An Obvious God

Look man, you just don’t seem to get it! There is so much around us that is obvious and proves god’s existence. Everything from the finely tuned universe, to my mother’s testimony, to the bible. You just don’t like god and are unwilling to accept his word. You hate him and clearly need to accept your faults and bow down to him.

– Guest on AtheistNation.net

Let’s be clear. God is not obvious. If he were, there would only be one religion, and for that matter, it wouldn’t be a religion because god would be entirely undeniable. The ontological argument defines god as the most perfect being, posits that existence is a necessary part of perfection… thus god must exist. I am willing to go a step further. The most perfect being must be undeniable as well, because a deniable god is certainly less than perfect. Why was this not part of the ontological argument?

In a recent debate with Christopher Hitchens, a discussion was had to the tune of – the universe itself is evidence for god’s existence. This is utter absurdity, and its clearly not obvious. It is obvious that gay bashers are latent homosexuals, that soulja boy is a closet retard and that swimming in a pool of pitch forks is not a good idea. But god’s existence is clearly and surely (obviously?) not obvious. Anyone and everyone who claims it to be the case is either lying or doesn’t understand the definition of “god”, “obvious”, or “the”.

Even if I do grant that there is a god, it is impossible to make the leap from this obvious god to one that you connect to on a personal level. I have seen a number of “logical” theists lately, discussing the logical imperative of the Christian God’s existence, sharing their belief. This confuses me to no end. How can you use logic, and have a tautology, showing that god is necessarily true. What are your premises? What is the form of your argument? How can you be so silly as to assert that god must exist?

Logic is a really funny thing. It has the ability to be toyed with to create a torrential downpour of craziness, leading to some very confusing arguments. Self referring statements and definition type premises are examples of when logic serves only to confuse. This is exceptionally clear with this argument.

  1. I will define god as the greatest possible conscious being.
  2. I will define my computer as being greater than god, and clearly not conscious.

This creates a logical loop; if god is the greatest thing, and my computer is greater, then it follows that god is my computer. But god is conscious, and thus not my computer. Tough road to be on… that is for sure. There is nothing stopping me from being more absurd than I was previously, and one thing that seems to be missing is the acceptance that stating something does not make it a fact. You are not wearing burning slippers, although I can say you are.

It should be clear by now, that converting scientific atheists is not a simple process. We are not interested in slanderous statements, or emotional pleas. If you wish to really reach out and touch us you have to step outside of your comfort zone. You don’t expect someone who is drowning to bring their own rope and floatation device, and you are clearly not giving us anything of substance to hang on to that would help us get saved. I see a lot of this to be equivalent to tying a long rope to a cinderblock and tossing it out to me, promising to pull me in, but I have to deal with drowning in my own self loathing first.

  • Do you have absolute proof that there is no God? I doubt it. Man still has limited knowledge about everything in existence. At best atheism is another belief system, like religion,that requires faith. As a side note, the majority of mankind believes in some form of a deity , even in today’s world.. So for most of us, God (deity) is obvious.

  • Go to http://jasmine71.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/atheists-and-their-big-talk-against-god/
    The above link will show you exactly what I believe.
    I obviously disagree with you . Peace.

  • This essay is flawed in the same way as my discussions above have been trying to illustrate. You are not understanding, or i am not being clear, so i will step away from metaphor and try to be as concise as possible.

    Please show me some evidence for your god.

    It is really that simple. You can “obviously disagree” with me all you like, but the facts are still in my favor. I make no claim about the entirety of creation, but the argument about not knowing everything is something i refuted a moment ago as well.

    Why do many theists testify to their belief and refer to having been touched by god? I am fairly sure that the whole purpose of faith is to believe in opposition to evidence, where as I have not got faith in science or reason. I test them every morning at School and every night when i get home from work. Logic and Reason, Mathematics, Physics and so forth build on top of each other and work together to make undeniable facts like Evolution stronger.

    Writing a four page rant about how atheists are lying to themselves to toot your own horn, on the other hand doesn’t really accomplish much.

  • You are entitled to your opinion ; it does not faze my beliefs. However, I leave you with this fact , If your beliefs are right, I’ve lost nothing. If my beliefs are right, you have lost everything Bob. . By the way, proof of God is seen in creation; you are just blind to it.
    I have also written posts that show the errors of evolution. Take a look if you like.

    I am sold out to King Jesus , who is the almighty God, who died for me.

    I thank you for letting me share my beliefs. Again , Peace .

  • I will support what Bob is saying here. I am sorry that you are swooning your lord and savior. Pascals wager is his greatest failure in thought, and the fact that you are restating it here is complete garbage.

    Your all knowing lord knows that you are only believing in him because you are afraid of being wrong. You have lost so much that you are simply unable to see past it. Your ignorance is astounding.

  • It is quite frustrating, I must say, to hear this crap every couple days. It scares me to see such posts, to think that Pascals wager is an acceptable argument for belief in, not just a god, but Thee Christian God.

    You are a prime example of who this blog is supposed to be touching. Hopefully, you will learn that atheism is not as horrifying as you seem to believe.

  • As a final comment, I would like to say that it is rather telling that you would remove a comment from your blog that you don’t agree with that is not vulgar, incendiary or personally directed.

    I am sorry to have offended you and your puritan values. Opinions are something that we are all granted, supposedly by your God.

  • Lynda

    I agree with Jasmine . Just read her new post ‘ Atheists – Princes of Fools.’ You atheists are so decieved by foolishness.

  • Pingback: Atheists : Princes Of Fools « Jasmine71’s Weblog()

  • I am very glad you agree with her, and believe me, she is racking up the points with her god. They give them out 10 at a time for calling someone with differing beliefs a fool.

    Thank you for your attention, specifically your shared quotation from John Hagee. Quoting anything is really quite meaningless to me, especially from extremists. I have a retarded cousin that I can pay a dollar to say anything in the world. But at least you didn’t quote the bible directly.

    Calling me a fool is also not very meaningful, I’m afraid. “It takes one to know one”, as my mother always told me to say to name callers. You are showing yourself to be far more foolish, if by nothing else by your complete ignorance to the world around you, and or your inability to grasp basic logical prose.

    More linking is always nice though.

    Thanks =)

  • Erickson

    I will agree that jasmine’s third post is pretty ridiculous because it presents no premise and Linda’s is absurd! I mean no disrespect to either party but read my first and only blog on “arguments” and you will see where I stand. I like to see the Anselm-Kant arguments brought to attention here.

  • You say “They give them out 10 at a time for calling someone with differing beliefs a fool.” — Glad to see you finally admit Atheism is a belief system. Also God( His Word) calls you a fool [Psalm 14:1]; I am just quoting Him.—

    You say “You are showing yourself to be far more foolish, if by nothing else by your complete ignorance to the world around you, and or your inability to grasp basic logical prose.” —- I can say the same to you, Bob , with just as much confidence.—-

    You are welcome in regards to the linking. I agree with you on that :- )

  • I am glad you took that bait.

    Now you have another problem. You don’t have to simply prove that god, exists, is your god and that it is a good thing that I turn to him. With your previous comment you have to now tack on that he wrote the bible and not man. Since we already know that Man wrote the bible, plain and simple, that man brought the bible verses together and threw out a number of them you have failed completely.

    Your confidence or conviction is irrelevant here. What makes you and your statements look foolish is not either of these (although i am fudging a bit here), but the fact that you, as well as countless other individuals, have unjustified beliefs. I was speaking to a group of theists just the other day, and they were absolutely appalled to think that i would lump them, the retarded folks who credit god with their sports win, Homeopathic Followers, Astrologers, Charles Manson, Hitler, Islamic suicide bombers, and all other idiots into one group. I am quite sorry, but you are all the same in my eyes. Unjustified beliefs are terrible no matter how you look at them.

    And just to be clear – Unjustified is synonymous with Reasoned and Evidenced, together. When I say evidenced that does not mean that a shoelace or all of creation is evidence of god, because we have justified answers for much of this. Reason alone cannot lead you to god, or most any other conclusion. Logic is based off of premises and these premises are statements that (in the deductive sense) have a truth or false quality, (and in the inductive sense) have some quantitative result which delves into the maybe’s.

    The truth of the matter is, and i said this earlier, you are not able to produce any evidence as to the presence of your active and alert and all knowing god, so you are agnostic to your own god. We are all agnostic to it, and all other gods. My position is simply not to take up shop and say that i believe in yours without reason and evidence. Otherwise you are correct, i would have to prove that your god doesn’t exist. Although I would probably be stuck in first grade trying to prove that the easter bunny doesn’t exist, santa, elves, unicorns, thor, mythras, cronos, titan, shiva, ra, and countless other gods, deities, or otherwise made up shit. = At the same time though, i would be needing to delve into the entire universe looking for proof of all of these things in the first place, because the positive assertion would like on my own shoulders, were i to take up shop in any of these camps. God may exist outside of my less than 1% knowledge of the universe, but that means he lies outside of yours as well.

    This is, however, not simply a pragmatic approach. It is also the one I was born with, just like the rest of humanity. I guess i missed out on the indoctrination.

  • Lynda

    Bob , I find it highly doubtful you will change a Born again Christian’s beliefs with your posts or comments. Therefore, at best, this post only has value (lol) for your fellow atheists. So don’t be too smug as that also would be foolish.

  • If i were trying to convert any born again christians beliefs i would be approaching things differently. I would actually go as far as to say that debate is not supposed to (except in realms of science) change the minds of the debaters. All of these religious debates are of the same vein – Discussion about your view of god, which is going to be different than practically any another persons view, and why she does or does not exist.

    The reason science and evidenced beliefs are superior is rooted in their instantiation. Evidence and Reason! There is a reason i stop at the red light, and why i don’t eat green bananas. There is evidence for why i trust gravity, atom, cell and evolution as theories and carbon dating techniques.

  • Hey Bob! I’m following the general outline of your logic, and it makes sense, but it does lead me to curiosity about your opinion on a particular subject.

    To me, one of the most awe inspiring concepts in this life we live is that of life itself. Modern society has outlined life as one of, if not the most, valuable objects in the universe; but at the same time worthless. People will spend thousands of dollars on dog food and care to keep their dog alive and happy, but at the same time they will pay to have life taken away from an organism with their own DNA. They will also put humans in an oven, and command their peers to do the same (Holocaust). This presents the question, why does life even matter?

    I find the only plausible explanation is that humans and life overall is to help out “humanity”, and the “greater good”. But if the “greater good” is simply helping out more humans, than this logically concludes that we’re all “in it together”, and should only exist to help each other. Funny thing is, that’s what we’re doing right now.

    But, that leaves us (me) thinking, so what? Who gives a crap if we all help each other out and end up “happy”, or nuke ourselves out of existence? If life is nothing more than a few well-arranged atoms working together, that eventually evolve into a rationally (or irrationally…) thinking mass of meat, than so what if people lived or didn’t? If we didn’t, than what would be the point of having a vast universe with billions of stars that just move around and emit light and pull on each other with gravity? Is there not a point?

    This leads me to believe that there is something larger than we see. There seems to be more to a person than atoms aligned and moving around. Seems like maybe there is something observing, or recording, whether it be a kind of computer system, “life” form, or whatever else a person can think up. A point to pleasure and pain, a reason for the ideas of good and evil, and an explanation for why humans procreate and feel the urge to mass murder at the same time.

    I was wondering your thoughts on the subject, and logical flow to conclusions that may support or refute these claims/beliefs.

    See you around on IRC,
    Charybdis

  • mikeD

    In my experience and as I may only humbly suggest is the experience of others, there are two distinct modes of thought. One is cognition; the other not as defined.

    While I know I have limited memory of sources, terms and verbiage I can draw upon, I must insist that every one supplies their own definition in this “other” category. I know your rigorous skepticism will attempt to drum up various, reviewed materials in the field of psychology or neurology, but why indoctrinate others in an attempt to prove them wrong?

    Call me crazy, but I was repeatedly told as a child to find a passion and pour my time into it. I’m sure if you wanted to, you could find numerous motivational phrases (on motivational websites even) to that effect.

    Why, then, are you dedicating your sharp mind to arguing a claim warranted by disjoint principles? I don’t think you will convince people of much given they base their beliefs in faith, which, in all senses of the word, is devoid of logic.

  • As I said above, however briefly, and in my about page… I have no intention to convert anyone who isn’t already interested in such things. The purpose of this post and all that i do on the internet is to convey, as clearly as i can, that reason and logic are not as cold and distant as many seem to feel; to show those on the fence that have not been pulled in the wrong direction already that they have other options that are much more firmly set in our world (aka reality).

    I will say, however, your initial statement is fruitless, and seems like a cop out. You are giving people free reign and license to believe idiotic things. I stand by my position that irrational beliefs are detrimental to our society.

    You, good sir, are certainly free to do as you wish. I find much more value in having empirical and reason supported beliefs and will do everything in my power to ensure my beliefs are supported in this manner.

  • mikeD

    Is it only possible to live one way or another? Can you not live with work and play? Undoubtedly, objectivity is far better able to assess a situation in a common language, and further, draw conclusions that may be reused in a way that is meaningful to many.

    You know from your dealings with me that I have never taken kindly to people barking out religious mantras. If anything, I really take after this old British fellow I once watched. He was on a tirade about some Arab group in Britain and succinctly concluded that if the notion of spirituality was valid in any sense, it was:

    “as a personal, and I do mean personal… as a personal means of achieving a peaceful heart.”

    I think you linked me to Pat Condell long ago. 🙂

    Although I’m not sure your premise shall serve in its application very well (as may be cited throughout these comments), you, good sir, are also free to do as you wish. I have the freedom to not subject myself to things I deem unproductive to my goals.

    FTR, when I show up to class, I generally conform to the standards and shut my mouth when my mind wants to wander off onto tangents. I do so because I know it is ultimately more productive for the professor’s lesson plan and conducive to getting a better grade. When I take a walk in the forest as I did the other day and spend close to 15 minutes locking eye contact with a deer, my thoughts take an entirely different shape and conjure feelings I can only refer to as “spiritual”. You may not understand it, and most certainly rigorous logic would not understand, but then that experience is my own.

  • mikeD

    Do you swear to the objective ruling of science or do you swear by your heart?

    The best definition I can provide for the latter is that it is not defined; it is you, and if you can’t accept that, you deny yourself. Studies show by marketing cigarettes to kids, an age where their minds are less discerning, aggregate revenues will increase. Revenue is good, but will you submit to your individual needs? Long-term studies suggest chronic smokers have heightened risk for numerous health ailments which pose detriment to our society. Undoubtedly, our moral obligation to each other and ultimately ourselves dictates our feelings on the subject.

    But where do you stop in your objective predictions? Where will your thirst for knowledge cease? Are you happier having figured out a mathematical formula to define your existence? What if science allowed us to predict every waking action; would you still exist? Even then, you are submitting to an uncertainty. You may rest only once you have submitted to that which you cannot control.

    Many cultures I think refer to this concept as faith and distort its message with stories serving to divide us. You latch in your disdain for such a wicked and unmeasured acceptance to a contrived message. It is that same message that grasps anxiety to conform to a celebrated model in a convenient, 30-day trial, bottled and packaged to solve your problems.

    Where do you draw the line?

  • Bob

    Before I get too deeply into a response to this, I would like to say a couple things, because I don’t want to be misinterpreted. Your comment is actually very frustrating, and hard to follow. I would rather you posted coherently and at least tried to proof read your post before clicking the submit button. I don’t want to misinterpret your words any more than I expect you are trying to my own, so clarity is of the utmost importance.

    If I am on the right track, your post is about objectivism being opposed to spirituality or some nebulous term used to describe your feelings. My primary objection off the bat is that I don’t think there is anything of substance being said here. I have not made any assertion, in any of my posts, as to such a separation. Choosing to look to science for answers is not a quest for objectivism, it is the label we have put onto the box that we store all of our human knowledge. I don’t know why it is considered a bad thing to turn to these places for information that we can depend upon, and test.

    I am a scientist, and that means that I am someone interested in either testing or expanding human knowledge. I follow the scientific method and accept failure if I am incorrect. You should do the same, because – as I said earlier – having beliefs that are not justified leads to unjustified actions.

  • Pingback: Burden of Proof « Rationality for the Irrational()

  • Clayton

    in the middle of last night. i felt i had to get something off my chest. so i wrote this on my computer.

    “we just all think we are perfect. underneath it all. you and I. like we know everything. like our eyes see everything. yet we do not love, you and I. we think we do, but we have missed it. We are not genuine. you and I. i feel a tug. back to the wilderness i say… in the midst of loneliness i cry friends… in the midst of loneliness i cry friends… God, where art thou?”

    To respond to your incredibly thought out and to what i can see more honest than most people on this world. I have to sit and think.

    life is something isnt it?

    Me and you, we are looking at the same world. and are living quite different lives. We both seemingly want the same thing though. its truth.

    I have to say though, i think i have been in your shoes before. looked at life and wondered why a loving God would allow this world to be so full as suffering as it is.

    I dont want to ignore these doubts. I dont want to ignore these questions. I want to embrace them.

    But how?

    I dont know about you, but i will be the first to admit – I DONT have everything figured out.

    Why are things how they are?

    I know you probably have heard what i am about to tell you and find it childish/impossible to believe for a God so powerful and all knowing.

    But Through much of questioning, struggle, thinking, listening I have come to this conclusion.

    I have to play the “free will” card.

    I would love to go to details, but I want to make this rely as short and sweet as possible.

    I AM CONVINCED that GOD is a LOVING father.
    I AM CONVINCED that GOD is a LOVING father.
    I AM CONVINCED that GOD is a LOVING father.
    I AM CONVINCED that GOD is a LOVING father.

    I AM CONVINCED that the Bible is of God, even though it did not fall out of the sky.

    I AM CONVINCED that God is using me to show you what he has shown me. God cannot fit into mans boxes. He WILL show you himself. But Bob – you have to acknowledge that you are not perfect. you have to be open that there just very well might be a whole dimension that you havent been exposed to.

    Throughout history God has contantly reveled himself. And man keeps massacring him.

    Its pathetic really.

    I know that Jesus is real.

    I know that He CANNOT be plugged into science
    because he is bigger.

    I am saddened by your thirst for truth, and you seem to be more and more perplexed.

    i encourage you, keep talking to the “air”, maybe it… or he will reveal himself. But you need to seriously consider this first.

    Are you sure you wont run away from reality once it has been exposed to you?

    JESUS CHRIST is the way, truth, and life.

    ask and you WILL receive.

    Pray. please, just pray.

    DONT DEFINE GOD

    DONT PUT GOD INTO A BOX

    QUIT WITH YOUR FORMULAS

    maybe they just arent foolproof and you believe them to be.

    just have a open mind.

    Remember. It hurts a parent more to spank a child, than the child itself. God only want the best for you. and sometimes he might just have to shake up things a bit so you can realize that he is near. that of only a breath you are.

    through many tears, much confusion, much rebellion, and my life

    i assert GOD must exist.
    i assert GOD must exist.
    i assert GOD must exist.
    i assert GOD must exist.
    i assert GOD must exist.
    i assert GOD must exist.
    i assert GOD must exist.
    i assert GOD must exist.
    i assert GOD must exist.