It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I would imagine most atheists would say no life experience would ever qualify.
But because an atheist lacking any belief in God would always choose random coincidence over God as a cause.
So my question is do any of our life experiences which are so outrageously improbable ever qualify as existence of a greater
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: dfnj2015
I would imagine most atheists would say no life experience would ever qualify.
I would imagine most atheists would say a direct experience of the divine intervening would qualify.
But because an atheist lacking any belief in God would always choose random coincidence over God as a cause.
The issue here is that when xyz aspect of the Universe is not yet fully understood by science the theists posit god as the only explanation by default. Doing this they remove all other possibilities. This is fallacious. When we don't yet know the answer, it means there are many possibilities. To suggest god is therefore the explanation they are essentially saying they know no other naturalistic possibilities exist. How could they know that?
So it's not that skeptics of faith 'always choose random coincidence as the cause', it's that we are always going to wait for the reasonable explanation before settling. It's never going to be a reasonable explanation if we have to use faith to reach the conclusion.
So my question is do any of our life experiences which are so outrageously improbable ever qualify as existence of a greater
I can entertain this if we leave it at "greater". I've had profound and unexplainable experiences that fill me with certain beliefs. I believe reality is stranger than fiction. I believe if we fully understood our reality our minds would implode from the magnitude of it all. This doesn't convince me of anything religious in nature. It does demonstrate to me that we have lots left to discover, and I think science is our best way of traversing those seas.
Can personal testimony qualify as evidence for God? Yes, absolutely.
You could have said "no evidence qualifies" instead of typing so much.
originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: dfnj2015
You could have said "no evidence qualifies" instead of typing so much.
I gave as genuine of a response as I could.
Also, I didn't suggest no evidence would ever qualify. In fact, I said, and I quote:
"a direct experience of the divine intervening would qualify".