PeterS

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?"

"God is the only rational explanation for why anything exists at all. Science has tried to come up with explanations that exclude a Creator, but they are nothing but guesses, and many, if not all of them defy science and logic. For instance, some scientists claim that energy has always existed. This is impossible since nothing physical can be eternal. It violates the law of cause and effect. That leaves us with the question of where energy came from. The problem is that it is impossible for something physical to create itself. The only reasonable answer is that someone created it. And don't even bother insulting our intelligence by asking who created God. For one, God is not physical. The laws of physics do not apply to Him. He created them. Bottom line. The universe requires a Creator. Nothing else makes any sense."

When you read Bombastics statement above he is making the classical "argument from ignorance" or because he can't think of a reason behind creation then a god must be responsible for it--even though he provided absolutely now evidence to prove his statement true...

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

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.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

In the Defense of G*d continued:
The First Law of Thermodynamics established (Genesis 2:1-2). The First Law states that the total quantity of energy and matter in the universe is a constant. One form of energy or matter may be converted into another, but the total quantity always remains the same. Therefore the creation is finished, exactly as G*d said way back in Genesis.
The first three verses of Genesis accurately express all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: "In the beginning (time) G*d created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)" Then G*d said, "Let there be light (energy)." No other creation account agrees with the observable evidence.
The universe had a beginning (Genesis 1:1; Hebrews 1:10-12). Starting with the studies of Albert Einstein in the early 1900s and continuing today, science has confirmed the biblical view that the universe had a beginning. When the Bible was written most people believed the universe was eternal. Science has proven them wrong, but the Bible correct.
The earth is a sphere (Isaiah 40:22). At a time when many thought the earth was flat, the Bible told us that the earth is spherical.
Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth (Luke 17:34-36). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously.
Origin of the rainbow explained (Genesis 9:13-16). Prior to the Flood there was a different environment on the earth (Genesis 2:5-6). After the Flood, G*d set His rainbow "in the cloud" as a sign that He would never again judge the earth by water. Meteorologists now understand that a rainbow is formed when the sun shines through water droplets " which act as a prism " separating white light into its color spectrum.
Light can be divided (Job 38:24). Sir Isaac Newton studied light and discovered that white light is made of seven colors, which can be "parted" and then recombined. Science confirmed this four centuries ago. G*d declared this four millennia ago!
Noble behavior understood (John 15:13; Romans 5:7-8). The Bible and history reveal that countless people have endangered or even sacrificed their lives for another. This reality is completely at odds with Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest.
Chicken or egg dilemma solved (Genesis 1:20-22). Which came first, the chicken or the egg? This question has plagued philosophers for centuries. The Bible states that G*d created birds with the ability to reproduce after their kind. Therefore the chicken was created first with the ability to make eggs! Yet, evolution has no solution for this dilemma.
Joy and gladness understood (Acts 14:17). Evolution cannot explain emotions. Matter and energy do not feel. Scripture explains that G*d places gladness in our hearts (Psalm 4:7), and ultimate joy is found only in our Creator's presence "in Your presence is fullness of joy" (Psalm 16:11).
Which came first, proteins or DNA (Revelation 4:11)? For evolutionists, the chicken or egg dilemma goes even deeper. Chickens consist of proteins. The code for each protein is contained in the DNA/RNA system. However, proteins are required in order to manufacture DNA. So which came first: proteins or DNA? The ONLY explanation is that they were created together.
Ocean currents anticipated (Psalm 8:8). Three thousand years ago the Bible described the "paths of the seas." In the 19th century Matthew Maury "the father of oceanography" after reading Psalm 8, researched and discovered ocean currents that follow specific paths through the seas! Utilizing Maury's data, marine navigators have since reduced by many days the time required to traverse the seas.
Sexual promiscuity is dangerous to your health (1 Corinthians 6:18; Romans 1:27). The Bible warns that "he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body," and that those who commit homosexual sin would "receive in themselves" the penalty of their error. Much data now confirms that any sexual promiscuity is unsafe.
Reproduction explained (Genesis 1:27-28; 2:24; Mark 10:6-8). While evolution has no mechanism to explain how male and female reproductive organs evolved at the same time, the Bible says that from the beginning G*d made them male and female in order to propagate the human race and animal kinds.
Incalculable number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22). At a time when less than 5,000 stars were visible to the human eye, G*d stated that the stars of heaven were innumerable. Not until the 17th century did Galileo glimpse the immensity of our universe with his new telescope. Today, astronomers estimate that there are ten thousand billion trillion stars, that's a 1 followed by 25 zeros! Yet, as the Bible states, scientists admit this number may be woefully inadequate
The number of stars, though vast, are finite (Isaiah 40:26). Although man is unable to calculate the exact number of stars, we now know their number is finite. Of course G*d knew this all along "He counts the number of the stars; He calls them all by name" (Psalm 147:4). What an awesome G*d!
The Bible compares the number of stars with the number of grains of sand on the seashore (Genesis 22:17; Hebrews 11:12). Amazingly, gross estimates of the number of sand grains are comparable to the estimated number of stars in the universe.
The fact that G*d once flooded the earth (the Noahic Flood) would be denied (2 Peter 3:5-6). There is a mass of fossil evidence to prove this fact, yet it is flatly ignored by most of the scientific world because it was G*d's judgment on man's wickedness.
Vast fossil deposits anticipated (Genesis 7). When plants and animals die they decompose rapidly. Yet billions of life forms around the globe have been preserved as fossils. Geologists now know that fossils only form if there is rapid deposition of life buried away from scavengers and bacteria. This agrees exactly with what the Bible says occurred during the global Flood.

If you still do not think that faith is not based on fact, I have another 88 saved instances where the Bible has been proven by science. Not bad for illogical, backward and otherwise superstitious people. A book written so many many years ago that science is just now catching up to.
Science cannot answer a few questions, whereas the Bible has the answers. For example, science cannot define a purpose for life, let alone humans. Science cannot understand emotions of love. To say it is only biochemical is ignoring the need to love, to be a part of things bigger than oneself. Still we all have the drive, and sex does not explain it; neither does safety. So, why do humans love?
The Bible is inspired by the Creator. Therefore it is no surprise that life's ultimate questions are contained in a historical book, passed from one generation to the next. Science will one day understand that they do not have the answers, but we who believe know that the answers are just waiting for us to discover them..... in that book of supernatural occurrences, known as the Hebrew Bible.

A phrase definition: A worldview is simply a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world. Unless one is a rock incapable of though or ability to formulate an opinion, they have a worldview.

Yes... this is a reprint of a comment I made a few years ago to another believer of nothing.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Look out folks! Pennylynn just bounced Peter's head off of the turnbuckle!! Now she picks him up, and SLAMS him to the mat! ONE, TWO, THREE!! HE'S PINNED!!😲😲💪👍👍👍👍 IT'S OVER!!👏👏👏👏

Penny, I have never read, or heard a more brilliant takedown of an athiest.
I hope you don't mind if I save it.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Thank you Archie, it is kind of you and my yes, I am flattered that you would want to save my humble thoughts.

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Thank you. I have an atheist friend who should read this. It probably won't change his mind, but it'll give him something to chew on for a while.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Amen, brother.

Penny did not fire a shot across Pete's bow, she fired a broadside into his leaky little scow.

Bail, Pete, bail !!!!

I saved that also, Penny. I know you don't mind.

Funny thing about atheists, they seem so obsessed with their denial of God's existence that it often comes across as an irrational fear that He might.

God Is Both Incomprehensible and Knowable

Scripture teaches that we can have a true and personal knowledge of God, but this does not mean we will ever understand him exhaustively. The Bible is clear that God is ultimately incomprehensible to us; that is, we can never fully comprehend his whole being.

God is infinite and his creatures are finite. By definition, creatures depend on their Creator for their very existence and are limited in all aspects. Yet God is without limitations in every quality he possesses. . . . God’s incomprehensibility also means that beliefs can be held with firm conviction even though they may be filled with inexplicable mystery. The Trinity, the divine and human natures of Christ, divine sovereignty and human responsibility, and many other core teachings of the Christian faith are profoundly mysterious; believing them requires a robust affirmation of the incomprehensibility of God.

Behold, these are but the outskirts of his ways, and how small a whisper do we hear of him! But the thunder of his power who can understand? (Job 26:14)

archie bunker Loc: Texas

Why doesn't Pete refute her post? Maybe he's just busy right now, and will get around to it later.

Snoopy

Dear Penny:

An amazing presentation that should be read and evaluated by everyone on this site!!!

Snoopy

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Snoopy,

I am surprised that anyone read my long paper..... so, thank you on two accounts: your lovely complement and for your time!

Singularity

It is difficult to understand and organize a reply in response to the expansive, rambling, far flung and dizzyingly inclusive (in breadth and depth of subject matter) reply. It would take a determined and lengthy effort to simply arrive at a consensus of what the author is trying to express, much less to then respond to it.

To try to get my head around it, I printed out the response to PeterS's assertion regarding rational versus irrational belief and the nature of rational proof. It consists of slightly more than eight pages typed in a normal sized font and it is single spaced except for breaks between paragraphs. Normally, this respondent writes in a more clear and logically organized though expansive style, so I was looking forward to an interesting read which might provide me with some food for thought. I did not find that here. The use of imprecise and frankly incorrect definitions, factual errors, tangential ramblings, leaps of fantasy and illogical jumps in reasoning surprised me. The meaning and intent of several sentences and paragraphs were frankly uninterpretable. I understand this is a reprint from another of this author's prior responses, but there seems to be an unusual, for this author, lack of punctuation (commas) and a plethora of imprecise grammar. It also seems to be an attempt to substitute bulk for substance.

Every one of us can have a bad day; I am not making these comments simply to be snarky. The author states that she wrote it a couple years ago and apparently has had ample opportunity to review and improve it, and has a proven record of any number of responses to this forum which display much more erudite and precise thinking and expression. Therefore, I am frankly puzzled and mildly concerned (just short of alarmed) by the unusual discrepancy.

PeterS's response to Mr. Bombastic's challenge to refute his prior assertion, that "belief in God is the only rational response" was concise, precise, factual and logical. He succeeded in refuting it as a simple matter of definition of the term 'rational.'

I won't attempt a complete, point by point critique of such an extensive side track here. I will just note that the glowing comments of numerous others add emotional glow, but little logic or actual content, confirming my impression that the agreement more accurately expresses the content and spirit of a high school pep rally than a rational debate. This is admittedly somewhat common on OPP, but usually not as blatant as this example, especially among many of these particular respondents.

Perhaps it is I who is having the bad day, but I haven't noted additional evidence of that other than my critical disappointment in this thread.

Please forgive if my bluntness comes across as rude.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I do wish that your opinion and lack of faith in G*d was something I could or should concern myself with, but truth is... I do not. Your choice to believe or not believe is between yourself and your maker or science in your case. Further, if you do not appreciate my comments or writing style, feel free to exercise your G*d or science given right to ignore my comments and posts. You certainly will not hurt my feelings. But, thank your for your critique of my comment.

Singularity

Why in the world would you wish to have concern regarding my opinions and my lack of faith in the supernatural, if it does not arise naturally? In the several years we have spent occasionally encountering one another's posts on OPP, you have never yielded yourself to comment regarding your ennui relating to my opinions regarding religious belief. You cannot have failed to notice them before this. Should you wish to spend your time and efforts in other pursuits, that is of course up to you. But it is curious that in spite of your ennui, you make such a consistent and determined effort to comment, educate or refute such opinions and lack of irrational belief when expressed by others, including myself.

How could I determine my emotional or intellectual response to a post by ignoring it!?! And of course your feelings would not be hurt by my ignoring them or not reading them. How could you even know?

As I tried to elucidate and explain, I generally HAVE enjoyed the content and style of your posts that I have read in the past, though I'm sure I haven't read all or even most of them. My point was that this particular one was not up to your usual quality. I found that curious and felt concern.

Again if my expression of that concern was unwelcome or my execution clumsy, or for whatever reason you felt the need to express your thoughts, I offer apologies for your implied discomfiture and will try to accommodate your sensitivity in the future if it should occur to me.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I do assure you, I do not search for your company nor do I read any of your threads/comments. Ordinarily, I would have ignored you in this thread, however you addressed your reply to me and due to having manners, I responded. Not as an invitation to you to continue your efforts to "educate" me or to "explain". I can see no merit or gain in continuing this discussion, so if you have someone else that you can depress with your negative attitude, do go visit them or write them a letter because this conversation is over.

Singularity

My comments were addressed to Archie's post which inquired why another poster had not responded to refute your post. Nowhere in my post did I mention you by name or comment directly to you. Since you addressed this post directly to me it is illogical and impolite to refuse my prerogative to reply in kind. I have, as I stated, developed an interest in your thoughts and opinions, and have enjoyed reading some of your prior posts. You began the personal exchange. I have an interest in replying to your personal responses addressed to me. If you have no desire for further conversation simply stop responding.

I will do what pleases me best.