Atheists believe....?

[gcthomas]

:nono: Something is god and eternal.

1) Nothing + nothing necessarily = nothing
2) Only something can produce something
.: Something has always eternally existed and that something is our creator is the space-time of the multiverse.. Period.

See, the premises do not indicate a conclusion, and certainly not necessarily the conclusion you were very keen to draw. Please, prove my conclusion, from your premises, wrong.

 

[PureX]

There is no evidence that there ever was nothing. There is no evidence for your creator. Period.

You're so quick to counter that you miss Lon's point.

The car in my garage was 'created'. The town I live in was 'created'. The world I live on was 'created'. The solar system, galaxy, and ultimately the universe I live in was 'created'. So that each of these has a 'creator' of some sort. Humans are creators. Global environments are creators. Natural processes are creators, and ultimately the laws of physics are the creators. So to say there are no creators is simply untrue. And to call the creator "God" and envision this God in a human-like being is just an imaginative intellectual choice. (A strange one, I admit, but certainly not an uncommon one, as we humans do this all the time.)

But what 'created' those laws of physics that dictate the processes of nature? We don't know. We just … don't ... know. But what we do know is that whatever the answer to that question is, it is "supernatural" by definition. Even if we find out that those laws are 'eternal', somehow, they will still be 'supernatural' in their eternalness.

So you can argue against Lon's choosing to call this mystery "God" and to characterize it in his mind, and to you, as a human-like being. But you can't really argue with his claim that God is the "supernatural creator of all that exists". Because "God" is the proper term for that mystery in our language, and "supernatural" is the proper characterization of that particular mystery, even though unsolved. And the fact that you keep trying to dispel this in such a half-cocked manner diminishes your argument, from my perspective, because it reveals a degree of irrational bias that's nearly as strong as that which you're trying to expose, in Lon, and others.

There is no proof and no evidence for what you claim. You have a belief, not a god. Your faith is blind. You subscribe to fideism. You just cannot bring yourself to admit it. The truth hurts sometimes but it's still the truth.

While that may all be true, it doesn't excuse your own biased irrationality in response.

I'm not looking for a fight, I'm just saying … you look a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Jose Fly]

First time you ever answered.... You said 'not fundamentalist Christian' before, which narrowed it down. I knew it was agnostic or atheist after the next time when we ruled out liberal Christian, just not which one. I suggest the clarity is your fault in communication.

Then hopefully this will be the last time you need to ask.

So what is the point of the objection. You come to a Christian website where scriptures are given. Don't like? Don't come. Doesn't that seem a reasonable given? Doesn't a complaint, on a Christian website, seem a bit mentally unstable? It'd be like me coming to a science website and discounting microscopes. Scriptures are the tools we use around here.

Well there's your problem....you're confusing me expressing my bemusement at Christians quoting scripture to non-Christians, with me objecting to it.

You have a fairly meaningless quote in your sig. To me, there is no reason for it and Christians aren't interested or persuaded by it, yet there it is.

Understandable, since that quote isn't meant for the Christians here.

You take opportunity to complain if any supportive quote is given, just because it is scripture.

Like I said, that's your error.

Science only points me toward creation. Creation points me closer to a Creator. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so is meaning behind it. For you? Disappointment, don't try to cast your empty projections. Bad science conflicts with everybody's world view.

So I was right about your approach to science. Thought so.

Again, I said those who affiliate with the creationist worldview.

You specifically cited those who work for AiG and ICR, two organizations that have their employees sign statements that are expressly anti-scientific.

But as we see above, you share that anti-scientific approach so it's hardly surprising to see you cite them as supporting you.

These particular scientists may not be known as standout contributors, but they'd have to have followed the scientific method to be scientists. Their current work, I grant, isn't science but trying to look at other agendas, but they are capable of doing science or they wouldn't have those degrees nor have the affiliation.

At least you recognize that what AiG and ICR do isn't science. :up:

 

[Lon]

Lon you are someone who claims to KNOW, yet you can't offer any demonstrable evidence of that supposed knowledge but then happily seem to expect it to be accepted apparently by special pleading and ancient scripture.

Nobody believed Mr. McBeeVee existed either. Opie knew, couldn't prove it. Don't rip it apart. Realize it's just a story, but it is true. The only way Andy knew McBeeVee existed was he happened to meet him. In this scenario, you are Barney Fife who said incredulous things. Barney was wrong.

I really don't see how human artistic and cultural endeavour is indicative of anything other than humans appreciate art and culture, it doesn't somehow possess magical properties nor does it become evidence of a god.

Oh, I know you don't...

If science doesn't have the answer it doesn't just pretend to know an answer anyway

You do, however, that's what atheist means.

it is very willing to confirm that it is simply an unknown.
To not know is no shame.

Then you should be an agnostic.

To not know is acceptable.

But not for you when "no god" is your moniker lain:

You can live your life without knowing a great many things, you don't need to pretend that "God" answers everything for you, perhaps to save you all the bother.

or that Mr. McBeeVee gave me an axe and a quarter....

To say you do not know when that is the case is called "being honest". To say that you KNOW God exists beyond a belief, is imo being less than honest, mainly with yourself.

This totes the Barney Fife line, not the Andy Taylor/Opie Taylor/Mr. McBeeVee line. In that episode, Barney was wrong. The epilogue has Barney eventually talking to him. There is a point where suspended belief doesn't make sense.

Mr McBeeVee exists

 

[Lon]

There is no evidence that there ever was nothing.

:doh: Exactly. /thread

There is no evidence for your creator. Period.

Just so you know, you don't think logically. I just proved this.

You have to destroy the proof set, and you didn't.

 

[Lon]

Like I said, that's your error.

"Wasn't written to Christians here, Lon" would have ended this dialogue effectively.

I cut the rest out because I would have just returned inane insult for insult.

You can keep all that ill-will to yourself :wave:

 

[glorydaz]

There is no evidence that there ever was nothing. There is no evidence for your creator. Period.

There is no evidence there is no Creator.


But, there is evidence there is a Creator. Do you know of any man who can create the sun, moon, and stars? Of course not, you have to come up with some silly notion that makes absolutely NO sense, nor can it be proven in any way.

Therefore....look around and you'll see evidence of a Creator.

 

[Lon]

See, the premises do not indicate a conclusion, and certainly not necessarily the conclusion you were very keen to draw. Please, prove my conclusion, from your premises, wrong.

Yes they do prove the conclusion. Unless you 'show' they don't, which you didn't.

It is a lot simpler than you are making it.

1) True false: Nothing in this hand, put together with nothing in the other hand, gives me nothing.

2) True false: Only something with something equates something.

The answer, necessarily, to both is true because 1 discounts 'no god' as being illogically viable. It means that atheism isn't tenable. #1 says there is no such thing as 'nothing' (also used to show that we exist in some form after death too, btw). If #1 cannot be possible, necessarily #2 is correct, or at least the only viable option given. You'd have to give and prove a third for it to be viable for a second proof set. This one is concluded and proves there is no such thing as 'no god' logically and substantially.

You may not be able to scientifically prove god exists but logic can and does.

Therefore we come from something, not nothing. That something, regardless of conscientious objection or cognitive dissonance, is what made us.

Also true. You've done nothing but 'questioned' the veracity. That's not how formal logic works. Only showing that any of these can be false with a counter proposal could challenge the proof set. You have to show that it isn't true and you haven't and as I have said, I've never seen a challenge to it. The only challenge is to proofs afterwards that seek to prove He is a personal God, not that a god exists.

 

[Hedshaker]

There is no evidence there is no Creator.

Nor is there evidence that this Creator notion is anything more than a man made concept.

But, there is evidence there is a Creator. Do you know of any man who can create the sun, moon, and stars? Of course not, you have to come up with some silly notion that makes absolutely NO sense, nor can it be proven in any way.

You have just described your Creator. I suspect we have a different idea of what is acceptable as evidence. And it's not mine to explain the mysteries of the universe. What may have caused the formation of the universe is not known. The nature of pre Big Bang existence is not known by anyone. Plenty of theoretical stuff no actual knowledge. So when I say "I don't know", I say it safe in the knowledge that you don't know either. Nothing wrong with that. It's an honest admission. The only question is, are you able to live with not knowing?

Therefore....look around and you'll see evidence of a Creator.

Well I see no creator. But even if you do, does it never cross your mind how this alleged being could just exist, with all that power, for no other reason than it just does. It's just superfluous and changes nothing. There are far better hobbies IMO.

 

[gcthomas]

Yes they do prove the conclusion. Unless you 'show' they don't, which you didn't.

It is a lot simpler than you are making it.

1) True false: Nothing in this hand, put together with nothing in the other hand, gives me nothing.

2) True false: Only something with something equates something.

The answer, necessarily, to both is true because 1 discounts 'no god' as being illogically viable. It means that atheism isn't tenable. #1 says there is no such thing as 'nothing' (also used to show that we exist in some form after death too, btw). If #1 cannot be possible, necessarily #2 is correct, or at least the only viable option given. You'd have to give and prove a third for it to be viable for a second proof set. This one is concluded and proves there is no such thing as 'no god' logically and substantially.

You may not be able to scientifically prove god exists but logic can and does.

Therefore we come from something, not nothing. That something, regardless of conscientious objection or cognitive dissonance, is what made us.

Also true. You've done nothing but 'questioned' the veracity. That's not how formal logic works. Only showing that any of these can be false with a counter proposal could challenge the proof set. You have to show that it isn't true and you haven't.

Lon, your logic is weakly framed and is just a version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

You draw the conclusion that something caused the universe to exist because one of your premises is that everything that came into existence had to have a cause. That is OK is your premise is indeed true, but why must it be true? If time is not a simple flow from past to future (and assuming that it is brings all sorts of problems in interpretation) then the idea of 'cause' in relation to the whole of space-time past and present, which could just 'exist'. This has been raised several times but you have yet to address it.

You then go on to conclude that this 'something' must be your personal God, but you haven't excluded the possibility of either a multitude of creator gods or none, so it is not a logical deduction, no matter how much you'd like it to be, just the weaker possibility.

Your pseudo-logic may convince you, but it isn't the faultless formal logic you think it is. Your conclusion must follow with certainty from the premises, and yours does not. The premises must be reliably grounded in reality, and yours are hopeful rather than definitively true.

B-

 

[Lon]

Lon, your logic is weakly framed and is just a version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.

You draw the conclusion that something caused the universe to exist because one of your premises is that everything that came into existence had to have a cause. That is OK is your premise is indeed true, but why must it be true? If time is not a simple flow from past to future (and assuming that it is brings all sorts of problems in interpretation) then the idea of 'cause' in relation to the whole of space-time past and present, which could just 'exist'. This has been raised several times but you have yet to address it.

"Your" problem is that it doesn't require it to be shown in science, just that it is logically true, and it is. God 'logically' exists. This proves that. You are thinking with science constraints that you must be able to 'see' it. That simply isn't true. My proof is to show that atheism is untenable and I've done that clearly. You can try as you like, you'll never do any justice to dissonance. It is only your objection trying to assert itself blindly and as unfoundable skepticism. Agenda tends to be the reason for this. You should think about that. On top of that, William Lane Craig gave basically the same proof I did so you are a bit out of your element to call it weakly framed. lain: He's been given large accolades for this. I gave this proof in 1983. I'm sure I'm not original with it, that something I read lead to it, but I wrestled with it before coming up with the proof back then.

You then go on to conclude that this 'something' must be your personal God, but you haven't excluded the possibility of either a multitude of creator gods or none, so it is not a logical deduction, no matter how much you'd like it to be, just the weaker possibility.

:nono: You are illogically jumping to conclusion before it was ever given in evidence. Ask yourself, again, why you did that. It is cognitive dissonance. Ask yourself why you insist a personal god doesn't exist at this point. No such proof was given. I'm merely saying that atheism is untenable and I've proven it in my proof set. In fact, you've said I am right so you are cognitively dissonant in your own thinking. IOW, you know I'm right on this point. Atheism is untenable.

Your pseudo-logic may convince you, but it isn't the faultless formal logic you think it is.

