God doesn't exist: Post from an Atheist

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
161

Whether or not you think reason is lacking it is the way we think, the way we function. You misunderstood what I said. You cannot prove the existence of the external world. It’s that whole skeptic “we could be dreaming” sort of thing. Now, if your were going to go for this Descarte super-knowledge deal then we wouldn’t be sure of anything. That’s where faith comes in. Epistemic fundamentalism ranges from rationalism to empiricism. Fundamentalism works by placing faith in fundamental things like the existence of the external world and such. After you do that you can defeat the regress caused by universal skepticism.

Faith in things that are probable is a different faith. Faith in a deity is a different faith.

I just went off on a huge tangent but that’s what faith means to me.

It was a poor choice of words but what I’m saying is that I find nothing convincing for me to think that God is alive today.

I understand that but I see that as a different definition of faith. Faith in one’s own knowledge. I think that the English language has too few words :smiley:

Sure. I find it logical that if God were to exist he would exist in some super-reality where the laws of our reality are not applicable to him. I used a bunch of posts back an analogy with The Sims. If The Sims were self-aware intelligent beings and there was a human behind that computer screen the human would be in a transcendent reality. It’s a pretty bad analogy but what I’m getting at is the idea that the universe, our reality, is one within another; that our reality is dependent on God’s reality.

Now thinking about it, the first Men In Black played with that idea. Besides the little universe that they were fighting for at the very end there was this long montage were the audience was taken through the universe to find out that their universe was being used as marbles in a marbles game played by a couple of aliens.

I like my The Sims analogy better because that portrays the idea of having a reality with different rules than the super-reality.

Again, I’ve gone off on yet another long winded tangent but you get my idea.

What?! With all due respect, that argument is very very weak. Simplicity demands we conclude?! Please justify this or I’m going to have to ask you to put this claim aside in this discussion. Maybe there’s something I’m missing but I don’t think that it’s making any sense.

The discussion is about the argument of an all-powerful, all-knowing, eternal, and perfect being. Are you saying that there is no strong scientific or philosophical argument for such a being?

Which is completely compatible with this argument.

Incorrect. It’s the fact that the question implied that there were no other things in the room that keep you from forming that belief.

Now you’re just being silly. Listen, it’s very simple. There’s no reason to believe that this being is perfect. By adding this quality you are complicating things unneccessarily.

Secondly, even if your explanation was a simple one, which I argue that it is not, it would do you no good because your explanation is not being put against another explanation. My argument is that you should suspend judgment and give no explanation. Furthermore, for the simpler theory to win over another it has to be a theory to begin with. Without argument for a theory there is no theory hence simplicity is not applicable.

Thirdly, you are in no position to use Occam’s razor in this argument. This principle of parsimony is about not multiplying hypothesis unnessesarily. God is an unnecessary hypothesis. We can explain everything without assuming the extra metaphysical baggage of a Divine Being.

Granted that the cosmological and teleological arguments give reason to believe in an intelligent first cause but can we just say that there is no sufficient argument for the belief that this first cause is a single, perfect being? Can you agree that this belief is only faith-based?

162 
   I think you mean foundationalism, but sure.  My point is, you seemed to be saying that

we cannot prove the existence of the external world (empirically, or so far with an argument), that means belief in the external world is unjustified. The hidden assumption here is that only beliefs that can be proven empirically are justified. I would question that, not only because it’s out of step with how humans think, but because it leads to the question-begging that is the great flaw of foundationalism. Instead, I would say it’s obvious that there are ways to have justified belief without empiric proof or evidence.

More like faith in an external body of knowledge- Christianity and theism have proven themselves to me enough times that when another argument comes along, I feel confident that there’s an answer out there some where, even if it’s beyond me at the moment.

I guess that depends on what you mean by ‘the laws of reality’. That is, I don’t think God is affected by gravity or friction, so in that sense I agree with you. But I think that a+b=b+a is just as true for God as it is for us (or the Sims), and I don’t think God (or the Sims) can make a square circle. I see physical laws as a lower class of laws compared to those of logic, and not the true ‘laws of reality’, I guess. It’s because of those all-encompassing laws of logic that I wouldn’t say God is in a seperate reality than us.

 I may have to put it aside, because it seems obvious enough to me that I'm having a hard time thinking how else to word it.  Let me try one more way of explaining it, using math and paraphrasing Swinburne's 'Simplicity as Evidence of Truth'.  Suppose the following series:

X = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Y= 2 4 6 8 10 12 ?

 If you had to guess the value of Y when X=7, would you derive the answer based on the equation Y=2x, or would you use the formula

Y= 2x+(x(x-1)(x-2)(x-3)(x-4)(x-5)(x-6)50))? Or would you really find yourself remaining agnostic about the value for Y when X = 7? I think you’d be quite reasonable in concluding that Y = 14 when X = 7.
Both formulae fit the evidence equally well, and the more complex cannot be reduced into the simpler- they are distinct. All that seperates them is the fact that y=2x is simpler, and thus the more rational to use. Simplicity does lead to conclusions, and rationally so.
In the question of a creator, you are saying that it’s possible that 1 intelligent mind created the universe through it’s own will, or that several different minds created the universe, presumably through a group effort, perhaps even with some of the minds trying to undermine the efforts of the others. If both scenarios fit the evidence equally well, and you seem to be saying they do, then the simpler (that one agent is at work) is the one to conclude. Remaining agnostic is not a live option, because as I think I’ve shown here, we’d have to remain agnostic about everything using that same line of reasoning.

 No, I'm saying that Christianity (for example) was not created to provide a solution to the origins of the cosmos, and when viewed that way, it's not very effecient:  What does the idea of God in three persons, one becoming incarnate as Jesus Christ, and so on have to do with where the universe came from anyway?  It seems like so much useless detail when a faceless, bland force that created the universe and then promptly died off would be so much simpler. 
 The reason you keep asking "Why select this view of things as opposed to another" is because you're still viewing a religion as a tool by which to explain things.  Which I can hardly blame you for-  many atheists still seem to think that's why religions exist; as some sort of mystical alternative to scientific theory. 
  The most that the theistic arguments can do is demonstrate how a pre-existing religious view is or is not compatible with what we know about the world.  I can't imagine anyone  studying the ontological argument and concluding from that that Jesus rose from the dead three days after His crucifixion. Am I making sense, or am I rambling? It is getting late...

If I was positing my religious beliefs as an explanation or a theory, that might be the case. I think the rest of what you wrote revolves around this central point- 99% of the Bible and Christian dogma could be dispensed with outright, if the point of Christianity was to explain the natural world.

  I can't grant that, because I think the ontological argument makes a good case for perfection, and that the combonation of omnipotence with perfection (along with simplicity as I explained above) makes it more likely than not that the Agency is a singular being.  
   There is also this other point, about which I am curious:  How much of Christianity would have to be validated by argument before you would accept the rest of it?  What I mean is, we seem to agree that it's likely the universe was created by an intelligent (and at least very powerful) Agency.

Many would consider that a huge indicator towards theism, you do not. I’ve already explained that for any amount of evidence, there are an infinite number of compatible conclusions. So then, no amount of evidence or argument will absolutely force the conclusion of theism. There will always be some other option. I guess what I’m asking is, what other properties about this Agency would need to be demonstrated for you to consider Theism to be the most likely Agency?

163

[quote=“scythekain”]

Sura 17.22: “Do not associate with Allah any other god, lest you sit down despised, neglected.” [By his own mouth, Allah is NOT the God of Avraham, Yitzhak, and Ya`akov!]
quote]

First you are actually so ignorant it is funny, seriously you know NOTHING about Islam maybe you could argue with a muslim child but don’t pull that stuff with me.

Allah is arabic for God and its funny that Abraham, Jesus and Moses are all mentioned in the Quran so manybe if you weren’t so neglectful of this you’d realize Abraham’s God is the same God that gave Muhammed the message to humanity.

And second ROFL!!! LOL!!! I CAN"T BELIEVE EVEN THE STUFF YOU SAY ITS REDICULOUS. I mean its things not even debatable to compare Islam and Mormonism as the same things is a testoment to the kind of thought patterns you exibit. You said to be nice look I am not making fun of you only your ideas. Some of the things you say should be at a comedy club in Saudi Arabia because you’d have the whole room to tears with your beliefs.

BTW ADAM SMITH WAS A LIAR HE COULDN"T REPLICATE THE TABLETS?!??! WHAT KIND OF PROPHET IS HE! The Quran has no errors! The Mormon Bible is FULL!!! of errors. So you don’t believe its possible after the Council of Nicea that God said “YOU IDIOTS YOU RUINED EVERYTHING” then had to present another Messenger?
Dude seriously how can you even consider that you’d even come close to getting me to believe that I should leave Islam when Islam is the greatest thing in my life. I feel soooo blessed right now, like God has done sooo much for me words cannot eve express how much I love God for all he has helped me with. I praise and worship God and God alone. To be honnest I’ve never been a really good muslim but after 9/11 I really started to question my religion and found out that what I believed in all along was the best thing in my life. Without God I would be wandering in search of meaning to my life. But its more then you even understand God is reality God has shown me what I must do with my life.

Your looking for truth too right?

Go here watch this… THIS IS TRUTH!

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6847.htm

You watch the media and see bad things about Islam… I bet you’ve NEVER seen anything good about Islam on TV. Never, why? Even Mormons are potrayed as good some of the time. Look the majority of muslims don’t practice their religion good. So don’t blame Islam blame ignorant muslims.

Join me on my Crusade against ignorance and stupid people, TOGETHER WE SHALL RULE THE WORLD!!!

/rant over…

164

Good do that Hombre, That means suspending judgement until you have all the facts?

Hmm I wish you’d come to that conclusion 6 pages ago!!!

Then when I say look Creation happend through “INTELLIGENT DESIGN” now your saying… Hey were dreaming its a Matrix paradigm.

NO its simply that reality is in the hands of a Creator if you want to call that programing entity God. Thats all the basis can be but why are you debating that life is somehow a dream? So how come we have all these Prophets supposably from God performing “miracles” are they better at this dream?

FACT!

If moses didn’t part the Red Sea we wouldn’t have Judaism.
If Jesus wasn’t able to heal the lepers and walk on water and do his miracles we wouldn’t have Christianity
If Muhammed present humanity with the Quran there wouldn’t be Islam.

So what these are all fascits of a dream? Its simply inlogical to comprehend anything less then a divine being. [/url]

165

crux… did I not present the similiarities between islam and mormonism? are they not similiar? (or did you just bother not to read all that information and then call me ignorant?) fyi you make yourself look seriously unstudied when you call the founder of mormonism “adam smith” instead of joseph smith, which btw was on every comparison site I sent you to last time.

your arguments have no basis in reality.

does the qur’an not say that ALLAH is not the god of the bible? does not abraham PRAY TO THE GOD OF THE BIBLE? (Elohim, YHWH, or Adonai being his surnames NOT ALLAH, allah is from pre islam arab. that is on the site I linked to in the previous post :wink: where is the confusion here?

the Qur’an has no errors…

first before I get into that read this: (link

bible.ca/islam/islam-bible-n … uslims.htm)

The Koran and the earliest Muslims did not believe the Bible was corrupted. Muslims may be surprised to learn that, contrary to popular belief, the Koran actually says nothing about the corruption of the Bible. It may also surprise Muslims that historically, the first Muslim to trash the Bible was Ibn-Khazem, in 1064 AD.

first the theological and historical errors on this page:

bible.ca/islam/islam-bible-koran-errors.htm

next:

bible.ca/islam/islam-myths-embryology.htm

you’ve stated several times in this thread how the embryology was years ahead of its’ time. in all reality it wasn’t read.

and after all that if you still think the Qur’an is a perfect book, PLEASE read this book.

bible.ca/islam/library/perfe … /index.htm

second questions for you to answer:

1: The text of the Koran in 37:103 reads “they had both submitted their wills (became Muslims)” while the Arabic text of the Tashkent MSS gives the exact opposite meaning, “they did not submitted their wills” (they did NOT become Muslims.) My question is: have you actually read the Tashkent MSS for yourself in this passage and how do you explain this textual variation given your comments on the miracle of the perfect Koran?

2.The yearly Passover ritual began the same year it was initiated in the 10th plague and continued uninterrupted for 1500 years. The weekly Lord’s supper ritual began the same week that Christ was crucified and has continued ever since for 2000 years. The Islamic rituals just come out of nowhere, 2600 years after Abraham lived. Being as unbiased as you possibly can, My question is: are not the Jewish and Christian rituals more likely to be based on real history since the rituals of Islam that just pop out of nowhere 2600 years later?

3.The Huleatt Manuscript was written in 50 AD and is actually a prayer addressed to Jesus and calls Jesus “God”. Therefore, Christians have in their possession archeological inscriptions within 20 years of Christ’s resurrection that say he is God. My question is: Do you know of any archeological inscription dated within 100 years of Muhammad’s death where he is called a prophet? If so, please name it.

finally are the problems relating to woman and islam.

bible.ca/islam/islam-wife-be … hbrush.htm

Six translations of Qur’an 4:34 The “word of Allah” in the Koran is clear and unmistakable! Exactly mirroring all legal systems that administer increasingly harsher penalties for continued wrongdoing, the Koran says the Husband should first verbally admonish her, next ground her to the bedroom like a child, and finally when all else fails, to beat her. We must say that such a verse is shocking

addition:
I’m glad that islam works for you, but clearly you have tunnel vision about the problems.

#1 you never presented to me where in the Qur’an it says that mohammed was a messenger, and #2 from my quote above you’ll see this wasn’t even a common muslim thought until around 1000 AD.

That again is great, but what makes you so sure your worshipping the right god? my cousin is mormon and he says the exact same thing about “his god” he feels great worshipping him. But as soon as I present the problems of mormonism to him, he does the EXACT same thing you do. get completely up in arms and put up your blinders.

actually I’m not searching for the truth. Truth (as you’ll see from my absolute truth topic in religion) is completely subjective.

and as for the media? they seem to portray muslims in a more positive light in america than jews. Like when a jewish community center is attacked (like the one in france and yes I know it ended up being a jew that attacked it) american news just called it a “food center” and had no religious connatations attached to it at all. but when a similiar center is attacked that is of muslim faith, network news SAYS so.

and one final thing in this post, I see that in your sig you have quotes from adolph hitler and bush who are using god to support their actions, don’t forget to add in OBL in there who uses ALLAH to back up his actions.

166

There isn’t much of an argument going on here. You can read some stuff of epistemology. It’s cool stuff.

Interesting. I’m a reductive materialist myself.

Firstly,I don’t see how this mathematical principle relates to God. It seems like a mathematical principle. Secondly, you use the word “conclude”. Maybe assume but conclude? Isn’t that taking it too far?

You definately haven’t shown this.

You never really answered my question. You said “no” and then started explaining how it’s not important if there is no argument for a perfect being because it’s only about our knowledge being compatible with what we know. I’ll ask again, is there is no strong scientific or philosophical argument for a perfect being? If there is, explain.

Scientific acceptance.

More of a likely possibility among others.

If your’e a skeptic, that is true. If you’re not, which we both aren’t, then that would be wrong.

This isn’t about proving something absolute. This is about simply proving something.

Can we argee that the ontological argument is the only argument for God’s perfection and thus any of his properties?

167

Osama Bin Laden is an idiot and knows nothing about Islam if he chooses to preach hate and violence to the US. And sure he uses Allah what else does he have, he obviously has no compassion, mercy nor brains. But the FACT is Osama is a CIA asset.

Anywho as for your agruments against Islam, its just mind boggling some of the things you bring up. Like I really do see you bring some deep insight into Islam when you talk about womens rights. Its totally correct that God gives men the right to “slap” no beat that is a false translation. But this even goes against the teachings of the Prophet Muhammed. Now if your theory is correct why would the Prophet who you say “wrote” the Koran then go against it by saying “How can you hit your wife then lay beside them in bed?”. But it isn’t for him to change God’s words and God knows best.

Look this isn’t even the right Topic for this this is whether God exists… Since me and you agree THERE IS A GOD… You call him God, I call him God… yeah not Allah cuz I don’t speak arabic btw… Did I mention my mom converted from Christianity to Islam… I guess she thought it was evil and opressive like you think and joined right in… /rolls eyes, My dads not muslim either so she did it of her own accord.

ROFL!!! OMG I just want to quote you something

“But don’t take my word for it, early Muslim doctors, like Ibn-Qayyim, were first to blow the whistle when they saw the Koranic material, mirrored a Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD. In 1983 Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge concluded, “The stages of development which the Qur’an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen’s scientific account…There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur’an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur’anic terms to describe the Galenic stages” (B. Musallam (Cambridge, 1983) Sex and Society in Islam. p. 54) In other words when it comes to embryology the Qur’an merely echoes the scientific knowledge man had already discovered 450 years earlier.”

So you wouldn’t happen to have a copy of this? Umm ask the site director for their copy… I mean the Greek guys because this is TOTALLY AND I MEAN TOTALLY UNHEARD OF. No please present it dude seriously please I will pay you 20$ for this “scientific account”. I told you I am always searching for the truth like if I found something that was wrong in the Koran I would stop believing that second. Why? cuz God doesn’t make mistakes, if there is something wrong in the Quran even one point even a small detail (NOT TRANSLATED OF COURSE) in Arabic version i would be 100% convinced the Quran is not the word of God. But since that site is 100% BIASED it is actually laughable that your “SOURCE” you quote and put sooo much trust in is 100% wrong. I mean please present that to a scientist to research they would surely consider it but I doubt any validity in such claims. Its “BIBLE.CA” hmm no they are objective… they wouldn’t say lie or distort facts… cuz I mean what do they have to gain… Since you obviously didn’t counter oppose the Council of Nicea i will post huge sections of the FACTS research these on your BIBLE.CA see if they are willing to Lie about this as well…

ROFL!!! OMG IT JUST GOES ON… Please I am a really nice person you have to believe me and I truly do love you but… ROFL some of the sites you give are absolutly just… Wow I honnestly just can’t stop laughing… These are not valid sites they are 100% biased with no regard to facts or anything intelligent. Look don’t believe me it doesn’t matter anymore its just too funny not to debate with you. Some of the things to find are so ridiculous, please print some of these things off go find a mosque and hand these out. Its absolutly hilarious, I mean anyone with a basic understanding of Islam can refute these claims. No dude honnestly I show my friends this stuff and we laugh at it sooo hard its just sooo bizarre its hilarious. I mean i sincerely hope you not serious about this like you are joking right? Some of my friends just can’t believe people come up with such inaccurate stuff… But I really hope your joking right?

"Islam has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism and Christianity, they are not our friends, and until Messiah returns and abolishes Islam they can never be our friends. "

“Islam is therefore a religion of demon worship.”

Dude seriously everytime I read that I laugh its too funny. Honnestly its soo funny!!! Like do people really believe that? Do people actually know anything about Islam when they say that? Seriously go show that to muslims everywhere they’d laugh at you.

Oh btw i said i’d go over the council of Nicea well here we go:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/006/7.26.html

NOT BIASED!!!

In Dan Brown’s best-selling novel The Da Vinci Code, villain Leigh Teabing explains to cryptologist Sophie Neveu that at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) “many aspects of Christianity were debated and voted upon,” including the divinity of Jesus. “Until that moment,” he says, “Jesus was viewed by His followers as a mortal prophet. … a great and powerful man, but a man nonetheless.”
Neveu is shocked: “Not the Son of God?”
Teabing explains: “Jesus’ establishment as ‘the Son of God’ was officially proposed and voted on by the Council of Nicea.”
“Hold on. You’re saying that Jesus’ divinity was the result of a vote?”
“A relatively close one at that,” Teabing says.
A little later, Teabing adds this speech: “Because Constantine upgraded Jesus’ status almost four centuries after Jesus’ death, thousands of documents already existed chronicling His life as a mortal man. To rewrite the history books, Constantine knew he would need a bold stroke…Constantine commissioned and financed a new Bible, which omitted those gospels that spoke of Christ’s human traits and embellished those gospels that made Him godlike. The earlier gospels were outlawed, gathered up, and burned.”

OMG I"M RIGHT 100% Proven FACT from a non-Biased source confirmed by History experts… Refute that!, but of course thats why all your arguments how Christianity are right are laughable…[/url]

168

I’m sorry that you don’t see the argument, but it’s there and it’s important. The assumption you make that a belief is unjustified if it cannot be empirically proven is key to everything else we’re talking about.

I think it applies to everything that involves facts- I used math because the most explicit way to explain things sometimes. And yes, conclude is a little strong. I would accept that simplicity makes it rational to assume certain things, until evidence suggests otherwise.

The point is, for any body of evidence, there are an infinite number (or at least, an extremely large number) of conclusions that fit that evidence. If we don’t accept that a principal of simplicity can guide us to correct answers, then we have to remain skeptical about any situation in which empirical evidence is involved.

I don’t believe the theistic arguments have the drive to convince many atheists to accept the existence of God. They don’t go far enough, and even if they ultimately succeed techically (which I think they do), they are simply too controversial. I certainly don’t think they lend support to any particular religion. However, I think they do support theistic views, for those that are already theists, or are at least open to the idea.

     I think I worded my question badly.  What I mean is, Theism is a system of belief accepted by billions of people.  Many people would consider successful arguments that there was a first cause to the universe, and that the first cause was intelligent, to be very strong indicators that theism is true.  As you point out, however, there are other ideas that fit these facts- both ideas that are active in the intellectual community, and ideas that nobody has thought of yet.  But that will always be the case, no matter how many properties of God are shown to instantiate.  My question to you is, if a demonstration of an intelligent creator is not enough to suggest theism as most likely true, what other properties do you need to see demonstrated?  If omnipotence, perfection and omnibenevolence were also demonstrated to be part of the creation of the universe, as intelligence has, would you [i]then[/i] accept theism, or would you still point out that there are other alternatives?
  For me, as a theist already, demonstration of an intelligent creator is very good support for my beliefs- it's certainly more than I expected to find when I went through my skeptical period. So, with the logical arguments for an intelligent creator (which I believed [i]before[/i] I knew about the arguments), and no compelling argument that God [i]can't[/i] exist (which I assume you would have made if you thought there was one), I have no reason at all to stop being a theist now.  Since I started researching, all I've found [i]confirms[/i] it.  It would be bizzare, having believed without evidence, to [i]stop[/i] believing once I get evidence, simply because the evidence I aquired fits some other theories also.

I’m not a skeptic, but I accept this fact as reality. I need some sort of argument from you to show that the number of compatible scenarios for a given body of empirical data are not unlimited. It seems plain to me, and it is exactly what you’re arguing in the case of first causes. I’m simply extending this principal to other situations. You’ll need to make the case for a special exception.

Not exactly. Some of God’s properties, such as “Having been the creator of the Universe” or “Having acted in History” could be demonstrated without reference to the onotological argument, or God’s perfection.

169

To state you do not believe in god requires a certain amount of faith.

170

as I posted to hombre in the faith thread :wink:

171

I’m a high school student in an IB Theory of Knowledge class (basically a philosophy class), and we’ve been discussing Darwinism vs. Creationsim. After doing a search on these forums, I found the following quote to be quite interesting.

For the sake of argument, even if Darwin’s theory of evolution could be proven true, this does not necessarily disprove Creationism. If one believes in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and timeless God who created EVERYTHING, is it not therefore possible at least that God could create the process of evolution? Of course, I disregard the fundamentalist belief that God created a universe which is constant and unchanging, and is today the same as the day He created it. IMO, Darwinism is utterly indefensible, since its validity would do nothing to disprove Creationsim, while if Creationism was true, evolution and natural selection could merely be just more things created by God. Therefore, it is pointless to use Darwinism as a counterargument to Creationism.

(Note: I myself have no religious affiliations of any sort, and present the above arguments based solely on my own thoughts and logic.)

172

haud_termino, you wrote:

True but faith in reason and faith in God are hardly comparable faiths.

Uccisor, you wrote:

What I mean to say is that belief in something is unreasonable if not backed up by scientific or empirc evidence. Do you have a complaint to this claim?

Then why believe in God? You say don’t multipy hypothesis unnessesarily. No science depends on the fact that God exists hence if you really believed in “simplicity” you wouldn’t believe in God.

Furthermore, I would argue against the idea that giving an agent every positive property is “simple”.

I know. There is just no strong argument.

It’s very simple. I await for God to be accepted by the science and then, and only then, will I judge and make my choice. Without scientific reason to believe in a perfect being I refuse to believe in one.

I feel that I’ve already made this point several times during this thread. In a skeptic perspective, yes, there are an infinite number of compatible scenarios for a given body of empirical data but that’s why we’re not skeptics. Again, there is a difference between assuming that an external world exists because we seem to experience one and assuming that God exists because there are things we do not understand.

Those are not properties.

173

curious_one, interesting idea. I would have to say, though, that Creationism and Darwinism are not compatable. Still, I am not an expert on Creationism but I feel that there seems to be varying ideas of the doctrine. One definition claims that it is the literal belief in the account of creation given in the Book of Genesis. Another definition of Creationism is simply the belief opposed to creationism and that all species persist unchanged.

I see your point that God could have created a sub-human that evolved but from what I understand, that would defeat the definition of Creationsim.

174

To reach the decision that god exists or god does not exist takes reasoning and faith, and faith in the individuals reasoning. different perceptions give different results.

175

There is no God? There certainly have been many down the ages who have felt, or claimed or had it claimed for them, that they have had communication with a higher being. Moses, Socrates, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith and the ‘apparitions’ occuring at such places as Lourdes, Fatima and Garabandal and many many others.

Some have claimed they were God, or his representative (The apparition at Lourdes apparently said ‘Yes’ when asked if she was the Virgin Mary), some have claimed it was God, and some have had it claimed for them, by mere mortals, in the years afterwards.

Assuming that these apparitions were genuine, which I am sure many would debate, let us consider what they might have been. They must have been an intelligence in a form beyond normal experience. But God? They surely must have been interested observers who , for whatever reason, have endeavoured to alter the course of human events for some reason, and have used the means which they felt would be most effective.

I like to think that, when not trying to influence human affairs, they spend some time debating whether there is a God, or not. We may be considerably lower down the mental heirachy than we think.

176

I have to call you on this one, Joseph Smith never claimed to talk directly to god he talked with “angels of light”. and Jesus didn’t talk to god, he talked to the father (which I realize was god but it is an important clarification, for jesus’ mindset.)

I agree haud termino I think atheists put complete faith in evolution, it is their christ, mohammed, buddha, joseph smith. without it there is no atheism.

177

in the words of Eddie Vedder, not the most recognised of philosophers but still!

This is Janeane Garofalo. I’m interviewing Eddie Vedder and we’re at Brendan’s, on the Lower East Side.

JG: Can I ask what your feelings are about God?

EV: Sure. I think it’s like a movie that was way too popular. It’s a story that’s been told too many times and just doesn’t mean anything. Man lived on the planet – [placing his fingers an inch apart], this is 5000 years of semi-recorded history. And God and the Bible, that came in somewhere around the middle, maybe 2000. This is the last 2000, this is what we’re about to celebrate [indicating about an 1/8th of an inch with his fingers]. Now, humans, in some shape or form, have been on the earth for three million years [pointing across the room to indicate the distance]. So, all this time, from there [gesturing toward the other side of the room], to here [indicating the 1/8th of an inch], there was no God, there was no story, there was no myth and people lived on this planet and they wandered and they gathered and they did all these things. The planet was never threatened. How did they survive for all this time without this belief in God? I’d like to ask this to someone who knows about Christianity and maybe you do. That just seems funny to me.

178

In response to your signature, I present the following passage from All the King’s Men by Robert Penn Warren:

If nothing else, I believe he has a very good point.

179

hombre,

It may be true that reason and God aren’t comparable, but faith is just that: a leap into the ‘not provable’ realm.

I do not understand having “faith in reason”. Reason is measured and tested belief. It is the denial of anything called faith.

All so-called knowing based on reason or science is just as subjective as any metaphysical belief.

I would think that, to be a good atheist, one could not have “faith” in anything. That would be the same as saying that there might be something we cannot know, and that is the paradoxical mystery that leads to creator. Maybe you’re not an atheist. Perhaps you’re a healthy agnostic?

JT

180

I do not think that any definition of reason is the denial of faith. When I said “faith in reason” I was implying the faith we have in our conclusions based on our scientific foundational beliefs. In other words, I say “faith in reason” like I would say “faith that the conclusions derived from universal skepticism are wrong.”

I disagree. Theistic beliefs are a subset of beliefs.

Use semantics as you wish but I call myself an atheist because I have no theistic beliefs.