Huh?

No. You said you cannot be an atheist and that you are forced to be a theist because the negation of the creator God is so implausible and lacking evidence. It seems to me that the universe was either created or it wasn't - and I see no way to show one or the other right now. But you seem to believe it is almost beyond doubt that the universe was created.

So, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the universe was created. It still seems to me that there is no way to draw any conclusion about what created the universe - being or force or whatever - yet you are solidly in the being camp.

So now let's assume that the universe was created by a being. Once again, it seems to me that we can draw no conclusions about the nature or attributes of this being - yet you say that you are forced to be a theist.

Now perhaps I am reading too much into the term. To clarify, when I say atheist, I mean one who lacks belief in God or gods - which could include, but does not require, the belief that no gods exist. For me, deism refers to belief in a creator god, but one that is non-intervening, and has no expectations of worship (though perhaps many would disagree on that point). And theism refers to belief in a creator God that has a personal relationship with those It has created - usually including supreme powers, ongoing intervention in the universe and expectations of worship.

I find no basis to conclude whether or not the universe was created, and if created, whether or not it was created by a being, and if created by a being, whether or not that being is God. Yet you feel so strongly about it that you are forced to that final position, when I cannot even get to the question that leads there. So I am curious, and asked about that belief. I granted that the universe is created, because I see no way to resolve that question, and in any case, it is one more step away from your God - which is the part I am most interested in hearing about.

If there is some sort of uncaused cause/Prime Mover, it makes far more sense to me that it would be an impersonal, non-agent type of "thing" than a deity with some sort of agenda. The idea that THAT sort of being could be uncaused is far more nonsensical to me, but that sort of information is probably empirically closed.

An interesting read showing Hume's reasoning is not airtight:

On Miracles and David Hume (part 1 and part 2)
http://christiantheology.wordpress.c...orman-geisler/

No. Granted, I have only read I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, but I considered what he had to say in that and it was wrong. He makes the same mistakes most apologists do.

Will try to give it a read tonight, though I was trying to take a break from RGT for a little.

I think it falls more into the category of "not even wrong."

Well I'm no logician, but according to the Wikipedia entry for Kurt Godel:

So in other words, any attempt to reduce our knowledge about the world to a computable system is doomed to failure. I take this to mean that rationalism cannot be the ultimate arbiter of truth. Therefore, the OP is correct, and the universe is ruled by the blind idiot god Azathoth and the formless entity called Yog-Sothoth. Or something like that...

Hm. OK, so I introduce a novel claim within an existing framework. Why is it that I must use this framework to validate and support my claim? If the claim is weak, it will fall apart anyway. And if it doesn't, there are two possibilities: the claim is strong and the framework needs to adjust/modify/reform to accommodate and integrate it, or it's outside such framework and thus doesn't need justification through said framework.

The fact that you guys are arguing against religion is already a move towards it. It's like how you hate a someone so much, but you end up being good friends with them in the end. It might not appear like you are any near religion, but your heart is pushing you towards it, in the form of dissent, right now. There is nothing anyone here can do to 'make you believe' all is a process and it is all already in motion. Why do I say this. I was an once there myself. For those already on the path to believing, these are the people I would really like to reach out to, because i was there myself not quite long ago, and I hope I can be assistance to people who believe but still have some problems with aspects of religion etc.

First, I am a little confused. You answered 'no' to my 'being' vs 'mindless process' then went on below to talk about a being vs a force. so maybe you can clear that up.

As far as no knowing whether or not the universe was created, well that depends on what level of "know" you are looking for. I think that there is plenty of information out there, definitely enough to make at least a tentative conclusion. It appears to me that a vast majority of the evidence that we do have leans towards created. Now whether or not you deem the amount of evidence to be a "sufficient" amount I guess is up to you.

As far as how this leads me to the "beyond doubt", first I would not say it so strongly, but I guess it comes out that way as I find pretty much no evidence at all to support the "not-being-not-created" hypothesis. So even if there is not a ton evidence, I don't the evidence that we do have to be a 50/50 shot, or anywhere near.

As the title of the thread states, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". I see the claim of "everything is one happy accident" as possibly the most extraordinary claim every stated.

I disagree. There is tons of evidence that we can draw the conclusion of a "being creator" from. That's what we do everyday in science. We learn about the universe around us. Can we draw a definitive conclusion, no. But I don't understand what the atheist is waiting for. It seems to me that the best way to understand the cause is to understand the effect. Yet in the countless "what would turn you away from atheism" almost no one says anything about a scientific discovery but almost always resorts to a personal experience.

You might believe like Durka that the God question is underdetermined, that's fine but if you ask me you can at worst conclude which is more plausible. But again, that's up to you. Just don't pretend that your worldview is based on evidence or reason if you claim that the question is underdetermined. It is just as arbitrary as anyone else's then.

There is definitely more than one step involved. As I have stated throughout many different threads, much of what I believe is based on plausibility. Could the creator be a deistic one that simply struck the cosmic match and walked away, sure. But what I see around us is personal beings and it seems to me that it is more plausible to believe that if the creation is personal that the creator is as well. Again, many many steps involved but you get the gist.

Agreed.

I can agree with this for the purposes of this convo.

I would leave out the "expectations of worship" as that can mean many different things, other than that I think it's a fair sum up.

I think that what I have written above address everything here, so I will not repeat.

What I don't understand is how you can say "I see no way to resolve that question" considering that we are living in the effect. This is not something that is off in some distant area of space or resides in the distant past or something like that, but everything around us. I don't see how you cannot make a conclusion.

I really need to start the thread I have talked about for a while but I have just not had enough time to devout the time necessary to this sort of thread. I really don't see how "I don't know" is possible on a practical level. I don't understand how one can live their lives as "I don't know", I think that it is impossible on the whole. But I really need to take the time to write out the thread when I have a chance so I can articulate my position properly.

Might be worth a shot. Most people I know (outside of church) are completely uninterested in religion - they just don't think it's an important thing or answers any questions which need answering. When pressed they shrug and say "Who knows?" I don't see their behaviour as exceptional in any way. Why is it necessary to form a view on such questions in order to live our lives?

But by that logic, in your backwards world where people who argue against something means they're moving towards it, then the majority of believers who are arguing against atheism are already moving towards it. It may not appear like they are anywhere near atheism, but their heart is pushing them towards it. Why do I say this? Because I was once there myself. I'm here to help any believer who is on the path to truth of atheism.

But they do not act as if they do not know, they act as if they do know. They live their lives as if God does not exist. Gotta crash, I will try and expound a little more tomorrow.

That's a big call. Have you been following my friends?