Evaluation of god-argument

Hi, Lars C. I have not yet found a cosmological argument in the philosophical literature which contains a premise whose sentence reads "whatever begins to exist is brought into being by something else". I hesitate to evaluate an argument for theism unless it is exactly the argument that some philosopher defends for theism. Where in the philosophical literature may I find the argument you have posted, without a single change? Please and thank you, Lars C.

The argument looks a bit similar to the kalam cosmological argument. I don't know if the argument I posted can be found anywhere in philosophical literature. The argument comes from a person I've recently have had an online conversation with.

According to Isaac Newton, "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".  This implies that for every action, there is a Primary Cause somewhere up the chain of events.  For example, if big bang theory is correct, the big bang implies that something caused it.  And, even if science can theorize an attributable cause for the big bang, there still must be a Primary Cause somewhere up the chain of events.  This may be one of many good reasons why Newton very strongly believed in God, who can say for sure?

There is no scientifically verifiable way to demonstrate that the existence of energy, motion, intelligence, life and mathematical design can exist, without any Eternal Intelligence and Primary Cause.  This, among many other reasons, is why atheism remains non-scientific superstition, having no foundation in evidence. 

Superstition is defined as "excessively credulous belief in and reverence for supernatural beings." Since atheists do not believe in God, a supernatural being, to what "non-scientific superstition" are you referring?

[To Richard Aberdeen]

Nor have you demonstrated that an eternal intelligence and primary cause is necessary. You seem to be using trickery to put the burden of proof on science to prove a negative but in reality you are just making a positive assertion that you can't support. The burden of proof still is upon you to demonstrate that an eternal intelligence exists and is necessary.

Thank you, Lars C. I hope your conversation with that person was a good experience. However, I think you will benefit more from engaging the material of philosophers—both proponents and critics—who do special work on analyzing and defending or critiquing a Kalam-style cosmological argument. 

What is the support for P3: "P3: Whatever brought the universe into being must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and powerful"?

Why must it be timeless, spaceless and immaterial? I suppose it must be powerful if it can create a universe but the other three attributes don't necessarily apply. It just as well could have been finite and perhaps exist in space materially? In any case it doesn't solve the problem of infinite regress. What brought this "whatever" into being?

Dr Bo, you've reinterpreted the first premise in the argument. The first premise starts, "whatever that begins to exist", so it is referring to creation from nothing, as "brought into being" implies; it's not referring to, "'stuff' rearranging forming new 'stuff'".

My point exactly. We have zero examples of any that "begins to exist" in that way. This makes the claim all the more speculative.

Not true, as you yourself say regarding this, "Possibly".

What did I write that is "not true"? Are you referring to the fact that I am open to the universe "beginning to exist" as a valid example of something that we know that DID begin to exist? The possibility of aliens sticking anal probes in humans does not mean we have examples of that happening. And if we are getting pedantic here, I don't believe it is possible that the universe began to exist from nothing... in terms of the possibility of such an event, I remain agnostic (i.e., we can say I don't believe it is impossible ).

Going over your points, a possible example is not the same as zero examples. "A possible example" = "zero examples" is not true.

You are using Equivocation . If we were referring to epistemic possibility, you would have a point, but we aren't. The fact that some example may exist doesn't change the fact that we don't have that example. Out of all the possible examples that may exist, we have zero of them.

Your own answers are the equivocation, I am the one being precise.

The first premise starts, "whatever that begins to exist", so it is referring to creation from nothing, as "brought into being" implies; it's not referring to, "'stuff' rearranging forming new 'stuff'".

If something has a cause how can it come from nothing? That's the opposite of the premise, which is that nothing begins to exists ex nihilo. 

No that's not an accurate representation of the premise

The premise is:

P1: whatever that begins to exist is brought into being by  something else.

Something else cannot be nothing, therefore your claim that the premise is creation from nothing is the misrepresentation. 

That is correct.  There is no evidence that the universal reality or anything contained therein could magically appear out of nowhere from nothing.  Even if this were true, there is no way of verifying any such mythology here on earth.

Do you want me to write in bigly with a crayon so you can follow? The point being discussed was what the premise was.

In order to claim that the universe either did or could have arisen from nothing and no Creator, one must be able to scientifically verify that energy can arise from no energy, motion from no motion, intelligence from no intelligence, life from no life, etc.  Otherwise, you are creating a "fake news" mythology that is no more valid than a Trump, Limbaugh or Hannity tirade.

From nothing and no creator as opposed to the christian mythology of from nothing and a creator? 

I'm not sure that anyone made such a claim anyway, so I'm not sure why you're making your claim, however there is actually no requirement that one must be scientifically able to verify anything before making a claim. People make claims all the time without scientific verification, for example that there's such a thing as gods.

Richard Dawkins has repeatedly publicly stated that he doesn't believe in either God or the spaghetti monster.  This is one of the worst logically fallacious statements known in the history of humanity.  As already noted, if one eliminates the spaghetti monster, they aren't left having to explain how the universe otherwise happens to exist.  The positions of Mr. Dawkins are neither clever, intelligent or wise.

So when I show that your previous irrelevant comment is false you just ignore this and change the subject to another irrelevant rant? 

I have no interest in either "Christian mythology" or any other mythology, which is why I don't believe in the blind faith religion of atheism.  Atheists tend to not like it when someone calls their bluff and asks them for verifiable evidence supporting their position.  If you want to believe in magically appearing universes, that's your business, just don't expect me to either agree with or respect your position.

I don't have any beliefs which aren't supported by sufficient evidence to draw a firm conclusion. You on the other hand believe in magical beings with no evidence whatsoever. 

Instead of spamming the same irrelevant and ignorant twaddle maybe you could get to work on coming up with some evidence that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. May his noodly appendages touch you.

Atheists tend to not like it when someone calls their bluff and asks them for verifiable evidence supporting their position.  If you want to believe in magically appearing universes, that's your business, just don't expect me to either agree with or respect your position.

I have verifiable evidence that you're an idiot.

Bryan wants us all to believe that the universe magically appeared and, he says I'm the idiot for challenging his non-evidence based scientifically indefensible position.  Well, I've been called worse.

