Gnostic Atheism

[Vera_Ljuba]

I should take this a little more seriously and perhaps we can gain something.

Ok, let’s imagine that is correct. The Christian definition of God is “the creator of the universe”. Nothing more than that. Our definition stops there.

Yes, I like this approach. The only logically necessary corollary is that God was able to do it, in other words, God could do it or had the power to do it. Nothing else follows logically, as I will show it in the next paragraphs. It does not follow that God knew what he was doing. It does not follow that God wanted to do it. It does not follow that God intended to do it. And, of course it does not follow that God feels “love” for his creation.

Now let’s dig on. From here onwards we only deal with logical possibilities, necessities and consequences. From now on I will NOT use the word “universe”, because that means “everything there is”, and since God is not supposed to be part on our world, the expression “universe” would be misleading. I will use “world” instead.

The universe is space, time, matter and energy.
If God is the creator of the universe, then it follows that God created space, time, matter, energy and all aspects of the universe.

Hold on for a second. All we are aware of is this world, with 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions. From this does not logically follow that this world is “all there is” - material-wise. Our world may be a subset of a much larger complex, with several spatial and temporal dimensions. God may be an experimenter dwelling in a higher dimension. For all you know he might have created something completely different, and our little world is just a junk byproduct on the bottom of his trash can. Or God could be just a kid, experimenting with a “let’s-build-a-world” toy set, he received for his birthday.

From that it follows: Is God bound by time?
Obviously not, since God created the universe and therefore created time.
So, we have one attribute - Timeless or Not Bound by Time.
Then, Is God bound by the dimensions of space?
Again, God created the universe and therefore created the dimensionality of space.

You are too fast. God may NOT be beyond our time (since time is just an attribute of our space-time-matter-energy compound - at least before he created them. It cannot follow logically, that after the creation God can stay independent of the creation. Maybe he can, maybe he cannot. A very crude example follows: If you stand on a flat surface and “create” tar to cover it, then you will be stuck in the tar, and you will not be able to move any more. Admittedly, this is a very crude example, but the principle is this: “the creation may change the original reality, so new reality places restrictions on the creator”.

Next problem. The word “create” means to bring forth something that did not exist before.

And that logically implies a time-line. This time-line is obviously different from our own time-line (which is the result of the creative act), but it is still logically necessary. The word “create” implies a change, which implies a “before”, a “during” and an “after”. So God cannot be completely independent of time, only independent of OUR time. Huge difference. (Otherwise what would be the difference between “creation” and “idleness”?)

The same applies to space and matter. God may be independent of our space and our matter, but that is all. It does not follow logically that God is spaceless (not to mention “infinite”) and that God is not composed of matter of some kind.

So far the only logical conclusion is that God had the power to create our world. Nothing else follows. But I can be wrong, so I will be happy to see your criticism and analysis.

Have fun.

 

[Bradski]

And in passing, as free will has been mentioned in a number of posts, is this not true:

Every decision we make is determined by our knowledge of the facts pertaining to that decision combined with our experience of events up to that point.

If we had different knowledge or our experiences were sufficiently different, then our choice would be determined differently.

The exact same knowlege and the exact same experiences in the exact same circumstances would result in the same choice being made. Otherwise the choice would be entirely random.

Failing this, if our choices are not caused by anything and they are not arbitrary then we have an uncaused cause.

 

[PRmerger]

Timeless, Infinite, Immaterial, Powerful.

So no, the definition does not stop with “creator of the universe”. By logic, it necessarily includes those additional attributes.

Indeed.

And these attributes as well: God must be One, because if there is another one, then these gods have a deficit–namely, not being the other one. Therefore God must be One.

And necessary. That is, not contingent.

Thus the classical definition of the God of the Philosophers is:

God is the One, necessary, eternal, infinite, transcendent, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient creator of the Universe.

 

[goout]

And in passing, as free will has been mentioned in a number of posts, is this not true:

Every decision we make is determined by our knowledge of the facts pertaining to that decision combined with our experience of events up to that point.

If we had different knowledge or our experiences were sufficiently different, then our choice would be determined differently.

The exact same knowlege and the exact same experiences in the exact same circumstances would result in the same choice being made. Otherwise the choice would be entirely random.

Failing this, if our choices are not caused by anything and they are not arbitrary then we have an uncaused cause.

Human beings makes choices based on experience, information, desires etc. ok

Couple points:
No two human beings are the same. Each human person is unique. So the thought experiment can’t work. People might have “the same” (really no such thing…) circumstances and come up with different choices. That’s because human beings are unique.

To say that a choice is uncaused doesn’t work, The person himself is caused, so everything about a persons life stems from an outside cause. And, we have free will. As a freely acting person, we bring about our own choices.

A

 

[STT]

Oh, no doubt.

And in that universe it would be populated by robots.

So you believe that performing always good is impossible?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Thus the classical definition of the God of the Philosophers is:

God is the One, necessary, eternal, infinite, transcendent, immaterial, omnipotent, omniscient creator of the Universe.

That is why the God of the philosophers cannot be taken seriously. A bunch of pompous words strung together, some even meaningless, but they sound majestic and good. From the assumption that our world was created, the only logical corollaries can be deduced:

1. the creator or creators had the power (or ability) to perform this creative act, and
2. the creator or creators are not part of our world.

As a matter of fact it does not even follow that the creator or creators were conscious beings, they could have just been a force (or forces) of nature. The best the philosophers could hope for would be a faceless, deistic god, who set the world into motion, and has nothing to do with it afterwards.

 

[PRmerger]

So you believe that performing always good is impossible?

Not at all.

But if we don’t have the free will to choose good or evil, then we are robots.

 

[goout]

Yes, I like this approach. The only logically necessary corollary is that God was able to do it, in other words, God could do it or had the power to do it. Nothing else follows logically, as I will show it in the next paragraphs. It does not follow that God knew what he was doing. It does not follow that God wanted to do it. It does not follow that God intended to do it. And, of course it does not follow that God feels “love” for his creation.

God does not “feel” love. God is love. That’s what we believe. Love is not feelings, although feelings are part of the whole.

“Creator of the universe” observes an act that flows from God’s essence, or his being. The essence of God’s being is that of love. God is loving relationship. God creates because first, God is creative love (reflected in “Trinity”). Love is creative, which is commonly observable to any sentient person.

Can we discuss the God that is rather than the straw man God?
I respectfully observe that you do not begin to understand the thing you object to.

 

[PRmerger]

Can we discuss the God that is rather than the straw man God?
I respectfully observe that you do not begin to understand the thing you object to.

“It is not so much that Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins* disagree with Thomas Aquinas on the existence of God; it is that neither Hitchens nor Dawkins display any real grasp of what Aquinas even means when he speaks of God.”–Bishop Robert Barron–“What God Is and Isn’t”

*replace Hitchens and Dawkins with: almost every single atheist ever.

 

[STT]

Not at all.

But if we don’t have the free will to choose good or evil, then we are robots.

Good. So you agree that it is possible to have a universe that all people do good. The question is then why God didn’t create that universe?

 

[PRmerger]

Can we discuss the God that is rather than the straw man God?
I respectfully observe that you do not begin to understand the thing you object to.

Oh, how I wish that we could disabuse the atheist of the idea that we see God as a superhero, only more awesome.

 

[PRmerger]

Good. So you agree that it is possible to have a universe that all people do good. The question is then why God didn’t create that universe?

He did.

And then we ruined it.

 

[goout]

Good. So you agree that it is possible to have a universe that all people do good. The question is then why God didn’t create that universe?

Going back to the most basic rebuttal of your assertion:
What makes you think God did not create good?
(I asked this on the second comment.)

You are making the assumption that God did not create all that is and create it good.
Back up your assumption. It doesn’t work to simply point to the lack in the good that results from free will.

You have to prove that God did not create everything good.
Good luck.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, how I wish that we could disabuse the atheist of the idea that we see God as a superhero, only more awesome.

“So how do we get at the true God? Hart clarifies that real religion begins with a particular type of wonder, namely, the puzzle that things should be at all”.–Barron, ibid

This wonder is sorely lacking in the atheist.

 

[STT]

He did.

And then we ruined it.

You don’t read what I write carefully.

 

[reggieM]

Yes, I like this approach. The only logically necessary corollary is that God was able to do it, in other words, God could do it or had the power to do it. Nothing else follows logically, as I will show it in the next paragraphs.

You’re making my job easy, Vera. You’re handing me the answers. You just contradicted yourself and refuted your claim. You stated that the Christian definition was creator of the universe and nothing more. Now you added two attributes: Has the ability to create a universe. And has the power to create a universe. We can go on from here.

From here onwards we only deal with logical possibilities, necessities and consequences. From now on I will NOT use the word “universe”, because that means “everything there is”, and since God is not supposed to be part on our world, the expression “universe” would be misleading. I will use “world” instead.

I don’t know that I can concede that. First of all, your “Christian definition” is that God created the universe. As a Christian, I accept that as “God created all there is, outside of His uncreated Being”. You, however, want to limit the Christian definition to “God created this world”. I have no idea how you arrived at that definition. As I said earlier, you’re making an arbitrary claim about what Christian doctrine is. Where is your reference for this?

All we are aware of is this world, with 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions.
From this does not logically follow that this world is “all there is” - material-wise. Our world may be a subset of a much larger complex, with several spatial and temporal dimensions. God may be an experimenter dwelling in a higher dimension. For all you know he might have created something completely different, and our little world is just a junk byproduct on the bottom of his trash can. Or God could be just a kid, experimenting with a “let’s-build-a-world” toy set, he received for his birthday.

This is fine as far as it goes and with this, you’ve refuted Gnostic Atheism. There is no way you could know any of those things among infinite universes. To declare that God does not exist in some possible world would require you to know everything that possibly exists. So, agnosticism is the only logical position for the non-believer.

Additionally, we might cite Occam’s razor here since you’ve multiplied entities here to an infinite degree. It goes beyond agnosticism. This is actually St. Anselm’s argument for you: Is it possible that God exists in some possible world?

That’s your challenge. Yes or no. If no - you’re saying that it is impossible for God to exist. But how did you calculate the probabilities on that? If yes, then God necessarily exists in an infinite number of worlds. Since any possibility must be realized in an infinite opportunity.

You are too fast. God may NOT be beyond our time (since time is just an attribute of our space-time-matter-energy compound - at least before he created them. It cannot follow logically, that after the creation God can stay independent of the creation.

Ok, that’s a good point. However, in order to create time, God would necessarily have to be transcendent to time. After the creation of time, yes He may be bound by time i some way.

However, we have at least another attribute here: God lives in a state of time that is different than our own. On this path, we can say quite a lot more about God than merely He is the creator.

This time-line is obviously different from our own time-line (which is the result of the creative act), but it is still logically necessary.

As I said before, you’re giving me the answers.
Attribute of God: (You don’t like Timeless, so – God’s existence is present in a different time-line than our own. Or “God is independent of our time”.

So God cannot be completely independent of time, only independent of OUR time. Huge difference. (Otherwise what would be the difference between “creation” and “idleness”?)

Ok, as above.

The same applies to space and matter. God may be independent of our space and our matter, but that is all. It does not follow logically that God is spaceless (not to mention “infinite”) and that God is not composed of matter of some kind.

Attributes: God is necessarily independent of the space He created in our universe. God occupies a different kind of spacial dimension than we have in our universe. God is not composed of the matter we know in our universe. God is not composed of any kind of matter known to mankind.

We could go on and on like this. Eventually, we’d have quite a lot of attributes. I only gave a few.

So far the only logical conclusion is that God had the power to create our world. Nothing else follows. But I can be wrong, so I will be happy to see your criticism and analysis.

It’s not enough to say God had the power. He had to get the power from somewhere. Here’s yet another attribute:

God’s power did not come from any source within our universe.
God possessed power before the universe began.
God’s power, by human standards, is immense and beyond human comprehension.

But we have taken a very minimalistic view, based on your understanding that the only thing we can say is “God is the creator of the universe”.

In order to make that statement, we have to have at least some specifics about what God actually created, right?

 

[PRmerger]

You don’t read what I write carefully.

You keep going back to that but not really refuting what I’ve said.

 

[reggieM]

That is why the God of the philosophers cannot be taken seriously. A bunch of pompous words strung together, some even meaningless, but they sound majestic and good. From the assumption that our world was created, the only logical corollaries can be deduced:

1. the creator or creators had the power (or ability) to perform this creative act, and
2. the creator or creators are not part of our world.

I’m sorry I didn’t see this earlier. You originally stated that no attributes beyond creator could be used in a definition. Here are others - so you are clarifying.
If the creator is not part of our world, then those powers and ability did not come from our world. Additionally, those powers are great enough to create all the potentiality that is in our world.

As a matter of fact it does not even follow that the creator or creators were conscious beings, they could have just been a force (or forces) of nature.

Nature is another term for “the physical universe - our world”. So, no - the creator could not have been a force of nature.

Time, space, matter, energy - and all of the physical laws and ordered functions of this universe are what was created. God is the explanation for the origin of all of that. To multiply entities, with zero evidence (multiverse) simply pushes the problem out.

It’s like saying “Ok, ok – I’ll accept, God created the earth. But we don’t know who created the solar system.”

Creation means, all contingent reality. It means “all things that do not explain their own existence”.

You can pose an infinite number of worlds, but if they don’t explain their own origin, then the First Cause argument is the best and most logical explanation for everything.

The best the philosophers could hope for would be a faceless, deistic god, who set the world into motion, and has nothing to do with it afterwards.

That’s the best they could do because they didn’t want a theistic God. All that is needed is to ask the question: “How did the world get set in motion”.

It was either determined by some unintelligent force, or it was the creation of a free, intelligent Being. If determined - what determined it? Something outside of the Deistic God? What was that supposed thing? Deism is refuted on that point.

 

[minkymurph]

This is undoubtedly true, but beside the point. As you said yourself, almost everything I listed are common beliefs taught by multiple religious, although not universally. You asked:

And that’s what I was trying to answer. The reason that “anything else that is equally believed to be a lie” is treated differently is because those beliefs tend to be far less common and far less consequential.

I accept your answer - in that individuals who believe angels exist or trolls, unicorns and stuff exist may be eccentric but harmless. This cannot be said of many who profess to believe in God. In this regard I take your point.

This does not however fully explain why the existence of God should be attacked - feel free to substitute the word ‘attacked’ for one less provocative. Why not instead attack what people believe about God, their insistence others must believe it or pay the consequences, and their actions that can validly be argued to be contrary to the will of God on the ground of the considerable discord that exists in the world of religion as to what the will of God actually is - and who can say religions that advocate beliefs you listed are right?

This suggestion is founded on the idea that such an approach leaves the less radical and reactionary free to believe what they wish in the absence of judgement - and I stress in the absence of judgement - but by the same token does not compel the atheist to accept God does exist in terms of even if there were a God, He has not decreed many of things you listed. It also doesn’t explain why the existence of the Devil escapes the same degree of criticism. I’m not confident I have framed this well so I hope you catch my drift.

 

[minkymurph]

It’s important to believe what you think is true. So if one is convinced that there is no God (or gods to be specific), then yes, it’s important.

Like wise trolls, djins, ghosts, fairies, miracles, NDEs etc and etc.

It is important to believe what you think is true, and it hypocritical to profess a belief in something one does not think is true. One must be true to oneself - and others.

However, when it comes to the existence of God I don’t think anyone can know for certain if there is or is not a God. We can believe it is true there is God, or we can believe it true God does not exist, but I personally don’t think it can be known for certain which is true.

I suppose that’s where the ‘no evidence’ argument comes from, but I’m a bit more open-minded - probably because I am one of those eccentric people I referred to in my post to KnowtheSilence. I don’t think we should need hard evidence in order to believe something. We need it where we insist others must believe it, but not to believe it ourselves.

The reason is there is an element of truth in many myths and legends. We can’t establish evidence concerning every myth and legend, but we can establish a degree of evidence concerning some myths and legends. We know now there were giants in Ireland. I am not suggesting it is true Finn McCool picked up a sod of earth that subsequently became Lough Neagh, threw it at Scottish giant, missed and it became the Isle of Man, but we know there were giants. I also have a vague recollection of archaeological proof there were giant’s around the time of Noah. It is possible a horse with a horn once existed and also very small people with bright red hair, and stories grew up that became embellished. Having said this I’m someone whose into this kind of thing, but not as a serious endeavour.

For this reason it is possible there is a God, and if there is a God it is possible supernatural events occur. That said I continue to exercise a considerable degree of caution prior to construing an event as supernatural as in my view events perceived as supernatural are consistently accompanied by rational explanations. The miracles reported at Lourdes is one example but being Catholic I believe Mary guided Bernadette to the water.