Atheists do Not Exist?

[JackTheHatter]

I would suggest you simply seek the truth for yourself, for it is your personal relationship with God that is important. Interesting that they experienced Mohammed and not "Allah." But then, even Mohammed did not experience "Allah." He was deceived by a jin that his wife and another relative convinced him was the Archangel Gabriel. I say deceived because verses had to be removed from the Koran when they were discovered to be Satanic in origin. Seek diligently. God keeps His promises

I have heard similar things about quran and I'm probably not a good advocate for the legitimacy of the quran lol. The point being that these types of experiences are rooted in peoples deepest beliefs and so it becomes difficult to actually say which ones are real. I've had unexplained experiences in my life, but nothing really religious in nature.

 

[HQ]

I'm having a tough time understanding this analogy. What I mean by what I said is that the definition of Theism is "belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures" and Atheism is "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." These terms are very specific to a claim.

I know because we've haven't got to the analogy yet. The question is this: Is the astronomer being irrational for seeing the affects of unseen gravitational forces and yet denying they exist?

 

[Magenta]

I have heard similar things about quran and I'm probably not a good advocate for the legitimacy of the quran lol. The point being that these types of experiences are rooted in peoples deepest beliefs and so it becomes difficult to actually say which ones are real. I've had unexplained experiences in my life, but nothing really religious in nature.

How would you connect your inexplicable experiences with your deepest beliefs?

 

[JackTheHatter]

I know because we've haven't got to the analogy yet. The question is this: Is the astronomer being irrational for seeing the affects of unseen gravitational forces and yet denying they exist?

I would say if the results are measurable and consistent in reality it would be easier to make a case for the existence of gravitational forces. If someone has denied the effects of gravity they likely have not seen/experimented with the calculated measurements that make up the evidence. If they see the evidence and do not accept it, then there was not enough evidence provided to convince that individual, whether it's their loss is a matter of opinion at that point however.

 

[kaylagrl]

I would say if the results are measurable and consistent in reality it would be easier to make a case for the existence of gravitational forces. If someone has denied the effects of gravity they likely have not seen/experimented with the calculated measurements that make up the evidence. If they see the evidence and do not accept it, then there was not enough evidence provided to convince that individual, whether it's their loss is a matter of opinion at that point however.

Would still like hearing your opinion on the video I posted...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNQmDwpF8tc Thanks.

 

[HQ]

I would say if the results are measurable and consistent in reality it would be easier to make a case for the existence of gravitational forces. If someone has denied the effects of gravity they likely have not seen/experimented with the calculated measurements that make up the evidence. If they see the evidence and do not accept it, then there was not enough evidence provided to convince that individual, whether it's their loss is a matter of opinion at that point however.

I really don't want to beat this to death, but if two heavenly bodies are moving toward each other faster or slower then their distance and masses predict (by the law of gravity) then there is obviously an outside influential force at play. For an astronomer to observe this phenomena and say that there is no outside influential force (be it dark matter or some other force) is a denial of the law of gravity, wouldn't you agree? The math really isn't that difficult. So getting back to the original question, would an astronomer be irrational for observing the affects of unseen forces and yet deny that they exist? Obviously the answer is yes.

This get's to the heart of your earlier statement:

"Being an atheist simply means your hear the claim 'a god exists' and you say 'I do not accept that claim'."

It "appears" that you are dismissing the claim without any examination or recognition of the evidence (just like astronomer in the fictitious example above). Do you have any smoking gun evidence that indicates that God absolutely does not exist? If not then does not prudence dictate that you keep your options open? Would it not be irrational to do otherwise?

 

[JackTheHatter]

Would still like hearing your opinion on the video I posted...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNQmDwpF8tc Thanks.

I won't be able to do a ton of these cause this did take a fair amount of time. Overall he seems to say that atheism is not coherent due to its lack in meaning and in moral law. These were two major themes, he had a couple others, but these he drove home with examples, poetry, stories, and personal opinion. I don't feel like it's proper to say atheism should assign meaning to someones life. Meaning is something that everyone develops for themselves. If someone decides to just open a coffee shop and serve their small community for the rest of their lives, who's to say that this is not a good meaning? it would be on an individual basis. I could go into this much deeper, but I'll get to morality to try and keep this readable.
As for morality, I use a sense of consequential morality, knowing that my actions have affects on others, my main goal being to do the most good. We could get into what is "good", but for the most part, helping someone up who has tripped will generally be seen as altruistic and tripping someone for no reason is generally seen as harmful. For these two situations empathy alone can be a good driving force in decision making. Even with the bible we find people coming up with ethics for themselves. This is why you see people using bible verses to back up whatever point they are trying to make, even if the intentions are generally recognized as bad (even by their fellow Christians). Atheism lacks the supernatural authority, but even without a god, I don't want to cause harm. Is having a god the only thing holding you back from murder? If it was truly discovered there was no god tomorrow, would you start stealing and hurting people? There are people (atheists) who live that way everyday and choose not to do harm, they don't need to be threatened with hell fire.
I agree with his point that atheism itself does not come with a set of rules, it's not supposed to, your just rejecting that god exists. You as a person have to discover what your meaning is and what type of person you want to be. No god is going to stop you from murdering someone if you want to and not having a god doesn't make you want to. it's just not that simple...

 

[JackTheHatter]

I really don't want to beat this to death, but if two heavenly bodies are moving toward each other faster or slower then their distance and masses predict (by the law of gravity) then there is obviously an outside influential force at play. For an astronomer to observe this phenomena and say that there is no outside influential force (be it dark matter or some other force) is a denial of the law of gravity, wouldn't you agree? The math really isn't that difficult. So getting back to the original question, would an astronomer be irrational for observing the affects of unseen forces and yet deny that they exist? Obviously the answer is yes.

This get's to the heart of your earlier statement:

"Being an atheist simply means your hear the claim 'a god exists' and you say 'I do not accept that claim'."

It "appears" that you are dismissing the claim without any examination or recognition of the evidence (just like astronomer in the fictitious example above). Do you have any smoking gun evidence that indicates that God absolutely does not exist? If not then does not prudence dictate that you keep your options open? Would it not be irrational to do otherwise?

I was afraid you were heading in this direction. These two scenarios don't quite have the parallels you're hoping for. I want to start with some terminology. Atheist = rejection of the claim that a god exists, Antitheist = claiming that a god does not exist. This seems like mindless semantics but let me clear it up a little.
I'm going to borrow Matt Dillahunty's marble analogy as it is pretty direct about how assertions work. If there is a jar filled with marbles three claims can be made, the number of marbles is odd, the number is even, and we don't know until we count. I'd be taking the, we don't know until we count and see, until then I'd recognize that asserting odd or even (yes or no) would just be a guess.
Now with marbles, getting an answer would be easily verified by counting and can be done by anyone (who can count). The problem with god claims is that god is supposedly supernatural and therefore not measurable by us. Some say neither is love (as it is an emotion and not tangible), but love is a feeling where the specifics vary from person to person, god is supposed to be well defined as a single entity that is transcendent. So the problem becomes what counts as evidence towards god? which god/s is it evidence for? If only any god were as simple as measuring the effects of gravity.

 

[HQ]

I was afraid you were heading in this direction. These two scenarios don't quite have the parallels you're hoping for. I want to start with some terminology. Atheist = rejection of the claim that a god exists, Antitheist = claiming that a god does not exist. This seems like mindless semantics but let me clear it up a little.
I'm going to borrow Matt Dillahunty's marble analogy as it is pretty direct about how assertions work. If there is a jar filled with marbles three claims can be made, the number of marbles is odd, the number is even, and we don't know until we count. I'd be taking the, we don't know until we count and see, until then I'd recognize that asserting odd or even (yes or no) would just be a guess.
Now with marbles, getting an answer would be easily verified by counting and can be done by anyone (who can count). The problem with god claims is that god is supposedly supernatural and therefore not measurable by us. Some say neither is love (as it is an emotion and not tangible), but love is a feeling where the specifics vary from person to person, god is supposed to be well defined as a single entity that is transcendent. So the problem becomes what counts as evidence towards god? which god/s is it evidence for? If only any god were as simple as measuring the effects of gravity.

I think your making it far more complex than it needs to be. We can start from the beginning and start asking simple questions from there. For example when the universe burst into existence, the laws of physics and thermal dynamics immediately came into effect. But what are laws, and who creates them? What do they do? What do they imply? Who or what enforces these laws? Who or what do they apply to?

Well humans have experience creating laws. We know that laws need a law giver (God, country, state, city etc), they need intelligence and purpose, they need an object of application, they need a feedback mechanism and sometimes an enforcement mechanism.

Intelligence is required in order for laws to exist. And intelligence was right there at the formation of our universe. That seems like a reasonable place to start looking for God.

 

[kaylagrl]

I won't be able to do a ton of these cause this did take a fair amount of time. Overall he seems to say that atheism is not coherent due to its lack in meaning and in moral law. These were two major themes, he had a couple others, but these he drove home with examples, poetry, stories, and personal opinion. I don't feel like it's proper to say atheism should assign meaning to someones life. Meaning is something that everyone develops for themselves. If someone decides to just open a coffee shop and serve their small community for the rest of their lives, who's to say that this is not a good meaning? it would be on an individual basis. I could go into this much deeper, but I'll get to morality to try and keep this readable.
As for morality, I use a sense of consequential morality, knowing that my actions have affects on others, my main goal being to do the most good. We could get into what is "good", but for the most part, helping someone up who has tripped will generally be seen as altruistic and tripping someone for no reason is generally seen as harmful. For these two situations empathy alone can be a good driving force in decision making. Even with the bible we find people coming up with ethics for themselves. This is why you see people using bible verses to back up whatever point they are trying to make, even if the intentions are generally recognized as bad (even by their fellow Christians). Atheism lacks the supernatural authority, but even without a god, I don't want to cause harm. Is having a god the only thing holding you back from murder? If it was truly discovered there was no god tomorrow, would you start stealing and hurting people? There are people (atheists) who live that way everyday and choose not to do harm, they don't need to be threatened with hell fire.
I agree with his point that atheism itself does not come with a set of rules, it's not supposed to, your just rejecting that god exists. You as a person have to discover what your meaning is and what type of person you want to be. No god is going to stop you from murdering someone if you want to and not having a god doesn't make you want to. it's just not that simple...

Thank you for both taking the time to watch the video and to respond.Its rather late here and I dare not trust my brain to respond tonight. I will re-read your post in the meantime.Again,thank you for your respectful response.

 

[sparkman]

Regarding this topic, I like to ask former professing atheists if they actually believed God didn't exist in their unconverted state.

Some say yes, some say no, some say they don't know for sure whether they truly believed it or not.

These are individuals who have nothing to lose by telling me the truth as they are Christians now.

According to Romans 1, mankind has an inherent knowledge that God exists, but there is a level of suppression involved in that knowledge. I believe that the depth of this suppression can be such that the person deceives themselves into believing God doesn't exist.

[SUP]18 [/SUP]For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [SUP]19 [/SUP]For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [SUP]20 [/SUP]For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world,[SUP][g][/SUP] in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [SUP]21 [/SUP]For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. [SUP]22 [/SUP]Claiming to be wise, they became fools, [SUP]23 [/SUP]and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

RC Sproul wrote a good book on this.."If There's a God Why Are There Atheists?".

There is also a psychological aspect to this question. Atheists fear God's reality because they know that if God exists, they are under his wrath and condemnation. The trauma of thinking about this causes them to resist acknowledging his existence.

 

[JackTheHatter]

I think your making it far more complex than it needs to be. We can start from the beginning and start asking simple questions from there. For example when the universe burst into existence, the laws of physics and thermal dynamics immediately came into effect. But what are laws, and who creates them? What do they do? What do they imply? Who or what enforces these laws? Who or what do they apply to?

Well humans have experience creating laws. We know that laws need a law giver (God, country, state, city etc), they need intelligence and purpose, they need an object of application, they need a feedback mechanism and sometimes an enforcement mechanism.

Intelligence is required in order for laws to exist. And intelligence was right there at the formation of our universe. That seems like a reasonable place to start looking for God.

I'll try and tackle some of these to the best of my knowledge. I'm not an astrophysicist so my abilities will be limited. To start, what are laws and who creates them? Laws (from a scientific perspective) are statements based on repeated experimental observations that describe aspects of the universe. We, people, create these laws, that doesn't mean we set the planets in motion, it means we write down an equations and observations that make it easier to predict the motion. We know that laws created by a country, state, or city need law givers, but this only goes so far as rules people live by, which are easily broken. These societal laws and scientific laws are clearly not the same.

"Intelligence is required in order for laws to exist. And intelligence was right there at the formation of our universe. That seems like a reasonable place to start looking for God."

So far we have not demonstrated that the laws of nature require any form of intelligence. What evidence do you provide that it was intelligence at the beginning? Saying that we have societal laws and we can make laws to observe the universe are not evidence as they don't describe any processes. How do you propose we look for a supernatural god at the formation of the universe? furthermore, how would we even know we were looking for your version of god? We can't just presuppose a god exists, you can make a hypothesis that one does, but without evidence to solidify the claim we are just speculating.

 

[JackTheHatter]

RC Sproul wrote a good book on this.."If There's a God Why Are There Atheists?".

There is also a psychological aspect to this question. Atheists fear God's reality because they know that if God exists, they are under his wrath and condemnation. The trauma of thinking about this causes them to resist acknowledging his existence.

I won't respond to the top part as I'm an atheist, but I'd like to address the inaccurate statement at the bottom. I don't fear "God's reality" because I have no idea how your god is any different than any other god ever created. I feel the same fear of your god as you do of the Egyptian god Aker.

 

[Magenta]

How do you propose we look for a supernatural god at the formation of the universe?

Many scientists acknowledge that there was a single unifying force at the moment the universe came into being. I understand that from your perspective, and the scientists too, no doubt, this fact in no way points to there being a God. Some scientists then break the first second or two after the universe came into being into what they call Planck Time, so they can account for everything that happened so quickly after that... billionths of a second to accomplish what might otherwise take hundreds of thousands or even millions of years to bring about. From such musings they draw many conclusions. In fact, scientists do a lot of musing that has no grounding in facts or evidence but they believe their musings have merit, things such as multiverse theory. They don't really base what they believe on facts and hard evidence as many like to think.

 

[JackTheHatter]

Many scientists acknowledge that there was a single unifying force at the moment the universe came into being. I understand that from your perspective, and the scientists too, no doubt, this fact in no way points to there being a God. Some scientists then break the first second or two after the universe came into being into what they call Planck Time, so they can account for everything that happened so quickly after that... billionths of a second to accomplish what might otherwise take hundreds of thousands or even millions of years to bring about. From such musings they draw many conclusions. In fact, scientists do a lot of musing that has no grounding in facts or evidence but they believe their musings have merit, things such as multiverse theory. They don't really base what they believe on facts and hard evidence as many like to think.

