By Vexen Crabtree 2002 Aug 29
This page
... is a presentation of some of the fundamental statements that explain the existence of the Universe: Many of these are the same whether you apply them theistically to God, or as an atheist, to the Universe. Comparing these assumptions, I note that the atheist makes fewer assumptions about reality. This essay attempts to quell some arguments between atheists and theists who both claim they are making more "logical" assumptions when in fact many of their "different" assumptions are the same, with the exception of extra theistic assumptions such as the existence of a loving being, a conscious creator, an imminent god.
Comparisons:
| Religious | Scientific | Premise |
|---|---|---|
| God requires no cause or God is infinite or God was not created |
Universe requires no cause or Universe is infinite [nc] or Universe was not created |
1a. Something can exist that requires no cause
and / or 1b. Something can exist for infinity and / or 1c. Something can exist that was never created |
| Logic exists because of God | Logic exists as part of the Universe | 2. Logic exists |
| God is conscious | Universe is conscious [nc] | 3. An omnipresent entity is conscious, not mechanical |
| God is omniscient | Universe is omniscient | 4. Existence exists |
The Godhead
It can be seen that the atheists premises about the Universe are very similar to the theists' assumptions about God. It seems that one or more of 1a, 1b or 1c must be true. The scientist could even believe in an all-present conscious being that is the universe. I will therefore call this being the godhead.
Omniscience
The godhead as a repository for all existing information would be considered omniscient. The godhead would inherently observe, perceive and note the existence and properties of all existing objects. The godhead would be all-observing, seeing everywhere at once, due to its nature as the be-all of existence. This would be true whether or not we considered the godhead conscious or not, and whether or not we grant the godhead free will.
Whether or not I can use the word "omniscient" to describe a non-conscious being is a valid concern... I use the term anyway as the unconscious universe, as the container of all that is to be known is encapsulating of all knowledge and "omniscient" is as good a term to use as any and aids in comparing theistic and nontheistic premises about existence[1].
Additional assumptions that most monotheists make:
These assumptions turn the predictable godhead into the theistic 'God' or 'Allah'. If a theist is to prove the existence of the traditional monotheistic God, they must give evidence or feasible arguments to back up these assumptions. These things are the extra steps of faith that a theist has, the extra assumptions that they have that an atheist doesn't. These are the only things that set theism apart from atheism.
This website is largely concerned with debating these assumptions. The principal essay Refuting Monotheism, is an introduction to the major objections to some of these additional assumptions.
Related essay:
"Spiritual Warfare is a term that implies that Human Beings have souls, and that we are in spiritual battle against evil spirits, Jinn or Demons, and there are also good spirits. [...] I have used the word "Materialists" instead of "atheists" as there are branches of atheism that believe in a spirit world.Friction
Theists find it provocative when atheists deny that there is a spiritual world and call it 'deluded'. Theists feel this is a self righteous insult by science-obsessed materialists. Materialists find it provocative when theists call it a "spiritual reality" and say "materialists deny spiritual reality". Materialists find this is an arrogant and self-righteous insult. Occasionally I feel that each side of this argument purposefully uses words that the other finds annoying. But much of the time it is best to ignore it as they are simply the terms people are brought up to use and they are not necessarily insults."
Materialists assume that theists are looking for spiritual interpretations to events and therefore 'experience' them more readily and therefore it is self delusional. Theists assume that materialists are blind or have some ulterior motive to not 'acknowledging' the spiritual world. Materialists say that all such experiences are explainable through psychology and chemistry.
"But this results in a stand off: Where materialists and spiritualists are simply assuming that they're each correct. Materialists are assuming that science will not, in the future, discover that Spirits could be true. Spiritualists are assuming that science is wrong: Spirits are not all caused by Human subconscious. Atheists will claim that because we all share common biology and our minds are structured in similar ways that similar kinds of illogical beliefs will surface and that common experiences are results of a common physiological response to normal events.[...]Both sides of the argument feel they are more rational. It cannot be shown which is the correct view. Both sides argue from experience. [...] Both parties experiences are based on their own assumptions and neither will be able to sway the other through logical argument over whether experience is true or not. "
The essay continues and gives examples of how there could be a scientific spiritual world, but also that some of the assumptions of the theist could be wrong too.
By Vexen Crabtree 2002 Aug 29