Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NEWSFLASH:... (Original Post) NeoGreen Apr 2017 OP
Bummer, that thread isn't visible for me. trotsky Apr 2017 #1
Normally... NeoGreen Apr 2017 #3
Very true. trotsky Apr 2017 #4
+1 progressoid Apr 2017 #10
I believe physicists have been saying that for years. LakeArenal Apr 2017 #2
Being an atheist doesn't obligate me to treat anyone in any way whatsoever. Iggo Apr 2017 #5
Exactly. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #7
That argument is illogical on its face. beam me up scottie Apr 2017 #6
God's image Cartoonist Apr 2017 #8
Exactly... NeoGreen Apr 2017 #9

NeoGreen

(4,033 posts)
3. Normally...
Wed Apr 26, 2017, 11:42 AM
Apr 2017

...it would have been for me too but I made the mistake of wading over there without being signed in.

At least now whenever I am challenged on the question of god (s) I can reply that they/ it are all immaterial, and thus of no consequence what so ever.

trotsky

(49,533 posts)
4. Very true.
Wed Apr 26, 2017, 11:47 AM
Apr 2017

Careful what you wish for, believers - an immaterial god that is defined to have no detectable effect in our universe looks an awful lot like a god that doesn't exist at all!

LakeArenal

(29,797 posts)
2. I believe physicists have been saying that for years.
Wed Apr 26, 2017, 10:36 AM
Apr 2017

Hawking: God was not needed to create the Universe


The scientist has claimed that no divine force was needed to explain why the Universe was formed.

In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html

Iggo

(48,262 posts)
5. Being an atheist doesn't obligate me to treat anyone in any way whatsoever.
Wed Apr 26, 2017, 02:19 PM
Apr 2017

But maybe I'm missing the point of this post and that one. I don't see posts from that DUer, and I can only see three replies in that thread.

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
7. Exactly.
Wed Apr 26, 2017, 05:11 PM
Apr 2017

Atheism doesn't have anything to do with a moral code, it only addresses belief in gods. It seems like atheists are supposed to be held to a higher standard?

That sounds an awful lot like when other minorities are scolded for being too strident about equality. Keep quiet, you! You might offend someone! Then they'll call us names!

Why should we allow the majority to tone police us?

beam me up scottie

(57,349 posts)
6. That argument is illogical on its face.
Wed Apr 26, 2017, 05:02 PM
Apr 2017

Here's a good essay that points out the flaws in claiming God is beyond logic/can't be known/etc:

God is Not Beyond Logic

It’s a widespread practice among believers to defend God from criticisms with some variation of “God is beyond comprehension,” “your logic is not God’s logic,” or “God it beyond the limitations of our logic.” Even many non-believers seem to be willing that these are fair points and that critiques of God can’t really survive this rebuttal.
But if we scratch below the surface on this kind of talk, we can see that it really doesn’t make any sense; it’s a muddle headed evasion. There is no “our” logic that is separate from God’s logic, or lack thereof. A lot of people who haven’t reflected on what they are saying will throw claims around like these, but they haven’t recognized that what they are suggesting is unintelligible. There are several problems with it. First, they don’t really want to go there. If they try to assert that God is beyond logic, beyond comprehension, or that God’s goodness (and evil) are things that we can’t fathom, then they have effectively disqualified themselves from making any assertions about him. If we can’t understand God’s goodness, or power, or nature, then we certainly aren’t entitled to assert that it is true that God exists or that God is good. If they want to say that belief is reasonable, intelligible, supported by the evidence, rational, or epistemically inculpable, then they can’t also insist that God is beyond comprehension. You can’t have it both ways. On what grounds would you stand where you could assert anything about God if you have categorically denied that we can have any vantage on God? Even worse, on what grounds could you possibly insist that belief in something like this is reasonable when it cannot, by definition, be accessed by us.

Second, there’s a long history on this issue and it’s not just atheists who are holding God to the bounds of logic. The non-logical theist (NLT) needs to Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, Plantinga, Craig,Weirenga, and a host of other philosophical theologians who all agree that God’s properties are all had within the boundaries of logic. Without logic, there won’t be any way to say it is true that God is X, because logic is what allows us to demarcate between true and false. Logic and reason are not things you simply discard when the fancy strikes you. Without them, you’ve got no way to even make an assertion. Without them, human speech acts are just gibberish. To make an assertion, even one like, “God is beyond logic,” is to assert that there is some state of affairs that obtains in the world. A sentence of the form, “X is . . . . “ says that something—X—is one way and not another. People like to say that our logic is limited and there could be things beyond it, but if something is not a thing and if it doesn’t have properties, then it isn’t a something at all. To be, to have a property, or to exist is to be one way and not another. The claims “God exists,” or “God is beyond logic,” assert that it is not the case that there is no God, and that it is not the case that God is subject to logic. The irony, and the profound paradox, of the last claim is that the speaker employs the logic of the assertion to try to liberate God from logic. But there’s no escaping that making an assertion is making a claim about the way the world is, and it is denying claims about what the world is not. What rules of assertion are you going to employ to argue for or claim that “logic is limited”? Logic? Then it’s not limited. Something else? How do we discern truth from nonsense, and falsehood in claims about logic itself if not by employing it? Or should we just accept all claims about the limits of logic without any argument or reasons?

If someone tells you that God is beyond the law of non-contradiction, then they’ve just left the realm of any intelligible discourse. There’s nothing to talk about when the fabric of logic that makes assertions possible itself has been rejected. Within the philosophical community, it’s pretty much accepted across the board that the Stone Paradox creates a problem for an unrestricted account of omnipotence. No one who has thought about it seriously thinks that being omnipotent, where “omnipotent” means the unrestricted power to do anything, even logically impossible feats, is even intelligible.

http://www.provingthenegative.com/2008/07/god-is-not-beyond-logic.html?m=1


And they always try to turn the argument around to put the burden of proof on atheists - except we don't need to prove gods don't exist, we're not the ones making a positive claim.
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Atheists & Agnostics»NEWSFLASH:...