Jacob Samuelson
Active Member
I think the most difficult task for a theist is to differentiate the two above philosophies. We look at an event with the same object in mind, yet perhaps view it with varied complexity. Like if I, a theist, look at a rubber ball, and I was told to study this ball and bring back a report of its characteristics to the CEO of a company so that I can sustain my living, then I would look at its application, its utility, and perhaps delve a little into its general composition in order to evaluate its cost of material. As an atheist, who is perhaps not an employee, but a consumer would be more focused on the said rubber ball's necessity and might investigate deeper into the composition in evaluating its environmental impact in sustaining the reality around them.
Like a business, theism is selling a product that has many vendors. All proclaiming different attributes of the same Item in order to get people to shop at their store rather than others. In this case the item is not a rubber ball, but the patent to Heaven and Earth. an Intellectual Property that no one, but the creator of the patent has the right to sell.
However theists claim this patent was, by looking at certain historical documents, given to them by inheritance from the creator itself, and therefore has been selling this intellectual property regardless of whether it was actually given or not.
The Abrahamic Claim suggests that the Creator placed us on Earth as stewards with the intent to give everything to humans provided they agree to the legalistic will or contracts referred to scripturally as covenants. Most if not all theists will claim a similar agreement structure with their creator in order to inherit this patent.
Atheists will take the approach that this Intellectual Property doesn't belong to anyone rather it is a commercial and political pursuit to allow control and subjugation of the masses in performing and maintaining a moral societal standard and by so doing individually profiting from this fictitious creation.
Instead, Atheists feel it is their responsibility personally and commonly to reject ownership of this Intellectual Property and suggest using empirical evidence of the world around them that the heavens and the earth already belong to them. That they are already owners regardless of presupposed fantasical rules and regulations for inheritance. To an atheist, science is God. No one needs to beg, to plead, or to give up their objectivity, in order to receive answers or physical aid. All they need to do is believe and support that science will give them answers and human intellect will save them from every disease and every problem.
You will find that the Atheist and Theist both require belief. However, the atheist will look at belief as a statistic where Theist look at belief as a finitely certain outcome. For example, If I gave you medicine that generally helps cure a disease. Science would say this medicine works and that you should take it. However there is no certainty that it will work every single time with every single patient. Therefore science is bound as a statistical argument of validity where nothing is for certain. In contrast, A theist will hold on to the belief that although something doesn't work all the time, it doesn't mean that it is a fraud. It means that there are varying circumstances that led to its failure and perhaps want to know exactly why in order to correct it..
Theism in this case has put God as its ultimate medicine. Meaning that if there are contradictions to Gods behavior in respect to man, such as if He appeared to someone, why not me? Or if He says he is no respecter of persons but has a morally degrading attitude to particular group of humans and not to others, the theist must go into the infinite possibilities as to why. This is why theist are generally never in agreement. If they were, they would probably achieve an actual answer rather than theoretical inferences.
Yet there is a very intriguing product that Theists hold in their inventory that makes me inclined to be a vendor rather than just as a consumer. It could be interpreted many ways, but it is labeled as Faith. Now Faith, conceptually is universal to theism and atheism. Yet while atheism has more of an approach of Trial and Error type Faith. Theists have a Trial for Success type Faith.
Trial and Error suggests that we take a sample that generally has a component that should work based on evidence, yet if it doesn't, you must go to a different like sample and so forth until you finally get the solution.
Trial for Success approach is where you only have one sample, and you add to that sample to create a solution. What this does is instead of going through infinite possible variations, you evolve and adapt the sample itself to achieve a solution, often using concepts that are not proven empirically but theoretically possible.
I think scientifically we achieve a better outcome using the trial for success approach. We create concepts such as infinite or imaginary numbers, or negatives, as a way to better understand the world around us. While these concepts hold no empirical weight, they are still essential for determining or better understanding theoretical outcomes.
The concept of Infinity scholastically in my mind is younger than the concept of God theologically. God has always been used theologically to determine the foreverness of existence that including the human mind. Now if the human mind was created before God is the real question? It creates a paradox far more important than the Chicken or the Egg.
If the human mind was first, then we are dependent on the slow yet high-accelerating evolution of the human mind. If God was first, than we are dependant on an eventual yet sudden revelation of supreme intellect that will provide everything we may never achieve ourselves in our uniquely exhaustible minds.
For the time being, we atheists and theists are only left with concepts of Infinity or God. The benefit or reason Theists believe in God, is to continue improving on their knowledge having faith that they will receive everything outside their personal human minds in a complete and whole sense. They believe that this knowledge won't just be beneficiary to their descendants millenia from now, however they themselves would receive everything as a spiritual or resurrected being. What this does is motivate the present to provide for the future, and the future to continue that provision until the time comes when the ultimate future exists.
