How do you know you have Sensus divinitatis?

[boatsnguitars]

Calvin proposed the idea: that like sight, he had a sense that was used to feel God.

Of course, there is no God, so it can better be explained that Calvin had a feeling of something, thought he was super special, and he wanted to murder people so he pretended there was a God and used his religion to murder Servitus.

The issue for debate: why do people think that if they feel like Dracula is in the room with them, Then it's true that Dracula is in the room, and if you don't believe it, Dracula fans will kill you?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #75

It could be that we do not have an endless materialistic causes and effects.
The materialistic omniverse has maybe a necessary first conditions which are causeless, beginningless, mindless.
The infinity regress is a problem for our local universe only which may be part of a bigger, unimaginable, wondrous omniverse.
We could have our local universe inside a multiverse inside a ... cacaverse ... inside a omniverse. We could have more then 4 dimensions and more material things beside our space-time continuum. We could have beings(aliens) that are not bound by our 4 dimensional local universe that can travel back and forth in time because are not bound by only 4 dimensions.

Look at all the things you have to propose to make a materialistic cosmos work. And after all that, the question can still be asked: What underlies it?

Ancient religious people could not imagine anything beyond the flat earth with a dome where stars are lights on the firmament.
They could not imagine a sphere floating in a vacuum.

You really underestimate ancient religious people.

A shaman from a non-industrial society who tells us that there are invisible realms of existence all around us is laughed off as a superstitious anachronism. A theoretical physicist who tells us exactly the same thing is hailed as a genius. Awfully hypocritical, if you ask me.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #77]

Just on this one thing - a case for a sorta god - is so important to you that you cannot give the straight answer I was (not unreasonably) looking for. Do you believe in any personal gods or not, and you implied that you didn't. Why is a straight answer so hard for you and why should I not expect one?

Why is it so important to you to know if I assign a particular moniker to a creator? Does it just make the arguing easier for you?

You probably remember the old Indian folk tale of the Blind Men and the Elephant. That's essentially my take on our human comprehension of divine truth. (As an interesting side note, The Indian story actually has an "atheist" character----a blind man who doesn't believe that the elephant exists at all. When he grasps the elephant's tail, he's convinced that it's just a piece of old rope.)

The only point is that nobody really knows and al we can say is that postulating an intelligent creator makes two problems

Then why doesn't Krauss consider it implausible?

The point being that if you don't believe the other religions and gods, you are doing the same as atheists do.

The old "you're-just-a-one-god-atheist" line. Holding only one concept of a creator doesn't make someone an atheist any more than eating only one kind of meat makes someone a vegetarian.

Thus 'there is not god' even if we do say it, is not an (untenable) claim to knowledge that a creator doesn't exist, which was the strawman apologetic you were trying to pull.

It's certainly an untenable claim to knowledge when you add the "Of course," part.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #77]

Just on this one thing - a case for a sorta god - is so important to you that you cannot give the straight answer I was (not unreasonably) looking for. Do you believe in any personal gods or not, and you implied that you didn't. Why is a straight answer so hard for you and why should I not expect one?

Why is it so important to you to know if I assign a particular moniker to a creator? Does it just make the arguing easier for you?

You probably remember the old Indian folk tale of the Blind Men and the Elephant. That's essentially my take on our human comprehension of divine truth. (As an interesting side note, The Indian story actually has an "atheist" character----a blind man who doesn't believe that the elephant exists at all. When he grasps the elephant's tail, he's convinced that it's just a piece of old rope.)

The only point is that nobody really knows and al we can say is that postulating an intelligent creator makes two problems

Then why doesn't Krauss consider it implausible?

The point being that if you don't believe the other religions and gods, you are doing the same as atheists do.

The old "you're-just-a-one-god-atheist" line. Holding only one concept of a creator doesn't make someone an atheist any more than eating only one kind of meat makes someone a vegetarian.

Thus 'there is not god' even if we do say it, is not an (untenable) claim to knowledge that a creator doesn't exist, which was the strawman apologetic you were trying to pull.

It's certainly an untenable claim to knowledge when you add the "Of course," part.

You are missing all the points. I'm asking whether or not you 'of course' say 'there are no gods' regarding the ones of the religions. This is not about a possible 'underlying' creative intelligence. The 'there is no God' relates more to the god (or gods) of particular religions.

The blind men an elephant is of course a flawed analogy and a very familiar one in theism. It assumed the existence of a unifying critter (elephant) which we all know is so, and used the analogy to prove something we don't know is so (a god). In actuality the ear, tail, tusk that you claim is part of a god, need not be part of anything other than reality/existence which of course the men holding the bits of the elephant also are. The analogy breaks down and you know when you use analogy to prove an unknown, you are doing it wrong. I thinks there is a 'if this, then that' logical fallacy.

You also know you are doing it wrong when you pull the old 'This atheist agrees with Theism' stunt. Possible and undisproven as well as unproven is what atheism says about a sorta -god, and I suspect that not "Plausible" is what Krauss really thinks.

All the way, apart from the trickery, you are trying to force this shorthand 'there is no God' (Biblegod) relating to personal/religious claims onto atheists regarding a underlying creative intelligence which is not validated, by you, Krauss or anyone else.

When you resort to the trickery of flawed analogy, trying to set one atheist against another (quotemining, if not misquoting Krauss (1) and tacking on "Of Course" (when I don't recall an atheist making a gnostic claim) and appealing to underlying reality (which for sure there is) while smuggling in the hidden claim of it being intelligent, you know, or I certainly do, you are doing it wrong.

Bottom line. I am sure, confident and willing to bet there is no (Bible) god and I am not convinced there is an intelligent creator of everything, and that is the correct or at least valid logical position of atheism, and none of it conforms of the strawman caricature of atheism you are attempting to draw, as well as the false and flawed attempted evidences for theism.

So while you demanded I explain why Krauss considers an intelligent creator 'plausible' while finding any excuse to evade giving a straight answer to my questions, let's try another one. What evidence do you have for an intelligent creator? Until you have something persuasive, you have nothing but Godfaith.

(1) first thing off the Net "Krauss has described himself as an antitheist and takes part in public debates on religion. Krauss is featured in the 2013 documentary The Unbelievers, in which he and Richard Dawkins travel across the globe speaking publicly about the importance of science and reason as opposed to religion and superstition." When you resort to the tricks and evasions, misrepresentation and disrespect (to me, and atheism) of theism, you can be sure, you are doing it all wrong.

[alexxcJRO]

Look at all the things you have to propose to make a materialistic cosmos work. And after all that, the question can still be asked: What underlies it?

It could be the omniverse at its basis is uncaused, beginningless, mindless. It just is.
Nothing underlies it.
If your asking why the omniverse exists rather then not. Then the same question can be asked of the uncaused, beginningless, minded omnibeing.
You don't solve anything by proposing omnibeing.

You really underestimate ancient religious people.
A shaman from a non-industrial society who tells us that there are invisible realms of existence all around us is laughed off as a superstitious anachronism. A theoretical physicist who tells us exactly the same thing is hailed as a genius. Awfully hypocritical, if you ask me

All ancient religions have been debunked by subsequent scientific discoveries. The shamans are backed by a pattern of failed hypotheses which were basically "God of the Gaps Arguments" and "Arguments from Ignorance".
The scientists: theoretical physicists are backed by a pattern of proven hypotheses which happened thanks to scientific process.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #67

So you do not belief we need to account for something that exists: Omniverse?

If an omniverse were presumed materialistic, it would require a materialistic cause and its underlying material causes would have to be endless.

It could be that we do not have an endless materialistic causes and effects.
The materialistic omniverse has maybe a necessary first conditions which are causeless, beginningless, mindless.
The infinity regress is a problem for our local universe only which may be part of a bigger, unimaginable, wondrous omniverse.
We could have our local universe inside a multiverse inside a ... cacaverse ... inside a omniverse. We could have more then 4 dimensions and more material things beside our space-time continuum. We could have beings(aliens) that are not bound by our 4 dimensional local universe that can travel back and forth in time because are not bound by only 4 dimensions.
Things could be so interesting and complicated that 2 digit IQ beings like ourself could not imagine or process through our limited cognition.

Ancient religious people could not imagine anything beyond the flat earth with a dome where stars are lights on the firmament.
They could not imagine a sphere floating in a vacuum.
How basic knowledge that seems now.
Let's not make the same mistake.

I think that image sums up Theists and Supernaturalists views perfectly: "There must be something else!"

Refering to TRANSPONDERS post above, where Atheisttotheist says "If an omniverse were presumed materialistic, it would require a materialistic cause and its underlying material causes would have to be endless..."

They simply can't comprehend that there is only one thing. They've been taught that there is "something out there, and if you are special, it will be revealed to you." They see Ignorance, or gaps in our knowledge as confirmation of this, not simply gaps in our knowledge.

It's a horrible con that the Church has convinced people that the Church Knows! - and, says the Church, Science will either confirm it, or is evil because it doesn't. What a horrible stain on humanity.

There is continuous process of moving the goal post and metamorphosis of their "Argument for Ignorance" and "God of the Gaps" where as scientific knowledge advances they keep shoving their next imagined God in the next gap.
The concept of God continuously metamorphosis as some gaps get filled and subsequently others appear.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”

[TRANSPONDER]

Look at all the things you have to propose to make a materialistic cosmos work. And after all that, the question can still be asked: What underlies it?

It could be the omniverse at its basis is uncaused, beginningless, mindless. It just is.
Nothing underlies it.
If your asking why the omniverse exists rather then not. Then the same question can be asked of the uncaused, beginningless, minded omnibeing.
You don't solve anything by proposing omnibeing.

You really underestimate ancient religious people.
A shaman from a non-industrial society who tells us that there are invisible realms of existence all around us is laughed off as a superstitious anachronism. A theoretical physicist who tells us exactly the same thing is hailed as a genius. Awfully hypocritical, if you ask me

All ancient religions have been debunked by subsequent scientific discoveries. The shamans are backed by a pattern of failed hypotheses which were basically "God of the Gaps Arguments" and "Arguments from Ignorance".
The scientists: theoretical physicists are backed by a pattern of proven hypotheses which happened thanks to scientific process.

Yes.The suggestion that ancient religion had some Understanding is just more 'Science in the Bible'. They never derive any scientific theory that science later verifies; it is always science does the discovery, and then something that sounds vaguely like it is discovered in some old creed and wagged about as hidden mystical knowledge.

[Masterblaster]

Hello alexxcJRO, TRANSPONDER

alexxcJRO "The concept of God continuously metamorphosis as some gaps get filled and subsequently others appear."

Isn't that as it should be?

Consider an ant standing on the edge of a pot of cold lamb stew. That is us. Can we consider this as a food source and declare it's existence to the colony?

The concepts of God in theism are impacted by gathered awareness generally as are all concepts. What is your point. There is nothing that has happened between today and the time of Jesus that would change the basic truths of his teachings. If anything their relevancy becomes more apparent.

I was in my town, at 11pm last night, it was as peaceful as a Christmas Card, 1 takeaway open, children safe in their beds, no threat of theft or violence, no indication of religion.
This is all constructed by the efforts of good people,past and present. It is also fragile. Could this be the atheist Utopia of the future.
No!
There was a strong religious input into my town and country that cannot be forgotten. There are hidden imperfections in my town that isolate its functioning dynamics from the logic of sustainability. The human is more than existing well, but for the less well off amongst us ,that is probably a good place to start.

[Masterblaster]

Hello alexxcJRO
You say - "The concept of God continuously metamorphosis as some gaps get filled and subsequently others appear.
-----
I was thinking about the evolution of concepts. Can you answer this question of mine?

The evolution of the car and the motorbike have happened, side by side, and been undertaken by similar types of skilled professionals.
Developments are inspired and tested on the racetrack and then filter down to the domestic level.
Innovation with brakes,suspension, economy, safety, etc

My question is.
"Motorcyclists are 27 times more likely to die in a crash than those driving cars"

Why are motorbikes so unsafe when compared to cars? Why was this problem not sorted equally in both developments.

I feel that strands of Christianity are ' fundamentally flawed' and are inherently 'unfixable'. Should motorbikes be discontinued as an option on our public roads. Should some strands of Christianity be intentionally discontinued. This was done in the early centuries of the movement with very unfortunate consequences. The Ebionites are one example.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #83

You are missing all the points. I'm asking whether or not you 'of course' say 'there are no gods' regarding the ones of the religions. This is not about a possible 'underlying' creative intelligence.

Why can't it be about that? You yourself said that discussions sometimes veer off into different areas.

The blind men an elephant is of course a flawed analogy and a very familiar one in theism. It assumed the existence of a unifying critter (elephant) which we all know is so

Going off of what's known is the whole point of an analogy. It's what gives analogies their explanatory power. Scientists use analogies all the time. For example, the expanding galaxies are compared to dots painted on the surface of a balloon. Even the analogy of wind, which is sometimes invoked as an indicator of the presence of the divine, can also be employed to illustrate how cosmologists detect the presence of Dark Energy----by what it does.

You also know you are doing it wrong when you pull the old 'This atheist agrees with Theism' stunt. Possible and undisproven as well as unproven is what atheism says about a sorta -god, and I suspect that not "Plausible" is what Krauss really thinks.

Why would you think he didn't mean what he said? Because you don't like what he said?

When you resort to the trickery of flawed analogy, trying to set one atheist against another (quotemining, if not misquoting Krauss

I didn't make the Krauss quote up. If you know of him ever stating that a deistic intelligence is implausible, you're free to quote him yourself.

and tacking on "Of Course" (when I don't recall an atheist making a gnostic claim)

If your memory is that short, go back and read the second paragraph of the OP again.

the strawman caricature of atheism you are attempting to draw

At what point have I drawn a "caricature" of atheism? I've just been trying to illustrate weaknesses in a few arguments.

So while you demanded I explain why Krauss considers an intelligent creator 'plausible'

You're projecting. I haven't "demanded" anything.

What evidence do you have for an intelligent creator?

I've already presented an argument based on observable evidence. And the evidence there isn't a run-of-the-mill "gap". In this situation, we don't just have theologians telling us that physics doesn't fill the gap. In this situation we have physicists telling us that physics doesn't fill the gap. And unless and until your Appeal to the Future comes true, that's what we have to go on. And as far as intelligence goes, intelligence can reasonably be assumed in anything which can outwit physics.

When you resort to the tricks and evasions, misrepresentation and disrespect (to me, and atheism) of theism, you can be sure, you are doing it all wrong.

When you respond to criticisms of a few flawed arguments with such accusations as these, you can be sure that you're taking this way too personally.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #84

It could be the omniverse at its basis is uncaused, beginningless, mindless. It just is.

The problem with this conclusion in a scientific context is that science won't get you to it. A scientific conclusion has to follow an unbroken chain of physical cause and effect. You can't parachute down onto "It just is" and call it scientific. I admit that my postulate goes beyond the scientific, but you can't make the same claim for yours.

All ancient religions have been debunked by subsequent scientific discoveries. The shamans are backed by a pattern of failed hypotheses which were basically "God of the Gaps Arguments" and "Arguments from Ignorance".
The scientists: theoretical physicists are backed by a pattern of proven hypotheses which happened thanks to scientific process.

In the realm of the multidimensional, the shamans and the scientists have ended up saying much the same thing----and the shamans were saying it first.