Why do atheists ask for evidence for God?

[Jeremyhfht]

Pre-text note: I'm going to ignore your childish ad-hominems for the most part. So don't be "surprised" that I've not wasted my typing rebuking them, as there's nothing to rebuke.

Jeremyhfht,
How so?

Quoted below, and clarified:

"Let me explain to you the logical fallacy of omniscience (not to be confused with the "Omniscience Fallacy).

If god knows everything, he then knows who will live, die, how they will, etc. The entire waiting period between the "end time" and such is pointless, as he already knows the result.
”

Every living thing is going to die. Not a difficult feat for anyone to know.

That is avoiding my above point. My above point, is that the waiting time is futile, since god already knows who will live, who will go to hell, etc. This defies the entire purpose of even kicking "Adam and Eve" out of heaven.

In fact, using omnipotence/omniscience, he couldn't easily prevented everything. No death, no pain, no harm, no nothing. Creation is perfectly fine.

Morality wise, even by the bible, to watch as someone suffers while you have the capability to help...is kinda hell worthy.

God knows what will happen because he knows the outcome of every choice we make, as we make them, not that we are automated beings.

Omniscience means you know everything. He knows before we make them. This is the imprint of Fate, therefore automated beings.

That would be a contradiction of free-will.

Okay. So let me throw up this hypothetical situation: If you were going to be shot, and I could save you, it would be a contradiction of free will if I did.

Therefore, I should let you die. Is that moral? Is that a kind or loving God? And is that a contradiction of free will? Especially when you already know what's going to take place.

Another point I'd like to make, is that thousands of cultures, and billions of people, never knew of a God. Their beliefs sometimes didn't even center around a God, as much as it did other things (like the earth itself).

So are these people, who've never heard of God, going to hell?

On the other side of the coin, how did people get from Europe, the original "Holy Lands", all the way to the other side of the globe? The continents were already drifted apart, as continental drift can't happen in under 11,000 years (not to that significance anyway).

So do explain how these people got to the other side of the globe?

If i'd have stated that God exists because so and so, says so, then you may have a point. My statement only showed that personal opinions, are just that, personal opinions, not articles of fact.

This isn't even my point. You claimed those people would be accurate, I state that it's a fallacy to assume they're accurate because of their position.

Similarly, I could point out that the majority of people in those fields don't believe in god, but that would be an Appeal to numbers fallacy.

So I hope you know why this is a bad road to go down.

Its ok Jeremy, as I doubt you, or anyone, can deliver the goods for such a request.

I've had debates with you before. Each time I've given you mountains of links and evidence (all of which you've ignored). You have also read numerous other debates I've been in (I do believe you were in that debate regarding the Authenticity of Jesus Christ).

You have absolutely no excuse for ignoring that evidence.

So tell me, whose fault is it you've not received such goods? Certainly isn't the large masses of people that have given you links before.

Ideas in general rely on humans, but God is not an idea, not from the description put foreward in any scripture.

Circular logic. You're using something someone supposedly wrote to prove his existence.

I request that you prove that God is not an idea, and that his existence is not dependent on those who worship him.
Examples: The God(s) of every civilization that no longer exists today. Those God(s) depend upon people to worship them, for once they're no longer believed in/known to exist, what happens?

They die, just like every other idea that's forgotten. You have to prove, without using scripture, that God isn't an idea.

If you do base it upon the scriptures, then you've already proven yourself wrong. For you cannot prove that the scriptures were not written by the ideas of man (sans what the scriptures say, but that's a circular fallacy).

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

So tell me, with no understanding of good or evil, is disobeying a good or bad thing?

It can be.

And advised to by the snake.

What advise did the snake give her?

With no understanding of good or evil how exactly can she distinguish which of them she should be listening to (i.e which of them is good/which is evil)?

What does good or evil have to do with being disobedient to God, and her husband?

If someone knowingly decieves you, how would you describe that person?

A) My description would come from the knowledge of good and evil that I have.

Have you heard the expression "once bitten twice shy"?

1) They did not die upon eating the fruit.

They did die.

This clearly does not and cannot mean not die ever because they had not eaten from the fruit of the tree of life and thus were going to eventually die one way or the other, (unless they ate from that tree but got didn't let them).

huh!!

2) Gen 3:7 'Then the eyes of both of them were opened'. This directly proves that what the snake said in (2) was true, not a deception.

Eyes can become "open" when you first snort cocaine, as well.
So they tell me. :bugeye:

3) Gen 3:22 god said 'Now that man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil'. This directly proves that what the snake said in (3) was true, not a deception.

How do you know, knowing "good and evil" is beneficial as opposed to knowing only good?

There was no deception from the snake, he told it how it was - and because of his actions you are now able to determine what is right and wrong and are even aware when your naked.

It depends how you look at it snakelord, and as such I see no real debate here, only personal opinions. On top of that it doesn't really have anything to do with the topic of the thread.

Could have. There is still no valid way she could have made the distinction.

She reasoned with the snake, and came to a decision. She knew what she was doing. She may not have had physical experience of the material world, but she knew who and what God was, and she knew she was the wife of Adam, and the role for which she was created. Therefore she must have had a spiritual sence of kinship.

Certainly, and that is how we would be now if it wasn't for the actions of the snake/eve.

We're human beings, snake lord, not dogs. There is a world of difference.

I am not assuming anything. The bible clearly states that Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good or evil -

They had no knowledge of "good and evil", not "good or evil".

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jeremyhfht,

Pre-text note: I'm going to ignore your childish ad-hominems for the most part. So don't be "surprised" that I've not wasted my typing rebuking them, as there's nothing to rebuke.

I take it your referring to the ; "You act like an arrogant fool. I sincerely hope this is not the extent of your everyday character."
That wasn't an attack, it was a factual observation, based on a particular sstatement you made, not on your character.

That is avoiding my above point. My above point, is that the waiting time is futile, since god already knows who will live, who will go to hell, etc.

Actually you said " If god knows everything, he then knows who will live, die, how they will, etc. My response was correct.
God knows who will go to hell, not because they were born to go to hell, but because he is witness to every action and thought to the living entity, throughout all time. Your understanding is based on a poor fund of scriptoral knowledge.l

In fact, using omnipotence/omniscience, he couldn't easily prevented everything. No death, no pain, no harm, no nothing. Creation is perfectly fine.

Did you mean "...he could have easily prevented..."?

Morality wise, even by the bible, to watch as someone suffers while you have the capability to help...is kinda hell worthy.

The help is there, but do we accept it?
And what is suffering, from God's point of view?
A lifetime to us may be less than what we would call a fleeting moment, to God. Maybe, suffering is being without God, but due to our ignorance we think this life is all there is. If that is the case, then it is safe to say, we induce our own suffering.

Omniscience means you know everything. He knows before we make them. This is the imprint of Fate, therefore automated beings.

To make something that acts exactly as you want it to, and then claim that know everything about them, is not knowledge, outside your creation. God knows what you are going to do, because he knows your thoughts and actions, because he is with you. That is why Jesus said "love the lord thy God with all your heart". Otherwise that statement would have no meaning.

Okay. So let me throw up this hypothetical situation: If you were going to be shot, and I could save you, it would be a contradiction of free will if I did.

Why would you save me?
Through some sense of moral duty?
For your own gratification?
Maybe I deserverd to be shot?
Maybe "I", the soul, would spiritualy benefit from my body being shot, the thing is, God knows exactly what is to be done, and how it will impact in the future. You only know what you know in this life, and that's not alot is it.

Therefore, I should let you die. Is that moral?

How many living entities do we kill everyday, knowingly and unknowingly?
Is killing inocent animals, for the pleasure of our selfish consumption, moral? Or is morality a luxory only afforded to SOME human beings and animals?

Another point I'd like to make, is that thousands of cultures, and billions of people, never knew of a God. Their beliefs sometimes didn't even center around a God, as much as it did other things (like the earth itself).
So are these people, who've never heard of God, going to hell?

Before we go into this, I would like you to explain why you think people go to hell, because they have never heard of God.

On the other side of the coin, how did people get from Europe, the original "Holy Lands", all the way to the other side of the globe? The continents were already drifted apart, as continental drift can't happen in under 11,000 years (not to that significance anyway).

No idea.
Not even sure what you're talking about.

This isn't even my point. You claimed those people would be accurate, I state that it's a fallacy to assume they're accurate because of their position.

No. I claimed these people would state the opposite of what you claimed.
Read carefully.

You have also read numerous other debates I've been in (I do believe you were in that debate regarding the Authenticity of Jesus Christ).

Nope. I find those debates pointless. I have no reason to doubt that Jesus existed.

You have absolutely no excuse for ignoring that evidence.

If you evidence is; you don't believe Jesus existed, or the scriptures were written by ill-educated nit-wits, passing the time away until some bright spark invented science, etc, etc. Then it deserves to be ignored, with bells on.

Circular logic. You're using something someone supposedly wrote to prove his existence.

I'm not try to prove his existence. The thread is entitled "why do atheists ask for evidence of God". You're trying to prove his non-existence. I already believe he exists, and I accept there is no proof of evidence that would satisfy atheists, especially those, like you, who are hell-bent (pun not intended) on proving his non-existence.

I request that you prove that God is not an idea, and that his existence is not dependent on those who worship him.

Those aren't even legitimate requests.
Why don't you just say, "I don't believe God exists" and leave it at that.

Examples: The God(s) of every civilization that no longer exists today. Those God(s) depend upon people to worship them, for once they're no longer believed in/known to exist, what happens?

I'm not talking about gods, If worshiping gods is a religion, then I am an atheist with regards to that religion. I am talking about God, "the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."

You have to prove, without using scripture, that God isn't an idea.

I don't have to prove anything. I'm ok with my belief, and I have no intention to try and convince you are any atheist to agree with me.

If you do base it upon the scriptures, then you've already proven yourself wrong. For you cannot prove that the scriptures were not written by the ideas of man (sans what the scriptures say, but that's a circular fallacy).

There is a conspiracy theory which states that Shakespeare wasn't the acual author of his plays and sonets. If this is true, or not, do the quality of the plays and sonets diminish. I don't think so. It is the quality of the scripture which convince me of the truth, not who the authors were.

Jan.

 

[SnakeLord]

What advise did the snake give her?

Uhh, that eating the fruit would open her eyes and give her knowledge of good and evil. Have you just woken up?

What does good or evil have to do with being disobedient to God, and her husband?

Everything.

Have you heard the expression "once bitten twice shy"?

Yeah, it's relevance in this specific discussion?

They did die.

Certainly. They were going to anyway - but as explained, the statement made by the snake in context meant then and there.

Gen 3:22 '..he must not be allowed to reach out his hand and pick from the tree of life too, and eat and live forever!'

If Adam was an eternal being, it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference whether he ate that fruit or not. god, in all his wisdom, wouldn't have made such an idiotic statement.

huh!!

Explained above.

Eyes can become "open" when you first snort cocaine, as well.
So they tell me.

Fascinating but irrelevant. I have shown beyond any doubt that the snake did not deceive them. It's no surprise I guess that a theist would waffle on about cocaine instead.

How do you know, knowing "good and evil" is beneficial as opposed to knowing only good?

An interesting question, but irrelevant. Whether knowing good and evil is ultimately beneficial or not is of no consequence to the actual discussion here. The snake told them that upon eating the fruit they would have knowledge of good and evil. His statement was factual. Now, I would contend that having knowledge of good and evil is beneficial to not having that knowledge because it separates man from animals. I suppose whether you see that as good or not is subjective. Without the knowledge of evil, you would be in the same position that you would regard Adam and Eve as being in.. ergo an evil being, (satan), tempting them to do something evil. With no knowledge of evil you wouldn't know satan was evil or that your actions were evil and thus you would be more prone to commit them.

It depends how you look at it snakelord, and as such I see no real debate here, only personal opinions

Do you have some scientific evidence for the fruit of knowledge of good and evil? What do you mean only opinions?

However, the difference between us is that I have at least used that book, that source of the discussion to support my case. You on the other hand decided to waffle on about cocaine instead.

but she knew who and what God was, and she knew she was the wife of Adam, and the role for which she was created. Therefore she must have had a spiritual sence of kinship.

What was it you were saying about personal opinions and how bad they are? Btw, is there anything in Genesis that supports your claim?

 

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

Uhh, that eating the fruit would open her eyes and give her knowledge of good and evil. Have you just woken up?

In what way did he advise her.

Everything.

eloborate.

Certainly. They were going to anyway - but as explained, the statement made by the snake in context meant then and there.

God said if they ate of the tree, they would surely die, meaning, if they didn't, they wouldn't.

Gen 3:22 '..he must not be allowed to reach out his hand and pick from the tree of life too, and eat and live forever!'

The king james version states.."...and live for ever". "Ever" has different meanings depending of the context.

Now, I would contend that having knowledge of good and evil is beneficial to not having that knowledge because it separates man from animals.

Man is separate from animals, we don't need knowledge of evil to understand that.

Without the knowledge of evil, you would be in the same position that you would regard Adam and Eve as being in.. ergo an evil being, (satan), tempting them to do something evil.

Eve was tempted, she wasn't ignorant. She chose to satisfy her lustful desire.
We are still in that position today.

With no knowledge of evil you wouldn't know satan was evil or that your actions were evil and thus you would be more prone to commit them.

It doesn't matter whether we know evil or not. In the case of Eve she succumbed to her desire.

What was it you were saying about personal opinions and how bad they are? Btw, is there anything in Genesis that supports your claim?

Are you suggesting she didn't know who God was, and she didn't understand what being a wife meant?

Jan.

 

[RoyLennigan]

So you require scientific evidence?
That would be difficult, as God is not a physical being. That would be like expecting to learn the history of ancient babylon in a P.E. class.

If god is not a physical being, then god must have physical effects. If god has no physical effects in this universe, then the universe was not created by god. Because the universe is a physical place. A physical place cannot exist without physical 'clues' to its creation. And the creation of a physical place can only occur with physical elements. There are only two types of existence, physical (matter/energy) and relative. The latter are the inherent relationships between all things--i.e. the constants that maintain the natural forces that rule this universe.

Perhaps there is something immaterial and wholly invisible to observation (science is simply detailed observation), but it would require being outside of our universe and having no effect whatsoever with our universe (or its creation/destruction). This seems very unlikely.

Have you heard the expression "once bitten twice shy"?

You're starting to learn moral relativism. Morality is based on cause and effect, as you state here.

 

[Jeremyhfht]

Jeremyhfht,
I take it your referring to the ; "You act like an arrogant fool. I sincerely hope this is not the extent of your everyday character."
That wasn't an attack, it was a factual observation, based on a particular sstatement you made, not on your character.

Very well, then by using the same logic I'll say this:

You're egotistical, arrogant, and blinded by your faith. You refuse to adhere to factual evidence, and will gladly supplement scientific and logical facts in order to keep what you want to believe.

You'll also refuse any evidence I provide you on the premise that it's "not evidence" or "it's a lie". Simply because you'd much prefer to use the bible to prove itself. Therefore, this discussion is meaningless because you'll never even consider what I say.

The above can be said to be a "factual observation" based on your particular statements. I hope the sarcasm and obvious point conveyed isn't lost to you. Similarly, I'd like to question how your "factual observation" holds any weight to my statement. Said statement was:

Heh, the people you claim have a "good understanding" of those disciplines tend to, in reality, not have that great of one at all. I've had the "pleasure" of meeting one such person. I for one think the money wasted on him so he could go to college is a sad part of it.

And it holds true. Many people that go to college, or boast a good education, simply don't hold much true intelligence. Similarly, there's also the fact that the majority agree's with me. If you want to play the numbers game, prepare to lose.

Otherwise, if you want to walk down Logic Lane, examining the arguments of those few that disagree (I've read a few books from some of them) is more important. These arguments, as I've found, are highly lacking. So I don't see how that's arrogant of me at all.

Unlike my factual observations, yours appear to have no premise.
--------------------------------

Now if we can IGNORE that, I'd like to continue down a less moronic route.

Actually you said " If god knows everything, he then knows who will live, die, how they will, etc. My response was correct.

Nay, it was not. I said:

If god knows everything, he then knows who will live, die, how they will, etc. The entire waiting period between the "end time" and such is pointless, as he already knows the result.

Therefore, it's fate. As he knows everything, and knows it all the time. Before you're born, and before humans existed. Your response does not respond to my statement in any way.

Interestingly enough, this leads to a paradox. Does he know all of his actions, and is therefore bound by a fate he cannot escape? That's something to ponder, you need not reply to it.

God knows who will go to hell, not because they were born to go to hell, but because he is witness to every action and thought to the living entity, throughout all time.

He knows they will go to hell before they're born. Therefore, they're born into hell. That's fate.

Your understanding is based on a poor fund of scriptoral knowledge.

Baseless opinion. Care to throw more of them out?

Did you mean "...he could have easily prevented..."?

yes -.-....it's a typo.

The help is there, but do we accept it?

Begging the argument. He has the power to have stopped it all before it began.

Therefore, the weight is on his shoulders. So is the sin. I could just as easily say "my God the Flying Spaghetti Monster can help you!".

And what is suffering, from God's point of view?

Also begs the argument. As it's fully subjective as to you think what suffering to God is.

Maybe, suffering is being without God, but due to our ignorance we think this life is all there is.

"suffering" as defined by answers.com:

" 1. The condition of one who suffers; the bearing of pain or distress.
2. An instance of pain or distress."

Suffering is pain, and I know no atheists that get PAIN from not believing in something.

On the other hand, I know there are billions of people that suffer pain daily. Believers or not.

Making up your own definition is not acceptable in this instance. Unless you provide a logical basis for it.

If that is the case, then it is safe to say, we induce our own suffering.

It's also a fact that manic depressives (and other types) induce their own suffering by way of punishing themselves.

If we sat by and watched them kill themselves, would that not be considered the very same thing as murder? Apply it in this case, as it works even with your purposed idea of "suffering".

To make something that acts exactly as you want it to, and then claim that know everything about them, is not knowledge, outside your creation. God knows what you are going to do, because he knows your thoughts and actions, because he is with you.

Preaching, and holds no content to the discussion. Omniscience is not a specific knowledge, nor is it directed. It's all-knowing, and not about a specific thing either.

That is why Jesus said "love the lord thy God with all your heart". Otherwise that statement would have no meaning.

Baseless interpreted opinion. I could just as easily say he said it because he believes God deserves that love. Not because he is with you.

Similarly, I know another thing that's always with you. An Idea. The scripture could very well mean "Love the idea of god with all your heart, and this idea will always stay with you". Ergo, this belief.

Why would you save me?
Through some sense of moral duty?
For your own gratification?

Don't beg the question. "is it moral?"

Maybe "I", the soul, would spiritualy benefit from my body being shot, the thing is, God knows exactly what is to be done, and how it will impact in the future. You only know what you know in this life, and that's not alot is it.

Fair enough assertion, but it has problems on it's own.

A major one being: God is all powerful. He need not put people through that pain.

It would be the same as me putting you through torture for the sheer fact I thought you should be tortured.

Is it moral?

How many living entities do we kill everyday, knowingly and unknowingly?
Is killing inocent animals, for the pleasure of our selfish consumption, moral? Or is morality a luxory only afforded to SOME human beings and animals?

Begs the question. Answer my question. Your questions also have no relation to what I'm asking/saying. It's an appeal to emotions only.

Before we go into this, I would like you to explain why you think people go to hell, because they have never heard of God.

Not just the "not knowing god" part. millions of cultures have comitted acts that the bible deems "sinful".
If god were to punish these cultures, would it not be considered evil?
On the other hand, the bible would consider these people evil simply because they have never had the opportunity to read it.
Why you might ask? This is because in order for the bible to be applicable, everyone must have heard of it. otherwise all of these cultures would have broken these laws. In breaking these laws they would be sentenced to hell.

No idea.
Not even sure what you're talking about.

I was going slightly off topic to make a point. My question asks "how is it possible for people to traverse the oceans in order to reach a continents across the world, when their technology does not allow them to cross the oceans that vast?"

No. I claimed these people would state the opposite of what you claimed.
Read carefully.

So your point was that people disagree? That's not much of a point.

Nope. I find those debates pointless. I have no reason to doubt that Jesus existed.

If you are not willing to consider that your beliefs may be incorrect, then why you here? This is a discussion/debate forum. if you're unwilling to discuss or debate your views, than what's the point of this discussion?

If you evidence is; you don't believe Jesus existed, or the scriptures were written by ill-educated nit-wits, passing the time away until some bright spark invented science, etc, etc. Then it deserves to be ignored, with bells on.

Unless it proves that they were. Are you so ignorant that you are unwilling to consider that they are correct?

I'm not try to prove his existence. The thread is entitled "why do atheists ask for evidence of God". You're trying to prove his non-existence. I already believe he exists, and I accept there is no proof of evidence that would satisfy atheists, especially those, like you, who are hell-bent (pun not intended) on proving his non-existence.

Not really. The debate has shifted, since your arrival, into this type of debate. I had originally planned to continued this discussion in line with the topic. I am not to blame for the way this discussion has progressed. if anything you are to blame for discussing your belief on the matter, and not expecting someone to disagree. So of course I would be out to prove my stance when you pit yours up against mine.

Those aren't even legitimate requests.
Why don't you just say, "I don't believe God exists" and leave it at that.

So it's logical to believe that god exists based on something that he supposedly wrote? My questions are perfectly legitimate. As they ask you to provide a basis for your belief in the scriptures. So far you only provided circular logic.

I'm not talking about gods, If worshiping gods is a religion, then I am an atheist with regards to that religion. I am talking about God, "the illimitable superior Spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds."

You have not proven that to be true. You have merely stated your beliefs. Whether these beliefs are accurate I'm not is an entirely different matter. It is also the matter that should be discussed before before you throw them out expecting them to be believed. Or even held credible.

I don't have to prove anything. I'm ok with my belief, and I have no intention to try and convince you are any atheist to agree with me.

Then why are you here?

There is a conspiracy theory which states that Shakespeare wasn't the acual author of his plays and sonets. If this is true, or not, do the quality of the plays and sonets diminish. I don't think so. It is the quality of the scripture which convince me of the truth, not who the authors were.

Shakespear and god, are an entirely different matter. As the writings depend on god's existence. Otherwise they are just a waste of time. comparing it to shakespear isn't a logical comparison at all.

P.S: I am using the Microsoft dictation pad to write this. If words appear out of place, then it's because the voice recognition screwed up. I apologize for the inconvenience.

 

[Jan Ardena]

RoyLennigan,

If god is not a physical being, then god must have physical effects.

Or he can affect matter.
Matter is never described as being created, and to add to that, matter can neither be created not destroyed. It is therefore eternal.

Because the universe is a physical place. A physical place cannot exist without physical 'clues' to its creation.

For me, the clues lie in the complex arrangement of matter, not matter itself.

And the creation of a physical place can only occur with physical elements. There are only two types of existence, physical (matter/energy) and relative. The latter are the inherent relationships between all things--i.e. the constants that maintain the natural forces that rule this universe.

What about consciousness, aka spiritual energy by some quaters?
Consciousness has the ability to arrange matter in a way that contradicts the natural order of things.

Perhaps there is something immaterial and wholly invisible to observation (science is simply detailed observation), but it would require being outside of our universe and having no effect whatsoever with our universe (or its creation/destruction). This seems very unlikely.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you of the opinion that God created matter?
If yes, why?

Jan.

 

[RoyLennigan]

RoyLennigan,

Or he can affect matter.
Matter is never described as being created, and to add to that, matter can neither be created not destroyed. It is therefore eternal.

But matter can be obliterated into energy. And if god affects matter, then he is the latter type of existence, which is inherent relationship among physical aspects--such as universal constants and natural forces.

For me, the clues lie in the complex arrangement of matter, not matter itself.

Yes, this "complex arrangement" is a structure dependant (or composed of) the inherent forces maintaining the universe as we know it.

What about consciousness, aka spiritual energy by some quaters?
Consciousness has the ability to arrange matter in a way that contradicts the natural order of things.

Again, since consciousness is not a physical thing, then it is a relative thing. Its existence is dependant upon physical things that give it value. Much like a graph depending on individual points in order for it to create anything of meaning.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you of the opinion that God created matter?
If yes, why?

Jan.

No. I would rather not have an opinion on the matter, but if I were pressed I would say that energy (not matter, since matter is simply a structure of energy) has existed eternally and will continue to do so.

 

[visceral_instinct]

I think they have doubts about their own atheism and sometimes desire a God. My best guess, anyway.

Yes, I often find myself doubting that the idea that an invisible guy lives in the sky and runs the universe, is asinine and deluded.

We ask for evidence for a God because we are asked to 'respect' people's belief that there is one, and the rectitude of those beliefs.

 

[Sarkus]

For me, the clues lie in the complex arrangement of matter, not matter itself.

And the clues are...? I fear this is nothing more than your incredulity at the alternative.

What about consciousness, aka spiritual energy by some quaters?
Consciousness has the ability to arrange matter in a way that contradicts the natural order of things.

There is no evidence to suggest that consciousness is anything BUT natural - i.e. it obeys the same laws and rules as the rest of the universe.
It might be a level of complexity higher than most other things, but so what?

If you have evidence to suggest otherwise...?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

I am waiting a response from my last post to you.
Thanks.



RoyLennigan,

But matter can be obliterated into energy. And if god affects matter, then he is the latter type of existence, which is inherent relationship among physical aspects--such as universal constants and natural forces.

obliterate
- destroy utterly: to destroy something so that nothing remains
- erase or obscure: to erase or obscure something completely, leaving no trace

Obliteration requires force, which requires energy, which requires a source of energy. What is the source of energy?

Yes, this "complex arrangement" is a structure dependant (or composed of) the inherent forces maintaining the universe as we know it.

Forces require energy, again, what is the source of this energy?

Again, since consciousness is not a physical thing, then it is a relative thing.

What does that mean exactly?

Its existence is dependant upon physical things that give it value. Much like a graph depending on individual points in order for it to create anything of meaning.

So consciousness is born out of matter, in your opinion?

Jan.

Jeremyhfht,

You refuse to adhere to factual evidence, and will gladly supplement scientific and logical facts in order to keep what you want to believe.

What you regard as facts, has yet to be proven, or contextually explained.

You'll also refuse any evidence I provide you on the premise that it's "not evidence" or "it's a lie".

I don't see the need to erect a strawman god, when there is a perfectly adequate description of God, in any of the scriptures, the most comprehensive and detailed being vedic literature.
And please don't waste my time with the diversion of "which God".

Simply because you'd much prefer to use the bible to prove itself.

Your perception is so because of your lack of understanding of God.

Therefore, this discussion is meaningless because you'll never even consider what I say.

I have already considered what you say. What you say, is all that can be said. The trouble is, your atheism has already set the ground rules (in your mind) as to whether God exists or not, and what you don't understand you make up. I will not accept such an infantile argument, when, as I said before, there is a perfectly good premise to work from, in the form of scripture. The argument therefore becomes meaningless, because of your dictates.

Similarly, I'd like to question how your "factual observation" holds any weight to my statement.

The idea that your right, and others in that field are wrong, simply because they do not agree with your ideas. And the fact that you argue from a premise which is contextually out of sync with the subject matter, thinking you have a point.

And it holds true. Many people that go to college, or boast a good education, simply don't hold much true intelligence.

I agree.
It is the same for theist and non-theist.

Otherwise, if you want to walk down Logic Lane, examining the arguments of those few that disagree (I've read a few books from some of them) is more important. These arguments, as I've found, are highly lacking. So I don't see how that's arrogant of me at all.

The fact that you think your arguments are correct, when quite clearly they are highly lacking, as explained above?

Unlike my factual observations, yours appear to have no premise.

Jan.

 

[Positron]

Atheists ask for evidence for the existence of God yet at the sametime admit that gathering evidence is impossible....so wtf?

Atheists look to prove things through logic and reason rather than heartfelt belief. While it s not necesarily a bad thing it makes it a bit difficult for those who have this soulful or heartfelt connection. they ask for evidence to show that proof is impossible to obain, thus the idea is to make the theist feel silly because their faith is being based on nothing more than a feeling.

Personally, I am a christian. I have a connection with god on a soulful level. I can still see the ways that an athesit views things. Trouble is, most can't see mine. I really can't blame them though because i can't imagine how hard it must be to beleive in something that seems so radical and illogical to them.

 

[RoyLennigan]

RoyLennigan,

obliterate
- destroy utterly: to destroy something so that nothing remains
- erase or obscure: to erase or obscure something completely, leaving no trace

Obliteration requires force, which requires energy, which requires a source of energy. What is the source of energy?

Perhaps not the best word choice, but I think you understood it nonetheless. The forces are inherent in the universe. Energy is also inherent in the universe, as it has always been. If something cannot come from nothing, then all energy has existed eternally. There is no source of energy because of this. If you are asking for the source of the motivating force, then it is the inherent structure of the universe--that which creates the force.

Forces require energy, again, what is the source of this energy?

The energy has always been here, like I said. It is there for the taking. The motivation you are searching for is the structure of the universe--a structure which formed by fundamental relationships between all things (such as pi being the motivation for the structure of a circle). If it makes you feel any better, we really don't have much of an idea where or how these constants came to be. Some say that evidence shows they are slowly changing, though (despite their label as 'constants').

What does that mean exactly?

Either something is physical, i.e. it is made of energy (such as matter), or it is relative. If it is relative, then it is a concept that relates to an actual thing, though this thing is not tangible, though its effects are. Something that is relative is an inherent relationship between physical things. Consciousness is a relative thing because it is based upon the physical state of other things and it has physical effects, but it itself is not physical.

So consciousness is born out of matter, in your opinion?

In a sense, yes. But it is also dependant upon every other relationship in the universe, just as they are dependant upon it (in however small or large way). There is a certain structure of any one thing that causes a certain reaction in any other thing. We can explain that one leads inevitably to another because of our experience with them, but we can't explain why. It just is that way. It is this way because of the fundamental relationships between all things. We may be able to break the relationship down through action and reaction, but inevitably we end up with chaos and indeterminancy.

 

[Sarkus]

Others "merely choose TO BELEIVE".

Yes they do - and without evidence that choice is irrational.

Science is a study of mater, not non-matter.

The scientific method can probably be applied to anything - matter or non-matter. It just so happens that nothing non-material has ever been evidenced that enables use by the scientific method.

Already have, nature.

If the evidence is nature, then your claim that this is evidence of God fails Occam's Razor.
However, I would really like to know what exactly in nature leads you to the conclusion, or reason, that there is a God?

Hence why I say, your reason is that you don't believe.

I merely choose not to be irrational.

What is the evidence for this?

You are the one making the claim - YOU provide evidence that life ONLY comes from life.

No. The fact that life only comes from life (as far as we know) provides good reason to believe God exists.

The assumption is not proven.

Try telling yourself and other atheists that.

We know that - you just continue to misinterpret the explanations atheists give for their lack of belief - interpreting their lack of belief as belief in non-existence.
If you continue to do that then further discussion on this matter is pointless.

You don't believe God exists, due to lack of evidence, according to your testimony?

I have no reason to believe that god exists, due to lack of evidence.
I do not go so far as to say that I believe that god does NOT exist.

I don't need to use a "God of the gaps" to justify my belief in God, if that is what you meant. There is simply no need.

Your God of the Gaps doesn't justify your belief in God - but the gaps give rise to your belief in God.

Why is that elitist?

Anyone who claims that others can not understand is acting in an elitist manner - putting themselves on a pedestal of no-one else's making.

You equate belief in God, with the childish belief of santa clause and tooth fairy. While this is amusing, it is idiotic, which is why you need to understand the difference in beliefs. Or you can stay ignorant and amuse yourself with cheap shots.

In the aspect of "lack of evidence" they are identical. If you wish to stay ignorant on this and amuse yourself with cheap shots, so be it.

What else could it possibly regard?

The non-material.

How could the scientific method percieve such non-material to observe and test?

To start with, the same way that you claim to?

Modern science can only deal with matter, get over it.

Did science set itself up to deal only with matter - or is the fact that it only deals with matter because there is NO EVIDENCE FOR THE NON-MATERIAL?

Describe how the scientific method could observe a non-matter, in such a way as to work with it?

Now you're beginning to understand.

Its not a coincidence, it is 100% physical because that is the correct genre, it can never be anything else, lest it is not modern science.

Please point to where the scientific method states that it is only concerned with the material?

I freely admit there is no physical evidence, which can be scrutinised by modern scientists, to conclude the existence of God, beyond doubt. I also admit there is no physical evidence for truth, beauty, love, humour.

So God is nothing but a sense?

There is a beautiful painting at my local community centre, and at the bottom is a small signature, Philps. I don't know whether that is the artists name, but I know the painting didn't appear by chance, and that it was created by some intelligence, even though I don't have any scientific evidence to back my claim.

Ludicrous - you have all the scientific evidence you could possibly want. Are you telling me that you have never seen anyone paint before? Or that you are unaware, through direct observations of the physical, that people are able to paint?

I believe that reason for belief in God is based on evidence both scientific and other, but, there is no current scientific evidence which points to the existence of God, beyond doubt, that would be recognised by the modern scientific community.
I agree that it is a matter of choice (free-will), and that you have exercised your choice by deciding not to believe.

It is merely a choice of whether to be rational or irrational in the face of zero evidence. And that choice is not necessarily in the conclusion but in the interpretation of the so-called "evidence".

You have exercised your right to be irrational.

 

[Red Devil]

Atheists ask for evidence for the existence of God yet at the sametime admit that gathering evidence is impossible....so wtf?

I am Athiest and have NEVER asked for evidence of that which does not exist. ..................................

 

[Kaz]

I've studied Christianity for years, but then I stopped, because I came to this conclusion :

Religion isn't a sole belief as it is a style of living, most religions promote charity, trust, good mannerisms, hope, etc. Anybody who lives this way is respected, however, anybody preaching "God will smite thee for your sins" is completely out-of-line, because everyone will sin in their life, no choice.

For those who live religiously, they see it as a security blanket, they find by doing good deeds, charity, and other things of the sort they are pleasing an astral being and for this, they believe when they die, they will have eternal bliss in "heaven" or whatever you will call it. Basically it's just hope to keep living, I think.

Anyone who really believes this stuff really needs to do some research. There's more fact than faith, when it comes to Christianity.

 

[grover]

Please point to where the scientific method states that it is only concerned with the material?

Sarkus, it is an accepted and obvious fact that the scientific method only deals with the material. For that reason scientists, referred to a scientific materialists, have made the leap that only material exists. This is an assumption. The lack of evidence for the immaterial can mean either that
1) scientific materialists are right and that only material exists, or;
2) the scientific method deosn't not apply to investigation of the immaterial
--------------------------------------------
Let's take a real-life example of a phenomenon we know exists but can't provide evidence for - consciousness. You and I both know this phenomenon exists because we have direct experience of it. But, here is my challenge to you - provide evidence of consciousness. You can't. This means one of three things;
1) Consciousness doesn't exist because no evidence can be provided for it.
2) Consciousness does exist but there is something about its nature that makes it so that evidence can not be provided for it.
3) Evidence can be provided for consciousness but we currently lack the technology to provide evidence for it.
---------------------
I don't think you'd say 1 is true which leaves us wth doors number 2 and 3.
There is only one word for door number three - Faith.
So, what we are left with then, unless we want to resort to blind faith, is option number 2 - which could also be stated as: There is at least one phenomenon that we know exists but we can provide no evidence for.

 

[Sarkus]

Let's take a real-life example of a phenomenon we know exists but can't provide evidence for - consciousness. You and I both know this phenomenon exists because we have direct experience of it. But, here is my challenge to you - provide evidence of consciousness. You can't. This means one of three things;
1) Consciousness doesn't exist because no evidence can be provided for it.
2) Consciousness does exist but there is something about its nature that makes it so that evidence can not be provided for it.
3) Evidence can be provided for consciousness but we currently lack the technology to provide evidence for it.

Logical Fallacies abound within this example, I'm afraid.

Firstly, you do not define consciousness at all, let alone sufficiently for debate.

Secondly - your assumption is wrong. There IS evidence for consciousness (and I am assuming a definition, given your lack of one). We display it whenever we are "conscious".
We also know that it's core functioning is limited to the brain: remove brain from a patient - remove consciousness.
We also have evidence of its materiality: damage brain - damage consciousness.
Inhibit certain chemicals in brain - inhibit consciousness.

Thirdly, there are more alternatives than the ones you posit - even using the inaccurate assumptions you make:
(4) It is not yet known whether consciousness is material or non-material;
(5) Consciousness is not yet fully understood to be able to ascertain what it actually is to then be able to obtain evidence for it;
(6) Evidence exists but we are just unable to appreciate it for what it is.
etc.

Fourthly, your conclusions are all making positive statements - which is logically flawed in the absence of evidence (your assumption).

I don't think you'd say 1 is true...

Define consciousness and then we can decide which option is closest to my view.

...which leaves us wth doors number 2 and 3.
There is only one word for door number three - Faith.
So, what we are left with then, unless we want to resort to blind faith, is option number 2 - which could also be stated as: There is at least one phenomenon that we know exists but we can provide no evidence for.

Again - this is only your conclusion due to the logically flawed way in which you have worded your argument.

Nice try though.

I suggest you redo this but start with an actual definition for consciousness. And we'll go from there.

And please no definitions that have in-built assumptions that have yet been proven - as to accept that definition is to accept the unproven assumption.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus, it is an accepted and obvious fact that the scientific method only deals with the material.

My question still stands: please point to where the scientific method says that it can and does only apply to the material world?

If it is such an "accepted and obvious fact" then it shouldn't be too hard for you to detail it to me, surely!