The Real God: An Epiphany

I’ve been an Atheist for quite a long time now. Since I was a christian, my scepticism of God grows bigger and bigger. However, to some people, I’m considered rejecting God. This pose a dilemma, because it is an inaccurate claim and DarkMatter2525 makes a good illustration about it and proposes a theory of why Theists are so mad with Atheists.

Advertisements

31 responses to “The Real God: An Epiphany

  1. I see you posted the video I share with you. It’s been a long time since this blog presents a serious topic. Glad this topic about Atheism is brought up and let the debate begin!

  2. Another good video to look at to get you to start thinking about how Atheists perceives the world as they see it. I see this as being very philosophical:

  3. Yes, I hope you don’t mind, Kaza-kun. And also, the video you posted just now is really inspiring. Thanks for the share!

  4. I was with him until 4:10-5:12. Before that he was explaining things in detail, was giving examples, but at that point he was just making a ludicrous claim.

    Then he asks am i “in a position to be able to deny it” then shows facebook posts from stupid people being stupid, i don’t get how that affects me. its like saying hey, ur German and you believe something, take a look at what these Germans said, obviously ur not in a position to be saying anything. Those people who made those facebook posts aren’t me, nor do they represent my beliefs, they have no bearing on his argument.

    and 5:42-6:21 is actually the reason i’m christian. (oh, no i said i’m christian. now everyone is probably going to disregard all my arguments from here on out; that’s how it usually goes anyway) The truth is true whether you like it or not.

    6:22-6:28 this isn’t a flaw, if ur assuming that there is God and there is a system (which he is for the sake of this argument), then you have to look at what God’s values are. Since we’re talking about Christianity there is no choice but to look to the bible.(something i usually try to avoid in debates like this, because again it is rejected outright), but that would show that free will is something that God likes in humanity, i.e. the choice to eat the apple and the choice of faith. If there were undeniable proof of God’s existence, you would have no choice but to believe in him. If someone said gravity doesn’t exist, they would have to be lying or purposely ignorant of what gravity is. God’s existence will only ever be compelling, not convincing because free will must always be allowed.

  5. Although, evidence is apparently lacking there on the reason why you are a christian, but hey lets just give it a rest since none of God’s existency arguments have been compelling up to this point. Truth is true in subject to the beholder. There is no such thing as an absolute true.

    You say that since we are talking about Christianity, we have no other choice but to look to the bible. But how do you know the Bible was true if there is no evidence to be presented? And people intrepreted Bible differently which makes God values subjective. How do you know which represents the true creator of the universe? Could it be that you choose that God’s description from that particular bible is because He suits your taste (which means He’s your ego?). Why don’t you choose the God from the Tora or Koran? How can you say that their God’s description is wrong and you are not?

    But isn’t making an undeniable proof a key to total faith? How could you have faith when your God’s existence is iffy? For example, when you are sick, you go to a doctor that has a good degree of medicine. You believe in his skill because for all this time he has been curing thousand of sick patients which makes him convincing enough to cure your sickness. And to be honest, this method has clearly been the most reliable method for centuries which is called the scientific method.

    • Since you brought up truth, lets talk about that first. Your claim that all truth is relative is wrong. In fact it’s just the opposite, all truths are absolute. What’s true for one person is true for everyone everywhere. 2+2=4 no matter where you are, or who you are, or what you believe in. Even if i say something that sounds relative “I, Lost Journeyer, feel warm tonight on August 12, 2011.” That is true for everyone everywhere that Lost Journeyer had the sensation of warmth tonight. If you have any example of a truth that is indeed relative, i would love to hear it.

      The existence of the universe, and its apparent design are proof enough for me of Gods existence. It takes a lot more faith to believe that the universe came into existence for no reason and just randomly aligned all the atoms to form galaxies stars and planets.
      Before the Big Bang there was nothing, no space, no time, no energy, no matter (take it up with Einstein if you believe otherwise). That means some immaterial force outside of space and time, started the universe. This force would have to in addition be a personal force, as it would have to choose to make the universe as apposed to not create it. This force would also have to have an immense amount of power to create the entirety of the universe. Now let’s see; a personal, extremely powerful, immaterial force outside of space and time. What else do you need before you can call it God?

      Now i say if we are talking about Christianity there is no other source we can look at other than the Bible, we could look at the Quran if we were talking about Islam, and the Torah if we were talking about Judaism. The only other source i can think of would be the Catholic bible, but that doesn’t hold up to it’s own standards, including books that Jesus never said were in the bible and what-not.

      and since it is getting pretty late, i will address the rest tomorrow, and anything else you have to add between now and then.

    • No, statements can only be true if you subsribe to them and it remains true until another statement contradicts it. The reliability of the contradicted statement can be proven by doing an experiment to compel anyone to subscribe to this contradicting statement. That’s why we don’t believe that Earth is 6000 years old nor does Earth is the center of the universe nor is flat. This is the scientific method and has been reliable for thousand of years.

      An example you say? Okay let’s do it. Let’s start simple with your nice equation there. 2+2 = 4 is true if you are talking in a base 10 realm and it also true if these numbers represent the same variable. In base 2 realm, 2+2 = 0 (ask your math teacher about this if you don’t believe me) and if these numbers were to be of different variables, for example, 2 apples + 2 oranges does not equal to 4 apples oranges. So as a conclusion, 2+2 = 4 is true because if you brought 2 things and another 2 things together, the sum of those things equals to 4 and most of the people subscribe to this theory because it is reliable. We have seen the “evidence” to back the statement hence it is reliable to believe it to some extent.

      And as from the warmth thing, only the people that feels the same warmth would probably believe you. I don’t live nearby so I can’t subscribe to your statement. You have to bring “evidence” let’s say the temperature measured at that time. Until someone came up with, “Hey there is a flu pandemic. That’s why you and the others are feeling sick or warm.” and back it up with “evidence” then your statement holds to some degree of truth.

      See where I’m going now? Okay, so if you are now clear how relative truth can be, let’s visit your theory of God. If you say that the complexity of the universe is too complex for a random chance to happen and before big bang there is nothing, and therefore nothing could not possibly create something. Then, who created God since there is no chance that nothing could create God, right?

      • I think you are confusing the terms truth and belief, the truth is always the truth, even before we believe it. Gravity existed before newton. Some people believe the earth’s age is only measured in thousands of years (which is obviously wrong), the same for the earth being the center of the universe and the universe being flat. The truth is cannot be decided, it can only be discovered. People believed the earth was flat, but BELIEF i does not equal TRUTH.

        Your math example does not prove relative truth, if we are using base 4, 2+2 = 10, that’s the same as 4 in base 10. Its still the same number, just a different way of interpreting it.
        Also your math is a bit off, if we are using base 2, we would add 10+10 and our answer would be 100, not 0.

        Again, belief is not truth. If i felt warmth, whether or not others believe me, share the same feeling of warmth, or whatever, does not change the truth of the fact i felt warmth. If i am unable to provide evidence for something does not make it untrue. If i was ignorant to all laws of physics and i stated that Momentum = mass X velocity and had no proof of my reasoning, that does not change the fact that what i said was true. In fact it even works in reverse, if i make a false statement and have enough “proof” to convince others of it, it does not change the fact that the statement is indeed false.
        -I saw a bear that had black fur.
        -There is a bear at the north pole.
        -Therefore that bear has black fur.
        The first two statements were true, but the last was false even though it has evidence to support it, but the bear at the north pole in this case was a polar bear and had white fur.

        And now your answer to your last question, if nothing can’t create something, what created God? If nothing can create something God must be a constant, having always existed. That’s the only logical explanation that can be deduced.

      • How does a statement consider as a true if we don’t believe it’s true? That’s illogical. Before we believe the statement is true, it is unknown. Only when we consider a statement is true when someone subscribe it as a true statement. That’s how relative a truth can be. Gravity on Earth is considered to be true because people tested and proved it. Hence, it is reliable to consider so and therefore majority people subscribe to this statement as the truth. On the other hand, God is the reason for all that is created might be true for you but it hasn’t been tested or proved yet, so by Occam Razor theory, therefore God does not exist.

        Your answer about God is illogical. You just break your chain of logic of “Nothing can create something”. If there exist a statement “An object can exist without cause and therefore explains God”, then we can say the world can exist without God since there is a chance that the world can already existed without being created.

        Oh by the way, why are you pawning yourself by saying belief is not the same as truth which render you vulnerable that your belief in God may not be the truth. I do you a favor by saying truth is relative so that the argument of God can be true if someone subscribes it. The question is now how reliable the assumption is?

      • “How does a statement consider as a true if we don’t believe it’s true?”
        People believed the world was flat, if i had said that the world was a sphere at that time with no way to prove it, it does not mean my statement was false, i just merely lacked proof. The statement, “the earth is a sphere” is true where or not it’s accepted by people.

        Occam’s Razor – when faced with competing hypotheses that are equal in other respects, selecting the one that makes the fewest new assumptions.

        If you look at the probability of the earth being created as the result of the big bang takes many assumptions, the right concentrations of oxygen and carbon-dioxide to support life, the distance of the moon to the earth to control tides and our Eco-system, the magnetic field around the earth that protects us from the sun’s radiation.

        If you look at the assumptions made from intelligent design, there is only one assumption, there is a “creator” who designed it that way.

        I believe Occam’s Razor supports intelligent design over random probability.

        Everything that has a beginning has to have a cause, God didn’t have a beginning and therefor doesn’t need a cause.

        ” “An object can exist without cause and therefore explains God”, then we can say the world can exist without God since there is a chance that the world can already existed without being created.”
        This was the belief of most scientists before Einstein and his theory of general relativity.
        This statement would be correct if it weren’t for the overwhelming proof of the big bang among other things.
        1. Saying the universe always existed without being created would mean that the universe, and everything in it, is infinitely old, if this was the case there would be no radiative elements because they would have all decayed and all stars would have “burnt out”
        Obviously this is not the case.

        If i had been born in an era before Einstein and Newton with the same mind for science and logic i have today, i would undoubtedly have become an atheist.

      • Exactly, your statement is still unknown because of lack of proof. It is by proof that you compels people to believe into your statement and make that statement reliable. Nice job on pointing that out. And in Occam Razor, if there is a hypotheses of whether God exists or not and you can’t prove that God existed, then you have to admit that God doesn’t exist.

        Wow, you know your way through science and how evidence has to be presented in argument. I was worried about I have to explain how a descent argument works but I guess you get that. You have successfully describe how the universe was created and none of those requires the intervention of God. Now if you could just present evidence that God existed then that would be great.

      • “if there is a hypotheses of whether God exists or not and you can’t prove that God existed, then you have to admit that God doesn’t exist.”
        Not true, if their are hypotheses of whether God exists or not, you have to believe the one that makes the least amount of assumptions. To be truly objective you have to look at it from the start with both possibilities of God existing and not existing as solutions.
        Your looking at it as if there is no proof of God’s existence, he doesn’t exist. Most religious people look at it as if there is no proof of him not existing, he does.
        Being that there is no definite proof either way, you have to choose atheism or theism without proper proof.
        I’ve given my argument on the creation of the universe being proof of God enough for my choice.
        What proof of the God not existing fueled your choice of atheism? i would actually like to know.

        And i already explained why undeniable proof of God’s existence would over-ride free will, so sorry i don’t have anything concrete for the existence of God to show.

        I do however have my argument of God’s existence through morality, but that’s a whole other can of worms -.-‘

      • Taken from Wikipedia – The argument from parsimony (using Occam’s razor) contends that since natural (non-supernatural) theories adequately explain the development of religion and belief in gods, the actual existence of such supernatural agents is superfluous and may be dismissed unless otherwise proven to be required to explain the phenomenon

        “If there is no proof of him not existing, then he must be exist”. If you hold to to this statement, then I could say unicorn, leprachaun, flying spaghetti monster exist because we can’t disprove it. In science, if you can’t prove something existed then you have to put it into non-existence until further evidence come up. Hence, my reason of Atheism.

        I already tell you why God is a weak argument for universe creation. The logic of something has to be created first means that God has also have to be created first. If God is the first mover, then it would suggest that God is now dormant since now everything works without his interventions. We can explains how things in the universe created without the requirement of mentioning a supreme creator most of the time and that makes the possibility of God exists really slim.

        Oh and believe me, if you argue God existence through morality, its just make him looked more malevolent and further reduced the chance of him existing in this world.

  6. The majority of Theists I speak to always disregard any arguments that include the words proof and evidence. “It’s about believing not about having proof” they say. On that it will forever be a stalemate.
    In regard to the first video, I’m don’t quite agree with that God = self’s Ego thing. I think it’s more like a case of the person shaping its ideals to match the common view of God than the opposite.
    @Lost Journeyer: Forgive me if I sound rude but your reason to being Christian seems rather far-fetched. I mean, why is your truth THE truth by default? Why not other religion truth, as Kaza-san pointed?
    Also “If there were undeniable proof of God’s existence, you would have no choice but to believe in him.”. Exactly, if undeniable proof was presented then it would be the truth. And, as previously stated, “The truth is true, whether you like it or not”. So what is this truth omitted just to give us a choice? That’s like saying there are two doors out of the room you’re in, choose whichever one you like to exit. As far as you know one of those doors might lead to a pack of wolves. You could go for the right one if you had been told which one it was instead of just blindly choosing a random door but hey, at least you chose.
    I also don’t think the gravity example was the best one because it has nothing with being ignorant. Even if someone doesn’t know what gravity is, it’s existence can be proved (this is not the case with time but I digress…).
    As for the facebook comments shown, I totally agree with you.

    • Exactly, people’s ego doesn’t have to be his personality, it can also be what he aspires to be. In this case, God’s is his ideal because his ego said so.

  7. A warning for Theist:
    Let me tell you something, arguing on the existence of God with Atheists, believe me it’s just a pointless waste of time. Atheists hold on to their believes, as if their hold onto their lives, so don’t think you will change their mind with only words and statement. Atheists only believe in what they see with their on eyes, so don’t argue with them about supernatural things, things that are unseen or etc.

    And for Atheist:
    It’s hard too, to change the perspective of Theist whether God exist or not, because this is something that they hold on to. If they abandon this, what would they hold onto? Theist hold on to their believes, just like Atheist hold onto their believes of the unapproved existence of God.

    So, I think an argument of Theist and Atheist, will find a hard end. Why? Because they each hold onto their believes. Believes can’t be changed with only words, they have to experience it themselves if you want their believes to be changed.

    One more thing, I’m neither an Atheist or Theist. I’m just a grey guy, that’s passing by. I believe that everything must have an explanation, but there are somethings too that even human can’t explain. Why I say this? Cause I’ve experienced it. Can you explain how a person got hit by a speeding truck, but only had a sprained leg? (personal experience when I was in 3rd grade elementary school)

    • Maybe I’m exaggerating a bit. It’s not a speeding truck. If I remember it right it’s a bus actually.

    • Who in the world says that I want to change the perspective of Theist? I’m just asking for evidence of a theory and so far the opposing argument hasn’t made a reliable argument. If you can provide a good reliable explanation about God with scientific method then I will gladly say that you are correct. I believe that’s what constitute a good argument.

      And what’s with the 3rd grade example to proof God exist? A person got hit by a vehicle and only got sprained leg? Oh I also got one, I was eating cereal for breakfast, right? And then I got two prizes in the box. My God, that was a miracle. It must be the work of God.

  8. You forgot to add a sarcasm laugh at the end…………

    Yeah, I know……
    Didn’t I say, that both of you hold onto your own believe, and arguing with people that hold onto their believe like their hold onto their lives, is just pointless. Why? It’s like arguing with a stone…. No matter what you do they will just repeat the same explanation over and over again.

    We live together in one world and world only. Why can’t people just live with each holding to their own believes without doubting each other?

    Oh and that example, it isn’t for proofing the existence of God, even cereal that has two price can have an explanation for it, it isn’t even a miracle….. Well, if you see it from a child perspective, yes I can say that it’s a miracle…

    • Oh yeah, I don’t bother my time to watch the video, cause I live where the connection speed is like snail.
      So, buffering a video of a total of 25 minutes, is like waiting in a 2 km long traffic jam.

    • It isn’t for proofing the existence of God? So miracle is a rare event right? Which is a probablistic number (Which by the way the point of the video I posted). And from your answer, miracle is relative here, because what adult not consider as a miracle can be considered as miracle by child. So thank you for explaining that truth is subjective.

      For all we know, the existence of the matter is still in research. Big Bang is the closest explanation on how the universe is created. If a Theist wants to put God as the explanation of how all things happen, then it is their burden to prove it with evidence if they want to be taken seriously.

      Saying that, “You can’t explain it, therefore God exists” implies that I can say I have an invisible green dragon in my backyard that controls the universe and since you can’t prove it, therefore it exists. This is a non-sensical argument and not a reliable argument to trust.

      • True, that is why I say it’s pointless and this is too why I choose to stay in the grey zone or neutral as you would say.

        But that doesn’t mean that I don’t have any believes.I too hold onto my believes, that “Everything exist because they have a reason to exist”

        Why there are human? Why there are Atheist and Theist? Why there are planets and sun? They all have reasons, even if the reason is like from a 5th grader, the heck it’s still a reason. Am I right?

      • That, I agree, Sir.

        But don’t worry man, I mean one of the greatest Atheist, Richard Dawkins, would rate himself 7.9 out of 10 about his atheism because he is a scientist and since the existence of God is unknown, he can’t unrule the possibility until further evidence come up.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s