Atheism: The Great Nothing!

[mickiel]

If you intend or have no interest to benefit others, do you express your opinions to do others harm?

Zadok

Well no, no, I certainly never seek to harm others, such is an ugly thought. I just have enough sense not to play God. I only wish I could show you the hundreds of emails I have received from people all over this world that tell me how I have helped them, by the things they have read. And such letters are so rewarding to me, so I hold no worry about those who think differently of me.

One day in my life God will come, and then I know he will establish me and complette me, and strengthen me, until then I must remain weak and in need. And I understand that weakness can be shown and picked out by others, its absolutely nothing I can do about this.

Peace.

 

[Copernicus]

I would disagree. I do not believe that seeking intelligence "leads to endless equivocations and misunderstandings." I believe quite the opposite.

That wasn't my complaint. My complaint was that you have tried to change the definitions of basic terms of the discussion beyond what we ordinarily mean by them. When you do that, you insert a disconnect in the discussion, because nobody had been using those terms in your sense in the previous discussion. We all have a fairly good intuitive grasp of what a god is and what it means to worship a god. Your redefinitions violate those intuitions.

As to "absolute control" - I do not know what you mean. The word absolute appears to add little to the discussion in my mind. I would agree that any being that holds “control” over anything could only do so by intelligent means.

I suspect that you know very well what I mean. A god is an intelligent agent that can change at least one aspect of reality in any conceivable way just by willing it to change. And it is important to remember that I said "holds absolute control", i.e. full mastery. It is not enough just to have some control over reality.

I would also add that it appears to me you have the whole concept of worship backwards. I purport that the reason G-d would have us worship him is that by experience we come to understand him (the concept of knowing someone by walking in their shoes) through emulation...

The concept of worship is fairly well known to people. That is why people use the same postures of obeisance to their gods that they do to humans of superior social status. And the obeisance is done for much the same reasons. Understanding the person or being of higher status is not usually prominent among those reasons. Causing the object of worship to have a favorable attitude towards the worshiper usually is.

How many times are we admonished in scripture that we come to know G-d by keeping his commandments. That through a process we become “one” with G-d. It is not for the purpose of the intelligent that such would encourage others to believe – it is for the less intelligent to become more intelligent that such a possibility is made known.

Scripture says a lot of things about the act of worship. It is natural that one would come to identify with the object of worship, since the whole point is usually to become part of the community of the one being worshiped. The goal of worship is empowerment, and that is certainly what happens when a person "becomes one" with God.

What I propose is that there exists intelligence greater than what we now experience. I suggest we seek after greater intelligence than we currently possess. If you disagree – the only possible reason I can imagine is that you do not believe a greater intelligence is possible.

I cannot imagine how you would arrive at that conclusion from what I have posted. I certainly do believe that greater intelligence is possible. Why shouldn't I? I just do not define that greater intelligence as "God". I think that you are engaged in a reification fallacy when you try to equate a god with an attribute such as intelligence. Gods are entities--intelligent agents. Worship can involve seeking to identify with the object of worship, but that is not always essential to the process.

 

[Meow Mix]

Meow: Thank you for being civil. Perhaps we both can enjoy a stimulating discussion.

Point 1. Very complex things can be achieved through very simple things. Basic DNA is simple – so is binary code. But through combinations very simple things can become extremely complex. This principle is a basic construct of fractals and Chaos Theory. In any discussion of what is complex and what is simple I go back to my original premise. That is we only think of something as complex when we really do not understand it.

I agree. I mentioned the same in my post -- recall that I was only directing my argument at those who hold the premises "Complexity requires a creator," which implies the hidden premise "The creator is complex." The only reason to say "complexity requires a creator" is by rejecting the premise that complexity can arise from simple processes; else they wouldn't bother bringing in a creator.

However, when we consider the evolution of a bat we run into problems with probabilities and permeations and we find that from what we know of bats and evolution that bats are, for lack of a better term – impossible.

Why are evolutionary processes inadequate to explain the existence of bats, as a side topic?

Point 2. The above logic brings me to my next point. My assumption is that if it is possible to conceive that something or anything that can happen without intelligent intervention – that it could happen with intelligent intervention. Not only could it happen but it is a basic concept of science that it will happen each and every time – without exception, when intelligence properly applies all the necessary parameters.

Yes, anything that's possible without intelligence is also possible in principle by an intelligence. That's a valid metaphysical concept. However, that doesn't do anything to show that in fact anything was made by an intelligence.

Point 3. What I ask is that you (and others) consider G-d is simply intelligence more advanced than our own. Consider worship nothing more than a learning process of emulating and seeking higher intelligence. I realize that in your past this is not the definitions you have encountered. So? Is that a reasonable argument to reject learning and becoming more intelligent - able to acomplish things which for now would be thought too complex or impossible?

Zadok

I have no problem with accepting the premise that if there is a god it is more intelligent than me or any of us. However the problem arrives once we start assuming such a thing exists without justification. What reasons are there to suppose such a being exists?

 

[mickiel]

The Proofs that God exist;

Human Consciousness, the most dramatic proof. Consciousness can only come from Consciousness, it is impossible to have evolved from the idiot hierarchcies of speechless Apes.

Religion. Religion itself is proof of God, it is mans effort to reach God.

Dna is proof of God.

Biblical Archaeology is proof of God.

Atheism is proof of God.

Cambrian Explosion is proof of God.

The half life of Carbon 14 is proof of God.

RNA is proof of God.

The Cambrian strata of rocks is proof of God.

The laws of Conversation are proof of God.

Mitrocrondrinal DNA is proof of God.

Emotion is proof of God.

Sound is proof of God.

Reality itself is a big proof of God.

Peace.

 

[Meow Mix]

The Proofs that God exist;

Human Consciousness, the most dramatic proof. Consciousness can only come from Consciousness, it is impossible to have evolved from the idiot hierarchcies of speechless Apes.

Religion. Religion itself is proof of God, it is mans effort to reach God.

Dna is proof of God.

Biblical Archaeology is proof of God.

Atheism is proof of God.

Cambrian Explosion is proof of God.

The half life of Carbon 14 is proof of God.

RNA is proof of God.

The Cambrian strata of rocks is proof of God.

The laws of Conversation are proof of God.

Mitrocrondrinal DNA is proof of God.

Emotion is proof of God.

Sound is proof of God.

Reality itself is a big proof of God.

Peace.

I'm convinced. Hallelujah!

 

[mickiel]

I'm convinced. Hallelujah!

Memory is proof of God.

Lightning is proof of God.

The Universe is proof of God.

The orbit of the Earth is proof of God.

Romance is proof of God.

Suffering is proof of God.

Communication and Language is proof of God.

Science is proof of God.

Knowledge is proof of God.

Mathmatics is proof of God.

Learning is proof of God.

Peace.

 

[Meow Mix]

Oh I can play this game too.

Cheese is proof of God.

Nachos are proof of God.

Tinky winky is proof of God.

Cheeseburgers are proof of God.

Paper towels are proof of God.

Can anyone tell me how to use the ignore feature?

 

[Copernicus]

Mickiel, you have only proved to us that you do not understand what a proof is.

 

[mickiel]

Oh I can play this game too.

?

I am playing no game, and I am not forcing you to have intrest in my post. You are doing so on your own. If you are not interested, then show it by not participating.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

Mickiel, you have only proved to us that you do not understand what a proof is.

I hold no intrest in proving things " To Us', I walk alone in my belief, and I am not looking for company.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

My belief in God is growing, thats another proof of him to me. I know myself, my intrest only grows in things that I believe in. If I hold no intrest in a woman, I don't see her anymore, so it is with knowledge. Intrest in Knowledge then is another proof of God. I like the things it does to my Consciousness, how it opens it beyond the simple cares of this world.

Peace.

 

[Copernicus]

I hold no intrest in proving things " To Us', I walk alone in my belief, and I am not looking for company.

For someone who claims to have no interest in proving things, you sure spend a lot of time constructing posts that inform people of these proofs you are disinterested in. Maybe they would get better if you took an interest in them.

 

[mickiel]

For someone who claims to have no interest in proving things, you sure spend a lot of time constructing posts that inform people of these proofs you are disinterested in. Maybe they would get better if you took an interest in them.

You are incorrect in your view, I am interested in the proofs, you said I am disinterested in them. I hold no intrest in convincing others of the proof, understand that.

If you are able.

Peace.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Shabbath Shalom,

Although I do not agree with mickiel's approach to showing athiests the existence of God; nevertheless, he does make a very valid scientific point:
1. A Creator created everything; or
2. Everything we see came into being from nothing.
And when I say nothing; I mean no physical objects no matter how small they are.

I mean scientifically, it is impossible for nothing in outer space to physically becomes something.

And it highly improbable that these physically objects have wandered aimlessly in outer space only to later collide with each other several trillions of trillions times until they started a pattern that eventually eons later evolved into our universe filled with conscious living beings.

And even more unbelievable is for the intangible ordered conscious to have evolved from nothing or uncreated physical objects floating in outer space while waiting for some randomly energy or physical force to make them collide trillions upon trillions of times (if that much) enough into each other until they produce an ordered conscious.

If scientists were to be true scientists, their study forces them to consider ALL possibilities, including the existence of a creator. To do otherwise, would cause them to make fallacious statements that there is no possibility of being a creator; even though they have not searched the entire universe.

I believe that it is scientifically probable that a Creator created everything. And that he has always been around since the beginning. It is either all or nothing of what was "In the beginning"
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." ---- First Book of Moshe, chapter 1, verse 1.

Shalom Alechem

 

[Copernicus]

You are incorrect in your view, I am interested in the proofs, you said I am disinterested in them. I hold no intrest in convincing others of the proof, understand that.

If you are able.

Perhaps I'm not. You claim disinterest in convincing others, yet you seem to be hanging out in a debate forum much of the time. :areyoucra

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

1. A Creator created everything; or

False dilemma much?

2. Everything we see came into being from nothing.
And when I say nothing; I mean no physical objects no matter how small they are.

This is not a scientifically coherent sentence.

And it highly improbable that these physically objects have wandered aimlessly in outer space only to later collide with each other several trillions of trillions times until they started a pattern that eventually eons later evolved into our universe filled with conscious living beings.

You get a cookie for using highly improbable instead of impossible. But that's it.
That said. It's also highly improbably that you will wear a specific set of clothing, in a specific day, and meet specific people who are your friends at a certain place and time. Perhaps eat a certain meal and use very specific words in that particular conversation. Highly improbably does not translate into..it must be supernatural!

And even more unbelievable is for the intangible ordered conscious to have evolved from nothing or uncreated physical objects floating in outer space while waiting for some randomly energy or physical force to make them collide trillions upon trillions of times (if that much) enough into each other until they produce an ordered conscious.

This is word soup.

If scientists were to be true scientists, their study forces them to consider ALL possibilities, including the existence of a creator. To do otherwise, would cause them to make fallacious statements that there is no possibility of being a creator; even though they have not searched the entire universe.

Being open minded makes your brain fall out. That said. It's more interesting to me that the universe keeps showing that it doesn't require a Creator. Not to mention your argument is classic cosmological argument. That's been shown to be bad logic for a long time now.

 

[DeitySlayer]

Here's the problem though, LPH.

Creationist arguments generally go as such:

1) The Universe is massively complex
2) This is too complex to have come about randomly
3) Therefore it was created
4) The Creator is God

Which sounds pretty good. But then you have to consider:

5) The Creator must be even more complex than the creation
6) Point 2) holds that the complexity of the creation is too high to be undesigned or naturalistic
7) But this, combined with 5) would mean that the Creator is too complex to be undesigned

 

[Copernicus]

Although I do not agree with mickiel's approach to showing athiests the existence of God; nevertheless, he does make a very valid scientific point:
1. A Creator created everything; or
2. Everything we see came into being from nothing.
And when I say nothing; I mean no physical objects no matter how small they are.

Did the creator create itself? Or is that creator itself nothing? (I suspect the latter.) There is no reason to believe that everything we see came from nothing. If anything can exist without having been created, that could just as well be physical reality itself. No need to bring an uncreated god into the picture.

 

[mickiel]

Perhaps I'm not. You claim disinterest in convincing others, yet you seem to be hanging out in a debate forum much of the time. :areyoucra

Your an Atheist, who hangs out in a Religious forum, and you question why a believer in God hangs out in one?

Man, get off of your trip. You are transparent and I see through you.

Peace.

 

[Copernicus]

Your an Atheist, who hangs out in a Religious forum, and you question why a believer in God hangs out in one?

No, I question why anyone who claims not to be interested in convincing others of something would hang out in a debate forum. I have never feigned disinterest in convincing people of the positions I'm arguing for.