Atheism and the Universal Knowledge of God

[bhsmte]

And rightly so. We should be wary of those claiming to speak for a divine being. But do you also have emotional and personal objections? Or would you like the God of the Bible to be real?

The God of the bible is a contradiction, a mixed bag of immoral and moral and a story that (although it took me a while to figure out) is clearly the invention of man.

If a God exists, I give the least chance of that God being the God described in the bible and defined by unknown authors from 2000 years ago.

 

[bhsmte]

William Lane Craig is not a presuppositionalist. He sounds more like he's been reading Bahnsen and van Til.

I was thinking about Craig's theory on God causing the creation of the universe, which sounds a lot like what the OP is saying.

 

[brightlights]

We believe the universe will continue to be consistent because there is no other option and we have observed consistency.

What do you mean no other option? There are certainly other options. One could remain agnostic on the issue. Or one could believe that, though we have observed consistency, there is no reason to suppose that the universe will continue to be consistent.

Of course you could mean that we need to believe in a consistent universe. On that point I would agree. But this need is not itself a reason to believe. You need a consistent universe but this belief can only be had in a theistic worldview. So atheists co-opt the belief but because they are personally offended by the idea of God they don't take it to it's logical conclusion.

Second premise 2 is not a biblical idea it is the common idea of all sentient beings, it being true doesn't support the Bible one iota.

I fully agree that all persons hold this belief. But only the Bible gives a reason for the belief.

 

[brightlights]

If Every experience at all is to be acquainted with God because "If God is the cause of every event then every experience of the world is also an experience of God."

To say that God is the cause of Every Event leads down a road you really don't want to travel.

I assure you that I'm fully willing to travel down that road.

 

[brightlights]

So stubbing my toe is an experience of God?

Yes it is. God was immediately involved in that event.

When I stub my toe, I feel pain. I experience the hardness of the leg of the coffeetable. But I am not acquainted with any divine person.

You are. Because all that you're experiencing is immediately caused by God.

 

[brightlights]

There's more to this philosophy thing than just spouting random nonsense, you know. Since you've provided no evidence or logic to accept your claims, a simple "is not" is more than enough to dismiss them.



Again with the mind reading. Why do apologists think that incorrectly guessing what I'm thinking is going to make me trust them?



Who, exactly?



False. There's good evidence that the universe operates consistently. That's not proof, but it is a reason which is more than enough to trash your "no reason" claim.

This all fails to understand the point. Give me one reason to believe that what's been observed in the past should continue in the future.

 

[bhsmte]

This all fails to understand the point. Give me one reason to believe that what's been observed in the past should continue in the future.

Fails to understand what point?

 

[brightlights]

In fact, it's precisely because I don't believe in the possibility of supernatural interference that I accept the uniformity of nature. The supernaturalist's assumption of uniformity is at the mercy of a supremely powerful cosmic being that not only can violate the apparent laws of reality, but according to their own holy book, does so. Far from 'co-opting' their word-view, I reject it outright as absurd and untenable.

Explain where you get these "laws of reality" from? They can't be discovered empirically, so how do you justify your belief in them?

 

[brightlights]

Fails to understand what point?

Without God there is not reason to suppose that the universe is consistent. Empiricism fails to justify the belief.

 

[bhsmte]

Without God there is not reason to suppose that the universe is consistent. Empiricism fails to justify the belief.

Empirical evidence fails to justify what belief?

 

[brightlights]

Empirical evidence fails to justify what belief?

That we live in a dependable and consistent universe.

 

[brightlights]

The God of the bible is a contradiction

In what ways do you find him contradicting himself?

a mixed bag of immoral and moral

Moral according to whom?

and a story that (although it took me a while to figure out) is clearly the invention of man.

In what way is this clear?

If a God exists, I give the least chance of that God being the God described in the bible and defined by unknown authors from 2000 years ago.

Many of the authors are known and the writings are 2000-5000 years old.

 

[variant]

What do you mean no other option? There are certainly other options. One could remain agnostic on the issue. Or one could believe that, though we have observed consistency, there is no reason to suppose that the universe will continue to be consistent.

The other option is the complete cessation of rational thought and deliberation of reality. Otherwise this proposition is axiomatic to all other propositions.

Science uses this proposition because it works, if it ceases to work science will cease.

The proposition is not a religious one but rather a pragmatic one that religion shares.

Of course you could mean that we need to believe in a consistent universe. On that point I would agree. But this need is not itself a reason to believe. You need a consistent universe but this belief can only be had in a theistic worldview. So atheists co-opt the belief but because they are personally offended by the idea of God they don't take it to it's logical conclusion.

I fully agree that all persons hold this belief. But only the Bible gives a reason for the belief.

We need that proposition to have any rational thoughts.

The Bible gives us an explanation for the proposition (although I would not really call it that as it I have questions as to what it "explains") not necessarily the reason. To hold this to be true merely assumes your conclusion so your not making an argument here but an assertion.

It is certainly possible to hold the proposition true and not believe in God so no your assertion that it can only be supported in a theistic worldview is simply wrong.

Simply assuming God is the explanation for a consistent universe and then asserting because the universe is consistent therefore God exists is what we call begging the question, and you are doing it rather directly.

P1 God is the only explanation for a consistent universe
P2 The universe is consistent

... Therefore God exists.

P1 is the issue of debate. You have to show God exists to show that it is the only explanation for something.

The argument is also invalid. P2 being false doesn't disprove God it disproves your interpretation of God so the conclusion doesn't follow from the truth of the premises.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Without God there is not reason to suppose that the universe is consistent.

Again, you have it exactly backwards. Your assumption of consistency is predicated on the whims of a being that purportedly can, and does, violate natural laws on a whim. I do not, and cannot, 'co-opt' such a worldview.

 

[brightlights]

The other option is the complete cessation of rational thought and deliberation of reality. Otherwise this proposition is axiomatic to all other propositions.

Rational means "having a reason". I understand that the belief is axiomatic for you, meaning that you simply accept it. But my point is that you have no reason to accept it. It's not a rational belief.

Science uses this proposition because it works, if it ceases to work science will cease.

The proposition is not a religious one but rather a pragmatic one that religion shares.

Of course it works. I would go further and say that it works because it's true. I can even give you a justification for the belief: God. You cannot justify the belief though. You can only accept it and call it axiomatic.

We need that proposition to have any rational thoughts.

Not necessarily. Perhaps the universe is consistent for X amount of years at a time and then becomes inconsistent for some reason. We can't say either way because we don't have omniscience.

The Bible gives us an explanation for the proposition not necessarily the reason. To hold this to be true merely assumes your conclusion so your not making an argument here but an assertion.

The Bible provides a justification for the belief. You may dispute whether or not the justification is valid.

It is certainly possible to hold the proposition true and not believe in God so no your assertion that it can only be supported in a theistic worldview is simply wrong.

It's possible but it lacks integrity unless you can otherwise justify the belief.

 

[brightlights]

Again, you have it exactly backwards. Your assumption of consistency is predicated on the whims of a being that purportedly can, and does, violate natural laws on a whim. I do not, and cannot, 'co-opt' such a worldview.

You're wrong on several accounts.

God created the world and all it's workings and it belongs to him. If this is the case I don't know how we could call his miraculous works a "violation" of natural law as if he was somehow held accountable to a law outside of himself.

Furthermore, the God of the Bible is the immediate cause of every event. There are no mediate natural laws that stand between him and creation. What makes you think that there are such things as natural laws? And what is a natural law?

Further still the belief is not based on the "whims" of God but on the promises of God. God has promised to uphold the world so the belief in a consistent universe is part of the larger belief in a trustworthy God.

 

[bhsmte]

In what ways do you find him contradicting himself?

The many biblical contradictions are easily found with a simple google search and there are MANY.


Moral according to whom?

Do believe anything commanded by God to be good, even if it means the slaughtering of people?

In what way is this clear?

The many errors in the bible, the many contradictions in the book and the language that fits the mythical times of attempts to understand the world, based on the limited knowledge they had at the time. Also, the historicity of the bible is quite interesting, when viewed from an objective standpoint. The many unknown authors, the decades that passed from authorship of the 4 gospels, the discrepancies in the accounts of Jesus, the fact only John mentions Jesus stated he was God and the gospel was written 70 year after Jesus died and is considered the least reliable to most scholars. Why would Matthew, Mark and Luke miss such an important point?

Many of the authors are known and the writings are 2000-5000 years old.

The gospel authors are anonymous and most scholars (even evangelical scholars) agree with this. They also agree, 30-70 years passed from when they were penned, making true eye witness accounts, highly unlikely. The adding of numerous verses to Mark, over a century later so the story would align more with the other 3 gospels. The addition of the adulteress story centuries after the fact, etc. etc.

 

[brightlights]

P1 God is the only explanation for a consistent universe
P2 The universe is consistent

... Therefore God exists.

P1 is the issue of debate. You have to show God exists to show that it is the only explanation for something.

The argument is also invalid. P2 being false doesn't disprove God it disproves your interpretation of God so the conclusion doesn't follow from the truth of the premises.

You misunderstand my argument. I am coming at this issue in a presuppositional way. My argument is more like this:

1. The belief in a consistent universe is unjustifiable apart from belief in God's existence.
2. You believe in a consistent universe.
3. Therefore you assume God's existence.

If you believe in a consistent universe you also believe in the God who upholds it. Though you may have some inner conflict because you also disbelieve this God for personal reasons.

 

[bhsmte]

You're wrong on several accounts.

God created the world and all it's workings and it belongs to him. If this is the case I don't know how we could call his miraculous works a "violation" of natural law as if he was somehow held accountable to a law outside of himself.

Furthermore, the God of the Bible is the immediate cause of every event. There are no mediate natural laws that stand between him and creation. What makes you think that there are such things as natural laws? And what is a natural law?

Further still the belief is not based on the "whims" of God but on the promises of God. God has promised to uphold the world so the belief in a consistent universe is part of the larger belief in a trustworthy God.

Why don't we back up a moment and I will revert to Varient's post number 12. Please demonstrate the claims you make in the OP with evidence and not simple, assumptions. That, would be an excellent start.

 

[brightlights]

The gospel authors are anonymous and most scholars (even evangelical scholars) agree with this. They also agree, 30-70 years passed from when they were penned, making true eye witness accounts, highly unlikely. The adding of numerous verses to Mark, over a century later so the story would align more with the other 3 gospels. The addition of the adulteress story centuries after the fact, etc. etc.

Call me back when you have some legitimate issues to raise.