|
Post by rizdek on Apr 14, 2021 0:11:12 GMT
And if one day I decided to define nature as God...I'd be like Anthony Flew and go about declaring there is a god. You may as well. After all, in this context, your description of Nature is the same as the description of God you summarily dismissed. Come one...you know better than that. Describe the God you believe in.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 14, 2021 0:58:40 GMT
I see. So in this context, Nature is simply defined as "not God." It's unreasonable to reject God for the same reason Nature is accepted... "If God exists, who created God?" vs. "Nature is eternal. Nothing created it." In other words, Nature is Supernatural but God doesn't exist because there is no such thing as "Supernatural." No, it’s gotten nothing to do with rejecting anything. I never rejected “God.” For the atheist, there is rarely the fist to God proclaiming, “I reject you.” I just think humans, especially within Christianity, have not a clue what It is. The reason I’m called an atheist is because there is no other category to classify me in. Atheists do not pray to Not a God. But that doesn’t mean we know the answer to why is there something instead of nothing. It does means we’re not to afraid to explore the question without fear of pissing off a jealous god. I’m talking about how humans basically react to external stimuli that is then interpreted in the brain as a concept. And we can often use symbolic language to do this. God and Nature would out of luck on describing themselves without humans. I generally think of God and Nature (not nature with a small n) as cultural symbols. As such religion and philosophy, to a lesser extent, use symbolic poetry and prose motifs that deal with the same themes as science and social science. Social science itself is fraught with symbolic language because it must present its theories, like psychology or anthropology, in their interpretations of their softer data. After all, culture is unquantifiable except for social statistics. Even then, the stats are fuzzy. Hard science like physics and biology less so because of hard data. And we can build real world analogs of mathematical concepts using technology. And this is the reason we went to Moon. Mathematics has its own language, but unfortunately the vast majority of us are limited in varying degrees in that language. Example: the theory of special relativity is a mathematical model worked out over time as physics was better able to analyze the information it describes. The task then was to create a symbolic model non or limited-math speaking humans can conceptualize. The simpler the math can be honed, the easier concept for everyone to understand. As such the equation E = mc2 is a algebra formula anyone can understand. As a fun thing for me is this studying how this scientific progress narrative toward simplification is mirrored in the same process of the ancient Hebrews who whittled down the Mesopotamian and Egyptian multivalent supernatural world of competing Gods and moralities to a simpler concept of one God, one Law. That was revolutionary in human culture, though not limited to the Hebrews. Religion and philosophy are languages people use to describe metaphysical concepts that even have its own exclusive sacred or philosophical information that only specifically trained adepts can understand. Pretty cool. Anyway, I wish you would stop with the knee jerk negative reactions. I daresay I get more shear fun out of religion than you do. So, loosen up. As usual, you complicate a simple thing and blame me for a variety of bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 14, 2021 0:59:16 GMT
You may as well. After all, in this context, your description of Nature is the same as the description of God you summarily dismissed. Come one...you know better than that. Describe the God you believe in. Presuming I believe in God, I reckon I would describe it much like you described Nature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2021 11:16:38 GMT
That is such a stupid reasoning! “How can such a complex structure as DNA exist without having been created?” How do the people who say that do not realise that it doesn’t actually answer anything? It only pushes the problem of something-from-nothing one level up. If DNA is so complex that it couldn’t have happened without God, how did God (presumably even more complex than DNA) come into being? The “who created God then?” argument is probably the dumbest one atheists bring up. Why? It's a natural question. We're just supposed to believe God was always around? That 'something cant come from nothing' argument, well God is something too right? Then again if we go to science, specifically physics. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, which means there cant be a pre-something ie So it could be God in that sense but he just manipulated and modified things to find what we have now
|
|
Hnefahogg
Sophomore
@hnefahogg
Posts: 881
Likes: 369
|
Post by Hnefahogg on Apr 15, 2021 14:50:03 GMT
The “who created God then?” argument is probably the dumbest one atheists bring up. Why? It's a natural question. We're just supposed to believe God was always around? That 'something cant come from nothing' argument, well God is something too right? Then again if we go to science, specifically physics. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, which means there cant be a pre-something ie So it could be God in that sense but he just manipulated and modified things to find what we have now According to Muhammad, because it is a Satanic question. Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah's Apostle said: Satan comes to one of you and says: 'Who created so-and-so? 'till he says, 'Who has created your Lord?' So, when he inspires such a question, one should seek refuge with Allah and give up such thoughts. - Sahih Bukhari 4:54:896
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 15, 2021 22:20:17 GMT
The “who created God then?” argument is probably the dumbest one atheists bring up. Why? It's a natural question. We're just supposed to believe God was always around? That 'something cant come from nothing' argument, well God is something too right? Then again if we go to science, specifically physics. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, which means there cant be a pre-something ie So it could be God in that sense but he just manipulated and modified things to find what we have now It's an invalid question that dismisses the argument instead of addressing it. In the context of origin, the so-called First Cause does not have a cause (hence "first"), and that doesn't change simply because someone calls it God. Your counter-argument about matter illustrates the problem with asking what created the First Cause. After all, it would be just an invalid to ask what came before matter if matter can't have a "pre-something." Claim: God was not created. Response: Then what created God? Claim: Matter was not created. Response: Then what created matter? Same yo-yo, different strings.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 16, 2021 14:07:55 GMT
The “who created God then?” argument is probably the dumbest one atheists bring up. Why? It's a natural question. We're just supposed to believe God was always around? That 'something cant come from nothing' argument, well God is something too right? Then again if we go to science, specifically physics. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed, which means there cant be a pre-something ie So it could be God in that sense but he just manipulated and modified things to find what we have now
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 16, 2021 21:48:56 GMT
That is such a stupid reasoning! “How can such a complex structure as DNA exist without having been created?” How do the people who say that do not realise that it doesn’t actually answer anything? It only pushes the problem of something-from-nothing one level up. If DNA is so complex that it couldn’t have happened without God, how did God (presumably even more complex than DNA) come into being? The “Intelligent Designer” argument is based upon the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Simply put, it appears to defy entropy.
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Apr 16, 2021 22:26:54 GMT
The "Intelligent Designer" argument is just a thinly veiled attempt to inject religion into science classes. Evolution does not defy entropy. The second law applies to closed systems, and creationist seemingly fail to notice the big orange ball in the sky adding energy to Earth's system.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 16, 2021 22:48:30 GMT
The "Intelligent Designer" argument is just a thinly veiled attempt to inject religion into science classes. Evolution does not defy entropy. The second law applies to closed systems, and creationist seemingly fail to notice the big orange ball in the sky adding energy to Earth's system.
So the system itself (and by extension, the processes by which this system operates) is your "God." There is a natural synchronization that takes places in the universe as Veritasium explains here. Do we look at that and say the universe works in mysterious ways?
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Apr 17, 2021 0:03:48 GMT
The "Intelligent Designer" argument is just a thinly veiled attempt to inject religion into science classes. Evolution does not defy entropy. The second law applies to closed systems, and creationist seemingly fail to notice the big orange ball in the sky adding energy to Earth's system.
So the system itself (and by extension, the processes by which this system operates) is your "God." There is a natural synchronization that takes places in the universe as Veritasium explains here. Do we look at that and say the universe works in mysterious ways? No, the system is not my "god." Don't try to shoe-horn a supernatural term into observable physical reality. The universe is what it is, and just because we don't know or understand every aspect of it yet (and maybe never will) that's not a good reason to assume some supernatural entity. That's an argument from incredulity.
