Thank you, thank you. Be sure to tip your server. Good night, folks. :)

First off, I am not going to even attempt to define God. To even ask such a thing is a little ridiculous. It's like asking the amoeba to define man...the chasm is just too large.

I understand that you want to define God in order to refute that definition, unfortunately there just isn't any way that a human is going to be able to define God.

I also can't define what evidence we may find in the future that would support the existence of God. Again, it's like asking the ancient Egyptians to somehow presuppose the existence of dark matter. I do, however, feel very confident that just as the ancient peoples would be completely mystified and uncomprehending of a concept like dark matter, likewise there will be discoveries in the future that we would find completely unimaginable. It is this very fact that leads me to say that you cannot say with any confidence that there isn't a presence in the universe that we may consider "supernatural" today based on our limited evidence.

Either you're completely misunderstanding my point or I am yours, because we're not connecting here. I want you to define what you mean by god so I know what the heck you're talking about. Are you talking about Trekkor's god or Jeff's god? They're not the same.

I never said that I can state with confidence that there isn't a presence in the universe that we may consider "supernatural". I would never make that statement. I don't know any rational person that would. You're claiming way more than that, though. You claim this being exists and created our planet, among other things. Now the game changes, IMO, as you're now defining this being by his actions. A rational person would seem to want to see evidence of these actions before accepting your claim that this being is responsible for them.

I'm not asking you to define the being, I'm asking to define why you think this being exists. Surely you have reasons why you believe he exists? Once you define those reasons, we can look for evidence to support your claims. We can't see him, we can't hear him, we can't detect him in any way (you have mentioned yourself that you have no evidence of his existence). Why should one believe he exists? Just because we haven't found him yet?

Mike I think you're going to be frustrated by my personal "definition" of God because I don't subscribe to any cookie cutter, mainstream definitions. I go to a Methodist church but don't define my beliefs by the stated beliefs of the Methodist church. I see church as a vehicle for me to explore my personal relationship with God. I don't see the church as speaking for God or defining God for me. I don't see God as a man in the clouds with a snowy beard sending down thunderbolts to smite the wicked. I see the Bible as a mixture of literal truth, allegory and spiritual truth. I don't believe the earth is 7,000 years old or that it was created in 6 literal 24 hour days.

I believe that God is a being that created our universe and created man. I think God created the universe we live in in such a way as to allow it to evolve and change based on his (I use the word "his" not as a gender identifier...I suppose I could use "it" instead) plans. I think God has an interest in the lives of every human and that humans life unfolds according to God's will. I also believe that man has free will, which seems like a paradox but isn't. I don't know what form God takes or where God lives.

I believe this being exists because I see his work in my life and the lives of others. I don't need a sign in the sky or a burning bush. I understand that a being that created our universe would, by definition, exist outside of the confines of our universe.

In short, I don't think you should believe God exists due to any physical sign or chemical reaction you may observe. I don't believe that God should or would have to prove himself to you through some inane magic trick in the sky. God is there for the finding, you simply have to seek him out.

If people are merely a product of their genes and environment, then their beliefs are a result of the natural world. How certain are you that your particular combination of genes and envirnoment haven't produced a defect of nature?

I'm not certain that science relying on a singularity to prove a theory is more rational than believing God did it.

You have an inferiority complex.

Agnostic atheism. The reason I will not say there is no god is that I cannot prove it beyond doubt. That does not mean I think one exists.


Ive put bold emphasis on your post, i hope you dont mid, I didnt want to remove it from its context.

So, after all other arguments have expired- you are left with this one. God exists because it cant be proven that He does not. And it is an effective argument, to a point. As a rationalist I have to concede god might exist, no matter how small the probablity, because i cant completely dismiss that possibility without proof.

But it leaves you in an interesting position, because as I see it, you have to apply the same to Bertram Russell's Teapot.

Im sure you are familar with the analogy, but here it is anyway, from wiki...

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Yes. The population of atheists with whom I have had conversations regarding theism is an EXTREMELY small subset of the population of atheists on Planet Earth. That makes my conclusions inferential at best. And as we know (I have always loved this one), "all generalizations are false." But again, I have no personal experience with "humble" or "quiet" atheists. Every last one of them has been quick to display their intellectual pride.

But again, and this is terribly important, there is a huge difference between someone who behaves as though there is no God because they are not convinced He exists (this is an agnostic), and one who has drawn the confident conclusion there is no God.

For sure. Any true Christian will tell you they struggle with doubt.

Perhaps. Getting back to the topic, I wonder if you or anybody could clue me in to what other message these people might be trying to convey. I see the intellectual pride thing. Is there another interpretation I might make?

Here is a koan, it is more pertinent to Zen Buddism but I think you will get the picture about the relevance of religion in a modern world.

Before I sought enlightenment, the mountains were mountains and the rivers were rivers.

While I sought enlightenment, the mountains were not mountains and the rivers were not rivers.

After I reached satori, the mountains were mountains and the rivers were rivers.

His first name was Bertrand.

I appreciate your seemingly rational and mature approach in at least some of these posts if not all. Thank you.

You say you have no proof that God does or does not exist. That makes you an agnostic, not an atheist. This is a rational position to adopt.

Some of the people who believe in God are fairly confident in their conclusion. There are a number of sources of this confidence. Some people feel they have been touched by God. They are confident because they feel God revealed his existence and presence to them personally. Obviously, they would have no way of offering that same experience to you. It is "proof" to them, but not "proof" you can use.

Then there are the various proofs of the existence of God. They are certainly interesting in the sense that they lay the groundwork for ENDLESS debate as to whether these proofs are indeed deductive or if not, the degree to which they are inferentially convincing. In my humble opinion, a number of them are sufficiently convincing and at least one of them is deductive, or nearly so. Nearly so in the sense that I wonder if perhaps one of the premises can be successfully attacked. The most intriguing to me is the Cartesian form of St. Anselm's Proof. The family of St. Anselms proofs are commonly called the "Ontological" arguments since they argue from God's essence. The form most intriguing to me is this one:

P: I am thinking of a being than which there can be no greater.
P: A being that exists is greater than a being that does not exist.
C: The being of which I am thinking.......exists.

On its face, this argument is always immediately dismissed. Out of hand. But when the task of actually assailing it is attempted and discussed, dismissing it becomes a bit more difficult. Remember, this proof is deductive. This form of argumentation (modus tolens, I think) is deductive. In other words, if the premises are true, then so is the conclusion. Attacking this proof must be accomplished by showing the falseness of one or both premises.

The other one I like is the prime mover argument. Not the complexity one. I actually believe the physical principles upon which this Universe is based are exceedingly simple, and that the complexity needs no divine intervention. It flows from the simple basic principles. Elegantly. But the prime mover argument does convince me. Basically, either you think everything has a cause.........or you think there is one exception. The exception is "everything." The atheist must take the position that the Universe is the one thing that had no cause. In my humble view, that does not pass the "straight face test."

Haven't we already killed the ontological arguments in ITAG? This is like deja vu all over again.

A man arrives at the gates of heaven. St. Peter asks, "Religion"
The man says, "Methodist." St peter looks down his list,and says"Go to room 28 but very quiet while you pass room 8."
Another man arrives at the gates of heaven. "Religion?" Baptist
"Go to room 18 but be very quiet as you pass room 8."
A third man arrives at the gates."Religion?" "Jewish"
"Go to room 11 but be very quiet as you pass room 8"

The man says, " I can understand there being different rooms for different religions, but why must I be quiet when I pass room 8?'

St.Peter says,"The Jehovahs witnesses are in room 8, and they think they are the only ones here."

This God stuff is getting old. No one will truly know until death. Can't life and all living things just be the 'nature' of the universe. Why does it have to mean more, be more? It does'nt.
Bugger it. Off to the 'Chest Thread'.

"Is man one of gods mistakes, or is god one of mans?" Neitchze

The problem with this is that there is an underlying agenda with the SOLE purpose of belittling the other sides beliefs. The same as [generalized] your [/generalized] mocking about an invisible friend and needing a crutch. The intended outcome is that you say, "see they believe in nonsense." Well, according to your own assertion that you are rational, YOU are forced to concede the tea pot (smufs, invisible friends, ect) might exist. Why is it that you are trying so desparately to draw the conclusion that a person who believes in God is not rational?

Second, the tea pot thing argument you posted is a good argument against religion not so much against God. "it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it" is not at all a requirement from the God I believe in.

Do you believe in a cure for an "incurable disease"? Do you mock and belittle people who continue to believe even when NO proof has been discovered as yet? Why does society spend so much time, effort, and money on something that has not been proven to exist?

The chicken or the egg?

I love it.
Language keeps religion afloat.
That is all it was in the fist place.

Watch out for the talking snake!

Thanks for clarifying my agenda.

As a rational person, I reckon its just about impossible for me to discuss your beliefs without you feeling I’ve belittled them. the difference seems to be- I set out to attack the beliefs, not to belittle you. Let me give you an example.

Many believers think God is their friend/father/saviour
Many believe they can talk to God and He hears them and answers prayers
Many believe that God is with them
It seems universally and conveniently, held that god is most times, invisible.

So, how is it that when I refer to god as your invisible super hero friend for grown ups, do you take umbrage and feel belittled? Isnt it a fair description? If we had a conversation about Oiuja boards and I described Ouija similarly, you would have a problem? I don’t know what your beliefs are, so you cant really accuse me of belittling you, personally. Could it be because that calling god “an invisible friend for grown ups” strips the proposition of all its sanctity and pomposity and majesty and make it sound like the silly idea it is?

Here is the problem. The beliefs described ab ove, for example, are silly and illogical to a rational person. That someone might sincerely believe them doesn’t change this. As a rational person, I am not prepared to give these beliefs a free kick. I will hold up these beliefs and say, “look at this. This is silly. If you believe this, you cant consider yourself a rational, functional adult.” And get it out of public policy, education, govt. .

This is why some of you guys get so worked up and start with the personal attacks. You are rational, functioning people. You know Ouji boards are for scaring teenage girls. You know Harry Houdini didn’t communicate in séances. You know palm readers are shysters. You know Odin, Baal, Ra and Thor are products of primitive man. You know throwing virgins into volcanos doesn’t really help. You know the Prophet Mohammed did not ride a winged horse to paradise. But you also know JC didn’t rise after 3 days. You know how Mary got pregnant and it wasn’t by the Hand of God. You know that Noah’s Ark didn’t happen. You know the earth isn’t 7000 years old. You all know these things. As functioning, rational grown ups, you know. It causes cognitive dissonance.

Take a look at Superman. First he rails against towering intellectual arrogance, an affectation of atheists you see, then after landing a spelling flame and quick backhand jab, he pulls out a treatise on St Anselm and Ontalogical proof. Anslem’s Onatalogical proof is ridiculous, and Douglas Gasking did on pretty good hatchet job on it, as did Kant before him, IIRC. As we discussed in ITAG. If we substituted “Odin” or “Thor” into Superman’s essay, which I suspect he may have written on his bootlid, they would come and lock him up.

Here is a little test I find useful. “Is this rational? Does it make sense? Is it true?” If it is/does, keep it for another day. If it doesn’t, however, give it the heave ho. (works with wives also).

A last thought. Supernatural beliefs do not cure incrable diseases. Science does.