up and comer wrote on 06/20/10 at 00:34:22:


What if someone said, no, that's not God manifesting himself, that's Baal the Destroyer?  Or Hubert the Magical Slug?  "Natural world," "Cosmos," "Universe," call it what you will; but if anything "Is that It Is," why not that?  What is "manifested" in nature but nature itself?  Why posit a preposterous variant of Santa Claus, given that nothing unnatural ever happens?  And the presents under the Christmas tree invariably come from one's fellow human beings?  

(See my post above about the set, {all existing things}).

You know, if God existed, he could have written his name in the stars, or in the bark of every the tree.  But when you look at the expanse of stars or at the bark of trees, you see chaos.  If God existed, he could grant the wishes of the faithful.  But he singularly fails to do so.

up and comer wrote on 06/20/10 at 00:34:22:


What "spiritual things" have you noticed lately?  Angels and demons, burning bushes carrying on conversations, visitations by Hermes and the like, were widely credited when people were credulous.  But nobody lately has reported these things, not credibly, anyway.  If angels and demons did exist, they could show themselves in a credible way, you know?   Likewise God.

But by all means, if your experience contains anything objective that is lacking in mine, go ahead and say what it is.

But as to who is missing something, I maintain it's the traditional believer, who seems to seek to encapsulate the vast, awesome and inherently inexplicable Cosmos in an anthropomorphic fairy tale.  I think it's the atheist who is better attuned to the actual nature of this world.  Atheism is the black coffee of belief, I like to say.  But no, I also don't care if you accept my point of view.  

Nice talking to you.

TopNotch wrote on 06/16/10 at 03:05:06:


It's not that there is an absence of incontrovertable evidence; it's that there is an absence of any evidence.  The supposed god never does anything and never shows up; and prayer availeth not.  You look at nature, and it manifests precisely no interest in the welfare of mankind, which is something mankind alone has to look out for.   I scan my experience in vain for any obvious, or even faint, manifestation of a god.  So while I admit that the world as it is is not inconsistent with some exceedingly retiring god's existence, it nevertheless appears to be empty of any spiritual entities.  At least, I have never encountered any.

TopNotch wrote on 06/16/10 at 03:05:06:


This really is a straw man, and it conveys the uncharitable assumption that unbelievers are self-centered.  Obviously there exists something greater than ourselves, and that is the Cosmos itself in all its immensity and grandeur.  It is something of which I stand in awe, fear even, considering its destructive capacity in relation to everything I value, but it is not something that I suppose to have a personality or to have any interest in me either malevolent or benign.  See my post above in which I equate the set of all existing things to the Cosmos.

TopNotch wrote on 06/16/10 at 03:05:06:


Look at the relative importance of our star on a map of this galaxy, then consider that this galaxy is but a middling one in a vast array of galaxies.  Do you then suppose that if the Cosmos were capable of any concern, we would be central to it?   Or similarly, this planet is 4.5 billion years old; our race, about 200,000.  Do you think that 4.4498 billion years was but a prelude to us?  

Finally, I assume you are aware that the standard scientific account of our origin on this planet is that it was indeed the result of mundane, unpurposeful processes mostly having to do with the combination of oxygen and hydrogen.

TopNotch wrote on 06/16/10 at 03:05:06:


Really?  Do you suppose that dogs have souls that go on to some sort of dog heaven?  Birds?  Fish?  Worms?  Bacteria?  Algae?   But leaving aside any notion of the soul, personally I think that our lives do indeed have significance beyond simply birth and death, and that is the purposes that we ourselves find worthy while living.

TopNotch wrote on 06/16/10 at 03:05:06:


Well hey, I'm a mathematician (or am planning on becoming one) and I am a christian through and through. My mom is a doctor and she is about the most spiritual, connected to God, person I know. In fact she became a doctor because she believed it was her calling from God to heal the sick and injured. You should not assume that smart people are automatically atheist, or people with smart professions. In fact, I view science and math as ways to gain understanding of God's creations and become closer to him. 

Also if you think about it, even if there wasn't a God there would be more to our being than simply life and death, but don't take my word for it. Think about it yourself.

TopNotch wrote on 06/16/10 at 03:05:06:


Tops, you think these outcomes arise because of the subject, or the people that discuss them? I think it's not fault of the subject, and I have discussed with hardcore cristians ( being an atheit ) without any bitterness arising. And you may be sure, yuo won't cease to be one of my favorite posters only because we have different views in this subject, or any other, nor offend you or take it perssonaly because of them.

I must say that despite temptation I have not read any of the posts in this thread, at least not so far, and that's for the simple reason that religious arguments always end the same way - ACRIMONIOUSLY.

Still as a Christian I wanted to share a biblical quote, where faith is explained as: Substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I have found that for the most part, Scientists, Mathematicians, Doctors and many other people whose livlihoods depend heavily on empirical proof/proofs have the hardest time reconciling the fact that God exists in the absence incontrovertible evidence. 

The existence of God is primarily faith based and this is why religious arguments with non-believers always go nowhere. For most non-believers/athiests, agnostics whatever, it usually takes something dramatic to happen in their lives, for them to consider the possibility that there exists something in the Universe greater than themselves.    

I cannot prove the existence of God, but keenly believe we were not created by accident. I also believe we have a soul and that there is more to our being than simply life and death.

Stigma wrote on 06/15/10 at 14:45:02:

I quoted it (the moon and stars thing). Many theists argue that there must be a God because otherwise the universe could not have been created. I agree that it's not an argument worth taking seriously -- Markovich has already explained why -- but many people don't.  

BirdBrain wrote on 06/15/10 at 13:14:45:


So we have to be modest to know god, so that he gaves us right to show our arrogancy? I am a little bit confused...

Straggler wrote on 06/15/10 at 13:49:51:

I don't think this is a useful discussion; for most christians God is the very foundation of their worldview. 

If God doesn't exist the question "Who created God" is meaningless, and if the Christian God exists it's also meaningless because God exists both within and outside of time and is the ground of all being. 

Naturalistic explanations also have to posit something fundamental beyond which we don't go, like the laws of physics or the most fundamental particles we have discovered, so we're kind of in the same boat.