Atheists and Atheism (Little Upsilon)

Well, define it.

One would assume that if one talks about something, then one knows what s/he talks about.

That is why every discussion, polemic, or thought should begin with definitions of terminology, else its bound to end up in situation where everyone talks about something else.

Its impossible for us to prove that God nor free will exists.

Jojo: Level and type of proof depends on the claim. The claim that Jim has £20 in his pocket is on a different level from the claim there is a supernatural all powerful entity who cares about my sex life.

Zdenek: My claim is that the theistic god, which i define as any omnimax god (such as the christian and muslim gods), is impossible. I make no claims about the existance of the deistic god (an initiator which doesnt have inclination to act) other than I see no reason why one is necessary. I think this defines 'god' fairly well, I am happier to discuss the theistic than the deistic god.

Furthermore, I will define free will as a property of conciousness, which is an emergent phenomenum of the processes of the brain. Free will is an expression of the experience of self. I know I exist. I make choices based on prediction of consequences of actions I may take. The action of making the choice is free will. Imo, my action of making choices is demonstrable. If you want to argue that choice is predictable based on upbringing and psychology, then this doesnt preculde my definition.

Thus, nothing is impossible, it is a matter of definitions.

Yes, a matter of definitions, and in such case anything is possible indeed.

Mr Powers, you said "What I dont understand about suffering is this: If god is all loving, why would he allow us to suffer at all? Apparantly because we brought it on ourselves by exercising free will. But what kind of a god punishes so completely for such a minor and arbitrary crime? " It was not so much what they did, but WHY they did it that was wrong. According to the biblical account God is NOT punishing. He is just allowing humans for the time being to reap the consequences of their own decisions, which is absolutely different from him causing it, or punishing humans.

God had the power to destroy the three rebels Satan, Adam, and Eve. God was unquestionably stronger than they were. But Satan did not question God's power. Instead, he questioned God's right to rule. The issue affected all creatures having free will. They needed to see that the gift of free will must be used properly within the bounds of physical, moral, and spiritual guidelines from God. Otherwise, harm results, just as surely as injury will occur when a man jumps off the roof of a tall building without regard for the law of gravity. All intelligent creatures could benefit from observing for themselves the bad fruitage of choosing a course of independence from God. This required time.
The fact that it requires time to settle some issues can be illustrated this way: Suppose the father of one family challenges the father of another to a contest that will prove which man is stronger. That issue could be decided quickly. Strength could be measured by lifting rocks. The father who lifted the heaviest rock would be the stronger man. But suppose the challenge involved which father truly loves his sons and daughters and whether they love him in return. Or what if the challenge raises the question of which father manages his family in the best way? Neither a display of strength nor mere words would be adequate. Sufficient time would have to pass, careful observation would be required, and right conclusions would have to be drawn in order for the issue to be settled.

But you are right in using the term 'free will of a slave', because obviously we cant have absolute free will. We are subject to the laws of physics, which in some degree limits our 'free will.' You are also correct in saying that free will is not always unpredictable, in fact I'd argue that under normal circumstances and knowing a bit about the individual, you can predict their use of free will fairly accurately! Again as stated earlier, imo free will is the ability to choose, not being forced to do anything.

Also although God has the ability to look into the future he can choose not to do so.

Proof of God, well that has been discussed in this thread many times before, just as their has been 'proof' that there isnt. There are many things that cannot be directly observed or measured, but the effects can be observed and measured. All because you cant see it or feel it dosent mean it dosent exist. I see proof of God, or a Creator, or higher power, whatever term you may wanna use, in the universe and nature. Cause and Effect. For example, prove that black holes exist! You cant see them, you cant measure them, for if anything gets close enuf to measure them, it cannot come back, black holes are unobservable and unmeasurable. The only way to estimate or attempt to 'see' them is by observing their effects, or results on observable things. You see the effect, therefore their must be a cause. Or how about 'dark matter'. Same thing, no measurement is available, no observation, but their is something there that makes up far more mass than we have been able to measure or see. There again, we have an effect, therefore there must be a cause! But need we digress to earlier conversations?

As for what the point for creating humans was? Well according to the bible it was for perfect humans to live forever on the earth. And as been previously stated if God is all powerful, then that is what will eventually happen!

Evidence, and proof, are two different things.

I don't think one can prove that God exists--it's a red herring, you can't prove that anything exists. You can't prove that a chair sitting right in front of you exists. You can give evidence, but if someone doesn't want to accept the evidence they can argue it every step of the way. Descartes, Berkley, Hume, gave good arguments for this.

<!-Quote-!>Quote:

Cause and Effect. For example, prove that black holes exist! You cant see them, you cant measure them, for if anything gets close enuf to measure them, it cannot come back, black holes are unobservable and unmeasurable.<!-/Quote-!>

An erroneous statement, and the analogy is also erroneous by extrapolation of the fact. Black holes have in fact been directly observed. Though it is an intriguing conclusion that you draw, and it links back in to the recurring theme of God being a personal creature.

What you have basically said is that you see a God because you want to see a God.

As for dark matter, that remains a convenient theory. Much like God it simply fits one particular interpretation of the nature of the universe, and it will not be considered "fact" until direct observation has been made.

Proving the existance of a creator God becomes something of a paradox. One must prove the existance of intelligent design to prove the existance of the creator, but one must prove the existance of the creator in order to prove intelligent design. Else design can simply be passed off as yet another convenient assumption about the observable universe.

And direct observation is what I'm attempting to draw on here as the very point of the argument. The original question of existance or non-existance becomes moot because neither side can fully sway the argument.

Serpant: If god created the universe, it created the 'consequences of their own decisions'. God apparantly set a test in which humanity was doomed to fail. It seems to me that this god character is an egomanical master who wants unswerving obedience what ever the cost.

You then make a claim which I have heard before, but never seriously. That god can see the future but chooses not to. Are you serious in this claim? Does something which chooses not to see into the future count as omniscient? I dont think so. Why would it be necessary to put mankind through the suffering if you can just choose to see into the future and settle the arguement? Isnt that the action of a sadist?

You havent answered the purpose of the soul question, quite. Besides, at what point in our development from more primative ancestors did Humans begin to be inbued with souls? Was it after we left the trees or before we developed complex language or when we created world-creation myths? Or is it the case that we were created in our current form and all the evidence to the contrary is simply misinterpretted or created to fool us?

You did, however, claim that god created the Earth for humans seems far fetched. But if I grant you it for the time being, the question still remains: Why? Why create a world for Humans? What purpose does it serve? Why does god require to know whether inperfect creations (which he created as inperfect) are capable of blind obedience?

You claim observation of evidence (regarding a fine tuned universe, anthropic principle) but everytime you try to indicate the evidence, you have failed to present anything convincing. Yet you persist in making the claim anyway, blithly ignoring the evidence to the contrary.

Jojo: I think is is perfectly possible to prove god exists. It could do it right now; perhaps by answering prayer (significantly above random chance). It is impossible, at the moment, to prove that a number of definitions of god do not exist. But this number is shrinking by the day and certainly does not include the theistic god described in the bible.

Ok... one comment and this thread can float right back to the bottom:

NOBODY on Earth will argue with me that DNA is programming.

Programming demands a programmer.

(unless of course we believe a tornado can go through a junk yard and assemble a completely built, ready to fly, fully fueled Boeing 777 complete with pilot. it's like saying Simcountry came together on it's own)

I think you all already know I believe that the evidence says that things tend towards disorder, not order.

Can you be a atheist yet still believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord?

Edit:

Sorry. just woken up. I don't think what I have written makes any sense. For it is up to me what I believe. Ignore me

Reminds me of a passage from a poem

Oh Thou, who Man of baser Earth
didst make,
And who with Eden didst devise the
Snake:
For all the Sin wherewith the Face
of man
Is blacken'd, Mans Forgiveness give
---and take!

Farmer Bob, that poem you quoted.
Was that by Rudyard Kipling?

truely he is one of the best

Frontier Arithmetic: Now that poem should have been required reading for Mr Bush before he committed troops to Iraq & Afghanistan