Thought experiment. What if it was one day proven 200% there’s no God?

[Wesrock]

Well, there’s been no overthinking this, rather, you’re displaying your own lack of critical thinking in regards to your own beliefs. You found science and stopped there. To be honest, I thought you’d reject Platonism and again commit to everything has a cause and simply say you didn’t know what caused the big bang, but that doesn’t matter, because any attempt by me to inject God into that empty space before the big bang would commit a god-of-the-gaps fallacy, which would be quite true and not a good way at all for me to argue for the existence of God. It would have made me look quite foolish and as if I didn’t anticipate that option.

Instead, I think I’ve demonstrated for anyone familiar with the subject, whether theist or atheist, that you are, in fact, committed to Platonism, whether or not you’d label yourself that or are fully knowledgeable about what you’re professing, in stating that the physical laws of nature gave rise to the universe, which, I suppose, is fine for an atheist to believe, of course, but I’m still intrigued by it.

 

[Wesrock]

I still must ask, though, what then caused the laws of nature?

 

[Curious11]

I don’t know, maybe the always existed.

 

[laylow]

I disagree, and objections based on the POE are emotional, not logical, especially if you understand what God is not. Anyway, Sophia and I are having a discussion on the Problem of Evil in this topic: Conversation with a knowledgable apologist

Good and bad are human perceptions. Therefore logic does come into play. So unless you are willing to deny that bad exists in the world, you have to resolve why God allows it. The only way to do that is to say that we do not understand his reasons, it is outside our perception. Fair enough. However, that then punches a hole into the idea that we really know anything about him in the first place. By admitting that he has attributes that are outside of our understanding, then it’s impossible to know what those might be. You can’t just stop at a point and say, well we don’t know everything about God, but everything else up until this point is correct and masquerade that as being logical.

Not to mention it just appears to be a man-made, wishful-thinking, which is really only useful for providing comfort and control in this “world”.

 

[Wesrock]

I don’t know, maybe the always existed.

But if that were true, then not everything would have a cause. The laws of nature would be brute facts. So, it seems you’ve reached a point where you don’t know whether they are caused or not, but are open to the idea that they are uncaused, in which case maybe you should amend one of your previous statements to state “Everything may have a cause, but not everything must have a cause.”

Or something like that.

 

[laylow]

A “legend” which all those with intimate, first hand experience of Jesus Christ willingly died for…
I wouldn’t die for something I even suspected, let alone knew with a certainty, was a legend. Would you?

Yeah, since no one in history has ever died for causes that weren’t true. /sarcasm Matter of fact, we are still seeing it on virtually a daily basis, unless of course the 72 virgins really are waiting on the other side. Crap, where did I put that bomb I was making!

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

I disagree, and objections based on the POE are emotional, not logical, especially if you understand what God is not. Anyway, Sophia and I are having a discussion on the Problem of Evil in this topic: Conversation with a knowledgable apologist

Good and bad are human perceptions. Therefore logic does come into play. So unless you are willing to deny that bad exists in the world, you have to resolve why God allows it. The only way to do that is to say that we do not understand his reasons, it is outside our perception. Fair enough. However, that then punches a hole into the idea that we really know anything about him in the first place. By admitting that he has attributes that are outside of our understanding, then it’s impossible to know what those might be. You can’t just stop at a point and say, well we don’t know everything about God, but everything else up until this point is correct and masquerade that as being logical.

Not to mention it just appears to be a man-made, wishful-thinking, which is really only useful for providing comfort and control in this “world”.

Or we can consider that we are unable to describe God through the use of univocal terms. However, the use of analogical language when applied to God can give us real knowledge. Analogical terms does not mean metaphorical, they can still be quite literal, but just not univocal. I’m happy to expand on that, but maybe take that over to the POE topic if you wish. I think you’d find some of the discussion between me and Sophia interesting, too.

 

[Curious11]

Everything that I know of has a cause. Stuff from before the Big Bang is a mystery

 

[Wesrock]

I’ll try to take laylow’s post over to the POE topic later today, no need for anyone to copy and paste again unless they want to, and I’ll expand on what I mean so it can be responded to properly.

 

[lilypadrees]

There will never be any proof that God doesn’t exist. So you’re just wishing.

 

[Sophia]

And, unfortunately, this is where you part ways with believers in God. If you want to define “reality” (aside from mathematical axioms) as “everything that can be measured empirically”, then you’ll always be at odds with believers in God – since, a priori, you have defined a world in which God does not (and can not!) exist.

You misunderstand me - intentionally? I have no problem with your assumption that the external reality consists of two parts, one is the directly observable physical part, and the other one is the NOT directly observable “spiritual” (?) part - where God resides. I do NOT deny that God is part of the external reality. Moreover, I accept that God interacts with the physical part. And that is the point - at the interface - where God (or the soul) can be caught red-handed.

And since the interface is partly physical, the empirical method is applicable. This is the problem for you.

Sure you are. You just cannot find a method, within your worldview, that allows anyone – in good faith – to address your demands. We get it. It’s ok. It’s just an unanswerable question, in terms of the kinds of answers you’re willing to accept.

Not that fast. It is sufficient for the skeptics to say that “IF you can present an epistemological method, it will be examined”. But we are under no obligation to help you to devise that method. Just like we are under no obligation to help the proponents of paranormal, or the believers of astrology to substantiate their claims. And without a suitable epistemology you have nothing. “Asserted without evidence…”

So present your epistemology. You can use any and all “tools” as long as they are objective, repeatable and reliable, and do not require the a-priori acceptance of your conclusion. Tell us the method, and we shall use it. If it works, we shall report the success to you. I repeat, you are NOT restricted to the litmus paper or the scale.

Of course we went through this before. Every time you disappeared from the conversation. Will you do it again?

Addendum:

I was NOT talking about God. I was talking about the “soul”, which is not exclusively a Christian concept. Which you said the “thing” that makes the decision for you.

 

[AlNg]

You said the laws of physics, or more specifically, the law of gravity caused the Big Bang. As something needs to be real in order to cause, your statement suggests you take the law of gravity to be a real existent thing in itself. That doesn’t mean it has to occupy any space or be floating around anywhere. It’s just real (or true), and ontologically prior to the Big Bang, and caused the Big Bang. The idea that the laws of nature are real (in the sense that they just are true even apart from any other reality) is a form of Platonic realism.

The laws of physics are not really laws but they are approximations to what we see occurring in our world today. As time passes and as the locations change, we may see a modification of these laws.

 

[AlNg]

Everything that I know of has a cause.

What is the cause of your free choice of strawberry ice cream over chocolate ice cream?

 

[Wesrock]

Thank you. I am aware of that position. Please posts 403 (second paragraph) and 405. Curious11 himself seems comfortable with Platonism, though, based on his posts following 403 and 405.

 

[Curious11]

Taste, mood, lactose intolerance…

 

[AlNg]

Taste, mood, lactose intolerance…

What is meant by mood being a cause of something. If the mood is caused by something else, how can your choice of ice cream be a free choice and not one that is determined and therefore not really free at all?

 

[Gorgias]

Yeah, since no one in history has ever died for causes that weren’t true.

The difference is that all of His “inner circle” died for Him. And none gave Him up as a “fake” in order to save himself from torture and death.

Kinda a big difference.

I do NOT deny that God is part of the external reality. Moreover, I accept that God interacts with the physical part. And that is the point - at the interface - where God (or the soul) can be caught red-handed.

And since the interface is partly physical, the empirical method is applicable. This is the problem for you.

No, it isn’t – and we’ve been over this ground already, too!

If you can come up with a method to predict where and when God will manifest empirically measurable phenomena, then you have a case. If you cannot come up with such a method, then a lack of measurements does not prove the null hypothesis.

Of course we went through this before. Every time you disappeared from the conversation. Will you do it again?

Only if, once again, you persist in illogic.

So present your epistemology.

It’s the same epistemology that science uses – I engage the evidence at hand and make a reasoned decision as to whether I accept it as truth.

Which you said the “thing” that makes the decision for you.

I did? I think I’d say that it is the intellect, specifically.

 

[Wesrock]

I’d just hold that every instance of the quantifiable is itself quantifiable evidence of God’s interaction with the physical world. That’s how all the (best, imo) cosmological arguments work.

 

[laylow]

The difference is that all of His “inner circle” died for Him. And none gave Him up as a “fake” in order to save himself from torture and death.

Kinda a big difference.

Actually, historians dispute this. There is some level of confidence for Peter, Paul, and James. The others, not so much. There are other instances in history where people have been said to have died for beliefs. It’s not a uniquely Christian phenomenon.

 

[anon10271182]

You missed the point. Those who walked with Jesus, talked with Jesus, witnessed His miracles and saw His resurrected, glorified body with their own eyes–those were the first martyrs. And many of those people to whom the first martyrs gave their eyewitness testimony to were also martyrs.
And “level of confidence” for Peter, James and Paul?" Really? Peter witnessed Christ first hand, and wrote in his epistle of his own impending martyrdom. He also preached his first hand witness of Christ to thousands, many of whom were martyred in turn. Paul was blinded by a vision of Christ, immediately repented and converted–and wrote in his epistle of his own impending martyrdom. And James? Another eyewitness to Christ. James’ martyrdom is on record in the Book of Acts. A book written by a meticulous scholar.

Because you don’t want to believe, you trot out the same weak, tired arguments as all the other atheists, on everything from cosmology to Scripture (neither of which studies you seem to be versed in whatsoever).

And why are you here on these forums, exactly? You obviously have a closed mind and you haven’t come up with a single new argument.

Why are you here?