Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Smitty13 · 07-26-2002, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by scumble:
Most of the so-called evidence is used to "prove" the existence of whatever God with some unsubstantiated leap.

Supposedly, all the complex organisms must be designed, just because they are beyond our capability to manufacture. Why, exactly? It isn't really evidence.
I don't think any of us could think of any real evidence on the atheist side, and christians will bring up the usual stuff. I can't think of any reason at all to believe in God.

Forgive me for the double posting. I have just joined and find the discussion challenging. So to help me understand the "unsubstantiated leap", the process of building a case of "evidence" is just that, a process. But why is it an unsubstatiated leap to move to a belief in God, but it is not an unsubstatiated leap to not believe in God? For example, on another thread folllowing "first cause" type arguments, the case was made that a first cuase does not "prove" God exists. It would be a jump to make that statement. So why is it not a jump to make the statement "the first cause is not God"?

Jamie_L · 07-26-2002, 09:54 AM

Philosoft:

I've been thinking about this type of thing lately. Given this line of logic, what conclusion do you draw? Are you agnostic towards supernature, since we can never know anything about it. Or, do you assume there is no supernature, since you have been given no reason to think such a thing exists.

Jamie

Mageth · 07-26-2002, 10:23 AM

But why is it an unsubstatiated leap to move to a belief in God, but it is not an unsubstatiated leap to not believe in God?

Lacking belief in god is, IMO, the "default" position when one assumes a naturalistic universe. Lacking evidence, to believe in god would require an "unsubstantiated leap." I think some people call this "faith."

rainbow walking · 07-26-2002, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:
[QB]Philosoft,
It is all in the way you look at things. For me, God is at the beginning of reflection, not at the end. I interpret the world in that light, and hence the world itself becomes my evidence.

rw: Indeed, and how did you interpret the events of 9-11 looking through god?

rainbow walking · 07-26-2002, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Forgive me for the double posting. I have just joined and find the discussion challenging. So to help me understand the "unsubstantiated leap", the process of building a case of "evidence" is just that, a process.

rw: Is that bad?

Quote:

But why is it an unsubstatiated leap to move to a belief in God, but it is not an unsubstatiated leap to not believe in God? For example, on another thread folllowing "first cause" type arguments, the case was made that a first cuase does not "prove" God exists. It would be a jump to make that statement. So why is it not a jump to make the statement "the first cause is not God"?

rw: When one lives continuously in the midst of a nature that offers no evidence of a supernature or god, it is no "leap" to assess the evidence or lack of same and arrive at the only rational conclusion available.

Smitty13 · 07-26-2002, 10:45 AM

Lacking belief in god is, IMO, the "default" position when one assumes a naturalistic universe. Lacking evidence, to believe in god would require an "unsubstantiated leap." I think some people call this "faith."[/QB][/QUOTE]

So does that mean if I assume a theistic universe, belief in God becomes the "default position"? I admit my presuppositions effect how I view the evidence/arguments. As atheists, is it fair for me to assume that your presuppositions affect how you view things?

Philosoft · 07-26-2002, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ManM:

It is all in the way you look at things. For me, God is at the beginning of reflection, not at the end. I interpret the world in that light, and hence the world itself becomes my evidence. For others, naturalism is at the beginning of reflection. With naturalism at the beginning, the only sort of God to be found would be constrained in nature. Indeed, anything supernatural makes absolutely no sense if we assume naturalism. It isn't a problem with evidence, but with interpretation.

I don't know about all this, but I don't know how not to assume naturalism. I can't get my mind around a being that can "make" things happen without causing them.

99Percent · 07-26-2002, 11:03 AM

"Evidence of God" is an oxymoron. If there was evidence of God, then God would be naturalistic and logical. If there were evidence of God then there would be no need of faith, there would be no belief, just knowledge of its existence.

But would that be God?

Philosoft · 07-26-2002, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamie_L:
Philosoft:

I've been thinking about this type of thing lately. Given this line of logic, what conclusion do you draw? Are you agnostic towards supernature, since we can never know anything about it.

In a sense. I would even go so far as to say I'm a noncognitivist with regard to "supernature." I
have literally no idea what the various definitions refer to. "Supernature" means as much to me as "splork."

Quote:

Or, do you assume there is no supernature, since you have been given no reason to think such a thing exists.

I'd say no. I don't even know what I'm supposed to be assuming doesn't exist.

Mageth · 07-26-2002, 11:09 AM

So does that mean if I assume a theistic universe, belief in God becomes the "default position"? I admit my presuppositions effect how I view the evidence/arguments. As atheists, is it fair for me to assume that your presuppositions affect how you view things?

Yes, by assuming a "theistic" universe, you are by definition assuming the existence of God.

The problem was addressed well in RW's last post. Lacking any evidence of supernature or god, one has to "leap" to assume a Theistic universe. I suppose your religion even teaches you that, if it teaches Faith as a necessity.

I "presuppose" a naturalistic universe because I consider that the default, and only logical, position, since there is no evidence that would indicate the universe contains anything that cannot be explained naturalistically.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-26-2002, 09:54 AM	#12
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Philosoft: I've been thinking about this type of thing lately. Given this line of logic, what conclusion do you draw? Are you agnostic towards supernature, since we can never know anything about it. Or, do you assume there is no supernature, since you have been given no reason to think such a thing exists. Jamie

07-26-2002, 10:23 AM	#13
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	But why is it an unsubstatiated leap to move to a belief in God, but it is not an unsubstatiated leap to not believe in God? Lacking belief in god is, IMO, the "default" position when one assumes a naturalistic universe. Lacking evidence, to believe in god would require an "unsubstantiated leap." I think some people call this "faith."

07-26-2002, 10:45 AM	#16
Smitty13 Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: California Posts: 22	Lacking belief in god is, IMO, the "default" position when one assumes a naturalistic universe. Lacking evidence, to believe in god would require an "unsubstantiated leap." I think some people call this "faith."[/QB][/QUOTE] So does that mean if I assume a theistic universe, belief in God becomes the "default position"? I admit my presuppositions effect how I view the evidence/arguments. As atheists, is it fair for me to assume that your presuppositions affect how you view things?

07-26-2002, 11:03 AM	#18
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	"Evidence of God" is an oxymoron. If there was evidence of God, then God would be naturalistic and logical. If there were evidence of God then there would be no need of faith, there would be no belief, just knowledge of its existence. But would that be God?

07-26-2002, 11:09 AM	#20
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	So does that mean if I assume a theistic universe, belief in God becomes the "default position"? I admit my presuppositions effect how I view the evidence/arguments. As atheists, is it fair for me to assume that your presuppositions affect how you view things? Yes, by assuming a "theistic" universe, you are by definition assuming the existence of God. The problem was addressed well in RW's last post. Lacking any evidence of supernature or god, one has to "leap" to assume a Theistic universe. I suppose your religion even teaches you that, if it teaches Faith as a necessity. I "presuppose" a naturalistic universe because I consider that the default, and only logical, position, since there is no evidence that would indicate the universe contains anything that cannot be explained naturalistically.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.