Discussion in 'Religion' started by Quantum Quack, Apr 18, 2019.
What is responsible for all human suffering according to the logic you so highly value...?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
this whole thread is devoted to it....
fault number uno...priority...
scientific fatalism leads to a proxy God by default....
Scientific fatalism is extreme atheism
Extreme atheism leads to a proxy God by default.
A now obvious contradiction.
As rightly said an atheist can not believe in God.
But an extreme atheist of the scientific fatalist kind can apparently... by default...
or is it all an illusion.......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am guilty of skipping from p.1 to p.4 so this may have been answered, but:
Run me through how you jump directly from determinism to God?
Are you saying that, because there is something controlling us - therefore God?
Is that somehow different than other things that control us? Such as, say gravity or momentum?
The Op may be worth another read with your questions in mind.
There is no mechanism offered by fatalists that would allow the universe to control human thoughts and choices to the degree required to deny us our freewill and self determination. They rely purely on the logic of universal cause and effect apparently.
The problem with this thread, other than the obvious false premises, invalid reasoning, accusations of being an extremist, appeals to ignorance and emotion, and obvious lack of willing to address most of the criticisms of their position, is that there is actually something probably worth discussing under all the veiled and not-so-veiled insults, behind the pejorative language, and obvious agenda on display.
I.e. whether atheists actually just replace one God for another, whether they replace the God of the bible for the God of science, for example, or the universe.
Plus whether the extent to which they hold belief in this "other God" is in any way linked to the hardness and/or militancy of their atheism, for example.
At least I think that's a reasonable discussion hidden under there somewhere.
Hard to tell, to be honest.
Then your wording is incorrect. Please try to specify exactly what you mean.
So your definition of an "extreme atheist" is simply "an atheist who subscribes to fatalism"? IOW your argument is tautological.
So "proxy god" is indeed not what you meant.
Not evident from anything you've posted so far.
Post 28: For a person to believe in fatalism and predeterminism he MUST be an atheist.
Post 32: All fatalists MUST be atheists.
Twice you've posted a false claim.
Oh wait! Would that be the "god" that you have explicitly stated "isn't a god"? And also one that doesn't fit any standard definition of a god? That one?
I also don't know what extreme atheism means. There is hard atheism and militant atheism.
Self determinism is a political term about having the power to determine one's destiny.
Even if determinism were true, and it's undermined by quantum theory, that doesn't imply a God. It would still be the unfolding of events as determined by the big bang, which was a state of complete chaos.
Note that if there is a God who is omniscient, that implies determinism; God cannot change his mind, because he already knows the future. This would all just be a predetermined script that we are acting out, including an individual's atheism. So if there is a God, I have no choice but to be what I am. God makes atheists.
Some interpretations undermine determinism.
Bohm's interpretation, for example, maintains a deterministic nature.
Why does it imply determinism?
Can you walk us through the steps?
It would seem to me that whether God is omniscient or not has no bearing on how the universe operates.
It simply means he knows.
You could assume that God can only know through deterministic means but that would be begging the question.
Maybe he is atemporal, such that he has seen the universe unfold and to him all moments are the present.
That doesn't need a deterministic universe.
Knowing something is not causative to that thing.
And whether or not God can change his mind seems to me to be irrelevant to whether omniscience implies determinism.
If the universe is deterministic I'd agree.
But whether the universe is deterministic or not does not depend on whether there is a God, nor whether that God is omniscient, at least as far as I can tell.
Why would a mechanism need to be offered if we don't need to "allow" control?
Why would one assume a default state of free will, such that it needs an explanation as to why it's not allowed?
Start with the basic building blocks of the universe: electrons, protons, neutrons. They have inherent properties that dictate what happens to them.
Somewhere along the way between atoms and humans, you assume free will comes into play.
More to the point: you'll have to demonstrate how and why it could happen in the first place before anyone needs to demonstrate why it might not.
To follow up on my post #57
Is a religious person an apostate from atheism? Apostasy is the change from atheism to theism, or is it the other way around?
That's what I meant by trying to use religious terms to identify atheism. Atheism is not a belief system. It is a state of non-belief in a God.
Really? I wonder what John Calvin would think of that...
The problem is that when an atheist tries to find "common ground" at a meta-physical level, he is immediately accused of proposing ID. I had to defend myself against such accusation for several pages.
My advise to theists, drop the Intelligence and Motivated Purposefulness of a "loving" supernatural entity and then we can begin to find common ground on the existence and causality of physical reality.
There's a different example on record in this thread, already, but it doesn't follow the model you describe. Indeed, while I see what you're getting at, the proxy God can emerge by much simpler phenomenon.
To the atheistic regard for logical inquiry and rational discourse, pretty much any assertion of God is nonsensical and illogical. In that context, the idea of God as determinism might seem an illogical exercise, but how is it illogical? To note the point of God existing usually suffices for atheist argumentation.
Sometimes, though, that is not actually what is going on. We have in this thread an example of an atheist requiring what God must be. What any given atheist needs God to be in order to validate one's own atheism is its own almost dangerously enchanting question.
To take, for instance, what some might refer to, approximately, as the Sky Daddy; this is a cynical and reactionary caricature, and is not without its reason, justification, and application. To the other, it is what it is, and this point becomes important in itself when an argument demands the cynical, reactionary caricature become something more.
In this case, we do not necessarily have a specific iteration of God at hand according to a rejection thereof, but, rather, a limitation of what God is allowed to be. Indeed, the functional purpose of doing so is to contain God within the range of the atheist's doctrinal argument.
That is, another's consideration of God is rejected in favor of the atheist's God.
As a more general phenomenon, it comes up repeatedly in evangelical atheism.
In the context of a basic fallacy, it's perfectly human behavior; we tend to assert our judgment over history according to moral aesthetics contemporary to our priority. This works well enough as a comparative question undertaken rationally, but as defining presupposition it is fallacious. Who the hell is going to go up to that white supremacist shooter who needed Burger King after massacring worshippers that he needs to have darker skin in order to be a proper villain? Given the stakes involved in fretting or raging about religious politics, the difference between dealing with the problem in front of them and requiring others abide a different critique in order to validate it ought to stand out as a billowing flag of fallacy.
The more particular point being that when an atheist requires a particular iteration of God that fits their argument against, the atheist requires their own God.
It's a little bit different than what you're after, but the determinism discussion is about as big as the Universe itself.
Sure... what part of my queston do you not understand.???
If you had seriously considered the context the OP put forward then you would have saved yourself quite a few postings.
If you have something about the topic to discuss please do so...
It is easy to manipulate words and intentions on the Internet. Bullies and trolls do it all the time...it take courage and maturity to find a way to get productive results that benefit all members of the discussion.
Are you interested in a productive result that benefits all who participate or are you just here to get some perverse satisfaction in the hope of propping up a failing self esteem?
In other words if you can not contribute to the thread then why post?
I took note of that observation and looked at my own arguments as possible arbitrary to suit my perspective.
But in view of lack of any specific properties assigned to the concept of God, all representations can be defended as being subject to personal interpretation. Who is to argue to the contrary without being able to offer an alternative?
This is the nature of the theist's God concept. He is omnipotent, omniscient, omni-everything.
Every representation is applicable. The one single common denominator of popular religions is the assertion that God is an Intelligent operator and IMO, that is the single most implausible conceptual ability, knowing what we know is required for Intelligent thought.
Where is the mechanism?
I offer mathematical values and functions as a quasi-intelligent alternative and IMO, that is a defensible position......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
p.s. mathematical functions tends to support the concept of determinism, and vice versa.
yes it was unfortunate mis step on my part.
The poster I was responding to was involved in a baiting exercise and playing with the assumed context as stated in the OP.
I assumed he was intelligent enough to realize the context and he made (ab)use of that assumption to manipulate the context for his own perverse reasons in an attempt to destroy any value other member posters/readers to this thread might gain. Perhaps envy has something to do with it...
please read: For a person to believe in scientific fatalism and pre-determinism he MUST be an atheist.
To exclude the obvious alternative form of religious fatalism..
So thanks to that poster we have to add another descriptor into the mix to ensure manipulation of context is prevented or at the very least minimized.
The assumption of good faith and good will is a dangerous assumption to keep, as proved countless times.
Has this thread been moved to the religious forum because we are discussing extreme Atheism as a religion by proxy?
that includes love and loving, life and living etc I suppose?
Or are they just illusions and not worth considering?
Separate names with a comma.