"Atheism is more 'logical' than theism" - Defend this statement (conscious, knowledge)

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by monumentus

This is how you attempt to define god into existence but distance yourself from that definition so you do not need to support it in any way.

You simply define god into existence by saying it is "nature". Since you are saying nothing at all - just engaging in a bit of linguistic juggling - you think yourself above reproach for the trick.

With the other hand however you make all kinds of claims about this god - claims directly relevant to whether it exists or not - but then try to distance what each hand is doing from the other - despite the complete overlaps.

The "god" you talk about existing is a consciouss - planning - intentional agent - and you have not once defended the position that such an entity is real.

That's the Rejection Syndrome.

People who reject the various gods, especially the Judaeo-Christo-Islamic gods -- who are incredibly vile and violent --- still feel the need for a god-thing, and so they latch on to whatever appeals to them (in this case "Nature").

It's quite disingenuous.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

Hawking is a puppet.

Uh, he suffers from ALS, so no doubt someone cut his strings decades ago.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

He's a brilliant mathematician/scientist, but a lousy theologist.

That's because Truth conflicts with Theology.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

Either stuff was intentionally produced as living cells (somehow), or you have a equal crapshoot of dead life becoming living. And an equal planned/crapshoot of stuff evolving beyond protoplasm for eternity.

Either way constitutes a "miracle."

It's a miracle only because it is beyond your understanding....which is the whole point of this thread.

There's a group of people who are irrational; who cannot accept existence; or comprehend existence without subordinating themselves to some god-thing, whom they believe to be a creator god.

And then there's a group of rational people who understand that none of it matters, and so what, if it did?

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

I made kimchi last week. Do you know of any kimchi that made itself? No?

Are you claiming to be a god, because you created something? I sure hope not, because that would be blasphemous.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

Created things need a creator. But not necessarily the Creator. Anything from the Big Bang to Elder Gods is an acceptable substitute, and someone who presents a convincing origin story has my attention. Just the point of causeless generation if applied to atheism seems kinda iffy.

But that is based on the false assumption that the Universe was created. You don't know that it was or wasn't.

What we know is less than 1 Quadrillionth of what we could know. For all we know, what we think of as "the Universe" could have collapsed and exploded in a "Big Bang" 10 TRILLION times already.

We don't even know how big the Universe is or how old it is.....we only know how big and how old it isn't. We know the Universe is not 12 Billion years, since we can see light from about 16 Billion years. And that's only because of the limited technology we have.

Worse than that, what we think of as the Universe could be nothing more than a collection of collected galaxies grouped together, right? Just as we have clusters of galaxies orbiting clusters of galaxies orbiting clusters of galaxies, you might have clusters of universes orbiting clusters of universes orbiting clusters of universes.

We don't even know where the center of our Universe is.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I am reasonably certain you do not mean this the way I would take it . . .
because I have been essentially making this argument in the qualia debate quite regularly. I use the existence of OUR subjectivity and experiences as the basis for inferring that Nature itself MUST be subjective. Subjectivity is a PERSONAL experience . . . making Nature a kind of "Super-person" (God) experiencing (in part) through us and other subjective experiencing creatures.

Our perception of Nature is Subjective; Nature itself is Objective. Water always freezes at 32°F, no matter where it is in the Universe. Nature is governed by the Laws of Physics, which are themselves Objective.

But none of that matters.

Nature is not going to reward me, or punish me, or grant me prayers and wishes, or deliver me from evil, or mete out Social Justice, or provide an eternal after-life, so what's the point?

Why should I waste my time and energy?

Worse than that, humans are gaining more power and control over Nature, and when humans reach the point where they can exchange matter and energy, humans will control Nature (for the most part).

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Actually . . . I am a panentheist and a pure Christian.

I have no idea what that is, and sometimes I think you just make things up to be contrary.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I accept none of the orthodoxy and dogma of the mainstream religions.

In my book it doesn't matter....you still serve to perpetuate all that is wrong with Humans.

And a "pure Christian?" There's nothing that Jesus of Nazareth said or did that hadn't been said or done by tens of thousands of others long before he supposedly lived.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I believe we exist because Nature (God) exists and we are an integral part of producing the subjectivity (consciousness) that characterizes God.

You exist by pure accident alone.

Had it not been for the prior Mass Extinctions, and even the Minor Extinctions, we wouldn't even be having this discourse.

In fact, if Earth had not been knocked out of its original orbit --- in the Asteroid Belt --- to its present orbit, we wouldn't even exist at all.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Life . . . and the requirement to grow and reproduce . . .

Is purely random chance. There is no requirement to "grow and reproduce" however, the function and purpose of Humans is the same as that of all living things, and that is to perpetuate its own existence. Not every organism is capable of doing that indefinitely, or under stressful circumstances, and those that cannot cease to exist.

It's not part of a plan, it's just how things randomly work out.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

God is a living God and we are part of that reproduction and growth.

Again, that is silly (and pointless).

Nature is Subjective. To prove that, if you were on Mars, you'd have a totally different view of things, just as you would if you lived on another planet. The perception of Nature by Homo Habilis or Homo Erectus was also quite different.

And, why, yes, ethnocentrism is highly subjective.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The accelerating expansion of the universe is evidence of that growth.

No, it's evidence of the Laws of Physics in action.

And when the Universe contracts?

Well, that would also be evidence of the Laws of Physics in action, but also says that your god can be destroyed.....and there's no guarantee that the new Universe created will be even remotely similar to previous Universes, since everything exists by pure random chance.

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

But you are part of Nature (God) . . . so that is not exactly true.

I did not choose to be a part of Nature.

I, too, am a random accident.

Had John the Bishop of Rome not conned Emperor Justinian into making him the pope, then the Imperial Roman Catholic Church never exists, and since it never exists, there are no Papal Estates, and since there are no Papal Estates, there would be no slaves working the land to enrich the Church, and my ancestors would not have been where they were.....slaving away on a Papal Estate in what you call Transylvania for nearly 6 centuries....and the whole chain of events that leads to my existence (birth) never happens.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

It is quite possible that energy cannot be created or destroyed. It merely goes somewhere else. The Cosmos is a big place.

Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144

That is, the universe always existed, but before it was "created" it was in superdense form, and exploded outward. Or some precausal origin, as in here.

THE 'BIG BANG' ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

You're still missing the entire point of this thread.

There are large groups of people out there who cannot accept reality, having deluded themselves into believing that there is a "personal god." Call them Jews, Muslims, christians, Hindis, Animists, Pagans, Wiccans, Satanists or whatever you want.

Those people think they can have -- or do have --- a personal relationship with the god-thing, and they can perform rituals and sacrifice and give prayer, thanks and praise, with adoration....

....in exchange for some benefit....generally tied to their core beliefs.

They think they will be rewarded; or avoid punishment; have prayers answered and miracles performed; and be granted some kind of Eternal salvation in the form of a very pleasant After-Life (or in the least avoid an horrific After-Life).

That is completely illogical.

Look where you've been "put." You're in the armpit of the Milky Way Galaxy. You're on a planet in a solar system that orbits an unspecified point along with a number of other solar systems, and that cluster of solar systems orbits an unspecified point along with other clusters of solar systems, and this takes place in the one of the spiral arms of the Milky Way Galaxy, which is just one galaxy among several that orbits an unspecified point as part of a cluster of galaxies, and it, along with other clusters of galaxies orbit an unspecified point and so on, and they all [theoretically] orbit the Center of the Universe --- where ever that might be.

And your existence is mere chance.

A nova takes place, and from that a star is born, your G-Class Star you call "the Sun." From there it's just a series of accidents and incidents that leads to your existence....there's no god-thing involved.

Heaven, Hell, Devils, Demons, Souls, Rituals, Laws....those are all things created by people to either explain what they could not understand, or to use in a more sinister fashion to maintain power and control over others, which makes it illogical to continue to perpetuate such things.

And then you have another group of people --- agnostics --- who adopt an equally illogical position.....god exists, but there is no way to understand or comprehend the nature of god, which means god cannot be a personal god and you cannot have a relationship with god.

What next? Nothing to see here, so let's move on, right?

Assume for a moment, that the Agnostics are correct......what's the point? This god isn't going to save you, or reward you, or punish you, or punish others to present some form of Social Justice, and you don't get an After-Life.

What's the use in praying to, or worshiping, something that you cannot understand, which will do absolutely nothing for you?

There's an oxygen atom.....should I erect an altar and then start praying, or should I first sacrifice an animal (or a human) and then start praying? Do I have to wear special clothes whilst doing that?

The point being there's no difference between an oxygen atom and the Agnostic god.

Which makes the Atheist position most logical.

There's no Soul; no After-Life; no Heaven; no Hell; if I am rewarded, it is due to my own doing, and not because some god or demon thing shined on me; if I am punished, then that is also due to my own doing ---- or not doing anything all --- or not doing enough and has nothing to do with gods or demons; and since acknowledging the existence of the Agnostic god is tantamount to acknowledging the existence of Oxygen or Donald Trump, it doesn't matter in the least....

....so why fret and fuss over it?

Defending...

Mircea

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, simply that the rational basis of atheism was being targeted, so I defended it....

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I am reasonably certain you do not mean this the way I would take it . . . because I have been essentially making this argument in the qualia debate quite regularly. I use the existence of OUR subjectivity and experiences as the basis for inferring that Nature itself MUST be subjective. Subjectivity is a PERSONAL experience . . . making Nature a kind of "Super-person" (God) experiencing (in part) through us and other subjective experiencing creatures.

Originally Posted by Mircea

Our perception of Nature is Subjective; Nature itself is Objective. Water always freezes at 32°F, no matter where it is in the Universe. Nature is governed by the Laws of Physics, which are themselves Objective.
But none of that matters.
Nature is not going to reward me, or punish me, or grant me prayers and wishes, or deliver me from evil, or mete out Social Justice, or provide an eternal after-life, so what's the point?
Why should I waste my time and energy?

I am afraid that you simply do not see the issue for your materialism presented by the existence of subjectivity (qualia). If the discussions by Gaylen and me haven't made that clear . . . I am at a loss as to how to aid you further in understanding what the actual issues are.

Originally Posted by Mircea

Worse than that, humans are gaining more power and control over Nature, and when humans reach the point where they can exchange matter and energy, humans will control Nature (for the most part).

I have no idea what that is, and sometimes I think you just make things up to be contrary.

For your edification:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Panentheism
(First published Thu Dec 4, 2008; substantive revision Tue Feb 5, 2013)

“Panentheism” is a constructed word composed of the English equivalents of the Greek terms “pan”, meaning all, “en”, meaning in, and “theism”, meaning God. Panentheism considers God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world. It offers an increasingly popular alternative to both traditional theism and pantheism. Panentheism seeks to avoid either isolating God from the world as traditional theism often does or identifying God with the world as pantheism does. Traditional theistic systems emphasize the difference between God and the world while panentheism stresses God's active presence in the world. Pantheism emphasizes God's presence in the world but panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine. Anticipations of panentheistic understandings of God have occurred in both philosophical and theological writings throughout history (Hartshorne and Reese 1953; Cooper, 2006). However, a rich diversity of panentheistic understandings has developed in the past two centuries primarily in Christian traditions responding to scientific thought (Clayton and Peacocke 2004). While panentheism generally emphasizes God's presence in the world without losing the distinct identity of either God or the world, specific forms of panenethism, drawing from a different sources, explain the nature of the relationship of God to the world in a variety of ways and come to different conclusions about the significance of the world for the identity of God.

Originally Posted by Mircea

In my book it doesn't matter....you still serve to perpetuate all that is wrong with Humans.

My point is that it is the religions that you have issues with . . . not God.

Originally Posted by Mircea

And a "pure Christian?" There's nothing that Jesus of Nazareth said or did that hadn't been said or done by tens of thousands of others long before he supposedly lived.

