Faith in no God

[Valjean]

Maximus said: ↑
Existence is a pretty solid argument for a transcendent Creator. That is just one of the reasons atheism is an irrational worldview.

This doesn't follow. Explain.
A transcendent creator explains nothing. It's just a claim of agency. The actual mechanisms of existence have been steadily clarified by science for several hundred years, with god steadily retreating as an "explanation," existing at the edge of current knowledge.

cladking said: ↑
There must be a God. "God" also fulfills Occam's razor test since the simplest explanation for how everything can exist as it does is that there is a Creator.

God is not an explanation. He's an agent. "Goddidit" explains nothing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lack of belief is the epistemic default position. It's logical and reasonable. Lack of belief is not a belief.
Maybe the Abrahamic god exists. Maybe the Greek gods exist. Maybe an invisible pink unicorn, Cthulu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Do you give these equal credence?

Believing everything until contrary evidence is produced is unworkable and unreasonable. It's not 'logical'.
The reasonable position is to begin with a blank slate and add belief as evidence comes to light. A blank slate does not require faith.
Faith is a type of belief. How can it apply to a lack of belief?

I'm sure you're tired of our demands of concrete evidence by now, but it's apt.
There are hundreds of different 'faiths', and different gods, and different scriptures, and different creation stories. Often they "interpret" their scriptures to accord with current scientific thought, when possible. Yet they stilldisagree, and have no concrete evidence justifying their particular take on the issue..
They have only faith.

Scientists disagree, too, but they don't duel with scripture or tradition. They follow the evidence, they test their assumptions, and accept the conclusions regardless of faith or orthodoxy.

Unlike religion, basic science is homogenous worldwide -- because it's fact based. Controversy does occur at the cutting edge, but it doesn't invalidate the basics. With continuing research the controversy's are clarified and new ones appear at the expanding edges.

Pointing to the controversies does not support magical religious belief. That's a false dichotomy. Only evidence would do that. Thus far I see none, and what's claimed as evidence is inconsistent, untested and variable.

I don't even see it as a matter of "epistemic defaults" any more.

There are really only two ways a belief can be true:

1. It's justified as true.
2. It's true, but not justified as such.

For the first case, justification is available.

The second case is an uninformed shot in the dark that serendipitously managed to hit the bullseye. The believer had no good reason to think that the belief was true, but lucked out.

Any of these "there's no proof either way" arguments are based on the premise that the claims are baseless nonsense, but because even a proverbial stopped clock is right twice a day, we can't say "because your claim is crap, it absolutely must be wrong."

... but at least for me, I feel no need to give any weight to a claim whatsoever once it's been established as baseless nonsense. In that case, I feel completely free to disregard it.

 

[rrobs]

well, OK, but then you have to define faith to me. My first impression is that you strip all differentiating semantics from the word.

And, if I were a cynic, i would think you are trying to drag free thinkers into the intellectual abyss of delusional belief without evidence, so that you are not all alone down there.

like some theists think atheism is a religion. Fine, but by doing that, they deprive “religion” from its differentiating character, since it will be logically impossible to not be religious. And therefore “being religious” would be a meaningless tautology.

for instance, the Bible says faith is the hope in things not seen. Now, either the Bible is suboptimal when it comes to definitions, or you must believe that I hope no invisible fairy is eating my carrots, on account of my “faith” that garden fairies do not exist.

Ciao

- viole

You lost me in the intellectual abyss of delusional belief. Insults are anything but intellectual. Yes, I consider it an insult to be consigned to such a hateful suggestion. Not that I care. I'm not the one sinking to such depths. You may consider trying to be kinder in the future.

 

[rrobs]

No, it's precisely the point. If God doesn't warrant a second thought, then the question of whether God exists or not is irrelevant.


Since you've seen fit to ignore my posts when I actually gave a thought-out response, this time I'll keep it simple: you're wrong.

OK. Now I see where you're coming from. Thanks for clarity.

 

[rrobs]

Lack of belief is the epistemic default position. It's logical and reasonable. Lack of belief is not a belief.
Maybe the Abrahamic god exists. Maybe the Greek gods exist. Maybe an invisible pink unicorn, Cthulu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Do you give these equal credence?

Believing everything until contrary evidence is produced is unworkable and unreasonable. It's not 'logical'.
The reasonable position is to begin with a blank slate and add belief as evidence comes to light. A blank slate does not require faith.
Faith is a type of belief. How can it apply to a lack of belief?

I'm sure you're tired of our demands of concrete evidence by now, but it's apt.
There are hundreds of different 'faiths', and different gods, and different scriptures, and different creation stories. Often they "interpret" their scriptures to accord with current scientific thought, when possible. Yet they stilldisagree, and have no concrete evidence justifying their particular take on the issue..
They have only faith.

Scientists disagree, too, but they don't duel with scripture or tradition. They follow the evidence, they test their assumptions, and accept the conclusions regardless of faith or orthodoxy.

Unlike religion, basic science is homogenous worldwide -- because it's fact based. Controversy does occur at the cutting edge, but it doesn't invalidate the basics. With continuing research the controversy's are clarified and new ones appear at the expanding edges.

Pointing to the controversies does not support magical religious belief. That's a false dichotomy. Only evidence would do that. Thus far I see none, and what's claimed as evidence is inconsistent, untested and variable.

Ahh, science. The golden calf of intellectuals.

1 Cor 3:19,

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.​

 

[Valjean]

Ahh, science. The golden calf of intellectuals.

1 Cor 3:19,

For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.​

Well, science is the gold standard....

Written long before the scientific method became established.
Apparently god prefers the emotional, illogical and irrational, and disparages the intelligence he gave us.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Not being able to prove God does not exist, you must necessarily have faith that He does not exist.

No. It is not (religious) faith that God doesn't exist. It is unbelief in the believers claim that God exists. Like it or not, that is how it is.
Usually when a person is posting as a Christian, others may assume they are using the religious connotation of faith.

There are better words to use for the lack of belief in theists claims about gods, like unbelief or lack of belief in the claims. Using the word faith is illogical and confusing for that purpose.

 

[viole]

You lost me in the intellectual abyss of delusional belief. Insults are anything but intellectual. Yes, I consider it an insult to be consigned to such a hateful suggestion. Not that I care. I'm not the one sinking to such depths. You may consider trying to be kinder in the future.

And you might also try not to say I hope blue fairies do not exist, which could also be read as an insult to my intelligence.

ciao

- viole

 

[questfortruth]

Since it can not be proven there is no God any more than it can not be proven there is a God, .

Then please debunk the video below:

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Replace 'God' with whatever you want, the logic remains the same. Not having proof that God does not exist, you must go by faith alone. Of course you could also say, "I don't know" but few are willing to admit that. They already "know" He doesn't. Self delusion at it's finest.

So then it takes the same amount of faith, for you, to believe the mighty Cthulhu does not lurk beneath the waves in his Eldritch fortress, waiting for his time to rise and devour all of mankind, as that he does.

So then how do we go about discovering which of us is right, since all beliefs take equal amounts of faith?

On a more(or less?) serious note, I do not need to know that a claim is wrong to dismiss it, if no evidence exists to support said claim. I do not often wonder if fairies or garden gnomes actually exist. How is this any different?

Do you often wonder about fairies and garden gnomes?

 

[Pudding]

Since it can not be proven there is no God any more than it can not be proven there is a God, it would take no less faith to believe there is no God than it would take to believe there is a God.

Without faith in one or the other, the only true thing someone could say is they don't know if there is not, or there is a God. At least that would accord with the lack of evidence one way or the other.

If there is a difference in the faith required to believe one way or the other, I'd be curious to hear about that difference.

Faith - strong belief in something which are not proven.
Proven - demonstrated by evidence or argument to be true or existing.
Believe - accept that (something) is true.

Some theists have strong belief in god; some other theists have half strong half weak belief in god; some other theists have weak belief in god.

The more strong a belief become, the more confidence that something is true; vice versa.

Same might apply to strong atheists: some of them have strong belief in no god; some have half strong half weak belief in no god; some have weak belief in no god.

If something is not proven, as in demonstrated by evidence or argument to be true or existing, why would someone believe that something is true/exist?

Why would someone have strong belief in something which are not proven?

Is it rational if one believe in something which are not proven?

Is it rational if one have strong belief in something which are not proven?

What scenario can cause one believe something is true/exist?

What scenario will cause one believe something is true/exist?


All theists - have the belief that at least 1 god exists; have been convince to believe at least 1 god exists.
All atheists - don't have the belief that at least 1 god exists; haven't been convince to believe at least 1 god exists.

Subset of all atheists:
Atheist subset A (known as strong atheist) - have the belief that no god exists, all gods don't exist, the total number of god who exists are 0. Have been convince to believe no god exists.
Atheist subset B (known as soft atheist) - don't have the belief that no god exists. Haven't been convince to believe no god exists.

Subset of atheist group B:
Atheist subset C - have the belief that at least 1 god doesn't exist. Have been convince to believe at least 1 god doesn't exist.
Atheist subset D - don't have the belief that at least 1 god doesn't exist. Haven't been convince to believe at least 1 god doesn't exist.

 

[tas8831]

Ahh, science. The golden calf of intellectuals.

You lost me in the intellectual abyss of delusional belief.

 

[Valjean]

Then please debunk the video below:

"The universe must have a cause" Wrong. Illogical and out of step with current science. This premise is a non sequitur.
Wrong: No scientist is suggesting any supernatural cause.
"The universe had a beginning and it was not a natural cause" "A supernatural creator caused the universe." Ergo: God? Who caused God?
You're saying, in effect: "I don't understand physics. Lot's of scientific claims are counter-intuitive, therefore Goddidit." It's an argument from ignorance.

"Design demands a designer." It "looks" designed? Example: Human body?
This presenter has clearly never taken an anatomy and physiology class. Any first year med student, architect or biologist could improve on this design.
Q: "Where does design originate?" Never took a biology course, either? If you don't understand the mechanisms of evolution, don't pretend they aren't well known. Don't assume they are unknown.
"Functionality and complexity comes from an intelligent designer." This doesn't follow. It's another argument from ignorance.
Big explosions don't bring about order...don't cause complexity." This doesn't follow, either. The evidence leads to the opposite conclusion.
Design demands a supernatural, intelligent designer." Another unfounded, axiomatic declaration. Evidence? There's considerable evidence to the contrary. Again, who designed the designer?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Not being able to prove God does not exist, you must necessarily have faith that He does not exist. The only other option is that you don't know if God exists or not. He might or might not exist. Pure logic dictates it be such.

Sorry, but that's simply not true. Lacking a belief that something definitely exists is NOT the same as asserting that that thing definitely does not exist.

For example, let's say the two of us enter a room that neither of us has ever been in before and in this room is a large jar filled to the brim with various sized marbles. After looking at the jar for a moment I say: "I believe that there are EXACTLY 448 marbles in that jar, no more and no less." I then turn to you and ask. "Do you also believe that there exactly 448 marbles in this jar, no more and no less?"

NOTE: I did NOT ask you if you thought that it was POSSIBLE that there are 448, but if you believed that there definitely ARE 448 marbles in the jar.

So, if you glance at the jar and say, "No, I do not believe that there are definitely 448 marbles in the jar, no more and no less." Are you ALSO claiming that you believe it's IMPOSSIBLE for there to be 448 marbles... or are you simply saying, based on the evidence you've been presented, that you can't sincerely believe that there are 448 marbles?

So surely you now recognize that someone stating that they don't have sufficient evidence to believe that a god definitely exists is NOT the same as claiming that a god definitely does not exist, right?.

 

[Valjean]

Then please debunk the video below:

"Life demands a supernatural life giver." Another unfounded declaration?
Why? You're proposing magic as a reasonable alternative. I don't believe you're aware of current research on the subject -- or basic chemistry. An argument from personal incredulity.
"Biogenesis: Life comes from life." Yes. Fully formed, complex organisms come from previous organisms, but, inasmuch as there once was no life, it clearly developed from something. You're proposing an invisible personage "spoke" it into existence. You're proposing magic. The two things you're not giving us is 1. evidence of this magic poofing, and 2. mechanism. -- but then magic is effect without mechanism, isn't it?
Science studies how. Religion declares who. Apples and oranges.
"Every single experiment shows this is biologically impossible." Where are you getting this? Source? This is not true. If it were, all of biology would be turned on its head. The ToE, genetics, biochemistry, &c are well supported and predictive. If they weren't, Medicine and technology would be back in the trial-and-error age.

Moral law demands a moral law giver." Why? Support your premise.
"If something's objectively, morally right, and other things are objectively, morally wrong, then there must be a god." -- Another non sequitur. How does this follow?
Does "moral law" exist? -- Unsupported. Is "moral law" just blind physics or chemistry? Why not? Drink poison; shoot yourself in the head -- negative consequences. The result of moral judgement? I think not.

Why does morality demand a god? What evidence, outside of Western tradition, supports this premise? Why can't there be morality without god?

 

[Valjean]

"Free will exists" "Atheism is founded on materialism," ergo: "You have no free will." Huh? How did he reach that conclusion? This makes no logical sense. Please explain.
"There has to be a god if there is free will." Again, a non sequitur. What's the reasoning here?

