God or No God - that is the question (for atheists)

Ocams razor is an excellent thing. When I stopped to help a fellow biker who had broken down the other night I applied the thinking. I asked did he have petrol and then went to check the spark. I didn't jump in supposing that his piston had fallen of it's rod, nor that his electronic ignition had packed in. I started out simple and worked up in complexity (his spark plug cap had fallen off). An excellent thing Ocams razor - at least the unfortunate, then fortunate fellow biker thought so. Excellent that is, when it is capable of giving you a close, cut-free shave.If you want to apply this method in discovering the 'cause' of the universe (whatever the nature of that cause may be: perpetual, a-crunching-and-a-banging or a starting point from some prior ever existing state, or a starting point from nothing) then fine. It is a good idea. But as yet there is no answer. There is nothing in the various theories which even indicate the faintest light at the end of the tunnel. The cause could be God and it could be natural. Neither can said to be more or less probable at this moment. To say 'natural' is more probable when there is nothing on which to assess probablilty (except specualtive theory) is to say nothing at all. Either God and complexity or no God and....nothing yet. The fact that science has explained so much is no indication that it will explain this particular problem. Like share prices, past performance is no indication as to future worth - especially when your talking about time/laws/space being different that the ones by which current science calibrates it's instruments.And the problem for athiests is that they presume a natural cause with zero evidence to say there was one. The assertion that there is no way to understand God is just that. I would agree that if one said "there is no way naturallistically to understand God" that that might well be the case. But that is to put naturalism on the throne and say that's all there is. If one was to say that and then they may well be saying that naturalism hasn't found any evidence for the supernatural thus the supernatural doesn't exist. That however is a non-sequitur, a bootstrap argument. It presumes naturalism is the only way to know anything and progesses from there. Presumption...Naturalism (science) is not a god. Until such time as it can demonstrate it is a god (for example to explain 'origins of the universe) we have objectively no reason, I repeat, no objective reason, to think it can. And if that's the case then the atheistic denial of God as a possibility is based on presumption. And that is not a proof. Which is what was being inferred in the original question.

But this simplest mechanism is anything but simple. The universe either had a reason to be like it is (which is reasonable - given that all science is based on the fact that a reason can be found for everything) or it happened for no reason - which is unreasonable and unscientific. Nothing we've ever witnessed in all the years of science has led us to the thinking that anything can happen for no reason. If you think it does (and that challenge is for Rahvin too with the "ever existing singularity" and "big bang without cause") then give an example of that. All the evidence we have is that there is a reason for everything...a cause. There always has been and now, when we get to the blackest box of all, folk turn around and say "no reason, no cause - it was just there".The 'simplest mechanism' you describe has not been explained yet by even the most complex science applied to it. It's a black box and no one knows whats in it. Ocams razor says don't add unnecessary comnplexity but even the most complex that we can add says nothing about whats in the black box. Maybe the jump shouldn't be made to God but failing that there is nothing to add at all - except incrementally more complexity. All the time that's been done there is no reason to think (until an answer has been arrived at) that the next bit of complexity will provide the answer - or that the answer is to be found naturalistically at all. In the meantime, the athiest has no objective reason to say the black box is more likely to be natural than it is to be God. Equal probablity either wayAn that's not a proof of athiesm. That's a blind choice made by faith

When it comes right down to it we will probably never know exactly what happened way back then. But then there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "We don't know".
We can go so far back with extrapolation but that only takes us to a point when the universe was a few billionths of a second old. beyond that, as far as we can tell, our present frame of reference makes no sense. We don't know what happened.
However we still have no reason to believe that "God did it". That is simply adding WAY too much complexity. Let's face it, God is the most complex thing that there can ever be. The ultimate in complexity. Nothing can be more complex than the all-nowing, all-powerful creator. That means that God will ALLWAYS be ruled out by Occam's razor since it doesn't matter how complex any other start of the Universe can get, God still outdoes it for shear complexity.Besides which if everything needs a reason then WHY GOD? Where did he come from?
You see your argument also argues that God must have had a creator and so on and so forth. How do you get around that?Equally probable? I don't think so. Equally possible? Perhaps. Atheism requires no proof since it is, by definition, a position of non certainty. If no positive assertions are made and no belief whatsoever is involved then it cannot be a choice based on faith.
In order to have faith you must first have a belief in something.
I don't believe that there is a god.
I don't believe that there isn't a god.
I just feel that the total, utter and complete lack of anything even remotely resembling evidence of his existence makes it look as if he isn't there.
If you can show me proof that he is there then I will quite happily change this stance.
I don't think that is likely to happen though.This message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 08-15-2005 08:52 AM

That's so bogus. You aren't born as an atheist, it requires a certain bias. As does christianity, I'm just saying.I think history is in favor of religion judging that the earliest people believed in a supreme being.

Since we are near the end there is little left to be said about the OP, so I'll take a moment to ask you to consider what you just posted. If you are stone aged man, facing lightning, thunder, earthquakes, storms, rain, rainbows, desease, sudden death, accident and other mysterious happenings, which is more likely

• they will be attributed to natural forces?
• they will be attributed to some God?

Using the argument as you did is really pretty weak.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I disagree.I think coming to a conclusion of a God or gods through existence is pretty phenomenal.Have you looked at the cave paintings.The origins of animism in all its glory.The belief that their is a spirit, that there is God in everything, is truly beautiful.
side note:
You don't think that is an honorable conclusion in existence?

Possible new thread. It's far more than would be possible in the time left here.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No there isn't, but the whole progress of science is to say there are reasons for things and if we apply ourselves then the reasons will be revealed. The very words "I reason" presupposes "a reason exists". You seem to agree that the strong athiest position "there is no God" is undermined as soon as the words "I don't know" are included. If so, then I would agree. "There may be or there maybe not" is an agnosic position. The weak athiest is a person who says "I don't believe in God based on lack of natural, verifiable evidence". But when they are faced with the start of the universe, natural explanations are silent. Their 'reason' says there has to be a reason. Natural says nothing nothing concrete at all - yet they plump for a natural-only reason...on the basis of... faith in what the natural HAS revealed is some kind of assurance that the natural will eventually explain itall and in the meantime, although having nothing concrete to go on - they plump for 'No God'. If one was locked into the natural mechanisms as a way to arrive at the conclusion 'God' then sure, stick to Ocams razor. I suggest the natural will never lead us to conclude God no matter how many blades are removed from the razor - because God would be supernatural and no matter how complex the natural gets it is speaking the wrong language - so to speak. So the natural method excludes God - not because he would be complex but because he would be supernatural. And the natural cannot conceive of that so ignores the option - for lack of tools to begin exploring it. It's stating that the natural is the only way - without (and whilst accepting as you seem to) that the natural is unlikely provide an answer.If one wanted to know for sure, one would seek where they could seek. Alas, many seem unwilling to consider the option. If God, then the blindfolds have most assuredly been self-maintained. He sure does and it's fantastic when you get to know him a little!! Everything natural needs a cause. The supernatural doesn't, being as it is super - or outside/above - nature. Outside nature doesn't have to conform to nature On what basis this? Given that nothing is known either way. Try "A scientific proof of God" in the Proposed Topics forum. If it changes your thinking and you'd like to find out how to know God then let me know. I claim to have proved him but that's not the same as believing him (which makes, trust me, all the difference). If you ever want to know how then I can tell you how I came to know him (or you can read my first post on EvC as a sample) Seek and you shall find

Were you interested in debate, or just acting like an ass?Come back when you're ready to be mature. Uh-huh. Have you ever seen a newborn pray? Neither have I.

This will be the third time I've told you, and it's starting to look like you're not going it by mistake.Atheists don't deny God as a possibility, but as a reality. No atheist has argued that it's impossible for there to be a God, but that there isn't, apparently, a god.

Duh. The question is meaningless. It's asking for the location on the grid where the grid is located. As far as I know, there's zero evidence for a fifth dimension, so zero evidence that 'causation' is even meaningful. I know of no one who says that. However, anything for which there is no evidence is completely irrelevant, as the nonexistent also leaves no evidence. As one cannot be differentiated from the other, they are exactly the same from our perspective.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-15-2005 11:31 PM

A baby doesn't consciously acknowledge there is a God or there isn't.don't be dishonestThis message has been edited by Chris Porteus, 08-16-2005 12:21 AM

There is no question in the quote of mine which can be said to be pointless. Duh... Zero natural evidence for a supernatural 5th dimension is hardly surprising. There is zero natural evidence for 'cause' yet 'cause' we must assume. Saying, as Rahvin is wont, that things can happen without cause is a dodge. If not a dodge it is a non-scientitic statement. Philosophical maybe but not science. To find evidence of a supernatural would require a different set of tools but I imagine that a scientific-style methodology could be applied. What models can be generated that fit what we do know, look at the evidence without pre-disposition, believing that if you seek you will find etc. Which tools do you apply to discover the supernatural. If you say 'none' or "I don't know how one would even start" then that is not a basis to say "there is no evidence". Lack of attempt, lack of effort, is sure to result in no evidence - but impinges not on the possibility of evidence being there. "Seek and you will find" seems as good advice now as it was then - for those who would like to know either way.I'll post a thread on an experience with the supernatural and you are welcome to comment there on what that was - if not supernatural. It's not a proof - just some 'evidence' that I had no other way (natural) way of accounting for. See proposed topics in an hour or so

Indeed. A baby lacks a belief in God and is, thus, an atheist.

But we do observe that some events are cause-less, at least in the classical sense.The statement is scientific because it's based on observation. It is the statement that "all events must have causes" that is unsientific, that is a position of philosophy, not science. I'm sorry, the what? That word is meaningless to me. Could you supply a definition?