can Atheists criticize Christians for believing in God out of blind faith?

[QUOTE="MindFreeze"]I find it saddening that people don't even know what 'atheism' is. Many tend to attach ideologies or belief systems to it, while the only thing that atheists share is their absence of belief in deities. NTWrightfan

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="NTWrightfan"] it would have to exist in the infinite number of moments in order to be uncaused.NTWrightfan

Well heres a pretty weak example of how god may exist:

You are diagnosed with the "sbshfslns" a very deadly disease. The Doctor estimates you'll be dead within the hour. But then, you have a dream. You are in a dark tunnel and you are walking about. You see that bright shiny exit, but then the devil appears. You run as fast as you can to exit. Once you are out of the tunnel....you awaken.

I know this is some pretty useless proof, but as a Christian i guess its all the proof i have left. Oh, and one question that goes against my beliefs: If god created everything.........

WHO CREATED GOD?

Well heres a pretty weak example of how god may exist:

You are diagnosed with the "sbshfslns" a very deadly disease. The Doctor estimates you'll be dead within the hour. But then, you have a dream. You are in a dark tunnel and you are walking about. You see that bright shiny exit, but then the devil appears. You run as fast as you can to exit. Once you are out of the tunnel....you awaken.

I know this is some pretty useless proof, but as a Christian i guess its all the proof i have left. Oh, and one question that goes against my beliefs: If god created everything.........

WHO CREATED GOD?

MetaKnight50

If religion can't be questioned in someone's opinion, then their faith must be as shallow as a puddle. Does this mean that other beliefs, like the kinds that fueled slavery/apartheid/the KKK shouldn't be questioned either? What is it about religion that it is so delicate, so unable to withstand scrutiny, that it crumbles with cries of "respect my beliefs" in every single debate? Sorry to offend y'all, but respect for ANY belief system does not equal a ban on all rational debate.... and even if it did, why in the world should I respect someone that believes in a big white dude sitting on a cloud who is responsible for maintaining the entire universe yet for some reason cares whether we eat pork or not (see Judaism)?

[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"][QUOTE="_Tobli_"]

This is incorrect.

Agnostic atheism

Weak atheism

xaos

[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"] oh wow, wikipedia, the most reliable scholarly source. they're just forms of agnosticism. _Tobli_

Wikipedia has a little something called [citation needed]. Which makes it reliable enough for this sort of thing. 

How is weak atheism a form of agnosticism?

Why? Funky_Llama

Simple, if something begins to exist, then that thing has a cause. Since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. The universe cannot cause itself to exist obviously because in order to cause itself to come into existence, it would have to already exist.

Which is why I am absolutely stunned that Daniel Dennet would seriously tout this counter-argument to the first-cause argument and various cosmological arguments.

And what created God?Funky_Llama

weak atheism purports itself to lack any claims to knowledge. hence, its agnostic. NTWrightfan

Agnosticism = No stance regarding the existence of god

Weak atheism = A stance on belief regarding the existence of god, but no definitive claim.

Well, when we pass away we will know the truth. And when we do find out we will watch others find out for themselves if god exists or not. Like a big puzzle with a piece missing because a dog ate it. THATS LIFE :DMetaKnight50

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="NTWrightfan"] oh wow, wikipedia, the most reliable scholarly source :roll: they're just forms of agnosticism. NTWrightfan

I dislike religious debates on the internet.

In my humble opinion, religion should be discussed in a bar, with plenty of refreshments and a conspicuous lack of improvised weapons. :D

 

Simple, if something begins to exist, then that thing has a cause. Since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. The universe cannot cause itself to exist obviously because in order to cause itself to come into existence, it would have to already exist.

Which is why I am absolutely stunned that Daniel Dennet would seriously tout this counter-argument to the first-cause argument and various cosmological arguments.

NTWrightfan

Since God never began to exist, God does not need a cause for his existence, unlike the universe would for the universe is a contingent entity.

NTWrightfan

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Why? NTWrightfan

Simple, if something begins to exist, then that thing has a cause. Since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. The universe cannot cause itself to exist obviously because in order to cause itself to come into existence, it would have to already exist.

Which is why I am absolutely stunned that Daniel Dennet would seriously tout this counter-argument to the first-cause argument and various cosmological arguments.

And what created God?Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"] weak atheism purports itself to lack any claims to knowledge. hence, its agnostic. DeeJayInphinity

[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

Simple, if something begins to exist, then that thing has a cause. Since the universe began to exist, it must have a cause. The universe cannot cause itself to exist obviously because in order to cause itself to come into existence, it would have to already exist.

Which is why I am absolutely stunned that Daniel Dennet would seriously tout this counter-argument to the first-cause argument and various cosmological arguments.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]And what created God?xaos

Why?Funky_Llama

Because Being does not come from nonbeing.

Thus he doesn't exist?Funky_Llama

Xaos, I really should have you know that only according to the Copenhagen interpretation (which does not have a scientific consensus backing it up) are quantum fluctuations uncaused. But another problem is that you misunderstand the premise. It is not a physical statement, but rather a metaphysical statement. Being does not come from nonbeing. NTWrightfan

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="NTWrightfan"] weak atheism purports itself to lack any claims to knowledge. hence, its agnostic. NTWrightfan

so agnostics are atheists? after all, they don't believe in God either. NTWrightfan

Just like there is agnostic atheism, there is also agnostic theism.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Why?NTWrightfan

Because Being does not come from nonbeing.

Thus he doesn't exist?Funky_Llama

2. That would mean he doesn't exist full stop.

[QUOTE="NTWrightfan"]Xaos, I really should have you know that only according to the Copenhagen interpretation (which does not have a scientific consensus backing it up) are quantum fluctuations uncaused. But another problem is that you misunderstand the premise. It is not a physical statement, but rather a metaphysical statement. Being does not come from nonbeing. xaos

but regardless, if things really can pop into existence completely uncaused out of nothing, then we have to ask why doesn't anything and everything pop into existence?

1. Why can't it? And, since God is a being, where did he come from?

2. That would mean he doesn't exist full stop.

Funky_Llama

2: God does not violate this principle because God never began to exist, hence he is not an example of being coming from nonbeing

3: you have to remember that there is a difference between contingent existence and necessary existence. Since God did nto begin to exist, God exists necessarily.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="NTWrightfan"]Xaos, I really should have you know that only according to the Copenhagen interpretation (which does not have a scientific consensus backing it up) are quantum fluctuations uncaused. But another problem is that you misunderstand the premise. It is not a physical statement, but rather a metaphysical statement. Being does not come from nonbeing. NTWrightfan

but regardless, if things really can pop into existence completely uncaused out of nothing, then we have to ask why doesn't anything and everything pop into existence?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]1. Why can't it? And, since God is a being, where did he come from?

2. That would mean he doesn't exist full stop.

NTWrightfan

2: God does not violate this principle because God never began to exist, hence he is not an example of being coming from nonbeing

3: you have to remember that there is a difference between contingent existence and necessary existence. Since God did nto begin to exist, God exists necessarily.

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="NTWrightfan"] weak atheism purports itself to lack any claims to knowledge. hence, its agnostic. NTWrightfan

Can you prove that being does not come from unbeing, or is that just an article of faith for you?xaos

but regardless, if things really can pop into existence completely uncaused out of nothing, then we have to ask why doesn't anything and everything pop into existence?

1. Why can't it? The burden of proof is on you to prove that the universe cannot spontenously begin to exist. Funky_Llama

:lol: Well how about the completely universal human experience that things do not pop into existence uncaused? Seriously, the statement "nonbeing does not give rise to being" is a properly basic belief. the burden of proof is on you to show that it is wrong. until then we have to assume that the universe cannot have come into existence uncaused. And try not to forget, the first premise is undoubtedly more true than its negation. It is a metaphysical statement, it applies to ALL REALITY. sorry xaos.

2. *sigh* Is it, or is it not the case, that any thing that exists requires a cause? Funky_Llama

It is not the case. remember, this is the Kalam Cosmological argument I am using, not the Thomist Cosmological argument.

3. I'm not sure that follows. :?Funky_Llama

xaos, the statment that nothing comes into existence uncaused is a properly basic belief. No one is worried about something like a bomb popping into existence out of nothing uncaused. If you want to deny this first principle of metaphysics, the burden of proof is on YOU.

but regardless, if things really can pop into existence completely uncaused out of nothing, then we have to ask why doesn't anything and everything pop into existence?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]1. Why can't it? And, since God is a being, where did he come from?

2. That would mean he doesn't exist full stop.

NTWrightfan

2: God does not violate this principle because God never began to exist, hence he is not an example of being coming from nonbeing

3: you have to remember that there is a difference between contingent existence and necessary existence. Since God did nto begin to exist, God exists necessarily.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]1. Why can't it? The burden of proof is on you to prove that the universe cannot spontenously begin to exist. NTWrightfan

:lol: Well how about the completely universal human experience that things do not pop into existence uncaused? Seriously, the statement "nonbeing does not give rise to being" is a properly basic belief. the burden of proof is on you to show that it is wrong. until then we have to assume that the universe cannot have come into existence uncaused. And try not to forget, the first premise is undoubtedly more true than its negation. It is a metaphysical statement, it applies to ALL REALITY. sorry xaos.

In the realm of empiricism, "dissatisfaction" is not sufficient, though. xaos

Note I said "no known reason", as I am not discounting the possibility that science will someday peel back another layer of how these thngs work, but every indication that we have currently is that quantum behavior is purely probabilistic, not deterministic. xaos

And picking up your thread with someone else, why is the existence of the universe innately "contingent" and not "necessary"; why can your assumption be applied to the universe and not to God? Really seems like special pleading to me.xaos

Given that we have one universe as a data point, it seems like folly to me to try to assume that principles that would apply to "other universes" based on that one data point. Put another way, any trend line can be drawn through a single point of data. And while I appreciate your apology, I will absolutely take the empirical evidence of the Kasimir effect over any amount of metaphysical sophistry.xaos

oh, and there's that problem of the fact that quantum fluctuations need spacetime to occur and do not transcend spacetime.

1. Why? And "outside" or "beyond" the universe none of the laws and understanding of the universe(everything we know) can be applied. There really is no logic to justify your claim. xMOBSTER23x

metaphysical truths apply to all of reality. hence, the universe needs a cause because it cannot come into existence out of nothing. to say that hte universe began uncaused is worse than magic.

2. That contradicts your first idea that everything must have a cause... xMOBSTER23x

I said that everything which begins to exist must have a cause

3.That's assuming you contradict your other claims, which renders your argument useless.xMOBSTER23x

[QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"]

metaphysical truths apply to all of reality. hence, the universe needs a cause because it cannot come into existence out of nothing. to say that hte universe began uncaused is worse than magic.

[QUOTE="xMOBSTER23x"]2. That contradicts your first idea that everything must have a cause... NTWrightfan

I said that everything which begins to exist must have a cause

3.That's assuming you contradict your other claims, which renders your argument useless.xMOBSTER23x

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

:lol: Well how about the completely universal human experience that things do not pop into existence uncaused? Seriously, the statement "nonbeing does not give rise to being" is a properly basic belief. the burden of proof is on you to show that it is wrong. until then we have to assume that the universe cannot have come into existence uncaused. And try not to forget, the first premise is undoubtedly more true than its negation. It is a metaphysical statement, it applies to ALL REALITY. sorry xaos.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]2. *sigh* Is it, or is it not the case, that any thing that exists requires a cause? NTWrightfan

It is not the case. remember, this is the Kalam Cosmological argument I am using, not the Thomist Cosmological argument.

3. I'm not sure that follows. :?Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] Believing he does not exist does nor imply knowledge, as it is only a belief.DeeJayInphinity

[QUOTE="htekemerald"][QUOTE="Darth-Caedus"]Nope, atheists blindly belive that there is no god, just as theists blindly belive that there isEMOEVOLUTION

Atheism is not the belief of science. You can be an atheist and believe that both science and religion are false.

[QUOTE="MindFreeze"]I find it saddening that people don't even know what 'atheism' is. Many tend to attach ideologies or belief systems to it, while the only thing that atheists share is their absence of belief in deities. NTWrightfan

[QUOTE="xaos"] Given that we have one universe as a data point, it seems like folly to me to try to assume that principles that would apply to "other universes" based on that one data point. Put another way, any trend line can be drawn through a single point of data. And while I appreciate your apology, I will absolutely take the empirical evidence of the Kasimir effect over any amount of metaphysical sophistry.NTWrightfan

oh, and there's that problem of the fact that quantum fluctuations need spacetime to occur and do not transcend spacetime.

Given that we have one universe as a data point, it seems like folly to me to try to assume that principles that would apply to "other universes" based on that one data point. Put another way, any trend line can be drawn through a single point of data. And while I appreciate your apology, I will absolutely take the empirical evidence of the Kasimir effect over any amount of metaphysical sophistry.xaos

oh, and there's that problem of the fact that quantum fluctuations need spacetime to occur and do not transcend spacetime.

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="NTWrightfan"] *facepalm* you haven't actually given me evidence that quantum fluctuations are actually uncaused

 

oh, and there's that problem of the fact that quantum fluctuations need spacetime to occur and do not transcend spacetime.

dsmccracken