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.
No. Who says there needs to be a source? This is a theistic belief.
That's a theistic belief again.
Ok fine. But human consciousness is separate issue from whether I think the universe was created by god. I'm not seeing the relevance to this particular thread, but if you do have a specific question, I'll do my best to answer.
I enjoy chatting with you Mystic but I think this got off track.
Are you just trying to ascertain why I'm so certain there is no god at work? If so there are myriad reasons - you just need to read my one-post blog - it's all there I think. I could never sum it up concisely. I guess if I were to try to summarise it, I'd simply say that we have explanations about so much of how the universe works and as we continue to discover more, God fails to enter into any of the equations.
The familiar Mystic sales -pitch, handled very well Cruithne. I predict the response will be that to talk of the God of theist belief is dragging beliefs into what is a matter of fact. Which is that what we call nature is in fact 'God' because it created everything, it produced all consciousness and is in fact all reality, not this label 'nature' that materialists apply to what they don't actually understand.
This is not knocking Mystic. I'm just focussing the familiar debate and perhaps showing that I understand it quite well enough to make a prediction about it.
In my experience the definition of "natural" is context based. In a Religion context however - which is after all what this forum and thread are - the distinction seems to be whether there was an intentional agent behind an action - event - or object.
So in this context when we talk about "natural" we mean things that exist or occoured without any intentional agent or mind or design behind it.
As there is nothing supporting the concept that there is an intentional mind or design behind our reality - you therefore have the "atheist" position.
Some people want to assert or assume the existence of such a mind - based often on nothing but a feeling they got while snoozing one day - and run from there. I am not one of those people myself.
And momentus supplies the same answer I use. 'Natural' or 'nature' or a reality governed by physical laws is what we talk about.
Absolutely, the discussion seems to come down to what would justify the term 'God' rather than 'nature'. It isn't creation (this is where we came in )as creation also can be growth or evolution. It isn't consciousness, as consciousness can also be explained in evolutionary terms. It isn't reality, as the reality we do know about and can prove all seem to be explainable by unthinking natural law and there is no reason to suppose that these laws are acting with a predetermined intent or even came about through a predetermined intent.
This 'predetermined intent' (or 'Forward planning' as I call it) is what is required for the 'God' label to be preferred to the 'nature' label. Without this Mystic's argument founders.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-08-2014 at 05:31 AM..
We have no adequate explanation for this powerhouse Source of absolutely everything called "natural." If you do have one . . . I would love to hear about it.
Nature is that lady who makes it thunder and lightning whenever someone tries to trick her into eating margarine instead of butter.
On a more serious note, I would claim that "nature" is any process that doesn't require either the hand of man or the hand of a god to produce. Obviously plastic doesn't occur naturally and neither do talking snakes.
Now, with that in mind, there is no reason to assume that the origin of the universe is going to be a result of an "unnatural" process - that is, a magical "poof" from a god, no matter what the nature of that god happens to be (unless your god IS nature, but even then ...) After thousands of years of observation and scientific research, we have yet to discover even one thing that is the result of a magical or mystical (hence unnatural) cause. Anyone who bets that the origin of the universe will defy the odds and be the first thing to be proven to have formed from "magic" I think will be sorely disappointed in the end.
Thus atheists are still atheists because there is STILL no convincing evidence for the existence of any sort of intelligent creative force - and there is certainly no evidence for a benevolent creator. However, there IS evidence for an incompetent creator just by looking at our own bodies. Whose bright idea was it to put our reproductive organs right next to our waste excretion organs? Oh yeah, baby, bring on the bacterial infections and diseases! I could give a long list of stupid things this supposed creator has done. BUT, when viewed from the standpoint of evolutionary processes, mistakes make sense especially if one believes (like I do) that humanity is not done evolving.
Those who believe in an intelligence behind our creation fail to notice these things, the little details that seem purposeless if they were actually guided. Was it really necessary to design an annoying insect that feeds on blood? No, not really ... but mosquitos exist nonetheless and they just love spreading diseases. Evolution would form such insidious little creatures, but only a capricious creator would manifest mosquitos to plague both humans and animals alike with their bites and diseases.
Thus UNintelligent design makes a lot more sense.
Last edited by Shirina; 01-08-2014 at 10:03 AM..
Reason: Because it's not nice to fool Mother Nature.
The familiar Mystic sales -pitch, handled very well Cruithne. I predict the response will be that to talk of the God of theist belief is dragging beliefs into what is a matter of fact. Which is that what we call nature is in fact 'God' because it created everything, it produced all consciousness and is in fact all reality, not this label 'nature' that materialists apply to what they don't actually understand.
This is not knocking Mystic. I'm just focussing the familiar debate and perhaps showing that I understand it quite well enough to make a prediction about it.
It is clear that my closest antagonists seem to know my views quite well. I am pleased. I don't know why you insist on characterizing it as a sales pitch, Arq. It is only those who do not understand my views that need my clarification.
Absolutely, the discussion seems to come down to what would justify the term 'God' rather than 'nature'. It isn't creation (this is where we came in )as creation also can be growth or evolution.
The issue of something from nothing remains unexplained, Arq.
Quote:
It isn't consciousness, as consciousness can also be explained in evolutionary terms.
I realize you do not understand why this is not true, Arq. But we have danced this dance enough that I don't think you can learn the steps.
Quote:
It isn't reality, as the reality we do know about and can prove all seem to be explainable by unthinking natural law and there is no reason to suppose that these laws are acting with a predetermined intent or even came about through a predetermined intent.
Actually the explanations have nothing to do with why (intent) things came about. They describe how they came about. There is no reason to suppose that these laws did not come about through a predetermined intent. It is a preference only.
Quote:
This 'predetermined intent' (or 'Forward planning' as I call it) is what is required for the 'God' label to be preferred to the 'nature' label. Without this Mystic's argument founders.
I have failed to convey the concept of existence of God itself (not intent or will) as the basis for the "predetermined intent." Existence itself mandates many things that have nothing to do with the will or intent of the entity that exists.
Thus atheists are still atheists because there is STILL no convincing evidence for the existence of any sort of intelligent creative force - and there is certainly no evidence for a benevolent creator. However, there IS evidence for an incompetent creator just by looking at our own bodies. Whose bright idea was it to put our reproductive organs right next to our waste excretion organs? Oh yeah, baby, bring on the bacterial infections and diseases! I could give a long list of stupid things this supposed creator has done. BUT, when viewed from the standpoint of evolutionary processes, mistakes make sense especially if one believes (like I do) that humanity is not done evolving.
Those who believe in an intelligence behind our creation fail to notice these things, the little details that seem purposeless if they were actually guided. Was it really necessary to design an annoying insect that feeds on blood? No, not really ... but mosquitos exist nonetheless and they just love spreading diseases. Evolution would form such insidious little creatures, but only a capricious creator would manifest mosquitos to plague both humans and animals alike with their bites and diseases.
Thus UNintelligent design makes a lot more sense.
I admire your intellect, Shirina and I agree that the use of intelligent design as a work around to insert God into science curricula is fraudulent. But your post reveals a misunderstanding between intelligible and intelligent. That our reality is intelligible is as Einstein said . . . the real mystery. Why a chaotic explosive beginning would become intelligible and produce consciousness to contemplate it is the intractable problem for atheists. As I have failed to convey to others here . . . conscious life is such a completely foreign and unique property compared to all the other properties and processes of our reality that there is no route for its "emergence" . . . but it emerged. Pretending that the observance of "emergence" and describing the conditions under which it occurred is somehow an explanation is the true deceit in science. Consciousness is inexplicable without a conscious God, IMO.
It is clear that my closest antagonists seem to know my views quite well. I am pleased. I don't know why you insist on characterizing it as a sales pitch, Arq. It is only those who do not understand my views that need my clarification.
Merely my view of anyone who comes explaining what they believe on the boards. My own arguments about the Bible, or god - claims and indeed evolution - theory are just as much of a sales pitch.
The issue of something from nothing remains unexplained. That is all. It is not explained as goddunnit. If anything, current physics is approaching an explanation while God -belief (so far as I know) has none, other than a wave of a wand and the magic word 'Goddunnit'. First cause is of no assistance to a sortagod claim, let alone Biblegod, and Christianity is nowhere in sight.
I can make nothing of your remarks about intent, will, (predetermined or not) but I certainly agree that you have failed to convey anything that credibly gets 'God' on the existent table.
This also touches in the 'Why'. Since we do not know what, and we do not know how, we cannot answer 'Why'. This is no justification for making some gap for God arguments.
as to the consciousness thing, you have failed to make a case for the dance you have tried to teach me. You have simply ignored the one that I and science itself has tried to teach you. We are probably not going to agree, but it doesn't matter.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-08-2014 at 12:07 PM..
I admire your intellect, Shirina and I agree that the use of intelligent design as a work around to insert God into science curricula is fraudulent. But your post reveals a misunderstanding between intelligible and intelligent. That our reality is intelligible is as Einstein said . . . the real mystery. Why a chaotic explosive beginning would become intelligible and produce consciousness to contemplate it is the intractable problem for atheists. As I have failed to convey to others here . . . conscious life is such a completely foreign and unique property compared to all the other properties and processes of our reality that there is no route for its "emergence" . . . but it emerged. Pretending that the observance of "emergence" and describing the conditions under which it occurred is somehow an explanation is the true deceit in science. Consciousness is inexplicable without a conscious God, IMO.
I don't see order arising from chaos as an intractable problem since (1) it has clearly happened and (2) whether or not it's a convenient truth for you, science has long established that under the right conditions complex order arises from chaotic systems. I simply don't understand why god is necessary to explain it. Or how god even would explain it, since it is only your particular concept of god which you have backed into as an explanation for "intelligible reality". God is defined in many other ways; s/he/it is not a quantified, definitively described agent. There is little agreement on what precisely god even is, much less what god does. Even the question "what is god" is filled with assumptions -- that there is only one god, for instance, or that god is knowable or discussable beyond a theoretical construct.
The intractable problem for theists is why god is so coy / nebulous / concealed / debatable after millennia of theological musings by the best and most dedicated minds.
Beliefs are not warranted by proper cognitive function. They are only discredited by a improper cognitive function. Beliefs are warranted, where they concern the existence of entities other than what is human conventions, only by valid scientific evidence.
Plantinga's 'reformed epitemology' is a minority viewpoint for very good reasons. most other philosophers do not try to misuse their discipline to try to smuggle God in through the back door.
I saw this question asked of churchgoers, so I thought it might apply to atheists, too. Do atheists ever think that maybe the world was created?
I bet when you asked the churchgoers if they ever thought that maybe the world was created you got a lot of yes, yes, of course, and yes indeeds. lol
My answer as an atheist is of course, no. Now do I ever "wish" a cool being created a world with a commandment to follow which would bring me everlasting life? Sure. I also wish he created a world in which we continually reincarnated until we found bliss. Or one where you can birth your way up the ladder. And of course, I have my own imagination to consider where we all continue on in another dimension of time and space.
There are many to wish for, but sadly as you can see by how many choices our imaginations give us to follow, the probability of just one being true is extremely low. So, no, I don't think it's true. But, wish I do on occasion.
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.
I could never sum it up concisely. I guess if I were to try to summarise it, I'd simply say that we have explanations about so much of how the universe works and as we continue to discover more, God fails to enter into any of the equations.
)as creation also can be growth or evolution. It isn't consciousness, as consciousness can also be explained in evolutionary terms. It isn't reality, as the reality we do know about and can prove all seem to be explainable by unthinking natural law and there is no reason to suppose that these laws are acting with a predetermined intent or even came about through a predetermined intent.
And of course, I have my own imagination to consider where we all continue on in another dimension of time and space. 
