Question for Atheists

[Shredderbeam]

Do you remember where this happened at? In the part of Asia where it hit, it is primarily buhddist in that area. Other buhddist who were not impacted by this tsunami, often ddi not help any of these people try and recover, because they thought it to be karma. It was many Christians who went in to help these people, and many people were saved from the tragedy.

Buddhist and Muslim, actually.

Now, I would still account 400,000 people dying as an overall negative effect.

Yes, He knew it was going to happen, before He created the Universe. Again, because something is known, does not mean that it takes away free will.

If he knew that that was going to happen, then he knew whether I would win or lose a game of ping pong that happened earlier. In fact, he knew my every move. Therefore, I had no choice as to what moves I would make - it was all predestined.

 

[imnotcrazy357]

Buddhist and Muslim, actually.

Now, I would still account 400,000 people dying as an overall negative effect.

You must also take it into effect, that the Tsunami was a natural reaction, from an earthquake, it was not sent by God, but a natural reaction from the earth.

If he knew that that was going to happen, then he knew whether I would win or lose a game of ping pong that happened earlier. In fact, he knew my every move. Therefore, I had no choice as to what moves I would make - it was all predestined.

So who decided what moves you were going to make in the game?


What made your body move during the game?


God forced you into making those movements, or did He only know you would make them?

 

[Shredderbeam]

You must also take it into effect, that the Tsunami was a natural reaction, from an earthquake, it was not sent by God, but a natural reaction from the earth.

God created the universe, therefore he knew that that would happen.

So who decided what moves you were going to make in the game?

If God exists, then he did.

What made your body move during the game?

Whatever the "first cause" was.

God forced you into making those movements, or did He only know you would make them?

Both.

 

[imnotcrazy357]

God created the universe, therefore he knew that that would happen.

Because He kew it would happen, it makes him responsible?

If God exists, then he did.

So if God does not exist, then You would of still made the same actions correct? so with or without God you still commit the same actions.

But without God, you have free will, and you claim with God you don't.

If your are able to commit the same actions with or without free will, then there free will becomes oppinionated.

Whatever the "first cause" was.

define "first cause"

Both.

So because He knew you would make them, He forced you into making them?

If lets say I looked into the future, and saw that you were going to join the military when you turned 35. You then turn 35, and join the military. Because I knew that you would join the military at the exact age, I forced it upon you?

 

[EL17E]

If God exists, how exactly does Hell and Heaven logically, scientifically, and spiritually exist? As well apart from being constructed by God...

 

[Shredderbeam]

Because He kew it would happen, it makes him responsible?

Not just because he knew, but because he actually made the universe with the knowledge that that would happen.

So if God does not exist, then You would of still made the same actions correct? so with or without God you still commit the same actions.

But without God, you have free will, and you claim with God you don't.

With or without God, my mind is the sum of particles. With or without God, there was a first cause that began everything.

define "first cause"

The thing that started the Big Bang. It is considered the "first" cause since it was the first event in this universe.

So because He knew you would make them, He forced you into making them?

He created the Big Bang with the knowledge of what would happen if he did it in such-and-such a manner.

 

[imnotcrazy357]

If God exists, how exactly does Hell and Heaven logically, scientifically, and spiritually exist? As well apart from being constructed by God...

Can you explain this differently, I do not understand.

 

[EL17E]

That is because God would be the the unquestionable diety, whom does not live, whom does not die, whom does not repent, whom does not benefit, whom does not sin. It would be then because he is the origin of all existence to begin with, right?

 

[imnotcrazy357]

Not just because he knew, but because he actually made the universe with the knowledge that that would happen.

So was He to created the universe, and before that knew it would happen, it makes him responsible? What if as man, we did History completely different, that would not of caused it to happen, would He still be responsible for it, or is our fault, that our forefathers did History as they did.

With or without God, my mind is the sum of particles. With or without God, there was a first cause that began everything.

With God, God was that first cause, without God, how could there be a first cause?

The thing that started the Big Bang. It is considered the "first" cause since it was the first event in this universe.

So the beginning of the universe is what made you body move during the game?

He created the Big Bang with the knowledge of what would happen if he did it in such-and-such a manner.

You still had the choice if you would or would not make them didn't you?

That is because God would be the the unquestionable diety, whom does not live, whom does not die, whom does not repent, whom does not benefit, whom does not sin. It would be then because he is the origin of all existence to begin with, right?

God does live
Depending on your definition of "God" depends if you believed if He did die.
He has no need to repent from Himself, because He is perfect.
When you control Everything, there is no benefit.
He who is perfect, is sinless.

Yes, and No.

If something else originated everything, that does not mean that they are "perfect" "sinless" ect.

It is because He is "perfect" that He is "perfect"

 

[Shredderbeam]

So was He to created the universe, and before that knew it would happen, it makes him responsible? What if as man, we did History completely different, that would not of caused it to happen, would He still be responsible for it, or is our fault, that our forefathers did History as they did.

He is responsible since he initiated a chain of events that he knew would lead to that result.

Man could not have done anything differently. Free will doesn't exist.

With God, God was that first cause, without God, how could there be a first cause?

Budding universes, quantum energy borrowing, etc. If God is capable of creating something out of nothing, then it is possible to create something out of nothing, and thus, God isn't the only possible cause of it.

So the beginning of the universe is what made you body move during the game?

Yep.

You still had the choice if you would or would not make them didn't you?

No, I only had the illusion of choice.

 

[imnotcrazy357]

He is responsible since he initiated a chain of events that he knew would lead to that result.

Man could not have done anything differently. Free will doesn't exist.

So If God does exist, man cannot change his destiny, but If God does not exist we have no destiny, but either way our life unfolds exactly the same?

Budding universes, quantum energy borrowing, etc. If God is capable of creating something out of nothing, then it is possible to create something out of nothing, and thus, God isn't the only possible cause of it.

it all leads down to the same object, where did the first matter arise from, and for that you have no answer.

Yep.

No, I only had the illusion of choice.

You had a choice or not, depending on your views of the world.

 

[Shredderbeam]

So If God does exist, man cannot change his destiny, but If God does not exist we have no destiny, but either way our life unfolds exactly the same?

Regardless of whether or not God exists, things unfold as they were "destined" to do. My fate 10 years down the road is the same either way (assuming that God does not interfere).

it all leads down to the same object, where did the first matter arise from, and for that you have no answer.

Of course I don't have an answer. Can I peer back to before the universe's beginning and see what specifically caused the Big Bang?

You had a choice or not, depending on your views of the world.

Can you explain to me how our brains, composed of atoms and molecules, are capable of making independent choices?

Also, this has mainly turned into the Free Will debate (my fault ), so if you want to continue, let's keep it going in that thread.

 

[wakemanjohn]

Thanks Shredderbeam, the question was about proving or disproving the existence of God, not about fate / free will.

First, I have to take issue with the assumption early on that we cannot disprove the existence of something. We can if we set bounds to the inquiry. For instance, I can prove that no unicorns exist on earth - because people have looked everywhere for them, and have never found any. OK, from a rigid (and stubborn) standpoint, this does not PROVE they do not exist (they could be really really good at hiding), but such a counter-argument is absurd, and everyone knows it. QED I cannot disprove the existence of God because I am not capable of searching all the places God might reside, nor am I convinced I have the equipment necessary to detect God, even if God were dancing the macarena right under my nose.

I also noticed that many of the posts in this thread equate God with religion; personally, I think that's a mistake. Religion, it seems to me, is an attempt to interpret and institutionalize the way God should be understood and worshiped. This is not the same as God, nor necessarily the same as an understanding of God.

I think it is difficult to say what God is, but I think we can say something about what God is not. In this sense, we can begin to disprove not the existence of God, but some of the ugly, superstitious views of God. Can we agree that God is neither an old man with a white beard who lives in the clouds, nor a judge who "temps" us with free will while at the same time observing our every move with a view to bringing ther hammer down? Would you agree that God is not a parent who loves us unconditionally and who will forgive us no matter how much we screw up?

God is not human, how can we presume to understand, much less know what might motivate, please, or anger God? In fact, how can we (us little humans down here on planet Earth) do anything that God (the almighty and omnicient creator of the universe) could possibly bat an eyelash over? Again, our human notions of right and wrong might not jive with God's concerns.

OK, here it comes... Personally, I believe that I can ask God for certain things and expect God's help. For example, I can ask God to help me accept my life as it is and to look for the good in life. I can ask God to help me have the strength to overcome my cravings and addictions. I can ask God to help me be a more patient and understanding father and husband. These are just some examples. On the other hand, I believe that God does not respond well to requests to get the job, or to win the game, or to exert my will over others. In my opinion, one must surrender to God to find God. God is within. God is the higher self, God is both the understanding of and means to attain goodness in our selves. This has absolutely nothing to do with external circumstances. There is nothing to prove or disprove because God is not an external reality whose existence can be proven or disproven. If you ask God for help, God exists. If you feel you have no use for God, God will be of no use to you (and, since God is an internal reality, God will not exist).

 

[Shredderbeam]

First, I have to take issue with the assumption early on that we cannot disprove the existence of something. We can if we set bounds to the inquiry. For instance, I can prove that no unicorns exist on earth - because people have looked everywhere for them, and have never found any. OK, from a rigid (and stubborn) standpoint, this does not PROVE they do not exist (they could be really really good at hiding), but such a counter-argument is absurd, and everyone knows it. QED I cannot disprove the existence of God because I am not capable of searching all the places God might reside, nor am I convinced I have the equipment necessary to detect God, even if God were dancing the macarena right under my nose.

Right. You cannot prove a universal negative, yet some things need not be disproved for people to disbelieve in them.

I also noticed that many of the posts in this thread equate God with religion; personally, I think that's a mistake. Religion, it seems to me, is an attempt to interpret and institutionalize the way God should be understood and worshiped. This is not the same as God, nor necessarily the same as an understanding of God.

A fair point.

Would you agree that God is not a parent who loves us unconditionally and who will forgive us no matter how much we screw up?

I don't know if there is any evidence to support that.

God is not human, how can we presume to understand, much less know what might motivate, please, or anger God?

Provided that you are speaking of the Judeo-Christian God, I would agree. This is one reason why I am skeptical about tales of a personal relationship with God.

Again, our human notions of right and wrong might not jive with God's concerns.

They might not, but the fact that somebody more powerful than us disagrees does not put us in the wrong.

OK, here it comes... Personally, I believe that I can ask God for certain things and expect God's help. For example, I can ask God to help me accept my life as it is and to look for the good in life. I can ask God to help me have the strength to overcome my cravings and addictions. I can ask God to help me be a more patient and understanding father and husband.

Does God always grant these requests? What do you tell yourself when she does not?

In my opinion, one must surrender to God to find God. God is within. God is the higher self, God is both the understanding of and means to attain goodness in our selves. This has absolutely nothing to do with external circumstances. There is nothing to prove or disprove because God is not an external reality whose existence can be proven or disproven. If you ask God for help, God exists. If you feel you have no use for God, God will be of no use to you (and, since God is an internal reality, God will not exist).

Then God, as most people conceive of her, does not exist.

 

[wakemanjohn]

Thanks for your feedback Shredderbeam. You have an agile mind. However, I respectfully submit that you are perhaps unjustifiably laboring under an anthropomorphic view of God. This is noted in your use of a gender pronoun reference to God (though you cleverly used she: I'm impressed!), but in fairness, that is trivial. I'll come back to this in a moment.

I like the fact that my question, "Would you agree that God is not a parent who loves us unconditionally and who will forgive us no matter how much we screw up?" was provocative for you. How could there be evidence to support that view? I think we cannot know for sure, but the concept of eternal damnation for the wicked certainly seems to come close to "supporting evidence" (if you believe in that sort of thing). At least I can reference The Bible here, though I won't quote you chapter and verse.

Hmmm, were you talking about a god other than Allah? Do you have better access to the thoughs of another god? A Hindu god perhaps? Krishna? A rose by any other name? What did you mean by this?

When I wrote, "...our human notions of right and wrong might not jive with God's concerns.", I did not mean to suggest that our human notions are trivial, unimportant, or wrong; merely that it is difficult to equate human notions to God's, or to assume that they are analagous. When you wrote "They might not, but the fact that somebody more powerful than us disagrees does not put us in the wrong", it made me suspect that your view of God is anthropomorphic. How can one have a disagreement with God? Doesn't disagreement imply a lack of ability to fully understand, appreciate and have compassion for another person's point of view? I submit that if you had full understanding, appreciation and compassion for another person's point of view, you would not "disagree" with them in the usual sense of the word. You might think that they are making the wrong choice, or that they are not seeing matters clearly, but you would also appreciate that they are making the best choice they can given their present understanding and development. Thus, your acceptance of their view or choice would outweigh your feelings of disagreement.

You ask if God always grants the sort of requests that I mentioned. My answer is YES - to the extent that I truly want such requests to be granted. If there is a failing here, it is my own.

I just don't understand your reasoning when you replied "Then God, as most people conceive of her, does not exist." Why do you say that?

 

[Shredderbeam]

Thanks for your feedback Shredderbeam. You have an agile mind. However, I respectfully submit that you are perhaps unjustifiably laboring under an anthropomorphic view of God. This is noted in your use of a gender pronoun reference to God (though you cleverly used she: I'm impressed!), but in fairness, that is trivial. I'll come back to this in a moment.

Thank you.

I use "she" on purpose, just to contradict the majority of people who use "he", just to provoke thought. Most of the time, however, I try to avoid assigning God a gender.

I like the fact that my question, "Would you agree that God is not a parent who loves us unconditionally and who will forgive us no matter how much we screw up?" was provocative for you. How could there be evidence to support that view? I think we cannot know for sure, but the concept of eternal damnation for the wicked certainly seems to come close to "supporting evidence" (if you believe in that sort of thing). At least I can reference The Bible here, though I won't quote you chapter and verse.

The Bible, as a book written by men, cannot really be used as proof. It was written by a large variety of people over thousands of years, and each author has a different viewpoint.

Hmmm, were you talking about a god other than Allah? Do you have better access to the thoughs of another god? A Hindu god perhaps? Krishna? A rose by any other name? What did you mean by this?

When I mention God in a discussion with most people, I am usually referring to the concept of God that most people hold - the one described in the Bible and Koran.

What I meant was that I doubt if an all-powerful, all-knowing God can have a personal relationship with humans.

When I wrote, "...our human notions of right and wrong might not jive with God's concerns.", I did not mean to suggest that our human notions are trivial, unimportant, or wrong; merely that it is difficult to equate human notions to God's, or to assume that they are analagous.

Well, I hold the view that wrong actions are wrong, even if a deity disagrees with us. If it transpired that a God does exist, and it holds that stealing is morally permissible, I would still maintain that it was not.

When you wrote "They might not, but the fact that somebody more powerful than us disagrees does not put us in the wrong", it made me suspect that your view of God is anthropomorphic. How can one have a disagreement with God? Doesn't disagreement imply a lack of ability to fully understand, appreciate and have compassion for another person's point of view? I submit that if you had full understanding, appreciation and compassion for another person's point of view, you would not "disagree" with them in the usual sense of the word. You might think that they are making the wrong choice, or that they are not seeing matters clearly, but you would also appreciate that they are making the best choice they can given their present understanding and development. Thus, your acceptance of their view or choice would outweigh your feelings of disagreement.

I can understand the point you are making, but I think I would still disagree with them. To disagree with a person is to hold dissimilar views to them, which you can still do if you fully understand everything about them.

You ask if God always grants the sort of requests that I mentioned. My answer is YES - to the extent that I truly want such requests to be granted. If there is a failing here, it is my own.

If God is within, then you are granting yourself these requests.

I just don't understand your reasoning when you replied "Then God, as most people conceive of her, does not exist." Why do you say that?

I would assume that most people conceive of God as an external deity whose existence is not conditional upon humanity's belief in it. If God exists within, though, and is nothing more than the higher self, then the previous concept of God does not apply.

 

[wakemanjohn]

Anyway, let's not get led to far astray from the central theme about proving the existence / non-existence of God. I have suggested that the question is wrong-headed since God is not an external reality whose existence can be proven or disproven in any traditional way. I suggested that God is a personal or internal reality that can exist for some people at the same time that God does not (effectively) exist for others. So the question is: Can you provide evidence to show that God exists or does not exist from your point of view? I have suggested that I can consistently expect help from God with some types of requests, and that therefore God exists. Can you argure convincingly from your point of view that God does not exist?

 

[Shredderbeam]

If you receive help from God that cannot be explained by the placebo effect, self-motivation, or anything similar, and instead receive help that, without God, would be impossible (limb regeneration, etc.), then I would consider that as good, solid evidence.

I see no reason to believe in any sort of deity. No evidence of it has been demonstrated to my knowledge, and things that do not exist produce no evidence of their non-existence, so we cannot expect to find evidence that God does not exist.

I would go so far as to say that God could be compared to Santa, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or pink ravens. None of them have had their existence verified or denied with certainty, yet we "know" that the last three do not exist. Why? Humans created them, as concepts. They are logically possible, but does every logically possible being exist? No.

 

[wakemanjohn]

I still contend that premises like "If it transpired that a God does exist, and it holds that stealing is morally permissible...." anthropomorphise God. Perhaps God is not limited by such dualities as belief / disbelief or permissible / impermissible.

When you write, "To disagree with a person is to hold dissimilar views to them, which you can still do if you fully understand everything about them." you are still thinking dualities.

When you write "If God is within, then you are granting yourself these requests." I think that you are not taking me seriously. God may be within, but this does this make God less real. I honestly believe that without such appeals to God, I would be incapable of making the changes I need to make on my own. This can only be experienced, it is hard to convince someone of this. It is a process of surrendering to a will stronger than one's own in order to go beyond one's limitations - to gain a new insight.

Finally, you wrote, "I would assume that most people conceive of God as an external deity whose existence is not conditional upon humanity's belief in it. If God exists within, though, and is nothing more than the higher self, then the previous concept of God does not apply." But why would you assume that people conceive of God as an external deity? I argued earlier that God is not an old man with a white beard who lives in the clouds. Finally, I disagree with your attempt to trivialize the higher self and label it as distinct from God. Many of the fundamental concepts that constitute our understanding of reality exist only in our minds. Courage, fairness, compassion, evil - these concepts cannot be declared trivial and disposable to our understanding of reality simple because they exist only in our minds.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I still contend that premises like "If it transpired that a God does exist, and it holds that stealing is morally permissible...." anthropomorphise God. Perhaps God is not limited by such dualities as belief / disbelief or permissible / impermissible.

If God loves, I would assume that it has moral values.

When you write, "To disagree with a person is to hold dissimilar views to them, which you can still do if you fully understand everything about them." you are still thinking dualities.

Not really. I fully know what it's like to be fanatically pro-choice, and pro-life. I also know exactly what it's like to be placed in a situation where an abortion might be an option. Yet, I still hold one view on the matter.

When you write "If God is within, then you are granting yourself these requests." I think that you are not taking me seriously. God may be within, but this does this make God less real. I honestly believe that without such appeals to God, I would be incapable of making the changes I need to make on my own. This can only be experienced, it is hard to convince someone of this. It is a process of surrendering to a will stronger than one's own in order to go beyond one's limitations - to gain a new insight.

I do know what you mean. I myself once felt a similar way. I then came to realize that I was only convincing myself that there was a God helping me, so I tried it on my own. I achieved results that were just as good as if I had believed that God was helping me.

Finally, you wrote, "I would assume that most people conceive of God as an external deity whose existence is not conditional upon humanity's belief in it. If God exists within, though, and is nothing more than the higher self, then the previous concept of God does not apply." But why would you assume that people conceive of God as an external deity? I argued earlier that God is not an old man with a white beard who lives in the clouds.

In my experience, most people associate God with an external deity.

Finally, I disagree with your attempt to trivialize the higher self and label it as distinct from God. Many of the fundamental concepts that constitute our understanding of reality exist only in our minds. Courage, fairness, compassion, evil - these concepts cannot be declared trivial and disposable to our understanding of reality simple because they exist only in our minds.

Those concepts are trivial, when viewing the universe outside of humanity. Humans will die, and at some point, humanity will become extinct. After this happens, all of those noble qualities will have meant nothing.