Atheism (2)

[Matariki]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Atheism"

 

[Skavau]

Tagging myself to subscribe.

 

[createdtoworship]

Can we drop this? Why are you telling someone they need to check EVERYWHERE for an omnipresent deity? They just need to check somewhere. If it's there, it's validated, if it's not, it's falsified.

God created man as the pinnacle of creation - why on earth would he be hanging out in Alpha Centauri?

so you assume out of all the theists out there, an omnpresent form of theism?

how so?

many theists in the word believe in God's of locality not omnipresence.

So your argument has a major problem with it, it assumes omnipresence of all dieties.

(I personally believe God to be omnipresent, but because He is not under my finger nails does not mean He does not exist)

so again your argument fails again.

The problem with traditional definitions of atheism is that they are easily refuted, therefore athiests must evolve their definitions.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If he is not under your finger nails then he is not omnipresent. If he is not omnipresent, then your god doesn't exist.

 

[Gadarene]

so you assume out of all the theists out there, an omnpresent form of theism?

how so?

many theists in the word believe in God's of locality not omnipresence.

So your argument has a major problem with it, it assumes omnipresence of all dieties.

It's hardly a problem - I tailored it to the kind of god you believe in for expediency. I wasn't treating it as a refutation of theism en masse.

(I personally believe God to be omnipresent, but because He is not under my finger nails does not mean He does not exist)

Erm....no, it does mean he doesn't exist. Look up omnipresent.

The problem with traditional definitions of atheism is that they are easily refuted, therefore athiests must evolve their definitions.

That isn't a "definition" of atheism, it's a counter to this utterly daft objection that we need to observe the entire universe to prove CERTAIN gods wrong. There is not much point to a deity that lingers in some obscure part of the universe, and certainly bears no resemblance to any deities worshipped today.

But again - most atheists here are not making the claim that no gods exist. We have been saying this for the entire thread - the colloquial definition of "atheism" is not the one we hold. We don't need to revise anything, detractors just need to open their darn ears

 

[createdtoworship]

It's hardly a problem - I tailored it to the kind of god you believe in for expediency. I wasn't treating it as a refutation of theism en masse.

Erm....no, it does mean he doesn't exist. Look up omnipresent.

so I am the only one in the word with theistic beliefs? There are no other theists that don't believe in omnipresence?

secondly, even if God is in every atom and particle, you would still have to have ultimate knowledge of the atom to see it. What if He was the glue that held the proton and neutron together in the nucleus? You would not see Him, and could not prove His existence or non. So you still have to provide evidence that God does NOT exist. Because God could be the glue of the atom. Many believe there is something that holds the atom together, obviously, but most do not believe it is God. How do we know objectively one way or the other? We don't.

That isn't a "definition" of atheism, it's a counter to this utterly daft objection that we need to observe the entire universe to prove CERTAIN gods wrong. There is not much point to a deity that lingers in some obscure part of the universe, and certainly bears no resemblance to any deities worshipped today.

But again - most atheists here are not making the claim that no gods exist. We have been saying this for the entire thread - the colloquial definition of "atheism" is not the one we hold. We don't need to revise anything, detractors just need to open their darn ears

I was speaking of the definition that says the rejection of "the belief in dieties"

you need to follow the posts

how can one believe that no dieties exist unless they have ultimate knowledge of every nic and crany of the universe.

 

[Gadarene]

so I am the only one in the word with theistic beliefs? There are no other theists that don't believe in omnipresence?

I'm not wasting time on other theistic claims when you already believe in one particular one and reject the rest. I'm not using this as a claim for atheism, I'm using it in response to a particular argument being irrelevant for certain gods.

secondly, even if God is in every atom and particle, you would still have to have ultimate knowledge of the atom to see it. What if He was the glue that held the proton and neutron together in the nucleus? You would not see Him, and could not prove His existence or non. So you still have to provide evidence that God does NOT exist. Because God could be the glue of the atom. Many believe there is something that holds the atom together, obviously, but most do not believe it is God. How do we know objectively one way or the other? We don't.

We do.

Gluon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're welcome.

And this is still the same fallacious argument just recast on a different spatial scale. If God is everywhere, then all that is needed to falsify him is to show somewhere he is not.

As I said to the Craigian in the last thread - beliefs based around universals and absolutes are spectacularly easy to topple. Singular counterexamples usually suffice. God-concepts of that kind are no different than scientific theories in that regard.

I was speaking of the definition that says the rejection of "the belief in dieties"

you need to follow the posts

how can one believe that no dieties exist unless they have ultimate knowledge of every nic and crany of the universe.

Because they reject belief in deities. They don't believe no deities exist.

For the n-th time - most of the people you're talking to here are weak atheists. They do not claim or believe that no deities exist, only that there is currently no good argument for believing that they DO exist.

 

[createdtoworship]

And this is still the same fallacious argument just recast on a different spatial scale. If God is everywhere, then all that is needed to falsify him is to show somewhere he is not.

okay prove He is not on your finger tip?

Or under neath your finger nails.

Or riding on the backs of dust mites living in your pillow?

etc etc ad nausuem

 

[Gadarene]

okay prove He is not on your finger tip?

Or under neath your finger nails.

Or riding on the backs of dust mites living in your pillow?

etc etc ad nausuem

Do I need to remind you of what omnipresent means?

It seems you still haven't grasped the counter-argument.

 

[createdtoworship]

Do I need to remind you of what omnipresent means?

It seems you still haven't grasped the counter-argument.

no I know God exists everywhere,

I am just saying to you to prove that He doesn't exist everywhere.

In other words show me one place where God is not.

 

[Gadarene]

no I know God exists everywhere,

I am just saying to you to prove that He doesn't exist everywhere.

In other words show me one place where God is not.

I would argue there is no evidence that God is anywhere in the fraction of the universe we have observed.

And as I said, a god that makes mankind as his crowning achievement and then hangs out in the Crab Nebula is somewhat redundant. You shouldn't have to look further than Earth.

 

[Zack454]

okay prove He is not on your finger tip?

Let's do a little demonstration here. You prove to me that say, a massive omnipresent floating phallic object doesn't exist on your finger tip. You can't. You know why? 'Cause it's made up, that's why. When something has no impact on the physical world, it can't be disproved.

 

[createdtoworship]

I would argue there is no evidence that God is anywhere in the fraction of the universe we have observed.

And as I said, a god that makes mankind as his crowning achievement and then hangs out in the Crab Nebula is somewhat redundant. You shouldn't have to look further than Earth.

prove it though,

like I said you can't prove a negative. You have to have absolute knowledge. It doesn't matter if God is omnipresent or not!

 

[Gadarene]

prove it though,

like I said you can't prove a negative. You have to have absolute knowledge. It doesn't matter if God is omnipresent or not!

Define absolute knowledge. What you are doing here is simply god of the gaps. I stand by my original statement - there is no evidence to suggest that God is ANYWHERE we've already observed and investigated. That doesn't mean he definitely isn't there, but it does mean there is little good reason to think that he is there.

Perhaps it would be quicker for you to suggest a location where God definitely CAN be found.

 

[Non sequitur]

no I know God exists everywhere,

I am just saying to you to prove that He doesn't exist everywhere.

In other words show me one place where God is not.

In my heart.

(Had to say it; my bad.)

 

[Gadarene]

In my heart.

(Had to say it; my bad.)

So much for the (omnipresent) god-shaped hole

 

[createdtoworship]

Define absolute knowledge. What you are doing here is simply god of the gaps. I stand by my original statement - there is no evidence to suggest that God is ANYWHERE we've already observed and investigated. That doesn't mean he definitely isn't there, but it does mean there is little good reason to think that he is there.

Perhaps it would be quicker for you to suggest a location where God definitely CAN be found.

no, I am suggesting you to prove one place where God definiately is not.


Just one.

 

[createdtoworship]

In my heart.

(Had to say it; my bad.)

how do you know He 's not there. Just your opinion?

 

[Gadarene]

no, I am suggesting you to prove one place where God definiately is not.

Just one.

Concluding something does exist on the grounds of a lack of evidence is poor practice.

I'd also arguing it is inconsistent behaviour given that we generally do not accept the existence of posited entities by default. No exception need be made for God.

 

[createdtoworship]

Concluding something does exist on the grounds of a lack of evidence is poor practice.

I'd also arguing it is inconsistent behaviour given that we generally do not accept the existence of posited entities by default. No exception need be made for God.

so you cannot,

for everything your worth,

prove it?

then your premise is false.