God, defined.

[regular.joe]

Thank you clod, I agree.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The difference between the two propositions though, is this: the idea that God exists isn't based on any observable or measurable phenomena. That is to say, every observable phenomena which we have been able to measure has offered a non-deity explanation. The unseeable energy that so many people are prepared to believe in wasn't just posited as an idea, it was arrived at through the use of mathematics, and observations of other, observable phenomena reacting to or being affected by 'something' unseen. More importantly, their findings could be replicated by others using the same methods.

And yes, there are gaps left to be filled. But why would my mind not rebel at the notion of God? 'God' has been offered time and again as the answer to the great questions, but nobody as yet has been able to find any real sign of the existence of 'God', either in terms of measurable and observable phenomena, or in terms of unobservable but mathematically theorised effects on same.

Everytime we go a little further in, God gets pushed a little further out. And still people say: ahhh, but...you can't say he doesn't exist. He can't be found, and his effect on the world cannot be measured, or even inferred (in scientific terms) from other natural phenomena. Time and again, our greatest scientists and most creative minds dig a little deeper and time and again the explanation is not God. We go further in and deeper down, we go further out and bigger scale, and it is never God we find.

I don't trust the words of priests, or holy books, or spiritually inclined people on this matter, because their 'methods' are suspect. I don't trust the feeling of 'there must be something there' and I don't trust the feeling of 'someone watching over me'.

I do trust, broadly, the scientific method to increase our understanding of our world and universe. I trust them to occasionally get it wrong, or misread the evidence. I also trust them to revisit and revise and I trust each new generation of scientists approaching a problem to go further.

Why would my mind 'rebel' at the idea of something I cannot see, but which can be shown through mathematics (as much as anything the building blocks of existence) and observation of phenomena in repeatable formulas as possible or probable?

Why would my mind not rebel at something which cannot be seen, proved, theorised beyond the simple feeling of 'something must be behind it all' and yet is broadly accepted as truth by vast numbers of people, simply because other people who also felt sure there must be something behind it all said so thousands of years ago. Why would my mind not rebel at a work of fantasy masquerading as fact?

Atheists are convinced that this life is the only shot they have at expressing themselves which is why they make such long posts.