Deconversion by Evid3nc3

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.