Howdy all,I am an atheist. I believe that the evidence shows that God does not exist. I belong to a number of atheist and skeptic message boards, and Christians and other believers come come there all the time to talk with us. This is the first Christian board I've ever joined, and I thought it would be interesting to talk to all of you.It is not my intention to argue for atheism or against Christianity here; I don't think most of you want to hear that. But if any of you have any questions about atheism, or what this particular atheist believes (even if it's just "What's the matter with you, man!") I'm ready, willing, and able to answer whatever you want to ask. I will try to go as in-depth as possible with the answers I provide, but I want to limit myself in this thread so that it doesn't end up being a debate, just more of an informal question and answer thing.I am certainly open to debating, however, so if you want to do that with me, we can either pick another public forum, or you can email me at: theophage at geocities dot com.So fire away!
Ask An Atheist
- Thread starter Theophage
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Excellent question Follower! Thank you for being the first one in this thread.There are only two real answers for where everything comes from. Either an infinite regression of causes (A is caused by B, B is caused by C, ad infinitum), or a first uncaused cause. A sort of third option would be a closed loop of causality (A is caused by B, B is caused by C, C is caused by A) but if each cause is preceded in time by the others, that still leads to what is essentially infinite regression, just with a finite number of causes repeating themselves infinitely. (This would be the case in a Big Bang/Big Crunch model)An infinite regression of causes is good, in that it maintains the truth that everything needs a cause. Unfortunately, some would say that it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of causes to get to the present. This may be true for some cases, but it is definitely not true for other cases (summing an infinite convergent series, for example), but I certainly don't have the knowledge or the physical evidence to be sure either way. I personally don't believe in infinite regression, and I doubt that many here on this board do either.That leaves us with the idea of an uncaused cause, which is what most (if not all) Christians believe in, and I believe in as well. It sacrifices the idea that everything needs a cause, but I find it to be much easier to contemplate and understand. Christians believe the uncaused cause is God, whereas I believe the uncaused cause is simply the first moment, the first state of the universe. I will try to explain:When we say that X causes Y, what we mean is that X and Y have a special relationship to each other. First there is a point in time where X exists but Y does not, then afterward there is a point in time where Y now exists. (in some cases, X no longer exists when Y exists, because X was used up in the causation. This isn't the case for catalytic causation, however). There are additional constraints to show that X really does cause Y, but the upshot is that causes must precede their effects in time.If we say that the universe came into existence a finite time ago (which the cosmological evidence seems to point to) that means that space and time also came into existence at the beginning. This beginning point is usually referred to as t=0, the very first moment of time. Science is unable to determine what the universe was like at this very first moment, since results obtained from General Relativity don't match the results obtained from Quantum Mechanics. This is why scientists are trying to find a "Grand Unified Theory" or "Theory of Everything", which will unite General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. There are promising mathematical models, but nothing concrete yet, and no way to test them yet.But regardless of the lack of physical, scientific evidence yet, we can still examine the origin of the universe at t=0 philosophically. If causes are required to precede their effects in time, and time began with the universe at t=0, then the universe at this first moment must logically be uncaused. If this first moment of the universe is sufficient to cause all the states of the universe afterward, then what we have is the uncaused cause of everything."You mean it came from nothing?" You might be asking. Not exactly. When we speak of something "coming from nothing", what we mean is that there is some point in time when that thing was not there, but then appeared at a later point in time. But if time began a finite amount of time ago, then the universe existed at every single possible point in time; there was no point in time when the universe did not exist, no point at which there was "nothing". So to say that the universe "came from nothing" in this model is not really accurate. It is accurate to say that the universe has always existed at every possible point in time, but has only existed for a finite amount of time.I hope that answered your question, but if you want me to explain my belief on this further I will.
tomwebster
New Member
- Dec 11, 2006
- 2,041
- 107
- 0
- 76
(Theophage;60176)
Excellent question Follower! Thank you for being the first one in this thread.There are only two real answers...I hope that answered your question, but if you want me to explain my belief on this further I will.
All that stuff you wrote sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo to me. Maybe if I wait long enough a new car will just appear in my driveway
Excellent question Follower! Thank you for being the first one in this thread.There are only two real answers...I hope that answered your question, but if you want me to explain my belief on this further I will.
All that stuff you wrote sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo to me. Maybe if I wait long enough a new car will just appear in my driveway
(tomwebster;60179)
All that stuff you wrote sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo to me. Maybe if I wait long enough a new car will just appear in my driveway
I tried to explain as best as I could, perhaps I could explain better if you have a more specific question?As for a car just appearing in your driveway, that was the "coming from nothing" bit that I mentioned. In our normal experience, things don't appear uncaused. This not only violates energy conservation, but also causality. But as I'd said above, in order for something to have a cause, there needs to be a point in time beforehand when the thing in question is not there for the cause to "do it's thing". No point in time beforehand, no possible cause.There was never a point in time when the universe was not there, unlike your driveway.
All that stuff you wrote sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo to me. Maybe if I wait long enough a new car will just appear in my driveway
I tried to explain as best as I could, perhaps I could explain better if you have a more specific question?As for a car just appearing in your driveway, that was the "coming from nothing" bit that I mentioned. In our normal experience, things don't appear uncaused. This not only violates energy conservation, but also causality. But as I'd said above, in order for something to have a cause, there needs to be a point in time beforehand when the thing in question is not there for the cause to "do it's thing". No point in time beforehand, no possible cause.There was never a point in time when the universe was not there, unlike your driveway.
tomwebster
New Member
- Dec 11, 2006
- 2,041
- 107
- 0
- 76
(Theophage;60180)
... But as I'd said above, in order for something to have a cause, there needs to be a point in time beforehand when the thing in question is not there for the cause to "do it's thing". No point in time beforehand, no possible cause.There was never a point in time when the universe was not there, ...
So the universe is kind of your god. And some how this empty nothing space developed heat and light and balls of rock that became planets, and one of them did something that cause life
... But as I'd said above, in order for something to have a cause, there needs to be a point in time beforehand when the thing in question is not there for the cause to "do it's thing". No point in time beforehand, no possible cause.There was never a point in time when the universe was not there, ...
So the universe is kind of your god. And some how this empty nothing space developed heat and light and balls of rock that became planets, and one of them did something that cause life
(Alpha and Omega;60178)
Why don't you believe in the Christian God?
Howdy Alpha and Omega. You would think that the answer to the question of where everything comes from would be longer than the answer to why I don't believe in a particular thing, but strangely it isn't! I will try to condense it down, and you can ask more specific questions if you'd like to go further.Basically it boils down to two things: Lack of evidence for, and evidence against.I personally have never seen any good evidence for the existence of any God, Christian or otherwise. I grew up believing in the Christian God, but it seemed that the more I examined the world around me, the less likely the existence of God became. I officially stopped believing after a friend in the Army encouraged me to go with him to Bible study meetings.One example of evidence for the existence of God can be found in Followers question above: God explains where everything came from and why everything is the way that it is. But the more I learned of science, philosophy, and the world around me, the less and less it seemed that God was needed to explain things. Science certainly doesn't have all the answers, but it has a lot of answers that make a lot of sense. (To me, at least, I understand there are members here who would disagree with science on many subjects)Another commonly cited evidence for the existence of God is the Bible, and the history, miracles, and prophecies therein. But it seemed the more I read and studied the Bible, the more it seemed like a human book; written by humans for humans about human concerns. I found that even the amazing prophecies had more mundane and rational explanations. Again, I realize that most of the members here will disagree with me on Biblical subjects, but I can only believe based on what I've examined and found to be true. If anyone here would like to discuss Biblical subjects with me, feel free to email me, or we can take it to another (more neutral) forum.Yet another evidence for God can be found in the seemingly miraculous workings in peoples lives: healings, both bodily and "spiritual", as well as miraculous events. But over the course of my life, I have found that these things are just as common in various other religions around the world. Muslims claim miracles show they are correct, Hindus claim miracles show they are correct, Catholics claim miracles show they are correct, Protestants claim miracles show they are correct, Jehovah's Witnesses claim miracles show they are correct, and Mormons claim miracles show they are correct.I doubt that any of these supposed miracles really are supernatural miracles, but even if they are, they cannot all show that their respective religions are correct. If even one group that receives miracles is incorrect in its beliefs, then certainly all groups can be similarly incorrect.There are logical arguments which intend to prove that God exists such as the Cosmological Argument, the Ontological Argument, and so on. But every one of these that I have personally examined I've found to be lacking. Either the logical construction itself was bad, or the premises from which the conclusions were based were bad. It isn't my intention to go through each of these here in this thread, but like I'd said above, I will be happy to do this with anyone here either through email or on another forum.Rationally, if something is claimed to exist, but there is no good evidence for it's existence, it is reasonable to conclude that the thing does not exist until new evidence comes along. This is exemplified by Russel's Teapot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot I am certainly open to new evidence, and I can think of about a thousand things that would convince me that the Christian God exists, but so far I simply have not found any.Now we get to evidence that the Christian God does not exist. Several of the things I gave above also serve as evidence against. For example, if science can explain the things that traditionally were attributed to God, then God's involvement in the world becomes superfluous and unnecessary. But also, just as there logical arguments for the existence of God, there are logical arguments against the existence of God. I have seen many, but the one I like the most is known as Epicurus' Riddle, also known as the Problem of Evil. I change the argument slightly to the problem of suffering, and I add a defense against the idea that suffering is neccessary for unkown reasons, or to achieve the greater good. I have given this argument here: http://www.atheistnation.net/forums/index....pic,2162.0.html if you want to take a look at it. I can't really objectively evaluate my success with the argument, but I can't find a flaw in it, other than the fact that it does not apply to all possible definitions of God. But I think it handles the Christian God well enough.Now I realize that I am just a human being, with a finite mind and fallible reasoning. I realize that all of my conclusions, not just ones about God, could be very, very wrong. But I have to base my beliefs on the evidence I have, and so far the evidence I have seen has led me to be an atheist. I am certainly open to new evidence, or to examples that my reasoning is flawed. I should hope that we are all open to these things.
Why don't you believe in the Christian God?
Howdy Alpha and Omega. You would think that the answer to the question of where everything comes from would be longer than the answer to why I don't believe in a particular thing, but strangely it isn't! I will try to condense it down, and you can ask more specific questions if you'd like to go further.Basically it boils down to two things: Lack of evidence for, and evidence against.I personally have never seen any good evidence for the existence of any God, Christian or otherwise. I grew up believing in the Christian God, but it seemed that the more I examined the world around me, the less likely the existence of God became. I officially stopped believing after a friend in the Army encouraged me to go with him to Bible study meetings.One example of evidence for the existence of God can be found in Followers question above: God explains where everything came from and why everything is the way that it is. But the more I learned of science, philosophy, and the world around me, the less and less it seemed that God was needed to explain things. Science certainly doesn't have all the answers, but it has a lot of answers that make a lot of sense. (To me, at least, I understand there are members here who would disagree with science on many subjects)Another commonly cited evidence for the existence of God is the Bible, and the history, miracles, and prophecies therein. But it seemed the more I read and studied the Bible, the more it seemed like a human book; written by humans for humans about human concerns. I found that even the amazing prophecies had more mundane and rational explanations. Again, I realize that most of the members here will disagree with me on Biblical subjects, but I can only believe based on what I've examined and found to be true. If anyone here would like to discuss Biblical subjects with me, feel free to email me, or we can take it to another (more neutral) forum.Yet another evidence for God can be found in the seemingly miraculous workings in peoples lives: healings, both bodily and "spiritual", as well as miraculous events. But over the course of my life, I have found that these things are just as common in various other religions around the world. Muslims claim miracles show they are correct, Hindus claim miracles show they are correct, Catholics claim miracles show they are correct, Protestants claim miracles show they are correct, Jehovah's Witnesses claim miracles show they are correct, and Mormons claim miracles show they are correct.I doubt that any of these supposed miracles really are supernatural miracles, but even if they are, they cannot all show that their respective religions are correct. If even one group that receives miracles is incorrect in its beliefs, then certainly all groups can be similarly incorrect.There are logical arguments which intend to prove that God exists such as the Cosmological Argument, the Ontological Argument, and so on. But every one of these that I have personally examined I've found to be lacking. Either the logical construction itself was bad, or the premises from which the conclusions were based were bad. It isn't my intention to go through each of these here in this thread, but like I'd said above, I will be happy to do this with anyone here either through email or on another forum.Rationally, if something is claimed to exist, but there is no good evidence for it's existence, it is reasonable to conclude that the thing does not exist until new evidence comes along. This is exemplified by Russel's Teapot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot I am certainly open to new evidence, and I can think of about a thousand things that would convince me that the Christian God exists, but so far I simply have not found any.Now we get to evidence that the Christian God does not exist. Several of the things I gave above also serve as evidence against. For example, if science can explain the things that traditionally were attributed to God, then God's involvement in the world becomes superfluous and unnecessary. But also, just as there logical arguments for the existence of God, there are logical arguments against the existence of God. I have seen many, but the one I like the most is known as Epicurus' Riddle, also known as the Problem of Evil. I change the argument slightly to the problem of suffering, and I add a defense against the idea that suffering is neccessary for unkown reasons, or to achieve the greater good. I have given this argument here: http://www.atheistnation.net/forums/index....pic,2162.0.html if you want to take a look at it. I can't really objectively evaluate my success with the argument, but I can't find a flaw in it, other than the fact that it does not apply to all possible definitions of God. But I think it handles the Christian God well enough.Now I realize that I am just a human being, with a finite mind and fallible reasoning. I realize that all of my conclusions, not just ones about God, could be very, very wrong. But I have to base my beliefs on the evidence I have, and so far the evidence I have seen has led me to be an atheist. I am certainly open to new evidence, or to examples that my reasoning is flawed. I should hope that we are all open to these things.
(tomwebster;60181)
So the universe is kind of your god. And some how this empty nothing space developed heat and light and balls of rock that became planets, and one of them did something that cause life
Howdy Tomwebster,I don't really consider the universe to be anything like a god. A God is an intelligent, personal being. I certainly don't think the universe is intelligent (except for some of the little living bits like humans) or personal.And when you say "somehow", I think that really misrepresents what science knows about these processes. It is true that some processes are not well known or understood, but many are just the opposite. I realize, of course, that some Christians disagree with things like the Theory of Evolution as it explains the diversity of life, but from my examination I have found the ideas to be sound.As I'd said earlier, my purpose here isn't to try to convince you or to debate (though we can do that somewhere else if you'd like), but to simply explain what it is that I believe and why. I'm sure there are many things on which we will simply have to agree to disagree.
So the universe is kind of your god. And some how this empty nothing space developed heat and light and balls of rock that became planets, and one of them did something that cause life
Howdy Tomwebster,I don't really consider the universe to be anything like a god. A God is an intelligent, personal being. I certainly don't think the universe is intelligent (except for some of the little living bits like humans) or personal.And when you say "somehow", I think that really misrepresents what science knows about these processes. It is true that some processes are not well known or understood, but many are just the opposite. I realize, of course, that some Christians disagree with things like the Theory of Evolution as it explains the diversity of life, but from my examination I have found the ideas to be sound.As I'd said earlier, my purpose here isn't to try to convince you or to debate (though we can do that somewhere else if you'd like), but to simply explain what it is that I believe and why. I'm sure there are many things on which we will simply have to agree to disagree.
tomwebster
New Member
- Dec 11, 2006
- 2,041
- 107
- 0
- 76
(Theophage;60183)
.... I'm sure there are many things on which we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Ya, guess so!
.... I'm sure there are many things on which we will simply have to agree to disagree.
Ya, guess so!
You know it's funny, Tom. I've seen (and I'm sure you have too) people on the internet getting downright hostile with each other, flinging terms like "retarded" and "liar" and making all kinds of threats against each other just because they disagree about something. It's like some people simply cannot handle the idea that other people don't think like they do. Even though I have to admit that I have fallen into that very same kind of thing in the past, I think it is really a shame that people concentrate more on how they are different than how they are alike. I think the world would be a better place if we didn't do that so much.
Hi Theophage,What a great idea! I like this thread you've started. I am a fairly new ex-Christian, so I enjoy hearing about people's different viewpoints. And yes, I am still somewhat involved in heated debates, although I probably should just leave the whole thing well enough alone
But at any rate, you said thisTheophage;60182)
I am certainly open to new evidence, and I can think of about a thousand things that would convince me that the Christian God exists, but so far I simply have not found any.
My question is, could you list or explain some of the things that would cause you to believe in God?
Theophage;60182)I am certainly open to new evidence, and I can think of about a thousand things that would convince me that the Christian God exists, but so far I simply have not found any.
My question is, could you list or explain some of the things that would cause you to believe in God?
Howdy Jeff, I noticed that you are another skeptic on these boards (though I don't know if you identify as an atheist or not). Good to see you here.One thing that springs to mind immediately is if Jesus stayed on Earth after the resurrection rather than ascending into heaven. Imagine having a 2000 year old guy right here that we could talk to and ask questions of. We could even examine his wounds like Thomas did.Another thing, speaking of speaking with Jesus, would be if God answered prayer questions directly and audibly. Imagine no more doctrinal disputes within the church! "God, is this passage meant to be literal or allegorical?" "LITERAL" "God, is baptism necessary for salvation or just symbolic?" "SYMBOLIC, BUT GO AHEAD AND DO IT ANYWAY" Christians often talk of their personal relationship with God, but every personal relationship I've ever had involved speaking to someone directly. If God spoke to everyone in this way, I would certainly believe that He exists. In fact, even if He only spoke to believers this way, but if believers always got the same answers to the same specific questions (so that we could cross check) it would be very good evidence for the existence of God.Another convincing bit of evidence would be if miraculous healings happened only to believers of the correct religion and denomination. Many people around the world of many different denominations of Christianity as well as different religions altogether claim that miraculous healings have taken place. Even cancers go into remission at the same rate for atheists as they do for theists.But imagine if God had only one true body of believers in the world, and if they were the only group where these miraculous healings happened (and, of course, could be medically verified). Or if this one group is the only one whose members have had their lived saved from drugs, prostitution, and general sin. I think that would be good evidence that it was not merely the fact that they believe in something that makes the difference, but that they believed in the right thing.There is more, of course, but the important thing is to understand what makes each one of these things good evidence: objective verification. Each one of these things I have listed can be objectively verified, and don't have any otherwise natural explanation. Objective verification is the same reason we all believe that the sun exists, that trees exist, that electricity, gravity, and atoms exist. We may not be able to see or feel all those things, but all can be objectively verified.Now, I would like to further point out that just believing that God exists would not necessarily make me a follower of God. I believe that Stalin existed, but I don't follow his ideology. I believe that George W. Bush exists, but I don't follow his ideology either. If I knew conclusively that the Christian God existed, I would still have to decide whether or not I felt it was morally right to follow God; there would still be a free will choice I'd have to make.
(Theophage;60176)
That leaves us with the idea of an uncaused cause, which is what most (if not all) Christians believe in, and I believe in as well. It sacrifices the idea that everything needs a cause, but I find it to be much easier to contemplate and understand. Christians believe the uncaused cause is God, whereas I believe the uncaused cause is simply the first moment, the first state of the universe.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.In other words, you have no answer to where the universe came from. You didn't indicate it, but I suspect you reject God as the first cause for the sake of parsimony. If there is an uncaused cause, then it might as well be the first moment rather than God. Either way, I see you're left with a choice of having no opinion on the subject or having an atheistic, yet quintessentially religious belief about the origin of the universe. And, you do have an opinion.Is this accurate?
That leaves us with the idea of an uncaused cause, which is what most (if not all) Christians believe in, and I believe in as well. It sacrifices the idea that everything needs a cause, but I find it to be much easier to contemplate and understand. Christians believe the uncaused cause is God, whereas I believe the uncaused cause is simply the first moment, the first state of the universe.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.In other words, you have no answer to where the universe came from. You didn't indicate it, but I suspect you reject God as the first cause for the sake of parsimony. If there is an uncaused cause, then it might as well be the first moment rather than God. Either way, I see you're left with a choice of having no opinion on the subject or having an atheistic, yet quintessentially religious belief about the origin of the universe. And, you do have an opinion.Is this accurate?
(Follower;60206)
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.In other words, you have no answer to where the universe came from.
I don't see how you got that from what I wrote. Both you (presumably) and I believe that there was something self-existent, that didn't "come from" anywhere. We just disagree about what that thing is.
You didn't indicate it, but I suspect you reject God as the first cause for the sake of parsimony. If there is an uncaused cause, then it might as well be the first moment rather than God.
Well, that is certainly part of the reason, yes. But parsimony would not apply if there were additional evidence that the uncaused cause was an intelligent, personal being. I simply haven't seen any good evidence for that, and as I'd wrote in an answer to Alpha and Omega above, I have evidence to believe that such a God does not exist.
Either way, I see you're left with a choice of having no opinion on the subject or having an atheistic, yet quintessentially religious belief about the origin of the universe. And, you do have an opinion.Is this accurate?
I don't think those are the only two choices. By "no opinion" do you mean that I take the position "I simply don't know"? I certainly feel that is a valid position, and that is the position taken by science in general. Other atheists believe in infinite regression, that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. I don't hold to that, but it certainly is an option; I am not convinced that the problems typically associated with infinite regress are total deal-breakers.But yes, I do hold to an atheistic uncaused cause. It is certainly not something that I have physical evidence for, but I believe that the logical argument I gave for it is sound. If a thing cannot have a cause, then it is necessarily uncaused.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.In other words, you have no answer to where the universe came from.
I don't see how you got that from what I wrote. Both you (presumably) and I believe that there was something self-existent, that didn't "come from" anywhere. We just disagree about what that thing is.
You didn't indicate it, but I suspect you reject God as the first cause for the sake of parsimony. If there is an uncaused cause, then it might as well be the first moment rather than God.
Well, that is certainly part of the reason, yes. But parsimony would not apply if there were additional evidence that the uncaused cause was an intelligent, personal being. I simply haven't seen any good evidence for that, and as I'd wrote in an answer to Alpha and Omega above, I have evidence to believe that such a God does not exist.
Either way, I see you're left with a choice of having no opinion on the subject or having an atheistic, yet quintessentially religious belief about the origin of the universe. And, you do have an opinion.Is this accurate?
I don't think those are the only two choices. By "no opinion" do you mean that I take the position "I simply don't know"? I certainly feel that is a valid position, and that is the position taken by science in general. Other atheists believe in infinite regression, that the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time. I don't hold to that, but it certainly is an option; I am not convinced that the problems typically associated with infinite regress are total deal-breakers.But yes, I do hold to an atheistic uncaused cause. It is certainly not something that I have physical evidence for, but I believe that the logical argument I gave for it is sound. If a thing cannot have a cause, then it is necessarily uncaused.
(Follower;60208)
Here's another question:If God exists, what evidence would you expect there to be?
Well, some answers to this question can be found in my post to JeffHughes above. I can think of many other things which would be good evidence that God exists, but what I have found is that the world with God seems to be indistinguishable from the world without God. For one example, I find it more than coincidental that God's medium (the written word and personal testimony) for spreading what is arguably the most important message humankind can receive is exactly the same as what a human would use. There is nothing logically which prevents this from being the case, but when added up alongside all of the other things which I mentioned in my post to Alpha and Omega, it all adds up to a world indistinguishable from a world where God does not exist. As you noted above, parsimony then steps in and shaves away the unnecessary hypothesis of God.It could be that God intends to make the world appear exactly as if He didn't exist. It's His perogative, He can do whatever He wants. But if I base my beliefs on reason, and I do believe that is the best basis from which to form beliefs, then the reasonable conclusion would be that God does not exist.
Here's another question:If God exists, what evidence would you expect there to be?
Well, some answers to this question can be found in my post to JeffHughes above. I can think of many other things which would be good evidence that God exists, but what I have found is that the world with God seems to be indistinguishable from the world without God. For one example, I find it more than coincidental that God's medium (the written word and personal testimony) for spreading what is arguably the most important message humankind can receive is exactly the same as what a human would use. There is nothing logically which prevents this from being the case, but when added up alongside all of the other things which I mentioned in my post to Alpha and Omega, it all adds up to a world indistinguishable from a world where God does not exist. As you noted above, parsimony then steps in and shaves away the unnecessary hypothesis of God.It could be that God intends to make the world appear exactly as if He didn't exist. It's His perogative, He can do whatever He wants. But if I base my beliefs on reason, and I do believe that is the best basis from which to form beliefs, then the reasonable conclusion would be that God does not exist.
I honestly don't care why you are an atheist the thing about you atheist is your arrogance and attitude you try to pretend like you are so smart and your going to teach us poor dumb Christians something because we are such a sad lot we believe in things unseen and fairy tales. When in fact you do not have enough facts about God to make an educated opinion.All you have is what you have been told or heard from men all your life. Did you know God said there would be a famine in the World for the true Word of God in the latter Days? Men know not what they are talking about only Gods Word will tell you the absolute truth. And sense you are not an expert in that your just talking hot air an opinion and everybody's got one of those. The fact is it makes no difference if you believe in God or not you will soon be forced to pledge an allegiance to a god or you wont survive. The only question is are you educated enough to know the fake from the real. That's the only two choices you will soon have. So deny God all you like it changes nothing it just makes you another one of the several million foolish in the World. The only question I want to ask you is what are your morals
(Theophage;60214)
Well, some answers to this question can be found in my post to JeffHughes above.
Those things are more along the line of "Wouldn't it be nice if God..."
I can think of many other things which would be good evidence that God exists, but what I have found is that the world with God seems to be indistinguishable from the world without God.
In principle, without actually having seen both a world with and a world without God, how do you know what the differences are?
For one example, I find it more than coincidental that God's medium (the written word and personal testimony) for spreading what is arguably the most important message humankind can receive is exactly the same as what a human would use.
God is using the human medium in the same way God would. Do you mean to ask why he doesn't spread his message supernaturally? Thomas Pain asked if Jesus is God, why didn't he invent the printing press to spread his message more efficiently. Who are either of us to say that what God has done isn't sufficient for his plans? If God were putting in a lot of effort to prove himself through our perception, I think that would cause me to doubt his omnipotence. Are you impressed by showoffs?
It could be that God intends to make the world appear exactly as if He didn't exist.
That begs the question of what the two different worlds look like. Maybe a world without God wouldn't have been brought into existence. Maybe it wouldn't have any life on it. Maybe its people would be green. Maybe it wouldn't have a Bible.
Well, some answers to this question can be found in my post to JeffHughes above.
Those things are more along the line of "Wouldn't it be nice if God..."
I can think of many other things which would be good evidence that God exists, but what I have found is that the world with God seems to be indistinguishable from the world without God.
In principle, without actually having seen both a world with and a world without God, how do you know what the differences are?
For one example, I find it more than coincidental that God's medium (the written word and personal testimony) for spreading what is arguably the most important message humankind can receive is exactly the same as what a human would use.
God is using the human medium in the same way God would. Do you mean to ask why he doesn't spread his message supernaturally? Thomas Pain asked if Jesus is God, why didn't he invent the printing press to spread his message more efficiently. Who are either of us to say that what God has done isn't sufficient for his plans? If God were putting in a lot of effort to prove himself through our perception, I think that would cause me to doubt his omnipotence. Are you impressed by showoffs?
It could be that God intends to make the world appear exactly as if He didn't exist.
That begs the question of what the two different worlds look like. Maybe a world without God wouldn't have been brought into existence. Maybe it wouldn't have any life on it. Maybe its people would be green. Maybe it wouldn't have a Bible.
(Theophage;60211)
I don't see how you got that from what I wrote. Both you (presumably) and I believe that there was something self-existent, that didn't "come from" anywhere. We just disagree about what that thing is.
"Without cause" is the same as saying you have no answer to where the universe came from (and, that there is no answer). You start with the finite universe that has existed some finite time (even if that is all time). I start with the infinite God. Where did God come from? God infinitely regresses (there are no deal-breakers).
I don't see how you got that from what I wrote. Both you (presumably) and I believe that there was something self-existent, that didn't "come from" anywhere. We just disagree about what that thing is.
"Without cause" is the same as saying you have no answer to where the universe came from (and, that there is no answer). You start with the finite universe that has existed some finite time (even if that is all time). I start with the infinite God. Where did God come from? God infinitely regresses (there are no deal-breakers).
Similar threads
