The Folly of Atheism

[mikkel_the_dane]

There is inferred evidence for the existence of the supernatural, and a First Cause:

• Human angst
• Felt Presence
• Universal Morality.. perception of 'good & evil'
• Intelligence
• Human consensus
• Foxhole Atheists
• The Universe
• Probability
• Hysterical Hostility
• Presumption of Mass Delusion

These things are not empirical, but they have been part of the human experience since we have recorded our thoughts.

I submit that it is 'folly', to categorically dismiss the entirety of human experience and consensus for millennia, for some new, pop notion of 'no God!', based mostly on Indoctrination, peer pressure, and a narrow view of evidence.

The folly continues by pretending, 'we're so much smarter, now!', when all we have done is harness technology, and we are no closer to understanding the mysteries of life and the universe than we were thousands of years ago. Some could argue we've forgotten more than we've ever known, regarding the deepest mysteries of the universe. Some facts of physics and engineering may have made existence easier, but it has not brought us any closer to our roots and the Big Questions of existence.

It is the presumption of wisdom, that cannot be quantified by natural facts, that exposes the folly.

Would you please stop that.
There is no evidence one way or the other.That it can't be known, ff there is a God or not, because in effect it is a subset of the limits of reason, logic and evidence.
That list is not even correct for the everyday world we share. That you believe in universal morality, tells me, that we are not on the side despite both being religious.
Further perception: Google:
1: the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.
2: the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted.

Good and bad are #2 and thus subjective. You want to do philosophy. Here is a classical one for Hume.
Imagine to see a human stabbing another human to death. Please tell how you per #1 see, that it is good or bad. You can't. You subjectively interpret it as good or bad.

 

[Left Coast]

And since it is 100% His call, and God doesn’t choose to do it, is there any point discussing it further?

So as not to retread old ground any further, this is the central point, and was my point from the very beginning. You made an excuse as to why God can't show up and talk to us to demonstrate his existence. My response was that this is 100% his choice. He could choose a perfect form of communication, one that ensures his message is perfectly understood by all and his existence is known by all. He chooses not to. Instead, he chooses the crappy method of all man-made religions.

So, we live to fight another day.

Looking forward to your Bahaullah thread.

 

[PureX]

But that is unknown as per evidence confirmed by observation.
What Is the Big Bang? | NASA Space Place – NASA Science for Kids
If the Big Bang started as a singularity, then we can't observe it, because an observation requires an observer and that which is observed, but then it is not a singularity.
It is the "hex" of the word theory. The theory/law of gravity is based on evidence and is standard science. The theory of the Big Bang is not standard science. It is theoretical physics and amounts to an untestable hypothesis. In everyday words as per the link it is an idea. You can believe in it, but you have no evidence for it. It makes sense in a brain given certain conceptual assumptions, but it is nothing but thinking in those brains, who believe in it.
We can go as many round as you like, but it ends here. The Big Bang can't be observed and thus it can't be tested. It is an idea, that makes sense in some sense, but it has no evidence. You believe in something without evidence. You can do that and I believe in God without evidence and I can do that.
All the words I have ever come across regarding this end here: The Big Bang makes subjectively sense if you accept certain assumptions as facts. Just like a creator God.

"Singularity" is just another word for "God"; the 'all-in-all'. The great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists.

 

[columbus]

"Singularity" is just another word for "God"; the 'all-in-all'. The great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists.

Not where I live.
Around here, God is the name of the sky king with superpowers who authorizes Christian folk to do whatever they want.
Tom

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

It's like living in the ocean and demanding "evidence" for the water.

Except: Only Genuine Christians™ can "see" the "ocean".

To everyone else? It is exactly like being in a desert...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

And you don't understand that "evidence" is irrelevant to the question at hand. The concept of "God" is beyond the confines of "evidence". Either everything is evidence, or nothing is evidence, and either way will look exactly the same to us. Because we cannot experience/perceive the existence of "God" from outside it. There is no mechanism of comparison.

Word Salad is Wordy.

Too bad--- exactly like a salad comprised entirely of lettuce? It has no actual nutrition...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

"Singularity" is just another word for "God"; the 'all-in-all'. The great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists.

Prove it.

Let's start with an easy one: PROVE THERE IS ACTUAL PURPOSE TO ANYTHING*.

We'll wait.

* outside of all the things humans have created for themselves, naturally.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

There is inferred evidence for the existence of the supernatural, and a First Cause:.

Nope. there is not-- you screaming "is so" is not evidence-- not even by inference.

 

[PureX]

Not where I live.
Around here, God is the name of the sky king with superpowers who authorizes Christian folk to do whatever they want.
Tom

You don't have to buy into that image if you don't want to, you know. The mystery remains, no matter how we (or anyone else) choose to conceptualize and package it. And we are all trusting in that mystery whether we like it, or want to, or not. So why let yourself be controlled by the concepts and images in other people's minds? Why not explore and choose your own?

 

[ArtieE]

"Singularity" is just another word for "God"; the 'all-in-all'. The great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists.

What is the purpose and reason for the existence of this god of yours then?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is the purpose and reason for the existence of this god of yours then?

That is unknown to me. Nobody, as far as I can tell, knows what objective reality(another name for God) is independent of them. They only know what is to them.

 

[columbus]

You don't have to buy into that image if you don't want to, you know.

I don't.
You'd know that, if you read a few of my 18K posts, I don't buy into the image.

The mystery remains, no matter how we (or anyone else) choose to conceptualize and package it. And we are all trusting in that mystery whether we like it, or want to, or not. So why let yourself be controlled by the concepts and images in other people's minds? Why not choose your own?

I do.
But that doesn't change the fact that I live in a place dominated by Christians. Violent, self-righteous, hypocritical Christians. I am very careful about what I say around government employees because I know that justice means something different to WASP heterosexual people than it does to the rest of us. Nothing to do with God or anything, it's about religion and religionists.
Tom

 

[Trailblazer]

So as not to retread old ground any further, this is the central point, and was my point from the very beginning. You made an excuse as to why God can't show up and talk to us to demonstrate his existence. My response was that this is 100% his choice. He could choose a perfect form of communication, one that ensures his message is perfectly understood by all and his existence is known by all. He chooses not to. Instead, he chooses the crappy method of all man-made religions.

Apparently, what you do not understand is that an Infallible God does not need any excuses for ANYTHING He does or does not do, so God does not need to excuse Himself for how He chooses to communicate.

Moreover, what YOU consider a perfect form of communication is a form that YOU want, but for reasons that are particular to God's nature and human nature that kind of communication can never occur, so it is a fantasy.

Secondly, God does not care if His message is perfectly understood by all and his existence is known by all. God leaves it up to humans to decide if they will believe in His Messengers because God considers free will sacrosanct.

The great world religions are not man-made, they were revealed by God and scriptures were written. It seems crappy to you only because you don't like the method, but it is not crappy to the majority of people because 84 percent of the world population has a faith and those faiths all have some kind of Founder, what I refer to as a Messenger. So obviously, using Messengers is a successful method of communication.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't.
You'd know that, if you read a few of my 18K posts, I don't buy into the image.


I do.
But that doesn't change the fact that I live in a place dominated by Christians. Violent, self-righteous, hypocritical Christians. I am very careful about what I say around government employees because I know that justice means something different to WASP heterosexual people than it does to the rest of us. Nothing to do with God or anything, it's about religion and religionists.
Tom

Well, in Denmark it is not about religion. It is about the faith in effectiveness and what not. Hell, it is written into the social service law, that the government doesn't have to follow the law, if it says there are no money.
So it is not always religion, but it is always faith and dogma including the non-religious one.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Apparently, what you do not understand is that an Infallible God does not need any excuses for ANYTHING He does or does not do, so God does not need to excuse Himself for how He chooses to communicate..

A Moral Fallacy: Might does not, in fact, Make Right.

You just described a Capricious Bully....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A Moral Fallacy: Might does not, in fact, Make Right.

You just described a Capricious Bully....

Just for the fun of it.
The unmoved mover or God. If God is the source of everything, then there can't be any limits to God and he could be evil, because to say that God can't be evil, is a limit to God.
God could have chosen to create this universe as without souls, a Heaven and Hell.

 

[Left Coast]

Apparently, what you do not understand is that an Infallible God does not need any excuses for ANYTHING He does or does not do, so God does not need to excuse Himself for how He chooses to communicate.

You assume he's infallible as a dogma of your faith. I don't. You have yet to demonstrate he is, so once again I wait.

Moreover, what YOU consider a perfect form of communication is a form that YOU want,

No. Wrong. Yet again. I dont define it. Perfect communication is an objective standard that can be measured. It has nothing to do with what I want.

but for reasons that are particular to God's nature and human nature that kind of communication can never occur, so it is a fantasy.

And human nature was chosen by God. So he chose to create us in a way that is incompatible with direct communication with him.

Secondly, God does not care if His message is perfectly understood by all and his existence is known by all.

I know. I said that.

God leaves it up to humans to decide if they will believe in His Messengers because God considers free will sacrosanct.

Free will is a misnomer, as I've already addressed. Direct communication from God wouldn't impact our ability to make decisions based on that communication any more than direct communication from anyone else. Even the Bible confirms this.

You're just rehashing things we've already discussed.

The great world religions are not man-made, they were revealed by God and scriptures were written. It seems crappy to you only because you don't like the method,

No. Wrong. Again. It isn't crappy "to me," it is crappy objectively by the numbers.

but it is not crappy to the majority of people because 84 percent of the world population has a faith and those faiths all have some kind of Founder, what I refer to as a Messenger.

Yes, A faith. Not the same faith, in fact, mostly contradictory faiths. Meaning the vast majority of humanity has gotten the wrong message. This conclusion is unavoidable, no matter how you rationalize it.

obviously, using Messengers is a successful method of communication.

No. Wrong. Again. Very obviously not.

I'm not going to respond to you anymore on this thread. We don't seem to be getting anywhere. Rather than rehashing the same stuff over and over, let's focus on your evidence for Bahaullah being a manifestation of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

Might does not, in fact, Make Right...

But Infallible does.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Hmm. Logic and reason?

Logic and reason born of inanimate objects and suddenly assuming the role of the ‘knowing subject’?

Care to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Yet science can't do all of this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

There is a limit to reason, logic and evidence.
It is simple to test, you need 3 humans.
One: Is the a limit to reason, logic and evidence?
Two: No!
Three: Yes!

Now if reason, logic and evidence is as "strong" as some people treat it, #3 wouldn't be possible, yet it is.
I can describe, explain and inform you of how there is a limit to reason, logic and evidence, but it is in sense pointless, because you can subjectively deny that there is a limit. That you can deny it, is a part of the limit to reason, logic and evidence, but because you can get away with denying the limit by using it, it is not certain that you will notice it.

Nope, science can't do any of those things. But then, neither can mathematics or religion, for that matter. So what's your point?

What the scientific method - logic and reason - CAN do is figure out how the universe works better than any other method we've ever come across so far. And when it comes to fantastical claims like gods and farting pixies, it's BY FAR a better method for determining if they are true or not than whatever silly method you have chosen to use.