Atheists believe....?

[gcthomas]

Not if Lon's God IS causation. Which would be the common definition of "God". God IS that underlying force that defines and sustained existence, whether existence is static or dynamic, eternal of temporary, finite of infinite.
But if you set aside Lon's odd personal religious characterizations of God, he's right. The fact that existence exists, and exists as it does (continuously, rather than in some random, intermittent, unorganized fashion), means there logically must be some generative, organizing force causing it to be as it is. And that logic is not dispelled just because we eliminate the concept of time from the concept of existence.

It may be reasonable to conclude that existence requires some generative force, but it is an unreasonable step to claim that it must be like that. Our logic relies on our experience of how things behave in the universe - we have little understanding of how multiverses behave so it would be wrong to extrapolate our limited understanding to something unknown without admitting the provisional nature of our conclusions.

(And yes, having no time DOES remove the need for a 'generative force' if events are to follow causes, while your generative force DOES need explaining in its own turn if you insist existence needs a cause.)

 

[PureX]

It may be reasonable to conclude that existence requires some generative force, but it is an unreasonable step to claim that it must be like that.

That's just semantics. Reason dictates that a specified outcome "must" have a specifying cause. The "must" is not intended to be absolutely true; it's intended to be reasonably true.

Our logic relies on our experience of how things behave in the universe - we have little understanding of how multiverses behave so it would be wrong to extrapolate our limited understanding to something unknown without admitting the provisional nature of our conclusions.

But reason "extrapolates". That's what it's for. I agree that we absolutely do not know what organizes and sustains existence. But that's not what this discussion is about, because that's agnosticism. And we're discussing is theism/atheism: our "reasoned extrapolations" regarding this mystery.

 

[gcthomas]

That's just semantics. Reason dictates that a specified outcome "must" have a specifying cause. The "must" is not intended to be absolutely true; it's intended to be reasonably true.
But reason "extrapolates". That's what it's for. I agree that we absolutely do not know what organizes and sustains existence. But that's not what this discussion is about, because that's agnosticism. And we're discussing is theism/atheism: our "reasoned extrapolations" regarding this mystery.

Yet Lon is convinced that his little 'logic' triplet has proven the existence of his personal God once and for all, without any room for reasoned argument or the need for further justification.

 

[PureX]

Yet Lon is convinced that his little 'logic' triplet has proven the existence of his personal God once and for all, without any room for reasoned argument or the need for further justification.

Lon imagines himself to be highly logical, when I don't think he understands how logic works: that it has to be rigorously falsified to arrive at a presumption of truth. So he ends up just proclaiming and disclaiming things based on his own convictions, because he doesn't know how to look for the false logic in them and eliminate it. As a religious Christian, he only knows how to look for evidence supporting what he already believes to be true.

But sometimes his instincts are right in spite of the fact that he doesn't know how to logically present his convictions. That's my impression of him, anyway, from his posts.

 

[Lon]

These "proofs" are what you claimed were given to you but now you are telling me that they only apply exclusively to you and presumably have no physical form or effect that can be demonstrated. IOW it's just something that has gone on inside your head.

Not a bit. An investigator could confirm most of them, if they were of a mind.

However your opinion and mental processing isn't proof Lon, your opinion is just a bald assertion and clearly not knowledge. You even seem to think that you know the mind of God but again how you might know this isn't made clear.

Wouldn't bother you if you didn't believe in Him. You protest a bit too much.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." Susan B. Anthony

I've seen this quote and while at times I agree, it isn't a universal, she was over-simplistic. There are a lot of reasons for that, but it tends to be an in-house discussion that you'd not appreciate anyway.

I asked you a reasonable question that apparent you'd rather duck, I really don't think you were called irrational exactly, but I do sometimes have my suspicions.

As I said, your pride and arrogance meets mine. I know what mine as because it is the bane of an educator to know his own prowess.

The only thing you asked was if I might be incorrect. I've more than established both by my prowess and degree, that you are incorrect. Yep, that's an appeal to authority, mine. I ignored your query contra-wise and am perfectly happy to do so. Why? Because it doesn't matter what my prowess is, just whether you are dealing with the logic material in thread. I don't care if you think you are more intelligent than I am, either by fault or accuracy. I know what my prowess is and it has given me the problematic arrogance that goes with knowing it.

Lon, you don't have any "proof" you simply make assertions of "proof" without reference to any testable evidence nor any means to establish it.

1) It is its own proof. I don't have to appeal to authority with something as short as this is. 2) I did provide a link anyway, twice.

That isn't proof, it's something an anonymous evangelist wrote long after the supposed events.

:doh: For Thomas, it was a proof. You could have read the chapter to get the full of it. It rather records that proof does happen for some. A proof doesn't have to be universal for it to be valid. Not all of us have seen an Eclipse. Not all of us have walked on the moon.

Proof isn't something you say is proof, so clearly you don't have any, or you don't perhaps understand what proof is. Without proof you don't have proven knowledge, just a belief.

:nono: "You have a creator" was not only given as a logical proof set, it is intuitively a given.

God supposedly answering prayers isn't proof either unless there were a demonstrable effect, but you offer nothing but empty assertions, so clearly you have no divine knowledge at all, even if you really think you do, or even if you did once come top of your theology class.

I'm not sure why you are doing the asserting here. First, this is simply why "I" don't doubt. I'm sure it doesn't fit your assessment or worldview, so I suppose the assertion necessary. I've seen a couple of miraculous answers to prayer. Either there is a god, or I'm magic, and I'm not magic.

 

[alwight]

Not a bit. An investigator could confirm most of them, if they were of a mind.

Only a supernatural investigator perhaps?

Wouldn't bother you if you didn't believe in Him. You protest a bit too much.

What makes you think I'm bothered?
We are discussing your claim of divine knowledge beyond a belief and I think you like to conflate or fudge belief with knowledge. You apparently will not accept that you can offer no rational reasoning for any certainty of divine knowledge even while you present nothing but hearsay and old scripture.

I've seen this quote and while at times I agree, it isn't a universal, she was over-simplistic. There are a lot of reasons for that, but it tends to be an in-house discussion that you'd not appreciate anyway.

I just wonder how much of your God is actually you and that you are all the "proof" you need?

As I said, your pride and arrogance meets mine. I know what mine as because it is the bane of an educator to know his own prowess.

We each have our own cross to bear perhaps Lon? But even so I don't claim to possess knowledge I don't have.

The only thing you asked was if I might be incorrect. I've more than established both by my prowess and degree, that you are incorrect. Yep, that's an appeal to authority, mine. I ignored your query contra-wise and am perfectly happy to do so. Why? Because it doesn't matter what my prowess is, just whether you are dealing with the logic material in thread. I don't care if you think you are more intelligent than I am, either by fault or accuracy. I know what my prowess is and it has given me the problematic arrogance that goes with knowing it.

You are apparently, in your mind anyway, the font of all knowledge Lon, I should just run away now perhaps?

1) It is its own proof. I don't have to appeal to authority with something as short as this is. 2) I did provide a link anyway, twice.

I remember a link to G.John but I don't recall anything provable, evidential or verifiable.

:doh: For Thomas, it was a proof. You could have read the chapter to get the full of it. It rather records that proof does happen for some. A proof doesn't have to be universal for it to be valid. Not all of us have seen an Eclipse. Not all of us have walked on the moon.

Unlike Thomas in the story I wasn't there, all I have is someone's hearsay who wasn't even there themselves in all probably. Chinese whispers aren't proof of anything.

:nono: "You have a creator" was not only given as a logical proof set, it is intuitively a given.

That's only a belief and an assertion but not knowledge.

I'm not sure why you are doing the asserting here. First, this is simply why "I" don't doubt. I'm sure it doesn't fit your assessment or worldview, so I suppose the assertion necessary. I've seen a couple of miraculous answers to prayer. Either there is a god, or I'm magic, and I'm not magic.

I've talked to believers before who have claimed that miraculous events have happened, but there never seems to be any physical evidence to back it up. If someone prayed and the very next day they tell me that their back pain had gone away then I'm not going to concede any miracles. But if an amputee had regained the missing limb for all to see then that would be very different.
A Catholic doctor at Lourdes once remarked that thousands of crutches and walking sticks are routinely discarded there, but never one prosthetic device.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Before my shame was taken away by His forgiveness, before my heart's longing for love was quenched, before I ever was thoroughly exhilarated by His supernatural presence, I would have never argued for His existence or non-existence. I really had no way of confirming His existence or lack thereof. He has confirmed it for me, and I am utterly convinced He will confirm His truth for anyone who will lay down their pride.

There does seem to be something behind most of the disbelief in Him, and those who choose to attack others faith in Him. My guess is besides pride, there is some unfulfilled expectation of Him, some disenchantment with Him.

 

[George Affleck]

There does seem to be something behind most of the disbelief in Him, and those who choose to attack others faith in Him. My guess is besides pride, there is some unfulfilled expectation of Him, some disenchantment with Him.

Exactly. Even though many have spent a lifetime building ever stronger walls to keep Him out, they are still made in the image of God and can never escape that reality. They're stuck between a rock and a hard place and the only solution available is to deny reality and make themselves as comfortable as possible. Eventually they have no difficulty talking themselves into thinking the grapes are sour and they can stop trying to reach for them.

Whenever a creature denies the existence of God, they belie their frustration that God has organized the universe in such a way that He cannot be known by natural means which is the only means they have at their disposal; and it drives them nuts! In fact, structured unbelief is a defense mechanism to keep their soul locked in the closet where it can't remind them of their folly.

I know these things are true because I have lived both sides. It was not until I was truly prepared to hear, that God allowed me to know what was real and what was not; and he sealed it with undeniable, personal experiences.

 

[Lon]

Only a supernatural investigator perhaps?

I just wonder how much of your God is actually you and that you are all the "proof" you need?

I've talked to believers before who have claimed that miraculous events have happened, but there never seems to be any physical evidence to back it up.

:think:

1) Read just above at other's comments.
2) You can Google some, there are a few books written that were done by investigative bodies without skeptical agenda.
3) I'm not talking about you. Of course you doubt. I'm not saying you shouldn't, just that I don't. Why? Because I saw all of my own. If I were a 'reliable' witness to you, that would be enough, but again, we are talking about me and why I don't.
4) No, any investigative reporter could follow up and verify my stories. They couldn't prove that they were 'miracles' but they could ask that guy if he received what was prayed for as well as if he could have gotten that answer from any other source etc. I don't think a 'skeptic' would do the story justice, just a 3rd party interested in reporting just the facts.

If someone prayed and the very next day they tell me that their back pain had gone away then I'm not going to concede any miracles. But if an amputee had regained the missing limb for all to see then that would be very different.
A Catholic doctor at Lourdes once remarked that thousands of crutches and walking sticks are routinely discarded there, but never one prosthetic device.

Or "a million dollars!" There are a number of reasons this is problematic. 1) Our greatest need is not physical 2) God doesn't do miracles because such wouldn't care anyway. You and they would explain it away. 3) He is interested in His own and He does do for them. 4) If you 'wanted' Him, you'd find Him.

 

[quip]

:think:

1) Read just above at other's comments.
2) You can Google some, there are a few books written that were done by investigative bodies without skeptical agenda.
3) I'm not talking about you. Of course you doubt. I'm not saying you shouldn't, just that I don't. Why? Because I saw all of my own. If I were a 'reliable' witness to you, that would be enough, but again, we are talking about me and why I don't.
4) No, any investigative reporter could follow up and verify my stories. They couldn't prove that they were 'miracles' but they could ask that guy if he received what was prayed for as well as if he could have gotten that answer from any other source etc. I don't think a 'skeptic' would do the story justice, just a 3rd party interested in reporting just the facts.


Or "a million dollars!" There are a number of reasons this is problematic. 1) Our greatest need is not physical 2) God doesn't do miracles because such wouldn't care anyway. You and they would explain it away. 3) He is interested in His own and He does do for them. 4) If you 'wanted' Him, you'd find Him.

What is that Lon...the soft-shoe?

 

[PureX]

Before my shame was taken away by His forgiveness, before my heart's longing for love was quenched, before I ever was thoroughly exhilarated by His supernatural presence, I would have never argued for His existence or non-existence. I really had no way of confirming His existence or lack thereof. He has confirmed it for me, and I am utterly convinced He will confirm His truth for anyone who will lay down their pride.

But are you aware that this conclusion is somewhat irrational, as it ignores the possibility of you're having erred in your assessment of what happened to you, and in your assessment of what will happen for others under similar circumstances?

I understand and appreciate your experience and your assessment of it. But I do not appreciate the suggestion that we all, likewise, ignore logic, for a 'blind faith' in life-changing conclusions based on your personal assessments.

