If you or anyone want to give the label "God" to the emotions of love, warmth, caring, etc. Go right ahead. But when they start making claims that this feeling created the universe, makes donkeys talk, and cures cancer, then I will step in, because now this is a claim about "my world" -- where worldly knowledge rules.

Her hot body.

Actually, that is not true. I could not even do the profession (psychology/neuroscience) justice by trying to summarize 200 years of progress here.

Reactions are conditioned responses, usually a result of repetition. Some are believed to be instinctual, like avoidance of danger.

Linda, thanks for putting it so beautifully. It is true what Jesus said: "“Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” No place in the world He's created, apart from the hearts of those who welcome Him in. God is not as much a God of the mind, as a God of the heart. Those who seek with their hearts will find Him. Those who seek with their minds will get trapped in their own arguments. Dostoevsky said: "“It takes something more than intelligence to act intelligently.” I could paraphrase that and say it takes something more than intelligence to get to know God. It takes wisdom, humility, purity of heart and a deep longing for Him. The atheist who suffers genuinely because he thinks there is no God has better chances of finding Him than the atheists who mock at those who believe and boast about their own intelligence.

I've often wondered if there is any proven method to convince an atheist that God is real. I've come to the conclusion that if there is such a method, it's definitely not by getting engaged in endless logical arguments. It's by spreading "little seeds" in their path and then leaving it all in God's hand. People see only what they want to see and receive only what they're ready to receive. Maybe one day, when they're ready to see and receive more, they'll remember these little seeds and give them a chance to grow into trees. We never know. Only God knows.

This is another way of simply suspending thinking, or as we are alluding to, using emotion to form beliefs. In other words, wishful thinking.

Fiona, I think you are really misunderstand "the atheist". I know of no "suffering" atheist in any sense of the word. We, just like you, live and love, share in both joy and sadness. The atheist no more suffers than you suffer from not believing in Zeus. And by the way, quoting 19th century Russian novelists might be considered by some pompous, i.e. boasting one's own intelligence. So be careful when casting aspersions on an entire group of people whom you've never met.

You can start by explaining what you mean by "real" -- as in God is more of a feeling in the "heart"? Is God "real" like love is "real"?

Bo, I'm sorry if I sounded judgemental or boasting, it wasn't my intention. I don't judge atheists. I love atheists just as much as I love Christians, and I can understand them because their questions were once my questions and their doubts were once my doubts. Many Christians were atheists to start with, including famous names like Dostoevsky and C. S. Lewis. What I call "an atheist who suffers" is an atheist who thinks deeply and recognizes humanity's desperate need of belonging, of feeling loved, of living in a meaningful universe. Can anyone who thinks deeply and cares deeply about their fellow human beings be happy when they claim we live in a universe ruled by randomness and the law of the jungle, that we are just an accumulation of "little accidents", that the deepest longing of our soul is without object, that in fact we don't even have a soul?

The implications of atheism are staggering and we are already beginning to feel their effects. People have completely lost touch not only with God, but also with their own hearts. We are turning into robots. When someone is dying in the street, teenagers take out their mobile phones not to ring the ambulance, but to record the scene and put it on YouTube. This is the world our modern godless mentality has created. This is the ugly side of atheism.

We are given almost everything, our lives are made a lot easier by technology, but isn't it fair to see the other side of the coin as well, to wonder at what price? We have sacrificed meaning for comfort and inner freedom for a complete dependence on external objects. In what way does that make us better human beings?

Nobody knows the nature of God. Nobody has seen God, although there are plenty of people who have felt His presence. God is first made manifest in our longing for Him. To this longing He responds by guiding us on a certain path and we end up by taking the leap of faith and making a commitment.

To us Christians, God is alive in us through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is real in the sense that we can see His effects in our everyday lives and in the lives of those around us. We pray and our prayers are answered in the most wonderful way. We notice a change on the inside. We start to be more drawn to what is good, to love good for good's sake not for any reward. We start to feel we are part of the "living church", a network of people who are somehow mysteriously interconnected not only by name or shared beliefs but also by the same Spirit. This connection goes so far that no amount of words can do it justice.

We experience an opening and a cleansing of the heart, in the sense that our feelings become deeper and purer. We change our whole attitude to suffering by allowing God to use it as a tool for helping others. By surrendering our wounds to Christ, we become "wounded healers" just like He is to us. The results are nothing short of miraculous.

And these are just a few awkward attempts to express what is way beyond expression.

Absolutely! While your explanation of nature is a bit inaccurate, your point is clear. My life is so valued and meaningful, because I give it meaning. I know this is my only time, and I value every precious moment. I have no longing you describe -- I live a fulfilled life full of people I love.

I am afraid your are claiming cause effect where no cause is present. America is one of the most Christian countries in the world, perhaps we are feeling the effects of a country who cares more about an imaginary god then their fellow humans.
You are making some harsh judgments on all of humanity based on... I have no idea what.

I really won't even attempt to explain/refute this. As you have stated, you can't find God (or realize that there is no God) with logic.

@ Brandon

I agree with most of this, however when you ask how can I differentiate logic from nothingness, is there any difference in this question and if I asked you to differentiate gravity from nothingness... You are assuming a gravity "substance" due to observed effects, why cant I assume a logical "substance" do to its observed effects? Don't effects prove that there must also be a cause?
Fair enough, if you come up with an argument for logical being physical let me know.

This argument clearly depends on the human mind's ability to differentiate the immaterial in order for something immaterial to exist. How is this any different than me saying: the only galaxies that exist, are the galaxies that we can detect, because there is no way to differentiate galaxies that we can't detect vs galaxies that do not exist. It seems that stated this way your argument is not concerned with objective existence( ability to differentiate should not matter). at #7 are they identical objectively or subjectively?

Shawn wrote: I didn't change the theists argument. I said that god's effects need to be traced back to god, and so the theist simply saying that "god has effects on the world, and therefore god exists" does not rebut my argument. You have assumed that god exists in the first place, and has effects, and therefore must be different to nothingness. So of course you are going to conclude that my argument is false. If you are so certain that god exists then no argument could disprove their existence to you. That is begging the question.
Shawn wrote: We all agree that there are three differentiators. You just assert that there must be another one without evidence of it. Therefore you are the one who is unjustified in their beliefs. All I'm asking is that if we cannot think of another possibility then perhaps there isn't one.
Shawn wrote: Ad hominen attack...
Shawn wrote: I repeatedly said that we don't know of any fourth way. I also said to Bo that I do not currently have an argument that there cannot be a fourth way.
Shawn wrote: There is no known fourth differentiator, and so it is more probable than not that gravity is material.
Shawn wrote: The fact that all known material things (excepting gravity) have an anti counterpart does not mean that gravity must as well. There is no logical necessity that gravity must have an anti-gravity counterpart.
Shawn wrote: You're the one committing logical fallacies. Claiming that because all known material things have antis, therefore gravity must too. That isn't an argument. That's like saying "all known crows are black, therefore all crows must be black". It's a non-sequitor.
Shawn wrote: The laws of physics are predictions of what will happen, that's all. "IF you were right the universe wouldn't be intelligible" is just an assertion. Care to provide justification?
Shawn wrote: My argument isn't circular. There are only three known differentiators and nobody has come up with a fourth. Immaterial existence cannot be differentiated from nothingness based upon these three ways. Therefore it is unlikely that immaterial existence is possible. How is that circular?
Shawn wrote: It's not semantics, and its not about detectability. Its about objective existence and whether it is possible to differentiate immaterial things from nothingness. Forget effects and detectability, they have nothing to do with any of this.
Shawn wrote: If my argument is valid then immaterial is the same as nothingness. I'm sorry if you can't accept that conclusion which may necessitate a redefinition of "existence". If your so sure that immaterial is different to nothingness then you are irrational. I'd be more than happy to accept a fourth way but none has been proposed.
Shawn wrote: There's a possibility that there is no fourth differentiator. Where does that lie on the scale of possibilities?

