Argument for God's existence.

[Moral Orel]

I'm a classical theist, and I'm not debating from any perspective at all. I'm asking you to clarify why you think atheism requires absolute knowledge of everything in the universe. That is a pretty extreme claim, and you don't need to be a skeptic to question it.

You're joining the conversation a bit late, I'm sure you haven't read the whole mess that is this thread. Did you just get back from Europe? We're supposed to use dictionaries from the 17th century, and if we don't, then we're immoral and lazy. It sounds too ridiculous to not be a straw man, but here we are...

Actually, the most interesting form of agnosticism, strong agnosticism, is precisely the claim that nobody can know. It's a pretty cool position, so let's not erase it.

I don't know why everyone keeps refusing to make claims these days. It's like we've managed to brainwash ourselves into the belief that nobody actually has any beliefs, and scientific evidence is simply deposited on top of a blank slate.

That's where I've settled. Strong agnosticism. I still consider myself an atheist because I lack belief too, but I went with the Agnostic faith status to try and avoid the exact nonsense that's getting bandied about in this thread (and so many others).

I don't think people have a problem making claims. I think some folks have a problem with what those claims are. "There is no God" is the only claim people accept. I think "Your argument sucks, and here's why" is still a valid claim. But that doesn't count for some folks for some reason.

 

[Silmarien]

You're joining the conversation a bit late, I'm sure you haven't read the whole mess that is this thread. Did you just get back from Europe? We're supposed to use dictionaries from the 17th century, and if we don't, then we're immoral and lazy. It sounds too ridiculous to not be a straw man, but here we are...

Got back last Wednesday! Horribly jetlagged and sick, of course, but I figured I ought to drop back in eventually.

But yeah, I haven't read through the whole thread. Was reading backwards a bit, but all the Flying Spaghetti Monster stuff got confusing quickly, so I quit.

That's where I've settled. Strong agnosticism. I still consider myself an atheist because I lack belief too, but I went with the Agnostic faith status to try and avoid the exact nonsense that's getting bandied about in this thread (and so many others).

I don't think people have a problem making claims. I think some folks have a problem with what those claims are. "There is no God" is the only claim people accept. I think "Your argument sucks, and here's why" is still a valid claim. But that doesn't count for some folks for some reason.

Strong agnosticism, hm? I don't think I've noticed that from you before! You think the question is utterly unknowable under any and all circumstances?

As far as definitions go, to be honest, I think the whole idea of "lacking belief" is a bit psychologically implausible. Beliefs aren't discrete objects that you can possess or fail to possess--they're more along the lines of an interwoven network that makes up a worldview. People aren't atheists because they simply lack one belief, but because their whole underlying metaphysical picture of reality points in a specific direction. So I share the frustration about bad definitions, but it's been a while since I last cared to argue about it.

I get that dealing with the constant apologetic zeal can be frustrating, though. I go after theistic arguments around here just enough to get occasionally hit by it myself.

 

[holo]

Actually, the most interesting form of agnosticism, strong agnosticism, is precisely the claim that nobody can know. It's a pretty cool position, so let's not erase it.

I don't know why everyone keeps refusing to make claims these days. It's like we've managed to brainwash ourselves into the belief that nobody actually has any beliefs, and scientific evidence is simply deposited on top of a blank slate.

I don't think I've ever met someone who believes strongly that nobody can know if there is a God, just that they don't personally aren't convinced. But I think a lot of agnostics look at all the crazy things people will believe and conclude that they're all most likely wrong.

 

[holo]

So it basically does nothing to answer the question "is there a God or not." But yet we are assumed it is the most scientific.

True, agnosticism doesn't try to answer whether or not there are any gods, it's just a statement about a position.

 

[holo]

This one thing alone would depress me as an athiest that my entire value system had no value.

Atheism isn't a value system, it's just means a lack of belief in god(s).

 

[Moral Orel]

Strong agnosticism, hm? I don't think I've noticed that from you before! You think the question is utterly unknowable under any and all circumstances?

Yep, I've decided there's no escaping the Matrix.

I don't think I've ever met someone who believes strongly that nobody can know if there is a God, just that they don't personally aren't convinced.

Nice to meetcha! Now you have.

 

[createdtoworship]

Personally, I find a lot of bravery in the phrase “I don’t know”, since a lot of small minded people gravitate to knee jerk positions and then expect everyone else to do the same...

yes, but it does absolutely nothing to answer the original question of the philosophy of athiesm. Not to mention moving the goal posts, which is it's own fallacy. But if it does not answer the basic question of if there is a God or not, why bother? Why focus your whole life's energy on a question mark? Sounds pretty lonely.

 

[createdtoworship]

Atheism isn't a value system, it's just means a lack of belief in god(s).

keep telling yourself that. The original athiests, and many athiests still today, have a negative view of thiesm, and thus are anti-theist ,or athiest. They justify their rejection of God by the fact their is evil in the world, and say that becuase there is evil a good God could not exist. Sounds like alot of value setting to me.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

So it basically does nothing to answer the question "is there a God or not." But yet we are assumed it is the most scientific.

Yes. It is. It is entirely appropriate for a reasonable person to not believe a claim without evidence being provided. That's about as scientific as it gets.
Again, you're falling into your old error of thinking that it's atheists' job to prove that God exists. It's not. The burden of proof is on you.

Sorry if I am politely bowing out. I feel at this point athiests are just spinning their wheels. If you would like to bring up something new to the discussion let me kow.

Oh no - you don't get our shiny new atheistic arguments until you can refute the old ones, something no Christian has ever managed to do: provide evidence that God exists.

The tea pot illustration can be answered in a simple post or to as with most athiest illustrations so let me know if you would like that rebuttal.

I would like you to answer the question. Are you not able to do it?
The question was:
Can you say "I believe that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars".
The answer is either:
"Yes, I can say that"
or
"No, I cannot say that I believe this."

Athiests here assume christians have never heard of all the athiest arguments against theism

Generally speaking, atheists know Christian arguments quite well; and, generally speaking, Christians do not understand atheist arguments very well at all. The Christians on Christian Forums Apologetics section are more likely to be familiar with atheist arguments, as that is what we discuss here, of course. You, however, have shown a number of times that not only are you not familiar with atheistic arguments, you do not understand them when they are explained to you.

This one thing alone would depress me as an athiest that my entire value system had no value.

Atheism is not intended to answer moral questions. If you judge an atheist on his morals by looking at his atheism, you are looking in the wrong place. Myself, my moral framework is provided by me being a humanist.

So your entire lively hood depends on the negation of someone else's positive statement. And do you honestly feel self worth in this position? Athiesm did not start out that worthless, they started out making real statements regarding if God existed or not. They presumed no, because of evil present in the universe. But scared little athiests who could not defend that position in the late 1800's decided agosticism was of more value, even though it provides even less value than athiesm toward the question "does God exist or not". Because now they have pride in holding a position of "no knowledge" toward that question. So again the entire purpose of original athiesm is defeated utterly and hopelessly.

Again, all you are demonstrating here is that you have not understood what people have been saying to you.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

As far as definitions go, to be honest, I think the whole idea of "lacking belief" is a bit psychologically implausible. Beliefs aren't discrete objects that you can possess or fail to possess--they're more along the lines of an interwoven network that makes up a worldview. People aren't atheists because they simply lack one belief, but because their whole underlying metaphysical picture of reality points in a specific direction.

I'm sorry, Silmarien, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this! Don't people change their beliefs when new evidence arises? For a long time, for example, people thought that fossils were animal remains from the Great flood, and that the Earth was six thousand years old. Some still do, of course, but plenty of people looked at the evidence and readjusted their views to account for new evidence. Then there's the germ theory of disease, the Big Bang itself, and on, and on.
If there really was evidence that the Christian story was true, I would consider it; and if it was sufficiently reliable, I would be converted. It really is as simple as that.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Almost every atheist I have ever debated gets more and more angry the more evidence I present. I believe that most atheists push their hatred of God into their subconscious and take it out on Christians. And then of course, deny their hatred of God and rather say that they dont like Christians shoving their religion down their throats.

You're wrong. Atheists don't hate God. If they did, they would be theists. It's really very simple.

No, that occurred by natural selection, which He also created. It is macroevolution that cannot occur.

And why is that? Please explain how a lot of small changes can not, over time, add up to big changes, and what barrier there is to prevent microevolution from leading to macroevolution.

The Anthropic Principle has shown that if the universe was not exactly the way it is, human life would not exist. And since God's goal was to make it habitable for humans using primarily natural law, the universe had to be this large and uninhabited.

Unfounded claim, which can therefore be summarily dismissed.

 

[holo]

keep telling yourself that. The original athiests, and many athiests still today, have a negative view of thiesm, and thus are anti-theist ,or athiest. They justify their rejection of God by the fact their is evil in the world, and say that becuase there is evil a good God could not exist. Sounds like alot of value setting to me.

It makes no difference to me what "the original atheists" believed. When I say I'm an atheist, what I mean is that I don't believe there are any gods. Maybe I'll be convinced otherwise in the future. The reason I'm an atheist/agnostic is that I simply don't see convincing evidence for any gods.

But yes, the problem of evil is a serious objection to some of the typical Christians claims about the nature of God and the universe.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes. It is. It is entirely appropriate for a reasonable person to not believe a claim without evidence being provided. That's about as scientific as it gets.
Again, you're falling into your old error of thinking that it's atheists' job to prove that God exists. It's not. The burden of proof is on you.


Oh no - you don't get our shiny new atheistic arguments until you can refute the old ones, something no Christian has ever managed to do: provide evidence that God exists.


I would like you to answer the question. Are you not able to do it?
The question was:
Can you say "I believe that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars".
The answer is either:
"Yes, I can say that"
or
"No, I cannot say that I believe this."


Generally speaking, atheists know Christian arguments quite well; and, generally speaking, Christians do not understand atheist arguments very well at all. The Christians on Christian Forums Apologetics section are more likely to be familiar with atheist arguments, as that is what we discuss here, of course. You, however, have shown a number of times that not only are you not familiar with atheistic arguments, you do not understand them when they are explained to you.


Atheism is not intended to answer moral questions. If you judge an atheist on his morals by looking at his atheism, you are looking in the wrong place. Myself, my moral framework is provided by me being a humanist.


Again, all you are demonstrating here is that you have not understood what people have been saying to you.

Yes. It is. It is entirely appropriate for a reasonable person to not believe a claim without evidence being provided. That's about as scientific as it gets.
Again, you're falling into your old error of thinking that it's atheists' job to prove that God exists. It's not. The burden of proof is on you.


Oh no - you don't get our shiny new atheistic arguments until you can refute the old ones, something no Christian has ever managed to do: provide evidence that God exists.


I would like you to answer the question. Are you not able to do it?
The question was:
Can you say "I believe that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars".
The answer is either:
"Yes, I can say that"
or
"No, I cannot say that I believe this."


Generally speaking, atheists know Christian arguments quite well; and, generally speaking, Christians do not understand atheist arguments very well at all. The Christians on Christian Forums Apologetics section are more likely to be familiar with atheist arguments, as that is what we discuss here, of course. You, however, have shown a number of times that not only are you not familiar with atheistic arguments, you do not understand them when they are explained to you.


Atheism is not intended to answer moral questions. If you judge an atheist on his morals by looking at his atheism, you are looking in the wrong place. Myself, my moral framework is provided by me being a humanist.


Again, all you are demonstrating here is that you have not understood what people have been saying to you.

so again you are spinning your wheels. so there is nothing to adress here, no new information. The old is done, it was easily refuted pages ago. And it's ok if you don't believe me the proof is in the posts. So again thank you, you make my life easy.

 

[createdtoworship]

It makes no difference to me what "the original atheists" believed. When I say I'm an atheist, what I mean is that I don't believe there are any gods. Maybe I'll be convinced otherwise in the future. The reason I'm an atheist/agnostic is that I simply don't see convincing evidence for any gods.

well thank you, you prove my point that atheism is a belief that God does not exist. Many of the others here refuse to admit that that is atheism's true standpoint. and if they answer "I don't know" relating to the question of "is there a God." they are no longer atheist but agnostic. So thanks, that makes me respect you. Going against the flow and taking a stand.

But yes, the problem of evil is a serious objection to some of the typical Christians claims about the nature of God and the universe.

yes I admit, the problem of evil confused me a little. Then I realized that evil is not a positive character trait, but a lack of character. So God is not evil, but the Goodness of God attempts to give people character, and if they reject it, it's evil (a lack of character). Satan brought evil into the world with temptation, and adam and eve accepted that fate. Before that time there was no evil. It is questionable that temptation is evil. But I would say yes. Tempting someone to sin, is wrong.

 

[holo]

well thank you, you prove my point that atheism is a belief that God does not exist.

That's not entirely accurate though. There's a difference between not believing in something, and knowing that something isn't true. For example I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but I don't claim to know it. Same with god(s), in my case. I don't believe there is a god, but I'm not claiming to know there is no god. That's why I think it's most accurate to say I'm both an atheist and an agnostic.

yes I admit, the problem of evil confused me a little. Then I realized that evil is not a positive character trait, but a lack of character. So God is not evil, but the Goodness of God attempts to give people character, and if they reject it, it's evil (a lack of character). Satan brought evil into the world with temptation, and adam and eve accepted that fate. Before that time there was no evil. It is questionable that temptation is evil. But I would say yes. Tempting someone to sin, is wrong.

As far as I can understand, the problem of evil is a problem because God is supposedly both good and omnipotent. It's hard to fit all the world's suffering into that view.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

so again you are spinning your wheels. so there is nothing to adress here, no new information. The old is done, it was easily refuted pages ago. And it's ok if you don't believe me the proof is in the posts. So again thank you, you make my life easy.

So, when confronted with a straightforward question, you are either unwilling or unable to answer it.
Here it is again:
Can you say "I believe that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars"?
If you can't answer it, say so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So, when confronted with a straightforward question, you are either unwilling or unable to answer it.
Here it is again:
Can you say "I believe that there is a teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars"?
If you can't answer it, say so.

I have to say "no," there is no teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. And why do I think this? Well, because.......[ba-da-da-dum!]............it'd be a huge waste of tax-payer money to put one there.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I have to say "no," there is no teapot orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars. And why do I think this? Well, because.......[ba-da-da-dum!]............it'd be a huge waste of tax-payer money to put one there.

Sure it would. But so what? I am telling you that it is there. And, unless you can prove that it isn't, @gradyll insists that you must believe me, because you are incapable of proving me wrong.

gradyll has been very clear that this is how it works. If you can't disprove a claim, you have to accept it.

Welcome to the Church of the Flying Teapot! Whether you want to be or not, you are now...Ours.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sure it would. But so what? I am telling you that it is there. And, unless you can prove that it isn't, @gradyll insists that you must believe me, because you are incapable of proving me wrong.

gradyll has been very clear that this is how it works. If you can't disprove a claim, you have to accept it.

Welcome to the Church of the Flying Teapot! Whether you want to be or not, you are now...Ours.

Yes, I know he has a disposition toward assuming what he thinks are 'default' conclusions. I experienced some of his disposition months ago when he and I briefly (very briefly) argued. Being that I'm not a mainstream evangelical Christian, you can imagine how that went; he got frustrated and essentially wished to discontinue the discussion after just a few posts were exchanged. At that point, I desisted with him because I knew there wouldn't be much reason to chase further inquiry. But, he's still a brother in Christ, and as in any family, there's always going to be 'that one' who causes trouble ...

Church of the Flying Teapot, ay? Do they serve tea and crumpets there?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes, I know he has a disposition toward assuming what he thinks are 'default' conclusions. I experienced some of his disposition months ago when he and I briefly (very briefly) argued. Being that I'm not a mainstream evangelical Christian, you can imagine how that went; he got frustrated and essentially wished to discontinue the discussion after just a few posts were exchanged. At that point, I desisted with him because I knew there wouldn't be much reason to chase further inquiry. But, he's still a brother in Christ, and as in any family, there's always going to be 'that one' who causes trouble ...

Church of the Flying Teapot, ay? Do they serve tea and crumpets there?

That sounds very sensible of you, philo. Perhaps more so than me.

And of course! What Church of the Flying Teapot would be complete without tea and crumpets?