JubalsCall

It's a negative claim because I would say NO there is no invisible pink unicorn which is a negative claim not a neutral one.

Tibbs

JubalsCall

Just because there is a biological explanation to the question does not mean that there could not be a god behind that biological body. If God is who Christians say he is, then it is very likely that he would have made us in a way where our bodies would want to, in a physiological and biological way, have experiences with Him to get to know Him and understand Him.

The whole idea that there is a God-shaped hole in all of us that only He can fill. He most likely made that hole in a biologival way just like in a spiritual way.

Tibbs

Mageth

JubalsCall:

Atheism is not believing in a god right?

Not exactly, or not necessarily, the way you're defining it.

From what you said they still make a descion not to believe, but one is just a stronger conviction than the other. It's just like people from other relgions who believe in their faith more than some other people in their faith.

They still made a positive claim that there is no god, unless they are agnostics and say that can't really know for sure.

As a (weak) atheist, I lack belief in god(s). I make no positive claim that there are no god(s). This doen't mean, however, that I'm not strongly atheistic towards some particular definitions of gods.

Further, I don't go around actively deciding not to believe in god(s). That makes it sound like there's really a god, I know it, and yet I choose not to believe in it. Rather, I lack belief in god(s) because, to me, the evidence for the existence of any god that I've so far examined is so poor that I cannot justify believing in the god(s). If there was better evidence, good enough to convince me, then I would believe in god(s).

JubalsCall

Yes, all claims to deities are positive, but what I am arguing is that the opposite, Atheism, is a negative claim. Not neutral. You can not go neutral unless you are an agnostic.

Tibbs

Mageth

Just because there is a biological explanation to the question does not mean that there could not be a god behind that biological body.

And there's exactly zero evidence that there is a god behind the biology. There is tons of evidence that natural processes (see: evolution) are behind our brain's physiology. If you want to prove god is behind it, you're going to have to produce evidence of such. Good luck.

If God is who Christians say he is, then it is very likely that he would have made us in a way where our bodies would want to, in a physiological and biological way, have experiences with Him to get to know Him and understand Him.

That's a big "if". And even if there were evidence that the supernatural was behind it, there would be no reason to assume it had to be the Christian god.

The whole idea that there is a God-shaped hole in all of us that only He can fill. He most likely made that hole in a biologival way just like in a spiritual way.

That's an idea, all right. Well, more of a speculation. There's no reason that it should be considered the "most likely".

If the dual-nature, spiritual/physical description of humankind, as often described, is true, why the need for the biological response mechanism to physiologically elicit religious feelings? Wasn't that supposed to be the bailiwick of our spirits? To me, the brain's built-in religious response mechanism is just one more card out from the bottom floor of the "dual nature" card house. It doesn't disprove that god exists, but it does close one more gap that god has to hide in.

Mageth

Yes, all claims to deities are positive, but what I am arguing is that the opposite, Atheism, is a negative claim. Not neutral. You can not go neutral unless you are an agnostic.

I'm an atheist - I lack belief in god(s). I don't deny god(s) exist, I haven't decided to believe that god(s) don't exist, and I don't claim that the existence of god(s) is unknowable. I merely claim that the evidence is insufficient for me to justify belief in god(s).

KnightWhoSaysNi

I read that book. I think that Parsons should have been Moreland's main opponent. I really couldn't understand most of what Nielsen was saying. Parsons was quite clear and very good at picking apart Moreland's arguments.

luvluv

Kind Bud:

Merciful and just are contradictions? Can you demonstrate that an entity that is merciful cannot also be just?

For example, are you both merciful and just? If not, do you a) Automatically forgive everyone for every wrong they do against you or in your precence or b) Try to get even with everyone for every single thing done against you.

Mageth:

I couldn't disagree more. First of all, dualism is hardly an essential component of any religion. (Least of all Christianity, with it's belief in a bodily ressurection as opposed to a spiritual ascension). There are Christian monists.

Further, when your body smells baking cookies, does the odor it percieves have an independant existence? If not for your brain ordering the reception from your olfactory nerves, would you think that "smells" existed at all? But since you have developed a nose, and the sensation of smell has lead you to reliable conclusions about the presence or absence of things like cookies, isn't it logical to trust that those smells tell us something real about the world. Now, suppose the human brain has the nascent quality of directly perceiving a spiritual world. Perhaps we are in the early stages of such an ability (like the first organisms to begin displaying an olfactory sense) and as such our ability to perceive the spiritual is not total. However, following these spiritual perceptions (when they are genuine) gives us results as trustworthy as when we use our sense of smell to detect the presence of cookies. If following our spiritual senses leads us to beneficial results on a more or less consistent basis, why is not evidence (paltry evidence, but evidence nonetheless) for the existence of a spiritual realm?

What naturalism cannot explain is why the ability to perceive what must be, according to naturalism, an illusion, should be BENEFICIAL. It cannot explain why there is so much benefit from believing in and (in my case, particularly) following the leadings of something which is not there. When my spritual hardwiring leads me in certain directions, and I follow, I benefit greatly more often than not. How does naturalism explain this? It can explain it away, by appeals to chance and psychological babble about wish fulfillment, but it can't do a whole lot about the general consensus in psychology that religious belief is psychologically beneficial with most people. Why was it necessary for nature to have provided us with an ability to percieve the divine if the divine did not exist? Inference would lead us to believe that, as there were sights to be seen before we had eyes and odors to be smelled before we have noses, so there may be a spirutal realm to be percieved, though we have not yet evolved (or been designed for) an ability to fully and accurately perceive it yet.

At the absolute best, the discovery of the biological nature of belief is totally neutral evidence.

Philosoft

At the same time? Presumably, we're talking about God's decision to punish or reward us eternally based on our thoughts and behaviors.

A just God might say, "Earthly deeds X, Y and Z justly deserve consequence P (some punishment; ignoring for the moment how this becomes a truism), therefore being B who performed X, Y and Z will receive P."

A merciful God might say, "Although Earthly deeds X, Y and Z justly deserve P, I will instead give B consequence R (an objectively less punitive consequence)."

Given these possibilities, how would a God act both justly and mercifully in the single case of the eternal destination of the soul of B? B receives either P or R, but not both, and God has determined beforehand that B, by virtue of having done X, Y and Z, justly deserves P.

luvluv

Well, consistent with Christian theology, he could be merciful in warning B about the consequences of actions X, Y, and Z; and also he could be merciful in providing a way to provide a means for the penalty for X, Y, and Z to be paid and to allow B an alternative means of dealing with His actions (repentance, restitution, etc.). That seems kind of obvious so I am a little reluctant to type it, as I feel I must be being set up.

But perhaps the best answer to the question is one of the traits that God is most consistently said to have in the Bible, the attribute of being "longsuffering". He is merciful in that He delays punishment as long as He can, and forgives when asked, but He is just in punishing sin when he has to.

It is pretty easy for me to see how God can be both merciful and just in the same instance. We do it all the time. Your son may wreck your $200, 000 sports car after he drove it without your permission. Mercifully, you are not going to expect him to pay for the entire 200, 000 dollars, because he cannot do that. But after your sense of justice, you will punish him in some way. It is simply consistent with moral decency to be both merciful and just. A being who was only one or the other would not be morally good by any conceivable standard.

If being committed to mercy and justice is a logical contradiction, none of us exist.