Can belief in God be supported by logic?

[Ecurb]

In the closed thread, The Atheist said, "Belief in god/s cannot be supported by logic." I don't agree.

P1: Many people far better educated and more intelligent than I insist that God exists.
P2: I should believe what people who are better educated and more intelligent than I insist is true.

Conclusion: I should believe that God exists.

I can think of thousands of other ways in which belief in God can be supported by logic (after all, philosophers have been "proving" the existance of God for several millenia) – I simply offer this as one of a great many possible examples.

[BienvenuJDC]

P1: The universe and all that is in it contain a brilliant design that is far greater than man can completely understand.
P2: Intricate design comes from an Intelligent Designer.

C: The universe was created by an Intelligent Designer.

[Ecurb]

The great Catholic apologist G.K. Chesterton pointed out, “You can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it.”

Nobody can prove anything about the world with logic – logic is inevitably circular. Scientists have long been aware of this – in the philosophy of science it’s called “the problem of induction”. Science is basically an inductive enterprise, and the rules of logic do not allow logical inference based on inductive observation. That’s why Popper posited the principle of “falsifiability” as essential to the scientific endeavor.

[G L Wilson]

In the closed thread, The Atheist said, "Belief in god/s cannot be supported by logic." I don't agree.

P1: Many people far better educated and more intelligent than I insist that God exists.
P2: I should believe what people who are better educated and more intelligent than I insist is true.

Conclusion: I should believe that God exists.

I can think of thousands of other ways in which belief in God can be supported by logic (after all, philosophers have been "proving" the existance of God for several millenia) – I simply offer this as one of a great many possible examples.

The appeal to authority is a refuge from proper reasoning.

There is no way of proving or disproving the existence of God, therefore he is an untenable hypothesis.

[Ecurb]

The appeal to authority is a refuge from proper reasoning.

There is no way of proving or disproving the existence of God, therefore he is an untenable hypothesis.

No it isn't. I believe the world is a globe orbiting the sun because authorities whom I trust have told me that it is. I'll grant that an appeal to authority doesn't "prove" anything -- but that wasn't The Atheist's claim. He claimed "Belief in god cannot be SUPPORTED by logic." We all believe things that haven't been proven -- and we believe many of them for the perfectly good reason that we've been told they are true by authoritative sources. For example, I believe that Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs in his major League career because the Baseball Encyclopedia so informs me.

[G L Wilson]

No it isn't. I believe the world is a globe orbiting the sun because authorities whom I trust have told me that it is. I'll grant that an appeal to authority doesn't "prove" anything -- but that wasn't The Atheist's claim. He claimed "Belief in god cannot be SUPPORTED by logic." We all believe things that haven't been proven -- and we believe many of them for the perfectly good reason that we've been told they are true by authoritative sources. For example, I believe that Babe Ruth hit 714 home runs in his major League career because the Baseball Encyclopedia so informs me.

Lies are no proof of truth.

[JCamilo]

Seriously,

Logic does not proof anything, it is a form of construction. Existence of God is supported by logic - Appel to authority is a logical falacy, but it is logical. St.Thomas was very logical in his arguments. Someone with enogh cleaverness can use logic to argue towards god existence. But it does not proof anything.

[Drkshadow03]

Lies are no proof of truth.

Lies? The world isn't a globe orbiting the sun? Babe Ruth didn't hit 714 home runs?

[G L Wilson]

Lies? The world isn't a globe orbiting the sun? Babe Ruth didn't hit 714 home runs?

Name one fact about God.

[Drkshadow03]

Name one fact about God.

Why? My response clearly was asking you to elaborate which part you feel Ecurb lied about? So your response is a red herring to what I actually was questioning.

But sure, if you insist. God is a character in the Bible. There, I just named a fact about God. See, not so hard.

[G L Wilson]

Why? My response clearly was asking you to elaborate which part you feel Ecurb lied about? So your response is a red herring to what I actually was questioning.

But sure, if you insist. God is a character in the Bible. There, I just named a fact about God. See, not so hard.

"God is love."

"The Lord is a man of war."

From The Bible.

[Ecurb]

Lies are no proof of truth.

But truth is the proof of lies.

[BienvenuJDC]

"God is love."

"The Lord is a man of war."

From The Bible.

What is your point by quoting, "The Lord is a man of war"? The context is the song of Moses, whom the Lord had just delivered Moses and the Israelites from the oppression of the Pharaoh and his chariots. These thoughts are not contradictory. You really should do more research next time.

[YesNo]

In the closed thread, The Atheist said, "Belief in god/s cannot be supported by logic." I don't agree.

I agree that belief can be supported by logic.

Although I'm puzzled why someone would actually risk making such a statement, I think the reason writers do write things like this is to exercise power over their readers. They are basically saying: "Here's some nonsense and you better accept it, or else I'm going to label you 'stupid', 'dumb' or 'irrational'."

Of course, such labeling may backfire, but if you respond to the nonsense you will surely get labeled and if you do not respond, they will assume they have won something. It is no consolation, but it is amusing human interaction.

[Calidore]

In the closed thread, The Atheist said, "Belief in god/s cannot be supported by logic." I don't agree.

P1: Many people far better educated and more intelligent than I insist that God exists.
P2: I should believe what people who are better educated and more intelligent than I insist is true.

Conclusion: I should believe that God exists.

I can think of thousands of other ways in which belief in God can be supported by logic (after all, philosophers have been "proving" the existance of God for several millenia) – I simply offer this as one of a great many possible examples.

The above isn't logic, though. P1 ignores the fact that many highly intelligent and educated people insist that there's no God. Re. P2, many politicians and corporate executives are better educated than me, but automatically believing what they tell me would be a bad idea. Using the above argument, you're using your beliefs to choose who and what to believe. Understandable, but not necessarily logic.


P1: The universe and all that is in it contain a brilliant design that is far greater than man can completely understand.
P2: Intricate design comes from an Intelligent Designer.

C: The universe was created by an Intelligent Designer.

This P1 is an assumption, though it can be made true with a small change at the end: "...than man understands right now." P2 is purely opinion.

Going back to Ecurb, some philosophers claim that they can prove the existence of God (or, more accurately, a God), but had it been provable, there'd be no debate. Some people can give good reasons why there might be some form of higher power/creator that we'd call God, but as it stands now, this being is invisible, undetectable, and if it's even aware of us, seems to have a non-interference policy. Without a discernable effect, it's hard to prove a cause.

[mortalterror]

What you are discussing, a logical proof of the existence of god, is what is known as an ontological argument. There are many from Anselm to Godel.

[G L Wilson]

What is your point by quoting, "The Lord is a man of war"? The context is the song of Moses, whom the Lord had just delivered Moses and the Israelites from the oppression of the Pharaoh and his chariots. These thoughts are not contradictory. You really should do more research next time.

God showed a lot of love to the Egyptians, didn't he? Either God shows love to all people equally or he is a worthless tribal deity, an idol, an abomination.


What you are discussing, a logical proof of the existence of god, is what is known as an ontological argument. There are many from Anselm to Godel.

There are many arguments for a God, none of which are valid. And that, mortalterror, is the mortal terror of it.

[Drkshadow03]

God showed a lot of love to the Egyptians, didn't he? Either God shows love to all people equally or he is a worthless tribal deity, an idol, an abomination.

Whether God exists or doesn't is beside the point; this is a false dichotomy that shows a lack of imagination about relationships between people.

You've never heard of a parent who loves all their kids, but loves one child better (hell, the Bible even has a story reflecting that kind of relationship: Joseph and his brothers). Just because Jacob loves Joseph better doesn't mean he doesn't love Reuben at all.

[YesNo]

...

This P1 is an assumption, though it can be made true with a small change at the end: "...than man understands right now." P2 is purely opinion.

Going back to Ecurb, some philosophers claim that they can prove the existence of God (or, more accurately, a God), but had it been provable, there'd be no debate. Some people can give good reasons why there might be some form of higher power/creator that we'd call God, but as it stands now, this being is invisible, undetectable, and if it's even aware of us, seems to have a non-interference policy. Without a discernable effect, it's hard to prove a cause.
When I read these statements the P1 and P2 were assumptions. The C was the conclusion. Going from the assumptions P1 and P2 to C is the logic.

The question remains whether you as a reader accept P1 or P2. That is your choice, but it has nothing to do with logic.

I do not belong to a Judeo-Christo-Islamic faith, so the statements you make above that I placed in bold don't make sense to me. Probably they don't even make sense to someone who belongs to these faiths, but I do recognize them as Western cultural assumptions. These are assumptions like those P1 and P2 statements you complained about above. I have no doubt that given these assumptions you can logically reason to all kinds of conclusions.

If you want to see God's visibility, detectability and interference in your life do the following experiment:


Take a deep breath. Be aware of your breathing as you fill your lungs. Then slowing let the air out paying attention to your breathing all the while.

Were you aware of your breathing? That awareness is the God within, visible, detectable and certainly part of your life.

[Fyodor]

We can use Keppler's laws of bodies in motion to accurately predict the motion of the universe. If you can do the math, you can say very precisely where in the sky Saturn will be or when the next solar eclipse is.

That is the value of physics.

You can call it a 'belief' that the earth goes around the sun and so on and so forth but that kind of scientific 'belief' yields results, makes predictions which can be tested.

Now the other kind of belief, in god or gods or what have you, may have benefits but they almost never yield measurable results. For instance, you cannot use the bible to create the technology in a cell phone.

But you can use quantum mechanics.

Logic, as an earlier post indicates, is circular and falls apart with unique examples. If you say "people smarter than me say he exists" you are assuming people smarter than you are always right. I don't think this is the case.

Big claims require big evidence, and for a reasonable person to 'prove a Christian god' for instance one would need a some pretty big evidence that there is an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving diety watching over the universe. Not just a hopeless circle of logic.

[Ecurb]

The above isn't logic, though. P1 ignores the fact that many highly intelligent and educated people insist that there's no God. Re. P2, many politicians and corporate executives are better educated than me, but automatically believing what they tell me would be a bad idea. Using the above argument, you're using your beliefs to choose who and what to believe. Understandable, but not necessarily logic.

.

Logic is a process of inference. Of course it is reasonable to claim that my postulates are incorrect -- but the conclusion is logically valid based on my postulates. ALL logic must start somewhere. (See YesNo's Post.)


What you are discussing, a logical proof of the existence of god, is what is known as an ontological argument. There are many from Anselm to Godel.

That's not what we are discussing (or, at least, not what I was discussing in the O.P.). Instead, I was questioning whether belief in God can be "supported by" logic. They are two different things.

[The Atheist]

In the closed thread, The Atheist said, "Belief in god/s cannot be supported by logic." I don't agree.

Good on you for picking it up and going with it.


P1: Many people far better educated and more intelligent than I insist that God exists.
P2: I should believe what people who are better educated and more intelligent than I insist is true.

Conclusion: I should believe that God exists.

Fails.

Among members of the most prestigious scientific group on the planet, 72% of scientists in the National Academy of Sciences in USA do not believe in any god/s, while only 7% are active theists.

Your fallacious appeal to authority loses.


I can think of thousands of other ways in which belief in God can be supported by logic (after all, philosophers have been "proving" the existance of God for several millenia) – I simply offer this as one of a great many possible examples.

I honestly do hope you have some better ones, because that is a clear 15-love.


P1: The universe and all that is in it contain a brilliant design that is far greater than man can completely understand.
P2: Intricate design comes from an Intelligent Designer.

C: The universe was created by an Intelligent Designer.

Fail.

That the universe is too clever to be unplanned is a circular argument, which is another logical fallacy.

Again, it is not only fallacious, but incorrect.

Again, we must look to the experts rather than some pastors to figure out whether the universe is spontaneous or planned, and the numbers against you cause the argument to fail on any grounds other than "the bible says...."

I call that a simple 30-love to me!

:D

Can I suggest that you both should study logical fallacies and avoid them, because if we are going to present logical cases, they must use actual logic.


I agree that belief can be supported by logic.

Go ahead then. It would be a lot closer to the point than attempting to rationalise what you think.

This is actually a discussion about logic more than god/s, which is why it's in philosophy, so enlighten us with some logic that works.


Logic is a process of inference. Of course it is reasonable to claim that my postulates are incorrect -- but the conclusion is logically valid based on my postulates. ALL logic must start somewhere. (See YesNo's Post.)

If you check carefully, that post pointed out that it is not a logical argument. Your method of reasoning is correct, but the material you're using is flawed and can't be used that way in a logical argument. The only tiny step we need to get past is solipsism, and that ain't in your matrix.

We start with "reality exists" and work forward.

[Ecurb]

Logical arguments must start from premises. As the well-known "problem of induction" (see Popper) suggests, scientific knowledge is no more logically provable than religious knowledge.

Your argument about 72% of scientists being atheists is irrelevant. It may be relevant to YOUR appeal to authority, but has no impact whatsoever on mine. It would be reasonable to bring that up if we were arguing about whether God exists. But we are not. We are arguing about whether belief in God can be “supported by logic”. I don’t doubt that belief in Atheism can ALSO be supported by logic. It is not contradictory to suggest that both can be supported by logic.

Yammering on about “logical fallacies” does not help your case. That’s because the “logical fallacies” that you mention are not “logical fallacies” at all. Instead, they are examples of fallacious “reasoning”. The distinction between validity and truth is well known. A valid argument is one in which no logical errors are made. However, it is perfectly possible for a valid conclusion to be untrue – if the postulates are untrue.

In addition, an appeal to authority is only “fallacious” if it is an appeal to a “false authority”. See this website for an explanation: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Of course, since you disagree (perhaps) about the intelligence and education of Theists, you could argue that my postulates appeal to a false authority. But my argument would nonetheless be “supported by logic”, despite faulty postulates.

One more thing: I know the 15-love and 30-love bits are probably motivated by Federer – Djokovic and the French Open. But anyone who has played tennis knows that it’s frustrating to have an opponent call “out” when one's shot has clearly hit the line. The notion that ‘winning’ an argument is more important than working together to educate ourselves bespeaks a closed mind.

[G L Wilson]

He who is without reason or faith uses logic.

[The Atheist]

We are arguing about whether belief in God can be “supported by logic”.

Yep, and it's not going so well so far.


I don’t doubt that belief in Atheism can ALSO be supported by logic. It is not contradictory to suggest that both can be supported by logic.

Of course it isn't. It just happens that theism isn't.


Yammering on about “logical fallacies” does not help your case.

Not much I can do when I'm presented with them.


That’s because the “logical fallacies” that you mention are not “logical fallacies” at all. Instead, they are examples of fallacious “reasoning”.

By which one arrives at a logical fallacy. Cake/eat, you cannot have it both ways.


The distinction between validity and truth is well known. A valid argument is one in which no logical errors are made. However, it is perfectly possible for a valid conclusion to be untrue – if the postulates are untrue.

Ok, that really does explain a lot.

I ignore logic which isn't based on reality. It also tells me that you have no interest in actually presenting a logical argument.


One more thing: I know the 15-love and 30-love bits are probably motivated by Federer – Djokovic and the French Open. But anyone who has played tennis knows that it’s frustrating to have an opponent call “out” when one's shot has clearly hit the line.

Arguing the call when the ball was a foot in is not on. Even Mac was never that bad.


The notion that ‘winning’ an argument is more important than working together to educate ourselves bespeaks a closed mind.

Nice try, but that fails as well. I don't need any education on religion or religious thinking, so education was never my point, which is still that you cannot support god/s with logical argument - using logic based on the assumption that reality exists.

To date, you haven't even come close.

If it's too hard for you, I'll gladly let the thread die, but it was an honest suggestion when I made it.

[OrphanPip]

Whether one wants to consider something which is formally logical with premises that commit informal fallacies to be logical or not logical comes down to a matter of semantics.

Your link explaining the appeal to authority is wrong though. It is an informal fallacy because the authority does not determine the truth of the statement.

Premise 1: Einstein is an authority on physics.
Premise 2: Einstein's says X about physics.
Therefore X is true.

The conclusion does not follow because there is no logical link between the conclusion and the premises. There are hidden assumed premises, the only one that leads to the final one is Einstein's views on physics are infallible, a ridiculous premise.

Of course, we often depend on authority because we recognize it as reasonable and expedient, however we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking authority produces truth.

1: Einstein is often right about physics.
2: Einstein says X about physics.
C: Therefore, it is reasonable to believe Einstein about X.

Note here, in the logical formulation of an appeal to authority, that there is no claim to the truth of X.

[G L Wilson]

In informal logic, I say that God is bull.

[Drkshadow03]

Your link explaining the appeal to authority is wrong though. It is an informal fallacy because the authority does not determine the truth of the statement.


Actually I think the linked site does imply that reasoning, but seems hyper-focused on determining when we should believe authorities or not.

In fact, I don't see where anything you said contradicts or challenges anything the Nikzor site says. I am just pointing this out because I think the Nikzor website is a reliable website to learn about logic. The problem with the appeal to authority as it's being used by Ecurb is it's not clear why just because a bunch of faceless intelligent people believe in God that proves the existence of God. His argument actually seems to be a combined appeal to the masses and appeal to authority. He misuses the Nikzor site as it gives a number of criteria for determining the reliability of the authority. There is no specific authority being mentioned here, just a general faceless group of intelligent masses.

[Ecurb]

Of course, we often depend on authority because we recognize it as reasonable and expedient, however we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking authority produces truth.

1: Einstein is often right about physics.
2: Einstein says X about physics.
C: Therefore, it is reasonable to believe Einstein about X.

Note here, in the logical formulation of an appeal to authority, that there is no claim to the truth of X.

Of course my syllogism was slightly different from both of yours -- but it is equally valid as this second of yours. Like the Einstein syllogism, mine makes no claims about truth.

"Cake/eat, you cannot have it both ways." Is this supposed to pass for wit? For an argument? Why even bother to write it? The point by point quote and comment job (where one supposedly answers each sentence of the previous post out of context) reminds me of a very small dog, yapping at one's heels. It's annoying, but not particularly troubling.

In general, (and as a matter of style, since this is a literary board) if someone has something of value to say he can express it more clearly in his own paragraphs.

[G L Wilson]

P1: The universe and all that is in it contain a brilliant design that is far greater than man can completely understand.
P2: Intricate design comes from an Intelligent Designer.

C: The universe was created by an Intelligent Designer.

This is called begging the question.


In the closed thread, The Atheist said, "Belief in god/s cannot be supported by logic." I don't agree.

P1: Many people far better educated and more intelligent than I insist that God exists.
P2: I should believe what people who are better educated and more intelligent than I insist is true.

Conclusion: I should believe that God exists.

This is called an appeal from fallacy.

[YesNo]

In order to show that one can use logic to support the belief in some God, I created some statements and conclusions that non-trivially support the existence of a God, assuming you accept the statements.

Logic is limited to the validity of how one draws the conclusion from the statements. If one accepts the statements one should get the conclusion without further argument or the logic is flawed.

