Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
@Alchemy: God, quite literally, is Tin Man's left testicle. The absolute totality, supreme infinite set of Tin Man's left testicle. There is an actual ontological equivalence that I am claiming here. Therefore, all sets (and therefore numbers, concepts, etc...) are all aspects of Tin's left testicle and therefore this God thing I am speaking of. You are just a subset of Tin's left testicle.
God is a supreme set = Assertion that requires evidence . You don't get to imagine a god into existence. Calling everything God does not provide evidence for your claim. I can call anything god and it does not make it so.
If youre just replacing the concept of god with the word testicle, then its correct if you describe the concept god. If you consider the concept testicle to be the finite and corporeal concept then theres two contradictions already and so it is false. You can't win an argument by just manipulating symbols in a sentence. Your Avatar is starting to make a lot more sense.
@Alchemy Re: Cog - "God, quite literally, is Tin Man's left testicle."
Hey, Alch, pay no attention to Cog. He is so full of shit it is oozing out the tips of his hair. And the rotten bananas jammed into both of his ears are there as an attempt to keep the overflow to a minimum. (Not that they really help, but it makes him feel better about it.) Anyway, for Cog to say my left testicle is god is obviously one of the most absurd statements a person could ever make. Because EVERYBODY (except for Cog, apparently) knows it is my RIGHT testicle that is god, NOT the left. My left testicle is Satan. Just to help you keep it straight, always remember, "If you know god is always Right, then Satan will be Left behind."
So please don't feel obligated to listen to Cog and his ridiculously outlandish claims. Just try to ignore him as best you can the way the rest of us do.
@Tin: Aw FUCK! No wonder none of my prayers are being answered! And who sent me this magic scrotum prayer cloth?
@Cog Re: "Aw FUCK! No wonder none of my prayers are being answered!"
Look, for the umpteenth time just TRY to remember: "Leftie Lucie. Righty Mighty." This shit ain't rocket surgery, Bonzo brain.
@Tin: Got .... Wait? Left? Who left and who had the right to let him go? It's the first I have heard of it. Oh! You mean Jo left? Of course. We all knew that was going to happen. Now, what was I talking about?
@Cog Re: "Got .... Wait? Left? Who left and who had the right to let him go?"
Shit... *face palm*... Aw, fuck-it... *shaking head in defeat*... Tell ya what, Cog, you just pray to whichever one you want. I'm sure they can work it out somehow. After all, at least one of them IS omniscient... *walking away mumbling to self*... (the shit I gotta put up with around here...)
I don't see how this is going to help; but if you want me to define change then OK: ΔX/Δt ≠ 0; for all Δt's, where X is any attribute, and t is time.
Anyone got a headache yet?
I know you don't see why this is going to help. If this is your definition of change, this is a very simplistic naturalistic understanding of it, and this is exactly what I was talking about when I made the claim about the physical ice cube. In the realm of orthodox physics for example, yes the water molecules, as the object of thought, change in the sense that the average molecular movement, the attribute, varies with time, the parameter. My point is, why are you so strongly holding to water molecules as the object of thought? Why not realize that every state of the object conceivable is an entirely different ontological object because its attributes have, with mathematical certainty, changed. It is in this sense that sets, god etc do not change, because they are simply equivalent to what is objectively, rationally true about them. This is why I wanted you to distinguish between ontological theories of change and the change we see in physical science.
@ Alchemy
"This is why I wanted you to distinguish between ontological theories of change and the change we see in physical science."
No matter what any philosophy may indicate, it must always match the reality of physical observations. Observations drive philosophy, it cannot be the opposite, else we can argue purple dragons into existence.
All I see is that you are attempting to put the cart before the horse.
"No matter what any philosophy may indicate, it must always match the reality of physical observations. Observations drive philosophy, it cannot be the opposite, else we can argue purple dragons into existence."
It was at that moment, I realized im literally talking to some sort of retarded orgy role play forum (see tin man and cog)
Anyways, nothing of value can come of this conversation but I hope you guys can read what I left and learn something. A single thing. Please.
@ alchemy
Yeh one thing I learnt is you are a complete dipstick...byeee!
@ Alchemy
"Anyways, nothing of value can come of this conversation but I hope you guys can read what I left and learn something. A single thing. Please."
Why should I give a crap on your position and words?
You posture as being intelligent, yet my wife has a PhD and two masters in Psychology. On a daily basis I rub shoulders with respected scientists who are a lot smarter and better informed than you. You posture as being intelligent, but you have imposed limits on your investigative powers, you will never think beyond what is already in place, you will never make any advances in your field.
The sole thing I have learned from you is the liability of arrogance and hubris.
@ Alchemy
"No matter what any philosophy may indicate, it must always match the reality of physical observations. Observations drive philosophy, it cannot be the opposite, else we can argue purple dragons into existence."
It was at that moment, I realized im literally talking to some sort of retarded orgy role play forum (see tin man and cog)"
Can't make a cogent response so you throw up a smoke screen and run away?
@Alchemy Re: "I realized im literally talking to some sort of retarded orgy role play forum (see tin man and cog)"
No, no. We don't do the orgy role play anymore. Cog refuses to trim his toenails, so that shit got way too uncomfortable at times. We've moved on to Troll Hunter role play now. It's way cooler, too, because we don't have to get naked and oily, and we get to make some really neat costumes to wear. Although Cog, naturally, seems to believe a bandolier full of bananas across his chest and a bandanna tied around his head counts as a costume, even though he is STILL naked and oily..... *rolling eyes*... So in all fairness, I suppose I can see how you thought we were still doing the orgy role play. Honest mistake on your part. No biggie.
@Alchemy: All together now! "Concepts" Contingent on minds, contingent on brains. They do not exist in necessity of their own nature. Concepts have no nature. They exist "specifically because" another being creates them.
I love it. The number two is a being that necessarily exists of its own nature and not because someone wanted to count something.
Good Job there Alchemy! You get to ride the magic Choooooo Chooooo Woooo Wooooo!
@Cognostic
Yeah, it's some pretty funny shit. Maybe not quite word salad, maybe a side salad.
@ Apollo, Cog and Nyar
Listen I can solve this conundrum:
This quest never ends. Imagine a flowering of what could be. It is in unveiling that we are re-energized.
It can be difficult to know where to begin. How should you navigate this ancient dreamscape? The quantum soup is calling to you via electromagnetic resonance. Can you hear it?
We can no longer afford to live with desire. Where there is bondage, spacetime cannot thrive. Suffering is born in the gap where life-force has been excluded.
We are in the midst of a mythic deepening of karma that will remove the barriers to the universe itself.
The goal of ultrasonic energy is to plant the seeds of passion rather than dogma. By unveiling, we heal. Beauty is the healing of life, and of us.
There you are. Solved. Back to your rooms.
V.S.
-----------------------------------------------------
V.S.
Notice, you told us that god was the supreme reason for anything, and you told us that sets are non contingent. If sets depended on god they would be contingent. So it seems you have told us that sets are contingent and non-contingent.
------------------------------
/e: It seems to me that what you told us is a hot mess.
@Nyarlathotep
They exist in an ontological sense. If there's no things to count, then sets of 'things' don't exist.
God's existence is contingent on nothing other than God. He exists if He wants to exist.
#omnipotence
Maximally great
@Alchemy “ This is incorrect in the realm of quantum mechanics (and probably more). ” / your reference above regarding using technology to test.
But quantum is used in everyday objects (lasers, solar cells) and the theory goes back before Einstein. However Einstein is associated with the spooky aspect ... and this aspect is being put to work - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/five-practical-uses-spooky...
I do imagine a more technological “magical” future because we are moving in that direction. The speed in which we are doing it is causing some issues for the earth, no doubt - but I feel pretty confident we’ll overcome these issues as well (and then move on to the new issue “we’ve created”).
Now, quantum can be used by all sorts out there and sold “ie quantum immortality” , which for me, I haven’t really explored outside movie usage.
Alchemy...I can see why when I started to use my imagination you brought up God. It’s “imaginary”.
However, I’d like to think that my speculative imaginary mind-candy still is based in reality.
I have stated before, in other posts, that I, 100% do not believe in “God” as described in anyway by man.
@Alchemy “ The "mind candy" that I experience when trying to understand what god can be, trying to understand the properties of God, the attributes etc is something that is central to the human experience.”
Here’s my experience in this particular mind-candy exercise. God existing outside time/space. Time and space go together because to have movement you need space to do it. Time is just movement. We measure movement (earth rotates about 24 hours, hence our clock for everyday use),etc.
