The Ayatollah of Atheism and his publicist
If you believe in God, you’re in the majority. You’re also the target of Sam Harris. Best selling author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, Harris is a man on a mission against God. Atheism is his religion and he wants more people to worship with him. Arguably, Harris is the reigning publicist of atheism.  But he is not alone on his mission. He merely follows the footsteps of Richard Dawkins, (the academic guru and Ayatollah of atheism). In Dawkins’ new book, The God Delusion, he shakes his tiny fist in the face of Almighty. His book is so full of enough venom and condescending ridicule that it’s hard to take him seriously. His broad stroke analysis and ranting against the bible are ironically based on strongly held moral assumptions that would parallel any fundamentalist.

http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/04/02/harris-and-dawkins-promote-atheism/

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

So “being in the majority” somehow means you are correct?,  People “in the majority” thought the world flat and that disease was caused by demons.

Harris is not a mission “against god” as such an endevour would be as pointless as being a mission against Magneto, they are both literary characters and fighten them is impossible.  Harris does however fight errational thinking and baseless belief.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

In your post on Word Press, Steve, you write: 

“But without God, all moral conclusions are merely subjective human opinions without any binding authority beyond what a culture attributes to them.”

Harris’ and Dawkins’ point is to remove “But without God” from what you wrote.  The point they reach is that, given massive swings in “moral” norms and mores culture-to-culture, that (as you state yourself) “all moral conclusions are merely subjective human opinions without any binding authority beyond what a culture attributes to them.”

“Beyond what a culture attributes to them” is a key.  Cultures…humans…attribute authority.  And that authority seems to be what is good for order, and order is good for the survival of our species.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

You really wouldn’t guess from the writings of Harris and company that they do not hold very strong moral opinions and wish to force them on others.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

If Harris is not on a mission against God (particularly the God of Christianity) I am not sure how else to read him. He and his fellows are full of evangelistic and fundamentalistic fervor in arguing for atheism.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Well at least they don’t strap bombs to people and ask them to blow something up in the name of science. And what about “the god of christianity”? I thought there was just one god but different ways of worship. Didn’t think we lived in a polythestic world.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Why are you guys responding to the troll (Steve Cornell)?  He has obviously not read the books he rails against, and he is trolling here merely to make trouble.  Just ignore him.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Actually, I have read the books. Have you? Name calling is your best defense when reason is not on your side. Not easy to be an atheist: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2007/02/23/not-easy-to-be-an-atheist/

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

So you didn’t like Laine calling you a troll. But how do you figure reason being on your side? That little article you linked to presents the weakest argument against atheism I’ve ever seen. Couldn’t you really have come up with something better?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

What I love, Steve, is that you link to your own blog posts as if those are some sort of incontrovertible truth to support your case.  “Things are the way I say they are ‘cuz I said so.”  Nice.

Those 8 arguments are pretty weak.  You did do me a favor, though.  #3 and #7 actually made me laugh out loud, which was helpful to me seeing as how the Lions lost to the Cowboys today in another stunning, depressing parade of mediocrity.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Steve, Steve Steve

I know this might be difficult, but try to think.  Dawkins,Harris etc do not attack god.  It would be like attacking the Easter Bunny. One point they make is that morality is independent of the concept of god.  That is why we can say that flying planes into buildings is bad even if god said so. The same goes to preparing to kill your son as in the case of Abraham.

Okay, Dawkins and Harris do not mince their words. Why do you take offence at this? Religious people do this all the time by suggesting that atheists have no morals and such like. Why are the religious particularly exempt from criticisms of their immoral acts?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I think the only post that was even close to being logical, other than Steve’s, was post #3 by Smitty.  It would be nice if those who are opposed to Steve’s positions could come up with logical counter arguments; arguments that are sustantive and on point.  Merely saying all 8 items are weak and that item # 3 and #7 actually make you laugh out loud does not help us understand why you believe that way.  Why are they weak?  Why do they make you laugh out loud?  Why is it as pointless as being on a mission against Magneto?  I tought this website was designed to promote critical thinking.  We can’t do that if logical arguments are not presented.  I venture to say that most arguments an atheist can come up with to counter Steve’s arguments can be effectively argued against using logic. 

I intend to address one or two of the points made by Steve’s opposition when I have more time.  Hopefully over the weekend.  I welcome honest well thought out responses.

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I sympathise wit h you Wave Rider but I think you miss the point.  The reason it is not possible to respond to Steve’s position is that there is no position to respond to. Substitute ‘Magneto’, ‘Tooth Fairy’ or ‘Easter Bunny’ for his arguments and would you hold the same view?

If someone spouts nonsense, it cannot be glorified and must be identified for what it is.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

No need, Wave Rider. Sam did this 3-years ago…
http://www.aifestival.org/index2.php?action=full_info&menu=3&sub=1&title=172

However, after going through “Steve’s” so-called “blog”, there are a few things not specifically addressed by Sam.
So, since there are only 8 points… I’ll give it a shot.

1. An atheist assigns himself to life with merely finite purposes:
This is basically a statement based on a projection from Steve’s perspective. An atheist with basic scientific literacy sees the universe and our existence in it as a great mystery.  There is no evidence so far to suggest there is anything out there, but that won’t keep scientists from looking!  “We love not knowing!” -Richard Phillips Feynman

2. The atheist must also suppress the demands of logic:
Ah, yes… LOGIC. So “Spock” of you to mention. The fact is logical argument is void without EVIDENCE.  Seeing is believing, right Steve.  Never seen a 747 created out of a junk yard and a tornado! William Paley’s watch and all that. Atheists do suppress (and ridicule) the logic of the Geocentric universe, since there is ample evidence to the contrary.  Same goes for ID.  The “logic” here is someone has a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution by natural selection and the continued ignorance of it must be on purpose. You do have an internet connection, I presume.

Wee! This is fun!

3. Yet, ironically, the atheist has to believe in miracles without believing in God:
Non-sequitur. There is no irony here. No one claiming to be an atheist claims to have all the answers. The faithful do, however. The problem here, kids is that it’s actually OK to say, “I don’t know! It’s a mystery!”  But, for Pete’s sake, let’s not fake having the answer and end any attempts at genuine inquiry.

4. An atheist must also suppress all notions of morality:
Really? You want to go there? OK.  Euthephro’s dilemma. The relative application of “holy-book-icle” morality by the faithful, etc, etc…  The foundation of secular morality is simply based on suffering. The problem here with “Steve’s” brand of absolutist morality is that the faithful have an irrational moral imperative to avoid hell, the ultimate in suffering; which trumps all real suffering and pain that can be experienced in this world. Hence, the atheist/secular immoral acts of suicide bombing, murder of abortion doctors, using condoms is a sin, no gays, no gay marriage, no abortion, no embryonic stem-cell research, on and on and on…  Let’s all read Sam’s book, shall we?

5. In fact, the atheist must conclude that evil is an illusion:
Looks like another projection from “Steve’s” perspective and a non-sequitur. The notion of “evil” is simply someone willfully engaging in an immoral act.  Certainly, the devil and his “influences” are probably an illusion. From an atheist/secularist/humanist perspective, an immoral act would be willful causing or prolonging of suffering. See #4 for a short list.

6. The atheist must also live with the arrogance of his position:
The faithful rarely succumb to the humility of ignorance. Of course, the height of arrogance is to claim to have all the answers to the mysteries of the universe: “God did it.” Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence. Most atheists would admit to that. However, it is the burden of the faithful to provide acceptable evidence for the nonbeliever, not the other way round.  No one has any obligation to believe fantastical claims based on little, bad or no evidence. No apologies. Thanks for playing. Try again next time!

7. The atheist must also deny the validity of historical proof:
Really? Seriously? You want me to take into account the eyewitness testimony of profoundly ignorant humans from 2,000-years ago? People who would stone you to death for showing them an iPhone? Sorry, not good enough.  Google Sathya Sai Baba. Eyewitnesses claim to have seen him walk on water, raise the dead and conjure inanimate objects out of thin air, as seen on youtube. He just had his 85th birthday party and 300,000 people showed up. Why is their “eyewitness testimony” not credible?

8. Finally, the atheist must admit that human beings are not importantly different from other animals:
Again with the non-sequiturs?  It does not follow. Life exists with lots of mystery… no miracles required. The unwillingness of the faithful to explore and inquire openly about our origins stagnates and stifles progress to honest understanding based on evidence.  “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use.” –Galileo Galilei

But, hey… If “Steve” wants to go to church on Sunday, I’m OK with that.
Oh, and I liked Prof. Dawkins responses to the questions! (shared!)

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ravi Samuel

Thank you for responding.  I clearly understood your point and was merely challenging the premise that was behind the statement (i.e. God does not exist so you can substitute any fiction in the place of God).  I disagree with that premise because it defies reason.  No one knows absolutely that God does not exist.  Furthermore, neither you nor anyone else on this earth can scientifically prove that God does not exist.  And without this proof it is not rational to discount the possiblity/probability that God in fact does exist. 

An honest Atheist should acknowledge that their disbelief in God has to be based on some level of faith.  And in the final analysis, the Atheist must hope they are right and that Believers are wrong.  Fortunately, Believers are not faced with the same dilema because if Atheists are right it really doesn’t matter. 

My final point.  Contrary to popular opinion, there are many scientists who advocate intelligent design in creation who have well thought out theories supported by data.  These scientists are rarely given an honest hearing within the scientific community.  But this is not unusual in the history of mankind.  In the contest of world views it is common place for the predominate view (in this case evolution) to resist well reasoned and supported theories. 

spincast,

Thanks for providing the detailed response.  I will consider your points and hopefully be able to respond over the weekend.

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave,

“An honest Atheist should acknowledge that their disbelief in God has to be based on some level of faith.”

No more than disbelief in the Easter Bunny which was Ravi’s point.  If you define faith so nebulously it becomes an irrelevant word. 

“And in the final analysis, the Atheist must hope they are right and that Believers are wrong.  Fortunately, Believers are not faced with the same dilema because if Atheists are right it really doesn’t matter.”

I take it you’re not worried about Islamic hell.  Even if your statement made any sense, it doesn’t provide any iota of evidence for a creator.  You obviously haven’t thought your positions through very well.  Your notion of reason is severely compromised, but one wouldn’t expect you to recognize that give the nature of it.  You have chosen a different worldview.  Perhaps because it gives you comfort or offers reasons.  It’s no wonder we can’t even agree on what is reasonable.  I chose to believe in the world as it is, not how I want it to be.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave Rider

Patrick is right. The word ‘God’ hides many ambiguities which those from the Judaic Christian tradition ignore. If there is a god (read creator) - and by the way, why not ‘Gods’ in the plural? - , does he/she/it have to be good? Does he/she/it have to care about us? In short, does any religious person’s conception of god have to be right given that every other religious person’s conception must be wrong.  The answer must be no. 

We could postulate as I did as a child given the mess the world is in, that the world might have been created by a Student God in a Grade 1 class as a term project or something and got a failing grade. Evidence? That it take evolution to clear up the mess.

From a lawyer’s perspective, I think I could draft a claim against god for negligence. His/her/its/their products are clearly defective.

Disprove that.

The fact that some scientists believe in god does not advance the argument any more than the fact of adultery proves that marriage does not or cannot exist. The human mind can contain contradictions.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Patrick,
I appreciate that you made the effort to respond.  Unfortunately, both of your points did little to promote further discussion.  The first point for the most part only rephrased Ravi’s argument.  The second point was really no more successful than your first.  Contrary to your assessment, I do think through my positions as thoroughly as I am able (I am just an average intellect).  And I believe that I present my position in a fair and respectful manner.  I am also willing to listen to rational rebuttals.  In contrast, your second point largely degenerates into insult and adds little substance.  The insults really don’t bother me but they do not promote logical discourse.  I would have thought an Atheist would respond in a more rational manner.  I welcome any discourse with you in the future as long as you present logical arguments.

Ravi,
You have brought up a whole different set of arguments and neglected to address my points.  In my response to you I addressed your statements and stayed on point.  Your counter failed to do likewise.  You have merely avoided my arguments.  Avoidance of the argument can never prove that you are correct concerning the point at issue.  Again, I thought an Atheist would present a more rational argument.
I can address the points you made in your statement #15 but will pass for now.

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

wave Rider

As far as I can tell, I have addressed your points. As you seem agitated that both Patrick and I have not done so, would you perhaps state categorically what your points are, and the arguments you make in their favour.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave,

Your points have been addresses.  What’s frustrating is your inability to see that, but like I said that’s not surprising given your worldview.  You brought up Pascal’s Wager and I responded with Islamic hell and you ignored it. Another point you fail to understand is that atheists don’t believe in God like you don’t believe in the Easter Bunny.  Most atheists don’t discount the possibility of God.  We only fail to believe because of lack of evidence.  Why is that difficult to understand?  As Clarence Darrow said “I don’t believe God because I don’t believe in Mother Goose’.

Your religious belief seems to be, like most theists, compartmentalized and immune to any meaningful discussion and logic.  If you were able to step back for a moment and see that a real logical discussion could commence.  I don’t see that happening at this point.  As I’ve had many ‘logical’ discussions with theists before, I’ve given up spending a lot of time presenting my points in a detailed manner when their level of faith has reached such a level to subvert rational discussion.  You’ve already demonstrated your inability to understand the simplest of logical arguments when it comes to this subject.  Why should I continue?  You seem nice enough, but there’s only so many times I can beat my head against the wall.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave,

I didn’t address your ID point.  All I can say is watch this carefully and if this doesn’t convince you I don’t know what will.  The onslaught of scientific support for Dover’s defense was less than overwhelming.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ravi,
Respectfully, I still maintain that you failed to address the two main points that were made in my posts.
In post # 15 I made only 2 arguments. 
First, no one knows absolutely that God does not exist and it can’t be scientifically proven that he doesn’t.  Therefore it is not rational to discount the possibility/probability that God does exist.  Ergo, an honest Atheist must acknowledge that his worldview is based on a certain element of faith.
Second, there are scientists that have theories based on observable data that can support the possibility/probability that a designer/prime mover was necessary for origins.
In post #13 you merely reiterated your point that it is not reasonable to respond to Steve’s position because there is “no position to respond to”.  Furthermore, you stated that if “someone spouts nonsense, it cannot be glorified and must be identified for what it is.”  No actual logic was given in support of your statements.
In post #15 I did little more than to advise you that you did not address my arguments and that I had expected more logical arguments.
In post #17 you did better but did not counter my argument.  Remember, the primary point in my argument was that you cannot scientifically prove that God does not exist.  Therefore it follows that you can’t honestly say he doesn’t exist and your disbelief must be based on faith.  Your arguments as to why God does not exist were philosophical in nature rather than scientific.  My argument requires scientific proof so a philosophical response is inadequate.  Philosophical reasoning is quite valid in the context of the larger argument of origins.  However, I made a very narrow and specific argument.
In post #19 you asked what my points were.  I have restated my arguments above.
 
Patrick,
Pascal’s argument stated that even though one could not determine the existence of God through reason a person should wager as though God exists.  I did not make that same argument.  I am saying that no one knows absolutely that God does not exist and that it can’t be scientifically proven (as opposed to determined by reason) that he doesn’t.  Therefore it is not rational to discount the possibility/probability that God does exist (as opposed to wager that God does exist).  Ergo, an honest Atheist must acknowledge that his disbelief is based on an element of faith. 
You did acknowledge that most Atheists don’t discount the possibility of God.  I appreciate your honesty.  I don’t see many Atheists who contribute to this site acknowledge this. 
Contrary to your assessment, I do understand that it is difficult to believe in anything without sufficient evidence (whether you are a Theist or an Atheist).  And I do contemplate the issue of origins and struggle with a number of issues pertaining to my faith (as do other Theists).  However, I have concluded that the evidence, in all scientific fields that I have an interest, points to a designer/prime mover in creation and that worldview makes more sense than theories of spontaneous generation of origins ex nihilo. 
Until someone comes up with a scientifically proven mechanism that overrides the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in the context of origins without the need for a supernatural mover, I remain convinced of God.  I believe that this is the argument of origins in the simplest form.  The rest of the arguments concerning origins (Theistic and Atheistic) must work around that issue.  And until the question of origin in light of this obstacle is scientifically proven (not theoretically) both camps must ultimately base their theoretical allegiance on faith.  Both are, in effect, religious beliefs.  Atheists cannot argue otherwise.  And Theists won’t.

