Why don't you believe in God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Either someone started everything from nothing (theists)

Or nothing started everything from nothing (atheists).

Not quite. Once again because it looks like you missed it:

The theist's position is that "Nothing started something from nothing (which is essentially the atheist's position), then that Someone started everything from nothing (theists)."

Atheists win by Occam's Razor. At least if theists want to keep the fig-leaf of rationality. Probably wiser to admit "it makes no sense, but it's what I believe" which is what others have said.

I'm not PP, but I think I missed it, too. Atheists think no one started everything, where as theists think someone started everything, no?

No, theists think that no one started everything as well: there was nothing, then there was God, then there was everything. Atheists think there was nothing, then there was a singularity, then there was everything.

Calling the singularity "God" gets us no closer to understanding. Actually further, since there's the possibility physics will uncover the provenance of the singularity; theists want to shut down the operation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Either someone started everything from nothing (theists)

Or nothing started everything from nothing (atheists).

Not quite. Once again because it looks like you missed it:

The theist's position is that "Nothing started something from nothing (which is essentially the atheist's position), then that Someone started everything from nothing (theists)."

Atheists win by Occam's Razor. At least if theists want to keep the fig-leaf of rationality. Probably wiser to admit "it makes no sense, but it's what I believe" which is what others have said.

No, my friend. Reread my post.

Someone started everything from nothing (theists)

Nothing started everything from nothing (atheists)

God is reasonable (theists)

God is impossible (atheists)

Atheists have more faith than theists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Either someone started everything from nothing (theists)

Or nothing started everything from nothing (atheists).

Not quite. Once again because it looks like you missed it:

The theist's position is that "Nothing started something from nothing (which is essentially the atheist's position), then that Someone started everything from nothing (theists)."

Atheists win by Occam's Razor. At least if theists want to keep the fig-leaf of rationality. Probably wiser to admit "it makes no sense, but it's what I believe" which is what others have said.

I'm not PP, but I think I missed it, too. Atheists think no one started everything, where as theists think someone started everything, no?

No, theists think that no one started everything as well: there was nothing, then there was God, then there was everything. Atheists think there was nothing, then there was a singularity, then there was everything.

Calling the singularity "God" gets us no closer to understanding. Actually further, since there's the possibility physics will uncover the provenance of the singularity; theists want to shut down the operation.

Ok, got it this time. Thanks.

Not sure what you mean by singularity, though. Why can't the singularity be God? One could argue that physics theories and laws are just a human effort to describe the world around them. The same way people use religion. Could be that both serve the exact same purpose for the human race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Either someone started everything from nothing (theists)

Or nothing started everything from nothing (atheists).

Not quite. Once again because it looks like you missed it:

The theist's position is that "Nothing started something from nothing (which is essentially the atheist's position), then that Someone started everything from nothing (theists)."

Atheists win by Occam's Razor. At least if theists want to keep the fig-leaf of rationality. Probably wiser to admit "it makes no sense, but it's what I believe" which is what others have said.

No, my friend. Reread my post.

Someone started everything from nothing (theists)

Nothing started everything from nothing (atheists)

God is reasonable (theists)

God is impossible (atheists)

Atheists have more faith than theists.

Sure, but simply restating your error in logic doesn't make it any more compelling. You've got the same "bootstrapping" problem the atheists have--you're just in denial. Do you have a response to it?

[Anonymous]

Some of us are okay with not knowing how the universe began. There's no way to prove it at this point, why fret over it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Either someone started everything from nothing (theists)

Or nothing started everything from nothing (atheists).

Not quite. Once again because it looks like you missed it:

The theist's position is that "Nothing started something from nothing (which is essentially the atheist's position), then that Someone started everything from nothing (theists)."

Atheists win by Occam's Razor. At least if theists want to keep the fig-leaf of rationality. Probably wiser to admit "it makes no sense, but it's what I believe" which is what others have said.

I'm not PP, but I think I missed it, too. Atheists think no one started everything, where as theists think someone started everything, no?

No, theists think that no one started everything as well: there was nothing, then there was God, then there was everything. Atheists think there was nothing, then there was a singularity, then there was everything.

Calling the singularity "God" gets us no closer to understanding. Actually further, since there's the possibility physics will uncover the provenance of the singularity; theists want to shut down the operation.

Ok, got it this time. Thanks.

Not sure what you mean by singularity, though. Why can't the singularity be God? One could argue that physics theories and laws are just a human effort to describe the world around them. The same way people use religion. Could be that both serve the exact same purpose for the human race.

No, absolutely. Let's call the singularity "God". But that's just a matter of semantics. We still don't get the super-human powers (omniscience, omnipotence, etc...) I think you're right about the second bit, though. Far be it for me to try to take God away from the theists. Just answering the topic: we don't generally believe in god because it's irrational to do so. That's the "faith" bit.

[Anonymous]

What blows my mind is that before the big bang, there was no time. No space I can imagine, but no time is hard to wrap my mind around. How can we expect to reason our way to what came before if we cannot even conceptualize "before"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of us are okay with not knowing how the universe began. There's no way to prove it at this point, why fret over it?

Sure, but the implication is that god has to exist, because he logically derives from the fact that the universe has no known "start". I was just pointing out that, logically, that's incoherent. So those looking for "evidence" of god's existence will need to look elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Either someone started everything from nothing (theists)

Or nothing started everything from nothing (atheists).

Not quite. Once again because it looks like you missed it:

The theist's position is that "Nothing started something from nothing (which is essentially the atheist's position), then that Someone started everything from nothing (theists)."

Atheists win by Occam's Razor. At least if theists want to keep the fig-leaf of rationality. Probably wiser to admit "it makes no sense, but it's what I believe" which is what others have said.

I'm not PP, but I think I missed it, too. Atheists think no one started everything, where as theists think someone started everything, no?

No, theists think that no one started everything as well: there was nothing, then there was God, then there was everything. Atheists think there was nothing, then there was a singularity, then there was everything.

Calling the singularity "God" gets us no closer to understanding. Actually further, since there's the possibility physics will uncover the provenance of the singularity; theists want to shut down the operation.

Ok, got it this time. Thanks.

Not sure what you mean by singularity, though. Why can't the singularity be God? One could argue that physics theories and laws are just a human effort to describe the world around them. The same way people use religion. Could be that both serve the exact same purpose for the human race.

No, absolutely. Let's call the singularity "God". But that's just a matter of semantics. We still don't get the super-human powers (omniscience, omnipotence, etc...) I think you're right about the second bit, though. Far be it for me to try to take God away from the theists. Just answering the topic: we don't generally believe in god because it's irrational to do so. That's the "faith" bit.

I like you, PP!

How do you explain things that can't be explained through science? Do you believe in fate or destiny? Or only in conicidences? When you hear stories from people who have had near death experiences, do you believe there is a scientific explanation for everything?

To me, God is as real as my computer screen or keyboard. I feel it in a way that makes it as tangible and "real" as the love I feel for my children. But I am pretty far out there in a lot of ways. I also believe in soul mates. I know a lot of the scientific types would see me as a lost cause.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Either someone started everything from nothing (theists)

Or nothing started everything from nothing (atheists).

Not quite. Once again because it looks like you missed it:

The theist's position is that "Nothing started something from nothing (which is essentially the atheist's position), then that Someone started everything from nothing (theists)."

Atheists win by Occam's Razor. At least if theists want to keep the fig-leaf of rationality. Probably wiser to admit "it makes no sense, but it's what I believe" which is what others have said.

I'm not PP, but I think I missed it, too. Atheists think no one started everything, where as theists think someone started everything, no?

No, theists think that no one started everything as well: there was nothing, then there was God, then there was everything. Atheists think there was nothing, then there was a singularity, then there was everything.

Calling the singularity "God" gets us no closer to understanding. Actually further, since there's the possibility physics will uncover the provenance of the singularity; theists want to shut down the operation.

Ok, got it this time. Thanks.

Not sure what you mean by singularity, though. Why can't the singularity be God? One could argue that physics theories and laws are just a human effort to describe the world around them. The same way people use religion. Could be that both serve the exact same purpose for the human race.

No, absolutely. Let's call the singularity "God". But that's just a matter of semantics. We still don't get the super-human powers (omniscience, omnipotence, etc...) I think you're right about the second bit, though. Far be it for me to try to take God away from the theists. Just answering the topic: we don't generally believe in god because it's irrational to do so. That's the "faith" bit.

I like you, PP!

How do you explain things that can't be explained through science? Do you believe in fate or destiny? Or only in conicidences? When you hear stories from people who have had near death experiences, do you believe there is a scientific explanation for everything?

To me, God is as real as my computer screen or keyboard. I feel it in a way that makes it as tangible and "real" as the love I feel for my children. But I am pretty far out there in a lot of ways. I also believe in soul mates. I know a lot of the scientific types would see me as a lost cause.

Not sure there are "things that can't be explained through science". There are things that haven't been explained, but that's the beauty of the open-ended system. As far as things like near death experiences, true romantic love, and the beauty of a sunset, all these things are wonderful. I'm incredibly lucky and thankful that against incalculable odds, I was born--and that my daughter was born as well--whom I love more than anything. If it were all taken away tomorrow, I'd still feel as though my existence were "miraclulous" in a non-religious sense, and would cherish the short, precious time I'd been allotted.

Not sure what "god" gets me over and above that, other than as a distraction from the work at hand of savoring the gift of life in this improbable universe.

[P.S.: Consider any references to "gifts" etc... as poetic license, not evidence of a "Giver" ]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Aah, but you are mixing religion and politics here. It is one thing to believe in a God, and quite another thing to use God to justify conquests. You can believe in God without believing that God told us to invade Iraq. It is quite possible there is just one God, but people are both using him as an excuse for fighting over Israel. God probably has nothing to do with it.

How do you decide which things done in the name of god were actually inspired by him, and which ones weren't? On what basis? Certainly the Spanish Inquisition thought they were doing God's work.

[Anonymous]

Some aspects of the near death experience have been explained by science. It's also not an experience unique to the clinically dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here...thank you for your thoughtful responses...please keep them coming...I just wanted to clarify something important:

I did not mean that atheism=unhappy lives. Rather, I meant that many weighty topics are hashed out here on a daily basis, but almost wholly lacking from these discussions is faith. People seem to face the hardest issues of human life on their own, without any sense of a Truth larger than themselves. So I wondered why. Was that a deliberate, thoughtful decision? Or something that just never seemed important? And if it was a conscious decision, what motivated that choice?

I hope this makes sense. And I will gladly answer the opposite question, just not this moment. I really just want to hear from y'all for now.

Maybe people have kept faith out of discussions b/c that type of answer is not helpful as far as providing a plan of action to solve people's problems. If someone was writing b/c their spouse was cheating, their child was difficult, etc, what good would it do to say something to the effect of, "Pray, may the Lord be with you?" or "I dealt with the same thing through the power of church." We want advice we can act on.

[Anonymous]

Some aspects of the near death experience have been explained by science. It's also not an experience unique to the clinically dead.

Which ones? The subject of near death experiences fascinates me.

[Anonymous]

The tunnel of light, the emotions, the random memories firing. I'm the one who posted earlier about experiencing it. It is an interesting phenomena. There was a very interesting and easy to understand segment on NDE in a Nat-Geo documentary called The Moment of Death.

I heard a few stories and said to myself "Hey, I know what they're talking about" and starting reading a lot about them. I wish there were more information. It's not fully understood or widely experienced.