God probably exists.

[Sherlock Holmes]

This is laughable. He is using a 1911 version of the Britannica. I wonder how many versions he scrolled through before he could finally find one that he could, and in fact did, cherry pick.

What exactly did I do that you disapprove of? it was asserted that all definitions one can find are of the form "absence of belief in God" one counter example is all that's needed to prove that false.

 

[watsup]

You'll have to do better than this if you really want to debate with grown ups, honestly the whining and squirming and complaining is not something I have any patience for.

Psychological projection.

 

[Triton]

Psychological projection.

Defense mechanism.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Missed this sorry,

The point is all we know for sure is thoughts exist...by inventing the concept of mind independent stuff they have added unnecessary complexity without gaining any tangible benefit.

The philosopher David Chalmers has speculated that consciousness may be a fundamental property of nature existing outside the known laws of physics.

From here.

 

[watsup]

Defense mechanism.

Yes, it is.

 

[devildavid]

I have not "pretended" at all, I too refuse to regard something as true without convincing evidence.

What is convincing evidence?

 

[devildavid]

The evidence is two fold...the God idea is simpler than the no God idea, and complex balanced systems require intent. Both of those are forms of evidence..not proof.

The no god idea is simpler. It has one less thing to explain, namely, god. But simpler doesn't really mean something is evidence. Neither of those is evidence. Systems do not require intent. For example, weather systems. Where is the intent?

 

[devildavid]

This thread is getting pulled all over the place so to sum up my position...

There is no need for the dogmatic materialist idea that there is mind independent stuff if we can conceive of how the Universe exists without it.

One concept that seems to work is that , in a sense, the Universe is a mind (more accurately the product of one). This concept works well because Occam advised us to go with the simplest explanation that works unless there is good reason for not doing so. One substance (thought) is simpler than two (thought and mind independent material).

So atheists have basically got it wrong all along...the assumption that there is no mind behind the Universe is more complex than assuming there is one. Also, balanced , complex, systems require intention when we make them (eg, watches), the Universe is a complex balanced system so the assumption should be that it's intended.Both ideas tie in nicely with each other...with the added bonus that it also implies that there is objective purpose and truth in life (ie, life has objective meaning) .

No, that concept does not "seem" to work.

 

[devildavid]

I'm sorry where did I "insist" on anything? Do you disagree that the historic meaning of "atheism" as seen in books, articles, discussions until quite recently "the assertion there is no God"?

We need to clear this up before we can proceed.

No, atheism is not the assertion that there are no gods, just as theism is not the assertion that there are gods. Theism is a belief, not an assertion. Atheism is a lack of theistic belief. That is because gods cannot be observed to exist, but only believed in.

 

[watsup]

What exactly did I do that you disapprove of? it was asserted that all definitions one can find are of the form "absence of belief in God" one counter example is all that's needed to prove that false.

The facT is that you are using an inaccurate definition which makes your inputS about atheism in error at the basic level.
Your claim is that an atheist “does not believe in “God”. That definition implies that there is indeed a God, but that atheists just happen to believe in said God.

This is the correct definition:
a·the·ism
/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

This definition does not imply a God, as yours does. It correctly states that an atheist understand that there is no evidence for said God and thus denies the existence of such an entity.

While the difference is subtle, it is vital. Most anti-atheists do indeed use your definition because it implies a God, it we atheists do not acknowledge it as the correct definition.

So continue to use it if you insist, it doing do basically negates the rest of any post on which you do so.

Thanks, nemesis.

 

[watsup]

The evidence is two fold...the God idea is simpler than the no God idea, and complex balanced systems require intent. Both of those are forms of evidence..not proof.

Your second “evidence” has no merit because there is actually no evidence of prior intent in evolution, which is how life had come to its present from on this particular planet. Yes, it all basically “just happened”and the end result TO THIS POINT is Homo sapiens at the top of the evolution pyramid.

 

[watsup]

At least you are admitting that you have belief in an unproven idea (that the Universe just came into being without conscious direction)...you have what is called faith.

Your assertion that the Universe just came into existence makes no sense given that all complex, balanced systems that we make ourselves requires conscious intent...or do you deny that the Universe is more complex and balanced that something which is utterly dependent on it ...like a Ferrari?

Do you think one of these can happen without intent?

Item #1: you are misrepresenting wha it said, which is that scientists don’t Know for certain what there was pre-Big Bang, so they keep looking. And that’s quite different from the absolute certainty of believers who claim that “God made it” without the slightest bit of evidence to show that to be true.

And you are mixing up the Big Bang with what happened after. Yes, a Jaguar was clearly designed by someone. On the other hand, there is no evidence that there was a pre-design on any of the flora or the fauna of this particular planet. Yes, it all “just happened” while following the physics and biological “laws” of said universe. No real objective evidence of pre-design or of intent.

 

[soylentgreen]

Surely an atheist has some definition of God in mind in order to not adopt a belief in God? So if they are dissatisfied with the actual definition of God then how can they be sure that its appropriate to withhold belief?

No, it's a theists imaginary friend, therefor it is their responsibility to come up with a definition. This is where ignosticism comes in. Because i have no idea what god i will get until a theist tells me what kind of god they believe in then ignosticism is the only position i can hold until they describe their god.

Which we can discuss, but I'd like others to note that your position is historically what atheism is, what an atheists says.

Unfortunately what i have said is just a simplified version. It is merely the only conclusion to be reached.

Well using the definition that you do (there is no God) I would be surprised if this is something you do not believe, so on what grounds is it false to claim "atheism is a belief"?

I never said that was a definition. In fact i made it quite clear it is a conclusion reached by reason rather than a definition in of itself.

That's all well and good but the conclusion is a belief so long as any of the premises are beliefs, if any are then so to must be the conclusion surely?

Not at all unless you intend to call facts mere beliefs.

Perhaps, but this now begs the question what is the nature of the evidence demanded by the atheist in order for them to adopt a position of belief in the they thing they currently do not have a belief in? How can one say "I am an atheist, you'll have to show me evidence" without some expectation of what the evidence is evidence of?

That is your problem not mine. it is not for me to set the parameters to your imagination. All i need do is point out the flaws in your beliefs.

There are atheists who object to the emerging "Flewsian" definition of "absence of belief" there are some here who should consider this point, but perhaps you can tell me why you choose to refer to yourself as an atheist? depending on your reasoning I might even be one myself.

Apart from having good reasons not to buy into this god thing. I also find i just have no need for one.

 

[soylentgreen]

What exactly did I do that you disapprove of? it was asserted that all definitions one can find are of the form "absence of belief in God" one counter example is all that's needed to prove that false.

Asking a bunch of theists for their version of atheism. That is pushing ridiculous. All you managed there was to point out that theists are atheists as well.

 

[Aletheia]

I haven't spent years looking at this, but I found a pretty good debate that I feel summarizes Sherlock's argument and that of a Scientist against those arguments. I also found it very civil and informative.

I don't have the time to summarize the full argument, but I found the Scientist's counter-argument very much in agreement with how I perceive it.

--------------------------
notes...
This is a debate “Is there Evidence for God?”
Is There Evidence for God? The Craig-Krauss Debate | Reasonable Faith

Craig (For)
1. The existence of contingent beings
Well, since the universe is contingent in its existence, the explanation of the universe must be found in an external cause which exists beyond time and space by a necessity of its own nature.
2.The origin of the universe.
3. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
4. Objective moral values and duties in the world.
5. The historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth.


Krauss (against)

Not only that, I should point out that it is a far cry from claiming that there may be cosmological arguments for the existence of a divine intelligence. There’s no logical connection between that and the God that Dr. Craig just talked about, who shows great interest in the personal affairs of human beings roughly a millions of years after they were evolved—in fact, a personal God that Dr. Craig happens to believe in but not a personal God that other people have to believe in. There’s no logical connection between a divine intelligence that might create the universe and Christ. There’s nothing at all.

I looked up tonight and I saw the stars rearrange themselves say, “I am here.” Gee, that’s pretty interesting evidence! And, in fact, when we talk about evidence, the only evidence you can have for God is really miraculous evidence because the existence of God implies something that is supernatural, something beyond that which can be explained by physical theory. So if you’re going to have evidence for God, it has to be miraculous evidence.

I’m also not a huge fan of philosophy, but I thought I would quote a philosopher in deference to Dr. Craig, and that’s David Hume, who defined a miracle to be the following: “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.” So if you’re claiming you have evidence for a miracle, the fact that that evidence is false has to be even stranger than the evidence itself. And, of course, that doesn’t apply to anything Dr. Craig has talked about

Now the other thing that Dr. Craig has talked about is logic. And the interesting thing about the universe is it is not logical. At least it’s not classically logical. That’s one of the great things about science. It’s taught us that the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not.

Let’s go to some of the things Dr. Craig talked about. Here, he addresses and refutes most of the arguments in Dr. Craig's list.

------------------
The one thing that appeals to me about Sherlock's argument, is that it's hard to argue that the Universe could randomly start from nothing, so there must be some kind of prime cause. What I don't agree is to assign any attributes to this cause by any argument -- we just don't know is the answer.

In fact, of the 5 pro arguments, I could maybe accept with a leap of faith and some reason, the 2nd argument, which is the crux of Sherlock's (in my opinion). The rest, I'd say no.

 

[NWO_Spook]

The one thing that appeals to me about Sherlock's argument, is that it's hard to argue that the Universe could randomly start from nothing, so there must be some kind of prime cause. What I don't agree is to assign any attributes to this cause by any argument -- we just don't know is the answer.

Exactly! There is no sound reason to jump to the conclusion that a god of some description is responsible for the 'creation' of the universe when it is clear that we don't have all the information required to assert thus. Such claims are borne of confirmation bias, not reason, for one has to take a leap of logic to arrive at such a conclusion.

 

[RAMOSS]

I haven't spent years looking at this, but I found a pretty good debate that I feel summarizes Sherlock's argument and that of a Scientist against those arguments. I also found it very civil and informative.

I don't have the time to summarize the full argument, but I found the Scientist's counter-argument very much in agreement with how I perceive it.

--------------------------
notes...
This is a debate “Is there Evidence for God?”
Is There Evidence for God? The Craig-Krauss Debate | Reasonable Faith

Craig (For)
1. The existence of contingent beings
Well, since the universe is contingent in its existence, the explanation of the universe must be found in an external cause which exists beyond time and space by a necessity of its own nature.
2.The origin of the universe.
3. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
4. Objective moral values and duties in the world.
5. The historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth.


Krauss (against)

Not only that, I should point out that it is a far cry from claiming that there may be cosmological arguments for the existence of a divine intelligence. There’s no logical connection between that and the God that Dr. Craig just talked about, who shows great interest in the personal affairs of human beings roughly a millions of years after they were evolved—in fact, a personal God that Dr. Craig happens to believe in but not a personal God that other people have to believe in. There’s no logical connection between a divine intelligence that might create the universe and Christ. There’s nothing at all.

I looked up tonight and I saw the stars rearrange themselves say, “I am here.” Gee, that’s pretty interesting evidence! And, in fact, when we talk about evidence, the only evidence you can have for God is really miraculous evidence because the existence of God implies something that is supernatural, something beyond that which can be explained by physical theory. So if you’re going to have evidence for God, it has to be miraculous evidence.

I’m also not a huge fan of philosophy, but I thought I would quote a philosopher in deference to Dr. Craig, and that’s David Hume, who defined a miracle to be the following: “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.” So if you’re claiming you have evidence for a miracle, the fact that that evidence is false has to be even stranger than the evidence itself. And, of course, that doesn’t apply to anything Dr. Craig has talked about

Now the other thing that Dr. Craig has talked about is logic. And the interesting thing about the universe is it is not logical. At least it’s not classically logical. That’s one of the great things about science. It’s taught us that the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not.

Let’s go to some of the things Dr. Craig talked about. Here, he addresses and refutes most of the arguments in Dr. Craig's list.

------------------
The one thing that appeals to me about Sherlock's argument, is that it's hard to argue that the Universe could randomly start from nothing, so there must be some kind of prime cause. What I don't agree is to assign any attributes to this cause by any argument -- we just don't know is the answer.

In fact, of the 5 pro arguments, I could maybe accept with a leap of faith and some reason, the 2nd argument, which is the crux of Sherlock's (in my opinion). The rest, I'd say no.

Define what you mean by a prime cause. Do you mean a cause that does not have a cause? If you accept that there are causes without causes, even one, why can't there be multiple. In quantum physics, there are spontaneous events. If so, why does the 'prime cause' augment have any meaning to it?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What is convincing evidence?

I'm not surprised that you have to ask that question, it explains rather a lot.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, atheism is not the assertion that there are no gods, just as theism is not the assertion that there are gods.

Atheism Dave is defined by whoever calls themselves and atheist, some define it as absence of belief some as denial of existence, you clearly have your pet definition.

Consider the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica:

ATHEISM (from Gr. ἀ-, privative, and θεός, God), literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God.

I hope we can now agree this and close this rather fatiguing issue?

Theism is a belief, not an assertion. Atheism is a lack of theistic belief. That is because gods cannot be observed to exist, but only believed in.

Here you go again, merrily affirming things that you yourself cannot support with evidence, namely "gods cannot be observed to exist" when did you discover a way to prove a negative David?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The facT is that you are using an inaccurate definition which makes your inputS about atheism in error at the basic level.
Your claim is that an atheist “does not believe in “God”. That definition implies that there is indeed a God, but that atheists just happen to believe in said God.

This is the correct definition:
a·the·ism
/ˈāTHēˌizəm/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

This definition does not imply a God, as yours does. It correctly states that an atheist understand that there is no evidence for said God and thus denies the existence of such an entity.

While the difference is subtle, it is vital. Most anti-atheists do indeed use your definition because it implies a God, it we atheists do not acknowledge it as the correct definition.

So continue to use it if you insist, it doing do basically negates the rest of any post on which you do so.

Thanks, nemesis.

There are at least two definitions from what I can find, absence of belief in God and denial of the existence of God.

Some "atheists" embrace the former and some the latter, so just tell me what definition you want to use and we can proceed.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Your second “evidence” has no merit because there is actually no evidence of prior intent in evolution, which is how life had come to its present from on this particular planet. Yes, it all basically “just happened”and the end result TO THIS POINT is Homo sapiens at the top of the evolution pyramid.

You're on very thin ice again watsup.

If you affirm something ("there is actually no evidence of prior intent in evolution") then you should be able to supply the evidence that proves your claim, can you do that for us please?

How did you prove that there is actually no evidence of prior intent in evolution?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No, it's a theists imaginary friend, therefor it is their responsibility to come up with a definition. This is where agnosticism comes in. Because i have no idea what god i will get until a theist tells me what kind of god they believe in then agnosticism is the only position i can hold until they describe their god.

Very well, so as an atheist what is it you are unwilling to develop a belief in? what don't you believe? at this point from what you've said so far your position is nothing more than an unwillingness to believe in something for which you regard as having no evidence, which is no different from me.

Unfortunately what i have said is just a simplified version. It is merely the only conclusion to be reached. I never said that was a definition. In fact i made it quite clear it is a conclusion reached by reason rather than a definition in of itself.

I'm sorry Soylent but I don't see how you can label yourself as "atheist" and then claim the term has no definition. Defining something does not prevent it being a deduction, conclusion or inference.

An electromagnetic wave is inferred yet still has a definition.

But we can if you wish refer to you as a goddoesnotexister will that work?

Not at all unless you intend to call facts mere beliefs.

Of course I agree, if all the premises are facts (true) then the conclusion is a fact (true) too, forgive me I was unaware that all your premises are (so far as you are concerned) facts.

That is your problem not mine. it is not for me to set the parameters to your imagination. All i need do is point out the flaws in your beliefs.

Well I agree in the sense that both have a duty (to ourselves at the very least) here, me to define what it is that do regard as true and you to define what you do regard as false.

Apart from having good reasons not to buy into this god thing. I also find i just have no need for one.

For one what? what is it that you have no need of? if you can't answer that question then how can you be certain you don't need it?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I haven't spent years looking at this, but I found a pretty good debate that I feel summarizes Sherlock's argument and that of a Scientist against those arguments. I also found it very civil and informative.

I don't have the time to summarize the full argument, but I found the Scientist's counter-argument very much in agreement with how I perceive it.

--------------------------
notes...
This is a debate “Is there Evidence for God?”
Is There Evidence for God? The Craig-Krauss Debate | Reasonable Faith

Craig (For)
1. The existence of contingent beings
Well, since the universe is contingent in its existence, the explanation of the universe must be found in an external cause which exists beyond time and space by a necessity of its own nature.
2.The origin of the universe.
3. The fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
4. Objective moral values and duties in the world.
5. The historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth.


Krauss (against)

Not only that, I should point out that it is a far cry from claiming that there may be cosmological arguments for the existence of a divine intelligence. There’s no logical connection between that and the God that Dr. Craig just talked about, who shows great interest in the personal affairs of human beings roughly a millions of years after they were evolved—in fact, a personal God that Dr. Craig happens to believe in but not a personal God that other people have to believe in. There’s no logical connection between a divine intelligence that might create the universe and Christ. There’s nothing at all.

I looked up tonight and I saw the stars rearrange themselves say, “I am here.” Gee, that’s pretty interesting evidence! And, in fact, when we talk about evidence, the only evidence you can have for God is really miraculous evidence because the existence of God implies something that is supernatural, something beyond that which can be explained by physical theory. So if you’re going to have evidence for God, it has to be miraculous evidence.

I’m also not a huge fan of philosophy, but I thought I would quote a philosopher in deference to Dr. Craig, and that’s David Hume, who defined a miracle to be the following: “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.” So if you’re claiming you have evidence for a miracle, the fact that that evidence is false has to be even stranger than the evidence itself. And, of course, that doesn’t apply to anything Dr. Craig has talked about

Now the other thing that Dr. Craig has talked about is logic. And the interesting thing about the universe is it is not logical. At least it’s not classically logical. That’s one of the great things about science. It’s taught us that the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not.

Let’s go to some of the things Dr. Craig talked about. Here, he addresses and refutes most of the arguments in Dr. Craig's list.

------------------
The one thing that appeals to me about Sherlock's argument, is that it's hard to argue that the Universe could randomly start from nothing, so there must be some kind of prime cause. What I don't agree is to assign any attributes to this cause by any argument -- we just don't know is the answer.

In fact, of the 5 pro arguments, I could maybe accept with a leap of faith and some reason, the 2nd argument, which is the crux of Sherlock's (in my opinion). The rest, I'd say no.

That is a good debate, and there are others too, John Lennox v Richard Dawkins is fascinating.

Also not a debate but a truly thought provoking talk about some of the pretensions inherent in modern atheism and atheist writers. This is particularly interesting as it contrasts Galileo's struggle with Catholic authority with today's theists' struggle with Scientific authority, if you listen to the talk you see just how much these authoritarian institutions have in common.

Your comments and posts are refreshing too, you are willing to disagree yet at the same time show you have an open mind.

 

[zyzygy]

Still no proof of the Christian god.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Exactly! There is no sound reason to jump to the conclusion that a god of some description is responsible for the 'creation' of the universe when it is clear that we don't have all the information required to assert thus. Such claims are borne of confirmation bias, not reason, for one has to take a leap of logic to arrive at such a conclusion.

But what if I decide to name, label that reason for the presence of the universe as "God"? If I do that then I develop an initial working definition for God, namely that which brought the universe into existence.

This is in fact what I did and do, my belief in God is rooted in this fundamental reality, the universe cannot be invoked as the reason there is universe and science has hard limits on what we can expect from it insofar as explanatory powers are concerned, for example science cannot explain why we have science.

This amounts to an explanation for the existence of the universe, granted it is a very limited explanation but it is an explanation, if we restrict ourselves to scientific explanations then clearly the universe has no explanation so why restrict myself to scientific explanations?

Consider too, the claim "God is the reason there is a universe" alongside the claim "The Higgs boson is the reason we have mass", they each use something fundamental and unexplained as the explanation for something else, one the universe (which incidentally will include the Higgs field) and the other mass.