NationStates Jolt Archive

I simply do not understand.
Ok, there are reasons why there could be a god and there are reasons why it is unlikely.
But as it has been said about 1000 times there is no evidence against/for it.
Nevertheless there are atheist and theists, who are completely sure they are right.
For those of you who are:
Do you (not) believe due to reason or is it just a feeling? And if you (dont) believe because of a feeling, how do you deal with the fact that there is no evidence and therefore you in fact cant be sure?

If you've personally experienced a miracle, you may believe.

Science requires a repeatable, independent experiment for proof.

Rather hard to repeat a miracle.

If you've personally experienced a miracle, you may believe.

Science requires a repeatable, independent experiment for proof.

Rather hard to repeat a miracle.

How do you define "miracle"?
Something very positive, something very unlikely, or something impossible?

I simply do not understand.
Ok, there are reasons why there could be a god and there are reasons why it is unlikely.
But as it has been said about 1000 times there is no evidence against/for it.
Nevertheless there are atheist and theists, who are completely sure they are right.
For those of you who are:
Do you (not) believe due to reason or is it just a feeling? And if you (dont) believe because of a feeling, how do you deal with the fact that there is no evidence and therefore you in fact cant be sure?
No human can know. It is impossible. Humans can BELIEVE, but they can never know whether or not there is a divine being or God or god or gods or any of that.

No human can know. It is impossible. Humans can BELIEVE, but they can never know whether or not there is a divine being or God or god or gods or any of that.

But nevertheless a lot of people want to enforce a moral code based on the existance of a god upon others, because they are sure it is right.

It's a matter of probability. What are the chances of the religious group you are born into happening to be the one true religion out of the hundreds in the world?

I don't know if there is a god, a shiva, a Rainbow Serpent or whatever. Maybe they all party together on weekends. But it seems unlikely.

Maybe aliens in flying saucers land in farmers fields and butcher cattle and anally probe people. I can't prove they don't, but it seems unlikely.

But nevertheless a lot of people want to enforce a moral code based on the existance of a god upon others, because they are sure it is right.
Yes, that's true. They are either a) insane, b) lying to themselves, c) lying to everybody else, or d) all of the above.

I simply do not understand.
Ok, there are reasons why there could be a god and there are reasons why it is unlikely.
But as it has been said about 1000 times there is no evidence against/for it.
Nevertheless there are atheist and theists, who are completely sure they are right.
For those of you who are:
Do you (not) believe due to reason or is it just a feeling? And if you (dont) believe because of a feeling, how do you deal with the fact that there is no evidence and therefore you in fact cant be sure?

You can't, that's why agonosticism is the one true religion :D

You can't, that's why agonosticism is the one true religion :D
Untrue. Weak atheism works just as well.
A weak atheist doesn't say that gods are impossible, only that one shouldn't beleive in their existance without evidence. The difference is that Agnostics don't take a position on beleif/non-beleif because it's unknowable. Weak atheists do take a position on god, just like they take a position on ghosts, bigfoot, dragons, UFO abductions, etc.

It's a matter of probability. What are the chances of the religious group you are born into happening to be the one true religion out of the hundreds in the world?

I don't know if there is a god, a shiva, a Rainbow Serpent or whatever. Maybe they all party together on weekends. But it seems unlikely.

Maybe aliens in flying saucers land in farmers fields and butcher cattle and anally probe people. I can't prove they don't, but it seems unlikely.

I think the strongest argument for the existence of a god is that somehow the whole universe must have come into being somehow. And I think it is very difficult to tell whether it is unlikely or not that some kind of god made it.

I simply do not understand.
Ok, there are reasons why there could be a god and there are reasons why it is unlikely.
But as it has been said about 1000 times there is no evidence against/for it.
Nevertheless there are atheist and theists, who are completely sure they are right.
For those of you who are:
Do you (not) believe due to reason or is it just a feeling? And if you (dont) believe because of a feeling, how do you deal with the fact that there is no evidence and therefore you in fact cant be sure?

"How can one be sure about the existence / non-existence of an overnatural power?"
You can't.


You may believe he (/she/it... 'they' if it's a pantheon) exists and if you truly do so then live as you would believe is required, but that doesn't make them real if they aren't. (You can live as if they are, you can die as if they are, but this doesn't prove their existence.)


Similarly, you may dismiss them. But it's always possible they exist. There's no science that can apply a litmus-test to the universe and indicate an absence of divine beings.


I consider myself atheist and I ignore God, I do not deny him. I live a (hopefully) good life and don't murder anyone (not even Jehovah's Witnesses who knock at my door) and if there is a God I would imagine that I'll get credit for that (despite not killing any Jehovah's Witnesses ;)) and, if not, well, how could I have possibly got away with pretending to believe anyway (never mind pretending to believe in the wrong god altogether...)


I'd like to think that if I were, by nature, a theist I'd live a (hopefully) good life, not murder anyone (not even Jehovah's Witnesses or, if I were a JW, double-glazing salesmen and other workers of the devil ;)) and so when I died I'd expect that if there was an afterlife I'd get my due (even if I found it was Allah up there, who'd give me credit for being true to myself) and whether or not that occured I'd hopefully leave behind a legacy to be proud of.


I'm fairly confident that a God is not required. i.e. that there's nothing in nature that demands Him to exist, and so I deal with my 'surity', such as it is, by being sure of the opposite not being true (for an absolute version of 'true').

That's a sloppy way of thinking, but it works for me... ;)

I think the strongest argument for the existence of a god is that somehow the whole universe must have come into being somehow. And I think it is very difficult to tell whether it is unlikely or not that some kind of god made it.
The fact that we don't know very much about the beginning of the universe makes it worthless as evidence for a god. It's similar to saying Amelia Erhart disappeared on her flight around the world, and that's evidence of alien abduction.

The fact that we don't know very much about the beginning of the universe makes it worthless as evidence for a god. It's similar to saying Amelia Erhart disappeared on her flight around the world, and that's evidence of alien abduction.

1. I didnt say evidence but argument.
2. I dont think it is all too strong.
3. [Example:] Of course this is no argument for the existence of alien abductions, but still it makes alien abduction more likely ;)

The same way you can be sure of the existence / non existence of anything. You can not. You can believe that it exists or it does not exist, you can construct a consistent world view based on either. You can not be sure.

I simply do not understand.
Ok, there are reasons why there could be a god and there are reasons why it is unlikely.
But as it has been said about 1000 times there is no evidence against/for it.
Nevertheless there are atheist and theists, who are completely sure they are right.
For those of you who are:
Do you (not) believe due to reason or is it just a feeling? And if you (dont) believe because of a feeling, how do you deal with the fact that there is no evidence and therefore you in fact cant be sure?
We cannot be sure of god's existence, nor is it necessary to be sure. It kinda misses the point: religion is not about god, it is about us.

By the way, who invented this new word "overnatural"?

By the way, who invented this new word "overnatural"?
Oops, rather meant supernatural. Changed it.

Untrue. Weak atheism works just as well.
A weak atheist doesn't say that gods are impossible, only that one shouldn't beleive in their existance without evidence. The difference is that Agnostics don't take a position on beleif/non-beleif because it's unknowable. Weak atheists do take a position on god, just like they take a position on ghosts, bigfoot, dragons, UFO abductions, etc.

Not necessarily unknowable, just unknown.
I prefer the agnostic because any form of Atheism rejects belief in the existance of God. Even though the 'weak atheism' you describe seems rational, it strikes me as more rational that you don't make any statement at all without solid proof.

The logic of weak atheism is:

P1 There is no definite proof of God
P2 You shouldn't believe anything without proof
C You shouldn't believe in God.

I believe the logical extention of this is:

P1 There is no definite proof of God or no God
P2 You shouldn't believe anything without proof
C You shouldn't believe in God or no God

(obviously you can substitute "i don't" for "you shouldn't" get get an even weaker version of both)

religion is not about god, it is about us.

Maybe it is, but for example Christianity without God would be quite different than it is. Very often God's will is used as an argument for/against something.

I believe the logical extention of this is:

P1 There is no definite proof of God or no God
P2 You shouldn't believe anything without proof
C You shouldn't believe in God or no God



What about probability?

It's like I've said before, I'll believe when god does a few Larry King episodes, not until. If there was a god he could clear it up real easy. Some take the fact that there is no evidence of a god as evidence in itself. If you understand what I mean. Surely if it was true, by now there would of been some kind of evidence and there isn't. As I have read on this board time and again, you can't prove a negative. The onus would be on the person who says there is a god, not the person who says there is not.

What about probability?

What about it?

Without divine interevention I'd be dead or at the very least paralyzed according to medical experts. Though that is only one of many reasons I believe in God.

I simply do not understand.
Ok, there are reasons why there could be a god and there are reasons why it is unlikely.
But as it has been said about 1000 times there is no evidence against/for it.
Nevertheless there are atheist and theists, who are completely sure they are right.
For those of you who are:
Do you (not) believe due to reason or is it just a feeling? And if you (dont) believe because of a feeling, how do you deal with the fact that there is no evidence and therefore you in fact cant be sure?Well, you can prove it, because I am the all-powerful, omnipresent, evil supreme ruler of the universe. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I'm not all-powerful actually. I can't control people, just tell them what to do. :(

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I think the strongest argument for the existence of a god is that somehow the whole universe must have come into being somehow. And I think it is very difficult to tell whether it is unlikely or not that some kind of god made it.

Well, strictly speaking, "the universe" is a set of all things, including God or gods. The argument that "there was a moment of creation, therefore there must be a creator" merely shoves the whole question of "where did everything (including God or gods, remember) come from?" up into the attic and pretends that it's been answered.

Partly this comes from the problems of dealing with time. Time is part of the universe. Either time began, or it did not. If time has been running for all eternity, then obviously there was no moment of creation. If it did begin, then you have the problem of "what caused time to start?" Cause precedes effect; it's impossible to precede the beginning of time. The best you can do is say that time merely began; a first effect, rather than a first cause.

If you go for the idea that "everything except time (and God) was summoned into existence at one specific moment 13.7 billion years/6,000 years/5 minutes ago", then you're faced with the idea of a God who sat around for an infinite length of time before doing anything at all. Or you can start postulating an infinite series of creations (which holds a sure and certain promise of eternal life, since, in an infinite series, there will also be a similarly infinite series of identical repetitions). Or you can postulate cyclical time. Or you can postulate an infinite series of creators, i.e. everything was made by God, who was made by a meta-God, who was made by a meta-meta-God, who was made by a meta-meta-meta-God, and so on forever.

Of course, you could also start talking about a God who exists "outside time", and hope no-one asks you to explain. :) But that leads you into all sorts of bother with predestination versus free will...

Well, strictly speaking, "the universe" is a set of all things, including God or gods. The argument that "there was a moment of creation, therefore there must be a creator" merely shoves the whole question of "where did everything (including God or gods, remember) come from?" up into the attic and pretends that it's been answered.

I would argue that God, by definition, exists outside the physical universe and is not necessarily bound by the laws which order workings inside it. Individual personifications of God are the points of contact between us and it. They contain a portion of God, but not the whole. These personifications are bound by physical laws, yet the whole is not.


Partly this comes from the problems of dealing with time. Time is part of the universe. Either time began, or it did not. If time has been running for all eternity, then obviously there was no moment of creation. If it did begin, then you have the problem of "what caused time to start?" Cause precedes effect; it's impossible to precede the beginning of time. The best you can do is say that time merely began; a first effect, rather than a first cause.

At base, time is simply a measure causality. If you remove the restrictions of causality, then time is also removed.

Another way to look at it would be to assume that time is an infinite string. Our existance and the existance of our universe cooresponds to a length of that string which is currently vibrating. Therefore, time functions independently of the existance of our universe and the creation of our universe is a plucking of the string of time by God.

These are just thought games, mind you. I have no proof nor claim to have any proof of their validity.


If you go for the idea that "everything except time (and God) was summoned into existence at one specific moment 13.7 billion years/6,000 years/5 minutes ago", then you're faced with the idea of a God who sat around for an infinite length of time before doing anything at all. Or you can start postulating an infinite series of creations (which holds a sure and certain promise of eternal life, since, in an infinite series, there will also be a similarly infinite series of identical repetitions). Or you can postulate cyclical time. Or you can postulate an infinite series of creators, i.e. everything was made by God, who was made by a meta-God, who was made by a meta-meta-God, who was made by a meta-meta-meta-God, and so on forever.

Or, again, you can view God as existing fundamentally outside of our universe and it's physical laws.


Of course, you could also start talking about a God who exists "outside time", and hope no-one asks you to explain. :) But that leads you into all sorts of bother with predestination versus free will...

Well, just for another thought game, if one looks at time as a measure of causality, and if one removes our fundamental understanding of causality, then one can exist outside of time. On certain levels of quantum mechanics (I'm not a physicist, so this is simply a layman's understanding of physics and I could be completely wrong), it seems causality is indeed removed, at least our understanding of it needs considerable adjustment to explain the observed phenomena. As we delve deeper into string theory, whole new vistas of "non-causality-linked" events open up. As I said in some other thread, perhaps this is the level where God acts (if God exists and acts at all, neither of which I'm 100% sold on, even though I identify as a theist). Thus, divinity can neatly exist outside of the dictates of time while still affecting our physical universe.

What about it?
Some of us don't find the existance of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immortal, undetectable being to be very probable.

Some of us don't find the existance of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, immortal, undetectable being to be very probable.

But are "not probable", "not possible" and "definitely not" the same thing?

But are "not probable", "not possible" and "definitely not" the same thing?
No. That's why I don't say gods are impossible, only that I don't beleive they exist without hard evidence. I'm a weak atheist.

I simply do not understand.
Ok, there are reasons why there could be a god and there are reasons why it is unlikely.
But as it has been said about 1000 times there is no evidence against/for it.
Nevertheless there are atheist and theists, who are completely sure they are right.
For those of you who are:
Do you (not) believe due to reason or is it just a feeling? And if you (dont) believe because of a feeling, how do you deal with the fact that there is no evidence and therefore you in fact cant be sure?

There are a number of books/studies out there which draw comparisons between schizophrenia and the belief in the supernatural/religious orientation. Much of what they say really hits home when you see seemingly rational people defy reasoning and reality and call it faith.

But nevertheless a lot of people want to enforce a moral code based on the existance of a god upon others, because they are sure it is right.

a moral code is different than a belife that there is a god or not
and you shouldn't force or in any other way impose your belifes on another
it just pisses them off

There are a number of books/studies out there which draw comparisons between schizophrenia and the belief in the supernatural/religious orientation. Much of what they say really hits home when you see seemingly rational people defy reasoning and reality and call it faith.

I think you're treading on dangerous ground when you start comparing a willful belief in the possibility of a divinity to mental disorder. Just because a thing resembles something doesn't mean it's the same as.

No. That's why I don't say gods are impossible, only that I don't beleive they exist without hard evidence. I'm a weak atheist.

look up agnosticism
its not atheism

look up agnosticism
its not atheism
Agnosticism takes no position on whether god exists. Weak atheism doesn't beleive god does exist.

Agnosticism takes no position on whether god exists. Weak atheism doesn't beleive god does exist.

So, and I know this has been asked before, do you see your weak atheism as a position of faith, in that you can't rationally be sure of the presence or abscence of divinity?

I would argue that God, by definition, exists outside the physical universe and is not necessarily bound by the laws which order workings inside it [...] As I said in some other thread, perhaps this is the level where God acts (if God exists and acts at all, neither of which I'm 100% sold on, even though I identify as a theist). Thus, divinity can neatly exist outside of the dictates of time while still affecting our physical universe.

Oh, yes, absolutely. It's a perfectly legitimate point of view. An infinitely transcendental being is infinitely transcendent, after all! The only counter to this is Ockham's Razor: what's simpler: the Universe, or the Universe + 1? But O.R. isn't a solid logical argument, just a handy rule of thumb, and doesn't really stand up to the infinitely transcendental.

Agnosticism takes no position on whether god exists. Weak atheism doesn't beleive god does exist.

true enough
but more accuratally it means that we accept the fact that all of us are human and have no earthly way of proving or disproving that there is or isnt a god/gods or an afterlife
we just accept life as it is and move on

also note that not all agnostics belive the same thing
we each have our variation on that basic fact

"I consider myself atheist and I ignore God, I do not deny him. I live a (hopefully) good life and don't murder anyone (not even Jehovah's Witnesses who knock at my door) and if there is a God I would imagine that I'll get credit for that (despite not killing any Jehovah's Witnesses ;)) and, if not, well, how could I have possibly got away with pretending to believe anyway (never mind pretending to believe in the wrong god altogether...)


I'd like to think that if I were, by nature, a theist I'd live a (hopefully) good life, not murder anyone (not even Jehovah's Witnesses or, if I were a JW, double-glazing salesmen and other workers of the devil ;)) and so when I died I'd expect that if there was an afterlife I'd get my due (even if I found it was Allah up there, who'd give me credit for being true to myself) and whether or not that occured I'd hopefully leave behind a legacy to be proud of.


I'm fairly confident that a God is not required. i.e. that there's nothing in nature that demands Him to exist, and so I deal with my 'surity', such as it is, by being sure of the opposite not being true (for an absolute version of 'true').

That's a sloppy way of thinking, but it works for me... ;)

damn...i was gonna say that..... :)

Oh, yes, absolutely. It's a perfectly legitimate point of view. An infinitely transcendental being is infinitely transcendent, after all! The only counter to this is Ockham's Razor: what's simpler: the Universe, or the Universe + 1? But O.R. isn't a solid logical argument, just a handy rule of thumb, and doesn't really stand up to the infinitely transcendental.

Heh, well, in the nature of thought experiments, I would suggest that O.R. is being incorrectly applied here. If brane theory is true, then there are a multiplicity of universes constantly strolling about in some 5th dimension we can't picture intuitively. Therefore, it wouldn't be necessarily a Universe+1, but rather a meta-universe with it's own set of concepts.

I would recommend you to read Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach's works about the topic. He generally sais that god is just a projekted perfect image of a person, amended by the attributes he wishs to have and so anticipates of a god. If one has found out that, he should better spend his energy in finding his sense of life in contact with the society.

Of course there is also the question of theodicy but one's opinion about that depends strongly on the imagination of god one has. If god is the helping, loving, perfect entity the christian churches wants to see us, its really a problem but i think its a process of growing up to get rid of such a childish, unreflected belief.

mfg
Geschichti

I think you're treading on dangerous ground when you start comparing a willful belief in the possibility of a divinity to mental disorder. Just because a thing resembles something doesn't mean it's the same as.


Well I think you're treading on dangerous ground when you you take a prejudicial stance agains a quirk in human behavior. I did not say schizophrenia is the same as religious orientation. What the authors of these books say is schizophrenia possibly played a crucial role in human development particularly with the arts and religion. Secondly we are not talking about full blown cases here but more of a tendency in humans to be at least partially schizophrenic (possibly related to gluten allergies/sensitivity) or a built in predisposition towards schizophrenia like behavior.

It is defined as folows:

1. Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances. Schizophrenia is associated with dopamine imbalances in the brain and defects of the frontal lobe and is caused by genetic, other biological, and psychosocial factors.
2. A situation or condition that results from the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic qualities, identities, or activities: the national schizophrenia that results from carrying out an unpopular war.

When we consider what religion even the religious does and is the parallels are astounding. Another thing to consider is if we are all mad how can we tell who is sane and therefore the perspective from which we judge is inherently arbitrary.

Heh, well, in the nature of thought experiments, I would suggest that O.R. is being incorrectly applied here. If brane theory is true, then there are a multiplicity of universes constantly strolling about in some 5th dimension we can't picture intuitively. Therefore, it wouldn't be necessarily a Universe+1, but rather a meta-universe with it's own set of concepts.

There's only so much my brane can take, so I may be miles off here, but couldn't I just then rephrase the question as, "What's simpler: a meta- (but still finite) universe, or a meta- (but still finite) universe + 1 infinitely transcendental being?"

There's only so much my brane can take, so I may be miles off here, but couldn't I just then rephrase the question as, "What's simpler: a meta- (but still finite) universe, or a meta- (but still finite) universe + 1 infinitely transcendental being?"

What if the meta- (which I don't believe is said to be finite) universe is the infinitely transcendental being?

*Head Explodey*

Why does the word 'meta-universe' make me think of String-theory....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
By the way, who invented this new word "overnatural"?


Oops, rather meant supernatural. Changed it.

Natural is an even better word, as many (at least) Pagan faiths believe that what many refer to as 'the supernatural' is in fact more natural than humans.

So, and I know this has been asked before, do you see your weak atheism as a position of faith, in that you can't rationally be sure of the presence or abscence of divinity?
No. It's not faith. It's the opposite of faith. It's a demand for evidence.

What if the meta- (which I don't believe is said to be finite) universe is the infinitely transcendental being?

*Head Explodey*

But...

that would mean...

and then...

if...

*AUM*

/achieves enlightenment/

/advances to new stage of being/

/reload from saved game/

Eh? What?

No. It's not faith. It's the opposite of faith. It's a demand for evidence.

Well, but that's just it, isn't it? I mean, this is sort of silly of me, call yourself whatever you wish. It just seems to me that if:

A) Rationality is paramount.
B) For the requirements of rationality to be satisfied, evidence in support of an idea must exist.
C) Without evidence, judgements may still be made, but they are irrational as they lack evidence.
D) The making of irrational judgements requires some standard of choice, as to make any decision a value structure must be implemented.
E) Faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
F) The standard of choice in the abscence of rationality must be referred to as faith.

What if the meta- (which I don't believe is said to be finite) universe is the infinitely transcendental being?

*Head Explodey*

Wait, that means that I'm God, you're God, he's/she's/it's God! I now demand my magical powers! As my first act of God-hood, I demand that everyone sing the following rewrite of the Dr. Pepper jingle:

I'm a god and
You're a god and
He's a god and
She's a god.
Wouldn't you like to be a god too?!?

Wait, now I'm a Mormon. That can't be right...

But...

that would mean...

and then...

if...

*AUM*

/achieves enlightenment/

/advances to new stage of being/

/reload from saved game/

Eh? What?

lol
thank you that was needed

Well, but that's just it, isn't it? I mean, this is sort of silly of me, call yourself whatever you wish. It just seems to me that if:

A) Rationality is paramount.
B) For the requirements of rationality to be satisfied, evidence in support of an idea must exist.
C) Without evidence, judgements may still be made, but they are irrational as they lack evidence.
D) The making of irrational judgements requires some standard of choice, as to make any decision a value structure must be implemented.
E) Faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
F) The standard of choice in the abscence of rationality must be referred to as faith.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Please dumb it down a little. I'm not feeling too smart today.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Please dumb it down a little. I'm not feeling too smart today.

Well, me either, so I'm not being particularly clear. :)

I guess what I'm saying is that agnosticism is the only rational approach to the question of divinity and everything else requires at least a little faith as there is no objective evidence available to base a rational decision on.

Not necessarily unknowable, just unknown.
I prefer the agnostic because any form of Atheism rejects belief in the existance of God. Even though the 'weak atheism' you describe seems rational, it strikes me as more rational that you don't make any statement at all without solid proof.

The logic of weak atheism is:

P1 There is no definite proof of God
P2 You shouldn't believe anything without proof
C You shouldn't believe in God.

I believe the logical extention of this is:

P1 There is no definite proof of God or no God
P2 You shouldn't believe anything without proof
C You shouldn't believe in God or no God

(obviously you can substitute "i don't" for "you shouldn't" get get an even weaker version of both)


How about the believe that certain descriptions of god are more improbable (http://wadejq.blogspot.com/2005/02/examining-probability-of-all-powerful.html) than others?

-Wade
http://wadejq.blogspot.com/2005/01/fallable-atheist.html

Well, me either, so I'm not being particularly clear. :)

I guess what I'm saying is that agnosticism is the only rational approach to the question of divinity and everything else requires at least a little faith as there is no objective evidence available to base a rational decision on.
I see your point, but doesn't probablity enter into the equation? If there was a god who created the universe and started the human race, wouldn't it be likely that he would either reveal himself intentionally because he cares, or inadvertantly show himself or his power because he doesn't care if we see him?

Also the burden of proof falls on the person making the positive staement, no? It's just about impossible to prove a negative like "there is no god".


Maybe I'm grasping at straws. I'll reevaluate my position and see where I really stand.

I see your point, but doesn't probablity enter into the equation? If there was a god who created the universe and started the human race, wouldn't it be likely that he would either reveal himself intentionally because he cares, or inadvertantly show himself or his power because he doesn't care if we see him?

Yes, probability does enter into it, but probability doesn't equal absolute proof. You can rationally say that, given the current pseudo-evidence, the idea of the existance of God, at least of the Judeo-Christian variety, is vanishingly small. This statement isn't the same as saying conclusively that God does not exist, which is the atheist position. To do that you have to effectively rule out any possibility at all of the existance of God, which goes beyond probabilities. Thus, it requires faith.

As for the revelation of God, most adherants to a theistic belief would say that God constantly reveals itself. Indeed, if one assumes that God did "create" the Universe, then that's one big spoiler as to it's existance. The question is one of perspective. I think the incredible interconnectedness of the whole of existance is awe-inspiring and might be indicitive of a creator (although this is philosophy, not science, and has no business being taught in our schools as creationism, ID or any other bunk science). I would also say that through my own spiritual inquiry, I have found enough personal evidence to at least make me think there's something to the concept of divinity, although I will freely acknowledge that this is my own subjective experience and can't be used to convince others of the reality of divinity. Signs and wonders are highly subjective and that's the problem. One man's miracle is another man's chemical reaction. But may be that too, that ability of differing perceptions, that drive of explanation, is the stuff of God?


Also the burden of proof falls on the person making the positive staement, no? It's just about impossible to prove a negative like "there is no god".

Which is why it's rather hard to rationally say there is no God, because it's an unprovable statement. The best you can hope to say and still be rational is, "There probably isn't a God, but given the lack of objective evidence, you can't make a definitive call."

I also think that atheism, and again this is my personal conception, doesn't try to prove there isn't a God, but tries to prove a sort of "anti-God". The abscence of divinity becomes a concept in and of itself.


Maybe I'm grasping at straws. I'll reevaluate my position and see where I really stand.

Meh, stand wherever you wish. It's just so much mental masturbation at this point and everyone has a right to touch themselves however they see fit. :)

Here's a miracle for you:

http://www.neoandtrinity.net/imgs/persephone_front.jpg

Here's a miracle for you:

http://www.neoandtrinity.net/imgs/persephone_front.jpg

I'm not sure I'm willing to give PhotoShop the title "Hand of the Divine" just yet. :)