If God Made Me, He Knows I Can't Believe in Him

[Indistinguishable]

@begbert2

The difference is, a person can say “I know X is true”, and they are explicity talking about their own mental processes, and generally defend the mental processes when the truth is attacked. When they say “X is true”, or “X”, they are talking about the truth value of X, and then you can discuss that directly.

In all situations when people defend the term “know” as being about truth, and not belief, they are inevitably just pretending that their “knowing” something enforces their belief on reality. This is not what the word means, and we should abandon defending any misdefinition that implies that truth is associated with a notion just because somebody knows it.

I wouldn’t say this exemplifies a misdefinition of the word “know” going around. Truth is part of what the word means, in some contexts, though not all.

Now, if someone were to argue “My own certainty in X is evidence which proves the truth of X; your refusal to acknowledge X despite my certainty in it is obstinate irrationality”, they would be making a fallacious jump. And perhaps that jump is helped along by muddled thinking about the word “know”, though I doubt this really plays that large a role. But the fallacy isn’t directly in misdefining “know”; it consists in conflating two separate definitions of “know”, each correct but applying to different senses of the word. I don’t think factive accounts of “know” are all wrong; they’re just not the whole picture.

[raindog]

For the purpose of this thread, I will take the position that I am an atheist.

If the All Powerful, High-Octane God of the bible exists, we are unable to prove, or disprove, his existence. If humans are in fact created, than we are constrained by the limitations of the human experience. No matter how impressive our ability to understand the world around us—and particularly the advances of human acheivement in the last 100 years —we are still limited.

If God exists, it is both irrational and illogical to assume he must be similarly constrained. Furthermore, it is both irrational and illogical to imlicitly insist that he must submit to human empirical observation. Steven Hawking may be infinitely better equipped to understand the universe than the Apostle Paul, but he is on no firmer ground in explaining [the scientific existence, or non-existence, of] God than Paul.

Science must therefore be silent on the question of God, (who, if he exists, is neither constrained by human limitations, nor inhabits the temporal world) for science is limited to the human experience. If science—as the catchword for human observation and testing---- could talk surely it would protest that it is being forced into service that it is unable to perform. It is not simply not that it is clumsy, or inelegant. It is impossible to employ temporal methods to establish atemporal realities.

The absolute irony in all of this is that the atheist who flatly states that God doesn’t exist —and uses buzz words like “testable”---- is engaged in an excercise that is anathema to science. It is a disservice to science to enlist it in a cause it is/was never equipped to handle. As is the case with Hawking/Paul, ForumBot et al has no more scientific proof to make his case than the theist.

Isn’t irony grand?

It’s about this time that the Junior High contingent starts in with the “I am Oz!” or “Spaghetti Monster” references. I think a smart theist should rush to this argument, not from it; and simply acknowledge that science can no more prove the existence of God than the Spaghetti Monster.

To my atheist brethren (hehe) I say this: The only rational, intelligent, logical, defendable position is, “Having weighed the evidence, it is clear to me that human observation of the natural world via science is, and always will be, unequipped to answer the question of the existence of a supernatural God. I choose to believe that no such God exists.”

[JohnnieEnigma]

@Kalhoun

Are ya listening to yourself??

no I’m not that deep… why, what am I missing.

[Indistinguishable]

@the raindog

To my atheist brethren (hehe) I say this: The only rational, intelligent, logical, defendable position is, “Having weighed the evidence, it is clear to me that human observation of the natural world via science is, and always will be, unequipped to answer the question of the existence of a supernatural God. I choose to believe that no such God exists.”

What makes this a conscious choice? I happen to be filled with a feeling that no God exists, and even if I can’t, to your standards, prove it, all the same I can’t shake it either. I never sat down and thought “Hm, can’t prove it one way or another, I need to pick something. Well, I do enjoy [insert perks of atheist life here, whatever they would be], so I’ll go with that”. I just happen to be afflicted with these feelings (like most of my beliefs, I suppose. I can’t think of any beliefs I would call consciously voluntarily adopted).

Even if there is absolutely no logical support for the position of atheism, saying I chose to be an atheist is like saying I chose to dislike cheddar cheese. No, I didn’t. It’s just part of how I am; influenced by various external factors, no doubt, but in no part representing any exertion of my volition.

[David_Simmons]

@Mr. Moto

God being all powerful, it is truly not for me to question why some people have the gift of faith and others do not. Therefore, I don’t question it.

The matter thus disposed of, brushes hands, walks off humming Leaning on The Everlasting Arms.

[raindog]

@Indistinguishable

What makes this a conscious choice? I happen to be filled with a feeling that no God exists, and even if I can’t, to your standards, prove it, all the same I can’t shake it either. I never sat down and thought “Hm, can’t prove it one way or another, I need to pick something. Well, I do enjoy [insert perks of atheist life here, whatever they would be], so I’ll go with that”. I just happen to be afflicted with these feelings (like most of my beliefs, I suppose. I can’t think of any beliefs I would call consciously voluntarily adopted).

Even if there is absolutely no logical support for the position of atheism, saying I chose to be an atheist is like saying I chose to dislike cheddar cheese. No, I didn’t. It’s just part of how I am; influenced by various external factors, no doubt, but in no part representing any exertion of my volition.

The issue of free will, and how that plays to the existence of God, is another discussion altogether.

Still, if a belief is borne of passivity—or ignorance—it remains true they are free to change those beliefs. This message board is full of atheists who at one time were believers in God, but were persuaded to reject those beliefs. (and it would seem to a man were all bible scholars)

[Kalhoun]

@JohnnyEnigma

no I’m not that deep… why, what am I missing.

You don’t ask for gifts. They’re given freely. By definition.

[begbert2]

@the raindog

Furthermore, it is both irrational and illogical to imlicitly insist that he must submit to human empirical observation.

Excepting to the degree that he interacts/has interacted with humanity or the observable world- which includes anytime a person claims to feel his influence. Any such event is subject to examination, and therefore atheists and scientists are well within their power to go after, well, pretty much every religion and believer out there.

This diffuses most of the rest of your post and all the irony in it, except perhaps for your representing the agnostic position as the only possible atheist one. There might be some non-intaractive god out there staying totally away from humanity that can’t be disproven, but there’s plenty of supposedly active gods out there (like the Christian god under discussion, for example) to keep any godhunter entertained.

@Kalhoun

You don’t ask for gifts. They’re given freely. By definition.

Maybe you don’t ask… I send out christmas wish lists. (Gift means not paid for, not not asked for.)

[Kalhoun]

@begbert2

Excepting to the degree that he interacts/has interacted with humanity or the observable world- which includes anytime a person claims to feel his influence. Any such event is subject to examination, and therefore atheists and scientists are well within their power to go after, well, pretty much every religion and believer out there.

This diffuses most of the rest of your post and all the irony in it, except perhaps for your representing the agnostic position as the only possible atheist one. There might be some non-intaractive god out there staying totally away from humanity that can’t be disproven, but there’s plenty of supposedly active gods out there (like the Christian god under discussion, for example) to keep any godhunter entertained.
Maybe you don’t ask… I send out christmas wish lists. (Gift means not paid for, not not asked for.)

I call that an order.

[JohnnieEnigma]

@Kalhoun

You don’t ask for gifts. They’re given freely. By definition.

Oh, I was led to believe that there are Gifts of the Holy Spirit for the asking… I didn’t know they were given freely without even wanting them. Would you have to be “worthy” of these gifts, like in a state of grace??? Or can someone like Osama bin Laden be given the gift of wisdom without even asking for it??

Just wondering…

[ForumBot]

Oh wow, raindog, god and science occupy two different spheres of human understanding? God is beyond the scope of science? My, what a bombshell of logic you have dropped into this thread. I’ll immediately go inform the atheists of your brilliant new discovery in thinking and tell them they’ve been wrong all this time.

I’ve been in auto-response mode to the same tired criticisms of skepticism and atheism and your post is nothing different. Put that smug little smirk away.

@the raindog

If God exists, it is both irrational and illogical to assume he must be similarly constrained.

It is not irrational to expect all beings are probably constrained by the same fundamental principles of the Universe, considering that 100% of everything that has ever been observed has had the courtesy to do so. This does not mean that it is impossible that there is something that violates these rules, but until such a thing is observed or its effects seen, it is best to presume that it probably doesn’t exist.

Furthermore, it is both irrational and illogical to imlicitly insist that he must submit to human empirical observation.

So if he can’t be observed and can’t show any effect on our universe, then he might as well not exist or be relegated to the shelf with the flying pink unicorn as just another wacky idea without any evidence to support it. This does not mean it is absolutely impossible, an idea you are repeatedly putting into my mouth, but so ridiculously improbable as not even being worth time thinking about.

It is impossible to employ temporal methods to establish atemporal realities.

The problem is in where you draw the line and when you pick and choose to use evidence and reason in gathering information. The fact is there is none and deciding to ignore the strategy that is used to filter out the other 99.9999999999% of bullshit you could hear simply because the idea of a god is comfortable and hits the fuzzy feeling gland in your brain is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

The absolute irony in all of this is that the atheist who flatly states that God doesn’t exist

Hard atheism, if you want the term du jour. You’ll have trouble finding many who believe that. Most atheists, myself included, will say that odds are very low that a god exists.

ForumBot et al has no more scientific proof to make his case than the theist.

There is an invisible pink unicorn floating in the sky above me, only it can not be observed. I passionately believe this.

Is the onus on you to prove that I am wrong? Absolutely not. The amount of resources that would go to waste if we were to attempt to prove 100% that every single belief is wrong would be enormous, mostly because things in the physical world won’t be proven 100% wrong. The burden of proof for any claim lies on the one making the claim, not everyone else within hearing distance to prove him wrong.

Isn’t irony grand?

Yeah, putting words into your opponent’s mouth and attacking him for those words is a great way to debate.

It’s about this time that the Junior High contingent starts in with the “I am Oz!” or “Spaghetti Monster” references. I think a smart theist should rush to this argument, not from it; and simply acknowledge that science can no more prove the existence of God than the Spaghetti Monster.

If you’re willing to accept that the Spaghetti Monster is equally as likely to exist as your God and you still want to embrace that god, then I have nothing more to say except “wow.”

I choose to believe that no such God exists."

You’re ridiculously oversimplifying something that is based on reason. I don’t choose to believe there is no god on some arbitrary ground like personal preference; I, based on an overwhelming lack of evidence in favor of any god, choose to maintain my lack of belief.

[Indistinguishable]

@the raindog

The issue of free will, and how that plays to the existence of God, is another discussion altogether.

Still, if a belief is borne of passivity—or ignorance—it remains true they are free to change those beliefs. This message board is full of atheists who at one time were believers in God, but were persuaded to reject those beliefs. (and it would seem to a man were all bible scholars)

Yes, but it’s not as though they sat down and thought “Ok, I want to become a believer in God. So… concentrate real hard. Yes, there it is, I believe it now.”

External factors played in: they were swayed by arguments, or extended thought leading to a surprising result, or experiences, or that sort of thing. One can no more choose to change one’s beliefs on God than one can choose to change one’s beliefs on the color of the sky or any other such thing.

If anyone wants to demonstrate that beliefs are under voluntary control or that one can simply choose to change them, then, by all means, let us see a demonstration: tell us something you believe, however minor, and then change it, so that you afterwards believe the opposite. Don’t tell us about sometime in the past when your beliefs happened to undergo a change; I want to see the change be an explicit decision. (This is crucial. I have undergone a great many changes in the past which could not be said to have been voluntary choices, even if I enjoyed the outcome).

Here, I’ll even give you something to go off of: I was born in California. I think I’m trustworthy enough that you can believe that. Do you believe that? If so, let us know, and then endeavor to change yourself to a state where you believe I was born in Canada.

[Kalhoun]

@JohnnyEnigma

Oh, I was led to believe that there are Gifts of the Holy Spirit for the asking… I didn’t know they were given freely without even wanting them. Would you have to be “worthy” of these gifts, like in a state of grace??? Or can someone like Osama bin Laden be given the gift of wisdom without even asking for it??

Just wondering…

I think it’s all a crock of dusty old shit, myself. It’s the biggest waste of time on the planet. But if there was a god, and he was the good guy people make him out to be, we’d all be gifted and we wouldn’t have to ask. Life would be bliss 24/7.

[FriarTed]

@marshmallow

God loves you very much and feels your confusion. He wishes you could join him in the light, to partake in his wonderful gifts. That’s why you must burn in a lake of fire, forever.

Then there are those of us who believe that all beings will join God in the light, but that to those who then refuse to love & trust Him, the Light of God will be the Lake of Fire.

And of those, there are those of us who believe that in that Divine Fire, there may still be hope for reconciliation or IF some will just never be reconciled- a merciful extinction.

[Kalhoun]

@FriarTed

Then there are those of us who believe that all beings will join God in the light, but that to those who then refuse to love & trust Him, the Light of God will be the Lake of Fire.

And of those, there are those of us who believe that in that Divine Fire, there may still be hope for reconciliation or IF some will just never be reconciled- a merciful extinction.

Sez you? Or the Holy Reference Book?

[ForumBot]

@FriarTed

Then there are those of us who believe that all beings will join God in the light, but that to those who then refuse to love & trust Him, the Light of God will be the Lake of Fire.

And of those, there are those of us who believe that in that Divine Fire, there may still be hope for reconciliation or IF some will just never be reconciled- a merciful extinction.

And some of us are just spiteful bastards who just couldn’t muster up the courage to accept into our hearts a torturous bastard who would condemn us to a lake of fire for not loving him.

[JohnnieEnigma]

@Kalhoun

I think it’s all a crock of dusty old shit, myself. It’s the biggest waste of time on the planet. But if there was a god, and he was the good guy people make him out to be, we’d all be gifted and we wouldn’t have to ask. Life would be bliss 24/7.

yeah, but then God went and gave us this thing called ‘free will’. so of course there’s gonna be anything but “bliss 24/7”. Man’s nature took over.

[Kalhoun]

@JohnnyEnigma

yeah, but then God went and gave us this thing called ‘free will’. so of course there’s gonna be anything but “bliss 24/7”. Man’s nature took over.

And that doesn’t strike you as some orchestrator making excuses for the fact that his story doesn’t hold up? What on earth would make you think that’s true? The bible??? C’mon…exercise that free will and piece it together!

[JohnnieEnigma]

@Kalhoun

And that doesn’t strike you as some orchestrator making excuses for the fact that his story doesn’t hold up? What on earth would make you think that’s true? The bible??? C’mon…exercise that free will and piece it together!

I’m not sure what “story that doesn’t hold up” you’re referring to…

God made mankind in his image, giving us a free will. He also gave us guidelines to live by… commandments, which are not suggestions, but indeed commandments that are “his will” for us to live by… but it’s when we reject God’s will and do our own will that all hell seems breaks loose, imo.

I actually did a little experiment years ago… I tried following God’s laws, and when I did, I noticed my life was peaceful - there was no real turmoil… I’m not saying it was “bliss 24/7”. Life happens… but all and all, I had peace in my heart when I followed God’s will. Just saying…

Well, that was years ago, and I kind of try to live a decent life and be fair to others, but I’m no saint. I guess the secret in life for believers is to want to do God’s will, to want to please him out of love for him. But that’s for believers, so just ignore what I’m saying.

[Kalhoun]

@JohnnyEnigma

I’m not sure what “story that doesn’t hold up” you’re referring to…

God made mankind in his image, giving us a free will. He also gave us guidelines to live by… commandments, which are not suggestions, but indeed commandments that are “his will” for us to live by… but it’s when we reject God’s will and do our own will that all hell seems breaks loose, imo.

I actually did a little experiment years ago… I tried following God’s laws, and when I did, I noticed my life was peaceful - there was no real turmoil… I’m not saying it was “bliss 24/7”. Life happens… but all and all, I had peace in my heart when I followed God’s will. Just saying…

Well, that was years ago, and I kind of try to live a decent life and be fair to others, but I’m no saint. I guess the secret in life for believers is to want to do God’s will, to want to please him out of love for him. But that’s for believers, so just ignore what I’m saying.

Why couldn’t you do that without god? Millions of people do.