seadad wrote:
Atheism is not a(n) hypothesis. How many mores times does it need saying?

So can you PROOF God does not exist ? If you answer, atheism is lack of belief, then i have already answered that. That is simply not true.

http://carm.org/lack-belief-analysis-outline

"Lack of belief" analysis outline
by Matt Slick

What does "lack belief in God" mean?
"Lack" means deficiency or absence. "Belief" means acceptance and conviction that something is true or valid.
Therefore, lack of belief would basically mean an absence of belief that something is true. But even the meaning of "absence of belief" is debatable. Someone can say, "I have absence of belief in screaming blue ants," but it is a meaningless statement. So? You lack believe in screaming blue ants. What about it?
If "lack of belief" is complete ignorance about something, then it is a state of non-awareness about it.
This would mean that it is not a purposeful chosen neutrality about something, since this is an intellectual categorization which implies awareness of a concept or thing -- even if the category is called neutrality.
We lack belief in concepts we are not aware of, and we categorize/assess concepts we are aware of.
If "lack of belief" means that a person chooses not to make an intellectual commitment to a position, but to remain intellectually neutral regarding belief or disbelief, that would be more logical.
However, complete neutrality about a concept is impossible since all concepts have an effect upon the hearer and illicit a response, whether it be emotional and/or intellectual.
Once you have been exposed to a concept, you categorize it as:
True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., but you do not return to a complete mental neutrality or state of ignorance.
We do not "lack belief" in invisible pink unicorns. That is, we do not hold a mentally neutral position about the concept. We make a decision to categorize it as:
True, False, Ridiculous, Unsure, etc., based upon our scope of knowledge and experience.
To the extent that this categorization occurs, belief or disbelief is associated with it.
If True, then positive belief is applied.
If False, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied.
If Ridiculous, then disbelief (the positive belief that it is false) is applied.
If Unsure, then belief and disbelief are pending, with either as the outcome.
This is because we realize that belief in the concept (acceptance) is possible, as also is disbelief (rejection), depending on further information and analysis.
Being unsure about something is as close to "lack of belief" as one can logically get, but even this is a categorization with pending commitment to belief or disbelief.
Actions reflect belief
We act based upon what we do believe, not upon what we do not believe. In other words, I do something because I believe something, not because I don't believe something. If I don't believe my house is on fire, then I don't do anything; but if believe it is, I get out.
In other words, if I believe my house is not on fire, then I don't need to get up and get out. It is not lack of belief that moves us, but belief.
I lack belief in concepts I am unaware of. Therefore, I do not and cannot act based upon them, since I am unaware of them.
I can only act or not act based upon concepts I am aware of.
If I believe there are invisible pink unicorns, I would act accordingly and either defend their existence or behave in a manner consistent with the belief that they exist.
If I believe there are no such things as invisible pink unicorns, I may or may not defend my position depending on the circumstances. But, I do not promote their non-existence since it is not necessary to do so anymore than it is necessary to promote the assertion that there is no ice cream factory on Jupiter.
If I believe that the existence of invisible pink unicorns is ridiculous, I may or may not assert that it is ridiculous, but I have categorized them and believe they do not exist.
If I am unsure about the existence of invisible pink unicorns, I would wait for further information before making my decision. In this, I would be agnostic about their existence.
If an atheist says he (or she) lacks belief in God, yet actively seeks to undermine theistic proofs and promote atheistic principles, then we must conclude that his actions are consistent with his beliefs; namely, that he actively believes God does not exist.
Furthermore, if the atheist is actively promoting the non-existence of God yet says he lacks belief in God, then his words and actions are inconsistent.
Atheists who say they lack belief in God, or disbelieve in God yet actively attack theistic proofs and seek to promote atheism, are acting according to their beliefs, not their non-beliefs or their "lack of belief." It is more consistent to say that the atheist who supports and promotes the idea that there is no God, but attacks theistic evidences, must believe there is no God. Otherwise, he is behaving without a reason, which is not logical.
To say you believe there is no God has problems
To say "I believe there is no God" is a conscious choice. Then, on what would the atheist be basing his belief that there is no God: evidence, lack of evidence, logic, faith, or a combination of all?
If evidence, then what positive evidence is there that disproves God's existence?
If lack of evidence, then it means he has not yet seen all evidence, and there might be sufficient evidence to demonstrate God's existence. This would mean that God may indeed exist, and the person is really an agnostic concerning God, so his atheist position is inconsistent with his statement.
If logic, then what logical proof do you have that negates God's existence?
At best, logic can only disprove theistic proofs. Disproving theistic proofs does not mean there is no God. It only means that the proofs thus presented are insufficient.
Logic can only disprove theistic proofs that are presented, and negating such proofs is not a refutation of all possible proofs since no one can know or present all possible proofs of God's existence. Therefore, negation of proofs does not disprove God's existence.
If there were a logical argument that proved God did not exist, it either has not yet been made known or it doesn't exist. If it were known then it would be in use by atheists. But since no proof of God's non-existence has been successfully defended by atheists, we can conclude that thus far, there are no logical proofs for God's non-existence.
If faith alone, then the position is not held by logic or evidence and is an arbitrary position.
If by a combination of evidence, logic, and/or faith, then according to the above analysis, neither is sufficient to validate atheism. A combination of insufficient means does not validate atheism.
For someone to believe there is no God is to hold that belief by faith since there is no evidence that positively supports atheism and there are no logical proofs that God does not exist. It is, after all, virtually impossible to prove a negative.

