Atheism and the Universal Knowledge of God

[Eudaimonist]

Why would God's existence threaten our reason? Only if God is capricious, unjust, and unreliable.

False. All it takes is the possibility of one miracle to make reason unreliable.

This has nothing to do with God's character. If even one miracle can happen, for any reason whatsoever, reason is far less reliable than in a godless natural universe.

BTW, thank you for presupposing the existence of a godless reality in order to make your argument. You'll become an atheist soon enough!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[brightlights]

The inference based upon the nature of my experience to this point.

That's what I suspected. But this is irrational. It is true and it's also persuasive because of the appeal to past experience. But no amount of observation can give knowledge of the future. Knowledge of the past does not justify knowledge of the future. You trust your past experience and make plans for tomorrow in faith because you have nothing better to trust. But at the end of the day it is faith that you live by.

 

[brightlights]

False. All it takes is the possibility of one miracle to make reason unreliable.

This has nothing to do with God's character. If even one miracle can happen, for any reason whatsoever, reason is far less reliable than in a godless natural universe.

BTW, thank you for presupposing the existence of a godless reality in order to make your argument. You'll become an atheist soon enough!


eudaimonia,

Mark

Why does miracle make reason unreliable?

I suppose it means that reason is less reliable than revelation but I don't see how it makes reason unreliable.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why does miracle make reason unreliable?

I refer you to your own words:

Do you believe in a consistent, dependable universe?... If so, you also assume the existence of God.

Miracles mean that the universe is not consistent and dependable. Something may happen that is contrary to its nature. Only a godless natural universe is consistent and dependable.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[bhsmte]

I refer you to your own words:

Do you believe in a consistent, dependable universe?... If so, you also assume the existence of God.

Miracles mean that the universe is not consistent and dependable. Something may happen that is contrary to its nature. Only a godless natural universe is consistent and dependable.


eudaimonia,

Mark

BINGO!

 

[variant]

That's what I suspected. But this is irrational. It is true and it's also persuasive because of the appeal to past experience. But no amount of observation can give knowledge of the future. Knowledge of the past does not justify knowledge of the future. You trust your past experience and make plans for tomorrow in faith because you have nothing better to trust. But at the end of the day it is faith that you live by.

Given that my brain can only exist as it does because the concept works in reality.

Well I can either believe you or my lying eyes.

Irrational

I suppose you can just say it's irrational to base our knowledge and inferred predictability of the consistent universe on continuous uncontradicted evidence but I doubt you're going to convince many people.

 

[brightlights]

I refer you to your own words:

Do you believe in a consistent, dependable universe?... If so, you also assume the existence of God.

Miracles mean that the universe is not consistent and dependable. Something may happen that is contrary to its nature. Only a godless natural universe is consistent and dependable.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Now we are talking about two different things. Reason has to do with our ability to know the world. My statement quoted has to do with the world itself.

 

[bhsmte]

Now we are talking about two different things. Reason has to do with our ability to know the world. My statement quoted has to do with the world itself.

?????????????????????????????????

 

[Eudaimonist]

Now we are talking about two different things. Reason has to do with our ability to know the world. My statement quoted has to do with the world itself.

Your argument has touched strongly on issues of knowledge and how that relates to a "dependable universe".

Your words:

Let's first look at a dependable universe. We can count on the physical world to continue to function the way it's always functioned because a personal God has promised to uphold it. If you remove the personal God then you have no reason to believe that what's been observed in the past will continue in the future.

Do you understand your own argument?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[PsychoSarah]

Turning this argument on its head...

Everyone presupposes a godless natural universe in order to reason.

In a godless natural universe, water does not miraculously turn into wine. In a universe with a God, water might turn miraculously into wine at God's whim, contrary to water's nature, at a moment's notice.

In a universe with a God, the reliability of reason is rendered impossible. Only in a universe that does not have the possibility of supernatural intervention can reason be reliable.

So, Christians assume the truth of atheistic naturalism in the act of arguing for God.

(Sick of presuppositionalist nonsense.)


eudaimonia,

Mark

Turning water into wine is a parlor trick anyone can learn.

 

[Gadarene]

Presupps are adorable.

It's like they don't even realise even their knowledge of the bible, god etc has to come to them through external means.

 

[KCfromNC]

That's what I suspected. But this is irrational. It is true and it's also persuasive because of the appeal to past experience. But no amount of observation can give knowledge of the future.

And yet despite your claims, our "unjustified" belief that the sun would come up today happened to be correct, just like it has been thousands of times before. How do you reconcile your claim against this fact?

 

[Golden Yak]

Eudaimonist made an interesting move but I think it also reveals some of the hidden sentiment of atheism. Why would God's existence threaten our reason? Only if God is capricious, unjust, and unreliable. So the argument assumes that God is morally bad. It's not just that belief in God is unreasonable, it's also that if God existed he would not be worthy of trust.

There are atheists who maintain that they would like to believe a god exists but still do not believe in one due to lack of evidence. So lack of belief in a god isn't necessarily related to what a person thinks about that god's nature or character.

I mean, I'll say it - I'm glad I have no reason to think the God of the bible exists and reasons to actively believe that he doesn't. But I lacked any kind of belief in any god long before I knew anything specific about Christianity or the bible.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I have made multiple attempts to find religion and came back empty handed each time. I wanted to believe more than not, so I can honestly say that my lack of belief doesn't stem from a "rejection" of god or from a dislike of religion.

 

[brightlights]

I have made multiple attempts to find religion and came back empty handed each time. I wanted to believe more than not, so I can honestly say that my lack of belief doesn't stem from a "rejection" of god or from a dislike of religion.

I do think that all people, atheists included have some nostalgia for belief. As Ecclesiastes says, God put eternity in the hearts of men. Who wouldn't be interested in eternal life and cosmic purpose?

The problem is usually that we don't find a god that suits us. So a god per se is not necessarily objectionable, but the Biblical God with his particular claims of authority and demands is the god that offends us.

 

[brightlights]

And yet despite your claims, our "unjustified" belief that the sun would come up today happened to be correct, just like it has been thousands of times before. How do you reconcile your claim against this fact?

I'm not sure that you're understanding the concept of epistemological justification. It doesn't have any direct relationship with truth such that all true beliefs are also justified. The two are quite separate.

 

[variant]

I'm not sure that you're understanding the concept of epistemological justification. It doesn't have any direct relationship with truth such that all true beliefs are also justified. The two are quite separate.

There are plenty of different views on the subject.

Like say Karl Popper just to pick one philosopher who disagrees with you wildly.

Karl Popper and Justified True Belief - YouTube

Which just throws the idea of the infinite regress of justification out the window.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I do think that all people, atheists included have some nostalgia for belief. As Ecclesiastes says, God put eternity in the hearts of men.

You are wrong. Ecclesiastes is wrong.

Again, you have no means of discerning the truth value of these assertions, but I do. They are false. Since your worldview is predicated on these assertions, I dismiss it on this principal alone, its numerous other problems besides.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm not sure that you're understanding the concept of epistemological justification.

Why are you unsure? Is you belief true? Justified? How do you know? Be sure not to use induction from any experience in the past since we haven't yet established that we can trust that sort of reasoning.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I do think that all people, atheists included have some nostalgia for belief. As Ecclesiastes says, God put eternity in the hearts of men. Who wouldn't be interested in eternal life and cosmic purpose?

Cosmic purpose is just ego and self-aggrandizement. I'm only interested in human purpose.

The problem is usually that we don't find a god that suits us. So a god per se is not necessarily objectionable, but the Biblical God with his particular claims of authority and demands is the god that offends us.

The Biblical God does come across like an ancient warlord and tyrant, but I'd say that the lack of evidence for his existence is the more serious problem.


eudaimonia,

Mark