Atheists believe....?

[gcthomas]

it seems to be the most honest one I can find.

Agnostic atheist is the most honest I can come up with also. Given the complete lack of any evidence without a naturalistic option for explanation, then Occam's razor requires I assume the absence of gods until better evidence arises. But to be honest, I can see that this is not proof, just a provisional judgement.

 

[Lon]

No - it has YOU convinced, that's all. The logic, to you, indicates a solution, but that doesn't make your reasoning formal logic, just high-school debating society guff.

Incorrect. Nice try.

You are illogically jumping to conclusion before it was ever given in evidence. Ask yourself, again, why you did that. It is cognitive dissonance. Ask yourself why you insist a personal god doesn't exist at this point.

I have not at any time claimed that, so your point is moot. I disbelieve in gods, I don't consider myself to have proved it.

And, as I and William Lane Craig proved, you can't disbelieve something created you, logically. It is illogical. You are free to be illogical and cognitively dissonant.

I am, amongst other things, an agnostic atheist. It is only you who claims to have proved something about the world by 'logic', and that approach is where the Greeks came unstuck. They avoided empirical confirmation of their claims, which is why they got so much wrong, even with formal logic.

By 'empirical' you mean physical. This isn't necessary nor a logical demand. It is logically attained/attainable.

Is there any discussion that doesn't end in you trying to tell us how clever you are?

1) you tried to assert inanely twice now, that it wasn't so. 2) Giving another's assessment over the matter 'should' stop ignorance. This wasn't high school, it was college. You've tried to attack the credential twice. As I also said, this IS a formal proof that isn't just mine. Your defense is to try to intellectually diminish and marginalize (weak!) so you can ignore a logical proof. That's all on you and you can live with whatever you make up. All you had to do was address the proof set. As I have said and will repeat with you and your supposed ability: I've never seen it refuted and William Lane Craig has received collegiate recognition for his formal use of it. What did you do? Called it 'high school.' lain: You need to defend your own high school shenanigans here. It is a sophomoric rejoinder not really worth my time....or yours. You don't come off as 'reality based' as you claim to have come up with this poor response. The only thing that matters is what is reality based.

 

[Lon]

Nor demand it of us.

"Without faith it is...."

Yes. I believe this is the sickness of authoritarianism manifesting as an intense fear of being "wrong". Or of being found intellectually or spiritually "disobedient". After all, they're being threatened with eternal damnation! But more then that, their personal identities are entwined with this absolutist ideology so that to fail the ideology would be to lose one's self. A prospect that the human ego will go to great lengths to avoid.

:nono: Your armchair psychiatry has you losing again. It isn't amateur opinion you 'should' be airing out in public, either. Keep your stinky laundry to yourself. Playing both sides of the fence isn't advisable and you are most often wrong anyway, like now. You are certainly wrong in your assessment of me. You should have asked and investigated further before the shoddy commentary. I tried to send this private so as not to publically call you out for it. You aren't receiving private messages so there that option and you saving face went. Next time ask, and save the inane for later, when you actually know something, it won't be blatantly wrong.

 

[alwight]

Agree. I'm just trying to help you understand why the doubt isn't there for me. It however was, I've just had too many of these and to specific to have much room for doubt any longer. The proof we talked about convinced me something made me and is my creator. Getting past that to a personal God was merely a matter of multiple specific answers.

Well, me and William Lane Craig, and my atheist prof?

Simply think 'deist' at that point. Deism does make logical sense. I can address this bit further in an ensuing post, but I'm trying to just establish basics. You and I didn't create ourselves. You and I didn't come from nothing. Something has always existed and is eternal by necessity. The eternal something created us. We have a creator [god].

I'd only want to start with these basics because I think every one of them provable. A personal god proof is based on the veracity and embrace of these 5. You say you are open. If I can simply walk you through what is logically necessary, it will at least open the door to a personal god who does exist.

Why do you think it is that these supposed personal "proofs" are never demonstrable and are only ever asserted?
Could it be that you are rather more than a little inclined toward the religious belief and God that just happened to be central in your life, while perhaps rather less inclined toward applying rationality and critical thinking?
Your supposed "proof" is as intangible and untestable as any proposed divinity is.
Is there such a thing as divine proof?
Can humans actually know that kind of thing?
Are you mistaken to think you KNOW?

I'd say: No, most probably not and yes you clearly are.

 

[alwight]

"Without faith it is...."

:nono: Your armchair psychiatry has you losing again. It isn't amateur opinion you 'should' be airing out in public, either. Keep your stinky laundry to yourself. Playing both sides of the fence isn't advisable and you are most often wrong anyway, like now. You are certainly wrong in your assessment of me. You should have asked and investigated further before the shoddy commentary. I tried to send this private so as not to publically call you out for it. You aren't receiving private messages so there that option and you saving face went. Next time ask, and save the inane for later, when you actually know something, it won't be blatantly wrong.

You don't seem to even want to try to be responsive to the issues raised, the fact that you simply wave away the criticism as "shoddy" is rather telling me that you don't want to face them and perhaps the truth.lain:

 

[gcthomas]

As I also said, this IS a formal proof that isn't just mine.

Please cite a link: my guess is that it will be rather better written than yours (hence my 'weak' comment). It will also be a trivial task to also find the professional critiques of your standard 'proof'.

You have summarily rejected my criticisms without reason, just saying 'incorrect' and such like - not much of a discussion, so why did you present your alleged logical formalism if not to discuss it? :think:

Again, you are assuming, for a start, that the A type concept of time is true when it could equally be the B type, which would allow the concept of a self contained eternal space-time object that has no start or finish from an external point of view, so no need for a cause any more that your proposed eternal-God hypothesis.

You have deduced 'a' cause of the universe then concluded that it is a (your?) God -- do you really not see that such a claim is unsupported by your premises? That it might be true does not of itself make it true. That is trivially obvious, is it not?

 

[quip]

Atheism is not passive. It is an active belief system.

That's because theism is far from passive; beyond a personal active belief system....socially inseminate, proselytizing so.

 

[6days]

Could it be that you are rather more than a little inclined toward the religious belief and God that just happened to be central in your life, while perhaps rather less inclined toward applying rationality and critical thinking?*

Often thats a good explanation why people believe...not always.
Example: Geneticist John Sanford (80 peer reviewed articles)"*I was totally sold on evolution. It was my religion; it defined how I saw everything, it was my value system and my reason for being. Later, I came to believe in “God”, but this still did not significantly change my intellectual outlook regarding origins. However, still later, as I began to personally know and submit to Jesus, I started to be fundamentally changed—in every respect. This included my mind, and how I viewed science and history. I would not say that science led me to the Lord (which is the experience of some). Rather I would say Jesus opened my eyes to His creation—I was blind, and gradually I could see. It sounds simple, but it was a slow and painful process. I still only see “as through a glass, darkly” [1 Cor. 13:12]. But I see so much more than I could before!"

 

[alwight]

Often thats a good explanation why people believe...not always.
Example: Geneticist John Sanford (80 peer reviewed articles)"*I was totally sold on evolution. It was my religion; it defined how I saw everything, it was my value system and my reason for being. Later, I came to believe in “God”, but this still did not significantly change my intellectual outlook regarding origins. However, still later, as I began to personally know and submit to Jesus, I started to be fundamentally changed—in every respect. This included my mind, and how I viewed science and history. I would not say that science led me to the Lord (which is the experience of some). Rather I would say Jesus opened my eyes to His creation—I was blind, and gradually I could see. It sounds simple, but it was a slow and painful process. I still only see “as through a glass, darkly” [1 Cor. 13:12]. But I see so much more than I could before!"

Ah! Geneticist John Sanford (YEC poster boy) once again I see. :yawn:

 

[6days]

Ah! Geneticist John Sanford (YEC poster boy) once again I see. :yawn:

Sure....he is a great example of someone who understands evolutionism...uses rational thought and critical thinking...and ends up believing that common ancestry is "impossible"

 

[Jose Fly]

Sure....he is a great example of someone who understands evolutionism...uses rational thought and critical thinking...and ends up believing that common ancestry is "impossible"

Wow, you don't even read quotes from your own "kind" properly! Let's look at what Sanford said...

I was totally sold on evolution.

So he was an "evolutionist" to start with.

Later, I came to believe in “God”, but this still did not significantly change my intellectual outlook regarding origins.

Then he started to believe in God, but remained an "evolutionist".

However, still later, as I began to personally know and submit to Jesus, I started to be fundamentally changed—in every respect. This included my mind, and how I viewed science and history. I would not say that science led me to the Lord (which is the experience of some). Rather I would say Jesus opened my eyes to His creation—I was blind, and gradually I could see.

And later he converted to Christianity, and it was only after that conversion that became a creationist and ditched evolution.

Now compare that with what you said above, i.e., that Sanford utilized "rational thought and critical thinking" to conclude "evolution is impossible". But that's not at all what Sanford said, is it? He made it very clear that his rejection of evolution only came about after a religious conversion, i.e., after "Jesus opened my eyes to creation". Looks like you're kinda quote mining your own tribe there 6days!

Further, that quote comes from this interview: http://creation.com/geneticist-evolution-impossible In it, he states...

‘I think the academic environment is very hostile to the very idea of a living and active God, making it almost impossible for a genuine Christian to feel open or welcome. I needed some distance from academia to get a hold of my own beliefs and why I hold them. I feel I have now grown to the point where I can re-enter institutional academia (to the extent that I am not expelled), without compromising my basic Christian beliefs.’​

So how many of these "80 peer-reviewed articles" you cited were published when he was an "evolutionist", prior to his religious conversion?

Then he says things like this...

‘We cannot really explain how any biological system might have “evolved”​

Surely he can't be serious, can he? Maybe during his post-conversion, self-imposed hiatus he stopped paying attention to science completely? Regardless, there are so many papers describing the evolutionary history of all sorts of systems, structures, and genetic sequences that....well....he's just making himself look ignorant. Shoot, just go to a journal like PNAS and search for "evolution of" and even when limiting the results to post-2000, you still get 1,954 results. That's just in one journal in less than 20 years!

Then Sanford says...

‘I am not aware of any type of operational science (computer science, transportation, medicine, agriculture, engineering, etc.), which has benefited from evolutionary theory.​

Well, then he's either a liar or so ignorant in this subject that he's not a credible source. As we've been over, evolutionary theory is the entire framework for the field of comparative genomics, which serves as the primary avenue for figuring out genetic functions (as described by your own citations).

And it's particularly baffling to see him throw engineering in there. Apparently he's totally unaware of genetic algorithms and their myriad applications to various fields, engineering included.

Simply put 6days, you citing this guy only furthers the arguments from our side that 1) creationism is entirely religious, and 2) creationists are shockingly ignorant of the very subjects they attempt to speak authoritatively on.

 

[PureX]

Often thats a good explanation why people believe...not always.
Example: Geneticist John Sanford (80 peer reviewed articles)"*I was totally sold on evolution. It was my religion; it defined how I saw everything, it was my value system and my reason for being. Later, I came to believe in “God”, but this still did not significantly change my intellectual outlook regarding origins. However, still later, as I began to personally know and submit to Jesus, I started to be fundamentally changed—in every respect. This included my mind, and how I viewed science and history. I would not say that science led me to the Lord (which is the experience of some). Rather I would say Jesus opened my eyes to His creation—I was blind, and gradually I could see. It sounds simple, but it was a slow and painful process. I still only see “as through a glass, darkly” [1 Cor. 13:12]. But I see so much more than I could before!"

There is absolutely no reason that science should contend with anyone's belief in God unless their belief in God requires them to deny the evidence and experience of reality. In which case the believer has bigger problems than a disagreement with science, as they have become averse to honesty, itself. And that's a very dangerous place for we non-omniscient humans to be.

 

[Lon]

Why do you think it is that these supposed personal "proofs" are never demonstrable and are only ever asserted?

Because He isn't interested in those who are opposed or proud and self-deluded. We get and have what we desire. When God promises to be found, it is by those, in humility as the created finite beings they are, coming rightly to the one that made them. From what I understand of scripture, God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. 1 Peter 5:5 James 4:6

"I'm not prideful..." "How 'should' we approach the actual creator of us if he exists?" lain: "If" there is a god, He isn't me. I've at least understood that much. Defiance, without knowing if he is good or bad first, is an odd first reaction. Further, it is impotent anyway and actually an ignorant first defense no thinking being would first choose. "Run" or "Play dead" or "Hide" but 'puffing up' with an intelligent Being is unthinking and childish. So are the others. Humility is all I've got left that makes any logical sense to me.

Could it be that you are rather more than a little inclined toward the religious belief and God that just happened to be central in your life, while perhaps rather less inclined toward applying rationality and critical thinking?

:think: "Your" defense is to attack another's rationality :think:

I'm as arrogant (know my IQ and mental aptitude) as well as the rest of those on TOL who might possess the where-with-all, but I think 'trying' to steer 'away' from a logical set is 'logically' problematic when this tactic is employed.

Your supposed "proof" is as intangible and untestable as any proposed divinity is.

Interesting. You are trying to downgrade it, even knowing it is a proof that has stood longer than you and I are alive. It is a solid proof. It shows that you and I have a creator, whatever that is 'unless' you could prove something comes from nothing. It is a short proof and I've never seen a sufficient challenge to it. Trying to call it high school or say that it isn't logical isn't taking the bull by the horns. I'll had this to 'have never seen a sufficient challenge.' This ain't even close.

Is there such a thing as divine proof?
Can humans actually know that kind of thing?

John 20:29 For a few.

Are you mistaken to think you KNOW?

Again, I believe the proof guarantees there is a creator of you and I. It doesn't take a lot more of the proof sets to get to being a deist.
If I said "Vishnu" isn't the same god, I'm not denying god, just denying the definition, but the conversation becomes different between a Hindu and myself. We aren't arguing that a God exists. The reason most on the planet are deists, to me, is that it is the more logical.

I'd say: No, most probably not and yes you clearly are.

Hopefully that perception has been corrected and adjusted. It is anecdotal for others, but when God answers enough prayers in specific manners that are impossible for any other to accomplish, it behooves the one praying to assume someone is there answering specifically. For him/her, it is no longer anecdotal. After so many years of this, it is taken for granted and not really doubted any longer. Then, add apologetics, scriptures, and it becomes overwhelming against serious doubt, and most often against any kind of doubt at all. I'd doubt myself, in trying to convey Him well, say in this TOL conversation. I'm ever endeavoring to ensure I do so in a better manner.

 

[Lon]

You don't seem to even want to try to be responsive to the issues raised, the fact that you simply wave away the criticism as "shoddy" is rather telling me that you don't want to face them and perhaps the truth.lain:

1) It wasn't addressed to you, he's a big boy.
2) I directly told him he was wrong 'about me.' Who would know 'me' better than me?
3) "Yeah ' sickness of authoritarianism manifesting...fear,'
that's GOT to be it!" lain:
4) I think you are just being argumentative at this point. This too isn't worth any three of our time because it is armchair inept. Let some things go.

 

[Lon]

Please cite a link: my guess is that it will be rather better written than yours (hence my 'weak' comment). It will also be a trivial task to also find the professional critiques of your standard 'proof'

:chuckle: 'if' better, it would still amount to you being wrong. :doh: and I already linked to it, see that blue up there in the previous post? In addition, you already labelled it as the Kalam Cosmological Argument :doh: And finally, you are again saying your 'grade' is better than an Atheist PhD Philosophy professor :noway:
:doh: Finally, in this post, you prove my proof set :noway:

You have summarily rejected my criticisms without reason, just saying 'incorrect' and such like - not much of a discussion, so why did you present your alleged logical formalism if not to discuss it? :think:

Because you didn't even touch it. You simply 'asserted' that it wasn't true. That's not how formal logic works, let's try it again if you, yourself, are beyond the high school level (though we debate in high school, we don't cover formal logic here in the US until college).

Proof set with me helping you answer:
1) Yes or No: You came from nothing. "No, I didn't come from nothing, that isn't possible" OR "Yes,I came from nothing because..."

2) Yes or No: You came from something. "No, nothing made me, I'm not really here then." "Yes, I came from something, something made me. If we limit god to what created me, I have something that made me."

Therefore: "Yes, I have a creator."

"No, come from nothing."

One of these isn't logical. Only the one I gave is.
Again, you are assuming, for a start, that the A type concept of time is true when it could equally be the B type, which would allow the concept of a self contained eternal space-time object that has no start or finish from an external point of view, so no need for a cause any more that your proposed eternal-God hypothesis.

Yay. You just re-asserted 'my' proof. We've both proved we have a creator, personal or impersonal. Something made us, not nothing. :up:

You have deduced 'a' cause of the universe then concluded that it is a (your?) God -- do you really not see that such a claim is unsupported by your premises? That it might be true does not of itself make it true. That is trivially obvious, is it not?

:nono: I've repeatedly said that is a proofset not yet given. The only thing both you and I just proved is that you have been created by someone/something and so have a creator/god. You are thinking 'god' in this case must necessarily be personal. I 'think' you are right, but this set does not prove that. The only thing it proves is 1) that you and I are here from something eternal and that 'no god' is untenable logically because of it. As soon as you accept that something made you, you are no longer 'no god.'

The use of 'god' here is the most generic sense of 'creator'. It is this premise that Craig later builds off of to prove a Personal God, but such is established upon this basic premise, first.

 

[alwight]

Why do you think it is that these supposed personal "proofs" are never demonstrable and are only ever asserted?

Because He isn't interested in those who are opposed or proud and self-deluded. We get and have what we desire. When God promises to be found, it is by those, in humility as the created finite beings they are, coming rightly to the one that made them. From what I understand of scripture, God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. 1 Peter 5:5 James 4:6

"I'm not prideful..." "How 'should' we approach the actual creator of us if he exists?" lain:"If" there is a god, He isn't me. I've at least understood that much. Defiance, without knowing if he is good or bad first, is an odd first reaction. Further, it is impotent anyway and actually an ignorant first defense no thinking being would first choose. "Run" or "Play dead" or "Hide" but 'puffing up' with an intelligent Being is unthinking and childish. So are the others. Humility is all I've got left that makes any logical sense to me.

These "proofs" are what you claimed were given to you but now you are telling me that they only apply exclusively to you and presumably have no physical form or effect that can be demonstrated. IOW it's just something that has gone on inside your head.
However your opinion and mental processing isn't proof Lon, your opinion is just a bald assertion and clearly not knowledge. You even seem to think that you know the mind of God but again how you might know this isn't made clear.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." Susan B. Anthony

Could it be that you are rather more than a little inclined toward the religious belief and God that just happened to be central in your life, while perhaps rather less inclined toward applying rationality and critical thinking?

:think:"Your" defense is to attack another's rationality :think:

I'm as arrogant (know my IQ and mental aptitude) as well as the rest of those on TOL who might possess the where-with-all, but I think 'trying' to steer 'away' from a logical set is 'logically' problematic when this tactic is employed.

I asked you a reasonable question that apparent you'd rather duck, I really don't think you were called irrational exactly, but I do sometimes have my suspicions.

Your supposed "proof" is as intangible and untestable as any proposed divinity is.

Interesting. You are trying to downgrade it, even knowing it is a proof that has stood longer than you and I are alive. It is a solid proof. It shows that you and I have a creator, whatever that is 'unless' you could prove something comes from nothing. It is a short proof and I've never seen a sufficient challenge to it. Trying to call it high school or say that it isn't logical isn't taking the bull by the horns. I'll had this to 'have never seen a sufficient challenge.' This ain't even close.

Lon, you don't have any "proof" you simply make assertions of "proof" without reference to any testable evidence nor any means to establish it.

Is there such a thing as divine proof?
Can humans actually know that kind of thing?

John 20:29 For a few.

That isn't proof, it's something an anonymous evangelist wrote long after the supposed events.

Are you mistaken to think you KNOW?

