There are few issues with this statement.
1. You haven't defined what god are you talking about. Define him, give us some o his attributes, etc.
2. Taking the position of nonbelief due to lack of convincing evidence does not need to be shown to be the correct response. I'm pretty sure that you take exactly the same position when you are asked to prove your nonbelief to be a correct position when faced all kinds of unfalsifiable claims. If I tell you that I have a monkey that speaks 3 languages fluently ( German , English and Spanish) in my closet but she is also invisible to everyone would you really think that if I say that the best argument for a belief in my monkey is that there no good arguments for nonbelief in my monkey is a correct statement? I think that you now recognize why your statement is rather silly. To add, why should a position of nonbelief when it comes to unfalsifiable claims be a default position? It's rather self explanatory. I'm pretty certain that your response to my monkey would be the following .

I don't believe that your monkey exists because you haven't presented me with enough evidence from which I could conclude that your monkey does indeed exists. Am I right?

This is just your humanoid perspective as a result of your humanoid brain. Does a computer see the difference between an eagle and a rock, and determine that the eagle is more complex? Would an alien species feel the same? Just because you assign significance to an arbitrary glob of molecules on this planet does not mean it is any more significant than what is currently on Mars.

Consider this, if the living things around us were created by a divinely intelligent god, why are his creations so inept? Why didnt god give man the ability to fly? That would be useful. Why cant we effectively climb trees like a cat? That would be useful. Why cant we run 60mph like a cheetah? Why cant we see well in the dark? Why cant we shoot lasers from our eyes? Why cant we teleport to our destination? Why dont we heal from injury within seconds instead of days/years? Why do we have tufts of hair on top of our head, in our armpits, on our chest, but not elsewhere?

If you ask me, man, and most other lifeforms are terribly inefficient at what they do, lack dozens of useful features, and wreak of outright POOR design. What kind of omnipotent being does this?

By the way, show me any good reason that invisible unicorns dont exist.

You could just as easily come to the conclusion that no god exists - how is what you said in any way a GOOD argument let alone the best?? All you are doing is admitting you have no evidence for a god if the best that you have is to say well until anyone falsifies my unfalsifyable theory i am sticking with it. Precisely what would constitute strong evidence that there is no god? surely while ever there is a gap you can fit him in to you can claim there is no strong evidence against him?

I don't have to define what god. In order to not be an atheist one would just have to believe that some god/gods exist. One would not have to believe in any single particular god with a particular set of attributes.

I agree that when faced with a proposition without any knowledge of said proposition we should remain in a neutral "nonbelief" state. However I do not believe that is the position we are in. We all have at least some knowledge of the reality around us. Making a decision about the "God proposition" is more than reasonable based on anyone set of knowledge about reality. In fact I would argue that it is not reasonable to continue to remain in the "nonbelief" state given one's experience of reality.

I would agree with a lot of what you said here but with two exceptions.

1. I would say that your multilingual invisible monkey best represents atheism (or no-god proposition), not theism.

2. Holding a position of nonbelief in said monkey is not reasonable given our experience of monkeys.

Of the two positions, God exists / no-God exists, the latter is by far the more extraordinary claim thus would require far more extraordinary evidence to justify holding that belief.

So until you can produce extraordinary evidence for multi-lingual closet dwelling invisible monkeys atheism I feel the only rational position is that of theism.

How do you come to that conclusion?

You do have to define what what GOD you are applying your argument to. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean this when you stated this.

"The best argument for belief in" Zeus "is that there are no good arguments that taking a non-belief position of his existence is true."

Did you..?

Please provide us with the list of those "sets of knowledge about reality" that supposedly make belief in GOD(still don't know what god you are talking about, how can one even think SOMETHING EXISTS when WE DON'T EVEN KNOW ANYTHING OF THAT SOMETHING) the default position.

I'm excited to finally see the list of "evidence" which make belief in "your" god reasonable and make the NON-BELIEF position not reasonable anymore..

Please don't spoil the game and decide not to list them giving some LAME argument why you don't want to do so...

ATHEISM makes no positive claim , unless you are picking on the STRONG ATHEISTS, but that's not my position, so go ahead try again..

Theism on the other hand makes a positive claim , instead of the invisible monkey you guys claim there is an invisible CREATOR(which you decline to even define)


huh? are you saying you actually have an experience of seeing an invisible monkey , or monkeys that speak three languages fluently?


Hello??? Jib , Jib , Jib... no matter how many times we repeat the same thing you just don't want to understand it do you? Before it was STU who simply would not understand what "weak" atheism means, now it is you?

Do I really have to repeat myself again and teach you that weak atheists position is not what you claim to be of "no-GOD exists".

And sorry to brake it to you but a positive claim like "GOD exists" is not less of an extraordinary claim.

your double standards are so obvious...


My atheism makes no positive claims like the example of the invisible monkey. YOUR THEISM does on the other hand.

I find your reply either dishonest or you're just playing around. Your mistakes in reasoning are so obvious.

btw. dishonest in such way that,
1. you try to play mind games and make position of theism as a default position while it is INCORRECT to do so and you should know that.
2. you try to play another mind game by making the position of atheism to be the one making the positive claims, while you know well that neither I or most of atheist on this forum are strong atheists.

This is not an argument for theism so much as for skepticism. We can see this by supposing that there are also no good arguments for theism. If we accept the rule: don't belief things for which there are no good arguments (which underlies your argument above), then we should also not accept theism. Of course, since most atheists on this forum define atheism as lacking a belief in a god (and thus as including skepticism about the existence of a god), this just means that you would be an atheist.

Thus, in order for your claim here to succeed, you must show more than just that atheism has no good arguments in its favor. You must also show that there are good arguments in favor of theism.

Do you have any evidence in favor of the bolded claim? Or is that just how it seems to you (who obviously does have preconceived notions about a deity)?

More importantly, do you think that such pre-theoretic and pre-scientific intuitions about the nature of the universe have much epistemic weight after the decidedly non-intuitive results of modern cosmology and physics?

First I am going to say this once, you need to calm down in your posting style as you are being too aggressive. If you wish to have a conversation with me I insist that you are civil and respectful. If you do not care to be both of those towards me I will simply choose not to waste my time.

Now, as to your comments. I disagree. I do not need to specify my definition of God beyond "creator of reality" as this is not an argument for a specific God. There are no attributes of God that flow necessarily from this argument other than what would be necessary for the being to actually be the creator of reality. If there is no other attributes that follow necessarily from my argument, wouldn't it be silly for me to add attributes that are unsupported?

As far as whether or not this is an argument for Zeus, yes! It most certainly can be used to help support the Zeus hypothesis, but it is not necessary to show Zeus's existence.

So again, the argument is only for a generic creator God that only holds the necessary attributes to be the creator of reality.

I cannot tell you the set of knowledge you have about reality, only you can tell me. As for my set of knowledge to name a few,

1. I see order and structure in reality that only seems to come with a created thing.

2. I have an understanding of the universe that should not be possible if my mind was just a series of chemical reactions.

3. I experience free-will, which could not be possible in a deterministic mindless reality.

All of these things are my opinion of course derived from my experience of reality.

Have respect and wait till I act to comment on my actions.

I specified strong atheism for a reason. As to your form of atheism, I addressed that earlier when I expressed that nonbelief is not justified given our experience of reality, and subsequent sets of knowledge.

Theism does make a positive claim, one that is in my opinion smaller claim then the one atheism makes (yes strong atheism that claims no-god exists).

I would like you to answer a question for me. Please tell me what the difference between a being that is said to have created the universe and a invisible monkey that does nothing and lives in your closet? (hint: answer is in the question!)

I have experience of monkeys. None of which are invisible nor do the speak three languages fluently. So your claim would go directly against my experience.

Again, I specified the form of atheism and addressed both claims and why I thought they were not justified. Hopefully this should not be an issue moving forward

How do I have double standards here? A positive claim that a person created the computer in front of me if far more believable than the claim that it was created as the pure accident of particles bumping into each other. Wouldn't you agree? Sounds like you are special pleading for the universe

The atheism that claims no-god exists does make a positive claims. Again as to your atheism, again I believe it is unjustified given any reasonable experience of reality.

And your atheism does make a positive claim. It claims that there is not any evidence (or sufficient) for one proposition or the other. So you still have to defend that position.

neither.

I agree with most of what you have said here. I think that I explained my position a little more in my latest post. IMO, there are 3 stages of beliefs,

1. Default, the one that one would hold without any knowledge about the proposition.

2. tentative, the position that is most prima facia true (assuming there can be a distinction made). This is almost more of a reaction.

3. tentative Conclusion. this is what you would come to one the available arguments and evidence have been reviewed.

I would say that my original argument is one for 3, and that it assumes 1&2 outcomes.


I listed a few things in my previous post that leads me to this. Ultimately though only I can experience my experience of reality. I cannot experience your experience of reality, nor can you experience my experience of reality. So I do not think that someone should necessarily give my experience any weight if it directly contradicts their experience. But given my experience I believe that theism is the only justified belief.

As far as my preconceived notions, do you know that I came to the conclusion without weighing my experience? Is it not possible that my current position is in fact a result of my experience?

Most definitely. Our results in modern cosmology and physics show us that our initial intuition about our experience of reality can be wrong. They do not however show us that all intuitions about reality are wrong or which intuitions are wrong beyond the intuitions that have been shown to be wrong. I would also say that even though our initial intuitions have been shown to be wrong in some cases, we still rely out our intuitions when we experience the affirmations of the scientific inquires that lead us to the belief that our intuitions may not always be right.

So it seems to me that institution must hold some epistemic weight.

Also, your statement makes it sound as if my/your/our intuitions that lead us to the belief that God exists must exist outside of science. In other words, that science in no way supports belief in God. I would obviously not agree.

But you know where the computer came from. You know this because you can observe it. Or do you simply have faith that a man in a store put it together? What theism asks us to believe is that, if you dont know where the computer came from, God is a more reasonable answer. I mean it takes extraordinary works to trace back the fabrication of each individual transistor and piece of silicon to the point it was molded from liquid in a factory in China. And then trace the creation of the machines which made those before it, and so forth.

The problem here is that you are mixing up extraordinary claims with meticulous claims. You find that the entire process of evolution from a planet covered in molten lava is so detailed, that it requires more imagination to believe in than just summing it all up to god. But that doesnt make the claim extraordinary, that just makes it specific. An extraordinary claim is making one which requires complete suspension of disbelief, & acceptance of faith in the unprovable no matter how simplistically described.

Your answer that god created the heavens and the earth actually IS NOT simpler than the big bang theory. Just because you run out of steps dating back to the moment things were created does not mean there are no more answers. It just so happens to be that books of science have more pages than books of the bible because they make an attempt to explain everything to the point of failure. If scientific explanation of mankind acted as you are, we'd just say "humans evolved from primordial goo.. How exactly? THEY EVOVLED. What does evolved entail? IT MEANS EVOLVED, END OF STORY". Thats basically how the bible ultimately begins and all religious doctrine ends. You run out of answers and simply say theres nothing left to explain, god did it. And because this answer is more simplistic than a detailed thoughtful explanation, it is inherently more true? Because explaining each step of life requires a lot of work, it therefore requires more imagination to believe in? Are you kidding me?

Jibninjas -

So let's assume our intuition does give epistemic warrant for believing in 'God'. Who cares, unless the word 'God' actually means something?!

As you may recall, bunny started a thread asking you to provide a definition. You first said 'God' is 'the creator of our reality.' Of course this definition---being fraught with intractable logical paradoxes---did not illuminate anything, and the thread died after you stopped replying.

Have you found a coherent definition of 'God' since then? If not, what are you even talking about in this thread?

I don't see that it was ever shown that there were logical contradictions with my definition. It was asserted as such, but I don't see where it was shown to be true as I adequately responded to all objections imo.

I stopped posting for a while pretty everywhere due to time constraints, then bunny stopped posting so I saw no need to go back and bump the thread.

Creator of the Universe is a perfectly valid definition as far as I can see.

Too aggressive? Civil and respectful? Please give me some examples of me being disrespectful , aggressive and not civil.

"creator of reality" is too vague.

Please explain how it helps support the ZEUS hypothesis...


You've provided me three examples of fallacies.

1. We've never observed two universes one created and one without a creator so there is no way to compare them to ours and make that conclusion. Additionally, what order and structure are you talking about exactly because we have explanation for some order and structure and none of those explanations require GOD.
2.false dichotomy ( btw, I know you use this a lot, yet you fail to recognize your own logical fallacy). Btw. Even though the study of brain is still just in its beginnings , we do have some idea on how our brains work, and chemical reactions do happen in your brain. So sorry buddy but your mind is currently working due to chemical reactions , so this argument of your could be considered to be pretty much useless.
3.false dichotomy again... 1. you have no way to prove there actually is a free will, 2. you haven't proved that if this universe exists without the creator
then it has to be deterministic mindless reality.


Since you admit these are your opinions and not truths or knowledge we poses about this universe , your claim :

"Making a decision about the "God proposition" is more than reasonable based on anyone set of knowledge about reality. In fact I would argue that it is not reasonable to continue to remain in the "nonbelief" state given one's experience of reality."

Since we do not posses knowledge of what you imply is supposedly known and there is actually no known to us reason except your personal opinions not to continue to remain in the "nonbelief" state that I think your arguments can be simply dismissed and your position is actually irrational. You fail to provide any reason except your personal opinions which I have pointed out to be either logical fallacies or unsupported claims to convince me that believing in creator is actually the rational position and non-belief to be irrational.

Sorry buddy but you still haven't shown to me or other readers how nonbelief is not justified given our experience of reality(which really was only your experience) and subsequent sets of knowledge(which really wasn't knowledge but your personal opinion and personal beliefs).


There is no difference both are positive and unfalsifiable claims. In both circumstances non-belief is a default position until someone can actually back up those claims.

The reason why it is more believable is due the knowledge we posses. We know that humans are able to create computers , once we have that knowledge one can easily realize that the computer was in 99% the result of a human creation rather then a result of a spontaneous "particles bumping into each other".

neither the claim that GOD exists is justified<--disregard since this reply does not belong to this quote.( *I think I screwed up the quote). To correct this , again "given any reasonable experience of reality." is your own experience and opinion, not actually any truth/knowledge/etc..


Here's how my position looks like... Theists make claims and I say I don't buy them... If the claims cannot be proven to be somewhat true or even highly probable or the evidence is lacking Iam just simply dismissing the claims until someone will actually present me with something convincing that would support them.

Again, if you have such convincing evidence or arguments then share them with me.

I said "intractable logical paradoxes", not "contradictions". As for the existence of these paradoxes, an argument from authority suffices. World-class cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin: "Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes." (Many Worlds in One, p 176.)

Since nothing huge has happened in cosmology since July 2006, we can safely assume that there remain profound logical paradoxes in discussing the 'creation of the universe'. Hence defining 'God' as the 'creator of the universe' only muddles things even worse.

Sorry, I misread then. As far as the paradoxes, I don't see any that pose a problem with my definition. Care to specify logical paradoxes leave us unable to even define something as "creator of reality"?

Well, again, we already know there are deep logical paradoxes due to Vilenkin's published comments. (If you believe there are no such paradoxes, you are wrong. Under any recognizable use of the word "wrong.")

But for example, from the third post in bunny's thread:

Just look at your posts and know that I will not continue if you are hostile.

Why?

Fairly elementary here, if an arguments lends credence to a general God existing it would also lend credence to a specific God as the specific God is just a sub set of the general God.

First, we don't need to compare universes to say that the universe resembles a machine. I just need to compare it to another machine and then make the logical deduction. To require the universe to only be compared to other universes is special pleading that you would not do if the stakes were not so high.

Secondly, the order and structure of the Universe presented in the Laws of Physics is completely unexplained. I don't see where science has answer almost any of the "why" questions at all. I don't know if it can. But the deeper science goes the more complicated it becomes, not the more simple.


Sigh. First, the only dichotomy that could be here is that either the chemical reaction alone could account for my understanding of the world, or they could not. I choose not. So where is the false dichotomy here? Do you believe there is a 3rd option that you are choosing?

And I never said that there was not chemical reactions in the brain, but that if they were alone in my functionality then they could not create the rationality that I have. Science has not even begun to come up with a way to address this issue, let alone declare it solved! lol, so your declaration of victory here seems a little misplaced.

1. I didn't say I proved free-will. I said that I experience free-will. Now whether or not that is an illusion some might say is underdetermined.

2. If you are going to claim false dichotomy here then please explain what your 3rd option is.

Of course I admit that, do you not? Truth and knowledge while can be objective can only be subjectively known. You cannot know anything that you did not gather from your experience.

You don't hold knowledge about reality? How do you function?




You still have not defended your position. You have not shown that nonbelief is warranted. I have explained a couple things that you would have to show, until you do this I just don't see how we could move forward.

Is it really your claim that there is absolutely no evidence for or against the God proposition? Really?




If you see no difference then you have a serious problem here. I even gave you a hint.

Of course. Now why are we unable to apply our knowledge about this to something that appears similar? I am simply applying what I do in every day life (the same standards) as I apply to the universe. I have not changed my logic, it is you who has changed logic and therefore it is you that has a double standard.



What else do we have to go off of? How can I gain knowledge without experiencing it? Do you have a way of validating knowledge that does not include you?




So it is your belief that there is 0 evidence for or against the God proposition?

asked and answered. In no way does my position hold that creation happens without time. Next.

this thread would be way more interesting if it was asking theists to convince a deist that their interpretation of God was correct. The leap from atheist/agnostic -> deist is not very interesting as its been debated forever and the same arguments just get repeated over and over.

what I want to know is, assuming I believe some "higher power" exists, please convince me that *your* interpretation is correct.

Because until we are able to agree about what we are talking about arguing about it makes no sense. That's how every discussion should work it should be clear for both sides what the definition of the subject should be to avoid the confusion.

The problem here is that God's like Zeus can be easily dismissed due to the chances of it existing are very low based on his attributes as described by the Greeks. Since we can't work with absolutes here, I think stating something is very likely to be true or highly unlikely to be true should be good enough. In the case of Zeus his existence is highly unlikely. I also have the same view on the gods of other known to me religions. This why it is very important to define a god and not just claim "creator" or some other vague description. One can be fairly certain that some gods don't exist due to the descriptions of them. In your case the definition of your GOD is so vague I got no idea what you are talking about except that this something created this universe.



What part of universe/process resembles a machine, what type of machine?


This is so wrong. What machine are you comparing to the universe? I mean really? it's as if I take a look at velcro and then make a claim that the cleaver plant must have been designed because velcro was designed. This is rather silly don't you think?

The "why" questions? The order and structure of the Universe presented in the Laws of Physics is completely unexplained?Big Bang, star formation, moon, earth formation, the chaos theory, gravity, the list goes on and on.. What are you talking about?


of course there could be other possibilities and none of them have to have GOD did it in them. Your argument was based on the idea that either it's chemical reactions or it's God and he created some soul and that's where it all comes from. I know you are going to scream in a second and claim , but I DID NOT SAY anything like that. Come one, I know what position you are trying to defend, and it's the position that GOD did and that there isn't only this material brain we have here hence your claim that it's not only chemical reactions but something else, something SUPERNATURAL. Which is a false dichotomy because there isn't only two possible options, chemical reactions or supernatural but rather chemical reactions + some other unknown to us natural process , chemical reactions alone , supernatural.


so just because we don't know it yet the post reasonable position for you to take is GOD did it, right? I mean this seems to be this repeatable theme here.. There are answers we don't have so GOD must have done it...right?


"I experience free-will, which could not be possible in a deterministic mindless reality."

Some claim that free will and determinism can coexist together so here's your 3rd option...


What experience are you talking about? Experience as for example gathered knowledge from years or study and seeing the evidence or are you talking about experience as if oh I see the world like this and this is my experience? Cause these two are completely different.



Whatever out there is known to us and shown to us to be either very likely to be true and very unlikely to be true is what knowledge I hold.

As you can see I function pretty well. Not knowing answers to all the questions doesn't affect my life that much. But I think making up answers to questions we got no answers for seems dishonest to myself, so I avoid doing so , and this the case when it comes to believing in a god.




What? I don't understand you. You've not provided me with any convincing arguments/evidence that would make me think that your claims about your GOD(whatever it is) are correct.



What God are we talking about here? Zeus? Sure there is plenty of reasons and evidence why his existence is very unlikely to be true. Same goes with all other religions I am aware of and studied their claims.

Since I know nothing about your GOD. All I can say is that your "arguments" are just not convincing since they barely even are any arguments at all.


I don't know what you are talking about, both are UNFALSIFIABLE and POSITIVE claims where the burden of proof has not been met so they can be easily dismissed until proven otherwise.


Have you observed someone creating a universe? No? Then there's your answer...

What knowledge are you talking about? I mean there is plenty of knowledge out there of which you go no idea that exists but it does exists. If you read about it then you will poses the same knowledge even though you never will experience it. I mean your question kind of makes no sense...


Again. Define the god and then I can tell you what is my position in regards to the definition of it.

“God is Being,” is probably the most widely accepted definition of God in Christian theology. By that is meant that what God is, (his essence), is “to be.”

Mm, I certainly didn't see any satisfactory answer in that thread; and neither did bunny. But none of our opinions is really the point.

We have a direct quote from a world-class cosmologist that there are profound logical paradoxes in the concept 'origin of the universe.' This is the point. None of us are remotely in a position to contest this.

In particular, it just doesn't scan to claim that 'creation of the universe' is a well-defined notion. As of 2011, it is not.

And what part of the profound logical paradoxes pose a problem with my proposed definition?

If you define God in terms of the origin of the universe, then your definition is automatically paradoxical. This clashes with your other claim that intuition supports belief in God, since paradoxes are exactly where intuition fails...

We don't know that my definition is paradoxical. And since when has paradoxes kept scientists from making claims about things? Light has paradoxical attributes and that hasn't stopped scientists from making claims about light, has it?

And without knowing what paradoxes he is talking about we just absolutely cannot make any claims about what issues there may or may not be with my definition. It could be that the paradoxes only exist from a naturalistic worldview and that from a theists view of creation there are no paradoxes.

And your conclusion about the clash between the intuitiveness of a creator and paradoxes existing within said creator is a total non-sequitor. You know better than that.

So stop playing your usual games and either make a actual claim or just sit on the sidelines.