How I rationalize my atheism

[Kharisym]

Theism as a human and social behavior is supported only as far as social and peer pressure influences how other people behave. Theism itself is no factual, so in logic and debate theism is NOT supported.

I could say the same for atheism.

Ah, in this case equivalency isn't the argument you think it is. If atheism *is* the default position (a thing which my OP claims, and which F1fan claims) then if social pressure is pressing in both directions, then atheism is still the more appropriate choice. You have, in effect, made a meaningless statement here that is not focused on adding any new information to the discussion.

That said, in the US (my only experience) there's actually social pressure *against* atheism since atheists are a minority and the majority (Christians) have what appears to be a generalized negative view on atheists.

What is it that is known about the universe which does not support the idea of a supernatural designer?
How has the Abrahamic God been effectively disproven?

Perhaps I missed it, care to elaborate? My atheism follows from the OP in that it 1) it establishes the default position, and 2) I have no evidence that the default position is wrong and therefore is the correct position.

 

[F1fan]

That's a subjective opinion.

So you are asserting that it is an opinion that "existence isn't a work of art"?

In what way does things existing apply to the definition of art?

I see these confusions about definitions of words as if there is some hidden meaning somewhere. But to my mind it is all game playing with words and meaning, and often absurd. If someone said it was just an option that bowling balls aren't a the of kitten would it be coherent? No.

Language can be used in a precise manner, and I dislike the sabotage of precise meanings. We should look at the hidden motives to blur and confuse meanings of words and sentences.

 

[F1fan]

Yes Hindus are very much theists unless you are a Hindu who is an atheist.

Or a Jew who is an atheist.

But we see Christians willing to refer to Hindus as partners and allies ONLY when the topic of atheism is on the table. As soon as the specifics of Christian lore come into play, like salvation, then all bets are off and Hindus are godless and damned to the same level as atheists.

Do you accept the many hundreds of Hindu gods as existing?

I could say the same for atheism.

You could, but you are wise not to.

Atheism is just a category of people who have considered and rejected religious concepts and dogmas. Atheists tend to have come to a conclusion independently. However with more acceptance of rejecting religion, and less backlash by theists in society there has been more freedom of thought allowable. The books and talks given by intellectuals has helped bolster the acceptability of not feeling pressure to conform to religious norms.

Yet theism has evidentiary support in the form of the experiences of humans and in reasoning about the universe.

This tends to be false. Believers do have experiences of their minds, much of which is adopted via social learning. Notice no one except Christians claim to have a "close and personal relationship with Jesus" and that is because this phrase is commonly spread among Christians, and a good Christian wants the same experience. So they model and replicate the experience they hear described by other Christians.

If theists also know that theism cannot be shown to be true but choose to be theists, then atheists do have a choice.
I could put that choice as a choice between something with no evidentiary support and something with evidentiary support.

Yet theists don't look at evidence to support their belief, they simply acknowledge that other around them believe and the self goes along with the popular social trend. Veople who do think beyond the pressure to believe may realize there is no adequate evidence for the self to conclude a God, and related concepts, as true and believable.

Atheism is just the default category. I am a competitive cyclist, a racer. I'll guess you are not. So how much time and effort do you put into being a non-racer? Non-theists like me are the same.

Now don't confuse atheists debating these issues as a form of devotion. I have heard that which is absurd. These debates are just fun, and a way to illuminate the false beliefs that are rampant among theists.

Getting our meaning and self esteem from being loved and important to the creator of the universe is an absolute thing and is not the same as the meanings that can come from the world.

None of this has any basis in reality. I find it quite dubious that a person wants to believe that a God exists, and that it loves people. I point to the examples of deadly genetic diseases that are part of the design of the universe as contrary to any love. Would you create a child with the genes that cause cancers? It happens, and if Christians are correct then your Creator is the cause. Let that "love" sink in as a child slowly dies.

This might reflect your experience and I congratulate you on breaking out of prison. I know also that I can break out, but choose to stay where I am and see where I am as the true freedom.

prison walls look like freedom when the self lacks confidence in living a fuller life. It takes courage to look beyond what you think is true.

 

[dybmh]

So you are asserting that it is an opinion that "existence isn't a work of art"?

yes

In what way does things existing apply to the definition of art?

I think one needs to look at existence as a whole to appreciate it as a work of art. Some examples are: Beautiful sunsets and landscapes, delicous foods, adorable babies, music, etc... But this appreciation is subjective.

 

[Brian2]

Every known explanation does not require a supernatural designer. If a supernatural designer is claimed, there should be some evidence for it.
I guess it could have designed the universe to look like it wasn't designed.

You don't expect any scientific explanation to include the supernatural do you?
Of course there is no scientific explanation that is known to work or even testable, it's all scientific theory that by definition does not include the supernatural.
You seem to be saying that the universe looks like it was not designed. Why do you think that?
Just because science does not come up with any supernatural answers does not show anything about whether the universe is designed or not. Science always looks for naturalistic answers and even if it does not find any now or in the next 500 years, that does not mean that it is going decide "supernatural" even if the universe might seem designed. That sort of evidence is not enough for science but is enough for faith.
Isn't the truth that the universe actually looks like it was designed and designed for purpose.

Because claims made by/about it have been shown to be wrong.

What sort of claims are you talking about?
You do realise I suppose that it is just recently that the naturalistic methodology of science has been brought into the study of the Bible, as if the truth about the existence of God in the Bible can be found by presuming that God does not exist.
This actually end up giving conclusions about the Bible that agree with the presupposition that God was not involved. In that respect the conclusions are based on circular reasoning

 

[Brian2]

Ah, in this case equivalency isn't the argument you think it is. If atheism *is* the default position (a thing which my OP claims, and which F1fan claims) then if social pressure is pressing in both directions, then atheism is still the more appropriate choice. You have, in effect, made a meaningless statement here that is not focused on adding any new information to the discussion.

That said, in the US (my only experience) there's actually social pressure *against* atheism since atheists are a minority and the majority (Christians) have what appears to be a generalized negative view on atheists.

I did not say I agree with what @F1fan said:
>>>Theism as a human and social behavior is supported only as far as social and peer pressure influences how other people behave. Theism itself is no factual, so in logic and debate theism is NOT supported.<<<
I was saying that if that is an argument against theism then it can also be used against atheism.
Your side of the argument might possible be supported in the US and my side might possibly be supported in the USSR and China.
If what I said is a meaningless statement then your whole argument is meaningless. The only justification you have given in you statement above is "Theism itself is not factual,"
You are saying "Theism is not factual and so cannot be supported in logic and debate and so the alternative is that it is only supported because of social and peer pressure."
That is not an argument unless you show that theism itself is not factual.

Perhaps I missed it, care to elaborate? My atheism follows from the OP in that it 1) it establishes the default position, and 2) I have no evidence that the default position is wrong and therefore is the correct position.

I was speaking to KWED when I asked:
>>>What is it that is known about the universe which does not support the idea of a supernatural designer?
How has the Abrahamic God been effectively disproven?<<<
That was in response to a statement he made saying the opposite.
If I had asked you such a thing then I might understand the response.
I certainly don't see that the use of Occam's razor establishes anything in the OP and I don't know of any possible natural mechanism for the cause of the universe.
If you want to answer my question be my guest however.

 

[Brian2]

Do you accept the many hundreds of Hindu gods as existing?

They might exist but are not the true God. There is only one true God.

You could, but you are wise not to.

Atheism is just a category of people who have considered and rejected religious concepts and dogmas. Atheists tend to have come to a conclusion independently. However with more acceptance of rejecting religion, and less backlash by theists in society there has been more freedom of thought allowable. The books and talks given by intellectuals has helped bolster the acceptability of not feeling pressure to conform to religious norms.

I made an attempt to answer that in post 146.

This tends to be false. Believers do have experiences of their minds, much of which is adopted via social learning. Notice no one except Christians claim to have a "close and personal relationship with Jesus" and that is because this phrase is commonly spread among Christians, and a good Christian wants the same experience. So they model and replicate the experience they hear described by other Christians.

True but I was talking about the experiences of those in the Bible with God.

Yet theists don't look at evidence to support their belief, they simply acknowledge that other around them believe and the self goes along with the popular social trend. Veople who do think beyond the pressure to believe may realize there is no adequate evidence for the self to conclude a God, and related concepts, as true and believable.

Atheism is just the default category. I am a competitive cyclist, a racer. I'll guess you are not. So how much time and effort do you put into being a non-racer? Non-theists like me are the same.

We are adult here and have chosen our belief. Saying it is the default position is and that it is not a belief but a lack of belief which does not require justification is no more in reality than a disingenuous ploy to avoid the truth that neither belief in and belief against the existence of a God has the type of evidence which does not demand belief what is commonly called religious belief. IOW as an adult you have chosen and believe because of that choice.

None of this has any basis in reality. I find it quite dubious that a person wants to believe that a God exists, and that it loves people. I point to the examples of deadly genetic diseases that are part of the design of the universe as contrary to any love. Would you create a child with the genes that cause cancers? It happens, and if Christians are correct then your Creator is the cause. Let that "love" sink in as a child slowly dies.

Yes suffering and dying are part of the world that God made and we suffer and die, but the end is going to justify all the suffering.
But your emotive argument does not show anything about whether there is a God or not, and does not even show what sort of God it is.

prison walls look like freedom when the self lacks confidence in living a fuller life. It takes courage to look beyond what you think is true.

That goes for both of us.

 

[Kharisym]

Yes suffering and dying are part of the world that God made and we suffer and die, but the end is going to justify all the suffering.
But your emotive argument does not show anything about whether there is a God or not, and does not even show what sort of God it is.

The tragedy of belief is that it blunts work to alleviate these issues. At minimum, it reduces the number of people who might work towards solving these issues because their importance to some people are reduced through a religious lens. The same with funding. At the highest level, religious beliefs codified into law or social moore impede research--antiabortion laws, for instance, will reduce the available tissue for cancer research.

 

[KWED]

You don't expect any scientific explanation to include the supernatural do you?

If the supernatural was necessarily involved in a process or event, I would expect there to be evidence for that. If the supernatural is involved but it looks like it was not, and the process works fine without it, then it is effectively not there.

Of course there is no scientific explanation that is known to work or even testable, it's all scientific theory that by definition does not include the supernatural.

I will give the the benefit and assume that was not what you meant to write.

You seem to be saying that the universe looks like it was not designed. Why do you think that?

Because it looks like it developed naturally, over long periods, by processes that had no specific purchase or end in mind.

Science always looks for naturalistic answers

No, it looks for "answers", whatever they might be. Thus far, after millennia of looking for answers, not one has turned out to be supernatural. Ironically it is the religionist who looks for supernatural answers, and continually fails to find them.

That sort of evidence is not enough for science but is enough for faith.

Nailed it!

Isn't the truth that the universe actually looks like it was designed and designed for purpose.

What is that purpose, and what is the evidence that the universe was designed for it?

What sort of claims are you talking about?

Genesis, for example. It did not happen as described in the Bible. Nor the great flood.

You do realise I suppose that it is just recently that the naturalistic methodology of science has been brought into the study of the Bible, as if the truth about the existence of God in the Bible can be found by presuming that God does not exist. This actually end up giving conclusions about the Bible that agree with the presupposition that God was not involved. In that respect the conclusions are based on circular reasoning

Not so. If we approach the bible from a completely objective position and assess certain claims against what we know of the universe, the Bible is demonstrably wrong. The only circular reasoning is from those who cite the Bible as proof of the god of the Bible.

 

[KWED]

They might exist but are not the true God. There is only one true God.

On what do you base that claim?
And how would you refute the followers of another god who make the same assertion as you, with equal conviction?

True but I was talking about the experiences of those in the Bible with God.

You mean stories about ancient superstitions?
Why is a 2000 year old legend about a delusional experience in Palestine concerning your version of god more reliable than one from this morning concerning someone else's?

We are adult here and have chosen our belief.

Not really. Most religionists are indoctrinated into their faith from infancy.

Saying it is the default position is and that it is not a belief but a lack of belief which does not require justification is no more in reality than a disingenuous ploy to avoid the truth that neither belief in and belief against the existence of a God has the type of evidence which does not demand belief what is commonly called religious belief. IOW as an adult you have chosen and believe because of that choice.

When a baby is born, it has no concept of god or religion. That has to be instilled by family and community. It is no mere coincidence that the vast majority of religionists follow the faith they were born into.

Yes suffering and dying are part of the world that God made and we suffer and die, but the end is going to justify all the suffering.

Do you think that torturing your child is justified if you give it presents afterwards?
Of course not. So why excuse god for the same behaviour?

But your emotive argument does not show anything about whether there is a God or not, and does not even show what sort of God it is.

If the Abrahamic god does exist, it is psychologically damaged. If it was a person it would be prosecuted and likely confined to a secure psychiatric facility.

 

[KWED]

The tragedy of belief is that it blunts work to alleviate these issues. At minimum, it reduces the number of people who might work towards solving these issues because their importance to some people are reduced through a religious lens. The same with funding. At the highest level, religious beliefs codified into law or social moore impede research--antiabortion laws, for instance, will reduce the available tissue for cancer research.

That Bojaxhiu woman was the perfect example. Despite amassing millions in donations, she spent practically nothing on her hospices. Patients dying in agony were refused pain relief because "suffering brings us closer to Jesus". Most of her money was sent to the Vatican's already bulging coffers, or used to build convents in her own name. When she became ill herself, she spent fortunes flying by private jet to the world's best clinics.
She was a monster, not a saint.

 

[Kharisym]

That Bojaxhiu woman was the perfect example. Despite amassing millions in donations, she spent practically nothing on her hospices. Patients dying in agony were refused pain relief because "suffering brings us closer to Jesus". Most of her money was sent to the Vatican's already bulging coffers, or used to build convents in her own name. When she became ill herself, she spent fortunes flying by private jet to the world's best clinics.
She was a monster, not a saint.

I maybe terribly wrong because this is all old stuff in my brain, but was that Mother Teresa?

 

[Brian2]

The tragedy of belief is that it blunts work to alleviate these issues. At minimum, it reduces the number of people who might work towards solving these issues because their importance to some people are reduced through a religious lens. The same with funding. At the highest level, religious beliefs codified into law or social moore impede research--antiabortion laws, for instance, will reduce the available tissue for cancer research.

I don't think it blunts work to alleviate suffering and does not lessen the number of people who work towards solving the problems. It also does not decrease funding for such things.
If anything, it is the opposite.
66 years of Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity: Facts you should definitely know on the charity

It is true that antiabortion laws would probably reduce the available tissue for cancer research. It would be wrong to have more abortions for the sake of cancer research however.

 

[rational experiences]

As a human inventor I caused sin nothing holes myself. Said my brother the scientist.

So I taught myself nothing had not created creation. As I invented caused nothing.

Space nothing was a separation.

Therefore what body type had pre existed would have not been O science. It would have existed bodily whole.

Separation was bursting burning. O.

The term how why....O wasn't it's natural origin body type.

Which places being as an intelligence that changed its own body itself by motivated choice.

Based on Inherrant self owned conscious being behaviours.

So change had to have existed for being intelligence to be notified. All advice pre exists.

Three types ...a background body type that always had existed. Had a being a term stated that now it doesn't own.

The being. Inside of the background. The language being flowing changing expressing. The fixed being observer.

Change being language.

Observation is involved.

Study and halting to holding by a being who could impose force by language. Who had observed change.

Thinning background mass held...mass exploding burning the already thinned background. Background gone instantly.

Separation from the main body.

Burning falling owning space opening into a larger removal of mass cooling bursting burning constant change...created creation law.

Recording is then earth atmospheric owned.

Parents animals come out of eternal recorded as the witness of it....gods atmosphere..... We live on the side where pre recorded visions exist. As memory and as records. Taught us.

I saw the vision of our human parents recorded as atmospheric entry walking across on foot came into the atmosphere. From eternal position always existed.

It showed body converted language said caused by stone and presence wood in vision.

 

[Brian2]

I will give the the benefit and assume that was not what you meant to write.

Why, do you know testable natural means that the universe could have come into existence?

Because it looks like it developed naturally, over long periods, by processes that had no specific purchase or end in mind.

There is all the things about the universe and about this earth that are important for the formation of life.
There is also the inbuilt coding in the genes, the language of the molecules, so that bodies are built and work in a certain way. Where there is language and coding it usually shows intelligence behind it.

No, it looks for "answers", whatever they might be. Thus far, after millennia of looking for answers, not one has turned out to be supernatural. Ironically it is the religionist who looks for supernatural answers, and continually fails to find them.

There is really no reason to think that science would find supernatural answers for how things work. They were made to work a certain way and they do. It is at the extremes in science, in areas where God has specifically said that He has done certain things, (create, give life) where science has trouble finding answers but will not step back from the naturalistic methodology presumed in science.
It is not as if this methodology has been in science all the time.

Nailed it!

Believing that science has all the answers in life is faith, but science is only able to test the material universe and can say nothing about the supernatural.

What is that purpose, and what is the evidence that the universe was designed for it?

It is as I said, there are constants in physics that look as if they have been fine tuned for the existence of life. There are also things about this earth that look that way. This would make the universe designed for life if we go down this way of thinking.
But science cannot go down this way of thinking because "purpose" goes beyond the bounds of science.

Genesis, for example. It did not happen as described in the Bible. Nor the great flood.

If you insist on a religious fundamentalist understanding of Genesis and on the idea that science is 100% right in what it tells us then Genesis did not happen as described by science.
There are ways to bring those 2 things closer together however and even to a point where science and Genesis do not conflict at all. So Genesis does not show a problem with the God of the Bible really.
Similarly with the flood, science shows large local flood and the Bible can be translated and read to mean that imo.

Not so. If we approach the bible from a completely objective position and assess certain claims against what we know of the universe, the Bible is demonstrably wrong. The only circular reasoning is from those who cite the Bible as proof of the god of the Bible.

We have already spoken of science and Genesis and the flood. What I was speaking about was the naturalistic methodology that presumes that prophecy does not happen and so ends up putting the writing of the Bible to times way later than the Bible suggests, simply because that writing had to have been after the events prophesied about. This is the circular reasoning I was speaking about.
There is also the claims that the Bible was plagiarised, and those claims come about because of the naturalistic methodology. This extends into the New Testament also and to Jesus where similar claims are made even though the events in Jesus life can be seen to have been prophesied in the OT.
I guess even if people admit that the events are seen in the OT, the bias is so big that people say that the writers of the gospels made up stories about someone (Jesus) to fit things in the OT.

 

[Brian2]

On what do you base that claim?
And how would you refute the followers of another god who make the same assertion as you, with equal conviction?

On the basis of my belief in the Bible as God's word to us.

You mean stories about ancient superstitions?
Why is a 2000 year old legend about a delusional experience in Palestine concerning your version of god more reliable than one from this morning concerning someone else's?

If you want to make it about Jesus then it is about a 2000 year old story told by witnesses to His life and death and that He came to them alive after He had been killed by crucifixion. It is the witnesses that are important and the fulfilled prophecies shown in His life.

Not really. Most religionists are indoctrinated into their faith from infancy.

Not you however, you have chosen your beliefs.

When a baby is born, it has no concept of god or religion. That has to be instilled by family and community. It is no mere coincidence that the vast majority of religionists follow the faith they were born into.

What and how we have been taught as children holds a big part in what we go on to believe as adults. Some people probably don't question those first beliefs.

Do you think that torturing your child is justified if you give it presents afterwards?
Of course not. So why excuse god for the same behaviour?

You have blamed God for torturing people when He has not, and left out any possible reasons that God might find it necessary to allow us to go through life experiencing the suffering we do.

If the Abrahamic god does exist, it is psychologically damaged. If it was a person it would be prosecuted and likely confined to a secure psychiatric facility.

You hit the nail on the head. God is not a mere person and He knows everything and the best approach to take to achieve His goals for the best for us in the long run.

 

[KWED]

I maybe terribly wrong because this is all old stuff in my brain, but was that Mother Teresa?

Correct.

 

[KWED]

Why, do you know testable natural means that the universe could have come into existence?

Thought so.
You forgot to include "regarding the origins of the universe" when you said "There is no scientific explanation, it is all just theory", in response to my point about explanations in general.

There is all the things about the universe and about this earth that are important for the formation of life.

Why do you assume that the supernatural must have been involved in those processes?

There is also the inbuilt coding in the genes, the language of the molecules, so that bodies are built and work in a certain way. Where there is language and coding it usually shows intelligence behind it.

Question begging. There is no "language and coding" in the sense that you are implying. Why do you assume that the way life has evolved requires a supernatural designer, when all the elements that we do understand do nit require one?
Sounds a lot like the god of the gaps argument.

There is really no reason to think that science would find supernatural answers for how things work.

If the supernatural really was involved, one would expect to find some indication. Yet here you are basically admitting defeat by saying that the undetectable thing that has no measurable effect on anything will never be detected or measured. Essentially, you are just admitting that your "supernatural" is no different to "nothing".

They were made to work a certain way and they do. It is at the extremes in science, in areas where God has specifically said that He has done certain things, (create, give life) where science has trouble finding answers but will not step back from the naturalistic methodology presumed in science.
It is not as if this methodology has been in science all the time.

This makes less sense than your previous "arguments".
Are you saying that god created everything by supernatural means, then made so that every time we work anything out, it looks exactly like it is natural with no supernatural element?

Believing that science has all the answers in life is faith,

Straw man. No scientist makes that claim. We merely acknowledge that science is demonstrably the best method by which to arrive at working explanations for observed phenomena. If another method proves to be better, we will naturally acknowledge that. Unlike you religionists, we are not obliged to defend any particular position or explanation. We simply go where evidence and reason take us.

but science is only able to test the material universe and can say nothing about the supernatural.

The "but the supernatural can never be observed or tested" is just a shabby cop out.
As I always say, if something is undetectable, has no measurable effect on anything that is detectable, and is not required for any known explanation to work - how is it any different to "nothing"?

You are free to keep believing that it is there, but you have no rational, justifiable reason to do so. In almost all cases, it is simply because you have been indoctrinated from childhood to believe it is there, and it is well understood how powerful childhood indoctrination is. As Aristotle said - "Give me the boy until he is seven and I will show you the man".

It is as I said, there are constants in physics that look as if they have been fine tuned for the existence of life.

Firstly, you are admit that it is only an impression.
Second, we do not know that life is impossible with different physical constants.
Third, If the universe was created to bear human life, why is 99.999% of the universe lethal to human life. Even most of our own planet in not habitable.
Last, more question begging. We are only able to note that this universe supports life because it supports life. There may have been an infinite number of universes that did not support life. You are assuming that this is the first and only universe.

There are also things about this earth that look that way.

Like what? We know that complex structures can form by natural processes. No designer necessary.

This would make the universe designed for life if we go down this way of thinking.

So, "If we assume that the universe was designed, then it was designed".
Yikes! I've not seen an apologist prepared to be that bold about their position before.

But science cannot go down this way of thinking because "purpose" goes beyond the bounds of science.

Nonsense. Science is able to determine purpose when it is there. The purpose of the heart is to pump blood around the body. The purpose of the dandelion pappus is to distribute the seed on the wind. Etc, etc. "Purpose" does not necessarily imply agency.

If you insist on a religious fundamentalist understanding of Genesis and on the idea that science is 100% right in what it tells us then Genesis did not happen as described by science.

Well, the description in the Bible of how the earth was formed is definitely wrong. We do not need to assume that "science is 100% right". Of course, I understand that even the ardent apologist will struggle to defend the Bible in that issue, so you claim that it actually means something completely different to what it says (a policy that seems to be selectively applied to different passages, depending on the agenda of the apologist)

There are ways to bring those 2 things closer together however and even to a point where science and Genesis do not conflict at all. So Genesis does not show a problem with the God of the Bible really.

What, wait!
Is that it?
No explanation?

Similarly with the flood, science shows large local flood and the Bible can be translated and read to mean that imo.

The flood story in the Bible cannot be "translated" to mean a local flood. There are specific and explicit references to it necessarily being global.

We have already spoken of science and Genesis and the flood.

Yes. And your response was mere hand-waving.

What I was speaking about was the naturalistic methodology that presumes that prophecy does not happen

Wrong again. The position is to be sceptical of such claims if there is no supporting evidence. If a prophecy can be verifiably shown to be accurately fulfilled, and there is no better explanation than magic, then it has to be considered as a possibility.

and so ends up putting the writing of the Bible to times way later than the Bible suggests, simply because that writing had to have been after the events prophesied about. This is the circular reasoning I was speaking about.

Lost me there.
If a prophecy has been fulfilled, it doesn't matter when it happened, there should be evidence. If you are saying that there is no evidence because it happened a long time ago, that is just the same as "there is no evidence".

There is also the claims that the Bible was plagiarised, and those claims come about because of the naturalistic methodology.

The Bible does contain stories that have their origins in earlier cultures. That is undeniable. Not sure what you mean by "naturalistic methodology" here. Do you mean "looking at the evidence"?

This extends into the New Testament also and to Jesus where similar claims are made even though the events in Jesus life can be seen to have been prophesied in the OT.
I guess even if people admit that the events are seen in the OT, the bias is so big that people say that the writers of the gospels made up stories about someone (Jesus) to fit things in the OT.

The authors of the Bible were writing to promote the messianic prophesy fulfilment narrative, so of course they would include messianic prophesy fulfilment in there.
Remember that there is zero corroborative evidence for any of the magical or messianic claims about Jesus in the Bible. (I guess this is where you accuse me of "naturalistic methodology" )

 

[Brian2]

Why do you assume that the supernatural must have been involved in those processes?

Question begging. There is no "language and coding" in the sense that you are implying. Why do you assume that the way life has evolved requires a supernatural designer, when all the elements that we do understand do nit require one?
Sounds a lot like the god of the gaps argument.

It has not been shown that a supernatural designer was not needed for life and for the design.
It is a god of the gaps argument that I argue but I also know that for the things I am arguing about no natural proposal has been shown to be true and the natural has just been presumed to be the case and natural answers have been arrived at because of that presumption (the best we can think of given no supernatural)
In this way science has tried to fill in the gaps in knowledge with natural explanations that have not been tested and this ends up being the science of the gaps which is accepted readily enough by those who don't believe in the supernatural.

If the supernatural really was involved, one would expect to find some indication. Yet here you are basically admitting defeat by saying that the undetectable thing that has no measurable effect on anything will never be detected or measured. Essentially, you are just admitting that your "supernatural" is no different to "nothing".

The reason I said:
>>>There is really no reason to think that science would find supernatural answers for how things work.<<<
is because science has a naturalistic methodology and only comes up with naturalistic answers. Science isn't a tool for discovering and measuring the supernatural.

This makes less sense than your previous "arguments".
Are you saying that god created everything by supernatural means, then made so that every time we work anything out, it looks exactly like it is natural with no supernatural element?

Things work as they work, naturally, nothing wrong with that. It is the areas that God has specifically said that He has done it, which are the areas that science really has no clue about and has to make up answers presuming no supernatural. As I said, the science of the gaps.

Straw man. No scientist makes that claim. We merely acknowledge that science is demonstrably the best method by which to arrive at working explanations for observed phenomena. If another method proves to be better, we will naturally acknowledge that. Unlike you religionists, we are not obliged to defend any particular position or explanation. We simply go where evidence and reason take us.

Science goes also where the naturalistic methodology takes it. No reasoning about the supernatural. No stopping until a naturalistic method is thunk up.

The "but the supernatural can never be observed or tested" is just a shabby cop out.
As I always say, if something is undetectable, has no measurable effect on anything that is detectable, and is not required for any known explanation to work - how is it any different to "nothing"?

That is nothing but the empiricists mantra. Where the naturalistic methodology has become a naturalistic philosophy.
God has measurable effects on people and can be seen to have observed effects on humanity and history.

Firstly, you are admit that it is only an impression.
Second, we do not know that life is impossible with different physical constants.
Third, If the universe was created to bear human life, why is 99.999% of the universe lethal to human life. Even most of our own planet in not habitable.
Last, more question begging. We are only able to note that this universe supports life because it supports life. There may have been an infinite number of universes that did not support life. You are assuming that this is the first and only universe.

1st. It is an impression.
2nd True but life as we know it is not possible.
3rd. Life is all over this planet. It has adapted. God made this planet for life created life here.
4th. That sounds like science but hypotheses about hypotheses are just guesses. I'm just going on what we know now without the guess work.

Like what? We know that complex structures can form by natural processes. No designer necessary.

Things about this earth that are similar to the physical constants and which are within a certain band which can support life.

So, "If we assume that the universe was designed, then it was designed".
Yikes! I've not seen an apologist prepared to be that bold about their position before.

I just go where the reasoning goes and I know that the physical constants and things about this earth that allow life are no proof just as yours and sciences guesswork is no proof.
If you assume the universe was not designed that doesn't mean it was not designed however.

Nonsense. Science is able to determine purpose when it is there. The purpose of the heart is to pump blood around the body. The purpose of the dandelion pappus is to distribute the seed on the wind. Etc, etc. "Purpose" does not necessarily imply agency.

Science is not able to determine that those physical constants and thin band that the earth is in mean a purposeful design because that is not what science can say even if it can see naturalistic purposes.
We humans can go beyond what science can do however. I can have faith in a God and you can have faith in chance and nature only.

Well, the description in the Bible of how the earth was formed is definitely wrong. We do not need to assume that "science is 100% right". Of course, I understand that even the ardent apologist will struggle to defend the Bible in that issue, so you claim that it actually means something completely different to what it says (a policy that seems to be selectively applied to different passages, depending on the agenda of the apologist)

People read Genesis and other creation related passages in the Bible differently. As I said, many that do not like the Bible want to insist that it has to mean what the young earth creationists say. It doesn't have to mean that however and in many ways it comes close to what science has found (in a non scientific way). But the purpose was to tell us all that God created everything and if it is found to fit with what science has found to an extent then all the better.

What, wait!
Is that it?
No explanation?

I'm not talking about just one way to look at Genesis, but to say that Genesis does not agree with science is no more than to say "I don't like the idea of a designer".
Genesis does not have to agree with science to be a creation myth that starts the story of the universe. (not that I think that it does not agree with science to an extent, but just saying)
To complain about Genesis is not really a legitimate thing to do when many Christians seem to believe all of science and just read Genesis as a creation myth.

The flood story in the Bible cannot be "translated" to mean a local flood. There are specific and explicit references to it necessarily being global.

What references are these?

Wrong again. The position is to be sceptical of such claims if there is no supporting evidence. If a prophecy can be verifiably shown to be accurately fulfilled, and there is no better explanation than magic, then it has to be considered as a possibility.

Then prophecies about Jesus could be true. Then the prophecy about the destruction of Tyre could be true.
etc
But even with no better explanation the supernatural is only a possibility. However for most sceptics any explanation is better than the supernatural.

Lost me there.
If a prophecy has been fulfilled, it doesn't matter when it happened, there should be evidence. If you are saying that there is no evidence because it happened a long time ago, that is just the same as "there is no evidence".

I was saying that the naturalistic methodology in the study of the Bible has meant that the writing of certain books has been placed at certain times just because if it was placed before then it would mean that prophecy has been fulfilled.
So you end up reading modern biblical history books and they actually place the writing after what the text suggests. The easiest one to use is the writing of the synoptic gospels and the authors of them. The writing is placed after or very close to 70AD because of the prophecy of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70D. Therefore the writers probably would not be people who knew Jesus and were witnesses.
So the naturalistic methodology ends up producing conclusions that agree with the naturalistic methodology and agree with naturalism. This is a form of circular reasoning.

The Bible does contain stories that have their origins in earlier cultures. That is undeniable. Not sure what you mean by "naturalistic methodology" here. Do you mean "looking at the evidence"?

Creation and the flood could be true and so you would expect those stories or something a bit similar to be passed down in that culture.
When it comes to things like the plagiarising of the Jesus story from other cultures that is built on the presumption that religious stories are not actually true but come from other religions (naturalistic methodology) Actually the gospel and what Jesus did can be seen in the OT without any other cultures having anything to do with it.
The true sceptic then would either say that most if not all of the prophecies in the OT are not real prophecies and/or that it is a better explanation to say that the writers of the gospels made them fit in with things in the OT. It's usually a case of any explanation is better than the supernatural.

The authors of the Bible were writing to promote the messianic prophesy fulfilment narrative, so of course they would include messianic prophesy fulfilment in there.
Remember that there is zero corroborative evidence for any of the magical or messianic claims about Jesus in the Bible. (I guess this is where you accuse me of "naturalistic methodology" )

No I have already spoken of naturalistic methodology and I suppose sceptics usually don't see or can't see that it is used, or even justify it and it's conclusions if it's use is admitted to in modern biblical history etc
The independent gospel authors and epistle authors do corroborate each other but I suppose you think that a witness to the supernatural who remained an unbeliever is what counts.
The Jewish Talmud however does corroborate the miracle working of Jesus as does Josephus. I imagine that the existence and miracles of Jesus were passed down in Jewish circles.

 

[KWED]

It has not been shown that a supernatural designer was not needed for life and for the design.
It is a god of the gaps argument that I argue but I also know that for the things I am arguing about no natural proposal has been shown to be true and the natural has just been presumed to be the case and natural answers have been arrived at because of that presumption (the best we can think of given no supernatural)
In this way science has tried to fill in the gaps in knowledge with natural explanations that have not been tested and this ends up being the science of the gaps which is accepted readily enough by those who don't believe in the supernatural.



The reason I said:
>>>There is really no reason to think that science would find supernatural answers for how things work.<<<
is because science has a naturalistic methodology and only comes up with naturalistic answers. Science isn't a tool for discovering and measuring the supernatural.



Things work as they work, naturally, nothing wrong with that. It is the areas that God has specifically said that He has done it, which are the areas that science really has no clue about and has to make up answers presuming no supernatural. As I said, the science of the gaps.



Science goes also where the naturalistic methodology takes it. No reasoning about the supernatural. No stopping until a naturalistic method is thunk up.



That is nothing but the empiricists mantra. Where the naturalistic methodology has become a naturalistic philosophy.
God has measurable effects on people and can be seen to have observed effects on humanity and history.



1st. It is an impression.
2nd True but life as we know it is not possible.
3rd. Life is all over this planet. It has adapted. God made this planet for life created life here.
4th. That sounds like science but hypotheses about hypotheses are just guesses. I'm just going on what we know now without the guess work.



Things about this earth that are similar to the physical constants and which are within a certain band which can support life.



I just go where the reasoning goes and I know that the physical constants and things about this earth that allow life are no proof just as yours and sciences guesswork is no proof.
If you assume the universe was not designed that doesn't mean it was not designed however.



Science is not able to determine that those physical constants and thin band that the earth is in mean a purposeful design because that is not what science can say even if it can see naturalistic purposes.
We humans can go beyond what science can do however. I can have faith in a God and you can have faith in chance and nature only.



People read Genesis and other creation related passages in the Bible differently. As I said, many that do not like the Bible want to insist that it has to mean what the young earth creationists say. It doesn't have to mean that however and in many ways it comes close to what science has found (in a non scientific way). But the purpose was to tell us all that God created everything and if it is found to fit with what science has found to an extent then all the better.



I'm not talking about just one way to look at Genesis, but to say that Genesis does not agree with science is no more than to say "I don't like the idea of a designer".
Genesis does not have to agree with science to be a creation myth that starts the story of the universe. (not that I think that it does not agree with science to an extent, but just saying)
To complain about Genesis is not really a legitimate thing to do when many Christians seem to believe all of science and just read Genesis as a creation myth.



What references are these?



Then prophecies about Jesus could be true. Then the prophecy about the destruction of Tyre could be true.
etc
But even with no better explanation the supernatural is only a possibility. However for most sceptics any explanation is better than the supernatural.



I was saying that the naturalistic methodology in the study of the Bible has meant that the writing of certain books has been placed at certain times just because if it was placed before then it would mean that prophecy has been fulfilled.
So you end up reading modern biblical history books and they actually place the writing after what the text suggests. The easiest one to use is the writing of the synoptic gospels and the authors of them. The writing is placed after or very close to 70AD because of the prophecy of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70D. Therefore the writers probably would not be people who knew Jesus and were witnesses.
So the naturalistic methodology ends up producing conclusions that agree with the naturalistic methodology and agree with naturalism. This is a form of circular reasoning.



Creation and the flood could be true and so you would expect those stories or something a bit similar to be passed down in that culture.
When it comes to things like the plagiarising of the Jesus story from other cultures that is built on the presumption that religious stories are not actually true but come from other religions (naturalistic methodology) Actually the gospel and what Jesus did can be seen in the OT without any other cultures having anything to do with it.
The true sceptic then would either say that most if not all of the prophecies in the OT are not real prophecies and/or that it is a better explanation to say that the writers of the gospels made them fit in with things in the OT. It's usually a case of any explanation is better than the supernatural.



No I have already spoken of naturalistic methodology and I suppose sceptics usually don't see or can't see that it is used, or even justify it and it's conclusions if it's use is admitted to in modern biblical history etc
The independent gospel authors and epistle authors do corroborate each other but I suppose you think that a witness to the supernatural who remained an unbeliever is what counts.
The Jewish Talmud however does corroborate the miracle working of Jesus as does Josephus. I imagine that the existence and miracles of Jesus were passed down in Jewish circles.

I have just returned from an evening at the pub, so I will not attempt to address every point.
However , a quick perusal suggests trha you you have Eno rational response to any of my points.

Back holiday coming up. Sort you out in a few days...