A letter to the Atheists

[eudaimonia]

In Egypt we have a proverb which is said to someone who don't use his mind often, it says:'' God is known by mind''
And thats to some extent true, since the only evidence for God's existance is the existance of His creations...And you need no further evidence to prove Him..

Unfortunately, you also need no further reason to doubt his existence, since one may easily arrive at the conclusion, by mind, that what are claimed to be his creations might not be that at all.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tiberius]

Except to that person. A person's reality does not always conform to the shared view. Hence things like hallucinations and delusions. Is that person wrong in their assumption that we are a world on the back of a poodle? Probably. But that won't matter the least to that person.

Let me rephrase then. What a person thinks doesn't mean squat when it comes to explaining the laws that govern the universe.

The thing is, all of us share a unique view of reality, so the idea of a shared view of reality is only a general concept, and even then how do we know? Only through a language that is not always indicative of the true perspective and is full of ambiguity and personal symbolism that can only be assumed to be shared.

And mathematics. mathematics can be used to describe the behaviour of the laws of science. e=mc^2, anyone?

Not quite what I meant. A person can choose to believe in God, even while accepting It may not objectively exist. Why not? Many people grow up with that belief, and it's a hard one to shake. I've tried being atheistic, but it doesn't work for me. I still had a nagging belief in something godlike (my apologies to Godlike on RF - I'm fairly sure he exists). So I decided that that being I couldn't shake could simply be a metaphor for the spirit of life, a paragon for the Life Experience. It's not quite dishonest, because I was being honest with myself, and it's perfectly reasonable. Intellectual dishonesty is relative to the intellect being challenged.

In other words, God is an imaginary friend that you are used to having around?

I didn't claim that i can prove the existance of God for you but rather, i was just interested to know why some people tend to reject his existance because the existance of God is not based on faith as many people claim to be so but based on logic before faith.

I checked over the conversation, and I don't see that....

Just because you don't see the chair in the other room so that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So? There are ways to test if there is a chair in the other room.

As there is ways to check if there is God or not.

And what, pray tell, is this method for testing if God exists? How do you determine that any positive result isn't the result of a delusion?

Because it's based on plain facts and proofs.

This isn't proof. It's merely your argument as to why your proof works. And I have yet to see a "proof" of God that does rely on plain facts and proofs. All the "proofs" for God that I have seen require leaps of faith (and as such are not proofs), or are based un unsupported assumptions or even faulty logic.

Please explain your proof of God. You have not yet done so.

To me, this sounds like you are saying that we can show that God is there, just as we can show that there is a chair in the next room. You then claimed that this method of showing that God exists is based on "plain facts and proofs", yet you have never said exactly what this method of showing the existence of God actually is!

You've claimed that there is a method of showing that God exists which eliminates the possibility of a false positive caused by the subjectivity of the person seeking this evidence, yet you have not explained what it is. Please do so.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

Unfortunately, you also need no further reason to doubt his existence, since one may easily arrive at the conclusion, by mind, that what are claimed to be his creations might not be that at all.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Then who owns these creations?..
You opened a door you can not even close....if you claim God di'dn't create us, there must be someone who did...
It's not the first time someone asks you the question, who created us...but the truth you (atheists) never answerd the question, you just start talking about philosophical issues which has nothing to do with true reallity...Where are we from?, just a simple question that I expect its answer to start with...We are from...(you answer please)

You've claimed that there is a method of showing that God exists which eliminates the possibility of a false positive caused by the subjectivity of the person seeking this evidence, yet you have not explained what it is. Please do so.

We are sure about God's existance either from our faith or from physical and logical proofs....and you are the ones asked to prove your point....so just play your role

 

[eudaimonia]

Then who owns these creations?..
You opened a door you can not even close....if you claim God di'dn't create us, there must be someone who did...

Not someone. Not a person. But some natural process.

It's not the first time someone asks you the question, who created us...but the truth you (atheists) never answerd the question,

I have asked who created God, and never gotten an answer. I am told "he has always existed". This is essentially my answer, except I say that physical reality has always existed.

Where are we from?

The natural realm of existence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[YmirGF]

We are sure about God's existance either from our faith or from physical and logical proofs....and you are the ones asked to prove your point....so just play your role

Faith is subjective and therefore precluded from being "proof". To date, there is no direct unrefutable physical evidence that any supposed "god" exists. Likewise, logic is an aspect of various belief systems. Scientifically speaking, "god" had yet to be proven to exist. No doubt you will hold up the Qur'an as physical "proof" but that phyiscal "proof" is valid only to the believer. Non-believers simply do not accept that a given religion's books are credible evidence. At best, they are simply wishful thinking.

Realistically speaking we have it by the slimest accounts that a man named Jesus lived amoung us. There is not a single shred of physical evidence or unrefutable records that exist at this time to verify that he in fact did live.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

Not someone. Not a person. But some natural process.

I agree, it's not someone...You say it's a natural process...describe it then, and whatever theory you provide, lets discuss its validity..

I have asked who created God, and never gotten an answer. I am told "he has always existed". This is essentially my answer, except I say that physical reality has always existed.

No one created God...and thats pretty simple, since God is the one who created the creation, and who created all other terms that are used by us...God is not something, nor He is observable...He (glory be to Him) is not something described by words, any words, or any physical means...He and only He is one of a kind...I dont even have the right to say ''kind''...

Faith is subjective and therefore precluded from being "proof". To date, there is no direct unrefutable physical evidence that any supposed "god" exists. Likewise, logic is an aspect of various belief systems. Scientifically speaking, "god" had yet to be proven to exist. No doubt you will hold up the Qur'an as physical "proof" but that phyiscal "proof" is valid only to the believer. Non-believers simply do not accept that a given religion's books are credible evidence. At best, they are simply wishful thinking.

Realistically speaking we have it by the slimest accounts that a man named Jesus lived amoung us. There is not a single shred of physical evidence or unrefutable records that exist at this time to verify that he in fact did live.

Actaully, we don't prove God's existance by physical means, as I explained above...
God is proven by logic and mind, added to our faith (whatever it was, because we are discussing the idea of God generally)

Ofcaurse you can not prove God's existance by physical meaning, and anyone who claims is doesn't even understand God....

God is not describable by physical means...

I think you will be asking a question now, but I prefer to wait untill you ask it yourself..!

 

[Fluffy]

Hi...
Using your logic, we can also say that signs can be a mean of observation..

Heya .

Signs are absolutely a mean of observation but it is incorrect to call them signs since this presupposes their origin before analysis! In order to treat them scientifically, you would need to determine where an event was or was not a sign of God before referring to it as such.

If you are walking alone in the desert, and found a car tyre, you will be certain that someone was there...
And we know God by his signs in the universe...

God's tyre tracks are really all I am looking for.

But lets look at your tyre tracks first. It would be a invalid conclusion to say that a car tyre found in the desert was evidence of human prescence unless you could also draw on other evidence such as, for example, seeing a car or a car tyre being made or used by another human.

Now we all of course have this evidence available to us so it seems trivial to point it out. But it is not trivial to the person who has never seen a car before in his life. If you lived in a state of isolation and happened across this car tyre then it would be an entirely invalid conclusion if you decided that this indicated that somebody else had been there. We actually need much more evidence to reach this conclusion logically and it is only because this evidence is readily available that we miss it.

Unfortunately, in the case of God, this other evidence is not readily available and so we cannot look at something (like an atom) and say it implies a creator. We only know a tyre requires a human because of our knowledge of humans. We can only say an atom is the work of God if we already have knowledge of God.

In Egypt we have a proverb which is said to someone who don't use his mind often, it says:'' God is known by mind''
And thats to some extent true, since the only evidence for God's existance is the existance of His creations...And you need no further evidence to prove Him..

Anything can be evidence for anything. In order for something to be evidence for something then it requires an argument of some sort since otherwise we have no reasonable way of moving from the evidence to the conclusion.

It is therefore insufficient to say creation is evidence of God since we need a reason for why it is evidence for God. Yes if God created the world, it would indeed be evidence but to assume this, use it to support evidence, and then reach it as a conclusion would be entirely circular.

 

[linwood]

Don`t take that bait eudaimonia.

"I don`t know" ....is a perfectly acceptable answer.
In fact, when you don`t know, it is the only honest answer.

 

[eudaimonia]

I agree, it's not someone...You say it's a natural process...describe it then, and whatever theory you provide, lets discuss its validity..

The process depends on what sort of "creation" you are talking about. If you mean complex lifeforms, then evolution theory is the most rational and well-supported one there is. I do not insist that it is perfect or complete in every detail, but that it is the most strongly supported theory given the evidence.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[EiNsTeiN]

Heya .

Signs are absolutely a mean of observation but it is incorrect to call them signs since this presupposes their origin before analysis! In order to treat them scientifically, you would need to determine where an event was or was not a sign of God before referring to it as such.



God's tyre tracks are really all I am looking for.

But lets look at your tyre tracks first. It would be a invalid conclusion to say that a car tyre found in the desert was evidence of human prescence unless you could also draw on other evidence such as, for example, seeing a car or a car tyre being made or used by another human.

Now we all of course have this evidence available to us so it seems trivial to point it out. But it is not trivial to the person who has never seen a car before in his life. If you lived in a state of isolation and happened across this car tyre then it would be an entirely invalid conclusion if you decided that this indicated that somebody else had been there. We actually need much more evidence to reach this conclusion logically and it is only because this evidence is readily available that we miss it.

Unfortunately, in the case of God, this other evidence is not readily available and so we cannot look at something (like an atom) and say it implies a creator. We only know a tyre requires a human because of our knowledge of humans. We can only say an atom is the work of God if we already have knowledge of God.

Anything can be evidence for anything. In order for something to be evidence for something then it requires an argument of some sort since otherwise we have no reasonable way of moving from the evidence to the conclusion.

It is therefore insufficient to say creation is evidence of God since we need a reason for why it is evidence for God. Yes if God created the world, it would indeed be evidence but to assume this, use it to support evidence, and then reach it as a conclusion would be entirely circular.

You are trying to prove your point by saying evidences are relative to the observer....But hey, that doesn't deny the Facts...

If I'm a man who never saw a car tyre, or know what's a car even, and saw a car tyre, perfectly round with Zigzagi lines on its surface...I don't need to know the tyre in order to know it's human made...So obvious this can not be there by itself, someone (or something) must have driven it to here...it's simple..

The process depends on what sort of "creation" you are talking about. If you mean complex lifeforms, then evolution theory is the most rational and well-supported one there is. I do not insist that it is perfect or complete in every detail, but that it is the most strongly supported theory given the evidence.

Hi Mark...In order you didnt notice, evolution is being rejected by many scientists and has no evidance to prove it...at least on a big scale, which means we can not describe the creation of complex matters with it, nor explain the mind, nor Metaphysical phenomenea, nor miracles, even nor the dreams you get while asleep...
And the creation of the universe also includes not living stuff...dont forget...
You have planets, stars, seas...lots of stuff that needs more explaination than evolution

 

[doppelganger]

If I'm a man who never saw a car tyre, or know what's a car even, and saw a car tyre, perfectly round with Zigzagi lines on its surface...I don't need to know the tyre in order to know it's human made...So obvious this can not be there by itself, someone (or something) must have driven it to here...it's simple..

This analogy, the next step in which is to imply an anthropomorphized deity as the "Creatorm" is flawed for the simple reason that it changes the meaning of a term in the middle of the debate.

Nomeaningful discussion of the existence of an objectified "God" (or anything for that matter) can be had without some consensus as to the definition of what is being investigated.

Here the symbol is transformed back and forth as needed between two things: (1) the experience of not knowing the first cause predicated on the assumption that all effects have causes; and (2) the experience of anthropomorphized deity created in the imagination. The logic and evidence behind (1) has completely nothing to do with (2).

Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science", Ideas and Opinions (N.Y.: Crown, 1954):

As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as "methodical thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our sensual experiences." Science, in the immediate, produces knowledge and, indirectly, means of action. It leads to methodical action if definite goals are set up in advance. For the function of setting up goals and passing statements of value transcends its domain. While it is true that science, to the extent of its grasp of causative connections, may reach important conclusions as to the compatibility and incompatibility of goals and evaluations, the independent and fundamental definitions regarding goals and values remain beyond science's reach.

As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that it deals with goals and evaluations and, in general, with the emotional foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are not predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the human species. Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and communal life, and with mutual human relationship.

These ideals religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of the accepted ideals.
It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science. Thus, it is of vital importance for the preservation of true religion that such conflicts be avoided when they arise from subjects which, in fact, are not really essential for the pursuance of the religious aims.

 

[doppelganger]

And from Einstein's address to Princeton Theological Seminary on May 19, 1939 from Out of My Later Years (N.Y.hilosophical Library, 1950):

The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required--not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone could be found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to human self-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are able to predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with great precision and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of the modern man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contents of those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within the solar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though not with the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the mode of operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a wireless apparatus, even when dealing with a novel development.

To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.

We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself.
The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.

But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task. (This thought is convincingly presented in Herbert Samuel's book, Belief and Action.) After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge.

Emphasis added.

 

[eudaimonia]

Hi Mark...In order you didnt notice, evolution is being rejected by many scientists and has no evidance to prove it...

I didn't notice this because it is not true.

BTW, my father is a research scientist (a biochemist), and I follow science news regularly. I know enough about science to know that you are being lied to about science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[linwood]

.In order you didnt notice, evolution is being rejected by many scientists and has no evidance to prove it...at least on a big scale,

Please elaborate on this comment.

What scientists have rejected the theory of evolution?
The theory of evolution is riddled with falsifiable evidence throughout all it`s sciences.
Medicinal, archeological, micribiology, on and on...

 

[YmirGF]

Actaully, we don't prove God's existance by physical means, as I explained above...

God is proven by logic and mind, added to our faith (whatever it was, because we are discussing the idea of God generally)

Ofcaurse you can not prove God's existance by physical meaning, and anyone who claims is doesn't even understand God....

God is not describable by physical means...

I think you will be asking a question now, but I prefer to wait untill you ask it yourself..!

OK then, in theory you can understand that my response directly addressed your exact words just prior to that response. I quote.

We are sure about God's existance either from

our faith or from physical and logical proofs....and you are the ones asked to prove your point....so just play your role

So for you to respond in the manner you have is completely disingenuous.
I quote:

Actaully, we don't prove God's existance by physical means, as I explained above...

God is proven by logic and mind, added to our faith (whatever it was, because we are discussing the idea of God generally)

Ofcaurse you can not prove God's existance by physical meaning, and anyone who claims is doesn't even understand God....

God is not describable by physical means...

I think you will be asking a question now, but I prefer to wait untill you ask it yourself..!

So in one breath you say you are sure about god’s existence “from our faith or from physical and logical proofs” and then in the next breath you say “we don't prove God's existance by physical means”. “God is proven by logic and mind, added to our faith”

What you utterly fail to grasp is that you sense of “logic” is what we do not accept. Given that it is logical to you and not logical to me should be a rather large warning sign to you. True logic, should be readily understandable to ANYONE. Capiche?

What you do not seem to "get" is that it is your logic that is circular and that is just not "cricket".

Likewise you mused to the reverred Fluffmeister:

Hi Mark...In order you didnt notice, evolution is being rejected by many scientists and has no evidance to prove it...at least on a big scale, which means we can not describe the creation of complex matters with it, nor explain the mind, nor Metaphysical phenomenea, nor miracles, even nor the dreams you get while asleep...
And the creation of the universe also includes not living stuff...dont forget...
You have planets, stars, seas...lots of stuff that needs more explaination than evolution

After reading that I clearly understand that there is no point in reasoning with you. Evolution is hardly on its last legs. Whomever has told you that it is is clearly delusional... or has a motive for bending your thinking.

 

[Tiberius]

We are sure about God's existance either from our faith or from physical and logical proofs....and you are the ones asked to prove your point....so just play your role

Really? Your physical and logical proofs lead to such certainty? Wow! What physical and logical proofs are you using, because the ones I've heard are complete rubbish!

And faith is little more than wishful thinking.

 

[Rough_ER]

We are sure about God's existance either from our faith or from physical and logical proofs....and you are the ones asked to prove your point....so just play your role

I am sure of the flying spaghetti monster's existence, from both my faith and from physical and logical proofs.... I am asking you to prove his non-existence, just play your role.

I am not mocking you here, I just find it ridiculous that people think they can claim the existence of an undetectable entity, then tell everyone else that it's their job to prove the entity doesn't exist. Provide some real evidence, then maybe a reasonable debate may be possible.

 

[logician]

If a god existed, and wanted everyone to know it existed, there would be no doubt it existed. Since there is doubt by many, either it doesn't exist, or doesn't care to make known it exists. If it doesn't care to make known it exists, then why should we care it exists? Or, it doesn't exist.

 

[Random]

If a god existed, and wanted everyone to know it existed, there would be no doubt it existed. Since there is doubt by many, either it doesn't exist, or doesn't care to make known it exists. If it doesn't care to make known it exists, then why should we care it exists? Or, it doesn't exist.

Isn't doubt a vital component of Truth?

 

[EiNsTeiN]

OK then, in theory you can understand that my response directly addressed your exact words just prior to that response. I quote.


So for you to respond in the manner you have is completely disingenuous.
I quote:


So in one breath you say you are sure about god’s existence “from our faith or from physical and logical proofs” and then in the next breath you say “we don't prove God's existance by physical means”. “God is proven by logic and mind, added to our faith”

What you utterly fail to grasp is that you sense of “logic” is what we do not accept. Given that it is logical to you and not logical to me should be a rather large warning sign to you. True logic, should be readily understandable to ANYONE. Capiche?

What you do not seem to "get" is that it is your logic that is circular and that is just not "cricket".

Likewise you mused to the reverred Fluffmeister:
After reading that I clearly understand that there is no point in reasoning with you. Evolution is hardly on its last legs. Whomever has told you that it is is clearly delusional... or has a motive for bending your thinking.

Well, it was just a language mistake, I didnt mean by the first ''physical'', a physical proof, I meant the universe existance (Physically)...But we can not prove the existance of God ''Physically" (By physical means)

About the evolution theory, it's not a perfect theory, and you cant deny it...even if it has proven validity is some cases doesnt mean it can explain further more...
Anyway it's not in my field of interest so I cant discuss it deeply.Although I know from high school that it still has many issues to be discussed...

I will accept it here anyway for the sake of discussion...

You all said evolution describes ''it''....while ''it'' is the creation of the entire universe, which has nothing to do with evolution which only describes the life beings...

So, Im sorry, but even if evolution was 100% perfect, still doesnt answer the question (which i will expand to open new doors for discussion)...Where does everything come from?..

linwood and eudaimonia, I will not discuss something i dont know, but I, pretty sure the theory is still under development and can not be used (in its current terms) to describe every living matters and behavior...