GOD IS DEAD

But you only know God doesn't exist from a personal subjective position.I know he does, you know he doesn't. Let's be honest - as this doesn't favour me in the least, let's admitt that in an objective sense, we don't know if there is a God.I can only be convicted that there is God. I have experienced the Holy Spirit physically, and the external outworking of God in my life, but I apreciate that this has no objective value to you, nor would I expect it to, as it could all be a product of my mind somehow. I can only be a true witness, and state that I truly have experienced this, as I have. I believe it to be true. I don't objectively know, I only "partly know", as the bible says.I know that to you, God isn't there. To be truly neutral, you have to step out of personal significance, and realize that ultimately, you are not omniscient.I feel I shouldn't have to defend the obvious truth, that nobody knows if God is actually there.If he knocked on your door tomorrow, where would such reasoning be?I entertain any possibility, in an objective sense. I acknowledge multiple universes, even though I find them absurd, subjectively.People believe in a designer because of the facts before them. They think this whole existence is one incredible unbelievable undeniable miracle.

Your insistence on confusing and conflating the term "know" with some sort of philosophical 100% certainty and the more common every day usage of the term "know" with respect to things we are certain of to all practical intents and purposes is misguided at best and dishonest at worst.I don't claim to know that God does not exist. I just deem it to be so objectively unlikely that the term "know" is as close to my level of certainty as it is possible to be in everyday language. Philosophically I accept that God, Apollo and any other deity that you or I imagine or create up on the spot might exist but so what? Well when you say Know do you mean 100% certainty? Or just an everyday sort of "know"? Yes well believing the unbelievable on the basis of deeply personal, highly susceptible to delusion, experience is always an option. The whole point of evidence based conclusions is to embrace the fact that we are both non-omniscient and deeply susceptible to personal subjective delusion. The whole point of evidence based investigation is to reach reliable objective conclusions despite these very human attributes. If I invent a God now you do not knowif this god actually exists or not. Zig Zog has just revealed himself to me. He is the god of silly names. I think I have just invented Zig Zog but maybe I am misinterpreting direct revelation from a higher being. Maybe I am too stubbornly atheistic to accept the touch of Zig Zog's gaze and am assuming that I made him up when he is in fact very very real. You cannot prove or know that Zig Zog does not exist. If Zig Zog knocked on your door to give you your secret silly magic name where would you be? Is this a reason to believe Zig Zog exists? It sounds ridiculous and as though I am taking te piss but seriously, what is the difference in principle? What argument applies to the God you might have direct experience of but does not apply to the one that I might have unwittingly experienced? Philosophically I accept the possible existence of God. But philosophically I also accept the possible existence of Zig Zog. I accept the two equally. Both are equally stupid and unlikely conclusions based on all the available evidence. Have you seen the recent thread by Beretta and others regarding the evidence for design? (Evidence for Design - Is there any?) The ID contingent can come up with nothing but (to paraphrase) "it looks designed to me and I don't like any of the alternatives no matter what evidence they may have in their favour". Seriously the argument for design is all but non-existant. The thing that you fail to comprehend is that so do I. An incredible, unbelievably awesome, undeniable natural miracle.

'Two apes walking' (Agobot) writes: Thanks for the consisderation in this matter from the theists point of view. It would ofcourse change the overall outlook on life and what to expect later. My immediate response would be one of sickening horror inside, knowing that I would really not see any of the people I had come to know and love, like, Paulk, Percy, Rahvin, Brian, Autumnman and many others, ha ha, ofcourse I am joking there.The immediate response would be to curl up and just be sick. I think after that I would persue any means and measure to prolong my pathetic life, not that I dont now but my urgency would be greater.I then would start to rationalize within myself that well, heck atleast I got to experience life in the first place, so let make the best of it.Intelligence and pseudo-morality, societal standards would also come into play as to how I lived and acted.Pursuit of the Upwardly mobile status in life would probably be next, trying to advance as far and much as I could to leave a lasting impression and those sorts of things would be next.Honestly I dont know how any of you live a life or in a state of mind where God and the after life are not a reality. I see no way to reduce my beliefs in such things to a product of my imagination or upbrining.Its really hard to say in any real detail how or what you would consider in this matter, because it is not even a remote possibilty from our point of view. But thanks for asking.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

I think it's interesting to note that I found the prospect of losing faith to be just as horrible as Bertot while I was a believer.The actual process of deconversion, once I was actually ready to give up faith in favor of an objective worldview (and I really think it's a matter of being ready - religious conviction is extremely resistant to critical self-examination), was quite simply not nearly as bad as I had thought it would be.

Rahvin writesDo you mind me asking what it is that you did believe, theism, deism, etc? How does this happen? What would you say were the major points of this process What aspects of "self-examination" would one need to examine to come to a point of disbelief? What would you say to a position that states, "19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20 For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities”his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22 Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23 And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.24 So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25 They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.28 Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29 Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30 They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31 They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32 They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.Romans 1."Now I know you dont agree with these verses, but thought I might get your perspective on them.Ive said all of the above to simply say, it has always interested me how a person gets to your position and understanding about such matters,Thanks again.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

You've forgotten to show how any purpose percribed by God is actually "more relevant" than any purpose developed by a person on their own.What if God's purpose for us is to be evil? Is it than "more relevant" if we cause suffering? Of course it isn't.What if God's purpose for us is to love while finding peace, balance and enlightenment? How is that "more relevant" than if we choose to do so by our own volition? I would think that if we figure something out for ourselves, instead of simply doing it because we're told to.. it would then be "more relevant" and have more meaning.

People don't like change. The more people don't change... the more they grow distasteful of changing.I see fundamentalist belief in God similar to a man holding onto a rafter in a basement, refusing to look anywhere but up at the rafter. He cannot reach the ground, which he does not even know is there. The rafter is like his "personal experience" of God, it is extremely important and obvious to himself, but not very convincing to anyone else who can see the floor. All his life, the rafter has been good to him, supporting him, saving him from the abyss he believes he'll fall into if he lets go. The rafter has been "saving his life" for so long that the man refuses to let go or look away for any reason. He has convinced himself that the rafter is all there is.It is difficult to convince such a man that the floor is only 6 inches away, and that life on the floor is pretty much exactly the same as life hanging from the rafter.In line with the same analogy, I see atheists as standing on the floor with ladders if they ever wanted to use them, and theists (non-fundamentalists) as hanging from the rafters while also standing on a stool that is on the ground.For all intents and purposes, life for all 3 is pretty much exactly the same.

The purpose for which a hammer is made is clear enough. This is not to say it can't be used for other purposes. When it comes to the purpose for which every feature of it has been intended then hammering in nails is clearly it.If God made us for a purpose then his purposes will be the one for which our features have been designed. This is not to say we can't be used for other purposes. It's just that we'd be hammers used as snooker cues.If made in his image and likeness then his purposes won't be onerous to us. Rather they would be harmonious - precisely because we are carved from the same block (as it were). We are free to go our own way and live with the consequences of that. I take it you don't mind that there should be consequences - otherwise there'd be no fun in it.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I agree. A hammer's original purpose is to hammer nails. I didn't ask for an original purpose, or if things could have alternate purposes. I asked why an original purpose should be considered as "more relevant", or "higher" or even acknowledged at all.If I need to climb an ice mountain, and a hammer is handy, that hammer's new purpose is to help me climb ice mountains. While I'm climing the ice mountain, the new purpose of the hammer is certainly "more relevant" than it's original purpose of hammering nails.If, in order to save 1,000,000 people from a horrible death, I need to obliterate a crystal that would power the laser which is going to kill these people. And a hammer is near... that hammer's new purpose is to smash crystals in order to save 1,000,000 lives. This new purose is certainly "more relevant" and "higher" than the hammer's original purpose.I ask again. Why should an original purpose even be acknowledged? Let alone be thought of as "higher" or "more relevant"? Or hammers used as ice climbers.
Or hammers used as 1,000,000 life-savers.If your hammer is content simply banging nails, that's fine for you. I don't think God would be impressed, though, if you could smash crystals and save 1,000,000 lives yet refused because He "originally made you" for banging nails.Again, the question isn't "what's our original purpose"? The question is "why should we care about an original purpose"? Especially if we find ourselves with much higher and more relevant purposes along the way.

Stile writes: This is a pretty good analogy given the present visual understanding and observation of things as they exist. God has made it clear that the sun shines on the just and the unjust and the rain to fall on both as well. The conditions of things as God has them set up would make it appear (at first glance),as all things are equal for us as human beings, if only observing our present conditions and surroundings, when in fact and reality, this present condition should not be the only consideration in the matter. This is why the other evidence, such as his obvious existence and his amplified Word give us a clearer and better understanding of what the actual facts are and what our response should be.So to amplify your analogy, the floor on which you are standing with your ladder, needs to be supported by something as well, correct?Secondly, your analogy fails due to the fact that there is only one way to experience the reality we are in presently, that is simply being here and confined and being limited to the space we are in. We both, only have the "same" experience of existence, we are both hanging form the rafter or we are both on the floor. There is no way for you to experience existence any different than myself. So as both of us are confined to either the rafter or the floor, we have to view and express our opinions from one and only one of these places. In other words, you have no better place of observation or experience than I do.To ignore other evidence to the contrary, would be like me insiting that the present freedom I enjoy, is due to random chance and my own accomplishments and refusing to acknowledge the obvious sacrifices by so many that brought that freedom about. But then we are free to believe whatever we want for what ever reason, correct? If your are only interested in a casual observation of things, Yes.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

Cause the higher purposes that you list - love, peace, balance and enlightment ARE NOWHERE NEAR BEING HIGHER. At all. They lack any objective meaning whatsoever but the meaning you so subjectively attribute to them. Without your subjectiveness, they do not mean jack.let's start with:Love - what if your son falls in love with a street hooker? Would this particular love be worth to carry the name Higher Purpose? To you, as a father, most likely not, but to the prostitute and your son their love would be a truly Higher purpose. See how subjective and relative the term Love could be depending on the circumstances?Peace - well in most cirumstances peace is good but could you make peace with someone that's threatening your family? See how circumstantial the meaning of "peace" is?Balance - balance is good, it brings harmony but do you want balance on how money is distributed in society? Would you consider communism a higher purpose where there is Balance in the distribution of wealth among the individuals?Enlightment - would you consider enlightment a higher purpose, if you are enlightened by someone that your dog has been killed in a car accident?Do you see how none of your higher purposes are truly High? Do you see that those same "higher" purposes could also be considered "extremely low" depending on the circumstances?Do you understand how important is the point of view and the circumstances for the meaning of the purposes that you described?Without God there is no and there cannot be a higher purpose. Anything you consider holy or high in life is so ridiculously subjective to the point of view, that you'll see conflicting descriptions of it throughout life and history. True, some things are considered better than others but that doesn't make them high to anyone but the subjective mind.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

I was a very strongly-believing Congregationalist Protestant Christian. At its strongest point, I believed the Bible to be the literal Word of God - I simply never even thought to compare what I learned in science classes with what the Bible said until later. I was brought up in a devout Midwestern family. One of my grandfathers was a teacher and later administrator at a Christian private school in Michigan. I was read Bible stories instead of fairy tales at bedtime. I read the Bible on my own outside of church relatively frequently.I knew that God existed, I believed that I could feel his presence, prayed daily (not just erciting prayer, but frequent "speaking to God"), and believed that Jesus had died for my sins and risen on the third day.If someone had confronted me back then about not believing in God, my response would have been one of incredulity and ridicule. My beliefs changed over time. Through my teenage years I encountered more moral questions - I had a friend who was not Christian, and I had to ask my parents if he and his family would really go to Hell despite being no better or worse morally than any of us simply because he didn't have the same religion. My first girlfriend was Jewish, which raised similar questions. Gradually I began to interpret the Bible both through the text itself and by faith in the goodness of God. I rationalized that God wouldn't damn people who had never even heard of the Bible as that would be unjust, and I believed he would similarly not condemn people on no more basis than faith if they were good people. I used the same rationalization for all of the myriad sects of Christianity.As I got older I continued to become less and less of a literalist. I took the literal 6-day Creation and re-interpreted it as 6 non-literal days to conform with an old Earth. I still believed in the Flood (I hadn't thought about it from a skeptical perspective, and readily accepted the various claims of finding Noah's Ark on a mountain in Turkey that, gosh darn it, the Turkish government just wouldn't let us explore). I believed the basic order of Creation described in Genesis was compatible with evolution, and that science explored the "how" of God's work and expanded upon the simpler understandings of the Biblical authors, to whom concepts like evolution or modern astronomy simply wouldn't make sense. I saw a more ignorant point of view from a less knowledgeable generation instead of direct contradictions with science.Other things beyond attempting to reconcile the Bible and science played a part. In Jr. High, a group of friends and I were on a school trip to Boston and were approached by a Buddhist selling books. We were all interested in mythology and other religions, so we all pitched in and bought it. Immediately after stepping away, a rather crazy-looking man came up to us and said "you boys know you're wasting your time with that garbage, right?" and promptly shoved Chick tracts into our hands. His vehement derision of another person's faith, as well as the fire-and-brimstone Chick tract (an approach I was unfamiliar with and which made me extremely uncomfortable - the idea of frightening and threatening people into "believing" ran compeltely counter to the good, benevolent, wise, forgiving God I believed in) seriously disturbed me, and I think it laid some of the seeds for questioning my own faith. Ironic, wasn't it?My grandfather (the Christian educator) also began to grow old and started to lose his health. He became ever more zealous, once shouting at me and my cousins for playing "that Devil's game" again (dungeons and dragons, of course). We argued with him a bit, and he relented to a more simple "well, it's not a Christian game." I remember being ready to remind him that his addiction to Jeopardy, Wheel of Fortune, and various card games were not Christian games either, but didn't say anything. He told my aunt and uncle that their family was going to Hell, despite the fact that their almost daily assistance was the only reason he was still able to live relatively independantly. The results of his religious conviction and judgmental attitude seriously disturbed and offended me.Years later, as an adult and being the general nerdy intellectual type I am, I stumbled upon this site as well as another one (CreationTheory.Org: Creationism vs Science) that first really introduced me to examining my beliefs with a critical eye.If you look at my posts when I first joined here, I was still a relatively liberal Christian.At that point I realized that faith was not a rational thing, but a blind belief. I had nothing but subjective, personal experiences to confirm what I read in teh Bible. I still believed, but considered it a choice at that point, because Christianity "worked for me." I still beleived I could feel God's presence, and still beleived the Bible was true if not a literal account of events. I can speak only for myself, but as I said I never once examined my beliefs from a critical point of view until relatively recently. I accepted the Bible and my beliefs unquestioningly, and when conflicts presented themselves I "smoothed things over" by interpretation rather than objectively determining whether any of my beliefs had any basis in the first place.When a skeptic hears about the Genesis account where teh Sun is created after light and day, for example, or the Jesus account where God basically sacrifices himself to himself to atone for a rule he made in the first place, and that only by believing that this happened does the sacrifice actually apply, and that Jesus atoned for all of mankind's sins over the three days he was dead, it sounds utterly ridiculous.When a believer hears it, especially one who's been told all of this is true and factual literally from as soon as he can comprehend the words, is somehow makes perfect sense.The real critical examination is not an incredulity test, however, but a test of evidence. As I read criticisms of Biblical accuracy and saw how the "reinterpretations" I had used didn't support the Bible with any more evidence, and that many of the claims (the Flood, Exodus) have either no outside evidence to support them at all, or are completely contradicted by the evidence we do see.I had never thought critically of my own beliefs before. When I did so, the result was a compelte change in my thinking. To this I'd say that the author is making an argument from personal incredulity. He claims the mere existence of the Earth and sky somehow prove that there is a God - that's of course not true at all. He believes that the Earth and sky were created by God, but his beleifs are not evidence. If your only argument is "wow, gee, that's incredible, ergo God" then you don't have an arguemnt at all. And yet even those who do worshp the Christian God can be homosexuals, and many are. It's plainly refuted by asimple observations of reality. Homosexuality is frequently observed in nature as well. There is no reason to accept that homosexuality is a "sin" or negative activity at all beyond the say-so of the Biblical author, so all of his ranting about "vile and shameful" acts are no more than a "yuck! that's icky!" argument that betrays his biogtry towards people different from himself. Heterosexual Christians also are isolent, proud, boastful and backstabbing. They can even be murderers and thieves and liars and general assholes as much as non-Christians and gays and anyone else. Homosexuality does not result in any of these things directly any more than heterosexuality does, so the author is frankly talking out of his bigoted ass. The only argument that homosexuals "deserve to die" is "God said so," not a reason why such acts are immoral, and since the author can't even provide decent evidence of God's existence, it comes down to "because I said so."The ethical system of the Bible is an authoritarian one, where the authority is always "good" regardless of any contradictory actions and statements and no reasoning is used to determine good from bad beyond "I said so." As an ethical system it can work (the 10 Commandments, or at least the don't steal, murder, lie, etc ones, work decently enough), but it has the significant flaw of allowing re-interpretations of the authoritative text to say compeltely different moral statements, as well as allowing any contradictory statements or bigotry and bias on behalf of the authors to spawn results like Fred Phelps who thinks gays should all be executed.I don't like that system, because in concert with the Bible it has been used to justify the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the treatment of the native Americans, slavery, and other things that modern Christians (most, anyway) would also agree are totally unethical and even evil. Any time, though I wonder at your reason for using the specific passages you did, in particular verse 21 onward. 19-20 I understand, but the others were more gay-bashing exerpts that don't seem to me to have much relavence to the topic beyond coming sequencially after two verses that were relavent.

I have done this debate a few times since 2003, and don't want to slide down this particular route yet again. I can provide links to past-arguments if you wish to read them.What I will say is that from a neutral position, composition is essential to the soundness of the original claim I made.Now we could present examples of known falsehoods all day, but they are not compositionally equivalent to "God" in this instance.Knowledge is defined as a JTB according to epistemology. (Justified true belief). I would define it as something which is certain.Examples; I know where the pub is located. I know I am looking at a computer screen. I know I can ride a motorcycle, etc... they are all certainties as far as a JTB goes. (Except for Gettier problems, ofcourse). I disagree for many, many reasons, all of which don't have any relevance to this topic.Look more into the undistributed middle term. It explains how we make faulty comparisons, by assuming a great deal from the little knowledge we have.As for my argument, it is that nobody knows if God is there or not. I think we should agree. Any "extra" argument about IPUs, are not relevant to the specific inference because they have no affect on it.

When it comes to wholly subjectively derived "knowledge" one mans falsehood is another mans indisputable fact. And there is no way to distinguish between the two. Unless evidence based objective investigation is introduced..... Why not? Why is Zig Zog any less likely to exist than God? The only way you can claim any more evidence for God than Zig Zog is to resort to non-subjective evidence. And when that happens God tends to do rather badly. This term is meaningless unless you ca define "justified". You obviously think that your certainty in God is "justified". I think it is utterly "unjustified". There is no way to distinguish between the two without, yet again, resorting to objective evidence based investigation. Well I would argue that nothing is certain in the philosophical 100% knowledge sense. Not without faith. Not by any evidence based conclusion. Evidence cannot "prove" anything. In everyday parlance I would agree that you do indeed "know" these things. However this knowledge is based on objective independently verifiable evidence. Your knowledge of God however most definitely is not.
Your knowledge of God is no more founded than a potential knowledge of Zig Zog.
What exactly is the difference? Why is one justified, as far as you are concerned, and the other evidently stupid? What is the difference specifically?

You keep saying this. All without ever offering something else that would actually be "higher". If you can't offer something that is "higher", what's stopping these from being the "highest"? No. I see how you have some skewed ideas on what they mean, and how you have yet to offer anything "higher". If you know of something "higher", please explain. I've shown you over and over. Even with God, even with a purpose from God's own mouth... there is no reason at all to consider such a purpose "higher" or "more relevant" or to even acknowledge it at all.I think it's time you showed some things instead of just continually spouting them out.You can say "Only God's purpose matters" all you want. Without showing it to be true, without offering some reason why we should consider it as true, it doesn't matter. It's just some silly, empty, immature appeal to authority. My point is that since we are holders of those very subjective minds... then that's all that does matter to us. And I've shown you why any original purpose is meaningless. I've shown you why any purpose ordained by any higher-power-creator-being is meaningless.Yet you keep saying it's important.Why is it important? Why do you say such things when I've shown you over and over that it's not true. A purpose from God (if one even exists) is not important in the least. You can't even think of a reason why it would be, all you do is repeat that it is, without any reason or rationale. Stop assuming that God's purpose for us is important when it's clearly not and show why it is that you think so.You can't.That's because it isn't.