For many atheists, a major stumbling block is the belief – the insistence – that this universe is “all there is.” Considering the likelihood of God’s existence from this starting point will often cause the atheist to engage in circular thinking, as evident in a recent challenge posted on this site:“For gods to be gods they have to be supernatural - agreed? For something to be supernatural it has to exist outside of the universe - agree? Since the universe IS everything, there is nothing outside, there is no 'outside.’ Therefore nothing can be supernatural, which means that any being demonstrating the traits of a god is nothing more than a powerful evolved creature that lives in the same universe as we do, therefore is not a god and not deserving of worship.
I'm on solid ground when I say no gods exist. Disagree? Prove they do.”
With just a bit of reflection, it is apparent that the skeptic has built his conclusion right into his premises. By defining the "universe' to be "everything," and “supernatural” as being "outside the universe," the only possible conclusion is that there is no God. Restating the syllogism, the challenger is saying: To exist, a being must be within the universe. By definition, God is that being which is outside the universe. Therefore, God cannot exist.
The problem with the conclusion is not the logic employed but the accuracy of the premises involved. Why should we assume that the universe is everything, that there is nothing outside of it? The challenger presents no evidence to support his claim, nor does he provide an argument. He simply assumes that the universe is all that there is. This is very shaky ground upon which to build a belief system.
When a Christian refers to the "universe" - at least an "old earth" believer - he is usually referring to the thing that popped into existence from "nothing" some 14 billion years ago. It consists of length, width, depth and time. Perhaps in the first fraction of a second, it also consisted of additional dimensions. There was a before to the universe and there will be an after; otherwise the universe itself would be infinite and eternal, which science tells us it is not. But if time as we know it began with the Big Bang, then this before and after exist in a way in which our minds cannot fully comprehend.
Since a "something" cannot come from a "nothing," this universe needs a source adequate to explain its presence. The source must be immensely powerful, given the size and grandeur of what we see, and immensely intelligent, given the precise mathematical order built into the laws of nature. This source must be artistic, for the universe contains much beauty. But the source, while capable of entering this universe, must exist outside and apart from it; otherwise it would be part of the universe and in need of explanation.
This challenge is not unlike a skeptic who examines a house he comes across. He sees that it is built to precise specifications, that it is functional and that its appearance demonstrates a symmetric elegance. Because he was not present when it was built, and because the present owners acknowledge that they did not build it, he concludes that it must always have existed, that there were no architects, no carpenters, no plumbers.
No rational person would draw such a conclusion, because the existence of precisely built things requires a builder. But, in holding his view, the atheist has abandoned rationality in order to arrive at the place he began.
Posts
59 comments:
Good points, nice read. As to those on the other side of the controversy - it is interesting that what one admits into the argument makes a world of difference. Constraining admissible “facts” to that which Big Science (i.e. materialistic) currently holds to be acceptable, reduces the set of possible explanations to worldviews that are powerful in some aspects but highly ad hoc in a suite of others.
If “reality” is so constrained, the explanations of origins, consciousness, historical anomalies (I.e. miracles), fulfilled prophecies, evil, etc. become fanciful. If there is supernatural reality, every ad hoc explanation can be replaced with a better inferential one. It is not “God of the gaps” if there is applied rationality that unifies and coheres with the natural realm.
Also, Big Science has yet to adequately explain more than the 4% that can be presently described by the Standard Model of physics. Dark matter and energy (the other 96%) are known mathematically to a certain degree but little beyond that. The unity of gravity with the other three fundamental forces is still not comprehended. (Imagine the degree of complexity that will be involved when seeking to unify these four [GUT] with dark matter and energy (DM/E) to explain what we perceive to be the whole of physical reality.)
It is a bit arrogant to mandate that “Reality” be described in terms of the physical when we know so incredibly little about it. Yes, our knowledge has increased dramatically over the last two hundred years but progress in Physics has slowed dramatically - even with an LHC. The presumption we will revolutionize the Standard Model with highly certain knowledge incorporating GUT and DM/E is highly unlikely now or ever.
I’m grateful to God that we have been given the capability to, at least, grow to childhood in the understanding of physical reality. I’m more thankful for the revelation of Himself through Jesus Christ, the scriptures and the Holy Spirit so that we can know spiritual reality and the ground of existence also in a childlike way. Yet still, I rejoice beyond that to know this childhood will be left behind and all reality will be known and enjoyed in the presence of my Savior with full maturity.
Isn't the whole point of the multiverse that this universe is not all there is?
First the universe was eternal, and the idea of the universe having a beginning was a sign of stupidity. Now the universe has a beginnning, but not thinking it just popped into existance for no reason is a sign of stupidity.
You can't believe in God because there is no absolute proof. However you can believe in an eternal cyclic universe although there is no proof (other than it seems to comfort some and can't be mathematically disproven) and that 90 to 99% of the universe can believed to be made of Dark Matter (which very well may be real, I don't dispute the possibility) which has no proof whatsoever other than an assumption used to make the math work for observations of intergalactic matter distribution and galactic rotation rates.
String Theory is being touted as being the miracle theory that is being able to be the Theory of Everything, and even it has been pointed out that as untestable. Just like multiverse theory.
I'm sorry. Anyone who thinks that scientists are dispassionate and do not accept anything with out overwhelming proof is probably getting their views from TV or movies. Scientists are often accepting of theories for no reason other than there is funding (ie they can keep their jobs and publish books).
I suspect Mr Dawkins' main interest in religion is book sales and speaking fees. The man makes too much money off his "ideas" to be seen as absolutely objective.
The universe being all that there is, is an outdated concept. That went away when the Multiverse was invented to get rid of the find tuning problem.
STILL dragging material out of my posts I see!
My point was that for something to be Supernatural it has to exist outside the natural Universe, no matter what that Universe includes (sub-Universes, multiverses, whatever dimensions)...if it exists in ANY part of reality then it is subject to the physical/temporal/whatever laws of that reality and cannot, by definition, be a god.
You're delusional idiots, calling others irrational when you believe in laughable nonsense.
Pathetic, truly pathetic.
Still, glad to see that your threads are still generating loads of comments now that I've stopped posting here....what?....you've had a MASSIVE drop off in comments? Oh! What a pity.
I still believe your definitions are flawed, for reasons I have already stated.
I see that when questioned, you retreat to ad hominems.
If I remember correctly when you brought this up with Matt you said we cannot assume our laws apply when discussing this question and demanded proof that they did. If we cannot assume the laws we know to be valid in this situation, on what basis can you claim that something is impossible? Ok. I demand proof on how we can determine something is impossible in a situation where there are questions about the basic laws of physics.
Ahem:
I, for one, am not impressed with Alex's attempt to define gods out of existence. If I were to see a being who could will plants and animals into existence, I would have no problem identifying that being both as a god and as supernatural. However, I have yet to see such a being. That fact is that if a being that I would identify as a god were actually to exist, I would find definitions claiming "really natural" and "not qualified as a god" to be rather petty. A realm that transcends our perceptions and our instruments would be, for all intents and purposes supernatural. If minds were found to transcend physical death, that would be effectively supernatural. The technique of "moving the goalposts" is traditionally christian.
Be carefull, Pvblivs. You don't want to get confused with us delusional idiots.
Alex's posts are so generic, they could be from any garden variety atheist with a web browser.
They do however provide an excellent platform to show what common objections are, and display how understanding the subject will all you to dismantle them by pointing out where the flaw in the reasoning is.
In many cases it is making objections beyond one's solid ground and assuming that no one who can correct the mistakes would be Christian. After all Dawkins puts forward the idea that almost no real scientist is a Christian, so you are unlikely to find one on a blog.
Alex B, I do have to say folks over here are much more charitable with your objections than you have been with theirs.
I read your latest pulitzer candidate on Calvinism.
Sarcasm/* Bring on the Presbyterian Suicide Granny Bombers. */Sarcasm
I was over to see what you were referring to.
Definitely not a good loser, or a good winner depending on your view.
Any last pretense of civility is gone.
Not for the faint of heart.
Back to the subject at hand. Is the Universe all there is?
I have read a number of arguments on this site, and it seems the deafault materialist position is muddled. It has to be in terms of experimental evidence, but it can't be due to fine tuning.
It is an area where science is often confused with philosophy.
School of Hard Knox, The Anti-Dawkins, and The Meister....want to explain to everyone why you're posting under different names when your profiles all link to the user ID 03375411448445501826?
Are you trying to make it look like there's more support for your views than there really are? You've tried the same stunt on my blog, and been caught out there as well.
Pvblivs, if a natural being were powerful enough to do all the things a god could do that would still not make it a god, and no more worthy of worship that I would be by an ant.
Example - man has immense power over single cell organisms, we can even make artificial ones in the lab, from the point of view of a single celled organism WE are gods, and show all the traits that we'd ascribe to a god. But that doesn't alter the fact that we're not, we're just much more powerful than they are. Likewise, any naturally occurring being that appears godlike to us.
For anything to be supernatural to exist it HAS to exist outside of the realm of the real, if something isn't real it doesn't exist. The very act of existence pushes anything that exists into the realm of reality, no matter how strange or powerful that thing is.
Nothing is supernatural, because it is not possible for anything to BE supernatural.
Actually, if you want to know. There was a group of us here, and only one person had an account that was able to post.
Not everyone is a blogger.
"Actually, if you want to know. There was a group of us here, and only one person had an account that was able to post."
Well, as my blog allows OpenID posting, that story holds no water. So, lying after being found out! Well done!
Alex:
Whether a being was worthy of worship is a separate question from whether a being is supernatural. An ant might well decide that, from its perspective, we are supernatural and yet not worship any of us.
I seem to recall hearing about some group that offered a large cash prize for evidence of the supernatural, with an asterisk stating that anything any evidence was found for would be deemed natural and not qualified for the prize. It's dishonest. And it's no different from the way some christians ask for "evidence of evolution." Personally, I don't foresee them providing evidence of what they identify as supernatural anytime in the near future. Why the pre-emptive, "if you do find it, it's not supernatural"?
if an ant thinks I'm supernatural it doesn't change the fact that I'm not.
Doesn't OpenId require you to have an account with a service they are set up to query in order to authenticate?
There are still people who don't have Google or Yahoo or Myspace accounts and have opinions but don't run blogs where they promote hatred of people who disagree with them.
No matter what you say your blog makes it abundantly clear that you have a great hatred towards calvinists, and say you hope that there is a God just so all calvinists can spend eternity in hellfire.
Expecting a few calvinists not to get together go share an account to respond to you'd post, after you removed the ability to answer without an account, should 't be overly unexpected and expecting them to sign up for accounts with these services just for commenting on one article is a waste of time.
If you spew hate, you have go expect go get a response.
Trent, if we're going to start a 'he said she said' discussion of hate, I think we can go right back to the vile doctrine that Calvinists promote. Even for Christianity it's exceptionally unpleasant.
So I stand by every opinion I've expressed about them on my blog.
As for stopping anonymous posts, how is that any different from THIS blog? Seems to me they do just fine posting here, and yet the platform and settings are IDENTICAL to my blog.
Calvinists are some of the worst of the worst.
Trent:
If I may make an observation: I originally set up a Blogger account so that I could post a comment on a blog that required one. It's really not that hard. Okay, it has gotten a little harder because now they require that you attach it to a phone number. All these people aren't living under the same roof are they? And if they are, you can see how someone might think they all share the same skin.
So you admit posting hate and are upset that someone without a Blogger account responded via someone who did?
Slick saying that he thought you hated God was slander, but your post about all calvinists deserving eternal torture is just your opinion and is acceptable mature behavior?
Interesting! Things must work different in the UK.
What things may look like aside, I am more interested in the posting that they were responding to. Whether it is multiple people or multiple comments by one person pales in comparison to what they felt compelled to comment on.
I'm not going to repeat a lot of it as I doubt the moderators would allow the language used.
People here may have given him a hard time and trashed some of his arguments, but this response is a bit of overkill in reaction. I think his whining about some people heckling him is a bit childish.
Trent, I could tell you stories (and back them up with posts). "Childish" is quite accurate. I have never seen such hatred before, either. If it was harnessed to actual logic, he would be a force worthy of attention.
"Slick saying that he thought you hated God was slander, but your post about all calvinists deserving eternal torture is just your opinion and is acceptable mature behavior"
Oh Boo hoo! You lot disgust me, you think ALL non-believers are destined for hell! Talk about hypocrisy! You're whining because I wrote a humourous post blasting Calvinists, knowing full well that I don't believe in any hell for anyone to go to, yet YOU actively think it's a real place!
You're vile, self-righteous, embarrassments to humanity.
I'm done with you.
If that is your attempt at light hearted humour, you must just laughing your butt off visiting skinhead sites.
I think you may need some help.
If you are done, I'll take my Easter Sunday to read Mere Christianity on my Kobo.
If you are going to attack Calvinism, at least look it up. everyone is destined for Hell, and if God didn't intervene no one would have a hope of avoiding it.
He worked on some to "force" them to believe and others are left to freely choose for or against, though it seem few not chosen freely choose him on their own.
At least look it up in Wikipedia. I can suggest a book by RC Sproul that gives a good description.
others are left to freely choose for or against... At least look it up in Wikipedia.
I did. Wikipedia doesn't not say the unelect are free to choose. Quite the opposite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinism#Five_points_of_Calvinism
Conversely, God has also chosen from eternity to withhold himself from the unelect, and condemn them to face his wrath
I already knew this as I was brought up as a Calvinist.
Were you taught predestination or double predestination?
Either way it is not as simple as believe or go to hell. Everyone deserves hell, but God intervened on behalf of some based on reasons known only to him. Yes the others will suffer wrath for rejecting him, but they still have free will so they freely reject him.
Did your congregation hold exactly to the original text of the Westminster Confession, and declare the pope as Antichrist?
A current interpretation can be found in the documents Catechism for Today and. Living Faith at www.Presbyterian.ca.
For the record, I am not saying that the pope is the Antichrist. I merely mention that as stating that modern Reformed Theology, although based on the writings of Calvin, have evolved since the original confessions were written.
Not having studied Systematic Theology, I am not the correct person to give in depth descriptions, but I have never been taught the idea of double predestination
Reformed, and always reforming.
I'm not sure why "nature" is being given the same meaning as "reality". "Nature" is a subset of reality. Reality would also include the set called "supernatural". It may be, in some opinions, that the set called "supernatural" is an empty set. However, it a set that is unique from the set of "natural" things.
Those of us who are Christians believe that the set of "reality", prior to creation, coincided with the set of "divinity". When creation took place, the set of "divinity" then existed in relation to the set of "natural" things and can be given the contrasting title "supernatural".
The "natural" can then be described with characteristics such as dimensions, compositions, energy and such. By contrast, where the natural has limits in each category, the supernatural exists and acts without limit according to its will.
I hope that, if there is contention with these points, the engagement could be somewhat beyond fiat statements.
Mark,
That is a good point. Reality is all that there is, and if something supernatural existed, it would be part of reality. If outside our universe exists, even if it does not follow the same laws as inside our universe, it would by definition be part of reality.
If one is objective, whatever is outside our universe exists regardless of whether we can prove it or not.
I can't prove whether you are holding a coffee right now, unless you choose to reveal that to me, but the fact does not change because I don't know. Therefore there is something outside this universe or not. If there is, it is part of reality.
The discussion of Predesination probably should be moved to another article, but as an example of modern church teaching...
Question 54. What is predestination?
Predestination is God’s decision from eternity to move savingly towards us in Jesus Christ
in whom and by whom we are chosen. As such, it is gospel, good news. We are chosen
for a purpose, to be like Christ and to serve God.
Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the
image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large
family. And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom
he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.
Eph 1:4 Just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy
and blameless before him in love.
Jn 15:16 You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and
bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you
ask in my name.
See also: Gen 12:1-2, 25:19-23; Deut 7:6-11; Ps 139; Isa 41:8; Am 3:2; Gal
1:15,15; Eph 1:3-14; Rom 9:10-18, 11:2,28-36; 1 Pet 1:2, 2:9; 2 Pet
1:3-10.
Question 55. Are those who do not believe, then not chosen?
Though we know that there are some who do not believe and who reject God, God’s love
continues to invite them to faith. God wills the salvation of all and excludes no one from
the reach of his love.
1 Tim 2:3-4 This is right and is acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, who desires
everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Jn 3:17-18 “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world,
but in order that the world might be saved through him. Those who
believe in him are not condemned; but those who do not believe are
condemned already, because they have not believed in the name of the
only Son of God.
Rom 11:32 For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to
all.
See also: Ezek 18:32; Jn 6:37,39, 12:32; Rom 5:18; 1 Cor 15:22; 2 Cor 5:19;
Eph 1:10; Titus 2:11; Heb 10:31; 2 Pet 3:9; 1 Jn 2:9; Rev 20:14.
Catechism for Today, Presbyterian Church in Canada
Were you taught predestination or double predestination?
From Wiki:
'Calvinistic predestination is sometimes referred to as "double predestination."'
"Either way it is not as simple as believe or go to hell."
According to christian beliefs, their god requires extensive ego-stroking, and will throw anyone who does not provide it into hell. Everyone can see that this is wicked. Some openly call it "just" for the purpose of stroking their god's ego.
Sometimes I abhor Wikipedia. Unbelievers who already have decided on their "facts" pick a doubtful source regarding deep theology, not doing decent research. The Bible already says they cannot understand deeper things anyway. Although Wikipedia makes some of their comments sound almost reasonable, they are only confusing the issues and further deceiving themselves.
Making it sound simple makes it easier to discount.
Perhaps we should throw away a lot of science, because without a lot of study some of it sounds silly. I don't think so.
I do not understand your statement, 'Perhaps we should throw away a lot of science, because without a lot of study some of it sounds silly. I don't think so.'
Sorry, but I do not follow. Would you mind saying whom you are addressing?
Pvblivs is reducing everything to simplistic statements that can easily be mocked. Science, particularly in Quantum Theory and Relativity, have things that if examined only on a surface level, seem so silly that they should be thrown away.
Sometimes something that looks silly on the surface can have a rationale that makes sense, but can't be described convincingly in a mere blog posting.
Thanks for clearing that up for me. One of my more daft days today.
No problem.
I sometimes have a tendency to state conclusions and forget to tell people how I got there. Makes things sound like random statements. :-)
Trent:
It doesn't change some of them from being false statements. I have presented the christian position as I see it. If you acquainted yourself with my blog, you would realize that I do not endorse mockery. Nor am I interested in mocking your position. You would certainly not be the first person to flatter a tyrant out of fear of what would happen to you if you did not. Now, you could try to challenge my assessment. You could try to show there are people (according to christian beliefs) who don't stroke your god's ego but are not sent to hell. If there are people who refuse to call your god "good," "holy," "just," and "righteous" throughout their entire lives and still are not sent to hell (again, according to christian belief) then you will have shown my assessment to be incorrect. As it stands, however, you are appealing to mockery while accusing me of the same.
I did not say you were mocking. I am saying you are simplifying it to a level that makes it easy to mock, and have stated that there are other subjects that sound just as silly when you simplify them to that degree.
Take foreign aid. It can be simplified to "These people have had their own resources squandered. Our solution is to raise your taxes so we can take your money and give it to the governments that squandered their resources in the first place." Not an accurate description of the aim, bgecause although it sounds right has oversimplified the issue.
Having read Pvblivs blog, I must disagree. he endorses mockery as well as dishonesty. These oversimplifications are part of his mockery process. He has been around long enough to learn at least some rudimentary aspects of correct theology instead of arguing positions that Christians do not hold.
I cannot count the number of times that I have been called up to defend a "doctrine" that Christians do not really hold, or to even defend a "position" that was forced upon me. Caricatures and straw man arguments are standard atheist tactics.
