Evidence for God from Science

I think this is like the nail in the coffin for a so-called position of "Non-belief": http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/ev ... 88461.html

Seems like we are all in agreement then! There is really no position of "non-belief" but rather a denial of belief.
Some just willfully deny the existence of God. Sounds awfully Scriptural (Romans 1:18-21).

WHILE MILITANT ATHEISTS like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesn’t exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist.

Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

While this idea may seem outlandish—after all, it seems easy to decide not to believe in God—evidence from several disciplines indicates that what you actually believe is not a decision you make for yourself. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in stone.

This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say.

(Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke, Science 2.0)

Presumption of Atheism? Seems more the likely the case of a presumption of Theism.

This also makes sense of why Atheists appear unable to formulate their own coherent view of the world without a Theistic base (as many here know I've challenged Atheists to do in some other threads).

"Atheists try to use to science to prove that God doesn't exist. Science accidently proves that atheism doesn't exist."

Kurieuo wrote:I think this is like the nail in the coffin for a so-called position of "Non-belief": http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/ev ... 88461.html

Seems like we are all in agreement then! There is really no position of "non-belief" but rather a denial of belief.
Some just willfully deny the existence of God. Sounds awfully Scriptural (Romans 1:18-21).

WHILE MILITANT ATHEISTS like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesn’t exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist.

Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

While this idea may seem outlandish—after all, it seems easy to decide not to believe in God—evidence from several disciplines indicates that what you actually believe is not a decision you make for yourself. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in stone.

This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say.

(Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke, Science 2.0)

Presumption of Atheism? Seems more the likely the case of a presumption of Theism.

This also makes sense of why Atheists appear unable to formulate their own coherent view of the world without a Theistic base (as many here know I've challenged Atheists to do in some other threads).

This article is a joke! Even though I haven’t read all of the articles; what little bit I did read was so full of flaws it was ridicules. I am a bit surprised anybody would take such an article seriously
As far as your claim that the atheists you met were unable to formulate a world view without a theistic base, you probably made the mistake of attributing many things to theism that should not be.

Ken

SeekingSanctuary wrote:"Atheists try to use to science to prove that God doesn't exist. Science accidently proves that atheism doesn't exist."

Yet most scientists are atheists! Kinda funny how that works huh?
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I think this is like the nail in the coffin for a so-called position of "Non-belief": http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/ev ... 88461.html

Seems like we are all in agreement then! There is really no position of "non-belief" but rather a denial of belief.
Some just willfully deny the existence of God. Sounds awfully Scriptural (Romans 1:18-21).

WHILE MILITANT ATHEISTS like Richard Dawkins may be convinced God doesn’t exist, God, if he is around, may be amused to find that atheists might not exist.

Cognitive scientists are becoming increasingly aware that a metaphysical outlook may be so deeply ingrained in human thought processes that it cannot be expunged.

While this idea may seem outlandish—after all, it seems easy to decide not to believe in God—evidence from several disciplines indicates that what you actually believe is not a decision you make for yourself. Your fundamental beliefs are decided by much deeper levels of consciousness, and some may well be more or less set in stone.

This line of thought has led to some scientists claiming that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think,” says Graham Lawton, an avowed atheist himself, writing in the New Scientist. “They point to studies showing, for example, that even people who claim to be committed atheists tacitly hold religious beliefs, such as the existence of an immortal soul.”

This shouldn’t come as a surprise, since we are born believers, not atheists, scientists say.

(Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke, Science 2.0)

Presumption of Atheism? Seems more the likely the case of a presumption of Theism.

This also makes sense of why Atheists appear unable to formulate their own coherent view of the world without a Theistic base (as many here know I've challenged Atheists to do in some other threads).

This article is a joke! Even though I haven’t read all of the articles; what little bit I did read was so full of flaws it was ridicules. I am a bit surprised anybody would take such an article seriously
As far as your claim that the atheists you met were unable to formulate a world view without a theistic base, you probably made the mistake of attributing many things to theism that should not be.

Ken

Why you feel so threatened? Science and truth when it suits you eh Kenny.

I wouldn't call the Nature scientific journal a joke:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 51038a.pdf

= what these pages I linked to are discussing.

Kenny wrote:

SeekingSanctuary wrote:"Atheists try to use to science to prove that God doesn't exist. Science accidently proves that atheism doesn't exist."

Yet most scientists are atheists! Kinda funny how that works huh?
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

Ken

Most scientists are emotional.
They need a good dose of philosophy to be logically coherent.

Kurieuo wrote: Why you feel so threatened? Science and truth when it suits you eh Kenny.

Perhaps you've misunderstood me. I never said anything about feeling threatened; I said the article was full of flaws.

[quote=Kurieuo"I wouldn't call the Nature scientific journal a joke:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 51038a.pdf

= what these pages I linked to are discussing.[/quote]

Did the Nature scientific journal make the claim that Atheists do not exist?

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

SeekingSanctuary wrote:"Atheists try to use to science to prove that God doesn't exist. Science accidently proves that atheism doesn't exist."

Yet most scientists are atheists! Kinda funny how that works huh?
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

Ken

Most scientists are emotional.
They need a good dose of philosophy to be logically coherent.

The fact that a scientist would make such a claim as the article indicates proves that not all scientists require to be logically coherent.

Kurieuo wrote:This also makes sense of why Atheists appear unable to formulate their own coherent view of the world without a Theistic base (as many here know I've challenged Atheists to do in some other threads).

What are some of the threads where you've posted this challenge? I would like to look them up and give it a go

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:This also makes sense of why Atheists appear unable to formulate their own coherent view of the world without a Theistic base (as many here know I've challenged Atheists to do in some other threads).

What are some of the threads where you've posted this challenge? I would like to look them up and give it a go

Ken

I believe you attempted the challenge.
But, no real explanations that could make me a consistent Atheist if I were to say somehow de-convert were really given for many things where no God exists.

Re-reading the end of the thread in question, it didn't really go too well between you and others and myself.
The substance of my words really is here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=106
-- but, a lot was lost in the proceeding exchanges.

To summarise though, you'd have me throw away my beliefs in universal right and wrong. Where then is fairness? What is justice?
Hilter thought is was right to exterminate Jews. Atheism leaves you no way you can claim a superior morality to say that Hitler was wrong.
Rather, "might perhaps makes right." In reality though, if Atheism is true, then we should loose any talk of moral and terms like "right" and "wrong".
Instead we should just talk in terms of "like" and "dislike". Such that you might dislike genocide, but genocide of a people isn't really wrong.

Based on that thread, it seems you'd also have me accept that intelligence in derived from inanimate matter bouncing around.
That, somehow "I" (whatever that is) can rise about its physical composition to make real choices and be responsible for actions.
But this "I" cannot be explained in purely physical terms, and you make no attempt to explain the mind-body issue.
If "the self" i.e., who I am, does not have physical properties then Physicalism -- the physical world cannot be all that exists.

These are all good issues to ponder, but I feel... and this is the reason for my cynicism towards you, that you are quite set and currently out to debate Christianity.
It is clear to me that you feel the need to respond to much of what I believe... that your reason for being here is in part because you feel ruffled by Chrsitians and their beliefs.
You need to put us all in our place, whatever you see that place as being. Maybe I am wrong, but that's my feeling. And it just doesn't make me feel like holding a proper discussion with you.

For me, I'd prefer someone who has mellowed a bit more and can honestly explore issues like the above without feeling threatened by Christian beliefs.
To be able to entertain scientific studies like I mention at the start of this thread -- published by an Atheist that studies reveal there really are no true Atheists.
This does not mean a position of Atheism, or if you don't like calling Atheism a position... that "Patheism" (a position that there is no God) is not true.

All the best, K

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:This also makes sense of why Atheists appear unable to formulate their own coherent view of the world without a Theistic base (as many here know I've challenged Atheists to do in some other threads).

What are some of the threads where you've posted this challenge? I would like to look them up and give it a go

Ken

I believe you attempted the challenge.
But, no real explanations that could make me a consistent Atheist if I were to say somehow de-convert were really given for many things where no God exists.

I think that’s a bit different. An attempt to explain things that would somehow convince you if you became atheist; is different than saying Atheists are unable to form a view of the world to their satisfaction without including God.

To not believe in God does leave a lot of questions unanswered forcing the Atheist to admit to not having all the answers; because to believe in God does fill in a lotta gaps.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:This also makes sense of why Atheists appear unable to formulate their own coherent view of the world without a Theistic base (as many here know I've challenged Atheists to do in some other threads).

What are some of the threads where you've posted this challenge? I would like to look them up and give it a go

Ken

I believe you attempted the challenge.
But, no real explanations that could make me a consistent Atheist if I were to say somehow de-convert were really given for many things where no God exists.

I think that’s a bit different. An attempt to explain things that would somehow convince you if you became atheist; is different than saying Atheists are unable to form a view of the world to their satisfaction without including God.

To not believe in God does leave a lot of questions unanswered forcing the Atheist to admit to not having all the answers; because to believe in God does fill in a lotta gaps.

I can't necessarily argue with you there, but then should we go against our natural intuitions just because we haven't seen the wind.
That seems a bit silly. But, at the same time is does not prove God's existence or lack thereof on way or another. I openly admit that.

Maybe moral right and wrong do not exist, despite my feelings that some things really are right and wrong.
Perhaps "I" do entirely consist of physical processes and "my" identifying with being conscious is actually a smoke effect from my physical composition. (i.e., epiphenomenalism)

Something I would like to comment on, is the perception amongst many non-Christians and Atheists that belief in God is due to some discomfort over living with unanswered questions.
In my own experience, my belief in God has lead to many more questions and often mixed answers that otherwise wouldn't exist.
Friends I know who become Christian with their passion for seeking answers shows that upon obtaining belief, they have a huge amount of unanswered questions.

The pursuit of Theology throughout history and today also shows this. Differences in responses on the nature of God, human purposes, relationships, creation, etc.
It's like a double-edged sword, because all these unanswered questions, different responses and disagreements over many different topics can be seen as disunity.
And yet, all are unified with their base belief in God and even Christ.

So if anything, belief in God opens a can of worms that is unanswered questions.
Atheism refuses to open that can and look the other way.