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

I don't know. Are there any religions that worship a god that's only mostly powerful? That would be comfortable concluding that one thing or another is entirely beyond the power of their God, no matter His will?Predictably religion seems to me to be a thing of extremes. Either the focus of worship is a being with the will and power to intercede no matter what, if you simply pray hard enough; or he's a distant figure, barely engaged in the doings of humanity, to whom the most fervent appeal is likely to be disregarded. Or sometimes both. There's sort of a feature creep in gods, I guess. Well, yeah, I do too. I don't believe that the absolutest formulation of God that I've described is particularly sensical or mature.If a person wants to believe in a God who's very careful to make sure that the only things He does are the things that would happen anyway, who am I to argue? Such a God can be neither proved nor disproved. But that person has constructed a God who can exert literally no detectable influence over their affairs, who needs no worship, who needs no regard except as a cosmic curiosity and has no interest in humanity except as marginally interesting living things on one little blue island in an ocean of stars.I contend that such a person is an atheist for all practical purposes; God has as much to do with their daily life and outlook on things as he does with mine.

As an english major I don't know much about scientific or logical standards of proof, but I do know a thing or two about the characteristics of something I like to call "bullshit."The above tends to be one of the major characteristics of bullshit - excuses that try to turn a lack of confirming evidence into confirming evidence. If God exists, then it wouldn't be necessary to try and portray the lack of evidence for his existence as evidence of his existence. If God existed then you would simply be able to show the confirming evidence.If I told you there were ninjas in your room, and you looked around and said "I don't see any ninjas", and then I told you "of course you don't see any; ninjas are sneaky! The fact that you don't see them proves that they're there", you would rightly recognize that (I assume) as bullshit. Why can't you apply that same bullshit-sense to your own position?

Look, that's it. That's the third time in two days I've been falsely accused of insulting people.I'm curt, I'm direct, and when people present bullshit to me, I don't smell it and call it chocolate. But I don't insult people. I don't attack people personally (though I do run close to that line when they do it first). I won't sit here and allow false accusations to pass unchalleneged any longer.Present the post where I insulted you, or retract the accusation. The debate will not continue until you do one of those two things. Every post you post in this thread until that time will be replied to, by me, with the text of this message.

Present the post where I insulted you, or retract the accusation. The debate will not continue until you do one of those two things. Every post you post in this thread until that time will be replied to, by me, with the text of this message.

I'm not such a sorehead that I can't appreciate a joke at my own expense, but apology accepted. I truly picked up no indication from your post that you were joking so allow me to apologize for misunderstanding you. I hope you'll realize that that does include me; I was, after all, once a believer in God. Who's to say that I couldn't be convinced to return? It was reason that got me out of belief. Surely reason can be counted upon to send me back, if belief is truly reasonable?

No, it's not. It's to deny God as a reality.It's certainly possible for a God to exist. There's no principle that prevents it, as far as I'm aware. It's just pretty obvious that God doesn't exist.Nobody's said, as far as I'm aware, that God can't exist. Just that he doesn't. I'm not sure that question makes sense. "Naturalistic" refers to explanations according to natural, physical laws. I don't understand how physical laws could be appealed to as an explanation for the physical laws themselves. The presumption that all effects must have causes has yet to be proven, appears on many levels to be untrue, and certainly wouldn't apply to the universe itself were that the case.When could the "cause" of the universe occur? Before the Big Bang? Since the Bing Bang is the beginning of both space and time, how can there be a "before" before time?It doesn't make sense. The concept of a "cause" of time has significant logical hurdles to overcome before it should even be considered as a question. Certainly you're in no position as of yet to ask that question as though the atheists is required to know the answer. Atheists know that there's no practical difference between atheists and agnostics (or Deists, for that matter.) I see no distinction worth making between three groups of people who are absolutely convinced that the concept of God has absolutely no bearing on their lives. Do you?

Then you concede the inherent reasonableness of atheism? Weak atheism, at least? I too believe that God is not the reasonable conclusion.By what other means than reason might we reliably come to conclusions about the universe? That, to me, is the most important question in this context. Would you care to plow that furrow with me?

Once again you appear confused about what atheism actually is. Weak atehism simply concludes that there appears to be no evidence for the existence of any gods.Since there doesn't, that's an inherently reasonable position. It's a statement of fact. Why do we need a First Cause? Moreover, a principle that necessitates a First Cause makes a First Cause impossible; if everything has to have a cause then so does the First Cause. Let me give you some stuff to think about. In other words let me play an open hand; this is basically what I might have said in reply to your eventual post.What means, other than reason, result in reliable knowledge of the universe that can be distinguished from make-believe?In other words, I could rely on feelings, but feelings can be faked. I could rely on my imagination, or meditation, or dreams, but how am I to tell the difference between a real dream and a ficticious one?Or prophecy? How am I to distinguish between one man's legitimate revelations from God and another man's invention to fleece the gullible?To the extent that anything can be known, reason and empiricism, brought to their logical ultimate in the scientific method, appear to me to be the only source of reliable knowledge about the universe. Not to toot my own horn but to the extent that my opponents commit to real discussion, I'm more than capable of the same and more than happy to comply. But so many folks around here show up with arguments a fourth-grader could refute and wonder why they get less than my most insightful in return.Here's to a good debate. Let this newfound pleasantness be the rule and not the exception.

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?

You've looked at one post. What you may or may not "see" has no validity, yet. No. Follow my posts in this thread and see if you can understand why.

I don't accept any of that at the "drop of a hat." The point we're trying to make when we bring those things up is that, if we're going to talk about a realm where it's literally impossible to have knowledge about it, that is the conditions prior to the origin of space and time, that realm is big enough not only to include God, but simpler things that would make God unnecessary.None of us know. None of us can know. The origin of the universe isn't relevant to the discussion because it could be explained by anything at all, not just God.But now, here in the universe of space and time, it's obvious to the most casual observer - even to the Christians - that there's no God capable or willing to intervene at our beck and call; there's no God capable or willing to be influenced by our deeds or pleas. If God exists then he does only what was going to happen anyway. If God answers prayers then he only answers the ones that pray for what was already in the cards.How is such a God relevant to our lives? I continue to contend that anybody who believes in such a God is an atheist in all but name since God has as little to do with their daily lives as he does with mine. If the presence of God is indistinguishable from the presence of no God, then atheism is the only reasonable position, no matter if there's a God or not.

A future atheist is born.

Which is, when you think about it, a pretty good indication that there's no God.

I don't think it's been questioned that a God who didn't want it to be obvious that he existed would act like he didn't exist.What nobody's been able to address so far is my conclusion - if that's the God that you believe in, how are you not an atheist?Oh, and one thing - your false dichotomy. Why does God have to feign non-existence? You act like there's only two possible options - believe that God doesn't exist, or worship him. Isn't there a third possibility? That someone might believe in God but revile him? Isn't that the position a lot of people take on Satan, for instance?God could make his presence absolutely beyond question without any disruption of our free will. We'd still have the choice to follow him or tell him to stuff it.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-12-2005 05:01 PM

Were you interested in debate, or just acting like an ass?Come back when you're ready to be mature. Uh-huh. Have you ever seen a newborn pray? Neither have I.