Once again the slant of your C & P is to show that a god exists simply because it can't be proved that he doesn't.

False reasoning.

seadad wrote:Once again the slant of your C & P is to show that a god exists simply because it can't be proved that he doesn't.

False reasoning.

my post was adressed to answer your argument, atheism were not a hypotheses, and not that God exists. Atheism is as long a hypotheses, as long it cannot be proven its veracity.

elshamah888 wrote:

seadad wrote:Once again the slant of your C & P is to show that a god exists simply because it can't be proved that he doesn't.

False reasoning.

my post was adressed to answer your argument, atheism were not a hypotheses, and not that God exists. Atheism is as long a hypotheses, as long it cannot be proven its veracity.

But it doesn't answer. You seem to think that atheism is some sort of hypothesis/faith/belief system. It isn't. The author of your C & P has simply put his own spin on what he thinks are atheistic arguments, and that's where it all falls down.

The only relevant thing that atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods/the supernatural et al. How you want to play at semantics to describe what lack of belief actually means, is up to you. It does nothing to substantiate a theistic position. That burden of proof is always yours, and so far has not been met.

Believe me when I say that I'd love to live forever. I'd like to think that there is a god that really cares. But it raises more questions than answers, and so far all answers have been highly unsatisfactory, as they are speculative, unsupported, based on wishful thinking/fear/selfishness, easily challenged and overturned, contradictory etc.

And I guess in reality you're as atheist as I am.

seadad wrote:

The only relevant thing that atheists have in common is a lack of belief in gods/the supernatural et al.

again. That is my view :

http://carm.org/i-lack-belief-god

In discussions with them, they tell me they lack belief in God the way they lack belief in invisible pink unicorns. In other words, they have no position, take no intellectual action, and have no belief or unbelief on the matter concerning God. To them it is a non-issue. Though this may sound sensible to some, the problem is that once you are introduced to an idea, you cannot stay neutral about it. You invariably make a judgment about an idea once it has been introduced to you. You can brush it off as ridiculous, ponder its possibility, accept it, reject it, or do something in between. But you cannot return to a lack of belief position, if lack of belief is defined as a non-intellectual commitment or non-action concerning belief. Though I admit that an atheist can claim he lacks belief even after being exposed to an idea and contemplating its rationality, I still assert that a position of some sort is required.

Hi Angelo,

I have read some of your posts on Debate Unlimited Forum and I think you are great. I have an idea for a rational argument for the existence of God that I believe is original, but it needs some work.

Basically if athiests postulate that the emergence of our conciousness is a natural process then the emergence of higher levels of conciousness must be possible. Given the high degree of fine-tuning in nature, a random emergence of human conciousness must require multiple universes or space-time to be incredibly vast compared to what we can observe in our universe. If the potential for space-time to exist is unlimited (which if our universe can emerge from nothing it is difficult to argue that it isn't) then the potential for conciousness to exist is unlimited and an unlimited conciousness must exist. This is the only thing that must exist with an infinite potentiality of space-time as quantum physics points to our limited conciousness having an effect on matter. It follows then that an infinite conciouness would control the entire form of existence. The ultimate conclusion is that an infinte conciousness is the only necessary thing which must exist.

Here is how I put the argument on the DU site, but I haven't quite figured out how to present this argument so it cuts through. Maybe you can help.

It think there is a simple and rational argument for the existence of an omnipotent personal god:

1. Observations of the universe tell us that the emergence of conscious intelligent life is extremely improbable under normal physical laws.
2. Increasing degrees of conciousness have emerged from non-existence
3. Conciousness has physical effects on reality as shown by quantun physics (both macro and micro) - look at a senior level school physics textbook if you disagree.
4. Higher levels of conciousness other than ourselves must be capable of spontaneously emerging to an infinite level if our improbable existence could be explained by natural means.
5. An infinite conciousness would control the whole realm of existence by extrapolation from quantum physics.
6. Also an infinite conciousness would be purposeful in shaping the nature of existence.
7. If this conciousness created concious beings, this creation would be puposeful and this conciousness (the monotheistic God) would seek a relationship with his/her(limitation of language here) creation.
8. This conciousness would be capable, and would seek a personal relationship with each one of us.

The Judeo-Christian Tradition and the personal testimonies of believers, in essence fit this paradigm.

I will look forward to hearing from you

Many thanks

John

doureckon? wrote:
1. Observations of the universe tell us that the emergence of conscious intelligent life is extremely improbable under normal physical laws.

hi John

its not only improbable, its simply impossible. Einsteins Gulf tells that very clearly :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t283-einstein-s-gulf-can-evolution-cross-it?highlight=einsteins+gulf

On the one side, we find the real world of objects, events, and tensional space-time relations. On the other side, we find fully abstract representations that contain information about the material world. That articulate information is abstracted first by our senses, secondarily by our bodily actions, and tertiarily by our ability to use one or more particular languages (e.g., English, French, Navajo, etc.). Between the two realms shown in figure 1, we find what appears to be an uncrossable gulf.

A small part of the evolutionists' problem is that hard objects are never observed spontaneously to transform themselves (on their own recognizance) into abstract ideas. The sun cannot sky-write the fact that it is about 93,000,000 miles from the earth. Neither do events transform themselves automatically into propositions. The meteor that collided with the earth leaving the crater out near Winslow, Arizona, cannot appear on CNN to tell of its journey, or to announce how hot it got streaking across the sky. Nor do space-time relations perceive, define, or narrate their unfolding over time. Events and relations between objects in time and space do not come stamped with date, time, and place of manufacture. While the earth may be affected by the moons of Jupiter in ways that science might detect, a planet is no more able to announce its age or recount its history, or declare the forces to which it is subject, than a dog can recite his pedigree or pronounce his mother's name.

Hi Angelo,

I agree that an argument by Albert Einstein would convince many people. I think though that increased knowledge of quantum physics would somewhat repudiate this argument. Einstein refused to believe in quantum occurrences and was adamant that "God doesn't play dice". Modern explanations of conciousness would involve quantum physics which Einstein didn't believe in and that would explain why he thought the emergence of conciousness in conjunction with matter impossible.

The way I have presented my argument is a bit hard to follow, that is why I am seeking your help here, but the upshot is that if you take a scenario of quantum universe emergence and evolution of life by random mutation and natural selection including the emergence of conciousness to its limit, the conclusion is the existence of a God very much like that described by the Judeo-Christian tradition. I have developed this argument over several years of debating the contributors at DU. I have read many of the same books you have, and find it great that you have set up this site.

I am interested to know some more about you. Are you a christian evangelist in Brazil or do you just do this for a hobby? I wonder if you became a hashtag contributor on twitter if that would boost up your membership here.

Kindest Regards

John

doureckon? wrote:Hi Angelo,

I agree that an argument by Albert Einstein would convince many people. I think though that increased knowledge of quantum physics would somewhat repudiate this argument. Einstein refused to believe in quantum occurrences and was adamant that "God doesn't play dice". Modern explanations of conciousness would involve quantum physics which Einstein didn't believe in and that would explain why he thought the emergence of conciousness in conjunction with matter impossible.

The way I have presented my argument is a bit hard to follow, that is why I am seeking your help here, but the upshot is that if you take a scenario of quantum universe emergence and evolution of life by random mutation and natural selection including the emergence of conciousness to its limit, the conclusion is the existence of a God very much like that described by the Judeo-Christian tradition. I have developed this argument over several years of debating the contributors at DU. I have read many of the same books you have, and find it great that you have set up this site.

I am interested to know some more about you. Are you a christian evangelist in Brazil or do you just do this for a hobby? I wonder if you became a hashtag contributor on twitter if that would boost up your membership here.

Kindest Regards

John

hi John

i confess that i am not very keen on quantum physics, and therefore i am not able to fully understand your argument.
I am born and grow up near Zurich, Switzerland, but do have italian parents. I live in brazil since 1996. I am a born again christian since 1984.
I do debate on atheist forums as a way to follow Jesus great command. Of course, you need to follow the rools of the forums, and at atheist forums to preach, and to use the bible isnt very welcome. So i use arguments, which are based on science, and philosophy, rather theology. Rather to develope own thoughts, i prefere to find answers to the upcoming questions and arguments made by atheists on the web. This forum is a way i choose to catalogize and organize the information, and use it as a private online library.

I have also a similar forum in portuguese, and german :

http://elshaddai.thinksubject.com/

http://elohim.heavenforum.org/


Right now i am also translating many webpages in portuguese, and will eventually later on publish a book. I will then mention and inform all the references , so the reader will be able to study further direct at the source, if he wishes to. I do this as hobby. I am member of a small local evangelical church, where i preach from time to time. I do also like to evangelize the poorest of the poor at the city, where i live, Aracaju, capital of Sergipe state, north east of brazil. It is amazing to see, how they naturally know God exists, but have very little information, even how to be saved. I do land developing, to earn my living. I buy big plots of land, and develope all the infrastructure, and make small plots, and sell them afterwards. I am not using Twitter. But if you wish, you could propagate my site here, to give others access to all the information i have collected. That would be great, and very welcome.

btw. here a list of forums, where i posted in the past :

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t11-english-forums-where-i-posted-in-the-past

Angelo