Atheists: If God existed…

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"I don't know" is not an answer.

Not only is it an answer, it's sometimes the only honest answer.

You can say you deny something then, say you don't know what you all accept in order not to deny it.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Are you trying to suggest that an atheist has to believe that there must be some way to reasonably convince a person of the existence of gods?

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, God could easily do that:

“Consider the mercy of God and His gifts. He enjoineth upon you that which shall profit you, though He Himself can well dispense with all creatures. Your evil doings can never harm Us, neither can your good works profit Us. We summon you wholly for the sake of God. To this every man of understanding and insight will testify.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 140

Isn't it amazing how this Bahá’u’lláh seems to know that God can well dispense with all creatures even if according to you the Mind of God is unknowable?

 

[Trailblazer]

Precisely. So the fact that God hasn't bothered to convince me suggests that either:

- God doesn't want me to believe in him, or
- God does not exist.

God wants you to believe in Him but God does not want to convince you.
God wants you to convince yourself by looking at the evidence He provides.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God wants you to believe in Him but God does not want to convince you.

This is a contradiction.

God wants you to convince yourself by looking at the evidence He provides.

If this were true, this would just be one method of God convincing me. Apparently, God doesn't want me to believe in him badly enough to actually provide decent evidence... possibly because non-existent gods don't want things (or provide evidence).

BTW: don't you always criticize people when they claim to know the mind of God? Why are you doing it?

 

[ChristineM]

It would be if there was no evidence.

Round and round we go.

Would you believe we have been here before (at least twice) so maybe this will be the last time (i hope). There is no valid evidence for god and even the invalid stuff (look around you etc) has far better and verifyable, measurable explanations than god did it with magic

You are of course are fully entitled to believe whatever you want about whoever you want. But to make extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

 

[ArtieE]

God wants you to believe in Him but God does not want to convince you.
God wants you to convince yourself by looking at the evidence He provides.

If God's mind is unknowable as you say how can you possibly pretend to know what goes on in his mind?

 

[sealchan]

An atheist on my forum said: “if God existed, then proof of his existence would be possible. The proof isn't there, and the best explanation for that lack of proof would be that neither is the god there.”

If God existed, would God provide proof of His existence? If you answer yes, please explain why you think that God would provide proof of His existence.

Is it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence? If you think it possible that God exists and has chosen not to provide proof of His existence, why do you think God would choose not to provide proof of His existence?

I am not talking about evidence, I am talking about absolute proof, in which case God would be established as a fact, like a scientific fact everyone would agree upon.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

A God that is subject to proof is not really a God worth believing in except to a young or otherwise immature mind.

 

[sealchan]

God wants you to believe in Him but God does not want to convince you.
God wants you to convince yourself by looking at the evidence He provides.

Now take this the next step...God is a willingness to co-create the reality of ourselves as not only a subjective soul with conscious agency but an objective psyche with an emergent psychological reality. We believe in God to help us believe in ourselves. When the former does not serve the latter then belief has turned against itself.

And the trick is that belief in God should integrate with current scientific knowledge in order to effectively serve the greater, objective social and psychological needs of the individual and their society. This means that a God worth believing in comes with as little literal proof as science will allow. Even as a belief in God is good for moderating the sense of entitlement of the ego, a belief in God should also support and strengthen the ego in a healthy manner.

So to believe in God should require the same sort of effort that a belief in ones self entails. With so little evidence at hand to say that we are valued and special in this vast universe, it takes a bit of grit to believe in it, and God is just the sort of imaginary friend to make that grit stick.

 

[Earthtank]

Not only is it an answer, it's sometimes the only honest answer.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

Are you trying to suggest that an atheist has to believe that there must be some way to reasonably convince a person of the existence of gods?

Yes, it might be the only honest answer but, that does not stop it from being a useless one. It's an answer that answers nothing. For example, you ever ask someone " where do you want to eat?" and they answer "i don't know". See? It's an answer, an honest one too, but still a useless one. What's worse is when you actually suggest a place to eat then they say "No" or " i don't like that place". Answers, whether honest or not need to be useful to further the conversation and try to reach a mutual understanding. Otherwise, if the best and most honest answer is "i don't know" they are better off not talking or wasting anyone's time.


"Are you trying to suggest that an atheist has to believe that there must be some way to reasonably convince a person of the existence of gods?"

No, I am saying how do you deny something, and the evidence that, that person brings forth then, say "i don't know what i would accept as evidence however, i know what you're saying is not false". Seems intellectually dishonest.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To worship God just means to love God

Not to me. The words love and worship have distinct meanings. One I do gladly, the other not.

My life has never been a picnic and it is not getting much better

Sorry to read that.

first you have to have faith

That path is off limits for me. I've already explained why I reject faith as a path to truth. Any method that lets one believe a wrong idea as easily as a correct one is not a good method for deciding what is true about the world. If faith is the only path to theism, then I will never be a theist. I am a died in the wool rational skeptic. I need a substantial reason to believe anything.

It is not as if God expects blind faith, God provides evidence of His existence through Messengers

I don't consider any words written by men to be evidence for a god. It is evidence of a god belief, not a god.

We are assured that if we are a true seeker and fulfilled certain conditions, we will be guided

I need more than such assurances. People are happy to make promises that cannot be verified and need not be kept. I've already gone down that true seeker path, and was disappointed.

God wants you to convince yourself by looking at the evidence He provides

The evidence is consistent with a godless universe. I believe that I've given you the restricted choice argument before. It argues that in a universe ruled by an omnipotent, omnisicient god, there might be a holy book so impressive that no man could have written it, or not, but in a godless universe, only the latter is possible. There are dozens of these, and in every case, what we see is what we would see in a godless universe.

The argument is similar to concluding that a coin is loaded if it flips to tails every time. With a fair coin, the result could have been heads or tails, but with the loaded coin, only tails comes up. After awhile, it is safe to assume that the coin is loaded even if there is a minute possibility that the coin is a fair coin. That's about where I am with the god issue. My world is best understood without needlessly injecting gods into it.

what do you think "a god" is?

I'm generally referring to a sentient, volitional agent capable of creating universes, but the word can also be used to refer to less, as with the Greek and Viking pantheons..

what are your general thoughts on paganism?

I know very little about it.

Proof Does exist for those who take the effort it takes to Discover it. Discovery and Truth isn't about Believing or Convincing.

Proof is that which convinces. For me, that is evidence that can only be reasonably interpreted in one way. The evidence offered for gods in venues like this is feelings, feelings I've also experienced, and have also formerly misinterpreted as something more than my own mind.

if one assumes that God does not exist because the answers are not served up on a silver platter, one is unlikely to Discover anything at all.

The agnostic atheist does not assume that gods don't exist. He simply requires sufficient evidence before believing that they do. I believe that there is a sun the sky, but not a god. Why? One reveals itself through the evidence of its heat and light, the other doesn't. It's really that simple.

That's a useful metaphor. Each cell is capable of being reached and communicated with by the collective, the organism. If I want to reach a sensory neuron such as the temperature receptors on my skin, I send it a message that it can receive - a neuronal stimulus. If I want to "speak" to a leukocyte, I do so with a foreign antigen, which it will engulf if it is a macrophage, or elucidate antigen-specific antibodies if it is a B-lymphocyte. The point is that we can communicate with these cells according to the limits of our abilities to reach them. You and I are capable of much more sophisticated reactions. We can understand and use language, for example. Yet no god is speaking to me, and I'm pretty sure I know why. If such a god exists, it has no more interest in you or me than we have in the 13-millionth oldest leukocyte in our immune systems at this instant. This idea of a concerned god existing that hasn't or can't reach us is ludicrous.

This in no way equates to "speaking to a cell". And the point is that the cell cannot grasp the whole body within which it resides, and from which it gains it's nature, sustenance and purpose. It is not within the cell's capacity. Just as it is not within a human's capacity to grasp the ultimate source of our nature, sustenance, and purpose. Nothing is being "hidden" from us. We are simply not equipped to grasp the whole truth.

But I'm not looking to understand what I am not equipped to understand. My point was that the component - cells in this this case comprising a multicellular organism - can be reached to the limit of its ability to interpret and respond to stimuli. For a leukocyte, that is the ability to recognize a foreign antigen and generate a defense against it. Human beings have much more ability, but nobody is reaching out even to the level we are equipped to experience and understand. I don't accept the notion that human beings could not directly experience a god if there was one to experience.

I'm not looking for a god's-eye view of gods, just a human being's view. Those that tell me that I'm getting nothing because the whole is too great to grasp in its entirety aren't convincing. Then, this view will be called treating God like a short-order cook or wanting things served on a silver platter, as if it is expecting too much to be given what can be understood.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I am saying how do you deny something, and the evidence that, that person brings forth then, say "i don't know what i would accept as evidence however, i know what you're saying is not false". Seems intellectually dishonest.

It seems like you're assuming a lot of things about atheists that you aren't coming out and saying.

If a person has no reason to believe that a god or gods exist, then they're justified in not believing in any gods.

If they can't think of a scenario where a hypothetical body of evidence would justify belief in gods, then it seems to me that the fact they don't believe is more reasonable, not less.

 

[PureX]

You’re also evading the key question of “evidence of what?”. In addition to these things, good evidence is repeatable, so other people can easily observe it too. It will still be subject to the limitations of personal perception of course, which is exactly why having multiple people independently assess it is so important. The other reason for needing a defined hypothesis is that there can be difference evidence for (or against) that hypothesis, meaning there is no need to rely exclusively on the singular focus.

But it's a mistake in logic to presume that the commonality of human experience implies a greater probability of truth. It implies a greater probability of functionality, but not a greater probability of truth. Yet this is a mistake in logic that a LOT of people hold onto.

That shouldn’t be necessarily to establish a simple fact of something existing. What an individual believes or not doesn’t make any difference to the facts.

But a fact requires the belief that it is factual (true within it's perceived context). So it cannot be extricated from belief, to stand alone, as you are suggesting. This is the failure of philosophical materialism: this presumption that facts are "objective" existential entities, when they are not.

In fact it can obviously influence their perception, as you pointed out yourself. If only people who already believe in something can perceive the evidence of it though, doesn’t it seem perfectly plausible that their subjective perceptions are biased and flawed?

Yes, they very likely are. But this is the case for ALL OF US, because of the limits imposed by the human condition. Not just for those who confuse their experienced perception of reality with reality beyond their perceptual experience.

Again, I wouldn’t be making such a strong argument against faith if the thread hadn’t been started as a discussion of evidence and proof. You’re free to believe anything you want to as far as I’m concerned. I’m only going to question you if you present that belief as evidence.

But evidence has to be believed to be "evidence".

 

[PureX]

But I'm not looking to understand what I am not equipped to understand.

How could you know this until you've understood everything that you've ever questioned?

My point was that the component - cells in this this case comprising a multicellular organism - can be reached to the limit of its ability to interpret and respond to stimuli. For a leukocyte, that is the ability to recognize a foreign antigen and generate a defense against it. Human beings have much more ability, but nobody is reaching out even to the level we are equipped to experience and understand. I don't accept the notion that human beings could not directly experience a god if there was one to experience.

I don't get what "reaching out" has to do with anything. The truth is 'what is'. It's everywhere, all the time. It's not hiding from us. We are simply incapable of grasping the totality of it. And lacking that ability means we don't get to know or understand the whole truth. And given our conceptual presumptions of "God" as the origin, motivation, and purpose of all that is, one would clearly need to know and understand 'what is' to know or understand the God that generates it all.

I'm not looking for a god's-eye view of gods, just a human being's view.

Our view comes by faith, not by knowledge. Until you understand that, and accept that, you will see nothing of the divine.

Those that tell me that I'm getting nothing because the whole is too great to grasp in its entirety aren't convincing.

Why, do you actually think that you CAN grasp the whole of existence?

Then, this view will be called treating God like a short-order cook or wanting things served on a silver platter, as if it is expecting too much to be given what can be understood.

It IS too much to expect to be given that which cannot be grasped.

 

[ArtieE]

But a fact requires the belief that it is factual (true within it's perceived context). So it cannot be extricated from belief, to stand alone, as you are suggesting. This is the failure of philosophical materialism: this presumption that facts are "objective" existential entities, when they are not.

It's a fact that my car is standing in the yard right now. If everybody on the planet vanished and there was nobody left to believe that it's factually true that my car is standing there wouldn't it be true that my car would still be standing there regardless?

 

[HonestJoe]

But a fact requires the belief that it is factual (true within it's perceived context).

That is entirely different from requiring faith as a prerequisite for knowledge. If you don't understand the difference, I've no interest in trying to explain and if you do understand the difference, I've no interest in playing your games.

 

[PureX]

It's a fact that my car is standing in the yard right now.

It's a fact TO YOU. Meaning that YOU believe it to be true within the context you have assigned it.

If everybody on the planet vanished and there was nobody left to believe that it's factually true that my car is standing there wouldn't it be true that my car would still be standing there regardless?

If everyone vanished from existence, there would be no more "facts". There would be no more "cars". There would be no more "yards". Nothing would "stand", anywhere, ever. All of these phenomenological concepts only exist in the minds of humans. Whatever exists beyond or apart from human cognition is not knowable by us.

 

[PureX]

That is entirely different from requiring faith as a prerequisite for knowledge.

How? What is "knowing" if not an act of faith: the act of trusting in our own perceived experience of existence as being an actual experience of existence, and then in our own understanding of that experience as being an accurate understanding of it?

 

[ArtieE]

It's a fact TO YOU. Meaning that YOU believe it to be true within the context you have assigned it.
If everyone vanished from existence, there would be no more "facts". There would be no more "cars". There would be no more "yards". Nothing would "stand", anywhere, ever. All of these phenomenological concepts only exist in the minds of humans. Whatever exists beyond or apart from human cognition is not knowable by us.

But PureX, the car and the yard would still exist if all humans suddenly disappeared. The car and the yard wouldn't disappear. Cats could still lie on top of the car.

 

[PureX]

But PureX, the car and the yard would still exist if all humans suddenly disappeared.

No, it wouldn't. All that would exist would be energy, expressing itself in various ways, and not expressing itself in other ways. Recognizing those complex entities and forms in that expression of energy happens only in the human mind (barring any intelligent alien life forms).

 

[ArtieE]

No, it wouldn't. All that would exist would be energy, expressing itself in various ways, and not expressing itself in other ways. Recognizing those complex entities and forms in that expression of energy happens only in the human mind (barring any intelligent alien life forms).

Then how come cats could still lie on top of the car even if all humans disappeared?