Common misconception, atheism is a rejection of a claim, not a claim.

Then in any argument over "the existence of God" atheists must "win", mustn't they? But it's a pyrrhic victory, as nothing has been gained.

If one claims that "God exists", but then defines God as real, but nevertheless beyond existence, an entity not to be found within any category of phenomena, then an atheist who rejects that claim is immeasurably reasonable in doing so, as the claim makes no sense at all.

However, if one claimed that "existence exists", that would be a tautology and any atheist would, with a yawn, agree. Nothing significant, however, has been said. But if one went further and claimed that all phenomena, i.e. existing things, are derived from something that pre-exists them and provides the conditions for their particular form of existence, then atheists may agree, though perhaps wondering where this is leading.

If it was then proposed that the plurality of phenomena that make up the cosmos were derived from a common source, a kind of source-existence that gives rise to manifold forms, would the atheist regard this as outrageous or simply as untestable and hence an idea to be discarded or, at best, filed where other untestable hypotheses are stored in the brain?

The Hindus, the Gnostics, the Neo-Platonists and probably others argued, and through their descendants still argue, that this is a reasonable position, one that accepts the reality of cosmic existence while acknowledging that phenomenal existence must be grounded. More recent discourse refers to this cosmic ground of being as a "unified field", and for those on the margins of conventional science it is a "unified field of consciousness.

One could accept this as a working hypothesis; it may indeed give one's life a new dimension of meaning, and still remain an atheist in the conventional sense. No transcendental creative and interventionist entity is being proposed. No "moment of creation" is being proposed at all. However, what is proposed is that the "divine" and the "material" are one, though the divine underpins the material. It's not a theist position as such, therefore not something that is rejected as such by atheists, but it is more than a materialist position and could be defined as a "spiritual" one, or as in Hinduism, a religious one. It could, of course, be dismissed on epistemological grounds, especially logical positivist ones, but perhaps not on the ground that the proposition is inherently meaningless, so much as that it is unverifiable (nothing is verifiable in logical positivism, except tautologies).

Would an atheist in the Judaeo-Christian set his face against this proposition in the same way that he opposes the conventional Jewish and Christian understanding of God as creator and intervenor? Is an attachment to such a view a form of "religiosity", even if not embedded in a religious form such as Hinduism?

Perhaps you would be better to rely solely on your faith that there is no God, rather than searching for something that you believe does not exist, in the hope of not finding it.

Common misconception, atheism is a rejection of a claim, not a claim. You hold out 2 fists and claim you have a 10 Baht coin in you left hand, I reject that claim but that does not mean I claim you have a 10 Baht coin in your right hand does it?

On the contrary. When you reject that claim, you claim that I have no 10 baht coin in my left hand. Bu atheists normally go one step further, and claim that there is no 10 baht coin anywhere. The fact that you can disprove my claim that I have a 10 baht coin in my left hand, or my right hand, is not sufficient. you need to also show that it is not in my pocket; in your pocket; down the back of the sofa; under the rug...

But you are looking in ther wrong place, because the money is in the bank, and not in the form of coins of the realm. Looking for it in the realm of physics is a futile exercise...

SC

Common misconception, atheism is a rejection of a claim, not a claim.

Then in any argument over "the existence of God" atheists must "win", mustn't they? But it's a pyrrhic victory, as nothing has been gained.

If one claims that "God exists", but then defines God as real, but nevertheless beyond existence, an entity not to be found within any category of phenomena, then an atheist who rejects that claim is immeasurably reasonable in doing so, as the claim makes no sense at all.

However, if one claimed that "existence exists", that would be a tautology and any atheist would, with a yawn, agree. Nothing significant, however, has been said. But if one went further and claimed that all phenomena, i.e. existing things, are derived from something that pre-exists them and provides the conditions for their particular form of existence, then atheists may agree, though perhaps wondering where this is leading.

If it was then proposed that the plurality of phenomena that make up the cosmos were derived from a common source, a kind of source-existence that gives rise to manifold forms, would the atheist regard this as outrageous or simply as untestable and hence an idea to be discarded or, at best, filed where other untestable hypotheses are stored in the brain?

The Hindus, the Gnostics, the Neo-Platonists and probably others argued, and through their descendants still argue, that this is a reasonable position, one that accepts the reality of cosmic existence while acknowledging that phenomenal existence must be grounded. More recent discourse refers to this cosmic ground of being as a "unified field", and for those on the margins of conventional science it is a "unified field of consciousness.

One could accept this as a working hypothesis; it may indeed give one's life a new dimension of meaning, and still remain an atheist in the conventional sense. No transcendental creative and interventionist entity is being proposed. No "moment of creation" is being proposed at all. However, what is proposed is that the "divine" and the "material" are one, though the divine underpins the material. It's not a theist position as such, therefore not something that is rejected as such by atheists, but it is more than a materialist position and could be defined as a "spiritual" one, or as in Hinduism, a religious one. It could, of course, be dismissed on epistemological grounds, especially logical positivist ones, but perhaps not on the ground that the proposition is inherently meaningless, so much as that it is unverifiable (nothing is verifiable in logical positivism, except tautologies).

Would an atheist in the Judaeo-Christian set his face against this proposition in the same way that he opposes the conventional Jewish and Christian understanding of God as creator and intervenor? Is an attachment to such a view a form of "religiosity", even if not embedded in a religious form such as Hinduism?

Very well worded, an almost seamless repeated interchange between Theism and Deism.

You capitalize the word god which means the Judaeo-Christian god but I don't think you mean that.

Then in any argument over "the existence of God" atheists must "win", mustn't they?

I reject the claim but since the claim is not unfalsifiable I can 'lose'. This admission exposes or at the very least highlights that which follows in your post as sleight of hand, intentional or not.

Perhaps you would be better to rely solely on your faith that there is no God, rather than searching for something that you believe does not exist, in the hope of not finding it.

Common misconception, atheism is a rejection of a claim, not a claim. You hold out 2 fists and claim you have a 10 Baht coin in you left hand, I reject that claim but that does not mean I claim you have a 10 Baht coin in your right hand does it?

On the contrary. When you reject that claim, you claim that I have no 10 baht coin in my left hand.

No I don't, all I am doing is rejecting your claim which is not the same thing. Exactly the same thing happens in courts every day... To be found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent. It is up to the prosecution to prove your guilt and not up to you to prove your innocence.

Perhaps you would be better to rely solely on your faith that there is no God, rather than searching for something that you believe does not exist, in the hope of not finding it.

Common misconception, atheism is a rejection of a claim, not a claim. You hold out 2 fists and claim you have a 10 Baht coin in you left hand, I reject that claim but that does not mean I claim you have a 10 Baht coin in your right hand does it?

On the contrary. When you reject that claim, you claim that I have no 10 baht coin in my left hand.

No I don't, all I am doing is rejecting your claim which is not the same thing. Exactly the same thing happens in courts every day... To be found not guilty is not the same as being found innocent. It is up to the prosecution to prove your guilt and not up to you to prove your innocence.

That would be an agnostic. He may or may not have a 10B in his hand, or his other hand, or either pocket. But it has not been proven.

Indeed, it cannot be proven, for if we were to find his money, we would take it, and he would no longer have it.

And then we would bicker over it, and try to divide it amongst ourselves, but we could not, so best to forget all about the money, and rely only on those things that we can see, and worry not about the existence or otherwise of things we cannot see

SC

Very well worded, an almost seamless repeated interchange between Theism and Deism.

Not Deism, I think. Deism, in my understanding, proposes a creator who, having created the world out of nothing, then lets it proceed by natural law without any further intervention by the creator. The position I was talking about proposes that there was no nothingness from which anything could be created. Being is necessary; nothingness is impossible except as a mental construct (and then it can only be inferred, or projected, not actually imagined or described). Hence, there was never a creation nor any creator; the "ground of being" is co-eternal with and immanent in phenomena, but transcends any particular phenomenon.

This is panentheism rather than pantheism or plain theism, but not deism. It's nothing new; it's what Hindus have been teaching for thousands of years and has been taken up in the West as Advaita Vedanta and the green theologies of liberal Christianity. Its found in Christian and Sufi mysticism, Theosophy and Perennial Philosophy. I've not succeeded in putting it clearly, perhaps because my own thoughts are clouded.

Then in any argument over "the existence of God" atheists must "win", mustn't they?

I reject the claim but since the claim is not unfalsifiable I can 'lose'. This admission exposes or at the very least highlights that which follows in your post as sleight of hand, intentional or not.

I think you mean "the claim is unfalsifiable".

Not Deism, I think. Deism, in my understanding, proposes a creator who, having created the world out of nothing, then lets it proceed by natural law without any further intervention by the creator. The position I was talking about proposes that there was no nothingness from which anything could be created. Being is necessary; nothingness is impossible except as a mental construct (and then it can only be inferred, or projected, not actually imagined or described). Hence, there was never a creation nor any creator; the "ground of being" is co-eternal with and immanent in phenomena, but transcends any particular phenomenon.

This is panentheism rather than pantheism or plain theism, but not deism. It's nothing new; it's what Hindus have been teaching for thousands of years and has been taken up in the West as Advaita Vedanta and the green theologies of liberal Christianity. Its found in Christian and Sufi mysticism, Theosophy and Perennial Philosophy. I've not succeeded in putting it clearly, perhaps because my own thoughts are clouded.

It was I who was clouded.

What you describe has as something like atheism but sexed up, also found in T(D)aoism.

Dan Dennet also said of it something along the lines of 'to the extent of its meaning it is not true and to the extent of its truth it is trivial'.

Dan Dennet also said of it something along the lines of 'to the extent of its meaning it is not true and to the extent of its truth it is trivial'.

A cool quip; it reminds me of Russell's comment on a new book: "A new and interesting essay - unfortunately what is new is not interesting and what is interesting is not new".

However, it takes me back to my earlier point that, as atheists only refute others' arguments they must always "win", as there will never be a proposition that they can't refute, other than synthetic ones ("all unmarried men are bachelors"). But nothing is gained.

I would need to know what Daniel Dennett will accept as meaningful and true. Would Dr Dennett accept as a true and meaningful statement that the universe is infinite? It may be true - it probably has to be, even if one is speaking of multiple universes - but how meaningful is it? Can one really grasp the meaning of infinity and all that it implies? And how meaningful are atheist propositions in the context of infinity? They depend on what is verifiable (and falsifiable), but the procedural and conceptual range of possibilities for verifiability are extremely limited in an infinite universe. They are limited to what we can observe and measure in our own experience, i.e. that of humanity or, as Wittgenstein said, to the limits of our language, but the ability of language to discuss infinity in meaningful terms is also limited, as meaningful language is dependent on experience, inference and trust.

Kant argued that it's not logically acceptable to define God as Being, because the term and concept "God" refers to an entity, not just ground. Hence to say that God is that which must exist, as his essence is his existence, or words to that effect, is sleight of hand. However, to say that existence is necessary - it is not just an alternative to nothingness - is a reasonable proposition, and verifiable within human experience. We have never come across pure nothingness. Even a vacuum is something, though defined by its boundaries. Space is not nothing, it is relational. So to say that existence is necessary is reasonable. To posit that existence has a universal and non-dual source, or ground, or field, may be a step too far for many, but to oppose that hypothesis is not an act of the intellect, but of the will. To refuse to go that far is intellectual conservatism, or humility, but it's not a refutation.

I would need to know what Daniel Dennett will accept as meaningful and true. Would Dr Dennett accept as a true and meaningful statement that the universe is infinite? It may be true - it probably has to be, even if one is speaking of multiple universes - but how meaningful is it? Can one really grasp the meaning of infinity and all that it implies? And how meaningful are atheist propositions in the context of infinity?

Was watching a programme last night on TV about the universe and so on.

The general conclusion was that, contrary to previous theory that the expanding universe was slowing down, due to gravitational influence, our universe is accelerating, due to 'dark energy'. Also there was commentary on ways of detecting 'dark matter', which composes 5/6ths of the matter in the universe.

And another few snippets - our universe is probably not the only universe, whilst there is one, why not several, or indeed an infinite number of universes - the universe can expand infinitely as there is no 'balloon' liimiting such expansion - super-novae are occuring every few days somewhere in the universe, with a less-than-three-week period of expansion before subsiding.

I couldn't follow all of what was said easily, some stretched my willingness to believe to the limit (and beyond).

But this turns on it's head all previous theories that I had heard of, including the Stephen Hawkinge writings.

None of it, however, answers the questions that I posed in an earlier post on this thread.

...So to say that existence is necessary is reasonable. To posit that existence has a universal and non-dual source, or ground, or field, may be a step too far for many, but to oppose that hypothesis is not an act of the intellect, but of the will. To refuse to go that far is intellectual conservatism, or humility, but it's not a refutation.

Would you say that courage exists? Or colours? Or hypotheses? Or ideas?

SC

However, it takes me back to my earlier point that, as atheists only refute others' arguments they must always "win", as there will never be a proposition that they can't refute, other than synthetic ones ("all unmarried men are bachelors"). But nothing is gained.

Atheism is the the territory of a definition of something they are not. An astampcollector or atrainspotter would be in the same position.

Would Dr Dennett accept as a true and meaningful statement that the universe is infinite? It may be true - it probably has to be, even if one is speaking of multiple universes - but how meaningful is it?

Why does anything have to be meaningful in this context? I try to think of a 2D entity living on a 3D sphere myself.

And how meaningful are atheist propositions in the context of infinity?

I don't know what you mean by that.

Johnno

But this turns on it's head all previous theories that I had heard of, including the Stephen Hawkinge writings.

The Hubble constant, which to this day is still not known.

None of it, however, answers the questions that I posed in an earlier post on this thread.

I'll look back to see if there are any I can answer or point you to where you can get an answer.

[edit] I answered your previous which I had to split into two posts due to the number of quotes exceeding that allowed.

I'll look back to see if there are any I can answer or point you to where you can get an answer.

[edit] I answered your previous which I had to split into two posts due to the number of quotes exceeding that allowed.

None of those 'answers' were really convincing arguments, I still have those same questions. (Which will probably be with me for the rest of my life)

Any proof that spiritual enlightenment actually exists would be greatly appreciated.

I've had glimpses on several occassions, some drug-fueled. I could explain it in words, but i can't offer a video. It's like trying to explain a sexual orgasm to someone who's never experienced it. Yet enlightenment is more like an orgasm of the brain rather than the gonads.

Me too and mine was definitely drug fueled. I saw God in full color 3D and I have never had a hallucination so vivid before or since. I still wonder where it came from as it was so "real" and so intense and lasted for what seemed like 10 or 20 minutes.

Excellent. (Congrats on reaching your 30 000 mark also)

Thanks. I had not realized that I had passed the 30,000 mark. It is rather embarrasing, but something to do at work to pass the time.

I'll look back to see if there are any I can answer or point you to where you can get an answer.

[edit] I answered your previous which I had to split into two posts due to the number of quotes exceeding that allowed.

None of those 'answers' were really convincing arguments, I still have those same questions. (Which will probably be with me for the rest of my life)

Perhaps you would be so kind as to rephrase because I number of them do not appear valid questions. How was 'that' created assumes 'that' needed to be created and we have not established that it does need to be created.

I'll look back to see if there are any I can answer or point you to where you can get an answer.

[edit] I answered your previous which I had to split into two posts due to the number of quotes exceeding that allowed.

None of those 'answers' were really convincing arguments, I still have those same questions. (Which will probably be with me for the rest of my life)

Perhaps you would be so kind as to rephrase because I number of them do not appear valid questions. How was 'that' created assumes 'that' needed to be created and we have not established that it does need to be created.

Back to basic physics - "matter can neither be created nor destroyed". But it must at some time have been created, in some form or other, in order to exist. What created the Big Bang? What was there before the Big Bang?

I'll look back to see if there are any I can answer or point you to where you can get an answer.

[edit] I answered your previous which I had to split into two posts due to the number of quotes exceeding that allowed.

None of those 'answers' were really convincing arguments, I still have those same questions. (Which will probably be with me for the rest of my life)

Perhaps you would be so kind as to rephrase because I number of them do not appear valid questions. How was 'that' created assumes 'that' needed to be created and we have not established that it does need to be created.

Back to basic physics - "matter can neither be created nor destroyed". But it must at some time have been created, in some form or other, in order to exist. What created the Big Bang? What was there before the Big Bang?

Speculation.

Just because we do not know how matter is created or destroyed does not mean that it can't be done.

Alternatively, is there any reason to believe that there is not a continuous and never-ending cycle of expansion and collapse?

But anyway, this is all just looking for a god to fill in the gaps of our physical knowledge, which, I put it to you, is a futile exercise since it assumes that god has physical properties.SC

Back to basic physics - "matter can neither be created nor destroyed". But it must at some time have been created, in some form or other, in order to exist. What created the Big Bang? What was there before the Big Bang?

Is it unreasonable to say that there was no need for a creation? Something has always been there.

The question: "Why is there something and not nothing?" is not a meaningful one, as "nothing" is not a not a valid alternative. It's not like "zero" which refers to a null, or empty class, but there is still a class to be null and void; hence "zero" is not "nothing" because it has relationality. "Nothing", on the other hand, has no classes, no categories, no boundaries, no potential of any kind.

Back to basic physics - "matter can neither be created nor destroyed". But it must at some time have been created, in some form or other, in order to exist. What created the Big Bang? What was there before the Big Bang?

Is it unreasonable to say that there was no need for a creation? Something has always been there.

The question: "Why is there something and not nothing?" is not a meaningful one, as "nothing" is not a not a valid alternative. It's not like "zero" which refers to a null, or empty class, but there is still a class to be null and void; hence "zero" is not "nothing" because it has relationality. "Nothing", on the other hand, has no classes, no categories, no boundaries, no potential of any kind.

No, XSH," nothing" is a valid alternative. You're falling into the atheist trap of saying that because something is not possible according to our reasoning powers, it is therefore absolutely impossible. I cannot explain why, because my reasoning powers are only human.

If there was nothing there, then we would not be having this conversation. However, we are, and therefore, by inference the universe exists.

That doesn't mean that the universe must exist, merely that it does.

SC

Back to basic physics - "matter can neither be created nor destroyed". But it must at some time have been created, in some form or other, in order to exist. What created the Big Bang? What was there before the Big Bang?

Is it unreasonable to say that there was no need for a creation? Something has always been there.

The question: "Why is there something and not nothing?" is not a meaningful one, as "nothing" is not a not a valid alternative. It's not like "zero" which refers to a null, or empty class, but there is still a class to be null and void; hence "zero" is not "nothing" because it has relationality. "Nothing", on the other hand, has no classes, no categories, no boundaries, no potential of any kind.

No, XSH," nothing" is a valid alternative. You're falling into the atheist trap of saying that because something is not possible according to our reasoning powers, it is therefore absolutely impossible. I cannot explain why, because my reasoning powers are only human.

Well, human reasoning powers are all I've got to work with, but of course you may be right.

If there was nothing there, then we would not be having this conversation. However, we are, and therefore, by inference the universe exists.

That doesn't mean that the universe must exist, merely that it does.

SC

The weak anthropic principle (WAP)

Isn't a belief in the creation story contradictory? Believers believe we were created, but don't they believe the creator always existed. Logic says the creator must have always existed. Stephen Hawkins, and his ilk would say the big bang just happened, and fits in with the quantum physics theory

Didn't the creator create the Big Bang?

Science can prove for the creator to do his work gravity must have already existed. Scientists say it didn't until after at least the initial rapid expansion of the universe.

Isn't a belief in the creation story contradictory? Believers believe we were created, but don't they believe the creator always existed. Logic says the creator must have always existed. Stephen Hawkins, and his ilk would say the big bang just happened, and fits in with the quantum physics theory

Science can prove for the creator to do his work gravity must have already existed. Scientists say it didn't until after at least the initial rapid expansion of the universe.

Both these posts depend on human logic which, as XSH says, is all we've got to work with. My argument is that a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, etc etc is above our human logic, and therefore we cannot answer these questions. Unsatisfactory, I know, but if you believe in a God, he must be over and above the realm of human minds.

Isn't a belief in the creation story contradictory?

Which Christian one?

My argument is that a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, etc etc

The very same all knowing God who was unable to find Adam and Eve who were hiding their nakedness after eating from the tree of knowledge..

Unsatisfactory, I know, but if you believe in a God, he must be over and above the realm of human minds.

That should be 'a god', 'God' is the Christian god. If the Christian god, or any other god, is outside the human mind then we could never know of it (metaphysical) but if we were to know of it (physical) then the metaphysical must touch the physical at which point it can be tested. Nothing so far though.

Well all 3 religions apparently say "Let us create man in our image" Only Christianity believes in the Holy Trinity. So in Islam, and Judaism. who is us?