tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post4059648775458531659..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: Email: Why can't science ever prove God?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81686287660417432362009-12-23T07:47:00.268-06:002009-12-23T07:47:00.268-06:00Science gives us the chance and potential to know ...Science gives us the chance and potential to know everything<br /><br />Religion gives us the assertion that we already do.<br /><br /><br />as to the infinite regress, I'm not convinced it's a problem. We know that on several levels how we perceive the universe is incompatable with some of its mechanics. Light acts as both a wave and partical even at it's quantum level, etc etc. We can understand that such things occur without being able to really visualize and wrap our heads around the counter intuitiveness of it. A infinitely existing universe or a spontaneous existing universe is not unimaginable if we remove the preconception that 'things need a beginning'Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-280164541451728472009-12-22T19:15:40.272-06:002009-12-22T19:15:40.272-06:00You missed, PM.
You said:
There also seems to be...You missed, PM.<br /><br />You said: <br /><i>There also seems to be the problem of infinite regress of causation, which suggest that ultimate explanation will always escape us...</i> <br /><br />No, it really doesn't. "Goddidit" has that problem. By building a particle accellerator big enough, we could in theory simulate as much as 10^-43 seconds <i>after</i> the singularity, and beyond that, "we don't know" means "we don't know." It may be that "before" may not even have a coherent meaning, which is only a problem for people with small minds, too small to acknowledge that the human mind isn't wired up to model such things intuitively.<br /><br />Even assuming that "before" does mean something, if you have to imagine something eternal and uncreated, it makes zero sense to insert a bodiless immortal into the equation, when we could go with the simpler explanation that what we <i>actually</i> observe is eternal.dreamking00https://www.blogger.com/profile/00753969492297873219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-80273584043519790542009-12-21T17:48:27.607-06:002009-12-21T17:48:27.607-06:00@ March hare
I didn't connect that as a reaso...@ March hare<br /><br />I didn't connect that as a reason to believe in god. It was used to critique your explanation that science is close to a full explanation of the universe...Philosopher's Messhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07770394141063859023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70455653193513830702009-12-21T16:45:24.508-06:002009-12-21T16:45:24.508-06:00To say these deists would now be atheists, kind of...<i>To say these deists would now be atheists, kind of destroys their own autonomy, I also don't accept the idea that science has "all the answers", which is sort of implied in your "sufficient explanations for the universe" statement.</i><br /><br />I admit it's a bold statement, however, given two to three hundred years of cosmology and physics research into universal origins, I think the statement that at least some of them would discard deism as a necessary explanation is perfectly plausible.<br /><br /><i>I still discover an abundance of mystery in my experiences and research. I mean even an introduction to a concept like the Big Bang, leaves me basically as I said earlier in awe.</i><br /><br />I experience awe and wonder, of course, but what you call "mystery" I call "interesting questions worthy of further research." And if you're going to bitch about other posters putting words in your mouth, do not put them in mine. I did not, do not, and in all likelihood will *never* if I live a thousand years, say that science has all the answers. <br /><br />I said that scientific explanations are "sufficient." <i>adj.</i> "1. adequate for the purpose." In my estimation and research, the available scientific theories are adequate, so as not to require hypotheses of the supernatural or numinous, though unanswered questions remain. There's no reason to expect that as we close up gaps in any field you care to name, that we will find gods there.<br /><br />When it comes to positions such as, <i>"in this process I find these things describing gods and the spiritual, that seem to communicate with my own intuitive, intrinsic sense of the truth of god and spiritual as well, this process leads me to believe more in god,"</i> please see the definition of the antonym, "insufficient."dreamking00https://www.blogger.com/profile/00753969492297873219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-13345620498764265332009-12-21T09:44:39.890-06:002009-12-21T09:44:39.890-06:00"There also seems to be the problem of infini...<i>"There also seems to be the problem of infinite regress of causation, which suggest that ultimate explanation will always escape us..."</i><br /><br />I love the way this is used by theists as a way to justify their belief in a God who is beyond causation.March Harehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13116034158087704885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-49582247655047836502009-12-20T13:25:09.035-06:002009-12-20T13:25:09.035-06:00@ Derrick
"specific, though extremely broad ...@ Derrick<br /><br />"specific, though extremely broad definition"<br /><br />that seems kind of contradictory, these terms are labels we put on certain sets of belief, my point is that the label is being mistaken for a thing in itself, and it is being employed as a criterion for understanding, my point is there are various positions available which escape this classification system. And many groups that we want to label one or the other through out history, is a nominative move, not one that describes their actual beliefs.<br /><br />To say these deists would now be atheists, kind of destroys their own autonomy, I also don't accept the idea that science has "all the answers", which is sort of implied in your "sufficient explanations for the universe" statement; I still discover an abundance of mystery in my experiences and research. I mean even an introduction to a concept like the Big Bang, leaves me basically as I said earlier in awe...There also seems to be the problem of infinite regress of causation, which suggest that ultimate explanation will always escape us...Philosopher's Messhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07770394141063859023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24461267719209284412009-12-20T12:07:04.066-06:002009-12-20T12:07:04.066-06:00@PM
You are mistaking terms like theist, and deis...@PM<br /><br /><i>You are mistaking terms like theist, and deist, as if they have been rigidity constructed and well defined beliefs through time. Those words are abstractions and stand for nothing...can someone's understanding of a god not escape this semantic classification system you are creating...</i><br /><br />"Theist" does have a specified, though extremely broad definition. "Deist," however, is a very specific theological term that gets misused a *lot.* More on this below.<br /><br /><i>how would stories or philosophies that describe a deistic god not be sources of spiritual truths? Just because the god is not "present" in this world does not mean that we can't learn something from the story or philosophy, about our own spirituality?</i><br /><br />A Deistic God cannot be the source of spiritual truths because it does not interact with the universe in such a way as to communicate any information. The Deistic god is a Watchmaker who, having built and wound the watch, does not interfere or necessarily even take an interest.<br /><br />In my opinion, Deism is now obsolete--I would argue that it was the product of scientifically-minded non-theists who did not fully abandon belief in god because they had no information on the origin of the universe or the solar system. If those are the "spiritual truths" you are referring to, meaning our attempts to deduce the origin and purpose of existence through Reason, then the Deity is not the source of those truths.<br /><br />As gaps in scientific knowledge have subsequently been filled, it would seem to me that Deists of previous centuries would have little trouble living as atheists, now that sufficient explanations for the universe are available.dreamking00https://www.blogger.com/profile/00753969492297873219noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-56792110060212581092009-12-20T12:06:51.900-06:002009-12-20T12:06:51.900-06:00@ wesley
I am not saying I am smarter than anyon...@ wesley <br /><br />I am not saying I am smarter than anyone, and it saddens me that I come off like that. I tried to relate that a lot of my original angst was misdirected.<br /><br />But on the god appearing as evidence for a nonbeliever, all I really wanted out of that discussion was to point out that there were limitless reason why god may choose not to, that's it basically. So I thought saying if god could just appear, why doesn't he, ignored other possibilities. I have been that person screaming at the sky, why and please appear, so I am not denigrating this angst...<br /><br />I am confused by your question, and I am genuinely sorry. I think these post take a lot of the humanity out of the author, so I'm sorry you have the wrong impression of me. <br /><br />Maybe I can give an example of my thought process to see if it will clarify my perspective. Let's take the well known symbolic object of Achilles' heel. For me I read and try to construct the deeper intellectual, spiritual, emotional truth, as it relates to reality. The symbol relates a lesson about the imbalance between strength's and weaknesses, the limits of an individual, the evil of wrath and pride, etc; this is what I meant by seeing spiritual truths in texts...i don't know if that helps or not...Philosopher's Messhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07770394141063859023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-83605780217516377122009-12-20T10:48:00.054-06:002009-12-20T10:48:00.054-06:00I read this blog a lot, but never post. I must ask...I read this blog a lot, but never post. I must ask PM one question.<br /><br />Earlier, you stated that requesting god to "come visit me" is a purely "Human" request, and one that a god would possibly have no interest in.<br /><br />My question is: If this (very basic yet profound) question is so "stupidly human" to ask(To the point of name calling.) How do you find <i>in any way</i> possible to believe the extremely unreasonable, stupidly human, and just plain silly claims that religion and "spirituality" make? If your statement is true, how could you trust even <i>your own</i> theories of anything supernatural, let alone those made in two or three languages detached, thousands of years ago? Either we're credible enough to make claims(or requests) or not, pick one.<br /><br />Furthermore, with all due respect you to attempt to rip apart these individuals ATTEMPTS to answer questions, while making assertions that in reality don't support your own view (or at least what i think your view is)<br /><br />You seem too smart to try to use logic to trash that particular example, to turn around and completely turn all logic off to hold your own variations of beliefs. You're much smarter than i am tho, so take what i say with a two or three grains of salt.sspudnickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14611866224743936714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-47285780792577057142009-12-19T22:12:54.296-06:002009-12-19T22:12:54.296-06:00@ ing
I would just add the greek gods relation t...@ ing <br /><br />I would just add the greek gods relation to each other and to humans is one of lying, coercion, fear, and domination...sometimes it is the god's "job", in these stories, to bring death and destruction, so to say it is a "dereliction" of duty, when that is portrayed, kind of misses the point, don't you think?Philosopher's Messhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07770394141063859023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24910231085152344422009-12-19T22:08:09.393-06:002009-12-19T22:08:09.393-06:00@ Kazim (response to whateverman)
"I can'...@ Kazim (response to whateverman)<br /><br />"I can't see a deistic god being a source of spiritual truth."<br /><br />I don't understand what this statement is based upon. You are mistaking terms like theist, and deist, as if they have been rigidity constructed and well defined beliefs through time. Those words are abstractions and stand for nothing...can someone's understanding of a god not escape this semantic classification system you are creating...<br /><br />how would stories or philosophies that describe a deistic god not be sources of spiritual truths? Just because the god is not "present" in this world does not mean that we can't learn something from the story or philosophy, about our own spirituality?Philosopher's Messhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07770394141063859023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-768025532420401862009-12-19T21:59:12.342-06:002009-12-19T21:59:12.342-06:00@ kazim response to second post
I wasn't rela...@ kazim response to second post<br /><br />I wasn't relating my story, to suggest it had anything to do with my belief in god. I was just sharing a personal moment with organized religion, which I thought would provide an authentic feel to what my experience has been, that's all. I was responding do you question about my religious orientation which I had already answered. <br /><br />What's my belief filter? Well I don't really have just one...My belief filters are the same as yours I imagine and involve all my senses, and intellectual abilities. Different situations correspond to different filters.Philosopher's Messhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07770394141063859023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-53888097123283912202009-12-19T19:56:25.493-06:002009-12-19T19:56:25.493-06:00@ Kazim's first response
Responding to you i...@ Kazim's first response <br /><br />Responding to you is a difficult process for me. As I genuinely want to answer your questions, but your rudeness and personal attacks constantly motivates me towards responding differently.<br /><br />"I do appreciate the way you have moderated your tone"<br /><br />Growl, I just want to say this is especially frustrating as the "tone", was partly influenced by a series of emails that you (Russel) and I had and those left me with "the attitude" which unfairly I brought here to this blog. I changed my "tone" as I want to continue to offer my ideas on the subjects, which are discussed here and I am interested in other peoples reactions to these ideas, as well and I recognized that I was directing my negativity at the wrong party. And I realized one or two atheists treating me like shit, isn't a good enough reason to act hostile to all, but must importantly I accept this is "your house" and so if I want to speak I have to have your permission.<br /><br /><br />Russel it seems in both our emails, and my post here, you are uncomfortable with the level of emotion and energy in my texts, I don't really know what to say to this. When I wrote I was "in awe" that is how I feel. When I listen to a scientific concept properly explained, or a piece of eloquently rendered prose, or a gracefully portrayed spiritual or human truth, it does produce in me a feeling I label "awe", I don't know why you want to change that, with your negative directions.<br /><br />"At the same time, you shouldn't expect..."<br /><br />I am sorry I have to make this personal, but your response just kills me. I told you I was uncomfortable answering your question, I told you I didn't want to "preach" or "convert", in our personal correspondences I told you I understood certain of my personal beliefs aren't enough to convince anyone else, and still you respond with cookie-cutter answers directed towards an individual who isn't even in our specific conversation.<br /><br />In regards to "religions" making some specific religious claims....First of all religious history is a sketchy, complicated subject so I don't know how much "consensus" there is in fact through out history on many of these subjects. The fact that a group of people at any time believed a set of dogma, doesn't mean that I as an individual have to buy that dogma wholesale now. And I can still have legitimacy in findings "truths" which communicate to me. <br /><br />About the statement of Jesus being god's only son, being a statement of reality not feeling; I reject the distinction being made and don't understand how you construct it. I think we can find plenty of examples in the religious record where people are working with the concept of "Jesus as god's only son", more as a spiritual or emotional truth, than a reality statement. <br /><br />The contradiction only applies if a person wants to see a given text as a "literal" truth, I don't see that it like that, so why do you consistently respond that way, are you truly unable to imagine an alternative spiritual perspective? <br /><br />I understand this is done with believers who usually present this problem, but I am not in that camp, so I don't know how all this applies to my perspective.<br /><br />"notion of spiritual truths is appealing...."<br /><br />I don't know if I accept the connotative implications of the word "appealing", a lot of times the spiritual truth is frightening or discomforting... a lot of time's I feel pushed towards belief out of a frightening paradox, that is not at all appealing...<br /><br />I want to end this response with one more observation I don't self label theist or atheist, or anything else in regards to spirituality...I thought I kind of made this clear in the post, when I said I see a lot of validity in different positions, even the atheist one...I am developing my perspective which is why I'm here...Philosopher's Messhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07770394141063859023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-5277959919197967992009-12-19T18:44:15.491-06:002009-12-19T18:44:15.491-06:00@ March Hare
That was a long list and I can not r...@ March Hare<br /><br />That was a long list and I can not respond to each directly, with a simple yes and no. Each would need a specific definition and then it would require research into that definition. I also in my original post, and your free to label this wishy-washy, but I don't really hold to a rigid set of dogma from any religion. So things like the "virgin birth", I am basically detached from. <br /><br />It seems each thing you listed warrants a large amount of research in itself, so how could we have an intelligent conversation about them in this short space? Also as I said I'm not here to "preach" or "convert" so I don't feel too much obligation towards any of those concepts. <br /><br />I think there are things like "ESP","Acupuncture", and "objective morals" in your list, which at first glance seem more reasonable than things like "the rapture", and the "anti-christ", but that is speculative.<br /><br />A lot of the things you listed I do have an interest in and I hope to be able to dedicate more time to their study in the future, but if we wanted to have a further discussion about any one of them, we should pick one and focus on it.Philosopher's Messhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07770394141063859023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-24573282475994360602009-12-18T22:19:49.926-06:002009-12-18T22:19:49.926-06:00"I meant specifically in regards to my religi..."I meant specifically in regards to my religious beliefs and history, which I had already explained to him through email, why do you gotta bring up old stuff? lol"<br /><br />Well, no offense but you do really only get one 'first impression'.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-22182418856646175132009-12-18T22:18:45.258-06:002009-12-18T22:18:45.258-06:00Again it's like the convo we tried to have wit...Again it's like the convo we tried to have with Seth (but might as well have had it with a brick wall). Forget even being proactive in protecting their flock, any god that lets evil be done in their name or by their clerics is guilty of gross incompetence and dereliction of duty.<br /><br />Even the greek gods, as irresponsible as they were were careful about making sure their representatives stayed sort of in line.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63841593062125866272009-12-18T21:05:34.007-06:002009-12-18T21:05:34.007-06:00@ Kazzim
but if there's no discernible differ...@ Kazzim<br /><br />but if there's no discernible difference between a real and fake why would you assume there's any real to begin with?<br /><br />It's like a 3 card monte. The con isn't in the cards at all, it's in tricking you into believing there is a right answer at all.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87771179016152263382009-12-18T15:15:44.687-06:002009-12-18T15:15:44.687-06:00Well, just because there is a god doesn't mean...Well, just because there is a god doesn't mean that the person is actually talking to God.<br /><br />It's kind of like something I've said about the spiritual powers. Suppose that, for example, Sylvia Brown is not a fraud at all, but really talks to the dead. The spirits talk back to her privately, and they never say anything that is possible to test scientifically, but they're really there.<br /><br />Even granting that she has these powers, how do I tell the difference between a real medium like Sylvia Brown and a fraud? Because there will still be frauds... just because Sylvia Brown turns out to be telling the truth doesn't prove that anyone else is.<br /><br />That's why I would say that a power like Sylvia Brown claims to have is ultimately useless even if it's real, because there's no way to tell between the real power and an imitation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81222338652040549052009-12-18T14:44:18.860-06:002009-12-18T14:44:18.860-06:00"All I would say about this is that I would n..."All I would say about this is that I would never say that a bad experience with a religious authority figure is any reason not to believe in god."<br /><br />I'd argue that if they claim morality and authority from said god and evidence contradicts them it should trigger a questioning of their claims.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-72548132792598826142009-12-18T13:47:50.378-06:002009-12-18T13:47:50.378-06:00Maybe, but I can't see a deistic god being a s...Maybe, but I can't see a deistic god being a source of "spiritual truths." A deistic God would likely have been gone before human brains were capable of caring about such things.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71045179732125035482009-12-18T13:41:24.155-06:002009-12-18T13:41:24.155-06:00PM could very well be a deist, rather than a theis...PM could very well be a deist, rather than a theist...Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-48739467177437684002009-12-18T12:57:53.155-06:002009-12-18T12:57:53.155-06:00See this is why I am interested in the show and th...<i>See this is why I am interested in the show and the blog and the discussion itself, cause I really don't know, and I know I don't know, but there is a part of me that thinks I do know, it is a confusing mess of ideas. I am just always in awe of the world, and in awe of the world of ideas.</i><br /><br />Well, okay. I do wish to be nicer to you than before, but I think I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that some of what you say still sounds suspiciously exaggerated and I wonder if it's sarcastic. Whereas beforehand you were saying that everything we said was childish, now you seem to be saying that you are here to be awed by ideas. I don't know whether you are being sincere now or whether you are just going to great lengths not to get banned again. If it is the second one, I would just say "lighten up a bit." You don't have to act like you think everybody here is brilliant. You were only banned before for out-and-out hostility and insults, and that was only after a long string of escalations.<br /><br /><i>I will wrap this up and I am so sorry for those out there that just hate hearing that type of talk. As I also said, Russel in our emails, I was raised a two times a year Catholic, but went to Catholic grade school and High School.<br /><br />In 8th grade, the school pulled me in one day in with a teacher, a Priest (a real jerk of a one), and a school counselor, to criticize my family for not attending church more and to strong-arm me into becoming a more active participant, threatening my sacrament of Catholic Confirmation if I didn't get my act together. I told them I didn't want to be confirmed. I was told I would have to tell the class about "my decision", which I did. That's about my history with organized religion. I am sure my mystical beliefs find their origins in this indoctrination...<br /><br />I am not sure about the historically "real" Jesus, but I do see in the story some profound mystical truths...but I'll end there because I think I have provided enough ammo for the fun, already.</i><br /><br />All I would say about this is that I would never say that a bad experience with a religious authority figure is any reason not to believe in god. On the other hand, if you care about whether you believe in things that are true or not, I would think you owe it to yourself to ask how you can tell the difference. After all, there's no denying that plenty of people in the world feel a strong sense of personal conviction and rightness about something that is, in fact, false. That has to be the case, since many of these people believe mutually contradictory things. So I think what I was trying to get at before is, what's your belief filter?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71450410092993904372009-12-18T12:57:36.995-06:002009-12-18T12:57:36.995-06:00PM:
I am not here to "preach" and "...PM:<br /><br /><i>I am not here to "preach" and "convert", and I don't know what I would preach or what I would offer for conversion, and I am a little confused because I have already told you my theological and religious background in our personal email discussions, so I don't know why I am being singled out here.</i><br /><br />Don't worry. Nobody, I think, would accuse you of "preaching" for answering a question about what you think.<br /><br />As for why I am "singling you out," well, when you first showed up here you have to admit you were pretty combative. I do appreciate the way you have moderated your tone since then, but it's hardly surprising that I, along with many other people here, are still a bit wary that you might return to your original style. I will freely admit that I responded by matching your tone, and things spiraled out of control from there. So, sorry about that, and hope this time around may be more productive.<br /><br />Anyway, when you were writing like that, you accused me and others of making claims that were "arrogant," while offering a number of alternative explanations which you later claimed not to believe at all -- when I responded to your own words, you said "I have not spoken or described my own belief in god." I don't like to be in the position of have to guess at (and probably misinterpret) someone's position because they will not say what it is. So, I thought it would be more productive to just ask you.<br /><br /><i>There is a tradition explaining these events called religion, when I study these religions, they come up with these things called gods. In this process I find these things describing gods and the spiritual, that seem to communicate with my own intuitive, intrinsic sense of the truth of god and spiritual as well, this process leads me to believe more in god.</i><br /><br />Okay. So you <i>are</i> a theist. I appreciate your honesty.<br /><br />At the same time, you shouldn't expect the idea of a god to be persuasive to others simply because it appeals to your own intuitive, intrinsic sense of truth. That is a personal and subjective opinion, and one which atheists do not share. Also, I think it's maybe a bit glib to group religions together as saying anything consistent about "God," or any number of gods, or various spiritual "truths." There are thousands of religions and millions of individual sects, and a great many of them believe tremendously different things.<br /><br /><i>This is getting "preachy", but blame Kazim not me. I also don't agree with the rigidity your question assumes; I am not holding a fixed concept of god in my mind, god's characteristics seem to be diverse and mysterious in the religious and mystical traditions.</i><br /><br />Well, again, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that you believe in a non-fixed kind of God based on "religions," because those religions make very specific claims about what the god is like. I mean, the idea that Jesus Christ was God's only begotten son is a claim about reality, not about feelings. It is either true or it isn't. Ditto for the notion that heaven and hell are real places, and any number of other claims. That's why I think that March Hare, above, made a reasonable point. Do you believe in any particular god or spiritual truth? Or just a general feeling that there are some spiritual truths, without caring what they are?<br /><br /><i>At the same time, I am aware of the history of certain arguments for the existence of god, and the critiques of those argument as well, and I am also aware of the empirical skeptical position as well, and these ideas create an "atheist" self in my psyche, also.</i><br /><br />All right. I think I see what you are saying. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you mean that you lean towards theism because the notion of spiritual truths is appealing to you, but you are not confident enough in the logical arguments to erase your doubts. Is that a fair statement?<br /><br />Continued next post...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-25849777085983052352009-12-18T06:00:19.168-06:002009-12-18T06:00:19.168-06:00Sorry about the various grammatical mistakes; that...Sorry about the various grammatical mistakes; that happens when I decide to change the sentence half way through.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81525079752219337582009-12-18T04:43:43.754-06:002009-12-18T04:43:43.754-06:00@ Adam and no2religion
Of course I was not saying...@ Adam and no2religion<br /><br />Of course I was not saying that an omnipotent god could not visit every atheist, merely that the god people believe in is not necessarily mean a god that would be willing to do so.<br /><br />I then pointed out what I consider more convincing "proofs" of the existence of a higher intelligence that created the universe. You can point at these things to show theists that science would be open to accepting god(s) if the data required it. Heck, if all manner of physical trauma to the brain would leave our memory and character intact, science could have to accept an immaterial soul. Note the subjunctive in all cases.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.com