-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Atheism vs Theism |OT|
- Thread starter GTP_Daverytimes
- Start date
- Status
OttomanScribe
Member
Gnosis is the Greek word for knowledge. You can be an agnostic theist, and probably are. Similarly you can be (and any atheist here with any sense is) an agnostic atheist. They do not know with certainty, but they believe one way or the other.
Unfortunately this has been confused a bit by the tendancy of people to describe themselves as 'agnostic' in order to distance themselves from a more extreme form of atheism.
It's the summation of a lifetime's thinking, experience, questioning etc etc etc.
Then there are days, when I go outside, look at the universe, think to myself, there are two possibilities, when it comes right down to it.
1, the universe is eternal, and nothing created it.
2, God is eternal, he created it [universe].
It starts with a simple what if, and to each his own, but I am a theist.
Ahh I see. It's weird to have a mature conversation in here.
And you choose number 2 based on what?
Refer back to the opening sentence.
You cannot give a line or two of reasoning? A certain experience that lead you further down the road of contemplation?
OttomanScribe
Member
Don't speak too soon akh.
What line of reasoning will work on you? You've heard it all, and most likely dismissed it all.
I suppose, there are times when I'm speaking, and I'm trying to get somebody to see or challenge themselves, and I feel, that they are deaf to reasoning*, and revert back to a default position.
*deaf to my words I should say. And the conversation becomes one about who can convert the other to their position.
Nothing you say will work on me, as nothing I say will work on you if you are implying some conversion. I'm not asking you to convert me, nor do I wish to convert you or anyone else. I'm just curious as to what would strengthen your conviction that there is a deity.
Okay, let me ask you this:
Why do you not think that a god's existence is possible? And I'm not talking about proof.
why?
What other point would there be to God's existence if they did not have some kind of impact on the creation of the structure of the world?
And mind you we're talking about a typical Judeo-Christian God that meddles in the life of their creation from time to time, showing something comparable, at the least, to human intelligence and mannerism, even if their capacity for thought far exceeds those of ours.
If I gave you the power to create a world in order to simulate some life, would you make it messy and chaotic or clean and elegant?
And mind you we're talking about a typical Judeo-Christian God that meddles in the life of their creation from time to time, showing something comparable, at the least, to human intelligence and mannerism, even if their capacity for thought far exceeds those of ours.
If I gave you the power to create a world in order to simulate some life, would you make it messy and chaotic or clean and elegant?
I see. So the universe is a crazy place/less than perfectly organised place, therefore god doesn't exist.
A god's existence is possible. God, as described by monotheistic religions is a hypothetical construct capable of anything. This God may be a programmer running some immensely complicated computer program which we reside in. We could conceivably be brains in a vat. Ponder for a moment the Matrix movies to see what I'm getting at. But to believe in such scenarios when no evidence conclusively points in that direction strikes me as wishful thinking.
Ultimately, we have a red pill and a blue pill to choose from.
1. The universe is eternal and nothing created it. This implies that your entire existence, and that of everyone you have and ever will care for lasts but the briefest of moments and ultimately nothing matters.
2. God is eternal and created the universe. This implies you are of divine origin, will exist forever in a utopia and so will everyone you've ever loved, or if you are the pious sort, then the ones who happened to be lucky enough to practice the correct faith. All this without any solid proof.
Other than wishful thinking, what evidence or proof do we have of any divine being, or of any supernatural being that has been asserted by man? (Plenty of people believe in angels, demons, ghosts, spirits).
Are you comfortable believing in something so wholeheartedly if it cannot stand up to scrutiny?
It's not like it would be the first time you disappeared from the thread without answering anything.
http://72.52.200.115/forum/showpost.php?p=35991955&postcount=8417
http://72.52.200.115/forum/showpost.php?p=36059154&postcount=8453
http://72.52.200.115/forum/showpost.php?p=36096203&postcount=8570
http://72.52.200.115/forum/showpost.php?p=36096312&postcount=8571
http://72.52.200.115/forum/showpost.php?p=36097309&postcount=8574
OttomanScribe
Member
The conception of God he is working from, if I understand it correctly, is not that of Judeo-Chrsitianity.
It decreases the likelihood drastically, yes. At least, of a human-like God with a human's understanding of aesthetics. If God really made us in His image, then it can be assumed that God must, in some ways, behave like us.
Perhaps if you broadened your definition of God, sure, one could exist, but at the point you have to ask yourself what does the theism in "atheism" really refer to? What is God? What defines a deity? What does it mean to reject the possibility of their existence?
And that way lies madness.
OttomanScribe
Member
Who said God made people in His image?
OttomanScribe
Member
If it is the Ashes I remember, then his idea of God is 'laytha kamithlahi shay': unlike created things. The idea that humans are in God's image is abhorent to him indeed.
So he created us ugly?
Well then by definition such a god exists.
Since our understanding of time, space, matter, energy, etc is all dependent on our universe, everything that's not our universe or exactly like it must be "unlike created things".
Therefore God is the complimentary set to the set that is our universe.
Since our understanding of time, space, matter, energy, etc is all dependent on our universe, everything that's not our universe or exactly like it must be "unlike created things".
Therefore God is the complimentary set to the set that is our universe.
Its like you didn't hear me, when I talked about proof.
Just like, stating that the possibility of god existing, is not the same as accepting that god may exist.
OttomanScribe
Member
We are the objects upon which His names and attributes are manifest. We exist, indeed are constantly created every instant, in a reflection of various of His attributes. He is Merciful, so some of us exist as objects of His mercy, He is the one who destroys, so some of us are destroyed.
Its like you didn't hear me, when I talked about proof.
Just like, stating that the possibility of god existing, is not the same as accepting that god may exist.
So you choose to believe in something without proof, without evidence. You must be apart of some divine plan, some greater whole for all eternity.
Believe me when I say I would not wish you an Atheist, but I could never return to believing in a deity or having "faith" without evidence.
Why? Are we perfect?
OttomanScribe
Member
It is less a matter of accepting something without evidence as it is the interpretation of the evidence (the universe) that exists.
Why would you take that from what I said?
Going by this, God is existence itself.
What aspects of the universe point to a divine being?
Its a line of questioning, so I take it we are not perfect then? If God is perfect, which just about everyone asserts, then why create vastly inferior beings? Seems nonsensical and a colossal waste of time and resources. Naturally, my answer to this belief would be again, wishful thinking. If we can show our lineage is divine in nature, then naturally we will exist forever etc.
OttomanScribe
Member
No, God is the source of all existence, God wills all things into being at every moment in time. A thousand realities can blink in and out of existence and it means nothing to God. This could be one of a trillion trillion worlds just like it.
We exist on something like a waterfall of creation and destruction.
OttomanScribe
Member
That it exists at all is a start.
OttomanScribe
Member
What makes you think God works in terms of time and resources? If we are talking about a power that is absolute, then such an idea is nonsensical. What do you mean 'our lineage is divine in nature'? What do you mean by the term 'perfect'?
If I'm getting this right, you're saying that time-space originated from God?
Because when I said "existence" I did not mean just matter and energy, I meant all of that, the universe and the framework it rests on.
Your concept of the universe assumes the existence of the moment, an infinitismal amount of time that is strung together to form a time that we can percieve, like frames on a film reel. This is not a new idea, although I don't remember if it's still credible in mainstream physics.
Because when I said "existence" I did not mean just matter and energy, I meant all of that, the universe and the framework it rests on.
Your concept of the universe assumes the existence of the moment, an infinitismal amount of time that is strung together to form a time that we can percieve, like frames on a film reel. This is not a new idea, although I don't remember if it's still credible in mainstream physics.
Only if the requirement for existence (itself) is that a god must be behind it. Where's the evidence for that?
So the universe exists, so that counts as evidence of a divine being? Strikes me that our inability to comprehend reality is not a good foundation to build a belief in god.
If the existence of the universe is enough to begin pondering a god, does the existence of god allow us to ponder a super god, which brought it into existence? To the faithful, of course not, the buck stop at god, because ultimately we grasp onto the idea of an eternity in paradise, without an almighty god, there is no existence beyond death.
OttomanScribe
Member
This universe and any other universe that exists. Anything that we term reality. For all we know you or I could be a single creation of God, created in a single instant with a memory of a 'false' past and anticipation of a future that will not occur as we are annihilated in the next moment.
God works in terms of time and resources because I exist in time and am composed of resources, which are limited. If god did not think in such a manner, I would not be composed as such.
If there is a divine god, and we have been created, then we are of divine lineage because we were directly created by a god.
"Perfect", without flaw or very nearly so. A god which is capable of creating a universe, and evidently constantly wills the existence of the universe to be, and made us can safely be defined as perfect, regardless of the superficial imperfections we could attribute to it.
OttomanScribe
Member
As long as we steer clear of Cartesian doubt, which is what empiricist lines of questioning will lead to, then we assume that existence, reality, whatever, has a source do we not? If we assume this, then that source must be at some point be removed from this understanding.
All things are contingent, and there must be an exception, from which all contingencies come from. If that is not the case, and everything is contingent upon something else, then we are given a choice between two plausible ideas.
I term the buck that stops 'God'.
Right, I get all that.
But, your definition of God is a tautology, because it is the source of everything in this universe, and all universes, and the source of those universes.
That they exist must mean your God exists. You've reinterpreted the idea of God to the point where it is effectively synonymous with "existence". Or, rather, a broader version of "existence" that extends beyond the reality we know. But whatever the specifics, your very definition of it requires it to exist.
That is really not what atheism is about. Atheism is concerned with the existence of deities, which are most commonly portrayed as sentient beings with some kind of psyche comparable to that of a human, because all of them were invented by humans and modeled on humans.
But, your definition of God is a tautology, because it is the source of everything in this universe, and all universes, and the source of those universes.
