Which world is better: the world with no God or the world where the gospel is true?

[MrsFoundit]

Do you really think that explanations supported by nothing are as valid as explanations supported by evidence?

Maybe I have a different idea to you as to what counts as evidence, what evidence applies to various possibilities, and which routes to truth apply to which questions.

I do not believe in "explanations supported by nothing", by definition those are not explanations.

 

[Uber Genius]

It is not a dodge to avoid a knowledge claim. I don't have sufficient evidence to make a knowledge claim. That is being honest.

The dodge isn't in your lack of a knowledge claim...obviously!

The dodge is in suggesting that your claim is univocal with "Atheism."

When books on atheism all make knowledge claims in favor of atheism, and offering defeaters for theism, which the agnostic claims they do not know yet, or in the strong form of agnosticism, it is impossible for anyone to know.

That is the equivocation that is going on. Or the dodge.

So the presupposition of atheism fails as it assumes the thing it is trying to prove.

The agnostic is not going to make progress assuming atheism or assuming theism as opposed to just looking at the positive arguments on both sides, and then the defeaters. This is central to any knowledge claim.

Should we assume steady state cosmology or inflationary hot big bang cosmology?

Should we assume a Bohmian quantum inference, Copenhagen, Everett, wheeler, Von Neumann, as our presuppositional quantum interpretive framework?

This is why Antony Flew gave up on his own presupposition of atheism.

This why others didn't follow until the Dawkins and Peter Boghossian/Michael Shermer picked it back as a useful tool in tricking people unfamiliar with philosophy or the fallacy of circular arguments into thinking they were clever.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

However, I do argue that a detail discussion about the problem of Hell is important. Further that it has the potential to be a knockdown defeater of the coherency of Christian Theism. Theism per se could still be feasible, but if the Hell argument goes through for the Atheist, then an omni-benevolent (all-good) being would not be possible to assert!

As I have argued elsewhere, this problem, combined with the problem of evil and suffering are the atheists best argument.

As for the other statements above...

A quick google search...

The problem of evil is not a good argument against the existence of god. All it does is give evidence that god is a jerk if he exists.

The best argument is divine hiddenness. A quick google search...

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The dodge isn't in your lack of a knowledge claim...obviously!

The dodge is in suggesting that your claim is univocal with "Atheism."

When books on atheism all make knowledge claims in favor of atheism, and offering defeaters for theism, which the agnostic claims they do not know yet, or in the strong form of agnosticism, it is impossible for anyone to know.

That is the equivocation that is going on. Or the dodge.

So the presupposition of atheism fails as it assumes the thing it is trying to prove.

The agnostic is not going to make progress assuming atheism or assuming theism as opposed to just looking at the positive arguments on both sides, and then the defeaters. This is central to any knowledge claim.

Should we assume steady state cosmology or inflationary hot big bang cosmology?

Should we assume a Bohmian quantum inference, Copenhagen, Everett, wheeler, Von Neumann, as our presuppositional quantum interpretive framework?

This is why Antony Flew gave up on his own presupposition of atheism.

This why others didn't follow until the Dawkins and Peter Boghossian/Michael Shermer picked it back as a useful tool in tricking people unfamiliar with philosophy or the fallacy of circular arguments into thinking they were clever.

Here is the definition of atheism:

"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

I am an atheist, I lack a belief in the existence of a god or gods.

I don't care what those other people do or think, you are talking to me. Atheism has no presuppositions or dogma. It is a lack of belief. I lack a belief in big foot and I lack a belief in a god.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Maybe I have a different idea to you as to what counts as evidence, what evidence applies to various possibilities, and which routes to truth apply to which questions.

I do not believe in "explanations supported by nothing", by definition those are not explanations.

Does the Muslim god explain creation? Do pink unicorns that create universes explain the universe? Yes they do, they also have no support for belief.

What is you evidence that god exists?

 

[Uber Genius]

Explanations do not demonstrate truth.

You will have to explain that statement.

I gave you a video that gave a detailed description of how the beginning of the universe ties to an abductive inference of God's existence and you asked me the content of the video???

Is it any wonder that having invested hundreds of hours reading the best atheistic books from Voltaire and Hume, to Russell, Charles Templeton, Antony Flew, A.J. Ayer, Quentin Smith, J.L. Mackey, and J.H. Sobel's tour de force "Logic and Theism," and Graham Oppy's "Arguing about the gods," that I am frustrated when non-theists out here don't bother to do 10-seconds of research, or even click on a link that I provide knowing they won't bother doing a 10-second internet search.

Clizby, Cvanwey, BigV you aren't even trying.

Not 10-second searches, not even hover mouse pointer over link, click, and watch.

Done.

I am reminded of stories of Elvis Presley after a show. He would be so high on pills that he would have staff, have to cook for him, cut his food, push it in his mouth, push his jaws up and down to chew the food, and then rub his throat to try and get him to swallow. I don't know if those accounts are true, but I now know what they must have felt like.

After a week of trying to get the slightest effort out of you, I have failed utterly, but not for lack of trying.

"Ignored, due to excessive laziness."

 

[Uber Genius]

All engaging the Kalam, Christian, agnostic, or atheist, should perhaps start here:

It states the Kalam and then some of the worst objections.

The point being that had one tried to engage the argument sincerely (even without advanced knowledge of philosophy) one could have avoided these mistakes.

Also If one wanted to watch any of the dozens of debates of William Lane Craig with various scholars and examine whether even scholars are making these elementary intellectual errors one would benefit.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You will have to explain that statement.

I gave you a video that gave a detailed description of how the beginning of the universe ties to an abductive inference of God's existence and you asked me the content of the video???

Is it any wonder that having invested hundreds of hours reading the best atheistic books from Voltaire and Hume, to Russell, Charles Templeton, Antony Flew, A.J. Ayer, Quentin Smith, J.L. Mackey, and J.H. Sobel's tour de force "Logic and Theism," and Graham Oppy's "Arguing about the gods," that I am frustrated when non-theists out here don't bother to do 10-seconds of research, or even click on a link that I provide knowing they won't bother doing a 10-second internet search.

Clizby, Cvanwey, BigV you aren't even trying.

Not 10-second searches, not even hover mouse pointer over link, click, and watch.

Done.

I am reminded of stories of Elvis Presley after a show. He would be so high on pills that he would have staff, have to cook for him, cut his food, push it in his mouth, push his jaws up and down to chew the food, and then rub his throat to try and get him to swallow. I don't know if those accounts are true, but I now know what they must have felt like.

After a week of trying to get the slightest effort out of you, I have failed utterly, but not for lack of trying.

"Ignored, due to excessive laziness."

I already gave reasons why abduction was not a reliable instrument to truth. You ignored my post.

Your outrage is cover for not wanting to continue the discussion. I have been through this before.

I am not an Uber Genius but I am also not a jerk.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Does the Muslim god explain creation?

CF rules require respect for other religions, it is not respect for me to speak for others.

Do pink unicorns that create universes explain the universe? Yes they do, they also have no support for belief.

Well you might believe that I do not.

What is you evidence that god exists?

What is your definition of evidence? What do you mean when you say "god" ? You have said it is subjective, you have said you can subjectively assess evidence, you have said you can identify a "god claim". I have no reason to believe any of those statements, all I have is you said it.

Are you willing to explain your words "sufficient evidence" and "god" and "exists"?

If you do not, you are not asking a question I can reply to, I would have to assume I can read your mind. I do not believe I can.

 

[BigV]

The argument is that God's existence, being transcendent qua the universe, has explanatory power for that universe. But did you even watch the video?

Germafroloplops existence also explains the universe. In fact, you can make up a being, or a bazillion of them, to "offer" an explanation. This would not be evidence for anything but would allow you to sleep sound at night, knowing that you have all the explanations.

You may have forgotten, but your claim was the atheists/agnostics/theists all agree on the Big Bang. So, how come there are Atheists if they all agree God must have created the Universe?

If your argument is that God is a possibility, rather than a necessity, then it's a different story. But then, my 'eternal soul' or "BigV's eternal soul" being the Creator of everything is also a possibility and has all of the explanatory powers that your God offers.

Let's stop dodging the moral arguments for God's existence.

Ah, so you admit the Creator God is not responsible for the Bible? Why aren't you an Agnostic then? Why do you identify as a Christian on these forums without posting restriction that all Agnostics and Atheists are bound by?

Perhaps you are the one who is dodging?

Abstract objects given the context, are not at all like God. Abstract objects are causally effete (powerless). Abstract objects can't cause anything. This is definitional, or a necessary condition of abstract objects.

So while God is immaterial, that is true, and therefore not concrete in everyday vernacular, God is a causal agent on Christian theism due to him being a mind. All minds are causal agents, no abstract objects demonstrate causal agency, therefore God is not an abstract object.

Easy problem to solve. Just assign causation to any abstract object. And voila...Problem solved.

 

[BigV]

All engaging the Kalam, Christian, agnostic, or atheist, should perhaps start here:

Craig is a clever Apologist. Of course no scholar will write a work on the Flying Spaghetti Monster or other fictional characters creating the Universe. Perhaps the best illustration is this nonstampcollector's the thingthatmadethethethingsforwhichtherearenoknownmaker.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Here is the definition of atheism:

"disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

I am an atheist, I lack a belief in the existence of a god or gods.

I don't care what those other people do or think, you are talking to me. Atheism has no presuppositions or dogma. It is a lack of belief. I lack a belief in big foot and I lack a belief in a god.

Here is the real definition of atheism:

1 - the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2 - disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Definition of atheism | Dictionary.com

1 - the belief that God does not exist:

ATHEISM | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

Atheism definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

And you also use your own meanings for "god" (refuse to provide one as applies to your use) "religion" (you dispute the dictionary) "theism" (you dispute the dictionary) "Christian"(you reject the definition used at CF). You also regard "sufficient evidence" as a subjective thing, immune to explanation.

Conversation requires some mutual understanding of words. We all speak english, but you insist on using a unique personal meaning for all of these words.

How is communication supposed to occur here?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

CF rules require respect for other religions, it is not respect for me to speak for others.

How is saying Allah is an explanation for creation disrespectful?

What is your definition of evidence?

My definition of evidence is any supporting facts that would convince me that god exists. What do you have?

What do you mean when you say "god" ?

I want to know what god you believe in and why. What is your definition of god and why do you believe it exists?

You have said it is subjective, you have said you can subjectively assess evidence, you have said you can identify a "god claim". I have no reason to believe any of those statements, all I have is you said it.

Are you willing to explain your words "sufficient evidence" and "god" and "exists"?

You don't know what exists means? Come on your dodging the question.

If you do not, you are not asking a question I can reply to, I would have to assume I can read your mind. I do not believe I can.

When someone asks you what god you believe in and why you really have no idea what they are asking?

 

[BigV]

Here is the real definition of atheism:

1 - the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2 - disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I think this is where words fail us. For example, both of the below examples are beliefs:

a - I believe I can fly from New York to Los Angeles on an airplane.
b - I believe I can teleport myself to Mars.

Words "believe" are used in both cases, and they are the same words, but the examples show that these are worlds aparts.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Here is the real definition of atheism:

1 - the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2 - disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Definition of atheism | Dictionary.com

1 - the belief that God does not exist:

ATHEISM | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary


Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

Atheism definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

I have told you many times that I do not believe a god exists and am not claiming a god does not exist. I agree with definition #2 above. I disbelieve a god exists. So your own supplied definition disagrees with what you think atheism is. Millions of atheists do not claim god does not exist but lack a belief. Try dealing with what I actually believe and not what you want me to believe.

Here is what atheism is from American Atheists:
What is Atheism? | American Atheists

And you also use your own meanings for "god" (refuse to provide one as applies to your use) "religion" (you dispute the dictionary) "theism" (you dispute the dictionary) "Christian"(you reject the definition used at CF). You also regard "sufficient evidence" as a subjective thing, immune to explanation.

Conversation requires some mutual understanding of words. We all speak english, but you insist on using a unique personal meaning for all of these words.

Nope. One definition of atheism is lack of belief in gods. You even posted that in your definitions above. That is what I identify with. Can we get past this now?

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/atheist

How is communication supposed to occur here?

All I want to know is what god you believe in and why. It is your god, I want to know your definition of god and why you believe that god exists. My definition of god is irrelevant.

 

[MrsFoundit]

My definition of evidence is any supporting facts that would convince me that god exists. What do you have?

This is what you are actually asking:

Do you have any no idea maybe that would convince me that I do not know what exists?

"that would convince me" - From you it is unknown what would count.
"god exists" - It is unknown what this is (in your terms).

 

[MrsFoundit]

All I want to know is what god you believe in and why. It is your god, I want to know your definition of god and why you believe that god exists. My definition of god is irrelevant.

Why is it you want to know?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

This is what you are actually asking:

Do you have any no idea maybe that would convince me that I do not know what exists?

No it is not. If you can't tell me what you believe and why, then ok.

"that would convince me" -

From you it is unknown what would count.

How can I possibly know? I don't know all the evidence there is for gods existence. Just tell me why you believe and I will assess it to see if it is convincing to me. When I studied evolution I had no idea what evidence ther was for evolution, how was I supposed to know what would convince me that evolution is true before I studied it? This is impossible.

"god exists" -

It is unknown what this is (in your terms).

So what, I want to know what you believe? Describe your god and why you believe that god exists. You have a definition of god, tell me what that is and why it is believable. It is rude to tell others what they think or believe.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Why is it you want to know?

Because I care about truth. Maybe there is evidence for a god that I have not heard that will convince me. You don't have to tel me. I am just asking.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Because I care about truth. Maybe there is evidence for a god that I have not heard that will convince me. You don't have to tel me. I am just asking.

Do you really think that is likely? Especially considering your insistence on subjective preference as a means of assessing, your unverified status as a moral adjudicator, and your refusal to specify what "god" could be, and therefore inability to specify what facts would be convincing?

Science would not have a single discovery if the criteria were that vague and subjective as a start point.