Atheists and Atheism (Little Upsilon)

I can only shower blessings on those who appease my appetites.

re: Rational materialist atheisism

Rational = good
materialism = makes sense of so much, hard to imagine not having that viewpoint with which to understand our world. It is in many ways a secure position.

How do the hardcore, unwavering rational materialists here address these issues: 1) the simple fact of the existence of our universe--why anything at all "is," rather than there being nothing 2) the mystery of the origin of our universe 3) the phenomenon of subjective, internal awareness of "pain," "pleasure," "color," "sound," and all the other sensory perceptions 4) the phenomenon of self-consciousness, awareness of one's one being... in a sensation-free environment, one still is aware of something, if only of one's own thoughts 5) the phenomenon of exertion of one's will, of "trying" to make oneself do something, of putting forth an "effort" 6) the mystery of the origin of life 7) the specialness of humans among all other life forms, and the apparent direction of the unpurposeful mechanisms of evolution 8) the confluence of physical coincidences (of the values of the known physical constants) that makes life, as we know it, possible 9) quantum entanglement and 10) the apparent collapse of the wave function of our world, locally, to form observable events.

These are all real things. How does a materialist account for them, within the framework of materialism?

Perhaps like this?

The Religious Background and Religious Beliefs of Albert Einstein

[snip]

In a letter to a child who asked if scientists pray (24 January 1936), said: "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive." [Einstein Archive 42-601]


Einstein said ("Einstein, Albert" in The Enlightened Mind, ed. Stephen Mitchell; New York: Harper Collins, 1991):

The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the source of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms -- this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religion.

George F. Will, "The Mind That Changed the World" in The Washington Post, 6 January 2005; Page A19 (URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 5Jan5.html):


[Albert] Einstein's theism, such as it was, was his faith that God does not play dice with the universe -- that there are elegant, eventually discoverable laws, not randomness, at work. Saying "I'm not an atheist," he explained:

"We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is."


In a letter to M. Berkowitz (25 October 1950), Einstein said: "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment." [Einstein Archive 59-215]

In a letter to an Iowa student who asked, What is God? (July 1953), Einstein said, "To assume the existence of an unperceivable being... does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world." [Einstein Archive 59-085]

[snip]

http://www.adherents.com/people/pe/Albert_Einstein.html

---

I do not know?

@Laguna: I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve by bringing up Pascal's wager, but it has largely been discounted as an argument for belief/faith.

(Summary of Pascal's wager: The consequences of non-belief are dire if wrong; the consequences of belief are neutral if wrong, thus it is better to believe than not to believe.)

First problem: If I choose to believe only through fear of the consequences of not believing, then ultimately I am being deceitful. God would be able to see through this and punish me accordingly.

Second problem: Which God do I pick? If I choose Yahweh and it's Allah who appears before me in the afterlife, I am no better off than if I had not believed all along. What about different denominations within religions? What about Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, Mithras, etc.? Suddenly the odds on Pascal's wager look a whole lot longer!

@Serpent: "There were apparently over 40 different writer of the book, over a 1600yr history, but it still is harmonious all thru."

Take a look at The Easter Quiz. The Bible is far from harmonious and contradicts itself in numerous places.

Belief versus faith versus knowledge

Knowledge is an approximation of truth based on repeatable experimentation. You can believe things without having carried out the experiment yourself (I shan't be jumping out of fourth floor windows because I don't believe I can fly; however, I have never tested this myself). You can have faith that others have carried out experiments and believe their results. You cannot believe things that have been tested and shown to be false. However, you can still have faith in them (at the urging of more fundamentalist denominations, you should have faith in spite of the evidence to the contrary).

Thus, I believe we have no knowledge of God (no experiments conclusively prove or disprove his existence or non-existence) and choose not to believe in him. Partly this is because most definitions of God are rather woolly and opaque making a testable hypothesis impossible. Is God a supernatural being who created the universe and intervenes in our daily lives? Probably not, otherwise prayer could be demonstrated to have an effect and the Riddle of Epicurus would be a huge problem.

Is God the First Cause that set the ball rolling in our universe and no longer has anything to do with us? By definition, I would have to be agnostic on this one.

Ultimately, I would describe myself as a humanist who is agnostic regarding the proposition of God, but lives life atheistically.

The belief-o-matic puts me at:
1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (94%)
3. Nontheist (79%)
...
25. Roman Catholic (13%)
26. Hinduism (12%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (5%)

Zetetic Elench dam Kahveh

Depending on your translation Im using the KJV it's probably the most popular, although I prefer to read more modern translations.

As for the Easter Quiz
1. One verse says one person, one says two people, ones says three people and one says more than three, but do any of those say that ONLY those amounts came. Plus the writer of those books was not any of those women, so this was just the story as they were told. Still no contradiction, just different viewpoints, that all!

2. Mt 28:1 says "as it began to dawn"
John 20:1 says "early, when it was yet dark"
Mark 16:2 says "Very early in the morning" and at the rising of the sun"
C'mon is this truly contradictory? If I was told this story by three different people I would simply believe it was very early in the morning. And if it does contradict itself it is only by mere minutes!

