A question for all Atheists

Yeah, I tend to do that.

I gathered that, I was just stating that the creationist (aka cosmological) argument was a dead duck to begin with, but ID is just a rehash of the teleological argument.

I was just thinking about Koestler's take on something similar.

If I remember, Hume had six counters to Paley. Honestly I seriously don't know how anyone could rehash the teleological argument again & keep a straight face. As I said before, ID is just a sophistical rerun of Paley's Watch. The other example, which I'm sure you're aware of, was about the complexity of the eye, & how it couldn't have originated by chance. These are all variations of the teleological argument.

Sure. It's hard to explain my perspective, but I'll try my best. As I said, I think reality (the sum of all that exists) is a self-organizing entity. I also think that the concept of "nothingness" itself only applies meaninfully in a comparative sense, not in any all-encompassingly way. "Nothingness" seems to be one way at least of how it is self-organizing.

Golgot wasn't far off from the mark, but I'll add: I do not simply believe people create reality. It is more like we individual agents are one type of representation within a pre-existing matrix of choice.

Perhaps the nature of existence is "algorithmic" in a sense, with degrees of awareness acting as a modifier.

I do think reality is basically mental in nature & stratified into degrees of specification and generalization by some sort of axiomatic exclusion/inclusion principle. "Removing" axioms reveals a unified awareness inclusive of all modes of being.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

As for what led me to believe this, the best answer I can give is it was gradual, and there were many many sources which added to it, and I've tried to refine my belief into something passably articulate over time.

Also, I had a satori event some years ago, which I feel indicated I was at least on the right path. I always try to stay open to other interpretations, and my belief in this isn't totally inflexible, but in my heart I feel I am heading in the right direction with this view of everything.

Anyways, I don't see why it should be more likely that an intrinsic mathematical nature implies the existence of any supernatural God since there are other more reasonable interpretations, such as the possibility that we live in a quantum computer simulation.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I live in a quantum computer simulation & the OS is Vista LOL!

Devil's Advocate...

Okay, so God isn't perfect.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Maybe God doesn't want to be perfect?

Yeah, that'll be it.

Sure, why not?

He/She/It doesn't exist. Deal with it.

I owe a few people in this thread replies and have been holding off until I can do justice to them all (mainly the Hume stuff, which is jumping a few steps ahead), but for the moment, this...

...is just dumb. At some point, honeykid, you need to decide if you want to actually have arguments about these things or not. But these half-measures where you're obviously not willing to have the argument, but where you still feel some compulsive need to toss out assertions and contradictions, are pretty vapid.

All I know is that a God has been around forever and we haven't. Then again, I suppose that's the argument If We created God, then God is younger than We are. The major theories about the creation of the Universe (and a Creator can be an Event or a Thing just as easily as a God), at least as far as Science says, are just as far-fetched as almost any "religion" I can think of, but I try not to think about religions and non-Gods because that tends to make me think I'm more important than I am in the "scheme of things". I know we can all love though, I hope.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I "hope" because I'm not sure. I believe that certain people, including myself, are incapable of real love.

One of my favorite modern day philosophers was Robert Anton Wilson. He did numerous lectures, but one part of one that stood out to me was where he discusses Edmund Husserl's ideas about perceptions. In a nutshell, he discusses the idea that each individual is a separate and distinct filter on the universe. As such, anything that we each perceive as reality is open to our own interpretation of it (short of what appear to be objective natural laws).

To me, in my reality, there appears to be some sort of higher order in the universe. I don't think it's what I would call an anthropomorphic 'god' (in any religious tradition) but rather a yin and yang of constructive and destructive forces. I think most religions are made up of myths that attempt to explain just what these forces might be. To some, the stories are literal and to others they are parable. How one reacts to and perceives of these things is subject to how they interpret their world.

To answer the original question, all I can say is that mathematics is obviously a key piece of a larger puzzle... and I'm not sure whether theism or atheism has anything to do with it.

*Sigh* OK, I'll do this just to put it out there, though I don't really feel there's any need.

No, it's not "just dumb" it's 'the truth'. However, unlike 'the truth' of the religious, this truth actually has evidence. Not guesswork or 'because I/He says so', but actual hard evidence. Evidence which has systematically dismantled religions claims one by one. Claims that, you'll remember, were 'the truth'. 'Gospel', if you will. It's not a "half-measure", it's the whole damn ballgame, at least as far as "The God" argument and His relgions and other creation myths go.

I don't need to decide if I want to have arguments about this, because the argument is won. It's over. It no longer exists. Much like God. Actually, the argument had one over its subject, as the argument actually did exist. The 'problem' is that the 'losing' side refuses to accept that it lost and so chases each and every argument it can, relying in "ifs", "buts" and "maybes" to try and continue its purpose. Making claims that not knowing everything means that you don't know.

I'm certainly pleased that I live in a place and time where those on that side no longer require my death, either as a punishment or to 'appease' their fictional creator. However, that humanity/leniency/decency isn't the same as being right or correct

I currently see religion (and belief in God) a bit like the appendix. It's something we no longer need, we've evolved beyond it, but we've yet to rid ourselves of it. For most, it's benign, however when it goes wrong, it's deadly. Whatever side you're on, you'd be better off without it.

You don't know if God exists or not. Simple as that.

Grow up.