Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[ERLOS]

When crisis comes enough that a person finally cries from the depth of soul to God as the only remaining possibility of help, then God will either come, or not.

God will come. I guarantee. Any time, any place, any faith or non-faith. The aid may not be what's expected. The event may stay, but the fear removed. Stuff like that

Spiritual help did come. And is always with me.

That's how I know.

How do I prove that in a laboratory?

 

[ERLOS]

The Holy Spirit is not going to dance to prove (himself) to satisfy anyone's idle curiosity, though. There are spiritual laws, as there are natural laws.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When crisis comes enough that a person finally cries from the depth of soul to God as the only remaining possibility of help, then God will either come, or not.

God will come. I guarantee. The aid may not be what's expected. The event may stay, but the fear removed. Stuff like that

Spiritual help did come. And is always with me.

That's how I know.

How do I prove that in a laboratory?

It could have been coincidence. You could have pulled through based on your own efforts. If one can't reliably test an idea how does one know that it was not help from God? And what of the many where God does not come no matter how earnest their pleas are? Does that disprove a God? To be of any use a test must cut both ways.

 

[ERLOS]

It could have been coincidence. You could have pulled through based on your own efforts. If one can't reliably test an idea how does one know that it was not help from God? And what of the many where God does not come no matter how earnest their pleas are? Does that disprove a God? To be of any use a test must cut both ways.

It could have been. It's possible to throw sixes six times on a dice. It might happen six times in a row, six days running.

So that's the point: THERE CAN'T BE PHYSICAL proof. I hope you never find yourself in the desperate position of having to appeal from the depth of soul to this God you choose to anthropomorphise and demand (he) dance for you.

But if you ever do, you'll know for sure, one way or the other. I know God will be there. Then we might have a chance to talk again.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, I Never asked that atheist’s opinion about God. He asked me. It was all his idea to discuss god. After three years, I finally asked him why he spends so much time talking about a god he does not believe exists. He admitted that he does it to refute the God of religion, since his make belief god would never do anything as stupid as my God does, using Messengers to communicate. He also said he does it to keep atheists from falling for religion and to prove that religionists are wrong. But he has never won any arguments with me in over three years. is nothing logical about his position. It is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in my entire life, but of cThereourse I know something about God, so that is how I know it is ridiculous.

No, we have decided what God has actually done, based upon scriptures that indicate that. So we have something rather than nothing.

The salient difference is that we religious believers have a religion to base our beliefs upon. This atheist just makes them up in his head, having no way to know anything about what a real God would do or what a real God wants. You atheists can discount what we religionists have but we have something to base our beliefs upon other than a “personal opinion” of what god would do if god were real.

Finally, he bases his entire argument upon a god that is omnipotent, so it can so ANYTHING, which really translates into “it should do anything I want it to do or else I am not going to believe in it.” He really does not understand that omnipotence cuts both ways so an omnipotent God does not do anything it does not want to do, and as such it doesn’t kowtow to him or any other human.

So he has a god made in his own image, an omnipotent god that is not omniscient. He does not like to talk about the god being omniscient because that means it knows more than he knows, since no human is omniscient, let alone more than omniscient.

How well would that work, a god that has all power but not all knowledge? Sorry, but those attributes of God go hand in hand.

So as I have told him repeatedly, only three logical possibilities exist, given the empirical evidence:

1. God exists and uses Messengers to communicate (theist), or
2. God exists and does not communicate at all (deist), or
3. God does not exist (atheist)

There is no evidence whatsoever and no logical reason to think God is going suddenly change the way He has communicated throughout human history – Messengers.

There is nothing logical about his position. It is the most ridiculous thing I have heard in my entire life, but of course I know something about God, so that is how I know it is ridiculous.

Wow... his claiming that he knows all about his imaginary god is RIDICULOUS... and the reason you KNOW it's ridiculous is because YOU know all about YOUR imaginary god. Do you honestly not see the hypocrisy in such a statement? Can't you see that this atheist is attempting to point out how ridiculous YOUR position is?

The salient difference is that we religious believers have a religion to base our beliefs upon. This atheist just makes them up in his head, having no way to know anything about what a real God would do or what a real God wants. You atheists can discount what we religionists have but we have something to base our beliefs upon other than a “personal opinion” of what god would do if god were real.

The only salient difference that I see is that this atheist admits that he just makes stuff up, while you insist that stuff other people made up is actually real. And in truth, the way that many theist choose to 'interpret' the stuff that other people made up means that the 'truths' they ascertain from these writings is most often no different from their personal opinion. Otherwise you wouldn't have so many theist who claim that god can do ANYTHING, right? Which YOU claim is ridiculous, based upon YOUR personal opinion.

There is no evidence whatsoever and no logical reason to think God is going suddenly change the way He has communicated throughout human history – Messengers.

There is no evidence whatsoever and no logical reason to think that any god exists or that this god has ever used messengers to communicate with humans at any time in history. So the only logical course of action is to remain skeptical and withhold belief in any god(s) UNTIL verifiable evidence for god's existence is presented.

 

[ERLOS]

... And what of the many where God does not come no matter how earnest their pleas are?

How do you know that? How do you know a person's life or destiny? In fact I don't believe you will find a single person to whose sincere and humble prayer there was no response from the divine.

God may bring courage, strength in time of trouble. Mother Mary comes to me, there will be an answer, let it be.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Are you bullying?

I am not the one making the statement of where consciousness originates, i simply asked for evidence of the claim. If people can make up any bull and not be challenged then what is the point of debate?

There is not enough evidence for science to form a conclusive theory on where consciousness originates. To demand evidence from one who suggests where it might originate is an exercise in futility and can be construed as bullying.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Consciousness :

1. the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.
2. a person's awareness or perception of something.

Both are directly associated with the brain/mental ability

Thank you for the definition (though I poked around and find none that mention "responsive to").

Your opinion that both are directly associated with the brain and mental ability is noted.

 

[ERLOS]

...So the only logical course of action is to remain skeptical and withhold belief in any god(s) UNTIL verifiable evidence for god's existence is presented.

Like a flea on a dog's back demanding logical proof from the dog, you mean? Like the dog cares?

EDIT:

http://biblehub.com/kjv/psalms/18.htm

Read Verses 25-30.

 

[ChristineM]

There is not enough evidence for science to form a conclusive theory on where consciousness originates. To demand evidence from one who suggest where it might originate is an exercise in futility and can be construed as bullying.

Yet the definition(s) exist. Neuroscience agrees the seat of consciousness is in the brain. To make a faith based claim that discredits professionals and experts in a specific area of science requires evidence to back that claim. Otherwise its just irrelevant hot air designed to pick an argument, in this case against people whose worldview he disagrees with.

Some papers on consciousness research i believe you indicated to @Subduction Zone didn't exist

https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04033
https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.10508
https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03880

 

[LuisDantas]

@SalixIncendium , have you had the opportunity to read this text?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/a-ghost-in-the-machine/

I find it rather useful at dispelling some popular misconceptions.

 

[ERLOS]

@SalixIncendium , have you had the opportunity to read this text?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/a-ghost-in-the-machine/

I find it rather useful at dispelling some popular misconceptions.

You're taking the watch apart to find where the time is hiding?

 

[ChristineM]

Thank you for the definition (though I poked around and find none that mention "responsive to").

Your opinion that both are directly associated with the brain and mental ability is noted.

You're welcome

Try the Oxford English dictionary
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/consciousness

Google uses it as their lead for the search term "define consciousness"
https://www.google.fr/search?q=defi...ndroid-google&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yet the definition(s) exist. Neuroscience agrees the seat of consciousness is in the brain. To make a faith based claim that discredits professionals and experts in a specific area of science requires evidence to back that claim. Otherwise its just irrelevant hot air designed to pick an argument, in this case against people whose worldview he disagrees with.

Some papers on consciousness research i believe you indicated to @Subduction Zone didn't exist

https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.04033
https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.10508
https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03880

Did you read these? None really offer much insight into where consciousness originates (aside from the second, which actually suggests that consciousness is driven by an energy that is not a part of the actual brain).

 

[Trailblazer]

Dudes you are so wasting your valuable time trying to move water with a sieve. You are trying to explain colour to the blind. You are talking to people who insist as an article of faith that consciousness is a product of the brain.

Whereas there is truth in what you say, it is a Baha'i belief that nobody can ever know the "heart" of any other soul or what they will choose for their eternal destination. Thus it is not our place to judge or know whether that water will move through the sieve or whether the blind will see. Only God is privy to that information.

“He should forgive the sinful, and never despise his low estate, for none knoweth what his own end shall be. How often hath a sinner attained, at the hour of death, to the essence of faith, and, quaffing the immortal draught, hath taken his flight unto the Concourse on high! And how often hath a devout believer, at the hour of his soul’s ascension, been so changed as to fall into the nethermost fire!”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 266

 

[QuestioningMind]

Like a flea on a dog's back demanding logical proof from the dog, you mean? Like the dog cares?

EDIT:

http://biblehub.com/kjv/psalms/18.htm

Read Verses 25-30.

Well, you can either remain skeptical and withhold belief in fantastical claims until verifiable evidence is presented or you can believe in every single fantastical claim that anyone makes. It's completely up to you.

Personally, I remain skeptical and withhold my belief in any fantastical claim UNTIL I get verifiable evidence.

 

[ERLOS]

Well, you can either remain skeptical and withhold belief in fantastical claims until verifiable evidence is presented or you can believe in every single fantastical claim that anyone makes. It's completely up to you.

Personally, I remain skeptical and withhold my belief in any fantastical claim UNTIL I get verifiable evidence.

Is it fantastical for the flea to think there might be a dog? Even though all it can work with is a lot of (hair) trees obscuring the reality of the forest and of what the forest grows from, etc?

 

[ERLOS]

Sorry but it's back to the point that where science started out rightly and correctly refusing to allow 'theism' to influence research, and especially the questions allowed to be asked -- it has now begun to actively and militancy campaign against 'theism'. Imo.

So if you have an idea, someone will say: prove that. And if I say I don't belong to the discipline, but if you wont hear me, maybe you will listen to someone like Roger Penrose who IS a knowledgeable scientist.

And the answer comes back: but he's a physicist, not a brain-scientist

So ...

(Post edited)

 

[ChristineM]

Did you read these? None really offer much insight into where consciousness originates (aside from the second, which actually suggests that consciousness is driven by an energy that is not a part of the actual brain).

Interesting that they were all working on the brain and not the realm of pink unicorns though wasn't it?

From the second one
" Maintaining a critical level of energy in the brain is required to sustain consciousness, and the organisation of this energy distinguishes conscious from unconscious states."

Perhaps you were considering Aristotle s 2400 year old ideas, as mentioned in the second one

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Said my bit. On my bike ...

Ha ha, time is never wasted if we offer all we have with mind and heart. The wisdom of when to offer just our lot in life.

I like it that Mind is not part of body. The greatest talks.I have found on this subject to date have been by Abdul'baha, he was quite an amazing person.

Peace be upon you and all.