[veritas]

An atheist never says that there is no God, he believes that there is no God, that's all. All good scientists know that the universe could have been created by a God. The reason why God isn't given in science textbooks as the creator of the universe? Because there's no evidence.

Just like there's no evidence for Zeus, or the battleships coming to destroy us, or the teapots around pluto. So we can say these things are not there, until evidence tells us otherwise.

This is the way that logical reasoning demands it must be. We cannot say "You cannot say for certain that x does not exist, therefore we must assume that x does exist". Down that road insanity lies.

Atheism is the affirmation of God's nonexistence. You are postulating the nonexistence of God. I will concede your weak atheistic definition that you only believe there is no God.

The reason God isn't given in science textbooks is because of science's a priori commitment to naturalism. Science outright excludes non-natural things from the outset before any scientific discovery commences. The first rule of science is, "Let's see how far we can go without invoking a non-natural thing." Notice the first rule is not, "Let us see what the evidence shows and go from there..."

[veritas]

Well that's refreshing!



If you say you can't prove there is a god, then I say you are agnostic.

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods

From: Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as your evidence for the existence of a god, feel free to share. I have never seen/heard anything which has compelled me to believe, but perhaps you have new information.

Regarding having a dialogue with atheists/agnostics on how they arrived at their conclusion, did you read through the link I gave you earlier to the other thread about atheism? It explains a lot. Some people lost their faith, some people never found it, some people don't have it. I don't have it, that's how I arrived at my conclusion. When I hear about the concept of an all-knowing, all-powerful being, my brain instantly goes - "No way" My brain won't LET me believe. I'd have the same reaction if you told me if you concentrate hard enough you can make yourself disappear.

There are terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" which drive me nuts, and I avoid using them. It seems their definitions vary from site to site for one, but for two, it doesn't matter much. To me, they are essentially the same thing and one becomes one or the other depending on the conversation. There is also the term "apathetic atheism" which again, I think anyone who is an atheist can be depending on the time and conversation.

EDIT: That should say, "If you can't assert there is a god"

I will concede to the weak definition of atheism, the belief in the nonexistence of God. Thanks for referring me to the link. I will check in out. For the record, when I hear about an all-knowing, all-powerful being, my brain instantly goes "holy crap!" Then I realize that anything that all-knowing, that powerful, would have to make my head spin. What makes you think that you should have a complete understanding of the universe? No one else does ;-)

[Capuchin]

The reason God isn't given in science textbooks is because of science's a priori commitment to naturalism. Science outright excludes non-natural things from the outset before any scientific discovery commences. The first rule of science is, "Let's see how far we can go without invoking a non-natural thing." Notice the first rule is not, "Let us see what the evidence shows and go from there..."

The problem with your argument here is that "what the evidence shows" and "not invoking a non-natural thing" are the same. If the evidence were to show that there were a God, then God would be natural. As I said before, all good scientists keep their minds open to all current hypotheses (and God is certainly one of the big ones that has been tested over thousands of years of science), and see which fit the evidence better.

In fact for much of our history, God has been the only explanation for many things. Only through scientific enquiry have we determined that these things are not due to God.

[veritas]

Well that's refreshing!



If you say you can't prove there is a god, then I say you are agnostic.

Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods

From: Agnosticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As far as your evidence for the existence of a god, feel free to share. I have never seen/heard anything which has compelled me to believe, but perhaps you have new information.

Regarding having a dialogue with atheists/agnostics on how they arrived at their conclusion, did you read through the link I gave you earlier to the other thread about atheism? It explains a lot. Some people lost their faith, some people never found it, some people don't have it. I don't have it, that's how I arrived at my conclusion. When I hear about the concept of an all-knowing, all-powerful being, my brain instantly goes - "No way" My brain won't LET me believe. I'd have the same reaction if you told me if you concentrate hard enough you can make yourself disappear.

There are terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" which drive me nuts, and I avoid using them. It seems their definitions vary from site to site for one, but for two, it doesn't matter much. To me, they are essentially the same thing and one becomes one or the other depending on the conversation. There is also the term "apathetic atheism" which again, I think anyone who is an atheist can be depending on the time and conversation.

EDIT: That should say, "If you can't assert there is a god"

Oh yeah... proof for the existence of God. I love audio, I hope you do.

Peter Kreeft - God's Existence

Also, see "The Defenders Podcast" by William Lane Craig.

Also see, "The Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments" by Alvin Plantiga
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/philo..._arguments.pdf

[veritas]

The problem with your argument here is that "what the evidence shows" and "not invoking a non-natural thing" are the same. If the evidence were to show that there were a God, then God would be natural. As I said before, all good scientists keep their minds open to all current hypotheses (and God is certainly one of the big ones that has been tested over thousands of years of science), and see which fit the evidence better.

In fact for much of our history, God has been the only explanation for many things. Only through scientific enquiry have we determined that these things are not due to God.

I'm a lover of science too so I share your passion as well.

Let us rest here my English friend. Did you catch the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox? They debated Dawkins' book, "The God Delusion." Great stuff! You can probably get most of it from youtube.com.

I truly enjoy the debate and thanks for keeping things civilized. I'm sure we'll catch up soon on another string (if we haven't already).

Cheers,
Joe

[jillianleab]

Then I realize that anything that all-knowing, that powerful, would have to make my head spin. What makes you think that you should have a complete understanding of the universe? No one else does ;-)

You're making the assumption I'm looking for a complete understanding of the universe - I'm not. I'm looking for evidence of that all-knowing, all-powerful supernatural being. So far, I haven't found any. Beyond that, I'm pretty darn happy without that being, I don't see how believing will make things any better than they already are.

EDIT: I'll check out the links another time, I'm not at a point where I can listen to something like that right now. But thanks, and I'll let you know what I think.

[Fr_Chuck]

A person who can look at nature, at the ocean, at the universe and not see God just does not want to see him.

The evidence of a greater power is just everywhere,

[Wondergirl]

I'm looking for evidence of that all-knowing, all-powerful supernatural being.

Go for a walk in the woods. Look up at the sky on a dark night. Watch a new mother care for her offspring. Look in the mirror.

[Fr_Chuck]

Not sure, I look in the mrror and see God has a sense of humor.

[Wondergirl]

not sure, I look in the mrror and see God has a sense of humor.

Uh oh. What have you done to God's creation, FrChuck??

[Fr_Chuck]

Well God has graced me with more skin than hair ( guess he loves to see the reflextion of his creation.

[Wondergirl]

Well God has graced me with more skin than hair ( guess he loves to see the reflextion of his creation.

And you can shine forth His glory toward others...

[jillianleab]

A person who can look at nature, at the ocean, at the universe and not see God jsut does not want to see him.

The evidence of a greater power is just everywhere,

Go for a walk in the woods. Look up at the sky on a dark night. Watch a new mother care for her offspring. Look in the mirror.

I understand you both see these things and see evidence of god. I do not. Those things are not "proof" to me.

[jillianleab]

Veritas:

I listened to part of your first link, and I have to say, it’s about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. And it offers no proof, but rather the same arguments that are always presented and have always been refuted.

To begin, I almost turned it off when Mr. Kreeft said the only important god is the Judeo-Christian god because that is self-serving and quite intolerant. Then he goes on to say god is to us like we are to a snail…. Then he goes on to say certain attributes of god can be proven, but not all the attributes of the Bible god, so I’m forced to wonder how he can possibly say the Judeo-Christian god is the only important one if he can’t prove it’s the Judeo-Christian god he’s proving, but whatever. I’ll let that go. Then he goes on to basically say you have to be open to god’s revelations in order to receive them – doesn’t that mean he’s not omnipotent? But whatever. I’ll let that go too.

Then he gets into his list of five “proofs” that god exists; the argument from first cause, argument from design, argument from morality, argument from desire and argument from existentialism. This is where I turned it off. The immediate problem with each of these arguments is they are philosophical, not a single one uses the scientific method. Kreeft admits in his lecture god cannot be proven with the scientific method. Well, sorry, but that’s what it takes for me. I posted in another thread something along the lines of… if god is all knowing, he knows what it will take for me to believe in him. If he doesn’t do it, it’s his fault I don’t believe, not mine. If he’s god, he’s got the power, right? I said it as a joke, but I’m starting to realize how accurate I might have been…

Anyway, on to the “proofs”. Argument from the first cause has been debated and argued before, and we’ve all heard the arguments (what caused the first cause, what says the first cause was god, etc) so there’s no reason to get into it. I do not consider this “proof” of god.

The argument from design has also been hotly debated, many times on this site by people far better versed than I in biology. Again, I do not consider this “proof” of god.

Next is the argument from morality which in a round about way says you can’t be moral without god or at least that getting your moral guidance from god is “better” that other ways. Again, not proof of god.

Here’s a good one, the argument from desire, which Kreeft made up on his own, as far as I can tell. I read his article on his site about it, and think it’s mostly fluff. But my favorite part (in reference to there being a hidden desire for god and I’m challenging that notion):

A second form of denial of our premise is: "I am perfectly happy now." This, we suggest, verges on idiocy or, worse, dishonesty. It requires something more like exorcism than refutation. This is Merseult in Camus's The Stranger. This is subhuman, vegetation, pop psychology. Even the hedonist utilitarian John Stuart Mill, one of the shallowest (though cleverest) minds in the history of philosophy, said that "it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied."

This is not only wrong but also insulting. I’m an idiot or I’m lying because I’m perfectly happy now without god? Well that’s a rather bold thing for someone who doesn’t know me or my values or my life to make! And you mean a hedonist thinks you can always be happier? No way!

