Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is what Einstein found so fascinating and inexplicable - that our Reality is intelligible, not chaotic. That provides a basis for inferring that God is controlling how things happen. Unfortunately, you and science in general prefer to give it the neutral label of "natural laws" without any provision for a lawgiver.
The fine tuned argument only exists due to a lack of imagination and self-centered rationale. If the universe existed in any other form, everything in it would perfectly fit that version of the universe. There is no design necessary, no magic, only the ego centric assumption of importance.
Exactly my point. Yet you are arguing he can must allow evil, otherwise people will not have free will (that is not actually free will).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonked
You're clearly misunderstanding the theistic position.
The key point is that god, for reasons sufficient to god, chose to create humans with libertarian free will even though this inevitably meant some of them would use his good creation for evil purposes.
God chose to do this for reasons sufficient to him, which finite humans aren't in a position to judge.
God chose a creation in which there was a potential for great evil if free will were misused.
God isn't the creator of evil; he chooses to allow evil in order to accomplish the maximal good in terms of humans who freely chose good and communion with him.
Is this all true beyond dispute? No, it's simply the theistic position.
It is because I clearly understand the theistic position that I can point out it is a stupid argument that relies on ad hoc excuses to avoid the problem omni-theists themselves have created.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonked
You're engaging in the straw man fallacy.
You keep misstaing the actual theistic position in order to give yourself an easier target.
No, I am following the logic based on what an all powerful, all loving god means. I have an easy target because the omni- theists are trying to get out of a problem they created.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonked
The theistic position is that free will is important to god because he wants communion with humans who understand the difference between good and evil and freely choose good.
If this weren't important to god, he would've created statues, puppets or robots.
You seem either to misunderstand the theistic position or to be determined to substiute your view of what god should've done.
I can only follow the logic of what an all powerful, all loving god would be able to do other than behave as if it did not exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonked
Again, you simply want to substitute your view of what god should want for the actual theistic position of what god does want.
OK, you reject the theistic position.
You can really say no more than this.
I can point out that theists are arguing a god wants people to have the 'free will' to worship him, or suffer eternal consequences (so not really free will), and to allow this, he must allow things like the holocaust to be possible (so not all powerful); and this is in contrast to the fact that most people would rather not have things like the holocaust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonked
No, the theistic focus is very definitely on the free will of everyone.
The theistic distinction is simply between those who exercise their free will to choose god and those who exercise it to reject god.
Which is ignoring the victims, who implicitly must suffer because of the free will of others to sin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonked
I've already been accused of "quoting scholars" as my "armor," when in fact I've quoted no scholars at all. None.
I'm well-aware of the appeal to authority fallacy.
What I've said is hardly controversial and requires no appeal to authority.
Most contemporary philosophers accept that evil isn't a defeater for an omni-god.
This simply means they realize rational defenses as to why an omni-god might allow evil are possible.
It doesn't mean they're believers or no longer think evil is a major obstacle to belief.
They simply concede the theistic position isn't irrational.
Of course it is irrational because it is based on some alleged possible unknown while ignoring what 'all powerful' and 'all loving' entails; and argues for a so called free will that is basically do what god wants or suffer the consequences.
And I can not check if anyone has an answer to this because you refuse to provide a link to any of these experts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonked
Here again, we see the straw man fallacy.
I haven't defended the Holocaust as morally just.
Nor do those who hold the theistic position we've been discussing.
The Holocaust was the result of a gross misuse of human free will. It's attributable to nothing else.
God allowed the misuse of human free will to occur for the reaosons set forth above, which you insist on mischaracterzing.
Correct, that was your straw man, I never said you did defend the holocaust. My point is that theists can not defend their free will (that is not free will) position without defending the holocaust as a necessary evil. The theists argument puts them on the horns of a dilemma. Perhaps morally justifiable would have been a better term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonked
More sense to you.
But not to billions of theists.
Probably because they have not done any deep and rational analysis.
He is a very serious philosopher and something of a maverick atheist since he admits naturalism is almost certainly false.
Here is his actual quote, which is simply an admission of the confirmation bias shared by many atheists:
“In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.†(The Last Word, Oxford University Press: 1997).
I find confirmation bias to be a problem for theists, although atheists can also suffer from the problem.
Clearly, as a supposed scientist you seem unable to distinguish between
KNOW and PRESUME. You presume there is no evidence of God! You do not know and cannot know we have no evidence of God because there is no test or measure to discern the presence of God in anything discovered by science!
However, there is invariably always some discernible and knowable process that makes what is observed intelligible and understandable. That is what Einstein found so fascinating and inexplicable - that our Reality is intelligible, not chaotic. That provides a basis for inferring that God is controlling how things happen. Unfortunately, you and science in general prefer to give it the neutral label of "natural laws" without any provision for a lawgiver.
You're clearly not one to lecture about the method of science.
Many theistic religions are hardly what most of us would like to be true, while atheism may offer to some people an attractive freedom from any accountability or judgment.
Except it does not offer this freedom. Most atheists I have read or spoke to simply do not believe gods exist, they do not think about the moral side of not believing.
All you are arguing here is that some atheists choose to be atheists so they can do things their religion does not like, as if atheism is a choice.
But as many religious people simply ignore their own religious codes they do not like, why would someone choose to be atheist to do the same?
I'm not sure what making a 'claim' on the internet is to be honest.
I was referring to responding to others on the internet, as opposed to simply following your own path. As soon as you attempt to defend or refute a position, then you are making a claim, that you agree or disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
If you believe in the possibility that god exists, I don't think that is something controversial. It's a worthy discussion for most of the population on planet Earth. If individuals don't want to discuss, than they simply don't have to. They can only converse with other Atheists. If individuals only want to discuss science and scientific evidence, than this is the wrong section of the forum. So are you suggesting that theists or even agnostics for that matter, should go in the closet and shut up? That when it comes to matters of god, the only allowable discussion should be Atheism?
No, my position is once theists make a statement on the internet as if it is true, then they need to back their claim with evidence. It stops being a personal journey or an opinion when presented as true.
And while there is a rule about science (and politics), the admins appear to be OK with brief mentions when necessary. It is the in-depth discussions that are forbidden.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fusion2
As for me, i'm probably odd man out here in some ways because i'm not sure that if god exists, that he doesn't enjoy evil in some way. Nobody here on the Theistic side has ownership of it, there may be some twists to god that has a merger of good and evil, that we don't understand.
I agree. Based on how the world looks, if a god does exist, it appears to be uncaring, evil or ignorant of our existence.
It is possible, as Nagel confesses, to really need / want there to be no god. That is not my view and I doubt it is the view of most atheists, however. Most of us are deconverts, and so clearly wanted there to be a god (or at least the particular version of god that we bought into). Some of us miss that false certitude, in fact, based on statements made here over the years. I do not, but a lot of that has to do with my introversion and the fact that I did not pay a heavy social price for deconverting, unlike many. My parents and siblings did not disown me. I did not lose the only social supports I had ever known. I did not even regard my church as much of a genuine social support, TBH.
So while Nagel is an exemplar of a possible bias in some atheists, I do not think he is representative of most atheists.
Nagel does not represent me, I would like my childhood view of Christianity to be true. I would get to see my Father and Grandfather again.
Another common atheist meme is that atheism should be the default position.
So common we rarely hear this (apart from theists claiming it is a meme)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonked
We should begin at this default position and then assess whether there is any proof of a deity.
In fact, there is no default position.
The default position should be what we know, or what we have credible evidence for. For everything, not just religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonked
There is simply the metaphysical question of the possible existence of a deity.
We decide for ourselves what evidence and arguments are relevant and which conclusion is most plausible.
True, this is often the case for both sides. But it does get amusing when theists start arguing against their own position, such as the objective morality argument, or the argument from complexity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
