The Atheist revolution. Perhaps not as logical as first thought?

So Glad

Lately, there has been a HUGE influx of Atheism & Agnosticism around the world. People more than ever are using their heads to convince others that, In Dawkins' words, "God is a delusion". It would seem logical to arrive at that conclusion, once one is certain that one has no importance in the universe, and our mind is a device of trickery and treason (and on that thought, the same mind that tricks itself that God exists, can also convince itself that God doesn't exist, more trickery perhaps?). Although I am not saying that Atheists are themselves deluded, I am asking them to have a closer look, and not to hear half-arsed arguments from crazy American, fundamentalist, evangelic Christians with no brains and take it for the only argument.

I believe in God. Not a Christian God, nor a Islamic God, nor a Hindu God. I believe in the existence of one God nameless but unto the universe that it is (I can God "it" because no one can really say). What does it matter which flag or name God comes over? Call him Jim if you want, it's the same thing. I think that God is the expanse with which our universe is made of. The scientific laws that hold it together, the mathematical constants that organize the universe so symmetrically and purposely that for all of this to be a convenient string of billions upon billions of sub-atomic cosmic accidents seems to me, crazy. God is also consciousness for it is amazing for me to sit here knowingly at a computer and discuss everything around me. How does an "accidentally formed" universe with no consciousness produce creatures that are fully conscious enough to dictate their surroundings?

Richard Dawkins in my opinion, is a smart man. He is one of the many great, intelligent, free thinking people out there that will help man establish peace among themselves. But, I feel that he makes a lot of his "no God" conclusions based on the activities that human beings have done in the name of God, and there is no doubting the violence a debauchery that man has committed to itself in the name of a so called, "loving" God.

I've no doubt that most Atheists have seen the film "Jesus Camp"? That film is probably the most barbaric religiously orientated film I have ever seen. I couldn't stop feeling sorry for the kids. For Christ sake, they had the children on their knees crying their eyes out repenting their sins...surely an all forgiving & loving God would forgive a child, no matter how many times they missed church? For these reasons, Dawkins is in every right to slam religion as being the root of all evil, but nobody should think God doesn't exist because of this.

If you asked an Atheist scientist "What is energy?" he would reply "It has always been, always will be. Can never be destroyed nor created from nothing. Is everywhere all at once.". If you asked a God worshiping person from any religious sect what God is, he/she would most likely reply "God has always been, always will be. Can never be destroyed nor created from nothing. Is everywhere all at once.". Thus, I think that God is the infinite field of energy that everything solid, liquid & gas is composed of. The same energy that creates our consciousness. Maybe we are putting forks in the same road again? Are we talking about the same thing, or is it just because we name it differently we don't want to recognize them as the same thing, even though, they are.

The main steak in the heart of every God worshiper employed by the Atheist (or Agnostic) is the "If God created the universe, who created God" thing. Well, thats a tricky one. But I'd say we are not at the specific point in our evolution to even consider the workings of a supreme being, or what goes on beyond our limited 5 sense reality. Does that mean we should opt for the Big Bang accidental theory, simply because we cannot conceive such possibilities? Let us consider the Big Bang as what actually happened, and take it as a big mathematically perfect sub-atomic accident. What created the Big Bang, and what was the catalyst for that? What sparked the Catalyst? Etc.

To say the universe is accidental is pretty profound, in my opinion. If you were to study the mathematical constants that form our universe into handy, symmetrical, entropic solar systems and also the workings of the sub-atomic world of quantum physics, you would understand that the universe works quite knowingly. Did you know, that any two (or more) atoms can instantaneously (yes, instantaneously) converse with each other and move each other? How could this be? If the universe is an accident?

Another point made to prove God doesn't exist is "How come there is pain in the world? Why would any God inflict pain among its own creation?" and the simple answer for that is, it's not God's fault, it's your fault. How do you expect a person who dwells in fear and negativity to feel happy? Why does he/she feel done upon by God? This is your world for the making. To be happy, be happy. If you think sad, you become it. It's the big sand-pit of life, you'll reap what you sew. Sure, people get maliciously injured for apparently no reason, but it's just another case of man's inhumanity to man. Wrong place wrong time.

Anyways, I hope I've proved some point. I'm sick of writing!

Thanks,

Dav.

To say the universe is accidental is pretty profound, in my opinion. If you were to study the mathematical constants that form our universe into handy, symmetrical, entropic solar systems and also the workings of the sub-atomic world of quantum physics, you would understand that the universe works quite knowingly. Did you know, that any two (or more) atoms can instantaneously (yes, instantaneously) converse with each other and move each other? How could this be? If the universe is an accident?

Who said it was accidental? It's here and we're studying it, end of story. That's like the whole "evolution says stuff happened by chance" thing, and I hope we're not going down that road again... And so what if it was anyway? Is there some law somewhere that said "non-created universes are always useless", or do you have some other universes to compare ours to?

As for the rest of that paragraph... I just don't even know where to start.

Ciaran500

But we can't say the creation of our universe can't be an accident and base it on the scientific laws of our universe. We have no idea whats outside the universe or the laws that govern that area.



Also I always laugh when someone says that the idea of a randomly formed universe that resulted in us is incomprehensible or crazy to them but a supreme being is perfectly logical and understandable.

Crucifix

You've dressed it up nicely, but you're still falling for the old fallacy that because we don't understand something it must have been God.

So Glad

Crucifix wrote:

You've dressed it up nicely, but you're still falling for the old fallacy that because we don't understand something it must have been God.

Nope, I meant both of us don't know. As far as we know, I am wrong and so are the atheists, I'm just trying to prove a point.

We are not able to to say what exists outside our 5 sense reality because we have no way of perceiving it, except by theory I suppose.

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

As for the rest of that paragraph... I just don't even know where to start.

Well make a start because I'm not sure if you know that atoms can converse in such a manner.

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

Well make a start because I'm not sure if you know that atoms can converse in such a manner.

I'm not sure if you're talking about simple basic interactions, if you're talking about the peculiarities of quantum info and complementarity, hell even creation and annihilation. Seriously, what are you on about? And why do any of these properties lead you to the conclusion of "i dont know so it must be god" anyway? Why does gravity forming solar systems lead you to the same conclusion?

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

I'm not sure if you're talking about simple basic interactions, if you're talking about the peculiarities of quantum info and complementarity, hell even creation and annihilation. Seriously, what are you on about? And why do any of these properties lead you to the conclusion of "i dont know so it must be god" anyway? Why does gravity forming solar systems lead you to the same conclusion?

The whole point I am trying to make, is that God is the (now excuse the "new age" terminology but it's the only wording I can use to explain this) conscious energy field that our universe is composed of. The reason I point out that atoms can converse with each other from millions of light years away is because it proves the universe is a conscious entity like ourselves.

It's a mouthful but give it a thought.

Nature Boy

Nobody has ever said the universe or life began "accidentally"

I agree with Crucifix. We don't know where the universe and life came from, maybe some day we will, but for now, what's wrong with just admitting we just don't know? Why do we need to make something up to explain it?

Edit: Oops, a sh1te load of posts seem to have come in before I posted this! Kind of irrelevant now!

Ciaran500

So Glad wrote:

The whole point I am trying to make, is that God is the (now excuse the "new age" terminology but it's the only wording I can use to explain this) conscious energy field that our universe is composed of. The reason I point out that atoms can converse with each other from millions of light years away is because it proves the universe is a conscious entity like ourselves.

It's a mouthful but give it a thought.

When something that comes from the same source and is made of the same stuff its hardly suprising they interact with each other no matter how far away they are.

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

The reason I point out that atoms can converse with each other from millions of light years away is because it proves the universe is a conscious entity like ourselves.

Entangled particles prove consciousness?
Eh, no.


(I can communicate with you at a distance; does that make my computer "conscious"?)

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

Entangled particles prove consciousness?
Eh, no.


(I can communicate with you at a distance; does that make my computer "conscious"?)

Yes. Because of your input.

So Glad

Nature Boy wrote:

Nobody has ever said the universe or life began "accidentally"

I agree with Crucifix. We don't know where the universe and life came from, maybe some day we will, but for now, what's wrong with just admitting we just don't know? Why do we need to make something up to explain it?

Well, your wrong. Plenty of scientists and such sincerely believe that the universe is accidental.

But if you don't think the universe is accidental, you must believe that it was created with purpose? Because I don't think there is an in-between.

I agree that we shouldn't make up things to compensate for what we don't know. But what we do know is basic scientific laws that help us understand our universe and thats what I'm going on about, although I'm no clear bell of truth either. Just a thought and opinion to the popular contrary.

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

But if you don't think the universe is accidental, you must believe that it was created with purpose? Because I don't think there is an in-between.

Why? Why does it have to have been created with purpose? And why does "I don't know" still lead to your god conclusion?

Ciaran500

So Glad wrote:

Yes. Because of your input.

Definition of conscious: knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts

A computer doesn't have any of those things just cause she's interacting with it.

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

Why? Why does it have to have been created with purpose? And why does "I don't know" still lead to your god conclusion?

I say that because if it is not accidental then surely there was an intentional catalyst, no?

So Glad

Ciaran500 wrote:

Definition of conscious: knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts

A computer doesn't have any of those things just cause she's interacting with it.

The computer is inanimate, but through her conscious operating of the computer it becomes a tributary of her free will.

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

I say that because if it is not accidental then surely there was an intentional catalyst, no?

Or maybe it just happened that way.

Anyway, why can't it be accidental or unplanned?

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

The computer is inanimate, but through her conscious operating of the computer it becomes a tributary of her free will.

So operating a hammer says the same thing about the hammer.
In which case you can just extend this definition to "anything I use" which makes the original mention of consciousness meaningless...

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

Or maybe it just happened that way.

Anyway, why can't it be accidental or unplanned?

I deduct that this universe isn't accidental because an accidental or random generation rarely (the odds are astounding on this one) produces even and symmetrical designs.

Ciaran500

So Glad wrote:

it becomes a tributary of her free will.

So its not conscious, its just forwarding her free will?

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

So operating a hammer says the same thing about the hammer.
In which case you can just extend this definition to "anything I use" which makes the original mention of consciousness meaningless...

No, no. Please listen...

The inanimate object doesn't become self-knowing because a self-knowing is using it.

Think.

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

I deduct that this universe isn't accidental because an accidental or random generation rarely (the odds are astounding on this one) produces even and symmetrical designs.

How are there odds on universes existing and functioning? Do you have another universe to compare to?
Does that mean ice makes a symmetrical design on a window because god wanted it to...?

No, no. Please listen...

The inanimate object doesn't become self-knowing because a self-knowing is using it.

"I can communicate with you at a distance; does that make my computer "conscious"?"
Yes.

Make up your mind.

So Glad

Ciaran500 wrote:

So its not conscious, its just forwarding her free will?

Ditto.

Nail on head.

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

How are there odds on universes existing and functioning? Do you have another universe to compare to?
Does that mean ice makes a symmetrical design on a window because god wanted it to...?

Now, once we have erased the image of God as a person on a throne dictating orders, possibly yes. Although, as I have said, God could be the mathematical constants that form our gravity, symmetry and universal laws.

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

Make up your mind.

I don't understand.

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

Now, once we have erased the image of God as a person on a throne dictating orders, possibly yes. Although, as I have said, God could be the mathematical constants that form our gravity, symmetry and universal laws.

Why can't you just call them maths constants and leave it at that?

I don't understand.

First you say a computer is conscious, then you change your mind and tell me I'm not listening.
So which is it?

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

Why can't you just call them maths constants and leave it at that?


First you say a computer is conscious, then you change your mind and tell me I'm not listening.
So which is it?

True, I could call it Ethel for all I care, it's the same thing.

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

Why can't you just call them maths constants and leave it at that?


First you say a computer is conscious, then you change your mind and tell me I'm not listening.
So which is it?

I did not say a computer is conscious.

So Glad

So Glad wrote:

True, I could call it Ethel for all I care, it's the same thing.

So what on earth is the point?
Why do you have to introduce the idea of a god into this in the first place? seriously, if it's going to be as pointless as "I'm calling maths constants god", then I could call my shoes god. It has no meaning whatsoever.
It seems like you're trying to not be atheist just because you don't like the title or something.

I did not say a computer is conscious.

Re-read and tell me how answering "yes" to "does that make a computer conscious" is different then please.

So Glad

bluewolf wrote:

So what on earth is the point?
Why do you have to introduce the idea of a god into this in the first place? seriously, if it's going to be as pointless as "I'm calling maths constants god", then I could call my shoes god. It has no meaning whatsoever.
It seems like you're trying to not be atheist just because you don't like the title or something.


Re-read and tell me how answering "yes" to "does that make a computer conscious" is different then please.

Ah, now I understand. I was saying it was because of the persons input. I probably phrased that wrong.

My point of this thread is to point out the arguments of there being no God (or whatever) when there are so many things to point out.