What would you call my new beliefs?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, I would rather have a well constructed set of arguments that demonstrate that I have an internally consistent worldview, then to cobble together a bunch of "we don't knows", "brute facts", theories impossible to apply scientific methods to, and a huge list of assumptions without the possibility of ultimate answers.

I suppose that would be nice, but you don't have that.  You have five shitty arguments, all amounting to one, larger...shitty argument.

[SteveII]

As I said in my post, I have reasons for everything I believe. There are some things that I do not know and will admit that I do not know--so your "weakness" conclusion is not true. 

Then why the dig at atheists for having a bunch of "I don't knows" and a "huge list of assumptions without the possibility of ultimate answers?"  You definitely give off the vibe that there is something wrong with admitting you're unable to answer something.

My response was in response to the charge that I was "redefining best and redefining explanation". I was pointing out the irony as far as explanations go. 

Give me an example of something you don't know, and I guarantee it will really just be that you believe that god did it, you just don't claim to know how.  That's not the same as recognizing there are questions you'll never be able to answer.

You can guarantee that because you are simply defining a theist (which you know I am). I am not a YEC so I do not know how life came about and how man was created. I will never be able to answer that question (unless somehow science can tell us). 

As far as intellectual integrity, it is easy to write that overused allegation. Do you have any specifics on how I am lacking?

Lol, you're a Christian.  Your religion is a textbook example of tossing intellectual integrity out the window.  Feels over reals, as the kids say.

You paint with a broad brush. While plenty of Christians do not know why they believe x, y or z, there are those that do and are ready with an answer. To think differently, I would say you are guilty of ignoring the highest standards of discourse and debate--that of respecting those you disagree with and consider their views in the best charitable light.

[Harry Nevis]

Then why the dig at atheists for having a bunch of "I don't knows" and a "huge list of assumptions without the possibility of ultimate answers?"  You definitely give off the vibe that there is something wrong with admitting you're unable to answer something.

My response was in response to the charge that I was "redefining best and redefining explanation". I was pointing out the irony as far as explanations go. 

Give me an example of something you don't know, and I guarantee it will really just be that you believe that god did it, you just don't claim to know how.  That's not the same as recognizing there are questions you'll never be able to answer.

You can guarantee that because you are simply defining a theist (which you know I am). I am not a YEC so I do not know how life came about and how man was created. I will never be able to answer that question (unless somehow science can tell us). 

Lol, you're a Christian.  Your religion is a textbook example of tossing intellectual integrity out the window.  Feels over reals, as the kids say.

You paint with a broad brush. While plenty of Christians do not know why they believe x, y or z, there are those that do and are ready with an answer. To think differently, I would say you are guilty of ignoring the highest standards of discourse and debate--that of respecting those you disagree with and consider their views in the best charitable light.

It's just that none of the reasons that they give for believing hold up to scrutiny.  Except for that it makes them feel good. An honest, no bullshit answer that I believe is much more common, but not admitted, than any other.

[SteveII]

delete

[The Valkyrie]

Can I call your new beliefs "Sandy"?

[Simon Moon]

So you're basically redefining terms like "best" and "explanation".

No, this is simply a list of the top 5 Natural Theology arguments that I believe conclude that "God is the best explanation for...". While I think the arguments are sound, since atheism and it's attendant Naturalism does not have any explanation, I'm afraid the bar is not set very high as to best. 

If you want to talk about a particular argument, start a new thread. I will participate.

Sorry, but inserting "god's magic" into explanations, does not get close to making them 'the best'.

Again, you are explaining a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery. This does not lead to the best explanation.

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.

Sounds like you are appealing to a cosmological argument to me.

Sorry, but even if there is no natural explanation, does not mean that your fallacious arguments becomes 'the best explanation' by default.

c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

What fine tuning?

We exist because the universe is one that is able to produce and sustain life. Not because it was designed for us.

By the way, how many other, non fine tuned universes, have you examined to know what the differences between the 2 look like?

d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.

What do you base this on?

Not sure if you kept up with the latest research, but there are some pretty good natural explanations for consciousness, that don't require magic.

Just what are your credentials in neuroscience and cognitive science, in order for you to dismiss them all?

e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

I am one of the few atheists here that believes that objective morality may exist, without the need for a god.

And since when is morality that comes from a god that has the ability to change his mind about what is moral or not, objective?

[Edwardo Piet]

I believe in a collective conscious, so is why I believe that the stories they wrote probably connected with most of their fellow humans.

I believe your beliefs are fucktarded.

It sounds like what a lot of my family believe. My mom read some Carl Jung and my stepdad got into Pagan shit and they thought "Oooh this is much better than evidence! Isn't it great to make my eldest son the black sheep with the brain cellls?"

[SteveII]

No, this is simply a list of the top 5 Natural Theology arguments that I believe conclude that "God is the best explanation for...". While I think the arguments are sound, since atheism and it's attendant Naturalism does not have any explanation, I'm afraid the bar is not set very high as to best. 

If you want to talk about a particular argument, start a new thread. I will participate.

Sorry, but inserting "god's magic" into explanations, does not get close to making them 'the best'.

Again, you are explaining a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery. This does not lead to the best explanation.

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.

Sounds like you are appealing to a cosmological argument to me.

Sorry, but even if there is no natural explanation, does not mean that your fallacious arguments becomes 'the best explanation' by default.

c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

What fine tuning?

We exist because the universe is one that is able to produce and sustain life. Not because it was designed for us.

By the way, how many other, non fine tuned universes, have you examined to know what the differences between the 2 look like?

d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.

What do you base this on?

Not sure if you kept up with the latest research, but there are some pretty good natural explanations for consciousness, that don't require magic.

Just what are your credentials in neuroscience and cognitive science, in order for you to dismiss them all?

e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

I am one of the few atheists here that believes that objective morality may exist, without the need for a god.

And since when is morality that comes from a god that has the ability to change his mind about what is moral or not, objective?

I don't want to turn this thread into a debate on a particular (or multiple) Natural Theology argument(s). If you want to start a new thread on one of them, I will participate. Or let me know which one and I will start the thread. Either way.

[Nonpareil]

Inductively, to escape the logical absurdity that physical matter always existed, what we are left with as an explanation is a non-physical, timeless, un-caused, force that was powerful enough to bring matter into existence out of nothing.

No.

Matter always existed within space-time, as matter cannot be created or destroyed within space-time. In the same way, the necessity of causality can only be demonstrated to hold within space-time - in point of fact, the idea of causality holding outside of time is nonsensical, since there is no time in which a cause could possibly precede an effect.

This is the failing of the various formulations of the cosmological argument. They all fail to establish that the idea of the universe having a cause is even coherent, let alone possible or necessary. They attempt to hide this by sleight of hand, trying to substitute the necessity of causality within the universe for evidence of its necessity outside - but this does not work, as the two are not equivalent.

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.

See above.

c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.

The universe is not fine-tuned for intelligent life.

d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.

Incoherent. The argument is not sufficiently defined.

e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

Objective moral values and duties do not exist.

[SteveII]

Inductively, to escape the logical absurdity that physical matter always existed, what we are left with as an explanation is a non-physical, timeless, un-caused, force that was powerful enough to bring matter into existence out of nothing.

No.

Matter always existed within space-time, as matter cannot be created or destroyed within space-time. In the same way, the necessity of causality can only be demonstrated to hold within space-time - in point of fact, the idea of causality holding outside of time is nonsensical, since there is no time in which a cause could possibly precede an effect.

This is the failing of the various formulations of the cosmological argument. They all fail to establish that the idea of the universe having a cause is even coherent, let alone possible or necessary. They attempt to hide this by sleight of hand, trying to substitute the necessity of causality within the universe for evidence of its necessity outside - but this does not work, as the two are not equivalent.

Why should causality require our space/time? 

I see your move from space/time to just time in your second sentence. You are simply defining time and then telling us time by itself is nonsensical. I would agree since time is simply a measurement of change--and if there is nothing to change, you don't have time. If there is something that is changing prior to our universe in order to create our universe, you have time and therefore causality. 

Establishing that all physical changes have a cause is the only thing our experience and rational reasoning has ever told us. Additionally, if things can happen uncaused, why don't they happen now? What is your theory on why our universe can stop random uncaused things from popping into existence from nothing when without the universe, nothing could produce something? For really, how could a universe that came from nothing constrain nothing from generating something when nothing cannot be constrained because...there is nothing to constrain. Or perhaps nothing only generates really big complex universes and not everyday things like a french horn. 

So you want us to believe a theory that goes against everything we know and against reason, just to salvage the idea that the universe came from nothing. Sorry if I am not convinced.