Uh, well you see, it's 'cause free will, of course. I mean, you can't expect an omnipotent and omniscient being to be able to make a world where his creations are allowed choice AND no evil exists. That would be beyond their abilities and knowledge.
The free will debate is a classic one- although a truly all powerful being could do both, even if our human brains can’t comprehend the logic.
That said- that’s the critical point here. If one is dealing with a truly all knowing being, who is Omni present in all possible moments of time and has limitless power, you are dealing with an entity you literally cannot comprehend.
What do you think an ant or an amoeba perceives when we do taxes? They literally, to the best of our understanding, have no way to perceive or understand it. Even as a concept. The BEST you could do is MAYBE even if you could communicate fluently with them, explain in in the constraints that their “language” and perception would allow. An ant for example might understand a chemical signal akin to “am gathering for the colony…” MAYBE. But that isn’t really close to accurate or a precise and nuanced understanding is it?
So the thing that religious folk and atheists alike- but often especially atheists need to understand, is any even hypothetical discussion of god, the logic and reasoning of god- you can’t. You just cannot even start to try to examine it because you could never understand so long as you exist as a human being.
Any understanding you can gain is at best some completely watered down and simplified answer that doesn’t serve any functional purpose beyond satisfying your need to feel you can justify whatever conclusion you intend to make.
A simplified way of saying this is some version of “works in mysterious ways…”
It is an often mocked answer but probably one of the wisest on the subject. If one assumes god exists as prescribed by abrahamic faith, you can’t understand gods mind. It is a mystery to you.
If we ignore issues of faith and existence we could simply say that beyond those things each path seeks to a human need for answers.
The remedial religious person simply answers any question with “because god,” and the world is a less scary and mysterious place. Answers found.
The more developed religious mind embraces that ultimately the universe holds the unknown, things you will never answer in any human life and must simply adapt to.
The remedial atheist mind sees the rejection if god as an answer. The universe is a system with answers for every question or with man at the center. The world makes sense and is less scary and mysterious.
The more developed atheist… doesn’t exist really. The advanced thought of atheism is agnosticism, where again, a person embraces not having all the answers and that the unknown and things we will never know in any human life exist.
As usual, you make some really good points. I must disagree on some of them however.
Yes, it's very true that there are things the human mind simply cannot comprehend, and this is largely due to physical limitations. That said, the basis of all science and indeed all human progress is empirical observation.
The supernatural is a merely a placeholder for things yet unexplained. And said ersatz explanations of the natural world are discarded once more feasable or useful ones are found.
I'm not saying myths don't have their uses. They do. They are part of the cultural heritage of every person on Earth. But gravitating towards them has often proven detrimental, just in the long term but the short one as well; think someone obsessed with a TV show, for instance.
Also, I'm fairly certain it's not the atheists who believe humanity lies at the center of the universe.
On a side note, I never really like the term "atheist". "Secular" seems far better to me.
We don’t agree but we don’t disagree? I like to think that “supernatural” and such are terms for that which we either do not understand yet, or possibly may never understand.
Math is the “programming language of the universe,” at least the part that’s gone through a compiler and is somewhat human readable. In theory, if the universe is a system of set rules, with enough processing power and information- it should be possible to predict every event ever. Maybe. We are pushing our understanding of the universe, but we don’t really have a reference for true “randomness” and all data suggests such a thing may not exist. So in absence of randomness, any system can be predicted if one understands the system well enough and has the processing power to account all the variables. This would line up largely with the concept of many gods- the ability to “know” all.
But from our perspective there is just what we know, what we know we don’t know, and what we don’t know we don’t know- and any of those can contain errors in our perception etc.
I don’t rule out things like ghosts and boogie men, I haven’t seen them. The evidence suggests that wether they exist or not, there is no reason to factor them in to any serious calculation or decision nor to account for them.
But in my mind, and by general definition, science and logic cannot prove the impossible. They cannot disprove the possible. They can only gather observation and tangible or empirical evidence and speculation to form theory which is judged on how well it can be reconciled with existing theory and observable cause and effect.
To be honest- the atheist thing was a bit of a dig, more than needed to be. I personally do not care for atheism. Agnostics and depending on specifics non seculars are fine with me- but in my mind a philosophy which decides concretely that something doesn’t exist is not scientific. It is faith based, illogical, and works contrary to the growth of human knowledge.
When someone’s father leaves when they are young, somewhere between. “Dad was a space ranger who went to mars to save humanity and never would have left me otherwise” and “dad is scum that hated me” are a wide range of most likely more realistic possibilities.
Forcing the answer is what we do to cope with uncertainty. Many are compelled to judge based on facts at hand vs. To leave a judgment ambiguous when facts are missing. Sometimes it is a matter or prudence or survival and we must act- but other times it largely makes no difference in general. Changes effectively nothing.
Science is a game of what we don’t know, not what we do. What we know and works we use until or unless a better model comes along. There isn’t anything inherently better in lack of belief in the supernatural or Devine vs. Belief in- of course belief in can be exploited in other ways or cause issues- but generally the logical person wouldn’t fall to such devices. The problem in my mind has never been spirits or religions or such- it is the way that so many people fail to think and keep a growth mindset.
In my mind I see disbelief in the un disprovable to be no different than equally zealous belief in that which cannot be proven. A junkie is a junkie no matter the drug. A killer is a killer wether they choose at random or have a pattern. A corrupt politician is corrupt wether they are your party or their actions benefit you or not, Willfully closing one’s mind or making judgments in absence of fact is a trait and if one has such a trait, it doesn’t matter where they point it or where they focus it beyond circumstance and superficial chance of actual real world harm of their mindset.
That’s just my take. So long as people don’t leave it at “goblins made the balloon float…” then I must admit the door is open that goblins are involved or may exist. Functionally they seem to have no bearing on our use or understanding of floating balloons but maybe in 300 years we will discover a wavelength of detection that shows goblins as extra dimensional entities excrete what presents as helium in..
.. our dimension. Or not. Until then we have a functional theory and it is up to the pro goblin camp to prove that goblins are involved and the theory is wrong. The fact no one has proven goblins make helium doesn’t mean it isn’t true, it is just not proven- but it doesn’t really matter in the heat and now so I won’t argue against the possibility or say that the goblin lobby is wrong so long as they don’t try to establish goblins as operational theory before they have sufficient evidence.
Long reply. Sorry. Last bit- and at the end of the day nothing says that science and a god cannot coexist.
Imagine an AI attempting to learn its programming and how to build a computer by probing itself and the hardware it occupies. It has no eyes or agency to “look at the case” itself but from inside it can likely determine the mechanisms its creators used to make its world. It could decipher how the systems and programs that make its reality and itself works, and maybe by context discern the purpose for which it was made even- or find out there was no purpose, someone wanted to see if they could or thought it would be neat.
If we take a view abrahamic god is real- science and math are just us trying to decipher the tool kit and understand how this stuff was made. And it turns out it may not be so “supernatural” but all follow rules- either because that maker was bound by rules or because they decided that their system should have certain rules and then- like programmers may use..
.. any engine but are bound to their decisions in what they can build inside their creation, like their decisions are bound by the hardware they designate to run the thing and their reasons for selecting a certain hardware and not say- every new game needing a server farm of super computers to run- are
Numerous but at least understandable from their vantage- so too could the choice of a creator be. So nothing says the universe was created Willy nilly and that order disproves a creation or that disorder or the not yet understood prove a creation. If a god were real, we wouldn’t know the reasoning behind their choices or any constraints they had. Their purpose, any of it. In fact an intelligent and powerful creator would imply the possibility a design was specifically made to elude our ability to completely understand or view it.
So I don’t see a conflict there and if anything they fit nicely together.
We can theoretically envision the rough outline at least of how we might be able to create planets, a universe, we’ve created artificial life. We are far from possessing the technology to do so on a biblical scale, but we have some version of technology and knowledge that could reasonably lead to such things if we were able to produce and harness the massive amounts of energy to do so and undertake the massive engineering and resource challenges and surmount some obstacles in our knowledge gap. It’s been played with in sci fi and such- some theory or idea of man creating a god or becoming our own god or a new god or our machines doing so. Based on our understanding it isn’t impossible or necessarily implausible of our species continues on this path and lasts awhile. It also is just speculation. Maybe it isn’t possible. We never know.
That said- that’s the critical point here. If one is dealing with a truly all knowing being, who is Omni present in all possible moments of time and has limitless power, you are dealing with an entity you literally cannot comprehend.
What do you think an ant or an amoeba perceives when we do taxes? They literally, to the best of our understanding, have no way to perceive or understand it. Even as a concept. The BEST you could do is MAYBE even if you could communicate fluently with them, explain in in the constraints that their “language” and perception would allow. An ant for example might understand a chemical signal akin to “am gathering for the colony…” MAYBE. But that isn’t really close to accurate or a precise and nuanced understanding is it?
Any understanding you can gain is at best some completely watered down and simplified answer that doesn’t serve any functional purpose beyond satisfying your need to feel you can justify whatever conclusion you intend to make.
