What I might say to:

well said

 

Well put! There's no conclusive "proof" of anything. As the saying goes: "Nothing is certain, not even that." In other contexts, "proof" can fall far short of scientific proof or courtroom proof. In administrative proceedings, "substantial evidence" is enough to support many major government actions affecting our lives, and "probable cause" is enough to take folks to jail without passing Go. By necessity, we're gamblers. A good gambler will use available evidence to narrow the risks, but in the end, the decision will depend on an educated bet. Whether or not you're a gambler, you bet your life even by doing nothing or believing nothing. So all of the hand wringing and naval contemplation by the "how can we be sure" folks is beside the point. If you bet on God, you're a theist. If you bet against Him, you're an atheist. If you're an agnostic and try not to bet, or to hedge your bets, you've effectively bet your life on the illusion that not betting is a rational choice for people who can never be sure of anything.

 

God IS an invention of a religious mind. If you feel the need to make up your own definition of God to get to sleep at night then whatever but it doesn't mean your right. Might as well start calling your vehicle '******'. I'm going to call my toilet 'God'. I think I'll take a big messy shit in my Gods mouth and then take a ride around town on my ******!

Until someone defines a God that is commonly accepted, recognized and proven to be more than fantasy then God is just that, a damn fantasy.

 

religion assumes that we can know the qualities and wishes of the creative force. one can have an awareness of this force and not have a set of beliefs and practices related to it.

relaxxx, you make a very good point about words, but that is simply their nature. the definition of a word is what it is agreed to be, thus, multiple meanings attributed to one word, and constant change in the realm of language, is natural.

some see god as life, a force that is very difficult for anybody to understand. this god doesn't have to have a personality, and it most certainly doesn't have to be something that communicates directly to people. it could be that which animates us all, and experiences itself through our eyes. to some, god is simply the unification of all that is; pure information and energy.

"commonly accepted" is a vague term, and there are quite a few descriptions of god that fit that category. "proven" is much more direct, and i assume you mean that it must be something that we could physically test and recreate in controlled conditions. i don't really see how that could be possible, whether or not god exists. recognition is much more plausible, whether experientially or philosophically, but this only satisfies people with a certain temperament.

certainly, any human description of god must be fantasy. how could we describe something like that? how could we begin to understand it? all we can do is become aware of it in our own way, and if we so choose, describe our way around its perimiters, which is the realm of poetry and philosophy.

some things that have helped me to become aware of its likely existence and the limits of my own logic in understanding the universe:

what is life?
what is a true origin?
where in the brain is the observer?
how does anything exist?
why is creation a natural force?

 

apart from not being able to call oneself a atheist i think i completely agree with what you said.

but what you seem to by missing is that the difference between christians and atheists is that one denies part of what you just said and the other does not (respectively).

is there really anything else that needs to be said ?

 

you can't prove that a God doesn't exist but it's pretty obvious if you read the bible it's a load of rubbish written by humans, doesn't mean that Thor isn't God though. so i think Atheists have a better stance than Christians by a mile.

 

Hello there, im an atheist so im gonna answer your question to atheists, sorry agnostics, your on your own!

ok first thing we have to address in your question is what do you accept as proof? i will try to answer your question using only empirical evidence.

Second thing we must address is your concept of "god", for examples sake in this post we will use the well known christian "god".

another thing to remember is that much like the undetectable flying spaghetti monster it is hard to prove the non existence of something because you have to have specific properties and effects to test for an entity.
This is a problem caused by believers because each person has their own personal interpretation of god, therefore its hard to get specific properties of god. For example:
where is god? is he in heaven or everywhere?
Does he know your future or is it your free will?
Does he have a will of his own?
how does he communicate with humans?
is he the only god? where did he come from?
if he was always existed why did he take an infinite time creating our universe?

so obviously since these properties are objective and there is no proof for them other than speculation. so, we have to test the effects of god, just like in the early days of atomic theory, we did not know of the existence of atoms, but we could test for their effects.

So what are the effects of god? this is something more believers can agree upon. these would be examples of things god has done that we could test for empirically. Now, not everything god has done can be tested empirically because its just impossible, for example god parting the red sea for the isrealites to escape the Egyptians. and this is just because we dont really have any evidence to test.

so what effects of god are testable? well we could certainly test the claims that god created the universe or the earth or humans. there is evidence on this earth and around it to test this empirically.

and in the recent century, modern science has been able to do just that. great advancements have been made in the area of cosmology and physics that explains all of this with empirical evidence and tests that have been successfully repeated by a number of scientific establishments.

the universe, we now know, was created in such a way that the beginning would have started as extremely dense matter in a much smaller volume than what it is today. it has since then expanded rapidly like an explosion. thanks to special relativity and quantum mechanics we now that the spaces between the quarks (sp?) of atoms contain most of the atoms weight as dark matter which is kind of like bubbling "virtual" particles. these particles come in and out of existence so rapidly that it is extremely rare for them to form basic elements.

How rare is this event?
well scientists have calculated that from the initial formation of sub atomic particles by the big bang phenomenon it took approximately 300,000 years for this plasma to recapture electrons into their orbit. so in a primitive universe where there is nothing but dark matter, it would have been extremely rare for an amount dark matter in a given volume to simultaneously create enough mass to create a basic neutron or proton. BUT, think about this: in a universe where time is infinite, anything, no matter how rare, can and will happen (due to infinite odds).

so what observable evidence do scientists have to prove that this extremely rare event is what set off the chain reaction that eventually led to the universe as we know it? well there is just so much. so many books and experiments that i couldn't possibly fit it in one post. but instead i will tell you my favorite ones:

1) hubbles discovery that far away galaxies are proportional to their red shift
2)cosmic microwave background radiation (nobel prize winner)
3)light scattering surface (remainder of big bang) this is how we accurately measure the age and volume of our universe.
4)observational evidence of dark matte (this won the 2008 Noble prize in physics)




ok so we can disprove that god created the universe or the sun or the moon etc. how about humans? well im not going to mention all the evidence there is for human evolution but ill include some of the most obvious which have been accepted by the scientific community:
1)dna similarity between humans and chimps at least 90% similar.
2)fossils
3)natural selection
4)homology
5)genetics

ok so we can prove empirically that god did not create the universe and did not create humans but we do have a vast amount of evidence that shows alternative theories.

so in conclusion: we do have ample evidence of how the universe began, and how human life began without ever having to invoke god.

also an interesting thought: science is always discoverig new evidence and therefore theories are highly dynamic but isnt this learning of new concepts far more interesting and humble than knowing the absolute secretes of the universe, like some religions think they do? in science when new evidence comes out against a theory we accept this information with an open mind and change our theories to addapt to this new info. while religion on the other hand simply ignores these new facts. in my opinion that is very egotistical and closed minded.

oh and i like mustard, what of it?

oh ps. i hate it when poeple say something is not a fact just because it has the word "theory" after its title. would you question the theory of gravitation? or how about the theory of electro magnetism? yeah these are all facts even though the word "theory" comes at the end of it.

 

Good post, but your limiting assumptions make it less than an answer to a true believer. Like most atheists, you prefer a Judeo-Christian fundamentalist God, the better to demolish as a straw man. You, and the OP, make reference to "proof", as though that were the only foundation for reasonable belief.

"God", as I define Him/Her/it, is a felt presence of a Higher Power "in whom we live, and move, and have our being". "Felt" is a deliberately ambiguous expression, leaving open the possibility that the entity might be an illusion. Obviously, given the amount of time I devote to them, God and Jesus are central to my belief-value system, but I can't "prove" their existence even to myself. My beliefs are consistent with Theism, Deism, Pantheism and Panentheism, although I'm partial to Theism and Panentheism. Fr. Spitzer's book on the "new proofs" of God is, in my opinion, a n excellent but somewhat pretentious addition to the supporting arguments for a deity, for those who are inclined to go there. In any case, the entity these proofs are concerned with seems to be operationally defined as something like "First Cause" or "Cosmic Source of Order" instead of a personal deity who watches over us and hears our prayers. To get to the latter entity, we have to resort to less reliable evidence and take the leap.

Administrative law uses the concept of "substantial evidence", enough evidence to persuade a reasonable person to adopt a course of action, even though another reasonable person, on the basis of other considerations, could come to a different conclusion. It's a lot like decisions about what candidates or party to support. We often have the feeling that those backing the other side are morons, but if I think about it I have to concede that some Republicans are rational (Tea Party supporters and Fox News fans excepted), even though I think they're wrong. I'm also basically and Okie existentialist. I try to operate on the basis of the best available evidence, but in the final analysis, I think life is a crap shoot in which we bet our lives and take the consequences--and even agnostics are placing bets. So all of the incessant yadayada about proving or disproving God is beside the point. The evidence for Jesus' existence is admittedly slender (established mainly through evidence for the existence of his brother, and his head apostle, Peter. Even then, I'm convinced by the Jesus Seminar that He said and did less that twenty % of the things attributed to Him, but it's a significant 20%. I'm also willing to draw on the other major religions for norms supporting my beliefs. This is a reality I'm willing to bet my life on.

Dennett's Breaking the Spell elaborates on several naturalistic explanations of religious belief, and these don't even address possible neurological and chemical influences. One of the functions of supernatural beliefs was to explain various phenomena that couldn't otherwise be explained on the basis of existing knowledge. In particular, the fact that humans are the only species who are aware of their own mortality, and to appreciate the loss of loved ones, gives religious explanations of reality psychological as well as explanatory significance. Dawkins argues that religious explanations have steadily receded as science has advanced, so we have a "God of Gaps". I think it's a God of Chasms, as the implications of relativity and quantum theory undermine the mechanistic grounding of our sense of physical reality. Evolution can explain the course of development of living organisms, but what explains the origin of life? Scientists are much less certain about that than they were fifty years ago. What is consciousness? One knowledgeable neuroscientist points out that scientists are inclined toward believing that it's a product of brain functioning, but there's really no solid evidence for that. Who said that? Some fanatical Creationist? No, atheist guru Sam Harris. And then we have "fine tuning". Dawkins says that 's probably the most convincing argument the Creationists can come up with. He counters with the multiverse, but that really has no more empirical foundation than the God hypothesis. As Physicist Paul Davies argues, this is metaphysics, not science, and metaphysics is a matter of intuition. What really does "God" add to our understanding of anything, particularly since I haven't been able to provide more than the most rudimentary definition of the term. Is God just another way of saying "Wonderful Mystery", in which case my views would be close to those of atheist Carl Sagan? Possibly. A group I take fellowship uses the term "Great Mystery" instead of God, but I think a sense of reverence for the wonder and mystery of it all is functional in instilling appreciation for being here and a desire to find out more.

It's the uniqueness as much as the regularity of the universe that persuades me to bet on God as I've defined Her. You mention the improbability of the Big Bang, but it happened. Be careful with the argument that because of the vastness of the universe anything can happen. That logic not only undermines God but science, as well. If things seem remarkably orderly here it could be because they're so badly screwed up on planets Fubar and Snafu that order was bound to happen somewhere; or it could be because something remarkable gave them order. It's possible that you happened a few minutes ago, with clothes, whiskers, and memory tracks convincing you that you've been around for decades. It's also possible, and some university professors believe it's true, that our existence is really a Matrix-style computer simulation run by aliens or robots. Which version do you want to bet your life on?

Stephen Jay Gould, the late, great evolutionary biologist, pointed out the extent to which intelligent life is the product of a long series of accidents. One path taken over another by apparent chance along the road made the difference between a universe which someone is around to appreciate and one in which that's not the case. Yes, I'm sure the poor atheist would spin in his grave if he knew his work was being hijacked for theistic purposes. If he could, he'd rise from the grave to protest my teleological assumptions and point out that if evolution hadn't turned out this way it would have turned out some other way, and if there were no intelligent life forms to appreciate it, no big deal. I'm a believer because intuitively I think it is a big deal, and I don't think it's just because I have a psychological need for it to be one. Intuitively, awareness of our existence is amazing, and if it happened by chance, it's even more miraculous! Without this fortunate series of "accidents", we wouldn't be here having this stimulating discussion. The fact of human conscious also seems remarkable, because we don't know what its evolutionary advantage might be--why a zombie without qualia couldn't do just as well. And why would this creature have evolved the ability and inclination to solve problems so far beyond the needs for survival and reproduction on our planet? It's not just that it's complex and orderly, but that the complexity has worked out so well for us in opening up possibilities to unlock more secrets. There is enough around us to convince me that a bet on Something Big Out There isn't unreasonable, and at worst I think the sense of meaning and inclination to altruism that it provides would be useful even if the bet turns out to be wrong. I offer you a kinder, gentler Pascal's wager, with an intellectual component.

I choose God because it gives my life meaning and purpose, but also because it seems intuitively compelling that all this didn't come about by the operation of blind forces. Maybe somebody will come along with an as yet unknown counterpart to natural selection that can explain how it could all have originated. I'm attracted to the message of unconditional love even for the rejects and outcasts of society. But I don't deny that atheism in the right contexts can give others a sense of meaning and purpose, and think that the metaphors of scripture can provide a meaningful framework for coping with a troubled world. In this sense, I'm influenced by William James' Varieties of Religious Experience. It's true for you if it works for you, and different strokes for different folks. My only qualifier is that some religious belief systems are manifestly contrary to logic and evidence and cause great suffering. Fundamentalism, whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish, is a good example. If and when scientists have filled in the gaps, I might be ready to jettison the concept of God--but I don't expect that to happen in my lifetime; and if it did, I'd have to invent some "as if" alternative to support my sense of meaning and morality. There is enough around us to convince me that a bet on Something Big Out There isn't unreasonable, and at worst I think the sense of meaning and inclination to altruism that it provides would be useful even if the bet turns out to be wrong. I offer you a kinder, gentler Pascal's wager, with an intellectual and evidentiary component.

 

fishin-

okie beat me to the strawman comment

you don't honestly believe that we can empirically test the origin of life or the universe, right? causation goes back infinitely.

okie- i enjoyed that thoroughly, though i still don't understand why you don't just be your own godly, spiritual self, without the christian label.

most of the worthwhile ideas to be found in the new testament were around before they were written in that book. i mean, if god created us, aren't we all the children of god? why was jesus special? if you don't actually believe that jesus was the son of god, or that you need to ritualistically accept him into your heart (what does that mean?), why not just be a good person and keep seeking?

 

Good question. My belief in a purpose to human existence is a hunch or best guess that I follow in response to the contradictory data available to me. My faith in Jesus is a result of my perception that He was the patron of losers and rejects--therefore naturally the object of my grateful devotion. My beliefs are very close to those of the Jesus Seminar, Marcus Borg, in particular. My approach to Scripture is pretty much the same historical metaphorical approach as theirs, although I tend to give less weight to the Gospel of Thomas. To me, Scripture, properly understood, provides a guide to the meaning of life that is compelling. I came to Christianity as a result of a "religious experience" or moment of clarity centered on a non-literal view of the Book of Genesis, and I've never been the same since. When I encounter any human I believe I'm in the real presence of God, or more accurately, a reflection of an aspect of God. There may have been others, particularly the great Pharisee, Rabbi Hillel and the Prophets, who taught elements of Jesus' philosophy, but none who put it all together in such a compelling package. Yes, we are all children of God, but it helps to be aware of it.

My take is that Jesus was a hippie in the best sense of the term. In the day, they called them "cynics", although the word then had a much different meaning than it has today. We're talking about the followers of Diogenes who challenged material values, the Establishment and social conventions of the day. There were cynics in the Holy Land at the time of Jesus, mostly in the towns. Jesus was a rural cynic and was also a practitioner of passive resistance and guerrilla theater against the establishment of his day--the elite of Herodians, Hashmoneans, Sadduccees, and Pharisees who served the Roman occupation and used the Law of Moses as a tool of oppression. He was also a Nasorean, an offshoot of the Essenes that rejected the latter's exclusivity, and was formerly associated with the ministry of his cousin, John the Baptist. But He left John to pursue a different course in His own ministry. His approach was to go out into the countryside, perform exorcisms and faith healings outside the control of the Temple, and share meals with the locals as payment, breaking bread with people of all social categories and thereby challenging the cleanliness taboos of the "unwritten Torah". The closest parallel in our own time and country are the gatherings of the Rainbow Family of the Living Light, a motley collection of pagans, Muslims, Jews, atheists,Christians, professionals, homeless people, mental patients,etc., who gather regionally and nationally in the U.S. Forests and break bread in the "Catherdal of Nature--a kind of on-going Woodstock without the big name talent. Jesus is alive in so many human contexts throughout the world. If I were content to be my "own godly spirtual self" without the Christian label, I wouldn't be spreading the Good News, and would be leaving the label "Christian" to be appropriated by the Pharisees at Focus on the Family, the 700 Club, Congress and elsewhere.

 

What i might say to a God or Goddess should i meet one after death:

WHAT THE FUCK WERE YOU THINKING! I AM WAITING FOR AN EXPLANATION! . . . . . AND AN APOLOGY! YOU ARE A PETTY, TRIVIAL FUCK, GIVEN YOUR OCD CONCERN WITH DUMBASS ANTLIKE HUMAN MORAL CONCERNS IN SUCH A HUGE AND OLD UNIVERSE.

WHAT THE FUCK?!? HOW ABOUT YOU JUST SEND ME TO HELL - THAT'S WHERE ALL THE INTERESTING PEOPLE ARE ANYWAY!

 

okie- before you draw any final conclusions about the package presented in the bible, i would suggest you give the upanishads a chance. Here's a quote:


maller than the smallest, greater than the greatest, this Self forever dwells within the hearts of all. When a man is free from desire, his mind and senses purified, he beholds the glory of the Self and is without sorrow.

Though seated, he travels far; though at rest, he moves all things. Who but the purest of the pure can realize this Effulgent Being, who is joy and who is beyond joy.

Formless is he, though inhabiting form. In the midst of the fleeting he abides forever. All-pervading and supreme is the Self. The wise man, knowing him in his true nature, transcends all grief."





you may also find the bhagavad gita very helpful.


"Better indeed is knowledge than mechanical practice. Better than knowledge is meditation. But better still is surrender of attachment to results, because there follows immediate peace."

"Out of compassion I destroy the darkness of their ignorance. From within them I light the lamp of wisdom and dispel all darkness from their lives."

 

Thanks. I have found the Upanishads and the Gita helpful. In fact, that "moment of clarity" I mentioned was essentially a new understanding of Genesis based on the Hindu belief in atman and the Buddhist concept of attachments. However, I'm more influenced by the strong Judeo-Christian emphasis on Justice and the social gospel. I've noticed a tendency in Buddhist and Hindu friends toward contemplation instead of action. For example, they tend to view national and state politics as unimportant and illusory, where I regard them as very real and important. In a world where the likes of Glenn Beck, Pat Robertson, Sarah Palin, and the Revs. Jones and Phelps are roaming about, we need more Elijahs, Isaiahs and Jesuses to confront them. Suffering in the world isn't an illusion. It's very real, and much of it is caused by evil or deluded people.

 

you seem to be a believer in the validity of the moral statements in the new testament, but do you truly believe the basis?

 

i apologize if i am being rude

 

i only chose the christian god because by default he's the most popular, but my argument can be applied to most deities that people think are watching over them, if it sounds like a strawman its only because the christian god is so easily disproven. i also think it makes sense to be skeptical of everything that is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

if your concept of god is that first cause or cosmic source then i would have to agree with you, i just dont believe anything with a consciousness created our universe.

of course we can never be 100% sure, but we can empirically test for things like the age of our universe and have a definitive answer about that. from this example, we could eliminate the probability that god created the earth/universe 2000 years ago.

there may be many theories about how our universe was created but with empirical evidence like the one i just mentioned, we can at least eliminate some possibilities.

i dont think that science has completely eliminated the posibility of a diety but science can explain its origin without ever having to invoke anything conscious.

 

Everyone is entitled to see the biggest picture in the way they want to see it, IMO. It's something that has to be assumed so that you can function as a human in a particular way. And no one has measured the benefits and detriments of each particular way. Maybe believing there is no God helps you to function in a precise manner. Maybe believing there is a God helps you to function in a kindly manner. Etc.

I would wager that the truth would be coherent with healthiness. And I can't see anything more healthy than believing that we are something special and that others are something special. God or no God, treating others with respect is progressive, to me.

I guess I just figure, if God really wants everyone to believe in It, It will make it plain. And perhaps it yet will. But I can't believe in a God that would throw frail people into the world and then punish them if they had the incorrect perception of ultimate reality. That would make God something akin to Pol Pot.

In the meantime, love certainly exists, and I wouldn't want to live in a world without it.

 

God is real for He is always in my heart

 

Could you elaborate on this please?

 

santa clause is in my heart