W
wanstronian
Guest
Was there a point to this post?
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
W
wanstronian
Guest
In the context of the original point, you answer was, to paraphrase, “that’s just the way God is,” as if that explains all the doubts that had been expressed. That’s what I was trying to target in an ironic fashion - that this is an unsatisfactory resolution to the question being asked.
No, I haven’t. I am interested in the question of God’s existence - in fact I joined this forum to find opinion and references that oppose The God Delusion which, Dawkins’ self-admitted fanaticism aside, seems on the whole to make some very robust points. In the interest of fairness, I wanted to see if there was anything that rebuts the fundamental point that there is zero evidence for God. So far, all I’ve found is nebulous and disjointed conjecture that the claimaints state is evidence.
Okay, sorry if I seemed over-sensitive, but the judgement that atheists are scared, demeaned etc. by something they don’t believe in does seem rather that way. I can’t speak for anybody else, but I am quite happy to accept that there will most likely always be some further question to which humankind don’t know the answer. I have no problem with that likelihood whatsoever. What I deny is that we should sit back and say, “never mind, we don’t know the answer to that, so it must be God.” That, to me, holds no scientific, logical or anthropological merit.I’m sorry if I appear condescending. Its not at all what I intend. Nor do I feel or think that I’m superior. I try to approach and treat people as equals. Internet postings are limited in terms of communication, and without NVCs they can appear more harsh than they are meant.
Unintelligent (maybe ‘uninformed’ would have been a better word) due to the implicit attribute of arrogance that you ascribe to atheists (I’m not aware of any atheists that have trouble accepting they don’t, and probably never will, know everything). Irrelevant, because it has no bearing on the point to which you were responding, which was, effectively, “How come God had to give us intelligence, but nobody had to give it to God?”
W
wanstronian
Guest
What a ridiculous post. If you don’t want to take the subject seriously, why are you wasting everybody’s time?
W
wanstronian
Guest
I’m saying, for what seems like the millionth time, that I don’t believe there is a God, for exactly the same reason that I don’t believe there are Unicorns -that there is no evidence for the existence of either. I don’t know there is no God, and I have already said (I think in this thread) that any atheist who claims to know there is no God is just as stupid as a theist who claims to know there is. (‘Know’ meaning, ‘know for a fact’, not in the ‘inner conviction’ sense you mention, btw.)
B
buffalo
Guest
It is very simple. If you were to wish for God to exist which attributes would you disagree with?
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Like what exactely? It seems to me, inrespect of your signature, that you have already decided that God is a dulusion long before you ever heard an arguement in his favor. You have taken up a hostile postion.
Serious atheists don’t find dawkins conjecture very convincing either, but of coarse, you would have to learn how to reason before you understood why.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Discribing his nature does not define what god is.
If i asked you to define what a person is.
Telling me they are nice, they are beautiful, they are kind etc tells me nothing.
If you told me their biological make up and origins through abiogenesis and evolution, that would be the kind of answer i would be looking for…
B
buffalo
Guest
[34](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/34.htm’)
The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality “that everyone calls God”.10
L
liquidpele
Guest
But that’s like asking someone what color they would wish unicorns to be.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Doesn’t really answer my question.[34](javascript
W
wanstronian
Guest
Yes that’s right, it’s based on evidence, not airy-fairy conjecture.
No, but there’s no evidence to the contrary either. Either you go with the facts and admit there are some unknowns, or you make stuff up to cover your ignorance.
Nor is there any reason to suppose differently.
Quite clearly have signs of reason and free will, although not as advanced as those of humans. As for rights, obviously not.
Proving what??
You may be right. Tell you what, give me an example of intelligent design - something for which no other explanation is possible.
Well at least we know they exist, so they already have an advantage over the alternative. We’re going round in circles here. I’m basing my argument on what we can observe, you’re basing yours on supernatural mist. Each to their own.
As I have said several times before, I don’t know. Lack of knowledge does not necessitate God. I know you know this.
What a preposterous conclusion. I am a link in the chain of evolution. Nothing about that denies free will.
Firstly, because it’s not true. If your ‘best’ explanation has no evidence to support it, it’s no better than simply accepting you don’t know. Secondly, God is not the best available explanation anyway, because it’s just a single manifestation of a potentially massive range of absurd conclusions. The only thing that gives it weight are the sheer numbers of science-deprived people who have supported it over the centuries. Weight of numbers is not evidence.
And you go wrong on point 2 - atheism doesn’t claim to have a comprehensive explanation of reality. Theists get this wrong all the time, and you personally have got it wrong in the face of clear explanation several times just in this one thread.
Well, it was answered - you asked, “What do you regard as evidence for the existence of your mind?” and I said, “The fact that I am here, experiencing life.” Maybe your evident lack of memory is the reason you are consistently forgetting what atheism is.
Quite. None of which proves existence of God.
Strictly speaking, yes, I treat them as homo sapiens, a perfectly valid taxonomical branch of the animal kingdom. But you’re just arguing semantics here to try and get a cheap point. You do yourself a disservice.
Slight difference is that Darwinism is the only evidence- or logic-based explanation for life on earth. Whereas your ‘best explanation’ is mere sky-hookery.Is it reasonable to conjure up reason out of irrational processes? Now you are going for the best available explanation rather than no explanation at all.
Okay… so who designed the designer? You still have an infinite regress or an arbitrary, evidence-less backstop.
Oh, okay. I understand.
Well, we’ve found something we agree on. To repeat the point I made previously, why should that backstop be God and not evolution? Just because we don’t know all there is to know about it yet? What a silly reason.
No evidence, it’s just a back-pedalling technique to keep God in the game when evolution was discovered. No more credibility than base creationism.
That’s 100% right - I am rejecting them as evidence of God.
W
wanstronian
Guest
Okay - I thought that this had come about because there was some confusion in the part of the thread which CD was involved in. His response was that a definition of God would help. What you’ve presented here doesn’t help at all.
Firstly, I don’t think you can call upon atheists to describe what they think God is, for obvious reasons. Nor is it particularly sensible to ask them to describe what they want in a God.
I would say that, since theists are the ones positing God, they need to define - and agree - exactly what God is. Then the discussion may be more structured.
W
wanstronian
Guest
I think some of them find his tactics abrasive, I don’t think many of them disagree with his conclusions.
My position on God is quite clear, my finger skin grows thin with the repetition. I don’t believe he exists because there is no evidence for his existence. I actively think he doesn’t exist because any entity capable of creating the virtually infintely complex universe must be even more complex. I furthermore think that theists’ “first cause” stance further highlights the improbability of his existence.
I am completely open to the provision of evidence; I don’t consider ‘free will’ or, indeed, the complexity of the universe itself to constitute evidence of any kind in support of God. I can, and have, logically argued against both these presented ‘evidences.’
Regarding my signature, it is of course flippant, but it’s not too far away from the truth. I should point out I haven’t heard any evidence-backed argument in God’s favour. The fact that lots of people think he’s great is neither here nor there.
I have taken up a position in keeping with my stance on religion. I’m not personally hostile to religious people. I think that religion as a source of comfort can be a good thing for the individual (as long as that comfort is not misleading), and I think that religion as an undeniable source of separationist dogma is without doubt a very bad thing.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
I really don’t understand the objection to answering the question. It is also like asking what would you like your parents to be like if you them. The question would still be valid even if you had never met your parents or even if you didn’t have evidence that you had decended from another human being. Your prejudice of realities that don’t conform to physical events, is telling of your fundementalist attitude.
W
wanstronian
Guest
I think pink for girl unicorns, blue for boy unicorns.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
While we’re at it, i see god in a pink and white polka dot dress, and jesus as an emoI think pink for girl unicorns, blue for boy unicorns.
.
L
liquidpele
Guest
The question is technically valid, but has no point… just like my analogy… but fine.
- Unicorn is absolutely perfect. (De fide.)
I don’t really believe in perfection… I think it’s just a human contruct, but I would like a Unicorn to be as fair as possible. - Unicorn is actually infinite in every perfection. (De fide.)
That makes no sense… 95% of the time, Unicorn is infinite every time. - Unicorn is absolutely simple. (De fide.)
No preference. - There is only One Unicorn . (De fide.)
I prefer the idea of one Unicorn if there has to be one. Personal preference. - The One Unicorn is, in the ontological sense, The True Unicorn . (De fide.)
Once Unicorn by definition means the true Unicorn, why ask again? - Unicorn possesses an infinite power of cognition. (De fide.)
Sure. - Unicorn is absolute Veracity. (De fide.)
Yes. - Unicorn is absolutely faithful. (De fide.)
Yes. - Unicorn is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others. (De fide.)
Yes. - Unicorn is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness. (De fide.) D 1782.
Re-stating #9 I think. - Unicorn is absolute Benignity. (De fide.) D1782.
Re-stating #9 again I think. - Unicorn is absolute Beauty. D1782.
What kind of a unicorn wouldn’t be? - Unicorn is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)
No way, that denotes no change or adjustment allowed. - Unicorn is eternal. (De fide.)
Why wouldn’t a Unicorn be? Sure. - Unicorn is immense or absolutely immeasurable. (De fide.)
Probably not, or I couldn’t really interact well with it. - Unicorn is everywhere present in created space. (De fide.)
No preference.
B
buffalo
Guest
Bogus - you guys have argued over and over about the God’s deficiencies. How could one believe in a God who ---------------- fill in the blank.
You have set parameters for God.
I have quoted from the Catechism the definition of God. I have quoted Catholic Dogma as to His attributes.
Further from the Catechism:
III. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH
[36](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/36.htm’) "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12[37](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/37.htm’) In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.13
[38](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/38.htm’) This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”. 14IV. HOW CAN WE SPEAK ABOUT GOD?
[39](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/39.htm’) In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.40 Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking.
[41](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/41.htm’) All creatures bear a certain resemblance to God, most especially man, created in the image and likeness of God. The manifold perfections of creatures - their truth, their goodness, their beauty all reflect the infinite perfection of God. Consequently we can name God by taking his creatures" perfections as our starting point, “for from the greatness and beauty of created things comes a corresponding perception of their Creator”.15[42](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/42.htm’) God transcends all creatures. We must therefore continually purify our language of everything in it that is limited, image-bound or imperfect, if we are not to confuse our image of God–“the inexpressible, the incomprehensible, the invisible, the ungraspable”–with our human representations.16 Our human words always fall short of the mystery of God.[43](javascript
penWindow(‘cr/43.htm’) Admittedly, in speaking about God like this, our language is using human modes of expression; nevertheless it really does attain to God himself, though unable to express him in his infinite simplicity. Likewise, we must recall that “between Creator and creature no similitude can be expressed without implying an even greater dissimilitude”;17 and that "concerning God, we cannot grasp what he is, but only what he is not, and how other beings stand in relation to him."18
B
buffalo
Guest
So God = unicorn. You can call him unicorn if you wish, we will continue to call Him God. He is pure spirit. No matter the name He exists. When asked what we shall call Him, He replied “I am who am”, aka YHWH.
- Status