What the better explanation for the origin of the universe? God or Nothing?

Author: Tradesecret

Posts

Total: 47
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RoderickSpode
Would you say, realizing we all have some pain in our life, that life basically is good?
I think that blanket assumption is, well, assuming a lot. I wouldn't make the argument, nor hold the position. 
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RoderickSpode
It's not just homosexuality that brought on a death penalty. Pretty much most of us here would be potential candidates for harsh punishment. You're not the only one by any stretch of the imagination. The invitation to receive God's grace is as much open to you as anyone else.
Perhaps this is the case, but homosexuals were one of the more persecuted groups by the church, people practically ignored the old testament, except for the popular stories and that it was evil to be gay. In fact, the god of the bible still hasn't changed their mind, it is still a sin to be gay according to the bible. My sexuality is something I refuse to ever ask forgiveness for. Not to mention - why the h*ll am I asking that god for forgiveness? That dude is evil according to her own rules!


But anyway, I understand the conflict as far as Christianity and homosexuality is concerned. I would say the reason why there are Christian churches, or Christian individuals
who identify as being gay is because they know God is love. Some might see it as a struggle. Some may have a difficult time resolving between God's love for them, and God's stance against homosexuality. But it all boils down to it being between us individually, and God. That time will come for all of us.
No, I would disagree, it's because they decide to say, "Hey what if the bible god wasn't a complete and utter arsehole?" then they cherry-pick verses or statements of god just as you have. Don't get me wrong, I love that people are becoming more and more tolerant of gay people, but the fact is, they have opposing ideas from their supposed creator. There is no struggle intellectually, god hates a group of people for something as inherent as one's ethnicity. 


Homosexuality is not meant to be a lifestyle anymore than heterosexuality is. What I mean by that is, sex is only a small part of a marriage union. There comes a time when a couple grows old enough to the point they may not have the ability to engage in sexual activity. But the union between the two is to be as strong as it was on the wedding day. That's love. Since same sex marriage is a major issue, would you be willing to spend the rest of your life with one partner of the same sex until the day one of you passes on?
What? Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, even if I were to never get married and just do a bunch of dudes my entire life, that still wouldn't be a lifestyle of homosexuality. That would just be one free of exclusive relationships. This also presumes that the ideal relationship is marriage. Which is false, marriage, as a concept is broken. The only real difference is that you threaten each other into staying with the other. Civil unions are much more my speed. And yes, if I found a guy whom I loved, I would be willing to stay with that guy until one of us died, as long as the relationship isn't toxic of course. 


Even at a young age, the marriage vow implies that faithfulness is mandatory. If not, it's not love. Or certainly not ultimate love. If a wife or husband has an unfortunate accident or illness that renders them incapable of sexual activity, the marriage vow still suggests sexual faithfulness. Even if the person who is no longer able to perform sexually tells their spouse they understand their physical needs, and it's okay to find a sex partner, the ultimate act of love would still demand complete faithfulness. If you were in a same sex union, would you be able to remain faithful should something unfortunate happen to your partner?
This entire section discounts polygamy, which is a perfectly valid area of relationships, not to mention, it once more assumes that marriage is the ideal relationship state: I can not stress enough that it is not. Um, of course? Why would someone not being able to have sex matter with regard to love? Look, there are four primary forms of love as far as I can see it: Platonic love, Familiar love, Romantic love, and Sexual love. Yes, I would, because sex isn't the be-all end of all of relationships. There are certain people, where I'd give up sex entirely, in order to have a romantic relationship with them. This entire thing is nonsense, no offense, I would really recommend you do some more research
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,256
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
The hypocrisy  here #32 from Roderick Spode is blinding and breath taking to say the least. The fluff and gumf that  Spode is attempting to spin above is nothing short of attempting to defend the indefensible.

 The bible is clear in the extreme:

1 Corinthians 6:9–10  "do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality....

1 Timothy 1:10   "the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality," 

Romans 1:27  and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination

Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. THEY ARE TO BE PUT TO DEATH; their blood will be on their own heads. 

 But still these weasel apologist  have is  that god works in mysterious way and he loves you. 
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
Perhaps this is the case, but homosexuals were one of the more persecuted groups by the church, people practically ignored the old testament, except for the popular stories and that it was evil to be gay. In fact, the god of the bible still hasn't changed their mind, it is still a sin to be gay according to the bible.
It's a sin to practice homosexuality (and heterosexual adultery), yes.

As far as persecution, I don't deny it at all. But persecution of homosexuals is universal, and not tied to any religion or ideology. The Bible doesn't make people homophobic. And if someone is homophobic, it doesn't matter whether they believe in God or not.


No, I would disagree, it's because they decide to say, "Hey what if the bible god wasn't a complete and utter arsehole?" then they cherry-pick verses or statements of god just as you have. Don't get me wrong, I love that people are becoming more and more tolerant of gay people, but the fact is, they have opposing ideas from their supposed creator. There is no struggle intellectually, god hates a group of people for something as inherent as one's ethnicity. 

Sorry, you lost me. Particularly (but not limited to) the reference to one's ethnicity.




My sexuality is something I refuse to ever ask forgiveness for. Not to mention - why the h*ll am I asking that god for forgiveness? That dude is evil according to her own rules!
I think you have to admit though. You have changed your tone a bit here. In a prior post you suggested your view that God is evil was maybe subjective, or personal opinion.

What? Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, even if I were to never get married and just do a bunch of dudes my entire life, that still wouldn't be a lifestyle of homosexuality. That would just be one free of exclusive relationships.

I think you're misunderstanding me (emphasis on I think).

If 2 people of the same gender are married, and at a still young age one of the partners had an accident or became ill to where they couldn't have sex together, would the healthy partner remain faithful?

If the healthy partner needs to have sex with someone else (another person of the same gender), then I would say that yes, it's a lifestyle. The person can't do without it. It may not be as much of a lifestyle to them as the bar-hopping one-night-stand person. But still.

This also presumes that the ideal relationship is marriage. Which is false, marriage, as a concept is broken. The only real difference is that you threaten each other into staying with the other. Civil unions are much more my speed. And yes, if I found a guy whom I loved, I would be willing to stay with that guy until one of us died, as long as the relationship isn't toxic of course. 

No, I make no suggestion at all that marriage is the ideal relationship. To myself, platonic relationships would be ideal. But what I'm doing is simply giving you the biblical model of marriage, which pretty much coincides with the traditional marriage vow. After all, it's the bible we've been talking about, right?


This entire section discounts polygamy, which is a perfectly valid area of relationships, not to mention, it once more assumes that marriage is the ideal relationship state: I can not stress enough that it is not.
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused. Why do you think polygamy is a perfectly valid area of relationships?


Um, of course? Why would someone not being able to have sex matter with regard to love? Look, there are four primary forms of love as far as I can see it: Platonic love, Familiar love,
Romantic love, and Sexual love. Yes, I would, because sex isn't the be-all end of all of relationships. There are certain people, where I'd give up sex entirely, in order to have a romantic relationship with them. This entire thing is nonsense, no offense, I would really recommend you do some more research
I'm not trying to give you a lesson on relationships if that's what you think. That should be evident though due to the fact I've been asking you a fair amount of questions. Why do I do that? Basically it's because I don't know.

And I'm not one to push people into a conversation. If you you wish to stop, I assure you there's no offense.


RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
Would you say, realizing we all have some pain in our life, that life basically is good?
I think that blanket assumption is, well, assuming a lot. I wouldn't make the argument, nor hold the position. 
What assumption are you talking about?
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RoderickSpode

Would you say, realizing we all have some pain in our life, that life basically is good?
I think that blanket assumption is, well, assuming a lot. I wouldn't make the argument, nor hold the position. 
What assumption are you talking about?
That life is basically good, yes we all have pain, but just jumping straight to - life is basically good is at best an assumption an at worst a non-sequitur

Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RoderickSpode

Perhaps this is the case, but homosexuals were one of the more persecuted groups by the church, people practically ignored the old testament, except for the popular stories and that it was evil to be gay. In fact, the god of the bible still hasn't changed their mind, it is still a sin to be gay according to the bible.
It's a sin to practice homosexuality (and heterosexual adultery), yes.

As far as persecution, I don't deny it at all. But persecution of homosexuals is universal, and not tied to any religion or ideology. The Bible doesn't make people homophobic. And if someone is homophobic, it doesn't matter whether they believe in God or not.
Um.... as Stephen (though I do not agree with them on most things, these specific things is true) pointed out, there are multiple verses in the bible that demonstrate, yes, the bible is a specific cause of homophobia. What matters is that the bible spreads homophobia, by calling it a sin. It is homophobic to consider someone's sexuality evil. Does that necessarily make the person homophobic? No. It means they are doing something homophobic, and that they should stop that, before they actually buy further in and become fully homophobic. 




No, I would disagree, it's because they decide to say, "Hey what if the bible god wasn't a complete and utter arsehole?" then they cherry-pick verses or statements of god just as you have. Don't get me wrong, I love that people are becoming more and more tolerant of gay people, but the fact is, they have opposing ideas from their supposed creator. There is no struggle intellectually, god hates a group of people for something as inherent as one's ethnicity. 

Sorry, you lost me. Particularly (but not limited to) the reference to one's ethnicity.

My point was that someone does not choose their sexuality any more than they choose their ethnicity.  My points previously are that churches who accept gay people are cherry-picking verses, and while I love the fact that they are being less homophobic, it is factually correct that they are not interpreting gods will correctly. 



My sexuality is something I refuse to ever ask forgiveness for. Not to mention - why the h*ll am I asking that god for forgiveness? That dude is evil according to her own rules!
I think you have to admit though. You have changed your tone a bit here. In a prior post you suggested your view that God is evil was maybe subjective, or personal opinion.
When I said my morality, I meant the moral philosophy that I applied to, while it is subjective - so it all morality - and that what I meant wasn't to claim that god was objectively evil in some kind of tonal difference, but point out that even according to god's own rules, she is immoral.



What? Homosexuality isn't a lifestyle, even if I were to never get married and just do a bunch of dudes my entire life, that still wouldn't be a lifestyle of homosexuality. That would just be one free of exclusive relationships.

I think you're misunderstanding me (emphasis on I think).

If 2 people of the same gender are married, and at a still young age one of the partners had an accident or became ill to where they couldn't have sex together, would the healthy partner remain faithful?

If the healthy partner needs to have sex with someone else (another person of the same gender), then I would say that yes, it's a lifestyle. The person can't do without it. It may not be as much of a lifestyle to them as the bar-hopping one-night-stand person. But still.
I thank you for your humbleness, but I must digress:

In some cases no, but this also applies to heterosexual relationships. Is a relationship between two men or two women any less likely to fall apart than one between a man and a woman due to cheating? I do not think so, and since this is a claim that is indicative of a change in status, it should be backed up with evidence. 

To your second claim, how is someone doing (what you assert as necessary) a necessary function a lifestyle? That's like saying someone who needs to eat and therefore is an eater by lifestyle. I suppose you could semantically argue the point, but it wouldn't be true.



This also presumes that the ideal relationship is marriage. Which is false, marriage, as a concept is broken. The only real difference is that you threaten each other into staying with the other. Civil unions are much more my speed. And yes, if I found a guy whom I loved, I would be willing to stay with that guy until one of us died, as long as the relationship isn't toxic of course. 

No, I make no suggestion at all that marriage is the ideal relationship. To myself, platonic relationships would be ideal. But what I'm doing is simply giving you the biblical model of marriage, which pretty much coincides with the traditional marriage vow. After all, it's the bible we've been talking about, right?
Perhaps it was a misinterpretation from me, but the point is, using marriage in your premises would imply that your points and impacts are based on the relationship model of marriage, I was simply pointing out that Marriage is not at all ideal, and therefore not a good piece of information to have in one premise. 

I am curious, why is a platonic the most ideal relationship platonic? Not saying I disagree or anything, I'm just curious as to your reasoning. To the last question, I suppose? I thought we were talking about god in general. I just so happened to believe in the one of the bible. 




This entire section discounts polygamy, which is a perfectly valid area of relationships, not to mention, it once more assumes that marriage is the ideal relationship state: I can not stress enough that it is not.
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused. Why do you think polygamy is a perfectly valid area of relationships?
Why isn't it? First of all, if we're talking about the bible, then you should know that in genesis it explicitly favors polygamy, or at least a descendent of adam is not punished for having two wives.

Second of all - as long as it's a healthy relationship between consenting adults, and isn't toxic, it really isn't a bad thing at all, in fact, I would argue that polygamy can be more ideal than monogamy, as each partner is given more love and affection (in a healthy relationship anyway). 



Um, of course? Why would someone not being able to have sex matter with regard to love? Look, there are four primary forms of love as far as I can see it: Platonic love, Familiar love,
Romantic love, and Sexual love. Yes, I would, because sex isn't the be-all end of all of relationships. There are certain people, where I'd give up sex entirely, in order to have a romantic relationship with them. This entire thing is nonsense, no offense, I would really recommend you do some more research
I'm not trying to give you a lesson on relationships if that's what you think. That should be evident though due to the fact I've been asking you a fair amount of questions. Why do I do that? Basically it's because I don't know.

And I'm not one to push people into a conversation. If you you wish to stop, I assure you there's no offense.
When I said the entire thing was nonsense, I was talking about the specific point I was addressing, not the entire conversation. I'd be more than happy to continue it, I was simply pointing out that the question wasn't really a valid one, as it presumes that romantic and sexual love are necessarily intertwined. That's all.



To be clear, I am okay with continuing the conversation as long as you are
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge

To be clear, I am okay with continuing the conversation as long as you are
Absolutely!

Do you mind if I start a new thread and move the conversation there?

I think Tradesecret has an interesting thread started, and I may have steered us off track.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@RoderickSpode
Sure, just pm or link the forum and I'll follow
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
If no God exists then what evidence would be sufficient to prove God exists? None. And no one would be able to come up with the sort of evidence they require. 
This is assuming that atheists are begging the question, which is false, no the position of an atheist is that no evidence presented thus far (thus far referring to the current state of affairs) has been valid. If one can demonstrate valid proof that god exists, I would change my mind

Thus far, there has been none I find convincing.
Hi Theweakeredge, thanks for your thoughtful response.  

I disagree with your reasoning and therefore your conclusion.   It stands to reason that in a system created by God that everything  per se would be evidence for God's reality.  It also stands to reason in a system without God, that there could be no evidence for God's existence.  The former is a truism just as the latter is.  The difficulty with this of course is that no matter what the reality is - the theist is convinced by all of reality and the atheist is convinced there is no evidence. Hence - both are either lying to themselves, deluded, or unwilling to examine the evidence properly - and that means without prejudice. 

For the record, I take the view that atheists have assumed a position not because they see a lack of evidence but for other reasons.  Along the way, evidence may have become part of their reasoning, but never the starting point.  What this means is that despite your sincerity that you would change your mind if evidence was presented - I actually find that hard to believe - not because of you personally, but by the fact that it is not lack of evidence which is the problem but the interpretation of the same.  This is evidenced in part by the way that people perceive God in the Bible.  I see for instance that God is perfectly holy, good and just. But many on this site see only an evil God. I personally cannot see the Biblical God as anything but perfectly just and good. Hence -we are looking at the same evidence -yet we interpret it differently.  I think this reasoning extends to all of life in the question of God. 

On the other hand if God exists then everything they observe is evidence for the fact that God exists. 
Now you are quite literally begging the question, you are presuming your conclusion in your premise. There is a fundamental flaw in the way you see the burden of proof and how evidence should change our mind.

Essentially: I do not discount evidence for god because I am an atheist, I examine each piece of evidence to see if it is valid, sound, logically consistent, etc... That is exactly how theists should look through the evidence for a god, not presume one's existence, but check to see if any evidence established is sound, valid, logically consistent, etc.. 
I am not assuming a conclusion within my premise.  That is not true.  It also has nothing to do with the burden of proof.  I think the burden of proof by the way is with the atheist, not with the theist.   The question is not about God - it is about reality. And what explains it better.  If it were about God per se - then perhaps an argument might be made - although personally I think the argument is thin.  

You can only assume a piece of evidence from the position you are in. And if you commence a question by asking if God exists, it implies implicitly that God does not exist. That is where a conclusion is found within its premises.  The issue of God is not about questions - it is about axioms. 

As I have said on many other occasions - everything I see is evidence for God. I say humanity is proof. I say evil is proof. I say atheists are proof. 
1, 2, 3, 4, assertions have been made. That means you have necessarily adopted a burden of proof. Please demonstrate how a god exists, how humans are proof of god, how evil is proof of god, and how atheists are proof of god.

For your note: An atheist is simply one who does not believe in god. Take that as you will.

I have an axiomatic position on God. This is by its very nature a circular argument. It is the same as an axiomatic position on logic or reason.  Reason or logic can be proved logically - but it would also assume an axiom that logic is logically.  Every person in the world has an axiomatic position. We all start at different places.  Yet we all fall back to our axioms.    

Thank you for your note. It means little to me as I don't believe in the god that the atheist does not believe in. This logically probably makes me an atheist and yet it would not be true. Think about this for a moment.  The atheist looks at the bible and can only see an evil God. He or she chooses to try and find this god, or evidence for this evil god's existence. Where ever they look they cannot find it.  The Theist - or me in particular looks at the bible and only sees a good God.  I see evidence for this God everywhere. But is the God that the Atheist sees in the bible the same one that I see? I think not.  What makes the difference? What is it that makes me see that God is good, created the world good, that humanity rebelled - and that God punished this rebellion with death. What is it that makes me see that this God then sent his son to this earth to die on a cross for the sins and rebellion of humanity as a good thing? What is it that makes me see that God is good and that humanity is sinful - but also deserving of punishment? On the other hand what is it that makes atheists not only not see any evidence for the good God in the Bible, but only injustice, unfairness, brutality, genocide, homophobia, and every other evil thing? 

If billions of people can read the bible and see the Good God and millions of people can read the Bible and only see the evil God, then what is going on here? Surely it is absurd to suggest it is because one entire group has looked at the evidence wrongly.  Something else must be going on. 

Yet, none of these are evidences for the atheist. Hence the axiomatic position of what the bible says is more plausible than what the atheist says. 
You, yourself admitted that whenever you looked at the evidence, you were committing a logical fallacy! How then, could one come to the conclusion that your proofs are at all evidential or valid

I never admitted the same. You drew the false inference and then took it to your own conclusion.  



fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
I ask the "nothing" crowd to explain to me why, in the entire history of the "science" model that seems to have abandoned the idea of divine design of the universe simply because we can explain so much more about it than could our ancestral scientists who reached barriers ad could not cross them without offering the explanation of a divine fallacy, or "god of the gaps." Here's my request:

tell me when in the history of natural selection did nature, by itself, construct an edifice to provide a residence of warmth and comfort using a process of manipulation of raw materials such that those raw materials were physically altered, and combined with other raw materials doing the same thing, processed to accommodate a natural design? Darwin never saw it, never described it, never envisioned it. Nor did any natural collection of elements of the Big Bang, the String, Steady-State, Oscillating, Flat Hologram, etc, but one.
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Thanks for the response, lets dig into this shall we?

i disagree with your reasoning and therefore your conclusion.   It stands to reason that in a system created by God that everything  per se would be evidence for God's reality.  It also stands to reason in a system without God, that there could be no evidence for God's existence.  The former is a truism just as the latter is.  The difficulty with this of course is that no matter what the reality is - the theist is convinced by all of reality and the atheist is convinced there is no evidence. Hence - both are either lying to themselves, deluded, or unwilling to examine the evidence properly - and that means without prejudice.
Except for the problem here is, you would still be assuming something, that god exists or does not exist. Whenever you look at a piece of evidence, you disregard all bias, essentially, whenever I look at a piece of evidence, I am a hard agnostic, and I look at the validity of the evidence that is being presented not rely on some former bias. Essentially I do not presume their is no god, I take the default position that the position with the least amount of assumptions is preferable to the one with more of them. As the evidence i have regarded thus far speaks, there is no valid reason to believe in a god.

I am literally doing what you are saying - to look at the evidence without prejudice, or at least as much as I aware of - I can grant a point for the sake of argument, I can disregard my position if evidence indicative of a god comes forth. My point is - no - just because I do not believe there is a god, that does not mean there is no evidence for a god, simply that I have found none which is compelling to explain a god. There could be, and I have admitted as such, but before I change my mind and take on the mantel of a theist, I would have to actually been presented that evidence.



I am not assuming a conclusion within my premise.  That is not true.  It also has nothing to do with the burden of proof.  I think the burden of proof by the way is with the atheist, not with the theist.   The question is not about God - it is about reality. And what explains it better.  If it were about God per se - then perhaps an argument might be made - although personally I think the argument is thin.  

You can only assume a piece of evidence from the position you are in. And if you commence a question by asking if God exists, it implies implicitly that God does not exist. That is where a conclusion is found within its premises.  The issue of God is not about questions - it is about axioms. 
I find your conclusion very faulty, a non sequitur if you will, no asking if a god does not imply there is none. It simply means, I have no reason thus far to believe there is one, therefore I am asking you (someone who believes there is a god) if there is any evidence proving the proposition. Anyways to get back to the beginning of this response - yes - in fact if what I believe you are saying is what you think, you are exactly saying this. You claim god is axiomatic, therefore a presupposition (or a true statement simply to be accepted), then you are actually exactly presuming your conclusion - that god exists - in your premise - that god is axiomatic. 

Even if the argument what is the inherent axiom - you would have to demonstrate that god true, and therefore to be considered an axiom. Also, the burden of proof would be with the one making the assertion, all I would be asking would be for you to demonstrate god, not the other way around. If a god were to exist, she would be an incredible being, and therefore arguing for her existence would require incredible, extraordinary some might say, evidence. As the level of the claim suggests, I am unconvinced of that claim and am therefore an atheist. Not to say I don't have arguments against the existence of a god, just to say I don't need to present them unless I claim it.



I have an axiomatic position on God. This is by its very nature a circular argument. It is the same as an axiomatic position on logic or reason.  Reason or logic can be proved logically - but it would also assume an axiom that logic is logically.  Every person in the world has an axiomatic position. We all start at different places.  Yet we all fall back to our axioms.    
This is most certainly not incorrect, but it is implying something false, the indirect comparison of concluding god an axiom and concluding logic an axiom. Without logic, you could not even reach the position that logic was faulty in the first place, something similar would have to be demonstrated of a god, you would have to prove the axiom-aticy of the god so to speak.



 It means little to me as I don't believe in the god that the atheist does not believe in. This logically probably makes me an atheist and yet it would not be true. Think about this for a moment.  The atheist looks at the bible and can only see an evil God. He or she chooses to try and find this god, or evidence for this evil god's existence. Where ever they look they cannot find it.  The Theist - or me in particular looks at the bible and only sees a good God.  I see evidence for this God everywhere. But is the God that the Atheist sees in the bible the same one that I see? I think not.  What makes the difference? What is it that makes me see that God is good, created the world good, that humanity rebelled - and that God punished this rebellion with death. What is it that makes me see that this God then sent his son to this earth to die on a cross for the sins and rebellion of humanity as a good thing? What is it that makes me see that God is good and that humanity is sinful - but also deserving of punishment? On the other hand what is it that makes atheists not only not see any evidence for the good God in the Bible, but only injustice, unfairness, brutality, genocide, homophobia, and every other evil thing? 
I mean - yes I do see evil in the bible - inherently so - but I do not dismiss the claims of a god on that axiom alone. Note on a debate (I'm actually not sure which one something about god or what not) that I noted that the problem of evil is not a particularly effective argument at refuting the existence of a god. An all-good one god? Well I'm assured that's not the case, but it doesn't convince me that their is no god. What I believe the problem of evil is effective at is fighting against the dogma of religion and faith, you literally assert it is something you presume, without justification. I do not presume the existence or lack of existence of a god, I looked at the evidence and was convinced there was no god. Not the other way around. 

What is the difference? Well, I would say cognitive dissonance, dogma, tradition, etc, etc, of the believer, but you could easily point back at me and say the same. No, what I think the difference is that when an atheist looks at the bible, they no longer presume her existence, looking for evidence instead of being blindly convinced by assertions. Let me be crystal clear here: if you do not believe in any god(s) you are an atheist, if you believe in any god(s) you are a theist (or diest). That's really all there is to it. Now, a more proper way to put it might be that we have two different interpretations of the god of the bible, and that would be true, we most certainly do, but then it comes down to the question of who's is more legitimate.



If billions of people can read the bible and see the Good God and millions of people can read the Bible and only see the evil God, then what is going on here? Surely it is absurd to suggest it is because one entire group has looked at the evidence wrongly.  Something else must be going on.
No, it really isn't, millions of people believed the earth to be flat, millions believed the earth to be in the center of the universe with the sun and the planets revolving around it, millions believed that being gay was evil, millions of people believed lots of things that are incorrect. The number of people who have gotten the evidence wrong has no bearing on whether that evidence is true or not. 



I never admitted the same. You drew the false inference and then took it to your own conclusion.  
I what I was saying here was that taking an axiomatic position of a god, is the same as admitting a logical fallacy, it was more wit or sarcasm than saying you literally accepted a logical fallacy. 



While we may disagree, this is certainly a unique objection, don't take my rebukes as aggressive please, this is nothing more than a response. I don't have anything against you personally or the like, I actually find these objections quite interesting.












zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Ignorance is bliss, hey?
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
If that is supposed to mean something - please explain?
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
You probably read my earlier post, but chose to ignore it.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Within the context of the silly question, the obviously better choice would be something loosely referred to as GOD or BOB or DAVE or BIG BANGO or whatever.

Though it would be foolish to think that this proved anything other than acceptance of something.

Something is something and nothing is nothing.

As I said, the question is silly. And simply states the obvious..... That is to say, something from nothing.
Do you mean this one? 

And you also asked or stated ignorance is bliss. 

Firstly, it is not a silly question. It was just attempting to put the question of God into a more even keeled discussion.  At the moment if God gets a mention then the ungodly position is that theists need to prove God exists. Obviously and mischievously doing so because they know it is impossible to prove and likewise knowing it is impossible to disprove. Hence the atheist does the cowardly thing - and ALWAYS expects the theist to have the burden of proof. This of course is how the atheist sleeps at night. They dispense with honesty or integrity and try to justify or rationalize this lack of integrity with their so called rules of engagement. 

This question put forward an acknowledgment that the question cannot be simply dismissed by such rationalization.  It attempted to set the problem in a framework whereby the burden was placed equally on both sides of the theist discussion. And provided an opportunity for both to put forward their evidences for their so called positions. 

Your attempt to ridicule the God with various names - is sad. You mock what you do not understand and would I imagine (although I could be wrong) be equally upset with theists who mocked the atheist position. Hence - your comment about me suggesting something from nothing. 

and yet this is what the atheist believes. Despite it being an absurdity. 

The atheistic position is absurd.  It is a faith worldview which is too scared to face what it really is.  You talk about ignorance being bliss.  I propose that in all the world the atheist is always in the blissful condition -through choosing intentionally to be ignorant. 
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,068
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Tradesecret
As I pointed out...It's a silly question because it asks the obvious, in a vain attempt to validate a specific GOD hypothesis, namely, your GOD hypothesis.

Quite obviously a GOD hypothesis or GOD principle is the better of the two options.....Because as I stated, nothing is nothing and something is clearly obvious to us.

Though, that one should then instantly conclude that your specific version of a GOD hypothesis is the correct one, is therefore a silly expectation.


The fundamental problem is that we currently have no idea how something was derived from nothing.

So atheistic people simply tend not to wildly over speculate as theistic people do.

Denying that the burden of proof lies with the theist, really is just avoiding the real fundamental question.

0 to GOD, or 0 to BOB, or 0 to dave, or perhaps 0 to BIG BANGO......The names which are all relatively recent human constructs, are all wholly irrelevant.