Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)
Options
Comments
-
Religion is so widespread, so we only have small groups that were not exposed for a long time to religion or the believe of a god. When you claim that the Piraha are not religious because their disposition to believe in a Creator has been veiled or spoiled, could it not also be the other way around? That they are the only ones that have not been brought up for a long time with the believe in a god and so their logic is not spoiled? In fact, there could be a trait called believe in god. And over the centuries this trait has been dominant, what benefited people to understand what they could not understand. Basically a good example for evolution.
What benefit do you think believing in spirit brought them? also it's interesting how you bring up only one example to attempt and refute what the actual scientist have established regarding the innate disposition to believe in a supernatural Creator of this universe, it seems that you will only accept science when it suits you and reject it when it doesn't.However, they do believe in spirits that can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment.
Flying spaghetti monster?What brings me to the point that a hard wiring for a believe in god, does not prove that there is a god. As shown, god was used to bridge the gaps, but before we knew why the tides rise and fall, does that mean Neptune did it?
Also I find the link hilarious, while claiming that the flying spaghetti monster is not a natural tendency
You see if people believed in a God to simply "Fill the gaps" then the overwhelming 97% of the earth theistic population who do believe in some sort of a God during these time of science advancement and technology would be dramatically lower.The ‘spaghetti monster’ and the ‘great pumpkin’ are not natural tendencies. There is not a broad natural tendency to believe in a ‘spaghetti monster’ or ‘great pumpkin’. These are not natural tendencies, they are culturally bound. For example, if I believe in a spaghetti monster, I would have to have been brought up in a culture in which you are taught about spaghetti and monsters. However, the idea of God, the basic underlying idea of a creator, of a supernatural cause for the universe, is cross-cultural. It is not contingent on culture but transcends it, just like the belief in causality and the existence of other minds.
Did you study the Arabic language? The word 'Allah' is the nothing but the Arabic word for 'God' and it means 'Al' the 'lah' God.Allah is, what is never mentioned but only the Qur’an is quoted so we can clearly link it to the god they are talking about without ever answering the question what makes Allah better than the Christian God or Buddha or Shiva.
http://rt.com/op-edge/227871-palestinian-orthodox-christian-bishop/Interviewer;Do people say Allahu Akbar in church?
Orthodox Christian bishop ;
Of course.
For us, Allah is not an Islamic term. This is a word used in Arabic to indicate the Creator who’s made the world we are living in. So when we say Allah in our prayers we mean the Creator of this world.
In our prayers and pleas, in our Orthodox Christian religious ceremonies we use exactly this word. We say, glory be to Allah in all times. We say Allah a lot during our liturgy. It’s erroneous to think that the word Allah is only used by Muslims.
We the Arab Christians say Allah in our Arabic language as a way to identify and address the Creator in our prayers.0 -
Nothing I said contradicted with anything I believe.RikuoAmero wrote: »That's common knowledge, everyone knows that. Basically, you have previously identified yourself as a worshipper of Allah, so now you're contradicting yourself.
The basic underlying concept of a unique Creator God is the same a God that Created everything, the difference is maybe not within the characteristic of this God as I mentioned but we can redefine it as within the nature of this Creator God.RikuoAmero wrote: »Then it's not the same god. This is like saying "These ten people believe it was a single man who killed that woman over there. Each of the ten believes it was a different man with different characteristics, but they all believe it was a man".
Nope, in Islam we believe that there's nothing like God 'There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing'42;11.and he transcend above all of his creation No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things.6;03RikuoAmero wrote: »Like I said before, you post hoc define the characteristics of what a creator god must have to match the god that you already believe in. Convenient.
and hence what I said is barely my attempt to understand the basic nature of this God.
As I said the Big bang theory is well established among the cosmologists as the prevailing cosmological model for the birth of the universe that have even been supported by empirical evidence which then I build my case on, I find it amusing how as an atheist and a follower of science you would dismiss it this quickly, I also find it hard to yet reject something the consensus of the scientists accept for a mathematical Model which appeared just recently until it becomes as well of established as the BBT and cosmologist again consensually agree on its validity, as it's not possible for these scientists to collectively agree on something which is not feasible.RikuoAmero wrote: »1) What cosmologists and other scientists believe is open to revision.
The Creator cause of this universe being Un-Caused or having an Ultimate Un-Caused cause of the universe as we have explained account for our existence as otherwise we will have an infinite regress, as the first thing to exist must either be eternal or began to exist and since it makes sense that nothing can come from nothing this Un-Caused cause of the universe must be eternal.RikuoAmero wrote: »2) Came into existence out of nothing is rather a theistic belief, creation ex nihilo.
If your problem is with something being eternal At one point scientist had no problem believing that the Universe was Eternal and in fact this new Mathematical Model for the universe which you cited suggest 'The universe may have existed forever' meaning it's eternal which was what cosmologist believed before they proposed and accepted the BBT and which is again being challenged by this model, which am interested to see the outcome of among the larger science community.
What does a soft atheist rejecting God claim has to do with the origin of the universe in the eyes of the atheist simply being all there?RikuoAmero wrote: »3) The atheist view DOES NOT equal that the universe is all that there is. An atheist (soft that is) is merely someone who rejects the god claim. That does not mean that they reject all other supernatural claims too. You're committing an error of classification here AGAIN.
I like the way you haven't even attempted to refute what I said and simply dismiss it as 'word play' :rolleyes:RikuoAmero wrote: »That argument is incredibly easy to dismiss. To put it simply, you posit that there are two sets of things
1) Things that have a cause
2) Things that do not have a cause
and after some word-play, you say that God is un-caused.0 -
Defender OF Faith wrote: »What benefit do you think believing in spirit brought them?
Same as fairies, leprechauns, unicorns ....Defender OF Faith wrote: »Flying spaghetti monster?
You see if people believed in a God to simply "Fill the gaps" then the overwhelming 97% of the earth theistic population who do believe in some sort of a God during these time of science advancement and technology would be dramatically lower.
The higher the education, the higher the amount of atheists. What clearly shows a correlation and might be linked to the god of the gaps. And believing is again just believing, how high is the percentage of people that actually do what a god tells them? Quite often when talking with people you will hear "Yeah I believe in something", but deny to do anything to please this something. So what kind of believe is this?
We are anyway just at the beginning of science advancement, just think how long it took to get religion out of the state or that in even technological advanced countries blasphemy is still a forbidden thing. Overall when we look at the arrival of the big religions thousands of years have passed, while the scientific approaches we use nowadays are maybe only hundreds of years back.
What do you estimate, how will the situation in 100 years look like. Percentage wise, will there be more or less believers and why?Did you study the Arabic language? The word 'Allah' is the nothing but the Arabic word for 'God' and it means 'Al' the 'lah' God.
http://rt.com/op-edge/227871-palestinian-orthodox-christian-bishop/
If it would be the general meaning of god, why is just the Qur’an quoted? If this is a general investigation where are bible or Buddha quotes?0 -
The higher the education, the higher the amount of atheists.
Disputed and suggested to be a myth
http://www.randalolson.com/2014/08/24/the-myth-of-the-smarter-atheist/
https://jackhudson.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/the-myth-of-atheism-and-higher-education/
https://unitedfamiliesinternational.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/myth-buster-are-atheists-more-intelligent-than-the-religious/
Also your points regarding science are non sequiturs as there is no conflict between science and religion, and science frequently affirms God, for me and many other Christians who are also scientists. For atheists though YMMV.0 -
Disputed and suggested to be a myth
http://www.randalolson.com/2014/08/24/the-myth-of-the-smarter-atheist/
https://jackhudson.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/the-myth-of-atheism-and-higher-education/
https://unitedfamiliesinternational.wordpress.com/2011/07/18/myth-buster-are-atheists-more-intelligent-than-the-religious/
Also your points regarding science are non sequiturs as there is no conflict between science and religion and science frequently affirms God.
The Randal Olson article is good, the others not, but look at this conclusionThis is where we have to think about effect size vs. statistical significance. The most religious adults had an average IQ of 97.14, whereas the atheist adults had an average IQ of 103.09. That may seem like a wide gap — 6 whole IQ points — until we remember that anyone in the IQ range of 90-109 is classified as having “average intelligence.” Thinking about this in practical terms: Would you be able to tell the difference between someone with a 97 IQ and someone with a 103 IQ? It’s highly unlikely.
So it is easy to agree that both are in the average bracket, but still six points difference shows that there is a difference between those groups. In the comments he gets very defensive when pointed to this.0 -
Advertisement
-
If it would be the general meaning of god, why is just the Qur’an quoted? If this is a general investigation where are bible or Buddha quotes?
To begin with the Buddhist do not have an actual idea of God it's more of a spiritual agnostic religion whereby your general goal in life is to reach a stage on Enlightenment. As for the word Allah being quoted in the Qur'an, the answer is simple the original texts of the Qur'an is written in Arabic and was directed at the time to the Arabs who happen to call their Gods "Al-Iha " translated to "The Gods" plural as they were pagans, but Islam being a monotheistic religion the word "Al-Ilah" or meaning the God or "Al-llah" singular, with Allah being the Arabic word for God (al ilāh, literally "the God")
If you read the Holy Bible in Arabic you will find the word Allah or “al-ilaah” for God appearing along side other terms such as "Al Rab" both of which is also found in the Qur'an.
Wikipedia does have a good article discussing the word and its origin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllahIt is used mainly by Muslims to refer to God in Islam, but it has also been used by Arab Christians since pre-Islamic times. It is also often, albeit not exclusively, used by Bábists, Bahá'ís, Indonesian and Maltese Christians, and Mizrahi Jews. Christians and Sikhs in West Malaysia also use and have used the word to refer to God.
Arab Christians, for example, use the terms Allāh al-ab (الله الأب) for God the Father, Allāh al-ibn (الله الابن) for God the Son, and Allāh al-rūḥ al-quds (الله الروح القدس) for God the Holy Spirit.0 -
-
To begin with the Buddhist do not have an actual idea of God it's more of a spiritual agnostic religion whereby your general goal in life is to reach a stage on Enlightenment.
D of F you just said this, but I thought you said that belief in god was a default situation?The belief in a supernatural Creator of this universe is a natural belief unlike atheism which is a learned psychology. God is a basic cross cultural belief and a belief in a God is not culturally bond.
this is what you said a few pages back.0 -
-
Your proofreading knows no bounds. I have taken your editoral comments on board and corrected my earlier posting for clarity.
As I understand it you are saying, for believers, god exists but for non-believers he may not. You are beginning to accept that he may not exist without belief. There is something approaching a solution to our argument there I think. In spite of all the slithering around we have still not got any more evidence of god than 'I believe'.0 -
Advertisement
-
This will be a good question to ask in the Buddhism forum, from what I understand Buddhist traditions do not deny the existence of supernatural beings whom they call "Devas" but they do not ascribe them powers such as that of salvation or judgement associated with a God they regard them as beings having the power to affect worldly events more then Humans. Buddhists believe that while Gods might be more powerful then Humans they do not consider them to be absolute and like humans suffer in what they believe to be the "Samsara" or the eternal cycle of life.D of F you just said this, but I thought you said that belief in god was a default situation?
this is what you said a few pages back.
I think this is a very basic outline regarding Buddhism and it's Gods and supernatural beings and my knowledge on the matter does not extend beyond it which is why I said they don't have an actual idea of a "God" or an All-Powerful Creator God that transcend above his creation as it's associated with other religions, Buddhism is quite complex regarding its Gods they reject the existence of a Creator deity yet some Gods in Buddhism have the view that they are the Creators of the world eg: Baka Brahma but they{the Buddhist}believe that the spiritual power of Buddha is greater then these gods who thought they created the world, they believe that causality is responsible for creation and explains it in a way which I cannot understand to write succinctly which you can search at your own time.0 -
Defender OF Faith wrote: »This will be a good question to ask in the Buddhism forum, from what I understand Buddhist traditions do not deny the existence of supernatural beings whom they call "Devas" but they do not ascribe them powers such as that of salvation or judgement associated with a God they regard them as beings having the power to affect worldly events more then Humans. Buddhists believe that while Gods might be more powerful then Humans they do not consider them to be absolute and like humans suffer in what they believe to be the "Samsara" or the eternal cycle of life.
I think this is a very basic outline regarding Buddhism and it's Gods and supernatural beings and my knowledge on the matter does not extend beyond it which is why I said they don't have an actual idea of a "God" or an All-Powerful Creator God that transcend above his creation as it's associated with other religions, Buddhism is quite complex regarding its Gods they reject the existence of a Creator deity yet some Gods in Buddhism have the view that they are the Creators of the world eg: Baka Brahma but they{the Buddhist}believe that the spiritual power of Buddha is greater then these gods who thought they created the world, they believe that causality is responsible for creation and explains it in a way which I cannot understand to write succinctly which you can search at your own time.
Did you not understand looksee's point? You've said that a belief in a creator god is the default belief of humans (yet have not brought up one shred of evidence)...and yet there you are talking about buddhism which as you've said does not have a notion of a creator god.
Besides, let's grant your argument. Let's say that you are right. That humans everywhere believe in a creator god by default, and only later some of us become atheists.
How does that in any way act as evidence for the existence of your god? Belief alone, not even shared belief in large numbers, does not act as evidence. That would be the logical fallacy of argument from popularity.0 -
Did you read what I said? The concept of God and the Supernatural in Buddhism is too complex to simply answer in one line, if you wish to narrow it down, yes some Gods of Buddhism are responsible for creation the Buddhists however claim that the spiritual power of the Buddha is greater then these Gods.RikuoAmero wrote: »and yet there you are talking about buddhism which as you've said does not have a notion of a creator god...0 -
Defender OF Faith wrote: »Did you read what I said? The concept of God and the Supernatural in Buddhism is too complex to simply answer in one line, if you wish to narrow it down, yes some Gods of Buddhism are responsible for creation the Buddhists however claim that the spiritual power of the Buddha is greater then these Gods.
In other words, nothing at all like the singular creator god of your religion, the singular creator god that you insist is the default belief mode for humans.
By the way...why do you talk about buddhist gods as if they have a possibility of existing? They're antithetical to the religion you're a part of.
Answer my question please, the one at the end of my last comment.0 -
As I understand it you are saying, for believers, god exists but for non-believers he may not. You are beginning to accept that he may not exist without belief.
I don't see how you made that leap of faith to that conclusion.
If you are mis-interpreting what I said let me clarify. God exists whether you believe in Him or not. For those who do believe in Him and who are scientists or have a strong interest in science there is nothing in science that can prove them wrong and much that supports His existence.
Or you could go the Sherlock Holmes route:
1. I observe everything.
2. From what I observe, I deduce everything.
3. When I've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how mad it might seem, must be the truth.
A simple example is order from chaos. Science does not support the contention that it is possible for order to arise from disorder unaided. In fact, it says the exact opposite - order tends towards disorder.
When one observes order arising from chaos the only logical deduction one can make is that the direction of this order is aided.0 -
I don't see how you made that leap of faith to that conclusion.
If you are mis-interpreting what I said let me clarify. God exists whether you believe in Him or not. For those who do believe in Him and who are scientists or have a strong interest in science there is nothing in science that can prove them wrong and much that supports His existence.
How can there be anything in science that proves anything one way or the other about something that does not exist? There is nothing in science that could prove me wrong if I contended that unicorns exist.Or you could go the Sherlock Holmes route:
1. I observe everything.
2. From what I observe, I deduce everything.
3. When I've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how mad it might seem, must be the truth.
A simple example is order from chaos. Science does not support the contention that it is possible for order to arise from disorder unaided. In fact, it says the exact opposite - order tends towards disorder.
When one observes order arising from chaos the only logical deduction one can make is that the direction of this order is aided.
The impossible being the existence of god, then whatever remains - an absence of god - must be the truth.0 -
I think this is an important point I need to elaborate on now and will replay to your other comments and the comment from your previous answer later or the next time I post. To begin with your misunderstanding what I said and originally presented when talking about this issue.RikuoAmero wrote: »In other words, nothing at all like the singular creator god of your religion, the singular creator god that you insist is the default belief mode for humans.
I said that the belief in the Supernatural or a Supernatural Creator of this universe is an innate natural belief, each Paganistic religion will have a unique Creator God to whom they ascribe other gods, the Monotheistic religions or monotheism reject these other gods and state that only the Unique Creator God exist, the basic concept underlying this Unique Creator God is the same across all religions and cultures however his nature is understood differently by them.0 -
Defender OF Faith wrote: »I think this is an important point I need to elaborate on now and will replay to your other comments and the comment from your previous answer later or the next time I post. To begin with your misunderstanding what I said and originally presented when talking about this issue.
I said that the belief in the Supernatural or a Supernatural Creator of this universe is an innate natural belief, each Paganistic religion will have a unique Creator God to whom they ascribe other Gods, the Monotheistic religions or monotheism reject these other Gods and state that only the Unique Creator God exist, the basic concept underlying this Unique Creator God is the same across all religions and cultures however his nature is understood differently by them.
Where's your evidence that it's innate? I know I know, you've posted before about studies about ancient cultures, but those are talking about the beliefs of adults. How do you question the innate beliefs of infants?0 -
Defender OF Faith wrote: »I think this is an important point I need to elaborate on now and will replay to your other comments and the comment from your previous answer later or the next time I post. To begin with your misunderstanding what I said and originally presented when talking about this issue.
I said that the belief in the Supernatural or a Supernatural Creator of this universe is an innate natural belief, each Paganistic religion will have a unique Creator God to whom they ascribe other gods, the Monotheistic religions or monotheism reject these other gods and state that only the Unique Creator God exist, the basic concept underlying this Unique Creator God is the same across all religions and cultures however his nature is understood differently by them.
Could the same be said about slavery , the place of women, were these not innate natural beliefs ?0 -
Evidence please.each Paganistic religion will have a unique Creator God to whom they ascribe other gods,
Also the rest of what you wrote there is a massive contradiction. You can't write "unique creator god" and then say in the same sentence that there were other gods floating around with it.0 -
Advertisement
-
How can there be anything in science that proves anything one way or the other about something that does not exist? There is nothing in science that could prove me wrong if I contended that unicorns exist.
biased and unobjective. Have you considered a career in climate science or journalism?The impossible being the existence of god, then whatever remains - an absence of god - must be the truth.
Not quite. The existence of God is not impossble. If the existence of God is impossibe you should be able to prove that.
I observe order arising from chaos. I deduce that something is driving this. I seek the agent. I do not find the agent. I deduce the agent is invisible. I seek the invisible and do not find it. I deduce the invisible is also untouchable. I consider that if something is invisible and untouchable then it does not exist. Yet I continue to observe order arising from chaos powered by an unobservable agent.
Is it impossible that God is the solution?
No it is not.
Is there any other possible solution. No there is not.0 -
biased and unobjective. Have you considered a career in climate science or journalism?
Are you suggesting that my statement is biased and unobjective because that is what you believe? Or do you have some sort of rational argument to prove it?Not quite. The existence of God is not impossble. If the existence of God is impossibe you should be able to prove that.
I observe order arising from chaos. I deduce that something is driving this. I seek the agent. I do not find the agent. I deduce the agent is invisible. I seek the invisible and do not find it. I deduce the invisible is also untouchable. I consider that if something is invisible and untouchable then it does not exist. Yet I continue to observe order arising from chaos powered by an unobservable agent.
Is it impossible that God is the solution?
No it is not.
Is there any other possible solution. No there is not.
And once again we go round in circles. I think the existance of god is not possible, you think it is not impossible. My opinion, your opinion. You cannot prove the existence of god beyond 'I believe' and yet again (and again and again) you are asking me to prove something does not exist.
You prove to me that unicorns do not exist and I will accept that argument in relation to god.0 -
Wonderful. You might want to let the scientists know that you have somehow negated all the scientific research that points to entropy.I observe order arising from chaos.
Ever consider that either there is no agent or that you simply haven't found it yet?I deduce that something is driving this. I seek the agent. I do not find the agent.
Why?I deduce the agent is invisible.
Gee...I wonder why.I seek the invisible and do not find it.
Also, you used the wrong word in the previous sentence. In the context you're using here, it's suppose or propose, not deduce. To deduce something is to come to a logical conclusion, which is not what you did when you proposed that the agent is invisible and then you didn't find it.
Why?I deduce the invisible is also untouchable.
Great, but you're going to ignore this deduction, aren't you? Also, you're wrong. The correct answer isn't that it does not exist...it's that it's existence (if it does) cannot be established or falsified.I consider that if something is invisible and untouchable then it does not exist.
Still going to have to explain to me how entropy is being negated, and how you've somehow managed to detect the negation is being done by an unobservable agent.Yet I continue to observe order arising from chaos powered by an unobservable agent.
No, but since you're talking about an unobservable agent, this means you've disqualified yourself from talking about it, and putting labels to it.Is it impossible that God is the solution?
No it is not.
Classic argument from ignorance.Is there any other possible solution. No there is not.0 -
biased and unobjective. Have you considered a career in climate science or journalism?
Not quite. The existence of God is not impossble. If the existence of God is impossibe you should be able to prove that.
I observe order arising from chaos. I deduce that something is driving this. I seek the agent. I do not find the agent. I deduce the agent is invisible. I seek the invisible and do not find it. I deduce the invisible is also untouchable. I consider that if something is invisible and untouchable then it does not exist. Yet I continue to observe order arising from chaos powered by an unobservable agent.
Is it impossible that God is the solution?
No it is not.
Is there any other possible solution. No there is not.
Of course there is , the most obvious one - the observer's senses are not sufficient to the task . The observer's known science is not sufficient to the task .
Coincidently the explanation that has existed since man first looked at the stars .
And since those very first observations can you give me one , just one example of any phenomena that was previously explained by God, Gods, The Bible etc that has withstood the advance of science ?
Just one ?0 -
biased and unobjective. Have you considered a career in climate science or journalism?
Not quite. The existence of God is not impossble. If the existence of God is impossibe you should be able to prove that.
I observe order arising from chaos. I deduce that something is driving this. I seek the agent. I do not find the agent. I deduce the agent is invisible. I seek the invisible and do not find it. I deduce the invisible is also untouchable. I consider that if something is invisible and untouchable then it does not exist. Yet I continue to observe order arising from chaos powered by an unobservable agent.
Is it impossible that God is the solution?
No it is not.
Is there any other possible solution. No there is not.
If the existence is possible you should be able to prove that too. You can't!0 -
As I said the question should be what is the natural deposition of a child? as infants have no developed cognitive faculties or reasoning capacities to even think or contemplate such issue. The question instead should address the natural state, the innate nature, or the innate disposition of a Child as his mind develops.RikuoAmero wrote: »Where's your evidence that it's innate? I know I know, you've posted before about studies about ancient cultures, but those are talking about the beliefs of adults. How do you question the innate beliefs of infants?
The question hence would be more accurately phased as what's the innate belief of the infants developing mind?
I have presented this piece earlier on but it appears that you have not read it so I will re-quote it here again:Prof Justin Barrett. Professor Barrett’s research in his book Born believers: the science of children’s religious belief looked at the behavior and claims of children:
“Scientific research on children’s developing minds and supernatural beliefs suggests that children normally and rapidly acquire minds that facilitate belief in supernatural agents. Particularly in the first year after birth, children distinguish between agents and non-agents, understanding agents as able to move themselves in purposeful ways to pursue goals. They are keen to find agency around them, even given scant evidence. Not long after their first birthday, babies appear to understand that agents, but not natural forces or ordinary objects, can create order out of disorder…This tendency to see function and purpose, plus an understanding that purpose and order come from minded beings, makes children likely to see natural phenomena as intentionally created. Who is the Creator? Children know people are not good candidates. It must have been a god…children are born believers of what I call natural religion…”
Quoted from: http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/03/0...gious-beliefs/
Now back to a question you asked earlier, will be quite a lengthy post so grape something while reading:
To me this instinctive evidence that God exists is the strongest of all evidence. External influences will either enforce and shape this natural disposition or 'Veil' it, these influences can include parenting, society and peer pressure. These influences, others incidents and factors during the individual life could result in the individual adopting an atheistic stand whereby he reject the existence of a God or a Supernatural Creator of this universe. In this case it's important to note that a belief in God is not inferred from some type of inductive, deductive, philosophical or scientific evidence. Instead, this type of evidence acts as a trigger to wake up this innate natural disposition to believe in a God.How does that in any way act as evidence for the existence of your god? Belief alone, not even shared belief in large numbers, does not act as evidence. That would be the logical fallacy of argument from popularity.
If inside your heart you personally don't want to believe in a God as it would lead you to many other assertions,questions and acceptance of certain facts, such as judgement,resurrection and accountability for this life if a God exist, which you would rather avoid and live your life indulging in what you want, without feeling any prick in your heart with finger-crossed that your consciousness will simply fade away after you die; you will never believe in him, no matter how strong and deductive the argument presented is.
The inclination to finding out about God and argue for or against his existence is in tune with this natural inclination. If God was a silly invented idea that children are taught, it would have faded away with time or never to be taken seriously, especially as atheist would claim that some of our ancestors believed in a God to explain the unknown or out of simply fear, yet now days during this time of scientific advancement and technology the overwhelming majority of the Earth population are theist who believe in some sort of a God. When calamities befall people you hear even the atheist instinctively say "Oh my God" and not "Oh my Fairy/Pixy/Spaghetti Monster".
If God was a silly parasitic idea to control the mind of the weak it would not have lead to serious discussions between intellectuals relating his existence. Their has never been a serious debate to discuss the existence of fairies or begins of their sort they never had serious books written about them. The idea of a God is such an ingrained idea that across history academic,philosophers or leaders have taught about it and his existence, adopting either a theistic or an atheistic position in relation to God unlike a fairy or its sort, to the point where even some people who belong to Science declare themselves to be Creationist and use Science to understand God, because of our natural disposition to discover him. Some would amass such power and influence that they would declare themselves to be a God recognising a God as a Powerful Begin whom because of their wealth and influence believed that they archived this status,
If nations across history looked into various arguments and infer from them His existence, many ancient civilisations would not have believed in a God, and we will hear about many atheistic Civilisation across the world history. It's their intuition and natural disposition toward God that made them see it as a self-evident truth much like the existence of reality or the real world, as a truth that does not require evidence or need to be proven.
I believe that when Homosapians were created then developed and evolved; it was destined that this life should be a trail and a test and their will be judgement and reckoning, our Creator placed this natural tendency so that we will be lead to discover and investigate him, in some people this tendency is strong that it made them see God as a self evident truth that does not require a proof, while in others such as some of the well known Greek philosophers, this tendency toward God will make them discuss and deduce his existence through logic and rationale and to not dismiss it, the same way they will dismiss fairies and pixies.
The very fact that atheists are even bothered to discuss the existence of a God and stage serious debates to explore the matter not fairies or pixies is a proof that while they rejected God their is a natural tendency to discover and study God. The very fact that you are hear, in fact the very fact that a thread called "God existence/atheism thread" exist and not a "Fairy existence" thread indicate this natural disposition that will draw you into exploring,thinking and intellectually refuting arguments about God even when you don't believe in him, while you will never do this with fairies or begins of their sort, just so you can have the comfort and conviction to support and defend your atheism.
This to me in my own personal humble opinion as a theist and while you might not see it this way, is the ultimate proof that a God exist not because it's only in line with my faith and belief, but because it best explains the deep and complex interest humanity had in a God throughout history, that's a direct result of a Creator ingraining this interest within us.0 -
You prove to me that unicorns do not exist and I will accept that argument in relation to god.
Unicorns are describe as horse-like creatures with a spiral horn growing from the centre of their foreheads. Given the descriptions and drawings that exist it is reasonable to assume that the relationship between horses and unicorns is of the order of the relationship between horses and zebras so we can consider the unicorn to be a member of the horse family.
We know a lot about horses and what we know about unicorns suggests that they are unlikely to be an evolutionary ancestor to the horse - the only significant change being the horn - in much the same was as we cannot describe the narwhal as being an evolutionary step on the way to the beluga whale. It stands to reason therefore that the unicorn is in evolutionary terms the same age as the horse and therefore would inhabit the much the same terrains as the horse.
Would you agree with me so far?0 -
Defender OF Faith wrote: »
The very fact that atheists are even bothered to discuss the existence of a God and stage serious debates to explore the matter not fairies or pixies is a proof that while they rejected God their is a natural tendency to discover and study God. The very fact that you are hear, in fact the very fact that a thread called "God existence/atheism thread" exist and not a "Fairy existence" thread indicate this natural disposition that will draw you into exploring,thinking and intellectually refuting arguments about God even when you don't believe in him, while you will never do this with fairies or begins of their sort, just so you can have the comfort and conviction to support and defend your atheism.
Pixies dont try to control or influence education , medicine , politics, the workplace etc. If religion was consigned to history then the term would be meaningless in the way there isnt a term for people who deny the existence of pink unicorns.A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer
0 -
How was this determined? This is the part that you have yet to explain.Not long after their first birthday, babies appear to understand that agents, but not natural forces or ordinary objects, can create order out of disorder…
How little you understand anything, if this is what you think I do with myself.live your life indulging in what you want
Because the idea is reinforced very strongly by charismatic people. Why is it you don't try and think of the natural explanations for these phenomena first, instead of leaping to the supernatural ones?yet now days during this time of scientific advancement and technology the overwhelming majority of the Earth population are theist who believe in some sort of a God.
Because a god is the ultimate example of a supernatural entity that is without evidence. What greater imagined entity can you posit than a singular entity who exists outside the universe and who created it?adopting either a theistic or an atheistic position in relation to God unlike a fairy or its sort
Nope, it's because there are no churches of fairies seeking to change social progress or legislature. I was a member of the RCC, which has a long history of influence over laws and politics, especially here in Ireland, and thus my arguments gravitate to the debate of the existence of the christian god because it is the belief in the christian god that is most prevalent in today's society.The very fact that atheists are even bothered to discuss the existence of a God and stage serious debates to explore the matter not fairies or pixies
If instead it was a church of the fairies I was a member of who were influencing laws, I would be arguing just as vehemently against them.
Basically, you just waffled on about how the logical fallacy of argument from popularity isn't a fallacy and yet completely failed at that. I reject your entire argument because all you did was double down on "Lots of people believe this, therefore it's the greatest evidence for it and thus must be true!"0 -
Advertisement
-
silverharp wrote: »Pixies dont try to control or influence education , medicine , politics, the workplace etc. If religion was consigned to history then the term would be meaningless in the way there isnt a term for people who deny the existence of pink unicorns.
Are you saying that atheists admit to the existence of pink unicorns?
I only say this because any time a theist mentions God in the context of Him existing the atheists are straight in with "what about the pink unicorns" and they frequently deny their existence, so I thought the term atheist applied to people who deny the existence of pink unicorns in much the same way it applies to everything else they don't believe it.
If the term atheist does not apply to people who deny the existence of pink unicorns then it is logical to conclude that atheists do not deny the existence of pink unicorns. That, or they have nothing to say on the existence or otherwise of pink unicorns which makes it very confusing if atheists keep talking about pink unicorns.
Maybe atheists are just in denial.
Personally I'm an apinkunicornist. I know a couple of pinkunicornists but I wouldn't go out of my way to tell them they are wrong because in this life, what's the harm? They seem happy with it, why upset them?
If I die and there are pink unicorns in the afterlife but I'm not allowed touch them or ride them is that any great loss?
I'm comfortable with my belief because there really is no evidence for them and pinkunicornists are so rare.
Theists are a different story though. There are so, so, many of them. And huge numbers of them are so intelligent. You really have to wonder why the story of a man who walked the Earth 2000 years ago still has such influence today. No other story from 2000 years ago is still talked about the way this man is. Then there is the evidence, the eye-witness accounts, the actions of His followers and their willingness to die for what they believe in. It all seem so irrational and unbelieveable. People who want martyrdom and to die insufferable deaths if need be. There really are so many questions. I know many are not too bothered about Him but really you have to ask at least one question "Why?"
You'd be a fool not to
(BTW, if you ask the question and then answer yourself you'll get the wrong answer)0
Advertisement