Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[Evangelicalhumanist]

And doctors use to bleed patients with leeches and we know that doctors aren't required anymore.

Is that your analogy?

Can't see your point. How is that doctors used to bleed patients and no longer do, results in doctors not being required anymore? They are required, they just don't bleed people because they don't understand what else to do.

 

[Kenny]

But given what we knew about physics at the time, it was reasonable to conjecture the existence of black holes -- and then begin the search to find them. And we did.

What, in what we know of our reality, gives us reason to conjecture the existence of a creative deity (rather than just the existence of something, rather than nothing). Do we see any unexplainable "creative acts?" Is there evidence of continued maintenance of the universe?

The more complex we find that the universe is, IMV, the more it is required for there to be a Creative Being behind its existence.

"Do we see any unexplainable "creative acts?"' So, we are at our apex in the understanding of the universe? I don't think so.

 

[Kenny]

Can't see your point. How is that doctors used to bleed patients and no longer do, results in doctors not being required anymore? They are required, they just don't bleed people because they don't understand what else to do.

As confounding it is to read what I said, it was just as confounding when I read yours.

 

[lukethethird]

But isn't that what so many people do? They say "There is no God" but can't prove their position?

What is claimed without evidence can justifiably be dismissed without evidence, so not a problem at all for those that think for themselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except you were FLAT OUT ASKED to explain it.
And you still haven't.

It is typical behavior I have noticed. Ignore the explanations of others and an inability to support his own claims.

 

[ManSinha]

Isn’t that what I said? God isn’t a man with an elephant’s trunk.

In one form perhaps - for some people - it may be

Lord Ganesh - Wikipedia Source

 

[Kenny]

What is claimed without evidence can justifiably be dismissed without evidence, so not a problem at all for those that think for themselves.

That's good.. so I can dismiss "there is not God" for their lack of evidence.

As one who thinks for himself, I thank you!

 

[QuestioningMind]

Hi all some questions for consideration for this OP....

1. If one does not believe that there is a God and they have no evidence that there is no God does that mean that God does not exist?

2. If one believes there is no God and cannot prove there is no God then is this belief simply another religion that is based on faith and not evidence?

3. Now for those who do not believe in God and you have no evidence for this belief (faith), does it not worry you that you could be wrong if the scriptures are true?

4. Finally if there is a God obviously not all religions can be correct as many are contradictory to each other. How would one go about finding what is the correct faith? Seems we all live by faith IMO wheather we believe or do not believe in God.

I believe God's judgments are coming to this world to all those who do not believe and follow God's Word according to the scriptures. Can you prove they are not

Thanks for your thoughts...

Those who believe there is no god do live by faith, in that they take it on faith that there is no god. However, those who lack a belief in god do NOT live by faith.

 

[lukethethird]

That's good.. so I can dismiss "there is not God" for their lack of evidence.

As one who thinks for himself, I thank you!

Good luck believing all the claims made without negative evidence, it might have been P. T. Barnum that said it best, there's a sucker born every minute.

 

[Kenny]

Good luck believing all the claims made without negative evidence, it might have been P. T. Barnum that said it best, there's a sucker born every minute.

Was just following your dictates. Are you backtracking?

 

[exchemist]

But given what we knew about physics at the time, it was reasonable to conjecture the existence of black holes -- and then begin the search to find them. And we did.

What, in what we know of our reality, gives us reason to conjecture the existence of a creative deity (rather than just the existence of something, rather than nothing). Do we see any unexplainable "creative acts?" Is there evidence of continued maintenance of the universe?

Yes. I think the point here is that the body of astrophysics that predicts black holes is based on observational evidence. So we have reason to believe the astrophysics is a good model and that what it predicts has a good chance of being observed, eventually. None of that applies to any God hypothesis.

As for your question about evidence of continued maintenance of the universe, there is the age-old question of why there is such an exquisite degree of order in nature. Any scientist with imagination must sometimes be struck by the amazing way order arises from randomness, and so on. This is by no means evidence for God in any scientific sense. However Spinoza and Einstein seemed to come to view that ordering principle itself as God. That is the sort of thing I had in mind in my earlier remarks about God seeming, to some, to be likely, or possible, for aesthetic reasons.

 

[lukethethird]

Was just following your dictates. Are you backtracking?

No, you were not following my dictates, you twisted what I stated around at your own peril.

 

[Kenny]

No, you were not following my dictates, you twisted what I stated around at your own peril.

No... I did EXACTLY what you said. Your statement is basically, "what is good for the goose, is NOT good for that gander" and "Do as I say and not as I do".. to your own peril

 

[sojourner]

What the "Divine" is, however, is just an idea existing in the heads of many people -- and as different from person to person as they are themselves

I don’t believe that. But I do believe the metaphors are diverse.

 

[sojourner]

If you are going to base your "possibility" of God on not knowing the ultimate reality of the cosmos, then you place your God squarely in the headlights of science, and they just might one day explain it away

Yes, that argument has been used for centuries. And every time a discovery is made, what we don’t know just goes deeper.

 

[sojourner]

​

Okay, then --- what IS God?

So glad you asked. Simple answer? I don’t know. There are any number of things that human beings cannot know. That lack of capacity says nothing about the existence of those things. It does say something about the limited human capacity for cognizance. We simply are not capable of knowing everything.

For me, “God” is an avatar — a metaphor — for the Divine. Same as Allah is a metaphor, and Vishnu, and Ra, and Apollo, and any other deity. We use these avatars because we simply don’t have the language to talk about the Divine in any other way. These metaphors aren’t perfect, but they serve our purposes. “God” is bigger than the Bible, bigger than the Koran, bigger than any religious system or theological construct can manage. For me, the Divine is — for lack of a better way of putting it — existence itself, life itself, purpose, presence, love, causation. Divinity is the “Perfect, Great Unknowable.”
One of the phrases I use in ceremony is to address God as “You who are known by a thousand names and yet are the unnameable One.”

 

[sojourner]

In one form perhaps - for some people - it may be

Lord Ganesh - Wikipedia Source


View attachment 36702

]
For me, that’s an avatar, same as:

 

[Polymath257]

I think you are comparing apples and oranges.

Using your spider analogy..

"There seems to be orderly direction for the existence of what we see. Certainly the reality of the Second Law of Thermodynamics points that something continues to run contrary to what we know, thus, the POSSIBILITY of a God that exists by what we are seeing is backed up by reason.

Huh???? How in the world do you leap from the 2LOT to the existence of a deity?

So your unicorn example isn't valid and an overused two-step so as not to address that people who say "God does not exists" aren't required to prove their position.

Nope. They no more have to prove their position than those who claim unicorns don't exist. And the lack of observations of unicorns is good evidence for their non-existence.

The same is true for deities.

 

[Polymath257]

So glad you asked. Simple answer? I don’t know. There are any number of things that human beings cannot know. That lack of capacity says nothing about the existence of those things. It does say something about the limited human capacity for cognizance. We simply are not capable of knowing everything.

Do glorphs exist? What? You don't know what a glorph is? Well, humans don't know a lot of things. Just because you don't know how to define them doesn't mean they don't exist.

For me, “God” is an avatar — a metaphor — for the Divine. Same as Allah is a metaphor, and Vishnu, and Ra, and Apollo, and any other deity. We use these avatars because we simply don’t have the language to talk about the Divine in any other way. These metaphors aren’t perfect, but they serve our purposes. “God” is bigger than the Bible, bigger than the Koran, bigger than any religious system or theological construct can manage. For me, the Divine is — for lack of a better way of putting it — existence itself, life itself, purpose, presence, love, causation. Divinity is the “Perfect, Great Unknowable.”
One of the phrases I use in ceremony is to address God as “You who are known by a thousand names and yet are the unnameable One.”

So just use the word 'existence' and get rid of the superstitious mumbo jumbo. You want to 'worship' existence or say it is 'sacred', go ahead. But to call it 'God' seems to be counter to common use.

 

[McBell]

That's good.. so I can dismiss "there is not God" for their lack of evidence.

As a matter of fact, you can.
Just like all those who dismiss god(s) for the lack of evidence.