The Idea of a God Is Not So Crazy

[Mystic]

I think in finding oneself, one can find God.

[Whateverist]

I think in finding oneself, one can find God.

True in a way so long as one does not have their expectations set too high.

---

As for the OP, I agree that given evidence of a god we should immediately acknowledge it and move on. However I don't agree that such a thing is entirely comprehensible.

From what I am told I guess we are to imagine a disembodied mind which is intimately aware of every thing in the universe at all times. Apparently, though undetectable as either matter or energy, this Mind is able to bring about any action it desires, and, did in some remote past bring into being every bit of matter and energy we see today. In addition to keeping track of every bit of matter and energy, this Mind is said to monitor every thought, word and deed of every individual and to respond to the prayers of some.

If this isn't the most far fetched whopper ever told I can't imagine what could top it. So while the point I conceded to the OP at the start is true in principle, it is important to point out just how remote and absurd the possibility truly is that we will ever have reason to concede the existence of god.

I find it much more acceptable to explain the observable universe with all its inherent order and wisdom the result of a Prime Mover's initial action rather than the atheistic posit that no such being is necessary to account for existence.

I'm not aware of any atheist manual which accounts for cosmology or metaphysics. Last time I checked, atheists were simply people who don't believe in gods. For me personally -not as an instance of an atheist who holds all the required beliefs therein- I don't recognize creator gods as an adequate explanation of origins. To my way of thinking it just kicks the can of origins further down the road. Now in addition to explaining the origins of everything we can detect you must also explain the origins of a being you can't detect but which is capable of creating everything which we can. I don't find such an explanation at all enlightening. Your typical fundamentalist cuckoo will retort that of course there is no origins to discover regarding God, that's why you call Him a prime-mover, right? But realize this is just word magic. Defining God into existence isn't really very convincing.

[Metalogos]

To the person who states he is an atheist but then says that he finds the idea of a god or God acceptable, I would simply say that you have to change your stated definition for yourself from atheist to non-religious theist. Unlike some people who
have posted their opinions on this forum, I find it perfectly acceptable to reject religion but accept the idea that the universe must have begun vis a vis a Prime Mover or Unmoved Mover. Rational thinking will reject all forms of religion that claim to know the ultimate truth of our existence or the existence of the universe and that advocate any kind of worship to any kind of being. Likewise, rational thinking and observant discernment will agree that the world about us is one in where all things have a beginning and an end. I can imagine a universe like ours that may be just one in a myriad of successive universes or just one amongst countless other universes in parallel existence but I cannot imagine that all of this existence has no beginning. This does not mean that I am right but it does mean that I find it much more acceptable to explain the observable universe with all its inherent order and wisdom the result of a Prime Mover's initial action rather than the atheistic posit that no such being is necessary to account for existence.

When the Earth was formed did it come with common dirt? Or did the magic comets that brought all of the water also bring the dirt?

Sorry, Mr. Gawd, but methinks you think I am not what I am. I am not a fundamentalist Christian. I don't even live in a western country. And I am certainly not an apologist for any kind of religion or religious belief. Saying that, I wonder if you are interested in having a serious discussion or just throwing dirt in my face. Methinks you are above the later so I welcome you to ask me a more serious question like perhaps, "Why, Metalogos, do you find it necessary to posit a Prime Mover for the existence of the universe?" Back to you!

[Little lunch]

I think in finding oneself, one can find God.

Only if you are god.

[Metalogos]

Dear Whateverist,
You may be right in saying that you know of no atheistic manual or argument that tries to account for the existence or the nature of the cosmos or for existence itself. Yes, it does seem that many atheist are satisfied in letting the theists do all the heavy lifting and smugly deriding their efforts to explain and understand the universe by pointing out all the holes in their arguments and theologies. It is a lazy occupation methinks. Why don't you sweat with me a bit and try to argue a position that claims no Prime Mover is necessary for explaining the existence of the universe? In other words, tell me why I should abandon Aristotle's seminal argument which attempts to deal with the fundamental question of the existence of the universe. You do know that Aristotle regarded Thales extremely highly and that Thales was one of the first people to attempt to explain the world and the cosmos without relying on mythology, do you not? We are in august company thinking alongside these great minds of the past. Let us not dismiss them out of hubris due to our lucky position in time that gives us a higher vantage point from which to gaze back on their mighty efforts. Better to put yourself in their shoes and work from there to argue against their non-religious theistic position.

[Little lunch]

[quote='Metalogos' pid='654174' dateline='1398037918'] Yes, it does seem that many atheist are satisfied in letting the theists do all the heavy lifting and smugly deriding their efforts to explain and understand the universe by pointing out all the holes in their arguments and theologies. It is a lazy occupation methinks.

I realise that your just sticking up for old mate, but you got that arse about.

