EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Atheism

< Return to subforum
Page: 1234567Most Recent
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Jun 28 2016 7:25 AM
Crow: So, I guess it would be a matter of logic instead of science.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Jun 28 2016 8:07 AM
admin: Perhaps some conceptions of God are not an organized religion, but they are certainly religious.
By religious, you mean the concept of God is in religions?
Atheism and Theism can be used to categorize a religions belief on God, some religions are considered atheistic. You can be an atheist and still follow some religions. Theism and Atheism are just philosophical beliefs on God's existence.
Justin Bieber is a physical belief, not a metaphysical one (one would assume, unless you think he's literally a divine entity of some sort).
I was just saying that simply a belief in something doesn't make it religious. A metaphysical belief isn't religious. I am sure you already know what metaphysics is, but I will provide a definition here: a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysics
You seem to be a naturalist, so even you have your metaphysical beliefs. Metaphysical Naturalism is your assumption. More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
1. You can't logically argue against a concept without defining the concept. There are many different versions of "God" which are inconsistent - problems applying to one conception may not apply to another. This is not to say the concept cannot be generally flawed. For example, do you believe God is logical? Some would answer yes, others no. Both require different responses.
By God, I mean the monotheistic/judeo-christian concept of God. An eternal, necessary, omnipotent, immaterial, timeless, spaceless being that created the universe.
2. Inductively, a lack of evidence FOR god is as good as evidence against. Because religion is a positive claim, the null has to be that there is no god.
Not in the case of what we usually mean by God, God doesn't exist in reality, so of course there would be a lack of evidence. If God isn't revealed to the world, it may show that God doesn't care to reveal himself.
admin
By admin | Jun 28 2016 8:48 AM
Bi0Hazard: Sure but you cannot believe in God and not follow a religion, at least as I understand it. It is possible one might describe my ideas as a form of naturalism, without me necessarily subscribing to the belief as any sort of label.

Ignoring the Judeo-Christian bit, such a God has the following issues, in the least:
1. "Eternal" is incompatible with the idea of "timeless"
2. "Eternal" is incompatible with "creation" (esp. creation of time)
3. "Eternal" creates an infinite regression problem
4. "Necessary" presumes own logical modality
5. "Necessary" and "omnipotent", together, have a set theory issue regarding God's existence in non-existent worlds
6. "Omnipotent" is self-refuting
7. "Omnipotent" inherently refutes existence
8. "Omnipotent" and "immaterial" or "timeless" create causality dilemma
9. The same combination also creates dualist issue (similar to human mind-body problem)
10. Dimensional entities (even zero dimensional, like numbers) logically still need to be usable as units on the next highest dimension (ie one dimensional)
Just 10 I can spot at a glance from that list. Happy to expand on any of those but it might take a while; this could fill books (and has indeed done so!)
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Jun 28 2016 10:03 AM
admin: Sure but you cannot believe in God and not follow a religion, at least as I understand it.
Yes you can. If I believe in the existence of God, but don't follow any of the organized religions(such as Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc.), then I am a non-religious theist. Your an atheist but don't follow any form of organized religion, therefore, your a non-religious atheist. It all depends on how you define religion, but I think your definition is that religion is simply belief and worship of the supernatural, which is not a very good definition.
There are many possible definitions of a god, I just thought we were talking about the monotheistic God. The concept of God can exist in Naturalism as well. For example, you can believe that aliens from a different galaxy created cells in a laboratory and released them onto a planet, then evolution by natural selection brought us to where we are now. If you call these beings "God/gods", then you would not be an atheist anymore but instead a theist/Deist.
Ignoring the Judeo-Christian bit, such a God has the following issues, in the least:
1. "Eternal" is incompatible with the idea of "timeless"

Such a God would be beyond our understanding, so it makes sense that we can't see how it is possible.
Eternal just means always existed, without an end or a beginning. I think being timeless is necessary to being eternal, without time, you could never have begun to exist.
2. "Eternal" is incompatible with "creation" (esp. creation of time)
I don't see how it is incompatible, if you always existed(never had a beginning or an end), that wouldn't mean you can't create.
3. "Eternal" creates an infinite regression problem
It does the opposite, if God wasn't eternal, then there would have to be a cause for existence. Then at some point, there would have to be an uncaused cause for existence. If not, then there would be an infinite regression problem(of causes).
4. "Necessary" presumes own logical modality
5. "Necessary" and "omnipotent", together, have a set theory issue regarding God's existence in non-existent worlds

Necessary would mean exists in all possible worlds, basically meaning, it has to exist or impossible for it to not exist. I don't see how this makes an issue.
6. "Omnipotent" is self-refuting
7. "Omnipotent" inherently refutes existence

I am assuming your referring to the omnipotence paradox. The omnipotence of God means God can do anything possible. So, God can lift every possible stone. It is not self-refuting.
8. "Omnipotent" and "immaterial" or "timeless" create causality dilemma
So, you have a problem with God creating something from nothing? Indeed, it doesn't make much sense, but if God is omnipotent, then he can do anything possible. Which can include creating from nothing.
Just 10 I can spot at a glance from that list. Happy to expand on any of those but it might take a while; this could fill books (and has indeed done so!)
We can argue/debate on these all day/week/month/year, very hard to understand. If such a God does exist, his nature is above our comprehension. Which could be another reason for being an atheist.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jun 28 2016 10:32 AM
Bi0Hazard: Since this is a thread on atheism, I'd like to share some thoughts on it.
Let's assume for a moment that there is no evidence of God. However, at the same time you have a religious holy book (I.e. the Bible) that talks about the importance of faith. Then you assume, by reading these texts, that if God exists then He wants people to believe in His existence and obey Him by faith. At this point one can assume that God intentionally conceals Himself from human beings and human science (though "nuggets" to strengthen our faith aren't necessarily against the rules).
At this point, the atheist can still point out that while this could be true, there's simply no reason to believe it. However, my response would be that there is indeed a reason to believe this claim: because if it's true, then you have something to look forward to when you die and that you have a greater purpose in life, and this belief is not intolerably harmful to you even if it were to be wrong.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jun 28 2016 10:33 AM
Dassault Papillon: That is, you have much to gain and almost nothing to lose from believing.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jun 28 2016 10:36 AM
However, regardless if religion is true or not, you cannot get any benefits from it if you don't believe in the religion you're following.
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Jun 28 2016 11:03 AM
Dassault Papillon: Your using the pascal's wager as an argument.
Pas·cal's wa·ger
nounPHILOSOPHY
the argument that it is in one's own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage of believing otherwise.

This would make it a pretty good reason to be a christian and not an atheist if you think there is a good possibility that Christianity is true. There is one problem with this, what if a religion like Islam turns out to be true? You would burn in hell for being christian or atheist. So, it would be a good reason for not being an atheist, but not necessarily a good reason for being a Christian. You would have to consider other religions as well.
Crow
By Crow | Jun 28 2016 11:28 AM
Dassault Papillon: In the Abrahamic religion, God does not conceal himself.

The spirit is considered to be God; His voice and his kingdom. It is the nagging feeling that leads men to believe in God, and make it difficult for mankind to deny him.

I feel you struggle with your faith due to a difficulty in establishing evidence. You recognize the demand for faith in Christianity, but have failed to connect it to the holy spirit, which is the basis for most of the teachings in the new testament (90% of Christians are posers because they do not even properly understand the holy trinity)

Perhaps you should read some Christian theological works. I found the greatest minds in modern Christian theology are the Chinese missionaries, Watchman Nee and Witness Lee. They really helped me understand the religion when I considered myself a worshipper.

You can get their bible w/ commentary and other works from this site for free, and they only require an email and address.

http://biblesforamerica.org/
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Crow
By Crow | Jun 28 2016 11:31 AM
The thing about pascal's wager, is that it doesn't prove God exists, and therefore any worship based on pascal's wager would not be genuine.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Crow
By Crow | Jun 28 2016 11:33 AM
@Analytical_Imbecile

Forgot to say that the bible is the recovery version, which I maintain to this day to be the best bible ever published. The commentary is a work of genius.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jun 28 2016 11:49 AM
Bi0Hazard: I didn't mention the threat of hell, though that may certainly incentivise a person to not reject God.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jun 28 2016 11:52 AM
Crow: I am fully aware of the case for atheism, perhaps even more so than most atheists, and it is quite daunting to look at. That being said, there are several things in this universe that don't line up with a totally naturalistic worldview.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jun 28 2016 11:55 AM
Crow: God does conceal himself in the sense that He is not physically present in this world, which is why atheists see no reason to believe. The presence of God is not something that I can say I've ever truly felt, though I know that many other people have experienced the presence of God, including my parents and several other figures in my life.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jun 28 2016 12:00 PM
Stag, this "Recovery Version" of the Bible sounds very interesting. I'd perhaps like to read it one day.
Crow
By Crow | Jun 28 2016 12:08 PM
Dassault Papillon: The presence of God is supposed to be constant. The Kingdom of God exists in the hearts of all men.

Try this. Say out loud that God does not exist. That Jesus is not your savior. That the kingdom of heaven is a lie. Ask yourself how you felt when saying it.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
Crow
By Crow | Jun 28 2016 12:12 PM
Dassault Papillon: It really is the best bible in my opinion. I read through the protestant bible multiple times, and honestly I learned way more from one reading of the recovery version than all of the other readings combined.

Watchman Nee was relatively obscure in the West until a company called LSM was created to publish their works throughout the West.
The ADB committee just changed its policy on 8/28/2016
No communication with admin. Ever.
admin
By admin | Jun 29 2016 3:28 PM
Bi0Hazard: I think it boils down to this:

Such a God would be beyond our understanding, so it makes sense that we can't see how it is possible.

So in other words you deny that such a God is defined by logic, which changes things significantly.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin
By admin | Jun 29 2016 3:30 PM
Dassault Papillon: I gain a lot of benefits from not following a religion, most notably freedom from the nagging feeling that I cannot reconcile those beliefs with the facts.

Followers of Pythagoras kept the proof of the irrationality of the square root of 2 secret for exactly that reason, they could not have their followers know the truth about numbers. And it must have been hard for them, preaching numbers as perfect sets and rations, yet knowing that they are not.

I couldn't do that.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Bi0Hazard
By Bi0Hazard | Jun 29 2016 3:43 PM
admin: So in other words you deny that such a God is defined by logic, which changes things significantly.
When I say that God is beyond our understanding, I mean that since God would exist outside of our reality, we never experienced that reality, so we can't truly know about it. There are other things beyond our understanding, like quantum physics and time. God would be one obvious one since God would be outside of our reality. Someday we may understand physics more, but we can not experience outside of the universe where no space-time exists. God would exist differently than we exist.
Page: 1234567Most Recent