Eldy

The God that I was raised to know was not such a good being, in that to him was ascribed all kinds of arbitrary commands and directions, with promises and threats that would unnerve anyone, it would seem to me.

But the God I have learned to know and believe, and perhaps understand in my maturity is a God worth knowing and worshiping. He is the God of love, and all the positive ideas that the word LOVE suggests.

If one of my daughters came to me and sought forgiveness, and then I said, "But first, you must kill my son, your brother, before I will accept you," then I would be a loving being.

My God does not require human sacrifice, nor does he burn his kids who are disobedient. A loving Father could not do this.

Without some of these hard quirks, I can believe in a God of Love. What are your thoughts on it?

jenn

Sidewinder,
I loved what you had to see and I also agree.

I think that because we are all different in our personalities and in our mind that we will all have to get to the core of the, "Universe" or, "God". It may be when we die and it may be when we get done with School here on Earth.
I love to read and dream about what it would feel like in the Universe.

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Philosoft

Seb_Maya,

But what does prayer have to do with science? Do theistic medical researchers pray that God will help them find the cure for cancer? Surely some have done this over the years. So where's the breakthrough? God doesn't think enough of the "help me cure cancer" prayers? He'd rather help out the occasional homosexual who "converts" or motivate Christian missionaries?

Philosoft

What is your point? Deism is irrefutable. So what? It's also unprovable.

Philosoft

Do you really think when an atheist says, "I believe the universe is all there is," what he means is, "Even if I were shown (or given an airtight logical proof of) something that is demonstrably not within the universe, I will maintain my disbelief?" The latter is what you seem to be arguing and it's obviously wrong.

Maybe we should confine this discussion to skeptics since it's conceivable there are atheists who are dogmatic thinkers.

[ June 22, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

tronvillain

Seb_Maya:
In the absence of any evidence that there is anything outside of the room, believing in the existence of any outside, let alone a specific outside, seems unjustified.

Aquila ka Hecate

O Avis:
I can obviously be wrong, but I didn't pick eh up at all as saying what you said he said (so to speak!).

My 'Bollocks' objection was to your generalization of 'the atheist' as beliveing such and so.And before you counter-object that we (atheists) generalise just as much wrt theists, well, yes we do.

But you've got to admit that the generalization holds more strongly for people who hold a positive belief in something, and not a lack of belief.
And that, of course, is the other half of the 'Bollocks'.Atheists are by far less homogeneous in what they do belive in.Not all of us by a long way hold with Metaphysical Naturalism.
Not all of us by a long way are completely certain of all that it entails.Myself included.



That said, it is far better to be having this discussion with you, O Avis, than with some of your coreligionists who are, to be frank, pretty rabid.

Seb_Maya,
Thank you also for your comments. Another nonrabid theist, and I appreciate your stance.
But, correct me if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick, but you seemed in your reply to Philosoft to be putting forward the necessity for spiritual revelation as a prelude to understanding theism.
A lot of atheists(not a generalization!) have come to take their position from their previous expreiences with theism.I know I have.I have been a christian, and a wiccan, for many years, and I had my share of spiritual experiences, some of which were pretty profound.
But all the time, I had also had training in, and a leaning towards, scientific thought and methodology.
When the promises and lures of spirituality melted under scrutinization, the theories of science stood firm. Those that could not, were discarded after apropriate testing.
And it is this that I cannot deny, and remain intelectually and emotionally, and, if you like, 'spiritually' honest with myself.
(Watch those 'smilies', they'll bite your bum!!)

Tercel

No, I don't think that, and hence I'm not arguing it.

Tercel

Aquila ka Hecate,

Your post appears to be aimed at me yet you address it to "O Avis". Is it supposed to be a joke of some sort?

You're right it was a generalisation the way I said it, I assumed people would understand from the context of the thread that I didn't mean it as applying to all atheists.

Less homogeneous than who? Religious people? Christians? Fundamentalist Christians?

Agreed. But don't call the kettle black: Some of your co-non-religionists are almost as bad in their own way.

eh

Quoting, in bold

Well if you're going to play that game then: By definition, God is all there is. Therefore God exists.


Ok. If God exists, he is part of the universe. So the whole point is whether or not two sides are on equal grounds of faith believing in a God, or just the natural world.

The thing is, we already know the natural world is indeed part of the universe. We have absolutely no evidence for a deity of any kind. None, ziltch, nadda, zero. So in absence of any grounds for believing there is a magical realm to the universe, assuming the natural world to be all there is sounds like the only rational position to take.


Perhaps, in aim of having a meaningful discussion we should limit "the universe" to meaning the physical space-time world that some might call "our universe" or "this universe".

Fair enough. See above.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But it doesn't take faith to take a look at a universe that operates by natural means and assume that this is all there is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course it does. You're making an unwarrented assumption akin to the man believing his small island is all there is.



In the absence of any of evidence at all for a magic/spiritual realm, with pretty good evidence for the natural world, how is this assumption unwarrented? I would hardly call this island small...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you just lack the education to make a serious comment about cosmology. Actually, you don't even need a formal education, you just need to read some books. This is not an insult.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not an insult? What else can a factually incorrect, derogatory, negative statement be?
I might not have a PHD in cosmology, but I'm hardly an ignoramus so you could drop the ad hominems.


When you make comments that show you barely have a grasp on cosmology, it seems clear that you haven't bothered to read much on the subject. It's the whole question of the universe coming from nothing that I'm talking about.

Take a look at your statement about the seemingly arbitrary nature of the universe again. These are all good questions, but there are also some good answers out there. I don't know if you've read up on these subjects, but we'll stick to the issue of the origins of the universe for the time being.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy in the universe did not form out of nothing, and no one is making that claim. How many times do you have to read that before you'll stop making claims to the contrary?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can repeat that as many times as you like, but it doesn't make it true.
Plenty of people are making that claim. How do I know? Because I've personally seen them do it!


Who? Where? When? With the expection of a few, this isn't what cosmologists are saying about the origins of our universe. So do show me where this claim is being made.

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: eh ]</p>