Dear Dan,

"For example, for roughly 50 years, from the time the planet Pluto was discovered in 1929 until when someone came to realise Pluto had a moon, people thought that Pluto was only a little smaller in mass than the earth."

Regarding Pluto. I said you source was lazy etc not you. This body's existence had been predicted as I am sure you know. Very early estimates as to its size were made on the basis of how bright it was and expressed as a range, because no one knew for sure. It wrong to say the downsizing did not occur until 1978. In 1960, Pluto was known to be only 0.1 the mass of Earth. There is some truth stitched together with error/ommission. If you have an old astronomy book from your teen years, open it and have a look.

Good science holds positions tentatively and responds to facts, making revisions.

Not are religions accept Christian interpretations. And not all Christrians accept the same view of the Trinity. The Great Schicism was over this issue.

"If there is timelessness, and no beginning, and no need of a creator, then why are we speaking of God as creator?" - D

Extactly, if the universe is unbounded.

"Wouldn’t he be unemployed?" - D

What God did before creating the universe appeals to philosohpers who ask like; Can God create a rock He cannot carry?

Severin,

Thank you very much for your kind words. I try to make my arguments as clear and compelling as possible. I just wish I could keep them as concise as some of the brilliant points you make. I feel like a forum hog sometimes.

I often sense that you feel you’re treading a fine line between speaking your mind and offending those you respect here, so I’m glad I struck a chord with you in that paragraph.

You have asked what age I stopped believing before - when we were talking about creationism - but there’s no need to apologise. I’m actually glad you asked the question again because some theists may be wondering to themselves, “Ahhh, but what age were you when you stopped believing?” - as if such an important and powerful being would require maturity, intellect or sophistication to know them.

I was in my early 20’s. It’s hard to pin-point an exact time, as you would know, no one just wakes up and realises, “Hang on! God doesn’t actually exist!” But if I had to pin-point it, I would say I was 22-23.

I didn’t actually start forming my current opinions about religion until I was nearly 30, so it’s not like I just got angry with god because I wasn’t getting my way and started rebelling - as many Christians like to assume here.

I was genuinely disappointed with the realisation and even (for brief moments) felt angry with god for not existing. After all, it’s not very pleasant having your life-span infinitely cut from an eternity to 80 odd years. Even to this day, that’s a difficult aspect of reality that I struggle with, but it’s reality, and no amount of belief is going to change it.

On the upside though, each and every moment of my life is infinitely more precious than it ever was as a believer.

WAU,

Thanks for your response. It was a pleasant surprise.

suzeonline,

I think I once said that if I could make just one person re-think their position on the matter of religion, then all of the hours I’ve spent on OLO over the years would’ve been worth it.

And now they are.

Thank you. I’m extremely humbled by the fact that I’ve inspired you in a way that I would consider so important. No one should ever feel like they need to apologise for their lack of credulity and I can certainly relate to what you’ve said there. Faith isn’t the virtue that we’re taught to think it is and I’m encouraged by the fact that Western societies seem to be waking up to this more and more everyday.

George,

I think we communicate just fine and my communication with you has helped me refine my arguments and better understand my own point-of-view.

My response to you on Monday, 2 August was a bit clumsy as I was trying to communicate my point in a not-so-harsh manner, but your last paragraph in your last response to david f has helped me to refine what I was essentially trying to say...

<<I know that some atheists ask for evidence about one’s world-view orientation that would convince people of the opposite orientation. This sounds to me like asking for proofs of axioms, unless one keeps the above distinction between proof and evidence in which case the request is a tautology as I mentioned.>>

Firstly, atheists don’t ask for evidence about one’s “world-view orientation”, just the religious claims specifically.

This sleight-of-hand aside though, asking for evidence for religious claims is not on par with asking for proofs of axioms because religious beliefs aren’t just axioms.

An axiom would be - as you often put it - the belief in Something that is not reducible to the physical. That’s fine. I don’t see a problem with that, and I agree that asking for evidence could be seen as tautological here. The following, on the other hand, is a whole different story:

“I believe that Something not reducible to the physical exists, therefore Jesus.”

Continued...

...Continued

It doesn’t take a genius to spot the gaping hole in which an incredible leap-of-faith is being taken. This is where the evidence is being requested and this is what I was talking about in blurring the line between the two different kinds of beliefs.

You set up a strawman by passing-off religious belief as a mere axiom (when in reality it encompasses so much more) then you knock that strawman down by criticizing the expectation of evidence.

<<I don't want to take away your certainties that make you feel rationally, morally, or what, superior to those you disgagree with.>>

I’ll ignore the jibe about superiority and simply say: By all means, please do. I love to be challenged. I even requested more information in my last post to you (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10496#178703)

Anyway, I’ll have more of a thorough read of Severin’s link when I have a bit more time if you think that will help me to better understand where you’re coming from.

OUG,

I’m sorry I don’t reply to you more often. But I really have difficulties trying to understand your posts sorry.

Dear George,

Your agreement with concept of God creating a self-creating universe I would see uncomfortable for some religionists (I deliberately use a broader term than Christian). I suspect many of our OLO Christian friends support a more mundane design. Viewed from the eyes of skeptic, the proposition is stronger, without religion.

Else, one (a religiuos one) needs to take a more serious look at how the alleged God relates to all the peoples of the world, since the first genus homo. More than epiphanies: A universal God with multiple communication channels, if said alleged God communicates. Scripture would be inadequate. Religion would be inadequate. Moreover, it would unlikely any religion would be priviledged. Perhaps Socrates' allegory of the cave would be apt: The religions shadows.

On the other hand, what the skeptic would see is that if the universe is self-creating, external accretions would be subjective: There is no external agency. Moreover, we are not limited to a debate between God and no God, we are debating the nature of purpose in the universe. The skeptic or atheist maintainingpupose can exist in a self-created universe without need for external intervention.

Thank you for your contribution to our dialogues.

Dear Oliver,
>>a theory with a "little" support is prima facie to be regarded over a theory with no support (if one dismisses all scripture and religions as cutural-social phenomena)<<

Yes, but this somehow sounds like “bad English is regarded over Hungarian (if one dismisses those who can understand Hungarian)". The point I have been trying to make is that there are no UNIVERSALLY compelling reasons to "regard one over the other", to build one’s world-view on either the Sagan or no-Sagan assumptions. Of course, there are reasons why somebody prefers one choice over the other, and experience - GOOD or BAD - with “scripture and religions as cultural-social phenomena”, might be one of them.

Occam’s razor is “the principle that in explaining a thing no more assumptions should be made than are necessary”. You mention the “complexity of God”. The first “theologian” I heard speaking about it was Richard Dawkins :-)). I understand what complexity means with regard to something physical, considered by science (natural or social), but not when applied to concepts in metaphysics. So you do not have to invoke Dawkins: Occam suffices, to say that for somebody the assumption about an external (to the Universe) cause and purpose is superfluous.

>>The skeptic or atheist maintaining purpose can exist in a self-created universe without need for external intervention.<<
I agree (and so does e.g. Paul Davies). That extra "need" that not nearly everybody has (is aware of), is faith, and it is not reducible to ”intellectual consent”.

As to your mathematical example, I am afraid, the union of a finite set and a countable set is still countable, i.e. in a one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers {1, 2, 3, … }, so your new set is also in one-to-one correspondence with the original set, hence not more “complex”. I think you should have added to your set a set of higher cardinality, to make your example work.

Nevertheless, I admire your courage to dip into abstract mathematics: I wish I could claim a similar insight into matters where you are an expert.