Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I honestly don't think I have been demanding any sort of proof, I just used 'atheist' as an adjective.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Proof of Gods existence to you?
- Thread starter Laika
- Start date
no worries. the problem is there are a series of related questions like "what is proof", "do we have a shared definition of proof to reach a consensus", "is proof even possible", "is faith an acceptable way to establish belief or truth" etc. these tend to get steam rolled because 'atheists' tend not to ask these questions.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Sorry. But why am I tasking with defending all atheists? Ask me anything you like, I won't evade anything. How about the benefit of doubt?
Fair enough. I am being unfair.
I think it boils down to one question; if there is no god and never was, why do so many people believe in one?
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Well for many reasons;Fair enough. I am being unfair.
I think it boils down to one question; if there is no god and never was, why do so many people believe in one?
Because they were raised that way, as I was.
Because it gives them strength.
Because it is the culture they are immersed in.
Because it makes sense to attribute what we do not understand to some great power?
What can I say? Am I defending myself or all other atheists?
No. your not defending yourself. just ignore everything I've said. RF is wearing on me and I probably need a break from it for a bit. will see you round Bunyip.
dogfishparisi
Member
I am a Theist
God is everything to me. Literally everything. The autonomous actions of free will can diverge from Gods Will and cause suffering but they can also align with it and bring fulfillment and peace in this life. I practice the teachings of Christ but see the truth of this reflected in many faiths.
Could I be convinced their is no God? Nope. The universe exists, the flowers exist, you and I exist, and I will return to the pool of Energy that is God as surely as the sun will set. We all return, even science cannot refute this.
Often Atheists are hyper-focused on how certain religions envision God and the after-life, and try and say that the absurdity of the claims means its all bunk. No one really knows of course. Maybe I'm just a dreamer! ! 8)
God is everything to me. Literally everything. The autonomous actions of free will can diverge from Gods Will and cause suffering but they can also align with it and bring fulfillment and peace in this life. I practice the teachings of Christ but see the truth of this reflected in many faiths.
Could I be convinced their is no God? Nope. The universe exists, the flowers exist, you and I exist, and I will return to the pool of Energy that is God as surely as the sun will set. We all return, even science cannot refute this.
Often Atheists are hyper-focused on how certain religions envision God and the after-life, and try and say that the absurdity of the claims means its all bunk. No one really knows of course. Maybe I'm just a dreamer! ! 8)
There is NO PROOF in the scientific sense. Faith simply can not be
proved or disproved.
I've read varying accounts of how much of man's history is covered
in what we call the Christian Bible, both the O.T. and N.T.
I've read 4400 to over 6000 years. The Bible isn't that old of course
but the writings contained therein go back a long time.
Take the Bible as a whole and themes run congruent throughout
the books.
Worship the one true God the called Yahweh and various other
spellings, in Genesis we have the fall of man, and then the struggles
of mankind to find meaning, make meaning through "god".
In the N.T. we get "salvation" via the shed blood sacrifice of God's only begotten Son who gives up his life to cover the sins of imperfect
man.
There is much, much, more of course and I believe every seeking person
should read the Bible that contains the instructions on how to live
a life that harms no one and is beneficial for the reader in so many
ways.
( It might even bring you closer to God )
proved or disproved.
I've read varying accounts of how much of man's history is covered
in what we call the Christian Bible, both the O.T. and N.T.
I've read 4400 to over 6000 years. The Bible isn't that old of course
but the writings contained therein go back a long time.
Take the Bible as a whole and themes run congruent throughout
the books.
Worship the one true God the called Yahweh and various other
spellings, in Genesis we have the fall of man, and then the struggles
of mankind to find meaning, make meaning through "god".
In the N.T. we get "salvation" via the shed blood sacrifice of God's only begotten Son who gives up his life to cover the sins of imperfect
man.
There is much, much, more of course and I believe every seeking person
should read the Bible that contains the instructions on how to live
a life that harms no one and is beneficial for the reader in so many
ways.
( It might even bring you closer to God )
ether-ore
Active Member
I'm a theist. Specifically LDS, which probably gives most an understanding of what my concept of God is. I do not think there will ever be empirical evidence which will convince atheist. There is ample difficulty convincing other Christians that God has a body of flesh and bones, never mind the atheists. Having said that, the evidence that convinces me concerning the existence of God are what I consider credible and corroborative testimonies of the apostles and prophets who have personally interacted with God. Never mind the empirical evidence, atheists will not accept the testimony of the apostles and prophets who were eye witness to manifestations of God. So there is no where to go from here. Only God Himself will be able to convince them, but then that may be too late.
McDoogins
Member
Even if the consensus was that god was real across the world I still wouldn't be convinced because I would just change the terms to my liking.
For me god can't be real, because is totally fictional. He is only real in the minds of people and in their actions. But he is not a tangible part of reality.
If god were to present himself he would just be another dude that just happens to boss people around. That's it. I would like to see if anyone has a counter argument since I'm not very good at arguing or debating. Haha
For me god can't be real, because is totally fictional. He is only real in the minds of people and in their actions. But he is not a tangible part of reality.
If god were to present himself he would just be another dude that just happens to boss people around. That's it. I would like to see if anyone has a counter argument since I'm not very good at arguing or debating. Haha
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I don't think you will find that any atheists reject your God. As far as I know, all atheists also believe the universe exists. Why would science want to refute such a God? Disproving the existence of the universe would be an exercise in futility.
dogfishparisi
Member
I hear that... In my experience the biggest issue I've seen with Religion, and scriptural interpretation for that matter, is the extremely narrow and misinformed idea of 'God'. This is especially bad in American Christianity, where God is envisioned much like Zeus up in the clouds dominating over all. The reality is that scripture never, not even once, speaks about God having the specific physical attributes most people envision -
It seems to me that religion and scripture is fine, but the problems start with the people who claim to be representatives of religion.
In Christianity in general you see an enormous lack of scriptural knowledge- and in it's place a never ending stream of platitudes that may or not be rooted in scripture.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
I'm sorry, but that strikes me as something you have not thought through. Of course people have a 'narrow' view of God that they find in their scriptures and theologies - they are worshipping a specific character with specific traits and characteristics dictated by their religion. Religions do not tend to worship some generalised, unspecified God, but a specific one. In Christianity for example, the Goe in question is necessarily 'narrowed' to Yahweh, God of the ancient Hebrews.
I don't think many people actually do argue about God's physical attributes, other than that we are made in his image.
Yes, in fact atheists tend to score higher on bible knowledge tests than do Christians.
Thanks for the response, but I honestly think that you are making a mistake to criticise people for worshipping a specific God, that is what most religions are founded upon.
Seeing that I believed in a god at one time in my life, it wouldn't be that far fetched for me to believe in one, again. But, the difference between then and now is...I like reality. I no longer care for living in a pseudo reality. When you are brought up in a religious household, you don't realize that what you believe in is a pseudo-reality. You believe that god is real, IS reality. Not until I began questioning things, did I understand the difference. So, with that said, I could believe in a god, but it would be difficult to convince me now that I know what objective truth is, and it's not the stuff of religions.
dogfishparisi
Member
But that's exactly my point! Scripture repeatedly tells us God is beyond human understanding - so much so that to try and define God is folly. The specific characteristics that people apply to God like wrathful or compassionate only stymie their ability to remain open to what scripture actually says. People pigeonhole God when they attempt to narrow through definition. Scripture (across many faith disciplines ) is clear on this- but in every religion we find individuals putting God in a box, confined by the intellectual limitations of the individual. And much like how animals are anthropomorphized into members of the family, and a similar set of characteristics based on the worldview and culture are superimposed upon them, so is the concept of God treated.
Ergo, scripture can't be used to understand God (either that, or scripture cannot be understood by humans).
dogfishparisi
Member
A full and complete understanding is beyond our grasp (according to scripture). Although pursuing a depth of understanding beyond what one possess today is the point of a faith journey. We can read. Ergo, scripture can be understood by humans to learn about the lessons contained therein. And since some of those lessons attempt to teach about God our depth of understanding should increase... no??
I can't determine the logical relationship between your response and my post without knowing the extent to which the poster I was responding to agrees with you.
dogfishparisi
Member
Wasn't I the original poster to which you replied?
I'm honestly a bit confused...
My post was a response to yours.
My apologies, I meant to say "post", not poster. Let's grant to assertions you've made:
1) "Scripture repeatedly tells us God is beyond human understanding"
2) "scripture can be understood by humans to learn about the lessons contained therein"
If we grant these two propositions/claims, then necessarily scripture can be understood and if it is correct than we can't understand god. That is, granting these propositions and the veracity of scripture, god cannot be understood through scripture or through any other means. Hence this:
is largely meaningless. The depth of our understanding, according to scripture, is (granting your assertion) necessarily and fundamentally limited. Increasing our understanding can easily mean nothing more than the realization that we cannot increase our understanding beyond the recognition of our fundamental inability to understand. Certainly, if scripture "repeatedly tells us God is beyond human understanding", then this is the most significant fact regarding god that we can know from scripture, as whatever understanding we might gain from it or from anything else (granting the scripture does indeed tell us this and is correct), we will fundamentally lack the capacity to understand god, and scripture cannot inform us regarding the nature of god beyond that this nature is exceeds our ability to comprehend.