PeterS wrote:
Once again Bombastic is throwing out the proposal that god is the only rational explanation for the creation of the universe. First off, he is claiming that a belief in a supernatural being is rational even though, by definition, a belief in the supernatural can only be accomplished through faith and based on irrationalism. Rational beliefs center around scientific proof yet there is no scientific proof for god so how can a belief in the supernatural be "rational?"
I think it is time to real in this fish you have hooked and add my defense of G*d. One has the right to either believe or not, it is not only their right but prerogative. This does not imply that one does not have a belief system, all people believe. Although one may take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think they have no beliefs. A good introduction to this field can be found in Andrew Newberg's book, Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth . Although many people would like to think that everything they believe is based upon evidence and logic, this is simply not true. In fact, many people have become emotionally bound to a worldview (for the lack of a better word), so much so that worldview changes occur rarely, if at all. Since I am asking the reader to consider a worldview change, I am going to ask them to dump their emotional attachment to their worldview and consider the evidence apart from their emotional attachments. If the reader can do this then keep on reading, if not then stop now to save time and effort.
Moving forward to the claim of rationalism where as you state most atheists derive their beliefs I see no examples of how this is employed. I see a generalized statement that could apply to any group of people, Christian through atheist. Unless, the understanding I am to take is all believers are irrational. In that case, it is an impossibility. One cannot be sure of the abilities of all persons in every country, at every minute, of each day. Therefore, the statement is without merit.
Atheism is, essentially, a negative position. It is not believing in a god or actively believing there is no G*d or choosing to not exercise any belief or non-belief concerning G*d, etc. Whichever flavor is given to atheism, it is a negative position.
As of yet, I have seen no proof from an atheist that G*d does not exist; at least, none that I have heard--especially since you can't prove a negative regarding the existence of G*d. Of course, that is not to say that atheists have not attempted to offer some proofs that G*d does not exist. But those attempts have invariably been insufficient. To use logic, if they were successful arguments, then this exchange of information would be unnecessary because no one to include myself would remain unshaken in our faith in G*d. And further, how would one empirically prove that there is no G*d or gods in the universe. And to further this logical pattern, how would one prove that in all places and in all times there is or has never been a G*d or gods? Even the most self-aware atheist would admit that this is an impossible requirement to meet.
The assertion that many/most or all atheist base their beliefs on opinions and actions should be based on reason and knowledge rather than on religious belief or emotional response.
I have seen comments made by atheist that are irrational. One stands out in my mind, and this was published on a web site for atheist and written by atheist. One must know the beliefs of others if you are to have logical discussions. In other words, one must know the enemy before going into combat. So, allow me to quote "I'm an atheist because I think of the universe as a natural, material system. I think of it, on the basis of my own (extremely limited) experience, as an infinitely replete but morally indifferent thing. It isn't bent on saving me, or damning me: It just is. I find comfort in that, as well as pain; wonder as well as loathing. That's my experience, and my atheism is a reflection of that experience." This is what is passed for rational, science based thought. But, is this an argument for the nonexistence of G*d or gods or is it an interpretation of their feelings? So, based on what was asserted, I did further searches. An educational adventure into a land where my reasoning and logic had to be suspended for a time (gave up my worldview to consider another possibility) but found many interesting facts. Atheism is an incredibly diverse movement that includes many philosophical traditions. At its fundamental core, atheism is the lack of belief in one god or many gods. Atheists on many points, but most claim to value science and skeptical reasoning. There is an immense debate as to the exact definition of an atheist. Some hold a strict definition, and argue that atheism requires a conscious refutation of a higher power and all faith traditions. Other atheists contend that the definition should extend to all beings that hold no conception of god, such as babies or individuals of non-theistic faith traditions (i.e. Buddhism). But it's not an argument; it's an interpretation.
Forward to the position that "most theist" belief systems is based on a system that is irrational. I must disagree. It is rational to want to be moral, to be amoral is considered by all clinical mental health professionals to be a characteristic of many mental disorders. The primary one, of course is, Antisocial personality disorder characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others. Typical features include a failure to conform to lawful and ethical behavior, and an egocentric, callous lack of concern for others, accompanied by deceitful and manipulative behavior, irresponsibility, and/or risk taking. This pattern of behavior tends to be inflexible, maladaptive, and persistent, beginning in childhood or early adolescence and continuing into adulthood. Key features include ambition, persistence, goal-directed behavior, an apparent need to control the environment, and unwillingness to trust the abilities of others. Antagonism and disinhibition often are specific maladaptive character traits. The antisocial personality performs antisocial or criminal acts, but the condition is not synonymous with criminality. As there is an inability or unwillingness to conform to social standards, it is also termed the dyssocial personality disorder. Prevalence of antisocial personality disorder is 0.2% to 3.3%. The highest prevalence is among males with the most severe cases of alcohol use disorder, and in substance abuse clinics, prisons, or other forensic settings; prevalence is also higher in individuals with adverse socioeconomic (poverty) or sociocultural (migration) factors and dare I say it, among atheist.
To be moral is a measurable and measurable (therefore meeting scientific guidelines). This has nothing to do with feelings, intuition, or faith. Therefore, I submit that the ground work for faith is a emphasis on conduct, treatment of one another and ability to establish a position that is non- hostile for oneself or others. Ergo, I submit that faith is based on science and not entirely on emotional responses. A recent study, run by psychologists at Yale University, on babies under 24 months old indicate that we are born with a sense of morality. Again, this adds validity to faith based morality is not an emotion, but something within our DNA.
And if that is not logic enough, then perhaps a return to the origin of the universe is in order. And I will attempt to once again explain why the belief in G*d cannot be denied. There are three possibilities for the universe:
1). The universe emerged from nothing. Little needs to be said about this notion. Nothing produces nothing. This premise is neither logical nor reasonable.
2). The universe is eternal. Among many scientific reasons why the universe is not eternal are: (a) the big bang theory, (b) the abundance of hydrogen, and (c) the irreversible decay of the universe.
a. The discovery by Edwin Hubble that the universe appears to be uniformly expanding in all directions leads to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang theory is not merely a proposition that matter expanded from an infinitely small position. It is the proposition that the universe had an absolute beginning, that before this event, not even space nor time even existed at all!
b. Hydrogen is continually being converted into helium through the process of nuclear fusion. This process is irreversible, so the abundance of hydrogen in the cosmos belies the notion of an eternal universe.
c. The second law of thermodynamics says that while the total amount of energy remains constant (the first law), the availability of usable energy in the universe is constantly declining (the second law). Apart from the intervention of a supernatural agent (G*d), the stars would have burned out and the universe would have run down like a clock with no one to wind it back up. The logical conclusion is that it cannot be true that an infinite amount of time has passed because the universe would have reached a cold and lifeless state of absolute equilibrium.
3. That the universe was created by an eternal being.
By process of elimination, the existence of an omnipotent G*d is the most reasonable, logical, and scientifically supported conclusion for origin.
Realizing that some atheist will use terminology they hope will circumvent the obvious conclusion of the Big Bang. For example, they may say that before the Big Bang, the universe was a "point of singularity." Then at the Big Bang, the pre-universe emerged from a state of organization to one of disorganization. This is absurd, based on a scientific law that states, anything at rest must remain at rest until an external force causes it to move. So we again must conclude that something of a higher order of being than the universe itself must have caused the big bang. The conclusion remains that G*d was the first cause, the prime mover.
This attempt to circumvent the Big Bang is based on ignorance of what scientists believe about the Big Bang. The Big Bang is not about the rearranging of matter that already existed. It is about all known things; matter, energy, space, and time arising from NOTHING.
Again, this is logical, scientific, and not based on intuition, instinct, feeling, or faith. It is a fact that individual who are rational have adopted the facts already known and accepted by people who are faith based. Let me provide you with a few examples:
Scientists at one time thought that the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas. Only the bible said the earth free floats in space, see Job 26:7
Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements. But, in Hebrews 11:3, it clearly says that creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes.
Ship builders today are well aware that the ideal dimension for ship stability is a length six times that of the width. Keep in mind, G*d told Noah the ideal dimensions for the ark 4,500 years ago. Again, this is not news to those who believe, Genesis 6:15, The bible specifies the perfect dimension for a stable water vessel.
For centuries people naively washed in standing water. Today we recognize the need to wash away germs with fresh water. Leviticus 15:13, when dealing with disease, clothes and body would be washed under running water.
Up until World War I, more soldiers died from disease than war because they did not isolate human waste. Deuteronomy 23:12 and 13, G*d commanded his people to have a place outside of camp where they could relieve themselves. They were to each carry a shovel so that they could dig a hole (latrine) and cover their waste.
Until recently, it was thought that oceans were fed only by rivers and rain. Yet in the 1970s, with the help of deep diving research submarines that were constructed to withstand 6,000 pounds-per-square-inch pressure, oceanographers discovered springs on the ocean floors! Oceans contain springs (Job 38:16). The ocean is very deep. Almost all the ocean floor is in total darkness and the pressure there is enormous. It would have been impossible for Job to have explored the "springs of the sea."
There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor (Jonah 2:5 and 6). Only in the last century have science discovered there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea.
Blood is the source of life and health (Leviticus 17:11; 14). Up until 120 years ago, sick people were "bled" and many died as a result (e.g. George Washington). Today we know that healthy blood is necessary to bring life-giving nutrients to every cell in the body. G*d declared that "the life of the flesh is in the blood" long before science understood its function.
The Bible states that G*d created life according to kinds (Genesis 1:24). The fact that G*d distinguishes kinds, agrees with what scientists observe; namely that there are horizontal genetic boundaries beyond which life cannot vary. Life produces after its own kind. Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, and roses produce roses. Never have we witnessed one kind changing into another kind as evolution supposes. There are truly natural limits to biological change.
Our bodies are made from the dust of the ground (Genesis 2:7; 3:19). Scientists have discovered that the human body is comprised of some 28 base and trace elements, all of which are found in the earth.
See continuation below.