------------------------------------------------------

P1: Chance is not a God.
P2: Only a God can create a universe out of nothing.

C1: Chance cannot create a universe out of nothing.
(from P1 and P2)

-------------------------------------------------------

P3: Our universe was created out of nothing.

C2: There is a God who created our universe out of nothing.
(from C1 and P3)

-------------------------------------------------------

P4: Atheists believe there are no Gods.

C3: The belief of atheists is untenable.
(from C2 and P4)

[G L Wilson]

In order to show that one can use logic to support the belief in some God, I created some statements and conclusions that non-trivially support the existence of a God, assuming you accept the statements.

Logic is limited to the validity of how one draws the conclusion from the statements. If one accepts the statements one should get the conclusion without further argument or the logic is flawed.

------------------------------------------------------

P1: Chance is not a God.
P2: Only a God can create a universe out of nothing.

C1: Chance cannot create a universe out of nothing.
(from P1 and P2)

-------------------------------------------------------

P3: Our universe was created out of nothing.

C2: There is a God who created our universe out of nothing.
(from C1 and P3)

-------------------------------------------------------

P4: Atheists believe there are no Gods.

C3: The belief of atheists is untenable.
(from C2 and P4)

This is called begging the question.

[The Atheist]

The point by point quote and comment job (where one supposedly answers each sentence of the previous post out of context) reminds me of a very small dog, yapping at one's heels. It's annoying, but not particularly troubling.

That's how I've been answering forum posts since probably before you knew what an internet was, so I fail to understand your problem with it.

Answering multiple paragraphs at the end is unweildy and not conducive to complete discussion.


In general, (and as a matter of style, since this is a literary board) if someone has something of value to say he can express it more clearly in his own paragraphs.

As you can see from this response, it doesn't affect your paragraphs at all, but it does pass for not responding with something related to the title of the thread.


This is called begging the question.

Given the form so far, I can't see that being a problem. It's not as egregious an error as a failed appeal to authority.

[G L Wilson]

Given the form so far, I can't see that being a problem. It's not as egregious an error as a failed appeal to authority.

I agree, an error in logic is small beer compared to an error in behaviour.

[YesNo]

This is called begging the question.
No. It is actually called using logic to support a belief in God, which is what this thread is about.

[G L Wilson]

Faith is not logic.

[Ecurb]

Here’s a paradox: naming any logical fallacy (including “argument from authority”)
in order to “refute” an argument is an “argument from authority”. Whoever accuses an interlocutor of using an “argument from authority” is using one himself

[G L Wilson]

Here’s a paradox: naming any logical fallacy (including “argument from authority”)
in order to “refute” an argument is an “argument from authority”. Whoever accuses an interlocutor of using an “argument from authority” is using one himself

I accused you of arguing from fallacy, at any rate what is my authority?

[Ecurb]

I accused you of arguing from fallacy, at any rate what is my authority?

I wasn't talking about you. Also, I don't know what "arguing from fallacy" means. I assume it means that one of my premises is erroneous -- but I'm not sure.

In any event, I'm certainly not arguing for the existance of God. Instead, I'm arguing that "belief" in God can be supported by logic, which is quite a different thing. Belief in a great many things that are untrue can be "supported by logic", as anyone who has read Lewis Carrol knows.

[G L Wilson]

I wasn't talking about you. Also, I don't know what "arguing from fallacy" means. I assume it means that one of my premises is erroneous -- but I'm not sure.

In any event, I'm certainly not arguing for the existance of God. Instead, I'm arguing that "belief" in God can be supported by logic, which is quite a different thing. Belief in a great many things that are untrue can be "supported by logic", as anyone who has read Lewis Carrol knows.

Tell me one thing that is certain about God, and I will allow your argument.

[The Atheist]

Instead, I'm arguing that "belief" in God can be supported by logic, which is quite a different thing.

Where have you done that?

I'm waiting for an example or an argument to back up your statement, which is all I've seen so far.

If you can come up with some evidence or argument in favour of your hypothesis, I will try again. Meantime, you're quibbling about - and using - fallacies but providing no logical argument. At least not one drawn from logical premises.

[G L Wilson]

Where have you done that?

I'm waiting for an example or an argument to back up your statement, which is all I've seen so far.

If you can come up with some evidence or argument in favour of your hypothesis, I will try again. Meantime, you're quibbling about - and using - fallacies but providing no logical argument. At least not one drawn from logical premises.

He cannot draw from logical premises, it is impossible.

[Ecurb]

Tell me one thing that is certain about any "thing" (outside of ourselves) in the Universe, and I will tell you one thing that is certain about God. If we applied logic only to matters that are certain, there would be little use for it.

However, I can say one thing that is QUITE certain about God – lots of people talk about Him. Also, people write about Him a lot, in books like the Bible.

[G L Wilson]

Tell me one thing that is certain about any "thing" (outside of ourselves) in the Universe, and I will tell you one thing that is certain about God. If we applied logic only to matters that are certain, there would be little use for it.

Exactly.


However, I can say one thing that is QUITE certain about God – lots of people talk about Him. Also, people write about Him a lot, in books like the Bible.

Because it is popular doesn't make it so.

[prickly_pete]

Logic is about the underlying structure of language and presupposes a highly idealized interpretation of language at that. It requires no emperical confirmation for truth whatsoever. If God exists then God is something that's "out there." Finding what's "out there" isn't going to be revealed by analyzing sentence structure.

[G L Wilson]

If God exists then God is something that's "out there."

This is a tautology.

[Ecurb]

Because it is popular doesn't make it so.

I didn't say that it did. However, you asked me for "one thing that is certain about God" -- so I gave you one. People talk about Him. (I'll grant that doesn't mean he "exists" -- people talk about lots of things. But it is relatively certain that people talk about Him.)

(One more thing, people SAY they "believe in" God -- but that is not relatively certain, since we can't actually know what other people "believe in" -- only what they say.)

[Calidore]

(One more thing, people SAY they "believe in" God -- but that is not relatively certain, since we can't actually know what other people "believe in" -- only what they say.)

And more important, what they do. The disparity between the number of people who claim to believe in God and those who actually behave as God has said he wishes them to is considerable.

[G L Wilson]

"For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace..."
1 Corinthians 14: 33

I always like a good joke.

[The Atheist]

However, I can say one thing that is QUITE certain about God – lots of people talk about Him. Also, people write about Him a lot, in books like the Bible.

You'd probably be more accurate if you said "them" rather than just the one you believe in, because different people believe in and worship different gods.

[caddy_caddy]

The place of the belief is the heart ; it has nothing to do with logic or proof.
That's Why Ibrahim (P.B.U.H) asked God to "prove " to him that He resurrects the dead, Ibrahim said " Show me how do u resurrect the dead"; so God told him " don't you believe?" ; Ibrahim said "yes but to be sure" so God gives him a proof and resurrects a dead bird .
For us to believe is not to believe only in God , but in the afterlife, the angles. How could we infer logically the existence of an afterlife or angels??!!

[The Atheist]

The place of the belief is the heart ; it has nothing to do with logic or proof.

Bravo!

And you know, I don't have any problem with that at all.

:D

[BienvenuJDC]

The place of the belief is the heart ; it has nothing to do with logic or proof.

I do not agree. Since the 'heart' is actually the emotional portion of the mind, it cannot be separated from the logical portion of the mind. It is because of the logic and reason of all things that I believe. For there is no other reasonable explanation for the existence of matter/energy, life, consciousness, conscience, intelligence, or love. These things cannot evolve from nothing...which is the only other conclusion. For God has given us a mind in order to reason, a heart in order to feel, and a will in order to choose.


That's Why Ibrahim (P.B.U.H) asked God to "prove " to him that He resurrects the dead, Ibrahim said " Show me how do u resurrect the dead"; so God told him " don't you believe?" ; Ibrahim said "yes but to be sure" so God gives him a proof and resurrects a dead bird .
For us to believe is not to believe only in God , but in the afterlife, the angles. How could we infer logically the existence of an afterlife or angels??!!

Where did you get this dialogue?

[Ecurb]

I agree (with Bien). In religion, there's a distinction between "faith" and "belief". "Faith" is a virtue (along with "hope" and "charity" one of the three theological virtues as elucidated by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages).

In other words, "faith" is the virtue of acting in accordance with one's beliefs. This is often difficult. If you say that you are a Christian (because you believe in Christianity), your "faith" may be tested if you will be fed to lions unless you renounce your religion. So although I'll grant that "faith" is a matter of the heart (the courage of one's convictions, as it were), "belief" is not (in my opinion).

[mazHur]

Name one fact about God.



One Fact:who are you?? You are YOU!


Everywhere I look I see myself. There I go: that bald man, this angry child, that fearful cat, that cool stone, that bubbling brook, that worm struggling for its life, that bird desperate to feed her hungry babies, that one trapped in his rage, this one anxious but fearful of finding out why. Hardly strangers! Empathy is the life of the soul, I think, because the soul that allows us to see the one in the other is the soul that finds joy.

Claudia Michele

[caddy_caddy]

I do not agree. Since the 'heart' is actually the emotional portion of the mind, it cannot be separated from the logical portion of the mind. It is because of the logic and reason of all things that I believe. For there is no other reasonable explanation for the existence of matter/energy, life, consciousness, conscience, intelligence, or love. These things cannot evolve from nothing...which is the only other conclusion. For God has given us a mind in order to reason, a heart in order to feel, and a will in order to choose.

This is an advanced stage . Although God has given us the brain to use it,not every one uses his brain to infer the existence of God my dear. I can assure you there are millions who know nothing about your syllogism ; How can you explain the belief of those people? The way you're speaking about is an advanced stage in reasoning , not everyone is able to reach this stage;


Where did you get this dialogue?
I Got it from the Quran .

[mazHur]

I Got it from the Quran .

I am not very sure about what the holy Quran says about Heart and Mind but I
recall that the Quran says about them both in a very logical sense. For example when it comes to Heart the Quran says do not corrupt it with Doubt..which in almost in all religions or beliefs is Poison! The First Condition of the Quran is to Believe, Have Faith....and everyone knows these two are NOT possible with a clean and trusting Heart! Heart does Feel but has NO reason (or perhaps has Right or Wrong Reason) for that Feeling! This makes the Heart Supreme and champion of Love and Faith! On the contrary, the Quran says use your senses, your Mind while dealing with worldly matters, struggle and even go to as far lands as China in search of Knowledge...Here the Quran explicitly emphasizes the significance of the Mind, but not over the Heart, but over worldly and material pursuits. When used positively the Mind can turn out scientific and economic miracles, but if used negatively it would become the most treacherous and self-defeating organ of all!! Jesus used his Heart and went to the Cross....Hitler used his Mind and got lost in the gutter!!

[G L Wilson]

I am not very sure about what the holy Quran says about Heart and Mind but I
recall that the Quran says about them both in a very logical sense. For example when it comes to Heart the Quran says do not corrupt it with Doubt..which in almost in all religions or beliefs is Poison! The First Condition of the Quran is to Believe, Have Faith....and everyone knows these two are NOT possible with a clean and trusting Heart! Heart does Feel but has NO reason (or perhaps has Right or Wrong Reason) for that Feeling! This makes the Heart Supreme and champion of Love and Faith! On the contrary, the Quran says use your senses, your Mind while dealing with worldly matters, struggle and even go to as far lands as China in search of Knowledge...Here the Quran explicitly emphasizes the significance of the Mind, but not over the Heart, but over worldly and material pursuits. When used positively the Mind can turn out scientific and economic miracles, but if used negatively it would become the most treacherous and self-defeating organ of all!! Jesus used his Heart and went to the Cross....Hitler used his Mind and got lost in the gutter!!

There is no argument that I can mount against what you say, none.

[The Atheist]

....Hitler used his Mind and got lost in the gutter!!

And yet Hitler was a self-described christian, while some people who actually did use their minds instead of superstition - Einstein, Rutherford, Darwin, Sagan, Turing and hundreds of others - didn't end up in the gutter, but instead left the world richer for their being.

[G L Wilson]

And yet Hitler was a self-described christian, while some people who actually did use their minds instead of superstition - Einstein, Rutherford, Darwin, Sagan, Turing and hundreds of others - didn't end up in the gutter, but instead left the world richer for their being.

In mind of heart one minds his own business.

[The Atheist]

In mind of heart one minds his own business.

Do you have a portfolio of non sequiturs you recycle, or do they just come out spontaneously? They remind me of Musicology's aphorisms.

[mazHur]

And yet Hitler was a self-described christian, while some people who actually did use their minds instead of superstition - Einstein, Rutherford, Darwin, Sagan, Turing and hundreds of others - didn't end up in the gutter, but instead left the world richer for their being.

yeah, unlike Hitler, the others used their minds in positive pursuits to achieve something that would help humanity but again Mind being Treacherous deceived them in inventing or discovering certain things which brought negative results. For example, Nobel later regretted his inventing dynamite as he actually did not invent it to blow up people! Similarly Klashnikov invented the gun named after him for self-defense but unfortunately he regretted having designed it after he saw people killing others by it mostly for the sake of killing!

[G L Wilson]

Only Heart can lift a Prophet to Heaven.

[mazHur]

Only Heart can lift a Prophet to Heaven.

What about those who have Heart but are not Prophets???

[lieasleep]

I do not agree. Since the 'heart' is actually the emotional portion of the mind, it cannot be separated from the logical portion of the mind.

Why is this? Emotion is the enemy of logic.


It is because of the logic and reason of all things that I believe. For there is no other reasonable explanation for the existence of matter/energy, life, consciousness, conscience, intelligence, or love. These things cannot evolve from nothing...which is the only other conclusion.


Why do these things need an explanation? You are putting things within terms of beginnings and ends. Why aren't you allowing these things to just exist? If they had beginnings and endings to matter and energy (aka the universe) than there would be something outside of its physical state which feeds right into your belief of god but does not even consider the far more plausible answer that there is no beginning and no ending. Why do they need explanations for existing?


For God has given us a mind in order to reason, a heart in order to feel, and a will in order to choose.


I have a friend who is a neuroscientist who will argue to the tooth that there is no such thing as free will. There is a test (excuse me for forgetting the name, I will ask him next time I see him) where a person is given a math problem and two buttons marked with answers to the problem in front of him. About thirty to forty seconds before finishing the math problem, the arm of the answer he was going to choose began twitching on unnoticeable levels. His mind actually made the decision, right or wrong, before the person was even conscious of it. There are neurological channels in the brain that make our decisions before we are even conscious of making a choice. If god gave me this kind of mind, then he is a very cruel god.

[G L Wilson]

If God were true, nothing would ever change. Culture/language is never static. This proves free will, man is freedom.

[Jack of Hearts]

You can have valid logic about this. Whether or not it's sound is the interesting part. A posteriori, the only big man in the sky worth mentioning these days is Dirk Nowitzki with that killer jumpshot.

On the other hand, such obsession- there's a fashionable trend that desires logic to take the position that the idea of God once occupied. It's often the mark of an immature mind. This reader has often found those that worship logic to be doing so for pretty irrational reasons (non-technically speaking)- in some cases people 'reason' and rebel against religion as though they were a child and God were a parent.

Both sides of this argument are deeply troubled. Go outside. Quit saying "Dawkins says" every three sentences. And, uh, stop killing people so much.



J

[G L Wilson]

You can have valid logic about this. Whether or not it's sound is the interesting part. A posteriori, the only big man in the sky worth mentioning these days is Dirk Nowitzki with that killer jumpshot.

On the other hand, such obsession- there's a fashionable trend that desires logic to take the position that the idea of God once occupied. It's often the mark of an immature mind. This reader has often found those that worship logic to be doing so for pretty irrational reasons (non-technically speaking)- in some cases people 'reason' and rebel against religion as though they were a child and God were a parent.

Both sides of this argument are deeply troubled. Go outside. Quit saying "Dawkins says" every three sentences. And, uh, stop killing people so much.



J

I'm not killing anyone, sport.

[The Atheist]

I have a friend who is a neuroscientist who will argue to the tooth that there is no such thing as free will.

Excellent post.

And your neuroscientist friend is quite right, although defining free will is usually as far as that one goes, a classic example being the next post:


If God were true, nothing would ever change. Culture/language is never static. This proves free will, man is freedom.

That has nothing to do with free will.


Quit saying "Dawkins says" every three sentences.

http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s97/TheAtheist/funny.gif

(if you don't quite get why that's so funny, go and count the number of times the word "Dawkins" appears in this entire thread)

[G L Wilson]

When has freedom, The Atheist, had nothing to do with free will?

[Ecurb]

The neuroscientist’s argument against free will makes no sense. Why would the fact that the decision was made before the individual was conscious of the decision have any bearing on whether the decision was "free"?

In fact, the notion that an omniscient God is incompatible with free will seems incorrect to me, too. The fact that God KNOWS what decision we will make ahead of time in no way COMPELLS us to make that decision. Obviously, the neuroscientist is correct that our ‘will’ is determined by electrical impulses in the brain, and that if our scientific knowledge increases to the extent that we can predict which impulses will result in which behaviors, we can predict behavior. However, predicting behavior is not the same as compelling behavior. The statement, “Yesterday I freely chose to wear a hat” is in no way invalidated by the fact that (as of today) no other ‘choice’ can be made. Similarly, the truth or falsity of the statement, ‘Tomorrow, I will choose to wear a hat’ is determined by whether I put on a hat tomorrow. Whether the statement is true or false (as of today) has no bearing on whether my choice to put on the hat is free or not.

Given modern theories of time ('eternalism', for example) certain knowledge of what someone will choose to do tomorrow has no more bearing on whether that person's choice will be free than certain knowledge of what someone chose to do yesterday precludes that choice from having been free.

[G L Wilson]

The only danger to free will is science as far as I can see. I worked on a project of my own making that would have made Blade Runner seem like fairyland. I burnt my papers.

[YesNo]

Without some free choice there would be no reason to examine ethics.

Although a lot of our bodily functions are unconscious and beyond our personal choice, the choices I make, such as to post this or not, are conscious and freely made.

So here it goes.

[G L Wilson]

Without some free choice there would be no reason to examine ethics.

Although a lot of our bodily functions are unconscious and beyond our personal choice, the choices I make, such as to post this or not, are conscious and freely made.

So here it goes.

What if you couldn't tell a lie, what then?

[Ecurb]

"Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. " __ Martin Luther

The fact that Luther "can do no other" does not invalidate free will. He cannot "choose" to do other because he cannot and will not retract without proof from Scripture. It is not because of any outside compulsion that Luther's choice is determined, but from the edicts of his own conscience. Therefore, although Luther "can do no other", this inability to make any choice but the one he made remaind "free".

It seems to me that it is in a misunderstanding of the word "free" and the word "will" that people feel that fate and free will are contradictory.

[G L Wilson]

"Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. " __ Martin Luther

The fact that Luther "can do no other" does not invalidate free will. He cannot "choose" to do other because he cannot and will not retract without proof from Scripture. It is not because of any outside compulsion that Luther's choice is determined, but from the edicts of his own conscience. Therefore, although Luther "can do no other", this inability to make any choice but the one he made remaind "free".

It seems to me that it is in a misunderstanding of the word "free" and the word "will" that people feel that fate and free will are contradictory.

Your fate is what you make it.

[Ecurb]

Your fate is what you make it.

So if someone is shot and murdered, you favor blaming the victim.

[mazHur]

Fate, the mystery behind which no one knows!

Elevate your 'Self' (character, conduct and conscience) to such a high level that God becomes obliged to ask you ''What do you want Me to do for you??""

Human Will is subordinate to the Will of God. This is the reason all things do not go as Humans will!!

[mazHur]

In the passing, I recall the Mongol procedure of punishing the killer and the killed. They tied both of them face to face in a cow or horse's green hide and let them die under the open sky!! Was that proper justice or 'poetic justice'', perhaps someone can tell???

[mazHur]

He's that rascally kind of yogi--says Kabir Das

By Kabir
(15th Century)

English version by Linda Hess and Shukdeo Singh



He's that rascally kind of yogi
who has no sky or earth,
no hand, foot,
form or shape.
Where there's no market
he sets up shop,
weighs things
and keeps the accounts.
No deeds, no creeds,
no yogic powers,
not even a horn or gourd,
so how can he
go begging?

"I know you
and you know me
and I'm inside of you."

When there isn't a trace
of creation or destruction,
what do you meditate on?
That yogi built a house
brimful of Ram.
He has no healing herbs,
his root-of-life
is Ram.

He looks and looks
at the juggler's tricks,
the magician's sleight-of-hand --
Kabir says, saints, he's made it
to the King's land.

[Ecurb]

Human Will is subordinate to the Will of God. This is the reason all things do not go as Humans will!!

Strangely, I agree (even though the Will of God is subordinate to, and created by, human will). In other words, humans cannot do what they want because they fear and love a Deity whom they have created. They have – of their own volition – made their personal lusts, desires, and even needs subservient to the mystical “Go(o)d” of the Whole.


p.s. Those zany, fun-loving Mongols! What will they come up with next?

[lieasleep]

The neuroscientist’s argument against free will makes no sense. Why would the fact that the decision was made before the individual was conscious of the decision have any bearing on whether the decision was "free"?

I makes perfect sense. It is a very fatalistic viewpoint. Our neural channels are created from experience and desire, thus it is not any consciousness driving these decisions, there is no actual choice, only neural channels and the results of information being processed through them. How can a man have free will if his choices are only up to the way in which his brain has formed at the point of his "choosing"?


In fact, the notion that an omniscient God is incompatible with free will seems incorrect to me, too. The fact that God KNOWS what decision we will make ahead of time in no way COMPELLS us to make that decision.

God doesn't know anything. It doesn't exist. And the two are obviously incompatible. (This really has nothing to do with what my post was talking about but,) it is an argument born out of ridiculous claims by the religious that god gave man free will and is omniscient. My favorite is the Epicurus question that deals with this:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

A bit cliched now but I think it gets right to the heart of the non-logic used by believers in trying to explain their claims using "logic." Where logic falls short? Faith.


Obviously, the neuroscientist is correct that our ‘will’ is determined by electrical impulses in the brain, and that if our scientific knowledge increases to the extent that we can predict which impulses will result in which behaviors, we can predict behavior. However, predicting behavior is not the same as compelling behavior. The statement, “Yesterday I freely chose to wear a hat” is in no way invalidated by the fact that (as of today) no other ‘choice’ can be made. Similarly, the truth or falsity of the statement, ‘Tomorrow, I will choose to wear a hat’ is determined by whether I put on a hat tomorrow. Whether the statement is true or false (as of today) has no bearing on whether my choice to put on the hat is free or not.

Given modern theories of time ('eternalism', for example) certain knowledge of what someone will choose to do tomorrow has no more bearing on whether that person's choice will be free than certain knowledge of what someone chose to do yesterday precludes that choice from having been free.

You admit that he is right and yet you call me wrong. "Yesterday I freely chose to wear a hat," is invalidated by the fact that yesterday, what actually happened, is that your brain decided to wear a hat and then you became conscious of that decision. What the neuroscientist is talking about is the conscious mind's relation to its own decisions in a way that is dealing within the existent. Causes and reactions. Something moves, it is interpreted, and then a reaction to that movement. Two meteors collide in space and then float off in opposite directions, do those things have free will? No, the only difference between them and us is that we collide and then say, I chose to do that, within complete sincerity that we did choose to do it.


"Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. " __ Martin Luther

The fact that Luther "can do no other" does not invalidate free will. He cannot "choose" to do other because he cannot and will not retract without proof from Scripture. It is not because of any outside compulsion that Luther's choice is determined, but from the edicts of his own conscience. Therefore, although Luther "can do no other", this inability to make any choice but the one he made remaind "free".

It seems to me that it is in a misunderstanding of the word "free" and the word "will" that people feel that fate and free will are contradictory.

I can claim that you have this same misunderstanding. There is no freedom, only acceptance of our lack of freedom. Will is only a physiological mechanism and needs to be treated as such.


Strangely, I agree (even though the Will of God is subordinate to, and created by, human will). In other words, humans cannot do what they want because they fear and love a Deity whom they have created. They have – of their own volition – made their personal lusts, desires, and even needs subservient to the mystical “Go(o)d” of the Whole

I do not fear and love a god that I know does not exist. Should I not be doing "whatever I want"? I do not. I am a rather "moral," person when taking the word within the context of its socio-normative meaning (not out of my desire for being moral but out of my desire for happiness and my comparing my actions, made for happiness against that socio-normative morality). What explains this? Certainly not my belief in a deity. What explains it is my nature and my nurture. I am not a being whom raping, stealing, murdering makes feel good. If these things do not make me feel good then why would I do them? I am doing whatever I like and whatever I like is "moral" again within its context. Why do I like these things and not the others? my brain make up, my neural channels, the constantly changing, forming, re-forming physical being which is making my decisions for me. The only being that could have free will is a god, a non-existent.

[Ecurb]

I understand your position and the neuroscientist’s position. But I’m afraid you don’t understand MY position. Of course our “choices” are determined by the electrical and chemical reactions in our brain. How else could they be determined? However, in what way does this make them something other than “choices” or something other than “free”? What do we mean by the word ‘choice’ and by the word ‘free’?

I’m suggesting that by ‘free’, we mean “not restrained”. If we are not in prison, we say we are “free” to leave the room. Does this mean that we can leave the room if the electrical impulses in our brains fail to send messages to the muscles in our legs? Of course not. It simply means that we are not locked in, or held down, or shackled.

What do we mean by “choice”? Do we mean that we can ‘choose’ something other than what is consistent with the electrical impulses in our brain? Of course not. It means that we can make a conscious decision. Like Martin Luther’s decision (“Here I stand; I can do no other.’), our decision may be compelled by conscience, or electrical impulses, but we still call it a “choice”. Words are defined as they are used.

So the extent to which we are “compelled” to make the choices we make by mysterious “electrical impulses” or equally mysterious astrological convergences, or equally mysterious divine commands is irrelevant. Our choices may be “caused” by the physics of our brains, but it is silly to say that they are not, therefore, “choices”. Are we going to change the name of certain exams to “multiple electrical impulse tests”? Is the prisoner, shackled to the wall of his cell, equally “free” to leave as the dilettante, sitting in his room who decides to remain seated? If not, the phrase “free choice” is a meaningful and reasonable one regardless of brain physics, omniscient Gods, or other such reductionist attempts to subvert it.

[YesNo]

There is no freedom, only acceptance of our lack of freedom. Will is only a physiological mechanism and needs to be treated as such.

If there is no freedom, why do you "need" to "accept" the idea one way or the other. Why do you "need" to even bring the point up for discussion?

For what it's worth, I choose not to accept any of that. :)

[lieasleep]

If there is no freedom, why do you "need" to "accept" the idea one way or the other. Why do you "need" to even bring the point up for discussion?

For what it's worth, I choose not to accept any of that. :)

You do not choose. That is my point

And you are right, "need" was the wrong word. There is no need.


I understand your position and the neuroscientist’s position. But I’m afraid you don’t understand MY position. Of course our “choices” are determined by the electrical and chemical reactions in our brain. How else could they be determined? However, in what way does this make them something other than “choices” or something other than “free”? What do we mean by the word ‘choice’ and by the word ‘free’?

I’m suggesting that by ‘free’, we mean “not restrained”. If we are not in prison, we say we are “free” to leave the room. Does this mean that we can leave the room if the electrical impulses in our brains fail to send messages to the muscles in our legs? Of course not. It simply means that we are not locked in, or held down, or shackled.

What do we mean by “choice”? Do we mean that we can ‘choose’ something other than what is consistent with the electrical impulses in our brain? Of course not. It means that we can make a conscious decision. Like Martin Luther’s decision (“Here I stand; I can do no other.’), our decision may be compelled by conscience, or electrical impulses, but we still call it a “choice”. Words are defined as they are used.

So the extent to which we are “compelled” to make the choices we make by mysterious “electrical impulses” or equally mysterious astrological convergences, or equally mysterious divine commands is irrelevant. Our choices may be “caused” by the physics of our brains, but it is silly to say that they are not, therefore, “choices”. Are we going to change the name of certain exams to “multiple electrical impulse tests”? Is the prisoner, shackled to the wall of his cell, equally “free” to leave as the dilettante, sitting in his room who decides to remain seated? If not, the phrase “free choice” is a meaningful and reasonable one regardless of brain physics, omniscient Gods, or other such reductionist attempts to subvert it.

"I completely understand you, now let me show how I misunderstand you while I claim that you do not understand me." I have made my points, I understand you, I do no agree with you.

[Rores28]

@sleep

You don't actually need to appeal to neuroscience to show that free will is not compatible with current understanding of the universe. All you need to know is that the universe is causal in nature. This being so, every event from any given point has one exact output at any other given point. Obviously people, and minds, are parts of the universe, therefore they are causally mediated.

-Sometimes it is argued that quantum activity or randomness dictates all or some actions. If all of our activity is random, however, this brings us no closer to free will ( at least not in the sense that most of us inherently understand free will).

Because we have no (to my knowledge) alternative framework for the way things are, it is currently incompatible to believe in free will.

[G L Wilson]

So if someone is shot and murdered, you favor blaming the victim.

A good logical point. I will modify the statement to see if I can make sense with it.

Fate is spun by man.

[Ecurb]

@sleep

You don't actually need to appeal to neuroscience to show that free will is not compatible with current understanding of the universe. All you need to know is that the universe is causal in nature. This being so, every event from any given point has one exact output at any other given point. Obviously people, and minds, are parts of the universe, therefore they are causally mediated.

-Sometimes it is argued that quantum activity or randomness dictates all or some actions. If all of our activity is random, however, this brings us no closer to free will ( at least not in the sense that most of us inherently understand free will).

....Or misunderstand free will. Granting that the universe is causal, the words "freedom", "will", and "choice" remain meaningful. The prisoner is not "free", the rest of us are. If the term "free choice" is meaningful, then "free choice" is not invalidated by the causal nature of the universe. (This seems clear to me, but nobody appears to understand.)

[Rores28]

A good logical point. I will modify the statement to see if I can make sense with it.

Fate is spun by man.

Someone pointed out in another thread, I think correctly, that G.L. is actually some sort of Turing machine. We probably should not be responding to it.

[Rores28]

....Or misunderstand free will. Granting that the universe is causal, the words "freedom", "will", and "choice" remain meaningful. The prisoner is not "free", the rest of us are. If the term "free choice" is meaningful, then "free choice" is not invalidated by the causal nature of the universe. (This seems clear to me, but nobody appears to understand.)

Imagine a robot that we program with five different responses to light stimuli.

If we flash
red light - he cooks us dinner
blue light - he walks the dog
green light - he drinks a beer
orange light - he takes a nap
purple light - he does jumping jacks

If I flash blue light at him and he walks the dog, would we say he has free will in the way that "most" people understand that term.

[Rores28]

oh hold on... I wasn't understanding where this thread was coming from. Are you actually saying that free will (in the sense that most people conceptualize it) doesn't exist but that free will is misused.

In other words, the way in which the word is intended in religious texts is not the way in which it is used commonly and therefore in a religious sense the idea of God and free will are not incompatible?

[lieasleep]

Imagine a robot that we program with five different responses to light stimuli.

If we flash
red light - he cooks us dinner
blue light - he walks the dog
green light - he drinks a beer
orange light - he takes a nap
purple light - he does jumping jacks

If I flash blue light at him and he walks the dog, would we say he has free will in the way that "most" people understand that term.

Well that is my point exactly. Neurology is the existant upon which i am making my point, the "programming," in your example.


oh hold on... I wasn't understanding where this thread was coming from. Are you actually saying that free will (in the sense that most pe-ople conceptualize it) doesn't exist but that free will is misused.

In other words, the way in which the word is intended in religious texts is not the way in which it is used commonly and therefore in a religious sense the idea of God and free will are not incompatible?

really, my point in the context of this thread (free will being the topic upon which we are arguing the "logic" for the belief of God) is that the mechanistic process of "free will" disavows the common understanding of free will and/ or the understanding of its place within a religious context (two understandings which are more or less the same). Not that the idea of free will and God are incompatible (they are incompatible within a religious context) but the non-existence of free will and god (not that the two depend on each other or even have anything to do with eachother) within a universal context, a context based on logic (which, within my lexicon, appeals to truth which can be only found within the existant, the physical).

[G L Wilson]

@sleep

You don't actually need to appeal to neuroscience to show that free will is not compatible with current understanding of the universe. All you need to know is that the universe is causal in nature. This being so, every event from any given point has one exact output at any other given point. Obviously people, and minds, are parts of the universe, therefore they are causally mediated.

-Sometimes it is argued that quantum activity or randomness dictates all or some actions. If all of our activity is random, however, this brings us no closer to free will ( at least not in the sense that most of us inherently understand free will).

Because we have no (to my knowledge) alternative framework for the way things are, it is currently incompatible to believe in free will.

One doesn't need quantum physics to prove free will. Every living being constitutes a break from causality. As Sartre said, man begins with nothing. And this is roughly what he does begin with. In other words, fate is spun by man and nature.

[Rores28]

Well that is my point exactly. Neurology is the existant upon which i am making my point, the "programming," in your example.



really, my point in the context of this thread (free will being the topic upon which we are arguing the "logic" for the belief of God) is that the mechanistic process of "free will" disavows the common understanding of free will and/ or the understanding of its place within a religious context (two understandings which are more or less the same). Not that the idea of free will and God are incompatible (they are incompatible within a religious context) but the non-existence of free will and god (not that the two depend on each other or even have anything to do with eachother) within a universal context, a context based on logic (which, within my lexicon, appeals to truth which can be only found within the existant, the physical).

Sorry those two things were more directed at Ecurbs comments... thanks for answering though

[G L Wilson]

lieasleep, watch them spin out of the physical into the metaphysical any time soon.

[The Atheist]

Irony: starting a thread saying that belief in god can be supported by logic, then not doing so, using every red herring to avoid that central point.

Now, that's logical!

[G L Wilson]

You wait until they get onto consciousness and conscience then they will really get excited. They are like drunks in search of their next bit of liquor, utterly hopeless and without reason.

[Ecurb]

oh hold on... I wasn't understanding where this thread was coming from. Are you actually saying that free will (in the sense that most people conceptualize it) doesn't exist but that free will is misused.

In other words, the way in which the word is intended in religious texts is not the way in which it is used commonly and therefore in a religious sense the idea of God and free will are not incompatible?

Exactly. Obviously, many modern people (religious or not) recognize that all our thoughts are the result of the physics of the brain. Yet we still talk about freedom and will and ch choice. Are these words nonsensical? I don't think so. The man in shackles lacks freedom on a way that I do not. Nor is this atrivial issue. Many of our laws distinguish between free actions and those that are compelled. So rather than simply denying freedom, we should try to determine what we mean by it.

[Ecurb]

Well that is my point exactly. Neurology is the existant upon which i am making my point, the "programming," in your example.



really, my point in the context of this thread (free will being the topic upon which we are arguing the "logic" for the belief of God) is that the mechanistic process of "free will" disavows the common understanding of free will and/ or the understanding of its place within a religious context (two understandings which are more or less the same). Not that the idea of free will and God are incompatible (they are incompatible within a religious context) but the non-existence of free will and god (not that the two depend on each other or even have anything to do with eachother) within a universal context, a context based on logic (which, within my lexicon, appeals to truth which can be only found within the existant, the physical).

If we lack freedom (because the universe is mechanistic), are we still able to find slavery morally repugnant? If so, why is it evil?


In addition, doesn't a mechanistic worldview break down at the problem of knowledge? If our knowledge is simply the result of the physics in our brains, why should we assume it has any relation to the real world?

[lieasleep]

If we lack freedom (because the universe is mechanistic), are we still able to find slavery morally repugnant? If so, why is it evil?


In addition, doesn't a mechanistic worldview break down at the problem of knowledge? If our knowledge is simply the result of the physics in our brains, why should we assume it has any relation to the real world?

Slavery is morally repugnant because it causes suffering. Suffering is a very physical, very existent thing with this view because of its existence in the brain and body. Evil is our internalization of suffering.

A very solopsist argument, perhaps our perceptions of existence are entirely limited. I mean I have been trying to conceptualize the universe "expanding" for a long time. I was finally able to do it when I realized what they meant. The universe is not expanding like a balloon would. The space between every atom is slowly increasing. We cannot perceive this movement because it is moving at a vacillating speeds (if I am remember correctly) but is unable to be perceived by you and me because of relativity. We are constantly growing but can not see it. (maybe I am misunderstanding the science, I am no Bill Nye, but, from my readings, that is what I have gathered). Our perceptions are somewhat limited but even if all that we can know is "I think therefore I am," than existence, "I am," is still the base truth.

[G L Wilson]

Our perceptions are somewhat limited but even if all that we can know is "I think therefore I am," than existence, "I am," is still the base truth.

Not even that much is certain.

[lieasleep]

Not even that much is certain.

Why not?

[G L Wilson]

In addition, doesn't a mechanistic worldview break down at the problem of knowledge? If our knowledge is simply the result of the physics in our brains, why should we assume it has any relation to the real world?

A very good point. The sun provides all my energy, the birds and the bees produced me, what else do I need to know, that God is possible?

[Rores28]

Why not?

Even the "I" can be argued. Check out the "Ship of Theseus" or "Continuity of Self" on Wiki.

[Rores28]

Exactly. Obviously, many modern people (religious or not) recognize that all our thoughts are the result of the physics of the brain. Yet we still talk about freedom and will and ch choice. Are these words nonsensical? I don't think so. The man in shackles lacks freedom on a way that I do not. Nor is this atrivial issue. Many of our laws distinguish between free actions and those that are compelled. So rather than simply denying freedom, we should try to determine what we mean by it.

True... but I think you are taking a very progressive view by understanding that we don't have free will in the traditional sense. Very few people understand or have come to terms with this outside of academia, and more specifically outside of philosophy.

I've heard Dennet describe free will as "being able to do what we want to do", or in other words, what gives us pleasure/positive emotion. So one might conceptualize freedom as that which engenders position emotions/experiences.

So a jail may be just as stifling to freedom as poverty, or social pressures.

[G L Wilson]

Why not? I am sorry, lieasleep. I was sure that I answered your question. I must have made a mistake somewhere, it's possible but then so are a lot of other things. I am baffled. It's possible that all thought emanates from God - it's possible, but is it probable? I believe that God is logically impossible, that's what I believe.

[lieasleep]

True... but I think you are taking a very progressive view by understanding that we don't have free will in the traditional sense. Very few people understand or have come to terms with this outside of academia, and more specifically outside of philosophy.

I've heard Dennet describe free will as "being able to do what we want to do", or in other words, what gives us pleasure/positive emotion. So one might conceptualize freedom as that which engenders position emotions/experiences.

So a jail may be just as stifling to freedom as poverty, or social pressures.

(this is more @ecurb but it fits in) If the decision we make depends solely on whatever happens to be floating around in our brains at the time that the choice is forced upon us, how can we say that one has free will? Free will implies choice and choice implies control but if we are not in control of what gives us that "pleasure/ positive emotion" than how can someone say that they have free will? Our choices are limited by our corporeality and a limited choice whose outcome is only the result of circumstance (the affect of our perception of physical experience) is not doing "what we want to do." It is similar (only similar) to the American voting system "Vote for one of these two dicks, hurray democracy! huzzah choice!"

Is not, then, our corporeal limit, our human condition, life and eventual death, a shackle? In jail, a man may say, "I would like to see a movie," and be prevented and in life a man may say "I would like to live forever," and be prevented. And though this has strayed from free will. Is not the acceptance of the inevitability of death, acceptance of our own lack of freedom? Is there a difference between a prisoner saying "I cannot see a movie, I am a prisoner," and "I can not live forever, I am a man"?

[G L Wilson]

Now, lieasleep, whoever confused the bourgeois with freedom?

[lieasleep]

Now, lieasleep, whoever confused the bourgeois with freedom?

perhaps living is a compromise of possibilities. perhaps representative government is the perfect mirror for being alive. should not life be considered in terms of its limits as well as its possibilities?

[Ecurb]

Nobody suggests that free will necessitates limitless possbilities. It is true that our choices have causes. I'll discuss what I think that means when I get to a real keyboard instead of this phone.

[G L Wilson]

perhaps living is a compromise of possibilities. perhaps representative government is the perfect mirror for being alive. should not life be considered in terms of its limits as well as its possibilities?

There is no limit to what I might do, lieasleep, I don't know about you.

[lieasleep]

There is no limit to what I might do, lieasleep, I don't know about you.

Prove the existence of God and then you can tell me there is no limit :blush5:

And (@ecurb) of course free will is not based in a world of limitless possibilities, I am just trying to show how the act of choice itself is limited on its most basic level by the physical and, when considered within this realm, devoid of impossibilities, is limited again by the physicality of the moment of choice. It all returns to the corporeal in the end, existence is limited by existence.

[G L Wilson]

Nothing is impossible, lieasleep, only God.

[Leo Bloom]

Nothing is impossible, lieasleep, only God.

Question: What is the opposite of faith?
Not disbelief. Too final, certain, closed. Itself a kind of belief.
Doubt.

(Salman Rushdie. The Satanic Verses)


P1: The universe and all that is in it contain a brilliant design that is far greater than man can completely understand.
P2: Intricate design comes from an Intelligent Designer.

C: The universe was created by an Intelligent Designer.

Is the name of Bertrand Russell familiar to you, by any chance? If not:
=====================================

The Argument From Design

The next step in the process brings us to the argument from design. You all know the argument from design: everything in the world is made just so that we can manage to live in the world, and if the world was ever so little different we could not manage to live in it. That is the argument from design. It sometimes takes a rather curious form; for instance, it is argued that rabbits have white tails in order to be easy to shoot. I do not know how rabbits would view that application. It is an easy argument to parody. You all know Voltaire's remark, that obviously the nose was designed to be such as to fit spectacles. That sort of parody has turned out to be not nearly so wide of the mark as it might have seemed in the eighteenth century, because since the time of Darwin we understand much better why living creatures are adapted to their environment. It is not that their environment was made to be suitable to them, but that they grew to be suitable to it, and that is the basis of adaptation. There is no evidence of design about it.

When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan, the Fascisti, and Mr. Winston Churchill? Really I am not much impressed with the people who say: "Look at me: I am such a splendid product that there must have been design in the universe." I am not very much impressed by the splendor of those people. Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is merely a flash in the pan; it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions and temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending -- something dead, cold, and lifeless.
========================

For further reading:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell0.htm

[prickly_pete]

Well how about the fact that "brilliant design" is an idea that we're imposing on the world and not something you go out and find per se. What is 'brilliant'? Where would I find that exactly? How can that be empirically verified?

It's alot of nonsense mate. Brilliance is a relative concept - definitely not something that can be proven. I could look at the Empire State Building and call it brilliant and you go just as justifiably call it a horrid pile of crap.

[The Atheist]

Well how about the fact that "brilliant design" is an idea that we're imposing on the world and not something you go out and find per se. What is 'brilliant'? Where would I find that exactly? How can that be empirically verified?

It's alot of nonsense mate. Brilliance is a relative concept - definitely not something that can be proven. I could look at the Empire State Building and call it brilliant and you go just as justifiably call it a horrid pile of crap.

Music to my eyes.

[Serena03]

I'm not sure if it is logically possible or necessary to define a factor through the use of logic when it is both logically and illogically impossible to define based on numerous descriptions. I don't think we can know God well enough to be able to logically explain God's true universal essentiality. The results would be an infinite circulation.

God's necessity can't be universally justified. The numerous definitions of which God is perceived as would probably lead to alternating calculations. If God was meant to be beyond comprehension, our system of "logic" would most likely cancel out. God's necessity for us is probably of higher need than our necessity for God.

[G L Wilson]

I'm not sure if it is logically possible or necessary to define a factor through the use of logic when it is both logically and illogically impossible to define based on numerous descriptions. I don't think we can know God well enough to be able to logically explain God's true universal essentiality. The results would be an infinite circulation.

God's necessity can't be universally justified. The numerous definitions of which God is perceived as would probably lead to alternating calculations. If God was meant to be beyond comprehension, our system of "logic" would most likely cancel out. God's necessity for us is probably of higher need than our necessity for God.

God is a complete fiction. As a fictional character, he is entirely expendable.

[billl]

Fiction is our god. We would expend ourselves completely to characterize it entirely.

[G L Wilson]

Fiction is our god. We would expend ourselves completely to characterize it entirely.

I wouldn't.

[Jack of Hearts]

Fiction is the devil, like half of this thread and all of the other one over in the Serious Discussion forums.






J

[G L Wilson]

Fiction is the devil, like half of this thread and all of the other one over in the Serious Discussion forums.






J

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call fiction the Devil. It is more entertainment in general, it seems that any little amusement in a thing and people are off in a stampede towards it.

[Serena03]

God is a complete fiction. As a fictional character, he is entirely expendable.

And as a 'fictional expendable' character of which you describe would add to multitudes of personal perceptions of God, thus derailing the passage where logic can flow. Without a universal understanding, one person's gateway is another's obstruction. Logic has no application since the concept of God is merely an answer without any given justification.

[YesNo]

Fiction is the devil, like half of this thread and all of the other one over in the Serious Discussion forums.






J
I tend to agree, although I do like fiction.

These threads give people a chance to practice expository writing and clarify their own thinking. Or perhaps muddy their own thinking. :) I doubt much of what is written here really convinces anyone but the writer.

[Rores28]

(this is more @ecurb but it fits in) If the decision we make depends solely on whatever happens to be floating around in our brains at the time that the choice is forced upon us, how can we say that one has free will? Free will implies choice and choice implies control but if we are not in control of what gives us that "pleasure/ positive emotion" than how can someone say that they have free will? Our choices are limited by our corporeality and a limited choice whose outcome is only the result of circumstance (the affect of our perception of physical experience) is not doing "what we want to do." It is similar (only similar) to the American voting system "Vote for one of these two dicks, hurray democracy! huzzah choice!"

Is not, then, our corporeal limit, our human condition, life and eventual death, a shackle? In jail, a man may say, "I would like to see a movie," and be prevented and in life a man may say "I would like to live forever," and be prevented. And though this has strayed from free will. Is not the acceptance of the inevitability of death, acceptance of our own lack of freedom? Is there a difference between a prisoner saying "I cannot see a movie, I am a prisoner," and "I can not live forever, I am a man"?

Right we are actually in agreement here. Dennet is, essentially, redefining free will I believe. He is taking your view but then saying even given that we have no "Free Will," (Capitalized) there is still a difference between someone who is eating a steak dinner in the comfort of their own home and one who is wallowing in their own feces in a jail cell.

So with this view, one would say "Yes "Free Will" doesn't exist but individual one has a lot of free will (lower case) whereas individual two does not have much free will. So that free will is merely a descriptor of your emotional state in relation to your total number of behavioral options.

Basically it just separates the term free will into it's more fundamental / philosophical aspect and its more everyday usage.

So one might redefine free will in different ways but,and I think you are of a similar mind here, in the end the universe is causative in nature and so everything that will happen will happen. Or put another way we believe that there is already in the fabric of causality an immutable destiny of every atom in the universe that cannot be changed (because that very change is itself subject to causal laws)

In the end it still means that we have no "real" choices in the sense that we understand this term. When someone slaps me in the face, I think I have a choice to slap them back or not, but I don't. The decision is illusory.


I tend to agree, although I do like fiction.

These threads give people a chance to practice expository writing and clarify their own thinking. Or perhaps muddy their own thinking. :) I doubt much of what is written here really convinces anyone but the writer.

What a sad world if this is true.

[The Atheist]

Logic has no application since the concept of God is merely an answer without any given justification.


FTW!

:cheers2:

[Rores28]

All arguments about God always, even if they don't know it, boil down to why is there something rather than nothing. God is invoked to say why there is something. The person doing the invoking fails to see that God is subject to the same question (how did god come to be) and so the invocation of another inexplicable agent is not preferred.

Or perhaps there is an infinite line of gods birthing other gods....

Here is something I find endlessly fascinating. I've seen people produce tremendously complex reasoning for their belief in God/God like entity/unified field/something generally weird about the universe that we don't understand, and often times in these cases the reasoning is pretty good or at least interesting (I would consider myself an agnostic / 95% atheist).

Inevitably, however, this person will then tell you that they are Christian, or Muslim or something. And I just never understand how they picked that one.... out of all the myriad religious beliefs on earth, not to mention those stored up in one's own ghostly heart....

What is interesting to me in these cases is the fact that the logical machinery is there and obviously working over a great span of cognitive domains, but then just in one aspect it performs absolutely abysmally. Why is this?

[Jack of Hearts]

That is interesting, Rores.

Also, one would think subscribing to such a defined religion would only open many more implications and questions (but then again, if the belief in that god is genuine, the believer already has the answer to all those 'why's'- the will of god, of course).

Come to think of it, in his very limited experience so far, this reader has never met anybody who believed in 'just god', unqualified by a holy book or tradition. Surely they're out there, just probably in relatively smaller numbers?






J

[Ecurb]

For religious people myth and ritual are insuperable. "Believing in" the myth is a a silly notion without the ritual. It is the Buddhist meditation or the Christian prayer that gives the myth meaning.
The atheist who poo poos the myth is like the critic who reads the libretto of an opera and claims that the opera sucks, although he has never heard the music.
_

[Jack of Hearts]

For religious people myth and ritual are insuperable. "Believing in" the myth is a a silly notion without the ritual. It is the Buddhist meditation or the Christian prayer that gives the myth meaning.
The atheist who poo poos the myth is like the critic who reads the libretto of an opera and claims that the opera sucks, although he has never heard the music.

You see, that's enormously interesting too. This probably isn't the thread to have the discussion, but this approach to religion seems more humanistic/art oriented. What this discussion would lead to would be analysis and appreciation, not a question of logical soundness. The former leaves a far better taste in this poster's mouth- perhaps, in defining these two different discussions, it's possible to see two very different ways of thinking.






J

[G L Wilson]

How does one separate the babble of a brook from the brook?

[Rores28]

For religious people myth and ritual are insuperable. "Believing in" the myth is a a silly notion without the ritual. It is the Buddhist meditation or the Christian prayer that gives the myth meaning.
The atheist who poo poos the myth is like the critic who reads the libretto of an opera and claims that the opera sucks, although he has never heard the music.
_

To recapitulate your point here though... you are saying essentially that it is the feeling you get from a particular religion, as opposed to any distanced analysis that gives a particular religion meaning. Is this a fair, if less artful, summary of what you are getting at?

I would ask the giver of such a response, have you practiced various religions to see if the same holistic vibes/feelings/transcendent experiences were evoked, or did you just pick the first one? My guess is that most respondents have not experimented with any significant number of religions, and instead were indoctrinated or influenced by whatever culture they grew up in. Its sorta like never letting go of your grade school crush and seeing what else is out there.

[Rores28]

That is interesting, Rores.

Also, one would think subscribing to such a defined religion would only open many more implications and questions (but then again, if the belief in that god is genuine, the believer already has the answer to all those 'why's'- the will of god, of course).

Come to think of it, in his very limited experience so far, this reader has never met anybody who believed in 'just god', unqualified by a holy book or tradition. Surely they're out there, just probably in relatively smaller numbers?





J


Well you can sorta say you have now.... My belief / disbelief is probabilistic and in the 5% belief I leave open to goddy-ish stuff there is no tradition, at least no directly concrete one. I am of course a product of the various cultural and intellectual inputs from my environment and so in that sense I must necessarily be informed by tradition

[Rores28]

Ecurb you said earlier you would elaborate on free will. I was interested to hear what you had to say.

[G L Wilson]

How does one separate the babble of a brook from the brook?

By being deaf to one or blind to the other.

[YesNo]

Well you can sorta say you have now.... My belief / disbelief is probabilistic and in the 5% belief I leave open to goddy-ish stuff there is no tradition, at least no directly concrete one. I am of course a product of the various cultural and intellectual inputs from my environment and so in that sense I must necessarily be informed by tradition
I look at probabilistic models when I make a decision on a stock purchase or sale, but for everything else it is just a raw gamble.

I agree that we are all products of our cultural influences, but I think we can get beyond them. That doesn't mean these influences are wrong, but we need to get some distance from them. Basically, we need to be able to question them without fear.

The problem with using the word "god" in any discussion is that it goes back to a 19th century image of some being outside our universe who might have intervened in some way but otherwise had nothing much to do with it. The atheistic response to this god was reasonable doubt and it was based on a belief that there was no need for such a god at all. The view of the universe at that time was static, eternal and deterministic and we believed we could, with enough time, figure it all out.

That static universe began to crack with Darwin's evolution, although Darwin covered up the crack by having "chance" control the mutations. It further cracked in the 20th century with the discovery that the universe actually had a beginning out of nothing and is itself evolving.

So, if one wants to debate the existence of god one needs to also examine what one one believes the universe to be. The two go together. It is nice to say that one doesn't believe in the 19th century idea of god, but then few people believe in the static 19th century universe today either.

[The Atheist]

...The view of the universe at that time was static, eternal and deterministic and we believed we could, with enough time, figure it all out...

...It is nice to say that one doesn't believe in the 19th century idea of god, but then few people believe in the static 19th century universe today either.

Excuse me for blowing up your fallacy, but this is pure fantasy.

There have been atheists for at least hundreds of years before Jesus was allegedly born (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism).

The idea that atheism is a product of the 20th, or even 19th century is woefully wrong.

At a time when education of the masses was close enough to zero, it's no surprise to suggest that most people had irrational ideas about the universe.

Crikey, we live in 2011, at a time when we're cracking the innermost secrets of atoms and the universe and most people still have no idea how they actually work.

Not to mention that, in the real 18th and 19th centuries and earlier, huge swathes of people were what we'd now describe as deists rather than theists anyway. Nor the fact that church attendance in pre-industrial times was the preserve of the minority rich. The majority of poor certainly did not subscribe to the same beliefs as those few rich that you believe was universal.

[Arrowni]

You cannot probably try to argue logically about the existence of God. What would be your axiomatic belief? If God exists then it would only make sense for God to be the axiomatic belief, but then you wouldn't be able to prove it.

[mazHur]

Q, Can belief in God be supported by logic?
A. Not by faithless Logic

[YesNo]

The idea that atheism is a product of the 20th, or even 19th century is woefully wrong.

I'm not saying that atheism is a product of the 19th or 20th century. Atheism has been around a long time and occurs in many cultures. Even Buddhism, so I've heard, has atheistic beliefs.

What I am saying is that the arguments that I hear from atheists sound like they come from a 19th century worldview where the universe was believed to be static and the gods that mirrored that universe were perceived as irrelevant. Neither those 19th century gods nor that 19th century universe exist.

Today, not only is the accepted scientific theory of the space-time, matter and energy universe non-static, but it is evolutionary with a definite origin and with that origin coming out of nothing. That is not a 19th century universe. Nor are any deistic 19th century gods nor ideas of atheism toward those gods relevant to it.

So, when you claim that you are an atheist, what I am really interested in finding out is what you believe the universe to be, because that is the flip-side of the god question. For atheism today, I can see only two general paths in response to current scientific theory:

1) You deny that the Big Bang actually occurred and insist that the universe in some way always existed although with cyclic bangs and busts. You can then pursue the 19th century arguments against the 19th century gods no one really believes in anyway.

2) You accept the Big Bang and deify "chance" as the cause of it. Once you do that you must believe in some form of multiverse with an infinite number of alternate universes that popped out of nothing "by chance".

Theists have problems as well, especially in aligning their specific beliefs with the evidence, but the fact that the universe had an origin out of nothing falls right in their lap as a major windfall. Of course the creationists won't like it, but in general, current science more readily conforms to various traditional religious beliefs than it does to atheism.

[G L Wilson]

I'm not saying that atheism is a product of the 19th or 20th century. Atheism has been around a long time and occurs in many cultures. Even Buddhism, so I've heard, has atheistic beliefs.

What I am saying is that the arguments that I hear from atheists sound like they come from a 19th century worldview where the universe was believed to be static and the gods that mirrored that universe were perceived as irrelevant. Neither those 19th century gods nor that 19th century universe exist.

Today, not only is the accepted scientific theory of the space-time, matter and energy universe non-static, but it is evolutionary with a definite origin and with that origin coming out of nothing. That is not a 19th century universe. Nor are any deistic 19th century gods nor ideas of atheism toward those gods relevant to it.

So, when you claim that you are an atheist, what I am really interested in finding out is what you believe the universe to be, because that is the flip-side of the god question. For atheism today, I can see only two general paths in response to current scientific theory:

1) You deny that the Big Bang actually occurred and insist that the universe in some way always existed although with cyclic bangs and busts. You can then pursue the 19th century arguments against the 19th century gods no one really believes in anyway.

2) You accept the Big Bang and deify "chance" as the cause of it. Once you do that you must believe in some form of multiverse with an infinite number of alternate universes that popped out of nothing "by chance".

Theists have problems as well, especially in aligning their specific beliefs with the evidence, but the fact that the universe had an origin out of nothing falls right in their lap as a major windfall. Of course the creationists won't like it, but in general, current science more readily conforms to various traditional religious beliefs than it does to atheism.

Parallel universes are a question for science fiction writers at present, the multiverse as you term it is not real science at least not yet.

[Rores28]

I look at probabilistic models when I make a decision on a stock purchase or sale, but for everything else it is just a raw gamble.



This is a joke?



2) You accept the Big Bang and deify "chance" as the cause of it. Once you do that you must believe in some form of multiverse with an infinite number of alternate universes that popped out of nothing "by chance".

Theists have problems as well, especially in aligning their specific beliefs with the evidence, but the fact that the universe had an origin out of nothing falls right in their lap as a major windfall. Of course the creationists won't like it, but in general, current science more readily conforms to various traditional religious beliefs than it does to atheism.

What is more probable?

Chance caused the big bang.

or

Chance caused god. God caused the big bang.

[G L Wilson]

"There is no such thing as chance in the world." I cannot remember who said this but it doesn't matter anyway; it smashes free will as illusory, however that doesn't matter really. In fact, what does? Life is to be lived, not brooded upon.

[Rores28]

"There is no such thing as chance in the world." I cannot remember who said this but it doesn't matter anyway; it smashes free will as illusory, however that doesn't matter really. In fact, what does? Life is to be lived, not brooded upon.

Agreed! robot friend.

Chance is merely a word that reflects our current lack of understanding.

[The Atheist]

What I am saying is that the arguments that I hear from atheists sound like they come from a 19th century worldview where the universe was believed to be static and the gods that mirrored that universe were perceived as irrelevant. Neither those 19th century gods nor that 19th century universe exist.

Then I strongly suspect that instead of reading what atheists have actually written in recent times - Dawkins, Hitchens, et al - you've been accepting the incorrect second-hand versions of what they've said.

[YesNo]

Agreed! robot friend.

Chance is merely a word that reflects our current lack of understanding.
I would agree with that.


What is more probable?

Chance caused the big bang.

or

Chance caused god. God caused the big bang.

Forget both "God" and "Chance" and replace them with "Consciousness".

Then ask yourself what it means to be an atheist with respect to Consciousness. That might help move the discussion to the 21st century.


Then I strongly suspect that instead of reading what atheists have actually written in recent times - Dawkins, Hitchens, et al - you've been accepting the incorrect second-hand versions of what they've said.
I'm more interested in what you think about these issues since you are promoting atheism. Do you believe that a Big Bang occurred which started the universe out of nothing or not? Some people don't (besides Creationists).

Actually, I didn't realize that current scientific theory implied that the universe came out of nothing until I listened to a video that OrphanPip linked to at the beginning of the year:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

I think that is Dawkins who is introducing Lawrence Krauss.

So this came as a kind of shock to me as well.

[G L Wilson]

Powerful nonsense is harder to shift than sense.

[BienvenuJDC]

Powerful nonsense is harder to shift than sense.

Agreed...

[G L Wilson]

Agreed...

Bravo.

[Rores28]

I would agree with that.



Forget both "God" and "Chance" and replace them with "Consciousness".

Then ask yourself what it means to be an atheist with respect to Consciousness. That might help move the discussion to the 21st century.



So this came as a kind of shock to me as well.

I feel as though you are merely question dodging. If your point is that things like consciousness and qualia, and the idea that something always has to come before something so where is the first thing... are strange ideas seemingly with no real answers, than I agree.

But it is not a better explanation to invoke a God here. If you are merely tautologically defining God by that which cannot be explained I don't really see the point in discussion. This is not what most people who are religious are thinking about. They are thinking about a sentient entity, and typically one who doles out some arbitrary and dangerous prescriptions. People are concerned because culture and public policy are shaped by these beliefs (abortions, stem cells, etc...)

[Rores28]

I agree that we are all products of our cultural influences, but I think we can get beyond them. That doesn't mean these influences are wrong, but we need to get some distance from them. Basically, we need to be able to question them without fear.


I'm speaking more broadly than this.

[YesNo]

I feel as though you are merely question dodging.
OK. Let's stop dodging the question.

As an atheist, what is your view of the Big Bang?

[Rores28]

Here is my whole position on the issue. The Big Bang in my mind still fails to answer a more fundamental question about original causes as I did allude to in my previous post. Because one could still ask what caused the Big Bang / what caused the cause. Along with issues like conciousness/qualia and personal identity, and prolly a few others, I find them all quite strange and inexplicable.

I do not, however, invoke God to explain those things. Whether I think 1,000 big bangs happened or one happened or whether something like qualia is even capable of being explained with the current human nervous system, still wouldn't cause me to invoke God, because God is subject to the same question about origins. It is essentially a less parsimonious explanation to invoke God.

If we consider that the whole Universe is God, ourselves part of the grand scheme, that is fine, but when something is everything it is consequently nothing as well. If we consider God to be a sort of emergent property in the same way that our own conscious emerges but, (except that he is an emergence of us) and in the same way that a neuron can't understand an emotion we can't understand this strange (uber-conscious?) emergent property... that is fine too.

But again this sorta a-denominational explanation/?belief? is not what atheists speak out against. Atheists are hostile to the idea that Joe Sixpack is casting ballots for politicians because they agree with his preacher that a magic man in the sky imbues the egg/sperm duet with a sole at the minute of conception.

You may say we should move the discussion into the 21st century, though a fascinating topic, is not the sort of theism / deism whatever, you are proposing that is a common occurrence in the world.

So I would ask you now to offer me a full explanation of either what you believe, or a general counter point to this, because as of yet most of what you have said has been pseudo-cryptic and pithy.

[Ecurb]

To recapitulate your point here though... you are saying essentially that it is the feeling you get from a particular religion, as opposed to any distanced analysis that gives a particular religion meaning. Is this a fair, if less artful, summary of what you are getting at?

I would ask the giver of such a response, have you practiced various religions to see if the same holistic vibes/feelings/transcendent experiences were evoked, or did you just pick the first one? My guess is that most respondents have not experimented with any significant number of religions, and instead were indoctrinated or influenced by whatever culture they grew up in. Its sorta like never letting go of your grade school crush and seeing what else is out there.


I haven't actually done much religious experimentation. I'm an atheist. Nonetheless, just as science has (I think) gained predominance in the modern world view because it has practical value, religion may have practical value as well. The religious person sees the personal value of religion through his experience of it (an experience in which myth gains meaning through ritual and personal revelation) and equates the "value" with "truth". This isn't so different from the modern atheist who sees the practical value of science (perhaps in the atomic bomb and the internal combustion engine?) and equates that practical value with truth.

Regarding the notion that free will is impossible because all of our decisions are "caused" by chemical and electrical reactions in our brains, I don't think that's what we mean by "cause". I read a philosophical journal article about this once, and I don't remember it all that well. However, the author said we mean a couple of things by "cause":

1) The intentional act of a conscious agent. (If you shoot someone, you "cause" his death.)

2) A handle that we can manipulate. So if a car goes into a turn and slides over the high side, the "cause" of the crash is excessive speed (to the driver), insufficient cohesion (to the tire manufacturer), or lack of banking on the road (to the road engineer). Similarly, we say that germs cause a sore throat. But that's because we have antibiotics that kill germs. The reality, of course, is that plenty of people are exposed to the germs, but don't get the sore throat. We could equally say that a faulty immune system "causes" a sore throat, or that going out in the rain "causes" a sore throat -- in fact, we did say that (rationally so) before we discovered antibiotics.

This beng the case, saying that electical impulses in the brain "cause" all of our thoughts and decisions is an idiosyncratic use of the word "cause". The electrical impulses are not a handle we can manipulate. Of course it is true that the electrical impulses are correlated to our thoughts and decisions. But so are an infinite number of other factors (all the factors without which we would be dead,for example). When an experimental scientist studies a variable, the results of the experiment are equally affected by the constant factors (without oxygen, there will be no explosion nomatter what chemicals are added together). But we talk about the variable as the "cause" because it is the handle we are manipulating.

[joelavine]

The existence of countless earnest religious philosophers makes clear that belief in God can be "supported" by logic. Whether or not the logic they've utilized is persuasive is a completely different question.

[mazHur]

Where Logic begins
God ends
Where Logic ends
God begins!!

[The Atheist]

The existence of countless earnest religious philosophers makes clear that belief in God can be "supported" by logic.

Please provide examples, because I have yet to see it done without resorting to illogical arguments.

Also, even theists disagree with you:


Where Logic begins
God ends
Where Logic ends
God begins!!

Well put.

[Rores28]

I haven't actually done much religious experimentation. I'm an atheist. Nonetheless, just as science has (I think) gained predominance in the modern world view because it has practical value, religion may have practical value as well. The religious person sees the personal value of religion through his experience of it (an experience in which myth gains meaning through ritual and personal revelation) and equates the "value" with "truth". This isn't so different from the modern atheist who sees the practical value of science (perhaps in the atomic bomb and the internal combustion engine?) and equates that practical value with truth.

Regarding the notion that free will is impossible because all of our decisions are "caused" by chemical and electrical reactions in our brains, I don't think that's what we mean by "cause". I read a philosophical journal article about this once, and I don't remember it all that well. However, the author said we mean a couple of things by "cause":

1) The intentional act of a conscious agent. (If you shoot someone, you "cause" his death.)

2) A handle that we can manipulate. So if a car goes into a turn and slides over the high side, the "cause" of the crash is excessive speed (to the driver), insufficient cohesion (to the tire manufacturer), or lack of banking on the road (to the road engineer). Similarly, we say that germs cause a sore throat. But that's because we have antibiotics that kill germs. The reality, of course, is that plenty of people are exposed to the germs, but don't get the sore throat. We could equally say that a faulty immune system "causes" a sore throat, or that going out in the rain "causes" a sore throat -- in fact, we did say that (rationally so) before we discovered antibiotics.

This beng the case, saying that electical impulses in the brain "cause" all of our thoughts and decisions is an idiosyncratic use of the word "cause". The electrical impulses are not a handle we can manipulate. Of course it is true that the electrical impulses are correlated to our thoughts and decisions. But so are an infinite number of other factors (all the factors without which we would be dead,for example). When an experimental scientist studies a variable, the results of the experiment are equally affected by the constant factors (without oxygen, there will be no explosion nomatter what chemicals are added together). But we talk about the variable as the "cause" because it is the handle we are manipulating.

But this is exactly why I've pointed out that a neuroscientific explanation is unnecessary. All you need to believe is that the universe is built on a causal framework. If you believe that, then free-will is impossible in the sense we are accustomed to. If you believe the universe is causal in nature than that means that tomorrow at 5 pm exactly one universal state is possible. Just one. What this inheres is that you will be committing exactly one sort of behavior at that time, and that if we were technologically and mathematically advanced enough we could predict right now exactly what it would be. The neuroscience explanation is parochial and so only describes the most immediate cause, which confuses the issue.

So let's say we have the technology and we predict that tomorrow at 5pm you will smile and give a thumbs up. That is what will happen, end of story. This I don't think can be compatible with the common way most people understand themselves to have freedom over their actions, or free will.

[YesNo]

Here is my whole position on the issue. The Big Bang in my mind still fails to answer a more fundamental question about original causes as I did allude to in my previous post. Because one could still ask what caused the Big Bang / what caused the cause. Along with issues like conciousness/qualia and personal identity, and prolly a few others, I find them all quite strange and inexplicable.

I do not, however, invoke God to explain those things. Whether I think 1,000 big bangs happened or one happened or whether something like qualia is even capable of being explained with the current human nervous system, still wouldn't cause me to invoke God, because God is subject to the same question about origins. It is essentially a less parsimonious explanation to invoke God.

If we consider that the whole Universe is God, ourselves part of the grand scheme, that is fine, but when something is everything it is consequently nothing as well. If we consider God to be a sort of emergent property in the same way that our own conscious emerges but, (except that he is an emergence of us) and in the same way that a neuron can't understand an emotion we can't understand this strange (uber-conscious?) emergent property... that is fine too.

But again this sorta a-denominational explanation/?belief? is not what atheists speak out against. Atheists are hostile to the idea that Joe Sixpack is casting ballots for politicians because they agree with his preacher that a magic man in the sky imbues the egg/sperm duet with a sole at the minute of conception.

You may say we should move the discussion into the 21st century, though a fascinating topic, is not the sort of theism / deism whatever, you are proposing that is a common occurrence in the world.

So I would ask you now to offer me a full explanation of either what you believe, or a general counter point to this, because as of yet most of what you have said has been pseudo-cryptic and pithy.
If I understand you correctly, you are an atheist because you dislike the politics of some people who claim to be religious. I suggest that you will be able to find those same political views held by people who consider themselves atheists if you look hard enough.

It doesn't make sense to me to base a generic atheism on particular political disagreements with others. I can see how one would not want to be part of that religious group, but to dismiss all religious experience as a result of it appears to me excessive.

However, you are promoting a generic atheism. It doesn't matter what personally motivated you to promote that. People need to examine what you promote just as they would any other religious or philosophic system asking does it make sense considering the current description of reality that science presents. I claim atheism does not make sense unless the atheist can provide a explanation for the Big Bang.

Now, theists have already provided an explanation and agnostics bow out of the discussion. There is nothing for them to do. But to promote atheism in the face of a universe that is believed, with the best current scientific evidence to back it, to have had a beginning doesn't make sense without an explanation. Either you have to deny current scientific evidence or you need to side with one or the other of the explanations that scientists have come up with. This will then characterize your atheism.

As far as my view goes, I accept that there was a Big Bang, and what I mean by that is that the space-time universe with all of its matter and energy had a beginning about 14 billion years ago. Before that there was nothing. There wasn't even any time or space. For that to happen there needs to be something that caused it and I postulate a dimension of consciousness that is free and eternal that is not composed of space, time, matter or energy. Our human consciousness is within that dimension and is the main justification for postulating it. This dimension caused the space-time universe to have its beginning and permeates it replacing "chance" with "choice" at all levels of the universe. Upon this the various religions can be defined.

There are people who carry a Design argument even further and probably better than I do. Although I don't completely agree with the details, the views expressed by George Ellis, Before the Beginning: Cosmology Explained, show how this can be done.

[YesNo]

But this is exactly why I've pointed out that a neuroscientific explanation is unnecessary. All you need to believe is that the universe is built on a causal framework. If you believe that, then free-will is impossible in the sense we are accustomed to. If you believe the universe is causal in nature than that means that tomorrow at 5 pm exactly one universal state is possible. Just one. What this inheres is that you will be committing exactly one sort of behavior at that time, and that if we were technologically and mathematically advanced enough we could predict right now exactly what it would be. The neuroscience explanation is parochial and so only describes the most immediate cause, which confuses the issue.

So let's say we have the technology and we predict that tomorrow at 5pm you will smile and give a thumbs up. That is what will happen, end of story. This I don't think can be compatible with the common way most people understand themselves to have freedom over their actions, or free will.
I think that conflicts with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle ). If I remember correctly in Hawking's, A Brief History of Time, he claims that this principle replaced Laplace's 18th-19th century vision of a deterministic universe.

[G L Wilson]

If I understand you correctly, you are an atheist because you dislike the politics of some people who claim to be religious. I suggest that you will be able to find those same political views held by people who consider themselves atheists if you look hard enough.

It doesn't make sense to me to base a generic atheism on particular political disagreements with others. I can see how one would not want to be part of that religious group, but to dismiss all religious experience as a result of it appears to me excessive.

However, you are promoting a generic atheism. It doesn't matter what personally motivated you to promote that. People need to examine what you promote just as they would any other religious or philosophic system asking does it make sense considering the current description of reality that science presents. I claim atheism does not make sense unless the atheist can provide a explanation for the Big Bang.

Now, theists have already provided an explanation and agnostics bow out of the discussion. There is nothing for them to do. But to promote atheism in the face of a universe that is believed, with the best current scientific evidence to back it, to have had a beginning doesn't make sense without an explanation. Either you have to deny current scientific evidence or you need to side with one or the other of the explanations that scientists have come up with. This will then characterize your atheism.

As far as my view goes, I accept that there was a Big Bang, and what I mean by that is that the space-time universe with all of its matter and energy had a beginning about 14 billion years ago. Before that there was nothing. There wasn't even any time or space. For that to happen there needs to be something that caused it and I postulate a dimension of consciousness that is free and eternal that is not composed of space, time, matter or energy. Our human consciousness is within that dimension and is the main justification for postulating it. This dimension caused the space-time universe to have its beginning and permeates it replacing "chance" with "choice" at all levels of the universe. Upon this the various religions can be defined.

There are people who carry a Design argument even further and probably better than I do. Although I don't completely agree with the details, the views expressed by George Ellis, Before the Beginning: Cosmology Explained, show how this can be done.

The present scientific explanation for the Big Bang is very unsatisfying, it is a big fat "I don't know". But this is at least more satisfying than the idea of creation and a creator, for a God creates more questions than he answers.

[mazHur]

Well put.

Where Logic begins

God ends

Where Logic ends

God begins

Let Mind mind its business

Heart its own;

Each harvests that

Which it has sewn!

[G L Wilson]

Where Logic begins

God ends

Where Logic ends

God begins

Let Mind mind its business

Heart its own;

Each harvests that

Which it has sewn!

Shall we turn our swords into ploughs? I fear not. Nonetheless, the world needs a little heart as it needs a little mind.

[mazHur]

Shall we turn our swords into ploughs? I fear not. Nonetheless, the world needs a little heart as it needs a little mind.

turn your sword into ploughs
IF that's what comes your mind
AND watch for the result
Surely that would be to Heart an insult!
Mind says let's pass a camel
Through the eye of a needle
let's do the impossible but
Mind is limited to a hole
Heart like a camel with a hump
Roams freely in the vastness of the desert
OR like a whale in Antartica
harvesting shoals and shoals of krill
No Mind is capable of conceiving
An idea risen from the Heart!

[Ecurb]

If a cause is a handle we can manipulate, its clear the universe is not causal.

[YesNo]

The present scientific explanation for the Big Bang is very unsatisfying, it is a big fat "I don't know". But this is at least more satisfying than the idea of creation and a creator, for a God creates more questions than he answers.
The problem that the Big Bang presents is you now have to account for the origin the universe. That was not necessary before when the universe itself was viewed as eternal and its laws were deterministic.

The "I don't know" is an acceptable choice, but that should move one from promoting atheism to a humbler agnosticism especially in light of the evidence that something did happen 14 billion years ago that started our universe.

I suspect the Big Bang is unsatisfying for both the creationist as well as the atheist since the time frame violates the creationists' view that it all started less than 10,000 years ago and the fact that it started at all forces the atheist to consider a cause. For others, it most satisfyingly confirms what their religions have taught them about the universe.

[G L Wilson]

turn your sword into ploughs
IF that's what comes your mind
AND watch for the result
Surely that would be to Heart an insult!
Mind says let's pass a camel
Through the eye of a needle
let's do the impossible but
Mind is limited to a hole
Heart like a camel with a hump
Roams freely in the vastness of the desert
OR like a whale in Antartica
harvesting shoals and shoals of krill
No Mind is capable of conceiving
An idea risen from the Heart!

The mind cures.
The heart heals.

[mazHur]

The mind cures.
The heart heals.

The Cobra of Mind
spews poison
takes away the breath
but sometimes act as an antidote
for yet another poison.
So handle the Cobra with care
Do not fiddle with him
He is the King of Thoughts
good and bad
ever ready to spit its venom
or leap at his victim
like a hungry leopard
sucking his morsel's blood.

Heart, O heart,
that gentle folk
that knows no cunning
that is so naive and gullible
which has no boundary
to what he aspires for
He that is selfless
Or selfish sometimes
if bitten by the fangs
of the marbled Cobra mind
Heart is the entire world
Nay, it's all the Universe
embedded in a little beating mass
Heart's the giver of life
And all that goes to make life
and relationships
regardless of being True or False
but only one-way
as its sincere or wicked emotion may discern
It's true to its salt
Mind will perish and die
When the Heart shall halt!

[G L Wilson]

If a cause is a handle we can manipulate, its clear the universe is not causal.

Man is not God. Therefore I say that he is free.

[G L Wilson]

The Cobra of Mind
spews poison
takes away the breath
but sometimes act as an antidote
for yet another poison.
So handle the Cobra with care
Do not fiddle with him
He is the King of Thoughts
good and bad
ever ready to spit its venom
or leap at his victim
like a hungry leopard
sucking his morsel's blood.

Heart, O heart,
that gentle folk
that knows no cunning
that is so naive and gullible
which has no boundary
to what he aspires for
He that is selfless
Or selfish sometimes
if bitten by the fangs
of the marbled Cobra mind
Heart is the entire world
Nay, it's all the Universe
embedded in a little beating mass
Heart's the giver of life
And all that goes to make life
and relationships
regardless of being True or False
but only one-way
as its sincere or wicked emotion may discern
It's true to its salt
Mind will perish and die
When the Heart shall halt!


One really does need heart to cure a sick mind, and mind to heal a broken heart.

[Rores28]

If I understand you correctly, you are an atheist because you dislike the politics of some people who claim to be religious. I suggest that you will be able to find those same political views held by people who consider themselves atheists if you look hard enough.

It doesn't make sense to me to base a generic atheism on particular political disagreements with others. I can see how one would not want to be part of that religious group, but to dismiss all religious experience as a result of it appears to me excessive.


You do not understand me correctly. I am atheist/agnostic, and as I've explained earlier in the thread and directly in that post, because I don't think it is logically justified.

I was pointing out, however, that the brand of "theism" if it can even be characterized as such is not what most people who are involved in the debate are speaking out against. And except for one sentence, the brand of non-atheism you promote is much more defensible than these, though still not, a logically preferred explanation.




However, you are promoting a generic atheism. It doesn't matter what personally motivated you to promote that. People need to examine what you promote just as they would any other religious or philosophic system asking does it make sense considering the current description of reality that science presents.
I agree.



I claim atheism does not make sense unless the atheist can provide a explanation for the Big Bang.

Either you have to deny current scientific evidence or you need to side with one or the other of the explanations that scientists have come up with. This will then characterize your atheism.

Let me say first that some failures in other areas of science (diet and exercise advice prominent among them) leave me a little dubious about any explanation of something as uncertain as the origin of the universe. Therefore, I will discuss from the position that the big bang is in fact the infallible explanatory framework for the origin of existence, but keep in mind my skepticism.



As far as my view goes, I accept that there was a Big Bang, and what I mean by that is that the space-time universe with all of its matter and energy had a beginning about 14 billion years ago. Before that there was nothing. There wasn't even any time or space. For that to happen there needs to be something that caused it

Why? What if it was the first thing ever.




and I postulate a dimension of consciousness that is free and eternal that is not composed of space, time, matter or energy. Our human consciousness is within that dimension and is the main justification for postulating it. This dimension caused the space-time universe to have its beginning and permeates it replacing "chance" with "choice" at all levels of the universe. Upon this the various religions can be defined.


Alternative Explanations

The big bang is the beginning.

Infinite regress of big bang type events

Loop of big bang type events

Before the big bang was a universe just like ours (matter, energy, etc..) except that it had infinite time.

So first you'd have to ask yourself if any of these explanations from a logical standpoint is more preferred than yours...

Our human consciousness is within that dimension and is the main justification for postulating it.

We agree to an extent here about human consciousness being the main driver for postulating that there might be something profoundly funny that we just do not fundamentally understand about reality / existence.

This dimension caused the space-time universe to have its beginning and permeates it replacing "chance" with "choice" at all levels of the universe. Upon this the various religions can be defined.

This is where the logic seems to break down though.

Why would consciousness have to be permeated with chance instead of choice?

Why upon this are various religions defined / what exactly do you mean by this statement? (If you ignore the rest of the post ... answer this question).

As I said earlier I'm semi with you that there may be some sort of over arching consciousness / uber-conscious echelons that exists in a hierarchical way compared to us.

But why would we call it God. And why would we think this has any specific relation to anyone specific religion, or even all religions.

Also where would we draw that line at what is or isn't a religion.

And would this even mean anything to us? If we simply new there was some uber-consciousness we would still know nothing about its intent or wishes.... if it even possessed intent or wishes.




I suspect the Big Bang is unsatisfying for both the creationist as well as the atheist since the time frame violates the creationists' view that it all started less than 10,000 years ago and the fact that it started at all forces the atheist to consider a cause. For others, it most satisfyingly confirms what their religions have taught them about the universe.

I think you are mis-characterizing atheists, or perhaps I am giving them to much credit.

An atheist doesn't, or at least shouldn't care* very much about shifts in scientific understanding. If tomorrow there was unequivocal proof that a God-type entity existed, I think atheists would certainly feel a lot of emotions, but I don't think they would be dragging their heels like "damn I was wrong," or "crap I really didn't want a God to exist"

In other words I don't think atheists are routing for there not to be a more powerful entity than humans, they just legitimately haven't seen any reasonable evidence for it.

*Note they care about them but not in the way you seem to be implying*

[G L Wilson]

I think you are mis-characterizing atheists, or perhaps I am giving them to much credit.

An atheist doesn't, or at least shouldn't care* very much about shifts in scientific understanding. If tomorrow there was unequivocal proof that a God-type entity existed, I think atheists would certainly feel a lot of emotions, but I don't think they would be dragging their heels like "damn I was wrong," or "crap I really didn't want a God to exist"

In other words I don't think atheists are routing for there not to be a more powerful entity than humans, they just rightfully haven't seen any reasonable evidence for it.

*Note they care about them but not in the way you seem to be implying*

If God was to happen tomorrow, I would be a quaking mess.

[YesNo]

You do not understand me correctly. I am atheist/agnostic, and as I've explained earlier in the thread and directly in that post, because I don't think it is logically justified.

I may be misunderstanding what you are promoting, so I'll focus on some of the comments below and ignore whether you need to take a position on the Big Bang or not.

In what I mention below, this is just a guess on my part. I like to think that I change my mind a lot, but who knows?



This dimension caused the space-time universe to have its beginning and permeates it replacing "chance" with "choice" at all levels of the universe. Upon this the various religions can be defined.

This is where the logic seems to break down though.

Why would consciousness have to be permeated with chance instead of choice?

In trying to make sense of the Big Bang, and the Uncertainty Principle, I go with "consciousness" since we all can experience it and assume other species experience it in their way. I will assume that everything, in its own way, has a kind of consciousness. I don't want chance to have any role in this and so work backward assuming that my experience of free will is valid and can be found throughout the universe. That is what I mean by replacing "chance" with "choice": this makes the trending of evolutionary changes make sense to me. They are caused by internal conscious choices within the universe rather than chance.

This does not assume there is an external consciousness that is making these choices.



Why upon this are various religions defined / what exactly do you mean by this statement? (If you ignore the rest of the post ... answer this question).

My assumption of a dimension of consciousness in which space-time is embedded is a minimal way to allow an external cause for the Big Bang and an internal cause for the trending of evolutionary changes.

I think the current neurological research has located the religious experience in the brain and associated it with REM sleep. This is like finding a physical basis for the "third eye" or the "inner eye". The dimension of consciousness allows for religious experience to have a valid object and not be a delusion of the brain. From these experiences religious beliefs can be formed. That is what I mean by "defining" religions on this dimension on consciousness. It doesn't imply that every definition is correct. There is free will involved in this system which can make mistakes.


As I said earlier I'm semi with you that there may be some sort of over arching consciousness / uber-conscious echelons that exists in a hierarchical way compared to us.

But why would we call it God. And why would we think this has any specific relation to anyone specific religion, or even all religions.

Also where would we draw that line at what is or isn't a religion.

And would this even mean anything to us? If we simply new there was some uber-consciousness we would still know nothing about its intent or wishes.... if it even possessed intent or wishes.
There may be an uber-consciousness, but I don't have any experience of it except as I watch my own consciousness which is looking at the "God within" from a Hindu perspective. I don't think it is necessary to call any such consciousness "God", but it may not be inappropriate either. Alternatively, when considering this uber-consciousness, we could view ourselves as part of it and then when asking who created the universe a bizarre but interesting response might be: we did.

[blithe spirit]

God is not the author of confusion. The Big Bang theory is just that...a big explosion of chaos. There is certainly no logic as to how this chaotic explosion just up and organized itself into, for example, a structured human body with functioning organs, DNA, brains with highly intelligent potential, senses of touch, taste, hearing, sight, smell, and feelings of love, happiness, sadness. What an amazing amount of faith one whould have to exercise to believe that. I prefer to place my faith in something more logical...intelligent design.

[The Atheist]

God is not the author of confusion. The Big Bang theory is just that...a big explosion of chaos. There is certainly no logic as to how this chaotic explosion just up and organized itself into, for example, a structured human body with functioning organs, DNA, brains with highly intelligent potential, senses of touch, taste, hearing, sight, smell, and feelings of love, happiness, sadness. What an amazing amount of faith one whould have to exercise to believe that. I prefer to place my faith in something more logical...intelligent design.

I find it sad that your knowledge if logic and science is so shockingly poor that you could come to this conclusion.

There are whole libraries full of hard evidence as to the age and evolution of both planets and species, all of which is completely supported by logical argument using facts.

You're most welcome to believe an entity is responsible for creation of the universe, but the idea that "intelligent design" is supported by any logical argument is laughable. So called "intelligent design" is a position of pure faith.

Have a banana.

[YesNo]

I find it sad that your knowledge if logic and science is so shockingly poor that you could come to this conclusion.

There are whole libraries full of hard evidence as to the age and evolution of both planets and species, all of which is completely supported by logical argument using facts.

You're most welcome to believe an entity is responsible for creation of the universe, but the idea that "intelligent design" is supported by any logical argument is laughable. So called "intelligent design" is a position of pure faith.

Have a banana.
So what is your view on the Big Bang? I don't believe I have heard it.

I think blithe spirit makes a good point. The anthropic argument is a valid justification for considering a Design explanation for the universe. Although I don't agree with all the details, George Ellis, Before the Beginning, presents this view very clearly. There is nothing illogical or unscientific about it.

On the face of it, to have current scientific theory claim that the universe had a beginning at all is devastating to atheism. You need to explain how that could happened without a theistic argument.

[G L Wilson]

So what is your view on the Big Bang? I don't believe I have heard it.

I think blithe spirit makes a good point. The anthropic argument is a valid justification for considering a Design explanation for the universe. Although I don't agree with all the details, George Ellis, Before the Beginning, presents this view very clearly. There is nothing illogical or unscientific about it.

On the face of it, to have current scientific theory claim that the universe had a beginning at all is devastating to atheism. You need to explain how that could happened without a theistic argument.

YesNo, you clearly know nothing about atheism, so don't go on about it as if you do know something. It is becoming rather annoying.

[blithe spirit]

Significant to note is that both TheAtheist and GLWison are so busy telling everyone how stupid they are that they forgot to post anything intelligent. It's boring when members only attack the poster instead of the post.

There's not a whole lot to know about atheists, GLWilson. Atheists don't believe that dieties exist, nuff said. Absence of belief, btw, is a belief in itself.

As far as evolution goes...so we started in a mud puddle that contained all that's needed for highly evolved order and design and all matter...talk about laughable. Where did the DNA come from in this ancient mud puddle that formed the first living cell? Little green space men? DNA is passed from living cells to living cells. That is true science, not speculation.

..and where did the mud puddle come from...oh yeah, the Big Bang that had an unexplained start...must have been a powerful force to light that switch...or a series of miracles on a grand scale. Evolutionists believe that something came from nothing...that's like 0 + 0 = 1. Is that in your library of facts, TheAthiest?

[G L Wilson]

No atheist ever claimed that they knew everything unlike some.

[mazHur]

Failing to reason out the existence of god, angels, miracles, etc tends to drive some people into loss of faith not only in divinity but also among them and resultantly they tend to call them so called atheists?

[G L Wilson]

Failing to reason out the existence of god, angels, miracles, etc tends to drive some people into loss of faith not only in divinity but also among them and resultantly they tend to call them so called atheists?

The Atheist and I don't usually get on but when the chips are down we know which side we're on.

[The Atheist]

So what is your view on the Big Bang? I don't believe I have heard it.

My view on it? That it probably happened will cover it. I'm happy enough that an event that occurred billions of years ago and billions of light-years away is still largely unexplained.


The anthropic argument is a valid justification for considering a Design explanation for the universe. Although I don't agree with all the details, George Ellis, Before the Beginning, presents this view very clearly. There is nothing illogical or unscientific about it.

Well, if you accept the anthropic argument, you can accept anything. I thought Douglas Adams had pretty well made people give up on it, but there you go.

If you think it has anything to do with science, you're sadly mistaken, and as to logic, it only works insofar as the premises and conclusion are the same, which is why it's a favourite of biblical scholars.


On the face of it, to have current scientific theory claim that the universe had a beginning at all is devastating to atheism. You need to explain how that could happened without a theistic argument.

This is complete nonsense. The universe having a beginning is no threat to atheism and certainly does not call for a creator.

Do you really believe that, or just playing devil's advocate? I ask because it is incredibly naive to describe atheism in that form.


Significant to note is that both TheAtheist and GLWison are so busy telling everyone how stupid they are that they forgot to post anything intelligent. It's boring when members only attack the poster instead of the post.

It's not attacking you personally, but your statement that logic cannot explain that which science already has - to the unanimous approval of actual scientists - is not the kind of thing I will allow to stand unchallenged.

You can only make those statements through lacking education or malice and I don't think your being malicious. Ergo, the only possibility is that your science education is seriously lacking.

I'm perfectly happy that you have faith, but please do not use your faith as a means to blind yourself to actual facts and evidence that have existed for some considerable time.

I'm pretty sure I haven't told anyone they're stupid at any time.


There's not a whole lot to know about atheists, GLWilson. Atheists don't believe that dieties exist, nuff said. Absence of belief, btw, is a belief in itself.

Here we go again - a claim and an egregious error. Absence of belief is not a belief. You can even test this yourself using Zeus, Osiris or Thor.


As far as evolution goes...so we started in a mud puddle that contained all that's needed for highly evolved order and design and all matter...talk about laughable. Where did the DNA come from in this ancient mud puddle that formed the first living cell? Little green space men? DNA is passed from living cells to living cells. That is true science, not speculation.

First off, you're talking about abiogensis, which is not evolution.

Regardless of that, if you want a lesson in relicating molecules, I'm happy to help, and we can start by looking at other proteins to see how they replicate and could have formed DNA. Where would you like to start? RNA? Prions? Lots of choices.

You are aware that chemicals can react with each other and form new molecules, aren't you? The molecules that exist now are not those in existence 1 second after the big bang.

As with the big bang, I'm quite happy that we have incomplete knowledge of an event [abiogenesis] that happened ~4 billion years ago. That we have not been able to copy the effect as yet does not make me want to grasp for an entity.


..and where did the mud puddle come from...oh yeah, the Big Bang that had an unexplained start...must have been a powerful force to light that switch...or a series of miracles on a grand scale. Evolutionists believe that something came from nothing...that's like 0 + 0 = 1. Is that in your library of facts, TheAthiest?

Is that what it breaks down to? That because science has not yet formed testable and tested theories for the big bang and abiogenesis you put your faith in an invisible entity? Man, he must've been bored for the ~13 billion years between kicking off the big bang and seeing humans walk about.

What the hell are you going to do if next week CERN tells us how the universe started and Stanford introduces a single-celled organism that they produced from elemental ingredients?

[YesNo]

My view on it? That it probably happened will cover it. I'm happy enough that an event that occurred billions of years ago and billions of light-years away is still largely unexplained.

That is not an adequate explanation.



This is complete nonsense. The universe having a beginning is no threat to atheism and certainly does not call for a creator.

Do you really believe that, or just playing devil's advocate? I ask because it is incredibly naive to describe atheism in that form.

If you do not find it a threat, you should.

As an "atheist", you need a cause for that event or you forfeit the ground to theists. The attempts to come up with such a cause without a creator present us with absurd speculative multiverses or very improbable explanations that can be summarized as 'it just happened that way'. Since theistic design arguments better account for human ethics and consciousness than any of the alternatives so far, you need to do better than that or admit it is Game Over for whatever you are promoting as "atheism".

I want to remind you: this is the 21st century, not the 19th. Science and logic are not automatically on your side.

[G L Wilson]

That is not an adequate explanation.


If you do not find it a threat, you should.

As an "atheist", you need a cause for that event or you forfeit the ground to theists. The attempts to come up with such a cause without a creator present us with absurd speculative multiverses or very improbable explanations that can be summarized as 'it just happened that way'. Since theistic design arguments better account for human ethics and consciousness than any of the alternatives so far, you need to do better than that or admit it is Game Over for whatever you are promoting as "atheism".

I want to remind you: this is the 21st century, not the 19th. Science and logic are not automatically on your side.

Science and logic has never been on your side. And it is the 21st century, why don't you get out and enjoy it, and leave the serious thinking to your betters?!

[BienvenuJDC]

Science and logic has never been on your side. And it is the 21st century, why don't you get out and enjoy it, and leave the serious thinking to your betters?!

I believe that he/she presented you with a realistic consideration. I do not think that personal attacks upon YesNo's thinking ability helps your argument in the slightest. The cosmological argument does in fact present atheism with some serious considerations at best, and at worst atheism falls apart completely without a reasonable answer to explain how, where, & why matter originated.

[G L Wilson]

I believe that he/she presented you with a realistic consideration. I do not think that personal attacks upon YesNo's thinking ability helps your argument in the slightest. The cosmological argument does in fact present atheism with some serious considerations at best, and at worst atheism falls apart completely without a reasonable answer to explain how, where, & why matter originated.

The origins of matter matters not to an atheist, that the universe exists is enough to disprove the existence of God in his or her mind.

[BienvenuJDC]

The origins of matter matters not to an atheist, that the universe exists is enough to disprove the existence of God in his or her mind.

Such a statement shows that you are not prepared to answer the issues of origins. I guess there's not point in discussing it if you won't address it. The fact that the universe exists is enough to PROVE there is a God, but you can't see that. Good bye

[ralfyman]

Likely not, as the aspect considered defies logic.

[G L Wilson]

Such a statement shows that you are not prepared to answer the issues of origins. I guess there's not point in discussing it if you won't address it. The fact that the universe exists is enough to PROVE there is a God, but you can't see that. Good bye

I am not prepared to answer the issues of material origin because I have no answer, the religio seems to. As in all things, the religious want atheists to answer what atheists cannot and see no fault in their own side. For instance, the origin of God is carefully cloaked amidst myth and earnest feeling to reveal nothing of danger. Let us hope that the aliens don't land because those idiots will begin to worship their three heads as the Trinity in no time.

[G L Wilson]

Likely not, as the aspect considered defies logic.

He has no need of logic, he has faith: and faith tells him that there is a God, and that is the end of the argument as far as he is concerned. It is no good talking to these people, they are ignoramuses - the lot of them.

[The Atheist]

That is not an adequate explanation.

You'll have to wait until there is one then. Considering we've only had computers for ~60 years, radiotelescopes for 70 and particle accelerators for 80, I'm not too fussed.

Why do you think it's so important?


If you do not find it a threat, you should.

Nope, you're making this up as you go along.

I'll give you an example:

Are you atheist about the existence of Thor, Osiris and Neptune? If so, why doesn't the origin of the universe work the same for them?


As an "atheist", you need a cause for that event or you forfeit the ground to theists.

This is nonsensical and is just a misuse of the term "atheist".

As I've been at enormous pains to point out, atheists include panspermians, those who believe life was brought to earth by aliens, Buddhists and David Icke. Just as there is no "cause" of atheism, the cause of the universe is completely irrelevant.


The attempts to come up with such a cause without a creator present us with absurd speculative multiverses or very improbable explanations that can be summarized as 'it just happened that way'. Since theistic design arguments better account for human ethics and consciousness than any of the alternatives so far, you need to do better than that or admit it is Game Over for whatever you are promoting as "atheism".

This is more pure nonsense. Even the unproven theories around the creation of the universe have some evidence which points in the direction of a big bang, while only anthropic arguments advance a creator.

Human ethics, consciousness and emotions are actually very easy to demonstrate as scientific fact since the use of MRI scans became widespread.

I find it amusing that you make wild claims without any scientific knowledge whatsoever. Biology and neurology combine neatly to arrive at a rational explanation for sentient beings and I'm surprised anyone other than a hardcore fundamental would try to deny that. Maybe you are just unaware of scientific advances over the past 50 years?


I want to remind you: this is the 21st century, not the 19th. Science and logic are not automatically on your side.

Science doesn't have a "side".

Do you even know how science works or what it actually is?

[G L Wilson]

Of course she doesn't, otherwise she/he wouldn't be making these ridiculous claims.

[prickly_pete]

Yeah, I don't see why our inability to explain something that happened 10 Billion years ago makes theism more probable by default.

[blithe spirit]

I find it sad that your knowledge if logic and science is so shockingly poor...

you clearly know nothing about atheism, so don't go on about it as if you do know something. It is becoming rather annoying.

You can only make those statements through lacking education...the only possibility is that your science education is seriously lacking.

it is the 21st century, why don't you get out and enjoy it, and leave the serious thinking to your betters?!

I believe that he/she presented you with a realistic consideration. I do not think that personal attacks upon YesNo's thinking ability helps your argument in the slightest. The cosmological argument does in fact present atheism with some serious considerations at best, and at worst atheism falls apart completely without a reasonable answer to explain how, where, & why matter originated.

The origins of matter matters not to an atheist, that the universe exists is enough to disprove the existence of God in his or her mind.

It is no good talking to these people, they are ignoramuses - the lot of them.

Such a statement shows that you are not prepared to answer the issues of origins. I guess there's not point in discussing it if you won't address it. The fact that the universe exists is enough to PROVE there is a God, but you can't see that. Good bye
Amen, BienvenuJDC. I think people who resort to personal attacks do so from their own frustrated inadequacies while they scramble to defend their statements with nothing to substantial to say. It's a cheap, ineffective, and immature defense mechanism. Do they not know that all readers recognize this age-old technique of putting others down to make themselves look superior when in fact it has the opposite affect? Mature readers only respect intelligent responses.

[BienvenuJDC]

It seems that the discussion has drifted from the original purpose. The question is if a belief in God can be supported by logic. It is not whether it can be PROVEN by logic. It is NOT about atheism proving their side, or disproving the theist's side.

I can believe in God, and I can support it with logical conclusions. What I do NOT understand is why there are so many atheist that seem threatened by other's belief in God.

[prickly_pete]

Amen, BienvenuJDC. I think people who resort to personal attacks do so from their own frustrated inadequacies while they scramble to defend their statements with nothing to substantial to say.

In their defense though I don't think it inaccruate to characterize religious folks - probably a majority - as monsterously arrogant. I'm sorry, I've tried to give religion a shot, but everything I've seen in the last ten years from 9/11, to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, to Jerry Falwell, to actually having personally been to Iraq and seen with my own eyes the streets flowing with blood because of religion - I'm done. I'm sorry, but nothing has more power in this world with less objective worth and evidence than does religion. I gave it a sincere effort, but now I'm ready to go all Richard Dawkins onthis, seriously lol.

[YesNo]

Yeah, I don't see why our inability to explain something that happened 10 Billion years ago makes theism more probable by default.
Since this is a literature site, I'd like to quote James Joyce's Ulysses written in the early 20th century:


"You're not a believer, are you? Haines asked. I mean, a believer in the narrow sense of the word, Creation from nothing and miracles and a personal god."

What amazes me is how much things have changed in the past 100 years. The previously ridiculed religious view that the universe had an origin out of nothing is now the current scientific theory.

What science has done with finding empirical evidence for the origin of the universe out of nothing is validated an ancient religious belief.

The atheists now need to scramble to save their theories. Attempts are made to invoke chance to save them. Unfortunately getting chance involved at this stage often implies the existence of infinitely many alternate universes which conveniently no one could ever see leaving such explanations indefinitely speculative. They might as well just say, "God did it."

[G L Wilson]

YesNo, how does "chance" evoke this multiverse of yours?

[BienvenuJDC]

In their defense though I don't think it inaccruate to characterize religious folks - probably a majority - as monsterously arrogant. I'm sorry, I've tried to give religion a shot, but everything I've seen in the last ten years from 9/11, to the Israeli Palestinian conflict, to Jerry Falwell, to actually having personally been to Iraq and seen with my own eyes the streets flowing with blood because of religion - I'm done. I'm sorry, but nothing has more power in this world with less objective worth and evidence than does religion. I gave it a sincere effort, but now I'm ready to go all Richard Dawkins onthis, seriously lol.

I believe that there are arrogant people in both camps. You can choose to give up on religion, but that still doesn't change that one can have faith based on logic. It seems that much arrogance has been shown in this thread by the atheists...NOT the theists. Your argument seems to be without support.

[G L Wilson]

I believe that there are arrogant people in both camps. You can choose to give up on religion, but that still doesn't change that one can have faith based on logic. It seems that much arrogance has been shown in this thread by the atheists...NOT the theists. Your argument seems to be without support.

BienvenuJDC, what logic could you have?

[prickly_pete]

What science has done with finding empirical evidence for the origin of the universe out of nothing is validated an ancient religious belief.


You're writing from a fundamentally mistaken opinion of how ancient cosmology actually worked largely because of a mistaken assumption that Aristotle's - and by extension the Church's - concept of "cause" is synonymous with our own ideas about causality. This simply isn't true.

Take the classic example of two billiard balls. Under our concept of causality Ball 1 colliding with Ball 2 creates a change in BOTH balls (Ball 1 while previously moving is now at rest. Ball 2 while previously at rest is now moving). Important here is the idea that when a thing acts on another thing it cannot do so without changing it's own constitution.

Now if we take this concept of causality and apply it two God it creates a problem. Namely how God (supposedly omnipotent, eternal, and changeless) can act on thing and interact with things without him/herself being changed. Hmmmmm...

The Ancients were aware of this problem probably because they - in contrast to most of us it seems - were capable of sober thinking. Indeed Aristotle's cosmology (and thusly Church cosmology) doesn't conceive of the Universe as something created because this tends to raise more questions than it answers primarily because thought takes place in time which pretty much makes talking about a "beginning" and "end" of time unintelligible.

Rather Aristotle's universe had always existed and extended infinitely forward and backwards in time (which, sensibly avoids the rather ridiculous question of where time "started" or "came from".). The planets and stars had ALWAYS existed and always moved in a uniform manner. This is why the Church acted in such a violent manner when Galileo came along. I mean, it makes sense - if the Church had believed back then (as you claim) that the universe had been created out of nothing then how or why the planets moved would've been of no importance. In reality though the Heliocentric view of the universe was a direct challenge to the Church's conception of the universe and time.

Aristotle's "cause" is based way more on telos with the "ultimate cause" being an object of desire, the Platonic "idea" that the whole universe is trying to aspire to an emulate. Doesn't have anything to do with our notions of causality. Two completely unrelated things.

[G L Wilson]

David Hume's idea of causality is that it couldn't be known, therefore a cause's effect couldn't be known. It springs free will from captivity at least.

[prickly_pete]

Philosophy of science is interesting but I don't think it's much use to the common man like myself. This will likely be the only discussion I'll have for the next decade where Ancient cosmology can even be mentioned.

[G L Wilson]

Philosophy of science is interesting but I don't think it's much use to the common man like myself. This will likely be the only discussion I'll have for the next decade where Ancient cosmology can even be mentioned.

I hadn't thought of that before about a cause having an aim, at least not seriously, that everything was moving to a plan. Today I can say that it is a very curious idea but in its heyday it must have been very convincing.

[BienvenuJDC]

BienvenuJDC, what logic could you have?

It seems logical to me that every effect would have a cause, and that anything that has a intricate design would have an intelligent designer. It doesn't seem logical to assume that everything that exists came about without purpose, without knowledge, and without a force that is above natural means. You may not agree with my assumptions, nor my conclusions, but to say that there isn't any logic in those thoughts, demonstrates a clear bias against a particular conclusion and a desire to reject an opposing side without giving any consideration. A reasonable individual should be able to give consideration to a differing view while still possessing the freedom to disagree.


YesNo, how does "chance" evoke this multiverse of yours?

You seriously can't see that? Well, it seems that it this universe is one in a billion, then it stands to reason that there are a billion other universes out there...somewhere. Otherwise, if there is just one universe that happened to have everything happen JUST RIGHT, the odds for that are so astronomically minute that we might as well just say that it is impossible.

Now you're questioning the believer's logic?

[G L Wilson]

You seriously can't see that? Well, it seems that it this universe is one in a billion, then it stands to reason that there are a billion other universes out there...somewhere. Otherwise, if there is just one universe that happened to have everything happen JUST RIGHT, the odds for that are so astronomically minute that we might as well just say that it is impossible.

Now you're questioning the believer's logic?

What does YesNo mean by chance? What does YesNo mean by a multiverse?
That is what I am asking.


It seems logical to me that every effect would have a cause, and that anything that has a intricate design would have an intelligent designer. It doesn't seem logical to assume that everything that exists came about without purpose, without knowledge, and without a force that is above natural means. You may not agree with my assumptions, nor my conclusions, but to say that there isn't any logic in those thoughts, demonstrates a clear bias against a particular conclusion and a desire to reject an opposing side without giving any consideration. A reasonable individual should be able to give consideration to a differing view while still possessing the freedom to disagree.

Would you see craftsmanship in a weathered rock?

[prickly_pete]

You can choose to give up on religion, but that still doesn't change that one can have faith based on logic.

Wouldn't it - assuming for the moment you have any clue of what you're talking about - cease to be faith at that point though? 'If all A's are B's, and all B's are C's then all C's are A's.'

If this was all your 'faith' amounted to, conclusions that easily followed from their premises then (1) faith becomes reducable to a syllogism and isn't very special or inspiring and (2) it isn't actually faith at all because it required no suffering or 'soul searching' to attain it. It would be like saying you need faith to complete simple arithmetic. Ridiculous.

[G L Wilson]

"There is a God, this or that proves God exists, therefore there is a God." I don't call it logic, I call it a circular argument.

[The Atheist]

I think people who resort to personal attacks do so from their own frustrated inadequacies while they scramble to defend their statements with nothing to substantial to say.

I don't accept that it is a personal attack to describe someone who has posted flagrant fallacies about scientific knowledge as "having a poor understanding of science".

I will re-quote your post:


As far as evolution goes...so we started in a mud puddle that contained all that's needed for highly evolved order and design and all matter...talk about laughable. Where did the DNA come from in this ancient mud puddle that formed the first living cell? Little green space men? DNA is passed from living cells to living cells. That is true science, not speculation.

You are making egregious misrepresentations of actual science to try to prove that the bible is correct and evolutionary science wrong. At a time when even the Roman Catholic Church - by an enormous margin, the world's largest christian church - fully accepts that man evolved from single-celled organisms, your posting in that manner can only result from lacking knowledge of what the science actually shows.

[G L Wilson]

The Catholic Church is not the paragon of virtue that it makes itself out to be.

[The Atheist]

The Catholic Church is not the paragon of virtue that it makes itself out to be.

Yeah, I do realise that, but I used it solely to display that only fundamental christianity cannot accept evolution. 80-90% of all christians are able to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence and believe evolution.

Anti-evolutionary beliefs are an extreme minority, so I'm always amused by the "it can't be possible" references.

[G L Wilson]

Yeah, I do realise that, but I used it solely to display that only fundamental christianity cannot accept evolution. 80-90% of all christians are able to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence and believe evolution.

Anti-evolutionary beliefs are an extreme minority, so I'm always amused by the "it can't be possible" references.

I fear that it might be us who are in the minority, truth be told.

[The Atheist]

I fear that it might be us who are in the minority, truth be told.

If you're talking about atheists, then yes, we are a minority, albeit a fast-growing minority.

Either way, there are still a lot more atheists than young earth creationists.

Over a billion atheists, agnostics and non-theists (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html), but <300,000,000 fundamental church members (http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity), not all of whom are YECs.

[G L Wilson]

If you're talking about atheists, then yes, we are a minority, albeit a fast-growing minority.

Either way, there are still a lot more atheists than young earth creationists.

Over a billion atheists, agnostics and non-theists (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html), but <300,000,000 fundamental church members (http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html#Christianity), not all of whom are YECs.

The public has more interest in their next beer and bonk than it has in perpetual conflict. It is the fundamental difference between us and them that is serving us wrong, we can never hate the way they do, there is no end to the hate that they are prepared to dish out, it serves them well. We may very well lose.

[The Atheist]

The public has more interest in their next beer and bonk than it has in perpetual conflict.

And rightly so.

When I was young and single and a party-boy, I was a full-on atheist, but the subject never came up, because you don't generally do metaphysics at the kind of parties I went to.

Now I wake up next to a babe every day, so I have more time for the eternal verities. I have no problem with apathetic agnostics though.


It is the fundamental difference between us and them that is serving us wrong, we can never hate the way they do, there is no end to the hate that they are prepared to dish out, it serves them well. We may very well lose.

Oh, I think it's an almost-certain loser. They breed so much faster, and look at the different sales pitches:

Theist: You won't die and you will be happy and surrounded by your loved ones forever and ever!

Atheist: You're going to rot in the dirt and in 100 years' time, nobody will even know you existed.

[G L Wilson]

I am not certain that theism will lose. No-one on our side can question their cunning. The enemy is a sly dog that knows when to cower. Atheists are always too brave for their own good, that's the truth for certain. I will never grow tired of the fight, it's the cause that seems lost.

[The Atheist]

I am not certain that theism will lose.

I was saying it won't.

[G L Wilson]

I was saying it won't.

Oh, I'm sorry. Damn it, I refuse to lose.

Spirituality. I know that I have never felt it.

[BienvenuJDC]

You are making egregious misrepresentations...

The same could be said about most of your statements also...

[YesNo]

YesNo, how does "chance" evoke this multiverse of yours?

It's not my multiverse. If you are interested, Paul Davies, Cosmic Jackpot, provides a view of it that an atheist would find tolerable. George Ellis, Before the Beginning, provides an alternate approach.

Since there is now empirical evidence that the universe actually had a beginning, the atheist needs to either acknowledge the reality of something else or use chance to claim that there are many universes (multiverse). This multiverse concept essentially makes 21st century atheism a religion. Personally, I am an atheist with respect to the multiverse.


You're writing from a fundamentally mistaken opinion of how ancient cosmology actually worked largely because of a mistaken assumption that Aristotle's - and by extension the Church's - concept of "cause" is synonymous with our own ideas about causality. This simply isn't true.
...
Now if we take this concept of causality and apply it two God it creates a problem. Namely how God (supposedly omnipotent, eternal, and changeless) can act on thing and interact with things without him/herself being changed. Hmmmmm...


That is an interesting idea of how God could act on something without being changed. I'll have to keep it in mind. Perhaps causality, as you describe it, requires space and time which wouldn't have been around prior to the big bang.

Although I suspect Aristotle believed the universe was eternal, I don't think most religions do, but I haven't checked them all out. The creation out of nothing is I believe an explicitly Catholic formulation of this. And that is what current science now believes as well.




Oh, I think it's an almost-certain loser. They breed so much faster, and look at the different sales pitches:

Theist: You won't die and you will be happy and surrounded by your loved ones forever and ever!

Atheist: You're going to rot in the dirt and in 100 years' time, nobody will even know you existed.
Between us there is nothing to win or lose. I'm just clarifying my thoughts.

However, what meaning is found in death and life and how human freedom should be exercised is a major difference between atheists and theists. The atheist says there is neither meaning nor freedom and uses that to build the kind of universe(s) needed to make sure there is neither meaning nor freedom. If that is not your particular viewpoint, what is?

The theist is free to look for something else.

[prickly_pete]

That is an interesting idea of how God could act on something without being changed. I'll have to keep it in mind. Perhaps causality, as you describe it, requires space and time which wouldn't have been around prior to the big bang.

Its kind of difficult to think in terms of a "before" time.

[G L Wilson]

It's not my multiverse. If you are interested, Paul Davies, Cosmic Jackpot, provides a view of it that an atheist would find tolerable. George Ellis, Before the Beginning, provides an alternate approach.

Since there is now empirical evidence that the universe actually had a beginning, the atheist needs to either acknowledge the reality of something else or use chance to claim that there are many universes (multiverse). This multiverse concept essentially makes 21st century atheism a religion. Personally, I am an atheist with respect to the multiverse.


That is an interesting idea of how God could act on something without being changed. I'll have to keep it in mind. Perhaps causality, as you describe it, requires space and time which wouldn't have been around prior to the big bang.

Although I suspect Aristotle believed the universe was eternal, I don't think most religions do, but I haven't checked them all out. The creation out of nothing is I believe an explicitly Catholic formulation of this. And that is what current science now believes as well.



Between us there is nothing to win or lose. I'm just clarifying my thoughts.

However, what meaning is found in death and life and how human freedom should be exercised is a major difference between atheists and theists. The atheist says there is neither meaning nor freedom and uses that to build the kind of universe(s) needed to make sure there is neither meaning nor freedom. If that is not your particular viewpoint, what is?

The theist is free to look for something else.

YesNo, I disagree with your characterisation of atheists as somehow trapped within a bleak outlook. Atheists know that philosophy is not always life-affirming and that we must move out of it into real life to get our senses back. As far as I can see, there is no getting out of religion, bleak as it may be, it is something that is always with you.

[The Atheist]

The same could be said about most of your statements also...

I disagree. As long you accept that science works - and since you are using it, by way of computer, electricity and the internet, you must agree that at least some of it works - then my statements have been valid.


Since there is now empirical evidence that the universe actually had a beginning, the atheist needs to either acknowledge the reality of something else or use chance to claim that there are many universes (multiverse).

This is still wrong. Repeating it won't make it true, either.


The atheist says there is neither meaning nor freedom and uses that to build the kind of universe(s) needed to make sure there is neither meaning nor freedom.

Can you display evidence that atheists have said those things, please, as I don't believe I've ever seen them stated.

[G L Wilson]

Pure agitprop, The Atheist, they're full of it.

[BienvenuJDC]

I disagree. As long you accept that science works - and since you are using it, by way of computer, electricity and the internet, you must agree that at least some of it works - then my statements have been valid.

This is totally unrelated to the comment. You can disagree all you want, that doesn't change the reality of it. It seems that you have confused "science" with "technology".

[prickly_pete]

It seems that you have confused "science" with "technology".

Yeah, because technology has nothing to do with scientific development lol.

[G L Wilson]

Yeah, now the magic trick of Catholic Mass is real science, right, JDC?

[The Atheist]

This is totally unrelated to the comment. You can disagree all you want, that doesn't change the reality of it. It seems that you have confused "science" with "technology".

You're kidding, aren't you?

Otherwise, can you specify a technology that doesn't use science?

[YesNo]

Its kind of difficult to think in terms of a "before" time.
Yeah, it is.

Your point about causality is good. No matter how the big bang was triggered, it was not a normal cause and effect event. I like to think of there being a dimension that is eternal from which the finite universe was somehow triggered to start. Consciousness would have to be in that dimension and what this gives me is a place where freedom and consciousness can reside.

The "eternal" part of this dimension should not be a problem. Previously people thought the universe was somehow eternal even after the 2nd law of thermodynamics was formulated in the 19th century. The idea of the multiverse is also a way to make the collection of universes eternal again, but now with the mechanism of "eternal inflation", that is, Big Bangs just keep happening all over the "place" and "time", whatever that means in the context.



Can you display evidence that atheists have said those things, please, as I don't believe I've ever seen them stated.

Actually, I'm getting the idea that atheists support a worldview that is meaningless from Paul Davies, Cosmic Jackpot. Here is a sample (page 15):


Many scientists who are struggling to construct a fully comprehensive theory of the physical universe openly admit that part of the motivation is to finally get rid of God, whom they view as a dangerous and infantile delusion. And not only God, but any vestige of God-talk, such as "meaning" or "purpose" or "design" in nature.

The part about freedom I picked up from conversations in this thread. Realize that when freedom goes, so does any "meaningful" discussion of ethics.

If that is not your view also, what is?


Yeah, now the magic trick of Catholic Mass is real science, right, JDC?
Although I did introduce Catholicism in this discussion, it was just to illustrate that the idea of the universe having a beginning is a general religious idea. It is not peculiar to Catholicism. This is one place where the religious dimension makes itself manifest. That the universe had a beginning is enough to justify various religious positions.

The additional idea of "creatio ex nihilo" has a long history and now appears to be mainstream scientific theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_nihilo

[Scheherazade]

~

W a r n i n g

Please show respect towards those whose views differ from yours.

If you find yourselves unable to do so, please do not hesitate to ignore these discussions.

~

[CellarDoor]

I'll give this one a shot:

A. (Causality and determinism are not synonymous,) the universe is causally non-deterministic (this is supported by quantum mechanics) and it's beginning cannot be predicted by science or the laws of nature.
B. A Miracle is an event that is not predictable by science or the laws of nature, and must therefore be caused by god.
C. The universe is a miracle, and must therefore be caused by god.

This is a logically valid deductive argument A implies B, B implies C, therefore A implies C. But the truth or fallacy of a logically valid argument lies in the truth of the assertions.

A non-secularist/spiritualist may find B to be true and accept the existence of god while an Atheist will find B false (just because something is not predictable by science, doesn't imply the existence of god as it's likely we do not yet have enough information to understand the cause of said event) and deny the existence of god.

I wanted to touch briefly on the deterministic argument and how this relates to free will. Causality is the key in this argument, and current thought in Quantum Mechanics implies that it's possible to have a causally non-deterministic universe (see radioactive decay). In the case of causal non-determinism, one option is that each state of the universe implies a set of possible outcomes and probability determines what the outcome will actually be. This still doesn't leave room for true free will, but it starts to open some wiggle room for science and free will to co-exist. The real purpose of this is to illustrate that causality is not a fact, but a theory, and that belief in science also requires a leap of faith of it's own (an inductive argument with one true example is just as strong as an inductive argument with billions of examples, both require faith -- typically founded on theory -- that you will not find an exception to the rule).

In any case the above deduction is only for illustrative purposes. In this and every case in which logic is used to support belief in god/free will, the truth of the assertions will always come down to a matter of faith. Therefore logic can neither prove (support), nor disprove (erode) the existence of god.

Atheism or any non-secular/spiritual belief will always required a leap of faith. Agnosticism on the other hand, is just dodging the question and hedging your bets.

[prickly_pete]

The "eternal" part of this dimension should not be a problem.

How does postulating the existence of a paralell time sphere - which so far exists only in our imaginations - do anything but obsfucate and obstruct the issue?

[The Atheist]

Actually, I'm getting the idea that atheists support a worldview that is meaningless from Paul Davies, Cosmic Jackpot. Here is a sample (page 15):


Many scientists who are struggling to construct a fully comprehensive theory of the physical universe openly admit that part of the motivation is to finally get rid of God, whom they view as a dangerous and infantile delusion. And not only God, but any vestige of God-talk, such as "meaning" or "purpose" or "design" in nature.(bold mine)

That isn't what you said, which was:

"The atheist says there is neither meaning nor freedom"

Which is completely different from what you quoted. He is clearly not even on the same subject as you. The man couldn't be clearer; he even put quotation marks around the key words. What he says is correct, by the way.

Let's assume you manage to find one atheist that agrees with you - that would in no way prove you're right, because you are applying it to all atheists and it's patently obvious that not one of the several atheists in this thread believes it.



The part about freedom I picked up from conversations in this thread. Realize that when freedom goes, so does any "meaningful" discussion of ethics.

Can you point to them, because all I've seen are discussions on "free will", that I've avoided because I think it's a pointless debate, so it may be in one of those posts. Note: freedom and "free will" are not the same.


If that is not your view also, what is?

My view on the Meaning of Life?

42 or Monty Python's movie of the same name. The message is much the same and said far better than I could manage.



I'll give this one a shot:

A. (Causality and determinism are not synonymous,) the universe is causally non-deterministic (this is supported by quantum mechanics) and it's beginning cannot be predicted by science or the laws of nature.

Incorrect.

It is causally deterministic as proved by every molecule we've met so far. In case you hadn't noticed, the nature of subatomic particles has not actually changed anything. Wheels still turn and electricity still works. U239 decays at non-deterministic intervals. And its affect on the universe has been?

It's hard to get one's head around particle physics, which is why people study it for decades.

Best leave it for them.


The real purpose of this is to illustrate that causality is not a fact, but a theory, and that belief in science also requires a leap of faith of it's own (an inductive argument with one true example is just as strong as an inductive argument with billions of examples, both require faith -- typically founded on theory -- that you will not find an exception to the rule).

You're almost right here - there is one article of faith required to accept science: that reality exists. It doesn't require, as you state " a leap of faith" just a choice between solipsism and not. I can crawl past that one, never mind leaping.

Nice try though.

I'll at least give you kudos for taking on the actual subject of the OP!

:thumbsup:


Atheism or any non-secular/spiritual belief will always required a leap of faith.

Sadly, you're wrong again - about atheism anyway.

Atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief and requires no logic, no proof, no nothing. You don't need anything to not believe.

[BienvenuJDC]

Atheism isn't a belief. It's a lack of belief and requires no logic, no proof, no nothing. You don't need anything to not believe.

Well, at least you have admitted that atheism cannot be supported by logic.

[The Atheist]

Well, at least you have admitted that atheism cannot be supported by logic.

No, I said "requires".

Atheism can be supported by logic, but it doesn't need to be.

[Ecurb]

The logical reader of atheist's posts will notice that "no nothing" means "something". Does atheism require something or nothing?

To quote Rhett Butler, "Frankly, my dear...."

[prickly_pete]

Yeah, prove to me there's nothing in this room! lol

[G L Wilson]

How do you justify your atheism to yourself, The Atheist?

[CowabungaChrist]

One among many reasons Atheism will have difficulty claiming a majority is because it is a belief system based on a lack of conclusive evidence. Christianity, I believe, would have failed as well if it hadn't been forced upon the masses by political powers during an age of rife instability. Interestingly atheists assert the same flaw upon Christians, but only we can be wrong I take it. We are also blamed for our hubris, interesting indeed.

Science has done nothing, not one thing in all its history as an asset to our enlightenment and preservation, to disprove the existence of an alternate entity or dimension beyond our own. In fact scientists have recently found legitimacy for several theories that alternate dimensions with their own forms of energy and matter do in fact exist. On top of that, I think anybody will have a great deal of difficulty finding someone (anywhere in the world) who really disagrees with the moral principles instructed by Jesus Christ. We have seen even in Arab and non-Christian countries that the practice of non-violence and empathy for your enemy has won international sympathy and respect for a person and their cause. I wonder why that is.

[prickly_pete]

On top of that, I think anybody will have a great deal of difficulty finding someone (anywhere in the world) who really disagrees with the moral principles instructed by Jesus Christ.

I think even within Christianity you'll have a great deal of difficulty finding agreement on what the moral principles instructed by Jesus Christ actually are.

[prickly_pete]

One among many reasons Atheism will have difficulty claiming a majority

Is atheism not a majority in practice in most European countries where less than 10% of the population practices religion in any substantive way? I think most people that oppose organized religion are less concerned with finding conclusive proof of non-existence (insofar as such a thing is even possible) than they are preventing a hoard of religious idiots promoting bigotry, beating the drums for war, and seizing control of government. Casting serious doubt appears to be enough to accomplish this goal given the massive decline of religion just in the last century.

People can sort of passively be "spiritual" or believe in a transcendent "life force" - so long as they're staying home to watch NFL Countdown on Sunday's instead of going to Church, I doubt Atheists could really give two ****s. What a man believes in the deep recesses of his mind doesn't really seem to be the issue. Clubbing everyone over the heads with religious fervor seems to be what people find really offensive.

[The Atheist]

One among many reasons Atheism will have difficulty claiming a majority is because it is a belief system based on a lack of conclusive evidence. Christianity, I believe, would have failed as well if it hadn't been forced upon the masses by political powers during an age of rife instability. Interestingly atheists assert the same flaw upon Christians, but only we can be wrong I take it. We are also blamed for our hubris, interesting indeed.

First and foremost, atheism isn't a belief system. There is no conclusion to require evidence for.

It's no surprise theists want to say that is so, but it is demonstrably wrong.

Also, as noted by Pete, many European countries, and the UK, have a majority of atheists. Oddly, those European countries - Holland, Sweden and the like, that are overwhelmingly secular, have the fewest negative social conditions.


On top of that, I think anybody will have a great deal of difficulty finding someone (anywhere in the world) who really disagrees with the moral principles instructed by Jesus Christ.

Oh, please.

Even in USA, over 90% of armed forces personnel self-describe as "christian".

yet, despite having read the bible very carefully, I can find no place where Jesus says it's ok to wage war. In fact, all the passages I find state exactly the obvious. Christians clearly don't believe it or act upon, so why would anyone care.

As to the relevance of Jesus' teachings nowadays, I doubt many people would see adultery as a "sin".


How do you justify your atheism to yourself, The Atheist?

Nothing. What's to justify?

If I had a belief, I'd need to justify it, but not having a belief takes no effort at all.

(saves a lot of time & money as well. ;))

[G L Wilson]

First and foremost, atheism isn't a belief system. There is no conclusion to require evidence for.

It's no surprise theists want to say that is so, but it is demonstrably wrong.

What's to justify?

If I had a belief, I'd need to justify it, but not having a belief takes no effort at all.

Your atheism is taken on faith then, The Atheist?

[The Atheist]

Your atheism is taken on faith then, The Atheist?

:smilielol5:

Exactly the opposite.

No faith in the existence of deities = atheism. That's how mine works, anyway.

[G L Wilson]

:smilielol5:

Exactly the opposite.

No faith in the existence of deities = atheism. That's how mine works, anyway.

What makes you so sure there are no gods?


Nothing.

Right, nothing makes you think that there are no gods? Well, at least that's something.

Why is nothing something?

You won't ask me that question, will you? Because I will have to discontinue this conversation otherwise.

[YesNo]

(bold mine)

That isn't what you said, which was:

"The atheist says there is neither meaning nor freedom"


What Davies wrote about meaning is what I said. It is amusing how you try to dodge the question.



Let's assume you manage to find one atheist that agrees with you - that would in no way prove you're right, because you are applying it to all atheists and it's patently obvious that not one of the several atheists in this thread believes it.

My view on the Meaning of Life?

42 or Monty Python's movie of the same name. The message is much the same and said far better than I could manage.

So, what is your view on meaning and human freedom and what do those several atheists in this thread, whom you seem to represent, believe in or not believe in regarding it?

[G L Wilson]

Man is naked, why should he feel wretched?

[Ecurb]

As to the relevance of Jesus' teachings nowadays, I doubt many people would see adultery as a "sin".

;))

Huh? Why not?

If breaking solemn, public promises, made not only to one's spouse but to both "God and this company" isn't a sin, what is?

[The Atheist]

What makes you so sure there are no gods?

Have you got time for me to write a book?

Let's stick to the blindingly obvious:

Zero evidence to suggest they exist.

Overwhelming evidence that every god is a human construction.


What Davies wrote about meaning is what I said. It is amusing how you try to dodge the question.

Dodge what question?

If you're saying that what you originally said has been amended to what Davies wrote, then I agree with you. It is not what you originally said. Do you want me to quote it again? Maybe it's what you intended, but it is emphatically not what you said.

If you check back, I said:


What he says is correct, by the way.

There is no general meaning that applies to everyone, and I think - along with some far greater brains than mine, Hawking and Einstein*, for instance - that it is childish to think so.

We give our own lives meaning.

*OMG!!!1! an appeal to authority!



So, what is your view on meaning and human freedom and what do those several atheists in this thread, whom you seem to represent, believe in or not believe in regarding it?

I am making no claim to rperesent anyone but myself and I think it's pretty dishonest of you to format your statement that way. I haven't ever tried to claim anyone else agrees with me.

As to your question, I just said what I think about "meaning".

Freedom? What is your actual question? Humans are free to do pretty much anything they like. What part are you struggling with?


Huh? Why not?

If breaking solemn, public promises, made not only to one's spouse but to both "God and this company" isn't a sin, what is?

I have no idea - the concept of "sin" is entirely made up, if you ask me.

Whatever method you choose, I won't be able to fit "having sex with someone you are not married/partnered to" is going to be a Bad Thing.

What about couples who choose to swing? Are they committing adultery? What about the man married to a woman who will not have sex with him that visits hookers? Even in the most blatant adultery, it can be a good thing because it can shake some complacent wife out of the house and into a loving relationship, or at least an independent life.

I take it you believe women are committing a sin if they refuse to leave abusive relationships because they've promised their god in public that they will stay together "for better or worse"? What's a bit of biff in the mouth against an eternity of fire?

[Ecurb]

I have no idea - the concept of "sin" is entirely made up, if you ask me.

Whatever method you choose, I won't be able to fit "having sex with someone you are not married/partnered to" is going to be a Bad Thing.

What about couples who choose to swing? Are they committing adultery? What about the man married to a woman who will not have sex with him that visits hookers? Even in the most blatant adultery, it can be a good thing because it can shake some complacent wife out of the house and into a loving relationship, or at least an independent life.

I take it you believe women are committing a sin if they refuse to leave abusive relationships because they've promised their god in public that they will stay together "for better or worse"? What's a bit of biff in the mouth against an eternity of fire?

Obviously, 'sin' is a religious word. Nonetheless, it can certainly mean a transgression against a requirement of duty, correctness, or propriety. Surely it is true that if we make a solemn, public promise, then it is our "duty' to fullfil that promise (if possible).

The concept that the adulterer is 'sinning' only against his or her spouse is erroneous, I think. The promise (if, indeed it was included in the marriage vows, which it often is) was made before "God and this Company" -- which, figuratively at least, includes every member of the public. So any promise that is broken is a promise made to you and to me and to every other member of "this company", which comprises all of society.

Obviously, sex with someone to whom one is not married is a completely different can of worms. No promises have been made or broken.

I don't doubt that adultery can be a positive thing in many ways --as you say. No doubt (also) sometimes sinning is better than an alternative (a spouse may rationally choose to sin rather than to live the rest of his or her live in a sexless, loveless marriage). However, breaking promises is surely a breach of "duty", and as such a sin. What is constituted in the word "duty", if not (among other things) being true to one's sworn word?

In the case of civil marriages where no vows of sexual fidelity are made (I have no idea if such marriages exist), I'll grant that adultery is not necessarily a sin.