TPF : Atheism vs Scriptural Theism

[Gnomon]

Atheism is delusional?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... usional/p1

"I would normally consider myself an atheist, however recently I’ve wondered whether some sort of theistic claims are actually reasonable."
___ Franz Liszt

This goes against my instincts, but from a philosophical standpoint, science and logic are kind of dependent on this to be true.
I feel the only way to escape this paradox is to say that we are designed by some higher truth in the universe. — Franz Liszt

I can relate. I too was indoctrinated into a theistic worldview by my back-to-the-bible fundamentalist religion. But, upon reaching the age of reason, I began to ask embarrassing questions. Since no satisfactory answers were forthcoming, I eventually rejected scriptural Theism. But I also asked embarrassing questions about the Materialistic model offered by modern science. So, for a while, I became an undecided, yet still searching, Agnostic. Apparently Atheists simply abandoned the search for any "higher truth" (than Science) long ago. The "delusion" of Atheism is that it has found a plausible answer to the "hard" questions of "God, the Universe, and Everything".

Ironically and paradoxically, modern Science has never reached the final truth on anything. It's always evolving into newer Theories of Everything to replace the old TOE. For example, the quest for a fundamental "atom" of reality, has led scientists down the yellow brick road to a magic world in the clouds, made of amorphous "fields" of mathematical probabilities. Like the "elusive butterfly of love", the higher truths remain just beyond our grasp.

Nevertheless, in my old age, I am comfortable with my own personal philosophical worldview, that I call Enformationism. I won't go into the technical details here, but the relevant point is that it's neither Theistic nor Atheistic, but Deistic. It's based on the philosophical axiom that a First Cause (your higher truth?) is logically necessary to explain the subsequent series of causes & effects since the hypothetical Big Bang beginning. But, it provides no thus-saith-the-lord assurances to assuage the doubts raised by our limited understanding of how & why the world exists and works as it does, in a progressive & orderly fashion. So, Science will continue to pursue mundane truths, while Philosophy fecklessly attempts to net the "higher truths", fluttering just out of reach. How do your instincts feel about that kind of open-ended paradigm of contingent truth?

God, the Universe, and Everything Else
https://youtu.be/-IbIzCwb1xQ

“The Ultimate Answer to Life, The Universe and Everything is...42!”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Introduction to Enformationism
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page80.html

[Gnomon]

↪norm
I am grateful for this reply. This Enformationism is rather interesting and I will attempt to think about it more. — Franz Liszt

I assume you intended to reply to Gnomon. Enformationism is my attempt to resolve the paradox of Living - Thinking - Loving Matter, without bowing to the authority of any particular scripture or tradition --- and without hiding my head in the sand. Atheism is the belief system that assumes (without evidence) that the material world (or multiverse) is eternal and un-created. But self-existence (aseity) is a signature property of a Deity. Before astronomers were forced to conclude that the world, suddenly-and-without-warning, began to exist 14 billion years ago, it was logical to conclude that our physical reality was eternal, and possibly self-existent.

Centuries before the BB theory, "atheistic" philosopher Spinoza assumed that the world was eternal, but he called the immaterial "substance" of the world, "God" --- for reasons similar to those you expressed in the OP. And, scientists still have no idea how the property of Consciousness could evolve from an un-conscious origin. So, that's why I propose that Information, not Matter, is the fundamental substance of the real world.

Hence, the hypothetical Originator or Source of our world is presumed to be conscious, at least in potential. If so, then that proto-consciousness may have been encoded into our evolving system as shape-shifting Information, which is the essence of both Matter & Mind. If you don't like the baggage-laden term "God" though, then perhaps "The Prime Programmer" would be more acceptable.

Aseity : existence derived from itself, having no other source

Physics Is Pointing Inexorably to Mind :
Matter is done away with and only information itself is taken to be ultimately real. This abstract notion, called information realism is a popular philosophical underpinning for digital physics.
___ Bernardo Kastrup : Computer scientist
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... y-to-mind/

New research indicates the whole universe could be a giant neural network :
The root problem with sussing out a theory of everything – in this case, one that defines the
very nature of the universe itself – is that it usually ends up replacing one proxy-for-god with
another.
https://thenextweb.com/neural/2021/03/0 ... l-network/

Baruch Spinoza : defines "God" as a singular self-subsistent Substance, with both matter and thought being attributes of such. ... God has infinitely many other attributes which are not present in our world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism

Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Image ... aradox.jpg

[Gnomon]

First is how we should view universal laws, such as the speed of light, or gravitational forces. These appear to be wholly arbitrary, — Count Timothy von Icarus

The laws & constants of our world do indeed seem to be "arbitrary" to us, because they boil-down to a sequence of numbers that have no meaning for us creatures of the code. I suspect that the agents inside a computer game (TRON, for example) or inside a simulated world ( such as The MATRIX) would not be able to make sense of the digital code that is streaming through their world. (see below) That's because they don't know the Mind of their Programmer -- his numerical language or his intentions for the game.

However, the only reasonable "explanation" for those fundamental ratios so far, is the Anthropic Principle. Atheists reject that notion, not because it's a crazy concept, but because it implies that the Universe, and its occupants, were intended to be here, and not a random accident. Since I have no animosity toward the notion of intentional creation, it sounds like a good guess to me.

Anthropic principle :
Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why this universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate conscious life. . . .The strong anthropic principle (SAP), as proposed by John D. Barrow and Frank Tipler, states that the universe is in some sense compelled to eventually have conscious and sapient life emerge within it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

There is also a nice dovetail between these aspects of reality and the image of God as a being that must create something outside itself to define itself and thus exist; something like the theology of Boehme. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I'm more familiar with Hegel than Boeme. But Wikipedia indicates that his notion of deity was basically Judeo-Christian, with some elements of Gnostic Mysticism. Frank Tipler's Omega Point theory also seems to be a modified version of Christian Theology, as viewed through a lens of Quantum spookiness. And I can see his point -- up to a point.

Some posters here jump to the conclusion, that my references to a "Creator" (Enformer) are evidence of either Christian or New Age sympathies. Yet in fact, I constructed my concept of the Creator-as-Programmer primarily from known facts of Astronomy (not Astrology), Cosmology (not Gnosticism), and Quantum Science (not Classical Science). I admit that it does sound New Agey, especially in the image of my previous post. But that was not my intention. So I don't claim to know the mind of G*D, except as demonstrated in the rational organization of the world. And I don't concern myself with Magic or Mysticism.

“I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, __Einstein

THE MATRIX -- RAINING CODE :
https://media.wired.com/photos/5ca648a3 ... rridor.jpg