How do smart atheists construct their arguments against God?

[jpappl]

LT,

Well for the atheist its the unfortunate situation of trying to prove a negative. There is no conclusive proof for or against, so as your earlier stated occums is still applicable. But to use occums for me it would come down to this;

Atheist start of creation theory – there was a singularity, how did it get there? we don’t know.

Theist start of creation theory – there was a singularity, how did it get there? God created it, how did god get there? we don’t know.

Atheist has one less entity / assumption so goes with occum..

(I just choose not to use it, it is a tool that we may use not an obligation)

I am curious LT, what do you choose not to use it.

Trying to prove something does not exist is impossible. And since you seem very reasonable, I would assume that you would admit that your belief is based purely on faith, IOW you aren't claiming to know god exists. Otherwise, maybe you can offer more detail as to why you believe that is the case.

The issue I have is that your equating the lack of evidence with no evidence against. They are not the same.

The lack of evidence should not allow you to claim no evidence against as reason for god.

Some of these questions don't have answers, at least not yet.

So why add another assumption ?

What value does adding god in there when you know the next question makes it a mute point ?

 

[river-wind]

Why should atheists have to provide evidence against the positive claim of the existence of a super-powered creator being? Given that such a being's existence is not obvious (evidenced by the mere fact that this discussion exists), then *supporting* evidence is required, not negating evidence.

If I claimed that there existed a teapot somewhere in space out past mars, is it your responsibility to prove me wrong?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Actually God has never made any claims about reality.

Agreed. Something that doesn't exist cannot make claims .

Men have made claims about what god has said about reality. What can be disproved is that the claims men make about god are false.

Correct again! Keep in mind that many religions state that 'God' or some other paranormal agent of 'God' gave men words to write in holy books that were the "word of God".

I am sure you can see the logic that if god had indeed made a claim of any sort he therefore must exist.

Of course!

 

[Light Travelling]

LT,
I am curious LT, what do you choose not to use it.
Some of these questions don't have answers, at least not yet.
So why add another assumption ?
What value does adding god in there when you know the next question makes it a mute point ?

The creation example I gave earlier was a little flippant and does not represent my views but that of a typical theist as usually defined on this forum.

Why I do not use it, my view on creation is that it is unfathomable. We should consider creation as beginningless. There may indeed be multiverses and universes within universes (according to both latest science and religion (eastern)). Science, relying on empirical evidence will never be able to measure outside of the constraints of time and space, and before creation there was no time and space (otherwise how were time and space created). God, as creator, falls short on logical argument. And science proposing random springing into existence is as useful as saying “there was a…..” as a starting point.

We can measure the starting point of our current universe and study the way in which it moves and behaves. That has value. But we will never get back to the point before creation in a way we can measure and prove, so all we will ever have is endless theorising, and what good does that do us.

The issue I have is that your equating the lack of evidence with no evidence against. They are not the same.
The lack of evidence should not allow you to claim no evidence against as reason for god

I do not claim no evidence against, proves god. God can be no more proved than disproved. Whether there is any logic to god largely comes down to definition. My definition is;

A god that is not living in part of the universe or living outside of the universe, but IS the universe. That is not to say a god of inanimate matter, but an intelligent conscious universe that is in its entirety an intelligent and conscious god. This is not something I have made up but an established theology of the non dualistic Advaita Hindu schools of thought.
Within this man is a part of that conscious god and we are far more intertwined with and connected to the rest of the universe than we realise. There is science that leads in generally the same direction as well (not to the existence of god, but to our interconnectedness with the universe)some of the work of David Bohm and Kark Pribram should be considered.

Why should atheists have to provide evidence against the positive claim of the existence of a super-powered creator being? Given that such a being's existence is not obvious (evidenced by the mere fact that this discussion exists), then *supporting* evidence is required, not negating evidence.

Well that’s exactly it, atheists don’t have to provide evidence against the existence of god, all they have to do is not believe. It seems many insist on trying to disprove god, which as you said can’t be done. Many theists will also try to prove god, which also cant be done.

However much we want to objectify the universe, our existence remains largely subjective.. in fact entirly subjective. I know we can agree that a table is a table, but noone can ever live anothers life, experience anothers beingness..

 

[jpappl]

LT,

We can measure the starting point of our current universe and study the way in which it moves and behaves. That has value. But we will never get back to the point before creation in a way we can measure and prove, so all we will ever have is endless theorising, and what good does that do us.

But what you are doing here is adding the additional assumption when one is not needed.

Your more defined answer still brings you back to this:

there was a singularity, how did it get there? we don’t know

That is all that is needed. What you're doing from here is answering a question that has no answer. At least not yet.

So, what are the chances that the answer is correct ?

I do not claim no evidence against, proves god. God can be no more proved than disproved. Whether there is any logic to god largely comes down to definition. My definition is;

A god that is not living in part of the universe or living outside of the universe, but IS the universe. That is not to say a god of inanimate matter, but an intelligent conscious universe that is in its entirety an intelligent and conscious god. This is not something I have made up but an established theology of the non dualistic Advaita Hindu schools of thought.
Within this man is a part of that conscious god and we are far more intertwined with and connected to the rest of the universe than we realise. There is science that leads in generally the same direction as well (not to the existence of god, but to our interconnectedness with the universe)some of the work of David Bohm and Kark Pribram should be considered.

Yes and I understand that one of the ideas is cyclic time where we have been here before etc. Which one could argue there should be mountains of evidence to support the claim. That is something that if I held such a belief that I would scrutinize a little more.

Beyond that, the above definition of god makes it indistinguishable from no god because there is nothing to separate itself from what is.

So considering this, I would be curious to know where this god, which is part of everything, comes into play when you consider a tsunami that wipes out 200,000.

What caused the entity to do something like that.

Realizing that we understand the science behind how the wave is created, just not whether a god was behind it.

 

[jpappl]

LT,

I know we can agree that a table is a table

Good, for a moment I thought we were going to end up in one of those discussions.

 

[Light Travelling]

LT,
So considering this, I would be curious to know where this god, which is part of everything, comes into play when you consider a tsunami that wipes out 200,000.
What caused the entity to do something like that.

Realizing that we understand the science behind how the wave is created, just not whether a god was behind it.

God does not have to be anthropomorphic, deciding “I am going to cause a tsunami tomorrow”

God comes into play as the tsunami and also as the people that died in it. People are god too. God moves in cycles; destroying; renewing; expanding; collapsing. We view the deaths as bad (as I do) because we have evolved a mind that constanly seeks comfort in the discerning of good and bad, right and wrong and taking the side of our version of good. But objectively the tsunami nor the deaths were either good nor bad.

Some eastern religion seeks to unify our dualistc mind and claim that is the only way to perceive the true nature of reality.


You may think under my definition there is no point in calling god, god. But for me the difference is important between a universe of interconnecting communicating consciousness at subtle levels that were are involved in, as opposed to disparate matter with only limited pockets of consciousness, that we are largely separate from.

 

[jpappl]

LT,

God comes into play as the tsunami and also as the people that died in it. People are god too. God moves in cycles; destroying; renewing; expanding; collapsing. We view the deaths as bad (as I do) because we have evolved a mind that constanly seeks comfort in the discerning of good and bad, right and wrong and taking the side of our version of good. But objectively the tsunami nor the deaths were either good nor bad.

Ok

You may think under my definition there is no point in calling god, god. But for me the difference is important between a universe of interconnecting communicating consciousness at subtle levels that were are involved in, as opposed to disparate matter with only limited pockets of consciousness, that we are largely separate from.

Well the idea of some interconnected communicating consciousness is a claim for a higher power, but what is not defined here is what kind of control if any it exerts. It appears that you don't want to give it any control so I am not sure how it can be a god when it really is just what is, ie reality.

That is not really a case for god. It's more like the GAIA theory for the universe.

"The Gaia hypothesis, Gaia theory or Gaia principle is a controversial ecological hypothesis or theory proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeorhesis."

So I guess if we are going to water it down to being within us yet having no control other than to move energy from one form to another, then what's the point in calling it god. Since we can not separate it from ourselves and everything we interact with.

Which is why I questioned the additional assumption.

By the way I believe the universe is teaming with life wherever it can take hold. I don't hold any specific belief about exactly how it happened or happens but I do believe that in time there will be more evidence gathered to add credibility to this theory.

http://leiwenwu.tripod.com/panspermia.htm

http://leiwenwu.tripod.com/davies.htm

What I have issue with is the constant regards to Earth and Mars on the link. As I see it, these seeds of life are tossed out across the entire universe and will take hold anywhere they can, not just in our solar system.

So if this holds true, we can expect to find microbial life at least on almost every planet where it can possibly exist.

 

[scifes]

this sums it up nicely;

When you know and can demonstrate 1+1=2, do you "correct yourself" to the "possibility" that 1+1=3?

wasn't that "correction" is what lead you to 1+1=2 in the first place??

 

[wynn]

Incorrect.

Literally translated, it means: do not multiply entities beyond necessity.

See: OR

for example.

Considering something a "necessity" is a matter of values.

 

[wynn]

Because that would be to introduce an element of circularity (assuming that you believe that a deity is similarly engaged in said Values).

In any case, I don't believe that these Values are anything but social constructions, and as such, though they may indeed, as you note, factor into my life, they certainly wouldn't factor in to any notion of a deity.

There is no circularity if we agree to the stipulation that scriptures are the revealed word of the Controller of the Universe.

 

[Yosef]

Simply because they are not adhereing to such texts as the bible or quran with obvious mistakes (creation stories) that if considered literal are just wrong. Period. So in those cases it takes someone who uses the texts as a guide to even have a chance to discuss it somewhat rationally.

IOW, if they are a creationist you don't have a chance.

Do you know that scientists disagree as how the Moon was created? No one is sure how it was placed there. I am talking about the Moon which is only 1,3 light seconds away from earth. So you really think that numbers as how old is the earth or universe are accurate?!

 

[Dywyddyr]

Do you know that scientists disagree as how the Moon was created? No one is sure how it was placed there. I am talking about the Moon which is only 1,3 light seconds away from earth. So you really think that numbers as how old is the earth or universe are accurate?!

Do you know what the guy across the street had for breakfast? Bet you don't.
So you really think you know how old you really are?


Uncertainty about any one (or more) question in science does not imply equal (or any uncertainty) in other questions. Do try thinking.

 

[Sarkus]

There is no circularity if we agree to the stipulation that scriptures are the revealed word of the Controller of the Universe.

Very much like saying "If we agree to the stipulation that I am correct, then you are wrong", right? And your stipulation is introducing an a priori assumption of God's existence... :shrug:

Further - you are suggesting you hold values that are given to you by a book that you hold to be the word of God, and these values provide you with justification for your belief in God.

[sarcasm]Hmmm - nothing circular here at all. [/sarcasm]

 

[(Q)]

How do smart atheists construct their arguments against God / against believing in God / against theistic topics ?

Considering there is only hypocrisy and contradiction in every theists claim or argument about their gods, one simply points those out. Simple.

There is the other side of the coin, though, and that is when theists start telling the rest of us how to live based on their dogma, or else. This is no longer an argument, but is instead a threat and should be dealt with as such.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

this sums it up nicely;

wasn't that "correction" is what lead you to 1+1=2 in the first place??

In a way. I value truth and 1+1=2 can be demonstrated as being true; therefore, I accept it as true. That is the benefit of evidence.

 

[Light Travelling]

LT,
"The Gaia hypothesis, Gaia theory or Gaia principle is a controversial ecological hypothesis or theory proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeorhesis."

I would have no objection to that theory. Now apply the same to the entire universe.

LT,
Well the idea of some interconnected communicating consciousness is a claim for a higher power, but what is not defined here is what kind of control if any it exerts. It appears that you don't want to give it any control so I am not sure how it can be a god when it really is just what is, ie reality.

So I guess if we are going to water it down to being within us yet having no control other than to move energy from one form to another, then what's the point in calling it god. Since we can not separate it from ourselves and everything we interact with.

It is not what god controls in this world, it is that we can realise god; realise that we are god and integrate our individual consciousness with the greater god consciousness (that greater consciousness does not have to be centralised in a central being). As if god is becoming self aware, that through the evolving individual consciousness, we can realise that we are nothing less than the universe itself. Scientifically that could be through evolution over billions of years, or mystically through a lifetime spent in meditative practice.

The universe expands, it is probably that, at some point it would contract, could a contracted universe give a central centre of consciousness – a god in the traditional sense and an expanded universe give a disparate consciousness that does not know it is god. Was the original centre of the universe also a centre of consciousness. Being the only thing in the universe that consciousness could not know itself as it had nothing to differentiate itself from, so it expanded become disparate and dualistic, now the universe in motion (god in motion) seeks to know itself, to become self aware. The purpose of the universe is to self realise – or god realise.

This is different from a random occurrence of matter that has no particular point or purpose.

 

[jpappl]

LT,

Originally Posted by jpappl
LT,
"The Gaia hypothesis, Gaia theory or Gaia principle is a controversial ecological hypothesis or theory proposing that the biosphere and the physical components of the Earth (atmosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere) are closely integrated to form a complex interacting system that maintains the climatic and biogeochemical conditions on Earth in a preferred homeorhesis." ”

I would have no objection to that theory. Now apply the same to the entire universe.

Yes, that is what I suggested here

"That is not really a case for god. It's more like the GAIA theory for the universe."

This is different from a random occurrence of matter that has no particular point or purpose.

Yes and I see where you are separating the two. Thanks for the additional description.

In one respect your offering a very tame view of god, but then again it's the universe were talking about. Although I don't have belief in this idea myself, it is a way to connect what we understand as reality and fit god in without contadiciton city.

 

[Yosef]

@Q

I sense that your issues are with theists not with the concept of God itself?! For me it is God and His attributes that are central for my belief system.

I just wanted to draw your attention to that possibility.

I look at the sky and I see a moon which is small in size and near in distance, and I see in addition a sun which is huge in size and far away. Yet, their apparent size on the sky is the same. There must some entity who decided to place them that way. It is an act of intention and of course an act of might.

But then let us say that there is no God, where does the moon, the sun, the planets, the galaxies with millions of light years distance between them all come from?!

 

[James R]

I look at the sky and I see a moon which is small in size and near in distance, and I see in addition a sun which is huge in size and far away. Yet, their apparent size on the sky is the same. There must some entity who decided to place them that way. It is an act of intention and of course an act of might.

Why can't it be chance?

You know that they are not exactly the same apparent size, I hope. Why not? Did your God make a mistake?

But then let us say that there is no God, where does the moon, the sun, the planets, the galaxies with millions of light years distance between them all come from?!

The universe is thought to have started with a big bang.