Just visiting and asking. What does a Humanist believe about...

[citizenschallengev3]

@ clhjr If you read this whole thing.

clhjr, you know that knife cuts two ways.

Did you spent any time reading what others took the time to write, in good faith responses to your queries?

ps. clhjr did you say you wanted to go deeper???
<blockquote>That is why I'm sharing this comment that I originally penned for a discussion over at Center For Inquiry's Forum.  It belongs here (at Cc.blogspot) since a better understanding of the difference between religious thinking and serious scientific thinking is worth trying to push into the public consciousness!

The challenge here is clarifying the key difference between Religious Thinking and Scientific Thinking.

https://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2019/09/religious-thinking-v-scientific-thinking.html

&nbsp;

https://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2020/03/earth-centrism-geocentrism-seriously.html.</blockquote>
Yes, I would claim scientific thinking is humanist thinking

[citizenschallengev3]

 

 

https : //citizenschallenge - blogspot - com/2018/08/key-to-nonoverlapping-magisterium - html

…

… Specifically, the Magisteria of Physical Reality vs the Magisteria of our Human Mindscape.

In this perspective we acknowledge that Earth and her physical processes and the pageant of evolution are the fundamental timeless touchstones of reality.

Part of Earth’s physical reality is that we humans were created by Earth out of her processes. Science shows us that we belong to the mammalian branch of Earth’s animal kingdom.

Yet, it’s undeniable that something quite unique happened about six million years ago when certain apes took a wild improbable evolutionary turn.

By and by besides the marvel of our two hands, we developed two feet and legs that could stand tall or run for hours and a brain that learned rapidly. During that evolutionary process something extraordinary fantastical was born, the Human Mindscape.

On the outside hominids learned to make tools, hunt, fish, and select plants, plus they mastered fire for cooking and better living.

On the inside our brains were benefiting from the new super nourishment while human curiosity and adventures started filling and stretching our mindscapes with experiences and knowledge beyond anything the “natural” physical Earth ever knew.

While the human mind and spirit are ineffable mysteries, they are also of tremendous consequence and real-world physical power. They drove our growing ability to study and manipulate our world, to communicate and record our experiences and to formulate explanations for a world full of mysteries, threats and wonders.

People learned to think and gossip and paint pictures upon the canvas of cave walls, and even better, upon the canvas of each other’s imaginations. We’ve been adding to our brain’s awareness and complexity ever since.

Of course, while all this was going on the human mind was also wondering about the ‘Why’ of the world it observed and the difficult, fragile, short lives we were allotted. In seeking answers to unknowable questions it seems inevitable that Gods would inhabit our mindscape. I suspect inspired by buried memories of being coddled within mom’s protective loving bosom those first couple years of life.

No doubt these “Gods” enabled further successes, though not through super-natural interventions, but rather through their ability to form, conform, reform and transform the mindscapes of the masses of people beginning to congregate. Thus, combining pragmatic civil societal needs with universally felt, but keenly personal questions, fears, and dreams.

After the middle ages tribal stories, accepted ancient doctrines and religious “truths” were no longer enough to satisfy our mindscape’s growing desire for ever more understanding and power over the Earth. The human brain took another tremendous leap forward in awareness with the Intellectual Enlightenment and the birth of serious disciplined scientific study.

Science’s success was dazzling in its ability to learn about, control and manipulate Earth’s physical resources and to transform entire environments.

Science was so successful that today most people believe we are the masters of our world and most have fallen into the hubristic trap of believing our ever fertile mindscape is “reality.”

Which brings me back to Gould’s magisterium and his missing key. …

[widdershins]

Humanists will be among the last to suppress people due to their beliefs...

Thanks for pointing that part out write. I have always said that the moment the government makes religion illegal I'll take up arms right alongside my theist brothers and sisters to fight to get their right to belief back for them. But it strikes me that these are the very people fighting against my rights to not be religious every day.

But I know why that is. They have been the majority, able to strong arm anyone who disagreed with them for literal centuries, in some cases literally murdering people horribly with impunity. And they’re losing their power, one power at a time. They haven’t been able to murder people for some time now. In the '60s they lost the power to subject all children to their Bible teachings and prayers. In the '80s they lost the ability to teach magic as science. Then more recently they lost the power to prevent gays from marrying. And they’re still fighting to get all but one of those powers back. Whenever people are given a right they always should have had to be protected from the majority there is a push back from that majority, who ignorantly feels that something has been taken from them.

