Those who believe there is no God live by faith

[McBell]

Very close now

so then 6 or 7?

 

[McBell]

Obviously a falsehood is a falsehood and if someone in error finds out that they made a mistake they need to acknowledge and own up to it and see it for what it is but until they do see their mistake that is all it is. You are were not correct in your interpretation of the scriptures again.

Ah, so your flat denial of making a mistake, regardless of how many times it is pointed out and explained to you, is your dishonest way of thinking you have skirted the Ninth Commandment.
Wonder if your God will be so easily fooled...

 

[McBell]

Your response...

Nope it is not. You will not admit it though as it shows that you are living by faith if you do not believe in God or that God does not exist. If you have no evidence for your belief you are living by faith just like those who you claim have no evidence for their belief.

Now you are bearing false witness.
And I am using your presented explanation of the term.

Though you did say you were like stage 6 or 7.
So that explains quite a bit.
Still does not make you any more correct.

 

[McBell]

You're just repeating the same nonsense that has already been addressed.

As I said, I don't know how to explain it any differently.

You don't understand the burden of proof.
You don't understand the difference between believing a claim and not believing a claim.
You don't understand the difference between not believing a claim, and making an opposite claim.

I don't know what else to tell you.

It seems to me that at this point he is trying real hard to convince someone he is right.
I suspect it is himself.

 

[night912]

Your response...

Nonsense. Where did I post in what you are quoting from as you say "not believing in anything is believing in anything" when I posted

"Not believing in anything is simply not believing in anything" Are you telling the truth. I am not sure what is more amusing you trying to claim I am saying things I am not of your friend

Wrong again. I never claimed that you said that. But..... you can always present the evidence of making the claim that I said that's what you said.

But I did say that you contradicted yourself. I'll gladly present the evidence.

Yep. Not believing in God or the existence of God is still a belief no matter how you want to spin it.

So, is not believing still a belief?

Not believing in anything is simply not believing in anything.

Or is not believing simply not believing?

You can always can always go with, "Not believing is simply not believing. But wait. That means that you were wrong this whole time about "Not believing that a god exist is still a belief that a god exist." It also means that you are wrong about atheism being a belief. That would make all those people in here that said you were wrong about atheism, all correct. You know what else? Do you recall that time you posted a bunch words believing that all those definitions actually said what you imagined they said. How that time you suggested that I should take it up with those academics if I don't agree with It? It's not too late for you to do that if you still have a problem with their definitions. Of course you could go the other route and keep on arguing with yourself that, "Not believing is still a belief."

As for me, a dilemma has come up. I'm not sure which is more amusing, you proving that you were wrong this whole time or you eagerly wanted to show me evidence to prove that I was correct about you when I was implying that you do believe that "Not believing (in anything) is beleiving (in anything).

@Ayjaydee giving you a winner for saying things I never said

Or maybe it was for showing that contradicted yourself. And unbeknownst to you, making you being the one to tear apart your own argument.

Not really. You simply gave your opinion for which you have no evidence. Therefore your faith which is not mine but yours.

I'm still waiting for you to show the evidence that I don't believe that I do not believe that a god exist.

Lesson to be learned here. Whenever you put a spin on something too many times, your brain might end spinning as well, resulting in you contradicting yourself or end up being the one who tear your own argument apart. Get some rest, you deserved it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Thankyou Nakosis someone who is at least being honest in their view which is pretty much the point of the OP.

The point of the OP appears to be to say that atheists' beliefs are faith-based. Nobody here is being dishonest.

perhaps you can prove why you think I do not understand it and why you think not believing in God or the existance of God or lack of belief is not a belief?

Not to you. It cannot be demonstrated to you that which you don't understand the middle ground between belief and disbelief, by which I mean belief that something is untrue, also a belief. You have been unable to grasp the idea of this middle place between belief and disbelief, which is neither.

So your saying most athiests are really agnostic? Interesting I have not heard that one before. Why do they call themselves athiests?

Because they don't believe in gods. That's what an atheist is. Every once in a while, it seems that you might be able to understand what agnostic atheism is, but then, alas, no. Right back to binary.

can you prove there is no God

No need. Nothing need be disproved to not be believed. You were given the gumball analogy. I need not prove that there are an odd number of gumballs to not believe that there is an even number.

Consider the words proven and disproven, They have the same relationship as belief and disbelief as I have defined disbelief above. They are both proof and disproof are both proof - proof that a statement is true or proof that it is false. I use the words belief, unbelief, and disbelief analogously. Unbelief requires no faith, nor proof or disproof.

But there is a middle ground there as well - unproven, by which I mean neither proven nor disproven. The issue is unsettled, and may eventually turn out to be proven true or disproved (proven false), but for now, we don't know, and neither believe nor disbelieve, an idea that continually eludes you.

Without definitive evidence you view is no different to anyone elses except it is in the opposite direction.

Yes, unbelief is different from both belief and disbelief, both of which can be evidence or faith-based, but unbelief requires no faith since nothing is being believed nor disbelieved.

Like many believers, you seem to think that it is impossible to live without faith-based beliefs. Why else would you say that all atheists believe by faith?

But you would be incorrect. It is very possible to train oneself not to believe anything without sufficient supporting evidence. It becomes second nature. No idea is accepted without a compelling evidence-based reason. It's part of learning critical analysis. One is taught to be skeptical of all claims, how to evaluate evidence, and how to go from established premises to sound conclusions using fallacy-free reasoning.

Why? Because believing by faith is a logical error. It's another word for guessing, but forgetting that you guessed and believing that you have knowledge.

Wheather these people have had an experience with aliens or not I do not know. I believe they believe their experience. If I am being honest with myself I do not know what experience they had one way or another. That would be my position as I have no evidence to prove them to be wrong.

But I'll bet that you don't believe them, nor disbelieve them. Your position seems to be in between - maybe they're right, maybe they're not, you don't disbelieve them, but neither do you believe them (unless you do)

Like I said, every now and again you seem to move toward an understanding of that middle place. One more attempt. You meet a person about whom you know nothing? Do you trust him? Do you distrust him? If so, you do so by faith, since you have no reason to take either position yet. Continuing with my use of un- and dis- as above, we could say that you neither trust nor distrust this person, a position we might call untrust, which is also undistrust. It's neither. It's a third position, and no faith is required to hold judgment until more is known about the character and trustworthiness of this person.

according to the scriptures no one ever finds God by waiting for evidence that God exists

That's pretty much the description of a nonexistent thing. Nobody ever finds evidence for any nonexistent thing. You won't find the leprechaun's pot of gold whether you wait for evidence to come to you or you go seek it.

to me that sounds more simply like a definition of an "unbeliever" (someone that does not believe) rather then an athiest which is generally defined as a disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

You can drop disbelief from your definition, since disbelieving atheists are a subset of those lacking belief in gods. You can also drop "God," since whatever is meant by that word is a subset of gods. We're left with an atheist being someone lacking a belief in gods.

Not really TM you have not addressed anything shared with you in the post you are quoting from. Your just repeating yourself without addressing what I have written to you to show why I disagree with what you have posted

But you didn't make an argument, and you provided no evidence to support your claim that atheism means the positive denial of the existence of gods. You simply keep repeating that atheism is a faith-based position, faith that gods don't exist, since there is way to rule out the possibility that there exists a god that doesn't want to be found, doesn't know we exist, or can't make itself known.

OK. That's what you believe, by faith, given the mountains of evidence you are ignoring from atheists who tell you that they do not make any faith-based claim about the nonexistence of gods. We exist. You can't understand that.

I think we're all a little dumbstruck that you can't make progress from the errors in your OP. How does that happen?

This is one way to disprove that chimps and apes were not common ancestors because we find chimps and apes do not mate. Thus, there were no hybrids. Then, it means that there was no common hybrid ancestor for humans and primates.

You've already been told that chimps are apes, and agreed that rather than apes, you should have written gorillas or orangutans.

No, it doesn't mean what you wrote. Mating and producing fertile offspring is the criterion for two organisms being of the same species. Nobody is claiming that chimps and gorillas are even in the same genus. There is no reason that they could not have descended from a different, earlier ape species now extinct.

I don't think you understand logic. if p -> q, then ~q -> ~p. p = universe had a beginning, q = God exists. If universe had a beginning, then God exists. It also means if no God exists, then universe did not have a beginning.

This has already been refuted as well. You haven't established that if a universe exists, it must have come from a god. If you think that you proved that a god must exist with that argument, try varying it a little. Substitute multiverse for God, and the same argument "proves" that there is a multiverse, not a god.

If you can see why that is wrong, perhaps you can see why your argument doesn't prove that a god exists or anything else. It's merely

Do you understand now that saying "I don't believe X is true" is NOT the same as saying "I believe X is false"?

No, he doesn't, and it appears that he never will. He seems incapable of conceiving of that middle ground. He doesn't just deny it exists, he never refers to it even as a possibility, or something to reject. He simply cannot conceive of it to deny it.

The analogy with biological conception seems apt. Here, a male sends a seed to a female, and if conditions are right, the seed is planted and a new life begins. This is the psychological analog of that. The thread has tried diligently to plant the seed of an idea in the field of his mind without success. He wasn't able to conceive the idea, so it appears nowhere in his posting. And to extend the analogy, in a sense, our minds are of different psychological species, with none of us able to plant the idea in his head.

 

[night912]

Non sequitur therefore not relevent. If you have evience then prove there is not God if not it is only your opinion and therefore faith.

Prove that you have faith and why it's necessary. If you can't then it is only opinion therefore no faith.

 

[james bond]

Yes, of course.



Most likely, a falsehood.



Yes, if 'if the universe had a beginning, then God exists' is true, then 'If God does not exist, then the universe had no beginning' is true.

But it is also the case that

If 'if wild monkeys exist, then Shakespeare was a monkey' is true, then 'If Shakespeare was not a monkey, then wild monkeys do not exist'.

In all cases, the p=>q statement is false.

Thank you. It's God's word so quite true.

The argument is Kalam Cosmological Argument which is quite powerful. The opposition does not have concrete evidence for big bang which is a theory while Kalam has the CMB. Prior to that, the creation scientists didn't have anything to hang our hats on but faith with eternal universe. I wouldn't be able to say anything against it if there was evidence for an eternal universe. However, science backed up the Bible with the discovery of the CMB. The weaknesses with the big bang are that it violates laws of physics as there was no space nor time. Even Hawking admitted a quantum particle needs space. It also needs time for motion. Moreover, it violates the laws of physics and rules of mathematics applied to the physical world, with its infinite temperature and density. The big bang also lacks detailed explanation unlike God's 7-day creation theory. Thus, it sounds like big bang theory is the falsehood.

If wild monkeys had a beginning, then there was a cause. We can disagree with that, but not the universe having a beginning. One needs space time and a spaceless and timeless, begingless, eternal, and all-powerful God. What caused the singularity?

This is where you are wrong because you cannot answer my questions above. The p -> q statement of if the universe had a beginning, then God exists is definitely true. However, this is not accepted as fact by the non-believers. Notice that it also shows that atheists are wrong if their premise that God doesn't exist is true.

I would agree your example is false, but you are also using a straw man fallacy.

 

[james bond]

The variation is crucial to evaluating witness testimony. Inconsistencies invalidate it. It isn't just that there is 'some variation'. There are actual strong differences in what they claim to have experienced.

The majority of circumstantial evidence or historical/forensic evidence is on the evolutionist side; the only scientific method is with natural selection. The creation side has the scientific method with natural selection and more (too much to list here). Where we have eyewitness testimony is with history of Jesus. The statements in the Bible has been studied and verified over the centuries. Not so much with Satan's Antibible of evolution since the 1850s. Oh, you can claim evidence since ancient times with evolutionary thinking and evidence, but how much would that add? It was the creation scientists who started science.

 

[Polymath257]

The p -> q statement of if the universe had a beginning, then God exists is definitely true.

Can you prove this statement is true? From what I can tell, it is false, so I would like to see how you justify it.

 

[Polymath257]

Thank you. It's God's word so quite true.

The argument is Kalam Cosmological Argument which is quite powerful. The opposition does not have concrete evidence for big bang which is a theory while Kalam has the CMB.

Um...the CMB was what supported the Big Bang model.
0

Prior to that, the creation scientists didn't have anything to hang our hats on but faith with eternal universe. I wouldn't be able to say anything against it if there was evidence for an eternal universe. However, science backed up the Bible with the discovery of the CMB.

Where in the Bible was the CMB predicted?

The weaknesses with the big bang are that it violates laws of physics as there was no space nor time. Even Hawking admitted a quantum particle needs space. It also needs time for motion. Moreover, it violates the laws of physics and rules of mathematics applied to the physical world, with its infinite temperature and density. The big bang also lacks detailed explanation unlike God's 7-day creation theory. Thus, it sounds like big bang theory is the falsehood.

Except that you are clearly NOT understanding what the BB theory says. For example, it does NOT discuss what happened when quantum gravity was important. But it does nicely deal with all times after inflation.

If wild monkeys had a beginning, then there was a cause. We can disagree with that, but not the universe having a beginning. One needs space time and a spaceless and timeless, begingless, eternal, and all-powerful God. What caused the singularity?

Why do you think it needed a cause? And, as a counter-point, what was the cause of God?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you. It's God's word so quite true.

The argument is Kalam Cosmological Argument which is quite powerful. The opposition does not have concrete evidence for big bang which is a theory while Kalam has the CMB. Prior to that, the creation scientists didn't have anything to hang our hats on but faith with eternal universe. I wouldn't be able to say anything against it if there was evidence for an eternal universe. However, science backed up the Bible with the discovery of the CMB. The weaknesses with the big bang are that it violates laws of physics as there was no space nor time. Even Hawking admitted a quantum particle needs space. It also needs time for motion. Moreover, it violates the laws of physics and rules of mathematics applied to the physical world, with its infinite temperature and density. The big bang also lacks detailed explanation unlike God's 7-day creation theory. Thus, it sounds like big bang theory is the falsehood.

If wild monkeys had a beginning, then there was a cause. We can disagree with that, but not the universe having a beginning. One needs space time and a spaceless and timeless, begingless, eternal, and all-powerful God. What caused the singularity?

This is where you are wrong because you cannot answer my questions above. The p -> q statement of if the universe had a beginning, then God exists is definitely true. However, this is not accepted as fact by the non-believers. Notice that it also shows that atheists are wrong if their premise that God doesn't exist is true.

I would agree your example is false, but you are also using a straw man fallacy.

You do not seem to realize that when you claim that the Big Bang is a theory that you are saying that it has been tested and verified to be correct countless times. That is what a scientific theory is. Non-science sorts tend to get the concept of a theory wrong almost all of the time.

And no, the Kalam is merely an argument from ignorance when one gets right down to it. It has no traction at all today. It only fools the gullible.

And before you claim that something "violates the laws of physics" you should ask a physicist. Now where can we find one at this site?

What supporters of the Kalam do not understand is that the same argument that they try to apply to the universe applies to their god. One cannot use special pleading to get out of it.

 

[Tiberius]

Well obviously a joke after reading your link quite funny. Maybe explained perhaps ny 1/3 of the Irish population getting drunk .

So when you are given a source that shows how your argument was incorrect, you find ways to say that it doesn't count rather than admitting that your original argument was flawed and incorrect?

But to your question no. Simply stating that sometimes what people believe is based on what they experience in their lives.

But that's not a good way to find out the truth about how the universe really works, is it?

As a Christian I believe that God reveals himself to us if we call on him, although this cannot be proven to those who do not believe in God or His Word so it is a belief by faith just the same as those who do not believe in God base their belief.

And how do you tell the difference between this and someone who feels God simply because they expected to feel him?

 

[Tiberius]

I do not know of any religions or people that believe in flying squirrels or any groups of people that have seen them. I would suggest you visit your doctor as soon as possible . (joking).

So if one person believes it, it's a delusion, but if lots of people believe it, it's a religion?

So religion is just a widespread delusion?

 

[3rdAngel]

I see that your inability to understand the written word is still strong. No matter how many times you repeat the same thing over and over again it does not help you. You ignored the fact that there were several definitions and chose only one. That is cherry picking an improper debating technique. I also see that many times you highlighted the word "falsehood". You did tell falsehoods. Let me explain your error a little more. Lying is telling a falsehood with an intent to deceive. I never said that you had the intent.

