Q about arguments for God's existence.

[Longhorn]

I think there is a misconception here that everyone must have their own idea of how things came to be the way they are.

It's certainly not the case. I have no idea. I could put forward a few possible scenarios, but I would have next to zero confidence that any of them are actually right. They would be "sensible guesses". And even calling them that is charitable.

Every atheist will have their own idea, or indeed no idea. In my experience, no idea is the prevailing state of affairs.

my bold

But you saying you "have no idea" is not entirely accurate, because you are vehemently certain that one theory (a supernatural element) is not it. So you do have some sort of an idea, even if that idea is just "definitely not God."

Or am I misunderstanding?

This is that 'atheism is a belief' shit all over again -_-

I don't know. I'm saying your theory is improbable. Not that it's definitely not it no matter what.

Not having a theory is not a theory.
Not having a theory doesn't mean I can't evaluate other people's theories. Ok?

[robvalue]

Oh, and no, I'm not saying supernatural isn't it. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying there's absolutely no reason to think you are right. That is the sceptical position. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

For example, you can't prove that I'm not God. But you wouldn't for a second take seriously the fact that I might be, if I offer no evidence. Proving me wrong is not necessary.

[Catholic_Lady]

[quote='Catholic_Lady' pid='970641' dateline='1434913232']
My apologies.

It seems like you would have some sort of opinion if you're so sure that mine is wrong. Even if your opinion is simply "anything, except supernatural elements."

And why would that be?

Well, I did further explain but you cut that part out when you quoted me above. ;-)

Do I need to have an alternative to say something sounds improbable?

Well you can correct me if I'm wrong but you don't seem to believe that a supernatural force "probably doesn't exist." You seem to believe that it definitely doesn't exist. So you have ruled out that possibility as the origin of everything. Completely ruling it out as an option is not just a simple "I have no idea how things happened." You have enough of an idea to at least know it wasn't that.

[quote]
So since the only theories I've heard so far in this thread by other atheists are:

a. the first ever thing to have existed came from nothing, or

b. the first ever thing to have existed has always existed

...I assumed that you disqualifying the any supernatural elements, meant the only things left over were one of those 2.

I wasn't aware that there were other options to choose from besides something having to do with those 2 things.

Really? I mean, we have no clue. Three options is hardly a fraction of the possibilities.
[/quote]

Fair enough.

[The Grand Nudger]

Perhaps you'll understand this better if we imagine a freindly scenario Cath?

Lets say that there is a god....and that it's the catholic god, but, for whatever reason (and there are many possible reasons) -your position- on that catholic god is wrong.  It is inaccurate.  

-You would still be wrong, and I could still be -certain- of that....even if there is a god, even if it's the catholic god.

You are being told that -your position- is definitely wrong, not because any of us (or you) actually have the right answer...not because the supernatural definitely doesn't exist...but because the method you are using to arrive at that conclusion is inccorrect, your position, is not trustworthy. Even plugging in -actually true- statements will not guarantee true conclusions. That's a -big- problem. -If- you are right, it is for reasons you have not provided, or do not possess, and not what you've expressed.

[robvalue]

The problem with the supernatural is that you are by definition using an argument from ignorance every time you appeal to it. That may sound unfair, but thems the breaks. You can't provide evidence of the supernatural, or else it wouldn't be supernatural. So all you have is "you can't prove me wrong/I can't think of anything else." That is the classic argument from ignorance/incredulity and is invalid logic. This may all seem very weird if you haven't come across a lot of logic before.

Again, this isn't saying you are wrong. It's saying your argument to show you are right is invalid.

Links: argument from ignorance/incredulity

Natural and supernatural

[Catholic_Lady]

Supernatural:  attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

^as per webster.

There is nothing beyond the laws of nature because nature is everything. Everything that is a part of the natural world is natural. Supernatural means not a part of the natural world, which means nonexistent.

...And that is your opinion. Maybe you're wrong, and maybe you're right. Obviously, my opinion is contradictory to yours, and that's fine. At least I am just telling you what I believe, I'm not sitting here bashing you over the head in every post telling you that you're wrong, like you're doing to me. (which is fine, btw, I'm just saying)

How about the infinite regress? How do you solve that conundrum?

What is that term?

[robvalue]

By the way, I'm happy to be corrected on any of the logic I have stated if you think I'm wrong. I'm always happy to learn if I've made a mistake.

Saying your argument is invalid isn't the same as saying your conclusions are untrue.

[The Grand Nudger]

People are telling you you're wrong when you've made clear and demonstrable mistakes.  Perhaps you should be appreciative, rather than pissy? Did you -not- want to hear this, or subject these opinions of yours to others scrutiny...when you decided to join a thread about arguments for god...and then share them?

[robvalue]

To be fair, if you're just saying you think it's something supernatural, that isn't even an argument as such so I can't call it invalid.

[Catholic_Lady]

The problem with calling anything supernatural is that you just cut off every possible way that you can know anything about it, so you're reduced to guessing.

Hm? We are all reduced to "guessing" on this in the sense that we have no proof.

No, I have no idea. That doesn't mean I can't recognise a bad idea when I see it.

For example, I don't need to know the exact square root of 8 to know it isn't 2.5.

Rob, I don't think you realize what you just said here.

Having no idea, and not knowing exactly, are 2 different things.

Someone who has no idea what the square root of 8 is, wouldn't know that 2.5 isn't an option.

You saying "I don't know exactly how the first thing came about. But I know 100% it wasn't God." Is perfectly reasonable.

You saying "I have no idea how the first thing came about. But I know 100% it wasn't God." Is contradictory.

---

my bold

But you saying you "have no idea" is not entirely accurate, because you are vehemently certain that one theory (a supernatural element) is not it. So you do have some sort of an idea, even if that idea is just "definitely not God."

Or am I misunderstanding?

This is that 'atheism is a belief' shit all over again -_-

I don't know. I'm saying your theory is improbable. Not that it's definitely not it no matter what.

Not having a theory is not a theory.
Not having a theory doesn't mean I can't evaluate other people's theories. Ok?

Gotcha. Sorry. I thought you had 100% certainty that God or any supernatural being does not exist. I didn't realize that you merely thought is was improbable, but were not certain. That makes more sense now. Thank you.