The obligatory “UK study says atheists are smarter” post
posted at 5:53 pm on June 13, 2008 by Allahpundit
It’s about to vanish from the Headlines box, but after 300+ comments I can’t bear to see it vanish from the front page. So let us rock on, my friends:
People with higher IQs are less likely to believe in God, according to a new study.
Professor Richard Lynn, emeritus professor of psychology at Ulster University, said many more members of the “intellectual elite” considered themselves atheists than the national average.
A decline in religious observance over the last century was directly linked to a rise in average intelligence, he claimed…
A survey of Royal Society fellows found that only 3.3 per cent believed in God – at a time when 68.5 per cent of the general UK population described themselves as believers.
A separate poll in the 90s found only seven per cent of members of the American National Academy of Sciences believed in God.
That’s lovely, but roughly 90% of the American public practices some faith; thus, by definition, a bare minimum of four-fifths of the top half of the population by IQ is religious. It may be that scientists, per the two samples cited in the Telegraph piece, are dramatically less religious than other intellectuals because they’re inclined by training and temperament to seek natural explanations for things, but the idea that most intelligent people generally are atheists simply isn’t borne out by the numbers. Likewise, I’m guessing it’s not an increase in intelligence but the accumulation of scientific advances over the course of the century as an alternate explanation to religious narratives that’s led to a decline in faith. Either that or there’s been no decline at all: It may be that the percentage of atheists over time is fairly constant and only now, as western culture’s become more relaxed about questioning belief, can more of us come out of the closet.
Exit question: What exactly does Ace mean, though? Is he suggesting atheists are skeptical about God because of … peer pressure?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4
But the problem is that Naturalism or atheism are at “odds” with the a priori nature of the universal laws of logic. That is why almost all atheists tend to place their “Epistemological bets” on Empiricism, rather than on Rationalism.
Entire volumes have been written on the above…
ColtsFan on June 14, 2008 at 4:38 AM
Firstly, you do realize you cite Anselm’s ontological argument and Aquinas’ argument put forward in SCG and ST when Aquinas rejected Anselm’s proslogian argument, right? Secondly, Aquinas’ “essential cause” argument in Summa Theolgocia presupposes a specific relationship between cause and effect and that the universe is something to which it applies (this lamp is here so it must have had a creator is not the same thing as saying this universe is here so it must have had a creator). And I’m pretty sure Aristotle didn’t hold the same idea of efficient causes as Aquinas (the cause can occur at the same instant as the effect – someone is not an actor until they start acting). And Leibniz’s argument ignores the counters made by ibn-Rushd and al-Ghazali about God being able to decide what universe to create (if God decided what universe to make he would be an illogical being and God is not an illogical being thus God did not decide what universe to make – being believers [in Islam] Ghazali settled on the idea that God randomly selected when to create the universe, not which), but if you are referring to it being in God’s nature to pick the best universe because God is all-good then first you need to prove the goodness of God before you can state he decided to create the best universe (and to be fair Leibniz basically stole Spinoza’s idea and created monads and turned substance into an actual thinking/willing God – an idea Spinoza refuted when he came up with the idea of God as substance).
I understand the view of many Christians that God is completely rational and therefore cannot defy it, but many of those same Christians don’t think it irrational that the fossils discovered on Earth aren’t really as old as the radioactive dating says they are, but rather God simply made them appear that old (eg God can make it happen). Similarly, if someone proves that a story in The Bible isn’t possible (Noah’s ark for example) the same people can dismiss the argument against it by saying “God can make it happen.” Please explain how that isn’t an irrational thought.
Nonfactor on June 14, 2008 at 6:08 AM
I just did some searching on the proslogian argument to see if I was right and found this gem from David Hume that I’d forgotten and it applies here (and that some posters have been, frutilessly, trying to make); his argument as to why something cannot be proven a priori:
(1) The only way to prove anything a priori is through an opposite contradiction; for example, I am a married bachelor.
(2) The resultant contradiction makes something inconceivable. Obviously it is impossible to have a married bachelor.
(3) It is impossible to comprehend anything not existing. Thus it is inconceivable to imagine anything not existing.
(4) Nothing can be proven to exist a priori, including God.
Nonfactor on June 14, 2008 at 6:24 AM
Sometimes I wonder whether it’s worth it to make a new post correcting a word people know I meant to say in the first place. Probably not, but “frutilessly” is supposed to be “fruitlessly.”
Nonfactor on June 14, 2008 at 6:25 AM
Send_Me on June 14, 2008 at
The Aquinas existence arguments for the existence of god are, to be kind, childish since the ‘proof’ consists of beggibg the question and then assigning intelligence to he answer. The more sophisticated attempts by Anselm and the Islamic philosopher Avicenna were demolished by Kant and Hume.
The historical references to J.C. are few and indirect (Josephus is that most cited). Thre is no Roman record of such a person being crucified, nor of any subsequent grave robbing. Most probably, Christ was one of many radical new age teachers running around at that time. What most christians claim to be ‘known’ about him is what has been called salvation history made up from hearsay by believers.
Poor Behe is an example of how blind faith can make one blind to reason. His real basic assumption is that the bible is true and any explanation of nature must revolve around that hypothesis. In logic the statement if p then q is true if p is true regardless of the status of q so if the bible is, in whole or in part, inaccurate the whole basis of Behe’s obsession crumbles. This is not the way to approach science. Behe’s past arguments have all been shot down but he keeps coming up with new variants. Up to this point his track record is so bad it’s best to wait until his latest attempt gets examined by the experts.
Annar on June 14, 2008 at 7:34 AM
Cor: beggibg –> begging
Annar on June 14, 2008 at 7:39 AM
….like I said… 193.
locomotivebreath1901 on June 14, 2008 at 8:22 AM
Great post. Out of pure curiosity, what intelligence do you think Aquinas applies to the answers (in regards to the proofs of the five arguments) in Summa Theolgica or Summa Contra Gentiles?
Nonfactor on June 14, 2008 at 8:27 AM
I once bookmarked some links you provided on this, and now can’t find them. I recall a good philosophical argument there,(and you have made it here before) about how atheism is logically incorrect–something about it lacking something that makes it internally inconsistent??
If you have some link(s), please re-post. I will be sure to keep them safe this time.
Didn’t your s/n used to link to something? Thanks.
JiangxiDad on June 14, 2008 at 8:50 AM
You have that backward. The statement is true if p is false, or if q is true.
mikeyboss on June 14, 2008 at 9:02 AM
Just search “Transcendental argument.” I’ll be happy to continue a philosophical discussion later in the day; for now I must retire.
Nonfactor on June 14, 2008 at 9:16 AM
Thank you. Worked!
JiangxiDad on June 14, 2008 at 9:27 AM
I agree with that. Which is why I don’t subscribe to full-blown atheism of the sort “There’s hard evidence God doesn’t exist”. On this fundamental question my position is that of an agnostic: “I don’t know if the entire concept is meaningful and if yes, I still haven’t seen any proof God exists.”
freevillage on June 14, 2008 at 9:48 AM
OK, then. I can’t quibble with that.
mikeyboss on June 14, 2008 at 9:56 AM
mikeyboss on June 14, 2008 at 9:02 AM
You’re right,of course. Chalk it up to not awake yet.
Annar on June 14, 2008 at 10:03 AM
Happens to me even without an excuse.
mikeyboss on June 14, 2008 at 10:07 AM
Nonfactor on June 14, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Not sure what you mean. I had to read large parts of the Summa Theologica more than 40 years ago (in Latin!) but, at that time I was unaware of the work of the Islamic philosophers like Avicenna and Rushd who he was surely aware of since he got the old latinized Greek writings by way of the Muslims in Spain like everyone else and used Aristotelian reasoning in all his arguments.
Annar on June 14, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Like Hell they were; Kant’s argument amounts to “I’ve never seen a miracle so it doesn’t exist”, and both Hume and Kant ignore the historical record provided by the Bible. One that holds up quite well, thank you, under very close scrutiny.
Concidering how little written material survives from that period its surprizing how much of it is about Jesus! J.P. Holding writes:
We wouldn’t expect much in the way of documentation, since Jesus wasn’t a King or military leader and was a member of an obscure and detested religious group in the slums of the Roman Empire. Just as soon as He came on the Roman “radar” screen that changed.
Still, given the amount of textual evidence we have about Jesus, given His status (in Roman eyes) as a country bumpkin who died in the most socially degrading way possible means there is ample evidence of something extraordinary about the man. And given that NO Roman or Jewish anti-Christian polemic denied the events that the Gospels recorded until 275 years afterward, and in fact both Roman and Jewish polemics CONCEED Jesus’ Resurrection (albet not for the reasons Christians believed) it is safe to say that the Resurrection occured – since your enemies conceed the point.
Written within the lifetimes of those who could dispute the claims, both pro and con. No one did; once again if your enemies conceed that an event occured, chances are it actually happened are pretty darn good.
Once again, I call nonsense on this one. Behe examined the evidence and presented a plausable theory, and refines the theory in light of very hostile peer review. It is Behe who is exibiting the very soul of the scientific method.
papabryant on June 14, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Seriously, last post from me for a while.
I was talking about two philosophers: Aquinas and Leibniz. I happened to mention a few others as counters to these two philosophers: Anselm, Aristotle, al-Ghazali, and ibn-Rushd (I did not mention ibn-Sina).
I said Leibniz ignored the arguments of Ghazali and Averroes (I think I really meant just one or the other but I’m too tired to look it up right now). Ghazali claims that God could not have created the universe if he is a rational being because it would require him to decide to do something and then will to do it and God cannot change. Then it is claimed that God must be able to randomly decide when to create the universe (through the process of “picking” as opposed to “choosing”). I stated that the concept of “picking” runs counter to the idea of Leibniz’s God creating the most perfect world out of a bevy of choices. I added at the end the statement that if I was wrong in what argument was being assumed then the goodness of God must be proven to accept Leibniz’s argument (something he does not do).
—— Great. I just realized you were talking about a different post of mine. UGH. I’m tired. I wrote all that and I’m not going to delete it, but I’ll respond in 1 sec.
Nonfactor on June 14, 2008 at 11:04 AM
All I meant is you said that Aquinas assigned intelligence to his answer about the five proofs in Summa Theologica and I wanted to know what intelligence you think he assigned to them.
Nonfactor on June 14, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Thanks to fellow Hotties on both sides who have debated reasonably, and provided links and passages. I’ve said it many times, the best thing about this site is how much I learn.
mikeyboss on June 14, 2008 at 11:13 AM
This has no bearing on the current discussion. What Anselm or Aquinas thought of the other’s arguments has no bearing except for the actual content of their arguments.
A fair criticism, to be honest. It’s the nature of a priori knowledge: we can never be 100% sure. At this point in the discussion, I’m asking folks to consider this as a possibility. If it’s not a possibility, then theism doesn’t work. I’d argue though that just because it may or may not be true, does not speak to its truth. I would ask, if the first cause was not God, then what was it? Like I say, there are too many physical laws that depend upon a beginning of the universe in order for the universe to work? There has to be a beginning, otherwise the 2nd law of thermodynamics would require the universe be at equilibrium, hence no chemical reactions. The “unmoved mover” is the only “first cause” I can find that does not presuppose a cause before it.
I do not understand how the decision of “what universe to make” makes God “an illogical being.” Perhaps you can explain this one a little further.
You also mentioned that I had yet to prove that God was “all good.” Fair enough. I didn’t mention it because I didn’t think it was necessary at the time. If God is all good, do you accept the argument? I don’t like moving on from one argument to another without some progress being made on the first, if that makes sense. I can explain God’s goodness, but wanted to see if you’d accept this solution to the “problem of evil” first.
Send_Me on June 14, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Hi, I have enjoyed your posts in the past as well. I am currently at work. But check back here in a day or so, I will be happy to link some stuff.
ColtsFan on June 14, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Ever read Tacitus’ Annals? Don’t answer, you obviously did not. And Tacitus was not sympathetic in the least to the Christians being persecuted by Nero.
Or perhaps you might ask why there is no Jewish records concerning the lineage and birth of Jesus? Never mind that Herod burnt them all.
Nice to see that Meier is being referenced. His work, “Jesus: A Marginal Jew” and the series that accompany are a great reference for the historical Jesus. The book should be a prerequisite for participating in religious debates at Hotair.
darclon on June 14, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Entelechy on June 14, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Thanks for saying this ColtsFan. With much respect,
Entelechy on June 14, 2008 at 1:17 PM
From the headline thread:
I love your response, peski, and you’re right, both sides should try to read these threads from the other side’s perspective. There’s no reason we can’t all be friendly here.
I’m tempted to read through the comments on this thread, but it was so pleasant on the other one that I’m a little afraid to do so. There need not be any insults or anger here, as we both have plenty to learn from each other.
I may stop by later, but for now I just wanted to say that. Hope everyone’s having a good day.
Esthier on June 14, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Esthier, have a great dinner party tonight, and hopefully good conversations, along with the fondue :)
Entelechy on June 14, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Sorry Esthier, that was Anna who’s having the party. No matter, have a good day too.
Entelechy on June 14, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Nonfactor on June 14, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Nonfactor on June 14, 2008 at 11:06 AM
The post that was not a response to me was indeed interesting in any case. Islam is a very deterministic religion in general so this has tended to put its philosophers in a straight jacket. The closest Christian equivalent to Al-Ghazali comes in the form of the Calvinists. In both cases why believers should go through contortions to please their god.since in his mind the game is already played out, is a mystery to me. The contorsions one finds in the Catholic Encyclopedia to explain how an omnicient god knowing all has created beings with free will are amusing to say the least.
In spite of writing volumes on the subject, Aquinas seems to imply that the existence of a first cause immediately implies omniscient creator intelligence caring for all he created in the finest detail. This in no way follows from his arguments.
Back to mowing the lawn.
Annar on June 14, 2008 at 1:37 PM
Want evidence from secular history for Christ’s life?
Scroll down about 20%.
Akzed on June 14, 2008 at 1:49 PM
As a person of Faith, I just say that I don’t know because with God, all things are possible. When I speak in conversation, I comment on how _____ has been around for millions of years and ….” However, most people don’t know that carbon-dating can be wildly inaccurate beyond 10,000 years.
I think the bigger issue is where did the first life come from – not how long it’s been here. Scientists still can’t produce life in the lab even though we’re expected to believe it just happened spontaneously. They can’t do it using their INTELLIGENCE but it happened on it’s own non-intelligently. I think people (whose minds aren’t closed) should read up on everything that had to happen just right and within such a narrow window for life to have just formed on it’s own. Mathematically speaking, the odds are zero. Sure, maybe we are in that 1 x 10^100 but I choose to believe the more logical explanation.
Anyone who is interested should read “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Athiest”.
slug on June 14, 2008 at 1:57 PM
darclon on June 14, 2008 at 12:12 PM
The work of Tacitius was written at the beginning of the second century when the christian cult was well into its development and was causing problems for the empire. It does not provide independent secular source evidence with respect to the life and death of Christ. A one paragraph reference with no cited source is rather thin for an argument.
Annar on June 14, 2008 at 2:16 PM
Hey Allahpundit, if you think some headlines in the special headlines section are valuble, maybe that’s why you should create an archive specially for the headline links so that people can look at past entries and see what some have to say about them. It could be an idea.
Avi Green on June 14, 2008 at 2:29 PM
Calvinists?
Heh. :-)
You are aware, as a Calvinist myself who subscribes to “soft determinism”, that Calvinists do indeed hold to a version of free will that is compatible with some version of determinism???
Calvinists are properly called “compatibilists.”
Most versions of Naturalism or atheists are Determinists. Thus, these same versions (the majority report among Naturalists) are not the same as Calvinists. They are “apples and oranges”.
ColtsFan on June 14, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Don’t quit your day job. ;)
labrat on June 14, 2008 at 4:57 PM
Saint Olaf
Please accept this advise in the humble spirit in which it is offered.
I don’t like to criticize the debate tactics of another believer, God knows mine are lacking; and while I respect your boldness in defense of the Faith, please reconsider this passage:
Acts 24:25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.
I believe there is a “formula” for teaching/debating presented here for the believer. These things “righteousness, temperance and judgement” were recorded here in a deliberate order by the Holy Spirit, as you well know. Stephen, though he was stoned, followed this formula as he attempted to reason with the council in Acts 7. When he got to the “judgement” part, he was harsh and did not pull any punches, as we shouln’t.
If we turn this formula around, though, and begin with judgement or condemnation, we have mishandled the Word and the cause of Christ will not be advanced as we will only build walls and drive wedges. Regretfully, I have discovered this through experience in my personal ministry.
It is easy to become crass in this “faithless and perverse generation”, but we must focus, in our debates, on the benefits of being in a “right” relationship with the Father, then move on to how we must “temper” our lives to make that happen; and finally explain the horrible “judgement” that awaits those who refuse the above.
labrat on June 14, 2008 at 6:06 PM
I usually don’t read through the whole thread when this subject comes up, but for those skipping ahead, there is a lot of information worth looking at.
If you’re determind in your beliefs, I don’t think reading a thread on some website is going to change your mind. It is my belief, that a determind search for an answer, is one that has to be lived. I have not gone through the determind search that many people posting here have because I don’t find it to be detriment to my life. I have beliefs that have envolved in my life time, and am comfortable with them. (it’s what I believe) I don’t find most other beliefs to be threatening, and I hope mine don’t threaten others. I don’t allow others to impose their beliefs on me, as I don’t impose mine on them.
I found the posts here very intriging today. thanx.
oakpack on June 14, 2008 at 6:09 PM
The reason for this is simple.
Most people are brought up believing in God without question.
More sophisticated, intelligent households will encourage the critical thought and analysis and well as allowing the freedom needed for young people to abandon their faith.
Less sophisticated households will either not discuss God critically & logically or will stifle any such discussion. They will make it difficult for anyone to exercise the intellectual freedom to explore atheism.
Even away from parental influence and pressure, it still takes more intellect to question that to just accept.
In short – people who have become atheists have done so by engaging their brains and challenging their beliefs. This is why they show up as having higher IQs.
I dare say, it is those with higher IQs that become Christians in countries that have an atheist society (such as China)
uptight on June 14, 2008 at 6:10 PM
uptight on June 14, 2008 at 6:10 PM
“Can of worms” comes to mind there.
oakpack on June 14, 2008 at 6:18 PM
So if I understand correctly, you’re only here for the decent discussion? Because I’m all about definitions, how would you define “decent?” The reason I ask is that if one isn’t willing to change in the face of valid arguments or historical evidence that may be counter to what one already believes, then why talk at all? Sure, it may be fun, but what is to be gained? If I’m wrong about something, I want someone to call me on it and discuss it with me. The whole purpose of civil, rational discourse is to find what is best, what is good.
If you find the time, and if you’re interested, I’d encourage you to read a book call “The Closing of the American Mind” by Allan Bloom. (Please forgive the title. I’m not trying to imply you are closed-minded, but rather he makes many points about rational discourse, education, culture, etc. that based upon our conversation here, I think you’d find interesting. This book is what encouraged me to read and search for what is “good” like no other book I’ve read.) I hope you’d call this conversation “civil.” :)
Send_Me on June 14, 2008 at 6:49 PM
Just out of curiosity: How is it that we can differentiate between good and evil? How do we know that we as a species are the pinnacle of evolution? And how about this whole “soul” business? Do we actually have souls, or are we all nothing but a bunch of chemical reactions?
…right, shutting up and getting back in my cage now.
ZK on June 14, 2008 at 7:08 PM
1. You’re partially correct. It does take more intellect to question, but only if one is willing to accept the answers to the asked questions. One can either be a blind follower or a blind skeptic. One can not believe, in spite of all the evidence in the world that the world is round, for example.
2. I was not raised in a Christian home. I became a Christian after using my mind. I saw the flaws of naturalistic thinking. I found that a Biblical world view, based upon reason, history, and science, better answered the questioned I had concerning 1) origins, 2) purpose in life, 3) morality, and 4) where my future lies.
3. You are correct, to which I alluded before, that some Christians are “blind” believers. As a Christian, I’m trying to change that, to encourage them answer the question, “why do I believe what I believe?” But then, I’d also challenge anyone and everyone to answer that one question, “why do I believe what I believe?” Many atheists I’ve met over the years, quite a few of them in my philosophy classes, were “blind” atheists. They wanted to question for the sake of questioning, but would not accept any answers when presented to them. They also could not explain why they believed what they did believe about the world.
Send_Me on June 14, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Discussing with you is decent. Being condemned to hell by SaintOlaf, for example, is not decent. It might be to others but it isn’t to many of us, here, regardless of being believers, or non-believers.
Thank you for your recommendation. I’ll be sure to read it. No, I’m generally not closed-minded and didn’t think that you thought so either. I learn all the time, teach others, and know that I don’t know a lot.
Indee, I did. Regards,
Entelechy on June 14, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Again, you’re presupposing that the concept of essential causes applies to the nature of this universe. If one of your God’s aspects is that his essence is his existence why is it hard to believe that the very nature of the universe itself is existence? The universe exists (so much as our senses tell us), however who says the universe must have been made?
If God could have decided to create the universe and then created it it would make God illogical because it would require a change. For God to choose the best universe out of a multitude of choices would require God to change. Leibniz’s entire view of God deciding on the best universe contradicts the very Christian belief he believes in. If anything he should have said it is in God’s nature to have created the best universe and he couldn’t have done otherwise, but that argument itself opens many new criticisms.
Don’t get too cocky. It isn’t as easy as you may think. Go ahead and prove that your God is a purely good being, and if you are able to prove to me that it is I will most definitely accept the argument.
This seems to be the case with a lot of people who prescribe to a certain religion. They make a cause for a possibility of a God (read: first cause), but they stop short of using the same standards of proof to show intelligence, pure goodness, and omnipresent power, and then resort back to their religious texts (if there exists a first cause then that first cause must be my God because my religious text is right).
Exactly. When you can excuse away any counter-evidence through the statement “with God all things are possible,” you’re dealing with an argument where logic no longer applies.
Scientists absolutely do not think life just happened spontaneously. There are many theories, however we do know what the basic building blocks of life are (what amino acids and proteins) and have realized that some of these building blocks exist in space and attach to asteroids and some more of the building blocks exist on Earth. Simply because scientists are not completely sure how life on Earth started does not necessitate that an omniscient, omnipresent, purely good being created it.
I don’t understand compatibalists at all. I realize that if you believe in a certain type of God you must believe in determinism and if you believe in a certain type of God you must believe in free will, but I don’t see how the two can mesh. If the world is determined (even in a necessitarianism sort of way) then how is any action or thought made a free choice? It is impossible for someone to deviate from the determined path even if they wanted to, and that want would be determined as well.
You’ll get a different answer with every different religion. Aquinas would say evil is simply a deprivation of good. Others would say good and evil are what human beings or human societies make it to be.
We don’t. I remember the story that if you were somehow transported billions of years back in time and went up to something floating in the ocean and asked that thing to tell you about the story of creation that being would go: the world was formed, life started to evolve, and after years and years jellyfish appeared! The same holds true for humans. If we were asked the story of creation it would undoubtably end with “and then man appeared!” The thing is we view the world in a very human centric way simply because it is the only way we can understand the world, much like the jellyfish. Religions mirror this fact greatly where humans are the inheritors of the world destined to rule over it (and I’m sure if you asked the jellyfish its religion it would talk about how the world was the jellyfishes to rule), and even evolution mirrors the fact where we no longer talk about the evolution of species after homo sapiens arrived on the planet.
That depends on your definition of “soul.” It may very well just be that which animates us, not an eternal thing that lives on after we die.
Nonfactor on June 14, 2008 at 11:45 PM
No.
You are making an incredible statement…you’re saying that everything just happened from nothing.
PROVE IT.
Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that everything just happened and God did not create it.
Is evolution your only weapon?
If so…fine. Let’s talk about evolution.
I can absolutely disprove evolution to you 100 different ways.
But the question you need to ask yourself is this..
IF I CAN DISPROVE EVOLUTION TO YOU BEYOND DOUBT……WILL YOU ACCEPT THE FACT THAT GOD EXISTS AND GIVE UP SIN TO LIVE IN RIGHTEOUSNESS WITH HIM?
Yes, I can disprove evolution and prove that my God created the universe, but if you are not willing to give up sin..then it doesn’t matter if you know that God exists.
No matter what…you will crawl right back to your false beliefs simply because it is more comfortable for you.
This proves my point that the atheists dilemma is not intellectual, but moral.
It is prophecied that God would allow such men (men who reject the Truth) a strong delusion..so that they would believe a lie.
The fact is:
Every man, in his SOUL, KNOWS God exists.
Every man, in his heart, knows God’s Law. God’s Law is written in all men’s hearts..it is our conscience.
This is where every atheists argument falls apart..
There is no way to get around the fact that all men have the Moral Law written in their hearts.
An atheist is simply a DELUSIONAL, willfully DECEIVED person, hiding from his conscience.
SaintOlaf on June 15, 2008 at 5:57 AM
You’ve made an absurd statement here, Annar.
.
What limited time frame would meet your arbitrary condition? The issue is whether Tacitus was a Christian or not.
.
If you want to exclude all relevant evidence, just plug your ears and chat something repetitive until the threat to your non-religion goes away.
Right_of_Attila on June 15, 2008 at 10:07 AM
you may find out one of these how much the TRUTH does hurt….
right4life on June 15, 2008 at 11:27 AM
as Orwell would say:
“One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”
right4life on June 15, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Strawman argument. You’re making the assertion not Nonfactor, so prove it finally.
Evolution has nothing to do with the existence of a god. Evolution only disproves the biblical account of creation. But if you can disprove evolution, knock yourself out. I won’t give up my sinful life of wine, women and song but at least the Judeo-Christian belief system remains intact.
I can’t wait until NASA finds primitive life forms on another planet or more likely on a moon of Saturn or Jupiter; so you can eat crow once and for all!
barry norris on June 15, 2008 at 11:44 AM
If you care to believe in anything, you probably either believe that a) the universe has always existed and will always exist b) the biblical God created the universe or c) some sort of intelligence initiated our universe
I’m an atheist. I stopped believing in God when I realised I was praying to myself. I don’t rule out the possibility that some form of intelligence may have got our particular snowball rolling, but obviously that leads to questions about who created him and his universe.
I can’t believe in the biblical version of God. It’s too full of scientific flaws and frankly character flaws. I can’t believe that something powerful and sophisticated enough to build a universe will be so psychologically fragile and cruel as the God we see in the bible.
So I believe that the universe has always existed and ill always exist. The current one started with a bang and will end with a bang that will cause the next one to exist.
uptight on June 15, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Orwell himself killed people in the name of atheism. In Homage To Catalonia where he describes the ransacking of a church he makes it explicitly clear that his atheism is integral to and inseparable from his support of socialism.
aengus on June 15, 2008 at 3:38 PM
What would that prove? Perhaps God created life on Mars as well as Earth.
aengus on June 15, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Thanks, peski.
aengus on June 15, 2008 at 3:56 PM
You’re still misunderstanding burden of proof and no amount of bold text or capital letters will change that. You made the positive (and extraordinary) statement that a certain god exists and that this god has certain qualities. I am asking if you can prove it; that is all. You say you can prove the existence of your God – go right ahead.
Nonfactor on June 15, 2008 at 7:09 PM
In this one statement you showed the reason for an infinite, “unmoved mover.” There had to be a beginning, which would necessitate what? An infinite, all-knowing, all-powerful creator.
The universe had to have a beginning. Otherwise, how would you explain the away the obvious problems this poses in terms of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics? Energy/matter cannot be created nor destroyed, but only changed. This is a problem for naturalists. The amount of usable energy is constantly decreasing, and, conversely, the amount of entropy is increasing in the universe, hence necessitating a beginning.
What scientific flaws? Character flaws? Psychologically fragile and cruel? Please explain.
Send_Me on June 15, 2008 at 9:53 PM
How do you know there had to be a beginning? You’re assuming the universe works in the same way other things you’ve observed work. And even if you did grant that the universe had a beginning that would not necessitate an all-knowing and all-powerful creator (Spinoza proved that point).
And so instead of matter or energy originating by the nature of the universe you instead believe some all-powerful, all-knowing, purely good being created matter or energy? Right…
Link?
Nonfactor on June 15, 2008 at 10:40 PM
I assume that the laws of physics have remained constant, yes. Why shouldn’t I?
My point is this: matter/energy cannot have originated through “natural” causes. So my question to you is this: how else would you explain it? Philosophically, an all-knowing, all-powerful, infinite God is the only way. (I didn’t mention purely good- I’ll get to that later. Obviously, creating the universe is an amoral act.) You’ll have to elaborate on what you mean by Spinoza’s rebuttal.
The link is this: if entropy is increasing, then there had to be a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be at equilibrium, hence no chemical reactions. The universe would consist of a non-reacting blob of matter. Unless you wish to suspend this law of thermodynamics as well, I’m not sure what solution an atheist has to this dilemma. (This is one of the points that led me to believe in a deity, not necessarily a Christian one. That came later.)
Send_Me on June 15, 2008 at 11:08 PM
They’ll give you the nonsense about closed versus open systems. They think it is their trump card when it comes to the second law of thermodynamics.
You have matter and energy, but without the “information” to organize it, your matter lays decaying in the sun. So, where did this “information” – the software for the computer, in other words – come from? That’s right – God.
labrat on June 16, 2008 at 12:35 AM
Why not? String theorists disagree. Your entire belief is based on the fact that you believe a certain god made something happen rather than it being the nature of the universe.
Spinoza believed that God is nature; that there is one substance in the universe (which is God) and everything else is a mode of God. This is one of many answers to the “beginning of the universe” question where God is not an thinking, all-powerful, purely good being. Leibniz took issue with Spinoza, but couldn’t deny his basic premise – all he added was that this substance could also think and was also all-powerful (an unnecessary step).
And the question of increasing entropy is still being debated; it’s far from settled.
That giant leap you just made there is called faith. You didn’t prove anything.
Nonfactor on June 16, 2008 at 1:28 AM
If energy and matter can neither be created nor destroyed, ergo there’s no need for a god.
As for this and your stuff on entropy, all you offer is assertion as proof. Just because we don’t have the answers yet doesn’t mean the answer is “God”. Just because something right now is unexplainable doesn’t mean no explanation exists.
WRONG! The effect does not always prove the cause. If matter and energy exist independently of a god as your comment suggests, then God is not the creator of the universe, only its steward. Perhaps there’s another answer. Are you willing to look for it and accept it when you find it?
barry norris on June 16, 2008 at 2:18 AM
Yet a small “leap of faith” compared to that required to believe that matter went spontaneously from a simple, random form to the incredible ordering required for evolution; a violation of the laws of physics and mathematics. Proof, no, simple reason and logic.
Yes sir. Are you?
labrat on June 16, 2008 at 6:30 AM
The entirety of Darwinian/evolutionary theory is nothing but assertion.
labrat on June 16, 2008 at 6:39 AM
Okay. You’ll have to explain why/how. Please explain how naturalists get past the issue of the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
There’s a problem with this line of thinking, much the same as pantheists: the Creator cannot create Himself. A sentient being cannot create itself.
How do you mean “still being debated?”
Send_Me on June 16, 2008 at 8:39 PM
So how do you, within the realm of natural causes, explain the beginning of the universe, given the problems that the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics provide?
Here is my argument:
1. Every cause has an effect.
2. The universe is composed of a series of effects.
3. The universe, hence matter/energy, had a beginning.
4. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but only changed through natural causes.
5. An effect cannot be its own cause.
6. Conclusion: A, by definition, supernatural cause caused the beginning of time, matter, and energy, hence the universe.
In terms of entropy: just the same as the conclusion above; there has to be a beginning of the universe, otherwise no chemical reactions would be possible. As time increases, available energy for chemical reactions decreases. If time is infinite, then there would be no available energy for these chemical reactions.
I believe God created the universe because, in terms of logic and physics (which are the same things, just in different forms), there is no other explanation possible.
There had to be an “unmoved mover.” We can also discuss the necessity of a creator for other reasons, but I’d like to see how you feel about this explanation first.
Send_Me on June 16, 2008 at 9:38 PM
IMO, the 1st causes no problems for me (i.e., The stuff of the universe may have always existed regardless if the universe had a beginning). The best answer for the 2nd may be the ‘big crunch’ theory: when entropy starts to set in, the universe will have just enough energy to recede back into its tiny ball and thus start the whole process again. If this is the case, you have the ‘chicken and egg’ conundrum. labrat already mentioned this but doesn’t want to believe it. I think this is called ‘reversible process’ which is considered to be the exception to the 2nd law.
And don’t forget about quantum physics: the laws which govern the universe now may not have been in effect when the universe was compressed to the size of the head of a pin.
The effect doesn’t always prove the cause.
Ok.
With quantum physics, that may be wrong. The matter/energy may have existed in some form prior to the expansion of the universe.
Maybe not. If the big bang and big crunch theories prove correct, the universe is both the cause and the effect.
But where’s the proof of a supernatural cause now? If there’s a creator, why are there no more new creations?
Therefore the more logical conclusion is that the universe was, is, and shall be.
To labrat:
Fossil records are just that: RECORDS!
barry norris on June 17, 2008 at 1:29 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4