Perhaps the logic is (or has come to be for some of us) that since the claim is made that there is a god (and that he needs for us to believe in him/her/it), and that the details of that claim are 1) quite extraordinary, and 2) no real conclusive and consistant evidence has been given for this extraordinary entity to exist beyond simply that the claim is made (at least to satisfy our desire for proof that goes beyond simply an appeal to authority), and 3) its based (largely or totally) on accepting all this on faith and obedience, rather than on proof and logical reason, ... therefore we don't find it compelling to believe. (As far as I know, point 3 is the main stickler for many of us, me included.)
Now for those who do believe, apparently they base that belief on a different set of standard/basis for what it takes to believe, therefore they do so, to whatever level/direction they believe.
Does this help answer your question? I'm sure folks like George, Sudo, et al can weigh in and give different perspectives on the topic.
The logic is that pretty much that anything ascribed to God or gods can usually be explained without having to believe that there is a god. Nothing more complicated than that. The arguments for the existance of God usually are only effective on those who already believe that there is a God, or want to be convinced that there is.
Seriously though, the athesits & agnostics sometimes use pretty good logic in their reasoning. One of the better sites on the Internet for learning logic and logical fallacies is an atheist site. http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
You can go there and seem some very good logic used in their argument for atheism. On then other hand some of the articles are riddled with logical fallacies.
It has been my observation that in general, atheists tend to use better logic than theists/Christians in atempting to prove their postions. Not always though.
As for me, I believe in God and consider myself a Christian. However I have conculded that the existence of God can not be proven with pure logic. Therefore, for me, I see it useless to enter into such debates.
3) its based (largely or totally) on accepting all this on faith and obedience, rather than on proof and logical reason, ... therefore we don't find it compelling to believe
What if "faith" is something not considered yet?
Of course I see your blind faith position, but what if itr wasn't blind faith. But something that is really seen?
Using the 'watch analogy', the cog can explain the spindle and vise versa. The strap can explain the glass face, the second hand can explain the hour hand etc.. but none of them can explain HOW the WHOLE thing came together.
It's more than just an absence of proof. It's also that, for an atheist, there's no reason to suppose that there's a god when the laws of physics does a pretty good job of accounting for 'stuff'.
Using the 'watch analogy', the cog can explain the spindle and vise versa. The strap can explain the glass face, the second hand can explain the hour hand etc.. but none of them can explain HOW the WHOLE thing came together.
I think I need a coffee !
There are explanations other than theistic of how it all came together. Most, if not all, would be not be considered adequate by a theist.
Proof to the individual themselves, not necessarily proof to someone else.
Does that help?
What one person considers proof, another would not. So many experiences are subjective, i.e. dependent on the viewpoint and interpretation of the individual.
For example, now and again a thread gets started on 'miracles'. Those who believe are convinced that it's God who intervened. For them, it's 'proof'. On the other hand, when I read these accounts, although I generally believe that the poster is being truthful about what happened, I usually don't see the divine in action. It's all in the interpretation.
Proof to the individual themselves, not necessarily proof to someone else.
Yes, certainly so as far as the individual is concerned. But we are talking about "logic" which kind of muddies the water a bit.
For me, it was not purely logical proof in the form of a valid logical argument, that lead me to believe in the existence of God. Logic may have played a role, but in the end it is just a "gut feeling" for lack of a better way to express it.
When I look up at the stars or at a tree, or at nature in general, I get this overwheleming "feeling" that an intelligent creator brought this all into being. My "heart" tells me that God is there. When I consider life itself, I get that same overwhelming feeling. Or when one of my chicken eggs hatched and a baby chick pops out. Same thing.
Atheists have a hayday with this kind of stuff since gut feeling offers no logical proof to others of the existence of God. Logic can only take us so far ... then it is "faith".
For example, now and again a thread gets started on 'miracles'. Those who believe are convinced that it's God who intervened. For them, it's 'proof'. On the other hand, when I read these accounts, although I generally believe that the poster is being truthful about what happened, I usually don't see the divine in action. It's all in the interpretation.
Good point Oak.
Many things called miracles can easlily be explained in other ways. Especially the light-weight ones that can be explained with science or just as normal or rare occurences. For example, if someone falls 3 stories and hits the concrete.Then walks away with only a few scratches. Is it necessarily a miracle by Divine intervention?
