Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm atheist because IMO there are only two answers to the question if you believe in god. It's either a yes you do or no, you don't. However, my father is an agnostic and doesn't go for either. In his view, he's like ''I might not believe in flying brooms nor witches but if there are, then there are''.
To me this off course doesn't make sense. But ok, whatever suits everyone. I just wish more could make up their minds.
Agreed. I'm an Atheist because it's the ONLY logical choice. Myth, mirrors and magical beings just aren't my style.
Round we go again, old mate. We do not say they function without intelligence - as a total denial of the possibility. We can say that what we know about the workings of nature suggests that they can work and indeed come about, without the need for an intelligence behind it all.
"CAN" does not mean "DOES." You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the state of one's BELIEF about the state of reality and the state of reality itself. YOUR default BELIEF about the state of reality is not and can not be the default of the actual state of reality AND MY default BELIEF about the state of reality is not and can not be the default of the actual state of reality because . . .
wait for it . . .
"We do not know." That is NOT changed by knowing other things about reality.
"CAN" does not mean "DOES." You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the state of one's BELIEF about the state of reality and the state of reality itself. YOUR default BELIEF about the state of reality is not and can not be the default of the actual state of reality AND MY default BELIEF about the state of reality is not and can not be the default of the actual state of reality because.
That's complete BS. If someone's 'default' belief is that the planets of our our system are spherical, while another's 'default' belief is that they are flat, then the former is a far more accurate belief than the latter based on all observable evidence.
All we can do is evaluate beliefs based on observable evidence, and there's overwhelming evidence that there's no conscious 'supernatural' force (or whatever you want to call it) controlling natural affairs at the most fundamental levels we can understand. This makes it very likely that such a thing either does not exist, or if it does it exerts to conscious influence over the natural world.
Could such a thing exist? Yes, but any number of things are remotely possible. It's impossible to consider any and every possibility, so it's more logical to focus our attention on those that show the highest probability of being true. Since there's no observable evidence that 'god' exists, at least as defined by orthodox religion, then why waste time and effort even considering the possibility?
"CAN" does not mean "DOES." You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between the state of one's BELIEF about the state of reality and the state of reality itself. YOUR default BELIEF about the state of reality is not and can not be the default of the actual state of reality AND MY default BELIEF about the state of reality is not and can not be the default of the actual state of reality because . . .
wait for it . . .
"We do not know." That is NOT changed by knowing other things about reality.
'Can' means that from what we do know,there is no good reason to think that it cannot work without intelligence, therefore, in the absence of any need to propose intelligence to make it work, 'without' (e.g the materialist theory) is the preferred default.
If you insist on saying that what we know about the way things work is no more than a belief, then it is one where what we know does not need intelligence to work. If it does, give the evidence. Don't just appeal to gaps in our knowledge.
Wait for it...knowing other things about reality is not negated by what we do not know.
P.s D.A above seems to see that pretty obvious take, too.
'Can' means that from what we do know,there is no good reason to think that it cannot work without intelligence, therefore, in the absence of any need to propose intelligence to make it work, 'without' (e.g the materialist theory) is the preferred default.
As I have repeatedly told you . . . it is not whether or not intelligence is needed. It is the very existence of conscious intelligence itself that cannot be explained by YOUR default. You would ignore something that exists to establish YOUR default on the basis that it is not needed!
Quote:
P.s D.A above seems to see that pretty obvious take, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarwinsAncestor
Since there's no observable evidence that 'god' exists, at least as defined by orthodox religion, then why waste time and effort even considering the possibility?
God as defined by ANYONE is NOT the issue. The state of our reality IS. Our reality is such a ubiquitous, powerful, entity responsible for all life, consciousness, intelligence and EVERYTHING else . . . besides being seemingly infinite in scope in relation to us . . . that the label God is NOT unwarranted. The negative associations with the myriad defined gods of human beings is no reason to preclude it. It fits the concept of Supreme Source of everything (including conscious intelligence) more than adequately. What else is believed or not about it is irrelevant. As a viable state of reality it qualifies. THAT is why the default MUST be . . . "We don't know."
As I have repeatedly told you . . . it is not whether or not intelligence is needed. It is the very existence of conscious intelligence itself that cannot be explained by YOUR default. You would ignore something that exists to establish YOUR default on the basis that it is not needed!
We certainly don't have a complete understanding of consciousness, but we can see what appears to be a continuum of sentience in animals, we have taken baby steps into modelling learning and decision making using the structure of our physical brains as a guide, we have an evolutionary mechanism that gives us a plausible explanations for how our brains got be be built as they are. I am not sure how you can categorically say that consciousness cannot be explained by a materialist default. It is certainly a gap in our knowledge, but that doesn't rule out something other than a god as the answer...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
God as defined by ANYONE is NOT the issue. The state of our reality IS. Our reality is such a ubiquitous, powerful, entity responsible for all life, consciousness, intelligence and EVERYTHING else . . . besides being seemingly infinite in scope in relation to us . . . that the label God is NOT unwarranted. The negative associations with the myriad defined gods of human beings is no reason to preclude it. It fits the concept of Supreme Source of everything (including conscious intelligence) more than adequately. What else is believed or not about it is irrelevant. As a viable state of reality it qualifies. THAT is why the default MUST be . . . "We don't know."
I would argue the label of God is unwarranted. What do we know about reality? It appears to be big and it exists. That's it... It cannot be the source of "all that is", it is all that is. That is "reality" is just a name we apply to the set that includes everything. We have no evidence that it is conscious or sentient, that it has a will or a mind, that it loves or wants or needs. It just is.
Anything other than being vast and being at all is conjecture, a belief about reality. To go any further, we would need to define exactly what a god is. Without some understanding of what the word god means it is impossible to determine if reality is one. If by god, all you mean is something big, with no possible predecessor, then reality would qualify. Of course, almost no one would agree with that definition of god, not even you. Of course you mean a great deal more than that...
The answer is, "We don't know" becasue of the epistemology of existence. Given a definition of God, we cannot know that it does not exist without a total knowledge of the system, that is all of reality itself. But if we have no evidence for a god (however we define it) then we have the highest possible amount of evidence pointing to its nonexistence. Just as it is reasonable to withhold belief in aliens or bigfoot without evidence, so it is with God
As I have repeatedly told you . . . it is not whether or not intelligence is needed. It is the very existence of conscious intelligence itself that cannot be explained by YOUR default. You would ignore something that exists to establish YOUR default on the basis that it is not needed!.....
Conscious intelligence can be seen before our werry eyes, old chum, evolving as does life itself. From the simplest forms which are conscious enough only to go after something edible or that looks like husband material. That can be postulated to have its basics in the biochemical reactions of DNA and molecular interactions, and thus back to minerals and thus to basic matter and the laws of physics. I explained all this to you right at the start of our debate and you still will not even remember what my position is, let alone concede that it has merit.
P.s and now Capo above has immediately seen the same rather obvious flaw in your argument, Mystic old mate. When I say you are sussed,washed up and your argument has crashed and burnt, I am not trying to get your goat, but to explain that your endlessly circular argument is now understood and seen (by most posters who have looked at it, as I recall) to be without credibility.
I must repeat that you may believe what you like. The point is not to change your mind, but to clarify your arguments to others who find themselves mystified by it.
As I have repeatedly told you . . . it is not whether or not intelligence is needed. It is the very existence of conscious intelligence itself that cannot be explained by YOUR default.
The only one with a default here is you. Nor does your preferred and pet default explain what you think it does. It just moves the requirements from us to your assumed "god".
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Clearly we do not know enough to say they function without intelligence.
But also just as clear is that of all the many things we have discovered - and learned - not one single bit of it suggests the existence of - or requirement for - this "intelligence" you so badly want to believe exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your view cannot be the default either.
Which is why no one - but you - is claiming our position is "default". It is you and you alone injecting that notion into conversations with atheists - as you pretend their position is what you want it to be - rather than what it actually is.
The only "default" we appear to actually adhere to is that this universe appears to exist - and we appear to exist within it - and we currently have no explanation for this.
Any other "default" you imagine is just your usual attempt to misrepresent the atheist position on this forum. Despite being pulled on it - corrected on it - and schooled on it numerous times. This for example -
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Atheists routinely ask for proof of God on the basis of their default which is clearly that "God does not exist"
- is just one in a long long long list of examples of you simply misrepresenting the position of people like me - and inserting your own.
I have to observe, Mystic, that Monumentus has picked up a very serious flaw in your argument - not just that your position fails to give weight to inconvenient evidence or that it misuses logic in order to try to prop up your beliefs, but you also rely on persistently misrepresenting atheism in order to make your case.
This is going beyond merely being wrongheaded through faith and illogical through Faith but it makes you dishonest through Faith. And it isn't even necessary. I have never said that you cannot be right. Only that there are other explanations. Nobody is saying that you have to give up what you believe - just accept that our position (including the materialist default having evidential weight) is rationally tenable. And then we have nothing to disagree about.
Yes . . . and most atheists are consistent in regarding God as some specific element OF reality . . . instead of reality itself.
Most theists do as well. Funny how words work best when people don't try to confuse the issue and change definitions on a whim.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
