Is the lack of faith of Atheists due to theists' failure to support their claims?

[leibowde84]

The word must fall on good soil.

What do you mean by "good soil"? Are you suggesting that those who lack belief in scripture's validity are bad people or somehow lesser than those that do?

 

[leibowde84]

atheism, for starters

"Atheism" = lack of belief in the existence of God or gods; without theism.

 

[leibowde84]

Hmm, are you talking about lack of belief or believing there is not enough evidence to support a claim for God?

By "atheism", I mean it in the general sense. Anyone who is "without theism" or "lacks a belief in the existence of God or gods".

 

[outhouse]

Before time and space is not accessible to brains operating within time and space

Except were looking for real answers to that exact question.

It is perfectly plausible a supermassive back hole expanded, what type of time or space that existed outside of the singularity while unknown, may be right before our eyes.


Its my personal opinion since nature is full of singularities, so would there be before our universe.

 

[Dhyana]

Except were looking for real answers to that exact question.

It is perfectly plausible a supermassive back hole expanded, what type of time or space that existed outside of the singularity while unknown, may be right before our eyes.


Its my personal opinion since nature is full of singularities, so would there be before our universe.

There is no real answer to the question "what caused the universe?" The universe, including space and time, is an effect, which science, logic and reason demands a cause. But this cause by definition occurred before time and space existed. Everything we know occurs in and is contained by time & space. We're stuck in a bubble, with no way to penetrate the edge of the bubble, assuming there even is an edge. No speculation as to what was and what occurred "before" the Big Bang can ever be known or proved. It is inaccessible. At the other end of cosmology, we already know that the quantum world is inaccessible.
We are stuck in between two poles of intellectual inaccessibility: macro and micro, with only 2 certainties: 1) I exist; 2) I will die. No wonder religion was invented. Humans need explanation & justification for this absurd existence: science can't go there. So we make shyte up and believe it. Or we don't and just hang out scratching our heads with open mouths.

Causality can only explain later events by earlier events, but it can never explain the beginning.

-Werner Heisenberg

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real[\QUOTE]

-Niels Bohr.

 

[outhouse]

There is no real answer to the question "what caused the universe?"

There are plenty of answers, there are no facts at this time.

But your statement is in error IMHO. We know a singularity caused the universe without question.

this cause by definition occurred before time and space existed

This cause by definition occurred exactly when space and time was created. Not really before.

Now a singularity probably existed before it expanded into space and time, as they are common in nature.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But this cause by definition occurred before time and space existed.

By definition, the phrase "before time and space existed" is nonsense.

 

[Shad]

"Atheism" = lack of belief in the existence of God or gods; without theism.

Your poor definition cause problems for your OP. If theism is a lack of belief rather than a rejection of a claim then no theist can be held responsible thus your OP is incoherent. After all no one can be held responsible for arguments and views a person never considered. Your OP only works with one definition which is the real definitional used in philosophy not the pop-cultural definition you post here and in the other thread.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I've often thought about this question, but I have yet to see it on this forum. The question at hand is whether theists should blame themselves for the lack of belief of atheists due to their failure to provide valid, reasoned, and supported arguments for their belief.

Isn't withholding adherence to a belief system until sufficient evidence/reasoning has been provided merely displaying the prudence of atheism? Do you think the flawed reasoning (cosmological argument, "something from nothing", arguments from ignorance, etc.) of the theist is to blame for atheists' refusing to "buy into" deities of any kind.

One cannot provide that which does not exist.

 

[Dhyana]

By definition, the phrase "before time and space existed" is nonsense.

Exactly! And this is my point. Time and space and hence existence per se commenced after the Big Bang. Therefore, there is no
possible sensible way to explain "what" banged, when or why. Human knowledge has built in uncertainty barriers at the cosmological AND the quantum extremes. We don't and can't
know what reality consists of or where it came from.

AFAIC the Truth is found within the mystical or esoteric teachings extant in all religions, and most evidently in Buddhism, Taoism, and Advaita Vedanta Hinduism. The popular level of Religion, consisting of legends and mythology, is clear bull**** designed to assuage the existential angst of ordinary people, who are incapable of understanding the mystical and esoteric, and can't handle "first you're born and then you die" as the meaning of life. Science fills the role of myth and legend for less credulous people, but is still incapable finally, of revealing ultimate truth. It's just another diversion to screw around with to make life more interesting and livable, though the by far the best tool the vast majority of people have at their disposal during their time on earth.

Spare me from the shackles of myth and legend, but don't condemn me to
Science alone to figure out the truth.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Everyone free to make up thier own mind hmm within the parameters of being human ,inside the box .
Theists paint a bizarre picture of what God might be , why try describe the uncomprehendable doh.
I think and I think again ,whether or not God exists huge parts of the bible probably false.
If I was God I would judge on deed and not belief ,hmm come think again maybe I wouldn't Nagasaki Hiroshima was not worth it .If I was God I would of not made compromise with Noah and ended the experiment .

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hmm, not so sure we ever go through that initial non belief. To a baby mom is God.

Nope...she's mum, who happens to be the highest authority. The baby has no religion.

[

I absolutely agree that we gather evidence throughout our life. But my point is that it is this evidence that people use to reject the claim.

I have no evidence that there is no God, and am unsure what such evidence would even look like...

 

[Curious George]

Nope...she's mum, who happens to be the highest authority. The baby has no religion.

[


I have no evidence that there is no God, and am unsure what such evidence would even look like...

Nope mum is God to baby.

Gives nourishment, has control, more complex, loves, seemingly all knowing, was there before time began, immortal perfect being. If you can tell me why a baby's concept of mom is not = to God, I am listening.

 

[Bunyip]

Nope mum is God to baby.

Gives nourishment, has control, more complex, loves, seemingly all knowing, was there before time began, immortal perfect being. If you can tell me why a baby's concept of mom is not = to God, I am listening.

Sure, well the differences are that unlike the mother God does not give nourishment, and is not in control. And unlike God, the mother was not there before time began (whatever that means - how can something exist before time?), and is not immortal or perfect.

So on none of those points are Gods and mothers equivalent.

 

[ether-ore]

That indicates a esthetical objection to the existing knowledge or proposed models. Fair enough. I am no expert, but I assume that such an ambitious undertaking as scientific models for the behavior of the universe entire are basically permanently subject to reevaluations and revisions as better data becomes available.

Still, the knowledge and the data are what they are. We do not have the choice of deciding what they should be just because.

Except that I don't see as a "just because" condition. I've no doubt but that all many will disagree, but to suspend reason just because observed data suggests something absurd makes no sense to me.

I don't know what exactly you mean by that. There is certainly a lot of evidence pointing out that people do, in fact, die, so why should we not accept that it is so? What reason to doubt the available facts would anyone have?

We're talking about the concept of oblivion? Yes people die, but since we know little or nothing concerning what happens when we die, we are left with what I see as two equally valid assumptions that can be made concerning what happens: either oblivion is indeed the case, or some conscious and intelligent aspect of us survives the event. Of the two, the idea that I think we are as eternal as I believe the universe to be. I have always accepted the fact that matter can neither be created or destroyed; that it can only change state. I happen to believe the same can be said for our 'selves'. In terms of probability, I think that more likely.

I have a hunch that you are not talking about observable reality, despite this description being pretty noncontroversial a fit to this reality.

Why are you using the word "permanent" as a qualifier to universe here, by the way?

I believe (how can I describe this?)... in a compound universe; part of it steady state and eternal; this is what I mean by permanent. Within this permanent aspect of the universe I consider from scriptural extrapolation that there are pockets of space; isolated such that entropy exists within, but not without.

That is what Penguim asked, and what I ask now: how and why do you make the jump from having the belief that there may be a God (which is fair enough) to the claim that there must be greater intelligences (whatever exactly you mean by that) and a God?

Simple... I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. There exist in the universe and in this world, people who are smarter than me. On that continuum and at its pinnacle is God.
While I'm on the subject of my own 'smartness' I understand the logical fallacy aspect, but I'm sorry, to me, to say that someone is arguing from ignorance offers very little distinction from saying they are ignorant. I take umbrage at that because while I may not be the smartest person around, I do attempt to think things through based on all available information (both scientific and scriptural) in an attempt to come up with a correlation. Aside from that, I really dislike elitist attitudes.


From my perspective it just seems to come out of the blue with no justification outside the purely esthetical preference.

It constitutes a coupling, through the use of reason, of scientific information and scripture. I believe the two are reconcilable, and I attempt to do so.

 

[Curious George]

Sure, well the differences are that unlike the mother God does not give nourishment, and is not in control. And unlike God, the mother was not there before time began (whatever that means - how can something exist before time?), and is not immortal or perfect.

So on none of those points are Gods and mothers equivalent.

Before the baby was born time did not exist to the baby.

Why can't a God give nourishment?

Certainly in our eyes a mother is not immortal or infallible, but to the baby she is.

You forget we are dealing with belief, they do not have to be rational. A baby's world is more limited than your own. The babies entire world from its perspective is controlled by one or more other beings. This satisfies a God concepts.

 

[Bunyip]

Before the baby was born time did not exist to the baby.

Neither did the baby, so what was your point there George?

Why can't a God give nourishment?

I don't know - most likely it is a sign of their non-existence.

Certainly in our eyes a mother is not immortal or infallible, but to the baby she is.

No, babies are not even aware of those concepts.

You forget we are dealing with belief, they do not have to be rational. A baby's world is more limited than your own. The babies entire world from its perspective is controlled by one or more other beings. This satisfies a God concepts.

In what way?

 

[Desert Snake]

no, to the OP question.

 

[Curious George]

Neither did the baby, so what was your point there George? I don't know - most likely it is a sign of their non-existence. No, babies are not even aware of those concepts. In what way?

Yes the baby did not exist therefore time for the baby did not exist. Therefore the mother existed before time from the babies perspective.

Immotal just means without death. If the baby cannot have a concept of death then a baby cannot believe the mother is going to die. Thus the mother is immortal.

Infallible means without flaw if the baby does not have the concept of flaw the baby cannot believe the mother has flaw, therefore to the baby she is infallible.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes the baby did not exist therefore time for the baby did not exist. Therefore the mother existed before time from the babies perspective.

What? You are tangling yourself up in some kind of mental knot. How can anything exist before time? That is a contradiction in terms.

Immotal just means without death. If the baby cannot have a concept of death then a baby cannot believe the mother is going to die. Thus the mother is immortal.

Infallible means without flaw if the baby does not have the concept of flaw the baby cannot believe the mother has flaw, therefore to the baby she is infallible.

LOL. Ok Georger, I'll leave it there.