Suggestions that god exists

n.karthick

Wow what a thinking. Great!!!

But the problem is that the "brflrfkjssd" believer will learn Science, see the gaps in Science and argue with Scientists that there is always a possibility that "brflrfkjssd" exists, since Science can't explain or don't have answer for it.

GeorginaS

And then the tail end of that is: as science doesn't have an answer for it, and it may very well exist, and something must have caused its existence, that then must be god.

And yes, Dave's right, that it's not up to atheists to prove a negative or prove that a fictional being does not exist.

GeorgCantor

Quite the opposite. I don't demand that you prove anything(I know you can't!). It's the atheists who are intolerant toward other viewpoints, so THEY must prove how their assumptions about origins and the 'naturality' of existence are more valid than the rest.

GeorgCantor

Science does not in ANY way whatsoever point to the conlcusion that god does not exist(certain religions are easier to dismiss as probably not true though). Scientists are not predominently atheists.

TubbaBlubba

My viewpoint is that humanity originated on the moon and left no traces of this whatsoever.

Let's say I said this at some random point. Would you be "tolerant" of this or would you ask "Why the hell do you think that?" or would you just think I was insane?

GeorgCantor

No, but I completely fail to see how this is related to what i said. What exactly is 'insane' in the position that the origin of this comprehensible universe with its laws and constants was probably not a random event? I am aware that there is a border between absurdity and naivety that i do not wish to cross and fall into the trap of what i perceive to be 'extremes' - theism or atheism.

TubbaBlubba

We both believe things that we can't prove or test. I don't see the difference. Would you "tolerate" my view or would you question it?

GeorgCantor

See, i used to be VERY naive. Probably as much as everyone else on this planet(if not more). 7 years ago, I used to be a very vocal atheist(). With the end of the mechanistic, newtonain 'clockwork' universe nothing AT ALL is obvious to me anymore. I really mean - Nothing.

I don't question your views, they could be true though i find them very unlikely and in personal plan, i don't like to look naive from certain viewpoints. I am aware that we lack information to draw a definitive conclusion so i think i act in what i perceive to be a 'tolerant' attitude towards other viewpoints.

zomgwtf

Give it up.

First of all your statement is contradictory. I don't demand you prove anything, yet you say that he (an atheist) needs to prove their 'assumptions'.

The only people who make assumptions are those that are religious and believe in such a creation god. I do not understand how you do not see this or how you somehow believe it makes sense that the atheist are the ones that are doing this.

The atheist DON'T ACCEPT the god ASSUMPTION. This is not an assumption, this is the opposite of an assumption.

GeorgCantor

It is very very obvious from my posts so far, that i actually DID NOT! demand evidence for your assumptions UNTIL after atheists started demanding evidence for god. This is so obvious that i don't know why i bother replying.






You DO make the assumptions that existence is natural and that the origin is also natural. You actually do make assumptions even though you don't realize it or are simply unwilling to admit so.

stevenb

This is all well and good, but it's still not clear to me what an atheist is.

Since we don't know the explanation of why we and the universe exist, the atheist seems to believe in no theory based on what you are saying here. Believing in no particular theory because you don't know the answer is agnostism (I think), so it seems that atheism is believing in no particular thing because some answer is known. But, how can you not believe in something that is known, so what is this thing that is known by an atheist? I assume that the atheist is not claiming that it is known that God does not exist (as I originally assumed) because you say above that burden of proving this is not on the atheist.

I guess I'm talking in circles because the definition of atheism seems to be becoming less clear to me as the discussion goes on. I started early in this thread with an assumption that atheists made a strong statement about the concept of God being wrong. Are we basically saying that agnostism and atheism are the same thing?

There is no proof that science can explain existance, so if I postulate that "brflrfkjssd" is the scientific theory (as yet undiscovered) that explains all mysteries, an atheist should reject this concept just as quickly as God is rejected. The atheist has now rejected the two explanations that I can think of might explain our existance. Even if there is a third, the atheist should reject that one too because there is no proof of it.

Please help me out here. What am I missing? Is there a clear definition of an atheist, or is there just a wide spectrum that is impossible to define clearly unless we talk about the absolute endpoints of 100% knowledge that God exists or 100% knowledge that God does not exist.

EDIT: A thought just occured to me as I clicked send. Would the following definitions be usable?

Atheist: Someone who rejects all theories of explaning existance because there is no way to prove them.

Agnostic: Someone who accepts many theories as possible explanation of existance because there is no way to prove any particular one.

GeorginaS

No. Agnosticism neither accepts nor rejects any theory about the existence/non-existence of god. The position is complete neutrality. It's a shoulder-shrug.

