Atheism vs. God-Belief (the final debate).

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I do not deny that the presence of God can be postulated from what can be seen. We should not be surprised that the visible world can show evidence of the invisible and I can posit plenty of arguments from science or pure logic itself towards that end.

For instance it is not surprising to me in the least that the latest musing of quantum physicists is that visible matter and energy is manifested out of a "void" or out of nothing as far as they can tell. Essentially they suggest that there is a invisible undergirding or void beneath and behind and within from which the visible world springs forth. They call it a void simply because they have been unable to measure or quantify or identify energy that they can not see. Now of course this does not in and of itself prove anything about what is really present and yet unseen, but it is interesting non the less and I have believed this same concept that matter and energy were manifested from a void long before i studied anything regarding quantum physics.

Or consider for example some of the recent studies regarding the way matter can be caused to organize itself into more and more complex geometry, simply by being exposed to sound waves at increasing frequencies. In fact some have theorized that the entire universe on a quantum level is given structure and form via vibrational energys from extremely high frequency sound waves.

Matter and energy manifested and organized into complex form via invisible energy from the void, this invisible energy manifesting itself into the visible world as sound waves. Matter and energy created from the void through the power of sound, or perhaps from the power of a spoken word??

Of course this is all speculation and nobody can prove what indeed if anything is there in the "void" in the reality veiled from our visible senses, but if you truly have an open mind and have not already written off one of the options (ie, it can be anything, but it can't be God) it should at least perk your interest.


All this investigation by science should be encouraged and can indeed be useful to make man aware of a creator if indeed the evidence points there. This however would only be the first step of acknowledging that something, or someone is there.

Then a whole new set of questions arises, if there is a consciousness out there, why did he create, for what purpose and what am i in relation to this being.

Judging by some of your barbs at the moral relevance of such a God, i take it you see him as being a completely Amoral being?? That he does not establish a concept of right and wrong, good or evil? That mankind is not in any way subject to a definition or standard of behavior, but is rather completely free to do whatever he wants without fear of consequence? I'm curious at what your position is, since you have been somewhat guarded thus far, i can only guess. I would however be interested in the conversation.

Soul

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by LABTECH767

 

Good points. Atheism apparently claims no knowledge (except it's own non-belief in God of any kind) and is not an "argument" of any kind.

The Atheist fervorently claims no God exists and is in denial of such. The Agnostic questions (openly a possiblity it may or may not) its existance and is on the fence until an arguement for or against prevails to satisfy uniquely personal doubts.

Originally posted by CashStronomer
Uhm, did the big thing happen yet? Did I miss it?

Is this leading up to the second coming?

I think we are still on a Canadian hockey timeout. Too many penalties, I guess.

NAM, I sure hope your team won and putting this Final Debate Ever on a timeout was worth it!

reply to post by SoulReaper

The maxim of "love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength (courage) and your neighbor as yourself" arises from the fact that we all share the same unconditioned ground of being who's only condition if there is one is that it's unconditional or free and open. Love is a heartfelt desire for what's in everyone's mutual best interest, including our own so the whole framework of "morality" can be derived from that contemplating realization. A secular humanism however fails in time of crisis where the distinction between a "rational self interest" and a dog eat dog survival of the fittest law of the jungle becomes totally blurred, so this deep and fundamental principal of love in regards to our relation to life, to one another and even to one's self, is a Civilizing principal that is also in alignment with the ever larger frame of reference unto the very highest, and to the lower, to always and forever seek to raise up what is low to increasingly higher height (towrope from heaven or hand reaching into the pit of ignorance). Authentic love therefore is not unwilling to undergo a meaningful suffering for the sake of what is true, right, loving and just. It's unnecessary suffering born of egioc structures that is absurd and ridiculous and which ultimately demonstrates its own inadequacy to effectively lead anywhere except to ruin and/or the brunt of ridicule.

Anything less leads inexorably to the stratification of society along lines that are not spiritually or psychologically uplifitng in nature and worse still that are not fair or just.

So there's a type of law (frame) of life and love at work, which we know that to honor and uphold is virtuous, and to break and disobey, debasing and hurtful and destructive.

The implication of this is that indeed we do share the same ground of being with one another and even with God as the spirit of truth, love and life that ultimately co-habitates with us in the communion of brotherly love.

reply to post by bb23108

The Canucks lost (to the Detroit Redwings) I think because for some reason they were wearing their old old-timer colors and jerseys, and thus paid a price both for looking silly and maybe getting a little too cocky and arrogant. It wasn't pretty.

Why are we still debating the meaning of the word atheist/atheism.

a•the•ism [ey-thee-iz-uhm] noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Not very complicated. And for claiming there is no common belief in atheism I suggest you don't understand the meaning of the word.

You have all made a concept that is simple very complicated because you refuse to be labeled. Don't call yourself atheist if you don't believe in atheism. And if you do agree than accept the label.

Presumably we are done defining atheism, but NewAgeMan, I would like to avoid confusion (if that is possible!) relative to the meaning of your terms "Creative Agency" and "super intelligent design".

Is this Creative Agency the same as Consciousness as used in non-dualism, or is It a Creator God of some kind?

Is conditionality (all forms, beings, things, etc.) arising in this Creative Agency and non-separate from It - or is conditionality separate from this Creative Agency?

The Super-Intelligence you ascribe to this Creative Agency, is it an attribute to ascribe to It based on what you see is created or can it be subjectivity known/experienced/tacitly felt by Its creatures?

Is Creative Agency best thought of as the Unconditional as opposed to everything that appears and disappears (the conditional)?

Is all conditionality simply modifications of this Creative Agency and therefore not separate from it?

There are various reasons for these questions. For instance, as you know, I do not presume a separate God (a great and separate Super-Entity) exists, but do recognize the Unconditional Divine as Reality, Conscious Light, Intelligence, Love-Bliss - but NOT the creator of all conditionality.

However, I also understand that conditionality arises in the Unconditional as a modification of Conscious Light or Reality Itself, and so conditionality is inherently infused with Reality's Intelligence (whether any thing or being arising is conscious of this or not) - and so may appear as intelligently designed, but not designed or created by some Other. Of course, conditionality modifies the appearance of Reality's Light according to its own attributes and appears in endless variations, some apparently more intelligent and beautiful than others.

I am sure you have covered some, if not all of these points, in your many posts, but if you would recap your definition of Creative Agency and Super-Intelligent Design via considering the above questions, I think it might help with this consideration.

I look forward to your presentation!

Thank you for starting this.
A friend of mine is recently proclaiming himself an atheist. Being essentially like minded, but not identifying as atheist, I'm having a hard time understanding what he's all about with this.
This is the best thing I can find for my response and I think it's helpful here.

Way Beyond Atheism: God Does Not (Not) Exist

Apophatic theology or via negativa.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Okay, let's start with this...God is all knowing and all powerful, he made everything and has knowledge of all things past and present, right? Since he knows these things he is infallible, he can NEVER be wrong. Since he can never be wrong he cannot make mistakes, this means that everything he does is done intentionally. Although he is so good, not only did he create the ultimate evil he has the power to remove it from the world but chooses not to do so. We are left with two options here:
1) That God cannot destroy Lucifer and therefore is not all powerful, or
2) He wants there to be evil and suffering in this world.
These are not the actions of an omnipotent and benevolent god.

I can point out discrepancies such as these ALL DAY, but the point I am trying to make is how can anyone put their faith and trust in a god who says one thing and does another? How is that even close to logical? I myself am more inclined to lean the other way, that there is no God, the universe is not the result of intelligent design. I can offer no proof, but neither can you. Do you not think that you are also presumptuous? Has God ever spoken to you? Have you ever seen Him? Didn't think so.

reply to post by sacgamer25

You have all made a concept that is simple very complicated because you refuse to be labeled. Don't call yourself atheist if you don't believe in atheism. And if you do agree than accept the label.

That label leaves a bad taste in my mouth because it implies a certain lack of appreciation for emotional value in concepts that offend the atheist mentality. While I lean more towards atheism, I can appreciate spirituality in that it provides meaning...and meaning provides purpose.

reply to post by CMJ23


If you are going to judge the actions of God in the bible should you not look at it according to his rules? I am going to try to explain this in simple terms.

Imagine you are an immortal father. You have an immortal child and you have two different homes to live in. One of these homes is in the ghetto, the other is in paradise.

