Extreme Atheism - leads to a Proxy God by default.

While having a convo with a friend on this subject he asks the obvious when confronted with the mind control consequence.
"How can we protect against this proxy God?"
"Freedom" he cried out....

I thought it was funny .....
Of course no process nor mechanism for this proxy Gods influence has ever been put forward, it is just logically assumed to be the case.

and now my friend is fighting windmills....

So how do we protect ourselves from the mind control of this proxy God?

I guess the first thing is to identify how it does it?

so .... how does it do it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You know if you could get the knowledge of scientific fatalism out there, get it to go viral, cause all sorts of mass hysterics and then offer a cure..
Call it "The butterfly disaffect" .

You would make fortune.

"How do I know I am cured?"
"You wont, but you'll feel better".... hee hee

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is that remark an actual quote? If so, it seems pretty dim to me.

It seems to me to presuppose a number of implicit metaphysical views that I'd guess the individual who said this (if there was one) can't really defend.

This faith, when carried out, does seem to suggest that everything that happens everywhere in the universe, not just the precise text that every high-school kid is texting into his/her cellphone here on Earth but everything that has happened and ever will happen on every planet in every galaxy, was precisely predetermined by the initial conditions of the "big bang" and by the particular laws of physics that came into existence at that Moment of Creation.

(My own view is that kind of idea is bad metaphysics, but it's a widely held belief.)

Individuals who hold fast to that kind of faith do seem to me to be Creationists of an extremely strong sort. Even stronger Creationists than our more familiar 6-day Biblical literalists. It reminds me of those Christians and Muslims who believe that everything that happens, no matter how small, is God's Will.

That's a pretty extreme theological view, so it's a bit ironic to see it shared by ostensible atheists.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It can?

I'd love to see somebody attempt that explanation employing mathematical proof. I'd guess that the mathematics that would be used in the "proof" would already implicitly contain the desired deterministic conclusion, rendering the whole thing circular.

Mathematics seems to me to probably be irrelevant to establishing metaphysical theories, which is what this is. Mathematics would be assuming the truth of those theories and effectively be 'garbage in-garbage out'.

No more so than mathematics. What does mathematics rest on, if not human intutions about logical necessity and what follows from what?

Actually, natural theology does present some halfway plausible arguments, regarding first causes, sources of cosmic order and so on. If we define 'God' as first cause and source of cosmic order, then... Determinism attributes everything that happens anywhere in the universe at any time, to the first cause and to the physical laws that describe their chosen metaphysical theory about how the universe subsequently unfolds.

Why is it an "illogical exercise"? God, the initial cause and source of cosmic order seems to me to follow from the logic of determinism quite straight-forwardly. Determinism seems to me to be a very strong metaphysical theory that attributes everything that has happened or ever can happen to some initial formative event... to God in other words. That kind of vision fits very comfortably within the worldview of Christian or Islamic Neoplatonism and I'm sure that many of the medievals would have embraced it.

 

Moving from determinism to God requires at least one further premise, if not more, I'd have thought. Without them it would seem to be invalid to conclude "God" simply from determinism, as determinism doesn't even require there to be a beginning to the universe. It is simply a philosophy stipulating that one moment fully determines the next etc. So to equate determinism with God would seem to be invalid, although I'm happy for someone to come up with an argument that is at least valid, and from there we can examine if the premises (other than determinism) are to be accepted.
You're right, though, that determinism is compatible with belief in God, an especially good fit with the deistic varities. But being a good fit doesn't mean one can logically equate God with determinism, which was Write4U's point.

 

Are human intuitions always wrong?

I submit that many animals of lower intelligence employ intuitive rudimentary mathematics. How is it that a Lemur can count as fast as a human and in some instants faster than humans? It's been tested and confirmed. What does a Lemur know about mathematics?

All of nature functions in a mathematical manner and evolution selects for those mathematical abilities which give the organism a survival advantage.

The petal growth of the lowly Daisy is a marvel of employing the mathematical efficiency of light collection found in the Fibonacci Sequence.

All patterns in nature have underlying universal mathematical values and functions. How is it that a chameleon is able to triangulate the precise distance to a bug sitting a body length away and unerringly flick its tongue to snag the morsel? Ever watched an octopus solve a completely alien mathematical problem, such as "unscrewing" a child proof lid from a jar.

We even made a Higgs boson appear from the Higgs field. Intuition or predictive mathematical precision? We build the most expensive machine ever to simulate the condition under which the Higgs boson would become manifest. And it worked!

Human intuition (cognition) leads to Theory and subsequent proofs confirm or disprove the accuracy of the cognitive intuition. Practical application of correct mathematical equations allow for human technology.

E = Mc^2 is a mathematical proof of a fundamental universal deterministic function, no?
Are there any known exceptions to that profound equation?

The Fibonacci Sequence is a universal deterministic mathematical pattern. The Second law of Thermo Dynamics identifies a mathematical deterministic constant. These are inescapable deterministic universal phenomenon.

Universal patterns are deterministic when they self-assemble into consistent repeating configurations.

Can you provide a non-deterministic example of a universal mathematical constant?

I take the word of cosmologists who to a person admit that when they test a theory, it confirms that the mathematical values and functions already existed in a generic universal form long before they tested their symbolic mathematics against these universal values and functions.

