• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Athiesm and disproving God

Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
A question to an atheist...what is a description of the God you disbelieve in, or are trying to disprove exists?

Think about it...the only 'God' that an atheist can disprove, or disbelieve in, is the one they conceive in their mind that theists believe in. I don;t imagine for a moment that atheists believe that theists conceive of God as not existing...ie. nothing!

I imagine every atheist, and every theist, has a personal unique concept of God....the former disbelieve in theirs, the latter believe. Try and prove to me that an atheist has no conception of the God they disbelieve in?
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
ben d said:
A question to an atheist...what is a description of the God you disbelieve in, or are trying to disprove exists?
Click to expand...
Great question.
I disbelieve in the theist gods, that is - the idea of any form of interventionist, or personal god. And I feel no need, desire or obligation to disprove the existence of such a being.
Think about it...the only 'God' that an atheist can disprove, or disbelieve in, is the one they conceive in their mind that theists believe in. I don;t imagine for a moment that atheists believe that theists conceive of God as not existing...ie. nothing!

I imagine every atheist, and every theist, has a personal unique concept of God....the former disbelieve in theirs, the latter believe. Try and prove to me that an atheist has no conception of the God they disbelieve in?
Click to expand...
 
Ben Dhyan

Ben Dhyan

Veteran Member
Bunyip said:
Great question.
I disbelieve in the theist gods, that is - the idea of any form of interventionist, or personal god. And I feel no need, desire or obligation to disprove the existence of such a being.
Click to expand...
Thanks Bunyip....understood. I might add though, I take religion seriously, and do not 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' with regards to the logical shortcomings caused by the dualistic mindset of the less contemplative mindset of some religious traditions and their adherents.
 
Last edited:
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
ben d said:
A question to an atheist...what is a description of the God you disbelieve in, or are trying to disprove exists?
Click to expand...
I disbelieve in all gods as defined here....
God | Define God at Dictionary.com
Since they're not amenable to rigorous detection & examination, they're neither provable nor disprovable.
Think about it...the only 'God' that an atheist can disprove, or disbelieve in, is the one they conceive in their mind that theists believe in.
I imagine every atheist, and every theist, has a personal unique concept of God....the former disbelieve in theirs, the latter believe.
Click to expand...
I've heard of many god concepts, but I don't have one of my own. I disbelieve in all of'm, even those I've never heard of. (All they need do is fit the definition of "god".)
 
Guy Threepwood

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Bunyip said:
That doesn't make sense, you appear to be confusing atheism for cosmology.
What has purpose and meaning got to do withmwhether a person believes in your god or not?
Click to expand...

Everything was a result of the composition of that primeval atom- including this conversation right?, literally a self extracting archive of information-
. The compressed code appears meaningless, arbitrary when examined, but change one single bit of the code and the whole thing crashes- it does not 'unzip' time/space giant fusion reactors, and sentient life

without purpose, you have the mind boggling improbability to overcome of that code being somehow randomly generated - the monkey v the author at the keyboard.

The key power of explanation that the author has, is purpose, intent, the greatest creative power there is.
 
Rick O'Shez

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
Guy Threepwood said:
without purpose, you have the mind boggling improbability to overcome of that code being somehow randomly generated - the monkey v the author at the keyboard.
Click to expand...

What you're missing here is the unimaginable time scales involved. The monkeys had billions of years to tap away.
 
Guy Threepwood

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Everything was represented, in highly compressed form, in the singularity- or you say it was introduced later from an external source?
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Guy Threepwood said:
alter it's composition, and are we still having this conversation?
Click to expand...
If you went back in time to the early days of life on Earth and got rid of all the blue-green algae, there would be nobody who speaks Norwegian today. Does this mean that this ancient blue-green algae possessed the knowledge of Norwegian?
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Guy Threepwood said:
no, and a Star Wars DVD doesn't know what Harrison Ford looks like
Click to expand...
So Norwegian is RECORDED on blue-green algae?

Where can I find the Norwegian in blue-green algae? Is it in a particular organelle? How about English or Swahili - where does the algae store them?
 
Guy Threepwood

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
I think it's somewhere in the middle between Mandarin and Ojibwe..

but no, the algae is only part of the recording, Norwegian was also written in the geography, the constellations, but all ultimately in the singularity which denoted the entire universe including all space and time. Unless again you think it came from a separate external source?
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Guy Threepwood said:
I think it's somewhere in the middle between Mandarin and Ojibwe..

but no, the algae is only part of the recording, Norwegian was also written in the geography, the constellations, but all ultimately in the singularity which denoted the entire universe including all space and time. Unless again you think it came from a separate external source?
Click to expand...
I speculate that the emergent property of language is too choatic (in the mathematical sense) in origin to result in a specific language. But language in general would be the result of smarty pants life.
Possibly useful analogy:
The exact location, state & velocity of every particle in a gas would not be determined by the Big Bang event, but Boyle's law would be the consequence of the physical laws applied to matter. It's not "coded", but it's what inevitably happens because it can't not happen.
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Guy Threepwood said:
I think it's somewhere in the middle between Mandarin and Ojibwe..

but no, the algae is only part of the recording, Norwegian was also written in the geography, the constellations, but all ultimately in the singularity which denoted the entire universe including all space and time.
Click to expand...
Which part is "written" where? Does the algae just have Norwegian syntax, while different stars have the vocabulary?

And how does all of this get transmitted to Earthand get into all those Norwegians? You used the analogy of a DVD earlier; well, where's the DVD player?

Unless again you think it came from a separate external source?
Click to expand...
Again: no. You're presenting a false dichotomy. Go back to Revoltingest's links and read up on emergence.
 
Guy Threepwood

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Revoltingest said:
it's what inevitably happens because it can't not happen.
Click to expand...

well exactly-
The singularity was composed such that it inevitably developed it's own consciousness to ponder itself with.. including in Norwegian

alter it's composition infinitesimally- and it wouldn't even create space/time. A bucket of sand will not get bored and develop it's own consciousness out of whatever is available - however long you give it, that has to be written in from the get go.

Similarly the DVD could never show any other movie, no matter how utterly chaotic and unpredictable the exact locations of the pits appear to be.

And similarly the end of the movie already exists when you watch the start- because the passage of time itself is part of that movie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top