Mr. Agenda,
Deism is inclusive of theism, if deism isn't true then neither is theism. It shouldn't matter to the atheist who doesn't subscibe to deism either.
I'd say far more often than not, the case fails when presented to folks who firmly atheists. If we present our respective cases to people who don't have an axe to grind, have no vested interest in whether we owe our existence to a creator or mindless forces that unintentionally caused our existence and who could fairly and objectively weigh the evidence the case for theism would prevail far more often than not. It's your weak atheism that will come back to bite you. You see you not only lack belief in the existence of God but as a weak atheist, you lack belief in the non-existence of God. How can you persaude anyone God doesn't exist when even you aren't convinced of that.
Only in the world of atheism does not believing a light is on does not mean they believe the light is off. Its this kind of contorted logic that exemplifies atheism. You realize that to be an atheist you have to opine my belief in theism isn't justified by reason and evidence. You could hardly say it is justified but remain an atheist.
However the majority of your weak kneeded fellow atheists in this forum won't even state for the record God doesn't exist. There only willing to say they doubt that claim.
No, I prefer to whine thank you. I seriously doubt you only lack belief in leprechauns and ghosts but concede they might actually exist. Is that your position?
Does it surprise you in the least that my opponents in this case would state that my conclusions don't follow from the presmises? You seem to be oblivious to the reality that an atheist is always going to disagree with my belief, is always going to claim they have 'debunked' my arguments, is always going to say the evidence I present has no merit. You seem to be under this strange delusion that atheists are nuetral and objective about this issue and would happily agree with me if I only made a case. Does it surprise you that the head of the DNC always disagrees with the Republicans and vice a versa? Does it surprise you that lawyers on an opposing case will always claim there opponent has failed to make a case?
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Evidence are facts or objects that tend to support a contention. What will always be disputed is whether those facts or objects do in fact support a contention. You may recall the trial of OJ Simpson where the defense disputed every line of evidence the prosecution team presented.
Actually Mr Agenda, it is a working philosphical assumption of scientists that our existence and that of the universe is the result of mindless forces that didn't intend our existence or that of the universe. If scientists had never seen a laptop but were tasked with finding out how it works they would invoke natural explanations for how it functions and that it does so by mindless forces. If your premise is correct we would falsely conclude that a laptop was created by mindless forces that didn't intend its existence.
Mr Agenda, you seem to think your own opinion and conclusion settles this matter and that citing a self serving analogy proves it. Lets look at what we're really talking about as opposed to your dubious analogy. It's a fact the universe exists, life exists, sentient life exists and the conditions and laws of nature that allowed that to occur obtained. The question is whether those facts are best explained as the result of mindless forces that didn't intend themselves to exist, didn't intend life to exist, or sentient life or the laws of nature that allowed that to occur and that all that we observe is due to happenstance or that it was the result of plan and design. I spent several pages arguing with atheists over the point that the universe and our existence is the result of happenstance. True to atheist form they wanted it both ways, they wanted to deny the universe and the laws of nature were intentionally designed and engineered but they also wanted to deny that we owe our existence to happenstance. To have it both ways they once again have to contort logic and commonsense to some absurd degree that since there are laws of nature that account for why things are the way they are that therefore its not by happenstance. The only way to avoid our existence being the result of happenstance is if the laws of nature were engineered and designed to produce the result. If there is no one at the wheel and a car manages to drive itself from Seattle to Pittsburg its still by happenstance unless its remotely controlled. Your absurd analogy does however serve a purpose even if unintended, it provides a glimspe into the rationale of the atheist. If I just said atheists are detached from reality you and others would cuss me out left and right from pillar to post. But the fact you believe this analogy is representative of the theist atheist debate only underscores how detached from reality you and other atheists are.
You need to get dictionaries to redifine atheism as well as many of your fellow atheists some of whom in this forum define it as a disbelief in God or gods. I think the reason so many atheists want to redefine it as a lack of belief is so they can say they don't have a claim to defend or support. The downside is the position becomes a nothing burger; the atheist lacks belief God exists but also 'lacks belief' God doesn't exist. It would mean in a survey that asks does God exist a weak atheist would have to put undecided since they're not sure if God exists or not. It also means atheists in that category should drop some of their favorite arguments such as there's no evidence of God. Why wouldn't you disbelieve in something with no evidence? If there was zero evidence I killed someone wouldn't you disbelieve it if someone claimed I killed someone? They should drop the comparison between God, Santa, and Faires after all am I supposed to beileve that atheists only lack belief in Santa Clause and fairies but concede they might actually exist? And if a survey asked does Santa exist they'd have to circle undecided. The weak atheist position is so weak its like calling a bowl of steam soup. If you actually believed the rediculous analogy you wrote above why would you only lack belief in God's existence?
In many instances you and others merely categorized my arguments as if that alone made them fallacious. In instances where an actual objection that might have merit was raised, I spent time rebutting it. Again whether your objection or my rebuttal was successful is decided by the undecided...not you or I. You continue to operate under the delusion that you and other atheists don't have a dog in this hunt and that your fair and objective.
You look at your framing of this debate compared to my framing of this debate.
It's no more justified by circumstantial and inferential evidence than belief in guardian ancestor spirits is. 'That lion nearly killed me!' 'See, that PROVES you have a guardian ancestor spirit, you dumb skeptic!'
It's a fact the universe exists, life exists, sentient life exists and the conditions and laws of nature that allowed that to occur obtained. The question is whether those facts are best explained as the result of mindless forces that didn't intend themselves to exist, didn't intend life to exist, or sentient life or the laws of nature that allowed that to occur and that all that we observe is due to happenstance or that it was the result of plan and design.
I can prove that I have looked at this from both sides because unlilke many atheists I don't claim there is zero evidence in favor of naturalism. I don't compare belief in mindless forces that unintentionally created themselves and us to belief in fairies and Santa Claus. I don't make up absurd self serving analogies like some folks do. Lastly if atheists such as yourself lack belief in God, lack belief in no God and lack belief in naturaliism or materialism what other side is there for me to look at? I wrote this thread to give atheists a chance to make a case for me to look at...where is it?
The fact you and many atheists refuse to defend atheism on that basis is because you know and I know there is precious little evidence to defend that belief.
Such as?
You can prove it. No matter what someone may attribute to the existence of leprechauns you can offer a better explanation. Thats why very few (if any) sane lucid rationale people believe leprechauns exist and the overwhelming majority of people (except you and few other rationalists) believe they don't exist. Once again you provide a glimpse into the atheist mindset...that belief in God and leprechauns are essentially the same. You fail to reason why so many people believe in the existence of God yet so few people believe in the existence of leprechauns yet to you there is little difference between the two. The reason for the difference in belief is because there is nothing attributed to leprechauns that can't be better explained and attributed to something else. In regards to the existence of the universe you don't have a better explanation or one that is more in evidence. If you did you and others would make a case.
Great. I'm happy to hear it. The answer God is to the question why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a universe? What if anything caused it? Why did the conditions that caused planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies and ultimately sentient life obtain? If you have plentiful convincing evidence for alternative non-god explanations you're the guy I wanted to talk to.
The God explanation is that our existence and that of the universe isn't the result of magic, invisible pixies or the most incredible fortuitous stroke of luck imaginable but the result of plan, design and engineering. But I will wait for your convincing evidence that mindless forces without plan or intent caused themselves to exist and then proceeded to create a universe with the exacting conditions for planets, stars and ultimately something totally unlike itself to exist, life and sentience.
Thats all for now...
Quote:You're describing mere deism. To rise to the level of theism, you must believe in a God that continues to intervene in the course of events rather than just setting them in motion.
Deism is inclusive of theism, if deism isn't true then neither is theism. It shouldn't matter to the atheist who doesn't subscibe to deism either.
Quote:And in many cases does not, and the main factor that seems to be at work on whether it's convincing is already believing it. It is the nature of actual evidence to lead people who are initially skeptical to the conclusion the evidence supports. If it doesn't have that effect, it's most likely because it doesn't point to the conclusion you think it does.
I'd say far more often than not, the case fails when presented to folks who firmly atheists. If we present our respective cases to people who don't have an axe to grind, have no vested interest in whether we owe our existence to a creator or mindless forces that unintentionally caused our existence and who could fairly and objectively weigh the evidence the case for theism would prevail far more often than not. It's your weak atheism that will come back to bite you. You see you not only lack belief in the existence of God but as a weak atheist, you lack belief in the non-existence of God. How can you persaude anyone God doesn't exist when even you aren't convinced of that.
Quote:Not believing your claim isn't the same thing as believing the opposite of it. Noting your belief isn't justified by reason and evidence doesn't mean you're not right, it just means that if you are right, it's only by coincidence.
Only in the world of atheism does not believing a light is on does not mean they believe the light is off. Its this kind of contorted logic that exemplifies atheism. You realize that to be an atheist you have to opine my belief in theism isn't justified by reason and evidence. You could hardly say it is justified but remain an atheist.
However the majority of your weak kneeded fellow atheists in this forum won't even state for the record God doesn't exist. There only willing to say they doubt that claim.
Quote:Same as for leprechauns and ghosts. Not making absolute claims we can't prove is a characteristic of rationalists. At some point you might consider accepting that instead of whining about it.
No, I prefer to whine thank you. I seriously doubt you only lack belief in leprechauns and ghosts but concede they might actually exist. Is that your position?
Quote:That your conclusions didn't follow from your premises is a fact. A provable claim, btw.
Does it surprise you in the least that my opponents in this case would state that my conclusions don't follow from the presmises? You seem to be oblivious to the reality that an atheist is always going to disagree with my belief, is always going to claim they have 'debunked' my arguments, is always going to say the evidence I present has no merit. You seem to be under this strange delusion that atheists are nuetral and objective about this issue and would happily agree with me if I only made a case. Does it surprise you that the head of the DNC always disagrees with the Republicans and vice a versa? Does it surprise you that lawyers on an opposing case will always claim there opponent has failed to make a case?
Quote:Refutable evidence isn't actually evidence at all.
How did you arrive at that conclusion? Evidence are facts or objects that tend to support a contention. What will always be disputed is whether those facts or objects do in fact support a contention. You may recall the trial of OJ Simpson where the defense disputed every line of evidence the prosecution team presented.
Quote:The sum total of scientific knowledge has revealed only mindless forces that didn't plan or intend our existence, and considerable evidence for how that happened, with no real scientific mysteries remaining that aren't prior to 3.5 billion years ago. The evidence is a little stale, but inferentially, it's reasonable to conclude that new information will continue to support natural explanations, of which there are many plausible ones that don't require transcendant beings.
Actually Mr Agenda, it is a working philosphical assumption of scientists that our existence and that of the universe is the result of mindless forces that didn't intend our existence or that of the universe. If scientists had never seen a laptop but were tasked with finding out how it works they would invoke natural explanations for how it functions and that it does so by mindless forces. If your premise is correct we would falsely conclude that a laptop was created by mindless forces that didn't intend its existence.
Quote:You should have stopped at 'belief'. It's no more justified by circumstantial and inferential evidence than belief in guardian ancestor spirits is. 'That lion nearly killed me!' 'See, that PROVES you have a guardian ancestor spirit, you dumb skeptic!'
Mr Agenda, you seem to think your own opinion and conclusion settles this matter and that citing a self serving analogy proves it. Lets look at what we're really talking about as opposed to your dubious analogy. It's a fact the universe exists, life exists, sentient life exists and the conditions and laws of nature that allowed that to occur obtained. The question is whether those facts are best explained as the result of mindless forces that didn't intend themselves to exist, didn't intend life to exist, or sentient life or the laws of nature that allowed that to occur and that all that we observe is due to happenstance or that it was the result of plan and design. I spent several pages arguing with atheists over the point that the universe and our existence is the result of happenstance. True to atheist form they wanted it both ways, they wanted to deny the universe and the laws of nature were intentionally designed and engineered but they also wanted to deny that we owe our existence to happenstance. To have it both ways they once again have to contort logic and commonsense to some absurd degree that since there are laws of nature that account for why things are the way they are that therefore its not by happenstance. The only way to avoid our existence being the result of happenstance is if the laws of nature were engineered and designed to produce the result. If there is no one at the wheel and a car manages to drive itself from Seattle to Pittsburg its still by happenstance unless its remotely controlled. Your absurd analogy does however serve a purpose even if unintended, it provides a glimspe into the rationale of the atheist. If I just said atheists are detached from reality you and others would cuss me out left and right from pillar to post. But the fact you believe this analogy is representative of the theist atheist debate only underscores how detached from reality you and other atheists are.
Quote:Yet atheist after atheist will tell you and anyone that asks that their position is not a belief that God doesn't exist. We're working like horses here to try to convince people that atheism isn't the belief God doesn't exist, and I don't see how it's our fault that some people reject our claim about what we do and don't believe. Even strong atheists who are really certain God doesn't exist almost always acknowledge that the definition of atheist includes those who merely lack belief in any God or gods.
You need to get dictionaries to redifine atheism as well as many of your fellow atheists some of whom in this forum define it as a disbelief in God or gods. I think the reason so many atheists want to redefine it as a lack of belief is so they can say they don't have a claim to defend or support. The downside is the position becomes a nothing burger; the atheist lacks belief God exists but also 'lacks belief' God doesn't exist. It would mean in a survey that asks does God exist a weak atheist would have to put undecided since they're not sure if God exists or not. It also means atheists in that category should drop some of their favorite arguments such as there's no evidence of God. Why wouldn't you disbelieve in something with no evidence? If there was zero evidence I killed someone wouldn't you disbelieve it if someone claimed I killed someone? They should drop the comparison between God, Santa, and Faires after all am I supposed to beileve that atheists only lack belief in Santa Clause and fairies but concede they might actually exist? And if a survey asked does Santa exist they'd have to circle undecided. The weak atheist position is so weak its like calling a bowl of steam soup. If you actually believed the rediculous analogy you wrote above why would you only lack belief in God's existence?
Quote:If the argument is correctly identified as a fallacy, it is fallacious. When an ad hom is justified, it's not a fallacy in that case. If an argument of yours is mistakenly classified as a fallacy, it can be defended by showing how it is not a fallacy. Complaining that we're finding lots of fallacies in your arguments isn't a defence of your arguments.
In many instances you and others merely categorized my arguments as if that alone made them fallacious. In instances where an actual objection that might have merit was raised, I spent time rebutting it. Again whether your objection or my rebuttal was successful is decided by the undecided...not you or I. You continue to operate under the delusion that you and other atheists don't have a dog in this hunt and that your fair and objective.
Quote:It would certainly be refreshing if you did that [examine both sides of a question]
You look at your framing of this debate compared to my framing of this debate.
It's no more justified by circumstantial and inferential evidence than belief in guardian ancestor spirits is. 'That lion nearly killed me!' 'See, that PROVES you have a guardian ancestor spirit, you dumb skeptic!'
It's a fact the universe exists, life exists, sentient life exists and the conditions and laws of nature that allowed that to occur obtained. The question is whether those facts are best explained as the result of mindless forces that didn't intend themselves to exist, didn't intend life to exist, or sentient life or the laws of nature that allowed that to occur and that all that we observe is due to happenstance or that it was the result of plan and design.
I can prove that I have looked at this from both sides because unlilke many atheists I don't claim there is zero evidence in favor of naturalism. I don't compare belief in mindless forces that unintentionally created themselves and us to belief in fairies and Santa Claus. I don't make up absurd self serving analogies like some folks do. Lastly if atheists such as yourself lack belief in God, lack belief in no God and lack belief in naturaliism or materialism what other side is there for me to look at? I wrote this thread to give atheists a chance to make a case for me to look at...where is it?
The fact you and many atheists refuse to defend atheism on that basis is because you know and I know there is precious little evidence to defend that belief.
Quote:As little as there is to defend belief that other things that are probably imaginary don't exist.
Such as?
Quote:As a rationalist, I'm not willing to say leprechauns don't exist if I can't prove it. God is not special in that regard.
You can prove it. No matter what someone may attribute to the existence of leprechauns you can offer a better explanation. Thats why very few (if any) sane lucid rationale people believe leprechauns exist and the overwhelming majority of people (except you and few other rationalists) believe they don't exist. Once again you provide a glimpse into the atheist mindset...that belief in God and leprechauns are essentially the same. You fail to reason why so many people believe in the existence of God yet so few people believe in the existence of leprechauns yet to you there is little difference between the two. The reason for the difference in belief is because there is nothing attributed to leprechauns that can't be better explained and attributed to something else. In regards to the existence of the universe you don't have a better explanation or one that is more in evidence. If you did you and others would make a case.
Quote:Actually, it's the lack of convincing evidence for God and that the plentiful convincing evidence for alternative explanations (at least in comparison) is so strong that I am unable to opine that God DOES exist.
Great. I'm happy to hear it. The answer God is to the question why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there a universe? What if anything caused it? Why did the conditions that caused planets, stars, solar systems, galaxies and ultimately sentient life obtain? If you have plentiful convincing evidence for alternative non-god explanations you're the guy I wanted to talk to.
Quote:Do to intellectual honesty, I have a problem rendering the opinion that invisible pixies aren't behind it all. I do think that's a highly improbable explanation not based on reason and evidence...which is exactly what I think about the God explanation.
The God explanation is that our existence and that of the universe isn't the result of magic, invisible pixies or the most incredible fortuitous stroke of luck imaginable but the result of plan, design and engineering. But I will wait for your convincing evidence that mindless forces without plan or intent caused themselves to exist and then proceeded to create a universe with the exacting conditions for planets, stars and ultimately something totally unlike itself to exist, life and sentience.
Thats all for now...
