[lbo-talk] A time of doubt for atheists

Matt lbo3 at beyondzero.net
Mon Jul 25 12:59:21 PDT 2005


On Fri, Jul 22, 2005 at 09:11:15AM -0500, Tommy Kelly wrote:


> First thing first, I like the website.
> Second, the Big Bang theory you are speaking of comes from cosmological
> model. There is another model, based on string theory (which is a branch of
> physics), which says [quoting Michio Kaku] "the Big Bang occurred as a
> result of the collision between two parallel universes floating in
> higher-dimensional space."

You originally referred to the Big Bang, not String Theory. I wanted to point out the logical inconsistency with using one of the 4 dimensions (time) in a context which, by definition, precludes its existence.

But the dialogue below is more to my point...


> Matt wrote:
> "Can your god(s) interact with the Universe in Supernatural ways [?]"
>
> Reply:
> I do not believe in an interventionist God; but, like a writer of a good
> novel, I doubt God would interfere too much with the plot and its dialog.
>
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Matt wrote:
> "The Deist god doesn't interact with the Universe at all, which is no
> different than not existing."
>
> Reply:
> If a loner was to see some type of questionable act, and did not attempt to
> stop it, does that mean the loner does not exist? The fact that many US
> citizens - as well as citizens of other nations - watch the debacle in
> Haiti, and did nothing to stop it, does that mean their concern for humanity
> does not exit?

If this isn't just an attempt to distract with a non-sequitor, I take it to mean you believe that yes, a burning bush might suddenly offer up some wisdom or that a city of infidels might be smited by energy bolts, but god is just not interested or busy elsewhere.

What I am getting at is trying to understand your post-atheism god(s). I am a physicist by training, and I've dabbled with the metaphysics and wild-eyed speculative interpretations of this-and-that phenomenon, and I still see the world as completely natural. Meaning, anything that happens is bound by the laws of physics (regardless of whether we currently have a good model for them), and that any phenomenon or entity that can be observed can be modeled, although maybe not with what we know now.

Other post-atheists I've spoken to describe their new god(s) as also being bound by the laws pf physics (IOW, alien intelligences). Alternatively, they are described as being unbound by the laws of physics while busy creating the Universe, but since then aren't interacting. Burning bushes aren't just inconveniently absent on God's Day Planner, they are an impossibility.

As an atheist who is also trained in physics, I'm not much interested in these gods, because I can't tell the difference between god and something that doesn't exist. How do we define existence, other than to interact with the Universe? We know that we can't observe without interacting, and interaction is measurable. These gods don't bother me, because the believer knows discorporate voices aren't divine, and that god isn't watching our every move and requires theocracy to keep the subjects in line.

The theists that are dangerous to others are the ones who hold their god(s) as supernatural, meaning they are busy meddling in the Universe but in ways that defy the laws of physics (i.e., in ways that aren't testable and measurable, by definition).

Matt

-- PGP RSA Key ID: 0x1F6A4471 aim: beyondzero123 PGP DH/DSS Key ID: 0xAFF35DF2 icq: 120941588 http://blogdayafternoon.com yahoo msg: beyondzero123

The technology that extends our senses is increasingly difficult to distinguish from the technology that creates our senses.

-Richard Thieme



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list