Do you believe in God?

[SuperCobraJet]

No. I am not undecided about what is true - I think it is true that there is no god. All of my investigation has pointed me to predict that there is no god, and therefore I am an atheist.

However, I am also logical. I understand that since I cannot prove there is no god - because logically you can never prove that anything doesn't exist, I will not assert that there is no god. I will also not assert that there are no Keebler Elves or Cthulu or Invisible Pink Unicorn or Sbnqweifbislke. I also cannot prove those deities do not exist. That does not compel me to believe they do exist, either.

I suppose you see this as a chink in my armor, or a weakness in my position, but it is a logical necessity. If I saw incontrovertible proof of the existence of a god, that could not be explained by any other means, I would then recognize that god exists.

However, due to 16,201 days' worth of living on this planet, observing natural phenomena and studying, I feel I can predict with the same degree of certainty that I predict the sun will rise tomorrow that there is no god.

That's your definition, not mine.

Thats not my definition, thats a dictionary definition.

The prefix "a-" just means "non-", as in non-theist. Again, as we're discussing with Joey, that does not necessarily imply a believing that something doesn't exist, as separate from not believing something does exist.

Someone who is amoral may not have morals, but he does not necessarily believe that morals don't exist.

Let me ask you this, for the sake of my own clarification purposes.

So by your own admission, if I understand you correctly, you are still more in doubt and unsurety in your thinking or "the ongoing process of contemplation" than you are in
"Belief" or "Disbelief" wherein you have decided that this is what I believe and this is why.

Is that correct?

Also concerning this statement, specifically what has led you to your conclusion?

"All of my investigation has pointed me to predict that there is no god, and therefore I am an atheist".

 

[Danoff]

Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I, Duke, and Famine all fit into that description. None of us "disbelieve" - such a thing is not possible. All of us "deny".

 

[mindwise]

None of us "disbelieve" - such a thing is not possible.

Hmm, i'm not so sure. i'm not native English, but every definition of disbelief i've read reads as "the rejection of a belief".
That seems quite applicable.

The reference i gave some posts before this one, actually used atheism as an example of disbelief as follows
"atheism - a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"

Another uses "denial of belief." as an example..

surely that's applicable, isn't it?

 

[mindwise]

oops, i thought i was editing, don't know what happened here (got a 'too short' while i was doing it).

 

[DaddyVDUB]

I really understand how you belive,I used to be there. I was an agnostic for the majority of my life. My own mind would not accept that the concept of God was possible,BUT...He found a way.

 

[mindwise]

BUT...He found a way.

Hey Danny, (i have reason to assume that post was for me )

Perhaps it was You that "found a way"

 

[Danoff]

Hmm, i'm not so sure. i'm not native English, but every definition of disbelief i've read reads as "the rejection of a belief".
That seems quite applicable.

The reference i gave some posts before this one, actually used atheism as an example of disbelief as follows
"atheism - a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods"

Another uses "denial of belief." as an example..

surely that's applicable, isn't it?

Yea that's fair. I was taking disbelieve to mean actively believing to the contrary - which is probably not right. Only makes the case stronger really that Atheism is a lack of theism, not a theism of lack.

 

[mindwise]

not a theism of lack.

Whaha, that really had me laughing out loud, good find, i hope you don't mind me stealing that one

 

[DaddyVDUB]

Hey Danny, (i have reason to assume that post was for me )

Perhaps it was You that "found a way"

Yes it was, but either way it worked. Now is MUCH better than before for me,so it worked.

 

[Duke]

Thats not my definition, thats a dictionary definition.

That's A dictionary definition. Chosen by you. It's not the only definition. Mindwise already provided the definition I feel is more accurate.

Let me ask you this, for the sake of my own clarification purposes.

So by your own admission, if I understand you correctly, you are still more in doubt and unsurety in your thinking or "the ongoing process of contemplation" than you are in "Belief" or "Disbelief" wherein you have decided that this is what I believe and this is why.

Is that correct?

No. I am not undecided about what is true - I think it is true that there is no god. All of my investigation has pointed me to predict that there is no god, and therefore I am an atheist.

...due to 16,201 days' worth of living on this planet, observing natural phenomena and studying, I feel I can predict with the same degree of certainty that I predict the sun will rise tomorrow that there is no god.

Hopefully that clarifies my stance. I've explained that it is an impossibility in formal logic to prove something does not exist. Therefore, by formal logic, I must assume that any given thing - god, physical object, concept, or figment of imagination - MAY exist. That in no way means that I think it is probable, just that it is possible.

Also, leaving formal logic aside, it's a very bad idea to make an irrevocable decision and close your mind to further analysis on any subject. It's part of the scientific process to always leave room for new facts that may enter the equation.

Also concerning this statement, specifically what has led you to your conclusion?

"All of my investigation has pointed me to predict that there is no god, and therefore I am an atheist".

Literally everything. I've read a fair amount of the Bible and parts of numerous other texts from major religions. I've read a lot of philosophy. I've taken a lot of college-level physical science courses. I've studied history. I've liv ed on Earth and been part of the human race for 44 years.

Nothing I've seen requires me to believe in a supernatural being or God to explain its happening or existence. There are plenty items where our rational understanding is not yet complete, but none that I see that would require a deity to make plausible.

So therefore I do not believe in the existence of God. Or the Invisible Pink Unicorn (though I bet if she does exist, she is used to such blasphemy). Or any other of the limitless number of things that I will never prove don't exist.

I have absolutely no reason to believe or even suspect that my soul or conciousness or whatever might continue after the oxygen in my brain runs out. I will never prove that it doesn't survive in immortality (before the event, of course) because I logically cannot. That still gives me absolutely zero reason to think it will live on, since there is no compelling evidence that it does.

I really understand how you belive,I used to be there. I was an agnostic for the majority of my life. My own mind would not accept that the concept of God was possible,BUT...He found a way.

If I saw incontrovertible proof of the existence of a god, that could not be explained by any other means, I would then recognize that god exists.

 

[DaddyVDUB]

Never say never Buddy, when he touches you , you'll know...peace to you.

 

[Sureboss]

Or when you find whatever makes you the most comfortable in your own life. Which is exactly what religious belief is. Comfort in your own peace of mind.

 

[mindwise]

Or when you find whatever makes you the most comfortable in your own life. Which is exactly what religious belief is. Comfort in your own peace of mind.

Hmmm, i'm sure that's true in some cases, but unfortunately also the exact opposite in some others.
To be honest, perhaps most of those "other" cases, religion was not actually "found", but "inherited" so to speak...

I didn't quite come to asking DaddyVDUB, so so far all i know is that he found god (or god found him to be more true to his words), so that does not yet imply any religion afaik

 

[TrievelA7X]

Not the one(s) we read about exactly, but saying nothing created everything makes a little less sense to me than saying a God created it, so until otherwise proven, I think something's running the show, yeah.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

"If I saw incontrovertible proof of the existence of a god, that could not be explained by any other means, I would then recognize that god exists."



What exactly would constitute "incontrovertible proof" in the above statement?

 

[Duke]

"If I saw incontrovertible proof of the existence of a god, that could not be explained by any other means, I would then recognize that god exists."

What exactly would constitute "incontrovertible proof" in the above statement?

If I saw something that could not possibly be explained by any other logical means.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

If I saw something that could not possibly be explained by any other logical means.

I mean, like what for example?

 

[Duke]

What do you want me to say? Some item or event that could only possibly be explained by the existence of a supernatural being. So far I've seen nothing that requires that.

I'm perfectly comfortable with my position on this issue. Although I always try to continually refine my understanding of any issue, I've been considering this one for well over 30 years. I've got a pretty good grasp on what I think about it.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

What do you want me to say? Some item or event that could only possibly be explained by the existence of a supernatural being. So far I've seen nothing that requires that.

I'm perfectly comfortable with my position on this issue. Although I always try to continually refine my understanding of any issue, I've been considering this one for well over 30 years. I've got a pretty good grasp on what I think about it.

There is nothing I know of that requires or forces you to believe in GOD whether you see something or don't see something.

Anything that can be seen, can be rationalized away, by any number of reasonings.

 

[Touring Mars]

I think it would be very simple for an all powerful supernatural being to demonstrate proof of his existence to me, or atleast to demonstrate that my understanding of the world (gained through reasoning, logic and the scientific method) was incorrect - as Duke, I have yet to see anything that fits the bill. I'm not talking about genuinely mysterious stuff on the fringes of modern science etc., but really basic, in-your-face simple things - like the sudden appearance or disappearance of an object, an object randomly changing shape etc. Either way, an all powerful being capable of such trickery would presumably also know what would convince me, and like I say, it wouldn't be hard... it leaves me with a simple decision - that I either believe that there is an all powerful supernatural being, but that they refuse to make their presence known to me unequivocally, or that I take the evidence at face value and posit that there simply is no all powerful supernatural being. I find the latter a more convincing and comforting choice...

 

[DaddyVDUB]

I Love the banter on here back and forth. For me it was not some visual proof,it was a spiriual revelation that was both intangable and very real at the same time.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I think it would be very simple for an all powerful supernatural being to demonstrate proof of his existence to me, or atleast to demonstrate that my understanding of the world (gained through reasoning, logic and the scientific method) was incorrect - as Duke, I have yet to see anything that fits the bill. I'm not talking about genuinely mysterious stuff on the fringes of modern science etc., but really basic, in-your-face simple things - like the sudden appearance or disappearance of an object, an object randomly changing shape etc. Either way, an all powerful being capable of such trickery would presumably also know what would convince me, and like I say, it wouldn't be hard... it leaves me with a simple decision - that I either believe that there is an all powerful supernatural being, but that they refuse to make their presence known to me unequivocally, or that I take the evidence at face value and posit that there simply is no all powerful supernatural being. I find the latter a more convincing and comforting choice...

If you were to witness something like you describe, it would not prove the exsistence of GOD, only that as you say, "an all powerful supernatural being", with two exceptions, has acted upon an object that you visually observed.

The exceptions are: It doesn't prove "all powerful" or it was a "being" or if it was a being, that it was GOD.



EDIT:

It also assumes or presupposes that GOD has chosen your way of revealing or letting you know that he exsists .

 

[Duke]

So therefore I have no reason to believe in god(s) or a God.

I can't honestly understand how you arbitrarily pick one particular supernatural entity or being or whatever to believe in, considering the evidence for (or against) an infinite variety of potential things to believe in is precisely the same in all counts: zero.

That's not intended as an insult; it's merely intended to demonstrate my stance. To me once you throw "rationalizing" away and go strictly on faith you are completely at sea about what to believe in. You can believe in Jehovah or the thetans or the Invisible Pink Unicorn with equal validity.

And that is even keeping "God" completely separated from "religion". I don't think you want me to get started on that topic.

 

[Touring Mars]

If you were to witness something like you describe, it would not prove the exsistence of GOD, only that as you say, "an all powerful supernatural being", with two exceptions, has acted upon an object that you visually observed.

The exceptions are: It doesn't prove "all powerful" or it was a "being" or if it was a being, that it was GOD.

Well indeed... if God's actions are indistinguishable from things that have rational explanations, then it makes detecting his actions somewhat difficult.

It also assumes or presupposes that GOD has chosen your way of revealing or letting you know that he exsists .

This being the case, I don't see how I can be blamed for failing to recognise the existence (or actions) of God if he choses to reveal himself in ways that are either undetectable or incomprehensible to me.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

So therefore I have no reason to believe in god(s) or a God.

I can't honestly understand how you arbitrarily pick one particular supernatural entity or being or whatever to believe in, considering the evidence for (or against) an infinite variety of potential things to believe in is precisely the same in all counts: zero.

That's not intended as an insult; it's merely intended to demonstrate my stance. To me once you throw "rationalizing" away and go strictly on faith you are completely at sea about what to believe in. You can believe in Jehovah or the thetans or the Invisible Pink Unicorn with equal validity.

And that is even keeping "God" completely separated from "religion". I don't think you want me to get started on that topic.

I don't think you have to dispense with "rationalizing" all together either, but you do have to, as it is referred to " think outside the box" or not confine yourself to its limitations. Thats because it is impossible to verify his exsistance, or even better, "Know Him" strictly within those dimensional boundaries.

I likewise, as have stated on these type threads before, am also hesitant to unequivocally relate to GOD and Religion as the same.

 

[Duke]

I don't think you have to dispense with "rationalizing" all together either, but you do have to, as it is referred to " think outside the box" or not confine yourself to its limitations. Thats because it is impossible to verify his exsistance, or even better, "Know Him" strictly within those dimensional boundaries.

And I have no reason to do so, since once I divorce my thinking from rationality just to get outside the box, I have then divorced myself from my best tool for refining my ideas. There is no way to learn if you must accept everything you are presented at face value. And you must do that "outside the box" because if you omit logic, then there is no way to judge what is proper and correct from what it not. Once you step over that boundary there are no points of navigation at all - all ideas are equal.

I'm perfectly capable of dealing with the finite, logical fact of my existence within rational nature. I have no need for a supernatural Dad to see me through the tough parts of my life, and I am perfectly content with however long I am physically alive on this planet. I do not need to feel I have some immortal spirit that will live on forever. If I died tonight I would have had the exceptional joy of 44 years and a few months of physical existence. No need to get greedy and wish for there to be more.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Well indeed... if God's actions are indistinguishable from things that have rational explanations, then it makes detecting his actions somewhat difficult.

I agree.
Difficult, but not impossible.

This being the case, I don't see how I can be blamed for failing to recognise the existence (or actions) of God if he choses to reveal himself in ways that are either undetectable or incomprehensible to me.

Its like a lot of other things, it will require some investigation on your part.

Thats because he has given us autonomy or "Free will choice" and he will not encroach upon it.

And I have no reason to do so, since once I divorce my thinking from rationality just to get outside the box, I have then divorced myself from my best tool for refining my ideas. There is no way to learn if you must accept everything you are presented at face value. And you must do that "outside the box" because if you omit logic, then there is no way to judge what is proper and correct from what it not. Once you step over that boundary there are no points of navigation at all - all ideas are equal.

I'm perfectly capable of dealing with the finite, logical fact of my existence within rational nature. I have no need for a supernatural Dad to see me through the tough parts of my life, and I am perfectly content with however long I am physically alive on this planet. I do not need to feel I have some immortal spirit that will live on forever. If I died tonight I would have had the exceptional joy of 44 years and a few months of physical existence. No need to get greedy and wish for there to be more.

Again, its a dimensional limitation, that you are afraid to cross. Therefore you are assuming that their is no possibility there is a higher dimension of understanding.

GOD puts it this way:

"If a man thinks himself to be wise, let him become as a fool, that he may become truly wise."


But again too, as I said, he will not encroach upon your autonomy.
Notice he says: "Let him" or "its up to you".

EDIT: WHOOPS, sorry for the double post.

 

[Touring Mars]

Its like a lot of other things, it will require some investigation on your part.

And this is the problem - no matter which way I've chosen to investigate the possibility of the existence of God, or entertain the possibility of supernatural intervention, it has always - not just sometimes - ended in the same conclusion, that supernatural intervention is not only unrequired, but there is nothing there to support the idea in any way.

A key example would have to be the question of the origin of species (as covered at length in the Creation v Evolution thread). As a scientist, I'm always willing to entertain 'the unknown', and always prepared to change my views as and when new information comes to light. Until the revolution of genetics changed the way we could learn about the origin of species forever, scientists had to rely on less direct methods to infer relatedness of species, with the ultimate assumption - that all life is biochemically related - being some way off being wholly established. With the discovery of DNA and the advent of genetics, however, the world held it's breath in anticipation of being able to test, once and for all, whether or not this assumption was correct or not. But until people actually looked at the evidence, the jury was still out. At this point, before genetic analyses had been done, and before anyone really knew what to expect, it was entirely possible that the DNA of every living species could tell us just about anything - from the idea that all species are individually created and contain the unequivocal signature of an intelligent designer, to the complete opposite - that the DNA of all life exhibits patterns of similarity that can only be explained by common descent, and that no species alive today were 'specially created'. The results are clear and unequivocal - in favour of common descent and in direct contradiction of special creation by intelligent design.

This is perhaps the most explicit example of a fundamental question - that humans have asked for centuries but have only recently been able to answer - that could have so easily shown tangible proof of God's creative power. Instead, it showed us the exact opposite. Why should this be? If God does exist, then why does he make it look exactly like he doesn't?

 

[Duke]

Again, its a dimensional limitation, that you are afraid to cross. Therefore you are assuming that their is no possibility there is a higher dimension of understanding.

No, I'm not afraid to cross it. I've also been at pains to point out that I'm always open to the idea of understanding more than what I currently know.

I just do not think that it is constructive or informative to move into a realm where all possible knowledge and value judgment is rendered irrelevant. Because in the non-logical or supernatural realm all things are equally plausible and can only be taken at face value, so must be chosen arbitrarily. I see little point in arbitrarily choosing to believe A and deny B while ignoring Җ completely.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

And this is the problem - no matter which way I've chosen to investigate the possibility of the existence of God, or entertain the possibility of supernatural intervention, it has always - not just sometimes - ended in the same conclusion, that supernatural intervention is not only unrequired, but there is nothing there to support the idea in any way.
A key example would have to be the question of the origin of species (as covered at length in the Creation v Evolution thread). As a scientist, I'm always willing to entertain 'the unknown', and always prepared to change my views as and when new information comes to light. Until the revolution of genetics changed the way we could learn about the origin of species forever, scientists had to rely on less direct methods to infer relatedness of species, with the ultimate assumption - that all life is biochemically related - being some way off being wholly established. With the discovery of DNA and the advent of genetics, however, the world held it's breath in anticipation of being able to test, once and for all, whether or not this assumption was correct or not. But until people actually looked at the evidence, the jury was still out. At this point, before genetic analyses had been done, and before anyone really knew what to expect, it was entirely possible that the DNA of every living species could tell us just about anything - from the idea that all species are individually created and contain the unequivocal signature of an intelligent designer, to the complete opposite - that the DNA of all life exhibits patterns of similarity that can only be explained by common descent, and that no species alive today were 'specially created'. The results are clear and unequivocal - in favour of common descent and in direct contradiction of special creation by intelligent design.

I don't know why this cannot point to, "a common Creater" as not to.

I also do not know why the subject at hand would be based entirely on one category of investigation.

This is perhaps the most explicit example of a fundamental question - that humans have asked for centuries but have only recently been able to answer - that could have so easily shown tangible proof of God's creative power. Instead, it showed us the exact opposite. Why should this be? If God does exist, then why does he make it look exactly like he doesn't?

As to why he chose to? I can only speculate with some degree of certainty.

Its impartial. Anyone can choose to believe.
He values something else higher or greater than the wisdom of our reasonings.
In some way too, its as if he does not want acceptance or recognition through an example of what he can do, but rather, of who he is.

The best correlation of this that I can give is the marriage relationship.
The wife is referred to as the "weaker vessel" but in reality she is not weak at all. She weilds considerable influence and her very nature is the thing that frustrates us to no end but at the same time is so endearing.

1 Corinthians 1

24But to those who are called, whether Jew or Greek (Gentile), Christ [is] the Power of God and the Wisdom of God.

25[This is] because the foolish thing [that has its source in] God is wiser than men, and the weak thing [that springs] from God is stronger than men.

26For [simply] consider your own call, brethren; not many [of you were considered to be] wise according to human estimates and standards, not many influential and powerful, not many of high and noble birth.

27[No] for God selected (deliberately chose) what in the world is foolish to put the wise to shame, and what the world calls weak to put the strong to shame.