Deconversion by Evid3nc3

liamw

I'm wondering if any of you have watched this series. This is probably the best articulation I've seen of how someone has left their religion.

He gives the concept of God a great deal of respect, and seems to understand the christian perspective throughout his series, which I'm sure you will find refreshing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12rP8ybp13s

Any comments on any of his arguments?

philologos

I've seen some parts of it as they have been posted by other A&A users (I do watch what you post a lot of the time :pac:). Personally, I don't find the arguments made in them to be all that convincing. The guy does have a good knowledge of Scripture clearly, which is an improvement on a lot of atheist argumentation.

liamw

What about one of the main conclusions... to paraphrase with a quote from Dawkins:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

That is, there is no reason to think there's a god; everything happens just as we would expect without a god.

philologos

liamw wrote: »

What about one of the main conclusions... to paraphrase with a quote from Dawkins:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

That is, there is no reason to think there's a god; everything happens just as we would expect without a god.

It's obvious that I and any other current Christian will disagree. Personally I don't believe this universe would even continue to function without God.

It's a false assertion to claim that everything just happens just as we would expect without God, because we haven't even come to the conclusion that God exists or doesn't exist. It's a premature conclusion.

I think there has to be a jump to the position that Dawkins makes.

PDN

liamw wrote: »

What about one of the main conclusions... to paraphrase with a quote from Dawkins:

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."

That is, there is no reason to think there's a god; everything happens just as we would expect without a god.

Let's examine the logic of that.

1. Dawkins, as a committed atheist with a huge bias, holds a subjective opinion as to what the universe would be like if an unproven proposition were true.
2. The universe coincides with Dawkins' subjective opinion.
3. Therefore Dawkins thinks he is right.

Still, I guess the fact that you think it worthy of posting means that at least one person other than Dawkins finds such logic to be worth considering.

Let's try using the same logic from a different perspective:
1. I, as a committed Christian with a huge bias, hold a subjective opinion as to what the universe would be like if it was created by God and subsequently blighted by the Fall.
2. The universe coincides with my subjective opinion.
3. Therefore I think I am right.

Zombrex

Christianity already supposes that the universe doesn't look like it was created by God, which is what the Fall attempts to explain. A universe in a pre-fallen state would look quite a bit different to this corrupted one.

All Dawkins and co. do is remove the explanation that they feel is unnecessarily convoluted. The universe doesn't look like one God would create because God didn't create it, rather than supposing he did create it and then the Fall happened which makes it look like he didn't.

If you aren't a Christian (ie don't have other reasons for supposing the existence of God) it seems like a perfectly reasonable position.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Christianity already supposes that the universe doesn't look like it was created by God, which is what the Fall attempts to explain. A universe in a pre-fallen state would look quite a bit different to this corrupted one.

Would you expand on this?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Would you expand on this?

The details depend on the particular Christian or Jewish denomination. For example I've heard from, I think Wolfsbane, that nothing died pre-Fall.

Another belief I've heard is that there were no natural disasters, so no tectonic movements etc.

Others are more literal, saying everything was "perfect", so if you talk about something being imperfect it wasn't that way before the Fall, no matter what it was.

A quick Google

"That everything on the physical level was perfect is without question.."
http://www.lwbc.co.uk/Genesis/The%20pre-fall%20world.htm

The world before the Fall had no death, disease, or suffering, as God proclaimed the finished creation “very good”
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c008.html

I could go on but I'm not sure if this is what you are asking me (I imagine you are aware of the concept of the Fall).

Fanny Cradock

Yes, I'm aware of the doctrine of the Fall. Why I asked you for clarification was because I know of no consensus amongst Christians on the nature of the world before and after the Fall. Therefore I take exception to your statement that "Christianity already supposes that the universe doesn't look like it was created by God."

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, I'm aware of the doctrine of the Fall. Why I asked you for clarification was because I know of no consensus amongst Christians on the nature of the world before and after the Fall.

Depends on what you mean by consensus. The vast majority, of not all, Christians and Jews believe the world was different before the Fall.

What that different was isn't that relevant to my point. The relevant bit is that it wasn't like it is now.

Which means even with in your own religion the world doesn't look like a world God would make. Which makes attack atheists such as Dawkins for saying that the world doesn't look like one God would make a bit bizarre. You should be agreeing with Dawkins. The different is that there is an explanation as to why this is build into your religion. An explanation that atheists consider convoluted and unnecessary.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by consensus. The vast majority, of not all, Christians and Jews believe the world was different before the Fall.

Yes, we believe that the world was different. However, no consensus exists on what this difference is. The word that needs to be discussed is not "consensus". What we need to be discussing what Christians mean by "different".

Wicknight wrote: »

Which means even with in your own religion the world doesn't look like a world God would make. Which makes attack atheists such as Dawkins for saying that the world doesn't look like one God would make a bit bizarre. You should be agreeing with Dawkins. The different is that there is an explanation as to why this is build into your religion. An explanation that atheists consider convoluted and unnecessary.

Thank you for telling me what I should believe. However, I would have thought one would need to know what the world should have looked like before you can say that the world we live in isn't it. This is the point you wont get consensus on. You linked to some Christians who think that plate tectonics are a result of the Fall - meaning we went from a state of perfection to brokeness. But you will also find those who believe that death and finitude were woven into the fabric of our universe since its beginnings and we have to try and make sense of this and about the doctrine of sin. That leads us into theodicy.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, we believe that the world was different. However, no consensus exists on what this difference is. The word that needs to be discussed is not "consensus". What we need to be discussing what Christians mean by "different".

Why?

The only bit relevant to my point is that neither Christians nor Jews believe the world/universe looks like one that God would design.

How different it is from one that God would design (ie a pre-Fall world) isn't that important to the point, nor is it a particularly answerable question.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Thank you for telling me what I should believe.

I already know what you believe, and you just confirmed it above as if there was any doubt.

"Yes, we believe that the world was different."

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

However, I would have thought one would need to know what the world should have looked like before you can say that the world we live in isn't it.

I would have thought there was an awful lot of things a person would require to know before he believes half the stuff you guys believe. But there you go. :P

You believe this, for what ever reason. If you want to get into why you believe the Fall was an actual real thing I'm all ears. It would be interesting, but not that relevant.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

This is the point you wont get consensus on. You linked to some Christians who think that plate tectonics are a result of the Fall - meaning we went from a state of perfection to brokeness. But you will also find those who believe that death and finitude were woven into the fabric of our universe since its beginnings and we have to try and make sense of this and about the doctrine of sin. That leads us into theodicy.

Again the details are not relevant. The point is that this world does not look like the world God would design. Which is the same thing atheists like Dawkins have been saying for a while.

It seems then rather disingenuous for some to put Dawkins observation up to some huge bias on his part.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Why?

The only bit relevant to my point is that neither Christians nor Jews believe the world/universe looks like one that God would design.

Why? Because I don't agree with the statement that the world does not look like the world God would design. In terms of the basic operations of this universe, I don't believe that there is a difference pre and post Fall. Nor do I like when you speak for me (or for the rest of Christianity) and also tell me what I should believe.

We have to define exactly what "different" means before we can proceed.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Why? Because I don't agree with the statement that the world does not look like the world God would design.

Now you are just being argumentative.

You have stated that you believe the world is different post Fall. So by definition the world is different from the world God designed.

How different is not relevant to my point.

If you want to argue that the world is still similar enough to the pre-Fall world that we can work out that God designed it and then something weird like the Fall happened to explain all the rest, then go ahead knock yourself out.

I would be mildly interested in you attempting that, particularly expanding upon what you think the "basic operations" of the universe are.

But again that is not relevant to my point. It might be relevant to a point you wish to make, but that isn't my issue.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

It's obvious that I and any other current Christian will disagree. Personally I don't believe this universe would even continue to function without God.

I know that's obvious. In what way do you think God keeps this universe 'functioning'?

It's a false assertion to claim that everything just happens just as we would expect without God, because we haven't even come to the conclusion that God exists or doesn't exist. It's a premature conclusion.

I think there has to be a jump to the position that Dawkins makes.

There's no jump on Dawkin's part. You're the one making the jump. You make the assertion that there is positively a God, but Dawkins is merely pointing out that this God does not appear to intervene in the universe at all. There is nothing to suggest that there is a God in the manner in which the universe and events within it operate.

PDN wrote: »

Let's examine the logic of that.

1. Dawkins, as a committed atheist with a huge bias, holds a subjective opinion as to what the universe would be like if an unproven proposition were true.
2. The universe coincides with Dawkins' subjective opinion.
3. Therefore Dawkins thinks he is right.

Still, I guess the fact that you think it worthy of posting means that at least one person other than Dawkins finds such logic to be worth considering.

Let's try using the same logic from a different perspective:
1. I, as a committed Christian with a huge bias, hold a subjective opinion as to what the universe would be like if it was created by God and subsequently blighted by the Fall.
2. The universe coincides with my subjective opinion.
3. Therefore I think I am right.

Your logic fails becuase the athiest position does not make any postitive assertions. The position merely rejects YOUR assertion that there is definitely a God.

We have no reason to believe that there is any sort of supernatural entity involved with the universe. The default position is that there is none. You claim that there is, so you have to show why.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Now you are just being argumentative.

I think that makes two of you then.

The issue is not whether the world looks like it originally did. The question is whether it looks like a world that was originally designed by God, even if that has been subsequently changed.

PDN

liamw wrote: »

Your logic fails becuase the athiest position does not make any postitive assertions. The position merely rejects YOUR assertion that there is definitely a God..

It makes a very positive assertion about what the universe would look like if there was no God (leaving aside, of course, the obvious point that the universe wouldn't look like anything since it wouldn't exist in the first place).

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I think that makes two of you then.

I'm shocked :rolleyes:

PDN wrote: »

The issue is not whether the world looks like it originally did.

I think I should know what the issue is since it was my original point that Fanny was replying to.

Like I said to Fanny if you want to make a different point by all means...

PDN wrote: »

The question is whether it looks like a world that was originally designed by God, even if that has been subsequently changed.

By definition it can't look like the world original designed by God if it has subsequently changed. That is what the word "changed" means :rolleyes:

If you, like Fanny, wish to argue over something as petty as that then I'm perfectly happy to dismiss both of you as being needless argumentative.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

By definition it can't look like the world original designed by God if it has subsequently changed. That is what the word "changed" means :rolleyes:

Here we go again, redefining the English language.

If I see a painting of sunflowers, upon which a vandal has painted a black cross, then it is reasonable for me to say, "That painting looks like one originally painted by van Gogh".

That does not mean the painting cannot have changed. Nor does it mean that van Gogh originally painted it with the black cross. It means that the current appearance of the painting is consistent with what I would expect from a painting by van Gogh that has been subsequently vandalised.

As a side note, I get depressed when plain and simple English gets mangled by argumentative semantics into these kind of aborted threads.

PDN

liamw wrote: »

We have no reason to believe that there is any sort of supernatural entity involved with the universe. The default position is that there is none. You claim that there is, so you have to show why.

You cheeky blighter! If you post in the Christianity Forum trying to change people's minds then the default position is the Christian one and the onus is on you to demonstrate otherwise.

If I ever start a similar thread in A&A in order to try to change your mind then I will happily concede the default position to you.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Here we go again, redefining the English language.

You know what I couldn't agree more PDN.

If you want to drag this thread down into the stupidity of arguing that when something "changes" it is the same as it was before it changed, go ahead.

I'm happy to dismiss you are being pointlessly argumentative and purposely missing/misrepresenting the point because it was being made by an atheist, and we all know how you feel about them.

