Expand Quote
I would disagree that it is simpler to believe the universe just popped into existence from nothing. I would say out of the available options (the universe is either self caused, uncaused, or caused) that the causality option is actually the most logical. Scottish Skeptic, David Hume once said 'I would never assert such an unreasonable proposition that something came to exist without a cause'
Kant shut Hume up about that -cause is a feature of how we understand/conceptualize the world, but it's not a feature of the world.
And at the quantum level our intuitions - such as causality - don't apply. And since the universe began at the quantum level, our intuitions on the origin of the universe don't apply.
Here are my reasons to doubt God:
At best, God can be said consistent, but superfluous to naturalism (science does not evoke "God" as an explanatory principle, but you can say God guides natural processes).
As consistent, but superfluous, God is merely possible.
Most things that are possible are not the case
So God, as merely possible, is not the case.
Theism holds that mind is fundamental (from incorporeal mind, matter is created), but that's backwards - mind is realized in matter (brains). So, theism has it wrong. Matter is fundamental, not mind.
If God exists, then authority (Bible, conscience, church leaders), prayer/meditation, and religious intuition would be reliable means to understand the world.
They are not reliable (every generation of Christians, starting with Jesus, predicted end times in their generation based on authority, prayer, and intuition, but they were wrong)
So, God does not exist.
If there is a God that created and sustains the world, acts for good ends, and knowledge of God is possible, then God would fit into explanations of natural phenomena, mind would be fundamental, and religious ways of knowing would be reliable. But since God is explanatorily irrelevant, matter is fundamental, and religious methods of knowing are not reliable, it follows there is no God.
Also, since Genesis gets the natural world wrong - earth before sun and stars, life on land (seed bearing plants?!) before life in the water, etc. - there's no reason to think it gets a spiritual or moral world right.
Thanks for the respectful, thought out dialogue here. I am re-pasting and going point by point, simply for my own organization/expression of response.
Kant shut Hume up about that -cause is a feature of how we understand/conceptualize the world, but it's not a feature of the world.
And at the quantum level our intuitions - such as causality - don't apply. And since the universe began at the quantum level, our intuitions on the origin of the universe don't apply.
Here are my reasons to doubt God:
At best, God can be said consistent, but superfluous to naturalism (science does not evoke "God" as an explanatory principle, but you can say God guides natural processes). I disagree, God is the necessary, fundamental principle by which the natural world came to exist. Plus, you cannot use naturalism to prove naturalism. In other words the totality of "science" (as understood by naturalists) cannot be proved by science. It is already "in the box" as one philosopher explained.
As consistent, but superfluous, God is merely possible. I would say God is most probable, and the culmination of the evidence for God goes beyond any practical statistical reason to deny His existence.
Most things that are possible are not the caseConversely, I would state it another way, everything in the created order that is "the case" (that is, exists) was at one time possible, and thus subsequently exists 9as now being actualized).
So God, as merely possible, is not the case. God, as infinite self-existent, and uncaused, has no potentiality at all. He always is. He cannot not be the case.
Theism holds that mind is fundamental (from incorporeal mind, matter is created), but that's backwards - mind is realized in matter (brains). So, theism has it wrong. Matter is fundamental, not mind.Again, I disagree and go with Aristotle: Humans are a soul/body unity. Matter goes with mind and vice versa (we see this evidenced regularly with psychosomatic traumas, etc.). As far as God's mind goes, His mind is axiomatically immaterial as an infinite being is "too big" to have a material body. God is Mind, and, is the efficient immaterial cause of all other immaterial minds. This is actually the best explanation for the existence of human minds.
If God exists, then authority (Bible, conscience, church leaders), prayer/meditation, and religious intuition would be reliable means to understand the world.The Bible commands use of reason and understanding of the natural world (along with spiritual disciplines) for understanding, so i would say you have made a mis-caricature (or have a misunderstanding) there.
Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
They are not reliable (every generation of Christians, starting with Jesus, predicted end times in their generation based on authority, prayer, and intuition, but they were wrong)I would like to see an example, from the Bible where Jesus got something wrong about history (I am not trying to overstate my case here, I will be sure to take an objective look at your examples)
So, God does not exist. I don't think this conclusion follows at all.
If there is a God that created and sustains the world, acts for good ends, and knowledge of God is possible, then God would fit into explanations of natural phenomena, mind would be fundamental, and religious ways of knowing would be reliable. I would say 'agreed' at this point and follow that this is where the evidence leads.
But since God is explanatorily irrelevant, matter is fundamental, and religious methods of knowing are not reliable, it follows there is no God. A person (you) who is more than matter (also using intelligence, mind, logic etc. that is immaterial) used immaterial means (i.e. soft computer technology) to communicate this, thus self-refuting.
Also, do you think your views of God here have 'explanatory' value and ought to be considered 'relevant'? You must assume what you are trying to deny with such a statement about God.
Also, since Genesis gets the natural world wrong - earth before sun and stars, life on land (seed bearing plants?!) before life in the water, etc. - there's no reason to think it gets a spiritual or moral world right.In 7 literal days, God could easily have created all of that in the exact sequential order that is accounted for in Genesis.