Why do you believe (or not believe)

[lightgigantic]

(initially at least) we believe because we are impressed

BG 3.21: Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues.

 

[draqon]

maybe God exists only for those who believe in him. Maybe thats how and why this universe exists, because we believe in this universe and its existence. Now its much technical than that I am sure, the universe we create is also us and we create our own birth and death...but than were does God comes along, or is it God of our belief who creates our death and birth...

 

[Fire]

(initially at least) we believe because we are impressedp

What happened to non-belief due to being impressed? Atheists are probably more appreciative and respectful for the physical reality we find outselves within. Such appreciation can not be maintained in superstition, as it would reduce the value of our apprecation.

 

[Boss Foxx]

My mother was Christian. My father was atheist. I was Christian until I was about 12-13 years old before becoming agnostic through my teen years and then settling into atheism. I just grew out of childish things... Well, most childish things anyway.

 

[Blindstein]

I want to give this truth to everyone.
God is a creator who can draw upon infinite knowledge.
God is the creator of everyone, but also a father to everyone.
God created us in his image; our bodies on earth are just like God's body on earth.
Human knowledge is not finite because of human imagination; our knowledge in adulthood is infinite much like God's. (disagree?)
A person's feelings are influenced by their life's apprehention of senses
How a person feels about theirself (happy, angry, sad) is truely known only to that person in conscience thought.
In the Book of Psalms is says: God peers into a man's soul through his consience like a searchlight to show his motives.
God can judge every soul he breathed into earth accuratly.
From our death our conscience lives infinitly
We must be good.

 

[lightgigantic]

What happened to non-belief due to being impressed? Atheists are probably more appreciative and respectful for the physical reality we find outselves within. Such appreciation can not be maintained in superstition, as it would reduce the value of our apprecation.

In other words you are impressed by material nature because you cannot see god in it - a theist however is impressed with material nature because they recognize it as evidence of the power/intelligence/control of god

 

[draqon]

GOD is the scientist

 

[lightgigantic]

GOD is the scientist

god is the supreme scientist - not even albert einstein created his own brain or was capabale of creating one similar to his own

 

[Fire]

In other words you are impressed by material nature because you cannot see god in it - a theist however is impressed with material nature because they recognize it as evidence of the power/intelligence/control of god

For the moment there is no evidence of a supernatural sentient creator, hence my position. Evolution is already a fact that diminishes the role any intelligence plays in the emergance of organic life.

god is the supreme scientist - not even albert einstein created his own brain or was capabale of creating one similar to his own

Why does the theist always bring up the Einstein/Beethoven thing? I think a monkey throwing it's shit at a moving object is just as captivating.

 

[lightgigantic]

“ In other words you are impressed by material nature because you cannot see god in it - a theist however is impressed with material nature because they recognize it as evidence of the power/intelligence/control of god ”

For the moment there is no evidence of a supernatural sentient creator, hence my position. Evolution is already a fact that diminishes the role any intelligence plays in the emergance of organic life.

Your statement would be true if abiogenesis was not a theory (or a fact bereft of evidence - whatever you want to call it)

“ god is the supreme scientist - not even albert einstein created his own brain or was capabale of creating one similar to his own ”

Why does the theist always bring up the Einstein/Beethoven thing? I think a monkey throwing it's shit at a moving object is just as captivating.

god is the supreme scientist - not even richard dawkins created his own brain or is capabale of creating one similar to his own

- still feel like visiting the zoo?

 

[Michelle]

hmmm

just because there is no Scientific evidence doesn't mean that God doesn't exist..God is real...not everything can be explained by science..not everything have to be necessarily explained in Science...coz God exists whether u believe it or not!! Science vs. God,but see how great God is,that even Science can't explain it!

An atheist and a god believer were arguing.,the believer shouted "Praise the Lord!!!God is great,God is good! God divided the Red Sea so the Israelites could cross and escape from the Egyptians!" the atheist answered, " Screw your God,there is no God...the only reason why they managed to cross the red sea is because it is very shallow,and not because your God divided it,but because the red sea was only an ankle deep!" he convinced.. a few moments later,the believer shouted again " Praise the Lord!!!Hallelujah! " ...the atheist was annoyed and said "Why are you praising your god again?it's only an ankle deep that's why they managed to cross it!" he insisted. The believer answered, " God does exists,God is Good,God is great! Can you imagine how great God is? even if the sea was just an ankle deep,it managed to drown all the Egyptians armies!"

 

[lightgigantic]

Fire

A big argument would be that god would have to be far more complexed than the universe itself, thereby making his own existence far more unlikely from our point of view.

this only works if you accept god as a temporary entity - the material creation is defined as being contingent on god's existence, just as heat is contingent on fire - if you have an eternal fire you have eternal heat - so the moment you have god is the moment you have all his potencies, of which the material creation is one

at least if you are going to use the "theoretical" concept of god as a model for refutation you should draw the definition from reliable sources rather than taking a "half-god"

 

[Oniw17]

Oxygen
One Hissy Kitty (2,065 posts)
10 Hours Ago #12

I don't remember where I saw it, but it went something like this:


“ Can God create a rock so heavy even He can't lift it?

Of course, if he can, then he has limits and is not omnipowerful, and therefore not a god. If not, then he has limits and is not omnipowerful and therefore not a god. If he's not a god, there is no God.

And in a puff of logic, God disappeared. ”

I first heard this when I was 10 years old, before I had experienced many things that I consider important to the shaping of my personality. Just before I had ever tried any drugs, and just after my dad had his first mental breakdown in my life that I could remember. He was released from the hospital in Brecksville, and ended up missing in Cleveland for 6 months. At the time, I just ignored the comment, and called my friend stupid. As I got older, and learned more about the world from living with various relatives, I started thinking. I thought:"If I prayed to Zeus, people would think I was an idiot."If
I told everyone I seen a cyclops, they would call me a liar." If I told everyone I seen an angel, they would call me a liar." "If I told everyone I had a conversation with God, they would call me a liar." "I've never done any of these things, why do I believe in God?" I didn't terminate my belief there, I went on to learn the basics of chemistry and biology and cosmology, an then the truth became clear to me.

they don't have a reason and don't need one.

The same idea can be applied to ethics.

In other words you are impressed by material nature because you cannot see god in it - a theist however is impressed with material nature because they recognize it as evidence of the power/intelligence/control of god

I'm not impressed by material nature at all. I'm far more impressed by stimulation of thoughts, dreams, and emotions, and the fact that they were produced by some distant relative of mine, and that I actually descended from such (a) remarkable being(s) that could develop those things.

 

[draqon]

Can I rap even if the song is unrappable?

Of course, if I can, then I have limitations and cannot rap everything, and therefore not a true gangsta rapper . If not, then I have have limitations and cannot rap everything and therefore not a gangsta rapper. If I am not a gangsta rapper, than there is no gangsta rapper in existence. And there are gangsta rappers in existence, therefore life and universe blows up as logic is right yet facts go against logic!

 

[Oniw17]

You messed up the question. For a proper analogy, you should have wrote:"Can I write a rap song that even I can't spit?"

 

[lightgigantic]

Oxygen

I don't remember where I saw it, but it went something like this:


“ Can God create a rock so heavy even He can't lift it?

Of course, if he can, then he has limits and is not omnipowerful, and therefore not a god. If not, then he has limits and is not omnipowerful and therefore not a god. If he's not a god, there is no God.

And in a puff of logic, God disappeared.

the answer is that god can create a rock so heavy he can not lift it - but the next moment his strength increases and he can lift it - but then in the next moment he can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift - but then in the next moment he can lift it - like this god's potencies are eternally increasing.

One moment his creative potency is greater than his power potency, the next moment his power potency is greater.
Sometimes people have difficulty understanding the eternal nature of the spiritual world and how it can be increasingly perfect

 

[Oniw17]

Oxygen


the answer is that god can create a rock so heavy he can not lift it - but the next moment his strength increases and he can lift it - but then in the next moment he can create a rock so heavy he cannot lift - but then in the next moment he can lift it - like this god's potencies are eternally increasing.

One moment his creative potency is greater than his power potency, the next moment his power potency is greater.
Sometimes people have difficulty understanding the eternal nature of the spiritual world and how it can be increasingly perfect

Add the word never before lift in theb original question, now answer it.
So you're saying God is a liar and merely pretends not to be able to lift it?

 

[lightgigantic]

Add the word never before lift in theb original question, now answer it.
So you're saying God is a liar and merely pretends not to be able to lift it?

No - I am saying that god, unlike us, is an unlimited personality, which means all his opulences, fame, beauty, wealth, intelligence etc are eternally increasing and competing with each other. So he can never create a rock too heavy to lift and he can never be so strong as to lift any rock.

 

[lightgigantic]

It's weird. My argument for my atheism has always went like this:

Me: Do you think there is a secret society of partying teletubbies living under the surface of Pluto?
Other person: No.
Me: Can you prove they're not there?
Other person: No.
Me: Then why don't you believe in their existence?
Other person: Because it's a ridiculous idea.
Me: Bingo!

Now apply the same concept to god.

Anyway, that was always my explanation for my atheism, although people often don't understand it. I don't know why. It's not terribly complex to me. But get this. Recently, I found other people, other atheists are atheists just like me, for the exact same reason. They even use an analogy just like I had. Instead of the secret teletubbies, their analogy is a teapot orbiting the planet.

The logic is, you can't see, observe or infer the likelihood of the existence of a teapot in orbit. So why would you believe it is there in the first place?

That is the basic logic, these people use for their atheism. I learned about it by video googling Richard Dawkins. Those atheists are called "Teapot Atheists." I was a Teapot Atheist all along and never knew it!

The problem is that you base your authority on your direct perception - what we have in the way of theistic evidence however ar e persons who have actually perceived something of the nature of god by applying the teachings of scripture - saintly persons.

By the same principles of your analogy a highschool drop out can remain adamant that electrons don't exist for as long as they are adverse to scientists ("eggheads") and science text books ("full of crap")

By the same principles of your analogy you could also maintain that your mind does not exist either, since there is also a complete lack of physical evidence for that also

The conclusion is that direct perception is not advocated as a means for a conditioned soul to perceive many things, including god

 

[sniffy]

It seems to me that god's goalposts are forever widening....

For every 'yeah but' there's an 'ah but'

Anyway here's my twopennuth:

Because human life is so short and utterly measurable, many humans find it difficult to accept how much 'time' has passed. For a species so time bound it is almost impossible to conceive that the universe has had 'a lot' of time to get where it is now on its own without any help from a diety. Given that microscopes are able to 'see' smaller and smaller particles it is not beyond the realm of possiblity to assume that either fusion/collision (or both) of the smallest possible particles repeated over billions (or more) years might lead to our universe.

I hope in the not too distant future humans will realise that caring for ourselves, others and our habitat is not just the right thing to do because a god says so but because it might just be the right thing to do.