How to show an atheist the possibility of God

[[serious]]

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.

I don't follow. we can entirely subjectively decide if a painting is art, but the painting need not be conscious.

The word "subjective" only has meaning because we are conscious to give it meaning.

All words are given meaning by conscious minds (via social convention). i'm not sure what point you are making here.

I'm simply stating your hypothetical does not make sense to me because I don't believe the universe is conscious.

why would it need to be?

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.

none of which i take issue with, but if you are looking to convince an atheist, that won't carry much weight.

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.

I'm more than happy to answer questions. I started off providing requested input on the flowcharts you linked in the OP. I haven't noticed many explicit questions in your subsequent posts, but if i missed them, I'm more than happy to revisit whatever you would like.

 

[[serious]]

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)?

Can we please leave your pet plasma universe model in the many, many other threads specifically about that?

 

[[serious]]

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.

Let's rephrase the question then:

"Given the chance, would you want to experience something you can't comprehend? Not just love from another human, but something completely incomprehensible that could only come from God?"
Um, not really. I'd kinda like to know what I'm getting into.

 

[Chriliman]

I don't follow. we can entirely subjectively decide if a painting is art, but the painting need not be conscious.

Right, but to say the painting itself is subjective is untrue, the painting itself is a compilation of pigments and molecules arranged in such a way that it either looks beautiful or ugly to our subjective mind. Its our mind that is subjective not the painting itself. The painting itself is an object in objective reality.

All words are given meaning by conscious minds (via social convention). i'm not sure what point you are making here. why would it need to be?none of which i take issue with, but if you are looking to convince an atheist, that won't carry much weight.

I've already stated it's not my goal to convince you, I know I can't force anyone to believe what I believe. Only you can convince yourself of anything. It is my goal to present my beliefs in such a way that might cause you to question your own beliefs.

I'm more than happy to answer questions. I started off providing requested input on the flowcharts you linked in the OP. I haven't noticed many explicit questions in your subsequent posts, but if i missed them, I'm more than happy to revisit whatever you would like.

Here's a question. Why do you believe in consciousness when there is no direct evidence that points to consciousness as being real?

Where does the notion of good and evil come from? How could this notion possibly come from a singularity? How could our consciousness come from a singularity? How does a singularity ever not be a singularity?

 

[Chriliman]

Let's rephrase the question then:

"Given the chance, would you want to experience something you can't comprehend? Not just love from another human, but something completely incomprehensible that could only come from God?"
Um, not really. I'd kinda like to know what I'm getting into.

Well death is a great example of something we can't comprehend and many people do not want to experience it, yet it is a reality. Why do we fear death? Is it because it brings nothing but sorrow to our lives when someone we love dies? Is it also because what happens after death is unknown, why do we fear the unknown? Is the fact that life has so many unknowns the very reason we must believe, hope and have faith.

Why is the thought of being immortal so appealing? Is it because deep down we hope immortality is possible? Did you know the Bible says man will not live beyond 120yrs old?

Gen. 6:3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.”

We are reaching this age limit now, the oldest person alive today is 116yrs old. Interesting.

 

[[serious]]

Here's a question. Why do you believe in consciousness when there is no direct evidence that points to consciousness as being real?

consciousness describes the ability for creatures to interact with their envirnment towards an end ive seen creatures interact with the environment towards an end, so i have direct evidence for consciousness.

Where does the notion of good and evil come from?

concepts of good and evil are a combination of social contract and instinct. the idea that goodness is whatever god says it is precludes calling god good in any meaningful way, so i reject that concept if thats where you are going.

How could this notion possibly come from a singularity? How could our consciousness come from a singularity?

energy to matter to stars to heavier atoms to rocky planets to organic chemicals to simple self replicators and from there evolution took over. eventually we emerged and began to analyze why we act as we do.

How does a singularity ever not be a singularity?

before the first 1^-43 second, much of the early universe, much of the laws of physics as we understand them cease to function. the singularity itself is fundamentally unknowable. we can really only trace back to very very close to the start.

 

[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.



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, I'm really not interested in your conspiracy theories and misrepresentations.

 

[Cearbhall]

If you really want to talk with atheists about God then you need to understand their reasoning.

The thread title shows that you don't. Atheism is not a knowledge claim. It's a conclusion. I'm an agnostic atheist. When I say "God does not exist," I'm not claiming that I can disprove his existence, though I'm not saying that these atheists don't exist. I recognize that there's a possibility, but it's on the same level as the Yeti. I feel that I can safely say that God does not exist, especially in the form of a specific deity such as the Abrahamic God.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

"feelings" aren't helpful tools either.

I believe there is a spiritual realm

What you "believe" is irrelevant to what is actually true.

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.

Why not the quran? Or the bagavad ghita?

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.

Why would this "truth" be found in a bronze age book?

[quote$
What do you mean you don't "deal" with absolutes?[/quote]

I mean that I don't engage in unquestionable dogma. That's what "absolutes" are.
I accept things tentatively, leaving open the option (however small it may be in some cases) that I'm wrong.

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.

No idea what this means.

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?

Que?

I don't recall ever making any of these claims concerning the universe. So I have no idea why you ask that question.

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.

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Science hasn't found the answer yet

So?

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

I'ld just like to point out that you first stated an opinion (that science will never be able to explain consciousness - merely your opinion) and then in the next sentence your choice of words seems to imply that you pretend that what is merely an opinion can be used as a factual premise.

, maybe the next best place to look is inside yourself which is the only thing you actually have full access to

Or maybe not.

Science does not have access to your consciousness, but YOU do, seems like a powerful statement to me.

I can't objectively study my consiousness.
You seem to be setting things up for an argument of ignorance in disguise.

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

I can confidently say that I put in more effort in investigating your religion then made efforts to investigate every other religion that you don't buy into.

Tell me, how much effort have you spent investigating:
- alien abduction
- scientology
- islam
- budhism
- hinduism
- viking gods
- wiccan stuff
- ...... (this list goes on for a while...)

What's the one thing these "religious failures" have in common?

The most common thing is superstition and arguments from ignorance.

A belief in a god.

... for superstitious reasons.

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.

/facepalm

The idea of God has been around since man was able to think

You don't have any evidence of this claim since written history is only a small fraction of the time that homo sapiens exists.

Having said that, that's a fallacious argument as well.
It doesn't matter how many people believe X for any amount of time. It doesn't make X correct or the beliefs justified.

In fact, the argument actually works against your own beliefs.
If "the amount of time" that something is believed is evidence for it being correct, then hinduism has more supportive evidence then christianity.

and this idea can still explain the latest findings that science is unable to explain. Very interesting!

God-claims can't explain anything at all. "god dun it" doesn't explain anything.
Not once in the entire history of human kind did a supernatural explanation turn out to be correct.

 

[Chriliman]

consciousness describes the ability for creatures to interact with their envirnment towards an end ive seen creatures interact with the environment towards an end, so i have direct evidence for consciousness.

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?

concepts of good and evil are a combination of social contract and instinct. the idea that goodness is whatever god says it is precludes calling god good in any meaningful way, so i reject that concept if thats where you are going.

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?

energy to matter to stars to heavier atoms to rocky planets to organic chemicals to simple self replicators and from there evolution took over. eventually we emerged and began to analyze why we act as we do.

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?

before the first 1^-43 second, much of the early universe, much of the laws of physics as we understand them cease to function. the singularity itself is fundamentally unknowable. we can really only trace back to very very close to the start.

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.

 

[Michael]

Michael, I'm really not interested in your conspiracy theories and misrepresentations.

In other words, you have two completely different standards, one for "science", and the other for anything related to the topic of "God". Any concept associated with "mainstream science" you simply accept *on pure faith*, whereas anything related to the topic of God you simply reject out of hand.

 

[Michael]

energy to matter to stars to heavier atoms to rocky planets to organic chemicals to simple self replicators and from there evolution took over. eventually we emerged and began to analyze why we act as we do. before the first 1^-43 second, much of the early universe, much of the laws of physics as we understand them cease to function. the singularity itself is fundamentally unknowable. we can really only trace back to very very close to the start.

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?

 

[Chriliman]

The thread title shows that you don't. Atheism is not a knowledge claim. It's a conclusion. I'm an agnostic atheist. When I say "God does not exist," I'm not claiming that I can disprove his existence, though I'm not saying that these atheists don't exist. I recognize that there's a possibility, but it's on the same level as the Yeti. I feel that I can safely say that God does not exist, especially in the form of a specific deity such as the Abrahamic God.

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?

 

[Michael]

The thread title shows that you don't. Atheism is not a knowledge claim. It's a conclusion. I'm an agnostic atheist. When I say "God does not exist," I'm not claiming that I can disprove his existence, though I'm not saying that these atheists don't exist. I recognize that there's a possibility, but it's on the same level as the Yeti. I feel that I can safely say that God does not exist, especially in the form of a specific deity such as the Abrahamic God.

Technically however, by claiming that "God does not exist", you *are* in fact making a knowledge claim. Had you simply said: "I lack belief in the existence of an Abrahamic God", that would not be a knowledge claim. See the difference?

 

[Michael]

"feelings" aren't helpful tools either.

Eh? How would you definite any sense of 'morality' without them?

I mean that I don't engage in unquestionable dogma.

Except for any "dogma" that you happen to agree with.

 

[Michael]

Can we please leave your pet plasma universe model in the many, many other threads specifically about that?

Sure, in fact I added the whole graviton idea just to keep it simple and keep my criticism generic. The fact is however, that even some of your beliefs about how the physical universe got here are directly related to *supernatural* constructs galore.

 

[Chriliman]

"feelings" aren't helpful tools either.

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? 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.

Why not the quran? Or the bagavad ghita?

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.

Why would this "truth" be found in a bronze age book?

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.

Tell me, how much effort have you spent investigating:
- alien abduction
- scientology
- islam
- budhism
- hinduism
- viking gods
- wiccan stuff
- ...... (this list goes on for a while...)

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 curious about God and science. All I need to investigate are the things that claim to be truth in my life and those things are the Christian God and Science. I've fully investigate both and thus my conclusion, which I've fully stated on this forum.

God-claims can't explain anything at all. "god dun it" doesn't explain anything.
Not once in the entire history of human kind did a supernatural explanation turn out to be correct.

How can the claim that the universe came from an unknowable singularity explain anything? If the singularity is unknowable then there can never be evidence to support it and thus it takes belief in this unknowable singularity. God is knowable, you just have to believe.

 

[Michael]

How can the claim that the universe came from an unknowable singularity explain anything? If the singularity is unknowable then there can never be evidence to support it and thus it takes belief in this unknowable singularity. God is knowable, you just have to believe.

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In other words, you have two completely different standards, one for "science", and the other for anything related to the topic of "God".

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

Any concept associated with "mainstream science" you simply accept *on pure faith*,

I don't take anything on faith.
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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

whereas anything related to the topic of God you simply reject out of hand.

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Eh? How would you definite any sense of 'morality' without them?

We are talking about finding out how the universe works.
Not about ethics or morals.

Except for any "dogma" that you happen to agree with.

No. I can only repeat myself: I don't engage in unquestionable dogma.