What do you say to anti-theists on the formation of the universe?

[dlamberth]

Let me rephrase for clarification. Faith is what drives an atheist to say there is no god.

I don't think faith has anything to do with it.
Why couldn't it be as simple as seeing no evidence of God?

 

[Fervent]

Let me rephrase for clarification. Faith is what drives an atheist to say there is no god.

While I agree with you that atheists also have a faith of their own, it's not in what they don't believe. It's in their belief in the self-sufficiency of matter or whatever the worldview assumption that they are operating under.

And as far as I'm concerned, it's not an intellectual issue. It's a moral one, because the atheist wants to be his own god.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Depends on how we understand "natural", if we include a rider about irrelevance of deities then no. If we strictly mean the regular nomological functions than sure. My issue isn't with physicists only considering current consensus physical models while conducting science, it is when the model becomes reified and presented as an excuse for atheistic worldviews and subsequenr refusal to engage with criticisms of those worldviews that come through philosophy. So yes and no, depending on application.

If I ever had any questions about why conversations with you are not possible, this was it. If you can't even say that the four forces of physics are natural, there isn't much point in this conversation. This looks a lot like a conspiracy theory and you are definitely conflating religious positions with science. I won't waste anymore time on this.

 

[Fervent]

If I ever had any questions about why conversations with you are not possible, this was it. If you can't even say that the four forces of physics are natural, there isn't much point in this conversation. This looks a lot like a conspiracy theory and you are definitely conflating religious positions with science. I won't waste anymore time on this.

I'm just making sure we're clarifying what we mean and not bringing in unvetted presumptions. Natural is a loaded term, so I am simply ensuring that we don't incorporate metaphysical baggage by agreeing to the notion of "natural." It's necessary because my understanding is that those supposed "laws" are actively administered by God. Which is why I said yes and no, rather than giving a simple answer. That you object to me ensuring that we not slip in hidden terms is telling.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I don't think faith has anything to do with it.
Why couldn't it be as simple as seeing no evidence of God?

If you say, "I see no evidence for God, therefore I do not believe God exist," it is a subjective but factual statement. It is an agnostic position that makes no truth claims. However, if you say, "God does not exist," you are making a truth claim that cannot be proven or disproven because nothing can empirically measure the supernatural to verify the existence of supernatural beings. It is the God of the Gaps in reverse. I see no acceptable evidence for God, therefore God doesn't exist.

 

[Bradskii]

I see no acceptable evidence for God, therefore God doesn't exist.

And the corollary: I see acceptable evidence for God, therefore He does exist.

Neither are faith claims.

 

[Fervent]

And the corollary: I see acceptable evidence for God, therefore He does exist.

Neither are faith claims.

Belief in God is an a priori belief, it's a metaphysical claim not an existential claim. God is being itself, as John of Damascus said it is not strong enough to say that He exists, because He is existence. A priori beliefs are subject to arguments, not evidence. All the evidentialist atheist does is employ a category mistake by treating a metaphysical belief as if it were an ordinary claim of existence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm just making sure we're clarifying what we mean and not bringing in unvetted presumptions. Natural is a loaded term, so I am simply ensuring that we don't incorporate metaphysical baggage by agreeing to the notion of "natural."

SMH. Natural is not loaded.

It's necessary because my understanding is that those supposed "laws" are actively administered by God.

I never got this view of god as a clerk executing the laws of nature. It always seemed to diminish the deity.

Which is why I said yes and no, rather than giving a simple answer. That you object to me ensuring that we not slip in hidden terms is telling.

You think this is all a world view question and you completely get atheists wrong with your "faith" claim and the "be their own god" nonsense. No wonder we can't make any headway if you believe nonsense like that.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Webster defines faith as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof." There is no proof that God doesn't exist. If you disagree, show me the proof that Deism is false. If not, explain how not believing in God any less faith based than believing in God? My faith is in scripture, personal experience, and logic. Your faith is in yourself, scientist, and academics.

 

[Fervent]

SMH. Natural is not loaded.

Do you not deny that natural can be defined as "not relating to deities"? All I'm making sure is we not conflate definitions of natural from phenomenology to ontology.

I never got this view of god as a clerk executing the laws of nature. It always seemed to diminish the deity.

Who says He's a clerk? He sustains the universe as pure act, if He stops creating it ends.

