Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.

Atheism, as you know perfectly well is by definition not a religion. Same way not playing baseball isn’t a sport.

 

RE: Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.
⁜→ Kokomojojo, et al,

You and I have very, very different ideas on the concept of "faith."

(COMMENT)

Your proposal that the concept of: → "faith in no God" is both invalid and unsound. "Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief." {Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Version 1.0, London and New York: Routledge (199}

It is either a • belief through faith • or • disbelief because of a lack of faith. It is not a faith in "no God."

(ED REFERENCE)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
2.6 Reason, Faith and Enthusiasm {http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/ (20 of 35) [8/7/02 1:04:49 PM]}

The relative merits of the senses, reason and faith for attaining truth and the guidance of life were a
significant issue during this period. As noted above James Tyrrell recalled that the original impetus for
the writing of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding was a discussion about the principles of
morality and revealed religion. In Book IV Chapters XVII, XVIII and XIX Locke deals with the nature
of reason, the relation of reason to faith and the nature of enthusiasm. Locke remarks that all sects make
use of reason as far as they can. It is only when this fails them that they have recourse to faith and claim
that what is revealed is above reason. But he adds: "And I do not see how they can argue with anyone or
even convince a gainsayer who uses the same plea, without setting down strict boundaries between faith
and reason." (IV. xviii. 2. p. 689) Locke then defines reason as "the discovery of the certainty or
probability of such propositions or truths, which the mind arrives at by deduction made from such ideas,
as it has got by the use of its natural faculties; viz, by the use of sensation or reflection." (IV. xviii. ii. p.
689) Faith, on the other hand, is assent to any proposition "...upon the credit of the proposer, as coming
from God, in some extraordinary way of communication." That is we have faith in what is disclosed by
revelation and which cannot be discovered by reason. Locke also distinguishes between the original
revelation by God to some person, and traditional revelation which is the original revelation "...delivered
over to others in Words, and the ordinary ways of our conveying our Conceptions one to another. (IV.
xviii, 3 p. 690)​

Faith {Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Version 1.0, London and New York: Routledge (199}

Faith became a topic of discussion in the Western philosophical tradition on account of its prominence in the New
Testament, where the having or taking up of faith is often urged by writers. The New Testament itself echoes both
Hellenistic concepts of faith and older biblical traditions, specifically that of Abraham in the Book of Genesis.
The subsequent attention of philosophers has been focused primarily on three topics: the nature of faith, the
connection between God’s goodness and human responsibility, and the relation of faith to reason. Discussions on
the nature of faith, from Aquinas to Tillich, have tried to examine the subject in terms of whether it is a particular
form of knowledge, virtue, trust and so on. Regarding divine goodness, the argument has primarily focused on the
relationship between faith and free will, and whether lack of faith is the responsibility of the individual or of God.
Concerning the relation between faith and reason, there are two quite separate issues: the relation of faith to
theorizing, and the rationality of faith. Aquinas in particular argued that faith is a necessary prerequisite for
reasoning and intellectual activity, while later, John Locke explored the relationship between faith, reason and
rationality, and concluded that faith can be reached through reason. This latter viewpoint was later heavily
criticized by Wittgenstein and his followers.​

The logic you are using is wrong (fallacious). The correct alignment is:

◈ Positive View: Faith in God.

◈ Negative View: Disbelief in God. (Lack of Faith in God.)​

You simply do not hear philosophers speak in terms of faith in a void (no God - nothingness). The philosophical questions you address is:

◈ Faith - to - Reason

◈ Is the Lack of Faith assigned to: You - or - God​

And it is there that the deeper questions evolve, and entangle "free Will."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

If a train leaves Chicago with 100 passengers,
How come ice cream doesn't have bones.

 

If that is the case then you have to know for a fact that God does not exist and therefore can easily prove that god does not exist because you have the facts.

fact
[fakt]
NOUN

1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.

OTHERWISE: You have only your opinion, and your belief, and therefore your faith in your belief that no G/god(s) exists.

 

It seems you have yet to present your facts that God does exist.

 

What is the greater miracle:
that God created all the universe
or
that the universe created itself?

And by creating itself I mean the creation of space, time, energy,
physical laws, numbers and a reason for being in the first place.

 

RE: Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.
⁜→ Kokomojojo, yasureoktoo, et al,

Something has gone strange here.

(COMMENT)

Faith does not require proof. That is the distinction between fact and faith.

FAITH is a condition, (one of a number of possible conditions) and is → ‘a priori’ and typically connotes a kind of knowledge or justification that DOES NOT depend on evidence, or warrant, from sensory experience. Sometimes → truth knowable or justifiable independently of evidence from sensory experience.

Just my thought...

Most Respectfully,
R

 

.If someone with multiple personalities threatens to kill himself, is it considered a hostage situation?

 

faith in no god requires no evidence, no facts

I made no such claim.

 

I do not believe that either option would be well termed "A Miracle". Though I do not fully understand the details that does not mean it's a miracle, But whatever happened it's pretty damn amazing.

 

RE: Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.
⁜→ Kokomojojo, yasureoktoo, et al,

I have to chuckle at this.

(COMMENT)

"a priori’

Believe what you will. I will not question on what basis, your proposition might be known.

But as far as I'm concerned, the argument is about nothing; literally. As far as I'm concerned, faith in nothing = zero. In point of fact, if a human had no understanding in the concept of a Supreme Being (no knowledge), is equal to accepting the concept of "no God." The outcome is the same.

But you are free to believe what you will.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

None of the above!

Matter/energy has always existed and will always exist in one form or another so no "miracles" are required.

 

Making the same incorrect statements several times does not make them correct. Show any atheist ligitimate evidence of a god, other then quotes from a bible made from whole cloth, and you’ll easily get a another convert.

 

faith in is faith, regardless of the object you attach to or the target of your faith, including nothing

Yep thats what rahl does, then imagines its in the definition of atheism, lol

Im sure theists say the same, prove there is no god and they too would convert. Until one of you come up with proof you remain faithful to your beliefs.

 

Did a God create god or did God create itself? You're just pushing the argument back one level.

 

Faith in nothing is what theists have.

Atheists have NO religious faith at all.

 

That's the regression argument. If God created the universe, who created God?
We can't answer that because we don't know the nature of God's realm. It says
in Revelation there will be no more time, and the heavens and earth "fled" and
were found no more. We can't comprehend a universe like that. How can anything
function outside of time?
So to ask "who made God" is to inquire into a realm we have no knowledge of,
nor could we comprehend it if we did have the knowledge. So "Who created
God?" is conceptually a different question to "Who created the universe?"

 

That's what I call the "cop out question"
Q - Who created the universe?
A - It has always been here!

Q - are you not dodging the question?

 

Quantam mathematics predicts 10 dimensions so it is entirely possible that some of them might exist without any relation to the time dimension.

While we cannot visualize these other dimensions owing to our own limitations does not mean that we have no knowledge of them at all. Math predicted the existence of the Higgs Boson and it took half a century to find it.

 

Dimensions are in "space"
not as "outer space" but geometric space.
Time is not geometrical spacial.
But... we are talking about what was there before space even existed, in
fact when N.O.T.H.I.N.G. existed.
Heard that quote "Why is there something instead of nothing."
That.

 

The Laws of Physics are NOT a "cop out".

Matter can neither be created nor destroyed.

But since you challenged the Laws of Physics it is only fair for you to address the "creator" cop out.

According to theists their omnipotent "creator" created the universe which would INCLUDE the Laws of Physics.

Therefore their "creator" cannot logically be omnipotent since he "created" something (matter/energy) that he cannot destroy. Inversely if he can destroy matter/energy then that means that he is not omnipotent because he could not create something that he cannot destroy.

That logical paradox negates the existence of an omnipotent "creator" which leaves theists with the problem of believing in a "creator" that is NOT omnipotent. Which in turn means that the universe is more powerful than their "creator" and therefore deserves more worship since it is the most powerful thing in "creation".

Now we wait to see the inevitable "cop out" response to the logical paradox that theists believe in.

 

Prove that "nothing" existed.

 

"Nothing" one would suppose is what exists today "outside" of the universe.
We have no conception of it. How can we comprehend a "place" that has no
space and no time?
This "nothing" is what we think once "existed."

 

Thank you for establishing that you merely have "faith" in the theist superstitions that "nothing" existed at some imaginary "beginning" point in time.

The universe DOES exist and we are part of it.

The universe is in a state of flux owing to the various forces at work on the matter/energy that comprises the universe.

Leading scientists have begun to embrace the concept of a cyclical universe that expands and cools, contracts and coalesces into a Singularity and then expands again through the Big Bang process.

This Cyclical Universe model eliminates the imaginary "nothing" and "beginning" nonsense that cannot be proven.

Instead it relies upon the Laws of Physics where the matter/energy of the Universe has always existed and will always exist in one form or another.

 

Yeah, I am familiar with the arguments.
I don't need "faith" there was once a state of nothingness - not sure if such a thing
is even in the bible. It just says that "God created the heavens and the earth..." and
then describes what is most likely an oceanic cloud planet - a bit like Venus and a
bit like Titan. But I digress.
This notion of a cycling universe is hypothetical, and I suspect, falling out of favor.
In any case, saying the universe is in a permanent expansion and contraction sounds
a tad evasive to me. There are so some clever arguments to this effect. It's a way to
avoid needing to ask "how did it begin?" because you just claim the question is moot
and move on. I don't accept that.
And even the cycling universe doesn't answer the question "why"?