Why are some people so adamant that God does exist?

[greylorn]

One of the most useful elaborations of who and what God is, I have found to be demonstrated in the works of Nicholas of Cusa (e.g. De Docta Ignorantia) and Francis J. Sheed (e.g. Theology and Sanity) which I recommend if you would like to know some of the best pedagogical instructions on God which take into account what science tells us about the nature of God through how He organizes the universe. Pope Benedict XVI has quoted Nicholas of Cusa many times in his works.

I’ll check that material out; not immediately though. Should you happen to know of any concise explanations of their core concepts, I’d appreciate the information.

Thank you.

 

[greylorn]

I think a lot of folks are atheists simply because (i) they see no good reason to be theist and (ii) they see good reason to be atheist.

That was really profound and insightful. Wish I’d thought of it.

You have a grand future ahead of you as a philosopher, Anticipate a Nobel Prize shortly after publication of your first philosophical paper. And if that somehow does not work out, try a career in sorting recyclable bottles and cans from ordinary garbage.

 

[joshrp]

Lol, I just realized that I totally botched up the title of this thread.

 

[joshrp]

I’ll check that material out; not immediately though. Should you happen to know of any concise explanations of their core concepts, I’d appreciate the information.

Thank you.

If I think of anything brief I will try to forward it to you, but I just don’t know how to do justice to their explanations without referring to the actual documents. Sometimes if I want to get a general sense of what is in a work but I don’t have the time at the moment to plow through the whole document, I just skim the table of contents to see the names of the titles of various chapters or sections, and if something in particular catches my interest I just read that section. While titles aren’t everything, a good nonfiction book will generally have chapter or section titles that will give you a fairly clear idea of what is in them, or at least will pique your interest enough to skip to that section to see if the work is worth the effort. With nonfiction you don’t have to read the book in order or in its entirety.

Again Jasper Hopkins website has the Cusa translations for free, but you can also buy print copies or find them in libraries possibly. I think you can find Theology and Sanity by Sheed online somewhere, but his books are in many public libraries as well as academic and university libraries. I would recommend anything written by either Nicholas of Cusa or Francis Sheed, although the works I mentioned are the seminal ones written by them.

 

[Perplexity]

That was really profound and insightful. Wish I’d thought of it.

You have a grand future ahead of you as a philosopher, Anticipate a Nobel Prize shortly after publication of your first philosophical paper. And if that somehow does not work out, try a career in sorting recyclable bottles and cans from ordinary garbage.

Thanks I’ve found that, sometimes, the best philosophy is the most obvious. People tend to miss the forest for the trees

 

[ManOnFire]

It’s unscientific and illogical to believe that the cosmos naturally evolved from absolute nothing without a supernatural event, yet that’s what some people want to believe. The other option is that the cosmos had no birthday, which means that it has always existed in some form or another without ever being created, so science can never explain why the cosmos exists since it had no birthday and therefore no cause for it’s creation and existence. But, not everyone is logical. To each his own.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Hi,

Why are some people, like Richard Dawkins and others, so adamant that God does not exist? Well, actually even Dawkins said that he doesn’t know, but some people just seem to be on a mission to destroy faith in God.

As far as I can tell, I have never seen a convincing proof that the universe was not creating by a personal Creator God who is distinct from the universe. All any denier of God’s existance can seem to do is to demolish poor arguments for God and shallow ideas of what God is, but they cannot seem to give any good proof that there is no personal Creator of the universe. So why are some of these people so emotionally attached to this faith that they can’t prove?

A lot of people appeal to personal experience in their reasoning as to why they believe in God or believe certain things about God, and this is valuable, but really the experience of the senses cannot convince us in God’s existence or give us certain knowledge as to what or who He is.

What faith I think essentially consists of is that you or I essentially believe that SOMEONE knows the truth and that they are telling the truth. The question is who do we think knows the truth and is telling us the truth? We don’t necessarily have to understand what this person or God or being is telling us, but we just accept that they know the truth and are trying to tell us the truth and to help us understand what is real. The idea of God is in one way that of a Someone who knows all things and wants to reveal them to us. Why does this God know all things? Because He created all things. If we have faith in someone who does not know all things, how can we totally trust that one, because there comes a point where that one will let us down? We can trust that that someone may have faith in someone else who does know all things, and the only possible being who can know absolutely all things is the One who preceded all things in existence and created all things, if there is a Creator of all things.

I think faith is a question of who do you trust more than anyone else. Many people trust themselves more than they trust anyone else. There is no higher authority on truth than themselves, according to their faith. And this is what such a person believes. There is no one who can say to them what is true and be right in all instances.

Well, I am not sure where I am going with this. Maybe others can help me out here?

Joshua

That’s a great question!. Personally, I get a lot of satisfaction out of debating theists - but then, I also love to debate 9/11 “truthers”, anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-communists, and a couple of other groups. Does it mean anything? I don’t think so.

 

[Birdpreacher]

i think Einstein nailed it when he described the vitriol of militant atheists

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist… I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our being.’’

‘‘There are the** fanatical atheists** whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional “opium of the people”—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims.’’

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I think a lot of folks are atheists simply because (i) they see no good reason to be theist and (ii) they see good reason to be atheist.

Slavoj Zizek would be very disappointed.

A lot of folks are theists because (i) they see good reason to be theist and (ii) they see no good reason to be an atheist.

Both my rebuttal and your post are absolutely worthless. But, I am sure you know that and you were just being silly. At least, I hope so, considering you are a philosopher. If you were being silly, I apologize for being so caustic. If not, oh well. They mean nothing, but they are fun little ditties for the unsuspecting souls.

 

[Perplexity]

Slavoj Zizek would be very disappointed.

A lot of folks are theists because (i) they see good reason to be theist and (ii) they see no good reason to be an atheist.

Both my rebuttal and your post are absolutely worthless. But, I am sure you know that and you were just being silly. At least, I hope so, considering you are a philosopher. If you were being silly, I apologize for being so caustic. If not, oh well. They mean nothing, but they are fun little ditties for the unsuspecting souls.

For the most part I was just being facetious lol but for what it’s worth it’s a great debate format, WLC uses it in his debates. e.g., I have two basic contentions I’ll defend tonight…etc.

 

[ASimon]

For the most part I was just being facetious lol but for what it’s worth it’s a great debate format, WLC uses it in his debates. e.g., I have two basic contentions I’ll defend tonight…etc.

Yes - WLC could run a tutorial on high school debating tactics.

“You’ll recall in my opening statement that I attempted to artificially narrow the parameters of the debate by arguing five basic contentions, and pretending that my opponent was under some obligation to respond on those terms.”

 

[Perplexity]

Yes - WLC could run a tutorial on high school debating tactics.

“You’ll recall in my opening statement that I attempted to artificially narrow the parameters of the debate by arguing five basic contentions, and pretending that my opponent was under some obligation to respond on those terms.”

haha yeah, not a fan of Craigs 5 argument opening either. But, the 2 basic contention format is great. I wish atheists would use it as well rather than winding up in the embarrassing mess Milican found himself in.

Far as the OP goes I think certain forms of Divine Hiddenness & PoE’s constitute strong reason to be atheist.

 

[greylorn]

It’s unscientific and illogical to believe that the cosmos naturally evolved from absolute nothing without a supernatural event, yet that’s what some people want to believe. The other option is that the cosmos had no birthday, which means that it has always existed in some form or another without ever being created, so science can never explain why the cosmos exists since it had no birthday and therefore no cause for it’s creation and existence. But, not everyone is logical. To each his own.

Actually, almost no one is logical. Therein lies the problem with beliefs.

It seems obvious to anyone making cursory observations of nature and extending those back in time, that the world and the universe had beginnings.

Atheists have concocted Big Bang theory to account for their observations and deductions. But religionists have concocted a large variety of theories, from the many gods of Hindus and the ancient Greeks and Romans, to the no-God of Buddhism, to various modern day versions of monotheism.

None of these theories or beliefs, all which become mindless dogma to their followers, make logical sense. There are many variations of Pharaoh Akhenaten’s (probably Hermes Trismegistus’) monotheistic theory, an easy thousand sects derived from the “Abrahamic” tradition, all squabbling with and murdering one another over whose illogical beliefs represent the absolutely true Word of the One and Only God,

Why? Because not one of them has a logical definition of God’s properties, and their theories which attempt to describe His purpose for creation are on the mental level of a Dr. Seuss plot.

On the other extreme of illogicity, there is Big Bang Theory, about the dumbest belief science has come up with since phlogiston.

Clearly, the universe has a cause. Any idiot could watch a paramecium through a microscope, or a galaxy through a telescope, and figure out that the cause, or causes, involve considerable intelligence.

Unfortunately, dogmatic believers insist that their particular God, who exists exactly as their made-up, man-written books describe him, is that Source of Considerable Intelligence— and the only such source.

Critical thinkers cannot accept such a poorly considered belief.

Now you know why some people are so adamant that God exists, while others are certain that He does not.
They all believe, or disbelieve, in the wrong God.

 

[greylorn]

That’s a great question!. Personally, I get a lot of satisfaction out of debating theists - but then, I also love to debate 9/11 “truthers”, anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-communists, and a couple of other groups. Does it mean anything? I don’t think so.

Sure it means something. Combined with your closing signature,
*Please excuse my long absences - I can only post once in a while due to intense college classwork.
*

it means that even though you don’t know anything, you have opinions of little worth that you’ve learned from others (in college now instead of high school), that you think are worth arguing with anyone your opinions disagree with, It means that you are run by your opinions. Good for you!

Keep those “long absences” coming, please!

 

[Lui]

It’s unscientific and illogical to believe that the cosmos naturally evolved from absolute nothing without a supernatural event, yet that’s what some people want to believe. The other option is that the cosmos had no birthday, which means that it has always existed in some form or another without ever being created, so science can never explain why the cosmos exists since it had no birthday and therefore no cause for it’s creation and existence. But, not everyone is logical. To each his own.

The opposite of believing the universe was created from nothing is not believing that the universe was created by the Christian God. Why should a scientist believe in the Christian God and not in Zeus, or the Hindu Gods, Islam, the Pachamama of the Incas or something completely different?
There are endless options who or what designed the universe. Maybe an atheist just can’t answer why the universe was created but doesn’t speculate with a random religion either.

 

[ManOnFire]

The opposite of believing the universe was created from nothing is not believing that the universe was created by the Christian God. Why should a scientist believe in the Christian God and not in Zeus, or the Hindu Gods, Islam, the Pachamama of the Incas or something completely different?
There are endless options who or what designed the universe. Maybe an atheist just can’t answer why the universe was created but doesn’t speculate with a random religion either.

I believe you just described an agnostic rather than an atheist. Logic points towards the existence of some form of god since both the belief that absolute nothing could evolve into something and that the universe could have always existed without a cause are both illogical and unscientific if there is no god. It’s truly remarkable how evenly split faith is, with logic being on the side of the existence of a god.

 

[ManOnFire]

Actually, almost no one is logical. Therein lies the problem with beliefs.

It seems obvious to anyone making cursory observations of nature and extending those back in time, that the world and the universe had beginnings.

Atheists have concocted Big Bang theory to account for their observations and deductions. But religionists have concocted a large variety of theories, from the many gods of Hindus and the ancient Greeks and Romans, to the no-God of Buddhism, to various modern day versions of monotheism.

None of these theories or beliefs, all which become mindless dogma to their followers, make logical sense. There are many variations of Pharaoh Akhenaten’s (probably Hermes Trismegistus’) monotheistic theory, an easy thousand sects derived from the “Abrahamic” tradition, all squabbling with and murdering one another over whose illogical beliefs represent the absolutely true Word of the One and Only God,

Why? Because not one of them has a logical definition of God’s properties, and their theories which attempt to describe His purpose for creation are on the mental level of a Dr. Seuss plot.

On the other extreme of illogicity, there is Big Bang Theory, about the dumbest belief science has come up with since phlogiston.

Clearly, the universe has a cause. Any idiot could watch a paramecium through a microscope, or a galaxy through a telescope, and figure out that the cause, or causes, involve considerable intelligence.

Unfortunately, dogmatic believers insist that their particular God, who exists exactly as their made-up, man-written books describe him, is that Source of Considerable Intelligence— and the only such source.

Critical thinkers cannot accept such a poorly considered belief.

Now you know why some people are so adamant that God exists, while others are certain that He does not.
They all believe, or disbelieve, in the wrong God.

The existence of God is the only logical conclusion. Which God is up for debate. Your posts are interesting because you act like the rest of us are idiots for believing in the wrong god, but you offer no stronger argument for your superior version of god.

Besides, the real cause of conflict is not religion, but rather, Love.

 

[Lui]

with logic being on the side of the existence of a god.

Evidence of which God? God/s of Christianity, Judaism, Islam. Hinduism, Ancient Rome to name a few…

The existence of God is the only logical conclusion. Which God is up for debate. Your posts are interesting because you act like the rest of us are idiots for believing in the wrong god, but you offer no stronger argument for your superior version of god.

I see you answered that in this post. Actually you act as though anyone who doesn’t believe in the concept of a God like being is an idiot so it goes both ways.

 

[ManOnFire]

I see you answered that in this post. Actually you act as though anyone who doesn’t believe in the concept of a God like being is an idiot so it goes both ways.

Either the cosmos had a beginning, or it didn’t.

If it had a beginning, then it’s scientifically impossible for absolute nothing to naturally evolve into the very first something to begin its existence. If absolutely nothing existed, then there is no nature with which to evolve.

If the cosmos had no beginning, i.e. it has always existed in some form or another, then there is no reason for its (and our) existence since it was never created.

Science is wrong in one of these two scenarios. Neither option has a chance of being scientifically proven some day. The existence of multiple dimensions fails to address the very beginning. There’s only one logical conclusion that fits.

 

[ASimon]

Either the cosmos had a beginning, or it didn’t.

If it had a beginning, then it’s scientifically impossible for absolute nothing to naturally evolve into the very first something to begin its existence. If absolutely nothing existed, then there is no nature with which to evolve.

If the cosmos had no beginning, i.e. it has always existed in some form or another, then there is no reason for its (and our) existence since it was never created.

Science is wrong in one of these two scenarios. Neither option has a chance of being scientifically proven some day. The existence of multiple dimensions fails to address the very beginning. There’s only one logical conclusion that fits.

But that “logical conclusion” doesn’t help you, other than get you to a Prime Mover (“God”). The question, again, is which theistic God currently on offer is the correct one? Or rather, why does any theistic God currently on offer have to be correct?

Believers like to imagine that “Something can’t come from nothing” is some sort of knockdown argument against atheism. They don’t even realize the trap they set for themselves, even when they get a hypothetical concession on that point.