You think this is all a world view question and you completely get atheists wrong with your "faith" claim and the "be their own god" nonsense. No wonder we can't make any headway if you believe nonsense like that.

The options are for me to believe atheists, when all men are liars, or believe God who is Truth. I don't believe atheists are necessarily conscious of such behavior, but I've had too many conversations that end with my interlocutor exasperatedly declaring "I'm not giving up my X" where X is whatever sin they are holding onto to believe atheists are always aware of their motives.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The options are for me to believe atheists, when all men are liars, or believe God who is Truth.

So you think we are liars when we tell you our positions on gods, etc.? That would explain a lot. Do you assume that people who claim to believe in other gods are liars? What about those who claim to believe in your god?

I don't believe atheists are necessarily conscious of such behavior, but I've had too many conversations that end with my interlocutor exasperatedly declaring "I'm not giving up my X" where X is whatever sin they are holding onto to believe atheists are always aware of their motives.

I gave up sin for lent 25 years ago. I'm not concerned about "sin".

 

[Fervent]

So you think we are liars when we tell you our positions on gods, etc.? That would explain a lot. Do you assume that people who claim to believe in other gods are liars? What about those who claim to believe in your god?

That's quite a twist on what I said, I'm sure you sincerely believe your disbelief is related to evidence, but the heart of man is deceitful beyond measure and if "rational" people are able to do anything it's to deceive themselves about their underlying motives. From where I'm seated it is either believe God as conveyed through Paul, or to believe human beings who are prone to lying both to others and to themselves. It just so happens that my belief in God's word has been routinely corroborated with my experiences with atheists.

I gave up sin for lent 25 years ago. I'm not concerned about "sin".

I'm sure you're not, I am simply operating on my experiences in apologetic conversations. Quite often it has come down to those I debate refusing to have God as master.

 

[Bradskii]

Webster defines faith as "firm belief in something for which there is no proof."

And what is required to prove something? Evidence.

If you have evidence that you accept as being valid then you can believe something exists, even if you can't prove it.
If you have evidence that you do not accept as being valid then you will not believe that something exists, even if you can't prove it.

Both of those statements, which state that there is no proof, depend on evidence. Your belief, or disbelief, is decided by the evidence in both cases. If there is no evidence presented then your belief, or non belief, will be faith based.

To counter this then all you need do is give me an example of something that is proved to exist or proved not to exist without providing any evidence. And I'll save you some thinking time: It's not possible.

The evidence will determine your position. Which could consist of scripture or personal experience. Or you could apply logic. But if there is no evidence at all then it becomes just a faith based position.

 

[dlamberth]

Belief in God is an a priori belief, it's a metaphysical claim not an existential claim. God is being itself, as John of Damascus said it is not strong enough to say that He exists, because He is existence. A priori beliefs are subject to arguments, not evidence.

There are some where knowledge of the Being of God as the essence of existence itself is not metaphysical, but is actually experienced in their their lives as a basic reality of things.

All the evidentialist atheist does is employ a category mistake by treating a metaphysical belief as if it were an ordinary claim of existence.

None of which has anything to do with faith, at least as far as I can see.

I think that every metaphysical person should test their beliefs against several backdrops, one of which IS "ordinary claims of existence". Most metaphysical beliefs that people have faith in (from what I see) are no more than "beliefs". They may be strongly held beliefs but beliefs with nothing experiential or no evidence aspect about them. When that's seen by others it's not that far of a jump to question the whole metaphysical tapestry.

 

[Fervent]

There are some where knowledge of the Being of God as the essence of existence itself is not metaphysical, but is actually experienced in their their lives as a basic reality of things.

It's an ontological statement, which is metaphysical.

None of which has anything to do with faith, at least as far as I can see.

It depends on how we define "faith," if we mean a belief taken prior to experience that is irrevocably held, then it's unavoidable because we cannot prove or disprove ontological claims. We can present deductive arguments, but deduction depends on agreeable premises which are often disputed.

I think that every metaphysical person should test their beliefs against several backdrops, one of which IS "ordinary claims of existence". Most metaphysical beliefs that people have faith in (from what I see) are no more than "beliefs". They may be strongly held beliefs but beliefs with nothing experiential or no evidence aspect about them. When that's seen by others it's not that far of a jump to question the whole metaphysical tapestry.

Ontological claims can't be treated as ordinary claims of existence because they are accepted on their own merits and not on the basis of other facts. It's a fallacy to subject metaphysical claims to a posteriori reasoning because doing so is categorically incorrect. Metaphysical beliefs are limited in their testability, at best we can develop empirically equivalent metaphysical beliefs, which naturalism and panentheistic views are. It's just bad reasoning to subject metaphysical claims to an empirical criterion beyond establishing empirical equivalence. Metaphysical beliefs will always be underdetermined, but they are unavoidable and ontology is always taken as an a priori stipulation.

 

[Yttrium]

And as far as I'm concerned, it's not an intellectual issue. It's a moral one, because the atheist wants to be his own god.

Another oxymoron...

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's quite a twist on what I said, I'm sure you sincerely believe your disbelief is related to evidence, but the heart of man is deceitful beyond measure and if "rational" people are able to do anything it's to deceive themselves about their underlying motives.

I said nothing about why I have non-belief. I was entirely about why you don't trust anyone who makes such a claim. Instead you come back with accusations of ulterior motives. What keeps you from accepting that I truly don't believe in your god anymore?

From where I'm seated it is either believe God as conveyed through Paul, or to believe human beings who are prone to lying both to others and to themselves. It just so happens that my belief in God's word has been routinely corroborated with my experiences with atheists.

Your presuppositions are distorting your view of others in a very uncharitable way.

 

[Fervent]

I said nothing about why I have non-belief. I was entirely about why you don't trust anyone who makes such a claim. Instead you come back with accusations of ulterior motives. What keeps you from accepting that I truly don't believe in your god anymore?

What gave you the impression I think you don't believe you don't believe? Again, it's either believe a human being who is capable of lying or believing God. It's not a hard decision, regardless of how you think it paints you.

Your presuppositions are distorting your view of others in a very uncharitable way.

And I should be concerned about your opinion why?

 

[Ophiolite]

Read the thread. I have already explained it. If you are making the truth claim, "there is no god," it is a faith based claim. Because the reality is that you do not know there is no god, you just have faith that their is not.

Well, thank you for the clarification. I see your error. (It would have been helpful if you had mentioned the post # where you said this.)

I don't know anything. On a practical level I accept certain things as very likely, because that is the way the evidence points. Thus, I accept that I am likely to find, if I wake up tomorrow, that I am much the same person as I was when I went to bed; I will not have, overnight, become Tom Cruise, or an iron bedstead. But I don't know that, I simply accept it as the most probable outcome. Why? The evidence points towards it as very, very likely and nothing I am aware of supports the notion that anything like a conversion to another person, or an inanimate object (other than a corpse) is even possible.
Likewise, I don't know that there is no God, but the absence of any substantive evidence gives me no reason to consider it a practical, plausible possibility. I always accept that such evidence may emerge, but until it does the practical approach is to place the concept of a god in the same place I consign planet sized hyenas that feed on asteroids, or any other, object, entity or concept for which there is no substantive evidence of which I am aware.
To avoid having to go through that tiresome explanation every time, I simply note that I am an atheist. To be more specific, I am agnostic in relation to gods in general, but atheist in relation to any god that I have ever heard of.

If you've worked your way through that, thank you for your effort. Now please don't accuse me of making faith based decisions. The concept of faith, valuable as it is to many, is abhorent to me. (And that is a pragmatic, evidence based position.)

 

[Neogaia777]

I think some of you guys are underestimating the possibility that there could be an all-encompasing God, or to us, some kind of "God-like being" right now as compared to us right now, or even lesser gods as compared to us right now, if viewed through a 100% truly objective lens, etc. I'm maybe not expecting it to exceed 50% with you guys right now or yet, but I think the possibility is greater than you are giving it credit for if viewed through a 100% completely objective lens, which I don't think many of you are right now doing yet, etc. For me, it exceeded 50% a long, long time ago already, but wasn't always, etc. I definitely, definitely went through my period of a lot of, a lot of doubts, etc, but doubts that have since been tilted in the other direction since then, etc. I'm 99.9% certain of most of what I believe now, etc, but it differs very, very much greatly from the ways that just about anyone else believes, or says they believe, and it has been that very, very different understanding, which differs very, very much greatly from the "norm", that has helped me to tilt those scales of those possibilities in the other direction since then, etc. If you just simply listen to those others and what they say they believe, etc, then I can very, very much understand how it would be much, much less than 50% right now really, etc. Many of them aren't even aware of such things that are called logic and/or reason, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.