God.....again.

If atheists say thay God doesn't exist, why are they always talking about him?Just curious...[This message has been edited by Miguel, 07-20-2003]

"Atheists" covers and awful lot of people so this is only my answer.I, for one, am not always talking about him. Doesn't usually enter my mind at all on a day to day basis.However, you may be going on what is posted here. Since one side of the discussion has some fixation of god that is bound to be all over the posts here.There are, of course, some atheists who are militant about it. Why they are probably is as variable as the personalities involved. Don't start to generalize that is a big mistake.

Alright. I won't generalize. But it's a general fact that atheists deny the existence of God. So i'll try to start a debate from here...I don't understand why atheists deny the existence of a creator. They don't know that God doesn't exist. They just believe. Sure, they use all kinds of logical arguments, but logic is just the study of the internal coherence of the speech. Sometimes an argument can be valid (with internal coherence) but without reality. When i look to logical arguments, although i don't think they are a proof, it seems to me that the arguments that say that nature as a rational structure, structured by a creator, are better when compared to what atheism has to say...[This message has been edited by Miguel, 07-20-2003]

Because there's no evidence of one. And generally I don't go around believing in the existence of things for which there is no evidence. But like all conclusions from data, I'm tentative about that.God could exist, I guess. There's nothing that, to my knowledge, prevents the existence of God. It's just my conclusion from the data that he doesn't exist at this time. So, given that there's no evidence, I'm absolutely sure that god doesn't exist - but I know I could be wrong. Nature doesn't really have that much rational structure. Unless you'd care to explain why I possess an appendix with no specific function.

LOL, that is the definition of atheists so by definition they do.and yes, I agree that there isn't proof that God doesn't exist so you have to make a sort of leap of faith to conclude that.Agnosticism is the only evidence based place where someone can arrive.However, lack of evidence one way or the other is hardly a good reason for concluding that something exists. So the jump from agnosticism to atheism isn't all that great.

Crashfrog, The reason you've never found any evidence for a creator is because you're never looking for any, and if you did find some you'd deny it no matter what because you're baised towards evolution.

To the contrary. I've been looking for some time. I used to be a creationist, you know - and very Christian indeed. But I came to wonder how I could be sure. I started looking for the evidence that everybody said was there, and when I couldn't find it - and I looked for years - I came to realize I couldn't find it because it wasn't there.So, no, I'm not biased towards evolution - I'm biased towards conclusions supported by evidence. That's what being a scientist (and I use the term to describe myself very loosely) means.If you have some evidence for god, I'd love to hear it. Of course you'll have to defend it as I have some pretty rigorous standards for proof. But if your god does exist, he should be able to meet my standards, right? After all I'll accept the same kind of evidence for god's existence as I would accept for your existence.

Crashfrog:That depends on what you consider to be evidence...Even an appendix with no specific function obeys the laws of nature. The same laws that are responsable for the structure of the universe, and that our reason can understand... [This message has been edited by Miguel, 07-20-2003]

NosyNed:Well, no one as ever seem one species becoming another through Slow darwinian processes. The evidence they have is indirect... The same goes for God... However in both cases acceptance depends on your will to consider the indirect evidence. And in both cases i admit that the indirect evidende might not be an absolute proof. [This message has been edited by Miguel, 07-20-2003][This message has been edited by Miguel, 07-20-2003]

Crashfrog:Our world has rules, and we exist and evolved because that was possible in the first place. But why are so many properties of the universe fine-tuned for life? Why are there so many coincidences that make our existence possible? Do you have an answer? Let me guess: you are going to say that i'm reasoning backwords. But that's not really an explanation.. [This message has been edited by Miguel, 07-20-2003]

quote:

---

If atheists say thay God doesn't exist, why are they always talking about him?

---

As NosyNed has pointed out, atheists are not all that way.I am that way, however, and I believe it is because of my past life as a "man of God." God has become a haunting part of my past, and interaction in this forum, on these topics, helps me to deal with it.A Bible College course titled: Philosophy of Biology convinced me that they had no evidence for creationism. That was in the old days when "scientific creationism" was an new and exciting buzz. I was very turned on about it at first but I was turned off soon enough.It was "Christian Experience," familiarity with the Bible, love of Nature and knowledge of biology which led me to call myself atheist. Sounds pretty strange huh?db------------------
"If God created Nature, then the Law of Nature is the Law of God."

The laws of nature are apprently constant, I'll give you that. But I'm not sure they're any more reasonable than any other conceivable law. For instance, I can move freely in all three spacial dimensions. Why then can't I move freely in the fourth dimension of time? Seems arbitrary to me.

Because if they weren't that way, we wouldn't be here to ask. The Weak Anthropic principle handles questions like that pretty well, I'd say...It's like asking "What are the odds that my mother would have mated with the exact man to get the genetic material that would make me me?" As you say, it's reasoning backwards. Sorry if that's not enough explanation for you. It is for me.

MiquelYou are bringing up what is called the anthropic principle. Google it and you will find all the discussions of the topic you could ask for.Generally it seems the philosophical discussions don't really arrive anywhere so it might not be worth discussing.It is my view that we don't know enough yet. It may be that the nature of, well, nature is such that only this universe is possible. Another possibility is that lots of universes are possible and exist, in which case we are just in one of them.

HI Miguel,I talk about god almost on a daily basis.I am an athiest and I teach Religious and Moral Education, so it is difficult to avoid talking about god(s).Nowadays it is more politically correct to talk about god as 'it' or 'god' rather than 'him.' Some religions do not allocate a sex to their god(s) and even the Bible frequently mentions god in the neuter.People who believe in god are every bit as much a part of society as people who do not believe in god, so we are bound to interact and discuss our opinions on the subject.We could turn your question around and ask why so many creationists are obsessed with evolution, again it is because all these ideas are part of society.Brian.