How to show an atheist the possibility of God

[Catherineanne]

Perhaps God has taken the objective position in order to see if we can prove that he exists.

Of course we can't. If we were to prove that he exists then faith would have no meaning, and faith is something that God values very highly.

God will never allow proof for those who do not believe, only for those of us who do. We have proof enough, otherwise we would hardly carry on believing, would we? But it is of a personal kind; the kind that cannot be measured by science. God is no fool.

 

[Catherineanne]

I think most Christians an Athiests would agree that if there is a god he should not need to be proven.

Certainly we need proof; nothing wrong with that. But whether God will provide it is up to him.

In my experience faith has to come first, and the evidence we need is offered in return. Perhaps it is like climbing a mountain. It is no good being told what the view is like; you really have to climb up and see for yourself.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course we can't. If we were to prove that he exists then faith would have no meaning, and faith is something that God values very highly.

What kind of a god would value irrational beliefs?

This is the equivalent of me setting up a system where you need to chose between two doors. One leads to immense pain and the other to immense joy.
As only hints, I then go out of my way to make sure that the "joy door" is the one you can only chose by being irrational. The "rational" door would be leading to immense pain.

This is a completely senseless thing to do for a supposedly "all-powerfull", "immensly intelligent" and "benevolent" god who "loves us" and "wants us to be well".

Not to say contradictory...
A benevolent all powerfull, all knowing god who loves us would not set up such a system.

No sane person would value irrationality over rationality.
Yes, because believing thins "on faith" instead of evidence is irrational

God will never allow proof for those who do not believe, only for those of us who do.

Which makes him an immoral sadistic psychopath.

We have proof enough, otherwise we would hardly carry on believing, would we?

Then why do hindu's and muslims carry on believing what they believe?
Clearly, evidence or proof is not a requirement to believe anything for theists.
This, btw, also completely contradicts what you said earlier in this post... That faith is required.

But it is of a personal kind; the kind that cannot be measured by science. God is no fool.

Clearly, this god you are describing IS a fool.

Only a fool would value faith over evidence.
Only a fool would value irrational thinking over rational thinking.
Only a fool would punish rationality and reward gullibility.

 

[Givemeareason]

Of course we can't. If we were to prove that he exists then faith would have no meaning, and faith is something that God values very highly.

God will never allow proof for those who do not believe, only for those of us who do. We have proof enough, otherwise we would hardly carry on believing, would we? But it is of a personal kind; the kind that cannot be measured by science. God is no fool.

And perhaps God having taken the objective position wants to see if his creation can transcend faith and simply come to know?

 

[Catherineanne]

And perhaps God having taken the objective position wants to see if his creation can transcend faith and simply come to know?

If we come to know then we do not transcend faith; we embrace it.

 

[Catherineanne]

What kind of a god would value irrational beliefs?

This is the equivalent of me setting up a system where you need to chose between two doors. One leads to immense pain and the other to immense joy.
As only hints, I then go out of my way to make sure that the "joy door" is the one you can only chose by being irrational. The "rational" door would be leading to immense pain.

This is a completely senseless thing to do for a supposedly "all-powerfull", "immensly intelligent" and "benevolent" god who "loves us" and "wants us to be well".

Not to say contradictory...
A benevolent all powerfull, all knowing god who loves us would not set up such a system.

No sane person would value irrationality over rationality.
Yes, because believing thins "on faith" instead of evidence is irrational



Which makes him an immoral sadistic psychopath.



Then why do hindu's and muslims carry on believing what they believe?
Clearly, evidence or proof is not a requirement to believe anything for theists.
This, btw, also completely contradicts what you said earlier in this post... That faith is required.



Clearly, this god you are describing IS a fool.

I did not describe him; you did.

It would seem you have created a god in your own image.

Ironically you then berate me for believing in him, but that is not the God revealed in Christ; it is your own creation.

Only a fool would value faith over evidence.
Only a fool would value irrational thinking over rational thinking.
Only a fool would punish rationality and reward gullibility.

Indeed so. And the fool says in his heart, there is no God.

I am not a fool, by any of these measures.

Meanwhile, every scientist pushing the boundaries of knowledge begins with faith in a particular idea or theory and moves towards evidence. If he does not find the evidence he ditches that theory and tries something else. If he finds the evidence he publishes, and then others try to find the same evidence. If enough of them find the same evidence then our corporate knowledge increases by just that much. Then new theories are proposed, and tested in turn.

Faith is exactly like this.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I did not describe him; you did.

You're the one making the assertion about what this god values.
I merely drew the obvious conclusion that follows from that assertion.

It would seem you have created a god in your own image.

No, I'm just replying to your statement that this god wants us to believe irrational things.

Ironically you then berate me for believing in him, but that is not the God revealed in Christ; it is your own creation.

Again, I'm just replying to your statements. More specifically, this statement: "...faith is something that God values very highly."

You said it, not me.
To believe things on faith, is not rational.
Beliving things on evidence, is what is rational.

And an all-knowing god would realise this.

Faith is gullibility.

Indeed so.

So, you agree that valueing faith over evidence, is what fools do?
Then you might want to read your opening statement again at the top of the page.

And the fool says in his heart, there is no God.

I'm not impressed by bible verses.
Try some evidence instead...

I am not a fool, by any of these measures.

The god you are talking about clearly is, and you even agreed to it.

 

[Catherineanne]

To believe things on faith, is not rational.
Beliving things on evidence, is what is rational.

Not really.

Scientific investigation is based on believing things on faith and then putting those beliefs to the test; rejecting those which do not work and retaining those which do, for further investigation.

What part of that is illogical?

If proof were needed before belief, then no experiments would ever take place; no new ground would ever be broken, no discoveries ever made.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not really.

Yes, really.

If not, then what is the difference between rational beliefs and irrational beliefs?

Scientific investigation is based on believing things on faith

No, it's not. Rather, it's based on evidence, reason and empirical studies.
I have never encountered a paper that demanded "faith" from the reader.

Instead, papers will typically explain how the results can be replicated, what potential problems exist, etc.
Intellectual integrity and honesty are kind of important in science.

and then putting those beliefs to the test;

If they are put to the test, then it means that they aren't accepted by default without evidence / testing.
Which flies in the face of your idea that science is "faith" based. Clearly, it isn't.

rejecting those which do not work and retaining those which do, for further investigation.

Off course, you left out kind of an important aspect of how that initial idea comes about.
It's not pulled from thin air.

One starts with a collection of facts / observations and one formulates a hypothesis to explain said data.
This hypothesis is not a faith-based idea. It's based on DATA (=evidence). It's also testable. It makes predictions about what other data you should (or shouldn't) find.

What part of that is illogical?

The part where you clearly have no clue on how science works.
The part where you pretend that science is faith based instead of evidence based.
The part where you imply that religious faith based claims are of equal value as the findings of science.

If proof were needed before belief, then no experiments would ever take place; no new ground would ever be broken, no discoveries ever made.

Think about what you are saying here...

You are pretending that some scientist pulls a fantastical idea out of thin air for no apparant reason and then conducts experiments to see if it makes sense. Is that really how you think science is done?

Let's have a thought exercise...

Suppose a physicist tries to unravel how gravity works.
He comes up with the fantistical idea that invisible graviton fairies are pushing matter together from the 9th dimension using graviton fairy dust.
The dude then applies for a grant of a billion dollars to conduct an experiment to test his idea. Do you think he will get this grant or not? I'll go ahead and assume that you'll agree that he won't be getting his funding.

The million dollar question is: why not?

Additionally, consider the total cost of the LHC.
Why was that money spent on this machine to conduct experiments to test certain ideas about particles?
Why is it granted for the LHC and not for the graviton fairies?

When you answer this question, please contrast it with your assertion that science starts with faith-based ideas.


Also, additionally, for rational people, belief is what follows AFTER being convinced. To convince a rational mind of something, you require evidence to support your point.

"Belief" is not something you start with. "Belief" is the RESULT of gathering evidence and the rational evaluation thereof. Or at least, that's how it is for a rational mind...

 

[Chriliman]

Which only goes to show that to validly decide if there is god or not you need to stop believing first. Atheism is absense of belief. And as you guys love to say, " Believing is Seeing". There goes your theory.

So even though you recognize or at least some atheists recognize that there is a possibility that God is real, you still choose to not believe? This seems to say that you choose to believe that the possible is impossible? Considering how far science has come, do you think we would have gotten anywhere if we believed the possible was impossible?

 

[[serious]]

You miss understand what I meant by unchanging, I mean absolute, or not dependent on our minds to exist. Have you read
The last question" by Issac Asimov? It's a brilliant thought that goes as far as we humans can go in thinking about entropy. Read it, if you wish and get back to me.

Yeah, read that a while back. It's decent, but I wouldn't call it a brilliant commentary on entropy. If anything, it's a good commentary on the sufficiency of "we don't know yet" for questions to which we do not yet have sufficient evidence. It's a stronger statement for an agnostic approach

This would makes sense if the universe were a coffee cup. As we all know this is not the case. Someone made that coffee cup and an outside force had to act on that cup to make it break. The atoms and molecules within the cup still exist even though it is broken. In essence the coffee cup has existed since the beginning of our objective universe and will exist until the end of our objective universe. This objective universe has no effect on absolute reality, but only an effect on objective reality which we perceive with our subjective minds, which is why a coffee cup can appear to be absolutely a cup and them absolutely not a cup, but really its just a rearrangement of particles that comprise the "coffee cup".

One can approach the origins of the universe a similar way. There was energy and that energy underwent a rearrangement in accordance with natural laws.

Hmm...you said "as you approach the singularity" Are we actually approaching the singularity or just observing it? We're just observing it correct? We're observing a massive amount of energy released which "created" our universe we observe today. Our universe can never revert back to that state of mass energy because it would take even more energy to do so. It can only move forward in time and space from that massive amount of energy released. Can energy come from nothing? No, all energy that exists in our objective universe has always existed and will continue to exist until our objective universe comes to an end, you can't add or take energy away. So, if the universe absolutely existed as a singularity with infinite energy, how did that infinite energy get there? If it absolutely existed as infinite energy, why would it all of the sudden not absolutely exist as infinite energy? How could a singularity ever not be a singularity? What would cause it to not be a singularity anymore? The only logical answer I can think of is an outside force caused the universe to exist and this singularity we observe is actually the creation point.

i mean "as we approach" in the mathematical limit sense. To rephrase, think of it as if we somehow went back in time towards the big bang so that everything was getting hotter, denser, and closer together. I say "as we approach" rather than "at the moment of the singularity" because as you get higher and higher energy in a smaller and smaller space, physics gets weird.

 

[Shemjaza]

So even though you recognize or at least some atheists recognize that there is a possibility that God is real, you still choose to not believe? This seems to say that you choose to believe that the possible is impossible? Considering how far science has come, do you think we would have gotten anywhere if we believed the possible was impossible?

It's a big step from "possible" to belief.

It's very possible that someone just dropped an elephant off in front of my house... but I don't believe it has happened and I don't think it's illogical for me to believe that without checking. And elephants are real things that I have seen and touched.

 

[Chriliman]

What is "sensible" to you is no more or less then what fits in your subjective view of the world, through the knowledge goggles that you have.

Before Einstein explained relativity, it was "sensible" to people that time is constant and not dependend on speed and gravity.
For a lot of people today, that STILL is sensible.

I'ld say that time being a constant is a LOT more sensible then time being relative to the observer and influenced by speed and gravity. But what I find "sensible" is irrelevant. My brains evolved to deal with macroscopic objects traveling at sub-light speeds (sub-sound speeds actually). My brain isn't wired to "feel at home" in quantum bizarro-world or to intuitively expect the outcome of traveling at light speed.

I'm just saying, when talking about such alien environments, we cannot rely on our "common sense" to draw conclusions. Because our human "common sense" isn't wired for such environments.

To use that famous quote:
"our common sense is helpful to avoid being eaten by lions in Africa... not to understand quantum mechanics"

Einstein was deist, maybe you should listen more closely to what he said because he was on to something...however don't rely on man to find an absolute truth. If you believe an absolute truth exists then no subjective man can show it to you, you can only find it for yourself when you look deep inside the only human you have full access to, which is yourself.

 

[Catherineanne]

Yes, really.

If not, then what is the difference between rational beliefs and irrational beliefs?

Not much, frankly.

I will try to explain once more, but then give up on this one. If you don't get it this time I won't waste any more of my time on it.

In 1967 Dr Christiaan Barnard believed that a heart transplant might be possible. This had never been done before, and no doubt many people thought it could not be done, but he studied the possibilities and decided that it might work.

Then he had to convince the people around him in Cape Town that it might work, and then he had to convince a patient to be the first to undergo such an operation.

Anyone with an objective view on this will recognise that there is an immense amount of faith involved in all of this. It was impossible to know for sure until after a step was taken in faith.

Sadly the first patient did not survive, because he developed pneumonia, but processes were refined and now around 3,500 heart transplants happen every year worldwide.

None of this would be possible if Dr Barnard - and many others - had not had faith, and acted on it. You sneeringly suggest that science is not based on blind faith; well I have news for you, neither is religion. In each case it behaves in the same way, but you either can't or won't see it. The scientist does not pluck ideas from thin air, and neither does the theologian. Both study their field to find out what might be possible, and then formulate theories. Both test those theories. Both are subject to peer review.

You also mentioned papers; they can be written at any stage of this process; as an indicator of what might be possible, as a description of what has taken place or at any other point. And there is indeed faith involved; faith in the credibility of the author, for one thing. If once any given author is discredited then he or she can publish whatever they like; it will never be respected.

This is how the world of science works. It is also how the world of belief works. Having a theory is not enough; once we have the theory we have to step out in faith before we can know for certain that we are right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_transplantation

 

[Catherineanne]

It's a big step from "possible" to belief.

It's very possible that someone just dropped an elephant off in front of my house... but I don't believe it has happened and I don't think it's illogical for me to believe that without checking. And elephants are real things that I have seen and touched.

Now I am jealous. I have certainly seen elephants, but I have never touched one.

 

[Chriliman]

It's a big step from "possible" to belief.

Have I not shown that all our subjective minds are capable of is belief. We have no choice but to believe first, simply because we are subjective beings that can't comprehend absolutes.

It's very possible that someone just dropped an elephant off in front of my house... but I don't believe it has happened and I don't think it's illogical for me to believe that without checking. And elephants are real things that I have seen and touched.

I'm not talking about an elephant, I'm talking about the possibility that God has created everything. If you think it is possible that God has created everything, choosing to not believe it is choosing to believe the possible is impossible. This is all I'm saying.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Einstein was deist, maybe you should listen more closely to what he said because he was on to something...

Perhaps you should try to respond to the point that was raised instead of such random off topic statements.

My point was about how "common sense" is not a particularly helpful tool to figure out how nature works.

however don't rely on man to find an absolute truth.

I don't rely on anything to find "absolute" truth, because I don't deal in "absolutes".

If you believe an absolute truth exists then no subjective man can show it to you

Absolute truth exists, because things work in a certain way.
But you seem to be confusing it with having "absolute certainty" - which is an entirely different beast.

you can only find it for yourself

No, you cannot.

when you look deep inside the only human you have full access to, which is yourself.

The answer to the phenomena of nature are not found "in myself".

Lock up a million of the most brilliant men that ever lived in a room with only a chair and a table for any amount of time and ask them to explain any natural phenomena. Not a single one of them will come up with the correct answer.

Why? Because you need to look at the actual world. You need to make observations and conduct experiments.

There is no truth "hidden" in your brain.
Without actual investigation of phenomena, you will not correctly explain said phenomena.

I present 8000 years of religious failures and 250 years of successful scientific study as evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Not much, frankly.

Then it's no wonder that you believe the things that you.
If you can't understand the difference between rational and irrational reasoning.....

What else is there left to say here?

I will try to explain once more, but then give up on this one. If you don't get it this time I won't waste any more of my time on it.

Don't turn it around.
YOU are the one stating that there is barely any difference between rationality and irrationality.
YOU are the one stating that your god of choice values gullibility and hates rational reasoning.
YOU are the one claiming that science is faith based.

In 1967 Dr Christiaan Barnard believed that a heart transplant might be possible.

And he had good reasons for that.
He didn't pull it out of thin air.
He didn't read it in a bronze age myth.

Rather, he concluded it based on everything he knew about human anatomy.
In other words, he formed a rational conclusion based on a rational argument.

This had never been done before

So? Before 1969, nobody ever went to the moon. So what?
That doesn't mean that pre-1969 one required "faith" to accept that it could be done.

I have never jumped down from the Eiffel Tower. But I don't require "faith" to realise that I'll die if I do it.

and no doubt many people thought it could not be done, but he studied the possibilities and decided that it might work.

Right. So he didn't base it nothing. He didn't pull it from thin air. He didn't require any "faith". No "angels" appeared to tell him it could be done.

No. He studied and a rational evaluation of the evidence convinced him that it could be done.

Then he had to convince the people around him in Cape Town that it might work, and then he had to convince a patient to be the first to undergo such an operation.

And to each and every one of them, he could present his case. He could justify his belief that it could be done. He had his study and his data to support the idea that it could be done.

Anyone with an objective view on this will recognise that there is an immense amount of faith involved in all of this

No. You don't need faith when you have rational evidence.
Also, I'm fairly certain that the dude didn't present his case as being "absolutely certain" in some kind of religious dogmatic fashion.

When asked if the patient could die, I'm sure he would have said that that risk existed.

You are comparing apples with oranges.

There's a big difference between reasonable expactations based on evidence and mere blind "faith".

It was impossible to know for sure until after a step was taken in faith.

Actually, it wasn't impossible to know for sure that it could be done at all.
What wasn't sure is that it would succeed every time. And it still isn't. And most likely, it never will be. And I don't believe for a second that this doctor would say otherwise.

None of this would be possible if Dr Barnard - and many others - had not had faith, and acted on it

False. None of this would rather be possible if this doc -and many others - had not studied the subject which lead them to concluding that it could be done.

You mentioned papers; they can be written at any stage of this process; as an indicator of what might be possible, as a description of what has taken place or at any other point.

Papers are written to present results and conclusions.
Obviously, papers about experiments aren't written before doing the actual experiment.......

And there is indeed faith involved; faith in the credibility of the author, for one thing

False. There are no authorities in science. Papers fall and stand on their own merrit. Not by who the author is. Papers could be completely anonymous and it wouldn't make any difference. The CONTENT of the paper is what matters - not what name is mentioned on top.

If once any given author is discredited then he or she can publish whatever they like; it will never be respected.

Off course reputation has some influence...
Not the kind of influence you pretend it will have, but I have no problem saying it might have some influence.

BUT...faith is still no factor here.
Instead, we are rather dealing with trust that has been earned. It's about reasonable expectations based on past experiences.
But make no mistake, if a Hawking publishes a nonsense paper, he'll get demolished just like the next random physicist...

This is how the world of science works. It is also how the world of belief works. Having a theory is not enough; once we have the theory we have to step out in faith before we can know for certain that we are right.

False. In science, we start with a hypothesis. Which is not a faith based idea pulled from thin air.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course we can't. If we were to prove that he exists then faith would have no meaning, and faith is something that God values very highly.

Thomas was given proof. Why can't I expect the same?

God's chosen people that wandered the desert were given daily physical evidence in the form of a pillar of smoke during the day and a pillar of fire at night. They were fed by food that fell from the sky. Why can't I expect similar proof?

God will never allow proof for those who do not believe, only for those of us who do. We have proof enough, otherwise we would hardly carry on believing, would we? But it is of a personal kind; the kind that cannot be measured by science. God is no fool.

If you have evidence, then please present it.

 

[ananda]

Thomas was given proof. Why can't I expect the same?

God's chosen people that wandered the desert were given daily physical evidence in the form of a pillar of smoke during the day and a pillar of fire at night. They were fed by food that fell from the sky. Why can't I expect similar proof?

If you have evidence, then please present it.

IMO, if a religion claims that "proof" was and could be given only to certain select individuals (who also happen to become leaders within that religion), and such proofs are not available to their followers, then I would look elsewhere.