NationStates Jolt Archive

In part 1 of this series I don't believe anyone contradicted the statement I made. That statement, simply put, was that there is no innate weakness/infirmity/stupidity in relying on God, so long as that God exists. So now, on to the next segment. Is there any sort of innate weakness in believing that God exists?

I can think of only one instance where there would be. That would be if there was enough evidence stacked up against His existence that the only way that you could believe in Him would be to simply shut your eyes to the outside world.

If, however, there IS a fair possibility of God then there would be no weakness in believing in Him. I acknowledge that neither side can conclusively prove or disprove the existence of God.

In order to show that it is not in the face of all evidence to believe that He exists I give a simple argument. When confronted with a question and a stack of evidence related to that situation a scientist will begin to formulate ideas that fit with as much evidence as possible. In the end, after experimentation and that whole process is through, the scientist will choose (and correct me if I am wrong here) the most simple explanation that fits the evidence. It is only when this hypothesis is proved false that he will move on to a more complex theory.

To give a more practical analogy, say you are walking in the woods with no trail to follow. In fact, by all appearances, no one has ever been here before you. You see an arrow laying on the ground. You do not see anyone who may have made it around. Do you assume that this arrow must have simply come together on its own, or do you assume that there is a maker, somewhere, though you cannot see him? Both are possible. But one is far simpler than the other.

This analogy is not my own. I have heard it used on many occassions, but I still think it is one of the best.

In part 1 of this series I don't believe anyone contradicted the statement I made. That statement, simply put, was that there is no innate weakness/infirmity/stupidity in relying on God, so long as that God exists. So now, on to the next segment. Is there any sort of innate weakness in believing that God exists?

I can think of only one instance where there would be. That would be if there was enough evidence stacked up against His existence that the only way that you could believe in Him would be to simply shut your eyes to the outside world.

If, however, there IS a fair possibility of God then there would be no weakness in believing in Him. I acknowledge that neither side can conclusively prove or disprove the existence of God.

In order to show that it is not in the face of all evidence to believe that He exists I give a simple argument. When confronted with a question and a stack of evidence related to that situation a scientist will begin to formulate ideas that fit with as much evidence as possible. In the end, after experimentation and that whole process is through, the scientist will choose (and correct me if I am wrong here) the most simple explanation that fits the evidence. It is only when this hypothesis is proved false that he will move on to a more complex theory.

To give a more practical analogy, say you are walking in the woods with no trail to follow. In fact, by all appearances, no one has ever been here before you. You see an arrow laying on the ground. You do not see anyone who may have made it around. Do you assume that this arrow must have simply come together on its own, or do you assume that there is a maker, somewhere, though you cannot see him? Both are possible. But one is far simpler than the other.

This analogy is not my own. I have heard it used on many occassions, but I still think it is one of the best.

Speaking of shutting your eyes, several people including myself did contradict your statement in the last thread. For example, here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8556178&postcount=14). And you failed to defend it. Walking away and calling yourself victorious is no more successful here than on the playground.

As for your new theories:

1. To say that it is reasonable to believe in God in the absence of irrefutable proof that there is no God is to turn reason on its head. Can you irrefutably prove pookas don't exist? Well then its reasonable for me to believe in my 6-foot tall rabbit friend named Harvey.

Worse, you cannot irrefutably prove anything -- except perhaps cogito ergo sum. You cannot prove the sun will shine tomorrow. But it would be unreasonable to deny it.

Here in the absence of any evidence that God exists, it is unreasonable to believe.

2. Assume your arrow argument does support the existence of a Creator. Is that Creator the Christian God? No evidence she is. Requires a whole other set of leaps of faith.

3. The arrow argument has many, many holes, as I am sure others will point out. One is a complete lack of perspective. You chose an arrow because, in your experience, it is the type of thing that is made. You wish to analogize to life, the universe, etc. But, if you assume everything must have been made, then you don't have any idea what a non-made thing would look like. In other words, there is a rock next to your arrow. In our normal experience, rocks are usually made by humans, but are created by natural forces. You want us to believe the rock was also made by intelligent design. But there is no frame of reference to distinguish between made and unmade objects under your theory.

4. Another problem with your arrow argument is you assume anything as complex as an arrow must have a maker. OK, who made the maker. If you and I are too complex to have occurred without an intelligent designer, where did God come from? She is even more complex -- so, by your logic, she must have had a creator.

These are just a start. I'll let others have at ye.

To give a more practical analogy, say you are walking in the woods with no trail to follow. In fact, by all appearances, no one has ever been here before you. You see an arrow laying on the ground. You do not see anyone who may have made it around. Do you assume that this arrow must have simply come together on its own, or do you assume that there is a maker, somewhere, though you cannot see him? Both are possible. But one is far simpler than the other.


and the analagy is so horribly incorrect it's not even funny.

if you truly believe that evolution says that humans came from a random stream of atoms, then you have absolutely no grasp of the concept at hand.

i sincerely hope that is not the case, because if it is, i have no desire to debate you.

In part 1 of this series I don't believe anyone contradicted the statement I made. That statement, simply put, was that there is no innate weakness/infirmity/stupidity in relying on God, so long as that God exists. So now, on to the next segment. Is there any sort of innate weakness in believing that God exists?

I can think of only one instance where there would be. That would be if there was enough evidence stacked up against His existence that the only way that you could believe in Him would be to simply shut your eyes to the outside world.

If, however, there IS a fair possibility of God then there would be no weakness in believing in Him. I acknowledge that neither side can conclusively prove or disprove the existence of God.

In order to show that it is not in the face of all evidence to believe that He exists I give a simple argument. When confronted with a question and a stack of evidence related to that situation a scientist will begin to formulate ideas that fit with as much evidence as possible. In the end, after experimentation and that whole process is through, the scientist will choose (and correct me if I am wrong here) the most simple explanation that fits the evidence. It is only when this hypothesis is proved false that he will move on to a more complex theory.

To give a more practical analogy, say you are walking in the woods with no trail to follow. In fact, by all appearances, no one has ever been here before you. You see an arrow laying on the ground. You do not see anyone who may have made it around. Do you assume that this arrow must have simply come together on its own, or do you assume that there is a maker, somewhere, though you cannot see him? Both are possible. But one is far simpler than the other.

This analogy is not my own. I have heard it used on many occassions, but I still think it is one of the best.


So, what and where is this arrow of yours?

i'm way too lazy to read al that crap. i don't even know why i'm posting.

To give a more practical analogy, say you are walking in the woods with no trail to follow. In fact, by all appearances, no one has ever been here before you. You see an arrow laying on the ground. You do not see anyone who may have made it around. Do you assume that this arrow must have simply come together on its own, or do you assume that there is a maker, somewhere, though you cannot see him? Both are possible. But one is far simpler than the other.

This analogy is not my own. I have heard it used on many occassions, but I still think it is one of the best.

Well, let us take a hard look at that arrow...

An arrow is a projectile, so it could have gotten to where you found it without someone having to have dropped it there, right?

-It could have been shot from some distance and just landed there.
-It could have hit a prey, and not killed it and fell out at the point that you found it.
-It could even have been dropped there, long ago, and the vegetation merely grew up around areas once used to travel.

I am sure there are a few more ways it could have ended up there, without any type of "divine" intervention.

Regards,
Gaar

If I missed where people actually contradicted the statement I made, then I sincerely apologize. I didn't see it. What I saw was people contradicting the idea that God exists. Of course, that wasn't the argument I was making.

The argument you had with the invisible rabbit...:) Doesn't really seem to apply. There is not evidence to support it at all. In the case of a Creator (While I am a Christian, I am not arguing for the Christian God in particular here.) the evidence is all around us. A highly complex, structured world in a universe that tends towards disorder.

Perhaps my understanding of evolution is flawed. If that is so, and you show me so, I will admit it readily. As I understand it, the argument of evolution boils down to this. "Small change is possible over small amounts of time. Extrapolate, and you get big change over larger amounts of time." If evolution is essentially random, in that there is no larger intelligence behind it, then that implies some sort of force behind it, or a Creator.

The argument that there must be a Creator to the Creator does not contradict anything I have said. What I was pointing out was that things that are structured and complex do not routinely pop into existence. All things in a closed system tend towards disorder. As the universe is a closed system (we think. *grin) then any overall increase in order must come from outside.

If I missed where people actually contradicted the statement I made, then I sincerely apologize. I didn't see it. What I saw was people contradicting the idea that God exists. Of course, that wasn't the argument I was making.

The argument you had with the invisible rabbit...:) Doesn't really seem to apply. There is not evidence to support it at all. In the case of a Creator (While I am a Christian, I am not arguing for the Christian God in particular here.) the evidence is all around us. A highly complex, structured world in a universe that tends towards disorder.
.
Why could her fluffy bunny not be the cause of it all ... and the idea of a creator makes the equasion MORE complex not less ... so by your theory of probability LESS likly to be true (expanding the domain back infity does NOT make things simpiler)

To give a more practical analogy, say you are walking in the woods with no trail to follow. In fact, by all appearances, no one has ever been here before you. You see an arrow laying on the ground. You do not see anyone who may have made it around. Do you assume that this arrow must have simply come together on its own, or do you assume that there is a maker, somewhere, though you cannot see him? Both are possible. But one is far simpler than the other.

No, your analogy is loaded. As you've set it up, both may be...ehm, possible, but the one is far more patently ludicrous than the other. I'm glad you're not claiming ownership of this analogy of yours - it's not particularly good.

Which God from which religion are we talking about?

Posted by the Satanic Priest, Lord Medivh

[QUOTE=Neo-Yether]What I was pointing out was that things that are structured and complex do not routinely pop into existence.QUOTE]

Actually, they do. All the time. Depends how you define 'structured' and 'complex', though.

If I missed where people actually contradicted the statement I made, then I sincerely apologize. I didn't see it. What I saw was people contradicting the idea that God exists. Of course, that wasn't the argument I was making.

The argument you had with the invisible rabbit...:) Doesn't really seem to apply. There is not evidence to support it at all. In the case of a Creator (While I am a Christian, I am not arguing for the Christian God in particular here.) the evidence is all around us. A highly complex, structured world in a universe that tends towards disorder.

Perhaps my understanding of evolution is flawed. If that is so, and you show me so, I will admit it readily. As I understand it, the argument of evolution boils down to this. "Small change is possible over small amounts of time. Extrapolate, and you get big change over larger amounts of time." If evolution is essentially random, in that there is no larger intelligence behind it, then that implies some sort of force behind it, or a Creator.

The argument that there must be a Creator to the Creator does not contradict anything I have said. What I was pointing out was that things that are structured and complex do not routinely pop into existence. All things in a closed system tend towards disorder. As the universe is a closed system (we think. *grin) then any overall increase in order must come from outside.

1. What evidence is "all around us"? Purely the existence of things? You are begging the question. (And try proving those things "all around us" exist.)

2. You completely skipped my argument #3.

3. On what basis do you assume the universe is a closed system with a Creator on the outside?

4. The "Creator to the Creator" does refute your simplistic argument? Your assumption that anything structured and complex must be created from "outside" logically requires an infinite regression of Creators, which is absurd. It is the same thing as the world standing on the backs of elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle -- and what does the turtle stand on?

5. If, as you admit, you cannot provide evidence of God (as in a Christian God), that brings us back to the question of why worship this "Creator"?

On either end of the spectrum, I think we're over-rationalizing. The matter of the fact is that we don't have enough concrete evidence to refute or support the issue. That's all that need to be said, I think. You want to debate the pointless, fine. I'm going to go nap.

Why is it an arrow? Why isn't it a piece of moss? Which is closer to reality.

Why could her fluffy bunny not be the cause of it all ... and the idea of a creator makes the equasion MORE complex not less ... so by your theory of probability LESS likly to be true (expanding the domain back infity does NOT make things simpiler)

Good point about the creator being even more complex and therefor less likely.

FYI, Harvey is not fluffy and we're both male. I take no offense, but Harvey is not as secure in his masculinity. (I think the fuzzy tail makes him sensitive.)

4. The "Creator to the Creator" does refute your simplistic argument? Your assumption that anything structured and complex must be created from "outside" logically requires an infinite regression of Creators, which is absurd. It is the same thing as the world standing on the backs of elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle -- and what does the turtle stand on?


This is waaaay off subject... But, thank you for the Terry Pratchett reference. I was going to bring it up myself, but you beat me to it ;)

Good point about the creator being even more complex and therefor less likely.

FYI, Harvey is not fluffy and we're both male. I take no offense, but Harvey is not as secure in his masculinity. (I think the fuzzy tail makes him sensitive.)
Sorry :) my bad ...

And yes adding an initial factor that theoredicaly has a domain of (infinity,present] complicates things nicly

I don't have time atm to answer all the questions raised (and some of them are really good points). The one I will answer is the Creator of the Creator question.

The Creator does not necessarily need a Creator himself, because the logic I was applying follows the rules of this (created) universe. As the Creator I speak of exists outside the universe, the argument does not apply. Not necessarily, I should say.

I trust we all know this will lead no where, correct?

I trust we all know this will lead no where, correct?

You mean we aren't going to solve the issue of religion for once and for all?

I'm shocked, shocked!

Spoilsport. :D

Speaking of shutting your eyes, several people including myself did contradict your statement in the last thread. For example, here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8556178&postcount=14). And you failed to defend it. Walking away and calling yourself victorious is no more successful here than on the playground.

As for your new theories:

1. To say that it is reasonable to believe in God in the absence of irrefutable proof that there is no God is to turn reason on its head. Can you irrefutably prove pookas don't exist? Well then its reasonable for me to believe in my 6-foot tall rabbit friend named Harvey.

Worse, you cannot irrefutably prove anything -- except perhaps cogito ergo sum. You cannot prove the sun will shine tomorrow. But it would be unreasonable to deny it.

Here in the absence of any evidence that God exists, it is unreasonable to believe.

2. Assume your arrow argument does support the existence of a Creator. Is that Creator the Christian God? No evidence she is. Requires a whole other set of leaps of faith.

3. The arrow argument has many, many holes, as I am sure others will point out. One is a complete lack of perspective. You chose an arrow because, in your experience, it is the type of thing that is made. You wish to analogize to life, the universe, etc. But, if you assume everything must have been made, then you don't have any idea what a non-made thing would look like. In other words, there is a rock next to your arrow. In our normal experience, rocks are usually made by humans, but are created by natural forces. You want us to believe the rock was also made by intelligent design. But there is no frame of reference to distinguish between made and unmade objects under your theory.

4. Another problem with your arrow argument is you assume anything as complex as an arrow must have a maker. OK, who made the maker. If you and I are too complex to have occurred without an intelligent designer, where did God come from? She is even more complex -- so, by your logic, she must have had a creator.

These are just a start. I'll let others have at ye.


if you cannot irrefutably prove something then you also cannot irrefutably disprove something. and God has always been there he just was. and no offense but i believe that God is never called a she.
and can you prove evolution?

if you cannot irrefutably prove something then you also cannot irrefutably disprove something.

You got it in one!

... but some things are more rational than others.

and God has always been there he just was.

It makes more sense to say the universe has always been there. It just was.

and no offense but i believe that God is never called a she.

Says who? (Be careful, She'll smite 'em. ;) )

and can you prove evolution?

<sigh>

Not even relevant. Whether or not evolution is true neither proves or disproves the existence of God.

And, yes, there is abundant evidence of evolution. Unlike of God.

1. To say that it is reasonable to believe in God in the absence of irrefutable proof that there is no God is to turn reason on its head. Can you irrefutably prove pookas don't exist? Well then its reasonable for me to believe in my 6-foot tall rabbit friend named Harvey.

Worse, you cannot irrefutably prove anything -- except perhaps cogito ergo sum. You cannot prove the sun will shine tomorrow. But it would be unreasonable to deny it.

Here in the absence of any evidence that God exists, it is unreasonable to believe.

And here an agnostic steps in...
Some folks start from the presumption that nothing exists until it is proven to exist. Therefore, to believe somethings exists without concrete proof of its existence is a leap of faith and not logical.
Others, like me, start from the presumption that something may or may not exist. Proof in either direction will sway our decision on whether it exists or not. To make a decision on something's (non)existance without proof would be a leap of faith and illogical.

You got it in one!

... but some things are more rational than others.



It makes more sense to say the universe has always been there. It just was.



Says who? (Be careful, She'll smite 'em. ;) )



<sigh>

Not even relevant. Whether or not evolution is true neither proves or disproves the existence of God.

And, yes, there is abundant evidence of evolution. Unlike of God.


if you find the religious text that refers to God as a she then show me.
about evolution i was wondering since you apparently believe God cannot be proven if you believe evolution can. now what is some of this evidence for evolution.

And here an agnostic steps in...
Some folks start from the presumption that nothing exists until it is proven to exist. Therefore, to believe somethings exists without concrete proof of its existence is a leap of faith and not logical.
Others, like me, start from the presumption that something may or may not exist. Proof in either direction will sway our decision on whether it exists or not. To make a decision on something's (non)existance without proof would be a leap of faith and illogical.

So, do you have an opinion on pookas and unicorns?

Do you wonder each morning if there will be light?

no response to my last post. im sad i was really lookin forward to one.

and can you prove evolution?


not irrifutably.

but there are many, many, many ways to back it up, and nothing has yet even hinted at it being wrong

i cannot say the same for any religion.

not irrifutably.

but there are many, many, many ways to back it up, and nothing has yet even hinted at it being wrong

i cannot say the same for any religion.



yes but can i have an example of evidence?

if you find the religious text that refers to God as a she then show me.

Show me a religious text that means anything.

Otherwise, I saw God in the movie Dogma and she looked remarkably like Alanis Morrisette.

(There are plenty of religions that believe in a female diety and plenty of serous theology that holds that God has no gender or is female. But those are side arguments. Your concept of God is a narrow one.)

about evolution i was wondering since you apparently believe God cannot be proven if you believe evolution can. now what is some of this evidence for evolution.

I'm not going to get into a separate debate about evolution. You can find dozens of other threads on this or start yet another one.

There is scientific evidence of evolution. There is no such evidence of God.

Care to offer any evidence or argument for the existence of God -- as that is the topic?

now what is some of this evidence for evolution.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

that should keep you busy for a while.


if you don't choose to just flat-out ignore it :rolleyes:

Show me a religious text that means anything.

Otherwise, I saw God in the movie Dogma and she looked remarkably like Alanis Morrisette.

(There are plenty of religions that believe in a female diety and plenty of serous theology that holds that God has no gender or is female. But those are side arguments. Your concept of God is a narrow one.)



I'm not going to get into a separate debate about evolution. You can find dozens of other threads on this or start yet another one.

There is scientific evidence of evolution. There is no such evidence of God.

Care to offer any evidence or argument for the existence of God -- as that is the topic?


dogma was a MOVIE not fact.
and i should have been more clear i meant a christian religion that calls God a she or the Jews also.
i guess there really is no "scientific" evidence for God seeing that hes not really "scientific". but the big bang just doesnt seem at all reasonable to me.

now what is some of this evidence for evolution.

Ever have a flu? Ever wonder why "cocktails" work, but could never completely destroy the HIV virus in patients? Ever wonder about the term "super bug?" or why pesticides and antibiotics seem to not work anymore? All due to Evolution. But that's not the point i'm going to make.

The original argument talks about being "stupid/ignorant/naive" about believing in God. The original poster is correct, you aren't stupid or ignorant or naive. Teh complexity of the universe has yet to be explained, and the idea of God is completely plausible, just as any other theory is. Now, before people call me religious, please note that i am as close as you get to an agnostic. I've studied both Christianity and Judaism, and I'm also an avid proponent for the sciences and math. The only ignorance and stupidity that can be attested to God is when people decide to give their entire lives to he/she, and say that "God will make things better, God will help me, God will fix this all up for me." That is true ignorance. Even in the religious doctrines, especially in Judaism, the only people responsible for the things occuring on Earth are Human beings.

Now, on the topic people are really talking about...

God, in my opinion, if there is one, is something we cannot grasp. To me, he's a concept, a scientific/mathematic reason. I'll use a couple concepts to justify my stance:

Socratic Method: Thesis and Antithesis, create a compromised thesis (metathesis), then make that the thesis and create an antithesis. repeat process. Socrates stated that this is the way to get to the truth, but you can never reach it, only get infinitely closer with every step.

Mathematical Limit: Matter has a pattern: every thing is a part of something, yet comprised of even smaller parts. For example, the human being is part of an ecosystem, which is part of the EArth, but then again, it is comprised of organs, which are comprised of cells, which are in turn comprised of organelles, then molecules, than atoms, then subatomic particles, then sub-subatomic, then smaller... Infinite, with the limit at 0, aka... a geometric point.

Mathematical Proof: to prove 2+2 = 4, you must show the additive property. but the additive property needs to be proven with another corollary, which also has to be proved by another one, and another, and another, until infinity.

What is God? Infinity. the supposed entity is the end to all these things, behind it all, the unifying theme, the unifying theory. he's a mathematical and scientific concept that is the reason behind all existence. Is God conscious? Is God watching? Probably not, but at least in a scientific aspect, the idea of a "creator," or in this case, "instigator" of the universe can be logically deduced...

- Neo Nuria

In the end, this will all lead nowhere and I am wasting time writing this post, but I will anyway. The arguments for and against a creator are numerous, and neither side could actually 'prove' (with solid fact) that they are absolutely right, and so it would probably be better to examine a stream of logic, rather than the 'physical' universe. In a branch of metaphysics, I will refer to an argument made by Thomas Aquinas. He argued for a 'Prime Mover', or, therefore, since everything that moves has a cause, there must be one 'first ' cause. As a person has previously noted, there would have to be an endless succession of creators, and that idea is truly absurd. This argument makes sense on a purely physical level, for, as Aquinas noted, there must be a physical cause to all things. Of course, if you were to assume that God is not a physical being, the argument extends beyond any observational logic, in the assumption that the spiritual world cannot be observed. However, this argument cannot prove either the existence or non-existence of God. Neither side has gained any headway in the debate, and it will be so for any other intelligent argument in regards to this argument. However, unlike many before me, I will state that this does not mean that the debate therefore should not occur, because it can lead to at least an understanding of another person's beliefs.
I feel that I should clarify a point made by the original poster of the arrow. I have actually heard this argument in the form of a watch, but, I will go on the arrow. It is merely an argument that tries to observe the physical world. It is assuming that that which is complex and makes sense must come from an intelligent source. It is assuming that all things which we make makes sense because it corresponds to a natural order. Therefore, the question that it tries to ask is, 'How can something which has order come from chaos?' or, simply put, 'why should things make sense?' The observation of the rock or tree or whatever it is is actually what the question is asking. How can something which has a definite, orderly structure, (like a tree, rock, etc...) exist when all things that make sense (that we can observe) come from an intelligent source. I am sorry if that was a lot of repetition, but I am very bad at clarifying my point. Furthermore, as noted above, an endless succession of creators is an absurd idea. To clarify Thomas Aquinas' argument, if evolution from a primordial substance resulted in human life, what caused the primordial amoeba(combination of different gases), what caused earth to develop the way it has (evolution), what caused matter to exist (big bang), what was there before matter and energy exists, etc..., the end point being that either way, there were endless acts of creation, therefore there must be a first cause, that does not need a cause, and therefore does not exist in a physical realm. In any case, this argument too will have a counter-argument.
Since I started with this, I guess this will be the position I will take as the debate continues, though I encourage others of both sides to participate, because it will, at the very least, make you more tolerant of other's opinions.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

that should keep you busy for a while.


if you don't choose to just flat-out ignore it :rolleyes:


are you talking big bang evolution or survival evolution?

-snip-
This will go on for many more pages.

This will go on for many more pages.


maybe. hopefully.

In the end, this will all lead nowhere and I am wasting time writing this post, but I will anyway. The arguments for and against a creator are numerous, and neither side could actually 'prove' (with solid fact) that they are absolutely right, and so it would probably be better to examine a stream of logic, rather than the 'physical' universe. In a branch of metaphysics, I will refer to an argument made by Thomas Aquinas. He argued for a 'Prime Mover', or, therefore, since everything that moves has a cause, there must be one 'first ' cause. As a person has previously noted, there would have to be an endless succession of creators, and that idea is truly absurd. This argument makes sense on a purely physical level, for, as Aquinas noted, there must be a physical cause to all things. Of course, if you were to assume that God is not a physical being, the argument extends beyond any observational logic, in the assumption that the spiritual world cannot be observed. However, this argument cannot prove either the existence or non-existence of God. Neither side has gained any headway in the debate, and it will be so for any other intelligent argument in regards to this argument. However, unlike many before me, I will state that this does not mean that the debate therefore should not occur, because it can lead to at least an understanding of another person's beliefs.
I feel that I should clarify a point made by the original poster of the arrow. I have actually heard this argument in the form of a watch, but, I will go on the arrow. It is merely an argument that tries to observe the physical world. It is assuming that that which is complex and makes sense must come from an intelligent source. It is assuming that all things which we make makes sense because it corresponds to a natural order. Therefore, the question that it tries to ask is, 'How can something which has order come from chaos?' or, simply put, 'why should things make sense?' The observation of the rock or tree or whatever it is is actually what the question is asking. How can something which has a definite, orderly structure, (like a tree, rock, etc...) exist when all things that make sense (that we can observe) come from an intelligent source. I am sorry if that was a lot of repetition, but I am very bad at clarifying my point. Furthermore, as noted above, an endless succession of creators is an absurd idea. To clarify Thomas Aquinas' argument, if evolution from a primordial substance resulted in human life, what caused the primordial amoeba(combination of different gases), what caused earth to develop the way it has (evolution), what caused matter to exist (big bang), what was there before matter and energy exists, etc..., the end point being that either way, there were endless acts of creation, therefore there must be a first cause, that does not need a cause, and therefore does not exist in a physical realm. In any case, this argument too will have a counter-argument.
Since I started with this, I guess this will be the position I will take as the debate continues, though I encourage others of both sides to participate, because it will, at the very least, make you more tolerant of other's opinions.

I like this ^_^. I love getting into debates about chaos theory and all. Personally, i believe order is just a form of chaos. What we consider order really is disorder. Our bodies only work because of probability mechanics and the related ideas (a common chaotic biological process is diffusion). The ONLY order that can exist is matter at Absolute Zero (-273 C, or 0 K), where matter ceases to move, and takes on a permanent, perfect, crystalin pattern.

So, when we consider order in our universe, or an intellectual design, it really is just the universe following a path of chaos.

-Neo Nuria

dogma was a MOVIE not fact.
and i should have been more clear i meant a christian religion that calls God a she or the Jews also.

LOL. :D

And which religious tome is "fact"? ;)

As I have made rather clear, I don't believe in God nor believe in the "truth" of religious books -- so it was a bit silly to ask my opinion on God's gender.

Nonetheless, you are wrong in simply assuming the Christian or Jewish God is male. This article from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_and_gender) explains.

Among many Reconstructionist Jews and Reform Jews there has been an increasing tendency to stress feminine characteristics of God. In these communities God is sometimes spoken of as a "She".

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that God is not male, but that his role in our world makes the term "Father" more appropriate than "Mother", although both terms remain informative:

In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the differences between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother (Isaiah 49:14-15, 66:13; Psalm 131:2-3) and those of a father (Job 31:18; Jer 3:4-20) and husband (Jer 3:6-19)."

By calling God "Father," the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that He is at the same time goodness and loving care for all His children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood (Isaiah 66:13; Psalm 131:2), which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents.... (CCC 239)

Many Latter Day Saints believe in a distinct Heavenly Mother, who is thought to have a perfect, physical female body,

i guess there really is no "scientific" evidence for God seeing that hes not really "scientific". but the big bang just doesnt seem at all reasonable to me.

So, the big bang is not reasonable -- but an invisible omnipresent, all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful being that loves and cares for each and every living thing on the planet is reasonable?

Are you going to offer any arguments or are you just spamming?

Ever have a flu? Ever wonder why "cocktails" work, but could never completely destroy the HIV virus in patients? Ever wonder about the term "super bug?" or why pesticides and antibiotics seem to not work anymore? All due to Evolution. But that's not the point i'm going to make.

The original argument talks about being "stupid/ignorant/naive" about believing in God. The original poster is correct, you aren't stupid or ignorant or naive. Teh complexity of the universe has yet to be explained, and the idea of God is completely plausible, just as any other theory is. Now, before people call me religious, please note that i am as close as you get to an agnostic. I've studied both Christianity and Judaism, and I'm also an avid proponent for the sciences and math. The only ignorance and stupidity that can be attested to God is when people decide to give their entire lives to he/she, and say that "God will make things better, God will help me, God will fix this all up for me." That is true ignorance. Even in the religious doctrines, especially in Judaism, the only people responsible for the things occuring on Earth are Human beings.

Now, on the topic people are really talking about...

God, in my opinion, if there is one, is something we cannot grasp. To me, he's a concept, a scientific/mathematic reason. I'll use a couple concepts to justify my stance:

Socratic Method: Thesis and Antithesis, create a compromised thesis (metathesis), then make that the thesis and create an antithesis. repeat process. Socrates stated that this is the way to get to the truth, but you can never reach it, only get infinitely closer with every step.

Mathematical Limit: Matter has a pattern: every thing is a part of something, yet comprised of even smaller parts. For example, the human being is part of an ecosystem, which is part of the EArth, but then again, it is comprised of organs, which are comprised of cells, which are in turn comprised of organelles, then molecules, than atoms, then subatomic particles, then sub-subatomic, then smaller... Infinite, with the limit at 0, aka... a geometric point.

Mathematical Proof: to prove 2+2 = 4, you must show the additive property. but the additive property needs to be proven with another corollary, which also has to be proved by another one, and another, and another, until infinity.

What is God? Infinity. the supposed entity is the end to all these things, behind it all, the unifying theme, the unifying theory. he's a mathematical and scientific concept that is the reason behind all existence. Is God conscious? Is God watching? Probably not, but at least in a scientific aspect, the idea of a "creator," or in this case, "instigator" of the universe can be logically deduced...

- Neo Nuria



yes good point. but all math formulas were made up correct. and evolution is a theory correct. and a theory is not proven or diproven. which for some of us makes all religionas well as evolution and everything else also just a bunch of theories

LOL. :D

And which religious tome is "fact"? ;)

As I have made rather clear, I don't believe in God nor believe in the "truth" of religious books -- so it was a bit silly to ask my opinion on God's gender.

Nonetheless, you are wrong in simply assuming the Christian or Jewish God is male. This article from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_and_gender) explains.

Among many Reconstructionist Jews and Reform Jews there has been an increasing tendency to stress feminine characteristics of God. In these communities God is sometimes spoken of as a "She".

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that God is not male, but that his role in our world makes the term "Father" more appropriate than "Mother", although both terms remain informative:

In no way is God in man's image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the differences between the sexes. But the respective "perfections" of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother (Isaiah 49:14-15, 66:13; Psalm 131:2-3) and those of a father (Job 31:18; Jer 3:4-20) and husband (Jer 3:6-19)."

By calling God "Father," the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that He is at the same time goodness and loving care for all His children. God's parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood (Isaiah 66:13; Psalm 131:2), which emphasizes God's immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. The language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents.... (CCC 239)

Many Latter Day Saints believe in a distinct Heavenly Mother, who is thought to have a perfect, physical female body,



So, the big band is not reasonable -- but an invisible omnipresent, all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful being that loves and cares for each and every living thing on the planet is reasonable?


no the big bang is not reasonable to me, but if its reasonable to you then it is to you. i just dont believe that by chance and only chance the universe was created and we all evolved in some way from single celled organisms. and i never sad God was a he or she specifically all i said was that God is that he is never called she although he does have characteristics of both.(i use he because im used to it.) and whether or not a religious tome(good word) is fact all depends on your view. such as you you apparently dont believe in any, where as i believe in the christian bible.

yes good point. but all math formulas were made up correct. and evolution is a theory correct. and a theory is not proven or diproven. which for some of us makes all religionas well as evolution and everything else also just a bunch of theories


and you have obviously no idea of what a theory is.

theory: A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

you make it sound like a 'theory' is something you make up with your freinds one night at a bar


In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

i just dont believe that by chance and only chance the universe was created and we all evolved in some way from single celled organisms.

and you have every right to remain ignorant

and you have obviously no idea of what a theory is.

theory: A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.

you make it sound like a 'theory' is something you make up with your freinds one night at a bar


In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.


i stand corrected on my definition. but i did not say scientific theory and is it not true that many if not most scientists are atheist or agnostic so of course they would agree with evolution.

yes good point. but all math formulas were made up correct. and evolution is a theory correct. and a theory is not proven or diproven. which for some of us makes all religionas well as evolution and everything else also just a bunch of theories

Correct. But some theories can be proven, while others cannot. Religion, especially massive, usually corrupted religions, have very little proof beyond their scriptures (which, in a scientific setting, cannot be used to prove anything). Math, science, evolution, etc. can ALL be proven because they are based on real-life phenomena. I've already stated my position, and even that's a theory to help prove the existence of some God. I've used proof from the real-world, not just hypothetical situations or metaphors.

-Neo Nuria

no the big bang is not reasonable to me, but if its reasonable to you then it is to you. i just dont believe that by chance and only chance the universe was created and we all evolved in some way from single celled organisms.

That's very nice for you. As I explained, my friend Harvey and I disagree. You offer no evidence or argument for your belief, so we'll just assume you listen to voices in your head.

and i never sad God was a he or she specifically all i said was that God is that he is never called she although he does have characteristics of both.(i use he because im used to it.) and whether or not a religious tome(good word) is fact all depends on your view. such as you you apparently dont believe in any, where as i believe in the christian bible.

Well, then you are even more wrong because God is referred to as She by some Jews and some Christians

is it not true that many if not most scientists are atheist or agnostic so of course they would agree with evolution.

is like saying:

is it not true that most scientists make conclusions for themselves, and question what others discover before accepting it as true, instead of blindly following whatever they are force-fed by religion?

:rolleyes:

Correct. But some theories can be proven, while others cannot. Religion, especially massive, usually corrupted religions, have very little proof beyond their scriptures (which, in a scientific setting, cannot be used to prove anything). Math, science, evolution, etc. can ALL be proven because they are based on real-life phenomena. I've already stated my position, and even that's a theory to help prove the existence of some God. I've used proof from the real-world, not just hypothetical situations or metaphors.

-Neo Nuria


yes you have and evolution over time can be proven but not the evolution involved in the bigbang.

is like saying:



:rolleyes:


no i dont think so.
:rolleyes:

i stand corrected on my definition. but i did not say scientific theory and is it not true that many if not most scientists are atheist or agnostic so of course they would agree with evolution.

Many religious leaders believe in evolution as well.

Why can't God be using evolution as a tool for his divine plan? (not my particular idea, but a perfectly valid one for those who would mix religion and science).

-Neo Nuria

Many religious leaders believe in evolution as well.

Why can't God be using evolution as a tool for his divine plan? (not my particular idea, but a perfectly valid one for those who would mix religion and science).

-Neo Nuria


there is no room for the big bang in the religions that use the chrisitian bible because of Genisis 1

Correct. But some theories can be proven, while others cannot.

you are also under the wrong impression about theories.

a hypothesis is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

a theory is a set of proven hypothesis that have been assembled to explain some phenomena. the theory may change as the hypothesis that it is founded upon are added to, but the theory as a whole functions in the same way. the theory must also be proven by independent observers before it is accepted as true.

a theory cannot be built upon unproven hypothesis, and if someone tries to propose a theory that is based on unproven hypothesis, it will quickly be shot down by the scientific community.

if a new set of information is discovered that refutes a theory, then the theory is either adjusted to accept this new peice of information, or the theory is scrapped altogether.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.


now do you get it?

there is no room for the big bang in the religions that use the chrisitian bible because of Genisis 1



...


the big bang has nothing to do with evolution.


at all.

*snip*

A word of advice: some formatting would make your arguments readable.

The "neither side can win" argument is a common cop-out. How can one logically justify believing in something in the absence of any proof it exists? Moreover, only by distancing oneself from any beliefs about the nature of God can one escape such beliefs being absurd. Absolute proof of the non-existence of God is not necessary to make belief in God illogical. (That is not to say that a rational person cannot have faith. But faith itself is not rational.)

If you are familar with Aquinas's Prime Mover argument, then you are also aware of its many fallacies. The most obvious of which has already been raised: If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. As I asked earlier, "what does the turtle stand on?"

If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the universe as God -- so there is no validity to the argument.

...


the big bang has nothing to do with evolution.


at all.


except that the big bang says that the big bang happened and then the single celled organisms evolved eventually into what we are now and also if evolution happened that way then why arent we still evolving? if you can prove me worng and i will be corrected

yes you have and evolution over time can be proven but not the evolution involved in the bigbang.

Evolution in the macrocosm that is the universe can be explained via chaos theory. The Big Bang explains a point in the universe (a point having absolutely no space, just a geometric point) with ALL of the energy and mass of the universe inside of it. Then, all of a sudden, it EXPLODES, and the mass and energy go out into space. The point of all existence was the closest the universe has ever come to complete order. So, as stated in the second law of Thermodynamics, the universe is always moving towards a state of higher disorder, the universe started its downward spiral into chaos. Things of course formed (causing less chaos within the system, but more chaos overall in teh universe), but they strangely USE UP energy, causing more chaos than the order that was needed to construct them (the sun is a great example. Lots of energy went into making the sun, but now, it eats up hydrogen and creates energy (more disorder).) Evolution in the biological sense is different.

the Big Bang Theory is just that, a Theory. It's still under high scrutiny by the scientific community, and i personally think there are some problems with it too.

-Neo Nuria

Evolution in the macrocosm that is the universe can be explained via chaos theory. The Big Bang explains a point in the universe (a point having absolutely no space, just a geometric point) with ALL of the energy and mass of the universe inside of it. Then, all of a sudden, it EXPLODES, and the mass and energy go out into space. The point of all existence was the closest the universe has ever come to complete order. So, as stated in the second law of Thermodynamics, the universe is always moving towards a state of higher disorder, the universe started its downward spiral into chaos. Things of course formed (causing less chaos within the system, but more chaos overall in teh universe), but they strangely USE UP energy, causing more chaos than the order that was needed to construct them (the sun is a great example. Lots of energy went into making the sun, but now, it eats up hydrogen and creates energy (more disorder).) Evolution in the biological sense is different.

the Big Bang Theory is just that, a Theory. It's still under high scrutiny by the scientific community, and i personally think there are some problems with it too.

-Neo Nuria

yes but it cant be a theory under specualtion if dementedus is right can it?

you are also under the wrong impression about theories.

a hypothesis is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

a theory is a set of proven hypothesis that have been assembled to explain some phenomena. the theory may change as the hypothesis that it is founded upon are added to, but the theory as a whole functions in the same way. the theory must also be proven by independent observers before it is accepted as true.

a theory cannot be built upon unproven hypothesis, and if someone tries to propose a theory that is based on unproven hypothesis, it will quickly be shot down by the scientific community.

if a new set of information is discovered that refutes a theory, then the theory is either adjusted to accept this new peice of information, or the theory is scrapped altogether.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.


now do you get it?

Yes, i understand. Sorry for the confusion ^_^;.

Of course, a number of theories 'have' been shot down, including the Super-String Theory.

-Neo Nuria

there is no room for the big bang in the religions that use the chrisitian bible because of Genisis 1

LOL. :D

If you believe that, your beliefs are contrary to most Christian and Jewish sects.

yes but it cant be a theory under specualtion if dementedus is right can it?

Theories that speak of how the universe is created are all under high scrutiny, and are slightly different than other types of theories, only because there's very little proof that can be found when trying to discover the beginnings of our universe. It's mostly put together with second-hand proof, indirectly assembled from other, more observable phenomena.

Of course, evolution (biological) is very much provable in the now ^_^;

-Neo Nuria

LOL. :D

If you believe that, your beliefs are contrary to most Christian and Jewish sects.


what seeing that Genisis 1 says that God created man and animals not single celled organisms that would evolve into man and animals then those ppl are wrong.

Theories that speak of how the universe is created are all under high scrutiny, and are slightly different than other types of theories, only because there's very little proof that can be found when trying to discover the beginnings of our universe. It's mostly put together with second-hand proof, indirectly assembled from other, more observable phenomena.

Of course, evolution (biological) is very much provable in the now ^_^;

-Neo Nuria


i agree that adaption type evolution for survival is true and it happens but if the single celled organisms the we evolved from really evolved then why are we not still evolving?

yes but it cant be a theory under specualtion if dementedus is right can it?


some of the hypothesis it was built upon have come into question, because the mathematical model of the universe that they used was simpler than further observation has shown it to be.

a theory is like a table, and the hypothesis are like the legs.

you can't build a theory on broken hypothesis, and they are starting to think that the legs supporting the big bang have termites.

they might be wrong, but that's what more testing is for.

i agree that adaption type evolution for survival is true and it happens but if the single celled organisms the we evolved from really evolved then why are we not still evolving?


we are

some of the hypothesis it was built upon have come into question, because the mathematical model of the universe that they used was simpler than further observation has shown it to be.

a theory is like a table, and the hypothesis are like the legs.

you can't build a theory on broken hypothesis, and they are starting to think that the legs supporting the big bang have termites.

they might be wrong, but that's what more testing is for.


ok. i understand because it was made n ot too long ago but it wasnt recently either and new techology always changes things thought to be true.
but sadly i must go and leave this to you guys to debate if only i could stay.

i agree that adaption type evolution for survival is true and it happens but if the single celled organisms the we evolved from really evolved then why are we not still evolving?

we are. So are single-celled creatures like Bacteria. Things like animals and plants, in the macro-world, evolve at very slow paces, while things like bacteria and viruses (micro-world) evolve at very HIGH paces, which is why antibiotics are losing their vigor, as bacteria evolve to have high tolerance to medications.

We can't see our own evolution, but it's still happening.

-Neo Nuria

we are

how so?

we are. So are single-celled creatures like Bacteria. Things like animals and plants, in the macro-world, evolve at very slow paces, while things like bacteria and viruses (micro-world) evolve at very HIGH paces, which is why antibiotics are losing their vigor, as bacteria evolve to have high tolerance to medications.

We can't see our own evolution, but it's still happening.

-Neo Nuria
well yea. but you notice that the single celled organisms would have had to become much larger and complex. and what are we at now homo-homonus(sp?)? or somethin like that wouldnt we have changed our bodies at least a little?

Yes, i understand. Sorry for the confusion ^_^;.

Of course, a number of theories 'have' been shot down, including the Super-String Theory.

-Neo Nuria


that is because new observations have come up, that contradict the theory itself.

look at my sig for a comparison of that vs. the religious way of doing things :D

that is because new observations have come up, that contradict the theory itself.

look at my sig for a comparison of that vs. the religious way of doing things :D

Yeah, i love your signature :D.


as for the debate;

We are Homo-sapiens, and ever since the days of cro-magnon (10,000 years ago, beginning of homo-sapiens), we have grown in height (from average of 4 feet to 5.5 feet), brain size, more upright posture, different skin tones, softer facial features, etc.

It takes MILLIONS of years to change, and we've only been homo-sapiens for 10,000 years.

As for bacteria, they change, but they can't change into multi-cellular organisms just yet. Remember, they came from the same ancestral sincle-celled organismas we did, and they are much more advanced and specialized at what they do (thus, they've been evolving). But our ancestors were environmentally favored as multi-cellular, while the bacteria's wasn't. Mutations will eventually occur, and we will eventaully have multi-cellular bacteria (of course, it on't be classified as bacteria, but still)

A quandary; is evolution at work when things aren't changing? yes. It just means that the status quo of a specie is perfectly suited for its environmental strains.

-Neo Nuria

how so?


in every generation, the people unfit for survival do not live to reproduce, and the overall spread of such traits gradually disappears from the gene pool.

there are a number of instances where you can visibly see the remnants of evolution on your own body.

look at your appendix. that used to have a purpose, when we still ate things that had to be held there because our body could not handle them otherwise. now, we do not need it anymore.

look at your tailbone. the spinal column ends at the pelvis, but the vertebrae continue to below that point. that is the remnant of our tail, even though we do not need it anymore.

now, look at the doorways of mideval buildings. notice anything? that's right, they are ridiculously small. on average, their height was no more than that of what we would now consider a relatively short woman. as a species, we have gradually been getting taller for the last thousand years.

Yeah, i love your signature :D.

We are Homo-sapiens, and ever since the days of cro-magnon (10,000 years ago, beginning of homo-sapiens), we have grown in height (from average of 4 feet to 5.5 feet), brain size, more upright posture, different skin tones, softer facial features, etc.

It takes MILLIONS of years to change, and we've only been homo-sapiens for 10,000 years.

As for bacteria, they change, but they can't change into multi-cellular organisms just yet. Remember, they came from the same ancestral sincle-celled organismas we did. But our ancestors were environmentally favored as multi-cellular, while the bacteria's wasn't. Mutations will eventually occur, and we will eventaully have multi-cellular bacteria (of course, it on't be classified as bacteria, but still)

-Neo Nuria


yea were homo-sapien-sapien if its not classified as bacteria then its not bacteria is it?

yea were homo-sapien-sapien if its not classified as bacteria then its not bacteria is it?

That doesn't mean it WASN'T bacteria.

-Neo Nuria

Yes, i understand. Sorry for the confusion ^_^;.

Of course, a number of theories 'have' been shot down, including the Super-String Theory.

-Neo Nuria

*Ahem*

The five super-string theories have been consolidated into a single theory. They haven't been shot down, merely changed (albeit radically).

How can one logically justify believing in something in the absence of any proof it exists? Moreover, only by distancing oneself from any beliefs about the nature of God can one escape such beliefs being absurd. Absolute proof of the non-existence of God is not necessary to make belief in God illogical. (That is not to say that a rational person cannot have faith. But faith itself is not rational.)

If you are familar with Aquinas's Prime Mover argument, then you are also aware of its many fallacies. The most obvious of which has already been raised: If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. As I asked earlier, "what does the turtle stand on?"

If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the universe as God -- so there is no validity to the argument.

If we were to not believe anything for which there is not absolute proof, we would have a rather narrow frame of mind, and we would probably never have gotten out of the stone age, as the inventor of fire would have been severely limited in his thought processes. All the great inventors had to extend their minds beyond what there was absolute proof for in order to do the great things which they did. So, in some sense, the argument that faith is irrational loses some merit.

And yes, I am aware of the criticisms of Aquinas' Prime Mover argument, however, I am not sure if they take the argument into context. The entire argument is based upon the fact that nothing in the physical world exists without a cause. Since nothing can cause itself, he argues that something which is not subject to the laws of the physical world (God) must be the first cause. In other words, the turtle doesn't need to stand on anything because he exists in a realm in which he can float. A very good argument nonetheless, but it still does not prove the Prime Mover wrong if you take it in that context.

And, as a response to the evolution, that topic is rather irrelevant to the existence of God, as God and evolution could both exist, and many religions do not consider every part of the bible, including Genesis I, to be strictly a literal meaning. However, there are scientific theories that argue against evolution, such as mathematical improbability, limits within species (such as breeding fruitflies, through forced mutation (radiation), though it can change things around, it has failed to produce a new 'species', despite the short lives of drosophila), and of course gaps in the fossil record (which might be corrected in the future). In any case, it is probably put best in the words of an agnostic biologist from the American Museum of Natural History, that "We know that species reproduce and that there are different species now than there were a hundred million years ago. Everything else is propoganda."

Sorry for another long post.

If we were to not believe anything for which there is not absolute proof, we would have a rather narrow frame of mind, and we would probably never have gotten out of the stone age, as the inventor of fire would have been severely limited in his thought processes. All the great inventors had to extend their minds beyond what there was absolute proof for in order to do the great things which they did. So, in some sense, the argument that faith is irrational loses some merit.

Agreed, up to the last sentence. To require "absolute proof" is impractical and denies our everyday experience.

To require some proof -- let alone a preponderance of evidence -- is perfectly reasonable. To belief in the absence of any evidence -- despite the most fervent searches for a scrape of proof -- is irrational.

That is not necessarily to condemn Faith. It need not be rational. But it is not.

And yes, I am aware of the criticisms of Aquinas' Prime Mover argument, however, I am not sure if they take the argument into context. The entire argument is based upon the fact that nothing in the physical world exists without a cause. Since nothing can cause itself, he argues that something which is not subject to the laws of the physical world (God) must be the first cause. In other words, the turtle doesn't need to stand on anything because he exists in a realm in which he can float. A very good argument nonetheless, but it still does not prove the Prime Mover wrong if you take it in that context.

Of course, this presupposes that one can have a Prime Mover that is outside the laws of physical world. Basically, it assumes the premise.

The argument is time-worn and has many flaws. I see no need to explain them all.

And, as a response to the evolution, that topic is rather irrelevant to the existence of God, as God and evolution could both exist, and many religions do not consider every part of the bible, including Genesis I, to be strictly a literal meaning. *snip*

As I agree here, I won't respond to the rest.

Of course, this presupposes that one can have a Prime Mover that is outside the laws of physical world. Basically, it assumes the premise.


The argument only assumes that one can have a Prime Mover outside the laws of the physical world because it cannot see how there can be a Prime Mover that is within the laws of the physical world, as it would need a cause itself. As you say, the turtle has to have something to stand on. If the 'cause' of the big bang is restricted to the laws of the physical world, then it too must have a cause, and so on into infinity. Thus, it is the conclusion of the argument that there must be a Prime mover outside of the physical world, while its premise is merely there is no effect that is not caused. Of course, this is only one argument for God, and there are many more, such as order from disorder, and things of that nature.

The argument is time-worn and has many flaws. I see no need to explain them all.


Another common argument against the Prime Mover, is, of course that nothing can exist outside of the physical world. Or, at the very least, that they cannot affect another phase of existence.This however, is not really feasible, as we all know perfectly well that outside of physical existence is intellectual existence, which is caused by the physical element of having a brain. If we did not have a brain, it would be difficult to think, and though our thoughts may be determined in some way by physical circumstance, our minds are not limited only to what is physically possible, as our bodies are.

To belief in the absence of any evidence -- despite the most fervent searches for a scrape of proof -- is irrational.


Some would argue that it is more irrational to believe that there is an endless succession of events to get the universe to where it is now, than it is to say, "In the beginning, God created the universe", even if by it you only mean that in the beginning, some unthinkable power began some unthinkable process. I do not think that somebody is irrational for believeing in God, possibly because I cannot honestly say there is an explanation to the existence of the physical world without Him.