Human reasoning. "If we were just products of blind chance, random processes over multiplied millions of years, reason and the laws of reasoning simply would have no explanation." But we're not the product of blind chance and random processes. Who's claiming that? Certainly no Biologists. This guy must have slept through biology class.
"From where does reason arise? It's got no naturalistic, atheistic explanation." Maths?

Antony Flew? The Deist? Who, at 80 suddenly discovered evidence of an Aristotelian god; who followed evidence to conclude there was a god?
"Let's let the evidence lead us, to that same conclusion." OK, What was this evidence?

"My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species..."
Clearly Flew was seriously behind in his knowledge of biology.

Quest for truth, I asked for proofs and you delivered. Thank you. But I can't believe you found this video convincing. It's one unsupported premise, one erroneous claim, one logical error after another. His conclusions are based on outright falsehoods, religious doctrine and bad reasoning.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Not being able to prove God does not exist, you must necessarily have faith that He does not exist. The only other option is that you don't know if God exists or not. He might or might not exist. Pure logic dictates it be such.

But I and most atheist have never made the assertion that no god or gods exist. I simply lack a belief that any god or gods definitely DO exist.

And IF I DON'T KNOW if any gods exist then I absolutely CANNOT have a belief that they definitely DO exist; thus pure logic dictates that I MUST lack a belief that any such gods definitely do exist.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What you yourself read is what's important. The scriptures, like any body of writing, say one thing. People may read it differently, but that is not God's fault. He in fact tells us many times to be of the same mind.

If you have not known god at all, there is no difference in importance in what you read. What you're saying I hear from many people. To put it bluntly, it has no meaning for people who do not believe and know of a god.

What reason or how can I take what you say as true?

Especially, when every other believer says the same thing.

My point is that if one can't keep the two main characters in any story straight, there is little chance the story will be read as the author intended. It's not what people say or read that counts, it's what God says that matters. I believe statistics show that 98% of Christians believe Jesus is God. That is why it is better to see for yourself rather than believe what the church says. Of course that means one must study the scriptures while ignoring preconceived ideas, something many have a hard time doing.

People read scriptures (regardless the religion), study them, even say they are important to their interest etc, but they don't do anything without the actual experience. If they don't see any scripture like that, how would you expect them to know what You believe is true?

For example, I read in scripture: god created heavens and the earth.

What does that mean to me?

You're god means nothing to me just as someone else's god(s) mean nothing to you. It should go deeper than telling me what you read and what you want me to hear. I listen to that All the time.

Is there another method that would make me take what you say into consideration??

People would need to know something about god to where they claim no faith in it. Since god does not exist, there is nothing "not" to put faith in.

 

[QuestioningMind]

What is more strange: criticism against the Bible, or criticism against Atheism?
The Sagan Standard is an aphorism that claims that “extraordinary statements require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE). [12]. A criticism against the Biblical Creation is just too bold a statement.

What is more strange: criticism against the Bible, or criticism against Atheism?

That's a very odd way to phrase the question. Not sure how to interpret 'more strange'. But the bible is a book written centuries ago by mostly unknown people in languages that are long dead, so it seems to me it certainly has the potential to receive a great deal of criticism. On the other hand, atheism is simply a lack of belief in any god assertions. I suppose you CAN criticize someone for failing to receive enough evidence for them to have genuine belief in a god, but why? I suppose my answer is that it would be more strange to criticize someone for failing to belive something for which they haven't been convinced.

The Sagan Standard is an aphorism that claims that “extraordinary statements require extraordinary evidence” (ECREE). [12]. A criticism against the Biblical Creation is just too bold a statement.

Yes, extraordinary claims SHOULD require extraordinary evidence. So why exactly it is 'too bold' to criticize the bible for making extraordinary claims without providing extraordinary evidence?

 

[QuestioningMind]

Science can not even prove such elementary as God's existence. Thus, the methodological naturalism drives the Science into abyss of Absolute Solipsism. There is Occam Razor - most simple theory is more true. The Absolute Solipsism is the most simple trivial theory, thus the Science has lost touch not only with Creator, but with Creation as well:

Science can not even prove such elementary as God's existence.

Why are you picking on science because it can't prove God's existence. After all, religion can't prove god's existence either... which suggests that maybe this god beings doesn't exist.

And yes, Occam's Razor IS very useful. The simplest explanation is most usually the correct one. So lets take a look at the explanations and see which one is the simplest.

1. The universe, for which we have a great deal of verifiable evidence, has always existed in one form or another.

2. There is a god being, for which there is no verifiable evidence, that has always existed and at some point the god being somehow created the universe out of nothing.

Gosh, the simplest explanation BY FAR is #1. Thanks so much for helping me demonstarte my point!