Evidence?

[camanintx]

The only argument for the existence of "God" that I can think of is the fact that existence is the result of ordered energy. It does not seem likely to me, given what we already know about the nature of existence, that it would be so ordered were it to have occurred spontaneously, and without purpose. And I can't get around the questions that this poses. I can't answer those questions, either, but nor can I ignore them. And that's why I can't be an atheist.

Can you give an example of this "ordered energy" that cannot be explained by a natural process?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The only argument for the existence of "God" that I can think of is the fact that existence is the result of ordered energy. It does not seem likely to me, given what we already know about the nature of existence, that it would be so ordered were it to have occurred spontaneously, and without purpose. And I can't get around the questions that this poses. I can't answer those questions, either, but nor can I ignore them. And that's why I can't be an atheist.

Can you give an example of this "ordered energy" that cannot be explained by a natural process?

I second the question. Please give examples.

 

[Storm]

More nit picking....

You have hit on something: what cries out for explanation are the widespread experiences people have which they attribute to their cultural icons (the Buddha, the Virgin, God, aliens, demons, etc.). What is remarkable about these experiences is not the fact that everyone reports an experience with "God" (they don't), but that they are demonstrably caused by little electrical storms in our brains. Here's an interesting article on how feelings of an other-worldly "presence" can be induced using electromagnetic fields: Wired 7.11: This Is Your Brain on God

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.11/persinger.html
I'm familiar with Persinger's work and unimpressed by it. While it's admittedly been a while, when last I heard, the "God helmet" was unreliable, and the experiences triggered by it weak trances at best. More importantly, to me, he seems more interested in trying to disprove God through his work than understand the phenomena he's supposed to be studying. As far as I'm concerned, his work is irredeemably contaminated by that bias; like all of us, he'll find what he wants to find. And yes, I'd have the same objection if he were trying to prove God.

If you're interested in neurotheology, I much prefer the work of Dr.s Newberg and D'Aquili. Their book Why God Won't Go Away is a fascinating read.

Naturalistic explanations don't trouble me. Indeed, I find them exciting, signs that science is beginning the journey away from the bias of philosophical materialism and into more neutral territory. Indeed, the findings of neurotheology are what convinced me of the argument that all Gods are one God.

Well, what do you mean by "God"?

I really should have been more specific in the OP, my apologies.

Judging by your conception of God, the "sum of all matter, consciousness, and life force (energy) in this universe" and so forth, I would say that most self-described atheists cannot deny the existence of God, as thus defined.

I believe that our universe is a conscious, evolving being. You don't disagree with that? Or was it simply unclear? I was up late last night....

I'm not sure it's a very useful definition, but.....

Eh, it's what I believe. I could argue the deistic model if you like.

 

[Storm]

There is nothing unreasonable about it if God exists. [snip]

While it's a perfectly valid argument, it does assume the agenda that God wants us to believe, which was explicitly lacking in the OP. God caring what we think is, to my mind, an entirely different problem than God's existence.




Thanks again for all your answers.

 

[PureX]

Fact?

Well, as I understand it, everything that exists is a collection of various expressions of energy: time, space, matter, motion, etc., are all expressions of energy. And energy expresses itself in the ways that it does because the behavior of energy is governed by some set of laws, or rules: i.e., it can express itself in some ways, but not in others. Thus, energy is ordered. And existence is the result of that ordering.

It seems to me that if energy were a random, meaningless, spontaneously generated phenomena, it would not be governed in any particular way. It would express itself randomly, and the result would be chaos. Yet this is not what we have. And the fact that this is not what we have makes me ask some questions that I can't answer. But it's because I do have to confront these questions that I can't be an atheist.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I'm familiar with Persinger's work and unimpressed by it. While it's admittedly been a while, when last I heard, the "God helmet" was unreliable, and the experiences triggered by it weak trances at best. More importantly, to me, he seems more interested in trying to disprove God through his work than understand the phenomena he's supposed to be studying. As far as I'm concerned, his work is irredeemably contaminated by that bias; like all of us, he'll find what he wants to find. And yes, I'd have the same objection if he were trying to prove God.

I won't quibble with you about the "God helmet", only because we have so many other studies at hand that confirm the undeniable connection between nuerophysiology and mystical experience. One John Hopkins study, for example, found that profound mystical experiences can be induced by the drug psylocybin: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/GriffithsPsilocybin.pdf

Naturalistic explanations don't trouble me. Indeed, I find them exciting, signs that science is beginning the journey away from the bias of philosophical materialism and into more neutral territory. Indeed, the findings of neurotheology are what convinced me of the argument that all Gods are one God.

Really? The fact that profound and convincing experiences can be explained by neurophysiology makes the actual existence of gods, aliens, etc. seem rather unnecessary to me.

I believe that our universe is a conscious, evolving being. You don't disagree with that? Or was it simply unclear? I was up late last night....

Oh, no, I don't agree with that. Although I would like to hear precisely what you mean by "conscious".

 

[Mr Spinkles]

While it's a perfectly valid argument, it does assume the agenda that God wants us to believe, which was explicitly lacking in the OP. God caring what we think is, to my mind, an entirely different problem than God's existence.

If God is defined as a supernatural being that never interacts with the universe dramatically enough to be clearly dinstinguished from established physical laws, then "God" should be considered with the same seriousness as all the other possible supernatural beings that do the same, of which there are conceivably an infinite number.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well, as I understand it, everything that exists is a collection of various expressions of energy: time, space, matter, motion, etc., are all expressions of energy. And energy expresses itself in the ways that it does because the behavior of energy is governed by some set of laws, or rules: i.e., it can express itself in some ways, but not in others. Thus, energy is ordered. And existence is the result of that ordering.

It seems to me that if energy were a random, meaningless, spontaneously generated phenomena, it would not be governed in any particular way. It would express itself randomly, and the result would be chaos. Yet this is not what we have. And the fact that this is not what we have makes me ask some questions that I can't answer. But it's because I do have to confront these questions that I can't be an atheist.

Physics is not "random"....that's why we have things we call physical "laws". The existence of constant, non-random, physical laws is enough to explain why the universe isn't just random chaos.

 

[PureX]

If God is defined as a supernatural being that never interacts with the universe dramatically enough to be clearly dinstinguished from established physical laws, then "God" should be considered with the same seriousness as all the other possible supernatural beings that do the same, of which there are conceivably an infinite number.

But what if "God's interaction" with the universe is the very laws that cause the universe to exist. In that case, God's "actions" would not be distignuishable from existence itself (as is the case) yet the whole universe would itself be the proof of God's existence. We wouldn't be able to recognize it as such, because we can't view it against a backdrop of 'no-god/no god interaction'. Yet just the same, existence itself would be the proof of God.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

But what if "God's interaction" with the universe is the very laws that cause the universe to exist.

Then God is an unknowable and unnecessary hypothesis.

I could postulate Chris, John, and Brian, three interdimensional aliens whose only interaction with the universe is the very laws that cause the universe to exist....I could imagine an infinite number and variety of *possible* beings, whose sole interaction with the universe is the very laws that cause the universe to exist. I think it's only fair that we take the existence of all of them equally seriously.

 

[Storm]

I won't quibble with you about the "God helmet", only because we have so many other studies at hand that confirm the undeniable connection between nuerophysiology and mystical experience. One John Hopkins study, for example, found that profound mystical experiences can be induced by the drug psylocybin: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/GriffithsPsilocybin.pdf

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/Press_releases/2006/GriffithsPsilocybin.pdf
The link just takes me to a blank page.

Really? The fact that profound and convincing experiences can be explained by neurophysiology makes the actual existence of gods, aliens, etc. seem rather unnecessary to me.

Really. From my perspective, they're just figuring out the mechanisms by which we commune with God. Having had one of those profound and convincing experiences, and having been the recipient of what I truly believe to be a miracle (they do happen, within the rules), non-belief is simply not an option.

Oh, no, I don't agree with that. Although I would like to hear precisely what you mean by "conscious".

Didn't think so.

I don't know how much more precise I can be. I believe God is a sapient, thinking being.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The link just takes me to a blank page.

Works for me - it's a 16-page paper entitled Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance.

In case you can't figure out the problem, here's the abstract:

Rationale Although psilocybin has been used for centuries for religious purposes, little is known scientifically about its acute and persisting effects.
Objectives This double-blind study evaluated the acute and longer-term psychological effects of a high dose of psilocybin relative to a comparison compound administered under comfortable, supportive conditions.
Materials and methods The participants were hallucinogennaïve adults reporting regular participation in religious or spiritual activities. Two or three sessions were conducted at 2-month intervals. Thirty volunteers received orally administered psilocybin (30 mg/70 kg) and methylphenidate hydrochloride (40 mg/70 kg) in counterbalanced order. To obscure the study design, six additional volunteers received methylphenidate in the first two sessions and unblinded psilocybin in a third session. The 8-h sessions were conducted individually. Volunteers were encouraged to close their eyes and direct their attention inward. Study monitors
rated volunteers’ behavior during sessions. Volunteers completed questionnaires assessing drug effects and mystical experience immediately after and 2 months after
sessions. Community observers rated changes in the volunteer’s attitudes and behavior.
Results Psilocybin produced a range of acute perceptual changes, subjective experiences, and labile moods including anxiety. Psilocybin also increased measures of mystical experience. At 2 months, the volunteers rated the psilocybin experience as having substantial personal meaning and spiritual significance and attributed to the experience sustained positive changes in attitudes and behavior consistent with changes rated by community observers.
Conclusions When administered under supportive conditions, psilocybin occasioned experiences similar to spontaneously occurring mystical experiences. The ability to
occasion such experiences prospectively will allow rigorous scientific investigations of their causes and consequences.

 

[PureX]

Then God is an unknowable and unnecessary hypothesis.

I could postulate Chris, John, and Brian, three interdimensional aliens whose only interaction with the universe is the very laws that cause the universe to exist....I could imagine an infinite number and variety of *possible* beings, whose sole interaction with the universe is the very laws that cause the universe to exist. I think it's only fair that we take the existence of all of them equally seriously.

You're forgetting that the term "God" only defines a mystery. So your responce is purely semantic. I'm not arguing for the word "God" over Bob or Pete of whatever, I'm merely pointing out that the mystery is real. And is significant. And can't be reasonably excused. Which is why atheism is not viable as an assertion of truth, but is only viable as the denial of a specific theistic conception of "God" (not as a mystery, but as a defined being - which is why you're trying to define God as some specific being).

The fact is that the source of existence IS a mystery. And the fact is that existence is NOT random. And the fact that our own experience of being is a continuing result of this not random mystery, and as such logically must be confronted. Lack of evidence will not make this mystery go away. It may make it unresolvable, but that's not atheism, that's agnosticism.

 

[Storm]

Works for me - it's a 16-page paper entitled Psilocybin can occasion mystical-type experiences having substantial and sustained personal meaning and spiritual significance.

In case you can't figure out the problem, here's the abstract:

Thanks, hon.

 

[PureX]

Physics is not "random"....that's why we have things we call physical "laws". The existence of constant, non-random, physical laws is enough to explain why the universe isn't just random chaos.

What is the source of those laws (that order)?

 

[logician]

The simple fact is that "something" (matter and energy) may be the foundation of existence rather than a superbeing making "something" from "nothing" making the necessity of some god concept superflous. IN other words, matter and energy have existed for an infinite length of time, and go thru stages of birth (big bang), expansion, collapse, and rebirth, with the possibity of an infinite number of universes. I see no need for a superbeing or god in this scenario.

 

[Storm]

That wasn't the question.

 

[PureX]

The simple fact is that "something" (matter and energy) may be the foundation of existence rather than a superbeing making "something" from "nothing" making the necessity of some god concept superflous. IN other words, matter and energy have existed for an infinite length of time, and go thru stages of birth (big bang), expansion, collapse, and rebirth, with the possibity of an infinite number of universes. I see no need for a superbeing or god in this scenario.

That's pretty unlikely given that nothing WITHIN the universe is perpetual. I can't think of any more reason why I should believe in perpetual energy than that I should believe in the "God of the gaps". And anyway, even if energy is perpetual, that doesn't explain why the energy can express itself in some ways but not in others.

 

[logician]

That's pretty unlikely given that nothing WITHIN the universe is perpetual. I can't think of any more reason why I should believe in perpetual energy than that I should believe in the "God of the gaps". And anyway, even if energy is perpetual, that doesn't explain why the energy can express itself in some ways but not in others.

We only know how energy is expressed in our universe, in other universes, it could be quite different.

 

[PureX]

We only know how energy is expressed in our universe, in other universes, it could be quite different.

How does what we don't know support atheism? Seems to me that our not knowing anything about the source of energy/existence would support a position of agnosticism.