Many Atheists DO Believe in the Supernatural

[Kenny]

Kenny wrote:
Going by your definition; to deny/reject the existence of something is not holding onto something, to deny/reject is to default to the original position.

First,

It's not my definition. It's the dictionary definition.

Second, atheism isn't a default position.

We have two positions here. One is a belief in the existence of God. The other is a belief that God doesn't exist.

I don't see how you can still deny that atheism is a belief.

You simply refuse to have an honest conversation.

Until you decide to be honest, I'm not going to engage you further.

I'm not wasting my time any longer, on someone who refuses to have an honest discussion.

If we make the leap that believing something does not exist is a belief position, what other belief positions might one have?

*The belief Santa doesn’t exist
*The belief the world is not flat?
*The belief poiuytrewq is not a word
*The belief asdfghjkl is not a word
*The belief that I am not 10 feet tall

Really?? Are you going to claim that those are all belief positions?
To claim “X” is true is the belief position
To not believe “X” is true, to doubt the claim that “X” is true, to be skeptical is the default position not a belief position.

Yes they are belief positions and we think about all of them and we live our lives believing those things based on evidence.You just choose to ignore evidence and have no desire to make sure you're correct.

So going by your logic, how many belief systems do you have?

[abelcainsbrother]

If you are living your life as an atheist then it cannot be a default position.

Why?

You are living it out as if a god does not exist.

No we live our lives as if your concept of God doesn’t exist. Don’t assume your concept of God is the only concept of God

You are gambling with your life living as an atheist and yet not only do you have no evidence you are correct to be living as an atheist but you have no desire to make sure you are correct.

I have as much evidence my position is correct as you have that your position is correct IOW you're gambling as much as I am

Because living your life as an atheist is action.Our bible said "Faith without works is dead. Action = faith.You are choosing to live your life as if a god does not exist,this is blind faith.Therefore it cannot be a default position.It is blind faith because out of all world views of the world I'm aware of only atheists offer no evidence they are correct.Yet atheists reject all groups of the world that offer evidence and choose the only one that offers none. And they still choose to live as an atheist without any evidence they are correct. This is blind faith. Atheists also live out their lives expecting "just death" when they die,not any kind of an afterlife.This is sad but true.The lack of evidence proves atheists are wrong but atheists ignore the evidence and refuse to make sure they are correct.

No atheists live as if no God's exist,not just the Christian God.I'm not the one assumimg I'm correct I have evidence that proves to me our God is the true God over all other gods. You assume you are correct but have no evidence.This is a big difference between me and you.Since you refuse to go by evidence it does me no good to try to convince you with evidence.Instead I'm going to try to convince you to go by evidence and make sure you are correct and if you have no evidence you're wrong.


No you don't you are being dishonest because atheists offer no evidence and yet you claim you have as much evidence as I do. and Yes we all are gambling we are correct but you've got nothing to hedge your bet with.We know atheists are wrong due to a lack of evidence. The lack of evidence for atheism gets a person to deism at a bare minimum,not atheist or agnostic but you refuse to go by evidence.

[Kenny]

If you are living your life as an atheist then it cannot be a default position.

Why?

You are living it out as if a god does not exist.

No we live our lives as if your concept of God doesn’t exist. Don’t assume your concept of God is the only concept of God

You are gambling with your life living as an atheist and yet not only do you have no evidence you are correct to be living as an atheist but you have no desire to make sure you are correct.

I have as much evidence my position is correct as you have that your position is correct IOW you're gambling as much as I am

Because living your life as an atheist is action.

So what acts am I involved in as an atheist, that you are not? Also, how many belief systems do you have?

[williamWL]

The idea that many atheists believe in the supernatural can spark diverse reactions. Some might see it as contradictory to atheism, while others might argue that belief in the supernatural is not inherently tied to religious faith. Perspectives are shaped by personal definitions and experiences. pikashowsapps

[Philip]

The idea that many atheists believe in the supernatural can spark diverse reactions. Some might see it as contradictory to atheism, while others might argue that belief in the supernatural is not inherently tied to religious faith. Perspectives are shaped by personal definitions and experiences. pikashowsapps

So, the first thing is we need to define what the supernatural actually is. The dictionary definition is: "a manifestation or event attributed to some force BEYOND scientific understanding or the laws of nature." And so, when atheists based their non-belief in any god(s) or God / Christ, they typically base that upon what they would assert to be a lack of evidence. But the evidences they almost universally appeal to for their contention, it typically rooted in pure naturalism / scientificism - things that can be observed or tested by scientific means. And yet, God / Jesus cannot be directly tested for by the scientific method, because God is not a physical being, but a spiritual one. Science can ONLY measure and test for PHYSICAL things. And that is why so many atheists insist there was some type of natural cause for the universe's beginning and existence, while typically insisting this despite evidence to show that is possible. NO science can measure what existed before the Big Bang - because it didn't have a PHYSICAL existence. So, atheists demand evidence and proof for God.

