[QUOTE=magellan01]
No. It makes logical sense to say that all things are subject to causality, except that which is extra-natural. That would make god eternal. And that is certainly no more outlandish than claiming the matter and ebergy, in some form have been around for eternity, with no beginning. [:quote]
It is way more outlandish. We have clear evidences that matter and energy exist. We’ve zero evidence that any sort of “supreme being” exist. If we assume that something has to be eternal and uncaused, it’s way more likely to be something we know exists than something you just made up and that we can’t find anywhere.
Once again, the fact that you/we don’t know the answer to a question doesn’t mean that some random, arbitrary explanation that happens to strike your fancy is in any way valid, should be taken seriously or require a rebuttal. Especially not when there isn’t even any evidence that the question itself (what is the original cause?) is a valid one.
What’s dishonest about it? “God” is your hyposthesis. It is your burden to show anyone else why they should believe it. Your objection is ridiculous. It’s no different than telling people they shouldn’t argue for the non-existence of werewolves by arguing against the plausibility of werewolves. The Initial Question is purely philosphical: How did all this, including us, get here. Answers fall into three philosophical camps;
Theist: there is a supreme being who started it all off
Atheist: there is not a supreme being who started it all off
Agnostic: I do not and cannot know if a supreme being started it all off
[/quote]
No, these are not the only answers. There are an infinite number of other answers as well. For instance, maybe the universe was made by goblins. In fact, we can easily replace the word “supreme being” with “goblins” in every one of your examples.
Goblinist: There are goblins who started it all.
Agoblinist: There are no goblins who started it all.
Agnostic. I do not and cannot know if goblins started it all.
There is just as much evidence for that solution as for a “supreme being.” The problem for both is that there isn’t the slightest reason to hypothesize either. You are multiplying entia beyond their necessity. The way to answer questions is to actually start without assumptions, study the evidence and see what you can determine from actual facts. Imagining magical wizards is fun and all but completely useless as a method of acquiring information. Unless and until you can explain why your “supreme being” deserves to be taken any more seriously than goblins then you have no reason to expect other people to offer it any default credibility just because you believe it.
Number two is not an answer to the question. Number one is a completely random hypothesis supported by nothing.
Since any theistic belief at all is unnecessary and unsupported by evidence then it is all faith-based and therefore religious.
There is no such thing, or if there is it’s so rare as to be not worth the effort to argue against. Besides, it is the logical burden of believers to prove themselves, or at least provide the slightest bit of evidence to prove that they are not simply insane or fools or stupid.
As I’ve said elsewhere, that’s just an argument for atheism; if every religion is 100% incorrect, then by definition there are no gods.
Why would I bother arguing against something virtually no one cares about, or will bother defending ? Besides, it’s still the job of the believers to prove themselves, not me to prove them wrong.
Any conversation mentioning a god is religious.
But they aren’t, as I and others have pointed out.
Incorrect. We at least know that they exist. We don’t even know if a god is possible.
It’s far more outlandish because it hyothesizes something eben MORE complex to to explain a universe which you claim is too complex not to have been created by magic. It’s also superfluous. If the multiverse (not the universe, there’s a difference) is eternal, then there is no need for a First Mover.
Your understanding is wrong. “Creation” is the wrong word but virtual particles can and do appear from the quantum vacuum all the time. Particles that never existed before literally pop into being from nothing.
But please, present a the QM theory that accounts for the beginning of everything.
[/QUOTE]
OK, granted, the people in this thread are better informed than the majority of Americans, but I still say this whole 2+ pages of hyjacking are pretty good evidence for my “Philosophical Grand Canyon.” You are, of course, correct that anyone who holds an ignorant view of any philosophical/religious group will have such a gap. My argument is that the philosophical gap between a theist and an atheist will be larger (perhaps not by all that much) than the gap between a theist and a naturalist.
(Of course, this doesn’t explain the animosity of very closely aligned religions. I got nothin’ for ya there.)
we now return you to your regularly scheduled
[hyjack]
I think that the best arguement is: Man has always tried to explain events around him. But with very little knowledge about how the world worked he assigned explanations that enabled him to stop inquiry: Thunder God, Rain God, Sun God, etc. As man learned more every single one of these explanations were both unnecessary and at odds with close scrutiny. There is every reason to believe that further learning will answer every question we now have. The problem of First Cause is not a problem because there is not First Cause in a Universe that always existed.
I don’t think so. God would require a will, otherwise First Cause is still an issue. And god is not an event, but the thing that caused the event.
I think that’s part of the reason why no headway will be made. The arguement is dishonest. If you have a problem with my religion, argue that. If you have a problem with a philosophical position that lead me to my rleigion, argue that.
I agree on the last part. Not on the first. We live in a world where everything we are aware of has a cause. To include matter and energy in that pool is completely logicval. It may be incorrect, but is a logical assumption.
No. Maybe god of the Gap, singular. First Cause isthe only think that cannot be explained away. God couls have snapped his fingers eons ago and everything could have operated in accordance with the laws of the univers and evolution since then.
I couldn’t agree more. But, I would add, if you do have an opinion, please leave room for the possibility that you may be wrong. That is why Agniostics have an easier times than Atheists, particularly the strong version.
It’s only meaningless if you need a tool with which to bludgeon your opponents. And the definition of god isn’t being stretched, it’s being left in its pure form.
I’d love to hear the theory…
Yes. Excellent point. But we can only work with the tools we have. But we should always keep this in mind.
No it is not. First Cause is a problem of logic at least as much it is a problem of knowledge.
It is the thing that is extra-natural. The thing that wouldn’t be bound by the laws of the natural world.
I am discussing the actual issue, in the cleanest way possible. Flowing robes and miracles and resurections are fodder for another debate which is interesting in it’s own right. But where does Atheism necessarily break from Theism? If you beleive their is common ground there, I find that encouraging as far as more civil dialogue and mutual acceptance goes.
[QUOTE=clairobscur]
It is way more outlandish. We have clear evidences that matter and energy exist. We’ve zero evidence that any sort of “supreme being” exist. If we assume that something has to be eternal and uncaused, it’s way more likely to be something we know exists than something you just made up and that we can’t find anywhere.[?QUOTE]
I disagree. Given our experiance, I find it way more strange that one or two things of the natural world would not be subject to the laws that govern all the others. I find it more logical to attribute the attribute of having no cause to a extra-natural thing.
What a neat way to deflect any questions as to how you do conceive this particuar god.
How should someone who simply doesn’t believe in whatever image of Javeh is currently favored by believers frame the argument that Javeh is equivalent to any other mental construct?
It appears to me after slogging through this thread that the theists believe on faith that a god exists, where atheists believe on faith that no god exists. I see no more validity in viewpoint than the other, as each side is taking a position without adequate evidence to support it. Only the agnostics admit that they don’t know.
I don’t agree. Thing is, nobody–not even you–really decides things this way. We grow up as kids, people we trust teach us answers about life, the universe and everything, and we either accept or reject those answers. The trouble is that you’ve defined “God” as “Uncaused First Cause”. You and about 25 other people in the world. The other 6 billion define “God” in other ways. People don’t believe in God for the reasons you imagined…sitting down in a philosophy seminar, deciding that there must have been an uncaused first cause, and then trying to determine if there are any other attributes they could attribute to that uncaused first cause. It never every happens that way. Never. Hinduism, Christianity, Scientology, Islam, Theosophism, none of them started that way.
Thing is, you’ve got a very narrow definition of God there. Most people aren’t atheists because they are convinced that there wasn’t an uncaused first cause, but rather because every purported “God” they’ve ever heard of doesn’t make sense. You are SURE that there was an uncaused first cause, right? But why? Because everything has a cause except the first cause? So what? Why label the reason for the existance of the universe “God”? You’re just going to confuse people, even people who have a sophisticated view of God, who don’t believe in Odin or Zeus or Yahweh. If your position is that God is an uncaused first cause, and we can say nothing else whatsoever about God, then 97% of theists and atheists and agnostics would call you an atheist.
In fact, I’ll do it. You’re an atheist, because an uncaused first cause isn’t “God”, any more than a tail is a leg. You call yourself a theist, just because there must have been some cause that started the universe? Pah. You’re an atheist, get used to the idea.
This is false in two ways. First because atheism is a lack of belief in gods, not a positive belief that gods can’t exist and second because lack of belief is a logical default, not a faith position. There is no more faith involved with failing to be convinced of the existence of sky gods than with failing to be convinced of the existence of vampires. The positions are not equally valid. Theism involves a positive assertion, atheism does not. Like I keep saying, no one can show any reason that the existence of gods should be taken any more seriously than the existence of goblins and there is nothing unfair, arrogant, irrational or “faith-based” about failing to be convinced of the existence of either.
Even though it’s been explained over and over and over that this isn’t the case?
I guess it’s somewhat enlightening, in a roundabout way, that so much of this stuff has been discussed elsewhere, repeatedly, often in identical ways. I know I have no editorial control here, obviously, but a lot of that stuff is tangential.
So let me pose this question, even though it’s almost a Cafe Society thing: let’s say we do get some, if not admirable, at least ‘regular’ atheist characters on TV. What would they have to do in order for the public to find them palatable? Does the proposed atheist Kramer just need to rant from time to time, in an amusing and obviously comical manner, about God not existing? There may be something to learn from the increasingly positive climate for gays on television, although there’s a much more visible stereotype of what gay guys are like. (I’m not sure what tele-lesbians are supposed to be like. They appear to be hot women who have no characteristics other than liking other hot women.)
Our experience show us that there are exceptions to rules so noone should find it strange that one or two things in the natural world behaves in a different manner. There is no need to push the quality of causelessness to the supernatural. Also, as someone already pointed out, cosmic particles appear to be uncaused.
I would like to see a show (maybe something similar in format to the X-Files) about a caharacter or characters who investigate alleged paranormal phenomena and debunk them, explaining in deatil how things are faked and providing ample Sagan-esque commentaries on critical thinking and empirical method.
Why try to make such an issue out of being (dun dun duuuun) an atheist? All we need are regular characters in regular shows being good parents, friends, citizens who happen to be atheists. And when the subject comes up, not shying away from stating their beliefs and not jumping up and down and saying that theists are stupid-heads who live in a world of make-believe.
All we are trying to do is get “America [to] trust atheists,” not get all Americans to be atheists.
I agree that most peole do not think about it. But we are on a debate board in a thread discussing atheism and theism. Excuse the firing synspses, and feel free to ignore them. And I think I might have a better handle on my thought processes than you, but thanks for filling me in all the same. And when I’m interested in an expert on the beginnings of ALL religions and events that NEVER occured at those beginnings, I’ll be sure to seek out your expertise.
Did you notice that it was god with a small “g”?
That is an arguement against God, not god.
I have come to that conclusion. I have said that I may very well be wrong. I am completely open to the possibility.
Obviously. Sorry to have confused you. You may want to read things over, though. Just a suggestion.
Then 97% would be wrong.
Go right ahead. It’ll just be one more thing you are wrong about. But that list is kinda long already, so you might want to rethink that. Again, just a suggestion.
“First cause” isn’t an issue, as I and others have pointed out; nor does “will” have anything to do with it.
Once again, incorrect, and already discussed.
There is no evidence that anything needs to be “explained away”.
No, IMHO it’s because they are regarded as either ripe for conversion, or to weak willed to be dangerous to religion.
If it means whatever you want it to mean at the moment, that’s meaningless enough for me. Also, there is no pure form, except in your imagination.
You haven’t even proven that it is a problem.
In other words, something that does not and cannot exist, by any rules we understand. Claiming that God is impossible doesn’t make him more likely.
There is no common ground. Religion by nature is hostile to everything but itself.
And where has anyone claimed that ?
In other words, to an impossibility.
Only because you give religion a special status. If I claimed that the Moon was going to turn into a giant wombat tomorrow ( something I consider more plausible than God ), and someone else dismissed that claim as nonsense, would you give both claims equal weight ? Of course not. The logical default is that something does not exist, that a claim is false, unless evidence is provided.
First, I would draw your attention to the word “appear”. Second, that has been claimed, not shown to be the case. You may point me to the post if I am wrong.