I don't hold strong belief in theoretical physics like string theory or the multiverse. Some scientists will say that these could very well be likely, but I wouldn't say I believe them unless I came across evidence that could convince me as such (which I'm open to, but haven't come across). While scientists do in fact speak about what happened moments after the big bang, they will admit there is only so far as we can reach (from our current scientific understanding). They have done the work which leads them to such conclusions about how the universe could've been much more dense 14 billion years ago, but I haven't read or found anything that says we have enough information to know what happened before that time. So as far as the creation of the universe goes, I'm okay with saying I don't know how it first started off. Based on what I have learned there doesn't seem to be substantial evidence for the god hypothesis. While there are people who will look for ways to work god into the equation, most people just use the bible as their source for absolute truth, but I simply can't do that, I don't feel the bible has absolute truth based on what I've read. But I do agree, theoretical physics work with the math, but that has to translate into proven observation.

 

[Magenta]

I don't hold strong belief in theoretical physics like string theory or the multiverse. Some scientists will say that these could very well be likely, but I wouldn't say I believe them unless I came across evidence that could convince me as such (which I'm open to, but haven't come across). While scientists do in fact speak about what happened moments after the big bang, they will admit there is only so far as we can reach (from our current scientific understanding). They have done the work which leads them to such conclusions about how the universe could've been much more dense 14 billion years ago, but I haven't read or found anything that says we have enough information to know what happened before that time. So as far as the creation of the universe goes, I'm okay with saying I don't know how it first started off. Based on what I have learned there doesn't seem to be substantial evidence for the god hypothesis. While there are people who will look for ways to work god into the equation, most people just use the bible as their source for absolute truth, but I simply can't do that, I don't feel the bible has absolute truth based on what I've read. But I do agree, theoretical physics work with the math, but that has to translate into proven observation.

Well, that is the thing with scientists, some say one thing and some say another LOL kind of like Christians, huh? But those that adhere to such things, and there must be a few, (gosh I am a bit fascinated with astronomy and always have been, though not really studied it, myself) do believe that the cosmic radiation background, or microwave background, is like a blueprint of the oldest light in our known universe, although the universe is believed to be almost 400,000 years old by then, and a lot had already happened. The particle accelerator seems to have proven that the Higgs bosun field is a reality, even though it is extremely difficult to confirm, and it is something that was theorized about many years ago (in the sixties), so they do get some things right, or so it would seem, along with getting things terribly wrong. Do you ever watch a show called How the Universe Works? (I would recommend it.) When I was in high school, I found the periodic table of elements to be a comfort, because it was like evidence for me that all was not random and chaotic, which is how life seemed to me then. Atheists defend their position of the universe and life having no deeper meaning and/or purpose, and claim they are okay with everything being random and the result of cosmic accidents, but deep down I find that hard to believe. (As for it being accidental, it is very finely tuned.) The search for meaning has been with us for how long? Since the beginning, it would seem. I do not advocate for people to believe in God for any kind of convenience sake, or just because they are told to. Many come to believe when they undertake a search for truth, some while trying to prove the Bible wrong, others like me more trying to determine what is it that I know to be true. What was that underlying spiritual essence that I felt connected to, a part of, felt led by and embraced by, had experiences with, but could not name or put my finger on? I rejected God as surely as any atheist does, but I never identified as atheist. I was more mystic, sometimes psychic, and delved into a pagan practice professionally. So the many that come to believe while seeking truth do so because they experience God, and that is something that Scripture promises: Seek and you will find. The process of seeking was a decades long process that helped open my mind to the possibilities while clearing preconceived ideas and prejudices. Still, I was shocked when I experienced God. I have to go now, but it has been lovely conversing with you. See you later

 

[HQ]

I'll try and tackle some of these to the best of my knowledge. I'm not an astrophysicist so my abilities will be limited. To start, what are laws and who creates them? Laws (from a scientific perspective) are statements based on repeated experimental observations that describe aspects of the universe. We, people, create these laws, that doesn't mean we set the planets in motion, it means we write down an equations and observations that make it easier to predict the motion. We know that laws created by a country, state, or city need law givers, but this only goes so far as rules people live by, which are easily broken. These societal laws and scientific laws are clearly not the same.

Just to set you straight on a few points, men are not the authors of scientific laws. Men simply observe and record them. Granted it is confusing because people hear terms like "Maxwell's Law" or "Newton's Law" and assume that they somehow created them. Nope, they are just brilliant individuals that are smart enough to observe, understand and describe them using mathematics, and then write them down in technical terms. This of course begs the question "who did create these laws"? But we'll get to that. So "scientific laws" in and of themselves are not scientific. They just are laws described by scientists.

"Intelligence is required in order for laws to exist. And intelligence was right there at the formation of our universe. That seems like a reasonable place to start looking for God."

So far we have not demonstrated that the laws of nature require any form of intelligence.

I don't believe in the laws of nature as you think of them. When I think of laws of nature I think of ecology, weather, ecosystems, survival of the fittest etc. I don't believe the laws of nature have intelligence or creativity, nor do I think they just randomly come up with brilliant and creative ideas over long periods of time. I believe the most plausible explanation for the existence of our universe is a brilliant mind outside of our own universe that decided to create it.

What evidence do you provide that it was intelligence at the beginning? Saying that we have societal laws and we can make laws to observe the universe are not evidence as they don't describe any processes. How do you propose we look for a supernatural god at the formation of the universe? furthermore, how would we even know we were looking for your version of god? We can't just presuppose a god exists, you can make a hypothesis that one does, but without evidence to solidify the claim we are just speculating.

An orderly universe. A universe that is defined by physics and described by mathematics demands an intelligent mind, in my opinion.

 

[JackTheHatter]

Well, that is the thing with scientists, some say one thing and some say another LOL kind of like Christians, huh? But those that adhere to such things, and there must be a few, (gosh I am a bit fascinated with astronomy and always have been, though not really studied it, myself) do believe that the cosmic radiation background, or microwave background, is like a blueprint of the oldest light in our known universe, although the universe is believed to be almost 400,000 years old by then, and a lot had already happened. The particle accelerator seems to have proven that the Higgs bosun field is a reality, even though it is extremely difficult to confirm, and it is something that was theorized about many years ago (in the sixties), so they do get some things right, or so it would seem, along with getting things terribly wrong. Do you ever watch a show called How the Universe Works? (I would recommend it.) When I was in high school, I found the periodic table of elements to be a comfort, because it was like evidence for me that all was not random and chaotic, which is how life seemed to me then. Atheists defend their position of the universe and life having no deeper meaning and/or purpose, and claim they are okay with everything being random and the result of cosmic accidents, but deep down I find that hard to believe. (As for it being accidental, it is very finely tuned.) The search for meaning has been with us for how long? Since the beginning, it would seem. I do not advocate for people to believe in God for any kind of convenience sake, or just because they are told to. Many come to believe when they undertake a search for truth, some while trying to prove the Bible wrong, others like me more trying to determine what is it that I know to be true. What was that underlying spiritual essence that I felt connected to, a part of, felt led by and embraced by, had experiences with, but could not name or put my finger on? I rejected God as surely as any atheist does, but I never identified as atheist. I was more mystic, sometimes psychic, and delved into a pagan practice professionally. So the many that come to believe while seeking truth do so because they experience God, and that is something that Scripture promises: Seek and you will find. The process of seeking was a decades long process that helped open my mind to the possibilities while clearing preconceived ideas and prejudices. Still, I was shocked when I experienced God. I have to go now, but it has been lovely conversing with you. See you later

Some scientists say one thing and some say another, but the answer is whatever the evidence supports. I have watch How the Universe works, I agree, good show!
"Atheists defend their position of the universe and life having no deeper meaning and/or purpose, and claim they are okay with everything being random and the result of cosmic accidents, but deep down I find that hard to believe."
If it turns out that the universe was purely random or a cosmic accident, I'd be happier that we found what was truth rather than miss out on knowledge. When you look at where we came from, people who feared thunder as wrath of angry gods, or people who saw comets and felt utter panic. We now understand these phenomena for what they really are and instead of fear, we enjoy the sights of comets or sitting and listening to a thunderstorm. This is how I feel about the universe, I don't need to have some magical fairy tale to make me feel like this world is worth living in. There is so much here, so much to learn and discover. I may not have an afterlife or a second chance, so I'm going to make this life I have count and hopefully help make this world better for the next generation. These conversations are great for seeing different perspectives! It was great conversing with you as well!

 

[JackTheHatter]

Just to set you straight on a few points, men are not the authors of scientific laws. Men simply observe and record them. Granted it is confusing because people hear terms like "Maxwell's Law" or "Newton's Law" and assume that they somehow created them. Nope, they are just brilliant individuals that are smart enough to observe, understand and describe them using mathematics, and then write them down in technical terms. This of course begs the question "who did create these laws"? But we'll get to that. So "scientific laws" in and of themselves are not scientific. They just are laws described by scientists.



I don't believe in the laws of nature as you think of them. When I think of laws of nature I think of ecology, weather, ecosystems, survival of the fittest etc. I don't believe the laws of nature have intelligence or creativity, nor do I think they just randomly come up with brilliant and creative ideas over long periods of time. I believe the most plausible explanation for the existence of our universe is a brilliant mind outside of our own universe that decided to create it.



An orderly universe. A universe that is defined by physics and described by mathematics demands an intelligent mind, in my opinion.

Didn't do a great job "setting me straight" as you kinda just repeated what I said... The laws as written are made by man using observation and put in terms of mathematics (also man made) and language (also man made). I was not saying that man creates the motion, but rather creates the equation to better calculate these motions for our understanding.

" I believe the most plausible explanation for the existence of our universe is a brilliant mind outside of our own universe that decided to create it."

That's great that you believe that, but I'm not going to believe it based off of a hunch. I could believe the most plausible explanation for the existence of our universe is a chemical reaction from another dimension... notice how both of our explanations could be possible but neither are backed up by evidence?

 

[Magenta]

Some scientists say one thing and some say another, but the answer is whatever the evidence supports.

The point is that scientists purport plenty with little to no evidential support, and people accept what they say as being factual and/or true simply because a scientist said it, when it is neither.

I have watch How the Universe works, I agree, good show!

Cosmology is fascinating

"Atheists defend their position of the universe and life having no deeper meaning and/or purpose, and claim they are okay with everything being random and the result of cosmic accidents, but deep down I find that hard to believe."
If it turns out that the universe was purely random or a cosmic accident, I'd be happier that we found what was truth rather than miss out on knowledge.

Can you honestly say the same thing about belief in God right now?

I am familiar with the stereotypes that we think we are somehow intellectually superior and I can assure you intelligence is not related to your position on god...

When you look at where we came from, people who feared thunder as wrath of angry gods, or people who saw comets and felt utter panic. We now understand these phenomena for what they really are and instead of fear, we enjoy the sights of comets or sitting and listening to a thunderstorm. This is how I feel about the universe, I don't need to have some magical fairy tale to make me feel like this world is worth living in.

Or do you think people who believe in God really are intellectually inferior, and possibly even delusional, to believe in what you refer to as some magical fairy tale?

There is so much here, so much to learn and discover. I may not have an afterlife or a second chance, so I'm going to make this life I have count and hopefully help make this world better for the next generation.

For millennia, millions after countless millions have believed in God. Many have experienced Him. He reveals Himself to those who diligently seek Him. Such revelations are counted as evidence for those who have such experiences, in the same way one might come to know love by experiencing it, as opposed to just reading about it. That type of evidence is not transferable because you are meant to have your own personal relationship with Him the same way you come to understand love by having your own personal relationship with love. How do you feel about love? Do you understand love to be the organizing principle of all human progress, and the crux of consciousness? Think about that statement. Do you agree with it?

These conversations are great for seeing different perspectives! It was great conversing with you as well!

Thank you! I hope you have a wonderful week