Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:The bottom line in these kinds of discussions is it comes down to either God or nothing when it is an atheist debating with a theist or Christian.Now,atheists don't like to own their world view and tend to choose to be in limbo about whether or not God exists or not.But if you do not believe in God you are forced to accept nothing and you must own it despite not wanting to. So go ask a scientist to actually demonstrate nothing creating something if you don't believe in God,since you need evidence you can see.Go ask Stephen Hawking to demonstrate nothing creating something and you'll see he cannot do it.

So the dirty little truth is that even atheists believe and are forced to accept things that cannot be proven or seen,and yes it is faith,so cringe atheists because you possess faith far more than a Christian does because it does not require much faith to believe God can do miracles and create universes easily if he chooses to.We read about miracles althroughout the bible so just like Jesus said it does not take much faith,faith the size of a mustard seed is not very big compared to what atheists are forced to accept according to their world-view.Their world-view is a totally secular world where no gods exist and you own it eventhough we know it makes you cringe.

And based on the law of non-contradiction only one world view can be correct out of them all this includes all other religions,gods,etc.Only one can be correct and so we must go by evidence something atheists refuse to do being an atheist.For atheism is the only group in the world that accepts atheism knowing there is no evidence it is the correct world view,but they do and it messes them up when it comes to evidence.Once a person accepts a world view like atheism where you know there is no evidence that world view is true and correct it causes you to not value evidence about other things too.

You have got a lot to learn.

Ken

What? That atheists like yourself are excluded from needing any evidence the atheistic world view is correct? I know this makes you cringe as an atheist when evidence is brought up because I know you have none as an atheist and have accepted the notion that you don't need any evidence if you're an atheist.Only other people who believe in God,ghosts,witchcraft,conspiracy theories,etc need evidence but not atheists because those people have not provided enough evidence to convince you eventhough you sit there with no evidence you are correct and not much desire to look for evidence the atheistic world view is correct. If I challenged you to provide evidence the atheistic world view is correct and to put it up against Christianity like I would people of other faiths or people who believe in witchcraft or ghosts,etc to provide evidence,you could'nt,yet they would try to,but not atheists.They will just deny the evidence we present while they sit there with none they are correct and repeat the skeptic lie.No offense to you but atheism is intellectual dishonesty where the person chooses not to know they have chosen correctly but expects everybody else to provide evidence to convince them while they sit there with none. And since science who most atheists look to for answers cannot provide an answer atheists will never know they are correct or not until they die.

Nils wrote:

Really, as I see matters, people willfully ignore the evidence. Have buried their heads in the sand. Are blinded. Hence as Newton reported in his now famous Amazing Grace song, "was blind, but now I see" -- something many, many Christians report experiencing -- being previously blind and now seeing. Previously seeing that world in black and white, and now seeing the world in colour. What are they seeing? Perhaps as Freud and Kant might suggest we see a delusion or illusion.

"willfully ignore" and "burying heads in sand". Not partiularly respectful. Shall we start to discuss who is most blinded? You certainly think that I am not fully aware of your arguments and I think the corresponding about you, but I think you are intellectually honest and I would appreciate if you regard me being intellectually honest as well

I was at first annoyed by Freud and Immanual Kant's characterisation of those who believe in God also as having some psychological issue. Found such disrespectful. But then, think about it.

On both sides of the debate there are presumably equally intelligent people who are familiar with many argument for/against God's existence. It seems a bit rich for one side to say the other side is just stupid, illogical and unintelligent.

Yet then, why if both are presumably logical and rational, does each side come to polar opposite conclusions -- not just on God's existence, but often times falling down on different sides of specific arguments they find/do not find convincing? It seems logic an reason doesn't get us anywhere in objective agreement but comes down to subjectiveness.

Logic, rational arguments and the like, therefore ultimately have nothing to do with why someone believes or doesn't believe. Such might help to reinforce in our own heads the reasons why we do/don't believe, but perhaps such is ultimately merely confirmation bias. Rather, there seems to be something else deeper going on in why we believe or don't.

What I'd argue is that why we believe or do not believe ultimately comes down to something like:

1) One side being blinded and willfully ignorant to God's existence (that doesn't mean you are being purposefully ignorant, rather your heart or nature is such that it is just blinding you to the evidence and truth -- something supported in Scripture and by conversion experiences of many who state something like they once were blind);

OR similarly,

2) People who believe in God are deluded, believing in an illusion due to some psychological issue, mental issue or what-have-you.

It's not disrespectful at all as I see it. Rather, it is stating an obvious possible reason for why both sides do not agree despite having equal human intelligence and reasoning ability. If anything, assuming you and your side are equally intelligent and rational is in fact quite respectful, given the same doesn't seem often returned by Atheists (or Atheist-leaning folk) towards Christians.

abelcainsbrother wrote: ...
So the dirty little truth is that even atheists believe and are forced to accept things that cannot be proven or seen,and yes it is faith,so cringe atheists because you possess faith far more than a Christian does because it does not require much faith to believe God can do miracles and create universes easily if he chooses to.
....

But to have faith in God I need some evidence.

I was brought up in a Christian family and learnt about Christianity in school so I believed in God, but I but I never found any evidence of God. I didn't find the Bible reliable and in my every day life I saw no signs of a God. When I was about thirteen I read about Occam's razor and draw the conclusion that if there is no evidence of God and no need of God I should just stop believing in God. Since that day I'm an atheist.

As adult I have thought a lot of the question and haven't changed my mind.

Nils

Nils wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Nils wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I always find it interesting when people think they know Aquina's arguments (much less refute them) so easily.
Unless you understand metaphysics, you can't even begin to comment on them.
I have read even philosophy professors screw up on Aquinas and it isn't because he is hard to get, it is because people THINK he argument is simple when it really is VERY sophisticated.
If a person doesn't understand actuality and potentiality to begin with, they simply will NOT get it.

Aqinas first argument and the terminology "actuality" and "potentiality" relate to Aristotelian metaphysics. As I understand it, that terminology is outdated by modern physics and then the argument has to be restated in modern terminology to hold any water. (But I don't think that restating it will help).

Nils

Metaphysics are to physics what chess is to checkers.
Metaphysics is philosophy.

To help you understand:
Motion is everything that moves and that doesn't mean just movement of position but states of being ( ice melting to water for example).
Actuality is what something is ( rubber ball for example) and potentiality is what something ( the rubber ball again) has potential of being ( a bouncing ball if bounced, a rolling ball if rolled, a melted pieces of rubber if melted, etc).
How has modern physics "outdated" the above?
It hasn't.
Everything that comes into being as both actuality and potentiality, do you agree?

Sorry Paul, I am still confused.

Actuality seems to be the state "something" is in. The first question is how you define that "something". Can it be a molecule, a cloud or a galaxy?
But still more unclear is potentiality. Is the potentiality of a rubber ball what is left after being hammered on or being hit by an ordinary bomb, or by an atomic bomb.
And then how to define movement. If there are two rubber balls floating in free space, are they moving? And what happens if they collide? Is there anything that is not moving. 400 000 years after Big Bang there were only atoms moving around and colliding. Can you talk about unmoving things then? And as I said earlier: All molecules are vibrating in thermal noise, are they moving?

If Aquinas argument can be interpreted as that you have to add energy to make things to happen I have no problem. If not, please give me a reference that explains the argument using well defined terminology.

Nils

Not to sound mean but if you can't understand actuality and potentiality, then perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on Aquinas...

Nils wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: ...
So the dirty little truth is that even atheists believe and are forced to accept things that cannot be proven or seen,and yes it is faith,so cringe atheists because you possess faith far more than a Christian does because it does not require much faith to believe God can do miracles and create universes easily if he chooses to.
....

But to have faith in God I need some evidence.

I was brought up in a Christian family and learnt about Christianity in school so I believed in God, but I but I never found any evidence of God. I didn't find the Bible reliable and in my every day life I saw no signs of a God. When I was about thirteen I read about Occam's razor and draw the conclusion that if there is no evidence of God and no need of God I should just stop believing in God. Since that day I'm an atheist.

As adult I have thought a lot of the question and haven't changed my mind.

Nils

Really? Even if that were true,how could you accept the atheistic world view that has no evidence behind it? It is really hard for me to believe that you could'nt find any evidence for God.Even if I had not found evidence for God I could not choose atheism that has the least evidence and substance behind it out of all other world views.Atheism has no depth at all and it is very weak when it comes to evidence they are correct.So you claim you found no evidence for God yet chose atheism that has no evidence behind it?You still have the same problem choosing the atheistic world view.Why is it so hard for you to believe the God of the bible can create universes if he chooses to? it does not require much faith at all.Just this realization is enough to convince me that God had to be the cause of our vast universe.I mean if you reject gods then you are forced to accept nothing did it."God did it' will beat out "nothing did it" anyday of the week you want to put it to a vote.

So I really don't see how you can claim you found no evidence for God and yet choose nothing caused it which is much,much harder to believe and requires far,far more faith to accept. It is easy to believe the God described in our bible can create universes easy,he is easily that powerful so that not much faith is required compared to what atheists are forced to accept not believing in any gods at all and have no cause and nothing to create it.

So how can you claim you found no evidence for God? Look for evidence nothing can create it and see what kind of evidence you find.Just try it and I think you'll start believing in God again.That is if you're truly looking for evidence and not misunderstanding God,etc based on a lack of understanding about God and are truly looking for evidence for God because you have no evidence nothing did it for sure.

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:The bottom line in these kinds of discussions is it comes down to either God or nothing when it is an atheist debating with a theist or Christian.Now,atheists don't like to own their world view and tend to choose to be in limbo about whether or not God exists or not.But if you do not believe in God you are forced to accept nothing and you must own it despite not wanting to. So go ask a scientist to actually demonstrate nothing creating something if you don't believe in God,since you need evidence you can see.Go ask Stephen Hawking to demonstrate nothing creating something and you'll see he cannot do it.

So the dirty little truth is that even atheists believe and are forced to accept things that cannot be proven or seen,and yes it is faith,so cringe atheists because you possess faith far more than a Christian does because it does not require much faith to believe God can do miracles and create universes easily if he chooses to.We read about miracles althroughout the bible so just like Jesus said it does not take much faith,faith the size of a mustard seed is not very big compared to what atheists are forced to accept according to their world-view.Their world-view is a totally secular world where no gods exist and you own it eventhough we know it makes you cringe.

And based on the law of non-contradiction only one world view can be correct out of them all this includes all other religions,gods,etc.Only one can be correct and so we must go by evidence something atheists refuse to do being an atheist.For atheism is the only group in the world that accepts atheism knowing there is no evidence it is the correct world view,but they do and it messes them up when it comes to evidence.Once a person accepts a world view like atheism where you know there is no evidence that world view is true and correct it causes you to not value evidence about other things too.

You have got a lot to learn.

Ken

abelcainsbrother wrote: What? That atheists like yourself are excluded from needing any evidence the atheistic world view is correct? I know this makes you cringe as an atheist when evidence is brought up because I know you have none as an atheist and have accepted the notion that you don't need any evidence if you're an atheist.

Atheism is not a world view, and whatever my world view might be, evidence is only needed to be to my satisfaction, not anybody else’s.

abelcainsbrother wrote: Only other people who believe in God,ghosts,witchcraft,conspiracy theories,etc need evidence but not atheists because those people have not provided enough evidence to convince you

No those who believe in God, Ghosts, conspiracy theories, etc don’t need evidence to anybody elses satisfaction unless they are out to convert people.

abelcainsbrother wrote: eventhough you sit there with no evidence you are correct and not much desire to look for evidence the atheistic world view is correct. If I challenged you to provide evidence the atheistic world view is correct and to put it up against Christianity like I would people of other faiths or people who believe in witchcraft or ghosts,etc to provide evidence,you could'nt,yet they would try to,but not atheists.

All the people you listed make claims. Atheism is not about making claims. If an Atheist did make a claim, and tried to convince others of his claim, he would need to provide evidence; but I don’t make any claims, I just doubt other peoples claims.

abelcainsbrother wrote: They will just deny the evidence we present while they sit there with none they are correct and repeat the skeptic lie.No offense to you but atheism is intellectual dishonesty where the person chooses not to know they have chosen correctly but expects everybody else to provide evidence to convince them while they sit there with none. And since science who most atheists look to for answers cannot provide an answer atheists will never know they are correct or not until they die.

I’ve told you this a hundred times, and I’ll tell you again. The one who makes the claim and tries to convert, is the one who needs to provide the evidence to the satisfaction of the one he is trying to convert. I have no interest in trying to convert you, but you are constantly trying to convert me so you will always be at a disadvantage in our conversations. The only way you can avoid this disadvantage is to quit trying to convert me.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Nils wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: ...
So the dirty little truth is that even atheists believe and are forced to accept things that cannot be proven or seen,and yes it is faith,so cringe atheists because you possess faith far more than a Christian does because it does not require much faith to believe God can do miracles and create universes easily if he chooses to.
....

But to have faith in God I need some evidence.

I was brought up in a Christian family and learnt about Christianity in school so I believed in God, but I but I never found any evidence of God. I didn't find the Bible reliable and in my every day life I saw no signs of a God. When I was about thirteen I read about Occam's razor and draw the conclusion that if there is no evidence of God and no need of God I should just stop believing in God. Since that day I'm an atheist.

As adult I have thought a lot of the question and haven't changed my mind.

Nils

Really? Even if that were true,how could you accept the atheistic world view that has no evidence behind it? It is really hard for me to believe that you could'nt find any evidence for God.Even if I had not found evidence for God I could not choose atheism that has the least evidence and substance behind it out of all other world views.Atheism has no depth at all and it is very weak when it comes to evidence they are correct.So you claim you found no evidence for God yet chose atheism that has no evidence behind it?You still have the same problem choosing the atheistic world view.Why is it so hard for you to believe the God of the bible can create universes if he chooses to? it does not require much faith at all.Just this realization is enough to convince me that God had to be the cause of our vast universe.I mean if you reject gods then you are forced to accept nothing did it."God did it' will beat out "nothing did it" anyday of the week you want to put it to a vote.

So I really don't see how you can claim you found no evidence for God and yet choose nothing caused it which is much,much harder to believe and requires far,far more faith to accept. It is easy to believe the God described in our bible can create universes easy,he is easily that powerful so that not much faith is required compared to what atheists are forced to accept not believing in any gods at all and have no cause and nothing to create it.

So how can you claim you found no evidence for God? Look for evidence nothing can create it and see what kind of evidence you find.Just try it and I think you'll start believing in God again.That is if you're truly looking for evidence and not misunderstanding God,etc based on a lack of understanding about God and are truly looking for evidence for God because you have no evidence nothing did it for sure.

Your problem is you think the answer is either God or nothing. Like either God created the Universe, or nothing created the Universe. If you think about it, there are countless other answers one might have.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Nils wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: ...
So the dirty little truth is that even atheists believe and are forced to accept things that cannot be proven or seen,and yes it is faith,so cringe atheists because you possess faith far more than a Christian does because it does not require much faith to believe God can do miracles and create universes easily if he chooses to.
....

But to have faith in God I need some evidence.

I was brought up in a Christian family and learnt about Christianity in school so I believed in God, but I but I never found any evidence of God. I didn't find the Bible reliable and in my every day life I saw no signs of a God. When I was about thirteen I read about Occam's razor and draw the conclusion that if there is no evidence of God and no need of God I should just stop believing in God. Since that day I'm an atheist.

As adult I have thought a lot of the question and haven't changed my mind.

Nils

Really? Even if that were true,how could you accept the atheistic world view that has no evidence behind it? It is really hard for me to believe that you could'nt find any evidence for God.Even if I had not found evidence for God I could not choose atheism that has the least evidence and substance behind it out of all other world views.Atheism has no depth at all and it is very weak when it comes to evidence they are correct.So you claim you found no evidence for God yet chose atheism that has no evidence behind it?You still have the same problem choosing the atheistic world view.Why is it so hard for you to believe the God of the bible can create universes if he chooses to? it does not require much faith at all.Just this realization is enough to convince me that God had to be the cause of our vast universe.I mean if you reject gods then you are forced to accept nothing did it."God did it' will beat out "nothing did it" anyday of the week you want to put it to a vote.

So I really don't see how you can claim you found no evidence for God and yet choose nothing caused it which is much,much harder to believe and requires far,far more faith to accept. It is easy to believe the God described in our bible can create universes easy,he is easily that powerful so that not much faith is required compared to what atheists are forced to accept not believing in any gods at all and have no cause and nothing to create it.

So how can you claim you found no evidence for God? Look for evidence nothing can create it and see what kind of evidence you find.Just try it and I think you'll start believing in God again.That is if you're truly looking for evidence and not misunderstanding God,etc based on a lack of understanding about God and are truly looking for evidence for God because you have no evidence nothing did it for sure.

Your problem is you think the answer is either God or nothing. Like either God created the Universe, or nothing created the Universe. If you think about it, there are countless other answers one might have.

Ken

Nope! you just don't want to own your world view and what it entails because no matter how much you try to deny it if you do not believe in any gods then all you have is nothing to play with.You just don't want to accept it,but it is true.You cannot just make up things that have no basis in reality and assume other things are possible because you do not believe in any gods and so have nothing and nothing means nothing to play with.

Also above in your reply to me you prove me correct about you cringing when evidence is brought up just like I said.You are excusing yourself from needing any evidence you are correct choosing to be an atheist. It is your choice you made and you own that choice. Trying to play word games by saying only if you're trying to convert do you need evidence is intellectual dishonesty because you don't care if you're right or not but just reject gods,no evidence for why,it is just a choice you chose to make and you own that choice whether or not you're trying to convert or not.

You do not get an excuse to not need evidence for choosing atheism knowing that they teach you do not have to have any evidence to be one and so you know you have no evidence the moment you chose to reject gods and be an atheist.It shows that you really do not care if you're right or not but choose to reject gods knowing there is no evidence it is true and correct.

Keeping your atheism to yourself does not and will not get you off the hook when it comes to a person truthfully seeking the truth based on evidence,which you cannot say you've done choosing atheism,even if you keep it to yourself there is something wrong with somebody who has no desire to know if they're right or not about whatever they have chosen to accept.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Nils wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Nils wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I always find it interesting when people think they know Aquina's arguments (much less refute them) so easily.
Unless you understand metaphysics, you can't even begin to comment on them.
I have read even philosophy professors screw up on Aquinas and it isn't because he is hard to get, it is because people THINK he argument is simple when it really is VERY sophisticated.
If a person doesn't understand actuality and potentiality to begin with, they simply will NOT get it.

Aqinas first argument and the terminology "actuality" and "potentiality" relate to Aristotelian metaphysics. As I understand it, that terminology is outdated by modern physics and then the argument has to be restated in modern terminology to hold any water. (But I don't think that restating it will help).

Nils

Metaphysics are to physics what chess is to checkers.
Metaphysics is philosophy.

To help you understand:
Motion is everything that moves and that doesn't mean just movement of position but states of being ( ice melting to water for example).
Actuality is what something is ( rubber ball for example) and potentiality is what something ( the rubber ball again) has potential of being ( a bouncing ball if bounced, a rolling ball if rolled, a melted pieces of rubber if melted, etc).
How has modern physics "outdated" the above?
It hasn't.
Everything that comes into being as both actuality and potentiality, do you agree?

Sorry Paul, I am still confused.

Actuality seems to be the state "something" is in. The first question is how you define that "something". Can it be a molecule, a cloud or a galaxy?
But still more unclear is potentiality. Is the potentiality of a rubber ball what is left after being hammered on or being hit by an ordinary bomb, or by an atomic bomb.
And then how to define movement. If there are two rubber balls floating in free space, are they moving? And what happens if they collide? Is there anything that is not moving. 400 000 years after Big Bang there were only atoms moving around and colliding. Can you talk about unmoving things then? And as I said earlier: All molecules are vibrating in thermal noise, are they moving?

If Aquinas argument can be interpreted as that you have to add energy to make things to happen I have no problem. If not, please give me a reference that explains the argument using well defined terminology.

Nils

Not to sound mean but if you can't understand actuality and potentiality, then perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on Aquinas...

Sigh....

Do you remember what I wrote a few days ago:
" First, the background to my answer was that I asked Kurieuo: "So which are the reasons that are "obvious"". Byblos answered with a reference to Aquinas. "
Byblos apparently thought that Aquinas' argument was worth mentioning and I got the impression that both Kurieuo and you had the same opinion. But
Either
you agree that the argument is valid and then it is reasonable that you restate it so that it can be understood related to modern physics including definitions that make sense
Or
you say that it is of historical interest only and then I definitely will not bother you with comments on Aquinas.

Not to sound mean but if you can't explain actuality and potentiality, then perhaps you shouldn't be discussing Aquinas' argument

Nils

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Nils wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote: ...
So the dirty little truth is that even atheists believe and are forced to accept things that cannot be proven or seen,and yes it is faith,so cringe atheists because you possess faith far more than a Christian does because it does not require much faith to believe God can do miracles and create universes easily if he chooses to.
....

But to have faith in God I need some evidence.

I was brought up in a Christian family and learnt about Christianity in school so I believed in God, but I but I never found any evidence of God. I didn't find the Bible reliable and in my every day life I saw no signs of a God. When I was about thirteen I read about Occam's razor and draw the conclusion that if there is no evidence of God and no need of God I should just stop believing in God. Since that day I'm an atheist.

As adult I have thought a lot of the question and haven't changed my mind.

Nils

Really? Even if that were true,how could you accept the atheistic world view that has no evidence behind it? It is really hard for me to believe that you could'nt find any evidence for God.Even if I had not found evidence for God I could not choose atheism that has the least evidence and substance behind it out of all other world views.Atheism has no depth at all and it is very weak when it comes to evidence they are correct.So you claim you found no evidence for God yet chose atheism that has no evidence behind it?You still have the same problem choosing the atheistic world view.Why is it so hard for you to believe the God of the bible can create universes if he chooses to? it does not require much faith at all.Just this realization is enough to convince me that God had to be the cause of our vast universe.I mean if you reject gods then you are forced to accept nothing did it."God did it' will beat out "nothing did it" anyday of the week you want to put it to a vote.

So I really don't see how you can claim you found no evidence for God and yet choose nothing caused it which is much,much harder to believe and requires far,far more faith to accept. It is easy to believe the God described in our bible can create universes easy,he is easily that powerful so that not much faith is required compared to what atheists are forced to accept not believing in any gods at all and have no cause and nothing to create it.

So how can you claim you found no evidence for God? Look for evidence nothing can create it and see what kind of evidence you find.Just try it and I think you'll start believing in God again.That is if you're truly looking for evidence and not misunderstanding God,etc based on a lack of understanding about God and are truly looking for evidence for God because you have no evidence nothing did it for sure.

Your problem is you think the answer is either God or nothing. Like either God created the Universe, or nothing created the Universe. If you think about it, there are countless other answers one might have.

Ken

Nope! you just don't want to own your world view and what it entails because no matter how much you try to deny it if you do not believe in any gods then all you have is nothing to play with.You just don't want to accept it,but it is true.You cannot just make up things that have no basis in reality and assume other things are possible because you do not believe in any gods and so have nothing and nothing means nothing to play with.

Also above in your reply to me you prove me correct about you cringing when evidence is brought up just like I said.You are excusing yourself from needing any evidence you are correct choosing to be an atheist. It is your choice you made and you own that choice. Trying to play word games by saying only if you're trying to convert do you need evidence is intellectual dishonesty because you don't care if you're right or not but just reject gods,no evidence for why,it is just a choice you chose to make and you own that choice whether or not you're trying to convert or not.

You do not get an excuse to not need evidence for choosing atheism knowing that they teach you do not have to have any evidence to be one and so you know you have no evidence the moment you chose to reject gods and be an atheist.It shows that you really do not care if you're right or not but choose to reject gods knowing there is no evidence it is true and correct.

Keeping your atheism to yourself does not and will not get you off the hook when it comes to a person truthfully seeking the truth based on evidence,which you cannot say you've done choosing atheism,even if you keep it to yourself there is something wrong with somebody who has no desire to know if they're right or not about whatever they have chosen to accept.

Your problem is you keep assuming Atheism is for me what Christianity is for you; it is not. For you the Christian God is the most important thing in your life, it is your source of joy, it provides comfort in your time of sorrow, purpose to your life, your source of morality, it even provides the answers to the Universe. Your entire life is invested in God being who you believe he is, and it would be a major disruption in your life if you found out you were wrong.

Atheism is not that way for me, and I wouldn't want it to be. The fact that I am skeptical of all religious claims means nothing to me. Atheism due to my skepticism is about as much of a factor in my life as being a scorpio according to my Zodiac sign. If I found out I were wrong concerning God, as long as this God didn’t require me to change my current life style, I wouldn't care

Until you can understand this, you will continue to make false assumptions as you did above.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Kenny wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:

Nils wrote: But to have faith in God I need some evidence.

I was brought up in a Christian family and learnt about Christianity in school so I believed in God, but I but I never found any evidence of God. I didn't find the Bible reliable and in my every day life I saw no signs of a God. When I was about thirteen I read about Occam's razor and draw the conclusion that if there is no evidence of God and no need of God I should just stop believing in God. Since that day I'm an atheist.

As adult I have thought a lot of the question and haven't changed my mind.

Nils

Really? Even if that were true,how could you accept the atheistic world view that has no evidence behind it? It is really hard for me to believe that you could'nt find any evidence for God.Even if I had not found evidence for God I could not choose atheism that has the least evidence and substance behind it out of all other world views.Atheism has no depth at all and it is very weak when it comes to evidence they are correct.So you claim you found no evidence for God yet chose atheism that has no evidence behind it?You still have the same problem choosing the atheistic world view.Why is it so hard for you to believe the God of the bible can create universes if he chooses to? it does not require much faith at all.Just this realization is enough to convince me that God had to be the cause of our vast universe.I mean if you reject gods then you are forced to accept nothing did it."God did it' will beat out "nothing did it" anyday of the week you want to put it to a vote.

So I really don't see how you can claim you found no evidence for God and yet choose nothing caused it which is much,much harder to believe and requires far,far more faith to accept. It is easy to believe the God described in our bible can create universes easy,he is easily that powerful so that not much faith is required compared to what atheists are forced to accept not believing in any gods at all and have no cause and nothing to create it.

So how can you claim you found no evidence for God? Look for evidence nothing can create it and see what kind of evidence you find.Just try it and I think you'll start believing in God again.That is if you're truly looking for evidence and not misunderstanding God,etc based on a lack of understanding about God and are truly looking for evidence for God because you have no evidence nothing did it for sure.

Your problem is you think the answer is either God or nothing. Like either God created the Universe, or nothing created the Universe. If you think about it, there are countless other answers one might have.

Ken

Nope! you just don't want to own your world view and what it entails because no matter how much you try to deny it if you do not believe in any gods then all you have is nothing to play with.You just don't want to accept it,but it is true.You cannot just make up things that have no basis in reality and assume other things are possible because you do not believe in any gods and so have nothing and nothing means nothing to play with.

Also above in your reply to me you prove me correct about you cringing when evidence is brought up just like I said.You are excusing yourself from needing any evidence you are correct choosing to be an atheist. It is your choice you made and you own that choice. Trying to play word games by saying only if you're trying to convert do you need evidence is intellectual dishonesty because you don't care if you're right or not but just reject gods,no evidence for why,it is just a choice you chose to make and you own that choice whether or not you're trying to convert or not.

You do not get an excuse to not need evidence for choosing atheism knowing that they teach you do not have to have any evidence to be one and so you know you have no evidence the moment you chose to reject gods and be an atheist.It shows that you really do not care if you're right or not but choose to reject gods knowing there is no evidence it is true and correct.

Keeping your atheism to yourself does not and will not get you off the hook when it comes to a person truthfully seeking the truth based on evidence,which you cannot say you've done choosing atheism,even if you keep it to yourself there is something wrong with somebody who has no desire to know if they're right or not about whatever they have chosen to accept.

Your problem is you keep assuming Atheism is for me what Christianity is for you; it is not. For you the Christian God is the most important thing in your life, it is your source of joy, it provides comfort in your time of sorrow, purpose to your life, your source of morality, it even provides the answers to the Universe. Your entire life is invested in God being who you believe he is, and it would be a major disruption in your life if you found out you were wrong.

Atheism is not that way for me, and I wouldn't want it to be. The fact that I am skeptical of all religious claims means nothing to me. Atheism due to my skepticism is about as much of a factor in my life as being a scorpio according to my Zodiac sign. If I found out I were wrong concerning God, as long as this God didn’t require me to change my current life style, I wouldn't care

Until you can understand this, you will continue to make false assumptions as you did above.

Ken

It is not a false assumption on my part.Nothing I explained to you is not right based on the choice you made choosing to be an atheist and since you have made your choice I'm just pointing out what your world view leads to and it is nothing,no God,no cause for anything but nothing.It is not a strawman or just made up it is just the truth about what accepting atheism leads to you believing and accepting based on a world with no gods.And since you choose to not believe in gods it means you accepting nothing instead of God.But like I said you and atheists in general don't want to own your world view and I know why but it is time we force ya'll too.

It is not for us really but for people who don't value evidence and yet the need and responsibility inside us all to make sure by evidence we have chosen the correct world view because like I said before based on the law of non-contradiction only one world view can be correct out of them all because they all contradict one another and are different world views including atheism where there are no gods in that world view and everything must be looked at from a totally secular position and no gods are allowed.

Ken: For you the Christian God is the most important thing in your life, it is your source of joy, it provides comfort in your time of sorrow, purpose to your life, your source of morality, it even provides the answers to the Universe. Your entire life is invested in God being who you believe he is, and it would be a major disruption in your life if you found out you were wrong.

Ken, you well described what Christianity is to most believers. But it's more than that - it's a relationship with God that gives us a confidence that we have hope NOW, and that also there is a reality far better to come, and eternally so. You don't have any of that, and I pity you because you could if you wanted it. Of course, you realize there has to be some extraordinary cause for why we are here. You also know the evidence for what exists reveals an entire host of astonishing things that require some great Intelligence - and that's just from what science can tell us about what exists (http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=42156), including the moment the universe began. You can't easily dismiss the key characteristics the first Cause MUST have. But you also must have pondered the possibility that you are wrong, and that if so, you are heading for disaster.

Ken: If I found out I were wrong concerning God, as long as this God didn’t require me to change my current life style, I wouldn't care.

Ken, I can only guess that the real reason for your unbelief lies in the underlined portion above. I think you are unwilling to accept God the way He truly is, as opposed to the god you think he would or ought to be. Am I close?

Philip wrote:

Ken: For you the Christian God is the most important thing in your life, it is your source of joy, it provides comfort in your time of sorrow, purpose to your life, your source of morality, it even provides the answers to the Universe. Your entire life is invested in God being who you believe he is, and it would be a major disruption in your life if you found out you were wrong.

Ken, you well described what Christianity is to most believers. But it's more than that - it's a relationship with God that gives us a confidence that we have hope NOW, and that also there is a reality far better to come, and eternally so. You don't have any of that, and I pity you because you could if you wanted it. Of course, you realize there has to be some extraordinary cause for why we are here. You also know the evidence for what exists reveals an entire host of astonishing things that require some great Intelligence - and that's just from what science can tell us about what exists (http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=42156), including the moment the universe began. You can't easily dismiss the key characteristics the first Cause MUST have. But you also must have pondered the possibility that you are wrong, and that if so, you are heading for disaster.

Ken: If I found out I were wrong concerning God, as long as this God didn’t require me to change my current life style, I wouldn't care.

Ken, I can only guess that the real reason for your unbelief lies in the underlined portion above. I think you are unwilling to accept God the way He truly is, as opposed to the god you think he would or ought to be. Am I close?

No; thats not it. Think about it; if I really believed in God, and I knew the consequences of rejecting him, Why would I lie? If it were a matter of not wanting to change my lifestyle, I could easily pay lip service to God and still behave badly! I’m sure you are aware there are plenty of Christians who do this, there are countless Christians who break more of Gods laws than I do! If they can claim God and still behave that way, what’s stopping me?

Ken, in your hypothetical theology (given you do not believe in God), could you seriously ever change to be "good enough" for God? What then of your past wrongs, can you ever remove such from your record?

Consider if you believe God is all-good, as you must if you see God ought to desire us to be good also (whcih I agree with you on), then God requires us to really be Good. To the extent that Jesus understood "good" when He declared noone is good by God. If this is true, then wouldn't we all stand condemned? God must logically condemn us all, since none of us are really good. We've all done wrong no matter how big or small.

Perhaps then, belief in God or not, we should simply enjoy our lives here since condemnation awaits us all.

Kurieuo wrote:Ken, in your hypothetical theology (given you do not believe in God), could you seriously ever change to be "good enough" for God?

No.

Kurieuo wrote:What then of your past wrongs, can you ever remove such from your record?

No

Kurieuo wrote:Consider if you believe God is all-good, as you must if you see God ought to desire us to be good also (whcih I agree with you on), then God requires us to really be Good. To the extent that Jesus understood "good" when He declared noone is good by God. If this is true, then wouldn't we all stand condemned?

Unless God either lowers his standards for us due to our imperfections, or he chooses to forgive us, we would be condemned.

Kurieuo wrote:God must logically condemn us all, since none of us are really good. We've all done wrong no matter how big or small.

Perhaps then, belief in God or not, we should simply enjoy our lives here since condemnation awaits us all.

I can understand believers, but why would non-believers think condemnation awaits them?