Ad hom comments are not a get out of jail free card. Please if you disagree with post # 583 linked that shows why your understanding of the ninth commandment is wrong in what you posted earlier, please address the post and scriptures stating why you disagree. Now your only changing your story here and agreeing with what I have just posted to you that shows why you are in error. I have only told you the truth but you do not believe it. This is sad for you. The example you gave in your first post shows you are not telling the truth now....

Subduction Zone said: ↑ Bearing false witness against your neighbor is making false claims about them. It is not necessarily lying about them, though a lie probably would be a false claim. What you seem to have a hard time understanding is that even if one believes what one said is true if what one said is incorrect that is bearing false witness. Let's say there was a party that we both were invited to,but I was the only one that went. For some odd reason I remember seeing you there. When asked about it I tell others that you were there. In reality you weren't. Now I did not lie about seeing you there, I really believed that you were there, but since you were not I would have been bearing false witness if I said that you were.

Your clearly trying to argue above that a mistake is bearing false witness when the scriptures teach and has been proven in post # 583 linked that the meaning of bearing false witness is falsehood or lies with the intent to deceive.

Just acknowledge you were wrong and learn something. I think you have though as your simply back peddling now and have tried to change your story in this post but it is too late again as you can see I quoted you word for word again.

Your welcome

 

[3rdAngel]

Nope, this is incorrect. Your reasoning appears to be only in the extremes. You are constantly forming black and white fallacies.
You need to learn the difference between lacking a belief and believing in nonexistence.

Nonsense. If you claim you do not believe in God or that God does not exist that is your belief that there is no God and that God does not exist. There is no extremes I have already posted many athiesm definitions. I have also asked you directly what you personally believe and you state in your own words that you believe there is no God and God does not exist. Lacking a belief means simply not to have one. All of the above do not prove there is no God neither are they evidence that there is no God but simply beliefs or no belief based on not believing that there is a God or gods. A disbelief (inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real; unbelief of do not believe) or lack of belief (lacking belief) in the existence of God or gods or even no belief is something that cannot be proven, therefore is faith based.

 

[3rdAngel]

And having a lot of people beliving that they have been contacted by a being, where they cannot agree on the properties of that being, is evidence that they are mistaken in their belief they have been contacted. The variation is crucial to evaluating witness testimony. Inconsistencies invalidate it. It isn't just that there is 'some variation'. There are actual strong differences in what they claim to have experienced.

Your kind of repeating yourself here without addressing what was posted to you. I think what you have missed here is that the point is that they do agree. This is what I am indeed claiming all these people (reference to christianity) all collectively agree on common basic points in which God has revlealed himself to them personally. Yes there is some variation in regards to scripture doctrines (this is not shift in evidence) and this is not in reference to the overall basic view in common to the collective witness that God has revealed himself to these people.

Now, I agree that people can have a 'strong feeling of presence of a being of great intelligence and goodness'. And, in fact, I think many people *train* themselves to have exactly that experience. And that invalidates the experience.

Once again this is simpy your opinion you cannot prove. You have no evidence that someone has not had an experience with God, you simply do not know. Just because people can train themselves to beleive things does not mean 1/3 of the world's collective witnesses of God have trained themselves to do so or all those those throughout time in every generation since the beginning. Without any evidence you cannot prove your claims. It is simply your opinion. What if your opinion is wrong? For those people that believe God has revealed himself to them it is personal evidence of God that cannot be explained, and then there is the world-wide collective witness, which provides further evidence that this persons experience is not an isolated case.

I have looked into this a LOT. There are no mathematical models that allow for computation of these probabilities. EVERY calculation I have seen is based on the hypotheses that many stages are probabilistically independent, which we *know* is wrong. We also know that simply multiplying a lot of numbers together *consisently* gives the wrong answer in many situation like what we are considering in the origin of life (feedback loop, complex, interconnected chemistry, etc). NO mathematical model of this situation is anywhere close to giving a prediction for the probability of life arising.

I am sure you have. As I posted earlier if you cannot test the plausability and assumptions of a mathamatical model it does not mean there is true, but at the same time it does not mean they are not true based on the assumptions that are being used. They are simply a guide nothing more in regards to possible correctness of a hypothesis. Even the multiplication of the numbers within the model not being precise I think is a given but that does not mean the models being used cannot give us an overall view or estimation of probability IMO. It is to this I am refering to.

And I see this as all a combination of propaganda (the fool in his heart) and promoting self-hypnosis

Perhaps you do and that is your opinion that you have no evidence for therefore a belief that you have faith in. It does not mean your view is true. I would say your view is simply propaganda for somthing you cannot prove because you have no evidence that this is true to the collective. I see a lot of truth in that scripture "the fool says in his heart there is no God" because it is something that cannot be proved by those who believe there is no God despite the evidence of the personal experiences of the collective witness and life.

Sorry, but this is the standard in *every* other area of study. If I want to claim the existence of a subatomic particle, I have to give *detailed* processes for detecting it. And then, belief is withheld until evidence is in. If I want to claim that some species of frog exists, I have to show good reason for thinking it exists (evidence) and belief will be withheld until a specimen is found. This is NOT simply an 'atheist saying it'. This is the standard universally, except in theology. I wonder why.

I am sorry that is not the way to find and know God. According to the scriptures the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God For it is written, He takes the wise in their own craftiness. There is no way to test for God if God does not want to be known yet he reveals himself to those who seek him. Your statemen is also not true in relation to experimentation why can also start with an hypothesis that is either proven or disproven based on scientific experimentation that provides quatified evidence based on statistics. That said even here the outcomes of each experiement and hypothesis is only as good as the next experiement and which can prove the previous experiment and hypthesis wrong at any time. The point being here, how do you test for God. If this could be done I am sure it would have been long ago. The fact remains though this is something that cannot be explained within science and there is no way to test for God or no god. Therefore all that remains are hypthesis that cannot be porven or not proven (scientifically speaking).

Once again, the lack of evidence is enough to withhold belief. This is true in general.

For me I would disagree and argue that the lack of evidence is simply that. A lack of evidence. It does not prove or disprove God only leaving behind theories and beliefs that cannot be proven - faith hence the OP.

I'm sure you have had some experiences that you found incredibly moving. Of that, I have no doubt. The question isn't the experience, but the interpretation and origin of that experience.

I am only one person that has had my experience with God but I a part of the collective witness of those who have had similar experiences with 1/3 of the current worlds population and those all throughout time in every generation since the begining of time. My personal experience your not able to understand as it was given to me personally as all the others of the colelctive witness. No one will ever find God I believe by trying to ask for evidence of God when it is all around you. In the days of JESUS the JEWS always asked him for a sign (miracle) they they may believe he was the Messiah or Son of God. Yet according to the scriptures he was going miricles and signs all around them that they simply choose to close their eyes to in order not to believe because they had no intention of believing no matter what. Even if definitive evidence of God was provided today people would simply find some way to show it is not evidence at all in order not to believe. So it is today and so it will be tommorrow until God chooses the day he will reveal himself to all mankind. At that time however it will be too late to all those who had the chance to seek him and believe but choose to deny him and his Word.

I think there is some problem with the bottom sections formatting of your post in the bottom section Poly, just letting you know. Anyhow thanks for sharing your view

 

[3rdAngel]

So? The differences are so much that it makes ALL of the testimony unreliable.

Not at all, apready addressed in the previous post. There are variations in the God reveals himself to us personally. The outcome is still the same though it is to each ones personal experience. This is consistent and verified in the world-wide collective witness. My comments in the post you are quoting from are in relation not to God's revelation to individuals but to variations in the understandings of what somesome scriptures teach.

 

[3rdAngel]

I dont consider that a discussion

Indeed Ayjay you are yet to make one.

 

[3rdAngel]

Well, that's the problem. One will not attempt to find a way out if they've already acomplshed deceiving themselves as being correct. That's what happens when you live your life by faith. They will use faith to make themselves believe that the sources they post up are saying the things they believe it is saying.

Perhaps this is applicable to you as well if you cannot prove there is no God and that God does not exist.