How to show an atheist the possibility of God

[serious] · May 27, 2015

Catherineanne said:
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

There are three possibilities:
Certain
Possible
Impossible

However, not all possible things should be approached the same way. It's possible that I could get struck by lightening walking to my car. It's also possible that it could start raining on my way to the car. While both those scenarios are possible, one is far more likely than the other. Hence why I grab an umbrella, not a Faraday cage.

With the heart transplant issue, such transplants had already been successfully done in animal models, so there was good evidence that not only was it theoretically possible, but within reach of the technology of the day. The basis of that belief was already extensively tested by other surgeons. Such faith in 1967 was justified, but going under the knife 100 years earlier 1867 would have been foolish.

HitchSlap · May 27, 2015

Chriliman said:
I think we can all agree that objective reality exists even though we can't be absolutely certain because of the barrier of our brains, would you all agree with this statement? If you agree then you can say with certainty that you believe there is an absolute unchanging reality that exists and is not dependent on your subjective mind to exist, agree? If there is an absolute unchanging objective reality then how could it be possible for our universe to once be an absolute objective singularity and then become an absolute objective non-singularity without any outside force acting on it? My argument is that it's impossible for this to happen because as we're all aware any action in our objective reality requires energy. There could never be any energy in a singularity. My argument is that there is an absolute mind (God) that isn't confined to time and space that is the force/energy/action (which we can't comprehend because this force is beyond our time and space) that created all we observe and experience. This makes sense to me which is why I believe it, just like we all believe in an absolute unchanging objective reality even tho we can't be absolutely certain it's there, it makes complete sense that it must be there even when our minds are unconscious of it.

This sounds nice and all, but how would you know if you were wrong?

Chriliman · May 27, 2015

HitchSlap said:
This sounds nice and all, but how would you know if you were wrong?

Well this is where faith comes in to our lives. We must have faith in the truth of God. Only when we die will the absolute truth be revealed (assuming you believe in an after life). Some choose to kill themselves which is the ultimate disception! Why do people kill themselves? They've lost all belief, hope, faith, they've been decieved into thinking there is nothing to believe hope for or have faith in, what a tragedy! This tragedy and all other evils drives my passion for the truth of God to be revealed to all!

KCfromNC · May 27, 2015

Chriliman said:
Do you need evidence to know your conscious? If you don't need evidence then why do you believe you're conscious?

Unless you are claiming my consciousness created the universe, I don't see how this answers my questions.

HitchSlap · May 27, 2015

Chriliman said:
Well this is where faith comes in to our lives.

Faith is that word people use to believe in something for which there is no good evidence for.

Chriliman said:
We must have faith in the truth of God.

Which god?

Chriliman said:
Only when we die will the absolute truth be revealed (assuming you believe in an after life).

Does it take faith to believe in an afterlife?
No, I don't believe in "afterlifes."

Chriliman said:
Some choose to kill themselves which is the ultimate disception!

What is a disception, and why is it the ultimate one?

Chriliman said:
Why do people kill themselves?

I don't know, why?

Chriliman said:
They've lost all belief, hope, faith, they've been decieved into thinking there is nothing to believe hope for or have faith in, what a tragedy!

If you say so. IMO, it's probably a little more complicated than this.

Chriliman said:
This tragedy and all other evils drives my passion for the truth of God to be revealed to all!

Sounds like you're a frustrated superhero.

Chriliman · May 27, 2015

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

There's "common sense", which we all have to some degree, but then there is a sense that's uncommon. This uncommon sense is the sense that there is much more to this life we all share than meets the biological eye. This uncommon sense is the sense that there is something beyond the physical, something spiritual that we humans have access to. I believe there is a spiritual realm and right now it's a battle zone between good and evil and if you decide to learn more the best place to start is the Holy Bible. Honestly search for truth and you will not be lead astray, but the moment you are dishonest with yourself, you will give evil another foothold on your spirit.

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

What do you mean you don't "deal" with absolutes? You're able to comprehend the implications of absolutes are you not? If so then you can in fact "deal" with absolutes, just not completely because you are a subjective being.

DogmaHunter said:
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.

So if you "believe" an absolute truth exists, how could it be absolutely true that the universe was a singularity and then also be absolutely true that the universe is not a singularity? As far as we can comprehend absolutes, they must not be able to contradict even over time. It's either absolutely true that the universe exists as it does now, or its absolutely true that the universe is a singularity, it can't be absolutely true that the universe is both as it is now and a singularity at the same time, this is clearly impossible.

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

Science hasn't found the answer yet and I would even say science will never be able to define consciousness, in fact they haven't even tried because there is no evidence for consciousness. So if science can never give you an answer as to why you're here, maybe the next best place to look is inside yourself which is the only thing you actually have full access to. Science does not have access to your consciousness, but YOU do, seems like a powerful statement to me.

DogmaHunter said:
Without actual investigation of phenomena, you will not correctly explain said phenomena.

Have you fully investigated the phenomena of having to believe in God in order to have a relationship with Him?

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

What's the one thing these "religious failures" have in common? A belief in a god. Now we can use the idea of how the God of the Bible describes himself as being not restricted to time and space and we can apply this idea to quantum physics and find an explanation for it. The idea of God has been around since man was able to think and this idea can still explain the latest findings that science is unable to explain. Very interesting!

KCfromNC said:
Unless you are claiming my consciousness created the universe, I don't see how this answers my questions.

I'm claiming if you DON'T believe in an absolute truth, then you must believe your consciousness created the universe. If you DO believe in absolute truth, then how could it be absolutely true that the universe was a singularity and then also be absolutely true that the universe is not a singularity. As far as we can comprehend absolute truth, it must not be able to contradict even over time. If it can contradict then it's not absolute.

Chriliman · May 27, 2015

HitchSlap said:
Faith is that word people use to believe in something for which there is no good evidence for.

Do you believe consciousness is real? There is no evidence for consciousness, so why do you believe it's real? Is it because you've experienced your own consciousness?

I'm saying I've experienced the spiritual realm, which is why I believe in a spiritual realm, which is why I believe in the God of the Bible because He's the only God that makes sense to me and He's the only God who loved me enough to sacrifice Himself for me and I've fully accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ into my heart and in doing so I'm a changed man. This explains my passion.

HitchSlap said:
What is a disception, and why is it the ultimate one?

Great question!

How can we ever hope to expose the truth among lies? If we are lied to, we may not know in that moment that we are being lied to, unless we can compare the lie to the truth. However, the reason a lie is a lie is because it hides the truth, however a lie cannot hide the truth forever. Eventually the truth will prevail and the lie will cease to exist in our mind, but the one who uttered the lie will be punished to the extent of the severity of the lie. If the truth is buried so deep beneath lies in a person's mind, they may do anything to keep the truth buried, thus succumbing to evil thoughts and acting them out in order to keep the truth buried. This is sin. Confess your sins, expose the truth within you, it will set you free.

John 8:43-47
Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”

HitchSlap said:
Sounds like you're a frustrated superhero.

God is the frustrated superhero! It's a good thing His love is patient, if you can be thankful for patience in love your one step closer to the truth.

[serious] · May 27, 2015

Chriliman said:
I'm claiming if you DON'T believe in an absolute truth, then you must believe your consciousness created the universe. If you DO believe in absolute truth, then how could it be absolutely true that the universe was a singularity and then also be absolutely true that the universe is not a singularity. As far as we can comprehend absolute truth, it must not be able to contradict even over time. If it can contradict then it's not absolute.

I don't follow. Let's say, for a moment, that there is no objective truth. how would we then say that there is some objective truth that the universe was created by our consciousness?

Let's take intuitionism for example,

In the philosophy of mathematics, intuitionism, or neointuitionism (opposed to preintuitionism), is an approach where mathematics is considered to be purely the result of the constructive mental activity of humans rather than the discovery of fundamental principles claimed to exist in an objective reality. That is, logic and mathematics are not considered analytic activities wherein deep properties of objective reality are revealed and applied but are instead considered the application of internally consistent methods used to realize more complex mental constructs, regardless of their possible independent existence in an objective reality. -Wikipedia

Now, let's look at the ideal gas law. PV=nRT. Is this absolutely true? No. It is an approximation of the behavior of gasses in a general sense. Does there exist a mathematical formula for the behavior of gasses that would perfectly predict their behavior? No, under our current understanding of physics. We can do a great job of predicting their average behavior in aggregate, but it appears at the individual level, truly random processes dominate. While the ideal gas law is the invention of a person, it does not cease to be a decent approximation of the behavior of gasses if you don't know about it.

HitchSlap · May 27, 2015

Chriliman said:
Do you believe consciousness is real?

Yes.

Chriliman said:
There is no evidence for consciousness, so why do you believe it's real? Is it because you've experienced your own consciousness?

I accept the dictionary definition of consciousnesses.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1TSNP_enUS487US487&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=consciousness definition

Chriliman said:
I'm saying I've experienced the spiritual realm, which is why I believe in a spiritual realm, which is why I believe in the God of the Bible because He's the only God that makes sense to me and He's the only God who loved me enough to sacrifice Himself for me and I've fully accepted the sacrifice of Jesus Christ into my heart and in doing so I'm a changed man. This explains my passion.

Wouldn't a god that didn't require a human sacrifice be a little more palatable? You're imagination needs a pep talk.

Chriliman said:
Great question!

Thank you.
I think you meant to say "deception."

Chriliman said:
God is the frustrated superhero! It's a good thing His love is patient, if you can be thankful for patience in love your one step closer to the truth.

Superman!

Chriliman · May 27, 2015

HitchSlap said:
Yes.

I accept the dictionary definition of consciousnesses.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1TSNP_enUS487US487&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=consciousness definition

HitchSlap said:

Wouldn't a god that didn't require a human sacrifice be a little more palatable? You're imagination needs a pep talk.

Click to expand...

The sacrifice was not just human. God became a man because that is the only way He could sacrifice himself. In sacrificing Himself we have the hope of eternal life because in sacrificing Himself he expressed absolute love which has defeated all evil. The Bible explains all this much better than I can. Please don't disrespect the profoundness of the idea that God would sacrifice Himself for us. Would you sacrifice yourself for your child? Do you have any idea the emotion this would involve? It demands respect.

HitchSlap · May 27, 2015

The fact that I can think of a better way than a human sacrifice (father/son) to express love, is well, evidence that your god is incompetent at the least, and sadist at most.

Chriliman · May 27, 2015

[serious] said:
I don't follow. Let's say, for a moment, that there is no objective truth. how would we then say that there is some objective truth that the universe was created by our consciousness?

Exactly! The universe was not created by our consciousness, can we agree to believe that this is true?

[serious] said:
Let's take intuitionism for example,

In the philosophy of mathematics, intuitionism, or neointuitionism (opposed to preintuitionism), is an approach where mathematics is considered to be purely the result of the constructive mental activity of humans rather than the discovery of fundamental principles claimed to exist in an objective reality. That is, logic and mathematics are not considered analytic activities wherein deep properties of objective reality are revealed and applied but are instead considered the application of internally consistent methods used to realize more complex mental constructs, regardless of their possible independent existence in an objective reality. -Wikipedia

Now, let's look at the ideal gas law. PV=nRT. Is this absolutely true? No. It is an approximation of the behavior of gasses in a general sense. Does there exist a mathematical formula for the behavior of gasses that would perfectly predict their behavior? No, under our current understanding of physics. We can do a great job of predicting their average behavior in aggregate, but it appears at the individual level, truly random processes dominate. While the ideal gas law is the invention of a person, it does not cease to be a decent approximation of the behavior of gasses if you don't know about it.

Basically, it seems you're trying to say that mathematics can never lead us to absolute truth, is this what you're saying? If yes, I agree. I also believe science can never lead us to absolute truth. So how can we as subjective beings ever hope to "know" the absolute truth about life? Well I believe that while we're alive we can only believe in absolute truth and I believe the absolute truth is that there is a God and that one True God wants to have a relationship with you, but it requires you to believe in Him. Does this make sense?

Chriliman · May 27, 2015

HitchSlap said:
The fact that I can think of a better way than a human sacrifice (father/son) to express love, is well, evidence that your god is incompetent at the least, and sadist at most.

When God became a man, that man named Jesus became like God's son. So I guess the better way to put it is could you love someone so much that you would sacrifice your own son for them? I would guess no, only God's love is this great!

Michael · May 27, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
No, it's not. Rather, it's based on evidence, reason and empirical studies.

Pffft. Inflation theory or dark energy theory is just as much an "act of faith" on the part of the believer as any concept of an intelligently created universe.

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.

If the results of "dark matter" tests at LHC, LUX, PandaX and those electron roundness 'tests" actually mattered to "scientists", you might have a point. Since they don't care one iota about *failed results*, you're whistling Dixie.

You really have a very convoluted and oversimplified view of "science". 'Acts of faith" are an integral part of science, particularly when they go around assigning a specific "sigma" to their claims. If I recall correctly, that Bicep2 fiasco started with a wild claim about seven sigma confidence of finding evidence of inflation to the press, all of which turned to complete *dust* by the time it got to the peer review process.

Michael · May 27, 2015

HitchSlap said:
Faith is that word people use to believe in something for which there is no good evidence for.

Even the concept of "good" or "bad" evidence tends to be an "act of faith" on the part of the one assigning value to the so called "evidence".

[serious] · May 27, 2015

Chriliman said:
Exactly! The universe was not created by our consciousness, can we agree to believe that this is true?

Basically, it seems you're trying to say that mathematics can never lead us to absolute truth, is this what you're saying? If yes, I agree. I also believe science can never lead us to absolute truth. So how can we as subjective beings ever hope to "know" the absolute truth about life? Well I believe that while we're alive we can only believe in absolute truth and I believe the absolute truth is that there is a God and that one True God wants to have a relationship with you, but it requires you to believe in Him. Does this make sense?

All I'm saying is that you've attempted to argue that rejecting an absolute objective reality necessitates a belief that the universe springs from the mind of the observer. However, you have not demonstrated any reason for that.

Let me give you an alternate scenario a bit more relevant to this issue. Let's say there is another planet with intelligent life at the edge of the observable universe. They see many of the same distant galaxies we do, but they also see galaxies we do not and could never see because those galaxies are outside of our observable universe. Likewise, some of the galaxies we see are outside of their observable universe. Each of us exists in a real universe but one that is subjective. Our universe is not the same as theirs. Non the less, they exist in our universe and we exist in theirs. The universe is subjective, yet real even apart from any consciousness.

[serious] · May 27, 2015

Michael said:
Pffft. Inflation theory or dark energy theory is just as much an "act of faith" on the part of the believer as any concept of an intelligently created universe.

If the results of "dark matter" tests at LHC, LUX, PandaX and those electron roundness 'tests" actually mattered to "scientists", you might have a point. Since they don't care one iota about *failed results*, you're whistling Dixie.

You really have a very convoluted and oversimplified view of "science". 'Acts of faith" are an integral part of science, particularly when they go around assigning a specific "sigma" to their claims. If I recall correctly, that Bicep2 fiasco started with a wild claim about seven sigma confidence of finding evidence of inflation to the press, all of which turned to complete *dust* by the time it got to the peer review process.

"quotes" are a *great* way of showing that something is "wrong" without actually having any "evidence" of it being wrong.

Michael · May 27, 2015

[serious] said:
"quotes" are a *great* way of showing that something is "wrong" without actually having any "evidence" of it being wrong.

LUX showed that all the popular brands of SUSY theory were wrong. LUX and PandaX showed that other models were wrong. The electron roundness tests also falsified claims related to exotic matter theory.

The finding of gross stellar underestimation in the galaxy mass estimation methods also shows that their claims were wrong. What evidence do you have that any of their early so called proof from 2006 was actually right?

Michael · May 27, 2015

http://news.discovery.com/space/lhc-discovery-maims-supersymmetry-again-130724.htm

This is one discovery that will likely excite and disappoint physicists in equal measure. Large Hadron Collider (LHC) scientists have confirmed the detection of an ultra-rare subatomic decay for the first time, a decay that is predicted by the Standard Model. Unfortunately for supersymmetry proponents, that’s one hefty blow against their theory.

And oh ya, the various decay rates predicted by the standard theory also match with observation, further undermining SUSY theory entirely.

Why do you have 'faith' in exotic matter theory at this point in time? Because it's "popular"?

[serious] · May 27, 2015

Michael said:
LUX ... SUSY ... PandaX ... electron roundness ... galaxy mass estimation ... decay rates ... exotic matter

Or we could talk about the topic of the thread rather than trying to make every thread in the forum somehow about how modern physics is totally being mean to fringe plasma universe theorists.

How to show an atheist the possibility of God

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

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Regular Member

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

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

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

PROUDLY PRIMATE

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Contributor

Contributor

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

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

Contributor

Contributor

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

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency