View Single Post
Old 04-03-2007, 12:08 PM   #89
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

Originally Posted by Mike Doolittle View Post
That's not what I said. I said that a supernatural cause is required. It may or may not be God.
I don't see how I got your position wrong, here. I said, specifically, that you said that "your god is not demonstrable according to natural law, yet it is necessary and logical." Let's take the last three words--"necessary and logical"--you said your god was a "locally necessity." Add to that the implicit infrence that your "supernatural" need not adhere to my "natural law" and I've summed up your argument quite fairly.

No, I'm claiming belief to be logical.
You did say your god was logical, did you not?

Sure, but faith in God is based on how we interpret what we know an observe.
Not necessarily (or even mostly). Yours is, but I would hasten to say that most people only have"faith in God" because they were indoctrinated by their parents.

Yes, but your "room for the supernatural" only allows the supernatural to be believable if you could verify its existence via natural law, reducing your position to a non sequitur.
Actually, I'd be satisfied if you could verify your claims in the abstract, using pure logic. You could, in fact, use completely non-naturalistic Xs and Ys to demonstrate your conclusion. There is no non-sequitur or circular logic on my part--only a lack of evidence or demonstration on yours (as well as a circular argument).

Oh, they do. I'm not "marginalizing" it. I'm pointing out that fundamentalism is neither the majority of believers in this country nor in this world. Additionally, the fact that someone reads "The Purpose Driven Life" or attends a mega-church does not make them a fundamentalist. The number of people hell-bent on putting Christian prayer in schools and booting evolution, while not insignificant, should not be taken as a representation of all or a majority of believers on this planet.
The majority of the adult population of the US denies a secular theory for Evolution and thinks that Creationism or ID should be taught along side Darwin's theory. It's like I said, the majority of the country sympathizes with the position of fundies.

So why did you assert that science disproved God as a creator?
I didn't.

The two aren't mutually exclusive, but "why" as a purely scientific question is meaningless. As a secular humanist, "why" you exist is a nonsensical question. You know yourself only as a product of a chain of events which you hold as purposeless.
I am saying that your pure "why" is in principle meaningless, no matter if science or religion or philosophy is examining it.

I'm not sure why you're going off on some tangent about the Bible, but it has nothing to do with anything I'm talking about.
You did say that its account of Creationism was an allegory. Sorry, but that just gets me going.

The problem again goes back to your agonizingly circular reasoning: You do not deny the possibility of a supernatural, but you would never "positively" (as you say) profess knowledge of such a thing without being able to affirm it within the natural.
Well, as I've said in the previous response, you are free to demonstrate your position in the abstract using only pure logic. It doesn't necessarily have to be affirmed with naturalistic evidence (even though you are clearly relying on naturalistic evidence to draw your conclusion).

Also, your statement is somewhat incorrect. There is, by definition, limitations in space, not time alone. Space and time are inseperable, which is why they are modernly referred to as "the space-time continuum" or "spacetime". Think of spacetime as a continually expanding balloon. It may be expanding infinitely, but our universe itself has definite boundaries. Wiki the "shape of the universe".
Yeah, you've completely misunderstood what I said. I've never denied that space and time aren't interdependent or indeed one in the same, only made an aside to the effect of "if not X then Y" as if to say if not one than the other. If you accept both, as I do, then the condition shouldn't apply. Just covering bases.

I didn't ignore the point, you just didn't go anywhere with it. I agree with this. So... ???
So declaring the limitations of our universe does nothing to help (or hinder) your cause.

Throughout this discussion, you continually distort my words. "Logic" is a tenant of naturalism. God is transcendent of naturalism and his existence from a logical perspective is impossible to define. The question is whether faith itself has some basis in logic, or whether it's an arbitrary construct.
First of all, I like the "do as I say not as I do" vibe. If I were to say you've distorted my position, then I'm being hostile or antagonistic.

Secondly, logic exists separate from naturalism.

Thirdly, if your god is not affirmed by logic, then he is by definition illogical. As you've said, either something is logical or it isn't.

Indeed, I fully agree. Good thing that at no point did I make "definitive" claims, and in fact spent numerous posts explaining in detail that I was not making such claims.
But you did draw conclusions.

On the contrary, belief in God is founded on not only the logical necessity of a supernatural, but on the organization, design, and cohesiveness of the universe. I'm a fan of the truth of the gravitational constant: that if it were off by a millionth of a degree, nothing as we know it could exist. I suppose you could call it an argument from incredulity, but in this case I'll proclaim it gladly. I'm astounded at how anyone can observe the construction of the universe and all its physical laws and not believe in God. The only other alternative, regardless of supernatural this or that, is that it was simply an accident. Poof! Here it is, a perfect universe out of nothing.
I'm a fan of the butterfly effect: that if a twig hadn't snapped a billion years ago, it would be a very different planet. Why is it so hard to apply that logic on a cosmic scale?

Further, you're making (yet another) logical fallacy in your false dichotomy--there are conceivable secular alternatives to the cause of the universe. It isn't just your god or the highway.

Finally, what in your mind makes you think this universe is perfect?

EDIT: I'll get to your second post later today.

Last edited by Nicato; 04-03-2007 at 06:03 PM.
Nicato is offline   Reply With Quote