That they exist must mean your God exists. You've reinterpreted the idea of God to the point where it is effectively synonymous with "existence". Or, rather, a broader version of "existence" that extends beyond the reality we know. But whatever the specifics, your very definition of it requires it to exist.
That is really not what atheism is about. Atheism is concerned with the existence of deities, which are most commonly portrayed as sentient beings with some kind of psyche comparable to that of a human, because all of them were invented by humans and modeled on humans.
OttomanScribe
Member
This does not make sense. As I previously said, God is absolutely dissimilar to creation, thus your knowledge of your own contingency (reliance on time/resources) is in contrast to His lack of contingency.
Which means what?
You need to be more clear, what do you mean by flaw? Flaw in function? Flaw in purpose?
OttomanScribe
Member
My concept of God is the orthodox, Ashari concept of God... Ashari is one of the schools of Islamic theology.
If atheism isn't about that then maybe you haven't asked me enough questions lol. Sorry to tease you all, it is 11 pm here in Sydney and I am closing up the shop and must stop procrastinating. Have a good one
Sounds reasonable. What does this logic allow you to conclude about the "source" (other than what you just said)?
Perhaps it isn't. Atheism isn't applicable to all schools of religious thought, only those concerned with deities.
Otherwise, what's the point? If some religious cult decides to worship lemons as their gods, does this mean mean Atheists have to reject the existence of lemons?
Ottoman, this talk of god is fine and dandy, and very similar to various conversations had in this thread and other venues, but ultimately, this god you speak of strikes me as a hypothetical construct. If some being was all powerful and created the universe then it can do anything, plant false memories, bury dinosaur bones to confuse the faithful, etc. Nothing in science, no amount of deductive reasoning points to this god or supports any religious dogmas or religious claims.
This hypothetical being must exist so that we may live on for eternity.
Most cultures point to some historical book, which has absolutely no information that would set it apart from any other supposedly divine text (details such as the trillionth digit of pi, standard model of physics, theory of relativity, speed of light, etc) and embrace it as the word of god and use that as the basis of their religious culture.
No evidence, no proof to substantiate any of it but hypothetical scenarios.
The whole "It doesn't make sense because god is totally different from you so comparing yourself to god is nonsense and don't ask why a god which is totally different from you is making you different from itself".
There is no purpose for a being such as the god you present to create creatures like us. None. A person could respond back "Oh, how can you ever even think you can comprehend the rationale of a being which is totally different from you", well I dismiss such lines of thinking because it gets us nowhere. Things which cannot be reasoned out or reasoned with are not worth thinking about.
This hypothetical being must exist so that we may live on for eternity.
Most cultures point to some historical book, which has absolutely no information that would set it apart from any other supposedly divine text (details such as the trillionth digit of pi, standard model of physics, theory of relativity, speed of light, etc) and embrace it as the word of god and use that as the basis of their religious culture.
No evidence, no proof to substantiate any of it but hypothetical scenarios.
The whole "It doesn't make sense because god is totally different from you so comparing yourself to god is nonsense and don't ask why a god which is totally different from you is making you different from itself".
There is no purpose for a being such as the god you present to create creatures like us. None. A person could respond back "Oh, how can you ever even think you can comprehend the rationale of a being which is totally different from you", well I dismiss such lines of thinking because it gets us nowhere. Things which cannot be reasoned out or reasoned with are not worth thinking about.
He is talking about a deity, and atheism to rejects his school of thought.
edt: Atheism is the rejection of all kinds of gods, unproved, hypothetical or otherwise.
I don't agree, at least, it's not a "deity" in any form of the word that I recognize.
Deities are inherently human-like, as in, they possess knowledge, motives, goals, purpose, etc. Ottoman is talking about something more ethereal.
Deities are inherently human-like, as in, they possess knowledge, motives, goals, purpose, etc. Ottoman is talking about something more ethereal.
Ephemeral? I don't see how that relates to anything he said.
He is merely trying to grasp something that may be beyond one's own comprehension.
No, the way he describes it is in line with some (admittedly outdated) theories of physics, which are also popular ideas in science fiction. Such as the existence of the moment, or the universe being constantly destroyed and recreated.
Douglas Adams touched on it in HHGG, and Terry Pratchett also makes use of a similar idea in Thief of Time.
If your interpretation of his stance is correct, then he's saying God is everything we don't understand or cannot understand, because it lies outside our universe/multiverse and therefore precludes any possibility of understanding it. Which, again, is a tautology.
Douglas Adams touched on it in HHGG, and Terry Pratchett also makes use of a similar idea in Thief of Time.
If your interpretation of his stance is correct, then he's saying God is everything we don't understand or cannot understand, because it lies outside our universe/multiverse and therefore precludes any possibility of understanding it. Which, again, is a tautology.
I doubt that. It was within the context of talking about existences, and all those schools of thoughts, and leading off from my side. With a little jesting in there too.
You should ask him about his concept of god, his own, as he understands it. What school of thought he defines himself.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll