How to show an atheist the possibility of God

[Loudmouth]

Do you believe there is an authority beyond yourself that you should submit to? Is your authority truth, or do you consider yourself above truth? Is your authority yourself? Consider this:

The problem is that your "absolute truth" is an arbitrarily chosen deity based on your subjective judgement of which deity is worth believing in. It is no closer to absolute truth than any other non-theistic moral code.

If we believe there is an ultimate authority, how can we know the authority we submit to is the ultimate authority? The only way to know is to question the authority we submit to. If your authority is God, ask Him questions with the hope of learning more about Him.

The problem is that we don't get any answers back. Instead, we get humans making claims about God.

 

[Chriliman]

Because that's how we keep order in society.

Do we have perfect order in society? If not, what's stopping us from having perfect order?

That's the basis of many novels. I rather think not, since I'm designed to think independently. An angel would be much better suited to obey such an authority.

Interesting that you view yourself as "designed". Do you think you designed yourself, or do you think you where designed by something?

That's a mighty non sequitur. You're also coming across as if we're in a pastoral therapy session or a Sunday school class. We're not.

Why do atheists love using the term non sequitur? I'm just asking honest questions

 

[HitchSlap]

Why do atheists insist on avoiding God and instead substituting hamsters and elephants? If you fear God, that's the first step in believing in Him and gaining true wisdom.

Proverbs 1:7
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction."

Why do Christians avoid providing evidence for god/s?
Until you do, then the first step in gaining true wisdom is to believe tiny hamsters power your engine.

 

[Chriliman]

The problem is that we don't get any answers back. Instead, we get humans making claims about God.

This is a valid point, however, if you honestly seek Him with all your heart soul and mind, you will find Him. When you begin to seek God, God has already been seeking you because He loved you before you even believed in Him. This is where faith comes in.

Hebrews 11:6
"And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."

 

[Davian]

Why do Christians avoid providing evidence for god/s?
Until you do, then the first step in gaining true wisdom is to believe tiny hamsters power your engine.

My car gets a bit squirrellish in high-speed corners. What could that mean?

 

[HitchSlap]

My car gets a bit squirrellish in high-speed corners. What could that mean?

What are you feeding your hamsters?

 

[Chriliman]

Why do Christians avoid providing evidence for god/s?
Until you do, then the first step in gaining true wisdom is to believe tiny hamsters power your engine.

Is the fact that scripture that was written thousands of years ago that supports what I'm saying not evidence? Do you have ancient scripture to support your claims to atheism? If you do, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is a valid point, however, if you honestly seek Him with all your heart soul and mind, you will find Him.

So says a fallible human. Until you have God himself saying something instead of humans making claims, you have the same subjective and fallible properties that non-theistic moral codes have.

Hebrews 11:6
"And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."

That was written, translated, and interpretted by fallible humans.

 

[HitchSlap]

Is the fact that scripture that was written thousands of years ago that supports what I'm saying not evidence? Do you have ancient scripture to support your claims to atheism? If you do, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

Scriptures? Seriously? Do you have any idea who the author of Gospel of Mark is?

 

[[serious]]

Consciousness is not falsifiable, so how could it be true that we are all conscious? The answer is that it is absolutely true that we are all conscious, but since we can't comprehend absolutes, we must believe that we are all conscious. Belief is far more powerful than any of us realize, so start using the power of belief.

Generally, the issue of falsifiable or not doesn't come into play for shared assumptions. Let's assume you are right and the existence of consciousness can't be proven or disproven. Well, then we are left with a choice. We can either both work on a shared set of underlying assumptions, or we can simply discontinue the conversation as we have irreconcilably different basic assumptions.

ALL debates ultimately get back to this if you dig deep enough. For example, there is a poster on these forums who often posts "reality can take a hike" if reality disagrees with his interpretation of the bible. There is no way forward from that. If he rejects the usefulness of reality itself as a basis for argument, we are working under incompatible world views so there is no basis to actually discuss anything.

 

[Chriliman]

Generally, the issue of falsifiable or not doesn't come into play for shared assumptions. Let's assume you are right and the existence of consciousness can't be proven or disproven. Well, then we are left with a choice. We can either both work on a shared set of underlying assumptions, or we can simply discontinue the conversation as we have irreconcilably different basic assumptions.

ALL debates ultimately get back to this if you dig deep enough. For example, there is a poster on these forums who often posts "reality can take a hike" if reality disagrees with his interpretation of the bible. There is no way forward from that. If he rejects the usefulness of reality itself as a basis for argument, we are working under incompatible world views so there is no basis to actually discuss anything.

What if we changed the word "assume" to "belief"? By saying you "assume" reality exists outside of consciousness, you're also saying your not certain it exists when you're unconscious.

Lets use an example: Lets say you were walking along and all the sudden an anvil fell on your head and knocked you out. When you finally come to you see the anvil on the ground beside you. Would you still assume(not be certain) that the anvil hit your head and knocked you out and then while you were unconscious would you still assume the anvil continued to fall to the ground without you being aware of it.

It safe to say you wouldn't assume this happened but would rather believe with certainty it happened because you can see the anvil did fall the rest of the way down even though you were unconscious when it hit the ground. You can believe with certainty that it fell and knocked you out and continued to fall and hit the ground.

You wouldn't say "Well I assume it fell and hit my head and knocked me out and I assume it continued to fall and hit the ground, while I was knocked out." See what I'm trying to say? Assuming reality exists beyond our minds is like saying your uncertain reality exists when your not there to perceive it. It makes more sense to say you believe with certainty reality exists beyond your mind because things happen even if your not their to perceive them.

Lets both work on a shared set of underlying beliefs and the underlying belief is that objective reality is absolute and not dependent on our minds to exist, then we can get somewhere.

 

[Loudmouth]

Scriptures? Seriously? Do you have any idea who the author of Gospel of Mark is?

That certainly shows the problems with the theistic based "absolute morality" arguement. Once someone claims that they speak for a deity, they are assumed to be infallible, no matter how fallible their morality really is. It is the dogmatic acceptance of a man made morality that causes problems.

Compare this to non-theistic moral codes where we assume that we probably have something wrong, and we strive to fix those problems as society moves forward. The current attitude toward homosexual couples is a perfect example. By and far, atheists completely support the right of gay couples to forge their own lives and destiny. Many christians, on the other hand, are shackled to 2,000 year old prejudices recorded in a book. They can't change and move towards a moral position.

 

[HitchSlap]

We all make three fundamental assumptions:

1. Reality exists.
2. We can know something about reality.
3. Models with falsifiable, predictive capabilities are better than those without.

 

[Chriliman]

That certainly shows the problems with the theistic based "absolute morality" arguement. Once someone claims that they speak for a deity, they are assumed to be infallible, no matter how fallible their morality really is. It is the dogmatic acceptance of a man made morality that causes problems.

Compare this to non-theistic moral codes where we assume that we probably have something wrong, and we strive to fix those problems as society moves forward. The current attitude toward homosexual couples is a perfect example. By and far, atheists completely support the right of gay couples to forge their own lives and destiny. Many christians, on the other hand, are shackled to 2,000 year old prejudices recorded in a book. They can't change and move towards a moral position.

Why can you think Christianity is wrong, but a Christian can't think being gay is wrong? Answer the question, but I'll probably avoid getting into gay rights, as it's far off topic.

 

[HitchSlap]

That certainly shows the problems with the theistic based "absolute morality" arguement. Once someone claims that they speak for a deity, they are assumed to be infallible, no matter how fallible their morality really is. It is the dogmatic acceptance of a man made morality that causes problems.

Compare this to non-theistic moral codes where we assume that we probably have something wrong, and we strive to fix those problems as society moves forward. The current attitude toward homosexual couples is a perfect example. By and far, atheists completely support the right of gay couples to forge their own lives and destiny. Many christians, on the other hand, are shackled to 2,000 year old prejudices recorded in a book. They can't change and move towards a moral position.

This was one of the many problems I struggled with when I was a Christian. I knew from a human rights and biological point of view, that I had no right to impose my judgments on others, yet I'm left saddled with an antiquated religious view that I'm required to support. The whole "hate the sin, love the sinner" pablum so often heard.

 

[Chriliman]

We all make three fundamental assumptions:

1. Reality exists.
2. We can know something about reality.
3. Models with falsifiable, predictive capabilities are better than those without.

I don't "assume" reality exists, I believe it exists. If you assume reality exists your also saying your not certain it exists.

"assume": suppose to be the case, without proof.

We don't even need proof to know we exist, so why assume we exist, why not just believe with certainty that we exist?

"belief": an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

It makes more sense to me to use the word "believe" instead of "assume" because I accept the truth that I exist.

 

[HitchSlap]

I don't "assume" reality exists, I believe it exists. If you assume reality exists your also saying your not certain it exists.

"assume": suppose to be the case, without proof.

We don't even need proof to know we exist, so why assume we exist, why not just believe with certainty that we exist?

"belief": an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

It makes more sense to me to use the word "believe" instead of "assume" because I accept the truth that I exist.

Ok. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Chriliman]

Ok. Whatever floats your boat.

Are declining to agree or disagree?

 

[HitchSlap]

Are declining to agree or disagree?

Not so much disagree, as you seem to be unwilling to engage in genuine dialogue.

 

[Chriliman]

Not so much disagree

I honestly have no idea what this statement means. If you're declining to agree or disagree then you are uncertain, which would make sense because all atheists are uncertain about their beliefs when you really get to the bottom of things. Please don't take that personally, I'm just making an observation after talking with many atheists.

as you seem to be unwilling to engage in genuine dialogue.

On the contrary! I am very willing to engage in genuine dialogue using sound reason that makes sense.