Late to the party I know. But…

Saying there definately is a God or is not a God are both equally improvable from a scientific point of view. Some look at all of “creation” (existence) and say there, that is the evidence. Others don’t see it that way. But, just because one looks at creation/existence and sees or does not see evidence does not mean they are right.

Can you show me how it is more likely (statistically more probable) that all of this started without a God? I am certain someone can make an argument for the opposite position. Can you say which is right?

BTW, if omnipotence (or any of the other “logically impossible” claims) bother you then you are truly skimming the surface of the religions of Abraham.

If God exists He will only be found on an individual by individual basis by those that truly seek to know. More on this later.

>> The word ‘theism’ is an abstraction about an abstraction ‘religion.’

‘Theism’ is an abstract noun which collectively refers to every religion (another abstract noun) which espouses the existence of at least one god, usually one having a personality, which interacts meaningfully with human beings.

The set of theistic religions would include: Xianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, ancient Greco-Roman polytheisms. It would not include: Theravada Buddhism or Chinese ancestor worship. These are non-theistic religions.

Theist and atheist alike can agree about which religions are theistic. Religions are reasonably well-defined “objects” which can be discriminated and counted. Such agreements, shared by supposedly antithetical camps, are for me “the salt which never loses its savour.”

Atheism is essentially a viewpoint which denies that any theistic god whatsoever exists. For the so-called Big-3 Near Eastern monotheisms, the atheist claims that of God, Yaweh, and Allah, not one of them exists. These fictional figures have no greater status than Zeus, Sherlock Holmes, or Batman.

Let’s be clear. Theism is not a religion. Atheism is not a religion either.

>> A religion is a praxis.

One defining characteristic of ‘religion’ is that it form a recognizable social unit sharing common practices, identifiable from within and without. (Despite its theistic stance, the Boy Scouts is not a religion. It is a voluntary association.)

Atheism embodies no common praxis — it has no affirmations, no rituals, it has no common symbols, no outward means of identification. Atheism is not a voluntary association. Of course, there are voluntary associations which espouse atheism.

Having an opinion that gods do not exist can not mean that one has an opinion “about” gods. There is nothing, according to the atheist, about which to have an opinion.

One of the great clarifications within Logic is to distinguish an existence claim from a claim that some existing thing has a property. (”Existence is not a predicate.”)

>> Speaking clearly about non-existent, but well-known fictional characters.

I can have opinions about a fictitious character named ‘Hamlet’ as presented by Shakespeare in his play, ‘The Tragedy of Hamlet.’ I can also have opinions about a mythological being named ‘God’ as presented in the synoptic gospels of ‘The New Testament.’

All I can know about these characters is what I read in pages devoted to them. I can no more find the synoptic “God” by doing astronomical research than I can find “Hamlet’s bones” by excavating in a chapel at Elsinore.

No interpretation of Shakespeare’s play “Hamlet” makes someone called ‘Hamlet’ more likely to exist. No interpretation of the synoptics of the “New Testament” makes some being called ‘God’ more likely to exist. Theology is so much fan fiction.

bipolar2
copyright asserted 2007

So I put it on my blog. http://atheismandcoffee.blogspot.com/2007/09/blog-nmero-dos-this-one-actually-has.html

btw pedro, (in case you didn’t check) i sent an email to join PA

And just because of a claim that there isn’t a god doesn’t mean that you’re not making a claim on our origins. By extension of claiming there is not a creator (higher power, god, aliens, whatever term you want) you are making a claim on how life started. The claim of life randomly forming from a mix of random chemicals or the universe starting in a bang both are extraordinary claims and should therefore take the same extraordinary explanations that you are demanding of a creator. Without the proof of abiogenesis or how the universe started you are looking at the world and making assumptions about how it started. Not that that’s a bad thing, we all do it.

And yes, I live under the assumption that unicorns don’t exist just like I assume that there isn’t a creator. But I’m not claiming to _know_ that there isn’t a creator, or unicorns for that matter. The point of my original post was that it’s not the belief in a higher power that I have problems with, it’s organized religion.

Because the onus is on the people who say “something exists” to provide some evidence. Since they don’t, and never did, the proper thing to do is, while not closing one’s mind to any new evidence, assume that that “something” doesn’t exist.

Think about it. Do you consider yourself an “unicorn-agnostic”? I very much doubt it. While you would probably investigate any new evidence, until it ever comes you probably live your life under the assumption that there is no such thing as unicorns.

If you accept any claim, no matter how fantastic, as possibly true without the slightest evidence for it, you become vulnerable to all kinds of charlatans — much like a new age mystic, who believes in everything, because “who am I to know?”. Who believes that it takes “faith” to say with certainty that gravity will still work tomorrow, because “there’s no way to know for sure without a time machine.”

Or look at it this way: the universe can exist without gods, as far as we know. We still don’t know everything about it, and probably never will, but, so far, there is nothing out there that needs a supernatural explanation. We thought so in the past (”a storm? the gods are angry!”), but we no longer do. In other words, as far as we can see, the universe is 100% natural. Now, it’s a case of applying Occam’s Razor: if the universe can exist without an extra entity (a god), then it probably does. If something has a natural explanation, then there’s no need to invent a supernatural one.

(Now, if you’re talking about non-supernatural gods, I’d rather call them “aliens”, which can perfectly exist, but, again, there’s no evidence that the universe / the earth / humans were created by some outside intelligence…)