Is There Evidence for a Creator of the Universe?

[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.

 

[GeorgCantor]

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.

Isn't it somewhat hypocritical, since it was you that made the following claim in post number 5, right in the beginning of the thread:

There is no need for a "creator" in nature.

How do you know this and where is the evidence for this claim? You claim something can come and be in existence without a creator. The onus is on you to provide evidence for your claim.

I made no categorical claims that God must necessarily exist. INSTEAD, I did state that it was a belief, and beliefs are NEVER proven, as they wouldn't be beliefs otherwise.

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

He said I didn't demand evidence but when i was pushed to present evidence, i also demanded that atheists present evidence for their assumptions. Sorry but this obviously is a very typical human reaction on my part and i would have been an idiot if, as a response to the challenge, i didn't demand evidence for the assumptions of natural origins. Am i supposed to NOT question and reply to atheists challenges with contra challenges? If they were certain of their position and were on solid ground, that should have been no problem at all.

 

[Evo]

How do you know this and where is the evidence for this claim? You claim something can come and be in existence without a creator. The onus is on you to provide evidence for your claim.

LOL, no, it doesn't work that way georg.

We have enough knowledge of how things are formed and the laws that they obey that there is no need for "magic" as an explanation.

 

[GeorgCantor]

LOL, no, it doesn't work that way georg.

We have enough knowledge of how things are formed and the laws that they obey that there is no need for "magic" as an explanation.

You have zero knowledge if existence is a natural state. If you had, the evidence would have been on the table by now.

 

[Evo]

You have zero knowledge if existence is a natural state.

As opposed to what georg?

 

[GeorgCantor]

As opposed to what georg?

Weren't i talking of God as a possible cause for anything being in existence? As far as i remember, i have been talking about this very point for a few hours now, so what did you mean?

 

[Evo]

The mentors have decided it's past time to shut this down.