Questions that atheists can provide no good answer for:

[guillaumeb]

The first, of course, is: does the Creator exist?

The general non-theistic response is that no god exists, and that all gods are a human invention. The non-theists often reason that, because they cannot find any evidence of a god existing, that proves or heavily argues that no god exists. The major weakness of this argument is that, if they have no idea what the Creator looks like, or what form the Creator takes, they have no idea how to look, or what to look for.

Feel free to add you own to the list.

[MineralMan]

1. No. There is no creator.

I'm an atheist. So, there's your answer from an atheist. Apparently, we're going to have a new round of you telling us what atheists think. That trick never works, guillaumeb.

[guillaumeb]

2. Nicely illustrating my premise.

Thank you, and have a good day.

[thewhollytoast]

45. God's first name is Howard.

Thus armed, go forward and be fruitful.

Toast

[dchill]

55. Your premise is half-baked. How do theists answer?

Neither side can show real proof of their "belief." There is none.

[PJMcK]

73. Hey, MineralMan

guillameb does this every couple of days.

He's tiresome, isn't he?

[meadowlark5]

227. I think God was created by man and the Bible written by man similar to our constitution

There were no laws of the land. There needed to be some kind of controls put on people and lawlessness and debaucherous behavior. So someone created a supreme being that handed down these laws to follow or you would be punished for eternity. Also, if you violate those laws while alive, you would be punished.

If we had no constitution there would be no "standardized" law. The Bible was that for ancient times, at least that's what I think.

[MineralMan]

235. Well, that's almost certainly true of all deities.

Somehow, they all seem to be human creations, rather than creators of humans.

[Ferrets are Cool]

276. In my little pea brain, deities were created

before humans were able to "scientifically" explain how things worked. It was very easy to believe that a higher being caused "un explainable" things to happen.

[Glamrock]

3. Why can't we all just get along?

[guillaumeb]

4. If we did, there would be no need for this site.

[Glamrock]

6. Hahahaha

You just proved my point! I, as an atheist, almost posted that same song! Great minds think alike!

We can disagree on some issues, and agree on others.

[guillaumeb]

8. Agreed. We might agree on most issues.

Glad you chose the one you did.

[Eliot Rosewater]

27. Why do you feel the need to push your belief onto others?

[dawg day]

78. You gotta wonder if it's because religionists often aren't very certain and hope

that by persuading others, they'll persuade themselves.

I think really their energy would be better used to help the more extreme members of their own groups be better people rather than nasty and cruel.

[Eliot Rosewater]

85. The reason most give is they are required to per Jesus in the bible.

Not sure why though since I dont think he said that

[sprinkleeninow]

102. He primarily gave the charge to the disciples.

They were to go out and spread the gospel to all nations.

'Some' got carried away [sorry for having to use that term] and took evangelizing matters into their own hands, stopping strangers in grocery store parking lots asking them 'if they are saved'. Say this prayer and you're good to go.

It may begin there, but there's a whole lot more after that.

The evidence of my Faith should be displayed daily and not ambush or hit people up with it.

Our Christian life should be to others unspoken salt and light.

[Mariana]

126. The Great Commission, Matthew 28 : 18-20

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

It's easy to understand how this could be interpreted in such a way as to require the use of force to convert those who were unwilling to become Christians, because Jesus does not go on to say, "...unless they don't want to be my disciples, in which case leave them in peace, because they have the right to follow the religion of their choice, or no religion at all."

[sprinkleeninow]

98. Guilty as charged. I have a proclivity in that I can be a

pushy broad.💪 At times. Okay, lotsa. Ain't hardly spiritually admirable, izzit. 🙄

[sprinkleeninow]

100. Additionally, now I'm conflicted as to what I do believe and so gotta go check.

[guillaumeb]

141. What?

[WhiteTara]

30. why can't this be a deep philosophical discussion

rather than one of duality and strife? Of course, that does seem to be the purpose of religion as I think about it. But really, I thought we were searching for enlightenment, not arguments.

[yallerdawg]

59. My bone to pick with this unbridled strife is...

the derision, contempt, divisiveness and intolerance expressed toward the vast majority of Democrats who are also people of faith.

At a time when we need EVERY ONE OF US!

[WhiteTara]

62. there are Christians and there are xtians

and no matter what we are all on the planet together and we do need each other as we are in truth, all one.

back at you...and here's to the patriots, one and all!

[marylandblue]

64. I agree with that.

You can disagree on religion or metaphysics and agree on politics.

[Lordquinton]

66. And yet you're just fine with

and even encourage the derision, contempt, divisiveness and intolerance expressed toward the vast majority of atheists, who are also Democrats.

[yallerdawg]

67. I do not step all over Atheist's posts.

"Atheist" comments on MY posts can be slightly irritating but we all have to remember - this IS the internet.

[Lordquinton]

70. AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH

You even said it with a straight face

[Mariana]

76. Lying for the Lord. nt.

[guillaumeb]

148. Where does Yallerdawg do this?

[Lordquinton]

208. Don't even try

it's demeaning for the both of us.

[guillaumeb]

214. I thought as much.

But I asked anyway.

[Lordquinton]

257. Another no substance post

At least you're not linking to protected groups right now.

[guillaumeb]

258. Your title is ironic.

Intended or not. Trying to create something?

[Lordquinton]

259. Irony, like literary criticism, are mysteries to you

I asked a question, it has not been answered.

I've asked a lot of questions of theists here and they usually get dodged and then abuse is heaped on me. Do you stand by your friend's hypocrisy?

Oh, that's been answered, we know where you stand on the issue.

[guillaumeb]

260. You insult me again, and claim to be the victim?

You said:

Another no substance post

At least you're not linking to protected groups right now.

An insult, followed by an attempt to create something.

Interesting.

[Lordquinton]

272. Stating facts are not insults

and if it is, that's one against countless I and other atheists have endured over the years.

You still have said nothing of substance, and are contributing nothing while filling the group with meaningless chaff which you refuse to stand behind.

The silence from the person who I actually asked the question is all the answer that is needed, and your attempt to deflect and reframe me as the bad guy cement your position as well.

Thanks for the answer, I'm used to this as the closest I will ever get in terms of honest answers from theists.

[guillaumeb]

273. More insults, which are I believe a violation of the TOS.

And your last statement frames all theists as dishonest. Is that not also a violation of the TOS?

[Lordquinton]

274. Done with you

Go gaslight someone else.

[guillaumeb]

281. You might try actual dialogue, and cease insulting theists.

[Lordquinton]

283. QED

[ollie10]

152. Thank you!

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2018, 12:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Your post will likely fall on deaf ears though, because they are unaware of the contempt, divisiveness and intolerance they display just as they seek to ridicule others for their perceived contempt, divisivenss and intolerance.

It is tribalism. Those who attack the other side are convinced they are right and the other side is wrong. Nobody looks in a mirror, it seems.

[guillaumeb]

142. All of life is choosing.

An choosing one path is rejecting another.

[Igel]

41. Petty minds.

That you don't accept that I'm right is offensive to me. I must enlighten you. Not just tell you what the truth is, I must get you to believe it for my own psychological well-being.

Moreover, when I see you doing things I think are irrational my first impulse is to be offended at your stupidity. It reminds me that you don't accept that I'm right, and you double-down on the dumb by not accepting my word as truth when I preach, uh, teach you the truth.

It's even worse when I'm inconvenienced by what you're doing. You clog the streets during church and the restaurants afterwards, or you disapprove of my relationships as being ungodly. It's an order of magnitude worse when I'm wronged by your not paying for something I want or not doing some service for me that you find objectionable, then it's not just inconvenience it's oppression.

It's all a question of who's going to force whom to do what, and who's going to run society in their own image. Instead of a view for service, it's a question of power and who's going to oppress whom.

Doesn't have to be that way, but that's where it's heading and we seem to like it that way.

[Croney]

5. I'm an atheist, and I have a perfect idea of what a creator would look like,

and what form a creator would take, and a perfect idea of what to look for, and where to look.

I respectfully submit that my response makes exactly as much sense as the question posed.

[CrispyQ]

29. The only thing not perfect about this response is that your post number is 660, not 666.

[Farmer-Rick]

7. Not sure what you mean by non theist but I'm an atheist

That maybe the same thing...though I'm not sure.

You may go ahead and provide the definitive proof of the existence of a god at any time. No one is stopping you, go ahead and show us your hard evidence.

Since we are still arguing this issue, I assume you only have feelings, mystical sayings and objects and logical fallacies as your proof.

It is Not my place to give you evidence of a god. You make this supernatural, evidence free claim, it is your responsibility to provide definitive proof of a god.

[guillaumeb]

10. I understand your point,

and I hope that you also understand that there is no provable basis for your atheism. And that was my point.

[mr_lebowski]

32. All due respect, that's not 'how logic works', my friend ...

Making the extraordinary claim that there exists a magical, extra-terrestrial sky-creature who is free to violate the laws of physics and chemistry and indeed created the universe itself ... places the burden of proof on the one making the assertion.

If I made the same claim, only I said I'm aware of a different sky-creature, who's name is actually Zod rather than God, cause He really really is a different creature than your 'God' fellow ... yet I'm the only one who knows about Zod, there's no 'mythology' built up around this Zod ... most folks, religious or other wise would say "Zod ... pffft ... prove it, ya loony!". Wouldn't they?

From a logic standpoint, your God is in exactly the same boat, you just aren't apparently realizing it. An established Mythology and 'a bunch of people believing in something' is no evidence of it's actual existence. Just as there was no evidence of Zeus, but thousands and thousands in ancient times were convinced there WAS in fact a god named Zeus because of their mythology.

On top of that there is the 'impossible to prove a negative' aspect. Of COURSE, by logical definition, an atheist cannot 'prove there's No God'. It's also impossible to disprove an assertion that there is a unicorn floating through space that poops rainbows but that hides from humans by orbiting on the exact opposite side of the sun at all times, so we can never actually see her.

Similarly to the 'is there a God' argument, the burden of proof of the existence of the unicorn is on the person making the positive assertion that said unicorn exists, in no small part because non-existence of ANYTHING is impossible to prove when the 'location' of where such a thing is purported to exist ... is undefined, or cannot be observed by any known method.

[Beartracks]

57. God's 'location' is everywhere.

I'm following your argument, but there at the last you seemed to assert that God's location would likely be "Heaven" which cannot be observed by any known method. But God is everywhere*, and a lot of 'everywhere' can be observed by known methods. The problem may be that God Himself, despite His being all around us, cannot be observed -- at least not directly -- by any known method.



* Like the Force!

============

[procon]

165. Um, "the force" is a fictional creation in a syfy tale, as is the concept of "god". nt

[WhiteTara]

33. you have a provable basis?

[guillaumeb]

144. Faith and proof are different concepts.

[WhiteTara]

145. you must be bored today.

[guillaumeb]

147. Never bored.

Hope you are also having a good day.

[Farmer-Rick]

113. I'm not sure what you mean

I'm not trying to prove anything. I am an atheist until there is hard evidence of a god. I believe in the germ theory or the cholesterol theory until it is proven incorrect. When the people who believe in a god can provide real evidence, I'll believe. It's the same reason I do not believe in a flat earth or trickle down economics. There is no evidence for it.

You may believe whatever you want, just don't try to make me believe something without hard evidence.

[marylandblue]

9. If a concept isn't defined, then it can't exist

I have no idea what form covfefe takes or what to look for, so It's more than fair to say it doesn't exist. Some say they do know what covfefe is, but they haven't provided a definition either.

[guillaumeb]

11. So relativity did not exist prior to the 20th century?

An interesting idea.

[marylandblue]

14. The concept could be defined, only nobody had bothered to

But God is being defined as undefinable. Give me a definition of God and I tell you if I think a being like that exists or not ( or I don't know). But give me just a word like God or covfefe, then I'd say neither of those exist.

[Mariana]

20. I don't know if Gil's Creator is undefinable.

He says it can't be understood by mere human beings, but then he also sometimes ascribes various properties and actions to it, so he thinks he understands it on some level. By the very name he gives it, he claims to know something about it - that it creates or has created. Here are a few examples of Gil describing his Creator and its behaviour:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218268107

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218269749#post13

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218269749#post53

[marylandblue]

23. I would say such a Creator probably doesn't exist

Current evidence points to a universe that is self-creating through the operation of physical laws, so no evidence of a spark. If future evidence said the universe could not have created itself or come from another universe, then I might change my position.

But this all contradicts Gil's proposition that we don't know what to look for.

[mr_lebowski]

49. Personally I believe that the Universe has simply always existed ...

Time is essentially a human-construct. I mean it's derived from real 'things' of course ... distance, velocity, etc, but it's not REALLY 'real', it's just a derivation from 'real things'. It's a 'formula', if you will.

But the notion that everything MUST have a 'beginning and end', temporally-speaking, I believe is not inherently universally 'true'.

It's just true in everything we see on earth, in our lives, so it SEEMS like it must be 'true' of the universe as a whole. I'm not convinced that's really the case.

[marylandblue]

53. Well all evidence is that time started with the Big Bang

So it's not just a human construct.

[mr_lebowski]

61. Imagine that there's been infinity 'big bangs' and you'll get where I'm going ...

Time, by our definition of it, REQUIRES a 'starting point'. It's meaningless w/o one. Thus, what we call The Big Bang is the 'starting point' for 'time' as we derive it in the current incarnation of 'our universe'.

Perhaps it'd be more accurate for me to say that all MATTER in the universe ... has always existed, in one form or another. Just because 'time' appears to have a 'beginning', that doesn't prove that the matter of the universe itself ... hasn't always existed. In fact a main law of thermodynamics suggests exactly what I'm saying.

Further, while all evidence shows that the universe is technically 'expanding', I do not believe in anything existing 'outside' the universe. Somehow or another, the universe cannot physically be 'left' ... it loops back upon itself or something of that nature. There exists in no meaningful sense, a 'spot' or 'point' which is NOT within 'the universe'. While it's expanding, it's NOT expanding into some 'previous existing area' that was 'the non-universe' prior to our universe expanding into it.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it until proven otherwise.

[marylandblue]

63. It's possible the universe is oscillating

Or that the matter in the universe came from a different universe where time does not exist, but if so, I think we'd be able to figure that out some day. I don't think the universe is expending into some pre-existing area either.

[mr_lebowski]

71. Also think it MAY be possible that we are simply missing a piece of the equation ...

Perhaps it's something so extremely arcane that we might never figure it out ... or maybe we will one day ... but our not being aware of this missing piece is leading us to BELIEVE i.e. 'calculate to the best of our ability based on what we know' ... that there was a Big Bang, and thus there was a 'start of time' ... and that the universe is expanding from some single point ... but that this is actually wrong. Much like 'science' was wrong when they believed the Heavens revolved round the earth.

So I think there may be something important we just don't know yet ... and I would suspect it is related to 'time' not being a 'real thing' at the universal scale, because there's nothing 'larger' to compare it against. The universe as a whole is 'everything' by definition, therefore it is 'relative' ... to nothing else but 'itself'. And the concept of time relies upon 'relativity'. There must be a point A and point B for 'time' to have meaning.

[spin]

106. The Big Bang is the current theory. ...

That may change in the future.

Big Bang in Trouble? Physicists Challenge Key Component of Cosmological Theory
By Garrett Haley on June 19, 2017

A team of physicists from Harvard and Princeton universities recently ignited a controversy among the scientific community by pointing out apparent weaknesses in a key element of the Big Bang theory.

Physicists Anna Ijjas, Paul Steinhardt, and Abraham Loeb wrote a critique of the standard model of the universe’s beginnings in an edition of the Scientific American earlier this year. Recent scientific measurements, they wrote, have “cast doubt” on a key element of the Big Bang theory and “exacerbated long-standing foundational problems with the theory.”

The key element of the Big Bang theory that the physicists call into question is the theory of “cosmic inflation.” Cosmic inflation is the widely-accepted idea that, immediately following the Big Bang, the universe grew exponentially, expanding in size much faster than it is today.
In their paper, however, Ijjas, Steinhardt, and Loeb cited several pieces of evidence that they believe undermine cosmic inflation, later writing, “the prospect that inflation did not occur deserves serious consideration.”
http://christiannews.net/2017/06/19/big-bang-in-trouble-physicists-challenge-key-component-of-cosmological-theory/

[sprinkleeninow]

97. Hello mary land blue,

If a future evidentiary revelation shows that there was that 'spark', you would reconsider? 🤗

[Mariana]

117. I'm not Marylandblue, but I would reconsider.

Whether I would worship the entity that provided said "spark" is an entirely different question, of course.

[sprinkleeninow]

122. It's all good! 🤗

~sprink
💙🇺🇸🌊

[marylandblue]

120. Yes I would reconsider

I'm all about evidence, so if we found evidence of a Creator, then I would look at it.

On edit: I am actually an agnostic, so since I say we don't know, I am open to the possibility of new knowledge settling the issue.

[sprinkleeninow]

121. Okay then. A thought 'tho.

Anyone may have a personal parousia b4 hard scientific evidence confirms.

Anyhow, you rockin'!

[marylandblue]

137. Parousia. That's a new one to me, I had to look it up.

So, if I understand correctly, I may get my own personal visit from God? Well then, I hope I have enough good wine for the occasion!

I think the real reason people believe in God is that they have some sort of spiritual experience. They may feel uplifted in church or by reading the Bible. Or maybe they had some sort of personal experience. The proofs and arguments all come later.

I think all the experience are just our own brains generating thoughts and feelings. But I'll allow that there may be more to it than that. If somebody says they experienced the presence of God, who am I to say they didn't, as long as God didn't tell them to do something crazy?

[sprinkleeninow]

138. The 'Parousia' is specifically the Second Coming.

But there may be a personal one b4 the big one wherein a 'body' will indubitably experience His Presence if it is ordained/meant to be.

When Orthodox pray, they're not supposed to conjure up any vision or image of the Whom they are praying to.

I have not 'fallen away', but many trials in the last two decades have stolen a synergy from me that I experienced in the early to latter nineties. Several times, once out in the backyard on my knees in the moonlight, I started with words, then none, with tears. A strange and wonderful sense of an Other Presence and a heavily perfumed fragrance overtook me by surprise. It lasted mb not a second. I tried to get it back, but nothing. I knew better than to do that, but in my humanness....

This happened a number of times to me back then. We're not to keep seeking out or expecting an experience like that to repeat itself. I have other experiences, but no fragrance.

'I absolutely positively do not hear and never have heard a voice!" I think I'd be shaken.

[guillaumeb]

146. If all of experience is "our own brains generating thoughts",

do you feel that only you exist? That is one way to interpret what you said.

[marylandblue]

150. That is one interpretation, but it is not mine nt

[Voltaire2]

74. It is clearly a tactical argument.

His gods are undefinable if that is convenient for the current argument.

[longship]

68. Well, then there's Galileo, who used the term himself.

But regardless your non-sequitor dodge is equally meaningless.

I love the way theists are always telling non-believers how they think, or should think. It is one of their strangest yet most common affectations.

All I do in response is laugh at it.

[Lint Head]

12. I think your premise is flawed. Here are examples.

Subject:
Black holes.
Premise:
The major weakness of the black hole argument is that, if they have no idea what a black holes looks like, or what form the black holes takes, they have no idea how to look, or what to look for. 
Response:
But scientists do know how and they do have an idea.

Subject:
Loch Ness monster.
Premise:
The major weakness of the Loch Ness monster argument is that, if they have no idea what a Loch Ness monster looks like, or what form the Loch Ness monster takes, they have no idea how to look, or what to look for. 
Response:
But scientists do know how and they do have an idea. But no real evidence has been found.

There are many clue's in the Bible that say where God exists. Look up. Jesus ascended into heaven. He sits at the right hand of God almighty. Obviously, he did not descend into the ground to do so. Heaven equals the sky. So it is known how to look. You look into the sky. You look into the heavens. How do you look? One uses a telescope or a space probe. If God is not in the sky why does the Bible say so? Or is that a metaphor also?
If you want to prove Satan exists you look inside the Earth. Because that is where the Bible says thst evil lives.

Or one can realize the metaphors and understand the true existence of people in those times and then understand how they came up with ideas because there was no science to understand the weather, germs, planets and on and on forever. Amen.

[guillaumeb]

13. What specifically are you looking for?

A body, an energy field, or something that we cannot imagine? What form could the Creator take? We anthropomorphize because it makes it easier for us to relate, but this anthropomorphizing is merely our human way of defining or envisioning the Creator.

[edhopper]

16. we are looking for some impact

on the Universe by this creator of your s. We find none.

[guillaumeb]

143. You might have found none. Others have.

So what are we to conclude?

[edhopper]

151. I have been asking for years for

examples of demonstrable impact or effect.
What do you have?

[guillaumeb]

153. You are asking for evidence that you will accept.

But faith demands neither evidence nor proof. So by your standard, I have nothing.

[edhopper]

156. So others have not seen

an impact on the physical Universe as you said they do?

They just attribute natural phenomenon to God.

[guillaumeb]

158. I cannot speak for these others.

But some do attribute natural occurrences to a deity.

[edhopper]

173. so the answer to this,

. we are looking for some impact
on the Universe by this creator of your's. We find none

Is not "some have." But still none, as I said.

Thanks.

[Major Nikon]

25. What form could the Creator take?

[CrispyQ]

31. A few months ago I was a passenger in a car full of people driving through Denver.

Someone spotted a vanity license plate, OH MY FSM & I was the only one who got it. My other fave vanity plate that I saw many years ago was TARDIS.

[opiate69]

51. Ramen!

[marylandblue]

34. Actually we do the opposite

We start with anthropomorphic gods and when we find that such gods do not exist, we deanthropomorphize them to explain why they are so hard to find.

[Voltaire2]

37. That is simply a dishonest argument.

you are a Christian and you believe your god had a human form “the son”. Unless you are a peculiar sort of Christian that manifestation of your god supposedly exists externally like it’s other two manifestations.

So we can define at least that aspect of your god(s).

And there is zero evidence for that.

[Mariana]

79. Gil is a very unusual sort of Christian.

He's assigned his own personal definition to the word "Christian" so that it means something completely different from what most people - including most Christians - think it means.

[trotsky]

118. My guess is, it's more deceitful than that.

On Sundays, gil probably goes to church and recites along to the Nicene or Apostles Creed. He takes communion and believes that through Jesus' sacrifice, his sins are forgiven. He believes there will be an eternal life after this one. And so on.

In other words, he accepts at least the core of Christian theology and all the atrocious baggage associated with it. It's just in settings like this where he knows he can't back any of that stuff up, that he retreats to this belief in a nebulous "Creator" which he refuses to define, so that he can claim an atheist being unable to disprove it is running on the same "faith" as someone like him who accepts it.

It's a common behavior for certain believers who at least on one level understand how flimsy and fragile their beliefs are, and are insecure about that.

[Mariana]

139. You're probably right about the nature of Gil's Christianity.

There has definitely been some evidence here to support your idea.

[edhopper]

15. We don't need to have an idea of those things about a creator

to ask for evidence that this creator effected the Universe.

Just as we see the effect of Dark Matter without understanding it yet.

We cannlook for some evidece of this creator. We find none.

Hope that answers this question for you. It is a good answer.

[msongs]

17. the bible says god looks like a human male, human males being created in his own image and all

so floating around out there somewhere must be a man like thing, sort of a human shaped asteroid.
then again the bible says many things

[Mariana]

21. God let Moses look at his backside

because, he said, it would kill him (Moses, not God) for Moses to look upon his face. So, we know God has a face and a backside.

[MineralMan]

140. Yeah, remember that time when God mooned Moses?

That was awesome!

[Binkie The Clown]

18. The question religion can't answer is who created the creator?

Something as vast and complex as a creator could not have simply appeared from nowhere. Some meta-creator must have created the creator. But then who created the meta-creator?

The problem is simply this: Atheists have one consistent answer, while throughout history, and around the world, religion provides thousands of conflicting answers.

Religions not only conflict with reality, they all conflict with each other.

[Major Nikon]

28. Atheism is not an answer. It's the rejection of an answer

The trap that some religionists want you to fall into is the rejection of their answer requires a definitive alternative answer. The OP is a perfect example of this.

[Binkie The Clown]

38. Another question religionists fail to answer is why did they choose their one particular god

given the thousands of alternative gods available to them? Obviously it's just a cultural thing. They didn't choose their god from among the possible gods, but were programmed in their youth to reject all but one alternative.

[Major Nikon]

42. Some religionists are exclusionists while others are not

There's also various degrees. Some believe only their particular denomination is correct while everyone else is going to perdition. Others believe just so long as you're a Christian you're OK. Others think only atheists are going straight to hell, while everyone else but them must wallow in purgatory for a few millennium.

[sprinkleeninow]

99. I practice exclusionistic religion.

My particular denomination is correct, and all other 2,000+ denominations will most likely experience eternal fall down go boom.

No believing that's it's okay if you just identify as a 'christian'.

Atheists are not/will not necessarily go straight to hell, aka, 'do not pass go-do not collect $200'.

Purgatory pit-stop is not doctrine anymore. It was re-evaluated.

I yam pretty pleased with mahself! 🤗

[Mariana]

124. By "eternal fall down go boom" do you mean

exclusion from Heaven and eternal separation from God?

[sprinkleeninow]

127. Separation from God.

This literal 'heaven' as a specific geographical place concept is yet to be experienced and reported on.

I dint have a mixed message OR a 1/2 sarcasm emojicon to add to my post that you responded to.

I went point by point in response to someone else's post.

There will be some who will inherit eternal life that had not been able to embrace the Christian Way for valid reasons known to God. I am raised in my Faith to not judge others, only my sorry self.

My understanding of a 'purgatory' is that it has been deleted from that tradition of faith.

Christians can call themselves whatever they choose to. It's their acts that define them truly.

[Mariana]

132. Thank you.

I understand the term "Heaven" may describe something more like a state of being, rather than a physical place.

[hueymahl]

198. The answer is quite simple

It is creators all the way down.

[Binkie The Clown]

200. Ah, so the creator IS a turtle after all!

Or was it an elephant?

[hueymahl]

206. Turtles all the way down

[OneBro]

19. How is this still an issue?

or

[yallerdawg]

22. "What should we do, and what should we believe?"

Are those meaningless questions if one has no purpose or reason to be?

[marylandblue]

36. You don't need a god to have a purpose

[yallerdawg]

40. Certainly correct in a biological sense.

An amoeba has a purpose.

We have no more purpose than an amoeba?

The bigger question is - "For what purpose were we created?"

[marylandblue]

43. Correct we have no more purpose than an amoeba

And that is perfectly alright. The only different is that the amoeba already knows that is alright and we sometimes have a problem.

Your version presumes a creator, which, if you don't believe in, is no question at all.

[yallerdawg]

46. And there you have it.

A question an Atheist can't answer.

[marylandblue]

48. What question?

[sprinkleeninow]

103. I think I have an assumption and expection of a Creator.

The best way to describe how I roll.

[dawg day]

80. Well, Sartre would say--

We weren't "created for a purpose."
So we can choose our own purpose.

Amoebas probably can't, but we can, and we don't have to have it created for us. You know that.

[yallerdawg]

81. What would Kierkegaard say?

Ever seen "leaping amoeba?"

[marylandblue]

87. He would say it's between you and God

and the question is absurd.

[Major Nikon]

24. -- Bertrand Russell, 1952

http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Russell,Bertrand/Religion/Bertrand%20Russell%20-%20Is%20There%20a%20God.pdf

[Voltaire2]

75. I love his writing. What an intellect.

[elleng]

26. Nature

[gibraltar72]

35. Neither side has proof of their belief.

One side has logic and reason. One has myth legend and folklore. One has Stephen Hawking on their side. One has Pence and Rick Santorum. Make your own conclusions.

[Binkie The Clown]

39. Logic and reason give consistently useful results. Mumbling prayers gives no results.

In fact, parents who deny their children of modern medical treatment in favor of faith healing can be criminally prosecuted. What sane person fails to recognize that science works and faith does not?

[yallerdawg]

52. Gandhi? MLK?

The Obamas? The Bidens? The Pelosis?

Two/thirds of Democrats?

Which side are these on?

[dawg day]

82. okay, you choose to believe-

Go ahead. This is the USA. No one is stopping you from believing.
My not believing has utterly no effect on your ability or right to believe.

Your belief has utterly no effect on my non-belief.

Why do you even care? Don't tell me I'm "scorning" you and your co-religionists, because 1) I don't, and 2) you're in the majority, or so you say. (I suspect most "faithfuls" are more tolerant of non-belief than you seem to be.)

Most Americans profess some form of faith. Okay. Some of those are good people like the ones you mentioned-- Obama, etc.

Some are bad people.

Some agree with liberal progressive issues, some don't.

Religion has nothing to do with whether you're good or not, or progressive or not, or whatever. If it makes you a better person to believe in God, great. But does it make Mike Pence a better person? (Who knows, maybe he'd be worse if he didn't believe in God. But he probably wouldn't be trying to get women who get abortions jailed if he didn't have his particular belief structure.)

[yallerdawg]

84. You are compelled to comment for some reason.

If I was faithless and free of religion, I wouldn't waste my time on "fairytale fantasies." Liberal progressives on a Democratic site who profess some kind of a support for people of faith are the least of our worries!

I generally ignore comments from Atheists and anti-Christians.

As you say, choose to believe whatever you want.

[Major Nikon]

88. Not only that, only one side requires belief as a condition

[MineralMan]

44. If it exists, it probably looks like this:

"Boop!"

[thucythucy]

278. I love that movie.

Especially the opening.

And a really good performance by George Carlin.

[MineralMan]

279. Yes. It's one of my favorite's too.

Then there was "Oh, God!" with George Burns as the deity. Funny stuff.

[thucythucy]

284. You put this bee in my bonnet

so I had to see it again:

Best wishes.

[Angry Dragon]

47. I have seen no proof

[randr]

50. Your first question is a non-sequitur

I will believe a, singular entity, known as the "creator" is present in our existing manifestation of reality when he knocks on my door.
Same holds true for "aliens".

[MaryMagdaline]

54. Alpha to Omega

I have to tell you that I am not a genius, above average intelligence, but average-high, not high-high. Had to study hard in math and science. Calculus was a struggle; foreign languages not so much. I find it extremely hard to visualize infinity. Very very hard. I have to rely on scientists to tell me what is happening in the world. I have to take them on blind faith, no pun intended. I believe them only because they go to the moon; they cure diseases, etc. if not for that, I would be very temped to believe creation stories. My brain can only imagine so much.

[CrispyQ]

229. Infinity

Here is a fun site: http://htwins.net/scale2/

You have to have Flash. Scroll out or in. Cool background music, too.

The book Contact, by Carl Sagan, had a completely different ending than the movie. In the book, the end had an infinity concept to it. If you read the book, you hated the movie.

[MaryMagdaline]

249. Thank you. I look forward to checking out the site

[Neema]

56. This is why I'm agnostic. I tend to think that staunch atheists are the other side of the

fundamentalist coin. To say you know beyond all doubt there is or isn't a god makes no sense to me. If you *believe* one way or the other, that is your right. But when you start telling other people what they should believe, that's where I have a problem.

[Major Nikon]

89. Equating atheists to fundamentalists doesn't really have much merit

For one thing, atheism doesn't require one to believe anything. It's the absence of belief.

I haven't met any atheists who care one way or another what other people believe. The problem comes in when they try to use that belief as a justification to influence public policy. When someone is convinced the almighty has decreed something, there's no higher power in which one can appeal and reason is useless. So if anyone wants to promote their belief, they really have no cause to complain when someone else questions that belief. There can be no right to one of those things without the other.

[Neema]

90. I have relatives who are staunch atheists and think anyone religious or agnostic is a total

idiot. They are constantly trying to convince me how should pick a side. And to me that feels just as inflexible as being a fundamentalist religious person.

I know other atheists who aren't like that, just like I know other religious people who keep their beliefs to themselves. I'm totally fine with that.

[Major Nikon]

91. Not surprising to have either relatives or close friends that are going to impose such expectations

However, when you compare that to the way religionists impose their beliefs on the freedoms and civil rights of those who don't share their beliefs, there really is no comparison with atheists.

[Neema]

95. I'm only speaking in personal terms. Absolutes from anyone bother me.

I'm not claiming atheists have done anything along the lines of the Inquisition or suicide bombings in the name of Allah.

[Major Nikon]

110. Politics and religion tend to be sensitive topics for a lot of folks

Which is why in my professional world I avoid both topics like the plague.

What I was getting at though was at the far end of the extreme you have religionists who are killing people as you say. However, even closer to the middle there's all sorts of impacts that pretty much everyone feels in one way or another thanks to the extremists. The LGBT community is hit the hardest and the spectrum goes all the way down to things like blue laws which we still have here in Texas and many other states. There's simply no parallel or anything remotely close to that on the other side.

[Mariana]

92. Your relatives are assholes.

Why do you assume it's because they're atheists? If they were staunch Christians, they'd probably think anyone non-Chrisitian is a total idiot. Certainly there are many, many Christians who feel that way about non-Christians, and there are passages in the Bible to reinforce that opinion.

[Neema]

96. Actually they're not assholes, even though I don't agree with their absolutism.

But actually my point is that there are people on either end of the religious-atheism spectrum who believe they're 100% correct in their views and anyone who doesn't agree is an idiot. It's fine to believe in whatever god you want, or to believe that god does not exist. My personal opinion is that there's really now way to know for sure because there are far too many mysteries in the universe. It's when you cross the line into claiming that everyone else is dead wrong that I have a problem.

[yallerdawg]

112. I apologize for rude, ugly, unexpected comments you get here in the Religion forum.

Personal vicious extremist attacks are mostly tolerated for some reason.

'Ignore' is a virtue in this corner of the internet.

[Neema]

114. LOL. No worries.

I just find a bit of irony in atheists coming to tell me I'm wrong for saying that some atheists try to tell me I'm wrong for being agnostic.

[yallerdawg]

116. "Irony" has found a home here!

Agnostics, skeptics and Atheists of a progressive liberal bent should be just as welcome here as liberal progressive people of faith - or so they should be.

We are all on the same team in that regard!

[uriel1972]

271. Sorry you don't get to apologize for me...

If I am rude or otherwise, I own it and I will apologize or not on my own thank you very much.

[Mariana]

119. They think anyone who is religious is a total idiot

but they're not assholes? OK. I'll take your word for it, I guess. People who have contempt for others because of their beliefs (as opposed to their behavior) qualify as assholes to me, but we all have our own ideas of what makes someone an asshole.

[edhopper]

93. There is no belief

there is no "without a doubt".
It is simple we have seen no reason or evidence to accept such a entity might exist.
This is vastly different from fundementalist believers.

[Neema]

94. Maybe that's how you think.

But the atheists I'm speaking about say "No, there absolutely is no god and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong." Not "I see no reason or evidence to accept such an entity might exist." And they respond to me in the same way that other folks who deal in absolutes respond, that I'm some kind of idiot for saying that I don't know the truth. It's the absolutes that seem the same to me no matter where they are coming from.

[edhopper]

107. Okay

I wouldn't tell you those you know don't do that.
But I can tell you that is a small minority of atheist.
I haven't met any who talk like that.
I understand your agnosticism. I was agnostic before I was an atheist.

[Neema]

115. I appreciate that.

I appreciate the same coming from religious people, and thankfully know many folks who keep their personal religious beliefs personal.

I don't care what someone else believes or doesn't believe. For me, personally, there are far too many mysteries in this universe to ever feel I know for sure that there is no creator or universal force or no afterlife or different planes of existence. I experienced enough odd moments of connection to something I couldn't explain in any kind of logical manner to think there's more than I understand going on out there.

I know I don't believe there's an old bearded guy in the sky who cares whether you eat pork, or which football team wins, or if you're gay; while ignoring children starving or being shot to death. Beyond that, I'm okay with saying I don't know and don't expect that to change.

[sprinkleeninow]

123. 'Mysteries'. I like that you hit on that term. 🙂

[Neema]

125. Thanks.

It may be a little too hippy dippy for some, but I am always amazed at how little humans know about the universe...even about our own planet.

[sprinkleeninow]

128. No hippy dippy. I think in a 'spiritual' manner. 🤗

[sprinkleeninow]

131. I left the kitchen table premises and returned to say this:

[Please, please do not take this as proselytizing.]

In Orthodoxy, for example, what others call the 'last supper' is called "The Mystical Supper".

We have a bunch of mysteries.

[nocoincidences]

58. It's wonderful to see so many Pastafarians are members

of DU, and have been touched by his noodly appendage.

[Downtown Hound]

60. I myself maintain that there's no proof either way

I do however, wonder how all of this just seemingly arose from nothing. But then that in and of itself raises the question such as if God created it, then who created God, and at what point and...geez, my head is starting to hurt already.

I'll just finish by saying that whatever the truth is, it's probably something that our minds are simply not smart enough to process, just like an insect can't do math or a squirrel can't write. There are A LOT of things we still don't know.

[Butterflylady]

65. I have to agree your premise.

When asked, I always answer I'm an agnostic. No one has ever convinced me either way. We just don't know. So until someone shows me some kind of real proof and I do not mean anything that comes from a book or a near death experience, I mean undeniable proof that everyone would believe I will remain the same.

[tazkcmo]

72. I just say

"I don't know but if there is an Almighty Father he owes back child support due to absenteeism."

[Lordquinton]

69. Funny, that's the top of the lit of "Questions that theists can provide no good answer for"

And when we try to explore this road we're met with unbridaled hate. Insults, personal attacks, campaigns to get us banned from this site. You reframe it into something unrecognisable, you claim that us reading the descriptions out of the bible as all manner of things, literalists (somehow an insult?) ignorant, you claimed we couldn't tell fiction from reality that one time, cause apparently in your 4 years of jesuit university education you never once took a literary criticism class.

Everything I said above is all factual, and some even happened within the last 24 hours.

So what's a description of the creator? You claim one exists, so you should have an idea.

[dawg day]

83. Also why does that description of the creator end up so different -

than the descriptions of the majority of other "faithful believers"?

Even among supposed Christians, there are vastly different descriptions of God, starting with, you know, that whole Blessed Trinity thing, and Sister Michael Mary did her damnedest to explain that, and couldn't, so maybe Guil can give it a try.

[Lordquinton]

204. If this book is wrong on literally every point

that it touches on, maybe it's wrong about the creator even existing? Maybe that's a metaphor, and they weren't supposed to actually believe in a supernatural being like that. Of course when you press any of them and somehow manage to break through the barrage of abuse the creator becomes less than nothing, with the ability to create the universe and nothing else.

And of course sources are never given, or are given, but you get mocked for using them, even though they used them first...

Intellectual honesty isn't a strong point of theists.

[trotsky]

109. "So what's a description of the creator? You claim one exists, so you should have an idea."

Silly Lordquinton, we aren't allowed to ask questions about this creator thing. If we do, we're being intolerant atheists.

[Lordquinton]

203. Simple questions are brutal opression

and deserve abuse and hatred. Meanwhile repeatedly linking to a post in a protected group until it gets the desired goal of getting hidden is just fine, and ok for good christians to do.

[dawg day]

77. Sorry, that doesn't make sense

Everyone raised in a theistic society knows 'what the Creator looks like," or is supposed to look like.

Many of us raised within religions know very well what we're supposed to "look for". The fact that usually "the Creator looks like" -- as presented by the religions-- someone very human is just evidence that this is indeed a human creation.

So you might come back and say that the Creator does NOT look like that! Okay, but your description (or refusal to supply one) still sounds to me like you're making it up.

What the heck, believe what you want to. But don't tell me what I "know' or don't know. Parochial school kid here-- I went to Mass every day for years, and yeah, I know what I'm supposed to be looking for, and it ain't there for me, even if it is for you. Just, you know, stay out of my face. When I was a kid, we were sent out to "convert the heathens," and the heathens were mostly Episcopalians.

[sprinkleeninow]

104. I see the Creator in the bluebirds that come and feed daily.

I see the Creator in our dogga daughter's brown eyes.

[CrispyQ]

233. Do you see the creator in a deer that's killed in a forest fire? Or in a child dying of cancer?

God gets credit for the good stuff but not the bad stuff. The losing team never blames God.

[sprinkleeninow]

240. Yes, I do. I see

His creation being targeted as a result of ugly evil that was introduced into what was to be Paradise. Case in point: Note what acts against humanity and nature are being wrought by republucres today.

It sorrows Him to witness this evil whether deliberate or as a result of corruption introduced into life.

The reason for Christian belief has to be considered from 'Day One'. 'Soup to Nuts'. 'A to Z'. Otherwise it's scrambled and senseless to the, I don't know, human 'mind'.

This is Christian belief. This is what I hold as a poorly practicing one.

You will now counter this with 'something'.

[CrispyQ]

241. If God created everything, didn't God also create evil? -nt

[MineralMan]

242. Yes, and that deity admitted that, too, as recorded in Isaiah.

Isaiah 45: 7 King James Version (KJV)
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

[sprinkleeninow]

243. The life given to us should be considered as a whole.

Do you approve of 'life' or is it annoying or bothersome.

I can't prove existance of The Eternal Divine Creator to you.

And I do not have end all and be all answers for you.

My Faith holds that He could not create evil for Who He is by His substance.

One believes, does not or isn't sure.

He changes 'minds' and hearts. Not up to me.

[CrispyQ]

263. You talk in riddles.

"Do unto others" is as good as rule as it gets & doesn't require belief in a superior being. Have a good day.

[TlalocW]

86. Your opening salvo is flawed

Your premise of how non-theists reason is not a major weakness. It is in fact an incredibly logical way to go through life, which you probably do with other claims. You are probably a-Bigfoot. You reject the claims that Bigfoot exists until shown some evidence. Same for other big claims. You're just upset that the same logic and behavior most people use is being used against your pet claim. Now instead of being a-Bigfoot, you're the president of the Bigfoot Fan Club, and you think you have seen proof on your walks in the woods that Bigfoot exists, and everyone else is too blinded to know what you call evidence really is evidence because they don't know what to look for.

TlalocW

[Kablooie]

101. The creator does exist!

But it's a physical process, not a sentient being.
There is no evidence of sentience in the creation of the universe so any claim as such is pure empty speculation. A fairy tale essentially.

[ExciteBike66]

105. Actually, we know exactly what "the Creator" looks like

"he" looks like something created by man, which is one reason we are of the opinion that gods are man-made.

We could be wrong, but it is very true that there is a lack of evidence of any gods out there, so we feel rather confident.

Of course, any omnipotent god could easily just go into our brains and make us all believers. Hard to imagine why "he" didn't do that already, actually.

[Major Nikon]

111. Not only that He hates the same people you do

Funny how that works.

[CrispyQ]

130. Man created God to control woman. -nt

[trotsky]

108. LMFAO

Is this what passes for modern sophisticated theological thought?

Tell you what, define your creator in such a way that its existence can be tested. Then the atheist will have an answer for you.

Oh wait, you don't define it, will you? And then you declare "victory" because you have an object with no actual properties that no one can disprove. Well, congrats, I guess.

[JNelson6563]

129. Magic is an easy answer for everything.

Like how we invented god when we didn't know where the sun went at night.

[rownesheck]

133. trying to comprehend the universe

makes my feeble mind feel like it's melting.

[BigOleDummy]

134. My opinion....

.... is that even if a "god/creator" exists (which I do not believe for one second btw) why would you want to follow them/it? Granted ,jesus or his writers had some good points. The Sermon on the Mount should be canon imo , but the rest? Any entity as powerful as a god/creator would be ,who is also so insecure as to demand worship from his creations does not DESERVE that worship. Do you DEMAND that your kids worship you? Follow your every whim?

[BigOleDummy]

135. But then .....

........ there's been 2870 gods (not counting the Hindu ones), but YOUR'S is the real one , huh?

[guillaumeb]

149. All are a reflection of the Creator.

[BigOleDummy]

159. Soooooooooo.........

.......... PHONOI is a manifestation of your god? What a horrible concept! You still didn't address my concern's about the insecurity of a god, ANY god, who demands "worship". Please enlighten me.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

136. Uhhh, theists can't provide a good answer for that question either.

Can can say the believe the "Creator" exists, but they cannot offer any actual evidence of one.

Other than various kinds of circular reasoning.

[guillaumeb]

155. They can provide a personal, non-provable, answer.

Just as non-theists can provide their own personal, non-provable, answers.

[trotsky]

162. But an answer isn't required for a question that you made up.

That's what you (and most believers) simply don't understand.

[exboyfil]

154. Question no good theist has an answer for

In science explanation for physical phenomenon converges to a accepted theory that, while can be modified by additional observations and provable hypotheses, represents an explanatory model for the phenomenon.

The nature of a creator does not demonstrate that process. In fact you see a continuing and evolving fracturing of any belief system. Also testable hypotheses contained in holy writings are time and again found to be incorrect based upon physical observations. Belief systems struggle to find gaps within the known observable world. In many cases these systems deny what are observable facts.

[guillaumeb]

157. Faith versus science.

Or, faith and science in non-overlapping areas.

[Act_of_Reparation]

160. Says the guy presenting a religious answer to a scientific question in his OP.

[trotsky]

163. So the faith Christian Dominionists is equally as valid as yours.

Understood.

[SonofDonald]

161. Yeah, arguing with me about my "beliefs"

Sure will change my mind to your way of thinking, I don't have to prove there is no God but you sure do have to prove there is after you state as much.

I believe something created all this, but the thought that it's some old man with white hair and a staff?, please.....

Any one thing that has the power to create all there is has zero connection to anything we could possibly understand, there is no way this all could be explained in terms that could be correct by book that was hodgepodged together by taking ideas from all religions and then trying to make them fit the desired narrative.

So they made it all up, in a time period they could barely grasp any of the concepts known to grade school kids these days.

Religion has been designed over centuries to always have an answer to any question as to its truth by answers that cannot be proven as fact in any way whatsoever, faith isn't proof, the definition of the word itself negates any argument that proof is required to explain religions premise.

So I tell you what, I have faith there isn't a god, since I can use the same fall back answer as you then how can my faith be any less truthful than yours?.

But then again none of this matters, this thread was created for one purpose and that's to start an argument about something that can't be proven either way.

So the answer is faith, and my faith that there is no God can't be any less valid than anyone's faith that there is.

[Mariana]

166. The OP claims to understand the thing he calls the Creator.

He regularly ascribes properties and actions to it. He has done so in this thread.

[BigRig]

164. There is loads of evidence that prove gods DO NOT exist..

its called laws of nature

There is absolutely none proving otherwise.

[guillaumeb]

167. The evidence disproves nothing.

But I understand your position.

[marylandblue]

169. If you understood this position

You would not dismiss it so blithely.

[guillaumeb]

171. I do not dismiss the point,

but it does not prove or disprove my own.

[marylandblue]

174. Of course not

Because your position is unfalsifyable, like invisible, undetectible magic unicorns, space aliens controlling your brain, or the earth is 6,000 years. All of these positions can be and often are made unfalsifyable by people who misunderstand how evidence works, yet often claim to understand it.

[BigRig]

170. Say someone walks up to you and tells you that they can fly using nothing

but the power of their mind. Would you agree that the law of gravity and lack of the law of mind force is evidence that what they say is impossible?

[guillaumeb]

172. We are not arguing about proven science.

Edited to say:

I am a theist because I have faith. If you do not have faith, you are a non-theist.

[trotsky]

168. The most significant evidence against gods...

is that the universe behaves exactly as we would expect it would if no gods existed.

Theists have to explain what explanatory value their god brings to the table, but so far, not one has. All they have managed to come up with in a thousand years is a "you can't prove my god DOESN'T exist, so there!" comedic response.

[DanTex]

175. If no gods existed, then we wouldn't expect there to be a universe at all, would we?

I agree, the many posited gods have no explanatory value whatsoever as far as the way the universe behaves. So believing in any of those gods is irrational, in my opinion.

But the fact that there is something rather than nothing is a big mystery. I'm not saying it proves that a god-type thing exists, and certainly not any specific god. But if there is no god or creator or anything, then I really wouldn't expect there to be a universe. The case against a higher power would be a lot cleaner if there were no universe.

[edhopper]

180. Why?

Last edited Wed Mar 28, 2018, 09:23 AM - Edit history (1)

The Universe started at some point. Bit there is no evidence there was an intelligent, aware creator behind it?
Isn't your statement just a God of the gaps argument? Why would expect no Universe if no God? Me
You could say the same thing about man, but now we know an intelligent species can evolve without a designer.
Why not the Universe?

[DanTex]

183. Because it would be simpler, and there would be no reason to believe otherwise.

It's a different than evolution. With evolution, you start with matter and the laws of physics. That's a question of what happens, or what can happen, and a specific system that obeys certain laws.

This is not the case regarding the existence versus non-existence of the universe, because this is a question of why there is a system to begin with, including why there are those certain laws. There could be just nothing -- no matter, no laws of physics, nothing at all. And that would be the simpler and more logical situation. If you didn't tell me there was a universe, and you told me there was no higher power of any kind, I would conclude that there wasn't going to be any universe or anything else either. For basically the same reason that I don't think that every time I turn my head there are magic unicorns dancing behind me.

[edhopper]

185. We simply don have enough knowledge

pre-Big Bang.
I don't see why an intelligent God is any better explanation than other theories.
And given thae lack of evidence for any God presently, it seems a poorer theory.

[DanTex]

191. That's true. But even when we do.

There's always going to be the question of why there is something instead of nothing. Basically, why are the laws of physics what they are. Why does anything exist. It would be far simpler if there were just nothing, no universe, no physics, nothing. If I were told that there was no god or higher power or anything, and then asked whether I thought there would be a physical universe, I would say of course not. Why would there be? There's certainly no logical reason that anything should exist.

I do agree that any of the current "god" theories (e.g. Christian, Muslim, etc.) are absurd. That's because they make specific claims that are unsupported by any evidence, and to the extent that they make predictions, those predictions are wrong. But that doesn't mean that the underlying mystery of how is there anything at all if there isn't some higher power goes away.

[edhopper]

223. I think you have made

a logically jump that "something" needs a higher power to explain it.

Or even that a higher power is somehow a better explanation that a purely physical one.

It is a presumption that doesn't have a basis logically.

[DanTex]

224. There is no purely physical explanation for the existence of anything at all, including physics.

Physical laws can explain and predict the evolution of physical systems, but they can't explain why there are physical systems and physical laws in the first place, or why those laws are what they are.

I don't think that "something" needs a higher power to explain it. I don't even claim that a higher power is necessarily a better explanation than "there's just something". What I am saying is that if there were no higher power, I wouldn't expect there to be "something" either.

[edhopper]

226. I understand that

but that is different than there not being "nothing" points to a higher power.

You are speculating that without a higher power, nothing would be the default. There is no reason to believe that.

If i see an orderly complex structure, I might say that shows human activity, because without that the default would not be orderly structures. But in fact we have orderly structures in nature without human activity. Without any animal activity at all.

[img]?resize=849%2C565[/img]

[DanTex]

228. I am speculating that without a higher power, nothing would be the default, yes.

I justify this because nothing is the simplest outcome. A universe with matter and energy and complex, highly mathematical laws is certainly not the simplest outcome. There is certainly no logical reason that anything should exist. The existence of anything is something cause or a reason.

It's a little different from your example of orderly structures in nature without human activity. There, we already know the physical laws according to which a system evolves. But even in that case, yes, by default I would not expect an orderly geometric structure without human involvement. And most of the time I would be right -- that picture you posted (which is great, by the way) is a rare example, most of the time nature doesn't produce that sort of thing. It produces order, but not that kind of geometric order.

But in any case, with nature, we're talking about things that can arise given physical laws that are known. Nobody knows the laws the govern existence versus non-existence of anything at all. We can't do experiments. All we know is that there is a universe with certain physical laws. We have one observation. So I fall back to basic logic, the only thing that I can think of to reason about that. And logically, if there were no higher power, one (at least I) would not expect there to be a physical universe.

[edhopper]

231. yes, nobody knows,

so to assume nothing is more probable without a higher power is mere speculation with no logical foundation.
You really don't have enough information to base that speculation.

[DanTex]

232. But it's also speculation that the existence of a universe without a higher power is even possible.

I agree, nobody knows. But at the very least my speculation is the simplest one: nothing.

The original post I responded to stated that "the universe behaves exactly as we would expect it would if no gods existed". That's what I object to. I can't imagine that if you didn't already know that the universe existed and obeyed the laws it does, that anyone would "expect", from nothing that there would be a universe with quantum mechanics and black holes and all that. It seems like a very strange thing to "expect". It seems a lot simpler to just expect there to be nothing, since there was nothing to begin with.

[edhopper]

234. And then we have to ask

where do the gods come from?
I, and many others, including astro physicists have no problem imagining a universe rather than nothing.

You don't know what there was to begin with, nobody does. What you "expect" has no bearing on what is.

[DanTex]

236. Yes, of course. So there's no satisfactory answer there either.

And I'm certainly not claiming I have a proof of the existence of god. I agree that nobody knows. And I'm sure plenty of people have no problem imagining a universe rather than nothing. But also, a lot of people, including me, do have a problem imagining that.

[edhopper]

237. People used to have a problem imagining

many things we know know are true about the Universe.

Some today can't imagine known facts about the universe to be true. (just look at your average GOP voter )

But I do get your viewpoint.

I have enjoyed the discussion

[DanTex]

238. Yes, I enjoyed the discussion too, and I get your viewpoint also. Thanks.

[marylandblue]

187. All solutions start with the existence of the universe

If there were no universe, we wouldn't be here to ask the question. So we can't conclude from existence alone that a particular cause of existence, like God must exist.

[DanTex]

193. I'm not saying that it proves the existence of god.

And it definitely doesn't prove the existence of any specific god.

All I'm saying is that the state of affairs in which we find ourselves in -- that there's a universe, matter, energy, laws of physics, etc. -- is most definitely not the state of affairs that anyone would expect if there were no god. Logically, the idea that something exists at all is pretty crazy.

I was responding to a post that said that "the universe behaves exactly as we would expect it would if no gods existed" and that was evidence against the existence of god. I disagree with that. If no gods existed, I would not expect the universe to even exist in the first place, much less behave in any given way.

[trotsky]

230. "is most definitely not the state of affairs that anyone would expect if there were no god"

This is simply not true. You are engaging in a type of logical fallacy known as the argument from personal incredulity. Plenty of people have no problem reconciling the existence of the universe with no belief in gods. You're simply not one of them - for some reason, you have decided that reality must conform to your personal preferences. Hate to be the one to break it to you, but that isn't the case.

[Mariana]

190. How is it simpler with god(s) in the mix?

Instead of just having the question of how the universe came to be, then we also have the question of how the god(s) came to be.

[DanTex]

192. I'm not sure if it's simpler or not.

All I'm saying is that the simplest thing of all would be if there weren't any universe or anything. If there were no god, I wouldn't expect there to be a universe.

But there is a universe. That's pretty crazy.

Basically, just the fact that the universe exists means we're already living in crazytown. Logically, there shouldn't be a universe. So the fact that it seems crazy to think there's some higher power that created the universe isn't really that strong of an indictment of the "god theory," because there are no non-crazy explanations for the existence of the universe.

[Mariana]

194. Logically, we don't know if there should be a universe.

We don't really know much about the nature of nothing. Perhaps nothing is inherently unstable and it's natural and normal for matter to appear from nothing.

I agree that there aren't any non-crazy hypotheses, but injecting a god or gods into it, with zero evidence for the existence of said god(s), only creates many more questions. Such as, what is the nature and the origin of said god(s)? We haven't solved anything at all, we've just kicked the can down the road a bit.

[DanTex]

197. Well, at the very least there's no logical reason why there should be.

You can't start from first logical principles and deduce that there should be a universe. Sure, maybe nothingness is unstable, but there again, the instability of nothingness is something that can't be logically deduced. That would be a physical law, which gives rise to the question of why is that law that way.

And I don't agree that injecting a god-type figure into it creates more questions. I think it's the same number of questions, and the same degree of craziness.

I would agree that, given the lack of evidence, any specific god theory that I know (e.g. the Christian god) is basically indefensible. But I don't believe the same can be said for the non-specific "existence of god". Basically, I think that the existence of the universe with no god, or the existence of a universe created by some god that I can't describe are both crazy and I don't see why the former is better than the later.

I agree that it's just kicking the can down the road. But that doesn't mean it's not true.

[Mariana]

209. You appear to be engaging in the logical fallacy

of Argument from Ignorance. But, I may very well be wrong. Let's explore the question. Please list your first logical principles, the ones from which you say it is impossible to deduce that there should be a universe.

[DanTex]

225. I don't think so, but maybe.

According to wiki, argument from ignorance is claiming that the lack of contrary evidence proves an affirmative. I don't think I'm doing that, and I certainly don't think the lack of evidence against a god proves that a god exists.

As far as first logical principles, we can pick any set you like, really. For example, the Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms of set theory are a common starting point. All sorts of fascinating mathematical theorems can be deduced form those, but not the existence of a physical world.

[Lordquinton]

199. Interesting, this question was ignored

in favor of repeating the exact same thing that he said in at least a dozen posts.

[trotsky]

186. How on earth does that logically follow?

Are you claiming that universes can ONLY come into existence if gods create them?

I'd love to see your evidence. Please present it.

[DanTex]

188. I didn't say "can", I said "expect".

If there were just nothing (i.e. no "god thing&quot , what I would expect is for there to just be nothing else. This is in response to your post that "the universe behaves exactly as we would expect it would if no gods existed."

I'm saying that, if no god (or god-type-thing) existed, then I wouldn't expect the universe to exist at all. I mean, why would it? Why would there be anything at all?

[trotsky]

189. "If there were just nothing... what I would expect is for there to just be nothing else."

But why? That doesn't follow logically at all.

Did you know that in perfectly empty space, particles and their anti-particle counterparts pop in and out of existence all the time? Something is coming from nothing, in direct violation of what you say shouldn't be possible.

[tonedevil]

256. A god or a creator...

or anything. I guess you have it all covered. If that isn't the most meaningless bit of woo I ever saw it is in high contention. The really great part is you haven't made any case against a free standing universe or for a created one you just expressed your doubt a free standing one could exist.

[SCantiGOP]

176. This OP is amazing

If I can’t disprove your contention then I must be wrong?
Is that what your thesis is?

[Major Nikon]

211. Thats the basis of all mythology

[guillaumeb]

212. No, that it not the thesis.

My argument is that neither position is provable. All arguments for each side rest on a belief that the position is correct.

[Major Nikon]

216. Your argument is an obvious appeal to ignorance fallacy

The only proper response to such an argument is just pointing out the fallacy.

[SCantiGOP]

217. So if I accept your thesis

And I contend that Santa Claus and unicorns are real, we simply have two equal competing points of view, both with the same degree of truth.
Have you thought of being the President’s press secretary?

[pandr32]

177. Please elaborate

What does the creator look like and exactly what form does the creator take? Also, how do you look?

[Progressive2020]

178. Ancient Questions

I do not think this will be solved on an Internet Thread tonight or anytime soon.

That said, why do we not focus on what we all have in common?

We are all Human, and so I call myself a Humanist, in the sense of putting human life first over other values and principles.

I think that one can be a Humanist Christian, a Humanist Muslim, a Humanist Atheist, etc. I think sometimes people use religion for anti-human actions, such as killing non-believers.

I believe in Religious Freedom unless it dictates violence against other humans. Murder, torture, etc, are anti-human, and any religion that professes these things is anti-human and illegitimate, imo.

If we could all agree on our common humanity, then religious differences would not be so contentious as they are. I do not care if you are Christian, Muslim, Atheist, as long as you respect Human Rights.

[Cary]

179. Why must you have an answer?

The ways of God are not the ways of man and are not for man to understand. Anything can be God and at the same time nothing can be God. Our 5 senses are naturally selected for, but nowhere is it written that we find God with them, especially given the fact that our perception is itself an illusion.

I don't understand why people think "God" has to be literally this or that. Why can't God, Herself, be a metaphor? What about the deeper meaning of it all?

[sprinkleeninow]

181. You're on to something, if I might say so myself.

Not finding Him with our natural senses.

By our intellect He may be experienced.

I won't say that the God Being is female. I don't mind Him being a He. But what if He is male in Governing, the KIngdom, Meting Out Justice, Protection, Provision, etc., yet also possesses feminine attributes of females? Nurturing, Wisdom, Loving-Kindness, Pathos, Tender-Heartedness, Selfless Service to Others, Compassion, etc.?

He didn't only create a male. So He must have transferred female traits that were present in Him when woman was created.

In Christ, the Image and Likeness of The Godhead, there is neither male nor female. [Distinctive.]

[Cary]

184. I make no definitive statement

There is neither proof of anything. "God" is a concept invemted by ancients with even more limitations than we have.today. I see that concept as akin to an unknown variable added to a mathematical equation. In this instance that equation is peoples' journey to relate to their creator.

There is no merit to reading more into it than that.

[sprinkleeninow]

205. Whatever works for you.

All I did was found [perhaps] as common ground how you expressed some thoughts.

Did not mean to push your buttons.

[trotsky]

196. Since gods are made up, yes, a god can be anything you want.

If you can pull some kind of meaning out of that, well bully for you.

Just try not to dismiss the problems that arise when you validate gods to the point there you empower the people whose god wants them to execute homosexuals or ban reproductive choice, mmkay?

[Cary]

207. I don't understand why people don't understand metaphor

Even non-believers insist on literal interpretation. What's that about?

[guillaumeb]

210. Simplicity.

My view.

[trotsky]

222. You are certainly entitled to your view, no matter how wrong it may be.

There is no such thing as a literalist non-believer. If someone is taking a holy book to be literally true, then they are a believer. It is literally impossible to be anything else.

Non-believers ask about literal interpretations all the time, because believers who DO take things too literally are causing most of the problems, and many of us would like to have a discussion about why certain parts of your book are OK to take literally, but others aren't - and why you all disagree with each other about which parts are which. You yourself have been asked about this many, many times but have steadfastly refused to have such a discussion, and instead start flinging insults about nonbelievers being literalists for simply asking.

Be the change you want to see, gil.

[marylandblue]

218. non-believers don't insist on literalism

They just note that there are an awful lot of literalists around who are also deadly serious.

[Cary]

245. But when I insist on metaphor they invariably change the subject

They condemn literalists.

I was taught that God created people and put a little bit of herself in every person's heart. Therefore serving people is serving God. The rest of my religion is tradition, ritual, and the organic community.

It is certainly imperfect and I have not participated in years. However I do respect the premise and those who find goodness in it. The Bible is not the word of God. It is not to be taken as literally true which, of course, it isn't. But so what?

[marylandblue]

246. What is the metaphorical meaning of the genocide in the book of Joshua?

And why have people taken that book literally?

[Cary]

250. That is hardly the only atrocity in the Bible.

We could go on and on.

These were Bronze Age people who lived short, brutal lives. The Bible is their story of their faith and their search for a relationship with their creator.

Beyond that you will need to find meaning from someone who knows something. I didn't really offer up my thoughts or even as an apologist for religion. I don't care beyond the intellectual curiosity.

[trotsky]

221. Hint: it's not the nonbelievers engaging in the behavior I described.

You are disparaging the wrong people in order to try and cast the world into "extremes" where violent fundamentalist religionists are the same thing as atheists asking questions on websites.

[Mariana]

215. And yet, here you are, in this very post

ascribing properties to God and describing its ways.

[Cary]

220. Except I'm not

[trotsky]

239. Yeah, you did.

The ways of God are not the ways of man and are not for man to understand.

Says who? How did you learn this?

[Cary]

244. What difference does it make?

I offered it up as my own statement and nothing more. My point is that "God" can be anything so how is that ascribing?

I am more of the Joseph Campbell school. I believe that religion has a place, for certain people. All religions can get you to the same place, if used properly. All can be misused by charlatans.

So where's your beef with that. I was raised as a Reform Jew and I would defy you to find a more benign, accepting philosophy.

[trotsky]

247. It was a declarative statement.

It indicated that you have knowledge about this god that you propose.

By making that statement, you negated everything else you said.

It's kind of important.

[Cary]

251. Nonsense.

You're putting your words in my mouth.

Why would you be so eager to tell me what I think? A lot of people here do that ploy and it's just plain rude, not to mention dumb.

[trotsky]

252. I quoted you. That's how I know what you think.

You said: The ways of God are not the ways of man and are not for man to understand.

Those are your words. I didn't put them in your mouth - you did. Now if you want to retract that statement, feel free. But it is a declarative statement that you know something about your god, despite saying no one can know anything about your god.

[Cary]

254. You're being rude

You did much more than "quote."

Cut it out.

[trotsky]

261. I'm being rude by repeating your quote?

Here it is again: The ways of God are not the ways of man and are not for man to understand.

Can you explain how you know this, please?

[Cary]

262. I can do many things

Just because I can doesn't mean I should.

Sayanara.

[trotsky]

264. Alright, sorry I asked you to defend your statement. n/t

[Cary]

265. That's not what you should apologize for.

[Cary]

266. What you should apologize for is deliberately missing my point.

What you should apologize for is misrepresenting what I said and making it into a straw man to try to draw me into whatever it is you think you're doing.

But you won't apologize for that because you aren't the least bit sorry for that ploy.

[trotsky]

267. Once again, I quoted you.

I am honestly trying to understand how I've "misrepresented" what you said, by directly quoting you.

But you won't explain, you just lash out at me.

So no, without an explanation, I don't know what the hell I'm supposed to apologize for. Meet me halfway, won't you?

[Cary]

268. So you respond to being deliberately obtuse

By doubling down.

You attributed your editorial, and you know you did.

The meaning of the quote is simply that no one knows one way or the other. That's a fact regardless what God is, or if there is a God.

You know that damn well and there is nothing you can say, at this point, to convince me that you're not trying to be a jerk.

[trotsky]

269. And you double down on the insults against me.

Look, I'm really trying here despite the verbal abuse you're throwing at me. Here's your quote, once again:

The ways of God are not the ways of man and are not for man to understand.

If you really meant to say "No one knows," that sentence doesn't mean it. That sentence is making a claim that not only does no one know, no one can EVER know, because you know that the "ways of god" are different and unknowable. Do you see what I'm saying? Drop the insults, and TALK to me. EXPLAIN.

Language needs to be precise, don't you agree?

[trotsky]

248. Part 2

How do you know if you are using a religion "properly"?

By what set of external standards does one judge the application of a religion? Clearly one can't use the religion itself, since there is no agreement even within the religion about what it means. So what's the yardstick?

Can you clarify a bit on that please?

[ExciteBike66]

182. This came up again, and I wanted to reply again!

I earlier made the point that atheists know exactly what "the creator" looks like: "he" looks like us!

Humans created "the creator", and "he" looks like something we created.

There, easy answer to a silly question!

[Curmudgeoness]

195. Who said there are no dumb questions?

[Jayster84]

201. Who created to the creator?

Answer that first.

[guillaumeb]

213. Ask the Creator.

Now, who created the matter that just happened to be lying around so it could spontaneously explode?

[marylandblue]

219. No matter was lying around

There was a small random fluctuation that got really big.

Do you know what causes radioactive atoms to decay? Absolutely nothing. It's just a random event that the laws of physics dictate must occur with a certain frequency for a given atom. But it has no cause.

The entire universe works this way, and always did from the moment it started. Randomness is the Creator.

[Freethinker65]

202. Betsy DeVos is smiling

[sdfernando]

253. We are the Creator!

V-Ger told me so.....now, where is that radio transmitter?

[YOHABLO]

255. The only creator(s)that I know of are mom & dad

The rest is all left to my imagination.

[uriel1972]

270. Gosh how ignorant...

We didn't know what x-rays looked like but we found them, oxygen atoms, but we found them... microbes that live around the undersea vents at vast depths, but we found them... We don't know what G... sorry the Creator would look like, but we know how to look for the evidence that something affects the flow of the universe.
The big problem is we aren't finding anything except naturalistic explanations with the evidence we keep finding, the "Gap" for the existence of a creatoor is shrinking past the sub-atomic zone.


If something is a cause it must have an effect, so unless the Creator is the deistic unmoved mover and therefore non-interventionist after the creation, then there would be evidence lying around that they did something.

Come to think of it there would be evidence lying around of that first intervetion... patterns, shapes of energy and matter that point back to the first moment. There is a lot of evidence that points back to the first moment and nothing so far has been revealed to indicate anything but naturalistic causes and effects no ripples in the shape of the Creator's face so far I'm sorry.

I could be wrong, I am mortal and fallible as are the people working on these projects. The problem is there is a lot of evidence for naturilistic causes and effects, but noone has come up with a stumper that makes us say "Well that's it. Looks like there is a creator after all."

And with that and the fact that we can see past the subatomic level you've got to wonder where else is there to look?

[lindysalsagal]

275. Which creator? Thor? There have been thousands.

We seem to only discuss one in the 21st century. Apparently, none of the others existed, but the one that supports pedophile priests, the kkk and the hypocritical gop exists.

[Freelancer]

277. You've become the Black Knight in "Monty Python & the Holy Grail"

Your argument has no arms or legs left. You're a trunk. Yet, like the "Black Knight", you're crazy enough to think you're winning.

Atheists and agnostics would be happy to simply pass, even acknowledge that you fought well and contributed mightily to the evolution of civilization. But your ilk just has to keep cat-calling and flinging blood from your many stumps in our general direction.

It's tempting, but to hack at you any more would just be sick. Enjoy bleeding out on your bridge.

Walking on...

[thucythucy]

280. Well, it depends what you mean by a "good" answer.

It seems like you've received lots of answers to your query, many of them from self-described atheists.

Some of those answers seem pretty darn good to me.

I guess it all comes down to faith. Some people, for whatever reason, have it, and that's fine by me. As long as they don't attempt to coerce me or anyone else into accepting that faith, or precepts that they believe derive from that faith--arguments in favor of slavery, for instance, or arguments against same sex marriage, or in support of a "natural order" that places men over women--I'm okay. I've even been known to be polite to the Jehovah's Witnesses that come to my door. It's when people want to use the power of the state to impose that faith that I draw the line.

Some people, for whatever reason--or maybe because of reason itself--have no faith, and that too is fine by me. As long as they don't attempt to coerce me or anyone else into accepting that lack of faith, or precepts they believe derive from that lack of faith: arguments for example in favor of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" or the need to vest all power in "the workers' state." Again, belief or non-belief, it's all fine with me, up to the point of coercion.

Right now I think the Christian Right is a significant threat to our democracy, an actual existential threat to our secular, democratic polity. For this reason I very much appreciate the efforts of progressive Christians to challenge the orthodoxy, not to mention the morality, of the Christian right. So I'm not going to come into forums and deride those people of faith, especially since some of them are personally very dear to me.

But in the end I don't think you can argue anyone into believing, into having faith. Several people in this discussion have made this point--that religion and faith do not lend themselves to materialist logic. Indeed, it would seem just the opposite--that the more you try to "reason" people into a leap of faith, the more violence you do to the very essence of any religious experience, which, if I understand my theist friends, is beyond reason, a faith "that passeth all understanding."

I think perhaps the best you can do is to explain to people why YOU believe, and leave it to them to accept those reasons or not. And then also, in general, to provide an example of the compassion and the commitment to justice you believe your faith requires of YOU, as an individual believer.

I've been told I sometimes come off as lecturing and pedantic. If so, I do sincerely apologize.

Happy Easter to you and yours.

[guillaumeb]

282. Happy Easter to you and yours also.

Briefly, faith does not depend on proof, it depends on having faith.

And faith in a deity or a lack of faith in a deity are both unprovable choices that a person can make. Reason cannot show that either position is correct.