Reviewing Atheist 'Lack Belief' in Deities theory. <<MOD WARNING ISSUED>>

You might get away with conning others but not me.

Your speculation is no more valuable than mine since mine can be more verified using Occam's razor.

And you misrepresent Quantum physics. I would suggest Quantum physics allows for GOD.

 

Wingwalk

Lol, I think QM, is not the level on which this conversation can take place. So, lets zoom out a bit.

Now, first of all, occam's razor is not a law, it's just a guideline.

But, answer me this: If there were a god, why would it bother to create us?

 

0^3 BS you posted a while back? Puhlease! Its purely fictitious fudge. Just because science did it does not lend any credibility to it.

 

lol...uhhh, what?

 

thats like asking why did the bear fart on the north side of the forest. shees
your zero point crap. science fiction.

 

Not really. See, an infinitely powerful being just existing in the... I guess ether... would have no motivation to ever do anything. The most likely and stable scenario would be absolutely nothing ever happening ever.

Now, by 'zero point crap' do you mean the big bang theory?

 

Lol! I do think this should be on your tag line or tombstone or your fight song or something. You should lead all of your postings with that.

 

yep big bang is an ungrounded hypothesis. and no need to lecture me on light shift and radiation..... in a tiny corner in the box boring! its as foolish as these people on the other thread trying to convince me energy and matter are the same thing which yields E=ec^2.
Run across any warped space lately? LMAO
Curved time? I can go on and on ridiculing science 'metaphysics'.

 

God created both the inanimate plus the animate.

Past that, though I know of the books, I simply see GOD as the creator. Sort of like you visualize fusion.

Are you suggesting you are the master of Quantum Physics?

To some the question of why appeals to them. I am stuck with the creation of the universe and the contents of it.

 

If there is a mother, why would she create us? See how that sounds?

We are here if I exist. Are you here?

 

So, now this is the part where you have to admit it if you are just trolling. Are you just trying to be funny?

 

A mother has an evolved instinct to bear young. An all powerful infinite being has no instincts. Motivation is an evolved adaptation that such a being would have no reason to have.

So the only reason that could possibly be answered is that they were bored. But boredom also is an evolved adaptation. So the being would have to invent the idea of boredom, then decide to afflict itself with that boredom, but then there would be no reason for it to do that either. An all powerful being would just simply exist, doing nothing forever.

 

I don't enjoy trying to assign motive. For me, GOD exists and that is what I think created the universe.

 

It's not just assigning motive, it's that it's impossible to even imagine a possible motive.

 

Welcome to the thread. (Or welcome back.) We've needed a theist's point of view on here. We've got half a dozen atheists, one agnostic, one obscurantist, and me, former theist and current atheist who defends the theistic view. I don't think God really needs a motive. Why do we create things we don't need? The hell of it. The urge to create. Just to see what happens. And then I think you run into all kinds of problems when you start assigning characteristics to God that you don't know he has. Like boredom.

 

Really, could you cite what the universal theist convention on murder is?

 

contrare, this is the point where you realize there is a huge difference (gap) between simply being a preprogrammed-stooge and someone who is educated.

think of yourself as a borg.

 

Truth tables will reflect the rule I have presented. I'm not sure exactly how you expect a truth table to change anything, but if it violates the logical rules, it will be wrong. Fact remains, if it is true that "I have a left arm and I have a right arm" is true, then "I have a left arm" must be true. It is only misleading if you include some other context, in which, for instance, you have a lot of people with only one arm, but in that case, it is the context that provides the misconception, not the statement "I have a left arm".

Sure, that is true in electricity, but you have yet to show why electricity is a better analogy of our situation than my explanations are.

Apples are fruit, oranges are fruit, cars are not fruit. Oranges overlap with fruit, it is not surprising to find an object which is both an orange and a fruit. Talking about fruit in no way "wipes out" the concept of oranges, just like talking about atheists (agnostics included) doesn't "wipe out" the concept of agnostics.

If one uses the logic I have presented consistently, then there are no problematic truths, no special cases or anything like that.

For starters, given that you hold that not believing and believing not are the same thing, but I do not, "denial" is not very clearly defined to me (or more specifically, if I use the word denial, I worry that you will assume I mean something which I do not mean). Therefore, I will spell out exactly what I mean.

The claim that "I believe there are no gods" does not have to accompany the statement "I do not believe there are no gods", but it may. Given that agnostics then are a subset to atheists, there is no need for a distinction which separates one from the other.

Could you explain which statements you think derive from which rules? I don't see that any rule I have suggested implies that denial must accompany any claim (other than the denial itself).

What is relevant is the belief in god. You can tell that it's the relevant part because it's what's in the definition.

Sure, but you have yet to show that it even makes sense to talk about 50% belief (or any other percentage), so why wouldn't you choose the other definition? Besides, who gets to choose which definition to use? The person making the claim, which in this case was the atheist.

I would agree, accepting God exists is logically equivalent to saying you believe God exists. Those seem to me to be the same statements, as are the "does not exist" versions. However, the question at hand is who can be called an atheist, and for that, we need only the definition, and the definition considers the lack of belief, so that is the only relevant thing.

Detail does not make a statement believable. I could tell you intricate detail about my pet unicorn, that doesn't mean you should believe me. Both you and Smith has provided ample detail, but I have yet to see a justification for believing it.

That being said, I agree with the rest of this bit. Belief is that which you accept is true, even if it isn't actually true. Agnostics believe that the proposition "God exists" cannot be known.

Atheist is not necessarily part of the binary response. Atheist corresponds to "I do not believe". "not" is a negation, so it has to be true whenever "I do believe" is not. For an agnostic, "I do believe" is not true (for if it were, you'd be a theist, and being a proposition, it has to have a yes or no answer), so it falls under the given definition of atheist.

You've still to show that beliefs can come in bits. You can borrow an intermediate amount of milk, but it cannot be intermediately true that you believe something, for you believing is in itself a proposition, and propositions have truth values, which are true or false only, they don't come in percentages.

No, calling oneself does nothing to fulfil a definition. I am not Russian, or a welder, or an orange. Claiming that I am any of those things does not make it true.

No, but you can make another, different proposition. Just like you can say "I like oranges" about the fruit and still say "I don't like oranges" about the colour. They are different propositions, and only by stubbornly assuming that oranges can only mean one thing will you mix them up.

That is inconsistent with the definition provided. It's like saying "orange is a colour" as a response to someone saying "oranges are a fruit". How the definitions work is highly relevant.

And I have shown you my counterarguments. The difference is that I understand your arguments, and their flaws, and I am aware how my argument avoids the problems you accuse it of, whereas you have not understood my argument.

 

I'm going to hold off on pointing out (in detail at least) that you are talking to me on a computer.

I'm going to try a thought experiment. If a stranger passed by your house and told you it was haunted. Then some time later, you heard a noise downstairs while you were sleeping. Would you get up and investigate it?

 

The point is that all of those characteristics, or really any characteristic, is an evolved adaptation to something. A god would never have developed them. It would be absolutely without motive or desire.

 

cool I like thought experiments! I'll play!

by all means knock yourself out start pointing LOL Doin the bitwise shuffle cha cha!

If I heard a noise in the basement 'anytime' I would check it out

no stranger is required, no haunting is required, nothing would change either way.

 

Why don't you just believe the stranger?

 

Who says I dont believe the stranger?

 

I would never step that far out on the ledge. Any theist could ask you who you think you are that you think you know what G/god would do?

 

I mean why don't you just trust the stranger?