Atheists, do you hope you're right?

[PureX]

Real in the sense of accurately and repeatably describing an external feature of the universe, or 'real' in the sense that the person feels it is real, so that they are 'really' having an experience inside their own head?

So what is the valued determinant factor, here, then? Repeatability? No, they're potentially equally repeatable. "Accuracy"? No, that's a deduction, not a factor. Being an "external feature of the universe"? Well, that's a sticky psychological wicket! Isn't it? What exactly is it about "externality" that implies validity and value, as opposed to "internality"? Especially when we determine value and validity internally. (And by the way, "externality" is just another internal conceptualization of the nature of being. In case you hadn't realized it.)

 

[bybee]

So what is the valued determinant factor, here, then? Repeatability? No, they're potentially equally repeatable. "Accuracy"? No, that's a deduction, not a factor. Being an "external feature of the universe"? Well, that's a sticky psychological wicket! Isn't it? What exactly is it about "externality" that implies validity and value, as opposed to "internality"? (And by the way, "externality" is just another internal conceptualization, to us humans. In case you hadn't realized.)

Good response!

 

[noguru]

So what is the valued determinant factor, here, then? Repeatability? No, they're potentially equally repeatable. "Accuracy"? No, that's a deduction, not a factor. Being an "external feature of the universe"? Well, that's a sticky psychological wicket! Isn't it? What exactly is it about "externality" that implies validity and value, as opposed to "internality"? Especially when we determine value and validity internally. (And by the way, "externality" is just another internal conceptualization of the nature of being. In case you hadn't realized it.)

Internal conceptions that are not closely aligned with external reality, can lead to very dangerous situations for an individual and potential collateral damage to those around.

If I am a bus driver driving children, and I think "With God's power, I could drive this bus right through that rebar reinforced concrete block wall." There really needs to be some empirical check in the objective reality around me to verify that idea.

 

[gcthomas]

So what is the valued determinant factor, here, then? Repeatability? No, they're potentially equally repeatable. "Accuracy"? No, that's a deduction, not a factor. Being an "external feature of the universe"? Well, that's a sticky psychological wicket! Isn't it? What exactly is it about "externality" that implies validity and value, as opposed to "internality"? Especially when we determine value and validity internally. (And by the way, "externality" is just another internal conceptualization of the nature of being. In case you hadn't realized it.)

The repeatability by multiple agents on multiple occasions makes the resulting description useful and reliable for prediction future observations.

Making the assumption that other similar agents exist (you'll get nowhere without that) then I will tentatively call that agreed description 'reality'.

'Internal' subjective experiences that cannot repeated by others and are subject to mistake and misinterpretation are not going to be agreed on by anything other than by blind trust. I don't call that reality, and neither would many people. Unless they are solipsists.

 

[alwight]

I don't dismiss them as myths I dismiss them as being real gods.

They were never intended to be taken as "real gods". They were intended to be taken as representations of a divine reality.

Jupiter Zeus Odin and Thor were only "representations of a divine reality"?
Who says? You?

I wish you wouldn't presume to know what I know about ancient myths and what energy I put in, even if you do know all there is to know about all ancient myths because of your tireless efforts.
I also wish you wouldn't presume to know which humans I may or may not regard as mentally deficient

Don't be so sensitive. All I know of you or anyone else, here, are the words I read in your posts. The only assumptions I make are relative to what I've read. I can't respond to you, personally, and I'm not responding to you, personally. I'm just responding to what I read in your posts.

So if you're not responding to my personally posted posts then you are simply responding to your own stereotype atheist then? Perhaps you don't really need me here at all?

I think the problem is PX that you are being rather unnecessarily generalising, opinionated and judgemental here, perhaps in lieu of having a rational response to my question? Perhaps you should just concede my point instead of bluster and presumptions?

What point is that? I not only concede that mythical representations of God are not likely to be accurate representations of God, I share your understanding and include even my own conceptions of God. And the fact that some people don't understand this is not your's or my problem. It's theirs. But I don't see how this has anything to do with the near universal experiential phenomena of "God". And certainly it doesn't rationally invalidate it, as most atheists usually proclaim.

Just let me know if you want my thoughts PX after you've finished pronouncing on what atheists usually do.

I have already explained that it must surely be a reasonable possibility at least that all of humanity has simply evolved similar innate mental traits and that one of them might include a sense of the divine, whether or not an actual divinity exists or not. Can you not concede that much at least?

Sure!

Really? :smack:

If it were a real divine entity that were being sensed then the fact that each culture has developed its own version of belief does not imo suggest a common divine source to me anyway.

Actually, I think it suggests exactly that. We humans seem to universally experience this 'divinity' as a being of some sort. Self-projection probably accounts for some of that, but we're not talking some, we're talking all: and every time. In every culture. From the dawn of human experience. There's always a 'being' or 'beings'. That's a similarity that's a little hard to get around!

No, the similarity is only that they were all of human origin.

I also did not suggest that anyone was fooling themselves, I merely suggested that humans generally may have evolved an innate tendency for religious/godly belief. If anyone is being fooled then it is Darwinian evolution that is doing it.

Being atheist by definition presumes that theists are just 'fooling themselves'. Because I never heard any atheists ever say that they think they must be unable to perceive of God due to their own inadequacies or deficiencies. Do you know of any?

Being atheist only require a disbelief in gods, nothing else.
Perhaps you should get out more PX?:listen:

Then I have decided that what is apparently reality is in fact real, even if the reality is that I am actually a brain in a vat being presented with an illusion.

So have we all, even though all our 'realities' differ from one another. Some, substantially.

My reality may have more tangible requirements than yours PX.

If millions of humans were all reporting the same or vaguely similar godly entity then that would indeed be salutary imo, but the opposite seems to be the case, which accounts for all the plethora of gods believed in down the ages.

Actually, it seems to me that all those gods are strikingly similar to each other. Especially in how they seem to look and act like us. But again, I suspect self-projection accounts for much of that.

But it's not just that, it's also that these gods almost universally seem to be presumed responsible for the creation of everything, and often the maintenance of it. And that they interact with us for some special purpose of their own. Also, that they can be appealed to successfully, on occasion.

Like I said, the similarities are far more striking than the differences. And the fact that you deny this, or can't recognize it, I think should tell you something about the blinding bias of your own position.

You're probably only seeing what you want to see. Of course gods will generally be connected with an ultimate origin of everything. Try explaining to me why evolution couldn't have produce an innate sense of divinity rather than actually sensing a real divine entity?
If I were a Christian I'd probably be quoting Matthew 7:5 right now.

No, and thankfully these days we have many more ways and scope to examine reality. Else I may well have thought that thunder was my version of a god moving the furniture around, particularly if my local religious know-it-all told me that is what it was. Otherwise I may simply have accepted not knowing instead making up stuff.

But you haven't accepted not knowing. And you have just "made stuff up": otherwise you would be simply an agnostic.

But I am an agnostic and an atheist. I don't claim divine knowledge and not being a theist makes me atheist.:salute:

I think you have simply misinterpreted what I said PX, since I have constantly advocated curiosity in anything that is actually testable.

Again, I think if you would read these statements more carefully, you would see how absurd they are.

Your opinion is noted and filed accordingly.

Wasting time navel gazing on the unknowable is what I think you are advocating.

The unknown and unknowable are as real as real can be. And are crucial to figuring out what we can and do know. Science without philosophy is just a pistol in the hands of a monkey.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

 

[noguru]

The unknown and unknowable are as real as real can be. And are crucial to figuring out what we can and do know. Science without philosophy is just a pistol in the hands of a monkey.

And philosophy without empiricism is like handing the gun to the monkey with the safety off, under the assumption that "God will protect us".

 

[Hedshaker]

Personally I find "life the universe and everything" mysterious and wondrous all by itself. Adding some vague, non falsifiable entity into the mix seems not only superfluous but actually detracts from the wonder and mystery IMO.

What if there is no emotionally charged overlord in charge after all? Isn't that way more deep and mysterious? When has God-did-it ever explained anything really. All it actually does is add further mystery to an already beautiful conundrum.

What is a god? How did he, she, it do it? Where did it come from? From where and how comes it's power. Pure magic is no more an explanation than is "mysterious ways".

Isn't reality just has it is already enough to be going on with?

"Mystery creates wonder and wonder is the basis of man's desire to understand."

- Neil Armstrong.

It seems to me that without theistic assumptions the gods don't really do much of anything.

 

[Ben Masada]

1 - Personally I find "life the universe and everything" mysterious and wondrous all by itself.

2 - Adding some vague, non falsifiable entity into the mix seems not only superfluous but actually detracts from the wonder and mystery IMO.

3 - What if there is no emotionally charged overlord in charge after all? Isn't that way more deep and mysterious? When has God-did-it ever explained anything really. All it actually does is add further mystery to an already beautiful conundrum.

4 - What is a god? How did he, she, it do it? Where did it come from? From where and how comes it's power. Pure magic is no more an explanation than is "mysterious ways".

5 - Isn't reality just has it is already enough to be going on with?

6 - It seems to me that without theistic assumptions the gods don't really do much of anything.

1 - The works of the Primal Cause are indeed wondrous to the mind of all, theists and atheists.

2 - Superfluous! Are you implying that the Primal Cause of the universe is superfluous! Superfluous that without the Primal Cause of the universe we would not be here today discussing this issue.

3 - Tell me Headshaker, did the universe cause itself to exist or something else that preceded it did that job instead? If your answer is positive for the universe to have cause itself to exist, how could it have caused itself to exist if it did not exist to do so? And if it did exist, how could it still have caused itself to exist if it already existed? That's a paradox you have no way out to escape without bending your knee.

4 - Probably the name used by the Gentiles to the One I acknowledge as the Primal Cause. He came from nowhere because He is not subject to space or time.

5 - The Primal Cause is Reality for without It, we would have no reality no live in.

6 - On this one I agree with you but without the Primal Cause we would not be here to agree with each other.

 

[gcthomas]

There is no solid reason to think that the universe could not exist without an initial cause. What experience do you have of the starts off universes that gives you this expectation?

 

[Hedshaker]

1 - The works of the Primal Cause are indeed wondrous to the mind of all, theists and atheists.

What "primal cause are you talking about?

2 - Superfluous! Are you implying that the Primal Cause of the universe is superfluous! Superfluous that without the Primal Cause of the universe we would not be here today discussing this issue.

What do you propose was the nature of existence before this "Primal Cause"? Or are you suggesting this PC came from "Nothing"?

3 - Tell me Headshaker, did the universe cause itself to exist or something else that preceded it did that job instead? If your answer is negative for the Primal Cause, how could the universe have caused itself to exist if it did not exist to do so? If it did exist, how could it still have caused itself to exist if it already existed?

Well I can say I don't know safe it the knowledge that you don't know either. There is much about reality we don't really know, isn't there? What matters, IMO, is having the honesty to admit ignorance over proposing ones cherished beliefs did-it. Though there are plenty of hypothesis out there. There is no knowledge regarding the state of existence before the Big Bang eg but it's reasonable, I think, to assume the BB followed from there. All we can really do at this point is look at what we do know and see where that might lead.

1. Energy cannot be destroyed or created but can change its state

2 Time waits for no one.

3 Space appears endless - or if not what might be behind its ending?

What reason is there to suspect any of that as ever been any different?

4 - Probably the name used by the Gentiles to the One I acknowledge as the Primal Cause. He came from nowhere because He is not subject to space or time.

Sounds like magic, no?

5 - The Primal Cause is Reality for without It, we would have no reality.

Non sequitur. We have reality for sure but no evidence for whatever this "Primal Cause" might be. We have no knowledge at all of what preceded the Big Bang event.

6 - On this one I agree with you but without the Primal Cause we would not be here to agree with each other.

Well at least it displays a cordial exchange minus any preaching which is a pleasant change in this thread, so thanks

 

[Ben Masada]

There is no solid reason to think that the universe could not exist without an initial cause. What experience do you have of the starts off universes that gives you this expectation?

You have no grounds to stand upon if you discard the Primal Cause of having caused the universe to exist. The universe could not have caused itself to exist. And that's reality. Now, you can see why you cannot be right with myself around?

 

[gcthomas]

You have no grounds to stand upon if you discard the Primal Cause of having caused the universe to exist. The universe could not have caused itself to exist. And that's reality. Now, you can see why you cannot be right with myself around?

Causes happen before events, so if time began at the big bang, there cannot have been a preceding cause. Until we know more about the quantum behaviour at the big bang there is no reason to assume there was an initial cause.

Your decision to believe in one is a faith based, not science, reason.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

What makes you think I haven't? Unfortunately for you reality isn't decided by writings of the religions.

Because you lump them together.

 

[PureX]

Internal conceptions that are not closely aligned with external reality, can lead to very dangerous situations for an individual and potential collateral damage to those around.

If I am a bus driver driving children, and I think "With God's power, I could drive this bus right through that rebar reinforced concrete block wall." There really needs to be some empirical check in the objective reality around me to verify that idea.

That's true, and no one is suggesting that we should not be willing to alter our conceptions of reality to accommodate the actions and reactions of oaf the physical world as we experience them. But the fact remains that our perceptions and our conceptions of reality are part-and-parcel. And neither of them are the whole truth of what is.

Relying on "empiricism" as one's sole means of determining truth is no more logical or effective than relying on exclusively on intuition, or here-say. We humans exist in a constant state of ignorance and delusion. And calling one's self a "scientist" or an "empiricist" doesn't change that. There are a number of very valid, powerful, and inexplicable human experiences and perceptions that simply to not lend themselves to the methodology of science or empiricism, and sticking one's head up one's own empirical behind doesn't change that aspect of reality, or make it go away.

When people 'experience God', SOMETHING is going on. And whatever that something is, it seems to be of great (and usually positive) significance to those who are experiencing it. Yet these experiences also seem to be 'empirically inexplicable'. And so if we want to try and understand them, we have to go about it some other way. Traditionally, mythology has been used to try and articulate these experiences to others. And religions have been developed to "practice" these experiences for one's self (if possible). But so far science doesn't seem to shed much light on it, and empiricism doesn't either.

That's all I'm saying. I think these atheists are dismissing a significant aspect of the human experience just because their favorite tools can't unlock the mystery. And I'm merely trying to point out the irrationality of that kind of bias.

 

[Ben Masada]

What "primal cause are you talking about?

The Primal Cause is the First to cause.

What do you propose was the nature of existence before this "Primal Cause"? Or are you suggesting this PC came from "Nothing"?

There was no "before" the Primal Cause until He caused it to exist.

Well I can say I don't know safe it the knowledge that you don't know either. There is much about reality we don't really know, isn't there? What matters, IMO, is having the honesty to admit ignorance over proposing ones cherished beliefs did-it.

I don't know "how" but that the Primal Cause caused the universe to exist I do. Why? Because I am part of the universe and I know that I exist and I did not cause myself to exist. Someone that preceded me did that job for me. If the Primal Cause did not cause the universe to exist, who did it, you?

Though there are plenty of hypothesis out there. There is no knowledge regarding the state of existence before the Big Bang eg but it's reasonable, I think, to assume the BB followed from there. All we can really do at this point is look at what we do know and see where that might lead.

What then caused the big bang to happen? Things don't happen out of absolutely nothing.

1. Energy cannot be destroyed or created but can change its state; 2 Time waits for no one; 3 Space appears endless - or if not what might be behind its ending?

Space is what is defined by the distance between matter and matter. Therefore, space is an accident of matter. It was not caused to exist as the solid elements of the universe were caused to exist. The same is the case with energy.

What reason is there to suspect any of that as ever been any different?

The presence or absence of matter in the universe. That's what defines space, time and energy.

Sounds like magic, no?

How about Quantum Mechanics? Do you have any idea about Quantum Mechanics?

Non sequitur. We have reality for sure but no evidence for whatever this "Primal Cause" might be. We have no knowledge at all of what preceded the Big Bang event.

If to cause things to exist in the universe is not evidence for the Primal Cause, how did the universe cause itself to exist?

Well at least it displays a cordial exchange minus any preaching which is a pleasant change in this thread, so thanks

You ain't seen nothing yet. We are only in the beginning.

 

[Ben Masada]

Causes happen before events, so if time began at the big bang, there cannot have been a preceding cause. Until we know more about the quantum behaviour at the big bang there is no reason to assume there was an initial cause.

Your decision to believe in one is a faith based, not science, reason.

Events is only another way to say causes. Events are caused and so are causes and, the role of Science is to assume until it gets to a theory which remains so till it becomes a fact which it only seldom does.

I am ready to discard what you claim that I have a belief based on faith, however, first you must explain to me if the universe caused itself to exist if you can't find possible that it was caused by something that preceded it aka the Primal Cause.

 

[gcthomas]

You misunderstand the nature or role of science. You should withhold firm judgement until you have exhausted the alternatives, and in particular you should resist believing something because you would like it to be true. That is the path to self deceit.

I have given you an alternative that you can not reasonably reject without simple assertion.

How can you reject the possibility that the universe just exists? You think that God just exists, so the concept should not be unfamiliar to you.

 

[gcthomas]

That's all I'm saying. I think these atheists are dismissing a significant aspect of the human experience just because their favorite tools can't unlock the mystery. And I'm merely trying to point out the irrationality of that kind of bias.

Atheists enjoy that aspect of human experience as much as anyone, and none dismiss it AFAIK. But to assume that internal thoughts always correspond to a reliable description of reality is madness. The inconsistencies involved make it likely that they are figments of individual mind and not of the external reality that you seem to deny exists. The variability of subjective experiences tell us about brain functions but not the properties of the universe as a whole.

 

[noguru]

That's true, and no one is suggesting that we should not be willing to alter our conceptions of reality to accommodate the actions and reactions of oaf the physical world as we experience them. But the fact remains that our perceptions and our conceptions of reality are part-and-parcel. And neither of them are the whole truth of what is.

I agree. It is our perception and our conception which puts things into perspective so that things are cohesive. But my issue is with those whose theological perception/conception turns the empirical evidence into a disjointed non cohesive set of events, so that their predetermined theological ideas are supported in the face of contrary evidence. We see this with their interpretations of theological text quite often, but they will not admit this.

Relying on "empiricism" as one's sole means of determining truth is no more logical or effective than relying on exclusively on intuition, or here-say. We humans exist in a constant state of ignorance and delusion. And calling one's self a "scientist" or an "empiricist" doesn't change that. There are a number of very valid, powerful, and inexplicable human experiences and perceptions that simply to not lend themselves to the methodology of science or empiricism, and sticking one's head up one's own empirical behind doesn't change that aspect of reality, or make it go away.

Science cannot make statements about morality, self purpose, and motivation. We can use science to guide us along those paths, however. And when theological views cause us to ignore/undermine the significance and implications of empirical evidence then it can become very dangerous.

When people 'experience God', SOMETHING is going on. And whatever that something is, it seems to be of great (and usually positive) significance to those who are experiencing it. Yet these experiences also seem to be 'empirically inexplicable'. And so if we want to try and understand them, we have to go about it some other way. Traditionally, mythology has been used to try and articulate these experiences to others. And religions have been developed to "practice" these experiences for one's self (if possible). But so far science doesn't seem to shed much light on it, and empiricism doesn't either.

These rationalistic experiences can only grow in the psyche. They are driven by empirical experiences however. It is certainly an inherent part of human consciousness. Though I think atheists see them as a misleading byproduct of the human need to make sense of everything that happens around us. IOW, to an atheist things can be cohesive in regard to cause and effect, but they are not required to make sense in the light of some grand purpose.

That's all I'm saying. I think these atheists are dismissing a significant aspect of the human experience just because their favorite tools can't unlock the mystery. And I'm merely trying to point out the irrationality of that kind of bias.

With this I disagree. As an agnostic/atheist for 17 years, I was quite content that I had unlocked this mystery. Though what I had discovered was less fulfilling than I wanted it to be. I think atheists are content in not having some "greater purpose" to existence than whatever they can create on their own for this physical existence. And in that (what I put in bold) they are no different than theists. Theists often believe that if they sign on to some unified theological doctrine then such doctrine is not their own creation. But this is a false perception. An illusion, because they have really just agreed to adopt, as their own, theological doctrine created by other humans.

This realization came to me in a 12 step meeting when we were discussing a God of our conception. I had an epiphany and recognized that even in churches, people were trusting in a God of their own conception. That conception in churches however, was one that has been agreed upon by the governing members and set down as church doctrine. And it gives them the illusion that it is not from their own psyche.

 

[noguru]

Events is only another way to say causes. Events are caused and so are causes and, the role of Science is to assume until it gets to a theory which remains so till it becomes a fact which it only seldom does.

I am ready to discard what you claim that I have a belief based on faith, however, first you must explain to me if the universe caused itself to exist if you can't find possible that it was caused by something that preceded it aka the Primal Cause.

Science does not have to answer everything, before it can answer some things.