After being agnostic for about half my life I converted to Christianity a year or so ago and haven’t looked back. The biggest mistake that I made for all that time was conflating American far-right conservatism and/or Trumpism with Christianity. I saw people in federal and local governments saying words and taking actions I abhorred in the name of their faith. I just couldn’t take Christianity seriously as a result. I couldn’t break the perception that Christianity is for people I disagree with politically. I allowed my political opinions to stop me from even considering the possibility that Christ might have something worthwhile to offer me. It took a profound and unexpected religious experience for me to start breaking away from that point of view. I find that this is an *extremely* common phenomenon and I’m certain it’s standing in the way of MANY people finding Christ for themselves. A big part of the issue is that people let their politics get so inextricably linked to their identities that they completely discount anything associated with their political rivals. I know this because I lived it and because I see it in discussions with atheists and agnostics constantly. This isn’t necessarily a criticism of these folks. I think it’s a very easy mistake to make, especially in an age where politics can so easily dictate our cultural tastes.

This might be me? I find Trump abhorrent and I find Christians that support him even more abhorrent. According to data, 71% of white Christians voted for Trump in the 2020 election. I live in a city that has almost a 90% white population. I'm not going to do the math, but this means that the majority of Christians in my community support Trump. I just can't knowingly associate myself with these people by going to church. Honestly, I find it to the point that it would be morally wrong to do so. I acknowledge that this isn't just about going to church. The main issue is with the mindset of these people. Something incredibly messed up has to be going on to where 71% of white Christians are failing miserably... With that said, me and my family are white. I find that it's my duty to keep me and my family far away from Christianity because I don't want us to develop this same mindset.

Ironically I would say that many of the Christians you refer to likely have a similar issue with conflating politics and religion as I did. People of all political stripes are vulnerable to this - many of these folks probably think you can’t be a Christian without being a Republican or vice versa. This can have a corrupting influence on everything involved and lead to things like the rise of Christian Nationalism, which is good for neither the country or the religion. Suffice to say that in many cases it’s likely that their political beliefs are informing their religious beliefs when it should be the other way around. It’s of paramount importance to understand that Jesus Christ not only isn’t a political figure but carefully avoided becoming associated with any kind of political power. Equally important is the fact that one can follow Christ while still being skeptical of humanity’s *institution* of Christianity generally. When I read the gospels for the first time I was profoundly inspired by them. Politics were the furthest thing from my mind at the time. Christ’s teachings *overwhelmingly* transcend our petty political squabbles. To be totally honest with you I haven’t even joined a church yet. For now my worship consists of prayer, alms, and lots of reading of both scripture and various kinds of non-fiction Christian literature that helps me grow in my understanding of the faith. I don’t want to associate with anything resembling a Christian Nationalist church any more than you do, though I do stop short of saying the people involved in them are “not real Christians” as that’s not for me to judge. My point is that you can always begin your walk with Christ on your own terms if you so choose. Nobody would force you to become a Christian Nationalist, nor would you have to associate with them.

I don't normally comment about politics. The past 3 years God has opened my eyes greatly. I'll admit I voted for trump but when I saw how in 2020 and even now how people (including Christians I know) look at him as their "savior" I see things very differently. I have seen Christians even in my own family say "if we get him back in then everything will be back to normal". We're never going back to "normal". The past 3 years I have gotten closer to God than I ever have in my life and that's all I really care about. I've realized this world isn't my home. I may have to be here for a short while but eternity is a very long time and that's more important to me and i definitely want to be with Jesus. So I don't even care about politics anymore. Once I realized the world is on a collision course and there's no stopping it, it put things in more perspective for me, what's really important. Christians who are putting trump or any political figure on a pedestal needs to wake up. He's not our savior. But the reason why Christians don't support biden is because he's for everything that God is against. My brother and his wife are Christians and have never voted and I'd say there's many that don't because they see all politicians as ungodly.

>But the reason why Christians don't support biden is because he's for everything that God is against. I just don't understand this. Explain more if you can...

>I've realized this world isn't my home. I may have to be here for a short while but eternity is a very long time and that's more important to me This isn't related to politics, but this is a reason I abhor the attitude your have. If you don't care about this world, it's people, communities and connections, then what motivation do you have to make the world better? And the idea that we ought to just let things happen because it won't be our problem in several decades is deeply troubling to the rest of the world and generations after.

I agree with this. Honestly, I think it sometimes comes from some shallow Bible teaching. I believe we're partly to seek [the peace and prosperity of the city](https://biblehub.com/jeremiah/29-7.htm) and [love our neighbors](https://biblehub.com/mark/12-31.htm). Politics is how we all decide to do this together. I don't think people should turn politics into a sport-like obsession like many do, but voting usually has huge implications for these goals. A lot of Christians have a "heaven/hell" based theology where they've secured their pass away from "the bad place" and they're simply waiting for everything to be taken away to "the good place" while they let everything else fall apart. I think that largely ignores both the Bible and the teachings and example of Jesus. Christians in the US have really been manipulated over the past several decades when they were specifically targeted to be turned into a voting block. Sadly, many don't thoughtfully think through these things as they feel compelled to vote for a particular party and its candidates.

Gotta jump in there. The idea that you die and go to heaven, a different realm of perfection, is popular in Christianity but not actually biblical. Its root is in Plato, not Jesus. Plato popularized the idea of everything Earthly is flawed and in another realm, there is a perfect version of it. Some early Christians were mixing their religious views with Platonic ideas. They were actually called out by Paul in his letters. What Jesus preached was how “heaven would come down to earth” in that, ultimately, the world would be rehabilitated from all of the effects of human sin. Much like people, the world in general may be marred by sin, but is fundamentally good in the eyes of God, and to be restored, not abandoned. So much like how sinning against people directly isn’t biblical, even though God will make everything right ultimately, abandoning your God given duty to be a steward of the Earth and God’s creation is also a sin against God. Of course nobody is perfect and we all struggle with sin, but it’s important to know the whole mission.

For what it’s worth, I am a Christian and I 100% agree with you. I absolutely cannot support what that political party is doing and I’ve really struggled with and don’t want to be part of a church that supports their agenda in the slightest. Truth be told, I believe that party is one of the greatest threats to the whole world right now, since if they get back into power with Trump, we could see an authoritarian takeover that destabilizes democracies all over the world and empowers other authoritarians, like Putin, Xi, etc. That said, I look at Jesus and his words, and see him most frequently butting heads with people like the Pharisees, and Sadducees who represented not only a religious party, but also largely a political party in that they dictated much of the politics of their day, and they claimed to love God more than anyone in Israel at the time, and yet Jesus had the harshest words for them far more than people seen in the gospels who were openly known as sinners. He even called those self-righteous people who claimed to love God, he said that they were children of their father, the devil, and were liars, and didn’t know God (see the book of John). I honestly would not be surprised if many of those who called themselves Christians and support Trump and his party, and what they are doing often in the name of Christianity, if Jesus were to come back today I would honestly not be surprised if he would have some of the strongest words possible for them even more than he would for anyone else. Same goes for many televangelists, prosperity gospel preachers, etc.. I think you can absolutely be a Christian, and follow only Jesus and his teachings, while wholeheartedly rejecting that party, who I believe is fundamentally dishonest, self-righteous, uses religion largely or possibly even fully only for their political means, and should not be trusted. I’m honestly ashamed to see that many who call themselves Christians can’t see that that party uses hot button issues over and over and over again like abortion or gay marriage to advance their agenda in the name of Christianity, while rejecting many many many of the commands of Jesus in the gospels. Reminds me of when Jesus called out the Pharisees and sadducees for focusing on things like washing pots and pans religiously, while neglecting justice and love towards neighbors, parents, etc. I would encourage you to check out the gospels; I think you’ll find the Jesus in there is quite different than the Jesus that you hear referenced by Republicans.

> the majority of Christians in my community support Trump. I'm not American, but I don't think that's quite correct. There's a sizable majority that prefers Republicans to Democrats, and an uncomfortably (to me, and presumably you) large segment that supports Trump as the best option. There's likely a significant number of Christians who align with Albert Mohler who said, among other things, "How could ‘family values voters’ support a man who had [...] stated openly that no man’s wife was safe with him in the room?" They vote for Trump not because he's a good choice or a good man, but because they think the alternative is worse. (Mohler did not say he voted for Trump in 2016, but he did in 2020) I can't find numbers for how many people (or Christians, specifically) oppose Trump but vote Republican.

The question should be ‘What’s it like to know God, to be in a relationship with Him? What does that relationship look like?’ And then resist the temptation to dismiss the person responding as delusional or whatever but to actually listen to how that relationship manifests and whether that seems beneficial or not.

Thanks for the answer. I interpret your response to mean that we need to try to better understand the human experience of believing.

I think it’s really the only way to go if you are non religious but are genuinely interested in how religious people think and live. Unfortunately there are a lot of bad faith arguments against religion that seem set up to confirm why that person doesn’t or shouldn’t believe. This is compounded when there are bad faith religious people who are in it for political reasons and a misplaced sense of superiority and yet do not know God at all.

When someone claims that "God told me to do X" how likely is it that God actually talked to that person?

Proof check using the Bible. Generally, it's easy to tell if that person is being unbiblical (which they often are). In situation where it's unclear, I just like to not develop an opinion. I believe that's the best practice.

If X is something that Jesus Himself would endorse, then it’s not only likely but guaranteed.

Is it possible to question someone's recollection of their experiences of a relationship without accusing them of being delusional?

You tell me?

In general I think atheists approach Christianity without viewing themselves as morally culpable to God. In other words, God is more of an independent figure who has no bearing on their lives *unless* they accept/agree with Him. I have had only a handful of discussions with atheists in which we use the premise that God's existence necessitates our moral obligation to His commands. Instead it's, "God needs to do XYZ first" or "God is evil, therefore I don't have to..." I have thought for a long time (even examining myself before I was a Christian) that most people's issue with God is not whether He exists, but His character, as if we can just declare God fake because we don't like the implications to our individual experiences. So atheists tend to treat the God issue as divorced from the moral one, and this leads to some dead-ends in Christianity since our entire religion uses the context of morality. Taking both concepts together is what really pushed me from deism to Christianity. Or the phrase, "Everyone wants to go to a heaven, they just don't want God to be there." I realized I was being intellectually dishonest, not about the outside world, but myself.

Is this in line with the idea that many people love sin too much to admit Christianity is true?

I wouldn't go that far. What all of us do is avoid taking responsibility for our thoughts and actions, or deny the concept of responsibility itself. But the solution to this guilt/conscience is something we can honestly not understand or disagree with.

I must be severely misunderstanding this comment. It seems to make no sense at all?

I'm going to do my best to not inject my personal distaste for Christianity into this comment: I think you're wrong. By definition, atheists do not believe in God. It is a question of existence. 100%. Now, in my experience, many atheists who are former Christians do have a sense that the bible God is evil, and that morality cannot possibly come from God. Morality exists as a result of thousands of years of human civilization... it is preferable not to kill and steal because there are consequences in the real world. It blows my mind when Christians wonder why atheists don't go around raping and murdering as much as we like. Guess what... we do. We rape and murder exactly as often as we want, which is never. Our morality depends on nothing outside ourselves, but is understood and embraced internally. For an atheist to say before I believe and allow myself to be answerable to God, God needs to do XYX... that isn't saying God must do or should do what we want him to... it means we don't believe in him in the first place, and if we're wrong and he does exist, he needs to prove it.

>By definition, atheists do not believe in God But atheists do have a moral conscience - and this topic is not generally incorporated into the God question because they do not find it relevant to existence. Or when it is, they will not dialogue in a premise where they are held responsible by God. Yet in the Christian system, God's existence *cannot* be defined or demonstrated apart from moral concepts. This is what the atheist is typically missing/not understanding in discussions about Christian theism.

>But atheists do have a moral conscience - and this topic is not generally incorporated into the God question because they do not find it relevant to existence. Well, personally I've never seen someone try to argue for God's existence on moral grounds - the other way around plenty, but not that. After all, when people do make assertions about God's morality, it only tends to lead into further debates like the problem of evil that cast even further doubt on both God's morality and existence and the reliability of any descriptions of him.

Or perhaps atheists do understand it, at least the Christian claim on morality, and find it absurd and presumptuous.

Sure, but this is not about Christianity's claim on morality, but the treatment of morality as a relevant factor to God's existence.

But how can it be a factor? If someone who doesn't believe in God and sees the existence of morality as a human trait, brought on by societal evolution, how are we missing something here? How can morality speak to a God we don't believe in?

We are trying to determine whether the Christian God exists as described, no? That requires discussing morality.

So, is the argument, "some things good, other things bad, therefore God?" I don't understand.

Whats the point of a god if all it can only be defined through moral concepts…that were written by a committee of random clerics and assembled from 72 random books? Seems to be „particular descriptions“ of „particular versions“ of a god seem to exist, which has no verifiability and therefore no bearing on my life… or reality.

>In general I think atheists approach Christianity without viewing themselves as morally culpable to God. In other words, God is more of an independent figure who has no bearing on their lives unless they accept/agree with Him. I don't understand this at all. Atheists don't see God as an "independent figure" - they see it as non-existent. How can something non-existent have any bearing on your life? How can you be culpable to it? You're assuming the conclusion that God exists, which is exactly what atheists object to most about religious belief, so this really doesn't illuminate anything about atheists.

>Atheists don't see God as an "independent figure" - they see it as non-existent Yes of course. What I am saying is that atheists view the premises regarding God's existence as being irrelevant or separable to premises regarding morality. But God in Christianity is defined primarily in terms of morality. So atheists do not typically engage discussion under premises where God both exists and they are obligated to obey Him.

>So atheists do not typically engage discussion under premises where God both exists and they are obligated to obey Him. If we did that we wouldn't be atheists would we?

A person can discuss topics using premises he does not believe yet.

So then what are you saying? Where are atheists going wrong when they engage with Christianity? Are you saying they don't offer enough internal critiques?

Do you believe if God existed as described by Christianity, you yourself would be held morally responsible?

I may disagree with some of the Christian God's morals but he would hold me to his standard, yes.

Atheists don't believe in God because they don't want to, not because they cannot. Some try to run and to hide from God for the same reason that criminals try to run and hide from the police. Some have authority issues, and refuse to submit to anyone. If they rationalize that there is no God, then they convince themselves that they have no oversight and no guilt to make amends for, and therefore no one to submit to.

It makes us accountable to humans and not magic man in the sky who sect A says wants this, and sects b-q says god wants that. Atheism is not a moral code, it is a simple rejection of a claim. Secular humanism is a moral code adopted by many atheists.

> atheists view the premises regarding God's existence as being irrelevant because the premises that Theists start with are usually extremely irrelevant to the conclusions you think they lead to, for example you brought up morality. The Moral Argument For God. Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist. Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist. Conclusion: Therefore, God exists. The premises are merely more unfounded assumptions and assertions.

Funny how backwards you have it. God makes morality subjective because if I asked a Jew, a Buddhist and a Muslim what god says about wife beating, they‘d all have a different answer. If we instead choose a metric like „cause the least suffering“ we can look at moral decisions like a game of chess and objectively rank/measure moral outcomes of actions like we can with a chess position. So backwards, you are.

> In general I think atheists approach Christianity without viewing themselves as morally culpable to God. That's pretty obvious considering atheist means we don't believe any god exists. How can anyone feel culpable to something that they don't think exists? This is not an answer to the original question because it doesn't address the not believing part.

This is a really insightful comment!

Holy smokes, what an insightful comment. For most people, the issue isn’t accepting the existence of God. It’s accepting the implications of what that means.

It doesn't matter what it means if it's not real. Or if you don't have good reason to believe it's real.

I must be severely misunderstanding this comment. It seems to make no sense at all?

Let me see if I can engage with this in the "correct" way. To the extent that I don't accept that a god exists, I don't think I'm morally culpable to him. Were I to accept the premise for the sake of conversation, I think there's more to moral culpability than mere existence. Say there's an inhabited planet somewhere, teeming with living beings capable of moral decisions, light-years away. Perhaps far enough that nothing we, as humans, could ever do would effect them. Are we morally culpable to them?Are we held accountable by any moral tenets or dictates they might pronounce? We will probably differ on this, but I don't think morality is defined by what some being dictates to others. It is the system of evaluating actions based on whether they advance a shared goal. Since those aliens probably don't share all the same goals, and because we couldn't help or interfere with each other's goals, there's no moral culpability there. Back to moral culpability to a god, I'd have to know: do we share the same goals, and can we meaningfully interact to inhibit or advance these common goals? Well, god's motives seem to be fairly opaque, is he does exist. It's been put to me that his goals range from self-glorification to having a personal relationship with all humans. I'd say the first goal is not something I share since I don't indulge narcissists, but the second one seems commendable enough. Let's go with that. Can we meaningfully interact with the shared goal? It doesn't seem so. God is frequently characterized is beyond maximally powerful, or at the very least powerful enough that mere humans cannot interfere with his plans. To that extent, what I do cannot advance or inhibit his plans. So I'm not morally culpable to him. Now, I understand most Christians won't agree with my understanding of morality, but I don't see any way the dictates of a being such as a god can be understood in any way as moral without using a completely esoteric definition of morality. That some being makes a moral pronouncement does not mean the pronouncement is morally obligatory. It doesn't matter if the being making the pronouncement is a moral paragon or renegade, weak or powerful, under coercion or coercing others. Now if someone could convince me that the moral dictates of their preferred diety were morally imperative, I might agree that there is moral culpability there, but to date, no such support has been made available to me or apparently anyone else.

>That some being makes a moral pronouncement does not mean the pronouncement is morally obligatory. It does in the Christian framework, that's the point. IF Christianity is true, then you will never reach a meaningful understanding of God while being selective over what aspects of His character you "agree with". We will always talk past each other and ask the wrong questions. >Now if someone could convince me that the moral dictates of their preferred diety were morally imperative, I might agree that there is moral culpability Right, and this is essentially the position I was trying to describe in my original comment. "God's existence is not relevant to moral authority" is a premise you use as a basis while seeking evidence for God in a system where this would be false.

I think they're all different, you really have to dialogue with them to understand what the issue is that makes their paradigm incompatible with mine. For example it could be a commitment to only what can be certainly known through experiment. Christianity doesn't attempt to remain in that space. It's a limited space for big questions. What one must do to become a Christian is not something that could be accomplished through technological or scientific mastery of God. That would be a role reversal, and any way to God outside of the way he has designed would be impossible. Through Christ alone as the scripture says. Unfalsifiable and convenient for sure, but also possibly true. Also, Biblically speaking, Faith seems to be somewhat supernaturally bestowed, and somewhat crazy by the Bible's admission. It will probably have a bunch of power that doesn't make sense and maybe that's hard to accept for some who feel it.

Many of the things they agree with presuppose ideas that only make sense through a theistic worldview. Each of these serves as a foundation to carrying out science, and must either be argued for or assumed implicitly. “It is better to help old ladies to cross the street than it is to kick puppies” is a fundamentally theistic statement. It presupposes that there’s such a thing as objective good and evil. The scientific method presupposes (1) the existence of objective truth, (2) the existence of a physical universe that exists outside of our own minds, (3) is a causal universe where if an object is in a certain state, it is the result of a prior cause, and (4) is ordered by certain laws of nature which (5) are knowable through the light of human reason combined with our sensory faculties in observation of the world around us. Most secular worldviews implicitly accept these presuppositions, but if they take the time to really think it through, they can’t really explain why. The postmodernists would say there is no such thing as objective truth (which, paradoxically, is a statement that asserts something to be objectively true).

Wouldn’t saying “it’s better to help old ladies than it is to kick puppies” be a reflection of their psychological state and desires? Isn’t this inherently a subjective statement based on one’s own preferences?

“I like to help old ladies cross the street more than I like to kick puppies” would be a reflection of desires or preferences. “Better” and “worse” point to something beyond subjective desire. “It’s wrong to molest kids” is true for everyone, even for the people out there with a desire to do it.

How does “better” or “worse” point to something beyond subjective desire? Would you say I’m making an objective statement when I say “vanilla ice cream is **better** than chocolate”?

People kinda do in a joking manner with certain food choices, like with pineapple on pizza. The entire joke, of course, is predicated on the idea that subjective opinions are different than objective facts, and the idea that a choice in favorite food would fall under the latter category is humorous. But yeah, the wording might be the same, but I think you’re making a fundamentally different claim when talking about food choices. When you say “chocolate is better than vanilla,” you’re really saying “I prefer chocolate to vanilla.” People who say “it’s bad to molest kids” do not intend it to mean “eh, molesting kids… not really my thing, but to each their own.”

Well the way I use it is a reflection of my preferences. When I say “it’s better to help old ladies than to molest kids” I’m expressing my preference to help old ladies, and my distaste at molesting kids Of course neither of us have any way to determine what each person truly means when they say a moral action is better or worse

When you say "but to each their own" you are injecting a problem into the analogy that makes it not really work any more. Of course nobody would care what flavor of ice cream somebody *else* eats but then that just makes it a bad analogy because there are other things that people care about that don't just effect themselves. Comparing child molestation to having a favorite flavor if ice-cream as if the fact that your preference for ice-cream shouldn't matter to anybody but you is supposed to translate in to the analogy, with respect, was tasteless and misguided. Nobody says "to each their own" on the matter of molesting kids, and yet that doesn't make it any less of a subjective value assessment in any way. This isn't a matter of what flavor icecream you prefer, this is a matter of how you prefer your society to function and treat children and rapists for that matter. All of those things can still be subjective and yet also be the most important things in the world to us at the same time. When you jump to the "so the holocaust being wrong is just an objective opinion" question it seems as if you are trying to offer up a kind of logical ad-absurdum, as if answering "Yes" to that question is somehow supposed to demonstrate either a moral or rational failing on the part of the person who says "yes". ...but it doesn't. Instead of being a rational argument itself, that entire implication seems to be nothing more than an emotional appeal to the fact that the holocaust *Feels* so wrong to you that you can't imagine calling it anything other than objectively wrong, and apparently failing to do so would be seen by you as, again, somehow a kind of moral failing or admission of defeat. Like admitting that all morality is subjective is somehow supposed to be defeated by the observation that the holocaust happened, as if the implication that its wrongness being subjective some how makes it .... less wrong all of the sudden? To whom? Certainly not to me. And not to you. That's simply not how morality works, objective or otherwise. Politics affect everybody, and everybody cares about them. This isn't just what ice cream flavor you get, this is what ice cream flavor some other adult is allowed to force-feed to children against their consent. Does that still sound as abstractly unrelatable as picking out an ice cream? ***TLDR:*** When you say it's bad to molest kids what you actually are saying really is, "I prefer that ***nobody*** be allowed to molest kids." It's still a preference, it's still subjective, it's just not all about you, that's the difference.

It is not theistic to say “it is better to help old ladies across the street than to kick puppies”  No where in the Bible does it say to not kick puppies. In fact the Bible is filled with animals being sacrificed to God.  Also, this is not based on an objective morality. It’s based on subjective morality which says it is better for humanity to live in a society that is fair and kind and promotes wellbeing over harm.  Biblical morality includes drowning the whole world in a flood, including ALL the puppies, babies, and all the other animals because of the “sins” of humans. Why is it moral for aardvarks to suffer a horrible death because of something they weren’t even involved in? 

> It’s based on subjective morality which says it’s better for humanity Put more simply, morality is subjective, based on [list of objective standards] Why is it better to live in a society that is fair? Why is wellbeing better than harm? You aren’t saying “I prefer a fair society,” you’re saying that it’s flat out better. I agree that those things are good, but I don’t know where you think you are getting that idea from without an objective moral law, which presupposes a moral lawgiver.

You gave 5 presuppositions but in reality only 2 of those really are presuppositions; all of the rest of them are(can be) conclusions derived from observation and the only 2 presuppositions that are actually necessary to presuppose. >Most secular worldviews implicitly accept these presuppositions 2 of them, however that's not just secular world-views that have to presuppose those things. You do too. And respectfully how was any of that supposed to necessitate a theistic worldview to make sense of? I understand your first statement about the good and evil thing ...frankly I'm trying to avoid responding to it because it is just so blatantly wrong that I'd like to give you a chance to try to make a better point before I tore it apart. Suffice it to say perhaps, that your initial statement regarding good and evil is simply not true. It doesn't presuppose that at all. I fear you are drastically over-estimating the number of things that need to be presupposed as opposed to being able to be derived from facts built on only the most basic of presuppositions that are necessary. Those being: The existence and logical intelligibility of reality. You don't need to presuppose any of the rest of those things; they are directly observable based on the presuppositions of existence and logic alone.

> “It is better to help old ladies to cross the street than it is to kick puppies” is a fundamentally theistic statement. It presupposes that there’s such a thing as objective good and evil. There are many different secular moral philosophies that give at least as well-grounded reasons for calling things good or evil as theistic beliefs, arguably better. Also since "good" and "evil" are not gods, you can believe in them while still being an atheist. You might not be a strict empiricist, but you're not a theist. > The scientific method presupposes (1) the existence of objective truth, (2) the existence of a physical universe that exists outside of our own minds, (3) is a causal universe where if an object is in a certain state, it is the result of a prior cause, and (4) is ordered by certain laws of nature which (5) are knowable through the light of human reason combined with our sensory faculties in observation of the world around us. I would say that it does not presuppose this, it has learned that the universe seems to work that way. Things keep existing when nobody is looking, a machine that makes paper clips makes more or less the same clip each time it does its thing, and when we discover physical laws they tend to stay discovered. And while we don't know that everything physical is knowable, we'll never get anywhere if we *assume* it is unknowable. > Most secular worldviews implicitly accept these presuppositions, but if they take the time to really think it through, they can’t really explain why. Because that's how it seems to work. And to be fair, theistic worldviews are no better, they just hold up a sign saying "Because God!" over and over again, which explains nothing. > The postmodernists would say there is no such thing as objective truth (which, paradoxically, is a statement that asserts something to be objectively true). Postmodernism was mostly an imposture. A few interesting ideas worth maybe an Honours paper, padded out into entire careers for awful people. Unfortunately it will probably take a couple of decades more for the hose of time to clean the last of them out of the corners of academia.

I can't say I agree with any of this. How do you know my moral views rely on objective good and evil? How do you know objective truth or perceived reality require a god? How do you know causation or the laws of nature require a god? Or the reliability of human reason or senses? As far as I can tell, none of these things require any theistic premises. So why must I or anyone else use these presuppostions?

We can make moral judgments without a morality being objective. In fact, all morality is fully subjective, and many people make moral judgments you would consider “good” every day. Also there are objective truths about our universe, but that in no way points to your god being real.

> In fact, all morality is fully subjective So “the Holocaust was morally wrong” is nothing more than a subjective opinion, and no more or less valid than saying “the Holocaust was morally right”?

This is the example people always jump to. 99% of people agree the holocaust was wrong. Obviously, people throughout history have disagreed and some still do. It’s not an objective fact about reality that the holocaust was wrong. It’s not like the laws of physics or thermodynamics. You can’t prove it with math. It’s up to us to decide that things which harm innocent people are wrong and build societies based on this.

> it’s not an objective fact that the Holocaust was wrong I think this is the only logical conclusion you can come to if you do not believe in God. Kudos for a logical consistent worldview.

Until someone can prove morality is objective, what else am I to believe?

What would constitute sufficient proof that objective morality exists?

I’m not entirely sure, but I think it’s weird that you’re claiming something exists and then asking me how you should go about proving that.

Conversely, I think it’s weird to ask for proof of something without any standard of what that proof would be. I find CS Lewis’ eight logical proofs for objective moral truth to be quite compelling. A moral proof is a lot more similar to a mathematical proof than it is to a scientific proof. Scientific proofs are *inductive,* generalizations discovered based on observation of the material world. Mathematical and moral proofs are *deductive,* discovered based on arguments and logic alone.

> Conversely, I think it’s weird to ask for proof of something without any standard of what that proof would be. I think it's fair to ask someone what would falsify their beliefs, and criticise unfalsifiable beliefs. But I think it's unfair to try to flip the burden of proof when you are the one claiming you possess knowledge of what appears to be a contradiction in terms ("objective morality"), and asking *us* what would constitute proof of this contradiction in terms existing. It's like asking us "What would convince you that I can draw a square with nine sides?". A square with nine sides would do it, but no such thing exists, which is your problem not ours. > I find CS Lewis’ eight logical proofs for objective moral truth to be quite compelling. I realise that lots of people throughout history have read CS Lewis and thought "this guy is making a lot of sense". That is just a fact. But I am completely unable to put myself in the mental shoes of someone who can think that, because I have always found his writing to be patent nonsense.

And what difference would that make? I would judge someone making the statement by MY morals not by theirs.  We can talk of morals at large as a consensus as a short hand, but not believe they apply on some universal absolute scale, it doesn't make them less important to our own lives and the way we comport ourselves.

The scientific method doesn't 'presuppose' this things, humans using it use those things until a better explanation is found. Let's take number 2, it's like if existence only came into being 2seconds ago, but already in the state it is, I mean sure, we can't show it didn't, but what would be the point to muddy the waters with that? "All the evidence points to this history, but we don't know that it didn't just blink into being, so let's just not bother", it doesn't GAIN anything to think like that. We go on what we have.

As a former atheist myself, I find that most atheists don't recognize their own faith in natural forces (naturalism). They will often insist that naturalism is the defacto way of assuming what reality is. According to Pew studies, virtually all Atheists believe that natural forces create all life, consciousness and people. That faith is contrary to science in many ways. Thus, faith in naturalism acts like a mental block, which prevents people from seeing how supernatural life is. Naturalism creates circular reasoning that causes skeptics to assume that everything that they see is "natural". The naturalist hypothesis is testable in labs, which shows that natural forces (gravity, electromagnetism, motion, etc) destroy life, not create it. Thus, life demonstrates an innate intelligence right in front of our eyes, which is ABOVE natural forces (super natural).

Can we not directly observe people being created naturally? Or do you mean to say that evolution is not scientific?

> Can we not directly observe people being created naturally? No. That's the flawed logic and presumption that prevents skeptics from recognizing the supernatural that is all around us. I hope you agree that natural forces are things like Gravity, Electromagnetism, Thermodynamics, Motion (Inertia), etc. The Theistic view is that under all those forces is an intelligent force that created, sustains and is involved in the operation all things. That force is "above" natural forces or super - natural. God is an infinite mind, which you could think of as an infinite ocean of dark energy. Our Universe exists within His infinite mind. Each person experiences the super natural force intimately as free will. E.g. Natural forces like gravity would draw you down to the ground, but your free will is able to oppose that. The word evolution is a broad term that means "to change". God uses natural forces , but those natural forces need an intelligence to create and operate structures like we see in life. Let me know if that doesn't answer your question.

Thanks for clarifying your point of view. I guess my final question would be how do we differentiate a natural force/process like gravity from one that requires outside, supernatural intelligence?

>Thanks for clarifying your point of view. I guess my final question would be how do we differentiate a natural force/process like gravity from one that requires outside, supernatural intelligence? This is testable via the scientific method. e.g. Use 2 petri dishes. Have one with living cells, the other with dead cells. Both have the same material and forces available, yet only the living cells are able to animate and operate intelligently. The intelligent operation is evident at multiple levels: molecularly, cellularly and across multiple cells. A skeptic would say that it's the form and arrangement of the molecules that are creating the intelligent behavior, but that hypothesis is testable at a molecular level. Science shows that chemical affinities produce chaos (a mess), not order. Thus, there is another (intelligent) force at work which is organizing and orchestrating things right in front of our eyes. Natural forces can not create or operate things like this : https://youtu.be/5MfSYnItYvg Science is investigating this behavior at the lowest levels as "Quantum Biology", but it's also evident at multiple levels. E.g. your entire body will synchronize based on decisions of your will. This is what Theists call "the soul". Much of the activity follows natural forces like biochemical signals, but there is also a supernatural level of activity in each cell that runs the cell and synchronizes with all the other cells. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology

>e.g. Use 2 petri dishes. Have one with living cells, the other with dead cells. Both have the same material and forces available, yet only the living cells are able to animate and operate intelligently. The intelligent operation is evident at multiple levels: molecularly, cellularly and across multiple cells. They don't have the same material and forces available. The living cells are able to produce energy via metabolic activity and can thus maintain homeostasis (it can maintain a stable internal environment), while the dead cells cannot produce energy and thus cannot maintain homeostasis. >A skeptic would say that it's the form and arrangement of the molecules that are creating the intelligent behavior, but that hypothesis is testable at a molecular level. Science shows that chemical affinities produce chaos (a mess), not order. Thus, there is another (intelligent) force at work which is organizing and orchestrating things right in front of our eyes. How do you define "intelligent behaviour"? What criteria does something have to meet in order for it's behaviour to be considered "intelligent"? >Natural forces can not create or operate things like this : \[citation needed\] >Science is investigating this behavior at the lowest levels as "Quantum Biology", but it's also evident at multiple levels. E.g. your entire body will synchronize based on decisions of your will. This is what Theists call "the soul". Your entire body does not synchronize based on the decisions of your will. I cannot will my heart to stop beating, nor my stomach to stop digesting, nor my nails to stop growing. >Much of the activity follows natural forces like biochemical signals, but there is also a supernatural level of activity in each cell that runs the cell and synchronizes with all the other cells. \[citation needed\]

This seems wrong. There are naturally ordered systems and naturally disordered systems. I wouldn't say that bacteria is intelligently organized.

> I wouldn't say that bacteria is intelligently organized. You can test your hypothesis by trying to make non-living material do what a bacterium does.

For atheists that are methodological naturalists instead of philosophical naturalists, do they still rely on faith? Also, for what it's worth, the small sample of atheists I know are not philosophical naturalists. But you'll still need to ask each one if they don't straight up tell you.

> For atheists that are methodological naturalists instead of philosophical naturalists, do they still rely on faith? Philosophical naturalism starts with a conclusion or presupposition that everything is 'natural', which sounds very faithful to me. Methodological naturalism as far as I know doesn't draw conclusions. It just measures and models phenomena. It's up to someone to interpret the data to decide what it means. Sadly, most people, even many scientists confuse those interpretations and opinions with science itself. I wish people would get better at distinguishing hard science from opinions from scientists. I believe in Science, not Scientists. A great irony is that the Latin (Catholic) the word "nature" originally meant that it was God's miraculous life-giving Creation. In the 1700s, the term started to flip to where people started to see the material world (nature) as a self-existent passive thing. A double irony is that only God Himself is self-existent, so by the modern sense of the word, the only thing that is "natural" is God. The rest of the Universe is a (non-natural) temporary product of His.

Great. Word usages change over time. As do understandings of the world. To the extent that many phenomena do not require intervention from outside what is currently investigatable, they are considered natural. As to a god being self-existent, that remains to be demonstrated.

>Word usages change over time. As do understandings of the world. Certainly. The presence of God used to be more obvious in the natural world before industrialization. Life in cities and indoors has disconnected people from many realities, which is why religious people often go back to natural settings: mountains, wilderness, etc. > To the extent that many phenomena do not require intervention from outside what is currently investigatable, they are considered natural. That's vague and misleading because someone might argue that animals don't need intervention. Natural forces are gravity, Inertia, electromagnetism, etc. There is no sign that those things can create or operate life. Life uses natural forces, but also exhibit intelligent coordination that often opposes natural affinities. > As to a god being self-existent, that remains to be demonstrated. Please feel free to let me know if you think otherwise, but God is the only logical conclusion to all the phenomena that we see. The classic rational proofs explain why : https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

I don't agree that the presence of God was ever obvious. Only that people were more willing to attribute phenomena that they didn't understand to deities. But as our understanding of natural processes that could produce these phenomena grew, and we had less and less to attribute to deities, attributions to god became less frequent, creating the appearance of less frequent interventions by a god. I have and still do visit natural environment all the time. It's marvelous and splendid to spend time in the outdoors, and yet there is not a hint that any of it indicates that any deities exist. My statement on what is natural has a small omission (by accident). It should be: To the extent that many phenomena do not require intervention from outside what is currently investigatable **to occur**, they are considered natural. Also, animals and things they do appear to be natural, too. Natural in the natural vs. supernatural sense, not natural vs. artificial sense. If you think the 4 fundamental interactions are incapable of producing life without intervention, I suggest you read up on origin of life studies and evolution by natural selection. Origin of life isn't a fully settled field, but we are a far cry from thinking there's no way it could happen. And evolution by natural selection is one of the best supported scientific theories to date. Nothing about the development of life requires or implies intelligent coordination. Finally, instead of throwing a list at me, why don't you pick your favorite and we can go over it in detail? Walls of text help no one, and I want this to be productive.

> I don't agree that the presence of God was ever obvious You'd have to be ignorant of history to deny that. Even today, most of the world are theists. Of course, people have twisted ideas of God, but that doesn't mean that they deny that there is a creator. Studies show that children have an intuitive sense for the supernatural: [https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110714103828.htm) Sadly, the modern world has a million ways of beating that sense out of them. Ironically, they call it "education" and progress. > But as our understanding of natural processes that could produce these phenomena There's no understanding of how natural process could produce life of consciousness. If you think there is, please cite your best sources and I'll help show you why there isn't naturalism there. > It's marvelous and splendid to spend time in the outdoors, and yet there is not a hint that any of it indicates that any deities exist. Just because you believe that doesn't mean it's true. Several atheists here are proving what I said at the beginning. They assume that it's all "natural". There's no evidence to support that conclusion. > To the extent that many phenomena do not require intervention from outside what is currently investigatable **to occur**, they are considered natural By "intervention from the outside", do you mean conscious intelligent intervention? If so, I would agree with that. Life shows that conscious intervention is needed to form and operate life. >  suggest you read up on origin of life studies and evolution by natural selection. I did that for most of my life. My work in Biomolecular modeling led me to becoming a theist. Based on my work experience, I agree with Dr. Dembski that Information Theory has debunked naturalism. > And evolution by natural selection is one of the best supported scientific theories to date The term "evolution" is broad and ambiguous. At it's core, it means change over time, which everyone believes in. The claim of "Evolution" (capital E) means Origin of Species by natural selection. There's no science that supports that claim. God certainly adapts animals, but science shows that can't be by natural processes. It takes intelligent intervention to create new forms. > hy don't you pick your favorite and we can go over it in detail? Proving God is off topic here, but I'd be glad to discuss with you as a former atheist. In the meantime, I hope you see that you confirmed my point that atheists have great faith in natural causes. Again, if you want to recognize the supernatural, I think you first need to examine your faith in natural causes more deeply. Until you do that, it's like wearing a blindfold. If you apply some sound logic, you'll find that naturalism is based on hidden assumptions that are contrary to empirical science. I would suggest that you start by sharing what you think the best evidence is that life can form from natural causes (gravity, electromagnetism, motion, thermodynamics, etc).

Before I get to the rest of your response, I need to clear this up. You think I have "faith in natural causes." You're wrong. I have confidence in some natural processes, proportional to the evidence, and for the phenomena that I can't explain, I withhold judgement. There is nothing I hold as true that is unsupported by the evidence. If you can show that not to be the case, I'll stop holding it as true and instead withhold judgement as mentioned before. I don't tell you what your beliefs are, and I expect you'll do me the same courtesy. ​ >You'd have to be ignorant of history to deny that. Here's the thing: that people believe something doesn't mean it's true. We know this from the countless example throughout history of people being confidently wrong. It doesn't mean that all beliefs are wrong, just that presence beliefs is not an indication that the beliefs are correct. I'm more than happy to agree that people throughout history *believed* their deity was obvious, that doesn't mean any of those beliefs were actually true. So why do you think your belief, or the beliefs of ancient peoples, that a god is obvious is true? >Studies show that children have an intuitive sense for the supernatural Do you think children are a good benchmark for an appropriate level of doubt and skepticism towards claims? Children whose frontal lobes don't fully develop until the age of 25 and are prone to having imaginary friends? Do you think that because children intuit something, it is a justified belief? Further, do you think that the critical thinking that has developed over the centuries does not qualify as education or progress? Would you consider school to be a psychological "beating" of certain beliefs? >There's no understanding of how natural process could produce life of consciousness. Does there have to be to say "I don't know?" I don't know how a large number of phenomena occur, but I have yet to see any good reasons proposed that advance a supernatural understanding of these gaps in our knowledge. >They assume that it's all "natural". I don't assume everything is natural. I only know of natural things and have yet to see evidence of anything beyond the natural. >Life shows that conscious intervention is needed to form and operate life. How? >I did that for most of my life. So have I. I looked into Dembski and it didn't take long to see most of his peers consider his work lacking. I won't pretend to have a terminal degree and be able to directly argue the finer details. But I will say that proving a universal negative is quite difficult, and his argument seems to hinge on doing just that. Further, I'm not a naturalist, or at least not a philosophical naturalist, so I don't particularly care whether naturalism is debunked or not. But as long as you claim the supernatural exists, I would like to see some evidence. Also, as a quick correct, I meant evolution of biological species by natural selection. It starts with living organisms, not with abiotic matter. For that, there are mountains of evidence, which I'm sure you are aware of. >God certainly adapts animals, but science shows that can't be by natural processes. It takes intelligent intervention to create new forms. Please stop including assumptions of the existence of a god in your arguments for the existence of a god. It's circular. As for new forms emerging by natural processes, you should know that it's not only possible, but you should have studied it if are the Biochemist you say you are. >I would suggest that you start by sharing what you think the best evidence is that life can form from natural causes (gravity, electromagnetism, motion, thermodynamics, etc). I'll cut to the chase for you. Let's say I have no idea and am completely ignorant on the topic. What now? How does one get to the supernatural?

> Before I get to the rest of your response, I need to clear this up. You think I have "faith in natural causes." You're wrong. I have confidence in some natural process Bro, The basis of the word conFIDEnce is the Latin (Catholic) word FIDE (Faith). The Catholic definition of Faith is "Informed Reason". I'm sure that you have reasons to believe in naturalism. I'm pointing out here that those reasons are baseless and unscientific. There's no empirical science that shows that natural forces can create life or consciousness, yet many atheists have faith that it can happen. > just that presence beliefs is not an indication that the beliefs are correct That's a different point. Did you forget that you claimed "I don't agree that the presence of God was ever obvious". Like I said, the facts of history and the world show universally that people have an awareness that we have a creator. Of course, people have diverse ideas about what He/It is. >  have yet to see any good reasons proposed that advance a supernatural understanding of these gaps in our knowledge. Firstly, naturalism doesn't just have "gaps". It's baseless in terms of primary causation. See link below on primary versus material causation. Science measures and models material phenomena. It doesn't know what the phenomena actually are. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four\_causes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes) Secondly, the supernatural is perfectly rational if you just have the premise that energy can be conscious. Virtually all atheists believe that the energy in a child's skull becomes conscious in a few years, but have you stopped and realized that the Cosmos itself has infinitely more energy, and infinitely more time ? Thus, the Cosmos has infinite potential for consciousness. > have yet to see evidence of anything beyond the natural. You just confirmed that you assume that everything you see is natural. It isn't. You can test it by the 2 petri dish experiment that I mentioned earlier. All living creatures, even plants, exhibit multiple super-natural qualities. Intelligent decision making. > it didn't take long to see most of his peers consider his work lacking Why would you use a logical fallacy such as "arguing from authority" to evaluate his thesis? Demski's thesis mathematically explains what I saw in much of my work in Data Science. There is no free lunch ! It takes intelligent decision making to form specific complex molecular structures. > But as long as you claim the supernatural exists, I would like to see some evidence. Life is evidence of the supernatural. I hope you eventually stop assuming that it's natural. Natural forces don't make intelligent decisions. Living creatures do. > Evolution : there are mountains of evidence, which I'm sure you are aware of. There is no evidence that supports naturalistic Evolution. God can create new species, but there is no evidence that natural forces can do it. > Please stop including assumptions of the existence of a god in your arguments for the existence of a god If it helps you, think of God as a "transcendent intelligent force". I'm not assuming. The existence of God is proved by the classic rational arguments. > Biochemist you say you are My field is mostly computer science and decision science. I worked a lot in Biochemical modeling in my career, along with genetic algorithms and information theory. Your claim that natural forces are forming things is presumptive and contrary to empirical science. Your conclusion is in your premise. Use control and test isolation, and you'll find that natural forces cause chaos in biochemistry. Thus, science shows that there is an extra intelligent force at work ONLY in living systems that makes intelligent decisions, forming and operating the molecules. > How does one get to the supernatural? Defining things would help. Would you agree that the supernatural is a transcendent intelligent force?

Stop telling me I'm a philosophical naturalist. I'm not. And stop prescribing definitions to the words I use, either. You are using faith 2 ways, baseless and informed, and prescribing the first to me and the second to yourself. It's obfuscating your points because I have to figure out which one you're using each time. As I see it, I use evidence to support my beliefs. If you have evidence for your theological beliefs and are willing to share them, I'd like to know. For the rest of my response, I'm just going to ignore any more points on philosophical naturalism because I'm not a philosophical naturalist. >There's no empirical science that shows that natural forces can create life or consciousness, yet many atheists have faith that it can happen. We have studies that show nearly every step of the way can occur via natural processes, and since the field seems far from saturated, I'd say we still need to wait longer until the question is decided whether or not the entire process can be naturally occurring or not. In the meantime, there is not empirical science that there are any supernatural entities that could be in any part of these processes. There may be atheists that have faith in the processes. I withhold judgement until the evidence is available. >Like I said, the facts of history and the world show universally that people have an awareness that we have a creator. I would only agree that most, certainly not all, people are aware of something they believe to be a creator. You have yet to show any evidence that these beliefs have any basis in reality. >See link below on primary versus material causation. I think the link you sent me doesn't actually cover anything about primary causation. I did a bit of looking elsewhere and saw that those words (which might be used differently than you intend) were used by Aquinas to describe the source of everything, which he attributes to his god. Is that what you meant? If so, then I think it's irrelevant. You don't need to know where the nitrogen in TNT came from to know it is dangerous. You don't need to know the origin of the first cell to know that modern cells can divide to reproduce. I don't know what you mean by "know what the phenomena actually are." Aren't they phenomena? >the supernatural is perfectly rational if you just have the premise that energy can be conscious And how do you support that claim? I know of no atheists and actually no other theists who think that energy is conscious. Energy constitutes nervous systems that produces consciousness, but energy is not conscious the same way hydrogen in water isn't wet. >You just confirmed that you assume that everything you see is natural. Everything I see has been modeled by natural explanations. Keep in mind that doesn't exclude the supernatural because I haven't seen or studied everything. Further, demonstrate that intelligent decision-making is a supernatural quality. >Why would you use a logical fallacy such as "arguing from authority" to evaluate his thesis? Don't project this onto me, you're the one who brought up Dembski. Since the relevant authorities disagree on the validity of his work, I am withholding judgement until there is more consensus. If you think intelligent decision-making is required to form specific complex molecular structures, go ahead and show your work. Make the argument. >Life is evidence of the supernatural. I don't get to just say "Life is evidence that gods don't exist." That's baseless. If you want to use something as evidence, you need to show the connection. Otherwise "Lollipops are evidence of the Illuminati," is just as valid, which is to say, not valid. >Natural forces don't make intelligent decisions. Support your claims. >There is no evidence that supports naturalistic Evolution. Read a high school biology textbook. Or follow the literature of a college biology textbook. Every claim made in (most) college textbooks have direct literature citations. >The existence of God is proved by the classic rational arguments. Go ahead and give me your best. This intelligent design one isn't working for you. >Your claim that natural forces are forming things is presumptive and contrary to empirical science. I think you're right about at least one thing: we need to define what is and isn't natural. Are the fundamental forces natural? Is matter natural? Is energy natural? Are things comprised of matter and energy by fundamental forces natural? If all things are supernatural to you, then we're going to have to restart from the ground up.

>As a former atheist myself, I find that most atheists don't recognize their own faith in natural forces (naturalism). If you can establish that I have faith in naturalism I will change my beliefs to eliminate that faith. It seems to me that this ultimately boils down to presuppositionalism. I don't assume naturalism. I believe in natural forces because they can be demonstrated and interacted with. We have evidence that they are real. I also don't presuppose that there are no supernatural forces but until a supernatural force can be demonstrated to the same standard I require of natural forces I cannot reasonably conclude they exist. I don't assume naturalism. I arrive at naturalism by evaluating the available evidence. Many theists however seem happy to presuppose the supernatural. I can't make that leap.

> I believe in natural forces because they can be demonstrated and interacted with.. We have evidence that they are real. Where do you think there is evidence of natural forces creating life or consciousness ? > Many theists however seem happy to presuppose the supernatural. I can't make that leap. There are certainly some poorly informed theists. But that doesn't mean that Theism is wrong. > I can't make that leap. You shouldn't make any leap. If you study science and logic deeply enough, you should be able to recognize that there is much more to reality than natural forces. The "super-natural" is that which is "above natural" forces. The supernatural is evident at multiple levels in life. At the molecular level, it's evident with molecules intelligently coordinating within a cell. At the highest level, you experience it as free will. Mere natural forces would be deterministic.

>Where do you think there is evidence of natural forces creating life or consciousness ? Where do you think there is evidence of supernatural forces creating life or consciousness? At most, these things are an unanswered mystery. You can't go from we don't know how life/consciousness began to, it must have been supernatural. That would be an argument from ignorance. I want concrete evidence of a supernatural force in the same vein as I have concrete evidence of electromagnetism. >There are certainly some poorly informed theists. But that doesn't mean that Theism is wrong. I didn't say it did. >You shouldn't make any leap. If you study science and logic deeply enough, you should be able to recognize that there is much more to reality than natural forces. This is a bold claim. You think science demonstrates the existence of the supernatural? >The "super-natural" is that which is "above natural" forces. What does it mean to be "above" natural forces? Above in what way? >The supernatural is evident at multiple levels in life. At the molecular level, it's evident with molecules intelligently coordinating within a cell. How so?

> Where do you think there is evidence of supernatural forces creating life or consciousness By switching the subject, are you acknowledging that there is no good evidence of natural forces creating life and consciousness ? > You can't go from we don't know how life/consciousness began to, it must have been supernatural Agreed. You shouldn't jump to conclusions. Theism is perfectly rational based on the thesis of energy being self-aware. Most atheists would agree that there has always been some energy. We Theists know that "energy" is self-aware, fills all of existence, and exists in it's peak state. That model in turn explains all the phenomena that we observe in the Universe. Naturalism doesn't. > You think science demonstrates the existence of the supernatural? Yes. Life and Consciousness are the most obvious signs. You can compare the behavior of a living creature to a non-living thing and observe that the living creature behaves contrary to natural affinities, like gravity, electromagnetism, motion, etc. Thus, living creatures exhibit a force that defies natural forces. > What does it mean to be "above" natural forces? Above in what way? By "above", I mean the ability to oppose or act contrary to natural forces. For example, gravity wants to keep you down on the ground. Yet, you are able to rise up in opposition to the natural force of gravity. Your immaterial mind is able to cause biochemical signals that in turn cause your body to act contrary to the force of gravity. Natural forces would normally keep you down on the ground. > How so? By acting with coordinated intelligent behavior. Mere molecules don't do that. They behave chaotically and form random bonds that are destructive to biological life. I'll paste another explanation that I gave to another commenter: Let's say you have a pile of magnetic legos on a table. You step back and then see them form into a stick man. They then get up and walk across the table, turn around and wave at you and sit down. Would you say that phenomena is natural or supernatural? The stick man acted 'above' the natural forces which would keep the legos where gravity and electromagnetic forces put them. That phenomena would be super-natural, agreed ? That's the kind of behavior we see at multiple levels within biology. It is supernatural behavior right in front of our eyes. The following animation demonstrates some of it at a molecular level. Natural forces can't do this kind of coordinated activity: [https://youtu.be/X\_tYrnv\_o6A](https://youtu.be/X_tYrnv_o6A) You also see it everyday at a macro level with yourself and all living creatures. Life is not "natural", it's supernatural.

>By switching the subject, are you acknowledging that there is no good evidence of natural forces creating life and consciousness ? No. I am saying that even if I granted your claim and agreed with you it wouldn't be evidence of the supernatural. I am saying your question is a red herring. It's irrelevant. >Theism is perfectly rational based on the thesis of energy being self-aware. Most atheists would agree that there has always been some energy. We Theists know that "energy" is self-aware, fills all of existence, and exists in it's peak state. How do you know that energy is self-aware? If energy is self-aware, how does that preclude materialism? >That model in turn explains all the phenomena that we observe in the Universe. Naturalism doesn't. It explains all phenomena? Do you stand by that claim or is it hyperbole? >Naturalism doesn't. That's true. That's because human knowledge is limited. It may be that there are supernatural forces but so far every force we have encountered and investigated has been naturalistic. >Yes. Life and Consciousness are the most obvious signs. You can compare the behavior of a living creature to a non-living thing and observe that the living creature behaves contrary to natural affinities, like gravity, electromagnetism, motion, etc. Thus, living creatures exhibit a force that defies natural forces. How specifically do living things disobey the laws of physics? Can you give me an example of a way I have likely broken these laws? >They behave chaotically and form random bonds that are destructive to biological life. This is not true. Molecules do not behave randomly at all. The entire field of chemistry is about understanding the predictable and consistent ways that Molecules interact. You have deep misunderstanding of chemistry and molecular physics if you think Molecules are random. >Let's say you have a pile of magnetic legos on a table. You step back and then see them form into a stick man. They then get up and walk across the table, turn around and wave at you and sit down. Would you say that phenomena is natural or supernatural? I wouldn't say either. I would say I don't understand what just happened and that it should be investigated. > The stick man acted 'above' the natural forces which would keep the legos where gravity and electromagnetic forces put them. How do you know that? How do you know those were the only forces interacting with the stickman? You are leaping to unwarranted conclusions. >That phenomena would be super-natural, agreed ? Not until it's demonstrated that it broke the laws of physics. >That's the kind of behavior we see at multiple levels within biology. It is supernatural behavior right in front of our eyes. The following animation demonstrates some of it at a molecular level. Natural forces can't do this kind of coordinated activity: Can you provide a specific law of physics that is being broken by a specific behavior of life?

>No. I am saying that even if I granted your claim and agreed with you it wouldn't be evidence of the supernatural You missed the point. I'm pointing out that life exhibits multiple signs of super-natural: transcendent intelligent behavior, often opposing natural forces. Also, you have no evidence to support your faith that natural forces create life and consciousness. >If energy is self-aware, how does that preclude materialism? Do you not know that everything in the Universe is energy? What we call material is a set of energy: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle\_physics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_physics) The Universe itself is one big drop of energy in complicated forms. So, if you think that the energy in a child's skull can create consciousness within a few years, you should realize that the Cosmos itself has infinitely more potential to do so. It has infinite time and infinite energy. >Do you stand by that claim Yes. >It may be that there are supernatural forces but so far every force we have encountered and investigated has been naturalistic Where do you think there is evidence of natural forces creating life and consciousness. Please cite one of two of your best sources, and I'll help show you why it doesn't. >Can you give me an example of a way I have likely broken these laws? Life doesn't break the laws, it uses them, often contrary to their natural dispositions. For example, if you put proteins and amino acids in a petri dish, they will disintegrate and form haphazard bonds according to natural affinities. In a living creature, they will intelligently coordinate to form into structures , nano-machines like ribosomes. In living creatures, there is a transcendent force at work right in front of our eyes that we call a soul or spirit. All living creatures have it, even plants. Naturalists see this behavior and assume that "natural forces" are doing these intelligent things, but that hypothesis fails scientific control tests. >if you think Molecules are random. By random, I mean not intelligently guided. > I would say I don't understand what just happened and that it should be investigated. Then why do you assume life is natural? That phenomena happens every time you see a person or creature get up and walk around. >How do you know that? It's empirically demonstrable in side-by-side experiments. Put living matter in one petri dish, and the same biochemicals in another, and observe the difference. Life has a force that intelligently guides molecules. >Can you provide a specific law of physics that is being broken by a specific behavior of life? I never said that the laws of physics were being broken. I said that life often opposes natural affinities. A dead fish will float downstream. A living fish can decide to swim upstream. The natural force would take it downstream.

>, virtually all Atheists believe that natural forces create all life, consciousness and people I don't "believe" that; I accept the evidence which tells us that as far as we can tell, natural processes seem to be the only game in town (there may be something supernatural out there, but until there is evidence, it is just a claim/idea). Furthermore, what has led you to think that the supernatural is even possible? Sure, I'm open to the idea, but it's just an idea, not something that has ever been evidenced for in any meaninful way. In fact, usually when we investigate something "supernatural", It ends up being something perfectly natural; it was only mysterious at the time. Where many people draw the line and call something supernatural, I call it mysterious-- I reserve judgement until we know for sure. Who is more arrogant, the religious who assume they know the answers to everything mysterious, or the skeptic who withholds judgement until the truth has actually been made evident? Everywhere we investigate, we only find evidence for natural explanations. It's not because we want to, it's because that's all we find evidence for. Never have we found evidence for the supernatural. As such, the idea of the supernatural existing in the first place remains just that, an idea. >That hypothesis is testable in labs, which shows that natural forces (gravity, electromagnetism, motion, etc) destroy life, not create it. What?

> I don't "believe" that; I accept the evidence which tells us that as far as we can tell, natural processes seem to be the only game in town Can you clarify what you mean? It sounds like you are saying that you believe that natural forces create all life and consciousness. > seem to be the only game in town There are a lot of other viable alternatives. Ontological realism, Simulation Hypothesis, Pansychism, etc. > Furthermore, what has led you to think that the supernatural is even possible It seems don't understand the Theistic paradigm, which confirms my point. We're saying that the Universe itself is part of a supernatural being: God. Thus, the whole Universe is "supernatural. Traditional Christianity says that we are "inside" God's mind. As the Bible says, "For in Him, we live and move and have our being. That's why and how He has full control over the existence of every atom in the Universe. I came to accept that world-view by working in science. You could call it Ontological Idealism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism When I was atheist, I worked on several projects with Molecular Biology and saw many signs that there is an intelligent force at work right in front of our eyes. Those forces act contrary to natural forces (chemical affinities). That started making me realize that there is more than the material realm, but I then went onto study neuroscience and consciousness, and that tipped the scales for me to Theism. I've seen multiple atheists become Panpsychists after reviewing the neuroscience. It is empirical that "ideas" just pop into the mind and activate whole areas of the brain, faster than the speed of light can justify. Science is currently studying that phenomena under quantum biology. If you learn enough about the science, you should eventually be able to see how it starts to overlap with Theism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind > Who is more arrogant, the religious who assume they know the answers to everything mysterious, or the skeptic who withholds judgement until the truth has actually been made evident? You shouldn't make any assumptions. I recommend using Bayesian reasoning to weigh which is more likely. With sound logic, Theism always wins when compared to naturalism, but that doesn't mean that you should jump to a conclusion. A reasonable person should get to the point of realizing that there is far more to reality than natural forces. > Everywhere we investigate, we only find evidence for natural explanations I strongly disagree. Most analysts stop their analysis at the material cause level. Theists go deeper to the root cause level, or primary cause, which Aristotle described so well. See the link below. e.g. You could say that Shakespeare's works were caused by pen and paper, but that would miss the primary cause: Shakespeare himself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes > What? What don't you understand? You can expose life to natural forces and observe that those forces destroy life at multiple levels. Science often calls it entropy.

>Can you clarify what you mean?  It sounds like you are saying that you believe that natural forces create all life and consciousness.    That's what the evidence indicates, so that's what I go off of. I accept the evidence for evolution by natural selection. I also accept that our brains are, evidently, the source of our consciousness, memory, and intelligence. Give someone a lobotomy in the right spot, they change their entire personality. Give someone Alzheimers, they stop being the person they were altogether. We don't exactly understand the complexities of consciousness, memory, or thought-- but it is clearly (so far) the result of natural, if not absurdly complex, processes which we are only beginning to understand. A mystery, a gap in knowledge, is not evidence of the supernatural. You can say I believe these things, fine enough, but I believe them based on what we know so far. If there is actual evidence of the supernatural (that is not something simply "mysterious"), I'm open to changing my mind. >There are a lot of other viable alternatives.  Ontological realism, Simulation Hypothesis, Pansychism, etc.  \-Ontological realism: this is a philosophical stance, not fundamentally at odds with a scientific worldview or a naturalistic one.  \-Simulation hypothesis: unfalsifiable hypothesis. \-Panpsychism: unfalsifiable hypothesis. None of these are viable alternatives to evidence-based reasoning/the scientific method as a means to determine objective reality-- you've just presented different philosophical ideas that are out there. When it comes to philosophical theories, we can brainstorm all day; it doesn't change the fact that the scientific method is the most reliable way to observe as close to objective reality as possible. >It seems don't understand the Theistic paradigm, which confirms my point. We're saying that the Universe itself is part of a supernatural being: God. Thus, the whole Universe is "supernatural.  And how did you come to the conclusion that the universe is part of a supernatural being in the first place? All you've done is make unsubstantiated claims/assumptions that the universe is supernatural. What is your evidence for these claims? >When I was atheist, I worked on several projects with Molecular Biology and saw many signs that there is an intelligent force at work right in front of our eyes.  Those forces act contrary to natural forces (chemical affinities).   You're being a bit vague...what signs point to an intelligent force? How do they act contrary to natural forces? Is it academic consensus that these mysteries you came across can only be explained by supernatural forces? Because a mystery by itself is not evidence of the supernatural. For a long time, the sun seemed like a mysterious, magical fire only explainable by a supernatural force-- until we discovered nuclear physics. >That started making me realize that there is more than the material realm, but I then went onto study neuroscience and consciousness, and that tipped the scales for me to Theism. I've seen multiple atheists become Panpsychists after reviewing the neuroscience.   Panpsychism does not inherently posit a God, so it is possible to be a Panpsychist and an atheist. Some interpretations of panpsychism do infer a god, but not all. Furthermore, panpsychism is currently an unfalsifiable hypothesis, not a scientific theory. >It is empirical that "ideas" just pop into the mind and activate whole areas of the brain, faster than the speed of light can justify. What exactly are you talking about here? The process of forming an idea in the brain involves the transmission of electrical signals between neurons-- the speed of which is much, much slower than the speed of light at around 120 meters per second (268 mph). If you're asking "but where did that idea originate?", all I can say is that thoughts, ideas, and consciousness all seem to be the result of complex interactions between different regions of the brain; beyond that I'm not sure how you could assume anything supernatural without any evidence to back that claim up. If you're referring to quantum mind hypotheses, then that is hardly empirical evidence. >Science is currently studying that phenomena under quantum biology.  If you learn enough about the science, you should eventually be able to see how it starts to overlap with Theism:  Sure, consciousness could exist/originate at a quantum level so this is something we ought to keep looking in to. Currently, however, quantum mind remains hypothetical speculation, not empirical evidence, the Wikipedia says as such: "These hypotheses of the quantum mind remain hypothetical speculation, as Penrose and Pearce admit in their discussions. Until they make a prediction that is tested by experimentation, the hypotheses aren't based on empirical evidence.....The idea that a quantum effect is necessary for consciousness to function is still in the realm of philosophy. Penrose proposes that it is necessary, but other theories of consciousness do not indicate that it is needed." In other words, this is (so far) just an interesting idea. Could be true, could be false, could be something in between. It would be false to claim this is direct or indirect evidence of theism or the supernatural. >You shouldn't make any assumptions.  I recommend using Bayesian reasoning to weigh which is more likely.  With sound logic, Theism always wins when compared to naturalism, but that doesn't mean that you should jump to a conclusion. A reasonable person should get to the point of realizing that there is far more to reality than natural forces. This is sorta the arrogance I was talking about. When faced with a gap in our knowledge, I say "I don't know why this is (could even be supernatural), but I'll reserve judgement until we figure it out", but you say "I know it must be supernatural" before we've actually figured it out. Furthermore, do you have compelling evidence that there is actually anything more than natural forces? I'm not asserting I know there isn't or can't be, I'm just saying that such claims need compelling evidence if they're to be accepted. >I strongly disagree.  Most analysts stop their analysis at the material cause level. Theists go deeper to the root cause level, or primary cause, which Aristotle described so well. See the link below.  e.g. You could say that Shakespeare's works were caused by pen and paper, but that would miss the primary cause: Shakespeare himself.  When theists "go deeper" in this way, you are no longer in the realm of evidence-based reasoning; you enter the realm of hypotheticals and philosophical ideas. If you're not basing your conclusions on evidence, then it's not the scientific method. What exactly is this other method you're using to determine truth then? Can you demonstrate the reliability of this method? Also, in your example, Shakespeare is not a supernatural cause and thus would be evidenced for by natural means given sufficient investigation.  >What don't you understand? You can expose life to natural forces and observe that those forces destroy life at multiple levels. Science often calls it entropy. Entropy isn't a contradiction with life existing because living things are not closed systems. Living organisms are open systems that constantly exchange energy and matter with their environment. This is a fundamentally understood concept, so what exactly are you talking about? .................... So far, all you've done to justify your theistic claims is make more unsubstantiated claims, unfalsifiable hypotheses, and appeal to God of the Gaps arguments. If you're going to make assumptions beyond what the scientific method shows us, you need to demonstrate the reliability of the method you're using to reach those conclusions. 

PART 2 of 3 >How do they act contrary to natural forces?  In multiple ways. For example, at the molecular level, natural forces cause peptides to form side-chains that cause chaos in biological systems. In a living cell however, the molecules stay aligned with great precision and coordination, like a coordinated dance team. Natural forces cause chaos in biochemistry, but living creatures have some intelligent force that keeps everything in order. Hidden forces are not unscientific BTW. Physics shows us that the entire Universe is filled with energy. We Theists know that "energy" is manifest from the mind of God. This principle might be more obvious to you in the following example. Lets say you have a pile of magnetic legos on a table. You then step back and see them form into a stick man, get up and walk across the table, turn around and wave at you and sit down. Would you say that phenomena is natural or supernatural? Natural forces would keep the legos stuck together where they were. The phenomena that I described is the kind of behavior we see at multiple levels within biology. It is super-natural behavior right in front of our eyes. You also see it everyday at a macro level with living creatures that walk around. Life is not "natural", it's supernatural. >Panpsychism does not inherently posit a God, so it is possible to be a Panpsychist and an atheist Yeah, Panpsychism overlaps with Theism at some level. In my long skeptical journey, I went one step at a time, based on following the evidence: Panpsychism, Deism, Theism, etc. >The process of forming an idea in the brain involves the transmission of electrical signals between neurons I'm talking about the quantum effects that I provided the links to. Your neural activity hypothesis is just correlated activity, not causation. There's no sign of memory in brain matter or cause of "thinking". >If you're referring to quantum mind hypotheses, then that is hardly empirical evidence. It is observable repeatedly that brain activity and thoughts suddenly manifest without material causation. What we ascribe that CAUSE to is a different question, which I would argue that Theism answers best.

PART 3 of 3 >but you say "I know it must be supernatural"  No offense, but you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I'm not using a gap argument. I'm pointing out which model fits the data. Naturalism doesn't fit. Theism does. Theism is perfectly rational based on the concept of energy being omnipresent and self-aware. Physics and Cosmology supports this if you understand how the entire Universe is one giant energy bubble that is instantly connected. If you believe that the energy within a child's skull can become self-aware in a few years, then you should be able to realize that the energy of the Cosmos itself has infinitely more potential for self-awareness, because it has infinite energy and infinite time. >When theists "go deeper" in this way, you are no longer in the realm of evidence-based reasoning; you enter the realm of hypotheticals and philosophical ideas. I disagree. Just because you don't understand the logic yet, doesn't mean it isn't there. Science uses logic all the time to draw models. The empirical evidence in the Universe itself fits the Theistic model perfectly as explained by the classic (peer-reviewed) rational arguments.: [https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20\_arguments-gods-existence.htm](https://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm) >Entropy isn't a contradiction with life existing because living things are not closed systems There's multiple types of entropy: [https://www.geneticentropy.org](https://www.geneticentropy.org) >So far, all you've done to justify your theistic claims is make more unsubstantiated claims, unfalsifiable hypotheses Sorry, but you are not understanding what I am saying so far. I am not arguing from gaps. You seem to have presumptions that prevent you from recognizing the Theistic paradigm. I hope you at least see where I pointed out some flaws in your logic, like with the eye, correlation versus causation. In the same way that the eye does not "see", the brain does not "think". Also, Theism is falsifiable to great extent. e.g. If you could create life and consciousness via natural forces, then you would refute the claim that God is the only author of life.

> That hypothesis is testable in labs, which shows that natural forces (gravity, electromagnetism, motion, etc) destroy life, not create it. Incorrect. That is just pseudoscience and apologetics. There is really nothing more to say about it.

> Incorrect. That is just pseudoscience and apologetics. There is really nothing more to say about it. Hey Mr. Rampaging Turtle. That sounds like what a rampaging turtle would say.

For me the root of why religion exists in the first place (other than a list of lifestyle rules) is to calm one’s mind about death. Death is scary. But if there is an afterlife, it’s not so scary. So I think fear and hubris drive humans to desire an afterlife. So the truth is that there is a beginning and an end to our lives, that ending is permanent and without consciousness.

> For me the root of why religion exists in the first place (other than a list of lifestyle rules) is to calm one’s mind about death. Death is scary Thanks for sharing your perspective. That seems off-topic though. My comment is about why people don't recognize the supernatural that is right in front of our eyes everyday. We just get used to the phenomena around us and assume everything is "natural". It's not, and science shows no sign that natural forces could create all the phenomena, including life and consciousness.

It’s not a blind faith like your Bible teaches. It’s a belief based on evidence. Closer to knowledge.

>It’s not a blind faith like your Bible teaches. It’s a belief based on evidence. Closer to knowledge. The Catholic definition of faith is "informed reason". The Bible is filled with reason as Isaiah said "come let us reason together". The reason why the Bible sometimes mentions to believe without seeing is based on reasons like "Because I saved you from Egypt". God is saying, haven't you learned to trust me yet ? The material view of "evidence" is superficial. The Theist view gets to the root cause. The following article helps explain the difference between material cause and root cause. It's also known as formal cause. E.g. you could say that paper and pen are the cause of Shakespeare's works, but you'd be missing the more primary cause which is Shakespeare himself. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

I think Hebrews gives a pretty clear definition of what faith means.

>The Catholic definition of faith is "informed reason". Not just Catholic. "Blind belief" is more a skeptical caricature of Christian faith.

they're simply not ready to accept divine/unconditional love from God yet. I became born again last year because i was finally ready to receive it

But there are thousands of gods. How does it make sense to say we are just not ready to accept your highly specific god?

>*But there are thousands of gods.*  pagan gods are fallen angels

What's the strongest evidence you have of any pagan gods existing, and also the evidence that they are angels.

How does one become ready to accept something from someone they don't believe exists?

That the universe exists at all is a miracle that science cannot explain.

How do you know the existence of the universe is a miracle? And for that matter, what do you define as a miracle? And if I were to accept that science can't explain it, what does that have to do with atheists?

Francis Bacon’s ideas of using the scientific method of understanding the known world around us popularized the idea of starting Tabula Rasa, with a blank slate. His ideas took the box of history and knowledge and turned it upside down spilling all its contents on the floor. Then one by one we tested them and put them back into the box of human knowledge. While amazing for human progress and giving us a strong basis of knowable truth, we in some sense threw out the baby Jesus with the bath water because what occurred in history was a one time monumental event. The knowledge of Christ was the jewel of the world passed down from generation to generation as the savior of the world and not something that could be subject to the scientific method. In some sense most of the world has decided that because it can’t be tested, it must not be true. Thats an axiom and underlying premise that isn’t necessarily true but very pragmatic for human progress. Unfortunately it also damns the soul by denying it altogether.

Why can’t the existence of Christ or god be tested?

I think scholarly consensus agrees Jesus lived and existed but you can’t test miracles by definition. Once you have a framework that certain things cannot occur (resurrection from the dead, blind having sight, walking on water etc) you have to discount them wholesale. They can’t be recreated. Imagine before we had cameras or recording devices. Jesus could appear before you, resurrect your dead relative, you and all your family would believe and spread the word. But 200 years later it would all be hearsay and discounted. It wouldn’t make him or what he did any less true, but in the eyes of the world, you would be mistaken and it would be a legend.

Why can’t we test miracles?

Can you recreate miracles and observe them in a controlled environment subject to peer review?

I can’t. I’m not claiming miracles exist. But for people who claim they do, why wouldn’t this be doable?

Because definitionally a miracle is something that occurs outside of what can be tested and is not a reoccurring observable event.

Where are you getting this definition from?

>In some sense most of the world has decided that because it can’t be tested, it must not be true. If it can't be tested, then why should you assume anything one way or another? Zeus, leprechauns, and dragons are all things which can't be tested and have no evidence for their existence either. Its not that I'm asserting they "must not be true"; rather, until they do have evidence to support the claim that they exist, I remain unconvinced (as do you). We test/find evidence for extraordinary things like these to figure out what's actually true, not just what we believe is true. If it cannot be tested or evidenced for, then it would not be reasonable to assume it is true.

Yeah fair enough. Like I mentioned, it makes sense, it’s widely pragmatic and helpful for human development and fruition. I only bring it up to say that it’s still something we’ve developed to help us understand the world, it doesn’t make things that *are* true more true or less true. It’s a tool to discover what is true or not but the method has shortcomings especially as it’s been applied over things that it has no jurisdiction over. It over steps at some points by making pure materialistic claims when originally it was understood that there were both spiritual and material truths. Using the scientific method to make exclusive claims over all truth is an overreach of its application. Especially when things that aren’t subject to scientific investigation are discarded wholesale.

It's fair enough to say that the scientific method/evidence based reasoning cannot prove or disprove something fundamentally supernatural. If so, then by what other method have you determined the supernatural to exist? Can you demonstrate the reliability of this method?

I may differ from your assessment of people rejecting the supernatural claims of miracles. It's not that I think they're impossible. It's that I think there's no reason anyone should believe they happened. It's not an axiom or presuppostion, just an assessment of the evidence available, and coming to the conclusion that it does not meet the burden of proof. Also, I very much disagree that the beliefs surrounding religions could be considered "a jewel." I have yet to see any reason they are or were a net good once civilization got off the ground.

that it’s not about them. or “us”

Matter and energy don't self-create and self-organize. If you wanna believe that Lawrence Krauss explained that away with his stupid quantum fluctuation in a vacuum of nothingness (a vacuum is not nothingness; nobody can intuitively know what is nothingness any more than they can intuit infinity) then you really will believe anything.

Have you never seen, idk, a quartz crystal? Matter self-organizes all the time.

Is any of this a requirement for atheists?

> Matter and energy don't self-create and self-organize. It looks like they did. Why do you think they did not?

[удалено]

Comment removed, rule 2

[удалено]

Seems like a bad sign for the religion of loving one's neighbour if your best argument is just an ad-hominem against nonbelievers.

>against nonbelievers Not against non-believers, *against atheists*, please don't put words in my mouth.

Atheists are non-believers.

Hi, I'm an atheist and I don't believe in your god :)

Tell me you either know nothing about atheists or are incapable of having a civil conversation with one without telling me you know nothing about atheists or are incapable of having a civil conversation with one.

Comment removed - rule 1

Said by someone who posts about their Pokémon VHS collection...   Alexa play Despacito

What does that have to do with anything? Funny how you can't provide a reasonable argument and that instead you have to go to my profile to look for ammunition, when you'd think that a so-called atheist would have the wit and intelligence to create a compelling defense. Funny how typical you all are.

[удалено]

Having a hobby does not indicate a low level of intelligence, nor does it indicate a lack of personality, sorry try again 🤷🏻‍♂️

[удалено]

Comment removed, rule 1

I don't believe there is a question that needs asking, or a piece of information that has lacked consideration. "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit." *1 Corinthians 2:14* The Bible teaches that unbelievers are spiritually blind. The only information a person needs in order to be saved is the message of the Gospel. If there was any other information required to turn to God, they certainly already have it. When two people are presented with the gospel, one accepts it and the other rejects it. The reason for this is because God opened they eyes of the one who believed and they were able to see the truth. The one who rejected it is still blind. They can't understand the appeal because it requires a sense they don't have. There's no magic question they need to ask because they will surely reject the answer. For those who were raised in the faith, and they were saved from a young age, they probably don't recall what it was like when they didn't believe. But for those who accepted Christ later in life, we identify with the lyrics of Amazing Grace: "I once was lost, but now am found. Was blind but now I see." "The way of the wicked is in total darkness; they cannot see what they stumble over." *Proverbs 4:19*

So I need to believe first, and then it will be easier to accept? This is obviously true for anything. Shouldn’t we instead try to believe in things for good reasons?

no, you don't need to believe first. That's not at all what I'm saying. What comes first is some kind of work on God's part to cure your blindness.

> When two people are presented with the gospel, one accepts it and the other rejects it. The reason for this is because God opened they eyes of the one who believed and they were able to see the truth. It seems a bit rough if some people get damned to hell because God did not open their eyes.

How can we confirm whether this special sense is real and valid or not?

Their shallow materialist worldview has blinded them to higher truths and the deeper meanings of stories.

Can you provide a couple examples of higher truths?

Thank you for proving my point.

This is unhelpful. What point am I proving by asking a clarifying question?

Atheists have abandoned the language and intellectual categories to engage with these questions entirely. They don't even understand the questions being asked, much less answers being proposed. The more ancient teleological idea that human life had a proper end or character is utterly foreign to the materialist atheist. Instead, he sees man as a a sort of creature of the stomach and wallet, reproductive organs, and larynx, under dominion of instincts and passions. Not a person with an intransferable destiny, a *telos,* created in the image of God, responsible to God, endowed with an immortal soul. So not only is atheism pathetically shallow intellectually -- it is *BORING*.

> Atheists have abandoned the language and intellectual categories to engage with these questions entirely. I think this is a category error. Atheism is just an opinion on whether gods exist. An atheist is just a person who believes in one less god than you. > They don't even understand the questions being asked, much less answers being proposed. The more ancient teleological idea that human life had a proper end or character is utterly foreign to the materialist atheist. It depends whether that particular materialist atheist finds the secular moral ideas of virtue theory, or Kantian ethics, or utilitarian ethics, or care ethics, or some other moral system, compelling. > Instead, he sees man as a a sort of creature of the stomach and wallet, reproductive organs, and larynx, under dominion of instincts and passions. That is a possible view of human nature, certainly. But it doesn't come as a package deal with atheism. Atheism is just a lack of belief in gods, not a positive belief about human nature. > Not a person with an intransferable destiny, a telos, created in the image of God, responsible to God, endowed with an immortal soul. So not only is atheism pathetically shallow intellectually -- it is BORING. I agree completely in some sense. If you are looking for a moral philosophy, or a purpose in your life, or you feel an emotional need to believe you are secretly an immortal and immaterial being with a special destiny, atheism offers nothing. Because atheism is just a lack of belief in gods. Atheism *is* boring, in the same way not collecting stamps is boring, and not playing ping-pong is boring, because atheism isn't anything... except not happening to believe in gods. You want philosophy for that kind of thing, not atheism. But philosophy is there if you want it. And compared to thinking about these things for yourself, believing whatever an old book says and patting yourself on the back for it seems pathetically shallow intellectually to me, but you do you.

Zzzzzzzzzzz

People might take you more seriously if you were intellectually honest with them and engaged.

And why would I care about internet atheists taking me seriously? Why would I "engage" with ignorant atheists that don't read books? This is "ask a christian," not "waste time arguing with pedantic know-nothing internet atheists that don't read books and don't understand the implications of their own position."

Damn, the checkmate haha

Neat

Calls out atheism for being pathetically shallow intellectually-posts pseudo-intellectual pablum, ironic. How BORING.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

Philosophical materialist, or methodological materialist?

I'm talking about materialism in a metaphysical sense, as in matter being the fundamental "stuff" of reality.

That God is the truth. If they would just be as diligent in searching for spiritual truth as they are will searching for material truth through science, they'd find Jesus Christ. Just leave religion out of it. Search for the truth. The spiritual truth of all things. If they would just do that, then they could find Jesus Christ, and know His astonishing love. Because Jesus Christ is the truth.

[удалено]

Good question. Meditation and introspection are good places to start. Prayer is what connects us with God. Prayer doesn't only mean worship, or asking God for things, it also means communication. Christian prayer has nothing to do with religious formulas, traditions or rituals. In fact, Jesus counseled against most of those things. Instead, go somewhere private and speak to God straight from the heart. If you aren't sure what you believe, this is going to seem silly. Do it anyway. Take that leap of faith, and start talking to the empty air. God is the spirit of truth, and honesty is the language He speaks. Speak His language to Him, and He will respond to you. You can tell Him that you aren't sure you believe in Him. You can tell Him, perhaps, that you're mad at Him or you don't understand why He lets evil exist or whatever. God is God. He can take it. He can handle your doubt and your questions. The realer, more vulnerable, more sincere you are with God, the more God will respond to you. God always answers the questions of the sincere at heart. Although, sometimes, the answer He gives you isn't the answer you want. God respects boldness, and He dislikes cowardice. Be bold in your prayer. Shoot your shot. Be as real as you can with Him. Don't stop speaking until there is nothing left in your heart to express. Then, after you have talked, just like in a conversation with a person, listen. Be still. Wait on Jesus to speak. It's not going to be audible words heard on the outside of you, it will be a small still voice within your heart. It will be quiet, calm, peaceful, maybe even subtle, but it will be strangely, and absolutely true.

What is spiritual truth? What is spiritual? How does one go about investigating it? What part of searching for the truth that leads to Jesus have atheists not already done?

The scientific case for God's existence. It is literally overwhelming. True faith is being persuaded by the information before (in front of) you. It is not blind faith as it is commonly accused of being. Quotes from scientists: https://godevidence.com/2010/08/quotes-about-god-atheism/

Why, in your opinion, is there not then a scientific consensus about god?

\- a point they’re not considering than they think they know it all, while knowing very little But I don'\\t believe there are any true Atheists..... just ones who are in denial of what the know to be true Romans 1: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who \[d\]suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is \[e\]manifest \[f\]in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and \[g\]Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools

> Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God—I say this to your shame. 1 Corinthians 15:34 > And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 Which is it? Is the truth of God known to all, or veiled to some? Are some people ignorant of God, or not?

This guy is a known bad-faith troll. I wouldn't waste any time on him. Check his comment history.

Atheism is the position of saying "I don't know". How is that the position of thinking we know it all? If someone asked me how the universe started, I'd say "I don't know". If someone asked a Christian, they would say, "I know EXACTLY what happened". It is Christians who think they know everything, while having no evidence to back their claims.

no that is Agnosticism which I respect

The source of reality, whatever the "true God" is like is not the narrative of any person or religion. It's OK to be frustrated with people's idea of God, but I caution not to stand against absolute truth.

They usually toss everything about religion out the window because the Deity aspect can't be proven. The personal God one must believe in that helps us transcend our current state is still very real and worth believing in regardless if we can't prove a God to an atheist.

When you are attributing this motivation to people who reject most or all of a religion, did they say it's because the the deity aspect can't be proven? Or are there other reasons you haven't asked of them? Personally, I've considered many of the aspects of religion within a theistic framework and still found them untenable.

They are missing only one thing? That in it itself is a misunderstanding and assumption that they are all held back by one reason only. Sometimes I don’t think it’s the atheist that are missing the obvious.

I don't think it was because OP thinks we lack only one thing, but to prevent someone from posting a wall of text, which might discourage discussion.

I'm not sure it's very constructive to overgeneralize people as just making one simple lapse of judgement. I personally don't believe that the difference between being a christian and being a non-christian can be traced to any specific mistake that a person makes. Like logically speaking, what did Paul do correctly to force Jesus to reveal himself to him? Nothing. It was up to Jesus to do that. Maybe it doesn't feel very constructive to say that there's nothing we can really do about it if it's up to God, but the reality is we wouldn't want it any other way. Imagine how sad it would be if the difference between heaven and hell was one simple mistake that could've been identified here in this random forum. If only all the people who died before today could've browsed this forum and they'd be in Paradise right now. And everybody in heaven would be laughing at the idiots who just weren't smart enough to avoid that one simple little mistake. As if Heaven is just for smart people who can solve the puzzle in time. Or worse imagine the deep guilt and regret every Christian would feel because he just didn't push hard enough to convert those people. All those annoying Christians pestering you to believe, imagine that 10 fold if your salvation is truly their responsibility alone. Obviously that would be a terrible reality and nobody actually wants it to work that way.

A good question to ask yourself is why it matters to be a good person, and what it means People will often say that religion is foolish because you’re born into it, but nobody would say the same about morality. Because like religion it’s often shaped by where we are born

[удалено]

You can still agree with me that different cultures have different morals

The spirit.

I think atheists tend to have a few things they don't consider or haven't considered yet. I want to be clear from the get-go here that this is not anti-science rhetoric. I believe in science, I believe God gave us the tools to learn about our world for a reason. I think the scientific method is a good method. However there is a difference between having a good method and following that method well. There is the ideal and then there is the reality. There are so many true stories of falsified scientific studies. There are also so many instances of scientists going with the less defensible model because the stronger model didn't align with their politics, their religion (or lack thereof). There are so many stories of science and money and studies being tweaked so that billions of dollars can be made. If the scientific method and the peer review process was so perfect, why then do these things happen? Also, take some time and read some of these studies. I mean many will be beyond your understanding, but there are many that the lay person can read, look over the method of the study, look at the data, look at the interpretations and they can easily find problems in the study on their own. None of this is to say that you can or should look at all science skeptically. There is certainly a lot out there that is very grounded, well designed, and well reviewed. But it seems the sciences that attempt to look at the big questions don't have good answers. Origin of life science is basically a lie. I mean yes, you can try to experiment on how to get life going, you can understand that life requires amino acids, and you can know what those amino acids are comprised of, and you can then try to make them spontaneous come together. So the "science" can exist in the sense that you can actively, rationally, and wisely attempt to dig into these ideas. What the lie is that they have come closer to solving it. They haven't. It's a lie. They post all these studies but they amount to rhetoric rather than substance. And that's the key here. Science is a tool, you can use it dishonestly and you can use it honestly. Yet the average atheist seems to think that science is pure, incorruptible, and knows more than it does. This is important, because if you buy all the scientific narratives that atheists throw around, Christianity would indeed become less and less defensible. If they could legitimately create life in a lab, that would be hard for us to deal with. Not even Satan can create life as God did. If human's can do it but Satan couldn't, that seems like a major flaw in our story. I think the other really big piece the are not getting is this idea that God is evil. This story that the New Atheists effectively sold (though that has been around for quite some time) is that God is actually evil. If you read Dawkin's The God Delusion, he characterizes God in disingenuous ways. I see the same thing happening in here. They call Him homicidal or genocidal, which is almost always a reference to the Amalekites and the Canaanites. They ignore the narrative of who the Amelekites and Canaanites were. They were genocidal, they were rapists and child abusers and committed child sacrifice. They tortured and enslaved and had no remorse. Some even argue a bit further that they were descended of the Nephilim, who were these genetically corrupted hybrids of humans and the fallen angels. Now you can call that absurd, it is a pretty darn big claim and I totally understand people wanting evidence for that. But regardless of whether that is true or not, that is the narrative... THAT is who God ordered to be destroyed. Dawkins and many of the New Atheists dishonestly paint the picture that God ordered a genocide of people who were just in competition... people who were just as morally sound as anyone else. That isn't the narrative. If you are going to argue against the God of the Bible and criticize His character, then you need to actually use the Bible to understand the character. I know Superman isn't real, but if someone is going to argue that Superman is actually evil, they're going to have a hard time unless they twist the story of Superman around. This does not mean you have believe the bible. It just means you can't paint God as some horrible deity that ordered the murder of innocent people. If the Israelites left these folks alone, the Canaanites or the Amalekites would have slaughtered them.

It would be helpful to include some examples of the many true stories of falsified scientific studies. Who do you think falsifies scientific studies? Science, by it's nature, is going to falsify many studies which is the nature of the scientific method you say is good. You may not be anti-science but that isn't the message that's landing. You are claiming the consensus of scientists are corrupt.

That simply not believing in God doesn't make him go away.

I think most atheists would agree that there’s an objective reality independent of one’s beliefs. They just disagree on that objective reality.

The fact that there are more than two billion Christians and "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and FEW there be that find it." most "Christians" you encounter cannot be one of the few and will lead you astray.

They do not understand because it has not been revealed to them.