Are you going to keep responding “And…?” until I prove the existence of an intelligent creator? That was not my position or my intent.
If I had in my possession enough evidence to prove that, I’d be collecting my Nobel prize instead of posting on an internet forum.
I don’t think you are really asking for evidence. You’re asking for proof. If that existed definitively, faith would be unnecessary and belief in a creator, or lack thereof, would not require faith at all, which brings me back to my initial point, again.
Please allow me to summarize (reword?) my input into this thread: Faith is required to form a belief when enough evidence is not available to establish fact.
Atheism, like Theism, is not scientifically proven. Therefore, Atheism, like Theism, requires faith to form belief.
If you disagree with that, then you disagree with my point about faith, and that’s OK with me.
But here’s the way I see it: Is there compelling evidence that there is no intelligent designer? Yes, otherwise, there wouldn’t be any atheists who formed their belief using faith, reason, logic and history.
Is there compelling evidence that there is an intelligent designer? Yes, otherwise there wouldn’t be theists who formed their belief using faith, reason, logic and history.
Let me ask you a question. Are you attempting to make the argument that there are no reasonable, logical theists who are well versed in history?
Where is the wisdom in forming a belief when there is not enough evidence available to establish fact?
Wouldn’t the wiser choice be to say, “I don’t know” (or “I don’t know yet: let’s try to find out?”)
There are competing faith systems. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, many others. How can one declare faith in one of these at the expense of all the others, if the evidence is insufficient?
Faith, at that scale, seems premature and unwise.
The extreme alternative, of course, is also pointless: absolute solipsism, since the evidence for anything can be said to be insufficient. But a foundational faith – “there is a universe; people are really people and not zombies” – is enabling. Is religious faith enabling, or limiting?
I said “And…?” once. In what way is the existence of the Universe evidence of any god or gods? Instead of even attempting to answer that simple question, you try to divert attention away from your inability to answer the question and towards some rant about what I “really” want. I know the difference between evidence and proof, and I know exactly what I asked. You are not the first person to try this trick, and I expect you won’t be the last.
This is real simple: You said that there was evidence for the existence of God, and I asked what that evidence might be. Your reply in its totality was, “The universe exists.”
In what particular way is the existence of the universe evidence for anything other the existence of the universe?
By the way, atheism, unlike theism, doesn’t need to be proven-it is the default position in this argument. It is not up to me to provide evidence that an all-knowing, all-seeing and all-powerful immortal invisible entity didn’t create the universe. I don’t believe in Santa Claus(a much more likely entity), and no one tells me I have to provide evidence that he doesn’t exist.
Not answering for **Czarcasm **but seeing history (and I have training on it BTW) the conclusion I have is that there are reasonable, logical theists that are well versed in history; however, some were burned at the stake or imprisoned for doing that.
You see, what you miss from history is that many of the ones that did use logic and reason found evidence that it did not match what the faiths of the day reported as revealed truth. And the reality is that people like Copernicus, Galileo, Servet, the discoverers of anesthesia and the cures of venereal diseases were very religious; what happened was that the universe does not care about the faith one has.
Yes, my God is the only one that I know of that claims to be the creator of all heaven and earth. I haven’t studied all of the gods for there are many, but my time has not been wasted in loving him, studying him and believing in him.
Jesus said to his followers in St John 17:24-25
St Paul said in Colossians 1:15–18
The Importance of Christ
The god who made all heaven and earth lives by faith in three persons … The father, the son and the holy spirit … the one that is in me right now doesn’t have to go ask the other two anything. For you see the other two are in heaven, the father and the son at his right hand side. The holy spirit is the same one that wrote the bible in the men of old and the same one that raises people from the dead and the same one Jesus offered up to us in prayer to his father in:
Do you cringe when you read the Word of God? That is the spirit of unbelief … fight it and try to yield to the truth. Jesus wants to live in you and work through you, but first you have to believe.
Don’t mock God in your refusal just simply let your nay be nay or your yea be yea.
Great post!
I think it is wise to say, “I don’t know.” A wise agnostic says, “I don’t know yet.” A wise atheist, or a wise theist, says, “I don’t know, but I believe ________, based on objective truths such as __________.”
Blind faith – faith without reason, logic and history – is indeed premature and unwise.
Of course, blind faith that leads a person to remain faithful to their spouse, or kick drug addiction, or care for others, is enabling, whether it’s faith in oneself, humanity, or a higher power.
And competing faith systems are irrelevant to anybody who is building upon an informed foundation that there is no intelligent creator.
All IMO, of couse.
and we begin back down the path of a theist that does not understand what an atheist is.
An atheist will simply say “I do not believe in gods or gods” the athiest may go on to explain the reason for such a statement - most commonly with - “there is no objective evidence for their existence” - there is no requirement for faith of any kind in that statement.
It is entirely on the theist’s side to provide objective evidence for their version of ‘god’ - this has nothing to do with ‘proof’ - provide evidence that said entity exists - then we can talk about ‘proof’ that said being did x or y.
Do you - Gus Mayo understand that very simple point?
I prefer what Jefferson thought about god, that he would be more respectful of people that use reason and doubt that faith should guide us, because God is most likely to reward the ones that use the reason he gave us rather than use dogma that was made by man.
It’s not completely wrong; there are lots of different kinds of atheists. There definitely are a good many of the “strong” or “hard” atheist variety, who are quite positive that there is no God.
I belong to the variety that is positive that there is no “Infinite” God, as this is logically self-contradictory. Something big and Zeus-like might be out there, but “Omnipotence” cannot exist; the term is meaningless.
Right, that sounds like it makes you more of an ‘agnostic atheist’ - and I don’t have an issue with that either - I’m ‘smart enough’ to know that we don’t know ‘everything’ and at some point we may actually find evidence for such a being - none of which requires one iota of ‘faith’ (as gus mayo was implying).
the onus is still on the theist to provide evidence that ‘their god’ exists. So far, none have.
I’ll further simplify my thoughts on the matter:
Faith and evidence (history) are necessary for belief when there is a lack of proof.
And a lack of evidence is not proof. Therefore, both the statements – “There is an intelligent designer” and “There is no intelligent designer” – require a degree of faith.
To say, “I do not believe in god or gods,” is a higher, more informed version of, “I don’t think there are a god or gods.”
I agree that the burden of proof is on theists. The theist’s lack of proof does affirm the belief of the atheist, but does notprove it.
Some theists have beliefs that can be proven only in their version of the afterlife. Others have beliefs that cannot be proven at all.
The atheist can say with a degree of certainty that “My belief will eventually be proven beyond the shadow of doubt when enough evidence is gathered.”
This statement still requires faith.
So does the statement:
because
Having no objective evidence is evidence to the contrary, but it isn’t proof.
You asked for the best evidence, so I painted with a broad brush. And I offered evidence, which is a building block of proof. I’m not trying to prove anything other then my view on the concept of faith, which is the topic of this thread.
Hopefully my above statements addresses this. This argument is about the concept of faith, not the merits of theism versus atheism.
Thank goodness that the current faiths of the day are a lot less… murdery.
If there is no objective evidence that X exists - it can be said that X does not exist. Period - end of story. No faith is required for that statement. This has nothing to do with ‘proving that X does not exist’
You are also trying to confuse a different aspect of logic - that you cannot prove a negative - you cannot gather evidence that X does not exist - you can only gather evidence that shows that X does exist.
So - you start with a null hypothesis - “X does not exist” - you then gather evidence to ‘falsify’ that hypothesis - if there is no evidence that falsifies it - that hypothesis stands until such evidence is found.
“God does not exist” is an example of said hypothesis.
“Nothing unreal exists” is another -
“Unicorns do not exist” is another
Finally -
Atheism is simply the ‘lack of belief in god or gods’ - an atheist stating that they do not ‘believe’ has nothing to do with the kind of ‘belief’ that a theist will state - since the belief of said entity from a theist IS ENTIRELY BASED ON FAITH.
Therefore this statement by you -
shows that you not only mis-understand the principals of evidence in this context but that you also do not understand the basic logical principal behind it.
When you can understand that, then we can continue this conversation.
In other words, “You can’t prove a negative.”
We are in agreement there.
Where we disagree is on the concept of faith.
“Unicorns do not exist” is just as faith-based a statement as “God does exist,” based on the concept of faith as I have described it. That does not make the former more true than the latter, mind you. Only that there are varying degrees of faith.
“The world is not round,” required faith to believe, when it was accepted based on the evidence provided at the time.
That statement, “The world is not round” was only “true” until it wasn’t.
The same could be said about the phrases “Unicorns do not exist” and “God does not exist.”
Neither phrase is unacceptable and both positions could be argued on the grounds of lack of evidence, but both require faith to believe, because, as with our round world, the possibility remains of undiscovered evidence.
In other words, humans lacked evidence that the world was round, and that affirmed that the world wasn’t round, but it did not prove that the world wasn’t round.
Perhaps I am only making semantics into gymnastics, though I’ll stick to my guns on this.
I’m stubborn.