Again, I believe the proof guarantees there is a creator of you and I. It doesn't take a lot more of the proof sets to get to being a deist.
If I said "Vishnu" isn't the same god, I'm not denying god, just denying the definition, but the conversation becomes different between a Hindu and myself. We aren't arguing that a God exists. The reason most on the planet are deists, to me, is that it is the more logical.

Proof isn't something you say is proof, so clearly you don't have any, or you don't perhaps understand what proof is. Without proof you don't have proven knowledge, just a belief.

I'd say: No, most probably not and yes you clearly are.

Hopefully that perception has been corrected and adjusted. It is anecdotal for others, but when God answers enough prayers in specific manners that are impossible for any other to accomplish, it behooves the one praying to assume someone is there answering specifically. For him/her, it is no longer anecdotal. After so many years of this, it is taken for granted and not really doubted any longer. Then, add apologetics, scriptures, and it becomes overwhelming against serious doubt, and most often against any kind of doubt at all. I'd doubt myself, in trying to convey Him well, say in this TOL conversation. I'm ever endeavoring to ensure I do so in a better manner.

God supposedly answering prayers isn't proof either unless there were a demonstrable effect, but you offer nothing but empty assertions, so clearly you have no divine knowledge at all, even if you really think you do, or even if you did once come top of your theology class.

 

[gcthomas]

You are thinking 'god' in this case must necessarily be personal.

No, no I'm not. Please, read what I have written. I think it is possible that the universe as a multidimensional space-time object just exists. With time simply a dimension within that object the ideas of cause and effect (with cause preceding effect) have no meaning. What could it possibly mean to have a cause of something without the passage of time? No time = no requirement for a cause. (Just like many here think that their God concept exists outside of time and is 'eternal', so I can consider the Universe.

Question for you, Lon. How do you consider your broadly conceived god to exist without being caused? (And whatever answer you give, why not apply that to an eternal multiverse?)

 

[PureX]

No, no I'm not. Please, read what I have written. I think it is possible that the universe as a multidimensional space-time object just exists. With time simply a dimension within that object the ideas of cause and effect (with cause preceding effect) have no meaning. What could it possibly mean to have a cause of something without the passage of time? No time = no requirement for a cause.

That's not necessarily true. The fact that existence is as it is, as opposed to it being something else, whether it's static (timeless) or not, implies 'causation'. That cause being the underlying force defining and sustaining the overall structure. The timeless stasis itself would be an expression of that underlying causation.

Question for you, Lon. How do you consider your broadly conceived god to exist without being caused? (And whatever answer you give, why not apply that to an eternal multiverse?)

The same question can just as reasonably be turned around: why can't your conception of the eternal "multiverse" be just as reasonably applied to an eternally existing God that simply chooses to manifest itself as a "multiverse"?

 

[gcthomas]

That's not necessarily true. The fact that existence is as it is, as opposed to it being something else, whether it's static (timeless) or not, implies 'causation'. That cause being the underlying force defining and sustaining the overall structure. The timeless stasis itself would be an expression of that underlying causation.

Would that argument not apply to Lon's God? It needs causation? If so, then it is turtles all the way down …

The same question can just as reasonably be turned around: why can't your conception of the eternal "multiverse" be just as reasonably applied to an eternally existing God that simply chooses to manifest itself as a "multiverse"?

Exactly - that is what I am saying.

The difference is I don't assert that a god cannot exist, whereas Lon asserts that it cannot not-exist. Lon's claim necessarily dismisses any possibility that the universe is as non-contingent as a god, which he does arbitrarily.

 

[PureX]

Would that argument not apply to Lon's God? It needs causation?

Not if Lon's God IS causation. Which would be the common definition of "God". God IS that underlying force that defines and sustained existence, whether existence is static or dynamic, eternal or temporary, finite or infinite.

Exactly - that is what I am saying.

The difference is I don't assert that a god cannot exist, whereas Lon asserts that it cannot not-exist.

But if you set aside Lon's odd personal religious characterizations of God, he's right. The fact that existence exists, and exists as it does (continuously, rather than in some random, intermittent, unorganized fashion), means there logically must be some generative, organizing force causing it to be as it is. And that logic is not dispelled just because we eliminate the concept of time from the concept of existence.