Atheism

[theVOID]

Totally agree with Chatpilot.

[fr0d0]

What kindness?

(and calling it that is being kind)

Fair enough but the ONLY reason your god is beyond that is BECAUSE YOU DEFINE IT TO BE SO

Not me... us

[quote='Kyuuketsuki' pid='31146' dateline='1252324923'] ... what I dispute is the validity of the DEFINITION!! I simply DO NOT and NEVER WILL accept that a god of any kind can act upon this universe WITHOUT LEAVING A TRAIL OF EVIDENCE!

You either:
1. limit God's omnipotence by ruling that he's not powerful enough to hide his tracks.
2. limit your understanding of what would constitute an act of God


[quote='Kyuuketsuki' pid='31146' dateline='1252324923']Here's the answer you're looking for:

I have no idea actually testifies to the fact that I do not accept it can happen without evidence and NOT to the way you twist it to mean.

Which amounts to: you can't provide one example of what would constitute evidence for God.

Therefore: To be honest you should refrain from saying that God hasn't shown up because given your own reasoning this is impossible to prove.

[Sam]

Fair enough but the ONLY reason your god is beyond that is BECAUSE YOU DEFINE IT TO BE SO

Not me... us

So you believe that because your definition is widely accepted it is correct? To be honest I've seen this become an increasing trand amongst the religious; After all their reasoning and 'evidence' have been refuted they retreat to a definition of God which is 'Outside nature/the universe & Non-Temporal'. Under this definition they give Theology de facto validity whilst removing the need for verifiable proof or at least realistic reasoning.

My main problem with this is that it seems totally arbitrary, it easy to start supposing 'God' as some unknowable force but there is no support for the belief aside from vastly over worked 'reasoning'.

Would it not seem entirely logical to you that a 'God' which is 'Outside' the universe would be unable to interfere with it? I mean, we know that we cannot fix the position of an atom & know it's direction as the act of observing it changes it's state and this is caused by a (relatively) small variance in spatial scale! Surely the same must be held true for being interfering in realms that are not their own!

In my personal opinion this 'definition' of 'God' is no more valid than any other despite claims of 'Onotological Differences'.

... what I dispute is the validity of the DEFINITION!! I simply DO NOT and NEVER WILL accept that a god of any kind can act upon this universe WITHOUT LEAVING A TRAIL OF EVIDENCE!

You either:
1. limit God's omnipotence by ruling that he's not powerful enough to hide his tracks.
2. limit your understanding of what would constitute an act of God

This confused me ... Omnipotence = All Powerful? Why would such a being need to leave tracks to cover up? It seems you cannot even grasp your own God 'Concept'! My argument is that God's act of covering his tracks would again require interference in a realm not his own and therefore generate more tracks ad infinitum

Here's the answer you're looking for:

I have no idea actually testifies to the fact that I do not accept it can happen without evidence and NOT to the way you twist it to mean.

Which amounts to: you can't provide one example of what would constitute evidence for God.

Therefore: To be honest you should refrain from saying that God hasn't shown up because given your own reasoning this is impossible to prove.

To be quite honest your demand for 'Evidence that would constitue an act of God' seems illogical, not least because the burden of proof for your claims is with you, not vice versa. Some phonomena can only be explained and atributed to a cause 'after the fact' so maybe we cannot define exactly what evidence would validate 'God' untill it has appeared, been analysed and all other possibilities refuted. Plus with such a loose definition of an 'Omnipotent, Non-Temporal Being' you could easily try and weasel out of any working ideas at this satge.

To be honest the only evidence I would take for the existence of 'God' would be; If the entire universe collapsed, then re-expanded without any of loosing or lives or suffering at all ... Or maybe if Armagedon actually happened? lol

Sam

[fr0d0]

Welcome back Sam. Thankyou for taking over Kyu's argument. He was making a complete ass of himself as usual.

So you believe that because your definition is widely accepted it is correct?

Not at all. I merely balance Kyu's attempt top weaken the argument by suggesting this point is unique to me, when patently it is a basic tenet of Christian belief.

After all their reasoning and 'evidence' have been refuted they retreat to a definition of God which is 'Outside nature/the universe & Non-Temporal'. Under this definition they give Theology de facto validity whilst removing the need for verifiable proof or at least realistic reasoning.

You presume that I didn't start with the assertion that God is non temporal; his reasoned nature makes this explicit. So to consider validatable evidence like it ever was anything to do with the subject would be absurd. If your definition of god is non temporal. Then great. Knock yourself out beating down your particular strawman. I'll be sure to stand in the sidelines and cheer you on.

Would it not seem entirely logical to you that a 'God' which is 'Outside' the universe would be unable to interfere with it? I mean, we know that we cannot fix the position of an atom & know it's direction as the act of observing it changes it's state and this is caused by a (relatively) small variance in spatial scale! Surely the same must be held true for being interfering in realms that are not their own!

Again you assume something 'not God'. As before. knock yourself out. When you're done perhaps you could seriously consider my God and we can discuss it.

1. limit God's omnipotence by ruling that he's not powerful enough to hide his tracks.
2. limit your understanding of what would constitute an act of God

This confused me ... Omnipotence = All Powerful? Why would such a being need to leave tracks to cover up? It seems you cannot even grasp your own God 'Concept'! My argument is that God's act of covering his tracks would again require interference in a realm not his own and therefore generate more tracks ad infinitum

Well spotted. Of course that summation is ridiculous. Thank you for clearing that one up for us.

To be honest the only evidence I would take for the existence of 'God' would be; If the entire universe collapsed, then re-expanded without any of loosing or lives or suffering at all ... Or maybe if Armagedon actually happened? lol

So tell me how these would prove the existence of God to you. How you wouldn't find naturalistic/ how you wouldn't add it to our understanding of the physical universe.

The answer is you couldn't accept any evidence. You also couldn't as Kyu has been asserting, base your disbelief in God on the grounds of lack of evidence. It is illogical.

[chatpilot]

"The answer is you couldn't accept any evidence. You also couldn't as Kyu has been asserting, base your disbelief in God on the grounds of lack of evidence. It is illogical."

Fr0d0 I totally disagree with that statement,in fact I find it an insult to the intelligence of any logical person.If you make an assertion that a god or the biblical God exist then the onus is upon you to provide evidence for the existence of said God.Biblical texts are not considered evidence and are completely unreliable as a record of his deeds and existence.The so called order in nature and the universe is also not a strong argument for evidence since the naturalistic world is a combination of order and chaos.

It is more illogical to argue for the existence of god or gods from faith than it is to do the same from reason and logic.Especially when your so called faith is based on ancient man in his infancy and his ignorance and superstitions based on fear and lack of knowledge.Knowing this I find it hard to be an agnostic when I know for sure that religion and gods in all their forms are a creation of man.

This is more like arguing from the god of the gaps theory,by stating that if something in science is not known or at the moment not explainable then god did it.Where is the logic in such an assertion?As we said in another forum in order to accept any assertions based on God you have to begin from an objective/religious/or christian worldview.And that worldview has to be accepted entirely on faith and not on logic.So from the beginning the theistic worldview is illogical and the more you argue to assert it the more illogical it becomes to the rest of us.Since your worldview is neither believed in nor accepted by most of us that are proclaiming atheism as our own worldview and philosophy.

[fr0d0]

As usual you didn't apply any thought before writing that CP. You batted people about the head with Christianity and now you do the same with atheism. Go read what we're talking about and then get back with an opinion if you must.

[Sam]

Welcome back Sam. Thankyou for taking over Kyu's argument. He was making a complete ass of himself as usual.

Thanks fr0d0, it wasn't my intention to take over from Kyu ... he seems more than capable of arguing for himself. I haven't seen any evidence of him making ' a complete ass of himself ' either, but I'm not hear to debate your opinion on other forum members.

So you believe that because your definition is widely accepted it is correct?

Not at all. I merely balance Kyu's attempt top weaken the argument by suggesting this point is unique to me, when patently it is a basic tenet of Christian belief.

A basic tenet of Christian belief? Would you not agree that for most of early Christian history the definition was some what different? And that your definition has had to retreat against the advance of science and naturalism? So it is now at the point where you (Christians that is ;-)) have had to simply place your thesis outside the scope of science?

I have also yet to see any compelling reasoning as to the neccesity of these traits as part of 'Gods' existence, that being so I fail to see how your current God Hypothesis is any more valid than the Hundreds that pre-date it.

After all their reasoning and 'evidence' have been refuted they retreat to a definition of God which is 'Outside nature/the universe & Non-Temporal'. Under this definition they give Theology de facto validity whilst removing the need for verifiable proof or at least realistic reasoning.

You presume that I didn't start with the assertion that God is non temporal; his reasoned nature makes this explicit. So to consider validatable evidence like it ever was anything to do with the subject would be absurd. If your definition of god is non temporal. Then great. Knock yourself out beating down your particular strawman. I'll be sure to stand in the sidelines and cheer you on.

I presume only that Christians didn't start with a Non-Temporal idea of God, and that this idea has had to be generated overtime to accomodate modern science.

I apologise if this is ignorant of me, but to what 'reasoned nature' do you refer? I haven't seen any such claims in the Catechism of the Church or any other works I have read so I assume this is the work of either yourself or someone else? I'd be interested to give this reasoning a once-over if you can point me to it? Untill then I will reserve my thoughts.

Would it not seem entirely logical to you that a 'God' which is 'Outside' the universe would be unable to interfere with it? I mean, we know that we cannot fix the position of an atom & know it's direction as the act of observing it changes it's state and this is caused by a (relatively) small variance in spatial scale! Surely the same must be held true for being interfering in realms that are not their own!

Again you assume something 'not God'. As before. knock yourself out. When you're done perhaps you could seriously consider my God and we can discuss it.

How have I assumed something 'Not God' I am running with your definition and presenting a problem with it that you have completely side-stepped! Perhaps then you would care to succintly lay out your God hypothesis for consideration and we can move on?

But in turn I will expect you to refute a resoned rebuttal of one point or another, so let me ask again.

If your God, the non-temporal, transcendant, omnipotent and omniscient 'Christian' God interferes in our temporal universe this would ammount to two seemingly irreconcilable entities co-existing i.e. The Temporal & Non-Temporal surely you see that anything within a Temporal Universe must by neccesity be Temporal therefore your 'God' would be unable to interfere in our universe without being temporal and hence negating an aspect of his nature? So this 'God' would therfore be unable to act within our spectate our universe and therfore he is essentially redundant?

Again this is my personal view, if you will share your full view on God I will be happy to consider it further but untill then some form of reasonable response would be appreciated.

1. limit God's omnipotence by ruling that he's not powerful enough to hide his tracks.
2. limit your understanding of what would constitute an act of God

This confused me ... Omnipotence = All Powerful? Why would such a being need to leave tracks to cover up? It seems you cannot even grasp your own God 'Concept'! My argument is that God's act of covering his tracks would again require interference in a realm not his own and therefore generate more tracks ad infinitum

Well spotted. Of course that summation is ridiculous. Thank you for clearing that one up for us.

Okay ... on reading that agin I would like re-phrase; I think that based on already observed facts (Namely the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle) which show that the measuring or observation of things on different spacial scales directly affects them. It is reasonable to suppose that a being on a different temporal scale, whatever his supposed omipotence would have to have some effect on a Temporal Universe if he chose to interfer in it.

Again I await your definition of God to see how strongly you rely on the omnipotence factor of his nature to resolve such issues for you.

To be honest the only evidence I would take for the existence of 'God' would be; If the entire universe collapsed, then re-expanded without any of loosing or lives or suffering at all ... Or maybe if Armagedon actually happened? lol

So tell me how these would prove the existence of God to you. How you wouldn't find naturalistic/ how you wouldn't add it to our understanding of the physical universe.

The answer is you couldn't accept any evidence. You also couldn't as Kyu has been asserting, base your disbelief in God on the grounds of lack of evidence. It is illogical.

First of all ... please don't provide answers on my behalf, I don't appreciate it. You see this is key to me, I would expect the phonomena to undergo the rigours of the scientific method and emerge with the only possible explanation being a one time susspension of all the rules of nature. I would also say that we can't just add to our understanding of the universe ad hoc In order for this to happen something has to be repeatable or explainable I am almost certain that my examples would go beyond the explainable and hence prove 'Gods' existence.

I base my disbelief in God on the fact that I can't rationally accept you idea of being who is arbitraily non-temporal yet able to act within the temporal, omnibenevolent, yet unwilling to ease the suffering of his 'favoured creations' and alot of other philosophical differences. As well as the fact that there is no evidence.

Cheers

Sam

---

You're not reading what I put Kyu.

I want one example of a proof - one tangible, real example - not a type of example.

I suggest you cannot give me one because it is impossible to do so. Hence your requirement is completely irrational.

I would also point out that this assertion, on which your basing your entire argument that; because there is no evidence does not mean God does not exist. Is a complete fallacy, it essentially reads;

If YOU (Kyu/Sam/Any Other Person) are unable to provide one example of a proof that you would accept of God'd existence then, such a proof does not exist therefore I am right - haha

I trust I don't need to go into any further explanation of the problem with this?

Sam

[fr0d0]

A basic tenet of Christian belief? Would you not agree that for most of early Christian history the definition was some what different? And that your definition has had to retreat against the advance of science and naturalism? So it is now at the point where you (Christians that is ;-)) have had to simply place your thesis outside the scope of science?

Science has never been the realm of Christianity, nor Judaism, nor any of the major religions IIRC. You're chasing your own tail with that one.

I have also yet to see any compelling reasoning as to the neccesity of these traits as part of 'Gods' existence.

Then you fail to address my belief at all.

Example #1

I presume only that Christians didn't start with a Non-Temporal idea of God, and that this idea has had to be generated overtime to accommodate modern science.

I apologise if this is ignorant of me, but to what 'reasoned nature' do you refer? I haven't seen any such claims in the Catechism of the Church or any other works I have read so I assume this is the work of either yourself or someone else? I'd be interested to give this reasoning a once-over if you can point me to it? Untill then I will reserve my thoughts.

You're unfamiliar with Augustine then? What I address is reasoning as presented in scripture and other sources.

How have I assumed something 'Not God' I am running with your definition and presenting a problem with it that you have completely side-stepped! Perhaps then you would care to succintly lay out your God hypothesis for consideration and we can move on?

As you are supposedly attacking my "God hypothesis" I would expect you to be familiar with what is globally accepted definition. Try this

I am almost certain that my examples would go beyond the explainable and hence prove 'Gods' existence.

Please demonstrate how so then precisely and beyond reasonable doubt.

I base my disbelief in God on the fact that I can't rationally accept your idea of a being who is arbitrarily non-temporal yet able to act within the temporal; omnibenevolent, yet unwilling to ease the suffering of his 'favoured creations' and alot of other philosophical differences. As well as the fact that there is no evidence.

You continue to present the straw man that is not the Christian God. You seem to have little to know conception of the Christian God, so your rational position is hardly surprising. I haven't claimed that you should be supernaturally informed.

[chatpilot]

As usual you didn't apply any thought before writing that CP. You batted people about the head with Christianity and now you do the same with atheism. Go read what we're talking about and then get back with an opinion if you must.

Not even worth a reply as usual you do what you do best, avoid the issues altogether.Debating a die hard christian who tenaciously clings to his faith based on ignorance is as fruitful as talking to a wall and expecting a response.

[fr0d0]

As usual you didn't apply any thought before writing that CP. You batted people about the head with Christianity and now you do the same with atheism. Go read what we're talking about and then get back with an opinion if you must.

Not even worth a reply as usual you do what you do best, avoid the issues altogether.Debating a die hard christian who tenaciously clings to his faith based on ignorance is as fruitful as talking to a wall and expecting a response.

First you have to actually address the point chatpilot to engage someone. I see you dodge that basic challenge.. then accuse me of dodging a completely irrelevant question. Well done. Now get out of my face.

---

You're not reading what I put Kyu.

I want one example of a proof - one tangible, real example - not a type of example.

I suggest you cannot give me one because it is impossible to do so. Hence your requirement is completely irrational.

I would also point out that this assertion, on which your basing your entire argument that; because there is no evidence does not mean God does not exist. Is a complete fallacy, it essentially reads;

If YOU (Kyu/Sam/Any Other Person) are unable to provide one example of a proof that you would accept of God'd existence then, such a proof does not exist therefore I am right - haha

I trust I don't need to go into any further explanation of the problem with this?

Sam

You are correct. Just as you, with the dismissal of God have to leave the possibility that you could be wrong, I have to leave open the possibility that I may be wrong in asserting that there can be no acceptable evidence.

If you claim lack of evidence as your reason for disbelief, you have equally to the small possibility of evidence for God, the small possibility of there actually being any acceptable evidence. I don't see how you could make such a claim without having any idea what evidence would be acceptable. Therefore the claim is nullified.