Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jamie_L · 07-07-2003, 07:25 AM

emotional:

I'm with most of the sentiments stated here. I certainly can't say that a diestic God doesn't exist. I make the assumption that it doesn't due to parsimony/Ocham's razor, as described by others. That seems to make the most sense to me.

A) Universe "just is"
B) Universe was made by a diety that "just is"

What reason do I have to think B) is the case, when all signs point to A)?

Of course, as others have mentioned, the practical differences between the two are essentially nill. I'm not too concerned about whether or not I've chosen correctly between A) and B).

Jamie

Stiletto One · 07-07-2003, 07:58 AM

Either way has the same result for us lowly humans: God has no immediate effect on us. *shrug*

emotional · 07-07-2003, 08:35 AM

My main problem is to grasp the idea that all the parameters needed for evolution (stellar, planetary, biological etc) are present from the beginning, instead of having been set up by a designer.

Weasel words, Biomorphs, Game of Life and Tierra are all examples of evolutionary simulations. They work perfectly by themselves once they are set. The catch is: they always have a designer behind them. Biomorphs had the parameters set in order to work, but it was a designer named Richard Dawkins who set them.

Granted, positing a designer raises the question of where the designer came from, and if he existed from the beginning, why not assume that the parameters existed from the beginning?

In short, the only argument for God I still find convincing is the First Cause or Cosmological Argument. It still stumps me, and I still don't know a good refutation for it.

Jamie_L · 07-07-2003, 08:41 AM

emotional:

As far as first cause, etc., here's my take:

Existence doesn't make sense.

It doesn't matter if there is a God involved or not. It doesn't make sense that there is "something" instead of "nothing". But, if God's involved, it doesn't make sense that there's God instead of no God. The universe may seem complex and finely tuned, but certainly a creator God is even more complex and finely tuned.

So, the way I see it, introducing a God doesn't answer any questions, it just lumps them together under a new heading, and moves them back a step from the universe. But that's more complex than just accepting that the universe is, and further accepting that this doesn't, in fact, make sense to our puny brains.

And so, parsimony brings me back to "no God". But that's just me.

Jamie

emotional · 07-07-2003, 09:12 AM

Theists say God is simple (a spirit) and that He is the creator of time, therefore transcends time. The universe is bound by time and had a beginning, whereas God is not and did not.

1. "In the beginning was the Mind..."

2. "In the beginning were the particles..."

That's what the debate is all about.

And it also relates to the mind-brain problem: could there be such a Mind without a brain, without neurons, axons and synapses? A formless mind? Is that not a contradiction in terms?

"In the beginning was the Mind", but in order for us humans to have a mind, we need to evolve a highly complicated brain. Why is the primordial Mind excluded from this law?

"In the beginning were the particles", and they later became minds.

Help me, I'm being eaten by Doubt with a capital D!

Godless Wonder · 07-07-2003, 09:53 AM

I'm pretty new around here, but I'll toss in my $0.02.

The way I think about this is not in absolutes, but in probabilities. For me, the question is not "Does god exist?", but "How likely is it that god exists?" To me, the idea of a god seems exceedingly arbitrary, and hence unlikely. The proverbial invisble pink unicorns spring to mind. "How likely is it that invisible pink unicorns that cannot be sensed exist?" Not very. How likely is it that a Christian god as described in the Bible exists? For me, the probability I assign is exceedingly close to zero, so close it might as well be zero. A more deistic, unknowable creator god? For me, the probability is greater than that of the Christian god, but still damned close to zero. You will have to assign your own probabilities, based on your experience.

If you can't know, you can't know. There is no sense in saying "I can't know X, but I would like the answer to be X, so I will decide to "know" that the answer is X." (In this, I disagree with Martin Gardner, he's fooling himself, an ability I seem to lack.) In the face of the unknowable X, one can only take a guess at assigning a probability that X is true based on those things which one _can_ know. That's my take on it, anyways. (I should give Richard Feynman's writing credit for clarifying my thoughts in these areas, specifically I'm thinking of a book called "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out.")

Wyz_sub10 · 07-07-2003, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
A few atheist reasons for believing there is no god are similiar in their irrationality, such as "I don't believe in god because I don't like the idea of hell", or "I don't believe in god because he takes away my free will" are two I've actually heard which seem outragous to me.

They seem outrageous to me too, but you didn't hear them from atheists.

They may think they're atheists, but anyone who would use such a reason is definitely a theist.

Normal · 07-07-2003, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Completely subjective? You can't think of a single instance of intersubjective agreement about what constitutes evidence?

Sure, there is intersubjective argeement as to what constitutes evidence, but evidence is open to subjective interpretation. Person A may find the naturalistic (read: current intersubjective "best guess") explaination of event X sufficient, but Person B may not be convinced.

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
They seem outrageous to me too, but you didn't hear them from atheists.

They may think they're atheists, but anyone who would use such a reason is definitely a theist.

Why arn't they atheists? You can only be an atheist if you have a specific reason? That seems rather judgemental of you.

Quote:

Originally posted by emotional
In short, the only argument for God I still find convincing is the First Cause or Cosmological Argument. It still stumps me, and I still don't know a good refutation for it.

Stephan Hawking has worked out a way for the universe to begin without a first cause needed.

Quote:

Originally posted by emotional
Help me, I'm being eaten by Doubt with a capital D!

Why is the question so important to you? Would it change the way you live at all? I don't mean to come off harsh, I'm genuinely curious what would change if you could convince yourself either way of god's existence.

Wyz_sub10 · 07-07-2003, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Normal
Why arn't they atheists? You can only be an atheist if you have a specific reason? That seems rather judgemental of you.

Because atheists do not believe in god.

Anyone who has chosen to "not believe" based on the notion that god "does" something obviously believes that god exists "to do".

Someone who does not believe in god cannot very well believe that god takes away free will or sends people to hell.

Normal · 07-07-2003, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyz_sub10
Anyone who has chosen to "not believe" based on the notion that god "does" something obviously believes that god exists "to do".

But they are not positing god exists, they are positing reasons for a lack of belief in god.

Reason 1: If god exists he sends people to hell. I don't agree with this idea. Therefore, I don't believe god exists.

Reason 2: If god exists he has control of my actions. I believe I have control of my actions. Therefore, I don't believe god exists.

Do you still claim these people aren't atheists?

07-07-2003, 07:58 AM	#22
Stiletto One Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 7,150	Moot Point Either way has the same result for us lowly humans: God has no immediate effect on us. shrug

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-07-2003, 07:25 AM	#21
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	emotional: I'm with most of the sentiments stated here. I certainly can't say that a diestic God doesn't exist. I make the assumption that it doesn't due to parsimony/Ocham's razor, as described by others. That seems to make the most sense to me. A) Universe "just is" B) Universe was made by a diety that "just is" What reason do I have to think B) is the case, when all signs point to A)? Of course, as others have mentioned, the practical differences between the two are essentially nill. I'm not too concerned about whether or not I've chosen correctly between A) and B). Jamie

07-07-2003, 08:35 AM	#23
emotional Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah Posts: 1,945	My main problem is to grasp the idea that all the parameters needed for evolution (stellar, planetary, biological etc) are present from the beginning, instead of having been set up by a designer. Weasel words, Biomorphs, Game of Life and Tierra are all examples of evolutionary simulations. They work perfectly by themselves once they are set. The catch is: they always have a designer behind them. Biomorphs had the parameters set in order to work, but it was a designer named Richard Dawkins who set them. Granted, positing a designer raises the question of where the designer came from, and if he existed from the beginning, why not assume that the parameters existed from the beginning? In short, the only argument for God I still find convincing is the First Cause or Cosmological Argument. It still stumps me, and I still don't know a good refutation for it.

07-07-2003, 08:41 AM	#24
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	emotional: As far as first cause, etc., here's my take: Existence doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter if there is a God involved or not. It doesn't make sense that there is "something" instead of "nothing". But, if God's involved, it doesn't make sense that there's God instead of no God. The universe may seem complex and finely tuned, but certainly a creator God is even more complex and finely tuned. So, the way I see it, introducing a God doesn't answer any questions, it just lumps them together under a new heading, and moves them back a step from the universe. But that's more complex than just accepting that the universe is, and further accepting that this doesn't, in fact, make sense to our puny brains. And so, parsimony brings me back to "no God". But that's just me. Jamie

07-07-2003, 09:12 AM	#25
emotional Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Boxing ring of HaShem, Jesus and Allah Posts: 1,945	Theists say God is simple (a spirit) and that He is the creator of time, therefore transcends time. The universe is bound by time and had a beginning, whereas God is not and did not. 1. "In the beginning was the Mind..." 2. "In the beginning were the particles..." That's what the debate is all about. And it also relates to the mind-brain problem: could there be such a Mind without a brain, without neurons, axons and synapses? A formless mind? Is that not a contradiction in terms? "In the beginning was the Mind", but in order for us humans to have a mind, we need to evolve a highly complicated brain. Why is the primordial Mind excluded from this law? "In the beginning were the particles", and they later became minds. Help me, I'm being eaten by Doubt with a capital D!

07-07-2003, 09:53 AM	#26
Godless Wonder Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 4,197	I'm pretty new around here, but I'll toss in my $0.02. The way I think about this is not in absolutes, but in probabilities. For me, the question is not "Does god exist?", but "How likely is it that god exists?" To me, the idea of a god seems exceedingly arbitrary, and hence unlikely. The proverbial invisble pink unicorns spring to mind. "How likely is it that invisible pink unicorns that cannot be sensed exist?" Not very. How likely is it that a Christian god as described in the Bible exists? For me, the probability I assign is exceedingly close to zero, so close it might as well be zero. A more deistic, unknowable creator god? For me, the probability is greater than that of the Christian god, but still damned close to zero. You will have to assign your own probabilities, based on your experience. If you can't know, you can't know. There is no sense in saying "I can't know X, but I would like the answer to be X, so I will decide to "know" that the answer is X." (In this, I disagree with Martin Gardner, he's fooling himself, an ability I seem to lack.) In the face of the unknowable X, one can only take a guess at assigning a probability that X is true based on those things which one _can_ know. That's my take on it, anyways. (I should give Richard Feynman's writing credit for clarifying my thoughts in these areas, specifically I'm thinking of a book called "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out.")

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.