[JcP]

I'm sorry the simplistic question/answering is over, since when we get into longer complex discussions, it inevitably ends with the same results...but perhaps this time will be different.

Originally Posted by snapshot

And I still don't know exactly what you're talking about when you say "God"? It doesn't make logical sense to me, which is why I don't know. How can there be a creator of that which has always existed (a creator of infinite regression)?.

there doesn't. If something has always existed, that which has always existed is its own creator. If something is infinite, you do not need an external creator...so I'm not sure why you think I'm suggesting this. Perhaps the word "creator" is what's confusing.

Since things exist, either these things have always been, or they were divinely manifest (something out of nothing). If the first is true, this universe is all there is (God) and makes itself (consciously or otherwise). If the latter is true, then this universe is LIMITED, but outside of this limited universe is an infinite God who made the universe.
To use a computer metaphor: Either you are God to the citizens in Sim City since you control the game, or there is no player and Sim City is the God to the citizens of Sim City (and therefore, the citizens of Sim City are God to themselves). But since Sim City exists, someone has the power to create...and it seems logical to assume someone created the game, since all things have a creator.

God in terms of the white man in the sky is not logically wrong, as it is one possibility, but it does require a leap in faith (as does any belief about God other than "don't know.")

Originally Posted by snapshot

And how can something come out of nothing? How can something come out of nothing if something always existed and there never was nothing? If there is a creator of an infinite regression, then it's not really an infinite regression, since there is a starting point..

Correct. Since no one knows the true nature of the universe, whether it is infinite or had a starting point is a question still in the realm of faith.
IF something came out of nothing, then a divine act has occured. And that divine act would indicate a divine creator who made the act happen.
IF there was no starting point, then we are in infinity. In which case everything in the universe is infinite (including you and me). If the universe "has always been" then that universe is God. It creates itself.

Originally Posted by snapshot

Would you say that the fact that I don't believe in that which you, or any other person who says they believe in God, makes me an atheist?.

Depends. Do you "not know" or do you know? I, for instance, am certain I am not certain about the nature of God.
If you don't believe in God, you would be an atheist. If you "don't know," then no, you would not be an atheist.

I don't believe that which anyone else says they believe in in terms of God. I often agree with points people make, but faith is completely personal. That's the difference between spirituality and religion. One is based on personal discovery, while the other is based on prescribing to a dogma.

Originally Posted by snapshot

I feel like I'm being labeled an atheist by theists simply for not believing what they believe. If someone believes in something that I don't understand or that doesn't make sense, that doesn't mean I have faith; to me, it means there must be a contradiction somewhere, either in my thinking or theirs which is impossible to accept without some sort of irrational reasoning..

Hrm...perhaps it's a matter of semantics, as this is the first time I've seen you distinguish what you believe to that which is somehow universally true. If you agree that the true nature of the universe is not known, but based on the evidence you have seen you see no evidence for God, that's one thing. To me, it seems you believe that logic leads to the TRUTH that there is no God...which is silly since we do not know the truth (and, by the way, the reason we can discuss things about this and 'agree to disagree' with neither being wrong or right.).
If you are an atheist, that's fine. I personally find atheism ridiculous, but I also recognize that I personally hold beliefs you have every right to find equally as ridiculous.

Originally Posted by snapshot

I don't consider myself an atheist, with regards to Sam Harris. I'm just trying to understand via reasoning. At its base, from what I've gotten so far, it seems like you're saying God is That Which Is, since I can't understand anything more than that because it all seems illogical:.

At least you and I agree that it's not illogical, just that "it all seems illogical," which is the real disagreement you and I have had from day one.

Originally Posted by snapshot

"How can there be a creator of that which has always existed (a creator of infinite regression)? And how can something come out of nothing? How can something come out of nothing if something always existed and there never was nothing? If there is a creator of an infinite regression, then it's not really an infinite regression, since there is a starting point. "

So, from my point of view, these are logically bulletproof arguments against any sort of creator argument, since a creator, through logical consistency, also needs a creator; since infinity negates a starting or an endpoint; since something cannot come from nothing..

They aren't logically bulletproof to my point of view, as I've completely deconstructed these arguments already. But I will try again.
If we are in a system of infinity, God is the name given to the force of infinity...a self-creating system of infinity (not to mention the fact that for infinity to truly be infinite, logically it would have to include God and No God simultaneously, else it would not be infinity, but infinity minus God or No God).
If we are in a system that is FINITE, God is the name given to the force that created the finite system...an external system of infinity.

"A creator needs a creator" is something that you believe to be true based on the facts you currently have. People who believe God to be the dude with the white beard would argue that while what we know now does not provide any proof for their beliefs, they see a logic in believing that something has to have started things, otherwise how is there anything? In essence, they remove infinity from the universe and put it outside of it in a personified Infinte consciousness they call God.

the second option is logically consistent, but is still just as "unproveable" as the 'illogical' option above...that God is the system of "a creator needs a creator" that is infinite and transcends creation itself. God is the universe itself and everything in it and that our consciousness is not only a product of "God" but God him/her/itself. There is no need for a personified "outside" God, because God is everything.

Originally Posted by snapshot

I'm not saying I know there is no God. I'm saying I don't have enough information to process, which would be able to lead me to begin to consider such a conclusion (that God doesn't exist). I am saying that logical contradictions cannot exist, and thusly any definition of God with a contradiction, I can safely say, cannot exist--nor, certainly, could one argue such a case. .

If you agree that you do not have enough information to process, you are not an atheist, as an atheist has come to a conclusion. You are still seeking more information before deciding what you believe is or is not true.

Originally Posted by snapshot

This is why I say that faith comes after thinking is ceased. If I believe there is a God, even after these considerations, I have to have ceased thinking about these considerations, because they are blocks which shield me from accepting the concept of God logically..

Then I think you misconstrue faith. Faith is believing in something. It is not, however, knowing something. Buddhism (a faith of sorts) THRIVES on asking questions. a huge chunk of the practice is thinking about koans (which you might TOTALLY get into, based on how logical and pragmatic you are about things), and asking questions and thinking.
Faith is not an answer. It's the gateway to infinite questions (most of which, have no answers).

Originally Posted by snapshot

I'm not saying what you feel is wrong, or that your feelings are invalid, but I do think that, even though questioning may have led you to your belief, it is ultimately feeling, not thinking, which keeps people tuned into that belief.

thinking is the only thing that makes you think that. My thinking tells me otherwise. Thinking keeps me tuned into my belief, as I see complete logical consistency in my belief and the unity of all beings. If your thinking leads you elsewhere, that's FINE.

As I've said from day 1 with you, I don't know anything. But I know I don't know. Or, since you like philosophy, as Socrates said to a student who asked him "do you know yourself?" "No. But I know this not knowing."