This is one of The Biggies when it comes to debates. It'll prob'ly always have a home in a debate forum.anomaly said:We've debated this before (well, I missed most of the last debate, so most of you have debated this before), but I think it deserves another thread.
The Earth is not a closed system unto itself. It constantly receives energy from the Sun. This constant addition of energy enables the "increases in order."anomaly said:The classis arguments for the existence of God are:
1. The order of the universe...the random creation of comething so ordered as our planet seems to contradict the old scientific claim that entropy always increases. Well, entropy certainly has decreased considerably on our planet. Can this be waved off as just another exception to the law?
While entropy decreases in some places, the overall "level of entropy" inceases.anomaly said:What's so natural about cold, dark space with bits of metal and rock flying around? If the universe itself is a 'natural system', does this not refute the second law of thermodynamics itself? If the entire universe is a natural system, entropy 'sometimes' decreases...how can this be a law at all then?
Just because these thinsg are not the result of random occurrence does not mean that they must have an origin in diety. It's sufficient to postulate that similar situations produce similar results.anomaly said:2. The existence of a universally felt moral code. Murder, stealing, adultery, all of these have been considered wrong by almost every civilization throughout the ages. How can this have randomly occured?
It's quite possible to take principles or aesthetics w/o reference to diety as "moral points of reference."anomaly said:If we say that God does not exist, we destroy any moral point of reference.
This is only true in gross terms. Closer examination reveals that in some of the cited circumstances it was quite acceptable to kill members of ones own family, to beat one's wife or children, to keep slaves, and a number of things that are otherwise considered morally repugnant here today.anomaly said:This, of course, leads to moral relativism, where any morality is 'as right' as any other. But for this to be true, one would expect that many different variances of morality would happen over time, instead of the normal moral code we humans adhere to (and if we stray, we feel a strange feeling known as guilt). But this has not been the case: mores and customs have shown to be dynamic; they change over time. Moral codes have proven to be quite static in that they remain over time. Our morality was extremely similar to that of the ancient Chinese, and their's was similar to that of the ancient Romans and Greeks.
I suspect that they find it sufficient to postulate that similar situations produce similar results. Groups of people who faced similar problems found similar solutions.anomaly said:How does the atheist account for this? And, according to atheists, what are the origins of this morality?
anomaly said:2. The existence of a universally felt moral code. Murder, stealing, adultery, all of these have been considered wrong by almost every civilization throughout the ages. How can this have randomly occured? If we say that God does not exist, we destroy any moral point of reference.
anomaly said:Hmmm, the 'level of entropy' always increases? Let us
consider the entire universe. Because of the Law of conservation of matter
and energy, the universe must be a so-called 'closed' system, so the 'level of
entropy' should always increase. And yet after the Big Bang, this matter and
energy seems to have ridden itself of some entropy. In fact, this matter and
energy 'randomly' formed billions of galaxies. So we have this energy ordering
itself, creating billions of star-filled clusters, and yet the 'overall' entropy is
increasing?
On morals, one moral I always love using is adultery. Adultery is
pro-creative, and so if we simply go on our instincts, we should all be
committing adultery in order to carry on the species. And yet we feel guilty
when we commit adultery, even though we are trying to carry on the
species.
Well, given that it started out as one thing and branched in to trillions upon trillion, I really don't see the contradiction.anomaly said:Hmmm, the 'level of entropy' always increases? Let us consider the entire universe. Because of the Law of conservation of matter and energy, the universe must be a so-called 'closed' system, so the 'level of entropy' should always increase. And yet after the Big Bang, this matter and energy seems to have ridden itself of some entropy. In fact, this matter and energy 'randomly' formed billions of galaxies. So we have this energy ordering itself, creating billions of star-filled clusters, and yet the 'overall' entropy is increasing?
anomaly said:We've debated this before (well, I missed most of the last debate, so most of you have debated this before), but I think it deserves another thread.
The classis arguments for the existence of God are:
1. The order of the universe...the random creation of comething so ordered as our planet seems to contradict the old scientific claim that entropy always increases. Well, entropy certainly has decreased considerably on our planet. Can this be waved off as just another exception to the law? It is undisputable that in many natural systems, entropy has decreased. This is why evolution does not contradict the second law of thermodynamics. Or ocurse, evolution takes place on earth, a planet on which natural systems are abundant. But is the universe really a 'natural system'? What's so natural about cold, dark space with bits of metal and rock flying around? If the universe itself is a 'natural system', does this not refute the second law of thermodynamics itself? If the entire universe is a natural system, entropy 'sometimes' decreases...how can this be a law at all then?
2. The existence of a universally felt moral code. Murder, stealing, adultery, all of these have been considered wrong by almost every civilization throughout the ages. How can this have randomly occured? If we say that God does not exist, we destroy any moral point of reference. This, of course, leads to moral relativism, where any morality is 'as right' as any other. But for this to be true, one would expect that many different variances of morality would happen over time, instead of the normal moral code we humans adhere to (and if we stray, we feel a strange feeling known as guilt). But this has not been the case: mores and customs have shown to be dynamic; they change over time. Moral codes have proven to be quite static in that they remain over time. Our morality was extremely similar to that of the ancient Chinese, and their's was similar to that of the ancient Romans and Greeks. How does the atheist account for this? And, according to atheists, what are the origins of this morality?
I invite theists to give other supposed 'proofs', and, of course, I invite atheists to attempt to shread these proofs to pieces.
Thomas Aquinas gave the only undeniable proof of the existence of at least one divine being in his First Cause Argument. He basically states that because everything which is in this plane of existence derives from a cause therefore everything is dependant on a cause to exist. Because everything in the universe is dependant on a cause there must have been something which acted as a frist cause which is independant of cause ie does not require a cause for it's existence. His reason for this is that there cannot be an infinate chain of causation and because for something dependant on cause to create itself it would require it to exist prior to itself which is imposible. Therefore, again, the only solution is a being independant of cause which created the universe. This being is what we call God. For a more detailed description of this argument go to:
nkgupta80 said:Aquinas' FIrst cause argument is flawed because he didn't take the possiblity that there could be an infinite string of causes and effects, just like in mathematics where there is an infinite set of numbers. And this talk about cause and effect leads you into a whole discussion on what time is, a concept that the most brilliant scientists and philosophers are trying to figure out.
You haven't explained.Napoleon's Nightingale said:Actually he did and it is impossible to have an infinite chain of cause and effect when it comes to existence. Why? Because something dependant on cause cannot cause itself..something independant of cause must have jumpstarted the chain. I already explained this..
Simon W. Moon said:You haven't explained.
You have merely asserted that it is so.
anomaly said:But the big bang theory is sometimes used to explain the origin of time, space, and matter (meaning time has a beginning). That is, unless there was another universe before this one, and that universe's 'big crunch' set this universe in motion. This is referred to as the oscillating universe. However, thinker's link (which I found to be very good) gives some problems the notion of an infinite universe gives us.
But the big bang theory is sometimes used to explain the origin of time, space, and matter (meaning time has a beginning). That is, unless there was another universe before this one, and that universe's 'big crunch' set this universe in motion. This is referred to as the oscillating universe. However, thinker's link (which I found to be very good) gives some problems the notion of an infinite universe gives us.
nkgupta80 said:When you assume cause and effect, i am guessing that you assume time is linear. A line however doesn't mean there is a beginning and an end. Remember in math, a line goes infinitely in both directions.
the only problems to the infinite universe is that we don't have the current knowledge of the fundemental laws to explain it. Thus it can't be ruled out.
What religious claims have been disproven? Creation myths? Yes, I suppose. But the ultimate religious belief is of God, of course. That has not come close to being disproven. I came to a conclusion a while ago that we all have faith in one of two worldviews: the belief in God or the belief that science has the ability to explain everything. Well, I should say almost everyone fits into those two faiths. We also have agnostics and nihilists.nkgupta80 said:oh i don't have faith that laws would be proven. I am just saying that it can't be ruled out, since scientists believe that by better understanding these laws they could make a better judgement. I also think that divinity can't be ruled out, but defining it becomes more and more of a problem as each previous religion's claims get disproven.
nkgupta80 said:no there are many other conciliatory beliefs. One is that God is a representation of everything unknown. Science is our attempt to reach God..
another is that there is a loving god, as claimed by many people, and science is a way of understanding His works.
In the end, religion strips down to a moral code of how to live and the idea of a God(s). All the creation myths like you said have been disproven. But people tend to also define the God from the explanations they're religions give of the physical world around them...and those has been continually discredited. Thus defining God becomes more and more of a problem.
I never said that God is wrong. I however believe there are other plausible alternatives to God (whatever million ways God is defined as), as God has not been solidly proven.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?