Look, I’m not arguing that God exists. I am just saying that the position of the atheist is no more based on logic than is that of the theist.
And explain to me what gravity is, where is comes from and how it does what it does whether that is exerting a force or bending a coordinate system. Also explain how positive electrical charges repel and a positive and a negative attract.
This is the part where you said it was fine with you: “Ockham’s Razor - to me it seems much simpler and more direct to just say “God did it.” than to go through a scientific explanation.”
I never implied I could make logical connections that would satisfy you. I understood you were asking for them and said: "I’m not sure I understand your question regarding my “logical train” (of thought)…etc., and offered some of the ideas that impressed me.
The position of an atheist is “according to all reasonable observations, there is no god”. That’s logic. If the observations were to become different, for example the occurence of a thoroughly verifiable miracle, then the conclusions would become different. That’s logic. You’re asking atheists to base their current conclusions on one specific set of possible future developments. That’s illogical.
And I agree with you. People sometimes give up on religion for reasons that don’t have much to do with god. I just didn’t agree with your particular reasoning above.
I can’t because I don’t know much about the subject. I do know there’s been scientific progress has made progress on stuff like this, which is more than I’d say for the case for god.
Oh, and I should add that the atheist argument that “I do not expect to see evidence of the existence of a god in future” is also logical, because it is a prediction based on past experience.
That’s really a poor definition for the word. I understand that you have found a dictionary that uses such a definition, but the Oxford Dictionary, for example, uses the much better definition “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or gods.” Not only is this definition consistent with the literal meaning of the component parts of the word “a-”=without and “theism”=belief in gods, it is also more inclusive, because it does not require a seperate word to describe those who lack belief in God, but do not necessarily deny God.
Using the meaning “doesn’t believe in god(s)” includes both strong and weak atheists, since anyone who denies god(s) obviously does not believe in god(s) also.
But using the meaning “denies god(s)” excludes weak atheists from the definition. A better word for such a thing would be “anti-theist”.
There’s really no good reason to insist on the latter definition. I believe it’s only done by theists who have an agenda. The stronger definition tends to be used by theists to describe one who holds the positive belief that god(s) could never possibly exist, but then applied to all athiests with the intent of trying to discredit the perfectly cogent position held by many nonbelievers that one ought not to believe a thing unless there is some evidence to suggest its existence.
I am a physicalist. This position is not mere atheism, a belief that gods don’t exist, but that nothing but the physical exists. Thoughts, dreams, concepts, emotions, logic, even belief itself: these exist only insofar as they supervene on the physical via sensory inputs fed into offal-based memories and vast neural networks in this magnificent biological computer called “me”.
Now, this computer can do some downright “wack” things, which I have experienced myself. Through lucid dreaming and meditation, one can achieve experiential states comparable to any kind of religious or drug-induced epiphany. (Indeed, I have experienced what one might call a “dissolution of self” which is an important element of Buddhist nirvana.) I am not sceptical that these experiential states exist, only that they are evidence of that physicalism is false.
As for this sidetrack of the realtionship between atheism and logic, I have never found this dichotomy between “no belief” and “belief in not” particularly compelling. We each take a position, setting the needle on our Belief-O-Meter according to roughly how likely we find a proposition to be true. (I suppose I would be termed a ‘superstrong’ atheist since I would deny God even were he to literally appear before my very eyes - I would consider that I’d be being tricked by superior technology. Indeed, there is no evidence you could present to me that woudl do anything other than confirm physicalism to me.)
Logic is just an epistemology which “works” - it is how this biological computer arranges its memories in order to “understand” and manipulate the universe effectively. A brain configuration equivalent to “belief in God” (or indeed “belief in anything non-physical”) is not illogical (although it may be false).
You’ve said things like this before, and I’ve always wondered about it. I am myself a hard atheist and confirmed physicalist, but I have to assume that there is at least a theoretical possibility that some evidence could be presented that would disprove physicalism. Otherwise, what makes me different from, for example, lekatt, who was asked numerous times what could possibly make him doubt his interpretation of near death experiences, but kept dodging the question?
I can only speak for myself but yes, I am extremely sceptical of things that can’t be proven. As far as Buddhism goes, I consider the supernatural aspects of it to be crap and the remainder to be philosophy. No different than any other religion. I’m not sure what other things you include but I am also sceptical of “New Age” things such as crystal power, faith healing, dowsing, fortune telling, homeopathy and the rest of the BS that hucksters use to separate fools from their money.
As far as “mind alteration without drugs” goes, I’m not entirely sure what you mean. Training will produce “mind alteration.” For example, I could learn to touch-type and it would alter my mind so I didn’t make so many damned typos. 
Is that the kind of thing you were looking for? Or did you have a more mystical definition of “mind altering”?
Regards
Testy
The problem is that, because I consider my experience/consciousness/qualia/whatever as being physical in origin, then anything could be explained physically. A guy with a bushy beard zaps me into a situation only I could know of? Why, I am merely in a simulation.
Now, I might well join you in setting the needle on my Belief-o-meter not quite to zero in terms of the truth I ascribe to the proposition “God exists” - there is a possibility that physicalism is false, of course. But disproving it? I’m afraid I could not envisage any evidence which would move my needle so far off that near-zero that it topped 50%. Indeed, were that to happen I would likely begin to believe that nothing was physical and that everything is metaphysical, in keeping with the principle of that bane of dualism, Ockham’s Razor (which lekatt, love him, never really understood.)
(Incidentally, Lobsang, have you ever drunk in The Heron? It was featured on ‘Britain’s Hardest Pubs’ last night.)
So, do you mean that, if you live in a simulation, that still is covered under the “physicalism” umbrella?
If so, what exactly do you mean by “physicalism”?
From Wikipedia:
What does it mean by everything is physical?
Even if ghosts exists or God exists, what’s not physical about them? So what if they have some abilities/properties that appear to be “supernatural” to us today?
I’m sure people 500 years ago would consider the existence of electromagnetic waves “supernatural” (they are invisible and you can remotely control stuff with them; people would think you’re a magician). Yet, scientists have proven they exist, and we use them everyday, and there is nothing “magical” or non-physical about them.
If we do live in a simulation, God could just be the sysadmin.
Anyway, what I’m saying is that, to me physicalism seems like a tautology: “Everything that exists is physical”.
OK, but that doesn’t provide any information. It just says that if God exists, he is physical, whatever “physical” means.
Or is the definition of “physical” such that it precludes something like God or ghosts to exist?
Yes. Physical stimuli are fed into my physical neural network, Matrix-like.
Exactly.
Well, assuming for the sake of argument that we are not in a simulation, then physicalism is described by physics: that is “whatever physical means”. God, by any definition I have ever heard, appears to be mutually incompatible with physics. (Of course physics could be wrong and we are about to find physical evidence of God or ghosts but in that case, again, I would have to weigh up whether I ascribed a greater likelihood to being back in the simulation.)
I do not consider physicalism a tautology. Many (perhaps most) people consider thoughts, maths, dreams, concepts, emotions, morality, logic, beliefs, and qualia to be fundamentally different to atoms, energy and spacetime. I merely consider the universe to be such that you’ll have a hard time convincing me that they are.
Actually, you may not have a physical neural network into which stimuli are fed. It’s possible, if we are in a simulation, that you are nothing but a piece of software, a series of 1’s and 0’s in some RAM somewhere.
Does that fall under “physical” in your definition?
Not that I believe in God or anything, but I’d like to know how God is mutually incompatible with physics.
Growing up, I always heard stuff about God like “He always existed”, “He made the world out of nothing”, “You can’t ask questions like, ‘who made God’, because they have no meaning”, and it always bothered me.
Now, with “modern physics”, you hear stuff like “The universe always existed”, “The Big Bang came out of nothing”, “You can’t ask questions like ‘what caused the Big Bang’, because they have no meaning”, and it bothers me.
Not only does it bother me, but these ideas seem very close to the ideas about God I mention above, with God being replaced by “Big Bang”. (BTW, I’n not a physicist, so sorry if I butchered what modern physics is saying)
So, how exactly is God incompatible with physics?
Also, remember that, if you mentioned to some physicist 300 years ago some of the principles of quantum mechanics (e.g. a particle can be in more than one place at one time, or in more than one state at one time, or whatever else quatum physics says) I’m sure he would say that this is “incompatible with physics”.
I don’t think they are different, but even if they *were * different to atoms, energy and spacetime, they exist in our universe, so they are a natural occurance in our universe, and so I would call them ‘physical’. (BTW, in greek, natural and physical are the same word)
Or are you saying that something has to be explainable in terms of atoms, energy and spacetime to be considered “physical” by your definition?
Agreed. Yes, of course it does.
I’d have trouble conceiving of how an omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent intelligence could be physically there, personally. As for other defintions of God, you can call the universe “God” if you like, but I’d rather consider it to be semantic legerdemain.
Indeed, which is why I said “Of course physics could be wrong and we are about to find physical evidence of God or ghosts but in that case, again, I would have to weigh up whether I ascribed a greater likelihood to being back in the simulation.”
Agreed.
No. I consider everything to be physical, whether it is explainable or not, while still ascribing a small probability to my being wrong in this respect.
How can you be wrong? If you “consider everything to be physical”, there is no thing or phenomenon that can be described as non-physical, if it is shown to exist or occur.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that
For me “physicalism” is proposition #1 above, not #3. It seems that physicalism says nothing of the existence of God. It just says that everything that we know today to exist/occur is physical/natural.
This seems a bit tautological to me, but I guess physicalists are trying to distinguish themselves from people who believe that there are “supernatural” phenomena, whatever that means.
I am telling you what I believe. Just because I cannot conceive of a situation where I would be convinced that I was wrong doesn’t mean I can’t be.
Yes. I am saying that. It is a contention of mine.
Physicalism is a philosophy, a proposition. I’ll say again: if physicalism is true, then God’s existence is nigh impossible. If.
There is nothing in the proposition of physicalism which necessitates the proposition be true.
snort!
I was going to ask the same thing. It has everything to do with logic. I think that’s the whole point!
Agnostic doesn’t mean “I’m not sure”; it means that the existence of god is unknowable.
Well, yeah.