"Lack of belief"

[ArtieE]

atheism introduces an additional unique paradox, which remains unproven, where natural processes can, must ultimately fully account for themselves without any creative process.

Your god must also fully account for himself without any creative process.

We know that who/whatever created the universe

We don't even know if the universe was created or not or is simply the result of some unknown natural phenomenon.

we have a hypothetical solution, where creative intelligence provides the explanation for all the specific functional mechanisms that allow us to be having this conversation,

We have no solution at all since you can't even explain why this creative intelligence exists in the first place.

 

[viole]

why does the universe exist?
there is no why, It was created by a natural unguided process
how did that come to exist?
no idea.

'Why' is the key, the solution to the paradox here. It represents purpose, motive, desire. Concepts that can only exist within the phenomena of creative intelligence, and have a unique capacity to genuinely create rather than simply unfold predetermined actions.

To say that the universe came to be through entirely natural processes, is to say that the laws of nature may ultimately be accounted for by... those very same laws.

That paradox is entirely unique to atheist beliefs. An infinite regression of unguided cause and effect, like the stacked turtles carrying the earth, you always need another to explain the last.

Only creative intelligence can solve this paradox, because it is not constrained by pre-determined actions.

Why did that creative intelligence create the Universe? What led Him to that decision? Desire? Why did He have that desire?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Your god must also fully account for himself without any creative process.We don't even know if the universe was created or not or is simply the result of some unknown natural phenomenon.We have no solution at all since you can't even explain why this creative intelligence exists in the first place.

All these arguments can be made when seeing 'HELP' spelled in rocks on an uninhabited island.

We see no direct sign of intelligence, we don't know how or why they would be there, or whether the waves just washed them up that way. But we know ID is the less improbable explanation

The point is power of explanation, God provides a less improbable explanation for sophisticated natural laws, than them spontaneously inventing themselves for no reason.

Having said that, God does not have to account for himself without a creative process, only atheism imposes this restriction, and declares creativity utterly verboten at any stage, based on nothing more than a personal distaste for the idea as far as I can tell.

Andre Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, considers it feasible that we could one day create our own universe, and that this may be how ours came to be also- again when we lift the ban on creative intelligence, blind chance has a tough time competing on a level playing field. It requires all it's opponents to be kept off the pitch!

(not to mention an infinite number of tries till it scores)

 

[Ouroboros]

Why did that creative intelligence create the Universe? What led Him to that decision? Desire? Why did He have that desire?

He wanted to exist.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, I understand what you are trying to say, I just think it is a strange and misleading way to use language.
You are discussing the truth of the statement "God exists". You are saying you "lack belief" that this statement is true. Really you hold the belief that this statement is false/unproven/unknowable/etc.

Why would "non-theist" be a strange construction? There are lots of ordinary words describing nothing, or a lack with no reference to to any 'thing' missing; 'empty', for example.
In a discussion of the existence of God I'd assume all parties were familiar with the concept, but in a discussion of the culture of an uncontacted tribe of Amazon Indians (with no concept of God), or a discussion of the perennial are babies born atheist?, a term for a simple absence or ignorance of the concept is useful.

To describe the presence of one belief as actually being the absence of an incompatible belief seems bizarre

But weak or essential atheism is not a belief.
Why is this essential point so hard to grasp?

You believe it was natural, spontaneous, versus designed, intentional. Which is fine, I'm just curious why, and why not stand behind and defend your belief on it's own merits?

Most people point to the fact that everything we observe in the world seems to happen through the operation of the natural laws of physics and chemistry, and that magical, intentional alterations of same have never been observed; nor is there any mechanism which might account for such an intervention.

"God asks you: "Why am I here? Why do I exist? What is my purpose? What is my function?" Can you provide a better answer than "love"?

"Love" doesn't explain anything. It sounds very poetic and inspiring and all, but as an 'explanation' it just raises more questions.[/quote]

 

[Ouroboros]

Why would "non-theist" be a strange construction?

About 10 years ago, if you looked up non-theist and atheist on Wikipedia, atheist was a subcategory of non-theists, today it's reversed.

You can still see some traces of it under non-theism. "Nontheism does not necessarily describe atheism or disbelief in God. It has been used as an umbrella term for summarizing various distinct and even mutually exclusive positions, such asagnosticism, ignosticism, ietsism, skepticism, pantheism and atheism. It is in use in the fields of Christian apologetics and general liberal theology."

Pantheists were grouped under non-theists as well. Non-theists were non-believers (or lack of belief in traditional theistic God), while atheists were a more specific category of non-theists. Now, pantheists are considered theists as well as non-theists, which is very messed up.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

We hear great homilies, sing, get advice, take Christ's body and blood into our own, and fill the unfathoming void in our spirit, that would otherwise probably be polluted by video games, rap music, deviant pornography, caffeinated beverages and alcohol/drugs.

Why cut out a drink (alcohol) that Jesus himself would use?

Seriously, you would really get something out of attending service at my church. HAVE a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, let Him fill your spiritual void with His love.

If the relationship with Jesus is personal, churches are not required.

At the very least, you get credit for trying, and might not be immediately cast into the pit of Hell when it is time for your judgment (assuming you are relatively sinless otherwise).

I believe God has a sense of humor and won't punish a guy for an SNL reference.

God asks you: "Why am I here? Why do I exist? What is my purpose? What is my function?"

What would you answer?

I'm not that familiar with early Canaanite mythology.

It's the same question, really. If I knew Your origin story I'd remind You.

Your purpose is for You to decide. According to the bible, You went off on the Council of El, decrying the other gods of being apathetic and lazy. Now we have populations claiming the same of You. Given the feedback, are You interested in changing Your management style?

Similar question to the previous one.

God, or a random number generator for universes producing an infinite number of different universes?

What if God is the random number generator? What if God is included in the random number generator? After all, if I play a "God game" like Sim City or something, you have the Sims, the User (Me, their Deity) telling them how to live their lives ... but you also have MY "User" (whatever that turns out to be).

I could delete my Sims however I want because I run their lives. However, maybe I am also a character and can be deleted ...

why does the universe exist?
there is no why, It was created by a natural unguided process
how did that come to exist?
no idea.

Rules in nature don't exist like our governing rules. They exist because of the properties of the things involved, not because there is some poor code checker somewhere making sure all the code works out.

I mean, I'm a theist, but I can accept that the universe is run on nature, derived from the properties of the items themselves, not anyone in particular. This is why miracles always tend to be something kinda sorta possible. Jesus can raise a guy from the dead but never once tries it on someone beheaded, etc.

If God exists, He (or whatever) can only influence the rules. The rules, however, exist on their own.

Like, if God wanted a boulder to hit a particular town downhill, He could create a rut for it to go down. However, gravity and the limitations of the rut don't need a Creator.

 

[Valjean]

Pantheists were grouped under non-theists as well. Non-theists were non-believers (or lack of belief in traditional theistic God), while atheists were a more specific category of non-theists. Now, pantheists are considered theists as well as non-theists, which is very messed up.

Now that would be a good discussion; weather pantheists are theists or not.

Why cut out a drink (alcohol) that Jesus himself would use?

They didn't have fridges back then.

 

[Ouroboros]

Now that would be a good discussion; weather pantheists are theists or not.

We tried.

The conclusion was that pantheists are theists if they believe in God but atheists if they don't.

 

[ArtieE]

All these arguments can be made when seeing 'HELP' spelled in rocks on an uninhabited island.

We see no direct sign of intelligence, we don't know how or why they would be there, or whether the waves just washed them up that way. But we know ID is the less improbable explanation

The most probable explanation is that some person wrote it. Nobody in their right mind would claim that a god wrote it.

The point is power of explanation, God provides a less improbable explanation for sophisticated natural laws, than them spontaneously inventing themselves for no reason.

Not when this God somehow spontaneously invented himself or have always existed for no reason.

Andre Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, considers it feasible that we could one day create our own universe, and that this may be how ours came to be also

That is quite possible. So what you are saying is that the universe might not have been created by a god but simply by member(s) of some alien race more advanced than us?

 

[Augustus]

Why would "non-theist" be a strange construction? There are lots of ordinary words describing nothing, or a lack with no reference to to any 'thing' missing; 'empty', for example.

I'm talking about beliefs. Nothing else.

Say you go to a hotel and ask if they have any vacancies, the receptionist might say "I believe that room 207 is vacant, but I'll just check" they wouldn't say "I lack belief that room 207 is occupied, but I'll just check" though.

In a true/false quiz, you believe the answer is false, you don't lack belief that the answer is true.

You believe the baby is 6 months old, you don't lack belief that the baby is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 months old.

On any other subject it is ridiculous to phrase the presence of a belief as the absence of other incompatible beliefs as it is not the way we think. Although you can negate the belief "I don't believe room 207 is occupied, but I'll just check" - I believe the statement room 207 is occupied is false.

But weak or essential atheism is not a belief.
Why is this essential point so hard to grasp?

It's not difficult to grasp and I'm not arguing against that babies have a belief. I've been trying very hard to avoid the topic of definitions as it is irrelevant to the point I was discussing and leads nowhere.

I keep saying the only time you have no belief regarding the statement 'God exists' is if you can't comprehend the statement. A baby has no belief regarding the statement 'God exists'.

My point was that people who do comprehend the statement cannot be said to 'lack belief' in the way that a baby does. If you understand a statement then you must form an opinion about it true/false/unknowable/probably false/etc.

Do you believe that someone who can comprehend 'God exists' can withhold making a judgement (i.e. can lack belief)? [true/false/unknowable/probably false/etc.]

If they make a judgement then they hold a belief, why would you want to describe this belief they hold as being the lack of other competing beliefs?

 

[ArtieE]

Do you believe that someone who can comprehend 'God exists' can withhold making a judgement (i.e. can lack belief)? [true/false/unknowable/probably false/etc.

The only belief that concerns us when we talk about theism and atheism is the belief that gods exist and the absence of this belief. Everything else you write is completely irrelevant.

 

[Augustus]

The only belief that concerns us when we talk about theism and atheism is the belief that gods exist and the absence of this belief. Everything else you write is completely irrelevant.

What do you think about the points in this thread? This is the point I am making, but without the baggage of this ongoing debate here so it might be more conducive to discussion.

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...end-assertions-without-believing-them.186093/

If you don't see this as relevant then we are talking about completely different things.

 

[ArtieE]

What do you think about the points in this thread? This is the point I am making, but without the baggage of this ongoing debate here so it might be more conducive to discussion.

http://www.religiousforums.com/thre...end-assertions-without-believing-them.186093/

If you don't see this as relevant then we are talking about completely different things.

I read the thread and the subject is interesting but I see no relevance. You're either a theist or not so what does it matter if our brains are wired to automatically believe things the first second until critical thinking sets in? That is just a survival mechanism. Better to automatically believe the rustling in the grass is a tiger and run than stand there and debate with yourself and get eaten.

 

[atanu]

Why did that creative intelligence create the Universe? What led Him to that decision? Desire? Why did He have that desire?

Pardon my intrusion. Whence our desires? Before deciding about God, whom no one has seen or heard, we may, IMO, probe our own selves.

 

[atanu]

And why does this creative intelligence exist? Another creative intelligence created it?

No. All religions accept it as unborn and the reality of the present.

 

[ArtieE]

Pardon my intrusion. Whence our desires? Before deciding about God, whom no one has seen or heard, we may, IMO, probe our own selves.

What do you mean no one has seen or heard? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/seen.html

 

[atanu]

What do you mean no one has seen or heard? http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/seen.html

No one among us.

For believers, the Self can take any form. Also, God can take a form for some purpose. Lord Krishna appeared before many.

 

[ArtieE]

No one among us.

For believers, the Self can take any form. Also, God can take a form for some purpose. Lord Krishna appeared before many.

Just a different way of saying that any god can take on any properties and qualities the people making him up can imagine.

 

[atanu]

Just a different way of saying that any god can take on any properties and qualities the people making him up can imagine.

Huh. Inert materials do not imagine. That is why I had suggested "Whence the desire? " and before that "Whence the I?"