The stumbling block for atheists.

[Radrook]

Are you interested in detailing what it is we are opposed to?

Well, to the introduction of a cause that you think is supernatural by default.

 

[Radrook]

I wasn't referring to you as more I was referring to the most likely response. Semantic games or the usual "ask a question" games.

True! The ask-a-question-game is repeatedly used. I call it the "Ï cain't see!" game actually.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, to the introduction of a cause that you think is supernatural by default.

Personally, I already have a supernatural cause in mind who is not your intelligent designer.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well, to the introduction of a cause that you think is supernatural by default.

"Default"? You called it supernatural, not us.

 

[quatona]

Irrelevant to detection of design in nature.

But relevant to the consistent application of your premise that mind cannot arise without designer.

 

[Radrook]

But relevant to the consistent application of your premise that mind cannot arise without designer.

How so?

 

[quatona]

How so?

If mind cannot arise without being designed by a designer, this goes for the mind of the designer, as well.

 

[Radrook]

If mind cannot arise without being designed by a designer, this goes for the mind of the designer, as well.

The mind you are introducing into the discussion did not arise.

 

[Dave RP]

In my experience, it really comes down to that they just don't want to believe in God. (Psalm 14:1)

So what they do is try and destroy the concept of God, and in many cases they have to continually do this to appease their mind that they're on the right track. That is why they constantly talk about God, particularly Christianity, because they're always obsessing about it knowing it is probably true.

It's that endless discrediting of God in their mind which keeps telling them that actually there is a God, but they have to regularly come up with excuses to remain in that state of denial. That's why there are so many atheists on a forum dedicated to Christianity.

I'm sorry but as an atheist, you've got that completely wrong. You must remember that this is a debating site on a Christian forum so the atheists on here might just enjoy a good old debate with people who have a different viewpoint, or belief system. Personally I am on here to try to understand more about Christianity because I am dating a confirmed church going Christian, and I find it interesting to here what other Christians have to say on various topics.

I fully accept that many people have deeply held and genuine religious beliefs, and those beliefs throughout the world are extremely numerous. But the fact that lots of people believe something doesn't make it true.

I have no interest in discrediting any of the available deities or indeed deities which have been invented yet, or those now out of fashion. My girlfriend says she truly believes in God and Jesus and she has a personal relationship with God, it gives her comfort. Personally I simply don't get it, the whole concept of this all seeing, all powerful God who can just "make" things is, in my opinion utterly ludicrous. Let alone the Bible being the word of God, resurrection, angels, Satan..... I believe it's all a myth. I have however never ever attempted to dissuade her of her beliefs, if she asks what I believe I just say that all of this, that we see around us is entirely natural and no God is needed, I do not see the need to discredit God in front of her.

For example I went to Church with her yesterday and the vicar quoted from Pauls gospel. In the pub after, we had a chat about Paul and I said he never met Jesus, and he was only quoting what he believed to be Gods word, there can be no evidence that Pauls words were Gods, it's a matter of belief. She agreed that she believes Pauls word is Gods word because the Church says it's so. As the Church has decreed the Bible to be holy, she believes in all of it as Gods word. We left it at that because as it's faith based, there can be no logic. She has been going to Church since she was born, from a long line of Christian church goers, I call it indoctrinated but again that's my opinion.

I can't speak for other atheists, but I only would have a discussion about God on a site like this, which is a discussion forum. Outside of this forum I am left with wondering how otherwise sane and intelligent human beings can possibly believe in the Bible, God, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Buddhism or any of the other thousands of belief systems available, but they do and good luck to them.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The mind you are introducing into the discussion did not arise.

Well, it had to come from somewhere...

 

[KCfromNC]

Irrelevant to detection of design in nature.

And you wonder why people think you're claiming a supernatural creator...

 

[bhsmte]

The mind you are introducing into the discussion did not arise.

Evidence?

 

[Radrook]

And you wonder why people think you're claiming a supernatural creator...

People are free to assume whatever they wish. That doesn't make their assumption true. As I stated, I am merely arguing for intelligent design. It is the atheists who strive to bring in God into the discussion.

 

[Radrook]

Well, it had to come from somewhere...

Well, then you come up against the insurmountable infinite regression paradoxes of both being and location.

 

[Radrook]

Evidence?

The person postulated a mind that isn't part of nature but who created nature. I hypothetically responded by saying that such a hypothetical mind does not arise by virtue of its being the cause of everything in existence besides itself. Please note that there are thought experiments of this kind which are used to discover philosophical truths. There are truths that are discoverable via logic-you know? In fact, such truths were in existence before the scientific method was even formalized. You know, by such persons as Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato?

 

[Michael]

I have however never ever attempted to dissuade her of her beliefs, if she asks what I believe I just say that all of this, that we see around us is entirely natural and no God is needed, I do not see the need to discredit God in front of her.

Technically God can be defined *as* nature:

An Empirical Theory Of God

 

[Radrook]

d

Technically God can be defined *as* nature:

An Empirical Theory Of God

Interesting concept. However, the universe had a beginning. So I guess that your concept would need to reject the eternal nature of the traditionally describeed God and postulate a finite one instead?

 

[Speedwell]

d
Interesting concept. However, the universe had a beginning. So I guess that your concept would need to reject the eternal nature of the traditionally describeed God and postulate a finite one instead?

Not necessarily. The Big Bang may have been a transformation rather than a beginning.

 

[Michael]

d
Interesting concept. However, the universe had a beginning.

Edwin Hubble proposed at least two potential solutions to the photon redshift distance relationship observation, 'expansion' and 'tired light'/inelastic scattering. Scattering shows up in the lab and assuming that's the cause of redshift, it would result in a static universe which could be infinite and eternal as far as I know.

So I guess that your concept would need to reject the eternal nature of the traditionally describeed God and postulate a finite one instead?

Not exactly. It depends on how you interpret redshift and whether one insists that "God" must remain exactly the same. Even in a big bang scenario, it's possible that God could simply take a "piece" of himself and create something temporary with it, which is still a part of him. Imagine for a moment I simply changed the terms to 'Godlfation, and God matter, and God energy. Even in an expansion scenario, God could still be the source of all the mass./energy that we have access to today, and it could still be a "part" of him.

 

[Michael]

Not necessarily. The Big Bang may have been a transformation rather than a beginning.

Exactly.