I don't think there's much point in trying to rewrite the definition of theism when all definitions I know of defines theism as a belief in the existence of god(s). It just confuses the issue even more.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What do people think "atheist" means?
- Thread starter ArtieE
- Start date
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I take your point but it gets a bit semantic also- what is super natural.. if we are talking about the origins of nature itself, and it's NOT supernatural..
then you are saying that the ultimate laws of nature can ultimately be accounted for by... those very same laws? That's a paradox unique to naturalism
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
yes, the existence of an intelligent creator of the universe and everything in it, transcending space and time as we know it. It would certainly be the definition of God that covers most theists including myself
Any two members of the same church debate the details, that's where personal faith comes in.
I do see your point. If we ever meet more technologically advanced races in the universe we should simply call them gods and start worshiping them and praising them and sing hymns to them sacrificing things and pray to them and stuff?Creator of the universe and hence everything in it by intelligent design, a conscious entity who by definition, having created it, transcends time and space as we know it.. no, nothing that could be described as God at all!
Has atheism been reduced to a semantic argument to what name we give God? Theists do the exact same so I'm not sure I see the distinction!
What about the origins of your god? Are they natural or supernatural? Does he exist because of chance or design?
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
They are beliefs, the point I was making is that all beliefs, religious and otherwise, are also inherent claims for the truthfulness of the belief that is being presented. If someone believes in Bigfoot, there is an intrinsic claim that Bigfoot is real. The same goes for belief in gods. It is logically impossible for someone to believe a proposition is true without taking the inherent position that the position is, in fact, true. That's a claim, voiced or not.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
in the universe.. would mean they are part of creation, not God. Out of interest, do you personally believe the designer universe theory?
IF so, we probably don't have much to debate. Unless you think there is some reason this conscious entity would not take interest in their creation, or would be more interested in cold dead rocks than the sentient life it created, would decide not to reserve the ability to observe, interact if it could, would have created something called love, that it did not itself possess and would not wish to spread amongst it's sentient creations?
Yorutenchi
Member
It is not paradoxical. At least not any more so than to say that nature can only be created by not-nature. Which does not in itself make any more sense. But from what we do know there is no supernatural forces at work.
Supernatural when I say that is superstitious things. Things like god or luck or ghosts.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
The first cause paradox applies equally to any explanation does it not?- where did THAT come from? It's also a moot point because- here we are, there is obviously a solution one way or another.
what's not equal though is the capacity for chance v creative intelligence to produce everything we see around us.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I think that gets close to the heart of it. Purpose, free will, desire, creative intelligence- can only exist in a conscious mind, and can do what nature alone never can. i.e. it is both natural and supernatural, in the sense that it is the only phenomena not bound to outcomes by natural laws.
I think this is the best chance to solve the paradox of infinite regression- nature begetting nature- , creative intelligence is the only means by which something can truly be originated
Yorutenchi
Member
I do not agree as the evidence doesn't support that theory. I think that the claim is something you most likely like or somehow resonates with you. I don't think that the evidence at hand would suggest that. It would be nice if it did.
I believe nothing I just stay neutral. So, are all more advanced creatures in or out of this universe gods and would you start worshiping them and praising them and sing hymns to them sacrificing things and pray to them and stuff like you do with your god?
leibowde84
Veteran Member
But, evolution doesn't speak to how life came from non-life or how the universe came from nothing. So, how is that relevant?
I repeat: "What about the origins of your god? Are they natural or supernatural? Does he exist because of chance or design?" Why does your god exist at all as opposed to not existing? These are fascinating questions. Please answer them.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
I always assume everyone here is capable of critical thought, at least I find that makes for a more interesting debate and helps stay off the slippery slope of ad hominem attacks. I think ID is the least improbable explanation for the universe as far as we can observe it. It's not necessarily the most comforting idea, there are a lot of implications come with it.
what evidence do you feel supports a natural cause for the universe? - must run for now but appreciate your thoughtful responses
I must also run but I await your answer to my questions later.
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
the two are inseparable, if the universe was an accident, so too might be life.
But if not, it would be an extremely odd assertion that life, sentience, a means for this creation to be experienced from within... was an unintended consequence!
Guy Threepwood
Mighty Pirate
again it's a wash, the questions are not specific to God, they apply to any explanation
i.e.
"What about the origins of your naturalist mechanism? Are they natural or supernatural? Does it exist because of chance or design?" Why does your natural mechanism exist at all as opposed to not existing? These are fascinating questions. Please answer them.
There are many possibilities, you mentioned intelligence from 'another universe', that's one but I don't claim to know. But the larger point being, 'natural laws' creating 'natural laws' ad infinitum is a paradox unique to naturalism, creative intelligence is not bound by laws- it has the greater creative freedom, the greater power of explanation for the ultimate creation.
A rock tumbler full of a trillion pieces of lego working for a trillion years is no match for a curious child with a small box of them in an afternoon
Last edited:
leibowde84
Veteran Member
An "accident" implies an actor, so it doesn't make sense to claim that evolution claims this. And, since evolution does not speak in any way to the beginning of the universe, I am, again, not sure how your point is relevant. Evolution ONLY speaks to the process of different species changing over time. The theory speaks ONLY to what happened after the first life form arose. Thus, your claims here are nothing but straw-men.
Sentience seems to provide an advantage to humans, so it is erroneous to claim that evolution demands that sentience was an "unintended consequence". In actuality, this doesn't even make sense, as evolution recognizes no supernatural actor for which the consequences could have been "unintended".
From usage, of course.