God is "dead"

[Balerion]

Who said a god was actively pretending or being deceptive?

Not making itself known would be a form of deception, especially when there are people who desperately wish to believe in such a thing. And considering we see no "fingerprint" of divinity in existence, the belief that there is no such thing is a rational position--again, the result of deception.

Both of these seem to rely on an assumption of a personal god, which is typically self-reported as "revealing" itself to those who espouse it.

Aren't you? After all, you seem to be arguing that choice is important to God; the very idea that God has a preference means he is a personal god.

Most who espouse a belief in a god find plenty of evidence in the world around them for its existence, regardless of whether you arbitrarily limit what you consider evidence to what science is capable of addressing.

Would you say for the people who have seen "plenty of evidence," that they have no other choice as sane human beings but to believe?

Only those who espouse some belief can make claims about what it entails, which here excludes you, an atheist.

This is a logical fallacy. Why would someone need to believe in a concept to make claims about it?

We have to make choices all the time based on insufficient evidence, so that argument is a red-herring.

And we make irrational choices all the time, as well.

If a god made an "unmistakeable public appearance" then no sane human could deny its existence, any more than you can sanely deny the existence of the chair you may be sitting in. I.e. no choice whether or not to believe it exists. Or would you like to claim that you can wholly disbelieve your chair exists and still manage to be sane?

Sure they could. One could easily believe that the "unmistakable" public appearance was a hoax. Even if it takes cognitive dissonance, it's possible. We see it all the time with conspiracy theorists, who believe, in spite of blinding evidence to the contrary, that the WTC couldn't have fallen due to the impact of the planes on 9/11. Sure, there are crazy folks among their number, but not every Truther is crazy. They could simply choose to believe what they want to believe.

 

[Balerion]

and how do you know that these are your so-called parents?

Saint said "like you know that you have parents," not "like you know your parents are your parents."

 

[lightgigantic]

Saint said "like you know that you have parents," not "like you know your parents are your parents."

regardless if you want to interpret the question in that manner, it still remains pertinent.

 

[Balerion]

regardless if you want to interpret the question in that manner,

I interpret the question the way it was written.

it still remains pertinent.

I don't see how. What is your answer to it?

 

[Mazulu]

Would it muck up your atheist beliefs if individual consciousnesses came from some consciousness field that exists everywhere in space, but is very difficult to prove (like the Higgs field). A soul is like the ejected electron from a semiconductor. What is left behind is a hole. When we die, our soul reunites with "hole". Those feelings of love that everyone experiences are just the effect of being attracted to the consciousness field, to God.

 

[Syne]

A god could not show himself without removing the free will to choose. As long as doubt remains, freedom of choice exists, but if a god's existence is as sure as the chair you sit in, there is no choice (aside from insanity).

To choose what, exactly? Belief? I don't see belief as being a theme in Christian mythology. Submission, sure. Faith, yes, but not in his existence; faith, rather, as an action. Belief in premodern times was something of a given, and monotheism at its inception wasn't so much about believing in the existence of one god--there's plenty of scriptural evidence to suggest that Yahweh himself recognizes the existence of a pantheon, and was indeed borrowed from another tradition where other gods existed--but about following one god.

Your take, as an atheist, on Christian themes is irrelevant. Like I told Magical Realist, only those who espouse some belief can make claims about what that belief entails. And the "scriptural evidence" is that the belief was in a single god, to the exclusion of "false gods".

Those who do believe a god exists do find it to be shown true in many ways, just not provable since that excludes sane choice on its possible existence unless you assert some sort of solipsistic "reality" is all in the mind worldview.

Belief as a binary proposition seems like a modern concept, so I see no reason to assume God fails to show himself to allow for belief to be of one's own choosing. Such a theory contradicts Christian scripture, as well; God makes many shows of power throughout the books of the Old and New Testaments, and none are intended to be misconstrued. In fact, he goes as far as to physically manifest himself on a few occasions, which shatters the notion that he intends to leave doubt. Doubt itself is actually a large topic in the scriptures, and is considered to be a quick road to destruction.

So you wish to consider scripture as a factual, literal, and historical account then? That seems disingenuous from an atheist who likely considers it wholly myth.

You are not arguing someone who thinks the Bible is without exaggeration and metaphor. It was written by humans and subject to human context and motivations. In scripture, any show of power is only attributed to God by men, with "miracles" having obviously exaggerated qualities. And unless you are talking about Jesus, God only manifests himself to individuals.

If a god did not intend to leave doubt then there would both be no doubt and no need for any scripture to address the subject.

 

[spidergoat]

You might think you need some explanation for NDEs but they aren't valid. No reliable evidence has ever been demonstrated in their favor. It's not a matter of wanting to believe it or not. Therefore, a consciousness field theory isn't required. But it would be vastly interesting if it were true.

 

[Magical Realist]

Who said a god was actively pretending or being deceptive? Both of these seem to rely on an assumption of a personal god, which is typically self-reported as "revealing" itself to those who espouse it.

In other words, God reveals himself as real only to those who already believe he exists. How convenient. What else does this I wonder? Leprechauns? Fairies? The munchkins who hide your carkeys at night?

Most who espouse a belief in a god find plenty of evidence in the world around them for its existence, regardless of whether you arbitrarily limit what you consider evidence to what science is capable of addressing.

Most who espouse a belief in ANY dubious being find plenty of evidence in the world around them for its existence. regardless of whether I limit what I consider evidence to what science is capable of addressing. It's the nature of every delusion to turn the world into a direct confirmation of itself. So what?

Only those who espouse some belief can make claims about what it entails, which here excludes you, an atheist.

Anyone making any claim about the objective publically-accessible existence of a being should in the very least be able to demonstrate the existence of said being to any other rational human. If they can't do that, then their claim remains spurious. It doesn't matter whether I'm atheist or not.

We have to make choices all the time based on insufficient evidence, so that argument is a red-herring.

So then you're admitting there's insufficient evidence for God? Why do you think that is the case?

If a god made an "unmistakeable public appearance" then no sane human could deny its existence, any more than you can sanely deny the existence of the chair you may be sitting in. I.e. no choice whether or not to believe it exists.

Right. The issue isn't choosing to believe in God's existence though. Even the devils believe and tremble. The choice is choosing to be God's servant and ally. And no one can make that sort of choice without being shown that what their choosing actually exists. Nobody in their right mind would choose to be a servant of someone they aren't sure exists. That'd just be..well nuts! Which probably explains the mindset of most religious people.

Or would you like to claim that you can wholly disbelieve your chair exists and still manage to be sane?

I don't know what you're talking about here. Why don't you try staying on topic for a change?

 

[lightgigantic]

I interpret the question the way it was written.

and as I said, even if we want to let you ride with the manner you interpret it, the question still remains valid

I don't see how. What is your answer to it?

answer to what?

 

[Balerion]

Your take, as an atheist, on Christian themes is irrelevant. Like I told Magical Realist, only those who espouse some belief can make claims about what that belief entails.

I'd love to hear some rationale for that claim. The instructions for proper belief have been passed down via word of mouth and on paper to non-believers for millennia, so I hope you're not expecting us to just take your word for it.

And the "scriptural evidence" is that the belief was in a single god, to the exclusion of "false gods".

"God" meaning, in this context, the ultimate being. The Bible is littered with references to other divine beings, even gods.

1 Corinthians 8
4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.​

So you wish to consider scripture as a factual, literal, and historical account then? That seems disingenuous from an atheist who likely considers it wholly myth.

I certainly don't think scripture is wholly any one thing, since it's comprised of many works from many authors over many years. I'm sure there are some historical accounts, I'm sure there are myths intended to be taken as literal truth, and there's poetry and metaphor, too.

In scripture, any show of power is only attributed to God by men,

Not according to scripture, unless you're saying it is the author of the text who is doing the attributing. In which case, of course, but then if you can't trust the author, how is it you believe ("you" in the general sense, not you specifically) anything they've written?

with "miracles" having obviously exaggerated qualities.

Again, not according to scripture. I obviously don't believe God made any demonstrations of power, nor do I believe in miracles, but the texts make it plain that both things happen.

And unless you are talking about Jesus, God only manifests himself to individuals.

That would still be a revocation of free will. The person who sees God no longer has the ability to sanely choose to not believe, per your argument, correct?

If a god did not intend to leave doubt then there would both be no doubt and no need for any scripture to address the subject.

Then why is doubt treated as a weakness in scripture?

 

[Balerion]

and as I said, even if we want to let you ride with the manner you interpret it, the question still remains valid

And as I said, I don't see how. Why don't you enlighten me?

answer to what?

Don't play stupid. The answer to the question you posed. Certainly you had one in mind.

 

[Saint]

If God is too great to show himself, he could send a supernatural angel to prove his existence, why not he does this?

 

[lightgigantic]

And as I said, I don't see how. Why don't you enlighten me?

maybe try answering the question then ... since, you know, all you have said is "I interpret your question in this manner"

Don't play stupid. The answer to the question you posed. Certainly you had one in mind.

I just said I don't have any problem with the way you interpreted the question ... so , whenever you are ready
:shrug:

 

[Syne]

Who said a god was actively pretending or being deceptive?

Not making itself known would be a form of deception, especially when there are people who desperately wish to believe in such a thing. And considering we see no "fingerprint" of divinity in existence, the belief that there is no such thing is a rational position--again, the result of deception.

That assumes a god that is actively participating in the universe. With each argument you narrow the god you are addressing. Believers see evidence of a divine initial cause everywhere, so that "we" is strictly atheist.

Both of these seem to rely on an assumption of a personal god, which is typically self-reported as "revealing" itself to those who espouse it.

Aren't you? After all, you seem to be arguing that choice is important to God; the very idea that God has a preference means he is a personal god.

Choice is important to free will. And a god's preference does not necessitate a personal nor active god, only its input at creation. How do you suppose having a preference necessitates being a personal god?

Most who espouse a belief in a god find plenty of evidence in the world around them for its existence, regardless of whether you arbitrarily limit what you consider evidence to what science is capable of addressing.

Would you say for the people who have seen "plenty of evidence," that they have no other choice as sane human beings but to believe?

You have seen the same "evidence" as they have, and you obviously chose not to believe. Again, the evidence is not wholly conclusive, leaving latitude for choice.

Only those who espouse some belief can make claims about what it entails, which here excludes you, an atheist.

This is a logical fallacy. Why would someone need to believe in a concept to make claims about it?

Which specific sort of fallacy are you claiming this to be? As an atheist, you can make any number of completely erroneous claims about a belief you do not hold yourself. This is trivially so. Only someone who espouses the belief has grounds to make claims about their belief. You making claims about someone's belief is nothing but erecting a strawman.

This is like a string theorist making claims about LQG and expecting the LQG theorist to support those claims. String theorists refute LQG by making their own claims about string theory, and what it says about the natural phenomena both theories address.

We have to make choices all the time based on insufficient evidence, so that argument is a red-herring.

And we make irrational choices all the time, as well.

Just another red-herring, as a choice based on insufficient evidence is not necessarily irrational, else all science would be irrational until proven.

If a god made an "unmistakeable public appearance" then no sane human could deny its existence, any more than you can sanely deny the existence of the chair you may be sitting in. I.e. no choice whether or not to believe it exists. Or would you like to claim that you can wholly disbelieve your chair exists and still manage to be sane?

Sure they could. One could easily believe that the "unmistakable" public appearance was a hoax.

Not according to the definition of "unmistakable".

un·mis·tak·a·ble

1. not able to be mistaken for anything else; very distinctive.​

Even if it takes cognitive dissonance, it's possible. We see it all the time with conspiracy theorists, who believe, in spite of blinding evidence to the contrary, that the WTC couldn't have fallen due to the impact of the planes on 9/11. Sure, there are crazy folks among their number, but not every Truther is crazy. They could simply choose to believe what they want to believe.

Sure, because the "sane conspiracy theorists" lack sufficient evidence to know for certain, typically due to their own lack of expertise (ability to understand the evidence via the Dunning-Kruger effect).

But again "unmistakable", including the "shows of power" you assume, precludes any doubt.

 

[Syne]

Who said a god was actively pretending or being deceptive? Both of these seem to rely on an assumption of a personal god, which is typically self-reported as "revealing" itself to those who espouse it.

In other words, God reveals himself as real only to those who already believe he exists. How convenient. What else does this I wonder? Leprechauns? Fairies? The munchkins who hide your carkeys at night?

Again, assuming a specifically personal and active god, which I do not.

Most who espouse a belief in ANY dubious being find plenty of evidence in the world around them for its existence. regardless of whether I limit what I consider evidence to what science is capable of addressing. It's the nature of every delusion to turn the world into a direct confirmation of itself. So what?

While only foolish theists try to claim there is compelling, objective evidence for a god, it is more foolish to claim that there is compelling, objective evidence for no god. Science itself asserts that you cannot prove a negative.

Anyone making any claim about the objective publically-accessible existence of a being should in the very least be able to demonstrate the existence of said being to any other rational human. If they can't do that, then their claim remains spurious. It doesn't matter whether I'm atheist or not.

Again, if compelling evidence could be given then there could be no choice whether to accept a god's existence or not. And you are free to make judgements on someone's claims of their beliefs, but you are not justified in erecting strawman arguments that you substitute for their beliefs. Where has anyone made a claim of "objective evidence"?

We have to make choices all the time based on insufficient evidence, so that argument is a red-herring.

So then you're admitting there's insufficient evidence for God? Why do you think that is the case?

Free will.

Right. The issue isn't choosing to believe in God's existence though. Even the devils believe and tremble. The choice is choosing to be God's servant and ally. And no one can make that sort of choice without being shown that what their choosing actually exists. Nobody in their right mind would choose to be a servant of someone they aren't sure exists. That'd just be..well nuts! Which probably explains the mindset of most religious people.

Non sequitur. Who said anything about a servant or ally?

Or would you like to claim that you can wholly disbelieve your chair exists and still manage to be sane?

I don't know what you're talking about here. Why don't you try staying on topic for a change?

Apparently this is only a projection of your servant/ally non sequitur.

You claimed that an "unmistakeable public appearance" would still allow some choice, so it is fair to ask if you would assume a person sane for equally denying the existence of the chair holding them.

Very simple. Do not strain yourself.

 

[Magical Realist]

Again, assuming a specifically personal and active god, which I do not.

Your assumption is irrelevant to the OP. Since it assumes a personal God, I posted and will continue to post regarding that pov and not to some confused personal definition you may have.

While only foolish theists try to claim there is compelling, objective evidence for a god, it is more foolish to claim that there is compelling, objective evidence for no god. Science itself asserts that you cannot prove a negative.

It is not proving a negative to assert a lack of evidence for a God. A fact you yourself agree with.

Again, if compelling evidence could be given then there could be no choice whether to accept a god's existence or not.

And so how would being compelled to believe in God's existence violate freedom of choice? Do people have an innate right to not believe in real things? Does believing in a chair violate my free choice too? You have yet to establish how the universal perception of a reality like a God takes away anybody's free choice.

And you are free to make judgements on someone's claims of their beliefs, but you are not justified in erecting strawman arguments that you substitute for their beliefs. Where has anyone made a claim of "objective evidence"?

The OP presented the possibility of it in wondering why God doesn't present himself to humanity as real. That assumes he is an objectively real being who can be detected by the senses. If you have some other definition of God, it is irrelevant to this thread.

Free will.

How does lack of evidence guarantee free will? Does lack of evidence for unicorns enable free will too?

Non sequitur. Who said anything about a servant or ally?

I did. That's what the choice of religion is about. Serving God or not. Why don't you actually pick up a book on religion sometime before running to its defense as you so often stupidly do?

You claimed that an "unmistakeable public appearance" would still allow some choice, so it is fair to ask if you would assume a person sane for equally denying the existence of the chair holding them.

Why is there a right to not believe in the existence of a chair? How does not believing in something that is real facilitate freewill in any sense? Freewill is only exercised in the light of clear knowledge of what is real and what isn't. A God pretending not to exist would be a deceiver, only enslaving humans in ignorance about his existence.

 

[arauca]

If God is too great to show himself, he could send a supernatural angel to prove his existence, why not he does this?

How should the supernatural angel identifies himself ? You atheist would send him to a psychiatrist and the lock him up.

 

[Saint]

Angels got wings, they can fly like Superman, this will make us believe.

 

[Syne]

Your take, as an atheist, on Christian themes is irrelevant. Like I told Magical Realist, only those who espouse some belief can make claims about what that belief entails.

I'd love to hear some rationale for that claim. The instructions for proper belief have been passed down via word of mouth and on paper to non-believers for millennia, so I hope you're not expecting us to just take your word for it.

It is trivial that you cannot define the claims of a belief you do not hold. Only the believer has any pretense for grounds on which to make such claims. Anything you, as an atheist, claims of another's belief can only be a strawman unless you are arguing someone who freely agrees with some claim you make.

And the "scriptural evidence" is that the belief was in a single god, to the exclusion of "false gods".

"God" meaning, in this context, the ultimate being. The Bible is littered with references to other divine beings, even gods.

1 Corinthians 8
4 Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” 5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.​

Wow. Is your attentional bias so strong that you missed "so-called" in the sentence you emphasized? But maybe you really do not see a distinction, since you believe all gods to be equally mythical. That would only prove my point that you are unqualified to make claims about another's beliefs.

In scripture, any show of power is only attributed to God by men, with "miracles" having obviously exaggerated qualities.

Not according to scripture, unless you're saying it is the author of the text who is doing the attributing. In which case, of course, but then if you can't trust the author, how is it you believe ("you" in the general sense, not you specifically) anything they've written?

Again, not according to scripture. I obviously don't believe God made any demonstrations of power, nor do I believe in miracles, but the texts make it plain that both things happen.

It is trivially obvious that men wrote the Bible, so yes, ANY attribution made in the scriptures is done by men. People believe what is written just as a social-scientist believes self-reported data, and just like social-scientists, people take it with varying grains of salts.

"Miracles" are only insisted to have happened IF you believe in Biblical literalism.

And unless you are talking about Jesus, God only manifests himself to individuals.

That would still be a revocation of free will. The person who sees God no longer has the ability to sanely choose to not believe, per your argument, correct?

Where was there a manifestation to someone who did not already espouse some belief? Even Paul's conversion was self-reported after the fact. The fallibility of recollection and bias are well-documented.

If a god did not intend to leave doubt then there would both be no doubt and no need for any scripture to address the subject.

Then why is doubt treated as a weakness in scripture?

Just because it is intended to allow for free will does make it a virtue. "Will" is the ability to follow a course regardless of doubt.

 

[Balerion]

That assumes a god that is actively participating in the universe. With each argument you narrow the god you are addressing. Believers see evidence of a divine initial cause everywhere, so that "we" is strictly atheist.

I only assume it because your premise demands it. A God that purposefully hides its existence for the sake of maintaining deniability and thus free will for its creation is a personal god by definition. I'm open to the possibility that I'm missing something here, so fill me in if I am.

Choice is important to free will. And a god's preference does not necessitate a personal nor active god, only its input at creation. How do you suppose having a preference necessitates being a personal god?

Preference is an anthropomorphic trait. I didn't say it necessitated an active god, only a personal one. A defining characteristic of personal godhood is human characteristics.

You have seen the same "evidence" as they have, and you obviously chose not to believe. Again, the evidence is not wholly conclusive, leaving latitude for choice.

Oh, I thought you were suggesting they had some evidence I didn't. Maybe this tied into your assertion that only believers can say what belief is.

Which specific sort of fallacy are you claiming this to be? As an atheist, you can make any number of completely erroneous claims about a belief you do not hold yourself. This is trivially so. Only someone who espouses the belief has grounds to make claims about their belief. You making claims about someone's belief is nothing but erecting a strawman.

So saying someone has an irrational belief is a strawman?

Just another red-herring, as a choice based on insufficient evidence is not necessarily irrational, else all science would be irrational until proven.

Interesting. I didn't say a choice based on insufficient evidence was irrational, yet you submit the above as if I had. There's a word for that, I think...

I said we make irrational choices all the time. That is, choices that do not make sense in light of the available information.

Not according to the definition of "unmistakable".

un·mis·tak·a·ble

1. not able to be mistaken for anything else; very distinctive.​

And yet people mistake passenger airplanes for alien spacecraft, and goats for the Chupacabra.

Sure, because the "sane conspiracy theorists" lack sufficient evidence to know for certain, typically due to their own lack of expertise (ability to understand the evidence via the Dunning-Kruger effect).

You must be new here.

It doesn't take expertise to understand that JFK was killed by a lone gunman, or to understand the principles by which Tower 7 collapsed. It takes willful disregard. It's a choice.

But again "unmistakable", including the "shows of power" you assume, precludes any doubt.

According to your argument, not mine.