He argued for Idealism, the position that all that exists is mental things, minds and ideas.

He says that we have no reason to believe that there is an external, material world because all we have experience of is our ideas. Because of this, we also have no reason to believe that our ideas are caused by material objects.

We have experienced our minds causing ideas, this is called imagination. And so, he argues that it is more parsimonius to suppose that minds are causing our perceptions as well. The mind causing our perceptions is God, and it is because of that mind that objects appear permanent and independent to us.

I do not hold this position. I am looking for ways to argue against it. I am finding it difficult.

Any ideas?

His idealism is essential solipsism. All that exists is "your" mental things.

The proposition collapses under its own weight.

Mental objects certainly exist and some seem wholly your creation but ones tied to external events seem to work in a much different way. So we have two "kinds" of of mental event one of which we think of as internal and the other as being tied to external sensory events.

So do we jump through hoops trying to explain why that is or do we accept the most parsimonious explanation, that some events really are tied to external events?

Having got this far it is not hard to being testing our position to see if it fits the available data, and there is pretty universal agreement that it does.

So even if he, i.e. you since he would just be another mental object, is right at some "metaphysical" level, the day to day reality you must deal with doesn't follow his notions.

So even if he, i.e. you since he would just be another mental object, is right at some "metaphysical" level, the day to day reality you must deal with doesn't follow his notions.

Well, no, not exactly ...it might only seem that way. For example, if everything is you own mental imaging, then if you stand in front of fast-moving train, all that splattering blood and guts might still be only your own mental image of the incident. You don't know, from what seems to have occured, that your mind has stopped working. Your mind could keep going on to other things that aren't so apparent after the accident.

See? You just can't know. But that doesn't prove or disprove anything. If life is just mental imaging, it's still no less "real" to the one imagining it all.

Baron Max

This is one thing that bothers me about philosophy.

You can argue one way or the other, but since neither really have any basis in observable, testable reality, what is to gain? No, let me say it this way...how could one possibly change another's mind?

I feel like arguing that we do not have any reason to believe our minds cause imagination because all we have is the idea of our minds causing our ideas, and therefore we have no way to check whether our minds are causing our ideas. All we know that there are are ideas.

That being said, if we go forward in the exploration of our ideas on the supposition that they correspond to an external, physical world, we can explain a lot more than if we go forward on the supposition that our ideas are caused by a Mind. So, Occam's Razor would side with the physicalist position.

I feel like arguing that we do not have any reason to believe our minds cause imagination because all we have is the idea of our minds causing our ideas, and therefore we have no way to check whether our minds are causing our ideas. All we know that there are are ideas.

That being said, if we go forward in the exploration of our ideas on the supposition that they correspond to an external, physical world, we can explain a lot more than if we go forward on the supposition that our ideas are caused by a Mind. So, Occam's Razor would side with the physicalist position.

So you're saying this person's position is that nothing is real, as it is all caused by our imagination? And that there is no external influence on our ideas? But you say that the outside world does influence our ideas and imaginations?

Firstly, we have a way of checking if we're all just imagining this...logic. Tell me why we would have eyes if they weren't required for sight? I mean, if this was all a dream, then why the detail? Where does the appendix fit into all of this, a vestigial organ that at this point only serves to occasionally kill someone?

Also, Einstein and other great thinkers have reached solutions to their problems while dreaming. This has lead some to say that dreaming serves as a way to compute all the information we currently have, and that we can reach a conclusion on a certain thing while in the dream state, and it's also possible that we wouldn't be able to reach that conclusion while awake. Would that not speak to the outside world influencing our ideas? The simple fact that without enough information we cannot solve a problem?

The crux of the argument, though, is that we have no reason not to believe that the material world around us is real. We have five senses, and we can examine this world with them, so why would we not believe that this place is real? And if it were not, why the outrageously unfun limitations? Why is internet bandwidth a concern in this imaginary world? See what I'm driving at?

This is one thing that bothers me about philosophy.

You can argue one way or the other, but since neither really have any basis in observable, testable reality, what is to gain? No, let me say it this way...how could one possibly change another's mind?

Yep, philosophy is really only to exercise ones own brain! ...or worse, to flap ones own gums and lecture about something which no one can prove or disprove. It's like lecturing ...and usually to yourself.

Well, unless it's on a site like this ...where you can write it out as if it means something. :)

Baron Max

We have five senses, and we can examine this world with them, so why would we not believe that this place is real?

Nope, that don't work either. In the concept of mind-only imagery, you DON'T have those sense, you only image that you do. And you imagine everything that those imaginary sense sense, too. So, ...there is nothing but ones own mind doing everything.

Baron Max

baron max Well, no, not exactly ...it might only seem that way.

Seeming that way is sufficient.

baron max See? You just can't know.

That sort of "knowing" is irrelevant because it is not possible. Knowing requires context and when you arbitrarily remove all context there is no knowing left. Mental is just a means of distinguishing mental from non mental, but that is denied in the premise.

The premise is self denying.

He argued for Idealism, the position that all that exists is mental things, minds and ideas.

He says that we have no reason to believe that there is an external, material world because all we have experience of is our ideas.

Well that is simply presumptuous on his part.

"reason to believe" is rather subjective.

I agree in principle that it's fundmentally wrong to assert anything absolutely, including the physical world, etc. As he notes, all that we have are the experience of ideas, etc.

So I think that philosophically, I cannot assert anything external to self. Practically however, I do so all the time. In fact I'd say he's doing so too by attempting to apply his ideas to the general case. So I think the argument contradicts itself.

While certainly we are ideas, those ideas seem to generally result from what is apparently interaction with a physical medium common to everyone I've ever thought I met.

Nope, that don't work either. In the concept of mind-only imagery, you DON'T have those sense, you only image that you do. And you imagine everything that those imaginary sense sense, too. So, ...there is nothing but ones own mind doing everything.

Baron Max

Fine, but that doesn't make his case any stronger. It makes it weaker, in fact, because now we have to take all the complex details of life and assume that we are imagining them all...despite the fact that we don't understand all of them. You imagine you have eyes, but it's not like they're empty pussbags...there's stuff going on in there, ya know.

And like Swarm said, sensing is sufficient. I can feel the keyboard beneath my fingers, I can feel the wind in my hair...why would I make the outrageous jump from "this is real because I can feel it" to "this is imaginary because I suppose it's possible"? Which one benefits me? Which one is more likely?

And like Swarm said, sensing is sufficient. I can feel the keyboard beneath my fingers, I can feel the wind in my hair...

From that response, I can only image that you've never had any realistic-type dreams during the night. Interesting if true ...because you'd be one of only a very, very few humans who've never had realistic dreams.

...why would I make the outrageous jump from "this is real because I can feel it" to "this is imaginary because I suppose it's possible"? Which one benefits me? Which one is more likely?

I don't believe that anyone is forcing you to make any outrageous decisions about anything. As I see it, this thread is simply pointing out one of many varied ways of interpreting life. This is not an argument, contrary to what you might think.

Baron Max

<"Atheists feel this way? Have you ever spoken to a theist? I don't know where you've been looking, but atheists are not the ones on the attack. It's quite the contrary. And not just on the interwebs...>

I have been all over the web and yes, it is atheists who are leading the charge against faith. Theists are simply responding to this phenomenon in our culture. Have you ever heard of dawkins, hitchens, dennet? Dawkins called his book "a full frontal assault on Christianity".


“ First of all, Modern science has it roots in the Christian faith. ”

<No, it doesn't. Science is the study of things, whereas faith teaches you to believe what you're told without questioning it. Faith is illogical by nature, so it cannot be the root of scientific study. Perhaps because of the rigid dogmas of ancient religions, people's curiosity as to the alternative explanation for things was piqued, but that's as close as you'd get to "roots".>

you do not understand logic, science or faith. There is nothing illogical about faith nor have you demonstrated that there is. Believing in things you do not see is not equivalent to believing in things you have no evidence for. Early scientists were motivated by the bible to inquire about the natural world. The bible encourages this inquire and teaches about an orderly creation which can be understood. By studying nature they felt they were "thinking Gods thoughts after him".


“ Nearly all of the founders of the various branches modern science were in fact, bible believing Christians. ”

<Sigh...I suppose you have some evidence to support this? No?>


yes, see post, and this is common knowledge, even among most literate atheists

<early scientists had to contend with religious institutions that had real power, and heresy and non-belief were things you could have been killed for.>

this is a myth and a distortion of early controversies. Atheists love to tell the Gallileo story with glee as if this proves that faith and science are incompatible. However this simply isn't true, nor did Galileo renounce his faith in God or the Bible.

<So of course you'd hear that such-and-such was thanks to God, or that so-and-so was a God-fearing man, but the truth is you can't rely on those accounts because it simply was unwise to admit that you didn't believe in God. And by unwise, I mean suicidal.>

again, you are devoid of any real knowledge of history. The catholic church (of which I abhor) encouraged scientific discovery, you are offering a rewrite to suit your myth.


“ That science is somehow impeded by Christianity. is a fallacy. Science has advanced Because of Christianity. ”

<Oli already pointed out the whole problem with the Geocentric solar system, and the flat-earth, but how about recently, like the whole refusal by our Evangelical Christian president to federally fund stem cell research? That is Christianity, as usual, standing in the way of scientific advancement.>

the flat earth story is another myth perpetrated by anti christians who have failed to do their homework (beyond reading books from the unholy trinity). The rewrite was refuted in the following works: The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1985), Colliers Encyclopædia (1984), The Encyclopedia Americana (1987) and The World Book for Children (1989). Only a handful of Christians believed in the flat earth, which was rejected by most based upon clear references in the bible to a spherical earth. Is 40:22

<But let's play a little game here...name me one instance in which Christianity was the cause of science advancing. Please, take me seriously and answer that.>

as I have already pointed out, Christianity spawned modern science. Nearly all of the early scientists were bible believing Christians. This is no coincidence; it is due to the fact that the Bible encourages scientific inquiry. It teaches that the world operates according to laws because it was created by a Lawgiver.

Atheistic evolutionists offered to modern medicine that over 180 organs in the human body were vestigial (useless throwbacks of the evolutionary process). During the last Century Surgeons yanked out tonsils and adenoids and appendixes of perfectly healthy children because of this myth. They have now proven that the evolutionists were dead wrong. Young children who were subject to this terror were now 80% more likely to get such diseases as Hodgkin’s later in life. We now know these organs have immunological properties. Evolutionary atheism is anti science, stopping or slowing inquiry and fueling superstition.

“Atheism however, is not compatible with true science. Atheists have simply hijacked science and created a religion out of it. Atheists love to pretend they are "rational", but they are not. Atheism is hopelessly self contradictory! How can you prove that no God exists? If you state that the proof is with those who hold to the affirmative position, you must then prove that statement, since it is an affirmative position! ”

<Well, that is to assume atheism is the active belief that no gods exist. I contend that it is not.>

Your contention would be wrong, and I think you know that. Atheism as “lack of belief” is a smoke screen to avoid criticism. Other atheists have acknowledged this as well.

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm

No dictionary defines atheism in the manner that the “new” (and presumably ‘improved’) atheists have tried to do.

“In that case, I agree that taking the position of absolute certainty that no gods exist is pretty foolish. But let's also note that most theists (especially the ones here) believe that a god does exist, and they have no more evidence for their position than the anti-theist does for his...you see how now you happen to be stumbling into "Pot, meet kettle" territory?”

I disagree, theism is based upon logic reasoning. There are numerous arguments for the existence of God. I have offered one, first cause. All of these arguments may have their critics, but that is not the same as saying they are refuted, they are not. It all comes down to what an individual considers convincing. The converse is not true, there are no (zero, nada) arguments for the non existence of God. It is a stance of “I refuse to believe unless you can prove it, and if you can’t, it must not be true”. An argument a little child might make, but one would expect more from an educated person.


“ since the immaterial laws of logic are inexplicible to the materialist atheist, but predicted by the biblical theist. ”

<You're not talking about logic, you're talking about faith. I hate to be the one to say that to you, but you can't compare faith to logic. It does not work that way. That's like comparing apples to grenades.>

You are missing the point. Let me break it down for you. A materialistic atheist only acknowledges the material world and he attempts to use the laws of logic to make his arguments. Yet the laws of logic are immaterial, universal laws! What explanation does the atheist have for the existence of immaterial laws, since his belief denies the existence of the immaterial? Answer: He avoids the question altogether. When an atheist advances his position using logic, he is using the tools of the theist who believes in the existence of the immaterial world and can explain why logic exists. That is, logic exists because a logical lawgiver created the universe.


“ While it is true that absolute proof of the existance of God is not possible, it is so likely as to be "self evident" to most people, which is why athesits will always be in the vast minority, as vocal as they may be. ”

<It could also be that atheists are in the statistical minority because it is still rather taboo in most social circles to admit to being an atheist, and that includes family circles. For as frank of a conversation as I am capable of having with my mother, the thought of saying to her "Ma, there ain't no such thing as God" to her breaks my heart. I'd never say it to her or around her.>

I can appreciate your respect for your mom. But your belief in the non existence of God is not rational, it is held to by faith, just as your moms is. I simply assert that your moms faith is vastly more reasonable.

<Or it could also be that we are a really young species, and only now starting to pull our heads out of the sand. Perhaps this growing number of folks who don't believe in a god is just the first step towards the next stage of our civilization. It is entirely possible.>

Atheism and its ugly results are not really that new. They have been around in small numbers for thousands of years. They raised their ugly head during the French Revolution, which resulted in unbelievable carnage and brutality. It raised its ugly head again in the form of atheistic communism in Russia and China, which resulted in more loss of life than all of the wars fought in history, and it was a war against their own people! Atheism isn’t just a cool stance to take by intellectual sorts to confound theists. It is a belief system which has despicable consequences in the real world. Thesism has had negative consequences at times also, but much less severe. And the benefits of Christianity to the world have been profoundly good on balance.


“ Since science is rooted in Christianity and is based upon the principle of causality, it is incompatible with atheism, which posits no first cause. ”

<Again, what do you base the claim that science is rooted in Christianity?>

That modern science exploded in Christian Europe and the West. That it flourished in the West to the point that the atheist countries had to send spies to discover our secrets. That nearly all of the early modern scientists were bible believing Christians. Not cultural Christians, but devout. Newton for example loved the bible and wrote much about biblical prophecy and why it demonstrated its divine inspiration. Kepler, Linnaus, Dalton, Boyle, Mendel all devout. Name a branch of science and you stand a good chance of it having been founded by a Christian. I am not saying that science didn’t occur in other countries prior to this period. Only that it was codified, systematized and advanced to an amazing degree during the period that Christianity dominated the world. These men were not atheists, they were anti atheists.


“ It is generally agreed that the universe had a cause, therefore there must be a God. ”

<Where is this generally agreed? Your house? Your church? >


I am beginning to wonder if you have had any sort of science education. This is a science forum so I was just assuming you had heard of the big bang, the laws of thermodynamics etc.. While I don’t agree with the big bang, I do agree with the majority of scientists that the universe had a beginning. The laws of science lead us to this conclusion. The universe is winding down and spreading out, therefore it must have been wound up in the past. This leads us reasonably to the conclusion that there must have been a beginning.

<See, what you fail to understand about science (what a shock) is that not having every slice of pizza doesn't mean that pizza doesn't exist. You keep talking about logic, and yet you just can't seem to wrap your mind around this really simple and logical idea.>

Lol, that argument can be turned against you!

<To jump from "We don't know what first caused the universe" to "It must have been God" is as illogical a leap as one could possibly make.>


Not at all. What is the most basic definition of God if it is not the first cause of all things. Not only does this argument lead to God, but it leads to the Judeo Christian God as apposed to the hindu gods or greek gods etc…

<Replace that second line with "It must have been a giant red paper clip", and it's about as probable (and logical) as assuming it must have been God.>

Lets try that:
Premise: Everything which has a beginning has a cause
Premise: The universe had a beginning
Conclusion: The universe had a cause (i.e. God)
Conclusion: God must be a giant red paper clip

Sorry, but I don’t think your conclusion is logical at all. While this logical argument doesn’t tell us everything about the nature of God, it does tell us that God exists and is responsible for the Creation we see around us. Most people don’t have to think this hard to know this intuitively, which is why so many laugh at atheists.


<Once again, just so you really understand this...just because we don't know what the first cause was does not mean that the entire idea is wrong; it does not invalidate the Big Bang, it does not invalidate evolution (which I'm sure you know just as little about as you do logic and causality), and most importantly, it does not automatically mean that the answer is God. You don't even know if such a being is capable of existing, so let's not go jumping to the assumption that he's the answer.>

I don’t know a lot of things, but I do understand basic logic and logic points to God. As for the big bang, it is a transient theory which is infinitely better than the steady state theory which some atheists I know still cling to for obvious reasons, but it will go be the wayside in time as there are many problems with it. As far as evolution, your statement that I don’t know anything about it is silly. Not only did I learn about it in every science class from 8th grade through college earning my B.S. in biology, I taught if for 7 years in the public schools. I moderated debates on the subject at two universities. I know more about evolution than I want to know. And I find it to be the most laughable hypothesis on the face of the earth.

From that response, I can only image that you've never had any realistic-type dreams during the night. Interesting if true ...because you'd be one of only a very, very few humans who've never had realistic dreams.

How on earth do you reach that conclusion? Of course I've had surreal dreams, lucid dreams, all kinds of dreams. But I can tell the difference. Can't you? That moment you wake up, can't you tell?

[quoteI don't believe that anyone is forcing you to make any outrageous decisions about anything. As I see it, this thread is simply pointing out one of many varied ways of interpreting life. This is not an argument, contrary to what you might think.

Baron Max[/QUOTE]

It is one way of interpreting it, but in my opinion, it's the wrong way. And thanks for clearing up the little matter of this being an argument or not. I just figured it was, since you were losing.

MynameisDan...is it too much to ask that you use the goddamn quote button? Why is that so hard? Clean up your post and then I'll respond. But I'm not going to waste my time by trying to decipher that crap.

How on earth do you reach that conclusion? Of course I've had surreal dreams, lucid dreams, all kinds of dreams. But I can tell the difference.

Prove it then. Even to yourself, prove that your dreams were really just dreams, and that when you're awake, it's anything but just another dream.

It is one way of interpreting it, but in my opinion, it's the wrong way.

Well, then you should be able to prove it. Otherwise your opinion is nothing more than a belief without foundation in fact ...like religious beliefs. Even opinions should be founded on at least some facts that can be supported, don'tcha' think?

Baron Max

Record the moon's movements. Find out they are elliptical. Make all kinds of long-term very specific and fanciful data and make some meaningful equations out of them.

Look at the difference in knowledge over the centuries. Do you think your mind could just create the human genetic sequence out of thin air?

How do you explain just minds creating all of this. There is something out there that we are taking in.

Or is the argument different? And why would you choose to believe otherwise?

Prove it then. Even to yourself, prove that your dreams were really just dreams, and that when you're awake, it's anything but just another dream.



Baron Max

"prove it" prove it how? With some pointless logical sequences that ultimately live in the confines of ever-changing language? Why try to prove something like this, in such a manner?

Do you think you are on the edge of something special, the next generation of scientific belief, ahead of your time? Like, when would it ever be feasible, to believe something like this?

Why choose such a funky point of view. I'm not banging the hammer at you, but at everyone that considers such a question very important.




Well, then you should be able to prove it. Otherwise your opinion is nothing more than a belief without foundation in fact ...like religious beliefs. Even opinions should be founded on at least some facts that can be supported, don'tcha' think?


Otherwise your opinion is nothing more than a belief without foundation in fact is a religious belief!

Prove it then. Even to yourself, prove that your dreams were really just dreams, and that when you're awake, it's anything but just another dream.

The point is that I don't have to. If the burden of proof is anywhere, it's on the one that claims this is all a dream. And even then, you can't prove it either way. That's why my senses are good enough for me.



Well, then you should be able to prove it. Otherwise your opinion is nothing more than a belief without foundation in fact ...like religious beliefs. Even opinions should be founded on at least some facts that can be supported, don'tcha' think?

Baron Max

Are you really that dense? Yeah, I guess you are. I mean, my opinion is based on fact; the fact that I can touch, see, smell, and taste this reality. You can say that it could be a product of my imagination--and it might be--but you can't base that assumption on anything other than hypothetical possibility...meanwhile, I'm basing my opinion on my observations.

But I don't expect you to get it.

...meanwhile, I'm basing my opinion on my observations.

But those observations are only in your dreams!

Baron Max

Baron Max: From that response, I can only image that you've never had any realistic-type dreams during the night. Interesting if true ...because you'd be one of only a very, very few humans who've never had realistic dreams.

I have no problem telling the difference. People who do have trouble telling the difference are called schizophrenic.

I have no problem telling the difference.

No, it's because you have little or no imagination!

People who do have trouble telling the difference are called schizophrenic.

Yeah, sure ....that's people with little or no imagination making that judgement of someone else who happens to have a great imagination.

Baron Max

baron max
Yeah, sure ....that's people with little or no imagination making that judgement of someone else who happens to have a great imagination.

The guy in your head told you to say that didn't he.

Actually having a great imagination makes it even easier to tell the difference because its easier to note the irregularities.

But those observations are only in your dreams!

Baron Max

Do you not see how illogical that stance is? One side (mine) has observation. The other (yours) has a hypothetical. If my observations are indeed in my dreams, it would still be illogical for me to assume they are, because there is nothing about our reality that would lead us to believe that.

If my observations are indeed in my dreams, it would still be illogical for me to assume they are, because there is nothing about our reality that would lead us to believe that.

Yeah, that's because your mind has created such a complex dream, that "...nothing about [that] reality that would lead [you] to believe that."

The mind is a complex thing, and yet you're basically denying that.

Baron Max

Is the distinction between dreaming and being awake so clear?
How do people know whether or not there are elements of their day to day waking experience that are clouded by, heightened by, distorted by dreamlike functions?
Can one not realize after a time that one was dreaming, to some degree, in relation to someone else? You saw that she was standing in the kitchen in a waking way, but all the significance you placed in her stance, facial expression and tone of voice was a dream.
(not that I disagree at all with Baron Max's approach - to take on the whole certainty in a total way - but I also want to point out that there is a whole spectrum of possible confusions here)

Yeah, sure ....that's people with little or no imagination making that judgement of someone else who happens to have a great imagination.
Baron Max I liked this line. I don't agree with your certainty that this is true in his case, but I loved that you raised the issue. There is often this assumption that one is really dealing with the same thing AND BETTER. It's good when this assumption is challenged.

We have plenty of reason to believe there is a material world. Our thoughts are material.

Baron Max
The mind is a complex thing, and yet you're basically denying that.

Ha, but you don't know that it actually is. I'm just imagining you are claiming that.

there are no (zero, nada) arguments for the non existence of God. It is a stance of “I refuse to believe unless you can prove it, and if you can’t, it must not be true”. An argument a little child might make, but one would expect more from an educated person.

So if I were to tell you that Grimmy, Invisible and Silent King of all the Elves created "love" and presently lives in your house when you are not home, you would . . . refuse to believe in it (one hopes) Deep down, would you not believe me because you know that I cannot produce a shred of evidence to back up my supposition. Even you must have enough empiricism in you to want something more before buying into my tales of this magical elf-king. More mundanely no religious person can prove that the Hindu gods are not real entities, yet I know no (nada, zip) Christians who believe that they are.

I do agree that that the existence of God (or many gods, or no gods of any sort) is a non-falsifiable proposition. That's just logic. That said, "religions" often hold falsifiable beliefs and hose can be disproven. In effect, what you see is that the religions, although often positive that their understanding of the world is the Divine Truth, generally either move on to a new Divine Truth or they develop a stubborn resistance to the evidence and never let the scales fall from their eyes. For example, the Bible says that God created the universe, the Earth and life in six days. Modern science has many bits of evidence that contradict that. (N.B. "Evidence" is merely a circumstance that tends to make a proposition more or less likely to be correct....evidence need not render the story of Genesis completely disproven in order to make the truth of Genesis less likely to be correct.) For example, the fact that we can see galaxies 10 billion light years away, and that the light form those galaxies could not have traveled 10 billion light years in 6000 years, tends to contradict Genesis if you make one perfectly natural assumption, that supernatural forces (God or the Devil) are not actively trying to trick us by "speeding up light" or creating the universe with the light streams already permeating it. Another is the fact that we can see fossils of a vast array of animals that the Bible never mentions, which tend to be confined to rock layers that appear, by process of induction, to be older than the Bible claims the world to be, and that fossils of those the Bible does mention are generally confines to rock layers that appear to be far more recent.

At most, the defenders of the Genesis story have nibbled at the edges of such evidence, and there are countless pieces of evidence for the Old Earth and Old Life and limited (though not by any means non existent using the definition of evidence above) evidence that tends to support of veracity of the Genesis account.

In the end, you are absolutely right that it comes down to how you weigh the two masses of evidence. But it also comes down to the fact that the religious viewpoint invariably falls back on supernatural causes for natural phenomenon. It's the key to the falsifiability, because supernatural forces can do anything and have no constraints. Scientists are at a disadvantage because they are limited to actual and identifiable evidence.

The Christian religions have been so desperate to give God a role in the physical universe (and science so good at developing naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena) that they created the "God the Gaps" First god created everything and was responsible for everything. Then it turns out that the hydrological cycle (first theorized by the non-Christian Greeks) can make it rain without Him, and plants and sparrows seem to be able to grow and thrive through a complete web of ecological relationships and without god watching each and every one. Sure god may have created the universe, but our theories now pretty much explain everything, without referencing God, from 10^-47 seconds after the creation of the universe onward...and some hypotheses might not need Him even before then to work.

Christians have posited (and many still believe) that God punishes the bad and the impious and rewards the good (especially impious Christians) here on earth, despite a lot of evidence of pagans thrive just as well and are often just as happy as Christians. That has caused some to retreat yet again, and assume that god rewards and punishes in an invisible place that we can never falsify. That's an interesting story, but why isn't that just Grimmy, King of Elves, transmogrified into a location called "the afterlife?"

That is, logic exists because a logical lawgiver created the universe.

That does not actually follow. It's possible, but not a necessary reason for logic to exist. It is entirely possible for order to exist without an intelligence behind it. Logic is very much fundamental (to our universe), but the argument that it can only come from a pre-existing order is flawed because you assume God is that order. Perhaps logic is the eternal source of order and God just a myth. Perhaps there is no eternal source of order and the only order sprang randomly out of chaos. (The issue with the first cause theory is "why does there need to be a first cause?" Causal relationships might be a result of this universe we are in, and in a grander metaphysical sense there may well be universes where causes occur without effect. There is no way to prove that untrue either.

The big problem with unfalsifiable speculations, is that there are at least, let's say, 10^100 of them, and no human can hope to devote time to believing them all in one lifetime. Assuming one pays them heed at all, we all need a system for selecting which to hold dear.

Atheism and its ugly results are not really that new. They have been around in small numbers for thousands of years. They raised their ugly head during the French Revolution, which resulted in unbelievable carnage and brutality.

For all your pride in Christian scientists, you seem to flee the largely Christian French all of the sudden.

Actually on the scientists, who do you count? When I think of ancient scientists I thing of Anaxagoras, Aristotle, Empedocles, Aristarchus, Thales (of course), Al-Khwarizmi (from whom we get the word "algorithm," as a corruption of his name), Alhazen, Biruni and the like. I don't start hitting Christians until Roger Bacon (well, Robert Grosseteste, right before him). It's possible that you are waiting for "the scientific method" to dub anyone a scientist (although Biruni and Alhazen had a lot to do with that too). I am sure there were some (of whom I do not know), but the big names in science from "BC" to about the 10th century seem largely non-Christian to me. The Christian scientists seem, to draw heavily from that Greek tradition through Martianus Capella (father of the "seven liberal arts" that became the backbone of medieval European education, and himself not Christian).

I am sure we could with some research rattle off an impressively long (if not well known) list of Christians involved in science pre-10th century, but the point is that the fundamental impulse does not seem to me to have derived from the Bible, but from the Greek view that the world can be rationally understood and not simply assumed to be a collection of supernaturally driven forces.

It raised its ugly head again in the form of atheistic communism in Russia and China, which resulted in more loss of life than all of the wars fought in history, and it was a war against their own people!

That is a fair point. That said, it does not prove that the atheism somehow caused the disaster, but it is strong evidence that atheism doesn't make one moral.

Thesism has had negative consequences at times also, but much less severe. And the benefits of Christianity to the world have been profoundly good on balance.

That is a debatable point. Antisemitism that culminated in the Nazi death camps was not invented by the atheists. The pogroms and crusades and inquisitions were Christian endeavors, and Christianity, through the focus of a particular religions tradition, let them to hate Jews. There are those who would argue that but for the Crusades the middle east would not be the cesspool it is today. (An unfalsifiable position itself, so therefore one that can't be rejected.)

That modern science exploded in Christian Europe and the West. That it flourished in the West to the point that the atheist countries had to send spies to discover our secrets.

Science exploded in Greece first, and then in the Golden Age of Islam and then it came to the Renaissance. The root seems to me to be the traditions of the empiricist pagan Greeks, not the "world is a vale of tears" Christians. The best thing Christianity did in that regard was allow St. Augustine to convince them that the Greeks philosophers had much to add, as that paved the way for the domination of Europe by Aristotle.

That nearly all of the early modern scientists were bible believing Christians.

That is true is you select the time periods to weed out the philosophical roots of science. The modern western tradition is not really a "Judeo-Christian" one, it's a Judeo-Roman-Christian-Greek one. Those early modern scientists struggled with the likes of Aristotle because he was so very basic to the philosophy of science. I am not sure that the west would be at all scientifically inclined without the Greeks. OTOH, the pagan Greeks were clearly scientifically inclined without Christianity.

This is a science forum so I was just assuming you had heard of the big bang, the laws of thermodynamics etc.. While I don’t agree with the big bang, I do agree with the majority of scientists that the universe had a beginning.

The universe may not have had a unique beginning, a "first moment" at it were. there are rational arguments for a closed time-like loop at the beginning where every instant would be indistinguishable as a candidate for the "first moment." Granted, that is not a popular speculation, but it is a possibility. Even if there was a big bang, there are theories about what caused it and there are "only" three possible answers (i) that there is an infinite chain of causal relationships and never a first cause because there are are always an infinite number of causes that let you to any other cause, (ii) that there is no first cause, that just as vacuum fluctuations and nuclear decay appear to happen randomly and without direct causal triggers, the universe might be the same, like an enormous, random, vacuum fluctuation that just "happened" or (iii) there is a first cause and it itself has no cause because it has always existed. The problem with that is, those are the three classic answers, but there are more, like (A) there is no "first" cause because "first" is a temporal concept and the whole theory that there is, in some sense, infinite stretches of time is wrong or (B) a related thought, it's pinned on the notion that logic, which is important in this universe, have any meaning at all outside of the universe. In either of those cases, we are like fish caught in the water unable to imagine other environments because they are too alien to our limited universe and time bound experiences.

The laws of science lead us to this conclusion. The universe is winding down and spreading out, therefore it must have been wound up in the past. This leads us reasonably to the conclusion that there must have been a beginning.

I agree that it must have been denser in the past, and I do agree that the evidence supports its having a beginning (albeit not necessarily a unique first moment), but that it is expanding doesn't get me there by itself. Still, it is good to see that you embrace my definition of Evidence too.

Not at all. What is the most basic definition of God if it is not the first cause of all things. Not only does this argument lead to God, but it leads to the Judeo Christian God as apposed to the hindu gods or greek gods etc…

No it doesn't. The Hindu gods are henotheistic entities. They are often thought of as all aspects of a unified cosmic force. Similarly, the universe had a first cause in greek mythology, and the first cause was not omnipotent. The omnipotent beings came later.

Lets try that:
Premise: Everything which has a beginning has a cause
Premise: The universe had a beginning
Conclusion: The universe had a cause (i.e. God)
Conclusion: God must be a giant red paper clip

Sorry, but I don’t think your conclusion is logical at all.

This is a straw man, though you may not have noticed it. He was criticizing a particular god, not your abstract definition of God, lets try this:

Premise: Everything which has a beginning has a cause
Premise: The universe had a beginning
Conclusion: The universe had a cause (i.e. God)

Conclusion A: God must be intelligent. (Nope, that doesn't follow.)
Conclusion B: God must be omnipotent. (Nope, that doesn't follow.)
Conclusion C: God must have had a direct hand in creating the Earth. (Nope, that doesn't follow. He could have caused the universe and then the earth was just an unintended consequence of that.)
Conclusion D: God must have made man in His own Image (umm, BUZZZ!).
Conclusion E: God must love us. (A true pessimist might well see the creation of the universe as the very opposite.)

If you use your definition, many things that you clearly believe about god do not follow. If your definition were the totality of what defines God, then "The Bible accurately describes him" is just as unsupported as "He is a red paperclip" I'm afraid, so you must define him in a broader sense.

While this logical argument doesn’t tell us everything about the nature of God, it does tell us that God exists and is responsible for the Creation we see around us. Most people don’t have to think this hard to know this intuitively, which is why so many laugh at atheists.

Okay...so maybe you did understand that using your definition as the basis of a syllogism was setting up a straw man for you to knock down...At least you agree that the dubious assertion that there "must be" a first cause that is "God" does not imply, if true, that the Christian God exists any more than it implies the existence of te universe creating red-papaer clip.

I know more about evolution than I want to know. And I find it to be the most laughable hypothesis on the face of the earth.

I am in a similar boat, and it seems to me (purely subjectively, mind you) that you must have a very strange sense of the evidence. The fossil evidence alone is suggestive, that it is corroborated by the DNA evidence so exactly (a type of evidence entirely unconceived of at the time the theory was developed). Most of the perceived "holes" I see in evolution are little more than that, anomalous holes and hard to explain elements of in a massive structure.

Every opponent of evolution I have ever seen essentially hammer at those holes. Because the evolutionary biologists can't explain that whole (and the critic can, usually by saying "God did it", it is taken as a refutation of the whole system. When evolutionary biologists (as they often do) speculate about the evolution of a particular trait, it is decried as a "just-so story" even though "God did it" is no better, just far less detailed and imaginative.

In the end, I cannot bring myself to accept supernatural explanations for phenomenon in the natural world because I see no evidence of supernaturalism in the world. The most I do see are things that I can't currently explain, which can be taken equally as evidence of the supernatural and evidence that there are natural forces I cannot explain. Neither theory is falsifiable, but the rise of science is itself evidence that natural explanations undergird the world.

Yeah, that's because your mind has created such a complex dream, that "...nothing about [that] reality that would lead [you] to believe that."

That could be possible. I don't deny the possibility, because I can never know one way or the other. All I was saying is that it's far more logical to believe the reality around you, rather than the hypothetical reality you can never be sure of.

The mind is a complex thing, and yet you're basically denying that.

Baron Max

How am I denying that?

All I was saying is that it's far more logical to believe the reality around you, rather than the hypothetical reality you can never be sure of.

What reality? And that's just the point, isn't it? Your mind creates both your dreams and that condition that you call "reality" ...but in the end, both are just imaginations.

Reality? Stand in front of a fast-moving train ...you'll be splattered all over the tracks. Oooooh, but will you really be splattered? Or will you just "wake up" in another dream of reality?

Geez, this is sorta' fun, ain't it? Anything that anyone says can be turned around and shown to be nothing but imagination of your mind. Yep, sorta' fun.

But, excuse me, I have to go tend to some "reality" now. :)

Baron Max

What reality? And that's just the point, isn't it? Your mind creates both your dreams and that condition that you call "reality" ...but in the end, both are just imaginations.

Reality? Stand in front of a fast-moving train ...you'll be splattered all over the tracks. Oooooh, but will you really be splattered? Or will you just "wake up" in another dream of reality?

Geez, this is sorta' fun, ain't it? Anything that anyone says can be turned around and shown to be nothing but imagination of your mind. Yep, sorta' fun.

But, excuse me, I have to go tend to some "reality" now. :)

Baron Max

Again, I'm not able to refute that it's possible, because I don't know if it is or isn't. But I feel like I need to point out that you haven't "shown" anything. All you've done is provide baseless hypotheticals. Not knocking you, just saying you didn't "show" anything. It takes more than saying it for it to be valid. You have to have some kind of evidence.

Again, I'm not able to refute that it's possible, because I don't know if it is or isn't. But I feel like I need to point out that you haven't "shown" anything. All you've done is provide baseless hypotheticals. Not knocking you, just saying you didn't "show" anything. It takes more than saying it for it to be valid. You have to have some kind of evidence.

Oh, I agree! And we're both in exactly the same boat ...simple belief, nothing more.

Baron Max

PS - no, I don't belief all that bullshit, but neither do I take life so seriously anymore. I'm an old fart, and I've seen and heard most of the bullshit that people spew forth many times before.

Oh, I agree! And we're both in exactly the same boat ...simple belief, nothing more.

Baron Max

PS - no, I don't belief all that bullshit, but neither do I take life so seriously anymore. I'm an old fart, and I've seen and heard most of the bullshit that people spew forth many times before.

You're oversimplifying it a bit. My belief that the reality around me is real is at least based on observation. Now, maybe that's all just a bogus observation created by a computer program for all I know, but at least my stance has some substance. The idea that we're all dreaming...that's really just a proposed hypothetical that has no basis in observation. I know you're not well-versed in things like this, but that detail does make a difference when presenting ideas.

I'm now imagining that baron max is actually a qergian. It must be so!

You're oversimplifying it a bit. My belief that the reality around me is real is at least based on observation. Now, maybe that's all just a bogus observation created by a computer program for all I know, but at least my stance has some substance. The idea that we're all dreaming...that's really just a proposed hypothetical that has no basis in observation. I know you're not well-versed in things like this, but that detail does make a difference when presenting ideas.Well, the conclusion that dreams are not real is made by comparing dream reality with waking reality. So actually the position most people have has already made a decision that they can tell real from not real and then parsed up the experiences. I certainly observe things in dreams.

Well, the conclusion that dreams are not real is made by comparing dream reality with waking reality. So actually the position most people have has already made a decision that they can tell real from not real and then parsed up the experiences. I certainly observe things in dreams.

Maybe it's because I just woke up (it probably is...I'm not a morning person) but I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. I do agree that while dreaming, often times we can't tell. But there are a couple of things that let us know the difference. First, when we wake up, we immediately know that what just happened was a dream, and not something we actually experienced. Secondly, I think it's safe to say that most people have also had dreams where they did, in fact, realize they were dreaming at some point. I've had it happen, as I'm sure you've had it happen.

But maybe I didn't state the "observation" point clearly enough...what I meant was that the contention that we are dreaming now has no basis in observation because none of us have ever woken up from this, understand? We've never witnessed anything that would make us think that the experience we all deem as "real" would be anything other than what we perceive it to be. I'm not saying it isn't possible; I have no idea if it's possible or not. But there really is no basis for it.

... But there are a couple of things that let us know the difference. First, when we wake up, we immediately know that what just happened was a dream, and not something we actually experienced.

Well, perhaps that's just your imagination trying to convince you to believe that "life" isn't just a dream.

... what I meant was that the contention that we are dreaming now has no basis in observation because none of us have ever woken up from this, understand?

Maybe that's what it means to die? None of us have ever come back from that, either, have we? So we have no idea what's on the "other side". It might be that we do, in fact, wake up from this dream that you insist on calling "reality".

You're placing a large emphasis on "observation" without the slightest clue that it's actually anything but mental imagery. In dreams, you "observe" things all the time, so how can you place such emphasis on it as some kind of "evidence"?

Baron Max

Well, perhaps that's just your imagination trying to convince you to believe that "life" isn't just a dream.

Very well could be, for all I know.

Maybe that's what it means to die? None of us have ever come back from that, either, have we? So we have no idea what's on the "other side". It might be that we do, in fact, wake up from this dream that you insist on calling "reality".

It's an interesting philosophical point that I'm sure smarter people than I have discussed at length. Without knowing exactly what is possible in this funky thing called the universe, I can't rule it out.

You're placing a large emphasis on "observation" without the slightest clue that it's actually anything but mental imagery. In dreams, you "observe" things all the time, so how can you place such emphasis on it as some kind of "evidence"?

Baron Max

You understand that it's all we have, right? All I know is that I wake up from a dream and I know it was a dream. I know that this state I've woken into is the real world. Is it really? I don't know, maybe, maybe not, but this is all I have to go on. On the other hand, your idea that perhaps even this is just a dream isn't based on anything. At the very least I can look around and touch the desk I'm sitting at, I can feel feelings, I can know that I'm really here...where is any of this experience in the supposed "real" reality that you speak of? That's all I'm saying. Again, I'm not saying it isn't possible, I'm just saying that even if this is a dream, there is nothing that would make me think it is.