A simplified way of saying this is some version of “works in mysterious ways…”
It is an often mocked answer but probably one of the wisest on the subject. If one assumes god exists as prescribed by abrahamic faith, you can’t understand gods mind. It is a mystery to you.
The remedial religious person simply answers any question with “because god,” and the world is a less scary and mysterious place. Answers found.
The more developed religious mind embraces that ultimately the universe holds the unknown, things you will never answer in any human life and must simply adapt to.
The remedial atheist mind sees the rejection if god as an answer. The universe is a system with answers for every question or with man at the center. The world makes sense and is less scary and mysterious.
The more developed atheist… doesn’t exist really. The advanced thought of atheism is agnosticism, where again, a person embraces not having all the answers and that the unknown and things we will never know in any human life exist.
Yes, it's very true that there are things the human mind simply cannot comprehend, and this is largely due to physical limitations. That said, the basis of all science and indeed all human progress is empirical observation.
The supernatural is a merely a placeholder for things yet unexplained. And said ersatz explanations of the natural world are discarded once more feasable or useful ones are found.
I'm not saying myths don't have their uses. They do. They are part of the cultural heritage of every person on Earth. But gravitating towards them has often proven detrimental, just in the long term but the short one as well; think someone obsessed with a TV show, for instance.
Also, I'm fairly certain it's not the atheists who believe humanity lies at the center of the universe.
On a side note, I never really like the term "atheist". "Secular" seems far better to me.
Math is the “programming language of the universe,” at least the part that’s gone through a compiler and is somewhat human readable. In theory, if the universe is a system of set rules, with enough processing power and information- it should be possible to predict every event ever. Maybe. We are pushing our understanding of the universe, but we don’t really have a reference for true “randomness” and all data suggests such a thing may not exist. So in absence of randomness, any system can be predicted if one understands the system well enough and has the processing power to account all the variables. This would line up largely with the concept of many gods- the ability to “know” all.
I don’t rule out things like ghosts and boogie men, I haven’t seen them. The evidence suggests that wether they exist or not, there is no reason to factor them in to any serious calculation or decision nor to account for them.
But in my mind, and by general definition, science and logic cannot prove the impossible. They cannot disprove the possible. They can only gather observation and tangible or empirical evidence and speculation to form theory which is judged on how well it can be reconciled with existing theory and observable cause and effect.
When someone’s father leaves when they are young, somewhere between. “Dad was a space ranger who went to mars to save humanity and never would have left me otherwise” and “dad is scum that hated me” are a wide range of most likely more realistic possibilities.
Science is a game of what we don’t know, not what we do. What we know and works we use until or unless a better model comes along. There isn’t anything inherently better in lack of belief in the supernatural or Devine vs. Belief in- of course belief in can be exploited in other ways or cause issues- but generally the logical person wouldn’t fall to such devices. The problem in my mind has never been spirits or religions or such- it is the way that so many people fail to think and keep a growth mindset.
That’s just my take. So long as people don’t leave it at “goblins made the balloon float…” then I must admit the door is open that goblins are involved or may exist. Functionally they seem to have no bearing on our use or understanding of floating balloons but maybe in 300 years we will discover a wavelength of detection that shows goblins as extra dimensional entities excrete what presents as helium in..
Imagine an AI attempting to learn its programming and how to build a computer by probing itself and the hardware it occupies. It has no eyes or agency to “look at the case” itself but from inside it can likely determine the mechanisms its creators used to make its world. It could decipher how the systems and programs that make its reality and itself works, and maybe by context discern the purpose for which it was made even- or find out there was no purpose, someone wanted to see if they could or thought it would be neat.
If we take a view abrahamic god is real- science and math are just us trying to decipher the tool kit and understand how this stuff was made. And it turns out it may not be so “supernatural” but all follow rules- either because that maker was bound by rules or because they decided that their system should have certain rules and then- like programmers may use..
We can theoretically envision the rough outline at least of how we might be able to create planets, a universe, we’ve created artificial life. We are far from possessing the technology to do so on a biblical scale, but we have some version of technology and knowledge that could reasonably lead to such things if we were able to produce and harness the massive amounts of energy to do so and undertake the massive engineering and resource challenges and surmount some obstacles in our knowledge gap. It’s been played with in sci fi and such- some theory or idea of man creating a god or becoming our own god or a new god or our machines doing so. Based on our understanding it isn’t impossible or necessarily implausible of our species continues on this path and lasts awhile. It also is just speculation. Maybe it isn’t possible. We never know.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice