There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Polymath257]

I knew quite a bit about that of Aristotle. And I did not deny that he argued against heliocentrism, I just wanted to see the source. I see claims all of the time. But what was amazing to me was the claim that Aristotle "refuted" heliocentrism. By no means did he do that. He may have argued against it, but as you pointed out, without experimentation "common sense" can often mislead us.

There is a much more comprehensive list of arguments by Ptolemy at the beginning of his Almagest.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Or deist, or possibly even atheist. People rarely read the claim that he was not an atheist in context. In context he just did not like the firebrand atheists of his time. In other words he would be what is called a soft atheist today.

Theism and pantheism are not the same.
Theism is the belief in a personal, anthropomorphic god that cares about what humans do. And in some case, cares in particular what humans do while naked, for some reason.

Pantheism doesn't include a belief in a person anthropomorphic god at all. In pantheism, there is no "single" god or creator god. There isn't even a duality of mind and matter, so there is no concept of "soul" either.

Pantheists aren't theists by any means of the word.

In the case of Einstein, his 'pantheism' would be virtually indistinguishable from atheism.

Yet his attitude toward "music of the spheres" or "beautiful harmony of the structure of this world" is far from atheism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet his attitude toward "music of the spheres" or "beautiful harmony of the structure of this world" is far from atheism.

Why?

 

[Polymath257]

I knew quite a bit about that of Aristotle. And I did not deny that he argued against heliocentrism, I just wanted to see the source. I see claims all of the time. But what was amazing to me was the claim that Aristotle "refuted" heliocentrism. By no means did he do that. He may have argued against it, but as you pointed out, without experimentation "common sense" can often mislead us.

I actually think his argument against heliocentrism using parallax is the most interesting one because it shows the biases he was working under.

Prior to modern science, the scale of the universe was not known and the commonly accepted viewpoint was that the whole of the physical world could be placed inside of a sphere that, today, would be well inside of our solar system. The stars were seen as points of light on a sphere encircling the Earth. The planets (and this included the sun and moon) were seen to revolve around the Earth on crystalline spheres. The motion of those spheres was transferred down from the outermost one (heaven) and the motion of the stars directly affected how things happened on Earth.

During the Neoplatonic movement (which interacted strongly with Christianity), it was thought that human souls were lifted up through those spheres until they reached heaven. Some thought that the souls needed assistance in this journey, so the 'prime mover' sent a representative to assist them. This assistant was often called the Logos, which is why the Gospel of John identifies Jesus as the 'Word'.

 

[Polymath257]

Yet his attitude toward "music of the spheres" or "beautiful harmony of the structure of this world" is far from atheism.

Why would you say that? Atheists can appreciate the beauties of nature and the incredible way that things fit together.

 

[PearlSeeker]

It's called pareidolia.

Everything in the universe is going to look like something else in the universe.

Yes, I know and I already expected this response.

What about beautiful geometric patterns in nature? (snowflake, seashell, sunflower, aloe vera etc.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I know and I already expected this response.

What about beautiful geometric patterns in nature? (snowflake, seashell, sunflower, aloe vera etc.)

You mean geometric shapes that are the result of natural laws? What about them?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, I know and I already expected this response.

What about beautiful geometric patterns in nature? (snowflake, seashell, sunflower, aloe vera etc.)

What are those representative of?

Once again, I am not asking for things that are simply pretty or organized. Such could easily arise through other means.

I want examples of where one thing *clearly* and unmistakably represents something else.

Once again, a statue is a good example: the statue is not the same as object being represented but it clearly does represent that object. Or a painting: again, the painting of a bison is not a bison. But it clearly represents a bison.

Neither simply 'look similar to' what they represent. It isn't a trick of the eye, like a face in the clouds or seeing Jesus on toast.

One reason this is a good test is that any intelligence with the ability to think abstractly will come up with the idea of such representational art. but such art is not something that can be made from just the application of the natural laws alone. Hence, it is a good test of an intelligent designer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I know and I already expected this response.

What about beautiful geometric patterns in nature? (snowflake, seashell, sunflower, aloe vera etc.)

To add on to what has already been said. You are trying to use an argument that amounts to "I don't understand how this happened, therefore God". That is also called the God of the Gaps argument. The problem with that would seem to be that once one understood something by the same "logic" one would say:

"I understand this, therefore not God". It almost becomes an argument against God. This is not the correct way to find out if a God exists or not.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Why?

Why would you say that? Atheists can appreciate the beauties of nature and the incredible way that things fit together.

Yes, but you don't see any manifestation of something transcendent.

What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos... (Einstein)

Source: Wiki

We followers of Spinoza see our God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul ("Beseeltheit") as it reveals itself in man and animal. It is a different question whether belief in a personal God should be contested. Freud endorsed this view in his latest publication. I myself would never engage in such a task. For such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook of life, and I wonder whether one can ever successfully render to the majority of mankind a more sublime means in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs. (Einstein)

Source: We followers of Spinoza see our God in the wonderful order…​

 

[Wildswanderer]

People call the Piltdown man hoax and the false beliefs it spawned science. It's not. Science exposed and corrected the hoax.

The same one it started?

 

[metis]

Source: Wiki

We followers of Spinoza see our God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul ("Beseeltheit") as it reveals itself in man and animal. It is a different question whether belief in a personal God should be contested. Freud endorsed this view in his latest publication. I myself would never engage in such a task. For such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook of life, and I wonder whether one can ever successfully render to the majority of mankind a more sublime means in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs. (Einstein)

Source: We followers of Spinoza see our God in the wonderful order…

I can't remember if it was you that I mentioned the following to but have you read "A Book Forged In Hell: Spinoza's Scandalous Treatise and the Birth of the Secular Age" by Steven Nadler?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, but you don't see any manifestation of something transcendent.

What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos... (Einstein)

Source: Wiki

We followers of Spinoza see our God in the wonderful order and lawfulness of all that exists and in its soul ("Beseeltheit") as it reveals itself in man and animal. It is a different question whether belief in a personal God should be contested. Freud endorsed this view in his latest publication. I myself would never engage in such a task. For such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook of life, and I wonder whether one can ever successfully render to the majority of mankind a more sublime means in order to satisfy its metaphysical needs. (Einstein)

Source: We followers of Spinoza see our God in the wonderful order…​

I don't think that you understood that quote. He did not like atheists that simply said "It is natural" without trying to find out why and how we know that it is natural. Just saying "It is natural" alone is no different than saying "God did it". The sense of awe that Einstein, and many other scientists have is on the order of:

"Wow! I wonder why that is the way that it is/"

The examples that you brought up are rather old and stale ones. So when you bring those up the awe is gone for us for the most part. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt:

I have some favorite arguments since I worked themselves out myself so the sense of awe is remembered a bit each time that I bring them up.

For example on this page, or maybe the prior one know I have a picture of a geologic formation that refutes the Flood myth. It is still a bit of an awe inspiring image for me because I can understand the processes involved rather well.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Written them as myths? What does that mean? They are myths as written, whether that was the intention or not.

No, they are real history. And it's usually easy to spot a myth. They don't generally mention real people and places.

 

[metis]

Why is it the some decry scandals in science but not in their own religion? I betcha that the latter has had far more than the former over the years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, they are real history. And it's usually easy to spot a myth. They don't generally mention real people and places.

Myths very often have real places. I do agree that the characters in myths are usually fictional. Like Noah.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No, Aristotle never refuted heliocentrism. He may have argued against it, but just arguing is not a refutation.

I am unaware if he argued either way. Do you have evidence for your claim? If not why should anyone take you seriously?

Neither one was correct as we understand things now. So we are most likely wrong too.
Galileo’s views were not entirely correct, either. He believed that the sun was not just the fixed center of the solar system but the fixed center of the universe.

 

[PearlSeeker]

You mean geometric shapes that are the result of natural laws? What about them?

What are those representative of?

Yes, they are not representative art. It could be abstract art.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Why is it the some decry scandals in science but not in their own religion? I betcha that the latter has had far more than the former over the years.

As a Catholic you have a lot of those..

 

[metis]

As a Catholic you have a lot of those..

We're very far from being alone on this--Falwell, Swaggert, Baker, ...

But then, maybe you're sinless.