nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

keane2097

J C wrote: »

I don't know ... I have found that once somebody is Saved ... they are Saved ... but that is another thread.

I'm sure that there are examples of people raised in Christian homes who have become Atheists in later life allright.

But nobody who really believed in god who ends up an atheist?

J C

keane2097 wrote: »

But nobody who really believed in god who ends up an atheist?

I'm sure that some people have a crisis of faith in God ... just like some atheists have had a crisis of faith in His non-existence.

boynesider

I have a very straightforward philosophy when it comes to these matters. If a question cannot be answered by science, it simply cannot be answered. Now there are a few questions like this which science will probably never answer and this may dissapoint some people, but I think a logical, rational mind will just have to accept that this is the way it is.

I see people mentioning Richard Feynman a few posts back. I think he summed this position up best when he said that it is much better and more interesting to accept that you don't know something and be contented with your limitations than to choose a mystical, superstitious answer which is very probably wrong. Its just the braver, more rational and more honest thing to do. This is why I cannot believe in God, no matter how much I would like many of the core ideas of theism to be true.

PS. I have also noticed a number of posts which seem to be trying to use the strange nature of the subatomic world to promote some vague theory of quantum mysticism which suggests the existence of a deity. I wouldn't even bother arguing with anyone on this subject, I would only say that if you truly believe that the behaviour of the fundamental particles does suggest such a thing then you are confusing yourself. Sorry.

Geomy

Heard all that before.
Nice try though ;-)

SebBerkovich

J C wrote: »

I'm sure that some people have a crisis of faith in God ... just like some atheists have had a crisis of faith in His non-existence.

I wonder what that would sounds like...
"Wait.. what if nothing doesn't not exist.. actually.. nevermind"

Not sure what you mean by that.

J C

SebBerkovich wrote: »

I wonder what that would sounds like...
"Wait.. what if nothing doesn't not exist.. actually.. nevermind"

Not sure what you mean by that.

A 'crisis of faith' for an Atheist would probably sound something like ...
... 'if there is a Just and Merciful God and an eternal afterlife - I'm in serious trouble unless I ask for His mercy - rather than allowing His Justice, take its course' !!!

That seems to be what happened with former atheist, Dr. Francis Collins anyway.

Pushtrak

J C wrote: »

A 'crisis of faith' for an Atheist would probably sound something like ...
... 'if there is a Just and Merciful God and an eternal afterlife - I'm in serious trouble unless I ask for His mercy - rather than allowing His Justice, take its course' !!!

That seems to be what happened with former atheist, Dr. Francis Collins anyway.

If I were religious and knew someone only came to religion on the strength of Pascal's Wager, I'd hardly consider it a 'win'.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

A 'crisis of faith' for an Atheist would probably sound something like ...
... 'if there is a Just and Merciful God and an eternal afterlife - I'm in serious trouble unless I ask for His mercy - rather than allowing His Justice, take its course' !!!

That seems to be what happened with former atheist, Dr. Francis Collins anyway.

Atheists don't have faith in their position, thus we cannot have a crisis of faith.

PopePalpatine

J C wrote: »

'if there is a Just and Merciful God and an eternal afterlife - I'm in serious trouble unless I ask for His mercy - rather than allowing His Justice, take its course' !!!

After spending a few minutes trying to translate that post into readable English, a just and merciful god WOULDN'T condemn someone to an eternity of torment if they were a decent person who simply doesn't believe in that particular god.

Such a god seems so petty.

Dublin Red Devil

Atheism is not a religion

J C

boynesider wrote: »

I have a very straightforward philosophy when it comes to these matters. If a question cannot be answered by science, it simply cannot be answered.

That is Scientism ... and it is the mirror image of religiosity.

Science has its place ... but there are many (very important) questions that science cannot answer ... including the following:-
Will you marry me?
Is there an afterlife?
Is there a Just God?
How can I be Saved?
... and most important of all (at least in this life) ... 'Do I look fat in this?';)

boynesider wrote: »

Now there are a few questions like this which science will probably never answer and this may dissapoint some people, but I think a logical, rational mind will just have to accept that this is the way it is.

Logic and rationality doesn't stop at the physical world ... it can be equally applied to Law, Faith, morality and interpersonal relations.
Forensic Science can also answer some questions beyond the 'here and now' ... questions like 'How do we recognise intelligent action?
'Is a God-like intelligence required (or not) to produce life?'

boynesider wrote: »

I see people mentioning Richard Feynman a few posts back. I think he summed this position up best when he said that it is much better and more interesting to accept that you don't know something and be contented with your limitations than to choose a mystical, superstitious answer which is very probably wrong.

He offers a false dichotomy ... a choice between ignorance (of not knowing something) and ignorance (of making up superstitions about something). There is a third way ... testing radical hypotheses ... including the Hypothesis that a supernatural agent did it ... when all natural agencies have been ruled out.

boynesider wrote: »

Its just the braver, more rational and more honest thing to do.

It isn't necessarily any of these things ... although I accept that Atheism is a sincerely and honestly held opinion by many people.
... Theism is also a rationally and honestly held belief as well.

It could even be classified as somewhat foolhardy to not be Saved ... because if there is no God, you have lost nothing ... and if there is a God you have gained eternal bliss. Paschals wager has a lot going for it ... with no downsides. It's the ultimate in hedging your bets.

boynesider wrote: »

This is why I cannot believe in God, no matter how much I would like many of the core ideas of theism to be true.

I believe in God for rational scientifically verifiable reasons ... and the ideas of Theism are a very nice bonus.

boynesider wrote: »

PS. I have also noticed a number of posts which seem to be trying to use the strange nature of the subatomic world to promote some vague theory of quantum mysticism which suggests the existence of a deity. I wouldn't even bother arguing with anyone on this subject, I would only say that if you truly believe that the behaviour of the fundamental particles does suggest such a thing then you are confusing yourself. Sorry.

... I agree with you there ... so 'Mystic Meg' ... is now 'Quantum Mystic Meg', I guess!!:D

J C

Pushtrak wrote: »

If I were religious and knew someone only came to religion on the strength of Pascal's Wager, I'd hardly consider it a 'win'.

It certainly wouldn't be a 'loss' ... unless they didn't go on to be Saved, I guess.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

After spending a few minutes trying to translate that post into readable English, a just and merciful god WOULDN'T condemn someone to an eternity of torment if they were a decent person who simply doesn't believe in that particular god.

Such a god seems so petty.

A Just God will not force anybody to receive Salvation.
Many people of all religions and none will be Saved ... if they choose to be.

... and many people of all religions and none will be lost ... because they choose to be.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

Atheists don't have faith in their position, thus we cannot have a crisis of faith.

You have faith that God doesn't exist.
I have faith, backed up by quite strong evidence, that He does exist.

... so we're both people of faith!!!!

... and I must say that Atheists have by far the greater Faith.

J C

Dublin Red Devil wrote: »

Atheism is not a religion

... and the Christian Faith is not a religion either.

Something we have in common, I guess!!!

Pushtrak

J C wrote: »

It could even be classified as somewhat foolhardy to not be Saved ... because if there is no God, you have lost nothing ... and if there is a God you have gained eternal bliss. Paschals wager has a lot going for it ... with no downsides. It's the ultimate in hedging your bets.

Whether you realise it or not, the implication of what you are saying is you believe in an all knowing entity that is really dumb.

I believe in God for rational scientifically verifiable reasons ... and the ideas of Theism are a very nice bonus.

Says the denier of evolution.

J C

Pushtrak wrote: »

Whether you realise it or not, the implication of what you are saying is you believe in an all knowing entity that is really dumb.

Why so?

Pushtrak wrote: »

Says the denier of evolution.

... says the denier of God.

Pushtrak

J C wrote: »

Why so?

Among the weaknesses of the wager of which there are several, fore example, which religion? Naturally, you'll say Christianity, but that is just your take. You, for instance could be on the wrong end of the wager if Islam is right. The point of the dumb God, though is that this all knowing entity wouldn't see through a ploy of believing just to avoid hell. It is hedging your bets, and a being of the intelligence that is being proposed... It seems unussual that it would not see through/be nonplussed by such a gambit.

... says the denier of God.

Evolution is a science. God isn't.

tommy2bad

J C wrote: »

You have faith that God doesn't exist.
I have faith, backed up by quite strong evidence, that He does exist.

... so we're both people of faith!!!!

No they don't have faith that god doesn't exist, thats kinda the point, the lack of faith.
Not believing in a god is not a position of faith, it's a lack of faith. Placing your trust in science isn't that far removed from a faith but with the difference that if you wanted you could do the experiments yourself so your faith is conditional on the trust you have in science.
A similar position on God would be impossible and against the testing God thing.
Having said all that atheism is a sort of extreme protestantism for some of its followers, almost a religion just more a reaction to something than a starting point.

J C

Pushtrak wrote: »

Among the weaknesses of the wager of which there are several, fore example, which religion? Naturally, you'll say Christianity, but that is just your take. You, for instance could be on the wrong end of the wager if Islam is right.

There is only one Faith that guarantees Salvation if you ask for it ... and that is Christianity.
Other religions demand all kinds of other things to be done ... and with no guarantee at the end.

Pushtrak wrote: »

The point of the dumb God, though is that this all knowing entity wouldn't see through a ploy of believing just to avoid hell. It is hedging your bets, and a being of the intelligence that is being proposed... It seems unussual that it would not see through/be nonplussed by such a gambit.

... because it isn't a gambit ... its an irreversible commitment to Jesus Christ.
I agree that it is the best offer ever ... but despite this, many many people still refuse Salvation ... so its not as easy for people as it may seem.

Pushtrak wrote: »

Evolution is a science. God isn't.

... and Evolution isn't a God ... God is.;)
... and I know who I'd like on my side in a tight corner!!!

J C

tommy2bad wrote: »

No they don't have faith that god doesn't exist, thats kinda the point, the lack of faith.

You're just arguing semantics here. Indeed your double negative actually applies to Theists ... they're the ones who don't have faith that god doesn't exist ... because they believe that He does.

Atheism and Theism are simply opposite sides of the faith dichotomy ... and no amount of semantics can deny this obvious fact.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not believing in a god is not a position of faith, it's a lack of faith.

Its faith in a lack of faith - as well as other dubious propositions ... like the non-existence of God.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Placing your trust in science isn't that far removed from a faith but with the difference that if you wanted you could do the experiments yourself so your faith is conditional on the trust you have in science.

Your faith is conditional on the evidence (or lack of it) you have for each claim of science.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Having said all that atheism is a sort of extreme protestantism for some of its followers, almost a religion just more a reaction to something than a starting point.

Some atheists define themselves by what they're against ... namely God and Theism ... others simply don't believe in God without any animosity against God or Theism.

tommy2bad

J C wrote: »

You're just arguing semantics here. Indeed your double negative actually applies to Theists ... they're the ones who don't have faith that god doesn't exist ... because they believe that He does.
What??
Atheism and Theism are simply opposite sides of the faith dichotomy ... and no amount of semantics can deny this obvious fact.
Again what?
Its faith in a lack of faith - as well as other dubious propositions ... like the non-existence of God.
Head hurting now!
Your faith is conditional on the evidence (or lack of it) you have for each claim of science.
If theirs evidence then it's not faith.
Some atheists define themselves by what they're against ... namely God and Theism ... others simply don't believe in God without any animosity against God or Theism.

Well some do and some don't, whats your point?
Believing without evidence is the definition of faith even Jesus knew that!

J C

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well some do and some don't, whats your point?

You said that Atheism "is a sort of extreme 'protestantism' for some of its followers"... and I was agreeing with you ... some Atheists define themselves (at least, in part) as being 'against' Theism in a similar way that protestantism (at least, in part) used be 'against' Roman Catholocism.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Believing without evidence is the definition of faith even Jesus knew that!

There are degrees of evidence ... and therefore degrees of faith.
The evidence for God is so strong that Faith isn't actually required to know that He exists ... and the evidence for His non-existence is non-existent - and thus Atheism requires very great Faith indeed.

BTW, faith is required to believe that God so loved the World that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes on Him may be Saved.
... but faith isn't required to believe in the existence of God ... all logic and physical evidence points towards an Ultimate Cause of infinite intelligence and power.

MrPudding

Pushtrak wrote: »

Among the weaknesses of the wager of which there are several, fore example, which religion? Naturally, you'll say Christianity, but that is just your take. You, for instance could be on the wrong end of the wager if Islam is right. The point of the dumb God, though is that this all knowing entity wouldn't see through a ploy of believing just to avoid hell. It is hedging your bets, and a being of the intelligence that is being proposed... It seems unussual that it would not see through/be nonplussed by such a gambit.

I always thought this about the gambit myself, that it was actually quite a negative thing and anyone of faith that argued it was effectively saying their god was dumb and easily fooled. I have come to realise, however, that there is an other option. Rather than being dumb, the god might simply be pathetic. It might not care if the person actually believes for any reason other than hedging bets. It might simply be a pathetic and desperate for attention. We know, in the unlikely event that it exists, that it will have many negative traits, pettiness, vindictiveness, small mindedness etc, it is not much of a stretch for it to be pathetic as well.

When looked in this light Pascal's Wager actually starts to make some sense.

MrP

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

I always thought this about the gambit myself, that it was actually quite a negative thing and anyone of faith that argued it was effectively saying their god was dumb and easily fooled. I have come to realise, however, that there is an other option. Rather than being dumb, the god might simply be pathetic. It might not care if the person actually believes for any reason other than hedging bets. It might simply be a pathetic and desperate for attention. We know, in the unlikely event that it exists, that it will have many negative traits, pettiness, vindictiveness, small mindedness etc, it is not much of a stretch for it to be pathetic as well.

When looked in this light Pascal's Wager actually starts to make some sense.

MrP

God is a God of Justice and Mercy who has given us the gift of free-will.
We can choose to exercise our free-will to have God (in Justice) pay for our sins Himself and therefore extend His mercy to Save us.
... or we can choose to exercise our free-will to have God (in Justice) have us pay for our sins ... in eternal damnation.
The choice is up to us ... seems like a 'no brainer' to me ... but many people's pride keeps them from availing of Salvation.

God is an omnipotent omniscient infinitely just and merciful transcendent eternal Being.
Any sinful pettiness, vindictiveness, small mindedness etc are the projection of our own inadequacies onto God!!!!
Paschal's wager may have the side-effect of hedging our eternal bets ... but we do have to humble ourselves to make an irreversible commitment to Jesus Christ, when we are Saved - and therein lies the rub, I suppose!!!!

MrPudding

tatranska wrote: »

Jesus had to die to open the way by dealing with sin.
being good enough couldn't do it. that was why the law wasn't good enough and he came as the only one able to fulfill it and meet its demands.

But why? Why could be not say that living a good moral life was enough? He was god, he wrote the laws, he made the rules. When you say "... it's demands" you are really talking about his demands, the demands came from him. There was no need for it to be so hard. It was go hard because be decided it was going to be hard. Realistically, if you are talking about an all knowing, all powerful god there was no reason for him to make it so hard.

MrP

homer911

MrPudding wrote: »

But why? Why could be not say that living a good moral life was enough? He was god, he wrote the laws, he made the rules. When you say "... it's demands" you are really talking about his demands, the demands came from him. There was no need for it to be so hard. It was go hard because be decided it was going to be hard. Realistically, if you are talking about an all knowing, all powerful god there was no reason for him to make it so hard.

MrP

You remind me of the story of Jesus telling healing the paralysed man in Matthew 9 http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/9.htm Christians will tell you that its far easier to accept the free gift of forgiveness from Jesus, than to try and earn something that cannot be earned

MrPudding

homer911 wrote: »

You remind me of the story of Jesus telling healing the paralysed man in Matthew 9 http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/9.htm Christians will tell you that its far easier to accept the free gift of forgiveness from Jesus, than to try and earn something that cannot be earned

Which completely ignores the question of why it has to be the free gift rather than good deeds. And is it really a free gift? I thought it was hard... Hard implies a cost.

MrP

Zombrex

homer911 wrote: »

You remind me of the story of Jesus telling healing the paralysed man in Matthew 9 http://biblehub.com/niv/matthew/9.htm Christians will tell you that its far easier to accept the free gift of forgiveness from Jesus, than to try and earn something that cannot be earned

This might not be the thread to get into this, but Mr Puddings point is that Christians always talk about what Jesus did as if God was constrained by some sort of external system and was just doing his best to work around it. He wanted to forgive us but he can't, so he had to send Jesus, and he had to declare that salvation only comes through believing in Jesus.

For example, Christians will say it could not be good deeds that save us from hell because we fall so short of God that even if God wanted not to his justice demands that he punish us for our sin.

All of which imply systems and constrains on God from nature, like saying even if I wanted to I can't jump a mile in the air, or saying I wanted to go on holiday but the courts demanded that I pay a fine.

Which is paradoxical if we assert that God is the source of all the rules in the first place.

So when you say "cannot be earned" what that should actually be is "what God has decided cannot be earned". Which doesn't answer Puddings question because he question is why decide that in the first place.

If one asserts that there are no external constraints on God, and that he is omnipotent, then the only conclusion is that everything is exactly how God wants it to be, but could be any other way just as easily.

So it is not that we have to be punished because God's justice demands it, it is that God wants it that way and it could be different.

It is not that good deeds fall short of God's holiness, it is that God wants good deeds to fall short of his holiness, and it could be different.

It is not that one must believe in Jesus to be saved, it is that God wants you to have to believe in Jesus to be saved, and it could be different.

etc etc.

Which goes back to Puddings question, why would God want things to be as they are. Why would he want a constraint that means some people won't be saved? Why would he want to send people to hell? Why would he want to make it so his son suffer on the cross?

Again this might not be the thread for this, maybe the mods can move this to the Atheism/Problems with Christianity thread.

homer911

MrPudding wrote: »

Which completely ignores the question of why it has to be the free gift rather than good deeds.

If you look at the Old Testament situation, the Jewish people had to repeatedly offer sin sacrifices, because no sacrifice was good enough for past and future sins. The forgiveness of the sins of the world, past and future, required an absolutely perfect sacrifice - God himself

MrPudding wrote: »

And is it really a free gift? I thought it was hard... Hard implies a cost.
MrP

The cost comes after, not before. Depending on the circumstances of the individual, the cost can be high or low (for example, a Muslim converting to Christianity), but there is always some element of cost because we are called to deny our sinful nature for Christ.