Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on November 30, 2018, 07:48:56 AM
-
Another common statement of NewAtheism as mentioned in the Wikipedia entry on New Atheism....
A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without
-
A universe with a supernatural presence would be a fundamentally and qualitatively different kind of universe from one without
Well what do you think Vlad.
Do you think that a universe which included a supernatural presence, for example the christian god, would be fundamentally different to one in which the christian god did not exist?
-
As our universe is unlikely to host any sort of god, I have no idea what one with a supernatural presence would be like.
-
As our universe is unlikely to host any sort of god, I have no idea what one with a supernatural presence would be like.
Ah probability.
Show your working out Floo.
-
Well what do you think Vlad.
You first.
-
You first.
As you started the thread it is for to put your POV first, so that the rest of us can agree, or more likely not see it your way.
-
As you started the thread it is for to put your POV first, so that the rest of us can agree, or more likely not see it your way.
-
As you started the thread it is for to put your POV first, so that the rest of us can agree, or more likely not see it your way.
It originates from Dawkins and the New Atheists so not being of that particular strain not clear wbat they wished it to mean.
If you are as an atheist calling it bollocks thats fine by me.
-
It originates from Dawkins and the New Atheists so not being of that particular strain not clear wbat they wished it to mean.
.
Do you expect anyone here to be able to accurately state what they wished it to mean?
And how would you know if the response was accurate?
-
It originates from Dawkins and the New Atheists so not being of that particular strain not clear wbat they wished it to mean.
If you are as an atheist calling it bollocks thats fine by me.
I find it difficult to work out what you are on about most of the time. ::)
-
I find it difficult to work out what you are on about most of the time. ::)
I echo your sentiment, however , I would probably not use the word 'about'!
-
Do you expect anyone here to be able to accurately state what they wished it to mean?
If they have the New Atheist meme who knows?
-
Well what do you think Vlad.
Do you think that a universe which included a supernatural presence, for example the christian god, would be fundamentally different to one in which the christian god did not exist?
We only have one universe
Dawkins believes, I understand that the universe is exactly like it would be without a God. How he knows this I know not.
You are gifted with the holy meme of Brightianity please tell me what you think.
-
We only have one universe
Have you not been paying attention to Sparky?
There are two. One static and one expanding.
Where the two meet there's a lot of whirly, twirly stuff and then lo and behold....electricity!
Do keep up.
-
Have you not been paying attention to Sparky?
Let me stop you there Sebastian. No.
-
I echo your sentiment, however , I would probably not use the word 'about'!
;D
-
As our universe is unlikely to host any sort of god, I have no idea what one with a supernatural presence would be like.
Any danger of an actual probability from you?
-
Any danger of an actual probability from you?
Are you asking yourself that question, as many of your posts give the impression you need to take more water with it? ;D
-
Are you asking yourself that question, as many of your posts give the impression you need to take more water with it? ;D
Look you said God was improbable.
How improbable?
Do you know what improbable means or are you as I and anybody who reads this forum thinks just confusing I dont believe it with probability.....aka argument from incredulity.
But if you want that in words you can understand...
Your talking shite.
-
Look you said God was improbable.
How improbable?
Do you know what improbable means or are you as I and anybody who reads this forum thinks just confusing I dont believe it with probability.....aka argument from incredulity.
But if you want that in words you can understand...
Your talking shite.
Where did I use the actual word 'improbable'? It is you who is talking nonsense as most of your posts make very little sense.
-
Where did I use the actual word 'improbable'? It is you who is talking nonsense as most of your posts make very little sense.
In reply#2 you used the word unlikely. That is a synonym of the word improbable.
Therefore again......How improbable? Show your working out.
-
Why do we seem to insist THE god made this earth & all the rest whereas it makes FAR more 'sense' that a lesser deity did it or one of god's less capable lackies ?!?!!?!?
Nick
-
Still no closer on how a universe with a supernatural presence is different from one without.
Its like one of those "fundeme talist New atheists say the darndest things"?
-
Still no closer on how a universe with a supernatural presence is different from one without.
Its like one of those "fundeme talist New atheists say the darndest things"?
Presumably, they would say that a universe created and sustained by a deity would not have such a degree of suffering, which appears to be apportioned randomly, irrespective of dessert, nor would it exhibit so much apparent bad design.
-
Presumably, they would say that a universe created and sustained by a deity would not have such a degree of suffering, which appears to be apportioned randomly, irrespective of dessert, nor would it exhibit so much apparent bad design.
I can see that being an issue for a benevolent God but then it is an issue for both sides since benevolence has to be defined on both sides as has degree and indeed suffer.
But supernatural presence? Does the supernatural need to be benevolent?
Does a creator have to be benevolent......whatever that is.....is he bound not to give the universe the ability of trial and error while maintaining it?
Indeed there is something supernatural about even the most natural of universes either it is the great unmade or it poofed itself out of nowhere.
-
I can see that being an issue for a benevolent God but then it is an issue for both sides since benevolence has to be defined on both sides as has degree and indeed suffer.
But supernatural presence? Does the supernatural need to be benevolent?
Does a creator have to be benevolent......whatever that is.....is he bound not to give the universe the ability of trial and error while maintaining it?
Indeed there is something supernatural about even the most natural of universes either it is the great unmade or it poofed itself out of nowhere.
This post of yours makes even less sense than most of your utterances, especially your last sentence. ::)
-
This post of yours makes even less sense than most of your utterances, especially your last sentence. ::)
It's perfectly understandable.
I'm afraid you are giving the impression of having hung out with the dullest of people with the most limited vocabulary supporting the most uninteresting conversation.
-
It's perfectly understandable.
I'm afraid you are giving the impression of having hung out with the dullest of people with the most limited vocabulary supporting the most uninteresting conversation.
I have probably met many more people of interest in my life, including well known people, than you have had hot dinners. Your posts don't give the impression of logical thought processes, but maybe you are hiding it well. ;D
-
I have probably met many more people of interest in my life, including well known people, than you have had hot dinners. Your posts don't give the impression of logical thought processes, but maybe you are hiding it well. ;D
I'm not sure you would recognise logic if it shook your hand.
-
I'm not sure you would recognise logic if it shook your hand.
You keep talking about yourself, you poor dear, so sad. ;D
-
Sorry - what was this post originally about ....????
-
Sorry - what was this post originally about ....????
I don't know, he never managed to explain what he was on about. ::)
-
I can see that being an issue for a benevolent God but then it is an issue for both sides since benevolence has to be defined on both sides as has degree and indeed suffer.
But supernatural presence? Does the supernatural need to be benevolent?
Does a creator have to be benevolent......whatever that is.....is he bound not to give the universe the ability of trial and error while maintaining it?
Indeed there is something supernatural about even the most natural of universes either it is the great unmade or it poofed itself out of nowhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
I think, as theists have the problem of pain and why there is so much of it, there is also the problem of pleasure and why there is so much of that.
We also have to bear in Mind that pain actually has a purpose as does any suffering. That is it is evolved to warn that things are not right,or are not good or are indeed bade non optimal or however you wish to put it.
Pain used as evidence of the lack of benevolence therefore does not make much sense.
-
I think, as theists have the problem of pain and why there is so much of it, there is also the problem of pleasure and why there is so much of that.
We also have to bear in Ming that pain actually has a purpose as does any suffering. That is it is evolved to warn that things are not right,or are not good or are indeed bade non optimal or however you wish to put it.
Pain used as evidence of the lack of benevolence therefore does not make much sense.
Not just pain in the strict sense, but suffering - e.g. spinal muscular atrophy, proteus syndrome, and epidermolysis bullosa are just three genetic horrors of many that need explaining by believers in an all-powerful, benevolent God - and then there is the question of chronic, useless pain.
-
I have probably met many more people of interest in my life, including well known people, than you have had hot dinners. Your posts don't give the impression of logical thought processes, but maybe you are hiding it well. ;D
You wouldn't know a logical thought process if it jumped up and bit you on the arse.
-
You keep talking about yourself, you poor dear, so sad. ;D
As I've said before, most people grow out of this "talking about yourself"-type crack at about the time they go up to big school.
-
I think, as theists have the problem of pain and why there is so much of it, there is also the problem of pleasure and why there is so much of that.
Why shouldn't there be pleasure? It has obvious evolutionary value.
-
As I've said before, most people grow out of this "talking about yourself"-type crack at about the time they go up to big school.
An ouruboros of irony of a post.
-
An ouruboros of irony of a post.
When have I ever made that kind of comment? Quotation, please!
-
You wouldn't know a logical thought process if it jumped up and bit you on the arse.
Pot and kettle. ::)
-
When have I ever made that kind of comment? Quotation, please!
The post I replied to was just the same.
-
The post I replied to was just the same.
No, it wasn't! I pointed out that "talking about yourself" cracks are rather childish, and that LR is excessively fond of them. I did not accuse her of talking about herself with regard to anything she'd said.
-
No, it wasn't! I pointed out that "talking about yourself" cracks are rather childish, and that LR is excessively fond of them. I did not accuse her of talking about herself with regard to anything she'd said.
And terms such as 'big school' aren't childish?
-
And terms such as 'big school' aren't childish?
Yes, obviously. I was being sarcastic! Ffs - the childishness of the phrase was the point!
-
Yes, obviously. I was being sarcastic! Ffs - the childishness of the phrase was the point!
Which was obviously the point of LR's post as well
-
Not just pain in the strict sense, but suffering - e.g. spinal muscular atrophy, proteus syndrome, and epidermolysis bullosa are just three genetic horrors of many that need explaining by believers in an all-powerful, benevolent God - and then there is the question of chronic, useless pain.
A scientist looks dispassionately at nature and observes the purpose of pain to be beneficial i.e. It is homeostatic.
If suffering is more than pain then what is the extra? pain and suffering are synonymous in that they are a warning that things are not right.
That is why we research to alleviate that which causes suffering and come up with different answers to different ills.
The question of resolving useless pain is with God.
Where else is the answer to be found. Not in humanism or Atheism which can miraculously go on about the amount of bad in the universe and simultaneously hold that good and bad are relative.
-
A scientist looks dispassionately at nature and observes the purpose of pain to be beneficial i.e. It is homeostatic.
If suffering is more than pain then what is the extra? pain and suffering are synonymous in that they are a warning that things are not right.
That is why we research to alleviate that which causes suffering and come up with different answers to different ills.
The question of resolving useless pain is with God.
Where else is the answer to be found. Not in humanism or Atheism which can miraculously go on about the amount of bad in the universe and simultaneously hold that good and bad are relative.
If it exists it isn't doing a very good job.
-
If it exists it isn't doing a very good job.
And you are qualified to judge exactly how?
-
And you are qualified to judge exactly how?
I would have thought that was obvious as there is so much suffering in this world.
-
I would have thought that was obvious as there is so much suffering in this world.
Yes that is largely the fault of mankind. Something the secular humanists are completely deluded over.
However why is it you think it is wrong or bad. Answer it is your God given capacity.
In other words you have no qualifications to judge God.
And while we are about it if what you say about nature is true why isn't nature a thing to be reviled rather than wondered at?
-
Yes that is largely the fault of mankind. Something the secular humanists are completely deluded over.
However why is it you think it is wrong or bad. Answer it is your God given capacity.
In other words you have no qualifications to judge God.
And while we are about it if what you say about nature is true why isn't nature a thing to be reviled rather than wondered at?
If god exists and everything claimed for it in the Bible is true, humanity has every reason to judge it, as it comes over as an evil psycho.
-
Suffering is the mechanism which tells us things are not right. We have shown we can develop technologies to alleviate it and natural disasters are accidental.
The constant cause of most suffering is human ommission and commission and if you doubt the primacy of that over natural disaster then you need to remember species annihilation and global warming.
-
If god exists and everything claimed for it in the Bible is true, humanity has every reason to judge it, as it comes over as an evil psycho.
Humanity is in no position to judge.
-
Humanity is in no position to judge.
You’re being very judgemental.
-
Yes that is largely the fault of mankind. Something the secular humanists are completely deluded over.
Epidermolysis Bullosa? Spinal Muscular Atrophy? Usher's Syndrome? Proteus Syndrome? How can they possibly be blamed on mankind? There are dozens of other horrible conditions I could have named.
-
Epidermolysis Bullosa? Spinal Muscular Atrophy? Usher's Syndrome? Proteus Syndrome? How can they possibly be blamed on mankind? There are dozens of other horrible conditions I could have named.
I said laŕgely .We know these to be wrong and to work against them but will is needed also to eradicate these.
-
Humanity is in no position to judge.
And why is that?
-
I said laŕgely .We know these to be wrong and to work against them but will is needed also to eradicate these.
What's that to the purpose? The question is "why do these and other horrors exist in a world created and sustsained by a loving, omnipotent God?". Don't give me any guff about them presenting a challenge to human compassion and scientific ingenuity; that's no comfort to the millions who suffered and died with these horrible conditions over the millennia. No doubt a world created by a wise, loving and all-powerful God would not be too easy for its inhabitants, who would benefit from challenges to overcome, but horrendous diseases need not exist, and such suffering as inevitably would exist would presumably be shared out a bit more fairly.
-
The constant cause of most suffering is human ommission and commission and if you doubt the primacy of that over natural disaster then you need to remember species annihilation and global warming.
Humanity is certainly exacerbating natural tendencies in those directions. However, it has still got a long way to go in its wrongheadedness to approach the enormity of the Permian Extinction.
-
Humanity is certainly exacerbating natural tendencies in those directions. However, it has still got a long way to go in its wrongheadedness to approach the enormity of the Permian Extinction.
Bonkers.
-
What's that to the purpose? The question is "why do these and other horrors exist in a world created and sustsained by a loving, omnipotent God?". Don't give me any guff about them presenting a challenge to human compassion and scientific ingenuity; that's no comfort to the millions who suffered and died with these horrible conditions over the millennia. No doubt a world created by a wise, loving and all-powerful God would not be too easy for its inhabitants, who would benefit from challenges to overcome, but horrendous diseases need not exist, and such suffering as inevitably would exist would presumably be shared out a bit more fairly.
But are pain and suffering and death our eventual end?
If we are bringing benevolence into it, what we have to ask is, is a universe given freedom to develop as it is doing to the point of parts having freewill to love or hate...which ends in eternal restoration, the ultimate in benevolent acts?
If you think not...then what is?
-
.......... the ultimate in benevolent acts?
If you think not...then what is?
That would be you, leaving this forum,......."indefinitely"!
::)
-
;D
-
But are pain and suffering and death our eventual end?
If we are bringing benevolence into it, what we have to ask is, is a universe given freedom to develop as it is doing to the point of parts having freewill to love or hate...which ends in eternal restoration, the ultimate in benevolent acts?
If you think not...then what is?
Even if universalists are right, and everyone eventually makes it to heaven (I'm not saying that you're a universalist - I don't know your position on that), the fact remains that in this life there is a hell of a lot of undeserved suffering. If, as evanjellykules like to tell us, no amount of good works on our part can atone for our sin, the flip side of that is that no amount of happiness in the afterlife can atone for our suffering in this.
I think you have to forget about an omnipotent God if you're going to hang on to the idea of a really-existing God: very powerful, even the most powerful agent in the universe, maybe, but the idea of omnipotence as usually understood is not in the bible, and I think comes from Greek philosophy. In that case, this world, with all its suffering and sin, is perhaps as good as God can make it. Matter is intractable stuff, and even God can't do what God wants with it. Just as humans have free-will, which led to sin, maybe all matter has something akin to free-will. This, at any rate, is what I tell myself when I try to believe in a really-existing God.
-
That would be you, leaving this forum,......."indefinitely"!
::)
That is beyond my power, i'm afraid. Granting you a sense of humour on the other hand.
-
That is beyond my power, i'm afraid. Granting you a sense of humour on the other hand.
Oh dear who is forcing you to remain on the forum? ;D
-
Even if universalists are right, and everyone eventually makes it to heaven (I'm not saying that you're a universalist - I don't know your position on that), the fact remains that in this life there is a hell of a lot of undeserved suffering. If, as evanjellykules like to tell us, no amount of good works on our part can atone for our sin, the flip side of that is that no amount of happiness in the afterlife can atone for our suffering in this.
I think you have to forget about an omnipotent God if you're going to hang on to the idea of a really-existing God: very powerful, even the most powerful agent in the universe, maybe, but the idea of omnipotence as usually understood is not in the bible, and I think comes from Greek philosophy. In that case, this world, with all its suffering and sin, is perhaps as good as God can make it. Matter is intractable stuff, and even God can't do what God wants with it. Just as humans have free-will, which led to sin, maybe all matter has something akin to free-will. This, at any rate, is what I tell myself when I try to believe in a really-existing God.
Great post and I hope to discuss all the points you raise with you.
On first reading this example of equivalence caught my eye:
If, as evanjellykules like to tell us, no amount of good works on our part can atone for our sin, the flip side of that is that no amount of happiness in the afterlife can atone for our suffering in this.
It is a fertile idea but I can't quite help feeling that there is something not quite right with it.
We can certainly make restoration and restitution with people but does that fully atone for sin in its fullest sense?
I'm not sure.
I'm probably more where you are since I'm not taken with the greek or antitheist(stenger) notions of omni this or that preferring the Anselmian inference of God as most, best or highest if anything.
I think we are damn close on God allowing the unconscious part of the universe freedom but probably differ a wee bit between God's inability and God's unwillingness and which is more benevolent.
-
Oh dear who is forcing you to remain on the forum? ;D
I'm afraid I'm this forum's equivalent of Nanny McPhee.
-
I'm afraid I'm this forum's equivalent of Nanny McPhee.
I dont know why but I like this notion. Do you still have the warts or have they disappeared by now?
-
Do you still have the warts....
No, I always walk this way.
-
I'm afraid I'm this forum's equivalent of Nanny McPhee.
Who?
-
Who?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_McPhee
-
Who?
A sort of Mary Poppins. Emma Thompson played her in a couple of films. Her catchphrase was: "
When you need me, but do not want me, then I must stay. When you want me, but no longer need me, then I have to go."
-
A sort of Mary Poppins. Emma Thompson played her in a couple of films. Her catchphrase was: "
When you need me, but do not want me, then I must stay. When you want me, but no longer need me, then I have to go."
Not something we have come across.
-
Not something we have come across.
Im surprised its on TV regularly. Quite enjoyable on its own terms. It is primarily a childrens film, but has enough appeal for this adult at least.
-
Im surprised its on TV regularly. Quite enjoyable on its own terms. It is primarily a childrens film, but has enough appeal for this adult at least.
Which channel? We watch very little TV, mostly documentaries and a bit of detective fiction. I watch Casualty and Holby City, but they aren't as good as they used to be. Modern comedies don't do it for us at all.
-
Littleroses…. a Nanny McPhee film is often on one of the channels over the Christmas period.
Keep an eye open.... kind of film I think you may like - maybe (?).
-
Littleroses…. a Nanny McPhee film is often on one of the channels over the Christmas period.
Keep an eye open.... kind of film I think you may like - maybe (?).
I looked it up and it is definitely not the sort of thing we would wish to watch. We watch very little at Christmas, having better things to do.
-
Which channel? We watch very little TV, mostly documentaries and a bit of detective fiction. I watch Casualty and Holby City, but they aren't as good as they used to be. Modern comedies don't do it for us at all.
I’m so pleased you have subverted this thread into a discussion of your TV watching habits.
I’ve seen the first one and it’s quite good.
It’s available on Amazon Prime if you want to see it, but I wouldn’t say it’s so good that you should sign up to Amazon Prime if you don’t already have it.
-
I looked it up and it is definitely not the sort of thing we would wish to watch. We watch very little at Christmas, having better things to do.
Ooops! Apologies, madam ;)
Apologies to Vlad/Phyl as well - don't fret, I'll have this thread back on track in a tick, just have to find something..
….. and we can't have Jeremy happy that your thread has gone off topic, now can we...
-
;D Littleroses and her use of 'we' :D.
-
Kind-of back on track but this view is more of a sage's view than a Christian's view, but I always found it interesting:
http://www.thehoodedsage.com/2009/01/the-ancient-gods/
This maybe better suited on 'God of the Omnis'.... but anyway..
-
I like that! Will read again and again, it's dreamy.
Good to see you back Sweet Pea.
-
I like that! Will read again and again, it's dreamy.
Good to see you back Sweet Pea.
Thank you, Robbie, good to see you too. :)
Yes, it's certainly a different take on the omni God.
-
Ooops! Apologies, madam ;)
Apologies to Vlad/Phyl as well - don't fret, I'll have this thread back on track in a tick, just have to find something..
….. and we can't have Jeremy happy that your thread has gone off topic, now can we...
To be fair to Jeremy he has put in a sterling effort to respond to the threads ive placed recently.
Good to hear from you again Sweet Pea.
-
Kind-of back on track but this view is more of a sage's view than a Christian's view, but I always found it interesting:
http://www.thehoodedsage.com/2009/01/the-ancient-gods/
This maybe better suited on 'God of the Omnis'.... but anyway..
Sorry but I got as far as "endless sea of vibrational energies" and then "non-physical holographic information system of light". This is some sort of parody, yes?
-
Bonkers.
The Permian extinction happened. Life barely continued to exist at all. It may be that humanity's present actions will cause the extinction of all life on earth. It is a strong possibility, even probability, but it has yet to happen. Therefore, as yet the Permian extinction remains the greatest catastrophe for living things to occur on earth, and something that remains difficult for any theologian to give a convincing explanation for, as far as I'm concerned. If you think that stating something as bleeding obvious as this is bonkers, then your thinking is facile in the extreme.
-
I've never seen 'Nanny McPhee' but I know about it and like Emma Thompson in other things so would probably like her in that.