|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
 Posted - 05/05/2010 : 07:35:52
|
I'd like to discuss one of the fundamental differences I see between Atheists and theists. It seems that one point that we can not get over is the idea "Well if there's no God the where did everything come from?"
Atheists are normally comfortable with the fact that we don't know and finding the answers are a work in progress. It is entirely possible that we will never know.
Theists normally reject the fact that we don't know. They absolutely positively HAVE to have an answer even if that answer makes no sense.
Lets see if we can resolve this major difference. Are there any believers here who would like to chime in too?
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2010 : 10:23:52 [Permalink]
|
| Irreconcilable |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2010 : 15:20:37 [Permalink]
|
I don't even think it's that theists have to have an answer, since when you really hold up it up to the light, "god did it" is such a non-answer anyway. I mean, as explanations go, "a magic man magicked everything into existence using magic" doesn't actually explain a whole lot.
How did god create the Universe? How could god, essentially a disembodied mind, fabricate reality? In fact, how can a disembodied mind even exist independent of a material body? How could anything exist independent of material reality? If time is an essential part of our material universe (space-time), then what would it mean for a consciousness to exist outside of time? The passage of time is necessary to register change. A mind that is outside of time is by definition one which is unchanging, which is also to say one which is unthinking, and most definitely one which is incapable of an act of conscious creation.
Top to bottom, start to finish, the entire idea of "god did it" is intellectually unsatisfying. As answers go, it's pretty crap. So why is it such a popular one? Well, as you point out, theists often seem very, very uncomfortable with admitting they don't know how everything got here. But I think being uncomfortable with ignorance is only part of it, since if you ask theists about how god might have acted, they suddenly become strangely incurious. It's like once they decide that god was involved somehow, they no longer need to know the answers to these kinds of questions. They can just sit back and take comfort that someone who has their best interests at heart is in charge and knows what he's doing. They don't have to know because god knows, and god is their buddy.
So when theists say they have faith that "god did it," what they are essentially doing is giving themselves permission not to have to think about it anymore. It's intellectual surrender, which can provide a sort of comfort for the defeated.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2010 : 17:44:17 [Permalink]
|
| Maybe it's fear of death, judging how often something like "You atheists will find out who is right when you die" is offered as an argument in favor of the existence of a god. Of course the possibility that they picked the wrong god never occurs to these nincompoops. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2010 : 03:17:40 [Permalink]
|
Upon questioning, I've found that people who believe in the supernatural don't think very much of reality. They have a what if this is all there is attitude which causes them to place more importance on what they want the world to be than what it really is.
Of course, most sane adults don't really believe very much in the supernatural, or at least, don't really believe it has much effect on their lives. They pray for something better, but they go to work, they do their laundry, they go to the doctor. They believe that God helps those that help themselves. Which means that God really doesn't do anything that can't be done without God. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2010 : 03:19:10 [Permalink]
|
Theists normally reject the fact that we don't know. They absolutely positively HAVE to have an answer even if that answer makes no sense.
|
Is this limited to theists, do you think? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2010 : 11:25:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
Theists normally reject the fact that we don't know. They absolutely positively HAVE to have an answer even if that answer makes no sense.
|
Is this limited to theists, do you think?
|
I wouldn't say limited.....but far more prevalent in my experience. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2010 : 23:13:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
How did god create the Universe? How could god, essentially a disembodied mind, fabricate reality? In fact, how can a disembodied mind even exist independent of a material body? How could anything exist independent of material reality? If time is an essential part of our material universe (space-time), then what would it mean for a consciousness to exist outside of time? The passage of time is necessary to register change. A mind that is outside of time is by definition one which is unchanging, which is also to say one which is unthinking, and most definitely one which is incapable of an act of conscious creation. |
What do we even mean by existence? If we define existence in a way that by definition it requires the passage of time and material, then, sure, we can say such a thing could not exist, but we cannot claim this, we don't know. All we know is that our senses allow us to perceive things, whatever they are. It's a celestial teapot situation, it's meaningless to suggest anything is there, but no one knows.
Obviously theists cannot claim anything else with any validity either. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 05/06/2010 23:16:25 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 09:56:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
What do we even mean by existence? If we define existence in a way that by definition it requires the passage of time and material, then, sure, we can say such a thing could not exist, but we cannot claim this, we don't know. |
Something might be able to simply exist without the passage of time, but that something couldn't conceivably act without the passage of time. And the mere act of thinking is an action. It entails the changing from one mental state to another.
| Obviously theists cannot claim anything else with any validity either. |
But their claims must at least be logically coherent. A being that exists apart from time but also acts is insensible in the same way that a square circle is. It can't exist by definition. So a god which exists outside of time is not a merely bad logical argument, it is the complete abrogation of logic masquerading as an argument.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 05/13/2010 10:35:36 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 10:28:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
A being that exists apart from time but also acts is insensible in the same way that a round circle is. |
Square circle. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 10:35:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by H. Humbert
A being that exists apart from time but also acts is insensible in the same way that a round circle is. |
Square circle.
|
 Yeah, that's what I meant.
[original corrected]
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 10:37:33 [Permalink]
|
But their claims must at least be logically coherent. A being that exists apart from time but also acts is insensible in the same way that a round circle is. It can't exist by definition. So a god which exists outside of time is not a merely bad logical argument, it is the complete abrogation of logic masquerading as an argument.
|
So the big question is " What can we do to get people to see these obvious errors of logic?". I mean...there just HAS to be a way isn't there? |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 12:06:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
But their claims must at least be logically coherent. A being that exists apart from time but also acts is insensible in the same way that a round circle is. It can't exist by definition. So a god which exists outside of time is not a merely bad logical argument, it is the complete abrogation of logic masquerading as an argument.
|
So the big question is " What can we do to get people to see these obvious errors of logic?". I mean...there just HAS to be a way isn't there?
|
That's what this site is for  , and all the others like it.
Far as I can tell none of it is getting us anywhere......hence my first response in this thread. |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 21:34:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Machi4velli
What do we even mean by existence? If we define existence in a way that by definition it requires the passage of time and material, then, sure, we can say such a thing could not exist, but we cannot claim this, we don't know. |
Something might be able to simply exist without the passage of time, but that something couldn't conceivably act without the passage of time. And the mere act of thinking is an action. It entails the changing from one mental state to another. |
Conceivability is required because...? Suppose there is something wrong with our definitions? Light traveling at a finite speed and curving around celestial bodies was inconceivable 200 years ago, much less that light is a bundle of particles. That action requires the passage of time is only true of the things we have ever encountered, we don't know if that is universal (i.e. the fallacy of asserting the consequent). As I said, this gives no support whatsoever to their claims, I'm only arguing for modesty: to call their arguments logically contradictory is unjustified. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 05/13/2010 21:51:22 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2010 : 22:23:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Conceivability is required because...? |
Because before a position can be argued for it needs to be articulated. If it's not even a concept which is conceivable, like square circles, then it certainly can't be articulated.
| Suppose there is something wrong with our definitions? |
Suppose there isn't. If there is something wrong, then again, articulate what it is.
| Light traveling at a finite speed and curving around celestial bodies was inconceivable 200 years ago, much less that light is a bundle of particles. That action requires the passage of time is only true of the things we have ever encountered, we don't know if that is universal (i.e. the fallacy of asserting the consequent). |
Explain how there can be action without the passage of time, even hypothetically. And the passage of time is certainly not a consequence of action, so I don't see how you can label it a fallacy of asserting the consequent. Time is a necessary requirement of action. And this isn't only true of things we've encountered; we can't even conceive of it being otherwise. Just saying "suppose time isn't necessary for action" is not a valid counter-argument anymore than one can simple say "but suppose circles can be square."
As I said, this gives no support whatsoever to their claims, I'm only arguing for modesty: to call their arguments logically contradictory is unjustified.
|
I don't think you've succeeded in that goal.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 05/13/2010 22:26:11 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2010 : 01:48:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Conceivability is required because...? |
Because before a position can be argued for it needs to be articulated. If it's not even a concept which is conceivable, like square circles, then it certainly can't be articulated. |
So the position can be argued against, but not argued for, without being articulated?
| Suppose there is something wrong with our definitions? |
Suppose there isn't. If there is something wrong, then again, articulate what it is. |
I don't need to prove that there is something wrong with them. I only need to show there is a possibility that they are not right in order to show we do not have strict logical proof that their arguments are impossible.
| Explain how there can be action without the passage of time, even hypothetically. And the passage of time is certainly not a consequence of action, so I don't see how you can label it a fallacy of asserting the consequent. Time is a necessary requirement of action. And this isn't only true of things we've encountered; we can't even conceive of it being otherwise. |
Explain to Joe-16th-century-six-pack that, even hypothetically, that light is particles and gets sucked into black holes that are trillions of miles away. He could not conceive this, it would seem absurd and self-contradictory to him. Conceivability at this time is not a necessity for something being true. I think "conceivability" is a relative term.
I'm not arguing for it, I'm arguing that we cannot say it is logically impossible.
Suppose time, as we call it and understand it, manifests itself in an utterly different way under conditions we have not investigated. That's all we need. Logical proof requires understanding of the logical system of the universe, if one even exists, but we don't have this.
| Just saying "suppose time isn't necessary for action" is not a valid counter-argument anymore than one can simple say "but suppose circles can be square." |
We define circles. We define squares. There is no physical counterpart to these structure, we invented them. We are able to invent and impose a logical framework on these concepts, making them impossible to reconcile. There can be nothing wrong with our definitions when we invent a logical system. We cannot impose such a framework on the physical world because we don't even understand it. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 05/15/2010 01:49:05 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
A fundamental difference
