Question For The Atheist.

[WalkerW]

Very intriguing ideas. I may have to read more about it.

I thought so. It turned out that my understanding of "first cause" as understood by a number of Thomist-Aristotelian philosophers was completely wrong. I have a greater appreciation for it now. Granted, I still have problems with equating the God of the philosophers with the God of the Hebrews (hence, I remain Mormon), but I find that the "first cause" can work to some degree in Mormon theology.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sean Hannity is what we're going off of? Is it the "debate" he had with Christopher Hitchens?

In this instance it was not, but just a caller. I did not want to bring up Sean as I wanted to discuss the idea more than the host of the radio show. Thanks for your comments though.

[WalkerW]

In this instance it was not, but just a caller. I did not want to bring up Sean as I wanted to discuss the idea more than the host of the radio show. Thanks for your comments though.

This is the one I was referring to:

But I agree: the idea is the point, not Hannity or Hitchens or whomever.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is the one I was referring to:

But I agree: the idea is the point, not Hannity or Hitchens or whomever.

I had not seen this. I disagree with Hitchens premise that God is controling everything in our lives all of the time and that God, anytime anything happens it is God doing it. I would say that Hitchens is indeed a hard core athiest. Or as he calls himself an "Anti-thiest". Fitting titles too.

[Eldwynn]

A more simple question for an atheist would be, If we came from Ape's, then why are there still Apes?

Never mind.

[Eldwynn]

I listened to the exact same thing today. The idea of a first cause is a pretty standard theist argument. The best answer that an atheist can give is this: We don't know what caused the first cause but attributing it to God isn't the only option.

Atheists basically call this argument a "God of the gaps" argument.

I like how the atheist brought up the "who created the creator?" argument and Sean Hannity just replied that God has always existed.

I don't think this is the best argument for theists. If it is possible that there is a God that has always existed, why isn't it possible that the universe itself has always existed?

I've heard this same debate about the existence of God many times and it always goes the exact same route. IMHO I don't think there is any way to argue for the existence of God logically. I think the only real proof for God is personal revelation.

Precisely. I don't understand how god "solves" the "problem" of a first cause, because you simply moved the cause back.

My answer, as someone who is not a physicist:

As I understand it, the big bang was also the creation of TIME, which means asking what came before time... well is a rather silly question. Time is a physical property of the universe. Einstein proved this. To say "what happened before" or "what caused" is to misunderstand the big bang itself.

So we are never really going to know for sure one way or the other. You can say there are other universes (as many physicists do) and postulate from there, but I think it is all just speculation. It's just as likely that your christian concept of god created the big bang, as it is that some other dimension space alien created our universe on accident. Origins don't prove it one way or the other. That is pretty much as true as it gets.

It's like Dr. Tyson always says: science is a philosophy of discovery, and intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance. That's not to say that plenty of intelligent people (Newton included) didn't subscribe to it.

[Eldwynn]

Would I be the only "TBM" that believes in "evolution"?

At least the evolution defined as a gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. We can see evidence of this on a daily basis.

In regards to Adam and Eve descending from "apes", not at all.

But doesnt Macro-evolution follow from micro-evolution? (Or whatever they call it nowdays).

http://i.imgur.com/xWpvw.jpg

[WalkerW]

Precisely. I don't understand how god "solves" the "problem" of a first cause, because you simply moved the cause back.

The "first cause" is not merely the first event in an infinitely long chain of events. See my prior comments.

It's like Dr. Tyson always says: science is a philosophy of discovery, and intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance. That's not to say that plenty of intelligent people (Newton included) didn't subscribe to it.

That's a great article. I think it is a bit anachronistic in its understanding of science and religion, but a great article nonetheless.

[Questing Beast]

A certain radio personality was talking with an atheist and summed up the atheist beliefs.

He stated, (paraphrasing of course) that, " You as an atheist believe that something came from nothing". Which he then stated was "A scientific and mathematic impossibility".

Meaning that the universe was created out of nothing. For me this comment kind of intrigued me. I enjoy talking about the first cause of things. What do you believe specifically about the origins of the universe. What caused it?

I love debates with atheists as they tend to get very lively. Do you think there is any merit to this train of thought?

I love debating with atheists too. They always fail to rationally explain the existence of the world in the stead of nothing whatsoever. Their plank argument comes down to something like, "The universe always existed therefore god is not needed to explain it."

I then trot out our sapience as a species, and ask: "How can we transcend the universe? I have always maintained that to believe in a non sapient, always existing universe, is tantamount to admitting that OUR sapience arose ex nihilo."

"They" tend to respond with, "Sapience is nothing special, it's just an evolutionary trait; one of an enormous number of possible results from evolution."

I then ask if sapience is real or not?

"Of course it is real, it just isn't special or significant."

"So we are without purpose then?" I ask.

Most atheists will not allow that our species is without purpose. I ask them to define what "purpose" is. And we go the rounds of definition, which results in the individual sapient person defining purpose for him/herself.

I then ask, "So the always-existing universe lacks any sapience or purpose, yet WE possess both: how is the universe then unaware or purposeless when it has the capacity to come up with us?"

And the final disengagement is usually over the assertion of the atheist that an always-existing universe cannot be said to BE sapient or purposeful just because a temporary species (us), through happenstance, evolved into an apparent sapience that imagines purpose to its existence.

To which I say: "So you believe unscientifically in an always-existing universe - a cosmic scale of ex nihilo - yet you cannot allow this impossibly existing universe to be aware of itself, ergo us: yet WE are aware of it and see a purpose for it. This appears to me to be proof of a minute piece of the always existing ex nihilo possessing more or different traits than the whole of it; which makes our sapience and purpose also a proof of ex nihilo, since sapience and purpose arose out of nothing of the sort. If this has occurred, isn't the always-existing universe NOW both sapient and purposeful because we are part of it?"

The atheist will not allow that the universe is to any degree aware of its innumerable parts, or aware of existence at all: it simply exists and the laws of thermodynamics handle the rest. I have heard them say, "If our species becomes extinct and there is no existing sapient species anywhere in the universe, nothing has altered the always-existing state of the universe. Given enough time and probability, another sapient species will arise through evolution, somewhere. And eventually it will also become extinct. There is no immortality to evolution, only constant change of the always-existing matter."

You cannot argue with someone purposefully when the different paradigms for existence operate from incommunicable positions...

[WalkerW]

Very intriguing ideas. I may have to read more about it.

I highly recommend Edward Feser's The Last Superstition: The Refutation of the New Atheism (St. Augustine's Press, 2008). I started reading his book on Aquinas, but school got in the way.

It is the best explanation and defense of a Thomist-Aristotelian/classical theist view of God that I've read. It almost persuadest me to be a trinitarian (but not quite).

[Eldwynn]

I love debating with atheists too. They always fail to rationally explain the existence of the world in the stead of nothing whatsoever. Their plank argument comes down to something like, "The universe always existed therefore god is not needed to explain it."

I then trot out our sapience as a species, and ask: "How can we transcend the universe? I have always maintained that to believe in a non sapient, always existing universe, is tantamount to admitting that OUR sapience arose ex nihilo."

"They" tend to respond with, "Sapience is nothing special, it's just an evolutionary trait; one of an enormous number of possible results from evolution."

I then ask if sapience is real or not?

"Of course it is real, it just isn't special or significant."

"So we are without purpose then?" I ask.

Most atheists will not allow that our species is without purpose. I ask them to define what "purpose" is. And we go the rounds of definition, which results in the individual sapient person defining purpose for him/herself.

I then ask, "So the always-existing universe lacks any sapience or purpose, yet WE possess both: how is the universe then unaware or purposeless when it has the capacity to come up with us?"

And the final disengagement is usually over the assertion of the atheist that an always-existing universe cannot be said to BE sapient or purposeful just because a temporary species (us), through happenstance, evolved into an apparent sapience that imagines purpose to its existence.

To which I say: "So you believe unscientifically in an always-existing universe - a cosmic scale of ex nihilo - yet you cannot allow this impossibly existing universe to be aware of itself, ergo us: yet WE are aware of it and see a purpose for it. This appears to me to be proof of a minute piece of the always existing ex nihilo possessing more or different traits than the whole of it; which makes our sapience and purpose also a proof of ex nihilo, since sapience and purpose arose out of nothing of the sort. If this has occurred, isn't the always-existing universe NOW both sapient and purposeful because we are part of it?"

The atheist will not allow that the universe is to any degree aware of its innumerable parts, or aware of existence at all: it simply exists and the laws of thermodynamics handle the rest. I have heard them say, "If our species becomes extinct and there is no existing sapient species anywhere in the universe, nothing has altered the always-existing state of the universe. Given enough time and probability, another sapient species will arise through evolution, somewhere. And eventually it will also become extinct. There is no immortality to evolution, only constant change of the always-existing matter."

You cannot argue with someone purposefully when the different paradigms for existence operate from incommunicable positions...

I've talked to a lot of atheists. I don't find your caricature accurate at all. But, good for you for shooting down a straw.

[bookofmormontruth]

But doesnt Macro-evolution follow from micro-evolution? (Or whatever they call it nowdays).

http://i.imgur.com/xWpvw.jpg

No. Macro-evolution is in complete contrast. Dogs may change to become bigger, smaller or a different color, but they never become cats.

The only time I have seen it possible is when a liberal slowly became a conservative. It was beautiful to see.

[Eldwynn]

No. Macro-evolution is in complete contrast. Dogs may change to become bigger, smaller or a different color, but they never become cats.

The only time I have seen it possible is when a liberal slowly became a conservative. It was beautiful to see.

Did you go to public school? Just wondering.

[WalkerW]

No. Macro-evolution is in complete contrast. Dogs may change to become bigger, smaller or a different color, but they never become cats.

Perhaps not cats, but perhaps something that is distinct enough from a dog to be considered a different species. Macro is the sum of multiple micros. As pointed out by biologist Ken Miller, long distances are covered with many small steps.

The changes are often subtle, but important.

[Hughes]

Precisely. I don't understand how god "solves" the "problem" of a first cause, because you simply moved the cause back.

Either you have an always existent Being (eternal) or always existing matter, your choice.

If there is a beginning, there has to be a Beginner of it all.

It's like Dr. Tyson always says: science is a philosophy of discovery, and intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance. That's not to say that plenty of intelligent people (Newton included) didn't subscribe to it.

Since intelligent design is discovered using science, I'd have to say I don't understand where your Dr. Tyson is coming from.

[Hughes]

Perhaps not cats, but perhaps something that is distinct enough from a dog to be considered a different species. Macro is the sum of multiple micros. As pointed out by biologist Ken Miller, long distances are covered with many small steps.

The changes are often subtle, but important.

That is the theory, yes. Unfortunately it's not testable.

[WalkerW]

I strongly suggest checking out the work by Simon Conway Morris, including "The Boyle Lecture 2005: Darwin's Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Song of Creation," Science & Christian Belief 18:1 (2006) and "The Inevitability of Intelligent Life," The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, ed. Peter Harrison (Cambridge University Press, 2010). His full-length book on the subject is Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe (Cambridge University Press, 2003), but I haven't read it.

He has some great points regarding science and religion:

[WalkerW]

Since intelligent design is discovered using science, I'd have to say I don't understand where your Dr. Tyson is coming from.

Then read his article that I provided a link to.

[bookofmormontruth]

Did you go to public school? Just wondering.

No, I went to "magic school".

Do you want me to send you my CV?

[WalkerW]

That is the theory, yes. Unfortunately it's not testable.

If you mean that we can't live long enough to observe if species branch off and mutate into other species, then you're technically correct. If you are saying there is no evidence, you are gravely mistaken.

And it depends what you mean by theory. If you are using it as a synonym for hypothesis, I'm afraid that it is way past the hypothesis stage. Scientists speak of Darwinian theory as an explanation of the group of facts. That's what a scientific theory is.

[Eldwynn]

That is the theory, yes. Unfortunately it's not testable.

So you are saying that because we won't live long enough to observe the changes, then it is not possible? Well that's silly, unless you think the earth is not much older than the average human lifespan.

YOU need to show us what would stop the changes from accumulating. It's sort of like saying that because you can't add 2 together enough times to equal one trillion on paper, then it must not be possible.

Don't believe the myth that speciation has never been observed in a lab. It has, multiple times. In fact, a dog all the sudden becoming a cat in our lifespan would be evidence for divine creation- not evolution.

Furthermore, you can prove common ancestry very easily by simply analyzing the genome of different species. If the fact that we share 98% of our genome with chimpanzees doesn't convince you, then explain why we contain the same viral DNA sequences with them, except for the ones that happened since the divergence? What more could you ask for?

[WalkerW]

Furthermore, you can prove common ancestry very easily by simply analyzing the genome of different species. If the fact that we share 98% of our genome with chimpanzees doesn't convince you, then explain why we contain the same viral DNA sequences with them, except for the ones that happened since the divergence? What more could you ask for?

[bookofmormontruth]

Perhaps not cats, but perhaps something that is distinct enough from a dog to be considered a different species. Macro is the sum of multiple micros. As pointed out by biologist Ken Miller, long distances are covered with many small steps.

The changes are often subtle, but important.

Yes, like dinosaurs to birds, but not apes to humans which is the religion of the faithless.

Even though scientists don't all agree on the terms, the contrast is small changes in alleles with micro and the splitting of species into two with macro.

I learned that in magic school in case Eldwynn asks again for my credentials.

[WalkerW]

Yes, like dinosaurs to birds, but not apes to humans which is the religion of the faithless.

What? Try reading Ken Miller, Francis Collins, or Simon Conway Morris for "faithless" accounts of evolution.

Even though scientists don't all agree on the terms, the contrast is small changes in alleles with micro and the splitting of species into two with macro

But you're speaking as if a new species suddenly emerges out of nowhere, as if an ape gives birth to a human. No one claims that.

[Eldwynn]

Yes, like dinosaurs to birds, but not apes to humans which is the religion of the faithless.

Even though scientists don't all agree on the terms, the contrast is small changes in alleles with micro and the splitting of species into two with macro.

I learned that in magic school in case Eldwynn asks again for my credentials.

I am still waiting for the mechanism that prevents the small changes into becoming large changes.

I find it also laughable that you would say that dinosaurs to birds is a smaller change than apes to humans. Dinosaurs and birds share a much older common ancestor than chimpanzees (and other apes) and hominids do.

As someone who worked as a professional magician for several years, I now am wondering which magic school you went to.