jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (111 posts)

It is simply not reasonable to believe that a god or gods exist.

  1. cjhunsinger profile image69
    cjhunsingerposted 20 months ago

    The belief in supernatural deities, whether in the fashion of the original monotheism of Aten (Judaism and Islam), the polytheism of Christianity or the animism of the ancients is a contradiction to Man's ability to reason.

    There was a time when Man, limited by knowledge, looked to the sky, himself and existence and reasonably answered the questions with supernatural beings, just as he knew the world was flat and the earth and Man were the center of the universe. That time has passed and as a child puts away the childish things of youth and matures, so too, must the gods be put in the past and we must accept the responsibility of life as our own responsibility.

    1. Jomine Jose profile image80
      Jomine Joseposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      Émotions always trump reason.

      1. cjhunsinger profile image69
        cjhunsingerposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        Emotions, denial and a preferred state of bliss.

        1. Jomine Jose profile image80
          Jomine Joseposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          It's the fool who denies god, so says the wise of religion and the religious prefer to remain fools for god. The wise pocket the money.

    2. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      We strongly believe things we have lots of supporting evidence for, but we "know" things we have experienced. So it's a misnomer to say that committed Christians, for example, "believe" in god. To all intents and purposes, committed Christians know god exists by virtue of the fact that they have (apparently) experienced god (feeling forgiven, supported, chastised, loved by god etc.) No "evidence" (and therefore reason) is required at all.

      But the same internal mechanism that grounds god-belief in apparent experience, can be seen at play in other beliefs. You don't "believe" you had toast for breakfast yesterday, you know you did, by virtue of the fact that you (apparently) experienced it. That "knowledge" is not formed on the basis of evidence (requiring reason), it's grounded in your (apparent) experience.

      So, playing devils advocate (so to speak), while it's true that God belief is unreasonable, so what? Are you saying that beliefs not formed on the basis of reason are not valid beliefs? If so, what does that mean for all the beliefs people hold that are grounded in personal experience. Are all those beliefs invalid? Moreover, if those beliefs are all valid, does that mean, ipso facto, god-belief is valid?

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        Yes, we all experience many things, and form beliefs from them.  We see a UFO and believe in aliens abducting us.  We see a man cut a woman in half in a box and wonder where the blood went.  My grandson "saw" his parents on TV during a football game, then seconds later "saw" them again on the opposite side of the stadium.

        Such things are why we (some of us at least) test our experiences, observations and conclusions before declaring them to be true and real.  And sometimes we don't because we want the conclusion whether false or true: "my wife loves me", maybe, or "there is a god that loves me and watches over me".

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          We automatically assume our senses are reliable, unless we have good reason not to, and we react to things on that basis. So yes, people who genuinely (apparently) experience UFOs (as opposed to people who are lying/ dreaming/ hallucinating etc.) do genuinely believe they have encountered a UFO. Likewise, anyone with no prior knowledge of illusionists/magicians etc. who (apparently) see a woman being sawn in half, will (rightly or wrongly) believe they saw a woman being sawn in half.

          We are inclined to trust our senses because that helps us survive (better to react quickly to perceived danger, and be wrong, than to not react, and be dead). That's why this 49 second film from 1895 had people screaming and jumping out of their seats because they thought a train was coming through the wall.

          The audience belief they were in danger was not formed on the basis of evidence (reason). It was grounded in the experience of (apparently) seeing a train coming. The fact that they were mistaken about what they were experiencing is besides the point. The point is that those people behaved as any rational person would if they genuinely believed a train was coming towards them.

          Likewise, god-belief is often not formed on the basis of evidence/reason. It's a reaction to an experience or set of experiences. Whether people are mistaken about the nature of those experiences is besides the point. The point is that religious people are reacting as any rational person would if they genuinely believed they had experienced the forgiveness/love/chastisement/mercy of an all powerful, all knowing, omniscient being.

          The only difference is that we are able to explain the experience of "moving pictures" because that falls within the realm of natural science. So despite what we see on a screen, we know not to trust our senses in the cinema. But even then, we still feel scared, sad, or angry when watching a film, even though we know what we are seeing is false, such is the power of experience.

          In terms of religion, although we can address religious claims that fall into the domain of science, like bleeding statues etc, the nature of the most fundamental claims about god, mean we are unable to address the question of gods existence. So unlike other experiences that we know are false, we cannot categorically say that religious experiences are false, which takes us back to the first sentence. We automatically assume our senses are reliable, unless we have good reason not to, and react accordingly. Religious people are absolutely no different to anyone else in that regard.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            Just so.  Experience is not that good of a guide when something strange or different happens and we simply apply an explanation or cause to it without ever testing.  It's one thing to jump out of a movie seat in terror (fight or flight); it's quite another to have days or years to think about the experience before drawing conclusions.  And believers do not - they apply a conclusion that fits with a pre-made belief without ever testing it for veracity.  It is viewed as evidence, but is not.

    3. 0
      SirDentposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      Just to clarify, Christianity is not polytheism.  There is only One God.  He exists in three personages, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  Not trying to debate or argue, just trying to set that point straight.

      1. cjhunsinger profile image69
        cjhunsingerposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        SirDent
        You certainly have a right to believe whatever you wish, but believing something is true or factual does not make it so.

        As to how this doctrine came about, I would suggest a reading or research of the Council of Nicaea and the opinion and influence of Constantine on the Council.

        The trinitarian doctrine of Christianity is not original with Christianity, but as most things Christian are taken from more ancient pagan beliefs. Arguably, the Christian Trinity is a copy of  the Egyptian mythology of Ra as noted here, "Egypt’s history is similar to Sumeria’s in antiquity. In his Egyptian Myths, George Hart, lecturer for the British Museum and professor of ancient Egyptian heiroglyphics at the University of London, shows how Egypt also believed in a ‘transcendental, above creation, and preexisting’ one, the god Amun. Amun was really three gods in one. Re was his face, Ptah his body, and Amun his hidden identity (24). The well-known historian Will Durant concurs that Ra, Amon, and Ptah were ‘combined as three embodiments or aspects of one supreme and triune deity’ (Oriental Heritage 201). Additionally, a hymn to Amun written in the 14th century BC defines the Egyptian trinity: ‘All Gods are three: Amun, Re, Ptah; they have no equal. His name is hidden as Amun, he is Re... before [men], and his body is Ptah’ (Hornung 219)." http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/d … rinity.htm

    4. Frank Menchise profile image14
      Frank Menchiseposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      Just trying to answer the main question briefly; God may or may not exist, but the fact remains that believing in God helps the believers in many ways, one of these ways is: because God is hope for those that need hope most.

      1. JMcFarland profile image93
        JMcFarlandposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        You don't need a god to have hope.

        1. 0
          SirDentposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          Just curios, where does your hope lie?

          1. JMcFarland profile image93
            JMcFarlandposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            Lots of things.   I doubt that your Hope lies solely on God.   Does it?

            1. 0
              SirDentposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              God holds it all in His hands.  Would you mind being a little more specific?

              1. JMcFarland profile image93
                JMcFarlandposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                I have hope in the future,  hope in myself and my capabilities,  hope in humanity and the beauty that can be found in it for everything ugly.   It's a very broad question.   I find hope in every aspect of life.

                1. 0
                  SirDentposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  You are right, it is a broad question.  Where is your hope when sickness hits? 

                  When you are hungry and unable to buy food?

                  1. JMcFarland profile image93
                    JMcFarlandposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    When I get sick,  I'm hopeful that I've been sick before,  and gotten well.   I remember that pain doesn't last forever and that there are people who love me who will help me.   When I'm broke and hungry,  I'm hopeful that there are lots of god people or there that help people who are hungry,  and that help is available.  I remember the people that I've fed,  and am hopeful that they're doing better,  and hopefully helping someone else in need somehere

    5. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      http://media.salon.com/2011/12/hitchens.png

      Argumentum ad lapidem. You have written that it is not reasonable, yet have made zero argument for your claim.

      When you use the word "exist" in your title, do you mean exist like Christopher Hitchens exists?

      What is the reason for reality?

      1. cjhunsinger profile image69
        cjhunsingerposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        Phoenix
        I have never met Hitchens and have not heard him talk or have I ever read anything authored by him. I do not understand your question here. Are you trying to say that Hitchens would be on the same level as a god?

        As to your question, "What is the reason for realty", I am not sure of the context here. Are you speaking of the universe, how you define realty or how another may define realty?

        Energy and matter exists, this we know and there are many theories as to it's origin. Would you like to place your belief in such a category?

        Such theistic beliefs are lacking because there is no rational cause to believe that any claim or purported evidence is credible. If you would like to put forth a reasonable argument or evidence, I would be delighted to respond.

        1. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          Christopher Hitchens' self awareness used to exist. Now it does not. Can we conclude that some things exist and then cease to exist? Is that what you consider "existence" - things that do not exist? That is a contradiction. Do you believe that "exist" mean sometimes it does, sometimes it doesnt? Or only when it exists does it exist. It did not exist before, it existed for a short period, then it ceased to exist.  Why does anything exist at all then?

          What is the reason for contingent things? What is the reason for reality? What is the reason for causality? Your position is to discount/dismiss certain potential truths, without merit, unless you can answer these questions.

        2. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          The onus is still upon you. But indeed that is what I or we are doing.  It is what we are doing right now.

        3. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          Based on what exactly? Your experience? You have heard all the arguments and decided? You have made no argument so far. You wrote : "That time has passed and as a child puts away the childish things of youth". Is that a Bible verse? 1 Corinthians 13:11?  It is a nice verse, but has no merit as an argument here.


          Why is there reality, causality, contingent things, logic, you name it? Why? What is the reason?  What is your rational explanation?  If there was no reality, we would need no explanation. Why is there reality instead of no reality?

        4. PhoenixV profile image79
          PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          Evidence of what Mr. Cjhunsinger? Something we can kick the tires on? Put a gallon of gas in it and fire it up and see how she runs? We have a universe of that stuff. We are looking for a reason for that stuff, and it cannot logically be more stuff or we will need another reason, we don't need evidence of more stuff.

          1. Lucid Psyche profile image61
            Lucid Psycheposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            Where did the universe come from? According to established science it did have a definite beginning. And according to the Principle of Causality it therefore required a cause. That cause could not have been "natural" because the natural realm which forms the substance of your fundamental assumptions did not exist.

            1. janesix profile image59
              janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              "Established science' doesn't know a whole lot about the beginning of the universe. We can only see and measure to about 300,000 years or so after the Big Bang. What was in the "singularity" at the beginning? What laws of physics were already present and active? We don't know. Maybe there wasn't a beginning to everything.

              1. Lucid Psyche profile image61
                Lucid Psycheposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                "Established science' doesn't know a whole lot about the beginning of the universe. We can only see and measure to about 300,000 years or so after the Big Bang. What was in the "singularity" at the beginning? What laws of physics were already present and active? We don't know. Maybe there wasn't a beginning to everything."

                This is where a superficial advocacy for established science and logic takes a sharp turn toward an obsolete naturalistic ideology and blue sky speculation, but that's okay. It's SOP when the established facts of science and correctly applied logic clash with the absolutist strictures of naturalism. The atheist / naturalist is forced into arguing against The Principle of Causality, General Theory of Relativity, and The Laws of Thermodynamics. Always good for a laugh.
                big_smile

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              From nowhere as far as we can tell.  And the Principle of Causality (proven false anyway) may or may not have applied to that event.  Probably not as none of the other physical laws existed either...

              1. janesix profile image59
                janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                Nobody really knows whether the laws of physics existed before the big bang.

                I think it's possible.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  What I read is that the laws were created very shortly AFTER the bang (a small fraction of a second as I recall).  Not simultaneously and not before.

                  1. janesix profile image59
                    janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    There are competing theories about the beginning of the universe. I don't think there's enough information yet to decide.

                  2. Lucid Psyche profile image61
                    Lucid Psycheposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    "What I read is that the laws were created very shortly AFTER the bang (a small fraction of a second as I recall).  Not simultaneously and not before."

                    The point in question is that they did begin. There was no natural realm to create them thus their origin is supernatural.

              2. Lucid Psyche profile image61
                Lucid Psycheposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                "From nowhere as far as we can tell.  And the Principle of Causality (proven false anyway) may or may not have applied to that event.  Probably not as none of the other physical laws existed either..."

                If The Principle of Causality is proven incorrect then the The First Principles of Logic are false ... without which rationality is impossible. Always reassuring when an atheist advocates against rationality ... albeit, possibly unknowingly or out of desperation.

      2. Jomine Jose profile image80
        Jomine Joseposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        Complex question.

    6. Tom Ramstack profile image68
      Tom Ramstackposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      If there's no God, who created the universe and how could there be any mutual sense of ethics? In other words, I think you're wrong.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        No one created the universe and there is no mutual sense of ethics.  Almost any action has been considered moral at one place or another, at one time or another.  Murder, cannibalism, rape, child abuse both sexual and physical, infidelity - they have all been considered right and normal somewhere, somewhen.

        1. Lucid Psyche profile image61
          Lucid Psycheposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          " Murder, cannibalism, rape, child abuse both sexual and physical, infidelity - they have all been considered right and normal somewhere, somewhen."

          Notably, under morally relativistic regimes. Point goes to Tom.

          "No one created the universe ..."
          But something certainly did since it required a cause.

    7. Sojourner1234 profile image85
      Sojourner1234posted 20 months ago in reply to this

      This assumption via this forum is more than a little narrow minded. There are more people who believe in a deity on this planet than do not. The specific religions you mentioned are actually rival all other religions combined numerically. Also, FYI... Christianity, it's not polytheistic (perhaps a bias prompted this assertion?). The number of people who believe something is not necessarily the primary factor of whether it is real, but it should at least get one thinking before jumping to conclusions. Why? Well, because there are among the people who believe in 'religion' doctors, lawyers, genius levels of every type and kind... people who have doctorates in psychology, philosophy, theology, every science, history, archaeology, etc. In other words, the level of learning and education does not make or break someone's belief in God (although there is some point to the evidence of a Creator vs. no intelligent all-powerful force in the universe).
      Ironically, I think it would be far greater to post this same scenario/question/statement with a surprise indicated for people still believing that there is no god. Just looking at science should be enough really. Why couldn't this assumption be flipped? Of course you could defend atheism or agnostism with the same initial indication that there are educated people who choose this path... but then where does the evidence lead? Even educated people, if something detracts or distracts from their world view may ignore truth... even when He raises from the dead!

    8. Claire Evans profile image89
      Claire Evansposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      It's not as simple as primitive people looking up to the skies and thinking gods were there.  They claim to have been in contact with extra terrestrials and even drew them on rocks.  They were called gods.  So it wasn't just some figment of the imagination. 

      It's not childish to believe in a higher power.  In fact, it's foolish to think we are the highest intelligence.

      1. janesix profile image59
        janesixposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        Do you always believe what ancient cave men say?

        1. Claire Evans profile image89
          Claire Evansposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          So when they say they've seen physical beings on earth that have interacted with them, are they smoking something and hallucinating? Or could there be merit in their claims? And not just cave men talk about gods.

          Look at the links about the Hopis:

          http://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-le … lds-001041

          The Mahabharatha from the ancient Verdic civilization talks about wars with the god in India.  There are parts in India that are still radioactive.

          http://www.hitxp.com/articles/history/a … -evidence/

          Gods are just aliens.  Where else do you think people got the idea of gods from?

          Here are a couple of pictures depicted on rocks:

          This is from Kimberley, Australia back from 5000 BC


          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12324351.jpg


          These depictions from 6,000 BC, were discovered in Tassili, deep in the Sahara Desert of North Africa.




          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/12324353.jpg

          How did these ancient people think up these figures? It would only make sense that they were drawing what they saw themselves.

          http://www.ancestryofman.com/art/

          http://arcturi.com/AncientAliens/Ancien … tings.html

      2. Disappearinghead profile image89
        Disappearingheadposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        Have you ever seen a cave painting depicting strangle boggle eyed creatures holding ray guns?

        1. Claire Evans profile image89
          Claire Evansposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          Nope, just depictions of the typical alien depictions we have today.

          1. Disappearinghead profile image89
            Disappearingheadposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            What? Greys?

            1. Claire Evans profile image89
              Claire Evansposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              Yes.

  2. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 20 months ago

    The only logical conclusion is an entity, that is actually something that truly does exist. Only it is "existing" not merely exist.  Exist is something that contingent things do from time to time in a temporal reality.  Unlike anything in our reality of contingent things that come into existence and leave existence, existence resides within itself in this entity.  It is the absolute reason for all contingent things whether they began yesterday, 14 billion years ago, one of many,  or always existed, back into infinity. Reality is here, there is a reason for it. That reason only requires itself and nothing else. It does not reside in a causal loop. It does not come and go and it cannot be logically denied.

    Evidence and or empiricism is only as good as the logic that upholds it.  Why drink from a puddle when you can drink from the source.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      The only logical conclusion to what?  The reason for existence?

      Such a "reason" denotes an intelligence as nature gives no such thing.  You have then decided that there is a reason, implying an intelligence, and go on to say that the only conclusion is an intelligence.  This is not "logic"; it is circular reasoning based on an unproven assumption of a reason.  It can be developed this way:

      1.  There is a reason for existence (unproven and without evidence)
      2.  Reasons only come from intelligence (by definition)
      3.  There is an intelligence (from 1 and 2)
      4.  The intelligence must have had a reason to create, thus #1 is proven to be true.

      See?  Around and around we go, with the conclusion proving the premise that was used to prove the conclusion.

      1. PhoenixV profile image79
        PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

        I have not decided there is an explanation for reality, and why there is a reality instead of no reality.   There is an explanation for reality, whether I claim it, you deny it, you claim it or I deny it, or neither of us exist. That is just the nature of truth, knowledge and facts.

        Mr. Wilderness? I assure you "knowledge "exists.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

          I would have to disagree.  "Explanations" come from natural laws and from causes.  As the reality we experience has no known cause, and has no need for a cause, there may not be any explanation.  Regardless of how much we might want one, there may not be anything to find.

          1. 0
            SirDentposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            Just curious, again.  Where do natural laws and causes come from?

            1. PhoenixV profile image79
              PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              Good question.

              It will all digress to this sad

              Can logic be proved (or anything that relies on it) ? By what method?  Or show me yesterday? Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

              I do not believe in yesterday. Prove it.... I would hate to live in the nightmare of physicalism/empiricist/ a posteriori world

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                Yes it can.  But GIGO will always apply - use incorrect or unknowns for a premise(s) and you will get garbage out.  Even if true, it will still be unknown.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              The Big Bang.  I thought you would have known that - that the laws were created in the first short period of that event.

              1. 0
                SirDentposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                I guess I didn't know that.  What caused the big bang? 

                It is my understanding, and I may be way off here, that there has to be a cause before there can be a law.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                  Nothing we know of, although we DO know no cause was necessary.  There may have been one, but one was not required for it to happen.

                  Your understand is indeed "way off".  Quantum mechanics has made a hash of the cause and effect rules that we are all so familiar with, but then I'm sure you know that, too - it's been mentioned a few thousand times in these forums.

                  1. 0
                    SirDentposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    OK.  First, I do not read these forums as much as you may think.  Science forums I hardly ever even look at.

                    So, you are now saying that the effect needed no cause?

                  2. PhoenixV profile image79
                    PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

                    Can you prove anything that you say?

          2. PhoenixV profile image79
            PhoenixVposted 20 months ago in reply to this

            "Explanations" come from natural laws and from causes. 

            Really? smile


            As the reality we experience has no known cause, and has no need for a cause, there may not be any explanation.

            No known cause, there may not be a cause, yet has no need for a cause?

            Really? smile

            I have other matters to attend to. It has been a pleasure. Have a nice day.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

              You have a good day, too.

              Yes, it has been a pleasure, and instructive as well.

  3. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 20 months ago

    rea·son
    ˈrēzən/
    noun
    noun: reason; plural noun: reasons

        1.
        a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      OK - now what makes you think there is an explanation for why a singularity exploded?  I don't think you, or anyone else, has much experience with that phenomenon, or even any idea of what goes on inside one...

  4. mishpat profile image59
    mishpatposted 20 months ago

    No one is so thoroughly superstitious as the godless man. The Christian is composed by the belief of a wise, all-ruling Father, whose presence fills the void unknown with light and order; but to the man who has dethroned God, the spirit-land is, indeed, in the words of the Hebrew poet, "a land of darkness and the shadow of death," without any order, where the light is as darkness. Life and death to him are haunted grounds, filled with goblin forms of vague and shadowy dread.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      An unsupported belief in something unseen is not superstition?  I would have to disagree there - it is superstition almost by definition.  No different than the 7 years bad luck from a broken mirror or the dreaded events that follow a black cat.

      And ignorance of a spirit-land is most definitely not '"a land of darkness and the shadow of death," without any order, where the light is as darkness.' any more than the unknown of death is haunted grounds with make believe forms of shadowy dread.  It is, instead, a curious question to be solved only by death, and most unbelievers do not fear a death that simply ends everything as there is nothing to dread.

  5. mishpat profile image59
    mishpatposted 20 months ago

    Was watching Grimm and part of this was the lead in ... from a classic ... Uncle Tom's Cabin, Chapter 39, Harriet Beecher Stowe... yet it has veracity...

  6. mishpat profile image59
    mishpatposted 20 months ago

    ... but more ...

    It is apparent that the atheist is both the altruist and objectivist at the same time.  While they do not believe in God, that is the one true God, of Christianity, they espouse a perfect "love your neighbor" attitude with words such as "I want to leave the world a better place" coupled with a Rand attitude of objectivism, the antitheist of altruism.

    Its an age old composition, the thoughts of man without spiritual interest or understanding:
    Acts 26:24, And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad .

    versus the man of God:
    Acts 26:25 But he said, I am not mad , most noble Festus; but speak forth the words of truth and soberness.

  7. mishpat profile image59
    mishpatposted 20 months ago

    I'm reading the above comments (not all) about the humongous time frames and spacial happenings in an infinite area, and I really cannot fathom either in my finite thinking.  Is it possible that ones ability to believe in God is related to similar comparatives?  Setting aside personal attitudes and beliefs, is it possible that not being able to design or describe God leads one to the position that He does not exist because I cannot explain Him in finite words and/or thoughts?

    1. Lucid Psyche profile image61
      Lucid Psycheposted 20 months ago in reply to this

      " Is it possible that ones ability to believe in God is related to similar comparatives?  Setting aside personal attitudes and beliefs, is it possible that not being able to design or describe God leads one to the position that He does not exist because I cannot explain Him in finite words and/or thoughts?"

      I think that might well be part of the answer. But for the atheist / materialist, naturalism is an ideology whose strictures are absolute. There can be no evidence that contradicts naturalism. All evidence that contravenes naturalism is simply ignored or summarily dismissed. Scientific discoveries in fields as diverse as cosmology, biology, and quantum physics have made denial equivalent to survival. Ideology comes first.

 
working