Our numbers and operators are just a convenient language to symbolize the generic universal mathematical values and functions, how they interact to form constant equations which allow us to predict a natural phenomenon. Our maths do not shape universal values and functions. Universal values and functions shape our maths!

If you cannot accept that then why do we employ mathematics at all? We are constantly discovering that no matter where we look we see deterministic mathematical values and functions. All of Science is founded on these natural universal deterministic mathematical phenomena.

Universal mathematics are staring us in the face wherever we look. They take an inescapable functional part in repeating patterns of universal values and functions. All our science is founded on observation of universal generic mathematics. Why deny this incredible evolved cognitive ability? We're not alone in this.

The logic and precision of the table of elements is a beautiful example of universal mathematical expression in fundamental physical atomic patterns. We just represented it with human symbolic mathematics because we can and it works!

 

So I am a lousy profiler ... shoot me!

I gave it a 60% chance.... which is not that high...

And yes after all the fake news and reports in the media I don't trust any of them as you seem to do.

 

If you go back to the original discussion with QQ, you will see that it was Cap (as italicized in my above post) who brought it up. QQ asked how it could be both ways (freedom existing in a completely deterministic system) and cap opens up by rejecting QQ's suggestion ( with the word "No"), yet goes on to otherwise agree there is no feeedom. But, at the same time, he introduced the assertion that it is one deterministic process, not multiple ones. I then asked what difference does it make. He then again couldn't answer, but talked of separated vs integrated ones. So again I asked what the difference is.
QQ asked directly whether humans had freedom, and Cap, for all intents and purposes, seems to say they don't, yet for some reason talks about the presence of a particular type of determinism rather than an absence of freedom, even though, regardless whether you assess determinism as singular, multiple, isolated or integrated (all variables introduced by Cap), it would appear to have zero consequences to the original question. Hence the red herrings.

 

Bells,
Also from your own link:

A French judicial police official said investigators think an electrical short-circuit most likely caused the Notre Dame Cathedral fire.

The Sun reports that the official, who spoke anonymously about the ongoing probe, said investigators still don’t have the green light to work in the cathedral and search in the rubble for safety reasons.
​

They haven't even entered the building.
and do you actually trust the SUN newspaper and NEWS.com.au?

Investigators think an electrical short circuit most likely caused the fire.

I wonder what percentage chance they have already allocated. 60% or 80% or 90%

Unfortunately your obvious your hostility ( hatred) towards me has made you jump the gun... take a breath and think first next time please...

Using Gossip to counter Gossip never works...

 

As with most religious fundamentalist a Secular Fatalist will duck dodge and evade any question that threatens their particular universal paradigm.

Secular fatalism is their only defense against theism, apparently and yet they resort to the same tactics as a Theist does when attempting to explain the irrational.


note: Secular fatalism is a absolute determinism that considers and sense of freedom, freewill, self determination as illusions. That humans have NO responsibility for their suffering or existence and that responsibility rest with the deterministic universe. Thus they believe in a proxy God by default.

 

well stated...

 

There is no such thing as an "extreme atheist".

 

Is not the absolute control of everything humanity has ever done, is doing and will do not enough to qualify the Secular Fatalists universe as a God?

Gosh, what does a God have to do around here to get acknowledged? (Humor)

The God Mars says to the God Zeus:
Mars: "Hey dad they don't believe you're a God unless you create stuff.."
Zeus: "That's alright son, they only believe what I tell them to believe"

 

Plenty of determinists have no truck with "initial formative events".
And trying to make a God out of one of them will get you nothing anyone would normally recognize as a deity - it isn't even around any more, for one thing. It doesn't currently exist.

No.

 

there is now...

An extreme atheist is a person who denounces freewill and self determination as being illusionary due to their belief in the deterministic doctrine of secular Fatalism combined with Pre-determinism as a way to justify their belief in the non-existence of God ( as per their definition of the word God)

~ a work in progress...

 

why not?
What do you believe Gods have to do or be able to do to be labeled or other wise given the title God?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The problem is that God doesn't do anything which is recognizable and can be acknowledged as having originated from a motivated and intentional omnipotent being, when much simpler purely mathematical solutions are available.

 

What does that title mean and in what context?

Pantheism? In that case God would have to obey all natural laws, because these laws would be God's laws and unbreakable. Therefore no miracles and only causal mathematical determinism.

Prayer would be absolutely useless and a God without worshippers dies an unnatural death.

Once one gives God specific properties and abilities it ceases to be divine and becomes just part of the natural universe and its deterministic functions. And we end up with a complicated redundancy.

 

Pantheism accepts freewill and self determination.

The term Grace does not apply strictly to Pantheism as it implies an actor that allows freedom at whim. Free will and self determination are intrinsic and not subject to being allowed persee as there is no actor.
Pantheism is the philosophy/theosophy of choice for atheists in many cases because there is not central actor ( God)

The term Grace applies more to Pan-theism which involves an actor ( need to research more but I think I am correct in saying that)

Thus secular Co-determinism which does not deny free will and self determination and in fact explains them in deterministic terms, sits very well with Pantheism.

See this for more insight:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/co-determinism-and-the-reality-of-free-will.161757/