How to show an atheist the possibility of God

[Michael]

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.

In other words, science is also based upon "acts of faith" as I said, and that bothers you.

 

[[serious]]

In other words, science is also based upon "acts of faith" as I said, and that bothers you.

huh?

 

[PsychoSarah]

It wouldn't be a perfect eternity if "people" had the option to do wrong. I don't believe we will be people at all, but rather purely spiritual beings made one with God, but not equal to God, just unified to him like a man a women become one when married, at least in the Christian sense, not the secular sense.

It would be a forced happiness if people are stripped of the ability to feel negative emotions or desires. Which is nightmarish.

 

[Chriliman]

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.

I'm arguing that accepting an absolute objective reality necessitates the belief that your consciousness realizes a degree of that absolute objective reality (only a degree because we can't comprehend absolute objective reality) and that absolute objective reality is not dependent on your consciousness, BUT if your consciousness is required to realize A DEGREE of that absolute objective reality then why doesn't it makes sense for there to be an absolute consciousness that "realizes" that absolute objective reality?

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.

If you want to start talking about the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, well we need not go any further than the Fermi paradox or Drake equation. The idea of God can also explain these things. If you're claiming the universe can be subjective then the universe would have to be conscious, do you really believe the universe is conscious?

 

[Michael]

huh?

You commented on this reply of mine to Dogmahunter:

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........

I was simply commenting on the fact that he had a *very oversimplified* and naive view of science.

 

[Chriliman]

It would be a forced happiness if people are stripped of the ability to feel negative emotions or desires. Which is nightmarish.

Given the chance, would you want to experience absolute love? Not just love from another human, but absolute love that could only come from God?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Given the chance, would you want to experience absolute love? Not just love from another human, but absolute love that could only come from God?

Not if it meant I could never feel sorrow or pain again. Without the contrast of our negative experiences, what would be so special about the positive ones? Even absolute love would become watered down by a lack of contrast.

 

[Chriliman]

Not if it meant I could never feel sorrow or pain again. Without the contrast of our negative experiences, what would be so special about the positive ones? Even absolute love would become watered down by a lack of contrast.

Well I believe when we die, we are no longer human. When we die, the absolute truth is revealed and it's either absolutely true that you'll spend the rest of eternity in heaven with God or it's absolutely true that you won't. I'd rather not imagine what the absolute truth is when you don't spend the rest of eternity in heaven with God. Again, these are my beliefs, I can't force you to believe them. Just like you can't force me to believe there is no God, why would I believe this when it can be shown that it's possible for God to be real. I'd rather believe the possible is possible, rather than the possible is impossible.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Well I believe when we die, we are no longer human. When we die, the absolute truth is revealed and it's either absolutely true that you'll spend the rest of eternity in heaven with God or it's absolutely true that you won't. I'd rather not imagine what the absolute truth is when you don't spend the rest of eternity in heaven with God. Again, these are my beliefs, I can't force you to believe them. Just like you can't force me to believe there is no God, why would I believe this when it can be shown that it's possible for God to be real. I'd rather believe the possible is possible, rather than the possible is impossible.

I have no desire to change your beliefs, just a comment: if you will become inhuman, then who you are will die. You will not be preserved, you will be stripped of what makes you who you are. We are the sum of our strengths and flaws, to lose either is equally bad. And I never stated that deities are impossible, just that the particular one you believe in is highly unlikely, and that possibility is not going to be enough to justify belief in someone like me. I have been trying to believe for over 6 years now.

 

[Michael]

A god-with-a-capital-G? The Christian "God"? I find that unlikely. How would you substantiate that comment?

Are you suggesting that you actually deny the *possibility* of God? Typically the atheists that I've had conversations with will suggest that it's "possible" that God exists, they just want to see the *evidence* that supports the idea.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am guessing it gets sort if boring after awhile.

It does give an interesting glimpse into the mind of the theist. Psychological projection has the ability to tell us more about the person who is projecting than the person they are projecting onto.

 

[Chriliman]

I have no desire to change your beliefs, just a comment: if you will become inhuman, then who you are will die. You will not be preserved, you will be stripped of what makes you who you are. We are the sum of our strengths and flaws, to lose either is equally bad. And I never stated that deities are impossible, just that the particular one you believe in is highly unlikely, and that possibility is not going to be enough to justify belief in someone like me. I have been trying to believe for over 6 years now.

I believe our physical selves (our bodies and brains) will pass away, but our spirit and soul will live on in the spiritual realm "absolute reality" if you prefer. However, if you die with deception in your spirit you cannot exist in heaven and must be cast out.
If you've truly been trying to believe for over 6 years now, maybe try learning more about Jesus and maybe even try to truly accept him as the son of God, who sacrificed himself for you.

 

[[serious]]

I'm arguing that accepting an absolute objective reality necessitates the belief that your consciousness realizes a degree of that absolute objective reality (only a degree because we can't comprehend absolute objective reality) and that absolute objective reality is not dependent on your consciousness, BUT if your consciousness is required to realize A DEGREE of that absolute objective reality then why doesn't it makes sense for there to be an absolute consciousness that "realizes" that absolute objective reality?



If you want to start talking about the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, well we need not go any further than the Fermi paradox or Drake equation. The idea of God can also explain these things. If you're claiming the universe can be subjective then the universe would have to be conscious, do you really believe the universe is conscious?

Um, why would we need to resolve all that when i'm just using it as a hypothetical?

 

[[serious]]

Given the chance, would you want to experience absolute love? Not just love from another human, but absolute love that could only come from God?

Define "absolute love"

 

[Chriliman]

Um, why would we need to resolve all that when i'm just using it as a hypothetical?

I will try to answer this question...I assume you're referring to your hypothetical about the universe being subjective. The only way something can be subjective is if it is conscious. The word "subjective" only has meaning because we are conscious to give it meaning. I'm simply stating your hypothetical does not make sense to me because I don't believe the universe is conscious. I do however believe God is conscious. His consciousness is far and above our own subjective consciousness, we can never understand His consciousness, yet He can fully understand ours.

Now, I've answered your question to the best of my ability, can you please start answering mine because I've ask a lot of questions and have gotten few answers. I've given you many answers, you just choose to not believe them even though they make sense. Give an answer to one of my questions that makes sense and I'll admit it makes sense.

 

[Chriliman]

Define "absolute love"

I can't because I can't comprehend absolutes, none of us can, so this request for a human to define absolute love is pointless. Try asking God to define absolute love and see what happens.

 

[Chriliman]

I will say God's love can be expressed, but we must take action to express it.

 

[Michael]

Define "absolute love"

I would define it as unconditional love.

 

[Givemeareason]

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.

I have issues with this. Again I think imagination is being confused with belief. To believe is to already know something and thus there would be point in discovering it. No advancement can occur with belief.

 

[Michael]

I have issues with this. Again I think imagination is being confused with belief. To believe is to already know something and thus there would be point in discovering it. No advancement can occur with belief.

I would argue that In the real world, imagination and 'belief' are often confused, even by so called scientists, particularly in cosmology.

Even the Higgs Boson remained a bit of an 'act of faith' on the part of the believer until recently, but I would grant you that it had lots of secondary support from other areas of the standard model prior to LHC. On the other hand, SUSY theory and "dark matter" theories are actually "imagined" entities, utterly and totally devoid of any type of empirical lab support. Why keep looking for SUSY sparticles at LHC today?

Is there really a "graviton" that acts as a carrier particle for gravity, or is that an 'act of faith' in the 'unseen' (in the lab)?