Do Atheists have a reasonable doubt?

[IWantGod]

I think it is obvious that subconscious mind is also conscious of its own world since otherwise it cannot possibly collaborate with conscious mind intellectually.

I don’t know enough about the subconscious mind to give a proper response. Maybe your right, maybe not. I don’t think we have two minds though, i think we have two levels of consciousness compartmentalised by the brain.

 

[STT]

We interact with the physical world through the body and brain. Why? Only God can tell you that.

No, it is not that difficult. Each person is collection of minds which interact with each other through physical. Physical is what a mind can experience and cause. You need these two, mind and physical, to allow that a set of minds interact with each other, what we are doing right now, namely discussing.

The brain is very much like a processor or computer.

And what is the brain? A collection of minds and physical. Physical is stuff that connect minds together.

The soul and body are united in the act of thinking.

Yes, if by body you mean physical.

We know that we are thinking, and we know through the brain, but the brain doesn’t know that. If you damage the brain, we are unable to interact properly with the world or think properly because the brain processes the thoughts that are produced by the intellect. If the process is damaged then we cannot think, at least not in the same sense that we do when the brain is not damaged.

True. The connectivity between minds are important for an intellectual activity.

But i am not an expert when it comes to physical processes in the brain. That’s neuroscience. I only know that logically the act of intention or the goal directed behaviour of our minds cannot be the result of blind natural processes by themselves, because it is a contradiction.

I agree with you. What I am stressing is that there are collection of minds in a person responsible for a goal directed behavior. There are minimally two, conscious and subconscious mind. You can realize that by reflecting when you are writing a sentence.

How the mind works and to what extent it works with the brain is another question entirely. Some may argue that the mind is produced by the unification of the soul and body, it’s an amalgamation of the two rather than just a soul in a body - a sort of trinity.

Mind in my dictionary is what you call soul. So there is soul and physical.

 

[STT]

I don’t know enough about the subconscious mind to give a proper response. Maybe your right, maybe not. I don’t think we have two minds though, i think we have two levels of consciousness compartmentalised by the brain.

Yes. As I mentioned there are layers of awareness in different part of our bodies. Some are for simple task and other for complex one.

 

[GodIsPerfection]

I am responding to your name "IWantGod."

Jesus clearly tells us the way to find God (the Father)

John 14:6

6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. 7 If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.

8 Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.” 9 Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? 10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works. 11 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves.

In your quest to find God, you must study the personality of Jesus and come to KNOW that personality as you might a family member or close friend. Jesus says this is the only way to come to the Father. Jesus asserts the unity of his personality with that of the Father. If you KNOW Jesus, you will KNOW the Father. If you cannot believe that Jesus and the Father are one, then believe in Jesus’ miracles. Healing of lepers and the blind, raising the dead (Lazarus), casting out demons, walking on water, and especially Jesus’ true death on the cross and his true resurrection of the body which demonstrate his omnipotent Godly power.

No amount of rational inquiry, philosophical speculation, or intellectual banter will lead you to the Father.

Attend a Catholic Church and read a Catholic Bible with some guidance. RCIA Classes at your local Catholic Church are a great start on your spiritual quest.

 

[IWantGod]

No amount of rational inquiry, philosophical speculation, or intellectual banter will lead you to the Father.

Thanks. I’m just trying my best to express the good that God has given me.

It’s very true that philosophy only leads you so far, and it is our relationship with Jesus Christ that counts in the end. Aquinas said his works were all straw compared to the glory of Jesus Christ.

RCIA Classes at your local Catholic Church are a great start on your spiritual quest.

I am already Catholic. But thanks anyway. God bless.

 

[GodIsPerfection]

Glad you’re Catholic. I thought you considered yourself atheist and were looking for God. Guess you’re saying you’re hungry for more of God. Thankfully, we have the Eucharist!

As children we are natural materialists. We only know the four dimensional world (maybe we don’t even know about the dimension of time when we are very young).

Sadly, materialists are locked into a four dimensional reality (“the world”).

Some materialists eventually apprehend other dimensions and other non-material beings. They develop religious perceptions of five or more dimensions. Some become Christians, others Islamics, Mormons, ghost hunters, others Satanists, etc. Some spiritual explorations are dead end paths. Some are self-destructive (drugs).

I think atheists are materialists who have “been lookin’ for love in all the wrong places.” It leads to spiritual exhaustion. In the end, they conclude that there is nothing but nothingness, but they are not truly happy with their discovery.

I feel sorry for atheists, but there is always hope for them in their Creator-God. The Resurrection proved that “dead” is not truly “dead.”

 

[IWantGod]

I think atheists are materialists who have “been lookin’ for love in all the wrong places.”

True. Some have been hurt in life so badly they can’t see beyond their pain and that pain turns into hatred of God.

I feel sorry for atheists, but there is always hope for them in their Creator-God. The Resurrection proved that “dead” is not truly “dead.”

True. There is always hope. Some might not find what humans imagine to be “happiness” in this life, but Jesus Christ is eternal love forever.

 

[GodIsPerfection]

It should be noted that there is a distinction between HAPPINESS and JOY.

HAPPINESS is the temporary feeling one feels as when their team wins a Superbowl Playoff Game. Happiness comes and goes.

JOY is a GREAT SPIRITUAL RESERVOIR that is always being filled (sign of cross +) by the Father who created you specially, and the Son who died for you specially, and the Holy Spirit who is always with you specially. Joy is never-ending, and cannot be taken away.

 

[Bradskii]

John10:

I would say it is more of a preference.

Well i would venture to argue that many of the traits that organisms posses (not all) presuppose an objective environment in which evolution is possible, which is something that a blind natural process could not possibly know. If this is true, it would therefore follow that a being that does know and created physical reality is necessary in order for a process like natural evolution to have played out as it did.

This is your religious view in a nutshell. You are presupposing (your word) inherrent design and purpose and then looking for arguments that will back that up.

People like myself look at the evidence and see where it leads. Sometimes it leads to the conclusion that purpose doesn’t exist and that tgere is no sign of design. Hence atheism.

I didn’t start with atheism and then looked for arguments to back that up. There had to be reasons. They led to my atheism. And to repeat, you have gone about it in completely the opposite direction. You have started with the answer and then have gone looking for evidence that will result in that answer.

 

[Techno2000]

Aquinas said his works were all straw compared to the glory of Jesus Christ.

Yes, but wasn’t it more than that, didn’t Jesus appear to him, and levitate and put him in a state of ecstasy ?

 

[FiveLinden]

Do you believe in the existence of your great-great-great-great grandfather? If I have enough “great’s” in the adjectives then you’ve never seen even a photo of him and, most certainly, you have never observed him. Logically, you cannot exist unless he existed. You exist. Therefore you believe in a being that you have never observed and that has no material form. You imagine him as real.

I have his DNA. I’ve had it tested. It pops up in other known descendants. Same way I know I share a common ancestor with my plants. Observation. No imagination involved.

 

[PickyPicky]

I think our knowledge of biology tells us you had at least one g-g-g-g grandfather. A better question might be whether you believe in George Washington. Then we could discuss competing historical evidence.

 

[o_mlly]

I have his DNA. I’ve had it tested. It pops up in other known descendants. Same way I know I share a common ancestor with my plants. Observation. No imagination involved.

Then add more “greats”, as I suggested, as adjectives to your grandfather until you have no material evidence of his existence. Does the absence of evidence prove the absence of his existence? No, your existence is the proof and, therefore, your knowledge of his existence is certain.

 

[PickyPicky]

Then add more “greats”, as I suggested, as adjectives to your grandfather until you have no material evidence of his existence. Does the absence of evidence prove the absence of his existence? No, your existence is the proof and, therefore, your knowledge of his existence is certain

That’s right. So long as you don’t add so many greats that you are back before the evolution of sexual reproduction, one has one’s proof in one’s existence. What do you deduce from this?

 

[o_mlly]

That’s right. So long as you don’t add so many greats that you are back before the evolution of sexual reproduction, one has one’s proof in one’s existence. What do you deduce from this?

Before sexual reproduction? What do I deduce? That’s easy. Your gⁿ grandfather’s name is Adam.

 

[PickyPicky]

Before sexual reproduction? What do I deduce? That’s easy. Your gⁿ grandfather’s name is Adam

Nicely done.

The evidence for his name is not so strong as the evidence that he existed. Indeed I think we can be confident that the first organisms to sexually reproduce didn’t have names. But here we are in a whole different argument (now playing in its umpteenth incarnation in another thread).

 

[FiveLinden]

Then add more “greats”, as I suggested, as adjectives to your grandfather until you have no material evidence of his existence. Does the absence of evidence prove the absence of his existence? No, your existence is the proof and, therefore, your knowledge of his existence is certain

Agreed. That’s how descent works.

 

[Bradskii]

FiveLinden:

I have his DNA. I’ve had it tested. It pops up in other known descendants. Same way I know I share a common ancestor with my plants. Observation. No imagination involved.

Then add more “greats”, as I suggested, as adjectives to your grandfather until you have no material evidence of his existence. Does the absence of evidence prove the absence of his existence? No, your existence is the proof and, therefore, your knowledge of his existence is certain.

My family bible goes back about 7 generations. But let’s take it back to ten. In which case I then have over 500 great great etc grandparents. Which one are we talking about?

To be honest, you only have to go back 4 or 5 generations and does anyone care about who they were? Granted they logically needed to exist for me to be here, but apart from that, unless they contributed something meaningful that has lasted the duration, I could care less whether they existed or not.

And what we need to recognise is that that is true for a lot of historical figures. Did Socrates really exist? Not really sure. But what he is reported to have said is worth reading. Whether he was a real person or not. Same with Jesus.

So the question should not be ‘Did they exist?’ It should be ‘Whether they existed or not, are the reports of their work meaningful in any way?’

 

[o_mlly]

My family bible goes back about 7 generations. But let’s take it back to ten. In which case I then have over 500 great great etc grandparents. Which one are we talking about?

To be honest, you only have to go back 4 or 5 generations and does anyone care about who they were? Granted they logically needed to exist for me to be here, but apart from that, unless they contributed something meaningful that has lasted the duration, I could care less whether they existed or not.

And what we need to recognise is that that is true for a lot of historical figures. Did Socrates really exist? Not really sure. But what he is reported to have said is worth reading. Whether he was a real person or not. Same with Jesus.

So the question should not be ‘Did they exist?’ It should be ‘Whether they existed or not, are the reports of their work meaningful in any way?’

I think you are missing the point. Someone reported, in thinking about God, that as a principle they could not know another existed without observing that being or having material evidence of that being’s existence. The grandpappy exercise hopefully disproves that notion.

 

[PickyPicky]

The grandpappy exercise hopefully disproves that notion.

But it doesn’t, because as you have pointed out, their very existence is material evidence that grandpappy existed.