Nice post!

Science is different from religion. It does not pretend that it knows everything. There are even now deep questions about the origins of the universe that we don’t have answers to now though it is possible we may be able to answer some of them in the future.

But the inability of science to provide answers to these questions does not prove that religious faith, tradition, or an ancient holy text has the ability to answer them. Science cannot prove that God does not exist, but this in no way establishes that God exists. There are millions of things whose lack of existence cannot be established.

The philosopher Bertrand Russel had an analogy. Imagine that there is a teapot in orbit around the sun. It is impossible to prove that the teapot does not exist because it is too small to be detected by our telescopes. Nobody but a crazy person would say “Well, I’m prepared to believe in the teapot because I cannot establish that it doesn’t exist.” This means that maybe we have to be technically agnostics, but really we are all atheists about teapots with orbits around the sun.

But now let us suppose that everybody in our society including our teachers and the sages of our tribes all had faith in a teapot that orbits the sun. Let us also suppose that stories of the teapot have come down to us for many generations as one of the traditions of our own society and there are ancient holy texts about the teapot. In this case people would say that a person who did not believe in the teapot is eccentric or mad.

There are infinite numbers of things like celestial teapots whose lack of existence we are unable to establish. There are fairies, for example, and there are unicorns and goblins. We cannot prove that any of these creatures of the imagination do not exist in reality. But we don’t believe they exist, just as we don’t believe that the gods of the Scandinavians, for example, have any true existence.

We are all atheists about almost all of the gods created by societies in the past. Some of us, however, take the ultimate step of believing that the god of the Jews and the Christians, like the gods of the Greeks and the Egyptians, also does not exist.

—

Now here’s a version of this text in Interlingua. (For more information about Interlingua, use a search enging to search on the title “Interlingua in interlingua” or go to http://www.interlingua.com.

Le scientia es differente del religion. Illo non pretende que illo sape toto. Il ha etiam nunc questiones profunde sur le origines del universe al quales nos nunc non ha responsas ben que il es possible que nos potera responder a alicunes de illos in le futuro.

Ma le incapacitate del scientia de provider responsas a iste questiones non proba que le fide religiose, le tradition, o un texto sancte e ancian pote responder a illos. Le scientia non pote probar que Deo non existe, ma isto non establi de ulle maniera que Deo existe. Il ha milliones de cosas cuje existentia non pote esser establite.

Le philosopho Bertrand Russell habeva un analogia. Imagina que il ha un theiera in orbita circum le sol. Il es impossibile probar que le theiera non existe proque illo es troppo parve pro esser detegite per nostre telescopios. Nemo excepte un folle dicerea, “Multo ben, io es preparate a creder in le theiera proque io non pote establir que illo non existe.” Isto significa que forsan nos debe esser technicamente agnosticos, ma vermente nos es omnes atheistas sur theieras con orbitas circum le sol.

Ma que nos nunc suppone que omnes in nostre societate includente nostre professores e le sagios de nostre tribos habeva fide in un theiera que orbita le sol. Que nos anque suppone que historias del theiera ha venite usque nos trans multe generationes como un del traditiones de nostre proprie societate e que il ha textos sancte ancian sur le theiera. In iste caso le gente dicerea que un persona qui non credeva in le theiera es eccentric o folle.

Il ha numeros infinite de cosas como theieras celestial cuje manco de existentia nos non pote establir. Il ha fees, pro exemplo, e il ha unicornios e gnomos. Nos non pote probar que iste creaturas del imagination non existe in le realitate. Ma nos non crede que illos existe exactamente como nos non crede que le deos del Scandinavos, pro exemplo, ha ulle existential ver.

Nos es omnes atheistas sur quasi omne le deos create per societates in le passato. Alicunes de nos tamen prende le ultime passo de creder que le deo del judaeos e del christianos, como le deos del grecos e le egyptianos, anque non existe.

Would you mind posting your sources?

Atheists live longer, are smarter (we knew that), have attained a higher educational level, have less child abuse reported, have less divorces, have less mental illness and drug abuse, and fewer arrest rates.

Why? Because most Atheists live in the real world, appreciate and seek reality, and when problem solving look for real answers, and not religious magic. Religious magic says that if you have a problem “just turn it over to god” in some kind of magical phenomena and your problems will go away (without you putting forth any effort to solve problems).

Atheists for the most part live a consequential life, in that they “think” before they act…instead of believing that being religious is like a lucky charm in that anything you do will not have negative consequences, because an imaginary god is going to prevent you from being harmed.

I found that 95% of people in prison claim to be “christians.” This means, that if they “claim” to be christians, then why do they continue to commit crimes, since christianity is supposed to make one more moral.

I also found that felons who participated in “faith-based” therapy programs, had a harder time adjusting to prison life than prisoners not exposed to any “faith-based” programs, and lastly, when released from prison, felons involved in faith-based programs had a higher arrest rate.

Why? Once again, I surmise that a “belief” in religion is like believing in magic, whereby the believer does not engage in reality or critical thought in order to solve problems. Religion is bad for society and has to be removed off this planet.

DeeVee

You’re making assumptions about matter and existence with, seemingly, little knowledge of physics or the formulas that describe reality. We’ve observed that quantum material does not behave in the way that larger matter does. So, the laws that apply to big things don’t necessarily apply to very small things. Not to mention, we know very little of dark matter, dark energy, or anti-matter, which could explain a lot about the singularity that turned into our universe.

Consider this: at virtually every limit to scientific understanding, a god has been posited, as if the bookend to all possible knowledge. Yet, we continue to push God further and further back as we understand more and more about the universe. At this point, the only thing left to explain is this First Cause, assuming there is a First Cause.

Infinite existence is a hard thing to grapple with, just as you pointed out when talk about an initial infinite being, or God. However, it’s a mistake to assume an initial being just because we don’t know what happened before the singularity, a similar mistake that has been occurring and proven false for at least a thousand years now.

In response to your last statement I have learned quite a bit about Evolution enough to understand it. I fail to see how this would change my perception on the human person related to the First Cause, unless of course you believe that more complex things (not related to parts, but ability) would necessarily have to come from lesser things.

Of course, this calls into question the Laws of the Universe themselves, being that they must necessarily be more complex (in ability, power, etc.) than what is inside this Universe in order to organize those things to begin with.

You have to pressupose a foundation for lesser things gradually becoming something more complex, yet, if you’re approaching this the way I think you are then I think you’re begging the question.

Don’t let M’s gibbering turn you off from philosophy. When I was getting my Bachelor’s, I took a few philosophy classes for fun, including a great one on the development of morals and ethics in human history. My professor was an atheist, but I tried not to hold that against him.

Matter is contingent on something so as to organize itself. It is not self-organizing.

What do you mean by this, and where do you get this idea from?

The concept of an eternal existing thing is that it is immutable, meaning that it never changes.

And because it never changes, it can never do anything. It can only be. To act requires the ability to move in time, which is to change.

Unless of course you wish to hold to a rather absurd doctrine of effects without causes, which I don’t believe can be rationally supported.

Except if you were to posit something that was not conditioned by time (or, in other words, eternal).

The Theists, on the other hand (and some Atheists in circles other than your own) postulate an ever existing thing that never changes. There is nothing more simple than that.

Except, of course, for a complete absense of that thing; unless there is some reason to assume the existence of such a thing is in any way necessary.

Now, you could counter with the belief that matter is the eternal immutable thing, but I don’t believe we’ve ever seen an isntance where matter causes itself.

Well, matter could become energy, which could become matter. In this way matter would not be immutable, and thus not eternal, but it could be without beginning or end. Many people confuse “eternal” and “everlasting”, but outside of this vocabulary quibble, Obi’s argument can stand.

Now, if you wish to get into an argument regarding infinite regress then be my guest.

Unnecessary. Once we have regressed to an initial singularity, we can ask what existed before. Some may choose at this point to posit a first cause. Others might point out that before there was anything, there was no time for anything to be in. Without time, the law of cause and effect no longer applies. Thus, whatever there was or wasn’t need not have been a cause in any sense we can understand. Perhaps in your philosophy classes you can contemplate what other options there could be, but a couple science classes might get you further.

As an example, your belief that “eternal matter” not violating Universal Laws is absurd insomuch as you believe matter changed itself. In this sense, matter therefore DID violate previous laws because it was responsible for them to begin with

What are natural laws if not the interactions of matter and energy?

So it would be more rational to oppose your argument by assuming something not as limited as material objects as being the cause of those objects.

I have yet to see why you believe this.

Now, you could object by stating that God causing the universe to exist is a change in and of itself, but this would not assume a change in substance, rather, that the First Cause is free from limitations, which we do not see in material objects.

What, exactly, is an immaterial substance?

In another counter, you may say that the material objects existing outside our universe occupy different rules or are such rules, but then you need to explain how then we can refer to them as “material” in the same light that we view our material universe.

Whether we call material outside of our universe “material”, “energy” or come up with a third name to describe an eternal state, why do we need to “explain how then we can refer to them as ‘material’ in the same light that we view our material universe”? Why should anyone need to explain how material as we don’t (yet) understand it needs to be understood in the same way as material as we are currently striving to understand it?

You also need to explain how intelligence, rationality, and design that comes from human beings orginated out of thin air, since you believe such properties don’t exist in the cause of our Universe.

When choosing science classes, take a few about evolution. Find out how life formed on this planet, and how life got complicated enough that it could not only respond to its environment, but choose its response. With your philosophical background, you should be able to take it from there on your own.