Atheists and gods

[Jeremiahcp]

Thank you. Faith is hard, but maybe someday I'll be able to have it. I hope so, but I don't know...

Sounds like you think faith is pretending to believe something you don't

 

[Bird123]

Consider a possible state of things: three doors down from you, the people who live their don't spend their nights sleeping; instead, they spend their nights making butter scupltures. They have night vision goggles to do this in the dark. They're very self-conscious about their work; that's why they never exhibit it.

If you never bother to investigate whether your neighbours really are doing this (maybe by tracking how much butter they bring in, or by getting your own night vision goggles and peering in their window at night), are you "not actively searching for the Real Truth"?

We all have the power to choose what we deem important. I would be willing to bet butter sculptures are low on the need to discover list. On the other hand, if one is truly giving the world Unconditional Love and Kindness, those neighbors will be drawn to talk and interact. People love to share with others what they are really good at. How many people are willing to listen to others? Those butter sculptures are remarkable! Clearly, their talent exists.

With your reply in mind, can we assume atheists spend most of their discovery efforts on butter sculptures? I think not. Just like many people of religion, many work at spreading and convincing others of their beliefs. If it were about discovering and learning more, they would be open to all the possibilities.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why should atheists be receptive to the possibility of gods?

They don't have to be. Likewise, theists do not have to be receptive to atheists arguments.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We all have the power to choose what we deem important. I would be willing to bet butter sculptures are low on the need to discover list. On the other hand, if one is truly giving the world Unconditional Love and Kindness, those neighbors will be drawn to talk and interact. People love to share with others what they are really good at. How many people are willing to listen to others? Those butter sculptures are remarkable! Clearly, their talent exists.

With your reply in mind, can we assume atheists spend most of their discovery efforts on butter sculptures? I think not. Just like many people of religion, many work at spreading and convincing others of their beliefs. If it were about discovering and learning more, they would be open to all the possibilities.

My point was that we all have limited resources, so when someone doesn't investigate a wild, unsupported claim, this doesn't necessarily reflect at all on how serious they are about learning about the truth. It can just mean that they're prioritizing their search based on the facts they have at hand.

 

[shmogie]

Why should atheists be receptive to the possibility of gods?

As an atheist, I became receptive to the possibility of God because I was extremely curious about cosmology, then the concept of abiogenesis. Some may be comfortable with "I don't know", I was not. The Big Bang theory and related research identified a beginning of the universe, with no understanding of how or why it started. Abiogenesis, the spontaneous creation of life from non living chemicals taught to us in Jr. High school as the reason life exists, is a bogus concept. It has never been observed, never been recreated, and it's mechanism is as unknown as it was when first proposed. So I decided to look at other plausible ideas as to the beginning of everything that exists. I discovered a God creating is no more absurd than nothing creating.

 

[Quintessence]

Why should atheists be receptive to the possibility of gods?

They should be receptive to the possibility of gods if that is in keeping with their nature or who they are as a person. That's the only good reason I can think of - to keep to one's proper or desired character.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Abiogenesis, the spontaneous creation of life from non living chemicals taught to us in Jr. High school as the reason life exists, is a bogus concept. It has never been observed, never been recreated, and it's mechanism is as unknown as it was when first proposed.

Has God been observed?
Has God been recreated?
Is God's mechanism known?

If the answer to all these is "no", then why don't you consider God "bogus", too?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why should atheists be receptive to the possibility of gods?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I don't think there is a nesscity to be

They should be receptive to the possibility of gods if that is in keeping with their nature or who they are as a person. That's the only good reason I can think of - to keep to one's proper or desired character.

So you don't think people should ever step outside their comfort zone?

 

[Quintessence]

So you don't think people should ever step outside their comfort zone?

I'm not sure how you got to here from what I said. Interesting. Also interesting to frame this as being about "comfort zones," because that seems a bit presumptuous to me.

To put it simply, what I think about that is irrelevant. It is not my role or place to be dictating the behavior of others. Even if it was, I do not have the power to enforce such dictums, making them functionally meaningless.

 

[Willamena]

I'm not sure how you got to here from what I said. Interesting.

"Comfort zones" is precisely that: being in or stepping out of your proper or desired character.

 

[Soundwave99]

Sounds like you think faith is pretending to believe something you don't

I never said my thinking wasn't biased. I know faith has several different definitions. I'm trying to think of faith using the religious definition, "Trust in God" to better understand religion. Not so I can convert, but so I can better understand what I'm rejecting. But as an atheist, I obviously don't see faith as being the way to ascertain what is true. I view it as something to avoid doubt in some ways-you put your doubts aside and have faith. So you're mostly right, but I'm also aware of my bias.

 

[shmogie]

Has God been observed?
Has God been recreated?
Is God's mechanism known?

If the answer to all these is "no", then why don't you consider God "bogus", too?

Because a fiutst cause of the universe, and life

Has God been observed?
Has God been recreated?
Is God's mechanism known?

If the answer to all these is "no", then why don't you consider God "bogus", too?

A first cause for the universe, and life had to exist. The proof of this is that the universe and life do exist. All kinds of cosmological and biological THEORIES exist as an explanation for this, but with little evidence or no evidence. If there is a God, he exists outside the universe, and we are singularly unable to leave the universe, we are and will continue to be blind to what is there. So your questions cannot be applicable, any more than they would apply to conditions a millisecond before the big bang.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

A first cause for the universe, and life had to exist. The proof of this is that the universe and life do exist.

By the same token, there must have been a transition from non-life to life. What's the difference?

All kinds of cosmological and biological THEORIES exist as an explanation for this, but with little evidence or no evidence.

For instance, your "God" explanation.

BTW: if you're going to assume an uncaused cause:

- why assume only one? What justification do you have to conclude that there was no more than one uncaused cause?

- why assume that this uncaused cause was God?

If there is a God, he exists outside the universe, and we are singularly unable to leave the universe, we are and will continue to be blind to what is there. So your questions cannot be applicable, any more than they would apply to conditions a millisecond before the big bang.

They're still applicable. Explaining why God wouldn't leave evidence isn't the same as justifying belief in God. If the facts are consistent with God and no God, then you have no reason to assume God.

And the facts are also consistent with abiogenesis.

 

[SkepticX]

Because a fiutst cause of the universe, and life

A first cause for the universe, and life had to exist. The proof of this is that the universe and life do exist. All kinds of cosmological and biological THEORIES exist as an explanation for this, but with little evidence or no evidence. If there is a God, he exists outside the universe, and we are singularly unable to leave the universe, we are and will continue to be blind to what is there. So your questions cannot be applicable, any more than they would apply to conditions a millisecond before the big bang.

If you're going to force an assumption on the origin of the cosmos in order to feel justified in a conclusion, the cleaner, simpler one, by far, is that it's always existed. You're still left with an unexplained (and possibly unexplainable) solution, but you haven't also added an unexplainable source making your solution an order less viable (one unexplainable and fundamental "solution" less possible, or you could say double the fundamental and unexplainable "solutions").

Either way the only rational conclusion is that we don't understand how the cosmos either came to be or has always existed, or of course there may be some other potential that we may just lack the capacity to fathom, adding one more We Don't Know to the range of valid conclusions..

 

[shmogie]

By the same token, there must have been a transition from non-life to life. What's the difference?


For instance, your "God" explanation.

BTW: if you're going to assume an uncaused cause:

- why assume only one? What justification do you have to conclude that there was no more than one uncaused cause?

- why assume that this uncaused cause was God?


They're still applicable. Explaining why God wouldn't leave evidence isn't the same as justifying belief in God. If the facts are consistent with God and no God, then you have no reason to assume God.

And the facts are also consistent with abiogenesis.

Certainly God cannot be proven, on the other hand, neither can anything else re the BB or abiogenesis. My point is simply the universe creating itself from nothing, or life creating itself from non living chemicals, are as absurd as a God being the creative force. So you choose faith in one absurdity, I another. Further my absurdity answers a number of philosophical questions, that yours cannot.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Certainly God cannot be proven, on the other hand, neither can anything else re the BB or abiogenesis. My point is simply the universe creating itself from nothing, or life creating itself from non living chemicals, are as absurd as a God being the creative force. So you choose faith in one absurdity, I another. Further my absurdity answers a number of philosophical questions, that yours cannot.

I'm still confused how you - apparently - consider abiogenesis and God to have similar support, but you accept one and call the other "bogus." This seems hypocritical to me.

 

[shmogie]

I'm still confused how you - apparently - consider abiogenesis and God to have similar support, but you accept one and call the other "bogus." This seems hypocritical to me.

Not really. The existence of God can never be proven, he is outside the universe and thus outside the laws and techniques used within the universe for providing proof. Abiogenesis is within the universe, and subject to being proved by the scientific method. It has not, There are a myriad of problems with it, problems that to this point make it an impossibility. Genetic information, creation of genes and gene strands, proper ordering of gene strands, chemical composition hostile to gene strands forming, but supporting genes, compositions allowing gene strands, but hostile to viable genes, it goes on and on and on.

 

[shmogie]

If you're going to force an assumption on the origin of the cosmos in order to feel justified in a conclusion, the cleaner, simpler one, by far, is that it's always existed. You're still left with an unexplained (and possibly unexplainable) solution, but you haven't also added an unexplainable source making your solution an order less viable (one unexplainable and fundamental "solution" less possible, or you could say double the fundamental and unexplainable "solutions").

Either way the only rational conclusion is that we don't understand how the cosmos either came to be or has always existed, or of course there may be some other potential that we may just lack the capacity to fathom, adding one more We Don't Know to the range of valid conclusions..

You may be right. However the mounting cosmological evidence makes it clear that the steady state or rebounding or closed universe are highly unlikely. So then there was a beginning and there will be an end. Explanations can be believed, based upon other forms of evidence that meet the observable facts. You may not give that evidence validity, but I might, and do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not really. The existence of God can never be proven, he is outside the universe and thus outside the laws and techniques used within the universe for providing proof.

So it's inherently impossible to justify belief in God?

Abiogenesis is within the universe, and subject to being proved by the scientific method. It has not, There are a myriad of problems with it, problems that to this point make it an impossibility. Genetic information, creation of genes and gene strands, proper ordering of gene strands, chemical composition hostile to gene strands forming, but supporting genes, compositions allowing gene strands, but hostile to viable genes, it goes on and on and on.

I think you're misrepresenting the science.