If it doesn’t seem reasonable to you, then it doesn’t seem reasonable to you. On the other hand, to me, the positing of God seems just as unreasonable as acknowledging the lack of such a higher order seems to you. Alas, our intuitions about what counts as reasonable differ in this respect; that’s ok, “reasonable” is inherently ultimately subject to such differences of personal perspective. But just as you can’t come around to atheism, I can’t come around to anything else, absent shocking new evidence (again a concept which is, I say, inherently subjective, as seen by how ocean sailing, hilltop views, and maternal love count as evidence of God to you but are far from it for me. That you find those things convincing reason to believe in God seems silly to me, I will admit, but if they are convincing to you, they are convincing to you; nothing I need to or necessarily can do about that)
So you don’t see how order can exist in the universe without a Creator, but you can see what you call an even “higher order” existing without a Creator? Or do you believe that that creator must have a creator and so on?
You’d be wrong. I know of no atheists that believe all that exists is what we’re aware of. You still don’t understand the point of view of the majority of atheists on this board or you’re in denial.
(Bolding mine)
But if this higher order is needed to guide our existance (and i am asuming you mean also create) then where did this order come from?
There is no logical answer to that question without decending into stupidity and if the answer is “the higher order just existed, or sprung into existance” then why couldn’t that apply to the world now.
I’m an atheist because I’m yet to see any evidence that a god, or gods exist.
Well, in that case why should the “2 dimensional blind men” care about this particular elephant? At best, such an argument means we should be indifferent to “God” even if it existed.
Yes. The majority of humanity is insane, and the name of that insanity is religion. You yourself, right there are describing a compulsion; an irrational need to believe.
Nonsense. We’ve done that over and over; science has demonstrated again and again the errors of various ancient beliefs. Old doesn’t mean accurate. And for that matter, people haven’t had any particular religious belief “since we could think”. On the contrary, religions wildly contradict each other.
Well, you’re wrong. A “higher order” isn’t necessary to explain any of that.
And when you see someone dying in agony from something like cancer, do you start talking about how there must be a higher order to explain the existence of cancer? Or does your god only get the credit for warm and fuzzy things?
“Fair enough. But when I get to the point that you are and I sail on the ocean, look down from a hilltop, or watch a mother care for her child, I am supposed to think that this all just happened?”
No, you’re supposed to think ‘I wonder how all this happened’, and then examine how convincing the ‘this is how it did happen’ arguments are.
One thing that makes ‘god’ seem plausible are things like ants vs us, but thats an extrapolation rather than evidence. And if anything its an argument that even if ‘god’ did exist, he might not give a toss about us in the grand scheme of things.
Otara
While I don’t agree with you that it’s a slam dunk that God doesn’t exist, DT, I can’t argue with the above statement. For a Deity to have any meaningful moral authority, it must be comprehensible on moral issues. Otherwise we might as well be worshipping Wotan (who at least is honest–he’s raising an army of the best of all warriors to fight the final battle, and doesn’t give a good goddamn about the rest of humanity except as potential rape victims for himself) or General Zod (who wanted to rule Earth because, well, he’s omnipotent, and he was bored).
Atheism isn’t a belief, so certainty doesn’t play into it. All it means to me is that no one has convinced me that gods exist.
I literally can not understand how an intelligent person, with access to information outside of his family and village, can not grasp that God is just as silly as Santa Claus. I don’t meant this as a put down, I just can not understand that anyone smart enough to use a keyboard, or drive, doesn’t think “well there is no evidence of God, I can’t use the existence of God to make predictions on future events, I can’t measure any difference in the world because of the existence of God, there are multiple beliefs about God that contradict each other, and the adherents of those beliefs all think that theirs is the correct one, so the fact that people believe is not evidence, so I think I’ll go with the idea that God is a fable/superstition”.
ETA: and it’s not that I don’t understand religion. I was raised Episcopalian and considered going into the ministry until I discovered that it was all just nonsense.
Reading through this thread, a fairly common meme is - well I don’t believe in fire breathing dragons in my garage/invisible pink unicorns therefore I don’t believe in God.
Are they really equal as comparative terms?
Unicorns are a fictional human invention based on a horse. Invisibility is impossible according to the laws that pertain here on earth. And if there was an invisible unicorn it wouldn’t be pink.
Likewise fire breathing dragons. Dragons are a fictional human invention based on lizards. Fire breathing is impossible according to the laws that pertain here on earth. And if there was such a thing it wouldn’t live in your garage.
God may be a fictional human invention but his powers are not limited by what pertains here on earth because he exists in a different realm. And he doesn’t have a colour or an ability to fire breathe so that bit’s irrelevant.
Not sure the two things are the same.
The point is there isn’t any evidence for His existence. Why is he any more likely than the invisible pink elephants? God, the Babylonian Storm Deity, sounds like the sort of thing ignorant primitives would make up to explain the world.
Why isn’t that explanation for Him good enough for you? What, given that there is zero evidence for his existence, would make you assume that the ignorant primitives were right?
No; dragons and unicorns and invisibility are far more plausible than God. They are far less grandiose, violate fewer physical laws, are less illogical.
Absence of evidence means you ain’t got nuthin’.
Please report back at the very next confirmed deity sighting.
The devil can twist invisible pink unicorn scripture to suit his purposes.
The difference is that invisible pink elephants cannot exist here on earth because of the laws of existence that pertain here. Invisibility is impossible (far as we know).
But the laws that govern the earth may not hold true elsewhere in the universe. You’re using an earthbound example to illustrate a universe-wide phenomenon. Inappropriate metaphor I think.
So, while you were thinking of going into the ministry you were without access to information outside of your family and village and weren’t smart enough to use a keyboard, or drive? 
No, it’s not. You claimed it was impossible “according to the laws that pertain here on earth.” Care to cite those laws? What does an x-ray beam look like?
First, the same physical laws apply everywhere in the observable universe. And second, a being such as you describe would be locked out of the universe, unable to affect it. A God who would dissolve or explode if he tried to enter the universe isn’t how most people define God. And a God who can’t affect the universe is meaningless to us, anyway. And the fact that you need to deny physical laws apply to God just demonstrates his impossibility.
And none of that affects the illogic or the grandiosity of the claims about God. Or the fact that there’s zero evidence for any such thing.
I think it was pretty clear that I meant the ability of corporeal beings to become invisible not that there isn’t anything on the planet that is invisible to human eyes. Infra red for example.
I’m only saying that the the fact that the laws that pertain here on earth don’t seem to allow for god doesn’t mean a lot since god doesn’t reside here on earth (allegedly).
Whether god can affect things here on earth is irrelevant to the question of whether he exists.
actually, most of the citations to the IPU are asking those who use the “open mind” argument whether they do so consistently-- testing whether
(1) they are as open about the IPU, or the IFBD, as they ask us to be about gods. and
(2) if the answer to (1) is “no”, whether there is some way to rationally distinguish god and the IPU–to make it rational to keep an open mind as to gods, but not as to IPU.
That’s what you’re trying to do in the post I reply to, and it’s a noble effort, but it is, at base, futile–because, as the one asserting the invisible fire-breathing dragon in my garage, I can (and will be happy to) assert that my invisible fire-breathing dragon has any attribute you claim makes gods distinct from my IFBD.
Why? Because I and others are trying to find out (and I would love a simple answer from someone making the argument) whether “keep an open mind” means “keep an open mind to every possibility whether or not supported by evidence”, or just “keep an open mind only to those assertions made about god that aren’t supported by evidence.”
The first is logically consistent, but a bit of a reductio ad absurdum, because it makes you also believe in invisible pink unicorns.
The second requires some way to distinguish gods and invisible pink unicorns or fire-breathing dragons.
So, now, to your efforts to come up with such a distinction.
You say it’s fictional. I say I have one in my garage. (and, as you acknowledge in your own post, the fictional, human-created nature of such a beast may not be any different from gods.
So, maybe the laws that pertain here on earth don’t apply to my dragon. Maybe you just don’t understand them.
Or to put it another way, (with apologies to galileo), and yet, the dragon flames
Why not? I assert that it’s there. Where is a more sensible place for an invisible fire-breathing dragon? It likes my garage (I think it’s because I keep leaving bones in the trash can).
Fictional human invention. And, if we can assume different realms, my dragon’s from there, too. I should know. I’m the one saying he exists.
Rev. 20:11. Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it.
Seems to suggest god’s visible, and presumably, has a color.
Isaiah 30:33. “The Breath of Jehovah, like a stream of Brimstone, doth kindle it.” (or, in the NIV, the breath of the LORD, like a stream of burning sulfur, sets it ablaze.")
Furthermore, you’ve just described a being from another realm, with powers not limited by our understanding of reality. Are you seriously contending that that doesn’t include fire-breathing?
I can make them as similar as is necessary to rebut any attempted distinction. Or, to put it another way, I can come up with an absurd, made-up thing, that is exactly like any “god” one can make an “open mind” argument about–and then ask why you shouldn’t have an open mind about my imaginary absurdity. I’d have much more respect for the people making such “open mind” arguments if they had a response to that–either that we must keep an open mind about my made-up absurdity, or some way to distinguish (in which case, I change my made-up absurdity to remove the distinction).
Hardy. For one thing, if he can’t affect Earth, how exactly do you know he exists? For another, such a God isn’t a God that anyone actually follows; it’s another example of a God that only exists as a defense measure against skeptics. And for yet another, God as typically described couldn’t exist anywhere, not just here.
Forgot to mention. My invisible fire-breathing dragon is incorporeal. Nice try, though.
More seriously–do you really think this line of argument can work? There is no possible argument you can make–no possible distinction you can identify between a god and the invisible, incorporeal fire-breathing dragon in my garage that I can’t simply respond with “but the same is true of my dragon.” After all, I’m the one asserting the dragon’s existence.
And you’re still stuck with the question of whether keeping an open mind also requires you to keep an open mind about the dragon in my garage.