Look man, you just don’t seem to get it! There is so much around us that is obvious and proves god’s existence. Everything from the finely tuned universe, to my mother’s testimony, to the bible. You just don’t like god and are unwilling to accept his word. You hate him and clearly need to accept your faults and bow down to him.
- Guest on AtheistNation.net
Let’s be clear. God is not obvious. If he were, there would only be one religion, and for that matter, it wouldn’t be a religion because god would be entirely undeniable. The ontological argument defines god as the most perfect being, posits that existence is a necessary part of perfection… thus god must exist. I am willing to go a step further. The most perfect being must be undeniable as well, because a deniable god is certainly less than perfect. Why was this not part of the ontological argument?
In a recent debate with Christopher Hitchens, a discussion was had to the tune of – the universe itself is evidence for god’s existence. This is utter absurdity, and its clearly not obvious. It is obvious that gay bashers are latent homosexuals, that soulja boy is a closet retard and that swimming in a pool of pitch forks is not a good idea. But god’s existence is clearly and surely (obviously?) not obvious. Anyone and everyone who claims it to be the case is either lying or doesn’t understand the definition of “god”, “obvious”, or “the”.
Even if I do grant that there is a god, it is impossible to make the leap from this obvious god to one that you connect to on a personal level. I have seen a number of “logical” theists lately, discussing the logical imperative of the Christian God’s existence, sharing their belief. This confuses me to no end. How can you use logic, and have a tautology, showing that god is necessarily true. What are your premises? What is the form of your argument? How can you be so silly as to assert that god must exist?
Logic is a really funny thing. It has the ability to be toyed with to create a torrential downpour of craziness, leading to some very confusing arguments. Self referring statements and definition type premises are examples of when logic serves only to confuse. This is exceptionally clear with this argument.
- I will define god as the greatest possible conscious being.
- I will define my computer as being greater than god, and clearly not conscious.
This creates a logical loop; if god is the greatest thing, and my computer is greater, then it follows that god is my computer. But god is conscious, and thus not my computer. Tough road to be on… that is for sure. There is nothing stopping me from being more absurd than I was previously, and one thing that seems to be missing is the acceptance that stating something does not make it a fact. You are not wearing burning slippers, although I can say you are.
It should be clear by now, that converting scientific atheists is not a simple process. We are not interested in slanderous statements, or emotional pleas. If you wish to really reach out and touch us you have to step outside of your comfort zone. You don’t expect someone who is drowning to bring their own rope and floatation device, and you are clearly not giving us anything of substance to hang on to that would help us get saved. I see a lot of this to be equivalent to tying a long rope to a cinderblock and tossing it out to me, promising to pull me in, but I have to deal with drowning in my own self loathing first.
Before I get too deeply into a response to this, I would like to say a couple things, because I don’t want to be misinterpreted. Your comment is actually very frustrating, and hard to follow. I would rather you posted coherently and at least tried to proof read your post before clicking the submit button. I don’t want to misinterpret your words any more than I expect you are trying to my own, so clarity is of the utmost importance.
If I am on the right track, your post is about objectivism being opposed to spirituality or some nebulous term used to describe your feelings. My primary objection off the bat is that I don’t think there is anything of substance being said here. I have not made any assertion, in any of my posts, as to such a separation. Choosing to look to science for answers is not a quest for objectivism, it is the label we have put onto the box that we store all of our human knowledge. I don’t know why it is considered a bad thing to turn to these places for information that we can depend upon, and test.
I am a scientist, and that means that I am someone interested in either testing or expanding human knowledge. I follow the scientific method and accept failure if I am incorrect. You should do the same, because – as I said earlier – having beliefs that are not justified leads to unjustified actions.
in the middle of last night. i felt i had to get something off my chest. so i wrote this on my computer.
“we just all think we are perfect. underneath it all. you and I. like we know everything. like our eyes see everything. yet we do not love, you and I. we think we do, but we have missed it. We are not genuine. you and I. i feel a tug. back to the wilderness i say… in the midst of loneliness i cry friends… in the midst of loneliness i cry friends… God, where art thou?”
To respond to your incredibly thought out and to what i can see more honest than most people on this world. I have to sit and think.
life is something isnt it?
Me and you, we are looking at the same world. and are living quite different lives. We both seemingly want the same thing though. its truth.
I have to say though, i think i have been in your shoes before. looked at life and wondered why a loving God would allow this world to be so full as suffering as it is.
I dont want to ignore these doubts. I dont want to ignore these questions. I want to embrace them.
But how?
I dont know about you, but i will be the first to admit – I DONT have everything figured out.
Why are things how they are?
I know you probably have heard what i am about to tell you and find it childish/impossible to believe for a God so powerful and all knowing.
But Through much of questioning, struggle, thinking, listening I have come to this conclusion.
I have to play the “free will” card.
I would love to go to details, but I want to make this rely as short and sweet as possible.
I AM CONVINCED that GOD is a LOVING father.
I AM CONVINCED that GOD is a LOVING father.
I AM CONVINCED that GOD is a LOVING father.
I AM CONVINCED that GOD is a LOVING father.
I AM CONVINCED that the Bible is of God, even though it did not fall out of the sky.
I AM CONVINCED that God is using me to show you what he has shown me. God cannot fit into mans boxes. He WILL show you himself. But Bob – you have to acknowledge that you are not perfect. you have to be open that there just very well might be a whole dimension that you havent been exposed to.
Throughout history God has contantly reveled himself. And man keeps massacring him.
Its pathetic really.
I know that Jesus is real.
I know that He CANNOT be plugged into science
because he is bigger.
I am saddened by your thirst for truth, and you seem to be more and more perplexed.
i encourage you, keep talking to the “air”, maybe it… or he will reveal himself. But you need to seriously consider this first.
Are you sure you wont run away from reality once it has been exposed to you?
JESUS CHRIST is the way, truth, and life.
ask and you WILL receive.
Pray. please, just pray.
DONT DEFINE GOD
DONT PUT GOD INTO A BOX
QUIT WITH YOUR FORMULAS
maybe they just arent foolproof and you believe them to be.
just have a open mind.
Remember. It hurts a parent more to spank a child, than the child itself. God only want the best for you. and sometimes he might just have to shake up things a bit so you can realize that he is near. that of only a breath you are.
through many tears, much confusion, much rebellion, and my life
i assert GOD must exist.
i assert GOD must exist.
i assert GOD must exist.
i assert GOD must exist.
i assert GOD must exist.
i assert GOD must exist.
i assert GOD must exist.
i assert GOD must exist.
i assert GOD must exist.