I haven’t watched the program you provided the link for.  I will do so when I get the chance and get back to you.

Regards,
Wave Rider
Col 1:16-17,20

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave,

Do you actually believe based on the scientific evidence or do you bend the evidence based on your preexisting beliefs?  Certainly you must know that all scientific laws are meaningless before Plank time.  A law is simply an observation based on some set of scientific principles.  Since all known scientific principles and observation break down in the early universe, the Laws of Thermodynamics are not necessarily meaningful.

Even so scientists have already come up with hypotheses to explain how the universe came into existence without breaking any laws without the need for a God.  This makes the need for a God to explain the universe superfluous as throwing God in there in the first place doesn’t really explain anything anyway since we know nothing about God.  It’s nothing more than a god of the gaps argument.  If the evidence were as clear as you make it out to be, how do you explain that the vast majority of scientists are atheist/agnostic?  People who are much smarter than you or me look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

I’ll state it gain, I have no clue how the universe came into existence and neither do you.  You claim to know how it did, but I don’t.  Therefore you have faith and I do not.  Don’t try to bring us all down to your level.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave

I am glad that you have summarised your position in 2 propositions which I undersnd to be:

1.  God exists
2.  Some scientists have found some theories which suggest that God is ‘possible/probable’

Your point 1 first. You have declined to define your terms and tell me what you mean by ‘God’.  Without It the assertion that God exists is meaningless.  Please define what you mean by God.  Your assertion is not a scientific one so there is no need to refute it scientifically.  I ask you to give me a falsifiable proposition which would prove to you that God does not exist. If you believe that God does not exist regardless of evidence, then the existence of God is not a meaningful proposition requiring refutation.

You also appear not to understand the meaning of science and proof.  I can imagine an infinite amount of things but do you really assert that because they cannot be proved not to exist that they may be true? Do you believe in the Easter Bunny, Spock, the Tooth Fairy and such like?  On your argument, you must remain open to their existence because your rejection of them is based on faith. Palpable nonsense obviously.

I do not know what you mean by your point 2. Perhaps you can tell me.  If you simply mean that the existence of the universe means that there must be a creator or God, this argument has been demolished long ago.  Simply put, if the world is so complex that it needs a creator, who created the (presumably) more complex creator?  Ockham’s razor comes to mind or ‘cut the crap’.

I think our major difference is that I am willing to accept that there are things I do not know and humans do not know at this time.  It is you why makes a positive assertion from ignorance who has the burden of proof.  I do not have to explain why I reject what there is no reason to assert in the first place. There is a difference.  I do not deny the existence of God. I consider the proposition that God exists to be meaningless and therefore does not cross the threshold requiring refutation.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Patrick,

Admittedly, I was not even aware of the Planck time concept let alone the theorectical implications it presents for the laws of physics.  I believe that the hypothesis you are presenting is that the laws of physics, as we know them, did not exist prior Planck time.  And I take Planck time in this context as being immediately prior to origins (please correct me if my understanding of your argument is in error). 

If that is what you are saying, I suppose you can make the argument that the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics did not need to be over-ridden at origins based on the Planck time theory.  And this would be true only because the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, and all other physical laws that we rely on for order in the universe, don’t exist at that point in time.  As a result, it seems that only two options we have just prior to origins (on the other side of Planck time) is either the existence of absolute nothing (zero) or an entirely different set of physical laws that are not subject to Planck time.  And it was either the absolute nothing (zero) or the different set of physical laws that gave rise to our universe in all its complexity.
I reallly can’t go with the nothing position.  However, I suppose that I could accept origins deriving from a pre-existing set of physical laws.  Only that presents more problems for us because those pre- existing laws now have to be identified and scientifically proven so we can develop logical theories onorigins.  And we can’t do that because those laws existed prior to Planck time and either no longer exist or don’t operate in the new creation.  So we are faced with a more difficult dilema than we have today.  We can’t observe phenomena on the other side of Planck time. 
We also have to ask ourselves whether those pre-exisiting laws came from the mind of a surpreme being or did they arise out of absolute nothing (zero)?  Did God originate the physical laws that birthed the universe?  Or did the universe spontaneously originate unexplainable phyical laws:  Or did the universe originate out of absolute nothing (zero)?  In the end the ultimate questios do not change with the injection of the Planck time theory.  Both sides adhere to their worldview systems ultimately through faith.  And faith in God shows more promise.

Concerning your second point, I admit that a great number of scientists are Atheist/Agnostics.  However, there are also a substantial number of scientists who do believe in God.  Having said that, it doesn’t necessarily follow that theory with the most vailidity is that held by the majority.  History is replete with instances that the majority of the intellectual elite came down on the wrong side of theorectical fences.

Ravi,

I am sorry but I did not argue that God exists.  I merely argued that Atheists must ultimately believe in the non-existence of God based on faith.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Concerning my intelligent design statements, Intelligent design theories pertaining to the creation are held by more than a few scientists.  And the theories are well thought out and should not be dismissed without honest contemplation. Furthermore, these same scientists often provide strong arguments that undermine theories based on random chance and natural selection.

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave Rider

I am intrigued that you, who refer to from the Bible (Col 1, 16-17, 20), do not argue that God exists.  Never mind.  Pardon me for saying so, but absent an assertion that God exists, your position makes even less sense.  I think your problem is you do not understand what atheism is and are forced to define it in terms of God. This is a mistake.  Atheism, contrary to what you appear to believe, is not a negative philosophy that involves the denial of the existence of God. When I say I am an atheist, I only say that there is no evidence of God (whatever it is).  I am under no obligation to prove that I what I see no evidence of, does not exist.  No question of ‘faith’ arises. 

On your view, if you are a Christian (as I assume) if your philosophy is to be consistent, you would have proof of the non-existence of Odin, Thor, Apollo, Shiva, Ganesha, Allah or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, to pick a few or, at the very least, disbelieve them from a position of faith.  So when you decided to believe in the Christian God, you merely selected arbitrarily from the God Buffet. Not a very sound basis for a belief I would have thought.  If I mischaracterise the basis of your belief, perhaps you can enlighten me on your basis for preferring to believe in one deity over the others.

As far as ‘Intelligent’ design is concerned, it would be preferable if you do not question the honesty of those who do not agree with you. It suffices to say that I have read the intelligent design literature and find it incoherent and sorely lacking in substance.  Wishful thinking is the phrase that comes to mind.  If you challenge this view, give me, say, 3 propositions of intelligent design you assert (or if you do not assert it, its proponents assert) and the proof proffered in support of those assertions.  I will respond.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave,

What I find interesting is that you claim to say the laws of physics give evidence for a creator, but you lack a basic understanding of the concepts.  It seems obvious the observations of science hardly influence your belief in a creator.  The origin of your belief certainly comes from somewhere else.  It still baffles me why so many theists continue to do this when it must be obvious even to themselves that they don’t know what they are talking about.

Plank time is the smallest unit of time that is meaningful by the current theories of science mostly quantum mechanics.  All physical laws as we know them are meaningless before ~10-43 sec after the Big Bang.  However, we may discover more about the universe and be able to push that time scale back to zero.  I emphasize MAY.  I don’t know if we will or how it actually did happen.  Therefore, I DO NOT HAVE FAITH in how the universe was created. I don’t know why I have to keep saying this.  The Universe could have had a creator or it could have created itself.  The only one of us who claims to know the answer is YOU so you have faith and I do not.  God is just a meaningless concept for trying to explain the origin of the universe to me.  It’s simply a placeholder for the words ‘I don’t know’ as it offers no new information.  God may be the central focus of your worldview, but to those who don’t share that belief it is no different than any other abstract concept that must be dismissed until the appropriate amount of evidence supports its belief.  That’s why it takes no more faith to disbelieve in God than the Easter Bunny.  Is that a clear enough?

You’re right that the fact that most scientists don’t believe in God does not give evidence to its non-existence.  It does show, however, that science itself does not point to evidence to a creator; at least not at this time.  Faith is all on you.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ravi,

In its simplest form, my argument is merely to point out that Atheism is a faith.  To reiterate, an Atheist cannot claim that science has proven that God does not exist.  The reason for that is merely because it hasn’t done so.  From that point it logically follows that an Atheist must rely to some degree on faith in his/her belief that God does not exist.  Because without sceintific proof you run the risk that your position is wrong.  In short, I am merely presenting the flip side of the argument that Atheists throw at Theists. 

I know that I am belaboring this point.  I do this because it is important point in the discussions between Atheists and Theists.  If an Atheist can’t accept the logical reality that their belief system is based on faith, and continually hide behind the inaccurate argument that science has proven God does not exist, he/she is starting from false position.  I am merely trying to get you to acknowledge the reality of Atheistic starting position in the discussion of origins.

As for the God exists argument that you are trying to attribute to me, I have never indicated to anyone that I can prove God exists. And I affirm that no Theist ever will.  That is because they know Theism is based on faith – that is why it is called a faith system.  I will agree that Theists are willing to argue that evidence exists to support the necessity for a designer, or creator, in the creation of the universe.  But that is the next discussion. 

I am still waiting for your evidence that disproves my original point (Atheism is a faith because God cannot be proven to not exist).  If you can scientifically disprove my argument we are done.  I will have been proven wrong and there is no longer a need to consider the next argument.  Or you can concede my point and we can see where the discussion leads.  Otherwise we are at a stalemate on this issue and I don’t believe subsequent argument will be fruitful for either of us.

Patrick,

See above.  I still contend that Atheists must have faith that God did not create the universe.  The argument I presented is logically true in the absence of scientific proof to the contrary.

I find it interesting that you “find it interesting” concerning my understanding of physics.  Particularly in light of the fact that you have ingnored my counter to your Planck time argument.  The argument I presented was a logical extention of the implications arising from the argument that you presented.  The argument was valid and is deserving of a response.  Furthermore, you know that the battle between the Atheistic and Theistic world views is being fought in a much larger scientific arena.  It is not confined within the world of physics. Again, the discussion should be focused on the arguments – not the arguer.
Concerning your statement “the fact that most scientists don’t believe in God does not give evidence to its non-existence.  It does show, however, that science itself does not point to evidence to a creator; at least not at this time.  Faith is all on you” as presented is merely a statement of belief (faith) on your part.  The fact that the majority of scientists don’t believe in God doesnot prove that the data as interpreted by those scientists does not point to evidence of a creator.  The argument that B is true because of A is not a good argument in this case.  Remember, there are a significant number of scientists who believe the data supports the probability that a designer, or creator, is necessary for origins.  They are just not the majority - at this point in time. 

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave Rider

It is getting increasingly difficult to explain anything to you when you only hear the echo of your own voice.  It would help if you try to LISTEN to what I and Patrick have been trying to patiently explain to you.  Let me put it as simply as I can:

1.  Atheism is not a faith.  It is not the ‘flip side’ of theism.
2.  Atheism does not assert that there is no God or that science proves that there is no God.
3.  Atheism only asserts that there is no evidence of God.
4.  If you disagree with the atheists’ position, you have the burden of providing evidence for God.
5.  You decline to provide evidence.

You on the other hand:

1.  Assert that God exists.
2.  Refuse to explain what you mean by ‘God’ (i.e., what attributes to attach to the word).
3.  Assert that God exists on the basis of faith (i.e., without any reason).
4.  Are happy to selectively co-opt ‘evidence’ for God whilst ignoring countervailing arguments there are.
5.  Do not assert that you can prove God exists but expect atheists to disprove his/her/its/their existence.
6.  Would decline to accept that God does not exist EVEN IF PROOF WERE PROVIDED because you accept that God exists as a matter of faith.

Proposition (5) is telling. If you disagree with it, tell me what evidence you would accept to disprove that God exists. It is pointless asking for evidence when your a priori position is not to accept it.  Until then, the existence of God is not a scientific proposition and therefore does not have to be refuted by science.
Your scientific and philosophical underpinnings also strike me as weak and inconsistent. Would you assert that because you cannot provide firm scientific evidence for the non-existence of the Easter Bunny, of Papa Smurf that you must therefore accept that they may exist?  Quite obviously not. Why then engage in special pleading when God is invoked?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

On retrospect, I’l take your bait Wave Rider.  Since you refuse to define what you believe God is, I will define God and prove that he/she/it does not exist.  I take it ‘God’ exhibits at least all of the following attributes:

1.  Infinite – without beginning or end
2.  Omnipotent – all powerful
3.  Omniscient – all knowing
4.  Perfectly Good

All I need to do to prove that God does not exist is to show that the observable universe is inconsistent with these 4 attributes.  I do not think this is too difficult.  The unequivocal evidence is that bad things happen even to good people and at the worst possible time.  This makes it impossible for attributes 2 and 4 to exist simultaneously.  Ergo God does not exist. 

Let the sophistry begin.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave,

Re:“Both sides adhere to their worldview systems ultimately through faith.  And faith in God shows more promise.”

It seems your argument boils down to:

1. Science can’t completely explain how the universe was created.

2. God is an explanation of the universe so until science can explain it, God is the most logical solution to the problem.

3. Since atheists don’t have a solution, they must have faith not to believe in a God.

Is this about right?  I’ll ask the most simple and obvious question as Ravi did: Please define God and explain his attributes and explain how he did what he did and why - scientifically of course.  If you can’t do that then you’ve explained nothing.  There’s no faith needed to reject a meaningless concept.

Another question is why do you devalue faith so much that you must foist it upon your adversaries?  I thought you people cherished your faith.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

What are you folks ranting about?

On the video, gotta say I loved the Hate Email, with Richard Dawkins. It’s better than reading my horoscope!. I wish he would have a daily installment.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Not sure why this interesting back-and-forth petered out, perhaps Wave Rider has seen the error of his ways and repented of his religious beliefs? 

The one thing that you see constantly is this notion that the difference between atheists and agnostics is that atheists are *sure* there is no divinity, or that they can somehow prove it, whereas agnostics simply say they don’t know.  In truth, I don’t know of any atheists who make such statements, as has been mentioned by Patrick and Ravi earlier.  My personal belief is that there is no difference whatsoever between atheists and agnostics, and that perhaps the latter category of folks are just trying to avoid the stigma of the word “atheist”.

Does anyone think there is a difference between atheists and agnostics?  What might it be?

If we can lose this distinction, maybe this whole “atheism is faith-based” nonsense will go away.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

You ask an interesting question Ellenberg.

I think the difference is one of the burden of proof and the point to start from.  As I see it:

1.  Theists think that the logical starting point is that there is a God (why they start at this point is a different matter).  So unless there is proof that God does not exist, God exists (the nature of this proof and whether it would be accepted if put forward is another matter). 

2.  Atheists’ starting point is that absent proof, there is no God. One important part of the atheists’ position is that this does not equal a disbelief in God as this glorifies the notion of God as a meaningful one. To the contrary, the position taken is that God as a concept is not a meaningful one.  That is why, in the atheists’ sense, not believing in God has the same logical structure as not believing in the Easter Bunny.

3.  Agnostics starting point is that they have insufficient evidence to assert that God either exists or does not exist.  This sitting-on-the-fence position however starts with the assumption that God is a meaningful concept.  I am unclear if agnostics would be able to state categorically what they understand God to mean. I suspect that in most cases it is is some vague notion of the Judaic-Christian tradition.  There is a conceptual difference between atheists and agnostics because I know of no agnostics with regard to the Easter Bunny.

Proponents of all 3 stands may agree entirely on the available evidence and use it as a basis to maintain their respective positions.  Their conclusions differ but only because they start from different points.  So when it is pointed out that the evidence of God is less than conclusive:

1.  Theists will contend that this is hardly the point, God is believed in as a matter of faith.
2.  Atheists will say that they are obliged to maintain their position that God as a concept is not proved.
3.  Agnostics will say that they remain undecided.

I suspect that the starting point persons begins with are determined by how they is brought up and by their natural inclinations. You may be right that agnostics are really atheists but I am not sure.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ellenburg, Ravi and Patrick,

I am sorry that I have not responded.  I have been quire busy with other priorities.  I will be tied up through Saturday evening.  I will respond at that time.

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ellenberg,

I think there’s a partial avoidance of the term ‘atheism’ as it has been stigmatize by theists for centuries.  Another part may be semantics.  Here is what I think the correct definitions are:

1. Theism - Belief in a God; generally the monotheistic kind.

2. Atheism - The lack of belief in this God.  This includes those who believe no God exists (however you define it) or those who simply believe there isn’t enough evidence to justify such a belief. Ergo, same reason theists don’t believe in the Easter Bunny.

3. Agnosticism - The belief that God is unknown or unknowable.  This is distinct from a belief in God.  One can be an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.  e.g., One who believes they don’t know if God exists but believe it anyway.  I think a lot of theists fall under that category.

I think there’s a lot of confusion with these definitions and it doesn’t help that theists (a lot of times purposefully I think) often try to force the strictest definition of the term atheism to score philosophical points to try to show we are just like them in an irrational faith.  In my opinion the term agnosticism is almost pointless in everyday use when trying to discern if someone believes in a God.  Either one believes in a concept or they do not have that belief.  That is everyone is either some sort of theist or is not (atheist).  To ask if one believes in a God,’ I don’t know’ is a meaningless answer.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Patrick & Ravi:

I agree with every point each of you made.  Since I don’t really know anyone who identifies themselves as agnostic, it’s still pretty opaque to me.  Perhaps these are folks who simply don’t spend much of their lives concerned with higher questions, while those of us self-identifying as atheists tend to be more involved, usually because of the destruction we see wrought by religion.

What is important out of all of this, though, is to consistently tell theists that atheism does *not* mean a 100% certainty that any particular god-definition is wrong.  It is rather a commitment to applying the rules of evidence and scientific inquiry to this most important of topics, and the obvious conclusion that follows, absent the blind faith of the theists.

It’s not easy.  Despite having this precise sentiment repeated several times in this thread, Wave Rider continues to repeat the “atheism is faith-based” mantra that has apparently been drilled into him along with the rest of his faith.  But at least we can keep repeating it:  we are not saying “there definitely is no god”, but you *are* saying “there definitely is a god”.

Wave Rider:

One question I like to ask theists is as follows.  There are a near-infinite number of things that could happen in the next minute that would cause me to reverse my position and agree that there is a god—anyone can come up with examples, such as a giant hand reaching down from the sky or a talking pillar of fire shooting up to the heavens or the instant revivification of all dead people or ......  But can a committed theist name even one thing that could happen that would cause them to reverse their opinion?  This should put to rest the question of who is faith-based and closed-minded and who is rational and open-minded, right?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ravi,
Concerning your post # 29, I am sorry that you are frustrated.  However, my responses follow the order of the points you made in your post:

1a - If you can’t see that you are basing your belief on a significant element of faith then it is almost impossible to continue the discussion without your getting frustrated.  I will let you assess the reason for that.  Again, you have not proved otherwise.  The only way you can do that is to scientifically prove God does not exist.  Without that proof you are merely left with educated faith.
1b – You have confused my flip side argument and missapplied it to another concept.  I did not say Atheism is the flip side of theism.  I was very specific.
2 - Finally
3 - That is a correct statement in the sense that Atheist do believe that.  I have never argued agsinst that basic reality.
4 - This is a web site dedicated to promoting the Atheistic worldview.  In this context the burden of proof is actually yours.  You have to defend your positions and you have not succeeded countering the weaknesses I have raised with your worldview.
5 - I have not declined to provide evidence.  But it seems pointless until my arguments are effectively countered.  A strong argument line went from the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics on to a logical extension of the Planck time concept raised by Patrick.  Neither of you have effectively countered.

Your points concerning me:
1 - I agree
2 - See #4 above in this post.
3 - I have repeatedly stated that I can provide evidence that points to the need for a designer.  I have never pretended that I can prove God exists – Theism is admittedly a faith system.  But it is reasonable to expect honesty from you on the fact that Atheism is a faith before going further.  You have not proved otherwise.
4 - I think your interpretation of my thought processes are faulty and can only be based on assumption.  I have condidered the processes and methods utilized by many theorists concerning origins.  All theorists are forced to make assumptions.  And most, including you, tend to utilize your world-view to fill in the theorectical gaps.  That is standard.  However, stating that I have not honestly considered evolutionary theories and evidence is false.  I have struggled with this issue on and off for over 30 years. 
Concerning your post #30

You posited the problems of evil argument presented by David Hume back in the 1700’s.  This is a philosphical argument and not a scientific argument (David Hume was a philosopher).  Philosphy is basically defined as a speculative inquiry concerning the source and nature of human knowledge.  Or any system based on such thinking.  Using a philosphical argument does not constitute scientific proof.

I do not reject Philosohy in regards to understanding origins because all theories are comprised of and influenced by Philosphy.  I do reject is as scientific proof.  I would also not reject Philosophical reasoning that points to the existence of a Creator.  Only this argument addresses attributes of the being not the reality of existence.

We are back to the point.  Please provide scientific proof that God does not exist.

Patrick,

I don’t think that we are at the point that I need to prove God exists.  You still haven’t proved that God does not exist.

See my response to Ravi above.  This is a website dedicated to spreading the Atheistic faith.  To do so, you are only left with the option to scientifically prove that God does not exist.  And you can’t do that.  I have never claimed, and not person of faith will ever claim, that they can prove scientifically that God exists.  I can’t do what you are asking and never said I could.  All I am saying is the evidence points to the need for a designer.  That is an entirely different argument.

Again, this is the Atheist’s website.  You need to prove to me that God does not exist.  If you can’t you have to drop your pretense to being more scientifically grounded in your faith than people of faith are.

Finally, please respond to my argument to your Planck time position.  You have ignored it.

Reards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave Rider:

You seem to be a smart person but your continual repeating of “prove God doesn’t exist or you’re just faith-based” indicates a firewall in your bain’s rationality.  I’m familiar with this wall, as it was in place in my own brain until my early twenties.  Once I knocked it down, my (fundamentalist) religious views fell with it.

If you told a six-year-old that there really is no Santa Claus, and they just kept repeating “prove it”, you would be as much at a loss as we are in trying to explain to you why such a proof is both impossible and unnecessary.

You have constructed an unfalsifiable hypothesis which cannot only not be disproved via philosophical argument, but also apparently cannot be disproved by any conceivable direct evidence.  See the last paragraph of my post #37, which I note you have not responded to.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave,

I didn’t respond to your Plank time counter argument because you didn’t seem to understand it and didn’t really say anything other than what you’ve been saying over and over again without support.  As I’ve said, I’m not required to show proof for the millions upon millions of things I don’t believe in any more than you are.  Do you have faith the universe wasn’t created by The Flying Spaghetti Monster?  Do you believe in ESP?  If not then you must have faith, because you can’t really know it’s not real. The person making the claim is required to have proof.  You claim the evidence points to a designer and I, along with the vast majority of scientists, disagree with that.  I have no idea how the universe came about.  How is this faith?  As ellenberg said, you’ve constructed a comfortable (and I would say childish) worldview that cannot be touch by reason or evidence.  This conversation is really becoming silly.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave Rider

I thought you were interested in a serious discourse. Unless you a firewall around you like Ellenberg suggests, it looks like you are not..  You do not deal with any of the arguments put to you. The meaning you ascribe to words like ‘faith’, ‘scientific’ and ‘philosophical’ have an Alice in Wonderland quality to them.  By the way, this website is not an atheists website, it is a website devoted to reason. It just so happens that reason and atheism go together naturally.  No question of ‘faith’ arises.  Faith is only necessary where reason is absent.  Do you have faith that gravity exists?

If you are really serious, one way to see the fallacy in your reasoning is to consider the logical structure of your contentions. Consider this imaginary dialogue:

You:  Golgg exists.

Me:  What is Golgg? Why do you say it exists?

You:  It is not necessary to define Golgg. I cannot tell you why Golgg exists. I have faith that it does. So what is your response to Golgg?

Me: Okay. If you cannot tell me what Golgg is or what evidence you have for it, I can only say that there is no evidence of its existence.

You: You cannot take that stand. If you deny that Golgg exists, you must prove it. Admit that your denial of Golgg involves faith.

Me:  ???

If you do not see the absurdity of this, there is nothing left to say.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave Rider

You seem to have it backwards. It’s not atheist who have to prove god does not exist , it’s you.
If I were to claim I earn $1mil a month it would not be up to you to disprove my claim. I’d have to present proof myself , as is the case with theist and god.
And btw , atheism isn’t faith based. We just don’t have any proof your imaginary friend is out there. Just because science hasn’t come up with the answer to everything yet (which btw is 42) doesn’t mean we have to subscribe to the theist lazy way of thinking that god made it all happen.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Aren’t you sick of these whiny Christians?

To be honest, I don’t even know why anyone else would take these irate, irritated, and frustrated Christian Fundamentalists seriously:

QUOTE:
// “The Ayatollah of Atheism and his publicist – If you believe in God, you’re in the majority. You’re also the target of Sam Harris. Best selling author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation, Harris is a man on a mission against God… Steve Cornell’s comment” //

Do you know what makes us atheists different from you, people of Faith? Most of us are former members of your religion; if not, we have studied extensively the historical accounts of what your religion consists; we know everything about your religion (our former belief), and what your faith has in store for you. It is also highly likely that we know more about your religion than you do yourselves, let alone atheism. If you don’t believe me, Polls show it. Simply to say, you are all spew of anger and stereotyping, with no concrete proof and understanding of what you are talking about, it’s very typical of 98% religious individuals.

More at: http://www.uncompromising-rhetoric.com/?p=1672

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It should be obvious to you by now Wave Rider) that unless you have your head below the waves) that you should not raise tangential issues if they have nothing to do with your argument.

You say that you have evidence of a designer but not of God. Unless you posit that the designer is God, why raise the issue? 

As you have been asked repeatedly:

1.  Define ‘God’
2. Specify the evidence you would accept to establish scientifically that God does not exist.

I do not understand the distinction you appear to make between science and philosophy. Every scientific discipline is based on an underlying philosophy.  I would have thought that you are obliged to accept Ravi’s refutation of God unless you choose to define God differently.

Finally, you obviously understand nothing about the Planck time. Patrick therefore has nothing to refute.

Would you now honestly accept that your position is based purely on faith (ignorance) and that you cannot disprove the atheists’ position.  If you can, provide the proof.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

To all,

I am absolutely amazed at the lack of reason being used in all of the arguments being presented. 
The forum has actually degenerated into a shout down that is reminisant of Hyde Park’s Speakers Corner.

I really expected better.

Again, Patrick and now Scorpionrat, please counter my argument.  If you can’t I will move on from this post.  None of you are willing to address my issue.

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Oh dear Wave Rider, you still do not get it.  What you do not appear to understand is that up to now, you have not made a single coherent argument.  Until you make it, there is nothing to counter.

Now answer me this. You say you belief in God as a matter of faith. I presume you therefore disbelieve in Atheism (your version of it) as a matter of faith.  Please provide me with the scientific proof that Good does not exist.

You cannot throw all the toys out of the pram and run home to mummy because the Bad Atheists refuse to accept your non-arguments. Or can you?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“I am absolutely amazed at the lack of reason ...”

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think in means.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Scorpionrat,

Please bear with me.

I have only made a couple of points in this discussion.  So far, my points have not been countered.  Furthermore, I have made my points in a logical progression in response to previous discussion.  And I am still waiting for valid responses to valid point.s For example, neither Patrick nor you have countered an obviously substantial counter on my part to Patrick’s Planck time argument.  A good counter that he made in response to my law of thermodynamics argument.  And Patrick has consistently refused to respond.  Now so have you.  Why should I progress to other points when I have been shown that respondents will redirect rather than handle a difficult counter?

Now I need to make another point that is in a direction that I really did not want to go - but feel I must (to get the laundry out so to speak).  I have been dismissed because I admitted a deficiency in my knowledge in Quantum Mechanics.  But I have to point out that the Patrick has not evidenced any real knowledge of Quantum Mechanics either (or anyone else involved in this dialogue for that matter).  Furthermore, if Patrick had really studied and understood Quantum Mechanics he would have known that Plank was actually spelled Planck.  That small error provides some evidence that his scholarly pursuit in the understanding of the theory is also lacking as he would have known how to spell Max Planck’s last name.  I was willing to let that fact go in an effort to focus on the argument at hand.  Unfortunately, all that Patrick ever produced to counter my point was that I was unqualified to opine and therefore not to be taken seriously.  This is a less that honest redirection?

I admit I am a novice in Quantum Mechanics.  But most people are.  Quantum Mechanics is very complex and even the experts are puzzled on many points.  This is evidenced by the various concepts they are struggling with (ie. - differences in application on small vs large scale, wave vs. particle, uncertainty, etc.) and the surfacing of alternate theories.  But for our discussion, the logical argument provided in my response to Patricks Planck time point is solid and has not been countered.  Why should I progress the discussion to other points if respondents on this website are afraid or unable to tackle that logic (or concede the point). 

Another point for all to remember, if one is going to convince anyone of a position they should refrain from resorting to condescending remarks similar to those you have made.  I have discussed origins with many Atheists and I do not consider them a threat to me or “Bad Atheists”.  And I certainly don’t need to run home to my mummy.  Making a statment like that is very unprofessional and shows a lack of confidence in your position.  You need to stay on point. 

I wait a response to my Planck time counter.  If one is not forth coming, I will take that as a point ceded to Theistic side of the balance sheet.

Regards,
Wave Rider.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

You seem like a nice chap but you are so wrong.

Contrary to what you claim, you have, until now, not made a single argument, let alone one that progresses in any sensible form.  You do not understand Planck time and your ‘solid’ argument is not an argument at all.

Besides, running home to mummy is an appropriate retort to one who starts from a point of faith (i.e. reason free) and then complains that he no longer wants to respond to those who use reason on the astonishing basis that they do not use reason.

It would help if you display some professionalism (your word) and respond to the numerous direct questions put to you without prevarication and evasion.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave,

Actually I have a PhD in physics and withstood 5 semesters of undergraduate and graduate QM, however, I took no typing classes so occasionally I will make a typo.  First of all you didn’t quite understand my point.  My point was that our current understanding of physics does not allow us to see before the first ~10-44 sec.  It should be obvious to anyone that the current Law/Theories are incomplete.  Therefore is it unwarranted to base any assumptions on what happened in the early, early universe according to what we know NOW.  So to posit that our current understanding of physics tells us anything about a Creator is non-sense.  Simply pointing this out does not require faith of any kind.  No one has to make a decision on the existence of a creator; they can simply say ‘I don’t know.’  Your argument boils down to the creator scenario makes more sense, but that’s simply your opinion.  You said: “And faith in God shows more promise”.  That’s not a philosophical or scientific argument.  You really said nothing, so there is nothing to counter.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Patrick,

Since, you repeatedly made the same spelling mistake I concluded it was not a typo.  However, I understand that can happen in discourse and apologise for the mischaracterization.

I did understand the point you were trying to make and chose to press the issue further to make my original point.  If you can’t prove beyond the first ~10-44 second without scientific proof (no different from the point I have been trying to make), you are forced to dismiss any possible claims God may have on your life merely based on a hope the other side is wrong.  It is really that simple a point.  Atheists are no different than Theists when it comes to reliance on faith.  We all are forced to adhere to our world view through faith.  Only Atheists and Theists are betting on different outcomes.  If I am wrong, I am no worse for the wear.  If you are wrong, you are in a very difficult position – particularly from a Judeo Christian perspective.

