I lack belief that the universe is without gods

[Falvlun]

I really don't care how anyone states what they mean as long as it's grammatically meaningful and not convoluted.

There's

"I lack belief that the universe is without gods" which is essentially the same as saying "I believe that the universe has gods." (the universe has gods)
​

and there's

"I lack the belief that the universe has gods" which is essentially the same as saying "I believe that the universe is without gods." (the universe does not have gods)
​

So take your pick. What do you want to get across to the reader?

.

I agree. It's convoluted. But without it, the weak atheist disappears. I'm fine with that, but you might have some digital pitchforks pointed your way.

 

[Skwim]

I agree. It's convoluted. But without it, the weak atheist disappears. I'm fine with that, but you might have some digital pitchforks pointed your way.

I don't know what digital pitchforks pointed my way entails, but I believe I'm ready.

.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

To me it just doesn't make sense. I haven't seen convincing arguments or evidence that the universe could exist as is without god(s). Does anyone have such arguments and evidence that you can share?

Facetious or merely illogical? An exercise for the readers.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't know what digital pitchforks pointed my way entails, but I believe I'm ready.

.

Godspeed! I'll be watching your battle with interest.

 

[1137]

Welcome to the club. No one knows for a fact that gods do not exist. We could insert any number of things that we have no evidence for in place of gods and also say we can't say for a fact they don't exist. The question is why even ask such question that seem completely insane and irrelevant to the world we live in?

Secondly, you say you aren't putting forth a position, say you don't necessarily believe in gods, but then say you cant find an explanation for a Universe without a god. That definitely seems like your stance is that the Universe must exist with gods and you can't find a reason to counteract this. It makes no sense, you are beating around the bush because you seem upset with how the burden of proof works so you are attempting to beat an atheist at his own game.

Im personally haven't heard anyone claim absolute knowledge about how the Universe came about from anyone besides Christians and the religious. Everyone else is just waiting to see what we find out as our knowledge base increases.

Whoa, I didn't state my beliefs at all. Remember that a lack of belief doesn't imply any belief. I simply lack belief that the universe is godless, I don't believe that the universe is therefore with gods. I know that sounds perfectly logical, but the atheists have made clear that's not the case.

Do you think there is anyone but you to decide that there is a point in calling anyone or anything by any of those names?

I have no idea what to call these gods. Like I said, I'll let those who reject them define them.

Would an argument that shows us that we don't need a first cause count?

Arguments aren't evidence, unfortunately.

@1137

Believing things without evidence is foolish. There is no evidence that anything resembling god(s) exists. There is evidence that the universe exists. Therefore, it is foolish to believe that the universe cannot exist without god(s).

Is that the kind of thing you are looking for?

No, I'm looking for that evidence that explains all things associated with gods away without them.

What convincing arguements have you seen for the existence of a god?

I'm not convinced there's a god, I simply lack belief that the universe is without them.

 

[JustWondering]

To me it just doesn't make sense. I haven't seen convincing arguments or evidence that the universe could exist as is without god(s). Does anyone have such arguments and evidence that you can share?

Why doesn't it make sense?

 

[QuestioningMind]

You seem to think I'm claiming gods exist. I'm not, I simply don't see reason to believe the universe is godless. Occams razor is about the least assumptions, right? So we have "all events follow cause and effect so there's a first cause" vs "all events follow causer and effect, except the start of the universe because science will one day maybe explain that away." Remember, logical deduction/inference is not an assumption.



So I have a pencil two inches long. You do not believe this pencil will take up the same physical space if we use a different measurement?



Very interesting, I never took to monotheism. Kinda of topic though.



I didn't share my beliefs.



How can you be a materialist but believe physical objects and their sizes are entirely subjective?



What burden of proof, I'm not taking a position? I just haven't seen explanations for how the universe could be as it is without some type of gods.



For example, if we took a common argument like the first cause, and showed me how we could bring a universe from nothing without god, that would be a point in favor.



I'm expecting, or at least hoping for, reasons to believe there are no gods.



Hmm that's interesting. I'm not sure how gods should be defined here, I'll leave it to those with nonbelief to explain what they reject.

"I didn't share my beliefs." Gee, I noticed that. Hence my request that you do so.

 

[1137]

"I didn't share my beliefs." Gee, I noticed that. Hence my request that you do so.

I don't have a belief to share here, I'm simply skeptical of the metaphysical position known as physicalism, and other such systems that deny gods.

 

[Falvlun]

I don't have a belief to share here, I'm simply skeptical of the metaphysical position known as physicalism, and other such systems that deny gods.

I think evidence in the favor of "physicalism" is that it has been slowly taking over ground formerly held by the gods. We know the physical causes of various weather patterns. We know how plants grow. We know why eclipses happen. We know why a volcano erupts. We know how life speciated into the wide array we currently see. Gods and other supernatural explanations are being required for less and less.

