Two Horns of Atheist Dilemma

[RGCheek]

These days atheists are divided along the question of “How do they come to their atheism; by knowing God does not exist, or by seeing no reason to believe?”

Those who believe that they can prove God does not exist are limited by the means by which one can prove something does not exist. Unless something is by its very nature or conception impossible, then one cannot prove it does not exist except in very limited locales. It is one thing to prove that there are no tulips in the refrigerator, but quite another to prove that there are no tulips anywhere in the universe.

The only means to prove that a thing does not exist universally is to prove it is impossible, and there is nothing about God that is impossible. He has been described mathematically with transfinite numbers, at least their author thought so. He is observed in various ways by mystics and people of faith for millennia. IT is amazing that there are so many religions that teach the same God of Abraham and also other monotheistic faiths that came to their belief in a single Creator without the influence of the Abrahamic faiths. Hinduism for example has the various gods as manifestations of the single trinity being, but a different concept of trinity than we have. There have been endless miracles and huge coincidental events and characteristics in the universe that have simply amazing unlikely odds, and while an appeal to an infinite number of tries sounds feasible, it really isn’t as there cannot be an infinite series of attempts and there are still fine tunings to the universe that have nothing to do with human evolution.

And that is the crux of the problem; Strong atheists cannot disprove God, all they can do is cast doubts with thin arguments that are usually built on stacked facts and biased assumptions, like using Young Earth Creationists to represent all Christians in the field of science, etc.

The Strong atheism position is so flawed and easy to trample in discussion that very few people bother to present it any more, and the last major proponent of the “God Disproven by the Existence of Evil” Anthony B Flew is now a monotheist, though not yet Christian.

The Weak Atheist position is also deeply flawed. It states that one should not believe in God because of a lack of evidence for God’s existence, but even an average freshman in science courses learns that 'An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Usually I have found that the Weak atheist position is taken as a façade for the real position, and that being an agnostic position of “No one has convinced me yet” as if that is everyone’s responsibility to try to force some atheist to believe. It is a blend of apathy and indifference born of pop culture that is untested, unexplored and sterile. Most accept it because it seems that most of their friends do and they go along to get along.

And so the choices of atheism are not much tenable in either direction.

Perhaps this is why there are over 4 billion believers in monotheistic deity and atheism is out numbered five to one by those who believe the moon landings were faked.

With all due respect, atheism is a fringe group if there ever was one.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I agree.

Thanks for the interesting post.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Thanks for the post. Those are some interesting points to think about.

 

[hasantas]

…
…
.

To prove that God does not exist is impossible as you mentioned. Because God is not in universe or in time whereas all unbeliever can observe the matter and time. So materialists cannot go beyond of matter and time. If they could go and see beyond of time and matter then they may prove that God does not exist but that is impossible.

On the other hand there are countless proofs from beyond of matter and time. There have been thousand prophets, revelations, miracles and also every believer can get and comprehend these proofs by himself.

 

[Nixbits]

RGCheek:

The Weak Atheist position is also deeply flawed. It states that one should not believe in God because of a lack of evidence for God’s existence, but even an average freshman in science courses learns that 'An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

This is not a flaw in the Weak Atheist position. This is a reason why a Weak Atheist does not accept the Strong Atheist position.

RGCheek:

Usually I have found that the Weak atheist position is taken as a façade for the real position, and that being an agnostic position of “No one has convinced me yet” as if that is everyone’s responsibility to try to force some atheist to believe. It is a blend of apathy and indifference born of pop culture that is untested, unexplored and sterile.

There are also a significant number of atheists who have investigated a variety of religions and remain unconvinced of the truth of any of them. They are not apathetic or indifferent. Indeed, many of them might even be called ‘militant atheists’ by some because of their energetic and vocal advocacy of the weak atheist position.

 

[tonyrey]

Many atheists seem less concerned about explaining reality than rejecting religion. When asked how the power of reason originated they often mention evolution as if it solves the problem for once and for all. Only a small minority try to defend their position because it is much easier to attack than present a credible interpretation of existence - and rational beings in particular…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The Weak Atheist position is also deeply flawed. It states that one should not believe in God because of a lack of evidence for God’s existence, but even an average freshman in science courses learns that 'An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I think the position is does not and not should not. It’s not a prescription, it’s a description. Though there are people that are also labeled as “philosophical skeptics” that would say “should not.” (A weak/agnostic atheist can be a philosophical skeptic, but is not necessarily a philosophical skeptic. So I would not conflate the two). The person may or may not have had evidence pointed out to them or arguments presented but isn’t convinced. Such a person might also declare the existence of a deity/God is possible.

Kind of am expecting this thread to be locked though. Goes into a prohibited topic.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

To prove that God does not exist is impossible as you mentioned. Because God is not in universe or in time whereas all unbeliever can observe the matter and time. So materialists cannot go beyond of matter and time. If they could go and see beyond of time and matter then they may prove that God does not exist but that is impossible.

On the other hand there are countless proofs from beyond of matter and time. There have been thousand prophets, revelations, miracles and also every believer can get and comprehend these proofs by himself.

Indeed, many atheists do not comprehend the wide ranging nature of God. They often think we perceive God much as the old gods, those gods that are from within the universe and essentially exist as gods of the ‘scientific’ gaps in knowledge and understanding.

Atheist scientists appear to be getting more and more ‘desperate’ these days, since if anything, scientific advances appear to be making their stance ever more problematic.

What such scientists forget is that science actually knows little to nothing about what things ARE; that science is mostly about understanding the effects of things, mostly on other things.

Atheists tend to get turned off by the mention of God, and very few honestly and openly test claims the way they can and should be - as cold case detection is done, and as circumstantial evidence is tested.

The likes of Dawkins and Hawking are brilliant in their narrow fields of science, but that often glaringly seem to lose the plot as they stray away and wander into the minefields of scientism and philosophy.

In Hawking’s latest best seller, he not only dismisses God {which he seems to equate with the old gods of the gaps], but he uses a philosophical discourse to ‘show’ that even philosophy has passed its sell by date. He then goes on to claim that because there is a law of gravity, that the universe can spring from nothing! Not quantum vacuum, which is actually not really nothing and is caused by something in any case, but real nothing! What??? As if any physical law can exist without the physical phenomena it describes and effects and hangs on! He also talks about n-theory - actually more a desperate hypothesis according to one of the very top [atheist] physicists - as likely ‘if/when proved’ to support the atheist point of view.

I am reminded of the Biblical quote:

Jeremiah 5:21 - Douay-Rheims Bible
‘Hear, O foolish people, and without understanding: who have eyes, and see not: and ears, and hear not.’

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Oh, as I omitted mentioning in my previous post, John Lennox in a reply to Stephen Hawking’s claims in his latest ‘best seller’, alludes to the ‘rubbish in, rubbish out’, even if spoken/written by an eminent person.

I recommend you look at this snippet from YouTube:

youtu.be/S6mVvtQrdj0

 

[RGCheek]

I think the position is does not and not should not. It’s not a prescription, it’s a description. …

But there are people who believe in God without evidence, so how can a valid truthful statement read ‘does not’?

Kind of am expecting this thread to be locked though. Goes into a prohibited topic.

That would seem odd to lock a thread on the existence of God on a Cathlic site in the philosophy forum.

Is there another place for it?

Maybe if we all can mind our manners?

I for one promise to be nice.

 

[RGCheek]

Indeed, many atheists do not comprehend the wide ranging nature of God. They often think we perceive God much as the old gods, those gods that are from within the universe and essentially exist as gods of the ‘scientific’ gaps in knowledge and understanding.

Yes, unfortunately we use the same word to describe many very different ideas. The polytheistic godlings were nothing like the Creator at all. That most militant atheists seem to prefer to discuss godlings in philosophy and fundamentalists in science shows a disturbing preference for data stacking.

The likes of Dawkins and Hawking are brilliant in their narrow fields of science, but that often glaringly seem to lose the plot as they stray away and wander into the minefields of scientism and philosophy.

I think some scientists feel annoyed with the idea that there is a higher level framework of knowledge above their own field of natural science/philosophy. But the foundations of science are laid in theology and philosophy.

In Hawking’s latest best seller, he not only dismisses God {which he seems to equate with the old gods of the gaps], but he uses a philosophical discourse to ‘show’ that even philosophy has passed its sell by date. He then goes on to claim that because there is a law of gravity, that the universe can spring from nothing! Not quantum vacuum, which is actually not really nothing and is caused by something in any case, but real nothing! What??? As if any physical law can exist without the physical phenomena it describes and effects and hangs on! He also talks about n-theory - actually more a desperate hypothesis according to one of the very top [atheist] physicists - as likely ‘if/when proved’ to support the atheist point of view.
.’

It is as if one day atheists might just collapse into nonsense like saying "I don’t believe in God because of his lack of consumer choices’. And then act as if that made any sense.

 

[RGCheek]

This is not a flaw in the Weak Atheist position. This is a reason why a Weak Atheist does not accept the Strong Atheist position.

That seems incongruous to me. What is your definition of the term ‘Weak Atheism’?
I was using this mostly.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism

It seems that the most appropriate response to a theory of an object that could exist but there is no evidence one way vrs another is to say it is undetermined, and not take a biased conclusion in the absence of evidence.

There are also a significant number of atheists who have investigated a variety of religions and remain unconvinced of the truth of any of them. They are not apathetic or indifferent. Indeed, many of them might even be called ‘militant atheists’ by some because of their energetic and vocal advocacy of the weak atheist position.

I was not thinking militancy in terms of zealotry, but in the extremity of the claims asserted…

But that is a good point. One could be a militant moderate I suppose.

Most Weak Atheists I have met have simply not investigated the topic and it is little more a decision process than going along with their peers.

 

[RGCheek]

Wow, just saw the sticky on this:
"For the foreseeable future, there shall be no discussion in the Philosophy Forum of evolution or atheism. Anyone who starts such a thread or revives an old thread on those topics will be banned. "

I am asking the moderators to drop the thread ASAP.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

That would seem odd to lock a thread on the existence of God on a Cathlic site in the philosophy forum.

See the thread pinned at the top of this forum. It sounds odd until you’ve observed how some of the threads on the topic here seem to go. They seem to devolve into emotionally charged statements and insults

The existence of God isn’t what is prohibited. It’s a discussion of atheism that is. It’s possible to ask some questions without specifically referencing atheism. For example, a thread on arguments for the existence of God is okay. A thread on converting atheist to theist with arguments could have all the same content but end up being locked because of the explicit reference to atheist. The moderators have sometimes edited threads early on to remove direct references to atheism (see the comment at the end of the first thread here) Sometimes I get the impression that threads that grace the topic are tolerated for a while until/unless things go south. But we’ll see.

Is there another place for it?

No.

Maybe if we all can mind our manners?
I for one promise to be nice.

Likewise. Sadly I’m not confident that all will should this thread be allowed to survive. If it becomes locked without further explanation then that may be why.

But there are people who believe in God without evidence

Yes, there are. Some may fall under what has been termed as agnostic theism. Some might see it as a form of Sola fide…

so how can a valid truthful statement read ‘does not’?

“Should” is often times indicative of a directive, obligation, and many other things. I person that is a weak/agnostic atheist doesn’t necessarily feel that people are obligated to not be convinced of the existence of a god because of the currently available evidence. But one’s stance might not be quite so prescriptive/proscriptive. She might say that the evidence that has been presented to her thus far is not yet enough to convince her. She may at the same time think that other forms of evidence that others have had may be sufficient and valid for convincing them *ex: hearing from God or having personal experiences with agents of God such as angels) but lacking such experiences herself she might not be convinced herself. You might see people taking similar disposition on some other non-religious matters accompanying the phrases like “You’ve got to see for yourself to believe/understand it.”

This is not to make a statement about all agnostic atheist. Only that it’s not necessarily a feature of someone that labels themselves as one that people should not believe. There’s also not necessarily a feeling that others are obligated to try to convince the person. You might find some that are just totally uninterested in having a discussion on the matter all together (whom might also be labeled as “apatheist” or “apathetic agnostics”). There also exists those that would like to believe but may involuntarily find themselves no longer convinced.*

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Wow, just saw the sticky on this:
"For the foreseeable future, there shall be no discussion in the Philosophy Forum of evolution or atheism. Anyone who starts such a thread or revives an old thread on those topics will be banned. "

I am asking the moderators to drop the thread ASAP.

You could just report the thread yourself using the exclamation mark at the top of the first message and provide an explanation that you were not aware of the prohibition and that you would like the thread locked. They tend to be understanding and will probably lock the thread without penalty.