Anybody who has "secret knowledge" - that is, they know (or think they know) something that most people don't - is going to consider themselves part of an "elite". It's true in every field, even religion. Why does that surprise you?
I don't think knowing something that others don't makes any one a part of the elite. I think eliteness is to be reserved for the deserving who complete difficult objectives that few ever could.
Or is this just more of a pattern you've established where the same behaviors for which you give a pass to the religious are used to impeach atheists?
There is a reason why polls are showing that atheists are among the most distrusted people. Who wants to hang around elitist mentalities that do not believe in any real set of morals? There is an arrogance among many atheists because they believe they have climbed the tree of reason. A theist, but particularly Christians, feel that whatever knowledge they have about God was given to them. That in no way instills any sort of pride. In fact, it crushes it and affirms our reliance upon Him.
The burden of proof is always on he who makes the positive claim of existence, not he who points out that no evidence for the positive claim has been provided.
But a theists position about God entails belief. There are many logical inferences that could be made in defense of God, but there is nothing that is going to unambiguously prove the existence of God. Aside from which, as I already stated, atheism is making positive affirmations. They say that there is no God. That's either a true statement or its an incorrect belief. There isn't any two ways about it.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The lack of evidence (for instance) for a teapot in orbit of Alpha Centuri is good reason to conclude that there is no such teapot.
Granted. But perhaps you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes as evidence for God. What evidence do you have that love exists? Isn't that completely an internal matter? Can I prove that you love your mother? Can you prove to me that you love your mother? Neither can we do any such thing. That's something only you can verify for yourself, but it doesn't make it any less true because you cannot prove that to us.
But God is not a monkey. And as you've said, the only thing that would be everywhere at once, eternally, would be God.
Suppose with me that God is completely distinct from His creation-- i.e., a monkey. You might say that God is merely a social convention-- a social or mental construct, or that God is some abstraction. But what if God is not made of matter? How do prove something that doesn't have matter, exists? Mankind is limited by the material world.
Allow me to get a little metaphysical. Consider that God is the spiritual and the infinite. Though He creates the beginning and the end, He is not subject to it. Although there is no dimension of space, time, or matter devoid of Him, He is not composed of it or contained by it. He is the omnipotent and the omniscient. Therefore, the space-time continuum does not encapsulate or incorporate Him within the universe. For this reason, it is theologically and philosophically understood why God is given all sorts of aggrandized appellations.
Suppose that God dwells in the human heart (psyche). It is there that He reveals Himself. Obviously, this is difficult for man to understand because, for the most part, the human mind is only largely capable of grasping physical concepts. I won’t sit here and pretend as if I completely understand God, because I don’t. Nonetheless, it is only by way of prophetic comprehension and personal revelation,
granted by God, that we may begin to understand His greatness. In other words, it is only by God, that we understand God.
You say,
"But that's so easy, NJ. I can do that about anything. I can do that with the FSM." I say, alright, fair enough. But I see it in a manner as practical as something like this could be.
Some people have asked me what I thought God looks like. I do not believe that God has physical features. When we read that God made man in His own
image, it speaks of the knowledge of righteousness and holiness. Moreover, for me to assume what God looks like would ultimately be a construct of my own mind. This would be idolatrous. What we understand is correlated, or rather, is manifested through our physical senses. Surely, life and the reality of it exceed our ephemeral bodies.
Though we cannot see God, virtually everyone has a basic concept and a basic understanding of something beyond themselves. We cannot see God, and yet, we witness His effects in nature. In a similar way, I cannot physically see the wind, but I can see the effects of it as it blows through the trees. Therefore, so, the reality of God is understood, not so much in who or what He is, but rather what He does.
Thus it's sufficient to find only one place where there is no God to prove that there's no God, anywhere. As you've defined him, he can't both exist and not be somewhere.
I'm glad you ask, because likewise, I cannot see gravity. Though I cannot see it does not negate its existence. In addition, in the same way that we would not consider gravity to be a
thing, so we might conclude that God is not a thing. If anything at all, God and gravity are more of a phenomenon.
But even this description is woefully inept. Perhaps God cannot be seen, not because He is too transcendental, but because there is
no place devoid of Him. If you existed in all dimensions of space and time, what would distinguish you from one thing to the next? You would not be a thing; you would be everything, and then some. Again, perhaps it is not because he is just above all of creation, but maybe because that He is too immanent in the affairs of the universe. In lieu of this, we are only aware of God when He acts to manifest His presence. Maybe this is why the Hebrew word, “
Ruach”, denotes both
spirit and
wind.
Well, there's no God right here where I am, and I've never been to a place where there is a God, so that's a considerable weight of evidence that there is no God, anywhere - not as you've defined him.
Again, perhaps it isn't
where is God, but rather, where
isn't God...
That's the position of a lot of atheists, like me - we don't know that all possible conceptions of God have been falsified, but it's certainly safe to say that the popular concepts of God have been. Concepts like "God is an all-powerful creator and father-figure" or "God is an energy force that grants wishes". Gods like "God is a merry prankster whose every action is taken in such a way to conceal his existence" disprove themselves by Occam's Razor.
Nothing that exists in physical form is without causation. No material object can exist within itself. Everything that exists comes to existence outside of itself. So if we apply Occam's Razor to life and keep reducing the material world by a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction, you are reduced to nothing in the physical universe that can create or sustain itself. You must then look outside the physical realm to explain the existence.
Is this proof positive that God exists? No, but bereft of answers while applying Occam's Razor, there is no other appealing option.
If absolute certainty is necessary for you to arrive at conclusions, then yes, that's the best that you can say.
The only absolute certainty is absolute uncertainty. Which means at some point we are going to have to stop maligning the word, "faith," and come to grips with it at some point.
We arrive at conclusions based on relatively uncertain information all the time - it would be paralyzing to operate in any other way. The realities of biology introduce doubt into all data - you could be hallucinating, or dreaming, or misremembering.
Right, which means that at some point you are going to have to take on board with you, personal experience, personal revelation, the witness of other people in relation to you, etc.
But on the same basis that I conclude (though I can't be sure) that Scarlett Johansson is not present in my kitchen, I conclude that God is not present in my universe. With the same certainty.
That's faulty logic since Scarlett Johansson is a being forced to live in a specific dimension of space-time. Is God? Again, not where is God. Where isn't He?
Which God? The common tactic of theists is to leave this term purposefully undefined, so that when the atheist does disprove a certain God, the goalposts are moved.
Its only as undefined as it could possibly be. Ask the theist,
"What is God," and receive 80 different answers. Coming to grips with the existence of God is not an easy concept to swallow. I understand the atheist position from a linear approach. But that isn't where we detect God best. The evidence is taking all that we know and comparing it together like a gigantic jigsaw puzzle.
Theists are no less likely to engage in moral backbending to excuse specific situations than anybody else. There's a million such examples. "God says 'thou shall not murder', but execution and war don't count."
Its only a fundamental misunderstanding. Its real simple because the answer lies within your heart. If a man walks into your kitchen and begins to strangle you from behind, are you going to allow him to, or you going to grab the kitchen knife on the counter and go to work? Did you murder him? You know damn well that you didn't. But now suppose you are the man in the kitchen strangling the victim and you kill him. Its obvious you are the murderer.
I don't see any backbending in that.
"He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8
™ Version 4.2
