Evidence God Exists: Part II

[Caecilian]

You can't exist literally and then also be a metaphor for yourself, just like the apple can't exist as a physical entity and a concept at the same time - It's logically invalid.

Wrong. I can think of an apple that literally exists- it is conceptual in my mind, physical in reality. Similarly, in my mind the apple can be a metaphor for something else, but I acknowledge that physically it is another thing entirely.

@EvF: God is actually quite simple, so I would contend your argument that He must be complex.

And, my evidence that God literally exists comes with my understanding of the metaphor- the metaphor's existance is proof of the literal existance, being that the literal is the universe, life, love, and everything here, all of which is a metaphor for God.

Logically, I can't always explain where I see the metaphor, which is why I like coming here because you guys actually challenge me to try harder in seeing it.

Theres a lot of talk about metaphors here- in this post and in some of the previous ones. It all seems rather confused, and tbh also confusing. A good start to disentangling the metaphor-talk might be to consider what metaphors are:

meta·phor (met′ə fôr′)

noun

a figure of speech containing an implied comparison, in which a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used of one thing is applied to another (Ex.: the curtain of night, “all the world's a stage”)

(from yourdictionary.com)

Metaphors are ubiquitous [1]; our language is permeated by metaphor. And when we think about the world, we do to a large degree in metaphorical terms. Some examples:
- When we say that the stock market is going 'up' or 'down', we are metaphorically extending our everyday experience of space to the phenomenon of changes in the economy.
- When we say that our hearts are 'burning with anger', we are metaphorically extending our experience of fire to the phenomenon of emotion.

Metaphors are cognitive/ explanatory tools. In most cases, metaphors allow us to conceptualize something complex and/or abstract in terms of something simpler and/or concrete. Or to put it another way: through metaphor, we understand things that are relatively difficult in terms of things that are easier. Metaphorical extensions of our basic experience of space (up, down, back, front, high, low) are extremely common. So are metaphorical extensions of our simple physical sensations (he is hungry for change; economic adjustment will be painful; I can smell success).

In some cases, metaphors can run either way. So I can use fire to explain anger (a burning rage), or anger to explain a fire (a raging inferno). Nonetheless, both fire and anger are part of our normal everyday existence. What we don't do is use metaphors to explain things in terms of phenomena that are mind-bogglingly complex. So I might use stage magic as a metaphor for quantum mechanics, but not the reverse. Indeed, using QM as a metaphor for anything at all would be stupid, since its so abstract and difficult to understand.

What is true of QM is even more true of the Universe. So, my first point is this: the idea that the Universe could be a useful metaphor for anything is absolutely absurd- for the straightforward reason that nothing is more complicated and more difficult to understand than the Universe is. And this is especially true if, as Watson maintains, the thing that the Universe is supposed to be a metaphor for (i.e. God) is allegedly not complex at all. This 'Universe as a Metaphor for God' stuff is just plain old nonsense. Drivel. Verbiage.

Okay, so what about metaphors and existence? This seems to me to be a really clear-cut issue. The fact that something is a metaphor for something else says nothing about the ontological status of either phenomenon. Of course, it does mean that they exist at least metaphorically, but that doesn't give them causal powers. If I use the concept 'unicorn' as a metaphor for love, or for that matter 'love' for 'unicorn', then it doesn't somehow mean that unicorns exist outside of our language and imagination. Metaphorical unicorns can't eat grass, or gore people with their horns- they're imaginary creatures. So saying, as Watson does, that metaphors 'prove existence' is again nonsense.

None of this is to deny that metaphors are important, or that our choice of metaphors doesn't influence the way that we think [2]. But then I doubt that anyone would question the importance of people's thoughts about God. Thoughts about God, and actions informed by those thoughts, have, for good or ill (mainly ill imo), been a huge factor in human history. Thinking about something, however wishfully, does not, however, make it into a real, concrete entity with causal powers.

God existing metaphorically in the minds of believers can no more make him into a creator than a child's belief in the Easter Bunny can make rabbits a source of chocolate eggs.

[1] If anyone with an academic bent is interested in reading something about the subject of metaphor, then I'd highly recommend George Lakoff's book Women, Fire and Dangerous Things (Chicago University Press 1987). Its long, and certainly not an easy read, but definitely worth the effort.
[2] For a discussion of metaphor in US politics see another book by Lakoff- Moral Politics (Chicago University Press 1996).

[Watson]

Well, seeing as you are human, you exist on this plain and if you had that power, you'd be something of a hero, I'd definitely expect you to do something to save my child.

But you don't expect your "all-loving" and "all-powerful" deity to do the same? Maybe if I save your child's life I am somehow going against this deity's "plan".

I love how you jump to previously prepared arguments and preconceived notions of what I believe, instead of actually having the humility to ask me what I believe in. You absolutely would be the kind of person to generalize and assume I think it's all a part of 'God's plan.'

For the record, I expect a human man living and interacting in human ways with the human world to interfere and attempt to save another human being, yes. You have been given a life worth living, and so has everyone else. Use it. Learn from it. Don't just sit back and try and blame someone else for your own misfortunes or the misfortunes of others.

No, you'd pretty much be a dick. You aren't even going to explain yourself? You're such an asshole.

And, again, your deity gets a pass?

God explains Himself quite clearly to those who don't stuff their ears full of bullshit and ignroe Him.

Actully, other than the 'stupid' part, that's pretty much it. You know, you can label it 'rationalization' if you want, but there is still the implied rational in there.

Oh, come on! Like "rational" and "rationalize" mean the same thing?

Rationalize, if I am correct, means the process of inventing or searching for rational explanations for things. Nip me in the bud if I'm wrong, but that is still seeking answers at the very least.

But I'll tell you this. Someone who understands God has a much better chance of comprehending why that child died and why that child was taken to Heaven(bare with me here, for the sake of our discussion) than does an Atheist who not only doesn't know God, but doesn't understand Him in the slightest.

How can you "comprehend" a being you have never met, seen, or spoken with? Substitute "the Easter Bunny" for "God" in your above statement and it's equally valid.

I've met Him, I've Seen Him, I've spoken with Him. Your inability to comprehend that there are different ways of communicating, seeing, and meeting someone other than those taught to you by society is not my problem.

Who's to say? Our souls(again, bare with me) know better than we do. You've no idea what decisions were made before your birth, supposing God exists, as do souls.

Our "souls"? What the hell is that? As far as I know, people do not have "souls". Unless you can present any evidence to prove me wrong.

*sigh*
Did I, or did I not, say 'bare with me'? What I meant by that was, for the sake of discussion, presume that a soul exists. Presume that humans do, in factm have souls. I guess that was asking to much, because if we really wanted to delve into souls theologically, you would walk away laughing yoru ass off at a concept you don't understand in the slightest.

No, because you're just stupid.

I'm not the one who believes in invisible deities.

Where did 'invisible' come from?

Did I say the parent should do nothing for their child? No I did not.

But are we not "God's children"? Then why does he do nothing when they contract horrible diseases?

Is the earth not also one of 'God's children'? Is the universe itself not one of 'God's children'? So, if God believes in free will, and presume pleace that He does, then He isn't going to interfere with one of His children's work, say, the course of nature striking someone with cancer.

A good parent, or in this case, a perfect parent knows what is best for his or her child. Therefore, the parent is going to make decisions based on that understanding of what is best for the child. Do you trust your parents? Do you believe they love you and are looking out for you as best they can? If you don't, then things here begin to make sense. If you do, then ask yourself what those same parents would do if they were all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful creators of the universe. Go on. I know you have a brain and a heart, so use both of them.

That's not to say they shouldn't be upset and mourn the child, but they should look at themselves and say 'What have I learned? What do I value more now than ever?'

If I walked up to parent who lost a child and sanctimoniously said, "Now what have you learned from your child's death? What do you value now more than ever?", I would expect to get a mouthful of fist.

And it's not for you to walk up to them and ask that for this exact reason, dumbass! It's for them to ask or not ask of themselves, and if it hurts them and they make it through, it's all for the better. It's their decision whether they ask themselves the hard questions or not. And they will be the benefactor of having done such a thing, too.

And what does this mean anyway? That your deity allowed a child to suffer and die to "teach someone a lesson"? How incredibly cruel and immoral is that?

Your child whines and begs to ride her bicycle without training wheels. No matter how much you resist, she presses and presses the issue, when you know that she is not ready for that kind of thing. You advise her as such, and she still refuses to listen.

So you relent, and another concerned parent asks you "Why would you do that? You know she can't do it, and she'll probably get hurt."

I know my response would then be "Well, then she'll learn."

Perhaps that child isn't the one giving the lesson, but is the teacher...?

Oh, please. Gag me.

Didn't expect you to understand.

A God who believes in free will?

What the hell does "free will" have to do with a child getting cancer?

See above, about training wheels, about Mother Nature, and about free will. End.

Yeah! 'Cause fuck you, Nature! How dare I be born with brown hair! I want blonde hair! I'm going to whine and bitch about it when there's nothing I can do t- oh...there's this thing called hair dye? I can CHANGE MY HAIR COLOR?!

But yeah, still, fuck you Nature.

You don't get it, do you? We're not talking about NATURE! We're talking about your deity! A deity who can supposedly do anything. A deity who apparently chooses not to help children dying with a horrible disease. And being born with a certain hair color is not on the same level as getting cancer.

Yes, it is the same level as getting cancer, and yes, we are talking about Nature here. Suppose, just for one second suppose, that Nature is a conscious being like you or I yet in a different 'format', so to speak. If Nature is conscious, and consciousness means choice, then whose choice was it to give the child cancer...?

Hair color applies because they are both things beyond our control, and we shouldn't bitch about them unless we plan to try and change our fate(I.e.- hair dye for people who don't like their hair color, treatment for those who get cancer.)

I'm not saying it isn't very sad that Billy has cancer. But I'm saying he, and his family, should make the most of what they've got. Instead of complaining that nature did what comes natural to it.

And, again, nature has nothing to do with this discussion. Let's say "nature" gave the kid cancer. Your deity can cure it in an instant! Why does he not?

Training wheels. That is all.

Oh for fuck's sake. It's very sad that those people have to live in trailers, yes. But, again, should they blame Mother Nature and the EARTH ITSELF for their bad mood about it?

Where did I say anything about blaming "Mother Nature" and "the Earth"? I'm talking about your deity doing nothing to prevent devestating natural disasters.

The thing is, you are talking about Earth, and you don't even realize it. You're so inapable of finding anyone to blame, you have to pin it on God, then in some childish act of "F U AND YOUR PARENTAL AUTHORITY" bullshit, you turn around and deny that God even exists. Then you have no one left to blame, so you end up running around in a little circle trying to make it seem like Nature is some cool, callous bitch.

Again, if I had the power to prevent a hurricane from striking a populated area and I did nothing, I would be despised and villified.

Because you are a human being.

But you give your deity a pass.

Because He is a God, and He is a very good parent who gave every living and non-living thing in the universe a place to play around in.

You simply spout platitudes like, "We can't understand why God does what he does".[quote]
I said we can't understand it if we aren't willing to learn about it. You, clearly, are not willing to learn.

[quote]BULLSHIT! If this deity came down from the skies and explained why he allowed children to suffer with cancer, or why he did nothing to prevent natural disasters, we would certainly be capable of understanding it.

And then faith, belief, trust and love would be down the drain. When you tell someone you love them, do you do it just to remidn them that you love them and you don't want them to leave, or do you do it simply because you love them? I hope for the latter, or what you are experiencing is a very mis-construed form of love.

And, again, perhaps you're simply looking in the wrong places for yours explanations and understandings. You look to science to for answers to human problems, you look to Atheism for answers to problems of the universe and moral guidance. but if you would take the time to open yourself, learn, grow and become an ever-changing person, you might discover a thing or two that you never thought possible.


----------------

I am calling complete bullshit on this, just as I would any person stating that they were a "True Atheist" converting over to an actual "Religion"...

Call bullshit all you like, I'm not even sure what "True Atheist" means.

I do not doubt you had questions, I do not doubt that you misunderstood certain aspects of Christianity at the time of your doubts.....

Thank you.

However, what I state, is that you were never an Atheist if you claim yourself as being a "Christian" or for that matter; any claimed organized belief based on fucking ancient "BOOKS"......

I am an Agnostic Christian, which means I believe in the teachings, I believe in the ideas and principles of the Christian religion, but I do not know them or claim them to be true.

Furthermore, my belief in God is quite seperate from my Christianity, and based on my own personal experience, coupled with my observations of the world around me. I have read very little of the Bible, but I am aware of it's contents and meaning through study of this life I am living.

You were never an "Atheist".......Agnostic, maybe......But not an Atheist.......

You're right, I never was an Atheist to begin with.

Quit trying to sale the personal hope and direct your opinions to rational conclusions....

Sorry that you don't believe in hope, but that's kind of the point of Christianity, and to me is a very rational conclusion in and of itself.


------------

Things, to have merit, need supporting evidence, not faith.

Evidence, to need merit, needs trust. Trust, to have merit, needs faith.


------------

A supernatural being that is there right from the beginning without any explanation whatsoever for its existence

Isn't something without explanation much less complex than something with a background to it?

that creates an entire universe, is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent - all without explanation -

All true of God. All very simple ideas, when lacking an explanation for how. Not how, but 'why?' is the question which should be asked, in this case.

is about as complex a thing as I can think of. How is that simple?

And that is why you fail. I'm just kidding with you, your argument was actually sound.

[tavarish]

I love how you jump to previously prepared arguments and preconceived notions of what I believe, instead of actually having the humility to ask me what I believe in. You absolutely would be the kind of person to generalize and assume I think it's all a part of 'God's plan.'

For the record, I expect a human man living and interacting in human ways with the human world to interfere and attempt to save another human being, yes. You have been given a life worth living, and so has everyone else. Use it. Learn from it. Don't just sit back and try and blame someone else for your own misfortunes or the misfortunes of others.

Does God intervene or not?

God explains Himself quite clearly to those who don't stuff their ears full of bullshit and ignroe Him.

Perhaps you can translate, I'll be sure to clean my ears.

Rationalize, if I am correct, means the process of inventing or searching for rational explanations for things. Nip me in the bud if I'm wrong, but that is still seeking answers at the very least.

Rationalize - 1 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationalize

I've met Him, I've Seen Him, I've spoken with Him. Your inability to comprehend that there are different ways of communicating, seeing, and meeting someone other than those taught to you by society is not my problem.

You wanna be a bit more specific?

How did you meet him? What did he look like? What did he say to you?

How do you understand your experience to be genuine?

Did I, or did I not, say 'bare with me'? What I meant by that was, for the sake of discussion, presume that a soul exists. Presume that humans do, in factm have souls. I guess that was asking to much, because if we really wanted to delve into souls theologically, you would walk away laughing yoru ass off at a concept you don't understand in the slightest.

You used a hypothetical concept as evidence for another hypothetical concept.

Example:

Suppose underpants gnomes exist (bare with me). How else do you suppose your old underwear goes missing if not for the magical forest to make a profit?

Is the earth not also one of 'God's children'? Is the universe itself not one of 'God's children'? So, if God believes in free will, and presume pleace that He does, then He isn't going to interfere with one of His children's work, say, the course of nature striking someone with cancer.

So God does not interfere. Got it.

A good parent, or in this case, a perfect parent knows what is best for his or her child. Therefore, the parent is going to make decisions based on that understanding of what is best for the child.

Funny thing is, there are no perfect parents, so we don't know how they would react. We have no analog. The only thing we can go on is our experience with imperfect parents.

Do you trust your parents? Do you believe they love you and are looking out for you as best they can? If you don't, then things here begin to make sense.

This is irrelevant.

If you do, then ask yourself what those same parents would do if they were all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful creators of the universe. Go on. I know you have a brain and a heart, so use both of them.

What about if those same parents had laser vision and could travel back through time to fight prehistoric monsters? This is irrelevant, as there exist no such parents in the world, to my knowledge. Don't use an appeal to emotion - it doesn't strengthen the argument.

And it's not for you to walk up to them and ask that for this exact reason, dumbass! It's for them to ask or not ask of themselves, and if it hurts them and they make it through, it's all for the better. It's their decision whether they ask themselves the hard questions or not. And they will be the benefactor of having done such a thing, too.

So outliving your child can potentially be a rewarding experience.

Wow.

Your child whines and begs to ride her bicycle without training wheels. No matter how much you resist, she presses and presses the issue, when you know that she is not ready for that kind of thing. You advise her as such, and she still refuses to listen.

So you relent, and another concerned parent asks you "Why would you do that? You know she can't do it, and she'll probably get hurt."

I know my response would then be "Well, then she'll learn."

Are you fucking serious?!

You're comparing a child dying of cancer to a whiny brat who wants to ride a fucking bike? Tell me, what did the child learn from getting cancer? What did the parents learn?

Why doesn't this shit happen to people who think like you? Cancer is a gift from God and teaches important life lessons. Don't bother with treatments in that case.

God is an impatient parent and creation is a whiny child. Fucking golden.

See above, about training wheels, about Mother Nature, and about free will. End.

You have demonstrated that God is at best an absent parent and at worst willfully negligent with the ultimate lesson that the ends justify the means.

And, again, nature has nothing to do with this discussion. Let's say "nature" gave the kid cancer. Your deity can cure it in an instant! Why does he not?

Training wheels. That is all.

He was obviously asking for it.

But you give your deity a pass.

Because He is a God, and He is a very good parent who gave every living and non-living thing in the universe a place to play around in.

By what are you judging this good parenting? If I gave a kid a house to play in and left, would that be a fucking good parent?

And then faith, belief, trust and love would be down the drain. When you tell someone you love them, do you do it just to remidn them that you love them and you don't want them to leave, or do you do it simply because you love them? I hope for the latter, or what you are experiencing is a very mis-construed form of love.

This has nothing to do with anything. No one said anything about love, stop trying to obfuscate the point any further.

And, again, perhaps you're simply looking in the wrong places for yours explanations and understandings. You look to science to for answers to human problems,

Problems such as what, disease? famine?

you look to Atheism for answers to problems of the universe and moral guidance.

Yes, because atheism has a lot to say on morals and universal dilemmas.

Get a fucking clue.

but if you would take the time to open yourself, learn, grow and become an ever-changing person, you might discover a thing or two that you never thought possible.

Now where does this necessarily require a belief in God or religion?

I have read very little of the Bible, but I am aware of it's contents and meaning through study of this life I am living.

How shocking. A christian that hasn't read the Bible.

[Autumnlicious]

I just spilt milk all over my computer desk, oh no! Hey, look at that splash; it looks like a train station in Germany and I'll take it as such, but it's literally just a big puddle of milk.

God exists sort of in that sense. In a metaphor for Himself and literally as the ways in which He is manifested. He's God, and you must admit that if He exists, He can be anything at all.

Ah, the final cop out rears it's ugly head - the "God can be anything so nya~nya~nya~!" argument.

Stop adding on additional layers of abstractions. The universe just is. You don't need to make an entity up just to represent what is already there.

[Thor]

I see that Tav did a great job of replying to this. Thanks, Tav!

Now I'll add my two cents...

I love how you jump to previously prepared arguments and preconceived notions of what I believe, instead of actually having the humility to ask me what I believe in. You absolutely would be the kind of person to generalize and assume I think it's all a part of 'God's plan.'

I was just making a general comment about "God's plan" because many people believe in this nonsense. I wasn't assuming you're one of them.

For the record, I expect a human man living and interacting in human ways with the human world to interfere and attempt to save another human being, yes.

So you DON'T expect an all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful deity to interfere and attempt to save the life of one of his creations?

You have been given a life worth living, and so has everyone else. Use it. Learn from it. Don't just sit back and try and blame someone else for your own misfortunes or the misfortunes of others.

I DON'T! Where did I say that I blame someone for the misfortune of others?

God explains Himself quite clearly to those who don't stuff their ears full of bullshit and ignroe Him.

Complete twaddle. This deity has never made himself known to me. Where has he "explained himself"?

Rationalize, if I am correct, means the process of inventing or searching for rational explanations for things. Nip me in the bud if I'm wrong, but that is still seeking answers at the very least.

See Tav's response to this.

I've met Him,

Bullshit.

I've Seen Him,

Bullshit.

I've spoken with Him.

Did he speak back?

