Extremes of Atheism vs Theism

[idav]

Only a "creative force" in a very rough sense, and it is nevertheless not transcendent.

This would be my definition of God, the source, the creative force behind existence.

Right, but to say that existence is an "exception" (to universal causation), is to assume that it could be subject to causation in the first place, that this is not just a category mistake. But not only is this a rather large assumption, it is prima facie untenable for very similar reasons I've mentioned about God- causation of existence assumes a prior antecedent state of non-existence for the cause of existence to exist in.

The exception is to my view of a world with causation. Something is first, it isnt going to go back forever. The question if it was ever non-existent is a good one. I think your helping show nonexistence is impossible therefore existence is necessary. Yeah I dont know which but the no boundary type of eternal is making sense to me(this satisfies both being eternal and the universe having a beginning)

That's not the conclusion I would draw; I would say that the concept of god becomes superfluous- especially if God is not anything above and beyond the physical universe.

God in all so if that is limted to this universe, or the universe might just be the product of a larger existence.

 

[LuisDantas]

But idav, isn't that ultimately just a literal choice of belief?

Is there any clear reason why others should not simply disagree about the existence of such a god if they feel like disagreeing?

 

[idav]

But idav, isn't that ultimately just a literal choice of belief?

Is there any clear reason why others should not simply disagree about the existence of such a god if they feel like disagreeing?

Yes my faith is a choice but at the same time it makes a lot of sense to me. Certainly some will disagree. The whole something from nothing is pretty mind boggling probably always will be but I love puzzles.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ah, but it only is something from nothing if we take for granted that it is so.

Until evidence can somehow be produced one way or the other, at least.

 

[idav]

Ah, but it only is something from nothing if we take for granted that it is so.

Until evidence can somehow be produced one way or the other, at least.

Yes and faith to rule it out. Works both ways.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes and faith to rule it out. Works both ways.

I happen to think that there is no need to rule it out if I can simply not care about it or disregard the whole matter.

And the truth of the matter is that one would be hard pressed to find a reason why anyone can not do just that.

 

[idav]

I happen to think that there is no need to rule it out if I can simply not care about it or disregard the whole matter.

And the truth of the matter is that one would be hard pressed to find a reason why anyone can not do just that.

Once introduced to the concept, ruling it out would be based on belief not knowledge.

 

[LuisDantas]

Once introduced to the concept, ruling it out would be based on belief not knowledge.

The belief that it is not a matter worth obsessing about, an arbitrary and perhaps utterly fictional concept?

That is certainly one way of putting it, but perhaps not the most enlightening one.

When push comes to shove, the concept itself has no magic power over anyone who chooses to disregard it. No one has any duty to take it at all seriously.

Technically speaking, we do not know whether there is a creator God. Then again, we also do not know whether we are not latent werewolves, or secret inheritors of the Danish throne.

We just believe that there is no point in worrying about any of that.

As it turns out, that is good enough.

 

[idav]

The belief that it is not a matter worth obsessing about, an arbitrary and perhaps utterly fictional concept?

That is certainly one way of putting it, but perhaps not the most enlightening one.

When push comes to shove, the concept itself has no magic power over anyone who chooses to disregard it. No one has any duty to take it at all seriously.

There is evidence that leads one way or the other and a naturalistic concept is probably the only thing that will stand ground of course taking the sciences seriously, sometimes science fiction becomes everyday life.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is evidence that leads one way or the other

Is there? Maybe you should state it clearly before we go on.

and a naturalistic concept is probably the only thing that will stand ground of course taking the sciences seriously, sometimes science fiction becomes everyday life.

I don't think I know what you are talking about. What ground is there to be stood?

 

[idav]

Technically speaking, we do not know whether there is a creator God. Then again, we also do not know whether we are not latent werewolves, or secret inheritors of the Danish throne.

We just believe that there is no point in worrying about any of that.

As it turns out, that is good enough.

There is sound logic to wonder where it all comes from and it wasnt some everyday toaster oven.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is sound logic to wonder where it all comes from and it wasnt some everyday toaster oven.

It is a valid speculation. And that is all. It is ultimately unanswerable, and therefore there is no point in making it supreme.

I wouldn't call it logic, though. Logic needs clearly defined concepts. God is the exact opposite of a clearly defined concept. It is arguably not even a concept, and it is most definitely not clearly defined.

 

[idav]

It is a valid speculation. And that is all. It is ultimately unanswerable, and therefore there is no point in making it supreme.

I wouldn't call it logic, though. Logic needs clearly defined concepts. God is the exact opposite of a clearly defined concept. It is arguably not even a concept, and it is most definitely not clearly defined.

Yet the maths say different and another problem is people seem to be able to use the math to find more than one logical answer or possibility. The hypothesis is a valuable tool for finding the truth when we arent quite there yet.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am not aware of that mathematic you are refering to. May you give me a pointer of some kind?

In any case, math does not have any duty to describe reality faithfully. Here is a couple of examples.

Koch snowflake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Menger sponge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[idav]

I am not aware of that mathematic you are refering to. May you give me a pointer of some kind?

I am referring to various cosmology theories.

In any case, math does not have any duty to describe reality faithfully. Here is a couple of examples.

Koch snowflake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Menger sponge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right so there can be multiple theories and can be logical but not necessarily represent reality. Thats part of the issue I refer too, and certainly isnt an obligation to take any hypothesis seriously but also there is no harm in believing one theory over another, we do it all the time when making judgements. Some judgenents like in a court of law have bad consequences for being wrong, but with origins it isnt as crucial.

 

[LuisDantas]

Agreed.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

This would be my definition of God, the source, the creative force behind existence.

But again, this is only intelligible if existence is contingent- if it can admit of a cause, even in principle, in the first place; I don't see how it can, for the reasons already mentioned.

The exception is to my view of a world with causation. Something is first, it isnt going to go back forever.

Why not?

 

[idav]

But again, this is only intelligible if existence is contingent- if it can admit of a cause, even in principle, in the first place; I don't see how it can, for the reasons already mentioned.


Why not?

How is it that a cattepillar manages to transcend the butterfly they become?

Cause it doesnt make sense.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

How is it that a cattepillar manages to transcend the butterfly they become?

Cause it doesnt make sense.

Um... What?

 

[idav]

Um... What?

Contingency relies on something prior. That is a main aspect that something has to be an excetpion to contingency. If something just exists by its nature and/or caused itself then it is contigent on nothing. Something in nature must be exempt. Something morphing does so by its own nature.