Atheist Corner - Thought of the Day

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

Could I convince you that I dropped 50 oranges onto the ground and they by chance fell into ten rows of five oranges? The logical conclusion is that someone with an intelligent mind put them there. The odds that ten oranges would fall by accident into a straight line are mind-boggling, let alone ten rows of five.

-- Atheist Corner (Truth or@Consequences.con), May 07, 2001

Answers

yeah, right

-- (noyouc@n.t), May 07, 2001.

Are you channelling Bertrand Russell?

-- Sounds (like@it.to.me), May 07, 2001.

Congratulations! You learned how to spell "atheist". Just for fun, here's your deistic thought for the day.

Look at the night sky and observe the random pattern of the stars in the sky. Could I convince you that they are actually distributed in an orderly, symmetrical pattern that precisely reflects an intelligent mind? The logical conclusion is that nothing with an intelligent mind put them there. The chances that the stars and galaxies are not distributed by chance accident are mind-boggling.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 07, 2001.


Could I convince you that they are actually distributed in an orderly, symmetrical pattern that precisely reflects an intelligent mind?

With no problem at all.

Having the stars in the sky aranged like my group of oranges above would be a very boring, very ugly picture to view. Only a loving, thoughtful, caring God would have thought about that and arranged them so beautifuly as He did.

Nice try.

-- Atheist Corner (Truth or@Consequences.con), May 07, 2001.


So who designed god?

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarza@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 07, 2001.


If you view the stars from where I sit they ARE arranged in ten rows of five.

-- (GoddessVenus@channelling.net), May 07, 2001.

So who designed god?

There is no question as to whether or not God exists. Every building has a builder. Everything made has a maker. The fact of the existence of the Creator is axiomatic (self-evident). That's why the Bible says, "The fool has said in his heart 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1). The professing atheist denies the common sense given to him by God, and defends his belief with the thought that the "Who made God?" question can't be answered. This, he thinks gives him license to deny the existence of God.

The question of who made God can be answered by simply looking at space and asking the question, "Does space have an end?" Obviously, it doesn't. If there is a brick wall with "The End" written on it, the question arises, "What is behind the brick wall?" Strain the mind though it may, we have to believe (have the faith) that space has no beginning and no end. Exactly the same applies with God. He has no beginning and no end. He is "eternal."

The Bible, however, gives us a little more information on the subject. It informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which man was subjected. It even tells us that the time will come when time will no longer exist. That will be called "eternity." God Himself dwells outside of the dimension He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity. He is not subject to time. Simple study of Bible prophecy will prove this to any reasonable skeptic. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flicks through a history book. It is because we live in the dimension of time that logic and reason, demand that everything must have a beginning and an end. The way to handle the subject is the same way we handle the difficulty of space having no beginning and end-by faith. We simply have to believe it's so, even though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.

-- Atheist Corner (Truth or@Consequences.con), May 07, 2001.


"Only a loving, thoughtful, caring God would have thought about that and arranged them so beautifuly as He did."

Ah, yes! Shades of Dr. Pangloss and his "everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds." All the stars in the universe were arranged in this precise way just so you could be happier looking at them. All of them. Just for you. Even the stars you can't see without a telescope. Because God knew you might want to buy a telescope someday.

Most of us get over the idea that the universe revolves around us by the time we are six or eight years old. Not you. You're still the luckiest kid in the world! Your daddy brings home candy for you every night. How nice for you.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 07, 2001.


This was a rather lame dodge. You seem to be saying that everything must have a maker, without exception, except God. Well, if a being as grand and great as God doesn't need to have been designed, then why on earth do lesser, more observable beings need to have a designer?

Ultimately, your arguments come down to faith. You have faith that the universe was designed and that that designer was God (presumably meaning the Christian god) as opposed to Thor, Zeus, or Goddess Venus. Faith is a beautiful thing, but ultimately it's a personal thing, and not proof. It's not even a reason to pay your personal beliefs any more regard than the beliefs of anyone else that believes in a designer god.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 07, 2001.


J

-- (Just@keeping.score), May 07, 2001.


J? No thanks. I gave that up many years back so I could concentrate on legal drugs.

-- Break out the cookies and milk (aimless@national_raffle_association.org), May 07, 2001.

God spoke history before it came into being. He can move through time as a man flicks through a history book. It is because we live in the dimension of time that logic and reason, demand that everything must have a beginning and an end.

Seems like a "reasonable" statement to me... metaphor and all.

The way to handle the subject is the same way we handle the difficulty of space having no beginning and end-by faith

I agree. But then we are back to the question "Whose faith?" ... (if any?)

I sense you're moving this discussion in the direction of of doctrine, maybe I'm mistaken?

Doctrine and creed and notions of 'right faith' and 'wrong faith' are creations of the literal mind, in other words the limited mind whose job it is to dissect and differentiate. Blood is shed over slicing it up different ways, but no matter how you slice it, it's still eternity.

"More! More! is the cry of a mistaken soul, less than All cannnot satisfy Man" - William Blake

-- Debbie (dbspence@usa.net), May 07, 2001.


We believe in many things that we can't see. Ask a skeptic if he has ever seen the wind? Has he seen history? Has he ever seen his brain? We see the effects of the wind, but the wind is invisible. We have records of history, but it is by "faith" we believe that certain historical events happened. Television waves are invisible, but an antenna and a receiver can detect their presence. The unregenerate man has a "receiver." However, the receiver (his spirit) is dead because of sin (see Ephesians 2:1). He needs to be plugged into the life of God, and then he will come alive and be aware of the invisible spiritual realm.

-- Atheist Corner (Truth or@Consequences.con), May 07, 2001.

Methinks you don't quite understand the meaning of the work "skeptic."

-- (skeptic@...), May 07, 2001.

"Ask a skeptic if he has ever seen the wind?"

Yes. Take a piss in a stiff breeze and you'll see it, too.

-- Break out the cookies and milk (aimless@national_raffle_association.org), May 07, 2001.



You seem to think of skeptics in the classical sense. The word has more meanings than that.

Main Entry: skep·ti·cism Pronunciation: 'skep-t&-"si-z&m Function: noun Date: 1646 1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object 2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics 3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

-- Skeptic not equal to atheist (skeptic@...), May 07, 2001.


"Ask a skeptic if he has ever seen the wind?"

Yes. Take a piss in a stiff breeze and you'll see it, too.

While your at it, take two! You still wont see the wind.

-- (I don't think he@understands.com), May 07, 2001.


Peeing into the wind might tell you that there is such a thing as wind, but it won't tell you whether that wind came from an advancing cold front, a passing truck, or a great big fan. Likewise, the fact of existance in and of itself tells us nothing about how it came to be. The mere fact of existance could be proof of the Christian God, but it could also be proof of Gaia, Ganesha or Goddess Venus.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 07, 2001.

I was about to post a rather long but logical response to Atheist Corner, however just before hitting the SUBMIT button I had second thoughts. Logical arguments can never change someone's mind if they are convinced of something merely on faith.

But I will ask Atheist Corner to present a single, repeatable, measurable, and timed experiment that indicates the continued existence of a god.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), May 08, 2001.


The other day I was at the water cooler, filling a 20 ounce glass with hot water for tea. I dropped the cup from a height of about 10 inches and somehow it did not spill; it landed directly on it's bottom, standing up. What more proof do you need of the existence of God? Isn't this more than coincidence?

-- Enlightenment (gone@away.now), May 08, 2001.

A building is proof that there was a builder. A painting is absolute proof that there was a painter. You don't need to see him to believe he exists. His painting is all the evidence you need. It wouldn't be there if he didn't exist. Creation proves absolutely that there is a Creator. There wouldn't be a creation if there wasn't a Creator. A child can understand that.

-- Atheist Corner (Truth or@Consequences.con), May 08, 2001.

Philosophers have argued these points for years. Go research what they have said instead of spouting that you know "the truth."

-- (get@clue.already), May 08, 2001.

And a creator demands a creator.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 08, 2001.

Enlightenment, what your little story tells me is the floor, the bottom of the cup and the angle of drop were compatible for a smooth landing.

Of course if it had been me, I would have smiled, muttered a 'thank you' as my eyes briefly flitted skywards and then down, finished making the tea and enjoyed drinking it just a little more than usual.

Why 'thank you'? Not because there was no spill which would have required cleaning. But because I am grateful for the unusual events which show me how marvelously complex creation is. And how little I truly understand about how things work, how this great big whole is bound together. 'Thanks' for the show within the Show.

Yes, I see/feel God in events such as you desribed above. But that's subjective interpretation and applies only to me. :)

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), May 08, 2001.


Not to pick on you, Rich, but how come no one ever sees God in the miraculous BAD things that happen? For instance, the accident that caused the Concord was a one-in-a-million freak accident, yet no one invokes God's hand.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), May 08, 2001.

"A building is proof that there was a builder. A painting is absolute proof that there was a painter."

This is accepted as true because we are intimately familiar with buildings and paintings and the processes for making them, from start to finish. We understand buildings and paintings so well becasue we are their creators. So, what you are really speaking of is a kind of self-knowledge. But we have never made a universe or seen one being created and we are not familiar with how it happens. So, when you say that there must be a creator you simply to hide your complete ignorance of the matter behind a show of confidence. When you can make a universe yourself, you can speak from a position of informed knowledge about it. Until then, you don't know jack about it. Let me illustrate.

When you analogize between the natural universe and buildings or paintings there are some rather profound differences you are ignoring.

The most common physical feature of a universe appears to be huge amounts of empty space, punctuated by scattered masses of hydrogen in the form of stars. This is never true of buildings or paintings.

All buildings and paintings are made from materials that are gathered from somewhere else. Where does the creator of a universe gather the material to make a universe from? If the material to make it was not gathered elsewhere, then a universe is obviously NOT like a building or a painting.

Buildings and paintings are contained in time and space. The only universe we can observe contains all time and space. Not only that, but it also contains buildings and paintings. Does this mean buildings and paintings must contain other universes?

All the creators of buildings and paintings we can observe are born from women and furthermore all the women we can observe were also born from women since time out of mind. What does this tell us about the presumed creator of the universe?

It seems that the more you look into the similarities between universes and buildings and paintings, the more we discover that those similarities are an illusion, sustained by stopping thinking about them too soon. The more you think about it, the more you have to admit that you are too ignorant to draw any definite conclusions.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), May 08, 2001.


Tarz, pick on me anytime. :)

Questions and comments help me to flesh out my own take. To deconstruct and rebuild again and again. Hopefully stronger, cleaner, clearer and crisper. And always open to examination.

I don't see God as some being active in events such as described above. Free will is too important in my concept of Everything. Rather, I experience what I loosely label 'God' as a force, energy, natural laws, love. There's a sense of connection I experience sometimes, like a woven cloth; all are intertwined - the cup, the hot water, the floor, the hand which held the cup.

It's a gorgeous personal experience, this intertwining. One which words cannot adequately describe. One which prods me to awaken each morning in hopes I might experience it again. And again. And again. Because not only is it blissful, it feels right, pure, perfect.

Whether this is a product of chemical reactions directed by my brain, or actual glimpses of a universe divine, is really immaterial for my purposes.

-- Rich (howe9@shentel.net), May 08, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