Do Atheists have a reasonable doubt?

  • Thread starter Thread starter IWantGod
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
IWantGod said:
He is not talking about things coming from absolutely nothing by themselves. And if he is, then he is not doing science and he is wrong.
Click to expand...
How do you know that He is wrong? What he said seems quite feasible.
 
STT said:
What is the first point of change? Do you mean singularity?
Click to expand...
Assuming that the change we see in creation has a beginning, then that beginning is the first point of change. Whether or not it began from an infinitesimal point is really besides the point.
 
STT said:
What he said seems quite feasible.
Click to expand...
You think it’s feasible for something to come out of absolutely nothing by itself (nothing meaning the absolute absence of any existence)?
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
Do Atheists have a reasonable doubt? Or is it a preference?

I think the general consensus among non-extreme forms of atheism is that it is not necessarily unreasonable to be a theist, but there is enough reasonable doubt that it is not unreasonable to be an atheist either. This is to say that i have come across friendly forms of atheism or agnosticism that would say that Theism and metaphysical naturalism are two equally plausible sides of the existential fence, but ultimately there is no absolute evidence for either side. Therefore the side of the fence you happen to be on is largely due to personal experiences and psychological predispositions rather than evidence.

Is this true?
Click to expand...
God stacked the deck in His favor. He planted Himself in every human’s heart at conception. We have a natural interest then, to want to know God. [ Heb 10:16… & Jer 33:33…]
 
Last edited:
steve-b said:
God stacked the deck in His favor. He planted Himself in every human’s heart at conception. We have a natural interest then, to want to know God. [ Heb 10:16… & Jer 33:33…]
Click to expand...
I am inclined to agree, but then why do atheists exist?
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
steve-b:
God stacked the deck in His favor. He planted Himself in every human’s heart at conception. We have a natural interest then, to want to know God. [ Heb 10:16… & Jer 33:33…]
Click to expand...
I am inclined to agree, but then why do atheists exist?
Click to expand...
It’s a choice of the will.
 
IWantGod said:
I am inclined to agree, but then why do atheists exist?
Click to expand...
For the same reason anti-vaxxes and flat-Earthers exist. All the evidence in the world won’t convince someone who has made up their mind.

Many times, atheists have a reason for their atheism that stems from something other than intellectual issues. One of my closest friends in college became an atheist as a reaction to his fiance dumping him to pursue a life more dedicated to God. Another became an atheist after he decided to engage in the homosexual lifestyle.

I’m not saying that’s the case for everyone, but I know that when I was not practicing my faith, it was due to the fact that it required me to give up sexual sins.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
40.png
steve-b:
It’s a choice of the will.
Click to expand...
What is meant by that? Do you mean atheists do have a natural desire or interest in knowing God but choose not to? Or do you mean something else?
Click to expand...
They choose not to.

If we had no choice in the matter, between life and death blessings and curses, God or no God, … we would be guilty of nothing.
 
Last edited:
IWantGod said:
It seem obvious to me that you haven’t really given much critical thought to it
Click to expand...
Yes, I’ve noticed before that you have a tendency to adopt this dismissive tone of voice. It doesn’t make conversations with you very pleasant. I’ll take my thoughtlessness elsewhere.
 
STT said:
Nothingness could be unstable.
Click to expand...
Nothingness is not a thing, it is an explicit lack of anything. As such, there is nothing to be unstable.

See, when most people talk about nothingness like you are, they still envision space, dimension, possibly even some kind of time, low level energy fields, etc. All of those things are something, not nothing.

Nothing cannot be unstable because there is No Thing to be either stable or unstable. It is the complete lack of any qualities, properties, dimensions, etc. It isn’t even a void, because a void implies the concept of dimension and space. It is truly NO THING.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
Nothingness could be unstable.
Click to expand...
Nothingness is not a thing, it is not an object. It is the absence of being, so how can it possibly be considered unstable when there is no-thing unstable?

What you are saying is meaningless.
 
Last edited:
STT said:
40.png
IWantGod:
You think it’s feasible for something to come out of absolutely nothing by itself ( nothing meaning the absolute absence of any existence )?
Click to expand...
Yes. Nothingness could be unstable.
Click to expand...
The operative point that was being made was “nothing” BY Itself
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
PickyPicky:
I’d have thought the desire to continue living would be a natural outcome of evolution. Does it not tend to increase the chance of reproduction?
Click to expand...
You are treating evolution like a cause, that such and such comes into existence only because it’s beneficial, rather than in the context of natural selection where a thing comes into existence and survives because it’s nature is suitable to it’s environment.
Click to expand...
Those two things are exactly the same. That one’s nature is suitable IS the benefit.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
Nothingness is not a thing , it is an explicit lack of any thing. As such, there is nothing to be unstable.

See, when most people talk about nothingness like you are, they still envision space, dimension, possibly even some kind of time, low level energy fields, etc. All of those things are something , not nothing .

Nothing cannot be unstable because there is No Thing to be either stable or unstable. It is the complete lack of any qualities, properties, dimensions, etc. It isn’t even a void, because a void implies the concept of dimension and space. It is truly NO THING .
Click to expand...
Nothingness is the state of lack of any thing. No space. No time. No material.
 
IWantGod said:
Nothingness is not a thing, it is not an object. It is the absence of being, so how can it possibly be considered unstable when there is no -thing unstable?

What you are saying is meaningless.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say that nothingness is a thing. Nothingness is the state of lack of any thing. No time. No space. No material.
 
Bradskii said:
Those two things are exactly the same.
Click to expand...
No they are not. I am operating in the context of metaphysics. I am asking why a particular nature should be a metaphysical possibility given the nature of physics alone (presuming that metaphysical naturalism is true) and i conclude that it shouldn’t because it’s fundamental behaviour is inconsistent with the fundamental nature of what it is comprised - blind physical natural processes that are not acting for a meaningful goal or any goal at all.

Natural selection only explains why a trait has persisted among living things, not why such a thing would exist as a possibility in the first place given certain metaphysical commitments.

If metaphysical naturalism is true then there is no goal directed physical behaviour. There is no such thing as survival because objectively there is nothing to survive and thus there is no reason why we should discover things such as the natural desire to live or other instinctual things that operate to the end of staying alive like the flight or fight response. Life is only a meaningful concept if life is a real objective end that beings act towards. But such things are objectively meaningless if metaphysical naturalism is true.

But we know that there is goal directed behaviour in nature, more particular this is self-evident in ourselves (human-beings). This only makes sense if God intended particular natures to behave in particular ways and for a meaningful goal directed end. This doesn’t make sense however if things are only made of blind natural activity.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top