LinuxPup

Is that statement absolutely true? Truth is absolute, and cannot be anything other than absolute. To deny this, is to make a truth claim, and that would be self-refuting. You cannot defeat the first principle of logic, the Law of Non-Contradiction, which essentially says: A cannot equal non-A. It is logically impossible. You may say, "we cannot know all truth", and you would be correct, but to say that because we don't know something, it is false, is incorrect.

hinduwoman: I am assuming you are a Hindu? Is this correct? I was under the impression Hinduism is polytheistic.


I have in the past doubted theism, but have come back to it because of, not in spite of, the empirical evidence. The complexity of the universe is just too great for me to justify atheism. I'm a skeptic at heart, and it has led me to Christ.

HRG

If you explain the complexity of the universe by postulating a creator, how will you explain the complexity of said creator - which is necessarily greater ?

I'm reminded of the old joke:

"How do you quickly make a small fortune?"
"By starting with a large one"

Regards,
HRG.

Pomp

LinuxPup,

You may say, "we cannot know all truth", and you would be correct, but to say that because we don't know something, it is false, is incorrect.

Who makes the claim that, because we do not know statement X to be true, statement X must be false?

I have in the past doubted theism, but have come back to it because of, not in spite of, the empirical evidence. The complexity of the universe is just too great for me to justify atheism.

Is this an argument from personal incredulity or do you have some empirical evidence that the Universe is too comples not to be the work of an intelligent designer?

tronvillain

Also, is a creator with the ability and inclination to create something as complex as the universe not more complex that what it was proposed to explain?

Pomp

tronvillain,

Also, is a creator with the ability and inclination to create something as complex as the universe not more complex that what it was proposed to explain?

I don't think this is necessarily the case. I see no a priori problem with the notion that I could design a machine less complex then myself that could, through the repeated application of complexity-enhancing algorithms, and the ability to modify its own design, eventually become more complex than I am.

Daydreamer

I agree, this is a weak spot in the God debate, and the weakest premise is the first one, but my solution is slightly different.

The best, or at least most honest way, I think is to place the burden of proof upon any declarative statement. Thus, if I say "I do not believe in a personal god" I am free from obligation, while if I say "There are no personal gods" I could be called upon to justify the claim just as theist would under premise 1.

This works fine for me because I tend to play the game defensively, waiting for them to make a stupid error then pouncing with on them with a list of flaws, but it chaffs on more offensive debaters.

britinusa

Imagine two cops - lets call them Starsky and Hutch - discussing a case:

Hutch: You know what, I don't think John Doe is the perp. There just isn't any evidence against him.

Starsky: Prove it.

I wonder if Ojuice5001 and his/her fellow xians see anything wrong with Starsky's absurd reply.
This apparently endless "burden of proof" debate is simply a smokescreen. The xians don't have any proof, if they did, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops. All they have is their ludicrous bible, faith, and a shitload of wishful thinking. They don't have a case. They know it, we know it. So why don't you people stop wasting our time with this "burden of proof" bullshit?
Either put up or shut up.

Koyaanisqatsi

For the ten billionth time, fictional creatures don't exist!

This fact is extant and irrefutable, meaning that no one--repeat no one--can refute it!

For anyone to come along and say, "But this fictional creature does exist," is to make a positive claim requiring proof.

There is nothing else but this, no matter how many illegitimate dances with semantics anyone wishes to employ.

That is an "absolute truth." Fictional creatures do not exist. Any claim to the contrary is precisely that, a claim.

If I could, I would unscrew every cult member's skull and tattoo this absolute, irrefutable fact on ever single neuron so that no one will ever again try this stupid, erroneous attempt at shifting the burden where it does not belong.

If I state "fictional creatures do not exist" the only thing I am doing is stating the obvious. It is not a truth claim that requires support since it is self-evident.

I hereby officially request the moderators add this fact into the Sec Web disclaimer alongside of the "Pascal's Wager" statement so that we never again have to waste bandwidth dealing with such blatantly incorrect thinking on behalf of anyone that comes here.

Atheism is the absence of belief in a god or gods. Period. I can shout "God does not exist" until the cows come home and I have still not made a positive claim requiring support of any kind since the statement, "God does not exist" is identical and perfectly interchangeable with stating "Fictional creatures do not exist!"

Enough of this stupidity for f*ck's sake.

leonarde

Daydreamer,
Nice distinction!

WJ

"Why is this?"

The apriori v. aposterior has been beat to death but still speaks to the importance of the religious experience (deduction-atheism v. inductive-theism arguments). To answer the question, the hang-up for the atheist will always be rational, objective, existence[deductive logic] in describing the nature of a Being.

Likewise, the contradiction will ALWAYS be that apriori and Being (ontological/phyical existence) do NOT mix. Mathematics [and God] describes the physical nature of a thing and is a timeless concept; while our conscious/physical existence (both us and the earth we live on) changes with time.

I'm being very honest when I say this, the problem is ego.

As soon as a theist or atheist say something about this metaphysical concept known as God, problems of Being will always surface. Shall we list those problems-again?

This is why science has always embraced logical necessity and synthetic apriori assertions about nature. we can't help but assume something is true (exists) for us to engage in a method todiscover its truth to begin with.

I think if you are atheist, you should not care to discuss it at all. It [God] doesn't exist, so simply state that, and move on. Ego and Being!

Those of us familiar with say SK's philosophy and epistemology, as well as basic physics, I think would understand this better.

just my opinion of course...

Walrus