Your inability to comprehend that there are different ways of communicating, seeing, and meeting someone other than those taught to you by society is not my problem.

Really? And what exactly are these "different ways of communicating, seeing and meeting"? Semaphore? Smoke signals? Morse code? Or could I claim that I have seen, communicated with and met Tinkerbell by using your "different ways"?

*sigh*
Did I, or did I not, say 'bare with me'? What I meant by that was, for the sake of discussion, presume that a soul exists. Presume that humans do, in factm have souls. I guess that was asking to much, because if we really wanted to delve into souls theologically, you would walk away laughing yoru ass off at a concept you don't understand in the slightest.

Why should I even give the slightest consideration to a notion that is fantastical and has no evidence to support it?

Where did 'invisible' come from?

So, your deity is NOT invisible? He can't walk among us undetected if he so desires?

Is the earth not also one of 'God's children'? Is the universe itself not one of 'God's children'? So, if God believes in free will, and presume pleace that He does, then He isn't going to interfere with one of His children's work, say, the course of nature striking someone with cancer.

So you don't believe that your deity EVER interferes with our lives?

A good parent, or in this case, a perfect parent knows what is best for his or her child. Therefore, the parent is going to make decisions based on that understanding of what is best for the child. Do you trust your parents? Do you believe they love you and are looking out for you as best they can? If you don't, then things here begin to make sense. If you do, then ask yourself what those same parents would do if they were all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful creators of the universe. Go on. I know you have a brain and a heart, so use both of them.

If my parents were all-knowing, all-loving and all-powerful I am quite certain that they would cure me if I contracted a fatal disease. I'll bet they would even cure ANY child who contracted a fatal disease.

Your child whines and begs to ride her bicycle without training wheels. No matter how much you resist, she presses and presses the issue, when you know that she is not ready for that kind of thing. You advise her as such, and she still refuses to listen.

So you relent, and another concerned parent asks you "Why would you do that? You know she can't do it, and she'll probably get hurt."

I know my response would then be "Well, then she'll learn."

How does this even COMPARE to a child getting cancer? What the hell does a child "learn" if they die? And you have suggested that maybe the lesson is for the parents? How do you think a parent would feel if they found out some deity allowed their child to suffer and die so that they could learn some sort of "lesson"? Personally, I'd be absolutely outraged!

Didn't expect you to understand.

I don't see what there IS to understand.

See above, about training wheels, about Mother Nature, and about free will. End.

Yeah, it makes no sense.

The thing is, you are talking about Earth, and you don't even realize it.

No, I'm NOT talking about the Earth. The planet has nothing to do with a child getting cancer. Or smallpox. Or starving to death.

You're so inapable of finding anyone to blame, you have to pin it on God,

Where are you coming from with this crap? I don't blame "God" for anything! For the same reason I don't blame Santa Claus when I don't get exactly what I want for Christmas.

then in some childish act of "F U AND YOUR PARENTAL AUTHORITY" bullshit, you turn around and deny that God even exists.

So I'm just being rebellious? It couldn't possibly be that I've examined the "evidence" for the existence of a deity and found it severely lacking?

Then you have no one left to blame, so you end up running around in a little circle trying to make it seem like Nature is some cool, callous bitch.

"Nature" is harsh and unforgiving. Just ask anyone who spent some time lost in the wilderness for a few days. Of course, some people you CAN'T ask because they died on a mountain or in the jungle.

Because you are a human being.

So I'm held to a higher standard than your deity? Yeah, that makes sense...

Because He is a God, and He is a very good parent who gave every living and non-living thing in the universe a place to play around in.

First of all, how can something that is non-living "play around"? Do rocks and icebergs "play around"? And, like I said, you give your deity a pass. He can ignore all kinds of human suffering and your rationalization is that it's okay with you because "He's God". Pretty lame excuse if you ask me.

I said we can't understand it if we aren't willing to learn about it. You, clearly, are not willing to learn.

Well, whatever lesson there is to be "learned" from the suffering and death of children, I'd rather not learn it. I'd rather miss out on the lesson and have the children cured and happy.

And then faith, belief, trust and love would be down the drain.

This makes zero sense. If this deity took the time to explain his actions (or non-actions) people would lose their "faith, belief, trust and love"? How do you figure that?

When you tell someone you love them, do you do it just to remidn them that you love them and you don't want them to leave, or do you do it simply because you love them? I hope for the latter, or what you are experiencing is a very mis-construed form of love.

What does this have to do with anything?

And, again, perhaps you're simply looking in the wrong places for yours explanations and understandings. You look to science to for answers to human problems,

Well, since science has allowed us to double our life expectancy in the last century, eradicated many killer diseases, provided clean water, increased food production, among many other marvelous things... Yes. I look to science. Where has religion done anything similar?

you look to Atheism for answers to problems of the universe and moral guidance.

No, I don't. Atheism has no tenets or doctrine. What answers do you think atheism provides for anything? What it does do is tell me that I'm wasting my time if I pray to a deity for a cure to a medical condition. Therefore, I go to a doctor when I'm not feeling well. Also, atheism does not give me moral guidance. That would be my own conception of right and wrong.

but if you would take the time to open yourself, learn, grow and become an ever-changing person, you might discover a thing or two that you never thought possible.

I did all these things and I did discover things I never thought possible. After I abandoned all belief in deities.

[Samson]

Call bullshit all you like, I'm not even sure what "True Atheist" means.

I stated “bullshit” because of “Your” quote on saying you were an Atheist before you became a Christian. Your statement; During my change from Atheism to Christianity,
As far as “True Atheist”, I only put the first part in to escalate the word, no more, no less.

Thank you.

You welcome.

I am an Agnostic Christian, which means I believe in the teachings, I believe in the ideas and principles of the Christian religion, but I do not know them or claim them to be true.

Furthermore, my belief in God is quite seperate from my Christianity, and based on my own personal experience, coupled with my observations of the world around me. I have read very little of the Bible, but I am aware of it's contents and meaning through study of this life I am living.

Can you really be called a “Christian”? Personal Understandings based on, personal opinions, is one thing, but not a “Christian”, unless you are preparing to add on another branch to the 38,000 other sects of Christianity?
Also, you state many times over in reference to a “God” you label “IT” as a “HE”….. Do you really believe this deity is a “He”?

You're right, I never was an Atheist to begin with.

Now it’s my turn to say, “Thank you”…..

I know you are not like the “Majority”, but I do question your ways of thinking in concerns with your personal faith/belief/Understandings and label it as “Christianity”….Regardless of the first word before it (Agnostic)…

In all honesty, I believe the majority of congregations across the U.S. and so on, are “Agnostic” in terms of questions they have about the “What Ifs”. However, they usually will never come out and say it publicly.

If you want to believe in a "Personal god", there is nothing I can say, other than, best of luck, but I can only hope your "Agnostic" side comes more through with any personal questions, through circumstances that arise.

[AngelThMan]

...a lack of evidence for abiogenesis simply means that we (those who study these things) have yet to make that all important discovery. After all, we have only been investigating the matter for a few centuries which, considering the mammoth task and the vast timescales involved, is not a terribly long period of time...

500 years is enough time. Most experiments would be deemed failures after a fraction of that time. But scientist, particularly atheist scientists, will continue to try to prove abiogenesis for a million years. Anything but consider the possibility that life was originated by God.

...the question of abiogenesis, how living things originally arose from non-living material, remains relevant today.

The first form is abiogenesis, in which life emerges from non-living matter. This should not be confused for the modern hypothesis of abiogenesis, in which life emerged once and diversified...

This is a perfect example of trying to make a shoe fit without a shoehorn. 500 years of experiments trying to prove abiogenesis failed, so let's modify the concept to keep the theory alive. In a way, this is an apologetic standard (staple atheist terminology).

Atheists are so quick to support, and even staunchly believe in, the hypothesis of abiogenesis, which is based on unfounded theories, and yet attack theists for believing in a deity who supposedly lacks evidence.

[Tiberius]

Enough time? We took thousands of years to understand gravity, and we still don't think we fully understand it. Nothing in science is ever complete, because science recognises that it cannot say absolute things. The reason the theory is still alive despite 500 years of failed experiments is because none of those experiments ever produced a contradiction (i.e. showed that abiogenesis is impossible). If something isn't impossible (yet) then it is still possible. That possibility is what we are looking for.

All you'd have to do to end the search for abiogenesis is demonstrate that such an event would break the natural laws of the universe. No such demonstration has ever take place. As for the evidence, it exists to support much of the theory (i.e. getting amino acids forming in the Miller-Urey experiments) so no, a comparison to the lack of evidence for God is dishonest. We have ideas about how to modify the experiments to improve them, and we do so. We get closer and closer every time, and I have no doubt that eventually we'll find the answer.

As for not considering the possibility that God did it, of course we do. The problem is that such a possibility doesn't enhance understanding at all. You are answering a question with a supernatural explanation, which itself is filled with questions. The supernatural might not even exist, and there are no known methods for discovering the processes by which the supernatural could work even if it did exist (because by it's nature, it is "super" natural). Instead of relying on supernatural answers, science looks for natural ones, because we can explain natural ones. So far, given enough time, we've found answers to the problems we've put to science. Some we found quickly, some took decades or centuries, and some have yet to be fully answered. It doesn't mean science is anything less because of it. Science gets results.

[tavarish]

This is a perfect example of trying to make a shoe fit without a shoehorn. 500 years of experiments trying to prove abiogenesis failed, so let's modify the concept to keep the theory alive. In a way, this is an apologetic standard (staple atheist terminology).

LOL @ keep the theory alive. I love when people like you get on their soapbox to allude to some kind of conspiracy against God. We'll do anything but believe! Oh noes!

Atheists are so quick to support, and even staunchly believe in, the hypothesis of abiogenesis, which is based on unfounded theories, and yet attack theists for believing in a deity who supposedly lacks evidence.

1. Do you know the theories and experiments behind abiogenesis? I'm guessing not.
2. Your deity does lack evidence, and so does abiogenesis, that's why I don't "believe" in either. However, abiogenesis is a theory that is falsifiable, something your God isn't, so it lends credence to the theory in some respect. It can be proven wrong, however it hasn't yet.

I suspect you have a skewed view of how science actually operates. A few centuries without a certain discovery of a concept doesn't mean that concept is false. There's no statute of limitations on theories.

[Watson]

I love how you jump to previously prepared arguments and preconceived notions of what I believe, instead of actually having the humility to ask me what I believe in. You absolutely would be the kind of person to generalize and assume I think it's all a part of 'God's plan.'

For the record, I expect a human man living and interacting in human ways with the human world to interfere and attempt to save another human being, yes. You have been given a life worth living, and so has everyone else. Use it. Learn from it. Don't just sit back and try and blame someone else for your own misfortunes or the misfortunes of others.

Does God intervene or not?

Yes, He does.

God explains Himself quite clearly to those who don't stuff their ears full of bullshit and ignroe Him.

Perhaps you can translate, I'll be sure to clean my ears.

That's what I've been attempting to do with my posts since I showed up here, haha. You're just not understanding.

Rationalize, if I am correct, means the process of inventing or searching for rational explanations for things. Nip me in the bud if I'm wrong, but that is still seeking answers at the very least.

Rationalize - 1 : to bring into accord with reason or cause something to seem reasonable: as a : to substitute a natural for a supernatural explanation of <rationalize a myth> b : to attribute (one's actions) to rational and creditable motives without analysis of true and especially unconscious motives <rationalized his dislike of his brother> ; broadly : to create an excuse or more attractive explanation for <rationalize the problem>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationalize

Point taken!

I've met Him, I've Seen Him, I've spoken with Him. Your inability to comprehend that there are different ways of communicating, seeing, and meeting someone other than those taught to you by society is not my problem.

You wanna be a bit more specific?

Sure.

How did you meet him? What did he look like? What did he say to you?

I 'met' Him one night during a personal experience of mine, when I stumbled upon a strength inside myself I did not know I had. It was not until later that I recognized this strength as God.

He looked like everything, and He said a lot of things.

How do you understand your experience to be genuine?

I trust and have faith in my own senses, and in my own feelings of love.

Did I, or did I not, say 'bare with me'? What I meant by that was, for the sake of discussion, presume that a soul exists. Presume that humans do, in factm have souls. I guess that was asking to much, because if we really wanted to delve into souls theologically, you would walk away laughing yoru ass off at a concept you don't understand in the slightest.

You used a hypothetical concept as evidence for another hypothetical concept.

Example:

Suppose underpants gnomes exist (bare with me). How else do you suppose your old underwear goes missing if not for the magical forest to make a profit?

That's why, above, I said "I guess that was asking too much", since I recognized there is no way for me to bring souls into it without getting very lengthy and without confusing you guys to an extent that would do no good. Especially since you guys seem to hate my guts for even trying. I've definitely got a better chance of talking these things over with people I'm close to.

Is the earth not also one of 'God's children'? Is the universe itself not one of 'God's children'? So, if God believes in free will, and presume pleace that He does, then He isn't going to interfere with one of His children's work, say, the course of nature striking someone with cancer.

So God does not interfere. Got it.

God is a part of all. So where one person trusts God, God is involved. Where one shuns His influence, advice, and strength, He is not.

A good parent, or in this case, a perfect parent knows what is best for his or her child. Therefore, the parent is going to make decisions based on that understanding of what is best for the child.

Funny thing is, there are no perfect parents, so we don't know how they would react. We have no analog. The only thing we can go on is our experience with imperfect parents.

Except for, there are those who have experience with a perfect parent, and that parent is God.

Do you trust your parents? Do you believe they love you and are looking out for you as best they can? If you don't, then things here begin to make sense.

This is irrelevant.

No, it isn't. If you trust your parents and believe that they are looking out for you as best as they can, you are much more inclined to listen to their teachings and what they have to say than if you demonize them in your head.

If you do, then ask yourself what those same parents would do if they were all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful creators of the universe. Go on. I know you have a brain and a heart, so use both of them.

What about if those same parents had laser vision and could travel back through time to fight prehistoric monsters? This is irrelevant, as there exist no such parents in the world, to my knowledge. Don't use an appeal to emotion - it doesn't strengthen the argument.

Again, such a parent does exist, to those willing to listen; God.

And it's not for you to walk up to them and ask that for this exact reason, dumbass! It's for them to ask or not ask of themselves, and if it hurts them and they make it through, it's all for the better. It's their decision whether they ask themselves the hard questions or not. And they will be the benefactor of having done such a thing, too.

So outliving your child can potentially be a rewarding experience.

Wow.

No, it's probably going to be pretty shitty, but accepting the reality of it can potentially be rewarding, yes. "Every cloud has a silver lining..." ?

Your child whines and begs to ride her bicycle without training wheels. No matter how much you resist, she presses and presses the issue, when you know that she is not ready for that kind of thing. You advise her as such, and she still refuses to listen.

So you relent, and another concerned parent asks you "Why would you do that? You know she can't do it, and she'll probably get hurt."

I know my response would then be "Well, then she'll learn."

Are you fucking serious?!

You're comparing a child dying of cancer to a whiny brat who wants to ride a fucking bike? Tell me, what did the child learn from getting cancer? What did the parents learn?

I don't know, I am not the child and I am not the parents. It is all completely personal and specific to the person it happens to.

Why doesn't this shit happen to people who think like you? Cancer is a gift from God and teaches important life lessons. Don't bother with treatments in that case.

No, you are still not getting it at all. I did not say cancer is a gift from God, and not to bother with treatments. Stop misrepresenting my arguments because if you do, you're going to come up with irrelevant counter-points and we will go nowhere.

Life is a gift from God, perception of that life is exactly what you make of it. Nature does things we don't always quite understand, but that we must deal with it. You can accept the reality of that, or whine about it like a bitch. Your choice.

But you give your deity a pass.

Because He is a God, and He is a very good parent who gave every living and non-living thing in the universe a place to play around in.

By what are you judging this good parenting? If I gave a kid a house to play in and left, would that be a fucking good parent?

Maybe you'll understand if I put it this way; God is the parent watching over the child as they play around in the house, and He does not leave. He offers advice and guidance and counsel, but does not force the child to do anything which might impede on their free will.

And then faith, belief, trust and love would be down the drain. When you tell someone you love them, do you do it just to remidn them that you love them and you don't want them to leave, or do you do it simply because you love them? I hope for the latter, or what you are experiencing is a very mis-construed form of love.

This has nothing to do with anything. No one said anything about love, stop trying to obfuscate the point any further.

I said something about love, because it has everything to with everything.

And, again, perhaps you're simply looking in the wrong places for yours explanations and understandings. You look to science to for answers to human problems,

Problems such as what, disease? famine?

By human problems, I mean emotional and mental issues, questions we deal with that relate to the 'Why?', not the 'How?'

you look to Atheism for answers to problems of the universe and moral guidance.

Yes, because atheism has a lot to say on morals and universal dilemmas.


Get a fucking clue.

You'd be surprised.

but if you would take the time to open yourself, learn, grow and become an ever-changing person, you might discover a thing or two that you never thought possible.

Now where does this necessarily require a belief in God or religion?

It simply requires belief. And once one opens oneself to belief, a lot of things become very clear, very fast.

I have read very little of the Bible, but I am aware of it's contents and meaning through study of this life I am living.

How shocking. A christian that hasn't read the Bible.

That's right, I haven't read the Bible. However, I understand its teachings and the contents within, based on my own observations about morality and the world.

----------------

Call bullshit all you like, I'm not even sure what "True Atheist" means.

I stated “bullshit” because of “Your” quote on saying you were an Atheist before you became a Christian. Your statement; During my change from Atheism to Christianity,
As far as “True Atheist”, I only put the first part in to escalate the word, no more, no less.

Well, I say I don't know what "True Atheist" means because, n my belief, I have yet to truly meet a "True Atheist", and I never will. I mean no disrespect by it, I just don't believe in "True" Atheism.

I am an Agnostic Christian, which means I believe in the teachings, I believe in the ideas and principles of the Christian religion, but I do not know them or claim them to be true.

Furthermore, my belief in God is quite seperate from my Christianity, and based on my own personal experience, coupled with my observations of the world around me. I have read very little of the Bible, but I am aware of it's contents and meaning through study of this life I am living.

Can you really be called a “Christian”? Personal Understandings based on, personal opinions, is one thing, but not a “Christian”, unless you are preparing to add on another branch to the 38,000 other sects of Christianity?

I don't plan on adding a sect of any kind, this is simply my personal experience with Christianity as I understand it. My interpretation of Christianity is based on my observations of God, rather than the other way around.

Also, you state many times over in reference to a “God” you label “IT” as a “HE”….. Do you really believe this deity is a “He”?

Technically, no I do not. However, when one has faith in God, and acquires the level of personal affection I or any other Christian may have for God, it becomes hard not to put some level of familial title to the being known to us as 'God.'

You're right, I never was an Atheist to begin with.

Now it’s my turn to say, “Thank you”…..

And my turn to say 'Your welcome'

I know you are not like the “Majority”, but I do question your ways of thinking in concerns with your personal faith/belief/Understandings and label it as “Christianity”….Regardless of the first word before it (Agnostic)…

Well, if it helps; I choose Christianity because I find it the most broad in understanding and the best at describing the phenomenon we call 'life', the being we call 'God.' I also find that certain other religions do this very well, too, but none quite so precisely as Christianity. That is my take on it; a Muslim or a Buddhist may have a different take, just as you and the other Atheists on this site have differents take completely.

In all honesty, I believe the majority of congregations across the U.S. and so on, are “Agnostic” in terms of questions they have about the “What Ifs”. However, they usually will never come out and say it publicly.

I believe they are Christian, but are not recognized as such because of the level of misrepresentation coming from Fundamentalists and other nutjobs. Christianity has more depth to it than some would like to think, and takes a lot of study for one to undertsand it's true, underlying meaning.

If you want to believe in a "Personal god", there is nothing I can say, other than, best of luck, but I can only hope your "Agnostic" side comes more through with any personal questions, through circumstances that arise.

Thank you for your well wishes, haha. I do believe in a personal God; I believe that all major and minor religions out there are simply an attempt at describing that God in the best way they know how. Some have it better than others, and I only add the 'Agnostic' label to my Christianity because I merely believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings; I have no way of absolutely knowing for certain if He ever walk this earth.

Long post is long, jeez...I'm getting into this!