, it simply assumes it.

Why does only God have this property, why does the universe not have it as well?

You know what, I want the universe to have this property as well, of never beginning to exist.

Therefore, I reject A2 "A2: The universe began to exist." That is false, the universe did not begin to exist and therefore need not have a cause.

QED

[parkening]

108. It doesn't really assume it

Either A1 or A2 must be refuted. You're not allowed to just protest that you don't like the argument.

A2 is generally accepted by all informed folks. I don't think you'll argue this.

A1 is where the crux of the argument rests. The burden of the dissenting party is to find an instance where this statement is not true.

I maintain that the First Cause is the conclusion of this argument and not God. The properties that are deduced from the Creation indicate what this First Cause's attributes must be. We call that thing God.

[trotsky]

122. Here are the flaws laid out for you.

All nice and orderly, by Mr. Dan Barker (a former preacher turned atheist, by the way):

In order for the Kalam Cosmological Argument to be salvaged, theists must answer these questions, at least:

1. Is God (or the "First Cause," if you must - trotsky) the only object accommodated by the set of things that do not begin to exist?
* If yes, then why is the cosmological argument not begging the question?
* If no, then what are the other candidates for the cause of the universe, and how have they been eliminated?

2. Does the logic of Kalam apply only to temporal antecedents in the real world?
* If yes, this assumes the existence of nontemporal antecedents in the real world, so why is this not begging the question?
* If no, then why doesn't the impossibility of an actual infinity disprove the existence of an actually infinite God?

3. Is the universe (cosmos) a member of itself?
* If not, then how can its "beginning" be compared with other beginnings?

[parkening]

128. Barker conflates

the First Cause and God arbitrarily as I've pointed out already. This is where he loses his way on #1. The attributes of the First Cause are what cause us to call it God.

In #2 I think Dan means "temporal antecedents to the real world". And I think the answer is "no". And BW's expanding/contracting universe could be one other option, only not extending infinitely into the past. Eventually you come to the point where there is only nontemporal antecedents to the worlds.

From Barker: "* If no, then why doesn't the impossibility of an actual infinity disprove the existence of an actually infinite God?" Hey, BurtWorm, Dan Barker says, "the dog never gets your doughnut!"

I've addressed #3 with my "transcendant attributes".

[trotsky]

129. Huh?

1) You did nothing to address. As I noted, you don't have to call it "God". Leave in "First Cause" and run with it.

2) No, he means what is written. Read the entire page because you obviously don't understand what he is talking about.

3) You've addressed it with an unsupported semantic creation of your own? Hehe. You've given no justification whatsoever why an innate property OF our universe has any meaning OUTSIDE it. (Or even that there is such a thing as "outside" or "before" the universe.)

[parkening]

130. 1. there is a significant difference as noted before

2. Went back to re-read. He raises issues that I don't have an answer for right now. Will look into it maybe over the weekend.

3. Barker is basing it on the assertion that the universe isn't a "thing". His semantics versus mine.

[trotsky]

133. No, OK, and no.

1) I understand there is a difference between the terms "First Cause" and "God". That is not the point I am trying to make. I told you to simply insert "First Cause" where he uses "God", it's all still the same.

2) Great, can't wait to hear.

3) No, we define the universe as everyTHING. An object cannot be a subset of itself, so the universe cannot be a thing - it is already the collection of ALL things. He is being logical, while you are being ambiguous.

[mdhunter]

131. Logically valid and true arguments can be about nothing

And this is the general position I've taken in my responses here. The C1 follows validly from A1 and A2, and I think that all three are true.

I've been suggesting that what that amounts to is a whole lot of nothing. So, you're right, to prove your argument false "Either A1 or A2 must be refuted." I'm not trying to prove your argument false, I'm suggesting, and casually arguing, that your argument doesn't say anything about the existence of God, which is what I think theists want it to say.

So, I disagree that, "You're not allowed to just protest that you don't like the argument." Well, you not just allowed to protest if you're actually in business of trying to refute the argument, but one must always ask whether or not the argument has a basis in reality and is meaningful. I can argue about unicorns, cats, and Socrates all day, but it won't amount to a hill of beans by bed time.

The first cause argument effectively shows that things that begin to exist have causes that cause them to exist(which is typically read as, "are caused by something" though that forumalation can be troubling). It cannot explain that the cause of the universe is God or that God is not, in turn, a second order being as well. Perhaps other arguments can do this, or a set taken in series, but this one alone cannot.

[parkening]

136. Yes! that's a beautiful summary

mdhunter. And that's the major issue I have with Barker. He is trying to stuff something into the KCA that it's not arguing. I've tried to state that in this thread with limited success. You've hit it nicely on the head here.

The KCA establishes the requirement for a First Cause, period. Other arguments take the ball from there.

[trotsky]

138. Sorry, parkening.

The KCA establishes a "First Cause" for theists looking to justify their belief in a god. It makes a number of assumptions that are not known to be true (extending physical properties of the universe OUTSIDE the universe), and proceeds from there.

You can repeat the big lie as often as you want, but it doesn't make it true.

[parkening]

139. My point is

that the KCA isn't the complete argument. It's just a starting point. And, of course, we use it as part of our justification for belief in God. That's the whole reason we thought it up. Just like you guys have arguments you make solely to justify your beliefs.

Just a few points about assumptions:

I don't assume any physical properties outside the universe. Just laws, ie causality. I'm comfortable with that. And realize it is an assumption.

It would do you well to examine the assumptions that are inherent (and rampant, and arbitrary) in the naturalistic model. You make it sound as if we're the only ones making assumptions. It's time to take stock of your own.

You've stated before that "we just don't know" and you're comfortable with that. And then I'm called the intellectually lazy one.

To call the KCA a lie is a bit of a stretch. I have presented a logically valid argument, defended the premises, and been very honest regarding the assumptions. I challenge you to present your case in a similar fashion (not on this thread, though, PLEASE!). Send me a message with a link when you're ready to start.

[trotsky]

141. And my point is

the KCA doesn't even succeed in the limited case you think it does.

"Physical" was sort of a typo on my part. I realized as soon as I typed it that I meant the physical LAWS of the universe, which would of course include causality and time. I should have clarified. At any rate, your assumption that somehow these laws - which are utterly and totally dependent upon the matter and energy of the universe - can be applied outside of it, is not only unjustified but unknowable. You yourself pointed out the impossibility of separating energy & matter from the natural laws, trying to scold someone (maybe it was me?) for implying there could be matter & energy without time. Apparently for you it's OK in reverse?

The naturalistic theories on the origin of the universe are not on trial here. You are the one putting forth the KCA as "the" answer. That there "must" have been an eternal First Cause. Several of us have shot huge holes in it, which you ignore while blithely claiming it to be airtight. Atheists and theists alike have found problems with it, and I encourage you, if you really think it is the be-all, end-all of theological proofs, to dig in a little more to research it.

The problem with the KCA is that its assumptions are not only false, they are completely unwarranted. It first assumes that the universe must have had a "beginning" in the classical sense of the term. In doing so, it extends laws known only to exist within the universe outside of it. This has been pointed out repeatedly to you, and you have finally agreed that you have no justification for doing this.

Next, it relies heavily on "intuitive" answers. E.g., we know "intuitively" that every effect must have a cause. But modern science has shown us that the universe can behave quite counter-intuitively, as the theories of quantum mechanics and relativity have shown. It is not intuitive that light could be both a particle AND a wave, but it is. It is not intuitive that the speed of light should be constant in all reference frames, but it is. And so on. But the KCA rests its case on the assumption that since it is intuitively known that the universe MUST have had a cause, it therefore did. If we can find endless examples within the universe of the failure of "intuitive" answers, how can you possibly be justified in using an intuitive answer for the universe itself?

And finally, it is basically based upon what is known as the Argument from Personal Incredulity. In other words, "I don't know how it happened, so it must have been this way." Or, "I just can't fathom any other way out of this question." This has been offered up as a reason for god/demons/etc. for so long, only to be beaten back by science as we learn more and more about the universe. Evolution destroyed the idea that there *must* have been a creator of life. Germ theory destroyed the idea that demons or sin cause disease. Etc. The KCA is likely considered a "safe zone" by many theists because it's entirely likely that our science physically CANNOT know what came "before" the big bang simply because our science BEGAN with the big bang. You have merely retreated to a sphere where science can't touch you - yet. But considering your track record on pointing to things and saying, "THIS is absolute proof of a higher being/God/First Cause", I don't think it's a smart bet to follow you into the KCA realm.

As to your challenge, what exactly are you asking me to defend? That there was no "first cause"? That there is no god? I refuse to be baited into a logical trap based on the futility of proving a negative. The KCA has been blasted away, maybe YOU can start a new thread with another "proof" of god.

[parkening]

142. Defend

a naturalistic origin to the universe.

[trotsky]

145. Oh, I see.

The fact that naturalistic theories are coming very close to explaining absolutely every matter & energy reaction in the universe doesn't give it any credibility when it comes to the origin of the universe, eh?

Sorry, not gonna play that game. Especially given your demonstrated lack of knowledge of probability and various scientific theories on this thread. All I will say is that the theistic position of "god did it" has, over the past centuries, retreated and retreated, as I pointed out in a previous post.

"The earth is the center of the universe." - Destroyed by astronomy.

"Demons and sin cause sickness." - Destroyed by germ theory & medicine.

"God created all life as we see it now." - Destroyed by evolution.

In other words, your "god of the gaps" is shrinking as the gaps in human knowledge do. In the end, theism becomes deism, left only with the remote possibility that some force ("First Cause") put everything in motion, with crossed fingers that science won't be able to reach beyond the big bang and prove you wrong once again.

The thing is, the universe acts exactly as we would expect it to act if there weren't a god, higher power, first cause, or whatever you want to call it. Granted, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (see Rummy and WMDs), but I just don't see the theistic position being very tenable.

[parkening]

146. There's a big difference

between explaining things we can see, feel, taste, touch, sense, that scientists do today and origins theory. And they have great explanations for huge chunks of the universe.

Origins are a different animal than operational science, though. Any origins model one can construct is severely hampered by its assumptions. Boundary conditions are a requirement; and they're made up based on the bias of the modeler. No way to wave your hands around and say "well scientists are super-smart and they'll figure it out." All beginnings rumination must be based on assumptions. I've been honest with mine. You should examine your assumptions as well.

I'll leave it to others to determine my ability with probability and scientific theory. I think you're in too deep to be objective.

You make a leap into Christian theology in this post. This is fine with me but not directly related to the issue at hand. Never-the-less, I'll take a stab at the "retreating" need for God.

You mention:
"The earth is the center of the universe." - Destroyed by astronomy.

"Demons and sin cause sickness." - Destroyed by germ theory & medicine.

These two items are nowhere taught in the Bible. Neither is the flat earth. The Church in the past may have taught these things, but they were just making it up.

You also mention:
"God created all life as we see it now." - Destroyed by evolution.

This is a straw man version of the creationist view. And evolution is barely defensible (I will not argue this with you here).

So the theism I hold is not even touched so far by your gaps argument.

How different do you suppose the universe would look/act if there were a God, First Cause or whatever. I would submit that the Anthropic Principle is evidence that suggests an Intelligence behind the universe.

Your not taking my bait (and throwing in some ad hominem) speaks volumes. You have admitted here that you are satisfied with "We don't know" as your answer to how things got here. You refuse to submit an alternative explanation and yet you're sure I'm wrong. To be honest with your "We don't know" position, you must allow room for me to be right.

This is likely to be my last post on this thread. Thanks to all who participated.

on edit: typo

[trotsky]

147. Yes, there is a difference.

I've debated with theists like you before, and recognize your style as being the "hard to nail down" type. (No awful Christian pun intended.) Any examples or analogies brought up tend to be met with fitful denials, as you have done, stating "But that's not MY type of theism." (While you conveniently fail to ever define what exactly it is you DO believe, or simply declare it irrelevant to the discussion at hand.)

I know you're wrong not because I know the "real" answer, but because all support you have provided for your position is erroneous or logically inconsistent. Your last, best defense is that the wiggle room left in our knowledge of the universe is where God hides. Good luck with that. I was merely pointing out that all your theological predecessors have hidden god in other areas that we eventually figured out. Whether something is "biblical" or not really doesn't matter, since you never even tried to establish the bible as an authoritative source of anything.

Perhaps there IS a creator! But your evidence for one fails miserably. You should consider that any proof of a higher power, at least from a Christian perspective, is destined to fail. For with proof, there is no need for faith, and without faith, your religion is kaputt.

[trotsky]

61. BW, that's why the original "first cause" argument...

had to be refined into what is sometimes called the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is what our friend here is trying to use.

Theists realized that it was a flaw to state that everything was caused, and so they had to change the argument to say everything that "began to exist" was caused.

"God" never began to exist - so therefore you can't use my logic against me, nyah nyah nyah.

Got it? :) It's the innate advantage of arguing for something that you can simply redefine on a whim, when you see your argument crumbling!

[parkening]

65. Arguments evolve

that's the beauty of debate.

It needs to be noted that the KCA never mentions God at all. It only stipulates that there be a First Cause. Observation of the universe around us dictates what attributes this First Cause must have had. And they happen to be what we call "God-like" attributes. A person, immaterial, transcends time, hugely powerful, imaginative, etc.

[trotsky]

68. Which is exactly another flaw of the argument.

The "First Cause" could be anything - literally. It might be a god, it might not. Your personal interpretation of the universe is what "dictates" the attributes that you think the First Cause must have had. Unless you think everyone observes the universe just like you?

[parkening]

74. Not anything

It could not contain less energy than exists in the universe, for instance.

[trotsky]

75. "Energy" is a property of our universe.

You are again trying to apply properties of our universe to outside of it, where they have no meaning.

[parkening]

78. These things don't apply

scientifically but do apply logically real well.

[trotsky]

91. And that's an exercise left to the reader, huh?

:eyes:

No, they don't apply logically either. The universe is defined as "all that exists". That means matter, energy, the physical laws that govern them, etc.

If those laws (such as the principle of causality) exist "outside" the universe, then the universe isn't the universe. By definition. It MUST include everywhere the laws apply.

Keep thinking about this. You're almost there.

[parkening]

94. You're just makin' stuff up now.

[trotsky]

95. Let me restate the KCA how you (and most theologians) are REALLY

using it:

1) All things in the universe that began to exist have a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) The universe has a cause.

Stated this way, it is easy to see the illogic. The error you are making is in your restatement of #1 to be simply "everything" rather than "all things in the universe." Because your premise of "everything" having a cause really means "everything in the universe" has a cause. So you are trying to apply an observed property of things IN the universe to the universe itself. Illogical.

And I didn't make that up! Go figure!

[parkening]

101. We're making a small

warranted leap to apply certain transcendant laws/qualities outside the universe.

Let's see what corner you've painted yourselves into. You believe that despite the observed fact that everything that's ever happened in this universe was caused, the quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion MegaJoules of energy (a very low estimate, I realize) and bunches of matter (another estimate) sprang forth from nothingness, completely uncaused! I'm just overpowered by the logic of it all.

[trotsky]

105. Thank you for admitting your leap of faith.

That's all I needed to hear.

[parkening]

109. Now admit yours

All things springing forth from nothing, uncaused. Go ahead. My leap doesn't seem as big as yours.

[trotsky]

111. There's no leap involved for me.

I'm perfectly OK with the answer "We don't know." Although once again you are begging the question using loaded words like "from nothing" and "uncaused."

[BurtWorm]

112. It's a leap to think there was ever "nothing."

That's the first giant leap, which you have made. So of course it seems like a leap to go in the other direction.

[parkening]

114. Dog eating doughnuts! Dog eating doughnuts!

[BurtWorm]

116. Zzzzzzz.....

:boring:

(just because you can't imagine a universe with no beginning doesn't mean there wasn't one.)

[parkening]

119. ...gasp....dough...nuts.....

[BurtWorm]

72. I got it.

:eyes:

[Ignoramus]

57. nothing isn't

We can't all agree that there was a state where nothing existed. Everything exists. Nothing doesn't exist.

Time can be conceived of as a dimension. If you can be 5 feet from head to toe, it doesn't mean that you can be -1 feet from head to toe.

If you accept the notion that everything is caused, that doesn't imply that there is a thing that is everything that can be caused.

We can make mental constructs to discuss things, this does not make them true. Given that cheese equals bananas, it is an axiom that cheese equals bananas. Outside of the mental construct it is not necessarily true that cheese equals bananas.

Similarly, the mental construct that there are 4 dimensions of space time, doesn't mean that space time is some geometric object floating in a substance called a void.

[BurtWorm]

30. How do you know there was a "state" where nothing existed?

:shrug:

[parkening]

33. See post #32

[mdhunter]

97. My crack at this

A1, A2, and C1 are all true, of course.

The next question, obviously, is so what?

Why that cause must be God is not at all clear and certainly cannot be held based on these three principles alone.

It remains as likely that chance was the cause, and, even, likely that alien consciousness was the cause.

I do not agree that there is now or has ever been "a state where nothing existed." I have no evidence for this to be true and, in fact, find it unlikely. This doesn't pose a problem for me because I also reject your statement that, "If, per Hume, we cannot perceive or assign cause and effect, we may as well throw out all of science as cause and effect are foundational to all science."

What you're suggesting is that we throw out a perfectly good system of being based on the inability to have knowledge of it in one particular situation. Why we have to throw out cause and effect because it is unknowable at some singularity in time isn't clear. Does it's being valid now rest on its applicability throughout time and place? No, it doesn't, what matter for functional purposes is that cause and effect can describe perhaps every imaginable event save one. The existence of that one doesn't render the rest meaningless merely because someone says so.

The cosmological argument, at best, suggests only that which humans intuitively already know - something cannot come from nothing and therefore something must have prexisted the universe. It says absolutely zero about what that "something" is, much less that it is a God, much less that it is a God who didn't simply create the universe and then vanish, much less that it is the omnipotent Christian God as imagined today. Further, the argument, even if granted, is still prone to a reduction ad infinitum of causes. For it provides no basis why God should not have a cause as well. Indeed, the argument's effectiveness is in declaring that God too, must have cause - the argument defeats itself.

[Caution]

26. That isn't evidence...

Main Entry: ev·i·dence
Pronunciation: 'e-v&-d&ns, -"dens
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin evidentia, from Latin, that which is obvious, from evident- evidens clear, obvious, from e- out of, from + videns, present participle of videre to see
: something that furnishes or tends to furnish proof;

That is simply a lack of understanding. "I don't know what caused life to arise...therefore it must be god"

First Cause - Same as above. I can't comprehend what could possibly bring about the Universe, so, I will assume that there is a Supreme Being who preceded all other things and has *always* existed and it created everything else.

OK so what is the First Cause of god?

These are not new arguments and they are not things that atheists blithely ignore. Just because a question is unanswered does not make it unanswerable and certainly does not require the existence of a Supreme Being.

[BurtWorm]

10. Well, I have escaped from drawing that conclusion.

As have millions of others. :shrug:

[trotsky]

18. Oh yes I wanted to comment on this too.

Your bogus "probability of life". Like a 747 being assembled in a junkyard from a tornado, right?

http://www.cincinnatiskeptics.org/blurbs/evolution-improb.html

Anti-evolutionists give the "junkyard forming 741 in a tornado" argument to prove that evolution couldn't have occurred. But evolution doesn't say that living things just jumped together like that. Living things gradually developed bit by bit. A 747 wouldn't pull together bit by bit in a tornado in a junkyard, but that's the misleading thing about the analogy-metal doesn't act as carbon compounds do. An organic molecule or living thing made of organic molecules, based on carbon compounds, would gradually change, through random mutation guided by non-random natural selection. Natural selection is the tendency to survive and reproduce due to having the right characteristics. There is no "circular reasoning" here. Survival and reproduction are the result, not the definition, of fitness. "It is a favored argument of creationists to calculate the statistical probability of the molecules necessary for life (say the formation of DNA) arising spontaneously in a primeval biological soup. The chances are next to zero..... But they misunderstood the process of evolution by natural selection." "Adding natural selection to random molecular events imposes order and law. The combination of chance modifications plus the filtering effect of natural selection produces a genuinely creative system that allows new and novel properties to emerge." (Blackmore & Page, 1989, pp. 178, 179, 181) The way the term "natural selection" is used may sound as if it is a conscious force, but that is just a misleading interpretation of its meaning; natural selection is an unconscious process working inanimately.

Carbon is an atom that naturally and readily forms chains into other compounds, including the protein sequences that make the DNA-RNA molecules that male up living things on earth. Anti-evolutionists grossly misstate the difficulty of these compounds forming in nature. They are wrong in their assumption that all possible combinations of atoms must be included in calculations of probability of this. Only successful combinations need be considered. No matter how many unsuccessful chains develop, enough successful ones could develop that could take additional carbon compounds into themselves (eating), give off the residue of these mixes (defecation) and make copies of themselves (reproduction). The successful ones would continue on and build themselves up.

"Because of internal chemical restrictions (certain chemical bonds are easier to form than others) and because certain intermediate structures are more stable than others, there may well have been a sort of 'natural selection' occurring even at the molecular level The result is that quite complex chemical structures necessary for life are far more readily formed than chance alone would suggest. The odds against the sudden yet complete, formation of a DNA molecule are greater than the atoms in the universe. Yet in the early days of the earth's history, simple building blocks may have occurred not just once but many times. The route from these sub-units to the final DNA is still shrouded in mystery. But ignorance is insufficient reason for us to plead impossibility." (Blackmore & Page, pp. 181-182)

[bowens43]

4. The guy's 81 years old, he's just covering all the bases.

[trotsky]

6. "Damage control"?

The thousands of priests and ministers who have become atheists - do their churches engage in "damage control" when that happens?

No, because a theist losing their faith isn't news. Happens all the time.

But an atheist converting? Very rare! So it makes the news.

[parkening]

9. Atheists convert every day, too.

The smart ones!

It is logically impossible to prove the negative --- that a god does not exist. The only logical tenable position is to be at least an agnostic --- not sure if there is a god or who he/she/it/they is/are.

[trotsky]

11. Your logic is flawed.

Yes, it's impossible to prove a negative.

For instance, prove that there are NOT invisible elephants dancing on my lawn. You can't! So therefore the only logical tenable position is to allow for the possibility that they're there, right?

Of course not - you reject that premise, and rightly so, because there is no evidence for it.

"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F Roberts

By the way, there is no need for your insult.

[Tafiti]

16. Great quote!

I love it!

The issue of first cause is just as troubling for theists as it is for atheists. When I was young (and in church), it was explained this way: God is infinte, he ALWAYS just WAS - existed.

So, God sat around in a formless void - nothingness - for an infinite amount of time, then decided, "Wait a minute! This is boring! Why don't I just create stuff, so I have something to do, and stuff to look at and watch over!?" Then he created. OK, so what was before God? Where did he spring into being? This will be challenged with: we don't understand time, or God's time, it's just a leap of faith.

It is no more a leap of faith than believing that there was, at the very "beginning" - using our linear/finite concept of time - an infinitesimal amount of matter that sprung into "existence", and so on...

These questions cannot be known, so they're pretty useless to argue over. Whatever happened before Earth came into existence, beginning the process of evolution, is irrelevant to me. I'm just a firm believer that a God who listens to prayers and is concerned with our everyday activities, and "works in mysterious ways" through our world and our lives, does not exist. Intelligent Designer or No Designer - so what? What does it matter?

[parkening]

21. There is no time without matter

so there's no sitting around for an infinite amount of time. In essence there was no time, no waiting around at all, as there was no time in which the universe did not exist.

By definition the First Cause did not spring into existence. The First Cause must exist in order for there to be anything else (and I await anyone who will show me otherwise).

Someone please show me how matter or energy can spring into existence from an original nothingness. That takes faith that is way beyond anything I can muster.

If the Designer is who I think it is, then it does matter. And the evidence is strong that I'm right or at least real close.

[trotsky]

24. Quit clinging to the "First Cause" nonsense.

I posted a link that demolishes it above.

Try something else.

[parkening]

29. not quite demolished

see above

[Tafiti]

36. OK, you said...

"Someone please show me how matter or energy can spring into existence from an original nothingness. That takes faith that is way beyond anything I can muster."

Well then, please show me how "GOD" can just EXIST in an original nothingness. THAT takes just as much faith. I'll say it again, the problem is the same for theists and atheists. Your argument is just as plausible or implausible as an atheist's.

Since you, or anyone else, can't wrap their minds around this concept, you're asserting a belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing God that did it. Hey, sounds impossible, but it's GOD! If He can't do it, no one can!

[parkening]

41. The concept of First Cause

or God, if you will, falls out of the Cosmx Argx; it is the natural conclusion.

The concept of matter springing into existence, ex nihilo contradicts everything we know about logic and science! It also contradicts the Cosmx Argx, which hasn't been refuted yet (except for the straw man version).

That is the critical difference in the arguments.

[BurtWorm]

49. Therefore, matter could very well have "always" existed.

Right? Why couldn't it have? Isn't that the simplest explanation?

[parkening]

51. No it's not actually

In order for matter to exist, there must also be time. For it to "always" have existed we must go backward infinitely in time. (This is that infinite regression of events that I mentioned earlier.)

Suppose we start infinitely far back in time. Now start moving this way. Do you see how we would never get to today?

Suppose you're standing near a doughnut. Suppose there's an infinite number of doughnuts laid out in a line leading up to your doughnut. Your dog starts eating at the other 'end'. Will s/he ever get to you? Obviously not.

The same with eternally existing matter.

[BurtWorm]

53. Do you really think you can get at the origin of time and space using

simple logic?

There is one explanation for why this is all here now that seems as likely a reason as--or more likely than--any: there is an infinite cycle of expansion and contraction and expansion again. If you like simplicity, that one's hard to beat. You don't have to explain where it all came from. It's always been here and will always be here. We poor mortals think that might be impossible not because it is impossible but because we view all existence through our own mortality.

[parkening]

55. You've still not escaped the

infinite regression of events conundrum. Any time you posit matter existing eternally, you run up against this issue. Your dog will never eat your doughnut.

One of the beauties of logic is that with it we can look way beyond our own mortalities into infinite and eternal things.

[trotsky]

59. His explanation is just as valid as yours.

The big bang was a quantum singularity. The funny thing about singularities is that the known laws of physics break down. We can't say anything about time, matter, energy, etc. "before" the big bang, because all those properties are fundamental to our universe. Perhaps the universe prior to ours was so fantastically different, and the one that follows ours will be even weirder! "Matter" in that case doesn't exist eternally, only for the duration of our universe's existence. "Problem" solved.

There are so many ideas, so many ways to think about this, that your limited answer of "god did it" (and illogically extending that to "MY god did it" is pathetically boring!

[parkening]

76. The trouble with

universes is that if there is time at all then there is matter and/or energy. No matter or energy? No time.

So you're proposing a infinite number of universes in which no time passes and this is supposed to solve the problem.

There aren't that many valid ways of thinking of this. And my (not so illogical) view that my God did it may be boring for you, but that doesn't make it wrong. Right?

[trotsky]

98. You're not understanding what I said.

Only in our universe do the concepts of matter, energy, and time even have meaning.

Speaking of what came "before" our universe is essentially meaningless, because since time is a property OF it, there can by definition be nothing "before" it. Think of this great Hawking analogy: What exists north of the North Pole?

Perhaps our universe arose from another state of existence, and maybe time or a similar property was in that state, maybe it wasn't. We can't know. In other words, a universe in which no time passes is perfectly logical, since we're talking about a different universe, and time only has meaning within ours.

[parkening]

103. I get it

I'm just not buying.

[BurtWorm]

60. But your conundrum is just a conundrum.

It's just a game. You can put me at one "end" of infinity and a dog at the other, but actually, infinity clearly has no beginning or end. I would have to be somewhere within infinity and the dog somewhere else, in which case, if we're not too far apart, the dog will eat "my" donut.

Didn't Godel prove that logic was only about logic after all?

[parkening]

79. It is just a game

a mind game that shows your position is untenable. You say you can't put the dog at infinity and that shows perfectly why matter could not exist eternally into the past.

[BurtWorm]

82. Just because a dog in a puzzle can't eat a donut?

I doubt it.

[parkening]

84. Keep thinking about it

[BurtWorm]

85. Maybe I'll get hynotized by the words eventually, eh?

;)

[parkening]

86. You're getting very sleeeeepy

:crazy:

[BurtWorm]

90. Those circling eyes...

:boring:

[parkening]

17. Sorry about the snarky comment, just joking around

Re the invisible elephants.

Would invisible elephants (IE) leave footprints on your lawn?
No, they are light as feathers and leave no footprints.

Would I be able to hear IE trumpeting/dancing?
No, they are perfectly quiet.

Would I step in IE poop occassionally?
No, their poop, like them, is also invisible.

In fact they have no impact on the environment in any way. But we still cannot prove they do not exist.

Should I then, therefore, believe that IE do exist? It doesn't matter. There is no evidence and even if they do exist, they won't affect your life one way or another.

Evidence for a First Cause on the other hand is obvious and unavoidable. We've shown that in this forum in the past.

A First Cause that, according to Newton's and thermo laws, must contain more energy than the Universe. Must be immaterial (not made of matter). Must be outside of time, as time, per Einstein, does not exist without matter.

An entity like this, as opposed to IE, could have a profound affect on your life. It behooves one to see what one can find out about this One.

[trotsky]

19. You've shown nothing.

But I find one statement of yours very useful:

There is no evidence and even if they do exist, they won't affect your life one way or another.

The exact same thing can be said about your god, you know.

[parkening]

43. Note the last two sentences of my above post

One can say that my God may not affect lives one way or another. But it should be considered that a Being that contains virtually all power, all knowledge, transcends time, etc may want your attention. It would behoove one to study it, like, really deeply.

[trotsky]

69. If it wants my attention then it can come see me.

So far, I see absolutely no evidence or reasoning that it exists, just a bunch of unsupported assertion.

[parkening]

81. Well there's the KCA for one

So far it stands, unscathed, as pretty good support.

And I believe it did come to see you.

[trotsky]

93. Unscathed?

It's been ripped to shreds, and has been done so by people long before Democratic Underground existed.

Here's another dissection of it: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html

You choose to make assumptions and apply properties of our universe outside of it. If you can't see the illogic of that, there is no sense in continuing.

[parkening]

96. Dan Barker should have tried harder

from your Barker article:

'The curious clause "everything that begins to exist" implies that reality can be divided into two sets: items that begin to exist (BE), and those that do not (NBE). In order for this cosmological argument to work, NBE (if such a set is meaningful) cannot be empty<2>, but more important, it must accommodate more than one item to avoid being simply a synonym for God.' emphasis mine.

Barker makes an unsupported arbitrary jump here from First Cause to God. This only one point that I could bring up in Dan's sloppily reasoned treatise.

[trotsky]

100. Oh, so you criticize Barker for making the same jump you do?

You have inserted your god as the First Cause, why can't he?

If his jump is unsupported, why isn't yours?

[parkening]

104. The difference is significant

He arbitrarily calls something God.

I ascertain the properties, through science and logic, of the First Cause and call that thing God.

[kslib]

20. Good quote trotsky!!

[pocoloco]

13. You are right....

it takes a whole lot of faith to be an atheist!!

[mdhunter]

15. Even if that is granted...

remember that atheists are typically guided by scientific principles and standards.

So, strictly speaking it may be that many atheists are, in fact, agnostics. But, for them the difference becomes semantic because the probability of there actually being a god is so slim. It is almost disingenuous for these people then, and I'm one of them, to go around insisting they're agnostic when the chance that there is a god, for them, is infintessimally small. Simply accounting for that extremely small number isn't enough to burden oneself with purporting to be agnostic when you're scientifically an atheist.

I do however, grant your point that atheists convert everyday, though that question isn't particularly meaningful, I don't think. Included in the group of atheists who convert is the set of people who have never rigorously reflected on religion and god in their lives; a set of people often without much, if any, prior belief, who come to find god. That group is much less interesting, and I think less important, than the group of people who become atheists, for these people, by definition, have wrestled with the salient questions and rejected religion.

And, of course, this is no means an attack on any person of faith. Faith is an important part of many people's lives and can have a positive influence in the world. I do not think religion necessary, nor do I think it can be defended scientifically, but that does not a priori make it bad.

[parkening]

23. What's the probability of a god

that created the universe? We had this discussion the other day. Some people didn't like my calculations but couldn't find any error in them.

The probability of there being a self-existant Being: 50-50 (either there is or isn't. Science cannot confirm or deny.)

The probability of that Being creating the universe: 50-50 (either did or didn't. Science cannot confirm or deny.)

Therefore the probability of there being a Creator: 1 in 4

Pretty good odds.

Matter springing into existence, ex nihilo, naturalistically, on the other hand, violates every scientific principle known to man. And it must be explained scientifically.

Now I cannot prove scientifically that my God is the one true God. There is a certain amount of faith involved. But based on the evidence, I don't think it's that far of a leap.

[trotsky]

25. What's the probability that the earth will blow up today?

Well, either it will, or it won't, right? So the chances are 50-50?

I'm sorry, but you have no grasp of probability or logic.

[parkening]

35. There are all kinds

of variables and probabilities that go into an explosion of sufficient size to destroy the earth. There are many, many possible outcomes. One of which, however remote, is that the earth may blow up today. So, no, there isn't a 50-50 chance of the earth blowing up today. Just like there is not a 50-50 chance we'll get struck by a huge asteroid.

So far my probability and logic skills are holding up pretty well.

[trotsky]

67. I will let your knowledge of probability stand on its own.

Your direct contradiction of yourself says more than I could add.

[parkening]

80. Oh, please, point it out

[mdhunter]

89. I'll explain

The claim was made that the probability of there being a god was 50/50, or .5, since science cannot confirm nor deny this.

If science being unable to confirm or deny a proposition is the basis for its having a probability of .5, then anything science cannot explicitly confirm or deny has the same odds.

The odds that the earth will blow up tomorrow are then 50/50, the same odds that an alien is typing this, that there exists a god, what have you.

The probability of the existence of a god doesn't rest on the semantic distinction of whether it is or it isn't, but rather the reasons or evidence for its being or not.

Consider this analogy. The probability that George W. Bush and co. stole this election is not simply 50/50 because he either did or he didn't. There is evidence that he did, and evidence that he didn't. Some have brought the power of statistics to bear on this question and found that it more likely that he won based on fraud than on chance. By collecting a host of factors and considering them all together we might conclude, after the calculus of it all, that it was 77% likely that Bush won based on malfeasance.

I am contending that in the absence of evidence to support the existence of god figure, the likelyhood of that existence is negligablly small.

[parkening]

106. I did not base the 50-50

probability on whether science could confirm it or not. I was merely pointing out that science was powerless in this instance.

The probability is based upon possible outcomes. There are only two (that I can see, submit more if you have them) options: there is a Transcendant Being (option 1), there is not a TB (option 2).

[trotsky]

107. So therefore you have nothing at all to base the 50-50 claim upon.

You're just arbitrarily assigning a probability to each case.

You see, there may only be those two options, but there is nothing at all that says each option is equally likely.

[parkening]

110. Explain how it's not 50-50

I can't come up with any reason why it's not.

[trotsky]

113. Because it's unknown!

If you don't know what the factors are, why is a 50-50 assignment of probability any more or less valid than picking another arbitrary one, like 70-30 or 90-10?

You grabbed a number out of the air and tried to make it the semi-basis of a point. That's what we are trying to show you.

[parkening]

115. The principle of Excluded Middle

requires it be 50-50.

[trotsky]

117. You are interpreting that incorrectly.

The "Principle of the Excluded Middle" means only that something is either true, or its denial is true, not "both" or "other." Binary logic, essentially. It makes no statement whatsoever as to the relative weights of it being true or false - only that those are the only two options.

[parkening]

121. I agree

that PEM does not give any weighting to the options. Only to the number of possibilities.

And I suppose you could posit an almost infinite number of 'non-creator' possibilities. Fortunately the KCA does not depend on this probability at all. It just a little red herring to go with the main dish.

[trotsky]

124. *Your* red herring.

Thanks for admitting it.

[parkening]

127. No problem

:)

[mdhunter]

123. I can, see 120

[parkening]

126. See #125

I'm not hard-over on the probability thing. You guys have handled that one well.

[mdhunter]

120. We've both been imprecise

The existence of God is not subject to the mathematical power of probability.

In common English usage we toss around term like "likely to" "probable that" "chance of" when we are not talking about the probability of something.

A probability is a discrete number, from 0 to 1, (though it can be expressed fraction with the same purpose) that represents how likely an event is to occur. You are right, this in an outcome based exercise. Probability measures the chance of the occurance of an event based on the total number of possible outcomes given that the outcomes are equally likely.

Here's what we take from this. First, probability has the most power when it resolves a series of events. The probability of rolling a 2 on a die is roughly .167 - we expect that, on average, every six rolls a 2 will show up. The total number of outcomes is 6, 2 appears once, the outcomes are equally likely so the probability is 1/6, .167. This isn't new for any of us.

The second thing we take from that, when talking about a single event, and not a series, probability assumes that each outcome is equally likely to occur. This is essentially an odds ratio, which is quite distinct from a probability.

Logically, your argument (and I maintained this from the start) is valid and, further, I even granted that it was true. What I've tried to show is that it is meaningless.

If we assign a probability of .5 to a single dichotomous event, then the outcomes must have been equally likely. Option 1 - There is a unicorn. Option 2 - This is not a unicorn. Those options are equally likely. Science, unfortunately, cannot confirm or deny either. The point resolves again to the semantic. Your statement, that there either is, or is not, a TB, is only the definition of the probability of a single dichotomous event where the outcomes are equally likely. It tells us nothing of the outcomes themselves.

It is as if you would like to prove that the probability of pulling a red marble out of a bag is equally likely as pulling a green marble out of a bag. To be true this assumes there exists in the bag two marbles, one red, one green. Do we know this to be true? No we do not. Does the statement that "drawing a green is equally likely as drawing a red" necessarily make it true? No, It does not - we still haven't examined the contents of the bag.

So, probability isn't what we're actually talking about - though I mistakenly employed the term myself. The probability of an event describes the ratio of occurance of that event over the total possible outcomes in general, where the liklihood of each outcome occuring is known. If I want to know the probability of throwing a 2 on a die when the die's six sides are 2, 6, 6, 6, 6, and 6 it's still .167. There are only two possible outcomes 2 and 6, but we know that all outcomes are not equally likely to appear, 6 will appear roughly 83% of the time and 2's will appear roughly 17% or the time. Even if that's true, we still can, in fact, make the statement that in this situation, "The outcome will either be a 2 or a 6" because, conveniently, that does not account at all for the likelihood of either event.

That is the statement you made. "The outcome will eiher be a TB or not a TB." regardless of the underlying likelihood of occurance. Yours is a semantic argument, it relies on words to carry it. Your agrument is unassailable as the words stand, it is valid, true, argument. But, it is meaningless, it is ascribed weight only by those that whish it to be weighty... and that does not rest on logic.

[parkening]

125. Nicely done

trotsky has gotten onto a similar theme. I granted him (post #121) and now you that the probability argument is not real convincing.

The KCA does not rely on this, though, and still stands up well to scrutiny.

[mdhunter]

132. By the way

I hope you're not taking any of this personally. This has been a good excerise in debate, argument and precision - hopefully for all of us, and I've been enjoying it.

I don't agree with you, naturally, but that's no reason to not like you. So, keep at it, keep making me (us all, I guess) challenge what is known and to come out with a better understanding, be it one way or the other.

[parkening]

137. We're all better for it

We each understand the other's side a little better, as well as our own as a result of this little exercise.

It's been fun and quite civil. Thanks.

[kcwayne]

22. Assuming God because of complexity is poor logic

It may very well be that probability that biological life would evolve in some way from primary elements is an extraordinarily unlikely event. Perhaps the creation of biologically viable life did create intelligence.

Assuming a god is the source of that intelligence is only one of many possibilities.

The intelligence could have been some other, more simply derived life form that evolved the technology to create biological life.

Perhaps there were other life forms that are more simply created from mass and energy, that subsequently evolved into the more complex forms described by DNA.

But deducing a god based on complexity begs the question of how could god be created, and is there an infinite chain of gods that can each create something as complex as a god. If the answer is that god is infinite and always has been, then why isn't biological life infinite and always has been and equally plausible explanation?

And progressing on this infinite infinity, what created mass and energy? The same argument about an infinite chain of gods begetting gods comes to play again.

We don't understand infinity or time other than as an incomplete mathematical abstraction. I do not take any meaning from introducing gods as a reasonable explanation, especially gods that take personal interest in the daily activity of humans. But I don't care if others do.

[hlthe2b]

31. I wish there was not a tendency to equate spiritual belief & direct belief

in a higher being, a God, as incompatible with a strong belief in science and evolution. The fact of the matter may be as simple for this long term self-described atheist that he is 81, looking his mortality in the eye, and finds a belief in a higher being to be comforting.

Most of the prominent figures in science and medicine have not been atheists, although I personally would have no problem if they were. Even Einstein believed in God, perhaps more on the level of scientific pantheism, although he did speak of God in a more anthropomorphic manner:
Albert Einstein
I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details.
Albert Einstein
I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.

So, my point is only to try to diminish the urge to think the two are incompatible. Unfortunately the "religious" right and their bastardization of religion and science does tend to make this an increasing issue and certainly adds to the misunderstanding (and manipulation) among their followers.

[Caution]

47. Oh by the way...sorry to disapoint you but Flew is still an Athiest

http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=138

Sorry to Disappoint, but I'm Still an Atheist!
by Antony Flew

Richard C. Carrier, current Editor in Chief of the Secular Web, tells me that "the internet has now become awash with rumors" that I "have converted to Christianity, or am at least no longer an atheist." Perhaps because I was born too soon to be involved in the internet world I had heard nothing of this rumour. So Mr. Carrier asks me to explain myself in cyberspace. This, with the help of the Internet Infidels, I now attempt.

Those rumours speak false. I remain still what I have been now for over fifty years, a negative atheist. By this I mean that I construe the initial letter in the word 'atheist' in the way in which everyone construes the same initial letter in such words as 'atypical' and 'amoral'. For I still believe that it is impossible either to verify or to falsify - to show to be false - what David Hume in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion happily described as "the religious hypothesis." The more I contemplate the eschatological teachings of Christianity and Islam the more I wish I could demonstrate their falsity.

I first argued the impossibility in 'Theology and Falsification', a short paper originally published in 1950 and since reprinted over forty times in different places, including translations into German, Italian, Spanish, Danish, Welsh, Finnish and Slovak. The most recent reprint was as part of 'A Golden Jubilee Celebration' in the October/November 2001 issue of the semi-popular British journal Philosophy Now, which the editors of that periodical have graciously allowed the Internet Infidels to publish online: see "Theology & Falsification."

<snip>

[parkening]

50. The old guy's messin' with me

From yahoo article above: "I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."

From secweb: "In short, I recognize that developments in physics coming on the last twenty or thirty years can reasonably be seen as in some degree confirmatory of a previously faith-based belief in god, even though they still provide no sufficient reason for unbelievers to change their minds. They certainly have not persuaded me."

I suppose yahoo could have taken his statement out of context. Even on the secweb, though, he gives grudging support to believers.

Am having a great discussion with you folks, though.

[pelagius]

52. I suspected Flew had arrived at this position ...

...when I read the news accounts. It seemed obvious he hadn't been attending "Praise 'n' Prayer" mid-week services at the First Evangelical Baptist Assemblies of God Christian Church (Reformed).

As I understand it, Flew's "admission" was that, logically speaking, a First Cause makes more sense to him now than it has in the past, but nobody can be certain. Whether you call this position "negative atheism" or "agnosticism" or even "deism" is philosophical hairsplitting -- not that such hairsplitting isn't worthwhile!

But I couldn't discern a fundamental shift by Flew from atheism to theism in the reportage on his statements.

In fact, this is all just annotation on the arguments of the seventeenth century between Christians and Deists.

But I must say that those who claimed Flew was afraid of death to the point where he would renounce a lifetime of logical integrity -- a bit insulting, wouldn't you say? -- must not have read the linked article. It clearly stated that Flew did not posit an afterlife.

BTW -- <parkening> has, IMO, done a very good job of arguing his point and, after refuting the argument against the cosmological hypothesis, has received nothing but aphorisms and ad hominems in reply.

[parkening]

54. I think you're right

This article was probably the result of an over-zealous under-listening AP reporter. It seems that all Flew has conceded is that the Theist/Deist have some pretty good arguments.

Thanks for the support, too.

[Tafiti]

58. I absolutely agree that...

...parkening has done a very good job of arguing his point. But it seems you are trying to lump me into those with "NOTHING buy aphorisms and ad hominems in reply." I said above that it's useless to argue over it because it cannot be proven either way, as of yet. A conclusion in either direction has zero personal significance for me. He thinks it matters, I don't. Big deal.

I was just playing devil's advocate - posing questions. Parkening asserted that atheists who convert to theism are the "smart ones", and that his conclusions are exclusively both logical and tenable, making those arguments against his illogical and untenable. I took those remarks to be tongue-in-cheek, but they are ad hominems nonetheless.

[parkening]

83. Very tongue in cheek

I should have resisted the urge.

I apologized to somebody up there.

[pelagius]

102. To be clear...

...I was talking about the rhetoric and/or logic being used and I certainly don't believe personal attacks -- as least as we understand on DU -- were in play here. When I say "ad hominem" I mean it in its strictest sense, an argument "against the man", not gratituous insults.

In fact, I find this whole exchange to be a model of enlightened, honest discussion I'd like to see more of on DU.

It's especially important, in my belief, that we define where logic ends and faith begins. And this exchange has helped clarify those issues wonderfully!

[parkening]

118. It's been remarkably civil

nobody called anyone stupid or cussed. It's been very intense yet everyone played nice.

You highlighted a great point about logic/faith.

Thanks for the kind words regarding our debate. Hope to see more of you around the DU, pelagius.

[pelagius]

135. It's important to know in which realm you're operating!

You highlighted a great point about logic/faith.

I often tell people I'm a Christian four days a week and an agnostic the other three! It keeps me humble and keeps others guessing. :-)

[parkening]

140. Humble is good

:thumbsup:

[Ignoramus]

63. I think that's from 2001...

... before the more recent hubbub. One of the links on the article leads to a more recent thing with quotes from the guy, which appeared to be incoherent, but it's just snippets of quotes which could very well be taken out of context by the person writing the article.

[Caution]

70. the 2001 date iis reagrding a reference from the editor

The actual article on secweb is new.

Note from the Editor: in accord with Flew's remarks, on how the Fine Tuning Argument by itself leads more readily to agnosticism than to theism or positive atheism, see Richard Carrier's Response to James Hannam's 'In Defense of the Fine Tuning Design Argument' (2001).

Date published: 08/31/2001

this date published is in relation to Richard Carrier's Response to James Hannam's 'In Defense of the Fine Tuning Design Argument' (2001) not the article on secweb from Flew.

[Ignoramus]

87. Hmm.

Well, the sorry to disappoint article is referenced on infidels with 2001 next to it. Infidels also references the Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of article with 2004 next to it. In that article on secweb, it references the sorry to disappoint article with 2001 next to it, and refers to it as things said by flew during the period 2001 and 2003.

Also, in the same place, in what looks like the same font and space above it, the sorry article on secweb has Date published: 08/31/2001 at the bottom, and the flew considers article as Date published: 10/10/2004 at the bottom.

Therefore God exists.

[parkening]

88. Woohoo!

Here's the article

[Ignoramus]

66. Contact by Carl Sagan [spoilers]

Another type of argument about a "God" that is not internally incoherent (I think), is like that described in Contact.

In the story an "alien" tells the main character that a message has been encoded in the number pi for humans to find.

It's not implausible that there could be a being outside of what we consider reality that could construct what we consider to be reality. But that would not lead to an argument that the being is the cause of all things that exist beyond what we consider reality. It would just mean that there is a reality beyond what we can conceive of.

[mdhunter]

134. And suddenly...

We're in the Matrix :)

"...there could be a being outside of what we consider reality that could construct what we consider to be reality."

[mikh]

143. ...and if there is...

..and I think it likely, and that being created our cosmos - then for what purpose?

[Ignoramus]

148. purpose or intention?

If there were a being external to what we call our universe, or if we were in "the matrix", and you could somehow know the intentions of the being or the designers of the matrix, would you have to think those intentions are honorable?

If something with intention could have absolute power over anything you do, so you comply with it, does it become correct to do so?

Are you immoral if you disobey the law of gravity? Is it appropriate to ask what the purpose of having the law of gravity thrust upon you is? Could there be an intention behind the law of gravity? If so would there have to be a distinction between such an intention and such a purpose? Is fire the purpose of combustion?

[mikh]

144. ..and Islam gets a mention...

...specifically -
"I would never regard Islam with anything but horror and fear, because it is fundamentally committed to conquering the world...."
His interview is fascinating. There's a good link to it via www.aldaily.com.

[ExclamationPoint]

149. This forum has the most interesting pattern of responses

Completely un-related, but still interesting. I don't mean the responses content, but if you scroll down the page you'll see what I mean.