Belief in "god" without a belief in religion

zuroph

Was thinking this the other day while listening to Scroobius Pips "letter from God to man" ;

Where would one fit on the Atheism v religion debate if they were open to the idea of "god" but didnt agree with christianity/religions ethics etc?

I sometimes feel that "god" is a movement, created by humans, but now, because it gives people hope, is a power to be drawn from. Like that people have misunderstood what "god" is, but because it gives people strength, its not a bad thing, its just religion is the problem. sorry if I'm rambling a bit!

I've jokingly compared it to jedi, in that its a force for people to draw from in times of need! :pac:

But yeah, where does it fit on the debate?

Galvasean

zuroph wrote: »

Where would one fit on the Atheism v religion debate if they were open to the idea of "god" but didnt agree with christianity/religions ethics etc?

Deism perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Goduznt Xzst

zuroph wrote: »

But yeah, where does it fit on the debate?

Theist? Deist? Agnostic?

What kind of God are you talking about. Is this a God that actively interferes with the world, imbuing morals and balancing karma or something. Or are you just talking about the ontological argument for God.

@Galvasean: Good with you, Ninja skills are

zuroph

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Theist? Deist? Agnostic?

What kind of God are you talking about. Is this a God that actively interferes with the world, imbuing morals and balancing karma or something. Or are you just talking about the ontological argument for God.

@Galvasean: Good with you, Ninja skills are

no, not an entity that interferes with the world, merely, because its believed in it indirectly interferes. Like, if someone believes in it, then they may act in a more selfless fashion, different to how they would act if they didnt believe, so there's a pay off.

Dades

Like anything, a "god" is pretty pointless as a concept unless you can give it some attributes. Unfortunately, once you get into defining attributes or characteristics of a deity you are really just making stuff up.

Say you want your undefined God to be one that offers "hope", for example, you have to ascribe to it some sort of trait that might imbue hope in people. So where does the justification for that hope come from? Unfortunately nowhere. Back to square one.

All that being said, there's no harming in hoping there's a deity out there with our interests in mind!

Mickeroo

You're saying that because there is belief in a god it gives the "god" power to help people, god only exists because people believe he does? but not in the literal sense? Essentially,people need to believe in something?

Letter from god to man is a Great song by the way!! here it is for peole who dont know it(samples Radiohead's Airbag):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KnGNOiFll4

zuroph

Mickeroo wrote: »

You're saying that because there is belief in a god it gives the "god" power to help people, god only exists because people believe he does? but not in the literal sense? Essentially,people need to believe in something?

Letter from god to man is a Great song by the way!! here it is for peole who dont know it(samples Radiohead's Airbag):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KnGNOiFll4

yeah, pretty much. Like, if i wanted to make stuff up, id say that once you die you become part of that power, but thats nonsense, but, because a bunch of people believe in something, they can gain comfort and hope from it, so wheres the harm in that? and that the only harm has come from humans twisting that belief for their own gain.

Naz_st

zuroph wrote: »

Like, if i wanted to make stuff up, id say that once you die you become part of that power, but thats nonsense, but, because a bunch of people believe in something, they can gain comfort and hope from it, so wheres the harm in that?

So God is essentially the ultimate spiritual placebo?

zuroph

Naz_st wrote: »

So God is essentially the ultimate spiritual placebo?

essentially, i suppose, yeah

Tigger

whether yer imaginary magic friend is all powerful or just a small benovelloent force whether he is a type believed in by millions or by just you is irrelevant

its all just superstition which means its all just to comfort us at the incredible size and chaotic meaningless of the world

Tigger

Dades wrote: »

All that being said, there's no harming in hoping there's a deity out there with our interests in mind!

there is harm if it alows people to be complacent

zuroph

Tigger wrote: »

whether yer imaginary magic friend is all powerful or just a small benovelloent force whether he is a type believed in by millions or by just you is irrelevant

its all just superstition which means its all just to comfort us at the incredible size and chaotic meaningless of the world

But the belief DOES exist, and by that, "god" by the definition above does exist, so isnt superstition.

Tigger

zuroph wrote: »

But the belief DOES exist, and by that, "god" by the definition above does exist, so isnt superstition.

the belief does exist so the belief exists so ????

terry pratchet small gods ?

i don't believe in belief i believe they have suspision or fear that the emperor has clothes but you can only see them if you are ......

Goduznt Xzst

zuroph wrote: »

But the belief DOES exist, and by that, "god" by the definition above does exist, so isnt superstition.

Ah, so getting back to my previous post, you're making the ontological argument for Gods existence.

Also, I think it would be worth your time to read this article on "belief in belief"

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/07/belief-in-belie.html

Zillah

Galvasean wrote: »

Deism perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

It so rarely happens that the first reply in a thread satisfactorily concludes the purpose of the thread. What the OP describes is classic Deism.

pts

Mickeroo wrote: »

You're saying that because there is belief in a god it gives the "god" power to help people, god only exists because people believe he does? but not in the literal sense? Essentially,people need to believe in something?

Letter from god to man is a Great song by the way!! here it is for peole who dont know it(samples Radiohead's Airbag):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KnGNOiFll4

Great song, Gracias!

zuroph

i don't think it fits deism because from what i read, they still believe god created man not vice versa. Correct me if i'm wrong.

Mickeroo

zuroph wrote: »

i don't think it fits deism because from what i read, they still believe god created man not vice versa. Correct me if i'm wrong.

I think you're right there,deists believe god exists but dont think he's actively involved with/bothered by us.

What you're saying accepts that god does not exist in the literal sense.

zuroph

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think you're right there,deists believe god exists but dont think he's actively involved with/bothered by us.

What you're saying accepts that god does not exist in the literal sense.

exactly, its more that human's have misinterpreted what the phenomenom known as "god" really is.

pts

zuroph wrote: »

exactly, its more that human's have misinterpreted what the phenomenom known as "god" really is.

Interesting point, isn't it a question of "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" kind of argument though?
If humans didn't exist then using your line of reasoning would the concept of God exist then?
I think it wouldn't which makes God a human construct. If it's a human construct then "the phenomenom known as "god"" is what we define it to be. To me that means that we can't misinterpreted what the phenomenom known as "god" really is, as we are the ones defining it.

I could be horrible wrong though

zuroph

pts wrote: »

Interesting point, isn't it a question of "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" kind of argument though?
If humans didn't exist then using your line of reasoning would the concept of God exist then?
I think it wouldn't which makes God a human construct. If it's a human construct then "the phenomenom known as "god"" is what we define it to be. To me that means that we can't misinterpreted what the phenomenom known as "god" really is, as we are the ones defining it.

I could be horrible wrong though

I see what you're saying

without going down the "theres so much the mind can do what we're not aware of" route (the typical sh1te sprouted by "psychics"), I would agree that, yes, god in this definition would be a human construct. The earth is created by what we know or will know from science, and "god" is a way of thinking, a sort of group meditation that gives people hope and comfort. I'm all for people believing what they want about "god", its the tag on stuff about others being wrong and their religion being the one true one that is the problem. This seems to align quite closely to atheism in that Its not "god" they have the problem with persay, its religion in all its manifestations. "god" itself hasnt done anything wrong, and is, in essense, a handy thing to have around.

pts

zuroph wrote: »

I see what you're saying

without going down the "theres so much the mind can do what we're not aware of" route (the typical sh1te sprouted by "psychics"), I would agree that, yes, god in this definition would be a human construct. The earth is created by what we know or will know from science, and "god" is a way of thinking, a sort of group meditation that gives people hope and comfort. I'm all for people believing what they want about "god", its the tag on stuff about others being wrong and their religion being the one true one that is the problem. This seems to align quite closely to atheism in that Its not "god" they have the problem with persay, its religion in all its manifestations. "god" itself hasnt done anything wrong, and is, in essense, a handy thing to have around.

I agree that if God was only a way of thinking, which respected other ways of thinking and the followers of God didn't try to force their way of thinking on others, most people wouldn't have a problem with it.

I'd like the concept of God to be like musical taste. Most people acknowledge that different people like different kinds of music, and in most cases respect that (you might get laughed at if you say you like S Club 7, but that's deserved ) People that like a certain kind of music listen to it either by themselves or with others. They may become inspired, comforted etc by the music they like.

If you really like an artist you might suggest it to a friend, but won't be too offended if the friend listens to it but doesn't enjoy it as much as you do.

If religious taste was as unobtrusive as musical taste I think the world would be a much better place. It's the "sacredness" or religion which makes is so dangerous.

Mark Hamill

zuroph wrote: »

without going down the "theres so much the mind can do what we're not aware of" route (the typical sh1te sprouted by "psychics"), I would agree that, yes, god in this definition would be a human construct. The earth is created by what we know or will know from science, and "god" is a way of thinking, a sort of group meditation that gives people hope and comfort. I'm all for people believing what they want about "god", its the tag on stuff about others being wrong and their religion being the one true one that is the problem.

I dont think people can just believe in god without that tag on stuff. Everyone who believes in god has some idea about him, ie what his powers might be, what he actually does, what they should do to keep him happy. Its peoples disagreements in these that cause all problems and seeing as god in the first a made up human idea, I dont see the point in all that hassle.

zuroph wrote: »

This seems to align quite closely to atheism in that Its not "god" they have the problem with persay, its religion in all its manifestations. "god" itself hasnt done anything wrong, and is, in essense, a handy thing to have around.

I dont know if all atheists would agree with that though, I know i dont. If god was an entity that actually exists according to the Abrahamic religions, I'd have a problem with a lot of the things he did while claiming to be a good, caring being. If god is just a concept, a handy idea, then I have a problem with it actually being a terrible idea that encourages people not to avoid reality when things get difficult (the whole "comfort" thing) as opposed to actually dealing with problems and making your life better.

zuroph

pts wrote: »

I agree that if God was only a way of thinking, which respected other ways of thinking and the followers of God didn't try to force their way of thinking on others, most people wouldn't have a problem with it.

I'd like the concept of God to be like musical taste. Most people acknowledge that different people like different kinds of music, and in most cases respect that (you might get laughed at if you say you like S Club 7, but that's deserved ) People that like a certain kind of music listen to it either by themselves or with others. They may become inspired, comforted etc by the music they like.

If you really like an artist you might suggest it to a friend, but won't be too offended if the friend listens to it but doesn't enjoy it as much as you do.

If religious taste was as unobtrusive as musical taste I think the world would be a much better place. It's the "sacredness" or religion which makes is so dangerous.

how dare you speak ill of S club

I like your comparison.

Let me give you an example, a friends grandmother is very ill, and will die soon. She recieves quite a lot of comfort from prayer, and IMO its helping her at this time. No foul there. Her son is an atheist, and when invited to join her side for prayer one evening refused. If it was me, I'd have no problem joining her, as, its no skin off my nose to help make her feel better, and if I dont believe in "god" in the same way she does, what harm am I doing in comforting her?

I just feel the whole atheism v religion argument is sometimes a bit hypocritical, as its effectively the same as one religion vs another religion argument. It doesnt matter, its the actions of the people involved that matter.

zuroph

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I dont think people can just believe in god without that tag on stuff. Everyone who believes in god has some idea about him, ie what his powers might be, what he actually does, what they should do to keep him happy. Its peoples disagreements in these that cause all problems and seeing as god in the first a made up human idea, I dont see the point in all that hassle.


I dont know if all atheists would agree with that though, I know i dont. If god was an entity that actually exists according to the Abrahamic religions, I'd have a problem with a lot of the things he did while claiming to be a good, caring being. If god is just a concept, a handy idea, then I have a problem with it actually being a terrible idea that encourages people not to avoid reality when things get difficult (the whole "comfort" thing) as opposed to actually dealing with problems and making your life better.

see, in this entire post you're assigning atttributes to "god". I never said "god" was a person, or was responsible for anything that has ever happened.
I wouldnt be a fan of "god" being somewhere to retreat from reality, merely a group/solo method of relaxation and comfort. At the end of it all, we're still entirely responsible for our own actions outcomes etc etc.

of course the problem could be as soon as people knew and accepted this, it would no longer work, and cease to exist

pts

zuroph wrote: »

how dare you speak ill of S club

According to Wikipedia it's S Club 3 now

zuroph wrote: »

Let me give you an example, a friends grandmother is very ill, and will die soon. She recieves quite a lot of comfort from prayer, and IMO its helping her at this time. No foul there. Her son is an atheist, and when invited to join her side for prayer one evening refused. If it was me, I'd have no problem joining her, as, its no skin off my nose to help make her feel better, and if I dont believe in "god" in the same way she does, what harm am I doing in comforting her?

I my opinion (i.e. in the opinion of an anonymous person, through the internet, who hasn't got any insight into the circumstances of the described situation) her son might have been a been a bit unreasonable.

zuroph wrote: »

I just feel the whole atheism v religion argument is sometimes a bit hypocritical, as its effectively the same as one religion vs another religion argument. It doesnt matter, its the actions of the people involved that matter.

It can get tiring from time to time, however I believe that Religion has been given too much respect in the past. Also in regards to Atheism being a religion, I'm afraid I'll have to counter with this golden oldie; "If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby..."

EDIT: BTW in honour of musical metaphors and sharing musical tase, thanks for posting about "letter from God to man", really liking it!

zuroph

pts wrote: »

According to Wikipedia it's S Club 3 now



I my opinion (i.e. in the opinion of an anonymous person, through the internet, who hasn't got any insight into the circumstances of the described situation) her son might have been a been a bit unreasonable.



It can get tiring from time to time, however I believe that Religion has been given too much respect in the past. Also in regards to Atheism being a religion, I'm afraid I'll have to counter with this golden oldie; "If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby..."

EDIT: BTW in honour of musical metaphors and sharing musical tase, thanks for posting about "letter from God to man", really liking it!

s club 3, i know, they play club I do magic in a few weeks back

oh I'm definitely not calling atheism a religion or similar, just the argument is similar to arguing religions. I agree with the two much respect given to religions, which is why I started this thread, a confusion about where it fell on the whole "divide"

If you like it, get the album version, the emotion in the delivery is much better in it, the video version is a bit bland in comparison. the Album is called Angles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angles_(Dan_Le_Sac_Vs_Scroobius_Pip_album)

Mark Hamill

zuroph wrote: »

see, in this entire post you're assigning atttributes to "god". I never said "god" was a person, or was responsible for anything that has ever happened.

How do people believe in something that has no attributes? How do you gain any comfort from something that is completely undefined? You cant believe in something thats undefined, as by believing in it, you are defining it as without defining it, you cant even say what you are believing in.

zuroph wrote: »

I wouldnt be a fan of "god" being somewhere to retreat from reality, merely a group/solo method of relaxation and comfort. At the end of it all, we're still entirely responsible for our own actions outcomes etc etc.

If god is a method for relaxation and comfort, then god is also a retreat from reality as if reality was already relaxing and comforting you wouldn't a method to be relaxed and comforted, you're already there.
I think you are better off naming this method for relaxation and comfort something besides god. God already has connotations of being an influencing (or capable of influencing) supreme being, and to try to redefine it will just cause problems. It seems closer to spirituality than god anyway.

zuroph

Mark Hamill wrote: »

How do people believe in something that has no attributes? How do you gain any comfort from something that is completely undefined? You cant believe in something thats undefined, as by believing in it, you are defining it as without defining it, you cant even say what you are believing in.


If god is a method for relaxation and comfort, then god is also a retreat from reality as if reality was already relaxing and comforting you wouldn't a method to be relaxed and comforted, you're already there.
I think you are better off naming this method for relaxation and comfort something besides god. God already has connotations of being an influencing (or capable of influencing) supreme being, and to try to redefine it will just cause problems. It seems closer to spirituality than god anyway.

Im afraid you're really not getting this. Read my posts again with the word "kaboom" or something else, in place of "god" because im not speaking of anything which one already has connotations about etc.
If someone needs to relax, its not neccessarily a retreat from reality, by that defintion, we should also discourage anaesthesia for operations? Its merely a way of coping.

As for definition, we can just look at it as something we havent really defined yet, and accept what we DO know about it IE it seems to help people.

Mark Hamill

zuroph wrote: »

Im afraid you're really not getting this. Read my posts again with the word "kaboom" or something else, in place of "god" because im not speaking of anything which one already has connotations about etc.

You said originally: ""god" is a way of thinking, a sort of group meditation that gives people hope and comfort" and you pointed out that your problem with this is the stuff that people tag onto "god". I said that I dont think people can believe in god without any other connotations, as the term god is already associated with so many things, and that you would need to call it something else to avoid these conflicts. When you speak of what someone else believes in (as you did in post 21) then you cant say that that someone doesnt already have connotations associated with that belief.

zuroph wrote: »

If someone needs to relax, its not neccessarily a retreat from reality, by that defintion, we should also discourage anaesthesia for operations? Its merely a way of coping.

There are good ways of coping and bad ways of copying. Anaesthesia helps you cope with the extremes of reality, excruciating pain, and there is nothing wrong with that as it helps you deal with the real problem (ie whatever surgery you are needing that requires anaesthesia). But to go around all day, in an anaesthethic blur, were nothing can hurt you or even effect you is a bad way of coping as it doesnt actually deal with anything that is trying to effect you. Being addicted to drugs is a bad way with coping with life, as when high, you are avoiding real life. God is another bad way of dealing with things, as it makes people ignore the reality of their lives (either by having them believe that ultimately everything is part of gods plan and they cant change that, so nothing they do is really important, or at the end of their lives, god will punish any wrongs that have occured to them).
Belief in god (defined or otherwise) is a placebo. Something bad happened? Ah well its gods plan dont worry about it. Someone do something wrong? Ah well, they will get their just deserts in the end, dont worry about it. This sort of thing just makes people overly complacent with the crap they get in life, when actually dealing with things (like finding out why accidents occur and trying to avoid them, or developing a fair justice system to punish wrongdoers) makes the world a better place.

zuroph wrote: »

As for definition, we can just look at it as something we havent really defined yet, and accept what we DO know about it IE it seems to help people.

You have just defined it as something that seems to help people, so it is a t least partially defined. However you will get problems when someone starts questioning the best way to help people, if its better to help a lot of people a bit, or a few people a lot etc. By having no real definition you allow all defintions to come in and you cant avoid this because people need definition as the unknown scares them.
As for god, god has a definition. God is a nightlight. Humans, as they got more intelligent and curious, started to get scared, scared of why the ground shook, why boiling hot rock poured out of mountains, of how the weather seemed to bruise and batter them at will and how they had no real control over anything. So, like a child afraid of the dark, they use a nightlight to feel like they are in control of things, like they can influence something and like ultimately, something bigger is really on their side.
I'm not a child anymore. I can sleep with the light off and enjoy the dark.

O'Coonassa

I believe God is the First Cause. It has created consciousness and the consciousness is becoming It.

Tom Paine said his religion was to do good and that his mind was his church. IMO there's no harm in that.

Genghiz Cohen

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I believe God is the First Cause.

What's wrong with saying, "I don't know."
Just because we can't explain something now doesn't mean it needs to be a supernatural event.

Go back 1000 years and ask how the sun worked, a wizard did it. But we know now it is something far more beautiful.

We don't know, but eventually we will, all it takes is time.

O'Coonassa

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

What's wrong with saying, "I don't know."

Er...the fact that I do know because there has to be a First Cause. It is The Source. I think It is doing marvellous work. I'm quite blown away by It tbh.

toiletduck

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Er...the fact that I do know because there has to be a First Cause.

Does there, why?

Genghiz Cohen

toiletduck wrote: »

Does there, why?

I'd ask how, how does he know there is a First Cause.

O'Coonassa

toiletduck wrote: »

Does there, why?

Because logic and reason dictates that this is the case.

O'Coonassa

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I'd ask how, how does he know there is a First Cause.

Same answer tbh. Logic and reason. Show me enough things that don't have a first cause and I'll stop smirking at atheists.

toiletduck

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Because logic and reason dictates that this is the case.

So there must be a first cause for the Universe and everything, but not for whomever kicked it off depending on your own brand of monotheistic belief...

Genghiz Cohen

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Because logic and reason dictates that this is the case.

Logic and reason != A Wizard did it.
That's faith, logic and reason states we have no way of knowing, none, so leave that box blank for now.

Genghiz Cohen

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Same answer tbh. Logic and reason. Show me enough things that don't have a first cause and I'll stop smirking at atheists.

Electrons. They do some crazy stuff without any particular reason. I always mean to read up on Quantum Mechanics, must get around to that...

(Smirking at me smirking at you smirking at me smirking at you..... )

Goduznt Xzst

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Show me enough things that don't have a first cause and I'll stop smirking at atheists.

Your God apparently... now stop smirking

Tbf though your request won't happen, unlike Theists we don't make idle guesses about things we know nothing about. But by all means, keep guessing about what you imagine started this Universe, it's quite entertaining to see how someone can make something up and then call it "logic" and "reason"

O'Coonassa

toiletduck wrote: »

So there must be a first cause for the Universe and everything, but not for whomever kicked it off depending on your own brand of monotheistic belief...

No, it has to be unbegotten or otherwise it isn't the first cause at all but something else.

O'Coonassa

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Your God apparently... now stop smirking

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Tbf though your request won't happen, unlike Theists we don't make idle guesses about things we know nothing about. But by all means, keep guessing about what you imagine started this Universe, it's quite entertaining to see how someone can make something up and then call it "logic" and "reason"

But it's not an idle guess. It's based on observation. Had you observed anything at all that contradicts the theory that there is no creation without it's creator then I'm sure you'd have brought it to the table

O'Coonassa

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Electrons. They do some crazy stuff without any particular reason. I always mean to read up on Quantum Mechanics, must get around to that...

(Smirking at me smirking at you smirking at me smirking at you..... )

I've tried to wrap my head around quantum physics and it hurted. However it seems that the electrons and subatomic particles are doing things for reasons that we cannot yet discern rather than for no reason.

Genghiz Cohen

O'Coonassa wrote: »

No, it has to be unbegotten or otherwise it isn't the first cause at all but something else.

Can there be a first cause then?
Matter & energy cannot be created or destroyed, so it must have always been around, unless God got his EZ-Bake oven out OFC :pac:

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I've tried to wrap my head around quantum physics and it hurted. However it seems that the electrons and subatomic particles are doing things for reasons that we cannot yet discern rather than for no reason.

So you don't know?
(And the trap is sprung!)

O'Coonassa

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Can there be a first cause then?
Matter & energy cannot be created or destroyed, so it must have always been around, unless God got his EZ-Bake oven out OFC :pac:

Regarding thermodynamics we only know what holds in this universe. It is unscientific to extrapolate it's laws of physics any further than it's physical extent. Why are you making the concept of God into a male btw?

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

So you don't know?
(And the trap is sprung!)

I don't know yet, but surely the cause is there. I will not attempt to give this cause a name because it of minor importance to me. If it impacted on what I was and where my consciousness arose from then I would certainly have a name for it.

Genghiz Cohen

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Why are you making the concept of God into a male btw?

Meh why not, he is shorter than she. Or something.

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I don't know yet, but surely the cause is there. I will not attempt to give this cause a name because it of minor importance to me. If it impacted on what I was and where my consciousness arose from then I would certainly have a name for it.

Quantum Mech is of profound importance. Quantum computing for example, ask it a question, it calculates all possible answers (For example; 2+2=A small snail) And returns the correct one, instantly.

Also on the topic of consciousness, it is very hard to define it. Who knows, in a few years, we hook up a load of artificial neurons and out pops a sentient being...

Remember though, it's fine to say you don't know, it's not so fine to think you know and be wrong.
I don't know.

Goduznt Xzst

O'Coonassa wrote: »

But it's not an idle guess. It's based on observation. Had you observed anything at all that contradicts the theory that there is no creation without it's creator then I'm sure you'd have brought it to the table

You do not have a theory, let us get that straight first. You have a baseless, non sequitur hypothesis which amounts to purely a metaphysical assertion of subjective Bayesian rationale. You are making fundamental syllogistic mistakes.

I know you think you have some loop hole which gives your beliefs weight but you do not.

Ergo, saying "I came from my mother" does not prove "God created the Universe". You know nothing about the inception of this Universe and under no circumstances does it "require" a first cause.

O'Coonassa

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Meh why not, he is shorter than she. Or something.

It. TBH if you start calling It after sexes you're not dealing with the same concept I'm talking about.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Quantum Mech is of profound importance. Quantum computing for example, ask it a question, it calculates all possible answers (For example; 2+2=A small snail) And returns the correct one, instantly.

Yes indeed, but that doesn't impact on me in the same way as the universe that changed me from stardust to plant to monkey to man.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Also on the topic of consciousness, it is very hard to define it. Who knows, in a few years, we hook up a load of artificial neurons and out pops a sentient being...

Even if we do that, and it surely won't be in a few years, it will occur as a result of the universe we are and inhabit, it alters nothing.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Remember though, it's fine to say you don't know, it's not so fine to think you know and be wrong.
I don't know.

That's fair enough, you're an agnostic, that's a perfectly logical position to take. However I feel I do know because I hypothesize that there is no creation without it's creator and can find nothing to contradict this so the theory of God is good to go as far as I'm concerned.

O'Coonassa

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You know nothing about the inception of this Universe and under no circumstances does it "require" a first cause.

As I said earlier, give me a list of things with no first cause and I'll stop smirking.

Naz_st

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Same answer tbh. Logic and reason. Show me enough things that don't have a first cause and I'll stop smirking at atheists.

The concept of Closed Timelike Curves and the reasons behind the observations around the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser are probably worth a look.

O'Coonassa wrote: »

I don't know yet, but surely the cause is there.

Have you considered the concept of retrocausality (the concept that effect precedes cause)? A good article on it with the layman in mind is here. Towards the end of that article it also touches on what it might mean for the purposes of the First Cause:

If retrocausality is real, it might even explain why life exists in the universe -- exactly why the universe is so "finely tuned" for human habitation. Some physicists search for deeper laws to explain this fine-tuning, while others say there are millions of universes, each with different laws, so one universe could quite easily have the right laws by chance and, of course, that's the one we're in.

Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist at the Australian Centre for Astrobiology at Macquarie University in Sydney, suggests another possibility: The universe might actually be able to fine-tune itself. If you assume the laws of physics do not reside outside the physical universe, but rather are part of it, they can only be as precise as can be calculated from the total information content of the universe. The universe's information content is limited by its size, so just after the Big Bang, while the universe was still infinitesimally small, there may have been wiggle room, or imprecision, in the laws of nature.

And room for retrocausality. If it exists, the presence of conscious observers later in history could exert an influence on those first moments, shaping the laws of physics to be favorable for life. This may seem circular: Life exists to make the universe suitable for life. If causality works both forward and backward, however, consistency between the past and the future is all that matters. "It offends our common-sense view of the world, but there's nothing to prevent causal influences from going both ways in time," Davies says. "If the conditions necessary for life are somehow written into the universe at the Big Bang, there must be some sort of two-way link."

This is getting into some pretty funky theoretical physics mind you, so I still think the only correct answer to the first cause question is "we don't know yet".