Bonky

There are numerous problems with the opening post but the one that strikes me the most is that even if evolution were false it doesn't mean theism is true. This is key because this is posted under a "Defense of the Gospel" subforum and the post references the Bible.

Carroll isn't selling this as anything else is he? All he's saying is that there are other ideas about how the nature of the Universe. We don't know enough to make dogmatic grand proclamations about how the Universe got here, I think that's fair. Haven't we had mathematical models that made sense and later on we discovered they were right? And given our current knowledge we don't know if carbon based life is all that can arise. It's funny because there was a Christian cosmologist on the podcast listening to Carroll speak and I didn't hear many objections. In fact Carroll was largely agreed with. It's my default position today, I came out of theism to naturalism based on multiple factors....some which I mentioned already.

Regarding Dawkins, I believe I've read that he stated that things can appear to be designed that aren't necessarily designed. Snowflakes are completely natural phenomena but if we didn't know this and merely saw a snowflake [foreign to our planet] then we could easily be tricked into thinking they are designed by an intelligence. I don't recall Dawkins stating that the Universe appears "purpose-built" for us. Here is a sample from his essay. I specifically went to the "fine tuning" section of his essay as I thought that would be quite relevant. This is taken from https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/ That might be true, even with the hyperbole, if what one was postulating were simply “a trillion trillion other universes.” But that is a mischaracterization of what is involved. What one postulates are not universes, but laws of physics. Given inflation and the string theory landscape (or other equivalent dynamical mechanisms), a multiverse happens, whether you like it or not. This is an important point that bears emphasizing. All else being equal, a simpler scientific theory is preferred over a more complicated one. But how do we judge simplicity? It certainly doesn’t mean “the sets involved in the mathematical description of the theory contain the smallest possible number of elements.” In the Newtonian clockwork universe, every cubic centimeter contains an infinite number of points, and space contains an infinite number of cubic centimeters, all of which persist for an infinite number of separate moments each second, over an infinite number of seconds. Nobody ever claimed that all these infinities were a strike against the theory. Indeed, in an open universe described by general relativity, space extends infinitely far, and lasts infinitely long into the future; again, these features are not typically seen as fatal flaws. It is only when space extends without limit and conditions change from place to place, representing separate “universes,” that people grow uncomfortable. In quantum mechanics, any particular system is potentially described by an infinite number of distinct wave functions; again, it is only when different branches of such a wave function are labeled as “universes” that one starts to hear objections, even if the mathematical description of the wave function itself hasn’t grown any more complicated Here is another section that I found compelling: I encourage you to read the full article. Carroll doesn't seem to have an insulting demeanor about him that Dawkins or others may have. One of the members here encouraged me to check out the "Unbelievable" podcast [Christian radio], which I did. I was happy to see that they had Sean Carroll on there debating whether naturalism provides good explanations for our Universe. I feel like he mirrors many of my views, the main one being that naturalism is my default position [today anyway] but if I honestly had compelling reason(s) to believe in something above and beyond the natural then I would be intellectually obligated to acknowledge that and adjust my views accordingly. I think Carroll also does a good job of not knocking theism as much as tempering their confidence that theism is the only game in town. For the record, I don't find fine tuning arguments to be bad or hard to consider. I do find Theism in all of it's arrangements to be extremely ill defined and frankly empty considering it's claims. Given my experience in life I've seen very poor evidence for the "power" of prayer, the idea of a soul, or the idea that theists have some edge over non-theists in how life is to be lived. I find it very confusing that a God of logic and rationality would use the same tools and devices that every other religion use which are sloppily invoked and ill defined. Theism is wrapped up in a dark cloud of what appears to be mystery after mystery and yet the primary claim is that the person behind all this wants a relationship with us? Divine hiddenness is a major problem for theism in my view. There are books written for Christian audiences on how to handle a shaking faith due to lack of feedback in any way. That's very odd if your own followers are wondering if you're really out there and they can't seem to firmly conclude that based on their experience.

