Where did the laws of physics come from?

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@Randy, thank you for the honor and support, but I wish to make it clear that this is a degree that I have not received.

@Randy

Please help me see whether this is not a God of the gaps argument

I can assure you that this is not a God of the Gaps argument. I call YHWH the God of the Facts, because it demonstrates that only YHWH God could create the universe. It puts the pressure on non-believers to prove that God could not have done this.

Indeed they must argue from ignorance because there is no solid evidence for the multiverse or any other natural Source of the universe. In other words they must argue for the No God of the Gaps.

@Randy

we thought that a complex organism like man required intelligence to create. However, we found that in our system, evolution does occur and there’s evidence that we have arisen from rudimentary elements and energy.

@Randy

we thought that a complex organism like man required intelligence to create. However, we found that in our system, evolution does occur and there’s evidence that we have arisen from rudimentary elements and energy.

I see you problem and I deeply sympathize with it. That really is why I became involved in these issues.

The problem seems basically simple to most people, but it is not because it is deeply entwined with the was that we as Western folk see the world, or Western dualism. We are used to seeing things as done by God or by nature. If nature did not do something then God must have done it, when life is much more complicated than that.

I have a different point of view which I believe is shared by the Bible. David wrote in Psalm 139:13-15 (NIV2011)
13 For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
15 My frame was not hidden from You when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.

In the Psalm David does not give any indication that his conception and birth was any different from the natural process of sexual reproduction that created all of us. Our ancient precursors indeed did know the facts of life.

God is at work guiding the Creation through natural, rational, and spiritual ways. The question is how and the problem is that Darwinian evolution does not properly explain.

You really need to read my book, Darwin’s Myth, where try to analyze this in detail, but the crux of the matter is that as Darwin said, evolution has two basic aspects, Variation, which has developed into Genetics and Natural Selection. So far so good, but for practical purposes science has concentrated almost completely on Variation and genetic change and not on Natural Selection which determines the rational direction of evolution based on God’s creative power.

[quote=“Randy, post:301, topic:39114”]
a complex organism like man required intelligence to create. However, we found that in our system, evolution does occur and there’s evidence that we have arisen from rudimentary elements and energy.[/quote]

Yes, humans and the whole of creation does require intelligence or rationality to create. The evolutionary process id twofold, Variation which is in large part random within definite limits, so this is the basis for myth that evolution is without meaning and purpose. What the myth ignores is that Natural Selection is the opposite of random and give life meaning and purpose.

The problem with ID is that it attacked Darwinism on the wrong issue, Variation, rather than Selection. The problem with BioLogos is that it fails to consider the possibility that Darwinian Selection is off track.

@Randy

where does God come from?”

Exodus 3:14 (NIV2011)
14 God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”

God is not a thing among things. God is Infinite, while nature is finite. By definition and nature, a finite thing like the universe has a beginning and an end. By definition and nature the Infinite does not have a beginning and an end.

This is not only an theological statement, but a philosophical one. The role of Philosophy is to be the4 referee between Science and Theology, which is why we need a real and working discipline of Philosophy to make our understanding of Science and Theology complete.

@Randy

What do you mean by “rational”?

I am using it as a basic concept meaning based on thinking. We identify something as a product of thinking when we identify in it intelligible patterns.

@Randy

Can we even conceive of a universe that is not rational?

We cannot conceive of a viable universe that is not rational.

@Randy

What if there is a parallel, irrational universe?

A parallel universe is one with which there is no contact, or no interaction, so it has no impact on us and we have no knowledge of it.

@Randy

if there is a rational cause of a rational universe, what caused that rationality? Is it like the Russian doll, with a cause ad infinitum?

Rationality is caused by thinking. The Cause of the rationality of our universe is the Logos, God’s rational Word, Jesus Christ the 2nd Person of the Trinity.

GOD IS WHO GOD IS. God is rational because God thinks. God is eternal because God is self created.

@Randy

saying that order is present, so we are without excuse

There is a huge difference between saving faith in Jesus Christ and understanding the universe is created by a rational God. We certainly cannot expect or demand that everyone acknowledge that Jesus dies for their sins, although it is true and they should. On the other hand I would say that all reasonable people should agree that our rational universe was created by a rational God in order form a rational basis for intellectual order.

[T_aquaticus]

@Relates

A conclusion is logical when it passes the tests that indicate it is based on rational thought. This is what I have tried to do, but you have not.

Where is this test?

@Relates

You say that you agree that the universe is rational, which means that it can be rationally understood. This rational understanding must extend to the Beginning of the universe to be real, but you have consistently been unready to seriously consider that the universe had a rational beginning from beyond the physical. In other words it seems that your materialism or your atheism sets limits on your rationality, so that means you are not fully rational.

I have considered that the universe could have originated from outside the physical and from the physical. You seem to ignore the possibility that the universe could come from the physical. If anyone is ignoring possibilities it is you.

@Relates

How can you compare one with the other unless you seriously think that God is simply a fragment of human imagination like the unicorn? If that is your real understanding, how can you engage in a serious discussion metaphysical questions?

My statement passed all the logical tests your claims did.

[T_aquaticus]

@Relates

My final point is that a rational universe must logically be based on a rational cause.

That seems to be based on the unsupported assertion that a rational universe must come from another rational process.

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@T_aquaticus

You seem to ignore the possibility that the universe could come from the physical.

That is a lie. As I have said repeatedly, the Big Bang indicates that the universe came out of absolute Nothing, the absence of mass, energy, space, and time. The universe did not come out of the physical because there was no physical.

@T_aquaticus

My statement passed all the logical tests your claims did.

This too is a lie. Logic is not magic. Logic is the rational organization of Reality.

There is no evidence that unicorns exist or they could produce the universe. There is abundant evidence that the Creator exists so there is no parallel between them. The logical conclusions that I have presented cannot be disputed by this foolishness.

@T_aquaticus

That seems to be based on the unsupported assertion that a rational universe must come from another rational process.

@T_aquaticus, you either accept the fact that that the universe is rationally constructed with cause and effect or not.

[T_aquaticus]

@Relates

As I have said repeatedly, the Big Bang indicates that the universe came out of absolute Nothing, the absence of mass, energy, space, and time.

What evidence supports this claim?

[jasonbourne4]

I don’t ever try to argue for the existence of God for the reason stated here… Problems with apologetics? - #6 by Randy

But a few quotes:
“All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning…It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.” (physicist Alexander Vilenkin)

“Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention.” (Stephen Hawking)

On fine tuning, which unsurprisingly led to the multiverse hypothesis:
“We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible.” (physicist Andrei Linde)

[Relates (Roger A. Sawtelle)]

@jasonbourne4

I don’t ever try to argue for the existence of God for the reason stated here… Problems with apologetics?

@jasonbourne4, thank you for your response.

First, let me explain that I am not an Evangelical, therefore I am not really familiar with the Apologetical tradition you and others have critiqued. It is good to have different Christian perspectives involved in this discussion to get different points of view.

I am not trying to argue for the existence of God per se. What I am concerned about is the goodness and the rationality of life. That life is good and rational people need to live and work together is the basis on which civilization needs to be founded. A strictly materialistic world view precludes this.

I am trying to reconcile Science and Theology and bring them together, not to show Theology is right and Science is wrong. The only way to do this is through Philosophy, which shows how the physical, the rational, and the spiritual work together to create the whole that YHWH God.

The question of this blog is “Where did the laws of physics come from?” The answer is from a rational God, rather than from nature which cannot think. If you have some problems with this, please join in.

Your quotations clearly indicate that scientists now should accept the fact that the Big Bang points to the real possibility of the reality of the Creator God. Sadly their ideology has driven some to denial and deeper irrationality, widening the division between people.

The “old” atheism was based on Reason and Philosophy and thus valued rationality at least as it defined this. The New Atheism is based on Science as it understands it in a very narrow way. It reduces Science to the physical sciences, primarily physics, overlooking the biological and human sciences
do not work the way they want them to work. In effect it denies that science is rational or needs to be rational, but is based on “brute,” not rational, scientific facts.

I believe that I am called by God as are all people to make sense of our world based on science, philosophy, and theology. All are important. Each is necessary. .

[Richard_Wright1 (Richard Wright)]

Hello John,

I’m fairly amazed that this thread is still postable, so after my little vacation from BL here I am responding to this!

@John_Dalton

What I’m saying is that I don’t see the point of referring to the Bible if that’s your argument. Most people in the world don’t even accept that the Bible is true, so what does it have to do with the idea that that most people recognize the divine?

I brought up Romans 1 in response to a comment of yours that was similar to, “I wouldn’t be so brazen to be so certain of my beliefs”. I stated that from a biblical perspective, belief in God is a no-brainer. Biblical faith is believing that God is a good God and rewards those who earnestly seek Him (Hebrews 11). I also stated that the vast majority in history (al least every culture in history) has acknowledged or believed in the divine, though the exact nature of the divine was unknown until the days of Abraham.

@John_Dalton

Theism is all the part of those who believe in the divine, isn’t it?

No. Deists, multi-theists and basically anyone who believes in something beyond the physical are those who acknowledge the divine. At least according to my definition.

@John_Dalton

If I can presume that you do perceive that God exists in some way, can I ask you in what way that is?

I think you’re asking, “what makes me perceive the existence of God?” My answer would be, “the sum total of existence”.

@John_Dalton

I think it’s valid to say “I don’t know”, whether or not it may be appealing, if that best fits the circumstances.

It’s perfectly valid to say, “I don’t know”. But doesn’t that make you an agnostic, and not an atheist? BTW it is also valid for a Christian to say, “I don’t know” about some things.

@John_Dalton

I never said I was unaware of what prominent New Atheists say, but I don’t see why this statement (“I don’t think we can simply wish explanations of things into existence.”) makes you think I have been affected by them.

Because that’s the sort of thing that the Dawkins/Hitchens crowd say. That, because Jesus offers eternal life to his believers, that it’s just wishful thinking, or believing what we want to believe. On that note I’ll take the opportunity to list what I call the, “Richard Dawkins Falsities/Logical Fallacies About Christianity”:

1. Evolution disproves God

2. Evolution disproves the bible

3. Jesus promising good things means they’re made up

4. The fact that biblical events took place before digital recording means they didn’t happen

5. The fact that Jesus doesn’t appear daily in the sky/TV/movie screen/cell phones means that he doesn’t exit

6. The fact that we can discover a coherent explanation of the physical means God doesn’t exist

7. The fact that there is more than one faith proves that none are true

8. The fact that there is more than 1 interpretation of many parts of the bible proves that it is valueless, and by extension that it is not inspired, and further that God doesn’t exist

@John_Dalton

I don’t want to because we’ve been down it and we didn’t get anywhere. Suffice it to say that I don’t think it [evil] needs an “explanation”.

That brings out a major difference between skeptics and believers, that believers are looking for explanations for existence, where skeptics are perfectly OK saying, “I don’t know” - maybe especially when the best explanations are not in line with beliefs.

@John_Dalton

I don’t think “faith” has anything to do with my lack of belief in gods, certainly.

Sure it does, you have faith that god’s do not exist, because that belief is not based on empirical evidence.

@John_Dalton

Richard_Wright1
My view is that faith in an intelligent God/power/force, based on all the data, is more reasonable than holding that nothing outside of the physical exists.

I’ve said many times I don’t hold that. You’re making a false dichotomy.

Stating that God is the best explanation versus the alternatives is not making a false dichotomy. Holding, “I don’t know if God exists or not” is not the same thing as holding that God exists and therefor that view is in the, “alternatives” category.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@Reggie_O_Donoghue

How can we explain the laws of physics without resorting to God?

Every explanation of the universe starts somewhere. You and me can start with God, but others choose to start with some set of natural laws. Often they don’t even need very many, because many laws can be explained as being a result of spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Both can sometimes come up with some kind of rhetoric to support their idea. Those who choose God will say that He is self-existing and necessary by nature. It won’t prove that God must exist, but if you do believe He exists then this might satisfy you as to why He exists. Those who choose natural law might say all possible things and universes exist in some kind of multiverse and we just happen to be in this one.

But the final analysis is that any reason to choose either of these is completely subjective and there is no objective evidence for either one. And that means you can have no reasonable expectation that others will accept the one you choose to believe. Reasonable people accept that this is one of those things about which we should accept a diversity of thought and belief.

[John_Dalton]

@Richard_Wright1

No. Deists, multi-theists

These are subsets of theists seemingly–I’m not sure what a “multi-theist” is.

and basically anyone who believes in something beyond the physical are those who acknowledge the divine. At least according to my definition.

“Something beyond the physical” isn’t equivalent to “divine” by any realistic definition.

@Richard_Wright1

I think you’re asking, “what makes me perceive the existence of God?” My answer would be, “the sum total of existence”.

Cool. So that could be one context in which I might possibly expect to perceive God, yes? As opposed to my cell phone screen or what have you?

@Richard_Wright1

It’s perfectly valid to say, “I don’t know”. But doesn’t that make you an agnostic, and not an atheist? BTW it is also valid for a Christian to say, “I don’t know” about some things.

Would that make a Christian an agnostic? It’s possible to be agnostic about some things and atheist about others.

@Richard_Wright1

Because that’s the sort of thing that the Dawkins/Hitchens crowd say.

Hmm. I said it for a specific reason–you seemed to expect me to have a better explanation for things than what I could offer. My contention is that if we don’t have an explanation for something, we may well have to accept that reality. I didn’t say it to assert that “because Jesus offers eternal life to his believers, that it’s just wishful thinking, or believing what we want to believe”, and I don’t see how you could take that from it–except to take advantage of a gratuitous opportunity to bash “the Dawkins/Hitchens crowd”

@Richard_Wright1

That brings out a major difference between skeptics and believers, that believers are looking for explanations for existence, where skeptics are perfectly OK saying, “I don’t know”

Yes!

maybe especially when the best explanations are not in line with beliefs.

“Best” may be a relative term here

@Richard_Wright1

Sure it does, you have faith that god’s do not exist, because that belief is not based on empirical evidence.

That’s an incredible statement. Simply put, I’m not aware of any convincing evidence, empirical or otherwise, that gods exist. Therefore that gods do not exist is simply a default position. By your definition I would have to have “faith” to not accept any possible assertion made by someone. We can see that indeed there are a lot of different definitions of “faith” out there!

@Richard_Wright1

Stating that God is the best explanation versus the alternatives is not making a false dichotomy.

No, but saying that “God” and “nothing outside the physical exists” are the only two options is, and that’s what you said. If you’re restating that, great. Personally, I don’t think we can even imagine all the alternatives, including the one theoretically true one.

[jasonbourne4]

@John_Dalton

That’s an incredible statement. Simply put, I’m not aware of any convincing evidence, empirical or otherwise, that gods exist. Therefore that gods do not exist is simply a default position. By your definition I would have to have “faith” to not accept any possible assertion made by someone. We can see that indeed there are a lot of different definitions of “faith” out there!

Richard_Wright1:

You say “that gods do not exist is simply a default position.” I fully respect your view “that gods do not exist,” but do you really think it’s possible to have a “default position” about anything?

More importantly, would you also claim that all truth is empirically or scientifically testable?

[John_Dalton]

@jasonbourne4

You say “that gods do not exist is simply a default position.” I fully respect your view “that gods do not exist,” but do you really think it’s possible to have a “default position” about anything?

Yes I do. To wit. I’m not aware of the existence of x. Someone asserts that x exists. I consider the evidence and arguments for that proposition but am not convinced by them. My default position is that x does not exist in that case. That’s how I’m using the term anyway. It seems logical to me.

@jasonbourne4

More importantly, would you also claim that all truth is empirically or scientifically testable?

No. Empirical evidence and scientific testing does kind of help things along though

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@John_Dalton

Would that make a Christian an agnostic? It’s possible to be agnostic about some things and atheist about others.

Quite possibly. I am certainly agnostic with respect to the objective knowledge of the existence of God and an atheist with respect to many religions and even some Christian concepts of God. But I am still a theist (1.5 on the Dawkins scale), saying that questioning is required by mental health but I know God exists as much as I know anything – which simply means I live accordingly. But I don’t believe proof or objective evidence is possible on the issue – not for the kind of God I believe in.

[Richard_Wright1 (Richard Wright)]

Hello John,

@John_Dalton

That’s an incredible statement. Simply put, I’m not aware of any convincing evidence, empirical or otherwise, that gods exist. Therefore that gods do not exist is simply a default position. By your definition I would have to have “faith” to not accept any possible assertion made by someone. We can see that indeed there are a lot of different definitions of “faith” out there!

Why is that an incredible statement? Atheists have beliefs about the universe just like everyone else, and those beliefs are by faith, since there is no empirical evidence to back them up.

Another branch from that idea is that some atheists, which would include yourself, seem to try to hide behind the idea of, “I don’t know and won’t know until I see any evidence of anything”. But that’s not how atheists really behave, as if it’s a 50/50 tossup between God and no-God. At every point of contention, yourself and the other skeptics here will point to a possible physical explanation for the universe and the distinct characteristics of the universe. And that’s because that’s where your faith lies, in a physical explanation.

@John_Dalton

Richard_Wright1

No. Deists, multi-theists

These are subsets of theists seemingly–I’m not sure what a “multi-theist” is.

Theism is the belief in a personal god. Multi-theists believe in more than one god. They probably lie in the, “theism” category since most gods in polytheism are personal, but not in monotheism. Deists believe in one impersonal God. Then there is the universal soul or consciousness. So besides polytheists the above are not in the, “theism” category but believe in some sort of higher power, which, including deism, I call "the divine’. You’re correct in stating that believing in something outside of the physical doesn’t mean divine as in a god, but this, “other” has been interpreted by most in history as, “the divine”, or, “higher power”.

@John_Dalton

Would that make a Christian an agnostic?

Christians aren’t agnostic about God, but we don’t for instance know why many things happen in our lives. We don’t have answers for everything, but have faith that Jesus is the creator and by following him, which is difficult at times, will lead to eternal life.

@John_Dalton

and I don’t see how you could take that from it–except to take advantage of a gratuitous opportunity to bash “the Dawkins/Hitchens crowd”

I wasn’t trying to bash anyone, only bring out some of the falsities/fallacies in their philosophy and that it seems to have infected the beliefs of skeptics here, which comes out in posts from time to time.

@John_Dalton

Personally, I don’t think we can even imagine all the alternatives, including the one theoretically true one.

There are answers in life, as there is purpose. We’re a curious species and we seemed to have been designed to search for answers in science, math, and in all facets of life. So holding the view that, “we can’t even imagine all of the alternatives” goes against the grain of human inquiry, to give up the hope of ever finding answers. And that leads to the best evidence for Christ, that he has answers to the ultimate questions in life. I can’t demonstrate that on a forum, that I feel connected to the creator and that my life has change tremendously since I stepped out on faith and became his follower. But that’s why most believe in him.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@John_Dalton

@John_Dalton

Simply put, I’m not aware of any convincing evidence, empirical or otherwise, that gods exist. Therefore that gods do not exist is simply a default position.

I am not aware of any objective evidence that fairies do not exist, therefore that faries do exist is simply a default position.

Obviously the statement in italics does not follow. No objective evidence means no objective conclusion. Any conclusion when this is the case is therefore a subjective conclusion. Anything else is special pleading. To be sure absence of evidence is not evidence either for absence or existence, UNLESS there is a reasonable expectation for evidence. In the case of fairies, gods, and aliens, this simply puts limits on the sorts of fairies, gods, and aliens which are reasonable to believe in. Visible fairies which put money under pillows in exchange for children’s teeth isn’t very reasonable for we do have an good expectation that there would be evidence of this. Gods currently living on Mt. Olympus is not very reasonable. Aliens visiting Earth without impressive stealth or cloaking technology is not very reasonable.

An example of the opposite from science is the that of finding fossils for every step in an evolutionary development. Fossil formation is a rare event and it is highly likely that there are rapid changes in species when they are few, i.e. on the brink of extinction. So there is no reasonable expectation for fossils covering every step in an evolutionary development.

@John_Dalton

By your definition I would have to have “faith” to not accept any possible assertion made by someone. We can see that indeed there are a lot of different definitions of “faith” out there!

By my definition, scientist are the best examples of faith in modern times. With a faith in the methodology and the presumption that there are no demons out there arranging evidence to deceive us, they follow that faith consistently and accept what the method determines with a superb example of honesty and diligence.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

@Richard_Wright1

John_Dalton:

That’s an incredible statement. Simply put, I’m not aware of any convincing evidence, empirical or otherwise, that gods exist. Therefore that gods do not exist is simply a default position. By your definition I would have to have “faith” to not accept any possible assertion made by someone. We can see that indeed there are a lot of different definitions of “faith” out there!

Why is that an incredible statement? Atheists have beliefs about the universe just like everyone else, and those beliefs are by faith, since there is no empirical evidence to back them up.

I don’t agree. Not all beliefs are by faith for either theists or atheists. When it comes to cosmic origins, as an atheist, I have my hunches and theories but nothing rides on it and I wouldn’t say I have any faith invested in it. Whether my hunches pan out or not will be interesting to see, but it won’t ruin my day either way.

@Richard_Wright1

some atheists, which would include yourself, seem to try to hide behind the idea of, “I don’t know and won’t know until I see any evidence of anything”. But that’s not how atheists really behave, as if it’s a 50/50 tossup between God and no-God.

That may be so but frankly I’d prefer to hear both theists and atheists admit they don’t know. But that admission does not restrain either one of us to behave as if it is a 50/50 toss up. I don’t know the universe was not created by any cosmic watchmaker but my assumption is that isn’t how it happened. A believer like yourself could be entirely consistent in admitting you too do not know, but that you are as committed to your assumption that it did as I am to my assumption that it didn’t. I wouldn’t expect you to act as if it were a toss up any more than I would.

Oh, and for the record, I will allow that my strong belief against anything supernatural is entirely a matter of faith. I don’t insist your failure to produce any evidence makes my case. I still don’t know it but I do feel very strongly that it’s so.

[pevaquark (Matthew Pevarnik)]

@mitchellmckain

Often they don’t even need very many, because many laws can be explained as being a result of spontaneous symmetry breaking.

I don’t think that anybody brought up this idea yet, or did they and I just missed it? I’m not aware of too much work on the topic, though talk myself loosely of Noether’s Theorem in my physics classes and how invariance of the laws of Physics in time, space, rotation, etc. leads to the familiar conservation laws (of energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc.). All that I could dig up at the moment is this essay/paper by Vic Stenger. Granted he is coming from a purely naturalistic perspective but it is an interesting idea to me.

I’m putting this here for my own reference as well so I can watch this at a later date, but perhaps someone may find it interesting and useful to this discussion:

Origins of the Laws of Nature - Peter Atkins

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@pevaquark

I’m putting this here for my own reference as well so I can watch this at a later date, but perhaps someone may find it interesting and useful to this discussion:

I started watching it (i.e. went halfway) but there were some flaws…

1. He asks us to consider absolutely nothing not as empty space but as an absence of space and time and then he describes it with properties which are rooted in space: uniform, isotropic, and empty. Uniformity means there are no changes over some measure. Well absolutely nothing has no changes but it has no measure either, so don’t see how you can say it is uniform. Thus his idea that these properties transfer from absolutely nothing to the universe is arbitrarily selective keeping the lack of changes on a large scale but not the lack of the measure over which there are no changes. This whole argumentation does not hold together.

2. As a theoretical physicist I am very familiar with Noether’s theorem (didn’t know Noether was a woman though and was delighted to learn this), of course. Then after he makes the connection of conservation of energy with the uniformity of time, he suggest that if time were not uniform then energy would not be conserved. But we basically define time as uniform and I don’t think it is possible to find that it is not uniform. In other words, I don’t think he is really explaining that very well. I guess the way I would put it is to say that they are equivalent and that the conservation of energy and the uniformity of time are one and the same thing. Noether’s theorem shows a mathematical equivalence between the two. But it may ultimately be just how we impose our own rational order on the universe.

3. But the biggest problem I have is with this idea of everything coming from indolence, anarchy, and ignorance. The reasoning here is far too subjective. His argument from indolence reminds me of the least action principle, but rather than “indolence” the word which comes to mind is “economy.” And I wouldn’t be surprised to see Christians jumping on my word and finding the presence of God there. But again my point here is that all this looks terribly subjective to me. Of course, all that means is that thinking this way is his preference and you can think like that also if it tickles you, but there really is no objective reason why you should.

[John_Dalton]

@Richard_Wright1

Why is that an incredible statement? Atheists have beliefs about the universe just like everyone else, and those beliefs are by faith, since there is no empirical evidence to back them up.

Because–as I said–you could use that definition to say that I would need “faith” to reject any assertion that you made. I’ve never denied holding certain beliefs about things.

@Richard_Wright1

Another branch from that idea is that some atheists, which would include yourself, seem to try to hide behind the idea of, “I don’t know and won’t know until I see any evidence of anything”. But that’s not how atheists really behave, as if it’s a 50/50 tossup between God and no-God.

Of course we don’t behave that way. That would make one an agnostic primarily and not an atheist. Atheists don’t believe that gods exist and so the “god percentage” would be very low. Whether we know anything about these ultimate questions is a separate issue from whether gods exist or not. You seem to feel there is a strong connection between the two questions, based on numerous statements of yours, but that’s not how atheists see things in general.

At every point of contention, yourself and the other skeptics here will point to a possible physical explanation for the universe and the distinct characteristics of the universe. And that’s because that’s where your faith lies, in a physical explanation.

No. I’ve made it clear numerous times that’s not true for me.

@Richard_Wright1

So besides polytheists the above are not in the, “theism” category but believe in some sort of higher power, which, including deism, I call "the divine’.

That’s your prerogative, but “divine” and “theistic” essentially mean the same thing to me.

@Richard_Wright1

You’re correct in stating that believing in something outside of the physical doesn’t mean divine as in a god, but this, “other” has been interpreted by most in history as, “the divine”, or, “higher power”.

I don’t really care how it has been interpreted in most cases.

@Richard_Wright1

So holding the view that, “we can’t even imagine all of the alternatives” goes against the grain of human inquiry, to give up the hope of ever finding answers.

I never said anything about giving up hope–I don’t think we should at all. I’m simply explaining the reality of the situation as it appears to me.

@Richard_Wright1

And that leads to the best evidence for Christ, that he has answers to the ultimate questions in life. I can’t demonstrate that on a forum, that I feel connected to the creator and that my life has change tremendously since I stepped out on faith and became his follower. But that’s why most believe in him

More power to you

@mitchellmckain

I am not aware of any objective evidence that fairies do not exist, therefore that faries do exist is simply a default position.

Obviously the statement in italics does not follow.

Obviously not We need a reason to think something exists, otherwise the default assumption is that it does not, at least for me. That’s how I live my daily life personally I’m not talking about an absolute assertion that something doesn’t exist. I’m talking about a default assumption.

@mitchellmckain

By my definition, scientist are the best examples of faith in modern times. With a faith in the methodology and the presumption that there are no demons out there arranging evidence to deceive us, they follow that faith consistently and accept what the method determines with a superb example of honesty and diligence.

That may be, but it doesn’t really have anything to do with what we were discussing.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@John_Dalton

power to you

I am not aware of any objective evidence that fairies do not exist, therefore that faries do exist is simply a default position.

Obviously the statement in italics does not follow.

Obviously not We need a reason to think something exists, otherwise the default assumption is that it does not, at least for me. That’s how I live my daily life personally I’m not talking about an absolute assertion that something doesn’t exist. I’m talking about a default assumption.

Ok… that is better. It looked like an absolute statement so that is what I was responding to.

But the methodology which you describe here as the one you choose to use, much like the methodology which scientists use, is clearly something you have chosen to put your faith in. So faith is involved at least as much as faith is involved in science. But yeah, I think you have a valid objection to the way he put it. In science it would not be correct to say that the results of a scientific inquiry is just a matter of having faith in the conclusion. In fact, sometimes we feel rather incredulous about the conclusion and we only accept it because that is what the scientific method determines.

Oh and sorry about the last comment… that was a little over the top. I am going to remove it.