"It's quite simple, I'd say. IF God exists, He must not be part of His creation, i.e. our reality. In order to create space and time, God must be outside space and time, otherwise He would not be God, but part of our reality (and as such controlled by something bigger, the limits of space and time).

As we operate in a space-time continuum which shapes all of our observations we cannot know God. Our view of nature and the cosmos may influence our view on the probability of the existence of a god, but we may never actually see/experience God.

Unless, of course, He decides to show Himself..."

For a start, this doesn't sound simple at all!

Quantum physics can predict other dimensions outside our own and there are also theories concerning other universes outside our own. We can theorise about these and hopefully using science (most likely) find the existence of 'things' outside our own observable universe.

Don't underestimate science. I know science isn't perfect, but since Galileo contribution to modernising science, we have seen an explosion of what seemed impossible and only worthy of god become rational and reasonable.

There seems to be a lot of arguing and theorising and twisting of the facts to allow for god to exist rather than using reason to ask how we can prove he can exist.

I'm not so much against people believing in god if that makes them feel all warm and fuzzy and content and gives them purpose, but I am inclined to believe that as a rational society, we should be doing more to rid ourselves of archaic religious dogma. Especially when that dogma interferes with social well-being and causes tensions between religious groups. An age of reason if you will. A true separation of church and state. An end to tolerance for wrongs just because they are under the banner of religion and somehow above criticism. A new freedom. A society that teaches its children to think for themselves and choose their own beliefs rather than being indoctrinated and carrying on the cycle of dogma. A world where citizens can't be pushed around to do that those in power desire in the name of god. I have a dream!

Anyway, I'm glad I stirred up a lively debate, even if some of the arguments are a little thin and holey (pun intended).

Atheists unite! We've been pushed around and silent for too long! Let's overthrow our moral oppressors of religious self righteousness and expose them for the dogmatic frauds they are!

@ Crazy Anglican - It's not that atheists are 9 or 10 times more likely to enjoy arguing than theists. Theists tend to be less outspoken because they can afford to be. In North America theists, and more specifically Christians, are used to having their interests defended and supported (to some degree or another) by a majority of people, particularly those in positions of power, as a matter of course. So it's easy to just ignore these debates. Atheists on the other hand are more likely to be isolated and are more likely to see christian hegemony elsewhere and so are much much more acutely aware of the necessity to fight for secularism, even if only on Webdiplomacy forums.

And to say that outspoken religiosity isn't tolerated on university campuses while outspoken atheism is, is really misleading and makes you sound like you have a persecution complex. It's not outspoken religiosity that isn't tolerated, its the various prejudices and forms of intolerance (ie. anti-gay prejudices) which seem to go hand in hand with outspoken religiosity that are not tolerated.

crazy:

no, the claim im making is that more than 10% of this site is atheist which is higher than the general ratio, which explains what you perceive as "militancy"

@ Crazy Anglican:

"You're not comparing apples to apples with your first cause argument. If God created the universe then by definition he can act upon it but not be part of it. Time is a function of the universe, therefore God is not within time as he's not within the universe. If someone were to say "I wrote a book" you wouldn't retort "Well, who wrote you?"; because the author is by definition outside of but able to act upon the story."

Thats utter bullshit.

Why does the universe need a creator, if god does not?

If god can exist without having been created, then so can other things.


@ Conservative Man:

"I don't believe anything created God. I believe He was just, THERE, for lack of a better word. He was there before time, and then created time and the universe."

Why? Why do you believe that? How did God come to be THERE?


@kreilly89:

"@Jamiet: The first cause argument from St. Thomas Aquinas doesn't argue that God is a special case. Rather it argues that their has to be an initial uncaused cause of existence, otherwise you would be in a never ending causal chain to determine creation of the universe. St. Thomas Aquinas then goes on to define that uncaused cause as God. This doesn't assert that God is a special case or make any real assertion about God, it simply points out their has to be an uncaused cause for existence to be logically consistent, otherwise you would be in a causal chain."

That IS claiming god to be a special case - the only case in which something exists without a cause. How is that NOT a special case?

Christianity in most parts of the USA are corrupt.
This is a dangerous comment I just made.

haha wow furball, please explain, i just want to know the reasoning behind your comment

"And to say that outspoken religiosity isn't tolerated on university campuses while outspoken atheism is, is really misleading and makes you sound like you have a persecution complex. It's not outspoken religiosity that isn't tolerated, its the various prejudices and forms of intolerance (ie. anti-gay prejudices) which seem to go hand in hand with outspoken religiosity that are not tolerated."

