Athiest, how can you not believe in God?

[Nepenthe]

You bet! I love Chesterton! Not even mentioning his influence on so many of my favorite writers…his warmth, exactitude and humanitas stand strong to a nontheist, even as those and his Catholicism may to a theist. And his powerfully unnerving and surreal sensibility when he turned it on appeals to me as an artist.

 

[little_princess]

So you deny religion a dont believe in any supreme power.

With the exception of strong atheists, denial isn’t even in the picture. I do not believe in any deity because I have no compelling reason to believe, and have seen no evidence that such a being exists. Nor, of course, have I seen any evidence to the contrary. ‘Blessed are they who have not seen and yet believed’, if you remember, but some of us, like Thomas, have to put our fingers in it before we make an absolute statement
Religion is a different issue. If there is some kind of supreme being, obviously all religions can’t be right as to its nature, intent, level of interest in humanity, and so on and so forth. So from an outsider’s point of view, they all seem about equally likely to be wrong. One of them may be correct; or none. Until the first question is answered, though, it doesn’t really matter overmuch.

I dont wanna arguing or change your point, but its just intresting how can people do not believe in highest light holy power while nature, earth, evolution itself already miracle. While bad and good exist. While mystery of human soul is still unknown. And etc etc etc list is endless.

I think almost all religions speacking about same thing (about existance of Highest Holy Power) but on different languages), and show respect to it by different rituals. Another question if all that postulats, rules, ritualts of religions are right or wrong. Im not from those ppl who obey all that religious stuff and super deep religious person, im even against of all that strickt rules and interpritations and etc. But in my opinion some religious aspects and symbols can help alot to ppl “open and hold iternal light”, also for people who are into troubles or on the bottom and they wanna rise up and be better and step on good path.

p.s sorry for my bad english:blush:

 

[Mirdath]

So you deny religion a dont believe in any supreme power.

Pretty much

I dont wanna arguing or change your point, but its just intresting how can people do not believe in highest light holy power while nature, earth, evolution itself already miracle. While bad and good exist. While mystery of human soul is still unknown. And etc etc etc list is endless.

Inventing a new mystery to explain other mysteries doesn’t sit well with me. Sure, there’s a lot of stuff we don’t know, but if every seeming mystery were waved away as just another miracle, we wouldn’t have penicillin. So let’s try to find out what these things are, instead of taking the easy but unprovable answer ‘God did it’!

Another question if all that postulats, rules, ritualts of religions are right or wrong. Im not from those ppl who obey all that religious stuff and super deep religious person, im even against of all that strickt rules and interpritations and etc. But in my opinion some religious aspects and symbols can help alot to ppl “open and hold iternal light”, also for people who are into troubles or on the bottom and they wanna rise up and be better and step on good path.

Sure, there’s no arguing that religion has been a great help to many people: it has. Faith in God and in the promise of eternal joy has helped millions upon millions of people to cope with their lives and struggles and deaths. Please, rest assured I am not anti-religion in any way! I simply do not see what all of you are talking about seeing – but if that sight helps you, then go for it, whether or not it’s real!

p.s sorry for my bad english:blush:

Don’t worry, you’re fine

 

[not_a_theist]

I dont wanna arguing or change your point, but its just intresting how can people do not believe in highest light holy power while nature, earth, evolution itself already miracle. While bad and good exist. While mystery of human soul is still unknown. And etc etc etc list is endless.

Nature itself is both wonderous and cruelly indifferent to us. There is much to discover and to figure out, but attributing what is currently unfathomable to some higher power doesn’t help our understanding of nature. Just because we don’t understand something doesn’t mean that a higher power is responsible and in any case, postulating such a higher power raises an even more endless list of questions than nature itself.

Who needs a higher power when nature itself is full of wonder?

And the answer to the rhetorical question is: theists.

 

[cpayne]

So let’s try to find out what these things are, instead of taking the easy but unprovable answer ‘God did it’!

What does the word “unprovable” mean, specifically?

 

[Mirdath]

What does the word “unprovable” mean, specifically?

Just what it says. How can one prove that a seeming miracle was actually divine action? Nobody even tries: either they accept it as divine or they don’t. ‘God did it’ is one explanation, certainly, but it does not automatically disqualify others, even others not known at the time.

Back in the 90s, I went to Conyers, Georgia, the site of a series of supposed (now, I think, discredited) Marian apparitions. Among the other attractions there was a crying statue of Mary. Along with the other pilgrims, I stood in the grotto before the statue, waiting expectantly. No tears were forthcoming until a worker rubbed the statue’s forehead down with a damp cloth.

That was no miracle; the tears were easily explained. But still, I saw plenty of people standing there, praying and adoringly watching the water trickle down from Mary’s eyebrows.

Other would-be miracles and oddities are not so patently hoaxes. We may not even know why they occurred. But should we say ‘oh, that was God’, sit back, and not investigate further? Should we leave off all inquiry into the workings of nature? Or should we, regardless of faith, continue to try to understand our universe – all for the greater glory of God by better understanding his actions and designs?

Why should you not rejoice just as much when a ‘miracle’ is explained as a natural occurrence as when you are unable to understand it? By raising your fingers to type, you have witnessed an act of God, his creation of you and your hands, of the minds that dreamed of keyboards, of the materials that make them: is that not a greater miracle even than the sun dancing, no matter how pedestrian and mundane it may seem in comparison?

 

[cpayne]

Who needs a higher power when nature itself is full of wonder?

And the answer to the rhetorical question is: theists.

Why do effects require causes when the effects themselves are so full of wonder?

 

[cpayne]

Dear Mirdath: I was not really thinking of specific miracles when I asked about “unprovable.” (By the way, the answer “just what it says” wasn’t much of an answer, but maybe my question was too vague.) I guess what I was asking was more like: By unprovable do you mean both empirically AND logically non-demonstrable? In that case, I would read your “unprovable” as “not proven to me.” In what way is the existence of God INTRINSICALLY unprovable?

 

[Mirdath]

Dear Mirdath: I was not really thinking of specific miracles when I asked about “unprovable.” (By the way, the answer “just what it says” wasn’t much of an answer, but maybe my question was too vague.) I guess what I was asking was more like: By unprovable do you mean both empirically AND logically non-demonstrable? In that case, I would read your “unprovable” as “not proven to me.” In what way is the existence of God INTRINSICALLY unprovable?

The nature of any occurrence is only provably miraculous if we first have a known miracle-worker – and you know all too well where that leads, I’m sure!

We’re not going to get anywhere arguing whether a proof of God is possible. I say that God, if such a being exists, is not beholden to mere human reason; the Church says otherwise, no matter how odd it may seem that the All-Powerful is powerless to defy our logic!

Be that as it may, Clarke’s Second Law is applicable here: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Space aliens moving the sun around and giggling at the critters on the third planet are more demonstrable than God apparently chooses to be – and therefore, a more plausible explanation.

 

[cpayne]

We’re not going to get anywhere arguing whether a proof of God is possible. I say that God, if such a being exists, is not beholden to mere human reason; the Church says otherwise, no matter how odd it may seem that the All-Powerful is powerless to defy our logic!

---

Be that as it may, Clarke’s Second Law is applicable here: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Space aliens moving the sun around and giggling at the critters on the third planet are more demonstrable than God apparently chooses to be – and therefore, a more plausible explanation.

**[Mirdath, Mirdath. I wish there were a little icon-face for someone weeping in frustration. (That would be me.) Don’t let it weigh on your conscience, though. Oh, well, okay, go ahead and let it weigh at least a little.] **

 

[not_a_theist]

Why do effects require causes when the effects themselves are so full of wonder?

And your connotations of effect are?

 

[not_a_theist]

any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

And there’s a corollary:

Any sufficiently advanced being is indistinguishable from god

 

[cpayne]

And your connotations of effect are?

An effect is anything contingent or changeable, anything that inherently cannot contain the explanation for its own existence. (Like the wonder-filled universe.) (P.S. This isn’t sarcasm, in case it sounds like it.)

 

[ricmat]

And there’s a corollary:

Any sufficiently advanced being is indistinguishable from god

Any being sufficiently advanced to create time and space ex nihilo from nothing is, by definition, God (even if you choose to call it something else), and is unique. And since everything else is/are created, they are not God, no matter how advanced they are.

 

[not_a_theist]

An effect is anything contingent or changeable, anything that inherently cannot contain the explanation for its own existence. (Like the wonder-filled universe.) (P.S. This isn’t sarcasm, in case it sounds like it.)

Questions like “What does nature encompass?”, “Can the natural world contain an explanation for its existence?”, “Is it necessary to explain the existence of the natural world?” and “Is the explanation of the natural world’s existence part and parcel of the natural world?” aside, this ultimately leads to questions like “Who created the creator?”…

Other than actual science, these are not questions of interest to me.

 

[not_a_theist]

Any being sufficiently advanced to create time and space ex nihilo from nothing is, by definition, God (even if you choose to call it something else),

Nope. It’s simply a being matching some attributes commonly assigned to that ill-defined concept known as ‘God’.

and is unique.

And you know this how?

And since everything else is/are created, they are not God, no matter how advanced they are.

And you know this how?

 

[cpayne]

And you know this how?

Creation ex nihilo would require a supreme power (power to create all things out of no thing). A being with supreme power would be a unique being, since you can’t have two “supreme” beings. If two supreme beings existed, neither of them would be supreme; neither of them would be God, either.

 

[cpayne]

Other than actual science, these are not questions of interest to me.

Okay. There is no disputing about tastes.

Science is wonderful, in its place. Its place, however, must always be secondary, by its very nature. Secondary questions are questions of interest to me; however, they are not the only questions I am interested in.

For example: “How can I live a longer, more healthy life?” A scientific question of interest to me.

“Why should I desire a longer, more healthy life?” A more fundamental question, and one which science itself cannot answer, now or ever. Also of interest to me.

“Who created God?” is a question somewhat like “What color is a four-sided triangle?” When the terms are properly understood, the answer becomes obvious.

 

[not_a_theist]

Creation ex nihilo would require a supreme power (power to create all things out of no thing).

To create time and space out of nothing requires the power to create time and space out of nothing. It doesn’t require the power the create all things out of nothing.

A being with supreme power would be a unique being, since you can’t have two “supreme” beings. If two supreme beings existed, neither of them would be supreme; neither of them would be God, either.

Moot.

 

[not_a_theist]

“Who created God?” is a question somewhat like “What color is a four-sided triangle?” When the terms are properly understood, the answer becomes obvious.

It’s a perfectly reasonable question and anybody who asks it understands the terms all too well.