Author Topic: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments  (Read 2777 times)

Offline Mr.Obvious

  • Atheist Mantis
  • Jacuzzi Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3226
  • Total likes: 1832
  • The rules are made up, and the points don't matter
Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
« Reply #15 on: August 01, 2019, 08:20:24 AM »
It's not that I reject the idea of there being any god, I just don't see any reason to believe there is one.
I also don't see how this world, given the assumption that it does have a deity, would be different if there were no such god.
Most times when someone proposes a certain god with certain properties, however, they propose an accompanying  world we could come to expect that is different from this one, which makes their variety of a deity seem all the more unlikely.
And whenever they propose a being that is self-contradictoey, I also tend to tune out.
"If we have to go down, we go down together!"
- Your mum, requesting 69 last night.

Atheist Mantis does not pray.

Offline Cavebear

Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
« Reply #16 on: August 01, 2019, 08:38:12 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's not that I reject the idea of there being any god, I just don't see any reason to believe there is one.
I also don't see how this world, given the assumption that it does have a deity, would be different if there were no such god.
Most times when someone proposes a certain god with certain properties, however, they propose an accompanying  world we could come to expect that is different from this one, which makes their variety of a deity seem all the more unlikely.
And whenever they propose a being that is self-contradictoey, I also tend to tune out.

Obviously (ahem) very well put!
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
« Reply #17 on: August 01, 2019, 10:35:33 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I especially like the Omniscient vs. Free Argument:



If a being cannot logically exist, then it does not, in fact, exist.
Logical solution: transcendence.  God transcends time.  All moments are simultaneously before Him.  Therefore he can go back in time and do something he did not do in the exact same moment.  He can also travel into the future and not do something He knows He will do later. Additionally He inhabits all probable universes.  Thus what He did in one probability He may choose not to do in another probability, enabling Him to both do and not do anything, anytime, while knowing it.  God is not bound by sequential time or any of its constraints; therefore, God is both Omniscient and Free.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 10:43:46 AM by Absolute_Agent »

Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
« Reply #18 on: August 01, 2019, 10:45:37 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
And that is...what, exactly?  There are almost as many different conceptions of gods as there are theists, and abrahamic believers are no exception.
This is the nature of God--He manifests as that which He is believed to be.  If you believe there is no God, you see no God.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Offline Cavebear

Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
« Reply #19 on: August 01, 2019, 11:12:55 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Logical solution: transcendence.  God transcends time.  All moments are simultaneously before Him.  Therefore he can go back in time and do something he did not do in the exact same moment.  He can also travel into the future and not do something He knows He will do later. Additionally He inhabits all probable universes.  Thus what He did in one probability He may choose not to do in another probability, enabling Him to both do and not do anything, anytime, while knowing it.  God is not bound by sequential time or any of its constraints; therefore, God is both Omniscient and Free.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

You might be surprised that I agree with your basic definition of a deity.  Omnipotence, All-Knowing, Non-Time, and No Contradictions (like irresistible force vs immovable object), etc.  No being would BE a deity otherwise.  The powers come with the concept. 

Its just that, like that unicorn in my back yard that I never see because I'm always looking where it isn't, there is no such being.  I would be amazed at such a being, and be awestruck.  But that never happens.  Because it isn't actually "there".

And if you want a more specifically personal argument, it might be that any decent deity would make ITS existence obvious for the benefit of us dim-witted types.  I understand that faith is a test to you.  The trust is almost the thing itself.  But I don't think that way.  Would an omni-benevolent deity cast out a person for using the brain it itself gave?

If, in your view, we have brains for a reason (given by a deity) how would it condemn us for using it?  I realize this may be old arguments you have encountered before, but would you please deign to answer them?
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
« Reply #20 on: August 01, 2019, 11:35:57 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not motivated by theistic beliefs, if that is what you're getting at. And how would I go about "apostate again" from a default (non-) position? I'm thinking you don't grasp what "apostate" means. There is no double-negative to apostate, there is only on/off for that.

No, I am not assuming you are theistic at all.  And your binary logic with one value being zero (not F) ... a difference in semantics ... I recognize but don't accept.  Aren't you just another faux Vulcan?
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Baruch

Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
« Reply #21 on: August 01, 2019, 11:37:51 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Logical solution: transcendence.  God transcends time.  All moments are simultaneously before Him.  Therefore he can go back in time and do something he did not do in the exact same moment.  He can also travel into the future and not do something He knows He will do later. Additionally He inhabits all probable universes.  Thus what He did in one probability He may choose not to do in another probability, enabling Him to both do and not do anything, anytime, while knowing it.  God is not bound by sequential time or any of its constraints; therefore, God is both Omniscient and Free.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Trancendence per se isn't logical, since it must be transcending logic.  Anytime a theologian tries to define transcendence, I can only think that they are forgetting what the very word means.  Transcendence is not something that can be thought about, talked about or written down.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline SGOS

Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
« Reply #22 on: August 01, 2019, 11:40:33 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is the nature of God--He manifests as that which He is believed to be.  If you believe there is no God, you see no God.
If so, it would follow that if you believe in God, you see a God.  There is an equivocation here.  No one sees God, except in rare cases often found psychiatric hospitals.  I think what you actually mean is a truth, however; If you believe in God, you believe in God, but that is not a convincing argument that he exists.  It's just a statement of belief, twice.

Your statement in regards to atheists, "If you believe there is no God, you see no God," actually means, "If you believe there is no God, you believe there is no God," which adds no helpful information either.  In addition, seeing God or not seeing a God, is not required to believe or not believe in God, anyway.

And furthermore, "If you believe there is no God...," is a condition that only describes a specific subset of atheists, those that believe there is no god.  Most atheists are not in that subset, nor am I.  Like you, I believe you can have a legitimate debate with such atheists, but that is a relatively small group. 

As for the majority of atheists, there is no real debate with someone who has no belief in gods.  About all you can do is try to convince him that he should believe.  But for such atheists, most would disregard any arguments involving belief, because belief is not knowledge, nor does belief lead to knowledge.  It only leads to belief, which is circular and fallacious.

Offline Baruch

Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
« Reply #23 on: August 01, 2019, 11:41:19 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This is the nature of God--He manifests as that which He is believed to be.  If you believe there is no God, you see no God.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk

Correct.  But can you go past knowledge to understanding?  Otherwise this is just delusion and wish fulfillment.  If I am an Arab trader, must I imagine the Godhead to be just like me, only better?  Yes, atheists are willfully blind but not necessarily consciously so.  Much of what we do is done without being conscious that we are doing it.

There has to be some nuance between an objective manifestation and a subjective one.  This is hard.  I don't claim to understand it.  Do you?
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Baruch

Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
« Reply #24 on: August 01, 2019, 11:46:22 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If so, it would follow that if you believe in God, you see a God.  There is an equivocation here.  No one sees God, except in rare cases often found psychiatric hospitals.  I think what you actually mean is a truth, however; If you believe in God, you believe in God, but that is not a convincing argument that he exists.  It's just a statement of belief, twice.

Your statement in regards to atheists, "If you believe there is no God, you see no God," actually means, "If you believe there is no God, you believe there is no God," which adds no helpful information either.  In addition, seeing God or not seeing a God, is not required to believe or not believe in God, anyway.

And furthermore, "If you believe there is no God...," is a condition that only describes a specific subset of atheists, those that believe there is no god.  Most atheists are not in that subset, nor am I.  Like you, I believe you can have a legitimate debate with such atheists, but that is a relatively small group. 

As for the majority of atheists, there is no real debate with someone who has no belief in gods.  About all you can do is try to convince him that he should believe.  But for such atheists, most would disregard any arguments involving belief, because belief is not knowledge, nor does belief lead to knowledge.  It only leads to belief, which is circular and fallacious.

In Tibetan Buddhism, part of the high level meditation is to manifest a "yi-dam" a subjective deity that the meditator can see and interact with in trance.  This is not something we can relate to however, because you have to be an adept.  And only those who have experienced it (if they did) can relate this to one another.  A virgin cannot relate to a whore!  Of course, Tibetan Buddhism is heavily metaphysical and psychological, uniquely putting emphasis on "siddhis" or paranormal miracles.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
« Reply #25 on: August 01, 2019, 12:18:24 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You might be surprised that I agree with your basic definition of a deity.  Omnipotence, All-Knowing, Non-Time, and No Contradictions (like irresistible force vs immovable object), etc.  No being would BE a deity otherwise.  The powers come with the concept. 

Its just that, like that unicorn in my back yard that I never see because I'm always looking where it isn't, there is no such being.  I would be amazed at such a being, and be awestruck.  But that never happens.  Because it isn't actually "there".

And if you want a more specifically personal argument, it might be that any decent deity would make ITS existence obvious for the benefit of us dim-witted types.  I understand that faith is a test to you.  The trust is almost the thing itself.  But I don't think that way.  Would an omni-benevolent deity cast out a person for using the brain it itself gave?

If, in your view, we have brains for a reason (given by a deity) how would it condemn us for using it?  I realize this may be old arguments you have encountered before, but would you please deign to answer them?
Those are good questions, I'll try to answer.  If I miss something just reiterate it.  This material existence was created as a testing world.  It's not absolute reality, but rather an illusion.  However the mind tends to view things in idealistic forms, which can make life confusing.  The wisdom of such a world is that by facing tests and challenges, you develop character, and grow.  If everything was easy, we would just stagnate.  We are expected to work.  Belief is not a passive absorption of information, but an engagement of all our faculties in a constructive pursuit.  That's the whole idea of the world.  In an ideal world, God would spoon feed you proof of His existence, but it's not meant to be ideal; so we all have to work for it.  We have to really want it.  Otherwise, we are left to our own devices.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
« Reply #26 on: August 01, 2019, 12:23:56 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If so, it would follow that if you believe in God, you see a God.  There is an equivocation here.  No one sees God, except in rare cases often found psychiatric hospitals.  I think what you actually mean is a truth, however; If you believe in God, you believe in God, but that is not a convincing argument that he exists.  It's just a statement of belief, twice.

Your statement in regards to atheists, "If you believe there is no God, you see no God," actually means, "If you believe there is no God, you believe there is no God," which adds no helpful information either.  In addition, seeing God or not seeing a God, is not required to believe or not believe in God, anyway.

And furthermore, "If you believe there is no God...," is a condition that only describes a specific subset of atheists, those that believe there is no god.  Most atheists are not in that subset, nor am I.  Like you, I believe you can have a legitimate debate with such atheists, but that is a relatively small group. 

As for the majority of atheists, there is no real debate with someone who has no belief in gods.  About all you can do is try to convince him that he should believe.  But for such atheists, most would disregard any arguments involving belief, because belief is not knowledge, nor does belief lead to knowledge.  It only leads to belief, which is circular and fallacious.
I have seen God, but first I believed.

Sent from my moto e5 play using Tapatalk


Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
« Reply #27 on: August 01, 2019, 01:30:47 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have seen God, but first I believed.

I have believed, but I have never seen. Eventually, I had to realize that my belief was contradictory to my experiences. I doubt you have seen God, but you have falsely attributed some event to his presence, as theists often do.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville

Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
« Reply #28 on: August 01, 2019, 01:36:41 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have seen God, but first I believed.

This sounds an awful lot like confirmation bias to me.

Does everyone have to believe before they will be able to see god?

How would you explain Saul/Paul, who was a nonbeliever, then had an apparition of god? He did not believe, but god appeared to him.

Why was Paul worthy of a Damascus Road experience, but I am required to believe based on bad reasoning?

How would you explain many of the 1.5 billion Muslims, and 1.1 billion Hindus, that claim to have seen their god, also?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have believed, but I have never seen. Eventually, I had to realize that my belief was contradictory to my experiences. I doubt you have seen God, but you have falsely attributed some event to his presence, as theists often do.

Exactly!

I was a sincere believer for decades. I never saw god.

« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 01:39:07 PM by Simon Moon »
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Russell

Offline Cavebear

Re: The Logic of Atheists vs. Theist Arguments
« Reply #29 on: August 01, 2019, 01:49:00 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
This sounds an awful lot like confirmation bias to me.

Does everyone have to believe before they will be able to see god?

How would you explain Saul/Paul, who was a nonbeliever, then had an apparition of god? He did not believe, but god appeared to him.

Why was Paul worthy of a Damascus Road experience, but I am required to believe based on bad reasoning?

How would you explain many of the 1.5 billion Muslims, and 1.1 billion Hindus, that claim to have seen their god, also?

Exactly!

I was a sincere believer for decades. I never saw god.

Apparently, you weren't actually sincere ENOUGH.  ;)

I suppose one could argue that given all the failures of humankind to understand It, the minor quibbles of the world religions is of little concern to It. 

But I like your observations about "seeing" It.

And, BTW, I only say "It" because It couldn't be bothered with a gender...
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk