Why do we need a God?

As I said elsewhere and was quoted for it -

Try to really, seriously, believe that the universe, and everyone and everything in it, is chaotic, unpredictable, irregular, irrational, that there is no one in charge, and that everyone and everything is simply subject to aging, illness and death, and that this is all there is to existence.


The only people who seriously believe the above are in mental institutions in constant stupor (that is not drug-induced).

Even the staunchest rationalist or atheist does not actually believe that the universe, and everyone and everything in it, is chaotic, unpredictable, irregular, irrational, that there is no one in charge, and that everyone and everything is simply subject to aging, illness and death, and that this is all there is to existence.

Consequent atheism, consequent chaotism, consequent materialist/empirical reductionism may seem fine enough in theory, especially when trying to defeat the "softer" and "spiritually inclined."

But even those chaotists, atheists and reductionists do not actually believe the arguments they use to defeat the "softer" and "spiritually inclined."

You yourself prove that you don't actually believe that the universe, and everyone and everything in it, is chaotic, unpredictable, irregular, irrational, that there is no one in charge, and that everyone and everything is simply subject to aging, illness and death, and that this is all there is to existence.
You prove that by using a computer, by getting out of bed in the morning, by eating etc. etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I believe it, and I'm not sure how that's contradicted by using a computer or getting out of bed. Although I could quibble about the details (some people control some things, some things are predictable, rocks don't die), your statement is an accurate summation of our present state.

Your statement also includes as aspect of your own personal judgement that I find perplexing. Why focus and aging, illness, and death, and say that's all there is? Are you not aware of such meaningful activities that don't involve faith, like sex, eating, sports, having fun, having friends, giving birth, learning, science, art, and culture in all it's forms? Are you so blinded by the fear of your impermanence that you find yourself unable to appreciate these things? What's wrong with you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Using a computer, getting out of bed and the million things we do on a daily basis involve, at the very least, the firm conviction that doing those things makes sense, that it is worth doing them, that it is possible to do them. Which, in turn, implies (at the very least) a firm conviction that the Universe is essentially orderly, rational, with inherent value hierarchies.

These convictions are at odds with your proposed belief that the Universe is chaotic.

Really, it is? Prove it.

I never said that aging, illness and death was all there is.

All these things that you mention are a matter of faith.

Not at all.

What's wrong with you that you can't sustatin a philosophical argument and instead resort to ad homs?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is worth doing them within the context of a human culture which emerged, like everything else, from chaos. We create our own meaning. The universe itself it totally indifferent to our presence. How do we know this? There is no evidence to the contrary, so materialistic naturalism is the default position. The nested geometrical perfection that early theistic astronomers had proposed does not fit at all with the chaos we can see, where planets collide all the time, stars blow up taking their planets with them, huge asteroids periodically vaporize the surface of our world. None of it looks like it was made to be friendly to life, none of it looks well ordered beyond that which self-organizes.

 

@spidergoat, I think the sunk cost effect is bringing out the militant strong atheist in you, so I would like to step in. Here I go.

 

@wynn, I think this is your flagship post with a good summary of your arguments, so I will begin here.

Hmm... Sensationalisation much? Could have saved it for the punchline. Well, here goes -

'chaotic, unpredictable, irregular, irrational'
Seriously? Is the reproductive cycle or the development biology of an embryo fitting with any of them? Maybe the emergence of living processes makes room for some leeway there, but how about, say, the orbits of the planets, the beautiful synergy of ecosystems? None is chaotic or unpredictible, it is merely variant within recognisable values due to the butterfly effect.

'that there is no one in charge'
What of the poetic god of einstein or hawkins, where the conceptual framework of the processes of the universe is the only think similiar of any notions of god? And why fall prey to our evolutionary tendencies to agenticity and flase positives? Does a rainbow have a painter? Does a beach have a sculpter? Then, unless demonstrated otherwise, why take it for grant that the conceptual workings of the universe have a designer too?

'and that everyone and everything is simply subject to aging, illness and death'
Is your biological impuse of self-preservation and care-reception really strong enough to push you to irrationality, gross generalisations and inaccurate sensationalisations? Yes, indeed everything is, on a large basis, subject to entrophy and degeneration, but this does not indicate an objectively bad thing, merely an unfavorable one for a living being driven by the will to survive.

And correctly so! They would have to incredibly misinformed, stupid, irrational or all of the above.

Seeing as how most rationalists and naturalists indeed dont belong in an asylum, that is hardly a surprise, much less a valid point in this discussion.

No they dont. If the last century has brought something to light, it is the importance of emergence. It is a naturalistic way of replacing mystical 'holistic' views and it has good merit so far. Perhaps as with chemistry and alchemy, emergence will indeed prove a worthy halfway mark between reductionism and spirtual holistic ideas. This is yet a space to watch, so no much can be asserted at present.

Oh, waiting for it. The strong assertion with a weak base. And here it is. A heavy assertion indeed wynn. Hope you can hold it up.

Ok, so the 'if no purpose, why live?' argument. No really strong enough to hold up your assertion, is it? The first reason is because we are driven to survival and those things are essential in that regard. Maybe a heartless action on a forced course is a consequence granted that the said rationalist be a realist, cynic/pessimist and not be an ecclectic or opitimist. But very few people actually fit that category. As I said before, the value and importance of life is much greater for many non-believers than it is for some believers. Yet, if someone does fit that description and does indeed {in your own words}

i.e. when they actually match your generalisations and simplifications, I would readily suggest a healthy serving of his favourite religion [buddhism recommended] with yoga on the side.

 

Faith is belief in unreasonable things. Neutrinos are barely detected, none would believe they exist, if they haven't been detected in the first place.
So, what makes you think there are no invisible forces? Universe is simply too complex to say there are no more forces than these 4 fundamental forces-which describe the visible, observable universe in the first place.
Again, I'd dare to say it's unreasonable that there are no forces, just because you can't prove/detect their existence.
What about the rest of the universe where light did not travel yet-unobservable, invisible part of the universe?
The same can be said for god. Although, the definition of god is obviously something else, because it's not some person who controls, manipulates and does whatever it wishes-that kind of god does not exist.
Some people say god=energy, or like I said before god=nature=universe (well universe=nature).

 

It's one thing to hypothesize about unseen forces that are at least theoretically detectable, quite another to have an unshakable faith in something that isn't even theoretically detectable, as most theists do. The universe is complex, and scientific progress still leaves many things unexplained, but is not logical justification for believe in things for which there is, as yet, no evidence. A God is in any case a way to not look for answers, since it can be the answer to everything, it's a way to stop looking, which is what religion historically seems to want. I guess it's because admitting we don't know causes some people emotional distress.

 

the irony is that playing scientific empiricism as the answer to everything also establishes the cessation of investigation.

IOW its the nature of a radically diametrically opposed argument ("stop the investigation of theism at all costs") to be practically identical on the ground to the ideology it has set itself up to challenge ("stop the investigation of science at all costs")

:shrug:

 

@LG --

But isn't looking at theism with empiricism still "investigating theism"? Just because it doesn't yield the answers you like doesn't mean that it's stopping the investigation, nor that it's wrong.

 

It doesn't yield any answers since the subject is beyond the tools of empiricism to approach.

Kind of like saying investigating temperature with a pair of binoculars doesn't mean that one has ceased to inquire about it.

The consequence is that one simply stops searching because it is obviously fruitless. You find this fact precisely mirrored in the arguments of atheists, who simply take an "empirical investigation of theism" as an invitation to go on a tirade about how it doesn't fit in with their favoured world view (as opposed to any actual investigation)

 

@LG --

You keep saying this over and over again, but one thing you've never said is what the correct tool is, nor why it works better than empirical science. These are two questions that you have to answer for me to take you and your position seriously, elsewise you're just mentally fapping.

 

If you can't understand how empiricism cannot approach the topic, much like using binoculars cannot reveal anything about temperature, there is no point trying to elaborate on it at the moment.

 

@LG --

That's not the question I asked you. I asked you that if empirical science isn't the tool to use, then what is? And why does it work better than science.

 

and I explained why you can't understand the answer, since you can't even comprehend how your favored solution is a fail

 

There is nothing to make anything of, so that is what it consists of. Note the balance of opposites in the Cosmos. ‘Nothing’ is not God.

The above has been going on forever; eternal, thus no creation point and so no Creator.

Things and happenings depend on other things and happenings. Determinism; so, no free will either. Everything runs on its own. No God granting free will, who, ironically, says that it must match His own.

Composite complexities, all the more an ultimate one, cannot be First and Fundamental. No God. There could be a more evolved alien, though, but it is not God. Beings come later, way later.

All that we see is the natural, everywhere, nothing super or extra. Total absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Some people feel that they need a God for comfort and purpose. It is a philosophy with all the questions left out. They halted; they stopped. They wanted our life to require Life behind it, then abandoned the template, not requiring LIFE behind the Life.

I have been off making movies.

 

@LG --

Why don't you try me? That would at least be better than evasively not giving me an answer. I think it's because you don't have one.

 

I already explained why there is no point in you trying anything since you can't understand how your manner of offering a solution is not only impractical but impossible to implement.

You might as well be talking about how the means to get direct audience with the president merely requires the ability to open about 14 doors of a particular building (nevermind that you wouldn't make it past the first of his one hundred secretaries/security personal)

 

You didn't explain shit. All you've done is repeatedly claim, without any supporting argument or evidence, that empirical science can't address spiritual/religious claims. What you have not done is tell me what method will work, why it works, and why empirical science doesn't.

A baldfaced assertion is not an explanation of anything.

 

Do you deny, in terms of physical capacity, that opening 14 or so doors (and perhaps the ability to climb a few sets of stairs or negotiate a wheelchair ramp or two) is the only thing required by a person to have direct audience with the president?

Do you deny that this won't work for over 99.9999% of the population?