I agree (again!).
Though I think he went to far by claiming that stating a logical consequence of atheism is disrespectful - and it’s a pity he didn’t consider the inverse view.
But this won’t be helping @DesperateEC, so I won’t push the point.
Why not start a new thread for your disproof of evolution and geology, rather than disrupting this one?
You could include a couple of creation.com articles for us to tear to shreds laugh at discuss. Maybe this one, or this one, or perhaps this one, or for a really fun discussion, this one. Or pick a favourite of yours.
1 Like
Don’t worry about being “attacked on both sides.” It’s like politics and everything else. People hold strongly to one conviction or another and do not agree with yours. Full stop.
Actually, compromising is often a good thing, Truthspkr.
2 Likes
“…It’s not possible for God to exist for some people, but not exist for others. Pointing this out isn’t being disrespectful, it’s just a consequence of (a)theism.,”
Quick question of a slightly philosophical nature:
If something does not exist, then you can’t set up any parameters of existence. And therefore nothing can be known about it; by what matter and means do you objectively conclude that you don’t believe in it? What exactly makes you disbelieve?
As a theist I’ve never found this line of logic to be very compelling, as the same thing applies to leprechauns, alien visitors, or more generally to anything that does not exist. The ontological argument attempts to make God a special case by adding existence as a necessary parameter, but that seems to me to be misbegotten proof by blah blah blah as well.
It seems to me that what divides most self identified atheists from agnostics is not the philosophical claim to objective proof that there is no God, but the strongly held opinion there is no God based on their view of the world. Proof is not a standard required to hold or justify an opinion.
1 Like
If that was valid point, you would have no reason not to believe in Azathoth, astral travel, Atlanteans, alligator skin condoms, Augean stables, all-heal, Aphrodite, Apep, avocado milkshake, Aragorn, A’Tuin, Alan Banks, ‘Ace’ Rimmer, axebeaks, Aepyornis farms, Ali Baba, antimatter floorwax, AA Autos, awful green things from outer space, Afplixlij, American Autoduel Association, al-Buraq, aardvark post, Alaskan penguins, …
But you don’t believe in those things,[1] so it’s not.
If you do, please tell me what Afplixlij is. ↩︎
This seems to be a perpetual flaw in your logic: Comparing all things on an equal platform.
The existence of the Easter Bunny and the existence of God are not comparable.
Then there is the value of evidence. Scientists tend to place higher value on the empirical or tangible evidences and the lack of such is then grouped together regardless of the existence of other evidence or not.
And Heaven forbid bringing common sense or even pragmatism into the frame.
Richard
So then what you feel is being most attacked is just general atheism attacking the belief of a god. It’s super normal. A lot of it is caused by other certain types of evolutionary creationist who still push the idea that natural selection alone is not enough to explain evolutionary changes but instead state its to complex to have happened randomly and must have been designed. They are basically people who hold to intelligent design and believe that part of this design is evolution. Thats then a scientific argument and deserves to be challenged.
For many people who believe in God and who also accepts a naturalistic understanding of the cosmos, of abiogensis and of evolution and enjoy studying scientific literature they feel very insecure in the fact that there is essentially no concrete evidence for God. There is nothing to test or to use to prove God exists. Then when self reflection comes into play on why they still believe in God despite nothing that’s useful outside of faith they discover that it’s because it’s just a belief they held and defended so long they are embarrassed to just hang it up, or they have cultural and family pressure, even things like having kids and being worried that by saying there is no god may “send their kids to hell”’and and so that hellfire what if keeps them from saying it and so on. Some are not happy in this life and so what they find peace in in this next life where all is loving and fair. Maybe in this life they grew up poor in a trailer being abused and the owner of the trailer park was just this prick and so on. They struggle week to week and just are not happy and so they find hope by believing true happiness is just one final sleep away. So the coping argument is often used.
The reality is that all you can do is be confident in your faith. The more you share it the easier it is to be happy with it.
When i am confronted by militant atheism I now just shrug it off. For me this is my personal experience typically nowdays with it in person. Or even online.
But I’ll be hiking and I’ll run into a random person. We will talk about something that’s happening. Like a zebra swallowtail caterpillar on a pawpaw. They see it and think it’s cool. Actually normally they see me already looking at it and ask me what do you see and almost always ask if it’s a snake. I then explain what I see. If they seem to be interested and not just trying to speed walk by I’ll then mention we have two species of pawpaws in Alabama and that they are a byproduct of what is called ecological anachronism because they coevolved to have their fruits dispersed by now extinct megafauna like American ground sloths, mammoths and even large extinct North American horses. That during the glacial refugia they all ended up down here along with humans who contributed to wiping them out in the last 10-22k years. But now smaller mammals like deer and so on help propagate them. Opossum and so on. But that while that was happening there was this dance between butterflies and leaves where the leaves would develop specific chemical compositions that were toxic and some species or pollinators learned to metabolize those toxins. Hence host plants and caterpillars. Normally up to this point it’s all good. Then I switch to by mentioning my faith is heavily encouraged by what is called stewardship theology and I believe that part of my god given purpose in life is to help protect wilderness and wildlife. It’s why I’m big into environmentalism and protesting things like what they are trying to do with Lake Mitchell or the Conecuh national forest and why I think the recent presidential change to habitat loss disgusting. Destroying the habitat of endangered species was protected. Now the law says….. well you can’t kill a endangered animal but you can cut down the forest it lives in.
At this point the more militant atheists will be like….. well I don’t believe in God. There is no proof for god and how can I believe in God and believe in all the stuff I just said. They often get triggered out of insecurities of their own. Militant Atheists pride themselves on being smarter than Christians and when they realize I most likely know more about natural history and evolution then them it angers them. So then I normally get hit with stuff like evolution does not need god. I agree. I explain my approach to naturalism is the same as theirs. They then like to bring up kids with cancer or something and again I agree with them. I don’t particularly believe in laying on of hands either. Once they exhaust any clear thing to attack they say stuff like it’s a coping mechanism. I ask them what am I coping with? Because i predominantly approach the Bible as literature containing heavily mythicized and edified stories. I explain green burials and so on. What scars me about death is not me dying but my loved ones, or pets, or my gf struggling without me. Mostly financially. Because of that fear I’ve created multiple wills for various aspects of my life. I’m friends with my vet. If I was to die this morning my vet would take both of my cats sometime after hearing and he would raise them. All the money I have goes to my gf. My stocks, esop and insurance all goes to my gf. My property goes to my brother. A friend in Florida will be notified quickly it’s in my notes at the hospital where I have family and friends and they will get my body and begin the process for a green burial.
I show them exactly what I fear and why and that it’s often the same thing as then. I stand firm that year I have no concrete evidence for my belief in God. But we see millions of stories from every nation. Sure it could all be delusions and lies or there could be something hidden behind this physical reality and I choose to believe there is.
Or they get angry about certain types of Christian’s and crusaders and abuse in the churches and so on. Or how indigenous people were treated and so on. Which then I dive into agreeing that’s horrible and this is how Jesus shakes my social views.
1 Like
I admit your demeanor is quite disarming. I dont agree that there is no evidence for God though. I think of evolution rather like the water cycle. Sure it can be explained naturalistically, but it doesnt mean God isnt behind it. I dont think thats just cope.
1 Like
So what’s one of the processes in the natural world that you see supernatural intelligence behind it that falls apart without it? Is it a scientific position or is it a theological one that makes you feel more confident in your beliefs?
And I’m not asking as a gotcha or attack. Just curious what exactly you mean and what angle you’re trying to come from.
Ive noticed that your assumption is that people want to mainly make themselves feel better about their beliefs. Its an uncharitable assumption. I dont subscribe to strict empiricism. Can i definitively prove a supernatural entity? No. Its an inference to the best explanation combining history, science, and philosophy
1 Like
I just try to avoid wasting time beating around bushes. Let’s just stick with science for now.
What is the number 1-2 inferences from science that leads you to believing there is evidence or whatever you want to call it for the supernatural?
You can call it an uncharitable claim but I’ve yet to see it proven otherwise by anyone.
Even with what seems to be backpedaling language to me now….. I can’t prove but I can infer….. supernatural presumptions within science.
Im not asking trick questions. You say it’s more than just a thing you feel but something you were led to… I’m just curious what is that?
Because I’ve not seen anything in science to point towards the supernatural. I see naturalistic theories, hypotheses and gaps in knowledge.
I see nothing in history.
Philosophy… it’s just interpretations of the other two.
If someone told me they see scientific, historical and philosophical inferences for the reality of fairies I ask the same questions. Same for Bigfoot. They just all seem to be personal experiences that people give a special lens too.
1 Like
I think the differences in our epistemology are evident. Ive already made it clear i dont subscribe to strict empiricism. Its fine if you do. But that doesnt mean i have to. Fine tuning is a big one in my opinion. Im not interested in a rebuttal to that though so please refrain.
1 Like
I think the problem here is in claiming that anyone can prove or even see the supernatural enough to identify where it may or may not sit. It would be impossible to prove or disprove that the parameters necessary for creation are, or aren’t supernaturally (ID) put in place. Most EC’s, of which I am one, do not attempt to specify God’s involvement, which is fine until I claim that the scientific view is incomplete or incapable of working without God. It usually boils down to statistics, incredulity and common sense, only one of which is allowed in science.
Richard
I don’t need to rebuttal anything because nothing is being stated to rebuttal.
Fine tuning…. Like what? What part of the cosmos is fine tuned and therefore points towards some designer of the universe? Or are you referring to biological fine tuning to where something like the eyeball is to complex to have evolved? Of fine tuning of left and right handed molecules in some of the abiogenesis hypotheses? I’m just trying to get at what it is that you see as evidence.
Because it seems the combativeness you get from atheists is just asking for some sort of tangible statement that’s more than “ well I feel.” That the arguments they present are probably not anti God but anti intelligent designer.
You say you’re desperate and that you’re caught between this issue from young earth creationists and atheists. But it just seems to be the same general rock people find themselves in when they have faith without evidence against evidence but try to frame it as evidence vs evidence.
Because I use to be in the same self created victimization. I cling desperately to faith and wanted to frame it as evidence. Then found myself at ends when someone called me out on it and said it’s just faith to justify my belief a sort of circle argument. As soon as I just manned up to the fact that it’s just faith, not evidence, it solved so much stress. I no longer feel insecure or stupid about not having evidence for my faith. I still have faith. Strongest faith I have ever had my entire life because I now know it’s faith and nothing more.
Are you going to address the epistemological issue or just continue to assume yours is correct? Youve incorrectly stated that there is no evidence.
1 Like
I think that is an ouch.
How can you value, or devalue faith?
Faith only becomes a problem if you are an empiricalist because Faith needs no evidence whereas empiricalism does.
To me faith is of value beyond all measure. Once found it can become the firmest of foundations. If it waivers then that can become critical.
However, agree with the underlying principle that faith cannot be argued, or justified, either for or against. Faith is (or is not).
Richard
I think you will have difficulty proving that assertion. It will depend on the type of evidence you allow or refute as valid. Religious faith, at its heart is subjective which makes the evidence personal and not always repeatable or discernable from outside.
For the faithful no evidence is needed, for the skeptic (atheist) no evidence is enough;
Richard