What do atheists think that "to know God" means?

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic:



But there's nothing there about the necessity of predictability and so on, which is what I was talking about.

I'm not sure how you can say that when its the precise distinction between the atheist and theist world view is about what things can be predicted/ anticipated eg - abiogenesis vs divine creation, eternal oblivion vs afterlife etc etc

Whose retort is this? And where is the evidence?

Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved.[2] In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable.[3][4] This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

So for instance issues of predictability about weather are simply a small window opened up due to random forces that generate the parameters for weather (which in turn are built upon some lucky accident).

It seems to be the regular tool of anyone offering an explanation of a universe bereft of sentient orchestration.

Can you think of any other explanation that operates out of the exclusive denial of the universe being created, maintained and ultimately destroyed by a divine intelligence?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Please explain.

If the universe hadn't accidentally formed in such a manner to accidentally form our solar system to accidentally place the planets and sun in certain format with an accidental moon at an accidental angle, the raw ingredients for life would not have accidentally manifested to accidentally give rise to life that would evolve (by accident of course) to the myriad of creatures that we see accidentally displayed before us.

IOW the further you go back in evidencing the necessary conditions and consequences of these said accidents, the more controversial, murkier and more reliant on hearsay they become.

It sounds like you're trying to make some kind of point, but unfortunately I can't work out what it is. Could you break it down for me, please?

It was said

Try to really, seriously, believe that the universe, and everyone and everything in it, is chaotic, unpredictable, irregular, irrational, that there is no one in charge, and that everyone and everything is simply subject, to aging, illness and death, and that this is all there is to existence.

You said

Also, to flip things around, the theistic conclusion that there is a God in no way mandates that the universe must be ordered, purposeful etc. God himself may be chaotic, arbitrary, unpredicable and all those other nasty things that wynn doesn't like.

I said

"that there is no one in charge, and that everyone and everything is simply subject, to aging, illness and death, and that this is all there is to existence.

was abbreviated in your response as an "etc", which is unfortunate since these very things which would mandate a necessary condition for god.

I went on further to say that if you have someone in charge, then you also have a cause that is neither chaotic, arbitrary and unpredictable (since all subsequent causes are prescribed to the said personality ... unless you want to undercut the definition and say that he is not really in charge but really just a pawn in the well understood forces of unpredictability that governs our everyday lives)

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic


Actually, we've all been saying that you cannot assume anything about a theist's worldview knowing only that they are a theist("knows god")other than it is a theistic world view.

and I have been saying that whatever scraps of info you piece together to shape the "theistic world view" finds its antithesis in the "atheistic world view"

That's why we're having this whole argument asking what "knowing god" means. If you were to say you were a Christian theist we would know a little more, but then we have to ask Catholic or non-Catholic, Fundamentalist or Liberal theology, etc. etc....until we gradually(like pulling teeth)get to exactly which flavor of god we are being asked to have an opinion about "knowing".

There's quite a few things one could say to encompass all this. One that comes to mind is "We exist in a state of dependence on god in a world operating under his directives "

Saying I am an Atheists only tells you I do not accept any flavor of god I have investigated to have any merit or reality, at least so far.

and similarly there are quite a few things one can say about that such as "we exist in a a state of dependence on the phenomenal world (which has no sentient directive)."

Hence the distinctions between ideas on the questions of what happens after death, the creation of life become radically different between the two camps as opposed to the mere quibbling of details on the nature of the after life between different camps of theists or ideas of abiogenesis between atheists

 

[lightgigantic]

There is such a thing as momentarily granting a point for the sake of argument.

But, to what specifically do you refer? You've paraphrased, so I can't search for a phrase that matches that.

It wasn't a paraphrase it was a direct quote

“
Originally Posted by wynn
Try to really, seriously, believe that the universe, and everyone and everything in it, is chaotic, unpredictable, irregular, irrational, that there is no one in charge, and that everyone and everything is simply subject, to aging, illness and death, and that this is all there is to existence.
Try to really, seriously believe that.
”
spidergoat : I already do! What's your problem with reality? I think it's funny that given the entire world and all that's in it, all you can say is, "is that all?". Isn't that enough for anyone?

 

[spidergoat]

I don't really believe that completely, since it's overly simplistic. Obviously there is more to life than aging, illness, and death. Also some things are predictable, and some people are in charge of some things.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't really believe that completely, since it's overly simplistic. Obviously there is more to life than aging, illness, and death.

Which parts in particular aren't subject to aging, illness and death?

Also some things are predictable, and some people are in charge of some things.

do these designations and the contingent prescribed duties operate out of environments that are not dependent on being unpredictable and chaotic?

 

[lightgigantic]

Or to open it up to the broader audience, what aspects of atheism permit life to be subject to something beyond aging, illness and death or environments not dependent on issues of unpredictability and chaos?

If you can't think of any, I would think that we have a kind of general foundation for any of a myriad of atheist world views you care to mention.

 

[spidergoat]

Which parts in particular aren't subject to aging, illness and death?

I didn't say that there are parts of life that aren't subject to aging, illness, and death. All I said was that there is indeed more to life than those things. For instance, love, art, politics, etc...

 

[lightgigantic]

I didn't say that there are parts of life that aren't subject to aging, illness, and death. All I said was that there is indeed more to life than those things. For instance, love, art, politics, etc...

then you are talking about something that really has nothing to do with the discussion since it says

Try to really, seriously, believe that the universe, and everyone and everything in it, is chaotic, unpredictable, irregular, irrational, that there is no one in charge, and that everyone and everything is simply subject, to aging, illness and death, and that this is all there is to existence.
Try to really, seriously believe that.

to which your response is ....

spidergoat : I already do! What's your problem with reality? I think it's funny that given the entire world and all that's in it, all you can say is, "is that all?". Isn't that enough for anyone?

 

[spidergoat]

OK, I'm probably over thinking it. In general yes, everything is subject to aging at the very least, and chaos reigns.

 

[lightgigantic]

OK, I'm probably over thinking it. In general yes, everything is subject to aging at the very least, and chaos reigns.

which aspects of life are not subject to illness and death?

 

[spidergoat]

Inanimate objects.

 

[lightgigantic]

Inanimate objects.

I wasn't aware that inanimate objects had life to begin with ...

 

[spidergoat]

But we encounter them in our lives.

 

[lightgigantic]

But we encounter them in our lives.

Lives that are subject to illness, aging and ultimately death, yes?

 

[spidergoat]

Fortunately yes. If you can't get old and die you weren't really alive in the first place.

 

[lightgigantic]

Fortunately yes. If you can't get old and die you weren't really alive in the first place.

and you know this how?

BTW you just established an interesting dichotomy between life and inanimate objects ... at least as far as the atheist world view (that consciousness arises from inanimate objects) is concerned

 

[Grumpy]

lightgigantic

and I have been saying that whatever scraps of info you piece together to shape the "theistic world view" finds its antithesis in the "atheistic world view"

Then the only thing you can know about my world view knowing only that I am an atheist is that I don't believe in god. That is why we keep asking what exactly is meant by "knowing god", because we have no idea which species of theist you are, nor what you believe. I don't try to define your godliness, don't think I will accept you telling me about my godlessness.

There's quite a few things one say to encompass all this. One that comes to mind is "We exist in a state of dependence on god in a world operating under his directives "

I think that is an empty claim with no evidence of it's veracity.

and similarly there are quite a few things one can say about that such as "we exist in a a state of dependence on the phenomenal world (which has no sentient directive)."

We have evidence of our dependence on the material world(try not drinking water for a week), but we have no evidence one way or the other about sentient directive. We see no evidence of it. That leads me to conclude only that he/she/it probably doesn't exist, but I would not say he/she/it does not exist.

Hence the distinctions between ideas on the questions of what happens after death, the creation of life become radically different between the two camps as opposed to the mere quibbling of details on the nature of the after life between different camps of theists or ideas of abiogenesis between atheists

Here is where you leave the reservation. Life after death is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence, sounds like some sort of psychic Ponzi scheme, you know, put up with the church/state's crap in this life for a reward after you die(pie in the sky, when you die, bye and bye). They get docile slaves who will put up with being worked to death to fill the pews/larder/coffers of the ruling elites and the peon gets hope for a better deal after he dies(and if that won't work they are indoctrinated to fear for their souls or, if that fails, of the Inquisitors torture devices or just a good ol burning at the stake). Nobody knows, there's never been anyone who's come back to tell anyone and the only place it seems to exist is in the dogma of those same elites.

And I can't seem to pry any coherent thought from the rest of your post.

Grumpy

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic



Then the only thing you can know about my world view knowing only that I am an atheist is that I don't believe in god.

what aspects of atheism permit life to be subject to something beyond aging, illness and death or environments not dependent on issues of unpredictability and chaos?

If you can't think of any, I would think that we have a kind of general foundation for any of a myriad of atheist world views you care to mention.

That is why we keep asking what exactly is meant by "knowing god", because we have no idea which species of theist you are, nor what you believe. I don't try to define your godliness, don't think I will accept you telling me about my godlessness.

so now you are rescinding to the notion that there is no theistic world view either?

I think that is an empty claim with no evidence of it's veracity.

That's beside the point - its a fundamental of a theistic world view

We have evidence of our dependence on the material world(try not drinking water for a week), but we have no evidence one way or the other about sentient directive. We see no evidence of it. That leads me to conclude only that he/she/it probably doesn't exist, but I would not say he/she/it does not exist.

Once again, that's beside the point - its a fundamental of an atheistic world view

Here is where you leave the reservation. Life after death is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp or military intelligence, sounds like some sort of psychic Ponzi scheme, you know, put up with the church/state's crap in this life for a reward after you die(pie in the sky, when you die, bye and bye). They get docile slaves who will put up with being worked to death to fill the pews/larder/coffers of the ruling elites and the peon gets hope for a better deal after he dies(and if that won't work they are indoctrinated to fear for their souls or, if that fails, of the Inquisitors torture devices or just a good ol burning at the stake). Nobody knows, there's never been anyone who's come back to tell anyone and the only place it seems to exist is in the dogma of those same elites.

And I can't seem to pry any coherent thought from the rest of your post.

Grumpy

(your colossal error in assuming the discussion suddenly moved to problems-of-evidence as opposed to inherent-principles-to-world-views aside ....) can you think of any atheistic world view that doesn't promote a modus operandi under the auspices of "we exist in a a state of dependence on the phenomenal world (which has no sentient directive)."?

If not, we are well on the way to eking out the atheist world view.

 

[Grumpy]

lightgigantic

BTW you just established an interesting dichotomy between life and inanimate objects ... at least as far as the atheist world view (that consciousness arises from inanimate objects) is concerned

Who said that(besides you)? You are aware that most ANIMATE matter is not concious, don't you? Conciousnous only arises in animate matter, it is an emergent property of sufficiently complex brains, not all life has brains(in fact the vast majority of life has no neural tissue at all). And you would not even recognize the first lifeforms, just some self replicating molecules(which scientist have been able to make from scratch), something natural selection could get a grip on to start the evolution of life. Are we certain that the self replicating molecules we have made are exactly like the ones on Earth 3.8 billion years ago? No, but the principle has been demonstrated and under certain conditions they can be shown to self assemble(conditions remarkably like those around Black Smokers in the deep ocean vents). As for where the building blocks came from, there's the Murchison meteorite...

In the study, set to be published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, analytical chemist Philippe Schmitt-Kopplin of the Helmholtz German Research Center for Environmental Health in Munich and his colleagues used high-resolution mass spectrometry to look at the organic (carbon-based) content of three Murchison samples. The group found more than 14,000 unique molecular compositions, or collections of atoms, in the samples; there may be 50,000 or more such compositions, if the limited scope of the mass spectrometry analysis is taken into account. And because each collection of atoms can be arranged in numerous ways, the authors estimate that there may be millions of distinct organic compounds in the meteorite.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=murchison-meteorite

There is evidence that life arose naturally from organic chemistry on Earth, no god necessary.

Lives that are subject to illness, aging and ultimately death, yes?

Yes, everything that has ever lived on Earth has died or will soon die, if it left no progeny we call them extinct. Almost all forms of life that have lived on Earth are now extinct.

Grumpy

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic




Who said that(besides you)? You are aware that most ANIMATE matter is not concious, don't you? Conciousnous only arises in animate matter, it is an emergent property of sufficiently complex brains, not all life has brains(in fact the vast majority of life has no neural tissue at all). And you would not even recognize the first lifeforms, just some self replicating molecules(which scientist have been able to make from scratch), something natural selection could get a grip on to start the evolution of life. Are we certain that the self replicating molecules we have made are exactly like the ones on Earth 3.8 billion years ago? No, but the principle has been demonstrated and under certain conditions they can be shown to self assemble(conditions remarkably like those around Black Smokers in the deep ocean vents). As for where the building blocks came from, there's the Murchison meteorite...

all good introductory material for the hubris that surrounds ideas of abiogenisis

Just a general link to give you an idea on how much they are really out to lunch on even coming in the vicinity of a consensus, much less an evidenced claim

We really don't know what the Earth was like three or four billion years ago. So there are all sorts of theories and speculations. The major uncertainty concerns what the atmosphere was like. This is major area of dispute. In early 1950's, Harold Urey suggested that the Earth had a reducing atmosphere, since all of the outer planets in our solar system- Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune- have this kind of atmosphere. A reducing atmosphere contains methane, ammonia, hydrogen and water. The Earth is clearly special in this respect, in that it contains an oxygen atmosphere which is clearly of biological origin.

Although there is a dispute over the composition of the primitive atmosphere, we've shown that either you have a reducing atmosphere or you are not going to have the organic compounds required for life. If you don't make them on Earth, you have to bring them in on comets, meteorites or dust. Certainly some material did come from these sources. In my opinion the amount from these sources would have been too small to effectively contribute to the origin of life.

An interview with exobiology pioneer, Dr. Stanley L. Miller, University of California San Diego

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=murchison-meteorite

There is evidence that life arose naturally from organic chemistry on Earth, no god necessary.

Big difference between life and the chemical byproducts of life.

You might as well be talking of urea synthesis in the 1800's (or consider your urine as your legitimate offspring)

Yes, everything that has ever lived on Earth has died or will soon die, if it left no progeny we call them extinct. Almost all forms of life that have lived on Earth are now extinct.

Grumpy

hence the...

everyone .... is simply subject, to aging, illness and death

of the ....

(belief) that the universe, and everyone and everything in it, is chaotic, unpredictable, irregular, irrational, that there is no one in charge, and that everyone and everything is simply subject, to aging, illness and death, and that this is all there is to existence.

in the atheistic world view

:shrug: