A Question for Agnostics and OR Atheist

[rossum]

Would you be so kind as to educate me

On what basis do you either doubt the existence of God [gods] or deny the existence of GOD [gods]?

Look to yourself for an answer. You doubt/deny the existence of most gods: Vishnu, Amaterasu, Tlaloc, Durga, Loki/Trickster etc.

Why do you doubt/deny their existence? An atheist or agnostic goes one God further then you do, but they agree with you on the great majority of gods.

rossum

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Look to yourself for an answer. You doubt/deny the existence of most gods: Vishnu, Amaterasu, Tlaloc, Durga, Loki/Trickster etc.

Why do you doubt/deny their existence? An atheist or agnostic goes one God further then you do, but they agree with you on the great majority of gods.

rossum

While this argument does point at something worth giving some thought to, I don’t think it’s a particularly good one. Often the reason that a theist from one religion rejects the Gods of other religions is because they have already been convinced of their own God’s existence, and that rules out the existence of all others. People who reject the idea of God altogether would have to give a different account for why they don’t believe, I think.

 

[rossum]

While this argument does point at something worth giving some thought to, I don’t think it’s a particularly good one. Often the reason that a theist from one religion rejects the Gods of other religions is because they have already been convinced of their own God’s existence, and that rules out the existence of all others. People who reject the idea of God altogether would have to give a different account for why they don’t believe, I think.

That only applies to monotheist religions. Hindus, for example, may follow Vishnu but have no problem with the existence of Shiva and other gods. You cannot always project ideas from Abrahamic monotheism onto other religions.

rossum

 

[Rosebud77]

Imagine that your supposed destination is 1000 miles away. You could walk, ride a bicycle, drive a car, take the bus, train, or airplane. Each of these modes is very different and each will work.
But if you just sit around trying to decide which is the correct way to travel, you will never arrive.

In my view, there is no “correct” religion, and there is no “incorrect” one either.
**Faith doesn’t come easy; one has to work for it. **As our teacher said:
**
“To the one who has will be given more. But to the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away.” **

Not true in all cases. Faith is a gift from God.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

That only applies to monotheist religions. Hindus, for example, may follow Vishnu but have no problem with the existence of Shiva and other gods. You cannot always project ideas from Abrahamic monotheism onto other religions.

rossum

True, which is why I said “often,” not “always.” And your comment wa directed towards an Abrahamic monotheist.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

For our Atheists and Agnostics the universe is entirely a material thing and can be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry. For them there will always be a rational explanation for the events that the religious community calls miracles.
Not all atheists are physicalists. You can be an atheist and be a platonist, or believe in supernatural things that aren’t divine.
undead rat;14675254:

What I would ask Atheists and Agnostics to think about is that your choice is not as rational as you might think. For if you are right, what have you gained when your life ends? But if you are wrong then perhaps you are not providing your eternal soul with all of the benefits that you could during its earthly journey.

And what am I to do with this information? If I’m trying to be rational, I have to base my beliefs on the evidence as best I can. When I do that, the existence of God seems pretty remote to me. And the existence of my “eternal soul.” And a God who has set up reality in such a way as to make there be negative consequences for my eternal soul based on something like my honest disbelief in this God (especially if the consequences are something like an eternity in hell) seems to be so remote that it barely seems worth considering.

 

[undead_rat]

undead rat;14675254:

And what am I to do with this information? If I’m trying to be rational, I have to base my beliefs on the evidence as best I can. When I do that, the existence of God seems pretty remote to me. And the existence of my “eternal soul.” And a God who has set up reality in such a way as to make there be negative consequences for my eternal soul based on something like my honest disbelief in this God (especially if the consequences are something like an eternity in hell) seems to be so remote that it barely seems worth considering.

That’s a good question and, really, the crux of the issue. At some point one has to make the decision to go with the irrational, if, for no other reason, than that the rational is a dead end.
For me that point came at my third (and last) semester at M.I.T. I read for the first time the Gospels. I didn’t understand them, but I liked them.
Finding the Shroud was a wonderful thing. It has been a bulwark of my belief. I recommend Ian Wilson’s research, if you would be so inclined.

I can do no more than to repeat my favorite Woody Allen quote:

"There is no way to prove that God does not exist, you just have to take it on faith."

Which illustrates that Atheism is a choice that rationality attempts to force upon us. But we do not have to accept that. We have the ability to choose the irrational if we so desire.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

KnowtheSilence;14677918:

That’s a good question and, really, the crux of the issue. At some point one has to make the decision to go with the irrational, if, for no other reason, than that the rational is a dead end.
For me that point came at my third (and last) semester at M.I.T. I read for the first time the Gospels. I didn’t understand them, but I liked them.
Finding the Shroud was a wonderful thing. It has been a bulwark of my belief. I recommend Ian Wilson’s research, if you would be so inclined.

I can do no more than to repeat my favorite Woody Allen quote:

"There is no way to prove that God does not exist, you just have to take it on faith."

Which illustrates that Atheism is a choice that rationality attempts to force upon us. But we do not have to accept that. We have the ability to choose the irrational if we so desire.
If you are going to consciously choose to be irrational, what sorts of boundaries do you put on forming your beliefs? Can’t you chose to believe literally anything at that point?

 

[PJM]

I can level the same critique against you from where I’m sitting. Which leads me to believe that we’re both not communicating our complete thoughts. And unless you point to specifically what you disagree with and why, I don’t have a place to start from.

But don’t worry about it, because I’m quite done with this thread. Your OP made it seem you wanted to hear another’s point of view. But you are more interested in talking than listening. On top of that, you’ve responded simply 'Nuh-uh" to me, and that’s not the kind of debate I ever look to engage in. You’ve brought up as evidence the laws of science. But this just demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what a law of science actually is. A scientific law isn’t like a legal law - where someone has commanded behavior. A scientific law is a description of how things actually do behave. They are arrived at through distilling statistical averages.

If you’re looking for a debate on God’s existence, I’m sure others can oblige you. I have no care one way or another how anyone believes about deity.

So sorry to hear that you’re leaving the THREAD

BUT for the record what I actually did do was provide evidence of:

GOD [singular]

The way man ALONE emulates GOD

The very reason that humanity exist.

God bless you, keep seeking and pray much for Gods help.

Patrick

 

[ANV]

Would you be so kind as to educate me

On what basis do you either doubt the existence of God [gods] or deny the existence of GOD [gods]?

Thank you,

Patrick

I’m not here to debate or argue about it, but to answer your question it’s generally because we think that gods and religions are human inventions and a part of fabricated mythologies and stories for several reasons including our need for answers in our lack of scientific knowledge back then, also the need to control, almost each particular story, mythology and concept had it’s reason for being made, just like the afterlife for example. For the same reasons you don’t believe in other gods and religions, when you try to dismiss them, you are a disbeliever towards these religions. Most of us didn’t choose their religion, it was chosen to us before being born, our religion differs in relation to the geography and time we were born in.
Also there is no evidence for anything supernatural and lots of scientific evidences and historical facts to dimiss almost every particular belief in almost every religion, apart from rational, logical, realist and philosophical arguments.
I don’t deny the possibility that there could be a creator or many, even that I highly doubt there is, but I know for sure that the personal gods that we know do not exist and are just made up, from what is mentioned above.
Further more, if there is any God(s) I believe they are either dead or not all powerful or evil.

 

[ItTakesAllKinds]

I don’t doubt. I believe anything can be possible. I just choose to hold beliefs that bring me comfort and strength to be a better person and, in a small way, make the world a better place. Traditional religions don’t bring me that comfort, so I tend to avoid them. Though, I will admit that I do pull certain beliefs from them if they meet my needs. Ultimately, I believe we are here for a purpose greater than oneself. What that is, I don’t believe anyone knows. It doesn’t really matter to me. As long as I respect that as a life-guider, than I have no doubt I am on the right track. I believe we are born with a strong moral compass, instinctually. For those who aren’t, it is caused by some sort of defect or illness. (I just add that because people tend to want to debate my beliefs and they always ask how do you know right from wrong). Anyhow, I don’t debate my beliefs or defend them, but I am always happy to share when someone asks about them.

 

[Lou2U]

I’m not here to debate or argue about it, but to answer your question it’s generally because we think that gods and religions are human inventions and a part of fabricated mythologies and stories for several reasons including our need for answers in our lack of scientific knowledge back then, also the need to control, almost each particular story, mythology and concept had it’s reason for being made, just like the afterlife for example. For the same reasons you don’t believe in other gods and religions, when you try to dismiss them, you are a disbeliever towards these religions. Most of us didn’t choose their religion, it was chosen to us before being born, our religion differs in relation to the geography and time we were born in.
Also there is no evidence for anything supernatural and lots of scientific evidences and historical facts to dimiss almost every particular belief in almost every religion, apart from rational, logical, realist and philosophical arguments.
I don’t deny the possibility that there could be a creator or many, even that I highly doubt there is, but I know for sure that the personal gods that we know do not exist and are just made up, from what is mentioned above.
Further more, if there is any God(s) I believe they are either dead or not all powerful or evil.

Yes, I agree with this. For me, I find the idea of a “God” just implausible. I just can’t buy into it. And then there’s the issue of so many different religions, each with so many denominations. There are things to be interpreted literally, and things which are metaphorical, as well as the things that count in context but not in today’s times. These vary between denominations as well as within them.

On what basis do I doubt a God? The basis that there is what would count as evidence for each one of them existing. Each religion, each denomination. The basis that each society has had its own god or gods. As others on this thread have said, I just believe in one less god than you.

Lou

Lou

 

[Techno2000]

Yes, I agree with this. For me, I find the idea of a “God” just implausible.

I used to be like you, so I can relate ,but that was before my supernatural and mystical experience with God, and now I can say with 100% certainty that there is a God.

 

[undead_rat]

[14678180]
If you are going to consciously choose to be irrational, what sorts of boundaries do you put on forming your beliefs? Can’t you chose to believe literally anything at that point?

I suppose that you can choose just about anything, and one does see people choosing all sorts of different systems of religious practice. For myself, I have not liked the idea of any institution dictating to myself their particular dogmas.
Rather, I have attempted to figure things out on my own, and I feel that every type of religion and sect has something to offer. Each has its own mistakes, too.
I’m in the Episcopal Church for several reasons, and none of them are because that I think that it is a better Church than others.

So I guess that is my answer. When one makes the irrational choice of attempting to believe in a Almighty Creator, one immediately has to go back to rationality and try to make sense of things from a religious perspective.
That’s not an easy thing to do which is why, I suppose, that most believers choose to have their Church do that for them.

I have developed my own somewhat unique analysis. Too much to go into here. Try the forum “End Times Speculation XII.”

 

[rossum]

I used to be like you, so I can relate ,but that was before my supernatural and mystical experience with God, and now I can say with 100% certainty that there is a God.

Be careful. Not all mystical experiences are what they seem to be. We can all see 'water’in a mirage, yet there is no real water there.

The same is true for mystical experiences: some are valid, others are not. IIRC the Catholic Church investigates and classifies miraculous apparitions, which is a wise approach. You need an expert to validate such experiences. Here is a Buddhist example:

Some people come to Zen expecting that Enlightenment will be the Ultimate Peak Experience. The Mother of All Peak Experiences. But real enlightenment is the most ordinary of the ordinary. Once I had an amazing vision. I saw myself transported through time and space. Millions, no, billions, trillions, Godzillions of years passed. Not figuratively, but literally. Whizzed by. I found myself at the very rim of time and space, a vast giant being composed of the living minds and bodies of every thing that ever was. It was an incredibly moving experience. Exhilarating. I was high for weeks. Finally I told Nishijima Sensei about it. He said it was nonsense. Just my imagination. I can’t tell you how that made me feel. Imagination? This was as real an experience as any I’ve ever had. I just about cried. Later on that day I was eating a tangerine. I noticed how incredibly lovely a thing it was. So delicate. So amazingly orange. So very tasty. So I told Nishijima about that. That experience, he said, was enlightenment.

Source: Zen is Boring, Brad Warner.

rossum

 

[Techno2000]

Be careful. Not all mystical experiences are what they seem to be. We can all see 'water’in a mirage, yet there is no real water there.

Well, I went from a person with no interest in going to church, and I never said a prayer… to one who goes to church, and prays everyday… so something must have happened.

 

[PJM]

My issues with [1] – [7] arise in [4] (as you predict in [5]) and continue through [7]

.

My issues with [1] – [7] arise in [4] (as you predict in [5]) and continue through [7].

You say in [4] that our mind, intellect, and free will are “spiritual realities.” In order to properly formulate a response, I’d need to know what you mean by “spiritual.“ Presumably the word spiritual applies to some sort of nonphysical reality, but does it apply to any sort of nonphysical or only a particular type (in other words, can there be a nonphysical reality that is not spiritual)? And what are the boundaries? If someone is a non-reductive physicalist when it comes to theory of mind, are the mental realities they believe in “spiritual” ones because they don’t reduce to the physical, or are they something else because they supervene on the physical? This will be important later on.

talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002_1.html

I GOOGLED Hoyle’s debate of an airplane assembling itself. ….This was all I found., and I didn’t find it to be applicable to our discussion. SORRY

Now as to my meaning of “spiritual reality”

Definition of SPIRITUAL

1. 1: of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit : INCORPOREAL spiritual needs
2. 2a : of or relating to sacred matters spiritual songs b : ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal spiritual authority lords spiritual
3. 3: concerned with religious values
4. 4: related or joined in spirit our spiritual home his spiritual heir
5. 5a : of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b : of, relating to, or involving spiritualism : SPIRITUALISTIC

Of the definitions I could locate; number [5] above comes closest to my meaning.

By “spiritual reality” I mean that the “things” referenced logically & undebatably exist, and in a nonphysical matter form.

As to its application: I will limit myself to the present discussion of Godly things; meaning their origin, their existence and their sustenance ALL depend upon GOD, and GOD alone. I have no desire to lead this into a scientific discussion which I am unqualified to do.

In [5], you ask that if we have objections to [4] (which I’m not sure I do until you define “spiritual“) that we “quantify” our free will in term of “shape, size, color and weight.” You’re setting up a dichotomy that if one doesn’t think that free will, etc., are “spiritual,“ then one must be a reductive physicalist. This is only a true dichotomy if you are defining “spiritual” broadly enough to include the various types of non-reductive physicalism OR if you think that non-reductive physicalism has been disproved, which is something I don’t accept as a given and would need you to argue for.

OK, So I feel I have responded to your points thus far. What I shared is logical, proof; & the THRUTH. What is true can be nothing else.

It’s also worth point out that a reductive physicalist (which I am not, but I consider it a live option) could, in response to your challenge, say that free will does have color, weight, etc., and that question could be answered in principle, but we lack the technology and understanding to answer it in practice. So when you say “We can’t say, yet it exist,“ you are just pointing out the ignorance of the reductive physicalist – which they would admit to – and not showing that they are wrong or that your “spiritual“ explanation succeeds. Your explanation must stand on its own; it doesn’t win by default.

So We agree that at this point in time my declaration is not scientifically unprovable., and hence cannot be dismissed.

Also in [5] you say “It is a fact that every HUMAN - Soul [for this discussion being defined as that thing which animates Life], has exclusively these spiritual realities permanently attached to it. And it this, what I have come to term; ‘our other self’ that survives the mortal body, and faces eternal judgment; and hence explains the existence of God, the Universe and humanity.” That is a jaw-droppingly bold assertion, and I can’t let it slide

OK, so what exactly about it do you wish to debate?. Everything exist for a reason, even if one cannot or does not know what that reason is.

I view life as a physical process, not as a metaphysical “animating force” of some kind. So how does your view of a “soul” fit with that? Do we say that process itself is what we call a soul? You could make that move, but then what happens to the assertion that the soul survives the body, faces eternal judgment, etc.? It doesn’t work, so you would likely say that I’m wrong and that life is a force.” Alright, show me that, but realize your work does not end there. Even if I accept that there is some sort of “animating force,“ how do I know that it is eternal survives physical death, faces eternal judgment, or explains the existence of God?

This argument I LOVE! Thank you!

There is at times, an element of Faith AND LOGIC in “Faith”

Humanity simply cannot exist by coincidence or by unmanaged evolution

“LIFE” has a source; a beginning and an end for a reason

My explanation for humanities existence in POST #16 logically, perhaps in a sense even scientifically explains THAT [singular] reason.

My friend, having taught, shared, explained and even defended the Catholic Faith for some 30+years now, I LONG AGO came to realizes that “conversions” are GOD’s exclusive domain. My task, when so offered by God the Holy Spirit, is to do my personal best to explain our faith and then leave the heavy mental gymnastics to you and God. …… It’s an understanding and a relationship that has worked quite well over the years.

Cont.

 

[PJM]

Cont.

On to [6]. You say “like must come from like.“ Man has “spirit,“ and that comes from God who is spirit. If like comes from like, and God is spirit, whence comes the physical? And if we are including non-reductive physicalist theories of mind as being “spiritual” (which you may not, but that hurts your dichotomy in [5]), then we can say that there are instances where like does not come from like.

My discussion is not a scientific debate at its root. And I personally do not know of anything that does not in some manner emulate its source for existence. BUT that is not the point I was trying to make.

In [7]d you ask two questions. This first is “WHY does humanity exist?” To this we can supply the standard explanation of humankind arriving through the process of evolution by natural selection

NO, actually one cannot for all of these reasons:

The First cause

The evolution of sight and hearing is NOT possible by evolution alone for example

Evolution does not take in to account or explain “LIFE” the SOURSE of of life itself.

Nor can evolution account for man’s EXCLUSIVE mind, intellect and freewill which IS MY POINT .

The second question, “And HOW can we and the universe exist without a first cause?”, assumes that atheists and agnostics reject the idea of a first cause. This is not the case. Very few (I can’t think of any) think the universe came from literally, absolutely nothing. And few believe in something like infinite regress. There are some who do think that there is a “first cause” of some sort, just that this cause does not fit the description of “God” (I’m in this camp, but it’s worth noting that I don’t rule out infinite regress as a possibility). And most, I think, withhold judgment. So it’s not fair to assume that we believe there is no first cause and challenge us on that point.
[cont.]

, mental gymnastics to try to disprove what is unable to be disproven.

Reply cont.

 

[PJM]

Cont.
Re: A Question for Agnostics and OR Atheist

---

[cont.]
On to 1 – 5:
Quote:
1 The organization of the universe and its complexity. To assume that this is accidental would be like one believing that we could take all the separate parts of a Bowing 707 airplane and drop them from a mile up and expect them to reassemble themselves in midair. This very complexity of the universe leads logically to just one source for its being. We choose to know and call that source our God.
Quote Hoyle’s “airplane in a junkyard“ analogy has been addressed ad nauseum as a straw man by folks on my side of the fence. I’ll leave it to you to find those responses and explain why you think they fail and why you think the analogy holds. End quote
Quote:
2 Planet Earth and it exclusive ability to sustain life-forms, and the essential role of the sun and the moon to accomplish this,

Quote The Earth is the only planet that we know of that can and does sustain life, but it does not follow that it is the only one, and I think you would be hard-pressed to find an expert that thinks that the Earth is “exclusive“ in this way. As far as the sun, moon, etc., being essential to accomplish this, well, of course. Life will only arrive and thrive where the conditions allow it to do so. Are you familiar with Douglas Adams’ puddle analogy? End quote
BUT you’re dismissing this reality as if it has NO significance. Yet with BILLIONS of stars and planets the FACT that the sun and moon [1] do exist [2] do exist in our galaxy [3] are absolutely essential [4] are in a planned and organized orbit essential for support life forms are ALL Billions to one odds. = impossible by accident.

After thousands of years; sending a man to the moon and bringing him home safely; and STILL science cannot PROVE other planes with OUR life-forms exist. So to assume such is no more than a mere mental exercise; a grasp, a HOPE…. It fails completely as a logical argument.

Quote:
3 The natural laws of air, motion and gravity can’t have “just happened”

This is a bald assertion on your part. What are these natural laws you speak of? Who says the did “just happen” and why do you think that they can’t?

My friend, this is such an illogical set of statements, it is unworthy of reply. If science is on your side here; then YOU explain to us, just HOW any of them just happens.
PLEASE check out these 2 sites:

[1] godwithoutreligion.com/science-of-god?gclid=CjwKEAjwja_JBRD8idHpxaz0t3wSJAB4rXW5K06uFGUIy87nxraij5UfqhTfFEkXZiwibVkUln-jBhoC7I7w_wcB

[2] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas
Quote:

4 Good and evil. Good being the design and Divine Will of God and evil man’s freewill rejection of it. Only these evidences can plain logically the existence of a GOD and humanities presence on earth.

Quote I think you may have misphrased something here, first because it comes off as quite circular (God explains the existence of goodness and goodness explains the existence of God) and be you say “Only these evidences can plain logically the existence of a GOD” and if that were true, why have we been talking about all this other stuff? QUOTE

So my friend, If as you seem prone to suggest, goodness dies not have its origin in GOD, than HOW do you and your science explain its existence?

quote And finally 5, the Five Ways of Aquinas. You should understand that those five arguments by themselves, if they work (which I’m not sold on all of them), don’t prove they existence of God. They prove the existence of metaphysical properties that theists say are a part of God, but non-theists could say are something else. You need more arguments to show that these metaphysical properties are part of the same thing, and that this thing also has the other qualities would make it God. Aquinas did try to do this with other arguments from the Summa and other works, but it takes a lot more work. Why people share just those five arguments by themselves is beyond me. end quote [IMO]

No my FRIEND, you are in the need of “more evidence”, mot me here. Your positions are often illogical and certainly unprovable. [IMO].

You claim to not accept ALL of the FIVE ways. If you accept even ONE, there is your evidence.

Blessings,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

Look to yourself for an answer. You doubt/deny the existence of most gods: Vishnu, Amaterasu, Tlaloc, Durga, Loki/Trickster etc.

Why do you doubt/deny their existence? An atheist or agnostic goes one God further then you do, but they agree with you on the great majority of gods.

rossum

Thanks for sharing