Theory of Atheism

[jettrooper]

I do not have the faith to be an atheist in the light of holes in atheistic theories. In 1887, physicists believed in the Static Universe Theory. In 1915 physicists believed in the Einsteinian universe theory. In 1929 physicists traded that for the Expanding Universe Theory more commonly called the Big Bang. We also have the Oscillating Universe theory, the Inflationary Universe Theory and the more recent Multiverse theory. All of these theories cannot be disproven by scientific experiment, these theories cannot even be tested fully by experiment, nor can any claim the monopoly of fact. Throw in state-of-the-art M-theory, superstring theory and Brane cosmology and you have different ideas that simply try to justify or support a physicist’s position. Again no monopoly on fact.

[h=1]Theory of Atheism[/h]

Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. The proofs of logic within a theory are deduced from premises and achieve certainty only because they are evident in the empirical world. What I mean is that gravity exists because I can observe it through experimentation and without fail, gravity functions logically the same every time. If you do not believe in God it is because you interpreted the facts in that direction and I in the opposing direction.


A theory is plausible only when the probability of that hypothesis is greater based on the available evidence and background information than on the background information alone (this is known as the Bayne calculus). All Atheistic theories are not supported logically by the complete evidence but are constructs of imagination to interpret facts. Case in point, the limited resource argument for extra-terrestrial life has not stopped astrophysicists from fancifully imagining that ET exists against all empirical evidence to the contrary.


Atheism discards much of the evidence before them which in turn eschews their interpretation of the fact. For example, Naturalism, refers to the view that nature is the ultimate substance from which all life and the whole of existence is comprised. Therefore first principles, eternal ideas, souls, spirits, divine reason, supernatural events and afterlife are considered absurdities in their worldview. As an end result, only reason is left, but within the naturalistic worldview, reason is only active because it is a reaction to stimuli or sensations (i.e., firing of neurons, chemical interactions). Would this disregard of principles not be considered a form of bias if it came from anyone other than a scientist?



The fact that humans can have a concept of infinite in a finite universe suggests that we are more than the sum of our parts. Many human emotions such as commitment, loyalty, and love extend human consciousness beyond anything observed in the natural world. Human consciousness is a mystery that has evaded decades of intensive research by neurophysiologists. According to a Wall Street Journal article: “When an organism's neural pathways grow sufficiently complex, materialists insist, their firings are somehow accompanied by consciousness. But despite decades of effort by philosophers and neurophysiologists, no one has been able to come up with a remotely plausible explanation of how this happens--how the hunk of gray meat in our skull gives rise to private Technicolor experience. One distinguished commentator on the mind-body problem, Daniel Dennett, author of Consciousness Explained, has been driven to declare that there is really no such thing as consciousness--we are all zombies, though we're unaware of it.” (Jim Holt. 1997. Science Resurrects God. The Wall Street Journal (December 24, 1997), Dow Jones & Co., Inc.)


According to Daniel J. Povinelli, from the University of Louisiana's Iberia Research Center humans differ vastly from any so-called related primate: "Humans constantly invoke unobservable phenomena and variables to explain why certain things are happening. Chimps operate in the world of concrete, tangible things that can be seen. The content of their minds is about the observable world."(Tuma, R.S. 2000. Thinking Like a Chimp. HMS Beagle, BioMedNet 90: feature 2, Originally cited at http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/imageofgod.html)


What Povinelli is saying is that humans have the ability for abstract thing, which is unlike any other animal or creature in the natural world. In light of such scientific data, it may be unwise for physicists and evolutionists to discard these supernatural qualities that reside in man as being absurd.


Physicists and evolutionary biologist commonly fall prey to the bias of Empiricism. Empiricism is the philosophical idea that there is no reality beyond what we prove with our senses. This philosophy teaches that the existence of all thought and immaterial existence is for the sole purpose of increase scientific observation. Many use this argument to "prove" that God cannot exist because He cannot be observed or His existence experimented.. But it is logically erroneous to assert that claims of positive truth (that God exists) bear a burden of proof, while claims of negative truth (Atheism) do not require proof.


Pure empiricism denies any learning through vicarious means. As intelligent beings, humans have the ability to learn not just through our observations and personal experiences but vicariously through historical principles. Though I never lived in a country whose government had toppled, I can read about the issues of that country and learn from their mistakes vicariously without having to endure the harsh experiences. This is the process of abstract thinking that cannot be accounted for in the natural world yet is observable through the scientific method.


This form of thinking not only devalues human life and existence but also ignores human life and experience as an evidence of the supernatural cosmological argument. In essence atheism will not allow the human experience to show that the uniqueness of human life in this universe is in itself evidence for the existence of God.

 

[Percepi]

(Part 1)

I thought it would be interesting to provide my thoughts on this post, seeing as how I'm an atheist.

I do not have the faith to be an atheist in the light of holes in atheistic theories.

We're just one sentence in and I have to correct you.

Christians keep trying to talk about how atheism is "faith" based. I feel like they do this because outspoken atheists tend to criticize the merits of faith, and Christians are trying to make atheists into hypocrites. The argument comes down to, "You criticize Christianity for being faith based, but atheism is faith based too!" This argument is both wrong and ignores the very reason why atheists make the argument against faith to begin with.

Christianity is based on faith. This isn't an atheist claim that Christians deny, faith is something Christians openly promote. They argue that you must have faith in God. They cherish faith as the ultimate symbol of trust. You believe in God, even when it seems he doesn't exist, because you know he exists.

To claim atheists have faith is to greatly undermine what faith is. Faith is to BELIEVE in something even when you can't see the evidence to support that belief. Atheism is a lack of belief. And before you argue, "Atheists believe there i no God", keep in mind this is still a negative belief and means the same thing as lacking a belief in God. We do not call lack of belief in something "faith" by default.

I lack belief in God not because that's what I want to believe, but because I do not find any valid evidence to believe God exists. This is not "faith" based anymore than lacking belief in Leprechauns or Vishnu is faith based.

Lastly, if you want to argue that lack of belief in Leprechauns and Vishnu IS faith based, then all you're doing is taking the word "faith" as used by Christians and making the meaning so vague that the word is completely useless.

If you call the lack of belief in God faith based, then you're essentially arguing that all opinion on God are faith based. And if all opinions of God are faith based, then what purpose is there in celebrating Christian faith above the so-called "faith" of atheists or of other religious people?

If you believe faith is something sacred, don't call atheism "faith" based. All it does is undermine how faith is used in Christianity.

In 1887, physicists believed in the Static Universe Theory. In 1915 physicists believed in the Einsteinian universe theory. In 1929 physicists traded that for the Expanding Universe Theory more commonly called the Big Bang. We also have the Oscillating Universe theory, the Inflationary Universe Theory and the more recent Multiverse theory. All of these theories cannot be disproven by scientific experiment, these theories cannot even be tested fully by experiment, nor can any claim the monopoly of fact. Throw in state-of-the-art M-theory, superstring theory and Brane cosmology and you have different ideas that simply try to justify or support a physicist’s position. Again no monopoly on fact.

1. These theories are not the merits of atheism. You don't need to accept any of them to lack belief in God. In fact, most atheists know nothing about these theories and could care less about them.

2. These theories weren't exclusive to atheists. Many of the physicists who backed these theories were Christian. And if you want to argue that these people weren't "true" Christian, then you need to keep in mind that this doesn't make them atheists. Regardless of what you might refer to them as, they were and are theists.

A theory is plausible only when the probability of that hypothesis is greater based on the available evidence and background information than on the background information alone (this is known as the Bayne calculus). All Atheistic theories are not supported logically by the complete evidence but are constructs of imagination to interpret facts.

I want to straight up say, "This is wrong", but how it's wrong depends on what you mean by "God".

Some definitions of God are contradictions, making said definitions of God an impossible concept. In this instance, an atheist can prove these definitions of God to be impossible by pointing out contradictions. I don't think this is what you're referring to.

What I think you're referring to is this idea that atheists try to disprove the non-existence of God with evidence that contradicts certain untestable natures. This is false.

Atheists tend to do one of two things.

1. They either try to find ways in which apologists arguments contradict either observed evidence or contradictions within the arguments themselves.

2. They demand proof of God's existence and dismiss the issue when evidence is not presented.

You're talking as if atheists are trying to find physical objects that disprove God. But it's literally impossible to find literal objects that can disprove an entity, that by definition, can not be observed (especially if that entity wills it). Of course, on the same note, there's no reason to believe in such an entity either since evidence for this entities existence also can not exist by definition.

And if I'm wrong and such evidence can exist, then it's up to you to present the evidence. Once you or any other Christian does that, we can have a discussion on the validity of that evidence.

Case in point, the limited resource argument for extra-terrestrial life has not stopped astrophysicists from fancifully imagining that ET exists against all empirical evidence to the contrary.

You're making a case in point against arguments in opposition to God by providing an example of an argument that is completely unrelated to whether or not God exists.

Atheism discards much of the evidence before them which in turn eschews their interpretation of the fact. For example, Naturalism, refers to the view that nature is the ultimate substance from which all life and the whole of existence is comprised. Therefore first principles, eternal ideas, souls, spirits, divine reason, supernatural events and afterlife are considered absurdities in their worldview.

These ideas are unproven. Unless you can prove these things exist with physical, empirical, evidence, there's no solid justification to believe in them.

Keep in mind, it's okay to believe something is real even when you lack evidence to support this belief. But it's an entirely different matter when you try to claim this unsubstantiated belief to be undoubtedly true. Naturalists don't have a problem with people who say, "I think there's an afterlife", they have a problem with people who say, "I know there's an afterlife."

For example, many scientists believe there is life elsewhere in the universe. They may have good reason to believe this, but unless they have actual empirical evidence, they can't claim to know for sure whether or not outside life actually does exist. This is why any scientist worth his salt will openly admit that they don't have an answer yet.

If you believe God exists because you think it's unlikely that he doesn't, that's fine. The details can still be debated, but it's honest.

But if you claim God MUST exist because it's unlikely that he doesn't, then you're making a claim that requires substantiated evidence. This argument alone is not enough, and this is what naturalists take issue with.

The fact that humans can have a concept of infinite in a finite universe suggests that we are more than the sum of our parts. Many human emotions such as commitment, loyalty, and love extend human consciousness beyond anything observed in the natural world.

What does it mean to "extend human consciousness"? Why can't commitment, loyalty, and love be the result of human consciousness? You're making a bold claim, what empirical evidence do you have?

 

[Percepi]

(Part 2)

Human consciousness is a mystery that has evaded decades of intensive research by neurophysiologists. According to a Wall Street Journal article

The Wall Street Journal is not an authority on neuroscience. And after searching the article online and reading it myself, I will attest that it leaves much to be desired. But, instead of focusing on the entire article, I'll address what you quoted:

“When an organism's neural pathways grow sufficiently complex, materialists insist, their firings are somehow accompanied by consciousness. But despite decades of effort by philosophers and neurophysiologists, no one has been able to come up with a remotely plausible explanation of how this happens--how the hunk of gray meat in our skull gives rise to private Technicolor experience. One distinguished commentator on the mind-body problem, Daniel Dennett, author of Consciousness Explained, has been driven to declare that there is really no such thing as consciousness--we are all zombies, though we're unaware of it.”

How is this proof of God's existence? All you're doing is arguing that we don't know something, therefore God must have done it. If you don't know where our consciousness comes from and you personally believe God did it, that's fine. But that is not evidence that God must have created consciousness.

This is the God of the Gaps fallacy.

I'm digressing here, but the following has nothing to do with religious debate.

The author claims, "no one has been able to come up with a remotely plausible explanation".

Just because we don't have a clear answer doesn't mean we don't have any plausible explanations. The following article is not conclusive evidence to our conscious beginnings, but it does show us that scientists do have plausible ideas of how our consciousness may have come to exist.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090316201459.htm

The author is right in that we don't have a conclusive answer. But to suggest we don't even have a plausible idea is absurd.

Having a plausible idea of where our consciousness came from is not evidence that our consciousness arose naturally, but I feel it's necessary to point out the author's dishonest remark.

Back on topic!

What Povinelli is saying is that humans have the ability for abstract thing, which is unlike any other animal or creature in the natural world. In light of such scientific data, it may be unwise for physicists and evolutionists to discard these supernatural qualities that reside in man as being absurd.

Just because these qualities are unique to humans does not mean they're supernatural.

Don't know why humans are the only species with these qualities? Good question. This isn't a problem for atheists because we simply don't know, and we'll admit it. But the fact that we don't have an answer does not prove or disprove God's existence.

Physicists and evolutionary biologist commonly fall prey to the bias of Empiricism. Empiricism is the philosophical idea that there is no reality beyond what we prove with our senses.

Wrong. Empiricism is the idea in which there's no reason to assume there's a reality beyond what we can observe. Empiricists have no problem admitting that there might be alternate realities, but without evidence of their existence, there's no reason to assume they exist.

Empiricists dabble in the things we can know, not the things we can't know. This is why we don't deal with supernatural claims that can't be known. If we can't know something, then it serves us no purpose to deal with it.

This philosophy teaches that the existence of all thought and immaterial existence is for the sole purpose of increase scientific observation.

Wrong. Empiricism relies on our ability to perceive data to further understanding. It does not state the purpose of thought nor does it state the purpose of immaterial existence.

Many use this argument to "prove" that God cannot exist because He cannot be observed or His existence experimented.

Wrong again. Lack of evidence for something is not evidence of that thing's non-existence. Lack of evidence for God is not proof of God's nonexistence. Anyone who argues, "You don't have proof of God, therefore he doesn't exist" is wrong. However, it's perfectly reasonable to claim, "You don't have proof of God, therefore there's no valid reason for me to accept he exists". The latter is what most well studied skeptics will tell you.

But it is logically erroneous to assert that claims of positive truth (that God exists) bear a burden of proof, while claims of negative truth (Atheism) do not require proof.

Wrong again. There is an unfathomable number of things that may possibly exist. For example, I can claim that a giant, invisible, flying, omnipotent, dimension hopping, tortoise exists. According to your logic, the burden of proof relies on you to disprove the existence of this entity.

Here is a wonderful video that goes over the burden of proof.

[video=youtube;KayBys8gaJY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY[/video]

Pure empiricism denies any learning through vicarious means. As intelligent beings, humans have the ability to learn not just through our observations and personal experiences but vicariously through historical principles. Though I never lived in a country whose government had toppled, I can read about the issues of that country and learn from their mistakes vicariously without having to endure the harsh experiences. This is the process of abstract thinking that cannot be accounted for in the natural world yet is observable through the scientific method.

Our understanding of history is only equivalent to our archaeological finds. Empiricism doesn't state that we must reject all of history because we weren't there ourselves. Empiricism leads us to search for remnants of the past that verify historical documents or prove historical events. And if you actually study history, you'll find that historical accounts that are only backed by a few documents without any other of evidence to verify their claims are taken with a mighty pinch of salt. History is something we try to understand to the best of our abilities with what information we can obtain. We don't blindly accept ancient documents to be fact, we observe their plausibility and we look for other proofs that back the ancient claims. This is why we have so many dead ends when it comes to historical documents.

This form of thinking not only devalues human life and existence

Value is an abstract concept, not a physical thing. Therefore the value of human life depends on what you use to determine value. If you believe human life is only valuable if it is deemed sacred by an entity, then human life won't have any value in a godless reality. But if you believe life is valuable based on our emotions, then you don't need a god to appreciate the happiness of others.

but also ignores human life and experience as an evidence of the supernatural cosmological argument.

When you say "ignores human life", I get the feeling you're referring to testimony. Do I really need to explain why testimony isn't proof of supernatural arguments?

If testimony was evidence, I'd have to believe in aliens, big foot, the loch ness monster, leprechauns, vampires, etc.

Heck, I'd also have to believe in Vishnu, Allah, Bastet, Beelzebub, and so on, and so fourth.

Oh, and what about testimonies on how ponzi schemes make people money, how homeopathy magically works, or how rubbing the tummy of a fat "Buddha" statue grants us luck?

That's not to say testimony is completely unreliable. But there's a reason why testimonies in court are the least viable forms of evidence. Unless you have evidence that backs your testimony, there's no reason why anyone should believe you.

 

[Percepi]

(Part 3)

In essence atheism will not allow the human experience to show that the uniqueness of human life in this universe is in itself evidence for the existence of God.

1. Which god?
2. If by "human experience" you mean testimony, then see my above statement on how unreliable testimony is to determine an absolute truth.

I'd also like to note that we do rely on testimony every day, but it's based on a risk-reward system. For example, I loaned a guy I used to go to high school with $10 because he told me his car was parked at home without any gas. I believed him because, in the case he lied, $10 isn't much of a loss. He only contacted me when he wanted money, so I eventually ignored him. On a separate occasion, I saw a man waiting outside of Wal-Mart who asked if I could give him a ride home because his mad girlfriend left him stranded. I loaned him $10 for a taxi and gave him my number so he could pay me back. Two weeks later, he texted me asking how I would like him to send me the money. I told him to keep his money, but he was honest when he said he would pay me back. The point of these two examples is to highlight how testimony is something we gamble on to various degrees.

 

[jettrooper]

Thank for your post. I do personally appreciate your thinking on the subject. You state that Atheism is a lack of belief. That is an interesting belief on Atheism! I hope that you see what you did there, you said that Atheism is a lack of belief while holding to the belief that Atheism contains no belief. The same way that you believing there is no valid evidence for the existence of God is a belief. There is no idea, action or philosophy in the human consciousness that is not a belief. Believing otherwise would again be an interesting belief.

You also, with all respect to you (again I value your intelligence here) are using abstract thinking to apply certainty to principles that you may not have been observed. That is the very definition of faith. You have not observed the beginning of the universe but you believe it happened. You have not observed the lack of some God in the creation of the universe but you believe something caused the universe. You have not observed a God in the perfect design that can support life here, but you believe in the existence of these anthropic principles. You do not observe the consciousness of other but you believe they exist. You cannot observe logic but you believe it exists. You cannot observe moral principles but clearly you believe in them since you sense a moral obligation to attempt to correct my thinking (which I am grateful for).

It would seem that you have allot of faith in something, the Christian simply credits God (or if you prefer the unmoved mover - Aristotle) for these things.

 

[Percepi]

Thank for your post. I do personally appreciate your thinking on the subject. You state that Atheism is a lack of belief. That is an interesting belief on Atheism! I hope that you see what you did there, you said that Atheism is a lack of belief while holding to the belief that Atheism contains no belief.

Believing there are no gods and being unsure if there are any gods are both forms in which a person can lack belief.

The same way that you believing there is no valid evidence for the existence of God is a belief.

Yes, absolutely everything we think about anything is a form of belief. How justified those beliefs are on the other hand is what's important. I believe cars run on gasoline. This belief is far more justified than the belief that cars run on the souls of beavers.

You also, with all respect to you (again I value your intelligence here) are using abstract thinking to apply certainty to principles that you may not have been observed.

There's no reason to assume information we don't have will contain evidence for a claim. We have to find the evidence, otherwise we don't know, won't know, and can't know.

This is why I say "I don't believe in God" instead of "There is no God". I may not believe there's a God, but I accept the possibility that God may exist. But until there's evidence either which way, I'm going to remain agnostic. (I'm an agnostic atheist)

You have not observed the beginning of the universe but you believe it happened.

No, I don't believe the universe had a beginning. I don't believe it didn't have a beginning either. I legitimately do not know, am completely undecided, and quite frankly I don't care. I am agnostic concerning the issue as to whether or not the universe began to exist.

You have not observed the lack of some God in the creation of the universe but you believe something caused the universe.

Even if this is what I believed, so what? As long as I'm willing to admit it's speculation and I don't pretend to have definite knowledge of what happened, who cares?

As I said before, there's a difference between saying you simply believe something happened and saying you know something happened (which is technically form of belief, but I think you know what I mean).

You have not observed a God in the perfect design that can support life here, but you believe in the existence of these anthropic principles. You do not observe the consciousness of other but you believe they exist.

Technically speaking, I can be a brain in a jar living a simulated reality. I could be a machine programmed to simulate a convincing alternate reality in which I'm not actually self aware of myself.

You cannot observe logic but you believe it exists.

Logic is an abstract principle, not something that physically exists.

You cannot observe moral principles but clearly you believe in them since you sense a moral obligation to attempt to correct my thinking (which I am grateful for).

Morality does not exist outside of mankind. Morality is man made.

It would seem that you have allot of faith in something, the Christian simply credits God (or if you prefer the unmoved mover - Aristotle) for these things.

The definition of faith seems to differ depending not only who you talk to, but in what context the word is being used.

Here's another video that does a wonderful job explaining lack of belief in gods. I hope it will help you understand better what it means when people say that and why it's important to distinguish from holding the positive belief that there are no gods.

[video=youtube;sNDZb0KtJDk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNDZb0KtJDk[/video]

 

[Percepi]

It would seem that you have allot of faith in something, the Christian simply credits God (or if you prefer the unmoved mover - Aristotle) for these things.

I guess to simplify. If you put it this way, then faith simply refers to having an opinion on something you're not sure of. But to have an opinion on what you think might be the case and to believe something for sure happened - those are two different things.

 

[jettrooper]

I must reject all of your above arguments. I believe that there are very compelling logical evidences for the existence of God.
Why do you attempt to make logical arguments that have no physical observable evidence outside of logical conclusions and expect me to accept them but you reject the same kind of logical arguments from Christians? You said

These ideas are unproven. Unless you can prove these things exist with physical, empirical, evidence, there's no solid justification to believe in them.

At the same time trying to use Logic, an unobservable, non empirical reality.

If you suggest that Logic is only a product of the mind then you must admit that in some possible world the laws of logic do not apply (that A is A and Not A at the same time). Logic cannot be a product of the human mind because even if the all humans ceased to exist in the universe, it would be true and non-contradictory that "no humans exist". If logic was a product of the human mind then it is arbitrary and no discourse is possible.

Again with all due respect, You contradict yourself. You state that morality is man made, however you feel a moral obligation to correct me and all Christians. So in reality you are only picking and choosing what you decide is moral all the while still adhering to some basic Christian morals (i.e. Truth).

You may not believe in morality, but your atheistic view cannot account for it and if you reply to this then you are again using a moral obligation (one that you feel is man made and not universal while still believing that morality is arbitrary) to try to refute me.

Your videos are interesting but they commit several logical fallacies. For instance, one says "There is no reason for the acquisition of beliefs to be a particular goal." Why should I believe that? The statement itself is self refuting because would that not be a belief about beliefs? I do think that an ignorant person does "lack" a belief only because they have not been introduced to the subject matter.

A lack of belief is only possible when a person has not been introduced to the subject matter. After the introduction, say X, a person must formulate a belief about X even if they don't know enough about X. If that person does not know enough about X then they may withhold judgment (not belief in the possibility) until enough information is provided. That person does not lack information and as those videos point out, people have already begun to formulate beliefs on the information already given.

You yourself are not displaying a lack of belief because you can't. You, in fact have a belief. If you truly did not have a belief, then you would be seeking new information on God and that is not what you are doing here. You are not displaying apathy nor uncertainty which would characterize a lack of belief. A lack of belief suggests a neutrality and if you were neutral due to the lack of information then you would not be here debating me. If you truly lacked belief, then you lack information and why would anyone what to learn something from you and why would you consider yourself an authority on this subject?

 

[Percepi]

I must reject all of your above arguments. I believe that there are very compelling logical evidences for the existence of God.

You can't prove anything with logic alone since logic is a process acted upon certain rules, values, etc. We can create logical "proofs" for god's existence as much as we can for his non-existence. Logic is very important, but it means absolutely nothing if we don't have evidence to base the logic off of.

For example, you might think it's logically sound that there must be a universe creator because the universe must have a beginning. But all you're doing is saying, "I think this is logical, therefore it's proof."

Why do you attempt to make logical arguments that have no physical observable evidence

I don't.

I might point out contradictions or flaws in your logic, but I have never once made any argument in attempt to prove God doesn't exist unless I disproved God's that can't logically exist in accordance to your own statements.

You don't get it. There's a difference between saying, "I have proof God doesn't exist" and "There is no proof that God exists." But you keep rejecting these differences.

At the same time trying to use Logic, an unobservable, non empirical reality.

Wrong. This is completely made up.

If you suggest that Logic is only a product of the mind then you must admit that in some possible world the laws of logic do not apply (that A is A and Not A at the same time).

Some possible worlds is not our world, so bringing them up is pointless.

Logic cannot be a product of the human mind because even if the all humans ceased to exist in the universe, it would be true and non-contradictory that "no humans exist". If logic was a product of the human mind then it is arbitrary and no discourse is possible.

Unless logic does come from human minds and if humans didn't exist, then logic would cease to exist. Simple, and maybe a little terrifying, but you're treating logic as something that exists not as a concept but as a physical entity.

If all humans ceased to exist, would the rules of chess exist? Logic would go away just as easily.

Again with all due respect, You contradict yourself. You state that morality is man made, however you feel a moral obligation to correct me and all Christians.

This isn't a contradiction. You're assuming that just because morality is man made means there's no reason for us to propagate our ideas. Our morality is based off of numerous principles, but the one you're ignoring is the effect morality has on our lives. We base our morality largely off of how our lives are effected by certain actions.

Suppose God is real, has dictated what is morally right or wrong, but there's no heaven or hell. What reason would there be to accept God's morality over our own? The only reason Christians hold God's morality in such high regard is because they're threatened with heaven and hell. If they're immoral, they will burn for all eternity. So this idea that morality is something that's just "right" or "wrong" is flawed. Morality isn't inherently right or wrong, it's based off of consequences.

Here's a video playlist that breaks down the logic used in Christian apologetics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lroKN5gdm08&list=PL3IOkNR8_9gpQa5teO1xQANB-3MiY17uk

The first video in the series is just an introduction. It's worth skipping if you want to jump straight in. The only reason I'm sharing this series is so that you're aware of the counter arguments against certain theistic apologetics.

The playlist was not linked to make you doubt your own views, but to help you understand mine.

So in reality you are only picking and choosing what you decide is moral all the while still adhering to some basic Christian morals (i.e. Truth).

Truth isn't a moral.

You may not believe in morality

I don't believe in Godly morality. Morality exists as a human concept. Again, you're wrong. Even worse, you're ignoring what I've already said.

Everything I say that doesn't make sense to you, you assume it can't be possible for someone to hold such views so you manipulate it around into a view I don't hold.

Your videos are interesting but they commit several logical fallacies. For instance, one says "There is no reason for the acquisition of beliefs to be a particular goal." Why should I believe that? The statement itself is self refuting because would that not be a belief about beliefs? I do think that an ignorant person does "lack" a belief only because they have not been introduced to the subject matter.

It's not self refuting just because you said it's self refuting. The rest of your paragraph doesn't even address your claim.

The rest of your paragraph talks about what it means to lack belief in God. It's clear we both have two entirely meanings to the phrase "lack of belief". And debating which phrase is correct will only distract us from the point that I was originally trying to make.

You can't just separate people into those who believe God is real and those who believe God isn't real. You also have people who are undecided.

 

[jettrooper]

Logic is very important, but it means absolutely nothing if we don't have evidence to base the logic off of.

