My experience and gods existence

[KWED]

So indoctrination is too strong a word for the way most people are brought up by their parents, be it with a belief in God or without.

If religious parents, priests/imams/etc tell children that theirs isn't the only possible god, and it might not exist, then no, they are not being indoctrinated.
However, if they tell children that god is real, there is only their god, they should believe in it, and that there are punishments for not believing in it - then they are being indoctrinated.

Of course it is different to nothing if it is important for how things are and operate.

*sigh*
But is isn't important. That's the whole point! Things operate without any need for inserting god into the equation.

It does not really matter if I was 100% right or not, the analogy is the important thing. Dark matter/energy might be a better one. Not detectable except by interactions but probably absolutely necessary for the us and the universe to exist and operate.

So it does have an affect on something that is detectable, so it is different from "nothing". Therefore it isn't the same as god.

An undetectable thing is not the same as nothing,,,,,,,,,,,,,sometimes these undetectable things are essential.

Not just "undetectable", "undetectable and has no effect on anything that is detectable and is not required for any known process or explanation".

You seem to be thinking only in terms of what science can detect, as if that is the be all and end all of whether God exists.

If something is undetectable and has no effect on anything that is detectable and is not required for any known process or explanation, why would you assume that it does exist?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nobody is pretending. It is what the evidence points to.

Only if someone is a blind imbecile.

 

[ratiocinator]

And yet people try to pretend it just happened by a cosmic accident.

Nobody is pretending. It is what the evidence points to.

Only if someone is a blind imbecile.

Theists really aren't in a position to criticise here. We have a universe that exists for no known reason and they have a god that exists for no known reason that and just happened to want to create this universe.

The second is both necessarily less probable (added assumptions) and is based on no evidence whatsoever. And, no, 'god is eternal' or 'god has always existed' and other trite phrases are not explanations. Until you can tell us exactly why your god should just happen to exist, rather than a different one, no gods, multiple gods, or nothing at all, you have no more of an explanation for what exists than atheists, just a baseless story that leaves us with more to explain than you started with. Postulating a god is a step in the wrong direction as far as an explanation for what exists goes.

 

[KWED]

Only if someone is a blind imbecile.

 

[Brian2]

Postulating a god is a step in the wrong direction as far as an explanation for what exists goes.

It is not a postulation, it is a belief, and is the best one we have so far.
All science can do is give educated guesses, naturalistic postulations.

And, no, 'god is eternal' or 'god has always existed' and other trite phrases are not explanations. Until you can tell us exactly why your god should just happen to exist, rather than a different one, no gods, multiple gods, or nothing at all, you have no more of an explanation for what exists than atheists, just a baseless story that leaves us with more to explain than you started with.

Science also leaves us with unanswered and unanswerable questions.
I suppose if you want to believe nothing until it is proven then that is fine but you have made up your mind that it has to be a naturalistic explanation because you have unanswered questions about God, but have also made up your mind that it is a naturalistic explanation even though you have unanswered questions about that.

The evidence that there is a creator is the creation.

 

[ratiocinator]

All science can do is give educated guesses, naturalistic postulations.

Which is better than the baseless guesses and superstition of all the different and contradictory god-concepts.

Science also leaves us with unanswered and unanswerable questions.

None of which are answered by postulating a god - at least not in anything but a simplistic just-so story way. The ultimate question of why things exist and are the way they are remains exactly as unanswered if there is a god (or gods) as if there isn't.

I suppose if you want to believe nothing until it is proven...

What is it with theists and 'proof'? It's not about proof, it's about evidence, or, in the case of the endless theist claims, the lack of even the slightest hint of a reason why we should take any of them in the least bit seriously. At the very least, most of you must be wrong because you contradict each other.

...then that is fine but you have made up your mind that it has to be a naturalistic explanation...

Never really got the natural versus supernatural distinction. If a god exists, surely it must be the most natural thing there is?

...because you have unanswered questions about God...

Not really, no. There is no such idea as 'god' without further definition anyway. It means many different things to different people.

The evidence that there is a creator is the creation.

Begging the question.

 

[Brian2]

If religious parents, priests/imams/etc tell children that theirs isn't the only possible god, and it might not exist, then no, they are not being indoctrinated.
However, if they tell children that god is real, there is only their god, they should believe in it, and that there are punishments for not believing in it - then they are being indoctrinated.

That sounds right.
If an atheist taught their children there is no God that also would be a form of indoctrination.
Do you think there should be laws against parents teaching their children what they themselves believe.?

*sigh*
But is isn't important. That's the whole point! Things operate without any need for inserting god into the equation.

There is no need to insert God into any scientific ideas because science studies only the physical and has no input into whether there is a God behind it or not.
The thing is that neither science nor you know that things operate without a God to make sure of that.

So it does have an affect on something that is detectable, so it is different from "nothing". Therefore it isn't the same as god.

So God does not exist because you don't see an effect that God has even if others see and experience an effect.
Your ideas of reality seem stuck in the scientific method way of thinking and you don't seem to want to break out of that into the real world which goes beyond science.

Not just "undetectable", "undetectable and has no effect on anything that is detectable and is not required for any known process or explanation".

Undetectable by science does not mean God is not undetectable by other means.
God is required as the creator and life giver and sustainer of the universe. Atheist are really saying, "Give us one or 2 miracles and we can explain everything after that."

If something is undetectable and has no effect on anything that is detectable and is not required for any known process or explanation, why would you assume that it does exist?

God has had an effect on my life and there is evidence in history of God's dealings with humanity.
My faith is not assumption but if someone only accepts physical evidence in science for a non physical God when that is certainly a blinkered way to look at things.

 

[Brian2]

Which is better than the baseless guesses and superstition of all the different and contradictory god-concepts.

Educated guesses means just educated in the physical sciences and it does not approach the bigger question of why things exist.

None of which are answered by postulating a god - at least not in anything but a simplistic just-so story way. The ultimate question of why things exist and are the way they are remains exactly as unanswered if there is a god (or gods) as if there isn't.

There is no answer to "why" in science. There is no answer to "why" in atheism. There is at least a chance of getting the "why" answered with a God in the mix, a God who has reasons.

What is it with theists and 'proof'? It's not about proof, it's about evidence, or, in the case of the endless theist claims, the lack of even the slightest hint of a reason why we should take any of them in the least bit seriously. At the very least, most of you must be wrong because you contradict each other.

Yes I agree, most theists are wrong except about there being a God. All atheists are wrong about that.

Never really got the natural versus supernatural distinction. If a god exists, surely it must be the most natural thing there is?

God is the most natural thing there is but natural for us is the physical and natural for God is the spiritual, the realm of morals, life, love, faith etc.

Not really, no. There is no such idea as 'god' without further definition anyway. It means many different things to different people.

It is a good start to acknowledge the existence of a God however, then worry about which God or what sort of God.

Begging the question

.

Belief in a God is the answer to existence.

 

[ratiocinator]

Educated guesses means just educated in the physical sciences and it does not approach the bigger question of why things exist.
...
There is no answer to "why" in science. There is no answer to "why" in atheism. There is at least a chance of getting the "why" answered with a God in the mix, a God who has reasons.

I was using 'why' in a more general sense; the 'how come?' (reason) rather than 'what for?' (purpose) sense. I see no reason at all to think there is a purpose for existence of the universe. And the existence of any proposed god would be exactly as unexplained (purposeless) as the existence of the universe.

...except about there being a God. All atheists are wrong about that.

Unsupported assertion. And most atheists don't claim certainty anyway - we just find no basis on which to accept the many, contradictory god-claims.

God is the most natural thing there is but natural for us is the physical and natural for God is the spiritual, the realm of morals, life, love, faith etc.

Morals, love and faith are the product of minds, and life is complicated chemistry. Not sure what your point is. If a god created the universe, it would have to exist quite apart from those things.

It is a good start to acknowledge the existence of a God however, then worry about which God or what sort of God.

Why? There doesn't appear to be the slightest hint of a reason to think such a being might exist. The confusion over the various ideas of god is also directly relevant in the sense that it's a positive reason to think that no god that actually wants to communicate with humans exists.

Belief in a God is the answer to existence.

Belief in god is primitive superstition (if you can make unsupported assertions, so can I).

 

[KWED]

It is not a postulation, it is a belief, and is the best one we have so far.
All science can do is give educated guesses, naturalistic postulations.

So you are claiming that evidence-free belief in creationism is a better option than the mountain of evidence supporting evolution, Big Bang, planetary accretion, etc.

Erm...why?

Science also leaves us with unanswered and unanswerable questions.

How can you know if something is unanswerable?
How much of what we know now was considered impossible in the past? How many things that were once attributed to gods now have known natural explanations?
You are basically using the "god of the gaps" argument - and we all know how flawed that is.

I suppose if you want to believe nothing until it is proven then that is fine but you have made up your mind that it has to be a naturalistic explanation because you have unanswered questions about God, but have also made up your mind that it is a naturalistic explanation even though you have unanswered questions about that.

An explanation that relies on evidence is always better than one that relies on unsupported assertion.

The evidence that there is a creator is the creation.

Circular logic 101. You are assuming your conclusion.
But anyway, at least you recognise that if the universe, etc was not created, then there is no god.
At the moment, all the evidence suggests that the universe was not created, therefore the evidence suggests that there is no god. QED.

 

[KWED]

That sounds right.
If an atheist taught their children there is no God that also would be a form of indoctrination.

If parents taught children about atheism the way religious people teach children about god, then it would be indoctrination. Thankfully, they don't.

Do you think there should be laws against parents teaching their children what they themselves believe.?

There should be laws against psychological child abuse. Teaching a child that they are being watched 24/7 by some invisible power which will torture them for ever if they don't follow nonsensical Bronze Age superstition constitutes emotional child abuse imho.

There is no need to insert God into any scientific ideas because science studies only the physical and has no input into whether there is a God behind it or not.
The thing is that neither science nor you know that things operate without a God to make sure of that.

If things appear to operate without a god, and the idea of god is irrational, why would we assume there is such a god?

So God does not exist because you don't see an effect that God has

No. The complete lack of evidence for any input from or requirement for a god, and the evidence that claims made about or by that god are false, then there is no reason to assume that god exists.

even if others see and experience an effect.

Ah, the "I have felt his presence" and "just look at the world around us" arguments for god. Very convincing.

Your ideas of reality seem stuck in the scientific method way of thinking and you don't seem to want to break out of that into the real world which goes beyond science.

Who says that everything in the world is determined by science?

Undetectable by science does not mean God is not undetectable by other means.

What other means of detection do you propose? A religionist saying "I have felt his presence"?

God is required as the creator and life giver and sustainer of the universe.

More meaningless question begging. All the evidence suggests that there is no god, and even if there was, he is not required for the universe to be as we see it. It's funny how the need for gods is only apparent to people who already believe in gods.

Atheist are really saying, "Give us one or 2 miracles and we can explain everything after that."

What miracles do you think I want?

God has had an effect on my life

So you accept that every god and supernatural presence that anyone has ever experienced in some way necessarily exists?
Than kinda disproves your own version of god though, because if yours is true, none of the others can exist. But you are claiming that personal experience is sufficient proof of existence.

and there is evidence in history of God's dealings with humanity.

Like what? (I really do hope you aren't going to mention anything from holy scripture. I don't want to have to explain circular logic/question begging again)

My faith is not assumption but if someone only accepts physical evidence in science for a non physical God when that is certainly a blinkered way to look at things.

 

[KWED]

Educated guesses means just educated in the physical sciences and it does not approach the bigger question of why things exist.

If you think that things like evolution, magnetism, germ theory, thermodynamics, etc are "just educated guesses", then it is clear that whatever little science you have been exposed to at school went right over your head.

 

[Brian2]

I was using 'why' in a more general sense; the 'how come?' (reason) rather than 'what for?' (purpose) sense. I see no reason at all to think there is a purpose for existence of the universe. And the existence of any proposed god would be exactly as unexplained (purposeless) as the existence of the universe.

The existence of the universe is evidence for God and so that explains the existence of the universe.
The existence of God is unexplained, God just is. The cause of everything else.

Unsupported assertion. And most atheists don't claim certainty anyway - we just find no basis on which to accept the many, contradictory god-claims.

You find no basis on which to accept that a God exists, period. Forget about the contradictory claims, that is beside the point.

Morals, love and faith are the product of minds, and life is complicated chemistry. Not sure what your point is. If a god created the universe, it would have to exist quite apart from those things.

Atheism might be a lack of beliefs but it certainly produces a lot of beliefs that are based on the lack of belief in the alternative.

Why? There doesn't appear to be the slightest hint of a reason to think such a being might exist. The confusion over the various ideas of god is also directly relevant in the sense that it's a positive reason to think that no god that actually wants to communicate with humans exists.

The confusion for me is reason to believe there is a being who wants to confuse us.

Belief in god is primitive superstition (if you can make unsupported assertions, so can I).

Well I agree with you that this statement is an unsupported assertion.

 

[Brian2]

So you are claiming that evidence-free belief in creationism is a better option than the mountain of evidence supporting evolution, Big Bang, planetary accretion, etc.

Erm...why?

No I am not claiming that. Science can be a way of telling the way God made things the way they are, in a material sense. It does not tell the whole story however and because it follows naturalistic methodology it tries to take things too far, and into the realm which God claims that He did.

How can you know if something is unanswerable?
How much of what we know now was considered impossible in the past? How many things that were once attributed to gods now have known natural explanations?
You are basically using the "god of the gaps" argument - and we all know how flawed that is.

Finding out the mechanism for how something works in the physical sense does not take away the need for God. To say that is as silly as the God of the Gaps argument.
I know that science will never know how things came to be, it will always be a guess, and if science ever claims to know it will be going beyond the bounds of science imo. To claim a knowledge of the past is always speculation imo. Claiming to know what consciousness it also is problematic and based on the assumption that it is material based.

An explanation that relies on evidence is always better than one that relies on unsupported assertion.

It looks like evidence on the surface but in reality the science of origins is unsupported assertions because the whole thing is an argument from incredulity. We can't believe in a God that we cannot detect even with our finely tuned instruments so the alternative has to be true. (the alternative being that life and consciousness is a product of complex chemistry, and the universe is a product of chance )

Circular logic 101. You are assuming your conclusion.
But anyway, at least you recognise that if the universe, etc was not created, then there is no god.
At the moment, all the evidence suggests that the universe was not created, therefore the evidence suggests that there is no god. QED.

Circular logic is just what I said about the logic that says there is no creator if it is based on science.
The evidence does not suggest that the universe was not created, that it just mathematical extrapolations into areas that cannot be examined. Speculations.
Even if science came up with the perfect answer that covered all the angles science could think of, it would still be speculation based on a belief that God did not do it.

 

[ratiocinator]

The existence of the universe is evidence for God and so that explains the existence of the universe.

Begging the question.

The existence of God is unexplained, God just is.

How do you know this doesn't apply to the universe? You've explained exactly nothing about the fundamental question of why things exist, and are as they are, by making up a god.

You find no basis on which to accept that a God exists...

And you're not providing any.

Forget about the contradictory claims, that is beside the point.

It's absolutely not beside the point. It is a total misrepresentation of reality to pretend that there is belief in 'god' or not. There are literally thousands of gods humanity has dreamt up and believed in.

Atheism might be a lack of beliefs but it certainly produces a lot of beliefs that are based on the lack of belief in the alternative.

There isn't just one alternative. Also, I've no clear idea what beliefs you're referring to.

The confusion for me is reason to believe there is a being who wants to confuse us.

Yes, if a god exists and has anything to do with any religion, then it obviously wants people to be confused. I'd want nothing to do with such a cruel and deceptive god, even if I thought for a moment it might exist (I guess you're actually referring to another being but it amounts to the same thing if god is omnipotent).

Well I agree with you that this statement is an unsupported assertion.

Just like yours.

 

[Muffled]

I mentioned an experience I had 11 years ago when I almost got hit by two cars and something (or one's arm) went across my chest and pushed me back. Another similar incident wasn't that dramatic (no spirits iow) but two cars almost hit me and one so close I had to get a drink after crossing the street.

I called my Christian former friend and told her the 1st incident. My grandmother had just passed away then and first thing I said was thank you grandma but my friend thought it was god.

Now I don't believe deities exist but she got me thinking that if spiritual awakenings from atheist to theist were true my friend and I wouldn't have drawn two completely different conclusions from the same event.

Her prior knowledge of God lead her to that conclusion. My absence thereof by default did not.

So, I ask believers who have opinions of nonbelievers having spiritual awakenings, has there been any where the person did not have preexisting knowledge of God?

(I've heard it used as proof of god's existence)

And if spiritual awakenings by default lead to God, why do people who share similar events come to completely different opposing conclusions?


Just a thought not a sermon

I believe without a relationship with God it becomes more remotely possible that it was Him.

Supposedly ghosts can move things and I always thought that was fiction until the other night when I was physically attacked by a demon. However after death there are many possibilities and I suspect ghost is the least likely.

It may come down to love. Basically you can't have more love than God so it makes it eminently more likely that it was God rather than a dead relative.

 

[Muffled]

All in my opinion: I consider a natural knowledge to be implanted in all human nature, so my answer to the first question is no. As to the second, why there are different conclusions, it is because of social conditions and ideas already in their mind. Like how people who have NDEs might see Buddha, or Jesus, and after the images of art they've seen around them. Social conditions and the will, it will not always lead to someone coming to the same idea of God.

I believe that has a lot to do with it and the fact that people believe things impulsively without thinking them through.

 

[ratiocinator]

Even if science came up with the perfect answer that covered all the angles science could think of, it would still be speculation based on a belief that God did not do it.

I do find this rather amusing as belief in god(s) is based on nothing objective at all and explains nothing at all, except in a trite, simplistic, 'just-so story' kind of way.

 

[Brian2]

I do find this rather amusing as belief in god(s) is based on nothing objective at all and explains nothing at all, except in a trite, simplistic, 'just-so story' kind of way.

The gospels just so story is from people who were there.
The Bible story of creation comes from the one who was there and did it.
So 15 billion years later we are trying to guess what might have happened given that God did not do it.
I agree that it is amusing, but from a different angle.

 

[ratiocinator]

The gospels just so story is from people who were there.

Irrelevant to the point but this is highly questionable.

The Bible story of creation comes from the one who was there and did it.

Baseless assertion.

So 15 billion years later we are trying to guess what might have happened given that God did not do it.

Nothing about god(s) appears to be anything but a guess. What's more, it's a guess that doesn't solve the problem of existence. God(s) would be just as unexplained as the universe.