Question for the Atheists.

[_digitalartist]

Knowing that we are limited to our five senses in determining what is real and what is not, what is true and what is not, what we can know and what we cannot, and so forth, how can you know for a fact that a God doesn't exist? The evidence that you rely on is restricted/limited by the filtering system of your five senses.

How can you be so sure?

Regards,
MG

The five senses only supply the physical information that is available. The actual determination is done by the brain, with, for the most part, the application of logic and reasoning.

Of course, when referring to an entity like God, we also look to what is written and the supposed events that God has caused or has been a part of.

For example take the story of Jericho from the Bible and compare it to what is known about the city itself as gained through archeological and other research of the city. During the time of Joshua and the supposed events that brought down the walls, Jericho, at that time had no walls. So this particular story is just a story/parable. It points up the fact that not everything in the Bible can be taken as literal and while it by no means means the entire Bible is a story, it begs the question of what is factual and what is not and reduces what is available to be used as possible evidence for the existence of God.

Truth be told, atheism isn't a belief there is no god nor even a knowledge there is no god, just an acceptance that there is a lack of evidence to support the existence of God.

For me it is that and the conviction that in my opinion 95% of those who believe in God do so, not because of some divine occurrence, but because they have been taught that way since childhood.

[_Scottie]

I love this video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0A4_bwCaX0

[_just me]

I love this video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0A4_bwCaX0

Heh heh.

[_Some Schmo]

Fair enough. Can't argue that.

I'm assuming this applies to prayer and using it as a tool to obtain knowledge from God? Would we expect the dynamics/processes to be exactly the same?

Regards,
MG

The only thing that has to be the same is that there's an unmistakable indication someone is on the other end.

Any god that created me has to know that I will accept nothing less from him than absolute proof he exists. He has chosen not to disclose it; therefore, he leaves me no choice but to conclude he doesn't exist. He must be ok with that (or he doesn't really exist). I know I am.

[_mentalgymnast]

By asserting that if there is a god, it has deliberately hidden itself, you are conceding that the universe with this god looks just like the universe without this god would look.

Within the LDS church, however, we have a caveat to this dilemma. We have a prophet who receives direction from God. I suppose that would be at least one reason why there seems to be so many hurdles that people place up in the way of believing in and accepting this to be the case. Once one has been able to jump the hurdle that God reveals nothing unless he does so through his prophets, then the sky starts to clear. But for some, the hurdle seems to be insurmountable for one reason or another.

Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
Amos 3:7

A common thread throughout the comments that I've read so far is that if God isn't required to explain the universe as it is, then why place a God in the picture at all. But on the assumption that God has his reasons for remaining hidden, then wouldn't we expect that the universe would appear as it is and behave as though God is not pulling all the levers?

To choose disbelief or lack of knowing rather than hopeful/plausible belief, to me, seems to be rather fruitless/pointless. The only thing that one has to lose by choosing the default of a god/creator responsible for humans on earth, that I can see, is a personal sense/code of operational ethics where "anything goes" or "I can do or think whatever I want" without any consequences except for those that occur naturally/randomly. If one believes in a creator, then one in turn would most likely believe that they are accountable for their lives to that same creator.

So far I haven't seen any good reason to choose disbelief rather than belief. I do appreciate the comments though, and the thought processes and reasoning behind them.

Regards,
MG

[_malkie]

By asserting that if there is a god, it has deliberately hidden itself, you are conceding that the universe with this god looks just like the universe without this god would look.

Within the LDS church, however, we have a caveat to this dilemma. We have a prophet who receives direction from God.

You're still talking about a 'god' whose existence is not a given - all you have is a human who claims that he receives direction from a being for whom there is no evidence.

I suppose that would be at least one reason why there seems to be so many hurdles that people place up in the way of believing in and accepting this to be the case. Once one has been able to jump the hurdle that God reveals nothing unless he does so through his prophets, then the sky starts to clear. But for some, the hurdle seems to be insurmountable for one reason or another.

Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
Amos 3:7

A common thread throughout the comments that I've read so far is that if God isn't required to explain the universe as it is, then why place a God in the picture at all. But on the assumption that God has his reasons for remaining hidden, then wouldn't we expect that the universe would appear as it is and behave as though God is not pulling all the levers?

To choose disbelief or lack of knowing rather than hopeful/plausible belief, to me, seems to be rather fruitless/pointless. The only thing that one has to lose by choosing the default of a god/creator responsible for humans on earth, that I can see, is a personal sense/code of operational ethics where "anything goes" or "I can do or think whatever I want" without any consequences except for those that occur naturally/randomly. If one believes in a creator, then one in turn would most likely believe that they are accountable for their lives to that same creator.

I think you have completely missed the point here - many of the atheists/agnostics posting here think that your god, if he exists, has shown himself to be one who has 'a personal sense/code of operational ethics where "anything goes" or "I can do or think whatever I want" '.

So far I haven't seen any good reason to choose disbelief rather than belief. I do appreciate the comments though, and the thought processes and reasoning behind them.

Regards,
MG

[_beastie]

Within the LDS church, however, we have a caveat to this dilemma. We have a prophet who receives direction from God. I suppose that would be at least one reason why there seems to be so many hurdles that people place up in the way of believing in and accepting this to be the case. Once one has been able to jump the hurdle that God reveals nothing unless he does so through his prophets, then the sky starts to clear. But for some, the hurdle seems to be insurmountable for one reason or another.

I do not understand how this addresses my point. A man claiming to speak for God is hardly evidence of a godbeing. The world being full of people who claim to speak for god looks exactly like a world without a god would look.

A common thread throughout the comments that I've read so far is that if God isn't required to explain the universe as it is, then why place a God in the picture at all. But on the assumption that God has his reasons for remaining hidden, then wouldn't we expect that the universe would appear as it is and behave as though God is not pulling all the levers?

To choose disbelief or lack of knowing rather than hopeful/plausible belief, to me, seems to be rather fruitless/pointless. The only thing that one has to lose by choosing the default of a god/creator responsible for humans on earth, that I can see, is a personal sense/code of operational ethics where "anything goes" or "I can do or think whatever I want" without any consequences except for those that occur naturally/randomly. If one believes in a creator, then one in turn would most likely believe that they are accountable for their lives to that same creator.

So far I haven't seen any good reason to choose disbelief rather than belief. I do appreciate the comments though, and the thought processes and reasoning behind them.

Regards,
MG

Did you choose to disbelieve in Santa Claus?

You keep asserting there are tons of good reasons to believe in God, and then concede that the world with god looks like the world without god because he has a reason to stay hidden. See my earlier example about aliens and pyramids.

[_Dantana]

The god of LDS theory has no proof that WE exist. He has been painted into the same corner that we are in, relying on our senses to build an internal subjective worldview. We, he exist in what amounts to a virtual reality. As long as an entity/awareness is segregated into an isolated *piece* of the all, it must always rely on sensory input....for the *little man in the head* to peruse. Which sets up a conundrum of an eternal regression of always needing another awareness.....to be aware of the input. (The little man in the head needs another little man in his head, etc.)

Curt

[_Simon Belmont]

The god of LDS theory has no proof that WE exist. He has been painted into the same corner that we are in, relying on our senses to build an internal subjective worldview. We, he exist in what amounts to a virtual reality. As long as an entity/awareness is segregated into an isolated *piece* of the all, it must always rely on sensory input....for the *little man in the head* to peruse. Which sets up a conundrum of an eternal regression of always needing another awareness.....to be aware of the input. (The little man in the head needs another little man in his head, etc.)

Curt

?

[_Dantana]

If souls are separate and unique from each other, and sequestered to a certain amount of space, a capsule, resembling roughly the shape of their mortal body. With a definite separation line between them and the objective environment they inhabit.....How do they interact with that environment?

How does spirit interact with it's environment....I guess it would have to be the same way we interact with ours..... Our senses input data into the nervous system, and the brain paints a picture of what it thinks is out there. We are not in direct physical contact with the objective environment we inhabit. All we know is the picture our brain is painting for us. And, the majority of that picture is based on memory.....

So, the brain is painting a picture, creating it's reality of what it thinks is out there....for US to peruse..... Who is US? Is it a spirit in a "capsule" who also must rely on input of data to discern it's environment? To me this is the Homunculus.....an endless digress of a little man in the head perusing the screen of it's host.

As long as the *I am* awareness is separate, isolated and not a part of the all, it must rely on sensory input, recognition and memory storage (among other things) to decipher its environment. Even if it has mind reading/telepathy abilities, that too is still just sensory input, which it must decipher and understand.

When the spirit is in the physical body, I understand this to be the spiritualists *awareness*, that is the identity and unique entity inhabiting the body. The interpreter, the user. When the body dies and this spirit is on its own, it's no longer the "interpreter", because it must now become the vehicle for another interpreter/awareness attached to *it*.

And since this interpreter/awareness is also isolated from its source, it will need sensory input itself.....for another. And on and on.

Some/many religions even put their God into a shell and isolate him from his environment. Which would mean that he too would need sensory input.....and for all he knows, it's all in his mind.