|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Atheism isn't a belief? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LauraG Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LauraG Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LauraG Inactive Member |
Physrho writes: I think they are a bit confused because who do they accredit there own existence? It must have come from something greater, no? Yup. Greater indeed. Nature! 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LauraG Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LauraG Inactive Member |
Physrho writes: I apologize Laura, I did say that "my God" is Eternal. I did not mean to impress or attempt to convert you in any way. Yes, It is my opinion, and that's my belief." No problem, Physrho. What impresses me, though, is that your first couple of posts in this thread express a disbelief that some people don't need to credit their existence, or the universe's, to a god. That's obviously not so, so I keep wondering why people with a religious belief have such a hard time accepting other simply don't have them?
Physrho writes: Though I'm curious what natural process do you accredit the laws of nature to? I don't. I'll be very happy when we find an explanation, but I don't make the jump from "we don't know" to "it must be god". If anything, I expect a natural explanation for natural phenomena.
Physrho writes: Why is there anything existing at all? Why does there need to be a reason?
Physrho writes: Does anything have to exist? I don't know. Right now, I'd say there's no particular reason anything exists. I'm happy with the fact that it does... and we do... and I try to do the best I can with that.
Physrho writes: Why was there something and not nothing? Was there? Why not 'nothing'? It's not a dirty word, you know. 
Physrho writes: I choose to say that Someone greater beyond my comprehension (the infinite) is responsible. Exactly. That's a choice you make in the face of those questions you have. You choose to believe in god because you don't have certain answers yet. Let me ask you this, tough: As answers have become available to you, have you found yourself understanding through nature things you used to credit to god?
Physrho writes: Why is there gravity? Did nothing know how to make it or how to create an entire universe? Is it natural for things to come from nothing? I'd say it's only to be expected that the natural have a natural cause.
Physrho writes: Not in materialistic logic. Though I assume that you're a materialist and only believe in what you can see. Not really. I prefer evidence over observation.
Physrho writes: Well from my understanding all material we see can be reduced to literally nothing. From molecules to Atoms to Electrons, neutrons, and protons, to quarks, and then to photons, from photons we hypothesize particles and wavelenghts, and from wavelengths we have nothing. Absolutely nothing as in no-thing to base matter from. Does that make sense to you? It does to me. There is nothing natural about it. Science has stepped into the Supernatural. You're pretty impatient, aren't you? ...and I think science, as is expected as it advances, has stepped into new and exotic territory. Exotic, not supernatural.
Physrho writes: This is where and why quantum physics has been developed. Now it's my opinion that we've stepped into the Spiritual. We don't hear much about Quantum Theory because it involves questions that we can perhaps never answer. "Yet, today when Universities around the world look into this non-material conundrum, they say that it is actually an expression of an Idea."(1) An idea? It's my opinion this idea could be (information). But where does this information come from? There must be a source for this information. Fortunately, we're narrowing the gap between the physical and spiritual. Quantum theory attempts to unify that all things come from this non-material information. So to sum this up, everything you see, smell, touch, taste, feel, and sense is actually a matterless unity held together by this information being, in my opinion, the word of God. (John 1:1-14) (Genesis 1:1 - 31) His command. In brief, (John 1:1-14)explains that: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It also tells us that "all things were made by him" (his Word, God himself). Continuing (Genesis 1:1-31) demonstrates how God spoke things into existance. Not suprisingly, the first thing God spoke into existance was light.(Genesis 1:3) "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." What science has found is that all matter is made of light(photons->patricles->wavelengths->supernatural). All things are made from light. Though it takes faith to believe or not believe in things. You're arguing from disbelief and, to be honest, that's your prerrogative, but it doesn't make your argument universally right, and that's the reason your belief system doesn't apply to everyone.
Physrho writes: I respect your faith in naturalism. I am assured in my own faith in the Word of God." I don't have faith in naturalism. I don't have to. Nature puts everything out there in a fashion that allows it to be observed, tested and understood, as opposed to the supernatural, which defies any test. Understanding the natural requires no faith. Trying to make sense of the supernatural, on the other hand, does. In spades.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LauraG Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LauraG Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LauraG Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LauraG Inactive Member |
PurpleYouko writes: LauraG writes: ...but ALL gods have been defined by man. Any god is an argument from ignorance. They certainly have but not all gods have been defined as all-powerful and all-knowing etc. plenty (like the norse gods) have been fallable. So all supernatural beings but the one that fits your definition have been disproved. Is it your definition that makes your supernatural being so special?
PurpleYouko writes: LauraG writes: The problem you run into when you argue that a god would be free of natural limitations is that there would be no consistency in the realm of the natural. I prefer to assume that there are no natural limitations on god or man. If I assume that there are then I go into the investigation of the universe(s) with preconcieved notions of limits and that is not conducive to unbiased research. No natural limitations on man. I think that can be discounted without much effort. Limits are not preconcieved notions. If they were, you could will yourself to fly.
PurpleYouko writes: LauraG writes: You're free to imagine anything or draw up any conjecture. You run into problems when you have to prove what you imagine to be true, specially if you concede this interdimensional guy in a lab coat can manipulate stuff in contravention of the natural every now and then. Except that I don't contend that the guy in the lab coat can manipulte stuff in contravention of the natural. I contend that if he exists then he does everything entirely within the natural. ...so what would the manipulations be? Wouldn't this make your guy in the lab coat superfluous?
PurpleYouko writes: LauraG writes: You're just taking god and putting him in a lab coat a couple of dimensions away. Yup. ...and what do you achieve in renaming him?
PurpleYouko writes: LauraG writes: Sure, if you work from science and then speculate, not the other way around. And what other way is there? If you want to make advances you can't go in believing that it is impossible to do so. You have to challenge what is "known" and push back the boundaries by finding new ways to do things. Leading scientists do this all the time. I am sure Jules Verne had a damn good idea that we would reach the moon one day even though his contemporaries thought him nothing but a dreamer. You can't challenge the unknown with the supernatural. None of Verne's writings assumed anything outside the realm of the natural, thus making them possible. He worked from science and speculated. The opposite isn't science-fiction. It's just fiction.
PurpleYouko writes: LauraG writes: What will you take as evidence? When will you consider something to have been proven to be impossible? To my knowledge there is no way to prove something is impossible unless that something is logically self defeating. ...and a god isn't?
PurpleYouko writes: I see no more evidence for the non-existence of God than I do for the existence of God so while I am almost certain that the "natural" can explain everything, I am not willing to assert that there is no god. Doing so would be an act of faith (in his non-existence) and I don't do faith. So your answer is you won't take anything as evidence. ... and we're back on topic with the whole "faith that god doesn't exist" line. 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LauraG Inactive Member |
PurpleYouko writes: Hmmm? Haven't I just said that there aren't any supernatural beings because the whole concept of supernatural is meaningless? And what exactly do you mean by MY supernatural being. I claim no being whatsoever. LauraG writes: You're just taking god and putting him in a lab coat a couple of dimensions away. PurpleYouko writes: Yup. Yes you do. 
PurpleYouko writes: Only if you knew how to. I could will myself to speak Japanese but it would actually take many years before I could do it. If ever (I am crap at languages)] No, you couldn't will yourself to learn Japanese. You could want to learn Japanese and study towards that goal. Please tell me you see the difference between learning Japanese and willing yourself to fly in terms of natural limits.
PurpleYouko writes: Course it would. That is rather the whole point here. He is just one of a whole race of highly advanced scientists. Just the way that we might one day be. So... your guy in a lab coat is superfluous and you think we'll reach the same level when we advance enough. Grand.
PurpleYouko writes: I didn't name him or rename him. I just gave you an example of something that we (at our present level of technology) could not distinguish from a God, yet which would fit wholly into the "Natural". Sure. You've offered conjecture and nothing more.
PurpleYouko writes: Read my lips. "I do not believe in the supernatural". To me everything is natural. I have stated this before and I will do so again as many times as it takes. Read my lips. "You are trying to equate the unknown with the supernatural".
PurpleYouko writes: Define God and I'll let you know.
PurpleYouko writes: So show me your evidence then. You can't provide it any more than Iano could provide any that God does exist. It simply isn't available. ...so why infer from no evidence the existence of god? Since when did the burden of proof shift?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
LauraG Inactive Member |
purpledawn writes: God is a personification of the universe. As the universe of man expands, so does a god's domain. I guess that's as valid a position as the christian god is, but I disagree on two counts. One, god is usually understood to be outside the realm of the natural, thus outside the universe. Two, I take the sentence "the universe of man" to mean man's understanding of the universe, and as such, I think it's safe to say that, as the universe of man expands, god's domain, understood as the unknown, shrinks... or I could be a long way off what you were trying to say.
purpledawn writes: Since the gods reside in mankind's imagination, they are only limited by man's imagination. I like that.
purpledawn writes: Since we are dealing with imagination, no matter what we imagine is appropriate evidence, man's imagination will change the rules. All we can do is take the evidence presented to us individually and decide whether we consider it to be true or not. ...nor does it matter what it is that you're trying to prove, in the realm of imagination, there will always be a way to move the goalposts and keep the dream going. As far as a personal decision on the validity of evidence, well, that's the beauty of evidence. Evidence by nature must be objective. Once determined to be evidence, no personal decision is needed for it to be valid. It's when people discount evidence to favor the subjective that blind faith becomes necessary, and we know what kind of trouble that can lead to.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
