Atheistic Hypothetical Theism.

Mike said:
There are certain laws that always apply, and these have been proved scientifically. They do exist, and they do govern how things operate.

Here is where I will take issue for now. Now certainly, with Newtonian Mechanics, we can observe and predict phenomena which occur within our natural fields of perception (though, even then, only within a vacuum, which isn't part of our natural state).

But when we enter Quantum Mechanics, the laws are not predictive at all. In fact, the explicitly prescribe the opposite. Now, I don't know that you're necessarily espousing a universe of order in these senses, but it certainly appears that way.

Is guaranteed randomness the sort of rule you're ascribing to God?

(There's an excellent Hawking rebuttal to Einstein in here somewhere.)
 
This seems to me your faith was already in place when you had your personal experiences which confirmed and reinforced those believes.

Was this faith not constructed as a result of previous (perhaps mundane) experiences?

If God alone is, all experiences are brought to you directly from, by and through God, and they speak much louder than words or thoughts, no?
 
Was this faith not constructed as a result of previous (perhaps mundane) experiences?

If God alone is, all experiences are brought to you directly from, by and through God, and they speak much louder than words or thoughts, no?
Still hard to wrap my mind around this. It's like imagining I'm a glass of water which was dropped in the ocean and I'm wondering about how wet the ocean is.

I watched a docu about Infinity on BBC's Horizon yesterday. Made me feel the same way.
 
A similar argument to yours, Ziggy:

The theist who accepts theism on the basis of personal experience rests his case on a number of premises. Firstly, they believe that it is epistemically justified to base belief on personal experience. That personal experience provides both necessary and sufficient conditions for knowing whether God exists, and thus, given we want to attain knowledge, we should base our relevant belief on personal experience. We should not base our belief in what others say (testimony) nor in any sort of scientific method (perhaps such a theist would assert that God's existence is not probably by the tools of science). Secondly, they believe that their personal experience provides evidence of God. Given they believe that we should base our belief on personal experience, it follows quite simply that they should believe in God.

More formally:

A is the case
If A then B
Therefore:
B

Where 'A' means 'I have personal experience that God exists' and 'B' means 'I should believe God' exists. The two premises 'A' and 'If A then B' are both essential to this theistic argument. Note that the 'If A then B' premise is equivalent to a premise just saying 'Belief in God should be based on my personal experience'.

This is all well and good. Perfectly valid argument (if not sound). The problem comes with proselytizing. Such a practice seems simply incompatible with that second premise 'Belief in God should be based on personal experience'. Proselytizing is an attempt to persuade people that God exists using evidence other then their personal experience. That is to say, using things like testimony or argument. Yet, the second premise the theist has employed clearly states that such things are inadmissible in forming our religious beliefs; we should not believe (or disbelieve) in God based on them. The proselytizing theist who employs the above argument must hold two contradictory premises: 'Belief in God should be based on personal experience' and 'Belief in God should be based on my testimony'. This position is untenable.
 
lovett
There are sometimes evidences that wander between "personal" and "factual".
For me, one of the best proofs of God is the Jewish people.
I mean it.
1. For 2000 years (or actually ever since), the Jews are persecuted for stating the same thing all over: "There is One God".
Yet they (or we, weird grammar dilemma) survive and even thrive.
More over, the majority stays true to the same belief system it started with.
2. There were prophecies of both destruction and rebuilding.
We do have proofs in the past of the destructions, AND we have a 70-years-old proof of rebuilding too.
Would anyone in, say, Middle Ages ever think of the rebuilding of a Jewish country?
We're yet to see the ultimate fulfillment though, but the very facts speak for it.
=>
Therefore, for me the fact the Jews are still there (as was promised in the Torah btw) is a clear-cut undeniable fact that "there's Someone" and that He watches over the world's history to say the least.
This evidence is both "personal" (I'm Jewish and I base this on the info I got from Jewish sources) and "general/factual" (any NORMAL book on Jewish history would tell you most of what I just mentioned).

PS.
Btw, the history science (or whatever) and archeology do find proofs of ancient "stories" that are mentioned in the Jewish sources.
So it shuts up all those "I-know-all-about-how-Jews-made-things-up" "historians" (usually idiots to say the truth actually) every here and there.
 
A similar argument to yours, Ziggy:

Spoiler :
The theist who accepts theism on the basis of personal experience rests his case on a number of premises. Firstly, they believe that it is epistemically justified to base belief on personal experience. That personal experience provides both necessary and sufficient conditions for knowing whether God exists, and thus, given we want to attain knowledge, we should base our relevant belief on personal experience. We should not base our belief in what others say (testimony) nor in any sort of scientific method (perhaps such a theist would assert that God's existence is not probably by the tools of science). Secondly, they believe that their personal experience provides evidence of God. Given they believe that we should base our belief on personal experience, it follows quite simply that they should believe in God.

More formally:

A is the case
If A then B
Therefore:
B

Where 'A' means 'I have personal experience that God exists' and 'B' means 'I should believe God' exists. The two premises 'A' and 'If A then B' are both essential to this theistic argument. Note that the 'If A then B' premise is equivalent to a premise just saying 'Belief in God should be based on my personal experience'.

This is all well and good. Perfectly valid argument (if not sound). The problem comes with proselytizing. Such a practice seems simply incompatible with that second premise 'Belief in God should be based on personal experience'. Proselytizing is an attempt to persuade people that God exists using evidence other then their personal experience. That is to say, using things like testimony or argument. Yet, the second premise the theist has employed clearly states that such things are inadmissible in forming our religious beliefs; we should not believe (or disbelieve) in God based on them. The proselytizing theist who employs the above argument must hold two contradictory premises: 'Belief in God should be based on personal experience' and 'Belief in God should be based on my testimony'. This position is untenable.

I never got proselytizing, and now it makes sense. To add to that though, the command was "make". We cannot make any one do anything, we can only "show" them. Horse to water.

Spoiler :
lovett
There are sometimes evidences that wander between "personal" and "factual".
For me, one of the best proofs of God is the Jewish people.
I mean it.
1. For 2000 years (or actually ever since), the Jews are persecuted for stating the same thing all over: "There is One God".
Yet they (or we, weird grammar dilemma) survive and even thrive.
More over, the majority stays true to the same belief system it started with.
2. There were prophecies of both destruction and rebuilding.
We do have proofs in the past of the destructions, AND we have a 70-years-old proof of rebuilding too.
Would anyone in, say, Middle Ages ever think of the rebuilding of a Jewish country?
We're yet to see the ultimate fulfillment though, but the very facts speak for it.
=>
Therefore, for me the fact the Jews are still there (as was promised in the Torah btw) is a clear-cut undeniable fact that "there's Someone" and that He watches over the world's history to say the least.
This evidence is both "personal" (I'm Jewish and I base this on the info I got from Jewish sources) and "general/factual" (any NORMAL book on Jewish history would tell you most of what I just mentioned).
PS.
Btw, the history science (or whatever) and archeology do find proofs of ancient "stories" that are mentioned in the Jewish sources.
So it shuts up all those "I-know-all-about-how-Jews-made-things-up" "historians" (usually idiots to say the truth actually) every here and there.

Can some one pm me the "short" version of the "historical" inaccuracy of the Jews? Thanks.


We have "God alone is" and "I am". If God is not alone, do we get "God Is"? That would settle everything.:D

Now "Alone God Is All":

Since my faith started when I was 2.5, it is hard to recall any experiences much before that. I bumped over a candle, and almost burned down the house. Fire is not good. I was hit on the head with my favorite red tractor that I would not share with the guy who hit me with it. Pain is not good. I also had knowledge of sex, it may have effected me or not, but that knowledge is there. My mom said that hell was fire and we do bad things and God saves. I got the picture and it is etched in memory. Now that may have been a weird way to get the picture, but to me from then on, you will have to "prove" to me there is no God. I have been thinking recently what could one do to prove that, and I have come up with a scenario. If I were to be mortally wounded and was brought back to life by satan, then I would cease to believe in God, because satan would have done something that only God could do.

Alone: Humans cannot compute "alone". We have always been in time and space. We can feel all alone, but we will never be able to describe emptyness nor eternity. A glass of water in the ocean may be close.

God: to paraphrase in the big bang God, at the start of time and space God created two things the earth (church got that one mixed up) and the heavens (not the earth). Now you can put a gap there, or your favorite theory.

Is: This is the point that seperates the earliest of "religions". If the earth was and the heavens were, then they cannot be God. What is God? No one knows, and our time and space is a limit to that knowledge. In the beginning the creation did know, but now we have forgotten. At times humans may have had the knowledge, but as a whole we do not know. There are too many historical evidences or lack thereof to go farther than that, and science has made great strides, but if God is, we cannot prove Him, but He would have to give us that knowledge.

All: IMO God is the "seed" that produces the all. Without Him nothing would exist. He is that force that holds everything together at the smallest particle that science has yet to discover. He is randomness and irrationality. He "designed" the laws that we have knowledge of. He is deterministic and perplexing, because He allowed the all and without Him the all would stop existing.

Now if any one can produce evidence to change my perception of God, I would be just as interested in it as Ziggy is in this. But remember I am irrational and I personally "know" when things jive with me and they do not. Not to sound rash, but you can take it or leave it. You can put me on ignore. It makes no matter to me, but I try to post things that make people try to think and question their ideas, just like I need people to question my ideas and help me expand my knowledge. Cheers.
 
:hatsoff: After rereading those, I dug abut a bit and found that I drive by Gothmog's house on my way to work. Betazed I believe lives in England.

Timtofly said:
We have "God alone is" and "I am". If God is not alone, do we get "God Is"? That would settle everything.

Now "Alone God Is All":

Since my faith started when I was 2.5, it is hard to recall any experiences much before that. I bumped over a candle, and almost burned down the house. Fire is not good. I was hit on the head with my favorite red tractor that I would not share with the guy who hit me with it. Pain is not good. I also had knowledge of sex, it may have effected me or not, but that knowledge is there. My mom said that hell was fire and we do bad things and God saves. I got the picture and it is etched in memory. Now that may have been a weird way to get the picture, but to me from then on, you will have to "prove" to me there is no God. I have been thinking recently what could one do to prove that, and I have come up with a scenario. If I were to be mortally wounded and was brought back to life by satan, then I would cease to believe in God, because satan would have done something that only God could do.

Alone: Humans cannot compute "alone". We have always been in time and space. We can feel all alone, but we will never be able to describe emptyness nor eternity. A glass of water in the ocean may be close.

God: to paraphrase in the big bang God, at the start of time and space God created two things the earth (church got that one mixed up) and the heavens (not the earth). Now you can put a gap there, or your favorite theory.

Is: This is the point that seperates the earliest of "religions". If the earth was and the heavens were, then they cannot be God. What is God? No one knows, and our time and space is a limit to that knowledge. In the beginning the creation did know, but now we have forgotten. At times humans may have had the knowledge, but as a whole we do not know. There are too many historical evidences or lack thereof to go farther than that, and science has made great strides, but if God is, we cannot prove Him, but He would have to give us that knowledge.

All: IMO God is the "seed" that produces the all. Without Him nothing would exist. He is that force that holds everything together at the smallest particle that science has yet to discover. He is randomness and irrationality. He "designed" the laws that we have knowledge of. He is deterministic and perplexing, because He allowed the all and without Him the all would stop existing.

Now if any one can produce evidence to change my perception of God, I would be just as interested in it as Ziggy is in this. But remember I am irrational and I personally "know" when things jive with me and they do not. Not to sound rash, but you can take it or leave it. You can put me on ignore. It makes no matter to me, but I try to post things that make people try to think and question their ideas, just like I need people to question my ideas and help me expand my knowledge. Cheers.
The question your post raises for me is what is the relationship in your mind between god and us. for me when you say "god is' you are implying that we/people/creation "are not". Is god to you apart from creation, or is creation just a glass of water in the ocean?
 
:hatsoff: After rereading those, I dug abut a bit and found that I drive by Gothmog's house on my way to work. Betazed I believe lives in England.

The question your post raises for me is what is the relationship in your mind between god and us. for me when you say "god is' you are implying that we/people/creation "are not". Is god to you apart from creation, or is creation just a glass of water in the ocean?

God is the "seed" that started current space and time. Now Eastern religions say everything is God, so this is where I split. The "seed" is now copies which reproduce into other copies and the further we are from the "seed" the less we are of God. God is still the force that holds things together. Since I am a creationist, I say that man is unique in that he was not "just sprung up" for lack of a better term, but we started out as an "image" of God and we received God's breath and became a soul.


Here is where I may part from the abortion debate, for I beleive the soul enters a life at the first breath. Remember that God is the force that is all around us and can manupulate air, physics and everything related to the "space" we are in. I do not believe in making it legal to take a life before that, but I hold to the fact that it is a potential soul determined by God and His will is thwarted.


A rain drop is not formed out of nothing, it comes from a speck of dust. Plants need minerals and water to grow. I think we all agree that life starts at the very basic of a mixture of the right chemicals or the proteins that make them up. God called it earth. Scientist have broken all of it down and named each part and they are still finding smaller parts.


It is the soul of man that links us to God. IMO there is a new soul each time a human takes the first breath. This gives the human the ability to once again "be" God. It is the nature that is passed from human to human that thwarts the soul from experiencing it's full potential. It is the mind which allows us the free will to choose between the soul and the "flesh".

We are not God, but we have a soul that is God in us. We can choose to do God's will or the human will. Sin and evil are the effects of not doing God's will, and to how much we allow nature to take it's course is how history will remember us.
 
Your error in thought is how you choose to define the word God.
Reality and the Universe is God incarnate, I am therefore God is, God is, therefore I am.
The holistic pantheistic view of God makes any claim of atheism irrelevant denialism and any adherent of atheism thereby lives in a paradigm of flawed denialist logic.

Our science is superior, this shall be the age of the Sea Otter!
 
God is the "seed" that started current space and time. Now Eastern religions say everything is God, so this is where I split. The "seed" is now copies which reproduce into other copies and the further we are from the "seed" the less we are of God. God is still the force that holds things together. Since I am a creationist, I say that man is unique in that he was not "just sprung up" for lack of a better term, but we started out as an "image" of God and we received God's breath and became a soul.


Here is where I may part from the abortion debate, for I beleive the soul enters a life at the first breath. Remember that God is the force that is all around us and can manupulate air, physics and everything related to the "space" we are in. I do not believe in making it legal to take a life before that, but I hold to the fact that it is a potential soul determined by God and His will is thwarted.


A rain drop is not formed out of nothing, it comes from a speck of dust. Plants need minerals and water to grow. I think we all agree that life starts at the very basic of a mixture of the right chemicals or the proteins that make them up. God called it earth. Scientist have broken all of it down and named each part and they are still finding smaller parts.


It is the soul of man that links us to God. IMO there is a new soul each time a human takes the first breath. This gives the human the ability to once again "be" God. It is the nature that is passed from human to human that thwarts the soul from experiencing it's full potential. It is the mind which allows us the free will to choose between the soul and the "flesh".

We are not God, but we have a soul that is God in us. We can choose to do God's will or the human will. Sin and evil are the effects of not doing God's will, and to how much we allow nature to take it's course is how history will remember us.

There is no seed. WMAP is a fraud. Quantized redshift was proven in the 1970s by William G. Tifft and Dr. Gerrit Verschuur both published in the Astrophysical Journal shows the WMAP seeds are local milky way HI. The lambda-CDM model has already been debunked. We're back to eternal steady-state universe.
 
The holistic pantheistic view of God makes any claim of atheism irrelevant denialism and any adherent of atheism thereby lives in a paradigm of flawed denialist logic.
This would only be true if the holistic pantheistic view of God was apparent and clearly there for all to see.

Running with a hypothetical is fine, but even in that hypothetical situation, there is cause to be atheist if there is no evidence of the holistic pantheistic view.
 
This would only be true if the holistic pantheistic view of God was apparent and clearly there for all to see.

Running with a hypothetical is fine, but even in that hypothetical situation, there is cause to be atheist if there is no evidence of the holistic pantheistic view.
It is becoming apparent that the holistic pantheistic view of God is apparently apparent. The atheist and theist have both lost the linguistic meme war to the pantheistic view.
 
There is no seed. WMAP is a fraud. Quantized redshift was proven in the 1970s by William G. Tifft and Dr. Gerrit Verschuur both published in the Astrophysical Journal shows the WMAP seeds are local milky way HI. The lambda-CDM model has already been debunked. We're back to eternal steady-state universe.

:lol: No it hasn't. As for the quantized redshift, see Tang and Zang (2005) and Hawkins et al. (2002) which had shown that there is no evidence for redshift periodicity.

punkbass2000 said:
But when we enter Quantum Mechanics, the laws are not predictive at all. In fact, the explicitly prescribe the opposite. Now, I don't know that you're necessarily espousing a universe of order in these senses, but it certainly appears that way.

Quantum mechanics is predictive; it's just statistically so, not exactly so. If the probability of an event differs from what you find in experiment, then that's a false prediction.
 
It is becoming apparent that the holistic pantheistic view of God is apparently apparent. The atheist and theist have both lost the linguistic meme war to the pantheistic view.
Crickey. A war eh?

Well, good job holistic pantheistic view of God.
 
Quantum mechanics is predictive; it's just statistically so, not exactly so. If the probability of an event differs from what you find in experiment, then that's a false prediction.

According to a current thread in S&T, one cannot use entanglement as a means of instant (FTL) communication because the effects of your action cannot be predicted and therefore no pre-arranged code could be used. To my mind, this fact, in and of itself, is sufficiently non-predictive. If a prediction is not reliable, what good is it?
 
Back
Top Bottom