An Atheists Argument for God (or Something ike it.)

@jeeprs,

Quote:

It makes more sense to me that mind is the underlying cause, and matter is only arranged according to its intentions.

So the universe is some form of a dream in your opinion?

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

If matter doesn't do anything, how does sentience arise? How can mind arise from matter? I don't believe it does, you see. It makes more sense to me that mind is the underlying cause, and matter is only arranged according to its intentions.

Hi Jeeprs, I like your post.
To my way of thinking, For the big band to happen, there must have been a conscious desire for it. therefore all that exists, time, space, energy, mass and gravity is an effect of consciousness and is within consciousness. The original mind is above creation and can't be observed, but by looking into the laws that govern nature we can see its reflection.

1 Reply

@ABYA,

A florid reply.

We all know the big band happened when greatly skilled, and similarly interested brass musicians made congress in jazz inspired melodies.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

actually I was going to say that no matter how good the horns are, the rythm section has be really good in its own right, but then thought better of it, so you beat me to the punch

But on a less facetious note, I do like where you're coming from. Abya, but the challenge lies in demonstrating reasons for which we think it might be true, rather than just saying we believe it, even if it is true that we simply believe it.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

So the universe is some form of a dream in your opinion?

The idea of 'universal mind' is an ancient idea in both Western and Eastern philosophy. Saying it is like a dream does not really capture the meaning of it. The Greek philosophers felt that everything was organised according to Ratio and Logos from where we derived 'Reason' and 'Logic'. Of course, in the modern age, there has been a complete break from the traditional view, which is now regarded as obsolete or archaic. But I don't know if I accept that. I have been studying Greek and Indian philosophy for a long while, and they both have great insights in my view. So amongst the ancient philosophers, there was an understanding of 'God' that was more like a 'divine mind' or 'guiding intelligence' than the popular image of 'Bearded Sky Father'. So it is kind of a religious idea, but not in the sense that most people understand it.

Hope that helps.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

TO ALL

ossobuco wrote

Quote:

I am not interested in reading all this. Not believing is simple.

I find myself in agreement with that on the basis that all we have are concepts and "existence" is the relationship between them. So "I the atheist" has a negative relationship with "a God concept". As soon as "an atheist" discusses "God", the existential relationship is established.

All discussion of the "laws of physics", "determinism" etc are derivative with respect to the relationship axiom. As an example, let those who would wish to discuss the the second law of thermodynamics try to define "order" and "disorder" without reference to their relationship to "an observer who conceptualizes them".

0 Replies

@Sentience,

Not having read the inbetween posts, even my own:

It is my experience that most atheists I know do not have faith in the lack of god's existence (or believe, as commonly we are accused). They/we simply do not believe. Having faith either way is active. This, to me, is an argument construct with just about nothing to do with how atheists think.

I'm beginning to understand that people get their idea of atheism from the dictionary or from the pulpit, or religion class.

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

well, with respect, I signed up a to a philosophy forum, and this is a philosophy discussion. Discussion of the nature of Deity has been one of the mainstays of philosophy since...what...several hundred years BC. I am interested in such discussions. If you are not, why participate? If you don't have anything to say other than 'all this talk is completely meaningless to me', then why say anything? There are a zillioin other conversations going on.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

This isn't meaningless to me. I see a near constant affront of claims that atheists believe (various followup words). I've read all this on the boards for something like ten years now. It's a complete dichotomy. Most atheists do not believe there are no gods. Most atheists' basic premise is just not believing all that stuff. It's a void, not a belief.

Most theists, and some agnostics, think that atheists believe there are no gods. Most atheists of my experience roll their eyes.

Do my posts disturb you?

1 Reply

@Sentience,

Beautiful. We used to think that the milky way was the "edge" of the universe. Now we know we have 100 billion other galaxies out there, and we think that's the "edge." We just haven't come to understand it. I think that if we discover what consciousness really is, we will unlock the key to the universe. Or at least take us to the next step.

I was just talking about this with someone, and it's interesting that you say that some people consider you agnostic even though you are atheist; that happened to me. It made me think. Just like this post.

0 Replies

@Sentience,

Sentience wrote:

First: First things first, we must acknowledge that the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time, without acknowledging that there must be something else out there. This is because thermodynamics teaches that in any closed system the amount of heat in that system will eventually reach equilibrium. So if at any given moment there must have been an infinite amount of time before that moment, and before that moment and so on, the only logical conclusion would be that if the universe existed for an infinite amount of time, then all areas in the universe would be equally warm. Obviously, we can tell this is not true, because we can observe differences in temperature. Thus, the universe has not existed infinitely.

Second: Thermodynamics also states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The same rules apply to matter. But if energy or mass cannot be created or destroyed, and the universe is not infinite, how is it possible that anything was created?

Third: While quantum physics may or may not clash with this, though I am no fan of quantum physics, causality states that every event must be the conclusion of another series of events. However, if we have already shown that the universe could not have been an infinite chain of preceding events, how would this be possible? There must have been a creation point, and yet that very point cannot possibly have been.

Fourth:If we are to use all of these theories without any additional theorizing, the only logical conclusion is that our universe does not exist. However, philosophically, we can prove that it exists, because we can doubt that it exists, proving that there is some sentient being doubting that it exists. Cogito ergo sum, I think therefore I am. So we know that the universe exists in some form.

Summary: Essentially what we have learned is:
1. The universe could not have existed infinitely.
2. The universe could not have had a creation moment.
3. The universe exists.
You may notice the terrible paradox of this situation. Thus, we must come to the...

Conclusion: By the universes own guiding laws of physics, the very basic blocks of understanding and solidity of existence in our universe, the universe could not exist..., and yet it does. Thus, we must compromise. In order for the universe to exist, there must have been something greater than the universe that does not adhere to it's laws of physics in order to create it.

Final Note: You may ask why despite all this, I remain an atheist, though some might consider me agnostic. My sole reason is that, with a force so beyond our comprehension as to not be affected by causality, thermodynamics and physics itself, it is unimaginable. I find giving it a form of any sort rather silly, especially a sentient form. A sentient form that is integrated in our daily lives and places humanity at the center of existence, favoring one religion above another, sending people to hell, impregnating teenagers, sacrificing his child, demanding prayer or sacrifice, moral defining, angel loved, 'human' of a character just plain stupid. If I had to be truly agnostic, at the most I would have an Einstein view of God. I view a force as alien and undefinable as the one I demonstrated to be definable in only one way, chaos. Thus I usually like to call this theory "Ex Chaos", Latin for "Out of Chaos" as a reverse view of "Ex Nihilo", Latin for "Out of Nothing."

Thoughts?

I consider myself to be a hard-nosed athesist. But, I appreciate this post even though I would take issue with a number of assumptions within it. It at least tries to rationally approach the subject.

For me, though, I work on the basis that there is stuff we know and stuff we don't. While we don't know stuff, we need to keep pushing at the boundaries of our knowledge until we do. Or at least, until we have pushed those boundaries as far as we are able.

Eveything else is just making **** up.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

Quote:

Do my posts disturb you?

No. You said "I am not interested in reading all this". You have no interest in religious philosophy or related topics. We get that. Anything to add?

I am not a combatitive type, so I am not trying to be argumentative. I find these topics interesting, and I am not atheist.

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs wrote:

actually I was going to say that no matter how good the horns are, the rythm section has be really good in its own right, but then thought better of it, so you beat me to the punch

But on a less facetious note, I do like where you're coming from. Abya, but the challenge lies in demonstrating reasons for which we think it might be true, rather than just saying we believe it, even if it is true that we simply believe it.

The thing is we have to go above reason to accept it. If we stay within reason it doesn't seem provable, and any logical arguement for a creator can be refuted.
I'm off for a few days now. be back soon.

1 Reply

@ABYA,

ABYA wrote:

The thing is we have to go above reason to accept it. If we stay within reason it doesn't seem provable, and any logical arguement for a creator can be refuted.

The work involved in believing in a creator seems to be a misemployment of our mental abilities.

We have a word for above reason: "unreasonable."

Lots of things can't be proven, a great deal of them can't be proven because they are false. Industrious concentration to make them real is, in the end, just cognitive dissonance, no matter how well garnished with flowery speech.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

With an engineering mindset a belief in some god head does not add to my understanding of the universe or is helpful in any other manner.

Every time such a belief system had been used to plug the holes in our understandings of the universe in the whole history of the human race it had never to date been a helpful thing to do.

In fact doing such had slow down times after times the mass of people accepting our increasing knowledge base.

Two examples that come to mind is the accepted of the fact that the earth is not the center of the universe with everything revolving around it, and second the fight that is still going on concerning evolution and the length of time that the earth had existed.

You can turn on your local religious cable channel and view this silly rearguard action being fought at this very moment.

So not knowing all the details about the birth of the universe is no reason I can see for once more turning to some god or gods.

1 Reply

I agree with the last two posts by BillRM and FART (Failures ART... sorry F Smile

). It's fun to say we have to have faith and go beyond reason, and if it makes you feel better and works for you, I guess that's what you gotta do. But it's definitely not a rational way to think.

0 Replies

@Sentience,

Very enjoyable topic Sentience!

Sentience wrote:

First: First things first, we must acknowledge that the universe has not existed for an infinite amount of time, without acknowledging that there must be something else out there. This is because thermodynamics teaches that in any closed system the amount of heat in that system will eventually reach equilibrium. So if at any given moment there must have been an infinite amount of time before that moment, and before that moment and so on, the only logical conclusion would be that if the universe existed for an infinite amount of time, then all areas in the universe would be equally warm. Obviously, we can tell this is not true, because we can observe differences in temperature. Thus, the universe has not existed infinitely.

If the universe is in a state of accelerated expansion as predicted, could it ever reach equilibrium?

Quote:

Second: Thermodynamics also states that energy cannot be created or destroyed. The same rules apply to matter. But if energy or mass cannot be created or destroyed, and the universe is not infinite, how is it possible that anything was created?

Third: While quantum physics may or may not clash with this, though I am no fan of quantum physics, causality states that every event must be the conclusion of another series of events. However, if we have already shown that the universe could not have been an infinite chain of preceding events, how would this be possible? There must have been a creation point, and yet that very point cannot possibly have been.

Physics can only account for the universe after the big bang. If the universe was according to general relativity, some 13.8 or so billion years ago a singularity, we can only speculate about anything prior to that. This, incidentally, is precisely the realm in which my god exists.

Quote:

In order for the universe to exist, there must have been something greater than the universe that does not adhere to it's laws of physics in order to create it.

This seems a possiblity, perhaps with the ommision of the term "greater". (Alright, I'm nitpicking here.)

Quote:

Final Note: You may ask why despite all this, I remain an atheist, though some might consider me agnostic. My sole reason is that, with a force so beyond our comprehension as to not be affected by causality, thermodynamics and physics itself, it is unimaginable. I find giving it a form of any sort rather silly, especially a sentient form. A sentient form that is integrated in our daily lives and places humanity at the center of existence, favoring one religion above another, sending people to hell, impregnating teenagers, sacrificing his child, demanding prayer or sacrifice, moral defining, angel loved, 'human' of a character just plain stupid. If I had to be truly agnostic, at the most I would have an Einstein view of God. I view a force as alien and undefinable as the one I demonstrated to be definable in only one way, chaos. Thus I usually like to call this theory "Ex Chaos", Latin for "Out of Chaos" as a reverse view of "Ex Nihilo", Latin for "Out of Nothing."

I don't see how believing any of these examples would be necessary for there to be a creation scenario.

2 Replies

@thack45,

Quote:

Physics can only account for the universe after the big bang. If the universe was according to general relativity, some 13.8 or so billion years ago a singularity, we can only speculate about anything prior to that. This, incidentally, is precisely the realm in which my god exists.

So your god needed to retreat to before space/time exist?

In any case one wonder where future generations of believers will need to hide their god, if and when our understandings reach beyond the beginning of time and space.

1 Reply

Quote:

It call the big bang and before the big bang time itself did not exist so stating something had to had existed before the first moment of time itself does not seem to follow all.

But what is time except change relative to all other change? So essentially, if time itself did not exist, then that means there was no change, and that the big bang would be the first moment of change (which would support my theory that whatever existed before it is outside of causality), there must logically be something for it to change FROM.

Quote:

Second how is wheeling out a god head that in some way stand outside of space/time going to increase our understanding of the universe any more then wheeling out Zeus to explain lighting bolts did for our ancestors?

I severely regret naming this what I did, because you people obviously didn't read my last paragraph. I do not believe in God, only that the idea that there is something exempt from our universes laws is not unfounded. It will increase our understanding of the universe because it's applied using science and logic, rather than ignorant 'God did it' with no explanation.

0 Replies

@thack45,

Quote:

If the universe is in a state of accelerated expansion as predicted, could it ever reach equilibrium?

Actually, we predicted it would start to do the opposite of expanding, but actual observation contradicts this. Either way, we do know that there must be energy in order to make it expand, so the same idea applies. Perhaps the 'Big Crunch' IS our equilibrium.

Quote:

Physics can only account for the universe after the big bang. If the universe was according to general relativity, some 13.8 or so billion years ago a singularity, we can only speculate about anything prior to that. This, incidentally, is precisely the realm in which my god exists.

That's my idea, though I dislike calling it a God because of the attributes the terms seems to have picked up these days. My 'god' is not in any form a deity.

Quote:

This seems a possiblity, perhaps with the ommision of the term "greater". (Alright, I'm nitpicking here.)

Heh, I agree, the proper term is something exempt from the universes rules.

Quote:

I don't see how believing any of these examples would be necessary for there to be a creation scenario.

There not. My whole idea here is that giving something so different from our universe a sentient form, something that's part of our own universe, is silly and should be singled out by Occam's Razor.

0 Replies

An Atheists Argument for God (or Something ike it.)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know