How to show an atheist the possibility of God

Michael · May 30, 2015

Davian said:
What implications? Boring gods?

No, the implication that the universe itself is "aware", and that "God" remains an empirical "possibility". It's the supernatural dark sky gods of Lambda-CDM that have been rather impotent and boring, particularly in the lab in controlled experimentation. They exist only as an affirming the consequent fallacy.

Indeed. You don't have a theory.

Sure I do. EU/PC theory is support by hundreds of published papers, and if consciousness is in fact the product of electromagnetic brain activity, then the possibility that the EM fields of spacetime give rise to consciousness on larger scales remains a viable option. You just have a tough time admitting that God is even 'possible'. That's the key sticking point apparently. I'm not even trying to provide you with any evidence, just get you to acknowledge it's *possible*.

Unsubstantiated opinion.

Subjective judgement call on your part.

Yet that is all I see from you. Have you anything new?

You aren't even interested in anything "new', you've already made up your mind, and you subjectively play judge, jury and executioner all by yourself.

Here's the deal. With or without 'consciousness' being an intrinsic property of nature, EU/PC theory is in every way a purely *empirical* theory of the universe. Nothing 'supernatural' need exist to explain the universe we live in. Even *if* the universe itself is 'aware', awareness exists on Earth in a myriad of forms, so even that would not be a 'supernatural' discovery.

On the other hand, what passes as so called 'science' these days requires *four different acts of pure faith* on the part of the believer in *four different* supernatural constructs. You really have no right to complain about panetheism/pantheism, and they will forever remain entirely empirical 'possibilities'.

The Cadet · May 30, 2015

Chriliman said:
How then is it possible to demonstrate the impossible?

By definition this is impossible. Any further attempt you make to demonstrate that something which is not possible is possible is a complete waste of time. It's like if you said "How is it possible to demonstrate that this apple is not an apple".

Look no further than quantum physics. We can demonstrate that the impossible is possible in quantum physics, but when considering God as possible you continue to believe the possibility of God is impossible. This thinking just seems so irrational to me, I'm not sure how you can't see how irrational it seems.

This is word salad that makes no sense and has no meaning. Quantum physics does not demonstrate that the impossible is possible. You, like many others, have clearly mangled some crucial concept therein.

Chriliman said:
For me the answer is that we as subjective beings can never find the absolute truth by searching our objective reality, meaning neither mathematics nor science will lead us to absolute truth. If we don't believe in an absolute truth, then we can't say there is meaning to life because there would have to be an absolute truth in order for life to have meaning. If we do believe in an absolute truth then the only way we could understand it is if something beyond our subjective minds (God) imparts the absolute truth to us. The key is belief. I've explained many times how belief is actually the fundamental function of our subjective minds.

Please show how belief in a being which imparts absolute truth to us gets us any closer to absolute truth.

Define "tentative understanding" in your own words.

An understanding open to change based on the best available evidence, evidence gathered from the assumption that my own senses are generally trustworthy, the universe exists, and we can learn something about it. To what degree certainty in the evidence is required depends on the extremity of the claim.

GrimKingGrim · May 30, 2015

Michael said:
FYI, It's also explained by Hammeroff and Penrose:

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/

There are more than one

Chriliman · May 30, 2015

The Cadet said:
By definition this is impossible. Any further attempt you make to demonstrate that something which is not possible is possible is a complete waste of time. It's like if you said "How is it possible to demonstrate that this apple is not an apple".

I'm talking about quantum particles, not apples.

The Cadet said:
This is word salad that makes no sense and has no meaning. Quantum physics does not demonstrate that the impossible is possible. You, like many others, have clearly mangled some crucial concept therein.

So before quantum physics came about you thought it was possible for material particle to behave like a waves. Do you see material objects moving like waves where you live? If you thought that was possible before quantum physics then why aren't you considered the discoverer of quantum physics? The TRUTH is that everyone thought this was impossible until quantum physics came about and showed that the impossible is in fact possible, the problem is we still don't understand why.

The Cadet said:
Please show how belief in a being which imparts absolute truth to us gets us any closer to absolute truth.

You just answered the question. You have to BELIEVE first then the absolute truth will be imparted, but it requires death in order to fully realize the absolute truth.

The Cadet said:
An understanding open to change based on the best available evidence, evidence gathered from the assumption that my own senses are generally trustworthy, the universe exists, and we can learn something about it. To what degree certainty in the evidence is required depends on the extremity of the claim.

Why do you assume your own senses are generally trustworthy. By saying you "assume" your also saying you're uncertain that your senses are trustworthy. If we can't fully rely on our senses, then we might as well not even try. I believe with certainty that my senses are trustworthy because I accept the truth that I have senses that allow me to navigate this objective reality. This doesn't however mean that my senses can't be deceived, but knowing that my senses can be deceived is a critical step in finding truth.

Davian · May 30, 2015

Chriliman said:
Apparently the singularity that started this universe somehow is also unknowable and undetectable.

Then you agree that your "god" is unknowable and undetectable?

Yet many atheists and scientists believe it.

And many Christians.

Interesting...I claim to believe in God and I also claim to have experienced God's love in my life.

Can you demonstrate this experience is not simply imagined?

Can you find love from this unknowable singularity?

I do not claim that I can.

Davian · May 30, 2015

Michael said:
No, the implication that the universe itself is "aware", and that "God" remains an empirical "possibility".

I await your presentation of some testable, falsifiable evidence.

Sure I do. EU/PC theory is support by hundreds of published papers, and if consciousness is in fact the product of electromagnetic brain activity, then the possibility that the EM fields of spacetime give rise to consciousness on larger scales remains a viable option. You just have a tough time admitting that God is even 'possible'. That's the key sticking point apparently. I'm not even trying to provide you with any evidence, just get you to acknowledge it's *possible*.

But this is not the Christian "God", is it?

You aren't even interested in anything "new', <snip>

I didn't think so. But, feel free to respond with some empty argumentation if you feel it necessary.

Chriliman · May 30, 2015

Davian said:
Then you agree that your "god" is unknowable and undetectable?

No, I'm claiming God is knowable and I believe the evidence is love.

Davian said:
And many Christians.

I'm not one of those Christians. I've already explained what I believe about this apperant singularity.

Davian said:
Can you demonstrate this experience is not simply imagined?

Can you demonstrate your experience of your own consciousness is not simply imagined? You can't show me your consciousness, I have to believe you're conscious even tho I have no proof. I can't show you God, you have to believe in God for yourself in order to experience God.

The Cadet · May 30, 2015

Chriliman said:
You just answered the question. You have to BELIEVE first then the absolute truth will be imparted, but it requires death in order to fully realize the absolute truth.

Yeah, I don't think you get it. Just because you believe something does not make it true. Even if you are removed from your body, you're still a consciousness which cannot determine if the input it gets is legitimate. You're spinning your wheels.

Chriliman · May 30, 2015

The Cadet said:
Yeah, I don't think you get it. Just because you believe something does not make it true. Even if you are removed from your body, you're still a consciousness which cannot determine if the input it gets is legitimate. You're spinning your wheels.

Now you claim to know for a fact that consciousness can exist outside of a body? Have you had an outer body experience? You can't make any claims about what happens to a consciousness when it's removed from a body, you can state your beliefs about what happens tho, which is what I've been doing this whole time. I understand my beliefs quite well, so please don't tell me I'm the one who doesn't get it.

Davian · May 30, 2015

Chriliman said:
No, I'm claiming God is knowable and I believe the evidence is love.

Anything else? Hate, Jealousy, Rage? How do we test this? How is it falsifiable?

I'm not one of those Christians. I've already explained what I believe about this apperant singularity.

Why can you Christians not reach a consensus among yourselves?

Can you demonstrate this experience is not simply imagined?

Click to expand...

Can you

I'll take that as a "no" then.

demonstrate your experience of your own consciousness is not simply imagined?

I do not assert otherwise.

You can't show me your consciousness, I have to believe you're conscious even tho I have no proof.

I am not asking for proof.

I can't show you God, you have to believe in God for yourself in order to experience God.

Circular logic. Or, and exercise in self-deception. A little lacking if your intent was to address the OP.

[serious] · May 30, 2015

Chriliman said:
Lets both work on a shared set of underlying beliefs and the underlying belief is that objective reality is absolute and not dependent on our minds to exist, then we can get somewhere.

We must have been talking past each other, because I've been there this whole thread

Chriliman · May 31, 2015

Davian said:
Anything else? Hate, Jealousy, Rage? How do we test this? How is it falsifiable?

Hate, Jealousy, Rage can all be attributed to evil and I believe every evil originated from the devil. Your own consciousness is not falsifiable, yet you claim it's true that you're conscious, why should I believe you? I should believe you because I claim the same thing about my consciousness even though it is not falsifiable either. Because of this I want to treat you as I would want to be treated, in other words I should have as much respect for you as I do for myself because I believe we are equal in that we are both conscious beings that have worth. This also means that its absolutely true that we both exist and this absolute truth does not need to be falsifiable because where there is absolute truth there can be nothing false. If my conscious mind is required to realize truth, then it would make sense for an absolute conscious mind(God) to realize absolute truth and there is nothing false within God's mind.

Davian said:
Why can you Christians not reach a consensus among yourselves?

Because we're not perfect.

Chriliman- "demonstrate your experience of your own consciousness is not simply imagined?"

Davian said:
I do not assert otherwise.

So you believe your consciousness is a product of your imagination? Isn't consciousness required to even have an imagination. How can you imagine your consciousness when consciousness must come before imagination?

Davian said:
Circular logic. Or, and exercise in self-deception. A little lacking if your intent was to address the OP.

I'll attach the graphic again that still supports everything I've been saying. If you can find a way to make this graphic more true, then I will be glad to change it.

Chriliman · May 31, 2015

[serious] said:
We must have been talking past each other, because I've been there this whole thread

So if you believe objective reality is absolute how can you hold the position of an atheist? I see your faith is non-denominational so maybe you don't claim to be an atheist. Either way, look at this graphic again, it clearly shows that in order to be an atheist you must not believe in absolutes at all, because you must believe nothing exists beyond your own consciousness, in other words to be an atheist you must believe your conscious mind is the only thing to ever exist.

Givemeareason · May 31, 2015

Why must an athiest believe at all? I am athiest and I merely try to remain objective. I experience without belief. I know that I exist or I would not be able to think these things.

Gene2memE · May 31, 2015

Chriliman said:
So if you believe objective reality is absolute how can you hold the position of an atheist?

All the experience of existence I have points to a reality that is independent of my own existence. I can't solve hard solipsism, but I have to opearate with the reality presented to me by my five sense and interpreted by the consciousness.

Nothing in my experience of reality suggests to me that a God, in the Judaic monotheist tradition, or gods, in many other traditions, exist. Therefore, I will withhold my belief until I'm offered evidence of such.

Chriliman said:
Either way, look at this graphic again, it clearly shows that in order to be an atheist you must not believe in absolutes at all, because you must believe nothing exists beyond your own consciousness, in other words to be an atheist you must believe your conscious mind is the only thing to ever exist.

It doesn't. It clearly shows that you think that the answer to the problem of hard solipsism is "God" - which actually isn't any answer at all. It also clearly shows that you think that semantics games with the words 'truth' 'absolute truth' 'absolutes' 'consciousness' and 'belief' are sufficient evidence. They're not sufficient for me, and I don't know a single other atheist, or theist, that considers such pre-suppositional apologetics a reason why they hold the beliefs that they do.

Davian · May 31, 2015

Chriliman said:
Hate, Jealousy, Rage can all be attributed to evil and I believe every evil originated from the devil.

You have two gods, one for good, and one for evil?

Your own consciousness is not falsifiable, yet you claim it's true that you're conscious, why should I believe you?

I do not make that claim.

I should believe you because I claim the same thing about my consciousness even though it is not falsifiable either. Because of this I want to treat you as I would want to be treated, in other words I should have as much respect for you as I do for myself because I believe we are equal in that we are both conscious beings that have worth. This also means that its absolutely true that we both exist and this absolute truth does not need to be falsifiable because where there is absolute truth there can be nothing false. If my conscious mind is required to realize truth, then it would make sense for an absolute conscious mind(God) to realize absolute truth and there is nothing false within God's mind.

The only "mind" than I am aware of is that which is an emergent property of a brain. What does this god use for a brain?

Because we're not perfect.

So you could be wrong about all of this religious stuff?

Chriliman- "demonstrate your experience of your own consciousness is not simply imagined?"

So you believe your consciousness is a product of your imagination?

I do not.

Isn't consciousness required to even have an imagination. How can you imagine your consciousness when consciousness must come before imagination?

That is not my position on this subject.

I'll attach the graphic again that still supports everything I've been saying. If you can find a way to make this graphic more true, then I will be glad to change it.

lol. Try the "delete" function.

Chriliman · Jun 1, 2015

Givemeareason said:
Why must an athiest believe at all? I am athiest and I merely try to remain objective. I experience without belief. I know that I exist or I would not be able to think these things.

That's great that you "try" to be objective, but a subjective mind can never reach absolute objectivity, agree?

So "trying" to be objective means you must believe there is an absolute objectivity to "try" and reach, correct?

If you believe there is an absolute objectivity to "try" and reach then it doesn't make sense for you to hold the position of an atheist because to be an atheist you must not believe in any absolutes at all. Make sense?

But if you do believe in absolutes then you must believe that I absolutely exist and if I absolutely exist how could I ever not absolutely exist?

Chriliman · Jun 1, 2015

Gene2memE said:
All the experience of existence I have points to a reality that is independent of my own existence. I can't solve hard solipsism, but I have to opearate with the reality presented to me by my five sense and interpreted by the consciousness.

My point is that we can solve hard solipsism, with belief. My point is also that "belief" is actually the fundamental function of a subjective mind.

Gene2memE said:
Nothing in my experience of reality suggests to me that a God, in the Judaic monotheist tradition, or gods, in many other traditions, exist. Therefore, I will withhold my belief until I'm offered evidence of such.

Then I will withhold my belief that you are actually a conscious being until I'm offered evidence that proves you're not just a computer simulation that's trying to trick me into believing you're a conscious being. And I will proceed to treat you as if you are a false computer simulation trying to trick me. See how that thinking could get really evil really fast? I must believe you are a conscious being in order to treat you as a conscious being, just like myself.

Gene2memE said:
It doesn't. It clearly shows that you think that the answer to the problem of hard solipsism is "God" - which actually isn't any answer at all. It also clearly shows that you think that semantics games with the words 'truth' 'absolute truth' 'absolutes' 'consciousness' and 'belief' are sufficient evidence. They're not sufficient for me, and I don't know a single other atheist, or theist, that considers such pre-suppositional apologetics a reason why they hold the beliefs that they do.

I'm saying the answer to hard solipsism is "belief". It just so happens to take "belief" in God to experience God. It also just so happens to take non-belief in God to not experience God. If you choose to not believe in God then you're choosing to believe that the possible is impossible, which just seems like irrational thinking to me.

Chriliman · Jun 1, 2015

Davian said:
You have two gods, one for good, and one for evil?

No, I believe in the one True God. The devil thinks he is god, when in fact he is the opposite of the one True God.

Davian said:
I do not make that claim.

So you're saying it's not true that you're conscious? Are you just going to continuing saying "I do not make that claim"?

Davian said:
The only "mind" than I am aware of is that which is an emergent property of a brain. What does this god use for a brain?

Why would God need a physical brain, when His existence can be thought to be beyond space and time?

Davian said:
So you could be wrong about all of this religious stuff?

Religion is wrong. It's a relationship with the one True God that is the truth.

Davian said:
That is not my position on this subject.

You made it seem as if it was.

Davian said:
lol. Try the "delete" function.

I can't delete my beliefs, I can only change them and I have no desire to change them as you haven't provided a sufficient reason for me to change them. I'm sure you can say the same to me even though everything I've been saying as made sense and is grounded in sound reason.

HitchSlap · Jun 1, 2015

Chriliman said:
I can't show you God, you have to believe in God for yourself in order to experience God.

The same goes for "Bob."

How to show an atheist the possibility of God

Contributor

SO COOL

The Thin Dead Line of sanity

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

fallible

fallible

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

SO COOL

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

fallible

'As we treat the least of our brothers...' RIP GA

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Attachments

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Newbie

fallible

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Similar threads