The ghetto home isn't the most pleasant but it provides the best environment for you to teach your child. Since you are immortal you are not afraid of the violence in the Ghetto, so you are only making a decision based on what is the best way to learn. When your child has learned enough about how to treat other people without conflict in the ghetto you are prepared to move him to paradise.

Whether we like it or not we continue to debate this because "bad things happen", and "God is love". And in our minds we simply cannot reconcile the two. God's way is to send us to the Ghetto and allow us to feel the heat of the fire and maybe even get burned, but not destroyed.

God decided it best that our sinful physical body should perish as part of the process of moving us from the ghetto to paradise.

The bible promises that anyone who pursues love will find it. And anyone who finds God/love is promised immortality. Rather than condemn God for bad things, condemn yourself and overcome sin. Then the father will move your spirit from the ghetto to paradise, prior to your physical death, so that you are given assurance of paradise before you leave the ghetto.

So what we should be doing is pursuing God/love with all our hearts so that we can live in assurance of our immortality rather than living in fear of our mortality. 100 years in the ghetto, eternity in paradise. I still call this love, I am not going to judge God for what happens here.

reply to post by sacgamer25

If you are going to judge the actions of God in the bible should you not look at it according to his rules? I am going to try to explain this in simple terms.

You are trying to translate the infinite into a finite language using a finite medium. If anyone or anything was going to properly translate such things, it would not be a limited being such as yourself. And like it or not, you are limited. Just the fact that you are unwilling to consider concepts that you have trained yourself to perceive as abhorrent supports this statement.

Imagine you are an immortal father. You have an immortal child and you have two different homes to live in. One of these homes is in the ghetto, the other is in paradise.

Imagination is a paltry game of pretend in comparison with reality. That's why we don't just imagine we are flying to France. Imagination leaves so much to be desired...in fact, imagination has its greatest purpose in giving us a reason to change our reality.

God decided it best that our sinful physical body should perish as part of the process of moving us from the ghetto to paradise.

I'll just leave this link here. It should leave a rather large chink in the armor of your argument.

The Soul

The bible promises that anyone who pursues love will find it. And anyone who finds God/love is promised immortality. Rather than condemn God for bad things, condemn yourself and overcome sin. Then the father will move your spirit from the ghetto to paradise, prior to your physical death, so that you are given assurance of paradise before you leave the ghetto.

You may wish to show more respect to those who were raised in the ghetto. Not everyone sees the ghetto as you do, and some still consider it home, a symbol of how a phoenix may rise from the ashes. But first...there must be ashes.

Who wants immortality? Anyone who wants immortality, doesn't understand life. If you want immortality, you're already damned. Immortality is like having all the money in the world - there is no challenge, no triumph, only existence. Eventually, nothing is new anymore and you come to hate the monotony. And at last, you come to hate being alive because you no longer derive anything from it except the torture of repetition.

Immortality is worthless.

There are two principal aspects of the argument I'm going to make (when time permits). The first will argue that the manifest reality, including consciousness (as a tangled hierarchy), has arisen as a result of an intelligent subtraction from, the absolute formless potential as a first/last cause or as a downward causation emanating from the Godhead aka Creative Agency, whereby the phenomenon of consciousness is not and cannot simply arise as an epiphenomenon of matter, and the second, to "join the circle" will aim to show a manifest example of superintelligent design embedded by anticipation and with intent, into the geometrical relationships and integers of our own earth-moon-sun system/configuration as a precursor to earth's evolutionary development including that of the human being as self aware observer, and even as a marker or a "sign" or signature intended for our own recognition, by the Creative Agency, but done in such a way that it cannot be dismissed either as pure coincidence or nullified as meaningless by the strong anthropic principal.

Just wanted to offer a head's up, out of fairness, due to the delay.

Best Regards,

NAM

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
There are two principal aspects of the argument I'm going to make (when time permits). The first will argue that the manifest reality, including consciousness (as a tangled hierarchy), has arisen as a result of an intelligent subtraction from, the absolute formless potential as a first/last cause or as a downward causation emanating from the Godhead aka Creative Agency, whereby the phenomenon of consciousness is not and cannot simply arise as an epiphenomenon of matter, and the second, to "join the circle" will aim to show a manifest example of superintelligent design embedded, by anticipation and with intent, into the geometrical relationships and integers of our own earth-moon-sun system/configuration as a precursor to earth's evolutionary development including that of the human being as self aware observer, and even as a marker or a "sign" intended for our own recognition, by the Creative Agency, but done in such a way that it cannot be dismissed either as pure coincidence or nullified as meaningless by the strong anthropic principal.

Just wanted to offer a head's up, out of fairness, due to the delay.

Thank you, that is useful.

But a few more questions. So you are saying that Consciousness was the first cause of the Unconditional? How can the Unconditional cause any thing? The Unconditional is prior to all conditions, not separately causing them.

I also hope you can specifically answer my questions asked a few posts ago because it would help to understand your concepts better - even if you just answer them with a yes or no, or at least some kind of specific elaboration if it is not that simple.

Best to you too!
bb

P.S. I think you just broke an ATS record! That second sentence of yours quoted above has to be the longest sentence ever posted! 152 words, 836 characters according to Word!

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by bb23108

 

The Canucks lost (to the Detroit Redwings) I think because for some reason they were wearing their old old-timer colors and jerseys, and thus paid a price both for looking silly and maybe getting a little too cocky and arrogant. It wasn't pretty.

So the Canucks losing was caused by a not so intelligent design of their jerseys or at least a not so intelligent decision to wear them? This sounds very unreasonable to me! I think the loss was caused because you held up this most important Final Debate ever - to watch a hockey game!

reply to post by bb23108

I'm just glad there's something and not nothing at all and that life and consciousness is our present moment "condition".

I'm not interested to be honest in arguing for a duality between the manifest reality and unconditioned nothingness, especially when it appears that there is nothing that "is not", and neither am I prepared to argue for my own non-existence in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

And if consciousness is primary, when the circle is joined that doesn't imply a duality/split between the Creative Agency and the creation, including ourselves.

`Father, I want the people that you have given me to be with me. Then they will see that you made me great, because you loved me before you made the world.

~ John 17:24

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You can have your opinions, and I can accept that they are different than mine. The analogy that I used fit perfectly with what the bible says. The bible itself claims the Holy Spirit will reveal all scripture to one that pursues the truth. So you telling me that I cannot understand the bible holds no merit, because God already said that I do, simply because I had faith.

I'm not even sure why you would consider debating me what the bible says, as clearly I am far more versed in biblical scripture than you. This is not debatable, it is clear to everyone who reads these posts that I have more scriptural knowledge than you.

If you would like to debate "Your spirituality", verse my understanding of scripture, feel free to continue the debate. If you think your understand the bible better than me than show me where I am wrong.

I promise this would be a waste of your time, as it would be impossible for you to prove that anything I say about the meaning of biblical scripture is false since the interpretation comes directly from the author. But if you would like me to clear up for you what you don't understand about the bible I would be happy to help.

But if you continue to attack my intelligence and faith by claiming that I am ignorant and foolish than the debate is over. I have no reason to prove to you that "God is love". Either you accept that love is the only way or you continue to wage war against yourself. If you think I have anything to do with this than you really don't understand the bible. The choice is and always has been yours.

I hope everyone understands this is not an attack on AfterInfinity, but rather a post in defense of my faith, not that I need to defend my faith, but that you need to know that I defend my faith. So that you know that I live what I teach.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by bb23108

 

And if consciousness is primary, when the circle is joined that doesn't imply a duality/split between the Creative Agency and the creation, including ourselves.

So you are assuming Consciousness is primary and therefore Uncaused? Does Consciousness cause?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

`Father, I want the people that you have given me to be with me. Then they will see that you made me great, because you loved me before you made the world.

~ John 17:24

This quote indicates that Jesus and the Father are one, but as we have discussed elsewhere, Jesus realized his oneness with the Divine, and that this Oneness was already the case prior to birth.

However, the last part of the quote also indicates that God caused or created the world. So is this what you are also saying?

Or could the last part of that quote been due to a lack of understanding at the time by the author about what Jesus was truly indicating with his confession of Oneness with the Father - i.e., that all of us are also not separate from the Divine? Or maybe the author was still assuming God as Other like in the OT and thus said it this way?

Perhaps it should have said something more like before the world arose within your indivisible Conscious Light, an (uncaused non-separate) modification of your Divine Conscious Light?

Too bad Jesus did not write his own book!

reply to post by sacgamer25

You can have your opinions, and I can accept that they are different than mine. The analogy that I used fit perfectly with what the bible says. The bible itself claims the Holy Spirit will reveal all scripture to one that pursues the truth. So you telling me that I cannot understand the bible holds no merit, because God already said that I do, simply because I had faith.

That is illogical to the point of stupidity. I believe the scientific community calls it "confirmation bias".

I'm not even sure why you would consider debating me what the bible says, as clearly I am far more versed in biblical scripture than you. This is not debatable, it is clear to everyone who reads these posts that I have more scriptural knowledge than you.

I have more knowledge in Harry Potter than you do, therefore when I tell you that Harry Potter saved all of us from the wrath of Lord Voldemort, I cannot be refuted because I know the books and you do not.

If you would like to debate "Your spirituality", verse my understanding of scripture, feel free to continue the debate. If you think your understand the bible better than me than show me where I am wrong.

The Bible means nothing to me. Actions prove more to me than words ever have, and I see nothing of your god anywhere. Meanwhile, man has been given free reign over every political tool they can devise...including religion. Why is Jesus' personal journal mysteriously absent from the Bible, hmm? The most pivotal character remains silent...how intriguing. Rather like a crowd of people shouting their stories while clasping their fingers over the mouth of the one honest man among them.

I promise this would be a waste of your time, as it would be impossible for you to prove that anything I say about the meaning of biblical scripture is false since the interpretation comes directly from the author. But if you would like me to clear up for you what you don't understand about the bible I would be happy to help.

This, to me, is the equivalent of, "I'm not going to listen to you, I just want to explain how I'm right." How mature.

But if you continue to attack my intelligence and faith by claiming that I am ignorant and foolish than the debate is over. I have no reason to prove to you that "God is love". Either you accept that love is the only way or you continue to wage war against yourself. If you think I have anything to do with this than you really don't understand the bible. The choice is and always has been yours.

Why are you on this thread if you are incapable of defending your belief system? Oh, that's right. Faith...just another word for, "I have these reasons to life to myself, which I consider to be very good, and your reasons for being honest with myself are rubbish."

I used to say that sort of thing. Then I grew up.

I hope everyone understands this is not an attack on AfterInfinity, but rather a post in defense of my faith, not that I need to defend my faith, but that you need to know that I defend my faith. So that you know that I live what I teach.

What defense? You stuck your fingers in your ears and went "LALALALA!!!!" That's not a defense, that's a retreat disguised as a tantrum.

reply to post by bb23108

Yes, I'm referring to consciousness as synonymous with the uncaused cause and spirit of infinite intelligence which both has given rise to the creative process and that underpins it as the invisible and indivisible source. In terms of your frame of reference it could then be said that "God" is our one and only condition whereby there is only one condition and one spirit of truth and life. As to radiant light of the Akashic field, I think that's just the information processing medium. And yes, there may be a mysterious apparent paradox lurking around the corners although it will become obvious I think when we consider the manifestations of intelligent design that intelligence, even infinite intelligence, and thus consciousness, with intentionality was/is at cause in the creative process by which manifest reality can be perceived with conscious awareness.

No spiritual practice ought to or need deny the presence of the body and the cosmos it inhabits. In fact, if what I aim to show is valid, the two (spirit and matter) needn't be differentiated whereby any "practice" is to simply be one's self as we are both in spirit and physical manifestation. The joy and bliss isn't prior to the fact of existence, but the joy inherent in the fact of existence itself i.e.: I'm happy and grateful to be and to have been included because I can see that it was no accident and that there's really no such thing as coincidence and that therefore I am chosen by God to be part of this thing called life, where it could be said that life is who and what we really are.

But we're really into metaphysical speculation here to a degree, although the "evidence" is our life as it is, which has either come about by pure coincidence and random happenstance and without any intent or purpose, or, via a creative process by intelligent design where I aim to show the latter while forcing the atheist to argue the former by default, which, based on the true definition of atheism, would be intellectually dishonest and disingenuous proving a bias and the willingness to argue from ignorance to uphold a certain position.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Well than let me retreat back to the love that is in me. I do not need your approval nor do I need your confirmation.

I will leave you to your understanding of the duality that you choose to live in. For me I prefer to live a peaceful life away from those who think it ok to impart their will on me, thus removing my right to free will.

Again the world you live in is filled with conflict, mine is filled with solutions. The solution is love and as long as you reject the solution you will not find love.
Peace to you