"We're all searching for answers"

Post Reply New Topic

No, the belief in a creator presupposes any other chain of events leading to the universe as it is today. I do not say "I know there is no God", I say "I do not know what was before", which is a big difference from "I know there is a God"

Both positions, theistic and non-theistic, are separated by only one step in the chain of events unfolding still. I fail to see how the one with the extra step precludes a curiosity about the following sequence of consequences. The extra variable does not change what follows after the beginning of causality.

Here is an Unanswered Question: what brand of cornflakes does God think is best?

ruveyn

I think you are be a bit shifty in your definitions. If you ask an atheist 'does God exist?' the atheist claim is usually, 'I withhold belief in God'. But that is not an answer to the question. In response to a proposition about existence many atheists respond with an answer from belief; which is essentially a non-sequitur. Take these two questions as an thought experiment:

Question 1
Does God exist?
atheist, no
agnostic, I don't know

Question 2
Do you believe in God?
atheist, I withhold belief.
agnostic, I withhold belief.

An atheist on the first proposition has a burden of proof but on the second does not. So obviously they answer they prefer to address the question as if it were the second one being asked; as it places them in the role of the skeptic and not in the one where they have a position to defend. However, in the last post, the point related to how much is assumed in the holding of a position. I see no reason to think that an atheist ought not to be placed in a position where they have to defend the first question. Answering a proposition of existence with one of belief is to not actually answer the question.

Kellogg's

This is not really accurate. The more strident atheist (such as Dawkins) would state that God definitely does not exist, and indeed would then be expected to back this up. This is "strong atheism", though I think "antitheism" would be a better term.

The majority of atheists are "weak atheists", and THIS is the default position. It's more like:
Q: Does God exist?
A: Probably not.

There is no burden of proof here, and this is as it should be, because you can replace God with any absurdity. Do you believe Zeus exists? Or the kraken? Or a blue elephant under your bed? Or a planet on the far side of the sun made entirely of chocolate? Or an honest politician? Or the Milka cow? Or Russell's Teapot? Or the Land Before Time? Or Bigfoot? Or an edible Pot Noodle? It is entirely acceptable for most things to say "no, this does not exist", because the list of things that does not exist is endless and largely unprovable. We do not act as though they might exist and, say, leave peanuts under the bed for the elephant.

The more fantastic claim is that God *does* exist. That's a positive assertion.

The statement 'God probably does not exist' still entails a burden of proof in support of it. It is a proposition and all defenders of a proposition have a burden of proof. The position taken by 'weak' atheists entails a probabilistic response because it entails an acceptance of a degree of probability that God does exist. In spite of the commonly promoted misconception, it is possible to disprove a things existence. If it leads to a provable logical contradiction, like a married bachelor or a square circle, then we can say for certainly that it logically cannot exist. Other things like Russell's teapot are not really all that difficult, we really have no reason to think that it exists. Negative propositions do have a burden of proof, imagine if you claimed that Winston Churchill did not exist (or probably did not exist), the burden of proof on yourself would arguably be greater than the person who took the affirmative position.

The statement "god probably does not exist" does not entail the burden of proof. Much the same as the statement "god probably exists" does not entail the burden of proof. Those are both true statements in an environment where there is no proof. These are default answers in a situation where there is no basis for determining the truth. Arguably, the later makes the least amount of sense, as well.

To say a definitive "No he does not exist" entails burden of proof. But the statement "Yes he does exist" entails the most burden of proof.

Logical contradictions are still possible. Even the ones you provided can exist. Those contradictions only hold up in simplistic two dimensional thinking. Might I direct your attention to the Cylinder? Please note it is simultaneously a square (or rectangle) and a circle....But that is beside the point, entirely. You cannot use logical contradiction to prove things do not exist that are not logical contradictions to begin with...so it is invalid method for determining whether or not something unknown and unproven but suspected might be true.

The reason the burden of proof rests with the individual in your proposed scenario is due to the established fact that the man did exist, already...that is not remotely comparable to the discussion. The individual siding with the affirmative has at his disposal ample preexisting evidence. BUT... if these two, disputing the existence of Churchill, were debating this to a non informed, completely ignorant party, then the burden of proof would indeed be on the individual claiming the affirmative position. It would be rather easy; he would obviously win the debate...

The low probability is easy to confirm. Once you verify that no natural process found so far really requires meddling from a superior entity.


Oh sure, we have already shown in this forum a lot of times that it is illogically impossible for a god to be both omnipotent and good. But of course your approach to this is to shut your ears and sing LA LA LA LA LA LA LALA LALALALA.

So, maybe there is a god, or maybe a team of gods like a team of super heroes each with a magnificent super power. Or maybe the whole universe composes something supernatural. We do not know that for sure.

What we do know for sure is that if there is a god it has nothing to do with the guys in the bible or the quoram or the Torah. Or Hindu gods for that matter. An omnipotent good being is impossible. We also have tons of evidence against their explanations of the world. If the book supposedly written by a god is wrong, then the god was just a guy that was bored and wanted to fool people.

God works in mysterious ways, etc etc etc

An honest atheist should respond: "I don't know" to that question. Unless an atheist can come up with a logically airtight argument that the existence of God leads (necessarily) to a logical contradict, he is perforce, an agnostic on the matter of whether God exists or not.

ruveyn

I think "probably not" is pretty honest of an answer too Ruv, no?

I am more of a practical atheist or apatheist than I am a "strong atheist" with convictions about God/s. I do not think God/s is/are relevant existent or not. I don't see how that makes me shifty. Though apatheists do get a lot of hate

I was just confused, still am. but I guess that is ok. I don't need to understand what you meant.

I don't even know if you need to explain the logical fallacy - its glaring. For anyone who's too deep into philosophy to see the trick employed here its nothing more than a badly drawn verbal circle with the answer planted in the premise.

Example:
On the topic of floating rivers on Earth: the floating rivers on Earth would not be floating if they didn't exist, therefore floating rivers on Earth exist.

On the topic of lime green unicorns in the arctic - lime green unicorns wouldn't be lime green if they didn't exist, therefore lime green unicorns exist.


I'd get the impression most Christians would even cringe at that sort of logic though. The diehard catholics I have in my family have either had experiences, are close with people who've had experiences, or they've looked to find the patterns in life where the material world seems to be communicating with them in nonmaterial ways (like my dad finding his birthday in the home address of the house I grew up in as well as everything they needed, etc. etc.). In the first category I can't comment - temporal lobe seizure, something else behind the subconscious pushing through, etc.; don't know, can't know, I suppose I could analyze it better if I had such an experience but I don't really get to choose. As for the later - that's more adaptation; like in my dad's case he grew up with it, accepted it, tamed it to where the hiccups between religion and reality were minimal, and just looked for a very ground-level God who wouldn't do anything wild but who'd leave small patterns to be notices by people as, say, landmarks, things to know which way to veer on a 'in the air' life decision, etc. etc. to help guide people along the optimal path as they prayed and asked for help.

i am not searching for answers. i will never be able to calculate the sum total of universal reality.

i have reasoned that there is no answer that can be calculated that describes why everything is as it is.

for one to understand the universe fully, one would have to be aware of every subatomic particle, and where it is, and what it is involved in, and why it came into existence, and what it's past and future realities were. my brain has about 100 billion neurons in it, and if every neuron can associate with every other neuron on this plane, then that is 100 billion squared. that is a large number of possibilities of simple realizations, but it is nothing compared to the amount of realities that exist.

in order to completely understand the universe, one would have to have a brain larger than the universe in order to contain it. if my brain had the the capacity to consider the whole universe (past and present and future), then i would then have the problem of adding the reality of my brain to the the universe and then the problem would automatically compound to a point where it is impossible for me to consider. it is the case that no one in the universe will ever know the story of the universe, yet the story of the universe unfolds inevitably and without error every picosecond (and even more resolutely to infinite resolution).

i have to think that there is a god who understands and governs it all,
i think that the universe that we see did not emanate from nothing.

it is thought that before any thing was in existence there was nothing. nothing can not give rise to anything. maybe there was always something, but why? it is impossible that at some time in the past there was nothing, think about it. nothing can spring from nothing, so there was always something.

people say that time started with the big bang 15 billion years ago. was there nothing before that?
if there was nothing before that, then nothing could ever have happened.

i think the universe has had existence (in many dimensions) forever, and the reality on every plane of existence is the mind of god. there is no fundamental cause that can be behind the beginning of the universe, because the universe did not begin. it has existed forever.

it is beyond even the greatest mind to understand god.


i do not tout religious s**t. i listen to noone who thinks they know. i am a sole entity in my appraisal of reality.


i know i have not addressed all the very smart things that have been said in this thread, but that is because i do not ...................