Please present positive arguments why you think atheism is true

[fuckass365]

Case closed.

[Welsh cake]

Jireh do you take the knowledge you've acquired in using your computer on faith? Is everything you know just a faith statement?

Troll.

[Ace Otana]

Your brain.

How do you come to the conclusion that a god exists Fr0d0?

I didn't say that you did. I said "if". Reason to think is precicely what you have. But you refuse to think beyond what you already know. (Which is untrue, you just make an exception in this case)

I do think beyond what I know but that doesn't mean I should believe in anything I imagine, that's stupid. I will stick to known entities.

You insist that I make extraordinary claims where I make none.

An all powerful and all knowing higher power....that is an extraordinary claim. It demands evidence.

When did I say that God was a physically provable entity? You keep banging on with that like someone said it. I think you're arguing with yourself.

Never said you did. I said I dismiss or rule out the unproven or unprovable. If god is provable, demonstrate it. Otherwise it'll remain ruled out.

So do I. Please show me how I don't.

You're using unknown entities for one.

[fr0d0]

Your brain.

And how do use your brain to deduce God?

erm... you use it?

See a materialist has to say "I don't know" a lot. Nothing wrong with that, except there are a lot of useful things he could know if he made a few intelligent links. Things fall together, a good solution works out from an hypothesis. A materialist almost denies the human ability to think. Thinking is dangerous because it moves out of the realm of certainty.

Yes, but there is no reason to move to a place so far outside of certainty that it is just completely made up.

Indeed so.

You insist that I make extraordinary claims where I make none.

An absolute, all-powerful God does not count as an extraordinary claim?

Extraordinary in the sense that he/she is fantastic, awsome, amazing... yes. But contrary to the laws of physics, no.

---

Your brain.

How do you come to the conclusion that a god exists Fr0d0?

Through belief. Not through impossible evidence.

I do think beyond what I know but that doesn't mean I should believe in anything I imagine, that's stupid.

Same here.

I will stick to known entities.

Precisely. That is how you limit yourself. I wonder how you trust enough to step outside your door. Most of what you understand you take on trust from non personally verified information. I'm sure if enough people told you you'd belive in God. Isn't that how you're functioning?

Or do you have the ability to process information and come to conclusionsw not based on hard physical evidence? I know that you do.

An all powerful and all knowing higher power....that is an extraordinary claim. It demands evidence.

It provides evidence. Not the evidence it cannot give.

When did I say that God was a physically provable entity? You keep banging on with that like someone said it. I think you're arguing with yourself.

Never said you did. I said I dismiss or rule out the unproven or unprovable. If god is provable, demonstrate it. Otherwise it'll remain ruled out.

And how do you prove it? If you ask yourself that question, then use your brain to work out if the question can be rationally asked or not, you will find that none of your questions are relevant. That's what I mean by using your brain to work this out. It's simple logic. Occams razor.

So do I. Please show me how I don't.

You're using unknown entities for one.

Not unknown: unknowable by the scientific method, by the definition the scientific method sets out for itself.

Please show me how I fail to comply to the scientific method.

[Ace Otana]

Through belief. Not through impossible evidence.

Not acceptable Fr0d0. You might as well of said "have faith" or "take my word for it".
Why should I believe it if it cannot be demonstrated?

Precisely. That is how you limit yourself. I wonder how you trust enough to step outside your door. Most of what you understand you take on trust from non personally verified information. I'm sure if enough people told you you'd belive in God. Isn't that how you're functioning?

Or do you have the ability to process information and come to conclusionsw not based on hard physical evidence? I know that you do.

Not really. How can you test or measure such ideas?

It provides evidence. Not the evidence it cannot give.

And what evidence would that be?

And how do you prove it? If you ask yourself that question, then use your brain to work out if the question can be rationally asked or not, you will find that none of your questions are relevant. That's what I mean by using your brain to work this out. It's simple logic. Occams razor.

I shall apply Occam's razer now...the simplest explanation to this god idea of yours is that you are mistaken. God is an unknown entity that is devoid of explanatory power. Why should I take it seriously?

Not unknown: unknowable by the scientific method, by the definition the scientific method sets out for itself.

Then it is unknown. You're claiming that a being is outside the laws of nature. Which is a heck of a claim.

Please show me how I fail to comply to the scientific method.

Using unknown entities, presupposition of the extremely improbable without evidence to support it.

[Jireh]

I didn't become an atheist to prove god doesn't exist. I became an atheist because god hasn't been proven to exist.

It's really fucking simple.

has it been proven, naturalism to be true ?

---

And how do use your brain to deduce God?

Its quit simple. You can think, right ? how could transformation, or evolution, of dead matter, happen to self conscience and thougt ? Its simply not possible. There is no bridge from one thing to the other. So by the very own existence of hability of thought, you can deduce logically God exists.

---

An absolute, all-powerful God does not count as an extraordinary claim?

a even more extraordinary claim would be to assert, everything arose from absolutely nothing. That is the alternative you have. Or to claim the universe had no beginning, existing in one form or the other eternally. That would also be a even more extraordinary claim.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t132-the...l-argument

the existence of an actually infinite number of things is metaphysically impossible. If the universe never began to exist, then its past duration would be actually infinite. [5] Since actual infinities cannot exist, then the past duration of the universe must have been finite, implying that the universe must have begun to exist. Even if one grants that it is possible for an actual infinite to exist, it still cannot be formed by successive addition, and henceforth the past duration of the universe must be finite. From a scientific perspective, the beginning of the universe is strongly supported by modern big bang cosmology. The proponent of the KCA thus finds himself comfortably seated in the midst of mainstream cosmology. Combined, these two reasons lend strong support to the truth of the second premise. Additionally, an eternal universe is ruled out by the second law of thermodynamics.

===============================================
we theists have it pretty easy to have faith in Gods existence. The evidence is obvious. In the counterpart, its a hard struggle for the thinking atheist to deny God......and must be indeed quit frustrating.

[Voltair]

It is one thing to look at the complexity of life and question how valid evolution etc is to explain it and QUITE another to look at it and simply deduce that it all means an infinite being created it all.

Saying "This is fantastic and there is now way a God didn't do it!" Does not prove anything than what your thoughts are on the subject. If you are going to argue that life as we know it requires some infinite, all powerful, all knowing entity then you have another problem.

If this universe is far too complex it had to be created by a very complex being. Do you believe that God is more or less complex than the universe? If he is more complex than the universe but does not require a creator then why does this universe require a creator?

Before you argue that God is simply spirit and the world is not you still had to prove there is in fact a spiritual world. I am only saying that so you don't think I am making an unfair equivocation. I would agree though that if you could somehow prove the following your case would be more convincing:

A) Prove there is a spiritual world
B) Prove how there can be any evidence for a being which is by definition non-testable
C) Provide arguments that actually prove something instead of stating your own awe and wonder about our universe

[Mister Agenda]

Christianity, as I understand it to be defined, that is, apart from what lies outside of the classification of the mainstream church, and not what might encompass it with the widest definition, claims nothing more than my personal convictions.

Thank-you for your second point. That's what I mean exactly.

I think we agree on the first point too, I just phrased it badly. By 'personal convictions' I meant more than what you personally believe, including claims about the origin of the universe; but I realize that your personal convictions logically include Christian beliefs, which you can accept on faith without claiming any evidential confirmation. I suppose I was making the trivial point that you have a belief system of which theism is a feature, but goes far beyond mere theism. Is this roughly your take as well?

[The Grand Nudger]

has it been proven, naturalism to be true ?

Ignoring the possibility that both you and I are equally wrong? God is not a default.

how could transformation, or evolution, of dead matter, happen to self conscience and thougt ? Its simply not possible. There is no bridge from one thing to the other. So by the very own existence of hability of thought, you can deduce logically God exists.

Appeals to ignorance and personal incredulity. How we go from this to "logically deducing" anything is something of a mystery. You may be deducing something, but not by means of logic.

a even more extraordinary claim would be to assert, everything arose from absolutely nothing. That is the alternative you have. Or to claim the universe had no beginning, existing in one form or the other eternally. That would also be a even more extraordinary claim.

These would be the claims of theism. That god (and by extention all else) arose from absolutely nothing, or that god had no beginning, existing in one form or the other eternally. Both extraordinary claims. The position of science and naturalism is "We don't know, but we're looking into it by the only means available to us". Strawman.

Your own positions and explanations, namely "goddid-insert whatever here-" is also a naturalistic explanation. You have a very material fairy tale, composed and compiled by very material creatures, that attempts to explain very material events and occurences, all of this contained and confined within a thing we call "nature". The trouble is that your explanations are insufficient, incorrect, or incoherent.

Anything else?

[NoMoreFaith]

has it been proven, naturalism to be true ?

Given axiomatic assumptions that reality exists and that you can make predictions based upon that reality.
If you have a problem with that, you must be very scared you're going to fall through the floor and fall apart at any given moment.

Even if we say reality isn't real.. that does not indicate God.

Its quit simple. You can think, right ? how could transformation, or evolution, of dead matter, happen to self conscience and thougt ? Its simply not possible. There is no bridge from one thing to the other. So by the very own existence of hability of thought, you can deduce logically God exists.

Is it just me who has Vizzini repeating "Inconceivable!" in their mind, every time Jirah makes such a fallacious comment?

You reject naturalism, and then claim what is possible and impossible in the natural universe.

Let me make it simple. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim something is impossible and then deny naturalism in the same sentence.
You can only make that mutually exclusive claim, if you accept methodological naturalism to state what is possible and impossible as a measure of probability.

Otherwise.. what are you basing your claim it is impossible on? Logic? Based on observation of the possible? .. oh, thats a naturalistic observation, you don't believe in it.

a even more extraordinary claim would be to assert, everything arose from absolutely nothing.

While it the definition of extraordinary is debatable here, it has been clarified many times that nobody believes the universe comes from nothing, without a definitive statement of what you believe to be nothing.
It is definitely extraordinary to claim "absolute nothing", but then "absolute nothing" is potentially impossible.
You're just building a strawman that has been pointed out no less than 10 times now.

the existence of an actually infinite number of things is metaphysically impossible.

Therefore God is finite?

Let me break this down a little further, because I'm sure that statement twisted your knickers.

Your argument presupposes the existence of time prior to the existence of this universe in order for an eternal God to "decide" to create the universe from his metaphysical realm.

However, time is a property OF the universe, not external to it, so you must also declare that God lives in his own metaphysical timescale which IS eternal and created the universe at a finite point.
If a finite point exists then you have given that point existence in God's metaphysical eternal reality. The point in eternity God creates the universe, is a measurable instant which assumes prior instants(i.e. before universe/post universe). Measurable.. finite points.... whoops.. "the existence of an actually infinite number of things is metaphysically impossible.".

Unless you are now arguing that the impossible IS possible, then you refute the first premise of the KCA.

Apparently this mess of paradoxes is the "easy answer". Your easy answer will basically just say "Impossible is impossible unless Goddidit" which defies the logical premise of the argument and instead is an assertion of belief, not reason.

we theists have it pretty easy to have faith in Gods existence. The evidence is obvious. In the counterpart, its a hard struggle for the thinking atheist to deny God......and must be indeed quit frustrating.

By extension, the lunatics in the asylum have it the easiest of all.

I happen to agree. Presupposition of a privately asserted fact to fill gaps in knowledge is very easy to do. I could presuppose faeries in the faery kingdoms did it all, and make it easier to "understand" the universe.
This says nothing about the truth content of filling gaps with imagination.

BTW - It's spelt quite.. not quit.. I thought it was just a typo at first.