Well, Hazmat, I have given my assessment of the christian position. I do not consider it an oversimplification and it is decidedly not dishonest or mocking. But you might think it incorrect. In that case, you can identify where it diverges from christian belief. Or, if I'm spot on, you can continue to say I endorse mockery and dishonesty. Here and here are my "endorsements" of mockery. I will let the reader determine my stance.
I agree that your mischaracterizations of God, the Bible and the "Christian position" (capitalize according to proper rules, if you don't mind) are mockery.
Sometimes you're very crafty and subtle, but PBS, you do mock- and the worst of your mockery is towards God...
...as in an above statement about 'stroking his god's ego', which would certainly count as mocking.
No, Rhomphaia, I really do see the description of your god as that of an insecure child who needs to have his ego stroked. Calling things as I see them is not mockery, no matter how convenient it is to think that it is.
"Calling things as I see them is not mockery, no matter how convenient it is to think that it is."
Why do you assign a motive to her, or to others, about something being "convenient"?
You said to Hazmat, "I have given my assessment of the christian position. I do not consider it an oversimplification and it is decidedly not dishonest or mocking."
You have indeed been mocking, despite your attempts at manipulation of emotionalism. Also, you are on record as maligning "the Christian position" by making statements along the lines of, "Jesus commands his followers to lie", and your outrageous slander that I personally want all non-Christians dead.
Given these facts, I do not think you are fooling anyone with your appeal to emotions as well as your obfuscation.
"Why do you assign a motive to her, or to others, about something being 'convenient'?"
Why do you assign a motive to me about something being "mocking"? At any rate, convenience of belief is the minimalist motive that might spur her to call what I say "mocking." If I were to assign motives to suit my own convenience, I would probably say that that she was being malicious and deceptive. But that is actually too strong a claim for the evidence I have.
"Malicious and deceptive" are strong charges for her short comment. But you dodged my question and tried to turn this into an inquiry about my own motives. I thought the purpose was to reason things out, here.
"'Malicious and deceptive' are strong charges for her short comment."
I did say that it would be too strong a claim for the evidence to support.
"But you dodged my question and tried to turn this into an inquiry about my own motives."
I reflected your question back at you. I notice that you don't like it -- determination based on the fact that you objected to my doing so. If the reflected question is unreasonable, then the original is as well and whether I "dodged" it is irrelevant. But I will let the readers come to their own conclusions about whether I avoided it or included a satisfactory answer.
Since you would rather play word games and are always right in your own eyes, I am done with you.
"Since you would rather play word games and are always right in your own eyes, I am done with you."
Pot, meet kettle. Comment on color. I have little doubt we'll meet again. You've pulled this on me many times before.
Oh, by the way, my assessment that you want all non-christians dead has come from various posts that you have made. It is hardly a slander. The fact that you say that it was all "just a joke" does not impress me.
For anyone who is interested, the April 22nd radio program where Alex B called Matt Slick has been posted.
It is a postmodern idea that something exists simply because you believe it does. The postmodernists claim that Atheists and Christians can all live in harmony, simply by respecting one another’s beliefs, despite the inherent contradiction. What is true for me is not necessarily true for you. Where, then, does truth come from? Well as my salesmen friends like to say: truth comes from perception. This would mean, of course, that nothing existed or had definition before an intelligent mind existed to define it. If God was invented by man, this idea has some philosophical problems, because we presume that man came from somewhere which means there must have been truth and substance prior to consciousness.
Interestingly, if we assume a trancendant, eternal God, then this idea works so long as we also allow that His perfect perception supercedes our imperfect perception. What God percieves to be true is true and what God percieves to be false is false. Thus, the definition of the Universe comes into clear focus because it has a definer.
I find 2 issues with this question from the naturalist.
1. God doesn't live outside the universe. He lives inside of it. Isaiah 40:22
2. There is no natural/supernatural (given these are unbiblical words in the Greek).
Both of these points are contrary to the Biblical worldview, and therefore need not be explained to him but redirected to reality.
Post a Comment