I am an atheist

[Socrates4Jesus]

Before I answer, I would have to clarify that there are more than one (conflicting!) definition of ‘god’. If you mean the god of the bible, that one is CLEARLY bunkum. If you have another definition, then of course he may exist.
Every time someone has offered a description of their god to me, it has been ludicrous. Maybe yours is more reasonable. I have no way of knowing until I hear the description.

My purpose here is not to convert you to any kind of religion, but to learn for myself whether your assertion that God does not exists is actually true. I like to say about myself that the only thing about which i am dogmatic is the truth.

My mistake might be in assuming that you were making the assertion that it is improbable that any God exists. Perhaps you believe that a God exists, but that Christians completely misrepresents or misunderstands him, her, or it.

For the sake of dialog, i’d like to suggest a definition (albeit not a complete one) of God:

God is an omniscient and personal being who has communicated in some way with the human race.

I suppose this vague definition might apply to Islam, Christianity, Roman Catholicism, or Judaism. Again, i’m not trying to prove any religion right. For the sake of simplicity and brevity i’m asking that we consider the probability that a God who fits this description exists.

If you show me that the evidence i have does not demonstrate beyond a reasonable and rational doubt that this God exists, then there is no point in talking about which religion understands him best. I shall toss my religious texts in the trash and throw my lot in with you.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…You could easily make your point here. Why tease me? If you expect me to ‘believe’ the bible, though, you are barking up the wrong tree

My intention, i hope you now see, was not to waste your time. I merely thought it was important for you to understand from where i’m coming before we proceed.

If you are interested in examining the evidence about which i spoke, i will present it tomorrow. After considering what i find compelling you believe it is bunkum, i will be extremely interested in hearing why. Together, i hope, we will help each other more clearly see the truth of the matter. If i am wrong, i will be the better for having met you.

 

[bobzills]

Evolution by natural selection.

The more one learns about it, the more that theory explains.

It doesn’t explain consciousness and the creative ability of the human animal. What is the mechanism by which consciousness exists? And how does natural selection explain the ability of the human to understand the hidden workings of the physical universe and discoveries such as string theory or relativity?

 

[_A]

My purpose here is not to convert you to any kind of religion, but to learn for myself whether your assertion that God does not exists is actually true. I like to say about myself that the only thing about which i am dogmatic is the truth.

My mistake might be in assuming that you were making the assertion that it is improbable that any God exists. Perhaps you believe that a God exists, but that Christians completely misrepresents or misunderstands him, her, or it.

For the sake of dialog, i’d like to suggest a definition (albeit not a complete one) of God:

God is an omniscient and personal being who has communicated in some way with the human race.

Trouble with your description is, it doesn’t have anything about it which is falsifiable. One could say the same thing about any other imaginary beings and be equally unassailable.
Let’s try, for demonstration purposes…
Flying Spaghetti Monster is an omniscient and personal being who has communicated in some way with the human race.
Zeus is an omniscient and personal being who has communicated in some way with the human race.
Chad the janitor is an omniscient and personal being who has communicated in some way with the human race.
You see, even the ‘Chad’ example (ridiculous though it is) is unassailable.
If no falsifiable claims can be made, that should tell you how reasonable the claimant.

 

[_A]

My intention, i hope you now see, was not to waste your time. I merely thought it was important for you to understand from where i’m coming before we proceed.

If you are interested in examining the evidence about which i spoke, i will present it tomorrow. After considering what i find compelling you believe it is bunkum, i will be extremely interested in hearing why. Together, i hope, we will help each other more clearly see the truth of the matter. If i am wrong, i will be the better for having met you.

I have learned very little from those who agreed with me, so thank you.
I also would like to thank everyone for their various oppositions - taking your time and giving it to me in this fashion is very generous of you all.

 

[_A]

It doesn’t explain consciousness and the creative ability of the human animal. What is the mechanism by which consciousness exists?

How are you so sure that ‘consciousness’ (whatever that is - could you define it?) really exists?

And how does natural selection explain the ability of the human to understand the hidden workings of the physical universe and discoveries such as string theory or relativity?

Because the creatures who survived best has those kinds of brains.

If your questions were clearer, I am fairly sure the answers would be,l too.

 

[bogoljub]

If real scientific (independently verifiable) evidence for the existence of gods (or one specific god) did exist, it would be HUGE news. The fact that in thousands of years no such evidence has been presented is very important and meaningful evidence on it’s own.

God bless !

No that’s not true. There are many evidences -perhaps you searched in the wrong places. There are many sienists who believe in God - and even Evolution is more a belief than a fact- there are many sientist who are against this THEORIE.

How can a human “created” sience be a “tool” to explain the non-human uncreated God ?

I said that sience can help us to understand the existence, but will never be able to explain God really.

The problem is that you are a bit proud and think all believers( most of all people) are not rational or are under sef-selusion !

Is it not irrational to think most of all people who lived on earth are under self-delusion and all their experiences they made in the different ages and cultures are wrong ! Why every culture/people even the primitivest have a kind of religion ?

In CHRIST

 

[bobzills]

How are you so sure that ‘consciousness’ (whatever that is - could you define it?) really exists?.

I see. So you deny human consciousness. Perhaps all of reality is an illusion also? Is that it?
Regardless of your denial, the human being has self awareness and the ability to apply practical and moral knowledge to our actions. And people such as Newton, Gauss, Einstein have shown that humans possess the ability to understand the inner workings of reality. Simply saying that this ability and consciousness evolved from rocks and water doesn’t seem very convincing. Where is your experimental proof that the ability to discover relations between physical forces and create mathematical equations which describe physical laws of nature has evolved from water and other chemicals?

 

[_A]

God bless !

No that’s not true. There are many evidences -perhaps you searched in the wrong places. There are many sienists who believe in God - and even Evolution is more a belief than a fact- there are many sientist who are against this THEORIE.

Since you keep not offering evidence, I am going to stop answering you. If you have some to present, go ahead, but I think all that you have is your own personal experience.

 

[_A]

I see. So you deny human consciousness. Perhaps all of reality is an illusion also? Is that it?
Regardless of your denial, the human being has self awareness and the ability to apply practical and moral knowledge to our actions. And people such as Newton, Gauss, Einstein have shown that humans possess the ability to understand the inner workings of reality. Simply saying that this ability and consciousness evolved from rocks and water doesn’t seem very convincing. Where is your experimental proof that the ability to discover relations between physical forces and create mathematical equations which describe physical laws of nature has evolved from water and other chemicals?

I didn’t deny, I merely asked you for a description. You keep pointing out that our consciousness could not have come from nothing - where is your explanation for where Yahwehs’ consciousness comes from>?

 

[bogoljub]

Since you keep not offering evidence, I am going to stop answering you. If you have some to present, go ahead, but I think all that you have is your own personal experience.

God bless !

I do not offer because it woul not be good yet ! If you think - please you are free to. I only can say that “in the end” you will see but it will be too late, so please search with open heart and mind for God and you will find him - for sure.

I will pray to God to help you- to give up the mis-concepts and delusions of God and truly search for him.

He is and always will be.

In CHRIST

 

[bobzills]

I didn’t deny, I merely asked you for a description.

I gave a description of consciousness above. To elaborate even further, consciousness is a continuity of experience in the human being as he thrives to transcend his fleshy encapsulation.

 

[_A]

God bless !

I do not offer because it woul not be good yet ! If you think - please you are free to. I only can say that “in the end” you will see but it will be too late, so please search with open heart and mind for God and you will find him - for sure.

I will pray to God to help you- to give up the mis-concepts and delusions of God and truly search for him.

He is and always will be.

In CHRIST

If evidence is what you have, it won’t matter what I think of it, it will stand on it’s own.
What you have offered so far is personal belief, which is not scientifically verifiable evidence of the existence of a god.

I think if you had a better understanding of the concept of falsifiability you would be better equipped to present scientific arguments.

Of course, I doubt you will try to understand what it means. Prove me wrong, why don’t you?

 

[_A]

I gave a description of consciousness above. To elaborate even further, consciousness is a continuity of experience in the human being as he thrives to transcend his fleshy encapsulation.

This description is not clear at all. It includes ‘to transcend his fleshy encapsulation’ as if *everyone *with this ‘consciousness’ would want it. You made an error - I *don’t *want to transend my flesh, am I not ‘conscious’ by your description?

 

[notself]

I gave a description of consciousness above. To elaborate even further, consciousness is a continuity of experience in the human being as he thrives to transcend his fleshy encapsulation.

Defining consciousness as continuity of experience/action certainly makes sense. Based on this definition, it is very possible that consciousness developed as part of a self organizing system. SOSis a new approach to analyzing organizations.

