Become a theist

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 496
#121
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth
Again, thanks for the ad hominem and a genetic fallacy (i.e., all Christians are delusional and brainwashed), as well as an appeal to common belief (argumentum ad populum - what is true of one is true of all with the belief that all Christians are delusional), plus it is begging the question (assumes the conclusion by the premise/states X, thus X is true), an overgeneralization, and the list goes on!

Asserting delusion and proving it are different matters.

Except I have proven it. Many times over, in fact. And that is why I say it. I am not a person who makes empty claims. You believe something exists when you don't know it exists. That is textbook delusion.

de·lu·sion

noun

  1. an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
The idiosyncratic belief that is firmly maintained: God(s) exist(s).
The contradicting reality and rational argument: You don't know that.

I have indisputably proven you to be delusional.
My belief in God is not contradicted by reality or rational argument. That is BS. What is "generally accepted" (per above) is a form of ad numerum or appeal to the common belief. Because something is popular does not necessarily make it true. An example of what was generally accepted or popular was the Ptolemaic model or geocentrism where the earth was thought to be the center of the universe until disproven by Copernicus. It fits what was considered to be "generally accepted" at the time.

The Bible does not claim to be ordinary, but a revelation by God. As such it does not leave the reader with no evidence of God but gives many proofs of its truth claims. You keep claiming there is no evidence but you are not open to the evidence. You keep shutting it down. You have created your own system of belief where you will only look at what you consider to be factual as you determine facts. You mask the true identity of your belief system behind such thinking, IMO. You will not consider the reasonableness of Christianity. I ask you, is atheism reasonable? I claim it is not when you get to the core of such a belief that funnels everything through naturalistic means. The reason is that it can't make sense of its starting point/position - blind, random, chance happenstance causing what we see. There is no REASON that it would since blind, random, chance happenstance lacks reason.

Definition of reasonable 

1a: being in accordance with reason
b: not extreme or excessive reasonable requests
c: MODERATE, FAIR
2a: having the faculty of reason
b: possessing sound judgment

Knowledge or epistemology deals with how we know what we know, thus unless your system of belief is sound because its foundation is sound then you build that foundation on a faulty starting point or premise. Jesus likens it to a house.

Matthew 7:24-29 (NASB)
The Two Foundations
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”
28 When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; 29 for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes. 


#122
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth
Since you deny God you must start with some other explanation and funnel everything through that system of belief. Your limited subject reasoning becomes the key. Instead of focusing on the overall picture you divide the picture up into tiny pieces and focus on one aspect of the picture. Thus we have a conflicting theory of reason and evidence between atheism and Christianity. You hold a non-theistic conception of reason and evidence, which assumes the ultimacy of your human mind. And you use as an excuse for holding your position of atheism that only the facts as you determine them are valid, that what you hold as fact does not act on faith, but solely on reason and proof. You fail to look at how you arrived at atheism because this is an uncomfortable subject that exposes what I would coin a foundation resting on thin air (no visible means of support). Until you look deeper at that system of thought and determine what makes it tick I claim it is you who is delusional for you have built your whole house of cards on a shaky beginning that you refuse to look at (the Emporer has no clothes). The foundation is cracked at the seems. 

You base your facts on the empirical, on what you see, what complies with your rules and your evidence (only the facts please, sir). But your very system of belief, atheism, is an assumption. And for many atheists that I have encountered, they make the assumption that their system of thought, how they look at the world and the universe is not a belief taken by faith. It is precisely that, for their structure of thought is based on the materialistic, on what they see and how they understand what they see, devoid of God. (i.e., Show me what your epistemology rests upon. I contend, and you have stated as much, that it rests on you. Why should I believe you? Who are you that you determine what is and what should be?) So you think you can make sense of your experience, yet you fail to look at the starting point of your worldview experience, what it all hangs upon without God, and with the denial of God - blind, indifferent, random, chance happenstance. Why is that reasonable? So you have declared your independence from God, a law unto yourself. Without God, you would have to assume that you are not created. You would look for means that verify this hidden presupposition.


#123
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
The reason is that it can't make sense of its starting point/position - blind, random, chance happenstance causing what we see. There is no REASON that it would since blind, random, chance happenstance lacks reason.


It seems your objection is that atheism is nihilistic.  It is very likely that atheism is nihilistic, but it doesn't follow it is false.
#124
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@PGA2.0
You talk a good show, and much of what you say does make sense in many different contexts. However, for starters, you ignored both of the questions I asked you(I'm guessing because they're highly detrimental to your argument), and secondly:

Your entire argument here has one fatal flaw: Your argument against atheism rests on the premise that atheism fails to give an alternate explanation for how the universe came about. You assert that unless an alternative can be given, the proclamations of Christianity have to be accepted. That is a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. I will explain below.


Your argument fits the following example taken from that site:

Example #2:
To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.

Explanation: Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will some day be able to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it.  Confusing ignorance with impossibility (or possibility) is fallacious.

You assert that if nobody can give a better explanation for existence than yours, then yours must be true. That argument is utterly fallacious. As an atheist, I am not claiming that existence as we know it didn't come from one god or another. I am claiming that we do not know where it came from, and currently, that claim is exactly right. Until someone proves a god created our existence, theism is fallacious.

You grasp at straws. You are rigid in your assertion that a fallacious belief is a valid one, and you are, fundamentally, wrong. Whether or not you accept that fact is what proves or disproves that you are delusional.


#125
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth


Except I have proven it. Many times over, in fact. And that is why I say it. I am not a person who makes empty claims. You believe something exists when you don't know it exists. That is textbook delusion.
My faith is a reasonable faith, and I have evidence that confirms my faith. Your faith - atheism - is not reasonable. To establish this I start with the origins of both beliefs. 

One of the reasons it is reasonable is that it considers origins. How did everything start?
Another is prophecy. Prophecy is based on history, like other aspects of the Bible are, such as the historical narrative (people, places, events) which is confirmed by other extra-biblical accounts. 
Another aspect of its reasonableness is its unity and cohesiveness - 66 different writings, 44 different authors, written over a period of 1500 years, all concerning specific themes and the OT contains a typology or shadow of greater truths which are expounded upon in the NT. 

Beyond the Bible itself there are the questions of what is more reasonable to believe concerning the universe and its origins. Try explaining it
from an atheistic perspective and making sense of it. "Once upon a time, a long long time ago..."

You say you are not concerned with such events, but only what you can establish as fact, but your very position of atheism has to believe things that are not established by fact but by faith. I fail to see otherwise.



That is where you are mistaken, granting God exists. Granting God exists and that God is the biblical God(here is where you created a hypothetical situation) we can know since there was Someone there and Someone who created what we see, so all facts and truths would be God's facts/truths.(and there is where you spoke of it as if it were real, and not hypothetical) To discover anything we would have to think His thoughts after Him or understand them through His revelation.  

Notice the notes I made in your quote above. You began with a hypothetical proposition, and then claimed that hypothetical proposition to be a source of factual knowledge, as if it weren't hypothetical at all. "If god exists, then that's how earth was created. So, I know god exists because the earth exists." That is just plain nonsensical. It's as if you forgot that you used the word "granting."
The granting is for your benefit, not mine since I do not question God's existence. I am putting it in a hypothetical for your consideration, not mine. I'm coming to the equation that you grant Him His existence. If you grant God His existence then all fact would be God's facts. They would be created and established by Him. Since you don't know, either way, thus you are an atheist in some sense of the word (whether a weak - agnostic - or strong atheist), you come to the argument with the hypothetical that He does not exist. I say allow for the fact that He does exist. So, for your benefit, granting He exists how does He make sense of the world, the universe, right and wrong, truth and error, as opposed to atheism? My claim is that from your starting point there is no sense to be made from atheism.  


#126
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth


As for your claims of ad hominems, and whatever other fallacies you accused me of, here's why you're wrong: I didn't use these insults, and appeals to the population, and everything else, to defeat your argument. [1] I had already proven it false before I ever said you were delusional, and even delusional people can make valid arguments, [2] so proving you to be delusional does nothing to defeat any argument you make, unless the argument is that you're not delusional.
Whether you want to admit it or not, you called me delusional by insinuating my arguments are invalid in the case of Christianity/God. You classed me as delusional because all Christians are delusional according to your thinking.

"It's up to the scribe to provide proof of their claims, and none of those whom authored the bible provided anything more than unverifiable speculation that you people delusionally accept as actual proven knowledge."

And again:

Absolutely not. I say you're all delusional. That keeps me firmly in the subject.

What people are you referring too? You refer to Christians, for I am a Christian, to people who believe in God because you claim we have unverified speculation.
On a side note: What you call "unverified speculation" has been verified by others and by historical records.  

[1] First, establish that atheism is not delusional by addressing the origins of the universe, life, mind, logic, and reason. Establish how from such origins you can have certainty or a sensible (logical) belief about origins.

[2] Meanwhile, you ignore the conventional definition of evidence, which fits with biblical evidence. You also employ cognitive bias with the underlined in your statements above. You believe it is me, not you, whose worldview is derived by delusion. By stating it is we Christians or God believers who are delusional you lead others to believe it is the case. Like I stated in another post, first establish that the origins of your belief system are sound and reasonable - valid.

Either we are here by chance happenstance or we are created by a Mindful Being are the two main presuppositional points of view. Atheism denies God and looks to materialism for its answers. Thus there is no starting intent or agency behind such a view as materialism. It's just chance happenstance. You, as an atheist (to date), tend to explain everything in terms of naturalism. 

You try to stuff the entire universe into your little box but things are left hanging out that you tend to ignore so as to make your belief seem tidy, but it is anything but tidy.

As for the claim that atheism is not a belief but lack of belief, the idea is absurd for the reason that a lack of belief in one thing is a belief in something else. Your foundation is built on anything but God. To deny God our existence would be explained purely by the natural realm and naturalism. That is all I have witnessed you doing to date. You focus on the natural.

Topic's author
#127
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@BrutalTruth
In figuring out whether someone is a bachelor or not you're merely discerning which identity the person has. The law of identity means that each thing is identical with itself (A = A) which requires no empirical validation. You're reverting to your example about how we cannot know whether reality is an illusion or not to affirm the claim that all knowledge is impossible. Again, knowledge can be obtained both rationally and empirically. Uncertainty on whether reality is an illusion only pertains to empirical knowledge. 
#128
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth
You talk a good show, and much of what you say does make sense in many different contexts.
Well, thank you, I think. (^8

However, for starters, you ignored both of the questions I asked you(I'm guessing because they're highly detrimental to your argument), and secondly:

Your entire argument here has one fatal flaw: Your argument against atheism rests on the premise that atheism fails to give an alternate explanation for how the universe came about. You assert that unless an alternative can be given, the proclamations of Christianity have to be accepted. That is a logical fallacy. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. I will explain below.
No, I never rested it on the premise that atheism fails to give answers for how the universe came about. My contention is that the answers fail to make sense, given the starting point of chance happenstance. My assertion is that until you EXAMINE your starting point it is all very well and good to hold to atheism or lack of belief in God. Once you start questioning your core presupposition (on what everything else rests upon) is when things start to unravel and go awry. It is then you realize that your belief or lack of belief is not reasonable or logical based on its starting premises.

I have his book. Even though he speaks of cognitive bias, I find his views have some of the same, although overall a very useful reference guide. For instance, p. 4, "A belief is defined as the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true." So, atheists fit into this category.


Your argument fits the following example taken from that site:

Example #2:
To this very day (at the time of this writing), science has been unable to create life from non-life; therefore, life must be a result of divine intervention.

Explanation: Ignoring the false dilemma, the fact that we have not found a way to create life from non-life is not evidence that there is no way to create life from non-life, nor is it evidence that we will some day be able to; it is just evidence that we do not know how to do it.  Confusing ignorance with impossibility (or possibility) is fallacious.
Again, I have contrasted the two belief systems against each other minimally, asking which is the more reasonable and logical. I'm asking the questions of how life can arise from the non-living, without agency or intent? Your worldview fails to demonstrate or give adequate explanations to date, nor make sense of how it is possible reasonably. My worldview has a reasonable explanation, from Mind comes mindful being, from the living comes life, from the loving, comes the ability to love, from the reasoning comes reasonable beings (at times). I fail to see how chance happenstance produces what we observe. That is an assumption on your part (that it can), not mine. From your starting point, no God, why do we find meaning in a meaningless universe (we discover laws that explain how the universe, and logic, operates)? So who is giving the false dilemma? I'm only asking what is more reasonable and logical to believe. 


You assert that if nobody can give a better explanation for existence than yours, then yours must be true. That argument is utterly fallacious. As an atheist, I am not claiming that existence as we know it didn't come from one god or another. I am claiming that we do not know where it came from, and currently, that claim is exactly right. Until someone proves a god created our existence, theism is fallacious.
No, my assertion was that the Christian explanation is the more reasonable and logical of the two. My CLAIM is that your system of belief analyzes things from a naturalistic or materialist perspective. It dismisses God as the REASONABLE explanation and relied on the natural alone for you don't include God in any of your thinking, except to deny Him and those who believe in Him as delusional. So, I say let us see how that pans out by examining what atheism would have to stand on by examining its starting points. Let us see how your system of belief stands up by supposing God is not the reasonable answer to our existence. 


You grasp at straws. You are rigid in your assertion that a fallacious belief is a valid one, and you are, fundamentally, wrong. Whether or not you accept that factis what proves or disproves that you are delusional.


Okay, what are the facts about our existence or at least what is more REASONABLE to believe? You claim no evidence exists for God (delusional belief) so how do you explain our origin, of why we are here in the first place? If you don't know or have no REASONABLE idea, how can you call me delusional?

So, I'm asking you to lay down your reasons. If you can't do that then maybe the facts are not as you choose to believe them. Is that reasonable to believe???

#129
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Since you deny God you must start with some other explanation and funnel everything through that system of belief.

Actually starting with an explanation is the exact opposite of how one goes about verifying knowledge. You start with a question not an explanation. You then examine the evidence and find an explanation that fits with the data you have collected. If you start with an explanation and funnel everything through your world view then you are not observing the scientific method, which is the single most reliable method at our disposal of separating fact from fiction.
#130
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Since you deny God you must start with some other explanation and funnel everything through that system of belief.

Actually starting with an explanation is the exact opposite of how one goes about verifying knowledge. You start with a question not an explanation. You then examine the evidence and find an explanation that fits with the data you have collected. If you start with an explanation and funnel everything through your world view then you are not observing the scientific method, which is the single most reliable method at our disposal of separating fact from fiction.
Knowledge is verified through explanations. The question is how it is verified. With origins, you have to start with something to build upon. With normal science, it is demonstrated through repeated experiments. How do you do that with origins? What are "the facts?" What fits into a particular paradigm tends to be the accepted explanation, even when things are left hanging out that do not conform to the accepted view. Thomas Kuhn demonstrated this in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The thought of logical explanation by Ptolemy was found to be an error in thinking, even though it was the held view of the time. What makes you think a naturalistic explanation verifies origins? It is your starting point. You have to have a starting point. The premise is what governs the rest of your thinking to a significant extent. How can you get much more basic than either God or chance happenstance (that which lacks intent) as the cause of the universe, providing it has a cause. And if it does not have a cause but is eternal, we run into the problem of infinite regress and how we get to the present from infinity?

So, the scientific method has a starting point, the pre-paradigmatic phase.
People, scientists included, either presuppose God (necessary intentional Being) or chance happenstance (unreasoning fluke happenstance/nature alone) as the explanation for our existence. Or they could include both or some other explanation. How well does the explanation make sense from its propositions? 



And so on down the 26 videos.

Or to sum it up:



#131
WisdomofAges
WisdomofAges's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 354
0
1
3
WisdomofAges's avatar
WisdomofAges
0
1
3
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
"GOD" the word was invented....invented in 400 AD by some Roman Church clown who was translating the Bible (hebrew/Greek) into GOTHIC
...(extinct East germanic)  the word "GOD" did not exist for 6400 years....

From the time of the Ancient Syrian to Iraq region the... "HALAF" ....existed and thrived  6000 years before the JESUS boy GOD hoax took effect !   

There was no "GOD" word...yet they were intelligent-resourceful-and totally TRASHED by the typical CHRISTIAN con artists...along with all of the
great civilizations of the Middle East region...i

It's typical in that 99% of Christians.... are LIARS....... and know nothing of Middle East history and evolution ....they have zero regard and respect for anything but what is shoved between their ears...by some  Parasite Vampire Preachers...mostly for profit...

..... literally...many Christians actually believe some idiot clown PREACHING VAMPIRE who really wants his flock of fools to stay enslaved to him and his fake CHURCH invention !   really idiotic....

If JESUS showed up again ? he would send every LIAR CHRISTIAN to the HELL they guarantee everyone else will go for not accepting them !

That would be every CHRISTIAN fool that exists today !   
#132
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
How can you get much more basic than either God or chance happenstance (that which lacks intent) as the cause of the universe...
I'm not sure you should use a capital G, but I'd agree that the choice is between a 'mindful' and a 'mindless' cause of the universe.  

I favour a mindless cause, the details of which are yet unknown but are often referred to as a 'theory of everything'.  

You, no doubt, favour a mindful cause and go further, indentifying the Christian God as the cause.   Were I to accept the cause of the universe was mindful and intelligent I'd doubt it was necessariy the Christian God when there are so many other candidates!

The universe needs something to get things started.   Does that something have to resemble what is commonly thought of as a god?  My feeling is 'no', I presume your feeling is 'yes'.  But it is a matter of gut feelings, not cold rationality.

#133
BrutalTruth
BrutalTruth's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 218
0
2
6
BrutalTruth's avatar
BrutalTruth
0
2
6
-->
@keithprosser
@PGA2.0
I've spoken my peace on this topic. My very well argued points are being dismissed as if they're not factual, and so I see no productivity in continuing, other than to say:

The point here isn't about who or what, if anyone or anything, did or didn't create existence as we know it. The point I'm making is very simple: All of it is nothing more than theory. Evolution, creationism, both are nothing more than unproven theories. Therefore, if a person claims to know that one or the other is true, yet declines to prove it, they are delusional.