 

[Darkstorn]

naturalism/ materialism /atheism- call it what you will, has to utterly banish any sort of intelligent agent, ID, God from all possible existence, in order to allow chance a 'chance' to win

Banish eh? Since there is no evidence for the need of a first cause or a creator, no one has banished anything. Someone has added something. Someone added god.

It's impossible to get rid of something that was never there, you understand? The scientific argument never included god in it, therefore, it was never removed.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Banish eh? Since there is no evidence for the need of a first cause or a creator, no one has banished anything. Someone has added something. Someone added god.

It's impossible to get rid of something that was never there, you understand? The scientific argument never included god in it, therefore, it was never removed.

As in the OP, as an a-naturalist, I merely lack belief in naturalistic/ materialistic/ spontaneous universe creating mechanisms. I see no need or evidence for them.

But I don't need to banish them from the logical playing field

 

[Darkstorn]

As in the OP, as an a-naturalist, I merely lack belief in naturalistic/ materialistic/ spontaneous universe creating mechanisms. I see no need or evidence for them.

But I don't need to banish them from the logical playing field

I don't care about your beliefs. You made a foolish statement and i called you out on it. It'll help your argument to understand this: I am not an atheist any more than you are.

The universe existed before people started making claims about it. No one ever banished anything. Some people decided to add something. That's it. I hold those insistent on applying conditions and phenomena to support a claim to hold the responsibility to show it.

You'll see i have no claims about the existence or non-existence of gods. I am however informing to you that from a logical standpoint, your statement cannot hold true. No one banished anything. Not even you.

/E: God cannot be included in a scientific theory because you cannot base a theory on a premise with no evidence... I.E the supernatural is outside the scope of science. Therefore it's foolish, naive and pointless to try and combine the two. No matter how hard you try, you cannot have evidence for something that cannot be evidenced.

It lowers the quality of whatever argument you have when you have to add supernatural things to support an argument for natural sciences... No one has banished deities from science; They were never included.

You are also suffering from cognitive dissonance. You make the claim that you see no evidence for a materialistic beginning for the universe. But you cannot in any logical discussion also make the claim that you DO see evidence for your idea that there must be a creator unless you show the evidence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't care about your beliefs. You made a foolish statement and i called you out on it. It'll help your argument to understand this: I am not an atheist any more than you are.

The universe existed before people started making claims about it. No one ever banished anything. Some people decided to add something. That's it. I hold those insistent on applying conditions and phenomena to support a claim to hold the responsibility to show it.

You'll see i have no claims about the existence or non-existence of gods. I am however informing to you that from a logical standpoint, your statement cannot hold true. No one banished anything. Not even you.

/E: God cannot be included in a scientific theory because you cannot base a theory on a premise with no evidence... I.E the supernatural is outside the scope of science. Therefore it's foolish, naive and pointless to try and combine the two. No matter how hard you try, you cannot have evidence for something that cannot be evidenced.

It lowers the quality of whatever argument you have when you have to add supernatural things to support an argument for natural sciences... No one has banished deities from science; They were never included.

You are also suffering from cognitive dissonance. You make the claim that you see no evidence for a materialistic beginning for the universe. But you cannot in any logical discussion also make the claim that you DO see evidence for your idea that there must be a creator unless you show the evidence.

If you see the word 'HELP' written on a deserted island beach with rocks, and no evidence of anyone ever being there. Do you put it down to the random action of the waves? why not?

 

[Kapalika]

If you see the word 'HELP' written on a deserted island beach with rocks, and no evidence of anyone ever being there. Do you put it down to the random action of the waves? why not?

Because help is part of a human language and we know it's origins. We do not know the origins of the laws of physics and there isn't any specific evidence like there is for English to indicate that it was a language created by intelligence, or even that it's a language at all. It makes more sense to understand the physical laws as something otherly from our understanding described by language we invented rather than trying to say that it *is* a language and so then must of been invented.

 

[Darkstorn]

If you see the word 'HELP' written on a deserted island beach with rocks, and no evidence of anyone ever being there. Do you put it down to the random action of the waves? why not?

You seem to hold some assumptions. Here's the thing: I withhold judgement. I fully understand the waves could technically do it by themselves, "coincidentally." But bear in mind:

I don't think randomness exists.

/E: Like the guy above says. It's PROBABLY caused by a human because it's using a human constructed language. But that's still not a 100% chance.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

naturalism/ materialism /atheism- call it what you will, has to utterly banish any sort of intelligent agent, ID, God from all possible existence, in order to allow chance a 'chance' to win

Not so the other way around

Of course not. I've never once seen a creationist put to task to provide evidence that would instead attack evolution/biology. The idea is simply unheard of.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Because help is part of a human language and we know it's origins. We do not know the origins of the laws of physics and there isn't any specific evidence like there is for English to indicate that it was a language created by intelligence, or even that it's a language at all. It makes more sense to understand the physical laws as something otherly from our understanding described by language we invented rather than trying to say that it *is* a language and so then must of been invented.

You seem to hold some assumptions. Here's the thing: I withhold judgement. I fully understand the waves could technically do it by themselves, "coincidentally." But bear in mind:

I don't think randomness exists.

/E: Like the guy above says. It's PROBABLY caused by a human because it's using a human constructed language. But that's still not a 100% chance.

So the analogy utterly grants you a fully automated spontaneous mechanism, which we agree is fully capable of producing the result- and it also concedes no evidence whatsoever of any intelligent agent being involved

Point being; to be forced to accept the chance action of the waves, we'd have to utterly banish any possibility that a person could ever have been there, right? to a practically impossible degree of certainty. But the opposite is not true, we do not need to banish the waves as a possible explanation.

If we merely allow both as possibilities, the most likely explanation is clear. and a mere 4 letter word is selling the universe a little short!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Of course not. I've never once seen a creationist put to task to provide evidence that would instead attack evolution/biology. The idea is simply unheard of.

just as the beach analogy-

I don't need to banish random mutations, and I concede that is technically possible, that they could create the blueprint for a human, from that of a single cell, with enough significant design improvements happened upon by pure chance

I just don't think that is the most likely explanation

 

[Darkstorn]

So the analogy utterly grants you a fully automated spontaneous mechanism, which we agree is fully capable of producing the result- and it also concedes no evidence whatsoever of any intelligent agent being involved

I never said automated or spontaneous. I'd prefer you not claiming i said something i never did. Everything has a cause, i'm just not making the leap that the cause itself is a sentient being or a deity.

Point being; to be forced to accept the chance action of the waves, we'd have to utterly banish any possibility that a person could ever have been there, right? to a practically impossible degree of certainty. But the opposite is not true, we do not need to banish the waves as a possible explanation.

¨

I don't believe in randomness or chance. I'm going to make a "guess" and say that most scientists don't either. Perceived randomness is caused by lack of knowledge on the subject.

And here's another thing: you are making quite big leaps with your banishment claims. I'm not banishing any possibility. But i'm also not adding more arbitrary prepositions.

I think you should stop with the banishment argument, it really doesn't stand up to logic: The universe existed before there were people around to make any sort of claims about it. We have never banished anything. We have only added to it. This is an inescapable fact.

If we merely allow both as possibilities, the most likely explanation is clear. and a mere 4 letter word is selling the universe a little short!

The explanation wouldn't be clear to someone who doesn't understand the issue. Or the language used to discuss it. So stop imagining it that simply, not all metaphors are worth the effort.

I just don't think that is the most likely explanation

That's an entirely subjective viewpoint. I mean, you're welcome to believe it, but it won't hold true factually in any sort of meaningful way. If you use science to argue others, you must also let yourself be opened to it being done to you. And in that kind of context "most likely explanation" doesn't trump actual extant evidence or proof no matter how hard you try to ignore it. Just because you don't see any evidence anywhere, doesn't mean there isn't evidence: It could also mean YOU cannot see it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I never said automated or spontaneous. I'd prefer you not claiming i said something i never did. Everything has a cause, i'm just not making the leap that the cause itself is a sentient being or a deity.

so you prefer a non-sentient cause, aka spontaneous, not impossible, but that leap is too far for me!
¨

I don't believe in randomness or chance. I'm going to make a "guess" and say that most scientists don't either. Perceived randomness is caused by lack of knowledge on the subject.

I take your point, though quantum physicists may disagree with us..

And here's another thing: you are making quite big leaps with your banishment claims. I'm not banishing any possibility. But i'm also not adding more arbitrary prepositions.

I think you should stop with the banishment argument, it really doesn't stand up to logic: The universe existed before there were people around to make any sort of claims about it. We have never banished anything. We have only added to it. This is an inescapable fact.

The explanation wouldn't be clear to someone who doesn't understand the issue. Or the language used to discuss it. So stop imagining it that simply, not all metaphors are worth the effort.

We know that both phenomena exist in the universe, natural mechanisms and creative intelligence. We know that some objects are naturally created and some intelligently. And we have no reference, no precedent for how universes are 'usually' created do we? So on what do we base the decision to make one explanation 'default' and put all the burden of proof on the other?

If we look at the question of the origins of various information systems governing physics and life, one could argue that we only know of intelligent causes for such mathematical systems, and speculating about possible 'natural' causes are the alternative explanation to the default one.. debatable, but that's what we're here for!