Is There Evidence for a Creator of the Universe?

[Evo]

How would a definition of god that doesn't extend further than an intelligence behind the origin of the universe stand up to scrutiny?
Most people pick apart the notion of a creator due to opinions as to whether he interacts with the universe and how well he may or may not perform this duty.

If you say that your only concept of a creator was a non-human intelligence that set in motion the universe, and left the rest open ended; could we not find credence in some peoples notion of a higher intelligence?

For some, myself included, we have determined that systems established through technology are automatically assumed to have a creator/designer. I tend to carry this thinking into the universe. I see an incredibly complex order that could denote an intelligent design. This belief doesn't give credence to any religion as there is no evidence to the nature of a creator or reason behind creation so how could I make a judgement.

Describing a mythical creature or absurd monster doesn't really counter this argument because, as some have said, we can use natural observations to determine the unlikelihood of their existence to the near infinite.

When held simply to the possibility of an intelligence behind the system that is the universe, it seems that a "creator" is as much a possibility as any other explanation.

Yes that's true, it may very well be the case that the universe was created (consciously influenced). It may not be science (science wont/cant consider it), but reality isn't constrained by the limits of the scientific method.

I think the belief that there is no creator, or that he is redundant, is based on a string of assumptions. It all starts with the assumption that the physical ingredients in general are devoid of consciousness. Also, as i mentioned earlier, the current universe needs consciousness to be the way it is. Many assume that consciousness is a late arrival, limited to the brains in which it "emerged", and think that the universe could exist perfectly well without it. But upon closer inspection, this "emergence" business has no examples anywhere in nature to back it up.

Yes and even if there was an incredibly simple situation, there is no logic to suggest that simplicity implies lack of conscious influence. I remember reading Victor Stengers hypothesis of a pre-bigbang void of "unphysical" zero energy. He made it seem like it was an argument against a creator.

Since you both think there is/could be a creator. Can you please post the reason's you think a creator is necessary?

Let's pretend here. Be brief, specific and to the point please. You say there had to be a creator. What do you think this "creator" was? (1-2 sentences please, this isn't philosophy). What are you claiming they created? Why? You know that current thinking is that atoms did't even form for 300,000 years? The first stars about 400,000 million years.

You might want to read the timeline before you explain how a creator was necessary for this process. I don't see it. Looks like an extremely lengthy natural event that got us where we are, and it's still going on.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/wmap_pol.html

 

[Galap]

Omnipotence and omniscence cannot exist. We live in a universe. That is obvious. Something exists rather than nothing. This can be proven. For omnipotence and omniscience to exist, the universe itself must be in a self refferential and self diagnostic state. It must be in a state where it knows about itself entirely. Now, I, being a part of the universe, am somewhat diagnostic and manifest, due to the fact that I am intelligent and alive. I can say for certain though that I do not contain all the information that exists in the universe, and since I'm a part of it, I can prove that such information is not known at all by the whole universe. Therefore no omniscience.

If that was worded confusingly I can try to rephrase :)

Now I'm not saying that what we call the universe isn't artificial, but I am saying that for it to be such there must be something outside it, a place in which the creator resides, it itself being a non omnipotent being with respect to both its environment and ours. If you build a house, it does not make you the God of all that's inside.

 

[pftest]

Let's pretend here. Be brief, specific and to the point please. You say there had to be a creator. What do you think this "creator" was? (1-2 sentences please, this isn't philosophy). What are you claiming they created? Why? You know that current thinking is that atoms did't even form for 300,000 years? The first stars about 400,000 million years.

First, i don't say there "had to be" a creator, I am saying that is is possible that a conscious influence has been around since the big bang. One main objection to this is that C emerged in brains, but upon closer inspection, "emergence" of that kind doesn't happen anywhere in nature, so it doesn't exactly score high on how natural such an event is. I believe materialism is so popular because of a combination of the bandwagon effect, a counter-reaction to religion, and people not properly understanding what science is.

You might want to read the timeline before you explain how a creator was necessary for this process. I don't see it. Looks like an extremely lengthy natural event that got us where we are, and it's still going on.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/wmap_pol.html

One point i have made earlier is that there is nothing unnatural about consciousness. There is also no conflict between the existence of consciousness, and the way the universe behaves, whether it is by laws or not.

People often bring up evolution also. Even there, is it clear that consciousness influences evolution, simply because of how it influences animal behaviour and thereby natural selection.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Since you both think there is/could be a creator. Can you please post the reason's you think a creator is necessary?

Because there is existence instead of non-existence.

Let's pretend here. Be brief, specific and to the point please. You say there had to be a creator. What do you think this "creator" was? (1-2 sentences please, this isn't philosophy). What are you claiming they created? Why? You know that current thinking is that atoms did't even form for 300,000 years? The first stars about 400,000 million years.

The Newtonian universe is dead! No need to take the dead body out of the coffin, except for nostalgic reasons. We need a Major shift in our thinking to understand the universe as it is, not as it is perceived or as it seems.

You might want to read the timeline before you explain how a creator was necessary for this process. I don't see it. Looks like an extremely lengthy natural event that got us where we are, and it's still going on.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/wmap_pol.html

Somebody deleted my fairly long replies to you earlier and the one to Gokul, but my point was - why do you suppose anything could be in existence without a Creator? That timeline you posted doesn't address origins and doesn't say if anything can exist without a creator. Isn't it a bit naive to jump to conclusions given the lack of information about the origin and the controversial nature of the clues we have at hand - a universe that is right for life and fairly comprehensible?

 

[Evo]

why do you suppose anything could be in existence without a God?

Because there is no need for magic.

If you believe in a magical being, you are the one that has to prove it's existence.

 

[Pattonias]

Since you both think there is/could be a creator. Can you please post the reason's you think a creator is necessary?

Let's pretend here. Be brief, specific and to the point please. You say there had to be a creator. What do you think this "creator" was? (1-2 sentences please, this isn't philosophy). What are you claiming they created? Why? You know that current thinking is that atoms did't even form for 300,000 years? The first stars about 400,000 million years.

The discussion about what happened at the origin of the universe is pure philosophy. I feel that there may be a creator because I see an order in the universe and I find it difficult to argue for a lack of design.

The time line is irrelevant. Until humans started keeping track of time, time in the universe was meaningless. I could see how if I was arguing as a creation scientist the time line would be a problem, but as I believe in evolution I don't have any problem with the time line.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Because there is no need for magic.

If you believe in a magical being, you are the one that has to prove it's existence.

I am aware that there are many things i believe and assume to be true, even though i cannot prove them. There are many things that you yourself believe and assume to be true, even though you cannot prove them. You can't prove that you have free will for instance. You can't prove that there is randomness in Nature, etc. So what? We always need to make assumptions, you make the assumption that the origin is natural and i have no problem with that. You can't however stress that your assumptions are more valid than the rest, because you don't have evidence to back them up. Atheists need to become tolerant towards other viewpoints and realize the assumptions that lie behind their reasoning.

If you believe in a magical being, you are the one that has to prove it's existence.

Beliefs are NOT proven, otherwise they wouldn't be beliefs. Your belief about the natural origin cannot be proven either.

 

[Evo]

The discussion about what happened at the origin of the universe is pure philosophy.

My point was that this is not the philosophy *forum*, so be brief and to the point.

 

[Pattonias]

My point was that this is not the philosophy *forum*, so be brief and to the point.

And my point is that any answer would be philosophy as neither you or I am able to give an answer the has been proven true. I gave you my answer in the previous post.

 

[Evo]

And my point is that any answer would be philosophy as neither you or I am able to give an answer the has been proven true. I gave you my answer in the previous post.

There are threads about the existence of god(s) in the philosophy forum. This is skepticism and debunking and the OP's question was

Ultimately my questioning comes down to, "what is junk about the junk science that follows a universal designer".

 

[Galap]

I am aware that there are many things i believe and assume to be true, even though i cannot prove them. There are many things that you yourself believe and assume to be true, even though you cannot prove them. You can't prove that you have free will for instance. You can't prove that there is randomness in Nature, etc. So what? We always need to make assumptions, you make the assumption that the origin is natural and i have no problem with that. You can't however stress that your assumptions are more valid, because you don't have evidence to back them up. Atheists need to become tolerant towards other viewpoints and realize the assumptions that lie behind their reasoning.




Beliefs are NOT proven, otherwise they wouldn't be beliefs. Your belief about the natural origin cannot be proven either.

What does 'free will' mean though? Either the universe is deterministic or it isnt. If it's deterministic, your decisions are based on your construction and the input you recieve. If it isn't, your decisions are based on randomness, which means theyre based on nothing. Where in there is 'free will' a meaningful term to use? It seems to me that the term places an unwarranted amount of significance and fundamentiality on intelligence. I know this sounds off topic, but bear with me a second. What we have done here is taken an anthropocentric view of reality, as if WE were the fundamental parts of the universe, not the particles. Now when we invoke a 'god', we are anthropocentrizing as well. What is 'god' anyway? A being? If it's a being, then how could it be a god? beings are just beings. If its a natural law, how could it be a god? Was the universe's design intelligent? How can we attempt to answer that if we don't really know what intelligence is in the first place?

 

[GeorgCantor]

What does 'free will' mean though? Either the universe is deterministic or it isnt. If it's deterministic, your decisions are based on your construction and the input you recieve. If it isn't, your decisions are based on randomness, which means theyre based on nothing. Where in there is 'free will' a meaningful term to use? It seems to me that the term places an unwarranted amount of significance and fundamentiality on intelligence. I know this sounds off topic, but bear with me a second. What we have done here is taken an anthropocentric view of reality, as if WE were the fundamental parts of the universe, not the particles. Now when we invoke a 'god', we are anthropocentrizing as well. What is 'god' anyway? A being? If it's a being, then how could it be a god? beings are just beings. If its a natural law, how could it be a god? Was the universe's design intelligent? How can we attempt to answer that if we don't really know what intelligence is in the first place?

I know you addressed your questions to me but they are offtopic and i seem to stick out with my views and will receive another infraction in the same thread or have my posts deleted. Sorry, i can't reply to you here.

What is 'god' anyway? A being? If it's a being, then how could it be a god? beings are just beings. If its a natural law, how could it be a god?

This is ontopic but is contentious so i'll be very brief - my brain isn't well suited to dealing with concepts that involve infinities, singularities and such. The God i am thinking of isn't remotely similar to a being sat in a throne. And as usual, I could be wrong(take that as a disclaimer)

 

[Pattonias]

There are threads about the existence of god(s) in the philosophy forum. This is skepticism and debunking and the OP's question was

I never tried to redirect the thread, I merely wanted to add that the debunking "junk science" approach fails to determine the existence of a god due to the fact that it only goes to discredit the attempts at science made by religious groups. It doesn't show one way or another whether there may have been an intelligent designer or not.

 

[Evo]

Beliefs are NOT proven, otherwise they wouldn't be beliefs. Your belief about the natural origin cannot be proven either.

I'm not claiming that a magical creature was involved. I have no problems with people that believe in or worship supernatural beings as long as they don't say it's the only possibility. If they do, then they carry the burden of proof.

 

[nismaratwork]

Because there is existence instead of non-existence.

I'll ask again, how is non-existence less incomprehensible and "amazing" than existence?

As Evo said, and seems to have been neatly ignored, this isn't philosophy, just the facts madam. I've made two stabs at this, and I'm pressing it, why is existence somehow special, and nothingness is not? Why is 0 such a world-changing concept if the infinity of nothing isn't perceived as mystical in some ways?

Posing the existence of a god just makes me ask: what created god? That is an endless cycle. Only if you're satisfied with an ultimate "something" as preferable to an ultimate "nothing" does your argument hold water. It isn't, it doesn't.

 

[LBloom]

I'll ask again, how is non-existence less incomprehensible and "amazing" than existence?

Because nonexistence seems impossible! Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to Hawking, completely empty space is impossible according to Heisenberg, which leads to Hawking radiation (the field's strength and its rate of change cannot be accurately determined to be exactly 0). Nature does abhor a vacuum, even outside black holes!

The problem here is that people who believe want an explanation for why the world is, how it was created, why matter should exist, why the universe exists, even if they don't always fully grasp the science of it. They want answers to these questions and skeptical scientists...don't. They shouldn't be derided for asking questions some scientists choose to ignore. The answers proposed are necessarily and scientifically unsatisfactory given the nature of the topic, but that's not their fault (lest you wish to do away with their curiosity about certain questions)

Finally, the burden of proof is NOT on the religious people alone, but actually equally on both sides of the debate. Let me explain:

According to Russell's teapot, the burden of proof is on those who make positive statements, not negative statements. He said its foolish to suppose a teapot is orbiting the Earth but can't be seen and we shouldn't assume it exists.

However, how do we differentiate between a positive and negative statement in terms of burden of proof? In the teapot case, its obvious, the default should be there is no teapot because there no evidence and we should expect evidence for such an object and no invisible teapot has ever been discovered. The amount of evidence falls drastically short of the evidence expected.

With gd on the other hand, there can't be an empirical, experimental proof (unless he if he exists chooses to reveal himself). It's impossible to ascertain either way whether or not he exists. The empirical evidence we have for gd is 0 and the evidence we expect to have is also 0! There is an impossible gulf between the evidence we can possibly have and the evidence we would need, and this works both ways. The evidence needed to prove or disprove his evidence is impossible to obtain, and there's no reason to burden oneside with an impossible task that cuts both ways. In contrast to ideas like the flying spaghetti monster, orbiting teapots, and faeries which we should be able to observe, the evidence we have and expect to possibly attain will always fall short of the evidence we need.

As long as you take the scientific approach to religion, the only reasonable approach is agnosticism, whether you are an agnositc atheist, or agnostic theist is up to you.

 

[GeorgCantor]

I'll ask again, how is non-existence less incomprehensible and "amazing" than existence?

.

What is so stranage about this 'nonexistence' affair?

If you didn't exist, would you ask "Why don't I exist?" Or if you didn't exist, would you have asked "Why is there Nothing instead of Something?". And how exactly would you have asked when you don't exist?

Either your question is very deep and i am unable to grasp it, or it doesn't make any sense. Either way, it's offtopic and i can't afford to discuss it here. Post a new topic in the philosophy forum.

 

[baywax]

What is so stranage about this 'nonexistence' affair?

If you didn't exist, would you ask "Why don't I exist?" Or if you didn't exist, would you have asked "Why is there Nothing instead of Something?". And how exactly would you have asked when you don't exist?

Either your question is very deep and i am unable to grasp it, or it doesn't make any sense. Either way, it's offtopic and i can't afford to discuss it here. Post a new topic in the philosophy forum.

God is considered a metaphysical concept. Its not a fact by scientific terms, its a concept just the same as zero is a concept. No one has empirically proven zero exists and no one has empirically proven god exists. Those people who claim god exists... and zero exists... need to step up to the plate and start digging through the pudding for the proof. Because they have asserted the claim... dare I say shoved both ideas down people's throats... they need to start pulling the bunny out of the hat and giving the proof of the claim. That's where the concept of zero and the concept of other metaphysical phenomena seem to relate to one another.

 

[GeorgCantor]

God is considered a metaphysical concept. Its not a fact by scientific terms, its a concept just the same as zero is a concept. No one has empirically proven zero exists and no one has empirically proven god exists. Those people who claim god exists... and zero exists... need to step up to the plate and start digging through the pudding for the proof. Because they have asserted the claim... dare I say shoved both ideas down people's throats... they need to start pulling the bunny out of the hat and giving the proof of the claim. That's where the concept of zero and the concept of other metaphysical phenomena seem to relate to one another.

I agree, belief in God is belief and i never even once implied otherwise! I am tolerant towards other viewpoints even if they don't make any sense to me.

Now, for reciprocity, would you be so kind as to apply the same rigorous standards towards atheists, and ask them to produce actual evidence that anything can come into existence without the need of a creator? Or evidence that existence is a natural state and does not require an act of god.

 

[alt]

Pardon this interuption, but "zero is a metaphysical concept / doesn't exist" ?

I've never heard this before - might anyone be able to point to a short primer ?

(yes, I have searched but found nothing, or metaphysical gobbledygook)

PS - wonderfully interesting thread / conversation. Thanks.

 

[DaveC426913]

Now, for reciprocity, would you be so kind as to apply the same rigorous standards towards atheists, and ask them to produce actual evidence that anything can come into existence without the need of a creator? Or evidence that existence is a natural state and does not require an act of god.

Don't need to. The onus is not on atheists. Again (at the risk of going around in circles) if one must prove the non-existence of things, one's job will never be done. You might as well ask us to prove that
- there is no such thing as winged unicorns, and that
- there is no such thing as Santa Claus, and that
- there is no invisible incorporeal dragon in Carl Sagan's garage.
- there is no such thing as a brflrfkjssd (what is a brflrfkjssd you ask? it's something I just postulated to exist. And because it's been postulated, some brflrfkjssd non-Believer now must make a case to you that it does not exist?)

 

[n.karthick]

- there is no such thing as a brflrfkjssd (what is a brflrfkjssd you ask? it's something I just postulated to exist. And because it's been postulated, some brflrfkjssd non-Believer now must make a case to you that it does not exist?)

Wow what a thinking. Great!

But the problem is that the "brflrfkjssd" believer will learn Science, see the gaps in Science and argue with Scientists that there is always a possibility that "brflrfkjssd" exists, since Science can't explain or don't have answer for it.

 

[GeorginaS]

Wow what a thinking. Great!

But the problem is that the "brflrfkjssd" believer will learn Science, see the gaps in Science and argue with Scientists that there is always a possibility that "brflrfkjssd" exists, since Science can't explain or don't have answer for it.

And then the tail end of that is: as science doesn't have an answer for it, and it may very well exist, and something must have caused its existence, that then must be god.

And yes, Dave's right, that it's not up to atheists to prove a negative or prove that a fictional being does not exist.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Don't need to. The onus is not on atheists. Again (at the risk of going around in circles) if one must prove the non-existence of things, one's job will never be done. You might as well ask us to prove that
- there is no such thing as winged unicorns, and that
- there is no such thing as Santa Claus, and that
- there is no invisible incorporeal dragon in Carl Sagan's garage.
- there is no such thing as a brflrfkjssd (what is a brflrfkjssd you ask? it's something I just postulated to exist. And because it's been postulated, some brflrfkjssd non-Believer now must make a case to you that it does not exist?)

Quite the opposite. I don't demand that you prove anything(I know you can't!). It's the atheists who are intolerant toward other viewpoints, so THEY must prove how their assumptions about origins and the 'naturality' of existence are more valid than the rest.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Wow what a thinking. Great!

But the problem is that the "brflrfkjssd" believer will learn Science, see the gaps in Science and argue with Scientists that there is always a possibility that "brflrfkjssd" exists, since Science can't explain or don't have answer for it.

Science does not in ANY way whatsoever point to the conlcusion that god does not exist(certain religions are easier to dismiss as probably not true though). Scientists are not predominently atheists.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Quite the opposite. I don't demand that you prove anything(I know you can't!). It's the atheists who are intolerant toward other viewpoints, so THEY must prove how their assumptions about origins and the 'naturality' of existence are more valid than the rest.

My viewpoint is that humanity originated on the moon and left no traces of this whatsoever.

Let's say I said this at some random point. Would you be "tolerant" of this or would you ask "Why the hell do you think that?" or would you just think I was insane?

 

[GeorgCantor]

My viewpoint is that humanity originated on the moon and left no traces of this whatsoever.

Let's say I said this at some random point. Would you be "tolerant" of this or would you ask "Why the hell do you think that?" or would you just think I was insane?

No, but I completely fail to see how this is related to what i said. What exactly is 'insane' in the position that the origin of this comprehensible universe with its laws and constants was probably not a random event? I am aware that there is a border between absurdity and naivety that i do not wish to cross and fall into the trap of what i perceive to be 'extremes' - theism or atheism.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

No, but I completely fail to see how this is related to what i said. What exactly is 'insane' in the position that the origin of this comprehensible universe with its laws and constants was probably not a random event? I am aware that there is a border between absurdity and naivety that i do not wish to cross and fall into the trap of what i perceive to be 'extremes' - theism or atheism.

We both believe things that we can't prove or test. I don't see the difference. Would you "tolerate" my view or would you question it?

 

[GeorgCantor]

We both believe things that we can't prove or test. I don't see the difference. Would you "tolerate" my view or would you question it?

See, i used to be VERY naive. Probably as much as everyone else on this planet(if not more). 7 years ago, I used to be a very vocal atheist(). With the end of the mechanistic, Newtonain 'clockwork' universe nothing AT ALL is obvious to me anymore. I really mean - Nothing.

I don't question your views, they could be true though i find them very unlikely and in personal plan, i don't like to look naive from certain viewpoints. I am aware that we lack information to draw a definitive conclusion so i think i act in what i perceive to be a 'tolerant' attitude towards other viewpoints.

 

[zomgwtf]

Quite the opposite. I don't demand that you prove anything(I know you can't!). It's the atheists who are intolerant toward other viewpoints, so THEY must prove how their assumptions about origins and the 'naturality' of existence are more valid than the rest.

Give it up.

First of all your statement is contradictory. I don't demand you prove anything, yet you say that he (an atheist) needs to prove their 'assumptions'.

The only people who make assumptions are those that are religious and believe in such a creation god. I do not understand how you do not see this or how you somehow believe it makes sense that the atheist are the ones that are doing this.

The atheist DON'T ACCEPT the god ASSUMPTION. This is not an assumption, this is the opposite of an assumption.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Give it up.

First of all your statement is contradictory. I don't demand you prove anything, yet you say that he (an atheist) needs to prove their 'assumptions'.

It is very very obvious from my posts so far, that i actually DID NOT! demand evidence for your assumptions UNTIL after atheists started demanding evidence for god. This is so obvious that i don't know why i bother replying.

The only people who make assumptions are those that are religious and believe in such a creation god. I do not understand how you do not see this or how you somehow believe it makes sense that the atheist are the ones that are doing this.

The atheist DON'T ACCEPT the god ASSUMPTION. This is not an assumption, this is the opposite of an assumption.

You DO make the assumptions that existence is natural and that the origin is also natural. You actually do make assumptions even though you don't realize it or are simply unwilling to admit so.

 

[stevenb]

Don't need to. The onus is not on atheists. Again (at the risk of going around in circles) if one must prove the non-existence of things, one's job will never be done. You might as well ask us to prove that
- there is no such thing as winged unicorns, and that
- there is no such thing as Santa Claus, and that
- there is no invisible incorporeal dragon in Carl Sagan's garage.
- there is no such thing as a brflrfkjssd (what is a brflrfkjssd you ask? it's something I just postulated to exist. And because it's been postulated, some brflrfkjssd non-Believer now must make a case to you that it does not exist?)

This is all well and good, but it's still not clear to me what an atheist is.

Since we don't know the explanation of why we and the universe exist, the atheist seems to believe in no theory based on what you are saying here. Believing in no particular theory because you don't know the answer is agnostism (I think), so it seems that atheism is believing in no particular thing because some answer is known. But, how can you not believe in something that is known, so what is this thing that is known by an atheist? I assume that the atheist is not claiming that it is known that God does not exist (as I originally assumed) because you say above that burden of proving this is not on the atheist.

I guess I'm talking in circles because the definition of atheism seems to be becoming less clear to me as the discussion goes on. I started early in this thread with an assumption that atheists made a strong statement about the concept of God being wrong. Are we basically saying that agnostism and atheism are the same thing?

There is no proof that science can explain existence, so if I postulate that "brflrfkjssd" is the scientific theory (as yet undiscovered) that explains all mysteries, an atheist should reject this concept just as quickly as God is rejected. The atheist has now rejected the two explanations that I can think of might explain our existence. Even if there is a third, the atheist should reject that one too because there is no proof of it.

Please help me out here. What am I missing? Is there a clear definition of an atheist, or is there just a wide spectrum that is impossible to define clearly unless we talk about the absolute endpoints of 100% knowledge that God exists or 100% knowledge that God does not exist.

EDIT: A thought just occurred to me as I clicked send. Would the following definitions be usable?

Atheist: Someone who rejects all theories of explaning existence because there is no way to prove them.

Agnostic: Someone who accepts many theories as possible explanation of existence because there is no way to prove any particular one.

 

[GeorginaS]

Agnostic: Someone who accepts many theories as possible explanation of existence because there is no way to prove any particular one.

No. Agnosticism neither accepts nor rejects any theory about the existence/non-existence of god. The position is complete neutrality. It's a shoulder-shrug.

 

[Evo]

EDIT: A thought just occurred to me as I clicked send. Would the following definitions be usable?

Atheist: Someone who rejects all theories of explaning existence because there is no way to prove them.

Agnostic: Someone who accepts many theories as possible explanation of existence because there is no way to prove any particular one.

No, that's not it at all. Although some people now break atheism down in sub-categories in an attempt to cover all possible aspects of non-belief, basically, atheism is a lack of belief in a diety. It has nothing to do with science.

Agnostics aren't sure there are dieties, but tend to think there aren't. In other words, they believe that the existence of dieties is unknown or unknowable.

It is some religions that try to replace scientific explanations of creation and existence with a diety. Perhaps this is what confuses you.

 

[DaveC426913]

Agnostics aren't sure there are dieties, but tend to think there aren't. In other words, they believe that the existence of dieties is unknown or unknowable.

This is important, so I'll clarify:

Wrong: Agnostics don't know if there's a God.
Right: Agnostics believe that God is unknowable in this life.

So, it's not that they don't know the answer; it's that they believe there can be no answer.

 

[stevenb]

... atheism is a lack of belief in a diety. It has nothing to do with science.

Agnostics aren't sure there are dieties, ... unknown.

I'm still not sure of the difference here.

If I take a weak view of this definition of atheism, then lack of belief seems the same as not being sure about the existence of a diety. One doesn't believe because there is no compelling reason to believe. I can identify with this, but it strikes me as too close to agnostism for me to tell the difference.

If I take a strong view of this definition of atheism, then the lack of belief is the same as being sure that there is no deity. This strong view does not seem to match the comments that some have made about atheism. For example, "the burden of proof is not on the atheist" and "no self-respecting atheist would hold this view". And if the atheist believes something without proof, isn't this a case of faith, which makes the atheist more like a religious person with faith, in one sense; and, a polar opposite in another sense?

I'm really trying to understand. The more I hear, the less I want to use any label to describe myself. ... Well, I already felt that way, so no problems there.

... It is some religions that try to replace scientific explanations of creation and existence with a diety. Perhaps this is what confuses you

I don't think this is the main source of my confusion, but now I'm confused even more. I'm not sure I understand this comment. How did religions replace scientific explanations of creation and existence with a diety? Most established religions originated before science was even invented, and even more before any scientific theories of origin such as the big-bang/standard-model. Does this model even qualify as a proven scientific theory that truly explains creation and existence? I do accept that this modern scientific theory (very recently) provides a compelling desciption of the origin of the universe, but to me this description of physical laws, starting boundary conditions and following events falls short of explaining why our scientfic laws and starting conditions are even possible.

So basically, your comment seems to imply that a scientific explanation of creation and existence has existed, and religions try to replace that with a diety. My humble view is that it is science that is attempting to replace religious explanations of creation and existence, with a scientific theory. It is also my humble view that it has not yet succeeded in achieving this awesome feat. I'm as hopeful as any other scientist that it may happen, but even this will not force religious people to abandon their faith. A faithful person can always cling to the idea that God exists and is powerful enough to make a universe that appears inevitable and self consistent to anyone within it. In the end this will always remain a mystery that does not yield to logic, but for now I really would just like to have a clear understanding of the language we use to classify our points of view. The core fundamental difference between a "weak-atheist" and some types of agnostics still escapes me.

 

[stevenb]

This is important, so I'll clarify:

Wrong: Agnostics don't know if there's a God.
Right: Agnostics believe that God is unknowable in this life.

So, it's not that they don't know the answer; it's that they believe there can be no answer.

Dave, thank you for trying to help me here. Is this really the accepted definition? Interesting. I wouldn't call my self an agnostic by this defintion, so I think my idea of not using any labels for myself is a good idea.

Calling myself agnostic with this definition creates many conflicts with my own personal beliefs. So many that I don't even know if I could articulate them. It uses the word belief, which seems to imply faith. Personally, I know only that I don't know what to believe. I don't know that God is unknowable and I don't even believe that God is unknowable. If God exists, then of course he would be knowable if he decided to reveal himself to me. I don't know or believe that God exists, but I accept it as a possibility. I also accept the possiblity that science may come up with a theory that explains the universe and explains why that theory is the one that operates in our universe. I don't think that has happened yet; but, sure, maybe it will happen.

Maybe I'm an atheist and don't even know it, maybe I'm an agnostic, but not by this definition. In the end, I think I will avoid any label. I really don't need one. I do think clear definitions are important, and I have no problem accepting yours if everyone agrees with it.

 

[Galap]

I'm still not sure of the difference here.

If I take a weak view of this definition of atheism, then lack of belief seems the same as not being sure about the existence of a diety. One doesn't believe because there is no compelling reason to believe. I can identify with this, but it strikes me as too close to agnostism for me to tell the difference.

If I take a strong view of this definition of atheism, then the lack of belief is the same as being sure that there is no deity. This strong view does not seem to match the comments that some have made about atheism. For example, "the burden of proof is not on the atheist" and "no self-respecting atheist would hold this view". And if the atheist believes something without proof, isn't this a case of faith, which makes the atheist more like a religious person with faith, in one sense; and, a polar opposite in another sense?

I'm really trying to understand. The more I hear, the less I want to use any label to describe myself. ... Well, I already felt that way, so no problems there.



I don't think this is the main source of my confusion, but now I'm confused even more. I'm not sure I understand this comment. How did religions replace scientific explanations of creation and existence with a diety? Most established religions originated before science was even invented, and even more before any scientific theories of origin such as the big-bang/standard-model. Does this model even qualify as a proven scientific theory that truly explains creation and existence? I do accept that this modern scientific theory (very recently) provides a compelling desciption of the origin of the universe, but to me this description of physical laws, starting boundary conditions and following events falls short of explaining why our scientfic laws and starting conditions are even possible.

So basically, your comment seems to imply that a scientific explanation of creation and existence has existed, and religions try to replace that with a diety. My humble view is that it is science that is attempting to replace religious explanations of creation and existence, with a scientific theory. It is also my humble view that it has not yet succeeded in achieving this awesome feat. I'm as hopeful as any other scientist that it may happen, but even this will not force religious people to abandon their faith. A faithful person can always cling to the idea that God exists and is powerful enough to make a universe that appears inevitable and self consistent to anyone within it. In the end this will always remain a mystery that does not yield to logic, but for now I really would just like to have a clear understanding of the language we use to classify our points of view. The core fundamental difference between a "weak-atheist" and some types of agnostics still escapes me.

The main question that is being asked here is "Why did THIS happen as opposed to nothing/something else?" As of now, we have no answer. To do so we would need to answer the question as to WHY the laws of physics are what they are, and not somehting else, and WHY the universe exists (note here that I am agnostic with respect to the existence of other worlds, a multiverse; there is no strong reason yet to believe such places exist, but no reason to believe that such places don't exist. Just clarifying that when i say 'universe' i mean "everything that exists, whatever that may be").

Since the universe is all that exists, one cannot assume an outside explanation. Therefore, the reasons must come from within, from the system itself. It seems to me then that the question once answered will be meaningless, as the answer will be self refferential, somethign akin to "This system that exists is the only one that can, and anythign different would be LOGICALY INCONSISTENT" i.e. logically this is the only answer. Of course there will then be a logical proof of this.

 

[zomgwtf]

It is very very obvious from my posts so far, that i actually DID NOT! demand evidence for your assumptions UNTIL after atheists started demanding evidence for god. This is so obvious that i don't know why i bother replying.

No you said "I don't demand..." this is not the same as saying "I've never requested...". You specifically were saying you DO NOT demand evidence. Then you go on to say you DO want it. This is a contradiction, very very obvious and clear cut case. Now that you've clarified what you've said sure it makes more sense. That doesn't mean it wasn't a contradiction.

You DO make the assumptions that existence is natural and that the origin is also natural. You actually do make assumptions even though you don't realize it or are simply unwilling to admit so.

I don't even know how to address this part of your post.

Go read some books and gain some insight on the discussion you are taking part in. You clearly have very little knowledge in this area so you should refrain from make statements, especially when they are neither logical nor correct in anyway.

 

[zomgwtf]

See, i used to be VERY naive. Probably as much as everyone else on this planet(if not more). 7 years ago, I used to be a very vocal atheist(). With the end of the mechanistic, Newtonain 'clockwork' universe nothing AT ALL is obvious to me anymore. I really mean - Nothing.

Just because you claim to have been a 'vocal atheist', whatever the hell that even means, doesn't mean that all persons who do not believe in a god hold the same belief or go about their business the same way as you. Judging from how you describe your 'past self' you were very intolerant of other persons and it seems instead of you describing what you think an atheist is/are you are describing what you think/thought about yourself. I am nothing like you, yet I am an atheist, I would really rather not be compared to such rediculous beliefs that you may or may not have held.

I don't question your views, they could be true though i find them very unlikely and in personal plan, i don't like to look naive from certain viewpoints. I am aware that we lack information to draw a definitive conclusion so i think i act in what i perceive to be a 'tolerant' attitude towards other viewpoints.

Reading a few of your posts in this thread I find you to be quite intolerant and naive. Looks like you don't live up to what you think of yourself as being now.

Just as an aside, is it just me or do most people advocating a gods existence always have some sort of personal anecdote about how they used to be naive and godless but now they see the light! I swear to god I've seen this more times than I think there are even religious persons in the world. Th funny thing is though, that they think that people really care about 'what they used to be'. Maybe when you share this story at a congregation of sorts the people priase god(s) and rejoice but the majority of rational logically thinking people could care less. (which is what 99.9% of the people at PF are)

 

[Evo]

I'm still not sure of the difference here.

If I take a weak view of this definition of atheism, then lack of belief seems the same as not being sure about the existence of a diety. One doesn't believe because there is no compelling reason to believe. I can identify with this, but it strikes me as too close to agnostism for me to tell the difference.

If they're "not sure" they wouldn't be labeled an atheist. That's why I said all of the different "levels" that have been added to atheism is wrong IMO.

If I take a strong view of this definition of atheism, then the lack of belief is the same as being sure that there is no deity. This strong view does not seem to match the comments that some have made about atheism. For example, "the burden of proof is not on the atheist" and "no self-respecting atheist would hold this view".

It matches perfectly. Atheists don't acknowledge as real other people's beliefs in magical beings that require worship, so they have nothing to prove as they are making no claims.

And if the atheist believes something without proof, isn't this a case of faith, which makes the atheist more like a religious person with faith, in one sense; and, a polar opposite in another sense?

Now you're not making sense. Atheists don't "believe something without proof".

I don't think this is the main source of my confusion, but now I'm confused even more. I'm not sure I understand this comment. How did religions replace scientific explanations of creation and existence with a diety?

Because people way back then (and apparently even now) made up magical beings and created myths to explain what they didn't understand. That's history 101. But I'm sure that you already know that.

 

[stevenb]

Evo, thank you for the clarifications.

It matches perfectly. Atheists don't acknowledge as real other people's beliefs in magical beings that require worship, so they have nothing to prove as they are making no claims.

I think you missed my point on this one. I understand (and agree with the principle) that atheists don't acknowledge unproven things as real, but this is different than stating that those things definitely are not real. This statement would be made by the "strong-atheist" as I defined it. If this is not consistent (or is) with the concept of "atheist" remember this is exactly the question I'm asking, "what is the correct definition?".

Now you're not making sense. Atheists don't "believe something without proof".

Apologies for not making sense. My wording was not clear. Again I was probing a possible definition of atheist. I do understand your point, and it does help clarify the defintion.

Because people way back then (and apparently even now) made up magical beings and created myths to explain what they didn't understand. That's history 101. But I'm sure that you already know that.

Well yes, I do understand that people create myths to explain what they don't understand, but that's not how I interpreted what you originally said.

"It is some religions that try to replace scientific explanations of creation and existence with a diety."

This seemed to imply that science has provided a clear answer to understanding the origin of the universe and physical laws. Basically, nobody understands this yet. So, to me, people are not replacing an "explanation" with a diety, they are explaining the "unexplained" with a diety. There seemed to me to be an important difference, but I now understand your original point. Sorry for my misinterpretation.

(EDIT: It also now occurs to me that you may have been referring to the "creationist camp" that rejects scientific ideas of evolution of life. I wasn't even thinking along those lines because I assume the PF audience is on-board with that for the most part. As someone who accepts the fact of development of life and evolution, I tend to relate "Creation and Existence" to the creation and existence of fundamentals laws of nature that enable the Big-Bang and the origin of life as we understand it. )

 

[HeLiXe]

Just as an aside, is it just me or do most people advocating a gods existence always have some sort of personal anecdote about how they used to be naive and godless but now they see the light!

I wonder the opposite of this...like people who once believed in God but now think there is no real way to prove that it exists or are agnostic or atheist, do they feel it is more sobering to their human experience? Not saying this to be argumentative or offend anyone who believes in a God, but I really do wonder.

 

[Galap]

I wonder the opposite of this...like people who once believed in God but now think there is no real way to prove that it exists or are agnostic or atheist, do they feel it is more sobering to their human experience? Not saying this to be argumentative or offend anyone who believes in a God, but I really do wonder.

Well, to clarify a bit I can give my personal anecdote on the matter. I used to be theist. Catholic for the matter. I was just a matter of my birth. In my early teens, I started thinking for myself and leared that it's generally a good thing not to just believe what you're supposed to. That goes for many things, including religion. I gave the matter some thought, and quite rapidly determined that Catholicism, or pretty much any organized religion was silly and detrimental to society, since they claimed to be privy to God's personal will and commands, tried to make you act on that, and this almighty knowledge of god's will frankly seemed like something some person arbitrarily pulled out of ther rear end. From there, it was pretty easy to look at the universe and rule out a deity (the logic isn't really relevant to this post, plus I've already posted it before).

From there I've gone to determine that God is a cop-out, an attempt to shirk responsibility. If there is something out there that aready knows everythign, that already has the universe figured out, how is it our responsibility to do so then? If there exists such a superior, what purpose do we serve? If we are created and engineered by an external being, what responsibility do we have for our actions? If we repent our sins, we are ok. We see suffering and badness in the world, but why should we change it if god made the universe ideal? How can we be responsible for changing ourselves if we are already made in god's image? The existence painted by most religions, where progress is seen as heresy, seems qiute sad and bleak to me. According to them, we are essentially doomed to wander around on the Earth and never really accomplish anything more than simply be the toys of a greater power.

So bottom line, yes, I find the change in me to have been very sobering to my human experience.

 

[baywax]

Well, we have some interesting discussion going on here! Thank you for that! There's even some yelling going on.

What I find fascinating is that billions of people have heard about and know about and read about this god guy and his family and his angels and the fallen one and all that... billions of people know this stuff.

But, if we were to tell them they all have "macrophages" running around in their blood and other bodily fluids eating invading parasites and contaminates on the spot... they'd think I was making it up. If we told them they see upside down and their brain turns it right side up... they'd say I was crazy and inventing things to distract them from their mythology. If I told them a tumour can grow teeth and hair like a head... they'd really know I was the devil.

 

[HeLiXe]

Galap, Thank you sooooo much for sharing your personal story.

From there I've gone to determine that God is a cop-out, an attempt to shirk responsibility. If there is something out there that aready knows everythign, that already has the universe figured out, how is it our responsibility to do so then? If there exists such a superior, what purpose do we serve? If we are created and engineered by an external being, what responsibility do we have for our actions? If we repent our sins, we are ok. We see suffering and badness in the world, but why should we change it if god made the universe ideal? How can we be responsible for changing ourselves if we are already made in god's image? The existence painted by most religions, where progress is seen as heresy, seems qiute sad and bleak to me. According to them, we are essentially doomed to wander around on the Earth and never really accomplish anything more than simply be the toys of a greater power.

^^ This is a big part of what I was considering. For a religious person who had a daily devotion to God and prayed to it when in crisis or just regularly, it would be quite a change when there is no longer a God there for emotional dependence or assistance because that person no longer believes in it. You also brought up some very good point of views about the state of the world, change and complacency. Thank you very much!

 

[baywax]

Pardon this interuption, but "zero is a metaphysical concept / doesn't exist" ?

I've never heard this before - might anyone be able to point to a short primer ?

(yes, I have searched but found nothing, or metaphysical gobbledygook)

PS - wonderfully interesting thread / conversation. Thanks.

Zero exists as much as the number 1 in that these are both language equivalents that correspond to a quantity of actual "things". So, in the sense that "zero" exists as a stimulated group of neurons... beyond that it is only a description of a quantity or a lack of quantity.

In reality the description "zero" describes the "non-existence" of quantity and so even the "thing" or "quantity" that zero describes... does not exist.

I imagine that with "god" people often are referring to all things... that god is a description of all things that exist or do not. Mark twain has a quote to deal with this sort of generalization...

“All generalizations are false, including this one.”.

 

[GeorgCantor]

No you said "I don't demand..." this is not the same as saying "I've never requested...". You specifically were saying you DO NOT demand evidence. Then you go on to say you DO want it.

Yes of course i would demand evidence since YOU first demanded evidence of me. It was atheists who started the evidence questionaire. It seems you are saying i am not an idiot and i agree to it.

Go read some books and gain some insight on the discussion you are taking part in. You clearly have very little knowledge in this area so you should refrain from make statements, especially when they are neither logical nor correct in anyway.

I have no idea what you are trying to prove with these vague ad hominems. I guess you don't have a point, that's why.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Just because you claim to have been a 'vocal atheist', whatever the hell that even means, doesn't mean that all persons who do not believe in a god hold the same belief or go about their business the same way as you. Judging from how you describe your 'past self' you were very intolerant of other persons and it seems instead of you describing what you think an atheist is/are you are describing what you think/thought about yourself. I am nothing like you, yet I am an atheist, I would really rather not be compared to such rediculous beliefs that you may or may not have held.

Yes, i know you are smart and not naive. It's obvious.

Reading a few of your posts in this thread I find you to be quite intolerant and naive. Looks like you don't live up to what you think of yourself as being now.

Which posts specifically?

Just as an aside, is it just me or do most people advocating a gods existence always have some sort of personal anecdote about how they used to be naive and godless but now they see the light! I swear to god I've seen this more times than I think there are even religious persons in the world. Th funny thing is though, that they think that people really care about 'what they used to be'. Maybe when you share this story at a congregation of sorts the people priase god(s) and rejoice but the majority of rational logically thinking people could care less. (which is what 99.9% of the people at PF are)

This is nonsense and your generalizations are founded entirely on misconceptions.


It seems to me the only thing that irritates you is the FACT that you cannot substantiate your assumptions and beliefs about existence being a natural state of affairs and the 'natural' origin.

 

[Evo]

Yes of course i would demand evidence since YOU first demanded evidence of me. It was atheists who started the evidence questionaire.

It doesn't work that way george. You claim something exists, so you need to provide proof, not the one that doesn't believe you.

It seems you are saying i am not an idiot and i agree to it.

You keep making things up that people haven't said and obviously do not mean.