starting in the wrong place (The atheist delusion)

by dhw, Wednesday, May 21, 2008, 10:50 (6028 days ago) @ Curtis

Hrischuk writes: "It would seem that this argument starts at the wrong location completely. If we are going to start the discussion, then let's ask the first question first: 'Why is there something other than nothing?" He goes on to say that the question is answered by the Kalam Cosmological Argument. - I'm not sure that there is a completely right or wrong location for the argument to start, but perhaps this one will offer us a way out of the impasse. Since you are new to the forum, and others are also logging on for the first time, a great deal of the discussion so far has tended to focus on the fact that we are here, so how did we get here? The theory of evolution has figured prominently, with atheists regarding it as obviating the necessity for a God, and agnostics pointing out that evolution does not explain the origin of life. Atheists have argued in favour of abiogenesis; agnostics have pointed out that the theory is unproven. This is a very bald summary of just some of the (at times extremely complex) discussions, but I hope it is fair. - The Kalam Cosmological Argument, if I have understood it correctly, is that the universe had a beginning, there has to be a prime cause, and the prime cause is God. From my agnostic standpoint, while I must allow for the possibility of other universes, I can accept the Big Bang theory as the beginning of this one. Whether there has to be a prime cause is open to debate, since one is always faced with the problem of what preceded the "beginning" (similar to the atheist argument: "Where did God come from?") ... i.e. the infinite regression. But I have no problem with your statement (point No. 17) that "God is possible". Originally agnosticism = the belief that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not, which of course allows for the possibility that he does. I prefer the later, more personal interpretation, along the lines that I just can't make up my mind either way. But to say that God is possible because "God cannot be disproved" is not helpful to me in my doubts. We had a long discussion on the forum relating to Bertrand Russell's teapot agnosticism, but we needn't go into that again. Belief, I'm sure you'll agree, demands positive proof ... as your table appears to promise. - However, the argument that the prime cause is God seems to me to demand a clear definition, and this is where our discussion may take off. It is evident from your point 5 ("The Christian God is experienced and known") that you have a very specific definition in mind. For someone like myself, who is undecided, this raises major questions. Why the Christian God, why not Allah, Yahweh, the multiple gods of Hinduism ... or, more fundamentally, why any deity at all? Why must we attribute particular "divine" qualities to this prime cause? Is there any evidence that the force that made us is still with us, or interested in us? If it is, what is its nature, particularly in the light of the suffering that it has created? - There are many, many more such questions which no doubt you are well used to hearing but which have not as yet figured on this forum ... although they are prominent in the "brief guide". By giving us this new starting point, perhaps you will be able to shed light on a number of problems that are puzzling and indeed troubling not only to those of us who are uncommitted, but also to many believers as well. At least by discussing them, we give ourselves a chance of a better understanding, so thank you for opening up these avenues.