Dear atheist…
Why do you not believe? Why do you allow your senses to rule ins
tead of your sense? Your eyes don’t see God, your ears don’t hear him, nor would your outstretched fingers find his form. But if God doesn’t exist, how is it that you do? If God doesn’t exist, why is there something rather than nothing?
Why do you not believe? You clamor for justice and robe yourself in rights. But your appeals for fairness and freedom carry no weight without a transcendent standard. Who are you to tell me what’s right and wrong? Are you my judge? Are you my god?
Why do you not believe? You gaze out into the night sky and your immaterial thoughts carry you deep into space. You reason an endless expanse and discern a limited comprehension. Is it not reasonable to conclude that a limitless being exists who knows something you can’t?
God is horrid, you say, if he even exists. Just look at what his supposed Word says. He’s capricious and cruel, sadistic and sullen. Are you his judge? Do you really believe a creature who can’t even explain his own existence, much less create another like him, who is beset with badness, imperfect in piety, negligible in knowledge, can call to account the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Maker of all that is? Can expect to fully comprehend his ways?
And what’s that about anyway? How can you argue against God’s character and actions if you don’t even believe he exists? You fashion an image of what God would look like if you were him, and then cast off as unbecoming or unreal (one or the other…it can’t be both) a God that doesn’t line up with your image, in essence declaring yourself god by decreeing everyone else an imposter. You elevate the scientific method as the supreme diviner of truth, but skip over the observation of evidence and go right to the conclusion based on your biased preconceptions and your materialistic worldview that precludes any consideration of the supernatural.
Dear atheist…what if you’re wrong? What if it’s true that the God of the Bible does exist and your sin will separate you from him and happiness forever if you never receive his provision for your salvation? What if he is standing ready right now to forgive your sins and seal you for redemption if you will only turn to him and believe?
What if you never believe?
Wow, Caroline. I found you on Mike’s blog and followed your link here.
I would advise you to read some more atheist books and blogs. Your post uses some of the weakest excuses of theists. Let me demonstrate.
I could write your first paragraph easily and be of any other religion since most, if not all religions make the same claims. Why don’t you believe in say, Tezcatlipoca? Why do you allow your senses to rule instead of your sense? Your eyes don’t see Tezcatlipoca, your ears don’t hear him, nor would your outstretched fingers find his form. But if Tezcatlipoca doesn’t exist, how is it that you do? If Tezcatlipoca doesn’t exist, why is there something rather than nothing?
You claim that humans need a creator. So, why doesn’t your god? Ah yes, because you use special pleading, where you want rules to apply to everything but your one thing that can’t fit.
You claim there must be a transcendent standard. Well, again, why not Tezcatlipoca as a standard? And for someone who claims that their religion is some kind of standard, it’s pretty amusing when Christians have changed their minds on what this god of theirs really wants. Once upon a time, Christians claimed that inter-racial marriage was against their god. Some still do but many do not. Some claim that homosexual marriage is againstn their god, and again, some still do but some do not. All claim that their god has told them this, and all of them have no more proof than the next. I judge another human with no problem, and judge them against the laws that make civilization work. You try to tell others what is right and wrong and you try to claim that there is your imaginary friend that backs you up. Sorry, that’s just sill and transparently just a human trying to have power over others.
You try to claim that we should simple believe in your god because we can see the universe. Surprise! Every other religion makes the same claim. So, Caroline, just how can you show me it was your god that did this? Why not good ol’ Tez? Can you show me why there needs to be a creator at all? No, it is not reasonable to think that the Great Arkleseizure created the universe. That’s called the ontological argument, and nothing makes it necessary. Take a moment to look at the Wikipedia “existence of god” article and see all of the arguments and how they fail.
I have no problem in judging God just like I have no problem judging Darth Vader. You try to claim that humans can’t explain their own existence should not try to judge, and therefore, understand god. I always have to laugh at this because Christians sure love to claim they understand god when convenient but oooh, if they get a hard question, they go right to claiming this god is all mysterious. What happens when humans *can* explain their existence, Caroline? We’ve done a lot to figure things out in the last several millenia. Your argument that since we’re so bad we can’t judge your god is hilarious when you insist this god made us exactly like that. That’s called trying to have your cake and eat it too. Can humans or can’t they understand god?
Your god is a classic primitive god, very human, just more powerful. Yep, it’s ignorant, jealous, hateful, arrogant, fearful, etc, just like the gods of other ancient peoples. You try to claim that since I don’t believe in god why how can I argue against his character. Again, just like saying Darth Vader is an evil character. Really, Caroline, that’s the best you have? I have no need of fashioning an image of this god, I have a whole book supposedly all about him, right? Or is your bible nonsense and wrong about this god? And yes, dear Caroline, things can be both unbecoming and unreal.
I would suggest that if you don’t like the scientific method so much, then you do stop using it. Can’t have you being a hypocrite, right? No modern medicine, no computer, no modern food plants and animals, etc. You claim that there is evidence for your god but you provide no evidence whatsoever, just the usual excuses of *any* theist of *any* religion.
Oh and then we finish up with Pascal’s Wager. Look that up too. Dear Caroline…what if you’re wrong? What if it’s true that Tezcatlipoca does exist and your sin will separate you from him and happiness forever if you never receive his provision for your salvation? What if he is standing ready right now to forgive your sins and seal you for redemption if you will only turn to him and believe?
What if you never believe?
Caroline, you have no evidence that your religion is the right one to choose. You believe in the Christian God because you happened to be born in a country where Christianity is popular. If you were born in Iran, there’s nothing to say you wouldn’t be a Muslim, or if in India, a Hindu or a animist in a country in Africa. You only think your religion is the only possible true one because you have been taught that by people you trust and you have kept yourself willfully ignorant about any other possibility. I was a Christian (let me guess, you’ll claim I never way since I ceased. That’s the no true Scotsman fallacy.), I have researched many religions and I have always come up with the same answer. No gods. Present evidence, not the nonsense you have posted, and then we might talk.
LikeLike
Well said. It’s a simple point overlooked too often today. What basis does the work of clay have to judge its Maker? Moral appeals need to be objectively grounded to be taken seriously. Without God, there can be no basis. Kim Jong Un might as well be your moral guide rather than Richard Dawkins.
LikeLike
Thank you for commenting. Yes, morality that is not objective is “subject” to every individual’s whims and wants. It’s startling to see how the average atheist refuses to acknowledge that he has no recourse to defend his morality if another free-thinking human being rejects it.
LikeLike
But, if a god does exist, why is there a god rather than nothing? Postulating a god merely shifts the puzzle to another rung of the same ladder, and does nothing to move us toward an answer.
LikeLike
Daz – Thank you for asking one reasonable question in a respectful way, instead of going on an angry rant.
Though we can ask, why is there a god, that question does not present the same logical problems that why is there something (i.e. the universe and everything in it) rather than nothing presents. “God” is defined, in part, as being self-existent and eternal. We can’t fully understand how that works, but it doesn’t defy logic. It is possible that there is a supreme being outside of our comprehension that created the universe, and us.
But, as it is well-accepted in the scientific community that the universe had a beginning, it is illogical to assert that it spontaneously created itself from nothing. Everything that had a beginning had a cause.
LikeLike
🙂 I tend to confine my angry rants to my own blog. Everything in its place.
We may define the word how we like, but all we’d be doing would be playing word games. We’re still left with the puzzle of why this self-existent and eternal being exists, rather than nothing.
Yes, it’s “possible.” (Though I find the probability very low.) It’s “possible” that I’m an upstanding, honest chap who will honour his promise to pay you back a loan on time. Would you lend me the contents of your bank account based on that possibility?
LikeLike
If I’m wrong about you I’m only out some cash. If you’re wrong about God, you’re out a whole lot more.
LikeLike
There is nothing “illogical” to say something came from nothing. Caroline, your ignorance about modern science is showing. If your argument for your god is based on willful ignorance, what does that say about the strength of your faith?
LikeLike
And if you’re wrong about which god to believe in, so are you…
But Pascal’s wager says nothing about whether a god actually exists, which is what we were discussing. My point was meant to show that many things are “possible,” but we usually look for evidence before allowing that the “possible” might be “probable.”
LikeLike
“…we usually look for evidence before allowing that the “possible” might be “probable.”
Of course, and that is what I have done. Do you really believe that theists have no evidence for the existence of God and take it on blind faith?
I’m curious…and I hope you have asked yourself this because I would really like to know…what evidence would convince you?
LikeLike
Well, it is, after all, a major teaching of most religions that faith—belief without evidence—is a virtue, so I could say yes. But actually, no, I don’t say that. What I do say is that the “evidence” I’ve so far been presented with seems dubious at best, and often—at worst—it doesn’t even constitute evidence, by any definition I’ve ever seen of the word. (See my link, below.)
I honestly don’t know, but I can say that it would have to be testable. Definitely more than a mere “it’s possible.”
I can, however, provide a short list of classes of argument which I don’t consider to be evidence, or which themselves need evidential support.
Basically, though, I want physical, testable evidence of the actual existence of this being, not argument from scripture or appeals to logic. (The latter because logic can “prove” anything if you pick the right postulates; but the postulates themselves have to shown to be factual, if the argument based on them is to have any merit—and we’re back to needing testable evidence.)
LikeLike
Daz – I appreciate your comments and I intend to respond, but have been bogged down with other things. And I don’t want to give a less than well-thought-out answer. I implore your patience…
LikeLike
Nae worries, Caroline. A question 13.5 billion years old isn’t going to hurt if we take a few hours or days extra…
LikeLike
Daz – “Blind faith”, if it is defined as “belief without evidence” is not a virtue in my book. The kind of faith I have is belief without complete evidence, I would say. Just as you, and every atheist, believes there is no God without being able to answer all the questions. Like, how did we get here. You have theories, but they are not provable, and require faith.
These next comments are in response to your linked post. Regarding prophecies, when taken as a whole, I believe they do constitute a body of evidence that needs to be reckoned with. Sure, some are vague, but many are not. Like the birthplace of the Messiah, the 30 pieces of silver, dividing his garments, the year he would die. As for Isaiah 53, while it’s certainly true that the average Jew rejects it as foretelling Christ, I don’t believe it’s true that most biblical scholars do. Furthermore, before the Christian age it was commonly understood by the Jews as a messianic prophecy. Once the Christians began preaching it as foretelling Jesus, they decided it had to be talking about the Jewish nation. But it clearly speaks of a man, a man who was pierced and died, and was sinless. A considerable amount of stretching needs to occur for it to be describing the Jewish people.
And speaking of stretching/bending/breaking…your third point about needing “to see some maths” explaining how this prophecy works is a bit unrealistic, no? We’re talking about the supernatural. Maybe you’re just kidding.
“I’ll let you have free will, and therefore a good god who allows suffering, or prophecy, which implies a fixed, immutable stream of events and therefore no free will. They’re mutually incompatible—you can’t have both.” God’s omniscience does not negate or override our free will. Pre-knowledge does not equate with predetermination…just as (at a much simpler level) a scientist knows how two chemicals will react when brought together, even though he did not ordain it so.
The argument from Scripture, as you describe it, I agree is not good evidence…just claiming that it’s true because it says so. However, the bibliographic and archeological evidence for the validity of the Bible as a compilation of reliable historical documents is more than satisfactory. It’s actually quite overwhelming. Combined with extra-biblical references (and fulfilled prophecy), we can be confident that it records actual events, including the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. And because Jesus claimed to be God and did miracles to support his claim, and testified to the divine nature of the Scriptures, the Bible does constitute a very good source of evidence for the existence of God.
I agree that arguments from comfort and famous people are not sufficient in themselves to persuade. Yet, just as you might talk about a “body of evidence” to support evolution, and a body is composed of many parts which individually cannot survive but without which the body would be incomplete or unstable, so too these arguments add weight to the evidence for God.
Finally, the argument from creation, what you call “the argument from gosh-wow!”, is the most compelling piece of evidence for God and your dismissal of it as something akin to a “philosophical enema” is really not addressing it honestly. Your implication is that no one with half a brain or the most meager understanding of science would conclude from the evidence that there is a highly-intelligent, supernatural being involved. On this point I must disagree on the admissibility of authority as evidence. If you are going to raise the objection that “scientific rigour” is not applied by any who believe in Intelligent Design, it is valid for me to argue that plenty of scientists have examined the evidence and concluded an intelligent designer or expressed serious reservations about the validity of Darwinism as an explanation for the origin of life. You can view a whole list of them here. There are 20 pages of names.
And to demand an “explanation for how this god came into being” in order to be taken seriously is asking the impossible. And I think you know it. Do you suppose that after mowing your lawn the lowly ant squatter would be able to explain to his little ant buddies down under how it is that their nice, new ant hill got destroyed? Much less how the huge creature he has seen towering over it came into being? My point (and I think it’s an obvious one) is that the only reasonable expectation when a supreme, supernatural being is proposed is that lesser beings cannot fully comprehend him, nor explain his existence.
As for the Big Bang theory, it is totally compatible with the theory of Creation. It presents more problems for the atheist than the creationist. We do hold that the world was created in the Big Bang from nothing. But the only way that can be true is if there is a supreme being outside of nature that created it. Try as they may to explain how something came from nothing without God, atheist physicists are stuck with the reality that they always must start with something.
But even if there was a fluctuation in this “nothing” that created something, that still doesn’t begin to explain how that resulted in highly specialized chains of information found in a single cell nucleus, much less the fine-tuned planet we live on or the intricately designed bodies we inhabit.
Back to your comments here. First, rejecting logic outright is discarding a primary method of discerning truth. It sounds very much like you’ve run across some logical arguments for God that you can’t counter and so you want to disqualify them altogether.
Secondly, to reserve belief until you have “physical, testable evidence of the actual existence of this being” is, again, asking for something that is unrealistic. I’ll “go to the ant” again. It’s an inferior example, but one can imagine that an ant that never ventures above ground, or even if he does, might insist that if he can’t sense you with his antennae, then he won’t believe you exist. An ant is incapable of even beginning to be able to apprehend all the complexities of you, yet you exist as surely as it does.
Still, God has given us physical evidence of himself, not only in Creation, but in coming to earth as a Man in the person of Jesus Christ. The evidence for his life, death, and resurrection can be tested. You might say, I wasn’t there to see him and witness any miracles so I won’t believe. But then how can you believe anything that you didn’t personally see?
LikeLike
Yoiks! That’s the problem with these conversations. They grow and grow to encompass so much more than the original points. By necessity, I admit, but oh well… 🙂
Okay, taking your points in order.
Hmm, my contention would be that it’s not so much that your evidence is incomplete, but that it’s either unreliable or doesn’t actually constitute evidence at all. That’s not to say, of course, that you don’t see it as evidence; just that I think your evaluation is wrong.
I have met very few atheists who, when speaking formally, would contend that there is no god. In the face of a lack of evidence that gods exist, we lack belief in gods, which is subtly different. An Analogy…
If I say that there is no underground alien colony on the Moon, I am making a statement which is subject to proof by evidence. I can be easily proved wrong if one is found, or if the colonists make contact with us.
If I say that, given the current evidence available, I see no reason to believe that there’s an underground alien colony on the Moon, I cannot be proved wrong. Even if one is later found, it would have to be admitted that I previously had no reason to hold any other belief.
See the difference? I currently see no evidence in support of the existence of gods and suchlike supernatural beings; therefore I have no reason to believe they exist.
Regarding prophecy:it’s an extraordinary claim, yet appears to be supported by decidedly ordinary “evidence.” Frankly, I find it much more likely that later stories and interpretations were fashioned or refashioned to fit earlier scripture.
Yes it does.
Imagine you’re reading a whodunnit novel. The characters exist within a fixed, predetermined world. You can have pre-knowledge of who did the murder, by reading the last page.
Now imagine reading a novel, chapter by chapter, as soon as the author finishes each one. What’s more, the author hasn’t plotted ahead, and hasn’t yet decided which of the clues she’s embedding will turn out to be red herrings, and which real. Nor has she decided “who done it.” In this case you cannot have pre-knowledge, because the internal time-line of the story has not yet been fixed. The characters, via our authors somewhat lackadaisical approach to writing mystery novels, can be said to have free will. (Unless we push the metaphor too far of course!)
She’s making a prediction based on a (likely very high) probability, not a prophecy.
I’m not planning to argue against the archaeological evidence as evidence. (Though I would say that, from my reading, much of it seems somewhat overblown.) I would, however, question just what you claim it is evidence of. An empty tomb, for instance, is evidence of precisely that: an empty tomb. It is not evidence that the tomb was emptied by supernatural means. Similarly, evidence that the ancient Jews worshipped a god, and that a god had aided them and directed their path, is merely evidence that they had such beliefs, not that the object of those beliefs existed.
I’m afraid I don’t comprehend your meaning, in the paragraph beginning “I agree that arguments from comfort and famous people are not sufficient in themselves to persuade.”
You misread me. I make no such implication. Many very educated people have believed in, and do believe in, various gods. As I say earlier in that essay, though: “Clever ≠ always right.” Read up on some of Kepler’s failed ideas, and you’ll see what I mean.
I’m sorry, but authority is not evidence. An incorrect argument is just as wrong if presented by a famously clever person as it would be if presented by the village idiot. And a correct argument is just as right if presented by the latter rather than the former.
This goes back to my moon-colony analogy. If he’s actually seen the towering creature, then he is still correct, no matter how much the other ants disbelieve him. However, if he’s come along later and seen the destruction and merely surmised, because he can imagine no other explanation, that a huge being must have been the cause, then he has no logical reason to suppose that his “explanation” is the correct one. Sure, we know he’s right, but on the evidence he has he should not assume that his failure to imagine other answers is not merely a failure of imagination.
And that, to address your final few paragraphs in one go, here is the mistake I see you as making. The answer we should give to a question we don’t know the answer to (how did the universe arise?), is not merely the first answer which pops into our heads, even if that’s the only answer we can imagine. The correct and honest answer is “I don’t know.”
We can hypothesise that the universe arose as a one-off unique event, or that it’s a sub-section of a multiverse. We can hypothesise a creator-god. We can hypothesise an exploding hot fudge sundae. Unless we can test these ideas, though, we cannot say “This is what happened,” merely “this may have happened.” And none of the above address first causes, as I said in my opening comment. How did, if they even exist, the multiverse, the god or the hot fudge sundae come into being? The honest answer: “We don’t know.”
I note you’ve now added a property to your god. No longer is it merely pre-existing, but it is now, apparently, “supernatural.” Given the broadest definition of “natural”: that which exists or can exist, could you please explain what you mean by the implication that something can be, somehow, outside or separate from nature?
LikeLike
Eeps!
Yep, I forgot to pay homage to Typos, god of internet comment-boards! You probably got what I meant to say anyway, but it’s an important word missing:
“Similarly, evidence that the ancient Jews worshipped a god, and that a god had aided them and directed their path, is merely evidence that they had such beliefs, not that the object of those beliefs existed.”
Should have read:
“Similarly, evidence that the ancient Jews worshipped a god, and believed that a god had aided them and directed their path, is merely evidence that they had such beliefs, not that the object of those beliefs existed.”
LikeLike
Caroline, Pascal’s wager is lame.
We don’t create a caricature of god to attack, it’s all there in the bible, we just point it out.
I can’t believe, i don’t choose not to believe or to believe, but as it is there is no evidence and as such there is no reason to believe
LikeLike
I disagree wholeheartedly that you don’t choose to believe or not. You absolutely do. In your short comment you made several judgments of belief using your reason and your will. Are you a robot that is programmed to assert that “Pascal’s wager is lame”? No, you choose to believe that while others choose to believe that it is instead worthy of consideration. In the same way, the evidence is sufficient for millions to believe that God exists, but you choose to interpret the evidence differently and disbelieve.
Maintaining that you “can’t believe” is disingenuous.
LikeLike
Caroline, thanks for the response. Have you read the whole of Pascal’s wager? He says if you can’t believe, then you need to attend mass and baptism, basically follow the catholic rites and you may believe. Tell me, is this what you do?
You say maintaining that you can’t chose to either disbelieve or believe is ingenious, please indulge, did you decide to believe, was this a rational decision on your part or was it a result of accident both of birth and geography?
To argue from numbers, does not make a belief in god true. It only means that billions are deluded.
LikeLike
It is quite lame. It assumes that you have the right god. Caroline, please do tell us how you know the right god is yours.
For someone who has a post of questions, I see my answers are rather scary, yes?
LikeLike
My, my…somebody’s itchin’ to get into it. Which is exactly why I have chosen not to approve your comments. It seems apparent to me that you are not interested in a debate but a fight instead, and I want my blog to be nonviolent. You’re not seeking the truth but looking for opportunities to ridicule.
Reasonable people can debate the existence of God without any of that. If you’d like to try respect and consideration, I will engage you. Please begin with an explanation of how you can get something from nothing.
LikeLike
Caroline,
You reply and then I see that my post is still not up. Happily, I took the precaution to put it on my own blog. For you to try to claim that I’m not interested in debate, you have gone above and beyond to refuse it. You want to ask questions but when someone answers and the answers are not to your liking, you try to hide them. You really couldn’t prove my point better, Caroline. You are not looking for an honest answer from an atheist that you could consider and rebut. You simply want a soapbox, where you ignore how your claims are wrong. I do also like how you have decided that you are psychic! I am sorry, Caroline, but I am indeed looking for the truth, but I also look to educate Christians who make claims that are not true. I am not looking to ridicule, so your claims about me are *lies* about me. That’s false witnessing. But in case you do want to point out just where you thought I was ridiculing you, I invite you to do so on my copy of my post to your blog if you don’t want to here. I invite you to do so since I don’t always want to be ridiculing Christians. I have taken great pleasure in ridiculing Christians and I will continue to do so, however, my post to you wasn’t ridicule at all, Caroline. I answered *your* questions, Caroline. I pointed out how they are wrong in their assumptions. You supposedly wanted this by posting what you did. I hope you stick by that.
It is amusing to see you claim that you want your blog to be non-violent. I’d certainly want a blog to be non-violent too, but seeing how debate isn’t violent at all, your crocodile tears are misplaced. I have frequently seen Christians claim that atheists are not respectful or considerate and all they mean is that they simply don’t like when atheists dare to tell them they are wrong and then dare to request that the theist actually engage in debate, putting up their arguments and evidence for their god. It is a very convenient excuse to claim someone is disrespectful or inconsiderate so I am asking you to point out which parts offended you so much. If I was, I will be happy to acknowledge it. At its base, my post is my reasons for coming to a negative that your god exists and pointing out how your arguments are those used by people you don’t believe either. Please tell me why you shouldn’t be just as afraid for your soul as I am for mine, how do you know your god is real? Can you answer that, Caroline?
As for how one can get something from nothing, that is a physics question. It is also a question that I can also pose to you. Where did your god come from, Caroline, how can *you* get something from nothing? You have no trouble in accepting this premise for your god, but you are not willing to accept that for anything else? Why? Quantum mechanics is a set of theories that appear to be the best description we have for the world since their predictions have proven true and accurate, there are equations that say that from “nothing”, there was a fluctuation in that nothing, and this created something. “Nothing” isn’t exactly like how I guess you think of it. To a physicist, nothing has fields, quantum particles etc in it. With science being able to detect more and more, things get clarified. Once “nothing” was what we couldn’t see with our eyes, now it’s different because we know better.
Now, I’m sure you will say that it’s “just a theory”, like many Christians try to do when dismissing other thing that disagree with their mythology, like evolution. However, this theory allows you to have computers, have CAT scans, etc. If you benefit from those, it does make it a little ridiculous that you argue against such things. Those come from the same science that the Heisenberg Unpredicablity theory come from. It doesn’t work when you try to ignore parts of science you don’t like but have no problem with the parts you do, that make you comfy. Quantum mechanics isn’t a hypothesis, which is an idea that comes from observation; it is what we have predicted and then observed and then used in our techology. The book, “A universe from nothing” by Lawrence Krauss can go into much more detail. I have a copy in my local library, I’m sure you probably can find it in yours or can get it by interlibrary loan. It works, even if you don’t want to believe it or have trouble understanding it. I have trouble understanding it too. But to say that “it can’t work that way because I don’t understand/want to believe”, well, that refusal to believe because *you* can’t comprehend it is called the argument from personal incredulity or the argument from ignorance. We haven’t figured out everything yet, that’s is for sure. That doesn’t say we won’t. The longer we go, the more we know, and the result has been your god being pushed into the quickly diminishing gaps. Most modern people no longer think that some god or demons cause disease, we don’t think thunder is the sound of Thor throwing his hammer, etc.
I hope this answered your question. I hope you will answer mine. I am posting this on my blog if you’d care to answer it over there.
LikeLike
Caroline, i gave you an answer to that, but it seems you just ignored it. Quantum Field theory explains perfectly how ‘something’ can come from ‘nothing.’ It’s in fact happening all the time at the subatomic level. Just because you choose to ignore it (which it appears you indeed are doing) does not make it any less real.
Now, i’m not picking a fight, but i will present you with a question which i found very helpful in looking for a god years and years ago: why would the universe even require one? If you study science, which i do, you’ll soon see a god is not necessary anywhere for anything except perhaps in the imaginations of Iron Age goat herders.
LikeLike
Such arrogance. Or blindness. Or both. There are plenty of men and women much more intelligent than you or I who strongly believe God exists…based on the evidence. Please see my response to your atheist friend regarding a universe from nothing.
LikeLike
“Blindness”? Interesting choice of words. Tell me, did you even Google “Quantum Field Theory” to see what i was talking about? I somehow doubt it, right? You’re not interested in learning. But i guess that’s your problem, not mine.
LikeLike
Caroline, there are intelligent men and women who believe in a god, this however doesn’t make their claims any more true. It only confirms that even intelligent people can be deluded or can hold ridiculous beliefs.
LikeLike
“Such arrogance. Or blindness. Or both. There are plenty of men and women much more intelligent than you or I who strongly believe God exists…based on the evidence. Please see my response to your atheist friend regarding a universe from nothing.”
Caroline, I would suggest that you think about this for a moment. Replace your god with the name of any other god, say, Vishnu, in your post above. Do you automatically believe in Vishnu since there are indeed very intelligent people who believe in it? If not, why not? There is a psychological phenomena (a defense mechanism) called compartmentalization, where people who require evidence in all other parts of their life find that they do not need it for certain parts that they find important and that do not have the same evidence. It is an attempt to avoid conflict, and to still retain a religion that was taught to us by people we trusted. Many theists try to use the idea of non-overlapping magisteria aka religion and science are both right but deal with seperate things. Unfortunately, that idea has trouble because as science progresses, religion retreats before it, the gods having less supposed influence in the world.
LikeLike
clubschadenfreude-
The whole tone of this post and your previous ones smack of ridicule. And hatred. And conflict. Atheists like you are like vultures…like the unclean birds of the Bible. One Christian makes a respectful comment and you smell blood and swoop in with a barrage of accusations and derogatory comments. Your preferred tactic is to overwhelm your victim with so many criticisms and challenges that they’ll prefer to disregard them rather than respond.
I will respond to your challenges, but if you return with another comment I will likely trash it. Because I’m sure it will be more of the same…and that’s my prerogative. Yes, I’ve got a soapbox and so do you. You can have your say as much as you want on your own. You’ve had yours here. Now I’ll have mine.
You substitute “Tezcatlipoca” for God and think that foils my argument for his existence. I was arguing for a transcendent, supernatural creator, commonly referred to as God. Calling him something different doesn’t negate my point.
The universe needs a creator because it had a beginning. A transcendent, eternal being had no beginning so needs no cause. That’s not special pleading; that’s a concept even ardent atheists can accept.
Morality needs an objective standard – you have not said anything that can refute that. The differences that Christians and non-Christians have about what is right and wrong only demonstrate how miserably a human-based standard fails. God’s judgments do not change – we simply disagree in our understanding of them because we are finite sinners.
Your ideas about “the laws that make civilization work” are quite different from mine. Who’s to say who’s right? On what basis do you claim to be able to correctly assess that?
“Christians sure love to claim they understand god when convenient but oooh, if they get a hard question, they go right to claiming this god is all mysterious.”<– condescending and rude. You “have trouble understanding” Krauss’ explanation of how a universe could arise from nothing, yet you take it by faith that it’s true. And while we’re on Krauss…I watched his lecture and read his summary of his book and he never starts with nothing. He assumes energy or particles or gravity, and all of those are something. You don’t understand it because it’s beyond understanding because it makes no sense. You don’t need to be able to fully comprehend quantum mechanics or the Heisenberg Unpredictability theory to be confident in the plain fact that something can never arise from nothing without God.
“Caroline, your ignorance about modern science is showing. (Again…condescending and rude.) If your argument for your god is based on willful ignorance, what does that say about the strength of your faith?” My faith is strong because I have allowed the evidence to take me to its natural conclusion of a supernatural, intelligent, transcendent creator, unlike the average atheist whose a priori disqualification of the supernatural forces him to detour onto the ridiculous back roads of the multiple universe theory, imaginary time, and something from nothing.
You are “not looking to ridicule” but you take “great pleasure in ridiculing Christians.” I rest my case on that.
You “have frequently seen Christians claim that atheists are not respectful or considerate.” This should tell you something. You claim to know what we really mean yet you deride me for “deciding” that I’m “psychic.” I made an accurate assessment of your motivations based on your angry tone, for which you called me a liar, but you have the pomposity to tell me why I believe what I do, that it’s all nonsense, that I “don’t like the scientific method,” that I’m cowardly and ignorant, and then suggest that we “might talk” as long as I present some evidence.
That’s the average atheist modus operandi: assert superiority, ridicule and lambaste, barrage the opposition with baseless but confident denials, and multiply challenges that make enough sense to force the believer to consider them but too little to make for a reasonable debate.
I have posted your first comment so that other readers know I’m not making this stuff up.
Enjoy your Godless life…while you can.
LikeLike
Sorry about that last line. I confess getting a little angry myself. I am glad that you commented and wish you a God-blessed life.
LikeLike
Pingback: No objective morality without God « Cogitating Duck
Caroline,
It is unsurprising that you have been unable to specify one single instance of my being supposedly disrespectful, or ridiculing, or hateful. You have retreated to declaring the “tone” of *all* of it supposedly is. It is the actions of someone who knows they are making things up and who has projected what she wants to see onto someone else to avoid having to address the problems in her religion. That is unfortunate. It is also unsurprising that you have declared yourself the only “respectful” person around. Posting questions for atheists assuming that you know more than they do, disregarding answers and lying about people is not respectful. It didn’t help that you ended your post with that last sentence that you posted “Enjoy your Godless life…while you can.” You have apologized and the honesty behind it is only known by you. I accept the apology. I know that many Christians love to hate and threaten people. Now you realize it too. Perhaps that is the best result I could have gotten from this exchange.
But let’s get to your excuses, Caroline. I have no problem in pointing things out again. If I am so “overwhelming” with my criticisms and challenges, please select one to address. No one is holding a gun to your head to do more. And it is *your* choice to disregard anything you want. I cannot force you to disregard anything you don’t want to. You and you alone make that choice. Take responsibility for it. I am sorry if I thought you could handle more than you could. You asked a lot of questions in your post and I answered them. Again, please do choose one and address it if that’s the only problem you have.
I would not be surprised that you would indeed trash anything else you might get from me. I know that you are frightened by realizing that you could be wrong. I was in that position once myself and it is not fun. It will indeed be more of the same, more showing you how you are wrong. I do have a soapbox, but I’m not a coward who ignores anyone she doesn’t agree with. You may comment on my blog at any time. I will allow the comments and I will reply to them.
We now have you claiming that you really mean a “transcendent supernatural creator” (TSC). Yep, that’s what Tez is. So you believe in Tezcaltipoca! Hallelujah! I guess that pesky first commandment doesn’t bother you at all. (you see, this last sentence is real ridicule) The Christian god supposedly is a TSC too. You are a Christian correct? Your god has said that “thou shalt have no other gods” before him. This would indicate other gods, not that one god is going by other names. Or it might show that the writers of the bible and/or your god are a bit confused. Tez has a lot of different attributes than your god. Are you saying that your bible is wrong in describing this god? Caroline, your god isn’t every god per the Christian bible so yes, I negated your point quite handily. If so, we wouldn’t have your god saying that one should kill those who worship other gods.
You then use special pleading again. You wish the idea that something needs to have a beginning to apply to everything but your new “Transcendent Eternal Being” (TEB). Convenient that but you have yet to show that this TEB exists, much less what it requires. And as I stated in my last post, the current theory is that the universe doesn’t need a creator either or a beginning according to some cosmological hypostheses (see the cyclical univese with no end and no beginning). You seem unable to allow for this but demand such a thing for your particular god and your only reason is that you must keep your belief in your god.
Then you insist that morality *must* have an objective standard. But again, you don’t say why. Is it C.S. Lewis’ argument that somehow morals, if not divine, will magically become worthless and ignored? There are plenty of reasons given by theists and they all fail at one level or another. Lewis’ fails because his prediction hasn’t come true. And it’s a little disturbing that that you are so very sure that Christians and non-Christians have different ideas about “right” and “wrong”. We differ on some things, but rarely on how we want to be treated. The golden rule isn’t just Christian. And, as I noted before, Christians don’t agree on “right” and “wrong” either. You would not be able to distinguish me from a crowd of Christians, except for that I do not go to church, and as I know from many Christians, they don’t always go either or declare just how Christian they are from figurative street corners. Morality can be objective if humans agree on it since we occupy the same reality. I do believe that some things are morally objective, but even if morality was subjective, that would not say it was worthless nor would it say that humanity is innately bad. We just take a while to learn from our mistakes.
You also wish to claim that we simply disagree on our understanding of the morals that this god supposedly gives. I always find that excuse amusing since it makes your god rather inept and definitely not omnipotent, for being unable to make itself clear to us puny humans. As for your claim that God’s judgements do not change, that is untrue. Again, we have Christians who claim that their god is for “x” and is for “y”, directly contradictory things. God cannot agree with both so someone is wrong. Christians have changed their minds over what this god has supposed said, the Roman Catholics are good for noting each change as if God somehow mumbles. Each claims that they and only they know what God really wants and none of them can provide evidence for this.
You claim that my ideas about the laws that make civilization work are different than mine. That could very well be. Does that make your views right? No. Does that make mine right? No. But the ones that allow civilization to continue will be the beneficial ones by default.
And no Caroline, I do not take anything on “faith”. You’ve failed again with your psychic abilities (or your “assessments”), Caroline. I know a good bit of physics and it seems you missed reading the part where I said “I have trouble understanding it”. That doesn’t mean I don’t understand it at all. You claiming I don’t understand it at all is another lie, Caroline, and it appears as an attempt to ignore what I have said. I know that Krauss doesn’t start with “nothing”, because I took the time to describe how “nothing” means different things to you and a physicist. You evidently did not take the time to actually read my post and that is unfortunate. You return to your argument from personal ignorance and of course have yet to show evidence that your god exists or that it’s the only thing that can cause anything to arise. You claim to be confident but again, avoid actually presenting any facts that might support you.
My telling you that your ignorance of modern science is showing is not condescending and rude if it is true and by all of the evidence I have, your posts, it is. You might not like someone declaring this but that doesn’t make it wrong. You claim to have evidence for your god again. Now where is it? Or is asking for it “condescending and rude”? And no, Caroline, I have not done an a priori disqualification of anything. Again, you try to make false claims about me to support your desired conclusions about atheists, average or otherwise. I have looked for any bit of evidence of supernatural events I can find. I would find the world a much more fun place if such things were true. I have found nothing and theists have provided nothing. Where is this evidence of your “supernatural intelligent transcendent creator”? What can you provide me that a believer of another god cannot? You also call the multi-universe theory(an actual way things might be), imaginary time (a way to look at things), etc ridiculous, but of course cannot actually tell me what they consist of, only that if Caroline doesn’t understand them why of course they don’t work. Alas, that doesn’t work. Scientists are currently working on a way to find evidence for multi-universes. What happens if they find it? Where will your ridicule go then? Theists have made claims that all sorts of things were “ridiculous back roads”, with their claims that we shouldn’t question their god, and then have had to either ignore the results or falsely declare that they knew this all along.
I will call you out on your deceitful editing of my sentence which said “I invite you to do so since I don’t always want to be ridiculing Christians. I have taken great pleasure in ridiculing Christians and I will continue to do so, however, my post to you wasn’t ridicule at all, Caroline.” So Caroline, your claim that your case is rested is rather amusing since it’s only resting on a lie. We now have you claiming that my entire post is ridiculing you, then that it’s the “tone” that is ridiculing you, and then that you now try to claim that since I have and do ridicule Christians some of the time, that simply must mean I do it *all* of the time. The target is always moving and always wrong.
Yes, I have frequently seen Christians claim that atheists are not respectful or considerate. And yes, this does tell me something, actually two things. One, atheists can be assholes but not all are and two, Christians will use it as an excuse to not respond to questions, like you. With your claims that you know how I am thinking, that is declaring yourself able to read minds aka “psychic”. Your claim that you accurately assessed my motives is highly inaccurate, Caroline, since you were wrong. You created a strawman of an atheist in your original post, and decided that I was that strawman in your responses to me. And oh, now you can find an “angry” tone in typed words. Again, where is this tone now? Where are those words of mine that convey it? Again, I suspect that rather than admit that you cannot find any, you will retreat to vague baseless claims. And I think it’s absolutely hilarious that you call me pompous for telling you why you believe what you believe but you do *nothing* to rebut me. Caroline, if I’m wrong, why do you believe what you believe? If you don’t dislike the scientific method, why do you claim it doesn’t work when convenient for your religion? Show me that your religion isn’t nonsense with evidence. Show that you aren’t a coward by answering a question and presenting this evidence you claim to have. Pick any one you want. I’m guessing you won’t but I’ll keep checking to see if you do.
Then we finish with more claims about my posts and not one tiny sentence of mine to support those claims. You claim my denials are baseless, which is calling me a liar and I certainly don’t like that. If you can show that I am, I would correct it as soon as I could. Show which ones if you really think they are there. It shouldn’t be this hard, Caroline. I can provide evidence. Why can’t or won’t you?
I don’t want or need a “God-blessed” life, Caroline, but I can understand and appreciate the sentiment if you think your god does anything good. I would prefer that if this god of yours blesses anything, it might be those who suffer, not me in a nice warm First World home with plenty of food gained by the hard work and luck of myself and my husband. My observation is that it doesn’t do anything at all.
LikeLike
Vel – First of all, be assured my apology was sincere, and I will even extend it to the rest of that post. It was late, I was tired, I felt irritated, misrepresented, and attacked, so I lashed out. Still…no excuse. I’m sorry for my own angry and hostile tone.
Secondly, I have pretty much blocked out the rest of this day to respond to yours and the other readers’ comments. The reason I initially did not approve your comments was not because I did not want any opposing viewpoints or am unable to defend my beliefs. It was because, as I tried to explain, judging from past experience with other atheist bloggers, an interaction with you (based on the things you were saying and the way you were saying them) was not going to yield anything good but only “tit-for-tat” type exchanges (as you or someone mentioned) and I don’t have the time to waste on those. I have multiple jobs, multiple children, and it takes me awhile to put together a cogent argument because I think it through as much as possible since spiritual issues are so important.
Thirdly, I am not the person you portray me as in your posts. I am considerate and respectful (most of the time), I too am “smart” (though would love to be smarter), and I have thought through what I believe in light of real evidence and am not afraid to engage with those who disagree with me. And I know you are not the person I initially pictured, and even though (since I’ve calmed down :-)) I see you now more as a fellow human being trying to figure things out rather than a two-dimensional “angry atheist,” I realize I still don’t really know you at all. So, feel free to clarify if I misrepresent you.
On to your comments.
You said that I “have been unable to specify one single instance of my being supposedly disrespectful, or ridiculing, or hateful.” I don’t know how you can claim this when I specified not one but two instances in my initial response. Here are six more, from your first comment alone:
“Ah yes, because you use special pleading, where you want rules to apply to everything but your one thing that can’t fit.”
“You try to tell others what is right and wrong and you try to claim that there is your imaginary friend that backs you up.”
“And yes, dear Caroline, things can be both unbecoming and unreal”
“I would suggest that if you don’t like the scientific method so much, then you do stop using it. Can’t have you being a hypocrite, right?”
“…you have kept yourself willfully ignorant about any other possibility.”
“Present evidence, not the nonsense you have posted, and then we might talk.”
I must assume you disagree that these are in any way disrespectful. But I believe if you imagine them coming from me to you, you will recognize that they are condescending and demeaning, showing a lack of respect for someone with a different worldview than you. Remember…this was before I had addressed you personally at all.
Another thing I’m confused about: “If I am so “overwhelming” with my criticisms and challenges, please select one to address.” You accuse me of not responding to your points and your challenges but I clearly did, as you demonstrated by going on to address my responses. Perhaps I missed a few – I’d be happy to debate any of them, but in the interest of keeping this to a manageable commitment for both of us, let’s do them one at a time.
I am not “frightened by realizing that (I) could be wrong” nor “a coward who ignores anyone she doesn’t agree with.” You don’t appreciate others indiscriminately categorizing, labeling, or stereotyping you. You don’t help your case by doing the same thing you criticize me for. Neither does name-calling compel me to seriously consider your argument.
Addressing your argument now. My point about substituting Tezcaltipoca for God in my opening paragraph was in the context of establishing the existence of God apart from who or what this God is like. I was arguing for theism, not Christianity. And, before I go any further, I feel that I need to clarify the intent of my post “Dear Atheist…” I honestly did not write it as a challenge nor to draw atheists into a debate. I was expressing my views, which I believe are truth (as you do yours), hoping to perhaps get folks to think about it. A blog most certainly is a soapbox, is it not? So it’s a little unfair to accuse me, as several of you have, of only approving comments that agree with me. I was not interested in the kind of argument that this has become. As one of you has said, “my blog, my rules.” But now that we’re in it, I want to see it through.
Back to Tez. You say he “has a lot of different attributes than (my) god.” Well, you didn’t say that in your first comment – you simply substituted his name for “God” and that did not alter my point. Yes, I am a Christian so of course I believe in the God revealed in the Bible as the only true God. But, again, I was arguing for theism, not Christianity. My concluding questions reference the Christian understanding of God because I am convinced that those who reject Christ will sincerely regret it someday. But before anyone can put their faith and trust in him, they have to first acknowledge the existence of God, so that’s what I focused on.
What do you mean by, “”your god isn’t every god per the Christian bible”?
“Current theor(ies)” are simply that…theories. Atheist scientists have to come up with some kind of explanation for the origin of the universe that doesn’t involve the supernatural. They have no alternative as they have defined science in such a way as to exclude consideration of anything outside of nature. And talk about wanting to have your cake and eat it too…scientists committed to materialism have no qualms about employing their immaterial thoughts and ideas to further their theories.
Regarding the something from nothing theory…nothing is just that – no thing. Scientists (and atheists) cannot get away with saying nothing is really something, be it quantum particles, fields, energy, gravity, or whatever. Nothing is what rocks dream about, as someone has said.
And I’m no physicist, but I do know that it’s quite a stretch to assert that the something from nothing theory is what has allowed us to have computers and CAT scans. These technologies make use of existing “things” like energy and light waves, but do not depend on an explanation of where those things came from. And the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (or Predictability theory, as you put it) doesn’t address causality but predictability.
“Your argument that since we’re so bad we can’t judge your god is hilarious when you insist this god made us exactly like that. That’s called trying to have your cake and eat it too. Can humans or can’t they understand god?” Christians don’t believe that God made us sinners. He made us in his image but with free will that allows us to rebel against and disobey him. And we can understand him to a point. But if we could fully understand him then we could conceivably be just like him, with perfect holiness and unlimited power. It is more than reasonable (it is wise) to believe that we can never understand him completely.
My point about the incongruity of arguing against God’s character and not believing he exists was this: if he doesn’t exist, what good does it do to complain about his character and actions? He doesn’t exist. To argue against him because of characteristics that are “unbecoming” implies that he is real.
Regarding evidence for Christianity…I presented some in a post from last August titled Why I Am a Christian (and why you should be too). We can get into details if you want, but again…one thing at a time, please. I can’t spend this amount of time on one post every day.
“…all they mean is that they simply don’t like when atheists dare to tell them they are wrong and then dare to request that the theist actually engage in debate.” Here’s a lesson for both of us: no one wants to debate someone who just wants to tell you how wrong you are.
“Please tell me why you shouldn’t be just as afraid for your soul as I am for mine, how do you know your god is real? Can you answer that, Caroline?” Yes. Reading my August post that I referenced should answer that. Do you believe you have a soul? That’s not a sarcastic remark – I mean it sincerely. If you do, how do you understand it? Where do you think the soul came from and is it “alive” and mortal, like your body?
“Then you insist that morality *must* have an objective standard. But again, you don’t say why.” Because otherwise we cannot judge what anyone else does. It really isn’t morality then but preference. I can say that the notion of survival of the fittest allows me to take for myself food and money and clothing or whatever from you, if I deem it necessary for my family’s survival, now or down the road. And you have no objective recourse to judge my actions wrong. And I never said or implied that “…Christians and non-Christians have different ideas about ‘right’ and ‘wrong.’” I know that we do, and we do because we are made in God’s image with a conscience.
“You also wish to claim that we simply disagree on our understanding of the morals that this god supposedly gives. I always find that excuse amusing since it makes your god rather inept and definitely not omnipotent, for being unable to make itself clear to us puny humans.” Omnipotence does not imply that everything God CAN do he does. He could cause a sheet of paper to materialize on each of our breakfast tables in the morning (on exquisite vellum paper with perfect handwriting, of course) with a personalized message in our native languages correcting any mistaken ideas about his Word that we have and setting the record straight. But we would likely suspect a fellow human with an opposing view left it there, though we would not be able to explain how. He could come audibly through our televisions telling us what he really meant, but we would think we were dreaming or delusional. The point is, he made the important truths clear enough, and we can understand them if we are humble enough to submit to him. The secondary issues are worth discussing, but our salvation doesn’t depend on them.
“And no Caroline, I do not take anything on ‘faith’”. You did not witness the creation of the world; you have not observed any species evolving into another one. These and many other of your beliefs you must necessarily take “by faith.” You take it by faith that there is no God, because you can’t prove it.
“I have looked for any bit of evidence of supernatural events I can find.” Vel…the best evidence of the supernatural, of the existence of God, is you. You are an amazing creation. The slightest grasp of anatomy and physiology gives evidence of intelligence and design. I know you and many others don’t buy it, but I also believe it’s primarily because you don’t want to. I know, I know…I’m no psychic. But I know human nature.
The best explanation for the complexity and wonder of the human being, especially at the molecular level, is that it was designed by an intelligent being. Just as we know that Mount Rushmore didn’t happen by chance, we can know the complexity of a single cell with more information in it than a thousand sets of Encyclopedia Britannicas didn’t happen by chance.
And finally (whew!)…my point about many intelligent people believing in God was simply to counter john zande’s implication that believers must be as dumb as “Iron Age goat herders.”
I don’t know everything. I admit that. But this whole thing started because I care about people…believe it or not. I responded to an atheist’s blog post hoping to perhaps get him to think a little differently, and eventually (that’s my prayer) believe in God and avoid the consequences of not. I can’t prove God to you; nobody can. But I believe that the evidence testifies. beyond a reasonable doubt, to his existence. If you don’t agree…fine. I won’t try and persuade you any further. But please give me a little credit for coming to a reasonable, though different, conclusion than you.
LikeLike
I’ve responded to this on my blog since I wanted to put some links in: http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-dear-theist-part-4-suprise/ you also may wish to read my post about how even professional Christians fail: http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/not-so-polite-dinner-conversation-even-the-professionals-have-little-to-work-with/
LikeLike
Caroline, on the first cause argument, what frees your god from it? If as I have said elsewhere, the universe necessarily exists and as such excludes the need for a creator, where is the problem with this assumption?
We are not vultures waiting to pounce, but if I read correctly, the title of the post is dear atheist and therefore we have a right of reply. Don’t feel slighted when we don’t agree with you or say we think holding a god belief is delusional. We ask for one thing only, the evidence for any god but your god particularly.
Tell me Caroline, did god have a choice in the moral laws? If the laws necessarily exist, then a god is not needed as a basis for them.
LikeLike
Caroline, you ask some honest questions, so here is my attempt at some honest answers. Bear in mind that these are the personal thoughts of one atheist and are not meant to be representative of atheists collectively.
Why do you not believe? Why do you allow your senses to rule insted of your sense? Your eyes don’t see God, your ears don’t hear him, nor would your outstretched fingers find his form. But if God doesn’t exist, how is it that you do? If God doesn’t exist, why is there something rather than nothing?
If I were allow my non-senses to rule, that would mean I would be letting nonsense rule. How do I exist? Do you want me to suggest some basic biology texts dealing with human reproduction? Why is there something rather than nothing? I think scientists and/or philosophers attempt to answer this one. I don’t believe religion or faith provide anything like a satisfactory answer.
Why do you not believe? You clamor for justice and robe yourself in rights. But your appeals for fairness and freedom carry no weight without a transcendent standard. Who are you to tell me what’s right and wrong? Are you my judge? Are you my god?
I believe in many things, but these beliefs are based on something tangible. There is no tangible evidence for the Christian god, the Hindu gods, or any deity that man has believed in throughout history (most of them now rejected). Fairness and freedom carry a great deal of weight while there are people, religious or otherwise, who strive for these things, I’m happy to disregard any requirement for there to be any transcendental standard. I am not your judge, and I make no claim to godhood. But I am human, and that makes my opinion as valid (and open to argument) as any others’.
Why do you not believe? You gaze out into the night sky and your immaterial thoughts carry you deep into space. You reason an endless expanse and discern a limited comprehension. Is it not reasonable to conclude that a limitless being exists who knows something you can’t?
It is not at all reasonable to believe in a limitless being. A limitless being is a mere concept.
God is horrid, you say, if he even exists. Just look at what his supposed Word says. He’s capricious and cruel, sadistic and sullen. Are you his judge? Do you really believe a creature who can’t even explain his own existence, much less create another like him, who is beset with badness, imperfect in piety, negligible in knowledge, can call to account the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Maker of all that is? Can expect to fully comprehend his ways?
I do not judge a being that I don’t believe in. But I do judge the Christian god capricious and cruel, sadistic and sullen based on the actions ascribed to him in the Bible. Without tangible evidence to the contrary, what else are we to consider him? If that god is indeed omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, then my opinion of him isn’t really going to have much effect on him.
And what’s that about anyway? How can you argue against God’s character and actions if you don’t even believe he exists? You fashion an image of what God would look like if you were him, and then cast off as unbecoming or unreal (one or the other…it can’t be both) a God that doesn’t line up with your image, in essence declaring yourself god by decreeing everyone else an imposter. You elevate the scientific method as the supreme diviner of truth, but skip over the observation of evidence and go right to the conclusion based on your biased preconceptions and your materialistic worldview that precludes any consideration of the supernatural.
Dear atheist…what if you’re wrong? What if it’s true that the God of the Bible does exist and your sin will separate you from him and happiness forever if you never receive his provision for your salvation? What if he is standing ready right now to forgive your sins and seal you for redemption if you will only turn to him and believe?
If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. If your god is omnipotent and omniscient, he knows why I don’t believe in him, and it was his choice for me to maintain that lack of belief. If he wants to punish me for that, why would I want to believe in him in the first place?
What if you never believe?
Do you mean ‘what if I never believe in your god’? Nothing. The universe is unchanged as a result.
LikeLike
Thank you for commenting. Please see my latest response to clubschadenfreude for some answers to your objections.
But to address a few of your specifics: “If I were allow my non-senses to rule, that would mean I would be letting nonsense rule.” Nonsense means the lack of good judgment originating from reason and that’s the kind of sense I am appealing to in coming to a conclusion about the existence of God.
“I believe in many things, but these beliefs are based on something tangible.” “Fairness and freedom” are intangibles. They are not material things; they can’t be scientifically tested. They are concepts…ideas, but you believe in them. Many things in the natural world can only be discerned by their effects, like the wind. You can’t see it, but you see the leaves move and you know that it exists.
“But I do judge the Christian god capricious and cruel, sadistic and sullen based on the actions ascribed to him in the Bible. Without tangible evidence to the contrary, what else are we to consider him?” There is plenty of evidence of God’s goodness, in the Bible and creation. You can’t, with integrity, attempt to judge God based on a few passages that, standing alone, seem to portray him as cruel. A better knowledge of the Bible would round out your understanding of God and give you some insight regarding the difficult passages.
“…it was his choice for me to maintain that lack of belief.” No. He gave you free will. It’s your choice.
“Do you mean ‘what if I never believe in your god’? Nothing. The universe is unchanged as a result.” The universe may remain unchanged, but so will your eternal destiny. There is still time.
LikeLike
But to address a few of your specifics: “If I were allow my non-senses to rule, that would mean I would be letting nonsense rule.” Nonsense means the lack of good judgment originating from reason and that’s the kind of sense I am appealing to in coming to a conclusion about the existence of God.
This was intended as a play on words. Nevertheless, I do regard religious beliefs as nonsense because they deny reality. I also find things like astrology, homeopathy and ghosts as nonsense for the exact same reasons.
“I believe in many things, but these beliefs are based on something tangible.” “Fairness and freedom” are intangibles. They are not material things; they can’t be scientifically tested. They are concepts…ideas, but you believe in them. Many things in the natural world can only be discerned by their effects, like the wind. You can’t see it, but you see the leaves move and you know that it exists.
Fairness and freedom can be made tangible. They can be prescribed in law; they can be witnessed by the acts of people; they can be scientifically tested in several ways. As for the wind, you talk about it as though it is some mystical force, when in fact it is the bulk movement of air molecules. Wind can be measured, again in several ways. Wind is a perfectly natural phenomenon.
“But I do judge the Christian god capricious and cruel, sadistic and sullen based on the actions ascribed to him in the Bible. Without tangible evidence to the contrary, what else are we to consider him?” There is plenty of evidence of God’s goodness, in the Bible and creation. You can’t, with integrity, attempt to judge God based on a few passages that, standing alone, seem to portray him as cruel. A better knowledge of the Bible would round out your understanding of God and give you some insight regarding the difficult passages.
I’m happy to look at bible verses that show your god in a good light. No doubt you will point to Jesus healing the sick, to which I would respond that there are hundreds of thousands of people who every day perform acts of healing, a great many of whom are not Christians.
“…it was his choice for me to maintain that lack of belief.” No. He gave you free will. It’s your choice.
If your god has given me free will, then he has no good reason for damning me for using it.
“Do you mean ‘what if I never believe in your god’? Nothing. The universe is unchanged as a result.” The universe may remain unchanged, but so will your eternal destiny. There is still time.
Can you provide evidence that I have an eternal destiny? I don’t believe in it, therefore I’m not concerned about it.
LikeLike
Following is a post I wrote over at my own blog in response to this. I hope you enjoy reading it.
=======================
Dear Believer,
I am sure that you have had many responses to your open letter ‘Dear atheist’. I would even wager that the responses have been similar but never the same. I am aware that my letter of response is also self-promoting (i.e. I refer to a lot of posts I have already written), and that, including links, this post will take a long time to read. But I would be willing to engage in this discussion long-term, and in our course perhaps we could stumble onto new ground for me.
Nevertheless, I would like to thank you for compiling the most common arguments in favour of God. As a point of clarity, for all readers, not specifically to you, the arguments are not ‘against atheism’, because they wouldn’t mean anything. You cannot be against my absence of belief, but you can attempt to foster belief.
And that takes us directly to the crux of atheism, for most atheists: belief in God is not fostered by evidence. None of our senses find God. I don’t mean for this to sounds condescending, but it is unavoidable: you are conflating “the easiest answer” with the “sensible answer”; because the God-answer is easy, you feel it is also the answer we would find if sense led us.
We have a name for when a person confuses the easy answer for the right answer, and the word is “intuition”. God is an intuitive answer to questions, but the history of human understanding has been one of proving our intuitions very unreliable indeed. The great thing about a digital letter is I can share links to support my point, and I direct you to this Youtube video to outline some of the failures of human intuition.
The first argument that you put forward is the ‘something from nothing’ dilemma. The problems with this are threefold, and as I’ve talked about them in my blog before I shall only skim over them briefly:
The only nothing we suspect in science is a nothing defined by the absence of energy, matter, space and time—but this still gives us a lot to play with. As Hawking and Mlodinow say ‘forces like gravity are the reason that the universe appeared’, and as Krauss says ‘only the basic principle of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (or something analogous) has to exist for the universe to appear’. (These are not exact quotes.) Any grander definition of nothing is a state we don’t actually know ever was; so to explain how a nothing got from there is not a necessary step.
We don’t know that we have something. I know it looks like I’m beyond clutching at straws when I say that, but for everything in the universe that exists, so does its antithesis. For every something there is an antisomething. The net total mass and energy of a something and its antisomething is nothing. So we may be an odd expression of nothing.
All the data and all the facts are not in. We don’t know. We don’t know. This is an important sentence, and there should not be shame in it. I don’t fear not knowing. But sometimes “I don’t know” is the right answer. It is important to me that I can use that answer instead of clutching at straws when I don’t know.
Morality and justice are the harder ones. I’ve written extensive on this in my 60-odd-post blog. And on the issue of morality I come up against atheists as well. Many atheists will assert that anything that is dependent on the human mind is subjective, however as many things in the human mind can be measured I continue to assert that things that depend on the human mind can be objective. Moral relativists still follow the basic pattern of wanting to keep people happy, and confessing that actions not motivated by that goal are not moral. I argue that the concept of “happy” is measurable, and so is the moral outcome of an action. For my thoughts on this, look here and here. Again, I even argue with atheists about this. More importantly, I am not claiming to be your God by telling you I know something about morality. We know of cultures that cut off the clitoris of new-born girls, are we not all able to say that is immoral?
If I can cast a moral dispersion anywhere, I can cast it everywhere. If morality is universal, then what is wrong somewhere is wrong everywhere. (My universal moral precept is that making more people more sad than you do happy is immoral. It doesn’t have to do with direct commandments, like ‘no killing’.) So, of course I can make moral judgements of God. I shall accept your idea that God knows morality, but that doesn’t make Him bound to it. Despite knowing morality, He might well be evil and heinous. I have made the case that He is here, here and here. The counter of this argument is that a parasite that burrows into the eye of small children is morally good, or that tsunamis are a blessing. Perhaps we need to define ‘moral’ before we move on.
Lastly, Pascal’s Wager. If I am wrong, but you are right, then God will be moral and will not judge me on faith but instead for my actions. If I am wrong, but salvation is right, then my salvation depends on me accepting the sacrifice of a person that didn’t stay dead as so morally good take it makes up for… what? Why am I inherently a sinner? Through no fault of my own, I’m sure. Am I free to believe? Even if I am wrong, I cannot change my mind without more evidence, that’s just how I’m wired up; on the evidence I have I am not convinced. I need to be convinced. If I am not convinced then I would only ever be feigning belief.
Yours faithfully,
Allallt
LikeLike
The links didn’t copy over, so I thought I’d share them separately:
On secular morality:
http://allallt.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/objective-morality-for-the-non-believer/
http://allallt.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/the-evidence-for-objective-secular-morality/
On morally judging God:
http://allallt.wordpress.com/2012/12/15/epicurus-and-the-problem-of-evil/
http://allallt.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/i-am-born-drowning/
http://allallt.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/could-god-stop-human-caused-suffering/
Am I free to believe?:
http://allallt.wordpress.com/2012/12/19/am-i-free-to-believe/
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment, Allallt. You’ve obviously thought this through quite a bit. These are weighty issues and I would like to respond, and will. But as you rightly surmised, or observed, I’ve had a lot of responding to do. And I haven’t read your posts yet. As soon as I can…I’ll be back.
LikeLike
Thanks for letting me know. I look forward to your response.
LikeLike
Also, I forgot the Youtube video link:
I think you’ll enjoy that one.
LikeLike
Just want to poke my nose into this conversation to say: Great video. It makes the point beautifully. Thanks Allallt.
LikeLike
Dear Allallt,
Thank you for your patience as I endeavored to respond to some other posts (and watch the playoffs 🙂 – I like football). I read all but one of your linked posts and I want to tell you I like your honesty and the dispassionate way you present your case. That helps greatly in fostering a respectful and healthy debate. I won’t address all the points you made in your various other posts now, but will address what you’ve mentioned here and perhaps in that will at least touch on some of the others.
The fact that “none of our senses find God” is not a good reason to reject belief in him. As much as we might like it to be otherwise, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that a Being outside of the natural world would be nonphysical and beyond apprehending with any of our five senses. Where (or how) we “find” him is in examining and evaluating what we CAN discern with our senses and making conclusions that nothing in the physical/natural world can satisfactorily explain the origin of all that is, the obvious design that we observe, the innate apprehension of a moral law, among other things. Positing a Being greater than ourselves in light of the evidence is perfectly sensible, if we are willing to consider it. I believe a primary reason many reject the notion of God is because they are unwilling, knowing that it means submitting to him as well.
And I would disagree that the “God-answer” is the easy one. Especially when you consider that it does involve submission. Is it not easier, i.e. more comfortable, less threatening, more empowering, less likely to be ridiculed by your liberal friends and coworkers, to posit instead a godless, strictly natural world whose anomalies and unanswered questions are just problems that future generations will undoubtedly solve?
I watched the video questioning the value of intuition. A couple of things on that: first, I am not a physicist and cannot intelligently critique the particular assertions made. What I can say is that not all physicists agree on theories and conclusions that individual physicists have put forth. Just like with the “evidence” for macroevolution: The facts are what they are; the conclusions vary, and depend greatly on the philosophical worldview of the individual.
Secondly, casting doubt on intuition and ignoring the evidence that points to an intelligent designer does not advance the atheist’s argument. It’s a scare tactic – an effort to intimidate any who are unfamiliar with quantum mechanics into taking the physicists’ word on it and questioning whether we are even capable of knowing anything at all.
And tactical as well are the efforts to redefine “nothing” to really mean something. It’s a classically deceptive ploy that cults and Madison Avenue use to attract the vulnerable and unaware. I touched on it in other responses, but let me say it again: nothing is no thing. It has no properties. The quantum vacuum has properties – it is not nothing, it is something. Gravity is meaningless without something to act on. The Heisenberg uncertainly principle refers to the activity of particles, which are something.
“For every something there is an antisomething.” That’s a theory that is pretty well out there and definitely unproven. I understand that antimatter has been discovered and produced in the form of antiparticles, but it’s pure, unproven theory that equal amounts of matter and antimatter were produced at the Big Bang. And even more so that “nothing” can be understood as “the net total mass and energy of a something and its antisomething.”
I’m going to end this response here and address your points on morality in a second response, or perhaps a separate post, in the interest of not keeping you waiting any longer.
LikeLike
“And I would disagree that the “God-answer” is the easy one. Especially when you consider that it does involve submission. Is it not easier, i.e. more comfortable, less threatening, more empowering, less likely to be ridiculed by your liberal friends and coworkers, to posit instead a godless, strictly natural world whose anomalies and unanswered questions are just problems that future generations will undoubtedly solve?”
This assumes you are such a supposed martyr. In the US, Christians repeatedly claim that they are the majority, correct? I see a least 20 religious stations on my local cable system, plus the dozens of Christian radio stations. There are at least 10 pages of churches in my local yellow pages. I agree, submission would be hard *if* there were a real punishment if you did not. In my experience, it is easier to say “It’s God’s will.” rather than do something. It’s God’s will that those kids are starving. It’s God’s will that amputees are not healed like someone with something that you can’t actually see or diagnose.
You do try your best to misrepresent atheists, Caroline. No, not all atheists, and I’d posit, the vast majority, do not sit around claiming a natural world where someone “else” will take care of the problems. We are working to solve them now. As we sit here, there is no reason to assume that we won’t figure things out. We have so far, and religion has done nothing but have its claims be shown to be nonsense. The trend is not in your favor. Could it change? Yep. Are you willing to bet on it? I sure wouldn’t be and you don’t seem to be either, with using modern science.
LikeLike
Now to your views on morality. You seem to be equating morality with what makes people happy or sad. Correct me if I misunderstood. And please forgive me if I’m forgetting a clarification you might have made in one of your own blog posts, or just rehashing what another commenter said. Though I think I understand where you’re coming from, what is moral simply cannot be said to be what makes the greatest number of people happy, or, as I think you put it, improves the “net well-being” of a society.
To define it this way is to avoid having to acknowledge an objective standard outside of the human realm. But basing morality on what benefits the greatest number of people, though it usually works out that way, is ultimately basing it on a faulty foundation. For one thing, what will benefit the greatest number of people is really immeasurable and indeterminable. And even if it weren’t, how is it that by-and-large every person innately knows certain actions are immoral?
If morality can be objective without God, what could you say to the proponents of female circumcision who balk at the suggestion that it is immoral because it decreases the “net well-being” of society and insist that, in fact, it increases theirs? Your comment that “what is wrong somewhere is wrong everywhere” is certainly true, but that won’t hold any sway with the sultan without recourse to a higher standard than humanity.
I do not hold that “God knows morality.” Whatever is moral is such because it corresponds to God’s nature in some way, which is quite different than his awareness. And, consequently then of course, he cannot be evil and heinous if evil is immoral. Yours and others’ “case” for God’s evil nature is based on an insufficient understanding of his ways and his purposes. The problems of pain and suffering are difficult ones, of course, and I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But I’ve written some about how I reconcile them with a good and loving God in several posts in my Faith category, specifically here, and in Part 2 which follows it.
You state that if you are wrong, “God will be moral and will not judge me on faith but instead for my actions.” On what do you base this belief? That is certainly the opinion of many, but it is not what God has said. He does judge on faith alone, but it must be a faith that submits to him, or it is not true faith.
Yes, you are free to believe. Please don’t use that cop-out that you cannot change your mind “without more evidence.” God, in his love and mercy, has made it so easy to be saved for eternity. If you are wrong, I’m afraid you will have no excuse when you stand before him.
LikeLike
I have written a response to this, but it got long enough to justify being a post, so I turned it into one. It is scheduled to come up some time next week, which I hope is long enough for you to finish your response to my original comment.
I’ve had a scroll through at the chaos going on in the comments section (which is, in part, why I wanted to make my response a comment; I didn’t want to lose it amongst everyone else’s thoughts). And given the number of conversations you are having on this one post, I understand that you have to take your time. There’s only so much time in a day, and only so much priority you can give to wordpress.
LikeLike
My response is due to come up on 19th at 7pm GMT (I don’t want to post faster than 1 a day, and that’s the current backlog).
You don’t have to keep checking my blog to see if it’s up yet, because it should give a pingback to your post.
Also, once the comments are this long it is neater to respond with a different post. You may have noticed how muddled the comments section is down here, and how easily ideas are getting lost to the ether.
(Obviously, how and if you respond are your choice)
LikeLike
Hi all, I had a chance to look at some of what’s being said here. I would respectfully like to add some thoughts and questions to various things said here.
Daz: “Postulating a god merely shifts the puzzle to another rung of the same ladder, and does nothing to move us toward an answer.”
As a possible answer to the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” “God” definitionally is an uncaused being who necessarily exists. There’s only one rung on the ladder of something that necessarily exists. If we expand God’s definition as I’ve used it here by considering what else must necessarily exist, then the possibility that “God” as I’ve defined him here increases as we add to that list.
Daz: “We may define the word how we like, but all we’d be doing would be playing word games.”
Right now we’re playing word games. We’re answering a question. I just saw and read the Hobbit. You may remember Gollum and Bilbo challenging each other with riddles. “Why is there something rather than nothing” is a riddle with only certain valid answers. I submit “God, a definitionally uncaused being, necessarily exists” as that answer.
Clubshadenfraude: “There is nothing “illogical” to say something came from nothing. Caroline, your ignorance about modern science is showing.”
The ignorance of some modern scientists is showing. A quantum vaccuum, or field, whatever, is an object or phenomenon with the property of being able to fluctuate or change. This is not “nothing.” How did something with the ability to fluctuate and change come into being?
Daz: “faith—belief without evidence—is a virtue.”
I’d like to see some evidence that most world religions use faith in that sense. I hold that faith is a logical deduction of things that cannot be directly observed by the senses in the natural world, and are more likely to exist than not.
Dave:
“Fairness and freedom can be made tangible. They can be prescribed in law; they can be witnessed by the acts of people; they can be scientifically tested in several ways.”
What is your definition of tangible?
LikeLike
Okay, I hereby define “exploding hot fudge sundae” as something which necessarily exists. Does that mean it exists?
And you’re redefining “word games.” In fact, you’re playing word games with the term.
Yes, you said that before. See above.
Yes, and you just said “belief without evidence but I feel it’s true.”
LikeLike
Tangible? Something that can be realised through the senses. I’m probably being a bit liberal with the word as it generally refers to the sense of touch, but I think my use of the word conveys the message.
“I hold that faith is a logical deduction of things that cannot be directly observed by the senses in the natural world, and are more likely to exist than not.”
I hold that faith is a deduction, not by any means a logical one, of things that cannot be directly observed by the senses, There is always the possibility that these things exist somewhere in the vast universe, just as it is possible that they co-exist alongside Santa Claus, Ming the Merciless and Jar Jar Binks. Possible, but not likely.
LikeLike
Dave thanks for clarifying your use of “tangible.” One can know they are eating an orange through the sense. One cannot know the true nature of fairness, if it even really exists, through the senses alone, whether by reading John Rawl’s A Theory of Justice, or observing the behavior of a troop of baboons. At best, one can make a deduction as to its true nature, if one assents to its being anything more than illusory. Knowledge of God, (a necessarily existing being, not to be confused with other definitions you may hold), is assented to in the same way.
If you have deduced a worldview incorporating some theory of fairness, which you can sense directly, good. So have I and most other folks. Respectfully, if God is sitting on some metaphysical shelf with Jar Jar Binks, then the uncaused quantum vacuum and moral values and duties–including fairness–are keeping them good company. Bicycles, the fact that birds fly, and lightning, all things tangible in the sense you’ve used, are not on that shelf.
LikeLike
Caroline seems to have gone back to her claim that since “smart people believe in god, then god exists!” Of course, I have no response to why then I should not believe in Vishnu since I know that there are plenty of smart people who believe in that god. As of yet, we have seen no reasons why the Christian god should get any special consideration for the same failed claims by his believers when they don’t accept those claims when applied to another god.
Duck, you have yet to show why your god must exist. You use the old Kalam argument, which has yet to be supported by the evidence that this god exists at all. You want to assume it must exist but well, as of yet, your assumption is not shown to be supported by reality.
It’s also bemusing when you claim that modern scientists are ignorant when it comes to nothing. No, it’s the ignorance of modern theists who want to play pretend that there is some type of absolute nothing, and again, still no evidence for this thing in existence, just like your god. People used to think that there was ether between the planets, that failed since no evidence. People used to think that disease was spread by some kind of ethereal supernatural miasma. Again, no evidence at all of that, but the research into it showed that rather than invisible magical things causing disease, there were simply very small things doing that. Human superstition has always fallen to the ways of science. Your god is squished further and further into gaps and has produced nothing of itself. Duck, you ask how did something with the ability to fluctuate and change come into being? Well, how about this “a quantum vacuum” that I am going to define as “uncaused”, necessarily exists. *Poof*, according to *your own claims*, there is no problem with it existing now.
Many claim that faith, the belief in that which has no evidence, is a virtue. You know, like your own? John 20: 29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” According to the myth, Jesus did give Thomas evidence, but said that those who believe blindly were better off. I am asking for at least as much evidence as Thomas got, and I asked as a believer who was losing her faith and as an atheist who was keeping her mind open. If evidence was find for Thomas, why no one else? Islam demands blind faith since it also has no evidence to support it. Hmmm, magical horses, why sure I believe in that . It demands, just like the bible, that the observer believe without question that the words of the holy book came from a magical being, and of course there is no evidence of that. It’s just like how Caroline tries so hard to claim that the universe is “proof” of her god but how most, if not all, other religions claim that too. It requires that we accept that her god exists, on blind faith since there is nothing that shows that her god or any god created the universe.
It seems that Christians are certainly forgetful of their own religion when they realize how flawed it is.
You have yet to show that there is any logic in the deduction of magical beings, any of them including yours. You assume that there is and build a syllogism to support that. You have not proved it is more likely to exist than not. You have tried, with your invocation of Occam’s razor on your own blog, but that fails since Occam’s Razor is not always right, and you appear to want to claim it is, again with no evidence.
I’m not Dave, but I define tangible as the dictionary: “capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touch”. One thing about dictionaries, especially the MW is that the definitions are placed in order of common acceptance. Another definition is “capable of being precisely identified or realized by the mind”. A human mind is necessary in both cases. If something is unable to be perceived, a question could be is that does it exist? If we have searched for millennia for evidence, what does that say about something that is claimed to be real but has yet to be perceived.
LikeLike
Club, as far as I know, neither myself nor modern theists hold to an idea of “absolute nothing.” By definition, nothing does not exist. It has no properties. We’ve made some progress with your claim the quantum vacuum is uncaused. How do we account for chance working on it to induce change? Does chance exist necessarily as well? The principle of sufficient reason requires an explanation for your supernatural claims. Bring a metaphysics that will be robust enough as to be, all else equal, more likely to explain our world than a timeless, spaceless, changeless being capable of inducing change, and that exists necessarily. Perhaps you can build on Daz’s “exploding hot fudge sundae” idea.
As for the blessing of those who don’t see as you’ve cited from John, I encourage you to understand the exegetical lens you’re using to read the Bible–for all literature in fact–so as to have an accurate understanding of genre and the contemporary context of the culture.
This persistent historicist myth or meta-narrative you’ve offered about a march of man from the swamp to the stars is interesting. Why does your brand of atheism hold a special claim to these achievements rather than the Judeo-Christian philosophy that emerged out of the milieu of Antiquity? Or for any other competing story of humanity for that matter? I respect the position of Bertrand Russell, who properly understood that on atheism, one must live a life of “unyielding despair.”
It’s not really fruitful trying to satisfy demands for evidence of God’s existence while the seeker’s epistemology is not fully developed.
The secular humanist philosopher Luc Ferry and evolutionary psychologist Daniel Kruger each offer their own advise to seek meaning at the “human level.” Anyone who stops to genuinely investigate will find that Christianity actually fits that bill pretty well. As a bonus, one can build a consistent, coherent worldview that corresponds to reality.
LikeLike
Duck,
You’re right, I don’t think modern theists have any idea of “nothing” so it’s rather amusing when you get so incensed about someone showing it’s wrong. Nothing is “something” in that you can define it. It’s rather like your god. There is a concept, but the reality may not exist.
You ask how we account for chance working on it (I assume you mean the quantum vacuum)? Well, we don’t know quite yet. That’s what’s being worked on and again, all evidence points to quantum mechanics being right and not some superstition about a god. We have evidence for the one, but not the other. And “principle of sufficient reason”? Ah, yes, the claim that “nothing is without a ground or reason why it is”. So, Duck, the reason why your god exists? The ground that shows your god’s existence, that isn’t the same reason that other theists use to claim that their gods exist? You have yet to show that quantum mechanics is “supernatural” especially since you use such things in everday life. It takes an understanding of quantum mechanics to have a computer, Duck. Or do you want to pretend your computer works by magic spell?
Again, no evidence for metaphysics even existing much less being “robust”. Chance may exist necessarily. So? Again, where’s that evidence for your god, you know, the one that your creed covers? And again, no your god is no better or more likely to explain the universe than some other person’s god, and the facts of quantum mechanics trump all of you believers.
I do love when a Christian claims that I don’t understand something from the bible. It comes with such a great chicken/egg problem: does it take belief to get the “correct” answer or can one come to know god from this book having no faith at all. You want to claim you have some special and completely accurate exegetical lense but oooh, mine simply must be wrong. I’m still waiting for you to prove yours right, Duck. My analysis and understanding of your bible comes from knowing literature, paleontology, anthropology, psychology, etc. I am very well-read. And you want to claim that your theology is the only right one. You have no evidence at all, and you repeat the same claims as a Muslim, Shintoist, Wicca, Jew, Jain, Hindu, etc. You want to claim your god did something magical and poof, humanity! Unfortuantely, nothing supports that at all. You have philosophical arguments, but the base of them, the claim that your god exists has never been show to be true. I can point to paleontology, archaeology, anthropology, and what do you have? One mangled set of books that claim to have some magical truth, but can’t even get the simplest details right.
I also love how you use yet one more pitiful Christian bit of nonsense, hoping that atheists live in despair. Sorry, no, I don’t, but golly, I’m sure it makes you feel better and superior in fantasizing how awful everyone must feel who doesn’t agree with you. Poor Russell, he might have felt that way but no, many of the rest of us atheists don’t. I’d also remind you that your atheist hero, also found that religion wasn’t any great shakes. I do not believe in any pathetic gods, but I have great hope for humanity, and if they exist, some other intelligent beings. I have no despair that the universe may one day stop. So what? I will be kind to my fellow man, enjoy a glass of wine, love my husband and family, and do what I can to fight against stupidity, injustice and true despair. I find Russell nothing special and definitely not representative of all atheists. I’d suggest that if you want to read someone I most agree with, Robert Ingersoll is much more appropriate.
And it’s so cute when you declare that you can’t satisfy the demands for evidence of your god’s existence because you blame me for not having some “epistemology” (aka knowledge or understanding) fully developed. You see, Duck, that’s an excuse and such a pitiful one, where you can always claim that my epistemology is not developed fully “enough” for you to actually show your god exists. What a lovely dodge when you can say that since I don’t agree with you e.g. claim to know things just like you, then you can’t show me evidence your god exists.
I don’t care what Ferry or Kruger say, Duck. And again, golly, you can claim that I don’t “genuinely” investigate things. Another Christian who wants to play psychic and declare that they know exactly what I think and if I do something “genuinely”. That’s another excuse, Duck, where you can randomly claim that I’m not genuine “enough”. You want to declare, again without evidence, that if someone agrees with you, then golly, your version f Christaintiy is the only right one, because you can claim that anyone who disagrees with you isn’t genuine. How convenient! And hmmm, you claim a “consistent, coheren world view that corresponds with reality”. So, Duck, again, evidence for your god? Evidence for any of the events that your god supposedly did? Where do we find your god in reality, and please consider that many Christian arguments for this are used by other religions?
LikeLike
Any despair I feel comes from real things (I won’t go into what ails me). However, there is much pleasure to be had from life. If asked if I am a glass half-full or a glass half-empty type, I would answer “I’m not sure, but at least I have a glass.”
Don’t you despair of having to continue living in this world when you’re so sure there’s something infinitely better waiting for you?
LikeLike
Club,
It seems you dismissed the principle of sufficient reason without an intellectually rigorous justification. Yes, practically you can appeal to future scientific discoveries. This is like “God of the gaps” as applies to naturalistic questions, but you move is on the metaphysical level.
If I think something is magic is not directly relevant to the problem of “science of the gaps.” I don’t think quantum theory is magic, because it is applied logic, which is rooted in God, a being whose necessity resides within himself. At this point another problem emerges with the historicist meta-narrative you have offered that humanity has gone from barbaric primitivism to greater enlightenment. According to the myth offered, in the far past, people did not heed sufficient reason to explain the world around them. In our time, you are not heeding sufficient reason to explain the world around you at a metaphysical level. There was magical thinking then, and there remains magical thinking now. The meta-narrative is inconsistent.
LikeLike
No, Duck, I showed that the principle of sufficient reason doesn’t work as you would claim. You just don’t like it, so you try to claim that to be rigorous “enough” I should agree with you. You claimed “The principle of sufficient reason requires an explanation for your supernatural claims.” by which you seemed to mean quantum mechanics, which are not supernatural(beyond the observable universe or beyond the laws of the universe) at all since we know a good bit on how they work. I said “And “principle of sufficient reason”? Ah, yes, the claim that “nothing is without a ground or reason why it is”. So, Duck, the reason why your god exists? The ground that shows your god’s existence, that isn’t the same reason that other theists use to claim that their gods exist? You have yet to show that quantum mechanics is “supernatural” especially since you use such things in everyday life. It takes an understanding of quantum mechanics to have a computer, Duck. Or do you want to pretend your computer works by magic spell?”
Unsurprisingly, you have ignored my point that your principle also applies to your god and my request to you that you show this reason/ground that tells me why that god supposedly is. This principle assumes that there is an explanation for why *anything* exists and your god is not exempt from this. The principle also depends on your ability to show your god exists at all, before you can fuss about the “why”: For every entity x, if x exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why x exists.(from the wiki entry). See that “if” there? If your god cannot be proven to exist, then there is no need to assume there is a why. Look at these two sentences: For every entity “god”, if “god” exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why “god” exists. And: For every entity “wind”, if “wind” exists, then there is a sufficient explanation why “wind” exists. Wind does exist. Your god? You have yet to show that.
It’s highly amusing when you grudgingly agree that I can point to future discoveries but then try to claim that I’m somehow moving on a “metaphysical” (having to do with the transcendent or a reality what is perceptible to the senses) level. Just how am I doing that, Duck? What is “metaphysical” about quantum mechanics which makes predictions that have come true consistently in reality? What is metaphysical about looking at the past, knowing what we have consistently advanced in our knowledge and making a prediction that we will continue to do so when every bit of evidence supports this?
Quantum mechanics is “applied logic”? Okay, I’ll bite, how is it “applied logic”? I want you to see how you do this. My request to you is to tell me how this works and in words that anyone can understand. You also need to tell me just how this “applied logic” is somehow “rooted in God” again with words that anyone can understand, not taking refuge in trying to obfuscate the issue. You have not shown that your god is necessary or that anything resides in something you can’t even show exists.
Invoking a “historicist meta-narrative” is just hilarious. Such an attempt to sound so impressive. Stating that humans have been ignorant and superstitious and now are far less so is a narrative, nothing meta about it and it’s quite historically supported. You certainly do go out of your way to add things that I did not say at all so you can form your strawman. People, and I will clarify by saying in general, *have* gone from barbaric primitivism to greater enlightenment aka knowledge of the universe. If you do not think so, please show evidence for your position. People in the past assumed that gods and devils and spirits created the universe and influenced the world around them by causing sickness, eclipses, earthquakes, wind, etc. The human mind looks for cause because we have evolved to do so sicne it is very helpful to know a cause to deal with an occurence. Since primitive humans could not see the cause of the wind, etc they assumed that *something* must. Since humans cause things, they assumed a more powerful being (or beings) caused that which they did not understand and could not control. They had no evidence that what they believed was true and their reasoning of “why” was faulty since it was based on incorrect assumptions. Wind isn’t from Boreas, it’s from pressure differential. Theists in the present also make the same assumptions and still have no evidence for their claims of gods existing, much less doing anything. There is no evidence to support your claim that your magical thinking is any more correct than that done in the past. I find that since there is no evidence for your god’s existence, something required in the principle, there is no reason to assume that your god (or any god) is the “why” behind anything. Again, you invoke some “metaphysical level” in order to excuse your god’s evident non-existence and again you have no evidence such a thing exists at all.
LikeLike
I can’t worship a God who has said to kill every man, woman and child. (Ezekiel 9:5, 1 Samuel 15:2-3.) I just can’t. Scientific evidence isn’t the real issue for me. Maybe God exists, maybe not. If God is real, then I will end up in Hell. So be it. I just can’t love a God that commands the merciless slaughter of the people he created. I also can’t love a God that allows people to go to Hell just because they believed the wrong thing. I can’t feel any love towards God. As you say, I am not His judge, I’m merely human, but my heart says that this God must be evil. I can’t give my life to a God that seems to be capricious and cruel. I don’t understand how Christians expect me to love Him. Beautifully written post by the way.
LikeLike
Thank you for the compliment, and for being honest and respectful about your objections, which are understandable. I will respond in a separate post as soon as I can.
LikeLike
Thank you for your patience. Please see my most recent post as part 1 of my response. https://areasonablefaithdotme.wordpress.com/2013/01/19/judging-our-judge/
LikeLike
Pingback: Dear Theist (2): A quick dip in Atheism, Evolution, God, Morality and “Nothing” « Allallt in discussion
The point is some of them are so lost, that they can’t even trust themselves!
LikeLike
This has got to be the most ignorant rant against atheism I have ever seen in my entire life.
LikeLike
Pingback: Why is God-based morality superior? | Allallt in discussion