Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Vile Atheist]

I used to respect the atheist's position. I have no respect for it, now.

If any of you can manage a polite conversation, I'll be happy to engage, otherwise I'm done with this thread.

Further shows your irrationality. If you cannot defend your beliefs on the basis of evidence like you claimed you could, then don't complain when people reject your beliefs.

I have had plenty of polite conversations with theists. Especially on these forums. But I refuse to lend any respect to beliefs that completely disregard established fact.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Response: The proof of the existence of God is obvious. For if any of us looked around us right now at any of the things in existence, each any every object is a creation from a creator. Show me anything around you right now which was not created? You can't. We can't. It came to be by being created. Even if you say that something evolved, the process of evolution itself is a form of creating. For the only way possible for something to exists is it being created. That being said, the universe and life itself had to have been created as well, and that creator is Allah(God).

You say God exists. You say everything that exists has a creator. Therefore God has a creator, by your own logic. What created Allah(God)?

 

[PureX]

Response: The proof of the existence of God is obvious. For if any of us looked around us right now at any of the things in existence, each any every object is a creation from a creator. Show me anything around you right now which was not created? You can't. We can't. It came to be by being created. Even if you say that something evolved, the process of evolution itself is a form of creating. For the only way possible for something to exists is it being created. That being said, the universe and life itself had to have a creator. The question to ask is who or what the creator is. As a muslim, I say that the creator is none other than Allah(swt).

I agree with you that everything had to be "created". But when you use the term "God" as the creator, what do you envision?

What is "God " to you?

 

[Fatihah]

You say God exists. You say everything that exists has a creator. Therefore God has a creator, by your own logic. What created Allah(God)?

Response: I said that every creation has a creator and that for something to come into existence it has to be created, not that everything that exists has a creator. And Allah has no creator, for Allah never came into existence. He always existed.

 

[Fatihah]

I agree with you that everything had to be "created". But when you use the term "God" as the creator, what do you envision?

What is "God " to you?

Response: "God" is the Supreme Being and the originator of everything that exists and has complete power, control, and knowledge of everything that exists.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Response: I said that every creation has a creator and that for something to come into existence it has to be created, not that everything that exists has a creator. And Allah has no creator, for Allah never came into existence. He always existed.

Alright. Great.

Now do you consider it a possibility that the basic materials that make up the universe have always existed in some form or another?

 

[Vile Atheist]

Response: "God" is the Supreme Being and the originator of everything that exists.

I've gathered that much. But what else do you envision God as? An all-loving being? All-intelligent? All-powerful?

Maybe you see God as vengeful and vindictive? I don't know, you tell me.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I'm headed to calculus and chem lectures now, but I will be back later tonight. I'll get back to whatever answers you provide.

 

[Fatihah]

Alright. Great.

Now do you consider it a possibility that the basic materials that make up the universe have always existed in some form or another?

Response: If you mean in a physical form, then no. But in the knowledge or plan of Allah, yes.

 

[Fatihah]

I've gathered that much. But what else do you envision God as? An all-loving being? All-intelligent? All-powerful?

Maybe you see God as vengeful and vindictive? I don't know, you tell me.

Response: Yes. Allah(God) is all-loving and has complete power of all things. He is all-intelligent, as well as most gracious, and most merciful.

 

[Alceste]

I have a hypothesis that it's because theists are otherwise rational people. They would normally accept science UNTIL it conflicts with their theology. And when it does, they feel they must continue to validate it in a pseudo-scientific way, to at least attempt to reconcile their beliefs with their (otherwise) rationality. I could be wrong, though.

I think that may be true, but I also think that maybe our culture overvalues rational thinking. There's no valid reason to conclude logic and reason are "better" than creative imagination, yet we often dismiss the work of artists, musicians and storytellers as pointless frivolity while believing that science is a serious, important business that deserves our utmost respect and deference. Religion is squarely in the category of "storytelling" - regardless of the factuality of any of its claims, it's primary purpose is to attempt to convey our cultural and ethical heritage through a narrative. If our culture refuses to take storytelling as an important and meaningful social contribution, it's only natural that some storytellers might react by trying to reframe their stories in the context of logic and reason.

I think that's a losing strategy, personally. Instead of trying to destroy reason and logic by trying to force it to fit a narrative, storytellers - including religious people - should promote the value and significance of the creative imagination.

 

[Copernicus]

I think that may be true, but I also think that maybe our culture overvalues rational thinking. There's no valid reason to conclude logic and reason are "better" than creative imagination...

I've been thinking of starting another thread on how irrational thinking is actually essential to our survival, but I don't want to derail the discussion here. The point is that we need to be able to see both sides of every argument. Sometimes survival depends on changing one's mind quickly. If we mistake a bear for a rock, we need to be able to revise that opinion very quickly.

Belief in God depends on much more than immediate perception of conditions in our environment. There are a lot of interlocking beliefs that are necessary to support it. For example, belief in an immaterial "spirit" plane of existence and immaterial minds seems to be a prerequisite for belief in gods. If logic (consistent thinking) leads you to drop confidence in a "spirit world" or an immaterial mind (i.e. a mind that depends on some physical process for its existence), then belief in gods is undermined. Loss of belief in souls weakens (but does not totally eliminate) belief in God. People shift between atheism and theism only when there is a cascade of effects on our beliefs about the world, and those kinds of cascades are events that should not happen too often.

 

[Copernicus]

Response: I said that every creation has a creator and that for something to come into existence it has to be created, not that everything that exists has a creator. And Allah has no creator, for Allah never came into existence. He always existed.

Fatihah, I agree with you that every creation has a creator, but I think that you are missing the point. By calling something a "creation", you presuppose a creator.

The question here is whether physical reality is a "creation" or whether it has always just existed. Now, you claim that Allah has always existed. That is, Allah is not a "creation". The challenge put to you is that it is equally reasonable to assume that physical reality is not a "creation". If that were true, then there would be no need to presuppose an Allah. Hence, your argument works only if you "beg the question". That is, you ignore the question of whether or not physical reality is a "creation".

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think that may be true, but I also think that maybe our culture overvalues rational thinking. There's no valid reason to conclude logic and reason are "better" than creative imagination, yet we often dismiss the work of artists, musicians and storytellers as pointless frivolity while believing that science is a serious, important business that deserves our utmost respect and deference.

Logic and reason are often greater components of creativity and imagination than people realize. I think it's a false dichotomy.

 

[PureX]

Further shows your irrationality. If you cannot defend your beliefs on the basis of evidence like you claimed you could, then don't complain when people reject your beliefs.

I can, I did, several times, and you can't accept that. I see now that it was a waste of time.

 

[Copernicus]

We're over 20 pages into this thread and I have yet to see anyone offer any evidence against the existence of God. Atheists don't seem to offer anything. Or propose anything. They just want to attack whatever theists offer.

Purex, your emotional response to my post was understandable, and I quite often feel flashes of frustration and anger when I read your posts. I started out reading this thread because I felt it might be a call for atheists to offer reasons for rejecting belief in God or gods. That is something that I am quite happy to do. However, the OP did not really lead me in that direction. Instead, it contained some of your positive reasons for belief in God, and that opened the floodgates for people to attack your proffered reasons for religious faith. Hence, you didn't get that chance to evaluate the kinds of thoughts that lead us to abandon theism. That happened quite a few decades ago for me, and my thoughts on the subject have evolved considerably since my initial rejection. I doubt that my response then for rejecting theism would look very much like my response now.

One thing I like to do occasionally is post a list of positive reasons for rejecting belief in gods (including the Abrahamic concepts of God). I haven't done that here, but I didn't think that the OP was calling for such a list. I could point you to other threads (or a blog post) where I have gone through those reasons. Usually, such posts lead to long discussion chains, and, as you point out, this one is now well over 20 pages.

 

[Commoner]

I can, I did, several times, and you can't accept that. I see now that it was a waste of time.

I thought you were having fun?!

Fun is never a waste of time!

 

[Fatihah]

Fatihah, I agree with you that every creation has a creator, but I think that you are missing the point. By calling something a "creation", you presuppose a creator.

The question here is whether physical reality is a "creation" or whether it has always just existed. Now, you claim that Allah has always existed. That is, Allah is not a "creation". The challenge put to you is that it is equally reasonable to assume that physical reality is not a "creation". If that were true, then there would be no need to presuppose an Allah. Hence, your argument works only if you "beg the question". That is, you ignore the question of whether or not physical reality is a "creation".

Response: To the contrary, the question I pose is within itself adressing the question as to whether or not physical reality is a creation, for the question I posed is asking for you to explain how the things around you came into existence. I never stated that everything was created, but rather asking how it came to be. However, once we do analyze everything around us, the answer to the question is obvious. And that is that everything is in fact a creation from a creator.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

PureX has treated us to a Herculean effort demonstrating that the BELIEF in god(s) exist. After even more sincere exertion he has observed that for some believers this "god" belief has allowed them to experience a "divine" presence. In their heads.

From this unremarkable and rather trivial discovery he extrapolates to the fact of God(s) existence. Which god and how define - not important apparently. Merely labeling everything currently unknown as "god" suffices.

(A corollary of this position quickly follows. What "god" IS is an ever changing thing. Steadily shrinking before the advance of human knowledge. The implications of THAT I leave to your imagination)

What we have seen here for these 20+ pages is a deliberate and sincere attempt to elevate UPG to the level of evidence for some god thingy.

My daughter had a powerful UPG experience with an invisible friend named Sarah.

When she was 5.

 

[Beaudreaux]

This analogy is ridiculously biased. I've clearly posted many times an example of a religious/theological based prescription that does clearly work for people. Aren't you embarrassed to post such blatantly biased nonsense? Or are you really that blind to it?

How is that nonsense???? Many people believe in totems. Wear a bag of herbs and bones and such around your neck and you will ward off evil spirits. And the evil spirits never come. See how good it works? Why isn't that evidence for the validity of totem bags?