Personal god versus universal intelligence

Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Personal god versus universal intelligence

I don't understand why there is so much disagreement when it comes to the belief in a universal intelligence.  When it comes down to the belief that there is a personal god answering our prayers, I can see why this is utterly contradictory to scientific observation.  But does this exclude the possibility of a universal force that is the underlying cause of all that exists?  I certainly did not create myself, nor did anyone create his or her personal attributes.  I am me not because I am the author of me.  I beleive we are an expression of a creative force that lies beyond our immediate understanding, but just because we cannot see this force does not mean that this force does not exist?  And just because my definition of god is different than your definition, does not  mean that my definition is necessarily untrue.  Don't you agree?


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
D:

No.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Also, this is an atheist-only posting area.


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:nor did

Rising Sun wrote:

nor did anyone create his or her personal attributes. 

Actually... im pretty sure i did, i wouldnt be me if i didnt... a life-time of me being me makes me what i am, after all

What Would Kharn Do?


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Of course I don't agree.

Of course I don't agree. Something doesn't exist simply because we don't understand our existence.

I think an even better question is if sin, pain, and misery exists, wouldn't it make more sense that an all-loving God doesn't exist? Without supplementing bullshit excuses for human suffering like "it's God's plan," or "some stupid fucks named Adam and Eve bit a piece of fruit which they shouldn't have, so we're all destined to fail."

If a God DID exist, I think it's most definitely certain he doesn't give a FUCK about you, nor any other religious fanatics.


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

Of course I don't agree. Something doesn't exist simply because we don't understand our existence.

I think an even better question is if sin, pain, and misery exists, wouldn't it make more sense that an all-loving God doesn't exist? Without supplementing bullshit excuses for human suffering like "it's God's plan," or "some stupid fucks named Adam and Eve bit a piece of fruit which they shouldn't have, so we're all destined to fail."

If a God DID exist, I think it's most definitely certain he doesn't give a FUCK about you, nor any other religious fanatics.


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Nice to see you agree,

Nice to see you agree, rising sun Smiling


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote button... gets them

Quote button... gets them every time ^_^


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

Of course I don't agree. Something doesn't exist simply because we don't understand our existence.

I think an even better question is if sin, pain, and misery exists, wouldn't it make more sense that an all-loving God doesn't exist? Without supplementing bullshit excuses for human suffering like "it's God's plan," or "some stupid fucks named Adam and Eve bit a piece of fruit which they shouldn't have, so we're all destined to fail."

If a God DID exist, I think it's most definitely certain he doesn't give a FUCK about you, nor any other religious fanatics.

 

I asked this question about an intelligence guiding the universe versus a god pulling strings because there is a major difference in these two ideologies.  Just because I don't believe in a personal god doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of a first cause which you can call god if you want to.  Maybe using the word god, regardless of the context in which the word is being used, will be enough to have people accusing me of being a theist.  If I am in the wrong place, I hope the moderators will tell me what category I should post in. 

I agree that it is hard to understand a loving god that would cause such suffering in the world.  My take on Adam and Eve is that the fruit that was eaten was a symbol for the collective errors we, as humans, have made that has led us to the suffering we are now experiencing.  I don't take this story literally but I do believe we can gain something from it if we look at it as a signpost of what lies ahead.  I just read The Voice of Knowledge which is the Toltec explanation of what the eating of the apple means.  It's worth reading.


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:I asked

Rising Sun wrote:

I asked this question about an intelligence guiding the universe versus a god pulling strings because there is a major difference in these two ideologies.  Just because I don't believe in a personal god doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of a first cause which you can call god if you want to.  Maybe using the word god, regardless of the context in which the word is being used, will be enough to have people accusing me of being a theist.  If I am in the wrong place, I hope the moderators will tell me what category I should post in.

Riiight. Doesn't really matter if you call it "intelligence" or "God." (Although that did just make me think of Team America: World Police, and laugh)

I really don't see the "major difference," you're referring to. Yeah, if I were ever to be a Theist I would never believe in Organized Religion or a "Personal God." You're saying some intelligent force beyond our text that creates us. Even still, I disagree.

 

Rising Sun wrote:

I agree that it is hard to understand a loving god that would cause such suffering in the world.  My take on Adam and Eve is that the fruit that was eaten was a symbol for the collective errors we, as humans, have made that has led us to the suffering we are now experiencing.  I don't take this story literally but I do believe we can gain something from it if we look at it as a signpost of what lies ahead.  I just read The Voice of Knowledge which is the Toltec explanation of what the eating of the apple means.  It's worth reading.

I think the bible is no more impactful in its messages than Dr. Suess or Mother Goose. My take on Adam and Eve, is there was a bunch of primitive control freaks who enjoyed their power and wanted to keep the poor populus in line, so they wrote the bible and thought this was a simple and believable (for stupid primitive people) way of communicating our origin.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote: I asked

Rising Sun wrote:

 

I asked this question about an intelligence guiding the universe versus a god pulling strings because there is a major difference in these two ideologies.  Just because I don't believe in a personal god doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of a first cause which you can call god if you want to.  Maybe using the word god, regardless of the context in which the word is being used, will be enough to have people accusing me of being a theist.  If I am in the wrong place, I hope the moderators will tell me what category I should post in. 

I agree that it is hard to understand a loving god that would cause such suffering in the world.  My take on Adam and Eve is that the fruit that was eaten was a symbol for the collective errors we, as humans, have made that has led us to the suffering we are now experiencing.  I don't take this story literally but I do believe we can gain something from it if we look at it as a signpost of what lies ahead.  I just read The Voice of Knowledge which is the Toltec explanation of what the eating of the apple means.  It's worth reading.

Even if there was a "first cause" why should we assume that it's intelligent? Even if we assumed that it's intelligent why should we assume that it still exists? Even if it still exists why should we assume that it knows about us? Even if it knows about us why should we assume that it has any bearing on how we live our lives? If we're going to make assumptions why shouldn't we make assumptions that are in accord with our observations of the world?

What we know about the world from observation is that all previously unexplained phenomena, upon explanation, turn out to be governed by simple physical rules rather than intelligent direction. Given this pattern, it's reasonable to assume (pending evidence to the contrary) that the universe was not created by an infinitely powerful intelligent entity and is simply the outcome of undirected physical processes like everything else we've examined so far.

Theists are not supposed to post in this section.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Hi Mr. Rising Sun...No, I

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Mr. Rising Sun...
No, I don't agree...Here...this quote might help you understand *why* your assertions don't make sense to the majority of the folks who post here...
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
                                  
                                                                     - John Adams
I understand that you want there to be a god...and that rather than simply decomposing, that you can party for all eternity...sounds great... but that doesn't alter the facts... Nothing "Authored" you...just like your house cat you turned out the way you did because of evolution, and genetics...
...or perhaps a drunken evening and a fall down the stairs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote: I

Rising Sun wrote:
I beleive we are an expression of a creative force that lies beyond our immediate understanding, but just because we cannot see this force does not mean that this force does not exist?
 
Well, it's such a game, called rationality. It is a bit like hide-and-seek. That means, when we can't see something, we must keep with the rules and NOT start to believe, that it exists. Many people use extended rules they don't believe in something, until a lot of people sees it. And finally we here have also some hardcore players, who don't believe in something, until the scientific authorities saw it and admitted on a press conference, that they saw it.


 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Rising Sun

Luminon wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:
I beleive we are an expression of a creative force that lies beyond our immediate understanding, but just because we cannot see this force does not mean that this force does not exist?
 
Well, it's such a game, called rationality. It is a bit like hide-and-seek. That means, when we can't see something, we must keep with the rules and NOT start to believe, that it exists. Many people use extended rules they don't believe in something, until a lot of people sees it. And finally we here have also some hardcore players, who don't believe in something, until the scientific authorities saw it and admitted on a press conference, that they saw it.


 

EXCEPT for the fact that even religious people haven't "SEEN" God, they just "BELIEVE" in God. Unbelievably large difference.


 


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
 GTFO my freethinking

 GTFO my freethinking anonymous.


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

I asked this question about an intelligence guiding the universe versus a god pulling strings because there is a major difference in these two ideologies.  Just because I don't believe in a personal god doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of a first cause which you can call god if you want to.  Maybe using the word god, regardless of the context in which the word is being used, will be enough to have people accusing me of being a theist.  If I am in the wrong place, I hope the moderators will tell me what category I should post in.

Riiight. Doesn't really matter if you call it "intelligence" or "God." (Although that did just make me think of Team America: World Police, and laugh)

I really don't see the "major difference," you're referring to. Yeah, if I were ever to be a Theist I would never believe in Organized Religion or a "Personal God." You're saying some intelligent force beyond our text that creates us. Even still, I disagree.

 

Rising Sun wrote:

I agree that it is hard to understand a loving god that would cause such suffering in the world.  My take on Adam and Eve is that the fruit that was eaten was a symbol for the collective errors we, as humans, have made that has led us to the suffering we are now experiencing.  I don't take this story literally but I do believe we can gain something from it if we look at it as a signpost of what lies ahead.  I just read The Voice of Knowledge which is the Toltec explanation of what the eating of the apple means.  It's worth reading.

I think the bible is no more impactful in its messages than Dr. Suess or Mother Goose. My take on Adam and Eve, is there was a bunch of primitive control freaks who enjoyed their power and wanted to keep the poor populus in line, so they wrote the bible and thought this was a simple and believable (for stupid primitive people) way of communicating our origin.

You could be right.  The bible could have been written to control the masses, and the wrath of god was their vehicle to accomplish this.  Even so, we can interpret this story in a different way if we want to.  We can think of the eating of the apple as an allegory that allows us see how we have failed to recognize the truth of our intrinsic goodness once the lie of our sinful nature (our disobedience) was accepted by the majority of humanity.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Theists, please continue the thread elsewhere..? Not here at least. I'll go make a thread just for you in the atheist vs theist section. Kay?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


The Flying Spag...
Science Freak
The Flying Spaghetti Monster's picture
Posts: 225
Joined: 2009-06-03
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:You could

Rising Sun wrote:

You could be right.  The bible could have been written to control the masses, and the wrath of god was their vehicle to accomplish this.  Even so, we can interpret this story in a different way if we want to.  We can think of the eating of the apple as an allegory that allows us see how we have failed to recognize the truth of our intrinsic goodness once the lie of our sinful nature (our disobedience) was accepted by the majority of humanity.

Yeah, and we could interpret the holocaust as a method of freeing more resources for the rest of mankind by killing a few million people.

You gotta understand, I oppose the bible. I oppose any book that supports the idea of stoning your wife, selling your daughter into slavery, and of course,  created hundreds of years of intolerance and murder. I think it's irresponsible trying to find a silver lining when its impact continues harming the future of our species.

I can understand you trying to keep an open mind, and I can tell by the depth of your posts you're not stupid, but this book has done far more damage than it has good.


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Even if there was a

Quote:
Even if there was a "first cause" why should we assume that it's intelligent? Even if we assumed that it's intelligent why should we assume that it still exists? Even if it still exists why should we assume that it knows about us? Even if it knows about us why should we assume that it has any bearing on how we live our lives? If we're going to make assumptions why shouldn't we make assumptions that are in accord with our observations of the world?

I am not referring to an entity that thinks like us, and therefore has human qualities such as concern.  Nor do I think that my belief in an intelligent force has a direct bearing on how I live my life, although it does give me some sort of comfort.



Quote:
What we know about the world from observation is that all previously unexplained phenomena, upon explanation, turn out to be governed by simple physical rules rather than intelligent direction. Given this pattern, it's reasonable to assume (pending evidence to the contrary) that the universe was not created by an infinitely powerful intelligent entity and is simply the outcome of undirected physical processes like everything else we've examined so far.

Theists are not supposed to post in this section.

I am in total agreement with you that all unexplained phenomena have a scientific explanation.  What I am trying to get you to see is that even physical rules come from somewhere, and it is this 'somewhere' that I refer to as god.   I don't believe that we are simply the outcome of undirected physical processes.  I believe that these physical processes have absolute direction, even though our observations tell us otherwise.  I guess this direction is what the religious folks call God's plan. Smiling


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Theists,

ClockCat wrote:

Theists, please continue the thread elsewhere..? Not here at least. I'll go make a thread just for you in the atheist vs theist section. Kay?

 

I am not really a theist by definition, but you can put this thread wherever you think it's appropriate. 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
D:

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

You may not consider yourself a theist, but Luminon certainly is.

 


Rising Sun
Posts: 126
Joined: 2009-05-16
User is offlineOffline
The Flying Spaghetti Monster

The Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

Rising Sun wrote:

You could be right.  The bible could have been written to control the masses, and the wrath of god was their vehicle to accomplish this.  Even so, we can interpret this story in a different way if we want to.  We can think of the eating of the apple as an allegory that allows us see how we have failed to recognize the truth of our intrinsic goodness once the lie of our sinful nature (our disobedience) was accepted by the majority of humanity.

Yeah, and we could interpret the holocaust as a method of freeing more resources for the rest of mankind by killing a few million people.

You gotta understand, I oppose the bible. I oppose any book that supports the idea of stoning your wife, selling your daughter into slavery, and of course,  created hundreds of years of intolerance and murder. I think it's irresponsible trying to find a silver lining when its impact continues harming the future of our species.

I can understand you trying to keep an open mind, and I can tell by the depth of your posts you're not stupid, but this book has done far more damage than it has good.

I can see how the bible could have been used to rationalize all kinds of horrific acts, all in the name of religion.  This is still going on today whether it's people misusing the bible, the quoran, the Torah, or any other religious book that purports to be reflecting god's word.


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:I am not

Rising Sun wrote:

I am not referring to an entity that thinks like us, and therefore has human qualities such as concern.  Nor do I think that my belief in an intelligent force has a direct bearing on how I live my life, although it does give me some sort of comfort.

That doesn't really answer my questions. What reason is there to make such an assumption?

Quote:

I am in total agreement with you that all unexplained phenomena have a scientific explanation.  What I am trying to get you to see is that even physical rules come from somewhere, and it is this 'somewhere' that I refer to as god.   I don't believe that we are simply the outcome of undirected physical processes.  I believe that these physical processes have absolute direction, even though our observations tell us otherwise.  I guess this direction is what the religious folks call God's plan. Smiling

People can come up with an infinite number of claims. Why does this particular arbitrary claim deserve any more consideration than all the other arbitrary claims?

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
 i actually DO agree with

 i actually DO agree with you. Everyone talks about evidence, but our evidence only goes back so far. I understand your question. And I think it is arrogant to discard that possibility. Lets assume the big bang did happen ( I really don't know that much about it) we can simply ask what was before it, and before that. This is why I do not call myself an atheist. Like Bill Maher said in religilous, Atheism mirrors the same certainty as any other religion. We could talk about evidence all day long, but when it comes down to it we only know so much. 

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
marshalltenbears wrote: i

marshalltenbears wrote:

 i actually DO agree with you. Everyone talks about evidence, but our evidence only goes back so far. I understand your question. And I think it is arrogant to discard that possibility. Lets assume the big bang did happen ( I really don't know that much about it) we can simply ask what was before it, and before that. This is why I do not call myself an atheist. Like Bill Maher said in religilous, Atheism mirrors the same certainty as any other religion. We could talk about evidence all day long, but when it comes down to it we only know so much. 

This post fails so hard. So, so hard.

If you don't know anything about the Big Bang (or "how it all started" in layman's terms) then you probably should not create an infinite regression scenario about it to play devil's advocate to a new member who apparently can't even read the "No Theists Allowed" sign on this section of the forum. To understand why god is unnecessary in the situation you just created, think about the added complexity that the introduction of a creator to the scenario brings. It pretty much takes Occam's Razor and grinds it under its heel. 

I also don't know why you made what is usually a theistic mistake by referring to atheism as a religion. Yes, Bill Maher is funny and Religulous was made of win and awesome, but he is also an insufferable ass who sometimes makes mistakes. That quote was one of them. 

You're right that we "only know so much," but that is only a motivating factor in the endeavor to increase and change that evidence in order to understand our universe better. Religion, on the other hand, is a blighting factor. 

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
 First off i'm not theistic

 First off i'm not theistic and my post was not intended to be. My point was that our evidence that we have can only go so far, so anything can be possible. When I think of the big bang, or what I know of it, I just always wonder what was before that, and then I think what was before that and it blows my mind!!!! There is so much we don't know and it is baffleing to me. No I don't know that much about the big bang, I only dumped my religious beliefs about 6 months ago, so I am still learning. But when you say that something is not possible just because we don't have evidence of it, then it is arrogant. When I was a christian I was watching one of Ray Comfort's open air preaching sessions and he said that if we know 1% of everything there is to know in the known universe that leaves 99% of unkown territory. I'm no longer religious but I think about that. It is mind blowing!! 

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4


marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
 And I am not playing

 And I am not playing devils advocate, I am just giving my opinion on the question like he asked us too.

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4


Liam
Liam's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2009-03-28
User is offlineOffline
NO

ClockCat wrote:

No.

NO, no, No and NO.


Liam
Liam's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2009-03-28
User is offlineOffline
and again

Liam wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

No.

NO, no, No and NO.

To agree with both of ClockCats posts and sum up my own feeings oone more time... "NO"


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
 I'm aware you're not

 I'm aware you're not theistic, I simply said I was surprised that you had taken a position that is usually only held by theists. 

Here's an excerpt from the introductory paragraph to the theory on Wikipedia:

"The Big Bang is a cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe. It is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day."

I added the underline. Therein lies my problem with your post. 

I get the shock and awe thing, when I think about just how insignificant we are in the picture of even our galaxy, let alone our universe, I feel very humbled. But Ray Comfort also says that bananas are proof of Creationism so...

marshalltenbears wrote:

But when you say that something is not possible just because we don't have evidence of it, then it is arrogant.

No it's not, actually, it's sensible. We have no evidence that the universe was created. We have no evidence that a universal consciousness permeates our being, all we have is speculation. So to base an entire worldview on that and then start converting people to your worldview based on that speculation is immensely more arrogant, don't you think? I'm not saying anything is impossible, I'm saying it is highly, highly improbable. Why waste time on hypotheses we can't ever prove when we can find scientific answers that are perfectly satisfactory?

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
marshalltenbears wrote:

marshalltenbears wrote:
First off i'm not theistic and my post was not intended to be.

 

Fair enough. I was wondering what was up with this thread. Now I know and knowing is half the battle.

 

marshalltenbears wrote:
My point was that our evidence that we have can only go so far, so anything can be possible.

 

Anything not specifically ruled out by the evidence, that much would be true. However, as a new skeptic, I would encourage you to learn to develop a good bullshit detector. It is not going to be something that comes to you quickly or easily because you have to learn what the bulk of us already know.

 

However, you are asking many of the right questions. Eventually, you will get to the point where something that you hear will obviously not be right and then you will go looking for the answer to your question.

 

marshalltenbears wrote:
When I think of the big bang, or what I know of it, I just always wonder what was before that, and then I think what was before that and it blows my mind!!!!

 

That is a great question. Allow me to rephrase it for even more impact.

 

What went “bang!”?

 

Honestly, that is pretty much the bleeding edge of cosmology and physics right now, so there is no proper answer to the question. There are several theories that have been advanced by the very people who study this stuff but they are still arguing over the details. Stay tuned and in 10~30 years, we all might be lucky enough to find out what the answer is.

 

marshalltenbears wrote:
But when you say that something is not possible just because we don't have evidence of it, then it is arrogant.

 

You mean something like god?

 

Just for shits and giggles, let's say that god caused the big bang. That does not tell us what he did, how he did it or why he did it. In that case, one possibility is that god went into his workshop and used his hands and his tools to make the universe. That opens up the possibility that he might actually care about what we do. However, it is also possible that the big bang was actually god dropping a wet fart, in which case, he clearly would not care.

 

marshalltenbears wrote:
When I was a christian I was watching one of Ray Comfort's open air preaching sessions and he said that if we know 1% of everything there is to know in the known universe that leaves 99% of unkown territory. I'm no longer religious but I think about that. It is mind blowing!!

 

Conversely, if we know 99% of everything, that leaves 1% that we do not know. That is also mind blowing to consider. Either way, Ray Comfort is an idiot.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


marshalltenbears
marshalltenbears's picture
Posts: 223
Joined: 2009-02-19
User is offlineOffline
 I agree with both of you

 I agree with both of you actually. I understand fully what you are saying. Why even go in that direction when there is no reason to. I have just recently dumped my religion and it is great bc now I have a whole world of knowledge that I am free to dive into. ( I just bought Darwins "Origin of Species".) But it was only a thought. Maybe as we progress we will get evidence of some type of intelligent designer, ( please don't assume I am refering to anything remotely close to the biblical god.) Just keeping my mind open while learning the facts as well.  Thanks for the input. 

 

latersss

"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
 Marshall wrote:I have just

 

Marshall wrote:

I have just recently dumped my religion and it is great bc now I have a whole world of knowledge that I am free to dive into. 

Amen to that. Good luck.

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Predictive Power

Rising Sun wrote:

I don't understand why there is so much disagreement when it comes to the belief in a universal intelligence.  When it comes down to the belief that there is a personal god answering our prayers, I can see why this is utterly contradictory to scientific observation.  But does this exclude the possibility of a universal force that is the underlying cause of all that exists?  I certainly did not create myself, nor did anyone create his or her personal attributes.  I am me not because I am the author of me.  I beleive we are an expression of a creative force that lies beyond our immediate understanding, but just because we cannot see this force does not mean that this force does not exist?  And just because my definition of god is different than your definition, does not  mean that my definition is necessarily untrue.  Don't you agree?

 

Admittedly, I didn't read through all the other posts carefully like I normally do.  I'm just going to give you the same response I give deists.

 

It is unnecessary.  It causes unnecessary vagueness and muddles the answers to many questions we ask.

 

Picture this.  I have two theories about gravity.  One is the the ideas put forth by Einstein.  The other is the ideas put forth by Einstein plus "because angels do it."  Hey, we have no evidence that angels don't do it.

The problem is that the angels are unnecessary.  We don't need them.  Einstein's theory works without them, so why throw in more assumptions if we don't get anything out of it.  Maybe there's no evidence against a creative force that lies beyond our immediate understanding, but just because it's possible doesn't mean its useful.  Believing in such a force will do nothing to help further our collective knowledge, and may actually deter it.  We may waste time and money with paranormal research or some such silliness, instead of doing real science.

This is of course wrapped up in the problem of falsifiability.  Your hypothesis of this creative force lacks the predictive power that would allow us to test it.  They key is to come up with a prediction in which the universe + creative force acts differently than the universe alone, and then test that prediction.  If you can do this, you can determine which hypothesis is correct.  If you can't, then the creative force hypothesis is an unecessary complication that lacks predictive power and is thus useless.

 

The basic idea is that maybe we can't prove that your hypothesis is wrong.  However, we have shown that it might as well be wrong.  The universe works as if it was wrong, even though it might be right.  Thus, let's just work under the assumption that it's wrong in order to simplify things.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
Now that I've read

Okay, now I read the other posts and I want to comment further on how posing "supreme creator," "creative force," and whatnot hinders knowledge.

 

I ask "how did it all begin?"

Someone answers "God" or "Creative force"

I ask "What is God/Creative force?"

The answer is of course vague and incomprehensible.

 

So consider this.  Did I learn anything from the exchange?  Does the deistic answer actually give me any information?

The problem is that these answers amount to "we can't understand."  Note that this is far worse than "we don't understand, but we're still working on it," which science must often give.  The "we can't understand" asserts that comprehension of the answer is impossible.  This leads to being satisfied with ignorance, and even claiming to know "how it all began" despite being unable to understand your own answer.  If universally held, this belief would halt all investigation of the subject, and thus ruin any chance we have of gaining real and useful knowledge.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
... which is why we resort

... which is why we resort to better methods ...like science.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Rising Sun wrote:
I don't understand why there is so much disagreement when it comes to the belief in a universal intelligence.  When it comes down to the belief that there is a personal god answering our prayers, I can see why this is utterly contradictory to scientific observation.  But does this exclude the possibility of a universal force that is the underlying cause of all that exists?  I certainly did not create myself, nor did anyone create his or her personal attributes.  I am me not because I am the author of me.  I beleive we are an expression of a creative force that lies beyond our immediate understanding, but just because we cannot see this force does not mean that this force does not exist?  And just because my definition of god is different than your definition, does not  mean that my definition is necessarily untrue.  Don't you agree?

How about a universal stupidity that created everything? How about a universal malevolence? A universal slacker? How about two hundred of each? How about one million intelligences with a mix of each type? How about ten million of each building it out of waste material they found laying about?

When your "idea" just happens by pure chance to match the Christian god you know it is not chance at all.

That is why this forum is not for theists.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

marshalltenbears wrote:
First off i'm not theistic and my post was not intended to be.

 
Fair enough. I was wondering what was up with this thread. Now I know and knowing is half the battle.
 

So nobody twigged to that joke?

OK, then we do it this way:

Actually though, I am just testing something for Hamby.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Rising Sun wrote:  When it

Rising Sun wrote:

  When it comes down to the belief that there is a personal god answering our prayers, I can see why this is utterly contradictory to scientific observation.  But does this exclude the possibility of a universal force that is the underlying cause of all that exists? 

How are these two things any different?  They are both things that have never been observed by science. 

Rising Sun wrote:

I certainly did not create myself, nor did anyone create his or her personal attributes.  I am me not because I am the author of me. 

So what?

Rising Sun wrote:

I beleive we are an expression of a creative force that lies beyond our immediate understanding, but just because we cannot see this force does not mean that this force does not exist? 

Believing something is not evidence that it's true.

Rising Sun wrote:

And just because my definition of god is different than your definition, does not  mean that my definition is necessarily untrue.  Don't you agree?

Definitions are not true or untrue.  Definitions are accepted or not accepted.  Things like dictionaries exist to try to get as many people as possible to accept the same definitions so that we can communicate with each other effectively. 

On a further note you should be aware that something is defined by its definition.  If two people have have different definitions for the same word and they talk to each other using that word then they are not talking about the same thing.  If your God is defined differently then other peoples God then you are not talking about the same God.  


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:Quote

The Doomed Soul wrote:

Quote button... gets them every time ^_^

LOLOLOLOL

Sad but true...