You started with this "faith based...imaginary deities"...and I was merely pointing out that the people who seem sure there are no "creators"...are actually basing that on "faith" also. I have no problem with you...or anyone...using their 1st Amendment rights to express their guesses about whether or not gods exist. In fact, I encourage it...it stimulates interesting discussions. The tendency of some people, however, to suggest that their guesses on this issue are the result of "factual knowledge about the universe...scientific principles...and research" rather than being as much a guess as those being made by other people, often prompts me to point out the error in this way of thinking. I did not mean anything personally, despite some of my working. In any case, perhaps I have you wrong, in which case I apologize. It sounds to me as though you are an atheist suggesting that reason, logic, and science leads to the notion of "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods"...rather than "we really do not know." Do I have you wrong?
Many [like Hawking] argue that we have no need for a god. Not the same as saying there is no god. But I would argue even that is debatable. We don't look to deities to explain existence but that doesn't mean we have it all figured out. This morning I was reminded of the once-held belief that angels push the stars and planets around enormous celestial spheres in the heavens. Then Newton came along and showed that gravity is really forcing the stars and planets to fall towards the center of motion, thus creating their motion. Someone once noted: All Newton did was move the angels 90 degrees.
As I note in my agnostic statement below...I see no need for any gods. I also note...I see nothing that indicates that the existence of gods is an impossibility. "We do not know" is the default position on the true nature of the REALITY of existence...on what exists and does not exist in the REALITY. "There are no gods"; "there is at least one god"; "it is more likely that there are gods"; and "it is more likely that there are no gods"...are nothing more than blind guesses. None of those positions can be obtained from reason, logic, science, or math. My agnostic position: I do not know if there is a GOD or if there are gods; I do not know if there are no gods; I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST; I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that they are needed to explain existence; I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction... ...so I don't.
This is a typical atom- Which of the following is the most likely to explain it's origin?- 1- It was created by a creator/God. 2- It's ALWAYS existed therefore it didn't need to be created. 3- It just blinked into existence out of nowhere without any outside help. 4- It doesn't exist and is just an illusion. (Have I missed out any other possibilities?)
Yeah...you missed the "I do not know...and I cannot think of any way to determine which of the others is more likely." If you had included that one...I would have selected it.
I appreciate your clarification and I will return the favor. I am what some descrobe as a "spiritual atheist" which means that I acknowledge that there are many areas that we do not yet understand and may never understand if we destroy ourselves first. As far as deities go the definition is important. Currently we are capable of observing what happens virtually everywhere on the surface of the planet and striking someone down with a bolt from the heavens at will. Does that make us deities since we now have godlike attributes that were used to strike fear into the hearts of stone age peoples? Is it possible that there are sentient beings in the universe somewhere capable of forming planets and stars out of the cosmic debris in the area? That is most certainly a probability but does that make them deities just because they posses attributes that to us appear to be godlike? In essence a deity now needs to have sufficiently greater attributes than the observer and strike fear in order to be able to demand that it be obeyed. Personally I have no doubt whatsoever that such beings exist in the universe but to worship them as deities out of fear strikes me as regressive. So that leaves the mythical imaginary "omnipotent creator of the universe". The omnipotence concept is a logical paradox and thus excludes this imaginary creator from existing in the universe that we can observe and measure. Could it exist in some unknown other dimension of space/time? Possibly but then we need to examine the attributes that make worthy of being worshipped. Omniscience, being a subset attribute of omnipotence, makes a mockery of the myths of the "creation of mankind" and "sinning against god". And then there is the paradox of a "creator" who must be feared and loved at the same time as well as the inanity of "eternal damnation". In essence theists are supposed to ignore all of these contradictions and just accept something that makes no sense whatsoever based upon no evidence at all. Yes, there are still gaps in our knowledge base and many of them may never be filled. However the existence of planets around other stars was not proven until a mere 25 years ago, not even a nanoblink in cosmic time. Is it possible we might find evidence of the existence of an imaginary omnipotent creator of the universe? Yes, but is it probable? Not in my humble opinion. I will stick with science and knowledge because that is based upon the reality of the universe as it currently exists. I don't need any faith whatsoever to trust in scientific knowledge because I can verify it for myself. I can observe the traces of iron in the rocks of the mountains around me. I observed dolphins mating yesterday which confirmed the scientific information about how they mated that I had seen in a Nova program. The spring tides were higher because of the super moon. The universe that we exist in is a constant source of information. I see no point in wasting my time on stone age mythology when there is so much to learn about all around us. When it comes to your agnostic position I appreciate that it makes sense logically to stipulate that we don't know but from my own perspective until someone comes up with a sound scientific hypothesis for the existence of a creator I am simply not going to waste my time on that vacuous rabbit hole.
Yes, you missed the "oh, it's just way too complex for us mere mortals to comprehend therefore it must have been "created by god"".
The word "God" is oldfashioned, Jesus sometimes called him "the Creator" so perhaps we should start thinking in modern terms such as the 'Genesis Project'?
Thank you, Derideo. I agree that we are an awesome species...at least on our own planet and among our own kind. No, that does not make us gods. (Be sure you understand what I just said there...and do not read more into it than I said.) Why on Earth do you say that? So that you can argue that there are no gods? If you want to limit "gods" to those things humans seem to have invented...we are going nowhere. This thing we humans call "the universe" MAY BE a creation. If it is a creation...whatever created it is a god in my opinion. No need for fear or demands or obedience. Interesting (and sorta in agreement with my thinking)...but so what? I was speaking of gods...actually, of creators. None of this stuff you just mentioned has anything substantive to do with the question of whether or not atheists can come to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are any"...using reason, logic, science, or math. That cannot be done, Derieo...which is my point. Getting to either of those points involves as much "faith" (guesswork) as is used by theists arriving at "there is at least one god" or "it is more likely there is at least god than that there are none." I'll leave that be, because my inclination would be to ask about the math that went into the probability estimate...which I am pretty sure does not exist. People who call themselves atheists (whether spiritual atheists or not) tend to think they are doing that. I suggest, as courteously as possible, that the atheistic position, insofar as it moves beyond its agnostic elements, is as much "faith" based as any other faith based comments about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and about the existence or non-existence of gods. If you are maintaining a position of "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods"... ...then you are basing that position ENTIRELY on faith...and not on scientific knowledge. Then get away from stone age mythology. I have. But also get away from the mythology that a stance of "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods" is based on science, reason, logic, or math. You might consider changing your designation from "spiritual atheist" to plain ole agnostic. I stay away from ALL rabbit holes. The ones theistic rabbits have dug...and the ones dug by atheists also.
Let me summarize; 1. Stone age man invented both religions and deities as a convenient explanation for ignorance about natural phenomena. 2. Stone age religions and deities are fear based. 3. Scientific knowledge has mostly addressed the ignorance upon which stone age religions were based. 4. Modern assumptions about the existence of deities are based upon the stone age religions and deities. 5. The probability of beings existing in the universe with "godlike attributes" is greater than zero since we have achieved some of those attributes ourselves through scientific knowledge and the application of technology. 6. The assumption about a "omnipotent creator of the universe" is based upon stone age religions and deities. 7. Omnipotence is a logical paradox. 8. The concept of a "omnipotent creator of the universe" is based upon the groundless assumption that "there has to be a beginning". 9. The baseless assumption of an "omnipotent creator of the universe" begs the question as to what "created" the "creator" which exposes the fallacy. 10. The Laws of Physics negate the requirement for an "omnipotent creator of the universe" to exist. 11. Scientific evidence for an"omnipotent creator of the universe" does not exist. 12. No one has come up with a scientific hypothesis for an "omnipotent creator of the universe". 13. The universe exists and applying the Laws of Physics the universe has always existed and will always exist in one form or another. 14. The probability of an "omnipotent creator of the universe" is effectively zero given the points stated above. Yes, I uphold the right of theists and agnostics to believe as they wish but I also uphold the principle that without freedom FROM religion there is no freedom OF religion.
Not true. We do not have a complete model that explains all existence. So we don't know if the laws of physics will negate the need for a creator. Science inherently assumes a secular explanation but that is still an assumption. Also, we have no way to explain why the physical constants have the values they do. If theywere different, atoms couldn't exist. Without a theory that predicts or explains these values, they could be argued to be evidence for divine intervention. How we got so lucky that anything can exist is a mystery; and a very deep mystery at that. It doesn't get more fundamental than that. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
So you suppose. It may not be so. So you suppose. We really do not know. We have almost no access to what did or did not happen among Stone Age people. Much of what scientific knowledge said about sailing west during the time of Columbus was wrong, but that does not mean the Earth was not round and was not circumnavigable. Scientific knowledge has, indeed, shown that much of what purports to be religion is wrong. That does NOT mean there are no gods; that does NOT mean this thing we humans call "the universe" is NOT a creation; that does NOT mean there is no creator. Mine sure as hell aren't. Okay. A bit of a stretch there...and I suppose one could find a link going back. However, the "omnipotent creator" concept seems to be a relatively modern one...something more in line with relatively monotheistic religions. There are logical paradoxes to omnipotence...which essentially reduce to semantic arguments. I've used them in debates and discussions myself. But there is absolutely no reason to include omnipotence as a quality of a god. I disagree totally with that. There is no fallacy. You are arriving at that point because you want to be there...just as theists want to arrive at "there has to be a creator." In any case, the assumption is NOT "there is an omnipotent creator of the universe"...but rather "it IS POSSIBLE this thing we humans call 'the universe' is a creation." At that point the question begged is: What is the nature of the creator? That statement assumes we humans know the Laws of Physics...something I am unwilling to do. (It is something you ought be unwilling to do also.) Allow me to make a small correction to that statement: Human scientific evidence for an"omnipotent creator of the universe" does not exist. And to that I would say: I imagine there are more things that exist for which no human evidence exists, than there are things that exist for which we humans have scientific evidence. Get away from the term "omnipotent creator" and we can talk about it. That may be so...and often is my guess about the nature of REALITY...on those very rare occasions where I want to have some fun and actually make a guess) Get away from that "omnipotent creator." I do not do "believing" myself, but I uphold the right of theists and atheists to do as much of it as they choose. We are shoulder to shoulder on this point, Derideo. I agree completely.
I do not do "believing." I sometimes make guesses...I call my guesses, guesses, not beliefs. I sometimes speculate...I call my speculations, speculations, not beliefs. I have tens of thousands of posts in a half-dozen different Internet fora...and I defy you to find even one comment where I said I "believe" anything. So...it seems "extremely obvious" to me that I do not do "believing."
These silly word games you play do not eliminate the reality of your words. Basic logic dictates that you indeed believe that scientifically the lack of positive data dismissing a "God" indicates the God thingy might exist...Call it what you will but it is what it is.
If you haven't tried it yet, I highly recommend Elite Dangerous for either the PC or Xbox One. While the game allows faster than light travel (for obvious reasons). It models the Milkyway galaxy in amazing detail, everything currently known to man is modeled 1 to 1 with accurate orbits....An amazing game with some amazing sights.!
in order for Frank to remain consistent, he has to also give equal weight to the existence or non existence of the easter bunny. He refuses to address this because it makes his argument on the equal weight of the existence or non existence of a god or gods look absurd. the simple fact is, based on the evidence to date, it is more likely than not that a god or gods don't exist.
These are NOT silly word games. They explain something important. If I make a guess...such as "there are no gods"...I would have the ethical wherewithal to call it a GUESS. NOT CALL IT A BELIEF. I do not do believing. I KNOW that a god thingy MIGHT exist. There is no "believing" involved there. If you have a problem with the fact that I do not do "believing"...tough.
If you want to converse about the Easter Bunny...which has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not this thing we humans call "the universe" is a creation...have it with a two year old...or with a fellow atheist. Both are absorbed with the Easter Bunny. That is not a fact, simple or otherwise, at all. It is a guess about whether gods exist or not...and a pretense that a probability estimate has been made about whether they do or not. Sorry you are being so stone-headed about something so obvious, Rahl, so I guess we have to cut you some slack.
Lol, see what I mean. Based on the evidence to date, the likelihood a god or gods exist is less than one existing. Sorry you don't like that frank, but it is what it is.
See what I mean. If you want to talk about Easter Bunnies...toddlers or atheists are your best bet. They are fascinated with them. It may have to do with mental age...although I honestly hope not. Based on the evidence to date...we DO NOT KNOW if this thing we humans call "the universe" is a "creation" or not. If it is...a god is likely. If it isn't...a god is unlikely. But we DO NOT KNOW...so any suggestion such as you are making that it is more likely that there are no gods...is as much a blind guess as the one YBF is making that it is more likely that there is at least one. Sorry you are having so much trouble processing that, Rahl...but as the saying goes, "It is what it IS."
We get it frank. You can't address it because you know how absurd your position is. Sorry frank, but to date, there is no evidence suggesting it is a creation or if a god exists. Which is why it is more likely than not, one doesn't.
IF you want to discuss Easter Bunnies...go find a toddler...or fellow atheist. They are fascinated by them...and will talk to you about them 'til you are tired. Sorry, Rahl...but that is not what it suggests at all. There is no evidence that there is sentient life on any planet or moon circling any of the nearest 10 stars to Sol...but that is not evidence that there is no sentient life on any of those bodies. It means we do not know if there is any there. But stick with it, Rahl...at some point you may stop fooling yourself about this. And of course, I am here to help.