And finally the argument from existentialism, which, I’ll admit I should have listened to because the definition of existentialism precludes the existence of god and says we are all responsible for our own actions. From what I’ve read elsewhere about Kreeft’s opinion on Sartre is that he despises him and wrote a book in the form of a mock dialogue between Sartre and Socrates arguing against existentialism. So again, I see no proof here.

In all, the five “proofs” listed are personal proofs, not actual proofs. Kreeft admits he cannot prove god with the scientific method, but then claims he has proofs. Then he clarifies what he means by his “proofs”, differentiating between a practical proof, a theoretical proof and probable proof. Then he categorizes his five proofs as “certain proofs”. Sorry. I don’t buy it.

Is your other link like this? If so I think I might skip it…

[sGt HarDKorE]

I don't think god or well his followers are right in hating homosexuals and some other things but mainly that. Till that is resolved I won't believe in him fully

[michealb]

I suppose I'm the a different kind of atheist. I don't believe there is a god, I think it would nice if there was a god though. I would even say I want him to exist but want does not make reality. Wouldn't it be nice, an omnipotent god that as long as I believed nothing bad would ever happen to me. I would have no need for medical science because why would I extent any ones life if heaven waited for them. I would even be willing to go to hell if it meant most people when they die go to heaven instead of non-existence.

The problem I think is that I have always found that simplest answer is most often the right answer. Which is more likley that an all powerful being wants me to believe in him but doesn't give me anything that I would call evidence knowing full well that I won't accept the evidence that he laid out or that a group of people found out that they can get your money by telling you that if you don't do what they say the boogie man is going to get you? Seems like a simple question to me.

[spitvenom]

the bible is clear that there will be the wicked mixed along with the faithful, and what others do should not be the judgement of what we beleive or not beleive. There always will be sinful people in all churches.
As for as the priests, of course while there is some, all of the news is priests over 30 years, few are current or new issues. And as a percentage, there are issues with boy scouts, with karate teachers, and school teachers, but I don't see you saing you have lost faith in the scouts, in public schools and so on.

And in General the Church is full of faith, and I see you have confused the lost sin of a few with the faith of millions.

I never took Karate, I was never in boy scouts so I can't speak about that. Public schools are horrible, I am also a product of them. But I am have made it father in life from what I learned in there then I did at catholic school.

Please don't get it wrong the only time a priest punched me I clocked the living Sh*t out of him with a right hook. And As far as no New priest touching kids their was a priest in my parish the kids nicked named Father Feel Us cause he couldn't keep his hands to his self. And that was 5 years ago. He was named in a report in. So save it with the church is good or that was in the past cause you are lying to yourself.

The Church has gotten so far away from what it is supposed to be it is laughable. Jesus lost it cause people were changing money in the temple, but I bet you have no problem playing bingo for a small fee a few times a week.

Look the fact is until priest come slapped with parental advisory warning I'll be auditioning gods in my office on Sunday mornings.

[Wondergirl]

i dont think god or well his followers are right in hating homosexuals and some other things but mainly that. Till that is resolved i wont believe in him fully

God's okay with it. It's just some of His followers who have the hate problem -- and maybe that means they aren't really His followers. Don't throw God out because of people who don't understand what it means to love one another.

[inthebox]

Good question....though I'm not sure you want to hear from me as I consider myself a Christian. Of course, I have also meditated in Buddhist temples, practiced in Hindu ashrams, and attended Jewish temples. The one truth I've found is, God is always with me. Exploring religions is the best thing anyone can do to open their hearts and minds and grow...and find the truth for them.

I do not know why people have such issues with Christianity. It's a beautiful religion. The path of Jesus Christ is one of love and truth and compassion, and I feel sad that that message has been perverted or lost to people. I feel as though many people approach Christianity from their minds (from judgement, from right and wrong), when the true path of Jesus Christ is that of love, surrender to the will of God, and the experience of an open heart, and the ability of offer forgiveness. In truth, nothing is harder.

You wonder why people have problems with Christianity? I believe it's because they do not understand it. I believe it's because they've enpowered other people to decide what it is for them instead of trying to develop a relationship with Jesus Christ on their own.

In my opinion... excellent :)

[inthebox]

Of those who do NOT consider themselves Christians, especially those hostile to Christianity, what is it that you take issue with the most, the teachings of Jesus, or the modern-day followers(disciples) of Jesus? A quote from Mahatma Gandhi came to mind, "I like their Christ, I don't like their Christians."

Even as a Christian, it is my pride that gets in the way.

What does the bible / Jesus say?

Surrender your will to God, believe in Him, let Him guide you, follow Him.
That is tough when most people believe in themselves first and foremost.

Who freely admits

#1] that they're not perfect, and are sinners [ no rationalizing now ]
#2] acknowledges that all sinners go to Hell
#3] that belief in Jesus Christ's death and resurrection pays for those sins



As to arguing about "scientific proof" - evidence is there to freely decide.
That is why faith is the ultimate factor.



If "science" could have definitive proof of "god" in a box, or underneath a microscope, or reproducible by some lab experiment, what kind of "god" would that be ?