Biff the unclean

“Innocence” is really not a condition that indicates the presence of anything. It merely indicates the absence of something, in this case “guilt.” Unless it can be shown that guilt is present then it is the only condition possible. Being the only condition possible then it must be presumed.
The same with Atheism.

Timetospend

Agreed. The atheist has not accepted what Paul states they clearly see. Paul’s section in the latter part of Romans 1 refers to a group who have some acceptance of some god, but the logic concerning seeing his powers at work applies to all. (You asked earlier if I would agree that Paul was wrong because you came up with some unverified tribe in the govi basin whose members did not believe in some kind of god. Clearly, while I am totally skeptical that this tribe exists, its existence would not matter to the overall discussion.)

By the way, you never did provide any proof against first cause, other than quoting atheist dogma that it does not prove that God exists. Presumably you cannot provide such evidence despite the fact that most believe in some kind of god for some reason. Oh yeah, you did address all those people believing…or did you?

And who convinced those who prosecuted non-believers? So on and so on.

So your position appears generally to be no one accepting the existence of a god is thinking through the subject, merely following what they have been taught. Again, I ask if you can prove this, as I see it offered over and over as atheist dogma.

Strangely, in other threads on this iidb site, atheist claim to have proved alleged contradictions. Of course, the smarter ones know that they cannot rigorously prove anything as reconciliation is always possible; such atheists propose that the test be based on what a reasonable person would determine (or something similar). As such, knowing that rigorous proof of any god is tough without God revealing himself to the individual, I agree that you do not have rigorous proof to prove that god exists in the way that you require to prove him. From a reasonable test, the vast majority of humanity agrees that a god (s) exist. Given the small and apparently decreasing number of atheists our there, I suspect that the number of theists thinking through why they believe is far, far greater than the number of people professing to be atheists. While you express atheist dogma that people generally do not think through why they believe what they believe, you have not provided evidence for this. I do not think that the evidence exists.

The existence of so many theists and so few atheists is a very strong argument against atheists being the default condition. Yes, I understand extraordinary claims and the like. As a conservative protestant Christian, I am almost always on the other end of this argument. However, atheists hermeneutics used elsewhere are appropriate to be used here. (Or atheists should give up trying to prove contradictions as they shold realize that they will never be able to do so if they are required to present rigorous proofs for them.)

It would be interesting to see atheist provide evidence of at least something.

No, not necessarily.

My original response to you was to answer a question that you posed. At no time have I operated under the illusion that you will agree or will ever agree with what I write.

My statement that I did not see much reason for further communication was based on:
-You apparently providing a shot at me, so confirmed in the above statement.
-A listing of stereotypical comments that atheists make of Christians in your previous post including much that I have not stated in this thread or on iidb(basically all the last part of your post, not requoted by me)

You also indicated that you were offended because I kept referring to what you should be able to see but which you claimed not to see. I found your comment to be disingeniune. From the beginning I had indicated that the evidence was clearly evident but that you would not agree with it. You asked for me to explain. How is that possible without referencing it.

Based on the above, it was not clear if further communication had any value.

Thanks,

Timetospend

Sorry to bump into this, but a question came up in my mind as I read this. Concerning Paul’s statement, why would not clearly seeing invisible attributes at work require some kind of internal…or at least something extremely akin to it?

Also, I would agree with your negative assessment that it would not lead immediately to God. Your race of aliens is a bit far-fetched. I think that when you expand the concept to include Paul’s statement that seeing God’s work would mean that any being that could do all that is necessary would be sufficiently close to being a god that you would need to call it a god of some kind.

I think that Calvin would agree that sensus divinatus would not lead fully to God but that the Spirit would be necessary as well. Although stretching my limited knowledge, I do not think that Plantinga would be as limiting.

By the way, even if you disregard Romans 1 as applying to sensus divinatus, Paul clearly speaks to it in Romans 2:
Rom 2:13-16
14 When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. 15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all.
NRSV

Thanks,

Gawen

What Biff said. And to add, my atheism is not presumed. It's due to the lack of evidence, regardless of what Timetospend and his mythical hero Paul says. While I entertain the thought that there is a miniscule chance of any god existing, the odds render the thought moot.

Gawen

Paul cannot know what anyone sees. It is an unsubstantiated assertion.

Again, using Paul to substantiate Paul or the bible is not a good thing.

If just one group of people or just one person found has no god belief, Paul's assertions are not true.

It is not my job to prove a first cause. Those who believe a god has always existed and caused something to be created must show the evidence.


Regardless of the first cause, if there ever was one, a majority belief in it does not make the belief true. I've already told you this.

If you have a first cause for this line of discussion, please provide it so we may discuss it.

The vast majority of people in the U.S. are Christian. How do you suppose they became this way? On the other hand, how do most people that convert to Islam in the U.S.? I'm sure you wouldn't say Allah came to them because Allah is self-evident.

Yes, as I'm sure that the fastest growing religion in the U.S. is Islam. You would agree that this number of people have thought it through using a reasonable test.

I have just provided evidence for my own atheistic belief above. OTOH, Theists do think through their beliefs. Without evidence of any god, their thinking is based on faith. We've been through this. Provide your evidence of any god existing and I very well may reconsider.

Babies are agnostic atheists. They know nothing and lack a belief of any kind. My children were not brought up with a god-belief. They learned about gods at school.

What you seem to be saying is transubstanitation, parthenogenesis and resurrection are......?

I do not prove biblical contradictions. I only list possible contradictions; at least they look that way to me. It's left to the believers to prove they are not contradictions. I have a list of about 33 contradictions I could list.

How much more vague can you be?

The shot comes straight out of the bible. Pardon me if you cannot or will not address it.

The last two posts I made said this:
and
Please provide said offense.

I have not yet seen this evidence. How am I disingenuous? I think we both are frank enough to understand each other's position.

You can reference it.
Well, that depends on what you base "value" on.

You're welcome

Timetospend

Agreed, but it was not being offered as an assertion or proof. It was offered concerning the context being used as answer to your question concerning the interpretation of what Paul wrote. Surely you would agree that Paul‘s writing, especially when it is being discussed, can be used to set its context.

Obviously not per Paul’s context. Furthermore, even seeing the qualities is insufficient to say that full belief is in place. All it is saying is that people are born to believe and have insights to believe, not that they do. I could go to John 1 to explore this point further, but not sure that there would be any value to you in doing it.

Without repeating evidence, such as the vast majority of people believing in some kind of god(s) indicates that a reasonable person apparently agrees with it, I am at a loss in how to respond to most of the rest of your note . As with your response above calling for me to prove an assertion, not made, I am not sure if you are following the argument across posts; perhaps you are simply following too many threads at the same time. I do not think that it is valuable to continue posting what I think that I have already posted.

I would agree that you will not be able to prove God ever in the rigorous way that you require.

[quote]
I do not prove biblical contradictions. I only list possible contradictions; at least they look that way to me. It's left to the believers to prove they are not contradictions. I have a list of about 33 contradictions I could list. [/quote}

Post away if you wish. Reconciliations are easy. The burden of proof to the believer is to show that they do not necessarily lead to contradiction given that the belief system of the believer can be used, such as:
-God exists and is omnipotent.
-God is the co-author of the NT and the OT such that God is the best interpreter of the old.
-The range of words allowing for varying interpretations
You can add to the list.

If we were to engage in this, you would soon be crying foul…that a reasonable person would not agree with the offered reconciliations. Of course, if the same criteria of a reasonable person is used for the existence of God, the discussion would be very short…as our exchange has demonstrated. Obviously, you will continue not to agree with me; otherwise you would not be an atheist.

It should also be noted that diverting every possible contradiction conceived by Bible skeptics does not prove that it is inerrant.

Thanks,

Doug Indeap

The phrase "presumption of atheism" could, I suppose, be interpreted any of several ways. Some might read it to mean that we are all born atheists, i.e., without any knowledge or beliefs of god(s), and any subsequent religious training necessarily proceeds from there. I see it as simply a restatement (in the context of the question of theism) of the general presumption of falsity that underlies logic and most forms of rational discourse, i.e., the presumption that a claim is false until it is proven to be true. Put otherwise, do not accept any proposition as true without sufficient reasons for supposing its truth. We operate on this proposition so much in our daily lives and it is so ingrained in our thought processes that it can readily be overlooked.

To the extent that some are put off by the phrase "presumption of atheism," suspecting some sort of undue tipping of the scales in debates about the existence of god(s), it may get in the way of understanding. Rather than speak of such a presumption, perhaps it is simpler to say that reason starts from the null hypothesis or a clean slate or a position of skepticism or doubt. Starting from there, any claim of god(s) should not be accepted unless proven. Absent such proof, the god-claim is rejected--which is all atheism is.

Timetospend

Good point.

A lot of the discussion in this thread has gotten off into a discussion of presuppositions (as someone else pointed out). Of course, presuppositions and presumptions, while different, are not unrelated...plus one does not exist separately from the other.

I think that your statement of the presumption of atheim in your first paragraph is typically the one that I hear atheist say. Babies cannot have this presumption or presuppostion as it requires thinking in a particular way. (One of the reasons that I wrote in this thread was the hilarious assertsion that babies are atheists because they have not formed a belief in God; that is knowing nothing makes a person to be an atheist. While there is an obvious conceptual connection, it is clearly overdrawn and does not seem consistent with the presumption stated by most atheist, although the definition of atheism varies so much it is not always easy to understand from whence a particular atheist is coming.)

As far as gaining a stronger position to tip the scales, this is not particularly imporatant to me. However, in reading through the notes in this iidb system, I am surprised by how little that most atheists seem to be willing to accept. It is almost like they think that if they give an inch, even when a foot is obvious, they will loose the entire argument. In debating the other side, I sometimes worry about the security issues that some atheists must be feeling as they seem very insecure.

Thanks,

kennethamy

But that is exactly what "presumption of atheism" comes to. You are just putting it into a different language. As I pointed out, the term "presumption" is most familiar in law in the phrase, "presumption of innocence", and there it means that the innocence of the accused is presumed in that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution. It does not mean that the accused is assumed innocent by anyone. To say that the accused is innocent is just to mark a particular procedure which has to be accepted; namely that the prosecution must "go forward" with evidence that will "defeat" the presumption of innocents. The same in true in the present case: the presumption of atheism is just that as a starting point, evidence must be presented to defeat atheism, not to defeat theism.

zorq

In western culture, it is most common for the party who is making a positive claim in a formal debate to speak first. The prosecution in a civil or criminal trial claims that "this person is guilty" and must make its case first. The defense uses a negative claim, "this person has no guilt." and speaks only after the prosecution has finished. This is the standard format for a trial in which a person is presumed innocent.

So to make an argument from a purely cultural tradition standpoint, the party who makes a positive claim about the supernatural (e.g. "God exists") ought to speak first and work from a presumption of atheism. and the party who makes a negative claim (e.g. "God does not exist") ought to speak second and defend their claim.

In fact it seems rather obvious that the very nature of the English language supports this matter of policy. Shouldn't the affirmative party indeed be asked to "affirm" their position, and the negative party asked only "negate" it.

Afterall, if the affirmative party has yet to affirm anything, what exists for the negative party to negate?