God conceptually is enough for humans to continue producing for the future. The absence of this concept can greatly diminish progress. Atheist Scientist, howbeit personally astute in their own human contributions to truth, are driven to truth in a similar fashion that Theist Scientist would be, however if one is motivated by finite mortal experiences knowing they will never possible reach the satisfaction of their endeavors, this in my mind is more limiting to the scientist that knows that his spiritual intelligence will be able to enjoy his achievements of truth for ever and ever and still be able to learn and grow. Therefore, it is my opinion,The Theist Scientist potentially can contribute more to society than the Atheist Scientist if it is on the grounds of mortal to immortal perspective.
The same is for all theists despite their profession. Knowing that your experiences are not finite when your conscience leaves this world can make a very compelling argument that this life, fair or unfair is irrelevant to the eternality of this universe. If you exist post mortem, then it would by default rectify any unfairness that the world had offered. If you exist post mortem than you would be experience genuine truth that this universe is so much bigger than imagined.
The reason I am a theist. Is because I absolutely want to know everything that exists in this Earth and Universe. I know that I am not going to be able in my lifetime achieve that desire, unless I was visited personally by God and was given revelation for myself. For the eons and eons of existence their is infinite amount of data. From my understanding, we have only scratched the surface and broke a nail by it. I know that eventually humankind will achieve advancements that equal or are even in addition to Gods using his designs as blueprints to create uniquely original creations. This of course is in the hopes that our Sun doesn't collapse, that a comet doesn't knock the Earth out of gravational orbit, that we don't succumb to a depletion of resources, that upcoming diseases don't wipe every person from existence, that we don't enter an Ice age from depolarization of the Earth, the list goes on and on for potential world destruction.
Despite all of these very possible outcomes, I can say I am grateful for having an existence, albeit, small and unnecessary. To have a conscience and be able to experience human thought up to the point of destruction. We could be completely wiped out any second of our lives and it would be alright for a Theist, because fear and unfairness and death are physcologically weaker than Faith, Love, and Hope their opposites. Perhaps as Athiests, you feel like you are on the Acceptance side of the Five Stages of Grief, while Theists are on the Denial side. However, I would disagree, because theists are generally never introduced to Grief until they doubt the existence of God. Theist tend to have no reason to grieve, Whereas, atheists must constantly be on the acceptance stage of grief a very hard balance for the rest of their lives to live psychologically.
Anyways, I hope that my points made sense. I believe that I still may use a different vocabulary than you are used to, but I hope to hear a response if needed to clarify points. We both live in the same world, we have or will have similar circumstances eventually, Born, Think, Die, We have access to the same intelligence as the other to discern truth. In the end, it is whether you want to use your life using the concept of infinity to solve problems, or do you want to use just numerical statistics to solve your problems. It would be nice to have both, but an atheist can not be an Atheist without the Concept of God, at least a true atheist. Even Theist do not have a exhaustive definition of God only a conceptual one and that is what they use to seperate them from Atheist. However, I have found that the concept of God only helps and does not diminish progress in science because it provides another pathway to discovery than solely just a logical evidential one.
I think that is all I have for now. Thank you for your patience in reading this.
Like a business, theism is selling a product that has many vendors. All proclaiming different attributes of the same Item in order to get people to shop at their store rather than others. In this case the item is not a rubber ball, but the patent to Heaven and Earth. an Intellectual Property that no one, but the creator of the patent has the right to sell.
However theists claim this patent was, by looking at certain historical documents, given to them by inheritance from the creator itself, and therefore has been selling this intellectual property regardless of whether it was actually given or not.
The Abrahamic Claim suggests that the Creator placed us on Earth as stewards with the intent to give everything to humans provided they agree to the legalistic will or contracts referred to scripturally as covenants. Most if not all theists will claim a similar agreement structure with their creator in order to inherit this patent.
Atheists will take the approach that this Intellectual Property doesn't belong to anyone rather it is a commercial and political pursuit to allow control and subjugation of the masses in performing and maintaining a moral societal standard and by so doing individually profiting from this fictitious creation.
Instead, Atheists feel it is their responsibility personally and commonly to reject ownership of this Intellectual Property and suggest using empirical evidence of the world around them that the heavens and the earth already belong to them. That they are already owners regardless of presupposed fantasical rules and regulations for inheritance. To an atheist, science is God. No one needs to beg, to plead, or to give up their objectivity, in order to receive answers or physical aid. All they need to do is believe and support that science will give them answers and human intellect will save them from every disease and every problem.
You will find that the Atheist and Theist both require belief. However, the atheist will look at belief as a statistic where Theist look at belief as a finitely certain outcome. For example, If I gave you medicine that generally helps cure a disease. Science would say this medicine works and that you should take it. However there is no certainty that it will work every single time with every single patient. Therefore science is bound as a statistical argument of validity where nothing is for certain. In contrast, A theist will hold on to the belief that although something doesn't work all the time, it doesn't mean that it is a fraud. It means that there are varying circumstances that led to its failure and perhaps want to know exactly why in order to correct it..
Theism in this case has put God as its ultimate medicine. Meaning that if there are contradictions to Gods behavior in respect to man, such as if He appeared to someone, why not me? Or if He says he is no respecter of persons but has a morally degrading attitude to particular group of humans and not to others, the theist must go into the infinite possibilities as to why. This is why theist are generally never in agreement. If they were, they would probably achieve an actual answer rather than theoretical inferences.
Yet there is a very intriguing product that Theists hold in their inventory that makes me inclined to be a vendor rather than just as a consumer. It could be interpreted many ways, but it is labeled as Faith. Now Faith, conceptually is universal to theism and atheism. Yet while atheism has more of an approach of Trial and Error type Faith. Theists have a Trial for Success type Faith.
Trial and Error suggests that we take a sample that generally has a component that should work based on evidence, yet if it doesn't, you must go to a different like sample and so forth until you finally get the solution.
Trial for Success approach is where you only have one sample, and you add to that sample to create a solution. What this does is instead of going through infinite possible variations, you evolve and adapt the sample itself to achieve a solution, often using concepts that are not proven empirically but theoretically possible.
I think scientifically we achieve a better outcome using the trial for success approach. We create concepts such as infinite or imaginary numbers, or negatives, as a way to better understand the world around us. While these concepts hold no empirical weight, they are still essential for determining or better understanding theoretical outcomes.
The concept of Infinity scholastically in my mind is younger than the concept of God theologically. God has always been used theologically to determine the foreverness of existence that including the human mind. Now if the human mind was created before God is the real question? It creates a paradox far more important than the Chicken or the Egg.
If the human mind was first, then we are dependent on the slow yet high-accelerating evolution of the human mind. If God was first, than we are dependant on an eventual yet sudden revelation of supreme intellect that will provide everything we may never achieve ourselves in our uniquely exhaustible minds.
For the time being, we atheists and theists are only left with concepts of Infinity or God. The benefit or reason Theists believe in God, is to continue improving on their knowledge having faith that they will receive everything outside their personal human minds in a complete and whole sense. They believe that this knowledge won't just be beneficiary to their descendants millenia from now, however they themselves would receive everything as a spiritual or resurrected being. What this does is motivate the present to provide for the future, and the future to continue that provision until the time comes when the ultimate future exists.
God conceptually is enough for humans to continue producing for the future. The absence of this concept can greatly diminish progress. Atheist Scientist, howbeit personally astute in their own human contributions to truth, are driven to truth in a similar fashion that Theist Scientist would be, however if one is motivated by finite mortal experiences knowing they will never possible reach the satisfaction of their endeavors, this in my mind is more limiting to the scientist that knows that his spiritual intelligence will be able to enjoy his achievements of truth for ever and ever and still be able to learn and grow. Therefore, it is my opinion,The Theist Scientist potentially can contribute more to society than the Atheist Scientist if it is on the grounds of mortal to immortal perspective.
The same is for all theists despite their profession. Knowing that your experiences are not finite when your conscience leaves this world can make a very compelling argument that this life, fair or unfair is irrelevant to the eternality of this universe. If you exist post mortem, then it would by default rectify any unfairness that the world had offered. If you exist post mortem than you would be experience genuine truth that this universe is so much bigger than imagined.
The reason I am a theist. Is because I absolutely want to know everything that exists in this Earth and Universe. I know that I am not going to be able in my lifetime achieve that desire, unless I was visited personally by God and was given revelation for myself. For the eons and eons of existence their is infinite amount of data. From my understanding, we have only scratched the surface and broke a nail by it. I know that eventually humankind will achieve advancements that equal or are even in addition to Gods using his designs as blueprints to create uniquely original creations. This of course is in the hopes that our Sun doesn't collapse, that a comet doesn't knock the Earth out of gravational orbit, that we don't succumb to a depletion of resources, that upcoming diseases don't wipe every person from existence, that we don't enter an Ice age from depolarization of the Earth, the list goes on and on for potential world destruction.
Despite all of these very possible outcomes, I can say I am grateful for having an existence, albeit, small and unnecessary. To have a conscience and be able to experience human thought up to the point of destruction. We could be completely wiped out any second of our lives and it would be alright for a Theist, because fear and unfairness and death are physcologically weaker than Faith, Love, and Hope their opposites. Perhaps as Athiests, you feel like you are on the Acceptance side of the Five Stages of Grief, while Theists are on the Denial side. However, I would disagree, because theists are generally never introduced to Grief until they doubt the existence of God. Theist tend to have no reason to grieve, Whereas, atheists must constantly be on the acceptance stage of grief a very hard balance for the rest of their lives to live psychologically.
Anyways, I hope that my points made sense. I believe that I still may use a different vocabulary than you are used to, but I hope to hear a response if needed to clarify points. We both live in the same world, we have or will have similar circumstances eventually, Born, Think, Die, We have access to the same intelligence as the other to discern truth. In the end, it is whether you want to use your life using the concept of infinity to solve problems, or do you want to use just numerical statistics to solve your problems. It would be nice to have both, but an atheist can not be an Atheist without the Concept of God, at least a true atheist. Even Theist do not have a exhaustive definition of God only a conceptual one and that is what they use to seperate them from Atheist. However, I have found that the concept of God only helps and does not diminish progress in science because it provides another pathway to discovery than solely just a logical evidential one.
I think that is all I have for now. Thank you for your patience in reading this.
