I have heard atheists say they don't believe in god as there is no proof/evidence.
Suppose god(whatever that is) exist as the theist says, what evidence do you expect?
Are you expecting his bones, or shedded skin or foot prints?
What is the evidence you will be looking for, for an omnipotent, omnipresent invisible(by every means) being?
(You have no problem in accepting dark energy or matter which has no proof either!)
The problem for me is twofold. If we found out a being as described by the monotheistic religions was real; I don't know that I could give it the title of God. That would be a term of respect that cannot be attributed to a being they follow. There is nothing good or honorable in the history of the religions. If we knew a being existed that had actually directed the ongoing hatred, wars, and prejudice? I'd be the first to say let's reenact clash of the Titans.
So, to recognize an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being and call it God? He'd have to run a Scrooge scenario. Take me to the past and show me how the three major religions developed without his input; speak in the ears of every religionist simultaneously and tell them to stop the fighting and apologize for all of this nonsense. And they would have to immediately do it.
I am not an atheist; it is very un-natural to be one.
Yes I am an atheist.
Yes it is because I do not find enough evidence.
What would be enough? Hard to say. What would be enough to make you stop believing?
I don't necessarily believe in dark energy or dark matter, but I accept them as the best current explanation for certain observed phenomenon. If better explanations present themselves, I will adjust my beliefs accordingly. This is how I manage all of my beliefs concerning questions of fact. I formerly believed in God, now I don't. If I encounter evidence which convinces me that the existence of God is more likely than not, I will believe in deity again.
There's a few things that would convince me. One would be if prayer actually worked in a statistically noticeable way and only worked when praying to a specific God. So they could set up an experiment where God has to heal an amputee, and each religion submits a priest or elder of their faith to pray over the amputee. Whichever prayer causes a miraculous limb regrowth might just indicate which God is real.
So yeah, repeatable results and objectively verifiable evidence that isn't based on "Oh I just felt Jesus's spirit moving me" type stuff.
Another thing that would be convincing is a logical argument for God's existence, unfortunately all the ones that currently exist are logically flawed in one way or another and most are logically broken beyond repair.
And lastly, how about physical personal confirmation? Jesus or Zeus or Allah could land on my front lawn and introduce themselves to myself and my family, do a few feats that defy explanation, etc. I mean I can't guarantee I wouldn't write it off as myself going crazy but it'd be better than the whopping total of NO evidence whatsoever that gods currently had on their side.
it has nothing to do with proof or what i believe or don't believe. i'm an athiest because there is no such thing as god. seriously , it's that simple.
I'm not extremely religious, but I'm not an atheist either. If I were an atheist I supposed I'd want to see some hard, cold evidence like God himself in his true form.
It is perfectly normal for someone to not believe by the way. Nobody is born knowing that some sort of god may or may not exist. If that's not so, then why are Christians taught that we must spread the word?
just look at yourself... where you came from, where your parents came from.. look at the stars above or the galaxy or the universe... have you ever wonder where they came from.. science can only explain its existence but it can never make such things.. if there is no greater power that existing who is God who holds the earth from not falling.. we knew what gravity is yet we never knew where gravity came from.. I don't think there is a need for us to see god in its form.. what we can see, feel, smell or anything that can be reached by our five senses is enough to say that there is God...
Why you stopped there? All these created by god, whose existence prove that it has been created by more powerful god, which has been created by another more powerful god, which has been......
The existence of all the matter proves only one thing, matter exists and they interact, nothing else.
Why you assume all the matter in existence today, ceased to exist, some time in the past?
I don't think I'm an atheist. However, a lot of people keep telling me that I am very smart so I am getting a little frightened.
Bones would be nice. Shedded skin? eeeeeewwwww!!!!. As far as dark energy, me being a dark skinned individual, do I count? (okay, I'm kidding).
In all seriousness, yeah I do believe in God. I think a large problem is in what we associate with the word God. (grey/white haired old man sitting on a cloud). The Bible itself says to not form any images of the things of the heavens and the things of this earth and to not bow down to them. True believers are to worship in spirit and truth.
It is not even a matter of proof or evidence (none)
It is probably the stupidest pile of psychotic bull*hit ever penned.
Belief in dark matter is still problematical, but it at least has some theory behind it and is ongoing.
Dark matter doesn't claim to love me and threaten to kill me if I don't obey it. Dark matter isn't based on the writings of primative tent dwellers that simply reworded the beliefs of pagan scientists that preceeded it. Dark matter doesn't cause huge numbers of it's believers to kill or persecute entire races and groups of people. Dark matter sits there and behaves it self.
I am not an atheist. The nature all around you is enough reason that there is a supreme God. Science can't even fathom the mystery, whether we admit/believe it or not.
They nature all around you says only one thing, the nature is there. What is the mystery?
Science has already kicked the fairy to death, Read something.
Pointing at nature as an explanation of God's existence is kind of like the "having a baby argument." Having a baby is no more of a miracle than me eating some food and then going to the bathroom. It's years of evolution.
the nature around you that was suppose to be created by a loving god. this nature kills more people every year then all wars combined. this nature has more deadly creatures then there are people. so your trying to say a super-being created this nature, not so super in my eyes.
does the nature really kill the people? or the people themselves kill each other. yes, nature is there. it needs to be taken care of. people are the ones polluting it. the nature has their own way of cleansing. floods and other stuffs like global warming all came from the intelligent products of man. Cancers and all sickness/plagues were also created by people themselves. as the technology arises to its optimum measures, the world is dying faster.. that is why we then would think that nature kills people that in fact, people kill themselves not knowingly. if you would speak about the creatures in the nature, aren't you a creature yourself? does that mean you also would contribute to the "killings" you are saying? actually, animals(creatures) uses their defense mechanism. they are not dangerous if people would not let them to be one. if they are not threatened, they are not dangerous at all
All that lives, dies, so yes, nature does kill people. We all die, even if everything in life goes perfectly, death is the end. Humans were dying in droves (I think 100% of them, no?) long before we started manipulating the environment.
If you believe in a creator, death is part of the creation. There's no getting around that. The creator has either decreed it so, or is powerless to prevent it, or does not desire to prevent it.
If you don't believe in a creator, you're still going to die. Religion doesn't save your mortal life. If you are a christian even Jesus had to die, and he was god himself if the story is correct.
However, 'there is death, therefore there is no creator' is not a valid statement, unless you hold up the notion that no creator would make a universe which featured death.
Why not? Again, if you are a christian, it was the only way to 'save' humanity, by allowing himself to die. (That creates all kinds of other questions, doesn't it?)
Now, does a loving god allow those he loves to go through pain and suffering? If you believe in a loving god, your answer has to be 'yes' as clearly we go through pain and suffering. If you don't, no reason to be upset. Just look out for the bad stuff.
Yes, I am an atheist. I do not believe in what can't be seen, measured, witnessed, or proven. As far as the "evidence" that I would be looking for, I would think that an all-knowing omnipotent being would be able to give ... something. Something that cannot be proven wrong, something that isn't so flawed as an ancient text, something that man did not write.
That doesn't mean I don't see the beauty and wonder that is our existence. I find a lot of poetry in the way everything works together to make our lives possible. I believe in the goodness of people, not because they are afraid of getting in trouble, but because people can be good without the threat of punishment.
Lets leave all religious bigotry aside. What may be the proof, that 'something' of its existence?
Maybe God doesn't want to let you know He's there in a direct manner. Maybe His way is more subtle and individual than that.
and maybe this is a good argument for blind acceptance started and perpetuated by those who gain power over others through the use of religion as a tool for control.......
And maybe it's a good arguement for someone whose had a spiritual awakening.
That's your opinion. But many millions if not billions of people all throughout time have experienced this. That is how so many come to know God. It does not start and end with religion but experience.
Apparently, since there isn't any proof for "spiritual" awakening, then you are obviously the one with the opinion and I'm only stating present day fact.
Untrue. They have experienced something, but attributed to something else, without actually learning a damn thing about what they experienced.
Yes, people deceiving themselves without ever knowing the difference.
Experiences are and can be explain without the need for mystical BS. Something you should try, when you finally become honest with yourself. There isn't any experience in my life, for which, I cannot explain.
You did, and I quote:
Show us those facts? Where are your citations?
Try to be smart rather than pretending to be smart. It can be very annoying.
The fact that there is no present evidence to support the assumption of a spiritual side is plenty.
Citations? You keep asking that and there is no reason, when all knowable knowledge available, shows no evidence.
I don't pretend to be anything. But, your actions speaks volume about yourself though.
In a limited and sheltered worldview, one could convince themselves that an absence of evidence makes fact, but it doesn't.
If you can't provide anything to back up your "facts" then your theories are just so much chewed up fodder, based on "all knowable knowledge available."
Actually, you need to get your facts straight. First off, it wasn't ME who made the assumption and don't have to prove anything. That is on OutWest, and not me.
OutWest was the one who spoke of "spiritual" awakening. And, in present day, the only awakening that actually exists is awareness.
All knowable knowledge, is the knowledge already known to humankind.
Or did you not know that?
I'll remember to use that line when I can't explain myself, too.
You cannot even answer direct questions. So, I don't expect you to be able to explain anything in any sort of context. But, good luck being troubled.
Adding dishonesty to your attributes?
Spend less time tossing insults and you'll find people will answer your questions in kind. But, I don't believe you understand that.
Here's why your answer does not meet any intellectual standards of logic.
By saying that, we have to assume you have personally gone through every bit of knowledge known to humankind, digested and evaluated it like some giant super computer. Obviously, you haven't done that.
No one who was intellectually honest would ever say such a thing as they know very well they have not digested and evaluated every bit of knowledge known to humankind themselves. I can believe that someone with an inflated ego pretending to be smart who tries to baffle with bs might use that as their citation.
The ball is in your court.
And 500 years ago the was no "proof" of electricity or EM radiation, or any knowledge of it. Does that mean it did not exist...of course not. It was that humans were unaware of it. Do you really think there are no undiscovered "things" in this universe? Maybe you should give your head a shake.
And, you talk about me saying things that are "stupid"? WOW!
There happens to be a big difference between EM radiation and spiritual awakening. Too bad, you refuse to recognize the difference.
Really? That still doesn't prove or provide evidence of a spirit that can be awakened.
Never said there wasn't. You attempting to put words into my mouth, is a bad show on you. But, good try.
With all the knowledge of the world at your disposal, could you explain those differences in order for us to recognize them?
"The fact that there is no present evidence to support the assumption of a spiritual side is plenty."
That is what you said, not me. I'm just saying that there is undiscovered "things" in the universe. No evidence does not mean something does not exist.
that's not true in the least. religion is drilled into peoples heads since birth in so many cases, it's kind of scary. the ones that state they had a religious experience, often were either on drugs or drinking, are reformed junkies or delusional in many respects.
I don't understand how it would be unnatural to be an atheist. I think it might be the other way around, really, if by natural you mean the normal state of something. We aren't born with any beliefs, we are taught them from our community, our parents, our friends, our teachers, and a lot of other people and places. As we grow, the beliefs develop as well.
One naturally learns from one's parents and society while one is an innocent child; one does not deny it. All over the world; in all regions and in all times; humans had the concept of a Created God.
Further; the Converse of God with the messengers prophets also confirmes it; these people were honest, humble and non-political, truthful persons; their witnessing of Him is natural proof of the existence of the Creator God. They were human flowers and fruits of nature.
All over the world, in all religions in all times, there are always people who believe in some form of magic. This doesn't mean that it is real. The messenger prophets are not proof that there is a god, anymore than zoroastrian priests prove there are many. If you want to convince someone of the existence of something, you need to come up with something a little better than "someone I think is a great person told me". Think about it, how many people do you know would be convinced by a statement like that if it did not concern religion and a need to believe it?
I believe in the Creator God very naturally since childhood; I did not see any proof otherwise that could convince me otherwise; so I believe in Him.
That is me; others have their own choices; I don't mind.
If you don't mind, why all of the comments about it being unnatural to not think the way you do?
Isn't it simpler to just say you were indoctrinated.
No; really I don't see as to why I should not believe in Him .
They could not prove that the Creator God does not exist.
Eh...always worth a try I guess.
As far as proof, I think I would need the Supremo himself to come hang out with me for a while, so that I can ask him all of the questions that made me question him to begin with. Then again, I think everyone would have to get their own little sit-down, because I know that if I saw someone running around claiming to have spoken to God and gotten all of the answers from him, I would pretty much think they had lost it.
Odds are, we wouldn't understand such a sit down as it was occuring or wouldn't believe that it wasn't delusional or that there wasn't some rational explanation for the experience.
We see what we want to see, based on how it makes us feel.
I don't understand most of the evidence for the big bang. And I submit most posting here don't either, yet we believe what we have been told about it because it suits our preference for a rational, logical, probable universe.
To quote a well known American play (Inherit the Wind) "How do we know god did not 'spake' to Darwin?"
And who knows? Maybe everyone is getting their own little sit down. Every day in science class. To whit: "Put away the old books. I am a rational creator. Everything I do is possible and explainable if you know where to look. But I want you to look. I don't want to just hand it to you. You need to learn some things first. Like how to get along."
Would be wise we learned that before we learned how to turn on a Sun, no? Would be better for the universe if we obliterated ourselves on a single planet before we learned to create black holes, no?
What is God? An almighty being who gives a sh*t about us, then thats the proof I need. To actually see an almighty being caring about us, protecting the young/sick/weak while stopping those who exploit and harm their fellow human being. There is a lot of sick twisted stuff going on in the world today that seems evil (for lack of a better word), this God thing shouldn't be able to allow it to happen if s/he exists and cares at all about us. Sure there may be a God, but it doesn't deserve my belief, those men and women who seek to ease pain and contribute to a better world, they deserve my belief not God.
Is it God's purpose to save bodies, when His children are spirit?
If allowing us to carry out our physical lives with all its dangers of suffering and evil serves the purpose of our spiritual awakening, then God would be accomplishing a higher purpose by His non-intervention.
If you think you are only your Homo sapiens body, then any discussion of such things is pointless. Oh, well!
Here's an analogy for you:
Say a mother receives a phone call that her daughter has been in a car accident and is currently undergoing surgery at the hospital. Would the mother run down to the car junk yard to visit the damaged vehicle? That would be crazy.
By the same token, God does not care what happens to these Homo sapiens bodies. They are not His children. They are temporary vehicles to aid in the temporary consciousness of His dead-asleep children. Only through that temporary consciousness can His children find a way to awaken. Gautama Siddhartha Buddha did it. And perhaps so did a few hundred others in humanity's history. Gautama Sakyamuni may not have believed in God, per se, but he had other methods for achieving the needed humility.
In the final analysis, God may be the aggregate sum of all His children -- the real "you" behind those beautiful Homo sapiens eyes.
This would be why Christians do not value human life.
It seems very convenient that it serves a higher purpose to not interfere. My problem with that highly convenient argument is that what is done to us physically can harm us beyond the physical. Call it the soul, or your personality or the id or whatever, it is harmed when an unjust harm is done to our bodies by other human beings. It is neglect when a supposed God allows that sort of harm to happen. I knew a 7 year old girl who harmed herself and was suicidal because of very early abuse. This 7 year old little girl was harmed well beyond the physical, and that that should be allowed by a God that is supposed to care is absolute BS, complete codswallop. I happened to know this little girl because at 13 I was both very suicidal and did self harm myself. I spent years in care battling PTSD, dysthmic disorder, severe chronic depression and borderline personality disorder. I met some amazing and very hurt and angry people, not all of whom lived to tell the tale, each of them is as far as I can see proof of the lack of a God. They didn't just suffer rape at the hands of their fathers, or broken bones or even the witness of a murdered sibling (one friend saw her mom kill her little brother) they suffered with scars on what you might call the soul and we determined to totally and completely destroy themselves. Each suicide because of abuse is a proof of the lack of a God, each slave sold today is a proof of no God (and believe me, the slave trade is very strong and rich in the world as we speak). Far as I have seen in my life there is no proof that God cares, and beyond that it doesn't matter. Don't matter if there is a God or not cause it don't give a sh*t about us.
This analogy isn't analogous of anything. It would be if you compared the mother going to the hospital to pouring herself a drink. God seems to be pouring himself a big glass of whiskey while us humans struggle in the hospital on machines waiting for that loving parent to show it cares.
I feel for your experiences in life and I am sorry you had to be subjected to that level of suffering.
"Each suicide because of abuse is a proof of the lack of a God, each slave sold today is a proof of no God "
These things are evidence(not proof) that IF god exists, god has different priorities and wants than we do. If god does not exist, than they are the works of humans only.
Either way clearly if change is to happen, it is humans who must make that change, since no religion has ever demonstrated that god is normally directly involved in any way.
These things speak more to the interpretation of god made by religion.
They do not speak to the existence of god.
If god exists, I would fully expect you (and I would back you up 100%) to ask god why you and others were abandoned this way to life.
Perhaps the creator is malevolent. Or lacks control.
Or has a reason.
I have no idea what that reason would be, and I don't offer this viewpoint in any attempt to undermine your personal achievment in surviving what life has thrown at you.
Clearly if there is a god, than god has chosen to leave it all in our hands to sort out.
Which is why we should continue to talk about it.
If no god, then the forum is meaningless anyway.
I wish you well.
No, I'm not an atheist.
Would an all-knowing, omnipotent being want to prove anything? What if such proof were counter-productive?
We were each created in God's image. That makes each of us inherently non-physical, spiritual and immortal sources of creation. Yep, baby gods! But that part of us is sleeping. Most of us follow ego rather than the spirit. Heck, I'm having a hard time breaking the ego habit myself.
How do you wake up that part? Yes, putting on a flashy show of power would create a certain "wow" factor. "Oh boy, proof!" The down side of this is that ego feeds on this kind of stuff. And ego is the key barrier to spiritual awakening.
God wants his children back. He wants them to awaken. The Homo sapiens bodies are only a means to an end.
Nikki says "flawed [...] ancient text." And she's an expert? Hmmm-m-m. Does she know that some of those supposed flaws are clues to a biblical timeline compatible with those of science? And there are many others.
There is wisdom hidden in the Bible, but it takes humility (the opposite of ego) to find it. The very act of searching for that wisdom elicits one key ingredient needed for spiritual awakening -- humility.
And men wrote the Bible? Why not? If the men were inspired by the spirit, then the Bible likely has spiritual value. Parting the sea and walking on water are the types of things that only spirit can do. A purely physical being cannot bend, break or otherwise circumvent the laws of physical reality. And that's just simple logic.
So many atheists and skeptics focus on the crimes of people who were supposedly related to religion. On closer analysis, those people (popes and other clergy) were following ego, rather than the teachings of Jesus. But even after being made aware of this, many skeptics keep on blaming religion. So much for their intelligence and logic. I would dare guess that any proof would of God or miracles would go right past them, unnoticed or disbelieved.
ibeahmad, how do you figure it is un-natural to be an atheist? You and every human ever born were born an atheist. lets suppose two twins are placed up for adoption right after birth. One is adopted and raised by a christian family while the other is raised by a muslim family. What religion do you assume they are going to believe in, if any, and why?
Alot of people are raised in atheist households and once adults come to believe in God. Believing in God and being religious are not the same thing either.
I am an atheist for several reasons. Number one being that there is absolutely no evidence that there is an intelligence behind the physical universe. Science has proven evolution to ba a fact. One that is denied by creationists, but a fact nonetheless. Therefore all of the many different creation stories from all of the modern and ancient religions have been shown to be false. This makes me question all of so-called revealed scripture. If it starts with a creation story, which is proven to be wrong, then why would I have any faith in the rest of the scripture?
Scientists have pushed the boundaries back almost to the dawn of the universe, and there just isn't any room for God to exist. If he/she/it were to exist then the sort of god it would be is one which had nothing at all to do with the creation of the universe, which is an entirely natural process. Therefore, God is unnecessary.
Another reason I don't believe in manmade gods, is because there are so many to choose from. Since ancient times, to the present day, there have been thousands of gods people have worshipped, yet with time these gods are forgotten, to be replaced by others. This is evidence that the idea of gods exists only within the human mind, and has no objective reality.
Another reason, I have turned against the belief in a deity is because of the hatred, bigotry and violence committed in the name of these various gods. There is nothing to inspire confidence in a god who desires its followers to kill and torture in its name. I try to imagine how peaceful the world would be without all of this religious anger.
Another reason I don't believe in gods is because there is historical evidence concerning the development of these religions, and there is nothing supernatural in them at all, only primitive man's attempts to understand the world. Now that science has a far better understanding of the world than relgion ever had, religion is no longer needed as an explanation.
Looking at the world, where Islamic fundamentalists and Christian Evangelicals teach hatred of anyone who is different to them, and where millions have died and are still dying to the greater glory of some foreign god makes me long for a day when religion will disappear from this world, and people can learn to live with a peace based upon rationality, reason, science and empathy. Whilst religion remains however, this can only ever be a dream.
When I watch the news, and see mass demonstrations of Muslims, chanting death to the West, death to Christians etc, and see an ugly hatred on their faces, or see the latest bombs which have blown up innocent people by such fundamentalists. Or when I see Christians demonstrating at the funerals of serviceman in the USA, with slogans, such as 'God hates fags,' or when I see modern, seemingly intelligent Americans calling for the banning of the teaching of evolution in schools, or for the introduction in the USA of the death penalty for gay people. Or when I see Sikhs or Hindus in India killing or being killed by their Muslim neighbours. Or when a Christian kills innocent children in Norway in the name of that peaceful Jewish carpenter. When I see all these things, I recoil in horror and am so glad that I am far removed intellectually from such primitive barbaric belief systems, and can't help feeling disgust when I hear people in all faithfulness talk of the power of their loving god, who suffers people to spend an eternity in the torments of hell. I say no to such beliefs, and am thankful for my atheism, which has freed my mind from such bigotry and created a truly wonderful view of the universe based upon science and reasoning. I have found that the universe is much bigger and awe-inspiring and beautiful by the use of scientific understanding than any small narrow-minded religious belief could ever allow for.
Why blame the Creator God for the atrocities? These are doings of the human beings; not done by the Creator God. The conclusion drawn is wrong.
I don't blame the creator god, because there is no creator god. It is the belief in such a being however that is used as an excuse for hatred.
God created the victims, he created the evil spirits in men, he created the men doing horrible things, he created the earth in a way to blow up occasionally... and on and on.
It's impossible to NOT blame a god that created the universe for the problems of the universe.
This is logical.
Well out of order! Clean your act up!
This is a religious thread ya know! No logic allowed, god said so.
He has created the solution also; why not to look for them and take beneifit from them.
I think this has got to be one of the biggest cop outs I've heard yet. Let's see...I give someone $1,000,000 and they take it and spend it on cocaine and kill themselves and it's my fault.
Freewill from God is not His fault. And does not absolve me of my responsibility.
"Here is your life. Do with it as you will. If you do what I require of you, you will be blessed forever. What do I require? Well, here's a collection of books written by some men that believe they know what I want. No, I'm not going to tell you which ones to believe, you need to work that out on your own. I know they disagree with each other, but if you approach this in the right way, you'll work it out. Oh, by the way, if you get it wrong it is an eternity of torment and suffering. No, I can't help you work it out directly. I don't work that way. You'll need to sort it out and take your chances."
"PS. I love you"
Religion in a nutshell.
My parents were way more hands on than that. If my parents raised me that way, certainly society would have at least some questions for them, no?
But the Created God does not force anything on anybody; He has fixed rules that should be followed.He has given freedom of will; that is its cost.
Forget everything I wrote before. The main reason I am an atheist is because of the attitude of theists. When I look at the religious, the argument for there being no God is made all the stronger. It is ironic that the religious believe it is their duty to bring people to Christ or Mohammed, or whoever, yet it is their views that make so many people turn away from them and their gods.
I am an atheist, because I don't believe it's possible that a god exists. I've yet to have the heavenly father whisper into my ear and tell me what I should be doing with my life. When he does, I will believe that a supernatural being snapped his/her fingers and created a universe, created a planet and created humans. Until then, I'm good with believing in common sense. Common sense tells me that a god isn't possible. Forget the bible, forget science, just open your mind to common sense. It's really not that hard.
This is the best argument I have yet heard an Atheist use.
(I'm either an Atheist or a Secularist).
1) It's absolutely impossible to prove a god exists or does not exists. A god, by definition, is beyond human comprehension.
2) Thus, any countless thing could be a god. If we can't define a god, or disprove a god, then ANYthing COULD be a god.
3) Thus, there is equal credence to saying that a Flying Spaghetti Monster is the Lord and Savior to saying that Jesus, Abraham, Moses, or any other God is the Lord and Savior.
4) Thus, all religions refuse to believe in at least one god or another. And "Atheist" is defined as "the lack of believing in a deity of some sort".
5) Thus, EVERYONE is an Atheist, especially Christians. They have a commandment that demands them to be atheists (don't worship idols, or whatnot).
This is a perfectly logical conclusion, and it's the best one I've ever heard.
Why believe in a Zombie when you can entrust your life to a Plate of Spaghetti?
I am expecting an all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, and infinite 'God' to KNOW HOW, and BE ABLE to provide evidence of his existence TO ALL!
If the Bible claimed God to be as small as an ant, as weak as the gravity of an atom, and as helpless as a feather in a storm, I could forgive 'Him' his failure to provide evidence of his existence. But it doesn't!
Is that a satisfactory answer?
Your reply does it for me!
It's all a pile, the myth is a hateful one and will be abandoned soon hopefully. I mean how long can someone believe in invisible fairies before we start institutionalising them?
No. I'm not asking about god, I'm asking about the evidence you expect?
Suppose somebody says someone has bitten him, the bite mark fitting with the dental impression of the accused, is considered as the evidence. As an atheist asking for evidence, what sort of evidence you expect, if God exists? What evidence will be acceptable to you?
It depends what 'type' of god your are discussing; you have left this part out (intentionally, I know).
It doesn't really matter 'what' we expect to find, we just expect to find 'something'. A painting will most often be signed by the artist. A car will have a manufacturers badge on the outside and a serial number on the inside. There are other very subtle clues as to something which has been created, such as brush strokes, fingerprints, tool markings, etc.
I would expect to find at least subtle clues left behind by a god who has abandoned us, and OBVIOUS clues by a god who loves us.
The only evidence I would accept is that which cannot possibly be created by mankind or ever occur in nature. What about a cubic planet for a start. That should be EASY for any god!
How can I know what the theist does not know? They are yet to decide whether god is an object or concept!
What if the nature is created by god, or he designed planets to be spherical?
Planets take on a spherical shape because spheres are more economical at containing matter than cubes and all other shapes.
Things that are created do not always need to be economical in their behaviour, unlike everything in nature. If you want to say god designed planets to be spherical, you first need god to design the atom in order for matter to form into spheres.
Like I said, a cubic planet would give us almost undeniable evidence of a god - unless god is hiding from us. 'He' is certainly doing a good job of avoiding me!
Yes I am atheist, I feel like I would like to see scientific evidence for a higher power. Science and new theorys have to be perfect or they will be destryoyed in the scientific community. A scientist's whole carrer can be destroyed by simply hinting that an illogical theory may be true, But with the THEORY of God, you can't touch it because it's religion and "Off Limits."
Anyone can start a religion based upon anything for any reason and say that it's true. Shoot, I can go do that right now ON HubPages, but it's a personal thing. If you belive you belive, If you don't well then, you just don't.
Whatever you belive, Good luck with it.
What sort of evidence you expect?
Isn't the 'universe' an 'evidence'(of the creator god, as the theist claims)?
The evidence is what? Goddunnit?
Religion has no evidence, none, nilch. There is a good reason for that.
It's all myth.
if god exists, what one believe or not believe, has nothing to do with it. In fact existence cannot be proven. Try proving your hand exists!
All you can do is show your hand, but even that will be useless in front of a blind man. All you can do is explain as your right hand exists you can....
Similarly the hypothesis will be "lets assume god exists"
So the theory'll be god exists hence.... So far no theist was able to form a theory with the god hypothesis, hence(along with other factors) we can assume that the name "god" does not resolve to any object in this world. As only objects can exist, and as god is not an object, no god exist. God is a concept, only in the mind of immature humans!
Assuming the blind man has a hand and the ability to deduce with reason he can come to a fairly safe conclusion about my hand as well as his own exist as "objects" by feeling it unless we become pedantic, a lot different situation to trying to make a concept or as I call it a myth into an object I would have thought.
Well, it's completley based on perception, I personally don't see the universe as a creation of god. So, in turn I don't see that as evidence to support the theory of Gods existence.
It is beyond the purview of science; science only discusses the things physical; the Creator God has created the things physical but He is not physical, so science cannot perceive Him. Science is not desighned to know of Him.
How did you realize the truth?
How did you make out that god is not physical but only conceptual, (conceived by humans)?
The Creator God is attributive; He is not the creation of any human concept whatsoever. His attributes are evident in nature and are working before the birth of human beings.
Only that which is physical exists and has attributes. According to you god is not physical, hence does not exist. How a non-existent thing got attributes?
Do your thoughts exist before you speak or write them? If so where do they come from? If the brain, what initiated that process? What caused the first neuron to fire? "Where is the thinker of the thought?" (D. Chopra)
If your thoughts exist before you give them voice, do they not have attributes? Do you not have thoughts you class as useful and those you class as not? Good or bad? Clear or muddy?
I submit if your thoughts exist and have attributes, so can other non-objects.
so can god
First of all, Chopra is a liar and a fraud as his books will clearly demonstrate.
Secondly, you are asking questions that do indeed have answers, but they are not the answers that will validate your conclusion that gods can exist, because the answers are based on the physical world, while gods are not.
What do you mean by "exist"?
For your information, thoughts does not exist.
If you are using the definition of 'object' (has space and location) for your definition of exist, then yes, you can't point to a thought and say 'there it is'.
Modern brain theory is more prone to think of thought as an activity.
But surely you are not telling me that the thoughts are not occuring or that they are not a part of reality. Of course they are. If they weren't happening, you wouldn't be telling me that they don't exist.
They are occuring. They are not occuring totally in your brain. At least science has not demonstrated that they are. They are your brain's activity.
Activities vary so of course they can have 'attributes' (good, bad, fast, slow, constant, sporadic)
So if god is an activity/concept etc. rather than an object, that would still point to a god object to perform a god activity. Just like your thoughts point to at least your brain, your body, and whatever makes it go.
The only real debate is whether any activity that we can observe can be attributed to god.
If A Troubled Man is correct, no activity we observe can be attributed to god. This doen'st follow for me because IF you are postulating a god who created everything we see, than everything is an activity of god. If you think there is no god than nothing is and we're back to opinion again.
As to Chopra being a liar, never met the man, only read some of his books so have no idea whether he believes one thing, but is writing another with the intent to decieve a total stranger to accomplish. . . what exactly?
If god is an activity/concept then you will find a human doing that activity, not a god. "Running" is an activity, you don't claim "run" exists, do you?
Only objects exist. If god is an object, he exist by definition, if he is not, the he does not!
Run is not an object. Run is an activity. What are we saying that is different from each other?
If god is an object, god exists. No issue with that either. The only issue is whether any activity we see points to god.
Rationalists say not.
I don't think a rational position has enough information to support that to a certainty.
Chewing on what 'exist' means is just a distraction.
You don't claim running is just an illusion, do you?
Yup, The simple question is whether anybody can explain it or not, rationally.
I only ask the question whether you believe in sun(if hand is too small) or it just "exists".
Only a theist can claim he believe in existence, without knowing he is contradicting himself.
Similarly only an atheist(by that I mean those who ask for proof)will claim he does not believe in existence.
Both are wrong.
Only past events can have proofs/evidence(and it is to persuade the jury), while existence is present and is in no need of proofs.
Legal profession need to persuade, hence they use proofs, while science only explain, hence no need to prove, but need to be rational.
Where do you come up with this? Love exists, does it not. It is not physical but just a feeling. According to you it does not exist.
Love is a concept. It does not exist in physical reality. Look it up.
What evolution guy wrote.
Or tell us what do you mean by "exist".
Exist: to have being in a specified place or under certain conditions; be found; occur
to have actual being
To "occur" is the meaning that best fits this description of love. And "to have actual being" best suites my definition of God. He's a living being.
If you want to use a word consistently and unambiguously you should define and it should have only one meaning.
So if exist means to have actual being(ie, physical presence), love does not exist.
Common talk and scientific language is different.
As long as you use words inconsistently, you will never understand anything and can go on arguing for "god".
It's about the meaning of existance. Love and other non-physical things still do exist.
If only yo can tell what you mean by :exist" . Will give you an example.
Define exist and use it consistently in all.......if you can!
Is this a grammer lesson? I finished school many years ago, promising to never go back.
Interpret it how you want. And remember in the english language words do have multiple meanings. Except "argue"...it usually has just one meaning.
Then the schooling was of no use to you!
And let it be known that a human learn through out his life.
Yes, but the problem with a statement like 'love does not exist' in this context is that you are stating that it has no functional reality. How someone feels is the primary trigger for what someone will do, so to say it has no functional reality is simply not observably correct. Emotional activity is real, though different for eveyone.
Example, 'nothing' does not exist by the objective definition you are using, but no object can be defined unless nothing is a feature of reality. The space an object takes up is defined by where it stops and nothing starts. Nothing is essential in order to understand something.
Saying 'love does not exist' is a less accurate statement than 'love is not an object' in this context.
Emotions are what people feel. It is part of their life, but not part of reality(meaning nature). No "love" exist in nature. How one feel is important, only for a psychologist/psychiatrist/neurologist and the person who feel it. It does not concern others or anybody who study nature objectively.
"Nothing" does not exist. In fact, the absence of everything, we call nothing. We generally call it "space". And it is "space" that gives shape to everything. So space does not "exist" and space can only be negatively predicated.(In nature there are only atoms separated by space)
Only objects exist. (Object is that which have shape. To exist is to have physical presence, that is shape and location)
See all these are true in common parlance. But scientifically you cannot use exist in any of these. Science(Physics) deal with objects, as only objects exist in nature). Rest are concepts, which need an intelligent brain to conceive, with out which it will not be there. Say, cold is actually an absence of heat, both of which are concepts, which need to be differentiated.
In another thread, you said you can't prove your chair exists???
Don't you even understand the difference between "to exist" and "to prove" to exist?
Okay, but really all you are doing is defining something as irrelevant by definition which keeps you from dealing with an activity that actually has a real effect.
You are posting here because you want to. Want is an emotion. If you didn't 'want', this conversation would not be occurring.
Anyone approaching the question rationally is doing so because it pleases them. Emotion again.
For something that has no reality, it sure does shape the world.
A concept is an idea. Love though is an emotion, a very real one that most people experience. It can therefore be said to have a physical reality, because emotions are created by the brain. Yes, they may be nothing more than brain chemicals or electric activity, but this would nevertheless mean they have a physical location.
But I suppose this would also indicate that a concept has a physical reality, if only within the human brain.
Good for you! I think God is an American, just as Jesus was a good Englishman. He even liked cricket apparently.
Yep, he's an American all right. But he had to rid the nation of all those savages first before obtaining citizenship. I think he prefers bingo to cricket though.
I believe in a higher power I call God. I work on my relationship with that power and consider myself spiritual, though not religious. My view is that if I work to tap into my higher power, I am provided with strength not ordinarily my own and wisdom beyond my usual capacity. Thats it. There is no 'god's will', nor does god make things happen in life. For me, its more like 'things happen and god is there.' And that power definately is, for me. There have been many, many times when I know I am behaving, speaking, acting, etc. in a manner that is not my usual capacity. I get through times when I know that without that strength, I would not have made it. I am convinced that the power exists. I can see it everywhere around me.
I am beginning to wonder if life might not be much easier if I believed in God. Certainly it would provide a hope, which atheism cannot give. And even if that hope is false, perhaps hope is worth having for its own sake. In addition, we are becoming an increasingly religious world. A few decades ago, in Europe, it looked like religion was disappearing, and that the secular society would entirely replace it. Now though, Christianity has made a comeback, with the Church of England for the first time in decades having to build new churches, and Christian evangelicals from Africa spreading the Christian message to the British. In addition, the huge increase in Islam in Europe is changing the religious face of countries, which once prided themselves of their secularism.
It seems that a battle is under way in much of the world, between the religious on the one hand and the atheist or non-believer on the other. And considering that atheists only make up 2.5% of the world's population, it seems obvious which side will win. Added to this, the increase in other forms of belief, including in fairies and New Age religions, and the loss of trust in science and rationalism, it could be said that the ideals of the Enlightenment are to be lost.
So, whilst, it goes against my nature to believe in illogical reasoning, which suggests that the world is 6,000 years old, or that there are fairies which surround me, I am coming to the conclusion that to try to believe in such things would be easier than to have a battle of trying to justify my atheism in a world that is increasingly unwilling to tolerate it. For this reason, I have recently bought some religious books, and am in the process of trying to force my rational mind to accept the irrational. Only time will tell, if I succeed.
You make it sound like a war, where logic and reason will lose !
Hope exists within all of us and doesn't require religion or a belief in a nonexistent being to sustain it. Rather the other way around, if you have religion you hope you're right, otherwise what a waste of time it has all been.
If faith and prayer was the answer to what ails this world we should all be in Hog Heaven, however ever since I can remember I have heard Popes and other religious and church leaders praying for World peace, and end to famine, poverty and disease.... and in amongst all the Hallelujahs and Amen’s Not once have I heard their prayers being answered.
I would imagine there is a lot of praying going on in East Africa right now and their God won't even send them rain.
In all my travels around this planet I have been in many extremely religious countries and trust me when I say this many of them are among the most God forsaken places on Earth.
Why do you doubt yourself and what you know in your very being to be true ?
The fact that it appears that many more people seem to be returning to religion is easy to explain.
To me they are the ones who are losing hope, and when hope is truly gone then they feel there is only religion left. How sad a statement that is because to me they are saying; “ Lie to me ! Tell me everything is going to be alright in the end ! Make me believe it ! Protect me from reality !”
When people lose sight of reality and hope then they really are lost.
Yes, I agree with what you say concerning prayers not being answered. Maybe this is the fault of religion in believing that they can be. Although to the religious, they believe their prayers are answered, just not in any practical or physical way. People convince themselves God has answered their prayers by not answering them, and that thus the bad things they are experiencing are for a reason, usually to make them stronger, even if their problems are health conditions that will lead to death.
As to the battle between the religious being like a war, where rationality will lose, I see signs that this is already the case. With every year, the number of people who believe in evolution decreases, and those who believe in creationism increases. 150 years of evolutionary science seems to not have produced any change in the way people view life.
I read of the battle in American schools to teach Intelligent Design instead of evolution, and the voices are becoming louder, and may eventually be impossible to ignore. I also read of Islamic groups in the UK, who have posted signs on lampposts, declaring that Sharia Law is now in force, and that alcohol, uncovered female heads and homosexuals are now banned. And that even the gentle Church of England is now embracing more fundamentalist evangelical views.
So, against all this increased religious activity in the world, it does make me doubt my atheistic beliefs, especially when it puts me into another minority group, which is condemned strongly by most in society. And it could be argued that returning to religion could be some form of protection against the religious. If I become one of them, it must be more comfortable than looking in from the outside. And yes, I do agree that religion is a way of lying to ourselves, by offering us the hope of an afterlife, or that there really is someone up there looking down on us, whether He answers prayers or not, but maybe lying to ourselves is a small compromise in exchange for the benefits that being one of the religious majority would bring.
people cannot see the air.. but they believe it exist. What does it differ? We cannot see God, but we can feel His existence. That is why many people believe in Him. A lot of people would practically say that they will never believe unless they see it. Yet they are afraid of what might happen in their future even if they haven't seen the future already. How ironic people are.
No one can still explain where we came from. the big bang theory? all of it are just some theory. If in example that theory is true, then, were did all of those explosion came from? who made that explosion happen? who made the particles, elements and chemicals that became a factor for the explosion? See how ironic it is. they believe in theories and yet they do not know if it is really true.
Yes, we can see the air and we know exactly what it is made of. There is no reason to just "believe" it exists.
How do you feel Gods existence?
What explosions are you talking about? Particles, elements and chemicals formed over millions of years, this can be explained and it isn't ironic at all.
have you never heard about the theories scientist have made just to explain the world's creation? that is the explosion i am talking about. even fifth graders know it
When you get to the 6th grade you'll learn even more, I bet.
Fifth graders understand Big Bang Theory?
Have you heard the theories/myths that religions use to explain creation, the world and a list of other things they didn't understand when the religion was created. And those theories/myths are brainwashed into kids from birth still to this day.
I am trying to convince myself that the religious might be onto something, when I read a post, which shows an obvious lack of scientific understanding used as an argument for God's existence, and I am back to square one again.
One could try leaving religion alone, but accepting that a creator is POSSIBLE and go from there.
Believing in more than you can rationalize does not mean picking the best of a bad option. It means exploring, not refuting. It doesn't mean you have to follow one person's notion of the truth. We have a whole planet full of sentience to draw from.
If I say 'no god' I stop looking for god
If I say 'must be a god' I stop looking for an alternative to god.
If I say 'I don't know' only then am I still searching. Then a conversation with the opposite view point is useful.
If you've already decided, what use is the forum, or the discussion or the exploration. Just get on with your life as you see fit like the billions who don't care what we write here.
Otherwise its just bickering.
I really don't consider the exploration of views which are opposite to my own to be bickering. Maybe that is the advantage of having a rational view, because it allows for the consideration of other people's views, even if I don't agree with them. For the fundamentalist believer, this is not possible, because they already have the "Truth." For instance a creationist will not ever be convinced of the argument or evidence for evolution, because they refuse to look at it. I have always been willing however to explore religious options, even studying creationism in all its details. Argument is part of that discovery. By sincerely debating with others, who agree and disagree with my own view, makes other options available to me, which I hadn't previously considered, or makes me even more sure of my own position. It is human nature to want to debate, and it is not possible to live in a bubble. I am fully aware that there are so many different points of view, to ignore them in the satisfaction of my own beliefs, would be giving in to the view of the fundamentalist believer, and I don't believe this gets any of us anywhere.
Agreed Sherlock. The bickering comment was not meant to qualify what I think you are doing, only that I think it is what happens as soon as "I know the truth" enters the conversation.
actually, we will never know what happens next until we get there. it is up to us if we believe that God exist or not. As for me, I believe in Him. Even if I cannot prove His existence, I know in my heart that He does. There are lots of questions that can never be answered even if you are the most intelligent man of all times. those questions are really not meant to be answered.
You will always be troubled if you don't know what to stand and what to believe on.
I do not consider myself to be Athiest but I do know that I do not believe in organized religion!!
It makes sense that planets that spin around would be spherical does it not?
No. Our moon is not a planet (I grant you that) but it does not spin around. Yet it is spherical.
Yes it does, about once per month. If it didn't spin round, we wouldn't see the same side of the moon, which is a dead giveaway.
Relative to the earth the moon does not spin, that is why we always see the same side. Does a horse on a carousel spin? No, and that is why the same side of the horse always faces the centre of the ride. The moon only passes through a circular orbit, in which case there is the appearance of spin relative to objects independent of the earth.
If the moon didn't spin we would see all sides of it as it went around the earth. It has to spin in order for us to see the same side.
No, but the carousel does spin and the horse is attached to it.
The earth's gravity stopped the moon from spinning a long time ago and that is why it spins no more and always has one face towards the earth!
As you say, the carousel (orbit of the moon) does spin and the horse (the moon) is attached to it.
The moon is in tidal lock with the earth wherein it's rotation is the same as it's revolution around the earth, about every 28 days. If it were not tidal locked, the moon would spin at a different rate, which it did in the past when it was not tidal locked.
Ok, I know about tidal lock. But I'm talking about just the moon here. As far as the moon is concerned, it is travelling in a straight line, and not spinning. Even though the orbit is curved in on itself to form a circle, the moon is still travelling without any personal bias, just as light is curved by gravity. Light does not spin, but in the grand scheme of things, it does according to the tidal lock!
The carousel example is straightforward. How do you differentiate the horse from the moon?
the difference in our perception is minor, but the difference in fact is pretty fundamental. A Troubled Man is correct. The moon is in fact spinning. Unlike the horse, it is not fixed to a horizontal plain which is limiting its motion. nor is the horse spinning.
The moon is spinning. If it suddenly broke out of orbit (started travelling in a straight line, it would continue to spin once around its axis every 28 days. (provided the force that broke it out of orbit didn't change the spin)
just my two cents
Thanks Anton (where did you spring from?),
Yes the moon would spin if it broke away from its orbit. Like a baseball would spin when thrown from a hand.
Maybe I need to go and study! This does not compute!
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi … number=142
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/rea … -the-earth
Hope that helps, let me know if you need more as there are many, many more sites explaining it.
The guy made one simple statement and all the unbelievers fell on him like a ton of bricks
Whats that about?
Although I am an atheist, I have found myself today asking Him upstairs if he could do something about the riots across Britain. Now would be a good time to put in an appearance.
Are you kidding me. And what would you have Him do? People are responsible for their actions, period. If you want to ask Him something make it spiritual and personal. And be honest. Those are the kinds of things He will answer. At least He does for me. And when you receive your answer, however it comes, you will know it, so don't question it.
I understand that people aren't expected to ask for prayers to be answered which can be observed, or for something which evidence would make obvious, only for things that relate to our personal mental state, or anything which could easily have been answered by other causes. In other words, not for real things, only for perceived things. Just like visitors to Lourdes don't ask for their missing leg to grow back. Miracles have to be personal and small scale and not something for which there aren't a hundred natural explanations. How different to the Old Testament god, who was seen and experienced in a real physical way.
If you want to believe in that God. And what is wrong with physical as long as it is spiritual. God is a spiritual being. As Him to help you through something and maybe something physical happens. You just don't know.
Why do we keep on with the notion that a miracle should be something so crass as 'regrow my limb' or 'make the fighting stop'?
We are mortal. Designed to die even if all goes well. Clearly if we were created this is a feature of creation since all that lives dies without exception.
Praying for our bodies not to break down or suffer damage is praying for creation to be other than it is. Its not a little thing. And clearly, hasn't been granted that we can see.
If you are a Christian, even Jesus had to die, and he was god himself.
Excellent point. "Miracles" are relative and do not need to be beyond the realm of nature.
I think the point is, that many Christians do expect miracles to be literal, because their Lord and Saviour performed literal miracles. He made the blind see, the crippled walk and brought the dead back to life. There was nothing relative or subjective in these miracles. For the faithful Christian these are fundamentals of their faith, to deny them would deny the divine nature of Jesus.
If the miracles occurred, fine. If god exists, god chose to perform them (if you believe the bible) to make a point, to demonstrate his power etc.
God chose them. Where does it say that the miracle was performed because a mortal requested it?
And really, what's 2,000 years to god? Perhaps he's busy blinking. The last recorded biblical miracle isn't all that long ago on the scale of eternity.
To just take those examples as literal would be ignoring a lot. To help the blind to see is a very spiritual reference. Think about it.
Lying for Jesus. Good for You. More fights - like wot Jesus sed.
Kristians Kausing Konfliktz.
Lying and intepretation are two different things.
Yes. I know the difference thanks. I thought lying was a sin? Apparently God is good with lying as long as it is fighting for Jesus.
This - of course - is why you religious types cause so many conflicts. Especially the Liars for Jesus (TM).
You are such a broken record...does anybody take you seriously.
Why am I a broken record. You Liars for Jesus keep ignoring what I say. Stop causing conflicts and I will stop telling you why you are causing conflicts. See how - you are the broken record? You. You cause the conflicts. You. No morals - that is your problem.
Might as well be Henry the V111-
Second verse same as the first
I disagree that Christ's miracles are supposed to be taken "spiritually." They are described as being actual miracles. Christians are to take them as such. If miracles are to be taken as something which can be explained by natural means, then they are not miracles at all, and Christ's miracles are supposed to be evidence of his divine nature. How can the raising of Lazarus from the dead not be seen as a miracle. The dead, as a rule do not rise, doing so would place this miracle as occurring firmly outside of the physical laws of nature. Christians are supposed to take Christ's miracles literally, not metaphorically.
"Grab two oranges (or apples, or baseballs, or whatever roughly spherical objects you have handy). Mark one with an "X"; this represents a feature on the Moon. Now put the other one down on a table; this is the Earth. Place the Moon model on the table about 30 centimeters (one foot) away with the X facing the Earth model. Now move the Moon model as if it were orbiting the Earth, taking care to make sure that the X faces the Earth model at all times.
Surprise! You'll see that to keep the X facing the Earth model, you have to rotate the Moon model as it goes around the Earth model. Furthermore, you can see you have to spin it exactly once every orbit to keep the X facing the Earth model. If you don't rotate it, the Moon model will show all of its "sides" to the Earth model as it goes around."
Phil Plait - Bad Astronomy
This is still bugging me even though I accepted I am wrong. It's a matter of relativity. As Einstein demonstrated, if you sit on a moving train and throw a ball in the air and catch it, the only motion the ball makes is vertical, up and down. But to an onlooker on the station platform, as the train passes by, the ball's motion forms an arc. Which observation is correct? They both are!
Unfortunately in physics there is no observer! Physics kill the observer and see things as they are!
Possibly, but now we are entering into the realm of the "Reference Frame" and how it is of great import when observing those events. Standing on the earth looking at the moon is one reference frame, but so is standing on the moon looking at the stars.
Ok, I put this to you;
If the moon has a forward motion (which it does), will a trailing observer (following behind) see the moon rotating? No.
If the earth has a forward motion (which it does) will a trailing observer see the earth rotating? Yes.
Also, there is a 'common reference frame' which relates to a majority rule (not a good term, I admit). In our solar system the sun is the common reference frame.
No problem, that is just a reference frame similar to the one on earth.
The confusion lies in the fact that the moons rotation is equivalent to it's revolution around the earth. If the moon were rotating just a little bit faster or slower, you would observe the rotation much easier.
In the past, the moon did rotate faster but has slowed and become tidal locked with the earth, but it is still rotating nonetheless.
Yes, I understand all that. I'm trying to push the theory to the limit. The moon cannot be said to be rotating 'independently', and that's the key. If the rotation was slightly faster or slower than it is through tidal lock, then the moon would indeed be rotating independently.
Also, by stating that it all depends on the reference frame takes away the certainty because the earth's reference frame infers that the sun (and all other stars (but not local planets)) rotates around the earth. Or am I mistaken? Maybe I do not fully understand the term 'reference frame'.
I'm only trying to get a full understanding here, so appologies if I seem to be stubborn on this.
Regardless of whether or not the moon is tidal locked, it is still rotating. That would be another argument in which we could look at whether or not the moons rotation is in fact dependent on being tidal locked.
If we say, for example, that the moon was rotating faster than it is now some millions of years ago, can we say it was rotating independently of the earth because it was not tidal locked?
As well, if we are talking 'dependence' what exactly does that mean and how do we go about showing it?
Exactly, and that is very much the reference frame we believed a long time ago to have existed. And, that is why we must take into account the reference frame of an event.
That's where Lorentz comes in...
Your previous post of the man throwing the ball in the train is a perfect example of differing reference frames and how they are perceived relative to the actual event taking place.
Thanks for the links A Troubled Man.
So basically everything in the universe rotates.
I'm not sure if everything rotates but I think everything is in motion at the very least. They have predicted two types of non-rotational black holes (Schwarzschild) but they also do state that the rotational velocity of a black hole never reaches zero.
In answer to the OP, even as a child, my rational mind could never grasp the concept of God as practiced and explained by the Christians I was exposed to.
What completely sold me on the idiocy of Christianity was when my own mother told me I would go to hell if I did not believe in God, even if I lived a virtuous life as defined by her religion, while a serial killer would go to heaven if, in the last 5 minutes of his life, he accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as his savior.
I could not embrace the stupidity of that, even at the age of 12.
It is not a matter of needing proof; the entire concept is utterly ridiculous.
Hear hear! I went to Sunday school and could never make a connection between what I was taught and what I learnt in real life.
I soon realised it was a complete farce!
PrettyPanther, you look pretty, but I don't think you are a panther really.
I hate to rain on your parade but you might be a domestic cat. I could be wrong though. <cringing>
Another thing to consider is, before our moon was formed by a massive asteroid or comet impact to the earth, our planet was much larger and rotated slower than it presently does.
The moon and earth slow each others rotation because of the vast gravitational pull they exert on each other. Imagine how large our moon appeared in the night sky when it was many times closer to our planet.
The moon's gravitational pull was so strong it literally drug the oceans around the earth with it during each of its orbits. The earth will lose the moon someday, barring another catastrophic impact from some large heavenly body.
In the case of losing the moon naturally, the earth's rotation should begin to speed back up because of the loss of the moon's drag effect.
Since the acquisition of our moon initially slowed earth's rotation, our planet has slowly regained rotation speed as the moon gradually moves farther away.
My point is, not only is the length of earth's days not constant, but the length and time of an orbit (1 earth year) varies also.
Randy you never cease to amaze me with the diversity of knowledge you have.
I know you love information, I do too, but I am still constantly amazes at the breadth and depth of yours.
Thanks Earnest, I am cursed with curiosity about everything concerning our wonderful planet and its inhabitants. One may never learn to much about how our world came to be as it is today, but I cannot say the same for human nature.
Sadly, many humans quell their curiosity because they are told it is a sin to question beliefs they are taught from childhood. I suppose this is why I strive so hard to enlighten those who are too afraid to use the sense "God gave them" for examining their own indoctrinated beliefs.
This is one of the chief reasons we have so much animosity between many of our fellow earthlings around the world. Imagine how much better our lives would be if the leaders of all cults were not so intent in denigrating the beliefs of others which differ from their own.
If all children were exposed to all religions at an early age, instead of the one their parents chose for them, I believe the world would be a much better place for all of us.
Even if gods do indeed exist, an indoctrinated child does not have free will to make a personal choice because of the preset beliefs already pounded into their brains by those they trust and love the most. I dare any "believer" to prove me wrong by giving statistics showing otherwise.
Well said. We are lucky enough to have found a school for the three youngest that has an International standard which requires tolerance and demonstrates it within it's own structure.
900 kids of any race and religion you could imagine are in the mix.
We have hearing impaired, sight impaired, brilliant little achievers with rich parents and home tutors all in the same classes.
I say proudly it is a government run school financed out of my taxes.
I am seeing proof daily of how your take on what works works!
The other thing they do, is have all the prep and grade 1 children leave the class in two's holding hands. It is a joy to visit the school, there are many parents helping keep it all running by volunteering as well. They have just built a new gym and multi purpose building which went up in weeks and is as modern as tomorrow.
Our kids have got it good. It's free by the way.
I thought I would provide some first hand support for your argument.
No,I am not an atheist; it is very un-natural and irrational to be an atheist.
That's an unnatural and irrational statement. Are you sure you aren't an atheist? You seem to fit the bill; by your definition.
Please elaborate your viewpoint further; I don't get you.
Simple. If being un-natural and irrational is atheism, you are the first to qualify. Most of your statements, if not all, are irrational.
Were you raised and indoctrinated into believing there was only one god, Paar? If so, how can you be sure your parents chose the correct deity for you to believe in? Is it the same reason those with differing beliefs came to their conclusions? Or did you change religions because you found the correct one after examining them all?
I would wager it was the former. Am I wrong in this?
Au contraire, Paarsurrey's statement is perfectly rational, to him. If he has grown up in a Muslim society with Islam as his guide, being an atheist is one of the most irrational concepts he could possibly entertain.
To be irrational would be to outright deny something that is shown obvious to work a certain way and cannot function otherwise.
Perfectly rational to him????
When will you leave the subjective evaluation and try to see things objectively. Just because your "reference frame" tells you earth is the center of the universe doesn't make it so, It may cater to your vanity, though.
Yes. It's obvious to me anyways that you're not well versed in what's rational so I don't see how you can tell the difference anyways.
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 2 years ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
by preacherdon 8 years ago
There are many who are atheist and agnostic because they either don't know or don't believe God exists. Creation tells us that God exists but atheist explain Him away with evolution and Big Bangs. So, my question is, how can God prove Himself to the point where there would be no doubt? The Book of...
by Luke M. Simmons 3 years ago
Does anyone have any evidence for the existence of God?I am an atheist, which to me only means that I haven't been shown requisite evidence to convince me of an omnipotent, all-knowing deity of any kind. If you would, please bring forth this evidence and deliver me from a fiery...
by Jake Brannen 3 years ago
How can you be an atheist if you can't disprove the existence of God?What validity is there to the double negative argument for the existence of God? Is it really rational to justify belief in something by the mere fact that it cannot be disproved? You also can not disprove the existence of...
by Claire Evans 4 years ago
That's the typical Sam Harris argument. How does suffering negate God's existence? Maybe He's just watching. It doesn't mean He doesn't exist and for anyone to bring up suffering as proof of no God is indication of a logical fallacy.
by Claire Evans 7 years ago
Atheists often ask for proof of Jesus being the son of God. If Jesus came to earth and everyone realized He is the son of God, would you still reject Him as your saviour?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|