How to show an atheist the possibility of God

[Cearbhall]

I'm not offended, I just know when to stop talking to someone who is unwilling to care about life.

I assure you that having a different worldview than yourself does not mean that I don't care about life. No need to be concerned. I care very much about life and am completely willing to do so.

 

[Chriliman]

I assure you that having a different worldview than yourself does not mean that I don't care about life. No need to be concerned. I care very much about life and am completely willing to do so.

How can you care about life if you accept that we can never find the absolute truth about life? If you accept that the absolute truth can never be found then you accept that there might not be an absolute truth and if there is no absolute truth, what is the point? You must believe there is no point to life.

 

[Cearbhall]

How can you care about life if you accept that we can never find the absolute truth about life?

I imagine that it's difficult or even impossible for someone who thinks there's absolute truth to comprehend that a person could glean existential meaning and fulfillment in the absence of it, or even find the will to care about these questions to begin with. That's absolutely fine.

If you accept that the absolute truth can never be found then you accept that there might not be an absolute truth and if there is no absolute truth, what is the point?

The point is then subjective. We construct meaning.

 

[Chriliman]

I imagine that it's difficult or even impossible for someone who thinks there's absolute truth to comprehend that a person could glean existential meaning and fulfillment in the absence of it, or even find the will to care about these questions to begin with. That's absolutely fine.

The point is then subjective. We construct meaning.

Do you believe there is an authority beyond yourself that you should submit to? Is your authority truth, or do you consider yourself above truth? Is your authority yourself? Consider this:

If we believe there is an ultimate authority, how can we know the authority we submit to is the ultimate authority? The only way to know is to question the authority we submit to. If your authority is God, ask Him questions with the hope of learning more about Him. If your authority is truth, question truth in the hope of learning more about truth. If your authority is man made law, question this authority to the fullest. If your authority is yourself, question yourself deeply.

After you've fully questioned the authority you submit to you will realize the ultimate authority is Truth and that Truth is God and the only question that will remain is if you'll submit your ALL - heart, soul and mind to the Truth of God's authority. God has made it POSSIBLE for everyone with this mind set to be lead closer to Him through the power of the Holy Spirit. If we own this mind set we will never be lead astray. Lets take hope in this and never forget it as we continue through the trials of life.

'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
Matthew 22:37

I believe you fit in here somewhere, it's up to you to recognize where.

 

[Cearbhall]

You must believe there is no point to life.

In the context of your belief system, I suppose this would necessarily be a true statement. But no, I do not believe that life is pointless.

Do you believe there is an authority beyond yourself that you should submit to?

Not a supernatural one, no. I submit to human authority figures, of course.

 

[Michael]

Well, just for example, the theory of evolution could be shown to be false by finding fossils in rock layers and with dates that make no sense, like a Precambrian Homo Erectus.

I would happily grant you that completely empirical theories like evolutionary theory are in fact falsifiable by their very nature. Cosmology claims however tend to be a horse of a different color. Claims in astronomy are typically not based on empirical cause/effect demonstrations, but rather they typically begin with an act of *faith* on the part of the believer as it relates to cause/effect relationships. For instance, "space expansion" has never been empirically demonstrated to be an actual "cause" of photon redshift. It's an 'act of faith' on the part of the believer.

The big bang theory could be falsified by showing that the universe is not expanding, by showing a galaxy distribution inconsistent with a singularity, and there's probably more (astrophysics is not exactly my wheelhouse).

https://www.libertariannews.org/201...e-the-problem-of-galactic-surface-brightness/
http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218271814500588

Actually, all that has already been done, but they simply don't care about data that conflicts with their beliefs. Denial seems to be the name of the game in big bang theory. Planck found all sorts of deviations from inflation theory, including hemispheric difference that should not exist, and again, they simply don't care. Dark matter theory has been falsified a half dozen different ways over the past 4 years, and again, everyone simply buries their collective heads in the sand. Dark matter theory was based on the notion of supernova events being a 'standard candle', and they've since demonstrated that SN1A events are *not* 100 percent "standard" too. Same deal. No effect on their "faith".

Falsifiability is an absolute necessity for any scientific theory. If you cannot provide falsification criteria for your idea, what that means is that your idea makes no testable predictions about reality, which in turn means that regardless of whether it is true or not (and "unfalsifiable" means we can never find out and thus must assume that it is not through basic skepticism), it is useless. It does not help us understand reality in any way.

That's not really applicable to string theory however. It really doesn't make any actual "testable" or unique predictions to start with. Furthermore, pretty much every claim they make is actually related to a *postdiction* of some kind. For instance, the concept of "space expansion" is directly related to the observation of photon redshifted photons from space. The *cause* of that redshift however has never been empirically linked to 'space expansion", but it has been linked to moving objects and inelastic scattering processes in plasma.

Even when the data doesn't jive with their 'predictions" (both hemispheres should be equal but they are not), they simply ignore what they don't wish to deal with.

 

[Chriliman]

In the context of your belief system, I suppose this would necessarily be a true statement. But no, I do not believe that life is pointless.

Not a supernatural one, no. I submit to human authority figures, of course.

Even the most authoritative human figures are not perfect, so why submit to them? Wouldn't you want to submit to the authority of a perfect truth, rather than an imperfect human who is just claiming to be the authority? Why do you think power corrupts? Is it because human's can't be trusted with too much power. Wouldn't you want to let all power go to something that is perfect, rather than imperfect? If so you must believe perfection is possible, yet humans can't achieve perfection, so what can be perfect? I have an answer to this question, do you?

 

[Michael]

Then why ask for me to explain it?

I'm asking you to explain how that term is even applicable in this case, because the term is inapplicable to cosmology theories in general, and we both know it. It's not even possible to falsify string theory for instance.

Is that the universegod that zaps people with lightning bolts?

Ultimately I suppose so.

Because your gods are untestable and unfalsifiable.

Nah. All the properties I've ascribed to the universe are completely empirical and they exist in nature. Even awareness shows up on Earth in a wide variety of various forms. The dark gods of Lambda-CDM are however completely unfalsifiable. The PandaX results, LHC, LUX, and the electron roundness "tests" all demonstrate that fact. Most cosmology theories *cannot* be falsified.

 

[Cearbhall]

Consider this:

If we believe there is an ultimate authority,

I don't.

how can we know the authority we submit to is the ultimate authority?

I don't believe there is one.

The only way to know is to question the authority we submit to. [...] If your authority is man made law, question this authority to the fullest.

I do.

After you've fully questioned the authority you submit to you will realize the ultimate authority is Truth

Many people do not come to this conclusion, including myself.

and that Truth is God and the only question that will remain is if you'll submit your ALL - heart, soul and mind to the Truth of God's authority.

No, I will not. This is not my belief.

I believe you fit in here somewhere, it's up to you to recognize where.

I disagree that I fit into this. Attempting to fit my beliefs into the framework of a different belief system is only going to lead to confusion and inaccurate assessments. I suggest you take it for what it is.

 

[HitchSlap]

How can you care about life if you accept that we can never find the absolute truth about life? If you accept that the absolute truth can never be found then you accept that there might not be an absolute truth and if there is no absolute truth, what is the point? You must believe there is no point to life.

I'm an atheist, and I care about life.
Why is caring about life contingent on "absolute truth?" In fact everyone of us conduct out lives without being "absolute" about most things. I believe the "point" to life is likely what you believe the "point" to life is: family, relationships, charity, empathy, pleasure, experience, etc.

 

[Chriliman]

I believe the "point" to life is likely what you believe the "point" to life is: family, relationships, charity, empathy, pleasure, experience, etc.

I'm glad you used the word "believe". Belief is powerful. Unfortunately, atheists acknowledge the possibility of God, but they refuse to believe in that possibility and rather choose to believe God is impossible simply because there is no evidence or proof. This is the same as saying you believe the possible is impossible, how far would science get if every scientist believed the possible was impossible? I'd guess we wouldn't get anywhere. Do we need evidence or proof to believe that we exist? No, so why should we expect evidence or proof to believe that God exists? Can you see that it all comes down to belief?

 

[Cearbhall]

Even the most authoritative human figures are not perfect, so why submit to them?

Because that's how we keep order in society.

Wouldn't you want to submit to the authority of a perfect truth, rather than an imperfect human who is just claiming to be the authority?

I do not believe that such an authority figure exists.

Why do you think power corrupts? Is it because human's can't be trusted with too much power. Wouldn't you want to let all power go to something that is perfect, rather than imperfect?

That's the basis of many novels. I rather think not, since I'm designed to think independently. An angel would be much better suited to obey such an authority.

If so you must believe perfection is possible, yet humans can't achieve perfection, so what can be perfect? I have an answer to this question, do you?

That's a mighty non sequitur. You're also coming across as if we're in a pastoral therapy session or a Sunday school class. We're not.

 

[HitchSlap]

I'm glad you used the word "believe". Belief is powerful. Unfortunately, atheists acknowledge the possibility of God, but they refuse to believe in that possibility and rather choose to believe God is impossible simply because there is no evidence or proof. This is the same as saying you believe the possible is impossible, how far would science get if every scientist believed the possible was impossible? I'd guess we wouldn't get anywhere. Do we need evidence or proof to believe that we exist? No, so why should we expect evidence or proof to believe that God exists? Can you see that it all comes down to belief?

Beliefs are based on evidence, or at least they should be.

Are you saying that if I believe tiny hamsters power my car's engine, there's a possibility it's true?

 

[Michael]

Beliefs are based on evidence, or at least they should be.

The problem is that everyone has a subjective way of interpreting "evidence', and even the term itself becomes subjective. There's plenty of historical evidence of humans writing about an influence on their life called "God" since the dawn of recorded human history. Plenty of atheists report meeting God during NDE events.

 

[Davian]

...

Are you kidding me? "I think therefore I am". The existence of one's own consciousness is the single most trivially obvious statement in all of philosophy. It's essentially the only statement about anything one can make without presupposing more than the logical absolutes.

It is my understanding, in terms of neuroscience, that it is more accurate to say that "my brain thinks, and therefore creates a phenomenal self as needed".

The consciousness of anyone else? That's a much harder philosophical problem; however, not one that is unanswerable by neuroscience.

Indeed.

 

[HitchSlap]

The problem is that everyone has a subjective way of interpreting "evidence', and even the term itself becomes subjective. There's plenty of historical evidence of humans writing about an influence on their life called "God" since the dawn of recorded human history. Plenty of atheists report meeting God during NDE events.

Replace "God" with "Bob," and you're nowhere nearer understanding reality.
"God" is that placeholder used by humans when they've run out of evidence.

 

[Michael]

Replace "God" with "Bob," and you're nowhere nearer understanding reality.
"God" is that placeholder used by humans when they've run out of evidence.

Placeholder terms are used all the time in science. What do you think the term 'dark energy' is? The fact we don't have a full understanding of something doesn't preclude us from using placeholder terms in science.

 

[Davian]

I'm asking you to explain how that term is even applicable in this case, <snip off-topic text>

I do not see how it is applicable. The burden of demonstrating that is on you.

Ultimately I suppose so.


Nah. All the properties I've ascribed to the universe are completely empirical and they exist in nature.

That the universe exists in not in dispute.

Even awareness shows up on Earth in a wide variety of various forms.<snip off-topic text>

That you project your concept of awareness onto the universe does not make it true.

 

[HitchSlap]

Placeholder terms are used all the time in science. What do you think the term 'dark energy' is? The fact we don't have a full understanding of something doesn't preclude us from using placeholder terms in science.

But not having full understanding of something doesn't preclude the faithful from condemning people to hell, collecting tithes, hatred towards homosexuals and the occasional jihad, does it?

 

[Chriliman]

Beliefs are based on evidence, or at least they should be.

Are you saying that if I believe tiny hamsters power my car's engine, there's a possibility it's true?

Why do atheists insist on avoiding God and instead substituting hamsters and elephants? If you fear God, that's the first step in believing in Him and gaining true wisdom.

Proverbs 1:7
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction."