My life is in direct defiance of God.

249 posts / 0 new
Last post
Kataclismic's picture
My life is in direct defiance of God.

At age sixteen I was diagnosed with a metabolic disorder that would kill me if not for the wonderful research that has been done on millions of diabetics (that DID die before their eighteenth birthday) so I can take a manufactured hormone via injection to metabolize my supper. The cause of this disease is still little understood, essentially my body is defective. Now if God is responsible for my creation and my existence and my breakfast then he must also be responsible for my disease. The fact that I should have died at age sixteen and yet amazingly I still walk around must be in direct defiance of him. I pity the person that thinks it's all part of God's plan and that my life should be harder for some reason I don't understand. I don't care how many dimensions you live in there's no logical sense to that. My life would have been much easier if I'd just left this world at age sixteen. Unfortunately I have some chemical reaction inside me that creates a desire to continue to look at the world and wonder what's going to happen tomorrow. But I would prefer to look at life for what it is and not fantasize about deities and holy spirits floating through my brain while I'm living it. I've already defied God by walking around, why should I start worshiping him now?

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

CyberLN's picture
Touché, Kat, touché.

Touché, Kat, touché.

ThePragmatic's picture
Very well expressed.

Very well expressed.

The dilemma of why God would let you be created with a deadly congenital condition, is one that typically will give a range of different answers from theists. Yet again making it abundantly clear how their religion is only about personal interpretation.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
True to that, religions are

True to that, religions are about interpretations.

To make it even more depressing is that some theistic religions claim that god did that to you because he loves you.

There is no hypocrisy in that.(satire)

Michee's picture
A few months after I became

A few months after I became christian I got eczema. I've prayed for years to get rid of it but I still have it and it got worse. If god was responsible then why should I give glory to him if he cause my problems? I wouldn't worship him if he exist or not.

mysticrose's picture
I'm sorry to hear that but

I'm sorry to hear that but your story is really inspiring! Your struggle to live is wonderful and I hope many people would value their lives and not waste in on things and beliefs that doesn't make sense.

Kataclismic's picture
The worst bit is every single

The worst bit is every single time I present this argument to a theist they immediately want to tell me that it's God's plan and there is a reason I should have to do this.

But I guess if you can suspend logical reasoning when it comes to your god it's nothing to pay no attention to what someone just said.

CyberLN's picture
Perhaps one of the wisest and

Perhaps one of the wisest and most true things ever uttered on this planet is, "shit happens".

It seems that you, Kat, have faced this shit and decided that, yes, it does, and it is 'deal with it' time. Folks who say that when shit happens, it's all some plan, do not deal with it. They pawn it off.

I admire you, Kat, a great deal.

Travis Paskiewicz's picture
True state of reality, there

True state of reality, there's no real reason why things are. They just kinda are. Luckily, for some, the more deadly things that are can be mitigated with a bit of manipulations of other things. I hope you enjoy every bit of your life, regardless of happenstance.

Valiya's picture
Kataclysmic...

Kataclysmic...

with due respect to you feelings, here is my take on your views.

To reject God, because one suffers some affliction is a wrong logic.

Before you dive into the theological answers for suffering, you need to sort out the question of a maker. Is it possible that so much specific complexity (design) could have arisen merely by chance.

The very reason we are discussing diseases and treatments is because the human body is akin to a machine which functions in a logically analyzable fashion. The design is large writ in every aspect of our biology. I know that will lead you to theories of evolution and such stuff. And I have debated a couple of people already on those issues in this site...if you have a look at them, you will be at least able to appreciate that the proofs for evolution stands on shaky grounds....

So, moving on...the design is indicative of an intelligent agency. This intelligence is what religions call God. Even if you say that diseases are a sign of bad design...that would only mean that God is a bad designer...the strong implications of design cannot be overruled...

It is only after you make up your mind about the existence of such a maker that you can enter the question of why you were made the way you are?

Of course different theologies have different answers. Islam says that every individual in this world is undergoing a period of trial. How each one deals with his situation will be the premise on which he or she will be judged for reward or punishment in the next life. From that context, what may appear to be a suffering in this world might actually be a blessing in the larger context of the hereafter.

For example, a blind man may be suffering...but it just might be that if he had eyes he might have a tough time controlling his eyes from shameful things (nakedness and so on). In addition, every time he shows patience, which is a virtue, he earns rewards from God...

Does that mean a blind man should simply resign to his fate and not do anything about it. Not at all, he can do all that is possible to redeem his sight...but he has to adhere to patience during his efforts...and if he happens to get his sight, his thankfulness to God will earn him more rewards, and he could use the gift in good deeds...which will bring him more rewards.

I know it's a broad topic...but just trying explain the gist within the small space.

Kataclismic's picture
I don't see evolution being

I don't see evolution being on shaky ground at all. In fact, to convince yourself that evolution is shaky and your belief in a creator is solid is nothing more than brainwashing for brainwashing's sake. If there is a God that actually wanted me to believe in him he would have made it logical to believe, not created multitudes of evidence against the idea. The concept of God creating evidence in deceit of his own existence requires more thought than I even want to put into the subject.

CyberLN's picture
"controlling his eyes from

"controlling his eyes from shameful things (nakedness and so on)."

Really? Nakedness is shameful? Really? That's just sad...

Ashish Shetty's picture
Valiya - "Of course different

Valiya - "Of course different theologies have different answers. Islam says that every individual in this world is undergoing a period of trial. How each one deals with his situation will be the premise on which he or she will be judged for reward or punishment in the next life. From that context, what may appear to be a suffering in this world might actually be a blessing in the larger context of the hereafter."

So aside from the fact that your position is based on absolutely no evidence and is a matter of faith... I have a couple of questions...
* Does your explanation hold good for people congenital diseases?
* Does your explanation hold good for fetuses which die in the womb due to complications?
* Does it hold good for babies dying of cancer and a myriad of other diseases?

Not too long a 'trial period' is it?

When children (or adults) die of these terrible afflictions, apologists are quick to claim that god must have a reason.... but isn't it funny those divine reasons disappear the minute a cure or vaccine is discovered? Isn't every vaccine and cure on the planet a direct affront to god's predestined, divine plan?

Also - the proof for evolution is not on shaky ground, and all you need to do is use google to check the veracity (or lack thereof) of that claim. The evidence is overwhelming and has been for several decades now, and claiming otherwise is to display a profound ignorance of modern scientific consensus.
You don't tell professional geologists, astronomers, doctors, or aerospace engineers that they are doing their job wrong without some very strong evidence in your favour - and that same standard applies to biologists with regards to evolution.

Valiya's picture
Ashish

Ashish

Firstly, you should appreciate that the topic initiator cited his disease as a reason for rejecting god. Therefore, this is not about proving the existence of God…but it starts from the premise of “if there is a god, then why these bad things are happening.” Therefore, it starts off on a hypothesis. So, there is no logic in complaining of lack of evidence thereof. It’s pure theology.
Coming to your questions

“* Does your explanation hold good for people congenital diseases?”
Yes.

* Does your explanation hold good for fetuses which die in the womb due to complications?
Yes.

* Does it hold good for babies dying of cancer and a myriad of other diseases?

Yes.

“Not too long a 'trial period' is it?”

Whenever there is a suffering it serves as a trial in many different ways. When a baby dies, the trial is not for the baby… the trial is for the parents. Does that look unjust, because God killed an innocent baby to test the parents… well, if you think like that then any death whether old or young is still a tragedy, and can be brought up against God… however, when you realize that there is a life after death, and that you will be amply compensated by the rewards there, any suffering in this world will seem trivial.

“Isn't every vaccine and cure on the planet a direct affront to god's predestined, divine plan?”

No at all. On the contrary, the designs of God are still playing out. Medicines are a means for helping the suffering… so a man serving the diseased to alleviate his pain is actually doing a good dead, thereby winning in his trial…but a doctor could also fail in his trial if he denies medicines to the poor because they don’t have money… the trial is not unidimensional, it plays out in many different ways all at the same time. Imagine a world where we have overcome all diseases… a disease free world. Does that mean there would be no more suffering in the world. Not at all, there will be other kinds of trials…but at every turn, man will be faced with moral decisions he will have to make, and this will decide the outcome of his trial.

“Also - the proof for evolution is not on shaky ground, ….”

Instead of making assertions, please bring the proof. I have already done this with a couple of guys on this site… e-coli, nylonase etc were some of the examples others brought… and I have provided my case against those examples.

There are scientists who reject evolution, scores of them. So, why should one scientist be wrong and the other right? I think, instead of going by these empty claims, bring on your proof, and lets anyalyze them.

Ashish Shetty's picture
"Whenever there is a

"Whenever there is a suffering it serves as a trial in many different ways. When a baby dies, the trial is not for the baby… the trial is for the parents. "

Wow... Simply wow! How can you not love this god character eh? You think it's ok to cause pain and suffering to a sentient, living creature so that it tests someone else? Isn't this a technique in torture - hurting innocent loved ones?

"Does that mean there would be no more suffering in the world. Not at all, there will be other kinds of trials…but at every turn, man will be faced with moral decisions he will have to make, and this will decide the outcome of his trial."

So what if there are other moral decisions to be made? the fact remains that there will be less suffering in the world in absolute terms. If the words 'good' and 'compassionate' mean anything - they can't be applied to a god who allows such avoidable suffering.

By the way... this god chap... he's the guy who created parasites which eat the eyes of human children? Same guy?

As for evolution.. you're right.. there are scores of 'scientists' who reject evolution. How many of them are biologists?
And how many are on the opposite side, which believe evolution is a scientific fact?
The number of peer reviewed papers which come to the conclusion that evolution is false is insignificant in the face of the overwhelming evidence present for evolution.

Evolution might have been susceptible to debate before (and by before i mean 80 years ago when we had a lot fewer fossils, no understanding of genetic codes, no understanding of chordates, etc), but since our understanding of genetics has increased, its turned out to be one of the strongest proofs of evolution. Don't believe me? Analyse your genome and compare it with creatures which evolution claims are close relatives as well as those which aren't so close. Even if you chose not to believe Darwin, I hope you'll believe your own genome.

Valiya's picture
Shetty

Shetty

“Wow... Simply wow! How can you not love this god character eh? You think it's ok to cause pain and suffering to a sentient, living creature so that it tests someone else? Isn't this a technique in torture - hurting innocent loved ones?”

Did you not read my full post? I had expected this response and answered in advance. Let me cut and paste it here again. “Whenever there is a suffering it serves as a trial in many different ways. When a baby dies, the trial is not for the baby… the trial is for the parents. Does that look unjust, because God killed an innocent baby to test the parents… well, if you think like that then any death whether old or young is still a tragedy, and can be brought up against God… however, when you realize that there is a life after death, and that you will be amply compensated by the rewards there, any suffering in this world will seem trivial.”

“So what if there are other moral decisions to be made? the fact remains that there will be less suffering in the world in absolute terms. If the words 'good' and 'compassionate' mean anything - they can't be applied to a god who allows such avoidable suffering.”

The point here is not about suffering… the point is about trial. Say a man is stinking rich, his wealth is a trial for him too, because now he has greater responsibility to serve the needy, and if he doesn’t fulfill it, he is going to face it in the hereafter. Moreover, I don’t think modernity and scientific advancements can ever eliminate suffering. While it alleviates suffering on one hand, it aggravates it on the other. Nuclear technology has solved many problems in the world… but it also gave us the nuclear bomb. If this technology was not there the populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima would have never been wiped out of the face of the earth in one instance. Moreover, look at global warming and the hunger and destructions it is creating in different parts of the world… this is a side effect of advancement…. Suffering will be part of human life as long as there is humanity.

“As for evolution.. you're right.. there are scores of 'scientists' who reject evolution. How many of them are biologists?”

First of all numbers don’t really matter. Weren’t all the scientists in the world supporting Newtonian physics until Einstein came up with his ideas? Secondly, don’t people like Dean Kenyon and Micheal Behe count as biologists… just because they are theists, should their academic credentials be discredited?

Ashish Shetty's picture
“Whenever there is a

“Whenever there is a suffering it serves as a trial in many different ways. When a baby dies, the trial is not for the baby… the trial is for the parents. Does that look unjust, because God killed an innocent baby to test the parents… well, if you think like that then any death whether old or young is still a tragedy, and can be brought up against God… however, when you realize that there is a life after death, and that you will be amply compensated by the rewards there, any suffering in this world will seem trivial.”

Yes, almost every death can be considered a tragedy. But you obviously won't think it's ok for me to kill your parents in order to test you - so why give God that pass?
And nobody can 'realize' there is an after life. It is an issue of faith. If you don't believe in it, your explanation seems convoluted and contrived. Even if you do believe in it your explanation paints god as a sadistic torturer.

"Moreover, I don’t think modernity and scientific advancements can ever eliminate suffering. While it alleviates suffering on one hand, it aggravates it on the other."

False. Can you tell me how the invention of the following have aggravated suffering? Vaccines, incubators for new borns, water cleansing technologies, green energy technologies, etc etc. Science is a tool. Yes, it can be used for negative purposes, but by and large it has done way more good than bad. Just because there's some bad doesn't mean it's of equal weight. The good it has done is disproportionately more. More than 80% of the humans alive today wouldnt be here were it not for science - and thats a fact.

