How many here are atheists?

[FTL_Ian]

Science vs.God

The straw man cometh.

I don't understand, what do you mean?

[Vitruvian]

Science vs. God

The straw man cometh.

I don't understand, what do you mean?

The "philosophy professor" character is a foil for the "defiant Christian student."  It's a familiar story line.  These allegories distort the rational, or scientific, position to buttress the religious one.

For instance, the "professor" in your post agrees with the student that, because no one has ever observed his brain, to believe his brain exists is an article of faith.  This professor could be the poster-child for "Science: You're doing it wrong."

But if he cannot be comprehended, then he cannot be defined

Not so.  A perfect example of this distinction is quantum mechanics, a well-defined theory with not-so-well-comprehended implications.

[Caleb]

It goes both ways. So many of the atheist arguments are simply straw men arguments, (ie, "Who created God?")

[Caleb]

But if he cannot be comprehended, then he cannot be defined

Not so.  A perfect example of this distinction is quantum mechanics, a well-defined theory with not-so-well-comprehended implications.

Quantum is fundamentally different, and even there we don't really know what the words we are using mean. Everything with which you are familiar (well, almost everything  ) is a product of creation. space/time/matter/energy.  We have no way of conceiving beyond these words, because our language is rooted in our experience. You can approximate quantum with words, however poorly. You're still doing a hatchet job to it. With God, your very attempt to define him drags him into the limits of a universe that he transcends. At least drags him conceptually, not ontologically. So you create a dichotomy between what you are saying and what is real.

[Vitruvian]

your very attempt to define him drags him into the limits of a universe that he transcends

This is another evasion.  The theist says, "God exists," speaking in a human language to another human, but then says God is beyond all human attempts to understand what the hell the theist is talking about.  If something is claimed to exist, then there must be some way to test that claim: otherwise, a universe in which the thing exists would be indistinguishable from a universe in which it does not exist.

[Caleb]

Not an evasion, though. I told you how to gain an understanding of God. I didn't tell you to take anything on faith, I told you that you must experience him.

Some people aren't comfortable with that, because for some reason they like to think in terms of words and definitions. And create boxes where they can place everything.

I honestly cannot understand that way of thinking. It's so foreign to me that I can't even wrap my mind around it. "Hey, let's sit down and create a dictionary." Uh... how bout let's not.

[FTL_Ian]

One of the classical attempts to define God is to say that he is "omnipresent" ... "in all" as the Bible puts it.

I wouldn't say that we are all God because pantheism to me denies selfhood, but there is no doubt that we are interconnected with the divine presence, that it exists in us.

Wiki says:

Classical pantheism believes in a personal, conscious, and omniscient God, and sees this God as uniting all true religions. Naturalistic pantheism believes in an unconscious, non-sentient Universe, which, while being holy and beautiful, is seen as being a God in a non-traditional and impersonal sense.

I don't think classical or naturalistic pantheism accurately describe my belief system.  I don't know if I can define it accurately at this point though.

[FTL_Ian]

I enjoy this viewpoint:

http://www.abraham-hicks.com/teachings_brief.php/

[ReverendRyan]

I prefer this viewpoint.

[FTL_Ian]

I prefer this viewpoint.

I agree with that viewpoint.

[Kat Kanning]

You guys are really going to debate this again??

[kola]

You guys are really going to debate this again??

that wasn't my intention. i just wanted to know who was and wasn't.

this debate topic is worse than debating vaccines.

~yawn~
holy rolla' Kola 

[Puke]

I'd rather see WHO as well as how many are atheists.

I am not an atheist. 






[wink]

[dalebert]

Not an evasion, though. I told you how to gain an understanding of God. I didn't tell you to take anything on faith, I told you that you must experience him.

Caleb, we discussed this at Porcfest. If you have to "experience" God, then you're claiming that any discussion about him is meaningless. You had a personal experience that was sufficient evidence for your judgment that he exists. I haven't had that experience. Vitruvian hasn't had that experience. We are discussing the existence of God and you saying we have to experience him is a cop-out. If the nature of God is something that only he can reveal to us, something that transcends languages, then you have no reason to discuss the subject. Either he will reveal himself to me or he will not. If there is some role that you play in that experience, tell me what it is. If there is something that you can say that will make me receptive to this experience of which you speak, then we are back to language and human logic again and you're contradicting yourself. You can't have it both ways.

Not only have I not had that experience, but the notion of God is full of logical contradictions to me. As soon as people start defining him in human terms, he ceases to be this omnipresent existence, and if they don't define him down into human terms, his existence is completely meaningless. Like Vitruvian said, if there is no measurable effect of his existence in my life, then he doesn't matter. If there is some measurable effect, then it can be tested in some way.

This is why, like Vitruvian, I can't even answer the question much less discuss the potential existence of someone's notion of "God" until someone gives me a clear definition of what it is they're talking about. Without that, there is nothing to discuss.

Even cold and darkness can be understood as the lack of something else and those are concepts a human can grasp and discuss. But we know what that something else is- heat and light. The example Rainey gave is meaningless in a discussion about God without a definition of God.

[Caleb]

You guys are really going to debate this again??

This discussion seems to be a little different than the rest, because it doesn't seem to be going towards, "Is there a god or is there not a god?" but to the question of "how would we know?"

I have no interest in convincing anyone that God exists; i get along just fine with many atheists, and if that's what they believe, then that is what they believe. But epistemology is always fun.