So I stop there. Think. What does outside time/space mean? If I can’t even conceive that...how the fuck could I even begin to guess what the fuck “it” might think?!?! Using my brain to grant human qualities and thoughts to something claimed to be outside of a place I can’t even conceive?
Do you realize that all our thoughts are not original? That we learn from our predecessors and even our combination of ideas are not original? We copy one another - ideas, behaviours.... and make some “our own”. That’s what makes “breakthroughs” so incredible, that somewhere, in someone’s brain, they compiled this information and reordered it or added to it just enough for “originality”.
@ Whitefire13
"Do you realize that all our thoughts are not original? That we learn from our predecessors and even our combination of ideas are not original? We copy one another - ideas, behaviours.... and make some “our own”. That’s what makes “breakthroughs” so incredible, that somewhere, in someone’s brain, they compiled this information and reordered it or added to it just enough for “originality”."
"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants."
Sir Isaac Newton stated in 1675
I have seen many religious apologists claim god is necessary, but never seen any apologists offer any evidence or rational explanation as to why.
Of course even were we to conceded this as yet unevidenced unexplained and therefore unjustifiable claim about god, which god? That in my experience is when the dishonesty of the position becomes clear and they pretend they actually had evidence for their deity all along, or worse, they have personal experiential "evidence" if their deity's existence. Which of course is prima facie no different to someone claiming they have ridden a unicorn or been swimming with mermaids, when no one could see.
The first question I always ask is what objective evidence can they demonstrate for any deity?
The answer is always none, so the second question is what other beliefs that form no part of their religious beliefs do they hold, without any objective evidence. At this point the bias is manifestly obvious, and I have yet to meet a theist or religious apologists who cares to address this candidly.
Whenever I meet a theist who claims they have philosophical justification foe their belief, you can usual put a reasonable bet on them producing some sort of fallacious first cause argument, often the a variant of the Kalam Cosmological argument, which has been exposed so many times here and elsewhere it's tiresome.
@Sheldon
When we say God is a 'necessary' being, we mean...necessary for US.
It's like the anthropic principle.
It is necessary that there be a universe to observe in order for observers to claim that the universe seems finely tuned for our existence.
@Alchemy...” It is fun to speculate, in fact speculation brings meaning to life in some sense, it spices it up and makes it worth living. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, but ascertaining the Ideas were what made it worth it. This is why I feel strongly about the existence of God.”
I just want to point out where we agree and where we differ.
I enjoy a smoke and coffee outside on my step. My mind gets to wandering “...what if I win the lottery...”. Now I know the lottery exists. I know people win it. I don’t buy lotto tickets, but my fantasy includes “finding” a ticket. Now I’m off and running on what I would do. Fun time. I go back in the house.
I don’t act like this fun filled fantasy is true or based on a reality that will fulfill itself for me. I don’t start going deep into debt because “I know I will win the lottery”. Yet I’d have more reason to act or believe this way than you do with inserting a claim to “know” God is real.
@Whitefire Re: Lottery ticket analogy
That was fantastic. I'm gonna have to remember that one for future use.
...blushing....thank you - there are all types of “smart”
@ David Killens
You misunderstand what God is essentially, I am not claiming that God is just some magic man that you can
somehow see with your sense organs if he just reveals himself to you. I am talking about God as such, the
god that the theologians of history were speculating about: that mind independent ontological object which is the supreme perfect being
and necessary intelligible explanation and efficient cause of everything. There is clearly more to know about God,
because god is more then just a finite definition, but I'll go into it if you want. My position has nothing to do with
God of the gaps at all, I am not claiming that there isn't some ultimate mathematical formulation which explains the natural world.
I am claiming that whatever we come up with will be contingent, BY definition. Also
Simulation hypothesis and Multiverse are both metaphysics, yes. Simulation theory
is not taken seriously anywhere, and multiverse is literally only looked at in philosophy of physics.
@ Cognostic
Concepts are just relations between thoughts, same with numbers and sets and so on.
as soon as you accept you are a conscious being, you accept that these things objectively exist
This is because consciousness IS change in perception, from one state to another.
There is no existence without mind, and there is no mind without concepts.
If this is the case, then concepts are on a similar ontological grounding as any other arbitrary natural phenomenon.
The collection of these states which make up mind and the relationships between them are therefore
objective and so can be exactly described by formalism. It is no surprise that everywhere
we look we find numbers and equations which describe how reality is. It dosen't have
to even be the natural world, any collection of intelligible concepts have relations between them
by necessity of their own nature.
@ Nyarlathtep
Well you never told me your theory of change. And you didn't even look at the entire
caveat paragraph that was put after theses sound-byte size snippets. Necessary beings
can have what are called "modal properties". To put it simply, because I frankly think
you arent interested in learning this, modal properties describe what an object can do
potentially according to some parameter, usually time. So for example, an acorn has a
modal property which says it can become a tree. From some sort of naive perceptive, I
can see people thinking that things "change" in this sense. Certainly scientifically
water can change to ice and so on. But I do not believe necessary things change in the
strict ontological sense.
Your second point is a great point, and I wrote an essay about the issue a while ago but
I can't find it. Basically this is traditionally called the problem of Asiety. That is:
If God is the ultimate explanation for anything you can think of, then how can other things exist of their
own nature? But sadly this does not apply to me because I don't believe what is called
Divine simplicity. In other words, God to me is not a supreme and simple mind, but rather
an infinite and complex being. The reason i believe this has to do with the nature
of necessary beings. The story actually starts at set theory, as I believe a set, is
actually the quantum of intelligibility. Of course mathematicians agree with
me for the most part, as set theory is the foundation of all math. So my notion of set,
which is a little different from the formal notion of set for reasons I won't get
into here, can be understood to be the building block of all numbers, mathematical structures, concepts etc
So the main point is this: Every necessary being shares an ontological identity, because concepts
numbers are all just sets. Finally God, which is exactly the reason why everything
intelligible and conceivable exist must be the set of all sets (or class depending on your interpretation).
In fact, since I think that being IS thought, god is onto-logically EQUIVALENT to the
class of all sets. Therefore when we see these objective beings, they are not distinct
from God, they are literal subsets of God. Of course the traditional ideas is:
Numbers as thoughts in the mind of God. If you want to understand this more, Look
at Cantor, the creator of set theory, and his religious beliefs and work. If you want to
know more about how I perceive God, then you can watch this video (its not my
video and i dont agree with a lot of it, but it is really well done):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53DvBCFFhbI
Hegel is another realist who identifies the absolute as the set of all sets/ the ultimate
principle. This is similar to God, but different in some ways I don't want to go into
right now.
@Whitefire13
I really don't understand what you are saying with the analogy. My point was this: We are finite beings which were thrown into
existence, and nobody knows exactly why. Trying to conceptualize the reason for existence at all is not something you should just shout down. In fact my claim is that gradually, you can come to understand the ultimate telos of the world, the reason for everything even if only slightly, and you can become happy though this. Look up the philosophical movement Optimism.
@ Alchemy
One problem atheists encounter is that we must be provided a definition of their "god" by the theist who is making the claim. If not, then there will never be effective communication.
"We understand the possibility of determining their (celestial bodies) shapes, their distances, their sizes and motions, whereas never, by any means, will we be able to study their chemical composition".
Auguste Compte made that statement in 1835.
In 1859 Gustav Kirchoff presented to the Berlin Academy his work comparing sunlight with chemical elements. And on that day, astrophysics was born. And of course, we are now able to study the chemical composition of almost anything, no matter the distance.
My point is that I consider it folly to state that we have arrived at a brick wall in any area of exploration. Human beings have an amazing capacity to explore and reason, and there are countless examples of someone being informed "you can't do that" or "you can not learn anything more about that subject", only to push through and prove the naysayers very wrong.
Do you believe your god created this world and universe? Do you believe your god answers prayers? Do you believe your god performs miracles? Did your god bang a virgin? If you answered yes to just any one of those questions, then your god has left traces of itself in this universe. And just like fingerprints, DNA, and forensics, we can work backwards and examine the entity responsible for those actions.
My impression is that you have formulated a definition of "god" that you believe is beyond examination. But even that attempt does not plug all the holes in the dike. As long as your god has interacted in any way with this universe, there will be traces, evidence mankind can trace back and use to examine this hypothetical entity.
And if your god has not interacted with this known universe in any way, then there is no difference between this god and nothing. And if god = nothing, that is just the way it is.
(my definition of "nothing" for this post is "lack of anything, something, any ability, or any action")
My standards of evidence are similar to a court of law. And for the same reason you can never argue a settlement or judgement in court without some form of evidence, I will never accept a god argued into existence. My standards are not unrealistic or unreasonable, my standards are almost exactly what you would experience in a court of law.
Miracles have been examined, I do not know of any confirmed miracles. The same goes with near death experiences, prayer, and the examination of the origin of this universe.
Alchemy, if you met me in person you would understand that I am very willing to accept a god. But not without reason and evidence. I left organized religion in my late teens, and then spent the next forty plus years searching for anything spiritual or supernatural. I wanted to find a god, I was searching with intent. I spent many hours at night, alone in churches, on my knees, sincerely praying for something, anything. I had many long conversations with seminary students, priests, and other men of many other faiths. Heck, for a few years I lived directly across the hall from a Muslim Imam, we were on very good terms and socialized together at times.
And since my life-long quest has resulted in no proof or evidence, I must conclude I am an atheist because I have not been convinced one exists. And to be completely honest, I am comfortable in my persona as an atheist, I wear that skin very well.
Is your god beyond examination? Then how come you pretend to know or understand any of it's qualities?
"One problem atheists encounter is that we must be provided a definition of their "god" by the theist who is making the claim. If not, then there will never be effective communication."
The way you avoid this is take the notion that most philosophers and theologians have used since the 11th century, really. God is the greatest conceivable being. Once you realize that this is equivalent to what God is, you understand why so many minds in this reality disagree, but have yet come to similar conclusions in some respects (only three major monotheist religions for example).
"My point is that I consider it folly to state that we have arrived at a brick wall in any area of exploration."
If you have any idea, ANY idea at all of how we can observe things smaller then those smallest objects which reflect the highest possible wavelength, then you can collect your Nobel prize. Notice I didn't even say you had to do it or demonstrate it. I have claimed that simply writing a paper which discusses a LEAD into going "smaller", you will go down in time with Einstein and Newton etc. The mathematics checks out, the evidence checks out, the philosophy checks out, there simply must be a smallest object in the natural world. So I would recommend if you really do strongly feel that way, go for it. I will eat my hat if you find something incredible.
"Do you believe your god created this world and universe? Do you believe your god answers prayers? Do you believe your god performs miracles? Did your god bang a virgin? If you answered yes to just any one of those questions, then your god has left traces of itself in this universe. And just like fingerprints, DNA, and forensics, we can work backwards and examine the entity responsible for those actions."
Yes, not how a lay person bargains with god, no, Yes, No.
No you can't, that makes no sense. If I went out side tonight and the stars Aligned and said "I am God, I am real" or something like that, that wouldn't prove god exists. I can clearly see why you would find it plausible evidence, but it dosent proof. First of all, with quantum mechanics, given enough time this will eventually happen in principle. And I am more inclined to believe that in that situation I am a brain in a vat and something is just messing with me. The proof for god is not found here, the proof is found when you reach out beyond that and realize there must BE a reason why someone is messing with you, or why such and such particles arranged them selves in such and so way. You are not understanding what im saying: You have to understand your mind to see what God is, you arent going to find God in empirical reality anywhere because empirical reality is higher level construct of consciousness, you need to analyze the form and structure of your thoughts themselves.
"My impression is that you have formulated a definition of "god" that you believe is beyond examination. But even that attempt does not plug all the holes in the dike. As long as your god has interacted in any way with this universe, there will be traces, evidence mankind can trace back and use to examine this hypothetical entity"
It is not beyond Examination, In fact, in the past I used to think of god as an empirical explanation of things or AS a scientific theory of some sort. Once I actually read about Philosophic and Theology from the experts, I realized what god is in essence, where the examination was based in mathematics and logic and philosophy, not science. If you think about it, it is really no surprise that mathematical, philosophical, and theological revolutions all predate the scientific explosion by thousands of years. You arent going to find god in empirical reality, thats a fruitless search. If you claim nothing exists except for "natural reality" then you have undermined your mind and are talking in circles, yet many empiricist atheist do this. So my claim is this: If you are honest, you would look in Logic, Theology, and Mathematics.
Pages