Now, any well-read Christian can tell you that the Big Bang event, the extraordinary designs, incredible functionalities of the universe's building blocks, as well as the unfathomable precision of the Big Bang's early moments, reveal things and functions that absolutely required intelligence to create and design its marvelous functionalities. This is also true of the insane amount of precision information, organization, and design in every biological entities' DNA. It's obvious from they massive list of astoundingly fine-tuned variables that allow our universe to function as it does AND to support a planet like ours that can sustain life. The Big Bang was no chaotic explosion - as from its first moments, its elements functioned with breath-taking precision and interactivity. These things did not develop and organize over billions of years, but in mere MOMENTS - as moments before, there was NO universe or matter existing. The same is true of the most basic element of life - a simple cell - which is FAR more complex than ANY machine ever built by man. So, there is MASSIVE evidence for a Beginner / Designer / Creator of untold power and intelligence behind the universe!

But back to atheists and the supernatural, Atheists typically criticize theists and Christians that there is no EVIDENCE of proof of God. I just referenced very powerful evidences of God's existence. Of course, the many detailed and precisely FULFILLED prophesies in the Bible offer much evidence for God's existence as well - as NO one can predict the future. And yet, the Bible has over and over, and with stunning accuracy. But atheist refuse these evidences, as they demand PROOF. And typically, atheists scoff at the idea of any truth that can't be PROVEN with 100% certainty. And yet, nothing that modern man believes in offers that kind of proof. AND you can't PROVE anything that can't be measured physically - meaning, a God that exists beyond the physical cannot be proven by PHYSICAL means - at least not directly (but as I've noted). So, atheists commonly see the idea of a God that exists beyond physical / scientific assessment to be rejected as an absurd, metaphysical belief mired in superstition.

So, because atheists typically demand measurable PROOF of a supernatural God (which cannot be PROVEN in such a manner, I find it fascinating - and suspicious - that an atheist can accept there are non-physical / non-scientifically measurable things to believe in - and yet this doesn't that open them up to accusations of hypocrisy over their own criticisms of Christians or theists that believe the same thing about supernatural origins and God? Because if one believes in a supernatural realm - that cannot be proven by materialist analysis or sciences, then how can they possibly either know, deny or define WHATEVER that realm contains?!!! And the obvious answer is, they CAN'T! But what it does mean is, because they claim they can't know about God - and most appear not to WANT to know about Him - it appears to just be an easy out to not focus or be concerned with something they THINK cannot be discerned with the evidences (from science and the Bible) that I've already detailed. And without some of the specific evidences like I've already mentioned, they can claim or believe anything else they want to about a supernatural reality, while also merely asserting both - that there is a such realm and they are comfortable without understanding the things that are in it, while still determinedly clinging to their atheism.

But, at the very least, atheists should recognize that this universe HAD to come from beyond the physical realm - from the supernatural one - and that, clearly, SOMETHING in that supernatural realm has to be exceptionally brilliant / with a mind, has great intentionality, and possesses unimaginable power. Which is why I think in the back of most atheists' minds, they must realize the physical world and the purely, materialist-related explanations of it are insufficient to explain our universe and the many unbelievable and astonishingly detailed things that exist within it. This is why Einstein, amidst his own genius and brilliance, converted from atheism to theism - because he discovered undeniable proof that the universe DEFINITELY had a finite beginning, and thus, that it HAD to have a BEGINNER! And, no, he did not believe in the Christian God - he certainly didn't go that far - as he was more personally comfortable with a god that existed on his own terms - one that allowed him to make his own decisions, no matter what those decisions might include - whether good or bad.

The fact is, God exists as He does - not as we WANT to define Him. So, despite knowing a Creator MUST exist, Einstein decided to consider God irrelevant to himself, that is, other than realizing He MUST exist! And perhaps, most interestingly, he concluded there was a Creator based upon his scientific studies and knowledge of the stunningly consistent laws of the universe's physics, the razor-thin fine-tunings of its critical components, as well as its the many interactive and exceptionally complex functionalities, synergies, stunning engineering and designs, and of it's beginning OUTSIDE of the physical universe. And note, Einstein concluded this supernatural origin based upon secondary, but examinable, PHYSICAL evidences. And these many evidences are somewhat like images seen in a mirror, as one reasonably concludes they are a reflection of the existence of something that HAS to be REAL. Only, as God is spirit and not physical, collectively, the many evidences He has left behind for us to discover are reflections of His handiwork across the universe - which reveal His unmistakable existence - even if Einstein failed to correctly discern or acknowledge His Identity!

Do a search and explore this site to discover all kinds of evidences of God / Christ!

Philip

[Kenny]

NO science can measure what existed before the Big Bang - because it didn't have a PHYSICAL existence. So, atheists demand evidence and proof for God.

The big bang was the expansion of the singularity that consisted of all that exist. Prior to this expansion (big bang) there was just the singularity.

[noahUK]

It’s interesting to consider that many atheists might still believe in some form of the supernatural, such as energy, consciousness, or universal connections. This perspective challenges the traditional definition of atheism and highlights the complexity of belief systems beyond just the rejection of deities. youtubevanced

[Philip]

It’s interesting to consider that many atheists might still believe in some form of the supernatural, such as energy, consciousness, or universal connections. This perspective challenges the traditional definition of atheism and highlights the complexity of belief systems beyond just the rejection of deities. youtubevanced

Hello, and welcome to the forum, Noah! Ask questions, comment, or use the search box (top right of page) to get to specific topics you're interested in.

Yes, there is much inconsistency in as well as a range of beliefs within atheism. And if we take the dictionary definition of supernatural - "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" - well, logically, beliefs about how the universe came into being in the first place had to come from the supernatural realm. Because, before the Big Bang, physicists almost universally agree that there was NOTHING - no matter, time or space. And so, as science and the scientific method can only measure physical things and traceable processes that ALREADY exist, it has no way of testing what preceded all such things. Now, some of them cheat - like Einstein first did - by asserting there may be an eternal chain of universe, etc. But that is all unproven speculation because, again, it cannot be measured or proven. Once Einstein realized there was a beginning to the universe, he immediately realize that required a BEGINNER of it. And lest we forget, the LAWS of physics are simply OBSERVATIONS as to HOW the universe works - but those observations don't reveal WHY it does or - especially - what (or WHO) controls it!

Philip

[Kenny]

- well, logically, beliefs about how the universe came into being in the first place had to come from the supernatural realm. Because, before the Big Bang, physicists almost universally agree that there was NOTHING - no matter, time or space.

I disagree. There is no scientific theory that says there was a point in history when nothing existed. If a scientist believes such a thing, that is only his opinion and has nothing to do with science.

[Philip]

- well, logically, beliefs about how the universe came into being in the first place had to come from the supernatural realm. Because, before the Big Bang, physicists almost universally agree that there was NOTHING - no matter, time or space.

I disagree. There is no scientific theory that says there was a point in history when nothing existed. If a scientist believes such a thing, that is only his opinion and has nothing to do with science.

What does NO time, space or matter - NOTHING physical having been in existence - mean to you? What appeared and occurred upon the universe's birth means that "whatever" caused the Big Bang, it HAD to exist outside of and before those things, and could NOT have been physical. And the non-physical is the realm of the supernatural - meaning, it cannot be measured or detected by the scientific method. Thus, ANY speculations as to what existed before the physical is just that, mere, unproven speculation. But what is also NOT unproven, is that no physical things preceded the Big Bang - because when physicists say nothing existed before the Big Bang - they mean nothing PHYSICAL existed! Of course, they believe SOMETHING must have existed - again, but it had to be non-physical / supernatural. But whenever they also dismiss that whatever preceded the Big Bang wasn't at least intelligent - well, that's when their mental trains leave the tracks!

"Whatever" the Big Bang's cause was, it had to be unbelievably powerful, intelligent, and intentional in producing the physical universe and it's amazing building blocks, designs, and functionalities. And these things require a MIND behind them. Without the intelligence behind the Big Bang and what appeared upon it's beginning, you have no design, engineering, and only chaos - and not the breathtaking precision and interactions between complex components. I don't believe in such massively complex things without an intelligence being behind them - because that is the equivalent of magic. And it takes a whole other magnitude of some kind of unreasonable faith to believe magic is possible! And this is also why Einstein became a theist, because he was initially an atheist who believed in an uncaused universe that had existed and operated as it does, eternally. But the growing data from more powerful telescopes, the infrared spectrum's redshift of star movements, and his calculations, in the early 20th century, radically changed his mind!

[Kenny]

- well, logically, beliefs about how the universe came into being in the first place had to come from the supernatural realm. Because, before the Big Bang, physicists almost universally agree that there was NOTHING - no matter, time or space.

I disagree. There is no scientific theory that says there was a point in history when nothing existed. If a scientist believes such a thing, that is only his opinion and has nothing to do with science.

What does NO time, space or matter - NOTHING physical having been in existence - mean to you? What appeared and occurred upon the universe's birth means that "whatever" caused the Big Bang, it HAD to exist outside of and before those things,

You don't know that, you're just speculating based on what makes sense to you. the big bang theory begins with the Singularity already existing, there is no claim of a point in history when the singularity did not exist.

[Philip]

Physicists say the earliest period of the universe was the Planck Epoch. But before that, there is NO scientific proof of what singularity was or even if it existed - as singularity is merely predicted to have existed by various Big Bang models, and thus, is only theoretical. All that can be concluded, from the cosmic microwave background is, the evidence shows that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state. And yet, that doesn't explain what singularity was - nor its Source.

Whatever singularity may have been, it defies common sense to believe that "Something" eternal, supremely intelligent, and powerful wasn't necessary to produce the Big Bang and its components! Again, I don't believe in magic - or that ANY contingent thing can come into existence without a Cause - and especially not a sophisticated universe of complex, high-functioning components INSTANTLY appearing. But people can believe in magic if they want to. And that is ultimately what people who deny God's existence must believe in - some type of cosmic magic. To say the early universe's immediately appearing components, functionalities, and immense precision didn't require an Intelligence is the result of people working very hard to deny God's existence, which many seem obsessed with doing. But WHY?

[Kenny]

Physicists say the earliest period of the universe was the Planck Epoch. But before that, there is NO scientific proof of what singularity was or even if it existed -

No, Planck Epoch is one of the stages the singularity went through during the Big Bang. Thus, the singularity existed before Planck Epoch
But I’ve gotta ask; why do you care what scientists think? The same scientists who dismiss the existence of your spiritual world, or even the existence of your God, if these guys don’t know what they’re talking about concerning your God, why would you trust what they say about other matters?

[Philip]

"The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang.[1] The instant immediately following the initial singularity is part of the Planck epoch, the earliest period of time in the history of our universe." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularityInitial Singularity)

Ken: But I’ve gotta ask; why do you care what scientists think? The same scientists who dismiss the existence of your spiritual world, or even the existence of your God, if these guys don’t know what they’re talking about concerning your God, why would you trust what they say about other matters?

I respect scientists' understandings and research into what CAN be measured, per their observations,which include the makeup of the building blocks of the universe, as to which components had to be in place, in what sequences, and what the data appears to confirm. Do I think they have it perfect - no. In fact, there is much debate about the universe's first moments, and multiple models and ideas are constantly debated.

As for why would I care about scientists who dismiss God - are you not paying attention? I said science can NOT measure the non-physical / supernatural realm. So, their opinions on THAT spiritual realm are only speculative at best. However, the attributes of whatever caused the universe HAD to exist - AND could not have been part of the physical realm that pre-existed the instant emergence of our physical universe. So, non-theist scientists are back to asserting some sort of magic without intelligence occurred, from which a complex, immediately high-functioning universe of astounding components and marvelous designs instantly came into physical existence, whereas, moments before, there was NO existing universe or physical matter. I'm pro-science and anti magic. You, Ken, have long and desperately embraced magic - primarily, I believe, because you don't want God to exist - or at least you don't want the One of the Bible to. But these things have been debated here with you for many years now, Ken, with never any new arrows ever in your quiver, so it's truly pointless to continue. I really don't understand why you care to spend years on this forum arguing for no God. Because if there is no God, nothing you, I or anyone else says ultimately matters. Which would mean, after we all die, we'd all be having the dreams of rocks! I couldn't get terribly worked up arguing for a future of non-existence - as that's a pretty hopeless and bleak thing to believe in or look forward to.

[Kenny]

I said science can NOT measure the non-physical / supernatural realm. So, their opinions on THAT spiritual realm is only that - speculative at best.

How many things used to be called “supernatural” till science discovered the answers and are now called natural? How many things today are called supernatural, that will eventually be understood and called natural?

However, the attributes of whatever caused the universe HAD to exist - AND could not have been part of the physical realm that pre-existed the instant emergence of our physical universe.

So it’s safe to assume you believe there was a time in history when absolutely nothing energy or material existed? How did you come to this conclusion?