If I were an Atheist

[Mister Agenda]

Hi Salesman,

Thanks for providing a definition...

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Agree or disagree are there are many phenomena currently beyond scientific understanding true?

Agree.

If so until such time as scientists understand such phenomena they are supernatural correct?

No. Has it occurred to you that if your conclusion is stupid, the process you used to reach it might be stupid as well? Though I prefer 'stupidity' as an explanation over 'cupidity', since you inserted the idea that it's what science currently does not understand that is supernatural, it's hard to see how you can be unaware of the dishonesty in which you're engaging.

If the universe was caused to exist that cause couldn't be the very laws of nature that were caused to exist.

The universe is a specific space time continuum. That natural laws of the meta-universe in which it arose may be identical or similar to the natural laws of the universe can't be ruled out. After all, you've recognized that it is hypothetically possible to create a universe by artifical means. It's also hypothetically possible for our universe to generate other universes by natural means. It could be universes like ours all the way out.

If it sprang into existence out of nothing uncaused again that would be out of scope for scientists to explain.

Hardly. There's a cosmological origin scenario that posits that and explains it quite nicely. Unless you're talking about the sort of 'philosophical nothingness' which we have no reason to even think is possible.

Therefore by this definition the existence of the universe is a phenomena beyond scientific explanation and can't be understood by an appeal to the laws of nature.

To fit the definition as it was given to you before you changed it by adding the idea that only current understanding was meant, it would have to be beyond even hypothetical scientific understanding.

My personal definition (for what its worth) is the supernatural is what can't possibly happen unless it turns out it can happen and then it becomes 'natural'.

In other words, the supernatural is the natural that has not been understood as yet. And for some reason, you're acting like you think that's what Salesman meant as well.

For example two hundred years ago, the idea I could speak to someone in Europe in live time would be a supernatural feat to them. Now since we can do it, its perfectly natural.

So in your mind, things that are actually supernatural become actually natural once they're understood, rather than them having been misunderstood nature all along. Of what use is your version as a definition?

Wouldn't mindless forces that poof a universe into existence be a good example also?

If there weren't plenty of examples of mindless forces leading to complexity, and especially of the mindless (but possessed of some brute and wasteful intelligence in the form of an algorithm) process of evolution which led to us, then you might have a point about positing mindless forces as no more supported than proposing a disembodied mind that created the universe. You speak of mindless forces producing intellligence as though the idea is ridiculous when it's far from it. All the available evidence points to it.

Have scientists reached an understanding of how the human mind exists?

They've certainly reached an understanding of from where it comes.

If we really are autonomous free will agents who can volitionally do things does that fall under the purview of the laws of nature?

How could we not? Of what law of nature do you think you're in violation?

What law does that follow under?

High intelligence and self-awareness having value for reproductive success in humans.

[abaris]

This underscores the real problem and why atheism isn't growing in numbers by leaps and bounds. Atheists don't like the belief we owe our existence to a Creator or a supernatural cause but they really have no alternate explanation that isn't itself supernatural so they spend most of their time mocking, ridiculing and bashing theism while having no plausible alternative that accounts for the existence of the universe or why it would produce sentient life.

As I said on the second page if I'm not mistaken. You're talking about the US. Things look very different in Europe if you bothered to inform yourself. Not that I personally give a shit one way or the other. It's my life and I'm not a member of a cult or gathering but simply a person who doesn't believe in any form of sky daddy. I don't need a spiritual crutch to explain things that haven't been explained so far, since I'm not a stone age man looking up at the sun to see god.

Also I notice that you didn't give the fact that humans aren't the only ones with working minds any consideration. Cognitive science has gone far within the last decade. And their finding are certainly much more interesting an awe inspiring than any old book.

[Mister Agenda]

Whether there is a difference depends on whether the person who states there is no God is making a fact claim or just stating an opinion. If an opinion built into that is the possibility they are wrong and God may in fact exist. If you claim not to believe in the existence of God it would be presumably because you don't believe God exists. I'm pretty confident no one claims to not believe in God yet thinks God does exist.

You are wilfully misrepresenting the position of others to further your argument.

You have changed our "we don't believe in god" to "we believe god does not exist".

This is attempting to shift the burden of proof and thinking we won't notice.

I've explained previously the difference in the positions but I see you have decided to ignore mine and everyone elses attempts to set you right.

You aren't here for a debate or discussion but to further your agenda for your own gratification.

And relax.

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10

Better now.

One of the funny things about this entire conversation is the Drew himself won't flatly assert that God DOES exist, but he, for some reason that couldn't possibly be how convenient it would be for his argument, thinks we ought to flatly assert that God does not exist, else we're no true atheists. And he never explains why we should be held to a different standard than he is willing to apply to himself.

