Just Accidental?

[sayak83]

Many atheists have argued to me that their belief is the default one, because we are all born atheist.

Well, they are objectively wrong, as all young children are animists - i.e. they infer hidden agents behind any and all actions.

@Deeje will find this Veritas discussion interesting as well as it covers how two scientists (one atheist and another a Christian) investing the psychological reasons for beliefs in the supernatural.

So by this rationale, belief in God is the fundamentally skeptical position- and I think this holds true historically- more curious humans began to question the blind acceptance that everything 'just is' 'accidental' 'for no particular reason' and logically concluded a creator.

The idea that inherent natural processes that have both regularity and stochastic elements to them are responsible for the emergence, evolution and dissolution of phenomena in the world is as different from "just chance" as night is to day.

 

[ArtieE]

Many atheists have argued to me that their belief is the default one, because we are all born atheist.

So by this rationale, belief in God is the fundamentally skeptical position- and I think this holds true historically- more curious humans began to question the blind acceptance that everything 'just is' 'accidental' 'for no particular reason' and logically concluded a creator.

So if you ask: "Why are there earthquakes" the logical answer would be "because Poseidon creates them"? Is the formula "(Insert name of a god) created (insert whatever)" always logically valid or does it only apply to your god?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So if you ask: "Why are there earthquakes" the logical answer would be "because Poseidon creates them"? Is the formula "(Insert name of a god) created (insert whatever)" always logically valid or does it only apply to your god?

The logical answer (for most of us) is, that they are no accident, they are a crucial part of the intelligent design of a functional dynamic life supporting system.

Other attributes, names we give to this deduced intelligent creator... that's another question I agree

 

[ArtieE]

The logical answer (for most of us) is, that they are no accident, they are a crucial part of the intelligent design of a functional dynamic life supporting system.

The logical answer is "no, Poseidon doesn't create earthquakes". And there's no difference between saying "Poseidon creates earthquakes" and you saying "my god intelligently designed them to be a crucial part of the intelligent design of a functional dynamic life supporting system". The formula "(a god) designed/created (whatever)" doesn't make any logical sense no matter which god and whatever you put in.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The formula "(a god) designed/created (whatever)" doesn't make any logical sense no matter which god and whatever you put in.

How about a watchmaker and a watch?

 

[ArtieE]

How about a watchmaker and a watch?

I don't know any watchmakers who are also gods.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't know any watchmakers who are also gods.

They are intelligent agents
versus natural mechanisms

and thus offer a superior power of explanation for the watch's existence.

God is what I call the intelligent designer of the world, this watch, that we see around us. But you may call him Poseidon if you prefer!

 

[ArtieE]

They are intelligent agents
versus natural mechanisms

and thus offer a superior power of explanation for the watch's existence.

God is what I call the intelligent designer of the world, this watch, that we see around us. But you may call him Poseidon if you prefer!

Read the article at http://www.livescience.com/52364-origins-supernatural-relgious-beliefs.html again and more articles like it. At some point maybe you might gain enough self insight to understand why people and you keep seeing intelligent agents where there are none and that there's no more reason for you to claim your intelligent agent exists than there was for people to claim that Poseidon exists because they needed an intelligent agent to blame for earthquakes.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Read the article at http://www.livescience.com/52364-origins-supernatural-relgious-beliefs.html again and more articles like it. At some point maybe you might gain enough self insight to understand why people and you keep seeing intelligent agents where there are none and that there's no more reason for you to claim your intelligent agent exists than there was for people to claim that Poseidon exists because they needed an intelligent agent to blame for earthquakes.

I once spent an entire summer teaching sailing on a beautiful 'natural' lake, without realizing until the water dropped at the end of the season, that it was actually a reservoir with a dam at one end.

So It is also possible to see only natural mechanisms behind something that absolutely required intelligence agency to exist- which once enlightened with more knowledge, we understand. Which assumption is fallacious, depends on the true nature of the object.

I think God is the less improbable explanation for this object, the universe, but I acknowledge my faith, I can't prove it, how about you?

 

[ArtieE]

So It is also possible to see only natural mechanisms behind something that absolutely required intelligence agency to exist- which once enlightened with more knowledge, we understand. Which assumption is fallacious, depends on the true nature of the object.

I think God is the less improbable explanation for this object, the universe, but I acknowledge my faith, I can't prove it, how about you?

Do you see only natural mechanisms behind your god or would he have required intelligent agency to exist? What do you think is the least improbable explanation?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Do you see only natural mechanisms behind your god or would he have required intelligent agency to exist? What do you think is the least improbable explanation?

I see both intelligence and natural mechanisms at work, both here on Earth and the universe, it's creation, I do not exclude either without probable cause to do so.

How about you? limited to only natural mechanisms, how do you solve the paradox of infinite natural regression, with no source of true creativity?

 

[Skwim]

How about a watchmaker and a watch?

Just to jump in for a moment.

Starts at 1:11

 

[ArtieE]

I see both intelligence and natural mechanisms at work, both here on Earth and the universe, it's creation, I do not exclude either without probable cause to do so.

Again: "Do you see only natural mechanisms behind your god or would he have required intelligent agency to exist? What do you think is the least improbable explanation?"

How about you? limited to only natural mechanisms, how do you solve the paradox of infinite natural regression, with no source of true creativity?

That's a curious question coming from a theist... a theist has two choices. Either his god exists naturally in which case he's stuck with the question of infinite natural regression, or his god was created, in which case he's also stuck with the same question.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Again: "Do you see only natural mechanisms behind your god or would he have required intelligent agency to exist? What do you think is the least improbable explanation?"That's a curious question coming from a theist... a theist has two choices. Either his god exists naturally in which case he's stuck with the question of infinite natural regression, or his god was created, in which case he's also stuck with the same question.

So both explanations face the first cause paradox- i.e. whatever we posit created the universe 'where did THAT come from?!' right?

But not only is this a wash, it's a moot point- because here we are! obviously there is a solution one way or tohter.

But what's not even is the natural regression paradox, endless underlying natural laws/mechanisms to write the next ones, with no capacity for true creativity, only an infinite regression of pre-determined cause and effect.

Creative intelligence is the phenomena that solves this paradox, it is both natural and supernatural. Natural in that we can observe it existing in nature, ourselves, and supernatural in that it can transcend nature, create what nature alone never can.


So to be clear, I think God, like everything else, ultimately required creative agency to exist yes

but that can also be his own creative agency...it gets interesting here yes! but ultimately, the paradoxes are more difficult to solve if we for some reason forbid the involvement of creative capacity at any stage

 

[Deeje]

Just to throw in - I believe in God and the presence of God in everything and in every moment, and see no contradiction whatsoever between this and accepting the observable phenomenon of evolution.

May I ask which god you are referring to?

The God of the Bible has no compatibility with a flawed human theory that not only questions his existence, but attributes his creativity to blind "natural" forces. That is like saying a lump of clay fell out of the sky and accidently transformed itself into a Ming Dynasty vase.

Evolution is not provable by any of the so-called "evidence" they present for the simple reason that, without forcing the fossils to speak their language, they are not only sparse, but strangely silent. Science becomes nothing more that a ventriloquist, making the "evidence" tell their story.

There is no chain of descent.....it is a 'suggestion' without any real proof. Read any article on organic evolution and you will see through the ruse. If they had solid facts, these 'suggestions' would be truths......they aren't.

 

[Deeje]

You might be interested in different theories about how and why we evolved religious beliefs. http://www.livescience.com/52364-origins-supernatural-relgious-beliefs.html
Religious people believe in and argue for the existence of their gods. I am interested in the evolutionary reasons for the existence of religions and religious people.

LOL.....more theories about theories. And who is formulating these theories? Don't tell me, let me guess...

 

[Kirran]

May I ask which god you are referring to?

The God of the Bible has no compatibility with a flawed human theory that not only questions his existence, but attributes his creativity to blind "natural" forces. That is like saying a lump of clay fell out of the sky and accidently transformed itself into a Ming Dynasty vase.

Evolution is not provable by any of the so-called "evidence" they present for the simple reason that, without forcing the fossils to speak their language, they are not only sparse, but strangely silent. Science becomes nothing more that a ventriloquist, making the "evidence" tell their story.

There is no chain of descent.....it is a 'suggestion' without any real proof. Read any article on organic evolution and you will see through the ruse. If they had solid facts, these 'suggestions' would be truths......they aren't.

I only believe in one God, so that's the one I'm referring to. I don't think He's limited to one book though.

As for the rest - I've studied evolution in both a formal and an informal capacity, including having learnt about it at one of the world's premier educational institutions so as to earn a degree in a related subject. So far, it has held water so well as to be blatantly obvious. This doesn't contradict creation or the sovereignty of God. Rather, it refrains from cheapening God by putting him in rivalry with observable phenomena.

 

[ArtieE]

So both explanations face the first cause paradox- i.e. whatever we posit created the universe 'where did THAT come from?!' right?

Right.

Creative intelligence is the phenomena that solves this paradox

It doesn't solve anything. Why would this creative intelligence exist in the first place?

So to be clear, I think God, like everything else, ultimately required creative agency to exist yes

but that can also be his own creative agency...it gets interesting here yes! but ultimately, the paradoxes are more difficult to solve if we for some reason forbid the involvement of creative capacity at any stage

Introducing a creative intelligence is no solution at all it just complicates matters. It is difficult enough to find explanations why and how things exist without introducing a creative intelligence we can't explain the existence of.

 

[Deeje]

Many atheists have argued to me that their belief is the default one, because we are all born atheist.

So by this rationale, belief in God is the fundamentally skeptical position- and I think this holds true historically- more curious humans began to question the blind acceptance that everything 'just is' 'accidental' 'for no particular reason' and logically concluded a creator.

By that first criteria we can suggest that all humans are born stupid because we know nothing about anything at birth.

You are right, curiosity leads people to question the things around them, so knowledge is something many humans seek.
Some are more spiritual by nature than others. Humans have to learn to be whatever their particular leaning leads them to.....science, mathematics, art, music, architecture....the possibilities are endless.

As I grew, I logically concluded that things don't just happen for no reason. I believe that science calls this "cause and effect".

 

[Deeje]

I only believe in one God, so that's the one I'm referring to. I don't think He's limited to one book though.

Do you think that God deliberately confuses people by giving them conflicting information in different books, given to people of different faiths in different countries? What kind of god would do that?

As for the rest - I've studied evolution in both a formal and an informal capacity, including having learnt about it at one of the world's premier educational institutions so as to earn a degree in a related subject. So far, it has held water so well as to be blatantly obvious.

But you learned that in an environment that gave you no alternatives. Being fully immersed in that thinking and having it taught as fact, simply reinforces the suggestions as if they were truth. Peer pressure does not permit dissent in any way. The ridicule would laugh you out of any classroom.

This doesn't contradict creation or the sovereignty of God. Rather, it refrains from cheapening God by putting him in rivalry with observable phenomena.

Organic evolution is completely incompatible with the existence of the Creator. It robs him of his creativity and leads people to assume that nature created itself. We cheapen God by giving credit to the creation, without giving due credit to him.

The "observable phenomenon" you speak of is adaptation.....however, there is no "observable phenomenon" that proves organic evolution......that is all suggestion, not verifiable fact. Science presents one as proof of the other, but there is nothing to support that view except by suggesting that it "could have" or "might have" happened the way science "suggests".