God's purpose

[Pixel42]

It's one of those jokes I never get tired of.

A silly person looks at a puddle and is amazed that the water is just the right size and shape to fit the hole. What they fail to realize of course is that the water flowed into the hole. There wasn't a preformed glob of water waiting to find the right hole to fit it.

There could be a hundred puddles, and it would be no surprise or coincidence to find all their water fit exactly, because the water always adapts to fit whatever shape the hole is.

A twisted version of the anthropic principle is the most common example of puddle thinking. In its original form it's actually perfectly sensible - it basically says that since we're here we know that the laws of physics and the universal constants must be consistent with our existence, so we don't need to waste time speculating about theoretically possible combinations which aren't. The puddle thinker turns that around into the fine tuning argument, ie marvels at the "amazing coincidence" that the laws and universal constants are exactly what they need to be in order for us to exist.

This is the mistake the puddle makes in Adams's analogy when it marvels at the fact that the hole is exactly the right shape for it. The hole is not the shape it is in order to fit the puddle; the shape of the puddle is determined by the shape of the hole.

Likewise the universe is not as it is in order that we can be as we are; we are as we are because the universe is as it is.

 

[ynot]

Let me try again. I think we're in agreement but not sure.

What I meant was that one could believe that ETs produced humans and still be an atheist.

Depends whether you mean “still could be an atheist” or “still would be an atheist”. If it's the latter then we're in agreement, otherwise not. Being an atheist isn't a decision. It's lack of decision to become a theist.

Navigator might think that if he decides to become an atheist, he'll become that kind, so atheists like me who deny ETs produced humans, are heretics and must be shown the error of their ways.

If he decides to become a theist, well, he can pick any religion.

I think you and I agree that someone who doesn't believe in a god right now, meets the definition of an atheist. But Navigator has denied that point so vigorously I'm not going to go there. I'll grant that he's neutral, even if he doesnt use the standard word for it.

But right now, he's not acting like he's in the neutral middle between theists and atheists. He's arguing against evolution like a fundy Christian, not like someone undecided.

The ET thing explains it. He may be undecided whether God or ETs created mankind, but Darwin and I are wrong either way.

Navigator, I wish you would tell us straight out what you think, so we wouldn't be drawn into these speculations about why your posts say what they do.

That Navigator thinks anyone decides to be an atheist means he's doesn't correctly understand or accept the definition of “atheist”. I certainly don't grant that he's neutral and am puzzled and disappointing that you say you do.

ETA – Perhaps you meant he can be neutral before choosing to believe either goddidit or ETdidit? That would be fine as there are two choices because neither is a default. But that doesn't mean there's a neutral position between theism and atheism.

 

[Pup]

Depends whether you mean “still could be an atheist” or “still would be an atheist”. If it's the latter then we're in agreement, otherwise not. Being an atheist isn't a decision. It's lack of decision to become a theist.

I mean that believing in ETs alone wouldn't make one a theist. Believing in ETs and a god would make one a theist. But one could believe in ETs and stay atheist. It's possible.

I don't see how atheism being a decision or not, would affect that. But on that issue, I disagree that being an atheist is never a decision. For important issues like that, I assess the evidence, weigh both sides, see which has the strongest, best, most reasonable evidence, and decide that's the correct choice. Like a jury member listens to the evidence, then decides innocent or guilty.

Other atheists seem to strongly disagree, with more fervor than I understand, but that's how it seems to me. I decided gods were a human invention, like I decided certain medical treatments are quackery while others are real, bigfeet aren't real, the moon landing happened, etc. I don't know if being a strong vs weak atheist makes a difference?

Edited to add: I think i finally get it! Atheists are saying that one is an atheist while weighing the evidence, and remains an atheist right up until the moment one decides the evidence is stronger for god (if that's how one decides). Sure. I thought they were demanding I renounce the decision making process and lie and say I never compared evidence or consciously made up my mind. One may stay atheist during the decision-making process, but that's an important process to me. I wouldn't want people to think I started saying there was no god instantly on a whim with no thought or consideration or research in the decision making process.

That Navigator thinks anyone decides to be an atheist means he's doesn't correctly understand or accept the definition of “atheist”. I certainly don't grant that he's neutral and am puzzled and disappointing that you say you do.

ETA – Perhaps you meant he can be neutral before choosing to believe between either goddidit or ETdidit? That would be fine as there are two choices because neither choice is a default. But that doesn't mean there's a neutral position between theism and atheism

Well, I mean that one could be undecided whether a god exists, still weighing the evidence, thinking but can evolution really explain how intelligent humans are? There must be a god. But no, ETs could have made humans special. Maybe it was ETs and not a god. Hmm... need to read more pro and con.

Normally, that's describing a person who doesn't believe in god, otherwise called an atheist. But sometimes people get really strange with self descriptions, and if it avoids a big fight every time and there are more interesting things to talk about than the same old fight, I'll just give in to their self description and move on. That's what I mean here.

 

[abaddon]

I mean that believing in ETs alone wouldn't make one a theist. Believing in ETs and a god would make one a theist. But one could believe in ETs and stay atheist. It's possible.

Sure, but that is not what is happening here. Our protagonist is attempting to substitute ET for god. One might apply different labels, but it is still theism.

 

[ynot]

I mean that believing in ETs alone wouldn't make one a theist. Believing in ETs and a god would make one a theist. But one could believe in ETs and stay atheist. It's possible.

It's not about merely believing god(s) and/or ET's exist. It's about believing they exist AND either one or both produced humans. You could only believe gods AND ET's produced humans if you also believed ET's ARE also god(s). Unless you believe some humans were produced by god(s) and others were produced by ET's. Don't think even Navigator is claiming that.

I don't see how atheism being a decision or not, would affect that. But on that issue, I disagree that being an atheist is never a decision. For important issues like that, I assess the evidence, weigh both sides, see which has the strongest, best, most reasonable evidence, and decide that's the correct choice. Like a jury member listens to the evidence, then decides innocent or guilty.

Must say I'm further disappointed and surprised by that. All people are born atheists (and non-smokers) and they only change that default position if they subsequently choose to become theists (or smokers). The only way for a theist to return to the default position of being an atheist is to decide to stop being a theist. That's not deciding to become an atheist.

Being a theist or atheist is nothing like deciding innocence or guilt according to evidence. Theism is entirely beliefs due to complete lack of evidence. Where is the evidence for you to assess and weigh both sides to decide whether god(s) exist or not? Sorry but that's a very poor and invalid analogy.

 

[ynot]

Sure, but that is not what is happening here. Our protagonist is attempting to substitute ET for god. One might apply different labels, but it is still theism.

Belief that ET's produced humans is only theism if ET's are also believed to be gods. Otherwise ET's producing humans is no more theism that humans producing test tube babies or cloning is.

Theism is belief in the existence of god(s). I don't think Navigator is claiming ET's are god(s). I'm sure he's only suggesting them as being possible alternate non-god producers of humans.

 

[IanS]

I say that we have a near perfect design for our hands for the variety of tasks required to advance humans. And the reply is that hole in the road is just the right shape for the puddle. I do not get it. Please explain this one?
ETA: I googled this concept and found that Douglas Adams imagined this. I still don't get it. Must be my lack of imagination.

If you need that explaining (the highlight) then there something very seriously wrong with either your education or your reasoning (usually a failing due to religious indoctrination).

It really should not need to be explained to anyone in the 21st century that human hands are not "designed" in any sense of some intelligent creator designing such things. That was completely explained by Darwin in 1860, and has since been confirmed literally billions of times all the way down to the microscopic precision of molecules and genes.

Do you really not understand how evolution shows that all modern living creatures and plants evolved all of their features from far simpler living things over the course of billions of years. Starting with very simple lifeforms that did not have visually obvious "hands", but eventually evolving, even by the time of a pre-dinosaur era, to a stage where the forerunner of human hands was already obvious ... are you really unaware of how and why evolution explains all of that in a way that is no longer debatable ...

.... or are you also now forced to argue that evolution must be untrue and that an invisible magical god must have created life, animals, humans & a universe by some other magical method for which you have no explanation?

 

[ynot]

Edited to add: I think i finally get it! Atheists are saying that one is an atheist while weighing the evidence, and remains an atheist right up until the moment one decides the evidence is stronger for god (if that's how one decides).

Close but no cigar. That should read "Atheists are saying that one is an atheist and remains an atheist right up until the moment one decides to believe in a god and does". Perhaps "need for belief" could replace "evidence".

Theists may believe they have evidence but they have never provided any (ever). Theism is belief that requires no evidence. Theists decide to believe god(s) exist. Atheism isn't the product of evidence and decision.

Sure. I thought they were demanding I renounce the decision making process and lie and say I never compared evidence or consciously made up my mind.

You don't need to compared evidence or consciously make up your mind to be an atheist as you are a default atheist from birth (and non-smoker). Many theist believe they compare evidence but others admit they consciously decide to believe in god(s), regardless of the complete lack of evidence that would otherwise enable them to be able to decide by comparison.

One may stay atheist during the decision-making process,

One DOES stay an atheist during the process, and the ONLY decision-making process is whether to become a theist or not. It's not a "theist or atheist?" decision. I thought you "got it" that "one is an atheist while weighing the evidence". Which more correctly should be "one remains an atheist unless and until one decides to become a theist"

but that's an important process to me. I wouldn't want people to think I started saying there was no god instantly on a whim with no thought or consideration or research in the decision making process.

Atheism doesn't require anyone to say there is no god(s). Preoccupation and concern with what others might think seems to cloud your ability to correctly understand atheism.

 

[Pup]

Theists may believe they have evidence but they have never provided any (ever). Theism is belief that requires no evidence. Theists decide to believe god(s) exist. Atheism isn't the product of evidence and decision.

Do you state there are no gods (hard atheist), or do you state you lack belief in gods (soft atheist)?

I'm willing to state, with evidence of course, that there are no gods, period. I'm not just lacking belief, I'm taking an active position. To say or imply I was born that way is as wrong as saying I was born knowing the earth orbits the sun.

Atheism doesn't require anyone to say there is no god(s).

It doesn't require it. But I hope you admit it does allow it. Some atheists work so hard to defend against being classified as hard atheists, that I think they forget that hard atheists really do exist.

Preoccupation and concern with what others might think seems to cloud your ability to correctly understand atheism.

Well, once again, I've run into the hostility for saying I decided to be an atheist. If I really cared that much about what others think, I'd give in. But I have no intention to.

Yes, i was born a soft atheist, like everyone. As I got older (ETA: not that i changed classification, but as i got older i learned the words) I classed myself as an agnostic atheist because I thought theists could keep presenting so many gods of so many gaps that it would be impossible to know that none of them existed.

Then I learned more about the human mind, about how humans think, biases, needs, etc., compared the similarities in all the gods, weighed the evidence, and concluded that I can know which god is real: none of them. They're all a product of the human mind. That's how I became a gnostic atheist.

You can tell me that story isn't true, but that would be silly. I know it's true. I was there. I became a gnostic atheist ("I know there's no god") by exactly that process, learning the evidence, weighing the evidence, and deciding.

I don't get it. Why does it bother atheists, if that's the process I went through? It's rational, fair, logical, unprejudiced, evidence-based, all the attributes that I thought atheists respected.

 

[Pup]

It's not about merely believing god(s) and/or ET's exist. It's about believing they exist AND either one or both produced humans. You could only believe gods AND ET's produced humans if you also believed ET's ARE also god(s). Unless you believe some humans were produced by god(s) and others were produced by ET's. Don't think even Navigator is claiming that.

Maybe I'm being too analytical, but I see several options, none all that farfetched, and to use language precisely, we'd need to allow for any of them.

Person believes god created ETs along with the rest of the universe, then ETs set up a biology experiment, us. That would be a theist who believes in a creator god, but that ETs created humans.

Person believes god created the universe with both ETs and humans in it. That's a theist who believes god created humans and who also believes ETs exist.

Person believes ETs evolved from primordial soup on their planet and many years later set up us as a biology experiment. That's an atheist who believes ETs created humans, with no creator god.

Personally, I think all those ideas are science fiction plots at best, but I knew a real person (offline, face to face) who believed the first, the second is necessary as churches react to the real possibility of alien life being discovered and prepare their theology accordingly. The last is probably attractive to at least some atheists. So i dont think any of the options is just a hypothetical straw man.

 

[Pixel42]

I became a gnostic atheist ("I know there's no god") by exactly that process, learning the evidence, weighing the evidence, and deciding.

Given that evidence, could you have decided differently? I think that is the key question behind the argument that being an atheist is a not really a matter of choice. If you can't choose to believe something which contradicts what the evidence tells you, then is it really a choice? Many theists seem to think that an atheist could simply decide one day to believe in God, but I know I couldn't.

 

[MajorSanderson]

I don't see any problem here....surely everyone can see that “atheist” is the default position and that a person decides (with or without evidence) – even if only weak circumstantial evidence (as in my family are investing a lot of time in this) to believe in god / gods / goddesses, etc. Is it fair to say that this will most likely be a decision made at a very early age in the majority of cases? I guess that a weighing up of the evidence does not often take place at an early age, this comes later when one might begin to have doubts about their belief in god/s - hence a requirement to "decide" to revert back to default.

What other scenarios are there apart from those below:

Person 1 – Default position is atheist, environmental influences suggest god/s, decides to believe in god/s, remains a believer in god/s unless they make a subsequent decision to no longer believe in god/s (thus reverting to default)

Person 2 – Default position is atheist, environmental influences do not suggest god/s, remains in default position unless they make a subsequent decision to believe in god/s for whatever reason

Person 3 – Default position is atheist, environmental influences equally suggest there may or may not be god/s, remain in default position unless they make a decision to believe in god/s

Obviously one cannot be a theist before any environmental influences have taken sway and the default position cannot be neither atheist nor theist?

Not sure I can accept that Person 1 cannot make a rational "decision" to reverse their original decision to believe in god/s and revert back to atheism. Is this deciding to be an atheist or simply reversing an earlier decision? What does it matter?

 

[Pup]

Given that evidence, could you have decided differently?

Well, a lot of atheists do. They certainly have access to the same information via the internet. I grant them the same intelligence and reasoning skills as myself. Sure, it would be very satisfying to declare they're all a bunch of wimps and losers and gullible sheeple for not recognizing the obvious truth. But then I'd have to admit that's what I was for 40+ years.

If you can't choose to believe something which contradicts what the evidence tells you, then is it really a choice?

But I could reassess the evidence, realize I interpreted it wrong or there was more compelling additional evidence, and choose to come to a different conclusion based on my new assessment. I do that all the time and I expect that lots of people do.

For example, when I was a teenager, I used to think that the south fought the Civil War primarily over states rights. Then I read more, including original southern documents, and after a few years, decided I'd fallen for lost cause propaganda and that the better evidence pointed to the underlying reason being states' right to protect slavery.

I could have decided not to believe the southern causes of secession and southern politicians speeches--and lots of people do! I've debated them online. They want to believe so much in the lost cause spin that they'll reject any evidence to the contrary. So apparently it is possible for people to decide to believe something which contradicts evidence, even evidence that they've been made aware of, if they want to.

 

[Magrat]

I was born and raised an atheist. I made a conscious decision to believe in a god. The accumulation of evidence challenged this belief until a point came where I could not hold on to the belief anymore. At that point I did not decide to become an atheist, I realized atheism was the only logical position.

You can decide to take action (believe) but not taking action (not believing) is the default position. You decide to stop taking action (no longer believe) not to become the non action.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

... So I am specifically talking about the relationship between intelligence and evolution of earths life forms.

And why one of those life forms evolved so differently to all the others...

This time you get the short answer: it didn't. You can repeat the assertion, but repeating to make things true only works for Trump. For five minutes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

eta - also, scientist don't specifically think of themselves as apes just because the DNA closely matches and the form is similar. They think of themselves as being a very different and far more capable type of ape called the human being, AND get about the business of proving this to be the case.

Contradictions... U haz dem.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That would be Bayes Theorem.

I suspected it was, but it's been so long since I've done any bayesian analysis that I'm pretty shaky on it/ Plus I couldn't tell you any more what any of the terms are.

 

[Pup]

I was born and raised an atheist. I made a conscious decision to believe in a god. The accumulation of evidence challenged this belief until a point came where I could not hold on to the belief anymore. At that point I did not decide to become an atheist, I realized atheism was the only logical position.

You can decide to take action (believe) but not taking action (not believing) is the default position. You decide to stop taking action (no longer believe) not to become the non action.

If I might inquire, how are you considering the two main kinds of atheism, lacking a belief in any god (soft), and positively asserting that there are no gods at all (hard)? I hate the labels soft and hard, but don't really like any of the other labels better, and just need to use some shorthand.

Surely a baby is born a soft atheist, since it merely lacks belief.

Would hard vs soft make a difference in what's considered "deciding" for an adult? Back when I was a soft atheist, I don't remember making a decision and would be okay if somebody told me I didn't. But not now. Now I know I decided. My atheism doesn't seem any more passive than believing in god, but I'm talking about hard atheism.

If someone said, as you and many others do, that they never decided to become an atheist, I'd say, okay, that's interesting, that's a good story about your life. I'd obviously believe you were telling the truth about your experience.

But apparently it's not just a personal experience. Everyone must be the same. If I said, as I did, that I assessed the evidence, formed an opinion, and made a decision to become a hard atheist, would you... tell me I'm lying? Tell me I clearly wasn't smart enough to know what I was talking about? How would you explain my life story away, so you could continue to maintain that people who think like me can't exist?

I'm being charitable in hoping it's the difference between hard and soft atheists, and soft atheists just are, but hard atheists are still allowed to decide.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What would science have to say about the possibility that during the era of the lizards, that an offshoot of a particular family of lizard took on characteristics unusual among their kind - just as the human being has done in relation to the rest of the apes.

Pretty sure some of them did. IIRC (and I may not), some of them became birds.

And what if, like the human being, they even reached a technological stage equalling or even surpassing our own?

Since we know that it can be done through the Process of Evolution, then we know it is possible but could it have happened and if not why not?

It is a possibility that could have occurred prior to the point in time where it didn't occur. Just like it's possible that a fair coin flip could have produced heads, even though it actually produced tails.

If so then no need for ET. Not saying that ET don't exist or haven't had any contact with this planet. Just saying that the CT regarding 'Malevolent Lizards' referred to as the reptilians - as popular as it is among some circles - might have its roots far closer to home than the Orion System.

Yeah... no. It is my opinion that such conspiracies have their roots in people watching too many really bad science fiction movies and not being able to separate fantasy from reality.


All of your questions are misdirection though. You might as well ask "What if evolution had gone differently, then we might have had unicorns" and somehow leaping from that to an errant conclusion that unicorns might be real because of that possibility.

 

[ynot]

Do you state there are no gods (hard atheist), or do you state you lack belief in gods (soft atheist)?

Whether I'm (or anyone) is a soft/hard/gnostic/agnostic atheist isn't what makes them an atheist. It merely defines what type of atheist they are. All atheists lack belief in god(s), whether there's a reason for their atheism or not isn't relevant to the definition.

To answer your question I'm a hard/gnosic atheist as you are and for the same reasons (I've read your comments below).

I'm willing to state, with evidence of course, that there are no gods, period. I'm not just lacking belief, I'm taking an active position. To say or imply I was born that way is as wrong as saying I was born knowing the earth orbits the sun.

No one is saying or implying you were born a hard/gnostic atheist and it baffles me that you would even think or suggest anyone would.

It doesn't require it. But I hope you admit it does allow it.

Atheism ONLY requires (is) lack of belief in god(s), but of course atheism allows for some atheists to say “there is no god”. I don't have to “admit” it as I never denied it.

Some atheists work so hard to defend against being classified as hard atheists, that I think they forget that hard atheists really do exist.

So what?

Well, once again, I've run into the hostility for saying I decided to be an atheist. If I really cared that much about what others think, I'd give in. But I have no intention to.

“Hostility”??!!! Really?

Yes, i was born a soft atheist, like everyone. As I got older (ETA: not that i changed classification, but as i got older i learned the words) I classed myself as an agnostic atheist because I thought theists could keep presenting so many gods of so many gaps that it would be impossible to know that none of them existed.

“Agnostic” is often used as a “safe/nice” position by both theists and atheists. Navigator also uses it as a “superior” position.

Then I learned more about the human mind, about how humans think, biases, needs, etc., compared the similarities in all the gods, weighed the evidence, and concluded that I can know which god is real: none of them. They're all a product of the human mind. That's how I became a gnostic atheist.

You can tell me that story isn't true, but that would be silly. I know it's true. I was there. I became a gnostic atheist ("I know there's no god") by exactly that process, learning the evidence, weighing the evidence, and deciding.

You're on the emotional defensive again (comment, not criticism). Why on Earth would anyone tell you that story isn't true? Why would you even think they might?

I don't get it. Why does it bother atheists, if that's the process I went through? It's rational, fair, logical, unprejudiced, evidence-based, all the attributes that I thought atheists respected.

More emotional defensive . I don't get why you think that it does bother other atheists at all as I see no evidence that it does. Why do you think it's all about you? You seem to have some form of atheistic paranoia. I don't think other atheists give a toss why you're an atheist. But I expect they might be pleased that you are .