How do we know...

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Jul 7 2005, 08:56 PM']Having once been, in all practicality, an atheist, I don't see why.  First, we can know things.  Second, Catholicism proves itself philosophically.  It all fits.
[right][snapback]635090[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I was thinking along the lines that an it doesnt make rational sense to be an atheist.......to hold the postion....."I dont believe in god" is irrational since they have no reason to nor does anything suggest it. Ask an atheist why he doesnt believe in god.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='infinitelord1' date='Jul 7 2005, 10:01 PM']I was thinking along the lines that an it doesnt make rational sense to be an atheist.......to hold the postion....."I dont believe in god" is irrational since they have no reason to nor does anything suggest it. Ask an atheist why he doesnt believe in god.
[right][snapback]635094[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I see. No, it doesn't make any sense to be atheist. The whole idea is based off of what they are not seeing (and mostly because they choose to close their eyes). God hasn't proven Himself to me and so He must not exist. Of course, this is a logical fallacy.

First, for God to "prove" His existence implies that you are going to challenge it. Afterall, you wouldn't call it "proof" otherwise, but perhaps a less loaded word like "signs," or "wonders." Second, when one is challenging all proof of God, it is highly unlikely that they would even see God's signs and wonders, because they are too busy looking out to find not proof against God, but to find a lacking in proof of Him, and it is far too easy to find a lacking in proof when one simply ignores it or explains it away. The problem with explaining it away is that the explanation becomes far too complicated to be random...so much structure and order that God could only be behind it (case in point: theory of evolution created to refute God...flaws found in theory...theory adapted with special cases and circumstances to get around flaws...this progresses until every evolutionist disagrees on some particular...a sort of grand unified theory is devised and it's far too mathematical and complex not to be the creation of some intelligent first mover...thus, Darwinism is refuted because it is so impossible that for it to be real, only one who is not bound by laws of possibilities could be behind it). Anyway, back to my point...a person ignores signs and wonders from God, either looking past them in an attempt to see those areas where there is no sign or wonder (these are pessimistic-emotional atheists...the type who reason that there must be no God because evil exists) or by trying to explain away the signs and wonders (these are philosophical-pseudo-rational atheists...the type who run on pride and hate anything that disproves them or affirms that there is a power over them and that they are thus dependent on another). Either way, they often get angry and call on the Lord to prove Himself, but He is already showing Himself forth and they choose either not to look or to go into denial, and He, being Love, cannot force Himself on them, as such would violate their free will and thus make them incapable of loving and thus incapable of existing as persons.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Raphael']No, it doesn't make any sense to be atheist. The whole idea is based off of what they are not seeing[/quote]

Actually it makes perfect sense. You are right about the logical fallacy, but it is irrelevant. For if you are not seeing something, it is irrational to behave as if you did see it.

It is irrational to behave like there is a snail-monster under your bed, if you have not had any observations of it. If you have had, then it is rational to act upon those observations.

This is only the beginning, of course. You can go further. Since you have no observations of it, you can hold the position that there is no such being until there comes rational reason to hold a different position. The existance of the being becomes irrelevant and meaningless, because you have not observed it. If it were relevant, then it would be observable also, since it would have an effect on something observable.

And to go even further, you might come to the conclusion that this being is logically not possible to exist. At this point, however, it makes little practical difference.

[infinitelord1]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jul 8 2005, 05:42 PM'][quote name='Raphael']No, it doesn't make any sense to be atheist. The whole idea is based off of what they are not seeing[/quote]

Actually it makes perfect sense. You are right about the logical fallacy, but it is irrelevant. For if you are not seeing something, it is irrational to behave as if you did see it.

It is irrational to behave like there is a snail-monster under your bed, if you have not had any observations of it. If you have had, then it is rational to act upon those observations.

This is only the beginning, of course. You can go further. Since you have no observations of it, you can hold the position that there is no such being until there comes rational reason to hold a different position. The existance of the being becomes irrelevant and meaningless, because you have not observed it. If it were relevant, then it would be observable also, since it would have an effect on something observable.

And to go even further, you might come to the conclusion that this being is logically not possible to exist. At this point, however, it makes little practical difference.
[right][snapback]636446[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
when you mean observe do you mean observe with your eyes? Because when we say empirical evidence we include all of the 5 senses.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Jul 8 2005, 06:42 PM'][quote name='Raphael']No, it doesn't make any sense to be atheist. The whole idea is based off of what they are not seeing[/quote]

Actually it makes perfect sense. You are right about the logical fallacy, but it is irrelevant. For if you are not seeing something, it is irrational to behave as if you did see it.

It is irrational to behave like there is a snail-monster under your bed, if you have not had any observations of it. If you have had, then it is rational to act upon those observations.

This is only the beginning, of course. You can go further. Since you have no observations of it, you can hold the position that there is no such being until there comes rational reason to hold a different position. The existance of the being becomes irrelevant and meaningless, because you have not observed it. If it were relevant, then it would be observable also, since it would have an effect on something observable.

And to go even further, you might come to the conclusion that this being is logically not possible to exist. At this point, however, it makes little practical difference.
[right][snapback]636446[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I have observed God, but to do so, we must first be willing to observe Him.