Faith in no God

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just because I have never seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched (the only way to gather data to prove something) a unicorn does not mean they don't exist. Apart from faith, the only thing I could logically say is, "I don't know."

You seriously can't infer anything else from a lack of evidence for unicorns?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Since it can not be proven there is no God any more than it can not be proven there is a God, it would take no less faith to believe there is no God than it would take to believe there is a God.

Without faith in one or the other, the only true thing someone could say is they don't know if there is not, or there is a God. At least that would accord with the lack of evidence one way or the other.

If there is a difference in the faith required to believe one way or the other, I'd be curious to hear about that difference.

There would be no faith for not believing in a God because there actually is no God. That's the reality.

If there was, where is it?

 

[wandering peacefully]

Although the existence of dark matter is generally accepted by the scientific community, some astrophysicists, intrigued by certain observations which do not fit the dark matter theory, argue for various modifications of the standard laws of general relativity, such as modified Newtonian dynamics, tensor–vector–scalar gravity, or entropic gravity. These models attempt to account for all observations

Being the difference between having faith and continuing to search for the actual answers to the unknown instead of concluding them ahead of the gathering of all available data. Also being able to adjust the thinking based on the actual evidence discovered.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Since it can not be proven there is no God any more than it can not be proven there is a God, it would take no less faith to believe there is no God than it would take to believe there is a God.

Without faith in one or the other, the only true thing someone could say is they don't know if there is not, or there is a God. At least that would accord with the lack of evidence one way or the other.

If there is a difference in the faith required to believe one way or the other, I'd be curious to hear about that difference.

There "is" not god. How does one answer this when the only thing they know about god is what people say and read?

 

[Polymath257]

Although the existence of dark matter is generally accepted by the scientific community, some astrophysicists, intrigued by certain observations which do not fit the dark matter theory, argue for various modifications of the standard laws of general relativity, such as modified Newtonian dynamics, tensor–vector–scalar gravity, or entropic gravity. These models attempt to account for all observations without invoking supplemental non-baryonic matter.

I just want to point out that this is a bit out of date. Both Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) and Tensor-Vector-Scalar (TeVeS) gravity have been shown to require dark matter to explain the dynamics of the Bullet cluster (as well as a couple of other clusters passing through each other, where dark matter and ordinary matter are separated by the dynamics). So, their primary reason for existence (to avoid having dark matter) has been shown to be impossible under their schemes. Entropic gravity was used to underpin MOND, so has gone out as well.

Just as an aside: I was hoping MOND or TeVeS would win, but the evidence simply didn't go that way.

 

[Jim]

A lot of what people do sometimes in Internet forums, promoting and defending their God beliefs, looks to me like faith in no God. It seems to me that that if they really believe what their scriptures say about God and His prescriptions for living, they wouldn’t be continually arguing and debating about their beliefs in the divisive ways they do.

 

[Iymus]

Since it can not be proven there is no God any more than it can not be proven there is a God, it would take no less faith to believe there is no God than it would take to believe there is a God.

Without faith in one or the other, the only true thing someone could say is they don't know if there is not, or there is a God. At least that would accord with the lack of evidence one way or the other.

If there is a difference in the faith required to believe one way or the other, I'd be curious to hear about that difference.

NT speaks about works making faith viable or complete; so works of a Creator or non Creator should be visible by the physical and seen.

Joh 4:34 Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work.

Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

Jas 2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

 

[Twilight Hue]

Existence is a pretty solid argument for a transcendent Creator. That is just one of the reasons atheism is an irrational worldview.

Good. I've been dying to know exactly where the point of contact is, givin we are completely physical beings, there needs to be a physical interaction somewhere.

Care to specifically point that out?

 

[rational experiences]

Since it can not be proven there is no God any more than it can not be proven there is a God, it would take no less faith to believe there is no God than it would take to believe there is a God.

Without faith in one or the other, the only true thing someone could say is they don't know if there is not, or there is a God. At least that would accord with the lack of evidence one way or the other.

If there is a difference in the faith required to believe one way or the other, I'd be curious to hear about that difference.

Science as a male human has always taught Creation concepts and said God was the stone as a philosophy.

I have faith and trust that information, for I knowingly walk upon a stone planet.

Science as a male human said, the Earth, the planet God stone by mountain law, volcano released the spirit of gases from out of its God body. Space, cold evolved those spirit gases.

I have faith and trust that information, for it is logical.

And then I live in the faith of my owned humanity, with my extended human family, brothers and sisters. As a logical thinker, one Mother and one Father cannot own all the created human life. So I know I live with a close family, but live with an extended family.

I know animals live before us....that information is obvious.
I know that the Nature Garden lived before humans and animals....that information is obvious.

The spirit of our living experience, logical, for we live, we talk and observe whilst we live, and we live our human experience, as we live. Logical.

As the conscious self identity, a human, I know that if the creation did not exist then nor would I as a human. But my personal human studies and experiences allowed me to realize that a spiritual being exists in a status eternal that is not owned in creation. It is self owned in its own state and communicated to my life body and mind.

And changed my physical experience, as both an emotional, mental and physical sensation. So it spiritually proved itself to me. Without superiority, without talking, without imposing a status other than my own realization that it existed.

And this spirit was always named by humans as the eternal spirit.

I have experienced feed back and recording of spiritual presence/imagery as voice and also personal experience. And I know the 2 conditions are not the same.

The atmospheric created condition owns recording of the voice and image....and I learnt that it is God, the stone planet owned history. And it makes common sense why it exists recording, as the state in creation to record.

The eternal spirit makes common logical sense to me also.....as where creation had been spiritually released from.

The eternal spirit proved itself to me....I never needed to have any faith about its existence.
God proved itself to me...…...and I never owned in faith in God seeing humans as males own the choices if we live or die by what they choose on Earth in science conditions.

 

[questfortruth]

Nope. I don't accept any significant claim without evidence, thus I don't require faith.

What is more strange: criticism against the Bible, or criticism against Atheism?
The Sagan Standard is an aphorism that claims that “extraordinary statements require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE). [12]. A criticism against the Biblical Creation is just too bold a statement.

 

[questfortruth]

Replace all instances of 'God' with 'Cthulhu' in your post, read it back, and tell me if you think the logic holds up.

Replace word "spacetime" in Albert Einstein 1905AC paper with "girlfriend" and you will simply corrupt the entire proof of E=mc^2.

 

[questfortruth]

Not really. Existence is a pretty solid argument for existence. You're going to have to offer a great deal more to claim that it's an argument for a creator.

Science can not even prove such elementary as God's existence. Thus, the methodological naturalism drives the Science into abyss of Absolute Solipsism. There is Occam Razor - most simple theory is more true. The Absolute Solipsism is the most simple trivial theory, thus the Science has lost touch not only with Creator, but with Creation as well:

 

[oldbadger]

Since it can not be proven there is no God any more than it can not be proven there is a God, it would take no less faith to believe there is no God than it would take to believe there is a God.

Without faith in one or the other, the only true thing someone could say is they don't know if there is not, or there is a God. At least that would accord with the lack of evidence one way or the other.

If there is a difference in the faith required to believe one way or the other, I'd be curious to hear about that difference.

You must follow your own heart and mind.

But your tenet is a bit cranked, for example, if all those brilliant thinkers and inventors had not believed that they could succeed, armed only with 'no evidence that they could', then they would have given up.

Pessimistic viewpoint leading to Negative position.........

 

[questfortruth]

There would be no faith for not believing in a God because there actually is no God. That's the reality.

If there was, where is it?

The God is Spirit. When you give your mother a rose, you are acting in Good Spirit. The Spirit of Love, the Spirit is God.
Atheism then is fight against Love.

 

[Bird123]

You’ve seen God ?

Description please.

God has an IQ off the charts. We are but mere ants. God works on multiple levels with multiple views.What God might say in a few minutes might take a person a week to understand all that was said. Who knows what one missed at that?

We all already know God. Names are never needed. Everyone already knows who everyone is. Mankind values so many petty things like Blaming, Judging, Condemning, Coercing, Intimidating, Controlling, Hating, etc. God carries none of these petty things. It is so refreshing.

I had been on a journey to Discover the truth. In this time-based causal universe God's actions can be seen. God's actions can not be altered by mankind. When one understands God's actions. one understands what God is really all about. I had been working on answers for a very long time. God stopped by to confirm much of what I had already discovered on my own.

The first thing God pointed out to me is that mankind carries such a narrow view. I cry that. I work on mine every day. I have found no religion that understands God though it seems each carries pieces of the puzzle. I think people should stop following and start Discovering on their own.

Finally, we are all Spiritual beings in our true natures. That is who we really are, not these physical bodies. God is a Spiritual Being as well. The connection is Spiritual.

Hope this helps. That's what I see. It's very clear.

 

[Howard Is]

God has an IQ off the charts. We are but mere ants. God works on multiple levels with multiple views.What God might say in a few minutes might take a person a week to understand all that was said. Who knows what one missed at that?

We all already know God. Names are never needed. Everyone already knows who everyone is. Mankind values so many petty things like Blaming, Judging, Condemning, Coercing, Intimidating, Controlling, Hating, etc. God carries none of these petty things. It is so refreshing.

I had been on a journey to Discover the truth. In this time-based causal universe God's actions can be seen. God's actions can not be altered by mankind. When one understands God's actions. one understands what God is really all about. I had been working on answers for a very long time. God stopped by to confirm much of what I had already discovered on my own.

The first thing God pointed out to me is that mankind carries such a narrow view. I cry that. I work on mine every day. I have found no religion that understands God though it seems each carries pieces of the puzzle. I think people should stop following and start Discovering on their own.

Finally, we are all Spiritual beings in our true natures. That is who we really are, not these physical bodies. God is a Spiritual Being as well. The connection is Spiritual.

Hope this helps. That's what I see. It's very clear.

Your words didn’t describe anything beyond the functioning of your own mind, aspects of which you call God.

You talk about God talking to you, and ‘stopping by’...(to confirm what you already believe !), but give no indication of what that means, apart from you indulging in the idea that your thoughts and feelings are God.

I have no problem with your naming of your innate wisdom, or intuitions, as ‘God’.
However, coupling that to some theological proposition is redundant, misleading and divisive.

 

[questfortruth]

The God is Spirit. When you give your mother a rose, you are acting in Good Spirit. The Spirit of Love, the Spirit is God.
Atheism then is fight against Love.

 

[ratiocinator]

Since it can not be proven there is no God any more than it can not be proven there is a God, it would take no less faith to believe there is no God than it would take to believe there is a God.

Without faith in one or the other, the only true thing someone could say is they don't know if there is not, or there is a God. At least that would accord with the lack of evidence one way or the other.

Since it can not be proven there is no Zaplognik any more than it can not be proven there is a Zaplognik, it would take no less faith to believe there is no Zaplognik than it would take to believe there is a Zaplognik.

Without faith in one or the other, the only true thing someone could say is they don't know if there is not, or there is a Zaplognik. At least that would accord with the lack of evidence one way or the other.​

Please feel free to make Zaplognik mean literally any unfalsifiable claim about anything at all for which there is no supporting evidence - including all the thousands of gods and any other unseen, magical beings.

Many atheists don't claim to know that there are no gods, they just see no more reason to take them seriously than (say) leprechauns, vampires, or lizard aliens running the world.

 

[Native]

Take something like dark matter and dark energy (See below), we can't see it, taste it or touch it. So why is that a valid hypothesis when unicorns ain't?

Yes "dark matter" and "dark energy" is valid hypothesis and so are Unicorns as long as you haven´t found the dark ghostly stuff or the Unicorn.

Just like some persons ASSUMES a "god", modern cosmological scientists ASSUMES all kinds of dark ghosts of stuff and energy - all in order to underline earlier ASSUMPTIONS, which in some cases are directly or indirectly contradicted.

And using Wikipedia as the "consensus cosmological bible", is no different from religious believers to refer to ancient scriptures of "god-like" belief systems.

 

[Native]

I just want to point out that this is a bit out of date. Both Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) and Tensor-Vector-Scalar (TeVeS) gravity have been shown to require dark matter to explain the dynamics of the Bullet cluster (as well as a couple of other clusters passing through each other, where dark matter and ordinary matter are separated by the dynamics). So, their primary reason for existence (to avoid having dark matter) has been shown to be impossible under their schemes. Entropic gravity was used to underpin MOND, so has gone out as well.

Just as an aside: I was hoping MOND or TeVeS would win, but the evidence simply didn't go that way.

Care to have a second opinion?