The Atheist could be wrong for many good reasons
- Thread starter SamuelTP1977
- Start date
Eudaimonist
I believe in life before death!
- Jan 1, 2003
- 27,482
- 2,733
- 57
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
It may, but it may also stem from other metaphysical foundations.
It's not clear to me which problem you mean.
What about Nagel's views? That he challenged reductionism regarding the mind-body distinction? Or what?
Nor does a cranky minority get to say that their evidence is automatically successful in supporting their case.
So, what evidence do you mean?
No, an atheist need not be a "materialist". And the problem is compounded when one insists on viewing materialism as only reductive materialism or some other limited form of materialism.
False. A reality in which there are no divine beings is not limited to an exclusively physical universe.
Even if all beings do originate from within a physical universe, that doesn't mean that they must continue to be merely physical beings.
There are many possibilities, and thus many possibilities for atheistic worldviews.
eudaimonia,
Mark
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I don't imagine anyone thinks it's original to ask 'which god'. If you have to explain which god every time you open a dialogue, you're eventually going to accept that the world no longer thinks the way it did in 1950.
Upvote
0
fat wee robin
Newbie
I agree ,there are some who really wish to learn ,but others ...........and their tens of thousands of posts ??
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jun 28, 2011
- 3,865
- 1,769
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
You are right; the Dolphins don't need a whole lot of technology and war to tell them that the creator exists. BTW Deep thought got it wrong as well. An abstract does not stand in causal relationship to anything.
What have the claims of religion got to do with anything? I am discussing whether the atheist is correct or not in denying the existence of Theos.
Nevertheless two arguments from increased knowledge that provide evidence for the existence of the Creator are the Cosmic fine tuning argument (that the fine tuning of the universe for the presence of life might be accounted for by chance, necessity or design; that chance and necessity are discounted thus design is the explanation remaining), and the argument from biological information (that because the only known source of specific and complex information in the universe is intelligence; that the presence of information in biological forms may be best explained by reference to a designer). At pretty much every point where these things have been studied in recent times a further confirmation of the premise of the arguments has been revealed.
Come to think of it, the second premise of the Kalam cosmological argument (that the universe had a beginning) was also confirmed in 2004.
Not sure what you are getting at here. Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all theistic and thus all agree on the subject.
Upvote
0
- Jun 28, 2011
- 3,865
- 1,769
- Country
- New Zealand
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Then I guess the argument is over whether the metaphysical can be a person.
The problem is that if Atheism is true, all arguments for anything fail. That the consistent assertion of atheism undermines any form of reason. For an atheist to assert that anything can be known in truth he must make reference to appealing to realities that only theism can explain.
Nagel has challenged the view that naturalism provides an explanation for life. He repeatedly writes in his book that he is not a theist but to my mind, at least, the conclusion is obvious.
Define “divine”: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god.
The gods are commonly thought of as metaphysical beings but given the idea of intelligent life in other places in the physical universe they may also be physical beings. Men have even been considered divine at times. “divine” it would seem then is more of a title for a supreme person.
Your assertion that there are no divine beings in this respect seems to be simply disrespectful of a superior creative being.
I'm wondering if an atheist met the creator he would still maintain that He is not divine, and that there are no divine beings.
All of which deny any creative intelligence.
Agape,
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
It strikes me as more likely that a Christian would deny any contemporary appearance of Jesus. There probably isn't anything an actual second coming Jesus could do to convince them - which renders the entire 2000 years of 'message' wasted.
Upvote
0
Davian
fallible
Atheism is not a truth claim.
"I am not convinced of your religious claims" is not a reasoned position. It only states one's theological position on the the subject of deities.
I make no such assertion. I only look for accurate descriptions of reality.
How does "God did it" explain anything?
Why are these things that are so obviously in support of belief only obvious to those that already believe?
Bizarre question. "If you were presented with convincing evidence for something, would you be convinced?"
How so?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
fat wee robin
Newbie
You are probably correct ,that you are unteachable . Unlike some christians I have studied very widely ,but I would not cast my pearls before swine .
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