You objected but then repeated what I said. If your theistic claim is rooted in the Bible because that's what you believe then I would say there's no god of the gap argument. If you're tossing your hands in the air saying "Well how did this all get here" it's either a god of the gaps or argument from ignorance. I don't know if you've ever listened to Sean Carroll but he [among others] address these concerns. He wrote an essay/article called "Does the Universe need God".

When I read about how Einstein is/was an idiot I think of the Princess Bride when Fezzick referred to Plato and Socrates as "morons". I'm personally curious to see what Sabrina Paterski [the "next" Einstein] contributes to the field.

To me a god of the gap argument is defined based on a principle, the argument has characteristics. I would agree however that if someone truly believes the Bible then they are merely going with what they believe, their theistic claims wouldn't necessarily be a god of the gap. As soon as I hear things like "Well how else did we get here"...that's a gap being filled with a mystery. In a Universe where you have as many [or more] galaxies as pieces of sand on a beach, is it so wild to find a solar system that can support life? Our planet is historically a planet of death just as much as life. Most of the critters who have ever lived are extinct. We are one meteor impact [the likes our planet has already seen] away from living in the stone age again. I'm sympathetic to a deistic notion of a creator I guess but loving father figure who created the Universe specially for us?

That sounds about right but let me run something by you. This is more of an analogy as my example doesn't concern the nature of the Universe but a natural observation within it. We don't exactly understand why some animals migrate. They just seem to know what to do but we don't know what tells them this. I'm sure there are naturalistic speculations as to how this works. Would you say "Angels tell them where to go" is rational? From my experience Cavlanism almost makes sense. Maybe I'm not one of the elect. What is your take on Romans 1:20 based on our conversation. I see that verse used over and over to say that there is no other logical option but the theistic one. Our discussion seems to indicate it's not that cut and dry. Merry Christmas by the way.

I wasn't rehashing the speed of light stuff, I was stating that considering our perspective in the Universe...finding the natural world insufficient to account for X or Y is a bit odd. We don't know what we don't know. Actually I came out of Christianity into agnosticism. The world view I was given from Kindergarten on up was that the Bible was 100% true like it was a divine news paper. Around the age of 30 I ended up a slow journey of leaving the faith. I didn't find anything. I did try though. My comment wasn't aimed at the Bible, it was aimed in general at all views which incorporate beings and powers and realities that are not of this world. There's no end to the noise because there's nothing to stop someone from dreaming up whatever and it catching on. It's depressing to me that Mormonism took off at all. You weren't born with this faith premise. You somehow determined or decided that the contents of the Bible are infallible. Given the nature of the Bible [ancient historical claims] any goal posts can be moved around to keep it "infallible".

The point I was getting at was that you were essentially alluding to the idea that the natural world doesn't offer us enough answers [alone at least] to satisfy these great mysteries we have. I'm saying we don't even know enough about the natural world to make this kind of claim. You have no problem speaking of the Universe as a deep, dark, mysterious place that could be full of unknown wonders [speed of light/decay rate fluxuations] but in this context suddenly the natural world is limited and lame. When it comes to mystical, religious, supernatural explanations I don't trust us humans to navigate any such thing whatsoever. All we have is essentially speculation. These views come in every sort of flavor, color, shape and size the world over. Doesn't that kind of tell us we really don't have a clue? So I get the idea of pondering these things or speculating, but building a foundation on this view that is then made "infallible" is just too much.

Look at Tristens response [first page], I think he/she nailed it. Secular scientists also believe we're made of the elements we're surrounded with. I wanted to add if we were made of something different that no other organism was made of then THAT would be compelling. It would actually make us a separate creation from the rest of the animal kingdom.

You may misunderstand my motives. I'm not trying to change Tristen [or anyone else's] mind, I'm merely explaining my position. I'm not sure what you're getting at with your last question other than maybe Genesis and man being made from the "dust" of the ground.

I remember you once telling me that we shouldn't necessarily object to something just because it goes against our sensibilities. I think you're betraying your own advice potentially. There is so much we don't know, to toss our hands up and resort to supernatural explanations is extremely premature based on our position in the Universe. I believe my position is grounded more in humility and caution. There are so many things that we've discovered in the natural world that are bizarre, crazy, weird, etc etc. What else could there be that we have absolutely no clue about yet? I wouldn't be surprised if there's a being that created our Universe and everything in it, I also wouldn't be surprised if there isn't.

So it's almost like you're saying over assuming things is just the same as potentially under assuming things. To me the leap seems bigger to assume there are other realities above and beyond the one we know about [natural], than to assume natural is all we have and possibly be wrong about that. I personally am not dogmatic about naturalism, there very well may be forces that are not derived from natural energy. I just think that assuming the supernatural is unnecessary and frankly unwarranted. I'm not closed off to the supernatural I just think it's an odd thing to assume. Innerancy and personal creator may be explicit to the premise of the Christian theology but not to a non-theist. Those are two HUGE assumptions that are added into the Christian faith premise. So to me it seems that the theist bolts a lot onto their faith premise above and beyond a natural reality. Keep in mind here I'm not at all talking about who's right or wrong, I personally don't think we can solve that puzzle [at least not yet or now].

Ok so the difference here is that the Christian STARTS with a theistic reality, that is a reality above and beyond the natural one. Not only that I would argue theism implies a personal creator God who wishes to interact with the created. If inerrancy is a part of the theistic/Bible model then that would be another key difference. I don't think from this we can determine who is right about reality [in the end] but I certainly don't see how they are the same in methodology or inherent legitimacy [at least basic presuppositions].

It wasn't magic water, it was merely "sprung" by supernatural means [allegedly].

Whatever helps you sleep.

I've chosen to believe in things that resonate with me in some way that they are true. By way of analysis, conversation, real life experience etc etc. I also don't see what this has to do with the discussion.

And if that doesn't work? The context of my question was Christian men who WERE handing this over. What did you think I was referring to? Wow. So the Jesus we hear about in the secular community is the one that will love you and take care of you and allow you to lay things at the cross, that's there to "sell" Christianity. Then when rubber meets the road we get this. If prayer doesn't work blame the person, the empathy, compassion and respect are completely void in this kind of response. I really do feel for gay Christian men who have to deal with this. The one thing these men chose to do is to be a part of this religious worldview that views them as abominations....that choice is on them.

And the solution for a Christian man who has gay feelings and doesn't want them is what? So the thing that separates you [don't find men attractive] vs. those men who do is what? You're acknowledging yourself here that it's not something you've chosen.

I would imagine if God is so worried and upset at this practice, then we wouldn't have any Christian men struggling with it. I'll guess that you'll end up blaming the person, but why are there Christian men who struggle? If homosexuality is completely a "lifestyle" choice, then what men do you find sexually attractive? I don't find any, just women.

Including the experiences recorded in the Bible. Unless you want to invoke special pleading.

Look at your examples of what some people think are delusions...one of them includes a psychopath. I would think our discussion of morality should focus on the NORM not the brain damaged or similar. I have no issue with the idea that the Universe has a cause, I have an issue with proclamations that the cause is a personal God who wants to have a personal relationship with us etc etc. It goes deeper than that but what I'm saying is that a deist and I don't have much to argue over. I admitted up front that I didn't know much or enough about the topic specifically to temper my statements about free will. I never said that I was rock solid with these terms or even their implications. So I don't think it's fair to ding me on something I admitted I wasn't comfortable [knowledge wise] with yet. I don't view Christians as inherently irrational or thoughtless. I will admit that many many times their explanations for WHY they believe what they believe are anticlimactic, or unimpressive I guess. I don't think I'm being particularly harsh in my criticism either. A number of the things you've put in here are not views that I espouse so you seem to be speaking to a group of people. I don't understand the point of that. It wasn't something that led me away from the faith, I'm sure he was just responding with what he was really thinking. I actually loved Hitchens but he debated with a cocky and snarky demeanor, but that was just who he was. I didn't always see things the way Hitchens did but I always found him entertaining I guess. Krauss is similar, I find him entertaining but he wouldn't be my first pick to debate a top tier opponent. I think that's a side gig for him not a focus. I listen to Sam Harris once in a while. He's not as openly arrogant but I feel like he's fair in his approach to topics. I won't say it was all the time but the common theme I heard through the years was that misfortune could be a time to reflect whether you were right with God. Surely the Bible supports the idea of punishment and why couldn't barrenness be included? My overall memory of church was that it was ok. I guess I look at it now as an American cultural tradition that I took part of for a while. That's honestly something that makes it hard for me to understand and embrace most religious worldviews. I think there is a lot being asked of the reader to take things on faith. Inevitably the blame goes to the skeptic because they should have ultimately known better. Surely we don't treat each other this way in day to day life, we're usually happy to show other people "our work" so that they can see where we're coming from. In religion it seems to often be viewed [skepticism] as an attack or rebellious action. I would say counter arguments to theistic claims. I am also going with my own personal experience that I really don't have a good reason to believe that the supernatural world really exists. Or even if it did, to what extent. I honestly thought that my departure from Christianity was going to be temporary. I figured something would happen to draw me back but that never happened. If I were to ever go back, it would need to be after I have a reason or reasons why I actually believed, not just doing it because that's what my culture was hip on.

