(June 27, 2015 at 6:33 am)robvalue Wrote: Fair enough, thanks

My opinion is that a conclusion of a supernatural causation can never currently be valid. For more information on why I think this, please check out my website here.

Again, I'm not saying supernatural explanations are wrong, I'm saying they cannot be reached without using logical fallacies. And any supernatural causation can not be differentiated from any other. In general science does not dismiss the possibility, so I'm not sure what more you want from it

When ever the cause of something has been discovered the answer has never been found to be supernatural.
As far as I can tell there is no such thing as the supernatural.

Louis Chérubin Wrote:

1. Human thought: When I believe that my thoughts are valid, I implicitly recognize supernatural reality. The problem is, I can’t not believe in the validity of my thoughts. Even if I say, “My thoughts are not valid,” I am trusting that my lack of trust in my thoughts is valid. (!?) If I say, “My thoughts are the result of chemical interactions,” I’m essentially saying, “My thoughts are not valid,” since what basis do I have to think that chemical reactions would produce rational thought?
   

I think that is the argument used by CS Lewis (though please correct me if I'm wrong), which I'll quote here for reference (from C.S. Lewis, Miracles, 1947):

Quote:All possible knowledge, then, depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our minds really 'must' be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into the realities beyond them - if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work - then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.

It follows that no account of the universe can be true unless that account leaves it possible for our thinking to be a real insight. A theory which explained everything else in the universe but which made it impossible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be itself demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound - a proof that there were no such things as proofs - which is nonsense.

Thus a strict materialism refutes itself for the reason given long ago by Professor Haldane: 'If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.' (Possible Worlds)

I have to be honest it makes no more sense to me when you say it than when he does. I'm not trying to be obstinate here - I genuinely don't get it and accept that that may make me an idiot. I would like to understand it though so can you or anyone tell me a) what this means and b) if it's a valid argument. Thanks

I agree there is no reason to think anything supernatural does exist. It's just something that can't be ruled out by its very nature. This is why unfalsifiable propositions are useless. They amount to useless extra assumptions.

Of course, we can never be sure our thinking is correct. This is more to do with the inability to detach our reason and thoughts from our fallible brains than anything else. And there's the problem of solipsism. Science accounts for all this as much as possible, and attempts to remove any individual error. But if we're all making the same error over and over between us, then we're making an error. It's a possibility, but that doesn't make it true, and it doesn't rationalise an appeal to a load of magic. We'd simply be wrong due to our limitations. So what? No one of any integrity would claim to know anything 100% for certain. Any proposed solution/conclusion drawn from this goes through the same fallible filter as everything else, so doesn't come out all clean and rosy.

Not enough fossil evidence! (you mean compared to none for god)
I think we both know that NO amount of fossil evidence will sway your belief. (otherwise your indoctrination would not be successful)
We also both know that proving evolution wrong does not make the imaginary skydaddy the next likely reason for our existence.
I you are a believer, you have no choice but to see the world through rose coloured glasses. Speak to the many here who have recently deconverted.
Your automatic subconscious agenda is for a god to be the creator. We, as atheists, don't care one way or the other. I'll change my mind tomorrow.
All you have to do is to prove that god exists outside your head ... There's a nobel prize in it for you.
Most theists proof lately has been "because the sky is blue" or "only god can make a beautiful flower"

catch...

(June 25, 2015 at 10:58 pm)Louis Chérubin Wrote:

(June 25, 2015 at 10:34 pm)Yeauxleaux Wrote: In answer to question 6, I'm gonna say the same thing that I said in another thread the other day

This whole conversation about "How can atheists be moral?" says more about religious people than it does atheists. If you seriously think you can't be moral without the teachings of the Bible, then that means you are a plebeian child who has to have their hand held through life. No ability to think for oneself. Sorry to be blunt, but it's true. Yes, we have morals, we just use our brains and come to our own conclusions on what is moral, instead of being told what to think.

God is a mythical being too, we can't say for sure he doesn't exist, but it is as likely he exists as it is likely werewolves, vampires and faeries exist. He is as mythical as they are.

I'm not saying atheists can't be moral. Atheists are moral (have a moral sense of right and wrong). My question is why. Universal morality implies a standard higher than man.

I dont have many beliefs but one thing that i do believe and feel that there is sufecint evedence that man is more capable than even he/she/we give credit for. It's so easy to see the bad things we do and conclude that we are mere intelegent animals that at the end of the day will only devour the week and sexualy lust all day long. Many would have us think that those things are all that we are capable of and so some one invented the after life and a reasons to be a good person. I see that there are examples today and in the past of extremely good and selfless act from man and before you say "that is because they were christian" remember that only about a 1/3rd of the world is christian and not all acts of kindness are done in the name of christ. Such acts of kindness do happen and many of these people atribute them to a higher power. however in my observation any body of any faith or lack there of can do good things or bad things then it must be we who are capable of looking to higer ideas than that of the beasts in the feilds.

(June 25, 2015 at 9:59 pm)Louis Chérubin Wrote: 1. Does God exist?

Depends on what you think gods are.

(June 25, 2015 at 9:59 pm)Louis Chérubin Wrote: 2. Where did the universe come from?

The universe is very old, very large and the answers are hard to come by.

(June 25, 2015 at 9:59 pm)Louis Chérubin Wrote: 3. Does my life have a purpose?

That is entirely up to you.

(June 25, 2015 at 9:59 pm)Louis Chérubin Wrote: 4. Why do people suffer?

Design flaw.

(June 25, 2015 at 9:59 pm)Louis Chérubin Wrote: 5. Is there life after death?

So far, yes. The names change but yes, life goes on after they bury your sorry ass.

(June 25, 2015 at 9:59 pm)Louis Chérubin Wrote: 6. Can I distinguish right from wrong?

Not if you're dependent on a holy book. But it is easier than it looks.

(June 25, 2015 at 9:59 pm)Louis Chérubin Wrote: 7. Can people know truth?

It requires some care. Once you pervert the meaning of "believe" to mean "assuming what you like", it becomes almost impossible. If you care about the truth you've got to maintain standards.

(June 25, 2015 at 9:59 pm)Louis Chérubin Wrote: Sorry for being point form.  copy/pasting from the internet.

Fixed that (the part I bolded) for you.

To make my point about validity of the conclusion and the validity of the method being two different things:

Say we have a die, a normal 6 sided one, and it's inside a metal cube. We shake the cube about the place, then slam it down. We can't possibly see through the cube, and let's say even the sound is muffled so we have no clue what is going on in there.

Now, I can claim to know that the die has landed showing a 6 on the upwards face. I give no evidence for this, and no argument as to why this should be the case. My method is not valid. However, my conclusion may be valid by pure chance, roughly 1 in 6.

I could also claim that the die has landed so that it is balancing on one of the corners of the cube. Again, I give no evidence or arguments. My method is not valid, but my conclusion could possibly be valid, although extremely unlikely.

I could instead claim the die hasn't landed at all and is floating inside the cube. No one can prove that this is impossible within the rules of this scenario. But that doesn't mean that it is actually possible, either.

In all these cases, I'm offering up guesses and nothing more. My opinion should be ignored, because I'm offering nothing but speculation and not adding any explanation or understanding that we can learn from. The fact that my answers either are possible, or haven't been proved to be impossible, is irrelevant. So I don't need to claim that "god", whatever it is, is an impossible concept in order to point out that any particular method trying to demonstrate this is flawed.

(June 27, 2015 at 3:44 am)Louis Chérubin Wrote:

---

(June 26, 2015 at 2:00 pm)Pyrrho Wrote:

(June 25, 2015 at 10:53 pm)Louis Chérubin Wrote: ...
4. People suffer because of sin (which came because God created man with a free will, the best possible creation)
...

First of all, much of what is wrong with the world has nothing to do with humans having free will.  Think of all of the diseases, earthquakes, etc.  So free will does not explain away evil.

Second, it is not entirely clear that we have free will, nor is it entirely clear that having free will is a good thing.  I will set this aside for the moment, but it needs to be established for it to be reasonable to believe your story.  (That would involve explaining what, exactly, "free will" is.)

Third, is there free will in heaven?  If so, does that mean that evil will exist in heaven?  If so, how is heaven different from life now?  And if there is free will in heaven, without evil, then having free will does not explain the existence of evil here and now.  And if there is no free will in heaven, then it must be better to not have free will, since heaven is better than here.  Isn't it?

Fourth, imagine that you and I are having a picnic together in a large park.  We are conversing agreeably, having some wine and good food.  In the distance, we observe a group of people attacking another person, raping and beating the person.  You say, "hey, we should do something" like call the police on your cell phone, go get help, go and directly help the person, whatever.  I say, "no, we can't do that!  We can't interfere with their free will!"  Now, if that really happened, what would you say of me?  Would you regard me as moral or immoral?  Well, I would be doing what God does.  So are you saying it is right to not help others?  Furthermore, we can see that this does not work anyway as an excuse, because us interfering would not affect whether they have free will or not.  We would only be affecting the outcome, not their ability to make choices.  Likewise, God interfering with outcomes would not affect anyone's free will at all.  They could still will to rape and beat and kill, without succeeding.  So this "free will" excuse really excuses nothing whatsoever.

---

I guess I left out some important info in favour of succinctness. These points corresponds to your above paragraphs.

1. If you read Genesis you'll find that man's sin brought a curse on nature (supposedly). Therefore, his free choice to sin brought the natural evil. Also (this is going to sound wacky), man, in a state of rebellion against God (free will), technically deserves nothing but hell. Thus, anything before death, even the horrors of nature, is better than what he deserves (that's what's called grace).

Your position is self-contradictory.  You previously stated "People suffer because of sin (which came because God created man with a free will, the best possible creation)."  If this is the best possible creation, then the best possible entails sin.

(June 27, 2015 at 3:44 am)Louis Chérubin Wrote: 2. Free will is the power to act apart from natural constraints. According to naturalism, it is simply an illusion. However, any practical naturalist epistemology requires the assumption that man can reason. If you make the assumption that one part of man's consciousness is trustworthy (which is against pure naturalistic logic), it seems logical to me to make the assumption that free will also is. This seems most consistent to me personally.

3. Free will in heaven? Free will isn't the cause of sin, it simply allows it. The Bible says that heaven will in the future be composed only of followers of God. Those who have chosen to continue their rebellion against God will be elsewhere. . . .

If there were a good god, it would simply make those who would be good, and not bother making the bad ones.  Making bad people is simply making souls for being tortured forever, which is evil.

(June 27, 2015 at 3:44 am)Louis Chérubin Wrote: 4. I never said that God doesn't interfere with the outcomes of free will. My favourite book (take a guess) gives some examples of this. However, God has perfect right (being the creator and offended party) to judge man however he wills, including by using other men. The punishment of the ancient Israelites through contemporary Middle Eastern powers is a perfect example. I am not in the place of God, though, so I'm sorry to say I would have to interrupt our picnic. 

I hope this helps clarify my worldview.

It shows that you have not thought it through to have a consistent view of god.  If god were perfectly good, he would not want any unnecessary suffering.  And yet, according to your story, god creates things in order for them to suffer, and does not care to stop suffering when god is perfectly capable of stopping it.  Your description of god is with god being a sadist.

So... God has the right to do what he wants, because no one can stop him?

Otherwise known as might makes right?

Some people, it seems, have a desperate need to seek out the most powerful thing they can imagine and then prostrate themselves before it. It's even sadder when there's no reason even to suspect the thing is there at all.