How to show an atheist the possibility of God

[Loudmouth]

Atheism is illogical because...

To know there is no God one would have to know and experience all things, . .

All atheism requires is a lack of positive belief in a deity. Atheism does not require a belief that no deities exist.

I will gladly admit that there could be a deity. However, I am an atheist because I have seen no positive evidence that such a deity exists.

 

[Chriliman]

I appreciate the effort, but you can't seem to get past one problem: assertions are just that, assertions. Claiming you have the Truth is not evidence that you have the Truth.

Why do insist on "asserting" that my beliefs are assertions? What's true for me may not be true for you, but this has no effect on what's absolutely true simply because we are subjective and can not have an effect on absolute truth, if we could effect absolute truth, then that truth would not be absolute. I "believe" in an absolute truth, do you?

 

[Chriliman]

All of the evidence is consistent with our consciousness being the physical property of our brains. When you damage the brain you damage consciousness. You can alter consciousness by altering the chemistry of the brain.

Do you know what the most important lesson is from 83,000 brain scans? Take a look.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why do insist on "asserting" that my beliefs are assertions?

Because they are.

What's true for me may not be true for you, but this has no effect on what's absolutely true simply because we are subjective and can not have an effect on absolute truth, if we could effect absolute truth, then that truth would not be absolute. I "believe" in an absolute truth, do you?

What's absolutely true has nothing to do with the ability to assert that you have the absolute truth. Believing something to be true does not make it true.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you know what the most important lesson is from 83,000 brain scans? Take a look.

I know that fMRI can predict what a person is thinking.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/409705/mind-reading-with-functional-mri/

I know that we can map consciousness by mapping brain injury.

http://news.illinois.edu/news/12/0410braininjury_AronBarbey.html

That is very strong evidence.

 

[Chriliman]

I know that fMRI can predict what a person is thinking.

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/409705/mind-reading-with-functional-mri/

I know that we can map consciousness by mapping brain injury.

http://news.illinois.edu/news/12/0410braininjury_AronBarbey.html

That is very strong evidence.

Strong evidence for what? Consciousness? I don't need evidence to know consciousness is real because I experience consciousness for myself, why would I need evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Strong evidence for what? Consciousness?

Evidence that the brain is the seat of consciousness. The consciousness is the product of the brain.

 

[Chriliman]

Evidence that the brain is the seat of consciousness. The consciousness is the product of the brain.

I agree, but this doesn't answere the question of how our brains came to be able to produce consciousness. If the brain comes before consciousness, then it only makes sense that something with vast understanding and knowledge "created" the brain. but I understand you think that's possible you just refuse to believe it, instead you choose to believe the possible is impossible.

 

[Chriliman]

Because they are.



What's absolutely true has nothing to do with the ability to assert that you have the absolute truth. Believing something to be true does not make it true.

Can you answere this question: do you believe in an absolute truth?

Or do you choose to withhold belief until the absolute truth is presented?

Consider this, when the absolute truth is presented to you, in that moment you'll realize that withholding belief in absolute truth is actually the ultimate disception.

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you answere this question: do you believe in an absolute truth?

I have no idea if there is an absolute truth or not. What I do know is that following objective evidence and using reason and logic has been very successful, and it appears to be the best way of getting close to the absolute truth if there is one.

Or do you choose to withhold belief until the absolute truth is presented?

I choose to follow the evidence.

Consider this, when the absolute truth is presented to you, in that moment you'll realize that withholding belief in absolute truth is actually the ultimate disception.

What objective criteria do we use to determine if something is absolute truth?

 

[Chriliman]

What objective criteria do we use to determine if something is absolute truth?

This is exactly why we must believe. We can't be absolutely objective we can only be subjectively objective, which is not absolute. So in reality "objectivity" does not exist, there's either absolute objectivity or there's subjective objectivity. If objectivity does exist beyond our subjective minds, it must be absolute and unalterable. If it is alterable then it becomes subjective. So in order to determine if absolute truth exists you must first believe in it, in order to determine that it does not exist you must not believe in it. This is all I have to offer, my beliefs. If you continue to not understand my beliefs, it must be because you don't want to understand them, if you don't want to understand them, then I'm going to move on.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is exactly why we must believe. We can't be absolutely objective we can only be subjectively objective, which is not absolute.

That sounds like a lot of double talk.

What it boils down to is that you just assert that you have the absolute truth. You can't know for sure, and given the fact that many people claim the same access to absolute truth while believing in very different deities, somebody has to be wrong. Perhaps they are all wrong.

Also, you don't have to believe. You can look at the evidence and follow it.

So in reality "objectivity" does not exist, there's either absolute objectivity or there's subjective objectivity. If objectivity does exist beyond our subjective minds, it must be absolute and unalterable. If it is alterable then it becomes subjective. So in order to determine if absolute truth exists you must first believe in it, in order to determine that it does not exist you must not believe in it. This is all I have to offer, my beliefs. If you continue to not understand my beliefs, it must be because you don't want to understand them, if you don't want to understand them, then I'm going to move on.

Why not just follow the evidence?

 

[Michael]

I await your presentation of some testable, falsifiable evidence.

Technically that isn't even necessary to demonstrate the *possibility* that the universe is aware. You'll have to concede the "possibility" aspect sooner or later, with or without "evidence" to support it.

But this is not the Christian "God", is it?

Well, let's see...

The "Christian" God both communicates with, and has an effect on humans. The universe definitely has a tangible effect on humans, and a living universe that operates on EM fields, much like the intelligent structures of our brains, just might help to explain that communication process, perhaps even in purely empirical terms. I don't see why not. As long as you don't mistake the little sliver of the universe that is visible to us from Earth, I really don't see why not.

I didn't think so. But, feel free to respond with some empty argumentation if you feel it necessary.

I started two whole treads on Panetheism for you peruse and comment on at your leisure. No point in hijacking this tread about 'possibilities". Panetheism is in fact an *empirical* possibility, not just *any* type of possibility.

 

[Michael]

Anything else? Hate, Jealousy, Rage? How do we test this? How is it falsifiable?

How is the existence of love falsifiable?

Why can you Christians not reach a consensus among yourselves?

Why would you expect that in the first place? Do atheist have a consensus on *everything* that they believe/lack belief in?

 

[Michael]

The only "mind" than I am aware of is that which is an emergent property of a brain. What does this god use for a brain?

Mostly plasma.

 

[Chriliman]

Why not just follow the evidence?

I assume you prefer your evidence to be "objective". Meaning the evidence presented must be absolutely objective and not a product of someone's subjective mind, correct? Well when this absolute objective evidence is presented to you, you still have to use your subjective mind to comprehend that absolute objective evidence, correct? Well our minds can't comprehend absolutes, which is why even if absolutely objective evidence is presented, you still have to "believe" it's absolute objective evidence because you can't be absolutely certain of this absolute objective evidence. If you could be absolutely certain of absolute objective evidence then what's stopping you from knowing absolutely everything there is to know? The answer is that your subjective mind is what's stopping you from knowing absolutely everything there is to know.

I believe only God can know absolutely everything there is to know.

With all that said, you can either choose to believe what I believe or you can continue not believing what I believe and in reality I have no say in the matter, but I continue to respond because I'm powered by love.

Actually, whether you believe it or not your powered by the same thing, you just need to recognize where love comes from and I've done my best to show you, but if you still can't see it, then I'm leaving it to God to deal with you. Remember God is merciful, but He's also the ultimate judge.

 

[Davian]

Technically that isn't even necessary to demonstrate the *possibility* that the universe is aware. You'll have to concede the "possibility" aspect sooner or later, with or without "evidence" to support it.

I did not think you had anything.

Well, let's see...

The "Christian" God both communicates with, and has an effect on humans.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

The universe definitely has a tangible effect on humans,

Right. Some people get hit by lightning.

lol.

and a living universe that operates on EM fields,

Allegedly "living".

much like the intelligent structures of our brains,

Or, not.

just might help to explain that communication process, perhaps even in purely empirical terms.

A communication process that you cannot show exists,

I don't see why not. As long as you don't mistake the little sliver of the universe that is visible to us from Earth, I really don't see why not.

I would not put forth your credulousness as support for your ideas.

Must every thread on this forum be subject to your rants?

I started two whole treads on Panetheism for you peruse and comment on at your leisure. No point in hijacking this tread about 'possibilities". Panetheism is in fact an *empirical* possibility, not just *any* type of possibility.

 

[Davian]

How is the existence of love falsifiable?

Different goalposts.

Why would you expect that in the first place?

His post implied that modern cosmology was limited to atheism and scientists. What I implied back, and say to you: if you cannot convince your fellow Christians of the veracity of your personal cosmology claims, why take it to the unbelievers? Sort it out among yourselves.

Do atheist have a consensus on *everything* that they believe/lack belief in?

You sentence is semantically broken. Do those that do not collect stamps have a consensus on everything that they believe/lack belief in?

 

[Davian]

Mostly plasma.

Look - it is a face on Mars!

 

[Michael]

I did not think you had anything.

You didn't "think" about anything. You basically handwaved it away without any consideration at all, pretty much just like I figured.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

That's not true. Pickup any book in any bookstore related to someone's experiences of God. I recommend Autobiography of a Yogi if the New Testament doesn't float your boat.

Right. Some people get hit by lightning.

lol.

Er, ok.

Allegedly "living".

It's certainly there. It's certainly shaped like the intelligent and aware structures that form inside of intelligent beings on Earth. It's electromagnetic in nature just like humans.

Or, not.
A communication process that you cannot show exists,

Do you actually think that astronomers can show that dark energy exists or that it has some effect on photons in empirical lab tests or something? The *cause/effect relationship is often assumed* in "science'. Often the *effect* is all there is to work with in "science'. In this case I'm offering you a tangible way for the process to take place, and a tangible way to 'test' it in controlled experimentation.

You're basically applying a *non scientific* standard to the topic of God. Why?