Atheism

Originally posted by The MISTER
If I'm aware of a negative consequence for a certain behavior, it can deter me from doing certain things even if God isn't the one detailing the consequences. If he is the one giving the consequences then I take them more serious as I believe he is our father. I want to make my father happy cause I love and care about him not because I think I can earn an escape from punishment. You probably already know that God's forgiveness is explained to be free in christianity. Nobody can earn it like prize. I'm not a saint either, I just enjoy doing things that I think will make God happy, cause IMO he deserves to be made happy. He wanted to make me, and I want to show him that I appreciate him, is all. Not win a prize for being the best or avoid some punishment by doing good deeds. period

You just said that negative consequences deter you. So how is that "Not... avoid some punishment by doing good deeds."

Originally posted by King Kandy
Here's another example. In the bible it says not to wear cloth with linen and wool fibers mixed. And this is an example of a "god-given moral". And I hear Jews (and christians who follow mosaic law) not only admitting that they don't understand this rule, but taking pride in it. As to them, it is a virtue to follow that rule even though they don't understand it. This is backwards to me. I would consider promoting a law you don't understand to be the height of foolishness, and under no circumstances something to be admired.

Originally posted by King Kandy
What?

You just said that negative consequences deter you. So how is that "Not... avoid some punishment by doing good deeds."

Because I've already avoided God's punishment of destruction by asking him to forgive me, which is not a good deed. I do good deeds as a form of praising him, not to avoid a consequence that I've already been spared.

There are negative consequences to overeating, so I try to refrain from that, is an example of what I meant in the statement you quoted.

Originally posted by The MISTER
I have to agree with you completely on this post. I simply follow the laws that Jesus stated were the most important. I love every man as I love myself and love God above all else as he has given me that wonderful ability. I can see how an atheist can have a strict moral code if they so choose as well (@ Digi) I just think that teaching people that there is no God is different than personally not believing any organised religions. I think that that teaching is highly biased considering the fact the we are finite, in a universe that infinity does exist in.

This is the same as your father thing. Whenever my father told me I was doing something wrong, he'd always explain why it was wrong, and we could discuss it. I don't think following your parents ideas is right at all, if you don't understand them on their own merit.

Originally posted by The MISTER
Because I've already avoided God's punishment of destruction by asking him to forgive me, which is not a good deed. I do good deeds as a form of praising him, not to avoid a consequence that I've already been spared.

There are negative consequences to overeating, so I try to refrain from that, is an example of what I meant in the statement you quoted.

This overeating is another good example. Lets say i'm overeating. If someone tells me to stop overeating, i'll obviously want to know why. If they just say "no, don't do it" then I probably won't change my behavior. Only a reasoned understanding would get me to do it.

I don't see how the presence of the infinite begets a divine creator. Seems like a large gap in causal linkage there. The infinite exists, ergo God? Our understanding of the universe can account for its own existence quite handily without divine intervention.

Originally posted by Digi
I don't see how the presence of the infinite begets a divine creator. Seems like a large gap in causal linkage there. The infinite exists, ergo God? Our understanding of the universe can account for its own existence quite handily without divine intervention.

BTW not trying to compare MISTER to Palin... I think he is much more interesting to talk to than any of the other christians on this forum. But that particular point just seemed like word salad to me.

Originally posted by Digi
I don't see how the presence of the infinite begets a divine creator. Seems like a large gap in causal linkage there. The infinite exists, ergo God? Our understanding of the universe can account for its own existence quite handily without divine intervention.

Wait are you arguing it's implausible or illogical? Not sure exactly what he said but I thought an infinite reality made anything possible.

Originally posted by The MISTER
It has everything to do with what I understand about time. Infinity is the problem. I've heard the suggestion that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. When combined with the idea that the universe is not sentient in its entirity, I am perplexed by why it took the direction that it did. The scientific laws, and quantum physics that we define the universe with don't seem to be infinitely complex as that would almost mean that there are no facts at all(infinitely complex laws equal laws that could be anything,anytime). As a person who tries to be a realist first, I find myself facing these two possibilities. The universe has within it either an infinity with no direction or an infinity with direction. I believe in an infinity with direction and I believe that humans ability to choose their direction lends heavily to that idea.

YouTube video

YouTube video

Typical...

I am an atheist. I really enjoy reading existentialist stuff.

Blatheist

I kinda smiled at the Steve Harvey comments. Unfortunately I think that's a pervading response to atheism though.

I dug up a related video on Harvey, and he said something akin to "if we evolved from monkeys, why do we still have monkeys." At least such stereotyping assholes usually make themselves easy targets for logical refutation.

Originally posted by Deadline
Wait are you arguing it's implausible or illogical? Not sure exactly what he said but I thought an infinite reality made anything possible.

I'm not entirely sure what he said either, like Kandy said it seemed a bit like "word salad" (I like the phrase btw Kandy). He seemed to use the very idea of infinity (either in the context of the universe being infinite in time or the abstract concept of infinity) as justification for a creator.

In your supposition there, though, you seem to be using "infinite" in a different sense. MISTER seemed to be using it specifically as it referred to time. However, in a technical sense anything is possible. Most thing, however, are not likely. Infinitesimally unlikely events are still unlikely to occur given any amount of time. But your "infinite reality" sounds more like a universe where anything is possible, which is a different concept entirely. We don't live in that kind of infinite reality, we live in one with definable rules. Those rules (i.e. physics) could theoretically be overturned, but we've never witnessed it nor do we have the means to do so, either physically or in a philosophical sense.

So I guess to answer your question (though I usually dislike binary options to questions), I consider this justification for God illogical. The infinite does not beget a creator by any logical means. Several intermediate steps from one to the other would need to be present in order to establish any sort of logical link.

Originally posted by Digi
I'm not entirely sure what he said either, like Kandy said it seemed a bit like "word salad" (I like the phrase btw Kandy). He seemed to use the very idea of infinity (either in the context of the universe being infinite in time or the abstract concept of infinity) as justification for a creator.

In your supposition there, though, you seem to be using "infinite" in a different sense. MISTER seemed to be using it specifically as it referred to time. However, in a technical sense anything is possible. Most thing, however, are not likely. Infinitesimally unlikely events are still unlikely to occur given any amount of time. But your "infinite reality" sounds more like a universe where anything is possible, which is a different concept entirely. We don't live in that kind of infinite reality, we live in one with definable rules. Those rules (i.e. physics) could theoretically be overturned, but we've never witnessed it nor do we have the means to do so, either physically or in a philosophical sense.

So I guess to answer your question (though I usually dislike binary options to questions), I consider this justification for God illogical. The infinite does not beget a creator by any logical means. Several intermediate steps from one to the other would need to be present in order to establish any sort of logical link.

Originally posted by Digi
Infinitesimally unlikely events are still unlikely to occur given any amount of time. But your "infinite reality" sounds more like a universe where anything is possible, which is a different concept entirely.

God existing an infinite universe isn't unlikely.

Originally posted by Digi
We don't live in that kind of infinite reality, we live in one with definable rules. Those rules (i.e. physics) could theoretically be overturned, but we've never witnessed it nor do we have the means to do so, either physically or in a philosophical sense.

Ghosts, telepathy existance of gods/god does not overturn the rules of physics.

Originally posted by Digi

So I guess to answer your question (though I usually dislike binary options to questions), I consider this justification for God illogical. The infinite does not beget a creator by any logical means. Several intermediate steps from one to the other would need to be present in order to establish any sort of logical link.

It just sound like you said that the concept of god is unlikely and defies logic without actually giving a reason. In an infinite universe it's logical for infinite things to exist eg an infinite intelligent being. I have no idea how you're going to try and justify how that is illogical.

Originally posted by Deadline
I thought an infinite reality made anything possible.

Not necessarily. The set of even numbers is infinite, yet it contains no odd numbers.

Similarly an infinite universe would not contain anything inconsistent with its own rules, which limits the possible things.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not necessarily. The set of even numbers is infinite, yet it contains no odd numbers.

I think you mean't to say an infinite set of even numbers.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

Similarly an infinite universe would not contain anything inconsistent with its own rules, which limits the possible things.

Thats not true there are differences of opinion about the concept of infinity and some people think it doesn't have to follow any logic. Yes it is possible to have an infinite universe with limitations....apparently.

What Sym said is correct. The set of even numbers is infinite (it means all even numbers that exist). Yours makes sense too, but it's more complicated, might exclude the 2 or the 4 who knows. Not a point to argue about though, either works.

Originally posted by Deadline
Ghosts, telepathy existance of gods/god does not overturn the rules of physics.

considering there is no plausible mechanism for any of those things, that is a mighty bold statement