yeah thats what im saying. theres only one thing that you can possibly believe for rational reasons (aka the truth): you dont know jack.
but people can still believe things for irrational reasons, like consolation or hatred and angst. i think the irrational reasons for being atheist include hatred and angst and the ones for being theist include love and hope. if you want to be irrational, i think its clear that there is a better choice that shouldnt be avoided due to its alleged logical impossibility.
when you use the word exist, you have failed to take into account the possibility that the word means something entirely different when not used in this universe. there are a million ways to describe the failure of the creator to abide by the laws which govern the things we are familiar with, regardless of whether or not that creator is conscious, mechanical, or some other category in that vein that we cant even think of (something besides consciousness and unconsciousness!).
of course the existence of god only poses more questions. so does the existence of a mechanical god. the purpose of this post IS NOT TO PROVE THEISM. it is to prove that atheism is as invalid as theism and if you want to believe one over the other, your reasons are either irrational or have not been mentioned in this thread.
i dont want people to prove agnosticism is the only real deal because i already know that. i want people to try and prove that atheism, strong or weak, is more valid than agnosticism. i dont even need rational reasons, id enjoy discussing irrational ones too.
?? I know. That’s why I said it depends on what you are seeking.
One irrational choice is better than another irrational choice? Why be be irrational at all? I dont agree with you anyway. I think that’s just you idealizing faith…you old romantic, you. Claiming atheists are driven by hate and theists are motivated by some sort of superior moral urge is just a brute assertion based on nothing much. How black and white. I can think of a whole spectrum of psychological reasons someone might choose atheism or belief irrationally and not all of them need involve love or hate. I can also think of loving reasons someone might deny the possibility of God and nasty reasons why someone might have a vested interest in believing in God so I dont think your claim is just.
I’ve always taken the common definition of atheism to mean disbelief in God, perhaps even the denial of the possibility of a particular God…but not a denial of the possibility of the existence of God per se. If you are using the latter definion then ok, that is not entirely rational, since there is always a possibility of God.
If we’re not talking about a specific God or a God with characteristics though, we have the problem of what God means?
Theists often accuse atheists of holding an irrational position, because God must be possible…but at the same time fail to define what they mean by God. In that situation, the atheist can hardly be expected to know what he is s’posed to be believing in or not believing in.
well the specific description of god that i am saying is irrefutable is the god who created the universe in order to accomplish some goal that is not related to corporeal humanity and not even necessarily related to our souls, if they even exist.
the universe is a machine that spews metaphysical byproducts due to the actions of humans. i like to think its specifically the selfless actions, and i think this second part of the theory is similarly irrefutable, but not quite as much.
and when i say irrefutable, of course i simply mean that theres no reason to think its wrong. it fits the evidence perfectly fine. but so do many things. the point is that a conscious god who cares about the actions of humans is not a logical impossibility, so therefore the logical impossibility of any conscious god CANT be your reason for calling yourself an atheist.
so why would someone say that a mechanical god is MORE likely than what i said? isnt occams razor not a good enough reason to believe in the mechanical god more than the conscious one? and isnt someone who says that both are equally likely called an agnostic?
arent we all agnostic!!? or irrational. i want to know more reasons for why people are atheist. the best reason for atheism proposed so far was occams razor says that since everything else is mechanical, the creator ought to be. i refuted that by saying that the creator exists in a place entirely, unimaginably different from a world defined by mechanics or even occams razor. is that a good enough rebuttal?
Some might say that…what can be asserted without evidence can also be refuted without evidence.
But ok, Yes I would say it is irrefutable. I dont think that means very much though, as it’s only irrefutable in the sense that all assertions about God are irrefutable. If someone claimed God was a giant pink bunny with blue ears it would be no less provable than your assertion, though it might seem less sensible. There may be no reason to think your idea of God is wrong, but neither is there any reason to think it’s right. So I would argue that it’s philosophically irrefutable, but not in any meaningful way.
I must not be the person you want to talk to Futureman, since I’m not someone who denies even the possibility of God. For all practical purposes I’m an atheist, but philosophically I call myself an agnostic, because of that very clause, ie:…the possibility of God cant be logically refuted.
No…it’s just another brute assertion. Since you have nothing to back it up there’s no reason to suppose that’s the case. It may be a possibility, but a possibility is not a rebuttal…it’s a supposition.
But I’d say that there is a distinction to be made in atheist/theist theology. For the Theist argument a God/intelligent designer must exist before(Yes,no time but…)/outside the universe, therefore it is a fundamentally incomplete argument.
Atheism is complete argument, and evidence consistently backs it.
And personally the best reason for belief in a God (generally) is it can’t be disproved, no way does that cut any ice with me.
its the exact same as the supposition that claims the opposite. my pro-theist argument that claims the meta-world is too complicated to apply occams razor is EXACTLY as valid as the pro-atheist argument that claims the meta-world is not too complicated to apply occams razor. they are both not valid at all since we know nothing about it.
i still dont understand why youd call yourself atheist if you continue to be undecided. is the reason for your use of the word atheist the idea that a mechanical creator is simpler than the conscious creator? i dont understand how it is more simple, or what gave you the idea that it is more simple.
the word simple, and occams razor, depend on what things in the system are considered simple. its possible that the meta-world would actually require more complexity in order to create a universe mechanically and not consciously. you cant say that mechanical is more simple than conscious because you dont know what is simple in the meta-world. you dont know anything. ive assumed that this simplicity issue is why you use the word atheist, is there another reason?
for the atheist argument, a machine/mechanical designer must exist before/outside the universe, therefore they are both fundamentally incomplete arguments.
how is atheism complete in this regard, and what evidence supports atheism more than it supports the omnisoul? occams razor is not evidence because we dont know which of the two is more simple in the meta world. sure, a conscious designer is more complicated and less likely in our world, but that doesnt mean that that idea applies to the meta world which created our world.
i think its entirely impossible for you to have evidence that supports atheism. evidence that disproves organized religion is not the same thing.
No thats not the reason. I dont know why anything exists or whether or not one explanation is simpler than another. It may be that the universe just happened without cause or it may be the result of a conscious creator or something else I cant conceive of.
It is confusing I suppose…and I probaby I should just say I’m an agnostic and leave it at that. The reason I consider myself an atheist in the practical sense is because I dont have any belief in any God. The way things stand, I dont believe that anyone is able to define God in any sense other than imaginative. God is unknowable. In practice that means I reject any idea of God that’s thrown my way, because it can only be a product of human fancy. That doesn’t mean I dont consider what God might be,should he exist or am not interested in what others think and say about it…it just means I cant believe it.
“Whether God exists or does not exist, He has come to rank among the most sublime and useless truths”.
In that case the machine designer is God, theism in my book.
What I am saying is that a fundamental tenent of God is that he exists before/outside the universe and therefore the theist argument is fundamentally incomplete (there is always a further level/universe/whatever to explain).
Atheism has no designer and therefore the universe is a complete package. If there are different dimensions they are explainable and not supernatural in the same way as theism states.
(I agree with the first sentence in the direct sense but not the second) Actually it is, what has atheism to prove exactly? It states religion is wrong and there is no God, therefore disproof of religion is chalking one up for atheism. If organised religion is wrong then atheism is right.
To be more complete, neither atheism or theism has “proof” availible, only the likelihood of being correct. Therefore the less likely one is, the more favourable the other is.
the problem is that the universe is not at all a complete package. “where did the big bang come from?” is a question that doesnt really make sense. i mean, it could turn out to be a physical process in a higher dimension which is contained in our universe and is defined by our laws, but then you have to ask, where did that stuff come from, too?
where did the chain of causation start?
the answer to this question must live in an area that doesnt contain the idea of time. if it contains time, then the question can apply to it as well, as it must have been caused by something.
so if a physical process existed in this land without time, you would refer to it as god? so you think that the entire existence of this land without time is actually less probable than ‘the universe is infintely old’?
i dont buy the “universe is infinitely old” idea because absolutely nothing is infinite. space cruves around on itself after a set distance, black holes are extremely dense and perhaps rip a hole in the fabric but its a finite hole, the big bang did not necessarily start as a singularity, etc. infinite is a math anomaly and has never been observed. i dont believe it exists under any circumstances.
well i agree that organized religion is wrong and i think that validates my theism just fine. well, it doesnt really validate it, its about as unrelated as proving that the used car salesmen is also telling lies.
you need to explain to me that the completeness of the universe package is more likely than the requirement for a creation in a land without time. prove, or just suggest subtly, that infinite time is more likely than an invisible place without time that contains a creator. i havent seen you do that, and our disproof of organized religion absolutely has no bearing on this.
— the reason why god created the universe is the same reason why anybody ever created anything: he wanted to obtain some selfish purpose.
O- That is it?! St Augustine and Luther would simply have said that the universe was as it is because God was pleased that it was so. What I see is a lack of originality and a continuation of Religious irrationality. Why is God selfish?
Webster’s defines it as “concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
2 : arising from concern with one’s own welfare or advantage in disregard of othersâ€
But, I fail to see how a God would be concerned with his own welfare or advantage, or anything for that matter outside of It-self. I can see how a finite being, in time and space, can experience a self, but not something which is beyond those concepts.
— when a soul is placed into a life of selflessness, he recalibrates himself into the large metaphysical entity and that entity then works more optimally.
O- How do you know?
— when a soul is placed in a poor person (if they ever even are which i want to doubt), they are merely being used for the purposes of motivating the selflessness of the others.
O- How do you know?
— evil exists because without, there is no need for selflessness.
O- How do you know?
— god’s existence cannot be proven because what he wants from us is true selflessness for the sake of our fellow souls.
O- How would that improve God? Why would he need to care?
— he does not want us to know he exists because if we did, the motivation for our selfless actions would cease to be purely loving our neighbors and would be partially motivated by our desire to please or appease god.
O- So God wants us to be atheists because what is important is not that we are theist but selfless?
the omnisoul is made up of components that, through wear and tear, eventually need to be recalibrated. this description is merely the best way i can describe it, but its much more metaphysically complicated and cant be comprehended by our feeble brains.
yes exactly. he doesnt care if we believe in him (and would prefer if we didnt) because the belief in god is the exact same as the belief in anything and accomplishes no good other than the same amount of good accomplished by believing in other things that have no effect on the universe. believing that selflessness will cause the most happiness in the universe is not the same because its clearly true and holding the belief will affect the universe very much.
this thread isnt about proving the omnisoul theory, its about proving that you cant say that you believe that god doesnt exist based on your rational discovery that all explanations for his actions are logically unsound. the god who created the universe in order to harvest a metaphysical byproduct is logically sound, and is not subject to questions like
“why does a god who wants only for humans to be happy create evil?”
“how can he judge my free will if he is the jerk who created it” or
“why does he care if i believe something with no evidence” or
“what does dying and resurrecting have to do with forgiving my sins” or
“why would a god create beings who feel happiness for the sole purpose of creating happiness, how would this idea even occur to him, and couldnt he be spending his universe creation powers doing something more productive?”
these are all inescapable problems that prevent me from believing any mainstream religion, but not from believing in god, or even believing in selflessness.
and their “explanation” must face the first and last question i have in quotes there.
this sentence seems to be contradicting itself. what is “It-self” and how is that not the same as “his own welfare or advantage”?
there are many omnisouls in meta-land and when they need recalibration, they hook themselves up to the universe machine and their component souls are separated into human bodies to go through the test of selflessness that we all know we are going through. this test recalibrates them, it makes the components realize they need to work as a team when they are reunited in the omnisoul.
why is a finite being more able to be selfish than a being in meta-land? what do you know about beings in meta-land? of course there are potential ambiguous innaccuracies if im trying to describe something entirely different from everything weve all ever seen. but the difference between my theory and the traditional ones would be that the problems with my theory stem from our lack of understanding of the meta-land, not from more fundamental, familiar, non-meta-land problems like the ones in quotes up there that apply to our world as well as meta-land.
i have not proven this theory, or tried. i have proven that it cant be disproven, and therefore you cant say that you are atheist because all theories of god are disproven. if you say you are an atheist, there is some emotional reason why you lean that way. your dad probably didnt love you.
or you just believe that there was no creation, and the universe just existed forever and, unlike everything else, ever, it has no cause. this is a belief that is exactly the same as theism and is exactly as wildly speculative. occams razor does not apply!!
and anyone who is “against god” is so not because of logical impossibilities of any description of his existence, but because of reasons that are as irrational, emotional, unfounded, unapplicable (occam), and unproven as the reasons why im theist.
Your reply
— this thread isnt about proving the omnisoul theory
O- I don’t even think it is then appropiate to call it a “theory”. It barely passes as a “hypothesis” and more correct would be to consider it an opinion or a baseless speculation…and I don’t mean this in a disrespectful way.
— its about proving that you cant say that you believe that god doesnt exist based on your rational discovery that all explanations for his actions are logically unsound.
O- You are already at “his actions”? Seems to me then that you’re not very understanding of atheism. It has nothing to do with “his actions”. Some might try to disprove God that way but they only could in fact succeed at disproving what has been written about the literary concept “God”. But atheism is wider in scope and simply posits, as that you have no need for this concept other than to soothe your emotions. Your entire “theory” could be expressed without any need for the supernatural.
— the god who created the universe in order to harvest a metaphysical byproduct is logically sound, and is not subject to questions like
“why does a god who wants only for humans to be happy create evil?”
“how can he judge my free will if he is the jerk who created it” or
“why does he care if i believe something with no evidence” or
“what does dying and resurrecting have to do with forgiving my sins” or
“why would a god create beings who feel happiness for the sole purpose of creating happiness, how would this idea even occur to him, and couldnt he be spending his universe creation powers doing something more productive?”
O- I can see from these questions that your opponent seems to be a christian atheist. That what you are seeking to defend is the Christian view of God. Very well. I ask one question. Is God Perfect?
— these are all inescapable problems that prevent me from believing any mainstream religion, but not from believing in god, or even believing in selflessness.
O- It is not that you are free from believing in all religions, but that you are a christian gnostic. A mystic.
Quote:
St Augustine and Luther would simply have said that the universe was as it is because God was pleased that it was so
and their “explanation” must face the first and last question i have in quotes there.
O- What is that? “why does a god who wants only for humans to be happy create evil?”
Augustine: Because it pleased God so. Remember that he created certain pottery for destruction and others for noble ends. Remember that it is not the first but the second that is spiritual.
“why would a god create beings who feel happiness for the sole purpose of creating happiness, how would this idea even occur to him, and couldnt he be spending his universe creation powers doing something more productive?”
Augustine: What would you rather be? Active or inactive? Nobility comes from action not laziness. When you become God, then you might do with your powers as you would, but what ever you do, will be as subject to your question as to your judgment: Couldn’t you be doing something more productive. But the finite cannot ask “more” of the infinite, as God itself would be the limit and his action or inaction the limit of what can be done. It is the ignorance of man that speculates as such on matters it can never know about, as a mortal taxating gods!!
Quote:
I fail to see how a God would be concerned with his own welfare or advantage, or anything for that matter outside of It-self.
— this sentence seems to be contradicting itself. what is “It-self” and how is that not the same as “his own welfare or advantage”?
O- Very good! You are correct. The statement should read (and consider it my correction and response) "I fail to see how a god (impersonal) would be concerned with it’s (impersonal) own welfare or advantage, or anything for that matter outside of It-self(impersonal).
— i have not proven this theory, or tried. i have proven that it cant be disproven
O- The virtue of a theory, Future Man, if you believe Popper, is it’s ability to be disproved.
— and therefore you cant say that you are atheist because all theories of god are disproven.
O- If by “theories” you mean “religions” then I would say that for the faithful who defend those theories, they have never been disproved…just like you and yours. I already have showed you the logical imperturbability of Christianity through the eyes of Augustine.
— if you say you are an atheist, there is some emotional reason why you lean that way. your dad probably didnt love you.
O- Freud, would have some good insights on you as well.
— or you just believe that there was no creation, and the universe just existed forever and, unlike everything else, ever, it has no cause.
O- That is the pickle Future Man. If you wish to argue causality, then you can always ask: “and what was the cause of that?”. Oreso already made the point that to require that the universe itself have a cause but allow God to be without one is to change the rules of the game mid-way throught the match. It is dishonest and fails logical standards of debate, in my opinion. Even the Big Bang, once the secular religion of many, has been losing groumd to a M-Theory that posits that the Bang is just one in many and that the “universe” forms a part of a “multi-verse”.
I am just saying that the options are there.
Not necessarily…God as a construct…as a reality…can be opposed on mora grounds, personal grounds…indeed, one may believe that God itself has an attitude problem.
well i have moral, personal reasons for believing that he does not have an attitude problem and is great. but im not going to be able to convince any atheists why they should agree with these things because
my pro-god reasons are as irrational, emotional, unfounded, unapplicable (occam), and unproven as your anti-god reasons.
and any similar theory that claims to incompletely describe this same thing in the same incomplete way that i have done without appealing to supernatural-ness is exactly as invalid, useless and empty as my theory. what im trying to say is that atheists cant explain creation any better than i can.
i DO think that atheists (and i) can explain creation better than christians like augustine. "St Augustine and Luther would simply have said that the universe was as it is because God was pleased that it was so " this is a total copout, explains nothing, but can be used to explain absolutely anything. furthermore, it somewht coincides with my theory, as i would say that god is pleased with the metaphysical byproduct that is being created by the actions of humans. i feel this addendum adds so much to the christian idea that the “theory” is equivalent in validity to the two equally baseless “theories” of atheism: the universe was created by a nonconscious physical system, and the universe existed forever.
why did he want two pots? why is one of them spiritual? what is the other one? what does spiritual mean?
to accomplish work in a physical system, resistance must be overcome. one is better, or spiritual because it indescribably ‘feels good’. the other is the lack of good, which can be identified by humans as the resistance that needs to be overcome. ‘spiritual’ means we are accomplishing the purpose of the universe, which is some kind of machine that benefits the metaworld.
these are valid, yet wildly speculate answers, and im pretty sure they are better than anything christianity has ever provided to me.
first, who said hes infinite? second, what does that even mean? third, if this infiniteness limits his actions, how is he doing whatever action christians say he is doing? whatever, dont try too hard to support christian orthodoxy in an atheism thread, i dont think it will work.
well yeah but im not trying to prove it. im trying to prove that it cant be disproven, which i know will prove that it cant be proven. what proving that it cant be disproven will prove is that atheists cant claim to know that all theories of god are logically disproven in the same way we would all say traditonal christianity is disproven. so therefore their reasons for being atheist are not proven any more than my reasons for being theist are. and those reasons are basically unrelated to the validity of the particular theory we choose to believe.
but the number of questions that remain forever unanswered determines how much a cynical, skeptical atheist will be willing to consider the idea. augustine, as described by you, opened up a whole new box of questions trying to describe why we cant describe these things. an atheist is more willing to believe that the universe existed forever or that we were created by an extra-universal nonconscious god because those scenarios have very few questions that must remain forever unanswered.
im pretty sure my theory has about the same number of unanswerable questions as any atheist alternative. thats the point. my theory is on the same level as any atheist alternative, christianity and friends are not close.
i think so, but he doesnt really do anything, he already did it all. he simply created a playground for humans to run around in, he created happiness that feels good, he created a situation of limited resources that requires selflessness in order to create the most of this happiness, and he made it impossible to prove his existence. thats all he needed to do in order to accomplish what ive said, and it would appear he has done it pretty perfectly. what is he like in metaland? who cares.
yes exactly. the rules change. in this universe, we have particles that interact with eachother in such a way that gravity exists as aresult of the large scale, specific interactions between these particles. if god lives in a universe that has one particle and no spatial distances, then it would be crazy to suggest that he feels gravity the same way we do. i think time is in the exact same category, and is not some overarching concept that exists in all possible universes. me saying this is exactly as plausible as someone else saying that time must apply to god (i think its actually more plausible, but its at least as plausible, which serves the purpose here just fine)
neat! i always thought i agreed with bob. but i totally dont see the need for the word ‘christ’ in there as i have no respect for any tales of supernatural miracles happening on earth. i should call it ‘selflessnessism’
and any similar theory that claims to incompletely describe this same thing in the same incomplete way that i have done without appealing to supernatural-ness is exactly as invalid, useless and empty as my theory. what im trying to say is that atheists cant explain creation any better than i can.
O- First of all why this need to explain “creation”? Now, the only difference between you and me is that I am content to admit my lack of knowledge and say that at this point we do not understand all. You on the other hand, want things explained immediately and invoke your imagination to fill in the gaps.
Will an explanation be found for “creation” within the natural sciencies? No. Because science asks “How”, not “Why” or “Who”.
— i DO think that atheists (and i) can explain creation better than christians like augustine. "St Augustine and Luther would simply have said that the universe was as it is because God was pleased that it was so " this is a total copout, explains nothing, but can be used to explain absolutely anything.
O- Listen to what you have said:“the reason why god created the universe is the same reason why anybody ever created anything: he wanted to obtain some selfish purpose”. Is saying that the world is as it is because God was pleased that is was so so incredibly different from saying that the world is so because God had some selfish purpose? No. In fact it is quite the same, but you do not see this. So busy are you in distancing yourself from Christianity that you ignore the Christianity of your “Omnisoul Theory”.
— furthermore, it somewht coincides with my theory, as i would say that god is pleased with the metaphysical byproduct that is being created by the actions of humans.
O- But whether the Christian reports what pleases God or you do the same, the question is still open for both of you:“How do you know?” But more than that the atheist calls into question the very existence of God as “God”, as conceived by you and Christians, whether called “abba” or “Omnisoul”. Nothing you have said so far compels my mind to a theistic outlook, let alone be convinced that gods, whatever they may be, experience pain or pleasure. You roll from assumption to assumption while the atheist requires you to prove your assuptions at each step of the way.
— i feel this addendum adds so much to the christian idea that the “theory” is equivalent in validity to the two equally baseless “theories” of atheism: the universe was created by a nonconscious physical system, and the universe existed forever.
O- But the thing is that we can replace the word “universe” and insert “God”, or “Omnisoul”, “Purple Wombat” etc and the question come just the same. How is the atheist theory that the universe existed forever less valid than the thesit’s theory that some God or Soul or Wombat existed forever? You can’t switch the rules of the game mid-point in the match.
— why did he want two pots?
Augustine:"Why, for selfish puposes.
— why is one of them spiritual?
Augustine:“For it pleased God.”
— what is the other one?
Augustine: Carnal.
— what does spiritual mean?
Augustine: The opposite of Flesh. Read Romans.
— to accomplish work in a physical system, resistance must be overcome. one is better, or spiritual because it indescribably ‘feels good’. the other is the lack of good, which can be identified by humans as the resistance that needs to be overcome. ‘spiritual’ means we are accomplishing the purpose of the universe, which is some kind of machine that benefits the metaworld.
O- How do you know?
— these are valid, yet wildly speculate answers, and im pretty sure they are better than anything christianity has ever provided to me.
O- They are imaginative, just as the Raelians or Louis Farakhan, but not valid outside of your mind. I mean that conceptually I could draw wonderful unicorns and they could be said to be valid, to exist, as concepts of my mind now drawn on paper. But just because my vision is visible to others, it does not mean that the unicorn is real as you or I, but real as a concept of the mind, invalid still as a synthetic statement but valid analytically. I bears no reference to what could be the case. It is born and dies in the minds of men, and it is eternal as long as the story is retold and spread like a meme.
— first, who said hes infinite?
O- You make it even easier then. What could “Omni” possibly mean (and apply) for a finite being? If It is finite, like us, then how is it God?
— second, what does that even mean?
O- Look it up in Websters.
— third, if this infiniteness limits his actions, how is he doing whatever action christians say he is doing?
O- The attribute of infinity does not limit his action. But since God is Omni, his potency is the ultimate potency, thus he sets the limit on what is possible and nothing “more”. For example, suppose you have Peewee Herman and Arnold at a California Beach doing weight training. Arnold is the strongest of the two, thus we label him here “God”, or “omni” and Peewee is of course finite in relation to the power of Arnold and thus we label him finite of “us”.
Now, whatever Arnold lifts is, by definition, all that can be lifted. Peewee might say "well why lift up 5 more pounds. The addition will not change the outcome:Whatever Arnold lifts is still by definition all that can be lifted, be it 45 pound or 50 pounds. The additions made are only additions made within the finite mind, which slices the whole into parts of 45, 50, 55 etc. The infinite contains within itself, by definition, all of those, plus some unconceived as of yet numbers the finite minjd could conceive.
Same with your idea of “more”. It is the finiteness of our minds and not with anything in the infinite, that sets, or sees limits where no limit exist. There is no “more” or “less” in “something” (for even such ideas as a name is questionable and identification difficult save as a concept) that is always and all-where.
— whatever, dont try too hard to support christian orthodoxy in an atheism thread, i dont think it will work.
O- Yes it will, because all of us are atheist, all of us. It is just that most of us go one god further. Thus while Augustine is a fervent Christian defender he is also a prosecutor of Manechians and Donatist and other gnostics that have visions similar to yours. Oh, it will work.
— well yeah but im not trying to prove it.
O- But is it much of a Theory? That is the point. Don’t dress it scientifically when it is anything but.
— im trying to prove that it cant be disproven, which i know will prove that it cant be proven.
O- I can’t prove a negative. For all I know there could be pink unicorns somewhere in the universe. It can’t be proven right now nor disproved. But what is the result but the same as all religious sentiment? Faith! I cannot prove nor disprove that the sun will rise up tomorrow, but what of that? My question is then, since your vaunted “Theory” can neither be proved nor disproved but must be taken on faith, what then is the gain to subscribe to such an idea?
But you are trying to claim that there is an Omnisoul, whatever that is, through a negative. In fact you are not even making a claim but simply trying to prove that the theistic position cannot be refuted. But it cannot be refuted because you rather it not be. It cannot be refuted because you and all religious folk, theist, have faith, and that faith lays not on what can be proved or disproved, but on desire that things be this or that way.
— what proving that it cant be disproven will prove is that atheists cant claim to know that all theories of god are logically disproven in the same way we would all say traditonal christianity is disproven.
O- Go ahead and disprove Christianity to Augustine or Luther. Go ahead. I’ll be the mouth piece.
— but the number of questions that remain forever unanswered determines how much a cynical, skeptical atheist will be willing to consider the idea.
O- What idea? Theism. Now, how does one come to believe in that idea which can’t be proven nor disproven? It impresses nothing on my mind, no compelling to either left or right, so I fail to see your point. What question have you really answered when you claim to have not proved nor disproved a thing? You have tried to put new wine in old skins, but the skin has ruptured. An atheist might simply say that you have proven that God is only needed by our psyche, our vanity and not by nature and reality.
— augustine, as described by you, opened up a whole new box of questions trying to describe why we cant describe these things.
O- Augustine did exactly as you and all other theist must do. In order to erect a fantastic logical construct, one must first laid the foundation in an illogical idea-- and that Future Man, and not what comes after within the construct is what separates your theist and your atheist.
— an atheist is more willing to believe that the universe existed forever or that we were created by an extra-universal nonconscious god because those scenarios have very few questions that must remain forever unanswered.
Augustine: The pagans believe solely by the grace of God not by anything they could gain alone or proudly boast of. It is not the soundness of the argument but the power of the Cross that compels them!
— what is he like in metaland? who cares.
O- You are the one who brings up metaland and then do not care for it anymore?!
— yes exactly. the rules change. in this universe, we have particles that interact with eachother in such a way that gravity exists as aresult of the large scale, specific interactions between these particles. if god lives in a universe that has one particle and no spatial distances, then it would be crazy to suggest that he feels gravity the same way we do.
O- But that was not my suggestion at all. I was not asking about particles, gravity or how “he feels”. I simply said that if a god did not need a cause then why would you require one of the universe?
the purpose of the thread is to prove that atheists are the same way. and when you get down to a rational explanation of what we know, the only possible answer is agnosticism. if you think anything besides that, its not a real sound reason, its emotional or wishful thinking like you describe here.
im not trying to prove the omnisoul is real (which maybe i should call the multi-soul; its a combination of many which need to be separately recalibrated. its not infinite). im trying to prove that its as plausible as an infinitely old universe with no creation or whatever other atheist theory.
“We tend to scoff at the beliefs of the ancients. But we can’t scoff at them personally, to their faces, and this is what annoys me.” - deep thought by jack handey
im better than them. and i think most people who would call themselves atheists agree that they know something, or have some feeling that those guys didnt.
yes. and so is atheism.
im saying that atheism is the same way. you have as much evidence supporting an infinite past as you do conscious creation. so the only reason why you choose one over the other is because of irrational emotions.
but youve never seen an infinite past or a mechanical creation. exactly like how ive never seen god or unicorns. we should all be right in the middle of our belief of whether it was a machine, infinite, god or unicorns. there is no more logic in the infinite past theory than god. is there?
and i think christianity (and probably most unicorn theories) is different because it has to include even more illogical, unproven things like god wants you to eat eucharist, use holy water, pay the priests, and and he wants you to believe things with no evidence.
does “power of the cross” mean the economic benefits and lack of torture?
i think time is caused by the interactions between particles the same exact way that gravity is. that means god doesnt feel time or cause and effect. there is no reason suggesting that he either does or doesnt feel time, so saying that we are anything but undecided/agnostic about it is purely based on irrational emotion. thats the moral of this thread.
i like my irrational happy theistic emotions. arent all of the irrational emotions associated with atheism bad?