There does seem to be something behind most of the disbelief in Him, and those who choose to attack others faith in Him. My guess is besides pride, there is some unfulfilled expectation of Him, some disenchantment with Him.

Perhaps they are not attacking the other's faith so much as the illogical proposition that we should all be imitating it.

 

[PureX]

I know these things are true because I have lived both sides. It was not until I was truly prepared to hear, that God allowed me to know what was real and what was not; and he sealed it with undeniable, personal experiences.

Any schizophrenic could say the same, and do so in all honesty and sincerity. It's the fact that you never bothered to 'falsify' (proof-test) your assessments of your own experiences that cause other people to doubt and reject your claims. You stumbled blindly into a conceptual paradigm that works for you, and then you proclaimed, blindly, that it will work for everyone. This doesn't inspire confidence in people, regarding your proclamations.

 

[alwight]

:think:

1) Read just above at other's comments.
2) You can Google some, there are a few books written that were done by investigative bodies without skeptical agenda.
3) I'm not talking about you. Of course you doubt. I'm not saying you shouldn't, just that I don't. Why? Because I saw all of my own. If I were a 'reliable' witness to you, that would be enough, but again, we are talking about me and why I don't.
4) No, any investigative reporter could follow up and verify my stories. They couldn't prove that they were 'miracles' but they could ask that guy if he received what was prayed for as well as if he could have gotten that answer from any other source etc. I don't think a 'skeptic' would do the story justice, just a 3rd party interested in reporting just the facts.

All I can gather from this probably has more to do with bald assertions and smoke and mirrors than anything that can be called "proof" leading to divine knowledge. You may think that you have hundreds reasons to believe, which is OK, believe away since belief doesn't require any proven evidence, but what you haven't and can't do is demonstrate hard knowledge.
I don't believe that a rational person without hard evidence can ever be entirely doubt-free unless at least some self-deception and/or disingenuity is going on.

Or "a million dollars!" There are a number of reasons this is problematic. 1) Our greatest need is not physical 2) God doesn't do miracles because such wouldn't care anyway. You and they would explain it away. 3) He is interested in His own and He does do for them. 4) If you 'wanted' Him, you'd find Him.

You first offered me miracles and then you equivocate and take them away. Then of course, an old favourite, I have to want to find Him else, for no clear reason, I will not be able to, oh how wonderfully helpful that is.
Lon you simply refuse to admit to having any perfectly natural human agnostic doubt because you find it inconvenient, not because you have anything even close to proof.

 

[quip]

Lon you simply refuse to admit to having any perfectly natural human agnostic doubt because you find it inconvenient, not because you have anything even close to proof.

The thought/doubt scares him to death.

 

[alwight]

The thought/doubt scares him to death.

God is eavesdropping after all.


Or maybe not...

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

But are you aware that this conclusion is somewhat irrational, as it ignores the possibility of you're having erred in your assessment of what happened to you, and in your assessment of what will happen for others under similar circumstances?

I understand and appreciate your experience and your assessment of it. But I do not appreciate the suggestion that we all, likewise, ignore logic, for a 'blind faith' in life-changing conclusions based on your personal assessments.
Perhaps they are not attacking the other's faith so much as the illogical proposition that we should all be imitating it.

There were the testimonies of others who have experienced His presence, His goodness, His love, His freedom, combined with my desperate situation, the same situation most realize they face. A situation where life has no meaning, no purpose. A situation where as much as I wanted to get rid of my darkness and shame, I did not have the power to it. A situation where I was always left wanting, my heart never satisfied with anything or anyone. To say I came to the conclusion all on my own for no reasons, would be false, as would saying I did it on my own. He persuaded. I said yes. He has not disappointed. His goodness is beyond describable. One could argue me, and all the others that have said yes to Him personally and have experienced Him are somehow fooled, but when you experience Him there is no denying the truth.

Before I met Him, I knew there were arguments for and against, but I didn't know which were true, and thus had no basis to argue one way or the other. Those that have not experienced His super natural goodness, don't know if it's real or not, and argue anyway. They seem to have a vendetta. I stand by that assessment.

 

[PureX]

There were the testimonies of others who have experienced His presence, His goodness, His love, His freedom, combined with my desperate situation, the same situation most realize they face. A situation where life has no meaning, no purpose. A situation where as much as I wanted to get rid of my darkness and shame, I did not have the power to it. A situation where I was always left wanting, my heart never satisfied with anything or anyone. To say I came to the conclusion all on my own for no reasons, would be false, as would saying I did it on my own. He persuaded. I said yes. He has not disappointed. His goodness is beyond describable. One could argue me, and all the others that have said yes to Him personally and have experienced Him are somehow fooled, but when you experience Him there is no denying the truth.

Before I met Him, I knew there were arguments for and against, but I didn't know which were true, and thus had no basis to argue one way or the other. Those that have not experienced His super natural goodness, don't know if it's real or not, and argue anyway. They seem to have a vendetta. I stand by that assessment.

You're just reiterating yourself, which, I suppose, is all you can do. As you will be unable to acknowledge my point. And therefor unable to understand why you are not especially convincing to others.

I'm happy that you found a way out of your own personal dilemma. And I am sure there are others who have done the same. But your assumptions and conclusions about the universality of your solution have not been properly questioned for natural human error. And consequently, they don't significantly influence anyone else's thinking. Then you blame the skepticism of others, on them, which only further discredits your proposition.

 

[alwight]

Before my shame was taken away by His forgiveness, before my heart's longing for love was quenched, before I ever was thoroughly exhilarated by His supernatural presence, I would have never argued for His existence or non-existence. I really had no way of confirming His existence or lack thereof. He has confirmed it for me, and I am utterly convinced He will confirm His truth for anyone who will lay down their pride.
There does seem to be something behind most of the disbelief in Him, and those who choose to attack others faith in Him. My guess is besides pride, there is some unfulfilled expectation of Him, some disenchantment with Him.

If something happened to you that makes this life into a more comfortable place then from a pragmatic position it might be rather churlish of me to argue against it.
However, the highlighted section above irritates me since I know someone who has spent 60 years with a very limited mental capacity, who has no concept of "pride" nor any understanding of what a god might be, who has in short had a thoroughly miserable existence from the start until now. Her already limited physical abilities are now getting more and more painful with each advancing year.
If your God is true, who is an involved and caring god, then why would He help you but not the person I refer to here?
Is it really just about pride? Or perhaps pride is only something that is presumed by you to perhaps be a godly barrier when in actuality a bit of pride isn't such an awfully dreadful thing in the scale of things, particularly if stacked up against a great deal of apparently god forsaken human misery out there. lain:

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

You're just reiterating yourself, which, I suppose, is all you can do. As you will be unable to acknowledge my point. And therefor unable to understand why you are not especially convincing to others.

I'm happy that you found a way out of your own personal dilemma. And I am sure there are others who have done the same. But your assumptions and conclusions about the universality of your solution have not been properly questioned for natural human error. And consequently, they don't significantly influence anyone else's thinking. Then you blame the skepticism of others, on them, which only further discredits your proposition.

You ignored my point that the disciples, Paul and many, many others have experienced the supernatural presence of God. To say it's no evidence is false. Does it convince everyone? No. Why? Pride for one. People have hard time admitting their helplessness and need. Me included. Anger, hostility, frustration with God, including the idea of Him. Evil, death, suffering can not be adequately understood in the light of His love, without His help. Am I going to convince people? No. I am going to be a witness and spread seeds of truth, that His Spirit will use to try and open hearts and minds to Himself.

I know the only way anyone is whole heartedly convinced is by seeking and finding through humilty and faith in Him.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

If something happened to you that makes this life into a more comfortable place then from a pragmatic position it might be rather churlish of me to argue against it.
However, the highlighted section above irritates me since I know someone who has spent 60 years with a very limited mental capacity, who has no concept of "pride" nor any understanding of what a god might be, who has in short had a thoroughly miserable existence from the start until now. Her already limited physical abilities are now getting more and more painful with each advancing year.
If your God is true, who is an involved and caring god, then why would He help you but not the person I refer to here?
Is it really just about pride? Or perhaps pride is only something that is presumed by you to perhaps be a godly barrier when in actuality a bit of pride isn't such an awfully dreadful thing in the scale of things, particularly if stacked up against a great deal of apparently god forsaken human misery out there. lain:

I am very sorry for her suffering. I have had a great deal of anguish myself in this life, as I suspect most have. If she does not have pride or the capacity of pride He is with her, and undoubtedly her pain will turn to joy when He welcomes her into His kingdom.