View Single Post
Old 01-28-2007, 06:40 AM   #12
Next-Gen Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3,575
Rep Power: 0 Nicato is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Mike Doolittle (Post #20):
Honestly Nic, if you think the Problem of Evil argument is an inescapable conundrum for the faithful, you need to do more homework.
Like I've said repeatedly, I'm defining a very specific deity here. Of course, POE is only valid if the god in question is omniscient, omnipotent and morally perfect but there is evidence to suggest that that is the predominate conception of god. I'm not positing the argument as an end-all against faith (or "the faithful"), just as a damn good argument against a certain god which the majority of theists just happen to believe in.

To put it another way: whether or not it is ever reasonable to believe in any god, all gods are not created equal. Some, like your "creative god" are at least compatible with the universe, but most are not; the god of Abraham is not.

Counterarguments are littered all over religious apologist sites...
Not good enough. If you don't have a counterargument, then the (very) least you could do is give me a specific link to such an apologist site. Making vacant deferments does not a proper rebuttal make.

You say I need to do my research? Well, methinks you need to show your work. What/where is the counterargument?

But if you're an atheist, you have no choice but to believe the universe is infinite. Otherwise, you're forced to explain how the universe just suddenly "happened" and spacetime just "popped" into being without cause.
Are you actually claiming that the onus is on the atheist to prove that your "creative god" doesn't exist? Because that is three kinds of audacious.

Atheism presupposes no forced positive beliefs; I'm an atheist and I choose to be agnostic as to the cause of the universe.

There had to have been something outside our universe, something that transcends any physical laws as we know them, that brought us into existence.
The laws of physics exist inside a vacuum which we call the universe (mathematics, however, exist independent of our universe). Yes, whatever happened before the Big Bang doesn't necessarily have to conform to the rules of physics, gravity, or time because those laws only exist (as we know them; as far we know) inside our universe. We are not disagreeing on this point so stop acting like we are.

The issue is (A) whether or not whatever caused the Big Bang can be considered a "god" and (2) whether or not it is reasonable to actively believe in such a "god" when there is no evidence to support that belief. This is why infinite regression isn't just a handful of pink unicorns, rather an underlying problem with hypothesis of a "creative god." (More on that below.) A "Creative god" supposes planing or design when the cause of the Big Bang could have been as random and aimless as a farting bunny.

Saying the pink unicorn brought the universe into existence is just saying that god is a pink unicorn, not that there is a magical pink unicorn but no god.
Mike, you don't get it. I'm saying that god gave the pink unicorn a hand job. (I'm being ironic.)

That the "creative god" is just one of an infinite number of equally plausible explanations does not lend any credence to the notion that all equally plausible explanations are the "creative god." (It's generally not considered good logic to hold a static conclusion no matter what the variables which precede it are.) Your notion that the pink unicorn is god is flawed.

Last edited by Nicato; 01-28-2007 at 06:42 AM.
Nicato is offline   Reply With Quote