Now we can go on to other issues.
Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave,

I see.  What you’re saying is it takes faith not to believe in any concept that cannot be proven or disproven.  It appears we have different definitions of the word faith.  You still haven’t defined what you call God which many others have asked you to do.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave,

And I am still waiting for an answer to my question of what conceivable argument or direct evidence could possibly make you change your mind about the existence of any deity you care to define.  If you cannot come up with an answer, then there is truly no use in continuing this conversation.  This is what is meant by an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Patrick,

Faith is defined as:

1) Confidence or trust in a person or thing. 2) Belief that is not based on proof.  3) Belief in God or in the doctrines of teachings of rligiion.  4) Belief in anything, as a code of ethics, or the occurrence of a future event. 5) A systme of relifious belief: the Jewish Faith. 6) The obligation or loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement. 7) etc. 8) etc. 9) etc. - The Random House Dictionary of the English Language College Edition 1969.  Other dictionaries will have similar definitions.

For purpose of this discussion, I focused on #2 “belief that is not based on proof.”  The Atheist believes that the natural world originated spontaneously out of nothing to produce all the matter, space and energy that we observe today.  There is no proof to substantiate this theory so it is a theory based on faith.  Logic dictates that it can’t be any other way.

As to defining my concept of God, I am curious as to why that is important at this point.  Please advise.

Elleberg,

I think your request is really something that I can’t answer.  And I don’t think you could answer the correlative question either.  For example, the logical answer for you would likely be a scientific proof that God exists.  And my likely answer would be the opposite of yours.  But neither you nor I know that we would actually require that level of evidence.  It could be that each of us could be convinced by a lesser argument or evidence.  We can’t know, at this time, what that argument or evidence would be.  I have seen people from both sides of the Atheist/Theist divide switch sides based on an argument or observation that caused me to wonder (and you probably have as well). 

Furthermore, I really don’t think that question lends substance to the discussion.  If you want to convert me you have to work hard using whatever evidence and logic you feel necessary. You can’t assume I am hopelessly incapable of being convinced (converted) to your persprective.  I certaintly don’t make that assumption about you.

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave:

Sorry, but to me you seem to be intentionally misinterpreting my question.  Let’s forget the argument aspect of all of this and just concentrate on direct evidence.  I have asserted clearly that there are limitless amounts of potential evidence that would convince me there is a god.  I am asking you for one single piece of evidence that would convince you that there is not.  If you cannot answer this—and I don’t believe you can—then you are admitting that you have a hypothesis that cannot be falsified, that your mind is in effect completely closed to being changed.  If it cannot be changed by direct evidence, then surely it will not be changed by argument.  Isn’t this obvious?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

ellenberg,

I have already provided an honest and valid answer.  I encapsulated a similar point that you made in your post #37 by my acknowledgement of the necessity of scientific proof (i.e. if you prove scientifically there is no God or I prove scientifically there is a God).  Your proof in #37seemed to rest in the appearance of the hand of God or something else of that nature – which would be observable evidence and therefore a proof.  But you and I both know that neither your proof nor mine is likely to happen.  We are therefore left with developing world views based on lesser proofs (evidence or argument).  And no one knows what might tip the scales to cause them to embrace a contrary belief.  And one cannot be sure there isn’t a lesser proof (evidence or argument) that will.  And one certainly can’t identify these effective lesser proofs ahead of time.

I have to believe that you are trying to frame a position that I am not worth debating because my mind can’t be changed without extraordinary proof.  That may or may not be in my case.  But neither of us knows that.  Furthermore, based on the evidence you require as outlined in #37, I could come take that position concerning you.  But I won’t because I know differently.

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave:

First and foremost, I note that we are having a pretty calm discussion, which in itself is a victory for both sides.  Thanks for that.

You say that “you and I both know that neither your proof [direct evidence] nor mine is likely to happen.”  But under your hypothesis, why should this be so?  If there is an all-powerful deity, why would you expect it never to show evidence of itself?  Surely there are many many theists who do think such evidence abounds, that miracles are happening all the time.  (Only problem is, whenever they are analyzed at all, they turn out not to be miracles.)  So surely it is open-minded of me to state that should any “real” miracle—i.e. one that is either prima facie miraculous, or that scientific scrutiny determines definitely goes outside the bounds of physics—occur I will change my mind.  The fact that you cannot name any similar occurrence that will change your mind is precisely what leaves you as faith-based and me as evidence-based.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

ellenberg,

That is an interesting notion.  I suppose that it is logical that an Atheist would want to ask my God for a miraculous proof of his existence.  And my God being an independent being is free to say yes or no to that request*.  However, I cannot ask your God to prove his own existence because according to both you and me your God, the creator of your universe, does not exist.  As you know, the Atheist’s universe was created by nothing and out of nothing.  So you have presented me with an impossible condition.  I can’t ask your creator to do the miraculous because your creator is nothing **.  Any other proof that I can provide is dissimilar and is therefore invalid under the conditions posited.  And this merely provides you an out of the discussion because I can’t be convinced in a similar fashion - so why waste your time.  I don’t know this line of discussion could accomplish anything but that.  If there is another purpose to the argument please let me know. 

This is a cool line of reasoning but it does not really prove anything concerning origins.  And it really doesn’t discredit my input to discussion on origins if that is your intent.

*(or argue that He has already provided incredible miraculous evidence through creation – His saying this to you would also be a miracle I suppose)
**(even though the concept of nothing out of nothing is miraculous in itself)

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave said:
“For purpose of this discussion, I focused on #2 “belief that is not based on proof.”  The Atheist believes that the natural world originated spontaneously out of nothing to produce all the matter, space and energy that we observe today”

No a atheist simply lacks a belief in God.  Why do you refuse to see this? I don’t know if you’re purposefully being evasive or you are dense.  I have no belief about the origin of the universe as I’m smart enough to realize there isn’t enough data to form such a belief.  ergo, I have no faith.

And, defining God is important because if you do not then there’s nothing to dismiss or disbelieve.  It’s a meaningless concept.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave:

I don’t care much about origins, I’m with Patrick when he says “I have no belief about the origin of the universe as I’m smart enough to realize there isn’t enough data to form such a belief”.  I really don’t think about this much.

My line of questioning was to address this notion of atheism being faith-based.  I think we’ve exhausted it at this point, but I think I hear you sort of agreeing that there is a difference in our positions, since I have the possibility of changing my viewpoint and you really don’t—hence reason vs. faith.  Even if you still disagree at some level, please believe me when I tell you that, as a person who was raised heavily steeped in faith, that my way of thinking did not simply change from the faith in which I was raised into another sort of faith.  That’s not how it feels, not at all.  It feels as if I went from faith-based reasoning, which involves the sort of firewalls I spoke of earlier, to a fundamentally rational, scientific, evidence-based sort of thinking.  Really really different.  Not like going from one religion where I believed what one set of people told me to another religion where I believed what a different set of people told me.  I hope you can see this distinction.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Patrick,

I define God as “The Creator of All Things.”

Patrick, Ravi, ellenberg and all Others,

I hope you all have a wonderful new year with lots of good times with family and friends.

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave,

That definition would include the universe itself if it was self-caused.  That leads me way back to my original point that you define your terms so nebulously as to make discussion meaningless. A whole lot of effort and you really haven’t said much of anything

Have a happy holidays yourself.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave Rider

I conceived, designed and built i.e. created, a soap box car for a soap box derby when I was 8. God did not create it. On you own definition God therefore does not exist.

As this is not the answer you want, I look forward to you revised definition of God. It is important so please give it some serious thought. 

Happy holidays to you and yours too.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Patrick,

I thought we were through with that line of thought.  If you go back there, your really need to answer my counter.

Ravi,

Good for you.  However, you know what I meant.

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave Rider

No, I do not know what you mean; that is why I have been repeatedly asking you for a meaningful definition you will stand by. If it is a scientific response you want, you will have to define your terms PRECISELY I am afraid. Small matter of falsifiability you see.

Can I have your carefully considered one or, as been suspected in this thread, you do not have anything other than an airy fairy unfalsifiable one.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ravi,

In the context of my post #61.  God created all matter, space energy, time and life.  In short he orginated the universe.  I do believe I have been saying this all along.

The fact that you designed and built a soap box car when you were 8 is great.  However, you could not have accomplished that if God did not create matter, space energy, time and life in the first place.  You can only create using something that already exists.  God did not have that limitation.

Besides, this website is not about proving God.  It is all about spreading the myth that the universe created itself - out of nothing.  And the myth that life evolved from inanimate matter, to one celled life (by natural selection?), to move complex life forms (by natural selection?), and finally to man (by natural selection).  And all this was possible because a set of hughly complex natural laws appeared - out of nothing.  And all development has to be theorized and believed against almost infinate probabilities (I would argue the improbability is infinate).

It takes a lot of faith to believe that.

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave Rider

You continue to misconstrue atheism. As Patrick has explained more than once, atheists do not know how the world began.

You assert without reason (by faith) that God did the deed. But your use of the word “god” means nothing at all. At best you have a hypothesis. The hypothesis is unfalsifiable and is therefore not scientific.

What is asserted without reason does not require a reason not to accept.

Just because we do not know how space-time and matter originated does not make “god” the default setting. Atheists merely say that we do not know at this time. It requires no faith to admit ignorance.

I have no idea how the Internet works and how what I write is transmitted to you. I am in short, ignorant. That does not mean that God does it.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

You betray your bias Wave Rider. Please provide the basis for your assertion that the hypothesis that the universe might be self-created is a myth.

Why is this less likely than your meaningless faith bases assertion that the universevwas created by God.

Have you heard of Ockham’s Razor? If God can self-create and then create the universe, why not cut out the middle-man and say that the universe created itself? How can less steps be less probable as you assert?

Must confess that I do not understand what infinite means. Do you mean ‘certain’?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I meant ‘infinite probability’ of course.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Scorpionrat,

I have not read Ockham’s Razor although I have heard about it.  I will try to read it this year sometime.

To your question, the possibility of the universe creating itself out of nothing is impossible.  It is against all known laws of nature that this can happen.  And we have not discovered any other laws that conclusively support the possibility that the universe can be spontaneously generated out of nothing.  So far, all attempts to find laws capable of supporting this possibility have failed because there are always either conceptual or mathematical gaps.  The current theoretical hope for this position now resides mainly in Quantum Theory.  This theory provides some cover for the “nothing out of nothing “postulate but is nowhere close to proving it.  If anything, the theory shows just how little man really knows about the complex universe that God created.  And furthermore, the theory brings with it some baffling, and quite scary implications (i.e. the Quantum Enigma) for the Atheist.

Ravi,

If the Atheistic world view was in a vacuum, I could see how an Atheist could adhere to a position that his world view is not faith based.  However, the Atheistic world view does not exist in a vacuum.  Furthermore, in the argument of God vs. no God the opposing positions cannot both be correct.

An Atheist must base his position on an interpretation of observed data.  But he cannot prove his position using the data (evidence) because there are too many gaps.  The data is non-conclusive.

And the Theist is in the same position as the Atheist.  He must base his position on and interpretation of observed data.  And he cannot prove his position using the date (evidence) because there are too many gaps.  Again the data is non-conclusive.

So both world views base their allegiance on data, a theoretical construct, and faith.  If there weren’t stakes attached to the interpretations of this data it really wouldn’t matter.  And I wouldn’t even bother discussing the issue with you.  Unfortunately for Atheists, the Theistic world view can observe evidential data and construct sound theory to support the necessity for a designer in origins.  And this designer, or God, according to his scripture has a claim to the allegiance of His creation.  And finally, the decision to give allegiance, or not, has consequences.  Good consequences if allegiance is rendered and bad if not (which is logical since He is our creator).

1 Timothy 2:5
Isaiah 59:2
Romans 3:23
Hebrews 9:27
2 Thessalonians 1”8-9
1 Timothy 2:5-8
1 Peter 3:18
John 1:12
Revelations 3:20
John 14:14

Regards,
Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave

You don’t believe that this vastly complex universe with its billions upon billions of stars and planets could have just come into existence on its own. Well it could have or it couldn’t. We don’t yet know and maybe never will. But what about god? If there was an entity that created all of it , it would have to be even more complex and possess incredible intelligence , and you’re apparently saying that it’s perfectly logical for it to have appeared out of nothing. Isn’t that unreasonable?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave,

“The current theoretical hope for this position now resides mainly in Quantum Theory.  This theory provides some cover for the “nothing out of nothing “postulate but is nowhere close to proving it. “

This sentence just contradicted the previous part of the paragraph.  In fact it’s not impossible and you just admitted it.  You are beyond any reach of rational discourse as I guessed from the beginning.  You are hopeless with regards to rational thought.  It eludes you.  You believe in a childish fantasy of a cosmic father figure that tells you everything is OK.  Go ahead and believe in your fantasy, but at least don’t pretend it has anything to do with reason and science.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave Rider

I am trying to follow your ‘reasoning’ process.  I have tried but it has been difficult because you make so little sense. As best as I can gather, your position is something like this:

A.    The God Hypothesis

1.  There is no conclusive evidence of God.
2.  Consequently God exists.
3.  Conclusion (2) from (1) is made by Faith.
4.  Anyone who disagrees with points (1), (2) and (3) must prove that God does not exist.

The converse of the above is equally valid (I think because you are a little vague about this). Hence:

B.    The Atheist Hypothesis

1.  There is no conclusive evidence that there is no God.
2.  Consequently God does not exist.
3.  Conclusion (2) from (1) is made by faith.
4.  Anyone who disagrees with points (1), (2) and (3) must prove that God exists.

Your point appears to be that the God Hypothesis and the Atheist Hypothesis both require faith (I say ‘appears’ because again you are vague on specifics). It should follow from this that both propositions are equally valid but you draw back from this and contend that the Atheist Hypothesis is ‘impossible’.

Your analysis (if I get you right) is however both unsound and wrong.  Atheists do not assert point (2) of the Atheist Hypothesis.  Point (3) therefore does not arise.  The atheist’s position is simple.  Until all the numbers are in, you do not tally them up and reach a conclusion.  So, in the absence of evidence of God, there is no evidence of God.  I repeat: The atheist says that there is no evidence of God, not that there is evidence of an absence of God.

You do not appear to be able to grasp the difference. I do not know why as the concept is simple enough.  I will leave aside the entirely tangential (and equally illogical and irrational) assertion that God is equal to the Christian conception of it as opposed to, say, the Buddhist or Hindu version.  You therefore contend that God is:

1.  Personal
2.  Good
3.  Worthy of being obeyed

I only need point out that existence of a Creator (and there is no evidence of one) has no bearing on these 3 assertions but this is for another day. I leave you to your delusions here.

In the end, it is clear that you do not understand what you are saying. Whatever it is that you assert is lacking even in the most fundamental grasp of rationality and logic.  Most significantly, you appear incapable of listening and actually considering what others say. Sad really since some very sensible posts have been made in response to your ramblings.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Ryder 1984

That is a good point.  However, the God that I follow claims no beginning or end.  At some point there has to be an eternity (from either worldview perspective).

Pat and Scorpionrat,

I have found that Atheist tend to resort to ridicule when bested.  Is that what you are doing?

Patrick,

Thank you for that interesting comment pertaining to my ability to think rationally.  It was quite a constructive contribution to this discussion.  Particularly coming from a PHD.

Scorpionrat,

Where are you getting that from?  Please don’t blame me because you can’t or won’t understand my positions.

Regards,
Wave Rider

.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Wave Rider

There can only be continuous exasperation at your inability to think clearly or to state with any degree of precision what your position is with rationality and logic.  Instead, you have meandered from assertion to assertion.  “At some point there has to be an eternity (from either worldview perspective)” is a characteristically meaningless statement.

When unable to process sensibly information that confronts your unreasoned belief, you go into meltdown and claim that you are being abused and not respected.  Think.  Grow up, you cannot be 12.  When you engage people in rational discussion (which is what this forum is for) you must state your views coherently, consider the opposing views and respond to them with rationality and logic. The repeated bleating of your position without responding to the points made against you is unhelpful.  When you are ready to do this, let us know.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I recently came across your post and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I wonder how this pertains to Business Loans? I don’t know what to say except that it caught my interest and you’ve provided informative points. I will visit this blog often. Thank you.
Business Loan

You don't have permission to flag this entry.