An Atheists Argument for God (or Something ike it.)

@igm,

igm wrote:

neologist wrote:
There can be only one sovereign. Arguments against the trinity appy also against multiplicitty.

So Jehovah is your creator?

Yes

1 Reply

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

igm wrote:
neologist wrote:
There can be only one sovereign. Arguments against the trinity appy also against multiplicitty.

So Jehovah is your creator?
Yes

Can you explain to me how you know this? I know it's an obvious question but it is obvious for a reason.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

It seems to me that the observed universe does not nearly provide even a sketchy description of that "thing" we would like to explain "holistically."

It seems that way to me too. We don't have enough facts to construct a comprehensive understanding of the universe, and even if we did, interpretation would still matter.

Quote:

On the other hand, when people meditate they sometimes feel that their small experience of life is a kind of entirety in the sense that nothing seems to be missing (but that's a change of topic).

I don't think it's off topic. This sense of completeness is our only measure. We sometimes fool ourselves, but often, we lean towards the theories that conform to our deepest, most intuitive beliefs. If you believe the universe is a phenomenon of sentience, you will lean towards theories and perspectives that enforce that belief. If you believe Jehova is behind everything, you lean towards theories that match that belief.
It takes a very particular mindset to avoid navigating the wealth of knowledge in this way. Facilitating this is pretty much the only point of the scientific method, as I understand it.

1 Reply

When it comes to arguments for and against god, aka atheism vs theism, it seems to me that it is a matter of choice.
If you choose to believe in a god of some kind, you will define this god so that it fits with what we know from empirical science.
If you choose not to believe in a god of some kind, you will define god in a way that does not fit with what we know from empirical science.

Personally, I think the whole concept of god is interesting for what it teaches us about human perception, and I think that those who believe in the literal reality of their god, or are debating the existence of any god, has misunderstood completely, and should be fed large doses of mental laxatives to clear the sewage.

It's like we take leave of our senses when the debate is about god or gods. I can conjure up anything I like with the power of my own mind; a prilk, for instance, and say that a prilk is an interstellar entity that eats the meteors that would otherwise collide with earth. We wouldn't even get to the debate of whether or not a prilk exists. You would just dismiss it as imaginary nonsense.

Why not so with any version of god that anyone ever dreamed up?
The answer is simple, to my mind. Cultural heritage. If the prilk was dreamed up 2000 years ago, and people were violently forced to believe in it for a few hundred years, I bet it wouldn't be so easy to dismiss the concept of a prilk. It wouldn't be so easy to identify it as pure fancy if we had gone and built our worldview based on it.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Yes, since I think that we live primarily in our subjective (and inter-subjective cultural) worldview, I would give great importance to our feelings regarding the completeness of our sense of things.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

So Jehovah is your creator?

I wrote:

Yes

igm wrote:

Can you explain to me how you know this? I know it's an obvious question but it is obvious for a reason.

As I have told Frank many times, I am well aware of the epistemological shortcomings of my beliefs as they are based solely on anecdotal and circumstantial observations. In that sense, I am like Peter, who responded when asked about some disciples who had left Jesus: "Lord, whom shall we go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life. . . .". (John 6:68)

2 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

my beliefs (...) are based solely on anecdotal and circumstantial observations.

I would say interpretations rather than observations. A fine point perhaps, but it is the interpretation of what we observe that inspires us to name gods and revere them.
It is unlikely that you would name your god Jehova if no one taught you the name first, and in so doing, gave you a conceptual frame in which you can arrange your perceptions.

1 Reply

@neologist,

To recap, you are saying that Jehovah is sovereign and you are his/her/its created subject and you believe this.. please correct me if I'm wrong.

Is your belief garnered solely from the Bible?

Do you have a view on how Jehovah created i.e. was it by using part of itself of not part of itself or don't you know i.e. where did the substance that created Jehovah's creation come from, was it Jehovah or not Jehovah? If you don't know and you see that as irrelevant then why is it irrelevant if one believes that Jehovah is the creator of creation?

You are of course free not to answer my questions... do so only if you would like to.

2 Replies

@igm,

You realize, of course, that your questions seem relevant to you because they refer to concepts which you feel are essential in explaining reality?
We are wired differently. To you, a rational explanation may give you that deep sense of profound understanding.
To Neo, a rational explanation may not cause that same feeling. To him, a poetic explanation may be what strikes home.

