The new DIY spirituality...

Have you ever believed there is a God?

Never. At least not any more than I ever believed there was a Santa Claus or a Tooth Fairy.

I've been trying to understand atheism, see a true reason or basis for its belief, and all I can seem to find is an adament distaste at religion and faith in the theory of evolution. I am not religious, and I don't know too much about evolution in my 17 years but I've been told I'd be silly if I didn't believe it... But when you say you have never believed there was a God, not anymore than you believe in fairytale legends, it makes me wonder how much thought you've actually expended to the possibility there there is a higher power, and how much credit you give to people who do believe in one. How did you yourself get around the simple scientific fact that something cannot have been created from nothing? And the concept of forever(no beginning, no end-for your clarification =))?

If, as you say, something cannot be created from nothing, and your answer to this "dilemma" is god, then you haven't solved anything, because where did god come from? If you think atheism is just about evolution, you've clearly not given anything thought to your own atheism. Because of course you're an atheist, just like I am. I merely disbelieve in one more god than you do. When you understand why you don't believe in Odin, Ra, and Kali, then you'll understand why I don't believe in your god.

I don't believe in a religous God, but I do fully have faith that there is a higher power. I am not atheist. Something has been around forever, right? The concept of forever is completely irrational when you think of it in scientific terms. The idea of energy being around forever, never having a beginning, has absolutely no logical weight because the idea that energy was the original factor in a process that eventually spurred life cannot be placed within the concept of forever, as then there would have always been life. Beloved science cannot explain the concept of forever. There is an idea of eternal that just is, and we realize we can't fully grasp it. (As we can't understand the idea of God, but concieve religions which attempt to provide something more tangible around the abstract idea for humans to grasp onto. ..Or just dismiss the idea entirely) Which is why the idea of a higher power is less ludicrous than you seem to think it is. A higher power is something that is forever. You can't understand forever, and you can't understand God. They just are.

If a "higher power" can "just be," then why can't the universe "just be"?

I think I've pretty much already explained that. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe came into existance because of the explosion of dense and hot energy. At some point in 'time.' Energy cannot be eternal; never having a beginning(or end). The universe is apparently a product of energy. Therefore, the universe is not eternal. We cannot explain eternal scientifically, but we know eternal just is. Eternal isn't just neverending time; something that humans cannot grasp IS eternal, or there wouldn't be life.

I didn't mean to sound rude by implying you didn't catch something - I realize that what I'm saying is kind of abstract and probably needs more clarifying. Makes sense to me though. Love your reviews by the way, hah...

I'm Pagan, and I also believe in The Force. I know, it sounds ridiculous and quite frankly, more than a little whacky, and yet...I really like the idea that there's literally an energy force that's part of everything, that moves through everything. Sounds vaguely scientific, too, like there could be /is some force that effects everyone and everything, like gravity. Who knows, maybe there already is and I'm just waaaaaaaaay behind on my science reading.

Kelly, check out these 300+ proofs of the existence of God, and see if you don't see some of your arguments there: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm

I stopped after this one: BOATWRIGHT'S ARGUMENT (1) Ha ha ha. (2) Therefore, God exists. I don't think you get or are attempting to understand what I'm saying.

I don't think you have a sufficient understanding of what atheism is, Kelly. Nothing you're saying is anything new, or anything devastating to the concept of atheism.

I was looking up some info about Peter Greenaway and found the following quote, which I thought you'd appreciate (and is also, I think, quite true): ""To be an atheist you have to have ten thousand times more imagination than if you are a religious fundamentalist. You must take the responsibility to acquire information, digest and use it to understand what you can." Nice, eh?

I must confess I have my own personal reasons for being a theist--none of which are likely to persuade you--but what I'd really like to know is how you would go about proving YOUR existence to someone who doubted your existence? Send them an E-mail? Sure, but how would they know it was from you? Send them a picture? Well, sure, but how would they actually know that the person in the picture is you and not a person pretending to be you? Have someone vouch for you? Sure, but suppose the skeptics refused to believe said person is telling the truth? I'm not arguing that we should take everything as a matter of blind faith. That much would be dangerous. But it is just as possible to err in the direction of skepticism as it is in the opposite direction. Anyway, in my own life I've gone through both my Scully and my Mulder periods of philosophy, and all I can honestly say is that one should be free to choose one's own path as long as one does not seek to harm one's self or others. Besides, the events that made me a believer are not events I would wish upon anyone I liked. I would not even wish them upon my worst enemy...

Atheist or no, everyone is entitled to divine sex. >B^)

"how you would go about proving YOUR existence to someone who doubted your existence?" Um, meet them in person? This is not an option with deities, typically.

Well, in view of the Semele legend, it might be just as well that in-person encounters with the Deity aren't exactly encouraged. As I noted before, most experiences that would convince one of the existence of the supernatural are not ones you would like to have. Be careful what you wish for and all that jazz...:-)

Well it would be nice for more of a debate from you, considering you are so unrelenting in your atheism. Sending me to some retarded site that makes an inane attempt at devaluing people who believe in a God does nothing to help your argument- of which you have done very little. I've already said I don't understand atheists - so go ahead, make your case. You don't believe in a higher power, why?

"You don't believe in a higher power, why?" As I've already said, for the same reason I don't believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, unicorns, elves, and every other mythological invention of humanity. As Carl Sagan said, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're the one claiming some supernatural power greater than the entire universe exists -- the burden is upon you to prove this, not upon me to justify my laughter of derision. Oh, and by the way, that site I sent you to is not about "devaluing people" but about pointing out the logical absurdities of their arguments. Unrelenting in my atheism? I love that. I might put it on a T-shirt.

I obviously can't give you evidence- if I had it I would have long ago, in person, so I could laugh at the dumbfounded expression on your face(sorry, I wouldn't laugh..i'd give you a cookie and a pat on the back or something)- but I can supply my thoughts/argument/theory - again, one that you haven't really responded to. Aaand most of the "arguments" on that website are filler-only a few point out actual absurdities in arguments or rational various theists offer. I did not see anything relating to what I said, and it wouldn't have explained away a thing, anyway. Cuz as far as I'm aware, no one can. It just boggles my mind how you can be so set in stone(see also: unrelenting atheist) against the idea of a higher power when there is already a concept no human can wrap their head around and science cannot explain; and that also intertwines with the concept of a higher power - Eternal. Something greater than the universe MUST exist for it to exist at all. And don't be mean, I'm a confused kid trying to figure some important stuff out to the best of my ability.

"Something greater than the universe MUST exist for it to exist at all." That's exactly the kind of logical absurdity I'm talking about.

How is it illogical, in the context of the rest of my argument?

I think I can answer that. If you say that "Something greater than the universe MUST exist for it to exist at all.", that would also mean that something greater than the thing that is greater than the universe must exist. And so on, and so forth. Oh, and by the way, according to current theory, the bing bang didn't happen at "a point in time", but rather it was the beginning of time. And of energy and matter too. Now you'll say that a god must have put that energy and time there, and I'll say why? And who created the god?

The question "Who created God?" is predicated on the interpretation of time as a process of cause and effect. If God exists outside, and indeed defines, all of our interpretations of everything that we consider to be the universe, then God also defines, and exists outside of cause and effect relationships. All of science, all of everything that we percieve is based on the idea that something came first and caused something else to happen. We are categorically incapable of imagining any other system. In conclusion, the question does not apply to God because it is an extension of our limited perceptions. Possible the only successful answer is that in his creation of reality, God created himself as we perceieve him. Before we existed, this perception of him did not exist, now that we do, it does exist. That is all we can know.

"...God also defines, and exists outside of cause and effect relationships." In other words, it doesn't matter that the argument of god's existence is illogical because logic doesn't apply to god? The bullshit inherent in that statement could fertilize the Sahara.

It sounds like a lot of this atehism vs. god debate revolves around the question of creation. In other words, how could something that we know to exist (the universe), be derived from nothing? Sans the miraculous touch of an igniting entity, the Deist reason goes, we cannot explain the transition from an initial state of "nothing," to a state of universal being as we now know it. ("Being" meaning a state where there are matter and energy and space to define the progress of events in time as are detectable by the conventions that we have defined to know them.) The Big Bang, as we currently understand it, is a compromise. Within the confines of big bang theory, we trace the dimensions of the universe back to a singular point of origin, and we stop. Even as scientists, we point to the big bang, and suspend the concept of "before" and we discount the concept of causality. But if you sit around bored eating Chex in the morning, stubborn curiosity alone demands that we consider what was the thing that "big banged" and why did it do so? Was it touched by god? Was it prodded into big banging by some superhero (to paraphrase another thinker on this topic) that can see us even when we pee? I think not. I think that perhaps we're unduly married to a paradigm whereby "nothing" was the pre-original status quo and that some seminal god or seminal chimp was necessary to inject that "nothing" with "something." Maybe there was never such a state as "nothing." Maybe there was always "something." Certainly, the existence of something now is more believably tied to the existence of (some other something + its own nature) than it is to the existence of (nothing + god). If you inspect the concept of nothing, it evaporates into mathematical theory. A null value. We have taken mathematics a long way, but it is nevertheless a science that's derived from observations of truth. What cannot be observed, cannot be measured. Even the orbit of Pluto can be measured. We have so far brilliantly decoded the effects of dimly apprehended events and united those measurements into theories. But we have not yet managed to detect nor measure any type of condition prior to this so-called Big Bang. This Big Bang appears to be the turning point between some prior reality, and the reality that we can now perceive. The Big Bang is a scientific frontier that stands as a moment T=0. We have to probe into what was going during T=-1. Will we find a god? I doubt it. We have already crossed many frontiers and found no god. Think about god, not in your own life, but in history. The more that history has looked for him, the more improbable he has become. Is he less popular? Of course not. He is craved. He is demanded by millions around the world. And yet, he remains indisposed, unable to answer the calls that clamor for him. Silent. You draw your own conclusions. Hey, by the way, I like your film reviews. Stay smart. -FRG

Hey, what FRQ said. The "god of the gaps" is getting pushed into smaller and small gaps. As someone wise once said, If god exists, he made it look as if he doesn't.

The problem is that as god gets pushed into smaller and smaller gaps, the gaps require more and more science to fill up. Quantom physics and newtonian physics are categorically incompatible and the discrepency is inexplicable. It is just as much a statement of religious faith to say that someday science will answer every question as it is to say that god will someday answer every question.

"It is just as much a statement of religious faith to say that someday science will answer every question as it is to say that god will someday answer every question." I don't think very many serious scientific thinkers would contend that someday science will explain "everything." And believers in god are still left with the problem of, where did god come from? If the universe is too much a mystery to have come into being on its own, with no outside divine intervention, then surely a being who could bring the universe into being must be exponentially even more complex... so who created it? Eventually, you just get to "it's turtles all the way down," which is a copout. Why add an extra layer of complexity onto things? And anyway, even if the universe did have a creator, there's no evidence whatsoever that that creator takes a personal interest in who we sleep with.

"I don't think very many serious scientific thinkers would contend that someday science will explain "everything."" So eventually there's going to be a Gap that science can't fill in? Something that it can't explain? When science fails, what are you going to do to fill that gap? What makes you think that our notions of physics and complexity and time apply to a being that defines every aspect of our existence? Maybe nothing came before God because the idea of "before" does not exist outside of our created universe? I am contending that your assumptions about the nature of god are flawed, not trying to defend any specific aspects of such a being. God may or may not care who you sleep with, the point is irrelevant to the question of "his" existence.

MaryAnn: I've just recently stumbled across your site, and am having a great time reading through both this and "The Flick Philosopher". Two points of contention (and forgive me for coming late to the party) : first, the near-obsession with Gen-X (yes, we're different, but not _that_ special), and, well, this post. On the one hand you seem to be saying "science is my religion", and castigate fundamentalists and ID (with you so far...) and posting that clever little "There Is No God" graphic, and then... We get to the comments section here, in which you seem to be claiming that you have, indeed, _need_, a belief in God. Now, it's always possible that I'm confused, or that someone is imitating you (because the "in my 17 years" thing doesn't seem to match your age), or that you're simply trying to be contradictory and wry... but (as with most people) once you step out of your feild of expertise, you sort of flounder about, clinging to dogmatic and irrational arguments. So. Let me try to do my little part to attempt to clear things up. It would appear, to me, that you are a Deist, a trait that you would share with many of the Founding Fathers of your country - that is, you reject traditional religion, but see God as Nature and Primary Cause. And I think that's where a lot of middle-of-the-road religious people end up. They're uncomfortable with the idea of a vengeful, active, Old Testament God who uses human beings as so many finger puppets, and they're equally repelled by the idea of a Father who would sacrifice his own son far some sort of twisted theological contract with humanity. But they still _need_ to see a God somewhere in all of this. So God is pushed way into the background, considered as some kind of neglectful but ultimately compassionate gardener of the cosmos. And, has been pointed out here more than adequately, he keeps being pushed back with each human discovery of the Universe, until he begins to blur with 4K background radiation. The problem is that God still needs to _be_ somewhere. And it is (again, pointed out more than once) a "God of the Gaps" argument. Your God currently dwells in the space between Newtonian maechanics and general relativity, where he has sheltered for almost a century. But do you honestly feel that niche is going to last? And what kind of faith exists when the gap is closed, and God moves into the vibration of a superstring in another dimension, or whatever the next nut science has to crack is? You also seem to have made the (exceedingly common) mistake in believing that science is an atheists religion. It is not. You're a writer - you should understand that a-theism is a _lack_ of gods, not an alternative god. Science is a rational, testable, and falsiable system that has made undeniable process in explaining the world and human beings. Science's quest is to understand everything - perhaps, from your perspective, to "be the mind of God", but it is not a religion. Science is the best way of explaining the cosmos that we know of. It is a human construction, and as such it has gaps and weaknesses. But it has progessed, unlike, (I would argue) theology, which only seeks to embroider the stories behind the sound of thunder and the movement of the stars with bigger and more grandiose specteral personalities. Frankly, science is easier to understand than the idea of an invisible God. Science is an easier way to explain the Universe (albeit with gaps) than some God (or herd of Magical Invisible Pink Unicorns, or anything else that human minds have dreamt up). Science _works_. That is not faith - that's rational human experience, the same experience you get every time you switch a television from the meaningless static of background radiation to a movie channel. Ultimately, I think you have to ask what the value of believing in God is, when there's no evidence for one. God-as-Nature is well and good - but what about Nature-as-Nature do you find so inadequate? Is it a fear of death? An existential dread of meaninglessness? A need for some kind of final arbiter of justice? What's the point of a God when He has been pushed (as some posts argue above) completely outside the observable universe? What makes letting go of faith so damn hard? Well. Forgive the length of my rant - perhaps my need to vent is due to the bout of laryngitis I am currently suffering. And I apoligise if there's something I have misconstrued. It's just that your religious opinions seem so - well, naive, and non Gen-X, and so opposite to the tone of the rest of the content of your site(s) that I felt compelled to post. That being said, I'm going to move on and continue to enjoy your work. :-)