Calling out Theists: Debate an Atheist

[Volenta]

Long time ago I was anti religious, but over time my reasoning could no longer reject the possibility of a divine source.

I think nobody here thinks he/she can reject the possibility (for a deistic God that is, not necessarily theistic), but as an evidentialist I see no reason to accept it as true until proven.

To me there are too many scientifically proven

Love to hear those ones then.

and anecdotal

That's not going to do it for me, it's generally known to be very unreliable.

and experiential evidence of the supra natural to accept the notion of mere mechanics.

We currently don't even have any known method of verifying supernatural claims, so I'd love to hear more.

It seems clear to me that the universe or natural world cannot be a closed system.

How so?

I decided that there was nothing bad about believing in itself.

That's true, until public policies and other social implications are based upon unreliable information that's likely—simply based on probability with similar contradicting claims circulating in the world and yet to be explored—to be false (unless of course you can demonstrate it actually is likely to be true).

[miniboes]

Welcome to the forums HiddenTruth! Perhaps you could make an introduction post?

edit: you can ignore this post, Volenta beat me to it basically saying the exact same things.

reality is not as fixed as many would have us belief.

Could you elaborate? I don't understand what 'fixed' is supposed to mean here.

Long time ago I was anti religious, but over time my reasoning could no longer reject the possibility of a divine source. To me there are too many scientifically proven and anecdotal and experiential evidence of the supra natural to accept the notion of mere mechanics.

What kind of evidence? Unlikely events, divine revelations or something else?

It seems clear to me that the universe or natural world cannot be a closed system.

Why not?

I decided that there was nothing bad about believing in itself, apart from my ego being bruised and never looked back.

I agree there is nothing wrong with belief on an individual level, but if religion influences government policies and laws it gets nasty. That's the main reason atheist fight religion rather than letting it be as far as I know.

[Jebus]

Hi Hiddentruth. I hadn't heard of Swedenborgian before and had to look it up. According to Wikipedia, the Swedenborgian Church is losing followers quite rapidly. Why do you think that is?

over time my reasoning could no longer reject the possibility of a divine source.

I understand how you can't reject the possibility of a divine source, but how do you go from there to believing in a doctrine that describes the divine source in such specific detail?

[HiddenTruth]

The problem with putting absolute trust in scientific method to me is no different to blind faith in church dogma. SM cannot proof anything that is not matter and yet experience tells us, as well as logic, that there is more than matter. Only think of conscience as one example or intent.
One of the reasons why I belief in an Inteligent source behind life, is the fact that nothing can come from nothing (no matter what Krauss may spin). Nothing can cause itself to come into existence.
Information is reductionistic, ie each element is either a copy of, or a part copy, or a sub-part of its source: new information cannot come from nothing.
So there is a chicken and egg problem. Take protein for example. The smallest possible life form requires a minimum of a single protein chain with 150 amino acids. There are 22 amino acids, creating a mathematical improbability of 150^20 that these amino acids came together to form a chain, however, this building of proteins also requires genetic instruction. Where does that come from?
There is a further problem of genus incompatibility, at some point, based on the theory of single cell origin and assumed true, one creature evolved into another species - at what point did it become another species? Because it takes both a female and male to reproduce, so two creatures must have evolved simultaneously ? It bothers me that there have been no intra-genus fossils found or transformative species. We only have evidence of new species effectively popping up. There are some real,fundamental logic issues with it.

Now science also has a black arm, called quantum physics, which it tried to reject for a hundred years and failed miserably. Matter requires observation to move from potential to particle. In the absence of life who was the observer to cause the big-bang? Or does the same logic not apply? Suppose if matter is all there is, then in the abscense of time and space (thus matter), absolutely nothing is able to cause something to exist?

Now, close to the countless of predictable NDE issue, country mate Dr. Pimple van Lommel wrote a fascinating book on dead people having amconscious experience, even recounting observations of the operating theatre from above without possible explanation.

Then there is a whole scientific discussion going on that is gaining kudos, about strings and holographic nature of reality. Studies have shown that our brains project our outward experience and this starts around six seconds before we are cosncious of it.

So the chair you sit on doesn't actually exist, although that fact doesn't diminish the reality of your experience of it.

