Atheists Admit Defeat and I need your support

[RichardT]

I just watched this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEpuYarTJn0

It's excellent. Me thinks that some that call themselves 'atheists'...well it's not that they don't 'believe' in God, it's that they don't like Him very much. There's a bit much veraciousness in their denial of Him. If you do not believe in something, like God, it would be more logical to be neutral in expressing the non-belief, not emotionally-laden. Or, better yet, why discuss Him at all?

The person who created that video really does not understand what Dawkins and Weinberg are trying to say. I found the video to be silly. The person who created the video doesn't seem to know what an ad hominem attack is. He claims that because Weinberg said that using God as an explanation for anything is useless, that it is an ad hominem?

Or it could have been the fact that Weinberg used reason when discussing some of the more human traits of the OT God?

 

[brinny]

I was referring to the way he put the video together. I found that it flowed well, and I did not even know, really, who those two men were. It was interesting, what they were saying. I wanna see more now. I thought he did a great job putting that video together, and i thought i'd tell him so. I'm encouraging him, like he asked. I found the video anything but silly.

 

[RichardT]

I was referring to the way he put the video together. I found that it flowed well, and I did not even know, really, who those two men were. It was interesting, what they were saying. I wanna see more now. I thought he did a great job putting that video together, and i thought i'd tell him so. I'm encouraging him, like he asked. I found the video anything but silly.

But do you understand that it is more productive for science to say that they don't yet understand a phenomenon in nature rather than to immediately conclude that God did it? If you immediately assume that God did something, how will you learn of the possibility of another explanation?

 

[brinny]

And how might someone learn of the true explanation? Is there one? Why hasn't it been found yet? Could it be that we are too finite to ever hope to accomplish such a thing? I believe I am finite. I believe God is not. There are infinitum things I do not understand, and never will....things I cannot explain. Does that mean God does, or does not exist, based on my finite understanding and based on if I can explain an infinite God? Me, soooo finite, explaining with surety, an infinite God? How would that be possible?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

And how might someone learn of the true explanation? Is there one? Why hasn't it been found yet? Could it be that we are too finite to ever hope to accomplish such a thing? I believe I am finite. I believe God is not. There are infinitum things I do not understand, and never will....things I cannot explain. Does that mean God does, or does not exist, based on my finite understanding and based on if I can explain an infinite God? Me, soooo finite, explaining with surety, an infinite God? How would that be possible?

We will probably never get the whole truth, but that's no reason not to get as close as we possibly can while we can. The ability to comprehend the universe is a uniquely human one (ETI asside).

 

[brinny]

In the meantime, I believe in the living God, the Alpha and the Omega, the Creator, the One I believe created all that we do not understand, and all that we see, but cannot explain, even if we were suddenly gifted with explodingly brilliant brain cells all wrapped up in a bow.

 

[brinny]

...and how close do you think it's humanly possible to get to the truth?

 

[RichardT]

...and how close do you think it's humanly possible to get to the truth?

A lot closer than the alternative.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

...and how close do you think it's humanly possible to get to the truth?

no clue, i guess we'll find out when we get there. anything that leaves behind evidence is investigable.

 

[brinny]

Yes, evidence that is able to be seen or fathomed. The question is, is there a light-year's worth or two or three of 'evidence' that is not comprehended yet by our finite means of 'discovering' evidence?

 

[brinny]

no clue, i guess we'll find out when we get there. anything that leaves behind evidence is investigable.

when we get where?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

when we get where?

when we get to the bare physical limitations of investigation, then we will know how close we can get to the answers.

 

[brinny]

is that possible, to get to the bare physical limitations of investigation, and how would you know you had arrived there?

 

[Paconious]

is that possible, to get to the bare physical limitations of investigation

Extremely true. At the momment, there are many questions which can not be answered in part by our inability to investigate. Dark matter by all means is a mystery. We are not sure what its made out of; we can barely see it as is. Our physical as well as technological limitations prevent indepth study of it. The current answer to " What is dark matter" details what its not. Dark matter is non-baryonic matter, it has mass, it does not reflect electromagnetic radiation. Thats the answer limited to us for now.
In the future, the answer to "what is dark matter", will be more detailed. Perhaps, we'll even have a standard model similar to the one employed in current physics. The problem with god is simple. You cant account for god in anything. There is no empirical way by which you can argue his existence. Nothing.

and how would you know you had arrived there?

When you've exhausted all physical considerations for the answer.

 

[brinny]

With so much uncertainty, how can you be certain there is no God?

and how would you know when you've exhausted all physical limitations?

 

[Vene]

With so much uncertainty, how can you be certain there is no God?

and how would you know when you've exhausted all physical limitations?

Who says we're 100% certain? I just haven't found any empirical evidence. If you have some, by all means share.

 

[brinny]

God will not be found with empirical evidence based on the very finite limits of the ability to investigate Spirit, which is Who God is. My believing God is not based on that. I understand your believing there is a God may be based on the above. Yet, even if it were possible to prove there is the living God, the Creator of the universe, the Alpha and the Omega, would it matter to you?

 

[Vene]

God will not be found with empirical evidence based on the very finite limits of the ability to investigate Spirit, which is Who God is. My believing God is not based on that. I understand your believing there is a God may be based on the above. Yet, even if it were possible to prove there is the living God, the Creator of the universe, the Alpha and the Omega, would it matter to you?

Yes, it would. I will follow the evidence wherever it leads. I'd be stupid to reject something that I know is true. But, when the evidence for the Christian god is the same as the evidence for Freya, I have the same amount of faith in both. And I have no faith in Freya.

Now, may I ask what your faith is based on?

 

[Paconious]

With so much uncertainty, how can you be certain there is no God?

By the same manner by which i dismiss Zeus, Poseidon, Vishnu or any other deity made up by man, there is just no need for them. No matter what their respective holy texts say (which are all flawed in some way). Their existence accounts for nothing. Everything can explained with out them. Everything has existed without them. I subscribe myself to the Occam's Razor philosophy: The simplest explanation is often the most accurate one. If you hear hoofbeats, think horse not zebra. All deitys made by man are supposed to be infinite. They are all powerfull and all knowing. Well, how does a infine, powerful and all knowing being just poof up into existance? Why disguise its existance? By which means does it create worlds? Why is it so clumsy at designing anatomical parts?
The existance of said beings only raises more questions. The complexcity of their nature disallows rational inquiry. You have to "think zebra" to allow the existance of god. Thinking horse saves you all those useless questions, which in the end give you parsimonious answers.

and how would you know when you've exhausted all physical limitations?

When 'thinking horse' is not a fit answer. When all physical limitations have been examined and discarded. Note please that, not embracing physical answers because of a personal paradigm is a whole different issue.

 

[brinny]

double posted, sorry.