Confirmation Bias; Why Atheists cant see the Evidence for God

[Hollie]

As I've said, I think gods are real. But if religions want their gods to thrive, they need to start making more believable claims about what they are and what they can do.

The history of religious belief has been revising the many models of gods as humanity has evolved. Religious belief has been forced to account for the natural world as thunder, lightning, earthquakes, etc., etc., have been taken away as being "acts of the gods". Adding whatever one wishes to make the tales and fables more palatable is an illustration of the problem with the approach to belief that many people make. Believers will sweep aside the absurdities of biblical tales and fables in favor of believing in what makes them feel good. Believers prefer the feel-good -- even if it's untrue -- rather than the truth, which may be uncomfortable.

My comments are not a criticism of your approach as they are an attempt to explore this for people who are reading it and not clear on how many theists operate. What is evident is the believers need and desire for there to be gods. Gods will calm an emotional requirement to have an explanation for circumstances and events that are out of human control.

What is also evident are the precise human-based attributes, needs, desires and requirements that believers assign to their gods.

 

[dblack]

My comments are not a criticism of your approach as they are an attempt to explore this for people who are reading it and not clear on how many theists operate. What is evident is the believers need and desire for there to be gods. Gods will calm an emotional requirement to have an explanation for circumstances and events that are out of human control.

What is also evident are the precise human-based attributes, needs, desires and requirements that believers assign to their gods.

Re: the bolded portion - this seems to me strong evidence for the notion that gods are natural components of human community and consciousness.

Please understand, when I say gods are real, I mean that literally. It's not an appeal to mystical mumbo-jumbo and I reject the very concept of the 'supernatural'. My idea (and of course it's not mine - more borrowed from several different sources) is that gods are a kind of communal consciousness, that likely preceded individual consciousness in the evolution of human intelligence; a combination of instinct and intelligence that facilitated cooperation within a group. It kept us all on the same page as we struggled to survive. I think that humans first became aware of themselves as a group before individual identity was established, and that sense of group identity, in particular the construct that fulfills it, is god.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That the universe exists doesn't prove a God does.

Sure it does. It proves that a Creator initiated it and the flow of time within it.

Why do you think there had to be a Creator?

Because of the nature of eternal objects. The Creative Force that 'decided' to bring the universe into existence is intelligent, probably, but even if that is not established, the Creative Force is certainly infinite and most of the infinite things about Him/It are outside the flow of time, an Eternal Creative Force. He doesn't make decisions within that non-time environment, it is a steady and constant expression of predetermined will that only acts on realized conditions being set to act when the criteria is met. That decision making process is necessary, IMO, and establishes the Creative Force as a Creator. If their is no intelligence then their is no 'decision' outside the flow of time to create the universe or its time-space equivalent that preceded it. Since time cannot be eternal, there is not room for random events to kick things off as their is no time dimension to allow for random events.

So say the criteria for creating a new universe is A, B and W; it isn't considered and evaluated as a criteria, it has already been decided beforehand. The Creative Force simply acts at that moment the criteria are met, whether that is purely physical, moral or some combination of those factors and things we do not yet even comprehend exist. When A is true, B is true and W is false, BINGO a universe is brought into being almost automatically.

But the existence of this predetermined criteria (and other criteria) point to intelligence at some point that has to be prior to the initiation of the flow of time, so it too must be eternal. The interaction of the Eternal intelligence with the flow of time introduces an apparent decision making process such as when the Creator responds to His Creation. But the 'decision' was already made and that criteria has always existed. Application to new situations (physical or moral) is merely a formality that interfaces with the flow of time and resembles a decision that we would make. It would seem that intelligent parts of this creation can set flags that clear the Creator to interact, but what they are is not completely known.

But I am veering into religion or theological speculation (but not fantasy, lol) and I am not as well read on that subject as I would like to be. I hate theological lexicon; it is so dry and antiquated. They really need to modernize the language of that field, IMO and cross pollinate with the latest science and mathematics.

But that is the quick answer; the Creator is totally unlike any polytheistic notion of a godling and completely laughable when atheists make the comparison.

What "nature of eternal objects". What objects are eternal? The ones you're too befuddled to identify?

What "Creative Force"? Identify this "creative force"? Or, are you too befuddled to do so?

Lol, it seems plain to me, but the 'nature of eternal objects' is that they are not changing or acting as their is no flow of time. They are a constant steady state of being. They must also be of infinite magnitude or the mere possibility of some process causing them to lose enough energy to cause them to stop esisting would mean that they stop existing. Eternal objects must be omnipotent.

What objects are eternal? We don't know how many there are, but the Creator or Creative Force would be two concepts of what could exist prior to the initiation of time. The difference between a Creator vrs a Creative Force is that the latter does not necessarily have intelligence, though certainly it would in actuality for various reasons.

And I am hardly befuddled simply because you cant read the damned post, nit wit.

So, as we get past your stuttering and mumbling, we're left with you being too befuddled to offer an explanation for nonsensical metaphysics you rattled on about.

Talk about stumbling, mumbling and being befuddled you have not yet presented a single counter fact, counter argument or analysis that would present anything contrary to what I have stated. And I have had numerous discussions with people who know what they are talking about, so I know I got my shit together, and you slander wont work with me, idiot.

You are trolling and wasting everybody's time that disagrees with you.

Welcome to my ignore list as I don't have time for morons like you.

 

[Hollie]

That the universe exists doesn't prove a God does.

Sure it does. It proves that a Creator initiated it and the flow of time within it.

Why do you think there had to be a Creator?

Because of the nature of eternal objects. The Creative Force that 'decided' to bring the universe into existence is intelligent, probably, but even if that is not established, the Creative Force is certainly infinite and most of the infinite things about Him/It are outside the flow of time, an Eternal Creative Force. He doesn't make decisions within that non-time environment, it is a steady and constant expression of predetermined will that only acts on realized conditions being set to act when the criteria is met. That decision making process is necessary, IMO, and establishes the Creative Force as a Creator. If their is no intelligence then their is no 'decision' outside the flow of time to create the universe or its time-space equivalent that preceded it. Since time cannot be eternal, there is not room for random events to kick things off as their is no time dimension to allow for random events.

So say the criteria for creating a new universe is A, B and W; it isn't considered and evaluated as a criteria, it has already been decided beforehand. The Creative Force simply acts at that moment the criteria are met, whether that is purely physical, moral or some combination of those factors and things we do not yet even comprehend exist. When A is true, B is true and W is false, BINGO a universe is brought into being almost automatically.

But the existence of this predetermined criteria (and other criteria) point to intelligence at some point that has to be prior to the initiation of the flow of time, so it too must be eternal. The interaction of the Eternal intelligence with the flow of time introduces an apparent decision making process such as when the Creator responds to His Creation. But the 'decision' was already made and that criteria has always existed. Application to new situations (physical or moral) is merely a formality that interfaces with the flow of time and resembles a decision that we would make. It would seem that intelligent parts of this creation can set flags that clear the Creator to interact, but what they are is not completely known.

But I am veering into religion or theological speculation (but not fantasy, lol) and I am not as well read on that subject as I would like to be. I hate theological lexicon; it is so dry and antiquated. They really need to modernize the language of that field, IMO and cross pollinate with the latest science and mathematics.

But that is the quick answer; the Creator is totally unlike any polytheistic notion of a godling and completely laughable when atheists make the comparison.

What "nature of eternal objects". What objects are eternal? The ones you're too befuddled to identify?

What "Creative Force"? Identify this "creative force"? Or, are you too befuddled to do so?

Lol, it seems plain to me, but the 'nature of eternal objects' is that they are not changing or acting as their is no flow of time. They are a constant steady state of being. They must also be of infinite magnitude or the mere possibility of some process causing them to lose enough energy to cause them to stop esisting would mean that they stop existing. Eternal objects must be omnipotent.

What objects are eternal? We don't know how many there are, but the Creator or Creative Force would be two concepts of what could exist prior to the initiation of time. The difference between a Creator vrs a Creative Force is that the latter does not necessarily have intelligence, though certainly it would in actuality for various reasons.

And I am hardly befuddled simply because you cant read the damned post, nit wit.

So, as we get past your stuttering and mumbling, we're left with you being too befuddled to offer an explanation for nonsensical metaphysics you rattled on about.

Talk about stumbling, mumbling and being befuddled you have not yet presented a single counter fact, counter argument or analysis that would present anything contrary to what I have stated. And I have had numerous discussions with people who know what they are talking about, so I know I got my shit together, and you slander wont work with me, idiot.

You are trolling and wasting everybody's time that disagrees with you.

Welcome to my ignore list as I don't have time for morons like you.

Run for cover if you wish, but that won't bolster your shallow claims. You offered nothing but claims to undefined and hollow terms such as "nature of eternal objects" and some imagine "Creative Force" you have invented.

Identify this "creative force"? Or, are you too befuddled to do so?

 

[MaxGrit]

That the universe exists doesn't prove a God does.

Sure it does. It proves that a Creator initiated it and the flow of time within it.

Why do you think there had to be a Creator?

Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

 

[sealybobo]

It is hilarious to watch the news and see a President who claims the border is sealed and secure against ISIS and yet unaccompanied children can get across it. The children just don't count somehow to support the view that the border is NOT secure. The feds deny that radical Islamicist groups are the primary source for terrorism, and so a violent radical Jihadist who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood screaming 'Allah Akbar!' and who recently asked ISIS to let him be an honorary citizen of the Caliphate was not a terrorist, and the shooting just 'work place violence'.

But those are just a few glaring examples of confirmation bias, a thing where people insist on putting what they perceive into nice neat little pigeon holes defined by an ideology or inflexible philosophy.

There is an old 16th century story of three blind men who are feeling parts of an elephant, an animal that they have never seen and have no idea exists, and one feels the leg and says it is a tree, the other feels the trunk and says it is a vine, another feels the belly and says there is a bolder above him. When told that it is all one great big huge animal they laugh and say the narrator is deluded.

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

Accepting something on faith does not demonstrate an open mind just one willing to follow the whims and beliefs of others.

Just because we may not know the origin of something does not necessarily mean a supreme being is responsible. it could be that we are simply incapable of understanding it given out limited sensory and cognitive abilities..

I consider myself an agnostic with atheist leanings but if I saw proof with my own eyes that there was a supreme being I would be compelled to believe. Some of you are willing to believe without such proof but I am not wired that way

Faith alone is sufficient to please God, otherwise the stupid would have no chance for salvation. But yes, these are people who accept their faith in a child's way, trusting those in authority around them.

But the evidence, reason and life experiences are there to lead one to believe, and if it is not so, and you honestly have found no evidence to believe in God, God does not call you to fake having faith.

For me, the strongest evidence has been the lives of believers compared to nonbelievers of similar background, the believers over all have fewer brushes with the law, fewer divorces, fewer addictions to drugs, etc. In fact AA has at its core values a belief and reliance on God that WORKS to help people beat their addiction. Compared to secular organizations, AA is way more effective in ending the plague of alcoholism in these peoples lives.

I heard a man once say that he has not seen Jesus turn water into wine, but he has seen Him act in peoples lives and turn wine into paid bills, a happy family and a peaceful contentment with life that they had never had before. I knew exactly what he meant, but my problem wasn't alcohol, and I don't want to discuss it, but yes, the power of faith is incredible, even when I didn't want it to happen to me.

Once I found a desire to know the Truth of what is Reality in my autistic obsessive way, I dug and dug and dug into the subject and I found much evidence of God's existence that previously I had attributed to circumstance or evolution. The funniest thing is to look at the design in living cells and say that it was complete chance that made them that way. Evolution was the tool God used, but He did not directly intervene. He made it the way He knew would work and let it grow on its own accord.

Using evolution to explain away the obvious design in the universe is like saying you cannot see the maker who is behind the chisel. Evolution is the chisel, but God's Hand guides it.

The fact that time must have had a beginning, that any eternal object responsible for the universe had to be infinite and have intelligence (set of all possible sets) and daily life with Christians and atheist in contrast....I have faith as much due to the absence of it in some as the presence of it in others.

But you have to make your own choices, obviously, and what may seem obvious to me might seem bewildering to a person who does not have those same experiences. Just be honest with yourself, treat the people in your life with respect/honesty/integrity and keep an open mind and watchful eye for God to get your attention,

I doubt he will fail you.

I don't buy your list of lifestyle choices as proof that god exists.

Lol, can we get a better example of confirmation bias than you reading all that and blowing it all off as 'life style choices'?

I doubt it.

But just stop it with the posturing that you are some kind of Truth seeker. You obviously are not.

Where did I ever once mention truth or seeking it?

So you admit to not having any intention of trying to grasp the Truth of these questions? So why are you here? To amuse yourself with all the Believer rubes? lolol

FYI plenty of believers drink and drug to excess so tell me how is that proof that a god exists?

It isn't, but the ratio of people with equivalent backgrounds in my experiences show huge help with dealing with issues in their lives and I am not alone on this observation, as AA using God to help people demonstrates.

And you just reiterated that not knowing something is proof of a supreme being.

It's not.

I said nothing of the sort. Show me what I said that sounds to you like 'WE do not know, therefore God exists.

We might never be able to understand the origin of the universe because we are too limited cognitively to do so that is not proof of a supreme being.

We are not too limited cognitively though your confirmation bias no doubt prefers to think that way rather than to look at the circumstantial implied answers. There is an eternal being, you just want to desperately believe ANYTHING other than the obvious.

If we are not limited cognitively then why can we not scientifically explain the origin of the universe without the magic man equation

because proving anything that is not repeatable and part of the natural flow of time and space is beyond the reach of science. It has nothing to do with any limitations of our brains or cognitive ability.

And I have never once denied the existence of a supreme being. I have merely stated that there is no proof of said being.

There is evidence for the existence of God, and I have repeatedly shared some. If you are demanding a lab tes, sorry, aint gonna happen.

I am not one to believe without proof. Faith is for followers I don't believe something merely because someone told me it was true

Bullshit. That vast majority of your life from day to day is lived, decisions made and actions taken without scientific proof for them.

Really? So if some guy approaches you in a mall parking lot and tells you the same story the bible tells, only he said Adam and Steve were the first humans and God told them and then Noel built a raft and put 2 asians, mexicans, indians, russians, europeans, indians, arabs on that raft and they were saved from a flood and then god sent jesus to talk to me and he told me I was the son of god......would you accept any of that?

So you are capable of realizing when someone is telling you a fairy tale or lying to you? Well how come you can't do that with Christianity?

And if you say you are not a Christian then you are admitting that all their wild stories are made up, fabrications or flat out lies.

So it isn't that I haven't seen enough scientific proof so much as the things theists tell me just don't add up. So I can't have faith in a story I don't believe.

Us atheists think theists who believe those stories are stupid. And I don't know what to say about people who know those are just stories but still believe. All I can say is I was one of them not too long ago. I finally woke up.

Because Christianity is not a fairy tale, dude.

You start with that conclusion then everything supports it that you see; bias conformation.

Do you really believe Mary was a virgin? REALLY??? LOL.

Yes, I know it. Had she not been a virgin, the laws and customs of her time would have had her stoned to death for adultery. If you had any actual knowledge of the time you would know that. Joseph knew what happened and so he protected Mary despite the damage to his honor she caused him.

But confirmation bias just eats your ass up.

This is why it's the stupidest god damn story ever told. You are absolutely correct. Had a wife 2015 years ago told her husband that god impregnated her, he would have killed her right then and there. No man back then or today would believe that bullshit. God himself would have to come tell him that he knocked up his wife.

How come God didn't pick an unmarried woman? Why did he have to fuck Joseph's wife? Pervert.

And for you to say you KNOW IT? Makes you a fucking gullible idiot.

 

[sealybobo]

That the universe exists doesn't prove a God does.

Sure it does. It proves that a Creator initiated it and the flow of time within it.

Why do you think there had to be a Creator?

Because of the nature of eternal objects. The Creative Force that 'decided' to bring the universe into existence is intelligent, probably, but even if that is not established, the Creative Force is certainly infinite and most of the infinite things about Him/It are outside the flow of time, an Eternal Creative Force. He doesn't make decisions within that non-time environment, it is a steady and constant expression of predetermined will that only acts on realized conditions being set to act when the criteria is met. That decision making process is necessary, IMO, and establishes the Creative Force as a Creator. If their is no intelligence then their is no 'decision' outside the flow of time to create the universe or its time-space equivalent that preceded it. Since time cannot be eternal, there is not room for random events to kick things off as their is no time dimension to allow for random events.

So say the criteria for creating a new universe is A, B and W; it isn't considered and evaluated as a criteria, it has already been decided beforehand. The Creative Force simply acts at that moment the criteria are met, whether that is purely physical, moral or some combination of those factors and things we do not yet even comprehend exist. When A is true, B is true and W is false, BINGO a universe is brought into being almost automatically.

But the existence of this predetermined criteria (and other criteria) point to intelligence at some point that has to be prior to the initiation of the flow of time, so it too must be eternal. The interaction of the Eternal intelligence with the flow of time introduces an apparent decision making process such as when the Creator responds to His Creation. But the 'decision' was already made and that criteria has always existed. Application to new situations (physical or moral) is merely a formality that interfaces with the flow of time and resembles a decision that we would make. It would seem that intelligent parts of this creation can set flags that clear the Creator to interact, but what they are is not completely known.

But I am veering into religion or theological speculation (but not fantasy, lol) and I am not as well read on that subject as I would like to be. I hate theological lexicon; it is so dry and antiquated. They really need to modernize the language of that field, IMO and cross pollinate with the latest science and mathematics.

But that is the quick answer; the Creator is totally unlike any polytheistic notion of a godling and completely laughable when atheists make the comparison.

What "nature of eternal objects". What objects are eternal? The ones you're too befuddled to identify?

What "Creative Force"? Identify this "creative force"? Or, are you too befuddled to do so?

Lol, it seems plain to me, but the 'nature of eternal objects' is that they are not changing or acting as their is no flow of time. They are a constant steady state of being. They must also be of infinite magnitude or the mere possibility of some process causing them to lose enough energy to cause them to stop esisting would mean that they stop existing. Eternal objects must be omnipotent.

What objects are eternal? We don't know how many there are, but the Creator or Creative Force would be two concepts of what could exist prior to the initiation of time. The difference between a Creator vrs a Creative Force is that the latter does not necessarily have intelligence, though certainly it would in actuality for various reasons.

And I am hardly befuddled simply because you cant read the damned post, nit wit.

So, as we get past your stuttering and mumbling, we're left with you being too befuddled to offer an explanation for nonsensical metaphysics you rattled on about.

Talk about stumbling, mumbling and being befuddled you have not yet presented a single counter fact, counter argument or analysis that would present anything contrary to what I have stated. And I have had numerous discussions with people who know what they are talking about, so I know I got my shit together, and you slander wont work with me, idiot.

You are trolling and wasting everybody's time that disagrees with you.

Welcome to my ignore list as I don't have time for morons like you.

Run for cover if you wish, but that won't bolster your shallow claims. You offered nothing but claims to undefined and hollow terms such as "nature of eternal objects" and some imagine "Creative Force" you have invented.

Identify this "creative force"? Or, are you too befuddled to do so?

Yesterday I was watching a show called The Universe. I love those shows. I also find it amazing with all the stuff they explain god never enters into the conversation. No matter how much science looks or learns god never enters into it. Yesterday they were explaining the top 10 sounds in the universe. Some come from black holes, some come from the sun, some noises come from quasars, pulsars, Saturn, etc.

None of what science learns ever seems to point in the direction of a god or an intelligent designer.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is hilarious to watch the news and see a President who claims the border is sealed and secure against ISIS and yet unaccompanied children can get across it. The children just don't count somehow to support the view that the border is NOT secure. The feds deny that radical Islamicist groups are the primary source for terrorism, and so a violent radical Jihadist who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood screaming 'Allah Akbar!' and who recently asked ISIS to let him be an honorary citizen of the Caliphate was not a terrorist, and the shooting just 'work place violence'.

But those are just a few glaring examples of confirmation bias, a thing where people insist on putting what they perceive into nice neat little pigeon holes defined by an ideology or inflexible philosophy.

There is an old 16th century story of three blind men who are feeling parts of an elephant, an animal that they have never seen and have no idea exists, and one feels the leg and says it is a tree, the other feels the trunk and says it is a vine, another feels the belly and says there is a bolder above him. When told that it is all one great big huge animal they laugh and say the narrator is deluded.

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

Accepting something on faith does not demonstrate an open mind just one willing to follow the whims and beliefs of others.

Just because we may not know the origin of something does not necessarily mean a supreme being is responsible. it could be that we are simply incapable of understanding it given out limited sensory and cognitive abilities..

I consider myself an agnostic with atheist leanings but if I saw proof with my own eyes that there was a supreme being I would be compelled to believe. Some of you are willing to believe without such proof but I am not wired that way

Faith alone is sufficient to please God, otherwise the stupid would have no chance for salvation. But yes, these are people who accept their faith in a child's way, trusting those in authority around them.

But the evidence, reason and life experiences are there to lead one to believe, and if it is not so, and you honestly have found no evidence to believe in God, God does not call you to fake having faith.

For me, the strongest evidence has been the lives of believers compared to nonbelievers of similar background, the believers over all have fewer brushes with the law, fewer divorces, fewer addictions to drugs, etc. In fact AA has at its core values a belief and reliance on God that WORKS to help people beat their addiction. Compared to secular organizations, AA is way more effective in ending the plague of alcoholism in these peoples lives.

I heard a man once say that he has not seen Jesus turn water into wine, but he has seen Him act in peoples lives and turn wine into paid bills, a happy family and a peaceful contentment with life that they had never had before. I knew exactly what he meant, but my problem wasn't alcohol, and I don't want to discuss it, but yes, the power of faith is incredible, even when I didn't want it to happen to me.

Once I found a desire to know the Truth of what is Reality in my autistic obsessive way, I dug and dug and dug into the subject and I found much evidence of God's existence that previously I had attributed to circumstance or evolution. The funniest thing is to look at the design in living cells and say that it was complete chance that made them that way. Evolution was the tool God used, but He did not directly intervene. He made it the way He knew would work and let it grow on its own accord.

Using evolution to explain away the obvious design in the universe is like saying you cannot see the maker who is behind the chisel. Evolution is the chisel, but God's Hand guides it.

The fact that time must have had a beginning, that any eternal object responsible for the universe had to be infinite and have intelligence (set of all possible sets) and daily life with Christians and atheist in contrast....I have faith as much due to the absence of it in some as the presence of it in others.

But you have to make your own choices, obviously, and what may seem obvious to me might seem bewildering to a person who does not have those same experiences. Just be honest with yourself, treat the people in your life with respect/honesty/integrity and keep an open mind and watchful eye for God to get your attention,

I doubt he will fail you.

I don't buy your list of lifestyle choices as proof that god exists.

Lol, can we get a better example of confirmation bias than you reading all that and blowing it all off as 'life style choices'?

I doubt it.

But just stop it with the posturing that you are some kind of Truth seeker. You obviously are not.

Where did I ever once mention truth or seeking it?

So you admit to not having any intention of trying to grasp the Truth of these questions? So why are you here? To amuse yourself with all the Believer rubes? lolol

FYI plenty of believers drink and drug to excess so tell me how is that proof that a god exists?

It isn't, but the ratio of people with equivalent backgrounds in my experiences show huge help with dealing with issues in their lives and I am not alone on this observation, as AA using God to help people demonstrates.

And you just reiterated that not knowing something is proof of a supreme being.

It's not.

I said nothing of the sort. Show me what I said that sounds to you like 'WE do not know, therefore God exists.

We might never be able to understand the origin of the universe because we are too limited cognitively to do so that is not proof of a supreme being.

We are not too limited cognitively though your confirmation bias no doubt prefers to think that way rather than to look at the circumstantial implied answers. There is an eternal being, you just want to desperately believe ANYTHING other than the obvious.

If we are not limited cognitively then why can we not scientifically explain the origin of the universe without the magic man equation

because proving anything that is not repeatable and part of the natural flow of time and space is beyond the reach of science. It has nothing to do with any limitations of our brains or cognitive ability.

And I have never once denied the existence of a supreme being. I have merely stated that there is no proof of said being.

There is evidence for the existence of God, and I have repeatedly shared some. If you are demanding a lab tes, sorry, aint gonna happen.

I am not one to believe without proof. Faith is for followers I don't believe something merely because someone told me it was true

Bullshit. That vast majority of your life from day to day is lived, decisions made and actions taken without scientific proof for them.

Really? So if some guy approaches you in a mall parking lot and tells you the same story the bible tells, only he said Adam and Steve were the first humans and God told them and then Noel built a raft and put 2 asians, mexicans, indians, russians, europeans, indians, arabs on that raft and they were saved from a flood and then god sent jesus to talk to me and he told me I was the son of god......would you accept any of that?

So you are capable of realizing when someone is telling you a fairy tale or lying to you? Well how come you can't do that with Christianity?

And if you say you are not a Christian then you are admitting that all their wild stories are made up, fabrications or flat out lies.

So it isn't that I haven't seen enough scientific proof so much as the things theists tell me just don't add up. So I can't have faith in a story I don't believe.

Us atheists think theists who believe those stories are stupid. And I don't know what to say about people who know those are just stories but still believe. All I can say is I was one of them not too long ago. I finally woke up.

Because Christianity is not a fairy tale, dude.

You start with that conclusion then everything supports it that you see; bias conformation.

Do you really believe Mary was a virgin? REALLY??? LOL.

Yes, I know it. Had she not been a virgin, the laws and customs of her time would have had her stoned to death for adultery. If you had any actual knowledge of the time you would know that. Joseph knew what happened and so he protected Mary despite the damage to his honor she caused him.

But confirmation bias just eats your ass up.

This is why it's the stupidest god damn story ever told. You are absolutely correct. Had a wife 2015 years ago told her husband that god impregnated her, he would have killed her right then and there. No man back then or today would believe that bullshit. God himself would have to come tell him that he knocked up his wife.

How come God didn't pick an unmarried woman? Why did he have to fuck Joseph's wife? Pervert.

And for you to say you KNOW IT? Makes you a fucking gullible idiot.

Lol, as anyone that has studied that period knows, people were more inclined to believe religious superstition, instead of made up rationales. Had you even attempted to read my post as it was intended you would have realized I was referring to her admitting to having been impregnated by another human being, not God.

So I am tired of wasting time responding to trollish bullshit like yours.

Fuck off and welcome to my ignore list too.

 

[sealybobo]

It is hilarious to watch the news and see a President who claims the border is sealed and secure against ISIS and yet unaccompanied children can get across it. The children just don't count somehow to support the view that the border is NOT secure. The feds deny that radical Islamicist groups are the primary source for terrorism, and so a violent radical Jihadist who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood screaming 'Allah Akbar!' and who recently asked ISIS to let him be an honorary citizen of the Caliphate was not a terrorist, and the shooting just 'work place violence'.

But those are just a few glaring examples of confirmation bias, a thing where people insist on putting what they perceive into nice neat little pigeon holes defined by an ideology or inflexible philosophy.

There is an old 16th century story of three blind men who are feeling parts of an elephant, an animal that they have never seen and have no idea exists, and one feels the leg and says it is a tree, the other feels the trunk and says it is a vine, another feels the belly and says there is a bolder above him. When told that it is all one great big huge animal they laugh and say the narrator is deluded.

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

Accepting something on faith does not demonstrate an open mind just one willing to follow the whims and beliefs of others.

Just because we may not know the origin of something does not necessarily mean a supreme being is responsible. it could be that we are simply incapable of understanding it given out limited sensory and cognitive abilities..

I consider myself an agnostic with atheist leanings but if I saw proof with my own eyes that there was a supreme being I would be compelled to believe. Some of you are willing to believe without such proof but I am not wired that way

Faith alone is sufficient to please God, otherwise the stupid would have no chance for salvation. But yes, these are people who accept their faith in a child's way, trusting those in authority around them.

But the evidence, reason and life experiences are there to lead one to believe, and if it is not so, and you honestly have found no evidence to believe in God, God does not call you to fake having faith.

For me, the strongest evidence has been the lives of believers compared to nonbelievers of similar background, the believers over all have fewer brushes with the law, fewer divorces, fewer addictions to drugs, etc. In fact AA has at its core values a belief and reliance on God that WORKS to help people beat their addiction. Compared to secular organizations, AA is way more effective in ending the plague of alcoholism in these peoples lives.

I heard a man once say that he has not seen Jesus turn water into wine, but he has seen Him act in peoples lives and turn wine into paid bills, a happy family and a peaceful contentment with life that they had never had before. I knew exactly what he meant, but my problem wasn't alcohol, and I don't want to discuss it, but yes, the power of faith is incredible, even when I didn't want it to happen to me.

Once I found a desire to know the Truth of what is Reality in my autistic obsessive way, I dug and dug and dug into the subject and I found much evidence of God's existence that previously I had attributed to circumstance or evolution. The funniest thing is to look at the design in living cells and say that it was complete chance that made them that way. Evolution was the tool God used, but He did not directly intervene. He made it the way He knew would work and let it grow on its own accord.

Using evolution to explain away the obvious design in the universe is like saying you cannot see the maker who is behind the chisel. Evolution is the chisel, but God's Hand guides it.

The fact that time must have had a beginning, that any eternal object responsible for the universe had to be infinite and have intelligence (set of all possible sets) and daily life with Christians and atheist in contrast....I have faith as much due to the absence of it in some as the presence of it in others.

But you have to make your own choices, obviously, and what may seem obvious to me might seem bewildering to a person who does not have those same experiences. Just be honest with yourself, treat the people in your life with respect/honesty/integrity and keep an open mind and watchful eye for God to get your attention,

I doubt he will fail you.

I don't buy your list of lifestyle choices as proof that god exists.

Lol, can we get a better example of confirmation bias than you reading all that and blowing it all off as 'life style choices'?

I doubt it.

But just stop it with the posturing that you are some kind of Truth seeker. You obviously are not.

Where did I ever once mention truth or seeking it?

So you admit to not having any intention of trying to grasp the Truth of these questions? So why are you here? To amuse yourself with all the Believer rubes? lolol

FYI plenty of believers drink and drug to excess so tell me how is that proof that a god exists?

It isn't, but the ratio of people with equivalent backgrounds in my experiences show huge help with dealing with issues in their lives and I am not alone on this observation, as AA using God to help people demonstrates.

And you just reiterated that not knowing something is proof of a supreme being.

It's not.

I said nothing of the sort. Show me what I said that sounds to you like 'WE do not know, therefore God exists.

We might never be able to understand the origin of the universe because we are too limited cognitively to do so that is not proof of a supreme being.

We are not too limited cognitively though your confirmation bias no doubt prefers to think that way rather than to look at the circumstantial implied answers. There is an eternal being, you just want to desperately believe ANYTHING other than the obvious.

If we are not limited cognitively then why can we not scientifically explain the origin of the universe without the magic man equation

because proving anything that is not repeatable and part of the natural flow of time and space is beyond the reach of science. It has nothing to do with any limitations of our brains or cognitive ability.

And I have never once denied the existence of a supreme being. I have merely stated that there is no proof of said being.

There is evidence for the existence of God, and I have repeatedly shared some. If you are demanding a lab tes, sorry, aint gonna happen.

I am not one to believe without proof. Faith is for followers I don't believe something merely because someone told me it was true

Bullshit. That vast majority of your life from day to day is lived, decisions made and actions taken without scientific proof for them.

Really? So if some guy approaches you in a mall parking lot and tells you the same story the bible tells, only he said Adam and Steve were the first humans and God told them and then Noel built a raft and put 2 asians, mexicans, indians, russians, europeans, indians, arabs on that raft and they were saved from a flood and then god sent jesus to talk to me and he told me I was the son of god......would you accept any of that?

So you are capable of realizing when someone is telling you a fairy tale or lying to you? Well how come you can't do that with Christianity?

And if you say you are not a Christian then you are admitting that all their wild stories are made up, fabrications or flat out lies.

So it isn't that I haven't seen enough scientific proof so much as the things theists tell me just don't add up. So I can't have faith in a story I don't believe.

Us atheists think theists who believe those stories are stupid. And I don't know what to say about people who know those are just stories but still believe. All I can say is I was one of them not too long ago. I finally woke up.

Because Christianity is not a fairy tale, dude.

You start with that conclusion then everything supports it that you see; bias conformation.

Do you really believe Mary was a virgin? REALLY??? LOL.

Yes, I know it. Had she not been a virgin, the laws and customs of her time would have had her stoned to death for adultery. If you had any actual knowledge of the time you would know that. Joseph knew what happened and so he protected Mary despite the damage to his honor she caused him.

But confirmation bias just eats your ass up.

This is why it's the stupidest god damn story ever told. You are absolutely correct. Had a wife 2015 years ago told her husband that god impregnated her, he would have killed her right then and there. No man back then or today would believe that bullshit. God himself would have to come tell him that he knocked up his wife.

How come God didn't pick an unmarried woman? Why did he have to fuck Joseph's wife? Pervert.

And for you to say you KNOW IT? Makes you a fucking gullible idiot.

Lol, as anyone that has studied that period knows, people were more inclined to believe religious superstition, instead of made up rationales. Had you even attempted to read my post as it was intended you would have realized I was referring to her admitting to having been impregnated by another human being, not God.

So I am tired of wasting time responding to trollish bullshit like yours.

Fuck off and welcome to my ignore list too.

No man today or back then would believe his wife if she said god knocked her up. Please ignore me!!!

 

[sealybobo]

It is hilarious to watch the news and see a President who claims the border is sealed and secure against ISIS and yet unaccompanied children can get across it. The children just don't count somehow to support the view that the border is NOT secure. The feds deny that radical Islamicist groups are the primary source for terrorism, and so a violent radical Jihadist who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood screaming 'Allah Akbar!' and who recently asked ISIS to let him be an honorary citizen of the Caliphate was not a terrorist, and the shooting just 'work place violence'.

But those are just a few glaring examples of confirmation bias, a thing where people insist on putting what they perceive into nice neat little pigeon holes defined by an ideology or inflexible philosophy.

There is an old 16th century story of three blind men who are feeling parts of an elephant, an animal that they have never seen and have no idea exists, and one feels the leg and says it is a tree, the other feels the trunk and says it is a vine, another feels the belly and says there is a bolder above him. When told that it is all one great big huge animal they laugh and say the narrator is deluded.

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe in Jesus or just a generic God? How come Jews can't see the evidence for Jesus? How come they say he was not the Messiah?

 

[NoNukes]

It is hilarious to watch the news and see a President who claims the border is sealed and secure against ISIS and yet unaccompanied children can get across it. The children just don't count somehow to support the view that the border is NOT secure. The feds deny that radical Islamicist groups are the primary source for terrorism, and so a violent radical Jihadist who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood screaming 'Allah Akbar!' and who recently asked ISIS to let him be an honorary citizen of the Caliphate was not a terrorist, and the shooting just 'work place violence'.

But those are just a few glaring examples of confirmation bias, a thing where people insist on putting what they perceive into nice neat little pigeon holes defined by an ideology or inflexible philosophy.

There is an old 16th century story of three blind men who are feeling parts of an elephant, an animal that they have never seen and have no idea exists, and one feels the leg and says it is a tree, the other feels the trunk and says it is a vine, another feels the belly and says there is a bolder above him. When told that it is all one great big huge animal they laugh and say the narrator is deluded.

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

We cannot see what does not exist, it is as easy as that.

 

[sealybobo]

That the universe exists doesn't prove a God does.

Sure it does. It proves that a Creator initiated it and the flow of time within it.

Why do you think there had to be a Creator?

Because of the nature of eternal objects. The Creative Force that 'decided' to bring the universe into existence is intelligent, probably, but even if that is not established, the Creative Force is certainly infinite and most of the infinite things about Him/It are outside the flow of time, an Eternal Creative Force. He doesn't make decisions within that non-time environment, it is a steady and constant expression of predetermined will that only acts on realized conditions being set to act when the criteria is met. That decision making process is necessary, IMO, and establishes the Creative Force as a Creator. If their is no intelligence then their is no 'decision' outside the flow of time to create the universe or its time-space equivalent that preceded it. Since time cannot be eternal, there is not room for random events to kick things off as their is no time dimension to allow for random events.

So say the criteria for creating a new universe is A, B and W; it isn't considered and evaluated as a criteria, it has already been decided beforehand. The Creative Force simply acts at that moment the criteria are met, whether that is purely physical, moral or some combination of those factors and things we do not yet even comprehend exist. When A is true, B is true and W is false, BINGO a universe is brought into being almost automatically.

But the existence of this predetermined criteria (and other criteria) point to intelligence at some point that has to be prior to the initiation of the flow of time, so it too must be eternal. The interaction of the Eternal intelligence with the flow of time introduces an apparent decision making process such as when the Creator responds to His Creation. But the 'decision' was already made and that criteria has always existed. Application to new situations (physical or moral) is merely a formality that interfaces with the flow of time and resembles a decision that we would make. It would seem that intelligent parts of this creation can set flags that clear the Creator to interact, but what they are is not completely known.

But I am veering into religion or theological speculation (but not fantasy, lol) and I am not as well read on that subject as I would like to be. I hate theological lexicon; it is so dry and antiquated. They really need to modernize the language of that field, IMO and cross pollinate with the latest science and mathematics.

But that is the quick answer; the Creator is totally unlike any polytheistic notion of a godling and completely laughable when atheists make the comparison.

What "nature of eternal objects". What objects are eternal? The ones you're too befuddled to identify?

What "Creative Force"? Identify this "creative force"? Or, are you too befuddled to do so?

Lol, it seems plain to me, but the 'nature of eternal objects' is that they are not changing or acting as their is no flow of time. They are a constant steady state of being. They must also be of infinite magnitude or the mere possibility of some process causing them to lose enough energy to cause them to stop esisting would mean that they stop existing. Eternal objects must be omnipotent.

What objects are eternal? We don't know how many there are, but the Creator or Creative Force would be two concepts of what could exist prior to the initiation of time. The difference between a Creator vrs a Creative Force is that the latter does not necessarily have intelligence, though certainly it would in actuality for various reasons.

And I am hardly befuddled simply because you cant read the damned post, nit wit.

So, as we get past your stuttering and mumbling, we're left with you being too befuddled to offer an explanation for nonsensical metaphysics you rattled on about.

Talk about stumbling, mumbling and being befuddled you have not yet presented a single counter fact, counter argument or analysis that would present anything contrary to what I have stated. And I have had numerous discussions with people who know what they are talking about, so I know I got my shit together, and you slander wont work with me, idiot.

You are trolling and wasting everybody's time that disagrees with you.

Welcome to my ignore list as I don't have time for morons like you.

Run for cover if you wish, but that won't bolster your shallow claims. You offered nothing but claims to undefined and hollow terms such as "nature of eternal objects" and some imagine "Creative Force" you have invented.

Identify this "creative force"? Or, are you too befuddled to do so?

I can't wait to get some replies on the question I just asked. Notice theists say, "why can't atheists see evidence for god".

I hope they will change it to "Why Jews/Muslims & Atheists can't see the evidence for Jesus"?

Because Jews don't see the same evidence that christians see and christians don't believe the muslim evidence for god, right?

So they all have different evidence for god. The Mormon's say god talked to Joseph Smith in 1800. Christians, Jews and Muslims don't buy that evidence. Does any Christian believe what they read in the Koran?

So a Christian has to argue a generic god when talking to a Jew, because the Jew is going to tell the Christian that Jesus was just a man. And that's all I'm saying.

 

[ricechickie]

Wow, OK, let me try to more concise, though I do get the feeling from that response that you really are not looking for an explanation of anything, just more opportunity to posture. But I will give it a shot for the hell of it.

1) What time is as we understand it, basics:
At some point the flow of time began and a physical universe is a necessary part of that flow as time itself is only manifested as objects interact and change in relation to each other. Comparing a clock to a moving object for example is a ratio of a standard rate of change to a nonstandardized rate of change.

You follow that so far?

2) Why the initation of the flow of time cannot be from random event:
Now for the beginning of a new universe to happen 'randomly' it has to occur within the flow of time and space, not necessarily as we know it but time and space of some sort. But this only kicks the can back down the road a bit. The flow of time obviously did not start if there is a random event that occurred preceding an event. So at some point when time itself started with the prior universe, (or Branes or whatever started them at some point back the flow of time started) and so there was no chance for time to start by a random event.

Still with me?

3) This means a pre-existing criteria existed that initiated the flow of time.
So if it wasn't random, then there were pre-existing conditions that initiated time flow. That criteria cannot require a flow of time to start time itself. This calls for some kind of intelligence that has always had this will or intent to start time. All events are either random in cause or meet a criteria of some sort and thus are 'decided' to be brought into being. Since it cannot be random, that only leaves intelligent decision to initiate time.

Hope that helps. If it doesn't I am wasting my time with you. At least you could start reading up on the topic yourself. But atheists today don't even realize what they are talking about when they compare the Creator to Zeus for instance. These are totally different kinds of concepts that unfortunately the same word is used for.

You assume that time had a beginning. I don't know how you can assume that.

 

[ricechickie]

Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

That does not prove that there is a Creator.

 

[sealybobo]

Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

That does not prove that there is a Creator.

If something had to create us, something then had to create the creator. Nothing lives forever. That seems to be a fact except for with this god character.

You know why you can't prove there is no god? Because he gets to break all the rules of logic and reasoning.

 

[jillian]

It is hilarious to watch the news and see a President who claims the border is sealed and secure against ISIS and yet unaccompanied children can get across it. The children just don't count somehow to support the view that the border is NOT secure. The feds deny that radical Islamicist groups are the primary source for terrorism, and so a violent radical Jihadist who shot a bunch of people at Fort Hood screaming 'Allah Akbar!' and who recently asked ISIS to let him be an honorary citizen of the Caliphate was not a terrorist, and the shooting just 'work place violence'.

But those are just a few glaring examples of confirmation bias, a thing where people insist on putting what they perceive into nice neat little pigeon holes defined by an ideology or inflexible philosophy.

There is an old 16th century story of three blind men who are feeling parts of an elephant, an animal that they have never seen and have no idea exists, and one feels the leg and says it is a tree, the other feels the trunk and says it is a vine, another feels the belly and says there is a bolder above him. When told that it is all one great big huge animal they laugh and say the narrator is deluded.

You cannot show evidence to someone who refuses to accept even the remote possibility of the thing claimed. No mater how complex a life form maybe, like the human cell, and no matter what Darwin knew about the complexity of the cell and the impact were it overly complex, the atheist will insist it is all the product of unguided chance. No matter how finely tuned the universe the atheist will insist that it proves nothing and it isn't so finely tuned anyway.

So don't pitch your argument to persuade an atheist of anything. Speak to other theists or to the lurkers who just read and move on. The atheist is a fringe element cultist who has closed his mind long ago.

1, that makes no sense.
2, you're all over the place in terms of putting together unrelated issues.
3, whether someone is an atheist or not is none of your business.
4. i find having religious discussions with fundie religious nuts (no matter what religion) far more difficult than having religious discussions with atheists.
5. your religious beliefs are your own. i could ridicule them if i chose. i generally choose not to. but i can tell you that i don't believe in your brand of religion. mostly, you and every other religious zealot should leave everyone else to their own beliefs.

now, how a discussion of atheism meshes with a discussion of ISIS is beyond me. in fact, i would think a discussion about ISIS would mitigate in favor of atheists and certainly AGAINST fundie religious zealots.

 

[jillian]

That the universe exists doesn't prove a God does.

Sure it does. It proves that a Creator initiated it and the flow of time within it.

Why do you think there had to be a Creator?

Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

which doesn't mean that something is "G-d".

 

[ActiveX]

Confirmation Bias

Look! He learned a NEW WORD and doesn't realize it's HIM! Projection at it's most classic fineness!

 

[sealybobo]

That the universe exists doesn't prove a God does.

Sure it does. It proves that a Creator initiated it and the flow of time within it.

Then who created the creator? You can't have it both ways.

You said because the universe exists, that proves a creator initiated it. Ok then if a god does exists, then does that prove a creator created our cretor? It must based on your logic.

And who created that creator and the creator before that? Why does the universe have to have an intelligent creator but the creator doesn't have to have a creator?

 

[MaxGrit]

Wow, OK, let me try to more concise, though I do get the feeling from that response that you really are not looking for an explanation of anything, just more opportunity to posture. But I will give it a shot for the hell of it.

1) What time is as we understand it, basics:
At some point the flow of time began and a physical universe is a necessary part of that flow as time itself is only manifested as objects interact and change in relation to each other. Comparing a clock to a moving object for example is a ratio of a standard rate of change to a nonstandardized rate of change.

You follow that so far?

2) Why the initation of the flow of time cannot be from random event:
Now for the beginning of a new universe to happen 'randomly' it has to occur within the flow of time and space, not necessarily as we know it but time and space of some sort. But this only kicks the can back down the road a bit. The flow of time obviously did not start if there is a random event that occurred preceding an event. So at some point when time itself started with the prior universe, (or Branes or whatever started them at some point back the flow of time started) and so there was no chance for time to start by a random event.

Still with me?

3) This means a pre-existing criteria existed that initiated the flow of time.
So if it wasn't random, then there were pre-existing conditions that initiated time flow. That criteria cannot require a flow of time to start time itself. This calls for some kind of intelligence that has always had this will or intent to start time. All events are either random in cause or meet a criteria of some sort and thus are 'decided' to be brought into being. Since it cannot be random, that only leaves intelligent decision to initiate time.

Hope that helps. If it doesn't I am wasting my time with you. At least you could start reading up on the topic yourself. But atheists today don't even realize what they are talking about when they compare the Creator to Zeus for instance. These are totally different kinds of concepts that unfortunately the same word is used for.

You assume that time had a beginning. I don't know how you can assume that.

Argument from self-knowing (auto-epistemic):

If P were true then I would know it; in fact I do not know it; therefore P cannot be true.


Anyways, look up why it must be that time has a beginning.