ID:70965
 Sep 17 2002, 12:58 pm
|
|
Post your comments here!
| |
|
May 26 2010, 6:46 am
|
|
DivineTraveller
 |
Comment*/
|
Just wanted to let you know, this is a really neat CSS layout!
| |
Do you hate Christians, or are you just opposed to Christianity, or all religions for that matter?
| |
I don't exactly hate religions/religious people, although I have a pretty low opinion of some of 'em (including, yes, some Christians, and some Christian sects). I just think that various religions are predicated on something that isn't true, are often problems to human wellbeing, and that basically the human race would be better off without 'em.
| |
Hm; while I agree a majority of religious followers do proclaim outrageous and sometimes barbaric announcements or protests of faith and "truth", if one were to conclude under a logical setup why they believe in what they believe, would you respect that? Even if you disagreed, if what they concluded could be attained in a logical fashion, would you say that then it's fair for them to believe that?
| |
I don't think the question is meaningful, because I don't think it's possible to derive theism from a logical process.
I think it's fair for people to believe things, in the sense that I don't think it should be illegal or the like - I'm /entirely/ for freedom of religion. I just think they're wrong. | |
Hey, I've been considering the conversation, doing more homework, and what I've collected so far, I think I've come up with a slightly better creation.
You are right, there can't be a proof in God. However, science cannot prove the beginning of the universe either - it's literally impossible. The Big Bang doesn't provide a direct origin, for it ignores where the energy used for it came from. It's a never-ending cycle that can't really be answered on either side, and therefore, to believe in a religion, it's essentially a jump of faith. It can't be knowledge, under the definition of being a justified, true belief, but it can be a justified belief, therefore being rational (or reasonable might be a better word here), but not necessarily a proof. Considering I'm learning the viewpoints from both sides as secularly as I can, and then choosing after I learn, I'm at least attempting to have less bias than the average theist. I can't say I don't have a bias because that's a lie, but there are profound arguments on both sides - in reality, it does come down to a faith in theism or atheism though. I don't think macro-evolution particularly makes a lot of sense, and the Big Bang Theory doesn't go against religion - science in fact does not go against religion, and there are many religious physicists that would agree. However, from an atheistic point of view, I can see where you see the fallacy in logic of a jump to say that a God exists. But consider the truth that neither side knows the ultimate truth - given the historical accuracy of the Bible and the only question being the miracles, I personally maintain my faith that a God, specifically the Christian God, exists. I'm still looking forward to debates and further learning because essentially, even if I'm wrong and you're right, I don't know if that really matters - I think I'm learning and growing in my picture of the world/universe, which isn't a bad thing in any case. I respect your decision and am not the kind to say you are blatantly wrong, because I do not know if I am correct either. However, I hope you recognize that I think you put up good arguments and are helping me understand your point of view better - maybe one day, as far as online friends are considered, I could claim you to be an online friend, but that's beside the point - I definitely respect you and your assessment, and given new information to consider, wanted to provide a small revision to that blog post I held. I know I've got a lot to learn, but being young, that's what I look forward to. I apologize for a bit of repetition - but I think I said what I had to say. G'day. ;) [Edit: So you know, I'm not the person either that goes out on sidewalks and yells at people, or really give judgment to people who have different values than I. In example, the majority of my friends are atheist and I have never condemned them - I explain this is what I believe, and we all respect each other, because we don't shove down that one another is wrong or right. Edited due to reading the previous comments you had written down, and wanted to assure you that we all aren't like that.] | |
A lack of surety doesn't mean every opinion follows - the scientific theory of the Big Bang has some explanatory power (and it's passed a number of tests - proportion of light elements in the universe and the temperature of the cosmic microwave background, among others. It's also clearly got some bits that need ironing out, like inflation). The idea that a deity of some sort made the universe has no explanatory power unless you begin to constrain the properties of the deity (because the idea that a god created everything is compatible with every reality). So I don't think they're really 'equal' in any sense - basically, just because we don't know-for-sure, doesn't mean that any answer is equally valid.
I find the idea that provisional trust in a scientific conclusion is 'faith', and therefore equivalent to the concept of 'faith' in religions to be pretty clear equivocation. Even if you don't accept that they're qualitatively different phenomena (for example, scientific opinions should be revised and are expected to be wrong, religious opinion held through faith are not expected to be revised), there's a pretty clear quantitative difference as well. I don't see religious belief as justified in a logical sense because I don't see anywhere where a deity should be inserted to explain things - as far as I can tell, the entirety of reality can be explained without recourse to a god, and so there's no need for one. If you don't think evolution makes sense (and drawing arbitrary distinctions between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution is a good indication that you haven't thought about the matter), that's your problem. It happened. You may as well deny the existence of gravity. It is technically true that science cannot disprove religion in general - that is because religion, in general, is unfalsifiable. I can't come up with any test that could disprove the existence of some kind of deist creator-god that takes no interest in their creation. But fortunately, such a deity has no relevance (no explanatory power), so the idea is worthless and shouldn't be accepted solely on the basis that there's no reason to accept it. Science can disprove religions that make particular claims about reality. For example, we know that the Norse religion is dead wrong. We know that the Greek religion is wrong. Because they make predictions about the world (Giant snake encircling it, gods on top of mount olympus) that are testable and have been found wanting. Similarly, Christianity could be tested - you can do empirical tests to determine if intercessory prayer works (all available studies suggest it does not), for example. It's always possible to retreat from the matter somewhat ("Oh, God doesn't work miracles just to let people test him"), but to do so begins to back into the unfalsifiable creator-god with no impact. So yes, science /can/ disprove several religions, and if your religion makes any claims about the nature of reality, it's likely in the 'potentially disprovable' or even 'disproved' set. The vast majority of scientists are not religious, by any statistical measure, and the proportion of scientists goes down as the science gets 'harder' - more religious biologists than chemists than physicists. Frankly I think that's rather telling that the scientific viewpoint - test/falsify etc. - is corrosive to religious concepts. The Bible is not, in any sense, historically accurate. Consider http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch.html . http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel.html is also a relevant, though less conclusive, line of argument here. I don't think you're being intellectually dishonest or evangelical or anything - don't worry about it. While I can certainly be a bit of a jerk about these kinds of arguments, I'd like to think that I can have a friendly discussion about this kind of thing. It's been a while since I've really had one. :P | |
I'm confused as to why you don't think there can be a distinction between macro and micro evolution.
Micro evolution, in the sense that a species takes gradual changes (such as humans becoming more flat-footed) and macro evolution, in the sense that a species randomly mutated from itself to some new species are entirely different. The latter seems illogical to me for two reasons: a) The probability of a mutation occurring to the point of naturally changing an entire species seems incredibly unlikely. In fact, I would argue that from a mathematical point of view, if one were to take the limit of the probability, it would be 0 - yet evolution relies on this probability countless, countless times to explain how humans came about. b) The explanation for spontaneous life seems rather absurd - while an intelligent design on the surface doesn't sound any better, this foundation does, in no way, give any explanation to a real pathway towards macro-evolution. A random assortment of water and dirt and rocks and air happened to create a nucleus, thus creating the first cell? The probability of that would have to be something like 10^(-10000000000+) to ever really occur. Something rarely discussed in education is also that Darwin himself had skepticism on his own theory - a variety of which quotes can be found here: http://www.overcomeproblems.com/darwin.htm This site, http://www.overcomeproblems.com/believe_in_evolution.htm, might be an interesting read for you. I wanted to make a note on another claim, but I personally am not wise enough to create a good argument just yet - I need to properly analyze what I would like to say in response to it, because I have an answer but I need a more solid foundation than what I currently have. In any case, yes - I enjoy philosophical arguments that friends can maintain, but in argument they remain enemies. I find it consistent with the idea of a belief - if you agree with everyone, you are just a Sophist. But I can still maintain a friendly conversation with you (at the very least civil, but I prefer friendly) while still arguing. It's rather healthy, I'd say. | |
Yeah, you /definitely/ don't understand evolution.
The reason there's no real distinction between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is that 'macro' evolution is the sum of 'micro' evolution. They're certainly labels that could potentially have some meaning, but it's a bit of a "How long is a piece of string?" scenario. You seem to be thinking of evolution as happening to individuals in a population of a species all at once. This is wrong. Evolution happens to populations over time - not species (a species that exists either side of an ocean is two different populations), not individuals (obviously), and not all at once (the entire point is gradual changes over time). Speciation can happen a whole bunch of different ways, but one common occurence is when a species spreads to the point where it's no long one population - the two (or more) groups, now seperated, can evolve their own different ways. It's not at all accurate to say that one species 'turns into another' - what happens is one species splits off of another. A pretty exhaustive list of reasons to accept that evolution happened is here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Your second topic of concern is abiogenesis. This is not the same as evolution. Evolution is a process that occurs to populations once they exist - it's not a discussion about how life came to be, it's a discussion about how life changes. Additionally, you've got abiogenesis wrong - the tell-tale bit is that you're trying to see how a cell could come into being from no-cell. You're expecting a flash of lightning to create a fully-formed creature, and that's not what's at all expected. Abiogenesis was a gradual shift from clearly non-living stuff to clearly alive single-celled creatures, but the steps in-between were many, and several of them would be hard to classify as 'alive' or 'dead' (consider, for example, viruses). Talk.origins, as usual, has a pretty thorough treatment of the subject: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html Regarding the Darwin quote mines - not only are they utterly irrelevant to the theory (which stands or falls on its own merits), but several of the are well out of context (amusingly enough, some of the most egregious examples are the ones that the linked page explicitly claims are in-context. The Origin of Species, Ch. 6, p133 quote, for example, is an example of Darwin asking several rhetorical questions and then going on to answer them - the quotemine leaves out the answers). Frankly, your source there is deeply dishonest and untrustworthy. If you really must provide a selection of mined quote, check them through the talk.origins quotemine archive first: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html Skimmed through your other link you provided - it's slightly better than the quotemines, in the sense that it could potentially be relevant. Unfortunately, it's also basically wrong, probably actively dishonest, and pretty damn stupid. They make some pretty big blunders right at the start when they talk about evolution as a process of 'increasing complexity', and it just gets worse from there (No transitional fossils! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilosaurus doesn't count, for starters? What the bloody hell do they consider 'transitional'?) | |
We run into the same argument countless times - I suppose science and religion looks at fairly different ideas.
Theism attempts to answer the origins of the world/universe, and it appears as if science continuously attempts to disregard these searches - whether it simply be because it's impossible to know, and therefore tiresome or because they are afraid to attempt to search, I'm unsure. In any case, from what I gathered in my anthropological course, I've come to question, if evolution is truly possible, then why haven't we evolved yet? Surely we are not perfect, but we are definitely adaptable - so if adaptation is evolution, I can accept that, but I don't understand the likelihood of a mutation occurring and overhauling an entire population to creating a new species, gradual or not. Perhaps you could explain this, because I'm reading directly out of my lecture notes from that semester - but she was a poor teacher, so maybe you'll have a better explanation. In regards to abiogenesis, I relate back to my first comment - it seems as if science rarely wants to find the origins, they just want to find more about the future and what will happen. I might be wrong, but from nearly every argument I've had regarding theology vs science (which I still don't see conflicting), I've noticed that science-based explanations attempt to brush off any explanation of where the initial "anything" came from. A prime example, in talking to my physics teacher, is the everlasting question of "Where did all the energy come from to cause the Big Bang?" Science has yet to provide an answer because if it did, it would contradict it's own laws - energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Theology attempts to provide a solution - I recognize the provided solution is on the surface no better than a guess, but in any case you cannot deny that it attempts to provide reason for the source of where an occurence may come from, that science has yet (and probably never will be able to) answer. [Edit: Throwing this in at this section, but it may be a bit contextually wrong, so you'll have to bear with me here: In the attempt to explain the origins of evolution, many scientists have discussed abiogenesis, which is the primary reason why I brought the subject up.] I'm not in disagreement with science, you should note: I'm majoring in computer science and that requires several physics semesters, which I thoroughly am enjoying currently. Anyways, the definition of abiogenesis: a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter. What interests me is the keyword hypothetical - you are saying that a gradual change of non-living "stuff" essentially came to become living "stuff"; ie, the first cell. However, consider the very instant when that change occurred - there had to at least be a single instant in which life came about from non-life, a single sect in time where this seemingly miraculous event occurred - that's the part that bugs me. I simply don't understand how this random assortment was so perfectly arranged that, even in a gradual change, happened to create a living substance - if it is more realistic than I'm really considering, then I would have to ask why humans have found no current way to produce life from lifeless matter. Perhaps you could assist me so I can understand better these concepts that I just don't see how they could be proven. | |
CauTi0N wrote:
We run into the same argument countless times - I suppose science and religion looks at fairly different ideas. Well yeah. Science has to work. That significantly constrains the set of things it can consider. ;) Theism attempts to answer the origins of the world/universe, and it appears as if science continuously attempts to disregard these searches - whether it simply be because it's impossible to know, and therefore tiresome or because they are afraid to attempt to search, I'm unsure. You're wrong. There's a million and one scientific considerations of the origins of all kinds of stuff - it's just that (good) scientists aren't afraid to say "I don't know" in situations where we do not, as of yet, know. And that religious 'explanations' of the origin of stuff are either not useful explanations or outright false. A literal interpretation of the Genesis story, for example, is clearly and definitively false, whereas a deist god who set off the Big Bang and then didn't touch anything ever again is completely unfalsifiable and therefore doesn't explain anything (Ask the question "What would be different if that were true?"). In any case, from what I gathered in my anthropological course, I've come to question, if evolution is truly possible, then why haven't we evolved yet? Surely we are not perfect, but we are definitely adaptable - so if adaptation is evolution, I can accept that, but I don't understand the likelihood of a mutation occurring and overhauling an entire population to creating a new species, gradual or not. Perhaps you could explain this, because I'm reading directly out of my lecture notes from that semester - but she was a poor teacher, so maybe you'll have a better explanation. I have no idea what you're saying here. We have evolved. Two million years ago, Australopithicus was the cleverest ape around. Nowadays, it's us. Evolution. (And possibly speciation, too, although it might be hypothetically possible to interbreed with australopithicus). Anyway, the thing to keep in mind here is natural selection - that's the entire point Darwin was getting at. Naturalists in his day were well aware that things had evolved over time, and there were several competing ideas for how it happened - see, for example, Lamarck, or Alfred Wallace who got most of the way to Darwin's ideas. The innovation Darwin came up with that got his name attached to the idea was natural selection - that things outcompete each other if they're better adapted to the environment. Over a million years, you'd be surprised how powerful that is. See things like http://www.boxcar2d.com/ for a somewhat artificial representation of the thing. In regards to abiogenesis, I relate back to my first comment - it seems as if science rarely wants to find the origins, they just want to find more about the future and what will happen. I might be wrong, but from nearly every argument I've had regarding theology vs science (which I still don't see conflicting), I've noticed that science-based explanations attempt to brush off any explanation of where the initial "anything" came from. No. Abiogenesis is an active field of study. It's just not relevant to evolution, which was what we were talking about at the time. You were complaining that the theory of gravity doesn't account for the existence of gravity - true enough, but also irrelevant. That's not what it's trying to explain. Really, in the field of abiogenesis, the biggest problem isn't coming up with how it happened, it's coming up with evidence for which potential way it could have happened over another. There are tens of different pathways from life to non-life that scientists have proposed, and it's not clear which is strictly-speaking true (or if