User talk:SouthWriter/sandbox/An atheist's objections

'''Note: I moved this here and I can't figure out how to undo the move, so I put these replies on the "talk page" of the moved blog. Here is the first page of dialogue. Nine pages to come soon. I apologize for the format, for it is cut and paste from the original which was in reverse order! SouthWriter 05:42, April 23, 2012 (UTC)'''

Destroyanator

i should point out a fundamental flaw in your argument in point number 4. you claim that genetic variation produced the great variety we see in humanity today. however, genetic recombinations wouldn't have been at work long enough for them to produce the great variation among the human species. July 5, 2010 by Destroyanator

HAD

Intresting arguement. For what it's worth, my opinion is that people should form their own opinion, but only after looking at the evidence and drawing a conclusion from that. Basically: Judging from knowledge. July 5, 2010 by HAD

SouthWriter

To Destroyanator - There is not that big of a variation in the human species, a tenth of one percent, as I said. Color of skin is only a very small part of one gene, for instance. Likewise with a myriad of other "variations." A chihuahua is VERY different from a Great Dane - but diverged from the original wolf far more recent than the different people groups that form humanity (and that by DIRECTED, not natural, selection). Given the vast amount of information in the DNA, and the relatively small actual difference on the cellular level in humans, I'd say that PLENTY of time has passed for all the differences in the human race.

To HAD: Uninformed opinion is worthless. But evidence by itself cannot create a conclusion. Observational science (=knowledge) is useful in that it is repeatable -- facts are facts. Forensic science (trying to reconstruct the past) is not enough, for example, to convict a person in a court of law. It produces "circumstantial" evidence that can be used to confirm an eye witness. Often, of course, the accused confesses when such evidence is produced. But it is, in the long run, just an opinion of the investigator. The jury, or judge, then "gives an opinion."

The reason different people see evidence difference is basically "point of view" - that is, prejudice towards the "facts" based on preconceptions. An atheist, by definition, must dismiss any evidence that points to God. A theist, hopefully, will not dismiss God altogether. If however, one assumes that God exists, the evidence can be viewed more "objectively." But even then, the preconception colors the discussion. July 5, 2010 by SouthWriter

ProfessorMcG

To SouthWriter, I understand how you explain point 4 but to Destroyanator I think that this has all taken a lot longer than 6000 years. July 5, 2010 by ProfessorMcG

Destroyanator

to turn this conversation to a more philosophical note, i ask any Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Hindu to answer this question: why do you believe in God/Allah/Yaweh/Brahma? July 5, 2010 by Destroyanator

Fedelede

My major issues of religious theory:

If you realize, 6134 years is not enough to make so much differences towards the different races. God couldn't have made Earth in seven days. Jesus wasn't executed for being a Jew, but for being a criminal and a rebel. Romans didn't commit genocide, they were actually very tolerant people. The creationist theory is full of flaws and impossible subjects, and I don't consider it as a true thing but as an entretaining story with a good message at the end. I can even take it farther to say that I know most of the Bible was made so the clergy and the ruling portions got and kept the money and power. Although I believe there's a God, I don't think he's all-powerful or all-seeing, and I think that in the best case he created the sub-atomic particle that started the Universe. July 5, 2010 by Fedelede

Fegaxeyl

We're all entitled to beliefs, and I feel that the fact that explaining the religious perspective of the history of the world through science is better than simply dismissing it outright. But then again I always view these ideas with an air of uncertainty.

I fancy myself as somewhat of a sci-fi writer, so therefore my concepts must be grounded in fact. If I were explaining how to build a time machine or a faster-than-light propulsion system I would not invent the science but try to twist current understandings to fit the context. I see the same thing with the 'creationism with science': it makes sense, but it requires a considerable stretch of how prepared one is to view the universe.

I once came across an article trying to justify the Deluge through scientific means. It was clearly well thought-out and was internally consistent, but the fact was it made no sense at all if one went solely by modern understanding of geology, tectonics, etc. It used these principles in the same way I would use my basic understanding of quantum theory to create a passable proposal for a working time machine.

