IN CONSIDERATION OF ATHEISM
-
- Posts: 105
- Joined: April 2nd, 2008, 3:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Brodnax, Va. 23920
- Contact:
IN CONSIDERATION OF ATHEISM
It may well be that God, if he exists, when making his plan for man, decided all that could be known of him was an understanding that God-ness has a fifty-fifty chance of being.
If there is a God who is using planning above our understanding, he allowed in his plan the freedom to develop logical conclusions based on our ability to reason. Reason make demand that both sides of any argument be considered and argued equally, especially when it concerns the Godhead; to learn the difference between good and evil; right and wrong; God or no God!
Common sense seems to allow that both sides can be argued equally well. Influences caused by the limiting factors of individual subjectivity, make us try to present arguments for or against God, as though one side held more than 50 percent of the evidence, when in fact, it is impossible to gain evidence that would outweigh either side. It is only when subjectivity replaces reason that we fall short of understanding. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, it becomes just as unreasonable to conclude that there is no God, as to conclude there is. Argument either way, can amount to no more then an exercise between egos! Our Ego, unfortunately, represents the part of us that does not require evidence when presenting what it calls ‘sound doctrine’. Reason alone, creates no unbalance with the status quo [50/50]. It is when our inherent ignorance is bolstered by our ego’s insistence that we can mistakenly accept mere opinion as evidence.
My premise implies that no one person or group knows any more about God than another. When a man teaches another what he knows about God, he tries only to more deeply convince himself. There can be no superiority among men when it comes to knowing about God’s existence except that which the ignorance in others allows. Any claim to Godly understanding that is based on ‘blind faith’ amounts to no more than embellishments added to hope's imaginings.
This means that the least you can learn about God is equal to the sum of what all others have learned, the highest product of reasoning that can exist without evidence. Acceptance of this gives us the ability to set aside our subjectivity and weigh our conclusions tempered with sound consideration, acknowledging wisdom does truly begin and end with admitted ignorance.
It remains then; if a man reaches the highest state of learning, me assuming that to be man’s purpose, it will be to the crux that comes into view when a man knows both the lack of evidence concerning God, and Hope, on which all faiths are based. The definition of Hope outlines the full human containment of God’s potential. We can ascend to no higher a conclusion than the middle line that separates that which is known and, that which may be God-ness. Having weighed that which is known, and that which is not known, a man’s faith will have the purity of being based solely on Hope, a faith that is founded on the humility that shines before all that we don’t know. This allows man to express his faith, in a life that shows benefit from what he does not know! His faith exists in a life that contains both humility and confidence!
Lest some believer should say that fifty-fifty is being lukewarm in one’s faith, the ‘fifty-fifty view’ is no less devout to the existence of God, than those who allow the excesses of Ego that cause them to preen in their faith. An avowed Atheist will also find himself in the same position, if, ignoring the equal lack of evidence concerning ‘no God’, he bounds in his belief to excess, likewise making claim to knowledge that exists beyond his sphere of learning. He [the Atheist] negates any potential of human spirit in exchange for nothing.
Hope adds to life its own germination. Allowed to grow in a world that has no God-ness evidenced, it forms in a man the greatest expression of Good, made manifest and seen, thereby creating a witness as from a Godlike influence!
The strength of ones hope/faith determines whether a person accepts death carrying a boldness formed in the transcendental fires of hope; or, there is nothing! In which case, the boldness so prepared, neither helps nor hinders; unless, you count it of value that a person lives as though worthy of having a God, being representative of the only Godliness to exist, human goodness!
-
- Posts: 286
- Joined: December 12th, 2008, 5:30 pm
Why don't you consider other claims about transcendental beings equally probable? For example - why are you excluding Zeus or Apollon as valid nominees?Common sense seems to allow that both sides can be argued equally well. Influences caused by the limiting factors of individual subjectivity, make us try to present arguments for or against God, as though one side held more than 50 percent of the evidence, when in fact, it is impossible to gain evidence that would outweigh either side.
There are no more evidence for your god than there is for them. Obviously there is not limit to how many different conceptions of a deity, but none of the claims of their existence can be argued as more evidental than the others. Hence the probability for each is 0.
Note that a probability of 0 does not mean that it is impossible, just that it is an infinite amount of other outcomes.
An atheist does not deny that a god exist, he only sees it just as improbable as any other irrational statement outside the bounderies of science i.e. the transcendental. There is no reason to believe in something which per definition is impossible to gain any knowledge or evidence about. It is pure speculation. One can, however, assume that your observations of nature are properties of nature itself, but never believe that they are objective truths about reality. This is the scientific view of nature. Through a systematic approach and critical thinking one can achieve knowledge of nature. (bear in mind the definition of knowledge)
It is quite pessimistic to believe that humans will lead a unhappier life if they do not believe in some irrational being.
-
- Posts: 105
- Joined: April 2nd, 2008, 3:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Brodnax, Va. 23920
- Contact:
I have considered 'other gods'. This article I wrote show how I feel about them, specifically Apollo.Jarle10 wrote:Why don't you consider other claims about trunhappier life if they do not believe in some irrational being.[/anscendental beings equally probable? For example - why are you excluding Zeus or Apollon as valid nominees?Common sense seems to allow that both sides can be argued equally well. Influences caused by the limiting factors of individual subjectivity, make us try to present arguments for or against God, as though one side held more than 50 percent of the evidence, when in fact, it is impossible to gain evidence that would outweigh either side.
If we wanted to consider a God whose past existence proved itself by endowing our present day society with great accomplishment, we would consider Apollo, the god of the Greeks. The words spoken by the oracle at his temple in Delphi, were completely responsible, in a very direct way, for almost all [if not all] of our western philosophy.
One could ask why we do not choose to worship the name of a God whose followers propagated no Dogma, instead of the capricious Gods we presently use to justify our religious wars. We use these same gods to justify with blatant prejudice, our Greed, Pride, Avarice, and Jealousy. Wouldn’t we do better by dispelling the false teachings of our dim-faced gods whose worshipers hate each other, and replace them with this simplest of Gods, whose simple words defined the truth, without doctrine [two phrases below]. It was thru a simple revealing to one humble man, calling him, with his self-admitted ignorance, ‘the wisest man in Athens’ , that set this devout seeker of truth on a path of discovery that eventually led to his death; and because of his principled death the ability to reason by questioning, was passed down to us.
Not before, nor after, has there been any more simple defining of the truths necessary for ‘enlightenment’ than was inscribed on his temple walls; ‘KNOW THYSELF’ and ‘NOTHING IN EXCESS’. Millions of books since, have not added one mote of clarity to this simplicity of truth attributed to this stone god.
The story goes; it was reported to Socrates, that the Oracle had told one of the citizens ‘There is none wiser in Athens than Socrates’. This created a questioning by him, whose results echo down thru history, and today has its influence in most of us; we call it Western philosophy.
Socrates saw, as he thought of it, this ‘Holy Proclamation,’ as an instrument that could be used to prove or disprove the existence of the Gods. If he could prove the God's proclamation wrong, and find someone wiser than himself, he would have the evidence he sought which would prove the Gods fallibility. It would be an easy quest, he thought, to prove a God wrong that said he was the wisest man in Athens. All he had to do was prove to himself, that the inadequacy he felt concerning his own lack of understanding, was well founded, and ‘the God’ would be proven wrong; hence, a wrong God, means no god! Socrates died as a direct result of his subsequent questioning, a punishment for seeking someone that could answer the questions he could not answer himself. He was possibly the first man to find death for asking questions. He willingly drank the poison as demanded by those that chose not to question even their own beliefs. While it is true that we no longer tell those that dissent to drink poison, we kill them instead in the name of our God, by losing the horrors of war on innocent people, and we justify it by calling them ‘infidels’; a name that boasts our God as better than theirs.
This forgotten stone god from the distant past, holds no laureates with the modern Holies, in spite of the profound effect of his words [thru the Oracle] on our society. Today he remains only as a god of stone, relegated to the fading memories of history that record our stumbling and dismal path towards Enlightenment; a state of existence in which we have failed miserably as a race. After these thousands of years of knowing better, we still cling to the shallow satisfactions we derive from our ignorance. Money and War in the name of God!
Apollo is not the name of my God, I really don’t know his name; but what I did learn from him, is still perfected, using only the two directives; Nothing in Excess; and Know Thyself.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13820
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
-
- Posts: 286
- Joined: December 12th, 2008, 5:30 pm
The equivalence between the validity of your propositions consequently make the probability that a given god exist equal to 0. This is just another way of saying that there are infinitely many different outcomes, and we have no information of their validity whatsoever.
What I am discussing above is only your suggested probability of your deity's existence - fifty percent - which is absurd.
God is in many ways a way to simplify the world to a form one can understand. To know the purpose and cause of everything and that you are going to heaven is very appealing to the mind, and is a probable reason for that religion and concepts of gods have endured as long as we can remember. It is very effective politically and can have emotional benefits, but the moment someone claims to know anything about its validity; reason is tossed out of the window.
-
- Posts: 105
- Joined: April 2nd, 2008, 3:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Brodnax, Va. 23920
- Contact:
I personally think 'excess' is when you have more than you need; 'abundance' is when you have enough. Excess could be likened to when you use something another needs more then you; sort of like driving a Hummer when you know we need to concerve energy for others.Belinda wrote:What is the difference between excess and abundance?
There are still people who sacrifice their lives for the good as they see it. There are people who wear themselves out in service to others. Is this excess of love or abundance of love?
I'm not sure why someone would choose to wear themselves out. Perhaps it's overzealousness caused by some psychological feeling that drives them. I’m sure most of us have helped out some poor souls more then we would have wanted.
-
- Posts: 105
- Joined: April 2nd, 2008, 3:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Brodnax, Va. 23920
- Contact:
If you will notice that my statement was a completely personal one describing my position; I’m in between believing or not. I would never mean to imply that there’s a fifty percent of there being a God. That would be unrealistic by any standard.
It states only my quandary. I wish I could be sure of either view. Unfortunately, I’m swayed by my subjective experiences and swayed also by the lack of real evidence, hence I place myself in the middle, just another open mind.
-
- Posts: 286
- Joined: December 12th, 2008, 5:30 pm
Excellent, that explained to me what you meant. So you are not saying that the actually is fundamentally in nature based on our scientific information a 50% chance of God existing or not, just that you are uncertain whether to believe in his existence - suggesting that you are not slanting in either direction. I can perfectly understand that and it is a correct way of applying bayesian probability.It states only my quandary. I wish I could be sure of either view. Unfortunately, I’m swayed by my subjective experiences and swayed also by the lack of real evidence, hence I place myself in the middle, just another open mind.
-
- Posts: 105
- Joined: April 2nd, 2008, 3:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Brodnax, Va. 23920
- Contact:
Thanks for clarifying my position.Jarle10 wrote:Excellent, that explained to me what you meant. So you are not saying that the actually is fundamentally in nature based on our scientific information a 50% chance of God existing or not, just that you are uncertain whether to believe in his existence - suggesting that you are not slanting in either direction. I can perfectly understand that and it is a correct way of applying bayesian probability.It states only my quandary. I wish I could be sure of either view. Unfortunately, I’m swayed by my subjective experiences and swayed also by the lack of real evidence, hence I place myself in the middle, just another open mind.
I do sway way over to 'believing' due to the subjective experiences. Perhaps it's only due to Hope and the fact that such hope hasn't been devalued. Either way, my own confidence is bolstered by the simple truth; either there is Nothing, in which case I won't know any better, or there is a Higher Power, in which case I feel myself to be in good standing.
Many 'believers' consider such a view as lukewarm, I however, do not! If we were indeed created for some higher purpose [any form of afterlife in which we have self-cognizance] the fact that we were made thinking reasoning creatures makes sense.
I accept that any argument I can propose must start and conclude with my admission of, ‘What can I know more then any other?’ I see a state of ignorance as the only acceptable conclusion from which to start any argument that concerns ‘after-death. At least that’s how I see it.
Once I accepted that I know as much about God as the wisest man, and equally, to the dumbest, I was set free from all fears or real concerns about death. But, it's still intriguing to question theories.
-
- Posts: 98
- Joined: February 20th, 2009, 6:17 pm
Why this 50/50?
If we create God then He exists 100%. No?
God is
1. All-loving
2. All-knowing
3. All-powerful
4. Creator of the Universe
Everything is allowed to happen because He loves us to the extreme. He does send events that look random so that you don't blame Him and make Him out to be your enemy.
Everything is known which is why He knows everything will turn out right.
Omnipotent but humble so that you don't feel powerless.
Creator of the Universe as you already know.
-
- Posts: 105
- Joined: April 2nd, 2008, 3:16 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Brodnax, Va. 23920
- Contact:
Are you suggesting that you believe a one hundred percent probability of God?df544 wrote:Why not create God?
Why this 50/50?
If we were the creators of 'this God' it would be so; but I question my own ability to create.df544 wrote:If we create God then He exists 100%. No?
God is
1. All-loving
2. All-knowing
3. All-powerful
4. Creator of the Universe
Everything is allowed to happen because He loves us to the extreme. He does send events that look random so that you don't blame Him and make Him out to be your enemy.
Everything is known which is why He knows everything will turn out right.
Omnipotent but humble so that you don't feel powerless.
Creator of the Universe as you already know.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023