Lack of belief in gods.

[Jeremiahcp]

I love it when atheists present themselves as brain dead on the matter.

Well, as long as you are having fun.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It's not a belief to say the world is governed by natural laws, and did have natural material origins. We have many laws and theories that provide mountains of evidence for this. We don't have to believe electricity and gravity govern the universe, because we have evidence of this. We don't believe these things because we know them, much like how we know time and space are one in the same and that all matter is energy. We do not need a supernatural explanation for any of these.

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo

We have evidence for a materialistic universe creating mechanism? like what?

 

[leibowde84]

We have evidence for a materialistic universe creating mechanism? like what?

This claim was not made. He claimed that we have evidence for "world" (or earth/planet) creating mechanisms, not universe creating.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This claim was not made. He claimed that we have evidence for "world" (or earth/planet) creating mechanisms, not universe creating.

Okay, and we have evidence for automated page creating mechanisms behind this forum, that does not suggest for a second that the software wrote itself.

I can also deduce from subtle hints that Shadow Wolf is a she, not a he!

 

[leibowde84]

I can also deduce from subtle hints that Shadow Wolf is a she, not a he!

My bad.

 

[leibowde84]

Okay, and we have evidence for automated page creating mechanisms behind this forum, that does not suggest for a second that the software wrote itself.

Software is not a naturally occurring mechanism, so that doesn't really have anything to do with the conversation. That is like using the flawed analogy of pointing to a watch, assuming that it was designed and made by some mind.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Software is not a naturally occurring mechanism, so that doesn't really have anything to do with the conversation. That is like using the flawed analogy of pointing to a watch, assuming that it was designed and made by some mind.

That's what makes them useful analogies, they show the same traits used to support materialism

Software and watches both exhibit automated functionality, there's no intelligent agency needed to interfere with it's function, a watch will tell time simply but it's own inherent 'nature'.

i.e. automated function does not denote automated origins, if anything the opposite argument is the stronger

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So, you both lack belief in Santa Clause AND you also believe (and know, I would argue) that Santa Clause does not exist.

When it comes to God, there are plenty of people who lack belief in God, but do not believe that God does not exist.

And many more who haven't even heard of the countless gods humanity has believed in that aren't named "God".

 

[Cephus]

That sounds a lot like us a-materialists. I make no claim, I have no belief, I simply lack the belief in any materialistic explanations for reality until sufficient evidence emerges.

And what's wrong with that? Please demonstrate where any of that is factually incorrect.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And what's wrong with that? Please demonstrate where any of that is factually incorrect.

It's technically true of course, as an a-materialist, I simply lack belief in materialism until proof arises for it

(and default to the obvious alternative meanwhile)

 

[Cephus]

'Nature is the executor of God's laws' Galileo

We have evidence for a materialistic universe creating mechanism? like what?

Don't ask us, you're the one professing that one exists. You prove it. Where is your evidence?

 

[Cephus]

It's technically true of course, as an a-materialist, I simply lack belief in materialism until proof arises for it

(and default to the obvious alternative meanwhile)

Then present any evidence for anything BUT materialism. Where is any objective evidence of any kind that anything else exists? Go ahead.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Don't ask us, you're the one professing that one exists. You prove it. Where is your evidence?

for any kind of naturalistic/ materialist mechanism that could create our universe? I'm not aware of any

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then present any evidence for anything BUT materialism. Where is any objective evidence of any kind that anything else exists? Go ahead.

We have no direct empirical evidence for any explanation

But there are other forms:
predictive ability
logical deduction
power of explanation

 

[Cephus]

for any kind of naturalistic/ materialist mechanism that could create our universe? I'm not aware of any

Exactly what mechanisms are you aware of? Please present evidence that any of any kind exist.

 

[Cephus]

We have no direct empirical evidence for any explanation

But there are other forms:
predictive ability
logical deduction
power of explanation

Then produce any evidence for any of those. Go ahead. We'll wait.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

My lack of belief in Santa Clause is adequately captured in the idea that he is not real. I actually believe that.

How about your belief in Thomas Cruz of South Texas. He has a very strong business building houses, makes good money, works hard, has a somewhat attractive wife and 3 kids.

Do you;
Believe he exists,
or do you not believe he exists?

Is there a third possibility? Maybe you hold neither belief?

 

[jonathan180iq]

for any kind of naturalistic/ materialist mechanism that could create our universe? I'm not aware of any

There's the Argument From Ignorance rearing it's ugly head again...

"Things exist. I don't know how - therefore, God!"

This is only one step below the Cosmological Argument, which in itself is very flawed... And that's the best explanation that you have for your faith and deity. I wish more Theists would let that really sink in.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then produce any evidence for any of those. Go ahead. We'll wait.

Too much to list here, the evidence is all around you, how it's interpreted is the thing..

But you can answer also this for yourself with the beach analogy as above

why do you deduce an intelligent agent spelling 'help' with rocks, when the direct, empirical evidence, Occam's razor even, would conclude the random action of the waves did it?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Too much to list here, the evidence is all around you, how it's interpreted is the thing..

But you can answer also this for yourself with the beach analogy as above

why do you deduce an intelligent agent spelling 'help' with rocks, when the direct, empirical evidence, Occam's razor even, would conclude the random action of the waves did it?

First of all,
False premise - Wikipedia

And secondly,
Probability - Wikipedia