What's the strongest argument for atheism?

Author: Fallaneze 6 years ago

Posts

Total: 590

#301

Mopac

Debates: 4

Posts: 8,050

Mopac

01.02.2019 08:19PM

-->

@Fallaneze

@3RU7AL

Deism is simply the belief that God exists.

It has come to mean that God created the Universe, and has no other part in it. This, like gnosticism, would be considered a dualistic heresy by us Orthodox as it denies the incarnation. The implication of this being, there is God, and there is creation. As God is not in creation, and God is good, creation cannot be good as God is not in it.

With the incarnation, all of creation is sanctified as God is present everywhere through his Word, and all of creation is enlivened by The Holy Spirit.

In this respect, creation is no longer seen as being dead apart from God, but it is seen as being sanctified by the presence of God who is truly with us.

It isn't the case that God created everything and left it alone with no hand in it whatsoever. God is present in creation through His Word and Holy Spirit.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit. 3 hypostases, 1 ousía. 3 hypostases homoousion

#302

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3RU7AL

01.02.2019 08:31PM

-->

@Fallaneze

So you think animals aren't conscious?

In order to determine (Quantify) if animals are "conscious" we must rigorously define consciousness in empirically (scientifically) verifiable terms.

Consciousness is a private experience (Qualia). You can't even verify if your fellow humans possess it.

You think that intending to create something is limited to human beings only?

Intention and planning are a function of our imprecise and obviously limited ability to predict the future.

(IFF) you believe that gods are "omniscient" and "omnipotent" and "eternal", (THEN) they would never have to "plan" or "design" anything.

Whatever they "wanted" would "happen" automatically. It would always be perfect automatically. It would be incapable of error. There would be no need to wipe out mistakes with floods or fire and brimstone.

There is nothing "constrained" about it except for the arbitrary contraints you mentioned.

There is no reason to believe a Deistic Being's "actions" would be limited by our fabricated human concepts.

And depending on your choice of axioms, it may be logically impossible for gods to have the same types of experiences as humans.

#303

Plisken

Debates: 0

Posts: 706

Plisken

01.02.2019 08:42PM

-->

@3RU7AL

In order to determine (Quantify) if animals are "conscious" we must rigorously define consciousness in empirically (scientifically) verifiable terms.

Consciousness is a private experience (Qualia). You can't even verify if your fellow humans possess it.

Is quantity a quality that you can verify that your fellow humans experience?

Topic's author

#304

Fallaneze

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

Fallaneze

01.02.2019 08:47PM

-->

@3RU7AL

We can't quantify whether anything is conscious. Consciousness is beyond scientific verification. You just said that consciousness is qualitative yet demand we have a quantitative method for determining whether something is conscious.

I've never mentioned omniscience or omnipotence. Your IFF conditional doesnt apply.

There's no reason to think that all concepts are tainted by human experience.

#305

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3RU7AL

01.02.2019 09:26PM

-->

@Fallaneze

We can't quantify whether anything is conscious.

But only because it has not be rigorously defined.

If you defined consciousness as simply "being able to recognize oneself in a mirror" then it would be quantifiable.

However, this would not bring us any closer to determining if a god could "recognize itself in a mirror" (although a robot probably could).

Consciousness is beyond scientific verification.

But only because it has not be rigorously defined.

You just said that consciousness is qualitative yet demand we have a quantitative method for determining whether something is conscious.

I'm merely pointing it out to you. I'm perfectly willing to explore any hypothetical quantifiable standard of consciousness you wish.

I've never mentioned omniscience or omnipotence. Your IFF conditional doesnt apply.

Sure, so what do you know about a Deistic Being? Does it think like a human? (IFF) a deistic being thinks like a human and doesn't know the future and experiences time similarly to humans (THEN) it probably plans and designs things.

There's no reason to think that all concepts are tainted by human experience.

There's no reason to think that a Deistic Being thinks (or experiences things) like a human.

#306

keithprosser

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

keithprosser

01.03.2019 02:04PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Whatever they "wanted" would "happen" automatically. It would always be perfect automatically. It would be incapable of error. There would be no need to wipe out mistakes with floods or fire and brimstone.

My thinking is that notions of a deity being literally infinite is a relatively late development. My feeling is that way back when people started to imagine gods they were supposed to be very powerful and magical, but they were not imagined as without limits and restrictions. When YHWH is described as 'almighty' or 'omni-whatever' the writers (not being familiar with modern ides of infinity) were employing flattery rather than being literal.

Originally YHWHists 'knew' their god was but one of many gods, distinguished only by having a special relationship with his 'chosen people'. Baal or Chemosh (eg)were YHWH's peers, but as they were gods of their enemies (ie other Canaanites and the Moabites) so were to despised. But YHWH's support was not unconditional so constant sacrifices and flattery were required to keep YHWH 'sweet' - even so his support was often withdrawn.

The Hebrew would not have thought it logically inconsistent for YHWH to change his mind or decide to cross-out the world and start again (if they understood the concept of 'logially inconsistent' in the first place!). Omniscience - if it meant anything beyond simple flattery - would only mean it was futile keep anything secret from him, as it was for Cain who denied killing Abel. (Gen 4:9-10)

9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”
“I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
10 The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.

A more sophisticated, quasi-mathematical interpretation of god's supposed infinitude began when (much later) cloistered theologians turned their attentions to the minutiae of scripture, as it was either do professional nit-picking or get a proper job.

#307

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3RU7AL

01.03.2019 02:55PM

-->

@keithprosser

Originally YHWHists 'knew' their god was but one of many gods, distinguished only by having a special relationship with his 'chosen people'. Baal or Chemosh (eg)were YHWH's peers, but as they were gods of their enemies (ie other Canaanites and the Moabites) so were to despised.

Insightful as usual.

However, if you look back at pre-Abrahamic traditions you find a few more interesting tidbits...

Question: "What was Abraham’s religion before God called him?"

Answer: Abraham is called the friend of God, the father of the Jews, and the father of the faithful. He is honored by Jews, Muslims, and Christians as a great man, but what religion did he follow before being called by Yahweh?

Abraham was born and raised in Ur of the Chaldees, which is in modern Iraq, near Nasiriyah in the southeastern part of the country. Joshua 24:2 says that Abraham and his father worshiped idols. We can make some educated guesses about their religion by looking at the history and religious artifacts from that period.

Ur of the Chaldees was an ancient city that flourished until about 300 BC. The great ziggurat of Ur was built by Ur-Nammu around 2100 BC and was dedicated to Nanna, the moon god. The moon was worshiped as the power that controlled the heavens and the life cycle on earth. To the Chaldeans, the phases of the moon represented the natural cycle of birth, growth, decay, and death and also set the measurement of their yearly calendar. Among the pantheon of Mesopotamian gods, Nanna was supreme, because he was the source of fertility for crops, herds, and families. Prayers and offerings were offered to the moon to invoke its blessing. [LINK]

Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim

Also...

Rev. Dr. Nugent: The Bible calls them the sons of God, the Divine Council. The word used for God in parts of the Hebrew Bible, Elohim, is plural implying a family of deities. Angels are the lesser gods of the deposed pantheon of ancient Israel. They are under the rulership of Yahweh. Together with Yahweh they are part of Elohim, a plural word that we translate "God" in the book of Genesis. Elohim/God says "Let us make humans in our image." ...These angels came from the ancient pantheons of Mesopotamia and Egypt.

http://astrotheology.net/theologian-bibles-angels-are-gods-of-mesopotamia-and-egypt-who-come-from-the-stars/

#308

keithprosser

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

keithprosser

01.03.2019 03:47PM

-->

@3RU7AL

A less fringy source is

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/ancient-mythic-origins-of_b_185455.html

Dr. Nugent appears to hold a sceptical view of the bible which is very common amongst Anglican theologians and clergy here in Britain:

"This means my Christianity is defined by values, spiritual practices, and faith rather than belief in a specific set of doctrinal agreements. Before the 4th Century, when orthodoxy was established, Christianity was characterized by heterodoxy — many different forms of belief.

If the resurrection of Christ didn’t literally happen, that shouldn’t have any bearing on whether life now is worth living or how we live. From my vantage point, where values and practices are the heart of Christianity, the contradiction lies in people like our recent president who think it’s ok to practice torture and yet call themselves Christians. Who would Jesus waterboard? Christ’s torture and execution remind us that we are called to put an end to such practices in human affairs. From the standpoint of my Christianity, right-wing evangelical fundamentalism is really the opposite of what Christ was about. Those who subscribe to an intolerant, arrogant, inhumane form of Christianity are following a religion that is literally antichrist."

It seems to me the OT was written by priests who were rather more YHWHistic than the Hebrew people in general or even their kings.

#309

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3RU7AL

01.03.2019 03:58PM

-->

@Plisken

Is quantity a quality that you can verify that your fellow humans experience?

Only if you can rigorously define it in empirically verifiable terms.

1803 days later

#310

FLRW

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,597

FLRW

12.11.2023 08:58PM

There were zero thumbs up in these 11 pages of posts. OMG, did God not allow them?

#311

sadolite

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,167

sadolite

12.11.2023 11:04PM

-->

@FLRW

Do people actually use that thumbs up function? I never really noticed it until you mentioned it.

22 days later

#312

FLRW

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,597

FLRW

01.03.2024 02:54PM

What's the strongest argument for atheism? A human is made from 36 trillion cells.

#313

ebuc

Debates: 0

Posts: 4,920

ebuc

01.03.2024 05:27PM

-->

@FLRW

What's the strongest argument for atheism? A human is made from 36 trillion cells.

Occupied space is not created nor destroyed, only transformed. At best we only say, that, our finite, occupied space Universe --and parts--- can subdivide themselves. By Fuller calls this multiplication-by-division.

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/s01/figs/f0801.html

In Fullers simplistic geometric expression of synergy, 1 + 1 = 4 triangles, we say, that since the tetrahedral is the minimal set of for a polyhedral volume of space, that, the two triangles were never not integrated as the whole tetrahedron.

The angles are 3 + 3 = 12. See following and use zoom at bottom of the site page, for multipliation-by-division

http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/plates/figs/plate03.html

In this scenario the non-creator God/Universe, we say that the tetrahedron --as Universe-- can subdivide itself infinitely ergo eternally, yet it can never created any new additional occupied space to eternally existent tetrahedron as finite, Universe/God.

85 days later

#314

FLRW

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,597

FLRW

03.29.2024 04:02PM

Trump ?

#315

sadolite

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,167

sadolite

03.30.2024 01:25PM

Why would one need to make an argument for Atheism? What is there to argue about or defend? They make no claim to defend.

#316

FLRW

Debates: 0

Posts: 6,597

FLRW

04.02.2024 01:15PM

I guess God doesn't look at DA on his Ipad.

#317

JoeBob

Debates: 3

Posts: 1,595

JoeBob

04.05.2024 02:40AM

-->

@sadolite

Where are you looking that atheists don’t defend their arguments?

#318

sadolite

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,167

sadolite

04.05.2024 10:38AM

-->

@JoeBob

There is no need to defend an argument that makes no claim. It is the party that makes a claim that needs to defend its claim. An atheist doesn't believe in a god so what does an atheist have to defend? It is the believer that there is a god that has 100% burden of proof. Scientifically speaking, the proof of a God can not be definitively proven.

21 days later

#319

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3RU7AL

04.26.2024 05:49PM

-->

@secularmerlin

There is no sufficient evidence of any god(s). One cannot say that no god(s) could exist (that is a black swan fallacy) but many god claims can be dismissed as logically contradictory.

bingo

a better question might be "what are the necessary parameters of something that could both exist AND be considered a god(s)"

also,

ETHICA ORDINE GEOMETRICO DEMONSTRATA

#320

MAV99

Debates: 3

Posts: 235

MAV99

04.27.2024 11:49PM

-->

@Fallaneze

I have not actually found any solid atheistic arguments.

Of course the BoP is on theists and deists. Their arguments are solid, but the problem really comes down to this "principle of experiance" that Hume came up with against the older (and frankly wiser than Hume) philosophies.

Modern philosophy from the "enlightenment" period basically says that all certitude of knowledge must be verifiable with evidence that can be experianced. So how they know they were born on a "this particuler day", I have no idea.

Their problem as I see it is a shallow take on knowledge that ends up denying reason while trying to use it.

Atheism is based on this philosophy. It is no wonder an old friend of mine said: "Atheists say that the only thing that unites them is a lack of belief in any god. It would be more true to say they are united in being intellectually lazy."

Why a perfectly logical and reasonable conclusion begotten from reasoning that started with an experiance, also needs evidence that can be experianced, They have never answered that except that experiance is the only way to know with certitude. Where is the evidence that says "evidence is the only way to know with certitude?" They have never answered that. The very principle that Hume comes up, he comes up with by (fallacious) reason and then uses it to deny reason. And all the "enlightenment" philosophers jump of this cliff with him into the abyss of absurdity.

#321

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3RU7AL

04.29.2024 02:32PM

-->

@MAV99

I have not actually found any solid atheistic arguments.

let's start from the other side

by far the strongest argument for DEISM is spinoza

ETHICA ORDINE GEOMETRICO DEMONSTRATA

but even if you accept this as obviously 100% true

there is absolutely no path to any particular flavor of THEISM

and since a DEIST is NOT a THEIST

you could reasonably define ATHEIST as simply "not a theist"

#322

MAV99

Debates: 3

Posts: 235

MAV99

04.29.2024 03:47PM

-->

@3RU7AL

by far the strongest argument for DEISM is spinoza

ETHICA ORDINE GEOMETRICO DEMONSTRATA

I have not read it. But just based on the latin title, it seems to me he looks at the concept of Being very mathematically, which in the other works I have read of him is definitely true of him and He is wrong in that regard. Being is not mathematical. Even the very method of mathematics has as a principle a construct of the mind that, while we use to measure reality, is of itself not real, namely numbers. When you study Being, you need to study it according to something real, not numbers. I disagree with Spinosa for this reason.

there is absolutely no path to any particular flavor of THEISM

That is not true. If you know God exists, then you can reason to those things by which a God could, would, should, etc reveal Himself. There are things we call "trademarks" of God, namely prophecies and miracles. This is the whole point of the study of Fundamental Theology, namely how would we know it is actually God.

and since a DEIST is NOT a THEIST

you could reasonably define ATHEIST as simply "not a theist"

This does not follow logically nor make sense. You might as well define an atheist then as "not an avacado" or "not a mountain" or "not a deist" as well.

#323

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3RU7AL

04.29.2024 04:51PM

-->

@MAV99

the word itself literally means "without theism"

#324

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3RU7AL

04.29.2024 05:43PM

-->

@MAV99

I disagree with Spinosa for this reason.

the logic is as follows

(IFF) omniscient omnipotent creator = exist (THEN) everything that exists = omniscient omnipotent creator

#325

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582

3RU7AL

04.29.2024 05:44PM

-->

@MAV99

That is not true. If you know God exists, then you can reason to those things by which a God could, would, should, etc reveal Himself.

please be slightly more specific

#326

MAV99

Debates: 3

Posts: 235

MAV99

04.29.2024 10:56PM

-->

@3RU7AL

(IFF) omniscient omnipotent creator = exist (THEN) everything that exists = omniscient omnipotent creator

Yes! Exactly! I coul not have given a better example to prove what I am saying about Spinosa.

He posits here that "exists" is a univocal word that means only one thing without any different senses. Like a number in math. You even put it in a mathematical formula for me!

I do not exist the same way the color green does. I do not exist as a dog, or as an abstract thought. Which according to the logic above I would have to be.

God does not exist the same way we do. This is why people call Spinosa a pantheist. He thinks everything is God.

Quite false. Quite obviously wrong. My point stands. He is too box minded. His meaning of Being is univocal.

#327

MAV99

Debates: 3

Posts: 235

MAV99

04.29.2024 11:02PM

-->

@3RU7AL

please be slightly more specific

There is a branch of Theology called Fundamental Theology (which is also known as Apologetics) which deals with the "How would we know if God did reveal himself and not some quackjob?" question.

The principle that it starts with is the following:

"If God created us then He can interact with us."

There is absolutely no reason to think He is incapable of doing that.

They have other principles as well.

"An all good God will not allow good willed men to be deceived"

"His revelation must be something that is exclusively of Him and not of anything in nature"

Among others...

#328

MAV99

Debates: 3

Posts: 235

MAV99

04.29.2024 11:06PM

-->

@3RU7AL

the word itself literally means "without theism"

I am not talking about what the word means literally. I am talking about your logic. And if it means "not theist" because the theist believes in God then they also are "non deists" if the whole point of the word is to say "no God"

#329

3RU7AL

Debates: 3

Posts: 14,582