Atheism and the Celestial Teapot!

[Dicky Underpants]

I couldn't prove it conclusively, but, particularly when I have been praying for other people and then I am indirectly used as part of the answer.

For example: There was one time I was praying for a family in the church I was attending (they were involved in work in the church and relied on donations). I sensed (consider it like a thought) that God was saying to me that I needed to give them some money. When I asked, "How much", the response was, "Enough for a good holiday". So I came up with a figure of what I thought a family of four would need for a good holiday.

When I went to church, I was a bit nervous about telling them this and looking a bit of an idiot, so didn't speak to them at the start of the service. At the end, I decided I had to go for it and spoke to them. I was then told that they were due to go on holiday, but their car had broken down. They had spent all of their spending money on getting it repaired, so what I gave them was virtually identical to what they had spent on the car. Now, I suppose it's possible I have some hidden skills which allow this to happen now and again, but for me, prayer is a better explanation!

I don't know whether this is evidence for the power of prayer, but it certainly makes your god look extremely parochial. I know a young lady, who as a child learned that her single mother was dying of cancer. Day after day, for weeks, she was on her knees praying that her mummy get better. Guess what - her mummy died. Little girl hadn't got the correct Christian belief, or wasn't saying her prayers in the right way? Or something?

All these arguments about 'God answering prayers' are completely worthless, since other explanations are available, and instances such as I've related above abound, and make such a God appear a monster who scatters his favours when he feels like it ( and doesn't do so when he also feels like it).

[Andy]

You don't know? Really?

Why then are you so against the possibility that it could have been created?

Where's it been said that he's against the possibility? Are you against the possibility that it could not have been created?

At the end of the day, it makes no difference whether we can explain something naturally or not because you can always stick a god on the end to explain that. A good shave with Occam's razor does away with that, however.

[floo]

From 1 Corinthians 15:

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

What are the different things you are referring to? From what I can see, either Jesus Christ rose from the dead, or He didn't.

Logic says he didn't if he was really dead.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Even if it was created I bet it wasn't by the Biblical god, the creation story doesn't ring true to me.

Fair enough Floo.

If one did conclude that it was created, the nature of the creator/cause could be a separate field of study. I don't see why this is such a big problem. After all, there appears to be no problem separating abiogenesis from common descent.

It seems inconsistent to me to say on the one hand that a creator-type cause must be ruled out until it can be explained, yet no-one says that we can't say how life developed until we can say how it started.

[Dicky Underpants]

From 1 Corinthians 15:

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.

What are the different things you are referring to? From what I can see, either Jesus Christ rose from the dead, or He didn't.

Have you critically examined the accounts at all? St Paul was the first who put pen to paper, and his experience was purely psychological. The later accounts differ so much that it really is difficult to know exactly what any Christian is asserting about the Resurrection.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

At the end of the day, it makes no difference whether we can explain something naturally or not because you can always stick a god on the end to explain that. A good shave with Occam's razor does away with that, however.

Which is just a euphemism for a commitment to a naturalistic philosophy. It really is pointless Christians trying to answer any more questions here until there is honesty about this. There is a need to have to come up with a naturalistic explanation.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

St Paul was the first who put pen to paper, and his experience was purely psychological.

Is this your opinion/belief, or are you claiming this as fact? If the latter, where's your proof?

[wigginhall]

Which is just a euphemism for a commitment to a naturalistic philosophy. It really is pointless Christians trying to answer any more questions here until there is honesty about this. There is a need to have to come up with a naturalistic explanation.

I don't think that's true.  If someone came up with a cogent supernatural explanation, with evidence to back it up, people would be very interested.  But it never happens; instead we get vague assertions.   

[Gordon]

There is a need to have to come up with a naturalistic explanation.

'Don't know' is perfectly servicable in situations where there is inadequate knowledge.

[Andy]

Which is just a euphemism for a commitment to a naturalistic philosophy. It really is pointless Christians trying to answer any more questions here until there is honesty about this. There is a need to have to come up with a naturalistic explanation.

No. Just no. You don't read what people put, do you. No gods are being ruled out, only there's no justification for ruling any in.  We could have the natural explanation of everything that manifests in nature and that still wouldn't rule out the god/supernatural conjecture.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I don't think that's true.  If someone came up with a cogent supernatural explanation, with evidence to back it up, people would be very interested.  But it never happens; instead we get vague assertions.

But there are endless requests for evidence and the worldview used to interpret that evidence assumes natural causes and explanations, e.g. see the response to my answer to prayer from Dicky Underpants above.

[Dicky Underpants]

Is this your opinion/belief, or are you claiming this as fact? If the latter, where's your proof?

Ultimately, all we know of Paul's experience is what he himself said of it, and how he explained it to himself. As regards other people witnessing the experience of Paul's conversion, we have a few completely contradictory accounts*, which can be dismissed as having no historical worth whatsoever. Something happened in Paul's mind - something psychological.

*e.g. Acts says witnesses heard a voice, but saw no one. St Paul himself said "They did not hear the voice of him who spoke to me".

[Enki]

Natural processes show that nothing does not cause something (think of all your Physics Conservation of XXX laws, for example). Therefore something was responsible for the creation of life. Do human beings design and make things? Yes. Are there any similarities between what human beings have designed and made? Yes. Ergo evidence for a creator. All of this can be done without any kind of religious belief.

The religious belief is that which explains who the creator might be (believed by faith)

No need for we don't know how life began, therefore God did it. Start with what we know, and see where it leads.

As I see it, there is a huge and ever growing amount of evidence that humans are a product of evolution(basically an inductive process). So your analogy that because humans design and make things and therefore some form of creator was also responsible for the design and making of life, illustrates a fundamental problem. To continue your analogy, the creator must then also be a product of evolution, and therefore the question would remain, how and from where did this creator evolve to such a degree of complexity, that it was able to design and create life on this planet? Furthermore, until and unless we have evidence that this creator actually exists, it does seem to me a rather fruitless exercise. A much better approach, in my opinion, is to try to find out just how life actually began on this earth.

[wigginhall]

But there are endless requests for evidence and the worldview used to interpret that evidence assumes natural causes and explanations, e.g. see the response to my answer to prayer from Dicky Underpants above.

I think it's rather that the evidence, when presented, always turns out to be very shoddy and full of holes.   Nothing to do with worldviews, actually.   How does God make DNA?  If you can demonstrate that in some detail, I might get interested.

[Andy]

I think it's rather that the evidence, when presented, always turns out to be very shoddy and full of holes.   Nothing to do with worldviews, actually.   How does God make DNA?  If you can demonstrate that in some detail, I might get interested.

This is the point. Saying goddidit isn't an explanation. A "how" god did it is required. There isn't a single natural explanation that can't be a how God did something, and that's why pandering to unknown natural explanations is an epic fail and also demonstrates special pleading.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

How does God make DNA?  If you can demonstrate that in some detail, I might get interested.

There no real answer to your question wigginhall.

Even if I were offered an explanation, it would be dismissed, in the same way the example of an answer to prayer was dismissed earlier. For example: How could it be proved that what I posted was correct?

btw. I don't know how God made DNA. I believe He did, but do not know how He did it.

[Andy]

There no real answer to your question wigginhall.

Even if I were offered an explanation, it would be dismissed, in the same way the example of an answer to prayer was dismissed earlier. For example: How could it be proved that what I posted was correct?

btw. I don't know how God made DNA. I believe He did, but do not know how He did it.

Why can't god create DNA the way science has described how DNA is created? Is your god too weak?

[wigginhall]

There no real answer to your question wigginhall.

Even if I were offered an explanation, it would be dismissed, in the same way the example of an answer to prayer was dismissed earlier. For example: How could it be proved that what I posted was correct?

btw. I don't know how God made DNA. I believe He did, but do not know how He did it.

I think your point about worldviews is wrong.  Science is basically practical, and it works, and it often gets it wrong, but often corrects that.   Thus, it's possible that God makes things fall down, and this is gravity, but I have never seen that demonstrated, whereas physicists are busy investigating how gravity works in different situations.   They can also predict stuff, e.g. how gravity affects stars and other objects.  Scientists who are religious also go along with this, and tend not to argue that God pulls everything down, because it's simply not predictive.

[Enki]

Agreed.

What is hoped for must be based on truth.

But so far you haven't given any 'truths' unless it is simply the fact that what you regard as 'truths' are those ideas which you have accepted personally without any evidence or reasoning to substantiate them to others. Anyone can and do say that certain things hoped for are based upon their particular version of 'truth' whatever that may be.

[Maeght]

I couldn't prove it conclusively, but, particularly when I have been praying for other people and then I am indirectly used as part of the answer.

So you are using something which can't be shown to be a fact as evidence for the existence of God? Not a very sound approach i would say.

For example: There was one time I was praying for a family in the church I was attending (they were involved in work in the church and relied on donations). I sensed (consider it like a thought) that God was saying to me that I needed to give them some money. When I asked, "How much", the response was, "Enough for a good holiday". So I came up with a figure of what I thought a family of four would need for a good holiday.

When I went to church, I was a bit nervous about telling them this and looking a bit of an idiot, so didn't speak to them at the start of the service. At the end, I decided I had to go for it and spoke to them. I was then told that they were due to go on holiday, but their car had broken down. They had spent all of their spending money on getting it repaired, so what I gave them was virtually identical to what they had spent on the car. Now, I suppose it's possible I have some hidden skills which allow this to happen now and again, but for me, prayer is a better explanation!

Not sure why. Situations like this have happened to me without any praying going on. You know someone needs help and you offer it, and it turns out to be just what was needed. I'd expect something a bit more impressive if it is to be used as evidence for divine intervention to be honest.

[torridon]

Apply your argument to the statement human beings make computers. Does an explanation for human beings affect the truth (or otherwise) of the statement human beings make computers? 
Not in my opinion, for the reasons given above.

That is a non sequitur.

Yes we all know that human make things, but it doesn't follow from that that there is a god that made humans. 'God' does not solve the something from nothing problem, you are simply not thinking things through.

[torridon]

Ask anyone on the planet what instructions are used for and I bet they will all tell you that one use is to explain how something works or is intended to work. That implies intent and forethought.

Lashings of cognitive bias here. We have an inherited tendency to see intentionality even when there isn't any.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection

Similarly we are apt to see faces in rock formations, another inherited bias in cognitive perception.

If you see intentionality in the structure of DNA, then you might as well see the intention of gravity is to stop people floating off into space, you might as well see the intention of trees as being raw materials for furniture.  You end up with blanket intentionality robbing you of any claim to evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Things hoped for is no guarantee that they actually exist. When I was very young, my sister told me that fairies actually lived inside the castle inside the snowflake glass trinket she showed me. I did so hope it was true.

But this forum exudes hope Enki.......Hope that somewhere something exists without a cause...and that's not who you think it might be.....hope that somewhere there is a scientific explanation for pretty much everything is another one...hope for an unknown unknown to save an impossible situation in logic.

[Enki]

But this forum exudes hope Enki.......Hope that somewhere something exists without a cause...and that's not who you think it might be.....hope that somewhere there is a scientific explanation for pretty much everything is another one...hope for an unknown unknown to save an impossible situation in logic.

No Vlad.  You're wrong. I agree that there are plenty of posters on here who have all sorts of hopes. I simply made the comment that hope isn't a guarantee(by itself) that what is hoped for will be realised(e.g. hope that there's an afterlife), not that hope doesn't exist, or should be  somehow excluded. Speaking personally, I have and have had plenty of hopes, and usually the ones which come to fruition are the ones grounded to some degree on a probability factor of being realised.

[wigginhall]

Instructions in DNA remind me of covalent bonding in molecules.  Hang on, maybe they're intelligent as well?   Jesus wanted two little atoms of hydrogen to cuddle up to one atom of oxygen, and behold, water is wet, hallelujah!