3. Neither verse says that is JUST what they did. Some included more details than the others.

4. The Jewish day began and ended at sunset. If today is Tuesday for you, then at sunset this evening it begins Wednesday. So again we are talking about a matter of minutes.

5. Again, just a matter of viewpoint. Could not all three be correct? If there were two angels that looked like a young man, then wasnt there for sure one there?

etc.. etc.. etc.. I'll just do 5 cause the rest are very similar. Because different does not mean contradictory!

See a contradiction is if John 20:1 says ONLY one, or that she came by herself, all alone. Or that there was ONLY one man who was not an angel that was ONLY outside the tomb. See all these are just examples of people telling the same story with different viewpoints, and all because they are different in that they do not use the same exact syntax, syllable for syllable, does not mean they contradict.

Also you said "Thus, I believe we have no knowledge of God (no experiments conclusively prove or disprove his existence or non-existence)" But yet here Albert Einstein says ""Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.""

Think of it this way, If you were walking in the desert and came upon a house that was air conditioned and fully stocked with food, it had plumbing and electrical wiring and a waste disposal system, would it ever occur to you that this just happened? That somehow out of a violent desert sandstorm that picked up various debris and the deposited it all nice and level on a foundation and had the systems running? In fact if I was with you and said "Wow, look at what some random chance did?" You would rightly question my thinking. WHY? Because you see right in front of you evidence... Evidence that somebody,,, you don't know who, but somebody had been there are built that house. Also by the construction of that house you could learn alot about the builder, without even meeting him. The earth and the universes is far, far, more complex that that scenario, so is it logical to assume that out of a violent explosion the earth by chance became suitable to life as we know it?

In fact the Discover magazine a few months ago had an article that stated that there are so many precise conditions that must be met in order for there to be life. For ie... the size of the proton, if it was different either way by more than a few percent, then atoms could not form and stay together, if that didn't happen, no molecules no nothing. And this is just one of the first steps. Many of the other precise conditions, to numerous to even begin talking about, themselves depend on other precise conditions to work! That my friend is a great amount of evidence, is it not?

But it seems that belief in God, the Bible or any other religious thought is all kinda related. It is much easier to not believe in God, then no need to believe in the bible, no need to believe in the creation account. And from this thinking all kinds of idea's and theologies come out. And for me, this is truly interesting. Not just the Christian faith, but all of the religions and faiths. Of course when you talk about 'taboo' things like religion or politics, then tempers can flare up, but this has been a most interesting discussion, because I have not detected any of that. Truly a testament to the maturity of all involved!

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

@Laguna: I'm not sure what you were trying to achieve by bringing up Pascal's wager, but it has largely been discounted as an argument for belief/faith.<!-/Quote-!>

Giving piece for conversation. Also, it is a play with Illuminatus' post.

Jojo: I would answer many of those points with 'I dont know'. The courage to say 'I dont know' when faced which such important questions seems to be what separates theists and people who call themselves atheist. I will address each point individually:
1) Why matter>antimatter? I dont know. It could be due to random fluctuations in the very early universe.
2) Origin of universe? Same as 1)
3) Sensory perception? Emergent phenomena of a ultimately natural process we call conciousness.
4) Awareness of self? Same as 3)
5) Sense of will? Same as 3)
7) Specialness of humans? This is special pleading. We are no 'better' than any other species. For instance, we are not the fastest, strongest or most numerous. We happen to have a big brain (probably as a result of living in larger social groups), from which conciousness emerges.
8) Anthropic principle? Victor Stenger's counter that the universe is exheedingly NOT tuned to human survival is a good one. The coincidences of which you speak are not lucky or unlucky.
9) Quantum entanglement? You're going to have to give me more than that. Are you trying to breakdown Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle?
10) Dualism of H's UP and observable events? In short, things happen. Why they happen is uncertain. This is the basic concept behing the UP. The point is that you can't know the mass AND energy of a particle simultaneously, but is DOES have defined mass and energy (thus events occue).

A lot of the discussion here seems to be whether the bible is self contradictory in nature. I think that this is a red herring. To me, it doesnt matter if the bible is self contradictory or not. Either way, there are some events which are clearly supernatural and as such, I cannot bring myself to believe that these events occured. Also, as a moral guide, I find the bible lacking. I can come up with better, simpler rules myself. In fact I do. Everyone does. This is what we do when we look in the bible and consider what bits are 'written for them in the context of the time' and what is 'appropriate for us now'. We use an internal moral compass to decide what is good and what is bad. We use the bible to support the good and happily disregard the bad as 'out of date'. Personally I think they could have come up with better rules then, but Im not going to judge them for it.

Yes, Pascal's Wager is silly. Easily one of the worst reasons to believe anything.

@Serpent Re: Contradictions in the Bible

I concede on the Easter Quiz. You have explained the non-contradictions well. Perhaps I could ask you about another potential contradiction. One that is arguably more important. Christianity is, at least in part, about being saved or getting into Heaven (however you want to phrase it). I think even the most liberal of denominations still holds that believing in God gets you some extra credit even if they don't believe that non-believers will roast for eternity in Hell.

If that is the case, then I would hope and expect that there would be some agreement throughout the Bible about how one is "saved". Here's what different authors of the KJV have to say:

By Hearing the Gospel & Belief in God: John 5:24: "He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life."

By Baptism: John 3:5: "Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'"

By Grace & Faith, not Works: Ephesians 2:8,9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith ... not of works."

By Faith & Works: James 2:17: "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

By Keeping the Law: Matthew 19:17: "... if thou wilt enter unto life, keep the commandments."

By Belief in Christ: John 3:16: "... whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

By Belief and Baptism: Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

By Words: Matthew 12:37: "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

By Calling on the Lord: Acts 2:21: "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Not Works but by Grace & Baptism: Titus 3:5: "Not by works ... but according to his mercy ... by the washing of regeneration." (Note: some denominations will say the washing refers to Christ's blood and sacrifice.)

According to Proverbs 16:4: God made the "wicked" for "the day of evil" (i.e. judgement & damnation). Of course, this makes no sense in light of passages that confirm or suggest that Jesus died for a small number of the elect; or that suggest all will be saved: John 1:29, 4:42, 1 Corinthians 15:29, Hebrews 2:9, 1 John 4:14.

Salvation Available to the Chosen Few: Matthew 7:14, 22:14, Luke 12:32, 13:24, John 6:37,65,15:16,19, Romans 8:29, 9:11-23, Ephesians 1:4.

Salvation Available to Those Who Desire it: Matthew 7:7-8, 11:28, John 3:16, 5:40, 7:37, Acts 2:21, Revelations 3:20.

I admit that not all of these passages are in direct contradiction, but there is little overall agreement about what is actually necessary to pass through the pearly gates. There are also some directly contradictory passages: do we pass the test by faith and grace but not works (Ephesians); by faith and works (James); not by works, but by grace and baptism (Titus).

And why does only Matthew suggest that keeping the commandments might be important? "Think not that I come to destroy the law or the prophets; I come not to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matthew 5:17) Is this a vague way of saying that Jesus thought we should keep to the laws of the OT? Including all the ridiculous ones in Leviticus (not sowing two crops in the same field or wearing cloth of two woven materials)?

I wouldn't expect perfect agreement between all the books of the Bible, and simple bulleted list of steps to get on God's good side, but I would expect more agreement on such an important issue. I would even expect more agreement between different denominations. However, depending on which passage they choose to view as more important, there is the same disagreement as to whether baptism is necessary, whether good works count or not, whether the 10 commandments must be obeyed.

Add in the fact that the whole of Christianity might be a red herring and I find it intellectually more honest to disbelieve in God than to pick one at random (God, Allah, Yahweh, Shiva, Zeus, etc., etc., etc.) and hope I'm right. This is where I disagree slightly with Einstein's view. In many areas of physics, there is an inherent beauty in the simplicity that can be seen. All the visible matter in the universe is made up from three basic building blocks (proton, neutron and electron) held together and interacting by four fundamental forces. Admittedly, the constituents of the proton and neutron complicate the picture considerably, but that is likely to be due to the limitations of the Standard Model (previously thought complete, but recent experiments have cast doubt on this).

Out of this simplicity grows an extremely complex universe. It is also true that the universe as we know it relies on the balance between the fundamental forces being very finely tuned. But we can't say for sure that that means the universe was designed. Only the universe as we know it relies on this balance. A different balance may have produced a completely different, but still functional universe. Evolution shows how huge variety and complexity can develop from a few simple, self-replicating chemical compounds so complexity does not necessarily imply a designer.

Even if I were to accept a designer/creator, there is nothing to say that he/she/it is omnipotent or takes an interest in his creation. For all we know we could be the creation of some hyper-intelligent, hi-tech, but not omnipotent race of aliens in another universe who created our universe purely to observe what would develop when they tweaked the settings. That sticks us in a Matrix-esque recursion and we must ask what created the creator, etc. Better to stick with our current universe and say we don't know what caused it. That is why I don't like the argument by design. It says nothing about the designer and is as much use as saying the universe was created by chance.

I hope I have explained my view clearly. This has been an interesting and friendly discussion so far and I hope it continues. I doubt anyone from either side will be swayed much by the arguments, but I find it encouraging that we can listen and try to understand why others believe what they do. If nothing else, I hope discussions like this will break down some of the prejudice felt on both sides. I'm certainly less militant than I was a few years ago having had numerous such discussions!

I agree with you Mr. Zetetic Elench dam Kahveh, I agree with you 100% about being able to have a friendly and interesting conversation about religion. It just shows that people on both sides can be polite and respectful. It is also nice to talk to somebody who has convictions.

Christianity is, as you said to a large degree about being saved. And the bible does NOT SAY that unbelievers will roast in hell. In fact the passages used to try to prove this are taken out of context. Which is in itself an interesting discussion.

As far as being saved think of it this way! If I was going to build a house for you, one that you were to be truly happy with, would it not be true that there are several steps and procedures that I need to do, in order for you to be happy. First you would require that I put in a level, sturdy foundation, because without that, it's difficult to build the rest of the home. You would also expect that the framing be done correctly and to the local building codes... and so on.... Now if you told me, "Jason, I want this house to have a good foundation and good frame job." Then is that all I need to do to make the house a quality built home? The point is that there is not just ONE way that a person gains salvation, at least according to the bible there isnt.

John 5:24 is of curse one of the first steps to be taken to be approved by God, or gain salvation, whichever wording you wanna use. But just think, If you believe the Gods word, then will that not effect your actions? Like if you believed an asteroid was gonna impact the earth in 2-3 days, would your actions most likely be different than normal?

And according to the bible, when an individual becomes a believer and lives his/her life accordingly, then they make a dedication to God, which is symbolized by baptism.

As for faith and works, both are needed. Because a person CAN have good works, but not have faith, but a person that has faith, well works just come naturally. Thats why James said at James 2:14 of what benefit is faith without works, and says that faith cannot save him. But he later says in verse 18 that he would show or prove his faith by his works. It is not as if we can earn salvation in any way, it is a gift, it is by the grace of god. But according to the bible we can show if we are deserving of that gift.

Mt 7:14 talks about the cramped road and that few would be finding it. This is part of what is commonly referred to as the Sermon on the Mount. This scripture is simply saying that many people will choose to go the easy way, to do and act as they see fit, but that few would be humble and meek enough to allow Gods word to direct and guide them. Which is much more difficult than the 'popular' way. That is why just beforehand in verse 12 the 'golden rule' is mentioned. Jesus was telling his listeners that among many other things, being a true Christian would not be the easy popular course, in fact it would be difficult.

So as you mentioned these are not examples of contradictions, but they are just a guide that allows the reader to see what the bible says God does require. Because in fact all those things are required for those that choose to believe it!

As for Mt 5:17 Jesus said he came to fulfill the Law. The law he was speaking of is what is called the Mosaic Law. Gal 3:19,24,25 says what the purpose of the Law was. The law showed the people then that they could not possibly live perfect lives in harmony with what God required. Nobody could live up to all those laws. It showed that they needed that long promised 'seed' that God promised way back in the garden of eden, just after the first human sin. Jesus was that seed, he 'fulfilled' the Law. But then a new command was given. Jesus said at John 13:34 that that new law, was the law of love. Which intersetingly he stated again when he was asked what the 2 greatest commandment were! 1) love God wholeheartedly. 2) love your fellowman. Although the principles and reasons for the Mosaic Law are still the same, and according to the bible should be followed, the exact way to be done is not!

And wow, as far as the disagreement between denominations.... it is crazy. Here is an example... I may be mistaken, but I think the Hindu religion holds cows as sacred. So if I told you I was a Hindu, and a few days later you saw me at the local burger joint, scarfing down a triple cheeseburger, what would you most likely conclude? Either I do not know what a Hindu is, or I am lying, because obviously I'm not a Hindu! The same is true with Christianinty, It is not possible for them all to be right! SIMPLY PUT MANY/MOST THAT CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIAN, DENY THAT BY HOW THEY BELIEVE AND LIVE. That is why a person if they want to be Christian, cannot simply believe what somebody tells them, but it must be proven!

And according to science, the atom, of which all things are made, could not be possible without the very very fine precise tuning of the fundamental forces of nature. (strong and weak forces, nuclear, and ummm.. I dont remember the other one. lol. ) Therefore even life based on different systems, either carbon or whatever those basic elements of which the whole universe is made, couldnt exist.

And as far as other universes and aliens, I simply do not know. I dont think nobody knows. For the few things I do know, there are many more I do not! But I do know one thing, and that it is hard for me to reason there being a universe that is so well balanced, and a planet in that universe that as far as we can tell is unique, that has very very fine tuned systems, that it just happened by chance! There is just to much evidence for a designer!

Zetetic: You raised some interesting points (with a lot of appreciated detail) about the continuity of the biblical message of salvation.

Serpant: You seem to be saying that the proper way to go about being Christian is to do have faith, do good works and possibly (? you werent clear on this, is it necessary?) be baptised. The point about the Hindu is interesting because the point Zetetic seems to be making is that there are many justifiable methods of being a Christian, just choose your passage (Works, deeds and/or baptism. Trumped by faith?). You seem to be saying that the proper way to go about being Christian is to do have faith, do good works and possibly (? you werent clear on this, is it necessary?) be baptised. Which must clearly be the right way to do it (I assume this is way you do it) and all the others are mearly deluded/mistaken. Where do you attain your proof that your version/denomination is correct? Is it through personal interpretation of the bible? What if I personally interperet the bible differently to you, am I equally as correct?

To both of you: Your 'fine tuning' arguments are known formally as the anthropic principle. I present a the puddle counter which, for me, allows me to disregard this agrument entirely (until some verifiable evidence is presented). It was first made by Douglas Adams (HHGTTG). A puddle is created after a rainy day. The puddle thinks to itself; 'How wonderful the rain, that created me. How perfect the ground that holds me. Why it perfectly follows my form. Even the slightest pertrubation in the smallest detail of the ground and I would be completely different. Why, I might not even exist at all! Surely the ground was created just for me!'. Clearly the puddle is mistaken. The puddle fits the universe, not the other way round. The universe isnt fine tuned for life, life is fine tuned for the universe. The anthropic principle is, in my opinion, no more than a mistake of perspective.

What I am saying is that to be a Christian, a person must go to the ultimate authority on Christianity, which is the bible! The bible says that all of those things are involved in being a true Christian. (Faith and works. And baptisim is a symbolisim of one of the works) The bible does not give many different ways for a person to choose, on how they want to be a Christian. The point with the Hindu is that all because somebody says they are a Christian, does not mean they are. The way to tell is by finding out what the ultimate authority on Christianity says it means to be Christian.

Of course I believe that my denomination of Christianity is the correct one. Otherwise what kind of a person would I be to believe that somebody else was right and I was wrong, and continue on my same old course. No, if I can be proven wrong on what being a true Christian means, by the ultimate authority on the subject, then I have a decision to make. So it is not me, who determines which way is correct. The reason I have come to the conclusion that not all religions can be correct is that, they are to many differences. Just as there is only one truth such as 1+1=2, then there can only be one truth as to what the bible says about Christianity. If a person believes in a higher power and believes that that power divinely inspired the bible to be written and preserved through the ages, despite all kinds of persecution, then is it logical to reason that it does not matter what you believe, that it is up to YOUR own interpretation? If so, then why when the Isrealites, as they promised in a covenant to God, not do as he asked them to do, they suffered? Were they able to choose their own interpretation?
1Pet 3:15&16 says it simply. It says that those who do twist the scriptures to fit their ideas, do so at great harm to themselves.

Your last few words were "Clearly the puddle is mistaken. The puddle fits the universe, not the other way round. The universe isnt fine tuned for life, life is fine tuned for the universe. The anthropic principle is, in my opinion, no more than a mistake of perspective. " Notice you used the term 'life is FINE TUNED for the universe.

The earth is fine tuned for animal and human habitation. Life is fine tuned for the earth. Both statements are correct, because it is evident in the world around us. More evidence of fine tuning is seen in the fact that no other tuning for life of any kind is found anywhere in the cosmos. Although there may be other habitable planets, there are certainly an exponential number that are not.

God is exclusive of religion.

Religion is man made and like all things man creates is flawed.

The majority of posters have issues with religion.

No one has any logical argument against God that I can see.

I will gladly agree with your arguments against religion.

However God is the uncreated creator of the universe. The creator of all physical laws. The Master Engineer...I doubt your disbelief has any effect other than to supress in you the strongest common denominator all humanity shares.

Faith.

Serpant: I am sure that the majority of the people who feel differently to you on some aspects also think the bible is the ultimate authority (although I thought God was the ultimate authority, but hey!). The point is that the bible is inconsistent and unclear on exactly what you need to do. This is why there are denominations.

Is it faith alone? In which case, murderers (and worse) can get to heaven simply by believing.

Is it by faith and works? In which case, no matter how much you believe you cant enter unless you work enough (how much? what kind? Do i build churches or heal the sick?).

Is it by baptism? In which case, what if, by accident I was never baptised (say deathbed conversion) even though I believe and did good works.

As for the anthropic principle: The earth is most definately NOT fine tuned for life. There are vast areas of the earth which are barren and uninhabitable. In fact, the small area that even could possibly habitable is a thin vaneer on the surface of the sphere. Several times (5) in the history of the earth >95% of ALL life has been exterminated. Is that a fine tuned earth?

Furthermore, the point about the cosmos being empty. How do you know? absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps the flaw is technology. Once a culture gains technology they are overwhelmingly likely to destroy themselves before being able to travel the stars. The point is that we have no idea if the earth is fine tuned for life. But even if it were (and there is no evidence that this is the case), it doesnt mean god did it.

Pope: I am not making a logical argument against god. The definition of god (supernatural, incorporeal creator) cannot be disproved by natural methods. There is a logical argument against an omnimax (omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient) god. The uncreated creator is a deist or panentheist belief and cannot be called christianity.

Also, how do you define faith? for me, faith is the reason we give when we have no reason.

Maxwell, don't get flustered now, stay sharp. In one paragraph you say the earth is definitely NOT fine tuned for life. Next paragraph you say we have no idea if the earth is fine tuned for life. Fact is, evidence points to the universe itself being highly fine tuned for life as we know it. How you interpret the facts is up to you. Denying them or saying we have no idea is simply wrong though.

Actually, the universe is proven to be a place of cause and effect. It is far more likely that life, as it has evolved, is fine tuned for this universe rather than the other way around.

