May i invite you to think it over?
There is a difference between having enough evidence and accepting that evidence and coming to know him.
Sure. I donât have enough evidence. If what you can find is good enough for you that is fine. It is not enough for me (and I would argue it should not be for you either but that is not the point). A god should be able to provide better evidence but has chosen not to.
The only point is that you have a few options in an exhaustive list of possibilities.
A - a god exists or B - a god does not exist
A1 - the god that exists is limited and cannot provide better evidence than what we have
or
A2 - the god that exists CAN provide better evidence
A2x - the potent god that exists will provide better evidence at some point
A2y - the potent god that exists will NOT provide better evidence.
I cannot distinguish between A1, A2x, A2y or B. And since I donât have evidence that any god is even possible I will tentatively stick to B or at least not yet accept any A⌠proposition. What I know is that option A2z is not possible - the potent god that exists HAS provided evidence that is good enough for anyone. That is evidenced by the mere fact that I do not believe. This is why some apologists will jump straight into claiming mind reading skills and say that we are simply in denial. Iâm new here but I hope you are better than that in these forums.
1 Like
Done that. No self deception detected. In this regard. I wish I could deceive myself, in to permanent unquestioning faith. But thatâs not real faith is it? Not the substance of things hoped for? The behaviour.
If you can detect my self deception, please report.
A2y, otherwise, He would not have created a world of free agents, but a world of slaves or automatons. Not unlike the various âlifeâ computer simulations people entertained themselves with in the 80s. (I remember coding my own as a pre-teen. Have half a feeling Dawkins inspired that? I do remember reading the Selfish Gene around then.)
A2y? Ok. Now you are just left with the tasks of demonstrating that we have some agency that resides somewhere separate from the brain AND demonstrating that better evidence would somehow change that. And your opinion about what is real does nothing to the main point. The A2y god does not WANT me to know (and really doesnât want anyone to know since the belief could not possibly rise to the level of being a fact that can be claimed to be known).
1 Like
Just for the fun of it, I do not provide evidence to prove or demonstrate the existence of a god, and I am fine with that. My question is, are you fine with that? I gather you are an atheist - so I am amused by the display of enthusiasm regarding ⌠what?
1 Like
Yes, atheist. I was directed here for discussion with people that are not somehow frightened of science. Iâm enthusiastic about reasoning. If we donât reason properly we potentially make bad choices and those choices affect our surroundings. Iâm fine with the idea of not having evidence. But the rational thing is to not accept a claim, any claim, without at least some evidence in support of it. I take it you are a theist. I donât think you would say you have accepted that proposition with no evidence at all. Perhaps with less evidence than I think is reasonable. But that is fine. The OP was regarding the best argument for atheism and that was what I responded to. And I welcome any comments on that argument. Donât mistake my enthusiasm for an ad hoc emotional response. I donât care about the conclusion as long as the reasoning is solid.
2 Likes
Eons ago this is as far as I got in reading this post of yours, Randy. The âproblem of evilâ is of no interest to me for several reasons but what interests me very much is what you go on to say in this post that I skimmed right past the first time.
I donât think God knows things anything like in the manner we know things so I doubt very seriously whether he thinks -and that too would not be anything like what it is for us- at all about what we know about Him. I do think He values the partnership with us and He cares that we also value that. He wants to share what he has to offer and which we need, but out of respect for the partnership, He defers to us over how much we tap into that. But the project of knowing what God is is not what He cares about. That probably is only a concern in as much as it derails the partnership.
I think there is a desire for the partnership whether or not we think of God as being person-like. If we have once heard our âmuseâ we long to hear her again, even if we become so eager to fill the void that wr never stop yammering about what we think we know. If our heads were a quieter place she (or He) would be easier to hear. But for that weâd have to pull ourselves away from the mirror and our endless fascination with our own opinion. Seeking to understand is in our nature but we canât place the muse or God on the analytic dissection table without undermining the relationship.
2 Likes
This makes it clear - I read the topic to be best atheist objections to theism, which I understood you to refer to lack of evidence. Be that as it may, I am interested in why some objections appear to conclude that theists necessarily arrive at unreasonable conclusions, and the basis for this is lack of evidence.
To be clear, I do not object to atheism, and in my experience, reasonable people have taken both atheistic and theistic positions. My difficulty, to phrase it this way, is how anyone can rationally argue from an absence of a thing (or the non-existence of god). This is not an argument for theism - rather it would be reasonable for a theist to offer support for his position (that there is a God), and if he wishes to convince others, he should provide compelling arguments. However, I struggle to see a reasonable position for a non-theist.
Thus - arguments that would convince a reasonable person of theism seem ok. Objections, I would suggest, would be aimed at these arguments on how compelling they may be.
What do you think?
Specious. There is no need to go to theism in the first place. No warrant. In logic.
Specious? What? If you do not believe in God, say so. Otherwise your comments appear (super) specious. 
Whatâs whatever I believe got to do with it? My comments are entirely rational, intellectually open and honest. You are doubling down and failing to engage rationally, youâre saying that rationality is superficially plausible, but actually wrong. Whatâs that?
I struggle to understand you. What is it that you wish to discuss rationally?
It canât be discussed with you as we donât have the requisite rationality in common. Iâve already made the point that there is no rational basis for theism, for going to it from physicalism only to have to be atheistic. So we need other bases. The obvious one is desire. Do you have any others?
I have not used physicalism as a basis for my faith. This discussion has interested me from the âobjections by atheists to theismâ.
I donât know, dude, youâre acting like you do. I look at every other species with brains, and none of them are going on the Internet to make arguments about non-existence of agency and therefore of mind. Also none of them invented language or the Internet.
You are ignoring it. Which is entirely natural. Most physicalists have never been theists, apart from some in their childhood like young Dickie Dawkins, so they donât have to be atheists. Iâve come late to the completely overwhelming explanatory power of physicalism and find myself in the superpositioned state of being atheist but for Jesus and Him only by guttering faith, which extinguishes every time I look at it - even thoâ I can talk to Him in that state - and creeps back as habit of mind , mental background. when I donât.
No he doesnât. He acts like his agency is entirely a brain phenomenon, just like you. And he doesnât deny it.
1 Like
Self-deception is inherent in wanting to believe,
or wishing not to believe something.
Surely I dont need to elabourate or provide examples.
.
The mind reading display does not lend credence to the God- detecting
claim.