Another Joseph Smith; a problem for atheism

[Mr. Perfect]

Many times they ask "What will my peers think of me if I believe this? Will I lose my current status in the tribe?"

What enormous projection. Explains a lot.

[Endovelico]

1. I do not believe in God until someone can prove He exists.
2. I believe in God until someone proves He doesn't exist.

Which of the two is more reasonable?

So do you know that there is no God? Or are you just playing what you think are the percentages?

I'm not saying I know there is no God. I say that I don't believe in God until proof of his existence has been presented. Just as with UFO's. I don't believe in their existence, which doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm waiting for proof, which unfortunately is never forthcoming...

[Nonc Hilaire]

1. I do not believe in God until someone can prove He exists.
2. I believe in God until someone proves He doesn't exist.

Which of the two is more reasonable?

So do you know that there is no God? Or are you just playing what you think are the percentages?

I'm not saying I know there is no God. I say that I don't believe in God until proof of his existence has been presented. Just as with UFO's. I don't believe in their existence, which doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm waiting for proof, which unfortunately is never forthcoming...

That is agnosticism, which is an entirely logical position. It does presuppose that God is what you think "he" is, and that the "proof" is within the capacity of logical human cognition.

[noddy]

Why don't you start by explaining how you know, rationally, that there is no God.

It is not up to me to prove something doesn't exist. It 's up to believers to prove it exists. The onus probandi is on those who say God exists.

Actually this is false, logically speaking. Its a common myth in popular culture to say that "you can't prove a negative," but in fact this statement has little meaning in formal logic.

Consider these two claims, which an individual may make:

1. I know for certain that a God exists.

2. I know for certain that no God or gods exist.

Both are positive statements that demand some kind of proof, or at least a declaration of some kind. Lesser statements are, of course, possible but they would qualify as agnosticism and not atheism.

I can think of at least two good arguments for atheism as a positive statement. Can't you think of any?

I prefer the following point-of-view:

3. It does not matter whether or not god or gods exist.

Nothing wrong with that at all, but I presume that you would agree that your view qualifies as agnosticism and not atheism.

4. crikey, what can i possibly say about the infinity of time before and after my existence, when by definition its outside of my awareness.

dont care if they are scientists or theists or some funky blend of the two, they are telling me a story and my ability to confirm or deny that story is impossible.

what colour are the floop floops on planet ziggersnitch ?

[Nonc Hilaire]

what colour are the floop floops on planet ziggersnitch ?

Theological opinions vary. The Dr. Seussians say flurple, but then the Lewis Carolers get upset and start waving that vorpal sword around.

[noddy]

what colour are the floop floops on planet ziggersnitch ?

Theological opinions vary. The Dr. Seussians say flurple, but then the Lewis Carolers get upset and start waving that vorpal sword around.

the other side of it is course the aspects of our life outside of rationalism, the love and the inspiration and the ways and means of keeping all that on track, so in those regards im far less sceptical of religion as its the aspect of our society that has evolved in that problem space.

still leaves me agnostic to anthropomorphised mythology but susceptible to being deist - within the limits of my suspicions of reductionism and having explanations and first causes for things which may well be infinite...

boxes within boxes or turtles holding turtles.

[Ibrahim]

1. I do not believe in God until someone can prove He exists.
2. I believe in God until someone proves He doesn't exist.

Which of the two is more reasonable?

So do you know that there is no God? Or are you just playing what you think are the percentages?

I'm not saying I know there is no God. I say that I don't believe in God until proof of his existence has been presented. Just as with UFO's. I don't believe in their existence, which doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm waiting for proof, which unfortunately is never forthcoming...

That is agnosticism, which is an entirely logical position. It does presuppose that God is what you think "he" is, and that the "proof" is within the capacity of logical human cognition.

Exactly.

dont care if they are scientists or theists or some funky blend of the two, they are telling me a story and my ability to confirm or deny that story is impossible.

Exactly.

[Endovelico]

What we should reflect upon, is:

1. Can energy, matter, the universe appear out of "nothing"?
2. Once energy and matter has appeared, will life inevitably appear?
3. Once life has appeared, will consciousness inevitably occur?
4. Once there is self-awareness will it evolve towards group/collective forms of awareness?
5. If collective awareness occurs, will it expand to include the whole universe and all sentient beings?
6. If that occurs, will universal consciousness loosen itself from its material support?
7. If that occurs, what are we faced with?...

Isn't this more meaningful than dreaming about a preexistent God who created all things?...

[Mr. Perfect]

Good questions

What we should reflect upon, is:

1. Can energy, matter, the universe appear out of "nothing"?

No.

2. Once energy and matter has appeared, will life inevitably appear?

No

3. Once life has appeared, will consciousness inevitably occur?

No

4. Once there is self-awareness will it evolve towards group/collective forms of awareness?

No

5. If collective awareness occurs, will it expand to include the whole universe and all sentient beings?
6. If that occurs, will universal consciousness loosen itself from its material support?
7. If that occurs, what are we faced with?...

No

Isn't this more meaningful than dreaming about a preexistent God who created all things?...

Maybe, unless this God manifests himself to you somehow.

[Mr. Perfect]

dont care if they are scientists or theists or some funky blend of the two, they are telling me a story and my ability to confirm or deny that story is impossible.

It sounds like this is not the case for Islam, but for Christianity nonbelievers are invited to study the scripture, pray and God will grant you a spiritual manifestation so that you can know for yourself of his existence.

[Endovelico]

Good questions

What we should reflect upon, is:

1. Can energy, matter, the universe appear out of "nothing"?

No.

2. Once energy and matter has appeared, will life inevitably appear?

No

3. Once life has appeared, will consciousness inevitably occur?

No

4. Once there is self-awareness will it evolve towards group/collective forms of awareness?

No

5. If collective awareness occurs, will it expand to include the whole universe and all sentient beings?
6. If that occurs, will universal consciousness loosen itself from its material support?
7. If that occurs, what are we faced with?...

No

Isn't this more meaningful than dreaming about a preexistent God who created all things?...

Maybe, unless this God manifests himself to you somehow.

Mr. P, I think you should widen your interests and your reading, if you cannot go beyond a simple negative to all those questions. Present day science is already capable of answering affirmatively to questions 1 to 3. Are you completely unaware of that?...

[Nonc Hilaire]

Isn't this more meaningful than dreaming about a preexistent God who created all things?...

String theory is a relatively new conception, and indicates there may be as many as 11 different dimensions if I am not mistaken. Perhaps if one begins by seeing our scientifically observable 4D world as existing within higher dimensions it would be easier to consider a larger worldview which is not incompatible with scientific possibilities.

What would Hume or Nietzsche have thought about string theory? My guess is they would have rejected it in favor of "more meaningful" propositions.
JkxieS-6WuA

[Ibrahim]

What we should reflect upon, is:

1. Can energy, matter, the universe appear out of "nothing"?
2. Once energy and matter has appeared, will life inevitably appear?
3. Once life has appeared, will consciousness inevitably occur?
4. Once there is self-awareness will it evolve towards group/collective forms of awareness?
5. If collective awareness occurs, will it expand to include the whole universe and all sentient beings?
6. If that occurs, will universal consciousness loosen itself from its material support?
7. If that occurs, what are we faced with?...

Isn't this more meaningful than dreaming about a preexistent God who created all things?...

You keep skirting the issue, which is actually epistemic. What are you claiming to know with certainty, and if you are claiming to know things with certainty, on what do you base that certainty?

At issue is atheism, and if you're not even an atheist then you don't really have a horse in this race. Your own philosophical musings about existence, while perhaps interesting to some, are not the central question.

[Endovelico]

What we should reflect upon, is:

1. Can energy, matter, the universe appear out of "nothing"?
2. Once energy and matter has appeared, will life inevitably appear?
3. Once life has appeared, will consciousness inevitably occur?
4. Once there is self-awareness will it evolve towards group/collective forms of awareness?
5. If collective awareness occurs, will it expand to include the whole universe and all sentient beings?
6. If that occurs, will universal consciousness loosen itself from its material support?
7. If that occurs, what are we faced with?...

Isn't this more meaningful than dreaming about a preexistent God who created all things?...

You keep skirting the issue, which is actually epistemic. What are you claiming to know with certainty, and if you are claiming to know things with certainty, on what do you base that certainty?

At issue is atheism, and if you're not even an atheist then you don't really have a horse in this race. Your own philosophical musings about existence, while perhaps interesting to some, are not the central question.

Reducing this whole matter to just a question of believing in God or not believing in God, is unacceptable for any reasonably intelligent person. Believing in God is simply the easy way to explain existence. On the other hand not believing in God doesn't help solving the basic existential problem. It's just like stating one is Democrat or one is Republican and not giving a damn about the way the country should be run.

[Ibrahim]

What we should reflect upon, is:

1. Can energy, matter, the universe appear out of "nothing"?
2. Once energy and matter has appeared, will life inevitably appear?
3. Once life has appeared, will consciousness inevitably occur?
4. Once there is self-awareness will it evolve towards group/collective forms of awareness?
5. If collective awareness occurs, will it expand to include the whole universe and all sentient beings?
6. If that occurs, will universal consciousness loosen itself from its material support?
7. If that occurs, what are we faced with?...

Isn't this more meaningful than dreaming about a preexistent God who created all things?...

You keep skirting the issue, which is actually epistemic. What are you claiming to know with certainty, and if you are claiming to know things with certainty, on what do you base that certainty?

At issue is atheism, and if you're not even an atheist then you don't really have a horse in this race. Your own philosophical musings about existence, while perhaps interesting to some, are not the central question.

Reducing this whole matter to just a question of believing in God or not believing in God, is unacceptable for any reasonably intelligent person.

I would say it is the central question for every person. But if its so trivial why not just answer it and then move on?

I suspect it turns out you're an agnostic and not an atheist, but ultimately that's the easier position to defend so don't be shy.

[Mr. Perfect]

Mr. P, I think you should widen your interests and your reading, if you cannot go beyond a simple negative to all those questions. Present day science is already capable of answering affirmatively to questions 1 to 3.

No they absolutely cannot.

Are you completely unaware of that?...

I am very aware of those fairy tales. Completely unreproducible in a lab (which is necessary viz the scientific method) and never observed in nature. It's worthless horse$#!t aka as tautologies.

There is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter and energy nor the origin of life, at all.

[Demon of Undoing]

dont care if they are scientists or theists or some funky blend of the two, they are telling me a story and my ability to confirm or deny that story is impossible.

It sounds like this is not the case for Islam, but for Christianity nonbelievers are invited to study the scripture, pray and God will grant you a spiritual manifestation so that you can know for yourself of his existence.

Ok, this I gotta see. You want to give me chapter and verse on this, bub?

[Mr. Perfect]

Which version of the Bible would you prefer.

[Endovelico]

Mr. P, I think you should widen your interests and your reading, if you cannot go beyond a simple negative to all those questions. Present day science is already capable of answering affirmatively to questions 1 to 3.

No they absolutely cannot.

Are you completely unaware of that?...

I am very aware of those fairy tales. Completely unreproducible in a lab (which is necessary viz the scientific method) and never observed in nature. It's worthless horse$#!t aka as tautologies.

There is no scientific explanation for the origin of matter and energy nor the origin of life, at all.

You don't have to know precisely "how" - and there are theories trying to get there - in order to suspect that there is an inevitability to life and to consciousness. But the fact that there are serious attempts to find the answers, and a corpus of theory capable of leading us to those answers, is a sign that your simple negatives are based on wishful thinking. Preferring the intervention of an omnipotent God to any scientific explanation is definitely not acceptable. Had humankind always followed that path and we would still look at thunder and lightning as manifestations of the gods...

[Endovelico]

Reducing this whole matter to just a question of believing in God or not believing in God, is unacceptable for any reasonably intelligent person.

I would say it is the central question for every person. But if its so trivial why not just answer it and then move on?

It's because it is trivial that it doesn't deserve to be answered. Better, it only deserves to be answered after one has addressed those seven questions I mentioned above.

[Mr. Perfect]

You don't have to know precisely "how"

Boy. You sure do.

- and there are theories trying to get there

Yes, I know all about them. They are baseless horse$#!t. Flights of fancy and imagination.

- in order to suspect that there is an inevitability to life and to consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28logic%29

But the fact that there are serious attempts to find the answers, and a corpus of theory capable of leading us to those answers,

Completely subjective statements. We have no idea if our theories are worth anything.

is a sign that your simple negatives are based on wishful thinking.

Actually no. Science puts the burden on the theory, it is completely unproven until proven. Nobody has any idea how life began, no idea where matter and energy came from. No idea at all.

Preferring the intervention of an omnipotent God to any scientific explanation is definitely not acceptable. Had humankind always followed that path and we would still look at thunder and lightning as manifestations of the gods...

My belief in God has almost nothing to do with creation theories. I believe God is a/the creator but I don't have the foggiest how it was all done and neither does anybody else.

You can explore the origins of matter energy and life using science all you want but you have to understand what science actually is before you'll know if you have anything or not. It has to be reproduced in a lab, for starters, and of course nobody is able to do that, at all.

[Endovelico]

Theorizing is part of the scientific method, isn't it? You can't prove anything until you have an hypothesis. The fact that we have serious hypothesis on the appearance of life and consciousness - yet to be proven - is, in my view, better than sticking simply to the God's hypothesis. I would be very much surprised if we weren't capable of discovering how inert matter and energy come to give rise to life, and how the brain's increasing complexity gives rise to consciousness. It may take quite a while but I expect us to get there sometime in the future.

[Mr. Perfect]

Theorizing is part of the scientific method, isn't it? You can't prove anything until you have an hypothesis.

Good point. Here is a hypothesis. God exists. Just as valid as yours, scientifically. I have other hypotheses also if anyone is interested.

The fact that we have serious hypothesis on the appearance of life and consciousness - yet to be proven - is, in my view, better than sticking simply to the God's hypothesis.

That's fine. You are entitled to an opinion. It's just that your view and opinion is completely unscientific.

I would be very much surprised if we weren't capable of discovering how inert matter and energy come to give rise to life, and how the brain's increasing complexity gives rise to consciousness. It may take quite a while but I expect us to get there sometime in the future.

That's fine. Your views are just not scientific.

[Demon of Undoing]

Which version of the Bible would you prefer.

I don't care which one you cherry pick.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

It may take quite a while but I expect us to get there sometime in the future.

This is the faith statement that has taken the place of the future kingdom of heaven in the secular mind.