now that was interesting

I was engaged in a conversation today with an educated person and the subject of atheism came up. What made this kind of odd is that she asked how I could justify lack of belief in a higher power since you can't prove a negative. This threw me for a second because I've always heard that argument in SUPPORT of atheism. I proceeded to inform her that I make decisions based on facts that I am privy to, and see no such evidence for zeus or any other such entity, but I'm certainly open to evidence if it could be produced. Seems like the world would be interesting if they did exist. Like DnD. I then pointed out that the concept of the supernatural and a supreme being exist primarily as negatives. She then pointed that without a supreme being to cause things then the whole world was coincidence. I responded with causality and coincidence aren't the same thing, and the universe obeys natural laws as they are. She then went with causality requires a initiating agent. I pointed out that if that were the case, both of our beliefs end in the mists of history, because then something would have to cause the supreme being. The conversation ended shortly thereafter. What struck me as odd was the use of causality and especially inability to prove a zero as arguments AGAINST atheism.

Post 1

Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 7:41pm

You can't disprove it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But yea... I've heard those arguments : P, and those are good responses : ).

Post 2

Wednesday, February 4, 2009 - 8:22pm

Ryan, if you want to read some good back and forth between theist and atheist, poke through the dissent section here on RoR and look at some of those threads. I remember one or two where Bill Dwyer (and others) did a really sweet job of knocking down theist arguments.

Post 3

Thursday, February 5, 2009 - 10:20am

I'll bet she was Catholic. Her arguments were standard apologetics handed down largely by Aquinas.

Jordan

Post 4

Monday, February 9, 2009 - 9:24am

This is me, getting into trouble.

"She then went with causality requires a initiating agent. I pointed out that if that were the case, both of our beliefs end in the mists of history, because then something would have to cause the supreme being."

And if all process is cold process, then what cold process initiated the first cold process?

Singularities are a bitch.

For all I can impress upon the reality I find myself created in, the Universe, as it is, is my Creator.

Not 'God' enough? As a devout, non-aligned agnostic theist(I believe in the existence of at least the Universe as it is as one example of my Creator), I can't speak to 'Rules for God' one way or the other.

If I objectively look for evidence of a 'Creator', I find the Universe, as it is. I don't know if there are other examples, I've never seen evidence. But, there is plenty of evidence of the Universe, as it is, so in that game between theists and atheists, aka mutual members of the merely created by something, I see the game as rigged in favor of the theists, 1-0. In fact, I'd have to say the game was won in sudden-life.

My beliefs paint me as a hostile, both by theists and atheists. Both have their own jarring 'Rules for God' which my beliefs violate. Both often claim that my beliefs are 'not God enough,' as if they were the East German judges in some Olympic competition for God candidates.

If we set up the God pins, then we can also knock them down any way we want. It makes for a vigorous political campaign.

I'm either too Pagan according to some ("The Universe, as it is, cannot be our Creator, because -INSERT JARRING RULE FOR GOD HERE-") or equally, too mystic by others("The Universe, as it is, cannot be an example of our Creator, because -INSERT A DIFFERENT JARRING RULE FOR GOD HERE-").

Either I don't understand the concept of God/our creator, or else the concept of God/our creator is something that entertains rules for its own existence offered up by the merely created.

Until this is universally resolved(I'm not holding my breath), I remain a devout, non-aligned agnostic theist, which is entirely consistent with my political beliefs in "One Skin, One Driver," contained within same.

regards,
Fred

Post 5

Friday, February 27, 2009 - 10:24pm

Hi,

This is great forum. I really liked the topics posted here.

Rah

Post 6

Saturday, February 28, 2009 - 9:04am

This 'creator' bit always gets me - why need it? because of order? but order is in the nature of existing - chaos is merely not grasping the complexity of the inherent order... and intelligence is merely the ability to grasp the order of the universe, that which is, an inherent aspect of the complexity of life, itself an aspect of the complexity of the universe... intelligence as such is where creating comes from, not the other way around - it is a consequence of epistemology of conceptual beings...

The given is the universe - why then presume it needs 'come from somewhere'? the 'comes from' is entailed within the universe, since it [the universe] is the sum of that which exist and as such cannot there being an 'outside' regarding it...
(Edited by robert malcom on 2/28, 9:08am)

Post 7

Saturday, February 28, 2009 - 10:05am

robert:

re; This 'creator' bit always gets me - why need it?

It's such a loaded term. It's a concept huddled up around a singularity-- the finite nature of our existence.

Speaking just for me, when I use the term 'creator', I simply mean, that which caused the transition of me and my kind from a state of non-being to a state of being, in the Universe, as it is. A recognition that I and mine did not exist forever, and thus, came into existence, and thus, were created. By 'cold process' is fine with me, I and mine are still here, and once were not.

If my 'creator' is the Universe, as it is, then so be it, I can live with that, which on one level is kind of a joke.

Religion mucks this up. Religion is politics on the way to war. Religion is the lurching of volitional humans asking the following questions, "Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?" to the ever efficient at making millions of corpses "Why are we here, and what are we supposed to be doing now as a result of that?"

People living free of oppression answer the "Why am I..." questions in freedom, simply by living their lives. Their lives are the reason. The living of their lives is the answer to those fundamental questions of religion.

When religion lurches into politics, by making those questions "Why are we..." then religion is politics on the way to war, megapolitics, because the act of impressing singular answers to those questions ultimately requires force; volitional human beings do not willingly give up the answering of those 'Why am I here, and what am I supposed to be doing now as a result of that?" questions.

The classical 'Creator' man-made argument is part of the political tactics. Notice it is always just some other bag of meat contained in its own singular skin making the argument. The whole schtick is the oldest carny trick in the world, the promise of near infinite return, offered with no cost by the offeror, complete with a full money back guarantee: if you are not fully satisfied with your after-life, then return your after-life for a full refund, in the meantime, hand over the keys to your one and only life in this life to me and mine.

As if, they were selling a concept of 'the Creator' that relies on middle men and brokers and dealers.

Please.

As an aside...one of the reasons that the Jewish tradition is so successfully long lived. It works mostly here on earth. It's corporate model is very flat -- you, rabbi, God -- and the rabbi is really just a teacher. The basic tenants 'work' -- its values -- family, education, simple morality -- tend to work out foe its adherents, such that, those values have survived for thousands of years.

If I were to choose a religion, which I am not about to do, I'd look at successful religions, and it is hard to argue with 6000 years of survival in our band of naked sweaty apes. But, with tribal success comes tribal envy, which explains a lot of the treatment they have received by competing tribes, as well as their evolution to a klanish religion, with a preference/bias to deal with their own-- something taken advantage of by Madoff.

However, even in that episode of fringe crime, there's a observational lesson; had he been a skinhead Nazi taking advantage of some different Klan with different values and traditions, after 40 years of crime his take would have been about $3.87. Values count, even as illustrated by their fringe abuse.

regards,
Fred

Post 8

Saturday, February 28, 2009 - 10:13am

I don't get it, Frank. Aren't you positing a rule for god by requiring god to be a (the?) creator?

Jordan

Post 9

Saturday, February 28, 2009 - 10:58am

I'll be Frank, and admit that, as a devout non-aligned agnostic theist, I don't know.

The term 'God/creator' pops up around a singularity -- the finiteness of our existence in space-time.

Odd things happen around singularities, like, having no idea what others mean by some words when they ponder that singularity.

For me, I've resolved that dilemma by accepting that the Universe, as it is, could very well be my 'creator'. In fact, is the only evidence I can see, but is evidence enough for me to see.

Not God enough? Again, as a devout non-aligned agnostic theist, I can only say on that subject, "I don't know." I'll let non-agnostic theists and non-agnostic athiests duke that one out. I was only speaking to objective evidence of that which created me, as I define 'create'.

I'd have to make up a Rule For God to answer that question. As far as I know, agnostics don't make up "Rules For God."

As a devout non-aligned agnostic theist, I'm perfectly content acknowledging the Universe, as it is, as my creator.

Is my creator God enough? I don't know. How could I?

I'll leave that for the next life, if there is one, where it belongs. In this life, I'm living where my creator put me, in this Universe, as it is, which, for all I can know, is my purpose. To live my life in this Universe, as it is. Who am I to argue with the wisdom of my creator? Whatver created me, put me here, in this Universe, as it is, so I'll go with that.

Others claim to know that God has some other purpose for my life, and are only too willing to clue me in by passing that purpose along to me on God's behalf. I don't know why they think I'd fall for that, other than, many have, but it is what it is.

regards,
Fred

Post 10

Saturday, February 28, 2009 - 12:32pm

Pushing further on this 'creator' notion - that one presumes being 'created' even by the universe presumes underlying it an intelligence involved, which is in effect saying the notion of original Chaos is held - a falsity, as noted before - and thus a needing of being created, of order or 'cosmos' installed, instead of the act of coming into being as a necessary progression of the complexity of the universe, out of the nature of its being, the consequences of identity and causation [which is, of course, identity in action]...

further - 'purpose' of one's being is a tribal notion, the 'we' always stated, as if this necessitated another informing one of the purpose, an 'outsider' instead of an 'inside self'ness... in the scheme of 'history' [or pre-history in this case, perhaps], these questions came out of the group or tribal of the ice age primitives whose existence depended on cohesion to the collective if any were to continue in extended existing... whereas in the warmer climes, the notion was more as you mentioned, a 'way of life' that came 'naturally' thru one's even then primitive but still there individuation... since the paternalistic tribal way overran the less aggressive, history was known via this notion as a given, as in the rest of the world it expanded from these groups... thus any virtues were given as adhering to an 'otherness' as 'purposefulness'... and a 'justification' of a guardianship as means of continuing and solidifying that purposefulness, legitimizing in effect the 'taking' that originated that syndrome...

(Edited by robert malcom on 2/28, 12:44pm)

Post 11

Sunday, March 1, 2009 - 10:16am

Robert:

"Pushing further on this 'creator' notion - that one presumes being 'created' even by the universe presumes underlying it an intelligence involved,"

It does? Not by me. But feel free.

Wolfram's NKS objectively demonstrates the concept of simple rules resulting in complex systems.

Objectively, we can observe that simple rules for combining ATCG result in complex systems.

It could simply be all cold process, all the way down, and yet, it is purely obervational to note that we and ours did not exist forever in space-time, and thus came into existence, and thus, were created.

By 'what' -- the cold process that preceded us, or Bolivian Tree Frog Godss, is a source of lively discussion, but does not shed much bias on the fact that we and ours did not exist forever in space-time, and thus came into existence, and thus, were created.

If you load the dice (by defining a Rule For Creation) that 'creation' of complex systems from simpler systems demnads an actor of volitional intelligence, and not something along the lines of Wolfram's objectively demonstrated NKS, than the game can be rigged, the God/Creator pins can be set up and knocked down, and often are.

The counter argument to 'we were not created', ie, 'we did not come into existence from a state of non-existence' is either 'we do not exist' or 'we existed forever.' Where is the objective evidence of that?

regards,
Fred

Post 12

Sunday, March 1, 2009 - 12:29pm

Hi Fred,

I just don't see why your "creator" rises to the level of you calling it a god. Seems like *you* have ascribed a rule for god -- i.e., that he/she/it at least be a (the) creator. Lots of gods are not their believers' creators.

Jordan

Post 13

Sunday, March 1, 2009 - 1:39pm

I think you have a strange view of what "created" means. "Created" or "Creation" is not a synonym of "Causation". Creation implies volition. Otherwise, why not say that carbon is our creator. Because we weren't here and then at some point in time we were, that doesn't imply we must have been created, it implies that we have a cause. The water and vitamins I consume daily aren't my creator. The whole argument appears to be a complex evasion designed to assist in not making a decision based on current evidence.

"I know that they don't have unicorn farms in canada, but then, I've never actually seen canada....How can I KNOW. If I take a stand on this, I might miss out on some really great deals on unicorn rides someday. Better just to hold the middle ground regardless."
(Edited by Ryan Keith Roper on 3/01, 1:40pm)

(Edited by Ryan Keith Roper on 3/01, 1:40pm)

Post 14

Sunday, March 1, 2009 - 1:43pm

Jordan:

"I just don't see why your "creator" rises to the level of you calling it a god."

Exactly. The key words being "I" and "your" and "you". On the concept of 'God enough/Not God Enough', we naked apes all mutually lift our legs and claim our own universal Rules For God, as if they were or could be universal. Including athiests, and their judgment on the objective evidence of the Unicverse, as it is, as our creator.

Within your skin, call God anythng you wish, including nothing. Outside your skin, the concept has no meaning whatsoever.

If there is a God(I don't know)and then, only if that God wants to make its existence universally known(I don't know that it would or could)then that is the only hypothetical circumstance in which a universal outside of our skin objective concept of God could possibly exist.

I for sure wasn't calling my creator your god. I haveno idea what your god is. How is it you claim to know what my god or any god is?

And by that, you mean, "Not God Enough." That's really odd. Are you saying 'Not God Enough" as an atheist, ie, as one who doesn't believe in any Gods, or are you saying "Not God Enough" as a theist, with an alternative definition of God, or are you saying 'Not God Enough' as someone who claims to see a meaningful difference between anyone, anywhere doing anything like that to set up Rules For God to pass judgement on "Not God Enough?'

My creator has apparently not passed a God Hurdle of some kind.

Or, maybe you are saying, I allowed my creator to pass a God hurdle of mine.

How could we allow that? I mean, how could we allow any creator to rise to the position of a god?

I mean, how could we permit or deny a god anything? What kind of god is that, that requires our permission for anything?

As a devout agnostic, I'm having a hard time making it clear that on the subject of 'is a god, is not a god', that I don't know.

However, I am much less ambivalent about acknowledging the fact that I have a creator, which as far as I can objectively determine, is the Universe, as it is. Whether that creator is a god or The God, as a devout agnostic, is not something I can ever know.

Or, even, logically know.

Or else, I don't know what people mean when they hypothesize the concept 'God.'

I think they mean, the God they've set up Rules for. You know, the God that follows rules setup by his creations.

That God.

As a devout non-aligned agnostic, I don't acknowledge any other mere human being's ability to define or set rules for the concept of God. That is an act of illogic around a singularity. But, that is not the same issue as the existence of my creator. The existence of my creator is a logical certainty -- that which created me, whatever that is, including, cold process.

Otherwise, I'd have to beleive that I existed forever, or worse, that I dont' exist even now.

Not God enough? Flip a coin. Not a question of logic.

I can live with "the universe, as it is, as my Creator."

Hardly fucks me up at all. Am I wrong about my Creator?

Who could possibly tell me that? Nobody in this life.

Is belief in the Universe, as it is, now mysticicm?

regards,
Fred

Post 15

Sunday, March 1, 2009 - 2:01pm

Keith:

"I think you have a strange view of what "created" means."

Then think of it as 'made.' As in, by my Maker. That which brought me from a state of non existence into a state of existence, even if that is cold process.

And, whatever I have since 'made' has been logically 'made' by whatever 'made' me. Including my Rules For God. Or, Creation. Or intelligence. A.I.? Are we looking forward, or looking backwards, when it comes to A.I.?

We can have all the parochial discussion we want about where 'creation' started in any of that process, but that is one of the distinguishing features of mankind, the ability to manufacture exclusive local clubs.

If the Universe, as it is, is not my maker, then where did I come from, or, was I always here?

I'm perfectly happy if 'by cold process'. I'm still here.

'Cold process' violates none of my personal Rules For God. My personal Rules for God are simple: "My Maker."

If 'Creator' is biased too0 much with volition, then I will toss 'Creator' under the bus in a heartbeat.

My 'Maker' is fine.

The Universe, as it is, as my Maker, is totally consistant with objective reality.

Not God Enough? That is not a public debate. It has no universal meaning. There is no book with that answer in the back, especially not logic.

regards,
Fred

Post 16

Sunday, March 1, 2009 - 3:47pm

So, Frank, you've arbitrarily chosen to define a god as whatever it is that created you? Do arbitrary definitions trouble you? (That question is NOT meant to be snide.)

Jordan
(Edited by Jordan on 3/01, 3:47pm)

Post 17

Sunday, March 1, 2009 - 6:06pm

Without a doubt the best atheist book out there is George Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God". It's a really fun read and he has a lot of fictional conversations between a theist and an atheist.

Post 18

Sunday, March 1, 2009 - 6:51pm

I agree with John. -Jordan

Post 19

Monday, March 2, 2009 - 11:07am