Thanks for the welcoming.
Your story about advanced aliens, which for us would be indistinguishable, coming to earth, led me to think of another story I came across sometime ago.
Suppose scientists discover a note somewhere in the universe, stating that God did make the universe and has all the attributes religious people claims he has. With the note, the scientists find a copy of God's licence of creation, so they can verify his handwriting, of course. This would be indisputable evidence that God does exist.
But what if the scientists would find another note, somewhere in the distance future, with the same handwriting and also a copy of the licence of creation that states: "Ha, ha, it was just a joke!" Would religious people believe this note (or both notes) would come from Satan?
The point is, we cannot verify the truth of this evidence, because the meaning of it stretches beyond our senses. Even if God would present himself to us from heaven, this will not be sufficient proof of whatever statement he makes about the future or what lies beyond death. We shall not be able to verify anything he says, because it isn't within our reach. Above all, when God presents himself he is no longer supernatural: he becomes part of the natural world.
You said that saying something about the unknown is hardly a bad thing. I agree. Of course you can say something about the unknown, but we have no way of verifying the things we say about it. Some things are more logical than others, when it is based upon our present knowledge and empirical evidence. For instance, i cannot understand how Christians can attribute characteristics as omnipotence and omnibenevolence to an unknowable God. I understand that a favorite Christian principle of knowing something about God is by analogy. For instance: when we say: "That is a good person' we mean something different with the word "good" when we say "that is a good dog." The things Christian apologetics come up with! For if you assume that God has a different nature than humans or the human experience, you must know something about the nature of God, namely that it isn't the same as humans. So, we're right back where we started.
You said that I say something about the unknown too, when I'm stating that I consider myself a nontheist. I guess you're right. We cannot escape saying something about the unknown when we try to distance ourselves from theism. Isn't it unfair to atheists that they can only separate themselves from theists by stating something? I like to see atheism as a lack of believe. Theism just isn't an issue in my worldview. It's like basketball or any other sport. When you do not play basketball, they don't call you an antibasketball player. I believe the same should apply to atheists. Maybe it's time to invent another, more appropriate term for it. What do you think?
You apoligised for calling me ignorant. Well, I think that's polite, but it isn't nessecary. I can imagine when you're bothered by current issues, this will affect your reply to anything. I myself can get sometimes carried away by my emotions. This will have effect on my reaction to whatever comes on my path. As long as the reaction does make sense, i do not blame the other, or myself. It's only irrational and, indeed, ignorant reactions I cannot cope with. Your reaction was thoughtful and, I must say, very well put.
Your story about advanced aliens, which for us would be indistinguishable, coming to earth, led me to think of another story I came across sometime ago.
Suppose scientists discover a note somewhere in the universe, stating that God did make the universe and has all the attributes religious people claims he has. With the note, the scientists find a copy of God's licence of creation, so they can verify his handwriting, of course. This would be indisputable evidence that God does exist.
But what if the scientists would find another note, somewhere in the distance future, with the same handwriting and also a copy of the licence of creation that states: "Ha, ha, it was just a joke!" Would religious people believe this note (or both notes) would come from Satan?
The point is, we cannot verify the truth of this evidence, because the meaning of it stretches beyond our senses. Even if God would present himself to us from heaven, this will not be sufficient proof of whatever statement he makes about the future or what lies beyond death. We shall not be able to verify anything he says, because it isn't within our reach. Above all, when God presents himself he is no longer supernatural: he becomes part of the natural world.
You said that saying something about the unknown is hardly a bad thing. I agree. Of course you can say something about the unknown, but we have no way of verifying the things we say about it. Some things are more logical than others, when it is based upon our present knowledge and empirical evidence. For instance, i cannot understand how Christians can attribute characteristics as omnipotence and omnibenevolence to an unknowable God. I understand that a favorite Christian principle of knowing something about God is by analogy. For instance: when we say: "That is a good person' we mean something different with the word "good" when we say "that is a good dog." The things Christian apologetics come up with! For if you assume that God has a different nature than humans or the human experience, you must know something about the nature of God, namely that it isn't the same as humans. So, we're right back where we started.
You said that I say something about the unknown too, when I'm stating that I consider myself a nontheist. I guess you're right. We cannot escape saying something about the unknown when we try to distance ourselves from theism. Isn't it unfair to atheists that they can only separate themselves from theists by stating something? I like to see atheism as a lack of believe. Theism just isn't an issue in my worldview. It's like basketball or any other sport. When you do not play basketball, they don't call you an antibasketball player. I believe the same should apply to atheists. Maybe it's time to invent another, more appropriate term for it. What do you think?
You apoligised for calling me ignorant. Well, I think that's polite, but it isn't nessecary. I can imagine when you're bothered by current issues, this will affect your reply to anything. I myself can get sometimes carried away by my emotions. This will have effect on my reaction to whatever comes on my path. As long as the reaction does make sense, i do not blame the other, or myself. It's only irrational and, indeed, ignorant reactions I cannot cope with. Your reaction was thoughtful and, I must say, very well put.
