Every reasonable person with a brain can imagine a universe without a god.

Because that is exactly what meets our senses--a godless universe.

Some may say they see and hear God, but do we want to call such people reasonable? Do most people who believe in God experience it with their material senses? Do they believe god is visible, or audible, or palpable, or scented? (Let's leave aside the question of whether eucharist wafers and wine are god.)

Perhaps someone in this forum could defend the position that god is materially sense-able. But wouldn't most reasonable people agree that to have an experience of god requires using the mind alone? Isn't god supposedly transendant of matter?

All right, then: why is it so difficult for those who believe in god to accept that the universe that meets the senses may be all the universe there is? That god may be nothing more than wishful thinking for a superhuman behind the curtains of an oftentimes frightenignly indifferent-to-humans universe? In other words, why do so many theists believe that the default position for every reasonable person is an unreasonable position? (I have my own suspicions, and they involve two words: cognitive dissonance.)

These questions are not intended to attack or undermine or convert those who believe in god. They are intended to elicit thoughtfulness about a theist idea about the unsoundness of atheism that I see all over the place. For example, in a book I've just read--a yet-to-be-released Iraq war memoir called Joker One by Donovan Campbell--the author, after losing one of his most beloved platoon members, undergoes a crisis of faith. He ultimately concludes that to disbelieve in God is intellectually untenable, because it means there's no point in living or dying. The universe without god, he implies, is meaningless and purposeless. That just can't be, he concludes. It's irrational to think so.

This struck me as wrong-headed on the face of it. Just because we don't want our loved ones or ourselves to die for no reason, it doesn't follow that we must, therefore, die for good reason. War, in fact, is an excellent example of people's lives being wasted for no good reason *on earth.* So some of us have to assume that there must be a good reason "beyond" earth. It doesn't make it so, however. That should be obvious to any reasonable person.

So again, why is the default position--that the universe that meets our senses, for better or worse, is all there is--the untenable one for theists? Do they *honestly* believe that their position is more reasonable?

It's all about reasons for putting off suicide.

TV's a good one. Also booze.

.

nt

:rofl:

Or drinking too much?

.

:toast:

to even address the issue. For those who have some sort of belief in one or more deities, that is their belief. In itself, it has no impact on my at all as an unbeliever. What the guy standing next to me believes with regard to such things seems irrelevant to me.

Unless someone insists that I must believe as they do, it's a matter of no concern to me.

Arguing either one of the sides seems a waste of time.

Something has been bothering me about theist arguments against atheism that I've been seeing lately. I felt I had to take it out and look at it and share it with others who may come across the same sorts of arguments.

so it's a cosmic waste of time having it. I've been an atheist for 48 years, now, and have had the discussion many dozens of time. I no longer bother. Those who can believe in supernatural entities do not respond to logical arguments, since their very belief is illogical.

So, you cannot win the argument. It's a waste of time. I simply turn and walk away, now, when the issue arises.

It's over the reasonableness of what one believes in. I'm simply responding to the theistic challenge that atheism is "lazy" or that it's weak in the face of evidence for theism. I'm just saying every reasonable person has access to the atheist position, because what atheism says about the universe--that there is no god--is exactly what meets every reasonable person's senses. I'm challenging theists to do better than that, to stop being so lazy themselves. They can't write off atheism so easily. They should be honest or just avoid comparing theism to atheism entirely.

about whether there is a god or gods or that there is not. If there is, in the belief of one person, no amount of logic will displace that belief, since it is not based on logic.

The existence or non-existence is the only argument, and it is an argument that cannot be won by either side. Arguments require logic, and a common starting premise. Neither applies to this one.

Thank goodness, because it's not at all an interesting one. The much more interesting argument is how we know what we know, or believe what we believe. And which way to the truth.

that we all live in. Theists postulate a supernatural world layered onto this physical world, with no supporting evidence, to my mind. But while it is understandable that an atheist cannot see any sense to a supernatural world that can't be seen, it is hard for the atheist to understand the mind set that cannot see any sense to a physical world WITHOUT a supernatural world superimposed upon it, as the theists see.

That goes way beyond "is there a god?". The theist cannot comprehend a world without a deity, despite living in a purely physical world.

My personal thought is that we are ALL atheists - but theists are atheists who are afraid that someone else might know something they don't. They look around and think everyone else is in on the secret, so they pretend to be also, and eventually convince themselves the secret they don't know is real.

That's good!

My personal thought is that we are ALL atheists - but theists are atheists who are afraid that someone else might know something they don't. They look around and think everyone else is in on the secret, so they pretend to be also, and eventually convince themselves the secret they don't know is real.

:thumbsup:

it's like making comparisons between a two dimensional object and a three dimensional object (can something of only two dimensions really be called an object?). There really is no comparing them.

There is the observable world we all live in - and there is a supernatural world the theists live in.

We can compare how we come to believe what we believe, but it's pointless to compare what we actually believe, to say what I believe is "better" than what you believe. Theists are always running into that fallacy, even (*especially!*) among themselves.

I'm perfectly willing to consider arguments against a God, but at the end of the day you can't convert me any more than I can convert you. This just isn't a matter worth getting bent out of shape for. Faith is faith, reason is reason.

I'm willing to concede I don't speak theist. But I think everyone speaks atheist. By that, I mean that everyone is capable of understanding why atheists reasonably believe what they believe. And yet, can you deny that theists haven't been railing against atheism for thousands of years? Claiming it's evil, at worst, and, at best, "misguided" or "dishonest" or "intellecually lazy." I'm not arguing against faith. Have faith if you want. I'm arguing against the dishonest, misguided and intellectually lazy position that atheism is untenable. It's perfectly tenable, if you go on sense evidence alone.

Religion has always held a superior stance, in the past it is because kings and pharaohs dictated law and religion served as a marker for obedience. Leaders would declare themselves gods, or an exclusive group of religiosos would dictate authority. Since the enlightenment period and the revolutionary period secularism has become more widely accepted. Some people still hold a superiority complex when it comes to God issues but I don't agree with that. I have mutual respect for anyone treats me and my beliefs with respect.

Also, the vocabulary is a key note that you pointed out. People often don't realize that they are speaking what I call "Christianese". It really does seem like another language sometimes but I've learned to differentiate between the two.

...that anyone ever sees someone else change their mind when it comes to belief. I've seen people change their minds over time, however, in both directions. Change is possible, and ideas a person gathers over time can play a part such changes.

Societies obviously can and do change over time, in both the composition and degree of religious belief. What's wrong with making the effort to be one of the influences, even if only a small one, in a possible tide of change? Why couldn't, for example, the US someday be more like Europe, where politicians routinely keep their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) to themselves, instead of the circus we currently have in the US where everyone running for high public office has to make a big show of being "a person of faith", and atheists need not apply?

For my own part, I think the world would be a better, saner, safer place with less religion in it. To that extent it does matter to me what other believe. As long as my efforts to change minds involve only verbal persuasion and support for principles like separation of church and state (very different from what rabid religious fundamentalist do, for those of you who think merely arguing for atheism in forceful language makes you the moral equivalent of a religious fundamentalist), and since I do, after all, obviously get some entertainment value out of the argumentative process, why not carry on these arguments?

