atheistic god

[Rational Agnostic]

It's interesting 'multiverse theory' was until recently listed on Wikipedia as an example of a 'scientific theory' in the strict sense- but has been removed, losing popularity perhaps...

so in the analogy of HELP being spelled with rocks on the deserted island beach, do you similarly dismiss the castaway until clear cut evidence is produced?

i.e. the universe, Earth, IS clear cut evidence for God to most of us, although evidence is a subjective thing of course, otherwise this forum would be a little dull!

1.The Multiverse is a hypothesis, not a theory.
2. "HELP" being spelled with rocks on a deserted island is clear cut, tangible evidence of a castaway IMO.
3. Which god is it "clear-cut" evidence for?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

1.The Multiverse is a hypothesis, not a theory.

agreed, though 'philosophical speculation' might be more apt!

2. "HELP" being spelled with rocks on a deserted island is clear cut, tangible evidence of a castaway IMO.

agreed again, but why? you are specifically given a scenario with no direct evidence of an intelligent agent- it's deserted, let's even say the island is guarded offshore, nobody should be there

You are also utterly granted a 'multiverse', a fully spontaneous mechanism in the waves, which could have randomly washed them up that way.

So why reject the direct, observable, natural mechanism, in favor of an invisible intelligent agent?

3. Which god is it "clear-cut" evidence for?

Well which castaway is it evidence for? we don't know but we can make some educated guesses on his means and motives, he speaks our language, he wishes to communicate with us[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Rational Agnostic]

agreed, though 'philosophical speculation' might be more apt!

2. "HELP" being spelled with rocks on a deserted island is clear cut, tangible evidence of a castaway IMO.

agreed again, but why? you are specifically given a scenario with no direct evidence of an intelligent agent- it's deserted, let's even say the island is guarded offshore, nobody should be there

You are also utterly granted a 'multiverse', a fully spontaneous mechanism in the waves, which could have randomly washed them up that way.

So why reject the direct, observable, natural mechanism, in favor of an invisible intelligent agent?



Well which castaway is it evidence for? we don't know but we can make some educated guesses on his means and motives, he speaks our language, he wishes to communicate with us

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


Well for one, castaways are humans and we know humans exist because they can be observed. Quite a leap to go from "evidence of a human on an island" to "evidence of an invisible anthropomorphic immortal sugar daddy who created the universe." BTW, your claim that the universe *looks* like a universe that a god created is entirely subjective. Natural processes (evolution) explain the diversity and complexity of life just fine, which was a far bigger problem for atheism prior to Darwin than current gaps in cosmology are for atheism today. If you view God as responsible for things science has yet to explain, then your god is an ever-receding gap in knowledge that continues to be filled in by new discoveries.

 

[illykitty]

Well, I imagine you mean a monotheistic god... I'd say providing proof of it's existence, to all. If we truly have free will, then after god reveals itself, we can still chose to reject it or accept it. I mean, isn't the story of satan one that describes his fall, despite knowing of god's existence? What makes it different from us? If we could know that god exists, we can make a real choice. As it stands now, I have no choice but to remain agnostic, since there's no proof.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well for one, castaways are humans and we know humans exist because they can be observed. Quite a leap to go from "evidence of a human on an island" to "evidence of an invisible anthropomorphic immortal sugar daddy who created the universe." BTW, your claim that the universe *looks* like a universe that a god created is entirely subjective.

So the analogy is unfair because it grants a scenario where an intelligent agent is at least allowed as remotely possible? even though the deserted island is explicitly, actively guarded against this? so ID must be ruled out entirely to allow chance to win out by luck eventually? Yes I know- that's the problem. The same is not true in reverse, a theist does not need to banish natural mechanisms to allow God infinite tries!

And we know of no such security force preventing intelligent creation of universes, nor do we know of any spontaneous universe creating device which the analogy grants you 100%

So the analogy is actually very heavily biased towards a naturalistic explanation, yet you still choose ID- simply remove the distasteful concept of God, and we agree on the best power of explanation do we not?

Natural processes (evolution) explain the diversity and complexity of life just fine,

classical physics explained all physical reality just fine too, so much so it was 'immutable'- at a similarly superficial level- but explaining life, including it's capacity for adaptation, using that very same capacity.... is like trying to explain gravity with classical physics, doomed to paradoxical failure

which was a far bigger problem for atheism prior to Darwin than current gaps in cosmology are for atheism today. If you view God as responsible for things science has yet to explain, then your god is an ever-receding gap in knowledge that continues to be filled in by new discoveries.

