Okay ATHEISTS <rolls sleaves>

I haven't read all of this discussion, only the first page.

I would just like to say that just because you can't explain something doesn't mean you have to believe it was the work of 'god.' The Greeks didn't know how to explain lightning so they made up a god for it. Today we know why there is lightning. Just because you don't know how something works doesn't mean it's the work of god.

 

Well yes, and on the other hand, just because you know how something works, doesn't mean it isn't the word of a god. God doesn't always move in mysterious ways

 

You're both right. That's the maddening thing about reality. It's completely ambiguous. But there are some aspects of it that intuitively lead me to bet on some kind of intelligence as the option which strikes me as most plausible, fully realizing I could be like one of those Greeks.

I prefer to phrase the question: what elements of life make me think that there might be apects of reality that seem to be outside prevailing naturalistic frameworks, and may relate to a higher level of being within and/or outside of us? (1)I'm impressed by the fine-tunedness of the universe, and beyond that feel it's remarkable we won the cosmic sweepstakes, that we evolved into beings who are aware of reality, when the course of evolution didn't have to go that way;(2) I'm also pretty impressed with the phenomenon of consciousness, the most immediately accessible reality we know. There is Chalmers "hard question": how and why we have this phenomenal, subjective reality we identify as us inside our heads. He asks, why couldn't we be zombies? In other words, what function does consciousness serve from an evolutionary standpoint. Various suggestions have been put forward that consciousness helps somehow to perform some sort of integrating function, but I don't get it; (3) I'm generally awed by the phenomenon of existence. Like Einstein, Carl Sagan & Julian Huxley, I find the vast complexity and reguarity of the universe awe inspiring, and I have the same feelings toward humanity;(4) I'm fascinated by the phenomenon of synchronicity that Jung was also intrigued by--the uncanny coincidences in our lives that I and just about everybody else has experienced. Of course, naturalists would say they're just coincidences, & over the course of a liftime, everybody will experience several of them as a result of sheer chance. There are also the kinds of "paranormal" experiences that I hear about from friends who otherwise are normal, level-headed dudes--being healed of a wound by sleeping overnigt in a pyramid, seeing auras, etc. I take them with a grain of salt and put them in the X-files for future reference. (5) There's also that personal life-altering religious experience I and numerous othes have had, which in my case can be explained entirely in naturalistic terms. It's not so much that science could never explain these phenomena; it's that science doesn't seem to be interested in doing so. (6) Finally,there's the multidimensional complexity of the religious phenomenon, offering psychological, social and economic benefits. None of this is particulary "supernatural", but they point to something interesting beyond our conventional wisdom. My concept of God is like the Higher Power of the recovery groups--someting beyond the self, whether a Higher Intelligence or an impersonal force, or even the universe itself.

I believe in SBWOT ("Something Big Within and Out There"). The finely tuned character of our universe, the remarkably fortunate emergence of intelligent, conscious life, seem otherwise too good to be true. It seems plausible to me that there is a divine transcendant order that gives our lives what keenness they have and inspired our idealism. I don't believe in a bearded Sky God who micromanages our lives. At the moment, I'm exploring panentheism (not pantheism) and process theology, and am constantly revising my views of this presence on the basis of my readings in science, metaphysics, and comparative religion. But none of this is "evidence" in the sense it would convice you or anybody else.

 

So who are you to claim the workings of friction aren't in fact god? Not that they are, you wouldn't know for sure anyway, but the point I go for is that the laws of science are by no means laws; they are the result of human observation of the world, but are not in the least human creation. Things work the way they do, and we try our best to predict just how that is, but that doens't mean that things don't work that way for a reason, or that we really know how they work.

Supporters of the idea of a conscious entity:
Let's try something fun here; you are God, you just created reality and existence, and all of mankind with the purest of love. What purpose do you have in not letting those who you create know that you exist outright? Why leave any doubt for them? It's not a point if anyone has a good answer, but I'd like to hear someone's take on it.
I predict at least one "God works in mysterious ways" answer, but those don't really answer anything in a logical way (I accept and embrace that there are theological ideas that are non-rational and are based on emotion before reasoning, I just would like an answer based more on logic with emotional results).

Considering humankind's scale to the entire universe, it doesn't surprise me that we wouldn't be able to understand much more than we can encounter and comprehend in our everyday lives. The complexity of life is on both sides of the scale (as in atoms< us< universe), and we view it from what we perceive as the middle point, because that's exactly where we are. Everything about our being seems by chance because we think we wouldn't survive elsewhere in the universe, but because we came to be in this particular corner of it, we wouldn't be apt to survive anywhere else. Hypothetically, if Mars were our home planet, we wouldn't be suited to Earth; you could say that "Oh, well Mars doesn't support life, but Earth does", but "life" is limited to our understanding of what "life" is on Earth, because we take the entire concept of "life" from living on Earth. All we really are is a complex composition of atoms, which move among eachother through energy exchanges. "Soul" would completely condract this, but it's an idea I don't yet have foundation for, in any scientific sense.

You're definitely smart enough to know I'm not trying to argue with you/give you shit for your ideas, I just thought I had an idea you would probably appreciate

 

I'll take a stab, if you make allowances that I'm flying by the seat of my pants that may be full of shit: (1)The "mysterious ways" argument is of course one explanation. Answering your question may be like my dog trying to explain why I get so upset when he takes a dump on the carpet; (2) it would take away all the fun of watching how mortals deal with issues of ambiguity; (3) it would violate our free will and God's love for us to pre-empt our discovery; (4) S(he) doesn't give a shit whether or not we're aware of His/Her existence, but if we figure it out, we can get a better understanding of the universe and how we relate to it; (5) God may not be omnipotent, and is having a bit of a communication problem; (6) God is "work in progress", whose ultimate character hasn't been completely worked out yet; (7) all of the above; (8) some of the above. Anybody have any other ideas?

 

haha good man, good.
Yeah, the "Free Will" concept is only good for anwering questions like "Why do bad things happen to good people"; most religion ed teachers act like the bad things in question are all human-related (which works, I guess), when in reality they should cover more "god-related" things like natural disasters. The one I came up with for those is that, since we have free will, god can only punish us for our misdoings after death, so everyone gets their name in the lottery for "random death" (wouldn't be fair to punish anyone just yet). Of course, then comes the "So why does God make us die randomly anyway..".

I think 5 kind of works with the idea I was sharing with my brother (who presented this question to me in the first place); it basically places god as a non-concious being, who doesn't have control, but not in the usual sense. I was basically saying that God is in fact a collaboration of every human identity, and will be created sometime in the future upon the linking of every human mind (internet being a prototype of it); like a "hind-mive" or collective consciousness. After all, all god is is the results of such a thing, ona human scale. All-knowing, Best/worst at everything, All-loving/All-hating (as with the God + Devil = 1 idea), All-powerful (as humans go), as creative as is possible without making something from nothing, etc. After the creation of 'god', human progression would quicken, and then I would predict some sort of communication, breakthrough, or creation of the universe again, like one big, pointless cycle. Workin on it.

Oh, and as for your second point (post like four above), that is an awesome question; humans are, as far as we know, the only animal with more mind power than is required in order to survive.

 

I think accepting that the universe is ambiguous, and that we lack the evidence to prove that there is or isn't a god, is what's fucking us over here. We're right, but we can't prove it, so as Bertrand Russell would expect, the idiots who are certain about everything they know and think anything they don't know is "stupid" will beat us every time. We got served.

 

Yeah, it does put us at a power disadvantage in dealing with the know-it-alls. It's the old "civilized people versus barbarians" dilemma. The barbarians have a way of winning out because, well, they're barbarians! The big advantage of religion and militant atheism is confidence. From an evolutionary standpoint, they may have superior survival value.

 

Okie

Agree. And that confidence comes from knowing the barbarians are
but the 3rd rung on on a 100 rung ladder.

Occam

 

what I dont like about this type of thinking, is that it humanizes God in every way. It sets up the expectation that God should behave like US.

 

The anthropomorphising of god.

Woot

Occam

 

bad.

 

I guess. But it is a valid point if you do believe in an anthropomorphic god.

 

But a god came before us.

Its law, resulted in us.

To anthropomorphise is the HUGE arrogance of the ignorant.
As IF WE we anything special.

Occam

 

Well, thinking about it, "anthropomorphism" is a misnomer anyway; Christians believe God made Man in His image, not the other way around...

 

Oy, but what understanding and expectation of God's character do we have that is more? To give any assumption of God's character, to say he wants something, or prefers good over evil, as if either existed- this is to assume God is one of human logic, and one with desires of/for his creation. To have a conscious God, is to have a very human God indeed. Would you consider the sum of every mind/soul on the planet to really be "human", anyway? It would probably be perfectly balanced in every way. The idea of God is based on human expectations, and serves as the potential answer to the greatest questions that humans are capable of posing.

This view does centralize humans a bit too much (as in universal importance), at least if our assumption is that a collaborative mind would be god in the creation sense; it's more of the fufillment of the human dream. Believing in this would void any idea of the presence of 'God' in anywhere other than the hearts and minds of every person, and a broken-up and scattered one, at that.
Lots of people may see it as disrespect to God (of the ever-watching, all powerful God that created everything idea of God, that is), but that's quite irrelevant. Every single person in the world has an amazing mind, regardless of their philisophical background; being that people are here with you, maybe 'God' would understand and appreciate you respecting them, his other beloved creations, as more important than himself, who he placed out of the picture anyway. If believing in something takes pressure, it's probably because it's not what you truly feel; just go with what is honestly the best feeling, and that will be the correct answer for your mind, whatever it may be

 

LanSlide
Observation of this reality and especially of humanity.
Gives much creedence to this postulation.

I am nietzschean 'scum'

Occam

 

Christianity is.. cavet emptor
Christians.. are like all other human beings including me.Full of shit.

They killed moslems by the 10's of thousands even though they all
had the same god.. [crusades...different prophet]

The fundamental religeous insane on this planet NOW.
IS not Islamic. they are christian.
Mostly in the US.. Thank 'GOD" for the constitution.

Occam

 

Better yet, thank lawyers. They drafted the Constitution.

 

The lawyers put down what they were told to..
Lawyers do nothing without a. money..b. direction.

Occam