A False Dilemma, in Atheism

I think there's a whole spectrum of Christian belief, it really depends on the stage of psychological development that a Christian has to determine their "beliefs". In conversations like this you would have to specify which belief system of "Christianity" you were trying to disclaim.

 

Pretentious twaddle.

 

No you have no idea if a god exists and even if you did, you would have less chance of knowing anything about the nature of such a being as an ant has of understanding quantum physics.

 

"God" is directly realizable. You just notice "it's" always there. I do agree that it's nature is nonconceptual, the mind can't understand it because the mind is dualistic based, and the actual nature of reality is nondual.

it would be like trying to play an mp3 on a phonograph from the 20's, it can't possibly play it.

 

its not pretentious because it's not contrived or fabricated by mind or belief, it's realizing the actual reality of ever-present pure awareness, as those in dzogchen or zen may say.

 

If we were discussing any other subject but religion you would be laughed off the forum, or locked up for delusions, the utter rubbish you lot write.

 

Not really as they all claim to have the absolute truth.

 

Are you denying the fact that you have a 1st-person experiential perspective that is separate from the 3rd-person conceptual perspective of science?

 

Each stages "truth" is interpreted through their stage of psychological development. The mind has no other choice but to interpret through it's own framework of understanding.

 

The only alternatives I'm aware of are:

• The universe just always was.
• The universe came from nothing.
• Infinite regression, as you imply above.

Which of those works for you?

If you could create time by fiat, you'd never spend it.

If all your children and their offspring lived in a hamlet with 500 people in it, would that hamlet be insignificant?

So is that a conclusion or a premise?

 

Evidently, the big problem some atheists have is reading comprehension. That, and not following reason, but exploding in triggered hysteria if any of their sacred cows are questioned..

So you think the dilemma in the OP is fine and sound reasoning.. or at least is the mandated belief for progressive indoctrinees.. is there a difference?

 

It does seem to be unjustified to state that:

- there is a god that is undetectable, and simply always existed

- there is nature which we detect daily, but which had to have been "created"

If GOD can be forever, why can nature NOT be forever?

 

You have an authorative explanation; death!


When the human body, perishes, then instantaneously the soul which made that body conscious of earth/Mankind, does leave the human mass and moves on likely to some non-Earthly place.

Believing in Jesus Christ/God Almighty, is the only way to enjoy the ultimate reward ---spending life on Earth not seeing God but still, believing...

 

Can we replace "God" with ever-present awareness?
This ground of awareness is aware of itself, so it's not never "detected" by the conceptual mind.

We detect nature through consciousness daily. Nature arises, stays for a bit, then goes away. In our experience, the only thing that is constant is our underlying awareness. Even the waking state comes in and out of existence to us, same with the dream state and deep dreamless sleep.

Anything that changes and is transitory is not our deepest nature of pure being. Our true nature is our own point-blank awareness, it's pristine awareness.

There is also an even deeper reality, there is an aware primal ground of reality that is pure nature or display that is aware. It's not like an individual waking up to enlightenment its as though reality itself wakes up....what's realized is the same substance as what knows it...this is nonduality.

From these 2 spiritual insights there are 2 truth claims that are 1) verifiable and 2) epistemologically and ontologically valid.
1) Pure awareness, the essence and foundation of all experience is beyond time, space and conceptual mind.
2) The felt sense of nondual reality is that it's been an eternal dance between consciousness and form (or the displays of consciousness.)

The unborn, unceasing nature of pure presence can be verified by anyone who looks, as has been done through many methods, paths and techniques, cross-culturally all through out history.

 

I understand the argument that you make and it is a false dilemma. I really do. I just don't know many atheists that actually really mean to make that argument so it really isn't a super important communique.

How about this

When you come across those atheists who phrase their stance so sloppily as to invite this criticism, feel free to correct them until they rephrase it. They should recognize the difference between saying that absent proof that God exists, God must not exist, and saying absent proof, there is no reason for them to believe that God exists.

Leave the more precise and cogent atheists like many you see here in evidence, out of it. It does not apply to us.

 

The laws of physics tell us that the universe has always existed and will always exist in one form or another.

There is nothing that supports the superstition regarding a mythical "creator" who has stolen the attributes of the universe.

 

I never asserted a creator, I am pointing to the actual nature of reality, past a conceptual framework. Any theories of the universe have to take into account the epistemics of an observer and the observed and the natural state of nondual presence.

Roy Bhaskar got close to this with his version of "critical realism", and his ideology critique's. Logical positivism is no longer a valid method for modeling reality and knowledge. This scientific view is basically archaic to anybody in the know...the observer has a primacy that cannot be avoided in reality. Conceptual facsimiles can be constructed but the mind is involved in every experience.

 

No I am saying you are talking woo woo and trying to present is as something important or factual! It has always been the job of snake oil salesman to talk BS!

 

I think you are full of fear and hate for anything that challenges your faith, you spew forth your bile across multiple threads projecting your insecurities and paranoia whenever you are challenged! It is so clear religion is your crutch but you do not have enough faith in it, so you spit at those of us who do not need it. Enjoy if it helps you through the day!

 

I am not addressing individuals, but a concept.. an ARGUMENT. And, this argument is given constantly, in support of the Atheistic belief.. or worldview.

'Since nobody can empirically prove God, i conclude He does not exist'..

..or variations therof, are as common as ad hom, in the forums, and is the most common rebuttal for anyone claiming belief in God.

'Flying spaghetti monsters!', 'Magic sky pixies!' 'Delusional Christians believe in fantasies, because they can't face the emptiness of their own existence!'

These are very common rebuttals against any claim of belief in God, but at the root, they are based in a false dilemma.

'Unless you prove God's existence empirically, He does not exist!'

..is a flawed reasoning, based on incomplete facts and faulty assumptions.

But i do applaud you for following the reasoning in the OP. Too many seem threatened and triggered by a logical exercise.

'To arms! To arms! A Christian is attacking Atheists!'

..is kind of an extreme reaction. Philosophical and logical concepts are not owned by Christians or Atheists, as far as i know. And following the conclusions (and implications), of a premise is hardly an 'attack!', nor is exposing a fallacy in an argument.

 

?
I see no reasoning or evidence for this charge.

I have simply and clearly displayed a false dilemma, and the hysterical, triggered reactions is much more absurd and illogical than anything in the OP.

Abuse?
Pointing out a fallacy is abuse?

I believe the definition of 'false dilemma,' fits it very well. If there were only 2 options, then it would be a rational conclusion.

1. List of responses? Not sure what you mean. I listed other possibilities.. not responses.
2. It is not rare, but is quite common. 'Unless you empirically prove God, i conclude He does not exist', 'If God existed, He would show Himself,' ..and etc.
3. Won't answer comments? I only ignore hecklers and disrupters, and not enough of that. I always respond to any thoughtful arguments.
4. Just one argument, in this thread. It is the central argument, against God, it seems to me.
5. I have been a philosopher longer than a Christian. I see no 'misrepresentation!' in the OP. that seems to be another fallacy..

?
Hardly. I'm just following the reasoning, and addressing a common 'rebuttal' given in philosophical discussions.

The hysteria seems to come from triggered atheists, who cannot debate issues like this without becoming disjointed and defensive.

Thanks for getting it..

Really.
..projections of your own problems, it seems to me..

 

This was not presented, or intended, to fire up the lame, 'Christians vs Atheists!' flame war. It is a philosophical examination of a common objection for any arguments for the existence of God.

I don't know why such passion and indignation was released, with such a simple logical premise.

Is,

'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'

..a fallacy, or a logical conclusion?

What reasoning do you have for this opinion?

Why would this simple concept unleash the minions of darkness, raging against God?

Ok, ok.. sorry about that.. too hard to resist injecting some humor in a humorless subject..

 

Well, again, this stems from the problem that I've never seen anyone present the argument the way you suggest it. I have seen people say "I see no evidence, so there is no god" (even though it is rare), and I would class that as a non-sequitur. I see how you can turn that into a false dilemma without loss of generality, so it is not wrong, just if you necessarily want to discuss the kind of fallacy, I think non-sequitur or maybe more likely Denying the antecedent.

The list I am referring to is this one:

I count at least seven responses from different posters which in various ways make the point that your dilemma is a false representation of what most atheists think. Yet it seems not to have registered.

My last post asked you for a reference to anyone making the argument you're talking about. Was that disruptive or heckling? And isn't that an important piece of evidence for the argument being common (not that a single instance is proof of it being common)?

I am not sure what this is referring to.

Obviously, nobody sees their own misrepresentations. That's why we're asking you to provide examples of the argument, so we can verify whether there has been one.

 

I see no material difference from the OP:

'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist.

It is a common argument given. I cannot see how you can deny this.. 'How atheists think!' is way beyond my simple reasoning skills. I can only deal with reasoned arguments.

The OP:
'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist'

..busy work? You want me to list all the times this concept has been presented?

Ok, forget it. Just consider it a hypothetical, as atheists would never say such a thing...

 

Ok. Busy work, it seems, because the argument is very common and widespread.. here are a few:

The logic is:

No evidence = no God

'Evidence' can be personal, empirical, or other.

My case is that the CONCLUSION of 'No God' is fallacious, based on incomplete information, and a false dilemma.

'No personal evidence' = No God

It is flawed reasoning to conclude 'No God!' based on ignorance or flawed assumptions. There are other possibilities as to why one has 'no personal evidence.' It is a flawed conclusion to arrive at 'no God!', only from ignorance.