@Smr, do you think atheism is the assertion that no gods exist? Also, what do you think agnosticism is?
They are emergent properties of a sufficiently advanced neural network (a.k.a. the brain and connected nerves and neurons). They are solely electrochemical and biochemical reactions in the brain. Remove or inhibit electrochemical reactions in the brain, and reason, consciousness, etc. stops. There is no empirical evidence[1] supporting these aspects of the brainâs workings that indicate otherwise.
that Iâm aware of âŠď¸
1 Like
I donât know, but I have seen no objective evidence to support such an idea.
I see several unevidenced assumptions in your definition perhaps before we proceed you could start by evidencing them, otherwise youâre simply begging the question by trying to define something into existence with words like ânecessaryâ.
That is not how atheism is defined, rather it is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. Withholding belief from a claim does not carry any burden of proof of course, that falls entirely on the person making the claim a deity exists.
Well that did seem to be exactly what youâd done, but could you please give the best reason or evidence you think supports the existence of any deity?
That ought really to be the starting point given you have brought the claim a deity exists to an atheist forum.
1 Like
Sure, if there were any basis to âcarefullyâ examine them âcriticallyâ. But as I said, they are inherently unfalsifiable. If you claim Allah exists, based not on presenting Allah for examination, but based on the assertions in a holy book and various commentaries, or of Muslim teachers, then there is no way to âcriticallyâ examine claims that are not only unevidenced, but unevidenceable, by design.
Most religions expect one to deploy the failed epistemology of religious faith to determine what is true, rather than something grounded in testable, measurable reality.
Instead, one must believe based on credulous acceptance, fear of disapproval or punishment up to and including loss of all social support, death, and eternal perdition. In ANY other realm, this would be considered abusive and dysfunctional. Somehow itâs supposed to be okay when religion demands it.
Although even if there were something grounded empirically to look at, it hardly seems fair that I should scour the dozens of major religions and tens of thousands of sects, all of which claim to correctly understand god, each of which demand deep study and contemplation before I can possibly begin to understand them. If God wants to be believed, worshipped, obeyed, appreciated, etc., heâs definitely going about it the wrong way. Even a sincere and diligent seeker might not find God in his or her lifetime. I think God needs a much better marketing department or something.
Indeed what religion one belongs to is, stastically speaking, just an accident of birth. I was born to Christian parents, so I was a Christian. They would not have approved, encouraged or supported me being a Muslim or a Rastafarian or a Wiccan. If you werenât born into a Muslim family, then your Muslim faith is an outlier.
Since you are again the one bringing a claim here, this is a rather odd question, that seems to be reversing your burden of proof. Why donât you tell us what evidence you think justifies a belief in any deity, since I canât speak for anyone else, I can only point out that my reason for disbelieving anything, is likely the exactly same as anyone elseâs including you, I have not seen sufficient evidence to allay my doubts.
If the concept of deity presented is unfalsifiable then I must remain agnostic, and also of course disbelieving, since I have seen no objective evidence for any deity, I am also an atheist. How can you claim to both believe in a deity, make claims about its nature, and claim to be an agnostic? Now that is impossible.
I appreciate that you have joined us, so please: I bid you peace . . . and I promise that I am not being snide and/or sarcastic.
That having been said, please consider:
-
Where does God, Yahew, Jehovah, G-d, or Allah come from? If God has always existed, then why not save a step and assume that the Universe has always existed (Although it slightly weakens this argument, I must clarifyâfor the sake of honestyâthat the Unverse may take several different forms at different times.)?
-
Many Muslims claim that apostate people will burn in Hell while the ârealâ Muslim is Saved. Well . . . what of the Catholics? They worship Allah under a different name, yet many (but not all) say all of these same consquences can screw me for eternity . . . so why Islam over Catholicism? Over Protestantism? All religions can be wrong . . . but they canât all be right.
-
If we decide that the orgins of God are fundementally unknowable . . . then why not save a step and decide that the origin of the Universe is unknowable?
-
The same scientific process that tends to steer me away from God has also provided modern medicine, a deeper understanding of the Universe, and so forth. Organized religion (including Islam), has never given us anything similiar (unless we hold up a middle-ages Muslim physician named Rhazes, as an argument can be made for or against).
-
Beliving in religion over science can be deadly. An example that I often use is the Brescia church explosion in the late 1700s, and this was after Franklinâs lightning rod had been rejected on religious grounds, as lightning is Godâs weapon.
-
Organized religion (Including Islam, although I argue that the death toll from Christianity is much, much higher) has motivated much genocide. Iâm Jewish on one side, and part Native American on the other, so Iâm sensitive to organized religion as a concept. If God penalizes me for Enternity for turning away from Him, then He doesnât deserve to be worshipped anyway.
I do believe that how you act and treat others is whatâs ultimately important, so a just God would take this into consideration. If He doesnât, then He isnât just, and therefore disqualifies as God.
But then again: Why even bother with God and just do the best you can to make the world a better place. I believe that my nursing work already qualifies me for heaven after I die if Iâm wrong about God . . and no, that isnât why Iâm a floor nurse at 60 years of age.
I could go on, but Iâm sure you see my points.
If you do not know, then you should be willing to seek and discover the truth.
I appreciate and welcome your objection. However, the fundamental principle of rational debate is that the person who asserts that something does not exist also bears the burden of justifying that assertion.
In any case, I have already presented my arguments to another member in this discussion. I would kindly ask you to read that exchange first. Once you have done so, we can continue our discussion based on those arguments.
Will you please indicate where in this string you read anyone assert that any gods donât exist.
2 Likes
Thatâs correct. It remains an open possibilityâit may exist, or it may not.
Hence my asking you to evidence your claims.
I have made no such assertion.
Fair enough, if an argumentum ad ignorantiam argument is all you have then obviously itâs insufficient to alleviate my doubt, and of course your argument even were it not fallacious, would get you no closer to Allah than it would to Zeus, Apollo or any of the countless deities humans have imagined.
See above, and you still need to evidence your claims, not simpky create an argument for a deity. One could simply replace the word deity or god with almost anything, and your argument loses nothing, thatâs not a good sign.
Actually that only makes it epistemically possible, one could assert that much for invisible pixies.
Emergent properties of a functioning human brain, if youâre claiming deities are just a product of and exist only in our imagination Iâd not have a problem with that.
Precisely because apologists can never demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam, nothing can rationally be asserted as true because of the lack of an alternative explanation or evidence. The universe exists as an objective fact, natural material phenomena exist as an objective fact, you donât get to add an unevidenced deity and pretend those who disbelieve your claim have to disprove it.
Thats not what atheism means.
You also assumed without evidence a deity is necessary, but a first cause neednât be a deity, that pure unevidenced assumptions. Assuming you could evidence a first cause of course, with something beyond argumentum ad ignorantiam appeals.
Fair enough. However, there are sound philosophical arguments supporting the existence of a First Cause. I invite you to consider the following argument and evaluate it on its own merits.
Iâve never seen one, theyâre all flawed if not fallacious.
Even were I to accept there were a first cause, youâd still need to demonstrate a deity existed to posit it as that first cause.
What argument?
Also, I donât believe you can argue something into existence, least of all by making unevidenced assumptions about it, which is question begging. Like assuming without evidence that a deity is necessary.
Smr,
Your argument seems to be predicated on the notion that the universe was created. Surely, before you can begin to proceed to build an argument that the universe had a creator you first have to establish that it had a beginning?
Current cosmological models of the universe fall into two groups. Those that posit an eternally existing universe that goes through an endless cycle of Big Bang (or Big Bang like) events and which require no creator or creation event. And those that extrapolate backwards to within a few instants before a possible creation event.
Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia
Youâll notice that in the Tabular Summary on this Wiki page the furthest back science can extrapolate is the era of Inflation. This is NOT a creation event because inflation is theorized to have taken a miniscule volume of pre-existing space and expanded it by many orders of magnitude. It remains completely unknown if this pre-inflationary volume of space itself came into existence in some way or if it represents a phase through which a cyclic universe must pass, again and again and again.
Since cosmological science can provide no answer and has no evidence to support the claim that the universe came into being from nothing or was created in some way, I submit that you cannot build an argument for a creator with anything but speculation.
But if you know otherwise, in regards to scientific evidence for the universe being created that is, please share it with us.
Thank you,
Walter.
1 Like
You mean a First Cause, a creator cause is an extra assumption, and a deity creator yet another, and a specific deity yet another unevidenced assumption.
Occamâs razor applies.
1 Like
As far as Iâm aware Smr there are no arguments based upon evidence that specifically identify a particular God from among the candidates.
Itâs my current understanding that theists use a number of arguments and then insert their particular God in at the end as an act of faith on their part. This, of course, is not a valid line of argument because it depends SOLELY on the religious faith of the person making the argument to work. It works ONLY if a leap of faith is made.
So, Iâm keen to see if you can make an evidence-based argument that specifically identifies Allah and only Allah as the creator of the universe.
Thank you,
Walter.
No. It is that the person making any positive claim bears the burden of proof; it has nothing to do about what the claim is about or whether it is pro or con.
The vast majority of atheists do not make the positive claim that god does not exist. Rather, we await evidence for your positive claim that god DOES exist, and until we get it, we are not convinced of your positive claim. I am without God because I have not been convinced there is even one God. The burden is not on me to prove your claim that God exists. Itâs your claim, so you have to substantiate it. And you donât do that by quoting the Quran (thatâs the claim again, not the evidence) or with philosophical arguments. You do it by giving me a falsifiable claim that can be objectively investigated. That would involve observable phenomena or side effects in the physical world, etc., not personal subjective experiences or feelings, anecdotal stories, etc.
If you have trouble understanding this, simply consider why you donât believe, say, Odin exists. Or any other god but Allah. Hopefully it is not because your holy book forbids believing in them, but because you see no valid evidence for their existence.
I feel the same way about those gods; it is just that I also feel that way about one additional god compared to you â specifically, Allah.
Everything we observe in this world is contingent; that is, although it exists, it could have failed to exist. Do you accept this premise?
Everything we observe in this world is contingent; that is, although it exists, it could have failed to exist. Do you accept this premise
Even the Big Bang would require an efficient cause. To claim that something simply happened without any cause is contrary to reason.