Atheists what is your proof?

[SolusCado]

Sure, what ever man. But I'll lay odd's to you, 100 to one, that this dude believed in some form of consciousness higher than his own. Whether it be a universal consciousness or some form of deity, I am sure he believes he is part of something grander than himself.

An atheist is never going to walk away from something like that. I've been to university, I've taken advanced statistics, I've heard and understood your arguments. . . but I am telling you, I understand how consciousness works and interacts with string theory, (or how Dr. Haglin believes it does at any rate) and "god" if you will; and in my opinion, it isn't the atheist that is walking away from that.

That may be, and I do actually believe that it is in fact God's will that stuff like this happens, and I do believe that people can and do have spiritual epiphanies from such things, and that the purpose of it happening may indeed have been some form of God talking to the person... but it isn't proof of anything. Physics and the laws of nature were the direct mechanism by which this man's life was saved. Whether it was God or not is a matter of faith. There is no proof.

 

[SolusCado]

Yes. I do not consider faith to lie within borders of reason. And if there is no reason forming the base of an argument, then all that follows is also sans reason.

Ok. I think this is where you and I have to agree to disagree. I understand what you are saying, I understand your perspective, and for me, faith is not irrational. What I WOULD object to would be to claim that any subsequent conclusions are inherently irrational. IOW, I can accept that you believe faith to be irrational. But, accepting that core faith as a premise, I don't think any of the logic that follows is flawed. Does that make sense?

 

[AlexG]

. But, accepting that core faith as a premise, I don't think any of the logic that follows is flawed. Does that make sense?

While the logic that follows may be internally consistent, it is based on a flawed premise, and so cannot be anything but flawed.

 

[SolusCado]

While the logic that follows may be internally consistent, it is based on a flawed premise, and so cannot be anything but flawed.

I understand that, but as I said - I am content with that being the flaw. I believe more exists, you don't. I have no real rationale, as anything that touches me spiritually could eventually be explained with natural sciences, but since that doesn't impact my beliefs anyway, it still works. Circular logic I suppose. But it is what I believe, and with no reason not to do so, it is what I will continue to believe.

 

[Yosef]

Now see, this is what makes atheists look at theism as superstition. Nothing in that accident contradicted physics. For every guy that survives something like that, there are hundreds if not thousands that die. Because this particular guy was lucky doesn't necessarily mean anything. If everything that occurred in that accident was measured and repeated a million times, the driver would survive a million times. You can't call it a miracle just because it is rare.

It is still God who chose to give him more days (or years) to live upon this earth.

 

[birch]

How many times do I need to say it? You are judging God for the significance of life to an individual. But God is the creator of the universe. So the important of the universe isn't to an individual, but to God.



OK; you CAN do anything you like. But it seems childish to me to think everything is about you, and if you aren't comfortable then it must mean God is mean.



Agreed.

it seems you don't understand. it's not childish to question a system or your environment. you seem to think that one is supposed to care what a god does if a god doesn't give jack squat what i or anyone thinks or feels. then there really is no point. we all deal with and work with what is but that's a given. as for appreciating it or agreeing with it on some idealized level because 'god' did it, makes no sense at all. there is no incentive or reason to anyways. your argument is as crazy as saying that i should agree with or admire an oppressor or regime just because it makes the one in power happy with it.

and what do you mean it's all about "me?" it's not all about me as there is more affected than just me. besides, why is what god does have some more innate importance or what it supposedly thinks or feels? you make "zero" sense. at most, you have a conformist and heirarchal mentality. you would make a good slave.

of course if god doesn't give a crap about me or anyone else and thinks we are insignficant, then it is mean to us. why should we care about it then? again, you make no sense. you seem to think that on some fundamental level, we are supposed to agree or appreciate everything simply because it is. that makes no sense to me and signifies a limited thinking or reasoning capacity. dealing with or working with what is as best we can is different.

 

[SolusCado]

It is still God who chose to give him more days (or years) to live upon this earth.

According to your BELIEFS. That is not a statement that can be backed up with proof. (And there's nothing wrong with that - The Bible SAYS "By faith are you saved.") If you had proof, you couldn't have that faith. So there is no reason to try to find proof where it doesn't exist in the first place.

 

[SolusCado]

it seems you don't understand. it's not childish to question a system or your environment.

That's not what I am saying. Questioning a system or environment is fine. But to think that it is all about you IS childish. I'm reminded of the quote posted earlier by Douglas Adams and the puddle that thinks it's hole was created for it, as it fit it so perfectly.

you seem to think that one is supposed to care what a god does if a god doesn't give jack squat what i or anyone thinks or feels.

No, I am saying that it is incredibly small-minded to think that because the world isn't the way YOU would've made it then somehow God must be a dick.

then there really is no point. we all deal with and work with what is but that's a given. as for appreciating it or agreeing with it on some idealized level because 'god' did it, makes no sense at all. there is no incentive or reason to anyways.

I can't speak for others, but for me I don't appreciate it because "God" did it. I appreciate it because it is indeed a massive system that works quite elegantly. God has nothing to do with that. If God DID create the system, then God did a beautiful job. If it wasn't God, but it all just came out of nothing, it is still a beautiful and elegant system.

your argument is as crazy as saying that i should agree with or admire an oppressor or regime just because it makes the one in power happy with it. lmao

No, you are once again comparing the world to an oppressive environment (or a regime) because YOU don't like certain aspects of it. Given the insignificance of the planet to begin with, your approach is analogous to a child who thinks his principal is a dick because the kid doesn't like the lunch they served.

and what do you mean it's all about "me?" it's not all about me as there is more affected than just me. besides, why is what god does have some more innate importance or what it supposedly thinks or feels? you make "zero" sense. at most, you have a conformist and heirarchal mentality. you would make a good slave.

You aren't actually contributing to the conversation with this paragraph, so I don't see any reason to respond further.

of course if god doesn't give a crap about me or anyone else and thinks we are insignficant, then it is mean to us. why should we care about it then? again, you make no sense. you seem to think that on some fundamental level, we are supposed to agree or appreciate everything simply because it is. that makes no sense to me and signifies a limited thinking or reasoning capacity. dealing with or working with what is as best we can is different.

It is precisely BECAUSE God cares that his system provides a mechanism for happiness and bliss in what you see as a horrible world. Consider the earliest Christians. Despire their torture, persecution, and crucifixions, they never lost love, peace, or happiness. They connected with God on a level that you refuse to, and it made them happy. That is the ultimate good of God - not that everyone has material comfort. (These are the positions of the Christian theology anyway. I'm sure other religions have different but similar takes on it all.)

 

[science man]

You weren't born with a set belief.

You were given it by someone.

Who told you what?

My parents but I've recently found proof for it.

 

[birch]

That's not what I am saying. Questioning a system or environment is fine. But to think that it is all about you IS childish. I'm reminded of the quote posted earlier by Douglas Adams and the puddle that thinks it's hole was created for it, as it fit it so perfectly.



No, I am saying that it is incredibly small-minded to think that because the world isn't the way YOU would've made it then somehow God must be a dick.



I can't speak for others, but for me I don't appreciate it because "God" did it. I appreciate it because it is indeed a massive system that works quite elegantly. God has nothing to do with that. If God DID create the system, then God did a beautiful job. If it wasn't God, but it all just came out of nothing, it is still a beautiful and elegant system.



No, you are once again comparing the world to an oppressive environment (or a regime) because YOU don't like certain aspects of it. Given the insignificance of the planet to begin with, your approach is analogous to a child who thinks his principal is a dick because the kid doesn't like the lunch they served.



You aren't actually contributing to the conversation with this paragraph, so I don't see any reason to respond further.



It is precisely BECAUSE God cares that his system provides a mechanism for happiness and bliss in what you see as a horrible world. Consider the earliest Christians. Despire their torture, persecution, and crucifixions, they never lost love, peace, or happiness. They connected with God on a level that you refuse to, and it made them happy. That is the ultimate good of God - not that everyone has material comfort. (These are the positions of the Christian theology anyway. I'm sure other religions have different but similar takes on it all.)

you still don't get it. you first interpret god as being the conscious creator of everything then turn around and insinuate that god is love, peace and happiness. i never said i don't appreciate that so you are being deceptive but you stated that i 'refuse' to and i don't. you are projecting your own reality onto me. you are the one being hypocritical. i am being more realistic than you actually. what you don't know is that people don't interpet god exactly as you do, they don't necessarily see the negatives as a part of god's design or what was meant to be as much as it is just an obstacle or what has to be dealt with. they may even view what is god as much a victim of the system as they do. for instance, how truth or justice or love has had to struggle to enlighten others or may even have opposition. this means, depending on your premise regarding god, then one's judgement of god or what god stands for follows.

furthermore, you keep saying that if the creation does not agree with me, it doesn't necessarily make god an asshole. it actually does from the perspective and experience of one that had no choice or say in the matter by which i also have the ability to observe. especially if god consciously created evil. this is all hypothetical. this whole argument is based on hypothetical positions.

as for elegance (lol), that's a personal point of view. yes, it does appear to be elegant until you look at life's nasty bits and realize it's not at all elegant. inanimate reality has no mistakes as it just merely reacts without purpose. life is another game altogether and reveals that this universe is not as good at it. a fancy restaurant as a patron seems elegant unless one is in the kitchen witnessing all the mayhem and mistakes to create the end result. you can interpret that as elegance but i don't think that is.

you are enthralled with a certain aspect of existence that you focus on but i don't think you are as honest as you believe you are. i think that is unrealistic and childish. as for my point of view vs yours. it is a point of view and just as legitimate as yours in this context. YOUR position or point of view of the universe is no more credible in this regard.

why i think you have limited thinking is because what you think is some elegant system that was a design may not be at all. the universe may simply be a reaction or likened to a mistake just as we deal with what is as best as possible. if that were the case, it would make you the fool. lmao

 

[SolusCado]

you still don't get it. you first interpret god as being the conscious creator of everything then turn around and insinuate that god is love, peace and happiness. you are the one being hypocritical. i am being more realistic than you actually.

OK, how is God being the conscious creator of everything, and love/peace/happiness hypocritical? Because "everything" sometimes includes things you don't like? If so, that is the attitude that I find childish and self-centered.

furthermore, you keep saying that if the creation does not agree with me, it doesn't necessarily make god an asshole. it actually does from the perspective and experience of one that had no choice or say in the matter by which i also have the ability to observe.

Again, I am reminded of the kid who doesn't like his lunch. It may not taste the best, but maybe it's the best for you.

as for elegance (lol), that's a personal point of view. yes, it does appear to be elegant until you look at life's nasty bits and realize it's not at all elegant. inanimate reality has no mistakes as it just merely reacts without purpose. life is another game altogether and reveals that this universe is not as good at it. a fancy restaurant as a patron seems elegant unless one is in the kitchen witnessing all the mayhem and mistakes to create the end result. you can interpret that as elegance but i don't think that is.

The very fact that the system moves on, regardless of the chaos and mayhem that you are describing is what makes it elegant.

you are enthralled with a certain aspect of existence that you focus on but i don't think you are as honest as you believe you are. i think that is unrealistic and childish. as for my point of view vs yours. it is a point of view and just as legitimate as yours in this context. YOUR position or point of view of the universe is no more credible in this regard.

At this point I'm not sure what you are saying. What exactly is your point of view? That if God does exist he would have to be a horrible god, because bad stuff happens? I guess you could call that legitimate, as everyone can believe whatever they like, but what you are describing is not the Christian theology, so what you are disagreeing with is not Christianity.

why i think you have limited thinking is because what you think is some elegant system that was a design may not be at all. the universe may simply be a reaction or likened to a mistake just as we deal with what is as best as possible. if that were the case, it would make you the fool. lmao

A reaction to what? My perspective is that it is beautiful in its elegance whether it was by design or not, so what mistake or reaction are you suggesting?

 

[birch]

OK, how is God being the conscious creator of everything, and love/peace/happiness hypocritical? Because "everything" sometimes includes things you don't like? If so, that is the attitude that I find childish and self-centered.

No! because the foundation itself i disagree with and the things that are not 'liked' are more numerous than things that are liked. i question and don't find any reason to adulate a system that always requires more suffering of the many for the few. history has shown that repeatedly as well. just as now, there are more suffering, in bondage or oppression, and starving than those who are not. not even by nature as in diseases or natural disasters but by human wickedness and mistakes. you are the one using cognitive dissonance and petulant as if it's mostly benign and somewhat fair. you view or rate god ignoring what is wrong similar to someone focusing on the few correct right answers ignoring all the numerous incorrect ones. it's obvious that it's 'we' that have to make things better and improve our lot, not god. so who god does not deserve or need adulation if god is responsible for creating the obstacles. again, this argument stems from a hypothetical definition of god.

The very fact that the system moves on, regardless of the chaos and mayhem that you are describing is what makes it elegant.

that's an interpretation. one can stumble and make mistakes constantly and get back up to attain an objective does not mean it's elegant though.

your point of view, to me, is similar to anyone that can make up a system and despite the casualties and mayhem, it's called elegant and right. we can say god is a macro example and what we do is a micro example. just because we have will and capable of creation to some extent, does not automatically make us right, perfect or deserving of some type of adulation. i view it similarly with the subject of 'god'.


you have a different point of view vs me, there is no point arguing it anymore.

Again, I am reminded of the kid who doesn't like his lunch. It may not taste the best, but maybe it's the best for you.

totally out of context and ridiculous.

 

[Lori_7]

If you want to hypothesis about a snow globe over 28 billion light years across, go ahead. But don't expect anybody to take you at all seriously.

why not? ok, perhaps not a snow globe, but my point is, that we have absolutely no idea how big our universe is, and what lies beyond it, if anything. atheists are so adamantly focused on what we can see, when the fact is, that we can't see much.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I'm afraid you still aren't getting what I am trying to say.

Then lets go over it.

Scientifically, our universe is a static object. Time exists as a dimension similar to the three dimensions of space. It isn't a timeline upon which space moves, but together with the three dimensions of spaces makes up a fourth dimension.

Ok.

Theologically, for a deity to have created this entire universe, the would have to exist outside of both time and space, which means anything we experience that is time-related would not apply to the deity.

Agreed.

Whether the deity experiences its own type of time or not is irrelevant.

I disagree. A deity that would experience time is a deity that both ages and exists within a larger container (containing "deity-time" and who knows what else). By that very constraint, anything it "creates" would age as well.

The entity that is "creation" would have been created with the entirety of time all at once (along with the entirety of space).

Agreed.

Now, accepting the creation of the universe by a deity, everything that makes up the universe would also be part of creation, including all the natural laws. The entire creation, natural laws included, then become part of the intent of the creator.

Agreed.

They are an expression of His Will, to use a Biblical term. Such ideas as intercession wouldn't even apply, as the creation is already "finished" from the perspective of the Creator (much like the DVD analogy).

Agreed. I will point out two things. A deity could pre-build space-time with all the intercessions built in; however, we don't observe any kind of intercession behavior. This means (as you know) that there is nothing special about our universe, that is it's indistinguishable from one that wasn't created.

Furthermore, why would the deity create everything that works according to the natural laws implemented except for random bits here and there? Why wouldn't he have simply created everything in accordance with the laws?

Oh, you're jumping ahead into a new territory without ever resolving the current issues. The real question in this new territory is "why would a deity want to do anything?". But I digress, this path is premature. Let's continue on the existing one.

Right now you have claimed the following:

* A god exists outside our universe.
* Our universe (i.e. all of space + each moment of past-present-future) is a single static object relative to god.
* God created our universe and does not interact with it.

This means that:

* God is contained within a "god-environment" minimally with "god-time" (there's actually more and you'll see soon).
* God is a non-static object (life form) and does things in "god-time".
* The structure of our universe is held together by rules of the "god-environment" because god doesn't interact with it.
* God is held together by the rules of the "god-environment".
* God is an immensely dynamic object (life form) and the "god-environment" supports this (making it a very rich environment).
* For god to have changing thoughts/actions from one moment to the next requires movement (whether it be in the *mind* of god or otherwise). Complex movement across "god-time" would require both an application of some form energy and entropy to work. This means that entropy would be a native feature of the "god-environment".
* Entropy ages static objects.
* The structure of our static universe ages.
* Eventually in "god-time" various parts of the static universe (and ultimately the whole) will succumb to the entropy of the "god-environment" and will degrade/corrupt; however, even before that the entropy affect our static universe. There would be points broken/missing functionality.
* God is dependent on the "god-environment"; therefore, it is not omnipotent.
* God has a finite size (it exists outside of our universe that has a finite size). It is not omnipresent.
* God's finite size means it cannot store all information. It is not omniscient.
* Because the "god-environment" supports entropy, god must "eat" or it will die.
* Because god must "eat" to fend off entropy, it has a life cycle. At some point in "god-time", god was born.
* Because god is sapient, it must have intense competition for energy to warrant that type of feature.
* Because god is finite, non-omnipotent, non-omniscient, and non-omnipresent, it will make mistakes.

Conclusion:

Your god is a limited life form living amongst others within their own "universe". God has stiff competition for energy but found the motivation to create our "perfect" universe within as a static object and does not interact with it. The structure of our static universe will eventually degrade due to entropy in god's universe or be eaten by god / one of its competitors.

Of course, as god is a limited life form it would have made lots of mistakes which would make our universe an non-persistent, non-consistent, and contradictory experience. As it is not, your god does not exist.

 

[Lori_7]

CC and Soluscado,

to interject some personal observations...

during a rather intense spiritual experience i had about 5 years ago, there was a reference to a part of my childhood that i questioned, because i didn't see how that was possible, and i was given a very matter of fact answer to that question which was "there is no time here".

around the same time (though i didn't know him then) my husband also went through a very intense spiritual experience, and he was left with the same distinct impression, that time is not a constraint in the spiritual realm, and that on some level, everything is happening at once. the past not only affects the future, but the future affects the past as well, and everything in between.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

CC and Soluscado,

to interject some personal observations...

during a rather intense spiritual experience i had about 5 years ago, there was a reference to a part of my childhood that i questioned, because i didn't see how that was possible, and i was given a very matter of fact answer to that question which was "there is no time here".

around the same time (though i didn't know him then) my husband also went through a very intense spiritual experience, and he was left with the same distinct impression, that time is not a constraint in the spiritual realm, and that on some level, everything is happening at once. the past not only affects the future, but the future affects the past as well, and everything in between.

Definitely interesting. How often do you have spiritual experiences where you are able to "communicate with god"?

 

[Lori_7]

Definitely interesting. How often do you have spiritual experiences where you are able to "communicate with god"?

god answers me when i make an effort to talk to him. but that time 5 years ago was an interjection that took me very much by surprise, and was very traumatic.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

god answers me when i make an effort to talk to him. but that time 5 years ago was an interjection that took me very much by surprise, and was very traumatic.

Ask him this question the next time you chat. "What is Crunchy Cat's real-life human father's name?".

 

[AlexG]

god answers me when i make an effort to talk to him. but that time 5 years ago was an interjection that took me very much by surprise, and was very traumatic.

I believe that hearing voices is a symptom of schizophrenia.

 

[Lori_7]

Ask him this question the next time you chat. "What is Crunchy Cat's real-life human father's name?".

why? do you think god is a toy? god is not a toy, or something that can be manipulated. god responds to sincerity and humility. why don't you ask god something yourself? i would suggest not being trivial.