Article: The Atheist's Dilemma

by BurnTheShips 150 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  inkling

  It is alleged that selection from a range of such mutations gives rise to complexity, but to state categorically that selection of mutations over a long time period is the origin of complexity is pushing it too far, since this is very difficult to demonstrate scientifically. For example, much is made of the ability of bacteria and viruses to 'adapt' to pathogens, but in every case this is a result of reduction in the organism's complexity, as pointed out by Michael Behe in 'The Edge of Evolution'.

  Uh... fail?
  
  Bacteria, in some case, GAIN abilities, such as the biological
  tools required to process nylon.
  
  Digesting nylon required a specific enzyme that these bacteria
  did not have before the invention of nylon in 1935.
  
  Now they do.

  What would you call that, if not an "increase in complexity"?

  [inkling]
• 

  mcsemike

  Thousands of people, many with genius IQ'a, have debated this issue, ships. Let's define a few terms if that's okay. When I studied physics, philosophy, religion, and psychology, we used these terms. Theist is a person who feels he can PROVE God exists. An atheist feels he can prove that God does NOT exist. An agnostic feels neither side can prove its belief SO FAR. But an agnostic leaves the door open. Now if this is okay, let's look at a few things.

  I believe, and this is my degree in Psych speaking, that you violate the very concepts you are discussing. If an angel from God appeared, you say. How would anyone prove it was an angel? Even if you said "well, it's what we Christians think angels are or have seen them to be in the past" you still cannot prove it. It might be another type of creature that roams this planet. It could be an alien. It could be either of them with a sense of humor.

  I want you to know I do not defend atheists. I feel their position to be untenable. How can anyone say God does not or cannot exist when he has not even left this planet? Do you people from either side realize how large this universe is? How many dimensions it might have? How time, space, and atomic behavior affect your senses and even your brains? Are you aware that there is more to the "how we got here" argument than just creation vs. evolution? Could there be a third method that produced what you THINK you observe today? What if there were a third or FOURTH method, but no one, including myself, can even imagine it due to the limitations of our minds?

  Just because we have the intelligent or imagination to ask certain questions, it does NOT follow that we have the IQ to understand the answers. We could be in a jar on the shelf of some Martian laboratory for all you know. This might sound like I've watched too many Outer Limits episodes, but the fourth and last dimension isn't necessarily TIME and then that's the end of it. Many now question Einstein's theories and some now are exploring the string theory and others. Can you conceive of space being curved? Can you explain why time slow down the faster you travel through space?

  What happens if you pass the speed of light? Many said you would turn into energy (and die). But if we never exceed the speed of light, how will we ever get anywhere in this galaxy? Do these angels of yours travel at the "speed of thought" as the poet states? What are they made of?

  E=mc2 had a meaning for Einstein. Many also said matter cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed in shape or form. That's how matter becomes energy in an atomic explosion. If God is pure energy, who or what made Him? An old argument, but no one has yet to provide an answer that satisfies logic. "He's always been here"? How? Why wait for billions of years to make Jesus. To play chess with for billions more years, then say "hey, let's have some fun and make a universe"? I don't think so.

  If you study infinity, positive infinity and negative infinity are supposed to be equal. Whatever number you name (n, n+1, etc.) as a positive, then a negative of the same number can be defined. In easy terms, we can imagine living forever and God living forever with us. It's like seeing a light go on or be on already and just picturing it never going out. But it's far more difficult to imagine that same light as having ALWAYS been on and asking this God "yesterday?" YES, the day before, yes, etc. That's what God would have had to be. Can you explain how something can ALWAYS HAVE EXISTED? Then can you prove it?? I doubt it.

  The last point is psychology. No one is immune to preconceived or needed at the time beliefs. Most of us were rabid non-believers, then JW's, just as rabid believers, then many left and became more rabid non-believers. We saw no new evidence in the universe, what changed was what we chose to view and how we chose to view it. It happened to me so I'm not placing myself above you.

  To conclude, I will give one million dollars cash to anyone who can prove in a proper scientific manner that God exists. I will never have to award that money in the next several million years. Humans don't have the technology to explore enough of the universe to say with certainty what is or is NOT out there. And we'll leave LSD and other things out of this, but if you want a really good argument, try telling someone who is tripping that the telephone poles are NOT swaying in the wind on a calm day.

  Good luck.
• 

  drwtsn32

  I want you to know I do not defend atheists. I feel their position to be untenable.

  I appreciate your reply and agree with your thinking behind the above statement. However, you should know that most people that call themselves atheists do not believe it is possible to actively disprove god's existence. Most atheists simply lack any theistic beliefs. This position is known as "weak atheism" or "agnostic atheism."

  I hate these labels because people have so many different ideas about what it means.

  And finally, BMW rocks. 335xi owner here. ;)
• 

  glenster

  Belief in God is faith. Even the NT says you're saved by faith--a hope
  commitment in a possible God. In my ideal of it, it's not a disagreement about
  the see-able, touchable, measureable things (some people's arguments for literal
  interpretations of Genesis and such notwithstanding). I would think both sides
  of it would understand that, it's just one chooses to hope for a God beyond those
  things and the other doesn't. When either side tries to rationalize it too much,
  I think they miss the point. It's fair game that one might try to persuade the
  other to their choice, but whether the other goes for it or not, I hope they're
  still friends afterward.

  But when people see they're in a group, some rationalize they're the good ones
  and others are stupid and crazy and cause all the trouble in the world--they get
  'centric. They might do it over race, income level, nationality, etc., and they
  might do it over the choice of whether or not to believe in God. But a recent
  article in Yahoo showed that more kids in school are more relaxed over each
  other's different choices about God. I think that's healthy.

