Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[Value Collector]

If you truly don't know for sure, how is it that you have attained such confidence in claiming the non existence of god?

I don’t claim the non existence of a god.

I say I don’t believe in any of the current gods being claimed that I know about.

And I don’t believe in them because so far I haven’t seen any evidence that would justify me moving away from the default position, agnostic atheism.

 

[Value Collector]

Because matter and energy don't create themselves.

How do you know that there aren’t circumstances which they could?

 

[SirRumpole]

How do you know that there aren’t circumstances which they could?

So tell me what they are.

 

[Value Collector]

So tell me what they are.

I am not claiming that I know what they are, we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang, but I would think it silly to rule out a natural “non god” cause.

But you are claiming that

1, no natural circumstances could exist to create matter or energy.

2, so a god must exist

I am just saying you have leaped a few steps ahead of the logic there and made to many assumptions.

Both 1 and 2 are claims that would need proving, but both are claims that I am happy to say “I don’t know yet, but we may one day find out”

 

[cynic]

OK fair enough. I thought your position was hard core atheist ie you deny that any god exists, but if you have an open mind on it given enough evidence, then that's fine as long as you define what evidence you want or would accept.

eg if you don't accept the existence of the Universe as evidence of a god then you have to put forward a counter proposition and prove that actually happened if you want to prove there is no god.

Sirr, it is very kind of you to take VC at his word, and formulate a rational proposal.
I believe you may have already noticed this, but just in case you haven't, the problem here is, that despite his claims to the contrary, VC, is not in any way shape or form agnostic!
However, whether he identifies with it or not, he is most definitely an anti-theist, (a sub set of the atheist population, intolerant of theism and theists alike).
This is amply demonstrated by his repeated insistence that theists have an obligation to provide him proof upon demand, or accept his admonishment of theistic beliefs.
He does true agnosticism a terrible injustice by dishonestly trying to claim its presence in his position.

I cannot see this difference of views being resolved until VC opens up, and acknowledges, to himself at least, his true reason/s for having such a huge problem with other people choosing to believe in supernatural phenomena.

Why would any truly agnostic person feel the need to attack and ridicule other people, for naught more than choosing to hold a supernatural belief?

How does the holder of the attacked belief, come to be seen as such a threat, that he/she must always be attacked and ridiculed?

Where is agnosticism to be found in such behaviours?

 

[cynic]

I don’t claim the non existence of a god.

I say I don’t believe in any of the current gods being claimed that I know about.

And I don’t believe in them because so far I haven’t seen any evidence that would justify me moving away from the default position, agnostic atheism.

I am unable to discern the presence of any semblance of agnosticism, whatsoever, in your postings. So how about you show agnosticism a little bit of respect and desist from laying false claims to its presence in your philosophy.

The non existence of god, has been asserted by you, on more than one occasion!

I am of the strong opinion, that the truly agnostic do not deserve, in any way shape or form, to be associated with your chosen anti-theistic position.

 

[Value Collector]

Sirr, it is very kind of you to take VC at his word, and formulate a rational proposal.
I believe you may have already noticed this, but just in case you haven't, the problem here is, that despite his claims to the contrary, VC, is not in any way shape or form agnostic!
However, whether he identifies with it or not, he is most definitely an anti-theist, (a sub set of the atheist population, intolerant of theism and theists alike).
This is amply demonstrated by his repeated insistence that theists have an obligation to provide him proof upon demand, or accept his admonishment of theistic beliefs.
He does true agnosticism a terrible injustice by dishonestly trying to claim its presence in his position.

I cannot see this difference of views being resolved until VC opens up, and acknowledges, to himself at least, his true reason/s for having such a huge problem with other people choosing to believe in supernatural phenomena.

Why would any truly agnostic person feel the need to attack and ridicule other people, for naught more than choosing to hold a supernatural belief?

How does the holder of the attacked belief, come to be seen as such a threat, that he/she must always be attacked and ridiculed?

