A case for strong atheism

[Dravin]

Actually, that makes perfect sense. It's a semantical error that I see quite often in these types of discussions. Problem is, the difference runs far deeper than semantics, and that tends to cause confusion.

Thanks for bringing that up.

Rejoice for I have found it (complete with Thank You)!

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/22015-eternity-3.html#post374982

[Mute]

What reasons do you have for supposing that God exists?

I grew up in a LDS family though I am agnostic. If you ask someone why they believe in God, then that God is going to be related to their faith. For example the reasons why someone believes in the God of Thor, Odin, Zeus, Sun God etc are not necessarily going to be for the same reasons as why someone believes in God according to Christianity. Not all Christians agree on what God even is. Most Christians believe in the trinity which is God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost as one literal being consisting of three parts but one in substance. The LDS faith believe God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three seperate beings but one in purpose. So let us assume you are refering to God the Father and Christian beliefs to God in general.

I don't believe it's impossible for there to be a God. Various beliefs in a persons religion or faith may just make sense to them. They choose to follow what they believe in. There are different reasons for why they may believe in it. They may just believe it because they were taught it from a young child and never questioned it. Some people might believe it because they see so many others who believe and that is enough reason for them to believe. Some people see events in their life as signs that God is acting in their life. Some people believe in it out of fear. They are told if they do not believe in it they will not go to Heaven. It can also be looked at as a way to keep people from acting up if they believe they will be punished for it in a next life. Other people believe it because some if not all of it sounds appealing to them. Christianity gives them a sense of purpose in life and one they may find to be good or noble. It may just makes sense to them. Some people may like it just because it teaches people to be kind to others or have morale standards. Does this make it true? Absolutely not.

I don't really believe in something unless there is evidence to support the possability of it being true. I don't want to go off blind faith. I don't have to see God but I want to know I'm not just being delusional or following something that isn't true.

It is more comforting to believe there is a God that loves and cares for you than to believe you are alone. The whole idea of this life being a test for us to progress makes sense to them. If there is a God, then I believe it would be important for someone to always have just enough evidence to doubt or believe. The idea that you can not prove or disprove it makes it an unwinnable argument. The LDS believe you can know of asurety for yourself though. How does someone know if it's true?

In the LDS faith, people talk about praying for confirmation from God that he is real and the LDS faith is true. They believe God tells people through the Holy Ghost. There are scriptures that talk about this comforter.

ACTS

CHAPTER 2

37 ¶ Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

JAROM

CHAPTER 1

12 And it came to pass that by so doing they kept them from being destroyed upon the face of the land; for they did prick their hearts with the word, continually stirring them up unto repentance.

ST LUKE

CHAPTER 24

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

ST JOHN

CHAPTER 14

26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

ST JOHN

CHAPTER 15

26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

ST JOHN

CHAPTER 16

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

ACTS

CHAPTER 9

31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.

MORONI

CHAPTER 8

26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.

There is a scriptures in the Book of Mormon it talks about the vineyard. It's in Alma Chapter 32. I list the scripture below. I don't know if this is the holy ghost but it is the only thing that I can guess at. To me it was not a convincing enough feeling but it was a feeling. It was a feeling of excitement and joy. I was not sure if this was the Holy Ghost or if it was simply a feeling. But it did feel like I knew. Now I'm not looking to contend this with someone and please if you're a LDS member don't jump to conclusions that I really do know. That is just annoying and irritating to hear someone else tell me what I know or believe. Let it suffice that I believed it but was unsure and had reasons to doubt. That doesn't mean I think it wasn't the Holy Ghost. It could have been but this was the closest thing that I could guess at as to feeling it myself.

ALMA

CHAPTER 32

26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

37 And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

38 But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

39 Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

40 And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

41 But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

42 And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

43 Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.

Post is too long so I'm going to continue this in two posts.

[Mute]

I had asked other people what their feeling of the Holy Ghost felt like and I heard a lot of speculation and differences in their answering. The way people had described this feeling to me varied greatly. Many people described the feeling so differently. People gave a wide variation of stories. I recall one person saying they felt prompted to go help an old man on a bus and that was how he knew the church was true to another person describing the spirit as causing a tingly itchy feeling in their nose. Some people do describe it as love but I guess feeling love wasn't a good enough description for me. To me simply feeling love didn't make sense that that would mean something was true. Emotions are something that can be triggered easily and we don't always understand why. There are many things that can cause strong emotions or feelings.

One thing that made me question what I was feeling was that I had felt similar feelings when watching movies or reading books that I felt meant a lot to me or were inspiring to me. They were exciting to me. There were other reasons for why I doubted but I won't be naming those because they are personal reasons. Was this feeling a confirmation that God was real, the LDS church was true, the books of Mormon was true or was it just a feeling like all the other ones I get? I wasn't sure. That was the problem. The only thing I knew that was supposed to confirm it was uncertain to me. If you are uncertain on the confirmation what do you have to confirm it? I suppose it is faith to just continue with it and do as Alma chapter 32 says. See if the tree (feeling of the Holy Ghost and knowledge) grows and you feel it more. The feeling in itself is evidence to support it but I have not been able to conclude what that feeling is. As I said, I have strong reasons to doubt and reasons to not simply dismiss it. I don't know what it is. I've been doing a lot of study on religion in general. LOL, in a sense it's like I'm doing a science experiement on what Alma Chapter 32 says. I'm testing a theory and so far I haven't had any conclusive results.

There was another thing about the Holy Ghost I was trying to understand. Sometimes people spoke of promptings of the spirit telling them to do something and while I can't recount any incidences of my own, I feel as though I'd know what that would feel like. When you just get a feeling you should do something. It would most likely be a strong feeling but usually when I feel the need to check on someone or something it doesn't lead to a bad incident. More often than not I go and check up on what I get a feeling about and it's nothing. Perhap that's not the Holy Ghost though. Perhaps it is just a feeling. I sometimes get a feeling I need to go work on something or not procrastinate something. Is that the Holy Ghost? I don't know. If this feeling was the Holy Ghost, I was confused on what if anything this feeling was telling me to do.

So rather let me say I do not know but I did have a feeling. I am uncertain what that feeling was and I have reasons to think both good, uncertainty and possibly bad in it but it is all I could guess the Holy Ghost is. I am not going to go into the main reasons for why I doubted it because they are personal.

I have also talked to many people from other Christian faiths to learn more about their beliefs. I wanted to understand if they also believed because of the spirit. I have been unable to determine this so far. It is my personal belief that many if not all people do not know if there is a God. They believe there is a God but I don't know if they know.

You have to come to the conclusion that you may never know. Maybe after you make that choice to just believe it, even if you are unsure, you will find out. Maybe God just wants to see what you'll do without a perfect knowledge or maybe that's foolish to think that way. Maybe your faith will grow in time like it says in Alma chapter 32. In the Book of Mormon, it talks about people seeing the finger of God when their faith grew to a certain point.

ETHER

CHAPTER 3

4 And I know, O Lord, that thou hast all power, and can do whatsoever thou wilt for the benefit of man; therefore touch these stones, O Lord, with thy finger, and prepare them that they may shine forth in darkness; and they shall shine forth unto us in the vessels which we have prepared, that we may have light while we shall cross the sea.

5 Behold, O Lord, thou canst do this. We know that thou art able to show forth great power, which looks small unto the understanding of men.

6 And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear.

7 And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; and the Lord said unto him: Arise, why hast thou fallen?

8 And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood.

9 And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger. Sawest thou more than this?

10 And he answered: Nay; Lord, show thyself unto me.

11 And the Lord said unto him: Believest thou the words which I shall speak?

12 And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.

13 And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

17 And now, as I, Moroni, said I could not make a full account of these things which are written, therefore it sufficeth me to say that Jesus showed himself unto this man in the spirit, even after the manner and in the likeness of the same body even as he showed himself unto the Nephites.

18 And he ministered unto him even as he ministered unto the Nephites; and all this, that this man might know that he was God, because of the many great works which the Lord had showed unto him.

19 And because of the knowledge of this man he could not be kept from beholding within the veil; and he saw the finger of Jesus, which, when he saw, he fell with fear; for he knew that it was the finger of the Lord; and he had faith no longer, for he knew, nothing doubting.

20 Wherefore, having this perfect knowledge of God, he could not be kept from within the veil; therefore he saw Jesus; and he did minister unto him.

21 And it came to pass that the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: Behold, thou shalt not suffer these things which ye have seen and heard to go forth unto the world, until the time cometh that I shall glorify my name in the flesh; wherefore, ye shall treasure up the things which ye have seen and heard, and show it to no man.

22 And behold, when ye shall come unto me, ye shall write them and shall seal them up, that no one can interpret them; for ye shall write them in a language that they cannot be read.

23 And behold, these two stones will I give unto thee, and ye shall seal them up also with the things which ye shall write.

24 For behold, the language which ye shall write I have confounded; wherefore I will cause in my own due time that these stones shall magnify to the eyes of men these things which ye shall write.

25 And when the Lord had said these words, he showed unto the brother of Jared all the inhabitants of the earth which had been, and also all that would be; and he withheld them not from his sight, even unto the ends of the earth.

26 For he had said unto him in times before, that if he would believe in him that he could show unto him all things—it should be shown unto him; therefore the Lord could not withhold anything from him, for he knew that the Lord could show him all things.

In the Book of Moses from the Pearl of Great Price it also talks about Moses having had the world revealed unto him.

BOOK OF MOSES

CHAPTER 1

1 The words of God, which he spake unto Moses at a time when Moses was caught up into an exceedingly high mountain,

2 And he saw God face to face, and he talked with him, and the glory of God was upon Moses; therefore Moses could endure his presence.

3 And God spake unto Moses, saying: Behold, I am the Lord God Almighty, and Endless is my name; for I am without beginning of days or end of years; and is not this endless?

4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease.

5 Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth.

6 And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all.

7 And now, behold, this one thing I show unto thee, Moses, my son, for thou art in the world, and now I show it unto thee.

8 And it came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and wondered.

9 And the presence of God withdrew from Moses, that his glory was not upon Moses; and Moses was left unto himself. And as he was left unto himself, he fell unto the earth.

10 And it came to pass that it was for the space of many hours before Moses did again receive his natural strength like unto man; and he said unto himself: Now, for this cause I know that man is nothing, which thing I never had supposed.

11 But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.

These things can seem very exciting for someone to believe. That would be awesome to actually be able to see God. The thought that Joseph Smith might have seen God is fascinating to me. I don't know if he did but if it's true it would be amazing. The thought that you can talk to God and he will answer prayers is just incredible if it's true. Those are things to motivate someone to try. There are many things that make me doubt this but if it is true then that would be unimaginable. The only words I can think of to describe it would just be cool or bad ass.

[Mute]

This line of reasoning fails due to inconsistency. LDS claim that the brother has more two brothers who are equal to himself, while Christians claim that the three brothers are the same person. Muslims believe that one of the three brothers is actually more of a cousin. Jewish people believe that the third brother has not yet been born.

Millions of people claim to know God, but they can't define him in a consistent manner. This has been the case for thousands of years. The definitions change and the number of variations seems to keep growing.

This is a good point. That's something I've thought about myself.

[Mute]

Let's see strong atheism comfort you in times of sorrow. Visit when you are sick and help you bury the dead.

Faith stands as a bulwark when we need it. It provides an answer to entropy and despair. Like Ivan Ilytch Golovina in Tolstoy's novel, there will come a time when we will wish that we had clung to that which was most precious all along. Frolic entirely in rationality while you can for inevitably there will come a winter when the spiritual will be the path you wished was chosen.

While religion may persuade men to do good it has also persuaded men to do evil. Atheism doesn't persuade one to do good or evil but it doesn't mean they won't be good people. Atheism seems to persuade men to be more careful with their life because they have no reason to believe there will be an after life.

[Guest Godless]

Rejoice for I have found it (complete with Thank You)!

http://www.lds.net/forums/general-discussion/22015-eternity-3.html#post374982

Here's the direct link to the post I believe you were looking for. By this definition, I am not a strong atheist, but rather a de facto atheist. I don't "know" that God doesn't exist, but I live my life under the assumption that he does not.

[Mute]

In my personal opinion it's like someone arguing over parallel universes. One person says if you believe in it you go to a place where you're happy when you die but if you don't then you go to a bad place where you're miserable. Another person says if you believe or disbelieve nothing happens. Why should someone take a strong stance on that? The only evidence I've really seen so far to determine or prove if Christianity is true is by what the LDS have said of pray for a feeling through the Holy Ghost. That is honestly the ONLY way I have EVER heard from a Christian. Very few people have said they have seen God and I've been unable to determine if other Christian faiths go by a feeling of the spirit or what their belief of the spirit is. So 99.99% of people either go by a feeling of the spirit or something else. It's an emotion and an emotional feeling. Emotions, in my opinion, are not as good of evidence as physically seeing or touching something because there are so many things which can affect how we feel. Simply not eating enough or getting too little of sleep can make us feel differently. All sorts of things can play a factor into it. I'm not saying someone can not know or doesn't know because of this but that is a reason why it makes me skeptical when people say they do know.

For some reason people can't seem to just leave this topic alone and either believe or disbelieve it.

If only it were enough to simply be a good person, love others and do your best to deal honestly and fairly with people. I think everyone would agree that those are good ways to be. If that was all that was needed, then I don't think anyone would ever argue over religion again. Sadly, this isn't enough. Even if you do that, you're still not going to Heaven unless you're baptized and believe etc etc etc. I guess I just don't see the point in arguing over it. In my opinion, it's an unwinnable argument.

Edited February 24, 2010 by Mute

[Dravin]

Here's the direct link to the post I believe you were looking for.

I'm afraid you're too clever for me. The link just takes me to the last page of the thread instead of directly to your post as my link does (Page #3, Post #47). I have the sneaking suspicion I'm missing something obvious, if so I'm claiming it's almost bedtime. :)

[Guest Godless]

Lol, post #47 was on page 5. I just tested the link I posted, and it took me straight to that post. Maybe we have different forum settings?

[Dravin]

Lol, post #47 was on page 5. I just tested the link I posted, and it took me straight to that post. Maybe we have different forum settings?

Probably. Strange that the forum doesn't compensate for that. A permanent link isn't very useful when it links to different things based on user settings. Great, now I wonder what people have been thinking when I've linked to the wrong posts all these times (I'm assuming most are on the default settings).

Edited February 24, 2010 by Dravin

[Guest Godless]

Oh well, now everyone has two links to try. One of them's bound to work, right?

[Dravin]

Oh well, now everyone has two links to try. One of them's bound to work, right?

Works for me. Throw enough spaghetti against the wall and some of it is bound to stick.

[Guest]

Let's keep this simple.

You don't believe there is a God. Okay.

I believe there is a God. That's okay too.

Who is wrong? Neither.

Who is right? Both.

Why do I say that? Because, as long as you are constantly and sincerely searching for the truth of all things, you are going to be on the right side every single time.

You can't convince me God does not exist just like I cannot convince you God does exist. No one can. So, it's really not a debatable subject. Critical thinking skills not applicable. I mean - gosh, you can try as much as you can and I will guarantee you it's nothing but an exercise in futility - with my head hurting at the end. Why should we go through that? I can practice critical thinking by going to alice.com and learning how to apply logic to make a digital skater twirl and it will not be an exercise in futility.

Now, if we are searching for truth, then this wouldn't be a debate. This will be a - "Hey, Anatess, what do you think about God? Maybe there are some things I can learn from you." and vice versa.

Let me know when this stops being a debate and starts becoming a discussion. Or, if you want to keep it a debate, I suggest we move it to something worth debating - like should we keep God in the pledge of allegiance or something...

[Vanhin]

Oh, not a lot. Just what I've heard "around" and from talking to members of LDS.

I just wonder if knowing a little bit about our beliefs would change your approach a little, at least as far as your hypethetical examples go.

In a nutshell, latter-day saints believe that a human, born into this world, consists of a spirit clothed in a body of flesh. Our spirit, is the literal offspring of God, and it existed before we entered mortality. In our pre-mortal existence, we progressed and learned as much as possible in that environment.

There are two major differences between us and God. First, he has progressed further than us, and second, he has an immortal body of flesh and bone. he is in a state of complete happiness and joy, and is perfect.

God designed a plan that would allow us to enter mortality to obtain bodies of flesh, and to progress further by learning through our own experiences things we could not otherwise learn. A very important, if not most important part of our existence is our ability to know right from wrong, and our freedom to choose for ourselves. In fact, we progress whenever we are faced with choices and we choose correctly. This earth life, represents an environment where we are able to exercise our agency in practical ways beyond the theories of our pre-mortal curriculum.

So, a very basic claim of latter-day saints, is that mankind is the same species as God, and that mortality is a part of God's plan to help us reach our greatest potential, which He himself epitomizes. We claim that God is an exalted Man. In fact, one of the names for God, in our theology, is Man of Holiness.

There is of course more to the story, but I wanted to point out that according to us, God is not "supernatural" in the sense that you described, outside of the laws that govern the Universe. Infact, complete mastery and comprehension of all knowledge is part of our quest to become like Him. Also, though our scriptures describe God as eternal and infinite, we don't think of infinity in exactly the same terms that you have described. We ascribe that to His capacity to comprehend things, for example, and to exalt his children, if they choose it. God, according to us, can only be in one place at one time; but his influence can be felt universally.

We do not have all knowledge yet of all things. So, even among latter-day saints, there is much debate and speculation about some of these things, but each one of us will readily admit that when all things have been revealed to us, that none of it is magic and beyond explanation, and that science and our faith is in complete harmony. Many things that appear as miracles to us now, will be revealed to be based on eternal truth and law.

God, to latter-day saints, is an actual tangible, glorified and exalted Man, and we are his children.

Regards,

Vanhin

[Finrock]

Good evening Godless. It is a pleasure to meet you! :)

1. Strong atheist can have a moral foundation -> I do not accept this definition. I would contend that if there is no God, then neither is there any moral foundation.

What do you base that on?

I'm going to paraphrase here, but Roundearth contended in his OP that humans are born without any innate sense of right or wrong. Vanhin challenged him on this point and he conceded that indeed there are some moral questions that seem to be innate universally (i.e., knowing that murdering someone is wrong). Unless you want to argue otherwise, I would ask the question, where does this basic/fundamental yet universal distinction of what is right and wrong come from? Evolution cannot explain it and innate by definition precludes any environmental influence. The source of this innate distinction of right and wrong can not be found on earth and neither is it even possible for science to explain it. I contend that the source of this innate capacity is a higher being, aka God. Of course, it could be some aliens with super technology and they are providing this apparently innate capacity. But, now it's simply semantics. Any alien capable of such feats are certainly higher beings, relatively speaking, and we end up just replacing the term "God" with the term "alien". In this hypothetical situations, both the aliens or God would seem to be influencing us with supernatural abilities.

Anyways, I base my comments (although not exclusively) on the fact that there is innately within humans a basic capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. This innate capacity cannot be explained by science because it isn't quantifiable and there is nothing in nature (to include evolution) that can be the source of it (insofar as we can tell, anyways). That being the case, we are left with a source of this innate capacity that is, at least coming from a naturalistic perspective, outside of nature. Given these facts the only rational option left is that the source of this innate capacity is some higher being or God.

2. Strong atheism is not a religion -> I do not accept this definition. Experientially I see very little difference between a theist zealot and a strong atheist. Only the object of their adoration and faith varies. Rationally, I would argue that atheism is as much a religion as Christianity, etc.

What is the "object of adoration and faith" for atheists? By definition, we do not worship anything. Many of us are enamored by science and reason, but we do not worship them. And our "faith" in these things reaches only as far as our perceptory ability to understand them. It is not in our nature to give unsupported traits to our intellectual pursuits without tangible evidence.

Well, this where we need some clarification and agreement on. I concluded my post by asking what is faith and what is religion? We should add to that list of questions, what is worship? Worship isn't just limited to adoration for a deity. There is hero worship or worship of objects or ideas. Veneration to a person. To venerate someone is to show great respect towards an individual perhaps because of their intelligence, or their good deeds, etc.

Are you saying that atheist do not venerate great scientist or science in general? Is there no adoration for Richard Dawkins and the principles he espouses amongst strong atheist? Your form of worship is different than mine, but it is worship nonetheless. The OP has even provided what appears to be a list of dogmatic statements about atheism and it's beliefs.

Religion - "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

1. Atheist have a set of beliefs. The OP provided some tenets and all atheist are constantly alluding to the scientific method, reasoning, and logic.

2. Atheist have an object of adoration (they worship something). Atheist venerate science, reason, and logic. They have individuals in the community such as Richard Dawkins that are shown great respect and by all appearance esteemed as religious leaders.

3. Atheist have a god. They do not believe in a personal and supernatural deity, but their god is science, reason, and logic or any other object that commands their time, respect, and/or resources.

So, again, the object of a strong atheist's worship and adoration is different and your religious principles are different in many cases than mine, but based on definition, I cannot see how any atheist can rationally claim that they aren't practicing a religion. They can only say they aren't practicing a religion that believes in a personal God with supernatural powers.

3. Strong atheist do, in fact, exist -> I do not accept this definition. This goes with point 2. I would contend that strong atheist worship a god, even if it isn't the God of Israel, etc. There are many types of gods and one need not worship the God of Christianity or any "personal" God in order to worship a god.

Can you elaborate please? I'm afraid you've lost me.

This point and my previous point are closely tide together and the ideas overlap to a large extent. However, to elaborate I will say that just as worship isn't limited to the worship of some personal divine being, neither is a god limited to a personal divine being. A god can be anything or anyone that is of the greatest value to an individual. So, money can be a god. A car can be a god. Atheist deny a personal god, but they've only replaced a personal god with a god of science and reason or something else. So, this is what I mean.

Regards,

Finrock

[FunkyTown]

Now, to infinite beings. An infinite being would necessarily be a being that exceeded all limits, which means that it could not be defined. This means that it would have no firm identity, and therefore that it could not exist.

But I've been doing all the talking. Your turn. What reasons do you have for supposing that God exists?

I must admit to being impressed by the strength of your convictions that Physics don't exist.

What is singularity and why do all laws of physics break down at singularity?

That's unfair. You may simply be saying that Black Holes don't exist, or that we don't have a proper frame of reference for defining objects that approach an infinite scope and that you're sure we will at some point.

Of course, if you're saying that we don't have a proper frame of reference for defining objects that approach an infinite scope on any level then you've basically stated that this thread is an exercise in futility.

Why don't you tell us: What proof would you accept that God exists? Mathematical proof? Deductive proof? Historical, first hand accounts? Morgan Freeman showing up on your front doorstep? I'm curious as to what you would even accept as proof.

[hordak]

This line of reasoning fails due to inconsistency. LDS claim that the brother has two more brothers who are equal to himself, while Christians claim that the three brothers are the same person. Muslims believe that one of the three brothers is actually more of a cousin. Jewish people believe that the third brother has not yet been born.

Millions of people claim to know God, but they can't define him in a consistent manner. This has been the case for thousands of years. The definitions change and the number of variations seems to keep growing.

I see the problem you address. Ironically i think the clashing views of God, and inconsistency as evidence of such a being as people hold different views of those the interact with, know, or whoms deeds/works affect the individual (E.G. Ask JMadams and Brytor to describe the current president and you would get different responses based on their personal "lenses" so to speak. Ask them to describe something 100% variable fiction ,Santa Clause and the descriptions will be the same.

I know it's not the perfect example as other cultures see Santa differently but my point is inconsistency of opinion of who a powerful being is ("He's a radical commey non citizen" vs "He's a great public servant perfect to to unify the county)

not a case for non existence. (not a case for existence either) In a world where people can't agree on the birth of a physical being in front of us, or who killed JFK, was 9-11 and inside job etc. is it any surprise that hundreds then thousands of years after the fact people can't agree on who God is?

[Finrock]

Good morning Godless. I hope your day has started off great! :)

This line of reasoning fails due to inconsistency. LDS claim that the brother has two more brothers who are equal to himself, while Christians claim that the three brothers are the same person. Muslims believe that one of the three brothers is actually more of a cousin. Jewish people believe that the third brother has not yet been born.

Millions of people claim to know God, but they can't define him in a consistent manner. This has been the case for thousands of years. The definitions change and the number of variations seems to keep growing.

Actually your argument against Vanhin's line of reasoning is nonsensical. It's like saying because Tom describes his brother differently than Vanhin describes his brother, therefore Vanhin's brother (or Tom's brother) doesn't exist.

If a religion describes a being as God that is contradictory or inconsistent to a being that another religion describes as God, then the conclusion isn't that no God exist because of inconsistency. The conclusion is that each respective religion is obviously describing and worshiping a different God. Slightly off topic, but I would also comment that the challenge of the would be seeker of truth is to determine which God is the true God (the law of non-contradiction precludes all of the Gods from being true).

Regards,

Finrock

[Vanhin]

This line of reasoning fails due to inconsistency. LDS claim that the brother has two more brothers who are equal to himself, while Christians claim that the three brothers are the same person. Muslims believe that one of the three brothers is actually more of a cousin. Jewish people believe that the third brother has not yet been born.

Millions of people claim to know God, but they can't define him in a consistent manner. This has been the case for thousands of years. The definitions change and the number of variations seems to keep growing.

That inconsistency, though a reality that I readily admit to, only puts the definition of God into question. However, I don't see how the inconsistency makes the existence of God an inviable possibility. At the very least you must agree that people can perceive the same thing differently.

It is possible for my foreign brother to exist, and there be differing accounts of what he is like from the other siblings who visit him. For the skeptic the solution is so simple. You can go visit the brother and find out for yourself. In fact, in my hypothetical situation, there is an open invitation for you to visit at any time. This, of course, might require you to travel, on boat or plane, and take time off from work and other pursuits, which you might not be willing to do. Nonetheless, only you can keep yourself from discovering the truth of the matter for yourself.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited February 24, 2010 by Vanhin
Spelling

[Vanhin]

Lol, are we brothers or what?

Vanhin

[Guest Godless]

I'm going to paraphrase here, but Roundearth contended in his OP that humans are born without any innate sense of right or wrong. Vanhin challenged him on this point and he conceded that indeed there are some moral questions that seem to be innate universally (i.e., knowing that murdering someone is wrong). Unless you want to argue otherwise, I would ask the question, where does this basic/fundamental yet universal distinction of what is right and wrong come from? Evolution cannot explain it and innate by definition precludes any environmental influence. The source of this innate distinction of right and wrong can not be found on earth and neither is it even possible for science to explain it. I contend that the source of this innate capacity is a higher being, aka God. Of course, it could be some aliens with super technology and they are providing this apparently innate capacity. But, now it's simply semantics. Any alien capable of such feats are certainly higher beings, relatively speaking, and we end up just replacing the term "God" with the term "alien". In this hypothetical situations, both the aliens or God would seem to be influencing us with supernatural abilities.

Anyways, I base my comments (although not exclusively) on the fact that there is innately within humans a basic capacity to distinguish between right and wrong. This innate capacity cannot be explained by science because it isn't quantifiable and there is nothing in nature (to include evolution) that can be the source of it (insofar as we can tell, anyways). That being the case, we are left with a source of this innate capacity that is, at least coming from a naturalistic perspective, outside of nature. Given these facts the only rational option left is that the source of this innate capacity is some higher being or God.

The field of memetics studies this very question. It applies the theory of evolution to cultural norms and social tendencies. The basic theory behind it is that morality and attitudes evolve as a result of environmental and social influences.

Another factor that needs to be taken into account is instinct. All animals have it, and humans more so than other species due to our advanced intellectual capacity. Our sense of right and wrong is shaped by the cultural influences that surround us, but there are some basic survival traits that we are born with. It could be argued that altruism and some level of compassion are among these traits. Without them, humanity would plunge into chaos and we would go extinct.

Well, this where we need some clarification and agreement on. I concluded my post by asking what is faith and what is religion? We should add to that list of questions, what is worship? Worship isn't just limited to adoration for a deity. There is hero worship or worship of objects or ideas. Veneration to a person. To venerate someone is to show great respect towards an individual perhaps because of their intelligence, or their good deeds, etc.

Are you saying that atheist do not venerate great scientist or science in general? Is there no adoration for Richard Dawkins and the principles he espouses amongst strong atheist? Your form of worship is different than mine, but it is worship nonetheless.

I define worship as adoration without question. I respect Richard Dawkins, but I don't agree with everything he says, especially in the areas of religious apologetics and anthropology. I accept the theory of evolution, but I acknowledge that it is incomplete and has some minor flaws. There are aspects of the theory that are under debate within the scientific community. There is no such thing as a perfect theory, and evolutionary theory is no exception. Objective criticism is an essential part of advancing and developing the theory.

On the flipside, you have deities. They are worshipped without question or criticism because they are believed to be infallible. This is what separates adoration and respect from worship. There is nothing about science and reason that is completely infallible, thus they are not worshiped in the same sense that you worship God.

The OP has even provided what appears to be a list of dogmatic statements about atheism and it's beliefs.

The OP made statements of fact based on the definition of atheism. Looking back on those statements, I don't see a single one that I would consider a statement of belief.

Religion - "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

1. Atheist have a set of beliefs. The OP provided some tenets and all atheist are constantly alluding to the scientific method, reasoning, and logic.

Science, reason, and logic are embraced by many people of different faiths. There are plenty of theists who embrace these things the same way that atheists do because they are considered to be reliable sources of truth about the world we live in. The only difference between us and theists is that theists add God into the equation. So would you say that science, reason, and logic are part of the religion of such a theist?

2. Atheist have an object of adoration (they worship something). Atheist venerate science, reason, and logic. They have individuals in the community such as Richard Dawkins that are shown great respect and by all appearance esteemed as religious leaders.

As I've already said, worship, by my definition, implies infallibility. We respect and admire the great minds of science, but we rarely agree with everything that they have to say.

3. Atheist have a god. They do not believe in a personal and supernatural deity, but their god is science, reason, and logic or any other object that commands their time, respect, and/or resources.

So, again, the object of a strong atheist's worship and adoration is different and your religious principles are different in many cases than mine, but based on definition, I cannot see how any atheist can rationally claim that they aren't practicing a religion. They can only say they aren't practicing a religion that believes in a personal God with supernatural powers.

See above.

[Guest Godless]

Actually your argument against Vanhin's line of reasoning is nonsensical. It's like saying because Tom describes his brother differently than Vanhin describes his brother, therefore Vanhin's brother (or Tom's brother) doesn't exist.

If a religion describes a being as God that is contradictory or inconsistent to a being that another religion describes as God, then the conclusion isn't that no God exist because of inconsistency. The conclusion is that each respective religion is obviously describing and worshiping a different God. Slightly off topic, but I would also comment that the challenge of the would be seeker of truth is to determine which God is the true God (the law of non-contradiction precludes all of the Gods from being true).

That inconsistency, though a reality that I readily admit to, only puts the definition of God into question. However, I don't see how the inconsistency makes the existence of God an inviable possibility. At the very least you must agree that people can perceive the same thing differently.

It is possible for my foreign brother to exist, and there be differing accounts of what he is like from the other siblings who visit him. For the skeptic the solution is so simple. You can go visit the brother and find out for yourself. In fact, in my hypothetical situation, there is an open invitation for you to visit at any time. This, of course, might require you to travel, on boat or plane, and take time off from work and other pursuits, which you might not be willing to do. Nonetheless, only you can keep yourself from discovering the truth of the matter for yourself.

So Finrock, how do you determine which God is true? And how do you reconcile your conclusion against the millions of believers who reached the conclusion that their God is true through the same means which you used?

You're both right, contradiction alone doesn't negate the possibility of existence. However, you have a problem in that you're trying to define an intangible being. Providing evidence for the existence of God (any God) is hard enough. When you try to define this being, things just get confusing because you're trying to define something that has no objective evidence of existing. It would be like me telling you that not only do unicorns exist, but they're green with red horns. Someone else may insist that they are blue with yellow horns. Meanwhile, we have both failed to demonstrate that they exist in the first place.

[Blackmarch]

This board is supposed to be open to discussion of all topics, so I'll post this here.

I am a strong atheist. That is, I think that there is no God. (A weak atheist simply fails to affirm God's existence.) In this thread, I will defend that position with some brief arguments, and then solicit arguments against my arguments and against strong atheism. I hope to hone my critical thinking skills and to learn from you guys.

Question: what's the diference between an agnostic and a weak athiest?

I have found that there are certain misconceptions I have to deal with before I can make any progress in dialogues with most theists. If you were already aware of any of the following points, I apologise:

* Strong atheism is JUST the belief that there is no God.

which is one of the main reasons it's listed under religious categories - 1) it is a specifc belief dealing with deity. 2) it entails a specific belief in regards to the creation of life/universe etc.. (mainly in reference to #1), 3) there are more than one persons that have embraced this particular belief.

* Strong atheism is not a moral position, and does not necessarily entail any particular moral belief.

It is not a moral position- rather it eliminates any need for any specific morality and allows the individual to set up their own morality however they choose.

* A strong atheist can have a moral foundation.

I agree, however it is one that is much harder to defend it's interaction with other individuals.

* Strong atheism does not necessarily entail a belief in determinism, evolution, abortion, materialism, or naturalism.

Of course not, nor does theism necessilary entail such, or the opposite of such... however in both theistic and athiestic ggroupings you can find subgroups that require different beliefs to be part of tof that subgroup.

* Strong atheists do not hate God. We do not believe in God.

technically true, however that does not stop one from hating the concept or the things dealing with such, or taking a stance of "if God did exist".

* Strong atheists do not worship Satan. We do not usually believe in Satan.

Satan and Christian God are somewhat in the same boat, if at opposite ends of it.. so I"d imagine that the athiestic regard to Satan would be the same as they would to God.

* Strong atheists are rarely nihilists.

they may technically may not be, but i have met a good many who are rather nihilistic in their views.

* Strong atheism is not a religion.

By this wording alone, I do not agree with this statement. (see my response to your first listed statement of strong athiesm)

* Strong atheists do, in fact, exist.

absolutely. I've interacted with enough over a few years to know that.. and to also know that they are the same in nature as theists.

* Strong atheists are not repressing knowledge that God exists.

depends on the atheist. Some do some don't. (and the same could be said of theists too both in their regards to knowledge of god or in the knowledge of lack of God.)

* Strong atheism is not impossible to defend in principle. In principle, it could be defended by finding that the concept of God contradicts itself, the laws of logic, or empirical evidence. You will be able to make up your mind about whether my case for strong atheism is successful after reading this post.

on a general level its about as easy to defend as any other system of belief.

If any of that came across as condescending to you, I apologise. Every clarification on that list is necessary for some theists. If you already knew everything in that list, it is a testament to your sophistication.

I did not find any of that condescending.. a couple points were both a little funny and saddening at the same time seeing as your experiences must have lead you to believe that it is necessary to list.

In a similar fashion I hope you do not mind my response.

The first reason to be an atheist follows from the burden of proof principle.

how this is generally used is faulty- this statement ends up being a first cause argument (ie- you claimed this first so you prove it) the burden of proof is with both parties. Unfortunately there are very few absolute proofs. There are many evidences, but the problem with evidences is that they can be intrepreted various ways.

Humans are limited beings, without the capacity of omniscience and infallibility.

currently we are that way but as proper methodology reduces that lack, and that reduction has not been stopped yet, and no forseeable point of stopping until all things are known.

We wake up on earth without any concepts, idea, or beliefs, and we gradually expand our knowledge from the day we are born until the day we die.

that is a belief, definitely has not been proven or disproven, nor much evidence for or against that. At face value that is reasonable.

We have to perform a specific process to arrive at correct beliefs from that initial state of nonbelief.

What is a correct belief? without some superforce (whether its God, the Force, the flying spaghetti monster, homer simpson, fate, zeus or what not) to enforce it in some fashion or another there is no correct or incorrect process.

That means, we must have evidence and logical backing for our beliefs.

until an individual has all knowledge, logic is going to be hampered and cannot fully be known to be correct or not.

second you need more than evidence, as evidence can be intrepreted a myriad of ways... but this is a good place to start.

Many people use evidence and logic as some form of basis for their belief..

Otherwise, we'll likely believe wrongly, and act incorrectly.

Again here we have the problem of not having some sort of superforce that differentiates between right and wrong.

The idea that all positive claims should be validated (that is, self evident or supported by reasoning) before we accept them is the burden of proof principle. I submit that theism does not meet the burden of proof principle.

Unfortunately evidences can be intrepreted various ways and one man's reason is another's madness. However I thnk one should validate as best as possible whatever claim.

So far as I know, all of the arguments for God fail, which makes theism an arbitrary belief.

probably as all arguments for a mere lack of God- Both concepts are so abstract (God vs Lack of God) that it's nigh unto to being impossible to being concrete with either one.

A possibly easier or more solid way would be to try to disprove specific claims of characteristics or definitions of God.

On the burden of proof principle, this justifies a lack of belief in God.

no more than the contrariwise.. or any other justification for believeing or disbelieving.

If someone was to accept this line of reasoning, then this has them becoming a weak atheist - that is, an atheist who fails to affirm the existence of God. To get to strong atheism, however, we need the arguments that follow below. Let's define "God," for starters.

For dealing merely with the existance of God, the problem with the definitions is how do you know you have the right one?

Now doing this is much more reasonable if you want to show that God is not or does not do a specific thing.

"God" is a very difficult word to define. Some theists have taken it to mean a powerful warrior with a white, billowing beard, while others have taken it to mean a relatively mundane "ground of being." Let's just say for the purposes of the thread that God is a supernatural, infinite being.

I agree it is difficult to define. I'd like to point out with the definition that is being used here is about as equally difficult; "Supernatural" and "Infinite" are very vague terms. I could spend all day poking holes in both.

My case for strong atheism rests on the law of identity. A is A. A thing is itself. The law of identity is a self-evident proposition, and serves as the base of all knowledge. To deny it, therefore, is to contradict oneself. It is to assert that one is right to deny the law of identity - not right and wrong at the same time. The law of identity has two corollaries: First, that everything acts in accordance with its nature. Second, that to exist is to be defined.

still thinking this one through.

Let's talk about supernatural beings first. A supernatural being is a being above nature, that is, a being above the regularities of natural law. Now, a natural being is one that acts in accordance with nature, that is, one that obeys various regularities. My computer is a natural being because its inputs and outputs are flowing through it according to certain regularities. Now, by definition, a supernatural being would have no regularities like this. It could not act in any regular way, for then we would say that it was a natural being. So it would have to be an undefined, amorphous, shifting thing with no identity - which is to say, it could not exist.

that sounds fine to me, i don't have any problem with this as I do not believe God to be a supernatural being. At all.

Now, to infinite beings. An infinite being would necessarily be a being that exceeded all limits, which means that it could not be defined. This means that it would have no firm identity, and therefore that it could not exist.

this could be one definition of infinity... but certainly not the only way to approach it. Infinity is really rather vague and certainly more than one way to approach it.

I can demonstrate something similar in math: take a (nonlimited) line, a plane and a volume, all 3 are infinite but also have definite attributes and limitations, and are different.

But I've been doing all the talking. Your turn. What reasons do you have for supposing that God exists?

Experiences mainly. reason-wise for many of the same sort of things your an athiest it would seem (altho for one or two of the reasons it would be the flipside) Edited February 24, 2010 by Blackmarch

[Vanhin]

The field of memetics studies this very question. It applies the theory of evolution to cultural norms and social tendencies. The basic theory behind it is that morality and attitudes evolve as a result of environmental and social influences.

Another factor that needs to be taken into account is instinct. All animals have it, and humans more so than other species due to our advanced intellectual capacity. Our sense of right and wrong is shaped by the cultural influences that surround us, but there are some basic survival traits that we are born with. It could be argued that altruism and some level of compassion are among these traits. Without them, humanity would plunge into chaos and we would go extinct.

I define worship as adoration without question. I respect Richard Dawkins, but I don't agree with everything he says, especially in the areas of religious apologetics and anthropology. I accept the theory of evolution, but I acknowledge that it is incomplete and has some minor flaws. There are aspects of the theory that are under debate within the scientific community. There is no such thing as a perfect theory, and evolutionary theory is no exception. Objective criticism is an essential part of advancing and developing the theory.

On the flipside, you have deities. They are worshipped without question or criticism because they are believed to be infallible. This is what separates adoration and respect from worship. There is nothing about science and reason that is completely infallible, thus they are not worshiped in the same sense that you worship God.

The OP made statements of fact based on the definition of atheism. Looking back on those statements, I don't see a single one that I would consider a statement of belief.

Science, reason, and logic are embraced by many people of different faiths. There are plenty of theists who embrace these things the same way that atheists do because they are considered to be reliable sources of truth about the world we live in. The only difference between us and theists is that theists add God into the equation. So would you say that science, reason, and logic are part of the religion of such a theist?

As I've already said, worship, by my definition, implies infallibility. We respect and admire the great minds of science, but we rarely agree with everything that they have to say.

See above.

I think the point is that your god does not have to be an intelligent being. Whatever you give your full devotion to is your god, and the system associated with that devotion is your religion. Are you not fully devoted to science, reason, and logic? The pursuit of knowledge and your devotion to the cause of atheism is your god, and the method your religion. Like Finrock pointed out, the existence of dogma within strong atheism is evidence that it is a religion.

Strong atheism appears to reject completely the possibility that any deity exists, and apparently is concerned enough for mankind to actively proselytize the disbelief in deity, perhaps so that mankind can be freed from falsehoods and embrace "reality" instead. Perhaps atheist feel that such a liberation will promote a healthier progression of humanity. Instead of faith and personal revelation as their guide, strong atheist rely on the scientific method and logic to answer the hard questions of life; and instead of scripture they have their peer reviewed journals and their continually evolving theories and findings as their canon. It sounds like religion to me.

Regards,

Vanhin

Edited February 24, 2010 by Vanhin

[rayhale]

Here is my reasoning of why it takes more ‘faith’ to be an atheist than a religious person:

Nature having a God-like power of creating complex systems, like organs, with no help whatsoever. I know you’ve heard this phrase before, but I’ll say it here, “Nature can put a box of Grandfather clock parts together with no ‘creator’’. Doesn’t this, by definition, make nature a God? It creates life out of nothing, a God-like power.

I can’t understand why scientists can say that they can see evolution from man down to dinosaurs, but they can’t see the potential upward progress of man toward God. Whenever I see a science program, it will have a simple explanation of how single-celled organisms evolved to fish, fish to reptiles/dinosaurs, reptiles to mammals, mammals to man, but God forbid the mention of any step further upward climb of the evolution ladder.

Scientists can do amazing things, it’s gotten almost to the point that they can create life, they have gone to the moon, created the Hubble telescope, that can see EXTREMLY far into space, yet for all their successes, lets look at it from a universe perspective; the furthest man mission has been just to the moon; the furthest man made object, the Voyager, has just left the solar system, that is not very far looking at that in a universe perspective; for as far as the Hubble telescope can see, in a universe perspective, it would be like describing how the world looks by looking into cheep binoculars on top of Mount Everest. We are pioneers in space travel, we haven’t gone to the moon in over thirty years, we haven’t had a man mission to Mars, we can’t begin to think of any sort of mission to the nearest star, besides the sun, yet scientists can say, without a doubt, there is no God, yet with all the things science says nature can do, namely create life, by definition, that makes nature itself a god. I would call this hypocritical.

I’ll put it in a hypothetical manner, can’t there be a civilization somewhere out in the Cosmos, that has learned through science, how to stop death, create life, has figured out all aspects to the Theory of Everything, in short, become gods using science?