Five Reasons to Reject Belief in Gods

[AxisMundi]

Begging the question.

1) God/spirit exists as energy.
2) We haven't got knowledge or technology to explain this yet.

The truth of 1 is assumed but not demonstrated and so 2 doesn't follow as an objection, because it amounts to "Just because we can't see God/spirits doesn't mean they don't exist" , which is an argument from ignorance.

Plenty of evidence on the personal level.

 

[footprints]

Begging the question.

1) God/spirit exists as energy.
2) We haven't got knowledge or technology to explain this yet.

The truth of 1 is assumed but not demonstrated and so 2 doesn't follow as an objection, because it amounts to "Just because we can't see God/spirits doesn't mean they don't exist" , which is an argument from ignorance.

1) This one you pulled out of thin air from somewhere. Humans are an energy field, without this energy we would be dead.

2) Is what it amounts to you, which is an argument from ignorance.

 

[DeepShadow]

Simply put, they are still part of the curriculum. It was a stage of development which led us to new heights.

But we haven't abandoned it. We use more specific cognitive tests like the Woodcock-Johnson, but that's not the same as abandoning it.

Based on the Stanford-Binet (WAIS scale), three seperate tests were prepared, and given to seperate distinct groups at society level. What the tests conclusively showed was that depending on the nature of the tests, and what perception they were derived from, that the resultant intelligent levels changed between relative groupings. This was a prime basis for Gardners theory of multiple intelligence and further influenced Sternbergs Triarchic Theory of Intelligence.

First, you're behind. Follow-ups of that test failed to confirm, which has led to a confirmation of Spearman's g and a rise of hierarchical models such as the CHC theory.

Second, Sternberg's Triarchic Theory was never based on this, rather Sternberg supported the study because it confirmed his personal biases about Spearman's g.

To put it in a more simple way, the tests were biased.

I've got a Masters in Psych. You don't need to put it the simple way. I'd prefer you use the proper terms, and cite your sources.

Aboriginal cultures were distinctly disavantage by the tests and unless they had an education, scored very low in IQ testing, even though their cognitive skills as they pertained to life clearly suggested this wasn't so. Illiterate people faced the same problems and issues. Unless a person can relate in the first place, they cannot associate. However give them a test which they can relate to, and their IQ rating increases considerably.

This is not a case for not using IQ tests. It's a case for better IQ tests. Moreover, it's a case that has already been made and acted on. The action, in this case, was to improve IQ tests, not discard them.

My source is most practicing psychologists and behavioural scientists that I know of (Australia). Albeit, if I didn't mention it earlier, are still employed for basic, association skills testing but not as a measure for intelligence. The other thing I may add, is sometimes America moves slowly.

Nice try, but I stick to the international journals, for this very reason. Australians are great proponents of CHC theory; Sternberg and Gardner, however, are well beloved in America.

 

[DeepShadow]

DeepShadow, you seem to have contradicted yourself here and misunderstood the nature of fallacies.

I'm going to assume you meant analogies, not fallacies, otherwise what follows makes no sense.

You agree with me that they do not prove, yet you claim that they are not fallacies. In fact, that is what makes them technically "informal fallacies".

I said they illustrate, but do not prove.

This type of fallacy is often called False Analogy, but it goes by other names in lists of fallacies (e.g. Questionable Analogy, Wrong Analogy, etc.).

Are all analogies false? One critical ingredient of a fallacy is that it must be posited to prove something. Hence, an analogy intended to illustrate but not prove would not be fallacious.

Also, you need to read the OP more carefully. It is not an argument against belief in all religions. It is aimed at general belief in the existence of gods.

I understand that. By way of a general argument, you are trying to refute all the derivatives found in various religions. The problem is, there is no core belief on what a god is. Thus, your argument is useful against a general construct, but it fails to refute ANY of the specific derivatives.

This is why we keep bringing up specific religions. A general argument against ALL gods ought to be effective against ALL gods, shouldn't it? Shouldn't an argument against gods in general be equally effective against gods as conceived by the Baptists, the Hindus, the Catholics, the Mormons, the Muslims, the Gaels, the Maltheists, and the Eckists? If an argument works against only half of these god-concepts, it can hardly be called an argument against gods in general, can it?

Sorry I missed it. I will definitely look up your reply and respond to it. Been falling behind due to issues in RL lately.

NP. I only get on here about once a week, so I'm not gonna be the one to gripe about others dealing with RL.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm going to assume you meant analogies, not fallacies, otherwise what follows makes no sense.

Don't forget to see my post 102, which followed the one you are replying to here. We seem to agree that fallacies do not prove anything, but you seem to be disagreeing with me that they are considered informal fallacies when one tries to use them to prove something. Do we really have a disagreement here?

I said they illustrate, but do not prove.

And I agree. That is why people consider them "informal fallacies" in arguments.

Are all analogies false? One critical ingredient of a fallacy is that it must be posited to prove something. Hence, an analogy intended to illustrate but not prove would not be fallacious.

Indeed. That is why I objected to using the analogy between minds and music to draw conclusion. It wasn't being used merely to illustrate a concept, but to draw conclusions.

I understand that. By way of a general argument, you are trying to refute all the derivatives found in various religions. The problem is, there is no core belief on what a god is. Thus, your argument is useful against a general construct, but it fails to refute ANY of the specific derivatives.

No, there is a core concept--what I would call a "prototype". Gods are almost always intelligent agents that have control over some aspect (or all aspects, in the case of monotheism) of reality. Typically, gods are thought of as supernatural or spiritual beings, but I understand that LDS doctrine considers God to have a physical body. (At least, that is what I have heard. I do not claim to know a lot about LDS doctrine beyond what I have read about it.) You never did respond to my request to confirm the proposition that LDS adheres to philosophical naturalism. I really am curious to have your opinion on that.

This is why we keep bringing up specific religions. A general argument against ALL gods ought to be effective against ALL gods, shouldn't it?...

I see nothing wrong with making generalizations about theism, as long as they are generally true. Not all 5 reasons have to apply to every theistic doctrine in order to serve the purpose of justifying rejection of belief in gods.

...Shouldn't an argument against gods in general be equally effective against gods as conceived by the Baptists, the Hindus, the Catholics, the Mormons, the Muslims, the Gaels, the Maltheists, and the Eckists? If an argument works against only half of these god-concepts, it can hardly be called an argument against gods in general, can it?

But I think that my 5 reasons work against all of those gods. I'm not sure about whether #1 applies to Mormonism, but it does seem that Mormons believe pretty strongly in revelation and miracles. I would not be surprised if they also rejected philosophical naturalism, as do most believers in the Abrahamic God.

 

[Oberon]

Minds depend on physical brains. Religions depend on belief in souls--essentially minds that can exist independently of bodies. But experience tells us that minds depend on brain activity to function properly.

This has been an issue for me as well. After all, if e.g. Phineas Gage can lose so much of who he was by brain damage, where does the soul come unless one postulates a more or less unnecessary ghost in the machine that has nothing to do with the being it is supposed to represent/possess/whatever. However, in my discussions with believers of various religions (mainly christianity, judaism, and islam, but a few others as well) I did get a few reasonable responses. For example, take the analogy of the a driver in the car. The car represents the brain, a machine designed to run. If it is damaged, the operator (the soul or driver) cannot properly use it.

Additionally, brain activity (as far as how it equates with consciousness) is barely understood. I think that most likely what makes us who we are (the ego) is a result of a dynamic system of neural interactions in which the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Perhaps the soul is somehow interacts with or even controls/guides this neural summation. Or it's all B.S.

Record of failed explanations. Religions have a historical record of making failed explanations of observed natural phenomena. The most powerful argument for gods--the argument from design--has been overturned by the discovery of evolution by natural selection. This pattern of failure has resulted in a pattern of "God of the Gaps" explanations. That is, natural explanations always trump supernatural ones.

True enough. However, science too has a long record of failed explanations. It is just far youner. And if one looks at certain philosophers of science (e.g. Kuhn) then the prospect of scientific understanding of this world becomes even more bleak. I don't buy that completely, however. Nonetheless, the scientific method was designed and evolved from working in the lab. Control all your variables, perform the experiment, observe the result, and if you didn't prove yourself wrong, call it theory. It has done miraculous things in our world. However, it is also severely limited.

The argument from design has not been "overturned." It is still possible for god or zeus or whatever to have guided evolution. What was overturned was one of the most powerful arguments in support of god: how is it possible for the life we see to exist without god? Evolution provides a mechanism wherein simple life forms can result in what we see today. And perhaps this really is the last nail on the coffin. But a number of theologians and scientists today (off the top of my head Francis s. Collins or the guys who wrote "The Cosmological Anthropic Principle") look deeper inot the issue. It is not simply life itself, even if we could demonstrate that self-replicating organisms could have developed from the "primordial ooze." It is the fine-tuning of the universe itself, far more complex and intricate, and the miracle of the biological mechanisms which make life possible, and so forth (there is a great deal of literature out there both against and supporting this view, so there is really no need for me to go into great detail).

Record of failed revelation. Humans have a record of worshiping false gods. If gods communicated through revelation, we would not expect to see such variety of religious belief in the world. Moreover, we would expect to find the same religious beliefs arising spontaneously in different locations, since the same set of gods (or "God") would presumably contact different people in different locations.

Playing devels advocate again: Or perhaps we are "endowed" with a sense of the spiritual, and, having given us this "gift," god sent us his only son to guide us, or sent his angel gabriel to Muhammad to spread his word, or the universal divine is made manifest in various earthly incarnations of the buddha, or whatever.

Record of failed prayers. No religious group seems to be luckier or healthier than any other. If prayer worked, we would expect to see some people of faith leading more fortunate lives than the rest of us.

Not a great argument. After all, many religions are concerned mainly with what happens after death. They might believe prayer works in one way or another, but the important thing is heaven or paradise or whatever. So the people of the right faith (and according to south park the mormons got it right) get the ultimate reward. Or maybe all those who live be certain principles do. The point is the efficacy of prayer isn't really a good measure of the likelihood of this or that religion being correct.

Record of failed corroboration of miracles. Religions depend on stories of miracles--events that contravene natural laws--to support religious belief, yet miracles are notoriously resistant to corroboration and verification.

There have been cases where science is at a loss to explain documented events (e.g. various cases at the Lourdes in France). More importantly, many religions don't depend on miracles at all. And for some of the major ones that do (e.g. christianity), the most important miracle occured in a time when verification and corroboration were not really available.

Of all the above reasons, I consider #1 the strongest, because mind-body dualism seems to underpin all religions. I do not oppose the idea of dualism so much as the belief that minds can exist independently of brains. It seems pretty obvious that our minds depend on the physical state of our brains.

Absolutely. The brain is the basic hardward which allows us to be who were are (lower level control, such as the ability for babies to walk on a treadmill do primarily to spinal cord activity is pretty meaningless) is the brain. However, modern neuroscience suggests "who we are" exists somewhat apart from the individual neurons. Rather, it is a sum of neural activity greater than the individual EPSPs and so forth which allow consciousness, memory, etc. Could not the "soul" be the guiding entity in this?

For the record, I am more or less on the fence.

 

[footprints]

But we haven't abandoned it. We use more specific cognitive tests like the Woodcock-Johnson, but that's not the same as abandoning it.

Like I said, we use them for associative evaluation. Not as a direct measure of intelligence.

First, you're behind. Follow-ups of that test failed to confirm, which has led to a confirmation of Spearman's g and a rise of hierarchical models such as the CHC theory.

That I am behind is one perspective. On a personal level I don't align with all the definitions as prescribed by Carroll, Corsini, Ekstrom et al

Second, Sternberg's Triarchic Theory was never based on this, rather Sternberg supported the study because it confirmed his personal biases about Spearman's g.

Which in turn, by association influenced Sternbergs Triarchic Theory of Intelligence.

I've got a Masters in Psych. You don't need to put it the simple way. I'd prefer you use the proper terms, and cite your sources.

I do not put it in a simply way for you. I didn't go on to gain my Masters, instead I changed direction slightly and gained a Ph.D in Behavioural Sciences.

I am not in this forum to complete a thesis, just general conversation, I get enough of the other during working hours. This is relaxation time.

This is not a case for not using IQ tests. It's a case for better IQ tests. Moreover, it's a case that has already been made and acted on. The action, in this case, was to improve IQ tests, not discard them.

Testing will always be a valuable resource and can often lead to the detection of cognitive impairments . This as opposed to a direct correlation of a measure to a persons direct intelligence level.

Nice try, but I stick to the international journals, for this very reason. Australians are great proponents of CHC theory; Sternberg and Gardner, however, are well beloved in America.

As a person with a Masters Degree, you should be more aware than most, don't always believe everything you read and the reason why the tests are used may be for a completely different reason, to what you believe.

Yes Australia still has an arm of MENSA, which is about the only organisation these days using IQ tests for a direct measure of intelligence in Australia. Australia had a nation wide IQ test over a major television network, which was highly rated. What it showed conclusively was those with the less education, had the higher IQ's. Coupled with this were some very high profile cases, a gentleman by the name of Kerry Packer comes to mind, which said he didn't have an aptitude for business. Kerry Packer was one of Australia's most prominent business professionals.

 

[Copernicus]

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Oberon.

...However, in my discussions with believers of various religions (mainly christianity, judaism, and islam, but a few others as well) I did get a few reasonable responses. For example, take the analogy of the a driver in the car. The car represents the brain, a machine designed to run. If it is damaged, the operator (the soul or driver) cannot properly use it.

Yes, that is a common metaphor, and I have already made my point about the usefulness of such metaphors in drawing conclusions. I'm not against speculation, but what does it buy us to posit the existence of this "ghost in the machine"? An observer of car behavior would ultimately discover the essential role of the driver, but no scientist (to my knowledge) has ever come up with a need to do that for human or animal behavior.

Additionally, brain activity (as far as how it equates with consciousness) is barely understood. I think that most likely what makes us who we are (the ego) is a result of a dynamic system of neural interactions in which the whole is more than the sum of its parts. Perhaps the soul is somehow interacts with or even controls/guides this neural summation. Or it's all B.S.

I do not believe that one needs to understand exactly how brains generate consciousness in order to establish that that is what they do. We can observe the effects of physical changes to the brain on consciousness, and we can associate physical changes in the brain directly with mental functions (using fMRI, for example).

True enough. However, science too has a long record of failed explanations. It is just far youner. And if one looks at certain philosophers of science (e.g. Kuhn) then the prospect of scientific understanding of this world becomes even more bleak...

I used to be a bigger fan of Kuhn's, but I now believe that paradigm shifts are less revolutionary and more incremental than he portrayed. Failure of experimentation is actually central to scientific progress. When an experiment fails, science itself is advanced. When a religious prophecy fails, that jeopardizes religious faith itself. One has to attribute it to false revelation or some other reason that preserves the integrity of doctrine.

I don't buy that completely, however. Nonetheless, the scientific method was designed and evolved from working in the lab. Control all your variables, perform the experiment, observe the result, and if you didn't prove yourself wrong, call it theory. It has done miraculous things in our world. However, it is also severely limited.

Not all science is experimental. Sometimes, it just relies on conclusions drawn from observation of nature. That is how Darwin and Wallace came to propose natural selection as the mechanism behind evolution. (That evolution was a probable cause of speciation had already become a popular idea in Darwin's time, but the selectional mechanism for it had not been discovered.)

The argument from design has not been "overturned." It is still possible for god or zeus or whatever to have guided evolution...

True. Perhaps I should have used the word "undermined" instead of "overturned".

...And perhaps this really is the last nail on the coffin. But a number of theologians and scientists today (off the top of my head Francis s. Collins or the guys who wrote "The Cosmological Anthropic Principle") look deeper inot the issue...

I'm not sure that I would call it "deeper", but it is true that the RCC has officially endorsed the idea of guided evolution. Francis Collins, a devout Catholic, may have played some role in that, but I'm just speculating. I regard this endorsement as support for my thesis, however. We haven't proven abiogenesis, so the "explanation" has shifted to the gaps that science has yet to fill.

...It is the fine-tuning of the universe itself, far more complex and intricate, and the miracle of the biological mechanisms which make life possible, and so forth (there is a great deal of literature out there both against and supporting this view, so there is really no need for me to go into great detail).

As Dawkins has pointed out, the "fine tuning" argument actually works against creationism, as it can be explained in terms of natural evolution. We find ourselves in such a finely tuned environment because we would never have evolved in any other environment. The universe is not a byproduct of the need for us to exist. We are a byproduct of the universe because of the way it turned out to be.

Playing devels advocate again: Or perhaps we are "endowed" with a sense of the spiritual, and, having given us this "gift," god sent us his only son to guide us, or sent his angel gabriel to Muhammad to spread his word, or the universal divine is made manifest in various earthly incarnations of the buddha, or whatever.

Well, I have taken pains to deny that my arguments show the impossibility of the existence of gods, but I have argued for the implausibility of such a belief on the grounds that patterns of allegedly true revelation are indistinguishable from patterns of false revelation. Besides, there are perfectly good non-religious explanations of why human beings would come to believe in gods.

Not a great argument. After all, many religions are concerned mainly with what happens after death. They might believe prayer works in one way or another, but the important thing is heaven or paradise or whatever. So the people of the right faith (and according to south park the mormons got it right) get the ultimate reward. Or maybe all those who live be certain principles do. The point is the efficacy of prayer isn't really a good measure of the likelihood of this or that religion being correct.

I strongly disagree with those who try to downplay the role of prayer in bettering their circumstances in this life. It is quite obvious that most people of faith use prayer for precisely that purpose, although they are naturally reluctant to admit a selfish motive to their devotion.

There have been cases where science is at a loss to explain documented events (e.g. various cases at the Lourdes in France)...

I know of no such cases, but I am willing to be convinced. Usually, miracles that are subjected to real scientific investigation end up debunking the religious claim--e.g. consider the famous Shroud of Turin.

More importantly, many religions don't depend on miracles at all. And for some of the major ones that do (e.g. christianity), the most important miracle occured in a time when verification and corroboration were not really available.

I believe that there are actually very few religions that are without claims of miracles. Miracles are extremely popular, you know. Science has made its reputation on achieving miraculous results by showing that miracles were not really involved in achieving them.

Absolutely. The brain is the basic hardward which allows us to be who were are (lower level control, such as the ability for babies to walk on a treadmill do primarily to spinal cord activity is pretty meaningless) is the brain. However, modern neuroscience suggests "who we are" exists somewhat apart from the individual neurons. Rather, it is a sum of neural activity greater than the individual EPSPs and so forth which allow consciousness, memory, etc. Could not the "soul" be the guiding entity in this?

I do not see how a soul would be necessary to explain "who we are", and I am not aware of any scientific work that supports such an answer to that question. Science is inherently reductionist, so we would explain a thunderstorm in terms of it natural causal constituents. However, a thunderstorm is greater than the sum of its parts, too. It is only ancient religions perhaps, that attributed souls to thunderstorms. (On the other hand, we do give names to hurricanes.)

 

[cottage]

1) This one you pulled out of thin air from somewhere. Humans are an energy field, without this energy we would be dead.

1) This one you pulled out of thin air from somewhere. Humans are an energy field, without this energy we would be dead.

Read the posts properly:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Copernicus
..... You may call the "spiritual/divine" a form of energy, but, unlike other forms of energy, it appears to be physically undetectable. If it doesn't exist, then it would appear to be undetectable, wouldn't it?





“Quote:
Originally Posted by AxisMundi
How long ago were we able to measure electricity? Radiation from radium? The fact that we do not have the tools to measure something does not automatically negate the possibility of it.”


”Forgive me, but isn’t that to presuppose the existence of the very thing that you say can’t yet be measured? There is no difference between a non-existent thing and an undetectable thing, unless the latter has previously been identified but for the moment cannot be found.

To say an inability to measure a thing doesn’t negate its possibility is to presuppose the thing’s actuality. Electrical activity was observed to exist before it was measured. But what is ‘divine’? How does it exist?”

Originally Posted by cottage
“Begging the question.

1) God/spirit exists as energy.
2) We haven't got knowledge or technology to explain this yet.

The truth of 1 is assumed but not demonstrated and so 2 doesn't follow as an objection, because it amounts to "Just because we can't see God/spirits doesn't mean they don't exist" , which is an argument from ignorance.”


2) Is what it amounts to you, which is an argument from ignorance. [/quote]


An ‘argument from ignorance’ (argumentum ad ignorantiam) is fallacious reasoning, as per the example I gave "Just because we can't see God/spirits [existing as energy] doesn't mean they don't exist", which is where a thing is held to be true merely because it hasn’t been proved false.

 

[footprints]

The truth of 1 is assumed but not demonstrated and so 2 doesn't follow as an objection, because it amounts to "Just because we can't see God/spirits doesn't mean they don't exist" , which is an argument from ignorance.”

Which of course is your argument based on ignorance. The full statement being: Just because we can't see God/Spirits doesn't mean they don't exist, it doesn't mean that they do exist either. All it means is we do not have the knowledge or technology to fully answer this question reliably. Nothing more, and nothing less.

People will lean to what their own belief tells them, as a matter of faith, be this for or against a deity et al. The justifications, excuses and reasons they give themselves, will prove this belief right to them.

An ‘argument from ignorance’ (argumentum ad ignorantiam) is fallacious reasoning, as per the example I gave "Just because we can't see God/spirits [existing as energy] doesn't mean they don't exist", which is where a thing is held to be true merely because it hasn’t been proved false.

Exactly, and why you were guilty of this process.

 

[cottage]

Which of course is your argument based on ignorance. The full statement being: Just because we can't see God/Spirits doesn't mean they don't exist, it doesn't mean that they do exist either. All it means is we do not have the knowledge or technology to fully answer this question reliably. Nothing more, and nothing less.

An argument from ignorance claims that x is the case because there is no proof to the contrary. To say we do not have the knowledge or technology to fully answer the question assumes the very thing that is being questioned. A premise is not true simply because it hasn’t been proven false. If I say to you that Costovaen exists and it is up to you prove it doesn’t, you would rightly berate me for talking nonsense, and yet that is precisely the position you are defending.

People will lean to what their own belief tells them, as a matter of faith, be this for or against a deity et al. The justifications, excuses and reasons they give themselves, will prove this belief right to them.

The proposition ‘God exists’ requires belief as faith, but no faith is required to identify that no contradiction is implied in its denial. But while a theist cannot believe there is no God, a sceptic can always be wrong.

Exactly, and why you were guilty of this process.

Well, you’ve shown that you don’t understand the argument. An argument from ignorance makes a claim. The opposite is to say the claim isn’t demonstrated.

 

[jtartar]

It does no such thing. First of all, you’ve not even attempted to answer the question of mind-body dualism. And secondly you’ve resorted to a fallacy (argumentum ad populum), sometimes known as the Argument from Other Believers, and an appeal to authority. An appeal to belief wants to say a thing is the case because x number of people believe it to be so; but popularity does not make a thing true. Consider the contrary position, which is that if atheism outnumbered theism to the same degree it would not prove that atheism is true and that God doesn’t exist.



The fact is there is not even one argument or demonstration that proves ‘God’ or gods exist - unless of course you know differently?




Perhaps, then you would care to give us some examples of these proven revelations? However, I must agree with what you say. It does rather seem that revelation owes more to faith as some kind of subjective observation.




We also hear of unanswered prayers. And as the poster says, we do not see specific groups of people leading lives that are evidently more fortuitous than those of the rest of us.



You say things but do not even attempt to support them with examples or further argument.

Cottage,
Your reasoning can easily be termed dereism, because any man who reasons on anything is reasoning out of just his own knowledge. This is called Egocentric Perdicament. How can a person reason on something so much greater than himself and come to any rational conclusion?? They cannot!!!
This is the reason that God's word the Bible tells all of us to put our trust in HIM, and not in men or ourselves, Prov 3:5,6, Ps 146:3,4, Jere 17:5, Mark 7:6-9.
The Bible itself says that there is no excuse for not believing in the God who created all the things we see or even know about, Rom 1:18-20. Now, why believe the Holy Scriptures?? Why believe them above any supposed inspired writings??
The reason is very clear to a rational person. About a third of the Holy Scriptures is prophecy. To a theologian, all the prophecies have come true, or are in the process of coming true. This is impossible except for The Almighty God, who is perfect in knowledge, Job 36:4, 37:16. The very name of God, Jehovah, means that He causes everything to become just as He wants it to.
It makes no difference to God whether a person believes or not, all the things prophesied will come in upon ALL those dwelling on the face of ALL the earth, luke 21:35.
The God that created the heavens and the earth and all the things in it has a purpose for this earth, Isa 45:18, Gen 1:26-28, Ps 37:29. Everything purposed by God will come true, Isa 55:11.
Which one of all the other nonexistent gods even have the gall to claim to have created all things??
We should search out this God because He has promised to destroy all the nonexistent gods that did not create anything, Jere 10:11,12,14,15. God also says that He will destroy all who worship these nonexistent gods, Ps 115:1-8.
It behoves every person who loves their life and the lives of their loved ones to search for the Almighty God who inspired the writing of the Holy Bible, because He is going to make a paradise out of this earth, but He must first remove from the earth all who do not love Him and His son, 2Thes 1:6-9, Rev 21:3-5. God does not want to destroy anyone, but when His time of goodwill runs out, in the very near future, Jesus will come again and bring an end to this system, 2Pet 3:8-15.
God made it possible for everyone who has the right heart,to be able to understand His message, even babes, Luke 10:21, Matt 13:14,15. We only get the right heart when we allow God to change it, Jere 17:9, Prov 28:26, Eph 4:22-24, Rom 12:2, Heb 5:14, Col 2:8.

 

[tarasan]

An argument from ignorance claims that x is the case because there is no proof to the contrary. To say we do not have the knowledge or technology to fully answer the question assumes the very thing that is being questioned. A premise is not true simply because it hasn’t been proven false. If I say to you that Costovaen exists and it is up to you prove it doesn’t, you would rightly berate me for talking nonsense, and yet that is precisely the position you are defending.

People will lean to what their own belief tells them, as a matter of faith, be this for or against a deity et al. The justifications, excuses and reasons they give themselves, will prove this belief right to them.

The proposition ‘God exists’ requires belief as faith, but no faith is required to identify that no contradiction is implied in its denial. But while a theist cannot believe there is no God, a sceptic can always be wrong.



Well, you’ve shown that you don’t understand the argument. An argument from ignorance makes a claim. The opposite is to say the claim isn’t demonstrated.

athiests do make claims, they claim there is no God, therefore they have just as much right as the thiest to back up their response. the only person who cna fulfil their statement is the agnostic who says that we cannot know, which is true.

If you are a thiest give evidence if you are an athiest give evidence, if neither can then we are just as bad as the other.

 

[cottage]

An argument from ignorance claims that x is the case because there is no proof to the contrary. To say we do not have the knowledge or technology to fully answer the question assumes the very thing that is being questioned. A premise is not true simply because it hasn’t been proven false. If I say to you that Costovaen exists and it is up to you prove it doesn’t, you would rightly berate me for talking nonsense, and yet that is precisely the position you are defending.




athiests do make claims, they claim there is no God, therefore they have just as much right as the thiest to back up their response. the only person who cna fulfil their statement is the agnostic who says that we cannot know, which is true.

If you are a thiest give evidence if you are an athiest give evidence, if neither can then we are just as bad as the other.

The atheist is entitled to say he sees no reason or need for gods. But I make no claim that 'There is no God'. For how could I do such a thing? Where would I begin looking for this non-being? Only propositions can be proved false, and then only where a contradiction or some other absurdity is evident.

 

[tarasan]

The atheist is entitled to say he sees no reason or need for gods. But I make no claim that 'There is no God'. For how could I do such a thing? Where would I begin looking for this non-being? Only propositions can be proved false, and then only where a contradiction or some other absurdity is evident.

A proposition is a sentence expressing something true or false

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition

how is the athiest not making a proposition?

if you are entitled to make beleive what you believe believe you see no reason for it then we should be believe it simply because we see a reason, so your back in the same boat either prove why your view is better or your just as bad as we are.

 

[johnhanks]

[how is the athiest not making a proposition?

At root, an atheist is making a response to someone else's proposition. Imagine, for a moment, that in the entire history of humankind no-one had ever envisaged or suggested the existence of gods: would there then be atheists making the proposition that they didn't exist?

Atheism exists only as a response to the proposition of theism, not as a proposition in its own right.

 

[tarasan]

At root, an atheist is making a response to someone else's proposition. Imagine, for a moment, that in the entire history of humankind no-one had ever envisaged or suggested the existence of gods: would there then be atheists making the proposition that they didn't exist?

Atheism exists only as a response to the proposition of theism, not as a proposition in its own right.

I disagree heavily, firstly your assuming alot, I believe that there has always been known belief wether it has been vocal or not, Im sure there have been people who dont believe in a God figure purely because they dont believe in a God figure, unless you can prove to me that every Athiest has only been an athiest as a response then I believe the thought of a proposition still stands

(in my opinion not trying to prove your view when you demand others to do is just you trying to weasel your way outta something you know you cant prove) of coruse this is just an opinion I could be wrong..

 

[johnhanks]

I disagree heavily, firstly your assuming alot, I believe that there has always been known belief wether it has been vocal or not, Im sure there have been people who dont believe in a God figure purely because they dont believe in a God figure, unless you can prove to me that every Athiest has only been an athiest as a response then I believe the thought of a proposition still stands

With respect, I think you're missing the point. Atheism can appear only when the proposition has been made that god exists, and someone says 'I don't believe it'. It is necessarily a response to a position adopted by others.

(in my opinion not trying to prove your view when you demand others to do is just you trying to weasel your way outta something you know you cant prove...

Sorry, but there is such a thing as burden of evidence; and it falls on those making the positive claim, not on those declining to accept it.

 

[tarasan]

With respect, I think you're missing the point. Atheism can appear only when the proposition has been made that god exists, and someone says 'I don't believe it'. It is necessarily a response to a position adopted by others.
Sorry, but there is such a thing as burden of evidence; and it falls on those making the positive claim, not on those declining to accept it.

ohh so we have switched to positive not just a claim? fair enough tell me why it HAS to be a positive claim?

I also disagree athiesm means No God if anyone doesnt believe they were created by a maker then they are athiest in their views you dont need the example of a God to reject in that case.

 

[johnhanks]

ohh so we have switched to positive not just a claim? fair enough tell me why it HAS to be a positive claim?

OK, take out the positive if you like: the burden of evidence lies with those making a claim. Atheists decline to accept the claim that god exists.

I also disagree athiesm means No God if anyone doesnt believe they were created by a maker then they are athiest in their views you dont need the example of a God to reject in that case.

I think you're just plain wrong here. It's meaningless to reject the existence of something whose existence has never been proposed. Suppose I try to convince you an invisible pixie called Skip lives behind my monitor; I suspect you might not believe me, and are now an aSkipist. But were you an aSkipist before you read this post?

Atheism is a response to theism; no theism, no atheism.