The universe formed. Life evolved within the universe. Of course that universe is going to suit life - the life is suited to that universe by its very presence therein.

A thought on the flat earth...

If "flat" is defined as a surface that is on average normal to the direction of gravity, then the surface of earth is flat.

Or perhaps nearly flat depending on how you figure the average.

Ok Jojo, thats a fair point. I will revise my message thus: We have no evidence that the earth (or the universe) is fine tuned for life. This is because we have no point of comparison. So when i say it is not fine tuned I really should say, it is more than likely true that it is not fine tuned.

We certainly cannot say that the earth or the universe is fine tuned for life simply because life exist. The fact we exist does NOT prove anything is fine tuned.

I am not saying there is definately life elsewhere. Whether there was or wasnt would be irrelevant to whether the earth itself is fine tuned. If there is some evidence for fine tuning I would like to see/hear it.

My main issue is with the claim that the earth must be fine tuned because we exist. This is clearly bogus as it is us that are fine tuned to the earth not the other way around (and when I say we I mean life, not humanity). This point is picked up by Miles.

Psychotic Chicken: A good point about the definition of flat. But I wonder why god doesnt see fit to mention that he is using the particularly oscure definition of flat. Also, what about the four pillars? and the firmament above and below. This is called the marksman's fallacy.

Mr. Powers

The bible says that there is more than one thing needed for salvation. Just like you need many ingredients to make a loaf of bread. You would be correct if you said 'to make bread you need to have flour. You'd also be correct to say 'you need yeast to make bread. You'd also be right to suggest that you need water. In fact all those things are needed to make bread. According to the bible it says you need faith. It goes on to say that if you have faith, then works are gonna be a natural result. And then works include all the other visible things we can see, like baptisim.

Its true I have no evidence of life anywhere else in the cosmos, but I do know where life does exist. And because of that think of this

1. Water mostly in liquid form and in the right proportion for optimum climate.

2. Atmosphere of Oxygen and Nitrogen in the right proportions.

3. Renewing Cycles for both water and oxygen/nitrogen. This is interesting to say the least as both of these relate to life. Earth resources not related directly to life are non-renewable.

4. Exactly right distance from Sun.

5. Stable sun compared to others. Life would be 'fried' by massive solar flares.

6. Axis tilt to give seasons.

7. Space exploration has demonstrated how incredibly inhospitable everywhere else in our solay system really is. The first four conditions are not found anywhere else.

For me this is just a little bit of the evidence that humans and earth are tuned. There is much more.

Again you said:
"This is clearly bogus as it is us that are fine tuned to the earth not the other way around (and when I say we I mean life, not humanity)."

Either way fine tuning is exactly the point. For their to be fine tuning, there must be a tuner. You used the marksman or sharpshooters fallacy as an example. But just think, was their somebody who had to make the gun, the ammo? Was there not somebody that fired the weapon? Was there not somebody who built the wall that the bullet hit? Was there not somebody who painted the bulls eye around the bullet hole?

The point is that for even that analogy to be used, their had to be fine tuning, there had to be somebody to complete all those steps. Wouldn't it be unreasonable to suggest otherwise?

Mr. Pope Samtator IX

You are correct. God is independent of religion. By religion, I mean a particular set of beliefs that you hold to be true. There could I suppose be a religion of one!

It is also true that Religion has become a snare and a racket. It is mainly used to promote glory and honor to ones self. The bible of course condemns this kind of 'religion'. But the bible also says that there is one correct way. Not many. A person cant just choose what they want and deny the rest, which is what has happened, and this no doubt is one reason you may be disillusioned with religion in general. I feel the exact same way!

You are, of course, missing the fact that point 2, 3, 4 and 6 are entirely variable.

And points 1 and 5 have proven variable throughout the lifespan of the earth, much to life's detriment.

When life formed there was no oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere. It was methane/CO2. It was life itself that created the present atmosphere.

Thus, life fine-tuning the earth it its needs. Chemical and physical process.

Serpant: This is really important: Your first 6 points all demonstrate a single fallacy. You assume that the current form of life on earth is the one that the earth was fine tuned for. I wonder if you realise that the 'natural' state (ie pre life) of the atmosphere does not satisfy point 2. Your evidence for fine tuning all rely on the idea that humanity are the unique and inevitable product of the earth.

Point 3 is overwhelmingly the product of cycles dependant on living things (oxygen, nitrogen, carbon cycles, and to some extent even the water cycle) and is therefore also not due to a fine tuned earth. Are you arguing that the earth + life on earth = good for humanity. Therefore, god?

Point 5, the sun (or Sol) is an average star and is not unusual in composition or activity. It is the magnetic field of earth which protects us from solar flares. The magnetic field moves about and periodically flips. What about astroids and comets? If one of those hits the planet (as apparantly one did 76 million years ago), then human life will struggle to survive. What does it say of design that the solarsystem is full of objects which could (and do) extinguish virtually (99%) of life on the planet at regular intervals?

Point 6, I dont see how axis tilt informs either way. Is it somehow important to you that it snows in winter and you get a tan in summer? Next you will be telling me that god made clouds to shade you from the sun. Or gave flowers colour to make the world pretty.

Point 7, we have sent probes to two planets in the solarsystem (Mars and Venus). Only mars landers have looked for life (biochemical tests, ambiguous results). On the moons of saturn and jupiter (Enceladus, Ganymede) there are likely oceans of liquid water, we see from undersea geothermal vents that life can flourish in the absence of any energy from the sun. Therefore these moons could well host life. You cannot claim that the solar system is without life based on the ambiguous results of a couple of mars landers.

You then go on to make the argument from design. Even to ignore the point about the marksman's fallacy (seeing the hits and not taking account of the misses, earlier statements about biblical scientific accuracy should be remembered here). The argument from design is simple. You, as a human, observe design. Design is not an inherrent objective property, but instead a subjective observation based on what the observer knows and understands about the object being observed. You cannot look at something and say; 'There must have been a designer for this thing!' without knowing something about the object. We can say a watch has a watchmaker because we have evidence to say that watches are made by watchmakers. We cannot say that creation has a creator because we have no evidence to support the hypothesis.

In any case, what designed the designer? Or is the designer not designed (special pleading, what reason do you have to support this notion)? Even if it were the case that the designer did exist, it doesnt mean that the designer is god, or that it cares about humanity, is capable of reading minds or is going to judge us after we die (all of which are implied by christianity at least). In short, the argument from design is irrelevant to the question of whether theism is justified.

As or the needs. I dont doubt that you think that all these things are necessary, or even that they (works, of which baptism is a subset) are all interdependant results of the same thing (faith). The point is that this is rather important. So why not be a bit clearer on the topic. Why do different characters in the bible answer the same question differently? It seems to me that you believe that the answer is self evident after one takes the time to interperet the bible just so. Is this the case?

Bit long, sorry! It should just be necessary to point out the fallacies (marksman's, anthropic principle and argument from design) and be done with it.

Ah! Just a little bit extra to address the comments made by Serpant to Pope: I contend that the most useful definition of a 'particular set of beliefs' is 'philosophy' and for 'religion': 'a widely held set of beliefs held without evidence and even in spite of contradictory evidence'. Basically, a religon is a popular philosophy held as a result of faith.

A person can make all the assumptions that they please! But evidence is evidence. A watch has a watchmaker. A house has a house builder. A machine has a machinist. A novel has a writer. A work of art has an artist. A computer simulation game has a programmer. BUT a very complex set of laws, (we call physics)and a planetary system that suits life has no maker or designer? This is not logical at all. There is just as much evidence to support earth design, as there is watch design! In fact there is more evidence of design than there is for no design. There cannot be as many accidents of physics, astronomy and biology for life as we know to exist.

Oh and please re-read my post, I didn't ignore the point of the marksman's fallacy.

The answer that all those individuals in the bible gave as to how to gain salvation are all correct. In those instances they were talking to different people at different times, on many different subject matters. That's why if they were speaking about the need to allow faith to motivate the listeners to have good works, then he would say that salvation depends on that. If the listeners were doing some works, but they were just doing it for show, the speaker would say that faith is what is needed. etc.... Thats why if a personal reading of the bible is done, this becomes apparent.

As I said before, I do not have all the answers. All we as humans can do is go by what we can observe and have come to know. Without hard evidence, the creation vs. evolution debate wouldn't amount to much more than a philosophical grudge match. Everyone has their own opinion. The question is what is the basis for that opinion? You see, people can believe whatever they want, but that doesn't make them right. It's the hard evidence that separates the proverbial wheat from the chaff. Keep in mind that "evidence" is not the same as "proof". Evidence is helpful in forming conclusions, while proof concludes the matter altogether. If we had proof, the theory of evolution wouldn't be called a theory.

Darwin in his origin of the Species supplied the needed mechanism for evolution "natural selection". That was 150 years ago. Today, we know that mechanism to be deficient, even in light of genetic mutation. With the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years we've been exposed to a whole new dimension in living systems that was previously unknown. Evolutionary biologists are now looking for a new mechanism, one that can overcome genetic constraints and other chemical-oriented barriers that have been identified in recent years. Until this mechanism is found, the theory of evolution (a theory which has enjoyed prominence in biological circles for over 100 years) simply lacks feasibility, and thus, credibility.

Is it reasonable to acknowledge a Creator? When challenged by skeptics to prove the existence of a Creator scientifically, Dr. Wernher von Braun, the "Father of the American Rocket and Space Program," replied, "Must we really light a candle to see the Sun? The electron is materially inconceivable, and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects that we use it to illuminate our cities, guide our airliners through the night skies and take the most accurate measurements. What strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electron as real, while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer on the ground that they cannot conceive of Him? The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which always will lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction." To simply dismiss the concept of a Creator as being unscientific is to "violate the very objectivity of science itself." While we may not be able to comprehend knowledge of a Creator, we certainly can apprehend it.

The god of gaps. How beautifully deficient.

I get rather frustrated by non-scientists when they declare that something is "only a theory" as if it had no merit and should be dismissed from the argument altogether.

A theory is a predictive description of the natural world based on some assumptions (axioms) that are taken to be true (like 1+1=2).

Let's break this down - the theory must describe the natural world as we observe it. Anything that doesn't is of no use whatsoever. It must also be predictive - we observe that liquid water expands when it is converted into a gas (or its pressure increases); we can predict that other liquids will expand when converted into gases. This makes the theory testable and allows us to verify it. Otherwise I would be able to propose nonsensical theories such that the sky is blue because of little pixies with blue wings flying around at high altitude. They are easily scared and fly away extremely fast from anything that approaches them so if you fly up high enough the sky turns black. This should prevent you from verifying my "theory" so it is cannot be classed as one.

Any single exception can disprove the theory. But that is not the whole story. Let us extend the prediction that liquids expand when they become gases and say that liquids contract when they become solids. For pretty much every solid/liquid combination out there, this is true. EXCEPT for water. Liquid water expands when it becomes a solid (which is why ice cubes float). Do we throw out the whole theory because of this one exception? No, we investigate and try to correct the theory. It turns out that water forms a crystalline structure that gives it a reduced density in comparison to other substances that do not form crystals when they solidify or form denser crystals. Uranium, neon and silicon are other substances that display the same property.

Here's another example. Einstein built his Theory of Special Relativity upon two observations that the addition of velocities is valid (if I am travelling at 40mph and a car passes me at 20mph as I observe it, then it is travelling at 40+20=60mph; this is known as Galilean Transformation) and that light does not obey this (see The Michelson-Morley Experiment on Wikipedia).

He modified the Galilean transformation to accommodate the results of Michelson and Morley's experiment and came up with the theory that the speed of light is a constant for all observers. This remained nothing more than a rather neat mathematical trick until he extended it to include Newton's Law of Gravitation. For some decades, it had been known that Mercury's orbit around the sun didn't obey Newton's Law of Gravitation but nobody was willing to throw out Newton as the LoG described the other planets motion so well. An English astronomer, Arthur Eddington, carried out a series of observations of Mercury during May 1919 that confirmed Einstein's Theory of General Relativity.

Note that Newton's Laws of Motion and Gravitation are not invalidated by General Relativity, GR merely extends them to high speeds and regions of high gravity. You shouldn't jump out of high windows because GR shows that Newton's Gravity is wrong, it's not and you'll still go splat.

Serpent, you say:

"Darwin in his origin of the Species supplied the needed mechanism for evolution "natural selection". That was 150 years ago. Today, we know that mechanism to be deficient, even in light of genetic mutation. With the tremendous advances we've made in molecular biology, biochemistry and genetics over the past fifty years we've been exposed to a whole new dimension in living systems that was previously unknown. Evolutionary biologists are now looking for a new mechanism, one that can overcome genetic constraints and other chemical-oriented barriers that have been identified in recent years. Until this mechanism is found, the theory of evolution (a theory which has enjoyed prominence in biological circles for over 100 years) simply lacks feasibility, and thus, credibility."

Just as Einstein didn't disprove Newton, but correct his theory to accommodate high speeds and gravity, evolutionary biologists are not seeking a new theory, but are synthesising more recent observations to correct Darwin's early attempts at creating a robust and complete Theory of Evolution. He didn't, he knew he hadn't, but he knew that in time, others would carry out the experiments that would gradually build a picture that would make Evolutionary Theory as widely accepted as General Relativity (which was still a few decades away).

The theory of evolution has not been disproved, merely shown to be incomplete. It is still credible as a theory and is providing us with plenty of testable hypotheses that will allow us to verify it. It is also proving to have very practical applications. See this article in the Economist: Evolutionary Theory may help to fight a fatal disease.

So please, do not dismiss something because it is "only a theory". Most theories have a huge body of observations to back them up and a vast number of practical applications that act as a means to verify them on a near daily basis.

I am not dismissing anything because it is a theory, I am simply saying that is definatly not a fact. And the observations you speak of definatly show that the current model of the universe and the beginning of life is not true, and now another theory is being discussed. Sure it may be a change, and not a whole complete revamping of the idea. The only thing in common is that it does not allow for an intelligent designer.

The fact of water expanding when it becomes a solid is also an interesting point. I have heard some use that as and example of fine tuning. Because what if it didn't, then the world would become a frozen wasteland except for a thin piece of habitable area!

There is nothing wrong with theories, in fact many times they can be proven correct, but do not dismiss intelligent design either, or else you deny the very fact you try to prove.

When if the scientific method was used, there could only be one conclusion. But the fact is, science cannot prove everything, it is only a tool. But many times science is described as the final verdict of many subjects. And science fact for that matter, as I'm sure you are well aware has itself been proven wrong but you say let the evidence speak for itself, well let it do just that. It is ok to devise theories all because you do not understand things. But then in the same breath dismiss other idea's?