If you can provide a link to where I said anything even slightly resembling your claim of what I want you to believe then you might be able to falsify the hypothesis that you're an idiot. I suspect that you'll do no such thing and your latest drivel will be added to the evidence supporting the hypothesis.

Here's a link for you here as you requested.  This book completely and entirely destroys your entire position, based on the actual scientific facts here in the 21st Century: http://freedomtracks.com/science.html 

The problem with atheism, in addition to having no foundation in evidence, is that a position of atheism or agnosticism doesn't match the known historical and scientific facts.  Atheism is just another blind faith religion, having no foundation in evidence, reason or common horse sense.

Actually what I requested was  a link to where I said anything even slightly resembling your claim of what I want you to believe and what you have provided is a link to your book on your website. You had the opportunity to falsify the hypothesis that you're an idiot and you failed completely. At the moment  ALL of the evidence supports the hypothesis.

Bryan asked for a link to evidence that HE SAID something to you, and you post a link to your own website of illogical information. As others have said, you seem disingenuous.

In your opinion which is most in doubt, P1 or P2?

well P1 at least has examples of things which do have a cause, whereas P3 is entirely baseless. I don't really see the need for degrees of doubt; I don't believe in things by degree. 

The creation from nothing is interesting. It seems logical that in order to create something then space, time and pre-existing matter is absolutely necessary. It would be impossible to create anything without it.

And existence (God) without space, time and matter (an immaterial, spaceless, timeless "being") I think is logically impossible. God would then be the same as nothingness.

You say P1 is an unproven assertion. Let's offer a proof given one reasonable axiom:

Axiom A1: In this universe there is no thing that can both exist and not exist at a single moment in time.

P1 asserts that whatever begins to exist is brought into being by something else.

Proof by contradiction:
1. If something that begins to exist is brought into existence by a precursor then there is a moment when the precursor exists and the thing does not exist.
2. If the precursor that brought the thing into existence is the thing itself, then by substitution into 1 there is a moment when the thing exists and the thing does not exist. This contradicts A1. QED.

You say P3 similarly asserts properties of the creating agent (timelessness etc), "again without proof". Let's take it that by time and space the OP meant the time and space of this universe, and let's offer a proof given one more reasonable axiom:
Axiom A2. The time and space of this universe are exclusive properties of things in this universe, including of this universe itself.

Proof:
By the first proof, this universe did not bring this universe into existence.  It follows that whatever brought this universe into existence was not this universe. It follows by A2 that the precursor was thus timeless and spaceless in respect to this universe. QED.

Finally, taking up point b) in your final paragraph, let's observe that we require only one precursor with the property of having never been brought into existence to bring this universe into existence. There is no contradiction to say everything else must have been brought into existence, so your point about comprehensiveness does not rule this out.

We thus have that the precursor was never brought into existence (eternal), timeless, and spaceless.

Your assertion that nothing useful is proven is in incorrect, although ultimately I don't believe that there is a proof that God exists, nor a proof that he doesn't exist.

Nicely argued, but I am not conviced by the proof in context: A1’s restriction to objects in this universe renders A1 inapplicable to the case of creation of this universe, which was the instance of interest. 

Further, taking up the presumed meaning of ‘outside space and time’,  it is inconsistent to restrict time (at least) to the present universe, and at the same time to ask what preceded the universe.  Without time, there can be no precursor (and, indeed, no moments). In considering a precursor to the present universe, we require that time extend in an ordered fashion outside the present universe. 

But in a sense, this is nitpicking. Even if one were to accept the whole of the argument in the OP, it still offers no proof  of the existence of a god. If we are willing to accept that a timeless and spaceless object (in which I include god-like entities) could be a source for the ‘present universe’, a timeless, spaceless quantum foam subject to random fluctuations capable of forming spacetime extrusions will do the job. God need not apply.

Is the alternative to something being brought into existence by something else that the something brought itself into existence as a pre-existing version of itself? Wouldn't the alternative be that there was no cause? Quantum fluctuations are apparently observed as appearing without a cause, and if this is true then P1 is false. 

How long is it since I last pointed out that atheism deals with only one thing? It isn't supposed to explain or solve anything. There's no purpose to not believing in something for which there is no evidence, so your "should" is simply irrelevant. 

Of course you couldn't allow such a subject go without giving one of your ranting sermons of utter nonsense. Not even an attempt to answer the question. 

That is the point.  Atheism has no foundation in evidence, it doesn't answer anything, it doesn't solve anything, nor does it improve anything.  As such, it has no value to the human race.

[To Richard Aberdeen]

Do you believe in fairies? If the answer is no insert your meaningless rant. 

Also, there is no requirement to have evidence to not believe in a claim which isn't supported by evidence. The only requirement of evidence is for the claim, and your constant attacks seem to be nothing but a diversion from the fact that you have no evidence to offer. That makes your belief irrational by definition.

I neither believe in fairies, the spaghetti monster or magically appearing universes.  However, I do believe that Richard Dawkins needs to go back to elementary logic school 1-A and start over.  As any first year philosophy major knows, one cannot rationally compare God to the spaghetti monster in the same sentence or thought, because if we eliminate the spaghetti monster, we aren't left having to explain how we and the universe otherwise happen to exist.  

Notwithstanding your red herring of changing the subject to Richard Dawkins, and your failure to understand that it's actually a very good analogy:

You don't believe in fairies? Not believing in fairies has no foundation in evidence, it doesn't answer anything, it doesn't solve anything, nor does it improve anything.  As such, it has no value to the human race. 

You don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster? Not believing in the flying spaghetti monster has no foundation in evidence, it doesn't answer anything, it doesn't solve anything, nor does it improve anything.  As such, it has no value to the human race.

BTW the flying spaghetti monster is actually an explanation for how we and the universe exist, and if we remove it we have no explanation whatsoever, unless you're not a science denier. 

This still has nothing whatsoever to do with the question. On some websites you'd get banned for continually railroading topics.

That may be true that on some non-evidence based websites I would get banned. Atheists tend to not like it when someone calls their bluff and asks them for verifiable evidence supporting their position.  If you want to believe in magically appearing universes, that's your business, just don't expect me to either agree with or respect your position.

[To Bryan]

What are you talking about non-evidence based websites? Pointing out logical fallacies doesn't require evidence. This is exactly what I mean, none of your posts are anything to do with logical fallacies, other than that you routinely commit them, but rather soapboxing bollocks which has nothing to do with the topic. 

Again you think I need evidence to not believe a claim which had no evidence. How exactly do you propose I provide evidence for this? That doesn't even make sense, are you even capable of critical thought?

Also the fact that you simply ignore every comment which points out your errors which you repeat, logical fallacies, and your off-topic rants and railroading, tells me that you're a very dishonest person. 

Thanks for your sensible comment. I was worried that someone was going to deny the divinity of the FSM and then tell me the Easter Bunny is false.

I wonder if it would be better if ALL comments from Richard, the No True Scotsman were ignored, as his ranting does not appear to be a genuine desire to contribute and they seem mostly to be preaching at readers in its style. There is a fellow in religious y'tube circles called Daft Dorky and reading the NTS reminds me of Daft D because they are similar in that it feels like we are watching a very trouble toddler throwing a tantrum in the mall; mildly irritating but not to be taken seriously.

You don't like that I declare myself an atheist huh? Well, then I'll do it again:

I AM AN ATHEIST!

Aaaah, that felt great :)

Whatever you declare yourself is between you and your Creator and it is not my problem.  Atheists tend to not like it when someone calls their bluff and asks them for verifiable evidence supporting their position.  If you want to believe in magically appearing universes, that's your business, just don't expect me to either agree with or respect your position.

1) An atheist is someone who does not believe in any gods . All the evidence we need to support the claim that we don't believe in any gods, is simply the fact that we don't believe in any gods . Atheism is a statement about belief, not about the existence of a god. If an atheist tells you they know how the universe began, similar to the obscenely arrogant position you hold , then they should present evidence to support their position. As for virtually all atheists that I have encountered, the answer is "I don't know the universe 'began,' but I am not convinced a god made it." And don't confuse plausible, naturalistic theories with claims that we have solved this mystery.

2) You clearly don't see the irony of your "magically appearing universes" catchphrase. You believe in a magic being that magically creates universes. As for me and most other atheists, we are unconvinced your magic being exists who can magically create universes. In fact, for the atheist, the most plausible explanations are ones that do not require "supernatural" intervention, which is a key component of "magic." Definitionally, you are invoking magic, not the atheist.

3) YOU have the burden of proof . In some cases, the atheist has burden of proof over the theist, but you are consistently making claims that you know that your magic god magically creates universes. It is YOUR responsibility to provide evidence for it, not demand that atheists provide evidence against it (thus providing evidence for why they don't believe in your claims).

Please read what I wrote carefully, then read it again. Consider these points each time you post on this forum.

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Maybe he won't post again when he sees he's on 69 points, either because he likes the sexy number, or because he's scared of the magic behind it. One can hope at least.

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

As I have read through books on the philosophy of religion, and books and articles published by scholars on the very topic of atheism, I have noticed a commonality.

Chad Meister in his “Introducing Philosophy of Religion” (2009) and Keith Yandell in his “Philosophy of Religion: A Contemporary Introduction” (1999) agree that atheism is properly defined as a metaphysical view.

The late philosopher of religion William L Rowe states atheism as such in his www.kul.pl/files/57/nauka. . . Graham Oppy, who has authored books on the topic of atheism, including “Atheism: the Basics” (2018) and “Atheism and Agnosticism” (2018) states that “properly we should define…’atheism’ as the view that there are no gods” and that it should be properly understood, within the context of monotheism, as the view “God doesn’t exist”. He states it here ( m.youtube.com/watch?v=jie. . .

Paul Draper, philosopher and co-editor of topics in the Philosophy of Religion in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, acknowledges that defining atheism as a psychological state is not ”the” correct definition, and provides reasons for why atheism is defined as the proposition that theism is false. See his work in the Stanford Encyclopedia on Atheism and Agnosticism. Matt McCormick, a philosopher of religion who specializes in the concept of atheism, says in his Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article entitled “Atheism” that atheism is “the view that there is no God”.

This list is not complete. Suffice it to say that if Richard Aberdeen thinks that atheism is a metaphysical view standing in contrast to theism,  or that the psychological definition is not thee correct definition, then he is in esteemed company among many influential scholars on the topic of atheism and the philosophy of religion. Do have any remarks to make here, Dr. Bennett? Thank you.

Yes, Cherry Picking a few people who choose to define a term is not helpful not does it make it accurate. Here are just some of the sources that define atheism as a lack of belief in any gods:

• Google ("definition of atheism")
• Webster
• Wikipedia
• American Atheists "Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. "
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I can do this all day. Granted, there are sources that define atheism as a declaration that no god exists. How is it even possible at anyone can seriously make the claim that something like a generic god cannot exist given our inability to know everything? The definition itself is absurd. Three of the four philosophers you mention are Christian. This is your confirmation bias at work. If you want an accurate view of atheism, start reading more atheists philosophers.

Further, perhaps we should listen to those who use the label "atheist" on what they mean by atheist. Allowing Christians to define atheism is like allowing Richard Dawkins to define God (“[God is] a vindictive bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser , a misogynistic, homophobic racist, an infanticidal, genocidal, phillicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”)

Bottom line, Richard is misrepresenting atheists - at the very least those of us who post on this site, plus his buddies Dawkins and Tyson.

Those are my remarks. And if I have remarks, I will make them; you don't need to prompt me. If I don't make them, it is because the thread devolved into a rambling theological or political debate rather than a productive discussion of logical fallacies.

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

Thank you kindly for you remarks, Dr. Bennett, but the sources you cite do not come out of philosophical scholarship on the concept of atheism and, therefore, do not begin to address either the first or last paragraph of my previous comment. Also, your response contains many inaccuracies and falls flat in several ways.

I notice you cites a relevant article from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I’d be surprised if you gave it a fair read. The article does not say that atheism is a psychological “lack of belief in any gods”. I mentioned that in my comment—the article written by Matt McCormick. Please, see the first sentence under the section entitled “What is Atheism?”.

And you say, “Three of the four philosophers you mention are Christian. This is your confirmation bias at work.” 

What a groundless accusation. Anyone who read my comment knows that I named six philosophers. What’s more, two of them and not three were Christians at the time that the works I cited were published, as far as I know, unless you have other data. Granting that three were Christians, still my comment would have included but a 50/50 ratio of theists to atheists and, moreover, my thoughts concerning Christianity or whether there is a God are unknown to you. Not that being a Christian has anything to do with what definition of atheism one accepts. The non-Christians I cited defined it the same way as the Christians.

You say that, “perhaps we should listen to those who use the label "atheist" on what they mean by atheist.”

Your advice does not conflict with my method. Four of my six sources refer to self-proclaimed atheist scholars and philosophers of religion. 

You say that “Yes, Cherry Picking a few people who choose to define a term is not helpful not does it make it accurate”, and later you say that “If you want an accurate view of atheism, start reading more atheists philosophers.”

Dr. Bennett, although you have sought-after expertise in your field of practice, you must think it's not obvious that you have not kept up with the philosophy of religion. Not to mention that none of the sources you name—of those containing the definition you endorsed—includes citation of an atheist philosopher, contrary to your very advice to me. (I saw none on the staff page of American Atheist.)

Anyways, I'm not alone in saying, on the basis of experience in philosophy, that philosophers commonly accept that "atheism" denotes disbelief in God or gods. McCormick observes in his article that "It has come to be widely accepted that to be an atheist is to affirm the non-existence of God”. Draper reports that “Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that ‘atheism’ shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition.”

However, if Richard Aberdeen had misrepresented you in particular, then I’m glad you have now provided him (and us) with a clearer picture of your standing. What you probably need is a more precise terminology.

I stand corrected on the accusation that you referenced 4 philosophers - in rereading your post there are 6 mentioned.

Some philosophers defined atheism a way that I and all the other atheists Richard has been interacting with have flat out rejected as a description of our positions. The definitions we use are in line with The American Atheists, the American and British Humanist associations, Center for Inquiry, and likely most major modern secular organizations (at least in the United States based on a random selection of a handful on the list).

Anyways, I'm not alone in saying, on the basis of experience in philosophy, that philosophers commonly accept that "atheism" denotes disbelief in God or gods. 

Agreed. And I am fine with the fact that some philosophers also think it denotes a metaphysical claim. The bottom line is what atheism means to person who uses the label.

How you and others define what I believe or not is their choice. My only proviso is that I can use the same standards when defining the cohort I choose. All Christians, tennis players and road construction workers believe xyz.  I was an atheist until an hour ago. Now I KNOW the FSMonster is my saviour- or is it savoury? I might change in the next few hours and only believe instead of know.  

In philosophy it makes sense to define it that way, because a lack of belief in a god is covered by the proposition of theism. But a label to describe someone's lack of belief in gods is not philosophy, so it's irrelevant what it means in philosophy.

It is not "arrogant" as you say, to challenge someone who embraces atheism.  Rather, it is a most extreme position of arrogance to claim there either is no God or might be no God.  Consider for example, if a microbe living in a petri dish claimed that no one created the dish and there is no scientist observing his actions.  How in fact, could the microbe honestly know and likewise, how in fact can a position of atheism be remotely honest?

I've never seen any evidence that there is such a thing as a god. To believe a claim which isn't supported by evidence is the very definition of irrational. You may not like it if your beliefs are referred to as irrational but it makes no difference to the fact.

On the other hand I can understand why people who had very limited understanding of the world around them would invent stories, especially to tell their children instead of "I dunno". The god of the bible is very clearly taken from previous mythoogy, along with many of the stories, and it was also very clearly a tribal god in a time when tribes went to war with tribes who had their own gods. 

No evidence for the existence, and a very real explanation for the mythology. There is nothing rational in believing, at all.

I'm not convinced that I have a Creator. You say it's not your problem what I declare myself, but you did complain that I did. So clearly you have a problem with it. Shall I complain and rant when you call yourself a theist?

There is no bluff. It is the theist who claims that a god exists who has the burden of proof and who needs to give verifiable evidence. When someone says they don't believe, or are not convinced, that a god exists, they have no burden of proof. If some atheists claim God does not exist, sure, they might have to provide proof, but I don't think most atheists assert that.

It's also quite silly and ignorant to call atheism a religion.

I don't believe in magically appearing universes, you are making a straw man. I don't believe in gods who magically creates universes out of nothing either.

Your frustrated atheistophobic rant is very off-topic and not very helpful. If you can't contribute to this discussion in a cordial and productive manner then just get lost.

[To Lars C]

If you claim that atheism is just a denial in belief in gods, then you are claiming that the universe is a non-designed, non created reality.   Atheism represents at least five claims: 1) Atheism makes no claims (a lot of atheists claim this); 2 & 3) There is no God or gods; 4) The universe is not a result of deliberate conception, design and creation; and 5) the Encyclopedia Britannica is somehow very wrong in regards to the correct definition of atheism.

Both the Encyclopedia Britannica and many historical and other scholars define atheism as a religion.  Religion is human opinion concerning God and correct moral conduct.  If you claim to not believe in God, this is just another blind faith religious opinion, unless and until you can provide scientific verifiable evidence that energy can arise from no energy, motion from no motion, life from no life and, that mathematical design and the complex language of DNA can somehow magically exist unto itself.

It takes a lot more faith to be an atheist than I personally have any ability to muster up.  It is just too hard for me to believe that all of the above along with the rest of the universal reality magically appeared.  Try as I might, I find such a position to be entirely childish, non-scientific and irrational.

How about you just accept what people say they mean instead of arguing about definitions? Words are symbols to convey meaning, and if the person you are talking to tells you they mean X then they mean X. End of. 

Did you know that the word set has 430 different meanings? Do you argue like a petulant toddler about what someone means when they use that word, or do you reserve being a prick for telling atheists what they think? The evidence is mounting and mounting and not even a hint of falsification.

You're the one who said I don't know what atheism means.  I do know what it means--I take the trouble to actually study the historical and scientific evidence.  Obviously you don't. 

It was Bo Bennett who was arguing with me that my definitions weren't accurate, so I copied their meaning  from Webster's dictionary.  I stated previously that language is imperfect medium, which changes over time in every culture. 

Anyone with an eighth grade education knows that, just like any eighth grader knows that the universal reality didn't magically appear.  You have to go to university before some professor poisons your mind regarding that.

[To Richard Aberdeen]

You're the one who said I don't know what atheism means. 

And here is what I actually said:

"How long is it since I last pointed out that atheism deals with only one thing? It isn't supposed to explain or solve anything. There's no purpose to not believing in something for which there is no evidence, so your "should" is simply irrelevant."

There are different definitions, and the one which relates to an atheist is a lack of belief in gods. When you choose to argue that atheist means something other than what atheists say it means, and you point to an alternative definition of atheism ( not atheist), you are guilty of an equivocation fallacy (do you even understand what a logical fallacy is?). Just accept what people tell you they mean and stop acting like a baby.

I take the trouble to actually study the historical and scientific evidence.  Obviously you don't. 

I've no idea what you're talking about. Evidence of what? There is no evidence for the existence of a god, and it's impossible to prove that an entity doesn't exist (other than via contradictions of definition). 

It was Bo Bennett who was arguing with me that my definitions weren't accurate, so I copied their meaning  from Webster's dictionary.  I stated previously that language is imperfect medium, which changes over time in every culture. 

Actually he was responding to your claim of how atheism is defined, and was showing that there are other definitions and that the best thing to do is to accept what the person says they mean rather than tell them what they mean. Dictionaries are not prescriptive, so you should indeed meet people where they are at rather than tell them they believe things they don't believe by pointing to definitions.

You claimed that atheists have to have certain beliefs about the origins of the universe when in fact there is no requirement to have any thoughts whatsoever about the universe just because you don't believe in gods.

The fact you claim that atheists believe in magically appearing universes when I don't know of anyone who believes in this is irrelevant to the point. Which is that atheism has NOTHING to do with universes, oranges, or anything other than the one thing which it is about. Pointing to an article about philosophy doesn't change this, even if the article was relevant to atheists. 

And no, you didn't copy the meaning from Webster's dictionary, Bo provided a link to Webster's which doesn't match with your reference to philosophy; you referred to Britannica. 

Anyone with an eighth grade education knows that, just like any eighth grader knows that the universal reality didn't magically appear.  You have to go to university before some professor poisons your mind regarding that.

I have no idea what eight grade is, but given your claim about magically appearing universes there are three points:

1. There may be random atheists who believe in magically appearing universes, and if there are I wouldn't imagine that there are many, but the scientific community does not propose any such thing. 
2. Your religion, on the other hand, does propose that the universe was created by magic
3. By claiming that "the universal reality didn't magically appear" you have adopted a burden of proof. Can you demonstrate your claim to be true or are you just going to continue to be full of hot air and just ignore this, instead just making more claims which you are unable to support with facts?

According to physicist Paul Davies, the majority of his peers agree that the universe is intricately fine-tuned for the emergence of life.  The universal reality and everything contained therein is evidence for God.  

Where is your evidence for how otherwise the universe happens to exist?  If you doubt that it was created, then where is your evidence that energy can arise from no energy, motion from no motion, life from no life, intelligence from no intelligence and mathematical design can magically exist unto itself?

Why do you and the other atheists on this forum repeatedly violate basic human logic, science and reason by failing to provide evidence for you position?  

I will cease to claim that you believe in magically appearing universes when you can provide scientific verifiable evidence that energy can arise from no energy, motion from no motion, life from no life, intelligence from no intelligence and mathematical design can magically exist unto itself. 

That is not how the Encyclopedia Britannica, considered to be the best source for general human knowledge by most scholars, defines atheism.  However, since language is an imperfect medium, I'm not going to quibble with either you or anyone else over language definition.  

If you claim that atheism is just a denial in belief in gods, then you are claiming that the universe is a non-designed, non created reality.   Atheism represents at least five claims: 1) Atheism makes no claims (a lot of atheists claim this); 2 & 3) There is no God or gods; 4) The universe is not a result of deliberate conception, design and creation; and 5) the Encyclopedia Britannica is somehow very wrong in regards to the correct definition of atheism.

If you are going to claim that the universe is not created, I'm going to continue to challenge your position as non-scientific, unless and until such time as you can provide scientific evidence that energy can arise from no energy, motion can arise from no motion, intelligence from no intelligence, life from no life and, that mathematical design can somehow randomly magically exist unto itself.

It takes a lot more faith to be an atheist than I personally have any ability to muster up.  It is just too hard for me to believe that all of the above along with the rest of the universal reality magically appeared.  Try as I might, I find such a position to be entirely childish, non-scientific and irrational.

If you are going to claim that the universe is not created,

I never made that claim. I don't think anyone here has. My lack in belief that a magic being magically created it in no way suggests that I know that a magic being did not magically create it. It especially doesn't mean that I claim I know how it was created. You consistently are committing the Strawman Fallacy here and it is disingenuous to say the least.

It is just too hard for me to believe that all of the above along with the rest of the universal reality magically appeared.

But this exactly what you insist that you know with 100% certainty. How did your God create the universe? Magic. You hold the atheist to a standard to which you do not hold yourself. You demand a scientific explanation for all the mysteries of universe, yet your "explanation" is "God did it" (via his magic). And of course, you have not demonstrated that this magic being exists.

It has already been pointed out that your hatred for atheists is clear and apparent in your inane rants that wildly fallacious and erroneous. I wouldn't be surprised if you were Russian troll just here to sow discord in what is an otherwise friendly community of people of all faiths and no faiths. As you can see, my tolerance for your posts is at its limit. Consider this before your next post.

I think you misunderstand my position.  Atheists and Agnostics both claim that either there is no God (some atheists), there probably is no God (Richard Dawkins) or, there might be no God (Neil DeGrasse Tyson).  In regards to all three positions, one is required by the long-established rules of science and evidence (from Descartes forward), to provide evidence as to how otherwise the universe happens to exist, if in fact it is not a result of deliberate conception, design and creation.

If you say you don't believe in God or gods, then you are claiming that the universe either did or could have come about by some other means, other than by deliberate conception, design and creation. 

Such a position is non-scientific superstition unless and until you can provide evidence for how else the universe happens to exist.  Otherwise, you may as well claim the moon is larger and warmer than the sun, which is far more likely to be true than to pretend no one created the grand designed universal reality. 

This is the position of many atheists, that they can just claim to disbelieve in God or gods, without being required to provide any evidence as to why.  This is as if Copernicus had walked into a room full of his peers, claimed the earth goes around the sun and then sat down, without bothering to provide any evidence supporting his position.

This is why I have no respect for a position of atheism or agnosticism, because there isn't any evidence supporting either position.

In regards to all three positions, one is required by the long-established rules of science and evidence (from Descartes forward), to provide evidence as to how otherwise the universe happens to exist, 

I am stopping reading right there because again, you are wildly wrong. This is not all science works. If we don't know something, "god did it" isn't the default explanation.

Eternal Creator satisfies origins and rationally explains why we and the rest of the universal reality happen to exist.  If you want to overturn Jesus, then you best have a better explanation.  

If you are going to posit some other position, like I said, you are required by the rules of science and evidence, to provide EVIDENCE as to how else the universe happens to exist.  Just as Copernicus was required to provide evidence, just as Einstein was required to provided evidence to demonstrate his theories are superior to Newton's.  

Otherwise, you are just promoting mythology and superstition, which is all atheism ever was or ever will be.  Atheism has no foundation in evidence and thus, is remains a non-scientific blind faith mythology.

Like the Bible says, "faith is the evidence of things not seen" and, we believe in God based on the visible majesty of his creation. . . positions not based on EVIDENCE remain blind faith superstitions. 

Objectively, this is correct.  The default hypothesis is called "null hypothesis", that is, that the the explanation of what's happening is still in the realm of "unknown", not that nothing's happening.  We have simply not worked out any potentially consistent hypotheses, wherein arises the idea of default.

[To Richard Aberdeen]

Atheism, at least agnostic atheism, is not making a claim and therefore does not need to provide evidence. Atheism merely declares, and literally means, absence of theism. Lack of belief. Atheism is not a religion any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Further, as an example, stating that you don't believe the assertion that in a jar full of gumballs the quantity is an even number is not stating that you believe the number is odd. Additionally, when a jury says a defendant is not guilty they are not saying that he is innocent. They are saying that the prosecution has not met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Similarly when an atheist says he doesn't believe any claims that there is a god he is not saying there is no god. He is just saying you haven't met the burden of proof.

If you can't grasp these distinctions and insist that atheism, as above defined, carries a burden of proof then, I don't know, just go away and stop filling the thread with your repeated gibberish. Either that or provide evidence for the magical being you apparently believe in. Then perhaps we can join you in a faith in things seen.

This is just a faulty position.  One cannot rationally claim that atheism makes no claims and then, claim that atheism disbelieves in God or gods, which is two claims.  

The default position of science and reason, agreed to by virtually all scientists on earth, is that there is a physical reality called "universe".  The default question then becomes, how and why is there a physical reality called universe.  Even Richard Dawkins agrees that the "God question" is central to science and reason.  Atheists don't get a pass regarding how or why the universe happens to exist, any more than the rest of us do.

Atheists can try to hide behind a human language term, "disbelieve" all they want, but they aren't fooling anyone but themselves.  They sure as hell aren't fooling me or Socrates or Newton or Darwin or Einstein or Francis Collins or, any of the rest of us in the world sanity and reason who understand that energy, motion, intelligence, life, mathematical design and the incredibly complex dual language of DNA don't magically exist unto themselves.

[To Richard Aberdeen]

A disbelief is not a claim. It is not accepting a claim. 

In a court of law, the accused is either guilty or innocent. The jury makes a judgement on whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. The latter does not mean that they are guity.

Likewise if a claim is made, one can evaluate the evidence and either believe the claim or not believe the claim. Not believing the claim is not the same as believing that the claim is false. 

How is not believing in a claim supported by zero evidence fooling myself? There is no reason to believe a claim which basically boils down to magic, and not believing it doesn't mean I believe in magic, that is just patently absurd and is only a sign of your limited imagination.

I appreciate that you don't understand what a logical fallacy is, and why it is problematic, but your accusation commits the following:

Argument from personal incredulity.

False dichotomy.

Straw man.

Red herring.

Look these up and try to understand what the implications of there are. I bet you don't even bother.

You don't seem to understand the first thing about human logic.

1. God by modern language definition is "creator" of the universe.  This same definition is found in Oxford Dictionary, Webster's online dictionary and Google search.  There are other definitions, but this is the main number one meaning of the word "God".  You can look it up yourself.

2. Atheists claim to "disbelieve" in God.

3. If one "disbelieves" in God, then they are claiming that the universe either did or could have come about in some other way, other than by conception, design and creation.  

4. Atheists repeatedly fail to provide any evidence or rational explanation as to how otherwise the universe happens to exist.

Conclusion:  Atheism is an obvious lie, having no foundation in evidence.

Atheism is blind faith belief in magically appearing universes filled with magically existing beings of magically existing intelligence and conscious awareness.

Atheism is just another blind faith religion, having no foundation in evidence.

"human logic" - what are you babbling about?

Nice try dickie, only it wasn't, it was an awful attempt. 

1. Yes, I know what the word means. 

2. See 1, but I don't "claim" to disbelieve, I disbelieve.

3. You're replying to a post in which I explained what disbelief is, and you have simply ignored it to continue to be wrong. I don't believe your claim, that isn't a claim of my own. Get a clue you dullard. 

4. I  DO NOT  have a requirement to provide evidence for not believing your claim which wasn't supported by any evidence. When will you get this into your thick skull you idiot? 

Claiming atheism is a religion is idiotic. You're very well suited.

[To bruce]

And I might add, both the Encyclopedia Britannica and many historians and other intellectuals define atheism as a religion; atheism is human opinion about God and morality and as such, it is just another blind faith religion having no foundation in evidence.

[To Richard Aberdeen]

You are tone deaf. Disbelief is not a claim.

I think the owner of this site needs to implement a block poster feature. You've wasted enough of everyone's time.

If is said I "disbelieve" the sun is larger and warmer than the moon, most rational people would assume I was claiming the moon is larger and warmer than the sun.  If you say you "disbelieve" in God, most rational people assume that you are claiming the universe is not created.  

Most rational people would then expect you to provide evidence for how otherwise the universe happens to exist or else, they would consider your position to be irrational.  Atheists are just trying to get out of providing evidence for a non-scientific dishonest position, by hiding behind the word "disbelieve", as if that would somehow deceive anyone other than themselves. 

According to physicist Paul Davies, the majority of his peers agree that the universe is intricately fine-tuned for the emergence of life.  The universal reality and everything contained therein is evidence for God.  

Where is your evidence for how otherwise the universe happens to exist?  If you doubt that it was created, then where is your evidence that energy can arise from no energy, motion from no motion, life from no life, intelligence from no intelligence and mathematical design can magically exist unto itself?

Why do you and the other atheists on this forum repeatedly violate basic human logic, science and reason by failing to provide evidence for you position?  

I will cease to claim that you believe in magically appearing universes when you can provide scientific verifiable evidence that energy can arise from no energy, motion from no motion, life from no life, intelligence from no intelligence and mathematical design can magically exist unto itself. 

[To Richard Aberdeen]

"If is said I "disbelieve" the sun is larger and warmer than the moon, most rational people would assume I was claiming the moon is larger and warmer than the sun.  If you say you "disbelieve" in God, most rational people assume that you are claiming the universe is not created. "

You are simply mistaken. And I don't get how YOU of all people get to define rationality. It's a non-sequitur.

The end.

You can commit the appeal to authority fallacy until the cows come home.

I don't care how others have defined atheism. I defined it the way I mean to use it. And I believe I defined it in its most basic form. A - means absent or without, Theism - means belief in a god or gods.

It concerns one question only: belief or disbelief in a god or gods. That's it. No world views, no moral philosophies are implied.

[To Richard Aberdeen]

Aside from the fact that Britannica says no such thing, and historians don't define words, who cares? Words are defined by how they are used and atheism does not fall under the definition of religion. A religion has doctrine, involves worship, generally has leaders, and of course collects money. Atheism is just a disbelief in gods, or even a belief that there are no gods. None of those things apply. 

You can, however, be an atheist and be religious, but that does not makes atheism a religion.  You can wear a hat and have hair, but that does not mean that having hair means you have to wear a hat. 

Now stop being such a baby and stop telling other people what they believe. 

This is another lie.  Atheism makes piles of money.  Atheists have conventions that cost money to attend, they write books that make millions, they have created their own churches and have registered in the United States as a non-profit religion.  You just continue to pile lie on top of lie and expect those of who have studied the facts to agree.  There are also atheist churches in England, Canada and elsewhere.  

And, I am still waiting for your evidence that energy can arise from no energy, motion from no motion, life from no life, intelligence from no intelligence, that quad-zillions trillions upon trillions of integrated parts can magically self-arrange and, that mathematical design can magically exist unto itself.

WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR ALL OF YOUR BASELESS NONSENSE???

Atheism is not an organisation. If someone holds an event which has a ticket price for entry that doesn't mean that anything more than costs were covered, and even if there was a profit to doesn't go to "atheism"?

Even if I was wrong, and atheism is an organisation which makes money, that wouldn't make what I said a lie. And you simply ignored everything else I said while pushing this crud.

Show me where I made a claim and I'll happily support it with evidence, but I do not need to provide evidence for your inability to comprehend leading to claims that j said something I didn't. Get a clue, idiot.

And, I might add for all of the responders on this page:  A large number of scientists have wasted a large amount of taxpayer dollars and a large amount of research time, that could have been much better spent trying to eradicate global pollution and human disease, trying to mathematically demonstrate that the language of DNA could somehow have randomly magically evolved from totally by chance blind unguided processes.

According to many current practicing scientists and mathematicians, the natural selection math simply doesn't add up.  While the universe itself is believed to be less than 14 billion years old, the math demonstrates that it would take trillions upon trillions upon more trillions of years for a single protein to randomly form.  And far less likely, no matter how many experiments are conducted, it has never been scientifically demonstrated that a single sentence of word language or any kind of mathematical code or language code of any kind, even a very short strand of DNA, computer or other code, could ever randomly appear, even given infinity to occur.  

You can study the evidence for yourself linked here:
www.FreedomTracks.com/science.html 

When "many" current practicing scientists and mathematicians disregard all facts which they think aren't consistent with the bible what they say is irrelevant. 

The irony is that when these people come out with garbage about how long it would take, and probability, and bla bla bla, they acknowledge that the processes taking place are known to occur, and yet all they have to offer is "magic wooooooo" which has never been shown to be possible. 

If ignorance was a qualification or criteria for writing a book on a topic, then you're the right person to give a critique of science. 

"According to many current practicing scientists and mathematicians, the natural selection math simply doesn't add up"

This means the process of evolution is not fully understood, evolution is still a fact.

This is simply not true.  Unlike Darwin had any knowledge of, it is well-established today by genetic research that microbes living inside macro-organisms routinely alter and re-arrange their own DNA.  Such changes are not random and are not a result of "natural selection".  It is also well-established today, unlike Darwin knew, that the entire universe is in a constant state of adapt and change transition.  And likewise, all of the life contained therein adapts and changes right along with it, otherwise life wouldn't survive.  This is how the grand design universal reality is created to be.  According to many currently practicing scientists, Darwin's quaint outdated theory is on its way out the door.

[To Richard Aberdeen]

Evolution is a fact whether you like it or not. 

Here is more than sufficient evidence for anyone who can read and comprehend:

https://alfred.med.yale.edu/alfred/index.asp

Feel free to analyse the data and try to show that the allele frequencies of populations remain static and you'll be able to claim fame and fortune. Someone other than you may even read your book. But you won't, instead you'll completely ignore the data and just simply refuse to acknowledge facts via wilful ignorance, and continue to throw out arrogant straw man arguments and logical fallacies. 

Darwin's theory formed the basis of the modern understanding, some of it stands, notably natural selection (something which nobody who understands evolutionary theory claims to be the cause of changes and your comment only shows how clueless you are), and some was falsified. Darwin's ideas have been refined and expanded on, and the current understanding is on it's way out the door only in the imagination of irrelevant creationists, and the fact that you would make such stupid comments only shows that you are playing at dishonest word games, or are even more ignorant than I thought and believe the lies of these creationists who never produce anything to support their claims of magic.

It is a fact that life adapts and changes.  Unlike Darwin knew, we know today that the entire universe adapts and changes.  While it is a fact the entire universal reality is created as a dynamic everchanging reality, it is total non-evidence based fiction that life came about through a series of totally blind unguided processes. 

It is also a fact the scientists strongly disagree with each other as to exactly how and why life adapts and changes.  And, it is also a fact that even Neil Degrasse Tyson admits science doesn't know how, when, where or why life first arose.  There are hundreds of links to various scientists confirming this here:  www.FreedomTracks.com/science.html 

I said that evolution is a fact, and this is supported by allele frequencies in populations changing over time  because that is what evolution is.

The  THEORY  of evolution is the explanation for the fact of evolution. Try reading AND comprehending what people say instead of trying to formulate your denial in advance and you might stop making so many mistakes. 

No, the universe being created is not a fact. This is an unsubstantiated assertion and a presupposition. Try learning what fact means before using it again.

The  fact  that once again you conflate evolution with abiogenesis, despite being corrected countless times tells me that either you are dishonest (something evidenced many times already) or that you are copying other people's dross without any understanding. 

The cause of evolutionary changes isn't fully understood, and whilst scientists offer differing explanations, none of them present hypotheses as anything other than that. None of which runs contra to the current understanding of how evolution occurs. Dry your eyes, Dickie, there is no disagreement regarding the overarching theory of evolution, only about some of the details. New understanding occurs all the time. Get over it. 

Why do you keep mentioning Neil Degrasse Tyson in regards to biology? I'm even less interested in arguments from non authority than from authority.  I DON'T CARE.

[To Bryan]

And, unlike your response implies, I have never said that life remains "static".  I have never said or implied that life remains static.  Rather, my book which is linked above clearly states that life adapts and changes, which is what ALL of the known evidence indicates.

I don't believe this at all and in fact, there is no such thing found in the Bible.  According to the Bible, life emerged in abundance, first in the ocean and later on land.  This agrees with the majority mainstream scientific view here in the 21st Century.  The Bible doesn't say how God creates, only that God does create  and, modern science doesn't know how, where or when life first arose; neither do you, neither does Richard Dawkins, nor do I know.   

Obviously, if we don't know, when, where or why life first arose, then it is just a lie to pretend that life came about by a series of "totally by chance" processes as Neil DeGrasse Tysons pretends.  He doesn't know that, nor does he have any way of knowing that to be true; neither do you, nor does Richard Dawkins and, neither do I.

" neither do you, nor does Richard Dawkins and, neither do I."

Finally an intelligent sentence written by you. Now would you go away?

[To Richard Aberdeen]

I didn't imply that you said anything about life being static, I was responding to your statement of " This is simply not true .", which was a response to djlive saying "evolution is still a fact." 

My response demonstrated unequivocally that evolution is a fact. You constantly claim it isn't, and you are wrong each time. 

I don't care about your book about a topic you are very clearly (willfully) ignorant about, and which likely consists exclusively of logical fallacies if the crud you spew here is anything to go by. 

The bible is irrelevant and mentioning it at all in this context is a joke. 

I didn't care what Neil Degrasse Tyson said about abiogenesis when you misquoted him in your Neil Degrasse Tyson thread, and I don't care about him when you inanely interject him into other threads. Stop crying about Tyson and Dawkins for goodness sake. 

[To Richard Aberdeen]

Will you stop with the "according to" crap? Have you still not looked up what a logical fallacy is and why it's a problem?

I doubt that Paul Davies said that the majority of his peers agree anything, and I don't care if he did. 

Fine tuned is a description of how the conditions are just right to allow the formation of stars and planets, and in the tiniest fraction of places for life to exist. It is unknown whether it is even possible for the conditions to be other than they are, and if it is possible, we have no way to know what sort of universe would have formed and what life may have been possible.

Fine tuned is NOT a verb, it is not presented as an action, which must therefore have a "fine tuner". You are misrepresenting what people say, as usual. 

"The universal reality and everything contained therein is evidence for God." - this is an example of begging the question, if you understood the purpose of this website you might realise why this is problematic, and you might realise that this really isn't the best place to commit logical fallacies (unless as an object lesson). 

"Where is your evidence for how otherwise the universe happens to exist?" - I don't need to offer evidence when I didn't make a claim. How is that supposed to work? If you are trying to claim that you get to make up an "explanation" and if I don't come up with my own made up explanation, that's not how it works, that is an argument from ignorance. Again, the wrong place. 

"If you doubt that it was created, then where is your evidence that energy can arise from no energy, motion from no motion, life from no life, intelligence from no intelligence and mathematical design can magically exist unto itself?" - firstly, I didn't claim that the universe wasn't created, I said that atheists don't have to have certain beliefs about the origins of the universe. That's not even similar Richard. 

I made no claim of how the universe was created, that was you who did that. You haven't supported your claim, and trying to get me to provide evidence for things I didn't say isn't evidence for your claim. What you have done here is commit yet another logical fallacy known as false dichotomy. 

"Why do you and the other atheists on this forum repeatedly violate basic human logic, science and reason by failing to provide evidence for you position?" - Providing evidence is nothing whatsoever to do with logic, and writing on a website isn't science, but actually that would be you that does that, not me. What you have done as usual is to ignore what I actually said, and require me to support things I didn't say. Again, this is the wrong place to so this. 

An example of something I claimed is that evolution is a fact. I demonstrated that it is a fact. Simple. 

"I will cease to claim that you believe in magically appearing universes when you can provide scientific verifiable evidence that energy can arise from no energy, motion from no motion, life from no life, intelligence from no intelligence and mathematical design can magically exist unto itself." - so you'll stop claiming that I believe in something I didn't indicate a belief in when I provide evidence for the thing I said nothing to indicate a belief in? Again you demonstrate that you're an idiot.