church 27 wrote: Of course effects prove that there must be a cause. We can measure gravity's effects and so we know that it must exist, but you have merely postulated god's existence. We have nothing of god's effects to infer their existence. But even if we did, we would need to account for how god can have effects without having a material body. Gravity has effects because it is material with powers and liabilities, otherwise there would be nothing to explain how it can have effects if it is not material. There would be no differentiator between it and nothingness, and hence it would be nothingness.
church 27 wrote: Ability to differentiate theoretically is ALL that matters. I'm talking about objectivity: whatever exists does exist regardless of whether we humans can detect it (subjective). You're being subjective and stating that our ability to differentiate is what matters. What matters is whether there is anything which could in theory differentiate immateriality from nothingness and so far apart from "effects" nothing substantial has been said. And as I showed in post #10099, using effects to differentiate things is fallacious.

When everything goes well, people tend to embrace the "I" and cherish it. When things become unbearable, they tend to run away and hide from it. Then the ego that was once a friend becomes an enemy, a chaser following you everywhere. In those moments, the only salvation is to turn your gaze away from the "I" to something greater. What we choose to look at changes us. There are times for Christians when their prayers remain unanswered, when they feel abandoned by God, when everything in their life is pain and ugliness. In those moments, the only beautiful thing they've got left is this longing for God. I'll mention again the case of Richard Wurmbrand, a man who spent 14 years in prison, of which 3 years in solitary confinement, in a cell 30 feet below ground with no lights or windows, with chains on his feet and manacles on his hands, tortured, starved and humiliated. From a materialistic point of view, his life was completely worthless. From a human perspective, his situation was hopeless. But the miracle of Christianity is that it descends even into those dark places. His Christian faith opened new horizons for him. He learned to survive on spiritual nourishment, and not only survive but spiritually thrive. By doing that, he pushed the human boundaries beyond their generally accepted limits.

I am not making harsh judgements. I am simply stating facts. It is a fact that we are reliant on technology. It is a fact that we are systematically encouraged to rely on it. It is a fact that it is not within our power, as individuals, to produce the amount of electricity we need for what we call a "comfortable life". It is a fact that we are totally unprepared to cope with a global technological crisis. It is a fact that science is more preoccupied with creating external props than with enhancing the human being to a point when we need less external props, not more.

Could logic help a circle understand a sphere?

“A blind man once asked a friend to describe milk to him. His friend began, “Milk is white.” The blind man stopped him with a second question, “What does white mean?” “White is the color of a swan,” was the reply. The blind man then asked, “What is a swan?” The explanation was, “It is a bird with a bent neck.” He persisted in questioning, “What does ‘bent’ mean?” The friend bent his elbow and said, “Touch my arm now and you will understand what I mean by the word ‘bent’.” The blind man touched his friend’s elbow and exclaimed, “Now I know what milk is like!”

Am I correct in assuming that you went through the AA program? I don't mean to get too personal, but this sound just like AA rhetoric.

Beautiful story, an example of hope, not God. People find hope in anything, Christians turn to the idea of God, other faiths have their gods, and nontheists find hope in possibility. Hope is a wonderful thing, but evidence for nothing.

To remind you, you said... "We are given almost everything, our lives are made a lot easier by technology, but isn't it fair to see the other side of the coin as well, to wonder at what price? We have sacrificed meaning for comfort and inner freedom for a complete dependence on external objects. In what way does that make us better human beings?"

These are not facts. Very few of us "are given almost everything" and that claim that "we sacrificed meaning for comfort and inner freedom for a complete dependence on external objects" is unsupported. You are not qualified to determine who or who hasn't sacrificed meaning in anyone's life but your own, nor can you comment on anyone's "inner freedom" but your own.

Can I assume that the god in which you believe is the Christian god? If that is the case, Christianity is based on countless claims, most of which can be tested with logic, science, and confirmed or disproved rationally. To pretend your beliefs are beyond logic (what ever that means) is to simply ignore the fact that you are really just using bad logic.

"If God Wanted People to Believe in Him, Then Why Did He Invent Logic?" - bumper sticker

I had to google AA to find out what it stands for. I remember reading about Alcoholics Anonymous in a context where Jung's name was mentioned as the inspiration behind it. So the answer is no, I haven't been been through the program but I have read Jung and I have a deep admiration for him and his ideas. I don't mean to get too personal either, but have you been through the program?

No. Actually, I have never touched a drink in my life (40+ years now).

@Bo
Another problem with zero-energy hypothesis is gravity has unlimited range and matter has a finite amount of energy. So we have an apple and orange comparison.

It also presents a problem if you believe that gravity is a particle because your now trying to have your cake and eat it. Your using mutually exclusive arguments to address different parts of a single argument. If gravity is negative energy and mass is positive energy then you can't have a material gravity force it will cause infinite regression. If gravity has a graviton particle with mass then that mass will have its own gravity and so on. Also it stands to reason that if a particle has a graviton attached to it then an anti-particle needs to have an anti-graviton. otherwise when they anhilate you will be left with 2 gravitons and no mass. This means you would have gravity everywhere you have vacuums due to the higgs-boson particle effect. So there are complex problems with this theory if you pair it with materialism.

Actually, I don't claim to know what gravity is -- I am happy to claim ignorance along with the majority of the scientific community. There is so much we don't know, and pulling select information off websites is not a legitimate approach to serious scientific discourse. I suggest you offer this objection to Branden and see if he has anything to say about it.

BTW, Stephen Hawking is a materialist as well as a (huge) proponent of the zero-energy universe. Yes, I am appealing to authority when I say that he just might know something about this topic that you don't.

@Bo
I don't know if Hawking is a materialist. I know he believes that the zero-energy universe is possible but I don't think he subscribes to it with no leap of faith. Just because we consider Hawking to be intelligent is no reason to alight your thoughts with his blindly. Hawking is probably normally preaching to the converted anyway and responding to questions and continuing research seems difficult for him given his degenerative disease limiting him. I'd probably have a hard time believing in a loving God too if I were him. It seems like he would have to give up the only thing he has his prestige in the scientific community. Over the course of his last few books you see clear paradigm shifts in his beliefs so we know even Hawking isn't sure about all this. I'd say (and I have no right to say this but based on the context of his books) Hawking believes less strongly about natural origins than the most equivalently knowledgeable theists believe in supernatural ones.

As far as Branden responding to the anti-gravity thing I never took away his opportunity to do so in fact I was hoping he would. He started the thread after all.

Wow Bo

Im embarrassed for you right now! You and all your unbelievers on here use writings from literature and quotes from others, yet you try to discredit a believer who does the same. Then you try belittling her with the AA remark. The softer, more caring Bo has reverted back to his old ways with insults rather then being open to understanding what she is saying to you.

Have I not said everything that she has said over the past 2 years? Only my words came from a simple mind, where hers are from your level. Is she only showing empathy or can you not see ( or feel) her spirit? Be honest Bo! Although Fiona and I are worlds apart, do you not hear what the spirit is saying? She and I are so different, yet we share the same spirit. Can't you see this, or are you going to continue to make up excuses for how this could be.

I don't know if he actually does consider himself one, probably because there are too many definitions of "materialism". But he is consistently referred to as one by the media and what appear to be colleges.

I agree, somewhat. Again, "faith" in everyday language is following the evidence without hard proof. This is a speculative theory, so it does require what you call "a leap of faith" to an extent.

I don't. He offers (subscribes to) a plausible theory, one that has not been falsified by his peers, and one that is growing in acceptance. Without being a physicist myself, I can only conclude from this, that your dismissal of the theory is flawed, probably due to the not fully understanding all that is involved. Otherwise, like I have said many times, if you do believe you have manged to falsify or disprove a widely-accepted scientific theory, publish a paper and go for the Nobel. Otherwise, just admit where you knowledge is lacking and realize that are most probably missing something.

Are you suggesting that those suffering physically are more likely to reject God? Or only Hawking specifically? If the latter, why just him?

This is science, not faith. Science updates theories based on new information, and never claims to be "sure" about anything. This is not a bad thing. Religion claims certainty about things it cannot possibly know, then attempts to rationalize when it is proven wrong (as in "not a literal six days...."). And besides, reading Hawking, I have seen no such "clear paradigm" shift that you are referring to. I would be interested to hear your elaboration on this.

Actually, I would have given her credit... I was simply pointing out how her mean-spirited remark (from Satan no doubt) "...atheists who mock at those who believe and boast about their own intelligence. " was hypocritical of her, given her expression of intelligence.
Why would that be belittling? Linda, I know you are sensitive about your past, but that does not mean everyone has to be about theirs. AA, despite it religious agenda, is an admirable organization that helps people. If she had been part of the AA program, I would have better understood where she was coming from.

Fiona is not here to understand the atheist point of view. She clearly stated her position -- she is here to convert people by "planting seeds". This is not empathy. And I am always honest -- no need to request me to be so.

You both are god worshipers, tend to have a general dislike for humanity (or the human condition), have a general pessimistic view on life, and like to make generalizations about entire groups of people. You can relate to her and she to you.

@BoI don't think its totally fair for me to assume what I would do in his situation. I have a brother who struggles with theism because he considers himself created physically below "normal" though I never thought of his condition as something terrible enough to warrant such an emotional response his condition in my opinion was cosmetic and in my opinion was fixed 99% through surgery. If he felt this way I can only immagine how someone with lou gehrig's disease would feel. I think without a knowledgeable person in your life to help you understand God it's hard to open yourself fully to the possibility he exists. I think its easy to avoid this knowledge if you try.
I'd say the "grand design" and to a lesser extent "a brief history of space and time" blur this line. Theoretical science is hardly the same as empirical science. Certainly interesting, and he had great creativity to come up with his theory on Hawking radiation.

Right, I could have worded that better too. Basically, if you ask why Hawking or any educated materialist why he believes this eventually he will have made a judgment against a competing mutually exclusive possibility.

Its clear both theism and materialism can explain the world as we see it well enough while both still leave some unanswered questions.

However, to some theists like myself the bible doesn't contradict itself unless you misinterpret it. Research has always shown me that alleged cases of the bible contradicting itself to always be false. Some may disagree but the explanation is usually understandable to someone of the opposite point of view)

I do see mutually exclusive explanations to questions outside of my worldview things that are both considered facts that cannot both be true. (Heisenburg uncertainty, Contradiction of 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics with no prime mover and this causes me to doubt the worldview a great deal more. I wouldn't call the explanations of the contradictions to be generally available knowledge either so essentially the answers are exclusive in materialism leading to a majority of followers ignorant of the full doctrine they follow... Kinda like Christianity...

@Bo
I find AA a bit unconstitutional.

It can be (and often is) mandated by a Judge.

See these two steps
- admitting that one cannot control one's addiction or compulsion;
- recognizing a higher power that can give strength;

Delicate wording but still obvious religious tendency.

Does the atheist recogize reason can give strength? Isn't that unreasonable?

I think God is great but he can only be recognized by one's own free will it can't and shouldn't be court appointed.


>> To God Worshipers - like to make generalizations about entire groups of people.
Don't we all find ourselves doing that a big too much? I don't think I have the exact views you described but I could just be in denial.

Bo Bennett wrote:
Now, this is just outright wrong. Everything we feel is based on love. We dislike the effects that the world has on people, not the people. We know why we try so hard to open the eyes of the blind. Why does that offend you ?

Yeah my post was a bit unclear there.

I think its hypocritical to say God worshipers do this or that there are all kinds of flavors of theists because there are all kinds of flavors of people. People who are pessimistic and optimistic. I think our personalities develop a long time before we are actually convicted to faith or not. I don't see a lot of people walking out of the waters of their baptism and cursing non-believers. I certainly wouldn't assert a connection there.

I think theists and atheists all recognize we don't know everything and we all want to grow. Rational people always do. We just have different goals of what we want to mature into.

Sorry about my last post. I tried to use the quote thingie and it turned out like Bo said everything. Im sure you figured it out.

We have been over this, and I think we understand each other's views.

That is why you don't hold another world view -- I bet if you really tried to understand it, you would see that is less problematic than posting a being that is allowed to break all the rule, is a "spiritual" world where no rules are needed.

I was not referring to the content of his books, I was referring to the idea that theories are updated based on new information.

I believe strength comes from within, not from outside.