God or No God - that is the question (for atheists)

I don't know if you bothered to look, but had you, you would see that I've been supporting that assertion in every one of my posts in this thread, and indeed, in the very post whose reply I was responding to.In fact if you look at that post you'll see that there's even less support for that person's opinion than I had for mine. You mean, like he did?

Crashfrog, I think what he is insinuating is that because you do not believe in God, or are agnostic, you are treated like a prince on this forum, whereas he is treated like dirt because he does believe in God.The frog to prince storyline.

Sorry for delay in replying PD, but I've had a bit of a day of it with (Admin)Jar. How has God "obviously not defined himself. What would God defining himself look like to your satisfaction. Do you mean he hasn't revealed himself and thus showed us what his defintion is (as opposed to all the man made ones)? How. there is the universe. Science has a theory about that once being a compacted 'Singularity' But they haven't said where the singularity came from. Did is just....exist? If your rational proof is that above then lets debate that. I've asked a question about it above
quote: Do you mean a proof for God? I'm not dodging but that isn't the subject of this discussion. I hope you would agree that that would need a thread of it's own given that it's opposite, athiesm, has evolved this much.This message has been edited by iano, 10-Aug-2005 10:41 PM

If they treat you like dirt, remember, they treated Jesus like dirt first Goodnight all. And Crashfrog... No jumping the gun m8. Keep that powder dry. I'll be shooting them spiritual bullets and lobbin' the Lords grenades at you all to soon! Ponder....ponder...ponder....ponder....ponder....ponder...ponder

Ok you say you've been "supporting your assertion" throughout the thread. I looked at this post.

quote:

---

Even as an atheist I cannot reasonably conclude the existence of no gods at all. But the most popular ones - the gods that might actually be able to exert some influence in our lives - are disproved through their own inaction, because action would be necessitated by their natures. A benevolent, omnipotent God does not exist in a universe were evils are committed unchecked - having the power to take action but choosing not to is not benevolent; having the will to take action but lacking the power to do so is not omnipotent. We can conclude that the benevolent, omnipotent God does not exist. All that's left right now are gods who lack power or who take no action, and who cares about them?

---

I agree that a benevolent omnipotent God does not exist. Not because of your reasons however. But because applying any inherently human adjective to God is pointless. I believe each and every human's experience is influenced by God.

quote:

---

Yet the answer to the question 'does God exist?' remains the most important one to get - for everybody.

​

I don't see how. If the question were that important it would be answerable. Unanswerable questions are irrelevant.

---

Apparently the question is answerable for some and not answerable to others, leaving the importance of the question totally subjective.You say you have buffered your assertion of No God, No Heaven but all I see is plain statement and opinion that offer no validity to either argument.

quote:

---

I also agree that the existence of all possible gods cannot be falsified

---

quote:

---

Well, when I say "No God", I mean "No God as described in the Bible and by Christians", because that God obviously does not exist.

​

Even as an atheist I cannot reasonably conclude the existence of no gods at all

---

I'm confused, doesn't that make you agnostic?This message has been edited by Chris Porteus, 08-10-2005 06:04 PMThis message has been edited by Chris Porteus, 08-10-2005 06:05 PM

quote:

---

How has God "obviously not defined himself.

---

I have no definitions that are not manmade. If you have definitions that are not manmade, then you need to provide them.As far as First Cause goes, I am not a scientist and it has no bearing on my reasons for disbelief. Message 80 has the basis for my disbelief, but as I suspected you haven't paid any attention to it.Good Day

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Again, you are guaging this from the "created's" perspective, not the creator's perspective.To use my tapestry example again, let's say that you are a small strand of wool thread. At first you were this happy little folicle of wool on some dumbass sheep. Then you were suddenly cut off at the root. You were placed in a solution to bath you, and freeze your ability to deterioate. You were then hung out in the hot sun so that you would suffer from the heat as you dried and shrunk.. Then you were put in a solution of dye, not the color of your choice and your pores filled with a strange foriegn pigment. Your appearance has now been forever altered from what you are familiar and comfortable with.Then you are stretched and wound unnaturally. You are mangled into a weavers needle and painfully dragged across the backs of other strands of strangely dyed wool. From your perspective, you can not rationalize that there is such a thing as a God of the Wool because of all the pain and suffering around you. You conclude that what you see happening with the wool, the strange processes, the patterns of complexity of the wool around you is all a product of chance and evolution. You fashion what the God of Wool should be like through your own logic and perspective.Nuts! Perposterous! Minimalistic thinking to ever think that there is a God of the Wool. Too much pain and suffering amoung the strands.But placed within eyesight of all of the woven wool strands is a piece of paper that has a beautiful image drawn on it. Every one of the strands can see it, but because of your own short sightedness, you all blow it off as a fanciful creation of some other part of the sheep.But the image is a picture of the tapestry of which the strand of wool is a part of. The strand of wool cannot see the tapestry in work, and cannot directly witness the weaver busy at work, but the evidence is in abundance all around, from the organization of the strands of wool, the complex loom, the intricate image on the paper, and the constant progress towards a goal that the image predicts the tapestry will become.

So you are obviously not a Christian or the follower of any other religion which proposes a God who cares for and loves us. If we follow your analogy we find a God who uses us for His own aesthetic satisfaction - perhaps a God who finds wars beautiful, or who arranged the Holocaust because it contributes to the pattern He wants to see. Human suffering means nothing to the God you propose, all that matters is His own subjective perception of "beauty" in the result.

I responded to your message 80 with messages 81 (which you didn't answer - but no matter) and 82 which you did which has by both of us been brought to here. This statement was nested in amongst statements showing that any man made definitions of God are insufficient proof of God. I agree. I also agree with the statement above.So...How does this essential attribute of a God go anyway to showing us he doesn't exist? The statement:"God doesn't exist because an existing God is defined only by himself" is a non sequitur as far as I can tell.This message has been edited by iano, 11-Aug-2005 10:22 AM

Nice tapestry analogy there Lizard breath...(although I cringe slightly at the thought of addressing anyone who comes up with such a fine anaolgy as Lizard Breath!)I presume it's copyright free - so hope you don't mind if I use it someday somewhereThis message has been edited by iano, 11-Aug-2005 10:21 AM

'Tapestry' is only an analogy - if a very good one at that. A partial picture as it were. I say 'very good', in that it shows how and why God can exist without us being aware of him. Which is an aim of this thread. There was nothing in post 1 which presumes a any particular purpose of God - it just examines whether it is reasonable to say that he doesn't exist. This analogy shows he can exist - very easily. The God posited in post 1 could be the meanest critter you ever came across. No matter. He can exist. Thus any athiest positions which says something along the lines of "there can be no God" is by this analogy, destroyed.Such an athiest (along with many others of many other persuasions) is not in a position to know the mind or purpose of God, so can't use any of his own, by definition, limited obervations in deciding absolutely on such a issue. In other words, his observations are inadequate to arrive at such a conclusion.Which was a central part of the thesis posed in post 1

Are you saying that a God who can influence a humans experience can't make one of those experiences be one in which God reveals attributes of himself to the person. And reveal them in such a way as to ensure (remember he is God so he can ensure) that the person is under no illusion that the revelation is from God and not due to the effects of anything man-made (religious instruction, bible commentaries,drugs, experiential feelings,mis-comprehensions etc). And to reveal himself in such a way that human adjectives (which he would be the source of) are perfectly suited to accurately describe a tiny part of the attribute revealedIf you are saying that, what do you suggest can prevent God from doing this?

If that is your response to my reasons for disbelief, then you need to explain to me specifically what that means in relation to what I wrote and how it rationally falsifies my statements.As I said before, all you've provided is gobbledygook.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

They did but whatever man thinks about God says nothing for/against Gods existance. God existance is not dependant on anything that man thinks - one way or the other Whatever man thinks about God says nothing for/against Gods existance. God existance is not dependant on anything that man thinks - one way or the other God, as you rightly pointed out elsewhere, is not defined by man - whether that definition is the Sun or anything else. Gods existance is not dependant on mans opinion. Man can make false gods. Man cannot create nor destroy a real God. Whatever man thinks about God says nothing for/against Gods existance. God existance is not dependant on anything that man thinks - one way or the other. If man has in his history thought that God was the Sun, moon and stars (which he probably has at some point) impinges not one iota on a real God.You say you are an athiest. You need to show God can't/doesn't exist. You haven't with the above. You may say you have no evidence for his existance etc. But if you can't show, then you don't know. That's agnosticism.

STOP PRESS ++++ STOP PRESS ++++ STOP PRESS ++++ STOP PRESS++++We're 150 or so posts in and it may be an idea to pause and refocus ourselves and remind ourselves of what we're attempting to debate at the core. I say this not because people are off track (I think in fact, that things are remarkably on track) but in order to allow us all to re-focus and narrowly define things as sharply as we can for efficiencies sake.Much has been written and there have been many fine points from many folk, which has ensured I think, that the thread has in some small way lived up to the motto of this site which is "Knowledge and understanding through discussion" I have more knowledge and understanding of both athiest and theist viewpoints than I had at the start of the thread. I hope others do too. Mission being accomplished?The key area of focus seems to have been the central aspect of post 1, to whit

quote:

---

Question for discussion: If you feel you have already found the answer to the question and the answer is 'No God' - on what basis do you say that?

---

If folk felt it profitable could I suggest that the people to whom this question was addressed post a short synopsis of the reason they say "No God". Not defending the reasons but simply the 'proof' they would pose if asked to do so in a broad brushstroke kind of way. The essence of their position as it were. They might find that their position has been strengtened or weakened during this discussion. No matter. The idea is just to present the most internally and externally consistant proof they possess at the moment. It may help all to clear out some cobwebs and help focus the discussion to the most salient points from here on in.It matters not whether the person is a weak/strong or other athiest. The position for saying 'No God' is what counts. We may find ourselves moving over old ground but it may prove profitable to do this exercise anyway.If any feel they don't want to do this but continue from where they are (from either viewpoint) then that's fine too.iano