There is no acceptable proof of God for atheists

pisslips

For me it is a very intuitive thing.

I percieve things and define things in my own mind, to do that I must define me, I am self defined, then I define existencse as being anything that shares my most fundamental property property of affecting my perception. Of course that doesn't mean you exist but something definitely does otherwise existense would be undefined, the thing I have definied to be me.

Anyway, all i'm saying is i was born, here I am, you are saying things, I am seeing things,. If i attach more weight to certain perceptions than others then I must have a reference point at which to judge against, we'll call it truth. There is no satifactory definition of truth so I Don't attach weight to these things and realise that these concepts like truth are not nessasary for me to be human, just like a cat doesn't need two tails.

The bible is very interesting with thousands of years of commentary on human nature which is universal and transcends timeline. I mean it's great , it has a huge influence on society, the christian philosphy is fantastic, fo me it summed up a general consensus at a time when ordinary people were being oppressed.

Whether it happend or not, i don't know or whther Jesus was the son of god or not i don't know, or whether there is a god or not I don't know but the ideas of these things exist and thats more important than any physical thing. For me it's all the same and irrelevant. I'm still gonna do the same things every other human does anyway. Just like black cows and brown cows both eat grass.

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

And Allah does this with muslims, as Brahma does with hindus, as Ahura Mazda does with Zoroastrians, and so on.

By your reasoning, Allah, Brahma, Ahura Mazda (etc, etc) must also exist as universal, omnipotent, forgiving deities.

Do you believe this? Or are all the other religions wrong about their experiences, while you alone are right about yours?

I wouldn't say s/he is alone though, they're in the flipping majority!:(

chozometroid

robindch wrote: »

And Allah does this with muslims, as Brahma does with hindus, as Ahura Mazda does with Zoroastrians, and so on.

By your reasoning, Allah, Brahma, Ahura Mazda (etc, etc) must also exist as universal, omnipotent, forgiving deities.

Do you believe this? Or are all the other religions wrong about their experiences, while you alone are right about yours?

By my reasoning, a God who exists reveals Himself through His creation.

The Mad Hatter

chozometroid wrote: »

By my reasoning, a God who exists reveals Himself through His creation.

Good point! All hail Allah -- or Brahma -- or...hey, wait.

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

By my reasoning, a God who exists reveals Himself through His creation.

So by that reasoning, God created me but he revealed to me that he doesn't exist???

Dam this guy's a mystery.

robindch

chozometroid wrote: »

By my reasoning, a God who exists reveals Himself through His creation.

So all those other gods exist too?

DublinWriter

chozometroid wrote: »

What is comes down to is this: Atheists just don't like God, or the idea of the Christian God, so it doesn't matter to them if He is real or not. He is not worthy of worship to them. Atheists are their own gods, and as such, are on their own in the grand scheme of things.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, for starters, how do you know that the apparition is indeed God, and not old nick, the great deceiver, aka the devil?

The premise of your metaphor is flawed if you are trying to use it to argue for the validitly of Christianity, because essentially you are stating that any great-big Derren Brown-esque magic-trick in the sky will make the Christian fall to his knees.

Being a Buddhist (ergo Atheist), I would ask questions, such as a) why were you such a sh*t in the Old Testament?, b) is the design of a safe and portable nuclear fission device feasible? and c) is there really a simple proof of Fermat's last theorem?

I'd probably be smited before I could get to question 2 (and there was much rejoicing).

Turtwig

DublinWriter wrote: »

I would ask questions, such as a) why were you such a sh*t in the Old Testament?, b) is the design of a safe and portable nuclear fission device feasible? and c) is there really a simple proof of Fermat's last theorem?

I'd probably be smited before I could get to question 2 (and there was much rejoicing).

1) God had to teach discipline.
2) It's called a bomb.
3) Supposedly, yes.

chozometroid

Oh no, the atheists are attacking! :pac:

I said, "God demonstrates Himself to us through His creation, through the metaphysical nature of our minds, and through Jesus Christ/His Word, which details His interaction with mankind."

