In regards to atheism.
- Thread starter garbonzo
- Start date
I suppose you could say God Is the state of being.
God does cause, yes.
Your ability to enquire?
Like I said earlier, God does cause.
Did I say that?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...re-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html
This may give some idea.
I understand that this is a concern to you, but God, actually, isn't, for you. It makes no difference what anyone says, God doesn't exist as far as you're currently aware.
Not according to the link I posted.
You asserted that "We all start from nothing", that is a priory assumption, unless you can prove it.
If I hold a beer in my hands, and you hold one on your head, we both hold drinks.
They have to make the decision to accept it.
Not necessarily. God doesn't exist, as far as you're aware. That's your current position. It only becomes a question if you want it to. But the question of whether or not God exists is not what makes you atheist.
So you say.
But the reality is that God does not currently exist as far as you're aware.
There's no denying that, unless God Is, for you. You can't have it both ways.
No it's not. We can have a more reasonable discussion if you simply accept that for you, God doesn't currently exist. The "probably", lack belief through lack of evidence makes sense then.
Not at all. Scrutinise away.
Who the cap fits...
I was thinking more out of courtesy.
Why are you so aggressive?
Jan.
Most of the posters here
and you know who you are
appear to be on a Woo Woo train that is stuck at the station and
going nowhere
While I would not say you are feeding a troll
you appear to be stoking the furnace of the train's boiler
You may be producing more steam but the train's wheels are spinning
You have no traction
All the extra steam only produces more Woo Woo from the whistle
The function of the whistle is to alert you to the presence of the train
The Woo Woo whistle is not playing any part in the movement of the train
Stop feeding the furnace
Look at the track to find out why your wheels are spinning
It might even be your on the wrong locomotive
and you know who you are
appear to be on a Woo Woo train that is stuck at the station and
going nowhere
While I would not say you are feeding a troll
you appear to be stoking the furnace of the train's boiler
You may be producing more steam but the train's wheels are spinning
You have no traction
All the extra steam only produces more Woo Woo from the whistle
The function of the whistle is to alert you to the presence of the train
The Woo Woo whistle is not playing any part in the movement of the train
Stop feeding the furnace
Look at the track to find out why your wheels are spinning
It might even be your on the wrong locomotive
Yeah, children are so stupid.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I agree completely. In fact, humans are on a big island named Earth.
It shows that believing in a God is a natural thing for humans to do.
But natural behavior does not mean accurate. Superstition is also quite natural from humans, as are bogeymen.
Belief in God says nothing whatever about whether that God exists, but it speaks volumes about the propensity of humans to come up with God if their own accord - i.e. invent it.
I bet they wouldn't come up with the same god. It would be a pig monster or something like in Lord of the Flies.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...re-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html
because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose
Their assumion is incorrect and is not a valid reason for a belief in god
Jan Ardena:
You say "God Is" means "God is the state of being".
But this is not really what you mean by God. I don't believe that you actually think God is some kind of abstract "state of being". I think you believe God is a supernatural, omnipotent, personal deity.
Over the course of this conversation you have been progressively watering down what you say God is, in the process making God less and less substantial. At this point in the conversation, you have reduced God to a kind of vague mist that is inside each moment of every thing. That God doesn't cause anything, really. That God doesn't do anything. You're simply asserting that when I look at my little finger, God is in there ... somewhere ... doing, well, pretty much nothing. We can't detect God there. God doesn't make my little finger act any differently than it would if God wasn't in it. You have reduced your God to an insubstantial nothingness.
Of course, you say that were it not for the insubstantial, invisible, undetectable God in my little finger, my little finger (along with the rest of the universe it finds itself in) would not exist at all.
There are two important questions that arise:
1. How do you distinguish the situation of God being in my little finger from the situation where God isn't there, without begging the question by saying that my little finger wouldn't be there at all if not for God?
2. How do you know that the God your posit actually causes or does anything? How do you know that this God isn't just a concept you've invented in your mind to make yourself feel comfortable?
If you are unable to answer these two questions, I think we've gone about as far as we can go with you in your current state.
---
Examples follow from your most recent post. All come back to the two questions above.
And how, exactly, does your "awareness" manifest itself? What does it involve?
What validates your presupposition that God Is? Why are you pre-supposing in the first place? Isn't that the wrong way to start an investigation?
I accept that your hold your position, but you have no rational basis for hold to your position as far as I can tell from everything you have written.
You say "God Is" means "God is the state of being".
But this is not really what you mean by God. I don't believe that you actually think God is some kind of abstract "state of being". I think you believe God is a supernatural, omnipotent, personal deity.
Over the course of this conversation you have been progressively watering down what you say God is, in the process making God less and less substantial. At this point in the conversation, you have reduced God to a kind of vague mist that is inside each moment of every thing. That God doesn't cause anything, really. That God doesn't do anything. You're simply asserting that when I look at my little finger, God is in there ... somewhere ... doing, well, pretty much nothing. We can't detect God there. God doesn't make my little finger act any differently than it would if God wasn't in it. You have reduced your God to an insubstantial nothingness.
Of course, you say that were it not for the insubstantial, invisible, undetectable God in my little finger, my little finger (along with the rest of the universe it finds itself in) would not exist at all.
There are two important questions that arise:
1. How do you distinguish the situation of God being in my little finger from the situation where God isn't there, without begging the question by saying that my little finger wouldn't be there at all if not for God?
2. How do you know that the God your posit actually causes or does anything? How do you know that this God isn't just a concept you've invented in your mind to make yourself feel comfortable?
If you are unable to answer these two questions, I think we've gone about as far as we can go with you in your current state.
---
Examples follow from your most recent post. All come back to the two questions above.
How do you know that God Is?
How do you know that God Is?
What are your criteria for which God must exist?
What does being "naturally aware of God" involve? How do you know you are aware of God and that your "awareness" isn't just an illusion you created in your mind?
And how, exactly, does your "awareness" manifest itself? What does it involve?
How do you know that God is connected to yourself?
How do you know that God is the reason it can occur?
How do you observe God?
How do you become aware of God? What is the process? You weren't aware, and then... what? What does awareness involve? And how do you know you're then aware of God, rather than some illusion or fantasy you created for yourself in your mind?
I don't presuppose anything. I start from a position that there may be a God, or maybe not. I've already explained this.
What validates your presupposition that God Is? Why are you pre-supposing in the first place? Isn't that the wrong way to start an investigation?
Because you presuppose it.
It's quite valid to ask if I exist, or if you exist, or if Donald Trump exists. Why do you consider such question invalid?
Surely it is of the utmost importance in determining who's right - the theists or the atheists - to determine whether God exists or not? The question of whether God exists is central to atheism, at least. I understand that you don't consider it important because you presuppose the answer.
You don't accept my position. You presuppose the opposite position.In such a discussion there a two POV. God exists, God doesn't exist.
I accept your position. Why can't you accept mine?
I accept that your hold your position, but you have no rational basis for hold to your position as far as I can tell from everything you have written.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...re-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html
It's most likely an evolutionarily advantageous trait to infer agency in other people, animals etc. As an extension to that, it can be useful to talk about inanimate objects and systems as if they exhibit agency. Even scientists do this all the time, without thinking about it, because they appreciate that it's an analogy.
For example, if you see a broken tree branch hanging precariously above you, it's a potentially life-saving skill to be able to infer that the branch might fall down from the tree and hit you if you are in the way. One way to "build in" that inference is to have a module in the brain that looks at the branch and treats it like an agent: "That branch looks like it 'wants' to fall down from the tree. It is 'trying' to fall. I'd better not stand underneath."
A side-effect of this ability to imagine "other minds", even in inanimate objects, is the tendency to overuse the ability. So, it is not surprising when people start to think that everything they see has an agent behind it that "wants" things, that has plans and so on.
This is the likely reason why the idea of God is so prevalent. Humans are agent-seekers.
Having a chat with a real person and showed him some of the post
He made mention that the problem with the Woo Woo train its inability to handle reality
All the atheists need to get off the station of REALITY
From this station only theist are allowed to travel into Woo Woo land
He made mention that the problem with the Woo Woo train its inability to handle reality
All the atheists need to get off the station of REALITY
From this station only theist are allowed to travel into Woo Woo land
So God is merely a state?
Why not just use the term "existence", which is also the state of being.
What does "God Is" add to the mix that "existence is" does not offer?
How do you know?
No, I am asking you to support your assertion that God is the cause of all.
Please support this assertion.
So you think God can be observed?
Care to point him out?
The article doesn't provide any information on how one is "aware" of something that actually exists.
It explains that we may have a preponderance for belief in concepts to help explain that which we can't yet otherwise do so.
Is your belief just in such a God of the gaps?
How are you "aware" of God being an/the actual causal agency rather than just it being a concept to help fill in the gaps of our understanding, with itself having no agency whatsoever?
Is this your answer for anything whenever you can't (or don't want to) answer a question?
I asked how you concluded that "God Is" when starting from the conditional "If God is..."
Why do you not want to answer?
Your link makes no statement on the matter either way.
It merely says that we have a preponderance to come with ideas to help explain that which we don't otherwise understand.
We all start from nothing with regard understanding reality.
On day 1 of your life, Jan, what did you know about reality?
You are not even self-aware at that age.
We may have genetic tendencies hardwired into us, but they only become relevant when there is something to process.
Until then, nothing.
The beer is analogous to the a priori assumption that God exists.
You hold it.
I don't.
You are arguing that if I don't hold the same assumption as you then I must be holding another one, the same way that if I'm not holding a beer then I must be holding another drink rather than none at all.
If you're going to argue using the same analogy then at least understand it.
So why must I be holding another drink, (or as you suggest, hold the same drink but in a different location)?
Indeed.
So what made you make the decision to accept it?
Well, if you change the meaning of the term atheist to suit your position, and ignore what the actual atheists tell you, then I'm sure your argument holds water.
As for me, an actual atheist, the question of God's existence is key to me being an atheist or not.
I am fairly sure it holds for most atheists who are asked the question: "are you an atheist?"
Yes, I do.
That's why I wrote it.
As far as I'm aware God neither exists nor does not exist.
I certainly do not hold the belief that God exists, which makes me an atheist.
So this is just a matter of subjectivity to you?
Rather than whether or not God actually exists?
We have been, yet you have been avoiding - even in this last response of yours.
Why?
Just because it fits you, Jan, doesn't mean you should wear it.
Please take it off.
Courtesy is in the manner of reply, not in accepting positions or not.
Terseness, perhaps, but no aggression.
I thought this was supposed to be an electric train???
I thought this was supposed to be an electric train???
Hope you smart enough to work out who is the whistle
You could say that, if you're giving a simplified explanation of" God Is".
It's not for you to say what I mean by God. You know my position is theist, and that means I accept and believe in God. Nothing more, nothing less.
Can you elaborate?
My last response to Baldeee clearly stated the God does cause. So I'm not sure where you get this idea.
I think you want closure so much, that you have become addicted to summarising in a way that suits your worldview.
If you want to know where I'm coming from regarding God, then go study Bhagavad Gita.
I'm not.
And you are asserting that God is not, because you don't see your proposed concept of God in your finger.
So you say.
If that is how you see it, so be it.
I didn't say that.
We don't distinguish it.
We take it for granted that it works.
I come to know and understand this through scripture.
It doesn't matter whether or not I know God is. I can change my mind tomorrow, and over time forget God, like you have. I could argue against God from the rafters, write million seller books on why I think God does not exist. But it makes no difference as to whether God exists or not. So now I situate myself in learning about the God, that exists beyond my own speculation. Anthony Flew had to bow down to God who exists regardless of human comprehension, and speculation.
You are clearly soldiering on, with your rebellion. But you will at some point yield.
None.
You're basically asking me how do I know I'm not living an illusion. You ask me as though you're Not capable of living an illusion.
My answer is most probably the same mechanism that prevents you from not living in an illusion.
Because I am consciously aware.
Through comprehension of God, and using my basic human intelligence.
Same as above.
No you don't.
You start from God does not currently exist as far as you're aware. From there you may adopt "there may be a God, or maybe not."
You may as well ask what validates the need to investigate, or what validates the thought process that leads to the idea of investigation.
We're both right from our perspective.
For you God doesn't exist. "I can't see God, therefore God does not exist" Like you said, if you get a powerful microscope, and you point it at someone's finger, you're not gonna find, your (concept of) God in there.
For me, God is. God is the reason for all phenomenon. I don't have to see God to believe that.
The difference is that although you are currently unable to perceive God, you can't accept that others can.
I accept your position, that is the point.
You are atheist, and God does not exist for you. But that does not lead God does not exist.
I would be surprised if you didn't think that way, given your position, and everything you have written.
Jan.
Could it be that God Is, and children, in their innocent, unconditional state are naturally aware?
Jan.
Since children are quick to believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc., it seems more likely that gods are in the same category.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
And that's the crux.
You have certainty.
Atheists do not.
Rational atheists acknowledge that their stance can be flawed. They acknowledge that it is impossible for humans to have certainty about cosmological/philosphical/theist issues.
Not having certainty is the only rational mindset for any human to have.
Make no mistake: it's all right to have certainty.
Its just not a rational stance. Because can't be defended rationally.
I was thinking more along the lines of the totality of existing things.
I became aware of this studying various scriptures.
Already did.
''Without God'' is a perfect description for every atheist.
You heard the scientist, she said children are born, naturally believing that there is a Supreme Being, and that the world has purpose, and design. All the things theists maintain. At some point you lost this natural inclination, and forgot about God. You are now so far gone, you are arguing against what was, and can be again, a natural instint for God.
You are now without God, and actively trying to supress anything positive that could re-unite (re-ligare) with your higher nature.
You are atheist.
Can you currently comprehend God?
No?
Then God doesn't exist as far as you're aware.
???
If you are going to use my analogy, at least try and understand it.
You wear the atheist cap.
Every atheist is currently without God.
Regardless of what you would prefer it to mean, there is no denying that this description fits every single atheist, making it the obvious, universal meaning. Sorry if it disrupts your little mindset, but that's how it goes sometimes.
Courtesy is how one relates to another. It is unconditional (something which some atheists may have trouble with)
So I take it you're not going to honestly respond to my question.
jan.
Last edited: