Ex-Atheist Dr. Sarah Salviander Destroys Atheism with One Tweet
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
If you're unfamiliar with Dr. Sarah Salviander , I encourage you to make her acquaintance. She's a Christian apologist, takes the Genesis creation account literally (although she's not a young earth creationist, she believes that God created the cosmos in six days), has a Ph.D. in astrophysics, and is an ex-atheist. Because of her background and credentials, Salviander has insight into atheism that many do not. Earlier this month, utilizing that insight, Salviander tweeted a sharply worded reminder that atheism suffers from intellectual dishonesty.
In the tweet, Sarah Salviander provides steps to crafting your own atheistic philosophy. Her steps are: "1. Start with the assumption of no God 2. However, also start with Christian morality 3. Remove the bits you personally don’t like 4. Proclaim that it's self-evident 5. Ignore the meaninglessness of a Godless universe."
In a follow-up tweet, and in case you're curious, Salviander explains that since she receives the same criticism and arguments from atheists over and over, she's pinned a tweet to the top of her page linking to an article answering commonly asked questions and arguments from atheists. However, the above tweet is apologetics gold.
Step number one pokes at the wholly unsubstantiated claim that there is no God. Contrary to popular belief, Christians do not blindly believe in God. We look at the evidence and conclude that the data supports our belief in God. Atheists, on the other hand, blindly believe that there is no God. This is demonstrated by Salviander's next three steps.
Dipping into the evidence for the existence of a God, atheists pick and choose which parts of Christian morality they like and discard whatever they don't like. Paraphrasing a statement Douglas Wilson made to Christopher Hitchens , atheists hijack the Christian's car (morality) and then unwittingly crash it into a tree. The reality is that if the universe is impersonal, then morality is socially constructed with no basis in objectivity. Without a transcendent Being that has authority, no one can rightfully claim that it's wrong to do anything. Without the existence of a God, I am free to do whatever I want.
Sure, people can band together and form a society that restricts actions that they agree impede their collective goals. But, if another group takes power and decides to pursue goals that allow for previously restricted actions to be unrestricted, there is no outside authority to which those who disagree can appeal to. Might makes right.
Of course, this is why Salviander's step number five is needed in order to construct an atheistic philosophy. The only way to insist that it's morally wrong to take your neighbor's farm by force is to ignore that atheism requires an utterly meaningless universe.
Many atheists like to pretend that their position is the intellectual position. It's not. It's a wholly unsubstantiated claim that has to steal ethics from the Christian worldview in order to keep from promoting a society ruled by utter chaos. Sarah Salviander's tweet almost perfectly sums up the intellectual dishonesty inherent in atheism.
Tags
Who is online
424 visitors
“The only way to insist that it's morally wrong to take your neighbor's farm by force is to ignore that atheism requires an utterly meaningless universe.
Many atheists like to pretend that their position is the intellectual position. It's not. It's a wholly unsubstantiated claim that has to steal ethics from the Christian worldview in order to keep from promoting a society ruled by utter chaos.”
1.)There is no such thing as Christian morality because if your god is both omniscient and omnipotent then he knew what you were going to do before you did it. You had no choice in how you acted so therefore they can be no morality. There can also be no sin if you didn't have a choice in how you acted, but keep telling yourself that your god is loving when he punishes you for something in which you had no choice. He is gaslighting you.
2.) The only meaning that our lives have is what we give it by our own thoughts and actions.
3.) You don't have to believe in a god to be moral because the ethic of reciprocity does not require religious belief to function. Religious people are told that they must act in a certain way prescribed by their religion which is not always moral.
4.) Unbelievers didnt start with the assumption that there was no god. We investigated the religious claims and lack of evidence to support the claim of a god existing and we came to the conclusion that there is no evidence to support of sentient religious deity.
Oh my what a mess.
1) Boils down to: You don't get God therefore he doesn't exist.
2) Sez you.
3)
Sounds pretty arbitrary.
The fact that a thing functions doesn't make it right.
4)
You can't investigate evidence if you claim there is none. TiG at least is saying there is evidence to investigate. Maybe you guys should fight that one out. I'm gonna go make popcorn.
I'll just say this: You use the word "evidence" a lot and you use it in a way that indicates you think it means something it doesn't mean.
This is a misunderstanding of the nature of God and man. There is no conflict between human free will and the existence of God.
Even most atheists believe it is possible there is a God but no way to prove it.
We know we have free will. It is in fact impossible for you to not have free will, whether or not God exists.
There might not be. It depends on how God is defined. If God is defined as omniscient then free will is impossible because omniscience cannot happen unless the future is knowable (and thus predetermined).
True. Most every atheist accepts the possibility of a creator entity. However, when one provides a highly attributed, defined entity with stories, personality, etc. it is possible to find a logical contradiction in the definition. If so, then that god —as defined— is impossible and ipso facto does not exist.
Free will cannot exist if the future is knowable — it is a direct contradiction. The illusion of free will, however, can be present whether true or not.
God could know the future and you can still experience free will. This is the part you are missing.
If I am missing something then explain it rather than simply make a claim. Explain how a future can be knowable and free will actually exist.
If it is possible to know that tomorrow at 10:05 am you will choose to make a cup of coffee then when you make that cup of coffee tomorrow at 10:05 am how is that free will?
If the future is knowable and determined, then free will is an illusion. We are unable to make any "choice" that would alter that future.
How and what God knows and how or what you or I know are two different things.
Right now, you do not know whether or not God exists, but you do know you have free will. If someone proved to you tomorrow that and all powerful God exists, would you say you no longer believe you have free will? Of course not.
If human beings were able to think like God, maybe there would be a point to saying that free will and divine all-knowing conflict. But they don't conflict. Nothing can prevent you experiencing free will.
This is one of the more pointless things you athiests keep harping on.
If there were an omnipotent, omniscient god, then God already knows what choices we'll make and what precisely the outcome will be. Every choice we make leads to that outcome. Therefore, we are incapable of choosing differently or altering that outcome. It only appears to be a choice, but that is an illusion.
What is knowable is the key factor (not what God knows). Even if no entity is omniscient, if the future is knowable, free will is impossible. If there is free will then the future cannot be knowable.
Again, the existence of God has nothing to do with the problem of free will. The key is knowable future. So if God was proven tomorrow that has no bearing whatsoever on free will unless it is also proven that God is omniscient. If God is omniscient then the future is knowable. If the future is knowable then free will is impossible.
In short, the critical question is: is the future knowable? (God need not even be in the discussion.)
You have the appearance of free will, but logically if your god is both omniscient and omnipotent then you can not have actual free will if your god knows what you will do before you do. The fact that the Bible says that he has a plan for his believers means that you cannot possibly have free will.
.
That is only the appearance or illusion of free will and not true free will, as Gordy previously explained.
The existence of a God that knows the future has no bearing on whether or not you experience free will.
If God whispered to me that Tig will do xyz tomorrow and I watched you to see you do it, my knowing you will do it has no influence on your free will. You will still choose to do whatever it is you are going to do. We not only have free will, there is no situation, in this existence, where we can relinquish that free will.
If god already knows what will happen in the future, then the future is set in stone and nothing can change it. Therefore, our "choices" actually lead to that particular future as god knows it will. It is impossible to make any other choice that can cause a change in that future. Unless god is wrong and really doesn't know what will happen.
Did you choose to post that today?
Then you have free will.
God knowing something and a human knowing something are two completely different things.
You are free to make your own decisions regarding God, He isn't forcing anyone. That is free will.
If it was already known in advance I would post, then no, it wasn't a real choice. It was predetermined. The "choice" to post is merely an illusion of choice.
God supposedly already knows what we will do, choose, decide, ect., even before we even get to that "choice." Unless god is wrong in knowing what will happen, we cannot make any choice which deviates from the known outcome (known by god) even a little. Therefore, we lack true free will or choice.
God being omniscient means he knows everything and all our choices. That knowledge is predetermined in advance and is unchangeable. Therefore, free will is an illusion. We only think we have free will. But it is not logically possible with an all-knowing, omniscient god.
You keep choosing to believe that if God exists and knows all, then you don't have free will. Many recognize that everyone has free will regardless whether they believe in God or not. You keep saying everything is predetermined. How do you come to that conclusion? Because a Being so powerful--beyond human imagination--knows something has little to nothing to do with your personal decisions.
Why can't it simply be that God would like everyone to believe in Him but want people to come to Him on their own volition?
That is not a belief. That is a logical conclusion.
It's not about whether one believes in god or not. It's about if god is omniscient and already knows the future. The concept of free will is entirely dependent on that condition.
I thought I was clear in my explanations? Reread my post 1.1.15.
You still don't get it. That all powerful being already knows, in advance, what my decisions will be, long before I do or before I even get to the point of having to make a decision about something. It's all laid out to god what will happen and what I will "choose." So it's impossible to make any choice other than what is already been seen and determined.
Belief has nothing to do with free will, choice, or whatever. The idea is that if there is an all powerful, all knowing god, regardless if one believes or not, then said god will already know everything, including any and all choices made, in advance. There is nothing we can choose or decide that will change the already known outcome. It's simply impossible if god already sees the outcome. And assuming god is all knowing, then god already knows with absolute 100% certainty what the outcome will be. This also includes knowing what each and every "choice" will be. So there is no way we can choose any differently, as that would logically mean god was not 100% certain, even if only a little bit. From our perspective, we may think we can or do choose this or that. But from god's perspective, each "choice" is already known and leads to the inevitable known conclusion, even if we do not entirely know where our "choice" leads us. Ergo, such "choices" is an illusion.
I don't find any logic in that.
A Being so great that He can do things beyond human understanding. There are lots of things that occur in the world without a logical explanation. Free will is your personal ability to choose for yourself. God knowing what your choices may be doesn't prevent you from having those choices.
You make it sound as if you believe that if God exists, He micromanages every single aspect of our lives. I don't believe that.
How can you attribute anything to a Deity you don't believe in?
You insist on acting as if someone believes in God, that they have NO choices in their life--that it is all pre-ordained. I know of very, very few people subscribing to that way of thinking.
That's on you then. I can't explain things any clearer or simpler than I already have.
It's not about what he can do. it's about what he knows, or knows what will happen.
That just means it's not entirely understood-yet.
If god knows what my choices will be, before I even make them, then I don't really have any choice to make. I'm simply following what is already pre-determined.
Impasse.
Every time we discuss this you ignore the fact that my choice was known before I made it. How is that possible John? This is a major disconnect in logic.
If I have free will this is a scenario that must be possible:
Now either God was wrong (and did not really know the future) or I really could not do anything but choose xyz (and thus I do not have free will).
Which is it? Think this through.
This topic is most interesting to me because every theist I have ever encountered does the same thing: flat out ignore cause and effect.
God is not required to understand this.
SITUATION ONE: The future is knowable
If the future is knowable that means what will happen in the future is knowable before it happens. (Just stating the obvious.)
Since it is possible to know that you will type IMPASSE at 9:30 pm EDT then at 9:30 pm EDT you will type IMPASSE.
Your choice was known before you made it. You were predetermined to type IMPASSE at 9:30 pm EDT. You think you freely chose to type IMPASSE but given your choice was known before you made it, your 'free will' is simply an illusion.
SITUATION TWO: The future is not knowable
If the future is not knowable then that means it is determined as we go. When you make a choice, that choice enables new choices and disables others. And this applies to everyone. We are all acting in the present and the incredibly complex interactions that take place at every instant in time by every plant, animal and natural force collectively determine what is possible and what is not possible in the next instant of time (the next moment of the future).
Here free will is possible. Every free will choice sets the stage for the next moment in an unknowable future (a future that is determined as we go).
( This is not how IMPASSE is done. Typing IMPASSE does not create an IMPASSE. See COC Impasse section. )
You can practice on this post. Just go to my avatar and click IMPASSE.
my take on the book tells me god knows "mankind's future" not every single individual.
mankind's nature is predictable like that.
cheers
No big deal but that would mean god is not omniscient. So while still being very powerful would he/she/it still qualify as a god without being all knowing.
Things that make ya go hmmmm
Knowledge is not action. Knowledge is passive. An observer can know the future without participating in that future. That is little different than knowledge of the past; the knowledge is passive and that knowledge doesn't alter the past.
But the argument that omniscience predetermines the future ignores the presence of chaos. Chaos means there may be many futures. An omniscient being may know all the possible futures but cannot know which known future will transpire without taking direct action to overcome chaos. Choice introduces chaos. It may be possible to passively know the many futures that would result from the many choices without taking intervening action to direct the choice. The observer would be omniscient by possessing knowledge of all possible futures. But that knowledge would be passive.
Then the choice would involve intervening to alter that future or taking no action and allowing that future to come into existence. Knowledge is passive. Free will involves active participation.
Correct. I never suggested or implied that knowledge effects actions or that knowledge is action. Rather I spend my time correcting presumptions like this.
Note: Knowledge (true knowledge, not speculation) of a future action means that future action will take place. It does not cause the action, it is awareness of the future action.
That is not my argument. Not even remotely close in fact. Indeed, completely wrong.
There is no intervening. The knowledge does not act. We are talking about knowledge of the future. If the future is knowable then actions that have yet to take place can be known before they take place. The knowledge does not make the actions occur; the knowledge is an awareness of what will happen in the future.
If you set parameters for people playing a game, you can "know" what possible outcomes there could be. Tom might win or Debra might win, depending on the choices they make during the game. Is this somehow "foreknowledge"? Would I be considered God because ahead of time I had already thought of every possible outcome? "Well Tom might win, or it could be Debra. And the winner is.... Debra! Hah! I am omniscient!". Personally, that's not what I would call omniscience. And even if I was able to see every particle moving in the universe and could make prediction based upon its current movement and the vast majority were coming out as I expected, I still wouldn't call that 'being able to see the future'.
Knowing the future with absolute certainty means there is no free will. If I had known there was no chance for Tom to win, then I would have known the future, not just one possible future. That means Tom had no chance, he had no free will to change the outcome of that set in stone future, all he could do was lose. In fact, there was really no point in him playing at all if his loss was guaranteed. But if Tom did have, even the slightest chance of changing that future, then I wouldn't know for sure who was going to win and Tom would be enjoying free will, regardless of whether one of my imagined possible futures had him losing.
I disagree that we are talking about knowledge of the future. That is an arbitrary constraint that is not supportable through evidence. Omniscience would be knowledge of all possible futures.
The future is not part of objective reality; the future does not exist. The future is not constrained by the linear existence of the past. All possible futures may be predetermined but only one will come into existence as the past. Free will provides the ability to select a future and take direct action to bring that selected future into existence as the past. Free will is a choice to actively create a specific past. Exercising free will is an act of creation.
Exercising free will does not require knowledge. What is required is action to create. Knowledge is not a prerequisite condition for free will. An omniscient God would be passive. IMO the more important question is whether or not an omniscience God possesses free will. And a God that possesses free will does not need to be omniscient.
This, seems to me, is incredibly obvious yet no matter how many times it is explained (in various ways) some will find a way to distort the scenario. Stated facts are ignored, unstated facts are inserted, fallacious logic is introduced, etc.
I certainly understand how someone can insist that we all have free will. It certainly seems as though we do ... almost impossible to accept that we might not actually have free will.
But to not understand that free will is impossible IF the future is knowable? To not even comprehend the hypothetical is very strange because it happens all the time.
Then you are changing the scenario. It is as though we were playing a game of chess and you state that you disagree with the rule that pawns cannot move backwards. If you are going to change the scenario then why are you talking to me?
And also knowledge of the actual future that will occur. Right? Just knowing all that could occur is very different from knowledge of what will occur. Right?
Good. So you recognize that knowing the future means knowing the one that will come into existence (as the present and then the past).
Yes. I have stated that in this article too.
Who said it did?
Who said it was?
The behavior of every inanimate particle in the universe is predetermined. Inanimate particles do not possess free will so cannot alter their future. The material universe has no need for a God; the future of stone is written in stone. The end of the material universe was established with its creation.
Free will excludes the possibility of the future, so it is impossible to know the future. Choice is an act of creating a specific past by selecting from all possible futures.
From your example of the game, omniscience would be knowledge of all possible choices and actions taken during the game that would result in a large number of possible futures.. It is the action of the players that selects a future from all possible futures. And the future selected by those choices and actions that comes into existence to be added to the linear past does not alter knowledge of all possible futures.
Knowledge of all possible futures doesn't influence which future comes into existence and become the past. Intervention is necessary for a specific future to come into existence and become the past.
It follows that knowledge of all provides knowledge of one of all. But that knowledge is not deterministic; knowledge alone does not select which of all will become the one.
So, according to you, it's the number of possible futures known that makes one omniscient? If I only know the two outcomes of Tom wins or Debra wins, then I'm not omniscient, but if I know the millions of variations of those two possible outcomes, perhaps the one where Tom picks his nose and gets a booger on the card which makes it stick when shuffling thereby throwing off the chances of Debra winning, that would make me "omniscient"? Is it just sheer volume of possible variations of futures that makes "God" omniscient?
No, but it also means you don't really know which future will, for a certainty, come about which means you're not omniscient. If you knew exactly which future would occur, meaning there was only one possible future, then you would be omniscient and we would have no free will. Accepting that God doesn't know exactly what will happen but just knows the trillions upon trillions of possible outcomes, or futures, means God is not omniscient, just really, really smart, and it would also mean we do have free will.
Now, even though I believe we have what we would call "free will", I recognize it is limited by the options available. I could proclaim I'm choosing to jump to the moon, but since I have to obey the laws of physics, that's not really an option for many logistical reasons. So humans may have 'unlimited' potential, but we do not have 'unlimited' free will. Our "free will" is limited to what is humanly possible, which with our brains is almost unlimited, and I believe eventually humanity will open up a whole new world of options and possible ways to explore our universe, but we're all still slaves to physics.
Given you continue to argue the strawman of knowledge determines action there is no point in my responding to you. Apparently I cannot make it sufficiently clear that I have never claimed that knowledge effects action.
A mechanism functions in a predetermined manner. The mechanism is inanimate and cannot intervene in its function. Time is denoted by the sequence of predetermined events that the inanimate mechanism cannot alter. The sun always rises; the sun is inanimate and cannot intervene in its own future. For the sun there is only one future and knowledge of that one future would be unremarkable.
We know a clock will perform a predetermined sequence of events until it stops. The predetermined sequence of events denotes the passage of time. With sufficient knowledge we know how the mechanism will wear and eventually fail. We know how long the clock will operate. We know the future in exquisite detail because we know the predetermined sequence of events that the clock cannot change. Omniscience in a material universe would be unremarkable. What purpose would such knowledge serve?
Efforts are underway to build robots with the capability for independent action. But will the robot be allowed to arbitrarily choose whether or not to perform an assigned task? Will a robot be allowed to choose which task to perform? Will a robot be allowed to freely intervene in selecting its own future to create a specific past?
The human is constrained by the predetermined function of the material universe. What happens if that constraint is removed?
Consider that the exercise of free will is an attempt to free oneself from the imposed deterministic constraints of the material universe. Free will makes God (or any spiritual belief for that matter) a choice to select a specific future outside and beyond the imposed constraints of existence.
A Godless universe would be meaningless. Without the choice to select a future beyond existence, life becomes nothing more than watching a clock on the mantel.
if god was just an alien genetic engineer? yes.
if god was all knowing... why even speculate on what will happen if we eat from the tree of life? should he not already know we will do it? we already did tree of life = DNA
now that we are genetic engineers? we have eaten from the tree of life man has become like god and one day might very well live forever
did we not genetically engineer / give life to the killer bee? of course we did. we are "killer humans" just as broken as the killer bee. every animal on this planet other than the killer bee is more humane than humans. in that respect, we have lots in common with the killer bee.
god is also not a singular being. notice the words...
he probably was the lead genetic scientist/farmer and we are just his crop, but regardless... he was talking to his peers when he said "like one of us"
and back then, anyone who came from the stars above would have been considered magical on every count. and like men would have. they probably perpetuated that idea on purpose.
You stated in comment 1.1.3 , "If God is defined as omniscient then free will is impossible because omniscience cannot happen unless the future is knowable (and thus predetermined)."
My counter argument is that free will allows choosing a future; therefore, omniscience would be knowledge of all possible futures.
I am not arguing that knowledge determines action, that is your argument in the cited comment. What I am stating is that knowledge and action are two separate things. Whether or not actions are predetermined is a question of free will and not a question of knowledge.
Knowledge without action does not involve free will; therefore, omniscience does not indicate whether or not there is free will. The logic of your cited comment is flawed.
I find it interesting how the front of the book says,
and the back of the book says
didja know rapture = harvest? how many times does the book refer to us as a crop? lots.
"be fruitful and multiply" ring any bells here?
perhaps it is...
believe in god and we can live forever - in his belly?
yes, I am a christian/heretic
good fun
in the "garden... LOL
not sure about god, but I eat everything I grow in my garden.
as it is above, so shall it be below. means, as it is here, it must be the same up there.
their politics must be crazy as fuk... LOL
cheers
So the question becomes, "Are we a mechanism? Are we robots that will only react in predetermined ways?".
If the answer is yes, then we have no free will as mechanisms can only do what they were designed for. If the answer is "No", then why bother ranting about mechanisms when trying to refute the incongruity of a God being able to see an absolutely certain future where everyone's actions are predetermined and claiming that is somehow "free will".
If it is able to arbitrarily choose to perform a task or not, then it has free will and is no longer just a robot or a machine but a reasoning self aware entity.
Total horseshit. If you have to invent an invisible omniscient being to find meaning in this universe, I feel rather sad for you.
"To select a future beyond existence"? More nonsense. Inventing a completely unproven afterlife to give the actual current life you're living now meaning is even sadder than waiting on an invisible sky wizard to give your life meaning. Those who choose to cling to such fairy tales simply because they make children feel good are intellectually lazy and have already become the robotic clock on the mantle moving it's arms to keep time because it imagines it has a designer that programed it to do so.
Yes. Hopefully you read the rest of the comment too. Do you understand that I am talking about free will being dependent upon a non-knowable future?
That does not mean anything unless said knowledge also includes knowledge of what actions will actually take place. Be clear Nerm. Does this knowledge include what will take place too?
Must I literally quote every time I have told you that I am not making that argument? You are inserting this concept into my words. That is not what I wrote and that is not what I meant. Read what I wrote more carefully. Take into consideration what I have been writing to you directly. I cannot make you understand, you have to try to do so on your own.
An apple and a thunder storm are two separate things. Nobody has stated that knowledge and action are the same. Hello?
If the future is knowable then free will is impossible. If it is possible to know that you will choose to make strawman arguments on this point then when you do make the strawman argument it is not an act of free will. If it is possible to know that you will do X then you will do X. No free will; you are just part of a deterministic future. However, if you do have a choice then it cannot be possible to know you will do X until the instant you choose to do so.
Apparently you cannot get past the knowledge effects action strawman. Maybe someone else can explain this to you.
Without free will knowledge of the future is a nonsensical idea. If actions are predetermined then all knowledge would be of the past when the determination was established. Without free will we are all controlled by an immutable past. All knowledge was established when the material universe came into existence and began functioning. Time is only a sequence of events determined in the past. In a deterministic universe Is there really a future?
That means atheism is a feature of the mechanism and not a result of rational skepticism. Atheism is not a choice when the sequence of events has been determined in the past. Without free will, whoever or whatever created the universe also created atheists and theists. Both are merely performing their predetermined sequence of events which cannot change the past; therefore, cannot change the future. In a deterministic universe atheists won't change one thing because the past has already been written and the past has already determined the future.
In a deterministic universe without free will, atheism would be a joke based upon the ironic juxtaposition of rational skepticism in a predetermined existence.
No the inability to find meaning beyond the universe is what is sad. Every living thing dies, we know our fate with certainty. Death is an objective truth in the material universe. Finding meaning in this universe is really a waste of time. Why bother?
The alternative is that we are born to simply die. The objective truth of death cannot be denied with reason, only rationalization. Claiming that we will live on through descendants or memory or history isn't any more rational than belief in an afterlife.
If one (presumably god) has knowledge of the one future that absolutely will come to pass, then other possible futures are irrelevant and there is no free will, as it is impossible to make any choice that will cause a deviation from the one absolute certain future. Every "choice" made will lead to the one certain future.
God isnt "one", it is all.
I don't agree that we can assign human attributes and thoughts to God. The fact that God may know the future does not even slightly hamper human free will. What God knows is contained in a supernatural realm, and God's knowledge does NOT effect your power to choose.
PROVE me wrong. And don't use human logic.
How can Christians say that they possibly have free will when their bible says that their god has a plan for their lives?
Lmao good response
It does not matter if God knows the future or not. What matters is if the future is knowable . If God exists and is omniscient that would mean that the future is knowable . Further, it does not matter if any entity knows the future. Even if no entity knows the future, there is no free will if the future is knowable .
And ... if the future is knowable then what will happen - in the future - is knowable before it actually happens .
If it is possible to know what you will do before you even know you will do it, how do you find that to be free will?
What is Gordy supposed to do, use penguin logic?
So you don't think the attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence typically associated with God does not actually apply to god? Interesting. If those attributes, especially omniscience, does not apply to god, then its feasible to say we have free will. God won't know a specific future or outcome or the actual choices we will make to get there. But if God does know the exact future and the exact choices we make ahead of time, then there is no free will because we are incapable of choosing anything different that what God already kows with absolute certainty. And if God is contained within a supernatural realm, then God is utterly irrelevant and pointless as well as useless, as the supernatural cannot by definition interact with the natural realm.
And yes, I will use logic. What's the point otherwise?
I think that including God into this discussion confuses people because free will is supposedly granted by God so no logic will ever get past the faith barrier.
In this topic there really is no need to include God. I just focus on the question: is the future knowable? If so then free will is impossible. If not, then free will is possible.
Funny thing though, even when I explain this without any reference whatsoever to God, the response invariably puts God right back into the topic.
What is the alternative to human logic?
It seems that logic is a problem for you because you are steadfastly determined to believe the Bible, even if it means that you must publically oppose logical thought to do so.
No fair using logic.
What have we regressed to when logic is now considered to be insulting and a violation of religious belief. Maybe a Republican will suggest that all logic books at the public library are 18 and over, so patrons must have a photo ID to present before a librarian will permit them to access that area.
This is a new one for me.
John is far from being an evangelical and a religious conservative, but when his beliefs are questioned he is no less determined to protect his religious belief then they are, even if it comes to publically rejecting logic.
This is why the separation of church and state should be absolute because religious belief at its core teaches adherents to reject logical thought in order to continue their belief. Secular law is also inferior to religious belief in their minds.
But that is an oversimplification. If God demands that people adopt a certain course of action then the future was determined when God made the demands. All knowledge of the future was established in the past when God made the demands. However, if God warns of the consequences of not adhering to God's demands then it follows that the future has not been predetermined. There are other possible futures. And God has demonstrated knowledge of the possible choices and how those choices influence possible futures.
God's warning of consequences and punishment is evidence that humans possess free will and that human free will can establish many possible futures. The need for a warning or for punishment also indicates that God does not have direct authority over human free will; God may be omniscient (since He has knowledge of consequences) but is not omnipotent.
Free will is the power of creation. Free will is a God-like quality. Even God cannot prevent the exercise of free will. The awesome power of free will transforms a possible future into an unchangeable past. The future depends upon the choices we make. That, too, is a recurring theme throughout the Bible.
I plan to make a cup of coffee tomorrow morning but I acknowledge that I could change my mind between now and then and maybe make tea or have neither. Is that not an expression of presence of free will?
Yes, it does indeed appear as though you have free will. It seems to me that I have free will too.
However, if it is possible for some entity to know (as in 100% certainty; truth) that you will make a cup of coffee tomorrow then that is what is going to happen (because the future is known -determined- before it happens).
Either the future is knowable (and thus what is known is what will happen)
-or-
The future is not knowable (and thus the future is created at every moment of time)
If the future is knowable, free will is at the best an illusion.
If the future is not knowable, free will is possible.
I know, right? What a cheater I am, LOL
but logical.
Yes.
But god already knows the future. He knows the exact outcome. There can be no deviation from that. Therefore, the future is predetermined.
But god knows precisely which choices will be made and which future will occur. If god knows the that, then it is immutable.
You have demonstrated a paradox regarding god: God allows "choices" as evidenced by a system of reward or punishment. But god also knows what "choices" (good and bad) will be made in advance. So it's not really a choice at all, but rather predetermined. It's like the old paradox of whether god can create a rock so big that he can't lift it (or something to that effect).
Then the conclusion is we mere mortals do not have free will.
There are probably many theists out there whom might disagree with that assertion. Omnipotence is probably the attribute most closely identified with god.
Then that puts a limit on god. So god really isn't "God." Maybe he's more akin to Q from Star Trek: TNG?
But god also knows ALL Choices and the EXACT future those choices leads to. So the choices are already set in stone in advance. Unless god is not omniscient. Or perhaps there is no god at all so we actually do make our own choices through free will.
That's true enough. For whatever reason the atheist feels capable of holding forth on what an infinitely omnipotent God would be capable of knowing concerning the future, as if they possessed the quality themselves. We barely have a grasp of what time actually is. Who knows what time looks like to God?
I made no claim of what a ‘god’ might know. In fact I have been making a point that does not require even the mention of a god.
‘Is the future knowable?’ is the operative question.
See @1.1.9 for one of many examples.
In actuality, it does, since the subject addresses atheist viewpoints concerning God. Your attempt at leaving God out of it is nothing more than a declaration that, on the subject of knowing the future and how it concerns free will, only what you and/or science can fathom is possible. What I said in 1.1.61, in other words. In reality, you're only stating that you don't understand how it could be different than how you see it.
As to whether or not the future is knowable, it demonstrably is. We know the Sun will eventually die, for instance. That we don't know the particulars doesn't really change what we know will happen. Now if we limited, finite human beings can know such a future, even in such a limited way, what prevents an omnipotent God from knowing it omnipotently? Further, because I, who am in Napoleon's future knows what he did in the past obviously doesn't negate that Napoleon had free will to make the choices he did. My knowing doesn't affect that. And I am just a linear existence trapped within the flow of time. How can anyone say what would be impossible for an entity such as God who is nether limited or trapped within a linear timeframe?
Or, to put it more simply, how can you claim God cannot both know the future and allow free will without knowing exactly what God is capable of or experience existence in the manner that he does? Do you know everything there is to know about time? Do you know what living outside the bounds of time would mean or look like?
My intent at making the argument without God is to avoid unnecessary complication. There is no need to have any entity that actually knows the future for free will to be impossible. Even if there are no omniscient entities, free will is impossible IF the future is knowable. A knowable future is all that is required for free will to be rendered impossible.
In reality you are dead wrong here. The question of an omniscient God vs. free will can be broken into two parts:
I have explicitly addressed the first item in an attempt to mitigate confused rebuttals about God such as 'God sees time differently'. If God is not part of the argument, then it really does not matter how God sees time. All the God baggage is deferred by addressing 1 independent of 2.
So, as I noted, you are simply wrong. I understand exactly what I am doing and, indeed, know my own intent quite a bit better than you.
You wrote this:
An absurd fabrication. Agnostic atheists in general are not convinced there is a god. Thus before any analysis can be rendered on what a particular god might know, the god-claiming theist needs to define said god. At that point, the agnostic atheist could analyze the presented definition and opine on what this god might know (based on how it was defined). So if a theist defines god as 'omniscient' and does not include any specific qualifications, the agnostic atheist would likely interpret that (based on the meaning of the word) to mean that said god knows everything that has, does and will happen for all entities in the universe.
Importantly, given your implied allegation of certainty, the agnostic atheist logically would not claim to KNOW this since the agnostic atheist is operating off of a definition provided by the theist. There is nothing to KNOW other than what the definition implies. Nobody KNOWS what the character Darth Vader was thinking when he turned to the Dark Side. Nobody KNOWS if Lord Voldemort felt that he could defeat Professor Dumbledore in single combat. You get the drift. Put yourself in the position of an agnostic atheist (if you can). You (as an agnostic atheist) consider all gods (up to this point) to be fictional characters. Now are you really going to think you KNOW what a character of fiction is thinking?
I'm not like you guys who repeat the same things hundreds if not (over time) thousands of times.
God is a supernatural being. It's knowledge of the future is not transferable literally to the human sphere. God knowing the future is not a hindrance, at all, to human free will. They are on different planes.
I don't expect any atheist to agree with me, but I'm not going to go back and forth about it 20 times either.
Given the context in which I have used the phrase ‘future is knowable’ you must realize that I am talking about knowing everything about the future. Claiming that our ability to predict some future events is proof that the future is knowable changes the meaning of the phrase.
So, no, the future is not demonstrably knowable. The very best we can do is demonstrate that in some rare (relatively) circumstances we can make good predictions about future events.
It entirely changes the meaning of what I wrote. If you think that is what I meant then substituting your revised meaning in my arguments would cause them to be incoherent. Changing the meaning of phrases and words is a horrible way to engage one in discussion.
First, this has nothing to do with my current argument since I am not arguing that God (as you might define the term) is omnipotent. Second, even if human beings had a remarkable ability to actually know some aspects of the future (e.g. we could know that a person in a lab experiment is going to move her finger before she realizes that she is about to do so) that means absolutely nothing about the ability of the grandest possible entity. For example, the fact that most human beings can do rudimentary arithmetic in our heads says absolutely nothing about what a god might be able to compute.
Correct. The fact that the past is committed and is clearly knowable has zero impact on free will. That, by the way, is why I use the phrase: “knowable future”.
Again, I am not making an argument about God at this point. Further, who has claimed that it is impossible for God to be omniscient? This is an argument from ignorance on a straw man.
As noted, that is not the claim I am making. But here is the logic (which you will likely ignore given I have already explained this multiple times in just this article).
If the future is knowable (and, by the way, that means the entire future everywhere for everyone and everything) then a future action (e.g. you making yourself a cup of coffee @ 10:05am tomorrow) is known before it actually occurs. If it is possible to know your specific coffee actions then when you make your coffee at 10:05am tomorrow you will not be doing so of free will. If you truly had free will then you could, at 10:05am tomorrow, have an orange juice instead. And that means that it was not knowable that you would make coffee. That means that the future is created by present actions and cannot be known until it actually occurs.
No, irrelevant and no, irrelevant. My argument (the one I actually made) illustrates how a knowable future contradicts free will (and vice-versa).
If the future is knowable then it is deterministic. The actions that will take place are a result of the complex, collective cause & effect of all things. ( Imagine a very complex mathematical equation that -albeit insanely complex- can be solved. ) In a deterministic reality, free will is an illusion since the actions we take were knowable (calculable) before we even knew we would take them. We are, if this is true, just cogs in a vast complex deterministic machine; like actors in a film (and if so, your concept of God watching the film backwards and forwards could apply).
If the future is not knowable then it is non-deterministic. There is no master equation. Every action (every choice) occurs by means that cannot be calculated. In other words, free will exists.
Free will cannot exist if the future is knowable. But the illusion of free will can exist under any circumstances.
By definition or do you have supporting evidence for this? 'God' might be existence itself.
Again, are you providing a claim by definition or do you know this somehow? If so, how do you know this?
A claim that needs a supporting argument.
I didn't say I reject logic and I didn't say that using logic was "not fair". That is Gordy and Tig putting words in my mouth.
If God is an all powerful being, it can know the future without canceling out human free will.
Your words on a piece of paper or computer screen don't change that. I think the problem you atheists make is that you believe you can explain everything through "logic". The existence of God is beyond logic, according to you, now you want to use logic to limit God's capabilities.
If God existed entirely within nature I would agree that it's manifestations would have to conform to "logic". But by definition God is SUPER natural, or outside the constraints of nature.
I just don't think this so called problem of free will is really a problem at all.
If you knew God existed and you knew God knows the future you would still have free will, because it is in your nature as a human being.
How can God know what you will do before you do it and you still have the ability to do something else (making God's knowledge incorrect)? You are merely declaring without a supporting argument.
That is basically stating magic. Exactly as I pegged it before. Your 'argument' nets down to 'God can do anything and that includes doing something that is a logical contradiction'. This, if nothing else, illustrates the absurdity of faith: the willingness to abandon all reasoning to hold onto a faith based belief.
Sure, just ignore the problem and claim that God can do anything.
That sure seems like 'no fair using logic' to me. What else could that mean? Is Gordy supposed to use 'godly logic'?
Then you establish a limit on God's abilities. Many believe that God created everything and knows exactly how everything plays out from that moment. If that is the case, then everything is predetermined and there is no fee will. It would make no difference then if God is supernatural or not.
I contend the logic is flawed. You stated: "If one (presumably god) has knowledge of the one future that absolutely will come to pass, then other possible futures are irrelevant and there is no free will, as it is impossible to make any choice that will cause a deviation from the one absolute certain future. Every "choice" made will lead to the one certain future."
Even human knowledge of which possible future will emerge into existence improves as the future approaches existence. We can observe that in traffic on highways. Knowledge of the future does not obviate free will. Humans continue to exercise free will to select a future until the future emerges into existence. The future is only the possible future that has come into existence as the past. Free will directs action to select a future; therefore, free will determines which future comes into existence.
Where it is impossible to exercise free will, the future is predetermined. We can observe distant objects in space on a collision course but we cannot take any action to alter that predetermined future. We can be aware of that predetermined future well in advance of the event that brings the future into existence. But it isn't knowledge that predetermined the future. Knowledge is passive.
If God selected a future sequence of events that cannot be altered then there isn't any need for warnings or punishment. There would be no need for a Bible. Belief or disbelief in God would be irrelevant. We would be living inside a clock on the mantel as part of the mechanism, performing predetermined functions in a predetermined sequence. Knowledge would have no value beyond entertainment since nothing could be changed.
According to the Bible God did not allow choice. Choice originated with Adam and Eve; exercising free will was the original sin. God could not prevent the exercise of free will; God could only punish the exercise of free will contrary to God's predetermined plan.
The Biblical story of Adam and Eve refutes that postulate. The Biblical story of Noah refutes that postulate. The Biblical story of Exodus refutes that postulate.
John, in 1.1.45 you said this,
What other form of logic is there that is applicable in this situation other than human logic? That is a rejection of logic. I am not saying that you can do it because you certainly can.
If God knows the future then the future is determined. The fact that you are not aware that the future has been determined is irrelevant. At this point, you only have the appearance of free will. The future is already set and you will make that choice because of your god's power and foreknowledge. If you can pick another choice then your god is neither omnipotent or omniscient and the future is undetermined.
Hardly.
You forget this is a supposedly omniscient god we're talking about. Said god would have knowledge of all the choices made and the exact future that comes to pass with absolute certainty. That means the course of time and events is set and certain. From our mortal perspective, we only think we have a choice. But even our choices was seen and determined well in advance.
Seriously? You do not see that a pre-determined future necessitates the lack of free will so no other future can be possible than what is already determined?
(Certain) Knowledge of the future only shows what will happen. Therefore, there is no action or choice we can make which will lead to a different future.
I already pointed out that particular contradiction.
There's really no need for one now.
I already said belief or disbelief is irrelevant regardless.
Now you're starting to get it.
God already knew what that "choice" would be, even before he created Adam & Eve (according to biblical myth). So they never really had a choice to begin with. They were destined to choose as they did. That's not free will.
The key word there is "story," as in that is all they are: stories written by ancient men. And no, those stories refute nothing. God already knows how these stories will play out, from the characters in those stories, what choices they make, to the events and ending of the stories itself.
Then one cannot claim that god intervenes on behalf of people, answers prayers, performs miracles, or anything else believers think god does. But if god supposedly created the universe (per some religious beliefs), including time and space, then that also includes all events over the course of time itself. God created everything already knowing how events play out, including what choices everyone makes. Therefore, we are going right along with how god established things from the beginning, with no possibility of changing it in even the slightest. Therefore, there is no0 true free will.
What does being an atheist have to do with anything? I'm discussing this from a purely logical position. Belief is irrelevant.
If everything is predetermined:
Morality is objective, unchangeable, and inviolate. Evolution is nonsense; everything progresses according to predetermined sequence. Subjectivity and individuality are meaningless; the existence of everything was predetermined. Since God is the creator who made the rules and determined the future, then God is the only authority for what transpires as God's plan unfolds.
Of course that is contrary to what is actually contained in the Bible. But I can understand why atheist want to interpret the Bible in this manner since no effort is required to justify atheism. It's a slacker argument that allows an easy first assumption there is no God. The fundamental argument is actually an assumption that isn't rational or logical because it ignores the available evidence.
Stories contain knowledge and knowledge is evidence.
The Bible is not the only collection of stories from antiquity. And the Bible is not the only source for many of the stories contained in the Bible. The knowledge contained in the stories is supported by many sources other than the Bible.
Read the Bible. Humans are the anti-God. Humanity is the Biblical Satan. Whatever God can create, humanity can destroy. God established morality, humanity established immorality. God made paradise, humanity made hell. The battle between good and evil is a battle between God and humans. The Bible is not the only source from antiquity that conveys that knowledge.
Atheists would be well served by viewing humanity with the same skepticism with which they view God. The knowledge is self evident; even stone age goat herders possessed that knowledge and conveyed that knowledge forward to today with stories.
We do; the human authors of the Bible, for example, are treated with proper skepticism. Until evidenced as divine, the Bible is -by default- merely a book written by (many) ancient men. A skeptic does not presume the Bible (or any other 'holy' book divine); a book with the outrageously grand claim of divinity must be proven so.
That is actually funny. Presupposing the grandest possible sentience with infinite powers who created everything and is the answer to all unanswered questions might be the best example of a slacker argument.
A vastly superior argument does not presuppose outrageous claims but rather uses premises that are well-founded and verifiable. For example, the premise that the universe exists, that existence cannot emerge from non-existence (by definition of the words), that living creatures have common patterns in their DNA, etc.
Starting with the answer to all unanswered questions as the premise is the epitome of an unsound argument.
Why? Even science searches for first cause. Everything we observe was not then was. The earth has not always been; the earth was not then was. That is true of everything we observe in the universe. People of antiquity did not have technology, they only had the rational mind. Through reason alone, people of antiquity understood that our reality was not then was.
But all those superior arguments are still premised on first cause, too. Evolution is premised upon the idea that all living things descended from a first living thing as first cause. Technology is only a crutch for the slacker mind that is skeptical of rational thought and demands confirmation for reasoned arguments.
First cause results in all we see. In a predetermined existence it would not be too difficult to trace back through the past to find first cause; the only requirement is to obtain knowledge of the past. However, the presence of free will makes that task nearly impossible. Free will allows arbitrary manipulation of predetermined conditions to select a future that will come into existence.
When tracing back through the past to first cause has been confounded by the presence of free will, a viable alternative is to begin with first cause and move forward through time using philosophic reason. Philosophy is not science and does not present knowledge in a scientific manner. Philosophy conveys knowledge with allegory and stories. Those who are skeptical of rational thought attempt to confirm reason by analyzing the details of the allegory. However, the details are not where the knowledge resides.
Because of the presupposition that I just described.
Not a sentient first cause. We know existence IS (direct evidence). We can logically infer that it has always BEEN (existence cannot, by definition, emerge from non-existence) and will always BE (if existence 'evaporated' then given infinite time it would have already been gone).
There is no evidence indicating that the first cause must be sentient.
This 'answer' paragraph has nothing, it would seem, to do with what you quoted. I wrote of the soundness (lack thereof) of an argument that inserts the generic answer to all unanswered questions as the founding presupposition.
Sentience begets sentience. The presence of self determination and free will really does provide evidence for a sentient first cause. There is no evidence that suggests sentience will arise from inanimate matter that lacks the ability to intervene in a predetermined existence.
Spontaneous emergence of life, sentience, and free will is the 'then a miracle occurred' argument. The argument that a sentient being created sentience in the material universe using itself as a model is actually more rational. There is more evidence for a sentient first cause than for a miracle of spontaneous emergence from inanimate matter.
I reject your posit given your post shows that you mean: 'sentience only begets sentience'.
There is no evidence that suggests the grandest, most complex possible entity simply exists. So, as I stated:
Your claim is unevidenced. I have not claimed that we necessarily evolved undirected. But I am not persuaded to leap to the notion of the grandest possible entity when science continues to illustrate how natural forces evolve complex forms (e.g. everything from nebulae to the eye).
That argument has not been made. But, unless you are not paying attention, science continues to provide explanations that are reducing the size of the 'miracle'.
That argument just kicks the can. You explain the existence of the known universe by positing the existence of an entity that is profoundly more complex than the universe and simply declare that it has always existed. And you think this has supporting reason and evidence??
Deliver this evidence of a sentient first cause. (Give me a break Nerm. Nobody in history has ever come close to providing such evidence and you claim to have it.)
With that, there goes the idea of having free will. God made a plan, and we can't do anything top alter that plan in the least. I have heard people often say things go according to "god's plan" or "god has a plan for somebody." That is the antithesis of free will. If one is going to argue we have free will, then they must logically acknowledge that god may not be omniscient or that his "plan" is malleable, or perhaps more likely there simply isn't a god to begin with.
The bible is just a collection of stories written by ancient men. It's otherwise meaningless in the context of logical analysis regarding free will.
Not interpretation, but rather logical analysis.
There is no evidence for any god so such an assumption is valid. Not to mention the logical contradictions of said god and bible. But when one starts with an assumption of god as an explanation for anything not known or understood, now that's slacking!
So stories of Greek mythology is evidence Zeus actually existed? Or the harry Potter stories is evidence Voldemort existed? Is that what you're trying to say?
But again, they're mostly just stories. It's a big leap to go from a story about god to an affirmation that there is a god.
And yet, we were supposedly created by god in his image. What's that say about god?
See previous statement.
So god is not infallible then.
That's nice. Prove it!
We do. Atheist question the credibility and validity of biblical authors and their works with much deserved skepticism. Atheists do not simply accept such religious/biblical claims as valid and without question. Atheists often require actual evidence.
First cause of what? Science doesn't simply insert "god did it" as an explanation just because it doesn't know something. That would be an intellectually lazy way of explaining things. Slacking if you will.
But it's a baseless assumption and intellectually lazy to assume god is the first cause.
Sentience is the product of neurological evolution and development.
There is also no evidence that sentience arose from a sentient "first cause."
No, that is simply a flawed argument starting with an assumption.
Only if you can actually prove such a sentient being actually exists.
Such as? I'm sure the scientific community would be most interested in that "evidence" too.
But...what about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?
That you must observe something to know about it-- but the very act of observing it influences it:
To know the velocity of a quark we must measure it, and to measure it, we are forced to affect it.
(Actually when it comes to the Uncertainty Principle...well, let's just say I'm not entirely sure about it
The Biblical story of the first humans directly contradicts that assertion. There are too many instances of humans choosing to act contrary to God's desires that refute any claim of Biblical support for the assertion that humans do not possess free will. Since the Bible directly contradicts the assertion that humans lack free will, what other source of knowledge supports that assertion?
By making assumptions that bolster predetermined conclusions. Attempting to p-hack the Bible to salvage '"then a miracle occurred'" theories derived from speculative stories is not rational..
The universe (which is the sum total of our knowledge of existence) was not then was. A sentient being responsible for emergence of the universe was while the universe was not. In Biblical terms, there was God before there was the universe. Have humans observed any thing from before there was the universe?
Did the universe emerge into existence from nothing? Prove the universe was something before the universe existed. Without evidence of prior existence, any explanation would just be stories.
The same Bible also illustrates an omniscient God who is surprised when His creatures behave in manners that go against his will. Omniscience and 'surprise' or even 'disappointment' do not mix. The Bible, if anything, is a wealth of contradictions. Indeed the Bible makes a great case that God is not omniscient.
You know this how?
Based on the meaning of the word 'nothing' that is impossible, so no. Science holds that the universe likely emerged from a something (singularity) with a net zero energy state.
That does not make sense. The singularity would be the universe in primordial form. It would be in existence. Again, something from literal nothing defies the concept of nothing. That said, science does not know anything about the nature of the singularity earlier than 10−43 seconds. So in this (the Planck Epoch) science does not know (and neither do you).
So what is your story? God did it? Without evidence of God any explanation using God would just be stories.
And yet the Bible is replete with instances of humans acting contrary to God's desires; humans exercising free will. Perhaps Merriam-Webster is not the best authority on the attributes of God.
First cause must be present before all that follows first cause. The universe was not and then was. God, as first cause, was before the universe was.
What evidence supports that assertion? Deductive reasoning is insufficient to overcome skepticism. Proof is needed. According to the standards employed by atheists, we should adopt an agnostic lack of belief concerning any stories about what may have preceded the universe. For agnostics and atheists logic, alone, is not enough; they require proof.
BTW, that's why agnostic and atheist skepticism is not rational (because proof is required, reason alone is insufficient).
Works as well as any other story about the source of the universe, creation, origin of life, beginning of humanity (which more than just human biology), and free will. And the God idea is accessible to more people than the ideas of string theory, multiverses, or quintessential existence. Biblical stories are more entertaining than a book on theoretical physics.
Ideas are knowledge, too. The knowledge contained in philosophic ideas is more important than the factual details. As we have observed recently in human affairs, facts do not provide clarity or understanding. Facts are used as a means of destroying ideas and knowledge rather than as a means of providing new ideas and knowledge. After all, atheists use facts to refute the details of the Bible to foster disbelief rather than to better understand the philosophic ideas presented in the Bible.
In the case of God, facts really don't matter. It's the idea that is important.
You just quoted me making that very point:
You did not even read what you quoted??
That does not answer how you know that God is the first cause. And that is what I asked you. @1.1.84 you stated: "A sentient being responsible for emergence of the universe was while the universe was not. " so I asked how you know a sentient being is the cause of the known universe. In response you state that God was the first cause. I grow tired of parsing nonsense Nerm. If you are just going to play games I am not interested.
Which assertion? Be specific. I cannot see what you are looking to be evidenced:
This is by definition. Science labels the primordial universe as a singularity.
This is by definition of the word nothing. Something does not emerge from literal nothing. The singularity was something.
This is science admitting that known physics breaks down at times earlier than 10−43 seconds.
Proof for what? What does the agnostic atheist assert that requires evidence, much less proof?
Except that you have zero evidence of your answer. I can assert the above are all the result of magic. I have as much evidence for my claim as you have for yours. Futher, your answer requires the most complex, powerful sentient entity to be in existence. All that complexity simply exists without a cause. To answer a question (the origin of the universe) you pose God which raises an even more profound question. All you are doing is kicking the can down the road and then pretending that there is no can.
No, I only reiterated what you were responding to. So, I was 'quoting' myself, if a restatement of my original comment can be considered a quote.
Its a matter of faith since we cannot observe beyond the first moment of the universe's existence. There are many rational arguments for a sentient being that was before the universe was. First cause is first cause. The universe as we know it was not and then was. We could just accept that a miracle occurred and the universe popped into existence. But that would not be a rational conclusion based on observation of objective reality.
When you start a sentence with "And yet ..." that indicates a rebuttal. Your 'rebuttal' was to paraphrase the point in the quote (from me) that you delivered as the context quote. You 'rebutted' by paraphrasing the point I had just made.
Not really much of an answer to say 'I believe X to be true even though I have no evidence to support my belief'.
And each one is flawed as an argument for the proposition that God exists.
A flat Earth is a flat Earth. A unicorn is a unicorn. Water is wet.
We do agree on that. Just like a rain cloud was not and then ... all of a sudden ... it is raining. Like a star was not (just a bunch of gas) and then upon gradual accretion it exists and serves to guide the formation of a solar system.
As some accept that the grandest possible sentient entity exists and popped it into existence. Not rational either because there is no evidence of such an entity.
Best, in my opinion, is to not invent an answer but rather to state: 'we do not know'. That is what science does regarding anything prior to the first 10-43 seconds of the origin of our universe.
You do not have enough information for that to be workable so what you are really doing is trying to restrict the conversation to human perception of time and free will. By attempting to leave God out of it, you're stating that human perception is the only one that counts. So far, you haven't come close to proving this.
The problem is that you have no way to prove 1. You are simply assuming your position based on your limited perceptions. Because you cannot imagine a way the future can be knowable and still have free will doesn't mean it cannot be. Look at what you say...
All you are doing here is trying to exclude God from the discussion and restrict it to human perception. But God, and what He is capable of, is the whole point. To use an analogy, you seem like a citizen of Flatland holding forth on how a three dimensional world would be impossible. You have know knowledge or experience of being omnipotent and omniscient so how can you say what isn't possible?
I'm afraid this makes no sense to me. All that is necessary is that it is claimed that God knows the future.
My point was that even limited creatures such as ourselves know the future to some extent. As I pointed out, the future is demonstrably knowable for human beings. The closer the future, the more accurately we can predict it. But we are neither omniscient or omnipotent and that if this is so, how much more would an omniscient, omnipotent God know of the future?
And? I'm not trying to make your argument for you. I'm countering with my own.
Yes, I know. You don't want God in the discussion at all. But that isn't my argument and my argument is what I am talking about. Sorry.
I wouldn't think many would agree with you if they thought about it. It is claimed that we are made in God's image, or at the least, God created us. If so, I would think it would suggest quite a lot about such an "entity." One would think our existence, our capabilities and the astoundingly stable environment in which we find ourselves would suggest quite a lot about the computational capabilities of God. It certainly makes me think that if I can compute X in my mind, God must be capable of quite a bit more. Further, if I am capable of learning about and comprehending existence, how much more could God? The very fact that I can think at least puts me in the position to wonder what God might be capable of. That certainly tells me something about God's mind, even though I can never really comprehend it fully.
Again, the fact that you're not doesn't mean I won't. I am most definitely making an argument about God.
I don't know. It wasn't me. I simply asked how can anyone say what would be impossible for an entity such as God who is nether limited or trapped within a linear timeframe? It seems the straw man is yours.
I know this. You are speaking without considering God at all. I am not. You don't seem to realize this or you wouldn't keep saying things like this.
This is where your argument fails, as far as I am concerned. There is nothing in this example that knowing I will drink coffee instead of juice means that I must drink that coffee. Consider two statements you have made...
You are trying to have it both ways. It is clearly possible for me to know what decision Napoleon made at a given time, so by my knowing, 2. means that Napoleon had no free will in the choice he made at the given time. But 1. refutes that.
But my knowing what Napoleon would choose clearly doesn't mean he had no choice but the course of action that he took. It simply means I know which he took. It's no different with the coffee. If you claim that I have to drink the coffee because you know I will then you also have to say that Napoleon had to make the "choice" he did and there really was no free will involved. In other words, there is no free will and everything is purely deterministic in it's most literal sense. You and I are not conversing, we're just a program running to some unknown conclusion.
I disagree. I see why you think so, but I don't think it's any different than knowing the past. For your view to be correct, existence is simply deterministic, even if we're only talking about the past and for the reasons I just gave. I think God knowing the future does not destroy free will. I think the only way for that to happen is if God told me I would drink coffee at 10:05 tomorrow and I was unable to do anything else even though I tried. I think where you get confused is that God knowing means his knowing makes it happen. If that's so, my knowing made Napoleon do what he did. This is why I think consideration of how God sees, experiences and interacts with time is important to the discussion. We don't really know what it's like for Him so how can we say what His knowing would mean? As I said earlier, I don't think you have enough information to make the claims that you do. Admittedly, I have no proof of my claims either, but I don't see any logical contradiction between God's omniscience and free will.
It continually amazes me how otherwise intelligent folk fall for ancient mythology and superstition.
Worshipping imaginary, theocratic beings is completely alien to my way of thinking. As a scientist, I believe in the scientific method. Faith in religion plays no part in my reality.
Sure I do.
This not difficult to understand. If the future is knowable that means what will happen in the future is knowable before it happens. This does not require that it be known; only knowable. A knowable future is one in which events that will happen in the future can be known before they occur.
It would be more impressive if you identified a flaw in my logic rather than simply claim that, in effect, there might be a way to have a knowable future and still have free will and that the flaw is that I cannot imagine this way. Show me the actual way in which this is possible.
God is not required to realize that a knowable future precludes free will. If there is no God but the future is knowable (even if nobody has the actual knowledge) then free will is impossible. No need for God. Nothing sinister.
It does not matter what a god might be able to do. A knowable future is all that is needed to preclude free will. You keep trying to force God into this. I suspect you are doing this so that you can claim that my flaw is pretending to know what an omniscient being could do. God is not part of my argument so I reject your attempts to insert God so as to have a divine loophole.
Not sure one can be more clear than to provide numerous examples. The problem, I suspect, is evidenced in your forcing God into the equation again. Note that I am not claiming that God knows the future. It is entirely irrelevant to my argument. Not sure I can be more direct than that. Stop trying to change my argument by wedging God into it and maybe it will make more sense to you.
Yeah, I know. I directly answered that. Not going to repeat a perfectly sound answer.
Just make your argument then. Give me an argument that shows how free will is possible with a knowable future.
So what is the point of all this? It is absurd to rebut an argument by changing the argument (in your case, inserting God) and rebutting the change.
An argument founded on a religious belief. A house of cards Drakk.
So now you are trying to rebut my argument ...
You simply are not following and this is clear by your grammar. It does not matter if anyone actually knows that you will drink coffee instead of juice. It only matters that your choice for coffee is knowable.
Ponder the word knowable (seriously). This is what you are not considering. Knowable = able to be known (does not mean it is actually known). Now, what would have to be true for a future event to be knowable? Just think about it.
I really do not know how this confuses you so. You recognize that the past is knowable. You recognize that knowing what was done in the past (after the fact) has no bearing whatsoever on the choices made in the past. All good. What you seem unable or unwilling to recognize is that a knowable past is very different from a knowable future. I do not know why this confuses you. Honestly, not sure what even to write at this point. Seems to me that it is obvious that our knowing the past will not change it. It should be equally obvious that if it was possible to actually know what a person will do before they do it, that they will indeed do this thing.
Don't know what to tell you Drakk. This seems obvious.
Existence is deterministic if the future is knowable. Existence does not have to be deterministic for the past to be knowable.
I already have. Like you...
Where? Give me a quote. I just re-read your posts and I see no place where you demonstrate how free will is possible with a knowable future.
But where do you demonstrate (not declare) how it is possible for free will to exist if the future is knowable?
If the future is knowable that means what will happen in the future is knowable before it happens.
So, given a knowable future, it is possible to know in the present that you will make coffee at 10:05am in the future.
Again, just because God knows all doesn’t mean that he coerces anyone into making a choice they would not otherwise have made. Gods wish is for all to chose to follow him and be saved. That doesn’t mean all will make that choice. In fact, the vast majority of Humanity will not.
For now....
God doesn't need to coerce anyone. God already knows what people will choose. Those choices are known in advance and set in stone.
There is no such thing as choice if there's an omniscient god.
All the points you made are good ones and are correct in my opinion.
Again, XX, omniscience has nothing to do with forcing a choice.
Where do you see me anywhere stating that omniscience means coercing choices? Give me a quote.
NOTE: you will never find that quote. But you will find multiple quotes where I have already corrected the presumption you just expressed. What does that tell you?
Key word in there is "story."
If that is the case, then god cannot be omniscient.
What assumptions would those be? It's mainly theists who make assumptions like "god did it."
Claims of miracles is irrational to begin with.
That's nice. Prove it! That is an example of an irrational assumption.
See previous statement.
The universe emerged from the Big Bang.
No explanation is possible and should not be provided. The honest answer would be "no one knows." But "god did it" is not an explanation. It's a failure to explain and is just a story in itself.
The disconnect here is amazing. Any ideas on why some cannot grasp the idea that free will necessarily means the future is NOT knowable?
Since you clearly get it, the following is directed as those who do not:
Free will typically means that sentient entities (notably human beings) are able to take actions that -at that moment- determine what is possible in the next moment (the immediate future). Each choice enables future choices and disables others. With free will, the future unfolds moment by moment, instant by instant.
For example, if you choose to buy the last carton of milk in a store, that choice has a direct effect. Another customer now no longer has the option to purchase a carton of milk from the store. That option has been eliminated (disabled). The customer who would have bought the milk will now choose something else (e.g. choose to go to another store). Your choice has a direct effect on the choices of others. And all the choices are highly interrelated. The future (the very next moment in time) cannot be known until it is known what choices all sentient entities have made in the present moment. (It also depends on all the natural events such as the weather.)
Thus, given free will, how is it possible to know the future? If a human can freely choose, then the information necessary to compute the future is not known until the human makes the choice and the exact conditions of the environment when that choice is made. Free will means the future cannot be knowable.
And the reverse is true. If the future is knowable (which would be an incomprehensibly complex thing to determine), free will is impossible. A knowable future means the choices that will be made are known prior to making them. In a knowable future, it is possible to know that you will buy the last carton of milk in a store. If that is knowable then you will indeed buy that milk. To not buy that milk means the future really was not knowable. To wit, unless all future choices are pre-determined, it is not possible for the future to be knowable.
Free will and a knowable future are mutually exclusive.
Why is this so difficult to understand? Why is this translated into: 'knowing the future forces specific choices'?
Note, that another misunderstanding is to look at time in a linear fashion and pretend an agent is able to observe all that happens across time while being outside of time. This, of course, is a godlike capability. This, some hold, explains how a god could know a future wherein the agents have free will.
The problem with this, of course, is that it overlooks the fact that being able to 'see' the future means that the choices have already been made. It is like the god can scan ahead in the movie of reality to see what will take place in the future. But note that no matter how often one looks backward and forward through a movie, the actors make the same choices. A more accurate analogy is each time the god scans ahead, the movie is different. The concept of a god seeing all of time from a time-independent perspective is confused; it does not factor in free will changing the very next moment of the future. What the god 'sees' is constantly changing. With free will, not even a god can know the future.
No doubt the rebuttal to this, by some, will be: 'just because you cannot imagine how God could see the future with free will does not mean it is impossible'. And that, Gordy, is the essence of why I oft note that faith disables critical thinking. There is no way to reason with those who will leap to: 'anything is possible with God and if something does not make sense, that is due to your human limitations'. Just as well for us to cast aside our reasoning faculties at that point and accept essentially anything.
None of us know what God knows or knows the true measure of his power beyond our limited perceptions. God gave all his creations intelligent beings free will. We obey and love him out of choice, not because he compels or coerces it.
Case in point.
Then why do the fundamentalists always pretend they know what God thinks and wants? And you claim there is no coercion - while worshipping something you claim will torture you for eternity if you don't worship. That's the very definition of coercion.
Wow, you still don't get it! Coercion is irrelevant and has nothing to do with whether there's free will or not. If God (presumably) knows everything, then there can be no free will. But it's funny that you claim we can't know what God knows (and by logical extension we can't know what God does or wants), but you "know" god gave us free will? The cognitive and logical disconnect is astounding.
Disconnect is an understatement. Both from logic and reality.
If your god is such a powerful god and he wanted me to believe in him don't you think that I would believe in him? There are only 2 possible scenarios here. Your god either does not exist or he exists and he doesn't care if I believe in him or not. Either way I don't claim to have all the answers. What i do know is that anybody who claims to have all the answers, especially if he's offering you eternal life after death and/or asking you for money, is lying to you.
You have free will to believe or not. It is all up to you.
Only if there is no god or god is not omniscient.
Nope. If there is no God, you have free will. If there is a God, you still have free will.
I don't purport to know what God knows, do you? If you don't know what God knows, then you might have a weak argument against Him knowing all.
See my post 1.1.17 above.
Are you suggesting that god is not all knowing or omniscient? I thought knowing all (as in everything) was one of the attributes associated with god? I have also said that if god does not truly know all (and is therefore not omniscient), then that opens up the possibility that free will exists.
You have free will. I have free will. Belief in God doesn't change any of that.
That is just an empty claim with nothing to back it up. I already explained why there is or is not any free will. And yes, belief does not change that. Belief is entirely irrelevant to the concept of free will.
Impasse.
I have free will to believe in unicorns or Zeus, as well. However, I require evidence before I believe in fantastic claims of supernatural beings.
Not only that, notice how the logical contradiction of free will and an omniscient god is either completely misunderstood or ignored, regardless of belief.
They pick and choose the parts of the Bible that they agree with, just as they always have.
They ignore 99% of Leviticus. Jesus is only useful on Christmas and Easter because they ignore the vast majority of his teachings.
funny thing... jesus taught people to ignore leviticus and the like.
----------- let he who is without sin cast the first stone -----------------
jesus did not support mankind punishing men in the name of god as leviticus would suggest.
that was his big NEW idea and that prompted this notion.
the young are always the first to embrace change. a new church was born with a new idea.
why is leviticus still in the bible? christians did not write the bible. catholics did. and though they say they are christian? I call bs. the catholic church wants money, jesus never did. the catholic church is true evil. the followers are misled.
Protestants use the King James Bible, that still has Leviticus in it.
How many Televangelists and mega-churches are Catholic?
Free will is independent of the existence of a god.
They even ignore at least that much of the Gospels which are supposed to contain the actual words and teachings of Jesus. It's like they created a religion, named it after someone and then discarded everything about him. Wait, it's not "like" that at all.....it's exactly that.
The Bible is only useful to many because in its 1200 plus pages there are a lot of ideas to pick and choose from when you need to defend your illogical or anti-social behavior and hide your actions behind the religious protections of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause.
A moral person does not need the bible to tell them how to live and conduct themselves. The golden rule is not a difficult concept to understand.
I have often wondered why some people need to go to church and Bible study all of their lives. If you have not learned and embraced the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Bible by the time you are 16 then it is highly doubtful that you ever will.
It may be highly cynical of me but the idea that some churches instruct believers that they need to attend church 2-3times a week only suggest to me that religion is brainwashing and those events are needed to refresh those ideas so they people do not start to think on their own or begin to question what illogical claims that they have embraced as being true.
I'm sure these ideas that I have expressed are quite heretical to others and I expect to be flamed for it. I am not trying to be insulting but theistic religion to me is bizarre and utterly illogical.
Sure you do. I don't believe anyone here is suggesting otherwise. Some people of faith have looked at the evidence and decided that there IS a God, as is their right.
Their decisions don't impact yours regarding God, and vice-versa.
Well, duh.
That is what I just stated and you quoted.
Sometimes arguing for the sake of arguing (like now) is simply not too smart, because it makes folks repeat stuff that they are actually in agreement with.
But what if that person is an elected official..particularly one who holds a high office?
Does that means he is actually lying?
(Or is it merely "a negotiating tactic'?)
So, I agreed with you (and in no way "quoted" anything you wrote--might want to look up what "quoting" means) and your graceless response is "well, duh"? Al least we can say that you never break character.
Yet, today's fundamentalist "Christian" is not NT based but OT. You put the words in the Gospels in front of them and they nearly stroke out in a rage.
Getting a lot of use of that lately, eh Tex? Is it helping?
Ok, show us the evidence for a god then! Atheists generally like evidence. The requirement of evidence, especially for outrageous claims like a god, is a logical and intellectual position to take.
That quote proves that your converted "atheist" is a phony. Atheists do not ascribe to the idea that the universe is "meaningless." This is just another one of your periodic attempts to put up some patently bogus and pathetic attempt to attack rational people. You'd think if you really had faith it wouldn't matter what atheists thought or even if there are atheists. We scare the shit out of you for some reason and my guess is that it undermines your faith somehow and you don't know any other way to handle it. I'd suggest you do some self-reflection on why your faith is so weak.
We scare the shit out of you for some reason and my guess is that it undermines your faith somehow and you don't know any other way to handle it. I'd suggest you do some self-reflection on why your faith is so weak.
Exactly!
That's a really excellent point.
If someone was 100% sure of their views, they would have no need to spend a lot of time and effort trying to convince others of their views. Its only those that have doubts that are obsessed with convincing other people.(The more people they can convince, the more they feel that their views are correct).
"steal ethics from the christian world view?" An explanation is warranted.
"Morally wrong to take your neighbor's farm by force." Yeah well, tell that to the Banks.
Banks take what is owed, and only through the law.
In theory.
Sometimes they do illegal stuff...but often (although not always) certain bank Officials end up going to jail.
Sometime they do nasty things to people...
(Channeling my inner AOC )
Never met a banker who would rather become a realtor instead of just collecting the payments due on loans.
Did you get that out of a "Dick and Jane" story book?
Maybe. I have to put it in terms you can understand, right?
it is not morally wrong to collect a debt.
it is morally wrong to steal.
after the left figures out that difference, we might let them run our country again.
What has been stolen from you by Democrats?
It appears to be courage.
Your idea is as good as mine.
I assumed that he was referring to paying taxes and the fact that other people have equal secular and religious rights which is an inconvenient situation when he desires to act without limits.
Individual freedom, religious liberty, some property rights, some gun rights, access to capital, life for the preborn, human dignity.
What individual freedoms have been taken from you or anyone else?
When has anyone lost religious liberty (the right to believe in god and the right to worship) as guaranteed in the First Amendment? Your religious rights are not a weapon to be used against people that you disagree with, just because of the First Amendment's protections. The fact that Jesus told instructed to act opposite thet you do is more proof that they are not sincere relgious beliefs, but an attempt to abuse the First Amendment's protections.
What property rights have been infringed?
When have your gun rights been infringed?
How have you lost acess to capital?
Who has been forced to have an abortion against their will? A fetus is a parstsite and as such a had no rights until it is living separately from the mother's body. This has been explained to you many times but still, you ignore reality.
When has your human dignity been infringed?
None. It's all just hyperbole and/or paranoia.
He will possibly claim that paying taxes is a violation of his rights, as well as not being permitted to use his religious beliefs as a weapon to treat others as second class citizens.
Doesn't he already claim that in some form or another?
Be afraid XX51 !
Be wery afraid!
because if word get out that you believe in god-- and worse yet protelytze such on a public forum such as NT-- the government Thought Police will come to take you away!
Don't believe me? Ask Alex Jones...and he wouldn't lie!
(OMG-- what's that knock on yer door -- quick-- hide under the bed! The Libruls are coming to take your religion away!!!)
There are some here who would do it in a heartbeat 💗 if only they could....
I applaud your generosity of spirit but disagree with your premise.
I'm not sure that I am following where this is going. I feel that I should say I am sorry for whatever I said.
Are you referring to us nasty amoral secular progressives?
No, he's just projecting. The fact is, XX would like to turn the country into a Christian version of Afghanistan under the Taliban.
Or...to the IRS!
(Fourth Amendment prohibition vs, arbitrary search and seizures...)
And rampant asset forfeiture abuse.
Yet another individual trying to redefine atheism (lack of belief due to insufficient convincing evidence).
Sarah’s are better.
Her steps are contrived. This is the kind of cynical twisting that a non-atheist would devise to spin atheism into a belief system.
Everyone is born as a clean slate ready to learn things. God (in various forms) is taught to young minds. Thus a person cannot make the assumption of no God unless God is first taught. So step 0. is: 'Teach a person about God'. If a person is exposed to the concept of a god and finds the claim of an existing god to be unconvincing they are an atheist. If not, they are a theist (or possibly a deist).
No way to know what she means by 'Christian morality', but morality (including that adopted by Christians) appears to evolve and is, demonstrably, culturally dependent. If Sarah is stating that Christian morality is that which is in the Bible then she has not read the Bible.
This seems to be following the silly notion that atheists are mad at God and equivalent.
The exact opposite of following the evidence to where it leads. It is Christians (et. al.) who proclaim self-evidence; typically this is done when attempting to promote faith as a strength rather than a fault of reasoning.
Atheists, in my experience, do not find the universe (existence in general) to be without meaning. I suppose if one is uncomfortable with the very likely scenario that we have but one life (this one) and that we all fade into the greater existence from which we came then religion is a great method for bringing (false) comfort.
She used to be what so many here are and is now like a relative few here are.
Interesting rebuttal: 'Sarah is a theist but she claims to have been an atheist'.
I found a presentation by Sarah where she engages in an elaborate contortion to try to reconcile Genesis with science. Here is one of her pages which describes what 'God' meant each time he used the term 'day' (hint: God likes to change the meaning of the word with no warnings).
For comparison, here is how the Bible describes creation :
The human mind is demonstrably capable of rationalizing anything we wish to believe. Her presentation is yet another example of this phenomenon.
So, XX, are ya buyin' this stuff?
Sarah's are phonier than a $3 bill.
She either was never one or never really understood what it meant. But I'm going with she's a shill.
I'm with you, going for the former
[Removed]
[Removed]
I believe in the Bible version in six/ seven literal days whenever it happened. I also believe the core and foundations of the earth in Gen. 1:1 could be literally billions of years old. I also believe that from the time Adam and Eve sinned and humanity was expelled from Eden was around 6,000 years or so ago.
Ah, the old the atheist that converts to Christianity was never really a real atheist in the first place defense.
I've never met a Christian who was raised as an atheist but then later chose to become a Christian. I've met several Christians who went through a "phase" where they rebelled against their parents and peers for a few months or even years, claimed to be an atheist, but then went crawling back because they didn't like being ridiculed, excluded and discriminated against by family and friends. Some are still atheists, they just go through the motions of being a Christian simply to avoid the vitriol that gets directed at them if they dare speak their minds among the faithful.
You are unaware that the Mesopotamia civilization is older than 10,000 years? Or do you dismiss that as pseudo-science along with biochemical evolution?
It’s very easy to find converts from atheism to Christianity.
There are plenty notable examples
Nicole Cliffe: How God Messed Up My Happy Atheist Life
Author Lee Strobel
Dr Paul Lim
From Marxist Atheist to Christians and a Scientist
Actor Anthony Hopkins
Sir Anthony Hopkins Reveals his Journey From Atheist to Believer in God
I never expected to become someone who believed in God.
I grew up as an atheist; my goal in life was to find objective truths through science. I specialized in math and physics in high school, and later completed a Bachelor’s Degree in Applied Physics.
Dr Francis Collins, Head of National Institutes of Health(appointed by Obama), former Director of Human Genome Project, Atheist to Christian
I can understand how an irreligious person (who technically would be an atheist) could 'find Jesus'. But for someone to seriously consider the question of a creator of the known universe, realize that there is absolutely nothing to back up the speculation and then somehow later on accept as truth that which is written in an ancient book which, due to biblical scholarship, is known to be not only errant but full of fabrication?
Very strange. Unlikely IMO.
Acknowledging and accepting a divine creator is a result of objective reason and a rational conclusion to the evidence. It is the ONLY rational and reasoned conclusion to answer the order of the universe and especially the Earth (which we obviously know far more about on a scientific and anecdotal basis)
The atheist denies God and states this order is due to randomness, even though sciencestates it’s statistically impossible to duplicate this order.
The Earth’s Relationship to the Sun Is Favorable to Life:
Earth orbits the sun within a tight “habitable zone” that is highly statistically unlikely for a planet. If Earth were very slightly more distant from—or slightly closer to—the sun, a stable water cycle would be impossible. Also, small changes in the orbital tilt of our planet, or minor variations in the tilt of Earth’s axis, would disallow our climate. The length of rotation matters, too. If Earth had a slower one, our days would be too hot and our nights too cool to support life; shorter, and the wind speeds would be too extreme.
If the radius of the Earth’s orbit were changed by ± 5% animal life would not be possible. The zone for animal life in the solar system is very narrow.
The Earth’s Atmospheric Conditions Are Favorable to Life:
The surface gravity of Earth is critical to its ability to retain an atmosphere friendly to life. If Earth’s gravity were stronger, our atmosphere would contain too much methane and ammonia. If our planet’s gravity were weaker, Earth wouldn’t be able to retain enough water. As it is, Earth’s atmosphere has a finely calibrated ratio of oxygen to nitrogen—just enough carbon dioxide and adequate water vapor levels to promote advanced life, allow photosynthesis (without an excessive greenhouse effect), and to allow for sufficient rainfall.
Anthropic Constant 1 – Oxygen Level: On earth the oxygen level is 21% and makes life possible if it was 25% fires would erupt spontaneously. If it was at 15% we would suffocate.
The Earth’s Terrestrial Nature Is Favorable to Life:
Earth’s crust thickness must lie within a particular range in order to support life. A thicker crust would negatively impact the quantity of oxygen in our atmosphere; a thinner crust would result in excessive volcanic activity and unstable tectonic plates. In fact, Earth’s crust allows limited seismic activity, resulting in nutrient recycling and carbon dioxide release without destroying all life on the planet. The nutrient and mineral concentrations of Earth’s crust also fall within life-permitting ranges.
The Earth’s Relationship to the Moon Is Favorable to Life:
While other planets have an orbiting moon; ours is critical to our existence. Our large Moon is just the right size to stabilize Earth’s orbit and rotation, limiting the variations in our climate and temperature. Without a large moon, the axis of our planet would likely have wobbled dramatically—perhaps by as much as 90 degrees. The role of the Moon cannot be underestimated. Astronomer Donald Brownlee and paleontologist Peter Ward write, “Without the Moon there would be no moonbeams, no month, no lunacy, no Apollo program, less poetry, and a world where every night was dark and gloomy. Without the Moon it is also likely that no birds, redwoods, whales, trilobite, or other advanced life would ever grace the earth.”
The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.3 Earth is the only known planet equipped with an atmosphere of the right mixture of gases to sustain plant, animal and human life.
If Jupiter was not in its current orbit the earth would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter’s is literally the solar system’s vacuum cleaner that attracts asteroid and comets that might otherwise collide with earth.
If the universe had expanded at a rate one millionth more slowly than it did expansion would have stopped and the universe would have collapsed on itself before any stars had formed. If it had expanded faster than no galaxies would have formed.
as to the Bible, what sets it apart is its lack of error or fabrication. Translations can contain errors or poor word selection. But attempts to demonstrate error always are found wanting when examined in the original languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
You insert as an answer to the order and origin of the universe the act of a sentient supernatural entity which is infinitely more complex and entirely unevidenced. Not only do you label that answer rational and reasoned but you deem it the ONLY such answer.
LFOD raises his hand and delivers the answer to the most profound question that has eluded humankind for its entire existence: magic.
The atheist does not deny the possibility of a sentient creator of the known universe (except for the fringe - the gnostic atheists).
The probability that our particular universe would emerge as a result of undirected dynamics is staggeringly low. Guess what, the probability of any particular universe resulting from these dynamics is staggeringly low. But the probability that these undirected dynamics would result in some universe is 100%. One of the many possible universes was going to happen. And if the dynamics were slightly different maybe some other exotic form of sentient entity would be arguing that the universe was created just for them.
Stated differently. The probability that your purchased ticket will be the winning ticket in a national lottery is staggeringly low. But the probability that there is a winning ticket is 100%
What objective evidence are you basing your rational conclusions that a divine religious creator exists?
Once again we return to the idea that you have not put forth any objective evidence that the universe and earth are the results of actions by a sentient religious deity.
Corrected free of charge.
You and your wishful thinking.
Atheism clearly is a belief system.
Do more than simply declare; back up your words. Make an argument.
Explain the belief system of an individual who is not convinced a god exists but is willing to consider evidence.
How exactly is logic a belief system?
Explain this "belief system" then! What do atheist actually "believe?" Or are you just making another pointless declaration?
Little doubt that it is the latter.
More like no doubt.
I believe in the Bible version in six/ seven literal days whenever it happened. I also believe the core and foundations of the earth in Gen. 1:1 could be literally billions of years old. I also believe that from the time Adam and Eve sinned and humanity was expelled from Eden was around 6,000 years or so ago.
Implicit in the use of the word "believe" is the notion that you think its probably true-- but aren't 100% sure.
Think about this. If someone is 100% certain the earth is round, what do they say? They say:
The earth is round.
or
I know the Earth is round.
If they're not 100% certain, what don't they say? They don't say:
I believe the earth is round.
Hear the difference in that way of phrasing it? By saying "I believe" the earth is round, a person is communicating that its a belief-- they think its probably true-- but are open to the possibility it may not be. (That's the nature of beliefs).
And if there are any "Earth Shape Agnostics" in the studio audience tonight, don't give me none of that nonsense about about how is not really round because its actually an "oblate spheroid"....
Sheesh!
So now you are questioning her personal character and calling her a phony because she swapped views somewhat like yours for views closer to mine?
So was it 6 or 7 and literal as in 24 hr. days? Light was created on the first "day" and every "day's" creation ends with "and there was evening and morning" but it wasn't until the 4th day until the sun, stars and moon were created in order "to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness." There'd already been something called "evening and morning" for 3 days so what did that mean if not periods of light and darkness? Can you explain what you believe?
It took you a long time to remember to shoot that rubber arrow. It's that attempt to reduce atheism to your level as just another "belief." It's funny that you don't see that it bounces back on you.
Her ideas/beliefs on how she became a Christian are very questionable, especially considering her academic achievements. There is more to this story then we currently know.
Atheists don't seem to be too reticent to define faith in whatever way suits them.
What is your definition of religious faith, if you believe that it is being wrongly defined by non-believers?
For one thing, you just love to claim that people of faith believe something based on no evidence. That is incorrect.
What information do you have the supports the claim that a sentient religious creator does exist? The Bible is a unsupported claim and not a proof. Your religious belief that the Bible is true is also logically unsupported.
You saying that is incorrect, does not make it so.
They do believe in something based on no evidence.
What definition of faith should atheists use?
Typically the word 'evidence' is diluted in meaning to be 'anything that I personally find to suggest the existence of God'. If one uses that as their meaning for 'evidence' then the existence of Earth and its many wonders (biological and not) and/or the awesomeness of the known universe is considered evidence of God.
Atheists, in contrast, typically use evidence in a more formal sense (typically as a short-hand for scientific evidence).
Bingo!
So what is this "evidence," especially for a god?
I guess logic eludes you.
We've been over this a million times (that's a scientifically accurate figure btw).
The word "evidence" is not limited to the scientific method.
There is more than one way to reason a thing out.
Not everything lends itself to investigation via the scientific method. It may well be that most things don't. Certainly. God does not.
So . . . stop demanding it!
I would say you use it in a more limited sense than it is typically used so that you can go around claiming "there's no evidence." Basically, you're changing the definition of a word so you can use it against people. it's either dishonest or ignorant. I try to give the benefit of the doubt, so I'll explain.
Relevant evidence is anything - an object, a measurement, a testimony, an observation, etc. - that tends to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
You can have opinions about what evidence is more useful or valuable compared to some other evidence, but you don't get to just change the meaning of words and say "there is no evidence" just because you don't like the evidence or you disagree with the conclusion someone draws from it.
In other words, you don't have to believe what I believe, but don't tell me there's "no evidence."
The scientific method is the best means of obtaining objective, empirically valid evidence. Testimonials and such are subjective and anecdotal which can be more prone to error and can lack validity or credibility. Mere belief falls in that category and is not credible evidence. Neither does belief equal fact. So until there is objective, empirical evidence, then there is "no (real) evidence!
That doesn't make it useful for every inquiry. In fact, it severely limits its application.
Then you have invented your own definition of what evidence is and you are doing it to confirm your own beliefs. But like I have said elsewhere: believe what you like.
The scientific method I'd the most useful and reliable means of aquiring evidence. Anything else is like settling for less. And I did not make up any definition. Perhaps if you understood the difference between subjective and objective evidence, you would understand objective evidence better reduces the chance of confirmation bias.
Making my point!
I stated that (and more) in my post. Why instruct me on what I just stated?: ↴
Seems like clear language to me.
If someone makes an extraordinary claim, you can bet it will be challenged. If you cannot rise to the challenge and can only supply what is at best weak evidence, then your claim remains unsubstantiated. That should be an indication that maybe the belief is unfounded.
Again, you could just read what I wrote in the post to which you replied:
Yes, when skeptics use the word 'evidence' we almost always are referring to formal evidence (i.e. that which would pass as scientific evidence).
The meaning of 'evidence' relative to religious claims is extremely consistent. When a skeptic asks for evidence you know full well that the evidence asked for is formal evidence (i.e. that which would pass as scientific evidence). There is no change of meaning, no moving the goalposts — it is well known. And if this is news to you then let me be the first to publicly inform you of this fact.
Your whole post is predicated on you pretending to not understand what a skeptic means by 'evidence'. You now know what it means.
So if you read: 'where is the evidence for that claim?' you know that this in particular means: 'where is the formal, scientifically valid evidence for that claim?' And in that sense, there is no evidence for any god. If you disagree, please be the first person in history to deliver the evidence.
Was Tacos correct that I was using the word "evidence" incorrectly? From my perscpetive, he wants to play fast and loose with the definitions to allow himself wiggle room for his religious beliefs and then attempts to call out others for being incorrect when they notice his linguistic and logical sleight of hand.
In my opinion Tacos indeed wants to dilute the meaning of the word ‘evidence’ so that personal claims serve as evidence of God.
That would confuse and negate the existence of the words faith and belief. This tactic of his goes to the heart of what a language is because a language only functions where there are concrete and universally understood definitions of a word. It is impossible to teach, record and transfer information between two people or two cultures when the meanings are malleable depending on what is being discussed or who is speaking.
To state that he is trying to construct a strawman is very obvious.
Is this definition also incorrect? If there is evidence of something that it should be obvious to anyone, regardless of their beliefs. If you have to be a member of a certain religion or sect to accept the evidence that you want to put forth then that isn't evidence but is instead religious belief or faith. You do not want to use other of those words because they lack logical support.
I see no reason why that should be true. That might be what you want, but that doesn't mean it's appropriate to the inquiry. You also don't speak for everyone making the inquiry. You are not the voice of all skeptics.
The fact is your mind is closed to certain types of evidence, apparently because you are aware that opening your mind to other possibilities would change the conversation, and your can't afford to risk your beliefs that way.
And in my opinion, you are both wrong. Also, in my opinion, your minds are closed to other ways of approaching the problem. That's why talking to you guys is so pointless.
I have at least supplied a definition. I think it's a pretty good one.
The main thing you are doing is taking issue with my definition, but mostly through a kind of emotional characterization of that definition.
You have not explained how or why any specific alternative would be more viable and appropriate to the inquiry.
They asked for evidence but you want to put forth religious beliefs and faith and call it evidence. Do you see how your actions are intellectually dishonest? You also destroy your credibility when your evidence cannot be supported when they go to investigate the claim?
The fact that you are acting this way tells me that you know very well that there is no evidence but you also want to cling to your religious ideas, even if it means that you are not completely honest with others.
Your own religion commands you to tell the truth. Are your actions as an example of Christian morality?
That's basically what I said. You clearly are not satisfied with this standard.
Note that the definition sends "tends to." It does not say "proves" without a qualifier. Evidence makes a thing more or less likely to be true. We tend to place higher values on evidence that accomplishes this to a greater degree, but the strength of one piece of evidence does not reduce the value of all other evidence to zero. It is part of human reasoning to take a body of evidence and reach the best conclusion we can. When you close your mind to certain kinds of evidence, you limit the conclusions you can reach.
No, the reverse is true. My belief and faith are based on the evidence.
I'm not trying to sell you on my credibility because I don't think your mind is open enough to bother with worrying about it. Your assessment of my credibility, therefore, doesn't mean much. Frankly, your need to even express it says a lot about why you take part in these conversations. It's not to seek truth. It's to "win" at something.
It's not "my evidence." It's just evidence and I think it's well supported. Believe what you like.
I really can't do anything to this mess but roll my eyes. Wow.
Faith and belief are subjective, unlike evidence which is to be objective. Subjective evidence is an illogical idea. What evidence that all people accept is your beliefs and your faith based on? The Bible is a claim and not evidence.
What "evidence " do you have? Mere belief is not evidence. There's no actual empirical evidence to support the existence of any god. But if you have it, then by all means, present it.
omg it never ends
Where is the evidence of a sentient religious creator existing that you claim to have, instead of trying to play the religious victim card that you are being trolled or that people refuse to accept rational evidence?
Hilarious. But it doesn't change the fact that you lack any substantial or valid evidence to support any claim for a god, beyond little more than wishful thinking.
Faith and belief are not evidence and I would not present them as such. They are conclusions. People reach different conclusions on the same evidence every day. Like I have said. Believe what you will.
That's your opinion. If that's what makes you happy, go with it. I can't stop you nor would I try.
Do you really want that or are you still trying to "win?"
"Conclusions" based on faith or belief are more like best guesses or wishful thinking. Drawing up such a "conclusion" based on nothing more is intellectually lazy at best.
No opinion. Simple fact.
Tacos,
It still boils down to nothing more than "prove it".
The very same arguments time after time.
You won't ever change their minds, and they won't destroy your beliefs.
But don't you know that if you believe in God, then you are irrational and illogical to them?
So what if it's "prove it?" That is a reasonable expectation for any claim made, especially ones made that lack any evidence.
It's not reasonable when no evidence is acceptable to even be considered. Your mind is closed.
How can faith and belief possibility be a conclusion? What cogent arguments support a religious belief or faith?
His mind isn't closed, despite your attempt to portray it as such. Religious beliefs and faith are not objective evidence, so others do not accept belief and faith as evidence. We are logical and as of now, there is no information to empirically support the existence of a sentient religious deity existing. If you have new information then please present it so we can examine it and come to our own conclusions.
In the same way that lack of faith or lack of belief can be a conclusion.
You're hilarious. I'm not trying to "portray" anything. It's simply the conclusion I have reached based on the available evidence. i.e. it's what I believe.
No there isn't. As I have explained to you many times, I can't even imagine what that would look like. Also, I have asked you many times what it would look like and you have never been able to explain it. So, as has been explained to you many times, you should probably stop insisting on inappropriate types of evidence.
You want to put forth ideas stemming from religious belief and faith and still claim that it is evidence.
What evidence did you use to reach your conclusion, presumably that you believe the Abrahamic god exists? Could I use those same faith-based subjective evidence and use to claim that Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, and Thor exist?
Going personal is not an argument. And presuming is usually foolish (as is true in this case).
It is remarkable (not in a good way) that you do not realize that skeptics in general mean ' formal evidence ... typically scientific ' when we use the term ' evidence '. Yes some skeptics might use evidence in a loose, diluted sense as you desire, but it would be surprising since skeptics seek to be convinced and tend to not simply accept as true that which people claim as such.
Pretty much how the word 'skeptic' is defined: " A person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions ."
Make an actual argument then. You are not going to convince anyone of anything by simply complaining about closed minds. Deeming others to be flawed is no substitute for an argument.
But they want to deny the existence of our belief and try to suppress any expression there of.
but they want to stop us and try everyday to do so. It’s almost as if they resent that we are still free to express the beliefs and faith we have.
That’s true and there is nothing that they can say or do to change what we believe or the free expression there of. The difference is that we don’t try to interfere in their expression of disbelief or miso theism.
You keep saying this backward and I keep explaining it and you keep ignoring the explanation. I won't explain it again after this. There is no faith-based evidence. The faith is based on the evidence.
I'm not really trying to.
Gosh, I hope I didn't ruin anyone's day with that revelation.
It's not a complaint. Just an observation. I have said in multiple places that I invite you to believe as you will. You don't owe me or anyone else a certain belief.
That sounds more like your own insecurity talking.
You haven't even presented any evidence. So it's laughable to think I'm closed minded. I'm open to actual evidence. But mere belief is not evidence of anything.
I don't know how many times it has been explained to you.
Oh well.
I get that you can't base evidence on faith, so no, "faith-based evidence" makes no sense. But I believe epistte was intending to say "evidence-based faith".
"Could I use those same evidence-based subjective faith and use to claim that Zeus, Jupiter, Ra, and Thor exist?"
"What evidence did you use to reach your conclusion, presumably that you believe the Abrahamic god exists?"
So what is being rightly asked for is the evidence you base your faith on and how it differs from the "evidence" other people use to base their faith in Vishnu, Allah, Zeus, Odin or any other deity ever believed in by man. You claim it is "faith based on evidence" but continually refuse to provide even a single atom of evidence.
Evidence: noun - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid
Is there an "available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid" when it comes to your belief in the Abrahamic God? If so, I believe that's all Gordy or anyone else has been asking for. The only reason they keep asking is because you've failed to provide any, you're asking them to take your claim of evidence on "faith", which, as we can see, is fraught with conflictions and contradictions.
Oh please Gordy. Spare us all! We have had these conversations so many times. Much evidence has presented in many conversations. This conversation is about how unacceptable all the evidence is to you and these others - mainly because it's not of a certain type. It's also about the idea that faith and belief are based on the willingness to analyze those types of evidence and reach conclusions based on that analysis. It's not about analyzing a specific piece of evidence at this time, but I think you already knew that.
Do what you like, but I don't recommend trying to interpret what other people are intending to say. That's my two cents. Plus, it makes conversations harder to follow.
No, because the evidence is different.
That's simply untrue. I'm just not going to bother with the effort in this particular conversation. We're down enough rabbit holes as it is.
Again, interpreting others is an iffy proposition. And I don't agree anyway.
You haven't even empirically supported in the slightest of the existence in what you believe, much less prove it. The rest of your statement is just paranoid nonsense!
GOD Himself could appear before them, perform some miracle, and they STILL would question His existence and claim that there simply is no evidence.
It is hopeless.
Please post that evidence that you base your faith on.
Thank you. I'm relieved to discover that others understood where that argument was headed.
I am absolutely positive that you believe in god is every cell of your body but relgious belief is subjective and is not emptical evidence. There is a heirachy of knowledge and religious faith and belief are at the bottom.
I do not hate god because I do not hate what doesn't exist.
Then what is the point of posting?
Yet again no thoughtful commentary, no argument, no rebuttal, nothing but derogatory personal comments.
Maybe instead of stating they have evidence of their God in their hearts they could just say "I believe in my God based on that feeling, that something, that, how do you say, je ne sais quoi?".
Why do you conclude that?
There is a massive difference between giving no evidence other than personal claims and empirical evidence of a power that ostensibly created the known universe. I have offered several scenarios for impressive evidence of the creator of the universe in other articles.
Note: no empirical evidence of scientific quality vs. substantial evidence of scientific quality are on opposite sides of the scale.
What evidence? All you've ever presented is personal belief or opinion. As has been explained, that is not actual evidence.
Then you do not understand what constitutes actual valid evidence.
You have yet to present any such evidence.
Evidence should be analyzed. Present it, then we can analyze it. That's how the validity of evidence is determined and how it leads to certain conclusions.
Really? You have been repeatedly asked to present evidence. List it!
There is no evidence period. Just belief and wishful thinking.
Belief does not equal fact. Neither does it establish a solid conclusion. It's highly subjective.
What exactly is your idea of "appropriate" evidence?
And you make this assumption, because...?
And you still don't get it! Oh well.
Because I read what people post here.
Exactly....
I would not oppose that statement because it cannot be questioned by others when a person believes in faith.
How?
I literally said you "refuse to provide even a single atom of evidence" and you claim that's not true but then immediately explain why you refuse to provide a single atom of evidence. "I don't refuse to provide evidence, I'm just not going to bother to provide any evidence because it's too much work"... How is that a reasonable argument?
I only step in and "assume" what someone else is saying when their argument is very apparent but is being deflected by intentionally obtuse refutations that misrepresent their stated argument.
Exactly right. In fact, we see that very thing happen over and over again in scripture. Some people just don't want to believe. Oh well.
Why?
I'm pretty sure there's nothing I could say on any topic that you would not use this line (or similar). You do it a lot.
You're imagining things.
Well you clearly got it wrong with me. I cannot speak for anyone else, but your method of analysis completely failed on this data point.
Psychoanalyzing another member is going personal (e.g. "That sounds more like your own insecurity talking.")
Much better to make a rebuttal on content rather than use ugly tactics such as going personal. That is, if one has an actual rebuttal or argument to offer.
I find that funny. You love to talk about what other people are thinking, what their thought process is, and on and on. It's totally ok for you. But hey, if you think I did something wrong, go right ahead and flag it.
Do you by any remote chance have any value to add to content of the discussion? Or are you going to keep pushing the envelope to see how many times you can get away with personal derogatory comments?
I'd like to see it, if you think that it qualifies as evidence of a sentient religious creator.
Please.
I haven't made any derogatory comments as far as I know, so I don't even know what you're talking about. Like I said, if you have a problem with a comment, I suggest you flag it.
For what purpose?
Agreed. But given nobody in recorded history has formally evidenced a sentient creator (resorting instead to faulty logical arguments) I expect a very weak answer if one is even provided.
For one, it would be somewhat topical. But primarily your bluff is being called. My guess is that you do not even hold a pair in that hand. Show your cards.
I'd like to read them. What else could possibly be done with them except to read them?
I have to wonder why you are so hesitant to share them with others if you are so convinced in your mind that they are evidence of a sentient creator?
That is certainly one way to state the obvious.
I disagree and I have already said why.
Then you are interested for the wrong reason. Like I figured: not worth it.
As I figured, this is a game to you. I'm not interested in playing. If you are ever serious, let me know and I will be happy to talk with you about it personally.
And now your intent also is made clear. If you are ever truly interested in seeking God, I am sure that I and others here would be happy to have a real conversation with you about it. deleted
Your posts were included in what I read.
My comment stands.
BTFW, why ask me about it if you are going to tell me why I did something?
You know quite well that your claims would be picked apart and exposed and you are desperate to save face after your adamant and aggressive replies to the contrary 12 hours ago.
Why did you take part in this debate, especially in the manner that you did, if you knew that you could not or would not show your evidence? Did you think that you would be able to get away without posting your previously claimed evidence of a god?
Your current behavior will not be forgotten the next time you make similar religious claims.
[deleted]
removed for context
I'm honestly impressed at how mad they are that I won't give them the internet entertainment they crave.
Me too.
No actual evidence has been presented. And any "evidence" presented could just as easily be used to prove that Zeus is the god everyone should be worshipping. I don't care what you believe, but stop pretending anyone has presented evidence, because nobody has.
An obvious card hand metaphor taken literally to engage in more deflection.
That is demonstrably false given I routinely engage on this topic with the serious, impersonal and non-emotional intent to expose both sides of the argument — to make full use of the dialectic. There are very few individuals who will engage in a religious discussion / debate for very long. Invariably the exchange devolves into ugly tactics: deflection / meta / feigned obtuseness and more. The reason is because religious exchanges necessarily challenge beliefs. Very few have the ability to check their emotions at the door and very few can directly and honestly address the challenges with something more than ' I just believe '.
Your posts speak for themselves; IMO it is unlikely that you would actually participate in a serious discussion / debate on a religious matter.
And thus you got it wrong when it comes to me. As I noted.
Exactly. As if we care in the slightest bit what secular progressives think of our beliefs and values. The militant among them are not our intended audience. They are just white noise attempting to interfere with believers communicating with people who aren’t closed minded who don’t know the good news yet.
In fact, from that source it actually, by definition, makes it not so.
Some people need to believe in fairy tales.
Oh, but you do and in spades.
From absurd to
What impasse? I see none on the whole thread from beginning 3.3 to 3.3.104. I certainly had none with Tacos. Besides, I thought if an impasse was declared that a reply was not possible with the new feature.
I as the seeder did not flag your post as off topic and thought it fine. It was certainly of value to me.
No, I know. It's fine. But apparently everything I quoted that I was responding to was on-topic. Go figure.
Isn't that the SOP in general for bible thumpers?
Logic, noun: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.
Episette is using the term precisely as defined.
You got that exactly right.
In my opinion, intolerance is the SOP in general for secularist/ atheist thumpers....
Atheists don't seem to be too reticent to define faith in whatever way suits them.
Ditto believers!
Things that never happen seem to be a particular deflection strategy of yours, Tac.
Actually it's the phony faith bit that's so easy to spot. People of real faith don't go around making up stories of fake conversions or getting all sweaty about atheists. They go about their business and don't need to use props or lies of how this or that PROVES they're right. I obviously don't happen to share their faith but I have great respect for people who don't need all these external supports, such as always trying to use government or courts to make it easier to impose their beliefs, or symbols or rituals on others. It's no coincidence that these are almost always the same people who like to put their alleged patriotism on show and I think the same motivation applies---for display purposes only.
Name even ONE law that has been passed that denies your right to worship as you please? We'll wait.
Ignore the meaninglessness of a Godless universe."
I did manage to glean one bit of useful information out of this, good advice.
Again I need no god to give me meaning. I find my own joy in everything I do, no god required. If something goes wrong in my life it's not any magical deities fault. Conversely, if something goes well it's not divine intervention. How are we supposed to take credit for our faults and successes if it's all the whim of a magical entity?
If someone needs a god to have meaning, then that is to be pitied.
Some people think atheists should be pitied. What is the point of being denigrating in this situation?
I've had theists say they pity me for being an atheist. But atheists aren't the ones who need belief in an imaginary friend to find meaning in their lives.
It doesn't need to be about having meaning at all. When you find out greater truths in the universe, it expands on existing meaning. That is a thing to be celebrated.
It's not my place to make them feel bad (like many of them try to do me) but I do pity them for needing the crutch of religion to get them through life.
Like a graviton is both a particle and a wave? In quantum physics duality is truly mind blowing stuff!
I agree we should be celebrating math, mechanics and physics much, much more than we do.
I think I do a pretty good job of celebrating them all.
Which "truths" are you referring to?
Exactly
Why should a person who doesn't believe in god be pitied? I have a lot of joy in my life from learning and the experiences of daily life. That idea that I am only a mindless marionette in a religious deities toy box is both depressing and insulting.
The only theistic god that I could ever believe in is the god of deism because it is the only one that could in any way be logically defensible.
Well then maybe you can tutor the other religious conservatives I've talked to who seem to distrust everyone of them.
I understand. I've met some of those types of people. Likewise there are many people who think that I'm not allowed to be both a person of faith and someone who likes science.
Well that's a given. We have to be taught to believe in things we have zero empirical evidence of.
Why? How are "Christian morals" different than any other religions moral codes or even secular or humanist moral codes? Morality is subjective, and that subject is humanity. What is considered good for humans is considered moral while inflicting pain on humans is considered immoral. Every valid moral law in the bible was preceded by other religions by thousands of years, even the "golden rule" had been in use for at least 3,000 years before the bible was ever written.
You mean the condoning of slavery? The laws telling parents to stone their disobedient children to death? The bizarre laws about not mixing fabrics or not eating pork or shellfish?
If she means proclaiming morality is self evident, how could it be anything but if it was adopted by disparate cultures separated by thousands of miles and even oceans but came to the same conclusions when it comes to morality? "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another" was the law in Egypt going back to at least 2040 BC. "What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others." was an ancient moral code from China and "One who is going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts" was an ancient Yoruba moral code from Africa.
Okay, this is the most hilarious of this woman's ignorant assumptions. Apparently the argument is that unless there is a grand creator who knows us and has a purpose for us, then the universe is "meaningless". What a sad, self centered, pathetic world view. If you're waiting on something else to give your life meaning, then I can only pity you. If someone convinces you that the flying spaghetti monster, or any other deity, has a plan for you and will some day use you to stir his galactic marinara sauce or "exist in it's presence in bliss for eternity", it really only gives comfort to those with monumentally shallow and hollow lives. It gives comfort to those who refuse to accept that everything we know of in this universe dies, even stars and galaxies, but those who aren't mentally capable of accepting this fact take the off ramp to comfy fantasy land where they imagine, with zero evidence, that they will live on forever after our mortal bodies decay. They won the universal lottery and were born, got to live on this planet and experience being self aware, but that's now not enough so they have to invent ways to imagine they live on long after death despite all evidence.
Truly, "ignoring the meaningless of a Godless universe" is exactly what the religious do. They ignore reality because its apparently too painful for them to deal with. They ignore facing their own mortality, they waste their chance to find their own meaning in life by having someone else's meaning forced upon them as youth as they are likely indoctrinated in whatever random religion is most popular in the region they were born. Those who have never actually contemplated a universe without a prime mover have chosen to stay in the shallow end of philosophy because they're often simply too scared to swim out in that deep end, they're not confident in their ability to swim without being able to see the bottom.
So, in your opinion, the meaning of life is death? That'll be fun at parties.
The "meaning of life" can't truly be contemplated without accepting the inevitability of death. By inventing fantasy based on completely unfounded conjecture simply to be "fun at parties" seems incredibly hollow and sad.
Christians lost the moral high ground when they voted for trump. Sorry.
Although I myself am not a Christian, I recognize that there are a great number of true Christians in the US and I do respect them.
However, those who call themselves Christians who voted for Trump knowing about his immoral background regarding his wives, if none other of his immoral acts, which their own God would not condone or approve of in any way, I can not accept them as being true Christians. They are only CINO's who talk the talk, but, who prove by their own actions and words, do not walk the walk, and have no wish to.
While they may fool some of the people around them, they can not fool the one they claim to worship and follow. And that is all that really matters.
MOO
Part of the Christian faith is being able to forgive others.
Should Christians abandon that to please others?
That is up to them to decide, not me.
However, how many times should they be expected to forgive the same person for the same sin, when that person shows no intention of giving up their sinful ways?
Even the Creator can run out of patience with those who show no remorse or desire to redeem themselves of their sins.
But, that is not a question for me to answer, as I am not a Christian and make no claim to be a perfect human in any way.
Fair enough.
I suspect that also would be up to each individual to decide for themselves.
That is a graceful way to respond. Thank you.
Forgiving a Trump who sought us out made much more sense than voting for a wicked witch who called us deplorables
That would depend on why he sought you out. However......I don't think it was to ask for your forgiveness. Asking for forgiveness usually is accompanied by a show of remorse for their sins, and thus, far, by his own actions, Trump has shown no remorse.
But, "to each their own" said the Maid as she kissed the cow.
You are welcome. And it was meant in sincerity.
I know.
I respect people who aren't Christians who don't tell Christians how to act. To me, personally, that is the height of hypocrisy.
I would never dream of telling someone of another faith--no matter that faith--that they are wrong or illogical.
I try hard to not impose my beliefs on anyone, and I see that you do the same.
Cheers!
Cheers! (smile)
Does that apply to wanting certain "Christians" to stop lying about atheism?
Right back atcha re: atheists. XX seems desperate to try to convince or get some kind of admission some kind of admission from us. Are you as well?
You should be much, much more specific.
Which "Christians"?
Which lies?
I've never asked any atheist to do a damn thing.
If you have a problem with what someone ELSE posts, take it up with THEM.
Oh, that ship sailed eons ago for the so-called fundamentalist "Christians" who are really more like unhinged zealots, i.e., our domestic version of the Taliban.
You constantly remind me of Reagan's quote.
What a bizarre question. Who's asking Christians to abandon "forgiveness," which from where I sit most of the public and extreme Christians in this country has voluntarily jettisoned that grace long ago.
There's that Reagan quote coming to mind AGAIN!
So it would seem, therefore, that you are arguing that Trump is not a Christian?
(I agree BTW...)
It may seem that way to you, but nothing I have written should have been construed in such a manner.
It CERTAINLY isn't anything I am arguing.
Any
All
Please spare us yet another example of his dementia. Leave the poor man's memory alone.
I think that may be the first time I think I've seen you use anything close to good judgment.
Wasn't this article and points just seeded by the same person less than a month ago.
No. it’s a new article.
Good enuf
But a boringly old and pointless topic that you keep hacking at futilely. Your obsessive and pitifully crude crusade to try to debunk atheism is definitely pointing to a severe crisis of faith on your part.
You hit that spot on. [deleted]
And yet you reliably appear and comment all over the thing just as you do with similar stories. Guess that means you have a crisis in your own beliefs?
Ah, the classic "no-YOU-are" come back. Brilliant. I guess you didn't notice the couple of dozen other people taking XX apart on this topic. By the way, I don't have religious "beliefs," or "faith," hence the the synonyms for atheist being "non-believer," "rationalist," "free thinker," "rationalist" to name a few. So it's impossible for me to have a "crisis of belief."
Oh but you do. Your beliefs are all over this seed and others. You called religious faith belief in "fairy tales." That's a pretty firm position. That's not a lack of belief.
But you seem to think that people who are interested in the topic and like discussing it must be having a crisis of faith. Well, your standard applies to everyone or it's not a standard and it's just trolling.
Which, as a rationalist and atheist, religious faith to me is by definition belief in things that don't exist...i.e., if not literally fairy tales it's the equivalent. I know believers like to try to drag us down to their level by claiming that non-belief is just another form of belief. The only way they can entertain that thought is that they're incapable of understanding a state of non-belief. It's so beyond their capacity to understand they have to "dumb it down."
This is an assertion you cannot prove. It is a specific declaration of the nature of a thing. Because you cannot prove it, it is a belief. If you were honestly rational about the matter, you would simply say that you cannot confirm that these things exist. That would be a lack of belief. But you have gone further and declared unequivocally that the things do not exist. Belief.
Even atheist Newdow in the Supreme Court case that decided “In God we Trust” is ok as our national motto and on our money argued that that was a violation of Atheists religious beliefs...
Bingo! Atheism in the form of outright denying that God exists is a religious belief system. And it’s based on faith as they have no way to prove that God doesn’t exist anywhere in the entire universe. Some who profess atheism in America are actually misotheists who simply blame God for all that’s gone wrong in their lives and hate him for it.
Atheists who claim with certainty that no god exists are the gnostics — this is a fringe minority. The assertion of the gnostic atheist is unsupportable and irrational. It is not possible to know and/or prove there is no god (as in creator of the known universe) so making the claim is ill-advised. Further, one could indeed make an argument that the gnostic atheist holds a religious belief — certainty that no god exists is a belief akin to the belief that a particular god exists.
In both cases, the individual holds a certain belief that is not supported by the evidence.
Most every atheist is an agnostic atheist — an individual who is not convinced a god exists.
It's always hilarious when believers use this fallacy thinking/hoping to catch non-believers. Proving the absence of something based entirely on faith and that is not subject to testing, direct observation, analysis or any rational or scientific inquiry. The other side of that coin is the absurdity of the idea that the burden is put on people who don't believe when the people who do believe have no way of proving the existence of the things they believe in. IOW, it's a massive attempt to unload their burden onto the other side. No cigar, once again, Tacos.
Since, by definition, the existence of a god cannot be proven it follows that there's no rational pathway to being convinced of that existence short of such a god appearing in material form and presenting itself for testing. So I have a bit of a problem with mixing those two descriptions.
The difference is this:
atheist: Lacks belief in a god.
agnostic atheist: I am not convinced a god exist. Willing to evaluate forthcoming evidence.
gnostic atheist: No god exists; no way I am wrong about this. Nothing could ever show that I am wrong.
Correct.
And there's no way to prove that god does exist either.
Since the existence of God, or gods cannot be proven or disproven, I used to wonder why so many people spend so much time trying to prove that God exists or that God doesn't exist. Why try so hard trying to do the impossible?
And for the most part they aren't even trying to prove it to people who haven't yet made up their mind, but rather mostly trying to prove their views to other people with opposite views-- who are also protelytizing their view to them!
But that was many, many years ago.
(Now I no longer wonder why so many people are like this).
Die hard Atheists trying to convert diehard believers-- diehard believers trying to convince diehard Atheists!
Hard core Laissez-Faire capitalists trying to convert hard core Socialists-- those Socialists trying to convert the Capitalists!
Vegetarians trying to convert meat eaters who are trying to vegetarians...
"Some people need to get a life" (to coin a phrase
It's pretty much always the same article, over and over - just different author and wording. But same idiotic message in the article.
You're probably right katrix. Although I was positive I had seen it before, maybe they're all just blurring together
That's it. XX is obsessed with us atheists and he dumps one of these things on the NT (and who knows how many other sites) at least once a month. He's got real problems.
Many progressive atheists hate it when one of theirs leaves that religious belief system for the saved side...
She’s not the first and won’t be the last atheist to convert to being a believer....and talk about it.
1.) Atheism/agnosticism isn't a belief. It is a lack of belief.
2.) Her thinking is sloppy and she still has not offered up anything but emotions that a god exists. I doubt that she was ever an unbeliever. Religion just wasn't important to her at that point when she assumed that she was an atheist.
So what? People change their beliefs, who cares. Religious people will become atheists, some atheists will become religious. It is utterly meaningless to the validity of any god(s) belief/religion.
She was never an atheist to begin with. In her own words she never really had any fixed position on the matter until she met and married a Christian man. There's your "conversion."
Jesus saves..
But wouldn't it be better to go beyond mere saving...and actually invest?
For example, Verizon stock currently pay a dividend of 4.2%. And eventually, with the rollout of 4G, the stock price should rise as well. Wouldn't it pay to invest (in a stocklike VZ ...or for that matter several other good stocks) rather than just save your money under the mattress? And currently Bank savings accounts aren't much better.
The priniciple here? Its better to invest-- saving ain't worth much now-a-days!
Once in a while I will say something in these "debates" about God, but usually I don't , for two reasons . The first is that no one ever says anything in these debates that they havent said 20 or 50 or 500 times before, and the second reason is because I know that the existence or non existence of God is not provable. No one can prove God exists and no one can prove God does not exist. So it is a movie that we already know the ending to.
Arguments about the existence of God really come down to what default is accepted. The default really decides the "winner" of this particular debate, which is why atheists always demand the default. They say "it is up to you to prove that God exists" and if you can't, you lose. If the believer says "no you prove God does not exist" , they will most likely be laughed at or ridiculed by the atheists. I really see no logical reason for this. The default should be "we don't know" , it is a matter of faith.
If you want to believe in God, thats ok, and if you want to believe there is no God, thats ok.
I dont see how there is a lot more to say about it.
I agree. It always, always, boils down to nothing more than "Prove it".
But it is a little hard to take being constantly accused of being irrational based on belief in God.
I agree wholeheartedly.
I don't either, until a believer attempts to wheel out their belief in God as an excuse to discriminate or reject science or inject their faith into our laws by banning alcohol sales on Sunday, claim America is a "Christian Nation", deny the right of other religions to build their religious structures or demand their religions a privileged position by being allowed to operate tax free.
Imagine how people would react if there were atheist blue laws. Where our lack of belief was attempted to be injected into the laws of the Federal and State governments. Imagine if atheists tried to pass a law to not only tax Churches, but make religion subject to extreme tax rates. What if they banned the sale of bibles or any religious documents on Sundays. What if they tried to demand their right to refuse service to Christians at any public business. What if the administration hadn't sent this memo out: "Would any of the preachers and pastors and other religious leaders, who had come to hear the administration’s views on issues they cared about, like to meet the POTUS in person?" but instead sent this one "Would any of the atheists and other anti-religion leaders, who had come to hear the administration’s views on issues they cared about, like to meet the POTUS in person?" and then when the room was filled with atheists Trump said "“Now this is a group that has the real power,” he said. “They have influence without God.”. Instead Trump addressed a roomful of religious leaders and said "“Now this is a group that has the real power,” he said. “They have influence with God.”.
I totally get what you are saying with everyone should be free to believe what they want, and there shouldn't be any more debate about it. Sadly, some have chosen to use their faith as a cudgel and attempt to inflict their faith on everyone around them which is what creates these debates and leaves nonbelievers continually asking for proof or evidence and the faithful just smirking saying "Well, you'll just have to take the fact that we know what's best for you on faith...".
That's because the onus of proof is on the one making the affirmative claim.
That's because atheists are employing a logical fallacy trying to shift the burden of proof.
That would be an honest answer when it comes to the question if god exists. So when theists are making the affirmative claim that god exists, then that is dishonest.
An error: I meant to say theists are employing a logical fallacy, not atheists. My mistake.
A Freudian slip....
Nope.
Nope. A typo. And since when did you become a fan of Freud, XX?
Except this :
The default IS we do not know. That really is the point of the agnostic atheist.
An agnostic atheist (what most every atheist is) is not convinced that there is a god.
The agnostic atheist does not state there is no god (that is what the gnostic atheist does - irrational and unsupportable). Rather the agnostic atheist holds that there is nothing, as of yet, that convinces them to move from the position: 'nobody knows if a god exists' to the position: 'a particular god exists'.
Most theists, however, do not hold the 'we do not know' position. We can test this right here. Ask a theist if s/he accepts the possibility that his/her god does not exist. The agnostic theist will answer 'yes' but the gnostic theist will answer 'no!!'.
I predict that in reality, you will mostly get 'no!!' answers or the question will be avoided entirely. Very, very few theists in my experience will state that they recognize that they hold a belief in a god that might not exist. That tiny bit of doubt is drilled into them as a crisis of faith -a spiritual weakness- succumbing to the temptation of Satan, etc. They hold a 'my god exists' position coupled with '... and nothing will ever change my mind'.
That's because they are taught that it is a sin to doubt the existence of their god, even a tiny bit. What better way to keep them from actually thinking about it than threatening them with hell if they do think about it?
As I have oft noted, religions have evolved into masters of ensnaring minds. They have several masterstrokes other than 'the slightest doubt is a sin / weakness / temptation by Satan'. The best one is convincing people that faith (believing sans good evidence) is a virtue. They indoctrinate young minds into thinking that believing in what the religion teaches —merely because they claim it to be true— is actually a good thing and the more you give up your critical thinking (at least when it comes to religion) the better you are. Keep growing that faith because that is what God wants (and do not forget to give your generous offering to continue God's work).
Also note how when their beliefs or claims are challenged and logically explained or refuted, they continue to parrot the same empty claims with no logical explanation. Or they outright ignore or dodge any claims. It's intellectual laziness and dishonesty at it's best.
Defending the indefensible necessarily requires going outside the bounds of direct, honest discourse. Politics and religion have that in common.
Indeed. Some make empty or outrageous claims, then refuse or fail to back it up with any explanation or evidence, and bury their heads in the sand while parroting their claims when logical counter arguments are made. Hence, the profound intellectual dishonesty on display.
And we cannot know. Maybe that's what separates me from being in this category of "agnostic" atheist. If I follow your reasoning, the a.a. holds out the possibility of being able to know at some point?
Close. The agnostic atheist simply accepts the fact that s/he does not know everything. Thus, the agnostic atheist accepts the possibility that a god might indeed exist. Whether or not the agnostic atheist will ever know this is not part of the consideration.
But the "true" (i.e., non-agnostic) atheist knows that he'll never know whether a god exists since he knows it's unknowable. I've always considered agnostics as fence-sitters in the Pascalian mold trying to occupy that no-man's land between belief and disbelief.
Define god and establish criteria for validating said god. If evidence is uncovered that satisfies the criteria then you have your god. It is knowable depending upon how you define 'god'.
The agnostic atheist (the super majority of all atheists) is not convinced a god exists but does not rule out the possibility.
Defining god is the provenance of believers, not atheists. And searching for evidence for something that is, by definition unfalsifiable, is a logical impossibility. I'm not clear on how you've determined that the "super majority" of all atheists hold out the possibility of the existence of gods. Is there really data on that?
Yes. I am referring to the word 'god' being defined before one can make any sense of it.
You cannot state that 'god' is not unfalsifiable by definition because that depends on how 'god' is defined.
How many atheists do you know who would make the following claim (a claim, in effect, of omniscience)?:
There is no sentient creator of the known universe; such an entity is impossible; and there is no possibility that I am wrong about this.
Allow me a few edits:
There is no way to determine if there's a sentient creator of the known universe; thus the existence such an entity is impossible to prove; thus there is no rational or factual basis upon which to base this "creator's" existence thus and there is no possibility that I am wrong about this.
And while many will argue vigorously against it-- the fact of the matter us that the same is true with many in the field of Science as well.
(Of course most scientists would freak out if you accuse them of basing their beliefs on faith-- after all, they've done experiments that prove their beliefs. Heck-- they use the scientific method* , for Chrissakes!
Of course the history of Science is that something had been proven to be a fact-- until some point in the future when it was disproven. And some new theory was then "proven" by the scientific method. (Until some time in the future when that was disproven...)
______________________________________________________
*Hopefully everyone here remembered to genuflect and made the Sign of The Cross (or maybe some other scientific symbol) at the mention of "THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD".
Well, at least in that regard you've got one heckova lot more horse sense than a lot of other people we know!!!!
(Who shall remain nameless...heh :^)
I dont see how there is a lot more to say about it.
Yes-- but remember-- this is the Internet. All are welcome here-- but leave your brains at the door!
A Magick Land, where a tremendous amount of people spend a tremendous amount of time saying a tremendous amount of things when everything intelligent has already been said on and on and on-- and when there's really nothing else intelligent to say.
But does that stop people?
Of course not!
A Magick Land, where a tremendous amount of people spend a tremendous amount of time saying a tremendous amount of things when everything intelligent has already been said on and on and on-- and when there's really nothing else intelligent to say.
But does that stop people?
Of course not!
It reminds me of the "Infinite Monkey Theorem":
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
(here's why its bullshit)
I would like to expand it:
If you could create a situation where infinite number of social media users spend an infinite amount of time prostelytizing and expounding their arguments trying to prove or disprove something that not provable...you would have invented...The Internet!
(Welcome to The Internet...you can check out but you can never leave!
Clear this up for those that are 'so inclined.' "God said it. I believe it. That settles it."
For those who may not be 'so inclined.' Don't worry about it.
It's always good to hunt down separate sources for these examples of "miraculous conversions or atheists to believers" that XX loves to dump on us. This article gives some interesting insights into Salviander's life story and her so-called "atheism."
Going through Salviander's list of the things that brought her to Jesus I was struck by how similar some of her wonder at the complexity and beauty of the universe is the same as mine (and many people who don't believe in gods and spirits) and yet it doesn't lead me to assume that there's a mystical spirit behind it all. In fact, as a former believer, the wonder of science was a much more dazzling and compelling "story" than the biblical account of creation. And I, too, find the Jesus of the Gospels to be "extremely compelling" but that doesn't require my belief that he was a god or the son of one assuming he existed at all. But the more revealing aspect of her so-called conversion were the tell-tale signs of a person who was isolated, often very lonely and vulnerable. Maybe she was intellectually brilliant but emotionally weak--IOW, someone who's ripe for the plucking. Enter a man with strong Christian beliefs and with whom she develops a romance and then marries. Can't rule out that influence on a lonely, isolated woman, can we? The more I learn about Sarah the more clear it was that she wasn't an atheist--that label was applied post-conversion in order to sell the idea of this miraculous conversion--but a bright, introverted woman with limited social exposure who had no fixed philosophy at all.
What ever helps you to sleep better at night....
I don't need a god for that. I sleep fine.
Really? That’s why you rationalize away anyway that you can the legitimacy of Sarah and her life story?