I guess something that would tip me off that I'm not delusional. No need for fireworks, but somehow affirmation that I'm not just just buying into fiction. I think it was that I realized that I had no solid reason to believe what I was reading. I don't know if I became a skeptic or if I always was but suppressed it. All I know is that I was taught that the Bible was 100% truth from kindergarten on up. I remember wondering one time when I was in my early 20's, if what I believed was really true. I was talking to a good friend of mine who was studying to be a pastor. His dad was a pastor in the area. I was trying to express that I had this thought that, what if I'm wrong. I started off my sentence with something like "Did you ever look at opposing arguments and think....." He finished my sentence and said something like "...You just know you're right." I smiled and nodded, because I was too afraid to reveal that I was thinking the opposite. LOL Elton John songs. I tried the UU church after I became agnostic. I actually loved it, I was dating a girl that lived near Penn State so I went to the UU church up there [she went there]. I got to see these brilliant well educated folks talk about their concerns, they voiced their values and beliefs. Everyone was welcome, I truly enjoyed that time. I just couldn't keep up with it I guess, besides we eventually broke up lol. I can understand the thought of wanting to embrace the creator of our Universe. I just never had a good reason to believe that is the case. I have mixed feelings about church. I certainly enjoyed going at times, but there were things that occasionally bothered me. For instance I remember my nephews wife couldn't get pregnant. Word got out that my sister speculated that it was sin in her life that was robbing her of bearing a child. That really hurt her feelings, but the sad thing is that there is biblical support for that thought process. I agree that's why I don't shut myself off from the possibility that God is out there and wanting some kind of relationship. I just feel like I tried to hard and I guess my skeptical impulses started to get the better of me. I started considering secular arguments and while not all of them impress me, some of them make more sense to me than what religion offers.

Prosperity teachings? To me that sounds like the idea that if people look for wealth or material "fruit" from their prayers etc. I don't know much about it. I was raised in the Baptist church so I wasn't familiar with that. We were taught to pray for people, not pray for things. I slowly left the faith when I was around 30 [I'm 45 now]. It wasn't evolution or atheist arguments, it was just the idea that I didn't have tangible personal reasons why I believed, it was just what I was taught to believe. I didn't feel like reality reflected what was taught in the Bible in many places. It was a slow process and I prayed about it. I didn't really feel/detect any answer and that fed my thought that maybe, this is just a belief that was handed down to me.

Honestly? Absolutely true. I've chilled as I've gotten older and I've learned a lot since being here. I think I used to be more dismissive and cynical but that isn't helpful. I don't want to live in an echo chamber. I guess the atheist community is just as diverse as every other. I happen to occasionally listen to the atheist experience on youtube, there are atheists on there that are mild and looking to help and then there are atheists that are less patient and more combative. I think this forum does an excellent job balancing things. Some forums are very strict for non believers and some forums are so open that jerk atheists flood the place. I'm going to try to read up on free will, but I have a feeling it's going to be dry for me