God probably exists.

[RAMOSS]

I've explained why the God concept is simpler...everything becomes the product of thought. Your materialist theory goes with the idea that mind independent matter and thought both exist.If the simpler idea explains reality why do we need to add unnecessary complexity (ie, mind independent stuff)?

The intent in weather systems is the same as the intention we see everywhere...the rules/laws of nature...weather systems obey them, like everything else.

Yet, it is not simpler.. because it answers nothing.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yet, it is not simpler.. because it answers nothing.

What do you mean anyway by "simpler" how do you quantify it?

 

[watsup]

I see. Well I agree that the onus is on the one making the claim and you claim "No theist has ever produced any evidence for a god" and surely this a position you reached rationally? based on some evidence?

I can accept that you personally have not seen what you would regard as evidence for a God but it does not follow from that that nobody throughout history has ever produced any evidence for god, if there is an argument leading to this then it is an unsound argument.

Furthermore even if it were true and demonstrable that nobody had ever produced any evidence for god one cannot draw the conclusion from this that therefore god does not exist.

You’re an absolute hoot! Round and round you go in the tight little syllogisms with lots and lots of strawmen thrown in.
Whatever.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You’re an absolute hoot! Round and round you go in the tight little syllogisms with lots and lots of strawmen thrown in.
Whatever.

All you ever do here is complain, sonny people sometimes disagree with one another, get over it.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Why oh why oh why do atheists seem to never explore the problems facing evolution? the problems facing abiogenesis?
There are huge problems with the claim that life can emerge spontaneously, absolutely huge.
The atheists like to chatter about this or that experiment that appears to explain this or might have played a role in that, but they never ever look at the deep problems.
There are a great many problems so for no particular reason why not research the subject of homochirality and abiogenesis, chances are most here have never even heard of this.
Here's a few bits n pieces for ya'll
Origin of Homochirality in Biosystems (emphasis their's)
Unresolved Questions About the Origins of Life
The origin and evolution of life

I just wanted to point out that you believe that life emerged spontanteously when a space wizard pointed his finger blaster and said "go". Don't pretend you made your decision based on logic or science because your position is even loonier.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I just wanted to point out that you believe that life emerged spontanteously when a space wizard pointed his finger blaster and said "go". Don't pretend you made your decision based on logic or science because your position is even loonier.

Even if that were true it's not a refutation of the problems I highlighted, problems I strongly suspect 99% of the atheists in here were blissfully unaware of because they dwell in la-la land.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Even if that were true it's not a refutation of the problems I highlighted, problems I strongly suspect 99% of the atheists in here were blissfully unaware of because they dwell in la-la land.

You have to understand the irony of someone who believes life emerged literally spontaneously trying to tell someone who believes life evolved over billions of years they're wrong for believing life emerged spontaneously, right?

 

[watsup]

As I've said above, evolution does not break the laws of nature, evolution is a reflection of its intent....it's a lot simpler than believing a bunch of atoms got together to randomly start evolution...what the **** do atoms get out of it lol?

You are misrepresenting the word “intent”, which clearly implies some sort of sentient intelligence with the ability to make decisions based on different choices.
The fauna of the Earth can display intent, since even the non-human animals can rely on”instinct” to make choices. A dog sees two bones, he might even pick both of them up to see which one tastes better to him, and then he makes a choice.
The flora of the earth are a different matter. A tree does not make a choice as to when to drop its leaves on the fall, it simply “happens” based on local atmospheric conditions.
Evolution is like the tree. It has no decision-making capabilities, per se. Evolution simply proceeds based on the conditions of the Earth at any particular time following, of course, the physics and biological processes of the NATURAL world. It cares not whether the end result, TO THIS POINT, resulted in Homo sapiens or a one-eyed, one-horned flying purple people-eaters. No decision making capability, per se, and thus no overall “intent”.

 

[watsup]

Even if that were true it's not a refutation of the problems I highlighted, problems I strongly suspect 99% of the atheists in here were blissfully unaware of because they dwell in la-la land.

Ad hom. Please try to avoid it. It does not contribute to reasoned debate.

 

[watsup]

All you ever do here is complain, sonny people sometimes disagree with one another, get over it.

Psychological projection.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

You have to understand the irony of someone who believes life emerged literally spontaneously trying to tell someone who believes life evolved over billions of years they're wrong for believing life emerged spontaneously, right?

Yes I'd agree with you if anyone did say such a thing.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Ad hom. Please try to avoid it. It does not contribute to reasoned debate.

Stop complaining and whining all the time.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Yes I'd agree with you if anyone did say such a thing.

So you don't believe that god made life emerge spontaneously? Why would you accuse someone who believes life evolved over billions of years that he believes life emerged spontaneously? You're not even arguing against the actual person anymore, rather yourself.