[Whateverist]

Dear Whateverist,
You may be right in saying that you know of no atheistic manual or argument that tries to account for the existence or the nature of the cosmos or for existence itself. Yes, it does seem that many atheist are satisfied in letting the theists do all the heavy lifting and smugly deriding their efforts to explain and understand the universe by pointing out all the holes in their arguments and theologies. It is a lazy occupation methinks. Why don't you sweat with me a bit and try to argue a position that claims no Prime Mover is necessary for explaining the existence of the universe? In other words, tell me why I should abandon Aristotle's seminal argument which attempts to deal with the fundamental question of the existence of the universe. You do know that Aristotle regarded Thales extremely highly and that Thales was one of the first people to attempt to explain the world and the cosmos without relying on mythology, do you not? We are in august company thinking alongside these great minds of the past. Let us not dismiss them out of hubris due to our lucky position in time that gives us a higher vantage point from which to gaze back on their mighty efforts. Better to put yourself in their shoes and work from there to argue against their non-religious theistic position.

My Dear Metalogos,

I'd be delighted to have a serious conversation with you about origins. But I've already stated my objections to simply putting a god-patch at the beginning of time, and you haven't responded to what I said. If you can't say anything that will assure me that you even comprehend what I've already said, let alone address it, that does not bode well for a productive discussion. So I believe the ball is still in your court.

As for mentioning Aristotle, you should know that I have no use for appeals to authority. I've read a bit of Aristotle -albeit not with a focus on origins. If you think he said anything relevant by all means say what that has led you to think. But I don't want to discuss Aristotle if we are interested in origins. What you think and why you think it will have to stand or fall on its own merits if you and I are to discuss this. (Same goes for me naturally.)

Godlessly yours,

Whateverist

[archangle]

I think in finding oneself, one can find God.

I thinks that is one of the most important steps.

[Whateverist]

Yes, it does seem that many atheist are satisfied in letting the theists do all the heavy lifting and smugly deriding their efforts to explain and understand the universe by pointing out all the holes in their arguments and theologies.

I wouldn't be so proud of the 'work' you do. Cherry picking respected authors, misapplying what they say and twisting logic may be hard work but they're hardly honorable.

It is a lazy occupation methinks. Why don't you sweat with me a bit and try to argue a position that claims no Prime Mover is necessary for explaining the existence of the universe? In other words, tell me why I should abandon Aristotle's seminal argument which attempts to deal with the fundamental question of the existence of the universe.

First I would not start by assuming a true accounting of the origins of the universe is a straightforward task that should yield to a little sweat. You seem way too much satisfied to use God as a solution where the rest of us see only a crutch. Magical creator beings don't explain anything. But invoking them is evidence the problem was too much for you.

[Metalogos]

Yes, it does seem that many atheist are satisfied in letting the theists do all the heavy lifting and smugly deriding their efforts to explain and understand the universe by pointing out all the holes in their arguments and theologies.

I wouldn't be so proud of the 'work' you do. Cherry picking respected authors, misapplying what they say and twisting logic may be hard work but they're hardly honorable.

It is a lazy occupation methinks. Why don't you sweat with me a bit and try to argue a position that claims no Prime Mover is necessary for explaining the existence of the universe? In other words, tell me why I should abandon Aristotle's seminal argument which attempts to deal with the fundamental question of the existence of the universe.

First I would not start by assuming a true accounting of the origins of the universe is a straightforward task that should yield to a little sweat. You seem way too much satisfied to use God as a solution where the rest of us see only a crutch. Magical creator beings don't explain anything. But invoking them is evidence the problem was too much for you.

Dear W,

Thank you for your ernest reply and I will disregard the later comments you added surmising that you perhaps thought I had fled the field and therefore felt compelled to toss a few pebbles at a retreating coward. I might have done the same. I apologize for keeping you waiting for my reply. We are on different time zones, probably 14 to 17 hours different.

First then to address your concern and objection to a "god patch" explanation for the ultimate origin of the universe, I equally would object to such a device and so I do not offer it. Second, I do not claim to have irrefutable evidence for a deistic origin for the universe. Third, I agree with you that a "true accounting" for the origin of the universe is not something that can be accomplished with sweat, be it a little or a lot.

I'm certain that I will fail completely to give any type of 'true' accounting for the origin but that doesn't paralyze my imagination nor dim my curiosity when contemplating the question of existence and the origin of existence. I mentioned the name of Aristotle and his admired predecessor, Thales, only because these two ancient philosophers endeavored mightily to offer an explanation for existence that did not rely on mythology, i.e., the 'god patch' easy answer that all their contemporaries and predecessors had done. They worked very hard (thus the analogy of sweat) to understand the world around them through detailed observation and critical thinking. Thales is considered the father of mathematics and Aristotle, the father of science. I admire, therefore, these men for their independent, courageous, and unconventional thinking and the efforts that they made to convey to the world the fruits of their endeavors. I did not mean to simply drop their names and expect you or anyone else to bow down before them in submission to any kind of authority they may be perceived as having. I mentioned them because you and I owe in large part our present mindsets to their pioneering geniuses.
That said, you challenged me to say what reading Aristotle has led me to think and so I will but please allow me to do that on another day. This one needs to come to an end shortly. Goodnight!