Question for the Atheists.

[_mentalgymnast]

if we are to give a god credit for all of the beauty we observe in the universe, shall we also blame him for the ugliness? Shall he be held accountable for this ugliness?

"God has reason to make a basically beautiful world, although also reason to leave some of the beauty or ugliness of the world within the power of creatures to determine; but he would seem to have overriding reason not to make a basically ugly world beyond the powers of creatures to improve. Hence, if there is a God there is more reason to expect a basically beautiful world than a basically ugly one. A priori, however, there is no particular reason for expecting a basically beautiful rather than a basically ugly world. In consequence, if the world is beautiful, that fact would be evidence for God's existence. For, in this case, if we let k be ‘there is an orderly physical universe’, e be ‘there is a beautiful universe’, and h be ‘there is a God’, P(e/h.k) will be greater than P(e/k)... Few, however, would deny that our universe (apart from its animal and human inhabitants, and aspects subject to their immediate control) has that beauty. Poets and painters and ordinary men down the centuries have long admired the beauty of the orderly procession of the heavenly bodies, the scattering of the galaxies through the heavens (in some ways random, in some ways orderly), and the rocks, sea, and wind interacting on earth, ‘The spacious firmament on high, and all the blue ethereal sky’, the water lapping against ‘the old eternal rocks’, and the plants of the jungle and of temperate climates, contrasting with the desert and the Arctic wastes. Who in his senses would deny that here is beauty in abundance? If we confine ourselves to the argument from the beauty of the inanimate and plant worlds, the argument surely works."
-Richard Swinburne

Also one could say that in some cases beauty does not actually exist in the observed object or scene. Instead the sense of beauty exists within the observer.

Regards,
MG

[_Sophocles]

From the site you linked to:

An atheist agnostic is someone who does not believe in gods and also thinks that the existence of gods cannot be known. This might mean that they don’t believe in gods because they haven’t seen any evidence that supports their existence.

An atheist gnostic is someone who does not believe in gods, and who thinks that we can know that gods do not exist. A fairly unusual position, they might think they have found proof of the non-existence of gods, or might have been persuaded by life experiences.

Seems rather straightforward. An atheist is someone who does not believe in gods, with some possible reservations. But why not just remain an agnostic?

Regards,
MG

I can't tell if you are being deliberately obtuse or if you really don't understand that the two are not different points on the same spectrum, but different spectra all together.

I am agnostic because I reject the notion that the universe can speak to me outside what I am able to gather through the five senses. I believe that the physical evidence that exists, while inconclusive, is all we have.

I am atheist because the physical evidence does not create a compelling case for the existence of gods.

Now, it's entirely possible that you and I can both look at the same pile of physical evidence, and to you it looks like a compelling case for god and to me it does not, and that's fine. That would make you a theist an me an atheist, without even bringing up the subject of gnosticism.

Now, if you want to talk about whether it's possible to know something based on some kind of ethereal communication from supernatural forces, that's a separate question entirely. I reject that whole deal, which makes me agnostic. If you accept it, then you are gnostic.

Naturally, acceptance of gnosticism usually (though not always) coincides with theism, because something has to be doing the cosmic communicating. It is the rare atheist who believes he knows for sure that gods don't exist because something else in the universe with the god-like power to communicate beyond the five senses told him so.

You either believe in the existence of gods or you don't. There is no middle ground. Agnosticism is not some middle ground between theism and atheism. Just as everyone on the planet can either be described as either vegan or non-vegan, LDS or non-LDS, everyone is either theist or atheist. Agnosticism is a whole nother ball of wax.

[_Some Schmo]

In fact, rejecting the belief that you can know something based on some kind of communication outside the five senses (whether or not you believe in the existence of gods) is what agnosticism is.

So an agnostic must be a strict empiricist, by definition? Are all agnostics strict empiricists? I know a person or two who are agnostic and yet are open to the possibility of a realm of experience beyond the five senses.

Where does that put them?

Regards,
MG

Here's what you don't seem to understand. Agnosticism has to do with whether the god claim is knowable. In the strictest sense, if theists/deists were really honest with themselves, they would call themselves agnostic as well (unless they claim to know there's a god - most I've encountered claim it's a faith issue). A believer is just an agnostic with faith.

An atheist is an agnostic without faith.

[_Mad Viking]

if we are to give a god credit for all of the beauty we observe in the universe, shall we also blame him for the ugliness? Shall he be held accountable for this ugliness?

"God has reason to make a basically beautiful world, although also reason to leave some of the beauty or ugliness of the world within the power of creatures to determine; but he would seem to have overriding reason not to make a basically ugly world beyond the powers of creatures to improve. Hence, if there is a God there is more reason to expect a basically beautiful world than a basically ugly one. A priori, however, there is no particular reason for expecting a basically beautiful rather than a basically ugly world. In consequence, if the world is beautiful, that fact would be evidence for God's existence. For, in this case, if we let k be ‘there is an orderly physical universe’, e be ‘there is a beautiful universe’, and h be ‘there is a God’, P(e/h.k) will be greater than P(e/k)... Few, however, would deny that our universe (apart from its animal and human inhabitants, and aspects subject to their immediate control) has that beauty. Poets and painters and ordinary men down the centuries have long admired the beauty of the orderly procession of the heavenly bodies, the scattering of the galaxies through the heavens (in some ways random, in some ways orderly), and the rocks, sea, and wind interacting on earth, ‘The spacious firmament on high, and all the blue ethereal sky’, the water lapping against ‘the old eternal rocks’, and the plants of the jungle and of temperate climates, contrasting with the desert and the Arctic wastes. Who in his senses would deny that here is beauty in abundance? If we confine ourselves to the argument from the beauty of the inanimate and plant worlds, the argument surely works."
-Richard Swinburne

Also one could say that in some cases beauty does not actually exist in the observed object or scene. Instead the sense of beauty exists within the observer.

Regards,
MG

Seriously... we've been over this. You can't assert wishes or desires to a god that you have not demonstrated to exist. Once you do this, we can talk about his/her/its reasons for doing stuff.

You are the one that quoted an individual that pointed to the beauty that he observed in the world as evidence of god. So why now are you withdrawing to a position where said beauty is subjective?

I'm not trying to be mean, but you are all over the map. You've already stated that you can't prove god exists. You haven't even put forward an arguement. This is why I am an atheist. I do not have a belief that there is any god in existence. That is not to say its not possible. It is to say, I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that a god's existence is the logical conclusion that follows evidence or an arguement.

[_Mad Viking]

...A believer is just an agnostic with faith. An atheist is an agnostic without faith.

HEAR HEAR!!

[_mentalgymnast]

Here's what you don't seem to understand. Agnosticism has to do with whether the god claim is knowable. In the strictest sense, if theists/deists were really honest with themselves, they would call themselves agnostic as well (unless they claim to know there's a god - most I've encountered claim it's a faith issue). A believer is just an agnostic with faith.

An atheist is an agnostic without faith.

OK Sophocles and Schmo, along with what beastie said earlier in the thread I think I'm starting to see where you guys are coming from in reference to your defining atheism and agnosticism. I've never really played around with those words in real depth, so this is an education for me.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

You've already stated that you can't prove god exists. You haven't even put forward an arguement. This is why I am an atheist. I do not have a belief that there is any god in existence. That is not to say its not possible. It is to say, I have not seen any evidence that convinces me that a god's existence is the logical conclusion that follows evidence or an arguement.

OK, I admit it. I held back some evidence that could be placed right into your hands. The Book of Mormon-Another Testament of Jesus Christ. It's a book that represents itself to be an ancient artifact from a lost civilization that had prophets who spoke for and communed with Jesus Christ. The creator of the earth according to Mormon thought.

But hear's the rub.

The Book of Mormon can be read through sensory means using eyesight or hearing or touch, but to ascertain whether or not it is an ancient artifact which a creator God caused to be translated in our day to act as a key witness of Jesus Christ and the Father, one is told that they must ultimately rely upon spiritual revelation/inspiration from the Spirit to know of its truthfulness.

So, we've probably reached an impasse. I'm sure that you look at the Book of Mormon as being a 19th century creation produced by a con man.

Joseph Smith was right in at least one thing. The Book of Mormon is indeed the keystone of our religion. All rises or falls on the truthfulness of that book.

Including whether or not there is direct evidence of the existence of a creator/god who is responsible for human beings on this earth.

Regards,
MG

[_keithb]

Neither you or a god have demonstrated that there is a god trying to communicate with me by ANY means (supernatural or otherwise). Hell, existence hasn't even been established, let alone this being's desire or capability to communicate with me. So... why would I even begin such an endeavor? Let's establish their existence first. So... have you got any evidence that this being exists?

Not any evidence that I can place directly in your hands and say, "Here's proof!"

But there are interesting bits of research out there by some reputable folks that cause one to take pause and consider the possibilities.

Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies says, "The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe."

Paul Davies is an advocate of the principle of "fine tuning" of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

He also wrote a short piece that could be of interest to you.

http://books.google.com/books?id=C7g2WS ... &q&f=false

On the above link type "Paul Davies" into the search field, scroll down to the bottom of the search results and go to: Big Bang.

I'm reading a book on my NOOK right now called:

http://www.amazon.com/Rare-Earth-Comple ... 0387952896

The basic thesis of the book is how rare developed life forms are in the universe. Good book to pick up if you haven't read it yet.

More on "Rare Rarth Hypothesis" here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

Einstein said:

"You may find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world to the degree that we may speak of such comprehensibility as a miracle or an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be in any way grasped through thought... The kind of order created, for example, by Newton's theory of gravity is of quite a different kind. Even if the axioms of the theory are posited by a human being, the success of such an enterprise presupposes an order in the objective world of a high degree, which one has no a priori right to expect. That is the miracle which grows increasingly persuasive with the increasing development of knowledge."

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/bradley/ ... verse.html

From the same article just quoted:

...the incredibly diverse phenomena we see in nature are the result of such a small number of physics laws, each of which assumes such a simple mathematical form, that they can all be written on one side of one sheet of paper...

No, I can't place evidence for a creator right in your hands, but there is a lot of observational science, using the five senses, that lead one to consider the possibility that a creater/god responsible for human beings on the earth may not be such a far fetched idea.

Regards,
MG

I have two main objections to your post.

1. Just because the universe seems to be finely tuned by some Physicists' estimations, that is not of itself evidence for or against a god/gods. There are many reasonable hypothesis that still need to be tested, including the multi-verse theory, that suggest an origin for these constants without the intervention of a god. And, even if physics is ultimately unable to answer this question, there is no reason to believe that religion has the answer.

2. Even if I were to allow (which I do) the possibility of a god/gods existing somewhere in the universe, that is still no indication that your particular brand of religion is the correct one. I mean, how does someone jump from the notion that a god could possibly exist to a surety that the virgin birth, a global flood 4,000 years ago, and ancient Mayans riding horses and using steel swords are all true? To me, those conclusions don't follow from the possibility that god/gods exist.

[_citizen28]

A believer is just an agnostic with faith.

An atheist is an agnostic without faith.

Granted, nearly all believing LDS are completely unaware that they are agnostic.

[_citizen28]

Neither you or a god have demonstrated that there is a god trying to communicate with me by ANY means (supernatural or otherwise). Hell, existence hasn't even been established, let alone this being's desire or capability to communicate with me. So... why would I even begin such an endeavor? Let's establish their existence first. So... have you got any evidence that this being exists?

Not any evidence that I can place directly in your hands and say, "Here's proof!"

But there are interesting bits of research out there by some reputable folks that cause one to take pause and consider the possibilities.

Australian astrophysicist Paul Davies says, "The equations of physics have in them incredible simplicity, elegance and beauty. That in itself is sufficient to prove to me that there must be a God who is responsible for these laws and responsible for the universe."

Paul Davies is an advocate of the principle of "fine tuning" of the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

He also wrote a short piece that could be of interest to you.

http://books.google.com/books?id=C7g2WS ... &q&f=false

On the above link type "Paul Davies" into the search field, scroll down to the bottom of the search results and go to: Big Bang.

I'm reading a book on my NOOK right now called:

http://www.amazon.com/Rare-Earth-Comple ... 0387952896

The basic thesis of the book is how rare developed life forms are in the universe. Good book to pick up if you haven't read it yet.

More on "Rare Rarth Hypothesis" here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

Einstein said:

"You may find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world to the degree that we may speak of such comprehensibility as a miracle or an eternal mystery. Well, a priori one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be in any way grasped through thought... The kind of order created, for example, by Newton's theory of gravity is of quite a different kind. Even if the axioms of the theory are posited by a human being, the success of such an enterprise presupposes an order in the objective world of a high degree, which one has no a priori right to expect. That is the miracle which grows increasingly persuasive with the increasing development of knowledge."

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/bradley/ ... verse.html

From the same article just quoted:

...the incredibly diverse phenomena we see in nature are the result of such a small number of physics laws, each of which assumes such a simple mathematical form, that they can all be written on one side of one sheet of paper...

No, I can't place evidence for a creator right in your hands, but there is a lot of observational science, using the five senses, that lead one to consider the possibility that a creater/god responsible for human beings on the earth may not be such a far fetched idea.

Regards,
MG

The deist god of Einstein and Davies is a far, far cry from the LDS God. The fact that we cannot completely explain all the workings of the universe has nothing to do with proving that there exists a God who will reward or punish humankind based on whether or not they obey him.