What's the strongest argument for atheism?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 318
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Fallaneze
@3RU7AL
Deism is simply the belief that God exists.


It has come to mean that God created the Universe, and has no other part in it. This, like gnosticism, would be considered a dualistic heresy by us Orthodox as it denies the incarnation. The implication of this being, there is God, and there is creation. As God is not in creation, and God is good, creation cannot be good as God is not in it.

With the incarnation, all of creation is sanctified as God is present everywhere through his Word, and all of creation is enlivened by The Holy Spirit.

In this respect, creation is no longer seen as being dead apart from God, but it is seen as being sanctified by the presence of God who is truly with us.

It isn't the case that God created everything and left it alone with no hand in it whatsoever. God is present in creation through His Word and Holy Spirit.

Father, Son, Holy Spirit. 3 hypostases, 1 ousía. 3 hypostases homoousion


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
So you think animals aren't conscious?
In order to determine (Quantify) if animals are "conscious" we must rigorously define consciousness in empirically (scientifically) verifiable terms.

Consciousness is a private experience (Qualia).  You can't even verify if your fellow humans possess it.

You think that intending to create something is limited to human beings only?
Intention and planning are a function of our imprecise and obviously limited ability to predict the future.

(IFF) you believe that gods are "omniscient" and "omnipotent" and "eternal", (THEN) they would never have to "plan" or "design" anything.

Whatever they "wanted" would "happen" automatically.  It would always be perfect automatically.  It would be incapable of error.  There would be no need to wipe out mistakes with floods or fire and brimstone.

There is nothing "constrained" about it except for the arbitrary contraints you mentioned.
There is no reason to believe a Deistic Being's "actions" would be limited by our fabricated human concepts.

And depending on your choice of axioms, it may be logically impossible for gods to have the same types of experiences as humans.
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@3RU7AL
In order to determine (Quantify) if animals are "conscious" we must rigorously define consciousness in empirically (scientifically) verifiable terms.

Consciousness is a private experience (Qualia).  You can't even verify if your fellow humans possess it.

Is quantity a quality that you can verify that your fellow humans experience?  

Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
We can't quantify whether anything is conscious. Consciousness is beyond scientific verification. You just said that consciousness is qualitative yet demand we have a quantitative method for determining whether something is conscious. 

I've never mentioned omniscience or omnipotence. Your IFF conditional doesnt apply. 

There's no reason to think that all concepts are tainted by human experience. 


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
We can't quantify whether anything is conscious.
But only because it has not be rigorously defined.

If you defined consciousness as simply "being able to recognize oneself in a mirror" then it would be quantifiable.

However, this would not bring us any closer to determining if a god could "recognize itself in a mirror" (although a robot probably could).

Consciousness is beyond scientific verification.
But only because it has not be rigorously defined.

You just said that consciousness is qualitative yet demand we have a quantitative method for determining whether something is conscious. 
I'm merely pointing it out to you.  I'm perfectly willing to explore any hypothetical quantifiable standard of consciousness you wish.

I've never mentioned omniscience or omnipotence. Your IFF conditional doesnt apply. 
Sure, so what do you know about a Deistic Being?  Does it think like a human?  (IFF) a deistic being thinks like a human and doesn't know the future and experiences time similarly to humans (THEN) it probably plans and designs things.

There's no reason to think that all concepts are tainted by human experience.
There's no reason to think that a Deistic Being thinks (or experiences things) like a human.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
Whatever they "wanted" would "happen" automatically.  It would always be perfect automatically.  It would be incapable of error.  There would be no need to wipe out mistakes with floods or fire and brimstone.
My thinking is that notions of a deity being literally infinite is a relatively late development.   My feeling is that way back when people started to imagine gods they were supposed to be very powerful and magical, but they were not imagined as without limits and restrictions.   When YHWH is described as 'almighty' or 'omni-whatever' the writers (not being familiar with modern ides of infinity) were employing flattery rather than being literal.
  
Originally YHWHists 'knew' their god was but one of many gods, distinguished only by having a special relationship with his 'chosen people'.   Baal or Chemosh (eg)were YHWH's peers, but as they were gods of their enemies (ie other Canaanites and the Moabites) so were to despised.   But YHWH's support was not unconditional so constant sacrifices and flattery were required to keep YHWH 'sweet' - even so his support was often withdrawn.

The Hebrew would not have thought it logically inconsistent for YHWH to change his mind or decide to cross-out the world and start again (if they understood the concept of 'logially inconsistent' in the first place!).  Omniscience - if it meant anything beyond simple flattery - would only mean it was futile keep anything secret from him, as it was for Cain who denied killing Abel. (Gen 4:9-10)

9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”
“I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”
10 The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.
A more sophisticated, quasi-mathematical interpretation of god's supposed infinitude began when (much later) cloistered theologians turned their attentions to the minutiae of scripture, as it was either do professional nit-picking or get a proper job.

 



3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
Originally YHWHists 'knew' their god was but one of many gods, distinguished only by having a special relationship with his 'chosen people'.   Baal or Chemosh (eg)were YHWH's peers, but as they were gods of their enemies (ie other Canaanites and the Moabites) so were to despised.
Insightful as usual.

However, if you look back at pre-Abrahamic traditions you find a few more interesting tidbits...

Question: "What was Abraham’s religion before God called him?"

Answer: 
Abraham is called the friend of God, the father of the Jews, and the father of the faithful. He is honored by Jews, Muslims, and Christians as a great man, but what religion did he follow before being called by Yahweh?

Abraham was born and raised in Ur of the Chaldees, which is in modern Iraq, near Nasiriyah in the southeastern part of the country. Joshua 24:2 says that Abraham and his father worshiped idols. We can make some educated guesses about their religion by looking at the history and religious artifacts from that period.

Ur of the Chaldees was an ancient city that flourished until about 300 BC. The great ziggurat of Ur was built by Ur-Nammu around 2100 BC and was dedicated to Nanna, the moon god. The moon was worshiped as the power that controlled the heavens and the life cycle on earth. To the Chaldeans, the phases of the moon represented the natural cycle of birth, growth, decay, and death and also set the measurement of their yearly calendar. Among the pantheon of Mesopotamian gods, Nanna was supreme, because he was the source of fertility for crops, herds, and families. Prayers and offerings were offered to the moon to invoke its blessing.  [LINK]


Also...

Rev. Dr. Nugent: The Bible calls them the sons of God, the Divine Council. The word used for God in parts of the Hebrew Bible, Elohim, is plural implying a family of deities. Angels are the lesser gods of the deposed pantheon of ancient Israel. They are under the rulership of Yahweh. Together with Yahweh they are part of Elohim, a plural word that we translate "God" in the book of Genesis. Elohim/God says "Let us make humans in our image." ...These angels came from the ancient pantheons of Mesopotamia and Egypt.


keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
A  less fringy source is

Dr. Nugent appears to hold a sceptical view of the bible which is very common amongst Anglican theologians and clergy here in Britain: 

"This means my Christianity is defined by values, spiritual practices, and faith rather than belief in a specific set of doctrinal agreements. Before the 4th Century, when orthodoxy was established, Christianity was characterized by heterodoxy — many different forms of belief.
If the resurrection of Christ didn’t literally happen, that shouldn’t have any bearing on whether life now is worth living or how we live. From my vantage point, where values and practices are the heart of Christianity, the contradiction lies in people like our recent president who think it’s ok to practice torture and yet call themselves Christians. Who would Jesus waterboard? Christ’s torture and execution remind us that we are called to put an end to such practices in human affairs. From the standpoint of my Christianity, right-wing evangelical fundamentalism is really the opposite of what Christ was about. Those who subscribe to an intolerant, arrogant, inhumane form of Christianity are following a religion that is literally antichrist."

It seems to me the OT was written by priests who were rather more YHWHistic than the Hebrew people in general or even their kings.  


3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Plisken
Is quantity a quality that you can verify that your fellow humans experience?  
Only if you can rigorously define it in empirically verifiable terms.

1803 days later

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,078
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8


There were zero thumbs up in these 11 pages of posts.  OMG, did God not allow them?
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,864
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
Do people actually use that thumbs up function? I never really noticed it until you mentioned it.

22 days later

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,078
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8


What's the strongest argument for atheism?    A human is made from 36 trillion cells.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,239
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
What's the strongest argument for atheism?    A human is made from 36 trillion cells.

Occupied space is not created nor destroyed, only transformed. At best we only say, that, our finite, occupied space Universe --and parts--- can subdivide themselves.  By Fuller calls this multiplication-by-division.

 In Fullers simplistic geometric expression of synergy, 1 + 1 = 4 triangles, we say, that since the tetrahedral is the minimal set of for a polyhedral volume of space, that, the two triangles were never not integrated as the whole tetrahedron.

The angles are 3 + 3 = 12.   See following and use zoom at bottom of the site page, for multipliation-by-division

In this scenario the non-creator God/Universe, we say that the tetrahedron --as Universe-- can subdivide itself infinitely ergo eternally, yet it can never created any new additional occupied space to eternally existent tetrahedron as finite, Universe/God.

85 days later

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,078
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

  Trump ?
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,864
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Why would one need to make an argument for Atheism? What is there to argue about or defend? They make no claim to defend.

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,078
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

I guess God doesn't look at DA on his Ipad.
JoeBob
JoeBob's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 645
3
3
7
JoeBob's avatar
JoeBob
3
3
7
-->
@sadolite
Where are you looking that atheists don’t defend their arguments?
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,864
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@JoeBob
There is no need to defend an argument that makes no claim. It is the party that makes a claim that needs to defend its claim. An atheist doesn't believe in a god so what does an atheist have to defend? It is the believer that there is a god that has 100% burden of proof. Scientifically speaking, the proof of a God can not be definitively proven.