  It's when people get too 'centric over it that someone is burned at the stake
  or the jets fly into the skyscrapers or a Hitler tries for genocide and to mani-
  pulate Christianity or a Stalin has tens of thousands of priests, etc., killed.
  I wouldn't knock myself out arguing over the seeable, touchable things because
  that isn't where the difference is. And you want to guard against getting
  'centric about it, which is what rationalizing to try to persade someone else to
  your choice can get into.
• 

  Leolaia

  This is imo a flawed argument. It first notes that Dawkins comes from the standpoint of science and asks if there is anything that could constitute scientific evidence of God's existence. But then Campos mentions things that strictly lie in the subjective sphere -- things that cannot be distinguished from hallucinations, psychotic breaks, being fooled by trickery, etc. But it is empirical evidence that can be measured, observed, recorded, tested, and duplicated that lies under the purview of science. It is the same situation with the possibility of extraterrestial life. There are many who profess to have subjective experiences with ETs, whether close encounters of UFOs or personal abductions or telepathic contact through channeling. All of this can be dismissed as proof of the existence of ETs when examined critically, as these do not provide evidence that cannot be otherwise explained by other hypotheses. But there certainly can be empirical discoveries (or encounters) that establish their existence beyond doubt (no less than the discovery of a new planet or galaxy or star). I do not see any reason why God could not -- as a purely hypothetical possibility -- make his presence known in a non-subjective manner that cannot be dismissed as a hoax or hallucination. There can be any number of scenarios in which God sends a message in a manner that (1) lies beyond the scope of a hoax (e.g. present throughout nature at many different levels), (2) can be measured by instruments, recorded, and replicated, (3) contains specific information that has predictive value, and so forth. Maybe it takes a little imagination, but it is not inconceivable.
• 

  Leolaia

  BTW, faith is not based on empirical data -- it is (at least in one tradition) the substance of things not seen or beheld. Ideally, belief in God is not established via observation of the perceivable world but through personal subjective experience, e.g. how the believer feels that God has impacted his or her life. It is thus not something extracted via scientific observation but a conceptual frame through which the world is interpreted and experienced.
• 

  inkling

  It is the same situation with the possibility of extraterrestial life.

  This strikes me as an important point, because it seems like the majority of scientists have
  no pre-existing prejudice against the idea, like it is claimed they do against the idea of god
  or angels.
  
  And yet, the majority of scientists also do not believe UFO/abduction stories, and for the
  very same reason they do not believe angel stories: no good evidence.
  
  What scientist wouldn't want to prove alien contact? Sadly, they have to play by the rules,
  and the rules say that a guy claiming to see something in a corn field is one of the weakest
  types of evidence there is.
  
  And as Sagan pointed out, the evidence for god and angels tends to be of exactly the same
  quality.

  [inkling]
• 

  MissingLink

  I think this article is offensive. It's claim is that Mr. Dawkins is incapable of changing his mind when presented with evidence proving him wrong. This is a rediculous claim that could be put on anyone. Yes, there are people who are like that, but this article does not give evidence of that in this specific case.

  I was a hard-core creationist until the facts were presented to me. I learned, and changed my opinion. I like to think a good percentage of people are reasonable and rational.
• 

  hamilcarr

  I do not see any reason why God could not -- as a purely hypothetical possibility -- make his presence known in a non-subjective manner that cannot be dismissed as a hoax or hallucination. There can be any number of scenarios in which God sends a message in a manner that (1) lies beyond the scope of a hoax (e.g. present throughout nature at many different levels), (2) can be measured by instruments, recorded, and replicated, (3) contains specific information that has predictive value, and so forth. Maybe it takes a little imagination, but it is not inconceivable.

  That's when God would become god. He would get transferred from the religious to the secular (scientific) realm and lose his sacral character.
• 

  inkling

  That's when God would become god. He would get transferred from the religious to the secular (scientific) realm and lose his sacral character.

  This may be true... however, it has happened many times before. The sun used to be god.
  Its warmth was a miracle, explainable only via supernatural means, becuase something
  that bright "naturally" was inconceivable.
  
  Now, has the sun lost its "sacral character"? Yeah, I suppose in a way. That dosn't stop
  it from feeling just as profound (to me) when it breaks through the clouds after a vicious
  rainstorm, or any less meaningful when it warms the life on the forest floor.
  
  My point is that just because we "figure something out" doesn't change its intrinsic value,
  if it has any.

  (when we "figured out" why crops grow, growing crops kept their value, while "human sacrifice"
  was thankfully revealed to HAVE no intrinsic value. How many people are sad that human
  sacrifice has "lost its sacral nature"?)

  If there IS a god, and he becomes known scientifically, then god ceases to supernatural.

  Or at very least, no more "outside of nature" than whatever was "outside" the universe
  before the big bang, or on the "other side" of a black hole. This would not make god any
  less profound. Or any less valuable.

  Or even any less mysterious... I mean, even as we study them, things like black holes
  and quantum machanics simply refuse to allow us to truly wrap our heads around
  their meaning. And yet, they clearly "exist" scientifically. Nature seems to have an
  endless supply of the weird and mysterious, but even though it baffles us, the
  weirdness can still be measured or at least demonstrated in some way.
  
  That is god's problem. He is wierd and ineffable and ALSO cannot be measured or
  experienced in any objective way, unlike black holes.
  
  On the contrary, having settled the issue of his existence, humans could get down to
  the business of "developing a relationship" with their creator without the nagging feeling
  that maybe they are just talking to themselves.

  [inkling]