A real God would run the scam on all those planets.
So Rocks are “not A”…
… or are they ?
Your position as stated here is incoherent.
And no, negation is not the same as denial of coherence. I’m not going to suddenly say it is, just because you keep repeating ‘You are “Not A”’ at me.
Note: I haven’t said Princhester is not an atheist, for instance, because that would be rude… I’m asking you quite directly to not ascribe a term to me that I don’t agree to.
this is true and why the famous saying goes “Even the religious are atheists when it comes to the gods they don’t believe in, we just go one god further” and other variations of that.
The best response when anyone asks if you believe in god is to ask “which one?” Because they might have a new spin that you haven’t heard yet and it is always useful to define your terms.
I personally say I’m an atheist as a shorthand for “atheist in regards to any and all deities that have as yet been defined for me” but that isn’t quite as snappy.
I’m not 100% certain in my beliefs, which one shouldn’t be if approaching a topic scientifically. I consider myself a deist. I’ve considered three options.
-
Theism. From what I can tell the traditional religions all require belief in one thing or another that defies the laws of nature. Rising from the dead spontaneously. Changing water to wine without any obvious indication that nuclear fusion changing the hydrogen in the water into the appropriate chemicals to make wine was taking place. That sort of thing. Rejection the various flavors of theism is an easy call to make.
-
Atheism. Ironically enough, IMHO, also requires ignoring the current understanding of the laws of nature. The infinitely old universe that doesn’t require a creator due to having always existed makes just as little sense as the idea that Jesus of Nazareth could multiply loaves of bread and fish without access to a VERY advanced nuclear fusion device. That leaves only three other options as far as I can see.
-
Deism. The good old Big Bang, circa 13.8 billion years ago. Where did it come from?
3a. Was there another universe just like this one which died in a Big Crunch at that time, with the Big Bang being a rebound starting the whole thing over again? Maybe, but AFAICT this particular theory of a flat universe undergoing repeated cycles of Big Bangs and Big Crunches, while not fully disproven, is not very popular with physicists.
3b. If not, that means the universe came from somewhere else. A completely de novo creation would violate the law of conservation of energy / mass, so I also reject that hypothesis.
3c. This is my belief. At that point, it then becomes a matter of defining terms. Whatever force it was that led to the Big Bang is presumably something that doesn’t follow the laws of nature of this universe. Again AFAIK we have no evidence that our current universe is a source of Big Bangs creating other universes, so this other universe that was the source of ours must have laws of nature different than our own. Whether it follows the laws of nature of it’s own universe is irrelevant. I simply have chosen to define the term god as any kind of force which is capable of acting in a way which violates the laws of our universe. Thus the force that created the Big Bang = god.
I beleive in Dog.
Always believe in Dog.
“theist” and “atheist” refer to states of belief in humans who are able to hold such beliefs.
Like it or not. You are in the camp of “Not A”.
The reasons why you inhabit that camp may be that a claim is so incoherent that you cannot agree with it. Nothing wrong with that, I am much the same.
Sorry, I can’t in all honesty do that. It accurately describes your state of belief.
That’s polite of you but if you think otherwise why would you not say so? By your reckoning though it seems impossible to validly claim atheism or theism. If your position is that coherence is needed for all god claims and you state that there is no coherence in any of those claims, does it not follow that you think both theism and atheism are not valid?
Rocks clearly have no belief, so theism and atheism, which are statements about belief, do not apply to them. But if you insist on applying a belief status to a rock, the statement “rocks have no god belief” (not A) is a lot more accurate than “Rocks have god belief.”
Atheists sometimes joke about this, but in my experience it is only really brought up by theists.
And to be clear, and I think @Novelty_Bobble meant this, the negation of God belief is lack of God belief, not belief that there are no gods. That’s another thing theists often get wrong.
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen anyone make this statement. The concept of god may be incoherent, but even that doesn’t make belief in god meaningless. And even if someone held this belief, you’d be pretty certain that they lack god belief, so they’d fall into not A.
If I may junior-mod a bit, I am not asking for a thread to turn into yet another age-old rehash of whether God exists or not. I’m just asking everyone to share their experience/path without sniping at others’.
Take a look at this book someday
There are a bunch of hypotheses for the origin of the universe that don’t involve the “Steady Bang” as Clarke called it. In one it seems that after proton decay a new Big Bang is inevitable.
So this form of deism is kind of an argument from ignorance. A lot better than creationism in that it doesn’t deny or ignore scientific facts, but still.
It’s not like cosmologists haven’t thought about this, after all.
If they exist, then they have seen the universe that we both exist in. They would fully believe my story because they could see it with their own eyes.
We don’t fully understand the universe as of yet, but that doesn’t mean that we never will. There was a time when we thought that the tides going in and out was the work of mysterious ineffable beings. Now we know better.
The math and physics behind it is above my paygrade, but there are people on this world who do understand why there is something rather than nothing, and if you spend a few decades studying, you may be able to understand it as well.
The god of the gaps argument made sense when the gaps were large. Those gaps are narrowing rapidly, and trying to shove a supernatural explanation into those gaps makes less and less sense.
How would you explain to someone who sees that there is something, your assertion that it would be easier for there to be nothing? Do you think that they would believe your story?
I’m not confused. I’m sure that I don’t know enough to absolutely say one way or another.
I don’t believe in God, but let him prove Himself. I don’t think that you and I are that far apart.
You seem to be a little confused as to what it means to be an atheist-It has absolutely nothing to do with the origins of the universe.
No, I am not.
No, I neither agree nor disagree with the claim, because it is nonsensical.
Yes, you can. You choose not to.
I said why. You even quoted where I said why.
And…?
No. They are equally as accurate, because they are both incoherent.
I don’t think you understand what I mean by “incoherent”. It means the statement “belief in god” carries no meaningfull information. You can’t have a true/false conclusion about a meaningless proposition. Even in multi-value logics with an “indeterminant” truth value, you still need clear premises.
If I say “you kjklkjl hggkjkj”, you can’t say “no, I do not kjklkjl hggkjkj”. Because you have no idea what I really said. Same-same with all propositional statements relating to properties of the incoherent concept “god”.
Understood, and I’ve said my piece about my stance on surety, so am going to stop replying, just reading
Thank you for the recommendation. I will read that book. My study of physics was back in the early 2000s when I was in college. The way I remember It regarding proton decay was that it resulted in a neutron and a positron. Maybe that idea is out of date and I just happened to be unaware of the latest theories.
I’m an atheist because i have never been presented with any evidence that a God exists. It’s remarkably simple, really.
First and foremost, I consider myself a rationalist, and by extension an atheist. The above quotes pretty much frame my way of thinking (and that’s just in the first handful, before reading the entire thread).
And to really state it well is beyond my writing abilities (as the SDMB has taught me), but @Richard_Pearse really brings it home right here:
Modnote: I’ll make the junior modding official in this case. Do drop the argument with MrDibble or take it to another thread.
Sounds good.
I identify as Christian. Like Sgt. Schultz, I “know” nothing. My concept of God is as the ground of being or big B Being itself. I have no interest in proving or disproving anyone else’s view, as it’s unprovable and unfalsifiable. I’m also a “Red-Letter” Christian. I mostly follow the teachings of Christ as I understand them, and existence or non-existence of God/Jesus doesn’t affect how I live my life.