If there was a loving God, would you accept him?

[Ravenshire]

That's supposed to be our greatest secret. Nice one. Now we gotta brutally murder every non-atheist member involved in this thread.

Again.

Oh not again!

It does make such a terrible mess. Can't we just eat them instead?

So, does this mean we're having a church BBQ?!?

[ns1452]

Why should it not be?

If you have some other set of criteria, show that the functionality of those criteria follows from the same assumptions that grant me your existence.

And even if another method was found, how would one demonstrate that is more effective than empiricism?

How do you know beauty and courage "exist"? What do they have to do with "reality"?

Above is a set of quotes all raising questions about what else could we base our understanding if we do not base it on empiricism. I would like to began with making the following clarifications:

I want to make it clear that I do not deny the value of Empiricism.

a) Observable science has allowed humanity to do some remarkable things. The very ability to communicate on a blog thousand's of miles away from each other is just one simple way that we all can appreciate the value of empiricism.

b) I simply believe that empiricism looks at the physical world and therefore it is unable to go beyond the physical world (the soul of man, the spiritual world of God). The chief way we can know this is the fact that we all of sentiments about right, wrong, beauty, courage. Yet can any of truly demonstrate what courage is or isn't (empirically). We all have this common experience yet we have no way to empirically study it (other than the fact that we all have it). This limitation has to be recognized and dealt with to have a coherent philosophy. (atheist, agnostic, theist, ...)

With that clarification made I would like to deal with the quotes listed above.

1) What alternative would I suggest?

There is one option in which many of the bloggers on this site have already rejected. That option is interpreting the world not first on the basis of empirical observation, but on the the transcendent nature of God as defined by Scripture (Bible). You asked how else could you know reality, but there is one answer that has been left out. We can know reality based on the transcendent nature of God. I cringing at the response I am likely to get from this point, but I hope that you would carefully consider my point. Many of you have expressed distaste or even arguably hatred for Christian theism. I could have dealt with suggestions about God in which we all know we disagree about. But I wanted to make the following point first!

2) What basis do we have to put empirical investigation before any other alternative?

Many of you have challenged me on what basis could an alternative be made. Let me ask first, on what basis do we make empiricism the first paradigm for understanding the world? It is an assumption that empiricism should be the first criteria for there is no basis for There is no rational reason to do so above any other reason. You could argue that we can touch and feel it, but how often have we misinterpreted what we could touch and feel. The fact is we all work from a philosophy of history (atheist or theist) in which we interpret the world in light of. Therefore, if we began with empiricism it is not surprising we do not come to know God. God is beyond the physical realm that we are investigating. Many of you have challenged me where is the evidence? I propose that the reason you can't find the evidence is because you have elevated empiricism to a level that is in appropriate. Your method ignores anything that is not physically observable even though there are realities that are not physically discernible.

Conclusion:

My only hope from my postings is that I would bring awareness to the fact that there is a world that exists beyond empiricism. To rely on empiricism alone is to only evaluate half of reality. We all must also evaluate where our paradigm (empericism) breaks down to truly have an understanding of reality.

It may be worth noting that I am not the first person to suggest this. It is not as though the philosophers before the enlightenment were ignorant man. They thought about things deeply and rationally. The difference is the role of the revealed Word and the elevation of empirical investigations. The rejection of the first and the elevation of the second is in large part why the Western world has shifted from a Christian theistic worldview. It is a matter of philosophical understandings more than it is fact and understanding.

[SteelCurtain]

So, god of the gaps fallacy.

We cannot describe human emotion in numbers yet, so you claim it is outside of the realm of empirical science. (You conveniently neglect to address the scholarly article I linked to earlier describing the inroads science is actually making towards empirically understanding emotions like courage and beauty.)

It is simply ridiculous to define things outside of our ability to experience them, then claim experience isn't the way to measure them.

[Faith No More]

All you have to do to show empiricism is inferior is to demonstrate, qualify, and quantify what exists beyond its reaches, which is what empiricism allows us to do, and pointing at abstract concepts like courage doesn't count.

The thing is, for all of the talk about the metaphysical and the spirit, we never reap any benefit from them beyond some people finding psychological stability and balance. Given the fickle nature of the human mind, that's hardly a ringing endorsement for the validity of metaphysical thought.

And sure, there were very intelligent philosophers before the enlightenment, but the skeptics decimated their arguments and showed that they were simply blowing hot air.

[ns1452]

So, god of the gaps fallacy.

We cannot describe human emotion in numbers yet, so you claim it is outside of the realm of empirical science. (You conveniently neglect to address the scholarly article I linked to earlier describing the inroads science is actually making towards empirically understanding emotions like courage and beauty.)

It is simply ridiculous to define things outside of our ability to experience them, then claim experience isn't the way to measure them.

The problem with your article and your comment is what is beauty, courage, right, wrong, good, and evil apart from God? If your paradigm is that all experience is simply chemical reactions than in your system these concepts don't exist. People are simply responding to stimuli. That is not a concept of beauty. These concepts only having meaning in world that has more meaning than simply chemical neurological reactions. Therefore, your article has little merit because it asserts philosophical ideas that has no basis within your paradigms. Arguably, these ideas have been borrowed from a theist world view. This is why I have not dealt with your article.

[SteelCurtain]

They are exactly what they appear to be. Chemical and electrical reactions in your brain. Just because they aren't what you want them to be doesn't make them nonexistent, or take away from their meaning or importance.

You are saying that because experiences like love and beauty are just constructs that come from chemical reactions in your brain, that suddenly they subjectively have no meaning? That is just patently ridiculous.

This is the problem with ideas like yours. You've got it all figured out. You define things such that these 'higher' concepts like courage, right, and wrong are these transcendent things outside of our ability to measure and understand them. So we stand in awe of them, but we gain no knowledge from them. All attempts to understand them are futile, right? So fuck all the neurologists attempting to understand them, they are beating their heads against a wall, right? It's god, why try to understand these things empirically? Nevermind the strides in behavioral science and neurology that could come from this research, goddidit.

[Faith No More]

The problem with your article and your comment is what is beauty, courage, right, wrong, good, and evil apart from God? If your paradigm is that all experience is simply chemical reactions than in your system these concepts don't exist. People are simply responding to stimuli. That is not a concept of beauty. These concepts only having meaning in world that has more meaning than simply chemical neurological reactions. Therefore, your article has little merit because it asserts philosophical ideas that has no basis within your paradigms. Arguably, these ideas have been borrowed from a theist world view. This is why I have not dealt with your article.

Begging the question a bit, aren't we?

Beauty, courage, etc., are all human attempts to quantify and qualify stimuli, and they don't have to have some intrinsically endowed metaphyscial meaning for them to be anything other than completely meaningless. They are concepts based upon human attempts to organize and understand its environment, not magical properties from some unseen realm.

[Zidneya]

Ladies and Gentleman,

I would like to propose the following question to those who are Atheist:

If there was a loving God, would you accept him? Please explain why or why not.

Why believers think that If we meet God everything would be solved. I have a question "Have you considered that if we find out that God really exists wouldn't that open a whole new can of worms?"(and by worms I mean problems, questions, and paradox).

If we find out that God exists I would ask him.

Where the hell have you been?
If he doesn't answers my questions individually why appearing to me in the first place?
How can you be all loving when we have 10 thousand years of people screaming your name for help and you turning your back?
If you do care about what we think why didn't you explained us from the beginning OF HUMANITY!!!
If you ain't gonna help me why appear to me? So I can se the one who sits and watches while I crawl in the mud?
If you don't care about what we think why appearing us in the first place?
Why do we have to worship you?
Why are you appearing to us, Are you a Narcicist?
They are gonna make you choose a side, Christians Muslims, Jews, Buddhist they are all gonna demand that you choose them and no matter who you choose theres gonna losers and by losers I mean billions of people disappointed with their religion and a world wide Chaos.
You think yourself all loving mmmm let's ask the dinosaurs. Oh wait we can't because YOU KILLED THEM.
And if you didn't kill them you just simply sit watched them die.
Could you please tell people that they are animals so they can get down off their pedestal.
Explained me to me How the universe works AND DON'T TELL ME YOU CAN'T. You must be able if you are god after all.
And if you don't want to why? Ain't we have the right to know how our universe works?
Do you really care about all those stupid things that people say you care? Do you care the sex of my partner? Do you care the way I dress? Do you care the way I think? Do you care the way I act? Do you care what food I eat? Do you care what words I say?
And if you do care how can you be all loving if you don't let me do as I please.
And if you don't care how can you be all loving letting the bad people hurt as they please?
AND WHAT IF I DON'T LIKE YOUR ANSWERS?
Should I be punished for not liking you?

