Jump to content

Why I Believe There Is A God


StickWitch
 Share

Recommended Posts

I guess it all depends on how you define 'god,' really. In this case I'm defining him as some sort of creator; an absolute mind, transcendental.

 

No, it doesn't 'all' depend on that, I think that's just preemptively striking out comments on this.

 

I haven't actually tried to put this all down in text before, so it might be fuzzy or unclear. I see it in my head all well enough, it's just communicating it that's the problem.

 

Anyway. There's the whole "Where did the universe come from?" question, the "You can't have a cause without a causer" dealio.

 

The main response I've heard to this is "Well where did God come from?"

 

If God transcends time... then that question is moot.

 

Another response to this is "Science is expanding rapidly all the time. New research in quantum physics is looking promising into the beginning of the universe."

 

My response to that is: Science doesn't trump logic. We use logic to work through science. Our universe exists within time, not out of it, and at some point it HAD to have a beginning (If you dispute this point I'm willing to go into that as well). Quantum mechanics does not disprove causality, or operate outside its laws. This is a simple property of time, and until scientists begin to figure out how to operate outside of time, I think I'm pretty safe in my assumptions here.

 

I'm going to elaborate on the first responses a bit.

 

If God transcends time, then there never was any 'creation' of the time point. Singularity. Dimension. Whatever. This dimension existed perpetually, though I can't even use that word because it also indicates time.

This implies, though, that for an absolute mind to create/spawn/exist with time, time could not be special.

And here's where the extended bits of my reasoning go fuzzy, but I'll try my best.

If an absolute transcendent being is the creator of a minor dimension, but the minor dimension could not have previously been nonexistent, then that means that the fourth dimension is absolute and inevitable.

By implication we can also reason that all physicality, logic, and dimension, is absolute and inevitable.

...and somehow I got to the multiverse theory on this point. There's crap about the distinction between possibility and actuality that I can't remember where it goes in here.

But the point was, that the general objections to 'god transcends time' I believe I have answers for. Abstract, vague answers, but they're there nonetheless.

 

That's one reason I believe in god.

 

Another, less... 'logical' I guess you could say, is the idea of souls.

If I assume that human beings are the natural evolved product of biology, then I must assume that human beings are 100% physical. If human beings are simply advanced biological machines, then inherent worth is not ... inherent. We are animals. If someone is born mentally retarded, or with extreme physical handicaps, there is no reason why we should see that person with the same worth as a movie star or the president of the united states. There is no 'everyone is equal' here. Worth is based on how advanced you are biologically, no other factor. Is there another factor?

I don't want to come to this conclusion.

 

The assumption that human beings are 100% physical has some issues on its own - namely the idea of concepts. Concepts are nonphysical, so how can something purely physical produce something nonphysical? We are aware of the idea of 'roundness,' but 'roundness' is not a physical object; it is an abstract attribute. How are we able to know that something abstract exists if we are nothing more than a collection of physical electrical impulses?

 

Also... there was a third point on this, but I'm not remembering.

 

There's also the bit about morality. I haven't yet heard an atheistic explanation for morality that I'm fully comfortable with yet, but in this I haven't studied extensively, so I'm really open for suggestions here.

 

 

The third reason I believe in god is abiogenesis. I can understand evolution working okay - I mean I think it has it's problems, but I'd also be willing to figure I could accept it given a bit more study.

But abiogenesis? Really? I can't see any possible way that could have happened naturally, and no explanations I've heard even come close to this.

 

Now, there's a difference between "No explanations come close" and "well we just don't know yet." If it's something non vital to a theory and most probably is just a matter of chemistry or building blocks, sure. I can accept 'we don't know yet.' But something this vital? And we can't come up with any hypothetical situation in which it would work, save a designer? Really?

 

 

All right... that's all the reasons I can think of off the top of my head.

 

And no, I'm *not* a Christian. Bible's too crazy and inconsistent for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

About the god question, I think the following. If there is a god, there is no way i can see it being personal. Its would be a really well thought out prime mover to borrow a term from aristotle. I see no way of disproving that kind of god. It also seems to me that is stop gap I don't know kind of thing, which is not something I truly like in a explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The kind of mind you are talking about doesn't seem like any mind we could recognize as a mind.

 

What is your definition of mind?

 

And how is it different from a mindless process that exists perpetually outside of time firing off universes out of some vacuum flux?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The kind of mind you are talking about doesn't seem like any mind we could recognize as a mind.

 

What is your definition of mind?

 

And how is it different from a mindless process that exists perpetually outside of time firing off universes out of some vacuum flux?

 

Because somehow it came up with human beings, creatures capable of concept, free will, with (presumably) souls.

And I'm not sure what my definition of a mind is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone is born mentally retarded, or with extreme physical handicaps, there is no reason why we should see that person with the same worth as a movie star or the president of the united states.

 

 

See this in itself frightens me. Why the fuck would either of the abovementioned be any more important than anyone else? Movie stars and politicians are NOT on my list of those worth looking up to for ANY reason.

 

What a sad indictment that these self serving egotistical attention whores are "up there" and the rest of us aren't. Vomit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

If someone is born mentally retarded, or with extreme physical handicaps, there is no reason why we should see that person with the same worth as a movie star or the president of the united states.

 

 

See this in itself frightens me. Why the fuck would either of the abovementioned be any more important than anyone else? Movie stars and politicians are NOT on my list of those worth looking up to for ANY reason.

 

What a sad indictment that these self serving egotistical attention whores are "up there" and the rest of us aren't. Vomit.

Your right on the money there galien. The spanish were the ones who were foundational in the concept of natural rights and things like that. I would say atheists could have the same principal just without a soul.

 

Its simply the matter of the fact that you exist I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like a god of the gaps. There are things you do not know or understand, so you fill in the blanks with your version of "god".

 

I am comfortable saying I don't know or I don't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it all depends on how you define 'god,' really. In this case I'm defining him as some sort of creator; an absolute mind, transcendental.

 

No, it doesn't 'all' depend on that, I think that's just preemptively striking out comments on this.

 

I haven't actually tried to put this all down in text before, so it might be fuzzy or unclear. I see it in my head all well enough, it's just communicating it that's the problem.

 

Anyway. There's the whole "Where did the universe come from?" question, the "You can't have a cause without a causer" dealio.

 

The main response I've heard to this is "Well where did God come from?"

 

If God transcends time... then that question is moot.

 

Another response to this is "Science is expanding rapidly all the time. New research in quantum physics is looking promising into the beginning of the universe."

 

My response to that is: Science doesn't trump logic. We use logic to work through science. Our universe exists within time, not out of it, and at some point it HAD to have a beginning (If you dispute this point I'm willing to go into that as well). Quantum mechanics does not disprove causality, or operate outside its laws. This is a simple property of time, and until scientists begin to figure out how to operate outside of time, I think I'm pretty safe in my assumptions here.

 

I'm going to elaborate on the first responses a bit.

 

If God transcends time, then there never was any 'creation' of the time point. Singularity. Dimension. Whatever. This dimension existed perpetually, though I can't even use that word because it also indicates time.

This implies, though, that for an absolute mind to create/spawn/exist with time, time could not be special.

And here's where the extended bits of my reasoning go fuzzy, but I'll try my best.

If an absolute transcendent being is the creator of a minor dimension, but the minor dimension could not have previously been nonexistent, then that means that the fourth dimension is absolute and inevitable.

By implication we can also reason that all physicality, logic, and dimension, is absolute and inevitable.

...and somehow I got to the multiverse theory on this point. There's crap about the distinction between possibility and actuality that I can't remember where it goes in here.

But the point was, that the general objections to 'god transcends time' I believe I have answers for. Abstract, vague answers, but they're there nonetheless.

 

That's one reason I believe in god.

 

 

It basically sounds like you are just mindfucking yourself here. If you look at time as a spatial dimension, it's not so much a mind fuck. The universe simply extends from the big bang infinitely. This assumes there is no time before the big bang, which we cannot know for sure. Also, if the big bang is the starting point, then the energy currently in the universe was present at the beginning. There is no reason to believe the universe started out as nothing with anything needing to be created. And if you use some transcendent god as an explanation, it really doesn't simplify anything. It basically says the universe works by magic. It's no explanation, but people think it gives them license to stop looking for an explanation. Of course, we're not actually obligated to have any explanation, but I guess our curiosity will cause us to always look for answers.

 

 

Another, less... 'logical' I guess you could say, is the idea of souls.

If I assume that human beings are the natural evolved product of biology, then I must assume that human beings are 100% physical. If human beings are simply advanced biological machines, then inherent worth is not ... inherent. We are animals. If someone is born mentally retarded, or with extreme physical handicaps, there is no reason why we should see that person with the same worth as a movie star or the president of the united states. There is no 'everyone is equal' here. Worth is based on how advanced you are biologically, no other factor. Is there another factor?

I don't want to come to this conclusion.

 

 

The ugliness of a truth does not make it any less true. Value is a subjective thing, anyway.

 

 

The assumption that human beings are 100% physical has some issues on its own - namely the idea of concepts. Concepts are nonphysical, so how can something purely physical produce something nonphysical? We are aware of the idea of 'roundness,' but 'roundness' is not a physical object; it is an abstract attribute. How are we able to know that something abstract exists if we are nothing more than a collection of physical electrical impulses?

 

 

Basically, our brains work via a bunch of complex negative and positive feedback mechanisms. We know things because of the impact reality has on our brains via our senses. Our brains evolved abstractions as a way of understanding reality. And asking how x produces y and not getting an answer doesn't mean god did it.

 

 

Also... there was a third point on this, but I'm not remembering.

 

There's also the bit about morality. I haven't yet heard an atheistic explanation for morality that I'm fully comfortable with yet, but in this I haven't studied extensively, so I'm really open for suggestions here.

 

 

Morality is just an abstraction. This really isn't separate from your previous point.

 

 

The third reason I believe in god is abiogenesis. I can understand evolution working okay - I mean I think it has it's problems, but I'd also be willing to figure I could accept it given a bit more study.

But abiogenesis? Really? I can't see any possible way that could have happened naturally, and no explanations I've heard even come close to this.

 

Now, there's a difference between "No explanations come close" and "well we just don't know yet." If it's something non vital to a theory and most probably is just a matter of chemistry or building blocks, sure. I can accept 'we don't know yet.' But something this vital? And we can't come up with any hypothetical situation in which it would work, save a designer? Really?

 

 

This can also be boiled down to "I don't understand, so god must have did it." god isn't an explanation. If your kid asks you how TV's work, you might can give something of an explanation. Most of us cannot give our kids a very good explanation. If we try, it will lead to our kids asking more questions, like "what are radio waves" or "what's an OLED". But, if you tell them it works by magic, then they might be satisfied. Of course, they will have learned nothing, but it'll stop the questions. We need to learn to not accept magic as an explanation, because it simply isn't one.

 

Scientists might be getting closer to a good explanation for abiogenesis, but they're not there yet. That's ok. If we already knew everything, scientists would be very bored. We wouldn't want that, would we. You say it is something vital. Abiogenesis is not a vital part of the theory of evolution. It is not a part of the theory of evolution at all. It, however, is a part of a bigger theory of everything that is closely related to evolution. If knowledge about the grand scheme of things is so vital, then doesn't the subject deserve a better explanation than "god did it"?

 

All right... that's all the reasons I can think of off the top of my head.

 

And no, I'm *not* a Christian. Bible's too crazy and inconsistent for that.

 

 

That's a relief. But don't think you need to run to god as an explanation. It is better to accept that you cannot know everything than to accept a fairy tale as a substitute for the truth. But, then again, believing in god is not a crime against humanity. You are certainly not obligated to anyone to become an atheist. One might say you are obligated to yourself to find out the truth to the best of your ability, but even that is not true unless ultimate truths are something you strongly value.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also believe in God, the God in whose mind the universe and our own minds exist.

This means that your every thought is actually within His mind also, isn't that weird?

Atheists like to talk about "god of the gaps" because they cannot imagine that reality could extend beyond the world of logic, beyond the world of cause and effect, beyond the world of time and space.

Our limited minds cannot go there by mere thinking and therefore these atheists say they "have no need for a god".

But their every breath, their whole existence depends on God because they exist only in His dream.

God is not a being, he doesn't exist as a product of something else, He does not need a brain to produce thoughts.

He is unimaginable to us and of a totally different dimension then the ones we are used to.

I believe He is intimately connected with nature yet He lets that nature be ruled by logically explainable processes including the evolution of new life forms.

Even though God can never be seen or proven by logic and reasoning, I think in the not too distant future all kinds of discoveries will reveal that there is some mysterious cosmic consciousness hidden behind or within the smallest particles and the processes that rule their behaviour and the behaviour of the essential processes of life.

This will make scientists wonder what the deeper meaning of particles, life and evolution is.

 

I dislike religion because it is tied too much to myths, dogma and superstitions and is often narrow minded and sectarian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is not a being, he doesn't exist as a product of something else, He does not need a brain to produce thoughts.

He is unimaginable to us and of a totally different dimension then the ones we are used to.

 

By "God is not a being" do you mean not a corporeal being - if s/he can think then s/he is a being! if s/he is a "not being" doesn't that mean s/he is non-existent?

 

isn't it meaningless to speculate about such things? If s/he is apprehensible to our minds as (some) Christians claim their god is, or is otherwise detectable then s/he could be said to exist. If s/he is unknowable and un-detectable, then surely s/he does not exist and has the same status as the flying spaghetti monster?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

I don't see the value in citing magic as the cause when you don't understand something. If I see the sun and don't know what it is or how our solar system works I might claim it is a golden chariot traversing the sky each day. I'd have an explanation, but it's the wrong explanation.

 

God is whatever you decide to make it, as evidenced by the huge variety of gods that have been invented throughout history. Humans have their traits, morals, foibles and desires then assign their design and responsibility to their god.

 

One day we worship the moon as a goddess and the next we are setting foot on it and planting a flag. We don't know everything and probably never will. That's no reason to imagine that the elusive answers are somehow magic and beyond the natural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The kind of mind you are talking about doesn't seem like any mind we could recognize as a mind.

 

What is your definition of mind?

 

And how is it different from a mindless process that exists perpetually outside of time firing off universes out of some vacuum flux?

 

Because somehow it came up with human beings, creatures capable of concept, free will, with (presumably) souls.

And I'm not sure what my definition of a mind is.

 

It seems like a huge leap to go from some nebulous, ill defined mind to "it came up with." Maybe "it" didn't. Maybe, after spinning off almost an infinity of universes it just so happened human beings capable of concept and (arguably) free will evolved. It's next universe might have been filled with nothing but purple shag carpet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also believe in God, the God in whose mind the universe and our own minds exist.

This means that your every thought is actually within His mind also, isn't that weird?

 

Why do you believe this?

 

Atheists like to talk about "god of the gaps" because they cannot imagine that reality could extend beyond the world of logic, beyond the world of cause and effect, beyond the world of time and space.

 

It is because there is no evidence of anything beyond "the world of logic, ..."

 

Our limited minds cannot go there by mere thinking and therefore these atheists say they "have no need for a god".

 

It isn't just saying we have no need for god. The need for god or lack there of is irrelevant to his actual existence.

 

But their every breath, their whole existence depends on God because they exist only in His dream.

 

According to what evidence?

 

God is not a being, he doesn't exist as a product of something else, He does not need a brain to produce thoughts.

 

God is not a being because he is a figment of human imagination. He exists as a product of human minds, just like all other fictional characters. He does not need a brain to produce thoughts, because we imagine his thoughts for him.

 

He is unimaginable to us and of a totally different dimension then the ones we are used to.

 

He is only what we have imagined him to be, just like all other fictional characters.

 

I believe He is intimately connected with nature yet He lets that nature be ruled by logically explainable processes including the evolution of new life forms.

Even though God can never be seen or proven by logic and reasoning, I think in the not too distant future all kinds of discoveries will reveal that there is some mysterious cosmic consciousness hidden behind or within the smallest particles and the processes that rule their behaviour and the behaviour of the essential processes of life.

This will make scientists wonder what the deeper meaning of particles, life and evolution is.

 

Why do you believe any of this? It is one thing to speculate about what might be that we don't know yet. It's quite another to base belief on pure speculation.

 

Maybe its that the truth just isn't sexy enough. I recently watched "The Social Network", a movie about the founding of Facebook. Like with other movies based on a true story, I tried to go see how much of it was fictionalized, and like many such movies, it was heavily fictionalized. But the absolute truth would have been too boring to sell tickets. Maybe this is how it is for many theists. A purely natural universe just isn't as cool as it would be with whatever god they can imagine, at least not to them. But however cool reality is or isn't, it is still reality.

 

I dislike religion because it is tied too much to myths, dogma and superstitions and is often narrow minded and sectarian.

 

This is no doubt the most important statement of your post. Ultimately, no cute puppies are going to get murdered by you believing in god. Our debate about the existence of god might not be much more important than arguing about who will win the superbowl. Religion, on the other hand, is often very harmful. At least we can agree on your most important statement. :3:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Atheists like to talk about "god of the gaps" because they cannot imagine that reality could extend beyond the world of logic, beyond the world of cause and effect, beyond the world of time and space.

I disagree.

 

As an atheist, I can imagine many things beyond the current reality. God is only one of the alternatives to what we can imagine to exist beyond our reality. I'd say it's the reversed. To only consider God as the only imaginable thing beyond our reality, is to have too little imagination. You have to have more imagination to consider more answers than just God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time itself is probably complex. It most likely is not as simple as numbers on a line. In addition, there most likely are such things as causal loops in nature.

 

We think we understand things. And we have reason to suspect it. Humans have been spectacularly successful as a species, so we must have some kind of grip on reality. But I think we have a long, long way to go.

 

If people wish to bestow personality to the great mystery of existence and call it God, then so be it. As for me, I am growing ever more comfortable with present uncertainty. I have faith that if humanity is given the opportunity then our understandings will grow.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Concerning the origin of the universe, "Goddidit" doesn't solve anything, it justs brings us to the logical question of who/what caused god? Then you have the paradox of creation ex nihilo again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Love Dog

 

We are animals. If someone is born mentally retarded, or with extreme physical handicaps, there is no reason why we should see that person with the same worth as a movie star or the president of the united states. There is no 'everyone is equal' here. Worth is based on how advanced you are biologically, no other factor. Is there another factor?

 

There is also the factor of human compassion. Well developed in some humans. Are you speaking for yourself or for everyone with your statement?

 

I'm sure that parents and loved ones of people with mental or physical disabilities see them as having just as much "worth" as anyone else and indeed, this is surely part of our modern morality and compassion, to give equal opportunity to all? It's certainly part of mine as an atheist. Hopefully we've come a long way with our regard for those less fortunate and overcome the prejudice and poor treatment that has been prevalent in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "God is not a being" do you mean not a corporeal being - if s/he can think then s/he is a being! if s/he is a "not being" doesn't that mean s/he is non-existent?

 

isn't it meaningless to speculate about such things? If s/he is apprehensible to our minds as (some) Christians claim their god is, or is otherwise detectable then s/he could be said to exist. If s/he is unknowable and un-detectable, then surely s/he does not exist and has the same status as the flying spaghetti monster?

 

Not a being in the sense that God cannot be objectified in any way. He is the Supreme Subjectivity in which all objects including ourselves are a projection.

What is the use of speaking of existent or non-existent when you are considering a dimension where time and space do not exist?

And what about your own existence, how can you be 100% sure that your whole existence is not just a very complicated dream you are unable to wake up from?

 

It is not meaningless, it is trying to make sense on a cosmic scale of why there is such a thing as the objective world and why there are living entities like ourselves who can have a subjective relationship with objects. Everyone starts and ends with the question 'who am I' or what exactly is the subjective 'I-feeling'?

 

The flying spaghetti monster is certainly not like God because it can fit in your small mind and God could never fit in such a small mind since he is limitless [no time or space].

If you never wonder about what consciousness has to do with the physical world, you are as good as dead.

Atheists are scared of thinking about these things, they are afraid to lose touch with what they think is reality.

But actually their sense of reality is a mere shadow of a shadow of what the real reality is like when you are able to merge your 'small I' with the Cosmic Consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder, why is it that stickwitch does not believe atheists can be moral? How do you define morality? Do you realize that morality is completely subjective? Your idea that if I do not believe someone has a soul makes me want to harm the disabled is startling. I would not harm them for the simple fact that it is illegal and I should have no say on a family matter. Just know this: If I am ever in a persistent vegetative state I want to be killed. The same goes for a persistent coma. If I am ever diagnosed with Alzheimers or any other disease that cripples my mind I want to have the option to commit suicide before I completely lose my faculties.

 

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. It is fine to believe that a deity created life, but serves no practical purpose. Did you know that at one time scientists believed that there was a universal life force that spontaneously created maggots, some fish, and bacteria? Eventually this theory was tested out of existence because the evidence does not back up spontaneous creation. Why would this have been different at the start of our solar system? Why would the deity step out and not continue to create new life forms out of nothing?

 

You say that deity cannot be understood or even comprehended.but you seem to know quite a bit about it. What do you know that we do not? Is it more likely that a god or goddess created the universe or that it happened spontaneously? We have no evidence for a supernatural being, just like we had no evidence of a universal life force that spontaneously created maggots. Just because we do not yet understand something does not make that thing less true. It would be like me denying the existence of Australia because I had never been there.

 

May I ask what evidence you have for souls? Then can I ask your definition of a soul? If your souls is the voice in your head when you talk to yourself then yes, all humans capable of thought and consciousness have souls. So do dolphins, as some tests have shown that they are self aware. If you believe that a souls comes simply from being human and is unrelated to our physiology then I will need your definition and proof of it.

 

To be fair, I also believe in deities and souls. I just don't think these topics are debatable because there is no proof other than it makes you feel good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galien:

Perhaps not the best example. Let's evaluate it simply on intelligence, then. Someone with a 180 IQ should be worth more than someone with a 50 IQ, because they can contribute more to society and are functioning on a higher level of sophistication.

 

Wade:

I'm comfortable saying i don't know in only certain situations. If I have a worldview, I cannot have things that seem to be contradictory, inconsistant, or without any sort of logical explanation. Atheism presents problems to which I am not comfortable passing off with a simple "I don't know." We don't approve of Christians when they treat Christianity like that, so why should we justify it ourselves?

 

Magick Monkey:

I assume there is no time before the big bang. I don't believe time is capable of extending into the past for an infinite amount - that means we'd have to have traveled an infinite amount of time to get to this spot, which is problematic.

If the big bang is the starting point, sure, all the energy current was present then. I have no problem with that. My problem is the fact that there was a 'starting point' at all.

And no - this is where the deeper bits of it come in. It is not magic, but it is all absolute. And when I say absolute I don't mean in the sense that it transcends, but that everything is absolutely inevitible. That's where I think I go more mindfucky, but I'm still working it out. xD

And it doesn't give license to 'stop looking' for an explanation, but this sure as hell is more of an explanation than atheists have.

 

And your second point does not address the problem I brought up.

 

Neither does your response to morality. To be fair, though, I wasn't very eloquent or specific there myself.

 

No.... no.... I've studied abiogenesis. When it comes to evolution I don't know exactly how it works - I'd explain it like I explain the TV. "Well, it sort of works like this, and that sort of works like that..." But if my child went "But it /can't/ work like that, because of this reason and this reason," and I went and looked it up and they were actually right, I'd be like holy shit, this TV doesn't work like I thought it does!

 

Abiogenesis has no plausible explanation. I'm not willing to say "Oh, they'll figure it out eventually" when it's something so vital and something that presents such vast philosophical quandaries and improbable odds. It's important. I find it extremely hard to accept.

 

No, here I disagree with you incredibly. My theory right now, while not perfect, fills far more holes than atheism does. I would rather hold onto something even slightly more plausible than something to which you can only say "I don't know."

 

Litassio:

That was trippy. I have no idea what the hell to say to that.

 

Florduh:

That doesn't really address anything I said specifically. Lovely thoughts, though.

 

Oddbird:

I find that also improbable. From what I've studied things seem to indicate there was some sort of designer. Not the Christian god, but simply 'designer.' My reasons for this are listed above.

 

Ouroboros:

True to an extent. Imagination definitely helps, but only for bringing up possibilities which then can be analyzed.

 

Legion:

Again, I am not comfortable with throwing out an "I don't know." That was an answer for a lot of things in Christianity, and "I don't know" kept me hanging on to a faith that was only faith. I refuse to accept that anymore. I'm going off my own reasoning and the evidence that I have studied. Uncertainty is no easy out anymore.

 

Par4dcourse:

...I addressed that. Specifically. So people wouldn't have to bring up that point and I wouldn't have to go back and be like 'I addressed that.'

I Love Dog:

I'm not saying atheists have less compassion, I'm saying that human beings in general have compassion. And this doesn't seem to chime with the logical conclusion that we should see those with less intelligence as less valuable as those with more.

I don't like that conclusion, which is why I'm currently rejecting the theory that human beings are soulless.

 

Bdp:

I brought up movie stars as an example of what people would mourn greatly, en masse, if they died. More of a generic example of 'worth.' Probably not the best example, though. And i just used the word 'example' three times. Heh.

 

Litassio:

Again, random trippy stuff.

 

Bdp:

Yeah. I mean that whole 'brain in a vat' theory is possible, but it would never lead anywhere productive, so it's useless to consider as a legitimate alternative.

 

SleeplessGhost:

No no no no no, I'm not saying atheists can't be moral! Not at all! I'm saying that the atheistic explanation for morality doesn't make sense. Not that they don't have it or that they're bad people. Not at all! I'm saying that the fact atheists have morality is contradictory to their beliefs. That's what I'm saying.

 

And I'm less concerned about 'practical purpose' then I am about finding the truth. If a diety created life and then left it, then atheism is false. The end.

 

And I'm not saying that a diety can't be understood or comprehended. You are making assumptions and putting up suggestions that I never support, nor do I address specifically.

AND AGAIN, I do NOT accept "I don't know" as an answer when it comes to vital or problematic questions.

 

I don't have evidence for a soul, I never claimed to - I only discussed the problems that would be brought up with the assumptiont hat souls do not exist.

 

Please try to be more specific and logical - and actually read what I say - when responding next time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galien:

Perhaps not the best example. Let's evaluate it simply on intelligence, then. Someone with a 180 IQ should be worth more than someone with a 50 IQ, because they can contribute more to society and are functioning on a higher level of sophistication.

Sorry, but that might not be true.

 

The old IQ concept has been dropped and been replaced with new concepts.

 

People who scored high on the IQ tests were not necessarily better in business.

 

I heard about a research that was done years ago, where they noticed that Vale Dictorians did not end up with the highest paying jobs.

 

There are different kinds of intelligence, and IQ is a poor measurement of them.

 

There's a place for everyone. It's dangerous to measure people's worth based on their IQ.

 

Ouroboros:

True to an extent. Imagination definitely helps, but only for bringing up possibilities which then can be analyzed.

The claim was that atheists do not believe in God because they can't imagine it.

 

I'd say it's wrong.

 

It's not that they don't believe because they can't imagine. Some of us don't believe because we can imagine more answers than just "God."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galien:

Perhaps not the best example. Let's evaluate it simply on intelligence, then. Someone with a 180 IQ should be worth more than someone with a 50 IQ, because they can contribute more to society and are functioning on a higher level of sophistication.

 

 

Then let's hope you never have a developmentally delayed child. Just because this world has a bizarre pecking order where the most dishonest, corrupt and manipulative get to decide who has "worth", doesn't mean you have to adhere to it. I don't.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because somehow it came up with human beings, creatures capable of concept, free will, with (presumably) souls.

And I'm not sure what my definition of a mind is.

So a being, a creature, capable of concept, and has a free will, and a spirit (or soul), is required to come up with human beings, creatures capable of concepts, free will, and soul?

 

You are suggesting that rocks are required to create rocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans have been spectacularly successful as a species, so we must have some kind of grip on reality. .

 

 

 

I cannot possibly imagine how you draw that conclusion. Must be the arrogance we so cleverly cultivate. Is that what makes us so spectacular???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.