A question for believers, is God a gas?

[lottiecass]

You know, I only jumped in here because of the total nonsensical post of yours.

 

As expected, you and others on here, have failed totally to understand the points I made yesterday.

 

You are now accussing ME of not knowing something, I will use the terms TRUTH & FALSEHOOD, which in fact CANNOT BE ACCOUNTED FOR UNDER ATHEISM/NATURALISM WORLDVIEW because it is only about SURVIVAL & REPRODUCTION.

 

To make that distinction (what is false or what is truth) you need to use REASON.

 

Reason has NO ORIGIN UNDER YOUR WORLDVIEW- I hope you get it now!

 

Which only proves my point before, the hyprocrisy of this New Atheism.

 

You are wrong again,so atheists cannot reason truth from lies, hows that one work?

[Anna B]

You don't think scientists have tried to address the beginning of the Universe? Really?

As to your other comment, the only part of my post that posited an explanation for faith (or love) was the evolutionary argument.

 

If you were agreeing that people only believe in god because it was advantageous to have a common belief for the development of early society, then we agree. We should also agree that it is no longer necessary.

 

I was referring to the amateur scientists who have been expressing their views on Sheffield Forum, which is why i put it in speech marks.

[Guest makapaka]

Anybody else understanding this? - I don't comprehend..

 

Where have placed absolute trust in another human beings rationale? Also, if I have, why is that at all relevant to the discussion at hand?

 

Of course it’s relevant.

 

You trust human beings to explain things to you - there’s nothing wrong with that - it’s logical to you.

[lottiecass]

Not all humans maka, that's logical.

[Guest makapaka]

Not all humans maka, that's logical.

 

Just some you choose then?

[Robin-H]

Of course it’s relevant.

 

You trust human beings to explain things to you - there’s nothing wrong with that - it’s logical to you.

 

I trust the scientific method, which is used by humans.

 

I still don’t see the relevance, or the point, to your argument. Care to explain?

[Baz1]

Or you could provide an origin for reason?

 

Let's hear it.

 

Ok- I will set below a few more points and leave it there as honestly, I won't have time to commit too much time due to work.

 

Hopefully the basis of what I have been trying to say will drill home to you and others (including Lotticass and Robin H).

 

1)The human mind has a distinctive quality- we can all distinguish between right & wrong, falsehood, beauty etc. So we are separate from the animal world- meaning our mental abilities have allowed us to progress and advance.

 

Ok so far? Good.

 

2)One of science's KEY assumption is that our minds have the ability to REASON. That means the existence of reason cannot be fully accounted for by any type of scientific explanation.

 

Example, when a scientist attemps to address a testable hypothesis or an answerable question, there is an assumption that the result can be RATIONALISED. This clearly assumes that the scientist can use his/her reason before performing the science!

 

This does not mean science cannot provide partial explanation at all for our ability to reason- however it is unable to justify reason from a FOUNDATIONAL point of view.

 

3) If,as I assume you are an atheist/naturalist- i.e. you assert that there is no supernatural, and that physical processes can explain all phenomena- then if you probe the most basic level of reality, then we see everything is the result of blind, random, non rational physical processes, subatomic particles, atoms and molecules whizzing around- which has no direction, guidance or intended outcome.

 

Now- if this is the case, how can we claim to have the ability to achieve mental insights??

 

From the perspective of atheism- because of its naturalistic perspective-is not only irrational, but an adversary of reason! It invalidates the thing that it required to make any claim about God: reason itself. Since rationality cannot come from non-rationality.. it follows that naturalism cannot explain our ability to reason.

 

Now, Darwin knew this-(our ability to account for truth/reason could not be accounted for) as he state in his 1881 letter, where he says:

"But then with me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of a man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

 

Atheist and DNA founder, Franics Crick, he said:

Our highly developed brains, after all, were not evolved under the pressure of discovering scientific truths, but only to enable us to be clever enough to survive and leave dependants.

 

That is his quote from his book The Astoninshing Hypothesis: The Scientific search for the soul.

 

You also have the atheist and cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, who wrote:

"Our brains were shaped for fitness, not for truth"

 

That is from his book, Pinker: How the Mind works.

 

So I am going to summarise, that when atheists claim to have used their rational faculties to prove that God does not exist, it's a form of intellectual hypocrisy. To account for the fact that they have a rational mind, they have to deny atheism or deny reason itself.

 

What the irony is, that the ability to reason is best explained by the existence of God.

 

Now, I won't have time to explain that here- not the right platform or do I have the availability. I will say, and this is to all atheists, you need to really study and look at your position- past this Darwinian thinking process.

 

I have stood and spoken with intelligent people who claim atheism and naturalism, but once you dwell in to their core belief and how they 'think' this belief has come about, it is easily torn apart or at least leaves them with doubts.

 

It is easy to sit on the keyboard and throw references, use big words and terms to try and give something a meaning (which new atheism does- always trying to use evolution as a by product when something cannot be explained scientifically).

[Robin-H]

Ok- I will set below a few more points and leave it there as honestly, I won't have time to commit too much time due to work.

 

Hopefully the basis of what I have been trying to say will drill home to you and others (including Lotticass and Robin H).

 

1)The human mind has a distinctive quality- we can all distinguish between right & wrong, falsehood, beauty etc. So we are separate from the animal world- meaning our mental abilities have allowed us to progress and advance.

 

Ok so far? Good.

 

2)One of science's KEY assumption is that our minds have the ability to REASON. That means the existence of reason cannot be fully accounted for by any type of scientific explanation.

 

Example, when a scientist attemps to address a testable hypothesis or an answerable question, there is an assumption that the result can be RATIONALISED. This clearly assumes that the scientist can use his/her reason before performing the science!

 

This does not mean science cannot provide partial explanation at all for our ability to reason- however it is unable to justify reason from a FOUNDATIONAL point of view.

 

3) If,as I assume you are an atheist/naturalist- i.e. you assert that there is no supernatural, and that physical processes can explain all phenomena- then if you probe the most basic level of reality, then we see everything is the result of blind, random, non rational physical processes, subatomic particles, atoms and molecules whizzing around- which has no direction, guidance or intended outcome.

 

Now- if this is the case, how can we claim to have the ability to achieve mental insights??

 

From the perspective of atheism- because of its naturalistic perspective-is not only irrational, but an adversary of reason! It invalidates the thing that it required to make any claim about God: reason itself. Since rationality cannot come from non-rationality.. it follows that naturalism cannot explain our ability to reason.

 

Now, Darwin knew this-(our ability to account for truth/reason could not be accounted for) as he state in his 1881 letter, where he says:

 

 

Atheist and DNA founder, Franics Crick, he said:

 

 

That is his quote from his book The Astoninshing Hypothesis: The Scientific search for the soul.

 

You also have the atheist and cognitive scientist Steven Pinker, who wrote:

 

 

That is from his book, Pinker: How the Mind works.

 

So I am going to summarise, that when atheists claim to have used their rational faculties to prove that God does not exist, it's a form of intellectual hypocrisy. To account for the fact that they have a rational mind, they have to deny atheism or deny reason itself.

 

What the irony is, that the ability to reason is best explained by the existence of God.

 

Now, I won't have time to explain that here- not the right platform or do I have the availability. I will say, and this is to all atheists, you need to really study and look at your position- past this Darwinian thinking process.

 

I have stood and spoken with intelligent people who claim atheism and naturalism, but once you dwell in to their core belief and how they 'think' this belief has come about, it is easily torn apart or at least leaves them with doubts.

 

It is easy to sit on the keyboard and throw references, use big words and terms to try and give something a meaning (which new atheism does- always trying to use evolution as a by product when something cannot be explained scientifically).

 

I appreciate the fact that you took the time and actually gave an answer, however it doesn't take much for that argument to fall apart..

 

You said that reason cannot be accounted for by any scientific explanation, but gave no coherent explanation for why you think this. Also, you seemed to claim that humans are the only animals that reason. That is not true either.

 

Without those two premises, your argument falls apart.

[SnailyBoy]

 

What the irony is, that the ability to reason is best explained by the existence of God.

 

 

Snipped for length

 

Bingo. Buried in there, the core of the argument.

 

I refer you back to premise 1, God exists.

 

Now demonstrate that premise is true.

Edited March 5, 2018 by SnailyBoy

[Waldo]

If you consider science to be flawed (or that it has it's limitations), that does not add any weight to the argument for the existence of god (which is a wholly nonsensical argument, whichever side of the fence you sit on).

 

It's like saying, because A is false, B (which is unrelated to A) must be true.

 

However things (i.e. the ultimate nature of reality) are, that is how they are, plain and simple. How you think they are, is irrelevant. It is just a story you are telling yourself. The nature of the matter is not at all dependent on what you think.