Ignorance,n.

Originally posted by 667joe
In the United States, a common cause for pride. In itself, it is a sign of "deep faith," and in conjunction with its close cousin, gullibility, it is a sure sign of the "open mindedness"that contrasts so favorably with the "close mindedness" of those who demand proof before accepting absurdities at face value. Chaz Bufe

The most self evident and plain to see truth is, God is a reality.

And the most close mindedness and most dishonest belief is, the atheistic view, that all things have come about by chance, which is also the height of absurity.

And the most close mindedness and most dishonest belief is, the atheistic view, that all things have come about by chance, which is also the height of absurity.[/b]

There is probably not an atheist on this planet that believes that all things have came about by chance. To say that a god was not the thing that brought all creation into existence is not to claim it all came about by chance. Similarly, not having an explanation as yet as to why the universe came into existence does not mean that you accept that chance must be the solution.

However, the logical problem with your position is that, if you argue that something (such as a god) must have initiated the mind-boggling complexity of the universe and everything that resides in it, the thing that did initiate it must be at least as mind-bogglingly complex to be able to do so. If so, did this thing come into existence "by chance". If so, by your own words, that is absurd. If not, who or what created it? And then, who created that, ad infinitum.

Or if your answer is that the thing always existed, then why can we not say the same of what formed the universe, without invoking a god? I do not see any reason why this explanation is inherently less likely, and many reasons why it is more plausible.

But, unfortunately, no believer in a god that I have met ever attempts to explain why, as I expect we shall see if any believers post in response. All I get is assertions, not explanations.

Some say that is what faith is, but that seems very unsatisfactory, as there are so many things that we might believe in (e.g. the Loch Ness Monster), but we generally don't, either by applying logical thought or by research to test for existence. Why is the possible existence of a god (a far more important question than the Loch Ness Monster) exempt from this process?

I also suspect that many (perhaps not all) of those that make a virtue of the need for faith would, in fact, rejoice in the production of evidence proving the existence of their god, in which case they are admitting that their original argument over the importance of faith would have been a smokescreen for their inability to justify their beliefs. If this is not a smokescreen, why do some religions put such stock in miracles? Aren't these used as evidence, which surely undermines the faith concept.

But I remain hopeful, as I would like to understand why believers are so certain of their views, without any doubts that their beliefs simply reflect their upbringing etc, or why believers in a single god are so sure their god is the only true god when millions of other decent and good people believe the same of another god.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
There is probably not an atheist on this planet that believes that all things have came about by chance. To say that a god was not the thing that brought all creation into existence is not to claim it all came about by chance. Similarly, not having an explanation as yet as to why the universe came into existence does not mean that you accept that cha only true god when millions of other decent and good people believe the same of another god.

Yes and you believe in the string therory, although no one has ever seen these strings.

God is first cause, and you are saying that unless someone can tell ME (the great and wonderfull me) how God became first cause, then I will not accept God.

You dont know on what day in what hour and in what minute you will die, and you demand to know how God is first cause.

This attitude is immature, because any honest sane man/woman can see that everthing has desighn, purpose, functionality, beauty complexity.....and you say that we scientist will one day find out how it all works, and on that day we will become as great as God....good luck with that.

This is called fraud, and the facts are, that you are thinking you are that rotting body of pus, stool, urine, mucus, and you think that it is you....so how can a mad man demand to know how God came to be first cause, but the first thing to do, is to understand that you aren,t that rotting body, and that you a eternal spiritual being. (first things first)

I think that your investigating of religion has been soured, because you have been looking at false religions and cannot make sense of them......well your not crazy because most religions are only fabrications of misguided persons and they teach much error......you should, if you are inclined to know, study Vedanta Sutra, which is the original and faultless teachings of God, and without error.

Originally posted by 667joe
Faith, n. An attribute of desperation. An attempt to make the intolerable tolerable. When achieved, it gives its holders a satisfying feeling of superiority over those so unfortunate to see things as they are. Chaz Bufe

Accepting your rotting material body as self, is a sighn of living under the spell of illusion, and to not accept God as reality is a sure sighn of defective intelligence or lack of.

For the person who is mature in the spiritual life, faith can be put aside to make way for absolute knowingness, because faith is always for the beginner in spiritual life.

But, unfortunately, no believer in a god that I have met ever attempts to explain why, as I expect we shall see if any believers post in response. All I get is assertions, not explanations.

Seems I was right. What a pity.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Seems I was right. What a pity.

When replying could you please click "reply and quote" so readers can easily see who you are responding to. Thanks.

Originally posted by divegeester
When replying could you please click "reply and quote" so readers can easily see who you are responding to. Thanks.

Sorry, I was responding to Vishvahetu, who responded to my hope that people would respond to my enquiry without simply making more asssertions, by making a long series of assertions. Many of these were about me, and what I believe, and most of them were false.

For example, I haven't the faintest idea what string theory is, but apparently I believe in it.

Apparently, I also said that the purpose of scientific research is to raise us to the level of gods. Which I did not and is also not true. And I also said that one day scientists will know everything. Which I didn't etc, etc.

I do not know much about Vedanta Sutra, but I suspect that its teachings do not involve encouraging people to make false statements about another person's beliefs. Therefore, Vishvahetu appears to be a false disciple and we should therefore tread carefully before accepting what he says, including his belief in Vedanta Sutra.

Of course, if there are true believers in Vedantra Sutra out there, and one of its teachings is to make false statements about another person's beliefs, then I apologise, but then again it can't be much of a religion if that is one of its tenets.