(March 8, 2017 at 11:34 am)Harry Nevis Wrote:(March 7, 2017 at 2:01 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: There are plenty of secular members here on AF who don't leap to belief in god, because from their perspective, like the reasons given by you in [A], it has not been proven and their worldview provides them with more possibilities than a theist. Hence, regarding [A], is such a position a valid alternative to theism?
Also, regarding [B], there have been secular members on this site who have made similar remarks about their atheism, namely that if theists prove it (god), then they will amend their beliefs? Do you think that this is reasonable? What are your thoughts?
P.S. I had a lot of formatting issues with this post, so I apologize for any inconvenience.
(March 7, 2017 at 2:33 pm)SteveII Wrote: An atheistic worldview provides more possibilities? I think they have it backwards. Naturalism is more limiting because of two things: 1) it cannot explain the existence of logic, mathematics, morality abstract objects, consciousness etc. and 2) rejects supernatural possibilities/events/causes/persons (which is a philosophical position, not a scientific one). Naturalism leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and as is often the case, relegating those question asked to "not relevant" or "meaningless".
Why are the number of possiblilities a factor in deciding what is true?
Why are unanswered questions a problem?
I was replying Kernel (see bold above).
Unanswered questions are not the problem. Questions that will never be answered are the problem for some.
