[B]Atheist but confused...[/B]

Agnosticism is the way to go. I don't think is it reasonable to claim to know whether or not there is a god. Anyone who claims to know that there is or is not a god is using the term "knowledge" in a meaningless way. If it isn't a justified true belief then it isn't knowledge. However I was told by some christians recently that the bible claims that god will reveal himself in such a way as to leave no exception in anyone's mind. So if you think you have witnessed a sign from god but there are competing explanations with no means of adjudicating between them then it probably wasn't a sign from god.

 

I am not exactly sure what you mean by "If it isn't a justified true belief then it isn't knowledge" A thing can exist whether we know it or not. For example, you existed before I knew you existed, but until I read your post I didn't know that you existed.

There are things that we know to be true which aren't based on analytical or scientific knowledge. We all know that we have consciences, but we have no physical evidence. We can't see our consciences. We know it to be intuitively true that we have consciences.

I firmly believe that if a person is truly seeking God, then he or she will find God. But, it takes time to build a relationship with God. A person must first be open minded about God's existence. God won't force Himself on a person. It is more like an invitation. "Ask, and you will receive; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened" Matthew 7:7

 

In order to know that something is true you must be able to give a reason for it being true such that given your reason you can not be wrong. If you can not demonstrate truth infallibly then you are not talking about knowledge, you are talking about belief. Of course not everyone imposes such a high standard on knowledge but in my mind asking anything less than infallibility in justification makes the term 'knowledge' pointless. It seems there is very little we can know, if we require infallibility, other than things that are true by definition. I know that a bachelor is an unmarried man, because it is true by definition. I do not think that anyone has ever provided an infallible justification for god's existence, or for god's non-existence, and therefor I think that no one can claim to know that god does or does not exist. That is what i meant.

 

Dawkins talks about teapot agnostics, those who refuse to commit to a position on whether or not there's a teapot orbiting Mars. It's true no one can provide an "infallible justification" for anything, so our knowledge is always tentative. I'm willing to take a chance on things that seem plausible and are supported by substantial evidence--probably not as much evidence as a scientist would insist on, or even would satisfy a court in a criminal trial (beyond a reaonable doubt or a civil lawsuit (preponderance of the evidence). Substantial evidence is the level used for many administrative decisions--enough to convince a reasonable decision maker to go with one course of action instead of another. For example, I believe in both evolution and the Big Bang, which many in this forum apparently aren't conviced about, considering the endless debates. I don't "know" that either of these theories are correct, but they're impressive, plausible and well-supported empirically. I also believe in God, but will concede the evidence is less solid there.

 

A person can claim to know God exists. According to The Merriam Webster Dictionary, "Knowledge is the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning" I can say that I have reason for knowing that God exists. The question is whether the knowledge amounts to proof. Most reasons don't. Most of our reasons are based on likelihood or probability. If the reasons that I have amount to some type of proof, then it would be legitimate for me to say that I know God exists.

If I use your argument that the only things we can know must be true by definition, I can say that I know God exists. One definition of God provided by The Random House Dictionary is "The creator and ruler of the universe, regarded as the almighty".

One reason among others that I make the claim that God exists is the presence of our consciences. Why is a conscience such an authority in our lives? Where does it come from? We live by our consciences. Our consciences guide us to either do something or not do something. How can something like that have such authority in our lives? Such authority can not come from society. We don't obey or disobey society. Society is only human beings as a group. So, where does it come from? I can only reasonably conclude that our consciences come from God.

This is a very interesting debate.

 

Other people have been convinced for similar reasons, notably Dr. Francis Collins, head of the human genome project. Honestly, I've never found that argument compelling. I can envision a scenario by which human reciprocal altruism developed by process of natural selection, since inhibitions about not murdering, stealing, etc., conferred evolutionary survival value by avoiding a Hobbesian "war of all against all" which would jeopardize the survival of each and every member of a collectivity. Then the moral norms would be passed on to future generations by training and internalization of parental rules, and voila, the voice of conscience. I find human consciousness to be more difficult to explain than conscience in evloutionary terms. I agree that a proof of God based on definition in Webster's or some other dictionary is totally lame. Definitions are human artifacts.

 

Vicktor Frankl believed that our conscience was a way in which man connects to God.

"Be a master to your will and a slave to your conscience".

 

That's correct, although Frankl had a special uderstanding of conscience in terms of highly personalized, intuitive, subjective, and existential responsibility: "pre-reflective ontological self-understanding", or "the wisdom of the heart" as he put it. I think its similar to Bishop John Robinson's Honest To God--being true to your higher self or ultimate source of meaning. Frankl, a concentration camp survivor, believed that the quest for meaning was the most important human drive, that meaning was relative to each individual, and that it could be found in the most challenging of circumstances, such as a Nazi concentration camp. For some, it was memories of a cherished loved one; for others, it was sunlight shining through a crack in the wall. He also thought it was possible for a person to lose his/her way and look for meaning in all the wrong places--sex, drugs, orgasms, and other ephemera, rather than those which are ultimatley satisfying. Conscience for Frankl is our intutive guide for sensing real, ultimate meaning among the false meanings with which we're constantly tempted. It's somewhat different, though, from the "one way" emphasis of some religions. Nor would I say Frankl's concept of conscience offers proof or evidence of a supernatural God who answers prayer. As I understand Frankl's concept of God, it's similar to Tillich's and Bishop Robinson's: the Ground of Being or Ultimate Meaning. It's also similar to the Higher Power of AA and the Twelve Step recovery groups. God is some source of ultimate meaning beyond yourself, whether it's a bedpan, the group, your higher self, or Good Orderly Direction. Whenever you are sincerely reflecting to yourself in solitude, that "to whom you are addressing yourself may justifiably be called God"--whoever or whatever that may be.

 

Your argument equates a conscience with an instinct. That doesn't explain the authority our consciences have on us. I can say that it is my instinct to say something hurtful to a loved one who causes me to feel angry, but my conscience causes me to choose to be patient in my moment of anger. A conscience is a lot more complex and different than an animal instinct. Humans have many animal instincts (i.e. sexual instincts). but we are not slaves to our instincts. Instincts cause us to feel that something is appealing, but we don't always obey our instincts. We filter out what to do and what not to do via our consciences.

Not only that, but moral norms are often not passed on to future generations. Some people come from very Christian families where they are taught a certain set of moral values (i.e. not to steal), but that doesn't always cause the offspring to follow these taught values.

I still truly believe that our consciences come from God.

Great debate.

 

IF GOD helped you and your family, what the hell is he waiting for to help the thousands of starving christians around the world. Are you aware that 35 000 children die of strvation related illness everyday. Like your saying GOD will cause a miracle so I can get a few more comfort items, but then you also say that god doesnt even give a fuck about REAL christians and non christian CHILDREN for fuck sakes, to the point that he gives furniture to one and horrible death to another? IF this is true, what kind of god is this? Does he have an obsession with the ones he cant get hahahah. So he gives you guys furniture and a higher standard of living that is already high, but he cant get someone to walk in on the child rapist who has already raped his daughter and son 50 times each? Come on, come on now. Moving along.

Second explanation - in this world 'moving' from one place to another, is sort of like moving down the street. We are hyper inteconnected in this world. I can be in asia in less than a day! in Some rural city where people are asking god for a sign that their community will become rich. What better sign than a westerner?

 

If you believe our conscience comes from GOD why is it that GOD only gives some people a conscience and others hyper-vigilance? If this is the case, we obviously have to simply encarcerate the rapists, on behalf of the fact that GOD didnt give two shits about them. Yes that will stop the problem from reporducing itself, we have to pray to god to give rapists a conscience. Seriously, come on, come on.

 

Coincedences happen. Chances happen. Attributing these things to a higher power is somewhat foolish, but whatever makes you happy. Maybe there is a flow to things, but fate? Not so sure.

 

Lets look at the evidence, see if there is any correlations that we can draw on, much like the way we try to see correlations when we ask GOD for a sign.

Pedophiles are people that almost always have self-esteem issues and poor social skills. They also have reduced activity of the hypothalamus during cognitive sexual development.

References are scientific journals.

Marshall, W. L. (1997). The relationship between self-esteem and deviant sexual arousal in nonfamilial child molesters. Behavior Modification, 21, 86–96.
^ Marshall, W., L., Cripps, E., Anderson, D., & Cortoni, F. A. (1999). Self-esteem and coping strategies in child molesters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 955–962.
^ Emmers-Sommer, T. M., Allen, M., Bourhis, J., Sahlstein, E., Laskowski, K., Falato, W. L., et al. (2004). A meta-analysis of the relationship between social skills and sexual offenders. Communication Reports, 17, 1–10.

Schiffer B, Paul T, Gizewski E, et al. (May 2008). "Functional brain correlates of heterosexual paedophilia". Neuroimage 41 (1): 80–91. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2008.02.008. PMID 18358744.

 

Of course we do. Humans have more complex brains, greater reasoniong capacity and the benefit of language to convey moral concepts. Freud conceptualized the human psyche as a kind of committee consisting of our animal instincts (id), internalized parental norms (superego), and capacity for rational calculation of advantage (ego). I think it's entirely plausible to attribute these developments to natural evolutionary processes rather than supernatural intervention.

For evolutionary purposes and natural selection, "always" isn't necessary. Often is good enough.

You may be correct. I just don't see any convincing evidence of that.

Great debate.[/QUOTE]

 

Excellent point. I would like a definition of conscience before I would attempt to answer that post.

Conscience means the ability to feel compassion for another individual. Conscience is what allows us to feel empathy. It is also something that comes to us in our head, in the form of a voice usually.

Conscience, I must admit seems very god-like and it portrays the capacity to be so. However, another look at conscience, at a basic level and I have to agree that god needs not come into the picture for us to justify the existence of conscience.

Humans have the capacity to reason and the capacity to overlap more than two occurences to generate a feeling. Ie. We can take our experience of pain and overlap it with the feeling of pain that another has. Actually, this is something that has evolutionary power in so far as the ability to see another pain is nessecary when we live in a pack of animals that relies on a strong healthy painless pac of humans to survive. Conscience and empathy makes sense in this way. Now that we have no need to survive, the conscience becomes something that can be used at will as it is no longer tied to a harsh environment that would have us on the tips of our toes most the time, due to predators etc etc.

Pride is another emotion that helps us succeed. Pride in evolutionary terms tells you where to go and shame tells you where to stay away from. Pride is an emotion, a very happy one that makes animals instinctually return to place for a food source, for example. It is a feeling that allows you to repeat an action without having to access memory. It pushes you back to the place you came from, without having to rationalize why. This is one of the reasons why humans are so irrational when it comes to pride, we simply love the feeling, we need not explain why....just like food, we need not explain or rationalize why.

This is where the mind comes in. PErsonally, I feel much happier not following things that cause me pride because it is very temporary and the road towards the pride is very stressful and difficult. I believe simple pleasures are the strongest pleasures, because I never understood this before about pride, it doesnt match up to it.

 

OK first off lets take a step back and really look at what you're saying. So, you don't believe in god, but because something great has happened to you and your family, you now think Yahweh, creator of the universe, now exists and personally decided to help your family? Really think about it, you're suspending critical thinking, the only reason this is half acceptable is because it is god, if you said Zeus must exist because of this, everyone would think you're a loon. In ancient Greece they thought the same thing, everything that happened was a sign or blessing from one of the gods, it's a very old way of human thinking.

This is life: good things happen, bad things happen, and in between, everything is neutral. Now, everything, according to the bible, is part of gods plan, everything, not just the good things. so when something bad happens to you, that should be just as much a sign of god.

But if you were to be walking down the street, and a dog savagely attacked you, you wouldn't say "god must exist!" of course not, you'd call it bad luck, or life sucks.