Atheism and Faith

[someguy]

Boersun, do i read an anthropomorphic idea of God in this statement?:

''And, of course, God Himself.

Which, of course, explicitly requires the existence of an Uber-God, who created God.

Which, of course, explicitly requires the existence of an Uber-Uber-God, who created the Uber-God.

Which, of course, explicitly requires the existence of an Uber-Uber-Uber-God, who created the Uber-Uber-God.

Which, of course, explicitly requires the...

Aah, what the hell - I'm sure you get the idea.

The universe exploding out of itself is just as improbable as requiring a God to kick-start it. There's just less redundant elements in the equation''

does your mind tell you that God has human form or other human attributes?

why would there have to be an uber-God?

i am speaking to you on a god level because i can't get you on a creator level. are you saying there was no BB?

Here Boersun is merely showing that if everything has a cause then so must God. Therefore your arguement that everything must have a cause negates the very idea of God.

[C1ay]

If I may respectfully suggest, that all depends on how you define God.

Good point. For me God is a supernatural entity and I don't believe in the supernatural. For those that define God as nature itself, redundant IMO, God is all around us.

[InfiniteNow]

Welcome to Hypography someguy. Your first post was well articulated. Enjoy.

 

 

:confused:

[Saitia]

Hello Sum guy,

 

You said you didn't believe in "Higher Authority" yet you mention you believe in God. Isn't that what God is to you?

 

You're referring to my comment that I don't put ultimate confidence in any external "higher authority"; that I am my own "authority." "Higher authority" was in quotes because C1ay used the term to describe the dictionary. God may be termed a higher authority by some; it's just not a term I would use to describe my understanding of God because it seems to imply I'm forced to bow to his authority. While I gladly give God all authority over me, it is because I recognize him as a divine loving Father who has seen fit to indwell my mind; not a stern and vengeful authority figure off in the universe somewhere.

 

You asked what purpose there would there be for God to "hide or remain unseen." Hopefully you can imagine— some folks actually can't— that there's a vast gulf between the experience of the truth of God, and ignorance as to the fact of God. When you even partially comprehend that a Creator of the universe is an Infinite Being— the first source and center of all things and beings— you begin to recognize that it is really quite impossible to perceive God as an infinite being with your current finite apparatus. The fact that you are not intellectually conscious of contact with the indwelling presence of God does not in the least disprove such an experience. It's exceedingly difficult for the meagerly spiritualized mind to experience marked consciousness of the presence of such divine entities to begin with, unfortunately our peculiar planetary history has exacerbated that innate difficulty many times over. But that's a couple of other threads.

 

The experience of spirit awareness and communion involves individual moral development, mental motivation, and finally spiritual experience. The realization of achievement is mainly limited to the realms of soul consciousness; but the proofs of that are in the manifestation of the "fruits of the spirit" in the lives of the individual.

 

 

You also said you used to be an Athiest. What made you change your mind?

The short answer: personal religious experience. True religion isn't a membership in a particular church or sect, or blind faith in the creeds and beliefs of others. It is a sublime and profound conviction in the soul— which compellingly admonished me that it would be wrong for me not to believe in those realities which constitute my highest ethical and moral concepts, my highest interpretation of life's greatest values— truth, beauty, and goodness— and the universe's deepest realities. Bottom line, it's simply the experience of yielding intellectual loyalty to my highest evolving understanding of spiritual consciousness.

 

You asked "what would be the personality of this God," referring to the God of various holy books. I have to agree with you that those books could not afford me an image of God that made the least bit of sense to me. But there are plenty of other books, and people, who do provide pieces of the vast and complicated puzzle that is life and reality. The personality of the God I've come to know is one of infinite qualities; omnipotent; infinite in attributes; unlimited in power; omniscient; limitless. But most importantly, he is love.

 

Thanks for your questions and welcome to these forums; the resident atheists seem to really enjoy themselves. :)

 

—Saitia

[someguy]

Saitia,

I apologize for the prior misspelling. Quite cute, your retort. Let me say that you write quite elegantlly and I appreciate your quick wit. I can quite confidently say that I have never seen someone intelligently defend faith or spirituality this well. However, I must disagree with your position for several reasons.

1. Hopefully you can imagine— some folks actually can't— that there's a vast gulf between the experience of the truth of God, and ignorance as to the fact of God.

 

This is to say that God exists as fact. I believe that there has never been any empirical evidence to support such a statement. If there were such evidence this forum and all discussion of God would be moot. There remains no ground to state something as fact which can not be proven to be such. If you choose to believe in God, you do so from faith. Faith can not be fact, if it becomes fact it ceases to be faith. One could equally uphold a fact that God does not exist and would have the same footing and as mentioned earlier this to would be an act of faith.

 

2. The short answer: personal religious experience.

 

This is a big part of the reason I do not believe. How can one persons personal religous experience cross to another person? Many hold that you must experience it for yourself before you can believe and that you must spend a great deal of time to get to this realization. Why? What does it mean that it takes a long time and a large amount of conditioning for you to believe in something? To me this means you have to be brainwashed. (for lack of a better word). When something is true and real it is generally simple. You don't see people denying the existence of apples or cats. Even abstarct things can be understood fairly simply, like air and atoms. This is not to say that anything can be understood fully, just that these things do not require some special attitude or spiritual mindset. It is accessible to anyone who cares to listen.

 

3. The personality of the God I've come to know is one of infinite qualities; omnipotent; infinite in attributes; unlimited in power; omniscient; limitless. But most importantly, he is love.

 

If god is infinite, he would have no begining, therefore it is possible for things to have no begining. This is a chief reason why people belive in God, because this universe had to begin. This is another big issue for me. Why does the universe have to have a begining? Why does it have to be some infinite being who created it? We see many things created by none infinite beings everyday. Einstien gave us many great ideas and then died. Why could God not have died after creating things and that is why we don't see him/her? Is this not likely from what we experience? Someone builds a farm, grows crops, raises sheep and then dies. If the crops go on and the sheep keep multiplying is that being necessary? This is one way to view the world as it is. God died a very long time ago.

 

4. God may be termed a higher authority by some; it's just not a term I would use to describe my understanding of God because it seems to imply I'm forced to bow to his authority. While I gladly give God all authority over me, it is because I recognize him as a divine loving Father who has seen fit to indwell my mind; not a stern and vengeful authority figure off in the universe somewhere.

 

Why is God necessary? If you want spirituallity great, that does not require an omniscient infinte being to give yourself over to. Why give yourself over to any "authority"? Why not hold yourself as the highest authority even if there is a God? Would God care? Not if he is love. If God exists and is this special lovey kind of dude, he/she/it should not hold itself higher than you. Why should anyone submit to anyone else? Unless this is the vengeful God who smites the wicked nonbelievers.

 

Here are more reasons for my non-belief in God or for being an Athiest. The problem that I have had for a great deal of my life is too understand why people believe in God as a being. I have seen many requests for the answer to this question but not many answers. I implore anyone to answer why God has to be a being? I can buy that God is in everything, maybe that he is energy itself, but not that he/she/it exists entirely of itself. This is what an Athiest is, in my not so humble opinion.

Sum Guy

[Boerseun]

Humans are tribal animals, with a dominance hierarchy genetically built into us. That's why dogs plug in so easily into human families. The whole 'Alpha-male' thing is present, with a pack structure and dominance setup that dogs can relate to.

 

However, in any dominance hierarchy, it is normal for the young males to eventually start challenging the authority dished out from above. This leads to endless fights and squabbles amongst the males as the new generations grow up and attempts to take over from the old. This has lead to countless evolutionary inventions such as horns, antlers, manes, etc. 'God' is our horns in these fights.

 

So - in human society, authority came from the elders, old men with flowing beards who in their wisdom led human society from the caves to skyscrapers. But how to protect their authority in the face of a continuous stream of youngsters, upstarts who would challenge these frail old men for their positions? Easy. You tell them that your authority is given to you by an even older, an even wiser man (this is important, the common perception of the sexual identity of God being male. We come from a male-dominated past, and hence it's only natural that our highest authority would also be male).

 

You start assigning magical attributes to this entity, this old, wise, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being. And voila: The upstarts won't challenge you no more.

 

Whether the above is true or not is anybody's guess, but I do think that there might be some elements of truth to this.

 

Whatever the case might be, this autocratic authority system with this invisible 'God' at the helm, did stabilise society, and created a system from which national governments could spring to take over the role of the 'source' of authority in day-to-day life. Which kinda makes the 'God'-concept redundant.

 

Be that as it may, God in all his/her/its manifestations, is wholly an invention of Man.

 

Like the guy said - The essence of God is no mystery, God was created by Man. The real mystery here is the essence of Man.

[ughaibu]

It's an interesting idea but there are some problems. Alpha-male status is associated with increased sexual opportunity, if the elders introduced an aged anthropomorphic god as a strategy to remain in the sexual market, I would expect a god whose sexual prowess extended beyond one encounter which left his lover maintaining her virginity. If we consider gods better known for their sexual exploits, Visnu and Zeus come to mind, they dont share the image of an aged and bearded old man, I picture Visnu around 30 and Zeus in his mid-40s. I wonder what the origin of the bearded old man figure for the christian god is(?)

[InfiniteNow]

Boerseun,

 

I've actually expressed a relatively similar view here:

http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/5292-creationism-logical-illogical-21.html?#post95137

(post #206)

 

 

Cheers. :cup:

[Eclogite]

It's an interesting idea but there are some problems. Alpha-male status is associated with increased sexual opportunity,

Hence the behaviour, interests and amusements of the Greek gods.:cup:

[Saitia]

Saitia,

I apologize for the prior misspelling. Quite cute, your retort.

Not necessary; I hadn't connected the two; I was just being "cute."

It's an affliction that is not always appreciated,

but the drugs and therapy have helped.:cry:

 

 

Let me say that you write quite elegantlly and I appreciate your quick wit.

It usually takes one to know one; and thank you for noticing my writing; that puts you in the rarified company of my wife and, um, her.

 

 

 

I can quite confidently say that I have never seen someone intelligently defend faith or spirituality this well.

 

You're too kind. (Pay attention everyone :hihi:) Perhaps because I'm not "defend[ing]" faith or spirituality at all; I'm simply trying to explain the truth that has freed me, the best way I know. I'm going to apologize here for the length of this post; but dude— you asked a LOT of good Questions.

 

 

 

 

However, I must disagree with your position for several reasons.

1. Hopefully you can imagine— some folks actually can't— that there's a vast gulf between the experience of the truth of God, and ignorance as to the fact of God.

 

This is to say that God exists as fact. I believe that there has never been any empirical evidence to support such a statement. If there were such evidence this forum and all discussion of God would be moot. There remains no ground to state something as fact which can not be proven to be such.

 

God, being the first source of all things, is the first truth, and the last fact; therefore all truth takes origin in him, while all facts exist relative to him. Several theists, including me, have already covered the idea of separate realms, the material and the spiritual and the fact that the material can't be used in evaluating the reality of the spiritual. Perhaps you can find the time to visit earlier posts; the interface here makes that pretty easy. But consider this statement made in another thread by Mother Engine:

 

" . . .no matter how ridiculous the idea of god or a great spirit may seem there is simply no way to empirically test such things. so dismissal [of] faith in god is opinion with a lack of evidence which in turn is prejudice, not science." Thank you, Mother E.

 

To understand the "fact" of God then, we must explore the fact of the universe; science is, of course, that very exploration. It's surprising to me how misunderstood the relationship of truth and fact is. God is absolute truth, and all truth takes origin in him.* But when truth becomes allied with fact, it is conditioned by time and space; that makes all truth discovered in time and space relative and partial. I think you realize this, because you understand that belief can always evolve in the face of new evidence.

 

*I've fallen away from the habit of constantly saying "in my opinion"; obviously everything I say is my opinion, but it can sound like pontification without those occasional little provisos. :cup: )

 

 

If you choose to believe in God, you do so from faith. Faith can not be fact, if it becomes fact it ceases to be faith.

 

Faith can reveal fact— the fact that God is love; or any other fact of the spiritual world discovered through living faith. But until you are in the presence of those circumstances that verify a fact learned through faith is true reality, faith is still faith and still necessary to understanding.

 

2. The short answer: personal religious experience.

This is a big part of the reason I do not believe. How can one persons personal religous experience cross to another person?

 

Through unselfish service. Once you recognize the Fatherhood of God, you quickly come to recognize its corollary truth, the brotherhood of mankind. If my wife wouldn't leave me, I could hold forth here until my personal hygiene suffered and it wouldn't change a thing in most people's thinking; but living faith essentially means loving others; i.e., bearing the fruits of the spirit in your daily life. You may know them: Loving service; unselfish devotion; courageous loyalty; sincere fairness; enlightened honesty; undying hope; confiding trust; merciful ministry; unfailing goodness; forgiving tolerance; and enduring peace. There are others; I'm still working on these. :cup:

 

 

Many hold that you must experience it for yourself before you can believe and that you must spend a great deal of time to get to this realization. Why? What does it mean that it takes a long time and a large amount of conditioning for you to believe in something? To me this means you have to be brainwashed. (for lack of a better word).

 

Consider a few things. How are you able to judge anything as true or real? You are a creature of experience. You— Some Guy— ultimately decide what is true or real for you; you are accountable for your own decisions, thus you are the architect of your own destiny. So how long is a "long time" to discover truth? Your time is your own to do with as you will; no one forces you (or should be allowed to) to discover the nature of reality. Your free will power of choice is absolute.

 

Recall the exhortation by Jesus, "Knock and it shall be opened to you." Have you really knocked? The man made it amazingly simple; he said the two truths of first import are: the attainment of salvation by faith, and faith alone— associated with the attainment of human liberty through the sincere recognition of truth: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

 

 

When something is true and real it is generally simple. You don't see people denying the existence of apples or cats. Even abstarct things can be understood fairly simply, like air and atoms. This is not to say that anything can be understood fully, just that these things do not require some special attitude or spiritual mindset. It is accessible to anyone who cares to listen.

 

This gets back into the distinction between truth and fact that is somewhat difficult to explain, and perhaps to atheists in particular, who generally deny they have any sort of spirit within them. Essentially I have said that truth is always an experience of the soul, while fact is an experience of the intellect.

 

Truth allied with fact does not make it simple to understand, or strictly an intellectual experience. For example, scientific analysis doesn't always reveal what a person or a thing can do. Water is commonly used to put out fire; that water puts out fire is a fact of everyday experience, but no analysis of water would ever disclose such a property. Analysis shows that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen; further investigation reveals that oxygen is the real supporter of combustion, and that hydrogen will also freely burn. Science is indispensable to the intelligent discussion of the material aspects of the universe, but such knowledge is not necessarily a part of the higher realization of truth, or of the personal appreciation of spiritual realities.

 

3. The personality of the God I've come to know is one of infinite qualities; omnipotent; infinite in attributes; unlimited in power; omniscient; limitless. But most importantly, he is love.

 

If god is infinite, he would have no begining, therefore it is possible for things to have no begining. This is a chief reason why people belive in God, because this universe had to begin. This is another big issue for me. Why does the universe have to have a begining?

It doesn't. As finite creatures, everything we know has a beginning and an end. We logically think the universe had to begin as well. But some thinkers have understood the universe can be eternal in nature, without a beginning or end.

 

Without getting too far into it, imagine that God, to be a truly unqualified infinite being, must have experienced the finite; the finite is logically inherent in the infinite. The way he has chosen to liberate himself from apparent finite limitation is through the creature experience of the finite. In experiencing trillions of finite lives which eventually culminate in a new expression of deity understanding, he finds liberation from the constraints of the finite. We happen to find ourselves in the finite age of the universe, living a finite existence, and we can learn that the Infinite shares in our experience, and we can share in his: his "gift" for sharing our individual unique experience of the finite is eternal life— as a spiritual son of an infinite Creator. But even such a great gift is never forced on a single living creature; deal or no deal, the choice is always yours.

 

Why does it have to be some infinite being who created it?

Why could God not have died after creating things and that is why we don't see him/her?

Is this not likely from what we experience?

Why is God necessary?

Why give yourself over to any "authority"?

Why not hold yourself as the highest authority even if there is a God?

Would God care? Not if he is love. If God exists and is this special lovey kind of dude, he/she/it should not hold itself higher than you.

Why should anyone submit to anyone else? Unless this is the vengeful God who smites the wicked nonbelievers.

 

I think I have answered most of these questions indirectly in other responses; if you can't extrapolate my answer to your satisfaction let's have another go at it. I will add that when a religionist chooses to do God's will and not his own, it's not a submission to authority; it is not a surrender of will. It is a consecration of will, an expansion of will, a glorification of will, a perfecting of will. Peace in this life, survival in death, perfection in the next life, service in eternity— all these are achieved (in spirit) now when the creature personality consents— chooses— to subject the creature will to the Father's will. And our cooperation with the Indwelling Spirit of God never involves self-torture, mock piety, or hypocritical and ostentatious self-abasement. The ideal life with God is one of loving service; not an existence of fearful apprehension.

 

The problem that I have had for a great deal of my life is too understand why people believe in God as a being. I have seen many requests for the answer to this question but not many answers. I implore anyone to answer why God has to be a being? I can buy that God is in everything, maybe that he is energy itself, but not that he/she/it exists entirely of itself.

 

The difficulty in answering the question is not just because of the impossibility of the finite creature to fully comprehend an infinite being, but also because each individual's answer must per force be different by virtue of their own unique personality; thus no two people can similarly interpret the leadings of the spirit of divinity which lives within their minds, and this diversity of religious experience is demonstrated by the thousands of different definitions of religion. But this unique personal experience is precisely the reason our religious experience matters to an infinite God; it is designed to be unique and individual; thus each human being stands equally before God with the same divine opportunity to embrace eternal life; or not.

 

Very few people understand the true significance of their own unique personality. We say blithely, there's no one quite like "Some Guy. He's "one in a million.":) But it's much more profound than that; you're really without duplicate in infinity; there has never been, nor will there ever be, a personal being exactly like you; personality is absolutely unique. Seriously— can you imagine having a couple dozen Boerseuns running loose on this forum? :star:

But it is the love of God that so strikingly portrays the value of each one of us to him; we each matter to God, because there is no one else in a vast universe quite like us.

 

It might also be helpful in thinking about God as a "being"— a personality— to divest the idea of corporeality. A material body is not indispensable to personality in either man or God. The "corporeality error" shows up in both extremes of human philosophy: In materialism, since man loses his body at death, he ceases to exist as a personality; in pantheism, since God has no body, he is not a person.

 

But once you begin to appreciate just what human personality is, you come to know that God must be very much more than the human conception of personality; you equally well know that he cannot possibly be anything less.

 

Thanks again for your provocative questions, and have a thoughtful weekend. :hihi:

 

—Saitia

[Saitia]

Saitia,

 

I can appreciate your passion, but honestly what you describe above is known as a self-reinforcing delusion. This is not intended as an attack on you or your character, but it is worth noting that claiming it to be true without support is not only silly, but mistaken.

 

Belief and faith are fine if you have them. But you will be cutting off your own feet from under you the moment you try to tell someone else that this is something you "know" with absolutely any degree of certainty.

:

Hey Now,

 

Your confidence in what you've been taught is admirable, really, but you are operating on the assumption that personal religious experience is "without support," which tells me you have no faith experience to speak of. (If you have, you're calling it something else.) I've read enough of your posts to know you're astute enough not to confound the proofs of the material world with the proofs of the spiritual world; must be your beliefs that are hosing things up. :hihi:

 

When such pronouncements come from individuals who freely admit to not having any faith experience, it's also a de facto admission they cannot know what is real in my consciousness and what is not. (For those of you keeping score at home, that sort of prejudgment is the very definition of prejudice; making judgments without the requisite experience.) How do you really know that I don't "know"? :naughty: ;)

 

Sure, skepticism can always challenge anyone's theology, but confidence in the dependability of personal experience affirms the truth of belief which has grown into faith. An individual becomes God-knowing only by faith, through personal experience. The intellectual earmark of religion is certainty; the philosophical characteristic is consistency; and the social fruits are love and service.

 

Cheers,:hihi:

—Saitia

[Eclogite]

When such pronouncements come from individuals who freely admit to not having any faith experience, it's also a de facto admission they cannot know what is real in my consciousness and what is not.

I'll let others deconstruct your use of strawman tactics in this last post, and your consistent use of form over substance. I am interested only in the above mis-statement.

 

Nothing is real in your consciousness or in any one's consciousness. Consciousness is perception. Perception is idealistic. Ideals are conceptual. Concepts are not real. Your statement is flawed and thus false.

[InfiniteNow]

Your confidence in what you've been taught is admirable, really, but you are operating on the assumption that personal religious experience is "without support,"

<...>

When such pronouncements come from individuals who freely admit to not having any faith experience, it's also a de facto admission they cannot know what is real in my consciousness and what is not.

<...>

How

do

you

really know

that I don't "know"?

I could support the experience and the awareness using all manner of psychology and research, however, it is the topic of experience which is not supportable. I will restate my previous that, the moment you speak with any level of certainty, you are immediately wrong. This is especially so with concepts of religion, supernatural, and dieties. You pretty much supported this position yourself, stating that it's a matter of faith not science. However, you words imply certainty. Maybe I am reading them incorrectly. There are perceptual filters and miscommunicatoins all of the time. However, the only thing that anyone can know with certainty is that there is no such thing as certainty. Seemingly oxymoronic, but true.

 

 

An individual becomes God-knowing only by faith, through personal experience. The intellectual earmark of religion is certainty; the philosophical characteristic is consistency; and the social fruits are love and service.

This sounds to me like it was a thought pattern handed to you by someone else (i.e. something that you were taught), but I respect your belief all the same.

 

 

Cheers to you too. :hihi:

[Boerseun]

Hey Now,

 

Your confidence in what you've been taught is admirable, really, but you are operating on the assumption that personal religious experience is "without support," which tells me you have no faith experience to speak of. (If you have, you're calling it something else.) I've read enough of your posts to know you're astute enough not to confound the proofs of the material world with the proofs of the spiritual world; must be your beliefs that are hosing things up. :hihi:

 

When such pronouncements come from individuals who freely admit to not having any faith experience, it's also a de facto admission they cannot know what is real in my consciousness and what is not. (For those of you keeping score at home, that sort of prejudgment is the very definition of prejudice; making judgments without the requisite experience.) How do you really know that I don't "know"? :naughty: ;)

 

Sure, skepticism can always challenge anyone's theology, but confidence in the dependability of personal experience affirms the truth of belief which has grown into faith. An individual becomes God-knowing only by faith, through personal experience. The intellectual earmark of religion is certainty; the philosophical characteristic is consistency; and the social fruits are love and service.

 

Cheers,:hihi:

—Saitia

Saitia:

 

I've quoted your whole post here.

 

Do me a favour, and read it again.

 

You sure of this?

[Panjandrum]

His position is consistent, I think. It is how delusional beliefs are always expressed, and is an excellent example of why it is impossible to talk a schizophrenic out of his fanatsies. Not that Im suggesting Saitia is sz, merely that in my opinion all delusions are equally irrefutable.

[Abstruce]

Yeah, why? Because I don't accept purported supernatural claims as fact without proof? That's the bottom line about religion isn't it, accepting the claim of a supernatural entity without proof? That someone wants to offer the Urantia book or the bible as evidence to support such claims is really providing no evidence at all. Evidence can be tested, these items cannot.

 

Yes I agree, "Reality" can be tested.

 

Similar to a "lie" and the "truth", for they are one and the same.

[Saitia]

Hi Ecly,

 

Nothing is real in your consciousness or in any one's consciousness. Consciousness is perception. Perception is idealistic. Ideals are conceptual. Concepts are not real. Your statement is flawed and thus false.

Perhaps there's some reliable empirical test for consciousness that's been developed recently that I have not heard of. If not, we can set aside your conclusions about consciousness as unsupported opinion, can't we?

But if you really believe anything you say above, then isn't your statement per force every bit as "flawed and thus false" as mine supposedly are? But I am puzzled; if no one can be certain about anything but uncertainty, what is the point of philosophizing?:singer: