Please Help-I might become an atheist

[NaturalEnquirer]

Some atheists do that, you’re absolutely right. Those who do have no more right to criticize your faith than you do to criticize theirs, all faiths are equal.

Personally, I do my best to avoid all faith, of any sort. I do not believe in any deity because I have seen no scientific evidence to support one’s existence. I think that the big bang is the most compelling explanation for the universe proposed so far, and so one could say I have more faith in it than I do in other theories, but I do not believe in it blindly, and as soon as there is another theory with more scientific evidence to back it up, I will be more inclined to believe in that.

Scientific evidence, which can be tested repeatedly and give consistent results, or follows logically from things that can be tested, is all I will believe in, and never will you hear me claim that something is infallible, inevitable, or 100% truth.

Welcome to the forum!

So, after reading your post, I have to ask: Why do you think science is a tool which can provide evidence for the existence of a deity? By its nature, science can only probe repeatable events. If we postulate a deity who occasionally (but not always!) interferes with the natural course of events, how could science possibly detect it?

 

[AgnosTheist]

How can you expect to recognize something your unwilling to recognize?

By sensing him

He listened to me

How do you know that?

Anyway, if you think God listens to you then there is no way that you would become an atheist. Atheism requires doubt. You dont really need help from becoming an atheist. You just need somebody to share your ideas with.

 

[Waiting]

Some atheists do that, you’re absolutely right. Those who do have no more right to criticize your faith than you do to criticize theirs, all faiths are equal.

Personally, I do my best to avoid all faith, of any sort. I do not believe in any deity because I have seen no scientific evidence to support one’s existence. I think that the big bang is the most compelling explanation for the universe proposed so far, and so one could say I have more faith in it than I do in other theories, but I do not believe in it blindly, and as soon as there is another theory with more scientific evidence to back it up, I will be more inclined to believe in that.

Scientific evidence, which can be tested repeatedly and give consistent results, or follows logically from things that can be tested, is all I will believe in, and never will you hear me claim that something is infallible, inevitable, or 100% truth.

All faiths are equal? Does that mean that if there is a God that He doesn’t care what you believe about Him as long as you believe He exists? That doesn’t compute with logical thinking. If someone believes I exist, I hope he’s quoting me accurately, and describing what I intended as I’ve revealed it… Anything else is unacceptable. There are many thousands of different faiths describing the same God, and attributing their own interpretations to what they THINK He meant. Now, I’m not God, but you can bet that if I said something that I wanted quoted and acted upon for generations, I would find a way to insure that my words WOULD not and COULD not be misinterpreted. Would God do any less? Check out the authority for the Word of God. It’s called the magesterium of the Catholic Church.

As far as not believing what cannot be scientifically tested, what about the thoughts running through your mind? I can’t see them, but I have no doubt of their existence. God fits in this category. He acts in our lives, unseen. I don’t have to see Him to know He exists. I see the results of His actions daily. As a trial, pray to God today to show you in some concrete way that He exists. If you’re really open to receiving an answer, you will.

 

[Dauphin]

Shadows on the wall…

 

[Phixional_Ninja]

All faiths are equal?

Let me clarify: to me, all (unquestioned) faiths are equal. That is, all faiths are equally flawed in that they do not rest on logical reasoning and evidence. This includes anything from faith in a deity to faith in science to faith in falling if you jump off a cliff. Nothing is 100% certain, so the best that can be done is examine the evidence and act on what is most likely to be true, based on the scientific method and logical thought.

As far as not believing what cannot be scientifically tested, what about the thoughts running through your mind? I can’t see them, but I have no doubt of their existence. God fits in this category. He acts in our lives, unseen. I don’t have to see Him to know He exists. I see the results of His actions daily. As a trial, pray to God today to show you in some concrete way that He exists. If you’re really open to receiving an answer, you will.

I believe that my thoughts are the end result of chemical reactions in my brain. That belief is backed up by a number of scientific studies, though it is admittedly a realm which science has not fully explored yet. God probably does belong in that category, a thought that is shared by millions of people across the world. The chemicals in our brains can be manipulated by force of will, and I’ve no doubt that if I believed hard enough in anything, I could convince myself of its existence. This is what independent scientific research is for: giving us solid evidence that what we believe in is not merely in our head.

 

[Phixional_Ninja]

Welcome to the forum!

So, after reading your post, I have to ask: Why do you think science is a tool which can provide evidence for the existence of a deity? By its nature, science can only probe repeatable events. If we postulate a deity who occasionally (but not always!) interferes with the natural course of events, how could science possibly detect it?

If a deity exists, it exists. Existence is in and of itself a repeating event. If there were a deity, science’s jurisdiction would cover its existence, not its actions.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

If a deity exists, it exists. Existence is in and of itself a repeating event. If there were a deity, science’s jurisdiction would cover its existence, not its actions.

I’m not quite following you. How would science detect a deity? What experiment would you propose?

 

[Phixional_Ninja]

I’m not quite following you. How would science detect a deity? What experiment would you propose?

I don’t believe there is one, so I can’t conceive of an experiment to discover one. The burden of proof lies with you, who claim the existence of one. There are many things I don’t believe in, it would be ludicrous to spend my life disproving the existence of everything I don’t believe in.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I don’t believe there is one, so I can’t conceive of an experiment to discover one. The burden of proof lies with you, who claim the existence of one. There are many things I don’t believe in, it would be ludicrous to spend my life disproving the existence of everything I don’t believe in.

The reason I ask is that you said that the reason for your disbelief is the lack of scientific evidence. I’m trying to figure out why you assume that a deity would be scientifically detectable.

 

[Phixional_Ninja]

The reason I ask is that you said that the reason for your disbelief is the lack of scientific evidence. I’m trying to figure out why you assume that a deity would be scientifically detectable.

I assume a deity would be scientifically detectable because everything else in existence is scientifically detectable. There is far more reason to believe that if one existed it would be detectable than to believe otherwise. Remember, while I don’t think anything is 100% certain, I do go with what is most likely, especially in cases such as this, where all the evidence is on one side, and there is nothing but hearsay on the other.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

I assume a deity would be scientifically detectable because everything else in existence is scientifically detectable.

But God is not in existence, he is outside of existence. He sometimes interacts with it.

There is far more reason to believe that if one existed it would be detectable than to believe otherwise. Remember, while I don’t think anything is 100% certain, I do go with what is most likely, especially in cases such as this, where all the evidence is on one side, and there is nothing but hearsay on the other.

All the evidence is on one side? What evidence do you think *disproves *God? I assume you meant to say the evidence is neutral?

 

[Phixional_Ninja]

All the evidence is on one side? What evidence do you think *disproves *God? I assume you meant to say the evidence is neutral?

Yes, but in a case where what is being debated is the basic existence of something, neutral evidence supports non-existence far more than the opposite.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Yes, but in a case where what is being debated is the basic existence of something, neutral evidence supports non-existence far more than the opposite.

I disagree with this (neutral evidence doesn’t support anything, by definition), but I guess I see where you’re coming from. If the evidence is neutral, the burden of proof is still unmet.

 

[Phixional_Ninja]

I disagree with this (neutral evidence doesn’t support anything, by definition), but I guess I see where you’re coming from. If the evidence is neutral, the burden of proof is still unmet.

Far better put, thank you. That is more what I meant.

 

[AgnosTheist]

does a watch preceed the watchmaker?

the universe could be the watchmaker himself. who knows?

 

[mchale]

I assume a deity would be scientifically detectable because everything else in existence is scientifically detectable. There is far more reason to believe that if one existed it would be detectable than to believe otherwise. Remember, while I don’t think anything is 100% certain, I do go with what is most likely, especially in cases such as this, where all the evidence is on one side, and there is nothing but hearsay on the other.

With respect, your statement is an epistemological minefield. As far as I can see it, it is based on a couple of assumptions that are essentially unprovable.

1. That science can and does detect everything in existence. Science is a system that is very good at explaining repeatable, observable phenomena. It is not good at explaining things that have never been observed directly or explaining observations that are not repeatable.

1a. That science has already detected everything in existence. Even if science could detect everything in existence, it does not follow that science has detected everything in Existence. Remember our quantum mechanics, relativity, even the very existence of galaxies outside our own were all open questions until only about 100 years ago. Who knows what might be detected 100 years from now. In other words, current absence of evidence cannot be taken as an evidence of absence.

1. That our senses, in some sense, provide an accurate view of our universe. Our senses are all limited in scope, and as far as we know, we might be missing some key sense that would completely change our perception of the Universe if we had that sense.

–
Bill

 

[mchale]

Here is a further speculation that has occurred to me in this argument.

Lets consider the following. In this, the first decade of the 21st century, our computers are getting extremely sophisticated and are capable of running more and more sophisticated simulations of the real world.

In addition, the Universe itself essentially acts like an extremely large discreet finite automata (essentially a single program, really big computer).

Now as computing power increases, it should be possible to create hyper complex simulations of the real world in the next few decades. Indeed these simulations should become so sophisticated, that they could essentially model individual human behavior for many different individuals all at once. When a certain level of complexity and sophistication is reached, these simulations could pass the Turing test (i.e., if you only communicated via electronic means, you wouldn’t be able to tell you were interacting with a computer). At that point, it would be hard to say that these simulations are not in some sense alive.

Now suppose these simulations are all placed in a virtual world. Unless given information by the developers of the simulations and the world, they might be incapable of knowing that they existed in a virtual world as opposed to a real world. In time, they would develop enough sophistication that they themselves would develop their own virtual computers and start the cycle over. Essentially we could be creating an infinite regression of virtual worlds.

Now here is the kicker, how do we know we are the ones creating the first of this series of virtual worlds? How do we know we are not but the Nth item in a series of such virtual worlds? In fact, logically, it is far more likely that we exist in such a virtual world as opposed to base world that created the first such virtual simulation (i.e., there is only one of those, there could be billions upon billions of virtual worlds).

So, even if God does not exist, it is still possible that we and our Universe have been created by an intelligence that exists outside our ability to detect or perceive. In fact, unless I am mistaken, it is more likely.

–
Bill

 

[Waiting]

Let me clarify: to me, all (unquestioned) faiths are equal. That is, all faiths are equally flawed in that they do not rest on logical reasoning and evidence. This includes anything from faith in a deity to faith in science to faith in falling if you jump off a cliff. Nothing is 100% certain, so the best that can be done is examine the evidence and act on what is most likely to be true, based on the scientific method and logical thought.

I believe that my thoughts are the end result of chemical reactions in my brain. That belief is backed up by a number of scientific studies, though it is admittedly a realm which science has not fully explored yet. God probably does belong in that category, a thought that is shared by millions of people across the world. The chemicals in our brains can be manipulated by force of will, and I’ve no doubt that if I believed hard enough in anything, I could convince myself of its existence. This is what independent scientific research is for: giving us solid evidence that what we believe in is not merely in our head.

You say that all faiths are flawed because of lack of logical thinking and evidence. Well then, if one has “evidence” of God then one doesn’t need to reason logically to His existence. Right? O.k. One time after I’d prayed to God for healing for a nephew, I heard an audible answer. Of course it was an interior voice not heard by those around me, but clear and unmistakeable. At that point I didn’t need faith to believe there is a God. I knew it as a certainty. What great brains had struggled with for centuries, was made known to me in an instant. Proof positive. You likely will assume that I have an active imagination. Believe me, when God speaks to you He leaves no doubt that He is present. That is why I say that if you ask God to give you some certainty that He exists, He will.

 

[buffalo]

This author has taken the time to thoroughly trash atheist claims.

The Irrational Atheist

 

[Phixional_Ninja]

With respect, your statement is an epistemological minefield. As far as I can see it, it is based on a couple of assumptions that are essentially unprovable.

1. That science can and does detect everything in existence. Science is a system that is very good at explaining repeatable, observable phenomena. It is not good at explaining things that have never been observed directly or explaining observations that are not repeatable.

1a. That science has already detected everything in existence. Even if science could detect everything in existence, it does not follow that science has detected everything in Existence. Remember our quantum mechanics, relativity, even the very existence of galaxies outside our own were all open questions until only about 100 years ago. Who knows what might be detected 100 years from now. In other words, current absence of evidence cannot be taken as an evidence of absence.

1. That our senses, in some sense, provide an accurate view of our universe. Our senses are all limited in scope, and as far as we know, we might be missing some key sense that would completely change our perception of the Universe if we had that sense.

–
Bill

I don’t believe I ever claimed absolute provability. I will say again that my assumptions are what the evidence leads me to believe logically.

As for being limited to our senses, we aren’t. Science already has theories which point to the existence of alternate dimensions, because their existence is logical. Theory can take us where our senses cannot.