QFT

I go to a very liberal University. We have people handing out bibles on the sidewalk, a very active Campus Crusade for Christ, etc. Nobody gives them any trouble. I've even been to a couple of their events. However, despite the campuses very liberal views on race, gender, sexuality, etc, there is a very small atheist presence. So, where you're getting this notion of, I have no idea.

@ abgemacht, - That has been my experience too. At my university, (a very liberal one in Canada, which is already less openly religious than the States to begin with) outspoken Christians are tolerated and never given any trouble, and are generally careful about not appearing regressive on issues of race, gender and sexuality. I was simply responding to a concern that Crazy Anglican expressed about militant atheism on university campuses, one that I also have not found to be the case. I think you and I are probably in agreement.
Also what does QFT stand for?

QFT = Quoted For Truth

@Mafia

Yes, I was agreeing with you. My point was that even though my campus is very progressive in every area, but there *still* isn't an outspoken atheist community. Because of that, I find it hard to believe that there are that many Universities where the atheists are actively beating up on theists.

I think the reason you don't see a bunch of outspoken atheists on campus (or for the most part anywhere else) is that athesism does not imply a belief in anything in particular, but rather only the belief that there is no God. So, while Christians (even of different sects) have something they are trying to get you to believe (Christ died for our salvation, there is a God, etc.), atheists don't have something in particular to promote, but rather more just "don't believe this other thing."

To the people who asked me some questions: I'll be back at you, but right now I haven't ot the time.

I think I'd feel better declaring my agnostic (almost atheist) feelings if i could prove I'm as moral as any religious person. But in this moment, I see myself far from that, so... I don't know

"if i could prove I'm as moral as any religious person."

What does this statement even mean? Look at all those Catholic priests. People are moral or not irregardless of their religious affiliation.

abgemacht +1

As much as I'm theist/deist, you shouldn't just your own morality based on other people. Nor should you judge another person's morality based on their claims of religiousity. Be yourself and be the best you possible. Thats all anyone can ask of you and it's all you can ask of yourself.

While I would agree that abgemacht is correct in stating that there is not a direct correlation between a claim of religious affiliation and moral behavior, I must disagree with Draugnar and state that the word "moral" itself implies some sort of standard outside ourselves. Otherwise, since every person only does what they want to do (and in saying this I mean that what we choose to do is in fact what we want to do or we would not choose it), it could pretty easily be argued that if morality was some sort of "personal" thing then every person is moral 100% of the time at which point being a "moral person" (or good person, or whatever) means nothing at all.

Chrispimis said - " People are moral, genes are amoral; neither moral or immoral."

I fully agree with every word. This thread started with a question about the The Simonyi Professorship Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, aka Rihard Dawkins.

This is the guy who entitled one of his books - 'The selfish gene'. What a horrible example of dogmatism triumphing over objectivity. He probably set the Public Understanding of Science back around a decade with this one move.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Simonyi

Chrispimis wrote

"Well, you're leading on to a separate discussion.........."

and then went on to give a very elegant exposition of reciprocal altruism. I once held to this tenet myself, but came up against several areas of concern.

1) For reciprocal altruism to be significant it must be a favoured genetic trait. The holders of this successful mutation gained an advantage, and thus what started as a mutation became the norm. Along with many other similar proposals this proposition is entirely qualitative, nobody can show you the gene(s) in question, we must just take it on trust. A social biologist can get away with this while a chemist, physicist, earth scientist etc. would be laughed out of court if they suggested an analogous proposal.

2) One thing that evolutionary biologists rarely, if ever, tackle is competing adaptations. For example while group a) was doing just fine with reciprocal altruism, maybe some of its members had stronger arms. maybe group b) had a more efficient digestive system while group c) was developing immunity to malaria, which one was the fitter and why? I await the biologist who can resolve this conundrum.

3) Reciprocal altruism, in the absence of pure altruism, must act at the level of the individual's group/family, rather than on a species-wide level. So calling a spade a dirty great shovel, what we have here is a recipe for further speciation arising from human beings. This is but a short distance from providing legitimacy for racism, if one views races as differing gene pools or proto-species.

So the differences between us are now clear.

1) I believe that there is an absolute moral law. Consequently rape, for example, has been, is and always will be wrong. You, in contrast, believe that morals are subjective.

2) I believe that pure altruism, derived from free will, exists and that this can operate on a human race-wide scale. You in contrast believe that altruism only exists in a reciprocal form with all of the limitations that this implies.

"IF God exists, He must not be part of His creation,"

I honestly don't understand why not. Did you see the marvellous film Gran Torino, wasn't it great? Starring Clint and directed by Clint.

I get the sarcasm, fulhamish. But for clarification, no one on earth has ever created anything. We have made things from other things, but the hebrew word 'bara' - which is interpreted here as create - actually means to fatten up or fill up and the implication is God did it with just a word, not other matter. In other words, with a word He filled the universe. This is a far cry from our creations, which are made from matter and energy, not from just a word.

Of course morals are relative.

For example, five thousand years ago, murder was only a crime if committed against an equal. Of the same tribe or village/nation. It was no problem for the law if the person you killed was a foreigner, or a person of lesser status (you might be fined if it was another person's slave or whatnot). In Roman law, it was legal to kill your slave for any reason (or none at all).

Now murder is always a crime, except in clear cut cases of self-defense, regardless of nation of origin.

So yes, morals are relative, and to assume they're only relative towards moral decay is a gross misunderstanding of history.

@ fulhamish - since you're continuing to post, do you intend at some point to answer my comments with regard to your use of the argument from causation?

@Jamiet:"Why? Why do you believe that? How did God come to be THERE?"
He didn't come to be there. He was just there. There was no time then, before the univerde. Visualise it as just one instant in time (even thought there actually was no time), and that God was there in that instant.

@Jack: "Of course morals are relative.

For example, five thousand years ago, murder was only a crime if committed against an equal. Of the same tribe or village/nation. It was no problem for the law if the person you killed was a foreigner, or a person of lesser status (you might be fined if it was another person's slave or whatnot). In Roman law, it was legal to kill your slave for any reason (or none at all).

Now murder is always a crime, except in clear cut cases of self-defense, regardless of nation of origin."
Just because it was legal 5000 years ago doesn't mean it is moral. Are you telling me that if it was made legal to own and kill slaves, you wouldn't have a problem with doing it?

Ah, forgot something. First sentence at Jack should read: Just because it was legal 5000 years ago doesn't mean it was moral 5000 years ago.

It was moral. Go read the Old Testament. God and his chosen people fucking butchered people, and they weren't the only ones. It was not only allowed, but considered a righteous thing. God blessed the Hebrews for killing his enemies.

Julius Caesar spoke offhand about butchering Gaulish towns that had rebelled against his armies as a warning to the others. It wasn't even anything somebody would remark upon as being particularly brutal... in fact, Caesar was remarkably lenient to both Gauls and fellow Romans in the civil wars.

Things change. We've actually gotten a lot MORE moral as a race in my opinion. Certain things even in the last hundred years have been getting better.

Its no longer acceptable to massacre people. It was all to common in the past, and it still happens today, but almost universally its not something that we allow in the civilized world. Progress is being made.

@Jack: It was moral. Go read the Old Testament. God and his chosen people fucking butchered people, and they weren't the only ones. It was not only allowed, but considered a righteous thing. God blessed the Hebrews for killing his enemies."
That was in war. Did I metion anything about war in my post? No. Try Again

"Things change. We've actually gotten a lot MORE moral as a race in my opinion. Certain things even in the last hundred years have been getting better."
If we've gotten more moral (which we have), then that assumes that what we were doing before was not moral, which would defeat your point.

I think the point is that morality changes with the zeitgeist.

Killing innocent "civilians"? Whole towns? Unarmed people? Joshua's army killed the entire population of Jericho, according to the Bible. Men, women, children. And God was pleased.

Is that a "good" thing? Was it moral to butcher an entire town by our standards?

I don't think it was moral, but the people living at the time did. It actually reinforces my point that the standards of morality change. My standards are not the same as their standards. I consider butchering human beings to be profoundly immoral. There is a very short list of reasons its ok to kill, and "because they had stuff I wanted" isn't on there.

I know you're a kid, but please work on logic before you talk.

@Jack: The people of Jericho were pagans. They would have corrupted the Israelites. In fact, the Israelites did not kill all the Canaanaites in Canaan, and that eventually caused the Israelites to go to paganism from time to time.
"I don't think it was moral, but the people living at the time did." If you traveled back to that time, would you consider it moral then? If yes (which I doubt you'll say), what the hell is wrong with you? If you say no, then how is it moral relativism? You're saying that some things that were commonly done 5000 years ago are immoral. I agree. But to them it was moral (as you said). But that doesn't mean it actually was moral, especially since you say it was immoral. And if you consider it an immoral thing to do, then back then you'd also consider it an immoral thing to do, correct? If so, then how is it moral relativism?