The religious right didn’t see gay marriage for what it is, a right being given to gays. They saw it as a right being taken away from them. They still do. They can’t name the right they lost because there isn’t one. But dammit, they’re still sure they lost one! And the rate at which non-Christians are gaining rights they should have had all along is increasing. The country is becoming more progressive. So these people are always angry and always afraid of who the government is going to tell them they can’t oppress next. But they don’t see it as oppression. Because the oppressors never do. So they push back by trying to oppress all of their old nemeses as much as the law will allow for as long as they can because in their minds they are fighting “evil”. So yeah, they don’t give a squat about my rights or my happiness because oppressors never do care about those they oppress. But I’d still fight for their rights. Granted, I’d point and snicker a bit first. Rub it in their faces a little bit. I’d totally be a dick about it. But then I’d fight for them.

[clhjr]

Hey @timb

@timb I know that saying to “fear God” is a sick concept makes perfect sense within your logic system and I am sure that having a reveretial awe of God would be inconvenient and uncomfortable for you at the moment. However, to say that it is sick is a bit unnecessary upon literally multiplied millions (maybe billions) of the planet’s inhabitants, some of them have been some of the brightest lights that have walked among us in all fields. I was talking to a friend of mine that worked at as an engineer (not a physicist) at the FERME pariticle collider. He said that few, if any of the physicists were willing to say there is no God. They did not mean God was a Christian God, but that reality was so extraordinarily weird below the surface where we live that a god seemed more plausible. A god who determines, arranges and expresses. If this god is understood as just a part of the system, we are still just its slaves and we are all part of the machine. What is truth? Why care?

Your next comment that “God” is a construct of human imaginations is a much more historically grounded idea in philosophy and religious thought. Many of the enlightenment thinkers, even Greek/roman thinkers and before thought of god(s) as either an idealized version of the self or some heroic idea of man. That is quite common even today among some in academia. One has said that “God is man in his infinitude and man is God in his finiteness.” That probably would be close to the idea that progressive Christianity adheres to which allows them to embrace pretty much a Roussarian view of culture, the state, morality, and discovering new revelation that serves today’s community which would, of course, conflict with each generation because it is the word that each generation "feel’s it needs. But, what if God can speak and is not silent?

I would like to know more about what you mean by “finding meaning in my very small way” and “promoting truth”. What is the truth? Where is it found? How do you know it is the truth when you find it? What do you measure it by? By, “promoting truth”, do you mean persuasion and winning minds and hearts in a free and open society where all voices are free or do you mean by laws and force to keep other voices out of the market place, the schools, the government?

And, I think that gets closer to what I was asking in the first place.
I tried to say, and it should be easy to understand, I think I understand the grounds, I just wanted to hear how humanists stated it with their own mind and thoughts. There is value in that.

thanks.

[clhjr]

Well, you are right i did not get the answer exactly that i was looking for, but i take almost all the responsibility for that with such a clumsy introductory beginning. And, I was wearing all my notions and thinking of one stereotypical straw man that i was seeking an answer from.

It has nothing to do with being overwhelmed with such brilliance that I am dazzled off the stage and wonder where to find my bearings. If that is what you mean? Maybe it is not. I think I probably should be in a library doing research. I did completely write forgetting that i was stepping into someone’s home filled with people who are sensitive, diverse, and find comfort and stimulation here.
I am quite aware of the intellectual/philosophical divide between us, but I was not prepared for the suspicion, the immediate assumptions, depth of animosity, and the fearful concern of my motives was a surprise.

I don’t know why because I quit going to forums years and years ago (I am an older man now) because actual conversation in any forum that is based on worldviews is difficult and brings too much prejudice, bias, suspicion, and fear. I forgot that when I got this quick, manic idea to join a humanist forum and ask questions.

[clhjr]

Thank you for being willing to fight for the rights of everyone, even those who you disagree with. You may get to prove that one day. However, I must ask one question. We are not asking for the right to simply to believe, but to practice and express freely, to assemble as we see fit. Those are all rights that are believed to be inalienable for humans to be fully human.

I did express support for the homosexual constitutional and legal right to get married. It is undeniable that the constitution allows for the rights of all citizens to be protected. That does create a muddle and an opportunity for all of us to grow towards.

You are correct that it did not take a “right” away from me, but some of us were exactly right that homosexual marriage was not even the toe in the door of what was already prepared to drop on our culture under the umbrella of new gender understandings and its fluidity which is not science in the strictest sense, but simple observational and felt need based behaviors encouraged by a completely ready to roll out educational package to complete the indoctrination. You may not have known what was going on, but those who were planning and shaping the future of our culture and educational system, the certainly knew.

A couple of people have decried the church’s power over culture. Well that was true at one time to a large extent simply because most people, whether they were Christians or not bought into the overall worldview. Today, due to the hard, continuous decades long work of humanists (and associates) driven thinkers, that tide has changed. I know you do not think that Christians designed the sexual policies that have been unfolded in our schools over the last decade. So, you do have the power. Not us. Sure, we scream from the edges and wherever we can, but you have the levers of power at some of the most important institutional points.

And, I want to say that is as it should be. I want to be heard, but we share the same planet, the same air, the same communities, so we have an opportunity to try to break our the normal cycle of human power struggles. Maybe we can work to invent genuine diversity where all can live and express their views and lives as they wish. that is messy and untried.

If we just rearrange the chairs around the table…if we just move the outs to power chairs and the ins to the marginal chairs, if we just crush the old old regime of deplorables and install the new enlightened ones, all we have done is what humans have done from the beginning. just force and power. The victims pull down the building and erect a new hegemony. If we are going to have real diversity, it is time to try it. that means that groups that haven’t yet stepped forward out of the closet get their protection and the wedding cake maker can consider his job an expression of his faith. (yes, I am referring to that celebrated case). But, that is the only way to have diversity and mean it instead of simply a slogan for a power grab. We have to move beyond what economics and technology limited us to in the past.

[3point14rat]

Hey, Chuck, stick around, you won’t regret it. We were all new here once and I still feel like ‘the new guy’ even though my first post was two years ago. A bunch of these people are brilliant, but they’re also great at getting their point across, so it’s accessible brilliance that I guarantee you’ll benefit from.

There’s no way you will learn on your own a fraction of what you’ll learn here. Even if you only study Mriana’s posts back on page one you will be way ahead of where you’d be if you try to learn on your own.

Post what you think and respond to our posts honestly and I have no doubt that we’ll all get along even if we don’t agree on everything.

 

[timb]

Thanks for replying to me directly. You said:

...I am sure that having a reveretial awe of God would be inconvenient and uncomfortable for you at the moment. However, to say that it is sick is a bit unnecessary upon literally multiplied millions (maybe billions) of the planet’s inhabitants, some of them have been some of the brightest lights that have walked among us in all fields.

However, if you want to argue, then argue against what I actually said. I did not assert that every God believer ever was/is sick.

I said “Fearing God” is a sick concept from my perspective. You may find joy in it. To me, it would be totally icky. “God” is a construct of human cognitions. Being somehow roped in to fearing that concept, as if it were real, feels disgusting to me."

Sure many God believers are wonderful people, now and historically. But note that many of our most illustrious forefathers were slave owners despite the sick and disgusting nature of that choice. I think that god-believers can, like atheists, be good or bad people. But I think that they (the god-believers) are either ignorant or are intellectually dishonest. I think it is the intellectual dishonesty that feels so icky and disgusting to me.

You further ask “But, what if God can speak and is not silent?” Of course, to me, that is a very silly question, like “What if Bigfoot is a descendant of ancient Wookies?”

So in regards to your questions like, “What is the truth?” “Where is it found?” “How do you know it is the truth when you find it?” “What do you measure it by?” “How do you find it?”

Truth is what is currently most consistent with all of the evidence that we have. It is found where it is, amongst the many lies that oppose it. You know that it is our best understanding of what is true by the great preponderance of actual evidence (not made up evidence). To me, the truth, in and of itself, feels good and right, even when it may also be horribly sad, or alarming or frightening. Then you further ask:

By, “promoting truth”, do you mean persuasion and winning minds and hearts in a free and open society where all voices are free or do you mean by laws and force to keep other voices out of the market place, the schools, the government?

I promote truth by declaring it as I see it, and by opposing lies. That being said, I do want to live in a free and open society where there is freedom of expression. However, I believe that our schools and government should NOT be agencies of passing on religiosity, or any of the many religions of the world. Our public schools and government should be secular, for ALL of the people. Be free with your religions, elsewhere, outside of public schools and governmental agencies.

You can believe any damn fool thing you want, and you can persuade and win hearts and minds into believing your superstitious lies all you want. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

I am sorry that you are upset that people are now closer to being able to love the person that they want, and to safely experience sexuality in their lives in the manner that is consistent with their true feelings. All of the letters “LBGTQXYZ” can be confusing, but that’s their lives. Not mine. Not yours. And should NOT be the purview of some ancient religious dogma. All of the different batty religions are protected in our society, why shouldn’t all the various sexual kinkiness be? One’s sexuality goes to the heart of what it is to be human. Let the weirdos be. They are not trying to suppress whatever superstitious nonsense that you are proposing to the world.

[citizenschallengev3]

Your next comment that “God” is a construct of human imaginations is a much more historically grounded idea in philosophy and religious thought ...

Nonsense! It's an inevitable part of the march of evolution!

[widdershins]

I was talking to a friend of mine that worked at as an engineer (not a physicist) at the FERME pariticle collider. He said that few, if any of the physicists were willing to say there is no God. They did not mean God was a Christian God, but that reality was so extraordinarily weird below the surface where we live that a god seemed more plausible.

That is a really misleading statement. Many atheists and humanists will not say that there is no god, myself included. I believe that there are no gods, but I can't prove that so I'm not going to make that claim, I'm going to state it as my belief. This statement seeks to lead the reader to believe that these physicists know something about the universe which suggests that there might be a god behind it, even outright stating that knowing so much about the universe makes a god "seem more plausible". This is simply not true. They are likely refusing to state belief as fact.

Let me explain. I know that there are no gods in the same way that I know that there are no fairies or monsters. I can’t prove any of that. Fairies that don’t exist aren’t around to leave proof that they don’t exist lying around. But I am still comfortable stating as fact that there are no fairies because unless your beliefs are really, really outside of societal norms you almost certainly agree with me and I do not have to defend my assertion of my belief that fairies don’t exist as fact. When it comes to gods, however, especially the Judeo-Christian God, I have no such expectations from societal norms. In fact it is actually more likely that you will challenge my assertion and ask for evidence. I know it’s not a fact, it’s a belief, so I don’t state with any authority that there are no gods.

And I really hate the absolute myth that science can tell us anything or give us any evidence of anything supernatural. That is absolutely not true. Science is the study of the natural world. By definition the "super"natural is outside of science. You can’t spend a lifetime studying butterflies to learn all there is to know about rocks. You can’t learn anything about rocks by studying “not rocks”. Likewise you can’t learn anything about the supernatural by studying the natural. The idea that science can tell us anything about god is unequivocally and definitively false. That is not my belief, that is fact. A god would have to make himself available to be studied and we would have to create a new branch of study besides the study of the natural to study such a supernatural being.

Besides that, there is no context whatsoever in that statement. They “would not say that there was no God”. Why would they not say that? In what conversation did it come up? Did they just walk up to your friend, one by one over the weeks, and say, “Just between you an me, I will not say that there is no god”? Very unlikely they simply volunteered this unasked. So were they asked if they would say that there was no god? Who asked them and how? Did your friend ask them? Because then they’re just avoiding yet another unwelcome conversation with your asshat friend who won’t stop preaching to everyone at work. Or was there a survey? How was the question worded? You can get very different outcomes from the same survey by just changing how the question is asked. And how do I know this is even true? Because you said that your friend said that they said it? When I was Pentecostal I can’t tell you how many father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommates actually witnessed a miracle firsthand. But nobody ever saw one themselves. They always knew someone who knew someone who heard of someone who knew someone who saw it.

The claim is even more dubious when you realize that there is no “FERME collider”. There WAS a collider at Fermilab which shut down in 2011. So how old is this information? Old enough that you at least don’t remember the actual name of the place. By using all capitol letters you suggest that’s an acronym, but it’s not, it’s just spelled wrong and missing a few letters. And it’s a famous place. They had the largest collider until 2008 when the LHC was built. Everyone has at least heard of Fermilab. But you actually knew someone who worked there and couldn’t remember the name? By “friend” did you mean “guy I talked to a couple of times on the Internet”? At the very least your memory of the incident has some serious holes in it.

I don’t mean to rip into your every post. It’s not about “getting you”. It’s about objective truth. I can’t let an untrue or misleading statement go by unchallenged. And you still give me serious reason to doubt your sincerity. I would suspect you, yourself, subconsciously elevated this last statement to some kind of importance that it really didn’t have in the real world. Or your friend did. But if was as significant a thing as you made it out to be, if these physicists really did see something in the data which made them doubt the nonexistence of some god (which would be “evidence that some god exists”) then you’re going to have to back that claim up with some data.

[clhjr]

OK. I have not had a chance to read the last 10 or so post probably. I am, at the moment very busy. Thank you for your patience.
But, I will not run away yet. Or try to squirm away yet. Actually, I like people. I like genuine conversations that seem to track in some kind of logical progression.
I do subscribe to the old quote attributed to Aristotle that goes something like this, “it is the mark of an educated (or a well trained mind) to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it”. some have said it is the mark of such a mind to be able to hold two contrary ideas in one’s mind and not go crazy.

Anyway, some time ago, I did learn to try to repeat accurately what someone says they believe. If you cannot repeat what they say accurately, one is either does not yet understand their logic system (which is not the same as accepting it), or one is involved in a straw man argument. Or, sometimes we are so invested in the polemic that we don’t have time for the understanding.

Anyway, I am going to read a few posts to see what charges i have drawn or ANSWERS to the main question embedded in what has been well identified as a tortuously, long boring biased rant with a question hidden in it. I might be guilty of all that. Don’t know.

I started to leave because I felt like i wasn’t actually going to fulfill my initial goal here, but there might be even more important stuff going on. So, I will read. Watch the video provided by blaire, think, and maybe respond to a few.

Don’t even know what kind of trouble I am in from my last three quick reponses because I have not read them. going to try right now. And, see,…I don’t say anything concisely. I am always talking like i am sitting a MCD over a cup of coffee (with espresso) talking with someone who might be a friend…or at least, friendly.

Ok. Going to watch the video first.

[clhjr]

Hey Lausten
As I read trying to catch up, relax , and enjoy you guys. I did want to respond to “typing is not addictive.” That is hilarious, but the sad truth is anything can become additive. I don’t know if the typing is addictive, but I think I am…even since i learned to in 8th grade trying to type as fast as I could. It was something my ADD brain latched on to.
So, when you match the joy of typing with the joy of interacting with someone else, it is…well…kind of like…addictive.

And, you comment about “inquiry” is directive , helpful. Listen I have said i dropped in here with a purpose in mind that was not suited for the long inquiry mode for which this forum exist.

So, give me some time. Got to settle in, get my traction. Do some listening which may take some time. then, perhaps respond.

[timb]

Cool.

[mriana]

@clhjr I hope the things that are said, including the videos and links given, are helpful.

[write4u]

I have a wonderful compromise.

All sentient beings are greater or lesser gods of their own individual microbiomes. And if that sounds obtuse, consider that a “human” biome consists of 10% human cells and 90% bacterial cells and the human body is a “universe” unto itself. Of course when the human microbiome dies, it’s God dies along with it. Can’t have a God without Agency over something.

Human microbiome

The human microbiome is the aggregate of all microbiota that reside on or within human tissues and biofluids along with the corresponding anatomical sites in which they reside,[1] including the skin, mammary glands, placenta, seminal fluid, uterus, ovarian follicles, lung, saliva, oral mucosa, conjunctiva, biliary tract, and gastrointestinal tract. Types of human microbiota include bacteria, archaea, fungi, protists and viruses. Though micro-animals can also live on the human body, they are typically excluded from this definition. In the context of genomics, the term human microbiome is sometimes used to refer to the collective genomes of resident microorganisms;[2] however, the term human metagenome has the same meaning.[1]

Graphic depicting the human skin microbiota, with relative prevalences of various classes of bacteria

Humans are colonized by many microorganisms; the traditional estimate is that the average human body is inhabited by ten times as many non-human cells as human cells, but more recent studies estimate that ratio as 3:1 or even 1:1.[3] Some microorganisms that colonize humans are commensal, meaning they co-exist without harming humans; others have a mutualistic relationship with their human hosts.[2]:700[4] Conversely, some non-pathogenic microorganisms can harm human hosts via the metabolites they produce, like trimethylamine, which the human body converts to trimethylamine N-oxide via FMO3-mediated oxidation.[5][6] Certain microorganisms perform tasks that are known to be useful to the human host but the role of most of them is not well understood. Those that are expected to be present, and that under normal circumstances do not cause disease, are sometimes deemed normal flora or normal microbiota.[2]

The Human Microbiome Project took on the project of sequencing the genome of the human microbiota, focusing particularly on the microbiota that normally inhabit the skin, mouth, nose, digestive tract, and vagina.[2] It reached a milestone in 2012 when it published its initial results.[7]

Human microbiome

 

[clhjr]

widdershins: Here is website for FERMILABS https://www.fnal.gov/

here is the guy I spoke with about his career for an hour or so a couple of weeks ago… I do not know him well. I just came to know him because he did marry a woman that my wife and I knew some years ago. Steve Krstulovich retires after 31 years at Fermilab.

As i said he was an engineer, not a physicist. worked 31 years at FERM. As a facilities manager and computer whiz, they relied upon him a lot. As to how many he spoke with over all that time, i did not think to ask. During this time, the search for the God particle was continuously in vogue and I can imagine that such topics would not be unusual specially around Steve who was not shy about his faith. You know, 31 years around the office, the water cooler, the break rooms, cafeteria, meetings is a long time to get to know and talk to people. How many, how would I know. I know the FERME collider was not sufficient for the God particle research. They did do a lot oof the theorizing. It took the big huge CERN collider to conduct the experiments needed. And, I think, I am not sure, but I think Steve has been to CERN…not sure about that.

Let’s get my point straight. i said clearly that these guys, or, at least most, were only alluding to the mysterious nature of reality. Our reality lives like a movie riding upon a quantum layer of wave packets. Now, what creative force is behind that layer that manages the quantum layer? Does that make your life feel more or less real. Think about it. Keep in mind that everything we consider as real and tangible is only and largely empty space held together by invisible forces. It is said that if this universe which has been racing out away at the speed of light was vacuum sealed by sucking out all the space and dark matter, it could be compressed down to something like the size of Mercury or its orbit. So, we are, indeed, very fragile pieces of matter. Just little bits of breathe that are here and gone (like the Bible says). Our existence is genuinely more than the life and death of material we are familiar with. You are more energy and empty space than stuff.
I am not saying at all…let me repeat, I am not at all saying that proves God. I am saying that the universe and reality is sufficiently complex and unknown enough for God to operate in all the ways faith imagines. Perhaps faith in God connects with quantum wave packets in ways that mere intelligence and flesh cannot.

Let me repeat that nothing that I have said above proves my faith or the God of the Bible, but it should bring some sober thought to the minds of those who are still locked into the cause and effects of just this tangible physical universe. And, when that pause is taken. It is possible to see how Genesis chapter oine might be more accurate in its poetic description than we know. It is not at all impossible that light and energy exists before a star or or a sun. And, God could create or unleash life nourishing light before he created light sources. When we say that is impossible, we thinking only with the laws of physics that we know and observe and not with a realization that there are laws and a different set of physics and physical laws that are higher and before the ones we live in for the time being.

Some of that is probably more agreeable, even if not accepted, by someone like mriana.

Your life is not just a living collection of cells that die. Those cells are collections of atoms which are composed of ever smaller particles which have unobserved lives of their own. Our biological life rides on a quantum layer of energies and we have no idea what is beyond that. Apparently, the origins of life is not really even or primarily biological or even chemical (which our textboooks have said for some time). All that we know, when broken down, consists of and lives on this quantum layer…or some other layer(s) of reality that has its own life which a different set of causes and effects.

So, in all respect, and with all seriousness, I do not think anyone can say that our spirit does not depart from the body and go somewhere else or return to its maker. I am speaking in layman’s terms in regards to what is popularly known about the science of quantum science.

So, I can continue my prayers. Perhaps, they ride on quantum layers of stuff which is, right now, beyond our understanding.

Now, yes, you can say that all of that, whatever it turns out to be will simply be a natural extension of whatever is real…not God. That is a logical statement or hypothesis to make. Nothing slack about that thinking.

REgarding miracles. Miracles are nothing more than the intervention of forces and physical creative laws that are higher than or behind the processes that we are familiar with and depend upon. Miracles are not magic. They are not supernatural in sense that they are illogical or irrational or unexplainable when known. Whatever set of physical laws set our universe in motion and whatever controls it, produced it is probably a whole new set of laws that we are not aware of. Even in the quantum layer, behaviors of quantum particles are not dependent upon the laws we recognize and depend upon.

I have also talked with a physicist at Duke university who was repulsed at even the mention of the possibility of God. So, even though it is oft mentioned that physicists and engineers (people in hard sciences) are more open to the concept of a designer God, surely, like the Duke guy, many, if not most, are not.

Why do we care about meaning, purpose, love, life, and freedom, etc. etc. ?? Is the universe alive? Is the universe god? Or Did God create the universe?
More than One Christian philosopher has suggested that if humans claim to have life, personality, intelligence, purpose or meaning, love, etc. then that means the universe has life, intelligence, personality, purpose, love, meaning, etc . If there is no God, then universe is our God. And, a fickle, mean, uncaring, cold god it unless…

The Bible declares that even the great mighty mysterious universe is created with a redemptive purpose. Man was given freedom. The Bible declares that existence of a creator/designer is clearly deduced from the intricacies of life and the universe to the one that seeks and ponders without bias.

So, that is where I am. A man of faith in God. I came simply to observe and ask questions which I can still do if i am permitted, but i thought I would pen a few lines of thought for the digestion and indigestion of some.

Have a great day.
I have not edited for spelling or grammar. So, if errors, hope you can figure it out.

[blaire]

@Clhjr

I am not able to believe the universe had a creator. All I can say with confidence is that the universe exists. That it seems to have begun by a process called Mtheory. I cannot prove that and neither can anyone else as far as I am aware.

To say therefore “God did it” is facile and shallow in my opinion. Also a logical fallacy “god of the gaps”. The fallacy find its genesis in an argument from ignorance. IE: “I lack the knowledge, imagination and wit to think of anything else and my dogmatic certitude will not allow me to simply say I don’t know”.

[timb]

Well maybe those who believe God to be a giant spaghetti monster have it right.

I am not saying at all…let me repeat, I am not at all saying that there is proof of the giant spaghetti monster. I am saying that the universe and reality is sufficiently complex and unknown enough for the giant spaghetti monster to operate in all the ways that their faith imagines. Perhaps faith in the giant spaghetti monster connects with quantum wave packets in ways that mere intelligence and flesh cannot. There is no absolute proof that the giant spaghetti monster does not exist, is there?

[mriana]

@clhjr

Why do we care about meaning, purpose, love, life, and freedom, etc. etc. ?? Is the universe alive? Is the universe god? Or Did God create the universe?
More than One Christian philosopher has suggested that if humans claim to have life, personality, intelligence, purpose or meaning, love, etc. then that means the universe has life, intelligence, personality, purpose, love, meaning, etc . If there is no God, then universe is our God. And, a fickle, mean, uncaring, cold god it unless….

Sounds like you’re talking about C.S. Lewis. Then it could be Bishop John Shelby Spong for all I know.

So here is my question… Why are you preaching when you allegedly came to Center For Inquiry forums to learn about humanism? Seems to me, if you were really curious, you’d be asking more questions about humanism and conversing about that topic, instead of preaching. IMHO, you can still be a man of god (whatever your god is- pantheistic or whatever) and be in inquisitive about others without preaching. You can stay and ask all the questions you want, even discuss as much as you want, but try not to have long walls of preaching.

Yes, in case you are curious, I am another mod here.

[widdershins]

@clhjr
Thank you for clearing that up. The original statement I quoted appeared to be some kind of argument to make it sound important that physicists would not say that there was no god. The context you gave here gives me a whole lot more context from which to imagine the actual possible/probably context of the conversations.

I would like to set you straight on the laws of physics really quick. I know what you’re saying in that paragraph, and your argument isn’t actually wrong, but your understanding of it is wrong.

First, throw out cause and effect altogether when talking about the creation of the universe. Cause and effect are part of the nature of the universe itself. They are laws of this universe. Those laws do not apply outside of or before this universe. We have no idea what rules may govern things outside of this universe, so there is no reason to believe that cause and effect necessarily exist outside of (or before) this universe.

And second, the laws of physics also apply only to this universe. Outside of or before this universe we cannot say because we cannot observe anything not in this universe. Maybe there is nothing outside of this universe. Or maybe there are gods galore making universes right and left.

So yes, your basic argument is correct. It is not only possible that a god residing outside of this universe would live by different “rules”, it is absolute certainty. Only within this universe do the laws of physics as we know them apply. In fact, physics is the study of this universe. Creating a new universe violates several laws of physics, most notably the conservation of mass and energy. So by the laws which govern this universe a new universe cannot be created. So the creation of a universe absolutely must be governed by different rules which are beyond our ability to know or study.

That being said, by the laws of this universe matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Light isn’t like water. You can’t splash some on and have it stay there. You need a light source to have continual light. What you are describing there is magic and it’s really unnecessary for the argument of a creator. Genesis obviously isn’t a factual representation of how things came to be. I believe it’s within the first 3 chapters that 2 completely different orders of creation are given. You only need this magic if you’re trying to defend that as a literal account.

So, in all respect, and with all seriousness, I do not think anyone can say that our spirit does not depart from the body and go somewhere else or return to its maker. I am speaking in layman’s terms in regards to what is popularly known about the science of quantum science.

Or course not. But where is the evidence to suggest that? I’m not saying, “You’re wrong!” What I’m saying is, “You’re going to have to give me some evidence to support that this really happens and wasn’t just the fanciful notions of the primitive people who wrote the books of the Bible at a time when people used magic to explain literally everything.”

As for magic, anything which breaks the laws of physics within our universe is magic. Magic is anything which breaks the laws of physics. Magic is literally anything which is not possible by the laws of physics within this universe. A miracle is just magic by a different name. And “supernatural” is literally everything which is not “natural”, as in “bound by the laws of nature”. Any god would be, by definition, “supernatural”. What is the difference between Pharaoh’s magician turning a staff into a snake and Moses doing it? It was the same trick for both. Only the source of the power was different. Any miracle fits the literal definition of magic.

There is a negative correlation between education and religious beliefs. The more educated a person is, the less likely they are to hold religious beliefs. Logic and critical thinking tend to not be so healthy for theistic beliefs. Not that that necessarily means anything. Just pointing out that what you say is “oft mentioned” is absolutely not true. Your own assessment is correct.

Christian philosophy is pointless garbage. It’s a purposeful twisting of logic in an attempt to bend the universe to the will of the philosopher. It is never based in facts and full of logical flaws. What you mentioned there, for example, is flawed in so many ways. “If there is no God, then the universe is our God”, for example. Let’s say I’m thirsty and I’m told that there is no water. I respond, “If there is no water then this glass of mercury is my water.” Does my “clever logic” keep me from dying horrible? Or was that just an incredibly stupid thing to assert as being true? On top of that, it’s a petty assertion essentially stating, “Even if I was wrong, then I would still be right”. As for a fickle, mean, uncaring and cold god being useless, how arrogant a statement that is. NOTHING inside or, as far as I know, outside the universe exists solely to be “useful” to me. It is just pure, unadulterated arrogance to assume that a god, should one exist, must be “useful” to me or I can’t accept its existence.

To be clear, I do not reject your basic position. Nothing in the laws of the universe make a god impossible because any god would not be bound by the laws of the thing he created. There very well may be a god. I’m just a stickler for the details. I don’t mind your argument at all, nor can I refute the actual meat of the argument. I can and do say that if you want me to believe something you’re going to have to present me with more evidence than that ancient, uneducated people who invented many gods said that this one is really, really real. And I will refute any supposed “evidence” you give as the bullshit it invariably will be, at least based on all the “evidence” I’ve been presented with in the past.

@mriana

In his defense I believe that wall of text to be nothing more than defending his statements from my wall of text and trying in earnest to address the issues I brought up. I don’t think he has yet figured out where I am coming from and I do come off as combative when I don’t intend to, I’m assuming quite a bit. I read every word of that and didn’t see anything which I would consider to be preaching, just a long response to my long response.