If I were an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

What's circular about it? Why make such a claim without any explanation? You asked me how things would be different if God didn't exist and I answered.

If only it had been a good answer.

If anything this statement is an example of circular reasoning. Its assumes the existence of the universe is a natural event. Why is that? Because the supernatural doesn't occur. Secondly how do you demarcate between what is natural and what is supernatural?

If only we had an example of something supernatural, that question might have an answer. As it is, saying 'the supernatural' created the universe is a lot like saying 'fizbinali' created the universe. It's a term without a referent to anything that can be demonstrated to actually exist. Until a 'supernatural' cause for something is discovered, 'natural' is all we've got, and it would be stupid to think a supernatural cause is finally the case when it's been natural causes all the way down up to this point.

You're right I don't have mere evidence that mind can produce a universe...I have proof. Sentient humans beings with the use of computer technology can and have produced virtual universes.

So you weren't talking about a disemboided mind acting with no technological appartatus. It's conceivable our universe is such a simulation, if that's the case, who do you worship? The person who designed the program or the person who pressed 'start universe'? And what is it that makes them worthy of your worship? I presume that if you don't consider one of these virtual universe designer people to be worthy of worship just for creating our 'virtual' universe, that you don't consider your proposed Creator worthy of worship just for creating the universe, either.

In those virtual universes in which humans are the gods they can tweak the laws of 'physics' to produce variable results. Not only do we have proof mind can create universes we know sentient humans beings are inclined to create such. Granted what human minds create are virtual universes and not what we think of as a real universe.

Plus, they need computers that are the result of generation upon generation of technological evolution.

But whose to say some day humans might not create a universe?

Conceivably, we may have already done so by accident in a super-collider. Does that make the person responsible the God of that universe? Do they have to share credit with the giants upon whose shoulders they stood? On the technicians who actually built the apparatus? Or does universe creation alone not qualify one to be considered a Creator God?

By the way you seem to be making this argument by asserting what I have concluded, in other words making an argument on my behalf then shooting it down.

If you recognize that is not exactly cricket, I hope you bear it in mind going forward.

I suspect you know exactly what kind of argument that is. My belief the universe is the product of mind comes from the characteristics of the universe not from an apriori conviction that only mind can produce universe.

What characteristics about the universe would be different if a mind did not create it? How do you know?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I assume by natural explanations you mean we can explain how something works and functions by appealing to the laws of physics. The reasoning then being that if something can be explained by natural laws no mind or supernatural agent is required. What about things we know to be designed and created by mind? Like a car or a computer.

What about them? We know them to be designed and built by (embodied) minds. That is what distinguishes them from everything else. You seem to be claiming that the quality that they have that distinguishes them from the natural world around them, their artificiality, implies that the natural world is also artificial. That conclusion not only does not follow, it blurs the line between artificial and natural to the point that each term loses its meaning.

Can there function, characteristics and properties be explained by the laws of nature?

Not without including the human beings who did the work and for whom the characteristics of the devices are useful. They would be very mysterious if discovered out in the woods 150 years ago and likely regarded as the product of supernatural forces or, perhaps, aliens. They certainly wouldn't be taken for natural objects.

Absolutely so if your premise is correct we should assume that natural mindless forces caused laptops and cars to exist unintentionally.

It is unnecessary to assume anything, since we know how they are manufactured. And their dissimilarities to natural objects are quite striking. Our (embodied) minds don't make things the way nature does.

You'll have to clarify...what is it about mindless lifeless forces that would lead you to believe if they some how came into existence they would subsequently without plan or intent or a degree in engineering create a universe with exacting laws of nature that would subsequently produce something utterly unlike itself...life and mind?

Because all the available physical evidence points in that direction. There is only one kind of universe that does NOT require a 'supernatural' explanation for our existence. The kind of universe we find ourselves in. An omnipotent being or even a virtual world designer is not limited to one kind of universe in order to have life in it. Either could have humans living in the interior of suns if they so desired. The parameters of the universe being conducive to life is not a consideration at all for an omnipotent creator.

If you said obviously I think that did happen I could understand that because you don't think a personal agent is responsible.

I used to think a personal agent was responsible. Plausible natural alternatives render such an agent unneccessary. That doesn't mean a creator wasn't involved, just that there is no evidence one actually was. Learning a bit about cosmology was one of the factors in my coming to lose belief in a creator, it was not a presumption with which I started.

I can't however fathom why someone would think that if lifeless mindless forces somehow came into existence it wouldn't be surprising at all and in fact you'd expect such forces to create life and mind...

I can't think of a rational reason to hold to a creator whose existence is unexplained and unexplainable to explain existence. I suppose if I did, I would still hold that belief. 'Why is there a God that created exactly the universe in which we find ourselves?' is a far greater mystery than 'why is there a universe?'.

No because I don't merely lack belief in Santa I firmly disbelieve.

Then, according to your own standards, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that Santa does not exist.

There is nothing unreasonable for atheists to opine God doesn't exist and as I pointed out in the original post, there is evidence in support of that opinion. However as I have pointed out its not unreasonable to believe the universe and our existence was caused by a Creator and I have offered evidence in support of that belief.

If it actually was reasonable to believe in a Creator, it wouldn't require any faith to do so, would it?

I don't attempt to disparage atheism by claiming they have no evidence in support of their belief and that they're just as liable to believe in santa claus and fairies as believe in the idea we owe our existence to non-God forces.

However, you are happy to disparage atheists in other ways.

I believe there is sufficient evidence in favor of theism over competing explanations but insufficient to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

You appear to have a gift for understatement.

I'm not suggesting the approach should be abandoned.

One of the most reasonable statements you've made.

---

Maybe quote the post where you believe you wronged him instead of speaking for other.

Are you quite happy to bully him and pick on him because he's a theist?

If you think that is the reason he's been getting flak, you haven't been paying attention at all.

---

Snakeoil

You claim you were making a joke. So, does that mean you finally recognize there is a difference between claiming there is no gawd and claiming not to believe in one? So far, I've seen no evidence that you understand the point.

Still not sure what you mean by gawd...is that just a disparaging way you spell it or do you mean something else.

A disparaging way to spell it. I think it is intended to mock some people's pronunciation of the name 'God'. I find it a little bit annoying myself, mainly just because I like words to be spelled (and capitalized) correctly and my mockery a little more high-brow.

---

This is from another post but I haven't addressed it because we really need to define supernatural first. You say the default position is what we see is entirely natural. At best that is a tautology.

Tautologies have the property of being true if any part of them is true. Saying something is a tautology isn't an argument against the tautology being true, only that the tautology basically says the same thing twice.

We define natural (in this case) by everything we have observed so far.

By everything we have observed so far being natural.

And note that you say mindless forces...whether natural or not. I suspect then you mean you believe the universe wasn't created by mind whether natural or supernatural.

The universe doesn't seem to require a mind as its explanation.

If so then supernatural mind is just a red herring.

Only if you're not proposing a supernatural mind as the Creator. If you're not, you should probably stop capitalizing 'creator'. Or rather, if it's a red herring, it appears to belong to you.

In spite of having no definition suppose the universe came into existence caused by forces completely different from the laws of nature we are familiar with.

For instance, if our universe is a simulation and the laws of nature in force for the programmer are significantly different because the programmer (so far as he, she, or it knows) are the real ones.

Since those forces caused our universe to exist (in this hypothetical) and are different from the laws of physics we are familiar with and are transcendent to them...would they not be characterized as supernatural?

They might seem supernatural from our point of view, but they would just be different natural laws from ours. I think 'supernatural' as it applies to this conversation would not be something subject to different natural laws, but something not subject to any natural laws at all, or perhaps something which determines moment to moment the natural laws of its environment. A creator like a virtual reality programming team would be outside of our apparent time-space continuum, and could easily appear god-like from our perspective, but they would not actually be supernatural beings in a meaningful sense.

In a lesser sense, suppose vampires were real and could turn into bats. If a person-sized creature can transform into a bat in a matter of moments with the excess mass disappearing to who-knows-where, that would be a supernatural event because it violates our laws of physics. If the transformation were accomplished in a way that didn't violate the laws of physics or the violation itself was accomplished in a way based on the regular laws of physics, it would turn out that this transformation isn't actually supernatural after all. Similarly, if the transformation occurred in another reality where mass isn't conserved, it would be natural for that reality. If the creator is to be considered both supernatural and omnipotent, I think it can't just be following a different set of natural laws, it has to be able to violate whatever natural laws it wants.