Prove God Exists - Version II!

[Free Enterprise]

Your critics are solely aimed at strong Atheism. What have you to say about weak Atheism? (not to confuse it with Agnosticism)

The term can be definied in that way to have two separate camps or schools of thought. If the issue is viewed as a scale with two polar opposites. The strong atheist type is what I was refering to.

 

[CurtSibling]

But a constant need to prove one's beliefs by refuting those who believe the opposite speaks of some doubt, and a need to confirm the belief system to oneself. I'm not saying atheists are the only ones that do it, but I do believe that is the purpose of this thread.

There is also the simple amusement and interest in other's perspectives.

I cans assure you my good eyrei, that my life measures up just fine.

I am not a dizzy kid, unsure of my life's direction.
I am a man of 30, and have seen life at angles you people on the net can only imagine at.

Now not to be confrontational, but no-one really has a clue what kind of life we all have here.
I am quite sure the religionists have for their part, happy lifes - if that is what they seek.

It is just not for me to follow the religious path -
But I like to see what makes people tick.

I am not out to bring people down, or ruin their lives -
I am looking for perspectives and amusements in the debates that only the web can provide.

So, I must return to my degree work now, as I took time out to make this post,
I felt a perspective from me was important.

Let the party continue, and I will return in the early weekdays to see what is going on!

Enjoy!

 

[CurtSibling]

You have misinterpreted what I said. I don't believe in God (the Christian, or Mulsim, or Jewish one). Nor do I believe that atheists have empty lives. I am simply mocking the premise of this thread. My god is my own. I don't really feel the need to explain it to anyone. I certainly don't feel the need to validate it by 'whipping' those who believe in religions I consider to be ridiculous.

But you said you considered athiests to have empty lives, so now that is not the case?

I think many people are missing the point of my thread.

I seek to encourage people to provide a reason for some self-appointed
religious premise that they are morally superior to the entire human race.

Being not into religion is not an attack on religion.
Indeed, I find that most religionists make the attacks against atheism.

My only goal in posting here is to make you profound atheists really think about it Athiesm seems to me, in many cases, to be nothing more than a way of rebelling against the organized religions of the world. Sure, Christianity and Judaism and Islam are absurd. That doesn't mean that spirituality is absurd.

There is a thing called free choice.

Directing the religionists to give a bit of proof to their claims is not a case of being a 'rebel',
but being questioning enough to see beyond dogma.

Would a world of blind following and mindless faith be better?
You see where that has took us before...(WW1/WW2)

I hope I am not seen as being confrontational here, my respected admin,
but it is a subject I feel strong about, but with no disrespect intended.

 

[Inter4]

Indeed, I find that most religionists make the attacks against atheism.

Christianism dosn't attack athiesm. God gave us free choice. If you decide not to believe in him, it's your life.

 

[CurtSibling]

Christianism dosn't attack athiesm. God gave us free choice. If you decide not to believe in him, it's your life.

Last time I checked, it wasn't just christians who deplored atheism.

And how did this god give you free choice, exactly?

Got proof?

 

[Inter4]

By letting me do whatever I want to do.

 

[CurtSibling]

By letting me do whatever I want to do.

If you have that attitude to me as well, then I have no problem.

 

[Inter4]

What attitude? Sorry, I didn't get your post.

 

[FredLC]

About the only thing that characterizes my belief system is lack of dogma. I don't know the truth, and don't pretend to. I do, however, seek it. And my seeking is not purely intuitive, nor is it purely logical.

This does not necessarily protects you from acting dogmatically. And you just did.

Any of you atheists ever read Kant's "A critique of pure reason"? Or any Carl Jung? You should try it...philosophy/psychology like that is what turned me from an atheist into what I am now. And I honestly think I am happier for the change. Or how about the poetry of W.B. Yeats? Or the "The White Goddess" by Robert Graves? These people sought true meaning outside of what most consider rational thought, but their arguments are not really based on faith.

I must admit that I didn't. My background on philosophy is only some classics in politics, something from Nietzche, and 3 or 4 Kafka romances. The rest is just from classes and from citations, not from teh actual sources.

I'll read the " A Critique for the Pure Reason", though. In fact, I have already found an e-book that I plan to print on mondey at my work. As you, I am willing to look for the truth, and to change my mind if presented with good enough reasons. Hell, I've been wanting to read that for quite a while now, and that is a good excuse.

After that, i'll have better bases to find if I they truly can debunk the prudence of forming an opinion based on reason... or if they just prove what I already know... that reason may not ber perfect... but is still the best tool we got.

We shall see.

Anyway, if you stop at atheism, it seems to me you have developed a dogma. You believe you have found Truth so you stop seeking any further. In a way, I think that is as ridiculous as any of the organized faiths.

I don't stop in atheism, if that is your concern. I don't believe in atheism, and I don't stand for atheism. I agree with it, for it's eminentily reasonable. Good arguments will make me change my mind though, if only I even come to find'em.

Only I never did.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

The term can be definied in that way to have two separate camps or schools of thought. If the issue is viewed as a scale with two polar opposites. The strong atheist type is what I was refering to.

Well, as usual, I have surfed these waters on CFC before. Please, check my take:

Time to make a stand for atheism here. Let me start with this, than proceed to the general topic:

Just to be clear, athiesm is disbelief in God or denying the existance of God - not simply 'not believing' in God. I edited my above post to reflect that point, which I felt I hadn't been clear about before. So an athiestic stand does imply true knowledge, it is the agnostic stand that does not. Of course the agnostic also believes that no one has true knowledge of the nature of God or 'Creation'. That is where the belief comes in as I cannot know for sure. I assure you that I am as true an agnostic as you will meet.

You know, Gothmog, you are not the first one who says that to me, and not the first one who I challenge with that response. Anyway, I do not accept to have my true stand challenged due to narrow dictionary definitions.

See, the dictionary.com defines atheism this way:

a•the•ism

1.
a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

So, without even entering the realm of how exatcly "disbelieve" differs from "not believing", I have to ask: should I think that I am immoral just because of that silly definition? I don't think so.

Let’s also see the definition of agnosticism.

ag•nos•ti•cism
n.
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

See, if we go for it, in the religious aspect, than in fact there is no mention of the concept being held here, that they refuse to claim knowledge, but they also are allowed to not take all given information with the same value. It's you that added the part that gives it a reasonable stance, because this here puts you in a position where you have to accept the hypothesis “there is God” to the same value of the hypothesis “there is no God”, without room to weight the two opposite views accordingly to their logical value, but only accept them as equal: I don’t know either way, so they are the same… after all, “there can be no proof”.

In that sense, actually, Newfangle would be right in his description of agnosticism. It would be a appeal to ignorance, as it would state a priori that no knowledge of God can ever be found, what, according to the metaphysics definition being held in this thread, would be to think of it as a perfect axiom, and hence, an axiom doomed from it’s inception.

It also would be, as he said, to equate logic with lack of logic, because it demands that you take whatever info and label than “insufficient”, refusing to take a stand, no matter if one side is, despite not proven without a doubt, to be logical virtually beyond reasonable doubt.

Yes, the dictionary dot com definition of agnosticism would imply all that… but in fact, I don’t think that’s your stand, nor the stand of any of the agnostics here. And I don’t throw it in the thread saying “here is what you really are, get used to it!”. I realize the lack of describing power of those words.

It’s the same with atheism. I do not claim that I know there is no God. I just claim that I don’t believe in it. That’s the definition of atheism I stand for. If you want to call it moderate atheism, be my guest. If you still say that I can’t define atheism like that, because the dictionary say I can’t, well, let’s come up with a new name to define the position I take. Personally, I suggest calling it “intelligentism”, so I can always define me as an intelligent person ; anyway, you get my point… my stance don’t change, regardless of what the dictionary says.

As for the actual point of the thread, I had already went through this with Pontiuth Pilate; I do know that, philosophically speaking, to obtain perfect knowledge is impossible. This is true about the existence of God, but it’s also true about the existence of cockroaches.

What I perceive of agnostics is that they draw an arbitrary line, like “from this on, I begin to feel in doubt”. I, personally do not feel like that. Despite the fact that my senses are limited, and my comprehension of reality is limited, and that I cannot offer a completely virtuous prove of absolutely anything, I do use empirical and logical thinking as tools to separate what is minimally acceptable from what isn’t.

So, we are back to the Gods and cockroaches, and for effect I might add aliens to this mix.

I can’t prove perfectly that there are cockroaches; maybe those bugs are a creation of my mind, no one else actually sees them or think of them, and every time I squashed one, I was simply deluding myself. However, I do think that the characteristics of the bug does not make them illogical in principle, and I feel comfortable to believe in them.

As for Aliens, well, did they come to earth? I doubt it, there is no serious evidence of that (or maybe I’m deluding myself about it ). Anyway, if someone asks me if Aliens exist somewhere out there, I’ll honestly say that I don’t know. If there is life here, there can be somewhere else. I lack data to tell, but they also don’t strike me as illogical in principle. Hence here I can reasonably place myself in a position of doubt. Guess I can define me as an Alien Agnostic, but that’s ok, after all we have settled that I can also define me as intelligent.

Finally, there is God. Accepting him as true is pretty tricky. It involves more than doubling universe’s complexity; invalidating all scientific knowledge we possess (as it’s a factor that can change the results of any experiment arbitrarily, demolishing their prediction value); that the rules of the universe aren’t really rules; that there are man that are better and wiser than any other man (namely Jesus and prophets in Christianity, for example), that the bible is a perfect book that have, hidden in it’s pages, all information humanity will ever need, and a lot other impossibilities and nonsensical information, almost to no end. And most of those consequences remain even when we retreat from an specific God to a obscure omnipotent entity.

So, there we have it. My intellectual honesty forbids me from categorically ruling out the “there is a God” thesis… but the same intellectual honesty tells me that this is a possibility to which I should not give serious value. Hence I feel pretty comfortable to state that I am an atheist, or an intelligent if you will.

As I once said, to place myself in a position of doubt, I require a doubt of greater virtue.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

If you see this as correct that it is a matter of reality and truth. Understanding various facts do not cause one to cease to be humble.

No, it’s claiming to posses an inerrant knowledge only achievable by special enlightenment that is with 100% certainty correct about what is the origin of the universe that does.

Or do the religious have any shred of doubt that God was the reason for the universe to be?

To refuse an option means to reject it, to not accept it, or to deny it.

No, not that. Look, to even be able to reject the rule of God (making atheists, as some believe, pride who don’t want to recognize their places and be free to do whatever they want), we would have to at least acknowledge, first, that such rule exist.

Atheists make definitive claims. An atheist does not believe in the possibility of God's existence. An atheist does not claim to be not sure about certain things regarding reality and the fabric of existence.

Answered in the above post, and by Aphex’s instrumental intervention.

Regards .

 

[CurtSibling]

What attitude? Sorry, I didn't get your post.

It is very simple.

You wish to be left alone to do whatever.
I assume if you allow other people to do whatever they wish too;

- Then there is no problem from the premise of this thread.

I am only aiming the proof demand at those who wish to dictate morals.

 

[Mark Young]

So Curt How are you going with this? Are you winning this round?

I haven't read through the whole thread, it's a bit too long for me.

 

[Jawz II]

here is proof there is no good and almighty god:

nothing can be almighty,its simply not possible,why?

well think about this old question:can god create a rock so big and heavy even he cant lift?

if yes,then the fact that he cant lift it means he is not almighty

if no,then there you have it

 

[Mark Young]

There you have what?? A hypothesis with a giant hole in it?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

can god create a rock so big and heavy even he cant lift?

Can god create another god?

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Can god create another god?

Can God create a religious Curt? Can God create a rock heavier than Perfection can lift it?

 

[Blasphemous]

Can god create a rock too big for him to lift?
There are two answers I can see to this question:
-This sentance is flawed, because it misuses language to express and impossible thing (there is no such thing as a rock that god can't lift, and there cannot be.)
-Yes, he can. He is so omnipotent that he can even create a rock that simply by existing could detract from his omnipotency.
Also, there is always the question of where such a rock could be created, since god is obviously strong enough to move a planet, you would have to find a pretty serious gravity well to create this colossal stone nearby, for it to prove any kind of challenge for the supreme deity.

 

[Jawz II]

this is what i got:

me:simple question

you:well since we all know that the universe is curved and bunnys white,the language misused here dosent allow for questions and yadda yiddi yikes.. hey is that a bunny over there?

i dont see how the question is flawed
the only thing flawed is the word almighty,its a paradox nothing can be almighty

i misuse the language to express an impossible situation?
what dose that mean?how is one misusing language to express anything?


the question is not IS THERE a rock...?

it is CAN GOD CREATE a rock....?


heres another idea,why did god create humans?what is the meaning of life?when i was 18 i studied all religions and as far as i undersatnd,according to christiamity its basicly a bet between satan and god,satan said i can fool them into following me,god said no way
-yes way!
-no way
can too
can not
i soo can

well wanna bet?
k

and thus we were created to see if we would be fooled by satan or not

an almighty god would already know the answer to this question,who will have more points (souls) when the race is over

they say god gave humans free will,the power to decide for ourselves

then that must by definiton mean god gave us some of his power = he is not almighty any more,we have some of the might

cause if he can not see the future and dosent know what is going to happen he is not almighty,he dose not have the power to predict future=not almighty

 

[CurtSibling]

So Curt How are you going with this? Are you winning this round?

I haven't read through the whole thread, it's a bit too long for me.

I am not really out to win anything, just to see different ideas...
And the thread has been good in that respect.

Despite what some people may think...