Dismiss Notice

Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
  • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
  • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
  • Access to private conversations with other members.
  • Less Advertisements! Members see fewer ads and have the option to upgrade their account to ad free!

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Elioenai26, Dec 27, 2012.

  1. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    Messages:
    10,086
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Atheist

    You haven't pointed out one flaw yet lol. Can theism and atheism both be true? Why not?
     
  2. Chriliman

    Chriliman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,977
    Likes Received:
    306
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    I wouldn't be a theist if I didn't think it was logical to be a theist.

    What I'm saying is that atheism is contradictory and illogical. Obviously you disagree, but like you said we can't both be right.

    So you think theism and atheism began simultaniously? Neither came before the other?

    It's seems more logical that someone first claimed God is true and then after that someone opposed the claim. No?
     
  3. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    Messages:
    10,086
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Yet I made a logical explanation for my atheism...and you couldn't find any flaws in it. Here it is again...

    Premise 1- We need evidence to support a belief. (You already agreed with this premise)
    Premise 2-There is no evidence of any god.
    Premise 3-Therefore, it is logical to lack a belief in god. (Atheism)

    Can you construct a logical explanation for your theism?



    It doesn't matter which came first. Being first doesn't make a belief correct.
     
  4. Hieronymus

    Hieronymus LIVE from NL (EU)

    Messages:
    5,053
    Likes Received:
    1,330
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Christian
    Aah, that's where the flaw is (i.m.h.o.).
    There is plenty of evidence for the existence of gods and God.
    Especially for the Bible, there is proof for a lot of its accuracy.
    There is no proof in a natural science kind of way, but even there there's a lot of evidence to make a good case for God's existence, at least, in the past, regarding the origins of existence in general.

    With a passion for truth, logic and reason, philosophers tend to conclude God can not not-exist.
    The explanatory power of an existing God is much greater, it's Occam's razor.
    That which brought forth the universe and living nature has outperformed humanity's creating capabilities by lightyears, therefore that which brought forth the universe and living nature is superior to us by lightyears.
    This concerns consciousness, knowledge, imagination, a plan (goal), ability (to create), motivation, power and action.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    Messages:
    10,086
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Atheist
    You're certainly entitled to your opinion...and this is generally where the discussion about the existence of god begins. At this point though, the burden of proof is upon you the claimant (since you're claiming evidence exists).


    I disagree.

    This is a weird kind of argument from authority. It's not as if philosophers have some special powers that determine whether god exists or not. Also, what are you basing this on? Some sort of survey?


    I think a lot of theists forget some of the more important aspects of Occams Razor. It only applies to explanations which are possible...and then they have to be equal in every other respect. If it were merely the simplest explanation for any question...the answer would always just be "magic".
     
  6. Archaeopteryx

    Archaeopteryx Wanderer

    Messages:
    21,661
    Likes Received:
    2,027
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Humanist
    You haven't explained anything.
     
  7. Chriliman

    Chriliman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,977
    Likes Received:
    306
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    The point I'm making is very simple and I'm sure even many atheists would agree. If theism is correct then atheism is incorrect, but if theism is incorrect then so is atheism. But your arguing that atheism is correct and theism is incorrect, but in reality this is impossible because atheism would not even exist if there wasn't theism, this is true whether theism is correct or not.

    So atheists are wrong if theism is right and atheists are wrong if theism is wrong. Kind of a lose lose for atheists.
     
  8. quatona

    quatona "God"? What do you mean??

    Messages:
    34,399
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Faith:
    Seeker
    So what, for purposes of this argument, do you consider this tenet of atheism that could be correct or incorrect?
    Please spell it out - because else your argument cannot be considered.
    I can think of countless instances where a negative reaction to a claim can be correct, even though it wouldn´t exist weren´t it for the positive claim. So quite obviously there is some hidden premise in this argument that - in your opinion - makes this a special case. I´m wondering what that is.

    Wrong about what precisely?
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2016
  9. Chriliman

    Chriliman Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,977
    Likes Received:
    306
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Christian
    If evidence arose that disproved God, wherever that evidence came from would become the highest source of knowledge.

    Theists simply believe God is the highest source of knowledge.
     
  10. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    Messages:
    10,086
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Why? Your explanation of "theism existed first" isn't a reason why atheism is wrong if theism is wrong. You're not even trying to think about this...

    Theism is the belief in god(s). If theism is incorrect...then it's incorrect to believe in gods. If it's incorrect to believe in gods...then it's correct to not believe in gods.

    That makes atheism correct.

    I don't think any atheists would agree with you on this...let alone "many".
     
  11. quatona

    quatona "God"? What do you mean??

    Messages:
    34,399
    Likes Received:
    2,376
    Faith:
    Seeker
    So, to summarize this nugget of logic: Even if God doesn´t exist God exists?
    (Btw. that´s not what theists "simply believe". You seem to make up God definitions as you walk along).
     
  12. Eudaimonist

    Eudaimonist I believe in life before death!

    Messages:
    27,014
    Likes Received:
    2,181
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Atheist
    That doesn't make any logical sense whatsoever. If theism is incorrect, we have the situation that we experience today. Theists are incorrect that God exists, and atheists have been right all along to be skeptical of theistic claims.

    If you really mean: if the concept of theism were unknown, there would be no conceptual need for the word "atheism", that would be true. However, that wouldn't make atheism "incorrect". It would simply make the concept unnecessary.


    eudaimonia,

    Mark
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Hieronymus

    Hieronymus LIVE from NL (EU)

    Messages:
    5,053
    Likes Received:
    1,330
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Christian
    Thanks.
    But it's not my opinion that produces the evidence.
    You mean like evolutionists, who claim dead unconscious things can outperform all of humanity, and produce the universe and living nature?
    As they say: Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
    And so we're waiting for some 150 years now...

    Uhm... Now how do i bend this back to the question about objective morality...?
    ..oops..


    It's about logic, reason and the quest for truth, that's what philosophy is.
    Strange how naturalists usually dismiss this...
    Occam's razor is not on your side here.
    Our reality (the universe and living nature) is very very complex and has many purposeful traits.
    Mankind can study it in many ways, various disciplines, and still many, many questions remain.
    So it's beyond our intelligence, hence the cause is beyond our intelligence (and skills etc...)
    That's the logical conclusion.

    Trying to explain everything with naturalistic (dead and unconscious) processes while being unable to disprove the obvious is in fact far fetched, Occam would shake his head...
    Even Darwin would dismiss his ideas in light of the knowledge gathered by science, like DNA (code).
     
  14. Hieronymus

    Hieronymus LIVE from NL (EU)

    Messages:
    5,053
    Likes Received:
    1,330
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Christian
    Baloney.
    We both have to make a case for our convictions, and the explanatory power of the existence of God is simply much stronger than a materialistic / naturalistic view.
    There is no evidence God does not exist, but there is evidence God does exist.
    As Leibnitz wondered: Why is there anything at all?
     
  15. Archaeopteryx

    Archaeopteryx Wanderer

    Messages:
    21,661
    Likes Received:
    2,027
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Humanist
    Wow. This is... wow.
     
  16. Hieronymus

    Hieronymus LIVE from NL (EU)

    Messages:
    5,053
    Likes Received:
    1,330
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Christian
    I agree, it's pathetic to claim it's science and fact, to claim it at all.
    Who can truly believe DNA writes itself?
    You'll have to be deeply indoctrinated.

    But i guess i should blame God for blinding people...
     
  17. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    Messages:
    10,086
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Atheist
    You're right about this.

    .
    I've never heard of this claim...certainly never heard it from a scientist in any of evolutions relevant fields.

    Can you link a quote? Probably not...

    .
    You're welcome to try


    .
    Not really. You've made a lot of assumptions here...where would you like to start? How about with this notion that since we don't know everything...something smarter than us caused everything to happen. Does that about sum up what you're trying to say here?

    .
    I'm not b naturalist...so I don't know why you keep bringing him up. Frankly, I think he'd shake his head if he knew how poorly theists were at using his razor.


    .
    DNA supports evolutionary theory...just ask any geneticist.
     
  18. Hieronymus

    Hieronymus LIVE from NL (EU)

    Messages:
    5,053
    Likes Received:
    1,330
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Christian
    It's naturalistic evolution, dead things evolving into living things by themselves,without a purpose or reason.
    Get a clue, you have the brains.
    You mean geneticists (and not all,at all) support the idea.
    DNA reduces it to poor fantasy.
    Data does not write itself.
    Books don't either.
    Ask any information scientist.
     
  19. Archaeopteryx

    Archaeopteryx Wanderer

    Messages:
    21,661
    Likes Received:
    2,027
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Humanist
    Speaking of books...

    [​IMG]
     
  20. Ana the Ist

    Ana the Ist Aggressively serene!

    Messages:
    10,086
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Atheist
    No one ...at least, not in the way you mean. Scientists don't believe there's some magical being sitting at a typewriter "writing" DNA.

    If however, you mean that DNA strands can only combine in certain ways....then a whole lot of experts know this (it's well past the point of "belief" now)
     

Share This Page