Board index ‹ God

[Newbie]

Just wondering. What do you think would happen if you became an atheist?

[jimwalton]

Interesting question. I would have to turn a blind eye to all the evidence of the existence of God. I would have to refuse to acknowledge all the truth that has made me choose Christianity. I think if I were to become an atheist I would be tremendously miserable trying to live with the logical and practical disequilibrium of my choice.

[Pandora's Box]

As a former Catholic, I saw it more as rejecting what was claimed as truth. What truth do you speak of, though? We may not be on the same page on that.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for your question.

- The arguments for the existence of God (cosmological, teleological, ontological, analogical, and axiological) all make sense to me. They don't **prove** God, but they give reasonable and reasoned evidence that is consistent with what I see in science, the world, and myself. After all, we're all just trying to reason to the best inference given the reality we see around us.
- Science has virtually proven that the universe had a beginning. This is consistent with the Biblical world view.
- The universe is filled with objects and life forms that appear designed.
- It makes sense to me and rings true that personality is best explained as coming from a personal rather than an impersonal source.
- It makes sense to me and rings true that morality and conscience are best explained as coming from a moral rather than a subjective, naturalistic source.
- It makes sense to me and rings true that the purpose we see in the nature's cause and effect, as well as the metaphysical purpose we feel as humans is best explained as coming from a purposeful cause rather than a random one.
- I have studied the Scriptures deeply. I find that they are consonant with the human condition, with life as we know it, with the natural world I see around me, and with the urges, drives, and purposes I perceive in myself.
- In my observation, Christianity takes the roof off my intellectual pursuits, allowing me to expand both my thinking processes and the depths of my academic pursuits. I find Christianity liberating, and not binding or restrictive at all.
- To me the Bible is a remarkable book of unity, accuracy, harmony, continuity, and historicity.
- The Bible speaks a message of truth, hope, purpose, design, beauty, and meaning.

I hope that helps. There is so much more to say, but hopefully this answers your question.

[Jesse James]

Interesting stuff. Here are some of my thoughts on what I see as holes in your logic.

Cosmological argument: You say there must be one uncaused being. Why would the first uncaused thing have to be a "being"? If it's possible for anything to ever be uncaused, couldn't the universe itself be uncaused?

Ontological argument: The concept of God to me seems contradictory. All knowing, all powerful, all loving….he really requires acknowledgment, praise and love, and if he doesn't get it from you, you go to hell. This concept of God (the one that seems to be held by most believers) to me seems very contradictory.

teleological argument and enological argument both deal with intelligent design, but all you can say is that the universe "resembles" intelligent design. Eating and breathing through the same hole is not all that intelligent. An appendix that is a vestigial organ from when our ancestors needed it to eat grasses and such is not an intelligent design.

To me the intelligent design idea is like a puddle, sitting in a pothole. Imagine the puddle could think. The puddle thinks to itself 'this pothole fits me pretty well. In fact it fits me perfectly. It must have been designed for me.' The puddle doesn't see that it just fills in the opportunistic gaps…much like life does through biological evolution through natural selections of random genetic mutations that increase survivability and reproductiveness, thereby spreading those traits through a population. Unhelpful mutations are eliminated from the gene pool immediately.

Also, science does not explain everything. It is the process we use to understand the universe through observation.

[jimwalton]

Thank you for a respectful reply. I'll give you thumbs up for sincerity and courtesy.

As far as the cosmological argument, there is much to say, but I'll condense it with this: For the universe to have eternal existence, it must have been static (potential energy). But what moved the universe into kinetic energy? How did it get in motion? Personal causes are the only things capable of being first causes (though not every personal cause is a first cause.) You can never have an infinite chain of causes—it regresses. Whenever we see a chain of causes, we can always ask, "Who caused it?"

The ontological argument doesn't trace what your questions frame. First I'll sketch out the argument itself:

1. If God does not exist, His existence is logically impossible.
2. If God does exist, His existence is logically necessary.
3. Hence either God’s existence is logically impossible or it is logically necessary.
4. If God’s existence is logically impossible, the concept of God is contradictory.
5. The concept of God is not contradictory.
6. Therefore God’s existence is logically necessary.

