"How do I know God exists?" - the first step to atheism

[Cosmic Ape]

You know what's funny too Abra? your sig on Atheism is still as dead wrong as you are about reality. Atheism means only one thing rejection of the god claims usually because of a lack of evidence (something you refuse to give for your asinine positions) any other question after that is a seperate question for the specific Atheist. In fact, you're an Atheist and I can prove it, do you believe in any of the god claims? no? then you're an Atheist.

[Reforged]

I've seen some people here mention the concept of the "soul". The only difference I can see between the definition of the soul and the mind is that the soul carries on after death.
That being said, I know I have a mind. Its the term for me, my personality, my thoughts. Its demonstrable because without a mind I would not have an opinion. It really boils down to: "I think therefore I am".
The same cannot be said for the soul. Its very nice in a poetic sense but there is nothing to indicate anything of me will live on after I die.
That being said; isn't the existence of the mind, the essence of who we are enough to sate such longings for something transcendental? It can be damaged and destroyed but doesn't that make it more precious? Although a man may not hold onto the dream that is eternity I don't think that makes him any less capable of grasping the beauty and the eloquence behind what makes an individual an individual.

[Abracadabra]

You know what's funny too Abra? your sig on Atheism is still as dead wrong as you are about reality. Atheism means only one thing rejection of the god claims usually because of a lack of evidence (something you refuse to give for your asinine positions) any other question after that is a seperate question for the specific Atheist. In fact, you're an Atheist and I can prove it, do you believe in any of the god claims? no? then you're an Atheist.

I've already posted this several times, but I'll do it again for your sake.

I have studiously read the forum rules and definitions of "Atheism" the very day that I joined this forum. I wanted to make sure that I was in compliance with what this web site expects of its members.

So yes, I am an "Atheist". In fact, according to a definition given on these very forums I'm a "Strong Atheist" or "Gnostic Atheist" (i.e. proclaiming to have knowledge that certain Gods definitely do not exist.

Gnostic (strong) atheist

Strong atheism is a position that certain types of gods definitely do not exist. An atheist may be gnostic towards the non-existence of some types of gods yet an agnostic atheist towards other types of gods.

I'm definitely a strong atheist when it comes to Gods like those of Greek and Hebrew mythology, etc.

But at the same time, I recognize that I am also an Agnostic Spiritualist. In other words, I am open-minded to a possible spiritual essence of reality and proclaim that this cannot be ruled-out based on current human knowledge. (the italicized part of the above defintion of "Strong Atheist" actually permits a Strong Atheist to also be agnostic toward other types of "gods" (or spirituality).

In fact, I personally prefer to refer to that as "Agnostic Spiritualist".

So in my Religions views I list myself as: Gnostic Atheists, Agnostic Spiritualist.

Totally within the accepted definition of "Gnostic Atheist" provided by this very web site.

I claim that certain types of Gods cannot exist (i.e the biblical God, etc.), whilst simultaneously keeping an open mind to other types of spiritual concepts that I personally claim cannot be ruled out by current human knowledge in any field of study, including the sciences.

I personally lean toward the Eastern Mystical view of spirituality as being the most likely candidate for the truth of reality.

And that's where I stand. It's a very consistent position that many people apparently seem to have difficulty comprehending for some reason.

So yes, I'm both a Gnostic Atheist and an Agnostic Spiritualist simultaneously, and I'm in total harmony with the meanings of both of these terms.

So there's no inconsistency at my end at all.

---

I've seen some people here mention the concept of the "soul". The only difference I can see between the definition of the soul and the mind is that the soul carries on after death.
That being said, I know I have a mind. Its the term for me, my personality, my thoughts. Its demonstrable because without a mind I would not have an opinion. It really boils down to: "I think therefore I am".
The same cannot be said for the soul. Its very nice in a poetic sense but there is nothing to indicate anything of me will live on after I die.
That being said; isn't the existence of the mind, the essence of who we are enough to sate such longings for something transcendental? It can be damaged and destroyed but doesn't that make it more precious? Although a man may not hold onto the dream that is eternity I don't think that makes him any less capable of grasping the beauty and the eloquence behind what makes an individual an individual.

These kinds of questions are extremely interesting.

The first thought that comes to my mind when these types of questions are raised, are questions of people who have suffered severe amnesia.

If they have basically forgotten who they are. Their entire past. And can't even recognize their own family and friends. Does this mean that the "person" they used to be has "died"?

Doe this mean that the body now contains a brand "new" awareness. And brand "new" individual?

I think arguments can be made on either side of the fence.

However, my personal view is that the awareness would still be the 'same person' even though they no longer remember their past.

And these types of questions are indeed the very types of questions that are interesting to ponder in terms of Eastern Mysticism.

If, when we die, we are reincarnated into a completely new body and we have absolutely no recollection of our past life. How would this be any different from the situation of someone who has suffered extreme amnesia?

That new awareness could potentially be the same underlying being.

I think as difficult as this concept is to grasp, this may very well be how it actually works in some sense.

This is why the question of "What is it that is aware?" is such a paramount question.

If the biological brain the thing that is 'aware'?

And if so, how can that be? A biological brain is nothing other than stardust in a given configuration. What is it that would be having this experience of "awareness"?

The stardust? The configuration?

What sense does it make to say that either stardust, or "a configuration" could be aware of anything?

This is precisely the reason the Eastern Mystics chose to believe in "mysticism" (i.e. that something far more mystical is going on).

I tend to agree.

And my only position on that is that I can't "rule it out".

Neither can I "rule-in" why a mere configuration of stardust should be able to experience anything.

What is it that is having the experience?

That's the $64,000 question.

[genkaus]

Here we go again.

All I need to do is recognize that I am this universe being aware of itself. And that is blatantly obvious. In fact, the only way that could not be true is if I was something other than the universe experiencing itself.

Are you kidding me? You are the universe?

The universe refers to the sum total everything that exists. To say that you are the universe, means to say that you are the only thing that exists. That view is extreme solipism.

But wait a minute! If I'm something other than the universe experiencing itself that very concept would require that I be something other than this universe! In other words, that very idea would force an idea of an external 'soul' that does not belong to this universe.

No, "something other" may simply mean that you are a part of the universe that's experiencing a part of the universe. As identities go, yours is separate from, but not independent of the universe.

When when it comes to this Eastern Mystical picture of "God", where the idea is "Tat t'vam asi" meaning "You are it". Then it becomes crystal clear that I not only know that God exists, but I am that very being.

Go learn the philosophy first before misrepresenting it. The "tat" in the statement refers to the human soul (atman), which is a part of or which arises from the universal soul (brahman), but it is certainly not the same as it.

---

You're the one who is attempting to suggest that we are something other than the universe experiencing itself. Therefore it's up to you to describe and prove the existence of something other than this universe.

You clearly have no idea what the "law of identity" is.

A part of something is not the same as a whole. And the property which applied to the part, need not apply to the whole.

If you were the universe having the experience, then your consciousness would be universal and there would be nothing within the universe that you would not know. That is obviously false and you continue to prove it with every post.

So, you are a simply a part of the universe that is simply experiencing itself. Since the part does not experience the whole, the knowledge gained by the part is limited. Or in your case, virtually non-existent.

A specific temporary configuration of stardust?

Yes.

And what are you suggesting is having that experience? The stardust itself?

A very specific configuration, yes.

You can't very well point to a few atoms that make up your brain and say, "They are me! That is what is having this experience."

We could, if we ever found the part of the brain that houses consciousness.

Atoms can't have an experience. So how could you be a mere clump of atoms having an experience?

Which is why we need a very specific configuration. The ability to have experience is an emergent property. If you continue to look at atoms with a reductionist approach rather than taking in the configuration holistically, you'd never understand it.

Clearly there is something deeper going on. Something far more mystical than the western reductionist approach to physics could ever hope to uncover.

You are the one looking at things reductionally. You think that a thing is nothing more than the sum of its parts and if you can't find a particular property (consciousness) in the part, you assume that the whole wouldn't have it either. So when you can't find any evidence for consciousness in the atoms, you assume the whole "spiritual essence" crap.

You have to look at things holistically and understand that there is such a thing as an emergent property that cannot be found in the parts but is the result of the whole.

The Eastern Mystics are having belly rolls laughing at the silliness of western scientists. western reductionist approach to physics could ever hope to uncover.

And the rest of the world laughs at them.

The holistic approach of the Eastern Mystics is truly the only was to make sense of reality.
So Eastern Mysticism wins hands down.

You do know that the very premise eastern mysticism is denial of reality.
So you are saying, in effect, that the only approach that makes sense is the one that denies the very existence of any sense.

[Cosmic Ape]

Ughh, do you really need to write this much dribble to make yourself sound philosophical and sound like you support science when everything science has shown us shows no soul, no spirit, no connective spirit in the cosmos, nothing. It's all just sub-atomic particles and I'm sorry you cant come to terms with your own mortality and you have to cling to something that makes you feel good like a theist.

I've already posted this several times, but I'll do it again for your sake.

I have studiously read the forum rules and definitions of "Atheism" the very day that I joined this forum. I wanted to make sure that I was in compliance with what this web site expects of its members.

So yes, I am an "Atheist". In fact, according to a definition given on these very forums I'm a "Strong Atheist" or "Gnostic Atheist" (i.e. proclaiming to have knowledge that certain Gods definitely do not exist.

But yet, you blatantly label Atheists who dont buy into your spiritual bullshit (which reeks of religious undertones) as non-imaginative when I could name you hundreds of Atheists more interesting than you. You're an uninformed little troll putting stuff like that in a sig or claiming it's an ill-defined term when it's pretty simple.

I'm definitely a strong atheist when it comes to Gods like those of Greek and Hebrew mythology, etc.

But you're still a follower in bullshit that they also believe in, spiritualism. And dont spout off a bunch of differences from your views and theres because its the same principle, judgement or a being who judges who gets an afterlife and who do you let in your afterlife? do mushrooms get an afterlife? do snails? flies? rats? Your views have as many holes as religious peoples.

But at the same time, I recognize that I am also an Agnostic Spiritualist. In other words, I am open-minded to a possible spiritual essence of reality and proclaim that this cannot be ruled-out based on current human knowledge. (the italicized part of the above defintion of "Strong Atheist" actually permits a Strong Atheist to also be agnostic toward other types of "gods" (or spirituality).

Except Science pretty much can rule out spiritual nonsense. I just told you several times that we have proven away the soul with medical science and everything we know points away from a spirit or some kind of vague spiritual connection you keep trying to shove down our throats.

In fact, I personally prefer to refer to that as "Agnostic Spiritualist".

So in my Religions views I list myself as: Gnostic Atheists, Agnostic Spiritualist.

No, you're a weak atheist in my book. You're on the brink of being converted to Raelism or some shit like that.

I claim that certain types of Gods cannot exist (i.e the biblical God, etc.), whilst simultaneously keeping an open mind to other types of spiritual concepts that I personally claim cannot be ruled out by current human knowledge in any field of study, including the sciences.

Yet you believe in a primitive mythology like they did, aka spiritualism.

I personally lean toward the Eastern Mystical view of spirituality as being the most likely candidate for the truth of reality.

Just become a Hindu or Buddhist and get it over with if you think they have the "truth for reality" you're going to take your reality from primitive people over qualified educated scientists. You're a buffooon. Oh, and let me guess, Eastern Astrology is also the correct astrology?...

So there's no inconsistency at my end at all.

Except ya know, everything you've said. You might as well believe in Krishna, dude.

[Abracadabra]

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

In fact, the only way that could not be true is if I was something other than the universe experiencing itself.

Ah,finally, solipism. Well, that puts the fairy on top of thee Xmas tree.

[Abracadabra]

In fact, the only way that could not be true is if I was something other than the universe experiencing itself.

Ah,finally, solipism. Well, that puts the fairy on top of thee Xmas tree.

Pantheism is actually quite different from solipsism. They are two entire different philosophies. This just further goes to demonstrate that gross ignorance that actually exists concerning the Eastern Mystical philosophies.

Of course, pure solipsism cannot be disproved either so I'm not sure what you're laughing about. The joke might ultimately be one that you're playing on yourself. The solipsists may be right.

I personally don't believe in solipsism, I think reality is more likely to be some form of mystical pantheism. In fact, if you really want to get technical about it, I actually favor "panentheism" myself.

Scientifically there may even be secular ways of preserving individuals after death. Discoveries in the western sciences actually provide a means where all information that ever existed can be preserved.

In fact, that very debate was the central topic of "The Black Hole Wars" between Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking. It's a major law of physics that information cannot be lost. In fact, violate that law, and our entire cathedral of modern physics falls. This is why Leonard Susskind was so concerned about information being lost in black holes in the first place.

So even information that falls into black holes cannot be lost from the observable universe and Leonard Susskind and Stephen Hawking found a way to save the information and thus save modern physics.

At the same time, they may have potentially saved our 'souls'. (ha ha)

They may have provided a mechanism through which we can indeed become eternal individuals without violating the sacred laws of the God of the Secularists.

It may be possible to, not only resurrect your physical body and persona, but it may be possible to recreate your entire life and everything that you have ever experienced, and it may even be possible to use any point within that framework to construct a brand new reality that can actually unfold from that point forward differently from the way you had actually experienced in this life. The possibilities are actually quite amazing.

In fact, one scientists is proposing that future humans will actually be able to do this. So he's suggesting that our future descendents may actually be able to do what we believed only the "gods" could do.

It's amazing just how many scientific ideas the human mind can actually come up with that cannot be ruled out by our current knowledge. Of course, then again our current knowledge is so miniscule, it really shouldn't be much of a surprise that we can't rule out very much at all.

I think it's quite interesting that some scientists can actually use scientific knowledge to hypothesis things that we thought should only be possible for "gods". Someday we may be able to control reality, the past, future and present, far more than we ever thought could ever be possible.

We may someday actually have the power to do things that we used to laugh at as being 'impossible' for even 'gods'.

But no Padraic, solipsism is not the same as pantheism, they are two entirely different philosophical views. But don't be too embarrassed about that. A lot of people make that same mistake. That's a very common misunderstanding.

[J.D.]

To the original poster, your theory does not match with my experience. Fist of all, you say that belief in god is intuitive. Nothing could be further from the truths for me to believe in a god was counter intuitive, it won't against logic.

Once I broke free from trying to believe the Christian mythology , I had no interest in trying to prove my position or to look for arguememts supporting atheism. From my perspective, it is obvious that religion is man made and there have been many religions over the centuries. They come and they go.

I do not as a rule get into debates with theists unless I am just bored and looking for a diversion. What excites me as an atheist is my new found thirst for scientific knowledge. What I have learned from science is truly awe inspiring.

[Reforged]

I've seen some people here mention the concept of the "soul". The only difference I can see between the definition of the soul and the mind is that the soul carries on after death.
That being said, I know I have a mind. Its the term for me, my personality, my thoughts. Its demonstrable because without a mind I would not have an opinion. It really boils down to: "I think therefore I am".
The same cannot be said for the soul. Its very nice in a poetic sense but there is nothing to indicate anything of me will live on after I die.
That being said; isn't the existence of the mind, the essence of who we are enough to sate such longings for something transcendental? It can be damaged and destroyed but doesn't that make it more precious? Although a man may not hold onto the dream that is eternity I don't think that makes him any less capable of grasping the beauty and the eloquence behind what makes an individual an individual.

These kinds of questions are extremely interesting.

The first thought that comes to my mind when these types of questions are raised, are questions of people who have suffered severe amnesia.

If they have basically forgotten who they are. Their entire past. And can't even recognize their own family and friends. Does this mean that the "person" they used to be has "died"?

Doe this mean that the body now contains a brand "new" awareness. And brand "new" individual?

I think arguments can be made on either side of the fence.

However, my personal view is that the awareness would still be the 'same person' even though they no longer remember their past.

And these types of questions are indeed the very types of questions that are interesting to ponder in terms of Eastern Mysticism.

If, when we die, we are reincarnated into a completely new body and we have absolutely no recollection of our past life. How would this be any different from the situation of someone who has suffered extreme amnesia?

That new awareness could potentially be the same underlying being.

I think as difficult as this concept is to grasp, this may very well be how it actually works in some sense.

This is why the question of "What is it that is aware?" is such a paramount question.

If the biological brain the thing that is 'aware'?

And if so, how can that be? A biological brain is nothing other than stardust in a given configuration. What is it that would be having this experience of "awareness"?

The stardust? The configuration?

What sense does it make to say that either stardust, or "a configuration" could be aware of anything?

This is precisely the reason the Eastern Mystics chose to believe in "mysticism" (i.e. that something far more mystical is going on).

I tend to agree.

And my only position on that is that I can't "rule it out".

Neither can I "rule-in" why a mere configuration of stardust should be able to experience anything.

What is it that is having the experience?

That's the $64,000 question.

If someone has total amnesia then the mind that define their personality and sense of being is gone, replaced instead with a blank slate in place of it. Sometimes cognitive memory can remain intact allowing them to excel at what they used to excel at but it is no longer the experiences and the personality of that individual deciding how those skills are used. That individual is gone and if the long-term memories do not repair themselves then its permanent. It couldn't be literally interpreted as death but that person is no longer that person.

If I typed up some work, saved it half way through then finished it I would lose everything up until the point I last saved. I wouldn't be able to use philosophy to argue with the person who marks it. The fact is that half-finished work would not be the same as the completed and I would have to type up the second half again which would almost certainly not be like the original.

I have nothing to suggest reincarnation is true, only that people possess consciousnesses. I have nothing to suggest mysticism is true either. If you define awareness as the capacity to look at your surroundings and understand them then all living things have that ability to some degree but you meant that in an "I-Robot" sort of way didn't you? Our detailed understanding of whats around us, our willingness to learn and our long-term memory build up the experience, the knowledge base of each individual and their different view points on the world around them. These combined, it is easy to see why peoples minds are such varied, multi-faceted and complex things. That being said, its not that hard of a concept to grasp and theres simply no need to add anything supernatural to it.

As for us being "mere configurations of stardust", well we simply aren't. I mean, its possible we *were* but thats not what we are now. Thats not what our brains are now. Our brains are amazingly complex machines that after decades of research we have grasped a surface understanding of. Capable of storing cognitive, long-term and short-term memory within a seconds notice and making complex observations about our surrounds such as color, distance, texture, shape. We can visualize, fantasize, dream. Our brains are incredible, they formulate a complex system linking emotions, sensations, facts and memory in a large web where a single tremor can bring an entire section to the forefront of our thoughts.
So I ask you, is it really so surprising that through all of these astounding processes that occur every second of everyday; a consciousnous with its own views and tastes emerges?

So to conclude my point and in answer to your question: "What is having that experience?"... that is, you are.

(P.S. I would also like to point out that I'm slightly insulted by being bundled in with someone else. It is rather galling when you look at your reply and find someones decided you're going to be the afterthought to an unrelated point someone else made. I'm sure it wasn't intentional.)