Evo

No, that's not it at all. Although some people now break atheism down in sub-categories in an attempt to cover all possible aspects of non-belief, basically, atheism is a lack of belief in a diety. It has nothing to do with science.

Agnostics aren't sure there are dieties, but tend to think there aren't. In other words, they believe that the existence of dieties is unknown or unknowable.

It is some religions that try to replace scientific explanations of creation and existence with a diety. Perhaps this is what confuses you.

DaveC426913

This is important, so I'll clarify:

Wrong: Agnostics don't know if there's a God.
Right: Agnostics believe that God is unknowable in this life.

So, it's not that they don't know the answer; it's that they believe there can be no answer.

stevenb

I'm still not sure of the difference here.

If I take a weak view of this definition of atheism, then lack of belief seems the same as not being sure about the existance of a diety. One doesn't believe because there is no compelling reason to believe. I can identify with this, but it strikes me as too close to agnostism for me to tell the difference.

If I take a strong view of this definition of atheism, then the lack of belief is the same as being sure that there is no deity. This strong view does not seem to match the comments that some have made about atheism. For example, "the burden of proof is not on the atheist" and "no self-respecting atheist would hold this view". And if the atheist believes something without proof, isn't this a case of faith, which makes the atheist more like a religious person with faith, in one sense; and, a polar opposite in another sense?

I'm really trying to understand. The more I hear, the less I want to use any label to describe myself. ... Well, I already felt that way, so no problems there.

I don't think this is the main source of my confusion, but now I'm confused even more. I'm not sure I understand this comment. How did religions replace scientific explanations of creation and existence with a diety? Most established religions originated before science was even invented, and even more before any scientific theories of origin such as the big-bang/standard-model. Does this model even qualify as a proven scientific theory that truly explains creation and existence? I do accept that this modern scientific theory (very recently) provides a compelling desciption of the origin of the universe, but to me this description of physical laws, starting boundary conditions and following events falls short of explaining why our scientfic laws and starting conditions are even possible.

So basically, your comment seems to imply that a scientific explanation of creation and existence has existed, and religions try to replace that with a diety. My humble view is that it is science that is attempting to replace religious explanations of creation and existance, with a scientific theory. It is also my humble view that it has not yet succeeded in achieving this awesome feat. I'm as hopeful as any other scientist that it may happen, but even this will not force religious people to abandon their faith. A faithful person can always cling to the idea that God exists and is powerful enough to make a universe that appears inevitable and self consistent to anyone within it. In the end this will always remain a mystery that does not yield to logic, but for now I really would just like to have a clear understanding of the language we use to classify our points of view. The core fundamental difference between a "weak-atheist" and some types of agnostics still escapes me.

stevenb

Dave, thank you for trying to help me here. Is this really the accepted definition? Interesting. I wouldn't call my self an agnostic by this defintion, so I think my idea of not using any labels for myself is a good idea.

Calling myself agnostic with this definition creates many conflicts with my own personal beliefs. So many that I don't even know if I could articulate them. It uses the word belief, which seems to imply faith. Personally, I know only that I don't know what to believe. I don't know that God is unknowable and I don't even believe that God is unknowable. If God exists, then of course he would be knowable if he decided to reveal himself to me. I don't know or believe that God exists, but I accept it as a possibility. I also accept the possiblity that science may come up with a theory that explains the universe and explains why that theory is the one that operates in our universe. I don't think that has happened yet; but, sure, maybe it will happen.

Maybe I'm an atheist and don't even know it, maybe I'm an agnostic, but not by this definition. In the end, I think I will avoid any label. I really don't need one. I do think clear definitions are important, and I have no problem accepting yours if everyone agrees with it.

Galap

The main question that is being asked here is "Why did THIS happen as opposed to nothing/something else?" As of now, we have no answer. To do so we would need to answer the question as to WHY the laws of physics are what they are, and not somehting else, and WHY the universe exists (note here that I am agnostic with respect to the existence of other worlds, a multiverse; there is no strong reason yet to believe such places exist, but no reason to believe that such places don't exist. Just clarifying that when i say 'universe' i mean "everything that exists, whatever that may be").

Since the universe is all that exists, one cannot assume an outside explanation. Therefore, the reasons must come from within, from the system itself. It seems to me then that the question once answered will be meaningless, as the answer will be self refferential, somethign akin to "This system that exists is the only one that can, and anythign different would be LOGICALY INCONSISTENT" i.e. logically this is the only answer. Of course there will then be a logical proof of this.