"First of all numbers don’t really matter. Weren’t all the scientists in the world supporting Newtonian physics until Einstein came up with his ideas? Secondly, don’t people like Dean Kenyon and Micheal Behe count as biologists… just because they are theists, should their academic credentials be discredited?"
The point is once Einsteins proposals were confirmed by evidence, the scientific consensus changed. The establishment didn't burn or behead Einstein for going against 'established teachings'. Can religion claim to be that honest?

Evolution was doubted before. Evidence came in. More evidence came in. The scientific consensus has changed to reflect that.
If you expect 100% absolute compliance from every biologist for a theory to be accepted, then you will never reach a consensus.

Similarly, the theory of gravity - I don't see the religious folks jumping off buildings by claiming that there isn't 100% compliance on the theory which determines the workings of the FACT of gravity. Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains how it comes about.

If 98 professional doctors tell you that you have disease A and 2 doctors tell you that you're fine. A smart man would trust the 98% consensus and go do something about it.

Valiya's picture
SHetty

SHetty

“Yes, almost every death can be considered a tragedy. But you obviously won't think it's ok for me to kill your parents in order to test you - so why give God that pass?”

You can’t equate yourself to the creator. Who are you to test anyone…while you are yourself under the trial of God? That’s why your logic makes no sense here… of you killing my parents to test me. Whereas, if you were the creator of the universe, with absolute control over everything, and the ability to bring people back to life and reward and punish according to their deeds…then you can cause my parents to die as a test for me.

“And nobody can 'realize' there is an after life. It is an issue of faith. If you don't believe in it, your explanation seems convoluted and contrived. Even if you do believe in it your explanation paints god as a sadistic torturer.”

This is shifting of goal posts. I had clearly mentioned at the very beginning that this is theology. We are not discussing proofs for beliefs, but we are discussing the rationale behind the beliefs. If you want proofs, then I will have to come at it from another angle. If you want, we can talk that also.

"The good it has done is disproportionately more. More than 80% of the humans alive today wouldn’t be here were it not for science - and that’s a fact.”

I agree with you that science has brought us a lot of new stuffs. But what makes them beneficial to mankind is their moral application. You said about humans being alive today… actually with the level of technology, the world would have been much better than what it is… but it’s the greed of businesses that is keeping it from happening… MNC pharma companies manipulate supply and production to keep the costs high to pamper their bottom lines, letting millions die for their selfish ends… the nuclear power lobbies prevent governments from investing in green energy so that their products get sold… and the list goes on. Arms industry is among the biggest industries in the world…and do you need me to explain why there are so many wars going on in the world… do you really think that if the world leaders really wanted, these wars can’t be prevented???? It all boils down to morality. Whether suffering or comfort… man is always faced with questions of morality, and in how he applies it lies the real test for him.

"The point is once Einsteins proposals were confirmed by evidence, the scientific consensus changed. The establishment didn't burn or behead Einstein for going against 'established teachings'. Can religion claim to be that honest?”

Yes, the consensus changed. But what does that say about the total absolute consensus for Newton’s theories? They were all wrong, weren’t they? And if you want to talk about killing scientists, this is not something that Islam did, may be Christianity, and I am not here to defend all the religions of the world… only Islam.”

“Evolution was doubted before. Evidence came in. More evidence came in. The scientific consensus has changed to reflect that.”

When you compare it with the consensus that Newton had, evolution would pale in comparison. Yet newton’ theory was wrong. Moreover, physics is vastly different from biology. We are not dealing so much with mathematics here… biology is not hard science. Evolution is just based on some observations in nature and some explanations for that… as far as I know there are two crucial evidence for evolution – fossils and bacterial mutation… both of these are not good enough to explain evolution. If you want to get into a debate on that topic, we will.

“If you expect 100% absolute compliance from every biologist for a theory to be accepted, then you will never reach a consensus.”

I am not expecting 100% compliance.. I am just waiting to see proofs that can be accepted.

“Similarly, the theory of gravity - I don't see the religious folks jumping off buildings by claiming that there isn't 100% compliance on the theory which determines the workings of the FACT of gravity.”

Were people jumping off buildings before the theory of gravity???? What are you talking???

“If 98 professional doctors tell you that you have disease A and 2 doctors tell you that you're fine. A smart man would trust the 98% consensus and go do something about it.”

It’s not a good example. I have the lesson of Newton with me… where the 100% was wrong. Secondly, this is not a matter of life and death, rather it’s a matter of perception of your origins, which in no way is going to change the way you live today… so I can bide my time, until I see conclusive, irrefutable evidence to show that what is so commonsensical to me (meaning specified complexity can only come from intelligence) and what is supported by at least some highly qualified scientists is wrong.

Ashish Shetty's picture
You keep touting that Newton

You keep touting that Newton example as if it proves your point - but it doesn't. It proves that scientific consensus CAN change.
Also - what Eintstein did was not prove Newton completely wrong - Newtonian physics is still valid for objects of a certain size range. What Einstein did was provide a better, broader explanation for natural phenomena.

So you're wrong - the 100% were not wrong. They merely thought they solved the puzzle when infact they had solved just a small piece of it. But since Einsteins theories provided a better explanation for reality, than Newtons, the scientific consensus changed. It's the same with evolution. The world has moved on and accepted it. Evolution denial is on the same plane as the Flat Earth theory (forgive the pun).

"I am not expecting 100% compliance.. I am just waiting to see proofs that can be accepted."
Google is your friend. Educate yourself. There is no excuse for intellectual laziness.
If evolution was false - how would you explain Neanderthals? fossilized shells dated back to several million years,? dinosaurs? How do you explain microbes developing very strong resistances to anti-biotics across several generations?

As for Islam's account for creation - Adam and Eve... tell me, if there were just two people, what ethnicity were they? arab? white? indian? chinese? Where does this present day genetic diversity come from? How old were they when Adam and Eve were created into existence? Why do men have nipples? Why don't we see signs of this common parentage in our genetic codes?

"You can’t equate yourself to the creator. Who are you to test anyone…while you are yourself under the trial of God? That’s why your logic makes no sense here… of you killing my parents to test me. Whereas, if you were the creator of the universe, with absolute control over everything, and the ability to bring people back to life and reward and punish according to their deeds…then you can cause my parents to die as a test for me."

You believe in this creator. Not me. But hypothetically - if i were to do such a heinous act - who are you to deny that it was part of this 'Creator's plan'? Who are you to claim he did not predestine me to commit this crime to test you?

"This is shifting of goal posts. I had clearly mentioned at the very beginning that this is theology."
I'm talking about the implication of one's actions - and it's still very much a theological matter. If God allows for suffering of sentient beings in order to test an emotionally attached third person - he has the morals of a sadistic torturer.

Also - words have meanings. Instead of mouthing empty platitudes, lets examine the most common one.
The Koran says god is "all good and compassionate".
The fact evil exists (or can exist) implies that God obviously created the possibility for evil.
In that case, God is not all good. it's as simple as that.

"Were people jumping off buildings before the theory of gravity???? What are you talking???"
You have misunderstood my point. Gravity, like evolution, is a 'fact' of nature. We have a scientific 'theory' for gravity which explains the mechanisms of this fact.
If you evolution-deniers claim that evolution is just a 'theory' (displaying a profound ignorance in the usage of the word in common parlance, as opposed to its use in a scientific inquiry - http://www.notjustatheory.com ), then be consistent. Claim that gravity is just a 'theory' as well.

The rest of the world has moved on and accepted evolution. Advances in our understanding of evolution and genetics is propelling the world in exciting directions. The longer you folks deny the obvious (which is actually backed by evidence) in favor of maintaining the sanctity of a bronze age text, the more your societies will lag behind in terms of scientific and economic development.

It's your right to believe what you wish - Societies can disregard science at their own peril. But you're doing a great disservice to future generations who will be hindered by your choices now. There's no society in the history of our species which has prospered after turning its back on science.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Valiya - "so much specific

Valiya - "so much specific complexity"

how much?

Valiya's picture
Nyarlathotep

Nyarlathotep

This is a subject we had in fact wasted a lot of time on....without much result... remember all the formalization and all that stuff. The thing is pretty simple. Between a cycle and an airplane, which do you think has more specific complexity. And when you give me the answer, also tell me how you measured it. That will answer all your questions.

This I think is just a means of dodging the real the question over what is very obvious...

Nyarlathotep's picture
"which do you think has more

"which do you think has more specific complexity"

I have no idea what the term means, so I have no idea which has more.

Valiya's picture
I had specific complexity

I had specific complexity with so many other atheists... Travis and Pragmatic...none of them had a problem understanding it...they were only trying to explain how "so much" complexity came about in nature...but not questioning the very paradigm.

Nyarlathotep's picture
You talked about information,

You talked about information, but couldn't tell us what units it is measured in.
You talked about complexity, but couldn't tell us what units it is measured in.
Now you are talking about specified complexity ---which we know is mathematically unsound---and can't tell us the units it is measured in.

Travis Hedglin's picture
Ah, to be honest, I mainly

Ah, to be honest, I mainly ignored it. When someone says "specific" or "specified" complexity they are, in fact, begging a question. It, quite literally, asserts that it is being specified by someone(which is an application that needs contextual reasoning) or something(like a unit of measurement). To state that something is "specifically" complex, without being able to provide how "specifically" complex it actually is, is kind of a shell game.

I ignore it, because it doesn't usually do much more than add more obstructions to conversation than we need, and prefer to use more neutral terms. Honestly, though, I would use a different phrase because some people will refuse to go past that point until you correct it.

ThePragmatic's picture
Valiya, no offense, but you

Valiya, no offense, but you seem to be concluding what you would prefer, not what acctually was said in our debates. We haven agreed much on anything.
I certainly don't agree that the Watchmaker Analogy is in any way valid.

Valiya's picture
I had explained to you

I had explained to you exactly what i mean by the watch example. If i showed you a watch and said a 4 year old made it, would you believe it. No. It's because you attribute a higher intelligence for the level of complexity in a watch. It's so simple for anybody to understand. There is specified complexity in the watch.... complex because it has many parts in it...specified because only a particular arrangement of the components can make the watch work... how much more simpler can I put it...and you are simply asserting the example is not valid...I want you to critique the example logiclaly, instead of just dismissing it... i expect that from a reasonable person like you

ThePragmatic's picture
I did. But you just restated

I did. But you just restated that complexity infers intelligence.

I'm sorry, but I have given up debating with you.
I disproved you logic resoning that the actions of god was beyond empirical evidence, plain and simple. Even though I led you to the edge, you would not accept it.
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/i-dont-really-get-it?p...
Since you cannot admit to yourself when you are wrong, debating with you is unfortunately just wasting time.

Valiya's picture
Pragmatic...

Pragmatic...

when two people with strong opinions clash...it's naive to accept either to concede and change one's stance in a single thread. I am convinced that i made a strong case but you are failing to see it. But i am not naive to say things like, "oh you are being so unreasonable and stuff like that." If you have made your point and I have made mine...lets just move on. Let's keep debating on other issues too. It will take several debates for either of us to even shake the other's confidence a wee bit...and that's how changes happen. Not in one sitting. Never give up hope... at least i don't give up hope on you or for that matter on anybody.

ThePragmatic's picture
This is not about strong

This is not about strong opinions. This has to do with not being able to accept being wrong.

You use "logic and reasoning" to validate your worldview. You claimed that you had made sure that the commands from god actually comes from a infinitely wise intelligence and that this intelligence means well.

I questioned how.

In your responses I found a flaw in your reasoning. You claimed that your definition of god can not be subject to empirical evidence, for he is outside of our space-time continuum.
I continued your reasoning and showed you that the actions of your god are still subject to empirical evidence, which makes god indirectly subject to empirical evidence. Instead of accepting that, even though it was right infront of your nose, you avoided answering with:

- "If u actually think...u too are only apply a logic to arrive at ur kowledge...and not scientific proof"

Which is just a cop out, because it was you who used "logic and reasoning" to try to prove your point from the beginning.

You are right about not giving up hope, but I don't feel like wasing a lot of time debating, because the person your debating with can't be honest with himself.

Valiya's picture
To make it short…

To make it short…

When God is outside of time space continuum, it means that He is in no way subject to our empirical scrutiny. If that’s the case how can you even say that his interference in the universe should be indirectly subject to empirical evidence? Even to make such a claim you need to know something about realities or physical laws outside time-space. But we know absolutely nothing. This is what I was trying to explain to you.

Or show me on what basis you are saying that the interference of an extra times-space phenomena should leave some empirical evidence? You can only talk of cause and effect inside of this universe…but you cannot make any claim about external cause and what effect it should have inside our universe.

I took the example of quantum physics just to demonstrate how we are still grappling with physical laws in our own universe…and you jump to outside of time-space and make claims of how causes from there should create effects here.

That to me is unreasonable. And in my view it is nothing beyond your strong preconceived notion that is making you think so.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.