Explain The Underlying
Order In The Universe
Ajay Saini

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "Electrotherm-Delhi"
Subject: Re: PA-via_Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Saturday, January 20, 2001 8:29 PM

You are positing your conclusion as a premise -- presupposing what you set out to prove and using your presuppositions to answer the dispute in question. This is not unlike saying, "I know there's a god because God told me that he exists." This is fine for personal, private religion, but you will need much more than this when seeking to have the rest of us go along with it.

Finally, I'd like a source citation for the Hawking quotation, because he seems conspicuously silent regarding his religious views.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule
Added: January 31, 2001
Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "ajay saini"
Subject: Re: PA-via_Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Saturday, January 27, 2001 11:56 AM

I cannot explain any "underlying order in the universe" because the universe is almost complete randomness. Here and there exist tiny, tiny (very tiny) pockets of order, like one would expect in a constantly expanding universe. But the universe, for the most part, is cold and chaotic and almost completely random.

We live in one of those tiny pockets of order, so I can understand why people would think the universe is highly ordered. And, our senses are tuned to see only the order. But when we take measurements with instruments, we detect much disorder with hardly any order at all. This is, I think, exactly what we could expect from an explosion that occurred naturally, that did not have any creative force behind it.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "ajay saini"
Subject: Re: PA-via_Positive_Atheism_Index
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 9:27 PM

I said no such thing!

I described the universe as almost entire random, and noted that the tiny pockets of order that do exist are all that we can see with our senses.

If you wish to discredit me, at least have the decency to quote me correctly.

This is what is so frustrating about dealing with theists who try to force the findings of science in such as way that it appears to validate their faith. People are perfectly justified in believing whatever suits their fancy, but when theists start lying about what science has found, asserting that science says something that science does not, in fact, say, I will offer a stern rebuke: Stop misrepresenting science! This will get you nowhere with us, except to show us your disrespect for the truth and to prompt us to reject any other claims you may make in the future!

And when people criticize me by misquoting me, they completely lose their credibility with me. It's one thing for you to make no sense (your first letter), but it's another thing altogether for you to lie (your second letter, over a dozen copies of which flooded our mailbox over the course of a day).

Have a nice life. As far as we can tell, it's the only one we get.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "ajay saini"
Subject: Re:
Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 6:56 AM

I don't agree with presupposing that a god exists and then trying to prove the existence of that god. I prefer to open my eyes and look and then acknowledge what I do see and detect, and either suspend judgement or flat-out reject any ideas for which we lack sufficient reason to give our assent. The god idea, to me, lacks sufficient force to warrant my assent. I consider it dishonest for people to twist and misrepresent the specific findings of specific branches of science in order to try to justify giving assent to the god idea. This is why I have spent hundreds of hours trying to keep up with the basic and undisputed findings of several branches of science, and also studying the arguments from both camps over disputed findings.

I find that on almost all occasions, the disputes arise when people conclude that certain finding shows that we no longer need to posit "God" to explain a given mystery, because that mystery has now been shown to have a natural cause. The people who dispute these naturalistic findings tend to assent to the processes of experimentation and calculation which led to the conclusion that the former mystery has a natural cause, but they refuse to apply the processes to this particular question.

Some people just don't want to give up their gods, that's all. I have no problem with people believing that gods exist. However, when they go around teaching that science says this or that (attempting to make science justify their god belief) when, in fact, science does not say anything of the sort, I will make a strong denunciation of what those people are doing. It's one thing to believe, privately, that a god exists; it's another altogether to spread falsehood in an attempt to convince others to agree. There is where I draw the line between private religion and a public menace.

Meanwhile, this Forum exists, in part, to examine some of the god claims that are floating around, and to test the arguments being used to convince people that gods exist. So, if you wish to present some of these arguments, feel free to do so on this Forum. However, if I, another correspondent, or one of our readers objects to your presentation on whatever grounds, expect to hear a response. Don't expect us to simply go along with your argument without examining it, because it is that form of credulity -- blind faith -- that we frown on the most.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Note: We are posting this as-is, and have not bothered to clean it up. Enjoy!

Graphic Rule

From: "Positive Atheism Magazine" <editor@positiveatheism.org>
To: "ajay saini"
Subject: Re:
Date: Sunday, February 04, 2001 3:09 PM

You still have not made a case for the existence of a god. You leap from the formation of water (which appears to occur naturally, without intervention of any kind) to the scientist in the lab -- and this is somehow supposed to relate to a god, whose existence you have not shown. I don't get it.

Cliff Walker
"Positive Atheism" Magazine
Five years of service to
     people with no reason to believe

Graphic Rule

Material by Cliff Walker (including unsigned editorial commentary) is copyright ©1995-2006 by Cliff Walker. Each submission is copyrighted by its writer, who retains control of the work except that by submitting it to Positive Atheism, permission has been granted to use the material or an edited version: (1) on the Positive Atheism web site; (2) in Positive Atheism Magazine; (3) in subsequent works controlled by Cliff Walker or Positive Atheism Magazine (including published or posted compilations). Excerpts not exceeding 500 words are allowed provided the proper copyright notice is affixed. Other use requires permission; Positive Atheism will work to protect the rights of all who submit their writings to us.