My experience and gods existence

[Brian2]

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

Nevertheless the absence of God in the life of a child is teaching them about atheism.

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 are child abuse laws but I don't know what they say about teaching our kids the faith we have or do not have.

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

If the idea of a god was irrational and if there was no historical record of God's interaction with people then you might have a point. As for science it studies what it studies and ignores what it cannot show exists.

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.

I don't think there is good evidence that what is in the Bible is false.

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

You seem to think that science is the only thing worth listening to for answers.

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

Just opening the possibility to belief in God allows God in to a person who might hear what He is saying.

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.

Creation and life giving are science of the gap things. They are the things that God says He did along with keeping the universe running as it does.

What miracles do you think I want?

Creation and 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.

All I can say is that God has had an effect on my life.

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)

I see prophecies as having been fulfilled.
The circular reasoning by sceptics is to say that prophecies are not true therefore the prophecies had to have been written after the events and so they end up writing books about the Old Testament having been written after the events. This is good evidence for other sceptics who do not see the circular reasoning involved.
When it comes to prophecies there are those about events that happened definitely after the prophecies. The life and death of Jesus is an example. Sceptics then say that Christians made up the gospels to fit the OT.
There are prophecies about later events also and these are happening as we speak.

Unfortunately the audio on my computer is not working.

 

[Brian2]

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.

I did not say anything about those subjects.
The bigger questions are questions science cannot answer even if answers are offered and even believed. Life and consciousness are seen as material based and the universe just happened.

 

[Brian2]

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.

The existence of God explains those things. Science certainly cannot explain them.
I think we have been down the road of if the universe has always been (in one form or another) then time would have had to have had no beginning and there has not been an infinite amount of time yet.

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.

There is belief in God and not. Atheism or theism. I have misrepresented nothing and the multiplicity of gods does not mean they are all made up nonsense.

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

Maybe there isn't just one alternative, there are other things that man has made up also.
I was referring to the beliefs based on materialism about what life is and how things came to exist and be as they are.

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).

I just accept that God tells us the truth and others, including atheists, tell us what is not true.
God chooses to let it go on like that until the time comes to judge the earth and sort things out once and for all.


Just like yours.[/QUOTE]

 

[ratiocinator]

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.

The existence of God explains those things. Science certainly cannot explain them.

Of course god doesn't explain why things exist and are as they are. If we postulate a god, then what exists includes god and the way things are includes the way god is.

I think we have been down the road of if the universe has always been (in one form or another) then time would have had to have had no beginning and there has not been an infinite amount of time yet.

Which is just confusing an infinite past with a start an infinite time ago and applying an outdated Newtonian view of time. The space-time manifold pretty much seems as if it 'just is'.

There is belief in God and not.

The word 'God' does not refer to a single concept, so no, that isn't the (singular) choice.

I have misrepresented nothing and the multiplicity of gods does not mean they are all made up nonsense.

At least most of them must be wrong.

I was referring to the beliefs based on materialism about what life is and how things came to exist and be as they are.

None of which are directly relevant to atheism. We have what the evidence tells us via science (which many theists accept) and things we don't know (yet). Materialism is irrelevant philosophy.

I just accept that God tells us the truth and others, including atheists, tell us what is not true.

There is no evidence that I've ever seen that any god have ever told anybody anything.

 

[Brian2]

Of course god doesn't explain why things exist and are as they are. If we postulate a god, then what exists includes god and the way things are includes the way god is.

The existence of God explains the universe and the way it is. God is the first cause and just is and He is not explained by science.

Which is just confusing an infinite past with a start an infinite time ago and applying an outdated Newtonian view of time. The space-time manifold pretty much seems as if it 'just is'.

So I guess that would mean that this universe, even as a singularity, was something that was in the space-time manifold.
My understanding of space-time manifold does not change anything about an infinite past or an infinite number of space-time events in the past.
What does a space-time manifold exist in?

The word 'God' does not refer to a single concept, so no, that isn't the (singular) choice.

There are those who believe in god/s and those who do not. Each of those choices/sets can no doubt be divided into subsets.

At least most of them must be wrong.

True. It is however a search to find and please God and the atheist is still to begin the journey of faith.

None of which are directly relevant to atheism. We have what the evidence tells us via science (which many theists accept) and things we don't know (yet). Materialism is irrelevant philosophy.

Science works with the material universe.

There is no evidence that I've ever seen that any god have ever told anybody anything.

The evidence imo is in fulfilled prophecy.

 

[ratiocinator]

The existence of God explains the universe and the way it is. God is the first cause and just is and He is not explained by science.

Firstly, you can't get away from the fact that you haven't solved the problem of what exists, you've just moved it, and secondly, how do you know the universe (the whole space-time manifold) isn't the thing that 'just is'? It's a far simpler 'explanation'.

So I guess that would mean that this universe, even as a singularity, was something that was in the space-time manifold.

Hardly anybody thinks there was a literal singularity because quantum effects would become important before we get back to that point and may well change things.

My understanding of space-time manifold does not change anything about an infinite past or an infinite number of space-time events in the past.

It combines space and time with time just being an observer-dependant direction through it. Hence every single event (point in space-time) is part of the manifold. An infinite past is no more of a problem than and infinite future or infinite space.

What does a space-time manifold exist in?

'In' only makes sense if you have space. To ask what space(-time) itself is in, doesn't make sense. What do you think your god exists in?

There are those who believe in god/s and those who do not. Each of those choices/sets can no doubt be divided into subsets.

With regard to belief in god(s), I can't really see how you divide the set of atheists because its basic definition is that its members are not members of any set of theists. Theism, on the other hand, is full of mostly disjoint subsets.

It is however a search to find and please God and the atheist is still to begin the journey of faith.

Why would a just and fair god play such a silly and cruel game of hide-and-seek? Why would a rational person bother to go looking for such a god anyway, just on the off-chance that a real god is hiding amongst all the made up myths?

Science works with the material universe.

It works with objective evidence. Materialism (in philosophy) was originally about matter. Science has gone way beyond that already. If there's evidence, then I see no arbitrary philosophical barrier. Where science and (some) religious claims conflict, science always follows the evidence. Many, if not most, forms of theism are simply irrelevant to science.

The evidence imo is in fulfilled prophecy.

Whenever I've looked into this, it's been a joke. You can find just as many instances of biblical 'prophecies' that have failed, than any that might be said to have been fulfilled. Sometimes you find the same 'prophecies' listed as failures as others have listed as fulfilled, where the theists are desperately trying to make the facts fit the prophecy when they clearly don't (Tyre springs to mind). When you rule out the vague, the probably written after the fact, and extremely probable anyway, there really isn't much left.

Biblical prophecies - RationalWiki

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe it is objective. Anyone can read the Bible so it isn't just one person's experience.

 

[ratiocinator]

Anyone can read the Bible so it isn't just one person's experience.

I did just that, that's how I know it's a disjointed, incoherent mess, with no clear message, and riddled with contradictions. If it's a message from some god then said god must be some sort of crazy mixed up deity. On the other hand, if god really is that crazy, it's a far better fit with the world than all that perfection and omni-stuff that monotheists tend to go on about....

 

[PearlSeeker]

Of course god doesn't explain why things exist and are as they are. If we postulate a god, then what exists includes god and the way things are includes the way god is.

"Although science may solve the problem of how the universe began, it can not answer the question: Why does the universe bother to exist? Maybe only God can answer that." (Stephen Hawking)

There is a difference between contingent existence and necessary existence. The former can be explained with the later.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is a difference between contingent existence and necessary existence. The former can be explained with the later.

There is? What would explain a god's existence that couldn't equally be applied to the universe with equal (in)validity?

I assume you refer to some version of the 'argument' from contingency, which (at least in all the forms I've seen it) is just comical.

 

[PearlSeeker]

There is? What would explain a god's existence that couldn't equally be applied to the universe with equal (in)validity?

Necessity.

I assume you refer to some version of the 'argument' from contingency, which (at least in all the forms I've seen it) is just comical.

Why do you think so?

 

[ratiocinator]

Necessity.

How do you define necessity in this context? What is necessary about god? Why can't the universe be necessary?

Why do you think so?

Obviously flawed. If you want to point me to a version, I'll either tell you why or be surprised...

 

[PearlSeeker]

How do you define necessity in this context? What is necessary about god? Why can't the universe be necessary?

Something exists. That's for sure. There are only two possibilities why there is something. Either there is something from nothing or there is something self-existent - something causeless that exists by necessity (and enables/explains everything). First option doesn't make sense. What about the second option?

You said universe. Uni-verse. We know much about "verse" - diversity. What about the "uni" - unity?

Many people say: "Who created the Creator?", "How do you know God is causeless/necessary?" The same could be applied to universe. Is universe part of something? Does it owe it's existence to something? How do you know universe causes itself? Why there IS universe (and not something else or nothing at all)?

Some say laws of physics. But again: why these laws? Do they require some higher principle?

For the question to be properly, fully answered, we need a sufficient reason that has no need of any further reason—a ‘Because’ that doesn’t throw up a further ‘Why?’—and this must lie outside the series of contingent things, and must be found in a substance which is the cause of the entire series. It must be something that exists necessarily, carrying the reason for its existence within itself; only that can give us a sufficient reason at which we can stop, having no further Why?-question taking us from this being to something else. (Leibniz)​

 

[ratiocinator]

There are only two possibilities why there is something. Either there is something from nothing or there is something self-existent - something causeless that exists by necessity (and enables/explains everything). First option doesn't make sense. What about the second option?

The something from nothing is spurious and relies on an outdated Newtonian, view of time. The third option is just a brute fact of something existing.

You said universe. Uni-verse. We know much about "verse" - diversity. What about the "uni" - unity?

Not sure what the question is, or the relevance of unity.

Many people say: "Who created the Creator?", "How do you know God is causeless/necessary?" The same could be applied to universe. Is universe part of something? Does it owe it's existence to something? How do you know universe causes itself? Why there IS universe (and not something else or nothing at all)?

Some say laws of physics. But again: why these laws? Do they require some higher principle?

All those questions can be applied to anything, whether the universe or something else we dream up that it might depend on. The universe as a whole (the space-time manifold) appears to be something that doesn't obviously depend on anything else. As for it causing itself, well there's some who have proposed that (Before the Big Bang 6: Can the Universe Create Itself?).

For the question to be properly, fully answered, we need a sufficient reason that has no need of any further reason—a ‘Because’ that doesn’t throw up a further ‘Why?’—and this must lie outside the series of contingent things, and must be found in a substance which is the cause of the entire series. It must be something that exists necessarily, carrying the reason for its existence within itself; only that can give us a sufficient reason at which we can stop, having no further Why?-question taking us from this being to something else. (Leibniz)

None of this explains how anything can exist and be its own sufficient reason, so we still we can't rule out the universe, nor is it an argument for a god, even if we could.

 

[Muffled]

I did just that, that's how I know it's a disjointed, incoherent mess, with no clear message, and riddled with contradictions. If it's a message from some god then said god must be some sort of crazy mixed up deity. On the other hand, if god really is that crazy, it's a far better fit with the world than all that perfection and omni-stuff that monotheists tend to go on about....

I believe you are reading without comprehension.

 

[ratiocinator]

I believe you are reading without comprehension.

I think it highly likely that you, like so many Christians, are reading it, not to actually see what it says, but to 'confirm' what you already think you know.

The contradictions are all very, real, and the fact that there is no single coherent message is confirmed by all the many different interpretations by the endless different sects, cults, and denominations, that all claim to be getting their message from it.

 

[night912]

I don't really care if you want to make a distinction between lack of belief and belief that there is no God, you are just being awkward for no good reason.

You say that you don't care, and yet, here you are in this discussion caring about me making a distinction between the two. Thanks for caring.

 

[night912]

You're just imagining that this is a world without a God.

Actually, no I'm not. If I was, then I would be like you, imagining that you actually know what I'm thinking but being unable to show evidence of it. You're free to imagine all you want, I have no problem with that.

 

[Muffled]

I think it highly likely that you, like so many Christians, are reading it, not to actually see what it says, but to 'confirm' what you already think you know.

The contradictions are all very, real, and the fact that there is no single coherent message is confirmed by all the many different interpretations by the endless different sects, cults, and denominations, that all claim to be getting their message from it.

I believe that I read with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I believe that is wishful thinking on your part and not the reality.

I believe that is false. The reasons for differences of opinion are not the text itself but rather the imaginations of men who have not relied upon the Holy Spirit but rely on their own concepts.