To me this is such an important conversation, but it seems to boil down to somebody screaming that the man in the clouds exists, and somebody screaming that he does not, and its "wrong-headed" to think so. I wish we would take a descriptive approach rather than a prescriptive approach, talking about what people believe and why they believe it rather than what people SHOULD believe.

I'm an educated, scientific guy with a concept of God I believe in. I don't want to assert that this is "correct" or that anybody else should believe it, I'd rather just look at my mind.

For me it comes down to Martin Buber, who talks about the concept of the Ich-Du and the Ich-Es ways of relating to reality. Boiling it down, we have two modes of cognition: One (Ich-Du) that treats experience as a personality we relate to, and Ich-es which treats experiences as objective. We can treat people like objects (in medicine we often do) or we can treat objects like people (cursing at our computers). God is about treating the totality of exerience, the Universe, as a personality, rather than an object. Its about having from an Ich-Du relationship with everything.

So for me, this personality which I call God is behind the laws of physics etc. Am I wrong to see it as such? From the perspective of material atheism, I can't see how. What IS the difference between a living thing and other physical objects like robots? Certainly not a soul...So why NOT talk to robots, or my computer? Or THE UNIVERSE in terms of their personalities??? :)

then you believe in supernatural entities. Nothing wrong with that. The difficulty in discussing it is that the opening premise you hold is not held by those who do not believe in supernatural entities. Without some agreement at the beginning of the argument, no agreement on the logic is possible.

Now, behavior can be discussed. How one treats one's fellow man is a good topic for discussion. The existence or non-existence of supernatural entities isn't an answerable question on either side, so it makes a poor subject for debate.

Only if a believer doesn't ACT on it in the public sphere. It's not just a matter of how a believer treats others.

Where theism gets into trouble is when the believers try to inject their beliefs into law and society in a way that affects others who do or do not believe the way they do. You can have the nicest possible anti-choicer who is very good to everyone they deal with, but if that person is trying to get abortion banned because their god says it's wrong, that's an even greater problem than acting like a right bastard based on faith.

I have a problem with the idea that the (non)existence of supernatural entities is not determinable. Everything is potentially determinable through scientific study, though not necessarily with technology immediately at hand. (OK, you can't prove a negative, but you can get a pretty darned good idea, just like Michelson and Morley effectively "disproved" the existence of ether.) I think the religious folks don't want to try, though, both out of annoyance at being asked to prove up their ideas, and fear that they might diminish what little passes as "evidence." The non-religious folks just don't find it an exciting enough prospect to waste time proving or disproving, and spend their time on more interesting problems.

your example is of someone who is acting to force others to follow his/her beliefs. So, the behavior is open for discussion.

As for proof or observation of deities and the like, it's impossible, since the deity is outside of normal boundaries. No observation is possible, by definition. Deities are not of this universe and are not bound by its limitations, so it could be argued by the deist that the deities exist...you just can't detect them.

As you say, you cannot prove that they do not exist, nor can the other side prove that they do. That's what I've been saying all along.

Now, if one's religious beliefs cause them to perform human sacrifices or to, as you mention, prevent choice by individuals, then their behavior can be argued against. We do it regularly. A religion which had a god that demanded human sacrifices would be squashed in this country, despite the beliefs. Similarly, a religion that holds polygyny as a good has been forced to give up that practice by law in this very country, and that's a erstwhile Christian denomination.

That's control of behavior, but not of the existence or non=existence of a deity.

People have tried throughout history, Newton pops to mind. But it turns out his definitions of natural motion weren't complete, so Einstein tried, his weren't complete etc.

The only opening premise I have is that people don't know, the Universe is a mystery. What we can readily observe is our cognitive methods for approaching this mystery. What I'm saying is that we tend to have two, an objective method with which we approach predictable systems, and an interpersonal method with which we approach unpredictable systems, like other people, Windows Vista, and sometimes, the events in our lives and the Universe as a whole. ;)

the behavior of my cat, which is also a mystery. My cat is not a predictable system at all, as evidenced by the long scratches on the back of my hand, which was gently stroking the cat. Normally, that behavior on my part elicits a gentle purring sound. My prediction that it would always do so was incorrect. It passeth understanding.

I deduce that we can effectively consider your cat as having a personality! :P

I am arguing that atheism is prima facie right--that is, a godless universe is what meets the eye of every reasonable person. And yet, this isn't to say that atheism absolutely *is* correct. It's to challenge the theistic idea that any reasonable person, given a second or two to think, would have to conclude in favor of believing in god/s. That's the position I've seen over and over when theists explain why they are theists. I'm arguing that there may be a good reason to believe in god, but it certainly isn't an obvious one. The obvious position to take is that there is no god.

Each side begins with a premise that can neither be proven nor disproven. Both parties to the debate will exit while still holding the belief with which they started.

I doubt that even the most "devoted" atheist/materialist thinks their position cannot be disproved. My atheism could EASILY be disproved. Just present a definition of "god," and the evidence for it. Now if your definition of "god" is "a peanut butter and jelly sandwich," well being an atheist w.r.t. that god is disproved.

who spent an afternoon laying hands on a golden bull? If that bull had come to life and done a Pamplona run down Wall Street, God could've HAD ME right there. Convincing me would be so trivial...

and I agree that arguments that God must exist are senseless, as are arguments that atheism is false.

But, I don't agree that atheism is so obvious. Pretty much every human civilization has come up with some sort of cosmology involving a divine element and that flies in the face of atheism being so obvious.

We have either some need to seek a higher power, or we have some sense to feel one-- I don't know which, or maybe both. Be all that as it may, the search for God, and the occasional finding of some god, seems to be basic to humanity. Perhaps it's that god-of-the-gaps business actually having something going for it, but so far the spritual quest has been beating out the cold rational view of reality.

humans are so prone to worshipping god/s.

Daniel Dennet talks about this prevalence in Breaking the Spell, which strongly influenced my thinking about this question. I think he makes an excellent point about the illusion of intentionality in the universe at large.

When we witness nature going wild and wreaking havoc on us and our loved ones, it's "natural," for lack of a better word, to wonder why? Why me? Why did this happen? It's the way our minds work, to wonder why. Nature has rewarded our species for wondering and postulating reasons why. Why did the volcano rain stones and ash on our village and kill so many of us? The volcano must be angry. We must have made the volcano angry. Maybe if we offer it something, the volcano will stop harming us. We don't know, but we'll try. So we start to make the volcano offerings, and the volcano rumbles but doesn't rain stones and ash, so we continue and continue to make offerings. And pretty soon, we've got a religion going and faith in the power of our offerings to propitiate the volcano. We take the intentionality of the volcano for fact. But that doesn't change the more basic fact that we don't know why the volcano did what it did. The volcano is ready at any moment to contradict our faith that we can propitiate it with our religious offerings.

To me it seems clear that *all* religion stands so ready to be contradicted by the objects of its worship, because essentially, all religion worships what it doesn't understand but what it faithfully believes is interested in human well-being.

it's not just disasters tht make us marvel-- it's the universe itself. The ancients marvelled at the night sky and the precision of the sun and moonrise. They also marvelled at the existence of food and water, the seasons and tides, and so many other things we take for granted in our existence, but which could be seen as miracles if one asked just how they happened.

This ability to wonder and question gives rise to spiritual answers-- science answers the "how" but religion and philosophy and the "why."

Far from it.

PS: Science answers why questions like "Why did this volcano rain ash down on us," much better than religion could ever hope to.

More like the "Why are we born to suffer and die" kind of "why."

Religion is simply philosophy with a divine element added

I mean *really* answer them? (Or philosophy for that matter?)

Let's take one standard Christian answer: We're born to suffer and die because Jesus loves us. :wtf:

I'm sure there must be more pertinent answers?

it's the process that counts.

That "standard" answer is a Sunday School answer for children. The question is intended to lead to more questions and more discussion.

I suppose that is not a bad thing at all.

So when I hear you saying "godless universe", I'm hearing you operating within that "Ich-Es" objective mode of thinking. What you seem to be saying is that there is no objective entity named God that we can see, no man in the clouds. And I totally agree that objectively, there is no evidence of God. It has no place in my science, for instance, which is done in that objective realm.

But what I'm asking you to do is to look at your rational universe differently, not denying any of it...Do you look at yourself or your loved ones as pysical objects, or is there a different perspective? I mean, they clearly are natural physical entities, existing in a natural physical universe, but you have a different method at looking at these physical systems, you have an empathic relationship with them. But at the end of the day they are just physical entities like a tree or rock. Yet you approach them with a different method of thinking.

So what I am challenging you to do is to approach the Universe around you with that same empathic method of thinking, viewing experiences as part of a relationship. Nothing in denial of science, just a different way of looking.

My point is that I think this is how most religious folks (myself included) view the world.

Neither assumption can prove or disprove itself, its quite literally a choice. Let me show you:

Suppose it is epiphenomenal. I think your saying that this would sort of undermine the "relationship" way of relating with the universe, because unlike a person it couldn't "respond". (Though we should consider that maybe some of this stuff is good for the individual in itself. Maybe seeing a nice sunset and saying "thank you" to the universe is healthy?)

But the more important aspect, is if it is epiphenomenal, how could I know that? My assumption in this case would be that my brain is a physical system which is constructing a representation of some external reality which it does not directly effect the universe. But its really just that, a representation. because our brains are limited physical systems and the universe is vast, we stuck in prisons of very limited concepts, which are very fluid and approximate. How can we conclusively assume that these physical systems - our brains - aren't connected with the reality we only faintly perceive through our representations?

Second, suppose it is not epiphenomenal. Our minds do affect reality. Quantum mechanics, while it doesn't necessarily suggest that our minds acts on reality, has shown us a natural situation where the state of an item is determined by how it is perceived.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc ( A totally fun cartoon movie on it)
So suppose it IS the same case with our minds, and our fundamental assumptions actually create our reality at some levels? Under this assumption, It could very easily be the case that you see a universe without God because at a fundamental level your assume that God does not exist, and the universe has responded by giving you a Godless universe. Yet by changing these assumptions, you would create a reality where God DOES exist, which you experience in a way that doesn't conflict with your other assumptions. Of course you could never prove it to others because the same laws of mind-creating-reality would allow them to exist in a reality without God as atheists, so any "proof" you could show them could be explained away, discarded, or not seen per our law of their mind creating reality. So you could only ever open the door for them knowing something, but they would have to walk through it; "proof" in such a universe can't exist, because truth is defined for the individual, not collectively.

So do you see the problem? You can't prove it one way or another. Our limitations call on us to make a choice, to walk through the door or not....Whether its because our thoughts effect reality, or because our brains our so limited they have no hope of grasping it completely anyway.

that we have them because they survived the cut of millions of years of natural selection. They serve our own survival as individuals of a species. This doesn't make them lesser, in my book, than they would be if they were actually an endowment from a greater consciousness in the universe. Do we know which they and other mental phenomena are? Are they epiphenomena of an evolved nervous system or part of a greater universal consciousness? Well, again, anyone with one of these evolved brains could reasonably conclude, given the physical evidence, that the former seems like an apt explanation for them. Is the second possibility equal to the first? Not in terms of a material explanation. You're never going to find a way to show that that greater universal consciousness exists in such a way that you get around the epiphenomenal problem. I mean, you're always stuck having to prove that the epiphenomenal explanation isn't an adequate one.

I've got to run, but this is definitely worth coming back to.

I want to formalize what I'm thinking a little bit, because this is one of those good conversations where you're figuring out stuff as you go. But I'll be back.

That our thoughts effect reality, and that your lack of evidence of thought effecting reality comes directly from your a priori assumptions, your belief in epiphenomenal explanations is creating evidence (or lack thereof) to back them up. You post would be true given the following edits:

Well, again, anyone with one of these evolved brains could reasonably conclude, given the physical evidence I have seen and created, that the former seems like an apt explanation for them. Is the second possibility equal to the first? Not in terms of a material explanation you can give to me. You're never going to find a way to show to me that that greater universal consciousness exists in such a way that you get around the epiphenomenal problem. I mean, you're always stuck having to prove that the epiphenomenal explanation isn't an adequate one for me.

So do you see my problem? Suppose I am a sorcerer, I just pulled an apple out of thin air and I'm eating it as I write this. I know that all beings are given the gift of sorcery to create their own reality, even to use it to deny the existence of sorcery, so there is nothing to do to prove to you that you also have this power: That would be violating your will, the law, so I could never show you evidence. The only evidence I could show you would be that which would not contradict with your assumptions, and the only way you could see the other evidence would be to change your a priori assumptions, which you seem unwilling to do without seeing evidence that they are flawed, which I can never provide you with based on the sorcerers law, which allows you to create reality by your assumptions. On the other hand, you can never see that my assumptions are not flawed, because your assumptions preclude a meta-narrative which states that both of our assumptions can be true in different planes of experience. Do you see?

So anyway the point of my somewhat silly example is that you can have a totally logically consistent framework for which you can see no evidence without changing your assumptions aka making a leap of faith, and nobody except you would be able to show it to you. So my question is, why not have some fun and experiment with your assumptions and test it out?

I've seen illusionists do something like it, of course.

Now, given what you know about your personal experience of the universe, do you truly believe you will ever come upon a sorcerer who can pull an apple or anything out of thin air? Do you think there ever was such a sorcerer with such talents, given what we know about the universe, who could do that?

Maybe you do. But whether or not you or anyone does believe in such a wizard, we're still left with the question of whether that belief can possibly take shape in a mind that is not wholly an epiphenomenon of an evolved nervous system. And how do you get there without taking a leap and starting to talk about something entirely irrelevant? Which is what you seem to have just done. I mean we really have to bridge that gap between the likelihood of our brain being epiphenomenal to our material bodies, given all material evidence, and the mere possibility of its being something that partakes in a larger universal consciousness. Once you take the leap, you've left the ground where the problem stands.

(Again, I've got to run. I'll come back to this.)

But first, about last night. So I went to my friends house to watch a movie, and ended up falling asleep on the couch, and waking up too late to get home on the bus, with her going to bed. So I brewed some coffee and started reading up on philosophy related to this, and wrote you. After writing that example, I decided an apple really did sound good, so I went into her kitchen to see if she had anything. Abover her counter, she had one of those baskets that hangs attached from the ceiling in the air, which happened to have only apples in it. I plucked one from the basket in the air, and ate it. I realized I would have been really uncomfortable if the apples were just floating in the air, so I was grateful for the basket. ;) (coincidence???)

But you understandably want a more structured logical approach. I sounds like you agree that a meta-narrative CAN exist where you wouldn't see evidence for it because of your assumptions, but, well, you don't see any evidence for it. Let me instead attempt an attack on the concept of epiphenomenon.

So Wikipedia states:An epiphenomenon can be an effect of primary phenomena, but cannot affect a primary phenomenon. In philosophy of mind, epiphenomenalism is the view that mental phenomena are epiphenomena

Given this, we can see that there are two kinds of knowledge. Those derived from the primary phenomenon (reality) into the secondary phenomenon (mind .. ie knowledge which is derived from observed reality), and knowledge which goes from the secondary phenomenon into itself. Kant defines these two as analytical and synthetic propositions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant#Kant.27s_theory_of_perception
So for example, "Mary's poodle weighs 20 pounds" is synthetic proposition because it gives information about reality (primary phenomenon) into secondary phenomenon (mind), but the "Mary's poodle is a dog" is an analytical proposition, because a poodle is by definition a dog, so no information is taken from reality that wasn't already in the secondary phenomenon.

The interesting thing, while I was reading about this last night, was how Kant bends over backwards to define mathematics as synthetic, when its so obviously is analytical. (all poodles are dogs, 'Mary's pet is a poodle, therefore Mary's pet is a dog' is obviously a mathematical statement from first-order logic) But lets model epiphenomenalism and talk about probability, shall we?

So we have our model of primary phenomenon, physical reality, which we will model with an array of numbers representing different things in different states. Then we have our epiphenomibot, which has a smaller array for representing bits of reality, and can accurately represent a subset of reality. It has two functions: observe reality (input synthetic proposition), where it sets its internal arrays to match some subset of the reality array, and think (input/create analytical proposition), where it rearranges its internal array in some random way. Conforming with epiphomenalism, its observations have a probability of 1 of corresponding to some subset of reality, (ie it accurately observes some subset of the bigger array). And also its random internal rearrangements have no correspondence with reality, they are random, daydreams if you will.

So this works fine and well with ephiphenomemalism, but doesn't model our reality. The clearest couter example of of this is in mathematics, which is clearly analytical, occuring inside our minds, but also has the power to predict real things like the movements of heavenly bodies, so there is clearly probabilistic correspondence with what a physicist predicts will happen based on calculations, and what actually does happen. This seemingly violates epiphenomenalism as defined in our model, so we have to revisit our model.

NOW two things have to happen. Our reality array has to have observable patterns in it, and our physicist epiphenomibot has his think function redefined so that he can deduce patterns from the subset of the reality he can observe, and use them to accurately predict things he has not yet actually observed. Once we have this in place, we need to check to make sure our model conforms to epiphenomenalism by making sure our robot isn't creating reality with his assumptions. This is done simply enough, because we created the reality array before hand, we need merely look at it and make sure the predictions are conforming to it and not changing it. Viola! Epiphenomealism modeled.

Now the last step is simply to assume that we to are epiphenomibots. For it to be known that our reality is conforming to epiphenomenalism, we need mere follow the last step from above, which is to say that our creator/programmer, who is also the all knower of the reality array of which we observe only a subset, must confirm that our predictions conform to his predefined reality rather than creating it.

Wait, WHO???

That's right, our creator. God. This is the logical problem with epiphenomenalism. If you look carefully, you'll notice that an epiphenomibot by definition can only perceive a subset of reality, make predictions and see if they are accurate. It has no way of knowing whether its predictions were passive observations of primary phenomenon, because it cannot access the primary phenomenon, it's can't see the original "reality array" in entirety or it would be omniscient, violating its definition. Yet this is the only way of proving that's its predictions aren't creating/effecting reality, changing the array as it goes. Therefore the only being that can KNOW epitphenomenalism is correct is omniscient, i.e. God. Does that mean its wrong? Not at all. For all I know there may be some programmer watching us both in amusement who knows our reality array. What I'm saying though is that you've got your faith, I've got mine. :P

(note: my argument rests on a conjecture, that it is possible to build an "array like object" which provides a "subset to itself" to an epiphenomibot, and then responds to predictions from the epiphenomibot as "right" or "wrong" in such a way that the epiphenomibot can never determine whether the array is static and pre-defined, or making things up as it goes along. I haven't proven this conjecture, and if its wrong, my whole argument is also wrong.)

;)

You lose me in a number of places. For example, when you say, contra Kant, that math is "clearly" analytical and then maintain that, because it seems to support your argument (even though you admit that math is used all the time to figure things out about physical reality), whatever your argument is. I mean, what if you're wrong and Kant is right? Doesn't that leave you and your argument screwed? And why should I follow you down that path if Kant wouldn't? I'm no philosopher, mind you, but I know Kant has his followers still, so I can't be so quick to dismiss him.

For another thing, you make that leap again to a "creator" who has the key to your array when you could just as well have said "nature" (as Spinoza might have and Darwin certainly would have). There's no controversy in that, is there?

Because in order to say that your observations are OF nature (primary phenomenon) and not creating nature, you or somebody has to know nature before you observe it, which requires omniscience. My argument, though verbose, is that simple.

Does that work for you?

Frankly, you only know about them at all through your personal observations of nature. What your doing here is assuming that your experience of nature is shared by others when you don't know. Hell, didn't you write off my sorcerer argument by saying something like "yes, but the reality we all live in on a daily basis is like so...". Yet its people of faith, (believers in that faculty by which the mind effects reality) that actually make up the majority of people on earth, so your experience clearly isn't that universal. Geeze, you've even got people writing books on how to best effect reality with your mind. The Secret isn't that a bestseller or sumthin'? :P

The point is that our experiences of reality are clearly very different, so we may as well accept that we are all trapped in the limiting prisons of personal experience and not make assumptions about what's really out there when we don't know.

Is it just luck? Or is the creator answering scientist's prayers?


Why does someone have to "know" nature before I observe it? I don't follow you. Before there were human brains to observe nature and figure out the convoluted formula you've figured out, are you suggesting nature might not have existed?

What I'm saying is that the above is an equally viable question, unless you can KNOW that the events in nature were occurring before the act of scientific observation. And you can't, because scientific observation is our only means of knowing, we are not omniscient.

IS a creator answering scientists prayers? Is The Matrix, or quantum computer simulation we live in choosing between hypotheses that are logically consistent the scientists come up with and fabricating supporting sensory evidence as needed? Maybe. Or maybe nature is static and we are just observing it.

That is practically all I can say to that. Like, just... whoa...

:hippie:

..you've got like this absolute universe which can't be effected by perceptions... (except when it is, such as in quantum theory) And you are kind of above it, detached from it observing...I can DIG it man...

I do not think all Theists challenge your world view. I think certain groups of Theists do.

My beliefs are my beliefs.

My religion does not seek out members, take money or even reside under the rule of one central authority.

We believe that everyone has the right to their beliefs.

We don't justify our beliefs to others or ask then to justify theirs to us.

What I am saying is it is not necessarily theists that you are irritated with, but rather a certain type of theist.

Yes the obvious position is that there are no Dieties.

I thought that was clear from my saying "a theistic position." Of course I don't view theism as monolithic. I'm referring to a particular theistic stance I've been seeing a lot of lately, usually from Christians.

My thinking is that terms like "god" demean the universe by trying to impose human social reality ("Ich-Du", a world of purposeful agents with goals, desires, wishes, etc.) on the actual physical reality.

Cursing at the computer is a perfect example of what I call "Instinctive Animism," a psychological phenomenon that mixes up the physical and social world, and thus treating inanimate objects as if they had intentions, goals, and desires. It is this "Instinctive Animism that is ultimately the basis of religious belief.

or many. It all depends on just what you mean by "God."

A prime fallacy of the theologically ignorant attempting to discuss "god" is that there are so many possibilities for gods, and not that many of them are the anthropomorphic creatures of myth. "God" is a force, power, or intelligence unavailable to us, and is therefore unknowable in its true form and unprovable one way or the other in any rational way. Just as higher dimensions are invisible to us but presumed to exist.

(Why is it the mission of so many atheists to attempt the impossible with their trivial "proofs" that there is no God?)

Both positions begin with completely incompatible premises. It's an argument that can have no solution, since neither the existence or non-existence of supernatural entities can be proven. There are so many good subjects for debate that this one is not needed.

You underline my point. The atheist's position is available to everybody. Either it's an eminently reasonable position, or our sensory perception alone is eminently unqualified to lead us to a reasonable position.

You say <<"God" is a force, power, or intelligence unavailable to us, and is therefore unknowable in its true form and unprovable one way or the other in any rational way.>> This statement simply can't be compared to the atheist's position on equal terms, because the atheist's position is entirely about what intelligence *is* available to us. Yet I've seen many theists trying to imply that the theistic position is somehow superior to the atheistic one.

If you want to put these positions on equal terms, then I'm afraid the theistic position is patently weaker. It's like saying, "Whether or not an elephant is in the closet is unavailable to us because the door is closed. Therefore it's more reasonable to assume an elephant is in the closet." But I think you'd probably agree with me that theistic epistemology can't be discussed on terms with atheistic epistemology. On our grounds, your position is a lost cause. And atheists aren't even interested in going on your grounds.

that the atheist poaition is somehow superior, as you are doing here.

The door may be closed, but that does not mean no elephant is in there-- it merely means we don't know what is in there making those noises and smells. I did not mean that whatever gods there may or may no be are completely separated from us, just that they are beyond our full comprehension. I've always thought the differant religions were like the blind men and the elephant-- each has a only small part of the truth but makes assumptions about the whole animal.

If you must make value judgments, then I would say your sort of atheist has a closed mind as to what gods might exist, while the theist (and the agnostic)is open to the suggestion that they do. The atheist, by your reckoning, relies simply on the very limited five senses and finite measurements that miss a lot.

(What if the earthly presence of God were an aroma your dog recognizes but you can't?)

Theism has no truck against atheism on materialist grounds. Whatever ground theism is argued on, however, I'm sure atheism doesn't stand a chance there.

I didn't say anything about there being noises and smells or other sensory clues of something elephantine in the closet. In fact, the atheist-theist debate is more like one about something in a locked closet that you can't sense. A better analogy would be a supposed $1,000,000. It doesn't matter how anyone might have gotten the idea that the million was in there, but it can't have been through sensing it. Most likely you'd have to have been told by someone else it was in there. Or maybe in a flash of inspiration, it was as though an angel revealed the presence of the million to you in a vision.

Or maybe you could think of other ways someone might get the idea there's a million dollars in the locked closet?

The point is, is it wrong to take as the baseline assumption that there is no million in the closet? Or is that untenable?

prove there is no god.

If something exists, that existence is its own proof. Therefore, if god exists, it is incumbent upon the theists to prove he/she/it/they exists. They will, of course, never try to prove it because they rely on faith, not proof.

"God" is a force, power, or intelligence unavailable to us, and is therefore unknowable in its true form and unprovable one way or the other in any rational way.

Something like that just defines god out of existence. A god which is not anthropomophic, which is not accessible by worship or prayer, might as well not exist at all, and there are certainly no religions which define god in that way. By that definition, god could be the Big Bang - and no more important than that.

> Something like that just defines god out of existence.
> A god which is not anthropomophic, which is not accessible
> by worship or prayer, might as well not exist at all, ...

Not necessarily. It can often be the "Don't know" option when the
other choices don't appear to make sense. It can also fulfil the
desire to be thankful for "good fortune" (or lack of "bad fortune")
or (on the flip-side of this) the desire to blame "someone" or
"something" for a negative event, experience or feeling.


> ... and there are certainly no religions which define god in that way.

I'd agree that no major religions do that but I think that Atenism
(Ancient Egyptian "heretical" monotheism) came pretty close in that
the Aten was usually represented as a solar disk or orb that was
explicitly only one aspect of a god that could not be defined or
described by the traditional human/animal hybrids of the standard
Egyptian pantheon.

>> Aten was the life-giving force of light.
>> The god is also considered to be both masculine and feminine
>> simultaneously. All creation was thought to emanate from the god
>> and to exist within the god. In particular, the god was not depicted
>> in anthropomorphic (human) form, but as rays of light extending
>> from the sun's disk.

(Note also that the representation of the "disk" in most carvings
was in fact three dimensional - as a sphere or orb rather than a
simple flat disk.)

He once ruled over the origin of species, for example, until Darwin figured out the actual mechanism. That god is a pretty weak one. It's constantly being defined out of existence, and its domain is constantly shrinking.

As for Aten, basically you're saying those who worshipped it were actually worshipping the sun. If you're saying they worshipped something other than the sun, something that wasn't in fact the sun but only represented by it, something with a "personality" for lack of a better word, something with a will and an interest in human affairs, something that can be appealed to and prayed to and to which offerings can be made in exchange for reciprocal actions, then what's the difference between Aten and Allah, for example, as far as humans are concerned? If the Aten-ists didn't believe Aten could do anything other than what they (and we) can observe or discern the sun doing, then are they really worshipping a god? Or are they just observing and admiring an object? Is it really worship if there's no expected reciprocity between the worshippers and the object of worship?

> Is it really worship if there's no expected reciprocity between
> the worshippers and the object of worship?

I am aware of "the god of the gaps" but that last question makes me
wonder if that also covers my earlier point (about being thankful for
good fortune / blaming something for bad fortune).

Maybe "worship" is the wrong word to associate with this kind of god?
(i.e., the non-anthropomorphic, not particularly interested in human
action, pleasure or suffering kind of god.)

I would think that my earlier examples were more "acknowledgement"
(or plain wistful habit?) than "worship" but YMMV.


> If you're saying <Atenists> worshipped something other than the sun,
> something that wasn't in fact the sun but only represented by it,
> something with a "personality" for lack of a better word, something
> with a will and an interest in human affairs, something that can be
> appealed to and prayed to and to which offerings can be made in exchange
> for reciprocal actions, then what's the difference between Aten and Allah,
> for example

One could say that there is no difference between Aten and Allah or Jahweh
or the Christian "God the Father" in a purist sense as it would be the
Creator aspect being worshipped by means of the visible works and the
concept of the "life-giving force" (rather than a white bearded old man).
It is only when generations of various self-appointed interpreters
(a.k.a. priests/rabbis/mullahs/...) interfere and tag on all manner of
other exclusive claims that the difference appears.

One could also say that maybe I didn't pick a good example but it happened
to be the one that sprang to mind when reading the previous post.

:shrug:

running around out there. And a bunch of others having a good ol' time exposing the fallacies of religion.

More to the point is perhaps my wording-- I didn't mean that gods are completely shut off from us, just that we are incapable of fully understanding God. Quaker faith, for instance, assumes there is a God and worships, but refuses to define God or make any unwarranted assumptions about God's will. We have the concept of "The Light" as God's temporal experience, and we rarely go any further than that.

> It all depends on just what you mean by "God".

IMO that is the crux of the whole "theist/atheist" issue.

As you say, "God" can be defined as "a force, power, or intelligence
unavailable to us, and is therefore unknowable in its true form and
unprovable one way or the other in any rational way".

This makes more sense to me than a purely anthropomorphic creation
that actively interferes with the day to day operations of the universe
according to the (frequently hypocritical) supplications of one or other
of the disparate groups of primates on this particular planet.

> Just as higher dimensions are invisible to us but presumed to exist.

One can easily extend that parallel to the point that there is also
dispute between different "believers" (theorists) as to how many other
dimensions exist and what particular characteristics they have ...
not forgetting that other theorists believe there is no need to
create extra dimensions purely to support a particular interpretation
of the data currently available.

Anyway, didn't mean to ramble on or rat-hole what is (IMO) your salient
point:

> It all depends on just what you mean by "God".

Thanks.
:hi:

then I'm a theist. I believe in those.

;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_worship#Horse

Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_worship

:evilgrin:

I suspect that theists want more knowledge than they have. So they create for themselves a receptacle of knowledge that, although inaccessible to them, contains all the answers they would want. i.e. god.

Atheists, on the other hand, are more willing to accept that perfect understanding of all things is not possible. So they do the best they can and let the rest go.

But that's just a crack-pot theory.

That you should not believe anything that you don't have to believe.

People believe way too damn much!

We could all stand to lose 15 or 20 beliefs. Especially around the waist and hips.

Belief portion control may be the answer.

It worked for me.

You believe that don't you?

I'll stick with believing I need a beer.

Unessential beliefs are just that, superfluous. Sure we could tailor down some of the more wild beliefs but it always comes down to individual preference. I choose to believe what I do and don't think differently about anyone with a differing opinion, as long as they actually have an opinion, that is.

"I choose to believe what I do..."

You believe what you choose to believe, not what you have to believe.

You are welcome to believe what ever you choose. But until you ditch those fifth dimension vectors, you're no where near agreeing with me.

Didn't you get enough "amusement" from me last night? I just agreed with you about your unnecessary beliefs comment. Just say thanks and move on. Ditch the bitterness and appreciate that I noted your comment.

Why should I thank you for misinterpreting my point?

I'm not indulging you by playing this game anymore. Be the best contrarian you can be.

I'd suggest that you review the first eight words of your signature line.

That might get you where you want to go.

It "amuses me". Try taking your own medicine sometime. I'm done here.

I assume by this you mean the classical "empirical data." The problem with relying ONLY on the data allowable to the senses is that even the most die-hard materialist knows that we often need to go beyond that data to think. Want an example? Take the number "zero." The idea behind zero is the idea of "nothing." Now, if the folks in India knew then what we know now, they might have never been able to think of Zero, after all, they would know that even the deepest reaches of space are full of things like radiation and particles, and that the very air was thick with particles. Yet they made the idea of Zero, and everyone from an Oxford Ph.D to a High School students use it.

Now, suppose you were to say "Zero" is such an important part of mathematics that it cannot be done without. Well, tell that to the Romans. When you look at Roman architecture, you can tell they knew how to make things like Parabolas (a.k.a arching curves) Every one of those aqueducts they were known for is a series of them, and they were able to achieve enough skill that many of those aqueducts are still in service throughout Europe. Also, they knew how to make domes. Look at the "Pantheon" in Rome, again, still in service today as a church, and you will see the dome shape that every architect since puts in every government building, the capitol included. Now, I bring up domes and arches for a reason, if you were to have any engineer do that, they would use Alegbra, and make a parabola, just like every High School Student has had to do. If you were to tell any modern architectural firm "OK, I want this building to be based on the Pantheon", well, they would nod, they probably had to do that design back in College, as they know many buildings will cop that design. If you were to tell them they had to use Roman Numerals to do that, their jaw would drop. After all, every Math student knows Roman Numerals were a TERRIBLE system to work with, you do not even have Zero to do calculations with!

But yet, if you travel to Europe, you can see that, completely independent of the very way we count numbers, the Romans could not only achieve the same results as modern math, but that the results were so stable that they still serve their purpose, even though the system that created them is dead, and , as the above mentioned architect would tell you, probably impossible to re-create. The reason I bring up this example is not to try to prove there is a "God." The reason I bring it up as that, when you rely on "the senses" you will walk right into a hard reality that the theists will hit you over the head with, that we as Humans, HAVE to rely on ideas that have NO PLACE in the Senses in order to function. Religion is just fruit of the same "tree of knowledge" that allowed our race to survive.

If you ask me what I believe, since you will no doubt accuse me of being a Christian apologist, I will tell you I am the classic "agnostic" who believes that we will never be able to fully close or fully open the case for or against God. I also think that whatever order there may be in the universe may be totally alien to our thinking: The Universe may count in something as alien as Roman Numerals, while we break out the graph paper like any good Alegbra student trying to make a parabola.

Or can you get to it by manipulating matter?

In theory, you can try to manipulate matter to achieve it, but as the folks in the Quantum Physics department can tell you, even if you break something down to subatomic particles, you have a whole universe of matter and energy to deal with. We have only barely begun to examine this, as recent efforts with the "super collider" have shown. The point I was trying to make is that the Human brain will make tolls out of "inspiration" as you put it. As I said, this does not prove there is a "God", but it does show that trying to make a worldview on the sense, pure "empirical data" will be of no use to us in the long run, because it, like faith, will collide with the reality we all experience.

like, for example, the need for something to represent the absence of things? People didn't have to get all mystical to realize they needed such a symbol, did they?

You wrote:

Some may say they see and hear God, but do we want to call such people reasonable? Do most people who believe in God experience it with their material senses? Do they believe god is visible, or audible, or palpable, or scented? (Let's leave aside the question of whether eucharist wafers and wine are god.)

But, really, there are no "material senses". What we call the senses are the results of the operation of a kazillion nerves delivering electrochemical signals to the brain. The brain then interprets these impulses to produce the cognitive experience we call "an odor", "a color", "a recognized face", "noise" or "tone", "smoothness" or "roughness". That interpretation process is a cognitive process.

Back in the 80s when cognitive science was producing "parallel distributed processing" models of cognition, (think "neural nets") it was becoming clear that understanding the processes of perception were key to understanding the processes of "higher" brain function. Or, as Douglas Hofstadter observed in "Godel, Escher, Back", it had become obvious that "perception is where it is at".

In that context, consider the traditionally reared Eskimo. These indigenous people have over a hundred different terms for "ice" and "snow", and have the "perceptual hardware" and training to distinguish between them. Dump you or I on the ice pack and we see slush, ice, and snow. Mostly we see white out. We will wander in circles, but the Eskimo will navigate skillfully over a feature rich terrain we cannot perceive.

Spend a long time on the ice and learn how to see. You will eventually be able to train yourself to see a few dozen types of ice and snow. You will navigate better than I. But you will never be able to perceive all the detail our Eskimo buddy can. It turns out that in our first five years, our perceptual centers are very, very trainable ... but at about age 5 the perceptual hardware "sets". It has been calibrated for its environment, as it were. And with effort, it can adapt and be trained to a certain degree ... but once it "sets" certain doorways to perception can only be partly opened. (Understand that training of the perceptual center always includes a) pattern recognitions and b) rejection of sensory data that is not useful for recognizing commonly encountered patterns in the perceiver's environment. With pattern recognition, there is always filtering. )

There are other examples.

We tend to think of our sensory experience as being concrete ... but clearly it is not. Perception is not reality, as evidenced by the Eskimo's navigational skill on the ice as compared to our hilarious circular wanderings. But perception is our most direct cognitive access to reality. Aboriginal people claim to "see", "hear" and otherwise experience things we don't. Shall we dismiss them as psychotic savages? Or shall we wonder if their perceptual hardware has simply been trained to recognize patterns that our perceptual hardware has been trained to ignore?

Fun stuff to think about.

Trav

we don't--or can't--perceive the different shades of snow Inuit see. We can be trained to see them, can't we?

As for what the Australians see, are you saying they're cognitively different from we westerners? Or are those modes of perception merely cultural and therefore transmissible? I think the latter, personally.

I don't think so. I have been on polar ice, but only for a couple of weeks. More experienced folk definitely did better moving around, indicating that us Western types are to a degree at least trainable. There were no Eskimos with us ... but it was on that trip I first became acquainted with this particular example. Here's another.

Take an 8x8 grid ... a chess board. Arrange randomly shaped rocks on it. Photograph the arrangement. Austalian aborigines will be able to reproduce that arrangement with impressive accuracy, and you and I will not. Now, repeat the experiment with regular shapes like pyramids, spheres, triangles, octagaons, etc. Suddenly, you and I are the impressive ones.

While training can improve our performance, we will never equal the aborigne in the first experiment, nor will training improve the aborigne's performance in the second. The "setting" of the perceptual function by around age 5 is well established in the literature of cognitive science, and the literature is replete in examples.

Certain indigenous people (I believe Navajo are among them, but at my age memory is not the only thing that fails) apparently perceive time differently. Don't ask me to explain that. I haven't the foggiest what that means, but it does apparently have some impact on language.

Here's a disturbing train of thought ... The Simulation Argument. Weird stuff, but philosophically and scientifically difficult to dismiss.

The lesson I take from that argument is that the fundamental nature of reality is still damn hard to nail down. Well, perception influences everything we do and think because perception is basic to thought itself. If we have been perceptually trained to filter out the pertinent clues ... I think you can see my point.

Is there a God? Why would there only be one? How the fuck should I know? I have had certain experiences that lead me to think there is at least one, but that cannot be considered evidence. My brain chemistry might have been screwed up or something. It is possible. On the other hand, I obtained that experience by following certain instructions ... to a degree, these experiences are somewhat reproducible for those who are willing to retreat from conclusion while they perform the test.

Glad I had those experiences, but they are valueless to you. I can testify to them, suggest how you might reproduce something like them and all that. But I have no idea what they mean, after a couple of decades of trying to discern what significance these experiences might bear.

My response to the OP was motivated by a "wait a minute" kind of impulse. The philosophically (and scientifically) unsound premise that "material senses" are in any way reliable when ascertaining the fundamental structure of reality required challenge. In the realm of pure science, there are ample grounds to dispute that argument, and so it is a completely unreliable point of departure for arguing about the existence or non-existence of a creative intelligence.

Trav

Of course people are trained by the cultures that raise them to perceive in ways of perception that the culture values. Or as the culture is equipped to train individuals to perceive. Is what is in the world to perceive different from culture to culture? Are those rocks on the chessboard really different to an aborigine from what they are to us, or is it just the way we perceive the rocks that's different? If the former, then what does that really mean? If the latter, then aren't we in danger of becoming mystified by perception? Isn't perception a trap to be compensated for? I mean, if we want to get at what really is, or as close to it as we can hope.

And thanks for the stimulating conversation, BTW. :)

You wrote: If the latter, then aren't we in danger of becoming mystified by perception? Isn't perception a trap to be compensated for?

My argument would be that we already are mystified by our own perceptual processes, as evidenced by your initial statements which any denizen of a monastery would recognize as a heroic leap of faith ... because you do not perceive certain things, they must not exist and it is absurd to claim otherwise. (I have often been guilty of the same kind of error, BTW.)

But people from other more technologically primitive cultures would tell you that your are simply blind and deaf. I think it is arrogance to presume without experiential evidence that they are deluded or dishonest.

But once one accepts that perception is a cognitive function, and that early training has a dominant effect on future potential, then one is reluctant to say that the perceptual training regime of one culture is superior to another. It is better to note that one perceptual training regime is better suited to certain tasks in certain environments than another ... our Eskimo and Aborigine are both at a serious perceptual disadvantage in a modern urban setting, for example.

And further, if one is going to use perceptual arguments to establish the existence or non-existence of a deity, one must expect to be slam dunked into an epistemological argument. How do we know what we know? What is perception and how can it be fooled? Under what circumstances is it reliable? What are the limitations of logic and formal mathematical systems? These arguments are not about the operation of neurons in brain tissue ... they are about the logical nature of the processes of cognition of thought itself.

And if people like you and me stop wrangling about these subjects and probing the meaning of things, then agnosticism and atheism and deism all become simply articles of belief. Reason is not advanced by so passive an approach.

Trav

I'm saying that they don't *appear* to exist, even if they do exist, and this is obvious to any reasonable person with a healthy brain. How is that a leap of faith? Because some people say they see gods? Is it a leap of faith to assume that because laws of nature, as recorded by science, conform to my own perceptions of how the universe works, science probably describes them as well as any system, not just for me but for everybody?

I take the epistemology that has underwritten the scientific worldview as the best available, given the amazing success of science to explain the world and even predict how nature will behave given certain conditions. I do not believe, given these assumptions and my experience in the world, that humans are as different as you imply from culture to culture or person to person. Is that a leap of faith? Perhaps. In any case, I can't help but continue to test it.

you dismiss those who claim other experiences. I have attempted to relate (hypothetically) those experiences to the different perceptual schemas of various cultures, and point out that just because they do not "appear" to me or you doesn't mean they don't appear. Perhaps we have just been trained otherwise, and so filter out the sensory input. I'm only weakly advocating that possibility ... because, as evidenced by this conversation, it is a difficult hypothesis to either support or reject.

Further, if you believe in science, you must now believe in "dark matter". That is a form of matter that is defined to be undetectable, but which is assumed to exist because without something like that, the universe is not behaving like our theories say it ought and we pretty much have to dump all our theories of physics in the toilet and start over. And we just don't have enough data to start over ... yet.

I really don't care what you believe ... but I would suggest that perhaps you ask what in philosophy or science guarantees that the universe is truly comprehensible to the human brain. I myself am beginning to suspect it is not ... but that we can progress to ever better models and deeper understanding. And in the long run evolution is not a done deal. God may or may not exist, but evolution is not done yet, and we have not stopped learning. Of that, we can be relatively certain.

Trav

But are you willing to consider one with God? Faith in God isn't a rational concept. That's why it's called faith. I prefer to believe in a God because I prefer to view the universe that way. I don't use it as a crutch to explain the "supernatural", I just like the idea of a loving, eternal creator and maintaining a relationship with that being. This is a preference, you have yours and I have mine. That's all.

God is only present in your universe when you go looking for it. It's not in front of your eyes. It's not anywhere within reach of your senses. It always requires a leap to get to.

Of course I can consider a universe with a god. But as with anyone, I have to take a leap to do that, and unlike a lot of people, I don't find that to be such an interesting leap to take.

The tenable nature of God is a moot question since empirical evidence dictates otherwise. Some people just prefer to believe in a God because it helps to cope with the irrationality of the world around them. Faith is a touchy subject because it is based on a flimsy conjecture, but this sits fine with me. I like to believe, I enjoy going to mass. I truly love my religion, but that doesn't mean I think atheism is wrong, it's just not my cup of tea. Just like theism is not yours. That's all.

Though I can imagine all sorts of things, to be fair. That doesn't mean I believe them to be true.

I think the bottom line on the essential question here is that none of us KNOW. The existence or non-existence of a diety is not something any one of us can prove or disprove.

I also don't agree that a Godless universe is necessarily the default position. Why? Your default maybe, but for my own reasons, it's not my default position. That doesn't mean I'm not able to imagine the other position - or positions in-between, actually. But I don't accept that there is one universal default.

That is, that even if most hold a belief in a god at in intellectual level, at the level of everyday behavior most people in the West act as if there were no god.

I happen to be an Secular Humanist Existentialist. The Universe does not have any inherent purpose, nor should it. We must create our purpose. IMO it is the fear of having to find one's own purpose that makes believers hate us non-believers, the believers desire to refuse to grow up spiritually and instead prefer an imaginary sky-daddy to tell them when their purpose should be.

When a religious person sees a starving homeless child in a street corner somewhere he could either buy the child a meal and give the child some money or rely on a loving God to help the child out. In this situation one would think that to live as if there is no God is his/her duty otherwise what is the point?

:applause:

Right on.

and to see God in every person and feel the desire to help the child?

I think anyone who decides that doing good here is God's job and not their own has pretty much missed the point of most major religious theologies...

some just get tired of being told that they hate you. Or that they're not grown up spiritually. Or that their beliefs are akin to "an imaginary sky-daddy"...

And you wonder why you sense any push-back from believers? Really?

Your belief or non-belief is really none of my business or concern. It doesn't trouble me in any way. I feel no compulsion to have you see things my way, and am quite happy to live and let live. But I'm also really tired of having your beliefs defined by snarky comments about my own. Can you speak about what it is you think without resorting to that?

I get sick of being told that I must be an amoral nihilist because one must supposedly believe that he or she has to be ordered around by an authoritarian Sky-Daddy to be a good person.

And no, I'm not going to quit using the term "imaginary sky-daddy," because the whole notion of god sounds like "Santa Clause for grown-ups" to me. If my observations are considered "offensive" by other that is their problem, not mine.

You said, "IMO it is the fear of having to find one's own purpose that makes believers hate us non-believers" and that is a ridiculous generalization. If a believer comes here to generalize atheists in the same way I bet you there would be several atheists protesting and with good reason.

If you are sick of being told things then you should target the individuals who actually tell you those things. I am sure JerseygirlCT doesn't see atheists as an evil group that she dislikes. She might find that some specific people who claim to be atheists are pricks in the same way she probably thinks that some believers are also pricks.

:shrug:

It's the generalizations all around that make me crazy.

I haven't said I hate anyone. I haven't characterized anyone's beliefs as amoral or evil or anything negative. Unfortunate that a request for some of the same basic civility is met with more vitriol.

But I appreciate your help!

If the reasons are "beyond earth" then religion loses its purpose to me. And I am saying that as someone who follows a religion. My religion is merely a template that I use as a guide to being the person I want to be, not for otherworldly reasons, but to enrich my obituary when it is my time. I understand that it may not be the best template and it is not an universal prescription but it is something I use for myself because I feel that it helps me when I follow its value system. And I also use it to give meaning in a sense of action, community, tradition, study, life-cycle events, etc.

Obviously one can have meaning and purpose in their own lives without faith or a religion. The point of living and dying is what we make of it and we all have our own understanding no matter the belief or lack of belief.

I can see usage of belief as beneficial to some in a sense of support. Some people may have the need for dialog and a "sholder to cry on" (even a virtual one) in times of need, for example. So I see no harm in that usage of faith as long as this defense mechanism gets people over the hump. But when belief turns to otherworldly reasons that's when things get hairy.

I hope Donovan Campbell understands that other people have their own ways of finding their own meaning and that his model of the world is not universal. I also think his model is a bad one and I would not subscribe to it. For example, I see "dying for good reason" as perhaps dying to protect your children in a harmful situation to enable them to survive but only when there is no way out of it. However, dying or living for supernatural and otherworldly reasons, in my opinion, is a very dangerous way of thinking for obvious reasons.

But that's just my two cents.

or in which dolphins were the premier sentient beings of the universe.

If one has a decent imagination, anyway.

Imagine how much stronger we'd be if G=92. :7

"God speaks to me," is called insane. Get a group of these people and you have a religion.

The same could be said that any body with a brain could imagine the Universe with God.

The this brings up the conception of God.Are you referring to the Religious God?Or are you just being deliberately obtuse to look as if you actually have something relevant to say.

The Universe just is.Our tiny human brains answer the big questions,only then to find out there are even bigger questions to be answered.Werther people believe in a religious God or not isn't going to give you any answers,and trying to belittle other peoples belief systems to raise your own self esteem,says that you are the guy who is haunted by the eternal question.

Let's just look to the person next to us and ask our selves..."can I do anything to help this person,even if it's just saying good morning?".

Maybe that's where "God" might be found.Good place to start looking.