Several unrelated posts on the existence of God from a thread called Atheist Beliefs

Post 38

A Christian proposes that humans may reach the point at which they realize that science cannot "figure it all out." This Christian further proposes that at this point God's existence would be proven, and that this would be compatible with both the theist and atheist perspective.

I respond:

I disagree that your conclusion is compatible with the atheistic view. The minute god's existence is evidenced the atheist turns into a theist. In other words, if it is ever proven that God created the universe (exists so that it is possible that he could have done it), then the atheist will instantly turn into a theist.

There might be some uneducated "hicks in the sticks" would who would insist on holding onto tradition for its own sake, and who would refuse to acknowledge the obvious. But I think it is safe to say that it won't be any of the atheists on this forum. HOWEVER, you will first have to prove that a creator exists.

Post 36

In another conversation in the same thread the topic of God/god controlling the weather was raised. The Christian challenged the atheist to find a place in the Bible where this is "asserted." I contributed the following:

I'd look in Job for starters. God claimed to open and close the windows of snow, rain, hail, etc. A solid firmament was presupposed as the sky. This solid firmament held back the waters above the earth, which is clearly stated in Gen. 1.

If I remember my OT, it reports God using hail to help the ancient Israelites win some battle or other (battered the enemy with hail--or their crops or war horses; I forget the details). Paul, in his speech to the barbarians, preaches that his God gives rain to the godly and ungodly, or something to that effect. It seems the Bible is full of "assertions" that the ancient people believed the "Christian" God controlled the weather.

That's what the simple reading of those passages indicates. Christians may find ways to "explain it away." So be it.

Incidentally, the Christian did find a way to "explain it away."

Post 44

Evidence that there is no consciousness outside the physical brain

I thought you'd jump on that one.

We have evidence that when the brain is altered, the personality is altered. When the brain is altered, the consciousness is altered. This alteration can occur in a number of ways: injury, substance as in meds (prescribed or self-medicating), surgery, disease, etc.

We also have evidence that the human personality changes over the course of a lifetime as the brain matures physically. A baby is very different from a six-year-old, a fourteen-year-old is very different from a 25-year-old, etc. Likewise, when people reach very old age, or experience some kind of brain disease, their personality changes. I saw it in my grandparents and also in my own parents. Who, exactly, is the real person? The innocent toddler? The strapping young man? The wizened sage?

Maybe you say it's not the consciousness but something else that is the real person or soul. If so, what about those people who are kept alive on life support machines for weeks or months on end? Is the real person still in there somewhere? How do they differ from the body of an animal?

Well, this is the evidence I know about for no consciousness outside the physical brain. This is enough to start some real thinking if you're open to it. Sophisticated research has been done by top neurologists of the world if you want to pursue the topic in more depth. There's a guy in England that Lightfoot or someone posted about on here a while ago but I forget his name.

From Posts 12 & 13.

Post 12



Which atheists think God's existence is too bizarre to be believable? Could you quote them and explain why you think that is what they are saying? Thank you.

For the record, that [bolded part of quote] is the least of my concerns. God can do anything he likes, so long as we find evidence that he exists to begin with.

I agree with tcampen on the question itself re Why does something exist rather than nothing, i.e. I don't find existence to be terribly amazing. I've heard the question and I have not yet been able to see any sense or wisdom in asking it or in seeking an answer for it. We're here; let's figure out how to make the best of the situation.

If you're so taken up with the idea that "something exists rather than nothing" is marvelous, maybe it's because you have not yet looked at larger possibilities that have also been posited--ideas that suggest that the Big Bang may have been a fairly recent event compared to what else is out there (I do not herewith include supernatural realms and entities). Nobody on our planet knows whether or not this is the case, but hey! neither does anybody on our planet know for sure that your god exists.

But anybody, even a child, can believe in fairies/gods who build palaces in the sky, as described in John 14. Believing in, and figuring out how, the evolution tale works is what takes humongous amounts of work. We've been at it for a good four centuries and now you crazy American religionists are doing what they can to halt the progress--nay, to negate it. WLC is one of the prime movers and shakers.

You will undo in fifty years what took centuries to build up. Like the pyramids in Egypt, only the most rigorous geological structures will remain and all the rest will be destroyed by the ravages of time so that posterity will never know a thousand years hence how they were built. Is this--such wanton neglect and intentional destruction of human knowledge and social progress--what Jesus meant by using one's talent?

Post 13

You posted while I was writing.

[In Post 11, saibomb lays out his argument and includes the following statement, to which I respond:]



Oh sure, we can assume that God exists. But it is extremely important to be sure he exists before we do things like destroy human knowledge and lives in his name. Too many millions of human lives have been destroyed in his name, too many libraries of human thought and discovery have been burned in his name. Yet nobody can prove his existence. Before another drop of blood is shed in his name, before another word is deleted or another page is burned in his name, this god's existence must be proved.

[align=center]************[/align]

Added for Atheist Apologist

I keep finding out about more and more literature that was destroyed by the Christians of the third to sixth centuries CE, during the late Roman Empire. In addition to the Alexandrian Library of Gnostic literature in Egypt, some of this includes scientific thought or discovery of ancient Greek thinkers and astronomers who did not allow room in their thought for the supernatural. I think I found reference to some of the latter in the articles I read for Enlightenment Scientists Crash Ptolemaic Cosmology. I also found reference to it in Leaving the Cave: Evolutionary Naturalism in Social Scientific Thought. Hutcheon points out that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle became famous because they show how to use the supernatural as in the divine right of kings or priests and ministers, and other similar methods, to control society with religion. The only arguments I have yet seen to contradict Hutcheon's argument are those posited by religionists themselves; their arguments posit that the authority actually comes from God.

Excuse me, but the argument that the authority comes from God is the "divine right of kings" concept in action; it sanctions a single person or class to rule society. In our so-called democratic age it may not be called "divine right of kings," but when it comes to church and/or civil government, it is a top-down authority none can deny. We talk about leaders and leadership; we talk about power politics. We also know that officially elected leadership, whether in churches or civil government, is not necessarily the force that wields the power. Might makes right and the law of the jungle rules. Calling it God does not make it so.