You claim that God does not exist, part 2.

This is simply the god of the gaps. Any void in knowledge you have to fill. It makes you uncomfortable. God to the rescue.

 

Because everything that has a cause for being is made of already existing materials. Why would our experience of these things have any relevance to the Universe's existence?

- - - Updated - - -

No idea.

 

"11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

There is the explanation of the already existing materials.

 

Well thanks for the input but until you are elected King of the Atheists I will stick to my guns.
Lots of atheists, here and in other settings, have told me in no uncertain terms that God is an absolute fable, fairy tale, impossibility, absurdity, etc.

You did as much yourself when you compared the idea of God to a child's view of Santa Claus. So nice try but you really can't have it both ways.

The "evidence" for God has always been all around us and you likely will not find God under a microscope. You just have to ask yourself, "If not God, then what?" Nothing else accounts for what God must necessarily account for though your ego may not allow you to admit this.

 

I can have it both ways as I have attacked those same people.
"I don't know" is an honest response, without an "I can't imagine".

 

The nails, for instance, that hold that chair together came from what?

"Where does iron come from? According to astrophysicists, iron, like all other heavy elements, is created in the center of massive stars, and is expelled into space once these stars explode as supernovae at the end of their lives. The material then mixes with the interstellar matter and may form new stars and planetary systems. Our solar system was formed after several generations of stars and therefore contains enough heavy elements like iron, oxygen etc. to form Earth-like planets and to sustain life. Prof. Günther Hasinger and Dr. Stefanie Komossa of the Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik in Germany and Dr. Norbert Schartel of the European Space Agency ESA in Spain made a surprising discovery: spectral observations carried out with the X-ray observatory XMM-Newton showed that the young quasar APM 08279+5255 contains a three times larger iron fraction than our own Solar System which is much older. We observe the quasar at a time when the Universe had an age of only about 1.5 billion years; in contrast, our sun was formed 9 billion years after the Big Bang. This is significant in that the center of this young quasar already contains a larger fraction of iron than our much older solar system. Either there is a previously unknown, much more efficient way of producing iron, or, at the time when the quasar emitted its light the universe was already older than expected" http://www2011.mpe.mpg.de/Highlights/pr20020708.html

So iron, essentially, comes from the stars. And who or what created the stars? I posit it's God (because what else could) unless you have a better explanation. And since I haven't heard it I doubt you do.

Again I posit God for the above reasons.

 

your mythology is fable. god probably is also. you're so stuck in binary thinking you cant envisage a worldview which doesnt have all the answers - and you're applying binary 'rules' to those who exist happily with this uncertainty.

when considering the universe, or the world around me, god is not on the radar. I know you've been taught that this position is defiant and ego centred, but you were taught that for a reason. it keeps you from questioning authority. iif you consider which takes more ego - acceptance of your own unimportance and mortality, or jnsistence on special privelege and immortality, you'll see how you've been misled.

 

If you are one of the atheists that can reject God without ridiculing what you do not understand then I respect your opinion (though I disagree with it).
I don't know is the response of an agnostic, in my view and I respect that for it's honesty.

I'm tempted to call myself an agnostic but as absurd as the idea of an all powerful force behind creation may be (to some) I still can't account for creation without the explanation that God provides. So I'm not (agnostic).

 

Talking about mythology... what about Plato and Aristotle who were promoters of the Socrates myth? Oh Yeah... after that promotion, they also started that other mess called logic...


I would say that they hoodwinked many millions of people since their time.

 

Agnostic.
Even Mitt Ryan is an agnostic.
Believer or non, I don't see how anyone can't be.

 

You are an agnostic as you don't think you can know that god exists. You simply believe it to be true.
That's all agnostic means.

 

My belief in God is not based on Christianity, if that's what you are thinking (though I'm perfectly happy with most of Christianity).

And I wouldn't call accepting God because God accounts for everything around me (as nothing else does) "having all the answers".
It actually accounts for very little except the major issue of how everything got here. If I woke up one morning in an empty house in the middle of a forest
I would not be as concerned with who built the house as how I got there and why.

If expressed defiantly and with venom I certainly consider it thusly.

I'm not sure how being exactly like most of humanity (in a belief in God) grants me special privilege.
But whatever pleases you. Your opinions do me no harm as far as I can see.

 

But I do think I can know that God exists, as I do believe that God exists.
I can know it because it seems reasonable to assume God is the only being capable of creation that we see all around us.

 

Does that mean you KNOW?
Seems like a weak definition of the word.
All agnosticism means is it is not possible to know either way.
How could we?

 

Not at all. I don't have to see the fire to KNOW that a blackened, smoldering house caught fire.

By reason. I'll say again that nothing else could account for creation but a creator.

 

You have seen houses burn before. Doesn't work as an analogy.

 

Show "proof" of your claim.

 

Doesn't work for you, perhaps. The idea that you can't know something unless you see it for yourself is absurd.

 

I would be willing to bet that neither of them can prove that your belief is in error or is false.

 

Your best before was "it seems reasonable to assume...".
That's a long way from "I know".
You are an agnostic, but for some reason the term makes you nervous or insecure.
It shouldn't. You can still believe.

- - - Updated - - -

Not trying to.

 

Of course not.
Considering what we mortals can know it's the only informed position possible.

 

He and I discussed it. He categorically stated it was impossible to know whether or not there is a god, that it completely depended on faith.
He has lots of it.

 

You seem inexplicably hung up on semantics. If it seems reasonable to assume that a blackened, smoking building was set on fire (it does) then I know it was set on fire.

I have reasoned out God's existence. Therefore I know God exists.
I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

 

No he didn't. That is another example of your distorted interpretations of what people say.

Ask him if he doubts the existence of God.

 

He said it verbatim.