Libertarians and Atheism

IDigSluts_ky:

other people are aware of themselves.

How do you know? Are you psychic? How do you know everyone else isn't a philosophical zombie, creatures that act as you'd expect them to if they were conscious, but they in fact are merely automotons? There are computer simulations these days that can hold pretty convincing conversations, but no one actually claims they have any awareness. They've just got spiffy algorithms. You have absolutely no proof that you are not the only consciousness extant. Yet you act as if you believe it, because you know the effects of your own consciousness and take the leap of faith that others have a similar process for similar effects. This is precisely the rationale I use to say that God exists. When I look at a car, I can only assume that a conscious being designed it, because I know of nothing but a consciousness that could be the ultimate source for the design of a car. Living bodies are even more complex machines, so I assume an even more sophisticated conscious designer. The design inference is one we all make all the time.

IDigSluts_ky:

Most people today, believe in an Abrahamic god.

Don't look at me, I didn't tell them to do something like that. I can't really bring myself to believe something just because some dead guy wrote it a long time ago.

IDigSluts_ky:

Why did your designer possibly create a universe that may experience heat death and devoid all forms of life?

Perhaps because the universe will only serve a purpose for a limited period of time.

IDigSluts_ky:

I personally believe God wanted beings to come about that were interesting, not coddled little puppets.

Key words are "personally believe". Personal belief, does not equal proof.

That's true. I'm merely demonstrating that omnibenevolence, while not even required of God, can exist in a more complicated fashion than the simplistic ideas of paradise people put forward.

IDigSluts_ky:

This is called evolution.

Which merely means change, which I never denied.

IDigSluts_ky:

Does you designer still exist and how does he interact with the universe?

Irrelevant.

JCFolsom:

 

Interesting idea. You see the flying spaghetti monster anywhere?

In any case, you are wrong about atheism requiring nothing more than a disbelief in God. It necessarily implies a belief that the universe, which clearly exists, came into being without God. That is a positive belief. I believe there must have been some kind of God precisely because I disbelieve that the observable universe could come about without a conscious designer. Thus, you present as an unbalanced opposition is rebalanced. You in fact make an assertion with your atheism, and I can state my assertion as a mere denial.

The argument, or more specifically quote that I cited, does not state anything about the creation of the universe. It does imply that the universe is real, but does not attempt to explain origins. The delicious, noodly, flying spaghetti monster is only another example of what the quote does prove; it is impossible that any claim, unless backed by suggestive evidence, is anything other than a claim. It is upon the one that claims to prove the claim. This is evidenced by the other 2/3 of the quote I posted.

It is not "unbalanced opposition" to be skeptical of a claim if there is no evidence.

I do not assert atheism, as atheism is not the "opposite" of theism; an atheist is not called upon to disprove a theist (of any kind, of course), but rather the theist must prove their claim. I would, at this point, care to discern this from "reactionary atheists," which you addressed in an earlier post, describing the "individual that had a bad Sunday school teacher," etc. -- obviously they make claims which are usually based on emotion to react or rebel against the individuals that may or may not have wronged them.

I, personally do not know the origins of the universe and do not claim to.

BSBD:

I do not assert atheism, as atheism is not the "opposite" of theism; an atheist is not called upon to disprove a theist (of any kind, of course), but rather the theist must prove their claim. I would, at this point, care to discern this from "reactionary atheists," which you addressed in an earlier post, describing the "individual that had a bad Sunday school teacher," etc. -- obviously they make claims which are usually based on emotion to react or rebel against the individuals that may or may not have wronged them.

I, personally do not know the origins of the universe and do not claim to.

Well, now, I don't really see the point in talking any more on this matter with you, then. Your disinterest in contemplating the origins of the universe makes my arguments, well, disinterensting to you. If the origin of the universe and the life in it and the existence of God is basically a non-issue for you, that's fine. Thanks for letting us know that there are other perspectives out there.

JCFolsom:

Ego:

For another example, read about flocking. I could write a computer program where individual deterministic "actors" act in seemingly complex ways without any master plan.

 

This statement refutes itself. You, using a platform designed by humans, with a language designed by humans, could design a program with the intent of having deterministic actors whose behavior you set the rules for act in seemingly complex ways WITHOUT A MASTER PLAN???

This of course happens in a computer environment without all of the complications actual birds have to deal with.

I don't create any master plan, I create a simple set of rules. If that's all you mean by "master plan", I agree with you that there is a "master plan" in the universe.

Ego:

I don't create any master plan, I create a simple set of rules. If that's all you mean by "master plan", I agree with you that there is a "master plan" in the universe.

Indeed, it is even more masterful to use a method that is elegant and simple. You could program the exact movement of each simulated bird to a flocking pattern, but that would be silly when you can achieve the same effect using a few simple rules.

In that case, your view of "God" is simply the being that created the physical rules, correct?

JCFolsom:

For my part, in my education as a biologist and my rather more valuable independent study of general science, I find Paley's watchmaker argument to be compelling (and Hume's refutation not). Only in life do we have such complex machines (.) that supposedly arose through unconscious processes, and the fact is, we've never actually seen the origination of biological order. It is an assumption that it happened so. When Darwin made his theory, cells were still thought to be mostly formless blobs of goo.

Darwin's theory does not attempt to explain the origin of life.  It is predicated on the fact that life already exists.

JCFolsom:

We now know that, from the molecular level up, living bodies are series of orders of tremendously complex machines. The only time we ever see such orders arise is when a conscious agent creates them.

Actually, that is false.  We have never seen a recognizable and observable conscious create anything so complex.  We have seen the creations of men, which are far less clomplex.  It could follow, then, that consciousness can only create simple orders, while it takes random chance to create anything so complex as life.  Any action supposedly committed by God can be attributed to random chance:

God created everything.  Random chance created everything.  God put the face of Jesus on a piece of toast.  Random chance put the face of Jesus on a piece of toast.

With the evidence we currently have, none of these statement are any more provable than any other.

Rules and initial structures, yes. Interventions are few and far between, moving the world along to its next evolution as needed, but otherwise letting things run by themselves. My version of God's omniscience permits a knowledge of all that is but not all that will be.

Why would God ever need to interfere until beings with free-will entered the universe?

JackCuyler:

Actually, that is false.  We have never seen a recognizable and observable conscious create anything so complex.  We have seen the creations of men, which are far less clomplex.  It could follow, then, that consciousness can only create simple orders, while it takes random chance to create anything so complex as life.

An interesting point, but the structures we have observed to be created by consciousnesses have more organized complexity than anything we have observed created by random chance. Nor do we consider it outside the realm of possibility that we might ever create structures so complex via our conscious understanding, we just can't yet. On the other hand, we have every reason to believe we will never see something so complex as life arise randomly. Human machines have increased in complexity over time, while most of the changes we have seen come about through natural forces are neutral or actually reduce complexity.

Ego:

Why would God ever need to interfere until beings with free-will entered the universe?

I am not sure if I understand the question, but I'll try to answer anyway.

First off, God would need to interfere for the universe to even be a place suitable for beings with free will. Gravitational constants, matter and energy are not givens, after all. Even dimension had to be created. It boggles the mind, really, but I am merely mortal, after all.

God would need to intervene several times because the creation of any new, complex structure as is found in life forms or other machines can only come about through design. Incredibly complex machines are needed for even the simplest cells, things like mycoplasmas and such that are obligate endoparasites and so use host cells to do most of their functions for them. These are rather simpler than the first life, without the benefit of another organism with a large part of its metabolism run by a host, would be.

Any big innovation (limbs, heads, eyes, etc.) would need not only to be designed in and of itself, but also integrated into an entire organism.

My point was this:

Why would God need to go back and change anything? Aside from free-will, why couldn't the laws of physics, created on His own terms, be enough?

Ego:

My point was this:

Why would God need to go back and change anything? Aside from free-will, why couldn't the laws of physics, created on His own terms, be enough?

As far as we know, such complex instructions were not built into the laws of physics, and individual instructions are needed in each case. Using an algorithm such as that for flocking is only efficient if the algoritm is simpler than the step by step instructions. To clarify:

Print 010 one hundred and five times.

is simpler than writing out

Print

010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010

010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010

010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010

010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010

010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010010

However, for such things as some irrational numbers, no algorithm can represent it, in whole or part, which is simpler than the number itself. It is my contention that many biological structures are like this, irreducibly complex. Therefore, rather than load the laws of physics with instructions which were not immediately useful and would only be used once, it is simpler to intervene and enter the instructions when needed. And, why wouldn't God do that?

IDigSluts_ky:

Who created this "complex" creator?  You are stating that all complexity is derived from a creator.  This creator has to be complex.  Hence, this creator needed a creator.  Hence, infinite regress.

This assumes that a being who created the linear temporal reality in which we live must exist in an identically linear temporal reality, which is an unwarrented assumption.

Juan:

I thought that religious libertarians would tend to be deists like they actually used to be in the 18th and 19th centuries.

I think it's more true that Western Christians tend not to believe in free will (and hence, reject liberty-oriented beliefs). This is not so true of Christianity in other parts of the world. And I have found that those Christians who actually care to read the Bible in the language in which it was written realize that much of Western Christian doctrine, specifically that which oppses free will and supports authoritarianism of all sorts, is nowhere to be found in the Bible.