Here is a quote from the following link.

calresco.org/sos/sosfaq.htm

Many natural systems show organization (e.g. galaxies, planets, chemical compounds, cells, organisms and societies). Traditional scientific fields attempt to explain these features by referencing the micro properties or laws applicable to their component parts, for example gravitation or chemical bonds. Yet we can also approach the subject in a very different way, looking instead for system properties applicable to all such collections of parts, regardless of size or nature. It is here that modern computers prove essential, allowing us to investigate the dynamic changes that occur over vast numbers of time steps and with a large numbers of initial options.

This means that consciousness is a natural phenomenon that developed part and parcel with organization.

 

[awfulthings9]

If evidence is what you have, it won’t matter what I think of it, it will stand on it’s own.
What you have offered so far is personal belief, which is not scientifically verifiable evidence of the existence of a god.

I think if you had a better understanding of the concept of falsifiability you would be better equipped to present scientific arguments.

Of course, I doubt you will try to understand what it means. Prove me wrong, why don’t you?

I’m new to this thread, but I just wanted to comment on the OP’s insistence on falsifiability in determining the existence of God, the origin of the universe, etc. I do understand the concept of falsifiability, and its application is to determining if a theory can be considered “scientific”, but not necessarily if something can be considered true. In fact, many statements that atheists and theists would mutually consider true are not falsifiable.

For instance: Gravity exists.

There are also some things which are falsifiable in theory, but not in practice.

For instance: The universe will end in 2,000 years.

The idea of God involves concepts which are supernatural, which excludes falsifiability. However, it doesn’t exclude truth. Miracles, by definition, are those things which science has failed to develop a theory for. Were God to appear before me and declare his existance would not lend itself to a falsifiable theory, but it would be proof (as much as anything is proof since all proofs ultimately rest upon my ability to trust my senses and reason) of his existence, but it would not be falsifiable.

If A responds to my post, I hope he realizes that it is not meant to be an argument (by miracles or any other strategy) for God, but merely an inquiry into whether or not he would accept only those arguments that are, themselves, falsifiable. If not, I hope he could expand on the type of evidence or reason to which he is open.

Pax,
Spencer

 

[edgarddb]

My intention, i hope you now see, was not to waste your time. I merely thought it was important for you to understand from where i’m coming before we proceed.
If you are interested in examining the evidence about which i spoke, i will present it tomorrow. After considering what i find compelling you believe it is bunkum, i will be extremely interested in hearing why. Together, i hope, we will help each other more clearly see the truth of the matter. If i am wrong, i will be the better for having met you.

HI ! -A-
EDGARDDB: I like to add at his a few pearls OF WISDOM?
First of all one must understand that “FAITH” itself is a" Gift from GOD" So all the reams we have been driveling here are futile if one persist in his unbelief.
John the Baptist in prison had his daubts even after having recognizing Jesus as the Messaiah at the baptism at the river Jordan.
Matthew 11: 2-6
Are you the one who is to come, or do we have to wait for someone else?
Jesus answered: Go and tell John what you heard and see; the blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear and the dead are raised to life and the Good news is proclaimed to the poor; happy is the man who does not lose faith in Me.
Further:
Matt 11:25-26
“I Bless You Father, for hiding these things from the learned and the clever and revealing them to mere children”
To: -A- I believe you were instructed as a child in the Catholic Faith, as I gather from earlier reams of drivel? Are you perhaps trying to recapture some of the feelings of awe and wonder you had as a child?( I DID, AND NEVER LOOKED BACK)
Then:
Matth 7: 7-8 Ask and it shall be given to you, search and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened for you
7: 11 If you then who are evil give good things to your children, how much more will your Father in Heaven give good things to those who ask Him for.
Think about this, how did 12 cowards(like us?) holed up in the upper room, suddenly found the courage to go out in their hostile world and in about 2000 years have preached the Gospel to the whole world and their followers converted about 1 Billion to Caholicism, about 250 Million? protestants and about 300 Million? Orthodox, + about another Billion ? Muslims who as an ofshoot, still worship the same GOD in spite of persecutions, heresies and all the efforts and machinations of the devil and his minnions to destroy Faith in GOD and His Churches, have been able to prevail against the gates of hell.
Let me close with JESUS quoating Isaiah:
Matth 13: 15
You will listen and listen again, but not (refuse to)understand
See and see again but not perceive
For the heart of this nation has grown coarse
for their ears are dull of hearing and they have shut their eyes,
for fear they would see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts, and be converted and BE HEALED BY ME.

 

[_A]

I’m new to this thread, but I just wanted to comment on the OP’s insistence on falsifiability in determining the existence of God, the origin of the universe, etc. I do understand the concept of falsifiability, and its application is to determining if a theory can be considered “scientific”, but not necessarily if something can be considered true. In fact, many statements that atheists and theists would mutually consider true are not falsifiable.

For instance: Gravity exists.

You are saying that this is not falsifiable? Hmmm…seems to me that if you simply demonstrated a lack of gravity, that statement would be falsified.

There are also some things which are falsifiable in theory, but not in practice.

For instance: The universe will end in 2,000 years.

Falsifiable in 2001 years (and perhaps by other methods).
I don’t understand either example. They both seemed falsifiable to me.

If A responds to my post, I hope he realizes that it is not meant to be an argument (by miracles or any other strategy) for God, but merely an inquiry into whether or not he would accept only those arguments that are, themselves, falsifiable. If not, I hope he could expand on the type of evidence or reason to which he is open.

Pax,
Spencer

For something as ordinary as the theory of gravity, (theory of falling bodies) I only need some evidence of things falling ‘down’ to trust and use that theory.
For something as extraordinary as the theory of a god, I need extraordinary evidence.
Falsifiability just shows me that a theorist has gone to the trouble to construct a theory which can be proved wrong. The theories of gods can not be falsified at all. To me this shows that they are not subject to reason.

 

[_A]

HI ! -A-
EDGARDDB: I like to add at his a few pearls OF WISDOM?
First of all one must understand that “FAITH” itself is a" Gift from GOD" So all the reams we have been driveling here are futile if one persist in his unbelief.
John the Baptist in prison had his daubts even after having recognizing Jesus as the Messaiah at the baptism at the river Jordan.
Matthew 11: 2-6
Are you the one who is to come, or do we have to wait for someone else?
Jesus answered: Go and tell John what you heard and see; the blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear and the dead are raised to life and the Good news is proclaimed to the poor; happy is the man who does not lose faith in Me.
Further:
Matt 11:25-26
“I Bless You Father, for hiding these things from the learned and the clever and revealing them to mere children”
To: -A- I believe you were instructed as a child in the Catholic Faith, as I gather from earlier reams of drivel? Are you perhaps trying to recapture some of the feelings of awe and wonder you had as a child?( I DID, AND NEVER LOOKED BACK)
Then:
Matth 7: 7-8 Ask and it shall be given to you, search and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened for you
7: 11 If you then who are evil give good things to your children, how much more will your Father in Heaven give good things to those who ask Him for.
Think about this, how did 12 cowards(like us?) holed up in the upper room, suddenly found the courage to go out in their hostile world and in about 2000 years have preached the Gospel to the whole world and their followers converted about 1 Billion to Caholicism, about 250 Million? protestants and about 300 Million? Orthodox, + about another Billion ? Muslims who as an ofshoot, still worship the same GOD in spite of persecutions, heresies and all the efforts and machinations of the devil and his minnions to destroy Faith in GOD and His Churches, have been able to prevail against the gates of hell.
Let me close with JESUS quoating Isaiah:
Matth 13: 15
You will listen and listen again, but not (refuse to)understand
See and see again but not perceive
For the heart of this nation has grown coarse
for their ears are dull of hearing and they have shut their eyes,
for fear they would see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts, and be converted and BE HEALED BY ME.

You say what I write is ‘drivel’? Nice. Why were you reading it? Go away and talk to someone who likes being insulted.
This is not a place for insults, but for discussion.

 

[awfulthings9]

You are saying that this is not falsifiable? Hmmm…seems to me that if you simply demonstrated a lack of gravity, that statement would be falsified.
Falsifiable in 2001 years (and perhaps by other methods).
I don’t understand either example. They both seemed falsifiable to me.

For something as ordinary as the theory of gravity, (theory of falling bodies) I only need some evidence of things falling ‘down’ to trust and use that theory.
For something as extraordinary as the theory of a god, I need extraordinary evidence.
Falsifiability just shows me that a theorist has gone to the trouble to construct a theory which can be proved wrong. The theories of gods can not be falsified at all. To me this shows that they are not subject to reason.