I'm done, enjoy arguing about what "changed" really means :rolleyes:

Pity, was looking like an interesting thread

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Now you are just being argumentative.

You have stated that you believe the world is different post Fall. So by definition the world is different from the world God designed.

That is unfair. That I happen to think the universe is different is not the same as saying that "the universe doesn't look like it was created by God".



The above image is different to the original. Yet it doesn't follow that because it (the original) is different it isn't designed.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

If I see a painting of sunflowers, upon which a vandal has painted a black cross, then it is reasonable for me to say, "That painting looks like one originally painted by van Gogh".

That does not mean the painting cannot have changed. Nor does it mean that van Gogh originally painted it with the black cross. It means that the current appearance of the painting is consistent with what I would expect from a painting by van Gogh that has been subsequently vandalised.

Odd we should independently come up with a very similar analogy. I was going to post my art a while back but I was hoping my point would have gotten across without the need for MS Paint.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That is unfair. That I happen to think the universe is different is not the same as saying that "the universe doesn't look like it was created by God".



The above image is different to the original. Yet it doesn't follow that because it is different it isn't designed.

Who said anything about doesn't look designed?

Was that image that you just posted created by da Vinci? Does it look like it was created by da Vinci? Think carefully before you answer and consider if da Vinci had access to MS Paint.

The answer of course is no, it doesn't.

It does not look like an image Leonardo da Vinci would create. da Vinci did not have access to a computer for a start and I imagine if he did he wouldn't have used MS Paint.

The underlying image looks like something da Vinci could create, but you can't simply ignore the hideous blue and red computer lines and say this looks like something da Vinci would create. In fact it looks the exact opposite and we know he didn't create it.

You can say that the original image was da Vinci and then someone else came along and mucked it up with MS Paint, which is basically what the Fall is saying (the original design is God's and then someone mucked it up) but that isn't the point. I'm perfectly aware that you guys explain the current state of the universe using the Fall.

That has never been the issue. The universe does not look like a universe God would create, in the same way that this image does not look like one da Vinci would create. You can explain that away with the Fall if you like, but that is not the same thing.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Who said anything about doesn't look designed?

OK, substitute "designed" for "created". I happen to think that da Vinci both designed and created the picture. Moving on (or moving back) I object to the idea that "the universe doesn't look like it was created by God."

Wicknight wrote: »

Was that image that you just posted created by da Vinci? Does it look like it was created by da Vinci? Think carefully before you answer and consider if da Vinci had access to MS Paint.

Well, if we are going down that route we could say that any image of the Mona Lisa that isn't the original is created by someone else. So this wasn't created by da Vinci, it was created by the person who took the photo, or maybe it was created by the persons who designed the camera, or maybe it was the persons who designed the screen we are staring at etc., etc.

Alternatively you could take the analogy for what it is: a tool designed to illustrate a point. I followed the contours of a very recognisable piece of art - you don't need to know your art from your elbow to be familiar with it - and placed some gaudy crap on top to show that the original creation remains reconcilable despite my intervention.

Wicknight wrote: »

The underlying image looks like something da Vinci could create, but you can't simply ignore the hideous blue and red computer lines and say this looks like something da Vinci would create. In fact it looks the exact opposite and we know he didn't create it.

I didn't say anything of the sort! I used an analogy to show that the quintessential form of something can remain despite any deleterious intervention. An Apple iPod is still an Apple iPod even with a crack on the screen. The act of gluing some other electronic device to the back of the same device doesn't stop it from being an iPod.

Wicknight wrote: »

That has never been the issue. The universe does not look like a universe God would create, in the same way that this image does not look like one da Vinci would create. You can explain that away with the Fall if you like, but that is not the same thing.

But I do believe that this looks like this is a universe that God would create in the same way that I believe the image posted is one that looks like something da Vinci would create. The question is then why do you feel the need to tell me what I think?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK, substitute "designed" for "created". I happen to think that da Vinci both designed and created the picture.

Only if you ignore all the red and blue lines, or explain them away with an extra piece of information, ie da Vinci created the picture and then someone else came along and rubbed red and blue lines all over it to make it look like a picture da Vinci wouldn't have created.

Which (again) is what the Fall is. The world created by God would be perfect and good

Gen 1:31
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

But the universe isn't perfect and good, how do we explain that? The Fall.

All Dawkins and co are doing is removing the explanation for why the universe doesn't look like one God would create to the simpler one, God doesn't exist.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, if we are going down that route we could say that any image of the Mona Lisa that isn't the original is created by someone else. So this wasn't created by da Vinci, it was created by the person who took the photo, or maybe it was created by the persons who designed the camera, or maybe it was the persons who designed the screen we are staring at etc., etc.

If you want to get overly pedantic and argumentative about it, sure.

My point is pretty simple. Like this picture the universe has a whole lot of crap that would be designed by God, thus the universe does not look like a universe designed by God, any more than this image (in its entirety) looks like an image produced by da Vinci.

If you want to argue that once you explain away all the crap with the Fall the universe looks like one originally designed by God go ahead, that wasn't my original point.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Alternatively you could take the analogy for what it is: a tool designed to illustrate a point. I followed the contours of a very recognisable piece of art - you don't need to know your art from your elbow to be familiar with it - and placed some gaudy crap on top to show that the original creation remains reconcilable despite my intervention.

All of which is irrelevant to my point.

If you still think you can make out the unmistakable sign of a universe designed by God under all the crap, or if you are happy with the Fall as the explanation for why that is all there in the first place, more power to you.

That isn't that relevant to my original point, a point you seem insistent on ignoring.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I didn't say anything of the sort! I used an analogy to show that the quintessential form of something can remain despite any deleterious intervention. An Apple iPod is still an Apple iPod even with a crack on the screen.

Yes but Apple would not design an iPod with a crack in the screen. A cracked iPod does not look designed by Apple.

Again it requires an explanation as to how the crack got there which isn't part of the original design. Which is what the Fall is. The universe should look like this (fresh new iPod). It doesn't look like this because of the Fall (you dropped it on the floor)

Man alive how many times do I have to make the same point over and over.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

But I do believe that this looks like this is a universe that God would create in the same way that I believe the image posted is one that looks like something da Vinci would create.

You think da Vinci would draw hideous red lines over the Mona Lisa. Or Apple would crack their iPod.

You and PDN seem insistent on arguing this rather simple point down to the bone. You and me seem to come to these junctions rather a lot Fanny. Take a second and consider that what ever you think I'm saying I might not be. Because we know how this goes, I continue to explain my point against a barrage of questions and accusations until eventually you or PDN complain that I'm going down a rabbit hole. My point is the same as it was the first post. I can continue to clarify it for you if you like but if you just want to argue enough to the point where you can then dismiss my posts I'm interested in falling for that this time.

PDN

I must admit that I misunderstood Wicknight's point.

I just never dreamed that anyone would seriously make the point that:
1. The universe does not look exactly the same as it did when God first created it.
2. Therefore that's supposed to argue against God creating it.

Only if you ignore all the red and blue lines, or explain them away with an extra piece of information, ie da Vinci created the picture and then someone else came along and rubbed red and blue lines all over it to make it look like a picture da Vinci wouldn't have created.

Which (again) is what the Fall is. The world created by God would be perfect and good

Gen 1:31
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

But the universe isn't perfect and good, how do we explain that? The Fall.

All Dawkins and co are doing is removing the explanation for why the universe doesn't look like one God would create to the simpler one, God doesn't exist.

Just like making things simpler by pretending that Leonardo da Vinci didn't exist. Then we don't have to explain how all the red and blue lines got there.

Yes but Apple would not design an iPod with a crack in the screen. A cracked iPod does not look designed by Apple.

Again it requires an explanation as to how the crack got there which isn't part of the original design. Which is what the Fall is. The universe should look like this (fresh new iPod). It doesn't look like this because of the Fall (you dropped it on the floor)

Man alive how many times do I have to make the same point over and over.

I don't think it matters how many times you make the same point over and over. You want to argue that the universe, as it is today, doesn't look exactly like it would if God had designed it and if nothing had happened to change it at all.

I'm just baffled as to why you want to advance that argument in the Christianity Forum, since it's irrelevant when addressed to a faith that does believe that the universe has changed to one degree or another.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I must admit that I misunderstood Wicknight's point.

I just never dreamed that anyone would seriously make the point that:
1. The universe does not look exactly the same as it did when God first created it.
2. Therefore that's supposed to argue against God creating it.

Well done, you continue to misunderstand my point :rolleyes:

In case the back button isn't working on your PC and that lead to your rather ridiculous attempt to straw man and misrepresent what I was saying, my point can be rather nicely summed up by the very first post I made on this thread

Wicknight wrote: »

Christianity already supposes that the universe doesn't look like it was created by God, which is what the Fall attempts to explain. A universe in a pre-fallen state would look quite a bit different to this corrupted one.

All Dawkins and co. do is remove the explanation that they feel is unnecessarily convoluted. The universe doesn't look like one God would create because God didn't create it, rather than supposing he did create it and then the Fall happened which makes it look like he didn't.

If you aren't a Christian (ie don't have other reasons for supposing the existence of God) it seems like a perfectly reasonable position.

Now do you or Fanny have anything serious you would actually like to ask me about this? Or do you want to just keep on with this nonsense?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Which (again) is what the Fall is. The world created by God would be perfect and good

Gen 1:31
God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

But the universe isn't perfect and good, how do we explain that? The Fall.

I'm afraid the only references I can see to perfection are from you. Very good =/= perfect. You can stick as many "very's" in front of "good" but you will always be tending towards perfection and never reaching it.

But we can have a chat about eschatology and what the early Christians though about this creation and new creation if it floats your boat.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you want to get overly pedantic and argumentative about it, sure.

Again, I think that rather unfair of you. If you are telling me something about Christianity, or the universe, or God and I happen to disagree with you then I'm going to voice my opinion. I'm not being pedantic. I just happen to think that when your statement was wrong. And as this is a discussion forum ...

No doubt what you and Dawkins' are saying would make sense to somebody who doesn't believe in God. But then again, in the opening line of your post you made it clear that you were talking about what Christianity supposes. In fairness you softened this statement later.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you still think you can make out the unmistakable sign of a universe designed by God under all the crap, or if you are happy with the Fall as the explanation for why that is all there in the first place, more power to you.

That isn't that relevant to my original point, a point you seem insistent on ignoring.

Well if I've missed your point I'm sorry. But to be perfectly honest, I haven't been able to detect any point beyond rephrasing Dawkins' line about this universe not being what we would expect if there were a God. You might think it but that doesn't mean everybody else does. I've challenged this assertion from the outset, and in doing so, I've used a number of colourful analogies (quite literally) to explain why.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but Apple would not design an iPod with a crack in the screen. A cracked iPod does not look designed by Apple.

I agree that Apple aren't going to put cracks in screens - but it really all depends on what we think constitutes the crack. For instance, I think it is arguable that plate tectonics are not the equivalent of a crack on a screen. Rather, plate tectonics play some important role in the conditions for life to arise, and this brute fact of existence is consummate with a good (not perfect) creation. Sin is the crack.

What Dawkins seems to be saying is, "the God I would believe in (heaven forbid!) would do it another way. My way!" And unless we are going to go visit the depths of theodicy - which may or may not yield any satisfactory answers about evil and suffering - such a statement amounts in worth to a proclamation that "chocolate is better than vanilla because I, Richard Dawkins, says so."

Wicknight wrote: »

Man alive how many times do I have to make the same point over and over.

Maybe, just maybe, you need to understand that I don't find your opinion all that convincing, and that repeating it, or telling me of your frustration, isn't going to make me accept what you say as being accurate.

Wicknight wrote: »

You and PDN seem insistent on arguing this rather simple point down to the bone.

It normally takes a minimum of two to hold a conversation. While it might appear to yo that I am arguing for the sake of it, perhaps you can try and imagine how it might look from the other side. The same, perhaps?

Wicknight wrote: »

You and me seem to come to these junctions rather a lot Fanny.

It's nothing personal. You express your opinion here a great deal and I just so happen to disagree with you on most of your opinions about the thing you hate.

Wicknight wrote: »

Take a second and consider that what ever you think I'm saying I might not be.

Sure - you might just be right. If you message is more complex than I understand it to be, please dumb it down for me.

Wicknight wrote: »

Because we know how this goes, I continue to explain my point against a barrage of questions and accusations until eventually you or PDN complain that I'm going down a rabbit hole. My point is the same as it was the first post.

It has been a while since I last used the term "rabbit hole"* and I don't feel the need to use it again. Some times I ask questions because I want to find out answers.


*Actually, it was nearly a year ago that I used this term. Indeed, according to a quick search I've only used the term once on Boards.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Sin is the crack.

Would you expect God, as part of creation, to make a universe full of sin?

IE imagine the Fall never happened. Would you expect the universe to be as it is now?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What Dawkins seems to be saying is, "the God I would believe in (heaven forbid!) would do it another way. My way!"

Dawkins is saying the same thing you are saying, God would not create the universe as it is now. In both Jewish and Christian theology the universe as it is now required that the Fall happened. This is an event after creation that puts the universe into the state it is now, with all that entails from suffering to sin.

You and every other Jew and Christian:
God creates the universe different to how it is now => The Fall happens => The universe we end up with

Dawkins: The universe we end up with

My point has always been that this is a perfectly reasonable conclusion if you don't first have a belief in the Christian god and the Fall as an historical event, which is why attacking Dawkins for it is a bit silly.

Dawkins has reached the same conclusion you guys have, he just doesn't have belief in the Fall to explain it. Instead it is explained by God simply not being there in the first place.

Arguing that we can still believe God made the world and then the Fall happened, which you have been for the last few posts, is irrelevant to my point.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Maybe, just maybe, you need to understand that I don't find your opinion all that convincing

Neither you nor PDN have yet to accurately present my opinion, so perhaps if you took a minute to properly think about it without simply dismissing it because an atheist said it, you would.

You both keep going on about how this argument is some how supposed to be an argument for Christians that there is no god and this seems to be really getting your back up. How dare an atheist come onto this forum and tell me my belief in the Fall means I don't believe in God, or some such nonsense. Why I've no idea, I never mentioned anything about this argument proving God doesn't exist.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Dawkins is saying the same thing you are saying, God would not create the universe as it is now.

But isn't Dawkins using the way the world is to support the notion that God doesn't exist. Isn't his approach thus: "I mean, just take a look at the world? Does this (insert something evil here) look like it's the design of a benevolent God??"

In which case he'd be the one erecting a straw-god given that Christianity doesn't posit God creating the world in the way it currently is.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

But isn't Dawkins using the way the world is to support the notion that God doesn't exist.

Whether he is or not is not relevant to my point.

philologos

liamw wrote: »

I know that's obvious. In what way do you think God keeps this universe 'functioning'?

1) If God didn't exist, this universe wouldn't be to begin with.
2) Personally I would hold that all things are held together by God, precisely because the scientific functioning of the universe wouldn't exist if God hadn't created it like everything else. Without God there is nothing. He's intrinsically central to Creation.

Colossians 1:15-17 wrote:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all Creation. For by Him all things were created things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

liamw wrote: »

IThere's no jump on Dawkin's part. You're the one making the jump. You make the assertion that there is positively a God, but Dawkins is merely pointing out that this God does not appear to intervene in the universe at all. There is nothing to suggest that there is a God in the manner in which the universe and events within it operate.

It's illogical to say the following:

That is, there is no reason to think there's a god; everything happens just as we would expect without a god.

How can we say we know what we would expect without God, if we don't know that we have been living without Him? It's absurd to say this to a Christian, because if God exists we've known nothing apart from His existence. Therefore we cannot tell what to expect without God.

liamw wrote: »

Your logic fails becuase the athiest position does not make any postitive assertions. The position merely rejects YOUR assertion that there is definitely a God.

It depends how much we distinguish between atheism and agnosticism. Personally, I think Dawkins' opinion is a leap from de-facto agnosticism.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

How can we say we know what we would expect without God, if we don't know that we have been living without Him?

The way your god is defined by your religion there is obviously a limit to how much we can say about what a world would look like without God (your god can always be just over the hill, always explaining what we haven't already explained).

But equally we have got this far and have yet to find anything that requires God. There isn't a single scientific theory that requires God.

We can construct a pretty finished model of the universe that doesn't have God in it and it functions the same as this one.

That isn't an argument to convince a believer that God doesn't exist (like I said God can always be placed just out of reach, always explaining what we can't explain, God of the gaps as it where), it is more an argument against this notion that the universe some how needs God to be the way it is.

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

The way your god is defined by your religion there is obviously a limit to how much we can say about what a world would look like without God (your god can always be just over the hill, always explaining what we haven't already explained).

As I see it, I've never been in a universe without God. Therefore I cannot know what a universe without God would look like.

Wicknight wrote: »

But equally we have got this far and have yet to find anything that requires God. There isn't a single scientific theory that requires God.

The existence of the universe itself I'd suspect since most scientists are in agreement that the universe is of a finite age.

Wicknight wrote: »

We can construct a pretty finished model of the universe that doesn't have God in it and it functions the same as this one.

I'm sure one can describe the universe without assessing its cause, but the cause is the most pivotal aspect about it.

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't an argument to convince a believer that God doesn't exist (like I said God can always be placed just out of reach, always explaining what we can't explain, God of the gaps as it where), it is more an argument against this notion that the universe some how needs God to be the way it is.

Well unless the universe caused itself that is.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

1) If God didn't exist, this universe wouldn't be to begin with.

Turtles all the way down eh ?

Surely Jakkass you see how bad that argument is. The Universe is, it does exist. There is no question about it's existence unless you go down the philosophical route.

Whereas there is nothing whatsoever to suggest that a deity exists, nothing physical, nothing we can test, nothing we can do.

Maybe it does exist, I don't know and neither can anyone else.

2) Personally I would hold that all things are held together by God, precisely because the scientific functioning of the universe wouldn't exist if God hadn't created it like everything else. Without God there is nothing. He's intrinsically central to Creation.

Again, completely circular.

How can we say we know what we would expect without God, if we don't know that we have been living without Him?

Because we can scientifically explain a great deal of the Universe and none of it requires a deity. Every year we can explain more and more of the Universe, of existence and it functions without a deity.

Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là (There is no need for that hypothesis) - Pierre-Simon Laplace to Napoleon when quizzed as to why his book on astronomy didn't mention god.

Just looking at one part of science, Abiogenesis and Evolution.

The Theory of Evolution (Life changes over generations) is undeniable at this stage. All life on this planet came from a common ancestor. There is more evidence for this than there is evidence for gravity.

Abiogenesis (origin of life) is nowhere near as well supported as evolution but there's quite a lot of evidence here as well.

So if, in a few years we are indeed able to successfully reproduce abiogenesis or we attain (good) evidence backing up one of the hypothesis' we have effectively ruled god out of the question of where life came from just as we have already ruled him out of the question of "Where did the diversity of life come from ?"

Obviously you can still stick him into the blank next to "Where did the Universe come from ?" but his domain grows smaller all the time.

I'm also well aware that you probably deny Evolution (and abiogenesis) but thats quite simply as wrong as denying Heliocentricity or Gravity.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

As I see it, I've never been in a universe without God. Therefore I cannot know what a universe without God would look like.

Yes but you have other reasons for believing God exists separate to this discussion. You bring that assumption with you into this discussion. Someone like Dawkins doesn't.

Jakkass wrote: »

The existence of the universe itself I'd suspect since most scientists are in agreement that the universe is of a finite age.

There is no reason to say the existence of the universe requires God, and in fact there are a number of hypothesis as to how the universe came about that don't have anything to do with God.

And one suspects that if scientists do figure out say M-theory and show that the universe was created as a product of say two high dimensional branes colliding, theists will simply say "Where did the branes come from?"

God is constantly pushed further and further out.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm sure one can describe the universe without assessing its cause, but the cause is the most pivotal aspect about it.

But the cause is simply something we don't know, which is why God is inserted into to it.

Everything we do know doesn't require God. It works perfectly well if in the model there is no mention of God at all. People used to think gods where required for rain. People (including Newton) used to think that God held the stars and the planets up. People used to think that God had to have created the species etc etc.

And this is a pattern that has been repeated for the last 600 years in natural philosophy and science. God is always used to explain the thing we don't know and then we find an actual explanation that has nothing to do with God and God is shifted further away.

You can understand I hope why someone like Dawkins is not impressed by claims that God is responsible for the universe. The same theists who make this claim I suspect (including yourself) will have no problem dropping the claim if and when we do find out a non-divine cause for the universe. They will simply shift God simply further still.

Which makes it difficult if not impossible to take the claim seriously in the first place. Humans have been wrong so many times before as to what we think God is or is not directly responsible for. Why would we think this generation is any different?

Jakkass wrote: »

Well unless the universe caused itself that is.

Which is a distinct possibility.

Genuine question, at what point would you be satisfied that God had nothing to do with the universe?

If it is discovered that some infinite loop or some fundamental always existing particle or field caused the creation of the universe (ie something that itself is not created), would you then be happy to reject God as an explanation?

Or would you simply shift God further away and use God to explain this infinite loop?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Would you expect God, as part of creation, to make a universe full of sin?

IE imagine the Fall never happened. Would you expect the universe to be as it is now?

No, I wouldn't expect the universe to be the same. But that his neither here nor there. The nub of this disagreement is what can we say about the universe as it is now - does it point to God? I think it does. You think it doesn't. That is fine!

I stepped into this debate because in your opening line you decided to speak for the rest of us. You know the one where you told us that Christianity supposes that the universe doesn't look like it was created by God? I believe this to be incorrect.

Wicknight wrote: »

Dawkins is saying the same thing you are saying, God would not create the universe as it is now.

On some superficial level there might be some overlap. However, Dawkins isn't just saying that God would not create the universe as it is now. He is saying that the universe as we understand it is exactly what one would expect if there was no purpose and no God - certainly not the Christian God.

Wicknight wrote: »

You and every other Jew and Christian:
God creates the universe different to how it is now => The Fall happens => The universe we end up with

Dawkins: The universe we end up with

Thanks for the synopsis. But it really isn't very valid to what we are talking about.

Wicknight wrote: »

My point has always been that this is a perfectly reasonable conclusion if you don't first have a belief in the Christian god and the Fall as an historical event, which is why attacking Dawkins for it is a bit silly.

And have I disagreed that it is a reasonable conclusion to reach if you are coming from a certain perspective? No! In my last post I actually said that Dawkins' words would most probably make sense to the non-believer. It would be quite odd to be a non-Christian and be of the opinion that the universe shows some signs of the Christian God.

If you were just saying that it's a reasonable conclusion for the non-believer I wouldn't have felt any compunction to enter into this debate. But you aren't saying just that.

Wicknight wrote: »

Dawkins has reached the same conclusion you guys have.

Unless Dawkins is positing a creator God, and he believes there was a fundamental change in the nature of the universe - meaning things like sin and evil entered the world and they exist objectively - and he looks forward to new creation, then we have not reached the same conclusion. Finally, and most importantly to our conversation, if Dawkins is saying that this universe doesn't look like it was created by God then we aren't even close to agreement.

Wicknight wrote: »

Arguing that we can still believe God made the world and then the Fall happened, which you have been for the last few posts, is irrelevant to my point.

You keep saying this. Why?

Wicknight wrote: »

Neither you nor PDN have yet to accurately present my opinion, so perhaps if you took a minute to properly think about it without simply dismissing it because an atheist said it, you would.

And I've asked you nicely to dumb it down for me - but it doesn't seem like you have much else to say. PDN and myself are fairly intelligent guys, perhaps you aren't explaining yourself very well.

Wicknight wrote: »

You both keep going on about how this argument is some how supposed to be an argument for Christians that there is no god and this seems to be really getting your back up.

And it isn't presented as an argument against the God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam? But that is really an aside because this debate we are having is because you did not accurately represent the views of Christianity.

Wicknight wrote: »

How dare an atheist come onto this forum and tell me my belief in the Fall means I don't believe in God, or some such nonsense.

Why do you feel the need to continually speak for me or attempt to guess my feelings?

*You tell me what I should believe.
*You accuse me of being argumentative and pedantic. (I've not said the same of you.)
*You attempt to pre-empt my next post by telling me that I'm going to accuse you of "going down rabbit holes".
*You insert outrage into words that I never wrote "How dare and atheist..." (I'll tell you now that I have not been overcome by indignation at your presence on this thread.)
*You accuse me of being motivated to question your opinions simply because you are atheist.

None of these are true. And I would appreciate it if you cut out the slurs or stopped responding.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why I've no idea, I never mentioned anything about this argument proving God doesn't exist.

As I said above, I certainly think it has been presented as an argument against God. However, this is neither here nor there. I'll say it again because you clearly aren't understanding me. Christianity does not "suppose that the universe doesn't look like it was created by God". I think that you are misunderstanding what (orthodox) Christianity says about creation and the Fall.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, I wouldn't expect the universe to be the same. But that his neither here nor there. The nub of this disagreement is what can we say about the universe as it is now - does it point to God? I think it does. You think it doesn't. That is fine!

You're making a positive statement, you are inserting something very specific without any scientific evidence whatsoever to back it up.

What in the Universe do you think points to god ? What can not be explained by Science ?

Bearing in mind we already have hypothesis' (but no theory/concrete evidence) as to how the Universe was formed.

On some superficial level there might be some overlap. However, Dawkins isn't just saying that God would not create the universe as it is now. He is saying that the universe as we understand it is exactly what one would expect if there was no purpose and no God - certainly not the Christian God.

And why do you think that is incorrect ?

God used to be credited for the weather.
Now, all scientific evidence without exception points to natural explanations.
God is pushed back.

God used to be credited with the diversity of life.
Now, all scientific evidence without exception points to Evolution, a completely natural phenomenon to explain the diversity of life.
God is pushed back.

God used to be credited with .......

And it goes on and on.

Even now, many people credit god with the creation of life.
Now, a lot of scientific evidence points to abiogenesis. A completely natural phenomenon to explain the origin of life.
God will probably be pushed back again when the evidence for this is more concrete. (I'm not saying it will, just that it's very probable)

In each case gods contribution to the Universe is simply pushed back. What will happen Fanny if we discover insurmountable evidence tomorrow that our Universe simply poofed into existence ?

You are taking a stance that is unfalsifiable.

And have I disagreed that it is a reasonable conclusion to reach if you are coming from a certain perspective? No! In my last post I actually said that Dawkins' words would most probably make sense to the non-believer. It would be quite odd to be a non-Christian and be of the opinion that the universe shows some signs of the Christian God.

Name one.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No, I wouldn't expect the universe to be the same. But that his neither here nor there. The nub of this disagreement is what can we say about the universe as it is now - does it point to God?

No that isn't the nub of this disagreement.

The nub of the disagreement is over how reasonable it is for Dawkins to hold the position that a universe that functions without the need for God, and that contains elements that God would never have created, is easily explained by there simply being no God, an explanation that is less convoluted that God existing plus the Fall happening.

Everything else is just irrelevant arguing on PDN and your part.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I stepped into this debate because in your opening line you decided to speak for the rest of us. You know the one where you told us that Christianity supposes that the universe doesn't look like it was created by God? I believe this to be incorrect.

Christianity does suppose that the universe doesn't look like it was created by God because the universe contains tons of sin and God wouldn't create sin.

Which is why the Fall is required as an explanation for this.

You don't actually disagree with the idea that both God wouldn't create sin and that the Fall changed the universe and introduced sin (taking from your own words).

What appears to be your bee in your bonnet is that you some how think that I'm saying this means you can't believe that the universe was created by God.

Which of course it means nothing of the sort.

In fact the whole point of the Fall is that it explains how God could create the universe and yet the universe could still be full of sin, thus looking like it wasn't created by God.

Imagine though for a second that you didn't have the notion of the Fall. You just had the idea that the universe was full of sin. Does this look like a universe God would create? Would God create a universe full of sin? Of course not, that goes against the definition of God as holy.

Can God have created a universe that didn't have sin (ie didn't look like this one) and then through some other event sin entered the world? Yes, of course.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Thanks for the synopsis. But it really isn't very valid to what we are talking about.

It is completely valid. All Dawkins is doing is removing the extra steps you require to get from God made the universe to a universe full of sin and corruption.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And have I disagreed that it is a reasonable conclusion to reach if you are coming from a certain perspective? No!

No you haven't, which is the source of my frustration. You have spend your whole time arguing irrelevant points simply to be argumentative, while ignoring the central point that you now apparent agree with.

Which is why my frustration level rises ever time I get a reply from you because I know you aren't listening properly to my actual point.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If you were just saying that it's a reasonable conclusion for the non-believer I wouldn't have felt any compunction to enter into this debate. But you aren't saying just that.

That is what I'm saying, hence the annoyance at your posts.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

You keep saying this. Why?

