Email response I sent to someone....
February 21, 2012 at 4:06 pm
(This post was last modified: February 21, 2012 at 4:09 pm by Voltair.)
So I have continued my email correspondence with a theist I know and I responded recently to an email they sent me. This is a pretty long read but I figured some of you may find it interesting.
I also would like to see if I said anything stupid or whatnot and just get your guys insights into the issues I address. Its always good to learn something so hopefully you guys will help broaden my understanding ^_^.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I noticed that your primary argument is a teleological argument. Essentially, if I am not mistaken, you are saying that life is complex and therefore cannot be explained any other way than by a supernatural deity:
I am not really certain as to why a supernatural deity seems to be the only explanation much less a simpler one. Essentially what is being said is that all of this complexity was created simply by a supernatural entity, that we cannot truly understand all the ins and out of, by him speaking words. This being's words have the power to make things pop in and out of existence and thus create something essentially from nothing. This being is also said to be completely uncaused and to have always existed. The reason we know all of this is true is through a philosophical argument and a book which is believed to be inspired called the Bible.
I will be very blunt here in saying that simply saying that life is so complex that for all intensive purposes it was created by spiritual "magic" does not seem to simplify anything but rather only add more questions. The other problem to is where is the demonstration of this phenomenon besides from words written in a book? Has any spiritual action/power been clearly proven or demonstrated? How much assumption do I have to make in order to accept the idea that there is such a thing as spiritual power?
You also mentioned that science presumes the spiritual foundation:
I really don't see where you get this from. Many scientists do not assume that there is something beyond the physical. You saying that they rest their foundation on spiritual principles is what you believe but in order for the spiritual to be accepted it must first be proven. How do I know that there is anything beyond this universe much less spiritual? It is written down in books, people talk about experiencing it, etc but so far I have never seen somebody prove it is actually real outside of their own minds. I do completely agree with you on one point though, science can only measure that which is in the physical/natural realm. Where we disagree though is that there is a realm beyond the physical. Again how do we know that there is a realm beyond the physical? The Bible speaks of such a place but what experience/proof do you have of this places existence save words from other people?
I am not going to presume/accept an alternate plane of existence until that plane of existence is first proven to be a part of reality. If this plane of existence is not able to be proven real inside of this realm then how am I supposed to know it is true in the first place? Am I to simply trust the words of men who claim that it really is there even with their inability to provide any evidence save their own words or philosophical constructions?This gets into the philosophical branch called Metaphysics or that which is beyond the physical. Again, save words on a page and claims of spiritual experience by people what proof do you have to offer for this spiritual realm?
Also I notice you said that atheist's believe that scientists will one day be able to explain everything about the universe:
I understand why it is easy to think that atheist's believe that and I am sure that there are some that do. However it is most likely true that we will never know EVERYTHING about the universe. For if we knew everything science would no longer have a purpose and would no longer have a goal to work towards. Perfect knowledge would be the death of science as we know it. Not to mention how could we possibly know what knowing everything is? How would we know when we reached perfect knowledge? There is always going to be an unknown or something else to look for so science will never know everything.
In fact science may never find the complete "natural" cause of the universe nor does it concern me whether it does or not. Not having the answer for something does not immediately default the position to someone else who claims they have the answer. It is quite possible that two people can both be wrong about what they believe. My values class today gave an example of two people one who thought the world was square and the other that thought it was cubed. Both were wrong and the other being wrong did not default to them the position of being right. In the same manner if scientists are wrong/don't discover the cause of the universe it does not automatically mean God is the explanation. Both sides must provide proof for why their cause is legitimate. Even if the atheist had absolutely no evidence whatsoever it does not mean that the theist all of the sudden no longer has to prove anything. Not being able to explain something really doesn't make God any more legitimate if he hasn't been proven in the first place.
You also mentioned that it would not make sense for a deity to create something and then not involve itself with it:
First of all I notice you make the comparison to someone building a grand building and doing nothing with it. Not being able to understand why a deity would create something and not involve itself would not really mean anything other than you not being able to understand it. I can provide a simpler reason for a deity doing such a thing which would be, because they wanted to. Can I prove that? No, but it is just simply a possibility. The assumption that a deity would concern itself intimately with its creation is one that Christianity/other religions share. However I fail to see how it would be impossible for such a deity to exist. There is nothing about being a deity that necessitates the deity communicating/being intimately involved with its creation.
Why would the deity have to be concerned with this tiny planet that we call home much less our own fragile species? I fail to see how this is a requirement other than us making ourselves more important by stating that we are important enough that a deity should care about us. We are a very tiny spec in this cosmos and it is likely we are not the only form of intelligent life either if I had to wager a guess. For all we know we are one of many intelligent species so it may be quite easy indeed for a deity to be relatively apathetic towards us. None of this is something I can prove but I simply commenting as to show you how it could work in a sense to have a deity that was not terribly involved in everything. Not being able to imagine such a deity does nothing to make it not exist.
You also mention that since this cause is so uncaring/unprovable why should you build your life about it or have it affect you:
I don't ever remember arguing that you should build you life around an uncaring/unprovable deity or first cause. In fact I am not saying it should govern your life at all. Why would it after all? I don't see how this is really a legitimate point about the issue. If this is an argument against deism/agnosticism that is fine. It wouldn't disprove anything though because deists/agnostics don't necessarily model their life after a belief in a deity.
You mention Can the unknown, undiscovered cause fulfill, fit, answer or meet the tests from the 6 arguments you mentioned for the existence of God:
The unknown cause if you will doesn't have to fit the arguments for the existence or God or necessarily answer every one of them. Those arguments were invented by Christians/theisticly minded people in an attempt to prove the existence of their deity. I don't see why it should be anyone's responsibility to explain every single tiny aspect of something when no claim is really being made. In order to even address this unknown cause the cause would first have to be found and it may never be found.
The reason why Christianity has a higher burden of proof is because Christianity is claiming that their deity answers ALL of these questions. I don't remember claiming to know the answers to any of these questions perfectly. All I have are assumptions I can make not necessarily things I can prove. Yet again though I don't have to prove a single thing about the origins of order/design/the cosmos to question someone else's idea of why we exist. I am not making a claim of knowledge on the subject, Christianity is. I do not claim to KNOW that there is not a deity nor do I intend to take that position. That would put me in an impossible task of proving something that I cannot test/measure and someone could always say "So you don't know for certain?" to which I would say "No, I do not know for certain that a god does not exist".
Finally I would like to address [NAME REMOVED] statement of "cop out"(essentially saying that an unknown first cause is a cop out I believe):
I hardly think me stating that I do not know the answer to a question is intellectual cowardice. I would prefer to be honest than to come up with some fluff answer. It seems to me a huge assumption people make is that atheists must be able to prove an alternative or they are just ignoring the obvious truth that God exists. It seems with certain things people cannot bear the idea of actually NOT knowing something. Do I know the "first cause" or what did everything? Absolutely not and saying I do not know or stating that I believe there is a cause that may be discovered is not cowardice but honesty.
What would be cowardice is for me to refuse to admit that. So I would ask Ken Joines what he believes the "non-cowardly" approach would be? I know he wouldn't advocate lying so that isn't it. The answer being God may be obvious to Christian's/those who believe but I can assure you it does NOT seem obvious at all to those who aren't already invested in it. Ultimately though, according to scripture, I must be committing intellectual cowardice or the Apostle Paul is not an inspired writer or he made a mistake. So I understand that my honesty/intellectual integrity will be ultimately thrown out before the Bible. I can at least be happy/fulfilled in knowing that I am being honest regardless of what a book or anyone else says for that matter. What people think/believe doesn't always change what is true. I know that I am honestly sitting in the position I am at and I did not arrive at it by intellectual cowardice but by being honest with myself. I now know that I really don't have to prove that to anyone. People may question my intentions and honesty but I ultimately know that if they call me dishonest they are COMPLETELY wrong. The whole world could call me dishonest and if I wasn't being dishonest they are still wrong. But if this were possible the Bible is probably not true or at least certain understandings of it are not. So I understand why people call what I am doing a "cop out". Thankfully, I know that they are dead wrong.
I also would like to see if I said anything stupid or whatnot and just get your guys insights into the issues I address. Its always good to learn something so hopefully you guys will help broaden my understanding ^_^.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I noticed that your primary argument is a teleological argument. Essentially, if I am not mistaken, you are saying that life is complex and therefore cannot be explained any other way than by a supernatural deity:
I am not really certain as to why a supernatural deity seems to be the only explanation much less a simpler one. Essentially what is being said is that all of this complexity was created simply by a supernatural entity, that we cannot truly understand all the ins and out of, by him speaking words. This being's words have the power to make things pop in and out of existence and thus create something essentially from nothing. This being is also said to be completely uncaused and to have always existed. The reason we know all of this is true is through a philosophical argument and a book which is believed to be inspired called the Bible.
I will be very blunt here in saying that simply saying that life is so complex that for all intensive purposes it was created by spiritual "magic" does not seem to simplify anything but rather only add more questions. The other problem to is where is the demonstration of this phenomenon besides from words written in a book? Has any spiritual action/power been clearly proven or demonstrated? How much assumption do I have to make in order to accept the idea that there is such a thing as spiritual power?
You also mentioned that science presumes the spiritual foundation:
I really don't see where you get this from. Many scientists do not assume that there is something beyond the physical. You saying that they rest their foundation on spiritual principles is what you believe but in order for the spiritual to be accepted it must first be proven. How do I know that there is anything beyond this universe much less spiritual? It is written down in books, people talk about experiencing it, etc but so far I have never seen somebody prove it is actually real outside of their own minds. I do completely agree with you on one point though, science can only measure that which is in the physical/natural realm. Where we disagree though is that there is a realm beyond the physical. Again how do we know that there is a realm beyond the physical? The Bible speaks of such a place but what experience/proof do you have of this places existence save words from other people?
I am not going to presume/accept an alternate plane of existence until that plane of existence is first proven to be a part of reality. If this plane of existence is not able to be proven real inside of this realm then how am I supposed to know it is true in the first place? Am I to simply trust the words of men who claim that it really is there even with their inability to provide any evidence save their own words or philosophical constructions?This gets into the philosophical branch called Metaphysics or that which is beyond the physical. Again, save words on a page and claims of spiritual experience by people what proof do you have to offer for this spiritual realm?
Also I notice you said that atheist's believe that scientists will one day be able to explain everything about the universe:
I understand why it is easy to think that atheist's believe that and I am sure that there are some that do. However it is most likely true that we will never know EVERYTHING about the universe. For if we knew everything science would no longer have a purpose and would no longer have a goal to work towards. Perfect knowledge would be the death of science as we know it. Not to mention how could we possibly know what knowing everything is? How would we know when we reached perfect knowledge? There is always going to be an unknown or something else to look for so science will never know everything.
In fact science may never find the complete "natural" cause of the universe nor does it concern me whether it does or not. Not having the answer for something does not immediately default the position to someone else who claims they have the answer. It is quite possible that two people can both be wrong about what they believe. My values class today gave an example of two people one who thought the world was square and the other that thought it was cubed. Both were wrong and the other being wrong did not default to them the position of being right. In the same manner if scientists are wrong/don't discover the cause of the universe it does not automatically mean God is the explanation. Both sides must provide proof for why their cause is legitimate. Even if the atheist had absolutely no evidence whatsoever it does not mean that the theist all of the sudden no longer has to prove anything. Not being able to explain something really doesn't make God any more legitimate if he hasn't been proven in the first place.
You also mentioned that it would not make sense for a deity to create something and then not involve itself with it:
First of all I notice you make the comparison to someone building a grand building and doing nothing with it. Not being able to understand why a deity would create something and not involve itself would not really mean anything other than you not being able to understand it. I can provide a simpler reason for a deity doing such a thing which would be, because they wanted to. Can I prove that? No, but it is just simply a possibility. The assumption that a deity would concern itself intimately with its creation is one that Christianity/other religions share. However I fail to see how it would be impossible for such a deity to exist. There is nothing about being a deity that necessitates the deity communicating/being intimately involved with its creation.
Why would the deity have to be concerned with this tiny planet that we call home much less our own fragile species? I fail to see how this is a requirement other than us making ourselves more important by stating that we are important enough that a deity should care about us. We are a very tiny spec in this cosmos and it is likely we are not the only form of intelligent life either if I had to wager a guess. For all we know we are one of many intelligent species so it may be quite easy indeed for a deity to be relatively apathetic towards us. None of this is something I can prove but I simply commenting as to show you how it could work in a sense to have a deity that was not terribly involved in everything. Not being able to imagine such a deity does nothing to make it not exist.
You also mention that since this cause is so uncaring/unprovable why should you build your life about it or have it affect you:
I don't ever remember arguing that you should build you life around an uncaring/unprovable deity or first cause. In fact I am not saying it should govern your life at all. Why would it after all? I don't see how this is really a legitimate point about the issue. If this is an argument against deism/agnosticism that is fine. It wouldn't disprove anything though because deists/agnostics don't necessarily model their life after a belief in a deity.
You mention Can the unknown, undiscovered cause fulfill, fit, answer or meet the tests from the 6 arguments you mentioned for the existence of God:
The unknown cause if you will doesn't have to fit the arguments for the existence or God or necessarily answer every one of them. Those arguments were invented by Christians/theisticly minded people in an attempt to prove the existence of their deity. I don't see why it should be anyone's responsibility to explain every single tiny aspect of something when no claim is really being made. In order to even address this unknown cause the cause would first have to be found and it may never be found.
The reason why Christianity has a higher burden of proof is because Christianity is claiming that their deity answers ALL of these questions. I don't remember claiming to know the answers to any of these questions perfectly. All I have are assumptions I can make not necessarily things I can prove. Yet again though I don't have to prove a single thing about the origins of order/design/the cosmos to question someone else's idea of why we exist. I am not making a claim of knowledge on the subject, Christianity is. I do not claim to KNOW that there is not a deity nor do I intend to take that position. That would put me in an impossible task of proving something that I cannot test/measure and someone could always say "So you don't know for certain?" to which I would say "No, I do not know for certain that a god does not exist".
Finally I would like to address [NAME REMOVED] statement of "cop out"(essentially saying that an unknown first cause is a cop out I believe):
I hardly think me stating that I do not know the answer to a question is intellectual cowardice. I would prefer to be honest than to come up with some fluff answer. It seems to me a huge assumption people make is that atheists must be able to prove an alternative or they are just ignoring the obvious truth that God exists. It seems with certain things people cannot bear the idea of actually NOT knowing something. Do I know the "first cause" or what did everything? Absolutely not and saying I do not know or stating that I believe there is a cause that may be discovered is not cowardice but honesty.
What would be cowardice is for me to refuse to admit that. So I would ask Ken Joines what he believes the "non-cowardly" approach would be? I know he wouldn't advocate lying so that isn't it. The answer being God may be obvious to Christian's/those who believe but I can assure you it does NOT seem obvious at all to those who aren't already invested in it. Ultimately though, according to scripture, I must be committing intellectual cowardice or the Apostle Paul is not an inspired writer or he made a mistake. So I understand that my honesty/intellectual integrity will be ultimately thrown out before the Bible. I can at least be happy/fulfilled in knowing that I am being honest regardless of what a book or anyone else says for that matter. What people think/believe doesn't always change what is true. I know that I am honestly sitting in the position I am at and I did not arrive at it by intellectual cowardice but by being honest with myself. I now know that I really don't have to prove that to anyone. People may question my intentions and honesty but I ultimately know that if they call me dishonest they are COMPLETELY wrong. The whole world could call me dishonest and if I wasn't being dishonest they are still wrong. But if this were possible the Bible is probably not true or at least certain understandings of it are not. So I understand why people call what I am doing a "cop out". Thankfully, I know that they are dead wrong.
