SPLIT: From The terrifying afterlife thread

[Inevitable Droid]

Rather, we need to show some humility before the Church, my mother and teacher, and if there is something we cannot grasp or understand, instead or rebelling against it or calling it stupid, we should remind ourselves that we, by ourselves, do not have all the answers, and to us it is not given to comprehend all of the mysteries of God.

If ever I were tempted to hold up my fingers in front of me in the sign of the "A" (for atheist) to ward off the demonic, it would be now, being faced with the proposition that I surrender my mind - for to surrender my mind is to surrender my life.

[Davin]

I also wanted to say LS that people judge God because of hell's very existence.

Nothing wrong with that.

The particular and final judgments exist because of free will.

A statement as if it is fact, that is not supported by facts.

It is not for me to edit the teachings of the Church, whether they relate to dogma or are theological opinions taught by the saints, simply because they do not square with our own opinions of how we think things are or should be.

How about, because they do not square with how things are? Empirical evidence not something to just dismiss, while concepts that have no empirical evidence to back it up can just be dismissed.

Rather, we need to show some humility before the Church, my mother and teacher, and if there is something we cannot grasp or understand, instead or rebelling against it or calling it stupid, we should remind ourselves that we, by ourselves, do not have all the answers, and to us it is not given to comprehend all of the mysteries of God.

No, I do not need to show humility before the Church, your mother or teacher. It's not simply a rebellion against any church, theistic concept or person in particular... it's not even a rebellion. I merely do not accept anything as true without understanding it and the evidence that backs it up. The only mystery of god I see is: why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?

[Achronos]

why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?

Because you even have the ability to postulate it.  Do you know the odds against this even being a possibility without there being a God which created you with the ability to postulate?

A gambler trying to bet against the odds on this is like one who is gambling against nearly infitite odds with money he does not have, because all is on loan anyway.

[Davin]

why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?

Because you even have the ability to postulate it.  Do you know the odds against this even being a possibility without there being a God which created you with the ability to postulate?

A gambler trying to bet against the odds on this is like one who is gambling against nearly infitite odds with money he does not have, because all is on loan anyway.

So anything I have the ability to postulate holds equal weight? If I postulated something that lowers the odds of the universe existing as it is, then that would be on the same level as postulating that there is a god. The odds that the universe exists as it does are very high, therefor it must have been created by subatomic robots.

Talking about odds doesn't answer the question as to why one would even postulate that the thing exists. We have reasons for postulating a thing like gravity, DNA, light, evolution, etc.. There are even reasons to postulate that something unproven like dark matter exists... but no reasons to even bring up a god.

[Achronos]

why even postulate that such a thing exists in the first place?

Because you even have the ability to postulate it.  Do you know the odds against this even being a possibility without there being a God which created you with the ability to postulate?

A gambler trying to bet against the odds on this is like one who is gambling against nearly infitite odds with money he does not have, because all is on loan anyway.

So anything I have the ability to postulate holds equal weight? If I postulated something that lowers the odds of the universe existing as it is, then that would be on the same level as postulating that there is a god. The odds that the universe exists as it does are very high, therefor it must have been created by subatomic robots.

Talking about odds doesn't answer the question as to why one would even postulate that the thing exists. We have reasons for postulating a thing like gravity, DNA, light, evolution, etc.. There are even reasons to postulate that something unproven like dark matter exists... but no reasons to even bring up a god.

Except His existence, for starters.

[McQ]

A gambler trying to bet against the odds on this is like one who is gambling against nearly infitite odds with money he does not have, because all is on loan anyway.

So anything I have the ability to postulate holds equal weight? If I postulated something that lowers the odds of the universe existing as it is, then that would be on the same level as postulating that there is a god. The odds that the universe exists as it does are very high, therefor it must have been created by subatomic robots.

Talking about odds doesn't answer the question as to why one would even postulate that the thing exists. We have reasons for postulating a thing like gravity, DNA, light, evolution, etc.. There are even reasons to postulate that something unproven like dark matter exists... but no reasons to even bring up a god.

Except His existence, for starters.

Except his purported existence, which is reason only to postulate existence, nothing more. Although not mentioned in the previous post, postulation of existence woud not be considered evidence for existence of any god.

[Davin]

So anything I have the ability to postulate holds equal weight? If I postulated something that lowers the odds of the universe existing as it is, then that would be on the same level as postulating that there is a god. The odds that the universe exists as it does are very high, therefor it must have been created by subatomic robots.

Talking about odds doesn't answer the question as to why one would even postulate that the thing exists. We have reasons for postulating a thing like gravity, DNA, light, evolution, etc.. There are even reasons to postulate that something unproven like dark matter exists... but no reasons to even bring up a god.

Except His existence, for starters.

Yes, let's start with that, what reason is there to even postulate that this thing exists?

[Achronos]

Except his purported existence, which is reason only to postulate existence, nothing more. Although not mentioned in the previous post, postulation of existence woud not be considered evidence for existence of any god.

The ontological argument, which has risen from the dead in recent decades, does hold that the thought of God's existence does imply his existence.

So anything I have the ability to postulate holds equal weight? If I postulated something that lowers the odds of the universe existing as it is, then that would be on the same level as postulating that there is a god. The odds that the universe exists as it does are very high, therefor it must have been created by subatomic robots.

Um, actually the odds of existence in any form are very low.  

Talking about odds doesn't answer the question as to why one would even postulate that the thing exists. We have reasons for postulating a thing like gravity, DNA, light, evolution, etc.. There are even reasons to postulate that something unproven like dark matter exists... but no reasons to even bring up a god.

Really? There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things? There is no reason to exist as opposed to non-existence. Non-existence makes more sense.  Does that mean therefore things do not exist?

[Achronos]

As far as arguing for the "existence" of God, does not apophaticism show us that in a very true sense, God does not "exist", at least not in a manner we are able to fully comprehend? God is uncreated, therefore He does not exist in the conventional sense. He is no creature. Hope that helps in understanding a bit more.

[Sophus]

Hitler was an atheist and Stalin was a Christian. Happy?

Makes as much sense as anything else in this thread.  

[Inevitable Droid]

Makes as much sense as anything else in this thread.  

[karadan]

Hitler was an atheist and Stalin was a Christian. Happy?

Makes as much sense as anything else in this thread.  

[McQ]

Makes as much sense as anything else in this thread.  

I don't even know what this thread is about, anymore. Of course that means it really can't be derailed, so it will probably devolve into chaos, and I predict it will end up being over 20 pages long.
 :pop:

[Davin]

The ontological argument, which has risen from the dead in recent decades, does hold that the thought of God's existence does imply his existence.

The thought of subatomic robot creators of everything, does imply subatomic robot creators of everything do exist.

So anything I have the ability to postulate holds equal weight? If I postulated something that lowers the odds of the universe existing as it is, then that would be on the same level as postulating that there is a god. The odds that the universe exists as it does are very high, therefor it must have been created by subatomic robots.

Um, actually the odds of existence in any form are very low.

Then why did you bring up odds if your going to negate your own point?

Talking about odds doesn't answer the question as to why one would even postulate that the thing exists. We have reasons for postulating a thing like gravity, DNA, light, evolution, etc.. There are even reasons to postulate that something unproven like dark matter exists... but no reasons to even bring up a god.

Really? There are no reasons to bring up a first cause for all other things? There is no reason to exist as opposed to non-existence. Non-existence makes more sense.  Does that mean therefore things do not exist?

None that I have heard, perhaps you have some evidence that points only to a creator of the universe thing. Why not share what evidence you have that only points to the universe being created by a sentient thing?

As far as arguing for the "existence" of God, does not apophaticism show us that in a very true sense, God does not "exist", at least not in a manner we are able to fully comprehend? God is uncreated, therefore He does not exist in the conventional sense. He is no creature. Hope that helps in understanding a bit more.

No, apophaticism does not show us in a very true sense, it shows us in a baseless speculation sense. I'm not asking to fully comprehend god, I'm asking why even throw a universe creating thing out to discuss at all.

[Voter]

As an atheist I perceive no religious group as closer to holding the truth than any other.

It interests me how obvious this is, yet the faithful shrug it off.  All the reasons a Greek Orthodox could give for holding onto faith, a Muslim could give, in precisely the same words.

That's incorrect. You've surely heard that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (You probably don't know that Jesus said something similar.) Jesus and Mohammed each made extraordinary claims. Our earliest accounts have Jesus backing up his claims with miracles as extraordinary evidence. The earliest accounts regarding Mohammed have no such claims (though some were added well after the fact). So, there's one objective differentiator between the two.