one is the winner, rather than a combination). Your problems with a scientific description of abiogenesis seem to stem from a misunderstanding about the concept of 'life' - it's not binary. Things can be 'more alive' or 'less alive' than other things. Consider viruses - clearly more alive than a drop of distilled water, clearly less alive than a proper cell. Prions are in a similar category. A sausage isn't 'alive', but it probably contains a few cells that are still alive, in a sense. Drawing an arbitrary line and saying "This complex set of autocatalyzing reactions is dead, and this one is alive" is impossible and is just going to get you into mental trouble. There's no great leap - it's all a gradual slope of complexity. (Aside - abortion arguments are dogged with a similar piece of confusion, in which people don't seem to understand that a sperm and a blastocyst and a foetus and a baby are all 'alive', in various senses of the term, they are not all as alive as each other) There's a second hangup you seem to be running with, which is this idea that non-living processes are somehow random or simple. They're not. The entire point of chemistry as a science is that chemical behaviour isn't random, that it follows certain rules and orderings. Some of those rules and orderings can, if the situation is right, be autocatalysing (i.e., 'alive', in a sense). Given enough time, space, and raw material, they almost certainly /will/ be, and autocatalysing tends to ratchet a bit - once it's happened in one place, it doesn't tend to unhappen easily. A prime example, in talking to my physics teacher, is the everlasting question of "Where did all the energy come from to cause the Big Bang?" Science has yet to provide an answer because if it did, it would contradict it's own laws - energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Wrong. Scientists have come up with several answers: 1 - "The question is nonsensical. There was no prior state to the Big Bang - similar to the way there's nothing north of the North Pole. So the second law of thermodynamics doesn't apply" 2 - "The net energy of the universe is 0, so energy has been conserved" - (gravitational energy is negative - if you drop a ball, it gains kinetic energy (positive) while also gaining gravitational energy (negative). More here) That's two pretty good explanations right off the bat. Theology attempts to provide a solution - I recognize the provided solution is on the surface no better than a guess, but in any case you cannot deny that it attempts to provide reason for the source of where an occurence may come from, that science has yet (and probably never will be able to) answer. "No better than a guess" is worthless. Being able to say "I don't know" is very important. And I'd be careful making claims about what science can possibly address, now, or in the future. That way lies god-of-the-gaps. I'm not in disagreement with science, you should note: I'm majoring in computer science and that requires several physics semesters, which I thoroughly am enjoying currently. If you deny evolution occurred, you are in disagreement with science. Similarly respect the Big Bang - they're the absolute best explanations we've got at the moment, and they're both so well evidenced that it seems likely that any new best explanations are going to be modified versions of them (similar to how relativistic physics is better than Newtonian physics, but reduces to Newtonian physics in the vast majority of circumstances - the Big Bang and evolution work so well that they must be mostly right - any corrections will be to edge cases). | |
Plenty of well-educated scientists are in disagreement with evolution.
A literal interpretation of the Genesis story, for example, is clearly and definitively false, The keyword here is literal. If the story is really being considered, you'd see it has nothing against the Big Bang. And, to a degree, even if evolution were to be correct, it wouldn't necessarily contradict the Bible to any degree to really shake it. Consider the following: The idea of God is that he is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and all-loving. Essentially he's eternal and perfect. If this is true, then it is known that humans cannot be God, for we will continuously have error. He's clearly larger than us, and therefore his span or measurement of "things" are inherently different than humans. Therefore, it's not essentially fair to simply assume the seven proposed days in Genesis are the same as the days humans maintain. Our 24-hour day is not the same as a, say, billion or trillion year "day" for God. I'm sure you'll refute this with the idea that Christianity can "back out" of anything that attempts to contradict it, but it really is a weak argument to say that Genesis contradicts itself against the natural laws of the universe. I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that if I don't agree with evolution, I might as well disagree with gravity and am in disagreement with science. Gravity is a law - you can't really argue against it with any support. Evolution has substantial arguments against it, and in support of all three arguments that God does exist (ontological, cosmological, and teleological), it seems pretty rational to say that intelligent design is a fair theory. Evolution isn't science itself, it's a theory of a branch of science. Saying I disagree with a proposed segment doesn't mean I disagree with science - that's a really large assumption you are determining about me as a person when you say that. However, you might be onto something if you had claimed I'm more mathematically inclined than scientifically incline - had you said that, I'd say that's fair. On one of your last claims, you mentioned that the net energy is 0. I again would have to point to the question of if it is 0, then why is any activity occurring at all. Wouldn't it be more likely/realistic that if there is no energy, that we a) shouldn't be able to measure/manipulate energy for our benefit, and b) shouldn't exist at all? And regarding your statement of it being nonsensical - I'd say that fits right along with the ontological argument, though opposition of the statement doesn't provide negative support towards the argument. However, since I am in opposition of there being nothing prior to it, relating to my initial statement at the beginning of this paragraph. Also, note you took my "no better than a guess" out of context - I definitely mentioned "on the surface" as well. I have legitimate reasons why I believe what I believe, and whilst there is a leap of faith, I personally would say I have more faith in being a theist than atheist. | |
I want to note that I apologize if I sound inherently ignorant. I am, and acknowledge it. It's fair to say I don't know, and neither does anyone else. I'm defending my beliefs, but I can't say I'm absolutely sure the Christian God is correct, because I truly do not know. I have faith He is, and that's what I'm leaning on.
In any case, I am more ignorant on these subjects than a lot of other people, primarily because I'm far less educated. I'm a freshman in college with a lot of young aspirations, and recognize that. This is why I ask for clearer explanations, because my mind is that of one who wants to continuously learn, as I'm a bit passionate about learning new things. However, I would never claim myself an expert on these subjects unless I were, in fact, an expert - therefore, I am in a state of learning from you currently, and debating I feel is one of the best ways to hear another point of view, if done clearly. I haven't used emotions in this argument thus far, and don't intend to. I just wanted you to know the state I was in, so you could have a better sense of where I am at in this situation. Not that this should change how you argue with me, moreso so if I sound stupid, you understand that I haven't yet been taught a majority of the things we are currently discussing, and I'm going off of what I've been educated on thus far (and the resources you have currently provided). | |
CauTi0N wrote:
Plenty of well-educated scientists are in disagreement with evolution. Nope. The number of well-educated scientists that don't agree with evolution can be counted on my hands, and they're mostly not very good scientists, and they're mostly not quite adopting creationism. Dembski is an example here. The keyword here is literal. If the story is really being considered, you'd see it has nothing against the Big Bang. And, to a degree, even if evolution were to be correct, it wouldn't necessarily contradict the Bible to any degree to really shake it. This is the god-of-the-gaps, unfalsifiable branch of theological explanation that I discussed further on - sure, if you interpret the Genesis story in a metaphorical, nonliteral, allegorical sense, it doesn't conflict with what we know about reality. That's because then it doesn't say anything about reality. I was mostly using it as an example - hence the 'literal' qualifier. ...Therefore, it's not essentially fair to simply assume the seven proposed days in Genesis are the same as the days humans maintain. Our 24-hour day is not the same as a, say, billion or trillion year "day" for God. The "It says 'day' but really means a longer period" dodge is a common one, and still pretty flawed - the order of creation of things is completely out of whack (birds before reptiles? Earth before stars?), and we know that the Earth is 4 billion years old, whereas the universe is 13.7 billion years, so some of those aeons have to be longer than others. Basically, you have to interpret the Genesis account completely metaphorically for it to gel with what we know about reality. I don't think it's necessarily fair to say that if I don't agree with evolution, I might as well disagree with gravity and am in disagreement with science. Gravity is a law - you can't really argue against it with any support. Evolution has substantial arguments against it, and in support of all three arguments that God does exist (ontological, cosmological, and teleological), it seems pretty rational to say that intelligent design is a fair theory. Evolution isn't science itself, it's a theory of a branch of science. Saying I disagree with a proposed segment doesn't mean I disagree with science - that's a really large assumption you are determining about me as a person when you say that. However, you might be onto something if you had claimed I'm more mathematically inclined than scientifically incline - had you said that, I'd say that's fair. There are absolutely, positively, /no/ good arguments against the theory of evolution. The absolute vast majority of scientists - something like 99.9% - accept the theory of evolution. You really are going well outside what is remotely rational if you don't accept it, and may as well be an adherent of intelligent falling. And, uh, did you really just pull out the ontological argument? :/. I can understand people using the cosmological and teleological arguments - I mean, they're wrong-headed and pretty poor, but it's understandable why people might not spot that. But the ontological argument is so clearly flawed... On one of your last claims, you mentioned that the net energy is 0. I again would have to point to the question of if it is 0, then why is any activity occurring at all. Wouldn't it be more likely/realistic that if there is no energy, that we a) shouldn't be able to measure/manipulate energy for our benefit, and b) shouldn't exist at all? The /net/ energy of the universe is 0. That is, sum up all the energy in the universe, and the answer is 0. There can still be energy, as long as it's balanced by an equal quantity of negative energy in the system overall. Similarly, the sum of all integers is 0, but that doesn't mean that there aren't any integers. And regarding your statement of it being nonsensical - I'd say that fits right along with the ontological argument, though opposition of the statement doesn't provide negative support towards the argument. However, since I am in opposition of there being nothing prior to it, relating to my initial statement at the beginning of this paragraph. Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. My point was more that the Big Bang is the beginning of time, so in a very real sense you can't talk about what conditions were like 'before' it, because the concept of 'before' doesn't exist until it happened. Because of that it might not make sense to apply a law that inherently assumes time. Also, note you took my "no better than a guess" out of context - I definitely mentioned "on the surface" as well. I have legitimate reasons why I believe what I believe, and whilst there is a leap of faith, I personally would say I have more faith in being a theist than atheist. The 'on the surface' bit is still in my quote. I just disagree with the implication that it's different further down. I don't see any reason why I would take a theological answer as any better than a completely raw guess. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at regards "having more faith in being a theist than an atheist". I don't have any faith. That's kind of the point - although I imagine that's going to turn into a discussion about the definition of 'faith', so for what it's worth, here I mean 'Accepting a proposition without rational reasons for accepting it'. So, for example, trusting a friend isn't 'faith', in that sense (although the word is often used, because language tends to be a bit imprecise), because I've seen plenty of other examples where I could trust them, and I'm not necessarily accepting the proposition that I can trust them (merely that the benefits outweigh the risks). Similarly, I take the basic axioms of science (there is a real, objective universe that behaves in objective, repeatable ways, our senses aren't perfect but they aren't completely screwy, logic works, etc.) as axioms for the very rational raeason that I don't think it's possible to do any kind of reasoning without them, so we may as well accept them, because if we do and they're wrong we're not really any worse off (because we can't know anything anyway). EDIT: Oh and I hope that last comment of yours doesn't indicate that I'm being too aggressive. I'm terribly sorry if I am, I tend to get a bit into these kinds of arguments. I don't mean to attack you so much as the positions you're putting forth. For what it's worth I'm not that much more educated than you - I'm only 21, I've got a tertiary degree (in software engineering, so the only actual science I've done at a tertiary level is some first-year physics). This is mostly running off stuff I've learned in high-school and also off the interwobs from similar arguments. You'd be surprised how much you can learn from things like that. | |
I'm interested in why you think the Ontological argument is flawed. There are other things to discuss here, but the only arguments I've heard against the Ontological argument were incredibly weak. The argument that a "vampire" or "grenlin" must then exist aren't valid because the characteristics of such creatures are attributed to other properties that have been experienced. However, the properties of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and all-loving being (God is defined with all 4, at least the Christian God anyways), are not attributed to any other "thing" in the universe. (On a second note, I'm really actually interested in your opinion as to why it's weak. I personally have never heard a strong argument as to why it is weak, but I don't believe that the Christian God would make himself knowable - it would have to be faith-based, and therefore I don't see how a specific proof can justify a God. It seems that it's so simple that it is actually skipping a few steps, but at least on the surface it appears logically sound. This question is nearly purely educational and maybe only 5% argumentative.)
On to something else. Yesterday, I spent roughly 4-5 hours simply studying various evolution experts, the arguments against, and everything you have stated (including the resources you led me to). I had a discussion with my previous anthropology teacher, and I'd actually like to change my mind regarding evolution. Honestly, I was looking at the situation from a biased standpoint with very little evidence as to necessarily why, but after doing my homework have come to agreement, through analyzing both sides of the situation. Considerably, and note that this will adhere to your argument about the "annoyance of God being unfalsifiable," I will have to maintain that creationism may still maintain a support for evolution, and I think that creationist scientists fail to recognize this. I would say that intelligent design is still possible, and that (take this less as an argument, and more as a theological perspective) God created the rules of the universe to allow evolution to happen the way that it did. Genesis does maintain that God created the creatures before man, so it's "possible" that as he wanted man to be made in His image, he experimented with Primates (or some story along those lines). As you said before, Christianity at any rate maintains a God that can really obtain a lot of arguments against Him, and yet they don't really disprove him at all. It doesn't necessarily contradict itself anywhere because you are right, it can be taken literally or metaphorically based on various sections. For example, the story of Noah's Ark can METAPHORICALLY be read as more of a warning/promise to the Earth, moreover as if he metaphorically "destroyed" the Earth and its inhabitants and then maintained that humans are influenced by evil. By being influenced by evil, then he sent Jesus to die for our sins so that we may strive to essentially become sinless, as we will be constantly regenerated to become closer to God (an argument, albeit personally I believe weak, to also claim an answer towards the problem of evil.) However, this story, I'd rather not discuss. The fact is it will go in a circle, and whilst the claim is dogmatic I'm still maintaining the belief that through logic and empirical evidence (essentially, the accounts of the New Testament are purely empirical), there is a mixture of both dogmatic and progressive reasons to believe the Bible. Not as strong as pure science mind you, but that's again a whole other discussion. What you should really get from this comment is the following: a) I'm interested in arguments against the Ontological Argument. In fact, I'm looking at the sequence neutrally. I feel there is an inherent flaw that is simply difficult to find, but it might actually be logically sound. Taking this into account, I'm seeing it from both sides of the argument, but need more clarification, if you have any. (In addition to it, keep in mind that the power of the Ontological Argument, if reasonable, does not prove the Bible in any way. The most it can do is turn someone agnostic - even then, it seems that humans are too irrational to accept logic for knowledge (empiricism won the fought, even though there are apparent flaws in trusting our five senses). b) I have decided to switch sides on the evolution argument. I've done my homework, and have decided you are correct on the situation - at least to the extent of what I'm able to learn currently. Note: That prior comment had little to do with your aggressiveness. I'd say you're a bit aggressive, but it's pretty easy to get into a heated discussion, and I can't say I haven't had some sort of irrational judgment on the situation. From the beginning however, you and I both indicated our intentions and I like to provide you the benefit of the doubt, so I'm placing trust that you intend to maintain that viewpoint, and therefore while I disagree with your views, I respect you. | |
CauTi0N wrote:
I'm interested in why you think the Ontological argument is flawed. There are other things to discuss here, but the only arguments I've heard against the Ontological argument were incredibly weak. The argument that a "vampire" or "grenlin" must then exist aren't valid because the characteristics of such creatures are attributed to other properties that have been experienced. However, the properties of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and all-loving being (God is defined with all 4, at least the Christian God anyways), are not attributed to any other "thing" in the universe. (On a second note, I'm really actually interested in your opinion as to why it's weak. I personally have never heard a strong argument as to why it is weak, but I don't believe that the Christian God would make himself knowable - it would have to be faith-based, and therefore I don't see how a specific proof can justify a God. It seems that it's so simple that it is actually skipping a few steps, but at least on the surface it appears logically sound. This question is nearly purely educational and maybe only 5% argumentative.) Let's take this one slowly: So, the ontological argument goes like this: - God is the greatest thing that can possibly exist (by definition) - It is greater to exist than not to exist - Therefore god exists Next question - which god? Does 'greatest' specify all properties of a thing? I don't see why it would. There are a number of properties a being can have that seem to be irrelevant to optimality - favourite colour, to pick a random and somewhat inane example. So what is God's favourite colour? Well, if you apply the Ontological argument, you come to the conclusion that God (favourite colour red) exists (because it's the greatest thing that can exist), as does God (favourite colour blue), God (favourite colour chartreuse) and so on. But it gets worse! Consider the following argument: - Consider the most perfect pen that could ever exist. - Clearly it is more perfect to exist than not to exist - Therefore the most perfect pen that could ever exist must exist. Similarly, the most perfect island, relationship, fighter jet, etc. all exist. And if that wasn't ridiculous enough, now consider that some of those concepts will be mutually exclusive. Reductio ad absurdium, that logic can't work. Wikipedia covers some other objections - the Necessary Nonexistence criticism is particularly amusing, I think. On to something else. Yesterday, I spent roughly 4-5 hours simply studying various evolution experts, the arguments against, and everything you have stated (including the resources you led me to). I had a discussion with my previous anthropology teacher, and I'd actually like to change my mind regarding evolution. Honestly, I was looking at the situation from a biased standpoint with very little evidence as to necessarily why, but after doing my homework have come to agreement, through analyzing both sides of the situation. Considerably, and note that this will adhere to your argument about the "annoyance of God being unfalsifiable," I will have to maintain that creationism may still maintain a support for evolution, and I think that creationist scientists fail to recognize this. I would say that intelligent design is still possible, and that (take this less as an argument, and more as a theological perspective) God created the rules of the universe to allow evolution to happen the way that it did. Genesis does maintain that God created the creatures before man, so it's "possible" that as he wanted man to be made in His image, he experimented with Primates (or some story along those lines). Fair enough. I respect people who can change their mind when presented with new evidence. I will point out that theistic evolution is unfalsifiable and that it is a bad thing, but we've had this discussion. However, this story, I'd rather not discuss. The fact is it will go in a circle, and whilst the claim is dogmatic I'm still maintaining the belief that through logic and empirical evidence (essentially, the accounts of the New Testament are purely empirical), there is a mixture of both dogmatic and progressive reasons to believe the Bible. Not as strong as pure science mind you, but that's again a whole other discussion. Obviously I disagree. In particular the New Testament accounts are not useful evidence - in particular, they're not first-hand accounts. There is, in fact, no first-hand evidence for the existence of Jesus. Considering the similarities between various parts of the New Testament myth and a variety of other religions that were around at the time (Mithracism, the cult of Dionysus...), it seems likely that even if a guy named Jesus who claimed to be the messiah did exist (and such people were common as rats in Roman-occupied Judea), the mythological aspects were borrowed from elsewhere. | |
Hm, your concept of the Ontological Argument is a bit flawed here. You are relating the word "greatest" with just "[insert word here]."
To make it more clear, let's break it down, specifically first by clarifying God. 1. God, who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, is the greatest thing that can possibly exist. 2. What is the greatest thing that can be thought? The answer would amount to what the initially proposed God is. 3. What is greater - a God that is in thought, or a God that exists? One that exists. Therefore, a God that is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent exists. The characteristics about this God are incredibly important here. There is no other thing acknowledged in human experience that maintains any of these attributes - no single one is really attached to anything else but this God. Even beings that can be imagined however, then would never be "greater" than God. Essentially, all four characteristics can then be understood as stand-alone. 1. A thing that is omnipotent exists. 2. A thing that is omniscient exists. 3. A thing that is omnipresent exists. 4. A thing that is omnibenevolent exists. The only thing that maintains any of these is God. Therefore, a God with these characteristics exists. Okay, now your argument. Let's take the perfect pen example. Pending what "perfect" in regards to a pen is, I'll provide a few characteristics I think would be ideal. It may be short, but it fits with the point. 1. A pen that has a metal casing, a firm but non-rough grip, smooth-flowing ink, and ink that never smudges is the greatest pen that can possibly exist. 2. What is the greatest type of pen in thought? A pen that holds the above characteristics. 3. What would be greater - a pen like this in thought, or a pen like this that exists? A pen like this that exists. Therefore, a pen with these characteristics must exist. However, broken down again, it is explainable why this is incorrect, as it yields the following results. 1. A metal casing must exist. (Empirically determined true). 2. A firm but non-rough grip must exist. (Same as #1) 3. Smooth-flowing ink must exist. (Same as #1 & 2) 4. Ink that never smudges must exist. (Same as #1, #2, & #3) Broken down further, you would see how metal exists, and how the concept of a case exists. How a grip made out of specific materials exists because those materials exist. Broken down to the base, this perfect pen is a combination of other pens with a "good" attribute, that together would make this "perfect" pen. Specifically, physical substances do not disprove the Ontological Argument - rather they support it more (and let you figure out the base of what something really is). However, the four characteristics of God have never been attributed to anything else, because nothing else is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, or omnibenevolent. However, the proof says that something must exist with this characteristic. So therefore, it's still not flawed to allow all 4 to go to the being of God, who by definition is a being that maintains all 4 characteristics. The argument you provided is common but incredibly weak. It's just about as weak as the answer to the problem of evil being "Oh, it's okay, just have faith. God works in mysterious ways." Sorry, but that answer is bullshit. That is comfort food that really doesn't even make me feel better, and doesn't solve the real question. (As you can see, I dislike a lot of common Christian practices such as this, because the blindness of such a response is... ridiculous. Also, reading the non-existence argument, it has a contradiction in it. It says it assumes the world to be the most marvelous achievement. I'd immediately disagree with that. I'd say the universe is a more impressive feat. than the Earth. However, I'll allow the principle of doubt to apply here. If premise 1 is correct (which is also rather opinionated - not allowed), then skip over to step 5. It contradicts mathematics here. It says it would be greater for a God who doesn't exist to have created the world. This part brings up a couple things. First, is the property of existence. Anselm proposed existence to be a perfection, but this seems a little... tricky. Rather, I'd rather talk about the mathematical error. It says a God who exists as close is it possibly can with this "handicap" is less than a God that does not exist. Well, mathematically this turns into: 0.00000000000000001 < 0, which is definitely false. It was a good attempt, but it's still impractical. That said, I still have an issue with the Ontological Argument (I don't think God would make himself known so easily), but I've yet to find a substantial reason why I shouldn't agree with it. So far no logic has been cast against it. | |
CauTi0N wrote:
Hm, your concept of the Ontological Argument is a bit flawed here. You are relating the word "greatest" with just "[insert word here]." My understanding of the ontological argument is fine. Inserting the additional omnimax properties is fundamentally unneccessary to the argument. You have not addressed the central problem that you haven't addressed which god you've proved exists - what's its name? Favourite colour? Preferred form of worship? None of those properties are specified by 'greatness', so you've proved that a deity with every possible variation exists. That's nonsense. Similarly with the pen example. Let's make it more explicit. I am currently single, but I can conceive of a relationship that includes me and is perfect. As such a relationship would be more perfect if it existed than if it didn't, it must exist. But it clearly doesn't - so reductio ad absurdium, the argument is nonsense. You appear to be trying to argue that the concept of such a relationship is what I'm demonstrating exists, but that rather misses the point that the ontological argument claims to prove the existence of a god, not merely the existence of the concept. The omnimax properties are easily applied to a being that isn't necessarily a deity - I can certainly conceive of an omniscient or omnibenevolent creature that isn't a deity, without much effort, for example. It's a common counterargument, yes. That's because it's true. It's the one that's traditionally provided to the ontological argument in first-year philosophy classes as an example to knock down, because it's a great example of an argument that seems solid on the simple face of it but is tremendously flawed if you consider it for but a second. It works on everything. Also, reading the non-existence argument, it has a contradiction in it. It says it assumes the world to be the most marvelous achievement. I'd immediately disagree with that. I'd say the universe is a more impressive feat... That's quibbling. The argument works with 'universe' instead of 'world'. There must be a set of 'most impressive achievements' in the set of things that a creature has created, so there's something that can go there. ...than the Earth. However, I'll allow the principle of doubt to apply here. If premise 1 is correct (which is also rather opinionated - not allowed), then skip over to step 5. It contradicts mathematics here. It says it would be greater for a God who doesn't exist to have created the world. And that doesn't even make sense. What are you trying to say here? That said, I still have an issue with the Ontological Argument (I don't think God would make himself known so easily), but I've yet to find a substantial reason why I shouldn't agree with it. So far no logic has been cast against it. Reconsider the logic. Existence is not a predicate, and arguments that prove the existence of everything, even things that don't exist, are clearly false. | |