1. How can the Earth be so perfectly suited for life by coincidence?

Comment #125889 by g czobel on February 12, 2008 at 8:23 am

=sarcasm on=
Take a glass container of almost any shape and pour some liquid into it. Notice how the liquid fills every nook and crany of the container regardless of how complicated the shape of the container is (there are exceptions - can you guess what they are?). But the liquid is just mindless material. How does it "know" to follow the contours of any intricately shaped vessel without fail? Surely it can't. This just can't be coincidence. Surely this is a sign of a divine intelligence that knew in advance what shape the liquid will take as it was poured and ensured that the appropriately shaped vessel was used to receive it.
=sarcasm off=

2. Science and Religion BOTH make faith claims

Comment #125871 by g czobel on February 12, 2008 at 7:47 am

Quite true!! But let's put this one to bed once and for all by examining the details and the completely divergent entailments.

Mathematics and logical inference is at the core of science and reason.

In the practice of mathematics and logic, it is recognised that one cannot proceed anywhere without starting with unproven assumptions - axioms or postulates; otherwise, one is forced to engage in a hopeless, infinite regress of proofs. The fundamental rules of inference are therefore assumed to be the case, and all is built from there. This is not seen as a problem, as axioms are usually so simple, narrow in scope, precise and self evident, that there is only the tiniest possible leap of faith needed to prime the mechanism! The rest of the structure is bootstrapped from there, since these simple postulated methods of inference are applied repeatedly and entirely consistently to build a structure of any level of complexity.

Moreover, and crucially, as a constant means of verification, when one builds upon these axioms and the results correlate successfully and consistently with the material universe, as is the case in mathematics and the sciences which it supports, then this provides confidence that the initial axiomatic leap of faith was well founded indeed. In countless daily events, the deductions based on math and science are constantly "tested" and confirmed even if these events are not intended as tests. Millions of buildings continue indefinitely to remain erect, testament to materials science and the physics of gravity, millions of vehicles function as designed, testament to materials science, thermodynamics, laws of motion, etc., enormous numbers of electrical circuitry operate in a consistent predictable manner without failure that is due to capricious changes in physical parameters, rules of logic, the charge of the electron, and so on, endlessly. If any of these fail at any time, the failure is invariably traced back to defects in design rather than defects in the underlying physical and mathematical basis. Such countless confirmations are about as close to solid evidence for this world view as is possible by induction.

However, this system is considered to be never final, always provisional, and this is considered as essential to the success of this system. No belief or conclusion in this system is considered verified once and for all and that applies to the initial axioms - i.e. alternatives to Euclid's 5th (parallel) postulate eventually leading to consistent non-Euclidian geometries. The primary considerations for utility and success of this world view are overall consistency, coherence, and correspondence with the observed world.

In comparison:

Religion, as a world view, is also based on articles of faith. But they are completely opposite in nature and approach to those of mathematics, reason and science. They are of the most complex nature and anything but self evident. The most important one is taking on faith the existence of a God who is imbued with certain attributes. This leap of faith is to start with the most complex and farfetched assumption possible rather than the simplest and most self evident. The need for a God who is of the greatest possible complexity is a consequence of the religious view that drives the dismissal of evolution; that is, that something simple cannot create something more complex. Since God is assumed to be the creator of the universe, he must be more complex than anything in the universe, perhaps infinitely complex since he is postulated to have other infinite attributes (omni this and that ). Since the attributes of God are postulated to be unbounded, this implies that they have universal explanatory power. In fact, once one makes this entirely encompassing leap of faith, there is nothing left to explain because the postulate inherently, by dint of its infinite complexity and power, contains everything. Thus, although the explanatory power of this leap of faith is all encompassing, it really explains nothing in a practical, worldly sense. If everything in the world is contingent on God's infinite powers and will - which are claimed to be hopelessly beyond our comprehension - there is nothing left to explain.


The belief structure based on this incredible leap of faith is never submitted to the test of consistency. In fact, it requires constant apologetics (hand waving) to paper over the endless blatant inconsistencies and contradictions. But since God's postulated attributes have universal explanatory power, this is never perceived to be a problem.

There is no constant empirical confirmation and verification process of the claims in this belief system. Since the initial gargantuan leap of faith with its infinite, unbounded attributes can be contrived to explain away everything one observes, the claims are unfalsifiable, since any observation can be made to fit, even inconsistent ones. i.e an event which appeared to be (interpreted as) a "miracle" was observed - "There, you see, God exists!": on the other hand, a hoped for miracle was not forthcoming - "God, in his infinite wisdom, has his own reasons which are beyond our mere understanding". This system is thus final and unchangeable right from the start.