[Mister Agenda]

The Reality Salesman,

This is the definition you provided...

Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

Agree or disagree are there are many phenomena currently beyond scientific understanding true?
If there are, I do not know anything about them and neither do you.

Pretty sure of yourself aren't you? I can name two without even bothering to research.

There is a phenomenon known as the singularity in which according to scientists (not theists or religious zealots) the laws of physics as we know them break down or are not applicable. This phenomenon is associated with black holes and the big bang.

Another phenomena is known as Quantum entanglement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently—instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.

Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc. performed on entangled particles are found to be appropriately correlated. For example, if a pair of particles is generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, then the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise. Because of the nature of quantum measurement, however, this behavior gives rise to effects that can appear paradoxical: any measurement of a property of a particle can be seen as acting on that particle (e.g. by collapsing a number of superposed states); and in the case of entangled particles, such action must be on the entangled system as a whole. It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair "knows" what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.

I have a feeling a redefinition of supernatural is coming down the pike...

I have a feeling you're not even aware how you not knowing which of those two scenarios is actually the case or whether it is some other scenario that is actually the case applies to the Salesman's statement.

Okay I'll play. Lets hypothesize the universe is an uncaused phenomena. Is it a natural phenomena for things to come into existence uncaused?

It certainly seems to be. The only examples we have of something coming to exist are virtual particles, and they come into existence causelessly.

Is it scientifically explicable by appealing to known laws of physics?

Yes, their existence is tied to the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle. It is impossible to know both the position and velocity of a fundamental particle. The position and velocity of a nonexistant particle is (0,0). Since it is truly indeterminate for both velocity and position to be known, virtual particles must come into existence. That is the (very dumbed down) explanation for why the phenomenon occurs, however it is not a 'cause'.

I suspect you don't actually believe the universe came into existence uncaused either.

Well, impugning the motives of others is kind of your MO. I suspect because you're well aware of your own lack of integrity in argumentation, you tend to assume the same of others.

If the honest thing to say is I don't know then when I say is theism true you should respond I don't know.

When did you say 'is theism true?'

In which case atheism isn't an opinion God didn't cause the universe it can only be I don't know if God caused the universe to exist.

Atheism is not a knowledge position at all, as you've been told over and over. It is a belief position. We don't believe God actually exists. We also don't know if God caused the universe to exist. We DO know that there are alternate naturalistic explanations, so it's hardly like the possibilities are limited to God or nothing.

Is that your position?

I'm beginning to think you're physically incapable of comprehending our position, which is we don't believe any god or God actually exists.

You'd also have to say you don't know if supernatural phenomena occurs.

We DON'T know if supernatural phenomena occur. Have you got an example of a supernatural phenomenon occurring? If not, why do you believe in them?

But in spite of your profession of ignorance, you don't say I don't know if supernatural phenomena occurs and I don't know if an entity known as God exists and if God caused (created) the universe.

Sure we do, at least the majority of us do. There's just something wrong with your brain that apparently prevents you from recalling that simple fact.

I said as much that human minds (at this time) are only capable of producing virtual universes.

With computers that are the result of decades of innovation. Do you believe someone created our universe with a computer that was the product of decades (or centuries) of other people's innovations? If not, I don't think this virtual reality scenario is very analogous to the feats of a Creator God.

The fact remains whether natural or supernatural mind can and does create universes. This means we have a working theistic model that explains the existence of virtual universes.

Are you maintaining that our universe is a virtual simulation? If you do not, how are virtual universes a theistic model? How does a natural mind being able to do something imply that supernatural mind can do the same thing, when a supernatural mind hasn't even been demonstrated to be possible? Did you mean that if there is such a thing as a supernatural mind at least equal to our own and able to manipulate the forces involved, it should be able to do all the things a natural mind can? Because I think that would be reasonable statement.

And you suggested the universe came into existence uncaused...not that I think you actually believe that either because how would we distinguish that from a magic act?

The math. Cosmologists and physicists don't hide their work, they publish it and invite anyone who can to shoot it down. The math has to be sound and it has to conform to the laws of phyics as we know them. Yet it is considered hypothetical until there is a way to falsify it and the attempts to falsify it consistently fail. It isn't much, yet, and may turn out to not be the case, but it's infinitely more than 'God did it'.

It appears your only real objection is to the notion a mind caused the universe to exist (while claiming you also don't know how the universe came to exist).

I see appeal to motive remains your go-to fallacy. I presume you understand why you're so widely considered disengenuous.

I posted 5 lines of evidence in favor of my belief in theism. The five were all based on indisputable known facts.

Judging from your notion that 'the universe exists' is evidence of that supports your belief in theism, I can only imagine your other four lines also utterly failed to actually be evidence, clues that support a particular conclusion rather than merely not contradicting your position.

True to form I told you the claim there is no evidence in favor of theism is a sacred claim of atheists. Its bogus...but sacred. Atheists will always deny there are facts in support of theism because it is foundational to their claim of atheism. It is the first commandment of atheism.

You're such a petty little ass. Atheists who are rational skeptics will always deny there are facts in support of theism because as yet no one has actually come up with any. That you're too dense to understand why you're wrong and why your 'evidence' isn't actually evidence is completely consistent with the behavior you've demonstrated here thus far. For the record though, I don't think you're stupid. That's quite an effective set of blinders you're wearing, though.

1. There shalt be no evidence in favor of theism! Amen.

I on the other hand don't deny there is evidence (facts) that favor atheism. I listed them in the OP...

The 'evidence' and 'facts' you presented for a Creator God being real don't share much with what you presented for atheism, which can be summarized as: no good reason to think a Creator God is real. You said that if an atheist, you would argue from those facts that God doesn't exist, However, those facts are not a good basis for an argument for God's nonexistence. They ARE however, a good basis for an argument that belief in God is not rationally justified, and since we are largely rational skeptics, THAT is our actual position.

This underscores the real problem and why atheism isn't growing in numbers by leaps and bounds.

In America, 1% of the population to 5% of the population from 2007 to 2012. That's a five-fold increase. Pardon me if I doubt you've got advice for us that would improve on that.

Atheists don't like the belief we owe our existence to a Creator or a supernatural cause but they really have no alternate explanation that isn't itself supernatural so they spend most of their time mocking, ridiculing and bashing theism while having no plausible alternative that accounts for the existence of the universe or why it would produce sentient life.

The above run-on sentence is a good illustration of why discussion with you is futile, but since I write for the undecided audience, thank you for your support. If I were an 'evangelistic atheist' I would try to find some way to reward you for your frequent appeals to motive. There's nothing that says 'I got nuthin' like whining about how mean and unreasonable the other side is instead of showing it.

[Drew_2013]

Mr Agenda,

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.

First I didn't inject supernatural into the discussion Salesman did. I believe it is a term used to describe something that can't happen unless it does happen in which case we move the goalposts and call it natural. I'll give an example not that it matters 200 years ago the notion of time dilation would be classified a supernatural event. But since we discovered time dilation occurs its natural.

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.

I didn't inject supernatural, disembodied mind, or anything about worship or religion into this discussion.

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

The point is mind can create virtual universe. I guess this is the best you do.

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?

It would mean the universe was created by a sentient being and the theistic model in that case would be correct.

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

You mean like injecting supernatural, disembodied mind and worship into the discussion?

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

I'm not going to engage in empty speculation. In the thread the case for theism I laid out facts that support the contention our universe is designed. Why don't you make a case for why you believe mindless lifeless forces without plan or intent wound up creating a universe in which life and sentience occurred? Then undecided folks can read our respective cases and make up their own minds.

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.

Saleman was implying that because up to this point the universe and all in it can be explained by an appeal to natural causes that is evidence the cause of the universe is natural (No God or Creator necessary). I refuted that by pointing out things known to be created by mind (Note I never injected disembodied in to the conversation) can also be explained by the laws of physics. Therefore it offers no such evidence.

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?
[quote]
Because all the available physical evidence points in that direction.

Such as? Make your case...

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.

I didn't know that asserting your belief is a substitute for evidence. Again I didn't use the word supernatural its just a canard. Do you know how natural forces came into existence? Did they always exist? Were they caused or uncaused? There must have been some significant scientific breakthroughs since I last wrote in here. Would you share them please? I'd like to be informed. You already know the answer to the question we've been debating I guess your playing coy.

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.

That assumes the Creator is omnipotent. I haven't argued such you're still injecting theology into this discussion. Whether omnipotent or not, a Creator isn't compelled to create a universe in which people can exist in the sun. On the other hand there is nothing to compel mechanistic forces to exist in the first place let alone without plan or intent cause a universe that causes life and mind to exist.



Drew_2013 Wrote: For instance we could shoehorn the belief that mindless forces always existed or poofed into existence uncaused out of nothing kind of like magic and point to the existence of the universe that is what happened. The reason we could shoehorn these possible explanations is because the existence of the universe does demand some explanation and one of those three explanations is probably right.

1. The universe was intentionally caused and designed by a personal agent or Creator commonly referred to as God.
2. Mindless forces always existed in some form or another and over time (even if time didn't always exist) became the universe we now observe.
3. Mindless forces materialized out of nothing uncaused and turned into the universe we now observe.

We could shoehorn them all in because 'universe exists' supports each of them equally.

Excellent. Then all three possible explanations can site the existence of the universe as evidence. I suspect most of your fellow atheists would deny all three of them are equally supported by the existence of the universe especially the first one.

One of the most common arguments offered by atheists to justify their non-belief is the notion there is no evidence, not a shred, not a smidgen not one iota that a Creator (God) exists. I would say this is a foundational sacrosanct doctrine of atheism.

Because you can't make it three posts without saying something about atheism that isn't true?

I'd be happy to be corrected point me to some atheists who agree there is evidence in favor of theism.

That is absolutely NOT what evidence is. Mere comportment with belief is the minimum one would expect from reality for the belief to not be proven false, but multiple exclusive beliefs can be in comportment with reality as it is known thus far. To be evidence, something must support a particular conclusion and NOT other, mutually exclusive conclusions, equally.

Whether facts presented favor one explanation over another is in the eye of the beholder or the trier of facts. The fact of the existence of the universe alone leaves the other explanations just as viable. A circumstantial case is made of several facts which then corroborate one another. I have offered 4 other facts in addition to the existence of the universe which support the theistic hypothesis.

That support a PARTICULAR conclusion. If the same 'evidence' can be used to back other mutually exclusive conclusions equally, it is not actually evidence at all.

You're still confusing evidence with proof. Even if some conclusion is shown to be false the facts that comport with the false conclusion don't become non-evidence. We know the earth is round because a tremendous preponderance of evidence overwhelms the belief the earth is flat. That doesn't negate the fact that from my window the earth looks flat. That is still evidence in favor of that belief. Its just wrong but it doesn't become non-evidence. If what you say is true...are you now going to say the existence of the universe is not evidence

2. Mindless forces always existed in some form or another and over time (even if time didn't always exist) became the universe we now observe.
3. Mindless forces materialized out of nothing uncaused and turned into the universe we now observe

that either of those possibilities is true?

Yep. If you had something that supported the conclusion that there is a Creator God and did not equally support any other conclusion, that would be evidence in favor of the conclusion that a Creator God is real. If substantiated, it would become global news, especially in theological circles.

I have already cited 4 other lines of evidence that impartial unbiased folks can decide for themselves who made the better case.

2. The existence of life.
3. The existence of intelligent life
4. The fact the laws of physics exist, that they are knowable uniform and explicable by formulas and math.
5. The fact the laws of physics are in an extremely narrow band that not only allow but caused the existence of stars, galaxies, solar systems planets and the aforementioned life.

Of course its in the eye of the beholder but these last four lines of evidence support the Creator God hypothesis over the

2. Mindless forces always existed in some form or another and over time (even if time didn't always exist) became the universe we now observe.
3. Mindless forces materialized out of nothing uncaused and turned into the universe we now observe

hypotheses.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Terebulus is the supreme creator. Terebulus is not a mind nor is Terebulus Not-a-mind. Terebulus is all that is. If a mind created the universe then that mind was a product of Terebulus. Terebulus is moving and unmoveable. Logic fails to describe Terebulus and it is exactly for that reason that we can identify both truth and not truth. All that can be said of It is that It is logical and illogical and all that which is logical is a property of Terebulus but logic is no more Terebulus than circle is shape, or blue is color.

[Mister Agenda]

No, Fizbinali is the supreme creator. He's a hairy, smelly lump of a man who works at a super-collider in the 'over-verse'. He sat on the button that initiated the creation of our universe. He fits Drew's description of a Creator God, since Drew is VERY careful not to assign his Creator God with any attributes that would differentiate him from the dishonorable Mr. Fizbinali. Please don't be heretical, sir.

[Brian37]

The existence of life is your "evidence"? Ok then the existence of lightening is evidence of Thor. The existence of hurricanes is evidence of Poseidon. FYI all religions use life as their evidence. If you think you are the only one who makes this argument you would be wrong.

Life is evidence of evolution. Having a god claim is merely evidence of human wishful thinking.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Fizbinali? This does not fit my presupposition. My gut tells me I must still be right then. On the other hand, Terebulus and Fitzbinali have still not been refuted yet, so they must both be equally viable and likely explanations. Perhaps Drew can shed some light here...

[downbeatplumb]

First I didn't inject supernatural into the discussion Salesman did. I believe it is a term used to describe something that can't happen unless it does happen in which case we move the goalposts and call it natural. I'll give an example not that it matters 200 years ago the notion of time dilation would be classified a supernatural event. But since we discovered time dilation occurs its natural.

No it wouldn't.

It would have been a an unproven hypothesis.
Supernatural claims are something else entirely.