Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

JohnBee · 03-03-2015 10:26PM

Gunney wrote: »

BTW your comment on religion and killing is just bigotry.

Ouch, the bait is so tempting. How exactly is stating that religion is used as a reason to kill bigotry? Unless you missed the dictionary definition. Again, happy to oblige and fill in the gaps in your knowledge:

Bigotry: Intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.

I guess if being a bigot means being intolerant of those who use religion to rationalize and validate murder, well what the hell, sign me up! In fact, I hope you sign up too. Unless. No wait. Are you saying for example that you approve of ISIS, and the killing in the name of Islam? Are you saying that you approve of Christians that murder doctors in the US?

I sincerely hope you threw the bigot comment out without much thought. It has such nasty connotations and is used mostly as backlash against an argument that is losing the battle. I did not suggest that religion is solely used for killing, nor did I suggest that all religious people subscribe to its use to kill people. However, it creates differences. Differences between people exist based on ethnicity, politics, race, colour, sex and yes religion. All of them have fueled murder at times. None of which I support. If that makes me a bigot, then fair enough.

Gunney · 03-03-2015 10:28PM

JohnBee wrote: »

You are forgetting your previous posts where you suggest that dark gravity is not quite as "real" as the Newtonian gravity that causes the apple to fall from the tree. I am happy to refresh your memory

No need. Newtonian gravity is something we can experience. Dark gravity and quantum gravity are different in that they cannot be experienced directly because they are concepts.
The question regarding believing in gravity was nonesensical because one cannot not believe in something one can experience. You might as well have asked do I believe in air.

JohnBee wrote: »

You pose the question as to what an atheist might do when faced with undeniable proof of the existence of HIM. I assume given you use the word HIm, you mean the Abrahamic god of Christianity, Islam and Judaism? Ironically you miss the point of science in your question. Most atheists face the world we live in with excitement and wonder, ready to receive new knowledge, open to burning previous hypotheses in favour of new ideas. You might be surprised to find that atheists would probably be first in line to wonder at "his" miracle whilst the many religions of the world probably up their war against each other in a race to claim "him" for their own.

I try to keep to the rules of this forum so you have no need to make assumpions, just read the charter.

You describe atheists as if their behaviour was different to anyone else. I like almost all Catholics face the world we live in with excitement and wonder, ready to receive new scientific knowledge, open to burning previous hypotheses in favour of new ideas. You might be more surprised to find that atheists would more likely be first in line to try to explain Him away as some naturall phenomenon that has as yet to be explained so they can keep living their lives as they want to rather than as He ordains them to. But that wasn't the questions. I didn't as what an atheist might do I asked what you might do in an effort to get you to understand free will and how that would be destroyed.

RikuoAmero · 03-03-2015 10:33PM

Gunney wrote: »

atheists would more likely be first in line to try to explain Him away as some naturall phenomenon that has as yet to be explained so they can keep living their lives as they want to rather than as He ordains them to.

Was that a not so subtle attempt at "atheists just wanna sin" argument?

JohnBee · 03-03-2015 10:35PM

Gunney wrote: »

No need. Newtonian gravity is something we can experience. Dark gravity and quantum gravity are different in that they cannot be experienced directly because they are concepts.
The question regarding believing in gravity was nonesensical because one cannot not believe in something one can experience. You might as well have asked do I believe in air.

I try to keep to the rules of this forum so you have no need to make assumpions, just read the charter.

You describe atheists as if their behaviour was different to anyone else. I like almost all Catholics face the world we live in with excitement and wonder, ready to receive new scientific knowledge, open to burning previous hypotheses in favour of new ideas. You might be more surprised to find that atheists would more likely be first in line to try to explain Him away as some naturall phenomenon that has as yet to be explained so they can keep living their lives as they want to rather than as He ordains them to. But that wasn't the questions. I didn't as what an atheist might do I asked what you might do in an effort to get you to understand free will and how that would be destroyed.

It is you who made the question about gravity nonsensical. You questioned the existence of quantum gravity, solely based on the fact that you could not understand/perceive it. It is that which is nonsensical. I did not raise this, YOU did.

Finally, with regards to the atheist worldview, I suggest you read your question. Again, I answered a question that YOU posed, not I. You asked what an atheist might do faced with undeniable proof of HIS (again I assume you mean the Abrahamic god). The key word is undeniable proof. If it is truly undeniable then who would deny it? And it seems reasonable to assume therefore that many would be curious and want to find out more. Perhaps your response that atheists would explain it away illustrates a deep down realization that proof will never appear.

Again, I only addressed questions posed by you. Perhaps you did not read your own questions as written, this might explain your disappointment/apparent discontent with the responses.

PS to follow up, what would YOU do, if faced with undeniable proof that HE did NOT exist?

Gunney · 03-03-2015 10:36PM

JohnBee wrote: »

I did not suggest that religion is solely used for killing, nor did I suggest that all religious people subscribe to its use to kill people

what you said was

JohnBee wrote: »

Perhaps we could stop using religion to kill each other.

Very few people use religion as an excuse to kill - that is not clearly stated in your sweeping generalization

RikuoAmero · 03-03-2015 10:39PM

Gunney wrote: »

what you said was

Very few people use religion as an excuse to kill - that is not clearly stated in your sweeping generalization

So whenever something good happens that is directly or indirectly linked to religion, you praise religion.
When something bad happens that is directly or indirectly linked to religion...you say it's not because of religion.

silverharp · 03-03-2015 10:44PM

Gunney wrote: »

Go back to the gravity question. Do you "believe" in gravity? If you do not how do you reject gravity?

As already mention God wants us to accept Him and follow Him of our own free will.

We always have free will, if god was to permanently park itself on the Sugar Loaf , wouldnt plenty of people still reject it?

the only thing a christian can say is I have a story to tell you without any actual evidence

Gunney · 03-03-2015 10:50PM

JohnBee wrote: »

It is you who made the question about gravity nonsensical.

you introduced gravity into the discussion. the discussion was previous dealing with dark energy.

JohnBee wrote: »

You questioned the existence of quantum gravity, solely based on the fact that you could not understand/perceive it. It is that which is nonsensical. I did not raise this, YOU did.

again, you introduced gravity and made assumptions about my understanding.

Your intolerance is showing.

JohnBee wrote: »

Finally, with regards to the atheist worldview, I suggest you read your question. Again, I answered a question that YOU posed, not I. You asked what an atheist might do faced with undeniable proof of HIS (again I assume you mean the Abrahamic god).

I didn't ask what an atheist would do I asked what you or the poster would do.

Again by not reading what was written and imposing your own interptretation that suits yourself you are being intolerant.

JohnBee wrote: »

The key word is undeniable proof. If it is truly undeniable then who would deny it?

I don't recall using the term "undeniable".

JohnBee wrote: »

And it seems reasonable to assume therefore that many would be curious and want to find out more. Perhaps your response that atheists would explain it away illustrates a deep down realization that proof will never appear.

assume what you like but the return of Jesus is foretold

JohnBee wrote: »

Again, I only addressed questions posed by you. Perhaps you did not read your own questions as written, this might explain your disappointment/apparent discontent with the responses.

address what was asked and what what you think was asked or what you want to have been asked. It is impolite to do otherwise.

JohnBee wrote: »

PS to follow up, what would YOU do, if faced with undeniable proof that HE did NOT exist?

I'll give you the best answer you are most likely as an atheist to understand. I don't know.

Gunney · 03-03-2015 10:52PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So whenever something good happens that is directly or indirectly linked to religion, you praise religion.
When something bad happens that is directly or indirectly linked to religion...you say it's not because of religion.

In America there are people who blame guns when people get killed.
We have a saying:

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Likewise Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people.

When people want to kill people any reason will do. Even atheism.

RikuoAmero · 03-03-2015 10:53PM

but the return of Jesus is foretold

*Looks at calender*. Hmm...2015 AD. Do you have any idea when he'll be coming back, or should I dismiss this since it's not a valid prophecy, given that it's so vague?
People have been saying he'll be returning for just under two thousand years, and so far, it hasn't happened. Why should I believe you when you say it? What makes you so different from all the other clearly failed prophets?

RikuoAmero · 03-03-2015 11:01PM

Gunney wrote: »

In America there are people who blame guns when people get killed.
We have a saying:

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Likewise Religion doesn't kill people. People kill people.

When people want to kill people any reason will do. Even atheism.

Yes, I agree with everything you wrote there. Which is why you now have to retract what you've said before, about how great religion is for all these scientific discoveries and other things, since it was people who did those things, and not religion.
If you refuse to, your double speak will have been revealed.

...man it's so easy to lead people such as yourself into traps like this.

Gunney · 03-03-2015 11:12PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

*Looks at calender*. Hmm...2015 AD. Do you have any idea when he'll be coming back, or should I dismiss this since it's not a valid prophecy, given that it's so vague?
People have been saying he'll be returning for just under two thousand years, and so far, it hasn't happened. Why should I believe you when you say it? What makes you so different from all the other clearly failed prophets?

Is that more third rate mockery? Your the self proclaimed ex-Catholic Bible expert - you know what He said about it...

RikuoAmero · 03-03-2015 11:14PM

Gunney wrote: »

Is that more third rate mockery? Your the self proclaimed ex-Catholic Bible expert - you know what He said about it...

Yes, that he'd return in the life times of his followers. Again, that was 1900 odd years ago. He's a tad late, don't you think?

Gunney · 03-03-2015 11:18PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Yes, I agree with everything you wrote there. Which is why you now have to retract what you've said before, about how great religion is for all these scientific discoveries and other things, since it was people who did those things, and not religion.
If you refuse to, your double speak will have been revealed.

...man it's so easy to lead people such as yourself into traps like this.

You need to work on your skills in basic comprehension. The point I made previously was that religion is no bar to scientific discovery and that contrary to a point made by another poster religion does not stifle or restrict science. Religion in many cases enables science. There is notihing to be retracted other that your unfounded accusation of double-speak, and your personal attack suggesting gullibility on my part.

double plus bad Rik must try harder

JohnBee · 03-03-2015 11:57PM

Gunney wrote: »

you introduced gravity into the discussion. the discussion was previous dealing with dark energy.

again, you introduced gravity and made assumptions about my understanding.

Your intolerance is showing.

I didn't ask what an atheist would do I asked what you or the poster would do.

Again by not reading what was written and imposing your own interptretation that suits yourself you are being intolerant.
I don't recall using the term "undeniable".
assume what you like but the return of Jesus is foretold
address what was asked and what what you think was asked or what you want to have been asked. It is impolite to do otherwise.
I'll give you the best answer you are most likely as an atheist to understand. I don't know.

Ah I see how this works. In the absence of a solid argument, throw out another emotive phrase. Last time it was bigot. Incorrect. This time it is intolerant. Again incorrect. I merely point out the flaws in your argument. Your debate would be enhanced by counteracting your opponents argument rather than by using such phrases.

You state that imposing an interpretation is intolerant, and yet you do the same. I use the term religion is used to kill people. A statement of fact. For example need I remind you again that ISIS clearly and openly states their usage of Islam as a validation of murder. Do you deny this simple fact. However, you interpreted my statement as a sweeping generalization, despite the fact the sentence lacks key required adjectives such as ALL or EVERY or ALWAYS. Why are you being so intolerant of me? You have a bigoted view of atheists. You assume because I am an atheist that I meant the phrase to be a sweeping generalization. I did not. I meant the phrase as written. A cold statement of fact. If I say that knives are used to kill people. That is a simple statement of fact. Only the village idiot would take it to be a bigoted portrayal of knives always being used to kill people. However, I do recognize that religious people become quite sensitive and tend to read what is not written.

Secondly, I did not bring up gravity, you did. Or perhaps are you again illustrating your misunderstanding of what dark energy actually means? And I didn't make an interpretation of your understanding, your posts illustrate that clearly.

Additionally you state that you didn't ask what an atheist would think, but what a "poster" would think. Are you suggesting that you were asking if Christians were faced with proof of Gods existence what would they say? Now I am more confused. If it wasn't directed at those who don't believe then what is the purpose of the question? Most Christians believe without evidence, why would the existence of evidence change their mind? Unless of course it turned out it was Thor who appeared I guess!

I am sort of beginning to hope you are a troll now, then your posts would at least make more sense.

JohnBee · 04-03-2015 12:01AM

Gunney wrote: »

You need to work on your skills in basic comprehension. The point I made previously was that religion is no bar to scientific discovery and that contrary to a point made by another poster religion does not stifle or restrict science. Religion in many cases enables science. There is notihing to be retracted other that your unfounded accusation of double-speak, and your personal attack suggesting gullibility on my part.

double plus bad Rik must try harder

Religion in many cases enables science? Really? Some examples please. And I don't mean examples of how religious money helped research, I mean how the concept of religion helped science.

orubiru · 04-03-2015 12:33AM

Gunney wrote: »

No need. Newtonian gravity is something we can experience. Dark gravity and quantum gravity are different in that they cannot be experienced directly because they are concepts.
The question regarding believing in gravity was nonesensical because one cannot not believe in something one can experience. You might as well have asked do I believe in air.

I try to keep to the rules of this forum so you have no need to make assumpions, just read the charter.

You describe atheists as if their behaviour was different to anyone else. I like almost all Catholics face the world we live in with excitement and wonder, ready to receive new scientific knowledge, open to burning previous hypotheses in favour of new ideas. You might be more surprised to find that atheists would more likely be first in line to try to explain Him away as some naturall phenomenon that has as yet to be explained so they can keep living their lives as they want to rather than as He ordains them to. But that wasn't the questions. I didn't as what an atheist might do I asked what you might do in an effort to get you to understand free will and how that would be destroyed.

Drop the gravity thing! Dark Gravity and Quantum Gravity are not different from gravity. They are hypothesis that are being proposed to help us describe gravity.

If I saw a red car in the distance and described it as "a red car" but you had a hypothesis that it was a "red Ferrari" then do you honestly think you are describing a different car? I can see its a red car but I can't identify it as a Ferrari so you jump to the conclusion that I can see red cars but I can't see red Ferraris?

Dark Gravity and Quantum Gravity are proposed attributes, or aspects, of Gravity. They are not different types of Gravity.

You think that Atheists deny Gods because they are rebellious and Gods would force them to live a certain way? That's a false assumption.

Also, would Gods not be a natural phenomenon anyway? If some being comes up and says "yeah, I created you, here's the proof" is it not entirely reasonable to ask "well, who created you then"? Would "Ah, sure, nobody created me, I just came from Nothing" be an acceptable answer if it came from God.

What is Gods Plan here anyway?

Gunney · 04-03-2015 12:41AM

orubiru wrote: »

Drop the gravity thing! Dark Gravity and Quantum Gravity are not different from gravity. They are hypothesis that are being proposed to help us describe gravity.

Well they are different. Gravity is a phenomenon we can experience and frankly can't live without. Dark Gravity and quantum gravity are theories we can live without - that makes them different.

When the question of do I believe in gravity is asked it is reasonable to ask which gravity -the gravity I know and understand, or the theoretical gravities

orubiru wrote: »

You think that Atheists deny Gods because they are rebellious and Gods would force them to live a certain way? That's a false assumption.

Perhaps but a reasonable assumption as I have yet to meet an atheist who is not rebellious.

orubiru wrote: »

Also, would Gods not be a natural phenomenon anyway? If some being comes up and says "yeah, I created you, here's the proof" is it not entirely reasonable to ask "well, who created you then"? Would "Ah, sure, nobody created me, I just came from Nothing" be an acceptable answer if it came from God.

No, There is only one God and He is supernatural.

orubiru wrote: »

What is Gods Plan here anyway?

God knows

Gunney · 04-03-2015 12:51AM

JohnBee wrote: »

Ah I see how this works. In the absence of a solid argument, throw out another emotive phrase. Last time it was bigot. Incorrect. This time it is intolerant. Again incorrect. I merely point out the flaws in your argument. Your debate would be enhanced by counteracting your opponents argument rather than by using such phrases.

Go back to what I originally posted. Point out where I asked the question "what would an atheist do if?" and you will see that question does not exist. What does exist is "what would you do if" - a question that has not been answered properly.
I already have a fair idea of what atheists would do because it has happened before. Many people, not all atheists but certainly some pagans - so technically atheists as they were unbelievers- saw Jesus and saw His miracles. Did they believe? No. They killed Him. I don't want make believe answers. of the two people asked neither has produced an honest adequate answer.
when I see someone changing the question I ask into one that suits themselves rather than answer the question asked I suspect the person doing that does not want to engage fairly.

When I am repeatedly told by the person who first brought up gravity that I did it when I mentioned dark energy and goes on to imply that it is my fault for misunderstanding dark energy's relationship to dark gravity when clearly "dark gravity" was never mentioned by said poster who asked if I believe in "gravity" one wishes to go back in time and treat that question as a troll question.

I admit I am coming to the conclusion that there are many atheists who are intolerant and even some, probably fundamentalists, who are bigotted through many experieinces both on and off line. It is more evident when non Christian organisations and mythical gods are mentioned in a forum that is geared towards one belief system as it is a form of mockery.

I see you have posted another question implying conflict between religion and science looking for examples of how the "concept" of religion enables science rather than how religion or religious organisations, or even being religious enables science so the concept you ran to of "troll" when the discussion stopped going your way leads me to conclude that might be what you are.

orubiru · 04-03-2015 12:57AM

Gunney wrote: »

Well they are different. Gravity is a phenomenon we can experience and frankly can't live without. Dark Gravity and quantum gravity are theories we can live without - that makes them different.

No. They are not different.

Let's say there is ONE car parked out on the street.
Person A : There's a car parked on the street.
Person B : There's a red Ferrari parked on the street.

By your logic here these people are describing different cars.

Furthermore, you are arguing that if we can drive the car without knowledge of its colour or manufacturer then the introduction of, or speculation on, that knowledge would make it a different car.

On what basis does having extra information or understanding about a thing make it "different".

So if you believe that God has attributes A B C and D but you get to Heaven and God also has attribute E then God should cast you out because you actually believed in a different God.

In your head, how do you even reconcile this kind of thinking with reality?

orubiru · 04-03-2015 01:07AM

Gunney wrote: »

Go back to what I originally posted. Point out where I asked the question "what would an atheist do if?" and you will see that question does not exist. What does exist is "what would you do if" - a question that has not been answered properly.
I already have a fair idea of what atheists would do because it has happened before. Many people, not all atheists but certainly some pagans - so technically atheists as they were unbelievers- saw Jesus and saw His miracles. Did they believe? No. They killed Him. I don't want make believe answers. of the two people asked neither has produced an honest adequate answer.
when I see someone changing the question I ask into one that suits themselves rather than answer the question asked I suspect the person doing that does not want to engage fairly.

Jesus was arrested, tried and executed. If Jesus claimed to be God Himself in human form, and performed miracles, should he not be arrested and tried for Gods crimes?

Is it a reasonable viewpoint that the crucifixion was Gods atonement for His sins against us?

Are we expected to say "Oh hey God, all that death and destruction and disease and tradgedy through the years... no apology needed big guy".

Maybe we cannot understand the mind of God but could you honestly believe that God understands Man?

If God was real then there would be questions. If Gods response was "who are you to question me" then God does not understand Mankind and so HOW can God love Mankind? There are too many questions.

Or maybe there's just no God? That seems more plausible.

RikuoAmero · 04-03-2015 07:50AM

Many people, not all atheists but certainly some pagans - so technically atheists as they were unbelievers

I love the phrasing here. Even if the people at the crucifixion were Roman soldiers who believed in the Roman gods such as Jupiter and Neptune, they're atheists (lack belief in a god) because they don't believe in your god?
Talk about arrogance. It's an arrogant statement and one that is false, even if your god is the only god. We're talking about belief here, not an actuality. The Roman soldiers wouldn't be atheists, they would have most likely believed in Jupiter et al. Even if their god(s) don't exist and yours does in truth, that wouldn't make them atheists. They would have still have belief in a god or gods.

What is Gods Plan here anyway?
God knows

Clap clap clap clap. Why is it you're not honest enough to simply say "I don't have a clue" or "I don't know"? That's what we atheists say when we're faced with a question we don't have an answer for.
Do you not think this answer through? Do you not understand why your answer won't satisfy us atheists? We're told all the time that God has a plan for each of us, that each and every person here has a purpose, an objective purpose, that our lives don't make sense unless we look at it through a god lens. When we ask "Well, what is that purpose?" not one of you theists know. Yeah, this really helps your credibility.

No, There is only one God and He is supernatural.

Yeah here's the thing. Simple declarations like these don't mean anything to us. Simply repeating "There's only one God" to us over and over again won't convince us. Especially since you don't explain how it is actually true and how it is actually the specific god you worship. Saying something is supernatural is a get out of jail free card, an attempt to dodge the requirement of actually producing the thing you say exists and showing us this thing so we can examine it.
It's akin to me saying I've got a dragon in my garage, but anytime you ask me for proof, I dodge by saying "He's invisible" or "He's out on a walk" or "He doesn't like being in photos" or "Strangers disturb him".
I will never accept the supernatural explanation for those reasons. Either produce your god or shut up about him.
I NEVER posit something for which I then attempt wriggle away from the evidence requirement. Why is it you think you ought to get away with it?

Harika · 04-03-2015 08:17AM

Gunney wrote: »

Well they are different. Gravity is a phenomenon we can experience and frankly can't live without. Dark Gravity and quantum gravity are theories we can live without - that makes them different.

You and me need dark gravity/energy/matter else the world would make no sense. Basically the "dark" was introduced to help scientists to describe why the universe is not everywhere behaving how it should according to the theory. e.g. the galaxies are spinning unexpectedly, so we need to find out why. So we experience this. Until it has been verified why this is that way dark energy/matter/gravity are used as help to describe it.

tommy2bad · 04-03-2015 11:09AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Really? Have religions ever replaced the gods they posit, or discarded them?

Do you know anything about the development of religion? Here's a clue, read the bible, it shows how a religion changed, developed and adapted over time.

RikuoAmero · 04-03-2015 06:37PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Do you know anything about the development of religion? Here's a clue, read the bible, it shows how a religion changed, developed and adapted over time.

Yes I know how the Judaic religion changed over time and had offshoots (for example, the serpent in the Garden of Eden story was originally just a serpent, he changed identity a few times until he eventually became Lucifer, the Devil. This is akin to Tolkien writing about the Necromancer when the Hobbit was first published, and only later, with the writing of the Lord of the Rings, does the Necromancer become Sauron).
The point I was making was that to my knowledge, no religion has ever started off positing a god, then later gathered evidence and later on come to a conclusion that the god was false.

RikuoAmero · 04-03-2015 06:39PM

Harika wrote: »

You and me need dark gravity/energy/matter else the world would make no sense. Basically the "dark" was introduced to help scientists to describe why the universe is not everywhere behaving how it should according to the theory. e.g. the galaxies are spinning unexpectedly, so we need to find out why. So we experience this. Until it has been verified why this is that way dark energy/matter/gravity are used as help to describe it.

Basically, they're placeholder hypothesizes. We don't yet know enough about them, but for now, they serve a purpose to help explain some mysteries. Once we have gathered enough information, we will either alter them or discard them. We certainly don't hold them sacrosanct and immune to challenge.

orubiru · 05-03-2015 11:47AM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Basically, they're placeholder hypothesizes. We don't yet know enough about them, but for now, they serve a purpose to help explain some mysteries. Once we have gathered enough information, we will either alter them or discard them. We certainly don't hold them sacrosanct and immune to challenge.

I think that whole "Gravity" discussion highlights a pretty serious flaw with these kind of "debates".

A lot of the people arguing from the Theist point of view do not even really understand "The Big Bang" or "Abiogenesis" or "Evolution".

So they are basically trying to brush off concepts they don't understand as not real or made up by scientists who hate God or something.

PLUS, the fact of Evolution does nothing to disprove the existence of God. It just proves that animals were not put on Earth fully formed. We all just grew out of what was already here.

Folks imagining that a worm gave birth to a fish that gave birth to a lizard than gave birth to a bird really just don't understand the fundamental concepts.

Do we expect you to believe that Man came from Rocks? No. Nobody is even saying that's what happened.

I think what we are really saying is that God, as described by Christianity, is clearly a fictional concept. How can anyone seriously argue that The Bible is a 100% accurate historical document?

The advent of social media and online message boards means that people can no longer say "I prayed every day and God cured my Grannies cancer" without someone calling them out on that and pointing out that maybe the doctors, with their education and medicine and equipment, had a big hand in getting rid of the cancer.

People obviously have a problem with having the failings of their religion pointed out to them but if you are holding up things like Evolution and saying that it's "just a belief" or a lie or some kind of propaganda then you make yourself look like a complete fool.

If we were to accept "yes, OK, some kind of God exists". Then what? Does that mean that the Christian description of God is 100% correct?

tommy2bad · 05-03-2015 12:23PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Yes I know how the Judaic religion changed over time and had offshoots (for example, the serpent in the Garden of Eden story was originally just a serpent, he changed identity a few times until he eventually became Lucifer, the Devil. This is akin to Tolkien writing about the Necromancer when the Hobbit was first published, and only later, with the writing of the Lord of the Rings, does the Necromancer become Sauron).
The point I was making was that to my knowledge, no religion has ever started off positing a god, then later gathered evidence and later on come to a conclusion that the god was false.

Funny you bring that up, theirs a strand of Judaism that rejected the notion of god after the holocaust. Another took the rout of the covenant being broken. Faiths do developed and change. Some cultures reject their gods in favor of new gods, few abandon God entirely but if they did, would it be a development or abandonment?
what I'm saying is if a religion discounted the existence of god how would we tell that from a culture abandoning theism and just becoming atheist?
No I won't bring up some of the pronouncements of CoE clergymen :-P

indioblack · 05-03-2015 01:09PM

It has been stated before on this thread that there is no conclusive evidence for either the existence of non-existence of God. One post a while back offered the opinion that the existence of God was demonstrated by the reality of the universe.
A friend of mine, outside of Boards, believes the same - that God is the universe and his reality is the reality of existence.
If this is so, we may be able to, at least, determine some of the attributes of God from the universe around us - which in practise I would take to mean the world we inhabit.
This would require believers to acknowledge both the positive and negative aspects of our experiences in our lives - and to accept their originator - God.
If all of this is so, then, once again, it all comes down to our perception of God.
If God is to be proven by his creation, he is not the God most of us have been raised to believe in.

orubiru · 05-03-2015 01:30PM

indioblack wrote: »

It has been stated before on this thread that there is no conclusive evidence for either the existence of non-existence of God. One post a while back offered the opinion that the existence of God was demonstrated by the reality of the universe.
A friend of mine, outside of Boards, believes the same - that God is the universe and his reality is the reality of existence.
If this is so, we may be able to, at least, determine some of the attributes of God from the universe around us - which in practise I would take to mean the world we inhabit.
This would require believers to acknowledge both the positive and negative aspects of our experiences in our lives - and to accept their originator - God.
If all of this is so, then, once again, it all comes down to our perception of God.
If God is to be proven by his creation, he is not the God most of us have been raised to believe in.

For me, that definition of God is way too flexible to be useful.

This is something I think Theists use to retreat from questions like "if God loves us all then why did my kid get cancer and die a horrible painful death" all the way back to "well, where did life come from, nobody knows so maybe it was God, right" and then, once we've established that indeed nobody knows how everything started, bounce back to "God loves us all and will judge us when the time is right".

If Gods existence is indeed demonstrated by the reality of The Universe or if God is actually The Universe itself then the label "God" becomes obsolete as we are really just talking about natural processes.

If we want to define God as anything other than an intelligent being that consciously brought The Universe, The Earth and Humanity into existence (and also has an interest in Human affairs, on some level) then I don't think we are talking about "God" anymore we are just talking about mindless natural process.

We, for example, already use the word "Gravity" to define a natural force so if someone wants to say "God IS Gravity" then one of those labels is rendered useless and since the label "God" is used to describe lots of things, mostly depending on the motive of the person using the label, I would suggest that using the label "God" to describe a natural process or reality or The Universe itself is an attempt to make reality fit an idea. The more reasonable approach is changing ideas to fit reality.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments