On 01/05/2024 14:43, Bruce Metcalf via Silklist wrote:
On 5/1/24 15:33, Manar Hussain via Silklist wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2024 at 12:11 PM Bruce Metcalf wrote:
On 4/30/24 05:27, Udhay Shankar N via Silklist wrote:
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 5:26 PM Venkat Mangudi wrote:
>
>> About the existence of a God. I'm an atheist.
>
> What would count as "sufficient evidence" for you in this
context?
My initial reaction is that I might be convinced by witnessing a
miracle, for some value of "miracle."
Then again, I'm reminded of the words of Sir Arthur Clarke, "Any
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
I suppose if I define God as an agent with the power to perform
magic,
then I could be convinced of His (or Her or Their) existence, but
that
might fall well short of a desire to offer worship.
What convinces you to be an atheist as opposed to agnostic?
Ah, here's where things get interesting!
I never said I was an atheist, nor even an agnostic. I consider myself
a Christian, but one not presently affiliated with a particular
denomination.
Apologies, I thought you were replying to Udhay's question to you (it
was Venkat).
There is a difference between knowing that a God exists today, and
thinking that the existence of a God, at some point in time, is more
likely than not.
For instance, physics can explain most of what's happened after the
Big Bang, and continues to improve the explanation of what. Physics
cannot address the question of why? For this, one must either adopt a
belief in a cyclical universe, a belief that the universe was
self-initiating and will end in dark chaos, or a belief that a God of
some sort initiated it by exercise of will. This last, however, does
not require that God still be extant, and one theory is that He
created the universe out of Himself, making of Himself a sacrifice.
Interesting, I've not heard anyone put that notion out there before.
I'm also reminded of the film, "Oh God!" with George Burns and John
Denver, where the latter's character asks, "What miracles have you
performed lately?" God's answer was, "The '69 Mets. Before that,
parting the Red Sea." Miracles don't have to be frequent or recent,
but they have to leave clear evidence of their existence; existence
not presently seen.
So why Christianity? Part habit, part support for the philosophy
embedded in it, part revulsion for some other faiths. There is also a
social aspect, or would be if I attended with any frequency.
Faith isn't something that is easily explained for most of us, but my
particular faith isn't dependent upon the current existence of God.
Does that make any sense?
I think so. In summary if I'd got it is: you believe the universe as we
see it exists is through divine act and are content to honour that faith
in in a broadly Christian way as it sits well with your wider
values/faith and your social context.
I had wondered if there was a utility aspect to it which I see hints of.
IMHO a lot more of life comes down to faith than we routinely present
to. Faith is at core a story about what is when (be they right or wrong)
many stories are available. At which point, there's a lot of sense to
not just inherit the stories (faith) that stumbles your way but use
evidence as to which story (faith) most empowers you to decide which to
adopt (believe) or retain.
Cheers,
/ Bruce /
Manar
--
Silklist mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist
