pogi Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: I think agnosticism is necessarily distinguishable from atheism. The former says "I don't know, and cannot know, if God exists," and the latter says "I affirmatively reject the existence of God." Thanks, -Smac That's how I always thought about it too.
Calm Posted January 30, 2020 Posted January 30, 2020 3 minutes ago, pogi said: Any imagined meaning one creates in a world without God has no foundation or intrinsic valu I don’t understand how people can hold this position while recognizing there is no way to prove the existence of God so all that meaning they know exists for them would be from another source if there is no God after all.
Ahab Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Erase that last paragraph. That's the way you would speak to other people. It says nothing, except for the first sentence which indeed is perfectly correct. No progress made. Just alluding to how people are stuck in their current mindset unless or until they change it. Someone who is either an agnostic or atheist is going to stay one unless they decide to no longer be one. And even good logic and reasoning won't be enough to change their mind.
pogi Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 14 minutes ago, Calm said: I don’t understand how people can hold this position while recognizing there is no way to prove the existence of God so all that meaning they know exists for them would be from another source if there is no God after all. Either there is God or not. If there is a God, all of our created meaning is derived from that source. If there is no God after all, then it was all an interesting illusion. No need to prove his existence. We can conclude without proving his existence that if he is real, then it is real; if he is not real, than it is not real.
Calm Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, pogi said: If there is no God after all, then it was all an interesting illusion. What if there is a collective unconsciousness or a hive mind of the universe that provides meaning? If a parent experiences intense feelings when they look at their newborn babe and know without a doubt in their mind the rest of their life is for the purpose of caring for and protecting their child, is that experience somehow real meaning if there is a God, but even if identical in every way save one, that love and knowledge is not real if there is no God? Edited January 31, 2020 by Calm 2
pogi Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 3 minutes ago, Calm said: What if there is a collective unconsciousness or a hive mind of the universe that provides meaning? Then that is God - pantheism.
Ahab Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 6 minutes ago, pogi said: Either there is God or not. If there is a God, all of our created meaning is derived from that source. If there is no God after all, then it was all an interesting illusion. No need to prove his existence. We can conclude without proving his existence that if he is real, then it is real; if he is not real, than it is not real. We don't necessarily need to prove "his" existence, either, as long as we can prove that some person who is the ultimate kind of being exists. God is the word we use to refer to the ultimate kind of being in all of existence, which is the kind of being we suppose "our Father" is, and which we suppose that we are, too. Those who don't believe in "our Father" don't necessarily have to discard the idea that we are the ultimate kind of being in all of existence, and if we learn somehow that there is life after death for our kind of being, we don't need to see "our Father" before we can conclude that our kind of being continues to exist. Seeing one is to see them all, as far as our kind of being exists. For those who might believe there is some other kind of being out there that is even better than our kind of being, though, well, I don't know what I would say to them. Keep hoping, maybe? I've seen no proof so far but I do think our kind of being is capable of being a lot better than some people imagine.
Calm Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 Just now, pogi said: Then that is God - pantheism. Or not. Depends on how you define God, what makes deity.
pogi Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Calm said: Or not. Depends on how you define God, what makes deity. God/s creates with a purpose/meaning. The alternative doesn’t. I think that is what separates theists from atheists generally speaking. . Edited January 31, 2020 by pogi
Calm Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 4 minutes ago, pogi said: God/s creates with a purpose/meaning. The alternative doesn’t. I think that is what separates theists from atheists generally speaking. . Isn’t that a circular definition though? An insect evolved such that as a parasite it links all the minds of animals on its original al planet together. Eventually there is enough advancement the hive mind decides to branch out and it creates the ability to invest nonliving material with awareness and connects all such to the hive mind. It leaves its planet and eventually the entire universe is so connected. Is this God in your view? If it is, what makes it deity rather than just a highly advanced form of a telephone system? 1
Ahab Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 8 minutes ago, Calm said: Isn’t that a circular definition though? An insect evolved such that as a parasite it links all the minds of animals on its original al planet together. Eventually there is enough advancement the hive mind decides to branch out and it creates the ability to invest nonliving material with awareness and connects all such to the hive mind. It leaves its planet and eventually the entire universe is so connected. Is this God in your view? No. It sounds like it might be useful for an entertaining science fiction movie, though. God is real. What you have imagined is not.
pogi Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Calm said: Isn’t that a circular definition though? An insect evolved such that as a parasite it links all the minds of animals on its original al planet together. Eventually there is enough advancement the hive mind decides to branch out and it creates the ability to invest nonliving material with awareness and connects all such to the hive mind. It leaves its planet and eventually the entire universe is so connected. Is this God in your view? If it is, what makes it deity rather than just a highly advanced form of a telephone system? What is circular? I’m not sure I understand what you mean. No, that’s not God in my view. I don’t know of anyone else who holds that view either. Would you agree that is what separates theists from atheists in general though - creator/s vs not. Edited January 31, 2020 by pogi
Calm Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 7 minutes ago, pogi said: What is circular? I’m not sure I understand what you mean. No, that’s not God in my view. I don’t know of anyone else who holds that view either. Would you agree that is what separates theists from atheists in general though - creator/s vs not. I don't know enough about nonChristian theologies to agree to that. Quote What is circular? I’m not sure I understand what you mean. You have defined the alternative as that which creates without meaning. How do you know it has no meaning? It wasn't created by God. So the hive mind I described is in your view not God, but it creates with purpose, to survive and spread and create a unity of minds. So haven't I demonstrated a possibility of an existence with no God, but still has meaning? Edited January 31, 2020 by Calm 1
pogi Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 17 minutes ago, Calm said: You have defined the alternative as that which creates without meaning. How do you know it has no meaning? It wasn't created by God. I know it has no meaning because that is the definition I am using. If there was meaning to the creation, it was created by God, by definition. 23 minutes ago, Calm said: So the hive mind I described is in your view not God, but it creates with purpose, to survive and spread and create a unity of minds. So haven't I demonstrated a possibility of an existence with no God, but still has meaning? The hypothetical you described involved it’s beginning as an insect. Where did this insect come from? Where did it derive it’s meaning? From nothing? Again, that is not possible. I can’t argue for theism in general (I don’t know enough either) but I can argue for the eternal God/s/source. I am arguing against meaning from no meaning.
Calm Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 7 minutes ago, pogi said: Again, that is not possible. How do you know?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, pogi said: If you think about it, to create meaning out of no meaning, is about as absurd as creation ex-nihlo. First this is a non-answer. Why is creation ex-nihlo absurd? How does that relate to an abstract idea like meaning? Second, where does meaning come from for you? From God? Where does he get his meaning from? Aren't you just kicking the can down the road? Quote It is a form of psychological alchemy. Any imagined meaning one creates in a world without God has no foundation or intrinsic value. Says who? Please demonstrate how meaning from God has foundation or intrinsic value. Likewise show me how to tell the difference in my life between meaning from God and meaning that I choose for myself? Again please use small words for me, because I'm just not following you! Edited January 31, 2020 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
TOmNossor Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: CFR Can you explain what you mean by Nihilism? I mean with no gods out there, it’s clear that the universe/gods provides no meaning for life. Why does it logically follow that we must view our lives as meaningless. That is, why should I care that I don’t derive my meaning from external sources. Isn’t the meaning I find internally just as valid? Please use small words so my puny mind can understand . I have recognized that I quoted from a website associated with Richard Dawkins, not from Richard Dawkins. Sorry. @smac97 seemed to figure that out before me. I will try to respond to your other question later with whatever words I can muster. Charity, TOm
pogi Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: First this is a non-answer. Why is creation ex-nihlo absurd? To an atheist it requires belief in super-nature. It’s not based in reason. Sorry, my phone is being weird, I’ll have to finish tomorrow.
