Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumNEWSFLASH:...
... god(s) is immaterial.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218249084
You may now return to your regularly scheduled rational worldview.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Oh wait did I say bummer? I meant SWEET.
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)...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)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!
I've had a much better experience lately since I decided to repopulate my ignore list.
LakeArenal
(29,797 posts)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)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)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)Here's a good essay that points out the flaws in claiming God is beyond logic/can't be known/etc:
Its a widespread practice among believers to defend God from criticisms with some variation of God is beyond comprehension, your logic is not Gods 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 cant really survive this rebuttal.
But if we scratch below the surface on this kind of talk, we can see that it really doesnt make any sense; its a muddle headed evasion. There is no our logic that is separate from Gods logic, or lack thereof. A lot of people who havent reflected on what they are saying will throw claims around like these, but they havent recognized that what they are suggesting is unintelligible. There are several problems with it. First, they dont really want to go there. If they try to assert that God is beyond logic, beyond comprehension, or that Gods goodness (and evil) are things that we cant fathom, then they have effectively disqualified themselves from making any assertions about him. If we cant understand Gods goodness, or power, or nature, then we certainly arent 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 cant also insist that God is beyond comprehension. You cant 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, theres a long history on this issue and its 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 Gods properties are all had within the boundaries of logic. Without logic, there wont 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, youve 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 somethingXis 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 doesnt have properties, then it isnt 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 theres 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 its 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 theyve just left the realm of any intelligible discourse. Theres nothing to talk about when the fabric of logic that makes assertions possible itself has been rejected. Within the philosophical community, its 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.
Cartoonist
(7,530 posts)How can we be created in God's image if he doesn't have one?
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)...why aren't we all invisible?