A rational person can readily see that the two approaches above are entirely different in nature, in fact opposite, even if one can truthfully, if only superficially, make the claim that both systems are based on leaps of "faith". To make such a claim as is put forth by this debate point is linguistic confusion and quibbling at its worst.

3. Arguments From Design, First Cause, Something Rather Than Nothing, Fundamental Constants

Comment #124770 by g czobel on February 10, 2008 at 7:33 am

All arguments from design posit an intelligent creator in some commonly held sense of "intelligent". Parallels are invariably drawn from instances where a complex mechanisms needs an intelligent, more complex designer. Invariably, creation arguments however have to resort to a God "outside" of time at least (if not space) to escape the necessities of cause and effect (i.e. what caused God?); that is, God invariably has to be portrayed as a timeless - independent of time - eternal being. This now raises a contradiction; intelligence, and the ability to design, as we conceive of it, are time based processes; intelligence and the design process imply cogitation, weighing options, reaching conclusions, intently working toward some goal and attaining it. The God of the scriptures is even more entangled in processes within time, by doing things that consume time, such as taking six days to create the world. But on which day was time created? And if not "before" the first day, then in what sense are we to construe the "days" prior to the creation of time? Strangely, the scriptures are silent on this event. Thus, we must concede that intelligence and design are notions that don't make sense apart and separate from time. In what sense is God intelligent and pursuing a purposeful design process "prior" to creation, that is prior to time itself? In fact we cannot even conceive of anything that is timeless and what properties, if any, such a thing may rationally possess - our minds are imprisoned in time.

Then what gives some the temerity to proclaim the attributes and deeds of a timeless being as if simply talking of a familiar, dearly beloved uncle ? If it needs to be posited that God is a timeless entity, what sense can we make of applying the attribute "intelligent", and "intentioned" to him, especially if most of this intelligent design activity had to take place "before" the creation of the universe (therefore "before" time, if such a statement even makes sense).

Returning to the extrapolation of the observation that complex artifacts seem to require an intelligent designer, it becomes clear that such a connection between artifact and designer implicitly assumes a designer existing within the fabric of time. Can we rationally extrapolate this notion to a God who is timeless, at least "before" creation. If time did exists before creation (let's say only material creation was needed), then God cannot escape the time driven necessities of cause and effect, that is, what caused God? Thus, the argument from first cause muddies the argument from design, and vice versa.

Next inevitable question: how much sense does it make to devote significant energy and time in one's life to religious practice and devotion, not to mention the attendant risk of holding convictions of possible falsehoods, all based on such tortured, mind numbing reasoning for the existence of God? If this makes scant sense on the logical basis of the argument itself, it makes that much less sense yet without some valid, verifiable, repeatable empirical support.

4. You can't prove that you love someone, so don't expect proof of God

Comment #124765 by g czobel on February 10, 2008 at 7:19 am

This claim goes counter to the long tradition and effort put into the various arguments for the existence of God by a long list of serious theologians and theists. And these efforts are all in the category of proofs since logic is used and systematic reasoning is attempted. One then needs to ask this. If serious theistic thinkers throughout the centuries considered it of importance and put a great deal of thought into providing demonstrations of the existence of God, what are we to think of this about face? The assertion of this debate point, not to expect proof of God, now appears to be plan B. If all the arguments for the existence of God fail, well, you really can't prove it anyway, so that explains why the arguments fail. This appears to be an attempt to set up a no-lose situation; heads - I win, tails - you lose! Not very convincing.

And without a convincing, rigorous, argument for the existence of God - and all arguments are proofs of a sort - the basis for religion and all the practices and entailments essentially crumble without support.

5. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #124364 by g czobel on February 9, 2008 at 8:05 am

TAG (Transcendental Argument for God), and many other arguments for God follow a common pattern which goes roughly like this. Because the universe appears not to provide any unequivocal final basis (ground) for anything, we must make assumptions as to what such a ground might be. Logic for example must rest on some initial rules, that must remain unproved, because in order to prove them we must assume those initial rules themselves. If we attempt to prove those initial rules in terms of something more fundamental, then we are still stuck as to what basis to use to prove the more fundamental rules, and the dilemma of regress is endless. The quandary of the "prime cause" is similar in nature and so is any process or notion that is contingent on preceding support. What this boils down to is that, in many respects - not just spatial but temporal and cognitive as well - we cannot find any indisputable, absolute, initial boundaries to this universe. This provides an enormous vacuum of utterly unknown and unknowable character, which can be filled by anything the imagination is capable of. And, not surprisingly, God is proposed by those who believe.

The TAG argument also follows this pattern, but in addition claims that God is the only possible fit for this vacuum if the observable, knowable universe is to be the way it is (logical, regular, moral, etc.) When seen in this light, it becomes easy to dismiss TAG as just another variation of this not very convincing tactic.

To demonstrate that God is not the only possible explanation for logic (and the various other attributes and conditions observed in the universe), the most all encompassing alternative explanation is solipsism, the notion that the self is all that exists, based on Descartes' irrefutable, "I think, therefore I am". All else that this self observes and interacts with in the world purportedly "outside" of the mind is no more than a manifestation of this mind itself - there is no "outside" world. This would encompass logic, morality, one's body, the regular, material universe, other beings, even God, as simply the imaginings of the single disembodied self. Of course, no rational person would live life according to this tenet, by say, walking into a burning building without concern because it's just in the self's imagination. Yet this ultimate solipsism can explain all and cannot be disproved, since it encompasses logic itself and the mind has no direct access to what is observed as the "outside" world. This now leaves open the possibility that there may be countless other explanations for the origin of logic seen in our world, limited only by imagination.

Just to focus on the part of TAG that deals with the attribute of logic, TAG claims that a logical God is the necessary source of our logic. Another way to view this is to say that logic in humans is the effect and a logical God is necessarily the cause. This implies that logic, viewed as an effect, necessarily has a cause; it can't be a "causeless" effect, otherwise, we wouldn't need God to cause it in us. Then we must ask this. What is the cause of logic in God? This now places the TAG argument on the horns of the same dilemma that plagues the first cause argument and makes it really just a variation of the first cause argument.

Since we can't know anything about the conceptual vacuum beyond the observable and knowable bounds of this universe, and yet we must pursue our lives according to some pragmatic basis, as a working hypothesis we simply posit that the very simple, self evident, fundamental rules of logic are as they are without explanation or basis, and proceed from there. As a litmus test, if the consequences match well with the observed universe, which is the case, we can continue to hold this as a firm, working conviction, without the need to introduce additional convoluted complexities that add nothing in the way of understanding.

6. If you don't have religion, where do you find your sense of community?

Comment #124361 by g czobel on February 9, 2008 at 7:52 am

Anyone involved in debating the religious should resolutely steer the dialog away from arguments such as this and toward arguments that deal strictly with the existence of God, however defined. The reason is that, without some clear evidence for the existence of God, or some supernatural agency, religion of any sort is eviscerated, dead in the water. It loses its power basis and a great deal of its instrumentation. It becomes just another philosophy, no better than countless others. This applies to Buddhism and Jainism as well; although not strictly theistic religions, they are based on supernatural beliefs in personal karma and an immaterial personal essence that suffers cycles of transmigration and rebirth.

All arguments that don't pertain to the existence of God or supernatural agency, such as most that are found in the various debate points here, boil down to the attempt to nudge the argument toward the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent (i.e. if A then B; B is true therefore A is true) In essence, the logical fallacy that such points want to lead to or tacitly imply is that demonstrating that the religious are better, happier, more moral, better members of communities, have purpose in life, in comparison to atheists, and so on ad nauseam, lead to the deduction that therefore God exists. Such a fallacious "deduction" is based on incorrectly reasoning from the valid assertion, "If God exists then the religious would have a more moral, satisfying, purposeful, happier, etc. life in comparison to atheists". The logical error here is that finding the consequent true necessarily makes the antecedent true. This is not to say that the various consequents have even been successfully shown to be true, but why bother to defend against such arguments if it will only lead to an attempt at a logical fallacy, even if only implicitly? Allowing arguments to drift off in such irrelevant directions simply expends mental effort in defending against claims that need not be defended from a logical point of view. Worse yet, one inevitably gets entangled by all sorts of sophistry in entering into such arguments and this is completely needless.

Most of the other debate points in this set, unless directly concerned with the existence of God or pertaining to methods of reasoning and standards of conviction, are thus a waste of effort and serve only to cloud the basic issue - is there enough evidence of the existence of God, over other competing explanations, to convince a rational person to devote considerable effort and time to follow God's edicts and make crucial decisions based on such convictions?

7. Atheists don't believe in anything

Comment #124020 by g czobel on February 8, 2008 at 7:09 am

This claim is easy to dismiss by showing that belief in God is hardly the only important game in town essential to the conduct of life. Let's call those who believe in God, by some rough common definition, and adhere to some religion or give credence to supernatural agents and events, as members of the set R. Let's call those who do not, as members of the set A. Except for the above broadly construed categories of beliefs relating to supernatural agents, the members of the two sets have a far greater domain of other beliefs in common. Further, these other commonly held beliefs are extremely consequential, because they impinge constantly on the conduct of their lives. Most of these beliefs remain largely implicit. Some patently obvious instances:

One's body image. Both Rs and As believe that their bodies are physically constituted in a certain fashion, a head, two eyes, two ears, nose, mouth, limbs, torso, organs, and both Rs and As know equally the range of uses for these, and use them accordingly with little consternation.

Our immediate environment. All believe in the ground which supports our feet, the air we breathe, the Sun in the sky, winds, rain, snow, and so on. All believe in the solidity of matter that prevents us from walking through walls, and both Rs and As unhesitatingly choose doorways for this purpose.

Rs and As believe in quantity. They can all count equally well, given enough training, and so on into higher forms of math. -

Both Rs and As share a conviction that it is ill advised to walk into a burning building, run across a busy highway, stroll over the edge of a cliff or engage in any other of an endless list of self-annihilating activities.

Most sane members of either group hold convictions such that they would not consider eating their children for breakfast, capriciously killing or maiming their neighbours, immolating their pets or engaging in other clearly abhorrent acts, not for fear of divine or temporal punishment, as the case may be, but because of an innate disgust and revulsion for such things.

Both Rs and As travel on trains, buses, planes, ships, undergo medical treatments, consume purchased foods and drinks, elect politicians, listen to weather forecasts, set up institutions of law enforcement, and so on, safe in the belief that such activities can be largely trusted not to regularly have catastrophic outcomes - on second thought, strike the one about politicians.

It's clear that this list can be expanded almost endlessly, and devastatingly contradicts the assertion that As (atheists) don't believe in anything, including many areas pertaining to abstractions and values. In fact, this shows that Rs and As have vast areas of their world views in broad, if not precise, agreement. Many of these beliefs are essential in the daily conduct of their lives without which they would most likely be either paralised with inaction or in a state of utter chaos and anarchy. Thus, these beliefs cannot be simply dismissed as trivial or inconsequential.

It is mostly in the domain pertaining to supernatural agents (including the monotheistic God, Creator entity, minor deities, leprechauns, etc.), supernatural events (miracles, divine intervention), and the divine impetus of scriptures and pronouncements of prophets, where the beliefs of Rs and As radically diverge. In arguments on this score, it is useful to point out in more detail the meaning of "belief", especially to note that belief is not an all or nothing state of mind, as some simplistic assertions, like "Atheists don't believe in anything", would imply. It doesn't take much analysis to realise that belief can range from the admission of the faintest possibility, all the way to as much certainty as one can muster. For instance, I believe that I have two hands and I also believe that the universe is of the order of 13 to 14 billion years old. But if my life depended on the decision, I would unhesitatingly choose to base it on the former belief versus the latter, simply because the former belief is much simpler and based on immediate and constant observation. This demonstrates that I put greater stock or strength of conviction in one held belief over another. That I believe both does not mean that the two beliefs are equivalent in force of conviction.

This example also shows, that in the daily conduct of life, the former belief has much greater significance and force of conviction, than the latter. And this is where the importance of belief lies, in the impact it has on the conduct of life. God and religion would be relegated to mere cocktail conversation if not for the impact on the conduct of life that God and religion entail. And it makes sense to base one's conduct of life on only those beliefs that carry great force of conviction, consistency, and correlate well with what we observe in the world. This completely underscores the difference between the Rs and As. The Rs will argue for belief in God, typically based, at best, on extremely tenuous, subjective, convoluted inferences, and at worst, on misunderstandings, gaps in knowledge, linguistic confusions, and patently faulty or absent reasoning -- these foibles sometimes presented with great pride. This is amply documented in all the debate points on this site and elsewhere. But Rs consider such farfetched convictions as solid justification, which in their eyes justify exerting the full time effort in adhering to religious or supernaturally oriented practices and conduct of life.

The As will examine the same data and arguments and conclude, in contrast, that although none of them is beyond the realm of possibility - such things cannot be utterly disproved if one is honest about the limits and assumptions of reason - that hardly comes remotely near, in contrast, to providing solid, adequate justification to expend the constant effort to base one's conduct of life on such remote possibilities. The conduct of life is a serious matter which no reasonable person will base on wisps, not to mention the possible hazardous consequences of making the wrong choice - i.e. waiting for a divine miracle instead of a medical cure. The contradictions and inconsistencies readily found among religions and within scriptures, and the laboured apologetics required in the attempt to paper them over, simply put the final nail in the coffin with respect to the A's rejection of the R's tenuous world view.