Isn't theism more rational than atheism?

Author: Fallaneze ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 103
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    I'll start off with definitions.

    Theism means belief in the existence of God. Atheism means without belief in the existence of God.

    "God" refers to a prime, eternal consciousness. 

    Back to the definition of atheism. There are are two groups of atheists: The first group of atheist is one who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God. The second group of atheist disbelieves in the existence of God.

    The first group of atheist, one who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of God, has no rationally held beliefs about the existence or non-existence of God by definition.

    The second group of atheist, one who disbelieves in the existence of God has a belief about reality that is either true or untrue. Accordingly, there must be information that supports that view in order for it to be rationally warranted. Likewise, there must be information that supports the view that God exists in order for it to be rationally warranted.

    So the question becomes: is there more evidence that the claim is true or is there more evidence that the claim is untrue?

    Indirectly, there's evidence in support of God from quantum mechanics, the fine-tuned universe, an uncaused first cause, moral realism, and purpose in the natural universe. It's better explained by a primary consciousness. 

    Isn't theism more rational than atheism?














  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Fallaneze
    I may surprise some people by saying i agree - upto a point.

    When people first gained the power to reason at all about their world, they took what they could see and what they knew(very little) and concluded the world must be ruled by gods.

    That world-view persisted for thousands of years - perhaps 100,000 years.   It lasted all the way upto the 16th or 17th centuries when finally humanity's curiosity had revealed that perhaps gods were not the only possible solution to the mysteries of the world and nature.

    Now we have to ask if theism is more rational that atheism givenwhat we know today.   And I think the balance has changed.   While mysteries remain and there are plenty of things still unknown it seems inevitable that everything that was once considered to be the finger of God will turn out to be mechanical process.

    While thre are things still unknown it is not completely rational to abandon theism because the only rational conclusion from any thing which has unknowns is uncertainty, but it is rational to choose what seems most likely to be the case and that is - in the view of many - that the gaps that god has left to inhabit will only continue to shrink - eventually to nothing.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @keithprosser
    But how would a greater understanding of natural processes make the existence of a prime, eternal consciousness more unlikely? The more we learn about the universe the more it appears to have a deliberative structure. The deeper we go, on smaller scales, like biology, we discover clever intricacies. It just doesn't seem to make sense that this would go against the notion of God.
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @Fallaneze

    "God" refers to a prime, eternal consciousness. 
    God refers to the millions of fictional characters invented by ignorant, primitive superstitious savages.
    Go from there.
  • disgusted
    disgusted avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,959
    2
    3
    3
    disgusted avatar
    disgusted
    --> @Fallaneze
    the existence of a prime, eternal consciousness
    Is merely a claim made by one group of IPSS about the god they invented.

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,949
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    How does one test for a primal eternal conciousness? How does one detect or observe such a thing? Is it more rational to believe in something that cannot be confirmed or to withhold judgement and say I do not believe until such time as any information is available? 
  • Outplayz
    Outplayz avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,108
    2
    3
    4
    Outplayz avatar
    Outplayz
    --> @Fallaneze
    My question is why does all the evidence have to be in support of a god. Why not gods? I am agnostic atheist and spiritual bc i believe there is evidence to at least suspect a spiritual reality might exists. However, i have thought of platforms that aren't a god. Ultimately however, i do concede the way you define god is logical. An eternal consciousness is something you always fall back to even in multi god scenarios. But in no way is the god of religion logical. The god they describe doesn't follow with all the evidence. Therefore, to be atheist towards religion is much more logical.   
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    "Testing", "observing", or "detecting", all imply using empirical means to evaluate a non-empirical claim. We would need to rely on logic to evaluate the claim.

    The only things we can be "knowably certain" of are things that could not possibly be otherwise. The three fundamental laws of logic, for instance, are things we can be knowably certain of. Science, in principle, is inherently inductive. It doesn't include anything that is knowably certain. So you should have that in mind when you mention the word "confirmed."

    We should believe that a claim is true or untrue on the basis that the weight of the evidence is for or against the claim. 







  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,949
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    Logic based on faulty premises can and often does lead to false conclusions. So we have two possibilities. Either there is a primal eternal conciousness or there is not. What information is available to us upon which to base our logical conclusion?
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    Yes, but logic is a non-empirical means to truth.

    Are there any differences between the powers of consciousness versus non-consciousness? 

    If yes, then we can compare the data in our universe to both of those options and see which one has greater explanatory power.







  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,949
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    What is your preferred definition of conciousness?
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    A state of being aware and possessing volition.
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,949
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    And how do we determine if a being that we cannot even observe has these qualities?
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 294
    Forum posts: 8,910
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    I know about Fiora and she knows about me, that's me and my God. Fuck all who preach the bullshit, you can preach as you want I am thankful to you for making me superior to you since your outlook's inferiority makes mine the best.

    God is real, I know her. 
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    Inference to the best explanation of the data 
  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,949
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    I am unaware of any data that points to any such conciousness.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    The fine-tuned universe proposition. 

    Definitions and examples below are taken from Wiki.

    "The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood."

    EXHIBIT 1:

    N, the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity for a pair of protons, is approximately 10^36. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.

    EXHIBIT 2:

    Epsilon (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force.
    If ε were 0.006, only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. According to Rees, if it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the big bang. Other physicists disagree, calculating that substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%.

    EXHIBIT 3:

    ]Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the Universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the Universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. On the other side, if gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.

    EXHIBIT 4:

    Lambda (λ), commonly known as the cosmological constant, describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as positing that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, the cosmological constant, λ, is on the order of 10^−122. This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. If the cosmological constant were not extremely small, stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.

    EXHIBIT 5:

    Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.


    EXHIBIT 6:

    D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4 dimensions of spacetime nor if any other than 1 time dimension existed in spacetime."

    Our universe is highly, if not overwhelmingly, indicative of a fix. So using an inference to the best explanation, the fine tuned universe proposition is better indicated by design rather than not. Therefore, since the fine tuned universe proposition is better indicated by design, this is evidence that favors God's existence. We should believe a claim if there's more information indicating that it's true rather than untrue.



  • Mopac
    Mopac avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 7,303
    3
    4
    7
    Mopac avatar
    Mopac
    I blame the Roman Catholics for dropping the ball and turning the west atheist.

    They really screwed up. Unfortunately, people in the west think Orthodox is like Roman Catholicism when it is very different. Pretty much all of western Christianity is heretical, yes, including the protestant churches, which makes it very hard to teach people real Christianity.


    I would never refer to God as the prime eternal consciousness. That is far too limiting. Besides that, we Orthodox do not use this understanding. 

    The proper definition of God in English woulld either be The Supreme Being or The Ultimate Reality. They mean the same thing if understood correctly.


    So to deny my God is to deny Truth itself.

    What makes more sense? 

    Atheism then becomes, "It is the truth that there is no truth! The truth is a lie!"

    This is clearly folly.









  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @Fallaneze
    At the end of 2018 no scientist can say why the universe appears fine tuned.  

    It could, therefore,  possibly be because some powerful god arranged it like that but its hard to come up with an expriment to test that hypothesis!   So what scientists are doing is building bigger and better telescopes and particle accelerators to get more information in the hope/exectation that will yield some clues to what is a very great puzzle.

    Scientist have been doing that for a couple of hundred years, and each time the result has been that God has been left with less and less to do.

    One is free to draw whatever conclusion they choose.



  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,949
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    Are you sure the universe is fine tuned for life? Is there any reason not to think that the kind of life that developed was shaped by its environment rather than the environment being shaped to promote it? Cart before the horse sir.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    Exhibits 1-6 strongly suggest it. It's important to note that the fine-funed universe proposition defintion includes the phrase "...as it is understood." We can speculate that non-carbon based life forms may have arisen but it's pure conjecture. Fine-tuned constants allow for an environment in which matter can exist.

  • secularmerlin
    secularmerlin avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 4,949
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin avatar
    secularmerlin
    --> @Fallaneze
    The problem with ypur argument is that we do not have any other universe to compare this one with. There is no way of knowing how likely the conditions in this universe are or whether a sort of life we are unfamiliar with might develop in a differently "fine tuned" universe. In the end this is a personal incredulity fallacy. You personally cannot conceive of any other answer so you have decided that yours is the only plausible one. This has historically speaking not lead to truth.
  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @secularmerlin
    Our universe compared with what would have existed had one of the fundamental constants been infinitesimally smaller or larger. 

    Speculation that different life forms could've arisen is not a defeater for the fine-tunedness of the universe. The fine-tuned universe is based on science, not conjecture. Positing a universe in which non-carbon based life forms would exist is pure conjecture. This also does not take into account that fine-tuning allows for an environment in which matter can even exist.

    The universe is strongly suggestive of a fix. The more rational conclusion, given what the evidence suggests, is that it is.


  • keithprosser
    keithprosser avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,289
    2
    3
    3
    keithprosser avatar
    keithprosser
    --> @secularmerlin
    As far as we know, the universe supports life in a thin layer around one small planet.   The volume occupied by life is an infinitemal fraction of the total volume of the universe, most of which contains practically nothing - certainly not life as we know it!   So perhaps the universe isn't all that well set up to support life after all!

    But I think that the universe can support life at all - and moreover support consciousness that can contemplate itself - is not something that should be brushed aside.   It is however not something that keeps me awake because there is no more than a cat in hell's chance of finding a satisfactory explanation in my lifetime!

    I'd say fine-tuning is the nearest thing there is to evidence of a guiding intelligence.   That doesn't translate to me thinking it is good evidence for it, and certainly not proof!   It's more that it the best evidence 'by default' because everything else is even worse!

    The best bet at the moment comes from 'eternal inflation' because -AFAIK- that allows the production of many - perhaps an infinite number - of universes all commencing with their own big-bangs with their own laws of phsyics.   Or sometihng. I don't really understand post-doc level cosmology - I struggle with i=v/r.





  • Fallaneze
    Fallaneze avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,228
    2
    2
    5
    Fallaneze avatar
    Fallaneze
    --> @keithprosser
    I don't have a PhD in physics either but my common-sense approach is that we have evidence of a fine-tuned universe and no evidence, at this point, of any others. This leaves design theory with better explanatory power until more evidence to the contrary becomes available.