Where is agnosticism to be found in such behaviours?

I am kind of anti theist, but that is a separate topic from my stated claim of being an “agnostic atheist”

I think you might be mixing up terms.

Let me assist you in the following definitions.

Agnostic - doesn’t know for sure
Gnostic - knows for sure

Atheist - doesn’t believe in a god
Theist - does believe in a god.

So I am an “Agnostic atheist” - there are four possible combinations

Agnostic atheist
Agnostic theist
Gnostic atheist
Gnostic theist

In terms of anti theist, that’s not part of that scale, that is about being against religion, and an anti theist can be any of those 4 options, antitheists aren’t just atheists.

In a world where religion causes so much harm It’s quite rational to be against it, and therefore I am an antitheist, however I guess I am a weak one because I do believe in freedom of religion, and wouldn’t seek to ban it.

 

[Value Collector]

I am unable to discern the presence of any semblance of agnosticism, whatsoever, in your postings. So how about you show agnosticism a little bit of respect and desist from laying false claims to its presence in your philosophy.

The non existence of god, has been asserted by you, on more than one occasion!

I am of the strong opinion, that the truly agnostic do not deserve, in any way shape or form, to be associated with your chosen anti-theistic position.

Read my post above, I think you are confused about what the term agnostic / atheism / antitheist mean

 

[cynic]

Read my post above, I think you are confused about what the term agnostic / atheism / antitheist mean

On the contrary, it is you, who is confused!
How can a person be agnostic and "know" that there is no god?

 

[SirRumpole]

In terms of anti theist, that’s not part of that scale, that is about being against religion, and an anti theist can be any of those 4 options, antitheists aren’t just atheists.

I would define myself as an agnostic theist in your spectrum but I don't particularly like religion. I'm not anti theist because I believe in god (not I know there is one).

If you are antitheist you are attacking the notion of god therefore you must be an atheist, but it's reasonable to separate god from religion because it is illogical to think that a god who created all life would take the side of one tribe or another.

 

[cynic]

I am not claiming that I know what they are, we don’t know what happened before the Big Bang, but I would think it silly to rule out a natural “non god” cause.

But you are claiming that

1, no natural circumstances could exist to create matter or energy.

2, so a god must exist

I am just saying you have leaped a few steps ahead of the logic there and made to many assumptions.

Both 1 and 2 are claims that would need proving, but both are claims that I am happy to say “I don’t know yet, but we may one day find out”

So what are your thoughts on the "kalam cosmological argument" for the existence of god?

 

[grah33]

I think proving God is actually a simple thing, and always has been. But one has to have it in them to want to look for him. I think God tends to manifest himself in some way often enough, but only to people who look for him.

Jesus only worked miracles in the towns that had faith. So only the believer gets confirmation, and that's obviously good for him because they will believe even more. We also have a conscience too that seems to have a play in the discovery of God. It leads us as to what we should be doing. For example, a long time ago , I felt within myself that I should be going to certain church events and acting differently (much better). I was also lucky enough (not everyone is) to be surrounded by some new family friends who were, unintentionally, preaching to me.

According to the Old T. God showed himself miraculously and powerfully to all the Israelites in the time of Moses. Despite that many of them ditched the covenant shortly after. So even if he decided to show himself, it doesn't mean the planet would change. And he prefers people to come of their own free will.

 

[cynic]

I think proving God is actually a simple thing, and always has been. But one has to have it in them to want to look for him. I think God tends to manifest himself in some way often enough, but only to people who look for him.

Jesus only worked miracles in the towns that had faith. So only the believer gets confirmation, and that's obviously good for him because they will believe even more. We also have a conscience too that seems to have a play in the discovery of God. It leads us as to what we should be doing. For example, a long time ago , I felt within myself that I should be going to certain church events and acting differently (much better). I was also lucky enough (not everyone is) to be surrounded by some new family friends who were, unintentionally, preaching to me.

According to the Old T. God showed himself miraculously and powerfully to all the Israelites in the time of Moses. Despite that many of them ditched the covenant shortly after. So even if he decided to show himself, it doesn't mean the planet would change. And he prefers people to come of their own free will.

A "you will see it when you believe it" style approach, no matter how true, isn't likely to impress any ardent sceptics anytime soon.

However, I agree that it has a beautiful simplicity that cannot be automatically dismissed.

i.e the sceptic says "I don't believe because I cannot see the evidence" and the mystic replies "the reason you cannot see the evidence, is because you do not believe".

 

[Value Collector]

If you are antitheist you are attacking the notion of god therefore you must be an atheist, but it's reasonable to separate god from religion because it is illogical to think that a god who created all life would take the side of one tribe or another.

No, I am using the term antitheist to describe being against religions, maybe it’s the wrong word to use.

But my “anti-theism” (if that’s the right word) is directed not at the general concept of a god existing, but at the theist groups that want to enforce their laws and thinking on the rest of us.

As you would know from our other discussions, I stand up for religious freedom, I don’t stop anyone practicing their faith in private, it’s only when they want to discuss facts publicly I ask questions, or when they try and force religion on us.

 

[Value Collector]

So what are your thoughts on the "kalam cosmological argument" for the existence of god?

Even if you accept all the premises, (which I don’t) The Kalam cosmological argument doesn’t prove a god exists.

All it says is that the universe had a cause, theists then inject their god as the cause, while also forgetting that the said god would need a cause

 

[Value Collector]

On the contrary, it is you, who is confused!
How can a person be agnostic and "know" that there is no god?

Read my post again.

An agnostic atheists position is -

I don’t hold a belief in a god (that’s the atheist part) but i don’t claim to know for sure ( that’s the agnostic part)

Read and try to understand the four possible positions I listed above,

Atheism is not the claim that no gods exist, it’s a statement of belief.

 

[Value Collector]

I think proving God is actually a simple thing, and always has been. But one has to have it in them to want to look for him. I think God tends to manifest himself in some way often enough, but only to people who look for him.

Jesus only worked miracles in the towns that had faith. So only the believer gets confirmation, and that's obviously good for him because they will believe even more. We also have a conscience too that seems to have a play in the discovery of God. It leads us as to what we should be doing. For example, a long time ago , I felt within myself that I should be going to certain church events and acting differently (much better). I was also lucky enough (not everyone is) to be surrounded by some new family friends who were, unintentionally, preaching to me.

According to the Old T. God showed himself miraculously and powerfully to all the Israelites in the time of Moses. Despite that many of them ditched the covenant shortly after. So even if he decided to show himself, it doesn't mean the planet would change. And he prefers people to come of their own free will.

Muslims use similar arguments

Eg, if only you can convince yourself to believe, then you will believe.

Quite illogical really, and you will probably delude yourself.

 

[cynic]

Even if you accept all the premises, (which I don’t) The Kalam cosmological argument doesn’t prove a god exists.

All it says is that the universe had a cause, theists then inject their god as the cause, while also forgetting that the said god would need a cause

You have clearly misunderstood the content of the argument!

The argument logically demonstrates that an uncaused causer must exist!

Here's a link to a video, in which Dr. Craig explains this, along with several other arguments for the existence of god:

 

[cynic]

Muslims use similar arguments

Eg, if only you can convince yourself to believe, then you will believe.

Quite illogical really, and you will probably delude yourself.

If it is so illogical VC, why do you keep doing it?

 

[cynic]

Read my post again.

An agnostic atheists position is -

I don’t hold a belief in a god (that’s the atheist part) but i don’t claim to know for sure ( that’s the agnostic part)

Read and try to understand the four possible positions I listed above,

Atheism is not the claim that no gods exist, it’s a statement of belief.

I already understand your definitions of those four positions, and I can easily see that you most certainly do not belong to the agnostic atheist category!