The Paradox of Atheism and God

[Revoltingest]

I've been away for a bit.
How's the "paradox" of not believing in unevidenced sky fairies going?

 

[PureX]

Explain why a claim that there is a purpose to existence is logically possible is a false claim?

To claim that there is a purpose, or that there is not a purpose, is a false claim coming from a human being because no human being can know either of these to be so. All we can do is accept and proclaim that from the perspective of we limited human beings, existential purpose is a logical possibility. It is possible because it's not impossible. And it's logical because everything that we know to exist, exists to fulfill some purpose. Observed existence IS purposeful. Therefor, it is logical to theorize that the whole of existence is likewise purposeful.

Or better still, that existence is sentient independent of the individuals with sentience contained within it cannot be shown to be logically possible?

We are sentient. We are a part of the whole of existence. Therefor, existence as a whole is sentient, at least through us, and quite possibly though other forms of being that we are as yet unaware of. EXISTENCE IS NOT INDEPENDENT FROM US. That was a logically false assumption for you to impose.

Logic is simply an algorithm. It takes input, uses operations to create associations between the inputs and provides an output, or conclusion. The quality or factualness of the input, or lack thereof, affects the output or conclusion. Given the available set of facts and theories, one cannot logically conclude that either of those speculations are possible.

Actually, logically speaking, one must conclude that they ARE both possible, and self evident.

 

[MikeF]

To claim that there is a purpose, or that there is not a purpose, is a false claim coming from a human being because no human being can know either of these to be so.

First you must establish what it is that is assigning a purpose. You must have an agent assigning purpose. You have yet to do that. I certainly agree that you, personally, can subjectively assign a purpose to physical reality in general terms as well as specify specific purposes for specific aspects of physical reality. But it is my impression that you are proclaiming a possible purpose assigned from a source other than yourself or another human being. Also, for the purposes of clarification, when we speak of a purpose of or for existence, I have been assuming that 'existence' is a synonym for physical reality; all that exists in total.

All we can do is accept and proclaim that from the perspective of we limited human beings, existential purpose is a logical possibility.

When you say "existential purpose" does it mean that physical reality was brought into existence with sentient intent of some entity? Still need to establish the possibility of the entity first.

And it's logical because everything that we know to exist, exists to fulfill some purpose. Observed existence IS purposeful. Therefor, it is logical to theorize that the whole of existence is likewise purposeful.

Again, if the claim is that we know physical reality was brought into existence by sentient intent, there would be no evidence to support that claim. We also still require an agent which has yet to be established.

We are sentient. We are a part of the whole of existence. Therefor, existence as a whole is sentient, at least through us, and quite possibly though other forms of being that we are as yet unaware of.

Yes, we are sentient (we humans an other organisms on earth). Yes we are a part of the totality of physical reality. Yes, it is possible there are other sentient entities in the Cosmos outside of our planet. No, given our current level of understanding, we cannot assign sentience to the totality of physical reality. From our understanding of sentience on this planet, it does not make sense, it is not logical, to extrapolate and assign sentience in the way that you have to the totality of physical reality.

EXISTENCE IS NOT INDEPENDENT FROM US. That was a logically false assumption for you to impose.

We can divide and aggregate the physical world in an endless variety of ways to suit our needs. Your notion that existence is not independent from us is a subjective construct that is not very useful. Yes, the mass/energy that make each human being up is part of the set of all mass/energy that make up all of physical reality, just as the mass/energy of an asteroid in the Kuiper belt is also part of that set. However, physical reality is in no way dependent on the specific mass/energy configurations that constitutes me, you, or the asteroid.

Actually, logically speaking, one must conclude that they ARE both possible, and self evident.

Yeah ... I don't think so. How about you establish the possibility of the agent to which we are to attribute having assigned a possible purpose to physical reality.

 

[PureX]

First you must establish what it is that is assigning a purpose.

Why? We can recognize the purpose of bumble bees without establishing something as having "assigned" them that purpose. In fact, it is in recognizing their purpose that we would then ask ourselves what might possibly have been responsible for it. I think you've put the cart before the horse, there.

You must have an agent assigning purpose.

Why? Where is this rule written, and what is it based on? Maybe bumble bees were not "assigned" their purpose at all. Maybe they simply morphed into the fulfillment of an extant possibility, and fulfilling that possibility then became their "purpose". So where did that extant possibility come from? Perhaps it was just the result of a bunch of other already fulfilled possibilities. An empty niche created by a world of other fulfilled and fulfilling niches. The "agency" assigning all this was just possibility and happenstance.

You have yet to do that.

I'm not the one making the claim that there must be an "agent", here, you are. All I'm saying is that we can observe purpose being expressed/fulfilled by everything around us.

I certainly agree that you, personally, can subjectively assign a purpose to physical reality in general terms as well as specify specific purposes for specific aspects of physical reality.

Yes, but our assigning our own preferred purpose to things is something very different from recognizing the purpose of things within the whole of existence. Cats have their own purpose in the world apart from any purposes you or I might "assign" them.

But it is my impression that you are proclaiming a possible purpose assigned from a source other than yourself or another human being.

Well, sure. But that's an 'objectively' observed purpose, not a 'subjective' purpose assigned by me, as you seem to want to claim. And all I can do is speculate on the possible origin of the observed purpose.

Also, for the purposes of clarification, when we speak of a purpose of or for existence, I have been assuming that 'existence' is a synonym for physical reality; all that exists in total.

All that exists in total extends far beyond physical reality.

When you say "existential purpose" does it mean that physical reality was brought into existence with sentient intent of some entity?

There is no way for we humans to answer that question, as WE exist as within the result. All we can say is that it is a logical possibility.

Still need to establish the possibility of the entity first.

Existence exists. Every part within existence fulfills a purpose within the whole. Therefor, logically, we can speculate that the whole, itself, also fulfills a purpose for or within some greater 'entity'.

Yes, we are sentient (we humans an other organisms on earth). Yes we are a part of the totality of physical reality. Yes, it is possible there are other sentient entities in the Cosmos outside of our planet. No, given our current level of understanding, we cannot assign sentience to the totality of physical reality.

You just did.

From our understanding of sentience on this planet, it does not make sense, it is not logical, to extrapolate and assign sentience in the way that you have to the totality of physical reality.

I'm sorry that it's impossible for you to grasp that you and the universe are one and the same expression of 'existence'. You say it with words, but your mind refuses to grasp their meaning.

We can divide and aggregate the physical world in an endless variety of ways to suit our needs.

But that does not divide existen except in you minds. It remains a single integrated whole, regardless.

Your notion that existence is not independent from us is a subjective construct that is not very useful.

Actually, it's just the opposite. Your contention that the universe exists apart from us is the subjective construct.

Yes, the mass/energy that make each human being up is part of the set of all mass/energy that make up all of physical reality, just as the mass/energy of an asteroid in the Kuiper belt is also part of that set. However, physical reality is in no way dependent on the specific mass/energy configurations that constitutes me, you, or the asteroid.

Of course it is. The same possibilities and impossibilities apply to all, equally. Otherwise the universe would disintegrate into chaos.

Yeah ... I don't think so. How about you establish the possibility of the agent to which we are to attribute having assigned a possible purpose to physical reality.

I have done so for you many times. (see above) The fact that you cannot or will not grasp it is not my responsibility to ameliorate.

 

[MikeF]

Why? Where is this rule written, and what is it based on? Maybe bumble bees were not "assigned" their purpose at all. Maybe they simply morphed into the fulfillment of an extant possibility, and fulfilling that possibility then became their "purpose". So where did that extant possibility come from? Perhaps it was just the result of a bunch of other already fulfilled possibilities. An empty niche created by a world of other fulfilled and fulfilling niches. The "agency" assigning all this was just possibility and happenstance.

Exactly so.

I, and others, would make a distinction between what occurs through "possibility and happenstance" of non-sentient cause and effect of physical interactions, and that which occurs due to sentient intent or is utilized for sentient intent. You freely conflate the two cases and assign the label 'purpose' to both. I suggest blurring or obfuscating that distinction is a subjective choice on your part to meet your needs, wants, and desires. You quite readily accuse me of bias throughout this conversation. Perhaps it's time to look in the mirror.

 

[PureX]

Exactly so.

I, and others, would make a distinction between what occurs through "possibility and happenstance" of non-sentient cause and effect of physical interactions, and that which occurs due to sentient intent or is utilized for sentient intent. You freely conflate the two cases and assign the label 'purpose' to both. I suggest blurring or obfuscating that distinction is a subjective choice on your part to meet your needs, wants, and desires. You quite readily accuse me of bias throughout this conversation. Perhaps it's time to look in the mirror.

Man! you guys are SO AFRAID of any possibility of sentient agency it's ridiculous. You see that boogeyman, everywhere!

 

[MikeF]

Man! you guys are SO AFRAID of any possibility of sentient agency it's ridiculous. You see that boogeyman, everywhere!

I would suggest it is less about being afraid of a boogeyman, rather, it is an acknowledgement that we human beings are fallible and can get things wrong and go astray, a fact quite well documented throughout history. What one can consider possible can only be held with any confidence if it has support from what we already know. Speculation and limitless imagination are great, but can only be held as such without that support.

 

[PureX]

I would suggest it is less about being afraid of a boogeyman, rather, it is an acknowledgement that we human beings are fallible and can get things wrong and go astray, a fact quite well documented throughout history. What one can consider possible can only be held with any confidence if it has support from what we already know. Speculation and limitless imagination are great, but can only be held as such without that support.

Thank you for defining the innate human bias of "self-justification". Now, let's consider how it might be possible to rise above it.

 

[MikeF]

Thank you for defining the innate human bias of "self-justification". Now, let's consider how it might be possible to rise above it.

Not seeing it. The whole point to mitigating human fallibility is to take the individual self out of the position of sole arbiter.

 

[The Hammer]

Can we change our mind about what we believe?

Absolutely

 

[Kfox]

What if God exists, but not in the way that most religions claim? What if God is not a personal being, but a transcendent reality that can only be experienced through reason, logic, and evidence? Something which some atheists seem to be very familiar with.

Why call it God?

 

[Trailblazer]

Why call it God?

Why not call it God? Why would God have to be personal? Have you been duped by Christianity?

 

[MikeF]

Why not call it God? Why would God have to be personal? Have you been duped by Christianity?

Because it's confusing. If the label 'God' has been applied to the concept of a personal entity for millennia, that will be what is assumed when you use it. If one is presenting a different concept that is a non-personal entity, or not a sentient entity at all, then give it a unique label so that folks know that that is what you are talking about.

 

[Trailblazer]

Because it's confusing. If the label 'God' has been applied to the concept of a personal entity for millennia, that will be what is assumed when you use it. If one is presenting a different concept that is a non-personal entity, or not a sentient entity at all, then give it a unique label so that folks know that that is what you are talking about.

Aside from Christianity, which religions teach that God is personal?
I guess we need to define personal because that means different things to different people.

 

[MikeF]

Aside from Christianity, which religions teach that God is personal?
I guess we need to define personal because that means different things to different people.

By all means, define what you mean by a 'personal god'.

You seem to indicate that all flavors of Christianity teach that their claimed entity is personal. Can I infer from that that all religions that regard their claimed entity as being the same one referenced in the Tanakh also consider the entity as "personal" as you define it? This would then include Judaism and Islam as other non-Christian religions with a "personal god", whatever that term means to you.

 

[Trailblazer]

By all means, define what you mean by a 'personal god'.

While the Baháʼí writings teach of a personal god who is a being with a personality (including the capacity to reason and to feel love), they clearly state that this does not imply a human or physical form.[2] Shoghi Effendi writes:

What is meant by personal God is a God Who is conscious of His creation, Who has a Mind, a Will, a Purpose, and not, as many scientists and materialists believe, an unconscious and determined force operating in the universe. Such conception of the Divine Being, as the Supreme and ever present Reality in the world, is not anthropomorphic, for it transcends all human limitations and forms, and does by no means attempt to define the essence of Divinity which is obviously beyond any human comprehension. To say that God is a personal Reality does not mean that He has a physical form, or does in any way resemble a human being. To entertain such belief would be sheer blasphemy.[15][16]

God in the Baháʼí Faith

You seem to indicate that all flavors of Christianity teach that their claimed entity is personal. Can I infer from that that all religions that regard their claimed entity as being the same one referenced in the Tanakh also consider the entity as "personal" as you define it? This would then include Judaism and Islam as other non-Christian religions with a "personal god", whatever that term means to you.

As a Baha'i, I believe that there is only one God, so the God of all the religions is the same God. However what different religions claim about God is not necessarily the same.

Christianity claims that God is personal but not in the same way Baha'is believe that God is personal. One similarity is that Christians relate to God through Jesus, who is a mediator between God and man, and Baha'is relate to God through Baha'u'llah, who we believe is the mediator for this age.

I do not know if all religions that regard God as being the same one referenced in the Tanakh also consider God as "personal", and if so what they mean by personal is probably different from what Baha'is believe.

 

[MikeF]

What is meant by personal God is a God Who is conscious of His creation, Who has a Mind, a Will, a Purpose including the capacity to reason and to feel love

The excerpt above seems to broadly fit most concepts of the universal entity found in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Latter Day Saints, etc. Can we use it as our working definition of a "personal God"?

If someone's entity does not have *any* of that, can you see how applying the same label to such a thing confuses it with this other concept that has been around for thousands of years?

 

[PureX]

Because it's confusing. If the label 'God' has been applied to the concept of a personal entity for millennia, that will be what is assumed when you use it. If one is presenting a different concept that is a non-personal entity, or not a sentient entity at all, then give it a unique label so that folks know that that is what you are talking about.

We humans are quite capable of understanding and recognizing both ideations. Especially now days. And if you're having trouble, it's really very simple. There is "God" the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, and then there are the many various anthropomorphic conceptual embodiments of that mystery that many humans tend to prefer carrying around in their heads. And it isn't required that they recognize the difference, only that you do.

 

[Audie]

By all means, define what you mean by a 'personal god'.

You seem to indicate that all flavors of Christianity teach that their claimed entity is personal. Can I infer from that that all religions that regard their claimed entity as being the same one referenced in the Tanakh also consider the entity as "personal" as you define it? This would then include Judaism and Islam as other non-Christian religions with a "personal god", whatever that term means to you.

I take it as mostly being just talk. But
it may imply a one on one relationship,
a speific interest like parent and child.

 

[Trailblazer]

The excerpt above seems to broadly fit most concepts of the universal entity found in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Latter Day Saints, etc. Can we use it as our working definition of a "personal God"?

Yes, we can use that definition.

One point I'd like to make is that when Christians say Jesus is God incarnate that is not congruent with this part of my definition:
Such conception of the Divine Being, as the Supreme and ever present Reality in the world, is not anthropomorphic, for it transcends all human limitations and forms,

If someone's entity does not have *any* of that, can you see how applying the same label to such a thing confuses it with this other concept that has been around for thousands of years?

Yes, I can understand that.