Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-08-2015, 03:28 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Oh the dumb....

I read trough the OP's posts and found what I could.

Premise 1: existence exists therefore God. No. Your personal incredulity at the creation of the universe and of existence does not imply a creative agent. If we don't know why everything exists then we don't know and putting in some creative agent is sloppy and lazy.

Premise 2: life exists therefore God. Again, no. Again, your personal incredulity and poor understanding of chemistry does not necessitate a god. We have a working explanation of abiogenesis that, while it might be incomplete, still works better than the "magical unseen agent poofed it into being" that theists put forth.

Premise 3: we are sentient, therefore God. This one hung me up for a while, until I learned that we probably were not unique in this. It seems likely that other animals evolved something similar, most notably in other hominids. As we study more and more of animal behaviour it seems likely that we only have a slightly more powerful mind than other creatures and that what we call consciousness might not be that unique. This means it is simply an evolved function and byproduct of our brain. No God is required for that.

Premise 4: the laws of physics seem knowable, therefore God. Huh? We are pattern seeking animals, does it seem that odd that we would see order and patterns? The fact that we do is evidence not of an intelligent creator, but of an intelligent observer.

Premise 5: fine tuning therefore God. I actually am one of those that reject this outright. I think those "fine tuned" constants are not free to wander so capriciously. And so what? How does there placement imply a creative intelligent agent? That's like a puddle that marvels at how well the hole is fitted to it.

I'm still on like page 11, and I'm only reading the OP's posts so far. BTW I would like to point out that so far the God defined is only a transcendental supernatural agent. That's not a good definition and until we know what is on proposition we can not have evidence for it. So I propose that the "God" you speak of is actually a scientist living in our universe who created the universe in a lab then using a wormhole sent it back in time. Why not? It's just as plausible as any other explanation. More so because I have seen scientists and know they exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like natachan's post
05-08-2015, 03:34 PM (This post was last modified: 05-08-2015 03:41 PM by Grasshopper.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
I actually had a post here, but must have waited too long to post it, because it keeps refusing to appear. I will try again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2015, 03:41 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
????? Still won't show. Oh well -- I'm not typing it all in again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-08-2015, 03:50 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Uck. 39 pages of teeny-tiny eye-straining font. I am officially blind until I go home and get my reading glasses. Yay for zoom.

So I'm still not seeing a definition of your God or creator or whatever. Before you can say "I have presented evidence of X" you have to first tell us what X is. You have failed to provide that and failed to provide any substance that would validate your claim that there is a god. My claim about the scientist is still just as valid. Only difference is I admit that there is no evidence to support my claim.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
05-08-2015, 03:56 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(05-08-2015 02:41 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(05-08-2015 11:32 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  I can do without your condescension. And please stop pretending to know what all atheists think or believe. You don't know that. Nobody does.

Noted. I’ll try and be less presumptuous here.

Quote:I have given a great deal of thought to these matters, and my conclusion is not only that I don't know the truth about God, but that it is not possible for anyone to know such truth with certainty.

Would you say the same of Santa or Superman, fairies etc…? I don’t find myself uncomfortable claiming that I believe Santa, Superman, and fairies don’t exist. Would you see yourself as parting company with me here, and only feel comfortable declaring your lack of belief?

Quote:Yes, it implies exactly that. However, note that I'm not making a dogmatic statement about this. I am willing to entertain the possibility that some aspects of reality are not reducible to, or approachable by, science. That's all.

There seems to be a lot of positions in between making a dogmatic statement, and entertaining a possibility.

I can recognize that you’re not trying to state something strongly one way or the other here, but it does seem that you have some tentative belief, or inclination here, that you think there is something more to this picture than what can be reduced to “science”, that likely wouldn’t be best described by referring to it as “entertaining a possibility”.

I can entertain all sorts of possibility, even absurd and silly ones, but I doubt this is what you mean by “entertaining” it.

Superman and Santa are clearly and obviously invented characters. In my opinion, so is God, but belief in God is much more deeply entrenched in our culture, and its origins go much farther back. There are also metaphysical questions (first cause and the like) that muddy the waters. So I can say that Superman and Santa don't exist with significantly more confidence than I can say the same about God (in the abstract "first cause" sense). However, I am very close to 100% certain that the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible is fictional.

As for science, there are some questions it is simply not equipped to answer. Does God exist? What is the best form of government? Whose music is "better": Bach or Beethoven (and what about Duke Ellington or the Beatles?)? Is the continuum hypothesis true or not? Rosenberg believes (or claims to believe) that everything reduces to science. I think he's wrong. That's why we have philosophy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Grasshopper's post
05-08-2015, 06:05 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Santa Claus is clearly more believable as a first cause for the universe than an invisible , undefinable god .

Santa is all about magic and has TARDIS technology to fit all those toys into a small bag.

I really can't see any reason why Santa couldn't get a universe going.

He's Santa. He can do anything Smile

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Rahn127's post
05-08-2015, 10:12 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(05-08-2015 06:05 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  I really can't see any reason why Santa couldn't get a universe going.

He's Santa. He can do anything Smile

I concur with this hypothesis. A chap who can travel the world in one night and distribute mass quantities of toys along the way does appear considerably more competent than some dumbass who got outsmarted by a Talking Snake™.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Astreja's post
06-08-2015, 06:16 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(05-08-2015 03:56 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Superman and Santa are clearly and obviously invented characters. In my opinion, so is God, but belief in God is much more deeply entrenched in our culture, and its origins go much farther back. There are also metaphysical questions (first cause and the like) that muddy the waters. So I can say that Superman and Santa don't exist with significantly more confidence than I can say the same about God (in the abstract "first cause" sense). However, I am very close to 100% certain that the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible is fictional.


While you may be more confident in your belief about the non-existence of the Judeo-Christian God, it's not very clear if you with some confidence believe that an "abstract first cause" sense" does not exist?

Do you have no confidence one way or the other? Is that what you mean by "entertaining the possibility"?

A common godless alternative to a first cause, is that we're a product not of any prime mover, but a series of physical accidents, in this regard do you find yourself on the fence about? Not in one corner or the other, but squarely down the middle somewhere?

Quote:As for science, there are some questions it is simply not equipped to answer. Does God exist? What is the best form of government? Whose music is "better": Bach or Beethoven (and what about Duke Ellington or the Beatles?)? Is the continuum hypothesis true or not? Rosenberg believes (or claims to believe) that everything reduces to science. I think he's wrong. That's why we have philosophy.

Rosenberg will likely conclude that "best" rather than being a descriptor of any external reality, is one merely of subjective preference. While science couldn't not tell you which music is better, it could tell you why you think it's better, why it appeals to you the way it does. Or in other words, it best because you like it more.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-08-2015, 06:24 AM
Why I'm a Theist
Tommy still preaching his theistic worldview through straw men generalizations of atheists/atheism?

It's almost as if he isn't here to actually converse/debate, but to preach like your run of the mill theist. Consider

Some might consider this hypocritical Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
06-08-2015, 06:32 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 06:16 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  A common godless alternative to a first cause, is that we're a product not of any prime mover, but a series of physical accidents, ...

Events, not "accidents".

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: