Atheism/Theism

[Karl]

Probably a hot button topic for some people, I know. I'm curious to see what other people think of the universe though. What do you guys think? Is there a God/s out there? Were we created by the Big Bang?

 

I myself am still deciding. I was raised Christian, forced to go to Sunday School and the regular services, the works. Because of this, I think I actually became less Christian, with the Bible being forced at me. I didn't have a choice in the matter of whether I wanted to go or not. So whenever I side with Atheism, in my mind, I'm not sure if I'm just bashing religion because of the experience I had with it, or because of the things I'm actually hearing.

 

Would love to hear other takes on what anybody thinks of religion.

[Epsilon]

Just so ya know, there's already a religion thread (it's dead but existent) here. Please use the search button before creating a thread, thank you.

 

I hope it doesn't sound too much as if I'm assuming the position of a mod. :/

[Karl]

Oh, haha. Sorry.

How can I get rid of this thread? Didn't mean to create a double.

[Blue]

I am also a Christian, and for a time I thought my status as being saved by Christ was somehow diminished by my faith being inherited as opposed to being saved through direct influence of others or my own conscious research. But how it came to be doesn't really matter, the fact is that I am saved, and the same goes for you. What you do with that fact is the more important part. These days I take it upon myself to familiarize myself on matters regarding my beliefs and better understanding of Christianity ("Making my faith my own"). Christology (the study of the Acts and Words of Christ), Theology (the study of the Nature of God and the Trinity), Hermeneutics (the study of Biblical interpretation), Bibliocanonics (the study and verification of the authenticity, accuracy and historical nature of the Bible), it's all great stuff.

 

In regards to Atheism vs. Theism, I would say that this supposition can be taken as true: "A truth claim about the nature of the world must be complicated, because the world is a complicated place." To be sure, to be simple is to be great. -And to that end, there are a great many things that are both simple and great, often great because they are simple. However the Universe is not a simple place.

 

Ever stood out in a field away from the city, just looking up at the marvelous night sky, nothing but stars and view unobstructed by light pollution? The nigh-infinite twinkling of burning spheres of nuclear energy, unfathomably far away- Voyager 2, traveling at over 66,000kph (that's over 15 miles per SECOND) away from the Sun, is still only now leaving the Solar system, after over 30 years of traveling. And it won't come in contact with anything else for another 40,000. Flowers, glowing with color more brilliant than any paint, growing naturally using the chemicals in dirt. Us humans, making wondrous works of art, knowledge and expression, technical expertise and intense emotional introspection. There is undeniably a phenomenal amount of good in the world.

 

But

thousands of people die every year from making poor decisions regarding their own willful ingestion of poisons, people kill each other, by the dozen, by the hundred, by the thousand, by the tens of thousand. Cars stolen, places burned, crimes perpetrated, justice undelivered, bribes taken. We hear every day on the news how horrible the world can be. In spite of this we then have someone make a cheap joke and then just laugh it off. There is undeniably a phenomenal amount of evil in the world.

 

How can the world have both these enormous amounts of good and evil in it at the same time? The obvious answer to that question is that the world is a thick and tangled web of interactions, choice and conviction, due to the nature of the interaction, choice and conviction of men and women its entire surface over. No rational person who isn't a poet or artist, when taking the Universe in entirety into account can say it is simple.

 

If one is to make a truth claim about the nature of the world, then it must have an explanation for this complexity that satisfies it in entirety.

Atheism says there is no God.

Theism says there is [God].

Christianity says there is one God.

 

If there is no God, then everything in the Universe must be able to explain itself. Let's say, all of the Universe is this little box. Science is most often chosen as the avenue to pursue this explanation, a system of ideas for taking what we see inside the box and turning into graphs and charts and equations and representations of the universe that we can comprehend.

There are a great many things that Science has explained. "What is the sun made of? Where does wind come from and why? How far can I run if I run right now? What makes apples red? Why can't men orgasm as repeatedly as women?"

There are a great many things Science has yet to explain. "How does Gravity operate, beyond acceleration/mass? Why do we yawn? Can every problem whose solution can be efficiently checked by a computer also be efficiently solved by a computer? How many species of Squid are there actually? What is the maximum survivable G-force load a human can survive? Can How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie-pop?"

However, these days Science is used in lieu of fitting Atheism as one of these Complex truth claims by using it to satisfy important life questions for which it is not purposed for.

There are a great many things that Science can't explain. "What is the metric or dimensional limit of the imagination? What realm of existence do souls exist in? Do souls actually exist? Could there be a Spiritual World, just as real and objective as the Physical World?"

There are a great many things that Science has no right explaining. "What is the meaning of life? For what purpose do humans live? Why does the world exist?"

The lattermost of those questions fall firmly within the realm of Philosophy, not Science. The meaning of life, purpose and existence can't be satisfactorily answered by biology or physics- yet many claim that what they have postulated should be taken as truth claims, such as the Big Bang and Evolution: satisfying enough to compel a meaning for the universe. Or more accurately, a lack thereof. Thus I would say Atheism is not 'complete enough' in regards to the complexity of the Universe which demands an answer in the form of a truth claim. (Additionally, both of those aforementioned theories, while often regarded as "facts", are never called Laws- they are still yet called Theories)

 

In regards to the belief that there is a God, in the sense that I know the greatest deal about compared to any other belief (Christianity), it quite easily conveys the idea that Omnipotence and indescribable magnitude of good, greatness and splendor exist in a domain that could most easily be described as "the little box which we call the Universe, is inside a space which we call God". There are all sorts of practical explanations that can come out of God being the Creator of the Universe. For one, that simple implication answers where the Universe came from. That he would create it as an expression of his Glory and Power explains why it's there. He would create mankind to show what is the substance of free will, understanding and reason, and it's ability to comprehend what God had created. In return, God hopes that we would see the nature of that beauty and choose to glorify him.

But then from that comes the demand of an explanation that says "Well then, why is the world not beautiful? You said so yourself that the world is complicated because good and evil exist together." One of the results of giving us free will was the potential for us going wrong. Anything with power has just as much capacity to do good as to do ill. A mug can either keep tea warm or by negligent use, fall and break. Not a very powerful entity, a tea mug. A dog can save a man's life by pulling him out of a river, or take it by attacking him with its jowls and claws. Indeed, a dog is a much more powerful than a mug, and as a result as much more capacity to do good, and more capacity to do ill. What more could a Man do, in terms of beauty

and in terms of depravity.

God gave us free will so that we would be able to fully appreciate the wonder of his creation by the use of our free will, in willingly choosing him. This also came with the risk that men might not choose God; God apparently thought this worth the risk. Again, practically thinking, this is why he provided worded instructions on what to do when faced with the choice. Christians call these words the Bible.

[alphabetagamma]

I doubt the existence of any god due to simple logical errors among other things. The omnipotence paradox anyone?

[Blue]

The Omnipotence Paradox in a nutshell:

"Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?"

The nature of the word God to be meaning Omnipotent, means that any imposed limit is the paradox.

Thus stating that "The Omnipotence Paradox" to be a paradox is in of itself a paradox, in the same way it would be to say "The married bachelor" or "farther north than the north pole". It's almost a tautology how contradictory it is to say that omnipotence can have or create a constraint for itself. Omnipotence is Omnipotence.

 

Unless you are asking if God can limit himself to anything less than absolute power. Actually, he tried that out for a little bit, about two thousand years ago. The question would then arise if that would be anything but batshit insane to descend from Omnipotence to anything less than omnipotence. In waltzes Jesus Christ, the fellow who was both fully God (omnipotent) and fully Man (limited), but the nature of how that all works is a story for another day, because it's 7 minutes to midnight, I have an appointment early tomorrow, and within that time constraint I don't think I could give a crash course in Christology right now.

[Axeldeath]

Just so ya know, there's already a religion thread (it's dead but existent) here. Please use the search button before creating a thread, thank you.

 

I hope it doesn't sound too much as if I'm assuming the position of a mod. :/

 

That topic is dedicated to debating whether or not Creationism and Evolution should be taught at school.

[Vapymid]

As I wrote in a post elsewhere, I think that any god existing within the constraints of this Universe cannot be omnipotent, which in turn means he is not God.

 

The true question of Theism/Atheism therefore becomes - is there a God behind creation of the Universe or has it appeared spontaneously and upon itself? In essence it then becomes the question of what came first - mind or matter and the Theism/Atheism becomes the Idealism/Materialism debate.

 

All other aspects of religion then become secondary and totally anthropocentric - we have created these ourselves, partly based on our earliest attempts to understand the environment around us, partly on our collective memories of the advent of human society as a self-aware, time-aware entity, and partly to formulate the rules which we believe are beneficial to that entity.

 

So, even if God exists, the religions (books, legends, customs, paraphernalia) are not God-given but created by man, of course, by man who is a part of the God-created universe and therefore subject to God-set fundamental laws but, nevertheless, interpretations and speculations, rather than directly obtained truth. In this respect atheist ideologies of various flavours are themselves nothing else but different varieties of religion.

 

What else? The question of good and evil - it appears to be a fundamental and objective property of the Universe. Evil is what's bad for life, good is what's good for it. Life strives to escape evil and attain goodness. It appears that thermodynamic entropy relates to evil and so, life is trying to use available resources to reduce entropy within and around itself.

 

Fundamentally, humans are not evil, we are simply searching for ways to follow that drive. When we deviate too far from the optimal path - the entropy bites (there breaks a war, famine or a financial crisis) and we have to change our course.

 

Free will? Is there a free will (I really love

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vX1Sses4zA song on the subject )? There is certainly an illusion of it. But step on the edge of a cliff - is your mind free to decide to jump? Of course not. All sort of blocks, rules, protections, warning will go off in your brain and you won't be able to do it (unless there is a greater evil perceived, which in itself will not be a manifestation of free will but merely an overwhelming imperative to act in a certain way). Our minds operate in our brains, which are made from matter, which is bound by the laws of the Universe. The interaction of these laws of the Universe is therefore what makes our decisions for us.

 

Sorry for this rant. I am not preaching, just suggesting some concepts and ideas for further consideration.

 

Regards

[Doom Shepherd]

The Omnipotence Paradox in a nutshell:

"Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

 

I prefer the Suckiverse Paradox, wherein we list all the ways in which the universe could run more efficiently, be more suitable for a Divine Creation, and not have run into all the pitfalls that Our universe has, while still preserving things like free will.

 

Then we ask how an Omnipotent, Omniscient god managed to create a universe even we puny humans can figure out ways to improve upon.

[Blue]

I will sarcastically reply to Doom Shepherd's Suckiverse Paradox by saying "Of course, the great deal we know about the universe is more than ample enough knowledge and wisdom to improve it, and we know this because you're quite sure its possible. But do you mean to improve it as in "make it better", or improve it as in "make it more to our liking"? Wait, what do I mean by "Our"? Mayhaps it is more accurate to say "Your liking"."

Even so, how would one go about making it better? The only thing we recognize as being able to be standably improved is the general behavior and moral mindset of society. Unless you plan on changing physics so that earthquakes, meteors and other inconveniences cease altogether. I really do not understand how or why one would want to make the Universe itself more efficient. Us humans, being subject materials within the universe, wanting to increase the efficiency, would be like gasoline complaining about the shape of a fuel pipe. Why yes, the fuel pipe could potentially be different, but who are we and under what power would we undergo change into those other potentials?

 

Also, I really do not think Evil is just Entropy.

If a man tries to trip me and fails, I dislike his actions. However if a man accidentally moves his leg and trips me, but apologizes. I do not begrudge the second man even though he has caused me injury. There has to be a moral reason for what is Evil and Good, not just physical.

[Doom Shepherd]

Okay... I think as God I would eliminate Sirenomelia, for starters. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirenomelia)

 

There's really no good reason that a small child should suffer horribly in agonizing pain for a few years and then probably die. Especially not since there are already many, MANY other ways that this can happen.

 

And I'd probably make a memetic kill agent that triggered irreversible neural shutdown in any adult who sexually assaulted anybody under 12. (Hey, I'm NuGod, so I get to be just as arbitrary as the current officeholder.)

 

And why DO we need so many different kinds of cancer?

 

Why make the universe more efficient? Why NOT? To give humanity more room and more access to resources, which would decrease things like war and famine and pestilence.

 

Why not make a bigger Earth? Why do we have to risk running out of resources? There are plenty of configurations that would alleviate this problem, both in the short and long term.

 

Unless, you know, God WANTS us to make war on each other, and starve, and be sick.

Oh, wait, he just wants to give us the OPTION, right? Free will? Because obviously, people living in the midst of plenty can't think up enough reasons on their own to be dicks to each other to satisfy God.

 

If a man tries to trip me and fails, I dislike his actions. However if a man accidentally moves his leg and trips me, but apologizes. I do not begrudge the second man even though he has caused me injury.

 

How do you feel about the man who allows a brick to fall off the roof of the building, knowing that it will fall on your child's head and destroy same, could prevent the brick from falling with the mere touch of a finger, stands right there beside the brick as it topples over, and is emphatically NOT sorry?

 

There are no "accidents" in worlds populated by Divinities.

[Blue]

I think I understand your meaning now. You mean Efficient as in "Less energy spent on wasteful nonsense and the bad things in the world", except the 'spent' part is on behalf of the universe.

God created the world and said it was good. Then, by the deception of the Serpent, Mankind chose to allow sin into the world, and the good became corrupted; hence good and bad exist in the same world.

 

God did not create death or disease. They are the good of God's creation, corrupted. God created Man and Woman, and said they were good. That has all sorts of implications: the wide variety of emotions we have, our ability to think, to create, to love, to have sex, all good things that God made for us to enjoy.

Sin's corruption means those things which God made good, could be changed in such a way that they would be meant for evil. To expression, came irrational extremism. To the ability to create, the ability to create good things ourselves also enabled us to create evil things. Love corrupted into lust, sex gave existence to perversion.

And the natural world became corrupted too: what is meant by "death entering the world" in the same way it referred to Sin entering the world in the book of Genesis, it is to say that before sin, there was no death. There was no such thing as decay or disease.

(A world would be like without death, disease or decay, I have no idea what that would be like, if that's what you're considering asking. If you'd like evidence regarding it, do tell if you find it- you'll shortly afterwards find the bones of Adam and Eve.)

Sin in of itself is responsible for all ill in the world, all things that would be classified as bad, as evil, as detestable, as unlikable. If you think that God is some sort of reprehensible creature for the world that it is, the blame would be much better sought by gazing into a mirror.

If you would question why God even made this amount of corruption a possibility, take a cursory look back at the latter part of what I said earlier: "With great power came the potential of great good and great evil when given free choice. God apparently thought this worth the risk."

If we did not have free will, and were automatically "programmed" from the word go to instantly give glory to God, he might just as well made mindless robots with no agency or decision regarding his creation, and we would just be like any other animal. A universe without free will would be much more a toy than a wonder.

[alphabetagamma]

I often see the presence of misery and malice as reasons against god. But from what I know of Christianity earth is not supposed to be a paradise. It's a test, a test of faith and a test of strength. Asking why god didn't make the universe perfect it like asking why your teacher made your math test hard. Heaven is the perfect universe. Though perfection is it's own flaw.

 

Also, Blue, that's not much a retort for the omnipotence paradox. The Bible is rather ambiguous about what each of the trinity actually is and how each part relates to the others. So Jesus having infinite power while at the same time being limited may not be an accurate statement. At any rate, can you answer me this: Could God create a rock he couldn't lift? There are two answers, yes or no, both would limit an omnipotent being.

[Vapymid]

If a man tries to trip me and fails, I dislike his actions. However if a man accidentally moves his leg and trips me, but apologizes. I do not begrudge the second man even though he has caused me injury.

 

In that case the deciding factor is additional information brought into the system. Without it, in a closed system of you, him and the road the disorder (entropy) has increased and would have increased further as you would have punched him and he fought back until you both died from exhaustion and your orderly organised bodies begun decomposing into ever more primitive compounds and elements

 

But, the extra information was consumed to quell the conflict and you both went your own way and the integrity of the civilisation has been preserved.

 

Imagine next time the same man trips you again on the same place and provides the same excuse. This time, though, the information will have less value as clearly the guy was taking the piss. The entropy increase would have been inevitable but for the timely intervention of the nearby plod.

 

There has to be a moral reason for what is Evil and Good, not just physical.

 

But what is moral? Morality is the most abused concept in the world, mostly used quite immorally for achievement of personal ends by those who use it. People often resort to morality argument but when asked to define morality itself they cannot.

 

The way I see it there is fundamental morality - the one determined by objective natural laws, there is expedient or transient morality - the one that is determined by our interpretation of certain existing circumstances, then there is false morality - the one that exists primarily as a tool for, as I said, achievement of personal goals.

 

The fundamental morality must be fundamental - i.e. it will not change because of our understanding or not of the underlying laws. We feel it instinctively and this relates to the states of "good" and "evil" which I wrote about here

 

To kill another person without a good reason would probably be an example of a breach of fundamental morality.

 

The expedient morality is something that is needed for a while to maintain the structure of society. Like not having sex before marriage when there exist no effective ways of contraception or protection or cure from STDs. The relevance of such moral rule disappears as the underlying reasons for its introduction cease to exist. Persistence in applying such outlived morality may in itself become immoral.

 

The latter case is obvious - if I am placed in a position of power I can declare that any attempt to lessen my power is immoral. That would be false but quite helpful to me as it will safeguard my position.

 

So what is the actual criteria of "morality"? I don't know but over the years I came to define morality as expectation of integrity of trusted persons. This is a simplification but "Trusted" here is any person whose action or inaction will have consequences, which will unreasonably compromise the other person's position.

 

So, two soldiers on opposite sides of no-man's land trying to shoot each other are not acting immorally as there is no expectation that one must trust another. In fact, the trust is that each will try to kill the other and therefore provide the reason for the other one to do the same. But consider a defector on any side - he is clearly breaching the trust put in him by his comrades, officers, generals and the whole bloody country.

 

Regards

[Blue]

We know Good and Evil to be absolutes, that much I think can be taken as true.

But do we define what is good and evil by what doesn't suit our personal fancy, or by some kind of standard? If by the standard, where does that standard come from?

If that standard is inherent of the physical universe, then why has science never explained it?

If that standard is inherent of the nature of man, where did it come from and why does it persist?

If that standard is inherent of the nature of man for the purpose of the betterment of his species, then it encounters the problem with the lack of scientific explanation again, as well as science infringing on the realm of philosophy.

I often see the presence of misery and malice as reasons against God.

But God is not malicious. Those are the willful decisions of persons, and decisions that God is not responsible for causing, nor does he wish them to be conducted.

But from what I know of Christianity earth is not supposed to be a paradise. It's a test, a test of faith and a test of strength. Asking why god didn't make the universe perfect it like asking why your teacher made your math test hard. Heaven is the perfect universe.

I never said the world was perfect. I said God made it to be Good.

[alphabetagamma]

I often see the presence of misery and malice as reasons against God.

But God is not malicious. Those are the willful decisions of persons, and decisions that God is not responsible for causing, nor does he wish them to be conducted.

He's not miserable either. I was saying that many people feel suffering is a factor against the existance of God, and that's not accurate from a Christian perspective.

But from what I know of Christianity earth is not supposed to be a paradise. It's a test, a test of faith and a test of strength. Asking why god didn't make the universe perfect it like asking why your teacher made your math test hard. Heaven is the perfect universe.

I never said the world was perfect. I said God made it to be Good.

That's what I'm trying to say! I'm saying that the world isn't supposed to be perfect as it's a test.

[Blue]

Ah.

[Vapymid]

But do we define what is good and evil by what doesn't suit our personal fancy, or by some kind of standard? If by the standard, where does that standard come from?

If that standard is inherent of the physical universe, then why has science never explained it?

If that standard is inherent of the nature of man, where did it come from and why does it persist?

If that standard is inherent of the nature of man for the purpose of the betterment of his species, then it encounters the problem with the lack of scientific explanation again, as well as science infringing on the realm of philosophy.

 

Well, as you say, to date that was a philosophical issue as it deals with subjective qualities of good and evil as perceived by human mind.

 

As and when we come up with an objective unit of measurement and a method to conduct the measurements this will move from philosophical real to scientific. If we have not yet developed these measures and methods I'm sure it will happen soon. In fact, I have no idea, but maybe research is already being done in this direction. I we are talking about this here there must be minds immeasurably superior to ours regarding this Earth with... sorry! Wrong forum.

 

As we understand more about how brain works, we will find ways of quantifying, measuring and comparing subjective qualities (such as emotions) in physical or informational terms.

 

Regards

[Blue]

But the claims of the Bible cannot be objectively observed.

For the individual who wishes to objectively discern the bible, eternal life is at stake if it's true.

Trying to read the Bible objectively is a conflict of interest.

[Doom Shepherd]

I think I understand your meaning now. You mean Efficient as in "Less energy spent on wasteful nonsense and the bad things in the world", except the 'spent' part is on behalf of the universe.

God created the world and said it was good. Then, by the deception of the Serpent, Mankind chose to allow sin into the world, and the good became corrupted; hence good and bad exist in the same world.

 

God did not create death or disease. They are the good of God's creation, corrupted. God created Man and Woman, and said they were good. That has all sorts of implications: the wide variety of emotions we have, our ability to think, to create, to love, to have sex, all good things that God made for us to enjoy.

Sin's corruption means those things which God made good, could be changed in such a way that they would be meant for evil. To expression, came irrational extremism. To the ability to create, the ability to create good things ourselves also enabled us to create evil things. Love corrupted into lust, sex gave existence to perversion.

And the natural world became corrupted too: what is meant by "death entering the world" in the same way it referred to Sin entering the world in the book of Genesis, it is to say that before sin, there was no death. There was no such thing as decay or disease.

(A world would be like without death, disease or decay, I have no idea what that would be like, if that's what you're considering asking. If you'd like evidence regarding it, do tell if you find it- you'll shortly afterwards find the bones of Adam and Eve.)

Sin in of itself is responsible for all ill in the world, all things that would be classified as bad, as evil, as detestable, as unlikable. If you think that God is some sort of reprehensible creature for the world that it is, the blame would be much better sought by gazing into a mirror.

If you would question why God even made this amount of corruption a possibility, take a cursory look back at the latter part of what I said earlier: "With great power came the potential of great good and great evil when given free choice. God apparently thought this worth the risk."

 

Again, you're not going far back enough for the root cause. Whence came "The Serpent?" By whose permission was he granted access to the humans?

 

Corruption and sin existed BEFORE man's choice. Else there would have been no Serpent, who was clearly already corrupt.

 

Also, god didn't create disease? Did he also not create lions and tigers and bears and tsetse flies and bacteria and viruses? The whole "disease is caused by sin" line was good enough for the ignorant folks of 4000 years ago. We know better now.

 

And if not God, then who did? You telling me that everything was harmless before us? MANKIND gave the entire animal kingdom claws and fangs and carnivorous appetites? We created every single virus and flu bug and parasite? F***, we're powerful! We should be Gods!

 

(What were viruses before Man's choice, I wonder, since the only way they live is by attacking and destroying healthy cells.)

 

And if all of creation was transformed forever by the actions of a pair of naked-fruit-munching simpletons..

 

Well, that's pretty Evil of God right there, ensuring that we're stuck in Crapsack World through actions not our own. In all but the "worst" and most savage cultures, Humans regard punishing children for the crimes of their ancestors as immoral and evil. Is this another place where our morality has outshone God's?

 

If we did not have free will, and were automatically "programmed" from the word go to instantly give glory to God, he might just as well made mindless robots with no agency or decision regarding his creation, and we would just be like any other animal. A universe without free will would be much more a toy than a wonder.

 

You've also pretty much given the conventional description of Heaven here. If that state is so bad, why should we wish for it?