SophistiCat

weltschmerz,

You stated that everyone believes in God, that God's existence is evident to everyone at all times. Now, a number of people have stated (and I concur) that they do not, in fact, believe in God and that God's existence is not at all evident to them. Before we continue any further, I would like to ask you something. When people say something that they know is not true, they are lying. Do you believe that we lie to you?

If you believe that we lie to you, then there is no point in continuing this discussion. Otherwise, you should clarify or amend your statement.

DiamondH

OK the god you describe is self contradicting.

There is no such thing as a supreme being.

Your description of god sounds like you would like to be god.

Timetospend

Since you asked, I would be happy to point it out to you, even though it seems slightly odd to “show” what is “readily apparent.”

First, let’s set the stage for the point. Basically, I was merely taking the point as I understand it as raised by Weltschmerz. The thread started with a question concerning the “presumption of atheism.” This was countered with the proposition that babies are born atheist, because they must be taught to be theists (simplified statement). Weltschmerz then pointed out the default position is not atheism because “God has revealed Himself generally in such a way that all men know that God exists.”

Without quoting all of the second part of Romans 1, I believe he was referencing to:
Rom 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
NIV
One of the instances in which these qualities are seen is existence, which had to be caused somehow, which I will refer to below as first cause. These qualities do not necessarily show specifically the God of the Bible.

Now while the proposition is personally appealing to me on some level that a person who knows nothing becomes an atheist, the conceptual connection is more-than-a-little overdrawn. Without going through the logic already pointed out concerning the weakness of babies being atheist, I would add simple fact that any existing (or no-longer existing) culture in the history of the world have been theistic (of some kind) at some time in their development. Since the vast majority of people alive in the world today continue as theists, this argues strongly for something being evident to them and that theism would seem the evident base case for humanity, not atheism

While you did not quote it, I did refer to atheist as generally being intelligent in my earlier note. Another point of the existence of a god being “readily apparent” is the many theories suggested by atheist to explain away first cause. It takes great intelligence to conjure up these types of theoretical contrivances to explain away what is “clearly seen.” Some include:
-Something other than a god created the universe. (This does not explain first cause. What caused this “something” is still a question. If this “something” always existed, then it might as well be called a god.)
-Effect happening before cause. (While dislocating first cause in time creates interesting paradoxes, it does not explain it away. Even if you construct some kind of time loop for cause and effect, the time loop itself would have a cause even if it now exists outside our time.)
-Universe created by events that start in another universe. (This does not explain first cause as some had to create the originating universe.)
-Dying universe forming new universe. (While this might push first cause back in time, it does not explain it away.)
-No need for cause. (???? I suppose that holding to some kind of spontaneous creation of the universe has some appeal because of its mysticism. Unfortunately, I do not think that any of us are cognizant of anything happening “spontaneous” that did not have some kind of cause or require some kind of preparation.)
-Don’t know the cause, but does not have to be a god (probably the atheist’s best bet even though it does not explain away first cause and even though a god of some kind appears to be the only thing leftover when all the possibilities are considered.)

Obviously, these are simplifications of the arguments (both the statement of the counter to first cause and of why the counter does not work). These were the only ones that I could think of as I wrote this, but I am sure that I have missed some important ones; this is not a comprehensive review of all the theories.

Yes, I know. You have heard all of this before. It is a shame that you do not believe what is clearly seen.

Hope that the weather is nice somewhere south of Ft. Worth.

Thanks,

DiamondH

So if I don't believe in invisible beings I am missing some important part of the world?

kennethamy

How is it self-contradictory? What is the self-contradiction? You can't just state that something is self-contradictory-you have to show it. Otherwise I'll think that you are self-contradictory. And I bet you wouldn't like that one bit!

The last two sentences are just expressions of emotion.

kennethamy

Yes, indeed. Whatever invisible beings exist.

Jo

I'm animist agnostic atheist. Do you actually know how AGNOSTICISM can be applied?

DiamondH

How does an all-good god tolerate evil?

How do you know the mind of god?

DiamondH

How do these beings interact with world?

If I can see the interaction are they still invisible?

Jo

I disagree. It has no "default" value because it has the premise of "knowledge of theism" to deny/lack/discard/revile it. Etymologically one could make the argument of a "default position" but this is not an etymological argument.

The closest to a "default" one can get is "lack of knowledge". Cognitive conditioning plays a part AFTER (through a child's growth stages)be it theism and /or atheism.

I've seen this argument played out for years. It shouldnt even be an argument. Children used to try and substantiate a rational paradigm has no fundamental value except for those presenting it.