WE. DO. NOT. KNOW. HOW. THIS. SHIT. CAME. TO. BE.

The end.
#134
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
It is beyond human epistemology to.explain the origins of the universe. Any claim to the contrary is fallacious. I do not presuppose anything but instead simply admit that I do not know. You are the one who claims certain knowledge of the original cause of the universe not I. So please answer your own question. How do we verify the facts with an origin? How do we test for such a thing? 
#135
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
How can you get much more basic than either God or chance happenstance (that which lacks intent) as the cause of the universe...
I'm not sure you should use a capital G, but I'd agree that the choice is between a 'mindful' and a 'mindless' cause of the universe.   
The Christian belief is only one God in three Persons. Other gods are fictions. 


I favour a mindless cause, the details of which are yet unknown but are often referred to as a 'theory of everything'.
The "theory of everything?" Try God. How does a mindless cause sustain anything? There is no reason that it can, just our mindful "probability" that is not probable. It works in theory but how about practice? The dice example illustrates this. First, dice don't roll by themselves. Second, try rolling a six constantly and see how long it takes to roll six a thousand or million times in a row. It is not going to happen, except in your imagination or unless the dice are fixed. Third, "chance" can DO nothing. It is not a thing. It is not about anything. It is a term we use to describe mathematical probability, nothing more.  
 

You, no doubt, favour a mindful cause and go further, indentifying the Christian God as the cause.   Were I to accept the cause of the universe was mindful and intelligent I'd doubt it was necessariy the Christian God when there are so many other candidates!
You could test the worldviews as to whether they ring true, but that would take a lifetime. The Bible gives a set of reasons on how to test a worldview that Francis Shaeffer, Nancy Pearcey, Greg Bahnsen, Ravi Zacharias, and others have expounded on that I use. I don't have to know everything about a worldview to see where it goes astray and to show its inconsistencies, and when you have inconsistencies you have something that does not correspond with logic.    


The universe needs something to get things started.   Does that something have to resemble what is commonly thought of as a god?  My feeling is 'no', I presume your feeling is 'yes'.  But it is a matter of gut feelings, not cold rationality.


Sure, granted you believe it had a beginning. Again, if you think otherwise you run into a number of inconsistencies, such as how you get to the present from infinity.

Does the universe need a necessary Being to understand it? You and Brutaltruth have stated that it cannot be made sense of with any certainty, which is my point exactly unless this necessary Being exists and has revealed as much. Only then is certainty possible. An infinite Mind who created the universe and understands it in every way is what is needed. Is this necessary Being reasonable and logical to believe in? Brutaltruth says no, but his starting point (which he doesn't want to look into) CANNOT make sense of itself. Instead, he clings to what he can know, facts. Do you see the inconsistency in his thinking? How can he call me and all Christians delusional if he does not know how he came to be (i.e., origins)? All he has is the here and now. His assumption is atheism. 

And you base your presumptions on "gut feelings." How likely and reasonable is that when others who oppose your view do the same thing? But if you want to compare evidence I think mine is logical and reasonable. Unshell your outer layers of worldview until you get to the core. See what it is built upon and if it can make sense of itself. That, I claim, is the difference between our worldviews. Do you want to believe what is unreasonable and illogical? If not, then ask yourself ultimate questions. And why are you searching for meaning and reason in a supposedly mindless, meaningless universe? And why do you keep finding reasons? I have an explanation: a reasoning Being has a purpose and we don't find that purpose until we find Him. The reason we are able to come up with reasons AND meaning is that a reasoning Being has designed us and our universe so we discover Him in every detail and fabric of the universe from the micro to the macro in the reasons we find.

I like the moral argument. It accentuates how one makes sense of values. How do you come up with good/right and wrong without an objective FIXED standard or reference point to measure qualitative values by? Why do the standards change depending on where in the world you live, or who you are? If the standard is objective then it should be a universal truth, not a changing guess or a power play by those who have the might to enforce their views on others. What makes an enforced view right? Nothing, it just makes it preferable to the pain you will experience if you don't follow the might of the oppressor; Hitler, or Kim Jong-un, or Stalin, or Mao, or a thousand others who have the power to put their preference into action. Like does not determine right, it only determines preference or else you could not say Hitler's Germany was wrong or torturing innocent babies was wrong. But in your heart, you probably believe that torturing innocent human beings is wrong.

So, I have found that whatever worldview you tackle, but one (Christianity), start to unravel with inconsistencies the more you probe it. Christianity, when rightly understood is not inconsistent from what I have seen (take it for what it is worth).


Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.


#136
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0

I wrote:
It seems your objection is that atheism is nihilistic.  It is very likely that atheism is nihilistic, but it doesn't follow it is false.

#137
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth
I've spoken my peace on this topic. My very well argued points are being dismissed as if they're not factual, and so I see no productivity in continuing, other than to say:

The point here isn't about who or what, if anyone or anything, did or didn't create existence as we know it.
All major worldviews that I know of hold beliefs about such things, whether or not you might want to question or avoid this. When you say Christians are delusional because they place faith in an invisible Being I query how well your belief system can make sense of why you exist? If you do not care to question this then you are left with your facts and the present alone. Nothing else can be known, or so you seem to believe.  

The point I'm making is very simple: All of it is nothing more than theory. Evolution, creationism, both are nothing more than unproven theories. Therefore, if a person claims to know that one or the other is true, yet declines to prove it, they are delusional.

WE. DO. NOT. KNOW. HOW. THIS. SHIT. CAME. TO. BE.

The end.

Then there is nothing left to discuss!
#138
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser


I wrote:
It seems your objection is that atheism is nihilistic.  It is very likely that atheism is nihilistic, but it doesn't follow it is false. 

Sorry, I missed it because you did not address it to me and therefore I received no notification. 

Would you say that something that is inconsistent rings true?

Atheism can lead to existential nihilism, like with Nietzsche, if carried far enough. I don't know if many people think their atheistic worldview through enough to come to this point. 
#139
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Obviously inconsistency is sign something is wrong somwhere!  I'm guessing the inconststency you refer to is

a) atheism implies existence is meaningless and purposeless.
b) existence has meaning and purpose.
#140
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
Is stealing food right?
#141
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@EtrnlVw
You seemed to move into some other direction I was going, did you do that on purpose? I'm talking about you being created by a God not produced in a lab by some aliens. If you were produced by God you are a part of God, like family...Deist God or whatever God exists.
Here's the thing.  Deism runs into the same set of problematic assumptions that one might encounter when considering the concept of noumenon.

Simply because noumenon (and perhaps Deism) is considered a logical necessity, this in no way implies, step one = noumenon, step two = phenomenon.

In the exact same way, you can't logically conclude that, step one = Deism, step two = humans.

There are potentially blamorbatillions of intermediate layers.  It could very well be that, step one = Deism, step two = Cronos, step three = Erebus, step four = Ouranos, step five = Pontus, step six = Brontes, step seven = Steropes, step eight = Prometheans, step nine = Elohim, step ten = Nephilim, step eleven = humans.  [LINK]

So, even though it might be reasonable to believe the Deistic Being might be aware of Cronos, it might not be aware of Erebus and is a lot less likely to be aware of Ouranos.

Deism is indistinguishable from noumenon.

I believe it is a mistake to imagine noumenon as some sort of "thing" when it is merely an amorphous concept that acts as a place-holder for both "what we don't currently know" (Mysterium Invisus) and "what may be fundamentally unknowable" (Magnum Mysterium).  For example, noumenon might be eleventy-trillion layers of sci-fi multiverse, noumenon might be an elaborate alien computer simulation, noumenon might be Brahma's dream, noumenon might be a single super-intelligent (but not omniscient) demiurge that we humans are merely appendages of.  In all likelihood, it is conceptually, literally, ultimately and completely beyond our ability to comprehend.  All of this makes it very very very difficult for me to believe that we can consider (with any degree of confidence whatsoever) that noumenon is itself comprised of 100% pure, uncut, "objective reality".  I mean since noumenon may involve a great many (likely) possibly subjective layers (simulation/dream/multiverse) below our primitive perceptions, although we can deduce with the confidence afforded us by our logic, that there must be, at some level, "real" and "true" and "objective" "reality", we cannot have any confidence that what we are able to perceive has anything-at-all to do with the-hypothetical-objective-essence directly.  It's like the old story of the princess and the pea.  Clearly there is "something" under the bed, but what are the chances that a normal person would be able to detect it through ninety-nine high-quality mattresses(?).
#142
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
@PGA2.0
I'm not sure you should use a capital G, but I'd agree that the choice is between a 'mindful' and a 'mindless' cause of the universe.  
I favour a mindless cause, the details of which are yet unknown but are often referred to as a 'theory of everything'.   
You, no doubt, favour a mindful cause and go further, indentifying the Christian God as the cause.   Were I to accept the cause of the universe was mindful and intelligent I'd doubt it was necessariy the Christian God when there are so many other candidates!
The universe needs something to get things started.   Does that something have to resemble what is commonly thought of as a god?  My feeling is 'no', I presume your feeling is 'yes'.  But it is a matter of gut feelings, not cold rationality.

This is a Red Herring.

Let's suppose that a Mindful, "Intelligent" Deistic Being IS 100% for certain, the creator of the universe.

That, by itself does absolutely nothing to "give your life meaning".

Imagine an orphan.

That orphan can imagine that its parents loved each other and wanted to have a baby, but some tragedy beyond their parent's control let them to become an orphan.

Or, that orphan can imagine that its parents hated each other and didn't want to have a baby, and abandoned them.

The orphan has no way to know which one of these stories is "true" or even if either one of them is "true".

Our (logically necessary) Deistic Being does not show themselves or speak to us directly.

Our (logically necessary) Deistic Being is like an absent parent.

We can imagine a (logically necessary) Deistic Being "loves us".

Or, we can imagine a (logically necessary) Deistic Being "hates us".

Or, we can imagine a (logically necessary) Deistic Being "has no knowledge of us".

There may be self-esteem and other psychological benefits from believing "our absent parent loves us", but those psychological effects themselves are not evidence that such a thing is "true".

Whether or not your absent, unknowable parent (or god) "really and truly" "loves" or "loved" you or not, is absolutely immaterial.
#143
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
How can you get much more basic than either God or chance happenstance (that which lacks intent)
There is no way to distinguish between the two.

Presuming gods does not automatically entail that they care at all about you as an individual.
#144
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
How do you get meaning from the quantitative as opposed to the qualitative?
Quanta (the quantitative) is emotionally meaningless.  Only qualitative experience is emotionally meaningful.

A dog a fish and an ant have motives.  For example they seek out particular foods and consume them.  Their particular type of food is valuable to them.  Finding and consuming food and reproduction are valuable activities to them.  Social creatures also value interactions with fellow members of their pack, school, and colony.
Dogs and fishes don't compose symphonies or discover laws of nature. 
I don't compose symphonies or discover laws of nature either, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, are you suggesting that other animals don't value the same things and experiences that humans do?  Well, that is actually my point.  Humans don't value the same things and experiences and other animals.  We seem to agree.

Not in the same way. Humans are the dominant species on the planet because of their reasoning ability to manipulate their environment like no animal.
Human survival instinct is functionally identical to the survival instinct of other mammals.  Your magical ability to reason and manipulate is absolutely immaterial.

I value my community because humans cannot exist in isolation.  If you have an impulse to "kill all humans" you are basically suicidal.
More like genocidal.
"Genocide" does not usually include killing the people who are actively directing the killing.

A dog, a fish, and an ant can't manipulate the world to the same degree humans can. They do not have the same ability.
Human survival instinct is functionally identical to the survival instinct of other mammals.  Your magical ability to reason and manipulate is absolutely immaterial.

I'm not sure how a hypothetical Deistic Being adds any meaningfulness to human existence.  Please explain.
Why is He hypothetical? That is your assumption, not mine. 
Please answer the question.  How does the concept of any particular god or gods add any meaningfulness to human existence?

How does meaning originate from inanimate, non-living matter? That again is your assumption, not mine.
You can identify and maintain your emotional mechanisms with science - http://www.robertlustig.com/4cs/

I don't buy it. 
You don't have to "buy it", it is 100% free to everyone everywhere.
#145
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
This is a Red Herring.
I'm not not all clear what aspect is the 'red herring'!   I don't believe in gods or 'meaning' and 'purpose'; I am trying to second-guess the mindset of people like PGA who do.   I'd guess they suppose life gets meaning by virtue of our being part of a universe that has god-given meaning and purpose.

My own view is that we create our own meaning and purpose.  We can choose to flourish and spread peace and harmony across the galaxy or we can choose to smother ourselves and die under a poisonous and polluted sky - the universe doesn't care either way.  Of course i don't mean we choose our destiny in a referendum even consciously - we decide our future implicitly as the consequence of our actions and activiies today.  


#146
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@keithprosser
Obviously inconsistency is sign something is wrong somwhere!  I'm guessing the inconststency you refer to is

a) atheism implies existence is meaningless and purposeless.
Atheism, yes, but not necessarily the atheist. An atheist can and does find meaning and purpose in life. But when you peel back the worldview to its basis/core/beginning, it is empty. The universe is meaningless and purposeless if its origin is chance happenstance. So the atheist is being inconsistent with his/her beginnings in that he is making up this meaning and purpose when ultimately it means nothing.

Now the Christian believes we find design, meaning, and purpose in the universe (and we keep finding reasons for things that signify mindfulness) because we are created by a mindful, purposeful being. We believe we find that meaning when we find God. So our worldview is consistent with what we see and discover. 

b) existence has meaning and purpose.
I say it does, for you are discussing that very meaning and purpose now. The question that keeps bugging me with an atheistic perspective is why would you expect to find meaning and reasons in a chance happenstance universe? Even the chaos has an order. (^8

#147
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
Is stealing food right?
No, but sometimes it can be the only alternative to dying if someone will not share their abundance with someone in need. The OT and NT had provisions for the needy and poor (if followed). 

#148
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I say it does, for you are discussing that very meaning and purpose now. The question that keeps bugging me with an atheistic perspective is why would you expect to find meaning and reasons in a chance happenstance universe? Even the chaos has an order. (^8
I am ok with discussing meaning and pupose because I am not into discussing atheism v theism.  I consider that done and dusted - you may disagree and there are many posters who you can argue about that with, but not with me!

i don't think the philosophical and ethical consequences of a god-free universe receives enough attention - many atheists enjoy battling theists too much to worry about the consequences of victory!

#149
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL

I'm not sure you should use a capital G, but I'd agree that the choice is between a 'mindful' and a 'mindless' cause of the universe.  
I favour a mindless cause, the details of which are yet unknown but are often referred to as a 'theory of everything'.   
You, no doubt, favour a mindful cause and go further, indentifying the Christian God as the cause.   Were I to accept the cause of the universe was mindful and intelligent I'd doubt it was necessariy the Christian God when there are so many other candidates!
The universe needs something to get things started.   Does that something have to resemble what is commonly thought of as a god?  My feeling is 'no', I presume your feeling is 'yes'.  But it is a matter of gut feelings, not cold rationality.

This is a Red Herring.
What exactly are you referring to above for you are off on a tangent with your reply? The subject is a mindful or mindless cause of the universe. Are you implying the universe is causeless, thus eternal, or came from nothing?

***

Do you want to speak of meaning instead? Okay!


Let's suppose that a Mindful, "Intelligent" Deistic Being IS 100% for certain, the creator of the universe.

That, by itself does absolutely nothing to "give your life meaning".

Imagine an orphan.

That orphan can imagine that its parents loved each other and wanted to have a baby, but some tragedy beyond their parent's control let them to become an orphan.

Or, that orphan can imagine that its parents hated each other and didn't want to have a baby, and abandoned them.

The orphan has no way to know which one of these stories is "true" or even if either one of them is "true".

Our (logically necessary) Deistic Being does not show themselves or speak to us directly.
If you are an orphan and your parents left you a love letter expressing their love for you and also describing what they were like you would have evidence of their love for you by their expressive thoughts.

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

God is gracious. Your self-will rejects that love, at present. You consider other things more important, like your own desires that go counter to God's good purpose, so what does God do? He lets you experience life without Him. By suppressing God you pursue unrighteousness:

Romans 1:18
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

When you suppress the truth of God God lets you find out for yourself what your lifestyle leads to:

24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.


If you want to pursue a lie you will not seek after God. God lets you experience the desires of your heart and some learn the meaningless of all of this and seek God, others do not. When we ignore God we place an idol in His place. Three times we are told in this passage that when we ignore God He gives us over to ourselves to experience the evils of a life without God since we will not come to Him:

V. 24 - God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity
V. 26 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions
V. 28 - And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,


#150
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL


Our (logically necessary) Deistic Being is like an absent parent.
Only to those who will not seek after Him. We are orphans until we seek Him with our hearts, with the core of our being. But for those who find Jesus, He opens His house to them and adopts them into His family. He is not absent to those, for His thoughts have a message to them that communicate with our thoughts and help us to understand Him better. You know of God but you do not know God because of your unbelief. Paul expressed it this way:

1 Corinthians 2:10-16 (NASB)
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. 11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual  
spiritual words.14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Christians are open to God's Mind. He speaks to us by His thoughts. We get to know Him by His thoughts to us. The person without God's Spirit will not accept the things that come from God's Spirit and mind, for that person sees them as foolish. As we study His word we come to know Him and understand Him better, whereas the world is left scoffing at us and God. 

The problem with the unbeliever is that they do not want to believe in God. How can you believe in Someone you deny exists?

Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

The unbeliever doesn't want to seek God because they like to put their selfish desires before God. They put themselves or something else in the place of God. 



We can imagine a (logically necessary) Deistic Being "loves us".

Or, we can imagine a (logically necessary) Deistic Being "hates us".

Or, we can imagine a (logically necessary) Deistic Being "has no knowledge of us".

There may be self-esteem and other psychological benefits from believing "our absent parent loves us", but those psychological effects themselves are not evidence that such a thing is "true".

Whether or not your absent, unknowable parent (or god) "really and truly" "loves" or "loved" you or not, is absolutely immaterial.


It is immaterial to you, not me. You have made it immaterial to you.