The Theist Position

[niceatheist]

This looks suspiciously like the Blind Watchmaker argument, and to be honest, the argument is a strawman. No atheist I am aware of makes the claim that everything we see now sprang into being in one step.

 

[catholicray]

You haven’t followed the argument properly or you would understand why the FSM is actually incoherent. Of course I’m getting ahead of you would you care to follow the line of reason or do you intend to jump to the conclusion without proper consideration?

Remember:

The Atheist position is:
I do not believe God exists. This says nothing about whether or not they believe the claim “God does not exist.”

The Theist position is:
I do not believe in the non-existence of God. This says nothing about whether or not they believe the claim, “God exists.”

Allocation of belief:
Atheist:
0.1% God exists 99.9% God does not exist
Theist:
0.1% God does not exist 99.9% God exists

Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence

As an atheist you are left to merely attack the definition given. Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Moral perfection. I’m saying whatever is in the box if there is anything in the box will have these characteristics. Here you can present evidence that this can not possibly be the case. I’m just waiting for you to coherently show that these are in fact impossible characteristics.

Mind you I take an absolute stance on omnipotence which means I am positing a paradox in the definition. My evidence that paradoxes exist is the Liar Paradox: Liar paradox - Wikipedia

In fact each part of the definition may be a paradox. I am sitting in the dialetheism camp. But let’s be clear my position is: I do not believe in the non-existence of paradoxes which says nothing about whether or not I believe the claim “paradoxes exist”. My evidence is actually unnecessary.

My position here passes the test concerning absence of evidence because I still have a hypothesis. I’ll stop here in case you wish to debate any one point of the definition.

Also I apologize I may have to refine things along the way. Atheism is terribly counter-intuitive.

Let’s keep in mind the conclusion as well it’s useful for examination:
Atheist Conclusion: ? (incoherent) or “I don’t know” (agnosis) or nothing
Theist Conclusion: God

 

[Calliope]

Since this was in the apologetics section I didn’t realize you wanted to do the whole follow all the rules of logic thing. Those usually pop up in philosophy where it’s more about the exercise than the “in the trenches” sort of thing you describe in your OP.

If you’re mostly interested in debating the logic, I’m not your atheist. That’s all theoretical and has little to do with the actuality of belief and lack of belief for 99.99999999% of the human population.

Most people don’t believe or disbelieve primarily due to logic.

I have to say, you’re the first theist I’ve come across who claims the theist position is a non belief in the non existence of god. Kudos on that

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Nonsense again. The burden of proof is on those who argue that a cathedral built itself. The witness of an ordered and remarkable creation (Romans 1:20) and the universal witness of an internal conscience, and the fact that the universe is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is proof that only a fool says in his heart “there is no God”
“The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1).

Reason demands that the words you are reading right now came from a logical source. Thus the burden of proof is on you to argue that the words you are reading right now are the result of an irrational purposeless internet accident.

You’re making an argument that the burden of proof does not lie with you. You would not have to make that argument if the burden of proof didn’t lie with you.

The person with no burden of proof would just remain silent.

 

[catholicray]

“I’ve always said,” Jillette explained, “I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe there is a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward.“

“How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate someone to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?”

I appreciate you. Thank you for the compliment.

 

[Calliope]

Some athesists use the same reasoning to proselytize. They feel obligated to tell people their faith is based in nothing so they can live their life based on truth.

Many theists think those athesists are just trying to make people miserable, steal their hope etc. But the athesists believe they are doing them a favor.

They both accuse the other of the same crime. Some can see both sides of the issue. People sharing what they believe to be true and that they have found freedom in.

 

[Gab123]

The person with no burden of proof would just remain silent.

Except to correct people who claim that the burden of proof is not theirs.

 

[abucs]

I agree with your general premise.

God is not the question He is one possible answer. (The best one in my opinion).

The question is whether our reality is derived from intelligence or non intelligence.

The Theist argues for intelligence, the atheist for non intelligence.

Both have to make their case. The burden of proof is on both sides.

 

[Gab123]

I see order in the universe and in no way deny it. I don’t follow the logic that therefore God! Its order appears to be internal, it follows its own order and doesn’t seem to be doing the work of something outside of itself, which is a claim monotheists make. That their God is not the Universe, is outside the Universe and the Universe is doing God’s will. That’s a stretch way beyond any logic.

In order for something to have a beginning it must exist in time. Scientist will tell you that the universe and Time and Matter itself came into existence with the Big Bang. Thus the cause of Time is outside of time itself. To be outside of time is to be Eternal. To be eternal is to have no beginning. The cause of matter is outside of matter itself, (in theological language “spiritual”). The universe is not eternal, but the cause of the universe is. And the fact that the universe is comprehensible through the logical language of mathematics is proof that the cause and source itself is logical. This is what the Greek philosophers referred to as the Logos of the universe; that is, the rationality behind the order and functionality of all the systems that make up the universe and the laws by which they are governed.

There’s a reason why scientists can calculate the exact time of a sunrise or earth 20,000 years from now. The universe is rational. The cosmos is made up of systems governed by laws, and since you are part of the cosmos, you too are made up of systems governed by laws; your body is governed by the laws of health. But because you are both body and rational soul, your soul is also governed by laws; this is what the Ten Commandments is all about.

The problem with atheism is that it builds upon an irrational foundation, thus it’s conclusions are intellectually corrupt. Folks, you are much more than a meaningless bag of chemicals…

 

[Calliope]

I’ve never considered anyone or anything to be meaningless far from it. The existence of a being outside the universe doesn’t provide meaning for me, but I understand that for some people it does. Existence is meaning. It exists, therefore it has significance, not because I deem it so, but by its nature.

Science says what it understands to the best of its ability given the extent of it’s collective knowledge and ability to predict. It can calculate all kinds of things but there are variables we don’t know, can’t predict etc etc. It’s ability is limited. Math doesn’t control the Universe, it gives us a means by which to understand and yes even predict some things but the Universe is more than an experiment in logic.

I believe the big bang was an event in the Universe, but not the beginning. I can’t prove it. Not going to pretend I can. We have no idea what caused matter. Time is the measure of the change in location relative to other things. We have no idea if the Universe is actually comprehensible or to what degree. We can postulate, but we cannot know the limits of our understanding or ability to observe, measure and predict. There are likely cycles within the Universe that are far longer or shorter than we can be aware of, even with our most sensitive instruments, that affect everything.

I don’t believe science to be a waste of time or effort, I was a science educator for 16 years, but every human effort is limited because we are mortal and finite.

Seriously, to me, the idea that humans can devise a system of logical thought and then claim that the entire Universe is bound by it is beyond laughable. It must be…because my method of thinking says so! And we’re all supposed to fall down in awe and concede to that great truth.

We can play with numbers till we’re blue in the face but we have yet to address simple issues of everyday life. Sorry, I’m not convinced. Calculate all the Sunrises and Sunsets you want, but the weather report is inaccurate a sizeable percentage of the time.

 

[Calliope]

In both the realms of science and religion, many people take comfort in having an answer to things that puzzle them. And indeed, as humans we benefit from having a working hypothesis from which to operate.

I am no hater of religion, nor do I think that it’s necessarily harmful. I practice a nontheistic religion because it does help me address my life challenges and I benefit from doing so. Human psychology is an amazing thing, the practice is often more important than the ultimate truth.

I don’t think anyone has the ultimate truth, and I don’t think that it matters. Clearly the Universe has chugged right along without us knowing everything we convince ourselves we need to know.

What I do know is that I have never seen or experienced anything that suggests the actuality and efforts of any deity I have ever heard of, therefore I am an atheist. So far the Universe has always showed up and suited up and I feel like I have every rational reason to believe it will continue to do so. I could be wrong, but so far we’ve had a good track record together.

While I understand when it comes to philosophical arguments and rules of logic etc my beliefs don’t meet the rigorous standards of logic, I’d put them up against any theist any day.

In the end we don’t know. We guess, postulate, hope, struggle, argue, and go about our lives in our humanly irrational way. Evolution made us that way and here we are. The idea that we can know and can truly be rational is simply bizarre to me. I see little evidence of it. Most humans, most of the time, operate on systems that defy rationality.

I can on some level appreciate the intellectual exercise and enjoyment of stimulating debate, but what matters to me is what helps me get through another day. That is more precious to me than being able to say “Ha! got you there!”.

The issue in arguing these sorts of things with anyone is that humans for the most part simply don’t order our lives around the rational. Too often when theists and atheists argue it really is just a mental exercise. I have belonged to atheist forums and even the ones who most stringently declare they act only on what has proven to be true and only using rational thinking are kidding themselves. I’ve seen them be just as human as the rest of us, no matter how hard they resist it.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with that. I like people, warts and all. The need to be right has never brought me happiness or joy. So I guess I wonder what the purpose of the debate is. Do you care about real people living their real lives in an often irrational way or do you care about winning an argument that is only tangentially attached to the human experience?

People get frustrated with me because I won’t take the line they claim atheists MUST take. The lack of belief in a deity really predicts very little about how I must think or act, and likewise the claim of belief in a deity really predicts very little about how a theist thinks or acts.

 

[niceatheist]

But it’s ultimately a philosophical argument, and while in general scientists aren’t as interested in philosophy as they once were, it’s at least useful to understand the philosophical underpinnings of theism; in particular the monotheism that Aristotle and his heirs (pagan, Jewish and Christian) would adopt and enlarge. I don’t find the Aristotlean view very compelling, I’m in Hume’s camp on metaphysics, but still, the idea of prime mover that got the ball rolling (and by some extensions, keeps the ball rolling), has pretty deep roots.

 

[niceatheist]

I agree with your general premise.

God is not the question He is one possible answer. (The best one in my opinion).

The question is whether our reality is derived from intelligence or non intelligence.

The Theist argues for intelligence, the atheist for non intelligence.

Both have to make their case. The burden of proof is on both sides.

There are other ideas. The Deists contend that there may be a god, but it might not be an intellect at all. There are some variants that seem to straddle the line between atheism and theism. Denying that there is a personal god, but there is some kind of god, is the kind of thing that irritates both theists and atheists.

 

[MPat]

Joe believes…

…that voting Republican is the best option.
…that BigFoot exists.
…that aliens have visited earth.
…that God exists.
…that water freezes below 0 degrees C.
…that global warming is a threat to the planet.

Do I share any of those beliefs? Well, if I had no knowledge of any of them, I would ask Joe why he held them.

That’s, um, unlikely to be what you’d do. It is also not a reasonable thing to do.

It would be reasonable, if you would want to find out if you should believe so, as one of the first steps in the investigation. But even then there is one more check to be done before that - the one you should do in this case as well, if you really “had no knowledge of any of them”.

That is, you should make sure you understand what the belief in question actually is.

For example, “that aliens have visited earth” - what is supposed to count as an alien? It would be silly to deny this claim only to find out that in this single case “aliens” happen to include meteorites or immigrants to USA from Mexico.

And yes, the burden of proof is on us

Nonsense. The burden of proof are those who are arguing against reason.

Are you sure there is any “burden of proof”?

There is a duty to make a decision. From it comes the duty to investigate.

Talk of “burden of truth” lets atheists to pretend that they can avoid those duties.

Many of the arguments that I’ve heard theists propose fall flat because they simply aren’t unique. If a Catholic argues that the story of Jesus MUST be true because the apostles were willing to die rather than deny it, well, what about the millions of others who have died for their various faiths?

That also proves that they believed their claims. It is just that in case of apostles believing their claims does imply truth of Christianity.

Also, are you sure you can find those “millions of others” martyred for some other faith (naturally, Judaism does not count)?

Miracles…many faiths have them.

So, it won’t be hard to give some examples?

It’s true that monotheists are atheistic about every god but their own. Can you prove none of them existed or do exist?

That only happens in atheist mythology.

We do not believe that gods of other religions do not exist. We do not care that much. Some do (for example, Caesar was proclaimed to be a god, and he did exist).

Once again, one should find out what the belief really is.

Seriously, to me, the idea that humans can devise a system of logical thought and then claim that the entire Universe is bound by it is beyond laughable.

Ah, but did the humans “devise” Logic and Mathematics? Or have they discovered them, just like Physics?

 

[abucs]

There are other ideas. The Deists contend that there may be a god, but it might not be an intellect at all. There are some variants that seem to straddle the line between atheism and theism. Denying that there is a personal god, but there is some kind of god, is the kind of thing that irritates both theists and atheists.

What I would say is that quantum physics suggests that our reality is a non local experience based on consciousness. Because of this it suggests the Creator is a Creator with consciousness, thus a personal Being or Beings.

 

[niceatheist]

I doubt you will find many physicists that interpret QM in that way. I’m not even sure what it has to do with Quantum Mechanics at all.

 

[abucs]

I doubt you will find many physicists that interpret QM in that way. I’m not even sure what it has to do with Quantum Mechanics at all.

Then I invite you to investigate. I changed from being an atheist to Theist because of Quantum Physics. Happy to step you through it if you decide.

Eugene Wigner - Nobel prize winner for physics in 1963 - I could not form the laws (quantum mechanics) without reference to consciousness.

Non equality - Bell’s Theorem and experimental results. (John Stewart Bell - Irish physicist).

 

[niceatheist]

You refer to the copanhagen interpretation, which in its strongest form is pretty widely rejected by physicists.

 

[Gab123]

So I guess I wonder what the purpose of the debate is. Do you care about real people living their real lives in an often irrational way or do you care about winning an argument that is only tangentially attached to the human experience?

The real question is what is an atheist doing on a Catholic website asking questions about God. The answer is obvious; though you may not realize it yet.

The first thing you must realize is that there is a purpose for your brief time on earth, and while everyone is naturally drawn to that purpose, many live their lives building obstacles between themselves and that purpose. God is Truth itself; God is Goodness itself; God is Beauty itself; thus the purpose of your existence is to know God, to love God, and to serve God in this world, and to have a share in His eternal life in the next.

Everything about you has a purpose, thus the purpose of your mind is Truth, and the purpose of your free will is goodness and love.

There’s a reason why you are naturally drawn to beauty and harmony; this is because you were made for God, the Source of beauty and harmon. You are made in the Image and Likeness of God, which means that you have an intellect and a will with the purpose to serve and reflect God. Thus the reason why Jesus teaches that we must love God with all our heart, with all our mind, with all our strength, and with all our soul; and we must love our neighbor as we love ourselves. These are the laws that govern every human being on earth. Thus the reason why you feel guilty when you do something evil, and feel good and fulfilled when you do something is good.

The purpose of your existence is to be perfectly happy; thus God made you for Himself to have a share in His eternal existence so—as Jesus explained, so that your joy may be complete. What is amazing is that only you can uniquely reflect God in a way that God created you to do so on earth and in eternity. God made you for Himself, the Source of Happiness. Thus we need God like our lungs need air, and our stomachs need food. Just as your eyes were made for light, your soul was made for God.

Proofs of God’s existence are everywhere —and quite obvious; the first step to finding a god is to be open to Him. Perfectly good eyes are useless in the dark; one needs light in order to see, and that light is Christ.

Prayer is merely a dialogue with God, and God is always waiting for us to speak to Him; but one has to understand that the language of God is silence; r-thus speak to Him from your heart in those quiet times when you are alone; He will speak to you and you can begin to know your creator. All you need to do is call on Him…

 

[abucs]

You refer to the copanhagen interpretation, which in its strongest form is pretty widely rejected by physicists.

We can talk specifics of scientific results or we can bluster and change the talk to argue about claimed authority. Your call. The invitation is still there.