I would say that if 100 people were thrown off a 3 story building that a few of them would not get seriously injured. Some would break their neck and die, others something else. But a few would "probably" not get hurt too bad. Odds, chance, whatever. I can view it as a Divine intervention or as simply the odds. Depends upon my mindset and my criteria for what constitutes a miracle.
On the other hand there are things that have happend to folks that cannot be explained scientifically, or by chance. But IMO these things are quite rare.
For me, it does not take miracles to believe in God. I have seen very very few.
These types of debates never fail to make me wonder anew the reasoning why early Christians were regarded throughout the Roman empire as akin to "athiests".
This would be especially understandable if elements of "gnostic" ideas comprised the make-up of a many early Christian movements, which were an assault upon the deeply engrained Roman and Greek ideas of a perfect and perfectly ordered "cosmos" - wherein one believed that one's lot or destiny in life - whether rich or poor, male or female, free or slave, race, etc. was divinely pre-determined in the universe by the powers that be throughout all creation.
But then Christians appeared claiming otherwise; overthrowing such cherished beliefs. No. This creation no longer controls us. No, the powers that be are overthrown by a greater power than they - a power unknown to this world. No, - to hell with your gods - we no longer will be governed by them nor the laws of their universe. "This world is not our home, we're just a passing through..."
I think much of this dramatic effect eventually became watered down in orthodox Christianities, when such ideas offensive to the Roman citizenship at large became toned down for public consumption.
It's interesting how expressions concerning the topic of creation characteritically pre-occupied a many gnostic documents, as with the recent publicised "Gospel of Judas". Perhaps one indication of a larger public debate that transpired in that era.
Early Christians did not believe in the gods of the Roman empire = the gods of the universe.
For me it was around twelve that I became aware of things beyond my own comprehension. Raised Lutheran then Souther Baptist till meeting up with twi. Of course there was some partying in my teens too.
Twi gave me what I thought was a chance at knowing God. But it turned out to be just learning a book. Which came in handy later, as well as the Lutheran and Baptist influence.
For me to define God would be a waste of energy. Cause I think He (which is one but bigger then one) can do the job Himself much better then I could. So I sometimes wonder why it's even talked about, till I realized that there is more to this God then I first anticipated.
Personally, I LOVE reading threads like this...I appreciate everyone being open and honest - and like CM said I like to broaden my perspective...I'm not going any where with this - just putting out my thoughts on the matter...What always intrigues me [especially on subjects like this] is how people think...It used to be back in my TWI days - I was always getting Scripture and logic together to drive home a point or win an argument...It's amazing how often I come away from reading a thread - and thoughts and ideas linger from different posts...
...I sorta get the idea the way this thread is going is: "I show you mine if you show me yours."...So - don't want to convince anyone here to my way of thinking - just want to explain a few things on how I think beliefs work...I figure some of it has got to come from our upbringing, some "more deliberate" changes in our viewpoints are from the 7 mind-changing factors of Gardner I mentioned in the What does it take to change your mind thread...
...I also think most of the time we function as rational beings - and so perhaps at a subconscious level our minds are processing things to establish a consistency with all the elements of our viewpoint or philosophy...That being said - here's what I think goes on in my own head in matters of my Christian faith. I guess it starts out with the idea of accepting there is a God - I subscribe to the intelligent design theory. And my brain works out from there [this God, the intelligent designer of the universe had the Bible written]...There are some things in the Christian belief system that can only be "processed" in our heads by faith. Like in Hebrews 11 where it says by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. I don't have a problem with that - because of my initial belief [there is a God - it's the God of the Bible]...In my opinion, God created our brains and so appeals to our intellect. But also - I am just a creature I must accept the fact at times [like the Hebrews 11:3 reference] faith must take precedence over intellect...
Recommended Posts
GarthP2000
Let me see if I can put it in a clear cut way.
Perhaps the logic is (or has come to be for some of us) that since the claim is made that there is a god (and that he needs for us to believe in him/her/it), and that the details of that claim are 1) quite extraordinary, and 2) no real conclusive and consistant evidence has been given for this extraordinary entity to exist beyond simply that the claim is made (at least to satisfy our desire for proof that goes beyond simply an appeal to authority), and 3) its based (largely or totally) on accepting all this on faith and obedience, rather than on proof and logical reason, ... therefore we don't find it compelling to believe. (As far as I know, point 3 is the main stickler for many of us, me included.)
Now for those who do believe, apparently they base that belief on a different set of standard/basis for what it takes to believe, therefore they do so, to whatever level/direction they believe.
Does this help answer your question? I'm sure folks like George, Sudo, et al can weigh in and give different perspectives on the topic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Yikes! -- The can of worms is opened again !
Seriously though, the athesits & agnostics sometimes use pretty good logic in their reasoning. One of the better sites on the Internet for learning logic and logical fallacies is an atheist site. http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
You can go there and seem some very good logic used in their argument for atheism. On then other hand some of the articles are riddled with logical fallacies.
It has been my observation that in general, atheists tend to use better logic than theists/Christians in atempting to prove their postions. Not always though.
As for me, I believe in God and consider myself a Christian. However I have conculded that the existence of God can not be proven with pure logic. Therefore, for me, I see it useless to enter into such debates.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
So....basically it's proof that is absent or needed-correct?
btw, Goey glad to see ya again
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
CM, can you please rephase this? I am not sure I understand the question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Garth,
What if "faith" is something not considered yet?
Of course I see your blind faith position, but what if itr wasn't blind faith. But something that is really seen?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
allan w.
Using the 'watch analogy', the cog can explain the spindle and vise versa. The strap can explain the glass face, the second hand can explain the hour hand etc.. but none of them can explain HOW the WHOLE thing came together.
I think I need a coffee !
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
It's more than just an absence of proof. It's also that, for an atheist, there's no reason to suppose that there's a god when the laws of physics does a pretty good job of accounting for 'stuff'.
And just to be clear, I'm not an atheist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Goey,
Proof to the individual themselves, not necessarily proof to someone else.
Does that help?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
aaahhhh....
Now that's a deep subject, and has been quite the enlightenment.A deeper research and open mindedness could reveal more then expected.
What if it was possible to put these things together?
Granted it will not reveal itself all at one time.
The human mind and condition couldn't handle it all at once.
Though some are more adept then others.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
For example, now and again a thread gets started on 'miracles'. Those who believe are convinced that it's God who intervened. For them, it's 'proof'. On the other hand, when I read these accounts, although I generally believe that the poster is being truthful about what happened, I usually don't see the divine in action. It's all in the interpretation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Oakspear...
It's what is not posted that is seen.
Though I have posted on other forums rather generically,
so as not to limit the unlimited.
Remember wisdom in part is not revealing all you know.
allan,
Not sure if a watch analogy would apply.
Though it's basic idea can relate.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
So, Clay, is your point to really discover why atheists think the way that they do, or to convince them that there really is a god?
I've got no problem either way, jsut want to know where we're going with this
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Neither way really Oakspear,
But to gain an understanding and broaden my perspective.
I have nothing against anyone and can learn from anyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Cool.
I'll check in later or tomorrow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Yes, certainly so as far as the individual is concerned. But we are talking about "logic" which kind of muddies the water a bit.
For me, it was not purely logical proof in the form of a valid logical argument, that lead me to believe in the existence of God. Logic may have played a role, but in the end it is just a "gut feeling" for lack of a better way to express it.
When I look up at the stars or at a tree, or at nature in general, I get this overwheleming "feeling" that an intelligent creator brought this all into being. My "heart" tells me that God is there. When I consider life itself, I get that same overwhelming feeling. Or when one of my chicken eggs hatched and a baby chick pops out. Same thing.
Atheists have a hayday with this kind of stuff since gut feeling offers no logical proof to others of the existence of God. Logic can only take us so far ... then it is "faith".
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Oaki Posted:
Good point Oak.
Many things called miracles can easlily be explained in other ways. Especially the light-weight ones that can be explained with science or just as normal or rare occurences. For example, if someone falls 3 stories and hits the concrete.Then walks away with only a few scratches. Is it necessarily a miracle by Divine intervention?
I would say that if 100 people were thrown off a 3 story building that a few of them would not get seriously injured. Some would break their neck and die, others something else. But a few would "probably" not get hurt too bad. Odds, chance, whatever. I can view it as a Divine intervention or as simply the odds. Depends upon my mindset and my criteria for what constitutes a miracle.
On the other hand there are things that have happend to folks that cannot be explained scientifically, or by chance. But IMO these things are quite rare.
For me, it does not take miracles to believe in God. I have seen very very few.
Edited by GoeyLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
These types of debates never fail to make me wonder anew the reasoning why early Christians were regarded throughout the Roman empire as akin to "athiests".
This would be especially understandable if elements of "gnostic" ideas comprised the make-up of a many early Christian movements, which were an assault upon the deeply engrained Roman and Greek ideas of a perfect and perfectly ordered "cosmos" - wherein one believed that one's lot or destiny in life - whether rich or poor, male or female, free or slave, race, etc. was divinely pre-determined in the universe by the powers that be throughout all creation.
But then Christians appeared claiming otherwise; overthrowing such cherished beliefs. No. This creation no longer controls us. No, the powers that be are overthrown by a greater power than they - a power unknown to this world. No, - to hell with your gods - we no longer will be governed by them nor the laws of their universe. "This world is not our home, we're just a passing through..."
I think much of this dramatic effect eventually became watered down in orthodox Christianities, when such ideas offensive to the Roman citizenship at large became toned down for public consumption.
It's interesting how expressions concerning the topic of creation characteritically pre-occupied a many gnostic documents, as with the recent publicised "Gospel of Judas". Perhaps one indication of a larger public debate that transpired in that era.
Early Christians did not believe in the gods of the Roman empire = the gods of the universe.
They were regarded as athiests.
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
I heard this one atheist state the following:
"In essense, we are all atheists. I just happen to believe in one fewer god than you do."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
For me it was around twelve that I became aware of things beyond my own comprehension. Raised Lutheran then Souther Baptist till meeting up with twi. Of course there was some partying in my teens too.
Twi gave me what I thought was a chance at knowing God. But it turned out to be just learning a book. Which came in handy later, as well as the Lutheran and Baptist influence.
For me to define God would be a waste of energy. Cause I think He (which is one but bigger then one) can do the job Himself much better then I could. So I sometimes wonder why it's even talked about, till I realized that there is more to this God then I first anticipated.
More later...off to work now...peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
T-Bone
Personally, I LOVE reading threads like this...I appreciate everyone being open and honest - and like CM said I like to broaden my perspective...I'm not going any where with this - just putting out my thoughts on the matter...What always intrigues me [especially on subjects like this] is how people think...It used to be back in my TWI days - I was always getting Scripture and logic together to drive home a point or win an argument...It's amazing how often I come away from reading a thread - and thoughts and ideas linger from different posts...
...I sorta get the idea the way this thread is going is: "I show you mine if you show me yours."...So - don't want to convince anyone here to my way of thinking - just want to explain a few things on how I think beliefs work...I figure some of it has got to come from our upbringing, some "more deliberate" changes in our viewpoints are from the 7 mind-changing factors of Gardner I mentioned in the What does it take to change your mind thread...
...I also think most of the time we function as rational beings - and so perhaps at a subconscious level our minds are processing things to establish a consistency with all the elements of our viewpoint or philosophy...That being said - here's what I think goes on in my own head in matters of my Christian faith. I guess it starts out with the idea of accepting there is a God - I subscribe to the intelligent design theory. And my brain works out from there [this God, the intelligent designer of the universe had the Bible written]...There are some things in the Christian belief system that can only be "processed" in our heads by faith. Like in Hebrews 11 where it says by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. I don't have a problem with that - because of my initial belief [there is a God - it's the God of the Bible]...In my opinion, God created our brains and so appeals to our intellect. But also - I am just a creature I must accept the fact at times [like the Hebrews 11:3 reference] faith must take precedence over intellect...
Edited by T-BoneLink to comment
Share on other sites
coolchef1248 @adelphia.net
well i believe in god but i don't know why.
no rocket scientist here
i just hope i am right
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
The difference between an atheist\agnostic and a believer in God
No one can see the wind --what we see are the results of the wind, the dust cloud, the bending wheat, the fluttering leaves
The Atheist\Agnostic sees what occurs in his\her life and can explain it to their satisfaction by scientific or other "rational" explanation
The believer in God sees what happens in his\her life and decides that for some of it there is no "rational" explanation but God
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.