Oh I’m not sure his first motive was to troll. Though he did trot out many of the irrational and dubious cliches, that are ubiquitous in contemporary religious apologetics.
Fireflies has been reinstated … he wasn’t the one who made a bigoted statement. Which is good because I couldn’t figure out what his bigoted statement was.
I don’t agree with all of Fireflies’ reasoning but IMO he’s a far more good-faith and reasonable debater than the vast majority of theists we get here. I know that’s a low bar, lol. But still. I hope he comes back.
Being labeled as a Theist says a lot before hand that they & I are already not going to agree on a whole lot. Believing in a god comes with a whole slew of crap beliefs that they want to talk about.
I had the tentative sense s/he was trying to shoehorn in plausible hypotheticals and possibles for later escalation (as in, “well you admitted this was possible or you agree with me hypothetically, therefore you are required to admit my belief in god is at least reasonable”). Yeah, been there, got the tee shirt.
Nevertheless the debate was unusually intelligent and careful and even somewhat nuanced, and I was looking forward to seeing Fireflies share on a wider range of topics because it’s also possible I was seeing a “pattern” that was just what fell out of some of the initial posts and wasn’t an actual or at least conscious strategy.
I understand, and I will do my best to make reasoned and fair arguments. I’m also not afraid to call out “bad faith” arguments even if they’re on the theist side - a bad argument doesn’t help anyone.
As I hope I have demonstrated in other comments, I don’t try to express my beliefs unless the discussion specifically calls for it (the topic, not a participant) as I would rather my argument stand or fall on its own merit.
I also recognise the purpose of this forum being atheist-centric and I respect the predominant views here and do not want to come across as someone seeking to preach/proselytise “through the back door” as it were. I’m happy to engage in discussions and provide alternative views, but I respect that people here aren’t looking to be challenged on their positions - that it is a forum, not a front line for a verbal conflict.
Thank you, I appreciate the views you have presented too 
Feel free to challenge us through well-reasoned discussion – we welcome the challenge. But proselytising will be frowned upon.
2 Likes
What I mean is, for instances of a creator deity, the difference would be the non-existence of the universe, or perhaps even a “does not compute” error given that something considered an integral component of reality is hypothetically removed from the equation.
Yes, that is what I was saying, you are asking how a theist (aimed at those who believe a deity exists) would expect it to be different.
It’s sounds like we’re in agreement on this point even though you said nope.
I have claimed to be a theist as per my profile, but the only claim I have made is an acceptance of a label. The fact I have accepted that label is self-evident that the label applies to me.
I have not expressed a claim beyond that in terms of what I actually believe beyond theism.
Yes, the definition covers both types I described. Not sure what your disagreement is on this point?
Some atheists specifically believe there are no gods, (i.e., strong atheism)
I am not looking to present my personal belief, I am looking to make arguments I can support.
If one considers two universes; one with a deity and one without, and accepts the hypothetical premise that the different realities presented can operate whether or not there is a deity involved by some logical means, and that the two realities are as similar as possible excepting the consequential differences by the presence or absence of said deity; the differences specifically down to the presence or non-presence of a deity in these two universes, even putting aside the question of whether reality could logically operate in both examples (as per the hypothetical), would be entirely dependent on the deity’s actions and interventions.
Accordingly, such actions and interventions are unknowable because, as you have said, we can only observe one universe so whichever of the two from our scenario is the universe we are observing, we only have one frame of reference.
If one puts aside what can be “known” and supported by “objective evidence”, then the differences could be infinite in number, ranging in scope and magnitude.
As I mentioned before, the problem lies in the hypothetical itself - if one holds the belief that a creator deity is necessary for existence, then the hypothetical doesn’t fit - it’s a contradiction in terms. The view would be that there could not be a universe without a deity - and that reality itself would be illogical with that component missing.
Sure, but that doesn’t mean I have anything to justify. I have acknowledged a label applies to me, that is all. I have many other labels I could reference, and would not be required to justify them.
And yes, in an atheist forum of all places, I would think that expressing my theistic beliefs to all and sundry would be less welcome than elsewhere. I have been upfront with my label for transparency, and my engagement in discussions should stand or fall on the strength of my arguments on their merit, not on their source.
Because I am not seeking for it to have any influence on my arguments. I value logic. I aim to make logical arguments, and if/when I make errors, I try to learn from them.
That would be a false equivalence.
If you asked, “What would be different if X happened instead of Y”, for which there are divergent views on whether X or Y actually happened, it would be unknowable as to what would be different.
Like, what would be different if aliens existed in the universe or didn’t exist in the universe?
It would be correct to say that the differences would be unknowable, but that would not mean that one couldn’t know the difference.
Some people consider that the existence of earth (or life on earth) is dependent on alien life (i.e., the planet being deliberately seeded by aliens), some may think that specific events have been influenced by aliens. Consider the Roswell / Area 52 theories - if you were to ask someone who believed in an alien crash at Roswell how the world would be different if that event hadn’t occurred - aside from someone with outlandish and unsupported theories about the various technological advancements seen in the past 50 years or so, what supportable differences could one state?
I would contend that being able to answer such a question would only serve to highlight how they have built on something that could “reasonably” be considered a possibility (views on “reasonable” may differ), with pure unsupportable speculation, like velcro not existing, etc.
Whereas someone who declares it to be unknowable would simply be saying, “I believe it happened, but I also recognise there is no “objective evidence” to support it, and certainly no way to identify what would be different if the government was successful in covering up the initial event, they would be capable of disseminating secret technology advancements or even keeping more advanced technologies completely hidden from the public eye - who knows, perhaps some of the potential technologies discovered aided in covering up the subsequent advances”
So the admission that something is unknowable outside of speculation is not the same as not being able to tell the difference.
If you took a person from world/universe A and put them in world/universe B, they would be able to tell the difference, and vice versa, but if you ask them what the difference would be between the two worlds/universes without being able to experience both, they could reasonably say it was unknowable.
I appreciate and respect your position and I presume it comes from an history of experiences with other theists.
While I can’t promise we’ll have much to agree on, I can offer the assurance that I don’t intend to push my beliefs or to disrespect anyone’s position on beliefs here.
As per some of my previous comments, I have actively refused to go into any detail about my personal beliefs, beyond acknowledging the label of theist.
I understand entirely. I have no intention to proselytise or preach. I am not seeking to make anyone here justify their position on belief, though I am happy to challenge people through alternative views in the context of discussions raised, but from a position of reason and logic (to the best of my ability).
So a godless universe is impossible? How did you evidence that?
1 Like
To be completely fair, @Sheldon, the full quote was
where the second part of the answer was a qualification. If the belief is that the creator god was responsible, then a universe poofing into existence (and I use that term loosely) would not be compatible with the belief. Just like I myself hinted at in the very first answer 
In any case, debating the non-existence of a universe that we’re clearly included in, and that we can observe and measure through remote sensing, is somewhat absurd. This leads me to conclude that the original question is somewhat ill-posed.
1 Like
While I hold the view that my theist beliefs are from a position of reason, I am not looking to force acceptance of that from others. I don’t intend to seek acceptance of my theistic position beyond the fact that I have it, and I don’t intend to challenge the positions others hold specifically in terms of theism/atheism - just the points raised in discussions.
It is not my intent to contribute to discussions here in order to build ammunition for future discussions - while I appreciate others can/may act differently, I am of a mind to keep each discussion distinct (aside from maybe referencing that a point was made by me recently in a different discussion but only to echo the similarities/matching points being made by myself).
I am not playing a “long game” or any such strategy. I’m just looking to engage in discussions, offer different views, and develop my own understanding through debate, while potentially sharing thought-provoking views for others to contemplate.
I hope that clarifies my purpose and provides assurance as to my motives
1 Like
It’s relevant to any discussion where you make claims about a deity, and especially since you brought them to a public debate forum that is predominantly atheistic.
No, you can express any belief you like, as l9ng as it doesn’t violate the forum guidelines. However, all claims will be critically examined.
How is that even possible? No levity intended. At the very least your arguments are in support of an extant deity.
-
You either do, or do not, know what (if any) difference there would be.
-
You said it was unknowable.
-
Ipso facto if you don’t know how the two things would differ, it follows then that they would be indistinguishable from the other.
You later asserted the universe wouldn’t exist without a creator deity. This contradicts the difference being unknowable, or it’s an unjustified (to me at least) bare assertion.
Then you meant to say it is not known, as unknowable suggests it can’t be known or is unfalsifiable?
(Clipped for brevity, see examples in linked post.)
Those people have as far as I am aware, failed to offer any objective evidence, so I don’t care what they believe, only if the belief has any objective merit.
Then on what grounds do they disbelieve all other claims that are unsupported by any objective evidence.
Bias either for or against ideas and arguments and beliefs, is the very definition of closed minded.
You mean unknown then perhaps, not unknowable.
Presumably there is reason(s) someone beliefs a deity exists, it is reasonable to imagine that those reasons wouldn’t exist in a godless universe.
That then, would be the difference, one assumes.
Speaking only for myself, I think the more useful question than that in the OP is, "if the universe is as asserted by [insert specific religious sect here], what would we expect the universe to look like, and does it match that?
For example, if god is interventionist, perfectly empathetic, loving, able and aware, would we expect to always see the righteous blessed and the wicked confounded for example – and DO we?
Of course the fly in THAT ointment is that these are rather subjective questions that can be danced around and that people with different personality traits will pay attention to different aspects of life. Also with widely differing definitions of things like “righteous” and “wicked”, etc.
1 Like
Exactly, and I am asking those who believe a deity exists, how theirs differs from the one I observe, something beyond the claim for an extant deity.
Well they’re similar questions really, what is it that theists observe in the universe that convinces them a deity exits, or as the OP was worded, what would be lacking if no deity existed.
Theists read one book, their parents & friends fill their heads with stories as they grow up. And then when science leaves out a god when it comes to scientific theories, they can’t handle it. They have to ham fist their mythology in with the science.
In my experience and observation, it is seldom, if ever, that they look at reality, really, and say, yes, that is the hand of god. It is more that their belief-system provides rationalizations and pseudo-explanations that purport to make sense of lived experience with all its vicissitudes. In other words it provides post-hoc rationalizations for suffering, difficulties, grief, sorrow, cognitive dissonance and the like (and of course, the dread of one’s own mortality). Then, it pearl-clutches at the very idea of losing those rationalizations and facing life on its own terms, because how would we live without this “hope” of ours? That would lead to nihilism, despair, suicide, etc.
Put yet another way, it creates false “answers” and “explanations” for the human condition, which produces a learned helplessness should, hypothetically, someone depart from those answers.
As a practical example, since we’re on the topic elsewhere, there’s the question of morality. In fundamentalist Christianity, morality has no meaning without a backing authority (God, via temporal chastisement and eternal hellthreat). In other words because man is utterly depraved (invented / asserted problem), morality can only be enforced by an authoritarian strongman with dire threats, or it would never be adhered to. Hence, it’s unimaginable / unthinkable that one would reject “the salt of the earth” without which the wheels come off everything and everything descends into chaos.
They seldom, if ever, stop to ask, well … in countries with lower rates of theism, are people more or less moral? Those aren’t valid questions because “mere human wisdom” doesn’t “count” in their system. It’s all circular definitions. In godless Finland, say, people are reported to be happier but that can’t be true so it is just that they are sinning more or something, it is a short term “eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die” ethos that will ultimately produce more suffering (despite that it never does, despite that such societies are more civil and compassionate, despite that homelessness has been largely eradicated, drug addiction meaningfully treated instead of stigmatized, etc). These are all false critiera to the fundamentalist mind, and so are discounted out of hand.
So forgive me if I’m skeptical that at least THAT sort of theist will ever look at the actual world around them to test the accuracy of their beliefs; their beliefs are already assumed accurate and all others inaccurate by definition.
1 Like
“The U.S. professor who wrote a book on atheism in Scandinavian countries is Phil Zuckerman, a sociologist at Pitzer College, who authored “Society Without God” (published in 2008) based on his extensive research in Denmark and Sweden. His book explores how these highly secularized societies are among the most moral, stable, and prosperous, challenging American assumptions that a lack of religion leads to a decline in societal well-being.”
It’s been a while, but I though it was a well written book. Challenges some preconceptions like the ones you described above.
2 Likes
To clarify, I agreed with that part, but not this part of the assertion"
I don’t know if it’s godless, only that I have not seen anything approaching objective evidence that a deity exists or is possible.
It’s an epistemological difference, I base belief on knowledge, and withhold it in the absence of knowledge.
It struck me as a false dichotomy tbh. Either magic…or a deity using magic…