I am an atheist

[phooney]

Excellent, so we can agree that lacking belief in these hypotheses is rational until there is evidence for them.

There was also the mathematically sound “loop vortex theory” involving ether, or universal substance, of course it has since been disproved.

The mere fact that there are alternative, at least equally or more plausible explanations, for the universe is reason enough to suspend belief.

 

[phooney]

@Pax

“I think your statement that “All God has (or all he has that has been presented to me) is arguments from ignorance i.e. we don’t know how x happened, so god did it.” does an injustice to philosophical argument.”

Yes you are right, this is an oversimplification of the arguments.

Though arguments from ignorance do cover many of the arguments for god,there are certainly others, and I would like to retract that particular statement.

 

[Pax]

Well, in my experience, all that lives, eventually dies. There is not one bit of evidence that life is EVER indeterminate. If something can’t die, then it does not have one of the prime characteristics of life.
How many things can you name that live, but don’t die? (I am not asking for imaginings here, only real forms of life.)

I have no argument with these statements in that they all describe what you and I “observe” in the natural world. What we observe in nature are created life forms. If we limit our thinking to only what we currently observe in the created world and apply it as a rigid and all encompassing law to all other concepts then we would indeed come to your conclusion.

This is not a reasonable thing for me to do. If we did this kind of thing with all data and all concepts we would never get anywhere. We would be blinding ourselves to many possibilities. This is one of the reasons I have been trying to discuss the existence of God in more of a conceptual sense on this thread.

The concept of God includes the characteristic of God being eternal and not created. Created beings are by definition “finite.” This is also readily observable in our life experiences. Infinite and finite mean different things. When applying the terms to God and man, it becomes clear that there is a logical difficulty saying that if God can’t die then he cannot be alive.

You have defined life in such a way that it must include a component of death. That is your definition. Others may very well define it differently. A definition that I came across defined life with the following terms:

Homeostasis
Organization
Metabolism
Growth
Adaptation
Response to stimuli
Reproduction

This definition did not include death.

 

[Pax]

@Pax

“I think your statement that “All God has (or all he has that has been presented to me) is arguments from ignorance i.e. we don’t know how x happened, so god did it.” does an injustice to philosophical argument.”

Yes you are right, this is an oversimplification of the arguments.

Though arguments from ignorance do cover many of the arguments for god,there are certainly others, and I would like to retract that particular statement.

No problem.

I would fully concur that there are many arguments designed to support the idea that God exists that simply fail. Moreover, no argument “proves” the existence of God. I think we are on the same wave length here.

 

[Pax]

Could you offer an example of ‘circular reasoning’?

Sure, here goes:

Leather is the best material for saddles because it’s leather.

 

[Pax]

Excellent, so we can agree that lacking belief in these hypotheses is rational until there is evidence for them.

There was also the mathematically sound “loop vortex theory” involving ether, or universal substance, of course it has since been disproved.

The mere fact that there are alternative, at least equally or more plausible explanations, for the universe is reason enough to suspend belief.

Whether particular alternatives are equally or more plausible explanations is certainly up for discussion and debate. Many of us simply don’t find some of these explanations sufficiently tempting to suspend belief in what we currently believe to be the best explanation among competing views.

 

[phooney]

Indeed, but being mathematically sound still counts for something, which is why I call many of them inherently more plausible while still not believing them. Your universe=creation argument is still circular and the other arguments/evidence presented thus far, in this thread at least, fail under other considerations besides the category of arguments from ignorance.

Some are still open for debate of course

 

[_A]

A definition that I came across defined life with the following terms:

Homeostasis
Organization
Metabolism
Growth
Adaptation
Response to stimuli
Reproduction

This definition did not include death.

So how many of these can you provide evidence for, in your ‘living god’?

 

[_A]

Sure, here goes:

Leather is the best material for saddles because it’s leather.

That does look like what you were doing, Pax. You offer the universe itself as evidence that there is a creator, because the universe must have had a creator.

 

[Pax]

A

Why does that matter and why should I bother? We were talking about definitions and I simply pointed out that not all definitions will match yours. Death did not have to be part of the definition. Likewise, a Supreme Being would differ from human beings and created organisms in terms of any definition of life. That was part of my point about concepts, and it has application when speaking of an infinite being vs. a finite one.

 

[Pax]

That does look like what you were doing, Pax. You offer the universe itself as evidence that there is a creator, because the universe must have had a creator.

If you wish to phrase it in those terms then I will concede that the argument would be circular. I have perhaps assumed too much here. I did mention the classic arguments in philosophy without expressing and narrating them. For the sake of brevity I stated things with the assumption that the classic arguments would be understood as the source of my contention.

 

[Tracyms1974]

A]

you do believe, in the non existence of God.

therefore it takes more faith to believe in that, than in the existence of God. The world and her population have proven this in the fact that the vast majority of the world believes in and always has believed in God. Even those without any contact to the civilized areas of the world which have never been introduced to any type of belief or religion believe in God.

It is inherent and it is usually the self justifying behaviour of the individual that makes them criticize relion and belief in God. The easiest way to keep something at arms length is to criticize it.

The only scoffers at prayer are the ones who have not tried it enough.

When I finally came to know God He removed the desire for homosexuality, drinking alcohol and taking drugs and stealing from me, all of which I had from the youngest days of my existence.

Thank God.

I couldn’t agree more with what you’ve said in this post.

Praise Jesus for your abandonment of sin and wrongdoing!! I am having the same problems myself in the area of chastity, but I’m working hard to stop. I say the Fatima prayer now whenever I am tempted and you know what? It works!! You know, it goes, “Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell. Lead all souls to Heaven esp. those who are in most need of Your mercy.” The next time you’re tempted, say it and see if it don’t help. Say it until the temptation passes if you have to. If my temptation is really bad, like to m-bate or something like that, I say, “I give this suffering to all the poor souls in purgatory.” That has worked for me, too.

Sorry for the unsolicited advice, but I am very happy for you and you know the saying - misery loves company.

Tracy

 

[_A]

A

Why does that matter

It matters because you claimed your god was a living god, then you provided the definitions for life from your own research. I think it is a reasonable next step to see if your god fits the criteria *you *provided for living.

and why should I bother?

I say because there are several people patiently reading what you have to write. Some of them have even been participating. You don’t have to, but that is why I would feel obliged to, if I were in your shoes.

 

[notself]

Well, in my experience, all that lives, eventually dies. There is not one bit of evidence that life is EVER indeterminate. If something can’t die, then it does not have one of the prime characteristics of life.
How many things can you name that live, but don’t die? (I am not asking for imaginings here, only real forms of life.)

Turtles live a long long time without aging.

nytimes.com/2006/12/12/science/12turt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

 

[Pax]

It matters because you claimed your god was a living god, then you provided the definitions for life from your own research. I think it is a reasonable next step to see if your god fits the criteria *you *provided for living. I say because there are several people patiently reading what you have to write. Some of them have even been participating. You don’t have to, but that is why I would feel obliged to, if I were in your shoes.

You are twisting things…I did not provide my definition of life. Please read my posts again. Think about what I wrote and why I wrote it. I have explained that the definition for being alive does not have to include death. That is as far as I needed to go for making the point.

 

[Tracyms1974]

If you meant the self-deluded fiction writer from the past, I don’t understand the reference. If you mean someone else, please elaborate.

There was a saying in grade school. “You can dish it out but you can’t take it.” I’ve had it said to me; I’m sure everybody has. But you know, quite frankly, I am TIRED of your constant demands from everybody here - and immediately, I might add - for an “apology” for “personal attacks” when you seem to have the smartest, most acidic mouth in this whole thread. I think YOU owe all of US an apology for putting up patiently with YOUR caustic tone and rude remarks.

St. Thomas is NOT a self-deluded fiction writer. He is not in this forum right now, but I will speak for him and tell you that this is a personal attack on a Doctor of OUR Church and I would like an apology on his behalf. I’m sure that where he is in Heaven, he has every method of knowing that you are saying these rude things about him. However, given the good saint that he is, he is probably just praying for you now rather than concerning himself with being offended. So I will be concerned for him!

Tracy

 

[_A]

Turtles live a long long time without aging.

nytimes.com/2006/12/12/science/12turt.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Turtles do die, though. Terrific article, by the way. Another important feature is that ‘life’ to us humans has always meant the kind of life that can and will end - personally, I see that as part of the beauty and courage of humans.
Gods are not eternal, as is evidenced at one end, the present, where many of the old gods have faded into myth and superstition. Nor at the other end - the distant past. This is where places like the Burgess Shale offer evolutionary biologists a wealth of data to support research into creatures that lived half a billion years ago.
Without a trace of a fossilized bit of scripture, or other biblical evidence.

 

[_A]

You are twisting things…I did not provide my definition of life. Please read my posts again. Think about what I wrote and why I wrote it. I have explained that the definition for being alive does not have to include death. That is as far as I needed to go for making the point.

So it looks like we can agree that your god is not a living god, according to the criteria put forth by you? I am not twisting things. I am siezing on anything you say which makes sense to me, and trying to examine it.

If using reason is not the right way to understand your god, that is OK with me, because what I am hoping most to understand is belief.

Since I can read quite well, I already have a clear enough understanding of the bible. I just don’t understand what drives so many people to believe in it. It is so clearly wrong on so many counts. What causes people to make the leap I am told about?

 

[_A]

There was a saying in grade school. “You can dish it out but you can’t take it.”

If I had been feeling childish, I might have used that childish rant when you failed to address my answers in post #849. I took the time to address your post point by point, and you did not comment. Now you accuse me of being rude. Lets deal with that after you answer post 849.
Thanks

 

[Tracyms1974]

I really don’t understand this statement. Why would free access to masturbation prevent someone from pursuing a partner? I have not felt guilty about masturbating in many years - felt quite free about it. I still pursued (and joined in) a serious long-term relationship with a wonderful partner.

The only response I have to those who “live together” instead of get married like they should is that it’s possible that the Devil is going to make this situation as pleasurable, easy, and as fantastic as he can for you so that you, the human being, will be much more inclined to stay in your (sorry to say it, but) continual state of sin rather than seek God out and answer His call to not only be happy, but suffer too. If I had a choice to spend an hour soaking in a whirlpool or spend that same hour learning how to cross stich without a thimble (meaning that there’s an excellent chance I’ll stick my finger), what do you think I will choose as a human being? Extrapolate this example into my lifetime. I have definitely chosen the cross-stitch in my life because I am married and right now, and quite frankly, my marriage sticks me in the fingers every day. I am hoping it will get better.

So how long do you plan on hanging out in your whirlpool, A?

Tracy