That does nothing but substantiate my belief that the "spiritual fossil record" contains evidence that our spiritual understanding has been evolving from a DNA template . . . much as our physical evolution has been.

Originally Posted by Mircea

You exist by pure accident alone.
Had it not been for the prior Mass Extinctions, and even the Minor Extinctions, we wouldn't even be having this discourse.
In fact, if Earth had not been knocked out of its original orbit --- in the Asteroid Belt --- to its present orbit, we wouldn't even exist at all.
Is purely random chance. There is no requirement to "grow and reproduce" however, the function and purpose of Humans is the same as that of all living things, and that is to perpetuate its own existence. Not every organism is capable of doing that indefinitely, or under stressful circumstances, and those that cannot cease to exist.
It's not part of a plan, it's just how things randomly work out.

You have just described the mandates and processes that the existence of Nature (God) places on our existence . . . and that is my point. It is the mandates inherent in the EXISTENCE of God (your Nature) that determines what and how our existence manifests and establishes the role we play in it.

Originally Posted by Mircea

No, it's evidence of the Laws of Physics in action.
And when the Universe contracts?
Well, that would also be evidence of the Laws of Physics in action, but also says that your god can be destroyed.....and there's no guarantee that the new Universe created will be even remotely similar to previous Universes, since everything exists by pure random chance.

Your laws of physics (and Chemistry or Biology or whatever) are the laws of God established by the requirements of God's existence and life processes.

Originally Posted by Mircea

I did not choose to be a part of Nature.
Defending...
Mircea

None of us did, Mircea . . . your point is? It is what it is and its consequences will be what they will be . . . regardless WHAT we think or believe.

[stargazzer]

1) Its pretty much common knowledge that with everything, man has more questions about the whole setting and nature of reality then ever before in history.

Scientists cannot show solid evidence that this universe is not entwined in a multi-time existing reality, which is one of my interests out of curiosity. The monkey on the way to a black hole and looking back at our solar system for example, or many monkeys sent out at different times to a hypothetical black hole is enough to introduce the huge quantity which is unknown not to mention whats outside.

2) No matter what, in considering a question as to whether atheism or theism is more logical a consideration for what we know and don't know, must be categorized. IOW its impossible to entertain the question without acknowledging this huge area of the question itself.

3) With above many idea's are used in order to enable going on with explaining a possible solution to the question.

4) Lets make a list :

a) nothingness
b) absolute array of possibilities leaving no idea at all...but, without denying "it" ( so this one is "it"
c)Hazy Gods...cosmic something, not a personality, an auroa borelis type of "thing" ( so this one is "thing"
d)Personality Gods however described, and however translated through not only the years but people themselves.

5) So we have 4 roughly: Nothingness.....It.....Thing.....Personality Gods.
Now I'm sure there are more but the point is ...The Point.

6) It is impossible to go on with the question without "representing a choice which can only be the focus for development" of the argument.

7) Theists believe the above determined focus..regardless of the many possibilities in construction or nature or whatever, is a Power, or of Power.

Thats it, creation could be consequential of this Power logically in any way imaginable. The real theist does not put limitations of Power however humanly thought of in the impossible to list possibilities.

Translations and idea's of heaven and angels ect are secondary. They are sometimes this for people and sometimes that. The Power ...however just explained is the issue for the believer, and then again all thats left is recognizing to be less then this Power.

Once this is acknowledged the theist goes on the journey. The journey recognizes a reason not only in what the Power is representing(which is unknown as explained) but also as a participant in the scheme or whatever it is.

A participant alongside the Power, choice in direction is part of human experience in changing outcome and creating as well..

The Power and the creature become co-creators or whatever it is, joining in unfolding what will be, however little yet true.

With no surprise, the creature in reasoning choice, also reasons the significance and hope in being in keeping through choice with whatever the intended, or whatever it is. (Reason is reflective in its nature.

The theists reflects however, and thats all thats in the objective, in reason..toward the found point or the focus or Power, in the question itself.

To ignore:

a) is to ignore the found focus for the argument
b) any power in the found focus would be reduced to less then the creature
c) the nature of reasoning itself which was used for the argument, in its reflective nature.

Due to the quality and quantity of the core facts as outlined,

The only way to avoid a 100% more logical advantage for the theist, is to ignore the question.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Mircea

That's the Rejection Syndrome. People who reject the various gods, especially the Judaeo-Christo-Islamic gods -- who are incredibly vile and violent --- still feel the need for a god-thing, and so they latch on to whatever appeals to them (in this case "Nature").

It is the attempt to make "nature" more than it is that is crass from such users trying to sell "god" to us. It is linguistic trickery to simply relabel one thing as another and then pile magical attributes on to that label.

Step 1 just declare that you will be calling all of nature "God". Step 2 just smuggle in all kinds of nonsense claims riding in that trojan horse such as after lives, Jesus being the physical manifestation of this natures consciousness and more.

One can almost dig through the fossil record of how more refined this trickery has become over the decades but trickery it remains, couched more often than not in sciencey sounding linguistics designed to bamboozle the minds of those who do not know what those words mean or how they actually should be used or applied.

There simply is no argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to substantiate the claim that such a conscious entity exists, let alone that it manifested itself in human form in order to "save" us from itself. The canards and linguistic trickery of those desperate to sell you the idea all the same are well worth exposing.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Moderator cut: Orphaned as off topic.

Moderator cut: Off topic

.... one of the reasons I think atheism more logical than theism is that many of the arguments from theists are based on authority. Be it the authority of theologians, or the imagined authority of those who feel they have had a religious experience which gives them knowledge of truths not available to the rest of us. Authority that is not amenable to reason or inquiry on any level but is just asserted and held to be true by default.

Nothing in atheism requires anything of this sort and as such I would see it as the more logical position. One need not subscribe to a single thing on insufficient evidence in order to realize that the claim there is a god is entirely unsubstantiated by any argument, data, evidence or reasoning.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Moderator cut: Orphaned

Moderator cut: Orphaned response

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

we are back to peddling this 'Nature is big and complex so it must be God'

While I am not in the least bit convinced by that kind of argument - and I agree it seems to make up the vast vast majority of what he says - I am certainly not unmoved by it.

I know as my knowledge of Science increases each day so does my awe - feelings of insignificance - feelings of just how big and complex it all is and how simply and failing in understanding we are.

There are also many scientists who are brought to god by science for this very reasons. While they fail to find anything in science that actually evidences the idea there is a god - they get the feeling you describe above that tells them there simply _must_ be something more.

I wonder however how much of this comes simply from human ego and hubris. We are so arrogant in our belief about what we should be capable of comprehending that our failure to comprehend it all simply compels some of us to think there simply must be an explanation greater than us and that is the reason for our failures to understand. God working in mysterious and inaccessible ways.

It is simply their failure to admit to their own intellectual limitations that compels them to envision explanations that give reason to those failures. It is not that they are failing intellectually - it is that the game is specifically rigged for them not to succeed. And so they are again comfortable in their bed of hubris content in the knowledge that their failures are failures of design and not of they themselves.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

This confounding of the states of mind regarding the existence of God is puzzling to me. Atheism, Agnosticism, Theism . . . I don't see what all the quibbling is about. If you intellectually accept the existence of God you are a theist. If you do not . . . you are an atheist. Why all the confusion? If your premises are valid and lead logically to your acceptance or non-acceptance . . . it is logical. The question in the OP is silly. There is no such thing as "more logical." Something is either logical or it isn't.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Well, simply that the rational basis of atheism was being targeted, so I defended it....

But you continually equate what you see as the most common sense view with what is logical. They are NOT the same thing. Logic is incapable of deciding between atheism and theism, period. The conclusion is entirely dependent upon the validity of the a priori premises used.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Logic is incapable of deciding between atheism and theism, period.

I disagree - but even if I did not I would say the same thing - logic IS capable of evaluating the arguments for theism and find them very violently lacking. As such atheism is "more logical" because it is a position that does not require holding any illogical or baseless nonsense as true in order to adopt it.

[Gaylenwoof]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

Reality is NOT fundamentally subjective - not in any way that make sense to me. The issue of emergence does not seem to demand it.

Originally Posted by KCfromNC

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I use the existence of OUR subjectivity and experiences as the basis for inferring that Nature itself MUST be subjective.

Using the same logic, I could use the existence of ME to infer that the universe itself must be ME.

I’ve been busy with the real world and have not visited here for a while. Quick summary: I consider myself to be an atheist, although I am sympathetic so some variations of a “cosmic mind” type of hypothesis. (I see no good evidence for any sort of ID/creator Bible-writer, etc.). In philosophy of mind, I do NOT believe in substance dualism; I lean toward “dual aspect,” or perhaps “neutral monism.” Certain reductive materialists deny the existence of qualia (e.g., eliminative materialists and behaviorists). I think these folks are just plain nuts. But if qualia really exist, then there should be some way to account for them within physicalist theory. Currently we cannot do this.

My argument is that physical theories, in their current form, cannot – even in principle - account for qualia. The failure is not “materialism” as such (the idea that there is only one basic sort of “stuff” – namely, energy); the failure stems from the insistence that physical theories must be reducible to purely objective entities. The problem is the essentially subjective nature of qualia. We can, in principle, correlate every subjective/qualitative feeling or sensation with some physical process (neural activity), but a correlation is not a full explanation. For any given correlation, you can always ask: But why does that process feel that way? Or: Why does any physical process “feel like” anything at all? Bottom line: I don’t believe that you can, even in principle, derive subjective qualia from purely objectively-described physical processes (i.e., atoms, electromagnetism, etc.) This is the infamous “hard problem.”

Given our current understanding of the purely objective properties of physical entities, there is simply no reason why a biological entity couldn’t be identical to my body and behave exactly like I behave (talk exactly like I talk, etc.), without experiencing qualia. (The so-called “zombie argument.”) Either qualia are completely irrelevant (“epiphenomenal”), or else our current theories are missing something. My position is that our current physical theories are missing something. I’m attempting to provide the critical missing elements. (Wish me luck on that!) What I’ve suggested is that physical energy has an inherently subjective (or, at least, “proto-subjective”) aspect. Flowers did not exist 5 minutes after the Big Bang, but the entities and forces of physics are such that flowers were a potential back in those early moments. We can, in principle, use the laws of physics and the principles of chaotic dynamical systems to tell a detailed story of how flowers eventually emerged from the BB. In other words: The laws of physics and principles of self-organization are sufficient for explaining the emergence of flowers from the BB. My argument is that they are not (even in principle) sufficient for the emergence of qualia. The problem, again, is the deeply logical problem of theoretically deriving subjective phenomena while limiting yourself to theoretical entities and principles that are purely objective. Something in our theory needs to bridge the logical gap between objective and subjective.

Flowers can be objectively described, so there is no problem, in principle, in deriving flowers from the BB. Qualia are inherently subjective. To derive qualia from the BB, we need to account for some sort of “proto-subjectivity” inherent in physical laws and principles. This is the sense in which subjectivity (or, at least, “proto-subjectivity”) must be fundamental.

The logic is NOT: “I am a subjective being, therefore the universe must be a subjective being.” As KC points out, that is not logical. The logic is more like this: “If there is even just one example of a subjective entity in the universe, then Reality must be such that the potential for subjectivity is fundamental.”

If X exists now, but it did not exist a minute ago, then the potential for X must have existed a minute ago. The job of physics is to provide the fundamental elements and principles that explain the existence of all that emerged from the BB. If qualia emerged from the BB, then the job of physics is to theoretically derive the emergence of qualia from the fundamental entities, forces, and principles. This simply won’t happen until the problem of subjectivity is addressed, but the problem of subjectivity won’t be addressed by purely objective descriptions.