(May 26, 2013 at 3:37 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: The problem is I can't be an intellectually satisfied athesit. Its not hard to have a mere 'lack of belief' in God the problem comes in attempting to explain the existence of the universe, life and sentient life if in fact God (an intelligent Creator) really doesn't exist.

I understand what you're saying. But throughout human history there have been many things that we could not explain because we did not have sufficient knowledge and understanding. Often, they were ascribed supernatural causes or origins. But as science progressed and we increased our knowledge and understanding, we invariably replace the supernatural explanation with a natural one. This has happened many, many times. As far as I am aware, there have been no cases where additional knowledge and understanding confirmed a supernatural cause to something we did not previously understand.

Thus, if we ever do gain sufficient knowledge and understanding to figure out things like the origins of life and the universe, the odds strongly favor that the explanation will be natural, not supernatural. This is why I am comfortable with not knowing. It's not that I'm satisfied with not knowing. It's just that I have no concerns that we'll suddenly unveil GOD and trigger some kind of paradigm shift or epiphany or whatever. There isn't a murderous demon with large fangs hiding in my closet. There might be a moth in there, nibbling on a shirt, but I'm confident that I can handle that.

(May 31, 2013 at 11:05 am)Tonus Wrote:

(May 26, 2013 at 3:37 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: The problem is I can't be an intellectually satisfied athesit. Its not hard to have a mere 'lack of belief' in God the problem comes in attempting to explain the existence of the universe, life and sentient life if in fact God (an intelligent Creator) really doesn't exist.

I understand what you're saying. But throughout human history there have been many things that we could not explain because we did not have sufficient knowledge and understanding. Often, they were ascribed supernatural causes or origins. But as science progressed and we increased our knowledge and understanding, we invariably replace the supernatural explanation with a natural one. This has happened many, many times. As far as I am aware, there have been no cases where additional knowledge and understanding confirmed a supernatural cause to something we did not previously understand.

Thus, if we ever do gain sufficient knowledge and understanding to figure out things like the origins of life and the universe, the odds strongly favor that the explanation will be natural, not supernatural. This is why I am comfortable with not knowing. It's not that I'm satisfied with not knowing. It's just that I have no concerns that we'll suddenly unveil GOD and trigger some kind of paradigm shift or epiphany or whatever. There isn't a murderous demon with large fangs hiding in my closet. There might be a moth in there, nibbling on a shirt, but I'm confident that I can handle that.

Well stated. I agree that it's not satisfying not to know, but admitting ignorance is a sign of intelligence, at least to me. So long as it's learned from. While I'm not satisfied by not knowing, I try not to allow myself to presume to know, that which I cannot at this time know. I can only take what I do know, and build from that. The knowledge gained from this process is satisfying.

(May 30, 2013 at 4:14 am)apophenia Wrote:

(May 29, 2013 at 10:25 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Can you name another situation where something would exist yet you would find no evidence that it does?

Multiple universes.

Read some intereresting papers suggesting bruising from collisions with other universes in the WMAP map of the cosmic background radiation, dranted it's early days. Can't find them right now but this is a good site that I visit often http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/

---

(May 26, 2013 at 3:37 pm)Drew_2013 Wrote: The problem is I can't be an intellectually satisfied athesit. Its not hard to have a mere 'lack of belief' in God the problem comes in attempting to explain the existence of the universe, life and sentient life if in fact God (an intelligent Creator) really doesn't exist.

I get what you saying, and I feel this hunger for an explaination is the root of faith. Seriously I would love to be able to believe that I will meet all my loved ones in some heaven. For me it boils down to this.

The universe appears, on the basis of the available evidence to have have a beginning (athough there are some physicists who say a changing is more appropriate) at the big bang. I do not know caused this, but to take ignorance of the facts and assume it must be supernatural is a bit of a leap for me. There was a time magnets were gods work too, mental illness the devils. Ignorance IS NOT information.

The formation of life is an interetsing field, and only a field in it's infancy. But from my limited knowledge it's chemistry, not random chance as many like to claim. Chemistry is not random.

Am I an intellectually satisfied atheist?, HELL YES. A universe without questions and mystery would be boring. I love this world.

Drew hasn't been here in 10 days; he was gone a few days last time.

A light bulb just went off. We know something about the light bulb which we don't know about the universe. We know that, generally speaking, light bulbs can only be in one of two states: on or off. This knowledge, combined with knowing that the light bulb is not on, allows us to validly deduce that the light bulb is off. Thus, this is a case of a false analogy.

(June 9, 2013 at 6:21 pm)apophenia Wrote:


Drew hasn't been here in 10 days; he was gone a few days last time.

A light bulb just went off. We know something about the light bulb which we don't know about the universe. We know that, generally speaking, light bulbs can only be in one of two states: on or off. This knowledge, combined with knowing that the light bulb is not on, allows us to validly deduce that the light bulb is off. Thus, this is a case of a false analogy.

If it's a tungsten light bulb and it has been on for a while, then, just after you turn it off, it still emits some almost imperceptible light... and a lot of heat.

I was wondering on what logical premise do you have to not believe in a God? I know that a lot of atheist have different opinions and arguments. I'm only asking to get a better understanding on the matter, and I'm not here to argue against Atheist (not yet that is) just inviting a friendly conversation.

(August 13, 2013 at 2:36 pm)AnaMejiaP Wrote: I was wondering on what logical premise do you have to not believe in a God? I know that a lot of atheist have different opinions and arguments. I'm only asking to get a better understanding on the matter, and I'm not here to argue against Atheist (not yet that is) just inviting a friendly conversation.

I suppose you mean the Abrahamic god as you are a christian.

So this means you reject Thor why would you do that? or Isis that is another god you presumably don't believe in. But these are old gods and be dismissed as just part of mankinds chldhood.
But what of Ganesha, Xenu and all the other gods still worshipped why don't you worship them?

The truth is we just believe in one god less than you do and given the number there are out there that makes you an almost Atheist.

When you realise why you reject all the other gods take a lot a your god and use the same reasoning on that.

You'll find its not so different.

On a personal note I have never believed in a god and have seen no reason to start.
The idea of god seems like a silly one to me and I struggle to understand how people can think there is even the slightest possibility of it being anything other than a myth.

(August 13, 2013 at 2:36 pm)AnaMejiaP Wrote: I was wondering on what logical premise do you have to not believe in a God?

That the buden of proof for god's existence has not been met.

(August 13, 2013 at 2:36 pm)AnaMejiaP Wrote: I was wondering on what logical premise do you have to not believe in a God? I know that a lot of atheist have different opinions and arguments. I'm only asking to get a better understanding on the matter, and I'm not here to argue against Atheist (not yet that is) just inviting a friendly conversation.

There is insufficient demonstrable evidence, valid & sound logic, and reasoned argument to support the claim that a god exists.

In other words, the claim that a god exists has not met its burden of proof.

My disbelief in a god is a provisional position, not a dogmatic one. My atheism will continue as long as the claim that a god exists does not meet the above criteria.

(August 13, 2013 at 2:47 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(August 13, 2013 at 2:36 pm)AnaMejiaP Wrote: I was wondering on what logical premise do you have to not believe in a God? I know that a lot of atheist have different opinions and arguments. I'm only asking to get a better understanding on the matter, and I'm not here to argue against Atheist (not yet that is) just inviting a friendly conversation.

I suppose you mean the Abrahamic god as you are a christian.

So this means you reject Thor why would you do that? or Isis that is another god you presumably don't believe in. But these are old gods and be dismissed as just part of mankinds chldhood.
But what of Ganesha, Xenu and all the other gods still worshipped why don't you worship them?

The truth is we just believe in one god less than you do and given the number there are out there that makes you an almost Atheist.

When you realise why you reject all the other gods take a lot a your god and use the same reasoning on that.

You'll find its not so different.

On a personal note I have never believed in a god and have seen no reason to start.
The idea of god seems like a silly one to me and I struggle to understand how people can think there is even the slightest possibility of it being anything other than a myth.

Yes, I do believe in the God of the Bible. Though it wasn't what I was asking, it doesn't matter whether it's my God or any other god. I was simply asking what's the logical reasoning not to believe in "A" God?
(You stated that you see no reason to start; what's that reason then?)
On the side note: "One less god?" I'm sorry but are we talking about the same atheist term? I thought (correct me if so) Atheist believe in (no) god for the lack of evidence for such a deity? In saying that, I can't be an "almost atheist" because I do believe in one and deny the others because they're false. (Well, that's my belief and I can understand you might find that silly, stupid, bigotted, ignorant etc etc)