Also, this is an atheist-only posting area.

Of course I don't agree. Something doesn't exist simply because we don't understand our existence.

I think an even better question is if sin, pain, and misery exists, wouldn't it make more sense that an all-loving God doesn't exist? Without supplementing bullshit excuses for human suffering like "it's God's plan," or "some stupid fucks named Adam and Eve bit a piece of fruit which they shouldn't have, so we're all destined to fail."

If a God DID exist, I think it's most definitely certain he doesn't give a FUCK about you, nor any other religious fanatics.

Nice to see you agree, rising sun

 

I asked this question about an intelligence guiding the universe versus a god pulling strings because there is a major difference in these two ideologies.  Just because I don't believe in a personal god doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility of a first cause which you can call god if you want to.  Maybe using the word god, regardless of the context in which the word is being used, will be enough to have people accusing me of being a theist.  If I am in the wrong place, I hope the moderators will tell me what category I should post in. 

I agree that it is hard to understand a loving god that would cause such suffering in the world.  My take on Adam and Eve is that the fruit that was eaten was a symbol for the collective errors we, as humans, have made that has led us to the suffering we are now experiencing.  I don't take this story literally but I do believe we can gain something from it if we look at it as a signpost of what lies ahead.  I just read The Voice of Knowledge which is the Toltec explanation of what the eating of the apple means.  It's worth reading.

Even if there was a "first cause" why should we assume that it's intelligent? Even if we assumed that it's intelligent why should we assume that it still exists? Even if it still exists why should we assume that it knows about us? Even if it knows about us why should we assume that it has any bearing on how we live our lives? If we're going to make assumptions why shouldn't we make assumptions that are in accord with our observations of the world?

What we know about the world from observation is that all previously unexplained phenomena, upon explanation, turn out to be governed by simple physical rules rather than intelligent direction. Given this pattern, it's reasonable to assume (pending evidence to the contrary) that the universe was not created by an infinitely powerful intelligent entity and is simply the outcome of undirected physical processes like everything else we've examined so far.

Theists are not supposed to post in this section.

 
Well, it's such a game, called rationality. It is a bit like hide-and-seek. That means, when we can't see something, we must keep with the rules and NOT start to believe, that it exists. Many people use extended rules they don't believe in something, until a lot of people sees it. And finally we here have also some hardcore players, who don't believe in something, until the scientific authorities saw it and admitted on a press conference, that they saw it.


 

 GTFO my freethinking anonymous.

Theists, please continue the thread elsewhere..? Not here at least. I'll go make a thread just for you in the atheist vs theist section. Kay?

I am not referring to an entity that thinks like us, and therefore has human qualities such as concern.  Nor do I think that my belief in an intelligent force has a direct bearing on how I live my life, although it does give me some sort of comfort.

I am in total agreement with you that all unexplained phenomena have a scientific explanation.  What I am trying to get you to see is that even physical rules come from somewhere, and it is this 'somewhere' that I refer to as god.   I don't believe that we are simply the outcome of undirected physical processes.  I believe that these physical processes have absolute direction, even though our observations tell us otherwise.  I guess this direction is what the religious folks call God's plan.

Please, continue this at http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17903

I can see how the bible could have been used to rationalize all kinds of horrific acts, all in the name of religion.  This is still going on today whether it's people misusing the bible, the quoran, the Torah, or any other religious book that purports to be reflecting god's word.

 i actually DO agree with you. Everyone talks about evidence, but our evidence only goes back so far. I understand your question. And I think it is arrogant to discard that possibility. Lets assume the big bang did happen ( I really don't know that much about it) we can simply ask what was before it, and before that. This is why I do not call myself an atheist. Like Bill Maher said in religilous, Atheism mirrors the same certainty as any other religion. We could talk about evidence all day long, but when it comes down to it we only know so much. 

 First off i'm not theistic and my post was not intended to be. My point was that our evidence that we have can only go so far, so anything can be possible. When I think of the big bang, or what I know of it, I just always wonder what was before that, and then I think what was before that and it blows my mind!!!! There is so much we don't know and it is baffleing to me. No I don't know that much about the big bang, I only dumped my religious beliefs about 6 months ago, so I am still learning. But when you say that something is not possible just because we don't have evidence of it, then it is arrogant. When I was a christian I was watching one of Ray Comfort's open air preaching sessions and he said that if we know 1% of everything there is to know in the known universe that leaves 99% of unkown territory. I'm no longer religious but I think about that. It is mind blowing!! 

NO, no, No and NO.

 I'm aware you're not theistic, I simply said I was surprised that you had taken a position that is usually only held by theists. 

Here's an excerpt from the introductory paragraph to the theory on Wikipedia:

"The Big Bang is a cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the universe. It is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day."

I added the underline. Therein lies my problem with your post. 

I get the shock and awe thing, when I think about just how insignificant we are in the picture of even our galaxy, let alone our universe, I feel very humbled. But Ray Comfort also says that bananas are proof of Creationism so...

No it's not, actually, it's sensible. We have no evidence that the universe was created. We have no evidence that a universal consciousness permeates our being, all we have is speculation. So to base an entire worldview on that and then start converting people to your worldview based on that speculation is immensely more arrogant, don't you think? I'm not saying anything is impossible, I'm saying it is highly, highly improbable. Why waste time on hypotheses we can't ever prove when we can find scientific answers that are perfectly satisfactory?

 I agree with both of you actually. I understand fully what you are saying. Why even go in that direction when there is no reason to. I have just recently dumped my religion and it is great bc now I have a whole world of knowledge that I am free to dive into. ( I just bought Darwins "Origin of Species".) But it was only a thought. Maybe as we progress we will get evidence of some type of intelligent designer, ( please don't assume I am refering to anything remotely close to the biblical god.) Just keeping my mind open while learning the facts as well.  Thanks for the input. 

 

latersss

 

Admittedly, I didn't read through all the other posts carefully like I normally do.  I'm just going to give you the same response I give deists.

 

It is unnecessary.  It causes unnecessary vagueness and muddles the answers to many questions we ask.

 

Picture this.  I have two theories about gravity.  One is the the ideas put forth by Einstein.  The other is the ideas put forth by Einstein plus "because angels do it."  Hey, we have no evidence that angels don't do it.

The problem is that the angels are unnecessary.  We don't need them.  Einstein's theory works without them, so why throw in more assumptions if we don't get anything out of it.  Maybe there's no evidence against a creative force that lies beyond our immediate understanding, but just because it's possible doesn't mean its useful.  Believing in such a force will do nothing to help further our collective knowledge, and may actually deter it.  We may waste time and money with paranormal research or some such silliness, instead of doing real science.

This is of course wrapped up in the problem of falsifiability.  Your hypothesis of this creative force lacks the predictive power that would allow us to test it.  They key is to come up with a prediction in which the universe + creative force acts differently than the universe alone, and then test that prediction.  If you can do this, you can determine which hypothesis is correct.  If you can't, then the creative force hypothesis is an unecessary complication that lacks predictive power and is thus useless.

 

The basic idea is that maybe we can't prove that your hypothesis is wrong.  However, we have shown that it might as well be wrong.  The universe works as if it was wrong, even though it might be right.  Thus, let's just work under the assumption that it's wrong in order to simplify things.

... which is why we resort to better methods ...like science.

So nobody twigged to that joke?

OK, then we do it this way:

Actually though, I am just testing something for Hamby.

LOLOLOLOL

Sad but true...