Evidence?

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

... or anything else... :biglaugh:

 

[logician]

It's not a question of "knowing", it's a question of making a judgement call based upon available facts, or subjective feelings. For theists, faith is the guiding force, for most atheists, skepticism is the guiding force, with gradiations in between.

 

[MoonWater]

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.

But what if you don't see God as a being seperate from the universe but as a part of the universe or perhaps as the universe itself(I believe this is what Storm was describing)? God isn't necessarily a "superbeing" at least in the senses that we conceive of it as. In fact I find it highly unlikely that it would be considering how grand and vast it must be to permeate the whole universe. If God is a part of the universe or is the universe itself then to argue against the existence of God would be to argue against the universe itself. And it wouldn't be a matter of whether or not it is "necessary" for God to exist but rather just a natural result of existence itself.

 

[MoonWater]

It's not a question of "knowing", it's a question of making a judgement call based upon available facts, or subjective feelings. For theists, faith is the guiding force, for most atheists, skepticism is the guiding force, with gradiations in between.

And just what facts DO we have available when it comes to God?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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.

Let's rewind for a second: you originally asked, what if the way God interacts with the universe IS the laws of physics?

The point of my example was that we could suppose any number of beings (not just one), of any kind (aliens? gods?), or even any unthinking thing of any kind, and suppose those beings or things, only interacted with the universe via the laws of physics. IF these beings/gods/aliens/things existed, we would have no way of knowing it, because the laws of physics would look the same regardless. Therefore all of these infinite possibilities are equally probable and should be treated with equal seriousness.

I agree with your assertion that the ultimate causes of the universe are a mystery. Now, I did not realize that when you say "God", you mean "anything and everything that could possibly be the ultimate causes of our universe". Sure, I can accept that God--so vaguely-defined--as a likely possibility. However, do not pretend to have penetrated the mystery before us by assuming there are causes, labeling them collectively "God", and then winking at the same misguided anthropomorphic assumptions that the ancients made when pondering the causes of lightning and earthquakes and solar eclipses.

Physicists have been trying to understand the ultimate causes of the universe for some time, and they in fact know more about what the universe was like, is like, and will be like than any person--theologian or otherwise--could have imagined. Modern theories of cosmology have no use for personal, intelligent, or conscious causes, but only unthinking, beautiful laws.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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

You are begging the question: IS there a source of those laws, or are they themselves the source of everything?

This is a possibility that many theists never fairly consider. As for me, I'm open to any possibility, but if there is no evidence by which I can make a judgement, then I reserve judgement. I can't help myself, however, from contemplating how convenient it is that monotheists assume there can't be multiple ultimate causes, and that they can't be unthinking or uncaring.

 

[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.

As with every atheist I've ever met, your argument is with a "superbeing". But I have not mentioned God as any kind of being at all. I'm only speaking of "God" as that mystery source of all existence. This underscores my proposition that atheism has no truth claim to make of it's own. It's just a kind of stand-alone knee-jerk reaction to the various religious concepts of deity.

Ordered energy is the physical foundation upon which everything that we know, exists. But this does not resolve in any way the mystery behind the source of this ordered energy. And your assertion that it just always existed is certainly as absurd as any theists assertion that some superbeing created it from nothing. The fact is that the mystery remains a mystery, and we must confront it, as it holds the answers to our most elemental life questions. And that makes us agnostics, not atheists.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This underscores my proposition that atheism has no truth claim to make of it's own.

Correct: atheism is not a claim but a consequence.

It's just a kind of stand-alone knee-jerk reaction to the various religious concepts of deity.

Wrong: atheism is not a claim but a consequence.

 

[PureX]

It's not a question of "knowing", it's a question of making a judgement call based upon available facts, or subjective feelings. For theists, faith is the guiding force, for most atheists, skepticism is the guiding force, with gradiations in between.

What facts? Here are the facts: 1. the mystery of the source of all existence remains a mystery. 2. nothing within the universe is perpetual - i.e., there is no evidence within the universe for the universe being eternal. 3. Existence has order, which does allow for the possibility of their being intent and purpose (though this cannot now be proven). Frankly, it looks to me like the facts, as slim as they are, actually lean toward theism, more than atheism. But in truth, they tell us nothing so far.

 

[PureX]

Let's rewind for a second: you originally asked, what if the way God interacts with the universe IS the laws of physics?

The point of my example was that we could suppose any number of beings (not just one), of any kind (aliens? gods?), or even any unthinking thing of any kind, and suppose those beings or things, only interacted with the universe via the laws of physics. IF these beings/gods/aliens/things existed, we would have no way of knowing it, because the laws of physics would look the same regardless. Therefore all of these infinite possibilities are equally probable and should be treated with equal seriousness.

Yes and no. If aliens created this universe, but say still live in another, which is why we are unaware of them, they would in fact be our "gods". And we certainly should take them seriously. Though what we should do, I don't know.

At this moment, though, we are being confronted with a mystery, not mighty aliens, and so it's the mystery we must take seriously, and confront. I believe some religions use their concepts of "God" to AVOID the ultimate mystery, just as many atheists use the fantasy of perpetual energy as an excuse to do the same. Which is why I am an agnostic - because I believe we have to accept and confront our own ignorance, here, and stop avoiding it with gods and pseudo-science.

Physicists have been trying to understand the ultimate causes of the universe for some time, and they in fact know more about what the universe was like, is like, and will be like than any person--theologian or otherwise--could have imagined. Modern theories of cosmology have no use for personal, intelligent, or conscious causes, but only unthinking, beautiful laws.

Interestingly enough, it appears that quantum cosmologists and theologians are beginning to converge in their views of this mystery. I've been fascinated for some time at how clearly the ancient Greek concept of 'logos' exemplifies the Grand Unified Theory (or whatever they're calling it these days) that the quantum physicists are seeking.

 

[PureX]

Correct: atheism is not a claim but a consequence.
Wrong: atheism is not a claim but a consequence.

Consequence ... reaction; to-may-tow ... to-mah-tow ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Consequence ... reaction; to-may-tow ... to-mah-tow ...

This is petty distortion. At issue is not consequence/reaction but consequence/claim.

 

[sandandfoam]

Ordered energy is the physical foundation upon which everything that we know, exists.

Is it ? As far as I know consciousness cannot be tied to ordered energy, how consciousness arises from non conscious matter is for me the point at which my atheism ran into trouble.

 

[autonomous1one1]

Something I hear frequently from non-believers is that they would believe in God if there were any evidence. I have two issues with this statement.

1) There is some - admittedly very weak - evidence: the widespread reports of personal experiences with God. ....

2) What evidence of God's existence could there be? You say that evidence would convince you, but what would qualify? ...

Greetings Storm. You pose an interesting OP. It is no surprise that our 'non-believer' friends cannot agree with us that there is even such a thing as personal experience with God. To admit the experience would be of course admission that there is God. In terms of 'widespread,' what would you say? - There have been billions of experiences of God during the last 3000 years, thousands written about, and fewer numbers, perhaps hundreds, documented as a specific class of some form of union with God? Perhaps these numbers are way off but it doesn't matter. An atheist has to dismiss each and every one without exception as 'not' being an experience of God for some reason; therefore, your #1 has to be dismissed as non-evidence of God by some of us (but not me).

I must confess that in my early years (twenties) there was an agnostic phase. Your questions 1&2 mirrored some of my thoughts at the time. In addition, for me during that period, others' experiences of God were absolute proof that humans had experiences that were deemed by them to be with God. Also, the resultant beings from some of the experiences exhibited similarities and offered extraordinary thoughts that convinced me that one should try to find out what in the world they were talking about. Personally, I sought the understanding. That brings me to your second question, the best evidence one can find that there is God comes from one's own experience and is found within.

My apologies if this post from a non-nobeliever is not appropriate in this thread.:angel2:
Best wishes,
a..1

 

[blackout]

I evidence life, love & creation...

God is life, love & creation.

 

[PureX]

Is it ? As far as I know consciousness cannot be tied to ordered energy, how consciousness arises from non conscious matter is for me the point at which my atheism ran into trouble.

Not knowing exactly how it happens doesn't make it magic, or some divine feat. We once did not know how magnets worked. And in some ways, we still don't. Yet it's fairly clear that magnetism is a natural result of natural phenomena, and is not an expression of divine magic (at least not any more than any other aspect of existence).

It's pretty obvious that consciousness does arise from natural phenomena, even though we can't yet fully explain how. Same as with magnetism. Just because we don't have a complete roadmap of the order that energy follows, certainly doesn't mean that it's not there. There is no denying that energy is being ordered. And that's where the mystery of "God" begins, I think. It's also where the blind assertions of atheism end.

 

[sandandfoam]

Not knowing exactly how it happens doesn't make it magic, or some divine feat. We once did not know how magnets worked. And in some ways, we still don't. Yet it's fairly clear that magnetism is a natural result of natural phenomena, and is not an expression of divine magic (at least not any more than any other aspect of existence).

It's pretty obvious that consciousness does arise from natural phenomena, even though we can't yet fully explain how. Same as with magnetism. Just because we don't have a complete roadmap of the order that energy follows, certainly doesn't mean that it's not there. There is no denying that energy is being ordered. And that's where the mystery of "God" begins, I think. It's also where the blind assertions of atheism end.

I don't disagree but my point is that while it may appear obvious, it as yet requires beleif to agree that consciousness arises from natural phenomena. This assertion cannot be demonstrated to be any more than a provisional hypothesis, it is not an emperical fact.
As an aside I cannot say that I beleive in a divinity, I wish to understand things and have no desire to beleive anything, neither theism nor atheism. I'm think I can maybe say that I accept God if God is no more than a moniker for that which is as yet unknown. My views are however provisional and the only thing I am certain of is that our current level of understanding is extrordinarily limited. I think 'God' may be our drive to understand, but of course I am not sure....

 

[PureX]

I don't disagree but my point is that while it may appear obvious, it as yet requires belief to agree that consciousness arises from natural phenomena.

Everything requires belief. The question is, are you going to believe in logic and evidence, or spirit and demon "magic"?

This assertion cannot be demonstrated to be any more than a provisional hypothesis, it is not an empirical fact.

Actually, scientifically speaking, a "fact" is just a tiny fragment of truth, with very little context, whereas a theory is based on large collections of facts that all point to the same solution. So a scientific theory is far more truthfully substantial than any fact is. And keep in mind that everything in science is a "provisional hypothesis". There is no such thing as an absolute truth in science, as skepticism is the foundation upon which scientific inquiry depends. It's not perfect, but it's by far the best method we have so far of determining probable truth. It's certainly better than adopting blind faith, that then produces biased experiences, which are then taken as evidence in support of something we'd already decided to believe in the first place.

As an aside I cannot say that I believe in a divinity, I wish to understand things and have no desire to believe anything, neither theism nor atheism. I'm think I can maybe say that I accept God if God is no more than a moniker for that which is as yet unknown. My views are however provisional and the only thing I am certain of is that our current level of understanding is extraordinarily limited. I think 'God' may be our drive to understand, but of course I am not sure....

I agree with you on all counts. I do choose to trust in this mystery I call "God" in the sense that I trust that it is ultimately loving, forgiving, I.E., benevolent. But I know I can't prove it. But I don't care about that. What matters is that my life is better with such a chosen belief. Logically I'm an agnostic, but spiritually I'm a "provisional theist".

One of the wonderful things about being human is that we can hold to more then one concept of truth at a time, and they may even contradict each other. And this isn't illogical, because ultimately we have no idea what the truth is, and we know it. ALL our theories are just theories. And all our "truths" are based on faith. *smile*

 

[sandandfoam]

"One of the wonderful things about being human is that we can hold to more then one concept of truth at a time, and they may even contradict each other. And this isn't illogical, because ultimately we have no idea what the truth is, and we know it. ALL our theories are just theories. And all our "truths" are based on faith. "
Thanks for this PureX, I haven't ever considered that I could logically hold a dualistic, possibly contradictory point of view. I'm going to have to sleep on this, but it is very useful food for thought. Thanks.

 

[sandandfoam]

PureX,
I've just read your reply several more times and it is really good. Thanks again.