I am an Atheist.

[Æsahættr]

The reverse is also true: If it could be proven that God did exist to atheists satisfaction, there would be those who would find a way to dismiss it because they need to. They could not live with the notion that God exists. Also sad but true.

Might it possibly be said though that a greater percentage of theists would resist than atheists, the reason being that the belief that faith is even better when in the face of evidence is present amoung some (not all) theists. Lots of religious people often say that belief in God is not found through logic, but is found through revelation etc. Is it unreasonable to suggest that given this, a proof of God's existance would satisfy a greater percentage of atheists than vice versa?

 

[Mister_T]

Might it possibly be said though that a greater percentage of theists would resist than atheists, the reason being that the belief that faith is even better when in the face of evidence is present amoung some (not all) theists. Lots of religious people often say that belief in God is not found through logic, but is found through revelation etc. Is it unreasonable to suggest that given this, a proof of God's existance would satisfy a greater percentage of atheists than vice versa?

Well first, I think you're generalizing a wee bit too much. Not all of us religious folk throw our brains out the window in regards to logic.

I would not say that it's unreasonable. But I don't think the gap would be quite as big as you're suggesting. Atheism doesn't get as much press as religion.

 

[Quiddity]

Might it possibly be said though that a greater percentage of theists would resist than atheists, the reason being that the belief that faith is even better when in the face of evidence is present amoung some (not all) theists. Lots of religious people often say that belief in God is not found through logic, but is found through revelation etc. Is it unreasonable to suggest that given this, a proof of God's existance would satisfy a greater percentage of atheists than vice versa?

Without playing a numbers game I would assume just as many atheist objections are psychological and emotional rather then logical and empirical. But why not focus on the cream of the crop to move dialogue forward, then those who refuse to grow?

 

[retrorich]

Do you see any epistemological difference between those two beliefs?

I don't even know what epistemological means.

 

[Arrow]

My case for the existence of God: Believe it or not.

If you do not believe in God or some kind of higher power, you are left to believe that the universe formed out of matter that has always existed. However, as we know all matter has a beginning and an end. This is where many scientists will get into a loop hole and say that the matter before the always existing matter formed it. The point is this, time and matter can only be explained or created by one who is above time and matter hence the logical proof of God. Since God has no beginning, He is free to create matter and time. Evolution is another story. If this is not worded totally correct i apologize.

ok im done rip it apart.

 

[Arrow]

it being my debate of course.

 

[Quiddity]

My case for the existence of God: Believe it or not.

If you do not believe in God or some kind of higher power, you are left to believe that the universe formed out of matter that has always existed. However, as we know all matter has a beginning and an end. This is where many scientists will get into a loop hole and say that the matter before the always existing matter formed it. The point is this, time and matter can only be explained or created by one who is above time and matter hence the logical proof of God. Since God has no beginning, He is free to create matter and time. Evolution is another story. If this is not worded totally correct i apologize.

ok im done rip it apart.

What I bolded is not known through empirical means. Unless of course I am unaware of this, I've yet to read of it.

 

[Arrow]

never mind

 

[Arrow]

So what about this, can matter be used to explain itself? Even as individuals with minds we cannot even comprehend ourselves. The best that we can do is put are selves in vague categories because there is nothing else with which to explain the individual. We would need something or someone to be able to explain us wouldn't we? It may be ignorance but i refuse to believe that the individual is just so simple to be explained as a living organism, but then again i do not know much about life.

 

[Quiddity]

So what about this, can matter be used to explain itself? Even as individuals with minds we cannot even comprehend ourselves. The best that we can do is put are selves in vague categories because there is nothing else with which to explain the individual. We would need something or someone to be able to explain us wouldn't we? It may be ignorance but i refuse to believe that the individual is just so simple to be explained as a living organism, but then again i do not know much about life.

I don't believe we are simple at all. On both a biological and psychological level. I think the fact that we function outside of the emperical plane is enough for me to at least ponder over it. It's where it all starts. Some will run far with it (certain charasmatic movements), others won't run with it all (naturalists), and some try using the objective world around them to build upon faith.

 

[JesusOfColdstone]

I don't believe we are simple at all. On both a biological and psychological level. I think the fact that we function outside of the emperical plane is enough for me to at least ponder over it. It's where it all starts. Some will run far with it (certain charasmatic movements), others won't run with it all (naturalists), and some try using the objective world around them to build upon faith.

I disagree heavily with the statement. You are a very close-minded individual.

 

[Bishka]

I disagree heavily with the statement. You are a very close-minded individual.

What parts of it do you disagree with and why do you find Victor a close-minded individual?

 

[retrorich]

Since God has no beginning...

That's where the God theory loses all credibility for me. Why is is necessary to explain the origin of the universe, but not the origin of God? One could just as easily say that the universe had no beginning, and therefore was not created.

 

[royol]

Because it started out as a fairy tale, then grew into a religion,
and has now become a way of life.
It took a long time, but it got there in the end.
All good stories start with, 'Once upon a time',
just substitute 'Once upon a time' for 'In the beginning'

 

[logician]

"but not the origin of God:

Of course, this gets back to the "who created god" question, if you believe in god. Was there an infinite number of gods? Theists have difficulty believing life can evolve on its own, w/o a creator god, but then make the huge jump that a supernatural god popped on the scene, or has always existed. It's just as easy to say the multiverse has always existed, ie. matter and energy have always existed.

 

[Mister_T]

Why is is necessary to explain the origin of the universe, but not the origin of God

I didn't know it was necessary for either.

 

[Mister_T]

Was there an infinite number of gods?

Nope. Just one.

Theists have difficulty believing life can evolve on its own, w/o a creator god, but then make the huge jump that a supernatural god popped on the scene, or has always existed

Hence the reason that we're theists. What's your point?

 

[Quiddity]

I disagree heavily with the statement. You are a very close-minded individual.

Perhaps you'd like to share some wisdom that can crack open my mind?

 

[retrorich]

I didn't know it was necessary for either.

I feel no need to explain the origin of the universe or the the origin of God, who I do not believe exists. However, the topics do make for some interesting debates.

 

[retrorich]

What parts of it do you disagree with and why do you find Victor a close-minded individual?

WERD! What she said! :clap