Extremes of Atheism vs Theism

[idav]

Yeah, we've covered this any number of times. Think of a simple scenario, like the one I've mentioned several times: you find muddy footprints in your kitchen. You know that Peter is out of town. Do you need to know who did put the footprints there in order to know that Peter did not? Clearly not. Similarly with theism.

That might fit if I were deist where god is on vacation. Anyhow, what about the origins of the universe allows you to rule out some sort of deity?

 

[LuisDantas]

That might fit if I were deist where god is on vacation. Anyhow, what about the origins of the universe allows you to rule out some sort of deity?

The fact that we are not (all?) given the inherent certainty that it was meant by a Higher Purpose.

 

[LuisDantas]

Guess away of course. The answer I dont understand, "anything but god".

It would be a rare atheist to give such an answer in the first place, so maybe you should not attempt to understand or accept it anyway.

Much of atheism is the acknowledgement that "god" is the vaguest of concepts, and hardly an explanation at all. It is not even worth denying.

At least some atheists will not say "anything but god" because that is misleading. It actually means "no one truly knows", but gives the false impression that there is a belief in god accompanied with a stubborness not to admit it. It would be very odd for an atheist to either say that or somehow believe in such a self-contradictory stance.


Far more typical is to simply say that "god wanted it so" is ultimately no explanation at all. In fact, it is the refusal to seek any explanation and to shroud the object of study with a cloak of mystification.

If you can understand why we would agree it wasnt the cosmic turtle then perhaps you might see why I am not so quick to rule out some creative force with at least a universe worth of power.

It is your privilege not to be an atheist. But we do not need any particular permission or justification to exist.

 

[idav]

Far more typical is to simply say that "god wanted it so" is ultimately no explanation at all. In fact, it is the refusal to seek any explanation and to shroud the object of study with a cloak of mystification.




It is your privilege not to be an atheist. But we do not need any particular permission or justification to exist.

I think the issue is all the baggage that comes with telling theists they are wrong. Of course atheists are dismantling the logic by the root by denying god but there are justifications that lead to a simple no.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think the issue is all the baggage that comes with telling theists they are wrong. Of course atheists are dismantling the logic by the root by denying god but there are justifications that lead to a simple no.

But is there any logic to dismantle? I see theism as an appeal to aesthetics, not to logic.

 

[idav]

But is there any logic to dismantle? I see theism as an appeal to aesthetics, not to logic.

The problem is the beginning cant be solved with logic as far as I have seen. I am not one to appeal to magic but something is a bit beyond our scope there. And it doesnt have to be a god creating some higher purpose. Existing doesnt need a reason, existing is reason enough.

 

[LuisDantas]

The problem is the beginning cant be solved with logic as far as I have seen.

That is only true once you take as a premise that there are both a beginning and a need to solve it.

Neither is needed, at least for a reason that is clear to me.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That might fit if I were deist where god is on vacation. Anyhow, what about the origins of the universe allows you to rule out some sort of deity?

The question really is "what is it about the notion of deity that allows you to rule out some sort of deity"- a entity which transcends conditions/relations transcends being and can only entail non-being; such an entity standing in causal relations with the world is contradictory... a "creation event" of spacetime/the universe involving a causal agent is incoherent no less than "north of the north pole"... and RE theism as an explanation, IF explanations are propositional AND mysteries beg questions rather than answer them AND God is the biggest mystery (i.e. theos), then God neither explains nor justifies why things happen in the world. "God did it" is a pseudo-explanation.

 

[idav]

That is only true once you take as a premise that there are both a beginning and a need to solve it.

Neither is needed, at least for a reason that is clear to me.

It has been the focus of much of mythology. God is the answer to questions of origin.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

And, obviously, the existence of a being who is characterized, at least in part, by causing particular changes in the world (the creation of the universe, of life, divine revelation, divine punishment, etc. etc.), entails certainly worldly evidence- the absence of which necessarily constitutes evidence of absence. Well, then-

-Is the world scientifically observable?
-Are events/changes in the world scientifically observable?
-Does (any) god cause events, or changes, in the world?
-Which events, or changes, in the world can only be accounted for by (any) god?

If there are no events, or changes, in the world which can only be accounted for by (any) god, then on what non-subjective, non-anecdotal, corroborative, basis can it be reasonably claimed that (any) god is real?

 

[LuisDantas]

It has been the focus of much of mythology. God is the answer to questions of origin.

Sometimes. Not even often, even if we restrict ourselves to mythology. And certainly not in a particularly logical way.

 

[kk1974]

I don't see how there is no proof of a superior being! Open your eyes it's all around you. Just because your human mind cannot comprehend something or someone more intelligent more advanced than mankind does that mean it doesn't exist?? How please tell me did humans just come about without an intelligent superior making us?? All of our systems within our bodies how everything works together to give you life and people still question this? That's like saying computers just formed from an empty box no intelligent person made all the components that work together to make it work! Wake up people!!

 

[idav]

The question really is "what is it about the notion of deity that allows you to rule out some sort of deity"- a entity which transcends conditions/relations transcends being and can only entail non-being; such an entity standing in causal relations with the world is contradictory... a "creation event" of spacetime/the universe involving a causal agent is incoherent no less than "north of the north pole"... and RE theism as an explanation, IF explanations are propositional AND mysteries beg questions rather than answer them AND God is the biggest mystery (i.e. theos), then God neither explains nor justifies why things happen in the world. "God did it" is a pseudo-explanation.

Your ruling out notions of deity. I dont see why god has to be omnimax, of course that god is contradictory.

Asking what was "before" time is a decent question. We dont know what sort of agent could uncause existence and a creative force cant be ruled out.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I don't see how there is no proof of a superior being! Open your eyes it's all around you. Just because your human mind cannot comprehend something or someone more intelligent more advanced than mankind does that mean it doesn't exist?? How please tell me did humans just come about without an intelligent superior making us?? All of our systems within our bodies how everything works together to give you life and people still question this? That's like saying computers just formed from an empty box no intelligent person made all the components that work together to make it work! Wake up people!!

So you're saying Allah did it?

 

[Awkward Fingers]

So you can just reject it without ever having to offer a counter? You have reasons for rejecting or you just flip a coin?

Reject without a counter offer? Absolutely.
I'm very weak in the field if combustion engines, if my friend tells me "hey, did you know, when you turn your car key..that sends an email to the engine gnome, and he and his friends start clapping, and that causes the engine to start?"
I don't have to know how the starter, or battery or engine actually work to say "prove it, because that does not sound right..."

And do I flip a coin or need a reason? Sure.. Insufficient evidence that fails to convince me is reason. That's all the reason I need. Then I may actually go do some research myself to see if there's a reason I find more valid, but its not required for me to discount a claim that had failed to convince me.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Guess away of course. The answer I dont understand, "anything but god". If you can understand why we would agree it wasnt the cosmic turtle then perhaps you might see why I am not so quick to rule out some creative force with at least a universe worth of power.

What a silly statement. I don't think I've ever in my life heard of an atheist take an "ANYTHING but god" stance.

So, turtles all the way down, as long as there's boo god involved, you honestly think an atheist would leap all over that without any evidence??

The universe making company did it? No god, therefore as an atheist I back that fully?

Please tell me you at least admit that's a straw man...

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Your ruling out notions of deity. I dont see why god has to be omnimax, of course that god is contradictory.

Did I mention anything about "omni" attributes? No.

Asking what was "before" time is a decent question.

Sure. Just like asking what is north of the North Pole.

We dont know what sort of agent could uncause existence

Well, sort of I guess; since an agent "causing existence" is incoherent, no sort of agent could do such a thing.

and a creative force cant be ruled out.

You say this, but you haven't responded to my argument; a "creative force" "causing existence" is simply word salad- "causing existence" assumes a prior antecedent state for such an agent to exist in, but prior to existence, nothing exists. But a causal agent must exist, by definition. This is essentially the same problem with a transcendent agent; agency and transcendence are mutually exclusive, as is agency and non-existence (but again, creating/causing existence once again assumes an antecedent state of non-existence). You're trying to give this entity contradictory properties; either it is a causal agent, in which case it is not a god, or it is transcendent, but then it cannot be a causal agent.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

. We dont know what sort of agent could uncause existence and a creative force cant be ruled out.

Ok. And what evidence do you have for us to consider it?
I won't rule it out because you call it a creative force, but if you don't explain it, or describe it, or show evidence or reasoning that we should consider it, that is enough for me to rule it out.

 

[ArtieE]

That might fit if I were deist where god is on vacation. Anyhow, what about the origins of the universe allows you to rule out some sort of deity?

An atheist (weak atheist) doesn't rule out some sort of deity. He just doesn't rule in one as an option because he has no belief in deities.

 

[ArtieE]

I don't see how there is no proof of a superior being! Open your eyes it's all around you. Just because your human mind cannot comprehend something or someone more intelligent more advanced than mankind does that mean it doesn't exist?? How please tell me did humans just come about without an intelligent superior making us?? All of our systems within our bodies how everything works together to give you life and people still question this? That's like saying computers just formed from an empty box no intelligent person made all the components that work together to make it work! Wake up people!!

So you believe a god assembled atoms and molecules into your liver and kidneys etc and put them together and made them work together? If not, what exactly is it that this god is supposed to have made because none of them existed before you were conceived..