Yeah it is. I aced this part of philosophy, meaning I never made a bad logical proof set. FYI, this was one of them. "A" And this from an atheist professor :noway: This isn't appeal to authority btw. That's an amateur conclusion. It is an appeal to likelihood: A guy with a PhD who is employed to know this stuff vs a nonprofessional without the degree on the internet. It is likely he is the correct one. There is no appeal to convince you (misapplied fallacy). I'm not sure if you'd have done that, but it is incredibly arm-chair prevalent amateur assessment I see often on TOL. I'm not sure the fallacy, but it is nothing more than looking for an escape or an erroneous out.

Your conclusion must follow with certainty from the premises, and yours does not. The premises must be reliably grounded in reality, and yours are hopeful rather than definitively true.

B-

It does: "If not A, then B where no C is apparent."

At the very least, it proves "Not A," and removes the objection of "Not B" where B is likely the only answer and logically the only tenable answer to the set. Your answer should be "you are right, according to this, God could very well exist." Also, eliminating A also necessarily eliminates atheism "nothing" and leaves it untenable. Even though I aced this, the professor didn't stop being an atheist that I'm aware of but knowing a bit about his home-life, I'm pretty sure that was cognitive dissonance. He gave me the A afterall.

 

[alwight]

You do, however, that's what atheist means.
Then you should be an agnostic.
But not for you when "no god" is your moniker lain:

Not believing in a god is not the same as believing that no gods exist, but once again you simply won't be told this.
I am an agnostic and an atheist, thus I don't make unfounded, unsupportable, claims of divine knowledge.

 

[6days]

There is no evidence there is no Creator.


But, there is evidence there is a Creator.

Well said!....and true.

 

[Lon]

Not believing in a god is not the same as believing that no gods exist, but once again you simply won't be told this.
I am an agnostic and an atheist, thus I don't make unfounded, unsupportable, claims of divine knowledge.

I'm not sure 'not believing in' a god is the same as atheism, by definition. Yes we've been over this. I'll try to make it clearer:

This is going to go back and forth, but I believe you make a lot of unfounded claims regarding no god when you make comments in threads, regardless of thinking otherwise. I believe you are wrong on this point.

As I've shown in thread, atheism is untenable. You and I have a god, regardless of what/who that is, therefore it is illogical to be an atheist. You obviously can be illogical though. -Lon

 

[PureX]

Not believing in a god is not the same as believing that no gods exist, but once again you simply won't be told this.
I am an agnostic and an atheist, thus I don't make unfounded, unsupportable, claims of divine knowledge.

Yes, but when Lon points out that you have no evidence to support your inclination to believe that no gods exist, he is correct. So why do you incline to that proposition? I assume you 'get something out of' that belief that you value. Other wise you would simply remain agnostic.

Interestingly, the same statement and question could be aimed at Lon, but I don't think he'll be able to grasp it, really, or answer it. His belief dynamic requires him to deny all doubt, and ignore the fact that he is a theist by choice, and for his own reasons. (I suspect)

 

[Lon]

Yes, but when Lon points out that you have no evidence to support your inclination to believe that no gods exist, he is correct. So why do you incline to that proposition? I assume you 'get something out of' that belief that you value. Other wise you would simply remain agnostic.

Correct.

Interestingly, the same statement and question could be aimed at Lon, but I don't think he'll be able to grasp it, really, or answer it. His belief dynamic requires him to deny all doubt, and ignore the fact that he is a theist by choice, and for his own reasons. (I suspect)

You also are jumping the gun before seeing a proofset for it (for me, it takes several). But, I already addressed this with the Mr. McBeeVee post.

The only conclusion needed, at this point, is that something/someone created us by necessity. IOW, only the concession is needed and the only part I'm trying to convey as necessary to both agnostics and atheists. It is to get them to see the logical necessity. Possibility opens doors after that where "no possibility" may have them closed off. IOW, I'm taking incremental steps and will discuss them until that point is proven. For me, there is no point moving on, until then. The McBeeVee post addresses further down the line too, though. -Lon

 

[alwight]

Yes, but when Lon points out that you have no evidence to support your inclination to believe that no gods exist, he is correct. So why do you incline to that proposition? I assume you 'get something out of' that belief that you value. Other wise you would simply remain agnostic.

Firstly I don't see why a tendency to presume a god is any more reasonable, but you have to be somewhere along the theistic/atheistic scale I suppose.
Given no particular reason to conclude that anything requires supernatural divine powers then I think it is rather more reasonable to disbelieve than believe anyway, pending contrary evidence.
I have no problem with the possibility of gods but I don't need evidence to disbelieve in any while the lack of evidence that any do exists. I don't accept that our mere existence is evidence either way.

Interestingly, the same statement and question could be aimed at Lon, but I don't think he'll be able to grasp it, really, or answer it. His belief dynamic requires him to deny all doubt, and ignore the fact that he is a theist by choice, and for his own reasons. (I suspect)

Lon refuses to accept his own doubts imo not that he doesn't have any, but I'd guess that any real god isn't going to be overly impressed with an ability for such self-delusion. Some devout Christians seem to worry that if God detects doubt then eternal torment must surely follow. All part of the particular religious programming culture he perhaps acquired? :think:

 

[alwight]

I'm not sure 'not believing in' a god is the same as atheism, by definition. Yes we've been over this. I'll try to make it clearer:

This is going to go back and forth, but I believe you make a lot of unfounded claims regarding no god when you make comments in threads, regardless of thinking otherwise. I believe you are wrong on this point.

Theism is simply to hold a level of belief in at least one god while atheism is a level of disbelief, neither requires absolutes.

As I've shown in thread, atheism is untenable. You and I have a god, regardless of what/who that is, therefore it is illogical to be an atheist. You obviously can be illogical though. -Lon

Bald assertions don't win arguments Lon.

 

[Lon]

Lon refuses to accept his own doubts imo not that he doesn't have any, but I'd guess that any real god isn't going to be overly impressed with an ability for such self-delusion. Some devout Christians seem to worry that if God detects doubt then eternal torment must surely follow. All part of the particular religious programming culture he perhaps acquired? :think:

No. It just doesn't come up. For one, the proof means that some god exists, so the leap is a lot less. At that time, I doubted. That I don't any longer? It is about miracles and answers to prayer completely beyond my and any other's control, over time. It not only seems, but is actually answers that lead me to not doubt someone is there. I doubt my proofs are every Christian's proofs or that they need to be. We are each convinced on our own terms. A personal God could be expected to reveal Himself individually. I think there are universal kinds of proofs too, but some doubt, some don't. My doubt is more in my fallible self, than a god who more than likely exists, even for you. So no, I'm not at a point in my life where I doubt as I did when younger.

 

[PureX]

Firstly I don't see why a tendency to presume a god is any more reasonable, but you have to be somewhere along the theistic/atheistic scale I suppose.
Given no particular reason to conclude that anything requires supernatural divine powers then I think it is rather more reasonable to disbelieve than believe anyway, pending contrary evidence.
I have no problem with the possibility of gods but I don't need evidence to disbelieve in any while the lack of evidence that any do exists. I don't accept that our mere existence is evidence either way.

Fair enough. But I disagree with your assertion that there is "no particular reason to conclude that anything requires supernatural divine powers". This: from post #162 …

But what 'created' those laws of physics that dictate the processes of nature? We don't know. We just … don't ... know. But what we do know is that whatever the answer to that question is, it is "supernatural" by definition. Even if we find out that those laws are 'eternal', somehow, they will still be 'supernatural' in their eternalness.

Supernatural powers are not required to explain any aspect of physical/conceptual existence in itself (that I am aware of), but it is by definition required to explain the fact that existence, exists. What that 'supernatural power' is, is a mystery yet to be revealed (if ever), but it is by definition transcendent of existence as we conceive of it. And there's just no way around that, but willful ignorance. (Same as is employed by the theistic 'true believers'.)

Lon refuses to accept his own doubts imo not that he doesn't have any, but I'd guess that any real god isn't going to be overly impressed with an ability for such self-delusion.

Nor demand it of us.

Some devout Christians seem to worry that if God detects doubt then eternal torment must surely follow. All part of the particular religious programming culture he perhaps acquired? :think:

Yes. I believe this is the sickness of authoritarianism manifesting as an intense fear of being "wrong". Or of being found intellectually or spiritually "disobedient". After all, they're being threatened with eternal damnation! But more then that, their personal identities are entwined with this absolutist ideology so that to fail the ideology would be to lose one's self. A prospect that the human ego will go to great lengths to avoid.