On the contrary, ID objectively explains the rocks on the beach just fine, just as it always did the origination of the novel information required for the universe, even before atheists finally conceded that the universe DID begin in a creation event. An infinite probability machine (multiverse) was always the last gap to retreat to, after static, eternal, steady state, big crunch etc were all emphatically debunked

 

[Rational Agnostic]

So the analogy is unfair because it grants a scenario where an intelligent agent is at least allowed as remotely possible? even though the deserted island is explicitly, actively guarded against this? so ID must be ruled out entirely to allow chance to win out by luck eventually? Yes I know- that's the problem. The same is not true in reverse, a theist does not need to banish natural mechanisms to allow God infinite tries!

And we know of no such security force preventing intelligent creation of universes, nor do we know of any spontaneous universe creating device which the analogy grants you 100%

So the analogy is actually very heavily biased towards a naturalistic explanation, yet you still choose ID- simply remove the distasteful concept of God, and we agree on the best power of explanation do we not?



classical physics explained all physical reality just fine too, so much so it was 'immutable'- at a similarly superficial level- but explaining life, including it's capacity for adaptation, using that very same capacity.... is like trying to explain gravity with classical physics, doomed to paradoxical failure



On the contrary, ID objectively explains the rocks on the beach just fine, just as it always did the origination of the novel information required for the universe, even before atheists finally conceded that the universe DID begin in a creation event. An infinite probability machine (multiverse) was always the last gap to retreat to, after static, eternal, steady state, big crunch etc were all emphatically debunked

So, basically, if I understand you correctly, your opinion is that if science hasn't figured something out yet, we should give up trying to figure it out and say that a magic genie (god) must have done it and that it is forever beyond our knowledge. Good thing some people don't think that way or the wheel wouldn't have been invented yet.

 

[syo]

I don't understand superior outside of relating it to, say, a king to his servant or boss to employee. If god is not a ghost (thinking of casper), what is god?

the question is open. an atheist can imagine what is god and his qualities, in order to believe in him.

 

[Twilight Hue]

i wonder, what kind of qualities should a god have, so that atheists would start believing in that god?

Tangibility.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

the question is open. an atheist can imagine what is god and his qualities, in order to believe in him.

I wouldn't know. If I made up a god, it really wouldn't be the god referred to by any religion just a figment of my imagination.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Creation would have to be masterfully done instead of poorly done.

So, the creation itself, IYO, would be good evidence?
How much more complex does the genetic code have to be?
How about this: Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW News

How could such complex, written language originate without an intelligence behind it?

I'm at a loss why so many can't see it. Scientists Newton, Boyle, and Keppler had no problem with believing in a god.....and they had no idea just how complex life and its supporting systems are.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, the creation itself, IYO, would be good evidence?
How much more complex does the genetic code have to be?
How about this: Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW News

How could such complex, written language originate without an intelligence behind it?

I'm at a loss why so many can't see it. Scientists Newton, Boyle, and Keppler had no problem with believing in a god.....and they had no idea just how complex life and its supporting systems are.

You are at a loss, it seems to me, for no more reason than that you have little acquaintance with science, which is able to show thousands of practically trivial examples of how complexity arises from simplicity and a very few basic rules.

It's all available for study, for those who wish to know. And it is safely ignored, for those who'd prefer to believe something magical but even more unlikely.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You are at a loss, it seems to me, for no more reason than that you have little acquaintance with science, which is able to show thousands of practically trivial examples of how complexity arises from simplicity and a very few basic rules.

It's all available for study, for those who wish to know. And it is safely ignored, for those who'd prefer to believe something magical but even more unlikely.

Oh, yeah, well aware....how single-celled organisms **become multicellular** -- how? By forming colonies! Lol! It's called "evolution of the gaps".

The gall, to call it evolution!
This one's my favorite:
Pleiotropy: Watching multicellularity evolve before our eyes

Nothing but fallacious misrepresentation of the facts, grasping at straws to promote descent with modification.

Newton would disown common descent, hands down.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So, the creation itself, IYO, would be good evidence?
How much more complex does the genetic code have to be?
How about this: Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW News

How could such complex, written language originate without an intelligence behind it?

I'm at a loss why so many can't see it. Scientists Newton, Boyle, and Keppler had no problem with believing in a god.....and they had no idea just how complex life and its supporting systems are.

Calling something "creation" doesn't just make it so. You need to demonstrate that "someone" created it and that that "someone" exists. The universe existing is only evidence that the universe exists.

Are you arguing that complexity implies design and a Designer? What would simplicity imply then, no design and no Designer?

DNA is not a language in the same sense that English is a language, as it doesn't represent concepts or meanings, in the way that human languages do. It's more of a substitution cipher, if anything. Languages are used between intelligent beings to convey meanings and concepts.

 

[arthurjeremypearson]

i wonder, what kind of qualities should a god have, so that atheists would start believing in that god?

My god.

My god is a metaphor for "the collective goodwill of humanity." Humanity is real, and it can be argued that every human being on earth wants good things for himself and his friends, so collecting that makes my "god."

I call myself a "cultural Christian." Christians would call me agnostic. Modern internet atheists would call me atheist or agnostic atheist. I'd argue that all "atheists" raised in a Christian culture are already following my "god."

My bible would be the Jefferson Bible, aka "The life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth." Jefferson literally took knife to paper and cut/pasted his own bible, taking out all mention of the supernatural. No resurrection. No healings. Just life lessons and an attempt at portraying a perfect human being - an example to follow.

Jesus might or might not have really existed, so I'm OK saying he was real and the bible's based off him. Loosely.

And as far as the healings and resurrections go - that's a relative thing. How "miraculous" a thing can be. Jesus might have had superior medical knowledge and some luck treating patients. Lazarus might have been in a deep death-like coma and Jesus just snapped him out of it.

Over and over again, the bible refers to itself as "The Word." And I like that. I like literacy and the idea that Christianity is partially worshiping literacy. The bible is one of the first books and most widely copied texts of the ancient world. "Being able to recite something word-for-word exactly the same every time" was no longer a tool for those skilled at memorization. You could just read it.

Being able to do that... was new. It was a strange thing.

Even "miraculous."

 

[arthurjeremypearson]

superior than nature. something like the christian god. who can 'control' the forces of nature.

Well, the way I see it, the superior power of the traditionally Christian God is usually used to impress the virtue of humility on a person's thinking. But personifiying God would make him a character, and would make it prideful to think Absolute Perfect God would lower Himself to BE your friend.

A god that had power over nature... I'll have to think about what qualities that god would have to have so I'd believe in him...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oh, yeah, well aware....how single-celled organisms **become multicellular** -- how? By forming colonies! Lol! It's called "evolution of the gaps".

The gall, to call it evolution!
This one's my favorite:
Pleiotropy: Watching multicellularity evolve before our eyes

Nothing but fallacious misrepresentation of the facts, grasping at straws to promote descent with modification.

Newton would disown common descent, hands down.

Then again, Newton was fascinated by alchemy and spent more time writing bizarre mystical stuff than he did writing science. Even genius can't do much when it has few facts to work with. I am confident, however, that when Newton saw the evidence Darwin gathered, he would be first to applaud, and agree.

And that's the difference -- facts, observation (not conjecture), real information. If you don't have any, you cannot reason based upon it.

 

[`mud]

I'm baffled by the concept of why any atheist would be interested in any `gods`.
Maybe one can point to one for me, or heaven for that case, or even hell !
Ahhhh yes...Thrones and trumpets and swords and angels and devils and wings and......
and of course almighty God ! And Jesus by his side, forgiving all those non-believers.
I wonder if all the other `gods` forgive as he does !
~
Forgive my lack of anything spiritual here, except my own gnosis.

 

[ChristineM]

Scientists have pretty much rejected God out of hand. He's the last thing they want to find.

Not out of hand but out of evidence, observation, measurement. However if you can provide any of these please feel free to offer them for scientific evaluation.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

My god.

My god is a metaphor for "the collective goodwill of humanity." Humanity is real, and it can be argued that every human being on earth wants good things for himself and his friends, so collecting that makes my "god."

I call myself a "cultural Christian." Christians would call me agnostic. Modern internet atheists would call me atheist or agnostic atheist. I'd argue that all "atheists" raised in a Christian culture are already following my "god."

My bible would be the Jefferson Bible, aka "The life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth." Jefferson literally took knife to paper and cut/pasted his own bible, taking out all mention of the supernatural. No resurrection. No healings. Just life lessons and an attempt at portraying a perfect human being - an example to follow.

Jesus might or might not have really existed, so I'm OK saying he was real and the bible's based off him. Loosely.

And as far as the healings and resurrections go - that's a relative thing. How "miraculous" a thing can be. Jesus might have had superior medical knowledge and some luck treating patients. Lazarus might have been in a deep death-like coma and Jesus just snapped him out of it.

Over and over again, the bible refers to itself as "The Word." And I like that. I like literacy and the idea that Christianity is partially worshiping literacy. The bible is one of the first books and most widely copied texts of the ancient world. "Being able to recite something word-for-word exactly the same every time" was no longer a tool for those skilled at memorization. You could just read it.

Being able to do that... was new. It was a strange thing.

Even "miraculous."

Some of Jesus' teachings were good, like the golden rule, and loving your neighbor. Others were asinine and dangerous, like the self-mutilation stuff.

 

[DavidFirth]

Not out of hand but out of evidence, observation, measurement. However if you can provide any of these please feel free to offer them for scientific evaluation.

Romans 1:20