This topic is not about every god ever imagined. I believe one God exists, and this God indirectly reveals something of Himself through what He has created. Allah is what the Muslim's call "my" God, but they just hold a different view of Him based on Muhammad's teachings which I don't follow. I have no interest in all the other "veil of distraction" gods. Just because you don't believe in any of them doesn't mean they are all equally likely.

You've all made my point anyways. :cool:

chozometroid

DublinWriter wrote: »

The premise of your metaphor is flawed if you are trying to use it to argue for the validitly of Christianity, because essentially you are stating that any great-big Derren Brown-esque magic-trick in the sky will make the Christian fall to his knees.

Luckily when Christ returns it won't be a magic trick, and won't be mistaken as one. Have a good one.

philologos

DublinWriter wrote: »

Being a Buddhist (ergo Atheist), I would ask questions, such as a) why were you such a sh*t in the Old Testament?, b) is the design of a safe and portable nuclear fission device feasible? and c) is there really a simple proof of Fermat's last theorem?

Just on point A, most Christians wouldn't agree that God was as you describe in the Old Testament. For me, even reading the Torah, God is fair, merciful, but also just to His people and to the rest of mankind.

DublinWriter

Stephentlig wrote: »

Yes but God transcends all knowledge, and our human explanations of how this or that occurs always fall short of his mystery. so my previous post remains a valid one.

This is always the classic Christian wild-card played when they are boxed into a philosophical corner.

If your God transcends all knowledge, then ergo, he is in fact, unknowable by that very definition.

Ah, but then you'll say you can feel him in your heart as he is manifest through his creation.

And to that, I ask you, are we to take what you feel in your circulatory organ as proof for the existence of God or are you going to offer something a bit more substantial?

chozometroid

DublinWriter wrote: »

This is always the classic Christian wild-card played when they are boxed into a philosophical corner.

If your God transcends all knowledge, then ergo, he is in fact, unknowable by that very definition.

Ah, but then you'll say you can feel him in your heart as he is manifest through his creation.

And to that, I ask you, are we to take what you feel in your circulatory organ as proof for the existence of God or are you going to offer something a bit more substantial?

The fact that you exist and are self aware is proof.
When did evolution reach the point where molecules began arranging themselves in just the right way to amount to a "soul" which became self-aware and able to view the images sent to your brain?

DublinWriter

Jakkass wrote: »

Just on point A, most Christians wouldn't agree that God was as you describe in the Old Testament.

Really? And there was me thinking that most Christians formed their beliefs based on what is written in The Bible.

...or maybe it's that you just ignore the bits you find displeasing? A case of Ten Commandments good, Lot's Wives bad? If so, on what authority do you discount the bits you don't like?

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

The fact that you exist and are self aware is proof.
When did evolution reach the point where molecules began arranging themselves in just the right way to amount to a "soul" which became self-aware and able to view the images sent to your brain?

Uhh..

Perhaps, after the rather badly designed structure that was the eye had evolved.

DublinWriter

chozometroid wrote: »

The fact that you exist and are self aware is proof.

Yes, proof of Darwinism.

chozometroid wrote: »

When did evolution reach the point where molecules began arranging themselves in just the right way to amount to a "soul" which became self-aware and able to view the images sent to your brain?

I'd say around the Paleozoic period myself, but I'm no expert.

philologos

DublinWriter wrote: »

Really? And there was me thinking that most Christians formed their beliefs based on what is written in The Bible.

Read my quote again, I'll apply due emphasis to help you understand the context:

Just on point A, most Christians wouldn't agree that God was as you describe in the Old Testament.

DublinWriter wrote: »

...or maybe it's that you just ignore the bits you find displeasing? A case of Ten Commandments good, Lot's Wives bad? If so, on what authority do you discount the bits you don't like?

You've already made your own assumptions on my interpretation of the Old Testament, you have me sussed out already?

I believe that God who led His people out of Israel gave them a plan for their lives, and that He punished them justly for their sins when the time came for them to be led by God to Assyria and Babylon. I believe that God through the Israelites brought us to where we are today under the mercy of Jesus Christ if we so will it.

DublinWriter

Jakkass wrote: »

You've already made your own assumptions on my interpretation of the Old Testament, you have me sussed out already?

I do beg your pardon, what with all the various schisms and all, it's hard to make who's old-school punishment and brimstone and who's peace, loving and forgiveness.

So, just so as I'm clear, you're the 'punishing God' type Christian?

philologos

DublinWriter wrote: »

I do beg your pardon, what with all the various schisms and all, it's hard to make who's old-school punishment and brimstone and who's peace, loving and forgiveness.

So, just so as I'm clear, you're the 'punishing God' type Christian?

I'm both. God has offered us mercy, if we are willing to accept it. God has the authority to discipline us by His power, but he also offers us forgiveness if we are genuinely repentant.

DublinWriter

chozometroid wrote: »

Oh no, the atheists are attacking! :pac:

Um, sorry, I know I'd make for some unappealing viewing on 'When Buddhists Attack', but the OP did posit a situation in which he anticipated the way in which atheists would react.

I really like debating these kind of issues with people secure in their beliefs as I think it gives me a rare insight into the human condition, there's hardly any attack in that, is there?

DublinWriter

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm both. God has offered us mercy, if we are willing to accept it. God has the authority to discipline us by His power, but he also offers us forgiveness if we are genuinely repentant.

So in essence, you're saying we either accept his eternal love or face his eternal wrath?

Zombrex

Stephentlig wrote: »

Yes but God transcends all knowledge

If you know that then he can't transcend all knowledge, so that claim is nonsense.

For all you know God transcends "some" knowledge, or "most" knowledge

To know that he transcends all knowledge would require you to be able to measure all knowledge, which by definition you can't

Stephentlig wrote: »

so my previous post remains a valid one.

It really doesn't, your little paradox about God transcending knowledge doesn't even address my point, that knowing something is one way rather than other way does not stop free will.

Knowing that 1+1=2 does not mean I don't have free will, even though it means I can't believe that 1+1=3

I don't require faith to know that 1+1=2, nor does knowing that stop me having free will. So your claim that to keep free properties of God must be unknown doesn't make sense.

Stephentlig wrote: »

take a rose for example, we can all try our best to describe the rose, hey, even Albert einstein, if he were still alive could describe the fragrance in math, but its never truly the fragrance, in order for us to know the fragrance we need to smell the rose, its the same with God, he surpasses our human knowledge, and the only way to him is through personal experience.

That is all very convenient, considering how unreliable and unfalsifiable personal experience is.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

This topic is not about every god ever imagined.

No, this topic is about how unreasonable atheists are for not accepting that your god exists.

It seems perfectly reasonable for an atheist to ask why would they believe your god exists over any other god.

What you say has demonstrated God's existence can also be used to demonstrate every other god's existence.

So how does it demonstrate your god's existence?

chozometroid wrote: »

Just because you don't believe in any of them doesn't mean they are all equally likely.

Can you demonstrate that your own is more likely?

philologos

DublinWriter wrote: »

So in essence, you're saying we either accept his eternal love or face his eternal wrath?

God loves everyone, but God is also just. Peter tells us that every day in God's eyes is as if it was a thousand years, He has left it as long as possible until the judgement so as many people as possible should be saved.

God doesn't like punishment, but if one is guilty of sin, God will punish them unless they accept the atonement of Jesus Christ for their sins.

Your sins are paid in full by Christ's crucifixion, but if you reject this offer of salvation, you will have to be punished yes.

God gave us a chance to know Him, and God gave us a chance to receive forgiveness. If one rejects this, that is their fault and their fault alone if they have heard about the Gospel.

Zombrex

DublinWriter wrote: »

So in essence, you're saying we either accept his eternal love or face his eternal wrath?

It is pretty easy to say there is nothing horrible in the Old Testament when you just define things like child genocide as "fair and just"

Jakkass can believe that if he wishes, but it is a bit rich to say that atheists are distorting the Old Testament and the picture it paints of God. Atheists aren't distorting anything, they are reading it as is. The Old Testament describes a God who sends his armies out to kill entire tribes of women and children.

It is Christians who have to believe in a just and good God would make ridiculous excuses for actions that if anyone else did them they would condemn as horrific crimes.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Can you demonstrate that your own is more likely?

Not to you, so I'll pass. Do a google search if you are really that interested.
I'll be over here in my corner with my unrivaled Holy Bible. :pac:

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Not to you, so I'll pass. Do a google search if you are really that interested.
I'll be over here in my corner with my unrivaled Holy Bible. :pac:

Let me guess, you can demonstrate this to me but I have to be a Christian first :pac:

I hope by this stage you have re-evaluated the tone of your original post, and possibly had a good think about how you can actually know the things you think you do know, and that perhaps atheists are not the ones being arrogant.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Let me guess, you can demonstrate this to me but I have to be a Christian first :pac:

I hope by this stage you have re-evaluated the tone of your original post, and possibly had a good think about how you can actually know the things you think you do know, and that perhaps atheists are not the ones being arrogant.

To be honest, I don't think that about atheists at all. They may be arrogant, but I don't think they are by definition. I don't think you are being unreasonable, either. I just believe you are wrong, and are missing something. I don't think atheists have good reasons for denying the existence of God. You seem to believe, or at least consider, some very imaginative things, but not God. I think perhaps the scientific community will get closer to God as it slowly embraces the ideas of metaphysics. To me, the problem in the end will not be disbelief in God, but the wrong belief.

My objective in this thread was just to get confirmation of my idea that there is no acceptable proof of God for an atheist. The problem(IMO, no offence) is not in the evidence, but the observer. I have a hard time with the idea that decent people are atheists. I've mulled most of these objections you raised over in my head in the past, and I came out of those "tough times" with the assurance that God is what He claims to be (in great part due to what He's done in my life). I found that although there is much mystery about Him and the way He has done things, I'm eager to continue to grow in my understanding. It just so happens that's what I've been doing the past few years. It is indeed like slowly grasping a very abstract concept. That's why it's said to be spiritually discerned, which is a concept that won't go over well with the naturalist.

Thank you.

DublinWriter

chozometroid wrote: »

My objective in this thread was just to get confirmation of my idea that there is no acceptable proof of God for an atheist.

And from your original post, it would seem that the proof to a Christian is a big, bearded apparition in the sky?

If I turned around to you now and said I was God, would you worship me? Of course you wouldn't, it would require evidence on my part, perhaps a big feckin magic trick in the sky, probably rightly so.

But perhaps I am God, and this is a test of your faith?

It all must be so confusing for you right now.

chozometroid wrote: »

I have a hard time with the idea that decent people are atheists.

Considering the Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition and our own particular local problem with paedophile priests, I know the feeling, but from the opposite perspective.

chozometroid

DublinWriter wrote: »

And from your original post, it would seem that the proof to a Christian is a big, bearded apparition in the sky?

If I turned around to you now and said I was God, would you worship me? Of course you wouldn't, it would require evidence on my part, perhaps a big feckin magic trick in the sky, probably rightly so.

But perhaps I am God, and this is a test of your faith?

It all must be so confusing for you right now.


Considering the Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition and our own particular local problem with paedophile priests, I know the feeling, but from the opposite perspective.

You are taking my OP too seriously. That wasn't intended to be a list of "the most undeniably convincing proofs God could give the world." It's just a vague characterization.
This "bearded man in the sky" (who is that supposed to be?) you mention is not proof of God, to me. I'm certain there would be no doubt it's God when He appears.