Atheistic certitude

[Darwin]

As an agnostic, I am curious as to how atheists come by the certainty that there is absolutely no god.

[HRG_new]

Today @ 09:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=334624#post334624)
Darwin:

As an agnostic, I am curious as to how atheists come by the certainty that there is absolutely no god.

As a weak atheist, I just lack belief that there is any god. And most strong atheists I've met either argue against specific god concepts, or that concepts of god are inconsistent, too vague etc.

Regards,
HRG.

[Meatros]

Today @ 09:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=334624#post334624)
Darwin:

As an agnostic, I am curious as to how atheists come by the certainty that there is absolutely no god.

Perhaps this is a definitional thing: The atheists that I've met and talked to define atheism as a lack of a belief in any God.

Agnosticism on the other hand is a position on whether or not we can discover if there is a God or not.

I'm an agnostic atheist: I don't think we can ever find out whether there is a God or not, and I don't believe in any of the God's I've studied or heard of.

I'm not against the idea of there being a God, I just don't see any evidence of there being one.

I hope this makes sense :D.

[Barron]

Today @ 01:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=334624#post334624)
Darwin:

As an agnostic, I am curious as to how atheists come by the certainty that there is absolutely no god.

I'm a weird mix. I'm a strong atheist (i.e. God doesn't exist (and I bench 225)), but I am not certain about it. I think it is the best inference from the evidence and my experiences of the world. But I don't really have the certainty that I see in believers, I have my "best guess" based on what I know/feel/experience.

Barron

[Archimedes]

I used to describe myself as a weak atheist, or an agnostic atheist. Now I'm not so sure anymore.

I've come to a rather firm conclusion that "God" as understood by major world religions does not exist. I'm basing this on the inductive observation that theists have consistently failed to come up with convincing positive arguments for the existence of such an entity. I'm keeping the door open though: I'm receptive to arguments that Christians pose on message boards such as TWeb just in case they ever get their act together.

Of course, it's possible that

1) Christianity, at least not the mainstream, is not the true religion, and thus I've been looking at the wrong place.
2) God exists but theists are just as clueless as to his nature as atheists.
3) God is incomprehensible to me due to personal bias, satanic influence, God's own divine plan, or because God is terribly, terribly mysterious.

I'm not convinced about item 1 because it's not just Christianity that I find lacking, it's theism. Even if Christians were wrong about the details, they should still be able to defend the philosophical base of theism such as metaphysical dualism, why the deity in question does not seem to interact with the world at all, where did the deity come from, what is its motivation, and so on.

The second alternative states that God may exist but all religions are wrong. I concede that it's possible. However, certain God-concepts don't rely on any particular religion but are more philosophical in nature. Deism, pantheism, vague spiritualism... these have not been defended any better than Jesus or Allah. On the other hand, if God falls into a category of completely unobservable and disjoint from reality, I have no rational to entertain the idea of his existence.

The third one is the trickiest. I think I can be relatively sure of my own integrity by observing that in other fields I am quite capable of changing my mind when shown to be wrong. Also, I have reflected upon the hypothetical situation that someone did in fact prove God beyond a shadow of doubt, and I wouldn't have any problem with that situation. Hence, I have no motive to stick with atheism. As for supernatural influences, well, those are something I cannot exclude. However, most serious defenders of theism claim that there are no mind-games going on... so obviously if "Satan" or "God" is messing with my mind, those would not be the entities of Christian religion. This brings me back to item 2: to assume that my mind is being manipulated from the outside would make the whole human experience unintelligible.

So, those are my reasons for being an atheist. I'll leave it to the reader whether this is "strong" or "weak" atheism.

[Vorkosigan]

You can build a case against the existence of gods by showing that all concepts are incoherent, contradictory, etc. You can also show that god-beliefs originate in certain cognitive stances the human mind requires in order to function in society. In other words, you can offer a satisfying argument that provides both a (positive) alternative account (cognitive evidence), and a (negative) argument that gods cannot exist (logical and philosophical objections). This is before any individual sillinesses that might exist for particular gods, like not finding N'gai living on top of Mount Kenya, or the particularly fruitcake idea that a monotheistic god is a Trinity. To me the combination of all three provides an unassailable argument, against which it would be peevish to withhold assent, that gods do not exist. Others may not judge the evidence the same way, however.

Hope this helps.

Vorkosigan

[Archimedes]

Today @ 01:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=336547#post336547)
Vorkosigan:

You can build a case against the existence of gods by showing that all concepts are incoherent, contradictory, etc.

The way I see it, this only applies to particular god concepts. For example, I think that there's an inconsistency argument to be made against a "tri-omni" god (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent), but who's to say that God actually is tri-omni instead of just an insanely powerful entity and it's His followers who got this detail wrong?

In any case, everyone is an atheist regarding some god concepts. This does not quite justify blanket atheism in my opinion.

[Furious B]

12-12-2003 @ 10:32 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=335095#post335095)
Meatros:



Perhaps this is a definitional thing: The atheists that I've met and talked to define atheism as a lack of a belief in any God.

Agnosticism on the other hand is a position on whether or not we can discover if there is a God or not.

I'm an agnostic atheist: I don't think we can ever find out whether there is a God or not, and I don't believe in any of the God's I've studied or heard of.

I'm not against the idea of there being a God, I just don't see any evidence of there being one.

I hope this makes sense :D.

It makes complete sense to me and that’s pretty much how I feel on the subject. However, I think some do have a bit more validity than others. Not to the point where I actually believe that they do exist in reality, but it makes more sense that they could.

[Vorkosigan]

The way I see it, this only applies to particular god concepts. For example, I think that there's an inconsistency argument to be made against a "tri-omni" god (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent), but who's to say that God actually is tri-omni instead of just an insanely powerful entity and it's His followers who got this detail wrong?
In any case, everyone is an atheist regarding some god concepts. This does not quite justify blanket atheism in my opinion.

Quite true. By itself it would not. But the failure of any god concept to prove rational, coupled with alternative positive explanations for religious behavior and belief that do not require the supernatural to explain them, justify blanket atheism. In my view, anyway. But weak atheism is certainly not unjustified if strong is. The two are not mutually exclusive at all.

Vorkosigan

[hospitaller]

Wow! Here it is! The kind of info I try to glean from all the other threads. I am SO curious about the life-world / lived experience of atheists.

NB: This post is not intended to provoke further discussion, as Coppolla says to the troops in Apocalypse Now, "Keep going, don't look at the camera, keep going!"
I just wanted to say thanks for your views, and especially Darwin for starting the thread!

[Jaltus]

Hospitaller, that is the kind of thing that Private Messages are for. This is a non-theist designated area. Please do not post here again.

However, I am sure your post will be appreciated. From now on use PMs.

[Jake]

I had a very similar conversation to this one with a friend of mine late one night. Neither of us ended up convincing the other one; we agreed to disagree.

My argument was that as it was impossible to disprove the existance of God scientifically, it would be unscientific to conclude that there was no God, however likely that seemed. I said there was no proof for God, but that I couldn't rule out God's existance, only belief in organised religion.

He said that the lack of positive evidence for God, (multiple world religions, no physical evidence etc.) combined with the existance of a plausible alternative (evolution of an afterlife to allow men to cope with the concept of death) meant that it would be unscientific to allow for the existance of God, at least given our current understanding.

I would say these are both agnostic-soft atheist positions.

'Hard atheism' (or Metaphysical Naturalism, or whatever; the philosophy theists rail against) is different, to me it implies a positive belief that the universe is entirely naturalistic. As this has not been scientifically proven, I would say it's as much a belief system as e.g. Christianity or Islam.

[Archimedes]

Today @ 02:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=343257#post343257)
Jake:

'Hard atheism' (or Metaphysical Naturalism, or whatever; the philosophy theists rail against) is different, to me it implies a positive belief that the universe is entirely naturalistic. As this has not been scientifically proven, I would say it's as much a belief system as e.g. Christianity or Islam.

I think metaphysical naturalism is much less of a belief system than any major religion. That is to say, it's a quite a lot smaller assumption to say that everything is naturalistic when we have proof that at least something is, than to assume that particular non-naturalistic phenomena exist even though we have no solid evidence of anything of that nature.

[Jake]

I think metaphysical naturalism is much less of a belief system than any major religion. That is to say, it's a quite a lot smaller assumption to say that everything is naturalistic when we have proof that at least something is, than to assume that particular non-naturalistic phenomena exist even though we have no solid evidence of anything of that nature.

I guess so, I would use this analogy:

I have a bag containing marbles. I pull out a marble, and it is red. I repeat the experiment 100 times, yielding 100 red marbles. I reach for a 102nd marble. I know the bag contains red marbles, I have a strong suspicion it contains only red marbles. Now, which is the greater assumption, that the marble will be red, or that it will be not red?

The answer I would give is that we can be reasonably confident it would be red. But nonetheless, it is an assumption to say that it must be. Applying any assumption puts you in the frame of religion, which is fine, so long as it is recognised that this is such.

[Barron]

Today @ 02:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=345554#post345554)
Jake:

I guess so, I would use this analogy:

I have a bag containing marbles. I pull out a marble, and it is red. I repeat the experiment 100 times, yielding 100 red marbles. I reach for a 102nd marble. I know the bag contains red marbles, I have a strong suspicion it contains only red marbles. Now, which is the greater assumption, that the marble will be red, or that it will be not red?

The answer I would give is that we can be reasonably confident it would be red. But nonetheless, it is an assumption to say that it must be. Applying any assumption puts you in the frame of religion, which is fine, so long as it is recognised that this is such.

That's more or less where my metaphysical naturalism comes from. I just consider it most likely to be correct. I'm not dogmatic and I could be wrong, but I think it's the "best bet".

Barron

[Archimedes]

Yesterday @ 10:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=345554#post345554)
Jake:

The answer I would give is that we can be reasonably confident it would be red. But nonetheless, it is an assumption to say that it must be. Applying any assumption puts you in the frame of religion, which is fine, so long as it is recognised that this is such.

If applying an assumption puts on in the frame of religion, then everything would become a religion. Ultimately all reasoning is based on assumptions, whether we recognize them or not.

[Jake]

Archimedes- If applying an assumption puts on in the frame of religion, then everything would become a religion. Ultimately all reasoning is based on assumptions, whether we recognize them or not.

Perhaps I should re-phrase that, (thats the problem with analogies, they always miss the point slightly). We do always make assumptions, about logic etc. which allow us to define our reality. Its when a second class of assumptions spring up within the boundaries of the first ones that religion emerges. Thus, whilst we may assume a marble will come out of the bag, we cannot make a scientific statement about its colour, beyond the fact that it is likely to be red.

[Vorkosigan]

Thus, whilst we may assume a marble will come out of the bag, we cannot make a scientific statement about its colour, beyond the fact that it is likely to be red.

What precisely is unscientific about "There is a 60% probability that black marble will be removed from the bag?" Nothing unscientific about assessments of probability!

[geochron]

12-18-2003 @ 10:35 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=345554#post345554)
Jake:



I guess so, I would use this analogy:

I have a bag containing marbles. I pull out a marble, and it is red. I repeat the experiment 100 times, yielding 100 red marbles. I reach for a 102nd marble. I know the bag contains red marbles, I have a strong suspicion it contains only red marbles. Now, which is the greater assumption, that the marble will be red, or that it will be not red?

The answer I would give is that we can be reasonably confident it would be red. But nonetheless, it is an assumption to say that it must be. Applying any assumption puts you in the frame of religion, which is fine, so long as it is recognised that this is such.

If I've understood your analogy, I think it's a little flawed. All scientific ideas are naturalist by definition, so one can't extrapolate from the observation that everything we have a scientific explanation for is naturalistic.

We have an unknown number of bags, some of which we've tested by putting our hands in. In some tests we found a marble. In other cases we didn't find a marble yet but are still looking. Are we sure all bags have marbles? No.

[Bob Jenkins]

I am pretty much certain that god is borne of the mind - that the concept from early man., was a search for answers which at that time, had it been known, science would have provided a better answer. Myth sprung up as answer for lack of science. The grandest myth of all is the bible.

Do I need rational proof? - I need no more than the amount of faith that produces a god. If that is sufficient for god, it is also sufficient for no god (with the added enjoyment of having no dogma attached from myth).

I think the quest for proof is superfluence.

[Ben Franklin]

I tried to discuss this very point with John Powell, in Chuck Lee's "John Powell tries to annex agnostics" thread. John's position was that it boils down to your BELIEF about God, as to whether you're an agnostic, atheist, or theist. Myself, I disagreed, because I think that certitude about anything (including God) rests on your epistemology (sic, the theory of how people actually come to knowledge about the universe). I think this is the real issue, whether or not each side of a debate can agree how they know what they know. It's pretty tough.

[TenDimensions]

01-01-2004 @ 06:23 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=360109#post360109)
Ben Franklin:
I tried to discuss this very point with John Powell, in Chuck Lee's "John Powell tries to annex agnostics" thread. John's position was that it boils down to your BELIEF about God, as to whether you're an agnostic, atheist, or theist. Myself, I disagreed, because I think that certitude about anything (including God) rests on your epistemology (sic, the theory of how people actually come to knowledge about the universe). I think this is the real issue, whether or not each side of a debate can agree how they know what they know. It's pretty tough.

I couldn't agree more with you and it brings to mind this following hypothetical conversation which I think is on one of the popular atheist website FAQs. Paraphrased, of course...

Q: Do you believe in God?
A: I have a problem with the way you've phrased that question.
Q: Why?
A: Because your question itself is presupposing there is such a thing as God to believe or not believe in.

[Jake]

Thus, whilst we may assume a marble will come out of the bag, we cannot make a scientific statement about its colour, beyond the fact that it is likely to be red. ”

What precisely is unscientific about "There is a 60% probability that black marble will be removed from the bag?" Nothing unscientific about assessments of probability!

I meant within the boundaries of our available knowledge, that is, having only seen 101 red marbles. We cannot assume the 102nd must be red, but we can assume it is likely to be. The fact that it will be a marble and the bag exists are things you must assume.

Maybe the metaphor isnt the best one, I am just trying to find a way of explaining myself as clearly as I can.

[EvoUK]

- atheism isn't the certainty that there is no god, it's simply not believing in one.

- i don't concider agnosticism to be a third option to atheism and theism.

let me explain: people on this planet can be separated into two catagories, atheists and theists.

atheism/theism is about belief. agnosticism etc is about knowledge. most agnostics (not all, just most) are atheist by definition. you, for example, lack belief in a god (i.e, you don't believe in one) so you're therefore atheist. whether you leave yourself open to persuasion to be a theist is irrelevent. you are still an atheist by definition because you dont at the moment belive in a god.

here is a link to a site which i found a while ago which explains my position a bit better:

http://www.alabamaatheist.org/awareness/questions/agnostic.htm

[Jake]

Good post! I have to admit I hadnt thought about it quite like that before. Perhaps we should agree on a new terminology:

Atheist: Lacks belief in God/s
Antitheist: Positively belives there is no God/s

Or am I way off?

[EvoUK]

Antitheist: Positively belives there is no God/s


never heard that expression before.

atheism is usually seperated into two camps- weak atheists (lack belief) and strong atheists (outright disbelief). however, many are both. for example, on infidels- many are strong atheist towards defined gods (hindu gods, christian god etc) and weak towards a supernatural power "out there".

so it's not necessarily one or the other, i for one am both, technically speaking.

(and if you're not sure about what i mean by strong atheist, they see a certain god as you do elves and pixies etc).

[TenDimensions]

Today @ 02:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=364097#post364097)
EvoUK:
(and if you're not sure about what i mean by strong atheist, they see a certain god as you do elves and pixies etc).

Right, like the very wonderful quote:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts

I agree with EvoUK about most atheists being both strong and weak regarding atheism. Makes sense to me.

[EvoUK]

i like this quote from clarence darrow:

"I don't believe in God because I don't believe in mother goose."

i now believe that it is a perfectly acceptable philosophical position to dismiss the god idea as being self-evidently ridiculous as darrow quipped.

[chsalvia]

I adopt the term agnostic to describe my own belief system because it is the most practical definition available that conveys my worldview.

"One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism."

I think the term "weak atheist" as a substitute for agnostic is pointless, and most people won't understand what you're talking about. Atheist is defined by all dictionaries I have available to me as either a positive disbelief or an outright denial of the existence of God. Agnosticism is defined as one who is simply not sure about the existence of God.

It is often argued that agnostics are essentially atheists, since they lack belief in God. But the problem is, they also lack disbelief in God. Furthermore, the key element of "atheism" is the disbelief. So agnostics are not atheists in the true sense. But they are not theists either.

[EvoUK]

Atheist is defined by all dictionaries I have available to me as either a positive disbelief or an outright denial of the existence of God.

dictionaries define words according to the common usage of the term. as i'm sure you (should) already be aware, atheism simply means "without god". so lack of belief in god(s) would be a more accurate definition than belief there is no god.


Agnosticism is defined as one who is simply not sure about the existence of God.

i would say it has more to do with knowledge, and theism/atheism has more to do with belief.


It is often argued that agnostics are essentially atheists, since they lack belief in God.

many are, however, i agree with you entirely- agnostics aren't automatically atheist.

[Ben Franklin]

As an agnostic, I am curious as to how atheists come by the certainty that there is absolutely no god.



Maybe you're starting off on the wrong foot. Unless someone broaches some concept of God, there's little to discuss. Once someone presents a concept, then you can discuss it's validity. Once someone's concept of God is defined, then an athiest can use logic to evaluate it. That's where the "certainty" you write about comes into play. An agnostic also ponders some concept of God before concluding that it seems impossible to know if God exists. Everything starts with a concept and it's definition. If some atheists are saying for certain there's no God, then investigate what concept they are considering. You might agree, or maybe discover something supporting God's existence.

[EvoUK]

I think a better way of putting it would be that an atheist assigns such a low probability to a god existing, that they simply don't find it logical to believe in one. It's not a definate disbelief in a god, just being utterly unconvinced that one exists.

[Mark Little]

As an agnostic, I am curious as to how atheists come by the certainty that there is absolutely no god.I personally see no evidence that God(s) are necessary for the Universe to exist. Does this mean that I can prove that God does not exist? No.

But then I can't prove there aren't invisible faeries riding invisible centaurs in the garden either. I do not believe in invisible faeries simply because I can't prove that they aren't there. If I did, I would need to believe in EVERYTHING that I could imagine.

I look at the various religions, complete with their sages and miracles and see that they are often conflicting. This tends to indicate that they aren't getting divine messages, rather it is just the human desire to see order in what they see. This is backed by the observation that people's religious beliefs are primarily governed by the local culture.

Mark

[zorathruster]

The definition allowed by so many people and asserted by many is logically inconsistent. That definition has become so promenent that anytime anyone speaks of a God, that definition emerges. It is much like a guy who's last name is Hitler. With the negative conotations that exist just with that name, he would unjustifiably inherit too many unwarranted definitions no matter how nice a guy he actually was. But a name is only a name, why or how can we attribute a person characteristics negative or positive based on a name? Once you realize that most humans attribute qualities correlated to previous discriptions or acts you will realize that "God" as understood by most persons doesn't exist. Therefore, Atheism as opposed to Agnosticism.

Once you call it a "God", it has too many other qualities that are assumed based on our plural understanding of a God.

[Sacrificial Ram]

The way I see it, this only applies to particular god concepts. For example, I think that there's an inconsistency argument to be made against a "tri-omni" god (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent), but who's to say that God actually is tri-omni instead of just an insanely powerful entity and it's His followers who got this detail wrong?

In any case, everyone is an atheist regarding some god concepts. This does not quite justify blanket atheism in my opinion.
I have yet to see any definiton of any diety that either makes special pleding for god, or trys to 'define' god into place.

[Benster]

As an agnostic, I am curious as to how atheists come by the certainty that there is absolutely no god.
I'm about as strong an atheist as I'm aware it is possible to be. And yet, I would not wholly dismiss the remote possibility that there could be a God.

OTOH, I think that every one of the following statements is far more likely to be true than the one stating that a God exists:

1. Life on earth was spawned by some type of alien spore from outer space.

2. No man has ever walked on the moon.

3. The holocaust never happened.

...and a whole bunch of other, terribly unlikely, but technically possible, statements.

So why not just come out and say that "God doesn't exist"? Wouldn't you be willing to state that "Man has walked on the moon"? And yet, are you really sure? Why?

[Benster]

"The answer I would give is that we can be reasonably confident it would be red. But nonetheless, it is an assumption to say that it must be. Applying any assumption puts you in the frame of religion, which is fine, so long as it is recognised that this is such."

No. Assumptions that are based on first hand prior experience of the world are more valid than faith-based assumptions that have no concrete support.

Don't you agree that when one acts as though the world is knowable by reason, and that what has happened before will happen again, then one is usually rewarded by having one's assumptions proved true? And that this helps us in out daily lives?

OTOH, if you walk around expecting any manner of as-yet-unexperienced events to occur at any moment, with equal probability, then you will be dazed and confused.

Don't you assume that the bus that picked you up for work at 8 a.m. every morning will be there at 8am tomorrow morning? Or, do you have faith that it will be there at 8:15 today, because you are late? If so, get ready for a problem.

I may be fired today. But, don't you think it is the rational thing to do to go to work anyway, and assume that I will still have a job? These aren't matters of blind faith. They are assumptions based on a reasoned reading of the natural world. And these types of assumptions have been proved to be valid throughout my life. I don't believe, as Theists do, that the universe is wholly static. But I I have found that much of what was here yesterday, will be here today. Consistency is our friend. Faith in the natural physical world works...in this life.

[zorathruster]

As an agnostic, I am curious as to how atheists come by the certainty that there is absolutely no god.
If someone believes in God, they believe with no evidence. This is called faith. You claim to be an agnostic, but an agnostic says there is no evidence of God and therefore an appropriate decision on the topic cannot be made. But you miss the point. Theists believe on "faith". That means belief in a God cannot be based on the facts agnostics would need to make their determination. So until you either gain the required "faith" and believe without evidence, you don't believe that a god exists. You are an atheist hoping to hedge your bet!:smile:

[Mimi]

As aformer atheist, I didn't believe in God because there was so much pain in the world. If there was a God he would not let us suffer like this. I concluded that humans are cruel animals and that they were not able to live in peace with their neighbors.

There was no proof to me that there was a Almight spirit who looked out for us.


(I know I am not allowed here as a Christian, but I have no problems with atheists at all, and I am not here to insult them.....being a former atheist makes me understand them and my experience is that they are more concerned with matters like the environment, war and world peace, sickness, pain and suffering than theists......so I like atheists a LOT!)

Evo's right... This is an in-house forum for the non-theists. If you'd like to respond, try Apologetics.

[EvoUK]

It makes no difference if you come here to insult us or not- trouble is you can't post here any more than I could post in christianity 201 (or what ever it's called). Not that I'd actually want to- there's nothing in there of any interest, but the point remains.

:smile:

[EvoUK]

As aformer atheist, I didn't believe in God because there was so much pain in the world.

you were an emotional atheist. A logical atheist (not saying you were illogical, but you get my point) would realise that how the god behaved has no bearing what so ever of if it exists or not. Sure, I find the character described in your bible as "god" to be a morally repugnant schitzophrenic, but I also realise that it also has nothing to do with whether or not your god exists.


There was no proof to me that there was a Almight spirit who looked out for us.

There isn't any proof that there's a spirit full stop- regardless of whether or not it looks after us. I concluded long ago that if there was a god of some description (I'm not talking about the christian version- I put as much probability to that god existing as I do Zeus etc), it would be irrelevent to our daily lives, and therefore may as well not exist.

[Mimi]

you were an emotional atheist. A logical atheist (not saying you were illogical, but you get my point) would realise that how the god behaved has no bearing what so ever of if it exists or not. Sure, I find the character described in your bible as "god" to be a morally repugnant schitzophrenic, but I also realise that it also has nothing to do with whether or not your god exists.
yep, I was.....as I am an emotional Christian....




There isn't any proof that there's a spirit full stop- regardless of whether or not it looks after us. I concluded long ago that if there was a god of some description (I'm not talking about the christian version- I put as much probability to that god existing as I do Zeus etc), it would be irrelevent to our daily lives, and therefore may as well not exist.
I see what you mean. To me God is not some entity, but inner light...pure light. I can't help it......

I had to answer but I did it quick and painless.......LOL

so, I go now and sin no more:lol:

Please. :smile:

[yehudai]

As an agnostic, I am curious as to how atheists come by the certainty that there is absolutely no god.
My personal perspective is that I believe there is no God.

For the purpose of this statement, I define God as anything which (1) can impact the observable universe (because otherwise its existence is irrelevant), and (2) is not subjects to Laws of Nature. (If anybody is interested, I could go into more detail on what that means).

I think all traditional theists will agree with these two attributes (while obviously adding additional attributes).

If such a God exists, the upshot is that the observable universe does not always follow Laws of Nature. Since we can never be sure we know and can understand the consequence of the Laws of Nature, God's existence cannot be proved or disproved: if the universe appears to follows Laws, there is no proof that it will continue to do so. If the universe appears not to follow Laws, there is no proof that it doesn't actually follow Laws we are yet to understand.

Asserting that God's existence cannot be disproved might make me agnostic in some people's mind. However, I personally go a step further, and declare that I positively believe God doesn't exist (i.e. the observable universe is universally subject to Laws of Nature). I personally feel much more comfortable with this world view, think it more likely, more useful and more pleasing.

One final comment I must make is that based on scientific advancements of the last several hundred years, it seems to me that the universe appears to be subject to Laws. I don't know that a reasonable person living, say, 500 years ago, could have said the same thing.