A good response to show the flaw in arguments like the Kalam cosmological argument, is to substitute another fictional thing for a deity in their argument.
It then becomes obvious that it either is nonsense or will argue anything into existence, as long as make the unevidenced assumptions that what you’re arguing for has certain characteristics. Which of course is a begging the question fallacy.
When you replace a deity with a wizard in the KCA, then ask them why it now fails? They never have a rational argument. You could use Santa Claus, and I still see no objective difference.
So either they accept that literally anything can be argued into existence, which is absurdly irrational, or their argument has an inherrant bias, which is closed minded.
What it does have is several known logical fallacies.
Careful, that would be a claim carrying a burden of proof. Also there might be verifiable facts in the bible. There are steam trains in the Harry Potter books, which are real, this doesn’t make wizards real.
The entire bible could be filled with verifiable historical facts, none of these would represent objective evidence for a deity or anything supernatural.
Paradoxically, the presence of even one error would amply show it couldn’t possibly be the inerrant word of an omniscient omnipotent deity. So apologists are left with the equally absurd notion, that human error occurred in receiving and recording a perfect message, but again the idea a deity with limitless knowledge to create a message, and limitless power to communicate it , would allow any errors is ludicrous.
The idea such a deity would deal in allegory, and be unable to get any closer than 6 days, to a universe that is in fact over 13 billion years old, is equally risible to me.
Is your point supported by a shred of objective evidence, or are we expected to simply take your word for it?
That would be true of any non-existent thing though, so that vapid claim is something of an own goal.
If the biblical deity has as christianity has claimed for centuries, limitless power, knowledge and mercy, why does it commit relentless acts of mass murder, endorse slavery, and the stoning to death of unruly children, for example, or encourage its ignorant bronze age Bedouin followers to commit obscenely barbaric acts of violence, murder, ethnic cleansing, sex trafficking virginal female prisoners, etc etc etc…?
One would reason that such a deity would try to curb those instincts in primitive humans, rather than wholeheartedly endorse them?
If you cannot demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for any deity, then I’ll continue to withhold belief in them/it. However you might at least examine the glaring contradiction between the deity depicted in your bible, and the one christianity has traditional claimed exists?
Or not of course, unbiased critical examination of biblical claims, has not in my experience been a trait most Christian’s display.
Lol - about 4000 years ago …biblical timeframe of the flood.
maybe this was how god drained the waters from the face of the earth. (See below pic)
Anyhoo. BIG intelligence that some centuries later (hard to date … I wonder why???) god told Moses to have the Israelites use sticks to bury their poop .
I read an article recently (on Facebook) that included a photo of a black hole. Not a photo in a traditional since, but an image that was some type of amalgam from other measurable properties. Sorry I don’t recall what—x-rays maybe. Not much of an image but really cool that it can be done.
I believed God is the creator. The cause of the Big Bang (or whatever got the universe going). I believe God created the physical universe and endowed it with the properties that it has. I once thought, that was all God did. I since come to witness contradictions (long story) that caused me to believe God does act upon his universe. I theorize that God has a total effect on everything that can make God indistinguishable for everything.
Respected physicists all lean towards a universe that did not pop out of nothing. There was the big bang, but there was something before that, from which this universe’s singularity came from.
Ancient man’s vision of “everything” was limited, all they could witness was what they observed, from horizon to horizon. Exploration and learning led mankind to the understanding that this earth was a globe in space. But Medieval man still believed this planet was the center of everything, what was observed in the skies were small actors. Further exploration revealed a massive universe out there, our planet and sun are not even a speck of dust in the known universe. Yet many cling to the belief that this is all there is, what we have observed so far. It is very possible that this known universe (which is freaking huge) may be just a very tiny part of the all of everything.
Our explanation of this Earth, the Sun, the Milky way, the known universe does not require a god. So to propose that the next level of exploration and learning somehow requires a god is a far reach, in my mind.
At every level of learning the religions told us that yes, we can explain the Earth through naturalistic means, but god was required for what lay beyond our atmosphere. We learned about our solar system, and still, religion shifted the goal posts and claimed that a god was required to explain the stars. And so on and so on. So why assume that a god is required to explain the origin of this known universe?
Information is about distictitions. If god is indistinguishable from everything else; then there is no difference between god existing, and god not existing. That fits rather well with the view that god is a figment of peoples imaginations.
I believe I have repeatedly asked you to demonstrate some objective evidence for your belief? Is that likely to be coming or even acknowledged at some point?
What objective evidence can you demonstrate the big bang had or required a cause? Do you see the problem with your endless unevidenced assumptions and beliefs yet?
Sigh, I tire of repeating myself here…i disbelieve your unevidenced belief.
I theorize we you are a minion of Beelzebub, how is my wild unevidenced theory any less credible than yours?
You don’t need to argue against it, you need to demonstrate a shred of objective evidence for your assumption that a deity created the universe. You have dishonestly avoided your burden of proof yet again.
thus far your belief is solely a vapid collection of unevidenced claims, so no one needs to contradict any of it, as it is meaningless.
If you prefer I could simply claim to believe your belief is wrong, and my belief must be at least as valid as yours by the standard you are setting here. However I make no claims, I just refuse to believe claims presented without a shred of objective evidence, which is what you keep doing.
I’m sorry. I’m new to AR, and I have the feel that I’m being baited. If I’m wrong I apologize!
I do intend to interact within AR members, but it is best to pick ones battles. I thought I was responding to the topic “why do Christians defined their deity” and your questions didn’t seem germaine to the topic.
