Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[3rdAngel]

Your comment...

More false witness from you.

Well gobbldy goop. You tell me...

3rdAngel said: ↑ So if you do not believe in God and you are an Athiest how can you believe in the existence God?

Your response...

Subduction Zone said: ↑ I don't believe in the existence of a god or gods.

From your post # 403 linked in your words in the closed thread "Setting the bible reader straight".

and again...

3rdAngel said: ↑ Sure but it was you that said you did not believe in God not me.

Responded with...

Subduction Zone said: ↑ Right I do not believe in God. Or god. Do you believe in Allah? I don't. Is there a burden of proof upon you to prove that Allah does not exist? You might get this right.

From your post # 415 linked in your words in the closed thread "Setting the bible reader straight".

There are others but I these will do could not be bothered chasing them.

Then after the above comes this....

3rdAngel said: ↑ You were the one who said to me you do not believe in God or the existence of God not me

Response....

I never made that claim. Poor reading comprehension might lead one to think that. In fact that is one of the main reasons I concluded that may be a problem of yours. It is also reportable if you continue to make that claim.

3rdAngel said: Are you being honest now my friend? These are your words not mine in context...

Yep. No false witness my side

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Indeed but you claim there is no God and God does not exist.

That's quite an accusation. Surely you can back it up.

So please, link to where @Subduction Zone supposedly makes this claim?

That is your faith for which you have no evidence.

Let's first establish that he did make that claim, because I suspect you of once again breaking the 9th commandment ;-)

 

[3rdAngel]

That's quite an accusation. Surely you can back it up.

So please, link to where @Subduction Zone supposedly makes this claim?

Let's first establish that he did make that claim, because I suspect you of once again breaking the 9th commandment ;-)

His words posted in context posted two posts above yours in post # 931 all quotes and context are linked. No breaking anything my side

 

[Polymath257]

Not necessarily. As posted earlier elsewhere in that same post, the Christian know they cannot conclusively prove God through external evidence and admits to living by faith. However they do so knowing that they have the evidence of personal experience and the collective witness to the revelation of God. Athiesm on the other hand denies the belief in God or the existence in God yet it also has no evidence therefore hold simply to a belief that is also faith based but in the opposite direction. As posted earlier insufficient evidence is not a basis for something to be true of not true it is only insufficient evidence that cannot determine what truth is.

Right. And at what point does the lack of evidence become sufficient to conclude non-existence?

So, for example, we probably agree that pink unicorns do not exist. Why? Because there is no evidence that they do. Is it possible we missed something? Of course! Maybe, just maybe, there is a distant planet on which pink unicorns play all day. But if I had to place a bet, my bet would be that there isn't.

And again, is this lack of belief in unicorns based on faith or on reason? I hope you will agree it is NOT faith based, but reason based. So, what is the reason?

Well, pink unicorns would be large animals and, even if rare, would be fairly easy to spot. We know that people like to tell stories about them, elaborating to make the story nicer for the kids. And we realize after a certain age that, along with Santa Claus, pink unicorns are a myth--a story we tell ourselves to make life more interesting.

Now we turn to the issue of Gods. I'll stick to the Abrahamic God since that seems to be the only one you recognize. The only 'evidence' for this is based on a book that was clearly written for its propaganda value. We have many 'personal experiences', but all are preceded by psychological techniques that we *know* can lead to false perceptions. The main value is in the stories that are used to give meaning to life. One difference is that people don't tend to grow out of believing in this myth, but get really upset when others point out it is a myth not too different than many other myths of deities from around the world.

Truthfully, except that people don't tend to grow out of God belief because it is deep in our society, I don't see much difference. So it seems to me to be reasonable to disbelieve in God in exactly the same way and to the same extent I disbelieve in unicorns. Either way, I could be wrong, but the evidence simply isn't enough to support belief.

 

[Polymath257]

Questioner: "Subduction Zone, do you believe in God and the existence of God?"

Subduction Zone: "Nope." I do not believe in God and I do not believe in the existence of God.

Questioner: So if you do not believe in God where is your evidence?

Subduction Zone: I have none

Questioner: So if you have no evidence for your belief than your belief is based on faith?

Subduction Zone: Humm Nope I did not say that

Questioner: Here are your own words here XXXXX

Subduction Zone: Hmmmm ??? Well I made a mistake

Given what you just presented, his lack of belief is NOT based on faith, but on the lack of evidence. And that lack of belief is the reasonable position based on the lack of evidence, so it is NOT based on faith.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

His words posted in context posted two posts above yours in post # 931 all quotes and context are linked. No breaking anything my side

I asked you before if you understood the difference between "I don't believe x is true" and "I believe x is false".
You said you did and remember what I replied to that? I said "you say yes, but your posts show otherwise".

And here we are again, with a post of yours that says otherwise...

The quotes you are referring to from @Subduction Zone are saying that he doesn't believe god exists.

And yet there you are, claim that he claims / believes that god does NOT exist.

So really, there are only two options here:

1. You are being incredibly dishonest and breaking the 9th commandment

or

2. You STILL don't understand the difference between the statements "I don't believe X" and "I believe X is false".


So which of these two is it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

His words posted in context posted two posts above yours in post # 931 all quotes and context are linked. No breaking anything my side

And nowhere did I make the claim "God does not exist" .

 

[Polymath257]

So, you admit you have nothing. These are religious debates, so I've been trying to use logic and cosmological arguments. Also, scientific cosmology is still philosophy. There is the philosophy of science tho.

Cosmology is a branch of physics these days. And logic is something singularly lacking in much theology.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a God or deities. Nothing else. It doesn't say anything specific about cosmology, or metaphysics, or anything else.

All you are doing is making assertions KCA is invalid.

Yes, I am stating that the KCA argument is invalid. The conclusion does NOT follow because the premises are not all true.

Then, show us how the big bang had a beginning. The ToE already had a beginning as a cell was given to Darwin. Darwin didn't create the ToE. What he did was explain how it worked.

This is not required to show the KCA argument is invalid. We do not know whether the universe had a beginning because we don't (yet) have the evidence to reach a conclusion.

The big bang cosmology already had a beginning as it sounds like big bang ex nihilo or big bang from nothing. IOW, one can't state there were something like quantum particles as nothing. Thus, Stephen Hawking died trying to find evidence for his beginning. Nothing should mean nothing or what the Bible describes as the void.

And you are wrong. At any time, the universe has existed. At any time, there has been matter, and energy, and space. But, in standard BB cosmology (as opposed to quantum extensions), there simply isn't a 'before the Big Bang'.

The universe doesn't come out of nothing since 'coming out of nothing' requires time to exist. Instead, the universe, regarded as ALL of spacetime, simply exists. Again, this is standard BB cosmology and needs to be updated based on some future quantum theory of gravity.

 

[Polymath257]

Let's go through the KCA:

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

This is false. We *know* of quantum events that are uncaused. Also, the proper statement is something along the lines of 'everything that has a cause has a physical cause'. In other words, all causes are within the universe.

2. The universe had a beginning.

This is also probably false, but it depends on exactly what you consider to be 'the universe'. For example, if our universe is part of a larger multiverse, we should apply the argument to the multiverse and not just our universe.

So, while our universe may not have existed for an infinite amount of time, it is possible that a multiverse has. In which case, your argument fails.

But, if there is no multiverse and the universe is not infinitely old, does *that* imply it had a beginning? I would say not.

Here's why: time is part of the universe. And 'to have a beginning' implies there is a *time* when it did not exist, and a later time in which it did. But, because time is part of the universe, the universe has existed whenever there was time. So it cannot have 'had a beginning'. More specifically, time cannot have had a beginning, even if it is finite.

3. So, the universe had a cause.

Well, this would follow if the previous two steps were valid, but the evidence we have shows them not to be. Even basic logic shows them not to be.

But we can go further. Even if everything within the universe has a cause, that doesn't mean the universe as a whole has a cause, even if it has a beginning. For example, there is nothing said in this about the possibility of multiple causes for different aspects of the universe. Or multiple causes for the universe as a whole. In fact, most events within the universe have multiple causes, so why assume that the universe only has one?

4. That cause must be God.

Once again, a very faulty premise, which essentially assumes the conclusion. Why must the cause be God? Why must it be an intelligent being? Why not an uncaused quantum event? Why not a committee of higher dimensional beings? Why not a collision in the multiverse that produced our universe with no intelligence involved?

So, even if the universe has a cause (unlikely because of the above), the identification of that cause, or even showing there is only *one* cause, is problematic.

Well, I don't feel the need to go further. The KCA fails at every major step.

 

[Audie]

What does "live by faith" mean?
How does one go about living that way?

 

[Ayjaydee]

Let's go through the KCA:

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

This is false. We *know* of quantum events that are uncaused. Also, the proper statement is something along the lines of 'everything that has a cause has a physical cause'. In other words, all causes are within the universe.

2. The universe had a beginning.

This is also probably false, but it depends on exactly what you consider to be 'the universe'. For example, if our universe is part of a larger multiverse, we should apply the argument to the multiverse and not just our universe.

So, while our universe may not have existed for an infinite amount of time, it is possible that a multiverse has. In which case, your argument fails.

But, if there is no multiverse and the universe is not infinitely old, does *that* imply it had a beginning? I would say not.

Here's why: time is part of the universe. And 'to have a beginning' implies there is a *time* when it did not exist, and a later time in which it did. But, because time is part of the universe, the universe has existed whenever there was time. So it cannot have 'had a beginning'. More specifically, time cannot have had a beginning, even if it is finite.

3. So, the universe had a cause.

Well, this would follow if the previous two steps were valid, but the evidence we have shows them not to be. Even basic logic shows them not to be.

But we can go further. Even if everything within the universe has a cause, that doesn't mean the universe as a whole has a cause, even if it has a beginning. For example, there is nothing said in this about the possibility of multiple causes for different aspects of the universe. Or multiple causes for the universe as a whole. In fact, most events within the universe have multiple causes, so why assume that the universe only has one?

4. That cause must be God.

Once again, a very faulty premise, which essentially assumes the conclusion. Why must the cause be God? Why must it be an intelligent being? Why not an uncaused quantum event? Why not a committee of higher dimensional beings? Why not a collision in the multiverse that produced our universe with no intelligence involved?

So, even if the universe has a cause (unlikely because of the above), the identification of that cause, or even showing there is only *one* cause, is problematic.

Well, I don't feel the need to go further. The KCA fails at every major step.

Damn, I love that stuff! Lol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Damn, I love that stuff! Lol.

Where is your hat?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Intellectual dishonesty and failure of due diligence are deliberate.

So tell me how repeating falsehoods-especially when the
error has been demonstrated-is anything other than deliberate
bearing of false witness.

It could be evidence of limited intelligence.

 

[Audie]

It could be evidence of limited intelligence.

Diminished mental capacity, I will go with that. For lo,
overindulgence in religiosity seems to unbalance people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Diminished mental capacity, I will go with that. For lo,
overindulgence in religiosity seems to unbalance people.

Excessive belief does often appear to force certain parts of the brain to shut down. People that are normally bright and honest can become dumber than a sack of hammers and as honest as Trump when their myths are threatened.

 

[Audie]

Your beliefs are faith based, because you have faith in the Bible as the word of a God, and you have faith that your experiences are real ones. What is it, again, that atheists have faith in? They have faith that no evidence exists? No, faith is not their motivator. Skepticism is their motivator. Their beliefs are based in skepticism, not faith. They see no evidence; they are skeptical about the claims of others.

It is just projection. If his mental processes require
blind faith, then, everyone's do.

 

[Audie]

Excessive belief does often appear to force certain parts of the brain to shut down. People that are normally bright and honest can become dumber than a sack of hammers and as honest as Trump when their myths are threatened.

Since you just had to bring in Trump, I sentence you to
go forth and read in some detail the things that were
very widely said about Lincoln and Churchill.

I am not saying he is remotely of their stature, but much
the same was said of them, and by people of seemingly
sound judgement.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let's go through the KCA:

1. Everything that has a beginning has a cause.

This is false. We *know* of quantum events that are uncaused. Also, the proper statement is something along the lines of 'everything that has a cause has a physical cause'. In other words, all causes are within the universe.

2. The universe had a beginning.

This is also probably false, but it depends on exactly what you consider to be 'the universe'. For example, if our universe is part of a larger multiverse, we should apply the argument to the multiverse and not just our universe.

So, while our universe may not have existed for an infinite amount of time, it is possible that a multiverse has. In which case, your argument fails.

But, if there is no multiverse and the universe is not infinitely old, does *that* imply it had a beginning? I would say not.

Here's why: time is part of the universe. And 'to have a beginning' implies there is a *time* when it did not exist, and a later time in which it did. But, because time is part of the universe, the universe has existed whenever there was time. So it cannot have 'had a beginning'. More specifically, time cannot have had a beginning, even if it is finite.

3. So, the universe had a cause.

Well, this would follow if the previous two steps were valid, but the evidence we have shows them not to be. Even basic logic shows them not to be.

But we can go further. Even if everything within the universe has a cause, that doesn't mean the universe as a whole has a cause, even if it has a beginning. For example, there is nothing said in this about the possibility of multiple causes for different aspects of the universe. Or multiple causes for the universe as a whole. In fact, most events within the universe have multiple causes, so why assume that the universe only has one?

4. That cause must be God.

Once again, a very faulty premise, which essentially assumes the conclusion. Why must the cause be God? Why must it be an intelligent being? Why not an uncaused quantum event? Why not a committee of higher dimensional beings? Why not a collision in the multiverse that produced our universe with no intelligence involved?

So, even if the universe has a cause (unlikely because of the above), the identification of that cause, or even showing there is only *one* cause, is problematic.

Well, I don't feel the need to go further. The KCA fails at every major step.

I'ld add that moreoever, that this is just one way in which it fails. Some of these steps are guilty of multiple different fallacies.


What I personally think is most obvious, is the failure in step 4.
Becaue EVEN IF we would grant all premises, then still the conclusion presented in 4 doesn't follow. At all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since you just had to bring in Trump, I sentence you to
go forth and read in some detail the things that were
very widely said about Lincoln and Churchill.

I am not saying he is remotely of their stature, but much
the same was said of them, and by people of seemingly
sound judgement.

I was going to bring in Clinton. To me he was worse in a way. He would lie to you and smile as if that made it okay. Perhaps I should have just said a politician, but I wanted an extreme example.

And saying things about a politician is standard proving it is another matter. Trump is demonstrably the least honest on record.

 

[Audie]

I was going to bring in Clinton. To me he was worse in a way. He would lie to you and smile as if that made it okay. Perhaps I should have just said a politician, but I wanted an extreme example.

And saying things about a politician is standard proving it is another matter. Trump is demonstrably the least honest on record.

Demonstrably? This has not remotely been demonstrated.

A thousand misoverrepresentations wont compare to
the enormity of your presidents in WW1 and 2 who ran on a promise
to keep america out of the war, all the time planning for it.


And the things people fuss about, like the projected path of
a hurricane. BIG freaking deal!!! it says far more about
the people carrying on about it than it does about the T.

Turd that he may be.