How can you deny the possibility of God's existence until..

[Ouroboros]

Actually he's not hiding, He's just relaxing somewhere in the very peaceful, joyous and undisturbed place.

Actually, right now he's writing a post in response to you.

 

[LuisDantas]

OK, I make a clam that how can you deny the possibility of God's existence until you/science may search each tiny part of this universe ?

By being an atheist, or specifically a strong atheist if that is what you are talking about.

How is that possible? From a philosophical standpoint, it just is. No particular justification is needed. From a psychological perspective, there seems to be some sort of vocation (for lack of a better word) for atheism and another for theism.

While some people are not particularly given for either tendency (and do not particularly value either), others "are" one of the other seemingly from birth.

I gather that there are reasons involving the way the brain works and forms abstract concepts in them, possibly related to early life experiences. Not least among them, which and how many concepts of "god" they learn and under which circunstances, since after all "belief in god" is such an odd, so very artificial little thing.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Ok, if not accepting and denying are not always the same things, Than why are still exploring ? why don't they stop all this ? why don't they surrender ?

Surrender to what? And we continue to search because of an innate curiosity.

Though neither activity is dependent upon the fact that "Denial" and "not accepting" are not always the same.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

You can dismiss it based on lack of evidence. Though I don't know of any solid arguments that it is impossible for god to exist. Just simply that it seems illogical to assume so.

A few relevant excerpts (aka, "why theism is false")-

And this "exhausting all possible perspectives" is a red herring: there are certain elements all forms of theism must have in common, in order to qualify as theism in the first place- the existence of god, for one. I argue that transcendence and agency are the sine qua non of theistic gods generally, and thus is a distinctive, necessary feature of theism as such. However, if a causal agent which transcends all conditions and relations is incoherent, as it most surely is (since causal agency entails being subject to conditions and relations), then we needn't consider each individual type of theism- the necessary, distinguishing feature of theism as such is incoherent. Considering particular forms of theism would be redundant.

The question really is "what is it about the notion of deity that allows you to rule out some sort of deity"- a entity which transcends conditions/relations transcends being and can only entail non-being; such an entity standing in causal relations with the world is contradictory... a "creation event" of spacetime/the universe involving a causal agent is incoherent no less than "north of the north pole"...

..."causing existence" assumes a prior antecedent state for such an agent to exist in, but prior to existence, nothing exists. But a causal agent must exist, by definition. This is essentially the same problem with a transcendent agent; agency and transcendence are mutually exclusive, as is agency and non-existence (but again, creating/causing existence once again assumes an antecedent state of non-existence)...

And, obviously, the existence of a being who is characterized, at least in part, by causing particular changes in the world (the creation of the universe, of life, divine revelation, divine punishment, etc. etc.), entails certainly worldly evidence- the absence of which necessarily constitutes evidence of absence. Well, then-

-Is the world scientifically observable?
-Are events/changes in the world scientifically observable?
-Does (any) god cause events, or changes, in the world?
-Which events, or changes, in the world can only be accounted for by (any) god?

If there are no events, or changes, in the world which can only be accounted for by (any) god, then on what non-subjective, non-anecdotal, corroborative, basis can it be reasonably claimed that (any) god is real?

 

[Tiberius]

You CANNOT claim someone, unless you have searched the whole universe and found him.

Have you found him?

What does he look like?


Or is this just what you read in books written by ancient men?


Nature created everything as we know it now. Not someone.

Actually, you don't need to search the whole universe to find God, just like I don't need to search my whole house to find my keys. I just need to search until I find them.

However, I notice that no one has responded to my pool/water analogy that I posted on the first page.

 

[chinu]

What band of energy should they be looking for or should they be looking for matter or what do you think would be a signature of God's existence for scientists to find?

There's no need to provide them any signatures, because already they are trying their level best.
But what made them to do so ? I don't know.
I think better we should go and ask them one by one, personally.

 

[chinu]

Name one? Then show it was created by a God or the process God used to create something.

There are many stars all around us
And process he used is, love.

 

[chinu]

You CANNOT claim someone, unless you have searched the whole universe and found him.

Have you found him?

What does he look like?


Or is this just what you read in books written by ancient men?


Nature created everything as we know it now. Not someone.

Who created Nature ? huh..

 

[Breathe]

Actually, you don't need to search the whole universe to find God, just like I don't need to search my whole house to find my keys. I just need to search until I find them.

However, I notice that no one has responded to my pool/water analogy that I posted on the first page.

I don't disagree, but I think that's only applicable if coming from a dualistic and transcendent form of divinity.

To me, anyway, it's more like a fish swimming in the water.

 

[chinu]

Actually, right now he's writing a post in response to you.

Perhaps

 

[chinu]

Surrender to what? And we continue to search because of an innate curiosity.

Though neither activity is dependent upon the fact that "Denial" and "not accepting" are not always the same.

Surrender to God, my dear.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't disagree, but I think that's only applicable if coming from a dualistic and transcendent form of divinity.

To me, anyway, it's more like a fish swimming in the water.

Not quite sure what you mean here. Could you give a real world example?

 

[Breathe]

Not quite sure what you mean here. Could you give a real world example?

Pretty much just that.

A goldfish in water, not knowing there is water.
A bird flying, not believing in air.
A blade of grass on a lawn, not believing in grass-ness.

To me, Divinity is right there. It is you, it is me. It is everything, but It is beyond everything we know.

Like this one, on the panentheism section:

Or this:
[youtube]XGK84Poeynk[/youtube]
Symphony of Science - 'We Are All Connected' (ft. Sagan, Feynman, deGrasse Tyson & Bill Nye) - YouTube

Hope that helps.

 

[Ouroboros]

Perhaps

But I AM.

 

[Ouroboros]

Surrender to God, my dear.

There's no need to surrender to God. We are all surrendered already. It's more about awakening to, or dying from old understanding and be reborn into new understanding.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Simply, because there's someone who has created all the things that I can see all around me

If God is the "someone who has created all the things that I can see around me", then all we need to reject God is to examine one thing and conclude that it was not made by God.

You don't need to search the entire universe for a god whose existence is supposedly demonstrated everywhere.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Surrender to God, my dear.

Why should I surrender to god if I am not convinced he exists ? You kinda just jumped to that with no indication or reason given that would cause me to do so.

 

[Tiberius]

Pretty much just that.

A goldfish in water, not knowing there is water.
A bird flying, not believing in air.
A blade of grass on a lawn, not believing in grass-ness.

To me, Divinity is right there. It is you, it is me. It is everything, but It is beyond everything we know.

Like this one, on the panentheism section:

Or this:
[youtube]XGK84Poeynk[/youtube]
Symphony of Science - 'We Are All Connected' (ft. Sagan, Feynman, deGrasse Tyson & Bill Nye) - YouTube

Hope that helps.

So in other words, you are redefining something as "divine" and then using it as an argument for the existence of the divine.

By this logic, I can prove that Smurfs are real, provided I redefine Smurf to include my television.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why should I surrender to god if I am not convinced he exists ? You kinda just jumped to that with no indication or reason given that would cause me to do so.

Excellent question.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Surrender to God, my dear.

Why should I submit to a god that has yet to end slavery, genocide, bigotry, inequality, war, hunger,conditions that cause people to go crazy (such as serial killers), the horrible diseases that cause the victims to die a slow and agonizing death and parents who bury their children?
When my requests are met, I shall reconsider your request. But until then, if "god" expects anything from us, then I think it's reasonable that we have a few simple expectations of our own, such as assuring that not one person ever goes to bed hungry (as well as having a "bed" to sleep on with a "roof" above that "bed.") and they can sleep safely knowing they will not be attacked while they sleep, or at all the next day. But instead we have global hunger and a (thriving) market for war.