# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2010, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/41 "2010-08-30T23:50:59Z")
> [@Philip\_J\_Fry](#): > > The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim that there is no evidence. Er? And how exactly is that supposed to work? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/42 "2010-08-31T00:22:14Z")
> [@Philip\_J\_Fry](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > No, it’s a statement of hard, cold fact, actually. If you beg to differ, please show us the evidence. > > The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim that there is no evidence. This is not just incorrect, by wildly, hysterically incorrect. The burden of proof is on the one who says there IS evidence. > [@](#): > > I am happy with the statement that there may or may not be evidence for the existence of God. If you want to say that there definitely is no evidence then you must shoulder the burden of proof. No, it doesn’t work this way. A presumption of non-existence is the logical default. You should take a scienc class sometime. > [@](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > This is desperate special pleading by Plantinga. Evolution is a fact, son. Trying to attack empiricism at an epistemological level is just wild, scrabbling sophism. Never mind that the argument is fatuous, it’s also false in the presumption that empirical method is held out as necessarily epistemologically reliable. Yes, Descartes was right, demons might be controlling our brains, yet we have no reason to believe that they are, and we have nothing to _replace_ empiricism with. > > > > More significantly, this lame-ass argument also applies to religious beliefs, since all religious beliefs are derived empirically. Nothing you believe about God has anything you can show to be a reliable, epistemological basis. > > I don’t think you really understand the argument. It is not an arguement against empiricism. It is an argument against the combination of atheism and empiricism. There is no difference. Atheism is a non-sequitur to empricism. The five senses don’t change according to theistic belief. One has nothing to do with the other. > [@](#): > > I think empiricism can work quite well in a theistic context. The arguement is that we can only be confident in empiricism when we are confident that the world can be discovered empirically. Theistic worlds can have this property. Atheistic worlds may or may not, we can’t know. Therefore we can’t know if empiricism will work in these contexts. No, “theistic worlds” do not have this property at all, since you are still completely reliant on your sense to get your information about your gods. Theism doesn’t make empiricism any more reliable, it just adds an unfounded and anti-empirical belief to the equation. > [@](#): > > Also, I think it entirely appropriate to challenge empiricism on these grounds. Your epistemology appears to be stuck in the 19th century. You’re the one trying to fling Cartesian doubt around as a tactic to shield yourself from empirical fact. > [@](#): > > Perhaps you should read some more modern philosophy then Descartes and then get back to us. This is essentially the same questions that existentialist and post-modernist writers grapple with, even if they come to different conclusions. Dude, I was citing Descartes to _mock_ you. You were using Cartesian doubt as an argument. It’s also pretty clear that you don’t have much experience with or knowledge of scientific or philosophical debates. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/43 "2010-08-31T00:27:30Z")
> [@Philip\_J\_Fry](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Causeless things happena ll the time. > > Name one. And quantum events, as discussed before, are not properly causeless. > The Borde - Guth - Vilenkin theorum works with multiverse and string theories, theories, so even if true these universes still must have a finite past. > More to the point, are you familiar with these theories? Yes, and it’s not not true that a multiverse requires a finite past. Individual universes may or may not. A multiverse does not. > [@](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Also, trying to answer the question of what "caused’ the big bang with a “a very powerful sorceror” is just begging the question since you now have to explain what caused the sorceror. > > Not if the sorceror does not come into being, but has always existed, as theists believe God does. This is a tautology. The same thing can be said of a hypothetical multiverse, and may be said without recourse to baseless beliefs in fairy magic. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/44 "2010-08-31T00:28:30Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > \<\\> > > 1\> These are not ‘theories’, at least not in the scientific sense. Theories require observable phenomena and empirical data. Other than the self evident reality of the existence of this universe, there is no such data or phenomena to support such ideas. Infact they barely rise to the level of hypotheses. > 2\> Such as they are, these ‘ideas’ or ‘beliefs’ only push the problem back one step. From where did the expanding or previous universe(s) derive it’s existence? Perhaps its been around forever; some theories posit this. Or perhaps the answer is simply “we don’t know”; that’s a better answer than claiming some physics-violating Bronze Age fantasy character is responsible. And yes, there are “observable phenomena and empirical data”; these theories are extrapolations based on the way that spacetime & quantum mechanics appears to work in our universe. Which, again, puts them on a higher level of scientific plausibility than claiming a god did it because there’s no evidence at all for even the possibility of gods. > [@Philip\_J\_Fry](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > You just eviscerated your own argument. If “explanations don’t need explanations” then we don’t need your idea of using God to explain where the Big Bang came from, either. > > I am having trouble grasping the level of confusion that would prompt such a comment. What “confusion”? It’s obvious. You claimed that God was required to explain the universe existing at all, but that “God” doesn’t require an explanation. You are contradicting yourself; just looking for an excuse to shoehorn “God did it” in as an explanation then saying that at that point we should just turn our minds off. > [@Philip\_J\_Fry](#): > > First of all your statement that there is no evidence of God sounds a lot more like a statement of faith than of something you could actually observe. Don’t be ridiculous;I say there’s no evidence because there isn’t any. Provide some. You are the one claiming he exists. > [@Philip\_J\_Fry](#): > > Secondly, the God hypothesis states something very meaningful in that it is saying that in addition to the natural world there is also an uncreated, eternal being that brought the natural world into existence. It is true that these statements don’t tell us much about that God, but it is flat out wrong to suggest that it says nothing meaningful. It says nothing meaningful, including that god is a singular “God”, much less that it or they is “uncreated” or “eternal”. There is no evidence that such a god or gods exists, or of its nature. You could say that the universe exists because of "xylmixum’ with just as much evidence and meaning; the only difference is that you don’t get to use the word “God” - which is the real point, of course. > [@Philip\_J\_Fry](#): > > The existence of God is one possible explaination of why the universe works according to laws of cause and effect. It sounds like “God is not an explaination” is another one of your statements of faith. Socondly fundamental to the nature of God is that He is uncaused. So the question “who created God?” is answered simply as “no-one”. God is not created and therefore his existence requires no explaination. What’s “God” made of? What makes you think there’s only one? What makes you think that “God” being uncaused is a quality of God at all, much less a fundamental one? That’s why “God” isn’t an explanation; you aren’t using it to explain anything, just in an attempt to shove in the word “God” and silence inquiry after. > [@Philip\_J\_Fry](#): > > The fundamental question here is not so much about ability, but about inherent capability. Every physical thing is limited by its physical form. Humans, by sheer force of will, cannot grow gills nad breath underwater. We lack the necessary biological components to make that happen. > So the qestion here is whether or not it is in our capacity to correctly understand the world, or are we mistaken and only think that we understand the world. If God created us in some fashion, then God would have created us with the intrinsic mental capacity to understand the world correctly. If we are created by blind evolution, then we cannot be sure that we are created with that mental capacity. Ridiculous. How do you know that your god did create us with any such ability, or that evolution didn’t? And again, there’s zero evidence that were came from anything other than evolution, and zero evidence that “gods” are even possible. > [@Philip\_J\_Fry](#): > > I am not denying evolution. In fact I suggest that of the two of us it is you that is doing the most denying and twisting of scientific theory. The infinite universe is or the universe that comes into exsitence from nothing is, I think, the atheist equivalent of creation science. Something that is believed, not because the scientific evidence supports it, but because it must be true for the atheist worldview to work. That’s just silly; atheism doesn’t require any such thing. > [@Philip\_J\_Fry](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > That’s pure nonsense. “Atheistic naturalism” does that just fine, since it is perfectly compatible with observed reality; it’s theism that by its faith based nature can never be anything other than empty, baseless nonsense. > > The argument of Plantiga is that since naturalistic evolution destroys our own abiltiy to know it therefore undermines its own epistemology and becomes incoherent. > This sort of thing is hardly new. It is a fundamental problem with the modernist view of reality. So for instance the existentiallists were reacting against essentially the same problems, although in a more atheistic way. Obviously it doesn’t show that theism is true. However it does show that these types of modernist naturalistic materialism are at best believed irrationally. Nonsense. “Modernist naturalistic materialism” is the viewpoint that fits the facts; it is the rational position to take. It is the only position that HAS evidence for itself. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/45 "2010-08-31T00:34:08Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > \<\\> > I echo the request for an example, and perhaps with the extra requirement that it evidence the coming into existence of something from nothing. Particles pop in and out of the quantum field all the time. > [@](#): > > \<\\> > Oh yes, but the multi-verse notion (which is based on pure faith and that alone) No faith is involved. It’s just a hypothesis, not a belief. You apologists would do yourself a great service if you would ditch the constant and immature attempts to paint scientific methodology as religious. All it does it hurt your own credibility. > [@](#): > > simply pushes the problem back one step. Incorrect. The multiverse does not have the same problem. > [@](#): > > Ultimately, if physical reality had a beginning, it must have had a cause. You are falsely trying to define thsi particular universe as the necessaryj sum total of all “physical reality.” This is not a fact in evidence. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/46 "2010-08-31T00:40:12Z")
By the way, evolution has nothing to do with either the beginning of the universe or the existence of gods. Just for the record. Both of those things are irrelevant to evolutionary theory and do not affect it. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/47 "2010-08-31T01:05:33Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > > [@Philip\_J\_Fry](#): > > > > The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim that there is no evidence. > > Bollocks. Show a single shred of evidence and prove him wrong. Just to clarify: As far as I can see neither Diogenes, not Der Thris, nor me, are claiming there CAN’T be any evidence. We are just claiming we having seen any. If you have some compelling evidence, I think I can speak for all of us and say that we would be _very_ impressed if you can provide some evidence (even if it’s not conclusive) that’s not based on personal experience or just refers to whatever was written in some book. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/48 "2010-08-31T01:13:13Z")
\<\\> You would do well to reflect on your own uncertainty. Anything that is based on the way something “appears” to work is at best uncertain. It is anything other than “observable phenomena and empirical data” ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/49 "2010-08-31T01:15:52Z")
\<\\> But this doesn’t answer the primary challenge. These particles…are they somthing from nothing? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/50 "2010-08-31T01:17:31Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > \<\\> > > But this doesn’t answer the primary challenge. These particles…are they somthing from nothing? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/51 "2010-08-31T01:19:54Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > \<\\> > > But this doesn’t answer the primary challenge. These particles…are they somthing from nothing? Yes, they literally appear from nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/52 "2010-08-31T01:20:31Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > \<\\> > > But this doesn’t answer the primary challenge. These particles…are they somthing from nothing? That depends on what you define as “nothing”. As far as we know, there’s no “cause” to these phenomena. And if there is, it’s pretty much impossible to assign any intent to them. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/53 "2010-08-31T01:20:59Z")
\<\\> A hypothesis requires an observable phenomenon. The only observable phenomenon linked to the multiverse is the existence of this universe. There is absolutely not a shred of evidence for any other universe. The ad-homimen mirrors the desperation of those who propose it. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/54 "2010-08-31T01:24:38Z")
\<\\> No, you are redefining my point. The sum total of all physical reality, whatever that is, either had a beginning or it did not. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/55 "2010-08-31T01:25:04Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > \<\\> > > A hypothesis requires an observable phenomenon. The only observable phenomenon linked to the multiverse is the existence of this universe. There is absolutely not a shred of evidence for any other universe. The ad-homimen mirrors the desperation of those who propose it. Pick up a dictionary and please learn to quote on this board. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/56 "2010-08-31T01:28:11Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > A hypothesis requires an observable phenomenon. No, it requires extrapolation from observed phenomenon and better confirmed theories. In this case, our knowledge of the way the universe works implies the possibility of others, as does the simple existence of our own; we have proof that universes are at least possible, since we live in one. That puts multiverse hypotheses on a plane well above belief in gods, since we don’t have evidence for gods or related creatures, nor are the claimed characteristics of such things compatible with known physics. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/57 "2010-08-31T01:28:41Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > A hypothesis requires an observable phenomenon. The only observable phenomenon linked to the multiverse is the existence of this universe. That’s the only phenomenon required. > [@](#): > > There is absolutely not a shred of evidence for any other universe. There is no evidence for the existence of sky gods either, but a muliverse hypoyhesis is more plausible as a hypothesis than a magic prancing fairy to explain the big bang. > [@](#): > > The ad-homimen mirrors the desperation of those who propose it. I don’t think you know what ad hominem means. I attacked your argument, not you. You also don’t really seem to understand the refuation. Your attempt to insinuate that any scientific hypothesis is “faith-based,” or equivalent to a religious belief is factually erroneous. Hypotheses are not beliefs. The comparison breaks down right there, and the attempt to make that comparison at all is just deflection. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/58 "2010-08-31T01:32:37Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > The sum total of all physical reality, whatever that is, either had a beginning or it did not. There is no reason to believe that it needed a beginning. Trying to claim that it did, and that it needed a magician to start the ball rolling only pushes the question back to what started the magician. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/59 "2010-08-31T01:35:02Z")
\<\\> Then you misunderstand the difference between ‘nothingness’ and the concept of a vaccum in physics. A quantum state is not ‘nothing’. In fact it is an organised state. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/60 "2010-08-31T01:36:19Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > A hypothesis requires an observable phenomenon. A hypothesis requires an observable phenomenon _in order to be tested_, but it doesn’t require one to simply be hypothesized. Obviously, making up a hypothesis that can never by tested is pointless, but it would still be a hypothesis. That God exists is a hypothesis. That multiverses exist is a hypothesis. The multiverse hypothesis, though, has the advantage that it doesn’t contradict what we know about reality. God quite often does. If there was some sort of intellect in creating the universe, for example, then there appears to be a massive amount of waste and the whole process from the Big Bang to now to have occurred entirely via random happenstance. There’s no evidence of a guiding hand. There’s no evidence that prayer effects outcome. There’s no evidence that people receive transmissions of spiritual guidance from some alternate being. There’s no evidence that there’s a spiritual anything to be guided. These facts contradict the God hypothesis. So while there may not be any more evidence for a or several deities than for multiverses, like I said, the multiverses have the advantage that they don’t go against what we can actually observe. From what we can observe, if there is a God, he hasn’t done anything that can be observed – which basically goes against everything that is hypothesized about him, unless you’re a Deist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=4)