 

[watsup]

So your not an atheist, thanks for clearing that up.
Oh, ermm, I see, so you are an atheist.
I see, so now we have three definitions, the two I gave (of which you say neither represent you) and this new one of yours.
1. Absence of belief in God
2. Denying the existence of God
3. Denying the existence of such an entity as “God”.
So there are true atheists and false atheists? I never knew that and the definition gets updated from time to time too, Hmmm.
‘Which seems to be the same as my first definition, 1) above, no? but you say "preferred by atheists themselves" do you mean preferred by true atheists or false atheists and how can you speak on behalf of all atheists?

Of course I’m an atheist, based on the definition that I gave.
It is not my problem that you misrepresent atheism with inaccurate definitions. That you feel the need to do so speaks to the weakness of your arguments. Good debate is based on good objective definitions, which you have NOT provided.
And your true atheists or false atheists has no merit, it’s, just trying to change the subject by presenting a strawman.
And no, your first definition of atheist is not the same as the one I presented. But I have already addressed that in the previous post. If you wish to overlook that, that is not my problem. It just shows a dishonesty on your part.
And yes, I can indeed speak for most atheists because I have had enough conversations with them to know that they do indeed dislike the continuing effort to present a false definition of atheism. A number of us have now identified it in your posts. Do they “all” have to do so in order to understand that we do indeed agree broadly? Please end the nit-picking and proceed to a thoughtful debate mode.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So you don't believe that god made life emerge spontaneously? Why would you accuse someone who believes life evolved over billions of years that he believes life emerged spontaneously? You're not even arguing against the actual person anymore, rather yourself.

No I think God put rather a lot of thought into it.

Spontaneous: without apparent external cause or stimulus

 

[watsup]

Stop complaining and whining all the time.

Psychological projection.

 

[Aletheia]

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?

If we accept that somehow the origin of existence was compressed down to an almost infinitesimally small and infinitely dense something, that somehow combines all of our fundamental forces to one prime force, I would argue that that fundamental force had to have had some cause even before it. No matter how I rationalize, universes existing in parallel, or universes giving birth to other universes, I can't escape that the mystery still exists somewhere towards the beginning of all of them, and we haven't explained it yet.

I can accept spontaneous events, even random self-organizing emergent design. Even the hypothesis, that our universe was born of another universe, and on and on. But we have to have some 'things' to begin organizing, where do those things originate?

My understanding is that the spontaneous events aren't really inexplicable. Things like virtual particles popping into and out of existence, aren't really particles for one. And as far as I know, they've been described to have causes such as electrons interacting with an electromagnetic field, which create some perturbation that we measure as ripples that behaves 'like' particles. But where do those fields even come from? I don't know.

Your whole notion of a cause that does not have a cause is a paradox to me. I don't claim to resolve it, but I think a cause is more plausible than no cause. Multiple causes are ok, too, but where do they start?

I'm more of an agnostic, then theist or atheist. I just don't know, and nothing really justifies my belief 100% either way. But I don't rule out either position.

 

[watsup]

Nonsense, one cannot say "I withhold belief in God unless compelling evidence is presented to me" and not believe that it is a possibility that such evidence could be encountered

:violin

Actually, what you are describing above is an AGNOSTIC, not an atheist.

Atheist: There is no evidence for a “God” and thus the logical conclusion is that no such entity exists.
Agnostic: There is no evidence for a God, but there might be tomorrow and so I withhold my judgement.
The latter is more akin to your statement above.

 

[watsup]

Before I do that I'd like to know where you stand regarding David's proposition "Atheists do not have beliefs" - do you agree or disagree because that is what my post (that you quoted) pertains to.

I suppose everybody in the world has “beliefs”. “Believing” is the easiest thing in the world. Anybody can “believe” practically anything and have “reasons” to back it up. Note Trump’s “beliefs” about COVID which are only contributing to more deaths.

But in specific reference to “God”, an atheist has an UNDERSTANDING, not a “belief”, that since there is no evidence for a “God”, then the logical conclusion is that no such entity exists.

And thus, yes, I agree with David and not with you as regards the “beliefs” of atheists.

 

[Aletheia]

I suppose everybody in the world has “beliefs”. “Believing” is the easiest thing in the world. Anybody can “believe” practically anything and have “reasons” to back it up. Note Trump’s “beliefs” about COVID which are only contributing to more deaths.

But in specific reference to “God”, an atheist has an UNDERSTANDING, not a “belief”, that since there is no evidence for a “God”, then the logical conclusion is that no such entity exists.

And thus, yes, I agree with David and not with you as regards the “beliefs” of atheists.

The knowledge of Science describes belief of something as a requirement for knowing it. Just saying.

 

[watsup]

The knowledge of Science describes belief of something as a requirement for knowing it. Just saying.

And yet science is about moving beyond just “belief” and into a more certain knowledge of how the natural world works. That is the basis and goal of science.

 

[zyzygy]

You have to understand the irony of someone who believes life emerged literally spontaneously trying to tell someone who believes life evolved over billions of years they're wrong for believing life emerged spontaneously, right?

There are no magic gods in la la land.

 

[TypicalRussian]

"It...."?

spiritually

 

[TypicalRussian]

Then just emotionally spiritual?

how so?

 

[Individual]

spiritually

how so?

That's what I'm asking you, spiritually in what sense?