The video was fascinating and I may view more from that channel, but at no point does anyone in it postulate the need of an intelligent designer. Instead, they use known physical properties of matter, such as vibration and gravity, as well as human psychology, to explain natural phenomena.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 17, 2021 0:15:17 GMT
So the system itself (and by extension, the processes by which this system operates) is your "God." There is a natural synchronization that takes places in the universe as Veritasium explains here. Do we look at that and say the universe works in mysterious ways? No, the system is not my "god." Don't try to shoe-horn a supernatural term into observable physical reality. The universe is what it is, and just because we don't know or understand every aspect of it yet (and maybe never will) that's not a good reason to assume some supernatural entity. That's an argument from incredulity. The video was fascinating and I may view more from that channel, but at no point does anyone in it postulate the need of an intelligent designer. Instead, they use known physical properties of matter, such as vibration and gravity, as well as human psychology, to explain natural phenomena.
I'm afraid you may have missed the point. For starters, the quotation marks around the word "God" signify a euphemism, not an accusation that you're a theist of any sort. And the reason I brought up natural synchronization is because credulous people would see it as intentional, or in other words, the work of God (no quotes). Lastly, in context of this thread, the system itself as you described it would be the First Cause, which some call God. What do you call it?
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Apr 17, 2021 2:33:29 GMT
No, the system is not my "god." Don't try to shoe-horn a supernatural term into observable physical reality. The universe is what it is, and just because we don't know or understand every aspect of it yet (and maybe never will) that's not a good reason to assume some supernatural entity. That's an argument from incredulity. The video was fascinating and I may view more from that channel, but at no point does anyone in it postulate the need of an intelligent designer. Instead, they use known physical properties of matter, such as vibration and gravity, as well as human psychology, to explain natural phenomena.
I'm afraid you may have missed the point. For starters, the quotation marks around the word "God" signify a euphemism, not an accusation that you're a theist of any sort. And the reason I brought up natural synchronization is because credulous people would see it as intentional, or in other words, the work of God (no quotes). Lastly, in context of this thread, the system itself as you described it would be the First Cause, which some call God. What do you call it? I'm going to put some thought into my answer to this and get back to it, just so you don't think I'm avoiding answering. I will say that I don't feel a need to apply a particular label other than natural phenomena, certainly not one that needs capitalization, at any rate. I will also say that you seem to be a reasonable person to discuss these things with, unlike some I have observed while lurking for the last little while.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 17, 2021 2:43:00 GMT
I'm afraid you may have missed the point. For starters, the quotation marks around the word "God" signify a euphemism, not an accusation that you're a theist of any sort. And the reason I brought up natural synchronization is because credulous people would see it as intentional, or in other words, the work of God (no quotes). Lastly, in context of this thread, the system itself as you described it would be the First Cause, which some call God. What do you call it? I'm going to put some thought into my answer to this and get back to it, just so you don't think I'm avoiding answering. I will say that I don't feel a need to apply a particular label other than natural phenomena, certainly not one that needs capitalization, at any rate. I will also say that you seem to be a reasonable person to discuss these things with, unlike some I have observed while lurking for the last little while. Sorry about the capital G. I'm not always perfect.
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Apr 17, 2021 16:12:48 GMT
So, first thing-I entered this thread mostly because of the use of the term intelligent designer, something that to me has very specific connotations of the insidious creationist movement to get their religious beliefs taught in science classes as an alternative explanation to evolution. That, and the suggestion that the universe is somehow violating it's own laws (don't know of a less anthropomorphic way to put it, sorry) without some intelligent force to do so. If something seems to be defying entropy, as you put it, then either the observer is mistaken or his understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is.
As to the whole first cause question, asking what caused god is less an argument made by atheists than it is a response to the claim that everything needs a cause, except for the deity one happens to believe in. That's what is known, I believe, as "special pleading," and to me seems more than a tad hypocritical. Due to it's very nature, the question of what caused the universe we live in, may be unknowable-in fact, the question might even be meaningless, but that is no reason to insert some supreme being into the equation. If I'm still missing your point, then i apologize, these are simply my thoughts on the subject.
Briefly back to the natural synchronization thing; yes, some might see that as evidence of a god, but that would be another argument from ignorance; "I don't understand x, therefore God." Since there are natural forces that can explain theses observations, there is no logical need to jump to that conclusion. Thank you, Occam's Razor.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 17, 2021 21:11:08 GMT
So, first thing-I entered this thread mostly because of the use of the term intelligent designer, something that to me has very specific connotations of the insidious creationist movement to get their religious beliefs taught in science classes as an alternative explanation to evolution. That, and the suggestion that the universe is somehow violating it's own laws (don't know of a less anthropomorphic way to put it, sorry) without some intelligent force to do so. If something seems to be defying entropy, as you put it, then either the observer is mistaken or his understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is. As to the whole first cause question, asking what caused god is less an argument made by atheists than it is a response to the claim that everything needs a cause, except for the deity one happens to believe in. That's what is known, I believe, as "special pleading," and to me seems more than a tad hypocritical. Due to it's very nature, the question of what caused the universe we live in, may be unknowable-in fact, the question might even be meaningless, but that is no reason to insert some supreme being into the equation. If I'm still missing your point, then i apologize, these are simply my thoughts on the subject. Briefly back to the natural synchronization thing; yes, some might see that as evidence of a god, but that would be another argument from ignorance; "I don't understand x, therefore God." Since there are natural forces that can explain theses observations, there is no logical need to jump to that conclusion. Thank you, Occam's Razor.
Either the universe regresses infinitely, or there is a "First Cause." What that First Cause that may be is anyone's guess, but it shares many of the same qualities as what most people mean by "God" (big G intentional this time).
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Apr 17, 2021 21:47:55 GMT
Either the universe regresses infinitely, or there is a "First Cause." What that First Cause that may be is anyone's guess, but it shares many of the same qualities as what most people mean by "God" (big G intentional this time). And those would be what, exactly?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 17, 2021 22:01:26 GMT
Either the universe regresses infinitely, or there is a "First Cause." What that First Cause that may be is anyone's guess, but it shares many of the same qualities as what most people mean by "God" (big G intentional this time). And those would be what, exactly? Uncaused cause, unmoved mover, independent, necessary, self-explanatory...
|
|
dzrider
Freshman
@dzrider
Posts: 86
Likes: 51
|
Post by dzrider on Apr 17, 2021 22:48:18 GMT
And those would be what, exactly? Uncaused cause, unmoved mover, independent, necessary, self-explanatory... I can grant you some of those, although I'm not sure what unmoved mover means in this context. God is not necessary (see Occam's Razor,) and obviously, if nothing caused the universe to come into being, we wouldn't be here discussing this, but that's like saying water is wet. Of course, all this is assuming the universe doesn't regress infinitely, which it might, and is something which we may have no real way of knowing. And "quantum fluctuations in a vacuum" is hardly self-explanatory.
But...you left out a number of qualities most people attribute to a big G God, that a natural (for lack of a better term) uncaused cause does not share; sentience, intelligence, willfulness, intent, purpose, the ability to subvert the inherent properties of the universe...I could keep going with a whole list of emotions most believers also attach to the notion of God, but I think I've made my point.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 17, 2021 22:58:16 GMT
Uncaused cause, unmoved mover, independent, necessary, self-explanatory... I can grant you some of those, although I'm not sure what unmoved mover means in this context. God is not necessary (see Occam's Razor,) and obviously, if nothing caused the universe to come into being, we wouldn't be here discussing this, but that's like saying water is wet. Of course, all this is assuming the universe doesn't regress infinitely, which it might, and is something which we may have no real way of knowing. And "quantum fluctuations in a vacuum" is hardly self-explanatory. But...you left out a number of qualities most people attribute to a big G God, that a natural (for lack of a better term) uncaused cause does not share; sentience, intelligence, willfulness, intent, purpose, the ability to subvert the inherent properties of the universe...I could keep going with a whole list of emotions most believers also attach to the notion of God, but I think I've made my point.
It's not that "God" is necessary, it's that a "First Cause" is necessary. Before attempting to define something, you should probably first ensure that there's something to define. And yes, water is indeed wet. It's that simple, for I'm not arguing anything that shouldn't be obvious. An infinitely regressive universe is a supernatural universe, which I reckon means that we're wrong about some of those "natural laws" we use to dispute God.
|
|