# 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:** 31
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/601 "2010-09-07T06:36:39Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > I’m suggesting that their view may not match that of a specific atheist. Since, after all, membership isn’t mandatory. > > > > But as Dio said, the definition of atheism is given first. Then they say, “which implies that…” which is what the writer of that section took away from the definition. Are you seriously unable to understand what you read? > > > > It’s painful how utterly you are slapped down time and time again. > > > > Also, any answer on that question about how your argument for God’s existence is incoherent? I’ll just ask this last time, because I don’t want to be an ass. But since you are unable to answer I’m going to assume that you admit that your feeble argument for the existence of God is rubbish and retract it. > > Did you stop reading at the word ‘implies’? The defintion is clarified by the following: > > "This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. " > > “Nor can there be.” > > Your defence of dio is admirable, if a little silly. Stop and learn to read. The section you quote is the definition followed by the implications it suggests to the writer. > [@](#): > > Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own. Red is the definition. Gray is the implications of the definition. You honestly seem unable to read and understand things. This site is for people fighting ignorance. You appear to be defending it. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/602 "2010-09-07T06:40:23Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Not sure where you’ve been, but I’ve answered that. God was not ‘created’. He is uncaused. Let me spell it out a little. > > Please do. > > I assume you mean a universe of infinite duration into the past. You really need to speak clearly and explain what you mean. > > Not even a little. Science is silent on what happened before the universe, but that doesn’t mean there is necessarily an uncaused first cause. That’s something you’re asserting. With no evidence. > > No. It could be a non intelligent being. It could be a robot knocking over a test tube and mixing us into being. It could be a rabbit taking a monster shit and we’re the pellet. It could be anything at all. But you are deciding without any evidence that it is in fact a god that bestows morality. That’s just a stupid argument. > > > [@](#): > > > > or the spontaneous coming into being of something from nothing. No such event has been observed in the natural universe, so there is no reason to suggest this is even possible. > > No God has ever been observed and there is no reason to suggest that such a being is even possible. We don’t know what was around before the universe. And neither do you. So asserting it’s a God is laughable folly. 1\> If the universe is finite (yes in duration into the past), then it had a beginning. If it had a beginning, it had a cause. If it had a cause, it had a first cause. 2\> Yes it could be a robot. But only if you suggest the robot is uncaused. 3\> Other universes have never been observed, neither is there a single shred of evidence to support their existence. I aguess you consider the possibility of such universes to also be a ‘laughable folly’? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/603 "2010-09-07T06:44:01Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Did you stop reading at the word ‘implies’? The defintion is clarified by the following: > > > > "This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. " > > > > “Nor can there be.” > > > > Your defence of dio is admirable, if a little silly. > > Stop and learn to read. The section you quote is the definition followed by the implications it suggests to the writer. > > > [@](#): > > > > Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own. > > Red is the definition. Gray is the implications of the definition. You honestly seem unable to read and understand things. This site is for people fighting ignorance. You appear to be defending it. The emphaiss is yours. And it is false. The text speaks for itself. It says: “This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be.” I don’t believe you are so silly as to not understand this. I just believe you are depserately fighting for dio’s credibility. It’s a lost cause. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/604 "2010-09-07T06:48:33Z")
And back to dio’s comments about scientific deceit in evolution…what follows are the final paragraphs of a letter from the Smithsonian about the (since discredited) National Geographic article about archaeoraptor: "More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan’s article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that “hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers” is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical. The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction. The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age—the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode." Sincerely, Storrs L. Olson Curator of Birds National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC 20560 ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/605 "2010-09-07T12:12:52Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@monavis](#): > > > > When did I state anything about quantum mechanics? Not being a scientist I go only by what science has proven. > > > > One needs to “KNOW” something before it can be stated as fact. Scientists work on different levels all over the world, and independent on another. Faith is just that Faith, you seem to speak as if what you have faith in is fact; too many people have different translations of what the word God is.I believe that is why there is so much descention in the various religions. The main thing is, religion is based on the belief’s of someone else, either their writings, teachings, or one’s own mind; the belief is not in God, but the persons idea of God, and many contradict the other. > > > > I do not pretend to know anything I can’t prove. What I believe is a different story. > > My apologies, I was erhaps spekaing of the ‘royal’ you…as in I lost traxck of who had claimed what. > > As to faith…I know of no ‘ideology’, including athiesm, that does not rely on faith to some extent. Man seeks for answers to the great philosophical questions of life, origins, meaning, morality and destiny. There are no satisfactory answers to these from purely naturalistic sources. My position is that an intelligent agent, outside of mankind, is the explanation that best fits the facts. Athiesm is not an ideology. it is a doubt about an ideology. Of course you have your position and I believe you are entitled to that, but it is not fact, and that causes more questions than it answers. The agent doesn’t need to be a supreme being,maybe a chemical reaction to another chemical? There are thousands of ways to consider an existence of a God, hence the many different religions, many contradicting each other. If religion is used for good that is one thing, but now there are some Christian preachers trying(it seems) to stir up animosity by burning the Koran, calling it the work of Satan, then the extremists in Islam wanting to take revenge because they are insulted. Perhaps if either side really trusted in the God they claim to believe in, they would leave it up to This GOD to handle things and just live a peaceful and good life. I wonder if they know it is really the work of another human and just want their own way! ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/606 "2010-09-07T12:25:01Z")
> [@scorpio5169](#): > > > [@monavis](#): > > > > The only thing with that is that the Bible is contradictory, from one writer to another. One discribes a loving kind God, the other a monster. At least how the actions of this God is expressed in their writings: killing a lot of innocent people so that one tribe can prosper,even though all humans are said according to religious teachings that God is a good father. What good father does some of the terrible things to some of His children and then protects the favorite ones? This same being chooses a murderer and a Adulterer,and murderer as one to lead His people. > > This goes back to the key phrase entirety. To my knowledge, God is never described as a loving, kind, God. His son Jesus however, is described as the one who is the mediator between a wicked people and a righteous God. As far as being the Heavenly Father, the Bible says that He is the perfect father and love requires chastisement. On a further note, which innocent people did God kill? Finally God has shown that he will use anyone for his purpose that is willing. It would take a long post to show the innocent people that God has supposed to have killed, The Flood, Sodom and Gommorah, Joshua killing the people at Jericho etc.; surely there were babies and young children among the dead. A supreme being could have found a better way to help His children. And God didn’t really do anything as far as I can tell, it was some writer or person who blamed it on God. Thinking they were a chosen people. I do not see any kind of a good supreme being that knows all things, created people who (if he knew ahead of time they were going to be bad or disobey His orders or commands) why He would create them in the first place. It seems He is blaming people for His errors that could have been avoided. This doesn’t sound like a loving or all knowing being, and it would be an insult to such a being to say He made it happen! Love doesn’t need chastisment, if the creator is all knowing. and Killing some one is a little far fetched, when the person or person’s are being judged again after they have died!! ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/607 "2010-09-07T12:28:51Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > > [@scorpio5169](#): > > > > This goes back to the key phrase entirety. To my knowledge, God is never described as a loving, kind, God. His son Jesus however, is described as the one who is the mediator between a wicked people and a righteous God. As far as being the Heavenly Father, the Bible says that He is the perfect father and love requires chastisement. On a further note, which innocent people did God kill? Finally God has shown that he will use anyone for his purpose that is willing. > > It would take a long post to show the innocent people that God has supposed to have killed, The Flood, Sodom and Gommorah, Joshua killing the people at Jericho etc.; surely there were babies and young children among the dead. A supreme being could have found a better way to help His children. And God didn’t really do anything as far as I can tell, it was some writer or person who blamed it on God. Thinking they were a chosen people. I do not see any kind of a good supreme being that knows all things, created people who (if he knew ahead of time they were going to be bad or disobey His orders or commands) why He would create them in the first place. It seems He is blaming people for His errors that could have been avoided. This doesn’t sound like a loving or all knowing being, and it would be an insult to such a being to say He made it happen! > > Love doesn’t need chastisment, if the creator is all knowing. and Killing some one is a little far fetched, when the person or person’s are being judged again after they have died!! And what was this but you _witnessing about your subjective beliefs?_ Ain’t irony grand? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/608 "2010-09-07T12:31:24Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@pedescribe](#): > > > > Okay, first, you’re incorrect. Kill means kill, and no amount of weaseling will change that. > > > > But second, you’re missing the point. People don’t all have the same abhorrence toward killing you claim they do. Some people abhor war, others do not. Some people abhor infanticide, others do not. Some people abhor honor killings, others do not. Some people abhor abortion, others do not. Some people abhor the death penalty, others do not. Some people abhor euthanasia, others are not. > > > > If there was one objective morality about killing, why would there be _so much_ disagreement about the morality of killing, eh? > > 1. To understand any work of literature, you need to understand the language usage of the time. Do you read the words of Shakespeare exactly based on 21st century english? Of course not. If you desire to understand the true meaning, you wil need to take the time to look for it from the original languages. > 2. Amongst sane people, there is a universal abhorrence towards murder. This can be another thread of how the writings of the Bible(no original ones remain) can be anything but the work, thoughts and teaching of some other human…no God involved! ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/609 "2010-09-07T12:43:22Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Read my other answers. Which would be…? You’ve only told me what God is _not_. > [@aigonz](#): > > Also, it is not satisfactory argumentation to label something as ‘magic’ simply because you don’ understand it. Do you understand quantum physics? Has a virtual particle ever been observed? No to both questions. Are these then magic? My response is not predicated on simply _my_ not understanding it. If that were the case, then the ICP would be correct in their assessment of ‘miracles’. Neither of these phenomenon are ‘magic’, they are in the process of being understood. We know where these things occur and we know that these things are physical. So we know _something_ about these things. We know _nothing_ about your ‘God’, not even how it’s possible for it to exist in the face of a contradiction (requiring time in order to create time). It seems entirely unnecessary to suppose this God exists since it creates EVEN more mysteries that require solving (this ‘super nature’ where your God resides, how did _it_ get there?). > [@aigonz](#): > > It’s been answered. No it hasn’t, so I’ll repeat: > [@](#): > > Who says that something came from nothing? > > It seems to me that theists do. IIRC, most philosophers accept the B theory of time, which means, there is no need to accept the idea that something came from nothing. > > That said, let’s suppose it’s possible that something can come from nothing. > > It make no sense to say that this could be _caused_ by anything - unless you mean something by ‘caused’ that is not what is commonly understood. > > To cause something to exist, is to create something with pre-existing materials/energy within time and space. It takes an agent acting upon something. > > Now, take away materials/energy, what is there for an agent to act upon? Take away time and how is there any time for an agent to act? > > It’s nonsensical. I’ll be waiting to see if you can make sense of the nonsense position you’ve put forward. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/610 "2010-09-07T12:49:34Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> If the universe is finite (yes in duration into the past), then it had a beginning. If it had a beginning, it had a cause. If it had a cause, it had a first cause. This is called begging the question. You are begging the question on the a series of time. I pointed this out to you before, you ignored it. Further, how can an agent act upon ‘nothing’? In order for your God hypothesis to make sense, you would require a pre-existing material/space/time to exist. Where did these things come from? If you are putting forth the notion that these things do not need to exist, then please explain what it means to say that an entity ‘created’ something from nothing, at no place, with no time. ---
**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:** [September 7, 2010, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/611 "2010-09-07T12:50:07Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> If the universe is finite (yes in duration into the past), then it had a beginning. If it had a beginning, it had a cause. If it had a cause, it had a first cause. Nope. It could be a time loop. It could be causeless. It could be caused by an infinite chain of previous universes. It could be a great many other things. One thing it isn’t however is the result of a Bronze Age myth created by people who thought the Earth was flat and pi = 3. > [@aigonz](#): > > 3\> Other universes have never been observed, neither is there a single shred of evidence to support their existence. I aguess you consider the possibility of such universes to also be a ‘laughable folly’? We have clear evidence that universes are possible since we live in one. That is evidence for at least the possibility of other universes; in fact, I think it a reasonable assumption that there are others since if nature can produce one universe, why would it stop? It didn’t stop with one planet or one star or one galaxy. i You God hypothesis however has no evidence that gods are even possible. You can’t point to some other god in order to demonstrate that your God can exist; can point to the universe to show that universes are possible. Despite you trying to equate the two, multiple universes are far, far, far, far more plausible and likely to exist than God. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/612 "2010-09-07T12:58:58Z")
Here’s the deal aigonz, we have something that needs to be explained: The universe. Can it be explained? I don’t know - I think it can. Now, there are many positions on the table. There is the eternal, finite, universe (B theory, eternalism). There is the big bang - big crunch scenario. There is the multiverse. There are a few other theories/models that I haven’t listed. Some of these have flaws and others seem to be out of popular contention. That said, there is _something_ to each of these. They are all ‘on the table’, so-to-speak (some may be in the ‘discard’ pile). God, on the other hand, is not on the table. Just because you - and a whole lot of other people - believe that a magic man can create the universe does not mean it’s on the table of explanations. You need to explain, at least in general terms (_PROVIDE_ something, in other words), how God created the universe (or _could_ have created the universe). If you can’t, then even the worst of the theories are _better_ then this ‘God’ theory, since they are at least attempts to explain the origin of the universe. God is not. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/613 "2010-09-07T13:12:45Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > Here’s the deal aigonz, we have something that needs to be explained: The universe. > > Can it be explained? I don’t know - I think it can. > > Now, there are many positions on the table. There is the eternal, finite, universe (B theory, eternalism). There is the big bang - big crunch scenario. There is the multiverse. There are a few other theories/models that I haven’t listed. > > Some of these have flaws and others seem to be out of popular contention. > > That said, there is _something_ to each of these. They are all ‘on the table’, so-to-speak (some may be in the ‘discard’ pile). > > God, on the other hand, is not on the table. Just because you - and a whole lot of other people - believe that a magic man can create the universe does not mean it’s on the table of explanations. > > You need to explain, at least in general terms (_PROVIDE_ something, in other words), how God created the universe (or _could_ have created the universe). > > If you can’t, then even the worst of the theories are _better_ then this ‘God’ theory, since they are at least attempts to explain the origin of the universe. > > God is not. _ **Nonsense!** _ Admittedly I haven’t followed this discussion. Are you playing horsehoes ferpetessake? When is _better_ _(your exact word!)_ an aceptable surrogate for proof? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/614 "2010-09-07T13:47:08Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > > [@Meatros](#): > > > > Here’s the deal aigonz, we have something that needs to be explained: The universe. > > > > Can it be explained? I don’t know - I think it can. > > > > Now, there are many positions on the table. There is the eternal, finite, universe (B theory, eternalism). There is the big bang - big crunch scenario. There is the multiverse. There are a few other theories/models that I haven’t listed. > > > > Some of these have flaws and others seem to be out of popular contention. > > > > That said, there is _something_ to each of these. They are all ‘on the table’, so-to-speak (some may be in the ‘discard’ pile). > > > > God, on the other hand, is not on the table. Just because you - and a whole lot of other people - believe that a magic man can create the universe does not mean it’s on the table of explanations. > > > > You need to explain, at least in general terms (_PROVIDE_ something, in other words), how God created the universe (or _could_ have created the universe). > > > > If you can’t, then even the worst of the theories are _better_ then this ‘God’ theory, since they are at least attempts to explain the origin of the universe. > > > > God is not. > > _ **Nonsense!** _ > > Admittedly I haven’t followed this discussion. Are you playing horsehoes ferpetessake? When is _better_ _(your exact word!)_ an aceptable surrogate for proof? Abductive reasoning is based on this. Proof is a very hard thing to come by. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/615 "2010-09-07T14:34:02Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> You seem to have no understanding of the periods of time over which these hoaxes lasted, or the damage done to the scientific community. Out of the millions of fossils that we have which clearly demonstrate how creatures evolved over time, a handful have been exposed as hoaxes. There was the Piltdown skull, the von Zieten thing you mentioned which I had never heard of, and some feathered bone from China. You also mentioned Nebraska Man, but that wasn’t a hoax, it was a mistake which made no difference in our understanding of evolution. And Java Man? What is the hoax here? > [@](#): > > As of 2000, there were at least 50 biology texts that stilll use Haeckel’s discredited embryo drawings. Is there something wrong with that? The Haeckel story is an interesting side note in the history of biology. Students are taught about Lamarckism and how it was wrong, and they should be taught about Haeckel’s discredited idea of “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” That was another idea that was incompatible with Darwinian evolution. There’s nothing wrong with showing his drawings in a textbook and discussing how his idea was mistaken. ---
**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:** [September 7, 2010, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/616 "2010-09-07T14:36:37Z")
Yeah, that Haeckel claim is very deceptive. It is not taught as true in any textbook. ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/617 "2010-09-07T14:45:11Z")
[quote=“raindog, post:613, topic:551952”] > [@Meatros](#): > > _ **Nonsense!** _ > > Admittedly I haven’t followed this discussion. Are you playing horsehoes ferpetessake? When is _better_ _(your exact word!)_ an aceptable surrogate for proof? Why is it nonsense? He said nothing about proof. In fact he specifically said we don’t know for sure. He argues that an explanation that has some evidence (like the Big Bang) is a better choice than an explanation that has no evidence (like God). So what is nonsense about that? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/618 "2010-09-07T21:27:16Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > My apologies, I was erhaps spekaing of the ‘royal’ you…as in I lost traxck of who had claimed what. > > > > As to faith…I know of no ‘ideology’, including athiesm, that does not rely on faith to some extent. Man seeks for answers to the great philosophical questions of life, origins, meaning, morality and destiny. There are no satisfactory answers to these from purely naturalistic sources. My position is that an intelligent agent, outside of mankind, is the explanation that best fits the facts. > > Athiesm is not an ideology. it is a doubt about an ideology. Of course you have your position and I believe you are entitled to that, but it is not fact, and that causes more questions than it answers. The agent doesn’t need to be a supreme being,maybe a chemical reaction to another chemical? > > There are thousands of ways to consider an existence of a God, hence the many different religions, many contradicting each other. If religion is used for good that is one thing, but now there are some Christian preachers trying(it seems) to stir up animosity by burning the Koran, calling it the work of Satan, then the extremists in Islam wanting to take revenge because they are insulted. Perhaps if either side really trusted in the God they claim to believe in, they would leave it up to This GOD to handle things and just live a peaceful and good life. I wonder if they know it is really the work of another human and just want their own way! 1\> There are various definitions of ideology, but most encompass a set of ideas. We can debate the etent of formalisation of the ideology of atheism, however it would seem self evident that it encompasses a ‘set of ideas’. 2\> The ‘agent’ that explains the existence of the universe needs to be uncaused. If this agent is a chemical reaction, then the chemicals must be uncaused. But we have no examples of uncaused anything in the natural universe. It is simply my position that the nature of our universe REQUIRES that the uncaused first cause be seperate from it, ie super-natural. 3\> Your final points are well made. Indeed I would suggest that God looks down on humanity and groans at times. Yet there is a grand purpose behind all this…another topic perhaps. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/619 "2010-09-07T21:48:30Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Read my other answers. > > Which would be…? You’ve only told me what God is _not_. > > My response is not predicated on simply _my_ not understanding it. If that were the case, then the ICP would be correct in their assessment of ‘miracles’. > > Neither of these phenomenon are ‘magic’, they are in the process of being understood. We know where these things occur and we know that these things are physical. So we know _something_ about these things. > > We know _nothing_ about your ‘God’, not even how it’s possible for it to exist in the face of a contradiction (requiring time in order to create time). It seems entirely unnecessary to suppose this God exists since it creates EVEN more mysteries that require solving (this ‘super nature’ where your God resides, how did _it_ get there?). > > No it hasn’t, so I’ll repeat: > > > [@](#): > > > > Who says that something came from nothing? > > > > It seems to me that theists do. IIRC, most philosophers accept the B theory of time, which means, there is no need to accept the idea that something came from nothing. > > > > That said, let’s suppose it’s possible that something can come from nothing. > > > > It make no sense to say that this could be _caused_ by anything - unless you mean something by ‘caused’ that is not what is commonly understood. > > > > To cause something to exist, is to create something with pre-existing materials/energy within time and space. It takes an agent acting upon something. > > > > Now, take away materials/energy, what is there for an agent to act upon? Take away time and how is there any time for an agent to act? > > > > It’s nonsensical. > > I’ll be waiting to see if you can make sense of the nonsense position you’ve put forward. 1\> I have explained what God ‘is’. God is ‘spirit’. God is ‘super-natural’. God is beyond our understanding of time and space. 2\> To consider the concept of God to be contradictory is to misinterpret even the most basic definition of ‘God’. God is all powerful, and therefore although beyond time and space, he is able to create time and space. 3\> Philosohical theories of time have been around for centuries, and continue to develop. Certainly some aspects of quantum mechanics appear to support the B theory of time, but there are many dissidents. However let’s review yourr claim: “To cause something to exist, is to create something with pre-existing materials/energy within time and space. It takes an agent acting upon something. Now, take away materials/energy, what is there for an agent to act upon? Take away time and how is there any time for an agent to act?” But the issue is ‘first cause’. If physical matter is not eternal, then at some point there is no ‘pre-existing materials’. At some point, something came from nothing in a real physical sense. This goes against everything we observe and know about the natural world. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/620 "2010-09-07T21:49:42Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> There are various definitions of ideology, but most encompass a set of ideas. We can debate the etent of formalisation of the ideology of atheism, however it would seem self evident that it encompasses a ‘set of ideas’. Atheism encompasses exactly one idea: that I have not seen evidence that would cause me to believe in god(s). That’s it. No tenets, no membership card. > [@](#): > > 2\> The ‘agent’ that explains the existence of the universe needs to be uncaused. By referring to this as an “agent” you’re begging the question. You’re using a term that pre-loads the answer you come up with as something with agency. > [@](#): > > If this agent is a chemical reaction, then the chemicals must be uncaused. But we have no examples of uncaused anything in the natural universe. This has been explained to you over and over earlier in this very thread. Quantum events are uncaused. Continuing to repeat your error doesn’t make it true. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=30) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=32)