on God: The modernist's real problem.

[Lawdog]

dear Atheist: God does not really look like this,
this is an image you must illiminate before you can be happy about God.

Its not so much that modern men, and scientists, like many of you, do not believe in God (though here we do find many Atheists), true athiests are rare.

The problem is that modern men do not believe in the absolute SOVEREIGNTY of God.

 

[redarmy11]

How can someone believe in the sovereignty, or any other ascribed quality, of something that doesn't exist?

The 'problem' is that increasing numbers of modern men (oh, and women) reject the Holy scriptures as pie-in-the-sky.

It's no problem.

 

[Lawdog]

Its not so much that God does not exist, its that God's essence is his existance: i am that I am. the rest of us are contingent beings.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

dear Atheist: God does not really look like this,
this is an image you must illiminate before you can be happy about God.

Its not so much that modern men, and scientists, like many of you, do not believe in God (though here we do find many Atheists), true athiests are rare.

The problem is that modern men do not believe in the absolute SOVEREIGNTY of God.

*************
M*W: Just because someone in 1872 wrote a book about their belief in a god does not mean that god exists.

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

It is not that atheists do not accept the SOVEREIGNTY of the Christian god, but that they simply do not accept the claims made by theists that such a god exists, whatever he might look like.

Try to think this through a little differently: Atheists do not reject your god or deny him, it is deeper than that because for an atheist to make such a statement would be to recognize that a god exists in the first place. The atheist simply finds your claims for the very existence of a god unbelievable.

Most of your arguments begin with the assumption that a god exists and then you argue based on that. The atheist simply stops at the point of your assumption and the rest of what you say is essentially a waste of time.

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

Its not so much that God does not exist, its that God's essence is his existance: i am that I am. the rest of us are contingent beings.

And there you have the essence of your problem with debates here.

You offer no support for your assertions, so they become simply a waste of space on our screens.

 

[lightgigantic]

Lawdog,

It is not that atheists do not accept the SOVEREIGNTY of the Christian god, but that they simply do not accept the claims made by theists that such a god exists, whatever he might look like.

Try to think this through a little differently: Atheists do not reject your god or deny him, it is deeper than that because for an atheist to make such a statement would be to recognize that a god exists in the first place. The atheist simply finds your claims for the very existence of a god unbelievable.

Most of your arguments begin with the assumption that a god exists and then you argue based on that. The atheist simply stops at the point of your assumption and the rest of what you say is essentially a waste of time.

Well how does that make an atheist any different ? I mean an atheist begins from the assumption that god does not exist. The response is that there is no evidence for god - when it is proposed that the design of the universe suggests intelligence an atheist replies that there is scientific evidence that the universe does not have a creator - they progress to make this statement on their beginning conviction that god does exist (after all, the inductive knowledge required to prove god is also completely lacking in the statement that the universe doesn't require a designer - but they turn a blind eye to it since it suits their belief system) - in other words belief of the atheist shapes his ontological perspective

 

[KennyJC]

Well how does that make an atheist any different ? I mean an atheist begins from the assumption that god does not exist.

Wrong. Atheists begin with no assumption of the existence or non-existence of God. With no evidence either way, who can blame them?

The response is that there is no evidence for god - when it is proposed that the design of the universe suggests intelligence an atheist replies that there is scientific evidence that the universe does not have a creator

Really? Where is this scientific evidence? I think what you mean is that atheists will say that the scientific method finds no signs of an intelligent creator.

they progress to make this statement on their beginning conviction that god does exist (after all, the inductive knowledge required to prove god is also completely lacking in the statement that the universe doesn't require a designer - but they turn a blind eye to it since it suits their belief system) - in other words belief of the atheist shapes his ontological perspective

I believe it is more likely that the universe came to what it is today through a natural process without intelligent guidance. The theist counter to this is that the odds of such a thing are impossible, but we don't have all the facts in so we can't say wether it is impossible or innevitable. Besides, throwing an intelligent creator into the mix - in my eyes - makes the whole thing far more doubtful.

 

[lightgigantic]

I believe it is more likely that the universe came to what it is today through a natural process without intelligent guidance. The theist counter to this is that the odds of such a thing are impossible, but we don't have all the facts in so we can't say wether it is impossible or innevitable. Besides, throwing an intelligent creator into the mix - in my eyes - makes the whole thing far more doubtful.

When you start talking of the odds that the universe (and how all the stats aren't even in for an accurate guess) was not created by intelligence you are talking about deductive knowledge (as opposed to inductive knowledge) - that's my point though - atheists use deductive knowledge to say there is no god and criticize theists for knowledge that operates on the same principle. Their basis for criticism is not on the general principles that are used to arrive at a conclusion (because the general principles are identical to what an atheist uses to arrive at his own conclusion that god doesn't exist) - the basis is that the conclusion of the theist is diametrically opposed to their own.

 

[Weirdomandude]

The reason that atheist can use that argument is because they follow the premise. What theists (discluding deists) believe in is that something bountiful, greater than the physical world surrounds them. In math, they believe in a free variable existing there. With this variable, all possibilities exist. Infinite realities must also exist bring forth the paradox of infinity. The infinite may not exist in the finite world.
All of this connects to everything else: free will, finite/infinite universe, believe in time, afterlife.

 

[Cris]

Light,

atheists use deductive knowledge to say there is no god and criticize theists for knowledge that operates on the same principle. Their basis for criticism is not on the general principles that are used to arrive at a conclusion (because the general principles are identical to what an atheist uses to arrive at his own conclusion that god doesn't exist) - the basis is that the conclusion of the theist is diametrically opposed to their own.

Ahh I see I need to straighten you out. You are having difficulty understanding the atheist position. In the context here and the views of most if not all atheists here is that the atheist does not believe in the existence of a god or gods. That is quite different to the assertion of a belief that a god or gods do not exist. The disbelief of a proposition is not the same as believing it is false.

Do you see the vital and important difference and the error in your statements?

 

[lightgigantic]

either way, atheists arrive at their respective conclusion by applying identical general principles (ie - deductive knowledge)

 

[Cris]

Light,

Well how does that make an atheist any different ? I mean an atheist begins from the assumption that god does not exist.

No. The atheist simply sees no reason to believe that a god exists.

The response is that there is no evidence for god

And hence no reason to believe theist assertions that one does exist.

- when it is proposed that the design of the universe suggests intelligence an atheist replies that there is scientific evidence that the universe does not have a creator

No. Quite the reverse. The atheist response is that there is no scientific evidence that there is a creator.

- they progress to make this statement on their beginning conviction that god does exist

No. That is your incorrect perception of atheism.

The rest of your post is gibberish because of your preceding errors.

 

[Cris]

Light,

either way, atheists arrive at their respective conclusion by applying identical general principles (ie - deductive knowledge)

No again. The atheist does not reach a conclusion, he/she simply finds the theist position unbelievable and unsupportable.

 

[lightgigantic]

Light,

No again. The atheist does not reach a conclusion, he/she simply finds the theist position unbelievable and unsupportable.

Then on what grounds do they disagree with theists if not deductive knowledge?

 

[Cris]

Total absence of evidence, deductive or inductive. Speculation is not deduction. E.g. speculation that the universe appears to be designed therefore a god did it - is not valid logic.

 

[lightgigantic]

lol - and if a person is incapable of collecting all the necessary data (like for instance examining the composition of the entire universe) to make a conclusion, don't they usually arrive at a conclusion by deductive knowledge?

 

[Cris]

No, one may simply say we don't know. A conclusion either way is not required.

 

[lightgigantic]

So an atheist doesn't know if god created the universe but they know that a theist proposes an unsupportable claim????

 

[Cris]

No. An atheist doesn't find theist claims believable because the theist has never presented convincing evidence.