Why I don't recommend Dawkins?????

[_Phillip]

In which case, use of god creator of the universe adds precisely nothing of value. Might as well skip a step and say universes are necessary and not contingent on something else.

Theists have been grappling (perhaps unsuccessfully) with these sort of issues for centuries. It's not like the question of 'who designed the designer', or how exactly God is neccessary while the physical universe is not, never occured to them. As the physicist and atheist Paul Davies wrote in his Goldilocks Enigma book, "Religious scholars like Anslem and Aquinas were not pious simpletons, but the intellectual heavyweights of their age."

[_Hoops]

No, they're replacing science with pseudo-science.

Simplistic even for you. And that says a lot.

But, be that as it may, you cited this site as some who deny science. This is YOUR offering, not mine. The information contained within the cite, by any reasonable interpretation, is using science to support their claim. Thus, they do not "deny" science.

It would appear your argument is, essentially, "that which agrees with me is science, that which doesn't is pseudo-science." One wonders what your fellow scientist think of this idea.

[_Buffalo]

No, they're replacing science with pseudo-science.

Simplistic even for you. And that says a lot.

But, be that as it may, you cited this site as some who deny science. This is YOUR offering, not mine. The information contained within the cite, by any reasonable interpretation, is using science to support their claim. Thus, they do not "deny" science.

It would appear your argument is, essentially, "that which agrees with me is science, that which doesn't is pseudo-science." One wonders what your fellow scientist think of this idea.

You can't simply upload any old mumbo jumbo onto a website and call it science. Nor can you, as you like to do, formulate an argument for me and call it mine. Their "science" does not follow the scientific method, isn't based on actual research, and moreover neglects to provided any evidence at all of a world-wide flood, which is their assumption.

It would be like publishing a website dedicated to removing Thetans from your soul, without establishing the existence of either one. That's not science, that crankery.

[_Phillip]

Hi Phillip,

I just woke up and apparently our internet is weak and going off and on..besides that though it looks like to respond to you more fully I'm going to have to review my course on the Early and High Middle Ages..so give me a day or two.

ETA..tomorrow I'm going to Whistler for the day..so if not today then not until Wednesday.

Ok, take your time. I really should be focusing more on my work than internet debates in any case. I have the suspicion, though, that once we get past the rhetoric our views on the matter may not be that far apart. History is a messy affair, and the good is usually mixed with the bad.

[_Buffalo]

In which case, use of god creator of the universe adds precisely nothing of value. Might as well skip a step and say universes are necessary and not contingent on something else.

Theists have been grappling (perhaps unsuccessfully) with these sort of issues for centuries. It's not like the question of 'who designed the designer', or how exactly God is neccessary while the physical universe is not, never occured to them. As the physicist and atheist Paul Davies wrote in his Goldilocks Enigma book, "Religious scholars like Anslem and Aquinas were not pious simpletons, but the intellectual heavyweights of their age."

I appreciate the effort that you and your fellows are making to help us appreciate the intelligence of theistic thinkers. However, I'd prefer to simply examine arguments which address the problem with any degree of efficacy, (aside from the obvious argument, of course). I don't particularly feel the need to venerate anyone today.

[_MrStakhanovite]

I'm afraid I'm not much for philosophical arguments, which is why I've tried to stay out of the thread. I'm more interested in arguments grounded in science or history. I know next to nothing about philosophy.

In my opinion, the best formulations of the existence of God, have it constructed as a philosophical question. A project which set out to claim that God’s existence is a scientific question is, well, doomed to failure (if a Theist).

Arguments from history are not much better, but leave more room to maneuver. The best case I can think of off the top of my head would be WLC’s arguments for the resurrection of Jesus. J. P. Holding’s Improbable faith maybe? I’m reaching here.

What, specifically, can it account for, per the supernaturalists?

The contingent universe, the uniformity of nature, the nature of consciousness, other minds, properly functioning cognitive faculties.

[_Some Schmo]

Necessity is usually used by Naturalists and Theists alike to remove an infinite regression of causes. Saying God is necessary is just the beginning really, God being necessary doesn’t solve any problems that an Atheist would have with Theism.

So they start with an assertion (god is necessary) and go from there. If the arguments that god is necessary suck, why should we care about the additional arguments built on that assumption?

[_Phillip]

I appreciate the effort that you and your fellows are making to help us appreciate the intelligence of theistic thinkers. However, I'd prefer to simply examine arguments which address the problem with any degree of efficacy, (aside from the obvious argument, of course). I don't particularly feel the need to venerate anyone today.

Are you telling me that the veneration of the Angelic Doctor is not a regular part of your daily devotions? What is this world coming to?

There are icons available, you know.

[_Buffalo]

I'm afraid I'm not much for philosophical arguments, which is why I've tried to stay out of the thread. I'm more interested in arguments grounded in science or history. I know next to nothing about philosophy.

In my opinion, the best formulations of the existence of God, have it constructed as a philosophical question. A project which set out to claim that God’s existence is a scientific question is, well, doomed to failure (if a Theist).

Arguments from history are not much better, but leave more room to maneuver. The best case I can think of off the top of my head would be WLC’s arguments for the resurrection of Jesus. J. P. Holding’s Improbable faith maybe? I’m reaching here.

I'm not very familiar with WLC’s arguments regarding the resurrection. Doesn't it hang on all the witnesses? Not terribly convincing, if that's it, given the dates of the books of the New Testament and the many inconsistencies therein.

What, specifically, can it account for, per the supernaturalists?

The contingent universe, the uniformity of nature, the nature of consciousness, other minds, properly functioning cognitive faculties.

I would argue that in order to account for something, there must be some sort of evidence of a connection - and evidence of the supernatural to begin with. But there isn't any.

There are, however, quite useful naturalistic explanations for all of those things.

[_MrStakhanovite]

So they start with an assertion (god is necessary) and go from there. If the arguments that god is necessary suck, why should we care about the additional arguments built on that assumption?

The arguments aren’t bad if the goal is just to show the existence of something necessary, but being necessary doesn’t make you God. I could take these arguments and build a naturalistic worldview from them.

In Classical Apologetics, the goal of these arguments would be to first show necessity, then they would try to establish that this necessary thing is also a creator, with Fine Tuning and Design Arguments. Then they would argue that God cares for his creation and the need for a mediator, and finally they would get to Christianity.

So I don’t think the arguments for necessity are bad, it’s just they do very little to get to the idea that God exists to the point that would be recognizable. I think the Theist really gets into trouble when it comes to Fine Tuning and Design, and it only gets harder for them from there.