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 am reasonably certain that unicorns do not exist, despite "documentation" in ancient texts. I am reasonably certain that God doesn't exist as well despite the supposed documentation.
It's narrow minded for us to believe our universe is the only one, or that our reality is the only reality. For all we know, some universes have gods, and some don't.
Its not narrow minded, it is merely judicious.
Quote:
Or God may exist, and be all powerful, but not in the same reality in which we exist. And it may even turn out that in the reality in which God exists, we don't really share that existence, but are only figments of God's imagination. Our whole reality might be a figment of His imagination. And He might not even know that. He might think we're real. Or He might have heated arguments with His friends, about whether we're real, or whether there are different realities, and whether we might be more real than Him in some of those realities. He might not even remember whether He created us or not, and might have heated arguments with His friends about that issue. Assuming He has any friends. If I were that powerful, all my friends might be scared away from me, and I might be all alone.
It is not very difficult to hypothesize, or even much harder to come up with a reasonable explanation for something that might be true -- but if we are to rationally accept any reasoning, we have to first have some form of evidence upon which to hang that reasoning. Otherwise, we are unable to distinguish between a fiction and such explanations as these.
Quote:
God has to be human-like, if you define human-like to be having a tendency to pass and enforce laws and rules. Because, if he doesn't have that tendency, where did the laws of nature come from?
You are conflating a descriptive explanation (which is one use of the word "law") with that of prescriptive legislative practice of making laws (which is another type of "law"). The laws of nature, for instance, only describe how nature works -- they do not dictate (prescribe) how is SHOULD work. Thus, the presence of the Laws of nature do not imply a 'lawgiver' in any way, and natural law certainly doesn't imply that if one were present, that it has to be human-like whatsoever.
Quote:
If God changes the laws of nature, are we going to know it? We might not, because He might rewind our reality, to start over with the new laws of nature. He might have rewound us zillions of times, and our present reality might be the playback of one of those rewinds.
...And since such an experience is entirely outside our ability to perceive it in any way, it's not something really worthy of any consideration by us, is it?
God has to be human-like, if you define human-like to be having a tendency to pass and enforce laws and rules. Because, if he doesn't have that tendency, where did the laws of nature come from?
I prefer to think of the "laws of nature" as the "limits of nature". The limitations of nature are almost certainly intrinsic to nature and are not set by some intelligent external arbiter. Besides, not "knowing where something comes from" are simply arguments from ignorance humans like to insert ambiguous explanations like "God" into.
Quote:
If God changes the laws of nature, are we going to know it? We might not, because He might rewind our reality, to start over with the new laws of nature. He might have rewound us zillions of times, and our present reality might be the playback of one of those rewinds.
Or "God" is nothing more than an unclear concept humans have invented to explain what is not.
I totally agree with you. I am the same way. In this case I now wish I didn't use the cap version -- the big-G was misleading to my point.
Then we've come to an understanding at least on what you were going for in the original assertion. We can probably have an interesting discussion on your original point now. How about this...
Instead of the original...
Quote:
Why atheists can be confident that God doesn't exist...
how about...
Quote:
Why atheists can be confident that gods do not exist...
You've already laid out one very strong argument why the second is most likely true. We can be very confident that the human ideas of god do not exist as an external entity, because the concept seems intentionally designed to be unknowable. This is almost certainly why there is no reasonable definition of what a god is. Sure, the theist will gleefully inform us of things the god supposedly does, but never what it is or how it would interact to do the things it supposedly does. God is always a convenient mystery not to be tested, examined or questioned.
I really don't want to talk about Mystic as though he wasn't there. But, there is an element of the need to upset 'everything that science thinks it knows' in order to (hopefully) make 'God' the only possible explanation.
I thought we agreed that NEITHER view is the ONLY logical one, Arq.
Quote:
The two areas on which we goddlesss bastards clash with Mystic is defining 'God' and validating naturalistic materialism as the preferred (indeed the mandatory) default position.
It is a rhetorical trick, I argue, to simply label reality 'God' rather than 'nature'. And then having proved that 'God' is real, well, job done, really.
Now, we all 'know' that there is a difference between 'Nature' and 'God'. It is so 'Obvious' that we don't stop to question it and Mystic's questioning makes us do so.
Essentially, the difference comes down to whether we have evolved (got to where we are through natural forces reacting to conditions) or have been created. That is we and everything were planned ahead of the event and everything was done deliberately to achieve an outcome.
Speculations about loops of time aside 'Forward planning' is what separates 'God' from 'Nature'. And if that forward planning theory cannot be substantiated, then 'God' is not proven and 'Nature' is the default. Because the physical process that work without any apparent planning has been demonstrated. Therefore in the absence of any better alternative hypothesis, has to be the preferred one.
That is how I argue it, anyway.
THERE is the rhetorical trick, Arq. There is no such requirement. All that is necessary is that God EXIST and that everything that exists supports that existence. All the mandates (or forces) that you rely on for your "natural forces" are nothing more than that . . . those required to support the existence of God (Nature), especially our consciousness. You have no better explanation for their existence . . . do you. Your attempt to box God into a "planner" instead of an "exister" is a bogus rhetorical trick. It is incumbent on those of us who prefer the existence of God (instead of "Nature") to present our rationale (what you denigrate as philosophy). But in EITHER case . . . they are brute fact preferences . . . not scientific defaults.
Quote:
And that is why you are wrong, Mystic. we DO have very good logical and evidential reasons to regard materialisticic naturalism as the default, and those 'gaps' are irrelevant. beliefs about it, are also irrelevant. If what we take to be so about nature are just 'beliefs' and are not based on sound science, prove it. Upset everything that science thinks it knows.You haven't managed to do it so far.
And that is why you are wrong . . . because I have never tried to do so, Arq. I accept everything we have learned about God through science . . . something you refuse to acknowledge. We just disagree on what it is evidence of. You believe whatever you think nature IS . . . is not God. I believe whatever you think nature is . . . IS God.
Quote:
All you have done is to use philosophy to pull a number of rhetorical tricks. Until you can get 'God' on the table as a preferrable 'Label' for reality than '(materialistic) 'Nature' (and just being the origin of everything won't do, you need to demonstrate intent and execution) you have nothing. We have the science. I explain this time and again and you still come back with the same old faith-based claims and debunked arguments.
We have competing rhetorical tricks (or philosophy). Yours is the intent and execution. Mine is the existence of consciousness. If as I believe everything exists to support the existence of God . . . then our consciousness is definitely part of it. That definitely makes God consciousness . . . otherwise we would not be needed to support God. So . . . we disagree on the fundamental premises . . . it is to be expected that we would disagree on the predicates. It always comes down to consciousness, Arq.
Hey Mystic, isn't your god belief based solely on personal experience?
It began that way . . . but I spent decades using science and other scholarship to explain it to my intellect. My certainty is definitely based on personal experiences, tho.
How about...translated... those emotional blinders that allows one to believe the universe thinks
When considered as a totality . . . we are part of the universe and we think. Technically that means the universe taken as a single phenomenon does think.
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.
