Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Mar 21, 2021 3:13 pm
There is evidence in the sense there is no way to negate evidence,
Okay, but that's minimal. If all we say of any evidence is, "There's no way to negate it," we haven't said much. I think the evidence, both from observation of nature and of ourselves, is stronger and much more positive than the Atheist will allow. He would like to think that the evidence favours Atheism, even though Atheism manifestly isn't even capable of evidence; and he'd really, really like to believe there's nothing at all -- or at least nothing compelling -- to which a Theist could ever point. But, of course, I think he's quite wrong about that, too.
Atheism is, by its own definition, a position held only negatively, not on strength of evidence (which most Atheist will refuse even to try to provide, and will insist they don't need to provide anyway) only in order to avoid thinking of a different possibility.
I believe that Being cannot come from non-being.
So do I. But it begs a question. When we say it "cannot come from" non-being, are we saying a) that being comes from God, who is the Source of Being and has always existed, or b) that nothing that is now could ever have not-been in the past? Because if it's b) I think our own observations will make us tend to think that's wrong. It seems quite clear that things can begin to
exist; the question is what happens to them at the end...
Since we exist, then being has always been in one form or another. I've always thought that, if I'm here now then I must have always been here, in one form or another.
I know a great many people in the world believe that. But they have problems with it, the first of which is, "If I have already existed, then what is the cause of my forgetfulness of that fact? Why don't I remember what I was? Because, after all, most people don't remember any "previous life". "Where did the amnesia come from, and what does it signify?"
Hinduism, for example, has explanations to try to cover that one. I don't know how persuasive you find such explanations... One thing for sure: if I can't remember my previous lives, either I didn't actually have any, or something other than me is interfering with me knowing I did and remembering precisely what has happened to me. And that, in itself, requires further explanation.
To prove God does not exist, we would need to be all-knowing, and that we are not.
Right. Which is why Atheists can't even plausibly claim to be operating on the basis of having proved their position, even to themselves. It's a gratuitous belief, not a rational one.
...here's no way we could ever venture off beyond our finite limitation.
Here is the bit I don't get about your views, DAM. Sometimes you seem to say that you (and I, presumably) are
the cosmic mind. But the cosmic mind must be unlimited, have always been, and will always exist into the future. In other words, if there's such a "cosmic mind," it must be "infinite" and "unlimited."
But if we have "finite limitation," then you and I are not the infinite, the cosmic mind, the eternal, the "unlimited." We are instead something that is "limited" by things. We are "finite," as you claim. But if that's the case, then why should we have trouble believing there was a time when we did not exist? And what has been running the universe before you and I existed, or compensating for the fact that you and I are "finite," and can't even remember our own "eternal pasts," if we had them at all?