An experiment in Atheism

[GhostofMaxwell.]

Result of experiment.

Apparently atheists cannot discuss their lack of faith without discussing their opinion of theists.

If you are talking about logical conclusion of the psychology of a self-proclaimed group: Yes scientists do tend to draw conclusions of that nature.

 

[Sarkus]

You say "fact", do you mean fact in the scientific sense?

I mean fact in the same way that calling a brick a brick can be considered a fact.

I do think your brand of atheism is more than what atheism actually is, but as to what it is, I can't say for sure.

Atheism is merely a lack of belief in god(s).
Anyone with this lack is atheist - so of course there will be a plethora of other elements to one's "brand" - but those elements do not detract from them being an atheist - i.e. they possess the same lack of belief in god(s).

You seem, pointlessly angry (by YOU I mean a certain type of atheist)

Certain "type of atheist" or certain "type of person"? Anger is more a personal quality than a matter of belief / lack of.

You think theists are irrational and deluded

Anyone who believes something as true without evidence is irrational.
It then comes down to a matter of what is evidence.
If you (YOU as in a theist) say you have it but can't provide it to me - I will remain without it. Thus for me to be theist, in the absence of evidence, would be irrational.
Given also that you are unable to show me this evidence, it would be irrational of me to believe you actually have it - as there is no evidence that you have it. So to believe you have it would be irrational - which would then make the belief in god irrational. etc.

You don't actually seem interested in religion itself

Maybe - although that perception might be due to the fact that this is a science forum - and attracts people who want to argue the science (or lack thereof) of religion, rather than discuss the tenets of religion per se.

You puposely lump everything together into one big group, most probably in a bid to make the whole thing seem confusing

Do you mean we lump all religions into one big group, or we lump all atheists into one big lump?

To be honest - we can do either - and should do - as theism and atheism are reasonably clear-cut attributes. You either have a positive belief in the existence of god - or you don't.
There are only these two types of people.
There is no "middle path" of Agnosticism (unless you don't fully understand what an agnostic is).
So do we lump people into these categories?... Yes. Why should we do any different? As long as you are only relating to people as belonging to one of those two positions - it seems fair.

Some of you people are just downright nasty, which falls outside of the concept of atheism

This can be said of any class of people. It is personal attribute and nothing whatsoever to do with being theist / atheist.

You don't seem satisfied with your position of being an atheist....

You can take this as fact, Jan - I am satisfied with my position of being an atheist. But thanks for your concern.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

I mean fact in the same way that calling a brick a brick can be considered a fact.

I can see a brick.

Atheism is merely a lack of belief in god(s).
Anyone with this lack is atheist -

I also lack belief in god(s), does that mean I am atheist?

Encarta.

lack- shortage: a complete absence of a particular thing
- something absent: something that is needed but is in short supply or missing
- not have something: not to have something that is needed
- not have enough of something: to have too little of something

Certain "type of atheist" or certain "type of person"? Anger is more a personal quality than a matter of belief / lack of.

Certain type of atheist.

Anyone who believes something as true without evidence is irrational.
It then comes down to a matter of what is evidence.

.

It also depends on the object of belief.
If God is the source of everything, then technically everything is evidence. So it becomes more a case of realisation.

If you (YOU as in a theist) say you have it but can't provide it to me - I will remain without it. Thus for me to be theist, in the absence of evidence, would be irrational.

Then I suggest when discussing with a theist you listen to what that person says, then decide, instead of defaulting to a preset idea which lumps everyone in the same boat.

Given also that you are unable to show me this evidence, it would be irrational of me to believe you actually have it - as there is no evidence that you have it.

As long as you keep asking for evidence, I will keep asking "what evidence would satisfy your enquiry". This way we will get no where. If you are serious in your discussion then understand who and what God is from the scriptoral perspective (not just bible).

Maybe - although that perception might be due to the fact that this is a science forum - and attracts people who want to argue the science (or lack thereof) of religion, rather than discuss the tenets of religion per se.

The tenets of religion is the basis of religion.

Do you mean we lump all religions into one big group, ...

Yes.
This is either gross ignorance, or purposeful and dishonest deception.

You either have a positive belief in the existence of god - or you don't.

How do you know this?

There are only these two types of people.
There is no "middle path" of Agnosticism (unless you don't fully understand what an agnostic is).

I think you're a tad mis-guided here.
But please don't ask me to explain, as it would take forever.

This can be said of any class of people. It is personal attribute and nothing whatsoever to do with being theist / atheist.

On this, and similar forums, it is pre-dominently atheist. 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%

You can take this as fact, Jan - I am satisfied with my position of being an atheist. But thanks for your concern.

I can't take it as fact, because the evidence has to come from you directly, and it is simply not forthcoming. If you expect me to believe you because you say so, then you will be expecting for a long time.
And believe me, I am not concerned.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

I also lack belief in god(s), does that mean I am atheist?

Only if you take the first definition.
"Lack" as in "complete absence"

It also depends on the object of belief.
If God is the source of everything, then technically everything is evidence. So it becomes more a case of realisation.

Assuming that God is everything then this would be true - but there is no evidence that this assumption is correct.
Hence it is irrational to believe it is as true in the absence of other evidence.

Then I suggest when discussing with a theist you listen to what that person says, then decide, instead of defaulting to a preset idea which lumps everyone in the same boat.

I have listened - and noone has been able to provide evidence that can rationally be concluded as evidence for god.

As long as you keep asking for evidence, I will keep asking "what evidence would satisfy your enquiry". This way we will get no where. If you are serious in your discussion then understand who and what God is from the scriptoral perspective (not just bible).

Is there evidence of God's existence or not?
You can start with any number of assumptions - but unless there is evidence that those assumptions are true you are in the same position.

As for "what evidence would satisfy my enquiry"... that would depend upon which god you are referring to. Please tell me the qualities of your particular flavour of god and we'll start from there.

The tenets of religion is the basis of religion.

I was referring to discussions of those tenets past the point of acceptance of them as rational etc. If you can not accept them first as rational then there is little point progressing from there.

Yes. This is either gross ignorance, or purposeful and dishonest deception.

I have explained why it is often done. It might only appear as you think due to your inability to understand the reasoning behind it.
All theistic religions have at their core the belief in the existence of a god.
As such they CAN be rationally grouped together when referring solely to THAT aspect.
What is grossly ignorant about this?
What would be "purposeful and dishonest deception" about this?

How do you know this?

Logic.
If you doubt it - please provide a third option.

I think you're a tad mis-guided here.
But please don't ask me to explain, as it would take forever.

You won't explain your reasoning because you know it's flawed. Please feel free to correct me.
Theism and atheism are matters of belief.
Agnosticism is a matter of knowledge.
Many of us atheists are also agnostic.
In a Venn-diagram they would overlap.
If you want I can elaborate some more to further explain how it is YOU who are mis-guided.

On this, and similar forums, it is pre-dominently atheist. 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%

I think you'll find that an impossibility. But nevermind.

I can't take it as fact

Apologies, my mistake - you seem to think I care whether you believed me or not.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Only if you take the first definition.
"Lack" in "complete absence"

Then "lack" of belief is a misleading term.

Assuming that God is everything then this would be true - but there is no evidence that this assumption is correct.
Hence it is irrational to believe it is as true in the absence of other evidence.

Assuming this, then what type of evidence would you need to believe it is correct?

I have listened - and noone has been able to provide evidence that can rationally be concluded as evidence for god.

Do you have a preset expectation of what constitutes evidence for God, why you have not been convinced?
If yes, then what is it? This way, the river of communication will flow.

Is there evidence of God's existence or not?

Techically, yes, everything.

You can start with any number of assumptions - but unless there is evidence that those assumptions are true you are in the same position.

I cannot imagine what you mean by 'evidence' in this context.
If God is pure spirit, and the source of everything, as explained in the great scriptures, how can any one thing be accepted as evidence to the exclusion of everything else?

As for "what evidence would satisfy my enquiry"... that would depend upon which god you are referring to. Please tell me the qualities of your particular flavour of god and we'll start from there.

The being to which no being is greater than or equal to.

I have explained why it is often done. It might only appear as you think due to your inability to understand the reasoning behind it.

*ad-hominem noted*
Then please enlighten me as to the 'real' reasoning behind it.

All theistic religions have at their core the belief in the existence of a god. As such they CAN be rationally grouped together when referring solely to THAT aspect.

As long as it is kept to THAT aspect.
In the same way you can say that all humans who wear clothing are to be lumped together as cloth-wearing group.

What is grossly ignorant about this?
What would be "purposeful and dishonest deception" about this?

Do you want to further this discussion with use of scriptures?

Logic.
If you doubt it - please provide a third option.

That is not an answer. Please provide one, or we may as well move on.

Theism and atheism are matters of belief.
Agnosticism is a matter of knowledge.
Many of us atheists are also agnostic.
In a Venn-diagram they would overlap.
If you want I can elaborate some more to further explain how it is YOU who are mis-guided.

I understand this as analasys, but it bears no relation to real, everyday life.
In the same way that Elvis is NOT really the king of rock & roll, and Maddona, is NOT the queen of pop, even though it would appear that way.

I think you'll find that an impossibility. But nevermind.

Am being light-hearted.

Apologies, my mistake - you seem to think I care whether you believed me or not.

I think you do care.
Honesty is the best policy...or so they say.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Assuming this, then what type of evidence would you need to believe it is correct?

If the assumption you make is that "God is everything" then please explain why one should lump "everything" together and call it "God"?
What is God that is more than merely "everything"? If there is nothing else then God is a redundant label.

Do you have a preset expectation of what constitutes evidence for God, why you have not been convinced?

Empirical evidence. But other than that it depends on the flavour of god being discussed.

Techically, yes, everything.

Technically, no - everything is merely evidence for the existence of everything. It is NOT evidence for God - unless you merely label "everything" as God - in which case God is a redundant label as it adds nothing to what "everything" already is. And thus does not exist other than as a label.
The same way that if I label a chair as God then I can provide evidence of God's existence by pointing to the chair.
So is God more than merely "everything"? If so - what?

I cannot imagine what you mean by 'evidence' in this context.
If God is pure spirit, and the source of everything, as explained in the great scriptures, how can any one thing be accepted as evidence to the exclusion of everything else?

If you can not provide the evidence, it remains irrational for one to believe it as truth.
You can state assumptions all you like (e.g. God is pure spirit, God is the source of everything) but without evidence... well, I hope you're beginning to see.

The being to which no being is greater than or equal to.

We've had this debate on another thread and this being can not logically exist AND be the creator - as creation implies a lack - and there would be a greater being who does not have that lack - and thus does not have the need to create.

Then please enlighten me as to the 'real' reasoning behind it.

I did. And look - you responded to it... go figure!

As long as it is kept to THAT aspect.
In the same way you can say that all humans who wear clothing are to be lumped together as cloth-wearing group.

Correct - when discussing , for example, that aspect of their animal behaviour.

Do you want to further this discussion with use of scriptures?

Sure - if you can provide evidence that they are more than just an appeal to authority. Unless you can do that you are merely starting with unsupported assumptions. And I have explained the irrationality of that position.

That is not an answer. Please provide one, or we may as well move on.

I am sorry you do not see it as an answer. I suggest the fault lies with you - and that this is a deliberate attempt to cover your error.

I understand this as analasys, but it bears no relation to real, everyday life.

Yes it does.
Or is this just another attempt to cover up your erroneous statements and analysis?

In the same way that Elvis is NOT really the king of rock & roll, and Maddona, is NOT the queen of pop, even though it would appear that way.

Strawman fallacy - and utterly irrelevent.
The terms Agnostic and Atheist are NOT metaphors.

I think you do care.

Again - irrelevant.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

If the assumption you make is that "God is everything" then please explain why one should lump "everything" together and call it "God"?

That's not what I said.

Empirical evidence. But other than that it depends on the flavour of god being discussed.

Quit playing games.

Technically, no - everything is merely evidence for the existence of everything.

So the existence of your computer is evidence for the existence of your computer, nothing else.
Seems like a dead-end concept.

If you can not provide the evidence, it remains irrational for one to believe it as truth.

Give me an example of "evidence" in this context.

You can state assumptions all you like (e.g. God is pure spirit, God is the source of everything) but without evidence... well, I hope you're beginning to see.

What would you regard as "evidence" that God is pure spirit?

We've had this debate on another thread and this being can not logically exist AND be the creator - as creation implies a lack - and there would be a greater being who does not have that lack - and thus does not have the need to create.

Nonesense reasoning.
It appears you want God not to exist.

Sure - if you can provide evidence that they are more than just an appeal to authority. Unless you can do that you are merely starting with unsupported assumptions. And I have explained the irrationality of that position.

I'll take that as a no then.

I am sorry you do not see it as an answer. I suggest the fault lies with you - and that this is a deliberate attempt to cover your error.

So you can't answer it then?
Why don't you just say so?

Yes it does.

You said; Theism and atheism are matters of belief.
Agnosticism is a matter of knowledge.
Many of us atheists are also agnostic.
In a Venn-diagram they would overlap.
If you want I can elaborate some more to further explain how it is YOU who are mis-guided.

Explain how this broad, generalisation has relevance to the everyday person, in their everyday life.

Or is this just another attempt to cover up your erroneous statements and analysis?

What errorneous statements?

Strawman fallacy - and utterly irrelevent.
The terms Agnostic and Atheist are NOT metaphors.

They are broad generalisations.

Again - irrelevant.

Lighten-up dude.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

That's not what I said.

No - it was implied.

So the existence of your computer is evidence for the existence of your computer.

"Everything" and "computer" are not synonymous. Analogy is thus flawed.

What would you regard as "evidence" that God is pure spirit?

You tell me - you're the one that believes it.
You obviously aren't content that people require evidence, and are unwilling to have a belief in something for which no evidence can be provided? Why is that? What is the cause of this apparent deep-rooted dissatisfaction you feel?

Nonesense reasoning.

Only to those who wish to ignore the logic of it - or don't understand it.

It appears you want God not to exist.

Why would I want God to not exist?
I would love God to exist - and an afterlife. But I have no evidence of either.
I merely choose not to be irrational; and not believe in something where there is a lack of evidence.

I'll take that as a no then.

Take it however you want it - rational arguments seem to have little impact on you - as you seem to ignore or refute their validity without explanation, which I can only take as your inability to understand them.

So you can't answer it then?
Why don't you just say so?

My point above is proved.
I did answer it.
It was rationally argued.
You refute it without any explanation.
Q.E.D.

You said; Theism and atheism are matters of belief.
Agnosticism is a matter of knowledge.
Many of us atheists are also agnostic.
In a Venn-diagram they would overlap.
If you want I can elaborate some more to further explain how it is YOU who are mis-guided.

Explain how this broad, generalisation has relevance to the everyday person, in their everyday life.

1. They are NOT "broad, generalisation"s - they are fairly well defined terms. If you can not accept that then maybe you shouldn't have debates where these terms are used - as you will be continually prone to fallacious arguments as a result.

2. They are relevant to everyone in the way they lead their lives, the way they think, the way they treat others.

What errorneous statements?

Ah - the blinkered view of ignorance.

They are broad generalisations.

No they are not. See point made above.

Lighten-up dude.

I wish I could - but I like my food too much!

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

No - it was implied.

No it wasn't.
What was written is what was meant.

"Everything" and "computer" are not synonymous. Analogy is thus flawed.

Do you agree that a computer is a thing? Yes.
Then "everything" is all "things".
Analogy stands.

What would you regard as "evidence" that God is pure spirit?

You tell me - you're the one that believes it.

Excuse me while I get the air-freshner, question evasion carries a strong unpleasent scent.

You obviously aren't content that people require evidence, and are unwilling to have a belief in something for which no evidence can be provided?

It has nothing to do with dis-content, I just require an explanation of what kind of evidence you require.
You don't have one do you?

Why is that? What is the cause of this apparent deep-rooted dissatisfaction you feel?

*yawn*
I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that.

Only to those who wish to ignore the logic of it - or don't understand it.

Explain it, then lets see if your analasys is correct.

Why would I want God to not exist?
I would love God to exist - and an afterlife. But I have no evidence of either.
I merely choose not to be irrational; and not believe in something where there is a lack of evidence.

What evidence would do you require in order to believe in God?

1. They are NOT "broad, generalisation"s - they are fairly well defined terms. If you can not accept that then maybe you shouldn't have debates where these terms are used - as you will be continually prone to fallacious arguments as a result.

I understand the terms, just as I understand the term Elvis is the king of rock and roll, but the day to day reality is a different story.

2. They are relevant to everyone in the way they lead their lives, the way they think, the way they treat others.

What is truly relevant is experience, knowledge, and understanding, these terminolgies offer very little of the last two, and none of the first.

I wish I could - but I like my food too much!

Ah! Humour.
That make this discussion worth while.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

What was written is what was meant.

Unfortunately that does not remove its implications.

Do you agree that a computer is a thing? Yes.
Then "everything" is all "things".
Analogy stands.

Is a computer ALL things? No. Analogy falls.

Excuse me while I get the air-freshner, question evasion carries a strong unpleasent scent.

I guessed you would have one handy given your own predilection to such manoeuvres.

It has nothing to do with dis-content, I just require an explanation of what kind of evidence you require.

I have answered already... empirical evidence that can ONLY be rationally considered as evidence for God.

You don't have one do you?

If someone was to take me outside our universe and show me how they created ours - that would do.

*yawn*
I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that.

My psychology 101 not working on you? Ah well.

Explain it, then lets see if your analasys is correct.

1. Creation implies lack (you create things to fill a void - emotional, physical etc).
Therefore one does not create if one has no lack.
Thus the Creator God is not the greatest conceivable.
Which implies multiple gods.
But the greater god would be only one.
And would not create.

2. Furthermore, your argument relies on "existence" being a property that makes something greater. This is flawed - in that existence does not alter the properties of either the idea or the real object. e.g. the properties of an imaginary apple do not change by making it real.

Existence is thus irrelevant to the properties of the thing in question.
Thus while you could imagine a being greater than any other - existence is not required.

Sufficient for you?

What evidence would do you require in order to believe in God?

Anything that defies not only our existing knowledge of the laws of physics / chemistry, but the objectively true laws.

I understand the terms, just as I understand the term Elvis is the king of rock and roll, but the day to day reality is a different story.

But you admit they are not broad generalisations?
And the day to day reality is not a different story, and the terms remain non-metaphorical.
Your analogy is flawed.

What is truly relevant is experience, knowledge, and understanding, these terminolgies offer very little of the last two, and none of the first.

These terminologies explain a great deal of all three. While it is true that the default position is one of atheism (i.e. a lack of experience results in an atheistic position), it is usually most people's experience, knowledge and understanding that lead them to a position of atheism and/or agnosticism.
Whereas in my experience it is a lack of knowledge and understanding that keeps people within the realms of theism.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Do you agree that a computer is a thing? Yes.
Then "everything" is all "things".
Analogy stands.

May I also point out that this analogy not only falls because "computer" <> "everything"; but also existence of everything is only evidence of the existence of everything...that is observable. "God" has yet to be proved to be a subset of "everything".

'Analogy falls'.

Hi Jan!

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

Do you agree that a computer is a thing? Yes.
Then "everything" is all "things".
Analogy stands.


.

Do you believe computers have souls then? After all computers can beat human beings a chess, once thought to be the preserve of us empathetic beings.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Unfortunately that does not remove its implications.

"If God is the source of everything, then everything is evidence of God"

Please point out said implications?

Is a computer ALL things? No. Analogy falls.

It has the same essential properties/characteristics, of "all things",
so can be used as a representation of those essential properties/characteristics.
Analogy stands.

I have answered already... empirical evidence that can ONLY be rationally considered as evidence for God.

Such as?

If someone
was to take me outside our universe and show me how they created ours - that would do.

Accepting something that is a physical impossibility, is another way of saying God's existence is impossiblie. Your position is,
you believe God does not exist, so why ask for evidence?
Do you think that is rational?

1. Creation implies lack (you create things to fill a void - emotional, physical etc).

It also implies 'necessity", ie, the government creates prisons to house prisoners.

Therefore one does not create if one has no lack.

Read above.

2. Furthermore, your argument relies on "existence" being a property that makes something greater. This is flawed - in that existence does not alter the properties of either the idea or the real object. e.g. the properties of an imaginary apple do not change by making it real.

No, it relies on "necessary existence".
God is a necessary being
If his existence is possible, then he must exist
If his existence is impossible then he cannot exist
Gods existence is possible
Therefore God must exist

Anything that defies not only our existing knowledge of the laws of physics / chemistry, but the objectively true laws.

How would you define such phenomenon as God, as opposed random acts of nature?

But you admit they are not broad generalisations?

You define yourself, an atheist, as lacking belief in God, god, or gods, this definition (lack), has varying
degrees, as many as there are people (and then some).
You have merely assigned yourself to one degree, and claimed that as atheist. The famous atheist Anthony Flew is
a perfect example of these variants. During the
years of his atheist campaigning, at some point he must have began to doubt his position, whilst still upholding his position, until finally he decided to become a theist.

erminologies explain a great deal of all three. While it is true that the default position is one of atheism (i.e. a lack of experience results in an atheistic position), it is usually most people's experience, knowledge and understanding that lead them to a position of atheism and/or agnosticism.
Whereas in my experience it is a lack of knowledge and understanding that keeps people within the realms of theism.

The default position, imo, is "a lack of experience, knowledge, and understand, not atheism. During this period "belief" is the only way to develop, "non-belief" does not enter into it. Experience, knowledge, and understanding, leads one to understand that there must be God whom we are dependant upon. As you said you "lack belief in God", meaning something is missing from your experience, knowledge, and understanding. This is atheism.

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Hi Enterprise-D,

May I also point out that this analogy not only falls because "computer" <> "everything";

Read my response to Sarkus.

but also existence of everything is only evidence of the existence of everything...that is observable. "God" has yet to be proved to be a subset of "everything".

I did not say or mean "subset", I said the "source" of everything.

NEXT!!

GoM,

Do you believe computers have souls then?

Come on, you should know the answer to that one.

After all computers can beat human beings a chess, once thought to be the preserve of us empathetic beings.

Cars can move faster than human beings, cranes can life more weight than human beings, need I go on. What is interesting is that these things ARE evidence of human beings.

Sorry....what was your point again.

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

"If God is the source of everything, then everything is evidence of God"
Please point out said implications?

Apologies - I thought you were of the opinion that God was not distinct from his supposed creation - and that you were using "source" as analogous to "part of".
I stand corrected.
So you must therefore think that your God is distinct from his creation?
This, through my reasoning already given, makes him not the greatest imaginable - due to the lack he obviously had.

It has the same essential properties/characteristics, of "all things",
so can be used as a representation of those essential properties/characteristics.
Analogy stands.

You have yet to prove that "computer" has the "same essential properties/characteristics". Your logic is thus fallacious.

Analogy falls.

Accepting something that is a physical impossibility, is another way of saying God's existence is impossiblie.

Not true at all.
Remember, I am an agnostic as well as an atheist.
I consider that knowledge of God, if he exists, is inherently unobtainable within this Universe, although I remain to be corrected on this matter.

Your request of "what evidence would suit" is something I can not answer, not because I am an atheist but because I am an agnostic.

And because of my agnosticism I am also an atheist - because I lack that evidence.

Your position is, you believe God does not exist, so why ask for evidence?

This is NOT my position.
There might well be a god sitting just outside our Universe, with our Universe in his hands. And when we die he might extract our souls and we live eternally in his presence. This MIGHT be true. I don't know if it's possible or not as I don't know what's outside our Universe.
But if it is, can there be any evidence obtainable within this Universe?

Can you not imagine something outside our Universe that is unable to provide evidence to those within the Universe?

Do you think that is rational?

I know your thinking is not rational - as you seem to equate "I think something is impossible to prove" to "I think that something is impossible".
I do hope you can see why these things are not the same?

It also implies 'necessity", ie, the government creates prisons to house prisoners.

A necessity that arises through LACK (i.e. a LACK of prisons).

Read above.

Read counter above.

No, it relies on "necessary existence".
God is a necessary being
If his existence is possible, then he must exist
If his existence is impossible then he cannot exist
Gods existence is possible
Therefore God must exist

Why is God a "necessary being"?
And isn't the possibility of God's existence what this argument is trying to show - so how can you say God's existence is possible? Show that God's existence is possible! I'm not saying it is or isn't - but show that it IS possible.
You are doing nothing here but begging the question.

How would you define such phenomenon as God, as opposed random acts of nature?

Thus we must first know the objective true laws.

You define yourself, an atheist, as lacking belief in God, god, or gods, this definition (lack), has varying degrees, as many as there are people (and then some).

No - it is black and white.
You either have a belief in god(s) or you don't.

Take the noun "Men" - each man is subtly different from each other - but they are all "men". You can basically point to someone and say they are a man or not based on the existence or lack of the obvious attribute.

Likewise "theists/atheists" is determined by the existence or lack of the ONE attribute (belief in god/gods/God etc).

You have merely assigned yourself to one degree, and claimed that as atheist.

The famous atheist Anthony Flew is a perfect example of these variants. During the years of his atheist campaigning, at some point he must have began to doubt his position, whilst still upholding his position, until finally he decided to become a theist.

He would undoubtedly gone through stages of doubt - but while he did not have believe in the existence of god/gods/God etc he was atheist. While he did have that belief he was theist.

The default position, imo, is "a lack of experience, knowledge, and understand, not atheism. During this period "belief" is the only way to develop, "non-belief" does not enter into it. Experience, knowledge, and understanding, leads one to understand that there must be God whom we are dependant upon. As you said you "lack belief in God", meaning something is missing from your experience, knowledge, and understanding. This is atheism.

Ridiculous and irrational.
It is experience, knowledge, and understanding that leads one to break the shackles of one's indoctrination and become an atheist again.

"Belief" is NOT the only way to develop.
Experience and, through that, knowledge and understanding are the way we develop.
Experience is achieved through living.
Knowledge and understanding are best achieved through the scientific method.

"Belief" does not enter into it.
"Belief" is a stop-gap for those who can't seem to do without what they see as essential knowledge/understanding - and is brought about through their perceived lack of these things.

 

[GhostofMaxwell.]

Cars can move faster than human beings, cranes can life more weight than human beings, need I go on. What is interesting is that these things ARE evidence of human beings.

Sorry....what was your point again.

Jan.

The point was: To be a grand master at chess one needs empathy and the ability to sacrifice for a greater reward. This was argued to be exclusive to conscious beings.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

This, through my reasoning already given, makes him not the greatest imaginable - due to the lack he obviously had.

God is NOT distinct from his creation, in the same way Da Vinci is NOT distinct from the Mona Lisa, or you are not distinct from your responses.

You have yet to prove that "computer" has the "same essential properties/characteristics". Your logic is thus fallacious.

Analogy falls.

The computer is composed of matter, "everything" is composed of matter.
Analogy stands.

Not true at all.
Remember, I am an agnostic as well as an atheist.
I consider that knowledge of God, if he exists, is inherently unobtainable within this Universe, although I remain to be corrected on this matter.

What is the critirea(on) on which you base this consideration?

Your request of "what evidence would suit" is something I can not answer, not because I am an atheist but because I am an agnostic.
And because of my agnosticism I am also an atheist - because I lack that evidence.

So your position is this; i do not know whether or not evidence exists to prove God, hence i do not KNOW whether God exists (non-position), but i do not believe in God due to lack of evidence.
Care to unravel? :shrug:

This is NOT my position.
There might well be a god sitting just outside our Universe, with our Universe in his hands. And when we die he might extract our souls and we live eternally in his presence. This MIGHT be true. I don't know if it's possible or not as I don't know what's outside our Universe.
But if it is, can there be any evidence obtainable within this Universe?

That depends on your definition of God.
By my definition, the answer is yes, most notebly, the universe in its entirety.

Can you not imagine something outside our Universe that is unable to provide evidence to those within the Universe?

I suppose I can, but I cannot imagine God as this being, as it would be contradictory.

I know your thinking is not rational - as you seem to equate "I think something is impossible to prove" to "I think that something is impossible".
I do hope you can see why these things are not the same?

I don't think, you think either, i believe you make the assumption that God is impossible, because he is impossible to prove, by your very standard of what constitutes proof, i.e. physical evidence of Gods existence. You obviously haven't thought it through properly.

A necessity that arises through LACK (i.e. a LACK of prisons).

But not a "LACK" within his self.

Why is God a "necessary being"?

Because a being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that doesn't necessarily exist in reality.

Show that God's existence is possible! I'm not saying it is or isn't - but show that it IS possible.

Show that God's existence is impossible, I'm not saying it is or isn't.
If something cannot be shown to be impossible, then possiblity always remains.

Thus we must first know the objective true laws.

And do you?

He would undoubtedly gone through stages of doubt - but while he did not have believe in the existence of god/gods/God etc he was atheist. While he did have that belief he was theist.

So you think for most his life he was absolutely atheist, then in the next moment he became a theist?

Ridiculous and irrational.
It is experience, knowledge, and understanding that leads one to break the shackles of one's indoctrination and become an atheist again.

Please explain how this is so, and also how one becomes an atheist again?

"Belief" is NOT the only way to develop.
Experience and, through that, knowledge and understanding are the way we develop.

A new baby does not have these attributes, but he/she has to trust that some unknown force will provide for its needs. It understands almost straight away that if it cries, it gets help, but has no idea as to who, or what is helping, or why. This is development of belief. Atheism supresses this development belief, it is an incomplete state.

"Belief" does not enter into it.
"Belief" is a stop-gap for those who can't seem to do without what they see as essential knowledge/understanding - and is brought about through their perceived lack of these things.

So how would that have worked with Anthony Flew?

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

God is NOT distinct from his creation, in the same way Da Vinci is NOT distinct from the Mona Lisa, or you are not distinct from your responses.

I am distinct from my responses when other mediums and material elements are involved.
The Mona Lisa is only NOT distinct from Da Vinci in so far as his mental image of his painting is concerned.
The painting of Mona Lisa IS DISTINCT from Da Vinci.
The painting of course can tell us much of Da Vinci - but only in so far as his technique etc is concerned - not much else. It can't tell us if he had a mole on his left cheek, for example.

The computer is composed of matter, "everything" is composed of matter.
Analogy stands.

So you now claim that "everything" is composed of matter? This is a far cry from your previous discussions, is it not?
Please provide evidence that everything is made of matter.
I concede that you can prove that the computer is - but what about "everything"?

Analogy falls.

What is the critirea(on) on which you base this consideration?

Lack of evidence.

So your position is this; i do not know whether or not evidence exists to prove God, hence i do not KNOW whether God exists (non-position), but i do not believe in God due to lack of evidence.
Care to unravel?

That's more or less correct - but added to that is the position that I am not even sure that it is possible to know whether God exists or not.

I do not have evidence.
I do not know whether evidence exists or not - or even if it is possible.
Through these two I am an Agnostic.

Because I lack evidence - I do not hold the belief that God exists.
Through this I am an Atheist.

Unravelled enough for you?

That depends on your definition of God.
By my definition, the answer is yes, most notebly, the universe in its entirety.

But through your definition it is mere circular reasoning...
You define God as "everything" (that which nothing greater can be conceived - and I'm sure you can't conceive of anything greater than everything?) - thus "everything" must be God (and thus evidence for God).

So I go back to my earlier comment:
WHY lump "everything" together and call it God?
WHY not just refer to it as "everything"?
What extra does your God have/do that is worthy of this personification of "everything"?

I suppose I can, but I cannot imagine God as this being, as it would be contradictory.

I am just glad that you admit the possibility.
Now - why would it be contradictory to imagine God as this being?

I don't think, you think either, i believe you make the assumption that God is impossible, because he is impossible to prove, by your very standard of what constitutes proof, i.e. physical evidence of Gods existence. You obviously haven't thought it through properly.

Again you miss the difference.
I think that God is possibly impossible to prove - especially if it is claimed to be "non-material".
However I certainly do NOT thus make the assumption that God is impossible. I have never made this assumption, and I challenge you to point out where I have ever said that.

But not a "LACK" within his self.

Yes it is:
Your example: "the government creates prisons to house prisoners".
This is a "lack" within itself of PRISONS.
If there had already existed prisons - no creation of prisons would have been needed.
How is this not a "LACK"?

Because a being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that doesn't necessarily exist in reality.

But if God is "necessary" then he must exist in every world/universe etc.
Yet I can conceive of a world/universe where he doesn't exist - so God must be necessarily non-existent.

We could go round the houses on the Ontological Argument, Jan. I have no real intention to. For every defense of the OA there is a counter, and then another defense etc.

Show that God's existence is impossible, I'm not saying it is or isn't.
If something cannot be shown to be impossible, then possiblity always remains.

As does impossibility. And neither actually provides proof of one position or the other.
Thus the rational position - in the absence of evidence - is one of non-belief (as opposed to belief in non-existence)

And do you?

Nope.

So you think for most his life he was absolutely atheist, then in the next moment he became a theist?

I am not too au fait with the story of his life.
My point is that until you have "a belief in existence" you are atheist.
There might be a time where he swapped moment to moment between the two - as he continually thought things through.
But you can not be atheist AND theist at the same time. They are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Please explain how this is so, and also how one becomes an atheist again?

It will of course be different for all people, depending upon experiences to date - as well as someone's knowledge and ability to understand reason.

A new baby does not have these attributes, but he/she has to trust that some unknown force will provide for its needs. It understands almost straight away that if it cries, it gets help, but has no idea as to who, or what is helping, or why. This is development of belief.

LOL! That is not development of belief. It is a prime example of the scientific method in action.
The baby garners experience... EVIDENCE... that if it cries it gets help.
It formulates a simple theory (subconsciously) that if everytime it needs help it starts to cry then it will get that help.
It cries - it is helped - fulfilling the prediction of the subconscious theory and reinforcing it.

Scientific Method in practice, Jan.

As the baby grows up it starts to learn (through increased experience, and through memory - KNOWLEDGE) that crying doesn't always work - so it must refine its subconscious theories.
Again - scientific method - in practice.
THIS is learning.
THIS is how we develop.

Atheism supresses this development belief, it is an incomplete state.

How so? This is a confidence statement, Jan. Nothing more.

So how would that have worked with Anthony Flew?

I couldn't say - I am not him nor do I know too much about him.

But I am not going to start appealing to authorities.

 

[Enmos]

Atheism is NOT a belief.

 

[Dinosaur]

This thread posed the following:

Lets have some convincing arguments for atheism, that do NOT involve any talk about theism, theists or morality.

Why is atheism the better option?

Attempts to prove the validity of one view or the other do not seem pertinent to the original concept of the thread. All such posts seem to me to be irrelavant, and surely require some reference to the theist view.

Furthermore, attempts to prove one view or the other cannot be provided. The issue concerns belief, not logic. By definition, belief is beyond logic. If I truly believe in leprachauns or invisible pink unicorns, neither logic nor the absence of evidence for my belief will convince me that they do not exist. Similarly, I could not provide proof of their existence which would convince a non believer.

The most one can hope for on issues such as this are cognent arguments. Give up on proofs.

The only answer I can provide is the following.

• The atheist view seems consistent with the perception of reality provided by my brain processing of sensory inputs.

I might be able to provide some further support for my view, but it would be contrary to the the restriction imposed by the originator of this thread:

. . . . that do NOT involve any talk about theism, theists or morality.

This restriction precludes most cogent arguments.

Suppose I started the following thread:

• Tell me why you disbelieve evolution without mentioning the fossil record, natural selction, mutations, DNA analysis, et cetera.

The most you could say is that you believe that creationism or Intelligent design provides a satisfactory explanation for our existence.