If there is no God? - Page 2

[Wausau74]

Wow you are having quite a struggle. As for me, I have struggled in my Christian walk, wondering where God was, yet knowing He was there all the time. I can't go by what I feel. I have to go by what I know. I know that God exists because the amount of evidence for Him is so overwhelming. I don't always "feel" Him, but feelings can't always be trusted. For those who have chosen not to believe in God, I say, Wow, because you simply have more faith than I do; I do not have enough faith to be an atheist. It takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian.

[dingogirl]

For those who have chosen not to believe in God, I say, Wow, because you simply have more faith than I do; I do not have enough faith to be an atheist. It takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian.

which is why i'm an agnostic.

no one is born believing in god. that is taught to us.

[eightyferrettoes]

Originally Posted by dingogirl

no one is born believing in god. that is taught to us.

I think that's true... my 11 month old son is an atheist-- not in the "There is no god!" sense but in the "having no concept of a god at all" sense.

I could teach him that Zeus is the king of gods and that he appeared to virgins in the form of a swan or a cloud of dust to impregnate them-- and if I were surrounded by a community that also believed that, he would grow up thinking that's as natural and obvious as the nipple on his mama's boob.



Or I could choose to teach him about the Christian God, with his omnipotent unknowableness and chameleon changeability, and teach him that Jesus was God's son, born to a virgin, and that he died that we may all be saved. And, since I am conveniently surrounded by people who believe that, he would probably think that was natural and obvious as the hair coming out of his daddy's nose.

But I'm not planning to do that. Neither story is particularly plausible, so why would I exhaust myself in an attempt to believe they are literally true?

[DaryLLL]

Originally Posted by Wausau74

For those who have chosen not to believe in God, I say, Wow, because you simply have more faith than I do; I do not have enough faith to be an atheist. It takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian.

That is an odd statement and I doubt many atheists would agree with it. Care to explain? Faith in what?

[wednesday]

Originally Posted by Wausau74

For those who have chosen not to believe in God, I say, Wow, because you simply have more faith than I do; I do not have enough faith to be an atheist. It takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a Christian.

I recall having a very similar discussion as this with a Christian friend some years ago. She was describing how she has no worries in life because she trusts God to be looking after her. I said something like that sounds like driving a car with your eyes closed and hands off the wheel because you trust God to steer. She told me that is exactly how she feels about ME not believing in God! That I was the one driving with my eyes closed and no hands on the steering wheel. Go figure It doesn't take any faith on my part not to believe. It's like not believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy as far as I'm concerned.

And respectfully, as far as the label agnostic, I did identify that way up until a point I decided it was a cop-out. Like I was just hanging on to the possibility of God, so if I'm wrong and one day I meet him I could be like, "Dude! I never said you DIDN'T exist. Don't take it personally now. Can I come on in to Heaven anyway?" Bringing up the Santa Claus metaphor again, I'm not "agnostic" on the idea of Santa.

[Nankay]

What do I live for? Wow..so many things... my kids and family, summertime, thunderstorms, fresh cut grass, laughing until I pee, a hot cup of coffee, snowstorms, my snoring dogs, birds in the morning. "God" has never been real to me, nor has it ever made sense. I have no need to believe in a higher power. I love the idea that this is it, let's make the most of it. For years I wore a pin that read, "Life is not a dress rehearsal" . Why do you feel a need for a god to make your experiences wothwhile?

[sunnmama]

Originally Posted by DaryLLL

That is an odd statement and I doubt many atheists would agree with it. Care to explain? Faith in what?

: :

[Wausau74]

Originally Posted by DaryLLL

That is an odd statement and I doubt many atheists would agree with it. Care to explain? Faith in what?

Since it takes faith to believe in any worldview, the atheist has faith in nothing. For the athesit, faith in believing that something (i.e. the universe, trees, humans, dogs, etc.) came from nothing. The evidence for a theistic God's existence far outweighs any evidence for God's non-existence. Therefore, it takes more faith to believe in nothing (nothing since the atheist do not believe in a God) than it does to believe in something (a theistic God).

[wednesday]

Originally Posted by Wausau74

Since it takes faith to believe in any worldview, the atheist has faith in nothing. For the athesit, faith in believing that something (i.e. the universe, trees, humans, dogs, etc.) came from nothing.

I don't necessarily believe that the universe "came from nothing." I believe the origin of the universe is un-knowable. That is not the same as believing it came from nothing. It just means acknowledging that I don't know where it came from.

That doesn't mean we will never know. Take, for example, a rainbow. The Bible tells us the rainbow we see after a rainfall is God's message that he would never again destroy humanity through a flood. For how many hundreds (or thousands) of years did people believe that was the meaning and purpose of a rainbow? Whereas, with our current understanding of physics, we know that a rainbow is caused by a certain refraction of light through water molecules. We no longer need a spiritual explanation of rainbows because we have a scientific explanation.

The evidence for a theistic God's existence far outweighs any evidence for God's non-existence. Therefore, it takes more faith to believe in nothing (nothing since the atheist do not believe in a God) than it does to believe in something (a theistic God).

But if you follow that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, then you have to ask where did God come from? There's no answer to that except that God came from nothing. So you're stuck with the same riddle of how something (a theistic God) came from "nothing."

[philomom]

I'm very agnostic with some pagan leanings. I find strength in quiet walks in nature, spending time with my children and doing good for others. I am a good person. So are you. Don't worry so much about the "god" thing, maybe you aren't wired that way. Take care of yourself.

[Wausau74]

In response to wednesday-

Regarding the origin of the universe: I am curious to know if you have studied out the origin of the universe If the origin of the universe is truly unknowable, why does science does show us that the origin of the universe is knowable?

Regarding the scientific explanation of rainbows: Are you saying that God is not able to use science to give humanity signs? Simply because there is a scientific reason for anything does not automatically rule out God.

Regarding Who made God?: He was not made. Only things that begin need to have a maker. Since God does not have a beginning, He does not need a maker.

[applejuice]

Originally Posted by wednesday

See, I don't really feel this is true. It doesn't seem to be a need for me. What about all the other comfortable atheists out there? Are we not human?

You have a conscience don't you?

[dingogirl]

And respectfully, as far as the label agnostic, I did identify that way up until a point I decided it was a cop-out. Like I was just hanging on to the possibility of God, so if I'm wrong and one day I meet him I could be like, "Dude! I never said you DIDN'T exist. Don't take it personally now. Can I come on in to Heaven anyway?" Bringing up the Santa Claus metaphor again, I'm not "agnostic" on the idea of Santa.

An agnostic is one who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. Lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism". Being Agnostic may have been a "cop-out" for you, but that's not how it is for me. I am not hanging on to the possibility of a god-I'm really hoping that there is no god and no afterlife. If it turns out there is a god (and assuming he's a being we're actually able to communicate with) I would not bow down to him. I would ask him why he allows such horrible suffering-assuming he's able to intervene.

If all scientists were atheists, I probably would be too. But because it's impossible to prove conclusively that no God exists, I will remain agnostic.

First, there is the God of intervention, the God of prayer, the personal God. The second is the God of harmony and order. Einstein rejected the first, but believed in the second, calling God "the Old One," i.e., the lawgiver who set everything into motion. Today, we physicists face the same question. If one asks, Where did the big bang come from? we can say that it probably came from a unified field theory, such as string theory, my specialty. But then this begs the question: where did string theory come from?

This is embarrassing, since we have no answer. My own answer is that the unified field theory may be unique, i.e., the only mathematically self-consistent theory of the universe. Hundreds of attempts have been made, and all, except string theory, have been proven mathematically inconsistent.

So perhaps God did not have a choice in making the universe, as Einstein suspected. When Einstein set out to create this theory, he would ask himself a question: if I were God, how would I construct a universe? We theoretical physicists, in effect, try to emulate this. And it is much harder than you would suspect. I try this when I construct new theories. I find that the restrictions on a unified field theory are so stringent, so tight, that simple ideas fail immediately. Therefore, I suspect, as Einstein did, that the universe is mathematically unique. In other words, God is a geometer.
— Michio Kaku

NEW YORK (AP) _ A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God -- more or less -- based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

http://www.livescience.com/othernews...er_041210.html

[Wausau74]

[QUOTE=dingogirl]I'm really hoping that there is no god and no afterlife. If it turns out there is a god (and assuming he's a being we're actually able to communicate with) I would not bow down to him. I would ask him why he allows such horrible suffering-assuming he's able to intervene.




Evil and suffering exist because human beings have a free will.

[wednesday]

If the origin of the universe is truly unknowable, why does science does show us that the origin of the universe is knowable?

Does it? I didn't know that. I thought there were theories and speculation about the origin of the universe.

Regarding the scientific explanation of rainbows: Are you saying that God is not able to use science to give humanity signs? Simply because there is a scientific reason for anything does not automatically rule out God.

I was not making any kind of statement on whether or not God gives signs to humanity. I was giving an example of how the study of physics revealed a scientific explanation for a phenomenon which previously had only a spiritual explanation, in support of my argument that while most of society currently supports only a spiritual explanation of the origin of the universe, we may one day have a satisfactory scientific explanation as well.

Regarding Who made God?: He was not made. Only things that begin need to have a maker. Since God does not have a beginning, He does not need a maker.

Okay, by that logic we can just suppose the universe has no beginning.

[DaryLLL]

Originally Posted by Wausau74

Since it takes faith to believe in any worldview, the atheist has faith in nothing.

This is incorrect. Belief is not even necessary. Knowledge, informed by study and wisdom alone is enough for many.

For the athesit, faith in believing that something (i.e. the universe, trees, humans, dogs, etc.) came from nothing.

As you can see from the other posters, this may be what you have been taught by those (probably other fundamentalist Xtians) speculating about atheists, but is not what atheists actually say.

The evidence for a theistic God's existence far outweighs any evidence for God's non-existence.

From a theist's POV perhaps. Not from an agnostic or atheist POV. And even if the wonder of creation is seen as miraculous and beautiful and evidence of some sort of Divine at work, it does nothing to prove the Jewish or Xtian God is the right one.

Where is your evidence that your specific God exists?

Therefore, it takes more faith to believe in nothing (nothing since the atheist do not believe in a God) than it does to believe in something (a theistic God).

Not all all convinced. Please try again.

[DaryLLL]

Originally Posted by Wausau74

Regarding the origin of the universe: I am curious to know if you have studied out the origin of the universe If the origin of the universe is truly unknowable, why does science does show us that the origin of the universe is knowable?

Again, an incorrect assertion brought about by ignorance. Science uses the scientific method. Hypothesis, experiments, and a final theory or paradigm which the evidence leads to. Science does not "prove" anything. It gives us paradigms to operate under until more evidence expands our understanding of the issue at hand.

Christianity has a 2000-2600 yr old book of legends and fables.

Regarding the scientific explanation of rainbows: Are you saying that God is not able to use science to give humanity signs? Simply because there is a scientific reason for anything does not automatically rule out God.

You can believe that if you like. It's romantic and appealing on a certain level. I would add that the story of Noah was taken from a Babylonian "myth" which was even older. The Judahites were taken into captivity by the Babylonians in the 6th century BC. Now, I am sure by that point, people had observed rainbows appearing in the sky all the time when the clouds and sun were just right. In fact, "rainbows" or prismatic effects appear in drops of dew on grass and on wet eyelashes as well, as every child knows. The idea that this one rainbow in a fable was more special than the uncountable other ones in the history of the planet was a theological construct of the early Iron Age, and has nothing to do with actually proving the existence of God. The story calls this colorful arch the bow of God, as if God was a really big archer. It's symbolic, God was laying down his weapon. It's not cold hard fact, it's a metaphor of hope.

[Nankay]

Thank you, DaryLLL...great post.

I wanted to say that, but I lack the strength to fight these battles --over and over

[wednesday]

Originally Posted by applejuice

You have a conscience don't you?

My answer to that is kind of long-winded, I'm afraid. I'm not sure what is meant exactly by "conscience." I believe that it is in my best interest to treat others as I would want to be treated. I believe people get what's coming to them, or "reap what they sow," however you want to think of it. I believe what a person does when no one is watching is just as important as what they do when observed. I believe that if you behave with honor and treat people with respect, you will attract people with similar character into your life. If you are always trying to get away with something or take advantage, then people with that same character will be part of your life. But I wouldn't call that so much a "conscience" as thoughtfully acting in my own best interest.

[laralou]

Moving this to RS...