How to show an atheist the possibility of God

[serious] · May 28, 2015

Michael said:
And yet all these 'beliefs' are pure acts of faith, nothing more. How do you *know* that the laws of physics as we understand them have ever changed?

The laws didn't change, they don't operate the same way under certain circumstances. The super high energy density of the early universe is one of those cases. It's like having a function that is undefined at x=3.
f(x)=7/(3-x)

The function doesn't change at x=3, it is just undefined at x=3.

Likewise, in the very early universe we are dealing with high enough energies that relativity and quantum physics are at odds. Until we find a grand unified theory, we can't describe things meaningfully at this point.

Chriliman · May 28, 2015

Michael said:
To even "have faith" in big bang theories, one must 'have faith' in inflation deities, dark energy deities, exotic matter deities, and space expanding deities, none of which show up in a lab under controlled experimentation. Even atheists have 'faith' in things which they cannot see, but they resent you pointing it out to them.

The fact that they can choose to resent me, proves they have free will to do so. They could also choose not to resent me, but instead question themselves and their beliefs.

What's the latest thing science is trying to tell us about our free will? That it's an illusion! How deceptive! Thanks for your support

Michael · May 28, 2015

[serious] said:
The laws didn't change, they don't operate the same way under certain circumstances.

Yet that too is a "statement of faith'. How do you know that?

The super high energy density of the early universe is one of those cases.

But even your claim about a "high energy density" in the early universe *requires* faith in the following concepts: Redshift is "caused" by "space expansion". Inflation causes "space expansion". Dark energy causes "space expansion". Not a single one of those claims is anything other than an "act of pure faith" on the part of the believer. None of those claims can be demonstrated in controlled experimentation.

There is ample evidence of mathematical solutions to the photon redshift phenomenon that *do not* require space to expand, and do not require a particularly high energy density.

It's like having a function that is undefined at x=3.
f(x)=7/(3-x)

The problem is that the photon redshift phenomenon may or may not be *limited to* something called 'space expansion'. You're simply *assuming* it's true.

Likewise, in the very early universe we are dealing with high enough energies that relativity and quantum physics are at odds. Until we find a grand unified theory, we can't describe things meaningfully at this point.

Again however, you're *assuming* cause with respect to the redshift phenomenon, but that claim defies any demonstration in any lab on Earth. Why do you even have faith in that idea in the first place? When have you seen "space" do any magical expansion tricks in the lab, or have any effect on a photon in a lab? Why put any 'faith' in that claim to begin with?

[serious] · May 28, 2015

Chriliman said:
The only way you could claim to have direct evidence is if you were able to extract someone's consciousness from their brain and examine it directly. Have you done this? If not, then you don't have direct evidence. You must "believe" they are conscious because you can subjectively perceive that they are like you. If you believe they are conscious and that their existence is not dependent on your existence, then their existence is absolute. If their existence is absolute how could their existence ever not be absolute?

I'm defining consciousness as the ability of people to interact with the environment (for example, talking to me) so interacting with people would be direct evidence for consciousness under that system. If you would like to propose a different definition of consciousness that can be meaningfully distinguished from mine, feel free and i'll look at it from that perspective.

God doesn't say what is good, meaning God can't change goodness. According to the Bible God IS goodness. If God is goodness how could he ever change Himself? Can you change yourself from literally being you to literally being someone else?

The trouble is this ends up circular. If goodness is defined as god-like-ness, it's meaningless to say God is good as it would be self referential. Think of it this way. next to me is a screwdriver. If you ask me to describe that screwdriver to you and I say, "the screwdriver next to me is much like the screwdriver next to me" it communicates nothing. Likewise, if goodness and God are the same thing, describing God as good communicates nothing about the nature of either.

I agree with this, but I believe God set the laws by which our universe is governed. You start with energy, well the obvious question is where did that energy come from?

We can only meaningfully speak back to the origins of our universe. The energy has been there since the origins of our universe. There is no meaningful way to speak about before the big bang. Think of it like the south pole. You can't go more south than the south pole, but we don't assume that the south pole caused the concept of south to come into being. The concept of "south" is a function of the rotation of the whole planet. Likewise, if we look at time rather than direction, we end up with an earliest time just as we end up with a most southern point. There is nothing earlier than that causing time to start just as there is nothing south of the south poll causing southness to start. They are both properties of the whole.

So if the singularity itself is unknowable, then you must "believe" it is real, correct? So you believe in something that is unknowable, doesn't this go against your claims to not believe until evidence is presented? I'm saying I believe in God and since I believe in Him, He has made Himself known to me because He is real. How can you say this singularity is real when it's unknowable? This seems like a bigger leap of faith than what it takes to believe in God, at least when you believe in the one True God you get a response in a way that affirms your beliefs. I suspect you'll never get a response from this unknowable singularity you believe in, simply because it's not real, and how could it ever be real if it's unknowable?

God is knowable, it starts with belief.

I only speak in terms of the origins of the universe from when we can meaningfully determine things about it. We can approach time zero much like we approach the limit of an undefined point in a function. However, the literal point itself is pretty meaningless, so i don't have much of an opinion on it at all.

DogmaHunter · May 28, 2015

Chriliman said:
I disagree, I believe feelings are essential to our humanity.

I agree. But we aren't talking about our humanity, ethics, social contracts etc.
We are talking about finding out how the world works.

You need to actually go out and observe how it works, develop models of explanations and then test those models. And accept that the answers might be very counter intuitive and more then likely will defy your idea of "common sense".

You're not going to figure out how biology works merely by sitting and thinking about it.

Without feelings, we would be amoral animals. Would you want to live in a world where everyone is amoral, where no one cares about anybody, where everyone only cares about themselves? I would hope not, so aren't you thankful that we have a moral standard to live by? Why is there a moral standard to strive for? Why is cowardice seen as weakness even on both sides of war? We think cowardice is weak and our enemies think cowardice is weak, why do we both agree on this, but disagree on everything else, which makes us enemies to each other? I believe the answer is that good and evil are real and that humans did not create either. God is goodness and the devil is the reason for evil.

This is entirely irrelevant to the point at hand.
I'm not talking about morals or ethics.

Because if you value reason and want to question truth to the fullest, then the only God that makes sense, is the God of the Holy Bible.

Muslims and hindu's disagree.
I've read the bible cover to cover. I didn't see anything in there that made any sense.
It read like just another religious book, like for example the quran - which I also read.

Same type of claims (fantastical and supernatural/superstitious) from the same type of source ("visions" and "dreams" and "revelations" and "appearing angels" and whatnot) with the same type of supportive evidence (none).

Simply because truth is found in this bronze age book.

err...ok, great argument :-/

Profound truths that can only be understood if you believe in God. I suppose you believe in an unknowable singularity that started this universe somehow.

I don't "believe" in anything (in that sense).
To my knowledge, the origins of the universe are unkown.

Why not believe in God who can make Himself known to you.

I don't choose my beliefs. Belief for me is a compulsion. I believe what convinces me. No religion has convinced me.

I don't need to investigate these things, if I do investigate them it will be out of my own curiosity, but I'm not curious about them.

I'm not curious about your god of choice, just like you aren't curious about all the other gods you don't believe in.

How can the claim that the universe came from an unknowable singularity explain anything?

What claim would that be?
Are you refering to big bang theory?

God is knowable, you just have to believe.

I lol'ed.

Loudmouth · May 28, 2015

Chriliman said:
The fact that they can choose to resent me, proves they have free will to do so. They could also choose not to resent me, but instead question themselves and their beliefs.

What's the latest thing science is trying to tell us about our free will? That it's an illusion! How deceptive! Thanks for your support

Haven't Calvinists been arguing against free will for centuries?

Michael · May 28, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
No. I'm just aware of your obsession.
And I don't feel like having that particular conversation again.

This issue is ultimately about "faith", specifically your personal faith in those whom you choose to trust. Your belief system is ultimately not related to empirical physics, but rather it's an appeal to authority fallacy, akin to a theist choosing to "trust their pastors" rather than some random atheist off the street. You have no "street cred" because you've never "studied God' like their trusted pastor(s).

I don't take anything on faith.

Except for your faith in "science".

Nore do I dogmatically accept the things that I do.
When I say that I accept big bang theory for example, what I actually mean is that to my knowledge, that theory is currently the best model according to mainstream science.

Your so called 'best' model requires personal declared faith in *four* supernatural constructs, and you're whining about *one* related to 'God'. How does that rationalization work?

Since I'm not a cosmologist or physicist, I trust the work that cosmologists and physicist do (just like I trust the diagnose of my doctor - especially if backed up by other doctors).

That's like a theist trusting their pastor because they are authority figures and you are not. What a lame argument that is *not* based on empirical cause/effect demonstrations of claims.

In some cases, I can consider the basics of the model and make sense of it (which reinforces my acceptance thereof). In other cases, the models require expertise and knowledge that I simply do not have.

Translation: I trust my pastor, and I punt.

I don't take science on "faith". I take it on trust, which is based on its immensly succesfull track record of expanding knowledge and achieving results.

Like what? So far they've unsuccessfully spent tons of money at LHC, LUX, PandaX and electron roundness 'tests', all of which failed to produce the expected results. Furthermore they apparently can't tell a seven sigma discovery from ordinary dust! What "successful track record" could you possibly be talking about in term of *recent* events? Even their introduction of "dark energy" was cause by an *unsuccessful* prediction which necessitated yet *another* supernatural construct to be added!

And when new data surfaces that turns a theory on its head, I don't have an emotional breakdown. I just accept the new data and move on.

FYI, that's why I embraced EU/PC theory. I'm not emotionally attached to BB theories.

Not anything. Just bare assertions and fantastical claims with no evidence.
If I would ever be presented with actual reasonable evidence or arguments, I'ld be all ears.

But I admit that I don't expect that to happen any time soon.

It's already happened. I handed you a perfectly *empirical* definition of "God" which you simply ignored due to your *faith* in so called "experts" that can't even name so much as a single source of "dark energy", and it makes up most of their model. Talk about faith in nonsense that you don't even (and they don't even) begin to understand......

[serious] · May 28, 2015

Michael said:
This issue is ultimately about "faith", specifically your personal faith in those whom you choose to trust. Your belief system is ultimately not related to empirical physics, but rather it's an appeal to authority fallacy, akin to a theist choosing to "trust their pastors" rather than some random atheist off the street. You have no "street cred" because you've never "studied God' like their trusted pastor(s).

Except for your faith in "science".

Your so called 'best' model requires personal declared faith in *four* supernatural constructs, and you're whining about *one* related to 'God'. How does that rationalization work?

That's like a theist trusting their pastor because they are authority figures and you are not. What a lame argument that is *not* based on empirical cause/effect demonstrations of claims.

Translation: I trust my pastor, and I punt.

Like what? So far they've unsuccessfully spent tons of money at LHC, LUX, PandaX and electron roundness 'tests', all of which failed to produce the expected results. Furthermore they apparently can't tell a seven sigma discovery from ordinary dust! What "successful track record" could you possibly be talking about in term of *recent* events? Even their introduction of "dark energy" was cause by an *unsuccessful* prediction which necessitated yet *another* supernatural construct to be added!

FYI, that's why I embraced EU/PC theory. I'm not emotionally attached to BB theories.

It's already happened. I handed you a perfectly *empirical* definition of "God" which you simply ignored due to your *faith* in so called "experts" that can't even name so much as a single source of "dark energy", and it makes up most of their model. Talk about faith in nonsense that you don't even (and they don't even) begin to understand......

This thread isn't about your pet EU theory.

Michael · May 28, 2015

[serious] said:
This thread isn't about your pet EU theory.

It's ultimately about *faith* and the fact that faith is an integral part of 'science'. "Faith" in various concepts is not the dirty word that atheists imagine. Anyone and everyone ultimately has "faith' in beliefs and claims that A) they can't actually explain and B) they can't demonstrate to be true in the lab in controlled experimentation.

Chriliman · May 28, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Haven't Calvinists been arguing against free will for centuries?

I agree with Calvinists in that God's will is unchangeable. God's will is definitely not an illusion, however God cannot control our free will, but ultimately he is in control, God has predestined everything in accordance to His will. Here is an interesting analogy to explain this, however you must have a good understanding of the Bible in order to make complete sense of this.

Lets compare the true story of the Bible to a game of pool. The two main players are God and Satan. As we set up the table we see the triangle of stripe and solid balls with the 8 ball in the center. We also see the cue ball set at the head of the table ready to be used. God will go first because his plan is perfect and he uses the power of the Holy Spirit which is the cue ball. Satan has been cast out of Heaven so he is now at the mercy of God, but satan is determined to get vengeance and he thinks his plan will work and his plan is to deceive every man. The reason the 8 ball is at the center of the other balls is because satan has deceived man in the beginning and placed his evil spirit at the center of man's heart. God sets up his cue ball the Holy Spirit and breaks all the other balls apart. Every ball is confined by the laws that God has put in place so each ball will contact other balls in different ways that God doesn't actually have direct control over, He only allows it. This is a way to think about how we can have free will and even satan can have a sense of free will, though ultimately God is in control of the entire game. God makes a solid ball in on the break and so solid balls are His good men that He can work through using the Holy Spirit.

Now it's satan's turn. God allows satan to think he has power over the Holy Spirit, when in fact satan is only capable of lying and is even incapable of being true to himself. Which it does say in the Bible that God allows satan to have access to the heavenly realms and I believe the reason for this is because God allows satan to deceive man, but only for God's greater purpose which is to bring all men back to Himself. I believe the only way God can allow this is if He is willing to sacrifice Himself through Jesus Christ for the sake of man. Basically, He had to sacrifice Himself in order to get all of us back at the end in some way or another. God allows satan to think he can defeat Him, but every time satan makes a stripe ball in, it only furthers God's perfect plan without satan even knowing it, because satan can't know truth, he has no truth in him. God continues using the cue ball to sink all of his solid balls and satan continues sinking all of his stripe balls. The stripe balls can be thought of as men who've died never believing in God or the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for their sins.

It gets down to the end and satan has sunk all his stripe balls, this gives satan even more confidence that he can beat God. What satan doesn't realize is that God gets the last play and He has one solid ball left and the 8 ball is still on table, but only to give satan motivation. God allows satan's evil spirit to continue to be in the game because it is part of God's perfect plan. But God has a perfect plan that is hidden from satan. God lines up his last shot and uses the Holy Spirit to hit the evil spirit which then hits the last solid ball into the pocket and the evil spirit follows right in after it. This is the final push that I believe we are all in right now. God's last solid ball which can be thought of as the last believers in Jesus Christ on earth are all saved before the end but only after being hit directly by the evil spirit in the worst spiritual tribulation the earth has ever seen. In the end the evil spirit is destroyed by the Holy Spirit and all that's left on the table is God's perfect plan fulfilled! Satan's evil spirit, which was just a lie, a figment of satan's false imagination, has been destroyed and all thats left is satan himself. God's plan is so perfect that He is even able to destroy satan while allowing satan to have free will the entire time to think that he can win with his lies. God does this by not destroying satan directly Himself, but allowing His son Jesus Christ to destroy satan for good and for ever and ever. God was going to win ALL His people back the whole time!

This analogy suggests that God will save all men who ever lived, but also suggests that the worst of men who believed satan's lies till the end of their lives will probably have the least pleasant eternity. However, there is a major difference between believing satan's lies and believing satan is a LIAR. I believe satan is a liar, but only because God allows him to lie in order to reveal something to everyone before the end, hence the book of Revelation.

The men who believed satan's lies will have an eternity that will be nowhere near the horrific eternity that satan and his evil lie that was the false trinity will have to endure for ever and ever. Ultimately I believe all men will be saved from the suffering that satan will endure, but many are still "striped" and so God's righteous judgement will fall on them, however, I don't believe it's our place to try and speculate how God will judge these men, we have no input in the judgement while we're alive, that is God's own purpose.

This is just an analogy, take it or leave it, ultimately the truth is in the Bible which is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Loudmouth · May 28, 2015

Chriliman said:
I disagree, I believe feelings are essential to our humanity. Without feelings, we would be amoral animals. Would you want to live in a world where everyone is amoral, where no one cares about anybody, where everyone only cares about themselves? I would hope not, so aren't you thankful that we have a moral standard to live by?

Which is it? Are we amoral animals that require a standard to live by, or are we moral agents that can derive morality for ourselves using our own reason and logic?

I believe the answer is that good and evil are real and that humans did not create either. God is goodness and the devil is the reason for evil.

What do you mean by real?

Because if you value reason and want to question truth to the fullest, then the only God that makes sense, is the God of the Holy Bible.

A completely empty assertion.

Simply because truth is found in this bronze age book. Profound truths that can only be understood if you believe in God. I suppose you believe in an unknowable singularity that started this universe somehow. Why not believe in God who can make Himself known to you.

Again, empty assertions are not going to convince an atheist.

Michael · May 28, 2015

Chriliman said:
I disagree, I believe feelings are essential to our humanity. Without feelings, we would be amoral animals. Would you want to live in a world where everyone is amoral, where no one cares about anybody, where everyone only cares about themselves?

I certainly agree with your premise that feelings are essential to our humanity and our concepts of morality, but I think most humans underestimate both the intelligence and depth of feeling within other species:

Chriliman · May 28, 2015

Michael said:
I certainly agree with your premise that feelings are essential to our humanity and our concepts of morality, but I think most humans underestimate both the intelligence and depth of feeling within other species:

Animals just get it, they are incapable of the evil that humans are capable of. Animals are under God's grace completely, simply because God did not give them the ability to choose like He gave us the ability to choose.

Chriliman · May 28, 2015

Loudmouth said:
Which is it? Are we amoral animals that require a standard to live by, or are we moral agents that can derive morality for ourselves using our own reason and logic?

Well the beauty is within the answer. The beauty is that we can choose to be amoral animals(unfortunately there are amoral humans in this world, most of which are locked up in prison thankfully) or we can choose to live by a moral code that doesn't seem to have been created by us. We can use our reason and logic to get as close to that moral code as possible, but we are not perfect. Only God is perfect.

Loudmouth said:
What do you mean by real?

Real, in that good and evil would exist even if there were no humans to experience good and evil.

Loudmouth said:
A completely empty assertion.

Don't confuse assertions with beliefs. Everything I'm proposing are my beliefs, I'm not asserting anything.

Loudmouth said:
Again, empty assertions are not going to convince an atheist.

Again, I'm not asserting anything. If you're claiming my beliefs are empty, well I don't see how you come to that conclusion after reading everything I've said.

Davian · May 28, 2015

Michael said:
Are you suggesting that you actually deny the *possibility* of God?

Define which "God" you are referring to, in a testable, falsifiable manner.

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.

Typically, in my conversations with you, I have to ask which of your gods are you referring to.

Cearbhall · May 28, 2015

Chriliman said:
So after you've thought about life to the fullest extent of your ability, after you've search deep inside your mind and heart and outside your mind for answers, what is your conclusion about life?

Regarding what?

Loudmouth · May 28, 2015

Chriliman said:
Well the beauty is within the answer. The beauty is that we can choose to be amoral animals(unfortunately there are amoral humans in this world, most of which are locked up in prison thankfully) or we can choose to live by a moral code that doesn't seem to have been created by us. We can use our reason and logic to get as close to that moral code as possible, but we are not perfect. Only God is perfect.

How did you determine that God is perfect, outside of just asserting it? Or are you saying that you ignore what you consider to be moral and just follow orders?

Real, in that good and evil would exist even if there were no humans to experience good and evil.

Exist as physical things, or as concepts?

Don't confuse assertions with beliefs. Everything I'm proposing are my beliefs, I'm not asserting anything.

They were presented as assertions. Since they had no evidence to back them, that would make them empty assertions.

Michael · May 28, 2015

Davian said:
Define which "God" you are referring to, in a testable, falsifiable manner.

Typically, in my conversations with you, I have to ask which of your gods are you referring to.

*Any* pantheistic, or panentheistic definition of 'God' should suffice for the purpose of answering my question. Define the term "falsifiable" with respect to cosmology theories.

Davian · May 28, 2015

Michael said:
*Any* pantheistic, or panentheistic definition of 'God' should suffice for the purpose of answering my question.

Not falsifiable, generally. I cannot comment on the possibility of a thing that you cannot define coherently.

<snip unrelated text>

Michael · May 28, 2015

Davian said:
Not falsifiable, generally.

Why not? I was able to provide at least some physical evidence to support the concept.

I cannot comment on the possibility of a thing that you cannot define coherently.

That's a complete cop out, and everyone knows it. I offered you a couple of options, one akin to Einstein's "Spinoza" type definition. All you did was flippantly handwave it away.

What you *should have* done is acknowledge the *possibility* of God existing *as* the physical universe. The fact you're closed minded toward the *possibility* of God existing speaks volumes. It's the atheistic flipside of a 'fundy'.

How to show an atheist the possibility of God

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

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Contributor

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

Code Monkey

Contributor

Contributor

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

Contributor

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Contributor

Contributor

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

Everything I need to be joyful is right here

fallible

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

fallible

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency