Agnosticism IS the most dishonest position

[The Grand Nudger]

In what sense saying "finite or infinite" is, or can be, a false dichotomy? Explain, don't just merely throw accusations.

The gish gallop.  I've corrected misapprehensions you had about two other specific articles.  Now we're on to some other throwaway discussion.  I've repeatedly expressed to you that no disagreement over which beliefs are reasonable to hold forms the basis of my inability and utter lack of desire to join your club.  

Assume that there is a god, your god, described by your magic book.  All of your work is still ahead of you.

For me, these discussions are pure academic minutiae.  

No, I don't think anything can come from nothing. This is a gross misunderstanding of what the word infinite means. If we assert a god is there, he was always there. There was never a nothing state he came from. Therefore, "something can't come from nothing" is universally true and there is no exception.
Infinite regress is actually the misinformed answer. If there was any concept of time or, equivalently, some notion of delay between two causes, then infinite regress is already impossible, because we are here, which means an infinite amount of time already elapsed, and that is absurd. If we imagine an infinite row of soldiers, each one waiting for his predecessor's gunshot to shoot himself, then no one will ever shoot!

Fine, if you say so, but a god who came from no where, no when, and no thing..is very clearly something from nothing.  If you want to assert these problems as problems..they are your problems.

I'm perfectly content to consider a god from nothing, the god you believe in.  You should be too.

I didn't even mention the anthropic principle before that, you brought that into the discussion without any warrant ,and started complaining about why I am not using it. Odd, really odd.

I agree.  It was odd, really odd, for you to reject a principle that your argument was fundamentally based upon..on account of how you had to look it up..didn't know what it was, assumed it must be atheist and/or/bad...and then stomped all over your own dick figuring out that it wasn't.  

If I am not making any progress, then it's mainly due to your close mindedness, and inability to leave stereotypes aside and discuss the so called objections .. objectively. And you made that clear when you turned our discussion about morality and anachronism into flyting.

The only thing all of your failures have in common, is you.  I'm clearly willing to be open minded about your silly god stories.  More so than you've managed to be.  For the umpteenth time - it's not because I can't consider or imagine or allow for any number of ghost stories to be true that I'm not a member of your club.  It is by considering those ghost stories -as true- that I've reached my conclusions about your god, and your magic book. 

You will not make any progress until you can comprehend this simple fact, repeatedly expressed.

[Abaddon_ire]

Design is anything complex/sophisticated enough to make itd coming by chance at least very unlikely.  And a snowflake is, in the broad sense, designed. Its formation is a result of the ordered structure of ice.

Well then you have a logical problem.

Is every grain of sand complex? Yup.

Is every snowflake complex? Yup.

Is every atom complex? Yup.

Thus your god must have created all of them, right?

[LadyForCamus]

Design is anything complex/sophisticated enough to make itd coming by chance at least very unlikely.  And a snowflake is, in the broad sense, designed. Its formation is a result of the ordered structure of ice.

So, now you’re equivocating definitions of the word “design”, which is another fallacy. Do you think it’s our first go-around with this terrible argument? I’ll give the intellectually honest answer to my own question: No, each individual snowflake is not intelligently designed by a god. We know how snowflakes form naturally. So again, we have stuff that looks intelligently designed that isn’t, like a snowflake. And, we have stuff that looks intelligently designed that is, like a piece of art in a museum. Therefore (again), the appearance of design is not a valid indicator of design, and cannot rationally be fostered as evidence for ID. 

No. What would convince me of design is evidence of the designer, because that is the only way to get to a rationally justified belief in ID.

You just want the design argument, which is an inference from what's around us, to be turned on its head. Providing evidence of a designer per se won't even include design as a premise. Orderly laws around us - that make things appear to be designed - require an explanation themselves. And the most reasonable explanation is a personal entity, since it obviously produced personal beings.

Nah, I’m simply waiting for you to present a sound argument. 

So, your god had to fine tune natural laws down to the quantum level in order for us to be able to exist? Why is god so constricted by the laws of nature? Not much of a god if you ask me.

The whole thing was a no brainer for god, by definition. So this hardly counts as an objection.

Lol, what? My point completely decimates the foundational characteristics of your god claim, and that’s your rebuttal? 😂

[Belacqua]

Orderly laws around us - that make things appear to be designed - require an explanation themselves. 

I've skimmed the last few pages of this thread. What you say here is fairly familiar to me, given other things I've read. Let me see if I can put this in my own words in a way you'd find agreeable. 

As I understand it, classical theology posits that every contingent thing depends for its existence on something else. The sun's existence depends on the existence of hydrogen, for example, among other things. And hydrogen's existence depends for its existence on subatomic particles. And those particles depend for their existence on other things, including the orderly laws of nature. 

I don't think there's a problem of an infinite regress, because logically we come to an end. All things that exist depend for their existence on the fact that there is existence. Existence itself is the last step. Existence can't depend on a deeper law or entity, because such a law or entity would have to exist -- which means it partakes of existence, which means it depends for its existence on existence. 

So different theologians say that the deepest level is the Ground of Being, or just Being itself, which is what they call God. (Naturally at this point we have to specify that this argument only points to God as a Ground of Being and not the specifically Christian or Jewish, etc., God.) 

This sustaining thing -- the Ground of Being -- cannot itself be an orderly law, because that would just be one more law, and thus would offer no explanation for what sustains the laws. 

In this way of thinking, God is the designer in the sense that everything in the world depends for its appearance, structure, and operation on the existence which God is, and the orderly laws which result from that existence. Their is an analogy going on here between God, which determines what the world is like, and a human designer, who determines what a house (for example) is like. 

But the analogy breaks down quickly, at least in classical theology. A human designer develops his ideas over time, makes an active choice that things will be one way rather than another, and can change his mind or adjust his design as he goes along. The human designer is analogous in this way with the Demiurge in Plato's Timeaus. Plato, though, doesn't put the Demiurge in the highest position. The Demiurge itself depends for its existence on something eternal, unchanging, and ideal. And this ideal and unchanging thing is much like the classical theologian's idea of God. 

So in this system, it is correct to say that God determines the design of each snowflake. But people who are accustomed to think of human designers will misunderstand how God is said to work. God isn't sitting at a drawing board working out the designs. God sustains in existence the orderly laws of how water is and behaves, how cold weather affects it, and how in the right conditions it changes to snow. The apparent randomness of each snowflake's difference, then, is designed into the system. It is randomness by design. 

And the most reasonable explanation is a personal entity, since it obviously produced personal beings.

This is the part I'm unfamiliar with. I have never studied the theologians who argue for a personal God. 

In this view, what is personal about God? Is it subject to moods and changes, like a human person? Is it in some way not transcendent, as the classical theologians' God is? I honestly don't know these things. 

I also don't see the reasoning behind saying that since God produced personal beings this argues in favor of God being a person. 

This may all be too much for the present thread. If you'd rather just point me to a link I'd be grateful.

[R00tKiT]

The gish gallop.  I've corrected misapprehensions you had about two other specific articles.  Now we're on to some other throwaway discussion.  I've repeatedly expressed to you that no disagreement over which beliefs are reasonable to hold forms the basis of my inability and utter lack of desire to join your club.

You know, you won't look bad if you acknoweldge the misapprehensions you had about any topic. From what I recall, I never used the anthropic principle in any of my arguments, and I made it clear I don't reject it - that is, think it's false -, I just think it's meaningless to make a formal argument from it, and it turned out I was right.
Back to the sense of wonder, a very important question of mine went unanswered : should a deity make its existence "overwhelming", i.e. felt by its creatures in their everyday lives, or, send pages of rigorous proofs covering all the cases and thoughts every skeptic can possibly have about the topic?

I am waiting for a clear answer.

Assume that there is a god, your god, described by your magic book.  All of your work is still ahead of you.

For me, these discussions are pure academic minutiae. 

If you think I have some burden to spoon feed exhaustive answers to every possible doubt you can have, you're mistaken. That's the problem with religious discussions anyway, and that's what makes atheists atheists : everyone can build his objection to any possible positive case for god/prophecy, etc. and mix it with the appearance of thoughtfulness to hide the bias, but whether he does the thing honestly, no one can ever know, except the god he's arguing against, that is.

As a concrete example, as soon as child marriage is brought up, you begin name calling, unable to let go of the urge of considering your western upbringing/recent legal changes as some absolute moral reference. And I don't think you still understand what anachronism means, or how bad it makes people look like when they fall into it.

Fine, if you say so, but a god who came from no where, no when, and no thing..is very clearly something from nothing.

No, he's not. You are playing with words and think you can get away with it. A god didn't come from nowhere, nowhere was never an actual state, he is the "where".

I don't think you seriously write this crap, you just don't have any willingness to investigate what people, from the other camp, write to you.

Well then you have a logical problem.

Is every grain of sand complex? Yup.

Is every snowflake complex? Yup.

Is every atom complex? Yup.

Thus your god must have created all of them, right?

Yes, that's right. And I don't see how it can be a "logical problem".

So, now you’re equivocating definitions of the word “design”, which is another fallacy. Do you think it’s our first go-around with this terrible argument? I’ll give the intellectually honest answer to my own question: No, each individual snowflake is not intelligently designed by a god.

That's, actually, the most dishonest answer you can possibly give to your own question. You can't prove this negative answer, you could've stopped at "We don't know",. The fact that you know how the snowflake came into being, is irrelevant. A supposed god who designed things could've designed them by means of the process of evolution, or by adjusting the laws of physics in such a way to make their existence possible.

You're actually anthropomorphising the word design : since people need to use their hands, need manufactures, need planning and time, a logo on the designed product, the same should go for god. And because people don't usually design things through very very thoughtful and long term processes that force these things into existing, they're not designed. And that's a mistake.

And, we have stuff that looks intelligently designed that is, like a piece of art in a museum.

No, you have stuff that's designed by human beings alone. Why extend your intuitive human definition of design to a deity?

But the analogy breaks down quickly, at least in classical theology. A human designer develops his ideas over time, makes an active choice that things will be one way rather than another, and can change his mind or adjust his design as he goes along. The human designer is analogous in this way with the Demiurge in Plato's Timeaus. Plato, though, doesn't put the Demiurge in the highest position. The Demiurge itself depends for its existence on something eternal, unchanging, and ideal. And this ideal and unchanging thing is much like the classical theologian's idea of God. 

So in this system, it is correct to say that God determines the design of each snowflake. But people who are accustomed to think of human designers will misunderstand how God is said to work. God isn't sitting at a drawing board working out the designs. God sustains in existence the orderly laws of how water is and behaves, how cold weather affects it, and how in the right conditions it changes to snow. The apparent randomness of each snowflake's difference, then, is designed into the system. It is randomness by design.

I suppose we mostly agree. I would say randomness is subjective to us, as human beings. Randomness can simply be our misunderstanding of deeper - or unknowable? - reasons of why some laws appear to describe absolute randomness - I don't think that's actually the case, but let's push the definitions to their limits -.

Also the fact that we understand the system better than we did a few centuries ago, shouldn't make the reasons we believed in the most superior deity, obsolete. Science already hit a plateau in very ambitious topics [the uncertainty principle, Gödel's incompleteness theorems in mathematics, etc] . It's becoming increasingly clear that our scientific method will remain absolutely silent on the big questions, and that we should seriously reconsider our opinion about theology, arguing from scripture, etc. Because they are all we have.

This is the part I'm unfamiliar with. I have never studied the theologians who argue for a personal God. 

In this view, what is personal about God? Is it subject to moods and changes, like a human person? Is it in some way not transcendent, as the classical theologians' God is? I honestly don't know these things. 

I also don't see the reasoning behind saying that since God produced personal beings this argues in favor of God being a person. 

This may all be too much for the present thread. If you'd rather just point me to a link I'd be grateful.

I think any religious theologian you can look up will essentially argue for a personal God. To me, a personal god simply means a god who actually communicated with people, or a handful of people, in a language they understand, and gave very specific instructions about how to live their lives for the promise of some real happiness, eternal blissfulness, etc.

If we agree that any entity can't give what it doesn't have, and that the universe, including its components - human beings, nature, animals, etc. - was designed with us in mind, then clearly personal beings require the entity to fully have this property, very precise and unbreakable laws of the universe require an entiy with omniscience-like properties, etc.

Most of I read about theology in favor of Islam is essentially in Arabic. I think however that any content you can find by the so called Hamza Tzortzis, can be useful, including his book. He does take the time to argue for everything up to the personal god of Islam

[The Grand Nudger]

You know, you won't look bad if you acknoweldge the misapprehensions you had about any topic.

Sure, and just as soon as you figure out what those might be I'm all ears.  What I keep telling you..though..is that it isn't on account of any misapprehension that I don't want to join your club.

Close your eyes and imagine a world in which people hear what you and magic book have to say about your religion, and your god...and instead of thinking "god is the greatest"..they think - "nah, count me out".  

Now open your eyes....congratulations, you live in just such a world.

As a concrete example, as soon as child marriage is brought up, you begin name calling, unable to let go of the urge of considering your western upbringing/recent legal changes as some absolute moral reference. And I don't think you still understand what anachronism means, or how bad it makes people look like when they fall into it.

Correct.  As soon as child brides come up, I'm out.  You say your boy did it, I accept that you believe this.  There is no misapprehension here.  

I simply don't find relativist excuses compelling, as a moral realist. The ones you floated are particularly repulsive.

No, he's not. You are playing with words and think you can get away with it. A god didn't come from nowhere, nowhere was never an actual state, he is the "where".

I don't think you seriously write this crap, you just don't have any willingness to investigate what people, from the other camp, write to you.

Either god came from something or somewhere or he didn't.  You tell me he didn't, I accept that you believe this.  No misapprehension here.

There's really no point in arguing a god into existence.  This is irrelevant to me, and to whether or not I would join your club. I'm struggling to come up with simpler ways to put this, so that you can understand. Sure..it's true that I don't believe in the fairy tales that you do..but it isn't because I don't believe them that I'm not a muslim. I wouldn't, and couldn't be a muslim even if I did.

That your god is fiction is actually one of the redeeming qualities of your religion, in my opinion. I appreciate that you're having trouble wrapping your head around this - but you're going to have to try if you want to have a conversation with me. Otherwise, you're just repeating shit you practiced for an argument against an imaginary atheist that only exists between your ears. I think that it would be imprudent of you to overlook the opportunity.

You might have underestimated the task before you when it comes to proving a gods existence - but that can be lain entirely aside with me - and probably with most of the people here.

Anywho, as to wonder and clear answers. I don't know whether a god would have to make it's existence known to all, or known in a specific way...but that's referred to as "the sense of the numinous" - and atheists feel it. It's a common human experience. Human perception is generally explained by reference to humans, not gods. If a god does have to send pages of rigorous proofs, as you put it...then there is either no god, or god is still working on the manuscript. Not that it matters much since, as above, whether or not gods exist is irrelevant.

I exist, you're not worshiping me. You exist, I'm not worshiping you. It's pretty clear that neither of us base our decision to worship something on it's existence. Wouldn't you agree?

[Abaddon_ire]

Well then you have a logical problem.

Is every grain of sand complex? Yup.

Is every snowflake complex? Yup.

Is every atom complex? Yup.

Thus your god must have created all of them, right?

Yes, that's right. And I don't see how it can be a "logical problem".

Because it destroys you argument for a designer.

[R00tKiT]

Sure, and just as soon as you figure out what those might be I'm all ears.  What I keep telling you..though..is that it isn't on account of any misapprehension that I don't want to join your club.

Close your eyes and imagine a world in which people hear what you and magic book have to say about your religion, and your god...and instead of thinking "god is the greatest"..they think - "nah, count me out".  

Now open your eyes....congratulations, you live in just such a world.

"Joining the club" and believing in God are really two separate endeavours. If you're not going to join any club, you still need to give good objections to what people present as reasons to believe, and so far I don't think you gave any.
And don't worry, I don't have some delusion of being able to convert crowds of people, or even one person, overnight. I just want to present my case genuinely, and hear genuine, thoughtful objections, not just biased repugnance.

Correct.  As soon as child brides come up, I'm out.  You say your boy did it, I accept that you believe this.  There is no misapprehension here.  

I simply don't find relativist excuses compelling, as a moral realist.  The ones you floated are particularly repulsive.

First of all, what you call relativist excuses, are not excuses, nor relativist. No religious person is a relativist, we ascribe to a fixed, unchanging set of commands in scripture. It's your turn to close your eyes and think of other parts in this world when people do things you might hate with every ounce of your soul, but should still hear their reasoning. A vegan shouldn't find meat eaters too repugnant, right?

Back to the thomas jefferson example, let's say you really hate the guy for owning slaves. Does that make his advocacy for democracy, tolerance and individual rights less acceptable? Am I going to count "you out" with regards to his social views ?
And why would you expect a prophet from god to ascribe to your exact personal moral views?

Either god came from something or somewhere or he didn't.  You tell me he didn't, I accept that you believe this.  No misapprehension here.

What kind of pathetic non-answer is that? You either are completely with me on this point, or you're not. Saying "I accept that you believe this" is dodgy really.

There's really no point in arguing a god into existence.  This is irrelevant to me, and to whether or not I would join your club.  I'm struggling to come up with simpler ways to put this, so that you can understand.  Sure..it's true that I don't believe in the fairy tales that you do..but it isn't because I don't believe them that I'm not a muslim.  I wouldn't, and couldn't be a muslim even if I did.  

That your god is fiction is actually one of the redeeming qualities of your religion, in my opinion.  I appreciate that you're having trouble wrapping your head around this - but you're going to have to try if you want to have a conversation with me.  Otherwise, you're just repeating shit you practiced for an argument against an imaginary atheist that only exists between your ears.  I think that it would be imprudent  of you to overlook the opportunity.  

You might have underestimated the task before you when it comes to proving a gods existence - but that can be lain entirely aside with me - and probably with most of the people here.

Anywho, as to wonder and clear answers. I don't know whether a god would have to make it's existence known to all, or known in a specific way...but that's referred to as "the sense of the numinous" - and atheists feel it.  It's a common human experience.  Human perception is generally explained by reference to humans, not gods.  If a god does have to send pages of rigorous proofs, as you put it...then there is either no god, or god is still working on the manuscript.  Not that it matters much since, as above, whether or not gods exist is irrelevant.  

I exist, you're not worshiping me.  You exist, I'm not worshiping you.  It's pretty clear that neither of us base our decision to worship something on it's existence.  Wouldn't you agree?

Okay, to sum it all up:

existence of god/gods ... irrelevant

Whether Muhammad was moral/righteous as a prophet ... irrelevant

Our ovewhelming inkling/tendency to believe ... irrelevant

Something can't come from nothing .... irrelevant

So .. tell me please, what is relevant?

It's clear that you're dismissing good reasons for belief for the sole reason that you're somewhat familiar with them, and certainly not because you have some good rebuttal. You're not impressed by what the other camp has to offer and that's understandable. Now the key thing is to learn to be impressed and think of these issues in a fresh way, and that's not something I, or anyone, can make you do.
Also, seeing both the issues of the existence of gods AND the morality of the prophets as irrelevant is really closing any possible discussion.

Back to the sense of wonder, yeah, it's a common human perception, I know, and that's why it matters. Common human perceptions are much more compelling, engaging and vivacious than any amount of logical proofs, and you know it, so much that you can feel it.

[LastPoet]

I shared my knowlege, that I have gathered trough school and experimentation (no one trusts school, simply). I have a sad now. oh well, enjoy entertaining the idiot, mabe I am out of stamina to bother with klorophill deep ignorance, or fainted ignorance.

[Mister Agenda]

A deity that is past-infinite IS an infinite regression.