Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 4

[NateHevens]

Originally Posted by Shemtov

Sorry to quote such an old post, but this bothers me.
If one even entertains the possibility that there is a god, doesn't that mean he's agnostic, not atheist?

Yes to agnostic, no to "not an atheist".

Atheism and theism are about belief, not knowledge. I am an atheist because I do not believe in a higher power or powers. But I make no claim to knowing for a fact that a higher power doesn't exist. Hence, I am also an agnostic.

Agnosticism is not, contrary to popular belief, a middle ground between atheism and theism. It is a qualifier.

My honest opinion is that everyone is agnostic; atheist and theist alike. And such will be the case until we've definitively answered the question of what caused the Big Bang. The answer to this question will lead us, I believe, to the answer for whether or not a god actually exists. I do believe it is a scientific question, because it is a question about the nature of reality, and the nature of reality is what we study with science; answering questions about the nature of reality (questions with objective, definitive answers) is the purpose of science.

(For the record, questions about the nature of our experiences are question that science can't answer, but this is only because these questions are subjective and personal. The do not have definitive answers, because the answers to these questions depend upon the person answering them.)

Thus, even if they won't admit it, every theist and atheist alive is technically an agnostic. So I find the term redundant. I shouldn't have to explain to people that I'm an agnostic atheist... the agnostic part should be a given.

[Shemtov]

There are two arguments that atheists use to "prove" that the Abrahamic God cannot exist, that I would like to address at this time.
The first one is The omnipotence paradox. This says the Abrahamic God is omnipotent. Can He create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it? whether he can or can't he's not omnipotent.
However, this argument is flawed, as it portrays the inability to create stone so heavy that it cannot lift it as a lack of omnipotence. It is not, because the ability to create the rock would be a lack in omnipotence.
The second argument is basically if God knows everything that will happen then how do we have free choice?
The answer is that God is Omnichronal- he exists at all times at once, and is superior to time, because time is one of his creations. However humanity is time bound, and therefore has a past present and future, and can choose to shape that future.

[NateHevens]

Originally Posted by Shemtov

There are two arguments that atheists use to "prove" that the Abrahamic God cannot exist, that I would like to address at this time.
The first one is The omnipotence paradox. This says the Abrahamic God is omnipotent. Can He create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it? whether he can or can't he's not omnipotent.
However, this argument is flawed, as it portrays the inability to create stone so heavy that it cannot lift it as a lack of omnipotence. It is not, because the ability to create the rock would be a lack in omnipotence.

Um... this is why the omnipotence paradox is valid.

Let's try another one:

Can God create a being more powerful than himself?

The second argument is basically if God knows everything that will happen then how do we have free choice?
The answer is that God is Omnichronal- he exists at all times at once, and is superior to time, because time is one of his creations. However humanity is time bound, and therefore has a past present and future, and can choose to shape that future.

If God is outside of time, then how does God react? You need time in order to react. Movement, measurement, thought... existence itself... it all requires time. What is God moving in, if not time?

[Shemtov]

Originally Posted by NateHevens

Um... this is why the omnipotence paradox is valid.

Let's try another one:

Can God create a being more powerful than himself?

Instead of seeing it as a paradox, it's possible to see it like this:
If God could create a being more powerful then himself his omnipotence is limited. Therefore if he can't it's not a limit on his omnipotence, because the ability to create it is a limit.

Originally Posted by NateHevens

If God is outside of time, then how does God react? You need time in order to react. Movement, measurement, thought... existence itself... it all requires time. What is God moving in, if not time?

The definition of the Abrahamic God is that he is outside of time and space. His essence is disconnected with the concept of space-time . His thoughts are not like human thoughts. He doesn't move in any dimension, because he created those dimensions.

[NateHevens]

Originally Posted by Shemtov

Instead of seeing it as a paradox, it's possible to see it like this:
If God could create a being more powerful then himself his omnipotence is limited. Therefore if he can't it's not a limit on his omnipotence, because the ability to create it is a limit.

But that's the whole point. Can't is not freedom. If you can't do something, that is, by definition, a limit. It is a negative, and negatives are always limiting.

The definition of the Abrahamic God is that he is outside of time and space. His essence is disconnected with the concept of space-time . His thoughts are not like human thoughts. He doesn't move in any dimension, because he created those dimensions.

But then how does he move? How does he react? How does he do anything at all?

Movement outside of the dimensions simply isn't possible, period. And you don't get to declare, by fiat, that God is outside that without evidence, of which there's none.

There is nothing in existence that we know of that can exist outside the dimensions.

Let's go back to time. Creation is an act. By definition, acts require time in which to accomplish the action. If God created time, then when did he create it? How long did it take him to create it?

The very idea of creation itself requires time.

Then you have another problem; the phrase "God is outside of time" is a contradiction, because without time, there is no outside. You cannot have an "outside of time" because time is not finite. It does not have borders. Therefore, there is no such thing "outside of time", because time is not something that can have an outside to begin with.

Same goes with "outside of space", because, like with time, you cannot have an outside without space. Neither space nor time can have an outside because "outside" is a measurement of both space and time.

[DBryan]

Originally Posted by Shemtov

There are two arguments that atheists use to "prove" that the Abrahamic God cannot exist, that I would like to address at this time.
The first one is The omnipotence paradox. This says the Abrahamic God is omnipotent. Can He create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it? whether he can or can't he's not omnipotent.
However, this argument is flawed, as it portrays the inability to create stone so heavy that it cannot lift it as a lack of omnipotence. It is not, because the ability to create the rock would be a lack in omnipotence.
The second argument is basically if God knows everything that will happen then how do we have free choice?
The answer is that God is Omnichronal- he exists at all times at once, and is superior to time, because time is one of his creations. However humanity is time bound, and therefore has a past present and future, and can choose to shape that future.

Woah.

No offense, having a smoke here. I have to confess, this kind of stuff, its no more convincing to me than the hammy descriptions of how superpowers work in comic books.

The older I get the less seriously I can take religion.

[Shemtov]

Originally Posted by NateHevens

But then how does he move? How does he react? How does he do anything at all?

Movement outside of the dimensions simply isn't possible, period. And you don't get to declare, by fiat, that God is outside that without evidence, of which there's none.

There is nothing in existence that we know of that can exist outside the dimensions.

Let's go back to time. Creation is an act. By definition, acts require time in which to accomplish the action. If God created time, then when did he create it? How long did it take him to create it?

The very idea of creation itself requires time.

Then you have another problem; the phrase "God is outside of time" is a contradiction, because without time, there is no outside. You cannot have an "outside of time" because time is not finite. It does not have borders. Therefore, there is no such thing "outside of time", because time is not something that can have an outside to begin with.

Same goes with "outside of space", because, like with time, you cannot have an outside without space. Neither space nor time can have an outside because "outside" is a measurement of both space and time.

But if one believes in the Big Bang, he also believes in "before time".
.

Originally Posted by http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/universe.html

It has a beginning in space and time, before which the concept of space and time has no meaning, because spacetime itself is a property of the universe

Now the Big Bang was an action.
If the Explosion of the Big Bang started time time, then when did it start it?
The Big Bang theory says there is indeed borders to time- the Big bang, and possibly, the Big Crunch.
By the logic you presented, it seems you really believe in the Steady-State theory.

[NateHevens]

Originally Posted by Shemtov

But if one believes in the Big Bang, he also believes in "before time".
.
Now the Big Bang was an action.
If the Explosion of the Big Bang started time time, then when did it start it?
The Big Bang theory says there is indeed borders to time- the Big bang, and possibly, the Big Crunch.
By the logic you presented, it seems you really believe in the Steady-State theory.

There are two possible reasons for why this is not necessarily the case:

1. You are assuming one particular version of the Big Bang is correct. Other ideas include the Multiverse Hypothesis and the idea that the Big Bang was a localized event bringing into existence only our visible portion of the entire universe, which is much bigger than what we can see even with Hubble.

Thinking About Time Before the Big Bang
Was there a time before the Big Bang?
What happened before the Big Bang?

2. Not all actions/events require causes. We see this in Quantum Mechanics and Radioactive Decay all the time. The singularity of the pre-Big Bang universe is the smallest thing we know. Thus, a Quantum Fluctuation could explain the Big Bang. Because it is not a caused event, or even an "event" by any known standard, time would not be required in this case.



For me, I tend to lean towards number 1. Number 2 seems a little too anti-intuitive for me. That said, Quantum Mechanics is not at all intuitive. In fact, the things Quantum Mechanics exists to explain defy common sense on a regular basis. So my inability to get number 2 does not make it not true.

I do, however, like one Multiverse Hypothesis very much: it's the idea that our universe exists on one of a seemingly infinite number of membranes. The Big Bang was another membrane crashing into the one we exist on. What's even cooler is that our universe may not be the only one on our membrane. There could be trillions of other universes on this one membrane. This means there could be more universes in existence then we could ever count, as there may be more membranes in existence than we could ever count.

As for how those membranes were created... I'm of the mind that, eventually, atheists and theists alike have to recognize that something has always existed without creation. Because the membranes would actually be ridiculously simple (they are not alive, they do not think, they do not act, etc), I find it easier to believe that they have always existed than some ridiculously complex, all-intelligent, all-knowing, all-powerful, anthropomorphic deity.

[childeroland]

I guess the Big Bang would be the first event of space-time, or close to it, assuming a non-cyclical model of the universe.

[Thundercrack85]

This whole argument about "disproving" is silly. If you make fantastic claims, you need fantastic evidence.

[Destructus86]

It's all just a silly debate really. Neither side can prove to the other which is right. So, we just go around and around....and then around and around again in a pointless orbit.

[Alex Summers]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

This whole argument about "disproving" is silly. If you make fantastic claims, you need fantastic evidence.

You want proof? I'll give you proof: the Holy friggin Bible! Take that, Atheism!

[Schlosser85]

Kapow!

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Destructus86

It's all just a silly debate really. Neither side can prove to the other which is right. So, we just go around and around....and then around and around again in a pointless orbit.

No. One side argues that there is no supernatural, which is backed by everything we know and can test. The other side says there is, without offering any evidence at all. The side making fantastic claims has the burden of proof.

Originally Posted by Alex Summers

You want proof? I'll give you proof: the Holy friggin Bible! Take that, Atheism!

The atheists' kryptonite.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by Shemtov

But if one believes in the Big Bang, he also believes in "before time".
.
Now the Big Bang was an action.
If the Explosion of the Big Bang started time time, then when did it start it?
The Big Bang theory says there is indeed borders to time- the Big bang, and possibly, the Big Crunch.
By the logic you presented, it seems you really believe in the Steady-State theory.

We cannot assume that what was 'before' the big bang, if anything, is something that is conceivable by our definitions of before or after. Before and after are indications of time...but if there is something actually before time itself, then it likely can't be accurately described or qualified as an actual 'before'. Kind of like 'what's bigger than infinity?'

[Schlosser85]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

No. One side argues that there is no supernatural, which is backed by everything we know and can test. The other side says there is, without offering any evidence at all. The side making fantastic claims has the burden of proof.



The atheists' kryptonite.

I think his point was neither side is going to change the other's mind, so it just goes around and around in an endless circle.

[terry78]

Basically you just have to go with "you never know." If some day something insanely supernatural does happen, every ****er will be repenting like crazy.

[KalMart]

Originally Posted by terry78

Basically you just have to go with "you never know." If some day something insanely supernatural does happen, every ****er will be repenting like crazy.

Actually, I don't think so.


If for some reason a real God made his presence known...I don't think all former disbelievers would suddenly grovel in wonder or what have you. There'd be a lot of questions that a God would be subject to, especially if He would show the ability to respond. Would a fair God not allow questioning or criticism, and just threaten us with death or eternal damnation instead? That's totalitarianism...regardless of who is doing it. I know I'd probably rather die than have to live like that.

I'd want to know just how much influence He has over things...and if He helps good things happen, why does He allow bad things to happen? Which religion is the true version...Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism. How would the followers of the 'not right' ones feel?

I think that if there really was a God...making his presence unquestionably known and available could be one of the worst things for Him. He'd be subject to the irrationalities that His concept innately presents....and refusing would contradict his representing a moral beacon to begin with. If there is a God, and He knows what's better for Him, He'll keep it a mystery.

[Maximum Carnage]

I'm surprised this forum has remained open, and Gay Rights threads gets pwned not even after a day.

;o

[NateHevens]

Hey! Check out my latest blog post. You can comment on it here if you want, but comment there, too, okay?

Knowledge vs Belief: Agnostic Atheism

(Just so you know the perspective this blog is coming from, I am an Agnostic Atheist... the blog is meant to defend my position as an Agnostic Atheist.)

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Maximum Carnage

I'm surprised this forum has remained open, and Gay Rights threads gets pwned not even after a day.

;o

Probably because most people in this thread are cynical atheists, while most people in the gay rights thread are gay, but also religious or spiritual.

[enterthemadness]

Originally Posted by NateHevens

Hey! Check out my latest blog post. You can comment on it here if you want, but comment there, too, okay?

Knowledge vs Belief: Agnostic Atheism

(Just so you know the perspective this blog is coming from, I am an Agnostic Atheist... the blog is meant to defend my position as an Agnostic Atheist.)

I have read it. I like it.

[hopefuldreamer]

Great post Nate

My beliefs have changed a lot recently.

I've gone from feeling like a strong atheist, despite accusations it makes you a moron (), to starting to wonder again about certain 'supernatural' things.

I mean, I don't believe in 'God' in any religious sense. I do not believe in worship, or living by any set of rules spelled out by a divine being.

But I'm uncertain of how I feel about the soul, the afterlife and the forces at work in the universe.

Now that's not to say I suddenly believe in these things now. But I will concede that I feel much more agnostic about them than I did.

Something invented by human beings, given a name and human attributes, and used to control people - that's something I feel pretty confident denying the existence of.

But when you're talking about something that is much less tangible, and much more open to interpretation (and possibly even scientific explanation), you kind of have to accept you can't KNOW it's not there.

[MultipleJesuses]

I don't like people who say "You must be part of my religion or you'll spend eternity in hell", but I also hate people who say "don't be so stupid, science disproves everything about religion."
I personally don't follow any religion but I do believe there is a higher power.
I DON'T believe that that higher power says I have to go to church on a sunday, kneel to pray every few hours or that I'm not allowed to eat pigs.
I just think that it's there and nobody can really understand it.
And religion doesn't cause hatred, ignorance causes hatred.

I was a Christian for four years and never told anyone they were wrong, or going to hell. We have to respect everyone's beliefs and anyone who tries to change your belief is not worth talking to imo.

[hopefuldreamer]

I don't believe in a higher power that has a 'mind'.

Basically, I sometimes wonder if there is a natural order in the universe. A balance between things, a sense of karma or fate (though not in the literal sense of you're life being already written and unchangeable). And I could maybe believe that who we are is more than just what goes on in our brain, but that there is an essence that exists beyond the physical, like a soul.

But not that anyone or anything is in charge of everything. That has thoughts and a plan.