pogi Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 2 hours ago, Calm said: How do you know? If I am limited to reason, it is the only reasonable argument to me. If it is true that life was created from a meaningless cosmos, then what gives life meaning? The answer is nothing gives life meaning because there is no meaning outside of the self. I will, and have argued that without God, the self is an illusion. If the self is an illusion, then it follows that agency and meaning are all part of the illusion.
sunstoned Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 4 hours ago, pogi said: If you think about it, to create meaning out of no meaning, is about as absurd as creation ex-nihlo. It is a form of psychological alchemy. Any imagined meaning one creates in a world without God has no foundation or intrinsic value. It is an illusion, or delusion - very useful and pleasurable illusion that I encourage all atheists to perpetuate and engage with, but none-the-less an illusion that will fade back into the ever-present/eternal and triumphant meaningless expanse that created the illusion of agency and your ability to choose meaning. This very point could be argued about religion. Organized religion to some could be a form of psychological alchemy. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 20 minutes ago, pogi said: To an atheist it requires belief in super-nature. It’s not based in reason. This is not apparent to me. I think the question of what happened at the Big Bang and whether or not there is a “before” the Big Bang is an open question for cosmologists. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all Headline: “Some physicists think they can explain why the universe first formed. If they are right, our entire cosmos may have sprung out of nothing at all” And again, punting to God especially in a Latter-day Saint theology, doesn’t seem to help. Where did God get meaning from? Did he create it out of nothing? Aren’t we just kicking the can down the road? How does that add value or give legitimacy to meaning? 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 3 minutes ago, pogi said: If I am limited to reason, it is the only reasonable argument to me. If it is true that life was created from a meaningless cosmos, then what gives life meaning? Why does something have to give life meaning? Why can’t meaning tag along for the ride? And if it can’t, please explain where God gets his meaning from. 3 minutes ago, pogi said: I will, and have argued that without God, the self is an illusion. At a certain level tables are illusions. Computers are illusions. Everything is just a bunch of elementary particles floating around. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense to talk about tables computers and the self... 3 minutes ago, pogi said: If the self is an illusion, then it follows that agency and meaning are all part of the illusion. In one sense yes, but in another very real sense NO! See above. Also in Mormonism agency is central, but on the other hand seems illusory. Most people mean agency to be the ability to have chosen differently if we could rewind the tape (so to speak). If God knows the end from the beginning in what sense could we have chosen otherwise? 1
mfbukowski Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, Ahab said: Just alluding to how people are stuck in their current mindset unless or until they change it. Yes they are either stuck or they're not. That is called a "tautology." It is either A or not A. You can say that about anything and be right. I am a former atheist myself so your point is not very convincing. I did not "want" to change. I was perfectly happy. I changed because I learned that belief in God is intellectually justifiable, and then God showed himself to me in a testimony experience. I had no choice but to surrender. I knew and he knew that I knew. Edited January 31, 2020 by mfbukowski 1
Meadowchik Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 7 hours ago, pogi said: If you think about it, to create meaning out of no meaning, is about as absurd as creation ex-nihlo. It is a form of psychological alchemy. Any imagined meaning one creates in a world without God has no foundation or intrinsic value. It is an illusion, or delusion - very useful and pleasurable illusion that I encourage all atheists to perpetuate and engage with, but none-the-less an illusion that will fade back into the ever-present/eternal and triumphant meaningless expanse that created the illusion of agency and your ability to choose meaning. So you are saying that theists can adopt meaning by believing in God, but atheists can only create meaning?
Meadowchik Posted January 31, 2020 Posted January 31, 2020 7 hours ago, smac97 said: I think agnosticism is necessarily distinguishable from atheism. The former says "I don't know, and cannot know, if God exists," and the latter says "I affirmatively reject the existence of God." Thanks, -Smac Atheism isn't necessarily that, it can simply be the lack of belief in God. Agnosticism distinguishes itself by being more about the epistemological process preventing the conclusion. That is why I say I am an agnostic atheist. I lack a belief in God, not out of apathy, by the way, but for the mindful reason that I think God's existence is now unknowable. 2
Recommended Posts