Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[quatona]

Really? You don't think being the only person on earth would change you in some way?

I fail to see how ceasing to be an atheist would make me the only person in the world. But it´s irrelevant anyway. In your scenario I would not believe in gods before the event and I wouldn´t believe in gods after the event. That´s the point.
This, however, is accurate: Without theism, nobody would label themselves "atheists".
On the other hand, even if theism disappeared, the term "atheist" might still remain in use (since theism once had existed).

 

[Chriliman]

No, it doesn´t (well, some atheists may make that claim, but it´s not a necessary claim for atheism to make).
Try again.

Every single atheist on the planet thinks its more correct to lack belief in God than to believe in God. If that were not true then there wouldn't be any atheists on the planet.

Of course it´s possible. Pink elephants with neon green spots (or UFOs or aliens or the tooth fairy) needn´t exist just because some people believe they do. This is just terrible logic.

Another thing atheists love to do is bring in illogical concepts into a logical discussion about the possibility that atheism is contradictory and wrong.

No, it isn´t. At least, you haven´t made the case that it is.

The evidence speaks for itself(literally). As long as there are atheists then there will always be evidence that atheism depends on theism. This should point a rational thinking person to theism over atheism, if they value evidence and truth.

I wouldn´t consider you of all an expert in spotting contradictions. If you were, 90% of your posts remained unwritten.

lol

 

[Chriliman]

I fail to see how ceasing to be an atheist would make me the only person in the world.

You're switching it around. It's that being the only person in the world would cause you to cease being an atheist because there would be no theists. However, it would take some kind of divine intervention to cause you to be the only person on earth, therefore you'd become a theist instantly.

 

[quatona]

Every single atheist on the planet thinks its more correct to lack belief in God than to believe in God.

Wrong.

If that were not true then there wouldn't be any atheists on the planet.

Inaccurate.

Another thing atheists love to do is bring in illogical concepts into a logical discussion about the possibility that atheism is contradictory and wrong.

Chrilli, don´t take it the wrong way, but you don´t have the faintest clue how logic works. That´s the actual problem. Now, we all try our best to keep being polite to you, are trying to help you through your struggles with logic - but at some point (especially the point where you posture as an expert on logic) at least my patience comes to an end.
If you want to participate in a philosophy forum, try to get at least some basic knowledge in logic. Or get some sleep or lay down whatever drugs you may be using.

The evidence speaks for itself(literally). As long as there are atheists then there will always be evidence that atheism depends on theism. This should point a rational thinking person to theism over atheism, if they value evidence and truth.

Let me try that, too: As long as there are people who don´t believe that the square root of 47 is 25, their lack of belief depends on the claim that the square root of 47 is 25. This should point a rational thinking person to the "25 is the square root of 47" over "I don´t believe that the square root of 47 is 25", if they value evidence and truth.
Alright...

 

[Chriliman]

I asked if you needed evidence to believe in something...you said this...

"Yes, since a logical explanation is evidence of truth. "

Then you said this...

".. .can you at least explain how it's logical to be an atheist?"

I said that there's no evidence of any god.

Right, you making the assertion that there's no evidence for God does equal it being a fact that there's no evidence for God.

This logically makes atheism a position of truth (according to you).

I'm saying atheist both think their position is true while claiming it's not a truth claim, which is a contradiction.

You said you need evidence to believe...

You said logical statements are evidence of truth...

You asked me for a logical reason to be an atheist...

I gave you a logical explanation that fits with everything you've said.

At this point, you can either admit that my logic is correct... or show me how it's wrong. Simply claiming that there's evidence for god doesn't disprove my claim that there isn't.

You've given me a contradiction. I don't accept contradictions as true because it's irrational to do so.

 

[Chriliman]

Wrong.

So atheists don't think it's correct to lack belief in God? I'm so confused by the contradictions and lack of consistent answers!

Let me try that, too: As long as there are people who don´t believe that the square root of 47 is 25, their lack of belief depends on the claim that the square root of 47 is 25. This should point a rational thinking person to the "25 is the square root of 47" over "I don´t believe that the square root of 47 is 25", if they value evidence and truth.
Alright...

You see the problem here is that no one is claiming that the square root of 47 is 25. This is an illogical argument that has no bearing on our logical discussion.

 

[quatona]

So atheists don't think it's correct to lack belief in God? I'm so confused by the contradictions and lack of consistent answers!

Yes, you are extremely confused - I´ll give you that.

You see the problem here is that no one is claiming that the square root of 47 is 25.

And yet there are people who don´t believe that the square root of 47 is 25. This fact destroys your argument in more than one way.

This is an illogical argument

Indeed. It´s the same structure of argument that you used. This should tell you something.

 

[Hieronymus]

"Relies", in which way? Certainly not in the way Chrillman asserted.

Let's put it like this then:
If there's no sponse, there is no re-sponse.
no re-action when there is no action.
Iḿ not sure how to put it in words, but iḿ sure you understand. (well, i hope..)

 

[Chriliman]

And yet there are people who don´t believe that the square root of 47 is 25. This fact destroys your argument in more than one way.

Why would someone even consider investigating whether or not the square root of 47 is 25 if no one claimed it's true? There has to be evidence in the form of a claim in order for anyone to investigate the truth of the claim.

It's logical to investigate a truth claim in order to determine if it's actually true or not. It's illogical to investigate a truth claim that has never been made, such as the claim that the square root of 47 is 25.

 

[quatona]

Let's put it like this then:
If there's no sponse, there is no re-sponse.
no re-action when there is no action.
Iḿ not sure how to put it in words, but iḿ sure you understand. (well, i hope..)

Yes, sure, all that is undisputed. I don´t, however, see how it helps the argument that it was brought for to help.

 

[Hieronymus]

Well, you strongly objected to "derives its meaning from", so i thought i'd put it in different words for ya.

But it's a little confusing now...
Because atheism implies naturalism, which is not a reaction to super-naturalism...

 

[Chriliman]

Well, you strongly objected to "derives its meaning from", so i thought i'd put it in different words for ya.

But it's a little confusing now...
Because atheism implies naturalism, which is not a reaction to super-naturalism...

I assume they think it's true that life came into existence naturally, they just can't explain why life would come from natural non-life.

Life produces life. We never see non-life produce life in reality. The theist position solves this problem because we believe God is eternally alive.

 

[quatona]

Why would someone even consider investigating whether or not the square root of 47 is 25 if no one claimed it's true?

Well, if you were a math teacher I´m sure you´d come across this claim eventually.

There has to be evidence in the form of a claim in order for anyone to investigate the truth of the claim.

Indeed it´s not very reasonable to even start investigating a claim for which no evidence is presented. We can simply lean back, say "I don´t believe you" and await evidence be presented.
(And where asking you for evidence leads, we know from previous discussions with you.)

It's logical to investigate a truth claim in order to determine if it's actually true or not.

No. It´s logical to say "present your evidence, just so I can see whether it´s even worth putting effort in investigating it."

It's illogical to investigate a truth claim that has never been made, such as the claim that the square root of 47 is 25.

Yet there are people who don´t believe that the square root of 47 is 25. Nobody needs to seriously make this claim for there to be lack of belief in the claim. Which blows your previous idea out of the window: namely that a lack of belief in X depends on the belief that X exists.
Anyway, it´s completely irrelevant whether the truth claim has seriously been made. That the truth claim has been made doesn´t make your argument any more valid. People make false and mistaken truth claims all the time. Your argument (that a truth claim is more likely to be accurate than its rejection because the rejection depends on the truth claim) is therefore patently absurd. It´s just nonsense.

But just because it´s you, I´ll give you another analogous argument, this time with a belief actually held by people:

As long as there are people who don´t believe that Nazism is the best societal form, their lack of belief depends on the claim that Nazism is the best societal form. This should point a rational thinking person to "Nazism is the best societal form" over "I don´t believe that Nazism is the best societal form", if they value evidence and truth.

 

[Hieronymus]

Well, if you were a math teacher I´m sure you´d come across this claim eventually.

Indeed it´s not very reasonable to even start investigating a claim for which no evidence is presented. We can simply lean back, say "I don´t believe you" and await evidence be presented.

One could ask:
"Why would you say such a thing?"
Unless you're not interested of course...

 

[quatona]

Well, you strongly objected to "derives its meaning from", so i thought i'd put it in different words for ya.

I´m sure you just want to help - and I appreciate that.
We agree that the term "atheist" wouldn´t exist weren´t it for theistic ideas existing. The word derives its meaning from the positive idea - in that it denotes a reaction towards it.
However, I wouldn´t believe in Gods with or without there being theist/theism/god concepts. Thus, while I wouldn´t use the label if there weren´t theists, I would not hold a God belief either way. Factually, it wouldn´t make any difference, regarding my beliefs.

But all that is not the point of discussion. The point in discussion is Chrils idea that the positive assertion derives superiority from this fact.

Because atheism implies naturalism,

Does it?

 

[quatona]

One could ask:
"Why would you say such a thing?"

You mean asking for evidence?
Yes, and that´s exactly what I am asking when someone would me believe a "God" exists.
The responses so far haven´t convinced me of the validity of the claim (and even less do all those attempts at turning the tables - "You can´t disprove my claim", etc. - as though this would substitute a support of the claim). Not to mention sophistic arguments for the existence of a God like the one that happens to be the topic of this thread (just to remind you).

And that´s why I would say such a thing.

 

[Chriliman]

No. It´s logical to say "present your evidence, just so I can see whether it´s even worth putting effort in investigating it."

You say "No" as if what I said was illogical, but what I said was not illogical. It's perfectly logical to investigate a truth claim in order to determine if its true or not. It would be a fact that the claim was made and therefore the claim itself is evidence that would initiate the desire to investigate in order to gain more evidence.

As long as there are people who don´t believe that Nazism is the best societal form, their lack of belief depends on the claim that Nazism is the best societal form. This should point a rational thinking person to "Nazism is the best societal form" over "I don´t believe that Nazism is the best societal form", if they value evidence and truth.

Someone had to first believe Nazism is the best societal form in order for it to be made known that Nazism is not the best societal form. IOW, we didn't know about Nazism before Nazism happened, but Nazism has always been objectively wrong whether we believed it or not.

That fact that God is possible, means God could be objectively true, whether you believe it or not.

 

[quatona]

You say "No" as if what I said was illogical, but what I said was not illogical. It's perfectly logical to investigate a truth claim in order to determine if its true or not.

You don´t even seem to know what "logical" means. You appear to use it as a synonym for "reasonable".

It would be a fact that the claim was made and therefore the claim itself is evidence

No, a claim isn´t evidence for its veracity.

that would initiate the desire to investigate in order to gain more evidence.

That would require some willingness from the claimer to present his evidence which would be the requirement for even starting to investigate the claim. As I said, we all have experienced before where asking you for evidence leads.

Someone had to first believe Nazism is the best societal form in order for it to be made known that Nazism is not the best societal form.

Exactly. Here you refute your own argument. Well done.

 

[Chriliman]

You don´t even seem to know what "logical" means. You appear to use it as a synonym for "reasonable".

No, a claim isn´t evidence for its veracity.


That would require some willingness from the claimer to present his evidence which would be the requirement for even starting to investigate the claim. As I said, we all have experienced before where asking you for evidence leads.




Exactly. Here you refute your own argument. Well done.

No, I've actually affirmed my own argument. If God is objectively true then he will make himself known to everyone at some point in time .

 

[quatona]

No, I've actually affirmed my own argument. If God is objectively true then he will make himself known to everyone at some point in time .

That was not your argument in discussion, and you know it.