Very generally speaking, theists tend to think of atheists as evil, while atheists think of theists as stupid.
The true difference is that one thinks heart matters more than mind, while the other feels mind matters more than heart, so to speak. It is such a foolish quarrel, especially considering the fact that the most successful humans through history have approached life with both a clear mind and an open heart.
Choosing one over the other is like deciding that from this day forth I shall only mind where I place my right foot, and try to forget all about my left foot.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

It is such a foolish quarrel, especially considering the fact that the most successful humans through history have approached life with both a clear mind and an open heart.

I see nothing wrong with this but to say that someone who is believing in things that can not be seen such as Gods, devils and so forth constitutes an open heart "Is something I have a hard time understanding.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

My questions are in order to understand the person and the beliefs they hold and why they hold them and what limit those beliefs have based on the sources they have access to... At the moment and maybe for the rest of these posts that is my only purpose.. I believe you are reading too much into my post... and I've made sure the person understands that no response is required.

Your comments show you don't know me very well...

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

It does constitute an open heart. A willingness to believe. But there should always be communication between heart and mind to avoid delusions that would harm you or others.
Just look at this world, where our history has thoroughly driven a wedge between those who would believe and those who want to know.
Just look at how messed up it is. We have religious extremist who kill others based on their own beliefs. Then we have those who take most of the wealth for themselves, leaving entire nations to suffer in poverty.
The first group of people harm from a displaced sense of morality, coming from what they believe. God hates this or that, or women are unclean or whatever.
The second group of people harm from a displaced sense of reason, enabled by their closed off hearts. Justifications include free-trade, and "it's ok to take everything another person owns as long as you get him to agree that you can take it". It doesn't matter if this agreement was forced or achieved through manipulation.

This is the damage the church has done to us in seeking to stop the birth of science and using morality to oppress people. Those who reject religion can now also reject morality itself, because they believe that we have found a secular substitute. This is something I have a hard time understanding.

1 Reply

@igm,

@Cyracuz
Also remember a question is 'not' a confrontation.

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

My questions are in order to understand the person and the beliefs they hold and why they hold them and what limit those beliefs have based on the sources they have access to...

My reply to your post was an attempt to give a general description of how I perceive these things to fit together inside an individual. I apologize if I left you feeling you have to defend yourself. I wasn't objecting to your questions, merely remarking on the problems of evaluating one theory based on a conflicting theory.

Imagine you had a poet and a scientist both studying the sun, making notes about it. Afterwards, when the scientist and the poet compared notes, I think it's fair to say that they would have little common ground to compare on, since the things each put emphasis on are so different.
And yet there is no doubt that both the poet and the scientist are both speaking of something that is real.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

This is the damage the church has done to us in seeking to stop the birth of science and using morality to oppress people.

I think that you may have misspelled immorality.

The church seems to use immorality at times and calls it morality. They have not only suppressed science in a few fields but they have also suppressed the science of morality "ethics.

Not all theists are bad people and not all atheists are good people.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

I'm a heart person using the head to refute the head so as to experience the heart fully... so to speak.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

True. I have never had a direct revelation from Jehovah so that I would know his name. If I had, I would know how it should be pronounced.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

To recap, you are saying that Jehovah is sovereign and you are his/her/its created subject and you believe this.. please correct me if I'm wrong.

Is your belief garnered solely from the Bible?

Do you have a view on how Jehovah created i.e. was it by using part of itself of not part of itself or don't you know i.e. where did the substance that created Jehovah's creation come from, was it Jehovah or not Jehovah? If you don't know and you see that as irrelevant then why is it irrelevant if one believes that Jehovah is the creator of creation?

You are of course free not to answer my questions... do so only if you would like to.

Proverbs chapter 8 is an interesting read in its entirety; but I direct your attention to these words, starting in vs. 22:

 “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way, the earliest of his achievements of long ago. 23 From time indefinite I was installed, from the start, from times earlier than the earth. . .  then I came to be beside him as a master worker, and I came to be the one he was specially fond of day by day . . . "

Some will no doubt identify the speaker as God's first born (only begotten) son. It was he to whom God gave the tools of creation, so that Paul was able to say: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created . . . ". (Colossians 1: 15,16)

Hope that helps.

1 Reply

@neologist,

I believe in E=mc2 but I do not truly understand it. It's really a matter of faith in the intelligence of people like Einstein. Thank goodness God never told him that we have to believe in it in order to go to heaven.

0 Replies

@neologist,

It's all about believing what the Bible reveals.. I get that... it's a perfectly reasonable way to live a life for those with a faith that can withstand doubt Smile

wouldn't you say? Don't feel you need to reply (you can of course) my final few words are rhetorical.

1 Reply

An Atheists Argument for God (or Something ike it.)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know