So again you expect me to accept your Logical "proofs"? With due respect you are being fallacious for all evidence is founded in logic. You could not even define what evidence is without the first law of logic.

But all you're doing is saying, "I think this is logical, therefore it's proof."

Sir, when you say this, you are trying to use Logic to "prove" your point. But your statement breaks the first law of logic: The law of identity. A cannot be A and not A at the same time in the same sense. A is "proof" and evidence of A by it's identity.

Your videos offer no evidence to justify what the speaker is saying. In fact one thing he says is no one ever comes to Christianity based on the evidence but from peer pressure and social influences (paraphased). That cannot be true otherwise there would be no Christians at all, no one would have converted in the first century because there were no Christians to influence them. Also this would have to be true for Atheism as well, in other words kids grow up Atheist cause mom and dad were atheist. Whereas if Atheism is a lack of belief as you claim, then it is simply intellectual ignorance or laziness that prevents the child from examining the logical proofs. The video again claims that Christians have an aprior fallacy. Again this is inaccurate, many may but not all. Refer to C.S. Lewis for confirmation of this.

Some possible worlds is not our world, so bringing them up is pointless.

Sir, you missed the nomenclature here. All philosophers use this as a means of testing logical truths. If you did not understand what is being said here then you should study more and you simply are not ready to properly think through the issues. I do apologize if that sounds harsh, that is not my intent. You seem the kind of man that appreciates open honesty and not flattery. I too was once atheist, then wiccan, and finally Christian. For only one reason am I Christian, Logic. Which is interesting that Christ is called the Logos in Scriptures where we get the word logic.

 

[Percepi]

So again you expect me to accept your Logical "proofs"? With due respect you are being fallacious for all evidence is founded in logic. You could not even define what evidence is without the first law of logic.

Here's what I said in full context:

"You can't prove anything with logic alone since logic is a process acted upon certain rules, values, etc. We can create logical "proofs" for god's existence as much as we can for his non-existence. Logic is very important, but it means absolutely nothing if we don't have evidence to base the logic off of."

I should have been more clear. When I said we can create logical "proofs", I should have said logical "explanations" since those explanations aren't proof in and of themselves. Anyone can create logical arguments, but you need evidence to base those logical arguments off of. When I said "proofs", I was referring to arguments and not actual evidence. I apologize for not being clear.

Sir, when you say this, you are trying to use Logic to "prove" your point. But your statement breaks the first law of logic: The law of identity. A cannot be A and not A at the same time in the same sense. A is "proof" and evidence of A by it's identity.

This statement makes no sense what-so-ever. It doesn't address my statement at all.

Your videos offer no evidence

It's not disproving God. It's explaining how Christian apologetics fails. Christian apologetics are not based off of evidence.

Why do you demand evidence from me, but you believe yourself immune from having to supply evidence?

In fact one thing he says is no one ever comes to Christianity based on the evidence but from peer pressure and social influences (paraphased). That cannot be true otherwise there would be no Christians at all, no one would have converted in the first century because there were no Christians to influence them.

Unless you're wrong.

Also, keep in mind this argument can be used for any religion and even anti-religion.

If we break up what you said, you're essentially arguing: "There's proof of God because people believe in God."

examining the logical proofs.

Logical proofs aren't proofs. They aren't evidence. The ONLY way logic can be used to prove something is if you base that logic off of empirical evidence. Otherwise, it's not proof.

Refer to C.S. Lewis for confirmation of this.

I'm already proving C.S. Lewis wrong in this discussion since you're parroting what he says. C.S. Lewis believes you can prove something by coming up with an explanation that appears logical. C.S. Lewis does not understand that you need evidence to base logic off of - otherwise you're just making stuff up!

Essentially, you believe the only evidence you need for God is any made up argument that sounds right. And I know you're going to try and say I'm doing the same, but I never claimed God isn't real. I claimed there's no evidence for God and no reason to believe in him. You don't need evidence to prove you need evidence to believe in something.