If you don't help me I will hate you.
If you help the people that I are mean to me I will hate you.
If you don't help the people I love I will hate you.
If you help others more than me I will hate you.
If you help me more than others I'm gonna fell guilty, and I will hate you.
If you disapprove me I will hate you.


Do you see why the existence of a all loving God is absurd?


Oh and one last thing.

I realize that this may seem like an overly basic question. But I am trying to better understand the presuppositions (metaphysical dream) that is behind the Atheist belief system. For this to help me improve my understanding of the Atheist belief system, I need everyone to be truthful and forthcoming about the question.

Metaphysical dream? What do you thing we are all high or something?
We don't believe in any supernatural being what is so unbelievable about that?
Seems to me that you think that believing is as indispensable in life just like breathing that's why the idea of not believing people is so hard for you to understand.
People who think that everyone needs to believe in something will never understand the people that don't. Because in their own view of the world we shouldn't exists in the first place. How can you try to understand something that you won't accept to be true?

[pocaracas]

Conclusion:

My only hope from my postings is that I would bring awareness to the fact that there is a world that exists beyond empiricism.

Sure there is!
It's called fiction.
The only truly infinite thing on this earth: human imagination.
That's why gods are often put on par with the likes of Harry Potter, or Darth Vader, or Gandalf, or, a bit more fitting to the psychology we find in your favorite book, Sauron.
Should I consider these and the many other creatures and entities that have ever sprouted out of someone's musings as real as you want you particular version of a god to be?

[Tonus]

1) What alternative would I suggest?

There is one option in which many of the bloggers on this site have already rejected. That option is interpreting the world not first on the basis of empirical observation, but on the the transcendent nature of God as defined by Scripture (Bible).

But if you stop at "God" in your last sentence, your point is not changed in any way. Or if you change it to "God as defined by the Quran." Or "God as defined by [insert holy text]." If you accept one, there must be a basis for it, otherwise you must accept the others. Even so, you would need to reject the basis for those others. Therefore:

A- Do you have a basis on which you accept your premise, and can you explain it to us?
B- Do you accept the premise of someone who would use the Quran as the basis for his approach? If not, why not?

2) What basis do we have to put empirical investigation before any other alternative?

Many of you have challenged me on what basis could an alternative be made. Let me ask first, on what basis do we make empiricism the first paradigm for understanding the world?

Well, for one thing, it seems that humans initially tried the "make something up on the spot" method of explaining how things work or why things happen, then found that the scientific method worked much more effectively and happened to answer those questions correctly.

Why would we go back to a method that did not work and continues to not work? As above, do you have a reasonable basis for going back to those methods, and can you describe it? And do you also accept or reject the approach of someone who worships a different god? Why or why not?

Simply asking us to forego a method that has worked --and continues to work-- for a method that never worked isn't good enough. You're not asking us to think outside of the box; you're asking us to climb back into the box. That seems backwards to me.

---

The problem with your article and your comment is what is beauty, courage, right, wrong, good, and evil apart from God? If your paradigm is that all experience is simply chemical reactions than in your system these concepts don't exist. People are simply responding to stimuli. That is not a concept of beauty. These concepts only having meaning in world that has more meaning than simply chemical neurological reactions. Therefore, your article has little merit because it asserts philosophical ideas that has no basis within your paradigms. Arguably, these ideas have been borrowed from a theist world view. This is why I have not dealt with your article.

You are aware that people have been having deep, emotional, transcendent experiences through the use of drugs and stimulants for a very long time, yes? Those are responses to chemical stimulation, and people report that they can be just as moving and life-altering as any other experience. Did god create mushrooms and cocaine in order to help us find him?