01 Dec 08
I see the problem with Christianity as being, it has turned off thinking individuals from even sticking their toe in the spiritual arena. A smart friend of mine claims to be an athiest because Christianity is so nut's in so many ways, and God must be a fictional character because the Christian's paint such a looney tune vision of diety. There is great big world of other ideas on the nature of God that have nothing to do with the Christian concept. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. For the universe to be a big accident to me is the most unbelieveable belief of all. That is incomprenensible to me just as much as the Christian story that does not charm me in any way.
01 Dec 08
Originally posted by buckkySo what do you suggest we do?
I see the problem with Christianity as being, it has turned off thinking individuals from even sticking their toe in the spiritual arena. A smart friend of mine claims to be an athiest because Christianity is so nut's in so many ways, and God must be a fictional character because the Christian's paint such a looney tune vision of diety. There is great big wo ...[text shortened]... incomprenensible to me just as much as the Christian story that does not charm me in any way.
01 Dec 08
3 edits
Originally posted by buckkyAs I said in another thread, the typical theist answer to the 'accident' dilemma is to posit a god(s) that is even more complex than the universe, then fail to explain how that god(s) came to be.
For the universe to be a big accident to me is the most unbelieveable belief of all. That is incomprenensible to me just as much as the Christian story that does not charm me in any way.
01 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitExcept with the Christian stand which is God is eternal, there was
As I said in another thread, the typical theist answer to the 'accident' dilemma is to posit a god(s) that is even more complex than the universe, then fail to explain how that god(s) came to be.
never a minute ever that God wasn't, God is, and God will be. Unlike
the universe which everone says had a beginning, which means there
was a time it wasn't before the beginning, and atheist seem to fall
apart on that point.
Kelly
01 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by buckkyIf you understand the science of modern-day cosmology you should understand that modern-day cosmology does not say nor imply in any way that the universe came into existence by an “accident”.
...For the universe to be a big accident to me is the most unbelieveable belief of all. ...
The main-stream big bang theory kind of implies that the berth of the universe was not a “caused event” nor even an “uncaused event” for it wasn’t even an “event”!
I hope most atheists (like myself) understand this fact and thus don’t erroneously believe that the universe had to be created by some kind of “big accident”.
01 Dec 08
Originally posted by KellyJayEveryone must 'fall apart' at some point - I cannot explain how matter came to be; you cannot explain how god came to be. The illusion is that the introduction of a god makes the question of Origin any easier.
Except with the Christian stand which is God is eternal, there was
never a minute ever that God wasn't, God is, and God will be. Unlike
the universe which everone says had a beginning, which means there
was a time it wasn't before the beginning, and atheist seem to fall
apart on that point.
Kelly
01 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitHave you by chance been reading The God Delusion lately? 🙂
As I said in another thread, the typical theist answer to the 'accident' dilemma is to posit a god(s) that is even more complex than the universe, then fail to explain how that god(s) came to be.
Alvin Plantinga's article, "The Dawkins Confusion," confronts this problem head on, and quite successfully:
"According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and property, actuality and potentiality, essence and existence, and the like. Some of the discussions of divine simplicity get pretty complicated, not to say arcane. (It isn't only Catholic theology that declares God simple; according to the Belgic Confession, a splendid expression of Reformed Christianity, God is "a single and simple spiritual being." ) So first, according to classical theology, God is simple, not complex. More remarkable, perhaps, is that according to Dawkins' own definition of complexity, God is not complex. According to his definition (set out in The Blind Watchmaker), something is complex if it has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts. A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
01 Dec 08
Originally posted by KellyJayI have corrected you on this once before. Not everyone believes that the universe had a beginning. I for one am not stuck on the idea.
Except with the Christian stand which is God is eternal, there was
never a minute ever that God wasn't, God is, and God will be. Unlike
the universe which everone says had a beginning, which means there
was a time it wasn't before the beginning, and atheist seem to fall
apart on that point.
Kelly
As for the 'falling apart' bit it is the erroneous conclusion of yours that makes us 'fall apart' with mirth at your failure to grasp fairly basic concepts.
01 Dec 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasI think he misunderstands what is meant by 'parts'. It is a well known fact that many Christians believe that God is made of three parts. at least. Just because God is not made of matter does not in any way make him 'simpler'.
But of course God is a spirit, not a material object at all, and hence has no parts. A fortiori (as philosophers like to say) God doesn't have parts arranged in ways unlikely to have arisen by chance. Therefore, given the definition of complexity Dawkins himself proposes, God is not complex."
01 Dec 08
Originally posted by buckkyBut does the use of 'God' get you anywhere in terms of alternative explanations and is it the only alternative explanation or even a reasonable one? And how do you define 'accidents' and why do you think their outcomes could not result in universes?
For the universe to be a big accident to me is the most unbelieveable belief of all. That is incomprenensible to me just as much as the Christian story that does not charm me in any way.
You should also keep firmly in mind that incredulity and failure to comprehend do not make good arguments. In fact it is probably better to simply say "I do not know" than to try to make conclusions based on something being incomprehensible.
01 Dec 08
Originally posted by KellyJayThat's not an atheistic view, that's a scientific view. Christians, hindus, jews and atheists think the same in this case, that the thing is unsettled. Even if scientists don't know much about the pre-Bangian era, some fundamentalistic religious people think they know more but infact know nothing.
Unlike the universe which everone says had a beginning, which means there was a time it wasn't before the beginning, and atheist seem to fall apart on that point.
01 Dec 08
Originally posted by KellyJayWell, not everyone says the universe had a beginning. There are a number of possible scenarios - discussed in the scientific community - that allow for an infinite universe or infinite multiverse.
Except with the Christian stand which is God is eternal, there was
never a minute ever that God wasn't, God is, and God will be. Unlike
the universe which everone says had a beginning, which means there
was a time it wasn't before the beginning, and atheist seem to fall
apart on that point.
Kelly
01 Dec 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasI haven't ever read the God Delusion.
Have you by chance been reading The God Delusion lately? 🙂
Alvin Plantinga's article, "The Dawkins Confusion," confronts this problem head on, and quite successfully:
"According to much classical theology (Thomas Aquinas, for example) God is simple, and simple in a very strong sense, so that in him there is no distinction of thing and prope ...[text shortened]... oses, God is not complex."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
And I don't see why it matters whether God is made of the same 'stuff' as we are, or no 'stuff' at all. God is complex in the sense that God knows all true propositions [omniscience] and designs other sentient beings. Regardless of the stuff God is actually made of, God has power to both interact with and know things about our world that cannot be called simple, at least not from our perspective.
02 Dec 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe word God does cause problems. The old guy with a beard sitting on a throne seems wacky and childish. I do sense intelligence
But does the use of 'God' get you anywhere in terms of alternative explanations and is it the only alternative explanation or even a reasonable one? And how do you define 'accidents' and why do you think their outcomes could not result in universes?
You should also keep firmly in mind that incredulity and failure to comprehend do not make good argument ...[text shortened]... "I do not know" than to try to make conclusions based on something being incomprehensible.
in creation. Have I turned that into personhood ? I don't know myself, but the idea that it all just happened somehow without purpose or intelligence is cold as ice and depressing. For me I need purpose and meaning even though I have no idea as to what the meaning would be.