Objective morality, Evidence for God's existence

[Ana the Ist]

I'm pointing them out just fine, why would someone else need to?

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

 

[Chriliman]

No...it makes no difference which came first. The word "opposite" is derived from the word "oppose" lol...they are opposites. The refer to opposite positions on the existence of god. If one is true...the other is false. If one is logical...then the other is illogical.

Why do you think that it matters which one is first? You realize that they cannot both be true...right? For the same reason that they cannot both be true...they cannot both be logical. I've already shown atheism to be logical...you haven't done the same for theism.



Morality is completely different. If I were to agree with this analogy...then what you're saying is similar to saying that since being moral is logical, then being amoral is logical too (since it came first). See why that doesn't work? They are opposites.

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?

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

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?

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?

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

 

[Hieronymus]

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.

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.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Aah, that's where the flaw is (i.m.h.o.).
There is plenty of evidence for the existence of gods and God.

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).

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.

I disagree.

With a passion for truth, logic and reason, philosophers tend to conclude God can not not-exist.

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?

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.

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".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Possibly. I have a lot of logical ideas that point to the truth of God. I can't force anyone to accept them as logical though, but I can explain them in different logical ways.

You haven't explained anything.

 

[Chriliman]

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.

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.

 

[quatona]

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.

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.

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.

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.

So atheists are wrong if theism is right and atheists are wrong

Wrong about what precisely?

 

[Chriliman]

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.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

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".

 

[quatona]

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.

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).

 

[Eudaimonist]

If theism is correct then atheism is incorrect, but if theism is incorrect then so is atheism.

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

 

[Hieronymus]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion...

Thanks.
But it's not my opinion that produces the evidence.

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).

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..

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?

It's about logic, reason and the quest for truth, that's what philosophy is.
Strange how naturalists usually dismiss this...

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".

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).

 

[Hieronymus]

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.

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?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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...

Wow. This is... wow.

 

[Hieronymus]

Wow. This is... wow.

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...

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thanks.
But it's not my opinion that produces the evidence..

You're right about this.

.

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....

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...

.

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

You're welcome to try


.

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..

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?

.

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....

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.


.

Even Darwin would dismiss his ideas in light of the knowledge gathered by science, like DNA (code).

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

 

[Hieronymus]

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.

It's naturalistic evolution, dead things evolving into living things by themselves,without a purpose or reason.
Get a clue, you have the brains.

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

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.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Speaking of books...

 

[Ana the Ist]

I agree, it's pathetic to claim it's science and fact, to claim it at all.
Who can truly believe DNA writes itself?

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)