Voltaire and God

domer76 said:
Yes, so much is out of our perception. Thank goodness some of us can admit that without invoking the supernatural.
Click to expand...
I think supernatural is a word particular to western metaphysics and lexicon, that I'm not sure applies to much Eastern religious thought. I think the Tao, Brahman, Qi, or Li are thought of as part of the natural harmonious properties of the universe.

Myth is something else, since it is a literary genre.

It's quite possible, even almost certain, there are realities of the universe beyond the cognitive abilities of our chimpanzee brains to grasp, and always will be. I don't know if we have a word for that, but some people might call it transcendental.
 
Cypress said:
I think supernatural is a word particular to western metaphysics and lexicon, that I'm not sure applies to much Eastern religious thought. I think the Tao, Brahman, Qi, or Li are thought of as part of the natural harmonious properties of the universe.

Myth is something else, since it is a literary genre.

It's quite possible, even almost certain, there are realities of the universe beyond the cognitive abilities of our chimpanzee brains to grasp, and always will be. I don't know if we have a word for that, but some people might call it transcendental.
Click to expand...

According to Oxford dictionary, supernatural is just something beyond the ability of science to explain.


There are a lot of things science cannot explain, and might not ever be able to. The reason for the origination of the universe, the origin of the universal physical laws, why there is something rather than nothing.
 
Cypress said:
According to Oxford dictionary, supernatural is just something beyond the ability of science to explain.


There are a lot of things science cannot explain, and might not ever be able to. The reason for the origination of the universe, the origin of the universal physical laws, why there is something rather than nothing.
Click to expand...
The universe exists. Whether it was caused or not, we still have the universe.
 
Hume said:
The universe exists. Whether it was caused or not, we still have the universe.
Click to expand...
Throwing our hands up in futility, and proclaiming "well, it just is what it is" would bring a rapid end to scientific and metaphysical speculation.
 
Cypress said:
Throwing our hands up in futility, and proclaiming "well, it just is what it is" would bring a rapid end to scientific and metaphysical speculation.
Click to expand...
No, I am saying those who claim the universe was caused provide no evidence.
That was the post I was responding to.
 
Hume said:
No, I am saying those who claim the universe was caused provide no evidence.
That was the post I was responding to.
Click to expand...
All matter and energy we can observe was ultimately caused by inflation and the hot big bang.

We don't know what caused inflation and hot big bang to occur.
 
Cypress said:
Throwing our hands up in futility, and proclaiming "well, it just is what it is" would bring a rapid end to scientific and metaphysical speculation.
Click to expand...

But speculation it is. And will always be with regards to the origin of the universe itself.

It's probably the only thing that it is perfectly rational, if not mandatory to be "agnostic" about.
 
Obtenebrator said:
But speculation it is. And will always be with regards to the origin of the universe itself.
to
It's probably the only thing that it is perfectly rational, if not mandatory to be "agnostic" about.
Click to expand...
Confessing the ignorance of agnosticism is the only rational approach.

Christians and atheists stake their positions out on truth claims that simply aren't justified.

Christian's truth claim is that the author of creation is a benevolent and providential God of Abraham, without explaining why other religious concepts like the Tao, pantheism, Brahman, or Li are excluded. The fundamentalists won't even accept these could be just different faces of a god.

Atheist's truth claim is that there is no rational author or purposeful organizing principle underlying the universe, without explaining how they know that. Then, they will frequently confiscate the language of agnosticism ("I have no evidence of deities") to avoid staking claim to the nihilism that's at the heart of atheism (aka, everything comes down to physics, man is the measure of all things).
 
Cypress said:
Confessing the ignorance of agnosticism is the only rational approach.

Christians and atheists stake their positions out on truth claims that simply aren't justified.
Click to expand...
All atheists do not have the same idea.
My atheism is just that the Christian god is not true.
 


Cypress said:
without explaining how they know that. Then, they will frequently confiscate the language of agnosticism ("I have no evidence of deities") to avoid staking claim to the nihilism that's at the heart of atheism (aka, everything comes down to physics, man is the measure of all things).
Click to expand...

That isn't confiscating the language of, that is a legitimate atheist position per the definition of the term. Not all atheists are the same type of atheist. This has been discussed.

I tend not to believe in things for which I have zero evidence simply because another person makes that claim. Maybe it's from my time living in Missouri.
 
Cypress said:
Atheist's truth claim is that there is no rational author or purposeful organizing principle underlying the universe, without explaining how they know that.
Click to expand...
I would say there is no "rational author" but there is intelligence in the universe.
 
Hume said:
I would say there is no "rational author" but there is intelligence in the universe.
Click to expand...

What is the evidence of "intelligence" in the Universe (I assume you are not referring to our intelligence but rather more universally)
 
Obtenebrator said:
That isn't confiscating the language of, that is a legitimate atheist position per the definition of the term. Not all atheists are the same type of atheist. This has been discussed.

I tend not to believe in things for which I have zero evidence simply because another person makes that claim. Maybe it's from my time living in Missouri.
Click to expand...
This isn't science, we are discussing metaphysics. There isn't going to be any experimental evidence for anyone to point to.

I don't think there is any tangible or compelling evidence of any dieties, which is an agnostic approach. Atheism is the approach that it's adherents have true knowledge that a rational author of the universe does not exist.

But there also aren't any accepted explanations for the rational organization of the universe, the mathmatical properties of the universe, the presence of life and sentient conciousness.
 
Cypress said:
This isn't science, we are discussing metaphysics. There isn't going to be any experimental evidence for anyone to point to.
Click to expand...

Nor am I requiring "experimental evidence". But I am requiring the ability to test the claim. (this is also why I am more than happy to set aside the "origins" question as either perfectly unknown and probably unknowable

Cypress said:
I don't think there is any tangible or compelling evidence of any dieties, which is an agnostic approach.
Click to expand...

If there's no evidence of a claim's truth value why do you remain "uncommitted"?

Cypress said:
Atheism is the approach that it's adherents have true knowledge that a rational author of the universe does not exist.
Click to expand...

This is a mischaracterization of atheism. It is not wrong about "strong atheism" which posits that "God does not exist". It is, however, wrong to suggest that is the ONLY atheism.

Cypress said:
But there also aren't any accepted explanations for the rational organization of the universe, the mathmatical properties of the universe, the presence of life and sentient conciousness.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And to propose anything whether to suggest an "intelligence" designed the universe is as unevidenced as any other claim and carries exactly zero additional explanatory value to any other random hypothesis.

That is why I feel the "agnostic" position with regards to the origin of the universe might be quite appropriate.
 
Obtenebrator said:
Nor am I requiring "experimental evidence". But I am requiring the ability to test the claim. (this is also why I am more than happy to set aside the "origins" question as either perfectly unknown and probably unknowable



If there's no evidence of a claim's truth value why do you remain "uncommitted"?



This is a mischaracterization of atheism. It is not wrong about "strong atheism" which posits that "God does not exist". It is, however, wrong to suggest that is the ONLY atheism.



Agreed. And to propose anything whether to suggest an "intelligence" designed the universe is as unevidenced as any other claim and carries exactly zero additional explanatory value to any other random hypothesis.

That is why I feel the "agnostic" position with regards to the origin of the universe might be quite appropriate.
Click to expand...

Atheism: I believe and know there is no rational author or purposeful rational organizing principle underlying the universe.


Agnostic: I don't know whether or not there is a rational author that purposefully organized the universe.


Selectively rejecting the providential god of Abraham is not impartial atheism. It's just being anti-christian.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top