The Theist Position

[Gab123]

I’ve tried calling “on Him”…answer was always the same …no reply

God is referred to as “Him” or “Father” because fatherhood is the principle of generation and you are His creation. The paradox is that He speaks in silence. The key is to open your conscience to Him. Listen to this tonight when you go to bed:

 

[o_mlly]

It’s an emergent property.

Theist: I observe order in the universe.

Atheist: No, that’s just apparent order.

Theist: What is “apparent order”?

Atheist: Apparent order is just an emergent property.

Theist: What is an emergent property?

Atheist: When I say emergent property I mean I have no idea how or where that order we observe came from so I made up the adjective “emergent”. Sounds more scientific than, “I dunno”, doesn’t it?

 

[Calliope]

(unless they deny being altogether, atheists are really just pantheists).

I define myself as a pantheist. But then I get people accusing me of “believing in all the gods” because of word origin, or saying that basically I think the Universe IS god. I believe the Universe to be the Ultimate Reality. If you are using “Ultimate Reality” as your definition of god, then I’m on board. But in no way do I believe the Universe is akin to a personal being.

Theists tend to believe there MUST be something beyond the Universe and then tend towards defining that thing further. I believe there is nothing beyond the Universe, the Universe is the extent of all there is. So far I’ve run into very few people (but there are some and some of them hang around here) that argue against the existence of the Universe.

Logically you say there must be something beyond, but at some point even theists come to a stop and feel they have a sufficient explanation. I get off that trail of logic a step before you, because personally I found riding the bus to the next step didn’t take me anywhere and I needed to back track.

The concept of the great mysterious unknown and it having a special story just for me isn’t compelling, nor have I found it useful in the sense of improving my happiness, lot in life, mental stability, or productivity. I accept that for many people such a belief DOES improve all those things for them, and it’s logical that both of us maintain the positions that we find most rewarding.

Spirituality evolved in humans and like our other mental resources, if using it can help us, we should use it.

 

[Gab123]

Faith is also a psychological condition and makes irrational arguments. Nor have I heard atheists claim that harmony, existence, or anything else is truly accidental. There is order and everything that is or occurs is the result of it. No more of an accident than anything a deity does.

Belief in God’s existence is a rational conclusion, much like your belief that the source behind this line of text you are reading now has a rational source. Harmony is impossible without logic. Logic necessitates reason in order to decipher if, much like knowing the code known as “The English Language” is necessary to decode the comprehensible string of characters that make up the sentence you are reading right now.

The fact that the universe is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is proof that the cause behind the Big Bang is rational. The problem is that atheism is a psychological mental block, the result of a darkening of the intellect. Locking yourself in a room, closing the curtains and shutting off the lights will make perfectly functioning eyes useless. The remedy is to open up the windows and let the light of truth shine in and then you will begin to see all the colors that cannot be seen without the light…

 

[ProdglArchitect]

The burden of proof is generally on the person who makes the assertion.

If you enter the conversation and say “God exists,” it is up to you to provide evidence for that assertion.

If an atheist starts the conversation by claiming that God doesn’t exist, it’s up to them to provide evidence for that assertion.

 

[Calliope]

The problem is that you are claiming that harmony is accidental and without a purpose. When one builds on error, all conclusions will be in error. Thus an error in the beginning is an error indeed.

I didn’t see any such claim being made. Seems we all agree there is order in the Universe. Haven’t seen anyone here claim that we’re just bags of chemicals, that it’s all random or that it’s all an accident. Purpose is in the eye of the beholder. Some of us find purpose right where we are, others prefer it to be assigned by something beyond. Most humans seem to prosper when they get it in both forms. We find our own meaning, but we also like to be part of a community and find some purpose in our various roles.

The idea that atheist means I believe that it’s all an accident is fallacious. It’s what theists insist about me so they can drag out all their usual arguments, tell me I’m irrational (I’m human, so yeah) and …I’m actually not sure what their point in continually misrepresenting me and ignoring my own explanation of my beliefs.

I’m willing to concede to Deism if the “god” part is loosely defined, as being a reasonable and logical conclusion given what we know. Anything beyond that can’t be deduced.

 

[Calliope]

Realize that logic is independent from matter; your intellect is not coming from the substances that make up your brain but rather from a reality outside matter itself, what philosophers call a soul.

Wow, there’s an assumption!

 

[Calliope]

I appreciate your effort on my behalf, but I’m good. Yes, I came to CAF at the request of a family member but I’ve put enough time and energy into giving a personal deity a try.

I find truth and satisfaction in the religion I practice now, far beyond anything I found while living as a Catholic, Christian or seeking a deity beyond that. If there was a “duty” to investigate, I’ve completed mine.

The fact that the universe is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is proof that the cause behind the Big Bang is rational.

Does rational mean “ordered” or does it mean personal? Even if the Big Bang was the start of the Universe and there is something behind it, I believe that something to be of the same order that I witness everywhere, in everything in the Universe.

If you want you can call it God. I perceive it as Natural Order, of which I am a part. Most theists that I have spoken with don’t understand themselves as part of God. They claim that if they were simply part of an impersonal Universe they would be utterly without meaning. They tell me they NEED something from beyond to give them meaning.

Alternately, I am part of Ultimate Reality. I fail to see how the “meaning” and “purpose” assigned to you from beyond trumps the sense of awe and wonder that I get from being Part Of.

Maybe it’s just a difference in personality. You claim I’m hiding in my room with the blinds down and my fingers in my ears saying “lalalalalla I can’t hear you.” I’m not. I don’t.

I don’t know why the Universe isn’t sufficient for some people. I find experiencing and knowing my part in the greater whole to be extremely satisfying, motivating and purposeful. If that doesn’t work for you then of course you should, and have sought something “beyond”.

I see zero evidence of something beyond, and my many years of trying to cultivate belief and a relationship with something I perceived no evidence of left me extremely unhappy, unfulfilled and much less productive than I am now.

You insist my belief is irrational. Well, I believe it would be far less rational and less logical for me to continue to follow a belief system that bore no fruit for me and that I perceived no evidence for.

The fact that it works for you is a great reason for you to hang onto the belief, but it’s not compelling for me. It might be if I was searching for reason, purpose, meaning etc, but I’m good where I am.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

It’s an emergent property.

Theist: I observe order in the universe.

Atheist: No, that’s just apparent order.

Theist: What is “apparent order”?

Atheist: Apparent order is just an emergent property.

Theist: What is an emergent property?

Atheist: When I say emergent property I mean I have no idea how or where that order we observe came from so I made up the adjective “emergent”. Sounds more scientific than, “I dunno”, doesn’t it?

A lot wrong there.

Firstly, the order is not apparent. Both sides of the fence agree that it’s there.

Leading on from that, apparent order does not emerge. It’s actual order.

Next, it is nonsense to say we do now know whence order. There are laws that dictate it.

Lastly, I am using the term ‘emergent’ as a recognised term. If you think I made it up then you wouldn’t know what the means in the first instance. So I don’t know how you can argue against something you don’t understand. To help you, here’s a definition:

‘…characteristics or properties (such as the wetness of water) manifested only when it is ‘whole,’ and meaningful only at the level of the ‘whole.’ They are not the sum of (and cannot be anticipated from) the characteristics or properties of its components or parts, and require knowledge of the ‘whole’ system to be understood.’

Let me know if you need ant more help.

 

[o_mlly]

‘…characteristics or properties (such as the wetness of water) manifested only when it is ‘whole,’ and meaningful only at the level of the ‘whole.’ They are not the sum of (and cannot be anticipated from) the characteristics or properties of its components or parts, and require knowledge of the ‘whole’ system to be understood.’

Yes, that’s pretty much reduces to “I dunno.”

Let me know if you need ant more help.

No, thanks. My ant is fine. However, we spell the word “aunt.”

 

[catholicray]

I think everything you’re saying is jumping ahead of the argument and that’s why it seems reasonable to hold your position. I have a question:

The Theist position is:
I do not believe in the non-existence of God
I do not believe in the non-existence of paradoxes
(Principle of explosion)
Therefore God hypothetically exists

The Atheist position is:
I do not believe in the existence of God
I do not believe in the existence of paradoxes
(Law of non-contradiction)
What’s your conclusion?

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

‘…characteristics or properties (such as the wetness of water) manifested only when it is ‘whole,’ and meaningful only at the level of the ‘whole.’ They are not the sum of (and cannot be anticipated from) the characteristics or properties of its components or parts, and require knowledge of the ‘whole’ system to be understood.’

Yes, that’s pretty much reduces to “I dunno.”

If you think that knowing from where a property has emerged yet explicitly staing that it cannot be anticipated from its original characteristics is equivalent to ‘I dunno’ then you really do not understand the term.

I’m not sure that further discussions on emergent properties will bear any fruit.

 

[Bradskii]

The Theist position is…God hypothetically exists.

Hey, that’s my position too!

 

[catholicray]

Okay then I suggest the following order:

Theist Position:
I do believe in the non-existence of God
I do not believe in the non-existence of paradoxes
Therefore God hypothetically exists
Hybrid Pascals Wager by which hypothetically eternal hellfire is on the table

How do you counter?

Hybrid Pascal Wager simply says it is absolutely foolish to gamble no matter the odds when you stand to lose absolutely. FYI

 

[MPat]

Where does this duty come from?

From the decision (in this case) being inevitable.

For example, you have to choose: go to Mass this Easter or not. The deadline is, obviously, this Easter.

Now, if you have to make some decision, why shouldn’t you make a good, reasonable decision? And how are you going to do it without investigation?

though they have been and why you think we should naturally dismiss the Jews makes no sense to me

Not “dismiss”. I am pointing out that Judaism is not sufficiently different from Christianity for such purposes.

I said millions have died for their faith. Many willingly offering themselves as sacrifices directly, or having gone to fight on behalf of their faith, etc.

So, still, where are the examples?

Most monotheists I have discussed with differed from you in making the claim that other gods don’t exist. Refreshing to find one who allows for the existence of other deities. (though honestly I thought monotheism by definition claimed that there was only one god)

That’s another part where you should investigate what the belief really is before making decisions about it.

For when one says that gods of Pagans exist or do not exist, one can mean many things by that.

For example: one can say that gods of Ancient Greeks do not exist, because Greek Mythology does not describe any beings accurately - for example, no one lives in a palace on Mount Olympus.

Or one can say that some other gods can be said to exist, because they refer to something that exists. For example, Caesar did exist and Roman Senate proclaimed him a god. Therefore, there is a sense in which those gods kinda do exist.

(though honestly I thought monotheism by definition claimed that there was only one god)

No, monotheism refers to belief that God exists and is to be worshipped. God has little to do with gods.

God is Uncaused Cause etc. Mythologies are full of stories of gods coming into being.

Sure, atheists want to deny this distinction. That, by the way, is suspicious: one can accept that elves and dragons are different while thinking that they do not exist.

Not sure, maybe time will tell?

So, if you do not know, perhaps claiming that laws of Logic and Mathematics cannot “bind” the Universe is a bit too daring?

I tend to agree. The default ‘We don’t know’ leaves a lot of options open. Except a personal God, which I am pretty certain does not exist.

Let’s note that this option hasn’t been investigated and rejected, it has been rejected right away. I wonder why…?

 

[Neithan]

Why not. It’s a simple, straightforward evolutionary process.

It’s the difficulty of ascertaining that our intelligence corresponds to reality. As C.S. Lewis formulated the argument (although it traces back to Aquinas), the cause-and-effect material process cannot produce the ground-and-consequent sequence of rational thought (explained briefly in Wikipedia).

There are ways around this: maybe through quantum physics if we think that some intelligent particle appeared randomly at some point without connection to the causal chain. That demands some enormous credulity, though, and is vulnerable to the argument from contingency. Another way is Thomas Nagel’s idea that intelligence did not emerge but is always attached to (and dependent upon) matter/energy, so everything is intelligent, even a rock. He calls it “panpsychism”; but I think it’s basically a kind of pantheism. And finally there is solipsism, which is that there is no reality for our mind to correspond to.

 

[Calliope]

From the decision (in this case) being inevitable.

I only feel compelled to investigate things that I recognize as possibly having important consequences for me. I do personally believe the existence or non existence of a deity has potentially important consequences, therefore I chose to investigate it.

I don’t understand your statement in the context of what I’ve already shared on the matter.

Not “dismiss”. I am pointing out that Judaism is not sufficiently different from Christianity for such purposes.

You believe in the Trinity and that Christ is God yet you don’t think Judaism is sufficiently different? They deny that Christ is God. No matter the shared roots the difference is clearly of utmost importance, basically the entire tenant on which Christianity is built is denied by Judaism. A large number of Jews have been martyred by Christians for that reason or because Christians deemed them Christ killers, so no I will not dismiss the martyrdom of Jews by Christians or anyone else for the purpose of this discussion.

So, still, where are the examples?

Are you asking for examples because you yourself are unfamiliar with history or do you doubt the statement? I am pressed for time (nor do I feel like it’s my “duty” to school you in history) I guess if you think the subject is sufficiently important I’m sure you will investigate it.

That’s another part where you should investigate what the belief really is before making decisions about it.

I felt it sufficient to take the statements that monotheists themselves gave to me concerning their faith. I saw no reason to doubt them and go out an investigate as to whether or not they were being capricious and misrepresenting a faith some of them claimed they would die for.

My own Catholic upbringing taught me that God is the only god, all other gods were false. The fact that others believed in the gods was not held as being sufficient to say that they actually existed. The statues or concepts existed, but I was taught that they were not based on truth, therefore the gods didn’t exist.

No, monotheism refers to belief that God exists and is to be worshipped. God has little to do with gods.

Perhaps the term monotheism would be better replaced with apolytheism?

Sure, atheists want to deny this distinction.

I have no reason to want to deny your distinction. You are literally the only monotheist that I have ever discussed the subject with to claim that monotheism isn’t about believing in the existence of only one god and that it holds no position on the existence of other gods.

I accept that is your position. I do not accept that it is the position of the many hundreds of other monotheists that I have discussed with who presented their faith in different terms than you present yours.

 

[Calliope]

So, if you do not know, perhaps claiming that laws of Logic and Mathematics cannot “bind” the Universe is a bit too daring?

Maybe, time will tell. My position is that the Universe governs itself. I have no way of determining if logic and mathematics are applicable to everything in the Universe.

Let’s note that this option hasn’t been investigated and rejected, it has been rejected right away. I wonder why…?

I’m not answering for Bradskii, only for myself, but why do you assume that the option of a personal god has been rejected without investigation? Or do you mean in this particular discussion only?

 

[Pattylt]

To clarify…monotheism is the belief that only one God exists and is worthy of worship. Henotheism believes other gods may exist but only one God is worthy of worship.

 

[Babaganoush]

The problem is that what seems to you like reason is unreasonable to another unless you are able to offer a reasonable explanation to him to convince him. That is what reason is. It is a mode of communication by which we convince another of our perspective.