It all comes back to Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is mostly likely the truest. This is most obvious with the simple idea: if God created Mankind, Earth and the Universe, why did He do it in such a way that their existences could be explained with no divine intervention whatsoever? July 5, 2010 by Fegaxeyl

Eastward Expansion

Both South Writer and Fedelede make good arguments. I agree (for the most part) with South Writer's answers for questions 1, 2, and 3. But I also believe in Evolution, and South's arguments against it, are clearly flawed. July 5, 2010 by Eastward Expansion

Yankovic270

The Bible, though an essential part of the lives of many people, is not a historically or scientifically acurate text by any definition. To belong to a religion you must have faith, which is an ability to suspend your disbelief in these events and simply believe. I may not be very faithful, but I still believe that the person who orignially posted these objections is dammned to hell for all eternity. I'm not that faithful and it still pisses me off to read of someone ripping the bible to shreds. I'm a (somewhat) faithful Christian, and I believe you don't have to choose between religion and science. July 5, 2010 by Yankovic270

ProfessorMcG

Science explains religion. That's simple enough, and it holds true for me. I believe in God because I can't comprehend how everything started. If everything was caused by the Big Bang, what caused the Big Bang to happen in the first place? July 5, 2010 by ProfessorMcG

Fegaxeyl

That's the point where most scientists will shrug and say God. And, of course, the Big Bang is only a theory which the good scientists works to disprove and establish something simpler. July 5, 2010 by Fegaxeyl

Yankovic270

I agree. You could easily apply the Big Bang to how god created the universe in Genesis. The Bible is very vague in that sense. "In the Beginning" could mean anything. July 5, 2010 by Yankovic270

SouthWriter

McG: You need to demonstrate, at least in principle, why the millions of variations, recombined via billions of matings, would not produce the world which we have today within human history as we know it (app. 5000 years)

Destroyanator: God gave me the faith to believe Him at his word. He didn't HAVE to do this, but He did. That is why I believe Him (not just "in" Him).

Fedelede: You say that the "entertaining story" ends well. Let's see, God created mankind, chose a people out from among a generally wicked race only to be rejected over and over. The leaders of this nation that arose from this "chosen" people trumped up charges against one of their own religious teachers in order to silence him, having him killed as a "rebel." The capital city of this people "the Jews" is destroyed by the "tolerant" Romans would they finally "go to far." Before that, though, some other teachers from among the Jews carry a message of love and truth -- and an incredible story of a man who arose from the dead -- only to be persecuted by this same "tolerant" Roman government. The last one of these Jews to write proclaimed that this same God would come back to destroy the world in order to rebuild it the way HE wants it to be (preserving his people via giving dead spirits bodies!) Yep, a "good message" at the end -- IF you are among His people. Here is how the story ends:

Rev. 22: 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers [adulterers], and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.

"Dogs" is a term of disdain for sinners of the general type - unworthy of notice for "minor crimes." Sorcerers are those who manipulate people with"science." And "how dare he" include liars among the despicable sinners who make their own "gods" out of ordinary things!

Fegaxeyl: You state that the science of the deluge was "internally consistent," but deny its truth based on your own understanding a "modern understanding" of related science. I think I understand your point that the article attempted to explain the flood based on observed processes today. If so, that article itself may have been flawed in that it "explained away" the unknown past (and God's intervention in causing the flood).

The simplest explanation is indeed that "God did it." That is erksome to unbelievers, but look at the alternative. How can it be "simpler"?

God said he made everything complete, with living things creating other living things "after their kind." That is simple enough, and exactly what we see in the world today. The "complete" creation has built-in instructions on how to continue to exist.

Atheists say that everything apparently came from an explosion, which threw matter and energy in all directions - directions that today are said to have no edge. And somehow, these highly differentiated particles slowed down long enough to get together and build themselves into suns, then planets, then self-replicating single-celled entities (not animal nor plant, just a cell wall with some goo inside). And these cells got together and built communities that became organisms that became plants and animals. Ah yes, so simple!

Besides, God did NOT create the world and all that is in it in "such a way that it could be explained" apart from Him. The "explaining" that is being done is by those who stubbornly holding that God doesn't exist. These 'theories" have far more holes in them than anything postulated by believing scientists before the "enlightenment." July 5, 2010 by SouthWriter

ProfessorMcG

No offense SouthWriter. I don't know how you intended those words to sound. But there is a problem here which undermines all we are saying. The Atheists became Atheists for a reason, I don't know every individual's reason for becoming an Atheist, but the ones that relentlessy question Believers (to me) usually seem patronizing or they have disdain. And when you type all of that South, I read it. And when I read, I always read in my voice and whatever you say is always 'imagined' with the natural conotation I use every day. So, I suppose that those questioners, who are patronzing, listen to this with a patronizing tone and dismiss it. Due to the believed tone they don't understand that you're not trying to (as a very blunt way of saying it) claim your superiority over them. This is why I don't really try to have massive talks about these subjects online. July 5, 2010 by ProfessorMcG

Mitro:

Guys this discussion is pretty much a violation of the No Cross, No Crown policy. Remember this is an alternate history wiki. Feel free to discuss this on your respective talk pages, but keep it off the blog and other main areas of the wiki. - July 5, 2010 by Mitro

Yankovic270

Thought that that rule only applied to the actual timelines. July 5, 2010 by Yankovic270

Fegaxeyl

The statement in itself 'God did it' is, logically, simpler. But when you think about it, it is actually incredibly complex: God, a non-determined and omnipotent entity of undefined boundaries and limitless capabilities... lots of unknowns there.

What I mean by 'simple' is that it is the result of provable, predictable laws, which will hold true regardless. The idea in and of itself that, over billennia atoms have arranged themselves in such a way to produce us, seems incredibly complex... but, once you know the calculations, you can trace the entire history of the universe using simple laws which will hold true in all but a tiny handful of situations (the singularity of a black hole, for example). Granted, we don't know many of these equations, and have no way of factoring in all the variables at present - but once we know all this we could do the whole thing using (for mathematicians) simple equations that hold true.

Scientists find the idea of it being 'just so' ridiculous. That is not simple. It invokes countless unknowns. For us - i.e., non-creationists - simple means that it can be explained assuredly, even if it is immensely complex as a topic. God would therefore be complicated, as He, She, It, violates all of what we know of the laws of the universe and is subsequently impossible.

I appreciate that this debate is hard to convey over the internet, and am well aware that all I have just written could come across as mixed up and meaningless. To sum it up I suppose I should put: simple = can be explained using what we know, or what we could know; God = not simple, as we can't explain a divine being using our sciences.

By the way, you're completely correct about our theories having holes in them. Science exists to fill those holes. Religion has holes too, mostly those poked by science. Religion can only poke one whole at science, and it is a philosophical one: why the universe began. To which I say, we may well be barking up the wrong tree and the Big Bang is simply another idea to be laughed at by future scientists who have a much better understanding of the universe. Science can change a lot. Religion, at least in terms of the original dogma (in this case, Genesis), doesn't. July 5, 2010 by Fegaxeyl

SouthWriter

Mitro, this IS my perspective "talk page" in the truest since. Very few of us use these blogs, and that is why I moved most of the discussion here. I skipped lunch to deal with answering these questions. Time just got away from me. As for the discussion over on my "talk page" -- that is where "No Cross, No Crown" should be trimmed back. I was actually about to cut discussion there off for this very reason, even though it was not cluttering up a talk page on some article -- where the NCNC guideline actually should be the rule. July 5, 2010 by SouthWriter

SouthWriter

I have things to attend to, so I will answer the most recent discussion at a later time. However, I challenge those who see what they consider as "flaws" in my answers to give more than their opinion. Back it with facts, or at least logic.

I'll check back later to give a longer response to some of your concerns. July 5, 2010 by SouthWriter Yankovic270

I think the blogs are a place for the personal opinions of the user to be expressed without reprecussions or guidelines. July 5, 2010 by Yankovic270

Fegaxeyl

I agree that blogs are personal space, and I look forward to continuing this debate tomorrow. July 5, 2010 by Fegaxeyl

Red VS Blue

Speaking of simple scientific explanations, I've always found it ironic that the scientific theories that are being developed now to "explain the universe" without a first cause (i.e. God or a god) require just as great or greater of a leap of faith than religious faith. Just some food for thought.

I'm not a creationist by the way, just an appreciator of irony. July 5, 2010 by Red VS Blue