Secondly, your understanding of God is a bit wanting. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, and the only God. There can be only one such being. As such, then, all thoughts in any direction other than the direction of the truth is false, misleading, and ultimately destructive. If God is life and love (by Biblical definition), then the only alternative for the person who chooses to separate him- or herself from God is non-life and non-love. It's not that God is a spoiled child demanding your love OR ELSE, but that God is the truth, and all other pursuits are going to lead to destruction. It's a plea coming from him to align with what is true, life, and love, rather than pursue a course of your own making that will undo you. It's not contradictory at all. We can certainly discuss this more.

The teleological argument doesn't claim resemblance, but demonstration. One form of it reads this way:

1. Everything that exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends and is such that we know whether or not it was the product of intelligent design, in fact was the product of intelligent design.
2. The universe exhibits curious adaptation of means to ends.
3. Therefore the universe is probably the product of intelligent design.

And the analogical argument as follows:

1. The productions of human contrivance are the products of intelligent design.
2. The universe resembles the productions of human contrivance
3. Therefore probably the universe is a product of intelligent design
4. Therefore probably the author of the universe is an intelligent being.

Neither of these claim that all elements of the system are perfect (isn't the avocado pit just TOO BIG?!), but that the system itself exhibits characteristics that make the most sense having come from an intelligent source. As far as eating and breathing through the same hole, though, I do believe that's the way we have our sense of taste, so there may be some merit to the compromise it causes in other areas.

The argument for fine-tuning is not, according to my understanding, what you claim. It's that the scientific discoveries in physics and astronomy about the structure of the universe offer reasonable premises for a theistic argument. Also, there are arguments from biology for the existence of God involving the nature and character of the living beings our world displays. Given what we see in science, theism is not only possible but reasonable. On the other hand, the atheistic hypothesis that all of these constants and balances have their values by chance (that is, those values are not the result of anyone’s choice or intention), it is exceedingly improbable that they would be fine-tuned for life. This seems to offer support for theism: given theism, fine-tuning is not at all improbable; given atheism, it is; therefore theism is to be preferred to atheism.

Your illustration of the puddle, thinking that because it's the way it is, we fabricate an assumption of design. It's true that we find ourselves where we do, and so we can easily say, "Well, it just must-a worked out that way because here we are!" And while that point is correct, how is it relevant? If we're playing poker, and I produce a royal flush, we'd all laugh and scream, and I'd take the pile. But if I did it again (even though there is just as much mathematical probability as the first time), you'd look at me real funny. And if I did it a 3rd time, I better be ready to run. Why? Because random probability would be far less an acceptable explanation than that somebody was messing with odds with interference.

[Jesse James]

Wow, a respectful response from you as well. Thank you. Hard to come by online.

Regarding causes of the universe and/or God. I don't necessarily think that I am certain that the universe is eternal. And even if it were, I don't necessarily see why it needs kinetic energy prior to its existence. Part of existence is matter and energy. If energy were present before the universe existed, the universe would have already existed. I contend the universe could just as easily be uncaused the way you see God as being the "uncaused" thing. And even if the universe was caused, why would it have to be by only one all-loving all-powerful all-knowing god? That conveniently fits the wester Judeo-Christian model for God pretty spot on.
The ontological argument seems completely devoid of empirical reasoning. And again, seems to just conveniently fit the Judeo-christian model for god.

This leads me to what I see as the problem with the concept of intelligent design. I think at its core it comes down to a misunderstanding of biological evolution through natural selection. I understand the poker reference but I don't think it holds up. For example, the first royal flush is all that is needed in biological evolution. That royal flush, let's compare it to a single-celled organism being born with a genetic mutation that allows it to crudely detect light. That's a pretty helpful mutation, and very unlikely, but given enough hands of poker (generations of genetic lines in a given population) it would become more and more probable. That random mutation would increase the likelihood of that organism's survival and ability to reproduce, thereby spreading that trait (or royal flush) through the gene pool of the population. The second and third royal flushes don't happen right away. They happen after potentially billions or trillions of more hands of poker, but you still have the previous helpful mutations on your side (let's call that the money you win along the way). In addition all the unhelpful mutations and especially harmful mutations die out immediately (losing hands that don't cost you any of your winnings). It's a streamlining of genetic lines in a population.

The fine tuning thing doesn't hold up for me. For example if conditions in the universe were different; say gravity was weaker, or oxygen and hydrogen don't combine in to make liquid water, life (if it were even possible in such a universe) would simply be alien to us. We see the universe as finely tuned because our genes have acquired, over countless generations, the helpful mutations that allow us to live in our environment. Only what happens to work in a given environment is held on too. If the universe was tuned in such a way that life would be impossible, there would be nobody to complain about how poorly tuned the universe is for them.

Again, i really appreciate the respectful response. And I look forward to yours.

[jimwalton]

Thank you once again for courtesy and respect. I appreciate your attitude.

COSMOLOGICAL. My understanding of the universe before the Big Bang is that it is regarded to be an infinitesimal singularity, and as such a "place" (using this word very loosely here, for there was no such thing as "place" in a singularity) when the laws of physics do not apply. It is generally regarded that matter did not exist, but is speculated that energy maybe possibly may have (one reason, I think, is because scientists are desperate to assume that SOMETHING was there in the nothingness). As such, it cannot be assumed to have contained anything that we would respect as a causative mechanism. In addition to that, the point is not that we can't identify the causative mechanism, but that (in one form of the cosmological argument) science tells us that everything that HAD a beginning is known to have had a cause. The universe, as we know it (originating from an infinitesimal, undefinable, dimensionless singularity), therefore, had a beginning, and therefore both logically and scientifically, we are justified to look for a causative mechanism. And, my only point is that God is a logical source of that, given the paucity of other choices.

ONTOLOGICAL. It's OK if you don't prefer this line of reasoning. It's just another angle at the philosophical propositions of the rationality for the existence of God pertaining to the nature of being. I included it to show there are so many approaches where the existence of God can make sense, but if you don't like the lack of empiricism, that's fine.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN. The problem with your model (and the evolutionary model in general) is its upsweep. The law of entropy tells us that things break down, wind down, burn out, decease, etc. I'll grant that on occasion one might see an accidental upswing or two, 'cause, hey, it just might happen. The pure naturalistic evolution model, however, requires and infinite numbers of upsweeps, at just the right time, and in some kind of sensible sequence to bring about what we see today, and to me that requires an odd estrangement of biological, chemical, and physical reasoning. So a single cell happens to get a beneficial mutation that allows it to crudely detect light. Unlikely, but it happened, and it's helpful. According to natural selection, though, if that doesn't benefit survival, it most likely won't repeat through very many generations. But in the course of millions (billions) of years, the flow is entropy, and random. By the time the next royal flush emerges, the situation has most likely deteriorated. Your assumptions are quite optimistic (and, by the way, they are infused with purpose and intentionality, which are not in the system of naturalistic evolution). Your analogy assumes rational play, intentional accumulation, knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em as the millions of hands go by. Without purpose in the system, such things are wildly optimistic and statistically absurd. And yet you seem to be assuming a (fairly) steady sequence of upswings in a system governed by a law of downswing.

And what if conditions in the universe were different? Sorry, with all due respect, that's a non-argument. As far as we know, if the universe were not fine-tuned, we wouldn't be here to be having this conversation. While that is true, it's not an objection to the fine-tuning view. It's still puzzling that these values are exactly what they are, and that's what all of us are trying to explain. To speculate, "What if they were different?" doesn't take us anywhere, because then we may not be here to converse. This is the evidence we have, and this is the evidence we must deal with. Here's what I observe (empirically): our universe has many characteristics of fine-tuning. We have two hypotheses: (1) the universe was designed by some powerful and intelligent being, and (2) the universe came to be by way of some chance process that does not involved in intelligent designer. Logically, 1 is more likely than 2, and therefore, with respect to the empirical evidence, 1 is to be preferred to 2. Granted, we couldn't exist if the universe was not the way it is (as far as we know), but how is that relevant, really? Basically, if I'm thinking it through correctly, you've said, "Well, if things were different, things would be different."

[Jesse James]

Infinitesimal singularity. This is an important point. This is where all bets are off in my opinion. Since space, time, matter and energy all came into existence with the big bang, the idea of "before" is somewhat illogical because time itself did not exist. There are similar points, in my view, since the big bang where things sprang into existence when the conditions were right. New elements created inside stars, life itself, then consciousness, then technology. The next such point in time I assume will be when we create AI, but I'm getting off on a tangent. A point I try to remind myself is that things come into existence when the conditions are right. Intention can create things, but it isn't required.

Fine tuning: That's actually pretty funny. I suppose you make a good point that my "if things were different" idea isn't actually an argument. It's a pretty true statement though, and that's why it matters. The universe does not need an outside intention. I don't see any evidence of intention other than our own. From a genetic perspective we are simply a vehicle for our genes to copy themselves. In some ways I feel like this argument comes down to a belief in fate, or predetermination. How do you personally feel about those?
This is the way I see intelligent design though too. Helpful genes are not "intentionally accumulated" as you said. If a mutation occurs, and that mutation happens to take advantage of a condition(s) in the environment, it will then spread itself through the population in a relatively small number of generations. That population would not lose that mutation unless it became an actual disadvantage. This would be unlikely for mutations such as the one(s) responsible for light detection. For instance, the blind cavefish's eyes. They are born with the genetic programming for the eyes (from before they were full-time cave dwellers), but never get the environmental stimulation to use them. They never lost the programming for the eyes because it was not a disadvantage to have them. These mutations stay until random mutations garble that area of the genome and render it selectively neutral. The fish's genome is not able to observe that those genes are no longer required, and then decide, intentionally to remove them from the genome. The mutations are random, the selection though, is neither random nor intentional. It is not random or intentional that a mutation for white fur helps an animal camouflage itself in the arctic. It's also not random or intentional that if that same mutation happens in the jungle, it will be selected (i assume) out of the gene pool fairly quick.

Hey, I really enjoy the conversation. Thank you again for being so respectful. We may be getting down to the time where we both feel we can't make our points anymore clearly I'm just curious though, are you a christian? And if so you do take the bible literally? I understand that's a whole other bag of worms, but it's still fascinating to talk about. And respectful conversation partners are hard to come by . Either way. Thanks again.

[jimwalton]

This has been great. I'll address several of your questions/statements, but i don't want our subject matter to keep expanding into an unmanageable size, with so many topics going we lose our focus.

Your "Intention" thoughts are intriguing. "Intention can create things," but to me that shows both personality and purpose, neither of which are players in systems where randomness and chance are the only players. Even when consciousness "evolves," since it evolved as a mutation, could any thoughts that were the manifestation of said consciousness be trusted? What I'm saying is, if even the thoughts coming to the mind of a conscious, sentient being are the results of random selection, on what basis could they be evaluated as true or even reliable? A stray thought is just as possible as a true one, and there would be no way to tell. So even intention, it seems to me, is self-defeating.

Mutations are random, but selection is not? What "governs" selection, then? Is there a conscious teleology in the universe "guiding" the selection process? I'm sure you'll say no, but you use words and concepts that seem to betray the belief in a background "guiding purpose," I'd almost want to say.

Then you say, "I don't see any evidence of intention other than our own." Interesting statement, but if WE have intention, from where did that arise? I know of know evidence that rationality can arise from anything other than a previous rationality.

You asked if I believe in fate or predetermination. No I don't. I see purpose and design, evolutionary progressions that cannot spontaneously generate (at least there is no evidence that they ever do), such as rationality, purpose, a sense of good and bad, personality, and the like.

You also asked if I'm a Christian. Yes I am. Do I take the Bible literally? I think "literal" is a problematic word that doesn't contribute to our understanding or conversation, and that's sort of the premise of your question.

The Bible is a rich literary collection, containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. "Literally" quickly becomes a word with very little meaning or helpfulness. If a poet says the trees of the field will clap their hands and the mountains will jump for joy, is that literal? Of course not, it's poetry. If a man prays, "God, kill all those people", we may all understand that his prayer is inappropriate, and is not blessed by God, but is it literal? Well, how does that word even apply? And how does it apply to archetype, allegory, parable, and all the others? It's a word that should be dropped from the discussion because it doesn't take us anywhere except to the Land of Misunderstanding.

I would be more than pleased to discuss the Bible—the "whole other bag of worms"—with you.