Leaving Jesus is not Leaving God!

[Open_Minded]

There is likely a misunderstanding in the position a lot of us take here. Wouldn't you say there is a difference between thinking that there is no god and believing that there is no god? I for example don't have faith that there is no god, I just don't see any evidence for him so I conclude based on the evidence at hand that there is no god and that it is highly unlikely that there is a god. If new evidence is presented I'll be perfectly happy to change this position.

 

Vigile...

 

On one level I do understand what you mean. There is a difference between saying, "I don't believe in Santa" and saying, "I believe Santa doesn't exist"? Is this what you are getting at?

 

If so, there is still much subjectivity around atheism as a whole... because even though what you said above makes perfect sense and even though "I don't believe in Santa" comes closer to absolute zero than "I believe Santa doesn't exist" there is still the human tendancy to "prove" ones stand. For lack of better wording. For example.. the definition of an rational atheist posted earlier by Antlerman.

 

3) The Rational Atheist: The Rational Atheist is one who rejects the notion of a God or supernatural realm due to an objective evaluation of all of the evidence.

A rational atheist is one who does not believe in a "God" and can offer a logical argument to back up his or her atheism

and claim that Gods and Goddesses as well as a supernatural realm do not exist!

 

In the end subjective reasoning plays a roll in the atheist thought process just as it does for the agnostic, or believer's thought process. We are all human, we are all subjective thinkers as well as objective thinkers. The wise individuals among us know this about themselves and take it into consideration when having discussions with other subjective human beings.

 

Just my subjective opinion

[NotBlinded]

Open Minded,

 

IMO if there is a god or gods, and if it/they want(s) to make itself known to us, then it/they should be able to show every person whatever proof is required to know that it/they exist(s). Not believe, but know for sure.

 

So, going by "pure logic", if a god or gods exist(s) and wanted us to acknowledge it/them, it/they would provide the means to do so to everyone.

 

If it/they cannot do this, then I submit that either there is no god or it/they do not care if we acknowledge its/their existence.

But, just for arguments sake, what if this god (being, energy) IS everything. If that is the case, how would this god go about showing us (itself) what it is?

[Antlerman]

Hello Antlerman:

 

Your post came while I was responding to Amethyst:

 

A quick response before I have a chance to spend some time on this. This breakdown of Atheism may be helpful in definitions:

 

3) The Rational Atheist: The Rational Atheist is one who rejects the notion of a God or supernatural realm due to an objective evaluation of all of the evidence. A rational atheist is one who does not believe in a "God" and can offer a logical argument to back up his or her atheism and claim that Gods and Goddesses as well as a supernatural realm do not exist!

 

Earlier you stated:

 

"Atheism" is the absence of belief in the absence of evidence. The "proof" is the absence. The burden of proof is on the one making a claim of supernatural, not the skeptic to disprove such claims. If pressed, I would say prove there is not a invisible gorilla living on the roof of your house. You can't prove there's not, so therefore your choosing to not see."

 

If the burden of proof is on the one making a claim of supernatural, not the skeptic to disprove such claims then how does #3 from above, "a rational atheist is one who does not believe in a 'God' and can offer a logical argument ot back up his or her atheism..." factor in?

I must apologize. I was looking in haste for this breakdown of atheism that I was familiar with, and found this as a first hit and hadn't read it this closely. That isn't an argument I would put forth. Not at all. I need to find the one I had found earlier that stated in more precisely. It sounds like this person took it and put his spin on it which isn't quite right in my view.

 

Sorry I'm pressed for time right now, but I really wish to pursue this topic so I'll make a hasty blurb (in my own words this time) and see where it goes:

 

1. The natural position is atheism. We are born this way and are taught beliefs about God.

2. We are presented with the idea of an invisible being that cannot be tested as any natural entity, and then offered a variety of evidences or proofs of this invisible being.

3. Upon evaluating these evidences, I find them lacking in credibility on many levels.

4. After finding them lacking validity, I reject them, and default back to position #1 above.

5. However, being philosophically open the any and all possibilities, bar none, I will not state there is evidence against god, there is simply no creidble evidence to validate any of the claims I have heard. I therefore reject the claims, but am open to accepting any and all credible knowledge that may latter present itself.

 

To me, this is not agnostic, which in effect is saying the evidence can go either way. There is not sufficient evidence on the side to the supernaturalists to warrant that consideration on the same level as that of naturalism. For instance, there are arguments that the Jesus myth may have been a purely mythological creation, and arguments that it had some historical origins in a real person. I've looked at some of the evidence, and based on the evaluation, I could go either way, more or less (a little more toward the mystical side). But based upon the evidence presented for God by the religious comunity, the evidence is insufficient to overcome the natural position.

 

This would not be a subjective conclusion. It's logical and objective. There is not enough evidence to support the invisible gorrilla on the roof claim, and any evidence offered have thus failed to convince otherwise. Could you say that the person rejecting an incredible claim such as the invinsible gorilla, was subjectively choosing to not believe it? I don't think I would state it that way since it's not based on feelings or hunches, rather a non-acceptance of the poor evidence offered to support such a fantastical claim. Therefore, he defaults back to the atheist position.

 

Out of time for now. I hope this is worth something to the discussion

[Open_Minded]

1. The natural position is atheism. We are born this way and are taught beliefs about God.

2. We are presented with the idea of an invisible being that cannot be tested as any natural entity, and then offered a variety of evidences or proofs of this invisible being.

3. Upon evaluating these evidences, I find them lacking in credibility on many levels.

4. After finding them lacking validity, I reject them, and default back to position #1 above.

5. However, being philosophically open the any and all possibilities, bar none, I will not state there is evidence against god, there is simply no creidble evidence to validate any of the claims I have heard. I therefore reject the claims, but am open to accepting any and all credible knowledge that may latter present itself.

 

Hello Antlerman

 

Yes this does clear it up - thank you.

 

But, to continue the discussion..

 

1. The natural position is wonder. We are born this way, we are aware on very basic level of the wonder in the world around us, we find this fascinating. Children more so than adults. Yes we are taught beliefs about God, not necessarily accurate beliefs, but - yes - these are taught beliefs.

 

2. Some of us are presented with the idea of an invisible being that cannot be tested as any natural entity, and then offered a variety of evidences or proofs of this invisible being.

 

2a. Some of us are presented with the idea that there is infinity, that there is infinite energy, that there may be the possibility of a beginning or foundational energy, that this foundational energy is the first energy of creation, that it is continuely in the process of creating, that it pervades all and makes all whole and that this energy may be aware of itself and all that it pervades.

 

3. Upon evaluating these evidences, I find them lacking in credibility on many levels. As I would if I had been taught to believe in an invisible being, rather than energy within all, through all and beyond all.

 

3a. But since my life experiences (subjective experiences) are different from your life experiences (subjective experiences) I look at the possiblities and I see that indeed we are as All Gods Fail says:

 

a bunch of silly primates, living on one little dust speck in the middle of nowhere...

 

And I am aware with every cell of my being that if we, as "silly primates, living on a one little speck in the middle of nowhere" can be aware of ourselves than it is entirely possible within the grandness and wonder of things that the universe - and all that is - originated from a foundational energy which is aware of itself and all that it pervades. And that this energy could infinitely be in the process of creating.

 

4. After finding them lacking validity, I reject them, and default back to position #1 above.

 

After thinking through 3a above I find the evidence very compelling and very valid and default back to #1 above, we are born to to find awe and wonder. And I conclude that there is a God.

 

5. However, being philosophically open the any and all possibilities, bar none, I will not state there is evidence against god, there is simply no creidble evidence to validate any of the claims I have heard. I therefore reject the claims, but am open to accepting any and all credible knowledge that may latter present itself.

 

I understand your unwillingness to state there is evidence against god (especially the being sitting on a throne in the sky).

 

But can you see how one would use the same thinking processes to arrive at a conclusion that there is a God?

 

And can you see that our respective and very subjective life experiences and thought processes landed us each where we have landed?

 

I look forward to your thoughts on this Antlerman. I really do. I am not trying to prove the existence of God, merely pointing out how subjective our respective positions are.

[All Gods Fail]

3) The Rational Atheist: The Rational Atheist is one who rejects the notion of a God or supernatural realm due to an objective evaluation of all of the evidence. A rational atheist is one who does not believe in a "God" and can offer a logical argument to back up his or her atheism and claim that Gods and Goddesses as well as a supernatural realm do not exist!

 

Ok, as an actual avowed atheist, I want to give my 2 cents. Why is atheism always looked at as some kind of 'faith', as if we believe - against common sense and evidence to the contrary - that there's no gods?

 

I don't feel I need to argue against the existence of biblegod any more than I need to argue against the existence of Pan or Shiva.

 

Children have a natural doubt of god(s), and they have to be taught to believe in them. Now that I've finally got my consciousness back to my child-like state of common sense, why do I have to make arguments against invisible, unseen, mystical beings who can do anything - except prove they exist?

 

Rant off - I feel better.

[Vigile]

On one level I do understand what you mean. There is a difference between saying, "I don't believe in Santa" and saying, "I believe Santa doesn't exist"? Is this what you are getting at?

 

Sort of.

 

What I am also saying though is that the concept of god is really no different than the concept of Santa, Zeus, or any other mythical being. You are not agnostic about Zeus are you?

[Open_Minded]

What I am also saying though is that the concept of god is really no different than the concept of Santa, Zeus, or any other mythical being. You are not agnostic about Zeus are you?

 

 

No I am not agnostic about Zeus, or Santa, or any other mythical being.

 

But, in regards to the "concept of god is really no different than the concept of Santa, Zeus, or any other mythical being". My response would be I agree if the concept of god we are talking about is - a being with a long-white beard sitting on a chair up in a place beyond the known universe who can point his finger at earth and cause pain, or joy, or whatever, then yes your statement is correct.

 

But if we are talking about the concept of God that I outlined above in my response to Antlerman...

 

Some of us are presented with the idea that there is infinity, that there is infinite energy, that there may be the possibility of a beginning or foundational energy, that this foundational energy is the first energy of creation, that it is continuely in the process of creating, that it pervades all and makes all whole and that this energy may be aware of itself and all that it pervades

 

Then this concept of god is VERY different than the concept of Santa, Zeus, or any other mythical being.

 

[Vigile]

 

Some of us are presented with the idea that there is infinity, that there is infinite energy, that there may be the possibility of a beginning or foundational energy, that this foundational energy is the first energy of creation, that it is continuely in the process of creating, that it pervades all and makes all whole and that this energy may be aware of itself and all that it pervades

 

Then this concept of god is VERY different than the concept of Santa, Zeus, or any other mythical being.

 

 

Why? It is just as unfalsifiable, it is just as imagined. It sounds more mystical perhaps.

[Open_Minded]

 

Some of us are presented with the idea that there is infinity, that there is infinite energy, that there may be the possibility of a beginning or foundational energy, that this foundational energy is the first energy of creation, that it is continuely in the process of creating, that it pervades all and makes all whole and that this energy may be aware of itself and all that it pervades

 

Then this concept of god is VERY different than the concept of Santa, Zeus, or any other mythical being.

 

Why? It is just as unfalsifiable, it is just as imagined. It sounds more mystical perhaps.

 

You're kidding... right

 

Let's see ... infinite energy is being studied by the highest minds in science, today. They do not know what they will find in 5-10-15-20 years or more. But they theorize... they use mathematics to conjecture they take the study of infinity very very seriously. Millions of dollars, millions of hours, and untold amounts of human energy and soul is being poured into searching out a better understanding of infinity.

 

And you're telling me this is the same thing as Santa, or Zeus. Either you're kidding or there is something missing in our communication. I'm open to something missing in our communication. But I also hope that you're open to the difference between pre-scientific mythology and a rational philisophical/scientific pursuit of truth.

 

And no, I do not think science will "prove" the existence of God. We are limited human beings, with limited awareness trying to grasp the unlimited. It just doesn't make logical sense that we will ever fully grasp it, at least in this finite life span. As I said earlier in other posts, I feel no need to "prove" God's existence, the Alpha and Omega does not need my defense, it simply exists, like the universe exists.

 

There may be much subjective reasoning in studying the nature of infinity, I will grant you that. But the subjective reasoning can happen on a rational common sense level that does not even come close to mythology.

[Amethyst]

Let's see ... infinite energy is being studied by the highest minds in science, today. They do not know what they will find in 5-10-15-20 years or more. But they theorize... they use mathematics to conjecture they take the study of infinity very very seriously. Millions of dollars, millions of hours, and untold amounts of human energy and soul is being poured into searching out a better understanding of infinity.

 

But even that wouldn't prove that the Bible was true, or that there was a god, or that the god was biblegod. For all you know, it could be just an energy force. If it were, it would disprove the Bible and most religions on earth, because they talk about god as an actual person.

 

Read the Age of Reason. You'll realize why the Bible cannot be logically true. Also read the Jesus Mysteries, and you'll understand why we realize that it's a myth.

[Vigile]

You're kidding... right

 

Let's see ... infinite energy is being studied by the highest minds in science, today. They do not know what they will find in 5-10-15-20 years or more. But they theorize... they use mathematics to conjecture they take the study of infinity very very seriously. Millions of dollars, millions of hours, and untold amounts of human energy and soul is being poured into searching out a better understanding of infinity.

 

And you're telling me this is the same thing as Santa, or Zeus. Either you're kidding or there is something missing in our communication. I'm open to something missing in our communication. But I also hope that you're open to the difference between pre-scientific mythology and a rational philisophical/scientific pursuit of truth.

 

And no, I do not think science will "prove" the existence of God. We are limited human beings, with limited awareness trying to grasp the unlimited. It just doesn't make logical sense that we will ever fully grasp it, at least in this finite life span. As I said earlier in other posts, I feel no need to "prove" God's existence, the Alpha and Omega does not need my defense, it simply exists, like the universe exists.

 

There may be much subjective reasoning in studying the nature of infinity, I will grant you that. But the subjective reasoning can happen on a rational common sense level that does not even come close to mythology.

 

When you take certain knowns about physical theory, such as the fact that energy appears to survive infinitely and is never created nor destroyed and then attach unsupported conjecture that we may discover that somehow this is indeed a creative, perhaps even sentient force, you are stepping outside of science and moving into the realm of your own wishes, and yes, this is no different than common mythology. In other words, I think that you are willing to extrapolate from current discoveries an uncovering of some creative force you think might be there. The term creative force is just as nonsensical and mythological as Santa or Zeus. I have no doubt that we will continue to make new discoveries and the world of the unknown will continue to grow slightly smaller, but extrapolating from past discoveries I would bet that we will find that new discoveries have perfectly logical and natural explanations. This idea of god is so problematic since we can't even define exactly what it is. God I'm sure was once thunder and lightening, or at least these things were caused by him. I have no reason at this time to think that future discoveries will do to known and as yet unknown phenomena what discoveries did to thunder and lightening.

[Open_Minded]

Let's see ... infinite energy is being studied by the highest minds in science, today. They do not know what they will find in 5-10-15-20 years or more. But they theorize... they use mathematics to conjecture they take the study of infinity very very seriously. Millions of dollars, millions of hours, and untold amounts of human energy and soul is being poured into searching out a better understanding of infinity.

 

But even that wouldn't prove that the Bible was true, or that there was a god, or that the god was biblegod. For all you know, it could be just an energy force. If it were, it would disprove the Bible and most religions on earth, because they talk about god as an actual person.

 

Read the Age of Reason. You'll realize why the Bible cannot be logically true. Also read the Jesus Mysteries, and you'll understand why we realize that it's a myth.

 

Please, please, please try to understand this. Not for one moment do a I believe the current study of infinite energy will prove anything in regards to religion as "true". I DON'T READ THE BIBLE LITERALLY, I NEVER HAVE, I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT I EVER WILL. I DON'T THINK THE BIBLE IS LITERALLY TRUE.

 

For all we know it IS just an energy force

- I DON"T DISAGREE WITH THAT.

 

If it were, it would disprove the Bible and most religions on earth, because they talk about god as an actual person.

I DON'T BELIEVE GOD IS AN ACTUAL PERSON.

 

I ALREADY REALIZE THE BIBLE CANNOT BE LOGICALLY TRUE. THANK YOU FOR POINTING OUT WHAT I'VE ALREADY CONCEDED MANY TIMES.

 

Now that I'm done with my rant

 

Infinite energy is huge - beyond human capacity to grasp. It can be "just an energy force" and still be aware of its own existence. It can be "just an energy force" and still be aware that it IS an energy force ever in the process of holding all that is within itself together - being the very force which interconnects all of creation. As I said earlier - if we - little specks of nothing that we are in the grand scale of things can be aware of ourselves, why is it so beyond the pale to believe that the foundational energy of everything that ever was and ever will be can also be aware of itself and all that it holds? This is awesome, it is so wonderous that I call it God. And this is NOT the same thing as a mythical character in the sky.

 

Done now...

[Open_Minded]

When you take certain knowns about physical theory, such as the fact that energy appears to survive infinitely and is never created nor destroyed and then attach unsupported conjecture that we may discover that somehow this is indeed a creative, perhaps even sentient force, you are stepping outside of science and moving into the realm of your own wishes,

 

...or into the realm of subjective reasoning ... that is what this whole conversation with Antlerman has been about. The subjectivity of our positions ie atheist, agnostic or believer. But there is a difference between subjective reasoning and "wishes" or mythology. Subjective reasoning starts out with concrete reality and uses reasoning based on current knowledge to come to a reasonable and LOGICAL conclusion.

 

Given current human knowledge it is entirely LOGICAL to make the subjective statement that energy which appears to survive infinitely and is never created nor destroyed can also have the capacity for self-awareness. It is LOGICAL to make this subjective statement because - as I've already pointed out - we as

 

a bunch of silly primates, living on one little dust speck in the middle of nowhere...

 

have self-awareness, the creative capacity and capacity for logic. So LOGICALLY speaking if we - little nothings that we are in the grandness of creation - have these capacities we can subjectively draw a conclusion that the foundational energy of the universe also has these capacities.

 

AGAIN... DO NOT ASSUME I'M TRYING TO PROVE A SUBJECTIVE POSITION HERE. I ACKNOWLEDGE THE SUBJECTIVITY OF MY POSITION . THE DISCUSSION WITH ANTLERMAN HAS SIMPLY BEEN THE PREMISE THAT EVERY HUMAN (ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC/BELIEVER) COMES AT THEIR POSITION FROM A SUBJECTIVE - AS WELL AS OBJECTIVE - POINT OF VIEW.

 

and yes, this is no different than common mythology. In other words, I think that you are willing to extrapolate from current discoveries an uncovering of some creative force you think might be there. The term creative force is just as nonsensical and mythological as Santa or Zeus.

 

Well actually there is a difference. There is NO LOGICAL foundation for mythology. There just isn't sorry... one can not logically explain the thinking of Santa flying through the sky with a sleigh and reindeer. One can logically explain why one believes that the foundational infinite energy of existence may have the capacity for self-awareness, or creative capacity. The thought process of infinite energy possible having self-awareness or creative capacity is entirely within the realm of logical knowns. In this case the logical knowns are that we as humans have these capacities and we are nothing in the huge scale of the universe, so if self-awareness and creative capacities could manifest in the human race it is logical to theorize that they might also manifest in other species and even within energy itself.

 

The theory may be subjective, but it is logically subjective. It is not just a story made up to give comfort to ones fears and anxieties about the meaning of life.

 

[Vigile]

First off, thank you for clearing up your conversation with Antlerman. I hadn't followed it all that closely and didn't really know what you meant by subjective reasoning until now.

 

Given current human knowledge it is entirely LOGICAL to make the subjective statement that energy which appears to survive infinitely and is never created nor destroyed can also have the capacity for self-awareness

 

I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around how this is entirely logical. We as human beings are self-aware, but we also understand that this self awareness evolved. To say that an unevolving force like energy is also self aware appears to be a poor comparison to me.

 

I'm sorry, I don't have the same sophisticated logical tools at my disposal as Antlerman. I have studyied philosophy and some logic but my approach is from a layman's level. Perhaps this is hindering the discussion.

[NotBlinded]

The theory may be subjective, but it is logically subjective. It is not just a story made up to give comfort to ones fears and anxieties about the meaning of life.

Isn't the subjective mind the 'Medium' to which Intellegence (objective mind) operates?

[Amethyst]

I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around how this is entirely logical. We as human beings are self-aware, but we also understand that this self awareness evolved. To say that an unevolving force like energy is also self aware appears to be a poor comparison to me.

 

Agreed. It's not logical to make assumptions like that without evidence. There is not yet any evidence that would lead one to believe that such a deity exists, just human conjecture.

[NotBlinded]

I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around how this is entirely logical. We as human beings are self-aware, but we also understand that this self awareness evolved. To say that an unevolving force like energy is also self aware appears to be a poor comparison to me.

 

Agreed. It's not logical to make assumptions like that without evidence. There is not yet any evidence that would lead one to believe that such a deity exists, just human conjecture.

But, I wonder, what that evidence would entail. Could the laws of nature, that are unchanging regardless of our understanding, be evidence of a self-conscious life? We can measure the speed of light (in a vacuum) as a constant that never changes. We can predict the track of a solar eclipse. If this energy (or force) wasn't a operant of this self-consciousness, why would it follow such strick parameters?

 

So far, these investigations have found no evidence of variation of fundamental "constants." The current observational limits for most constants are on the order of one part in 1010[10 the 10th power] to one part in 1011[10 to the 11th power] per year. So to the best of our current ability to observe, the fundamental constants really are constant.

Usenet Physics FAQ

[Cerise]

How are you relating contancy to conciousness?

 

As far as I know, concious humans are far from constant.

[Amethyst]

But, I wonder, what that evidence would entail. Could the laws of nature, that are unchanging regardless of our understanding, be evidence of a self-conscious life?

 

What exactly do you mean by "a self-conscious life?"

 

We can measure the speed of light (in a vacuum) as a constant that never changes. We can predict the track of a solar eclipse. If this energy (or force) wasn't a operant of this self-consciousness, why would it follow such strick parameters?

 

That doesn't prove that it's a god, though. It just proves that it's energy of some sort. It also doesn't prove that it is intelligent.

[Open_Minded]

Hello Everyone.

 

Not possible for me to individually address all of your posts.. so I'll try this way.

 

First off, thank you for clearing up your conversation with Antlerman. I hadn't followed it all that closely and didn't really know what you meant by subjective reasoning until now.

 

No problem vigile

 

I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around how this is entirely logical. We as human beings are self-aware, but we also understand that this self awareness evolved. To say that an unevolving force like energy is also self aware appears to be a poor comparison to me.

 

1. Yes we do understand this self awareness to be evolved and if it seems a poor comparison to you I understand that... again the discussion is about the subjectivity of our respective positions. I'm not trying to prove anything. You may think my position is nothing more than conjecture... that is fine. I disagree, but that's not the point.

 

2. But... as long as we're here .... I will point out one thing. It is a very precarious position to take that the human species is unique in it's ability for self-awareness and creative potential. (But you all are rational in your approach to life and so I'm assuming you also understand this.)

 

Still... as I said earlier... this discussion is not about proving a subjective position. I am well aware that my beliefs are subjective and I'm not a complete idiot... trying to prove something without concrete evidence would get one slaughtered, especially on this forum

 

Please go back and read the discussion between Antlerman and myself. Specifically our discussion about human beings seeing what they want to see. Specifically read Post #54. The point I am trying to make is outlined below...

 

And can you see that our respective and very subjective life experiences and thought processes landed us each where we have landed?

 

To put it in another way, there is another discussion in the Lion's Den titled "would you be christian if you were born in the middle east?"

 

The point I'm trying to make is the inverse... after reading Post #54 in this thread... can any of you see that if you had been raised a different way you might end up in the same position I'm in because of the subjective nature of our life experiences? :shrug:

 

No human being has a totally objective view of these issues. As I've said in other posts, I appreciate this forum because it exposes me to other people's objective understandings. It is in this exposure that I grow as a person. Concrete facts in these areas are few and far between, so the best thing we can do is keep an open mind and expose ourselves to many points of view.

[NotBlinded]

How are you relating contancy to conciousness?

 

As far as I know, concious humans are far from constant.

I was following the thought that, as Open Minded stated, it logically follows that if we are capable of logic then an energy would be also.

 

Everything on this planet operates within the parameters of the laws of nature. When we jump, we come back down. There isn't anything that we can do that would violate the constants, no matter how hard we tried. So, in this aspect, we are very constant.

 

Now, I could take your last statement and say that most humans are not conscious (including myself), but that leads into enlightenment and the ego...

 

But, I wonder, what that evidence would entail. Could the laws of nature, that are unchanging regardless of our understanding, be evidence of a self-conscious life?

 

What exactly do you mean by "a self-conscious life?"

Well, whatever energy or force that is subjecting the laws of nature into existence is conscious of what it is.

 

We can measure the speed of light (in a vacuum) as a constant that never changes. We can predict the track of a solar eclipse. If this energy (or force) wasn't a operant of this self-consciousness, why would it follow such strick parameters?

 

That doesn't prove that it's a god, though. It just proves that it's energy of some sort. It also doesn't prove that it is intelligent.

You are correct, it doesn't prove that it's a god. But, isn't something keeping this energy (force) from acting in random ways?

[Vigile]

But, I wonder, what that evidence would entail. Could the laws of nature, that are unchanging regardless of our understanding, be evidence of a self-conscious life? We can measure the speed of light (in a vacuum) as a constant that never changes. We can predict the track of a solar eclipse. If this energy (or force) wasn't a operant of this self-consciousness, why would it follow such strick parameters?

 

So far, these investigations have found no evidence of variation of fundamental "constants." The current observational limits for most constants are on the order of one part in 1010[10 the 10th power] to one part in 1011[10 to the 11th power] per year. So to the best of our current ability to observe, the fundamental constants really are constant.

Usenet Physics FAQ

 

This doesn't make sense to me at all. I would argue what I argued before. We know that certain properties and elements behave in constant ways. We know that some chemical properties are attracted to one another and others reject each other. We know that speed of light is constant, etc... Extrapolating more meaning from this than just these simple (or complex) facts is again pure conjecture based on wishful thinking, not evidence.

 

Maybe this is way off track, but isn't a worm self-guided but not sentient (as far as we can determine)? Yet a worm is organic and living. We have no evidence that energy is even living so why would we ever attribute sentience to it?

[Cerise]

I think it's a human thing. We can't help but make everything into reflections of ourselves, including non-sentient objects. When we meet with something completely alien we either ignore it or come up with ways to show that it isn't alien.

[NotBlinded]

This doesn't make sense to me at all. I would argue what I argued before. We know that certain properties and elements behave in constant ways. We know that some chemical properties are attracted to one another and others reject each other. We know that speed of light is constant, etc... Extrapolating more meaning from this than just these simple (or complex) facts is again pure conjecture based on wishful thinking, not evidence.

When these chemical properties are attracted to each other, matter results. Honestly, I am just curious as to why things behave the way they do. We all agree that they do, we just don't know why. The laws of nature are not separate from its source. I don't like to call this source 'god' because of what that word brings into mind. It is what it is and what that is, I don't know.

 

Maybe this is way off track, but isn't a worm self-guided but not sentient (as far as we can determine)? Yet a worm is organic and living. We have no evidence that energy is even living so why would we ever attribute sentience to it?

But, what would happen if the worm suddenly became aware of itself? There was a time (I think) when mankind was not aware of themselves. We evolved to the point of self-awareness (the allegory of the Garden of Eden), why not the worm? You mention that it is living; where did that life come from? What animates organic material? Energy?

[Antlerman]

1. The natural position is atheism. We are born this way and are taught beliefs about God.

2. We are presented with the idea of an invisible being that cannot be tested as any natural entity, and then offered a variety of evidences or proofs of this invisible being.

3. Upon evaluating these evidences, I find them lacking in credibility on many levels.

4. After finding them lacking validity, I reject them, and default back to position #1 above.

5. However, being philosophically open the any and all possibilities, bar none, I will not state there is evidence against god, there is simply no creidble evidence to validate any of the claims I have heard. I therefore reject the claims, but am open to accepting any and all credible knowledge that may latter present itself.

 

Hello Antlerman

 

Yes this does clear it up - thank you.

 

But, to continue the discussion..

 

1. The natural position is wonder. We are born this way, we are aware on very basic level of the wonder in the world around us, we find this fascinating. Children more so than adults. Yes we are taught beliefs about God, not necessarily accurate beliefs, but - yes - these are taught beliefs.

I resurface briefly from the boiling seas of obligations to respond at the least just a little

 

I agree that children are full of wonder to the world they are exposed to, unless of course their experience is an exposure to threat, then it's terror and grief. The point is whether the child feels safe and can move forth into life with wonder, or if there is the opposite experience for an infant, both have a lack of belief about any god or cosmic force, or any construct of reason. They are by default atheist. I have wonder in my life, but am atheist. In essence, I have abandoned what was taught to "become as a little child". I am become an atheist again as in childhood, free to wonder at the beauty of life without the dung of religion on my head.

 

But can you see how one would use the same thinking processes to arrive at a conclusion that there is a God?

 

And can you see that our respective and very subjective life experiences and thought processes landed us each where we have landed?

 

I look forward to your thoughts on this Antlerman. I really do. I am not trying to prove the existence of God, merely pointing out how subjective our respective positions are.

I appreciate your positive outlook on life through your own means of relating to it, and I have no problem with that. I still have a problem thinking that calling what I'm referring to is "Subjective Logic". I assume your speaking in terms of Inductive Reasoning such as that of David Hume? I would think it is more Deductive Reasoning. I am not making assumptions based upon various evidences to believe or conclude there is no god.

 

I think non-belief is the best description of an atheist. Non-belief is the default position; such as you would be in regards to notion that the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster is in fact a real being. Would your rejection of someone's offerings of evidence through various flawed methods of logic and science constitute a subjective conclusion on your part that the GFSM doesn't exist? Are you choosing to believe the GFSM doesn't exist? Does your position of de facto non-belief constitute a philosophical position? In my opinion, it does not. I don't think I have evaluated the evidence and concluded there is no God. I think I have evaluated the evidence and concluded that the evidence does not support the claims. I default back to atheism, (full of wonder of joy again!).

 

I'll try to spend some more time on this as I am enjoying your participation on the forums.