dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
'i am not an atheist' doesn't get much clearer than that.
besides you didn't provide context for your quote either.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
besides you didn't provide context for your quote either.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It was taken out of context.
As a Jew the Bible does not get much clearer than:
"There is no God".
Really? You think what you wrote there in your example is hard to understand? I've said the same myself, but without the God part. And though it is correct that reality may be very different from how it appears to a human being, what search was necessary to discern that? I learned that from experience. Then I learned it again reading twentieth century science.
The point that I'm trying to make is that the claims people make in these areas just don't hold water. You're presenting your example as a deep truth that you don't expect others to understand for their lack of "spiritual practice," and then you offer a mundane observation. I just no longer believe these claims of seeing further using soft thinking.
And there is no evidence for any world but the natural world. How could there be? Even if a deity exists, it would be part of the natural world. Nature would contain a god.
As just told Seeker, I have no reason to believe you, and very good reasons to disbelieve you. If what you wrote was more than poetry, you could enumerate some of these question and answers, but I know from experience with others that you can't. As I just told Seeker, all we ever get from people claiming to have truth is comments like his and yours, which don't rise to the level of truth or knowledge.
As I said earlier, faith answers no questions. It's guessing. It's like trusting a Magic 8-Ball because one guesses that it can divine the future.
You asked, "What "why" questions? Science cannot even go there."
Why has more than one meaning. One is cause, another purpose. You were given several examples of the science explaining causes, such as WHY the sun is warm and bright and WHY rain falls.
If it had been clear that you were looking for purpose rather than cause, you'd have gotten a different answer: There is be no purpose in a godless universe until the first sentient creature capable of intent appeared in it. The question of why regarding the universe in this sense is meaningless if the universe had no intelligent designer.
Atheist and Nobel Prize winning molecular biologist James Watson said it like this: "I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose' but I'm anticipating a good lunch."
Besides being a straw man - what atheists claim that? - this is an equivocation error. There are several words spelled and pronounced the same - f-a-i-t-h - although one, a girl's name, is capitalized (Faith). One of these words means unjustified belief - you know, the substance of things hoped for. Another means justified belief (other meanings include a religion - the Catholic faith - and intent - done in good or bad faith), such as that the car will probably (but not necessarily) start the next time it is tested like it has the last 200 times.
What you are doing is conflating empirically derived knowledge with guessing because they happen to be spelled and pronounced the same, and because you would like to establish a false equivalence.
Bank and bank are another example of words that look and sound the same, but are not the same word: "Banks are a safe place to keep money, rivers have banks, therefore it is safe to keep your money in a river bank."
And there are no gaps in the theory of evolution. Perhaps you mean that some extinct forms and pathways are still unknown, but that's not due to a defect in the theory. The theory fully explains the mechanism, not the path. It explains how the tree of life we see today came to be, or if you prefer, WHY (as in cause, not purpose) we see a tree of life that suggests descent from a single common ancestor.
dybmh
דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
no citation, not convincing
the year he died, in 1955, a student quoted him as having once said that “I want to know how God created this world. I’m not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts, the rest are details.”
Was Einstein Really Religious? - Not Even Past
he ended his life as a theist
ElishaElijah
Return
This has to be a joke and I thought we were having a “let’s be friends moment”
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Me too, but you doubled down on your error. And it is friendly to help each other to understand. Most people get why water rises wrong. If you did not know you could have asked and I would have politely helped you. It is actually pretty cool. But then I am a bit of a science nerd.This has to be a joke and I thought we were having a “let’s be friends moment”
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Where does it say that? If all you have is "Spinoza's God" then you do not understand what Spinoza's God is. He may, and even this is a stretch, have been a deist. A theist is often defined as one that believes in an active God and he definitely did not believe in that.
but as to being an atheist your article says this:
"In 1949 Einstein wrote a letter to a curious sailor in the US Navy, explaining that “You may call me agnostic.” In 1950 he replied to another correspondent: “My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.” Then in 1952, in a letter to a philosopher, Einstein frankly expressed his unsweetened opinions: “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends aplenty. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this (for me).” Einstein added that the Jewish people were no better that any other groups of people: “I can ascertain nothing Chosen about them.” He said that all religions are “primitive superstitions.”"
Once again, agnostics are for the most part atheists today. Do you even understand what an atheist is? I am having my doubts.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Ok, the questions of why we exist, who we are meant to be, how the universe got here, what gives life meaning, whether we are truly loved by anyone. . I can go on. Want to find the answers? Start with scripture, asking God for discernment.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The beginning of the universe is an ongoing study. They have it worked out to a very very tiny fraction of a second before the Big Bang. And the universe may always have been here. Talk to @Polymath257 for that. I am sure to garble it a bit. And who says that life has any intrinsic meaning? Life appears to have the meaning that we give to it.
And no, scripture has not been shown to have any of those answers. At least with science some of them have been answered much better than one could do with faith alone.
ElishaElijah
Return
That’s cool about being a science nerd but the rest have no idea.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Okay, here is a science nerdy answer:That’s cool about being a science nerd but the rest have no idea.
The way that water gets up into the clouds is because PV = nRT
So now the answer is clear. Right?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Okay English translation and explanation. Many people think humid air is denser because the conditions that cause it can make it feel more difficult to breath. But the opposite is true. Humid air is less dense and so it naturally rises. And that is shown by the Ideal Gas Law or PV = nRT where P is the pressure, V is the volume n is the number of moles (how many molecules this means, it is not a reference to the tiny mammal) and T is the temperature.
So if we take two different mixtures of gases if all of those numbers are the same then the density or weight of a specific volume will be tied to the average molecular weight of that mixture. O2 has a molecular weight of 32 grams per mole, N2 (nitrogen roughly 80% of the air) has a molecular weight of 28 grams per mole and water, H2O has a molecular weight of 18 grams per mole. Water, in the gaseous form is less dense than those two main components of air so humid air will be slightly less dense or lighter than dry air. Humid air rises until it cools to the point where some of the water condenses into tiny droplets making clouds. As long as the average density, including the much denser water droplets, is the same as the surrounding dryer air, the cloud will stay up.
So if we take two different mixtures of gases if all of those numbers are the same then the density or weight of a specific volume will be tied to the average molecular weight of that mixture. O2 has a molecular weight of 32 grams per mole, N2 (nitrogen roughly 80% of the air) has a molecular weight of 28 grams per mole and water, H2O has a molecular weight of 18 grams per mole. Water, in the gaseous form is less dense than those two main components of air so humid air will be slightly less dense or lighter than dry air. Humid air rises until it cools to the point where some of the water condenses into tiny droplets making clouds. As long as the average density, including the much denser water droplets, is the same as the surrounding dryer air, the cloud will stay up.
Last edited:
I don't believe that you or anybody else know any more about any of those questions than secular humanists. I expect your "answers" to be that we exist to please God, we are meant to be obedient servants of God, God gives life meaning, and God truly loves us.
But those aren't answers to me. They're guesses, which takes us back to the top: "Faith answers no questions unless one considers guesses answers."
I think I've already defined knowledge as I use the word for you. Knowledge is the collection of demonstrably true ideas one holds, kind of a formal way of saying, "If you can't show it, you don't know it." Faith can't add to this. It is not tethered in the evidence of the senses. It cannot be path to knowledge if any idea can be believed by faith.
Bird123
Well-Known Member
By assuming there is no evidence of God, you limit yourself from ever Discovering the truth for yourself. One who truly searches for answers remains open to all possibilities.
In this time-based causal universe, God's actions can be seen. When one understands these actions, one will understand God.
I have found no religion that actually understands God at all. Do not base God on mankind's beliefs. Everything about God will add up. This is the base one should not fall beneath.
All the secrets of the universe stare us all in the face. You might see God's actions, even understand them, however God will always be a belief until you actually bump into God. I point!!
Religion is mankind's attempt to understand God. How are they doing? Yes, there is a long journey ahead!!
Everyone already knows God whether they know they know or not. Our Spirituality in common with God is probably the connection that drives so many to seek God. Since believing is easier than Discovering, many settle on following and believing. This is a lesson to learn what the best choice really is.
That's what I see. It's very clear!!
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You cannot go accusing others of making assumptions without being able to support the claim. One cannot get the whole story in the headline either so shortcuts are allowed. Here is the longer version that would not fit into the title:
There are no reliable examples of evidence of God so why do you believe?
That is too long to fit into a title here. No one has made any assumptions. One has noted that there is no reliable evidence for God. If you have some please present it. And don't give me a "look at the trees" argument. If you do so you might as well admit that you do not have any reliable evidence either.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
I would disagree. My senses certainly tell me much about God.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Science hasn't answered any of those because it can't. They are outside of it's reach. It's not that science is all wrong, it's just limited to the physical.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Really. That is amazing. Because things that can be detected with one's senses can be tested and confirmed. Please tell us more.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Hold it! Now you just contradicted your former post.
As the saying goes, pick a lane.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
No I didn't. Because I have faith my senses tell me about God everyday. Today they showed me his creativity and beauty and artistry for example.