If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[Ross Dolan]

Yeah, I do. Because that's how it's defined. Sure there are a couple different flavors of atheism, but my definition (which you will find in just about any definition of atheism) is absolutely 100% perfect in every way.

It is not, but if you are going to insist that it is, nothing I can do about it.

I can show you "definitions" of atheism that considers your definition to be faulty. Not going to do that right now...I expect you realize I can do it. I would like you to consider my question up above.

 

[ZenMode]

Your mind has severely restricted your knowledge and understanding to strictly the realm of audio-visual perception.

When you're talking about a god, as described by those who believe in, write about and described their God, seeing, hearing, etc is the standard they have set.

Empiricism (sense perception) is only one kind of knowledge. Rationality and logic are another type of knowledge.

You've never seen, touched, or heard infinity, dark energy, transfinite numbers, or extraterrestrial life. But you can use logic and reasoning to understand them or make informed guesses about them.

Infinity is only a concept. As is transfinite.

I've never seen dark energy, but I've read/heard enough about it, and have sufficient trust in the sources who describe, that I can feel confident believing it exists.

In the case of the Bible, the issues are so many that I feel basically no confidence in what is being claimed.

 

[gmark77]

It is not

LOL. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

, but if you are going to insist that it is, nothing I can do about it.

Look it up if you don't believe me. It's called Implicit Atheism.

Why do you hold forth on topics you clearly don't even begin to understand?

I can show you "definitions" of atheism that considers your definition to be faulty.

Then you didn't read what I wrote. Not surprising given that it appears you don't read much closely.

Not going to do that right now...I expect you realize I can do it. I would like you to consider my question up above.

LOL.

Why do you think your ignorance is something anyone who knows the topic is going to be interested in?

 

[gmark77]

It's a tad bit more than that.

Not really.

1) "Failure" (idk if I'd use that particular word) to believe that God exists.

That's the exact word. It's how science works on claims like that.

Technically speaking, if you must have it thusly, I am "failing to reject the null hypothesis".

If you "fail" #1, but "don't fail" #2, then you are a Church of No God member.
If you "fail" #2, but "don't fail" #1, then you are a theist of some sort (e.g. Christian).
If you "fail" both #1 AND #2, then you are an atheist.

It's really simple.

 

[Cypress]

When you're talking about a god, as described by those who believe in, write about and described their God, seeing, hearing, etc is the standard they have set.

Nope. Christian apologists and theologians routinely make use of logic and reasoning to infer God. Not just the audiovisual stimuli you are basing your knowledge on.
I mean, using rationality and logic to infer God has been going on at least since the 13th century and Thomas Aquinas.

Infinity is only a concept. As is transfinite.

What does it matter if it's a concept? It doesn't make it unreal. Imaginary numbers and the Pythagorean theorem are concepts too. Georg Cantor showed you could define different sizes of infinity, and some Infinities were larger than others. Concepts that are stable and independent of mind have their own immaterial reality.

I've never seen dark energy, but I've read/heard enough about it, and have sufficient trust in the sources who describe, that I can feel confident believing it exists.

Then you have faith.

In the case of the Bible, the issues are so many that I feel basically no confidence in what is being claimed.

You don't have to use the Bible to infer that there is some type of god or rational transcendent power underlying the universe.

All you have to use is logic.

Something doesn't come from nothing. The rational does not come from the irrational. Order does not come from chaos.
To think otherwise is logically incoherent.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is a reasonably good inference that a mathematically rational, lawfully ordered, and finely tuned universe was caused by some kind of rational and purposeful entity or force.

 

[gfm7175]

Okay, I will be truthful with you. (I have done this at least 6 times in this forum already, but...here it is again.)

On the issue of whether there is at least one god or if there are none:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...nor do I see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about which is more likely…so I do not guess on either of those things.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Now if you are telling me that my explanation of my position as stated is somehow inferior in logic or reasoning to you saying, "I am an atheist"...I would appreciate you telling me why you think that.

Great. That's atheism (term correctly used)... It's #3 within my examples of positions. You don't accept #1 (God exists), but you also don't accept #2 (God doesn't exist).

 

[gfm7175]

In the case of the Bible, the issues are so many that I feel basically no confidence in what is being claimed.

The issues belong to YOU, ZenMode...

 

[gfm7175]

LOL. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Oh wise one, how I love to bask in your intelligence...... /sarcasm

 

[gfm7175]

Not really.

That's the exact word. It's how science works on claims like that.

Technically speaking, if you must have it thusly, I am "failing to reject the null hypothesis".

It's really simple.

Religion is not science, skidmark...

 

[ZenMode]

Nope. Christian apologists and theologians routinely make use of logic and reasoning to infer God. Not just the audiovisual stimuli you are basing your knowledge on.

Either way, it is an entity that could, and has according to the Bible, made its presence known.

I mean, using rationality and logic to infer God has been going on at least since the 13th century and Thomas Aquinas.

Yes, The ignorance of man has resulted in all kinds of crazy beliefs.

What does it matter if it's a concept? It doesn't make it unreal. Imaginary numbers and the Pythagorean theorem are concepts too. Georg Cantor showed you could define different sizes of infinity, and some Infinities were larger than others. Concepts that are stable and independent of mind have their own immaterial reality.

Sure, but a concept has no method for revealing itself or making its presence felt in a way that in all-powerful being would.

Then you have faith.

I associate the term faith with religion. If you're saying that I have varying degrees of confidence in my beliefs, I would absolutely agree with that.

You don't have to use the Bible to infer that there is some type of god or rational transcendent power underlying the universe.

Agree. Man has used all kinds of writings to infer a god.

All you have to use is logic.

Something doesn't come from nothing. The rational does not come from the irrational. Order does not come from chaos.
To think otherwise is logically incoherent.

Whether you agree with it or not, it is a reasonably good inference that a mathematically rational, lawfully ordered, and finely tuned universe was caused by some kind of rational and purposeful entity or force.

I'll let someone, much smarter than I, address that....

View: https://youtube.com/shorts/bwHqrooeYmw?si=K6hADR44ypvwME5u

 

[ZenMode]

The issues belong to YOU, ZenMode...

If you call not believing very important things on bad evidence a problem, sure?

 

[Into the Night]

One must be "agnostic" about Santa Claus. Someone once wrote about Santa Claus so we must treat that as "evidence" for Santa Claus and that means there's at least a 50% chance that our local "agnostics" will have to assess that indeed he may exist.

Such is the life of the "agnostic" on JPP. Same goes for the Easter Bunny.

But not "invisible fairies", those are silly.

St Nicholas was a real man. There are actual historical documents about him.

Now if you want to ignore history, that's your problem.

Go learn what 'agnostic' means.

Even among children, Santa Claus has a specific character and appearance, which emulates what St Nicholas was well known for.

 

[Into the Night]

Okay, I will be truthful with you. (I have done this at least 6 times in this forum already, but...here it is again.)

On the issue of whether there is at least one god or if there are none:

I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...nor do I see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about which is more likely…so I do not guess on either of those things.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Now if you are telling me that my explanation of my position as stated is somehow inferior in logic or reasoning to you saying, "I am an atheist"...I would appreciate you telling me why you think that.

Fine. This conforms with logic. You are an atheist. A confused one that has trouble with English and logic,but an atheist nevertheless.

RQAA

 

[Into the Night]

Either way, it is an entity that could, and has according to the Bible, made its presence known.

Correct.

Yes, The ignorance of man has resulted in all kinds of crazy beliefs.

Correct...including yours.

Sure, but a concept has no method for revealing itself or making its presence felt in a way that in all-powerful being would.

A being is not a concept.

I associate the term faith with religion.

So do I. Your religion is based on faith just as mine is.

If you're saying that I have varying degrees of confidence in my beliefs, I would absolutely agree with that.

Fine. Nothing wrong with that.

Agree. Man has used all kinds of writings to infer a god.

Writing about a god is not an inference. Subjunctive fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Historical evidence and cosmological evidence are not circular.

Buzzword fallacies. There is no such thing as 'historical evidence' or 'cosmological evidence'. There is only evidence.

Something can't come from nothing, and both science and logic show that the universe had a beginning.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

That means it had a cause.

Not possible. There is no Universe for such cause to exist in.

Nothing about physics and inanimate chance can explain the origin of a lawfully organized and finely tuned universe.

You can't create matter or energy out of nothing. The Universe is not organized. It is not 'tuned' to anything.

There is no scientific explanation for origin, and it's more probable than not that there never will be.

You are still locked in this paradox.

Your stuck either inferring that a rationally organized, mathematically tuned universe just blinked into existence by random inanimate chance. Or that some purposeful immaterial organizing entity or force outside the universe caused the origin.

You are still locked in this paradox. The Universe is not organized. The Universe is not 'tuned' to anything.

As for the Christian version of God, Christianity is based on a historical claim. It's not based on mythological fable, like Zeus, Odin, or Poseidon.

ALL of them are based on historic claim, Clanker.

Jesus of Nazareth is the most well documented Palestinian of the first century. He is more well documented in terms of manuscript evidence than the Emperor Trajan.

Zeus, Prometheus, Odin, Apollo, etc. are all well documented, Clanker.

One can either accept the claims of eyewitnesses

What eyewitnesses?

and people who interviewed the eyewitnesses

You interviewed these eyewitnesses?

that Jesus was god entering history in human form,

I submit to you that these eyewitnesses are only as believable to exist as Jesus Christ or God Himself.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

or people can infer that the testimony about Jesus was a coordinated lie, or the witnesses were hallucinating and just mistaken about what they saw.

 

[ZenMode]

Would it be reasonable, based on the available evidence, for an adult to believe in Santa Claus? Not just St. Nick, but the being he became after being elevated to a supernatural being.

@Into the Night

Bump

 

[Into the Night]

Your mind has severely restricted your knowledge and understanding to strictly the realm of audio-visual perception.

There are five senses of the world around us, Clanker.
Sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch (including sensing hot, cold, pressure, and pain.
There a wide variety of internal sensors as well, including blood pressure, body temperature, balance, sense of self in space, and internal pain sensors, to name few.

Everyone has them...even the deaf, the blind, and the cripple.

Empiricism (sense perception) is only one kind of knowledge.

Sensory response is not knowledge. It is just a sensory response. How you interpret it is up to you.

Rationality and logic are another type of knowledge.

You are still locked in paradox and being irrational. This is a logic problem. You deny logic as well.

You've never seen, touched, or heard infinity, dark energy, transfinite numbers, or extraterrestrial life.

Buzzword fallacies.

But you can use logic and reasoning to understand them or make informed guesses about them.

About what? Buzzwords?

 

[Into the Night]

@Into the Night

Bump

RQAA

 

[Into the Night]

Yeah, I do. Because that's how it's defined. Sure there are a couple different flavors of atheism, but my definition (which you will find in just about any definition of atheism) is absolutely 100% perfect in every way.

There are no 'flavors' of atheism. Redefinition fallacy. Omniscience fallacy. There is only one definition of atheism.

 

[Into the Night]

It is not, but if you are going to insist that it is, nothing I can do about it.

I can show you "definitions" of atheism that considers your definition to be faulty. Not going to do that right now...I expect you realize I can do it. I would like you to consider my question up above.

There is only one definition of atheism.