Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Thursday, May 16, 04:35:01am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

Subject: A fundamental question... Author: Ben [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 02/ 6/02 3:09pm In reply to: Wade A. Tisthammer 's message, "Interpretation." on 02/ 6/02 8:17am I said: >>So what if nature operates in mathematical patterns? >>Maybe this is just the way nature is. To which Wade replied: >So what if the fossil record is in a particular order? > Maybe this is just the way nature is. So what if >there are similarities? Maybe this is just the way >nature is etc. You see, I can play that game too. >You can put forth any data you wish that evolution >explains, and I can explain it away just as easily. >But the point is that theism explains the data (nature >consistently operating in mathematical patterns) >better than atheism, because there is no a >priori reason to expect it from atheism, whereas >that's not the case for theism. I disagree on all this. But before moving on, I would like to pose a simple question. You say the universe is "orderly", and that this order is better explained by theism than atheism (incidentally, to me the whole word "atheist" is much like the word "non-Christian"... you start with the theist and work backward, and then you get someone who _doesn't_ have any religious beliefs. It seems that the person with no religious beliefs would be the default setting, but this shows the religious nature of our culture. Words we use every day without thinking about them are biased toward the idea that God's existence is rational). Anyway, my question is... what sort of universe does atheism predict? What would a non-orderly universe be like? In other words, please explain what one could expect to see based on the idea that there is no God. Since you feel that theism much better explains our orderly universe, show us what kind of universe could exist that atheism would better explain. Ben [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date A fundamental answer. Wade A. Tisthammer 02/ 7/02 6:24pm A fundamental misconception -- Ben, 02/23/02 11:29am Fundamental beliefs. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 02/24/02 12:32pm Fundamental... ah, I can't think of any more -- Ben, 02/25/02 7:15pm A fundamental order to the universe. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/20/02 5:37pm You put the FUN in fundamental -- Ben, 03/20/02 10:43pm Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/27/02 11:43am You put the bop in the bop-shoo-bop-shoo-bop -- Ben, 04/ 1/02 8:40pm Tying up. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/25/02 2:22pm Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/27/02 11:59am Thank you. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 03/28/02 10:12am Symbolilc Pitfall? -- Damoclese, 03/28/02 12:02pm Not yet. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 1/02 12:50pm How do you solve a problem like the God-a? -- Ben, 04/ 1/02 8:02pm Elucidation. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/02 1:11pm There is no "why," there is only Zeul -- Ben, 04/15/02 5:13pm Huh? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:22am I'll tell you why you're wrong, why you're really really wrong -- Ben, 04/16/02 2:38pm Lol. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:50pm Why don't we all just bow out? (except for Wade) -- Ben, 04/20/02 4:34pm On bowing out. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/25/02 2:19pm Still a potential pitfall looms -- Damoclese, 04/ 1/02 10:45pm How so? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/15/02 2:15pm Like This -- Damoclese, 04/15/02 3:58pm Huh -- David, 04/16/02 2:12am A response. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:47am Christian God is greatest possible? -- David, 04/16/02 1:20pm Perhaps, but that would require an additional case. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 2:37pm Hm? -- David, 04/16/02 9:50pm Definitions. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 12:24pm Relevence? -- David, 04/18/02 9:17pm To me you are correct Dave. -- Don, 06/ 7/02 7:31pm Yes. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/21/02 3:52pm response -- drago, 06/ 3/02 1:48pm Not like that. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:39am Muddling a simple point -- Damoclese, 04/16/02 3:47pm Attempting to get a strait answer. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:14pm Trying to keep my patience -- Damoclese, 04/18/02 7:06pm I'll try to keep mine as well. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/24/02 11:59am Cutting to the chase -- Damoclese, 04/24/02 2:22pm What's the chase? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/26/02 11:05am Foxes -- Damoclese, 04/26/02 12:19pm Logical flaw perhaps -- David, 04/15/02 3:00am Continued -- David, 04/15/02 3:18am Please clarify. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 11:03am Hehe -- David, 04/16/02 1:16pm Tee hee. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 12:06pm *giggle* -- David, 04/18/02 12:57pm Ha ha. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/18/02 1:29pm Hohoho -- David, 04/18/02 9:29pm toung twister -- Emma, 12/22/02 7:04pm Perhaps not. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/16/02 10:50am you now have a definition ........... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 1:28pm not this again. .......... -- Don, 06/ 7/02 10:06am