Because you keep ignoring it.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And I've asked you nicely to dumb it down for me - but it doesn't seem like you have much else to say.

I have very little more to say that my original point which you now appear to agree with.

I have a strange sense of deja vue over this whole experience, it seems any time I get into this type of discussion with you it ends up with you arguing with me for a few pages before you say you of course agreed with that point all along.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

PDN and myself are fairly intelligent guys, perhaps you aren't explaining yourself very well.

I think a far more rational explanation is that when ever you or PDN see an atheist post something on this forum your knee jerk reaction is that it must be wrong no matter what was said and come out guns blazing, only to settle down a few pages later after the poor unfortunate atheist (in this case me) has had to explain every six ways from Sunday, his post in minute detail because you couldn't be bothered to simply read it proper the first time.

philologos

monosharp: At present I'm a theistic evolutionist. Meaning that I subscribe to the view of evolution, while holding it to be a key part of God's greater creation.

I don't think it's fair in a discussion to assume what people do or don't believe. If you are uncertain ask!

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

You're making a positive statement, you are inserting something very specific without any scientific evidence whatsoever to back it up.

What in the Universe do you think points to god ? What can not be explained by Science ?

But I'm not interested in presenting my reasons for believing that God created this universe. We have had that debate countless times before on this forum and you clearly aren't the man to be convinced. There is no point in asking me to explain myself again. I entered into this debate to challenge the idea that Christianity supposes that the universe doesn't look like it was created by God.

monosharp

Jakkass wrote: »

monosharp: At present I'm a theistic evolutionist. Meaning that I subscribe to the view of evolution, while holding it to be a key part of God's greater creation.

I don't think it's fair in a discussion to assume what people do or don't believe. If you are uncertain ask!

I do sincerely apologise.

As an aside, I don't hold to theistic evolution but I have no problem with it whatsoever as where you have god I only have "I don't know".

Again, sincerely sorry.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

No that isn't the nub of this disagreement.

The nub of the disagreement is over how reasonable it is for Dawkins to hold the position that a universe that functions without the need for God, and that contains elements that God would never have created, is easily explained by there simply being no God, an explanation that is less convoluted that God existing plus the Fall happening.

Everything else is just irrelevant arguing on PDN and your part.



Christianity does suppose that the universe doesn't look like it was created by God because the universe contains tons of sin and God wouldn't create sin.

Which is why the Fall is required as an explanation for this.

You don't actually disagree with the idea that both God wouldn't create sin and that the Fall changed the universe and introduced sin (taking from your own words).

What appears to be your bee in your bonnet is that you some how think that I'm saying this means you can't believe that the universe was created by God.

Which of course it means nothing of the sort.

In fact the whole point of the Fall is that it explains how God could create the universe and yet the universe could still be full of sin, thus looking like it wasn't created by God.

Imagine though for a second that you didn't have the notion of the Fall. You just had the idea that the universe was full of sin. Does this look like a universe God would create? Would God create a universe full of sin? Of course not, that goes against the definition of God as holy.

Can God have created a universe that didn't have sin (ie didn't look like this one) and then through some other event sin entered the world? Yes, of course.


It is completely valid. All Dawkins is doing is removing the extra steps you require to get from God made the universe to a universe full of sin and corruption.



No you haven't, which is the source of my frustration. You have spend your whole time arguing irrelevant points simply to be argumentative, while ignoring the central point that you now apparent agree with.

Which is why my frustration level rises ever time I get a reply from you because I know you aren't listening properly to my actual point.



That is what I'm saying, hence the annoyance at your posts.


Because you keep ignoring it.



I have very little more to say that my original point which you now appear to agree with.

I have a strange sense of deja vue over this whole experience, it seems any time I get into this type of discussion with you it ends up with you arguing with me for a few pages before you say you of course agreed with that point all along.



I think a far more rational explanation is that when ever you or PDN see an atheist post something on this forum your knee jerk reaction is that it must be wrong no matter what was said and come out guns blazing, only to settle down a few pages later after the poor unfortunate atheist (in this case me) has had to explain every six ways from Sunday, his post in minute detail because you couldn't be bothered to simply read it proper the first time.

Fine, Wk. You are right. You are always right.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Fine, Wk. You are right. You are always right.

Next time can we do that without the 3 pages of argumentative nonsense. :rolleyes:

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I entered into this debate to challenge the idea that Christianity supposes that the universe doesn't look like it was created by God.

Honestly, I don't understand how you can say that when you have already said you need the fall to explain why the Universe is as it is.

Your making one positive assertion, that the universe looks like it was created by god.

But that assertion only works if you make another positive assertion which states any flaws/errors/other in the Universe is the result of the fall.

And at the same time you can't explain how the Universe was before the fall, meaning you can't explain how the Universe supposedly looked like when (if) god created it.

How can you possibly claim the Universe looks like god created it when you don't know what it was like before the fall, neither do you know what the fall changed and even more so than the first two, you can't point to a single thing which insinuates that there was a deity involved at all.

Occam's razor applies here. The simplest explanation is that the Universe doesn't look designed because it wasn't designed.

Fanny Cradock

Do you have a point, monosharp?

Let me explain it again to you very carefully. I entered into this debate to challenge WK's assertion that Christianity supposes that the universe doesn't look like it was created by God. Why? Because I believe that Christianity teaches that the universe looks like something God would create. Yeah?

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Do you have a point, monosharp?

Let me explain it again to you very carefully.

Have I been rude to you ? Why are you responding to me like that ?

I entered into this debate to challenge WK's assertion that Christianity supposes that the universe doesn't look like it was created by God. Why? Because I believe that Christianity teaches that the universe looks like something God would create. Yeah?

Can you please explain how you can make that leap ? What makes it 'look' like it's something god would create ? What would make it look like it wasn't created by god ?

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

Have I been rude to you ? Why are you responding to me like that ?

OK, I apologise. It was rude.

Pushtrak

New video.