A Question for Agnostics and OR Atheist

[Russell_SA]

As the expression of those ideas are dependent upon the very words you use, I’m still trying to figure out what exactly it is you’re saying.

Can’t do anything with this statement, so moving on.

Precisely! In the example, they form differing beliefs from a common source!

Yes different people can come to different conclusions because they interpreted the data differently, such as by it’s level of importance. But each person holds one, overall belief/conclusion about the event to the question presented. Was the defendant guilty or not guilty? Everyone in the jury can have different conclusions/beliefs about the trial, but each member can’t hold a guilty and not guilty belief at the same time to the question they are addressing. You’re tiring me out with these absurdities that you seem to want me to address and appear to care about trying to gain points that actual conversation. I’ll ignore future responses as absurd at this since it’s a waste of my time and an insult to the intelligence of the fair minded readers out there.

Fair enough. But most of the traction I’ve seen for it was after Dawkins’ publication. He’s not the originator of the idea (very little new under the sun), but I’d about bet my socks that your source is a secondary of Dawkins. He made it far less obscure, unfortunately.

Don’t care. Ideas stand on their own regardless of the authority of the source.

Fine. My objection here is that you also “know” that you’re sitting in a chair. The attempt to divide “know” from “believe” as it pertains to you being in your chair strikes me as completely arbitrary and, thus, of little truth value.

The data/knowledge I have about the event is what drew me to the conclusion/belief about the event. The chair’s physical nature, that I am actually sitting it it. So to describe that event would be the conclusion of the question, what am I doing? I believe I am sitting in a chair based on the knowledge/data I have assessed though logic/reasoning.

“Knowing” and “believing” are simply two different points on a continuum between ambiguity and certainty on “what is real?”, as the Gettier Problem thoroughly teaches us.

Sounds like you are trying to discuss “absolute truth or knowledge” about something. We can only know what is good enough for humans to understand. If there is a higher truth beyond what we currently understand, we can keep trying to look for it, but we are not justified in believing it is actually there until we actually have evidence of it. That’s all I’m getting it, is justified belief, not absolute truth. I can only know what I can justify, not what could be since the “what could be” is indistinguishable from “the imagined”. If we can’t tell the difference yet, then it just stays as an imagined idea. We have to be able to determine the difference some how. Ex: go drive off in my imagined car. You kinda need to know that it is actually there first.

If what you’re saying is true, then that’s a world where “bias” wouldn’t exist. In this one, however, it does.

You can have bias pointed out to you, but you don’t know it’s bias until that is pointed out. That’s kinda how that works. Two people can see the same data but one person places the data at a level 8 out of 10 and person two places the data at a 2 out of 10. They need to have a discussion to see who is more reasonable for the data assessment to the question being asked. IE: bias.

As the proposition you’re trying to describe strikes me as nonsensical, “nonsensical” would be the best I could come up with. That’s not intended as a “shot” at you, personally…

Fair-minded viewers…I think I’m wasting my time on this person.

 

[Vonsalza]

Can’t do anything with this statement, so moving on.

Words mean something.

Yes different people can come to different conclusions because they interpreted the data differently, such as by it’s level of importance… Was the defendant guilty or not guilty? …each member can’t hold a guilty and not guilty belief at the same time to the question they are addressing.

When you chose, you evaluate based on your own criteria and you make your selection. This reality, in no way at all, necessitates picking two contradicting selections simultaneously.

Now there may be two contradicting selections between two separate people. We call that a “disagreement”.

You’re tiring me out with these absurdities that you seem to want me to address and appear to care about trying to gain points that actual conversation.

I’m challenging your premises. Step #1 in any disagreement. Your views here require axiomatic concessions that I think are a little bizarre. Certainly non-intuitive.

If the idea is difficult to defend, perhaps consider abandoning it.

The data/knowledge I have about the event is what drew me to the conclusion/belief about the event. The chair’s physical nature, that I am actually sitting it it. So to describe that event would be the conclusion of the question, what am I doing? I believe I am sitting in a chair based on the knowledge/data I have assessed though logic/reasoning.

Repeating your point here doesn’t help defend it when your point is what’s being challenged.

Your razor here is perched precariously on the notion that belief is some conclusion derived from knowledge. Gettier showed that knowledge is a belief too. The sheep sometimes isn’t a sheep. You’re just mistakenly certain that it is.

As such, your proposed system breaks down, at least in part.

Sounds like you are trying to discuss “absolute truth or knowledge” about something. We can only know what is good enough for humans to understand.

Every person can understand Gettier’s sheep. A certainty ended up being demonstrably wrong.

As such, the line between knowing and believing is murky and arbitrary. Your system critically depends on the contrary - to its detriment.

You can have bias pointed out to you, but you don’t know it’s bias until that is pointed out. That’s kinda how that works.

The awareness or lack of awareness of it has no bearing on its reality and the undeniable role it has in your selection of what to believe.

Two people can see the same data but one person places the data at a level 8 out of 10 and person two places the data at a 2 out of 10. They need to have a discussion to see who is more reasonable for the data assessment to the question being asked. IE: bias.

And they both egotistically conclude that they’re the more correct observer and continue with differing views, as we commonly see in real life.

Fair-minded viewers…I think I’m wasting my time on this person.

Fair minded viewers, “belief is not a choice” is nonsensical. At very best, “belief is influenced by many different factors” is the best redoubt that the one could defensibly retreat to.

 

[truetofaith]

Bla,bla, bla, bla…

 

[Nicea325]

Mostly from the fact that I don’t find the evidence and arguments in favor of theism to be compelling, but I do the evidence and arguments for some form of naturalism. Add to this the fact that a lot of the intuitions, the “gut-level” feelings I have when approaching these things seem to differ from those of believers in pretty significant ways and it’s not really surprising that we end up in different places.

Some of my biggest points of departure from most theists I’ve spoken to would ideas like that a personal being with a mind can exist as a brute fact, that a mind can exist without any sort of physical brain, or that something mental can bring physical reality into existence from physical nothingness.

And those ideas go against even more broad concepts of God like deism. When it comes to even more specific concepts of God like Allah or YHWH, I find even more reasons to disbelieve.

So humans just out-of-chance appeared out of nowhere? What is the purpose of the universe? Why is it expanding? I have read and heard nothing but theories, nothing compelling to prove God does not exist.

 

[Nicea325]

Re: A Question for Agnostics and OR Atheist STRING

By Rhubarb, religion Agnostic post #3 Non Catholic Religions FORUM …My 1st reply

WOW! This is a POST that expresses clearly you’re position yet fails to IMO, fully, logically, or accurately justify it. THANKS for sharing & opening our discussion.
Due the length of my reply I am just referencing your lengthy POST for others to read.
Allow me to take a bit of a different approach in my reply, Rather than address each of your points separately; I will take a broader perspective that logically provides evidence of GOD, and WHY humanity even exist; which then in an absolute sense requires RELIGION.

You indicate that you have read the bibles account of Genesis and creation, and find therein much to disagree with. As well you [all] should.
While everything in the bible is TRUE, NOT everything is factual. Such is the case of the STORY of Creation. What we are to cull, accept and believe in this STORY is in summary:
There is just One True God

That this God CREATED [to make something out of nothing /the first cause] the universe and humanity for a precise purpose

That The Universe itself, along with humanity are the indisputable evidences of God [singular]

That GOD Created Adam & Eve [humanity] in His Image for a precise reason [they may have been named Sam and Sally?] Gen 1:26-28

Gen.1: 26 – 28 “Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
Then let’s look at John 4: 23-24 “But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth"

So from the apparent teaching s of the bible, GOD is a SPIRIT, and man from observation seems to be just Mortal. Can these two teachings be reconciled?

CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING

[1] In all of the Universe’s BILLIONS of things, only one; only planet earth can be proven to sustain the many life forms we know of

[2] On planet earth with its MILLIONS of living things, only one, ONLY HUMANITY is rational, and can know and choose good or evil, can know God or choose to deny GOD.

[3] In order for man to be able to do these things requires a mind, intellect and freewill.

[4] Each of these infused attributes are literally “spiritual realities”, and that is HOW humanity alone can and does emulate our SPIRITUAL God.

[5] If you doubt this quantify for us your freewill. Its existence is logically indisputable. What is its shape, size, color and weight? We can’t say, yet it exist. It is a fact that every HUMAN -Soul [for this discussion being defined as that thing which animates Life], has exclusively these spiritual realities permanently attached to it. And it this, what I have come to term; “our other self” that survives the mortal body, and faces eternal judgment; and hence explains the existence of God, the Universe and humanity.

[6] These exclusive SPITITUAL gifts have to logically have an origin and a reason to exist. Science tells us that “Like must come from Like”. God is SPIRIT, man alone possesses his “other self” in emulation of GOD and is the fulfillment of Gen 1:26-28.

[7] WHY does humanity exist? And HOW can we and the universe exist without a first cause?

The bibles book of Isaiah 43: 7 & 21 answers that very question.
Isa.43: “everyone who is called by my name, whom I created for my glory, whom I formed and made." & the people whom I formed for myself that they might declare my praise”

What is notable here is:

It explains WHY humanity even exist; to be able to freely choose to know, love, and serve our God OR to freely choose to hate and disobey God. This then is evidence of the reality of an afterlife and a final Divine Judgment, and of a supremr power that we term “Our GOD.”

The Universe itself exist solely so that humanity can [MIGHT] know of t God and actually come to know GOD. HOW can this be?

Here is the SHORT answer’s key points for consideration

1 The organization of the universe and its complexity. To assume that this is accidental would be like one believing that we could take all the separate parts of a Bowing 707 airplane and drop them from a mile up and expect them to reassemble themselves in midair. This very complexity of the universe leads logically to just one source for its being. We choose to know and call that source our God.

2 Planet Earth and it exclusive ability to sustain life-forms, and the essential role of the sun and the moon to accomplish this,

3 The natural laws of air, motion and gravity can’t have “just happened”

4 Good and evil. Good being the design and Divine Will of God and evil man’s freewill rejection of it. Only these evidences can explain logically the existence of a GOD and humanities presence on earth.

5 Here is a site that amplifies what I just shared; PLEASE take the time to read it

COLOR=“Blue”]Aquinas: Five Ways to Prove that God exists -- The Arguments

I’ll end here to get your response.

Blessings,
Patrick

 

[Nicea325]

Can’t do anything with this statement, so moving on.

Yes different people can come to different conclusions because they interpreted the data differently, such as by it’s level of importance. But each person holds one, overall belief/conclusion about the event to the question presented. Was the defendant guilty or not guilty? Everyone in the jury can have different conclusions/beliefs about the trial, but each member can’t hold a guilty and not guilty belief at the same time to the question they are addressing. You’re tiring me out with these absurdities that you seem to want me to address and appear to care about trying to gain points that actual conversation. I’ll ignore future responses as absurd at this since it’s a waste of my time and an insult to the intelligence of the fair minded readers out there.

Don’t care. Ideas stand on their own regardless of the authority of the source.

The data/knowledge I have about the event is what drew me to the conclusion/belief about the event. The chair’s physical nature, that I am actually sitting it it. So to describe that event would be the conclusion of the question, what am I doing? I believe I am sitting in a chair based on the knowledge/data I have assessed though logic/reasoning.

Sounds like you are trying to discuss “absolute truth or knowledge” about something. We can only know what is good enough for humans to understand. If there is a higher truth beyond what we currently understand, we can keep trying to look for it, but we are not justified in believing it is actually there until we actually have evidence of it. That’s all I’m getting it, is justified belief, not absolute truth. I can only know what I can justify, not what could be since the “what could be” is indistinguishable from “the imagined”. If we can’t tell the difference yet, then it just stays as an imagined idea. We have to be able to determine the difference some how. Ex: go drive off in my imagined car. You kinda need to know that it is actually there first.

You can have bias pointed out to you, but you don’t know it’s bias until that is pointed out. That’s kinda how that works. Two people can see the same data but one person places the data at a level 8 out of 10 and person two places the data at a 2 out of 10. They need to have a discussion to see who is more reasonable for the data assessment to the question being asked. IE: bias.

Fair-minded viewers…I think I’m wasting my time on this person.

Kindly prove the Big Bang theory to me? Did it happen exactly as atheist claim? Prove it?

 

[Russell_SA]

My friend, If the Randi foundation were truly objective, they would be Bankrupt by now for paying out so many evidences. So it is MY opinion that it not a lack of evidence, but TRUTHINESS, that like a plague in our time, has subjectively insisted on some “right” [authority never provided] to redefine TRUTH to what I have come to term “MEISM”” What I Want, What I think, what I choose to accept and believe. Each of which is only subjective personal unsupported opinions.

James Randi foundation applies the same scientific processes we use for looking at any claim that people make, natural or supernatural claims. Present your proposal to it or if you don’t want to take on their challenge, point out where they are mistaken in the process and they will correct it. But that means you’d be coming up with a better version of the scientific process for studying reality and who knows, you might win a nobel for that new process for making science better. Just dismissing it without actually looking at it seems petty. It’s easily googleable to find out their process for analysis of the mystical claims people are making. I’ll just conclude this point here and move on since you clearly dismissed it without looking into their process, which is only the scientific process, of analysis at all.

I don’t overlook YOUR irony my friend, but because I’m dialoging with you; and it is your Soul that hangs in the balance, I will nevertheless respond to “your” challenge. If and when they pay up, I’ll split it with you for sharing the challenge.

Could you define what you mean by “soul”. I really have no idea what this is in any clear sense.

So my friend; you’re an atheist; and choose NOT to believe in God

Again, last time I’m addressing this, belief is not a choice. It can be changed once you are convinced about a new understanding of the event you experienced, but your initial belief is what you concluded about the event. That’s really all it is. It’s your currently held understanding about the event. New information can either reinforce your belief about it, like testing gravity again and again, or it can change the results to a new belief about the event. But your conclusion is not a choice you make. Look at a blue shirt and choose to believe it’s red. You can’t. No one can.

Perhaps you can tell us then the Origin and the discipline of the so called “Natural Laws?’ Laws like motion [every cause has an effect]; or gravity; what goes up will come down. Or the Origin of the MORAL Laws: “Good” & “Evil”? What is their origin?

Since we do not understand how the governing physical laws of the universe came about for our universe, yet, no one is justified in their claims about how they came about. So further questions about areas beyond our current ability to investigate will be answered with, “I don’t know, and I don’t see how you could either.” I can make up an imagined entity too that could have the power to do it as well, but does that mean the blue genie with Robin William’s voice actually is the answer? It may be, but since we can’t tell the difference between the genie actually existing and it not existing, we are at an impasse and must conclude, tentatively “we don’t know yet”. If premise A can have multiple conclusions and we can not eliminate them down to one, then we are stuck at leaving them all on the table.
Morality, it seems to me, emerges from conscious creatures that are forced to interact with each other. It’s an emergent property of the brain with socialization as feedback to it. Good and bad are subjective to someone’s best understood reference point of good and bad in reference to the situation and their ability to assess the situations.

 

[Russell_SA]

FACT: In the universe [which BTW exist precisely so that man CAN [COULD] know God exist]; are BILLIONS of planets; stars and galaxies. BUT only one; only planet earth can be PROVEN to sustain the life forms on it. Science sent a man to the moon and back, yet can’t OBJECTIVELY disprove this reality.

Can you define what you mean by “god” and that it is there at all. You seem to be presupposing its there in the first place.
What reality are you stating that science can’t disprove? I assume you are implying here the reality that this universe is for our ability to have a relationship with your assumed creator correct? Well I have yet to see why there needs to be a creator at this point, so I disagree with the ideas that follow after that point.
For me, the universe is indifferent to our existence here. We were evolved to fit this reality instead of the reality changed to fit for us. The puddle in the road example: how great the puddle is for having a hole that fits it’s needs exactly.

FACT: If you choose what you’re wearing this morning and then dressed yourself I can prove to you not only that God DOES exist AND that you emulate Him just as the Bible claims in Genesis 1:26-27 & John 4:23-24

I’m not sure about where we stand on choice yet in the sciences. But since I can’t tell the difference between me being under the illusion of choice or me actually having a choice in my actions, I can only interact with my reality as I understand it. So, if given a Yes or No answer to a question and my brain pathways and the event stimulus lead me to more of a Yes than a No and I select Yes. I can’t tell that my subconscious lead me to this over my conscious part. So basically I can’t tell the difference, and since this isn’t my field of study, I’ll leave this up to the neurobiologists to let me know.

FACT: On planet earth with its many-MILLIONS of living things; only one; only man is RATIONAL and can freely choose to love and or to hate. Only man can make other complex things from less complex things; such as your computer.

Actually, according to social wildlife biologists, many creatures exhibit higher cognitive social behaviors the same way we do. But I don’t see what this “fact” you presented is relevant. Why not just say, “fact” we are the only creature that is human. That seems to be your point here I believe. Yes, humans are human.

FACT: In order for man to be able to do ANY of the above; in an absolute sense requires ALL of these attributes: [1] **a mind **not meaning here one’s brain] [2] **an intellect **[not referencing here one’s “I.Q.”] and [3] a freewill. Each of which LIKE God: is SPIRITS & immortal: can’t be killed and never die.

What is a “spirit” ,“god”, “soul”, etc.? I need you to define all your terms that you are attributing to the supernatural since I really have not clear idea what those are still. They keep changing from person to person it seems to me.
I have yet, and as far as I have learned, no one else in the history of the world have ran into a scenario where a “mind” came about without a brain involved. It seems, so far, that all we can say about the idea of the “mind” is that it is an emergent property of a highly functioning brain. Example: like how “wetness” is an emergent property of water and how beauty is an emergent property of health

FACT: Each of these God-like attributes are “spiritual realities” And are permanently attached to man’s SOUL [for this discussion defined as “that which animates all life forms”. Just as the universe has a hierarchy of complexity and significance; so too does earths “living things” and so do “souls.” In each of these cases; man; Created [means to make something out of nothing] in God’s own Image; are the pinnacle; the top; & the most complex

Again, you are using references to the supernatural, but I don’t see how it’s justified to point there at all yet. It’s still indistinguishable to me than a literary figure. I can claim that people have Genie like attributes as well. Does it make it so? Do I have justification to you for concluding that my idea of the Genie is any different than an imagined idea? Again, the genie may be there, but am I justified yet in knowing that yet?

 

[Russell_SA]

FACT: What I have shared is FACTS. But you no doubt; are doubting this; so allow me to ask you to prove it to yourself: Quantify for us your “freewill.” [Which only a fool would attempt to disprove]. What is YOUR freewill’s size, weight, color or shape? WHERE did it come from? Your parents are human so it can’t be from them.

As I understand it, freewill is the descriptive word we use to describe the actions someone takes that appear to be choices we make. If we are making the choices consciously or reacting to subconscious controls, I don’t know. I think you’re description of quantify here is wrong. It’s like asking someone to give the “size, weight, color, shape” of someone dancing. That is an action they are taking. But if you are asking about the freewill molecule, what makes you conclude that the supernatural is an influence in our current understanding of freewill. Also, it sounds like this is about the idea of consciousness. As far as we understand it, that is an emergent property of a functioning brain. Do you have an example of consciousness outside of a brain anywhere? Just as wetness is an emergent property of water, but how many water molecules does it take for something to have wetness property to it?
All we have to access as data is this reality. We can not access the supernatural to know if it is even there or, if it is, how it can interact in this realms so that we are able to look at an event in this realm and know that event A had supernatural involvement and event B had only natural involvement. Currently we can not tell a difference. IE: empty glass A and glass B with supernatural transcendent dice. I’ll swap them around my back. Now pick the one with the supernatural transcendent dice. Then tell me how you were able to conclude your choice being any different than random choice.

This can’t be determined and yet a freewill exist in each human person. So then a science question: Science teaches that “like things” come from “like things”. So then where do man’s mind; intellect and freewill come from?

It appears to come from a functioning brain unless you have an example of it being anywhere else. Also, “can’t be determined” is the path to “god of the gaps”. I don’t know there fore a deity did it. Imagining a being that can do anything and choose to do anything can solve is an answer to every unknown. But it’s not really if you can’t justify the difference between the deity actually existing and it not existing. Just as an empty glass that either has nothing in it or supernatural transcendent dice in it. How do you tell the difference at this point?

Friend your denial of God [which is the name I choose to give] this undeniable; most Powerful and Complex “GOOD-thing” in existence; is both illogical AND unprovable.
Heaven and hell are REAL; eternity is forever so you may wish to reconsider your position.
QUOTE]
Appeasing the bully just so that you don’t get beat up is cowardice and also tells you that bully is not a source of morality as well. You seem to imply that the religious are also motivated to rally around the guy with the biggest stick in the room just because it has the biggest stick instead of actually caring that what it is wants is good for people. I don’t care about the how powerful someone is, I care if what they say is correct and can present it as such. Dictators, regardless if they have physical power over us, must always be stood up to. But at this point, this deity still has only been asserted by you to exist instead of actually demonstrating that it exists and that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. It’s still no different than an empty sack at this point. I can’t tell the difference and I don’t see how any one can.

 

[Russell_SA]

The First Way: Argument from Motion

First Cause argument - ok - something started the big bang and our universe to develop from it. But if time started at t=0 for the big bang for us, how can you have a “before” or “after” in a realm where time does not exist? I can’t wrap my head around the idea that time is anything but necessarily linear. So if we look at time as describe that way, then t=0 doesn’t work at the big bang if there was an event before the big bang that set it off. But since we can’t look before the big bang, we can, tentatively, call that point as t=0 for us till we learn how to actually create universes. Imagining a being that has the power to do this and the ability to do this is interesting and a good place to go look for it, but we have yet to find it. Just as Einstein mathematically concluded that gravity waves should exist, we didn’t actually teach that they are facts until we discovered them in 2015. I’m fine with the idea of a deity being there, once we detect it being there. Until then, I’ll with hold my position on the topic and just say, honestly, “I don’t know what started the big bang because actually, no one does at this point.” If you want to call that a thing a god, fine. I’ll still just call it, I don’t know.

Our logic only works by referencing the reality as we experience it. B follows A, A does not equal B, excluded middle, etc. These are all, so far, universal truths in this reality. So how can you know that our logic works in a realm that is not this reality? How can you make any claims about it at all on how it works or does not work or how it can transition realms to work in our reality etc? I don’t see how anyone can claim to know that. But if you imagine a being that has the power to do anything and the ability to choose when to interact or not, of course it can answer all your unknowns because it’s not different than “I don’t know therefore it did it.” How can anyone show a causal link from event A had supernatural involvement and event B only had natural involvement? Give me an example, we can study, that shows supernatural involvement that we can determine is not just, “I don’t know why this happened.” We have to be able to tell the difference some how. Since all we have access to actually study is only this reality, how can we be justified in bringing in any influence from another reality that we can not study at all? Ex: you find a board burned. You were not there to see how the board got burned. But we have experienced fire, we can recreate an event that illustrates how fire interacts with the wood and what markers are left behind by the fire interacting with the wood. We don’t have other things in this reality that interacts like fire on wood, so we are most probably sure that it was fire that burnt the board you found. Now, show me a board or anything that has supernatural markers left behind. So me where we can get with the supernatural and recreate it’s interaction in our reality so that we can see how the supernatural may interact with the board or what ever else you want. We can create a causal link between fire and the markers on the wood. We, currently, can not do that at all with the supernatural. That is why I don’t see appealing to the supernatural is any justification for an explanation since, at this point it’s no different than an imagined idea of the supernatural. They are indistinguishable at this point.

 

[Russell_SA]

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
2. Nothing exists prior to itself.
3. Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
6. If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
7. That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
8. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
9. **Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
   **
10. Nothing exists prior to itself.
    Disagree - moon existed before I did.
    Following arguments from this premise can’t follow now.
11. Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past
    First Cause argument - see previous posting

Our perception is irrelevant to the moon actually being there. But it is not part of our justified belief of reality until we experience it or it’s effects. IE: black holes: we can see the effects of a large gravity well, we call that entity causing the gravity well a black hole. Experiencing something that we can not explain appears to be the same label that religious call the supernatural. Fine - I’ll call experiences of unexplained reality just ignorance, you call it supernatural.

 

[Russell_SA]

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.
3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

First Cause argument - See previous post on this.

 

[Russell_SA]

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
2. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
4. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

Moral argument - Morality always appears to come to down to human well-being as the reference point of moral issues. Comparison values only work once you have picked your reference point of zero. IE: placing your king in check mate is objectively bad, but makes no difference if you are not playing chess. So once we all agree that human well-being is the reference point of zero on the number line, we can have objective good and bad behaviors. Is there an ultimate good? Yes. Once you can achieve human well-being as the goal, then your goal is reached. It’s like once you have enough money to care for all your needs you have reached your ultimate monetary goal. All funds after that goal are just an extra bonus. But becoming bankrupt is objectively bad if having funds to live is the reference point. So once we reach human well-being, all the extra food, free time, safe environments, etc is just extra bonuses.

 

[Russell_SA]

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
2. Most natural things lack knowledge.
3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. END QUOTES

Natural evolution question -
Evolution is directed through natural forces, so yes, it is not by chance.
Yes they lack knowledge but they are not lacking natural forces.
The target is determined by the environment, the natural forces of that environment, that directs evolution. That is why you don’t have poison dart tree frogs in the desert.

 

[Russell_SA]

IS IT THE NORM FOR ATHEIST TO REPLY ON OTHERS TO “DO THEIR THINKING” FOR THEM?

Certainly others HAVE taught me my FAITH; BUT I was able to PROVE for myself what they taught as TRUTH. Is that not a reasonable response?

It is the norm for someone to be asked to present their case for the positive claim they are making about reality. This is your toy you play with, not mine. You believe X - It is on you, to present why you believe this. What is your data, what is your logic that you applied to this data. If it is not enough to convince me, then I’ll point out where it doesn’t. I am telling you what processes it may take to convince me though with my feedback. If there is a deity out there, it should know what it would take to convince me that it exists and has either chosen not to or is unable to. Either way, not my problem since it’s on it to do so since I can not go to it at all at this point.

What do you mean by “faith”?
This is how I see the difference between hope, faith, and belief.
Belief is to know that out of all the possible values on a 1d6 that a value of 1 to 6 will appear.
Hope is to want the best possible outcome to occur. So if you bet a 5 will appear on a 1d6 roll, you hope a 5 will land over all other possible solutions.
Faith is the hope in the best possible outcome that is not actually a justified possible outcome. Such as hoping for a 7 out of a 1d6 roll. As far as we understand reality, there is no data that supports that a 7 is possible at all.

So if you justify conclusions based on “faith”, how is that ever a correct pathway to actual truth about reality? What could you not justify as a belief about reality if you base it on “faith”? And, why would that ever be a virtue to hold?

 

[Russell_SA]

a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

Ok, then, what is a spirit?

“god’s” are self-made or at least self identified

How is your God actually distinguishable from this that we could tell a difference?

“gods” reflect what each individual has self- determined to be of exaggerated importance to “the self” [MEISM personified] What I want, what I think, What I choose to believe or disbelieve.

How is your God actually distinguishable from this that we could tell a difference?

They can be a self- induced propensity to a food, a drink, a person a life style, money, sex, fame, power; objects such as a certain type of car, or a home is a special neighborhood, or certain kinds of apparel, and so on. And one can and often does have multiple “gods’; as many as one “needs” and can afford to feel fulfilled and satiated.

I’ll just use the term “driving influences”. removes the theology baggage. These can be good or bad.

DEITY. God, conceived in theological terms as the divine nature or essence. Deity expresses what God is, normally the infinite Being whose essence is to exist. It therefore identifies the Trinity as one God. (Etym. Latin deitas, godhead.)
FROM FATHER HARDON’S catholic dictionary

So the label of the cause of the big bang. Ok, I’ll just use, “I don’t know.”

GOD. The one absolutely and infinitely perfect spirit who is the Creator {AND SUSTAINER} of all. In the definition of the First Vatican Council, fifteen internal attributes of God are affirmed, besides his role as Creator of the universe: “The holy, Catholic, apostolic Roman Church believes and professes that there is one true, living God, the Creator and Lord of heaven and earth. He is almighty, eternal, beyond measure, incomprehensible, and infinite in intellect, will and in every perfection. Since He is one unique spiritual substance, entirely simple and unchangeable, He must be declared really and essentially distinct from the world, perfectly happy in Himself and by his very nature, and inexpressibly exalted over all things that exist or can be conceived other than Himself” (Denzinger 3001).

Again, what do you mean by “spirit”.
First cause, got that.
The anthropomorphizing of this god seems to point back to “gods” reflect what each individual has self- determined to be of exaggerated importance to “the self” [MEISM personified] What I want, what I think, What I choose to believe or disbelieve."
How do you know any of this to be actually true or not? It’s all presented as an assertion.
Powerful - relative to your reference point. Just as C4 is powerful in relation to a wall. Does the small spark of electricity that set off the C4 count as all powerful as well? We know that C4 contains stored energy, what do we know about the origins of the universe and what it took to create that or where that came from? God of the gaps argument here.
Incomprehensible - so how did you come to any comprehension of this dieity’s qualities and that they actually apply to it?
Intellect - superiorly intelligent technology will look no different than a deity to you then.
IE: if all you can understand about the idea of pi is the 15th decimal place, all values beyond that appear no different than “infinite knowledge” about pi.
How do you know heaven exists? How can you illustrate it to be any different than an imagined idea or realm?
Perfection - see intelligent argument.
What is “spiritual substance”?
It’s rights to rule over me is up to me to subject myself to. I hold that power over anyone and I abhor the idea of rulership and rulers. It can declare itself my ruler all it wants, but it still needs my submission to play the role of the ruled.

Reflecting on the nature of God, theology has variously identified what may be called his metaphysical essence, i.e., what is God. It is commonly said to be his self-subsistence. God is Being Itself. In God essence and existence coincide. He is the Being who cannot not exist. God alone must be. All other beings exist only because of the will of God.
FROM FATHER HARDON’S catholic dictionary

What is metaphysical essence?
So god is god? Isn’t that circular?
So god is just the first cause of the universe? Fine, I’ll call it, “We don’t know yet.”

 

[Russell_SA]

So humans just out-of-chance appeared out of nowhere? What is the purpose of the universe? Why is it expanding? I have read and heard nothing but theories, nothing compelling to prove God does not exist.

Why do you think the universe owes you purpose at all?
Can you show me that you researched the difference between layman’s use of “theory” and a “scientific theory”?
Not saying that god does not exist, just that the justification for believing that has not met it’s burden of proof for me yet. It’s still no different than an imagined idea of a deity. I can’t tell the difference yet.

How is this any different than “god of the gaps” argument?
So you’ll take a conspiracy theory over just an honest answer of, We don’t know yet and all other attempts that claim to know are unjustified and over reaching. Imagining an entity that has the power to do anything and can choose when to intervene can solve all your problems of the unknowns is rather lazy in my opinion. It may actually be there though, but can you show, under scientific parameters how event A with an unknown part to the solution, points to a causal link of that unknown part back to the supernatural? How can you tell the difference between an unknown change and the supernatural intervention of the change? As far as I know, no one can do that. So the glass with nothing in it is indistinguishable from the glass with the supernatural involvement at this point.
What’s the track record of science finding out the actual answer vs religion? I’ll side with the team that has the better track record of justified conclusions and the humility to know what it doesn’t have the ability to know yet.

 

[Russell_SA]

Kindly prove the Big Bang theory to me? Did it happen exactly as atheist claim? Prove it?

Again - god of the gaps argument here.

Can you show any where, ever, a causal link from event A to supernatural involvement in event A? Can you show anywhere, ever, how we can tell the difference between an unknown natural event and an unknown supernatural event? At this point, the are indistinguishable. All we have at this point to use for explaining reality is this reality. How do you investigate the supernatural at all so that we can learn how it actually interacts with our reality and then we an see the markers left behind that we could then justify as causal links of the supernatural intervening in this realm?

 

[Nicea325]

Again - god of the gaps argument here.

Can you show any where, ever, a causal link from event A to supernatural involvement in event A? Can you show anywhere, ever, how we can tell the difference between an unknown natural event and an unknown supernatural event? At this point, the are indistinguishable. All we have at this point to use for explaining reality is this reality. How do you investigate the supernatural at all so that we can learn how it actually interacts with our reality and then we an see the markers left behind that we could then justify as causal links of the supernatural intervening in this realm?

Nice side-stepping. God of gaps? Why? Atheists are the ones constantly asking for proof? Again, kindly prove to me the purpose of the universe?

 

[Nicea325]

Why do you think the universe owes you purpose at all?
Can you show me that you researched the difference between layman’s use of “theory” and a “scientific theory”?
Not saying that god does not exist, just that the justification for believing that has not met it’s burden of proof for me yet. It’s still no different than an imagined idea of a deity. I can’t tell the difference yet.

How is this any different than “god of the gaps” argument?
So you’ll take a conspiracy theory over just an honest answer of, We don’t know yet and all other attempts that claim to know are unjustified and over reaching. Imagining an entity that has the power to do anything and can choose when to intervene can solve all your problems of the unknowns is rather lazy in my opinion. It may actually be there though, but can you show, under scientific parameters how event A with an unknown part to the solution, points to a causal link of that unknown part back to the supernatural? How can you tell the difference between an unknown change and the supernatural intervention of the change? As far as I know, no one can do that. So the glass with nothing in it is indistinguishable from the glass with the supernatural involvement at this point.
What’s the track record of science finding out the actual answer vs religion? I’ll side with the team that has the better track record of justified conclusions and the humility to know what it doesn’t have the ability to know yet.

I beg your pardon? Who mentioned anything about being owed purpose? You did, not I. So in other words, in the world of atheism, there is no purpose? Again, we appeared out-of-nothing for no purpose?

You are the atheist, it seems you are the ones seeking proof about everything.
If something does not exist, why even bother to contemplate it?