Lucy Goosey

[Something Amyss]

Sure, people *****, but pretty much everything I've heard about Lucy is prefaced with that 10%-of-the-brain thing, to the point where it's just annoying. And from what I've heard from people who weren't thrilled to have found something that makes them feel smugly superior, it's actually a good movie, so I'm extra annoyed at the prospect of a good film being shoved aside for a minor issue...

Again, you're not describing anything that doesn't happen to other franchises.

Better beee...

AGNOSTICLAW!

So is Angnosticlaw one you can enter freely from the other houses, as it doesn't really address belief, or is it just the "atheists who don't want to be called atheists" house?

I'm just wondering if I want to end up there.

 

[Something Amyss]

Look, I can take whatever insults people want to at me, but to condemn millions of people based on past atrocities, or a small percentage of them today that like to spread hate (such as Westboro), but to say that there are millions upon millions that are basically Nazi's really pisses me off.

You can say "small minority!" all you want, but when close to half the country agrees with WBC on homosexuality, predominantly on religious grounds (the part they disagree with isn't "God hates fags," after all, it's the way WBC protests our sacrosanct soldiers' funerals), the idea that it's a small percentage of the base is complete trash.

At best, you can say #notallreligiouspeople, but that doesn't make it a small fraction.

I'm sorry you feel that way. However, you do realise that by dropping a supposed Nazi parallel into an astoundingly diverse group of people, (some good, some less good, most just getting by) you are deliberately going after an emotional or hostile response

And besides, what does the concept of millions of people who undertook horrific actions under the banner of a religious institution, largely targeting other religious groups and spurred on by a man who thought he was protected by God Herself have to do with religion? They're so unrelated, it must be specifically to garner an emotional response.

There will always be war, greed, famine, exclusion etc. That's the human condition, and no amount of 'well if they just gave up these outmoded ideas' will reduce it. So I will try to reduce suffering in the world my way, (education, medicine and public health and the application of 'Love thy neighbour' without labelling it as such) and you do it yours - I just hope you have something to believe in to carry you through.

If it is, in fact, the human condition, then your method won't reduce it, either. It's weird. It's part of the human condition and changing people's mind sets away from believing in angry bronze age genies who hate gays and pork but love slavery and genocide won't change that, but...your method will?

I mean, it seems completely contradictory to go "human condition!" and then insist you're out to change it. That at least borders on special pleading.

At the same time, secular societies tend to have higher quality of life, so one has to wonder if reduction of religious beliefs might actually, in fact, reduce suffering. Even if correlation doesn't equal causation, it does make the Bible (and other books, but I'm looking at you, Psalm 13) wrong.

Or, to put the question directly to you: Why do the most religious parts of the world tend to correlate to more poverty, more hunger, more violent crime? Yes, yes, I know that correlation doesn't mean causation, but if you're going to tell people that reduction in religious beliefs won't reduce these issues, then you should be able to offer a reason why it looks like the exact opposite in reality.

 

[Erttheking]

I'll give you one, since you only gave ten percent of your effort to your joke.

Beyond that, as a Christian myself, can't we just get along? (I know what the answer is BTW). Also I don't know if you are doing it because it's based on the Bible, or the movie deviated from the source material. (I'm going with the former, just asking the latter because of the Game of Thrones article I read just a second ago.

The Christian Religion, and every branch of the Christian Religion, is about NOT getting along with people. Can you really blame us? In the same way I highly doubt there was ever Athiest being mean to Shinto, a very inclusive and peaceful religion.

I know I'm probably going to get a lot of people saying otherwise, but this seems like you are generalizing everything. I will not deny about the history of the religion, and that there are people and sections of the religion that spreads hate, but there are lots of sections and people that are good and actually do get along with others. I'm not going to argue with you past that. If you've experienced the exact opposite, then I apologize, since that is something that should not be happening.

And to that statement, I use my other often used statement.

There was Nazi's who were generally nice people and kind to most people they met. Doesn't make Nazi's as a whole a good thing, and they would probably be nice people without the Nazi'ing as well.

Did you honestly just compare Christians to Nazis? The Inquisition ended hundreds of years ago thank you very much. Heck, I identify as agnostic and am sick to death about my Dad rambling about religion, and your comment STILL rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Whoracle]

Did you honestly just compare Christians to Nazis? The Inquisition ended hundreds of years ago thank you very much. Heck, I identify as agnostic and am sick to death about my Dad rambling about religion, and your comment STILL rubs me the wrong way.

While the way it was formulated was unlucky, that's not what he said. He did not say "Christians are Nazis", he (badly) said "The same measurements apply". It's called "highlighting the parallels", not "comparing". And for what it's worth, the same would apply to atheists, too, if they ever start the same shit that the big institutionalized religions do and did.

 

[Kuredan]

You can say "small minority!" all you want, but when close to half the country agrees with WBC on homosexuality, predominantly on religious grounds (the part they disagree with isn't "God hates fags," after all, it's the way WBC protests our sacrosanct soldiers' funerals), the idea that it's a small percentage of the base is complete trash.

[Citation Needed]



There are plenty of Christian denominations that either take a hands off approach to gay marriage or openly supports them. Most recently (Jun 2014), the Presbyterian Church (USA), the largest Presbyterian denomination in the country, voted to allow its pastors to officiate same sex marriages. They join the Evangelical Church of America (the largest Lutheran denomination in the country), the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalists, not to mention the two largest Jewish sects, Reform and Conservative who all support gay marriage. That may not be the case for the million and one Baptist churches or some of the more evangelical churches, but claim that "close to half" share the extremist views of the Westboro Baptist Church is incredibly inaccurate. I understand that religion has hurt people past and present, but when you lump everyone of faith in the same boat, it's no different than the thought processes used to justify racism and sexism: "Well they're all just like that."

 

[Windcaler]

0 Points.

Why? Because no comedic value can be given to a message that demonizes an entire culture of people. Besides the joke wasnt all that great to begin with.

Critical miss does this kind of thing a lot. Usually its just jumping on the bandwagon that other pundits in the games industry (like Totalbiscuit or Jim sterling) make a point of while not adding anything of value to the actual discussion that hasnt already been said by other people. Then we have the anti-religious side (I would use another word which means someone who is utterly intolerant of a different belief but I dont think I can use the actual word without a warning) of the comic that has in every case I can recall lied or misrepresented how most actual religious people behave in order to demonize a culture. At the end of the day I see it as nothing more then a message of segregation and hate because there has been no instance where Grey and Cory have targeted idealogy or philosophy. Its always personal attacks against people within that culture and its sad.

Its sad to see two people in a position of privilege preaching to their choir about the segregation of cultures instead of using their voice to bring people together to get along and work out our differences. Its sad to see a message of hatred gobbled up by so many within the escapist community. Finally its sad that my plea for some thought toward this kind of speech will fall on deaf ears.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

That tag, though. Damn. And a little late to the party to hate on Noah, aren't we? I mean, it was hardly good, terribly paced, and kinda awkward outside of that really beautiful creation sequence, but still. I guess it's not too late to get some kicks in while it's still down.

 

[Erttheking]

Did you honestly just compare Christians to Nazis? The Inquisition ended hundreds of years ago thank you very much. Heck, I identify as agnostic and am sick to death about my Dad rambling about religion, and your comment STILL rubs me the wrong way.

While the way it was formulated was unlucky, that's not what he said. He did not say "Christians are Nazis", he (badly) said "The same measurements apply". It's called "highlighting the parallels", not "comparing". And for what it's worth, the same would apply to atheists, too, if they ever start the same shit that the big institutionalized religions do and did.

I would just like to say to you that you are the only person who actually read my comment, as I never at any point, said the Christians are as bad as the Nazis, which would be an incredibly absurd thing to say.

In that case I'm not sure you read my comment either. I didn't say you called Christians Nazis. I said you compared them. Which you did. And is still pretty damn bad.

 

[Draconalis]

Religion is no longer a major force in the secular, Western world, so there's not much for atheists to argue or fight about. Hence, a large proportion of the arguing is from those who can't see the silliness of shooting fish in a barrel.

Wait... what?!

Our leaders are still voted for and supported, based on which imaginary being they praise.

There are still states that don't let you run for office, unless you believe in some form of imaginary being.

Laws are still being debated and made, based on rules and writings made 2000 years ago, despite their ignorance.

(citation: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/03/12/u-s-senator-god-says-that-there-cant-be-global-warming/ )

I've personally seen the video of him saying such, but Was a tad too lazy to find it given I have to get ready for work in 4 minutes.


Atheists are vocal because our government forces use to live a backwards way, due to their religious beliefs.

Gay rights
Abortion
Mandatory religious education in public schools.

And the list goes on.


So, no sir... there is still MUCH for atheists to fight for.

 

[Lightknight]

A group that believes (has faith in) in a negative that has not been proven being snarky at a group believing (having faith) in a positive that has not been proven.

Burden of proof lies on the positive claim, for a negative claim cannot be positively proven.

i.e. "you can't prove it isn't so" isn't a thing

but "I can prove it is so" is.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. You're quite right that any belief has the onus of producing the facts but disbelief (belief in a negative) is every bit a stance as belief. In the absence of information, "I don't know" is the only appropriate default to take. You can follow that up with the likelihood that something is true or not but expressing certainty in the face of ignorance (lack of facts, not the personality trait) is just faith. I'll posit that belief only generally has that onus because negatives are impossible to prove whereas positives should be possible even if extremely difficult. If both were equally provable then the onus would just lie on whomever made the claim in the first place. But atheists are forced to live in a universe where their negative is just as hard to prove as a specific God that does not directly interact with creation.

Example given: You and your friend stand in front of an electric fence that may or may not be on. You don't try to lick the fence just because your friend claims it's on and there's no evidence to support his claim so you default to disbelief. You should just remain in a state of uncertainty. In this particular scenario it'd be safer to treat the fence as though it's on rather than not but that's particular to the analogy itself rather than the broader subject of a creator that we're talking about.

Look, an Atheist must accept one of two situations for existence. That the Universe (that point of matter and energy which exploded into everything) poofed into existence out of nothing and/or that the universe has existed infinitely into the past (turtles all the way down) with no cause or beginning. One of these or uncertainty between the two must be adhered to because any cause would be the creator. Whether sentient or process (such as our universe being the output of a massive black hole in another universe or something) it doesn't really matter.

What atheists are generally balking against when they cry havok at theism is the notion of a specific deity rather than the notion of an unknown creator that may or may not still be around. They think that the ridiculousness of say, Allah, means that "of course there isn't a God". But in reality, the general question of a creator is far different from the specific question of the specific qualities of a creator. I hold that a creator in general is extremely likely but that the ability to know anything about the being aside from that they created the Universe is impossible without direct interaction (which, i don't know about you, but I certainly haven't experienced). So I fully believe that any specific faith/religion can only be arrived at via faith whereas belief in a general creator likely at least having existed long enough to create the universe may be arrived at rationally.

Look at humans, we're creating miniature universes all the time like it's our job. Because it is some of our jobs (aka, video game developers). All these "universes" like No Many's Sky with specific rules and physics built in. It would be silly to think that given enough technology and expertise that we wouldn't eventually create a universe as involved as our own. God, if He/She/They exists are merely beings with the technology (power) and expertise to create this kind of environment. They don't have to be immortal or all knowing or anything that any specific religion adheres to. They can be some guy named Ted playing on a laptop while waiting for whatever kind of public transit exists in his universe. Or, it can be a being of immense power and intelligence with the ability to naturally create these things like I create bad smelling gas from my anus. I find existence from something to be far more likely than existence from nothing. I base this on every instance of causality I have ever witnessed and the lack of non-causal events in any experiment ever performed (save quantum mechanics which purports to have randomness but even this is likely a lack of knowledge in a budding field and doesn't necessarily have implications elsewhere). Sorry, but I believe I fall on the side of reason here no matter how counter-intuitive the notion of a creator and science has become. When looking at it on face value and ignoring societal pressures of our respective groups, if we don't assume that a creator is necessarily magic, there is no reason beings of sufficient ability wouldn't create universes nor is it difficult to believe that we are currently on a trajectory to be able to do similar things ourselves albeit far diminished until significant technological advances in our future are accomplished. That we are already able to make basic universes with basic principles is reason enough in itself to begin to suspect that our own universe could plausibly be a creation. Not that our universe is digital or anything. But just created.

 

[Something Amyss]

[Citation Needed]

Looked at a poll recently?

There are plenty of Christian denominations that either take a hands off approach to gay marriage or openly supports them. Most recently (Jun 2014), the Presbyterian Church (USA), the largest Presbyterian denomination in the country, voted to allow its pastors to officiate same sex marriages. They join the Evangelical Church of America (the largest Lutheran denomination in the country), the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalists, not to mention the two largest Jewish sects, Reform and Conservative who all support gay marriage. That may not be the case for the million and one Baptist churches or some of the more evangelical churches, but claim that "close to half" share the extremist views of the Westboro Baptist Church is incredibly inaccurate. I understand that religion has hurt people past and present, but when you lump everyone of faith in the same boat, it's no different than the thought processes used to justify racism and sexism: "Well they're all just like that."

And you still haven't proven it's a small fraction. You also haven't demonstrated that the will of leadership translates into the feelings of the rest of the group. Since you're asking me to cite my assertions, I expect you have absolutely no problem providing me proof of the initial assertion first.

 

[Lightknight]

[Citation Needed]

Looked at a poll recently?

The polls I read generally get information from voters. Not just Christians. It may pain people to realize this but there has been a societal taboo on homosexuality that has a hold outside of religion. Additionally, many people have an issue with Gay marriage on the "marriage" side of the equation in that marriage licenses make people think that the government is legislating their own religious or cultural ceremonies. So, a Muslim may think that a marriage license impacts the Islamic institution of marriage and not just financial/taxes unions between two citizens with the term "marriage" in the wording.

In general, it could be argued that most people have no problem with a license that would grant gay couples 100% of the rights a straight married couple enjoys. This is why Civil Unions have been a lot more successful in general. That says that society has more of a problem with marriage being impacted than they do with the union itself which I hope gives some encouragement to gay couples out there even if it's still dumb. Personally, I think the government needs to drop the term "marriage" from the licenses they issue and further separate themselves from church and state. As is, marriage is largely perceived as the religious/cultural ceremony rather than what the government sees it as. To be honest, the US government in particular only started requiring marriage license over common law marriages to prevent interracial marriages towards the middle/end of the 1800's (I'll give you a hint as to why, the Civil War also happened during this time in addition to multiple amendments that set the stage for legal interracial marriage). Prior to requiring this kind of license for all marriages, marriage licenses were only necessary to allow a marriage that would otherwise not have been legal. For example, if it was required to be in mourning after the death of a spouse for 1 year before remarrying, the individual would have to acquire a marriage license to permit marrying before that time period is over. These were originally obtained from religious organizations and not the government. I am somewhat surprised that requirements started out of racism and class-ism still exists in any vestige today.

Generally speaking, I consider the right of consenting adults to commit one's life to another to be a universal human right. So the government shouldn't have a damn thing to say about it, for or against, except in extreme cases (such as a consenting adult trying to marry a non-consenting child or whatever).

Anyways, I digress from the right of the government back to the social perception and it's impact on these poll results. Because people see the term "marriage" as their own personal religious or cultural practice, they see any attempt to legislate it as the government trying to change their faith/culture. This is different than them being against gay people entering a contractual union. This is about a practice that they believe has a definition that does not allow for same sex combinations. Right or wrong, that's where they're at. It is erroneous to assume that if a poll comes out against gay marriage that it is purely the Christian element. Even the Dalai lama has expressed opinions against homosexuality. There are even atheist groups against it, oddly enough, but they're certainly a minority group if I were to guess.

For the record, I simply don't care aside from wanting people to get out of other people's business. I don't think anyone owns "marriage" and I'd like to see the government get their greedy hands out of it and I'd like to see religious organizations stop pretending that their definition is the only one that exists except in ceremonies they are personally performing. Entire cultures need to start accepting that other cultures and subcultures will exist in valid forms. Tough tits that people live life differently but if no one is harmed the back up off me, yo. You know?

There are plenty of Christian denominations that either take a hands off approach to gay marriage or openly supports them. Most recently (Jun 2014), the Presbyterian Church (USA), the largest Presbyterian denomination in the country, voted to allow its pastors to officiate same sex marriages. They join the Evangelical Church of America (the largest Lutheran denomination in the country), the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalists, not to mention the two largest Jewish sects, Reform and Conservative who all support gay marriage. That may not be the case for the million and one Baptist churches or some of the more evangelical churches, but claim that "close to half" share the extremist views of the Westboro Baptist Church is incredibly inaccurate. I understand that religion has hurt people past and present, but when you lump everyone of faith in the same boat, it's no different than the thought processes used to justify racism and sexism: "Well they're all just like that."

And you still haven't proven it's a small fraction. You also haven't demonstrated that the will of leadership translates into the feelings of the rest of the group. Since you're asking me to cite my assertions, I expect you have absolutely no problem providing me proof of the initial assertion first.

I'm unsure what else you're looking for from Kuredan. For entire organizations to change they have to have support of enough people to make it worth while. I'm not saying that you're not probably right, but the point of this is kinda non-consequential like showing that black people commit more violent crimes. What does it prove about individuals or the group as a whole? If used to prove something, it just ends up being prejudiced. Either way, I'm not sure what people being against gay marriage would have to do with them being dumb or ignorant. It's kind of bigoted to assume that just because someone believes differently that they must be stupid. I'd hope people wouldn't think you're ignorant or dumb because you're pro-gay marriage. That's an awfully singular issue to base one's opinion off of.

One thing I think everyone should know is that it's always going to be the most extreme proponents of any cause that are the ones being heard. Just because groups like Westboro (which most Christians wish would disband into nothingness) are so vocal doesn't make them representative of anyone but their own particular group.

 

[Kuredan]

[Citation Needed]

Looked at a poll recently?

And you still haven't proven it's a small fraction. You also haven't demonstrated that the will of leadership translates into the feelings of the rest of the group. Since you're asking me to cite my assertions, I expect you have absolutely no problem providing me proof of the initial assertion first.

I'm unsure what else you're looking for from Kuredan. For entire organizations to change they have to have support of enough people to make it worth while. I'm not saying that you're not probably right, but the point of this is kinda non-consequential like showing that black people commit more violent crimes. What does it prove about individuals or the group as a whole? If used to prove something, it just ends up being prejudiced. Either way, I'm not sure what people being against gay marriage would have to do with them being dumb or ignorant. It's kind of bigoted to assume that just because someone believes differently that they must be stupid. I'd hope people wouldn't think you're ignorant or dumb because you're pro-gay marriage. That's an awfully singular issue to base one's opinion off of.

Lightknight, I suppose that Zachary wants me to intimately understand the point of view of millions of people to prove that only a small percentage of them share the point of view of the WBC, which is unrealistic. If anything, the onus is on him to prove that over 'half those guys' share the view of the WBC.

The only logical refutation would be to attack it from the other side- to prove there is increasing support of gay marriage in the Christian community. I believe that it may take a while, but eventually more and more churches will support gay marriage- from the examples I've previously listed, it seems like every few years a new denomination accepts or at least is tolerant of it. The most recent Gallup poll shows that 55% of the country supports gay marriage. The latest polls also show that 73% of America claims to be Christian. At the very least some of those claiming Christianity have to support gay marriage. As for having to prove that the decisions of the leadership reflect the will of the people, as Lightknight has already said you can't change an organization without the will of the people. In the case of PC(USA) it was explicitly at the behest of the members that the leadership voted on the issue. As one of those that voted yea, I was overjoyed when the ruling was passed down; several of my friends who are already loved, supported and accepted by my church can now be married in my church, by my church and that's how it should be.

 

[Ingjald]

A group that believes (has faith in) in a negative that has not been proven being snarky at a group believing (having faith) in a positive that has not been proven.

Burden of proof lies on the positive claim, for a negative claim cannot be positively proven.

i.e. "you can't prove it isn't so" isn't a thing

but "I can prove it is so" is.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. You're quite right that any belief has the onus of producing the facts but disbelief (belief in a negative) is every bit a stance as belief. In the absence of information, "I don't know" is the only appropriate default to take. You can follow that up with the likelihood that something is true or not but expressing certainty in the face of ignorance (lack of facts, not the personality trait) is just faith. I'll posit that belief only generally has that onus because negatives are impossible to prove whereas positives should be possible even if extremely difficult. If both were equally provable then the onus would just lie on whomever made the claim in the first place. But atheists are forced to live in a universe where their negative is just as hard to prove as a specific God that does not directly interact with creation.

The default position must be doubt. Admitting you don't know something is excellent, but stopping any effort to find out after admitting that makes no sense. Being an atheist isn't to state with certainty that "there is no god", but it's rather the application of Occam's Razor; all the advances made by science have been mapped, explained, modeled and demonstrated functional without the assumption of a deity, and the deity assumption is therefore disposed of. Assuming some kind of mythological deity must be hiding just beyond the reach of our current scientific knowledge helps no one, and is an idea that has yet to be vindicated after however many years of science.

I'm confused; you say you understand that a negative cannot be proven (at all), but then go on to say that atheists "have to live in a universe where their negative is just as hard to prove as (a deistic god)". This is just "you can't prove it isn't so" all over again.

Example given: You and your friend stand in front of an electric fence that may or may not be on. You don't try to lick the fence just because your friend claims it's on and there's no evidence to support his claim so you default to disbelief. You should just remain in a state of uncertainty. In this particular scenario it'd be safer to treat the fence as though it's on rather than not but that's particular to the analogy itself rather than the broader subject of a creator that we're talking about.

Why is my first impulse to lick a supposedly active electric fence? In any case, just standing next to the fence saying "the only reasonable position is that we don't know if this fence is on or not!" is just unhelpful. Further unhelpfulness surfaces when my friend blurts out "this fence is on, and you can't prove it's not!" at which point I take out my knife and rub it on the fence, seeing if there are arcs of electricity or not. The bottom line is that I would test the fence regardless of whether my friend said it was active or not.

This argument smacks of Pascal's Wager (better believe in God just in case; if I'm wrong no consequence, if I'm right; all the reward) so I'll answer with Voltaire's rebuttal; "the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists"

Look, an Atheist must accept one of two situations for existence. That the Universe (that point of matter and energy which exploded into everything) poofed into existence out of nothing and/or that the universe has existed infinitely into the past (turtles all the way down) with no cause or beginning. One of these or uncertainty between the two must be adhered to because any cause would be the creator. Whether sentient or process (such as our universe being the output of a massive black hole in another universe or something) it doesn't really matter.

Seeing as we know the universe had a beginning, there really is no either or. However, labeling the entities and quantities of whatever process took place at that moment "God" is no more helpful than naming it "Mathilda", nor does it help further our understanding of it. I haven't read it yet (it's on my short list), but Lawrence Krauss' book
"a Universe from Nothing" deals with precisely this. I'm given to understand that "nothing" can get up to some very peculiar things, but given that we're talking about a moment before time itself began, I don't think we can reasonably expect "intuitive" to be a defining trait of it.

What atheists are generally balking against when they cry havok at theism is the notion of a specific deity rather than the notion of an unknown creator that may or may not still be around. They think that the ridiculousness of say, Allah, means that "of course there isn't a God". But in reality, the general question of a creator is far different from the specific question of the specific qualities of a creator. I hold that a creator in general is extremely likely but that the ability to know anything about the being aside from that they created the Universe is impossible without direct interaction (which, i don't know about you, but I certainly haven't experienced). So I fully believe that any specific faith/religion can only be arrived at via faith whereas belief in a general creator likely at least having existed long enough to create the universe may be arrived at rationally.

While I disagree, it's really beside the point, because this is deism, not theism.

In any case, theres a bit of word-twistery going on; taking whatever happened at the beginning and calling it The Creator/God sounds a little like those people who "prove" that God exists by saying that "God is Love, Love exists. Therefore, God exists"; love can be explained by other means, and whatever process took place to begin the universe might well be just as unfeeling, unthinking and unrelenting as evolution is in biology. In the words of Richard Dawkins:

"The first cause cannot have been an intelligence, let alone an intelligence that answers prayers and enjoys being worshiped. Intelligent, creative, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe, as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings. They come late into the universe and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it."

Look at humans, we're creating miniature universes all the time like it's our job. Because it is some of our jobs (aka, video game developers). All these "universes" like No Many's Sky with specific rules and physics built in. It would be silly to think that given enough technology and expertise that we wouldn't eventually create a universe as involved as our own. God, if He/She/They exists are merely beings with the technology (power) and expertise to create this kind of environment. They don't have to be immortal or all knowing or anything that any specific religion adheres to. They can be some guy named Ted playing on a laptop while waiting for whatever kind of public transit exists in his universe. Or, it can be a being of immense power and intelligence with the ability to naturally create these things like I create bad smelling gas from my anus. I find existence from something to be far more likely than existence from nothing. I base this on every instance of causality I have ever witnessed and the lack of non-causal events in any experiment ever performed (save quantum mechanics which purports to have randomness but even this is likely a lack of knowledge in a budding field and doesn't necessarily have implications elsewhere). Sorry, but I believe I fall on the side of reason here no matter how counter-intuitive the notion of a creator and science has become. When looking at it on face value and ignoring societal pressures of our respective groups, if we don't assume that a creator is necessarily magic, there is no reason beings of sufficient ability wouldn't create universes nor is it difficult to believe that we are currently on a trajectory to be able to do similar things ourselves albeit far diminished until significant technological advances in our future are accomplished. That we are already able to make basic universes with basic principles is reason enough in itself to begin to suspect that our own universe could plausibly be a creation. Not that our universe is digital or anything. But just created.

"Any Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clarke

"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
-Barry Gehm


"Any technology no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it."
-Florence Ambrose


"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
-Agatha Heterodyne

I'm not sure what to take away from this; the gamer in me wants to agree about us creating our own little universes here, but I can't get away from the fact that this isn't really any different from children laying down the rules for a game or an author creating a make-belief world to tell a story. Besides that, we've really strayed from the supernatural here, which is really what I'm opposing. I'm not opposed to us having an origin we might be able to figure out, that can be explained in terms of the rules of the universe, or the rules of another universe if you subscribe to that theory. What youre labeling as the Creator is at worst extrauniversal, not supernatural/mythological, and the scenario you propose in your last paragraph feels more "Cthulhu Mythos"* than anything, which I can sort of respect; it's a much more believeable variant of creationism than the bible mythos is.



(* that or the Star Trek Original Series episode "Space Seed")

 

[Lightknight]

The default position must be doubt. Admitting you don't know something is excellent, but stopping any effort to find out after admitting that makes no sense. Being an atheist isn't to state with certainty that "there is no god", but it's rather the application of Occam's Razor; all the advances made by science have been mapped, explained, modeled and demonstrated functional without the assumption of a deity, and the deity assumption is therefore disposed of. Assuming some kind of mythological deity must be hiding just beyond the reach of our current scientific knowledge helps no one, and is an idea that has yet to be vindicated after however many years of science.

Actually, being an Atheist is to claim there is no God or at least that people who believe in God are wrong (rejection of belief) which is to axiomatically claim that disbelief is correct. The position of doubt where you are unsure if there is or isn't one, that's agnosticism. This is why Atheism is the foil of Theism. Atheism specifically believes that Theism is wrong. Hence "A-Theism". The problem is that until recently, Atheism was meant to refer to everyone from pagans to non-Christians. Now that we actually have definite words for things that have been largely accepted we should begin to use them rather than to continue to throw everything we want to under one big bag.

Again, this is as defined by everyone from Richard Dawkins himself on down to a religion minor. Believing that Atheism is anything but that is usually only held by people who want to maintain calling themselves Atheists even though they're technically Agnostics.

Dawkins accepts that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other and can never comfortably call himself a full Atheist for that reason.

If you used the broadest possible definition of Atheism you could potentially include agnosticism, but this is only due to the vagueness of it. The most precise definition is instead the rejection of the existence of God and not just a lack of disbelief. You could then, more precisely, call yourself an Agnostic Atheist. "The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist." So it'd be uncertainty whereas just Atheism is certainty.

I'm confused; you say you understand that a negative cannot be proven (at all), but then go on to say that atheists "have to live in a universe where their negative is just as hard to prove as (a deistic god)". This is just "you can't prove it isn't so" all over again.

Forgive my vagueness there, but the ability to prove God appears to have eluded humans long enough for me to generally deem it impossible. I mean, as far as I can tell. All we can do is discuss the probability that He/She/They likely exist/existed but probability doesn't "prove" anything.

You cannot prove a negative and you cannot prove a positive without evidence. Proof being a requirement of prove. Ergo, in a world where negatives cannot be proven and where no known specific evidence that Dave created the universe, both are equally impossible. If evidence does exist in our universe and is found or we learn to prove negatives, then I will alter my statement accordingly.

Why is my first impulse to lick a supposedly active electric fence?

It's a general metaphor for living your life as if something is true. You now believe the fence is off because someone claimed it is without evidence and then act accordingly is not intrinsically different from believing God doesn't exist and living by that because someone said He does. Metaphors only go so far though.

In any case, just standing next to the fence saying "the only reasonable position is that we don't know if this fence is on or not!" is just unhelpful. Further unhelpfulness surfaces when my friend blurts out "this fence is on, and you can't prove it's not!" at which point I take out my knife and rub it on the fence, seeing if there are arcs of electricity or not. The bottom line is that I would test the fence regardless of whether my friend said it was active or not.

What does helpfulness have to do with anything? Either we have evidence to support a position or we don't. It isn't helpful to choose a side in the absence of evidence either.

This argument smacks of Pascal's Wager (better believe in God just in case; if I'm wrong no consequence, if I'm right; all the reward) so I'll answer with Voltaire's rebuttal; "the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists"

Actually, pascal's wager is exactly why I said: "In this particular scenario it'd be safer to treat the fence as though it's on rather than not but that's particular to the analogy itself rather than the broader subject of a creator that we're talking about."

To disassociate the extension of the metaphor with the theme I was applying it to. Don't be such an Amelia Bedelia/Drax the Destroyer with metaphors. They are the opposite of literal statements. (I intend this sentence for humor in hopes you know either of those reference, I am not attempting to insult you personally, my apologies if you don't find it humorous when you read that but those are both known characters that take everything literally)

The truth of the matter is that God existing can mean anything. Maybe God created the Universe an moved onto something else and is never to interact with us again. Maybe our universe is some kind of an egg created by God that is growing (evolving sentient life from within) into a being capable of stepping out and creating new universes and only then will the interaction happen? We simply don't know.

Sorry if you thought I was using Pascal's wager. I actually only use the wager for things where the risks far outweigh any cost of the alternative. For example, like peeing on a potentially electric fence rather than not peeing on it. All I have to do is pee elsewhere and not risk getting shocked so pascals wager makes sense there rather than drastic life changing equations on no facts.

Seeing as we know the universe had a beginning, there really is no either or. However, labeling the entities and quantities of whatever process took place at that moment "God" is no more helpful than naming it "Mathilda", nor does it help further our understanding of it. I haven't read it yet (it's on my short list), but Lawrence Krauss' book
"a Universe from Nothing" deals with precisely this. I'm given to understand that "nothing" can get up to some very peculiar things, but given that we're talking about a moment before time itself began, I don't think we can reasonably expect "intuitive" to be a defining trait of it.

Actually, if the matter/energy that had all the potential force to create the Universe as we now know it existed before the Big Bang (if "before" may even be acceptable) then it's that mass or point that would have comprised the Universe. That is, unless it's existence also occurred instantaneously. Likewise, whatever rules or principles that would allow it to come into existence had to be in place. At some point, you have to have an unmoved mover or principle upon which point no preceding mover/principle was necessary.

Even so. I'm not saying that the "always existed" bit is plausible. I'm saying that there's only one of two options available that don't involve a creator. That's existence from nothing or eternal existence. You and I believe very much in the Big Bang. But that doesn't mean there can't be Atheists that believe in "Turtles all the way down".

Why in the world would you recommend a book you haven't read? A book that is popular is not inherently a book that is right (*coughBible/Quran/bhagavadgitacough*). Nor does a title necessarily imply the resulting facts presented in the book. I mean, the Universe in a Nutshell doesn't actually prove our universe is inside of the shell of a nut. The book doesn't deal with a universe from nothing. It actually deals with a universe from a quantum vacuum. But you'd have to read the book for yourself to even know if I'm telling the truth or not. Had the book been actually about something from nothing as in "not anything" then it would be relevant. But apparently quantum fields which are things are somehow nothing in his book. It's like me saying I feel down for no reason because of gravity. Err... ok?

You keep saying the word "helpful" like that's a goal we share. It isn't, not really. My goal is to evaluate and discuss what facts we have and come to a conclusion if enough facts are available. If the facts or postulates we have are unhelpful, then so be it. There's nothing we can really do to create more facts and so we have to leave it at that because uncertainty is the appropriate conclusion in the absence of information. What's more is that even if you accept that it is likely our universe had a cause and moreso that it is likely to have been a sentient cause rather than not. Then it would be no more helpful than anything else because there's nothing further we could know about that being without direct interaction from the being/beings. The same with if we could conclude that it wasn't created by sentience. That wouldn't be helpful either.

Sometimes knowledge just isn't helpful. Did you know a passcode to a lock I used to own was 10-24-5? I mean, it's in a landfill somewhere and the mechanism is broken because I wanted to see how it worked, but that is information for you. Unless God actually is a personal being then we're going to have to accept that knowing everything about him may not help us.

What atheists are generally balking against when they cry havok at theism is the notion of a specific deity rather than the notion of an unknown creator that may or may not still be around. They think that the ridiculousness of say, Allah, means that "of course there isn't a God". But in reality, the general question of a creator is far different from the specific question of the specific qualities of a creator. I hold that a creator in general is extremely likely but that the ability to know anything about the being aside from that they created the Universe is impossible without direct interaction (which, i don't know about you, but I certainly haven't experienced). So I fully believe that any specific faith/religion can only be arrived at via faith whereas belief in a general creator likely at least having existed long enough to create the universe may be arrived at rationally.

While I disagree, it's really beside the point, because this is deism, not theism.

What are you saying is Deism? Deism is the belief that God exists or existed but does not interact in the Universe. It is specifically a belief in the nature of God being inactivity.

My statement is that Atheists are usually embattled against people of specific faiths rather than the concept of God in general. This is generally true. That Atheists are usually upset at Christians or Muslims but not the scientific hypothesis of a non-specified but plausible being with an unknown means to create a universe.

In any case, theres a bit of word-twistery going on; taking whatever happened at the beginning and calling it The Creator/God sounds a little like those people who "prove" that God exists by saying that "God is Love, Love exists. Therefore, God exists"; love can be explained by other means, and whatever process took place to begin the universe might well be just as unfeeling, unthinking and unrelenting as evolution is in biology. In the words of Richard Dawkins:

"The first cause cannot have been an intelligence, let alone an intelligence that answers prayers and enjoys being worshiped. Intelligent, creative, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe, as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings. They come late into the universe and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it."

So let me get this straight. I say that most Atheists have an issue with people who talk about personal interacting deities and then you counter my statement with an Atheist that stated exactly that? Perhaps I misunderstand, are you agreeing with me on this point?

As for the credibility of Dawkins statement. Why is that a given? Let's run with my computer program universe. If we are a program or the equivalent of a program in a universe that would then be our host, his statement would merely be ignorant that beings can exist before or outside of the universe as we know it. It's the same erroneous statement that if something created a universe in which all effects have a cause that He himself must also have a cause. That's not a correct logical step as it presumes the being who existed before our principles were created was also personally somehow subject to the not yet created rules.

It's just bad logic. Dawkins isn't God. He makes mistakes in logic. Dude has a lot of debates to attend and some nonsense is going go come out along with good comments.

"Any Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clarke

"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
-Barry Gehm


"Any technology no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it."
-Florence Ambrose


"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
-Agatha Heterodyne

I'm not sure what to take away from this; the gamer in me wants to agree about us creating our own little universes here, but I can't get away from the fact that this isn't really any different from children laying down the rules for a game or an author creating a make-belief world to tell a story. Besides that, we've really strayed from the supernatural here, which is really what I'm opposing. I'm not opposed to us having an origin we might be able to figure out, that can be explained in terms of the rules of the universe, or the rules of another universe if you subscribe to that theory. What youre labeling as the Creator is at worst extrauniversal, not supernatural/mythological, and the scenario you propose in your last paragraph feels more "Cthulhu Mythos"* than anything, which I can sort of respect; it's a much more believeable variant of creationism than the bible mythos is.

(* that or the Star Trek Original Series episode "Space Seed")

Excellent quotes.

But this is my point. If God actually exists, a being who has the power and knowledge to create a universe, then He actually isn't supernatural. He is simply a being that exists due to whatever principles make up the universe He's from if that's even how it works.

Your response to me against the supernatural aspect of faiths is another of my points. Atheists have problems with a deity that is "supernatural". Even the term "deity" implies it. But the moment you know HOW He did what He did, then it is explainable and not supernatural. You know? Your quotes are perfect for that. Atheism is far more aligned against specific faiths like Christianity that have no problem with saying, "Because Magic" even though the Bible doesn't even say that God is all powerful for no explainable reasons. Maybe He got a really good computer science education so that he can program anything he wants and that's why? You know?

I'm sorry if at any point my discussion made it appear that I'm defending supernatural magic. I'm merely defending the potential of a creator. It appears that the term "deity" implies magic of some kind like saying ghost or vampire but that's not what it has to mean anymore than a developer has to be God-like in real life to have full control over something he has developed. Please recall that my original statement was a comment on atheist calling theists silly for believing in something when they're both defined by specifically believing in the existence or nonexistence of a being we know nothing about. Not that Christianity is specifically right. I fully believe that any step from the plausibility of a creator to the specific nature and will of a being we've never met is specifically a step of "faith" in the absence of knowledge. So a Christian may be able to debate with you and convince you that the existence of a creator is likely, but to convince you that said creator is therefore Jesus is a huge step of faith that you'd have to make outside of reason. I believe Christian scriptures even say that. That God's existence is visible in nature but that having faith is believing without seeing.

I'm merely on the convince you that the existence of a creator is likely side. We create universes so frequently that I fully believe we will eventually create ones as complex or even moreso than our own. I believe our universe is stable enough and complex enough to indicate some sort of order and design and I (like you) don't believe in turtles all the way down. It is, therefore, highly probable to me that our universe was created somehow and most likely on purpose. Beyond that, even guessing whether or not Earth's existence was designed or even known, that's nothing I know anything about or could comment on.

Thank you so much for this discussion. I really appreciate you taking the time. This is a fascinating subject for me.

 

[Charles Phipps]

I am the first one in line to talk about the evils of religion.

I'm also the first one to roll my eyes when people claim the lack of it hasn't got a pit miles deep full of corpses.

But then again, I use 100% of my brain while also being religious.

 

[Ingjald]

Actually, being an Atheist is to claim there is no God or at least that people who believe in God are wrong (rejection of belief) which is to axiomatically claim that disbelief is correct. The position of doubt where you are unsure if there is or isn't one, that's agnosticism. This is why Atheism is the foil of Theism. Atheism specifically believes that Theism is wrong. Hence "A-Theism". The problem is that until recently, Atheism was meant to refer to everyone from pagans to non-Christians. Now that we actually have definite words for things that have been largely accepted we should begin to use them rather than to continue to throw everything we want to under one big bag.

Again, this is as defined by everyone from Richard Dawkins himself on down to a religion minor. Believing that Atheism is anything but that is usually only held by people who want to maintain calling themselves Atheists even though they're technically Agnostics.

Dawkins accepts that the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other and can never comfortably call himself a full Atheist for that reason.

If you used the broadest possible definition of Atheism you could potentially include agnosticism, but this is only due to the vagueness of it. The most precise definition is instead the rejection of the existence of God and not just a lack of disbelief. You could then, more precisely, call yourself an Agnostic Atheist. "The view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist." So it'd be uncertainty whereas just Atheism is certainty.

But here are also more than one type of agnoticism; there are those who simply say "we don't know if there is a god", and there are those who hold the postition that such knowledge is inherently unknowable. Both are called agnostics. While a person asserting that "there is no god" would certainly be called atheist, that isn't to say that everyone caling themselves atheist must necessarily agree with such a certain claim when "I don't believe there is a god" is still an atheist position.

AronRa says that if you have even a little doubt about the existence of a deity you're an atheist. Not a position I agree with, but it goes to show that there are many degrees in either direction.

Dawkins has his "spectrum of theistic probability", a 7-point scale for measuring theism->atheism. 1 is "I know there is a god", and 7 is "I know there is no god" with the numbers inbetween representing varying strengths of conviction, and 4 representing agnosticism. Dawkins sets himself as a 6,9 on this scale. He has also noted that while plenty of theists assert themselves to be 1's, most atheists don't place themselves as 7's, because atheism arises from a lack of evidence, and one should be open to let evidence change one's mind.

I'm confused; you say you understand that a negative cannot be proven (at all), but then go on to say that atheists "have to live in a universe where their negative is just as hard to prove as (a deistic god)". This is just "you can't prove it isn't so" all over again.

Forgive my vagueness there, but the ability to prove God appears to have eluded humans long enough for me to generally deem it impossible. I mean, as far as I can tell. All we can do is discuss the probability that He/She/They likely exist/existed but probability doesn't "prove" anything.

You cannot prove a negative and you cannot prove a positive without evidence. Proof being a requirement of prove. Ergo, in a world where negatives cannot be proven and where no known specific evidence that Dave created the universe, both are equally impossible. If evidence does exist in our universe and is found or we learn to prove negatives, then I will alter my statement accordingly.

Fair enough. Though while probability does not prove anything per se, it usually hints in the right direction. Especially considering some of the things we know about the natural world, the assertion that an intelligent mind is not behind it all should not really be a controversial one, but I digress.

Why is my first impulse to lick a supposedly active electric fence?

It's a general metaphor for living your life as if something is true. You now believe the fence is off because someone claimed it is without evidence and then act accordingly is not intrinsically different from believing God doesn't exist and living by that because someone said He does. Metaphors only go so far though.

You make it sound as though I'm just being contrary for the sake of it.

In any case, just standing next to the fence saying "the only reasonable position is that we don't know if this fence is on or not!" is just unhelpful. Further unhelpfulness surfaces when my friend blurts out "this fence is on, and you can't prove it's not!" at which point I take out my knife and rub it on the fence, seeing if there are arcs of electricity or not. The bottom line is that I would test the fence regardless of whether my friend said it was active or not.

What does helpfulness have to do with anything? Either we have evidence to support a position or we don't. It isn't helpful to choose a side in the absence of evidence either.

And within your metaphor, I gathered the evidence with an open mind for it to show either side to be correct, and acted accordingly. Not choosing a side in the face of evidence is also not helpful. ( yeah, I got the word "helpful" stuck in my head while writing this. For this instance of "not helpful", read "gets us nowhere".

This argument smacks of Pascal's Wager (better believe in God just in case; if I'm wrong no consequence, if I'm right; all the reward) so I'll answer with Voltaire's rebuttal; "the interest I have to believe a thing is no proof that such a thing exists"

Actually, pascal's wager is exactly why I said: "In this particular scenario it'd be safer to treat the fence as though it's on rather than not but that's particular to the analogy itself rather than the broader subject of a creator that we're talking about." To disassociate the extension of the metaphor with the theme I was applying it to. Don't be such an Amelia Bedelia/Drax the Destroyer with metaphors. They are the opposite of literal statements. (I intend this sentence for humor in hopes you know either of those reference, I am not attempting to insult you personally, my apologies if you don't find it humorous when you read that but those are both known characters that take everything literally)

The truth of the matter is that God existing can mean anything. Maybe God created the Universe an moved onto something else and is never to interact with us again. Maybe our universe is some kind of an egg created by God that is growing (evolving sentient life from within) into a being capable of stepping out and creating new universes and only then will the interaction happen? We simply don't know.

Sorry if you thought I was using Pascal's wager. I actually only use the wager for things where the risks far outweigh any cost of the alternative. For example, like peeing on a potentially electric fence rather than not peeing on it. All I have to do is pee elsewhere and not risk getting shocked so pascals wager makes sense there rather than drastic life changing equations on no facts.

No idea who those characters are, but wikipedia shows me a superhero martian and a little lady who solves problems using cake. Insert Portal joke here. And don't worry about insulting me, I have a thick skin . The truth is that I'm a bit Sheldon-esque when it comes to metaphors sometimes, but I usually do alright.

you know electricity exists, and you know it is sometimes to be found in electric fences. You also know that pee is a functional conductor and that electricity is bad when applied directly to the penis. I'd say you're applying common sense with your risk/reward equation, rather than Pascals Wager, whose fallacy becomes especially grievous when applied to a theistic god. Does god really value insincere belief? Is it enough to say you believe? Even if there is a God, how do you know it's your God, and that he/she/it works like you think he/she/it does? How is a supposedly all-knowing and omnipresent being supposed to fall for this little tidbit of insincerity?

Actually, if the matter/energy that had all the potential force to create the Universe as we now know it existed before the Big Bang (if "before" may even be acceptable) then it's that mass or point that would have comprised the Universe. That is, unless it's existence also occurred instantaneously. Likewise, whatever rules or principles that would allow it to come into existence had to be in place. At some point, you have to have an unmoved mover or principle upon which point no preceding mover/principle was necessary.

Even so. I'm not saying that the "always existed" bit is plausible. I'm saying that there's only one of two options available that don't involve a creator. That's existence from nothing or eternal existence. You and I believe very much in the Big Bang. But that doesn't mean there can't be Atheists that believe in "Turtles all the way down".

"If before is even acceptable" indeed. Like I said, intuitive is unlikely to be a defining trait of whatever happened at the beginning of time and space. And personally, I think the Prime Mover idea is a bit of a cop-out. It relies on cause and effect applying to everything, then extrapolates back and posits an effect without a cause just to get out of the infinite regress.

Why in the world would you recommend a book you haven't read? A book that is popular is not inherently a book that is right (*coughBible/Quran/bhagavadgitacough*). Nor does a title necessarily imply the resulting facts presented in the book. I mean, the Universe in a Nutshell doesn't actually prove our universe is inside of the shell of a nut. The book doesn't deal with a universe from nothing. It actually deals with a universe from a quantum vacuum. But you'd have to read the book for yourself to even know if I'm telling the truth or not. Had the book been actually about something from nothing as in "not anything" then it would be relevant. But apparently quantum fields which are things are somehow nothing in his book. It's like me saying I feel down for no reason because of gravity. Err... ok?

Very true with regard to the popularity of X does not mean X is so. I usually put it as "reality is not a democracy".

My intention was not to recommend the book, I meant to show that this is being looked at seriously. I tend to be very careful when making assertions around things with the word "Quantum" in its name, unless it's said by Deepak Chopra. Paraphrasing Feynman: If you think you understand Quantum Theory, you don't. Quantum Fields/Vaccuums being things or not notwithstanding, it at least has the merit of not presuming a conscious intelligence had to be behind it all.


"Universe in a Nutshell doesn't actually prove our universe is inside of the shell of a nut." Careful there, your inner Amelia Bedalia is showing.

You keep saying the word "helpful" like that's a goal we share. It isn't, not really. My goal is to evaluate and discuss what facts we have and come to a conclusion if enough facts are available. If the facts or postulates we have are unhelpful, then so be it. There's nothing we can really do to create more facts and so we have to leave it at that because uncertainty is the appropriate conclusion in the absence of information. What's more is that even if you accept that it is likely our universe had a cause and moreso that it is likely to have been a sentient cause rather than not. Then it would be no more helpful than anything else because there's nothing further we could know about that being without direct interaction from the being/beings. The same with if we could conclude that it wasn't created by sentience. That wouldn't be helpful either.

Sometimes knowledge just isn't helpful. Did you know a passcode to a lock I used to own was 10-24-5? I mean, it's in a landfill somewhere and the mechanism is broken because I wanted to see how it worked, but that is information for you. Unless God actually is a personal being then we're going to have to accept that knowing everything about him may not help us.

I didn't mean the facts were unhelpful, I meant that the "the only reasonable position is that we don't know" positon is one that gets us nowhere when there is still data to collect, see your electric fence analogy. If you stand in front of the fence, the facts you have are that you are in front of what may be an electric fence, which in turn may or may not be on. Further data is required to decide upon an action, but stopping short of collecting said data to stand around in reasonable ignorance seems like a bad proposition in my view.

What atheists are generally balking against when they cry havok at theism is the notion of a specific deity rather than the notion of an unknown creator that may or may not still be around. They think that the ridiculousness of say, Allah, means that "of course there isn't a God". But in reality, the general question of a creator is far different from the specific question of the specific qualities of a creator. I hold that a creator in general is extremely likely but that the ability to know anything about the being aside from that they created the Universe is impossible without direct interaction (which, i don't know about you, but I certainly haven't experienced). So I fully believe that any specific faith/religion can only be arrived at via faith whereas belief in a general creator likely at least having existed long enough to create the universe may be arrived at rationally.

While I disagree, it's really beside the point, because this is deism, not theism.

What are you saying is Deism? Deism is the belief that God exists or existed but does not interact in the Universe. It is specifically a belief in the nature of God being inactivity.

My statement is that Atheists are usually embattled against people of specific faiths rather than the concept of God in general. This is generally true. That Atheists are usually upset at Christians or Muslims but not the scientific hypothesis of a non-specified but plausible being with an unknown means to create a universe.

Atheists "cry havoc" at people who worship their one book of infallible truth because they tend to be the most dangerous, most influential and there is more to disprove. Deism is a bit more slippery that way. Deists reject religious texts and authorities, and believe that the creator is a non-intervening entity that can be arrived at using reason. Deists also include pantheists and pandeists, which I'll adress under the next quote.

In any case, theres a bit of word-twistery going on; taking whatever happened at the beginning and calling it The Creator/God sounds a little like those people who "prove" that God exists by saying that "God is Love, Love exists. Therefore, God exists"; love can be explained by other means, and whatever process took place to begin the universe might well be just as unfeeling, unthinking and unrelenting as evolution is in biology. In the words of Richard Dawkins:

"The first cause cannot have been an intelligence, let alone an intelligence that answers prayers and enjoys being worshiped. Intelligent, creative, complex, statistically improbable things come late into the universe, as the product of evolution or some other process of gradual escalation from simple beginnings. They come late into the universe and therefore cannot be responsible for designing it."

So let me get this straight. I say that most Atheists have an issue with people who talk about personal interacting deities and then you counter my statement with an Atheist that stated exactly that? Perhaps I misunderstand, are you agreeing with me on this point?

As for the credibility of Dawkins statement. Why is that a given? Let's run with my computer program universe. If we are a program or the equivalent of a program in a universe that would then be our host, his statement would merely be ignorant that beings can exist before or outside of the universe as we know it. It's the same erroneous statement that if something created a universe in which all effects have a cause that He himself must also have a cause. That's not a correct logical step as it presumes the being who existed before our principles were created was also personally somehow subject to the not yet created rules.

It's just bad logic. Dawkins isn't God. He makes mistakes in logic. Dude has a lot of debates to attend and some nonsense is going go come out along with good comments.

What I meant was that you can't just redefine God into existance: God is not "nature", god is not "love", god is neither "beauty" nor "the universe" nor "whiskey and a good book". What you are positing when you posit a creator is something that is at least sentient, and therefore able to have subjective opinion on things, possibly sapient, and therefore able to excersize judgement, and also necessarily powerful in some sense, enough so to set all this in motion, but also bumbling enough that its creation is objectively flawed and wasteful in multiple areas, and uncaring enough, for whatever reason, not to intervene to correct it.


Regarding the quote, it's from "the God Delusion", not a debate. Also, the second bit of Dawkins' quote was more relevant to my point than the first. I suspect Dawkins is operating under the assumption that ours is the universe in immediate need of explanation, and postulating another one that encapsulates it via Cthulhu's computer is, once again, "unhelpful". Such ideas are fun in philosophy (you kind of postulate a more modern version of Plato's cave) and sci-fi, but are a bit too unsupported to be considered outside those contexts. Also, if this was a computer program, the programmer isn't very good. Furthermore, supposing the universe was created with the express reason to give rise to us is very anthropocentric, and also paints the programmer in a bad light considering how much of the rest of the universe had no bearing whatsoever on our existence or non-existance, and does nothing to explain the fact that we are on our way to collide with the Andromeda galaxy, which puts the end-result of this "simulation" at risk. Or is this what Yahtzee talked about in his SimCity Societies review? Less about "beloved children" and more about "target practice"?

"Any Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clarke

"Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
-Barry Gehm


"Any technology no matter how primitive, is magic to those who don't understand it."
-Florence Ambrose


"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."
-Agatha Heterodyne

Excellent quotes.

Thank you, they are great, aren't they? The last two are from webcomic characters, both of whose comics I have read, and whole-heartedly recommend.

But this is my point. If God actually exists, a being who has the power and knowledge to create a universe, then He actually isn't supernatural. He is simply a being that exists due to whatever principles make up the universe He's from if that's even how it works.

But here we digress from the Prime Mover idea. If god exists because the principles of his universe created him, then he is not exempt, is he?

Your response to me against the supernatural aspect of faiths is another of my points. Atheists have problems with a deity that is "supernatural". Even the term "deity" implies it. But the moment you know HOW He did what He did, then it is explainable and not supernatural. You know? Your quotes are perfect for that. Atheism is far more aligned against specific faiths like Christianity that have no problem with saying, "Because Magic" even though the Bible doesn't even say that God is all powerful for no explainable reasons. Maybe He got a really good computer science education so that he can program anything he wants and that's why? You know?

I'm sorry if at any point my discussion made it appear that I'm defending supernatural magic. I'm merely defending the potential of a creator. It appears that the term "deity" implies magic of some kind like saying ghost or vampire but that's not what it has to mean anymore than a developer has to be God-like in real life to have full control over something he has developed. Please recall that my original statement was a comment on atheist calling theists silly for believing in something when they're both defined by specifically believing in the existence or nonexistence of a being we know nothing about. Not that Christianity is specifically right. I fully believe that any step from the plausibility of a creator to the specific nature and will of a being we've never met is specifically a step of "faith" in the absence of knowledge. So a Christian may be able to debate with you and convince you that the existence of a creator is likely, but to convince you that said creator is therefore Jesus is a huge step of faith that you'd have to make outside of reason. I believe Christian scriptures even say that. That God's existence is visible in nature but that having faith is believing without seeing.

I'm merely on the convince you that the existence of a creator is likely side. We create universes so frequently that I fully believe we will eventually create ones as complex or even moreso than our own. I believe our universe is stable enough and complex enough to indicate some sort of order and design and I (like you) don't believe in turtles all the way down. It is, therefore, highly probable to me that our universe was created somehow and most likely on purpose. Beyond that, even guessing whether or not Earth's existence was designed or even known, that's nothing I know anything about or could comment on.

So, in terms of Dawkin's scale, you're a 3.5-4, and I'm somewhere around 6.

Thank you so much for this discussion. I really appreciate you taking the time. This is a fascinating subject for me.

Thank you yourself, this is fun.

 

[Lightknight]

But here are also more than one type of agnoticism; there are those who simply say "we don't know if there is a god", and there are those who hold the postition that such knowledge is inherently unknowable. Both are called agnosticism. While a person asserting that "there is no god" would certainly be called atheist, that isn't to say that everyone caling themselves atheist must necessarily agree with such a certain claim when "I don't believe there is a god" is still an atheist position.

I'd posit that the insistence that we "can't know" something is an assertion in and of itself that undermines the notion of agnosticism. But yes, that is a definition that exists for the term agnosticism. The creator of the term intended it to be a non-decision. That in the absence of evidence either way he needn't make a decision and left it at that. Whoever successfully added a subsection with a claim that the knowledge can never be known should have been laughed out of the university or whatever they were in. You don't go to a belief system built on not making claims on a lack of information and then tie a claim to it... haha.

The Atheist position by itself is the belief that there is no God. Agnostic Atheism is more what you're going for if you don't believe in God but don't know whether or not he exists so you don't specifically not believe in Him anyways.

But I'll pose this question to you. What would you say the difference is between Agnostic Atheism and Agnosticism with these definitions?

AronRa says that if you have even a little doubt about the existence of a deity you're an atheist. Not a position I agree with, but it goes to show that there are many degrees in either direction.

Why would AronRa hold any kind of legitimacy in redefining terms? The person is just a blogger, right? I'm not sure why you'd cite him as a reference at all. The term Atheism is set up in contrast with Theism. One believes God exists and the other believes He does not. There are separate terms for the places in between theism and atheism that have been developed and expressed over the years since then. His statement ignores distinct terms and includes doubt rather than overall stance. Mere doubt of a stance doesn't mean you don't hold that stance. If you doubt atheism does that make you a theist?

Dawkins has his "spectrum of theistic probability", a 7-point scale for measuring theism->atheism. 1 is "I know there is a god", and 7 is "I know there is no god" with the numbers inbetween representing varying strengths of conviction, and 4 representing agnosticism. Dawkins sets himself as a 6,9 on this scale. He has also noted that while plenty of theists assert themselves to be 1's, most atheists don't place themselves as 7's, because atheism arises from a lack of evidence, and one should be open to let evidence change one's mind.

Actually, I brought the scale up in this thread about two posts before you and I started talking:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.856955-Lucy-Goosey?page=3#21231612

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

My only criticism of Dawkin's scale is that he limits the possibilities of Theism here. As stated, you don't have to believe that God is still active in creation to believe that someone created this. You don't necessarily have to believe in a creator AND a personal deity. So every step above 3 would rule out a person who believes that the Universe was created but doesn't have anything to say about whether or not He's still there.

Either way, you see here that Dawkins agrees that the term Atheist is the absolute belief that there is no God and that he agrees that a strictly defined atheism is indeed an actual belief system. Not that I think He doesn't exist, but that I "KNOW" He doesn't exist.

Fair enough. Though while probability does not prove anything per se, it usually hints in the right direction. Especially considering some of the things we know about the natural world, the assertion that an intelligent mind is not behind it all should not really be a controversial one, but I digress.

Well, both sides are controversial. Atheism is controversial because people of faith don't like having their faith questioned and Theism is controversial because Atheists have specific faiths and specific ignorant loudmouths that are proponents of faith when technically, specific Faiths shouldn't even be part of the question. The question of Theism is a priori a discussion of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and whatever other faith one would discuss.

However, the notion that a universe in which every instance of a cause has an effect we're going to have some bit of controversy with the idea of something from nothing. I would say that atheism is less in line with science than the basic theism I've espoused for that reason. But unfortunately, it appears that science and religion have decided to pick up weapons and go to war with one another rather than taking what they can use from one another and going on their separate ways. As human beings, we should be of the mindset that if it's truth, then it's ours. Wherever it may be found. The existence of all matter and energy from nothing is magic. The creation of the universe by a being technologically advanced enough to create it is mere technology and perhaps not even technology at its peak.

You make it sound as though I'm just being contrary for the sake of it.

I thought you were having a bit of a go at me, it's true. Hard to know one way or the other thanks to the lack of tone in the form of text.

And within your metaphor, I gathered the evidence with an open mind for it to show either side to be correct, and acted accordingly. Not choosing a side in the face of evidence is also not helpful. ( yeah, I got the word "helpful" stuck in my head while writing this. For this instance of helpful, read "gets us nowhere".

Sure, I get that. I don't mean that an agnostic should wallow in their indecisiveness. They should try to gather more information but it's simply not there. The only evidence I can find is probability. That we aren't even all that advanced and yet we already create universes and movies about such things is a decent indication that we'll do the same thing some day is relatively convincing evidence to me that it's reasonable to assume someone created our universe as well. That our universe exists with stable enough principles to support life is also an intriguing point towards sentience since there's no reason that rational cooperating forces should exist in a random or accidental environment.

But, like the people at the fence, that's not as good as sparks on metal or pushing your idiot friend into the fence and seeing nothing happening to them. That's merely suspicion. At best, it is noticing some fried bugs on the ground to determine that the fence was at least on at some point but is not necessarily on now.

No idea who those characters are, but wikipedia shows me a superhero martian and a little lady who solves problems using cake. Insert Portal joke here. And don't worry about insulting me, I have a thick skin . The truth is that I'm a bit Sheldon-esque when it comes to metaphors sometimes, but I usually do alright.

Thick skin or not, discussions take a very different tone when one side feels insulted and so I felt the need to preface my statement as a mild joke rather than an insult. It's difficult to communicate one's true intentions and tone via text and I've enjoyed my conversation with you enough to warrant giving it additional attention to not come across as some kind of ass.

you know electricity exists, and you know it is sometimes to be found in electric fences. You also know that pee is a functional conductor and that electricity is bad when applied directly to the penis. I'd say you're applying common sense with your risk/reward equation, rather than Pascals Wager, whose fallacy becomes especially grievous when applied to a theistic god. Does god really value insincere belief? Is it enough to say you believe? Even if there is a God, how do you know it's your God, and that he/she/it works like you think he/she/it does? How is a supposedly all-knowing and omnipresent being supposed to fall for this little tidbit of insincerity?

Again, pascals wager is not a fallacy. It is merely an evaluation of outcomes. The givens/outcomes entered into the wager are what may be fallacies. If the Christian God exists and you do not make an effort to believe, then yes, the risk is greater to live as if He does not exist. That's not a fallacy, that's true if the givens are to be accepted. It's just a logical construct based on an assumption. If Aunt Jemima exists as a vengeful God bent on destroying all who eat pancakes without her syrup then it is better for you to be safe and eat pancakes with the syrup than not to. Sure, as a given that is a true statement but when we question the given itself the point of the wager falls apart.

The only time that the wager is really relevant is if the cost of being safe rather than sorry is low enough to just go with it. That will always be a relative decision that would change according to the individual's valuation of the givens and any personal bias leaning them in either direction. There are appropriate situations to apply this logic. Times where you've got to decide if it's better for you to assume something than not to assume them. Like the electric fence or evaluating if you should drink directly from a water source that may or may not be contaminated. Originally, the result would be that it's better to try to find other water or purify the river water. Eventually, if no safe water source is found, the givens become drink the water and get sick or die of thirst and so the resulting behavior should change.

"If before is even acceptable" indeed. Like I said, intuitive is unlikely to be a defining trait of whatever happened at the beginning of time and space. And personally, I think the Prime Mover idea is a bit of a cop-out. It relies on cause and effect applying to everything, then extrapolates back and posits an effect without a cause just to get out of the infinite regress.

Well, the alternative is something from nothing or turtles all the way down. Both fly in the face of scientific principles but a being with technology sufficient to produce a universe doesn't break any rules. That he himself must be unmovable is not a given. He could likewise be a kid living in his parent's basement or he could be some super evolved creature able to manipulate and convert matter and energy readily. Perhaps there's even a third option which isn't matter or energy but is also interchangeable? We simply don't know, but it is more reasonable than something from nothing an the infinity loop. I know it sounds weird to apply Occam's razor here but that something caused it seems by far the simplest explanation for existence. It's just that people come from a bias where that automatically means Jesus or Angra Spentu or some specific deity upon which people ascribe magic to the term.

My intention was not to recommend the book, I meant to show that this is being looked at seriously. I tend to be very careful when making assertions around things with the word "Quantum" in its name, unless it's said by Deepak Chopra. Paraphrasing Feynman: If you think you understand Quantum Theory, you don't. Quantum Fields/Vaccuums being things or not notwithstanding, it at least has the merit of not presuming a conscious intelligence had to be behind it all.

I'm unsure what point you're trying to make. QFT is a complex subject, yes. But saying that something comes from something else is still hardly going to be something from nothing. The vacuums contain energy, for example. They are also a space by definition. This is the primary criticism of his book. That quantum fields are themselves part of our universe just like gravity. To say they played a pivotal in how our Universe exists today as we know it is hardly to prove a null scenario when they themselves exist and can even be created for experimentation. I'd think you'd agree with me on that point regardless of whether or not you agree with my other points. His title is misleading at best. At worst he is discussing a subject we know very little about as if us observing matter popping into existence necessarily means it is without it's own cause or underlying principle that we simply haven't figured out yet. The assertion that it comes from nothing and for no reason is him claiming a negative. Something that we have already mutually accepted is logically impossible to prove. That particles pop into and out of existence in a quantum vacuum does not mean it's without cause. We simply don't know why or if there is a why, we just know the properties of the vacuum such that it actually isn't even a vacuum (should have electromagnetic waves, for example). "It" in reference to a quantum vacuum isn't even correct as there are varieties of vacuums that pertain quantum fields. Is the author of "something from nothing" assuming that quantum fields aren't themselves part of our universe? That a field with electromagnetic waves isn't somehow a field with energy in it no matter how fleeting?

You don't have to understand QFT or QED to see the inconsistency there. It's like he's saying that a blanket assembled itself from nothing because of that loom in the corner of the room... You and I should both be able to say, but... LOOM... even if you and I don't agree on whether there was a person manning the loom to begin with.

"Universe in a Nutshell doesn't actually prove our universe is inside of the shell of a nut." Careful there, your inner Amelia Bedalia is showing.

Heh, I prefer Drax the Destroyer! "Nothing goes over my head, my reflexes are too fast, I would catch it."

Atheists "cry havoc" at people who worship their one book of infallible truth because they tend to be the most dangerous, most influential and there is more to disprove. Deism is a bit more slippery that way. Deists reject religious texts and authorities, and believe that the creator is a non-intervening entity that can be arrived at using reason. Deists also include pantheists and pandeists, which I'll adress under the next quote.

I think Ahteists group everything in as faith and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Speculation of sentient creation without any assumption of special gnosis/knowledge is every bit a scientific hypothesis as speculation of something from nothing.

Deism goes one step too far. They believe in a specific property of whoever created the universe. Chiefly that He does not necessarily interact. This is not necessarily true or untrue and so they've taken a step they shouldn't have. Take, for example, the notion that there is a far more interesting world in our universe upon which the creator lavishes all His attention. How about several more interesting worlds? The notion that the Creator doesn't interact because we haven't experienced it is just as silly as early beliefs that the Earth was the center of the universe because "we are sooooo important." Maybe we're just one of many and ours is in the way of a space highway that's about to be constructed? Maybe, as much as it may burn our butts, we're just not that important or interesting. So I consider deism to be part of theism. They just have far fewer central tenets than most of the other theist classifications. The only tenet being that God doesn't interact or peharps. Nothing to write a religion about but still a faith-based belief about the nature of a being they believe in but know nothing about even if they're correct.

So no, my statement is similar to deism but is not deism. I'm not even willing to rule out that God doesn't directly interact with our universe. I just strongly suspect it to be the case on the face value of things.

What I meant was that you can't just redefine God into existance: God is not "nature", god is not "love", god is neither "beauty" nor "the universe" nor "whiskey and a good book". What you are positing when you posit a creator is something that is at least sentient, and therefore able to have subjective opinion on things, possibly sapient, and therefore able to excersize judgement, and also necessarily powerful in some sense, enough so to set all this in motion, but also bumbling enough that its creation is objectively flawed and wasteful in multiple areas, and uncaring enough, for whatever reason, not to intervene to correct it.

My only conclusion is that the being would have to have the technology to create the universe. Bumbling or not would require knowing His intention for the thing. For example, I posited the idea that the universe is a sort of egg in which evolution of the life inside is but the development of a fetus. To explain, if life reaches a point where it can step outside of its own universe then it will have to have become like the creator somehow. Perhaps interacting would negatively influence getting the best results by side stepping evolution and allowing an unfit result to reach the caliber that the fittest had to arrive at.

That's purely something I'm presenting as an option. By no means is it a position. As an option, it would rule out a number of speculations you presented.

Additionally, you've also just successfully described numerous developers I've worked with. Capable of creating software but often lazy or or incapable of getting things exactly right. If we can assume that creating a universe is not unlike developing a digital universe, then it is not entirely unreasonable to think of God as a developer even if our universe isn't His universe's equivalent of a digital universe. Maybe he set certain rules for himself for additional entertainment or maybe he simply thinks differently than us.

Maybe sentient life is just an unintended consequence of what He created. Maybe he would care about us but the Universe is so vast that he hasn't found us yet or even thought to look for us. Maybe he has found us and decided to come back later when we're more evolved.

No idea. But there are soooo very many possible explanations that are perfectly reasonable.

Regarding the quote, it's from "the God Delusion", not a debate. Also, the second bit of Dawkins' quote was more relevant to my point than the first. I suspect Dawkins is operating under the assumption that ours is the universe in immediate need of explanation, and postulating another one that encapsulates it via Cthulhus computer is, once again, "unhelpful". Such ideas are fun in philosophy (you kind of postulate a more modern version of Plato's cave) and sci-fi, but are a bit too unsupported to be considered outside those contexts. Also, if this was a computer program, the programmer isn't very good. Furthermore, supposing the universe was created with the express reason to give rise to us is very anthropocentric, and also paints the programmer in a bad light considering how much of the rest of the universe had no bearing whatsoever on our existence or non-existance, and does nothing to explain the fact that we are on our way to collide with the Andromeda galaxy, which puts the end-result of this "simulation" at risk. Or is this what Yahtzee talked about in his Black & White review? Less about "beloved children" and more about "target practice"?

It's not necessarily unhelpful to discuss the premise of a creator anymore than it is unhelpful for Dawkins to discuss the premise of no creator. In fact, if there is a creator with the technology to create our universe then it would be of immense universe to figured out what that technology may be. If, for example, we are a program, then discovering how to interface with and interpret the coding language would be the single most valuable information that could ever be obtained in our universe. If you think about it, that's really the goal of science as we know it. To understand the rules and principles set in place that we may make the best use of them.

You're having a bit of trouble, or appear to be having trouble, taking the step from discussing this with me as a scientific hypothesis rather than a discussion on Jesus specifically. Accepting the reasonableness of sentient creation is a farcry from letting Jesus into your heart. It is important to separate your bias against faith which you very understandably have with your opinion on this matter. This has nothing to do with Faith at all.

But here we digress from the Prime Mover idea. If god exists because the principles of his universe created him, then he is not exempt, is he?

If you developed a universe in which all creatures come from pond scum, does that mean you too, as the developer of that universe, must have been created by pond scum? I don't mean to be repetitive but you're espousing a very common misconception. By definition, a creator precedes the creation or you've got a paradox of being your own father genetically. So for people to say, "If the universe has to have a creator then what caused the creator" is to make a mistake in their logic by assuming that our universe's principles apply to something that existed prior to our universe's principles.

As I said in my earlier statement, there must either be a prime mover or we must eventually reach a universe in which the principle of causality is somehow not relevant or active. There is no reason to assume that the creator of our universe is at the top. But, there is also no reason to assume that universes even exist in any conventional means above our own.

I am merely positing the idea that the principles of our universe rely on cause and effect as we have observed and so to truly get something from nothing would be a huge upsetting of our understanding of the universe. It would be magic. Something from nothing wouldn't even be the advanced technology that looks like magic, it would literally be supernatural magic because there is no technology or reason behind it or that would be the cause.

As far as any principles governing the creator of our own universe. We don't know. Could be a pimple-faced kid or could be very similar to the all-knowing/all-powerful being of our human faiths. Me presenting the concept that He could have a cause Himself is just me broadening the scope of how we think about things and hopefully distancing myself from the Faiths that atheism is so often embattled with.

Look, religion is used to control people. Always has been. But I'm not talking about religion here.

So, in terms of Dawkin's scale, you're a 3.5-4, and I'm somewhere around 6.

For me personally? I am intellectually a 4 I would say. I have no problem leaning towards a creator on the basis of causality.

I am a bit of a wild card, however. I am able to distinguish the things I believe based on reason from things I believe based on faith. My personal belief system and the way I live my life would likely be considered a 2. But hopefully I have made it avidly clear that when discussing the notion of a creator I am not inserting any religious beliefs into the matter. No assumptions of qualities or any such thing that a religion teaches. I am far too interested in viewing facts objectively than to insert preconceived bias. I fully accept that my belief in God, particularly the Christian God, is a product of how I was raised and faith rather than reason. Hopefully you can look past that statement to see my argument for what it is. A scientific discourse void of religious tenets. I hope that does not color your opinion of me and I wish I could assure you that though I am a Christian I'm not a dick about it. Sad that I feel the need to preface that. I'm certainly aware of the vocal members of the faith, embarrassingly so. Interestingly I do have a reason why I prefer Christianity out of the various religions man kind has presented so far (I once wrote a thesis on it as the betting man's religion in that most other religions would give a person of integrity a pass anyways). But when it became our duty to impose our lifestyles on others I'll never know. Surely the Bible says, "Make people believe like you and force them to act and always behave like you. Also, be a dick and act superior whenever possible." [/sarcasm] But I'm more the guy that builds actual orphanages for children than the guy that gives them little more than words to feast on. So hopefully you'll see me as a positive instance at least. I would add that if I intellectually had a reason to believe there's likely no creator I would have no problem saying that I'm a 6 while via faith being a 2. Sorry for such compartmentalization but when you realize that some beliefs are just faith and not reason-based you kinda have to make that distinction if you're going to view things objectively.

 

[Ingjald]

I'd posit that the insistence that we "can't know" something is an assertion in and of itself that undermines the notion of agnosticism. But yes, that is a definition that exists for the term agnosticism. The creator of the term intended it to be a non-decision. That in the absence of evidence either way he needn't make a decision and left it at that. Whoever successfully added a subsection with a claim that the knowledge can never be known should have been laughed out of the university or whatever they were in. You don't go to a belief system built on not making claims on a lack of information and then tie a claim to it... haha.

The Atheist position by itself is the belief that there is no God. Agnostic Atheism is more what you're going for if you don't believe in God but don't know whether or not he exists so you don't specifically not believe in Him anyways.

But I'll pose this question to you. What would you say the difference is between Agnostic Atheism and Agnosticism with these definitions?

Yeah, that sub-section kind of put a clamp on the whole thing, did't it? "we don't know now, and also, we shan't ever know!"

I guess I'm technically an Agnostic Atheist then. But why would I need to "specifically not believe" in any god? I grew up in a protestant country, do I need to have a separate label for not believing in the protestant version of the christian god, as opposed to all the others I don't believe in?

Regarding the Agnosticism and Agnostic Atheism thing, I'd say that one is simply "I dont know", while the other is "I don't believe X, and live my life as though X is false, but I don't know for sure."

Why would AronRa hold any kind of legitimacy in redefining terms? The person is just a blogger, right? I'm not sure why you'd cite him as a reference at all. The term Atheism is set up in contrast with Theism. One believes God exists and the other believes He does not. There are separate terms for the places in between theism and atheism that have been developed and expressed over the years since then. His statement ignores distinct terms and includes doubt rather than overall stance. Mere doubt of a stance doesn't mean you don't hold that stance. If you doubt atheism does that make you a theist?

Blogger, Vlogger, Texas State Director of American Atheists and Communicator for the Secular Global Institute. So a little more oomph than, say, Thunderf00t. Also, he looks like the villain from Disney's Pocahontas, which is sort of funny.

Also, I did say that I disagree with his stance on the matter. My intention was to present a "prominent atheist" (whatever that really means) with a different view on what "atheist" means than, say, Dawkins.

If you prefer, I'll quote Hitchens instead: "All it (atheism) means is that you don't believe in God".

My only criticism of Dawkin's scale is that he limits the possibilities of Theism here. As stated, you don't have to believe that God is still active in creation to believe that someone created this. You don't necessarily have to believe in a creator AND a personal deity. So every step above 3 would rule out a person who believes that the Universe was created but doesn't have anything to say about whether or not He's still there.

Either way, you see here that Dawkins agrees that the term Atheist is the absolute belief that there is no God and that he agrees that a strictly defined atheism is indeed an actual belief system. Not that I think He doesn't exist, but that I "KNOW" He doesn't exist.

I agree that this scale needs to be expanded into a spectrum to apply to a wider set of beliefs. As it stands, it's really a scale of "God of Holy Text X -> Atheism". Also, aren't you doing the exact same thing to atheism as you criticize Dawkin's scale of doing with theism? Limiting the possible variations so that only people on the far extreme of the 7-side are really atheists?

I don't really see that at all. I see that the strongest instance of Atheist, the 7, says that. The 6 is called "de facto Atheist", but Atheist nonetheless. And as I said before, most atheists don't put themselves down as 7's.

Well, both sides are controversial. Atheism is controversial because people of faith don't like having their faith questioned and Theism is controversial because Atheists have specific faiths and specific ignorant loudmouths that are proponents of faith when technically, specific Faiths shouldn't even be part of the question. The question of Theism is a priori a discussion of Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and whatever other faith one would discuss.

Well, you'd have to concede that disproving the claims of specific faiths would be a more pressing matter than disproving non-affiliated creationism. Specific faiths make specific claims and hold sway in governments and politics, not seldom because each of the three big ones claim to represent one billion people each. Judaism don't have those numbers, but is also very influential.

And I disagree with assigning "faith" to Atheism; a belief not held in the face of lack of evidence is not the same as a belief held in the face of evidence. This is more a counter to religions in general, but even your extrauniversal programmer has the problem of unfalsifiability. Hitchen's Razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I would say that atheism is less in line with science than the basic theism I've espoused for that reason.

The creation of the universe by a being technologically advanced enough to create it is mere technology and perhaps not even technology at its peak.

Going to have to disagree on this point for a few reasons. One: what you're suggesting is not theism. If we found a way to peek into other universes somehow, and supposing we found life there in any way, shape or form, these beings would not be gods just because they're not subject to the laws governing our universe. If they were not subject to the laws of their own universes, on the other hand...
Two: a combination of God of the Gaps and Shifting Goalposts. In our ignorant past, there were plenty of gaps in our knowledge to lodge deities into. With our expanding understanding of the world around us however, God/gods have had to become more vague and intangible in order to be less blatantly fictional. And now, when we are examining the very origin of our universe and the mind-boggling mechanics behind it, here we are again saying "Well, I think it's likely there's a deity behind THIS courtain."
Three: falsifiability. Barring the universe-peeking device from earlier, there is no way to disprove an entity that is before time, north of the North Pole, more than infinity and otherwhise outside comprehension. Nor is there anything stopping believers from saying that we just need to look in other universes, or outside other universes or before other universes, or saying that their deity is responsible for the creation of all the universes and is outside all of them, see point number two.

That we aren't even all that advanced and yet we already create universes and movies about such things is a decent indication that we'll do the same thing some day is relatively convincing evidence to me that it's reasonable to assume someone created our universe as well

I still don't agree that these are the same. And if they were, there would be some rather horrifying implications. Can you imagine a GTA game where every NPC was a thinking, feeling AI capable of actual suffering? Or, for that matter, a Sims-game?

Thick skin or not, discussions take a very different tone when one side feels insulted and so I felt the need to preface my statement as a mild joke rather than an insult. It's difficult to communicate one's true intentions and tone via text and I've enjoyed my conversation with you enough to warrant giving it additional attention to not come across as some kind of ass.

All fair enough,and very considerate.

Again, pascals wager is not a fallacy. It is merely an evaluation of outcomes. The givens/outcomes entered into the wager are what may be fallacies. If the Christian God exists and you do not make an effort to believe, then yes, the risk is greater to live as if He does not exist. That's not a fallacy, that's true if the givens are to be accepted. It's just a logical construct based on an assumption. If Aunt Jemima exists as a vengeful God bent on destroying all who eat pancakes without her syrup then it is better for you to be safe and eat pancakes with the syrup than not to. Sure, as a given that is a true statement but when we question the given itself the point of the wager falls apart.

The only time that the wager is really relevant is if the cost of being safe rather than sorry is low enough to just go with it. That will always be a relative decision that would change according to the individual's valuation of the givens and any personal bias leaning them in either direction. There are appropriate situations to apply this logic. Times where you've got to decide if it's better for you to assume something than not to assume them. Like the electric fence or evaluating if you should drink directly from a water source that may or may not be contaminated. Originally, the result would be that it's better to try to find other water or purify the river water. Eventually, if no safe water source is found, the givens become drink the water and get sick or die of thirst and so the resulting behavior should change.

I understand what the goal of the wager was, but I was given to understand that the wager wanted to coerce a belief in the Christian God with its risk-reward calculation. Thus it's suggesting that a being who is all-knowing, all-powerful and omni-present can be fooled by mere lip-service.

Well, the alternative is something from nothing or turtles all the way down. Both fly in the face of scientific principles but a being with technology sufficient to produce a universe doesn't break any rules. That he himself must be unmovable is not a given. He could likewise be a kid living in his parent's basement or he could be some super evolved creature able to manipulate and convert matter and energy readily. Perhaps there's even a third option which isn't matter or energy but is also interchangeable? We simply don't know, but it is more reasonable than something from nothing an the infinity loop. I know it sounds weird to apply Occam's razor here but that something caused it seems by far the simplest explanation for existence. It's just that people come from a bias where that automatically means Jesus or Angra Spentu or some specific deity upon which people ascribe magic to the term.

Please don't ever use the term "super-evolved" again. I get what you're trying to say, but the idea has as much merit as the whole "radiation is magic" thing from old sci-fi stories like Godzilla. Evolution is not a ladder where dogs are less evolved than humans but more evolved than worms. Every living creature on earth is the result of 3,7 billion years of evolutionary success by their ancestors. [/mini-rant]

"Something" did presumably cause it, I'm pretty sure that's what's being looked for. I think the disagreement is for what constitutes "something". Krauss' idea might be flawed (don't know, as I said), but so was Lamarckian evolution, so it was replaced with a superior one. Think of the whole scientific community as a sculptor with a block of marble. Eveytime a theory is shown to be wrong, a small bit of marble is removed, and it continues until a theory emerges that (can be, but) isn't proven wrong and voilá!, a masterpiece. To say that the most recent theory or the best theory we got right now has holes in it, therefore we should stop investigating and just proclaim creationism as the most likely scenario seems defeatist to me. Also, what would change in the scientific approach if we just up and said "Steve from another universe probably made our universe"? Can't prove it, can't disprove it, and we'll probably keep looking for answers anyway.

I'm unsure what point you're trying to make. QFT is a complex subject, yes. But saying that something comes from something else is still hardly going to be something from nothing. The vacuums contain energy, for example. They are also a space by definition. This is the primary criticism of his book. That quantum fields are themselves part of our universe just like gravity. To say they played a pivotal in how our Universe exists today as we know it is hardly to prove a null scenario when they themselves exist and can even be created for experimentation. I'd think you'd agree with me on that point regardless of whether or not you agree with my other points. His title is misleading at best. At worst he is discussing a subject we know very little about as if us observing matter popping into existence necessarily means it is without it's own cause or underlying principle that we simply haven't figured out yet. The assertion that it comes from nothing and for no reason is him claiming a negative. Something that we have already mutually accepted is logically impossible to prove. That particles pop into and out of existence in a quantum vacuum does not mean it's without cause. We simply don't know why or if there is a why, we just know the properties of the vacuum such that it actually isn't even a vacuum (should have electromagnetic waves, for example). "It" in reference to a quantum vacuum isn't even correct as there are varieties of vacuums that pertain quantum fields. Is the author of "something from nothing" assuming that quantum fields aren't themselves part of our universe? That a field with electromagnetic waves isn't somehow a field with energy in it no matter how fleeting?


You don't have to understand QFT or QED to see the inconsistency there. It's like he's saying that a blanket assembled itself from nothing because of that loom in the corner of the room... You and I should both be able to say, but... LOOM... even if you and I don't agree on whether there was a person manning the loom to begin with.

My point was none, so to speak. I have a friend in physics with some insight into quantum theory, and he will occasionally throw bizarre tidbits my way. Things that just make no sense, but work anyway. Here, my assumption isn't that "these things are impossible, so quantum theory must be bunk". Rather, I admit to my own lack of understanding and assume that we're missing significant parts of the puzzle.

I think Ahteists group everything in as faith and throw the baby out with the bathwater. Speculation of sentient creation without any assumption of special gnosis/knowledge is every bit a scientific hypothesis as speculation of something from nothing.

Deism goes one step too far. They believe in a specific property of whoever created the universe. Chiefly that He does not necessarily interact. This is not necessarily true or untrue and so they've taken a step they shouldn't have. Take, for example, the notion that there is a far more interesting world in our universe upon which the creator lavishes all His attention. How about several more interesting worlds? The notion that the Creator doesn't interact because we haven't experienced it is just as silly as early beliefs that the Earth was the center of the universe because "we are sooooo important." Maybe we're just one of many and ours is in the way of a space highway that's about to be constructed? Maybe, as much as it may burn our butts, we're just not that important or interesting. So I consider deism to be part of theism. They just have far fewer central tenets than most of the other theist classifications. The only tenet being that God doesn't interact or peharps. Nothing to write a religion about but still a faith-based belief about the nature of a being they believe in but know nothing about even if they're correct.

So no, my statement is similar to deism but is not deism. I'm not even willing to rule out that God doesn't directly interact with our universe. I just strongly suspect it to be the case on the face value of things.

Thank you for using "hypothesis" and not "theory". And yes, I know I personally have difficulty seeing faith as defined as "belief without evidence" as a virtue. Also, brownie-points for HHGTTG-reference . Would that I could summon a babelfish...^^

Your point with the deism vs. theism bit was a bit unclear. You say that deists go too far in saying that god may or may not interact at all, because he may or may not interact somewhere else? But yes, deism is watered-down theism.

My only conclusion is that the being would have to have the technology to create the universe. Bumbling or not would require knowing His intention for the thing. For example, I posited the idea that the universe is a sort of egg in which evolution of the life inside is but the development of a fetus. To explain, if life reaches a point where it can step outside of its own universe then it will have to have become like the creator somehow. Perhaps interacting would negatively influence getting the best results by side stepping evolution and allowing an unfit result to reach the caliber that the fittest had to arrive at.

That's purely something I'm presenting as an option. By no means is it a position. As an option, it would rule out a number of speculations you presented.

Additionally, you've also just successfully described numerous developers I've worked with. Capable of creating software but often lazy or or incapable of getting things exactly right. If we can assume that creating a universe is not unlike developing a digital universe, then it is not entirely unreasonable to think of God as a developer even if our universe isn't His universe's equivalent of a digital universe. Maybe he set certain rules for himself for additional entertainment or maybe he simply thinks differently than us.

Maybe sentient life is just an unintended consequence of what He created. Maybe he would care about us but the Universe is so vast that he hasn't found us yet or even thought to look for us. Maybe he has found us and decided to come back later when we're more evolved.

No idea. But there are soooo very many possible explanations that are perfectly reasonable.

This sounds like a polytheistic offshoot of Intelligent Design. "Intelligent Design by Committee"...XD

Also, proponents of Design seem to want to have it both ways at times:

"Look at this super-well calibrated biological mechanism, it's so finely tuned and perfectly crafted it has to have been designed!"

"Actually, that design is very inefficient, and any first-year engineering student would solve the same problem like so."

"Well, you dont know what the designer had in mind!"

It's not necessarily unhelpful to discuss the premise of a creator anymore than it is unhelpful for Dawkins to discuss the premise of no creator. In fact, if there is a creator with the technology to create our universe then it would be of immense universe to figured out what that technology may be. If, for example, we are a program, then discovering how to interface with and interpret the coding language would be the single most valuable information that could ever be obtained in our universe. If you think about it, that's really the goal of science as we know it. To understand the rules and principles set in place that we may make the best use of them.

You're having a bit of trouble, or appear to be having trouble, taking the step from discussing this with me as a scientific hypothesis rather than a discussion on Jesus specifically. Accepting the reasonableness of sentient creation is a farcry from letting Jesus into your heart. It is important to separate your bias against faith which you very understandably have with your opinion on this matter. This has nothing to do with Faith at all.

I agree, the Matrix was a good movie. too bad there were no sequels.[/predictable joke]

A creator is an untestable hypothesis believed against a lack of evidence, and is therefore a matter of faith. I didn't mention Jesus once in the passage you quoted, nor did I attribute the creator you posit with any characteristics unique to Christianity. I don't know what you want me to change.

If you developed a universe in which all creatures come from pond scum, does that mean you too, as the developer of that universe, must have been created by pond scum? I don't mean to be repetitive but you're espousing a very common misconception. By definition, a creator precedes the creation or you've got a paradox of being your own father genetically. So for people to say, "If the universe has to have a creator then what caused the creator" is to make a mistake in their logic by assuming that our universe's principles apply to something that existed prior to our universe's principles.

As I said in my earlier statement, there must either be a prime mover or we must eventually reach a universe in which the principle of causality is somehow not relevant or active. There is no reason to assume that the creator of our universe is at the top. But, there is also no reason to assume that universes even exist in any conventional means above our own.

I am merely positing the idea that the principles of our universe rely on cause and effect as we have observed and so to truly get something from nothing would be a huge upsetting of our understanding of the universe. It would be magic. Something from nothing wouldn't even be the advanced technology that looks like magic, it would literally be supernatural magic because there is no technology or reason behind it or that would be the cause.

As far as any principles governing the creator of our own universe. We don't know. Could be a pimple-faced kid or could be very similar to the all-knowing/all-powerful being of our human faiths. Me presenting the concept that He could have a cause Himself is just me broadening the scope of how we think about things and hopefully distancing myself from the Faiths that atheism is so often embattled with.


Look, religion is used to control people. Always has been. But I'm not talking about religion here.

Not sure if the "pond scum" bit is a dig at evolution or abiogenesis. But if you're going to use your (somewhat questionable) analogy of us making movies and video games and callling them "universes", then you'd have to concede that the creator of that universe came from simple beginnings, and also entertain the possibility of the same being true for your "pimply kid".

In any case "creator preceeds creation" presupposes that this is a creation. "creator precedes existence" follows much less logically.

In any case, the "pimply kid in his parent's basement" you're proposing isn't "prime". Proposing that as an explanation is just shifting the goalposts back immensely to the beginning of that universe.

I am a bit of a wild card, however. I am able to distinguish the things I believe based on reason from things I believe based on faith. My personal belief system and the way I live my life would likely be considered a 2. But hopefully I have made it avidly clear that when discussing the notion of a creator I am not inserting any religious beliefs into the matter. No assumptions of qualities or any such thing that a religion teaches. I am far too interested in viewing facts objectively than to insert preconceived bias. I fully accept that my belief in God, particularly the Christian God, is a product of how I was raised and faith rather than reason. Hopefully you can look past that statement to see my argument for what it is. A scientific discourse void of religious tenets. I hope that does not color your opinion of me and I wish I could assure you that though I am a Christian I'm not a dick about it. Sad that I feel the need to preface that. I'm certainly aware of the vocal members of the faith, embarrassingly so. Interestingly I do have a reason why I prefer Christianity out of the various religions man kind has presented so far (I once wrote a thesis on it as the betting man's religion in that most other religions would give a person of integrity a pass anyways). But when it became our duty to impose our lifestyles on others I'll never know. Surely the Bible says, "Make people believe like you and force them to act and always behave like you. Also, be a dick and act superior whenever possible." [/sarcasm] But I'm more the guy that builds actual orphanages for children than the guy that gives them little more than words to feast on. So hopefully you'll see me as a positive instance at least. I would add that if I intellectually had a reason to believe there's likely no creator I would have no problem saying that I'm a 6 while via faith being a 2. Sorry for such compartmentalization but when you realize that some beliefs are just faith and not reason-based you kinda have to make that distinction if you're going to view things objectively.

I have no problem with you being a christian. one of my best friends girlfriend is a deeply believing christian (training to be a deacon, even), and is possibly the kindest person I have ever met. Even so, just as I have my bias towards unbelief because of people and principles I respect, I think I detected a bit of bias towards belief in some of your posts, but nothing serious. I hope that you find some good in your faith that I'm unable to see, and if you feel it motivates you to do good, keep at it.

My problem with belief arises when believers use their beliefs to justify impositions on people who don't share their faith and on humanity as a whole. You feel you should build orphanages because Jesus? Knock yourself out. You feel that marriage should be limited to straight couples by law because God invented marriage, and also genders? That's going to be a problem. I could list more examples, but that would just be ranting. You get the point. As for me, I didn't become an atheist because Richard Dawkins said so, but it was after reading his book I could properly articulate the reasons behind my disbelief.



It is sad to have to preface like that, but imagine how some atheists in America feel when they see that opinion polls (that is, large, statistically significant bodies of people) rank atheists on the same level as rapists in terms of trustworthiness.