Now to address the fallacy of separating church and state, which is an American constitutional law. This was to limit the political influence on the church, not the other way around, just do the investigation. The fact is, all people have some life view, a philosophy that underpins who they are, what they believe to be right and how they interact with the world. No different for politicians. Why would a Christian politician have to leave their ideals out but an anti-theistic can lobby for his? All people live in accordance with their inner quality and the live views they hold. All humans have points of view and should be respected. However, forcing dogma is never great, whether religious or not. I have a lot of problems with non religious agendas pushed by governments and lobby groups and I despise losing freedom of expression in name of political correctness. Sure, as Dutchman you understand that.

A closed system is where no new information can be added. If the natural world is only made up of matter and the origin of it is the Big Bang (although that last element is not even relevant) then that is all there is and nothing new can ever come into existence that was not already there at the start.
On a smaller scale, if we are purely material, then what are thoughts? How is it possible for us to generate ideas (ie create information) that was not there? How can we imagine something? It is simply not possible in a closed system, which we each individually must be to some extent.

In a purely material (therefore mechanical) world, how does a seed with mush become a beautiful plant? How does a human being form? What makes the choice and directs this process? There is no real answer.
A more simple question even. Big Bang, explosion. How did the matter decide to start gyrating and spinning around eachother? Gravity requires gyration and physics is not able to answer this. Let alone why the universe is flat.

Regarding the numbers of swedenborgians, they are increasing slowly. However, we are not necessarily as tied to the traditional form of worship, but it is more a daily practice, yet underpinned by a fascinating volume of revelation, which you will need to read to understand.

Sorry to answer all three in such a large post. Took me a while to get back as work has kept me away.

[brimstoneSalad]

Hi HiddenTruth,

Would you like to learn about science?

You have some misunderstandings here. If you are open minded and will admit that your knowledge of science isn't very high, I can help you understand where you are mistaken.

[Volenta]

The problem with putting absolute trust in scientific method to me is no different to blind faith in church dogma.

The scientific method has proven itself to work over and over again. Blind faith has proven itself to be false over and over again. It's on completely different grounds.

In this post of yours, you're trying to use reason to make your case. Why? Because it works. That's not to say you're right, because there are still lots of errors in your reasoning (which I'll address for you), but at least you seem to think that it drives you to truth—why else would you engage in it?

SM cannot proof anything that is not matter and yet experience tells us, as well as logic, that there is more than matter.

It's true that the scientific method cannot prove anything immaterial. There's no way of demonstrating supernatural claims either true or false at this point in time. But I can say that many things we thought of being supernatural, turned out to have naturalistic explanations.

You're kind of trapping yourself here by saying that immaterial things can't be demonstrated, because why would I believe your common sense statement that it is real? What do you base this on? And if you can base it onto something, can you show me why this is a valid method of obtaining knowledge?

Only think of conscience as one example or intent.

Conscience or consciousness, which do you mean?

In the case of conscience: why do you think this can't be explained by brain processes—hence material causality?

In the case of consciousness: we don't know enough about consciousness to solve the mind-body problem, but you can't just state out of nowhere that immaterial dualism is true. If any, science is driving us towards monism. We know that brain structures correspond to conscious experiences, and we can change this experiences by changing the brain. There is still work to be done to state it's immaterial. (I'm not stating it's not, we just don't know enough)

One of the reasons why I belief in an Inteligent source behind life, is the fact that nothing can come from nothing (no matter what Krauss may spin). Nothing can cause itself to come into existence.
Information is reductionistic, ie each element is either a copy of, or a part copy, or a sub-part of its source: new information cannot come from nothing.

How do you know? Have you actually studied physics, like Krauss has done? Particles pop in and out of existence constantly in empty space, so what exactly do you mean with something can't come from nothing? We know that matter can come from empty space. Scientists even predicted the amount of matter that has been created after the big bang, which turned out to be correct:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_ele.html
We also know that empty space can expand out of no space. So please define/explain what you mean by nothing.

So there is a chicken and egg problem. Take protein for example. The smallest possible life form requires a minimum of a single protein chain with 150 amino acids. There are 22 amino acids, creating a mathematical improbability of 150^20 that these amino acids came together to form a chain, however, this building of proteins also requires genetic instruction. Where does that come from?

You already start with life itself to make your probability. Why can't there be even less complex non-living organisms that can replicate themselves? Even if that weren't the case, the probability you're suggesting doesn't shock me. The reason scientists are looking are things like the deep sea vents is because at locations like that there can be enormous amounts of trial-and-errors that are even being executed simultaneously. This over an immense time period of hundreds of millions of years is just blowing away your probability number.

Also, because you don't know where life started, doesn't make it possible to insert God out of nowhere. That's an argument from ignorance. The irony is that we know that naturalistic trials are possible, where we don't know whether supernatural causality is even possible.

There is a further problem of genus incompatibility, at some point, based on the theory of single cell origin and assumed true, one creature evolved into another species - at what point did it become another species?

It's a gradual process, and you can't point to an individual being and it's parent and say it's now a new species. That's not how it works. It's the same reason that there never was a first human. This is purely a problem of taxonomy, not an evolutionary impediment. Richard Dawkins explains this nicely is his book The Magic of Reality.

Because it takes both a female and male to reproduce, so two creatures must have evolved simultaneously ?

It's not true that reproduction necessarily needs a male and female, there's also asexual reproduction. Ealier lifeforms where purely self-replicating, just like bacteria are today.

As for two creatures evolving simultaneously: please study (the basics of) evolutionary biology and genetics. Before criticizing evolution, please know what exactly your talking about.

It bothers me that there have been no intra-genus fossils found or transformative species. We only have evidence of new species effectively popping up. There are some real,fundamental logic issues with it.

Because we don't have tons of fossils for each species evolving, we can easily catagorize them into groups (again taxonomy). Although this isn't always the case, I know for example that there are many discussions about fossils of human precursors that can be categorized in either the genus Australopithecus or in Homo. Species that existed did not have a foresight of what's coming next, so they can be called a full species by themselves. That doesn't mean that they can't also be seen as intermediate species. I'm not sure whether you actually have seen this intermediates, so here is an example of whale evolution:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_03

Now science also has a black arm, called quantum physics, which it tried to reject for a hundred years and failed miserably. Matter requires observation to move from potential to particle. In the absence of life who was the observer to cause the big-bang? Or does the same logic not apply? Suppose if matter is all there is, then in the abscense of time and space (thus matter), absolutely nothing is able to cause something to exist?

Well, that's just one of many interpretation of quantum mechanics. Not all interpretations require a subjective observation to make sense of the wave function collapse. You could study quantum mechanics to make more sense of it.

Now, close to the countless of predictable NDE issue, country mate Dr. Pimple van Lommel wrote a fascinating book on dead people having amconscious experience, even recounting observations of the operating theatre from above without possible explanation.

We actually have a pretty good understanding of this out-of-body experiences. Brains have the ability to make sense of your body's position and body parts. The brain processes that are responsibly for this 'localization' of your body can be distorted, and thus also experience it as if you're floating above your body.

Now there are some people that make further claims about objective reality (in contrast to the subjective experience I just explained), but when you actually go through the evidence of it, it just doesn't stand up. I don't know the case of van Lommel, but in the case of Eben Alexander (the guy from Proof of Heaven) which people seem to find very compelling because it's documented pretty well, there are many objections that make it impossible to meet scientific standards.

The bottom line is that experiences can be very real, but making objective claims about reality is absolutely irrational, unscientific and a little bit stupid.

Then there is a whole scientific discussion going on that is gaining kudos, about strings and holographic nature of reality. Studies have shown that our brains project our outward experience and this starts around six seconds before we are cosncious of it.

Well, six seconds it was for making a binary decision in a MRI scan. Most of our other conscious experiences are in the scales of tens or hundreds of milliseconds. But I'm not sure what your trying to prove with that.

So the chair you sit on doesn't actually exist, although that fact doesn't diminish the reality of your experience of it.

Hold on... How did you came to the conclusion that because conscious experience has some delay, objective reality is an illusion. You're making some huge reasoning errors.

Now to address the fallacy of separating church and state, which is an American constitutional law. This was to limit the political influence on the church, not the other way around, just do the investigation. The fact is, all people have some life view, a philosophy that underpins who they are, what they believe to be right and how they interact with the world. No different for politicians. Why would a Christian politician have to leave their ideals out but an anti-theistic can lobby for his? All people live in accordance with their inner quality and the live views they hold. All humans have points of view and should be respected. However, forcing dogma is never great, whether religious or not. I have a lot of problems with non religious agendas pushed by governments and lobby groups and I despise losing freedom of expression in name of political correctness. Sure, as Dutchman you understand that.

You're making some false assumptions. I'm not against freedom of religion, or religious politicians. I think every one has the freedom to believe what he want and not be discriminated because of it. But I do think—and that's all I've claimed thus far—it's important that policies aren't based on falsehoods, because that doesn't benefit society.

And who said that I wanted anti-theistic dogma's circulating in our society with force? That would be very anti-humanistic of anti-liberal of me to do. I want people to live in freedom as much as possible, and that's why I reject right-wing conservative Christian politics (in the sense that I don't like it and wouldn't vote on it). Stop putting words into my mouth.

A closed system is where no new information can be added. If the natural world is only made up of matter and the origin of it is the Big Bang (although that last element is not even relevant) then that is all there is and nothing new can ever come into existence that was not already there at the start.

I think I've already addressed this one.

On a smaller scale, if we are purely material, then what are thoughts? How is it possible for us to generate ideas (ie create information) that was not there? How can we imagine something? It is simply not possible in a closed system, which we each individually must be to some extent.

I guess you're worried about the second law of thermodynamics being violated? We need energy to function, so not sure why you think it's a violation?

In a purely material (therefore mechanical) world, how does a seed with mush become a beautiful plant? How does a human being form?

Aesthetics has nothing to do with the world being material or not. The origin of our emotions and sense of beauty are in no way constrained by materialism. Please explain why you think it is.

What makes the choice and directs this process? There is no real answer.

First demonstrate that there are choices being made and processes being directed, then we'll discuss further.

A more simple question even. Big Bang, explosion. How did the matter decide to start gyrating and spinning around eachother? Gravity requires gyration and physics is not able to answer this. Let alone why the universe is flat.

Just study physics. I can't see how this is helping you to think there is a God, because it again would be an argument from ignorance.

[brimstoneSalad]

It's true that the scientific method cannot prove anything immaterial. There's no way of demonstrating supernatural claims either true or false at this point in time.

Not so. Science only cares that something has a statistically significant observable effect on the world (observable by anything, even human feeling, not just instruments). The cause being "supernatural" is irrelevant to that.

The only thing science can't prove is something that doesn't affect the world in a reliable or consistent way, or is deliberately avoiding detection (e.g. the idea that god is hiding from us when we try to test for it).

I think every one has the freedom to believe what he want and not be discriminated because of it.

You mean not discriminated against by the law?

[Volenta]

Not so. Science only cares that something has a statistically significant observable effect on the world (observable by anything, even human feeling, not just instruments).

Yes, and what I'm saying is that this is always something naturalistic (thus far). We don't know of anything supernatural, so how should we know how to measure it?

The cause being "supernatural" is irrelevant to that.

But then you're talking about something natural that has been caused by the supernatural. You're still measuring/observing the natural world in that case.

The only thing science can't prove is something that doesn't affect the world in a reliable or consistent way, or is deliberately avoiding detection (e.g. the idea that god is hiding from us when we try to test for it).

But then do you have a way to distinguishing between (yet) unknown naturalistic causality and supernatural causality? How do you know which one it is.

You mean not discriminated against by the law?

It depends on the definition you're using. With discrimination in this context I mean making illegitimate distinction between people. And that should be implemented both by law and on a social level. That's not to say there are fundamental differences, but that you shouldn't treat them as being less valuable people for example.

[brimstoneSalad]

But then you're talking about something natural that has been caused by the supernatural. You're still measuring/observing the natural world in that case.

Science doesn't necessarily care what caused something, only that it has an effect.

The main issue is that people are asserting that supernatural causes have certain effects, and that those effects are beyond the scope of science -- which they can not be by nature.

The notion of something being "supernatural" is logically incoherent in itself, and it's more just that somebody called it so.

I'm just saying if a supernatural cause has any effect at all, that effect can be measured unless it's deliberately foiling our attempts to do so.

But then do you have a way to distinguishing between (yet) unknown naturalistic causality and supernatural causality? How do you know which one it is.

I don't think it matters, or that you need to. People can call it whatever they want. But the fact stands as to whether there is even anything there to begin with to be called something.

With discrimination in this context I mean making illegitimate distinction between people.

All discriminators think their discrimination is legitimate. How do you determine which are and which aren't?
Doing it democratically won't be much help. And people don't give reason or evidence much sway.

If you're talking about legally forcing people to obey reason and evidence, that in itself would be deemed oppressive at some point.

[Jebus]

Hi Hiddentruth. Even though I don't agree with many of the things you wrote, it is not impossible for me to understand how someone can believe in these things. However, what I don't understand and what you don't address is how you take the giant leap from believing that there is a deity to believing in the virgin birth, Jesus walking on water, Jesus healing the sick, the resurrection and other things that you and other Christians believe in. What is it about this religion that makes so much more sense to you than the other 2000 religions you could have chosen from?