My beliefs are based on experiences that are very personal. It will take a lot of explanation and I’m not willing to share that if I have to explain every aspect of it as I go. If that violates the rules, I will leave the group.
Where I live, there are not very many atheist, or at least acknowledge their beliefs. Conversly there are many that that offer what they think atheist believe and why they are wrong. I seeking some personal experience as to what atheist actually believe. Again, if that violates the rules I’ll will leave.
Again, I do intend to intact, but I reserve the right to chose when. I hope we can have constructive debates, but please let me get my feet wet some first.
What is there to believe? Do we have to believe in anything specific? Atheists come in all shapes and sizes, but the common thing among us is the lack of belief in a deity. No more, no less. We just believe in one less deity than you, the monotheist.
You have repeatedly made unevidenced assertions in those responses, assertions, claims and beliefs carry an epistemological burden of proof.
Demanding evidence be demonstrated for claims in a debate is always germane.
Again, atheism is not a belief, nor is it an assertion or claim, it cannot be wrong in the sense a claim or belief can. The only reason it is wrong to disbelieve something is that it is supported by sufficient objective evidence.
An atheist can believe anything, except in any deity or deity, but atheism itself is not a belief, nor does it require any beliefs.
You can respond as and when you are minded to, but each time you make any assertions that are unevidenced I will interject and ask that you demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for them, if you can’t or won’t then I will disbelieve them.
Sincerely, thank you for an honest answer. These are your beliefs, I respect that. But please understand that for this myself, I do not hold those beliefs and I have no way in knowing if a god exists.
Fundamentally I am a mechanic by inclination and training. My world is one of technical manuals, tried and true empirical evidence and experience. One does not tighten a bolt based on beliefs, on tightens a bolt in a specific manner, and to a tightness dictated by physical properties that can be measured and examined.
This is the world I live in, one dictated by such evidence and science. To me the world of the supernatural does not exist but in people’s imaginations. It has no effect on me, it can not be measured and sensed in any way. To me it fits neaty within the category of “nothing”.
I have often seen theists attempt to answer questions from multiple atheist questions, the result an ugly mess.
I would suggest that in any thread, stick to one topic, ignore secondary and distracting questions. If someone does not like that, tough, they are the ones injecting secondary and distracting questions.
First off, I am dealing with high-level mechanics, not the local garage (although I do not want to disparage any garage, almost all do good work).
For example to bolt a plate onto an opening: the plate surface must be cleaned by a specific solvent. Even the cloths or brushes must be specific. Then all dimensions checked. All tolerances specified. Then specific bolts, washers, etc must be used. In almost every case brand new from the identified manufacturer. Same goes with any gaskets. The bolts are hand-tightened, then an initial torque (by a calibrated torquemeter) in a specified pattern to a specified value. Then one or more increased torques applied again, in a specific value in a specific pattern.
That is fair enough! And I will try to prove evidence for my believe in the future. It has a historical and philosophical basis along with a complex personal experience. As I am an Engineer, my ability to convey those attributes is not strong. So there is that too.
Meanwhile, I did a little research (an I do mean little) about the definition of atheism. I Google it, and if I recall correctly, found the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy. It offered two definitions. It first is based on the word theist, where the a indicates “not.” It went on to explain that theist is a proposition—something that is either true or false—often defined as “the belief that God exists. As a propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing.
That last part I a bit fuzzy for me as I am no philosopher. The definition I found dose go on to the provide a second definition based a psychological state of believing.
The first definition is considered to be the norm—stated the Stanford doc. In this definition, atheism is a belief (the belief that God does not exist)—because it is based on the word theism—that we both agree is a belief.
The second definition, suggest that it is not a belief, but a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). This definition is not to be based on the word theist, and even states that an atheist (by this definition) can exist even if there are no theists—but if that were the case, it would likely be called something else.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy stated that a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers make this claim.
Based on that, atheism is either a belief or atheists claim that it not a belief but at state of mind (I think).
There are two ways to negate “the belief that God exists”:
not having the belief that God exists.
the belief that God does not exist.
Do you see the difference? No. 1 is just an absence of belief, while no. 2 is an active belief that God does not exist, which is not implied by no. 1. No. 2 is a more sweeping statement that also includes 1, but not the other way around. No. 1 does not say anything about the existence of non-existence of a god, while no. 2 actively denies the existence. In here, the common consensus centers around the first one (the absence of belief that God exists).
I understand the literal difference, but struggle with the philosophical difference. I get that one is the opposite of of the theological belief in God. Well the other is the definition of a state of mind like say materialism or humanism. You show that both are “beliefs”. Sheldon called me out for my suggestion that atheism is a belief. Fun stuff!!
No. The lack of belief in a god is as much a belief as not collecting stamps is a hobby. Or: I can believe that the trunk in the car over there —> (which I haven’t opened to peek inside) is full of gold, or I can believe it is full of garbage, or I can not care about the content. I can believe a [insert sport here] team is going to win a match, I can believe they will lose, or I can be totally uninterested in sports, and don’t care. Either way, the not caring part does not take a stance one way or the other, and does not constitute a belief or interest in either of the gold/no gold or win/lose options.
maybe this was how god drained the waters from the face of the earth. (See below pic)
.
out of curiousity, can another mechanic read the manual, follow the instructions and get the same result?
(which I haven’t opened to peek inside) is full of gold, or I can believe it is full of garbage, or I can not care about the content. I can believe a [insert sport here] team is going to win a match, I can believe they will lose, or I can be totally uninterested in sports, and don’t care. Either way, the not caring part does not take a stance one way or the other, and does not constitute a belief or interest in either of the gold/no gold or win/lose options.