The trouble with truth is that, if you are too demanding about the quality (?) of the truth you seek, you will find nothing. Many issues do not contain Truth in the sense we might prefer, so we have to find ways of discovering and using approximations, unsatisfactory though that may be. — Pattern-chaser

Of course, however, people use this as a cop-out in order to not have to scrutiny their theories. They misuse the fact that absolute truth might be impossible in order to imbue their incomplete logic and reasoning with more truth-value than it has. It's the "because you can never know what is truly true, I'm not wrong" reasoning, which is a philosophically infantile method of reasoning. — Christoffer

We sometimes find the truth difficult - maybe even impossible? - to determine, and your response to this is to say that sometimes people reason improperly? Well so they may, but it has no effect on whether truth can be determined, or what we might do instead if it can't, does it?

Define "causeless effects" as "something coming form nothing", then refute the latter? :chin: This depends for its validity on causeless effects being identically and exclusively equal to something from nothing. It is not clear to me that this is the case. You seem to be offering yet more assertions. — Pattern-chaser

I would have thought that a 'causeless effect' would require some energy/matter to achieve it so that energy/matter would have to come from nowhere to count as causeless? So every instance of a 'causeless effect' is also an instance of 'something coming form nothing' and vice-versa?

I also think that things like quantum fluctuations only apply on a micro level. Cause and effect clearly hold on a macro level. The creation of the universe involved 10^53 Kg of matter so it is a macro question. This matter cannot have appeared out of nowhere - leads to infinite density. It cannot of existed forever - leads to an infinite regress. So it must of come from the start of time. Leading to a timeless first cause.

If it's possible that gods are "involved in the reality of existence" then it's possible that the gods inform some people and not others of their existence. Perhaps they speak to those who are open enough to listen. If that were the case, the people to whom the gods speak would know directly, through acquaintance, the existence of the gods. They would not be "blindly guessing", but rather expressing their direct experiential knowledge, when they speak of the existence of the gods.

Of course the problem is that, in the context of philosophical argumentation, one is expected to produce inter-subjectively convincing arguments to support one's assertions.This is impossible to do regarding god or gods (and no doubt many other things) if your interlocutor has not had the kind of experiences involving god or the gods that you have.

That is why sensible people who have faith in god or gods don't bother with such paltry arguments and the time-wasting talking-past-the-other that this thread so amply exemplifies. — Janus

It is okay for people to blindly guess that gods exist...or that gods do not exist...

...and pretend their blind guesses are something other than just blind guesses.

When hearing that stuff in a forum devoted to philosophy...there is a humorous element.

Continue with that "faith", "believe", "direct experiential knowledge" stuff. It is not wasted. It provides some humor in a too often stuffy setting.

Still we must keep on trying. — Devans99

I agree. So let's...

So I think for simple questions, it is possible to 'know the mind of God' — Devans99

Indeed. But not in any way that would serve as proof to an athiest.

Do you believe in miracles?

. It’s not possible to exist permanently in time (an infinite regress; it would have no start so could not be), so the ‘something’ must be a timeless first cause. — Devans99

The question then, is there a part of me that is eternal and infinite? If affirmative, this would be the only way I could directly relate to the Eternal and Infinite in itself. But how can I directly communicate this immediacy to the atheist, who requires exactly this as the necessary proof of God? Impossible I say.

I believe that in recent times, we have moved further away from the truth. — Devans99

Someone said: "the present age has too much knowledge and not enough existence."

Atheism is more of a belief that the knowledge that can be extracted from the unknown is reliable. — Merkwurdichliebe

It's not a belief. Atheism just accepts what we observe, prove and measure to be known, the unknown is fascinating, but there's never a belief like described and not as you describe. Atheists do not just accept data to be reliable, the difference is that theists just conclude that fact with "...and therefore God", which is a lot worse as a rational stance than "we have enough data to have a scientific theory". The fact that no theists has been able to act upon their conclusions while scientific theories has been acted upon countless of times shows that there's more reliability in what we actually can know about the universe than anything else.

So it's not a simplistic caricature of atheism, the idea that atheists blindly rely on data extracted. It's that we can actually use the data. But that doesn't mean anything can be defined as deductive truth from it. This is the main core of theists arguments, that because we have that doubt about knowledge... "therefore God". Atheism is just accepting the world as we know it, as we can know it, nothing more, nothing less. Atheism doesn't need fantasy to explain anything. Relying on fantasy is unnecessarily complicated if we want to understand more about everything. It's like an Occam's razor for perspective.

The difference between faith and belief: faith is a fixed and necessary position; belief is amendable, and any alteration in understanding has the potential to change one's belief. — Merkwurdichliebe

Which is why I never use belief in relation to atheism, since the theistic perspective of atheism is always through the lens of their own belief. Belief can be anything outside of God, Gods, spiritual etc. but in terms of atheism and theism, belief has a clear definition and any claim that relates any kind of belief to atheism is a misunderstanding of what atheism really is.

If you restrict the definition of God to 'creator of the universe' then there is actually plenty of evidence for such a proposition: — Devans99

There is no unambiguous evidence FOR the existence of any kind of god. None whatever.

There also is no unambiguous evidence that no gods exist.

Any assertions in either direction are nothing but blind guesses.

I know...I know...that is difficult for someone making such guesses to acknowledge.

I suspect that eventually...you will. And you will be the better for it.

I would have thought that a 'causeless effect' would require some energy/matter to achieve it... — Devans99

That seems reasonable.

...so that energy/matter would have to come from nowhere to count as causeless? — Devans99

Only if the causeless effect is the creation of the matter/energy involved. If the matter/energy is simply subject to an effect that proves to be causeless, then...?

It's not a belief. Atheism just accepts what we observe, prove and measure to be known, the unknown is fascinating, but there's never a belief like described and not as you describe. Atheists do not just accept data to be reliable, the difference is that theists just conclude that fact with "...and therefore God", which is a lot worse as a rational stance than "we have enough data to have a scientific theory". — Christoffer

They certainly believe in their methodology.

We sometimes find the truth difficult - maybe even impossible? - to determine, and your response to this is to say that sometimes people reason improperly? Well so they may, but it has no effect on whether truth can be determined, or what we might do instead if it can't, does it? — Pattern-chaser

Truth is difficult and may very well be impossible because we are humans lacking the perspective to see things as they actually are. But we have reasoning, tools, and methods to actually understand beyond what we can experience and see without such tools. We know about atoms and quantum physics, even though we have no way of detecting them by only ourselves as humans. But because we have the tools, we know how to use atoms and quantum physics and our inventions out of that knowledge show us that we can actually know things we can't detect by only ourselves.

When it comes to reasoning, we have the power of logic. If someone abandons logic because they have a belief they want to be true, that is not the pinnacle of human understanding.

We have limits to what we can know, but people rarely even try to reach those limits. It's only at the limits of our understanding where we can deduce the truth-value of anything. If there are any doubts, we haven't reached that pinnacle. And flawed reasoning, flaws in logic, irrational beliefs and so on are not even close to that pinnacle, it's at the bottom.

Do you believe in miracles? — Merkwurdichliebe

I believe supernatural involvement in the universe was limited to its creation only (I'm a deist).

The question then, is there a part of me that is eternal and infinite? If affirmative, this would be the only way I could directly relate to the Eternal and Infinite in itself. But how can I directly communicate this immediacy to the atheist, who requires exactly this as the necessary proof of God? Impossible I say. — Merkwurdichliebe

Eternalism holds that past, present and future are all real (or sometimes just past and present). In that model of time then there is something eternal about our existence - with eternalism something about us persists beyond the 'now' - that something can be set to be eternal. If you think about it in 4D spacetime, each of us would look like a long thin snake. It would be finite in dimensions though.

Eternalism many people find hard to swallow, particularly future real eternalism. There is some evidence for past real eternalism maybe (quantum eraser experiment). I'm a fan of eternalism, but I am not really in a position to be able to convince anyone of it. My argument is the first cause must be timeless; IE able to see all of time in one go, IE eternalism must apply. That is not really enough to convince people. A start of time also rules out presentism, but again it's quite an abstract argument so I can see why people will not be convinced.

Only if the causeless effect is the creation of the matter/energy involved. If the matter/energy is simply subject to an effect that proves to be causeless, then...? — Pattern-chaser

But what effect could be free of matter/energy? For an effect to happen, matter/energy must cause the effect. For the effect to count as uncaused, that matter/energy must come from nowhere?

(I'm a deist). — Devans99

What's the difference between deists and theist?

They certainly believe in their methodology. — Merkwurdichliebe

Because it demands more than accepting something that is convenient or comforting. The methodology favors gaining more and more understanding and knowledge about something and never settling on something being "truth". Theists settle with a conclusion and then tries to argue for it. The logic of just viewing these two perspectives against each other makes it clear which perspective has the least viability for actually gaining knowledge and which does not. Claiming that we can't know anything for sure does not render the two equal, one is clearly more fit to scrutinize knowledge over the other. That's just logic.

Atheism is just accepting the world as we know it, as we can know it, nothing more, nothing less. Atheism doesn't need fantasy to explain anything. Relying on fantasy is unnecessarily complicated if we want to understand more about everything. It's like an Occam's razor for perspective. — Christoffer

That is completely reasonable. In fact, I would argue that theist agendas have done more to hurt than help their first cause (did you catch that wacky play on words?). But, religion and faith has nothing to do with understanding, and any time it does, it fails.

What's the difference between deists and theist? — Merkwurdichliebe

Deism is more science friendly than a theism. It's a believe that there was a first cause who created the universe, but is not actively involved in the universe day to day. The first cause does not have unreasonable attributes (like the 3Os). Knowledge is to be found in science rather than ancient scripture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Theists settle with a conclusion and then tries to argue for it. — Christoffer

They will never succeed in convincing atheist.

Claiming that we can't know anything for sure does not render the two equal, one is clearly more fit to scrutiny knowledge over the other. That's just logic. — Christoffer

The methodology that atheism relies on has proven itself, but it hasn't been proved. But it doesn't matter because as long as it works, it is working. This is where atheist belief lies.

Deism is more science friendly than a theism. It's a believe that there was a first cause who created the universe, but is not actively involved in the universe day to day. The first cause does not have unreasonable attributes (like the 3Os). Knowledge is to be found in science rather than ancient scripture. — Devans99

Thanks. That helps.

They will never succeed in convincing atheist. — Merkwurdichliebe

To argue for a conclusion that has been decided upon before the argument is a basic logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's about convincing an atheist. I would even argue that if your argument is solid, the atheist will definitely take that into account, not to become a believer, but to accept the conclusion since it cannot be countered easily. The point though, is that it doesn't matter if it's an atheist or a theist or whatever at the receiving end; philosophical arguments need to make sense and not be riddled with biases and fallacies. Convincing anyone needs hard work and making the conclusion before the argument will never work, ever.

The methodology that atheism relies on has proven itself, but it hasn't been proved. But it doesn't matter because as long as it works, it is working. This is where atheist belief lies. — Merkwurdichliebe

What hasn't been proved you mean? The method of gaining knowledge that is detached from human biases and fallacies is very well thought out. You can claim that because we cannot know anything for sure, even these methods are not certain to be the best. However, as we countless of times make predictions about the universe, predictions even outside of the current understanding of everything, like general relativity, for example, it means that the nature of logic exceeds human perception and is why we can understand and reason things far beyond human perception and also act upon them. This is not a belief, it's relying on a method that has proven itself to arrive at facts that are as close to the truth as we can get. And as I mentioned, if we want to gain knowledge about what is true; we need the methods that take us as close as humanly possible, not rely on fantasies because it's convenient. So there's no belief to be seen. If the methods change in favor of better tools to explain things, we change them, but there's no belief in the method, the method is just a method.

The necessity to attach belief to atheism only seems like a way to undermine what it's about through rhetoric. I would argue that if theists were even interested in understanding the atheistic perspective, belief should be left out of the terminology for defining it. Clear definitions are one key to better understanding, but people's agendas seem to favor using terms in certain ways to win arguments, not gain an understanding of something.

My argument is the first cause must be timeless; IE able to see all of time in one go, IE eternalism must apply. That is not really enough to convince people. A start of time also rules out presentism, but again it's quite an abstract argument so I can see why people will not be convinced. — Devans99

Damn right your not going to convince anyone, but is that really the point? Religion is a movement inward, as Kierkegaard says, it is the "passion of the infinite". And by presentism, do you mean immediate existence?

Eternalism is a rational basis for faith, although faith in no way relies on rationality, like belief. That eternalism implies a predetermined and fatalistic existence, means that, from the religios perspective, even if what was going to happen could be known with absolute certainty (which is impossible), it remains that nothing could be done to change what will happen.

But in the deeper sense, faith has already resigned from any concern over the fate of the world. It is focused inwardly... ...

So there's no belief to be seen. — Christoffer

Are you saying atheists believe nothing? I find that assumption to be more fantastical than that God can be proven.

Anyone using "atheism" as part of a self-descriptor...is doing so because of a guess that there are no gods...or a guess that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Either guess is a blind guess...absolutely no more science-based or logic-based than the guesses theists make that there is at least one god.

To argue for a conclusion that has been decided upon before the argument is a basic logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if it's about convincing an atheist. I would even argue that if your argument is solid, the atheist will definitely take that into account, not to become a believer, but to accept the conclusion since it cannot be countered easily. — Christoffer

But the theist doesn't simply want you to regard his argument as reasonable enough to be taken into account, he wants to convert you completely. So, you will not satisfy him by simply saying he is not crazy, you need to become one of them.

Presentism is the belief that only 'now' exists. It does not work with a start of time (if only 'now' exists and then that does not exist, then there is nothing to create 'now', so it's impossible).

So if the arguments for a start of time are excepted, presentism is impossible, implying 'more than only now exists'. That sounds a lot like Eternalism. Some of the physicists believe in Eternalism/Spacetime. Einstein famously believed free will was an illusion.

Religion is a confusing mess in this area. The omniscient of God requires he knows the future but free will is required in order to send folks to hell. I would not like to be a theologian; very tricky job.

Religion is a confusing mess in this area. The omniscient of God requires he knows the future but free will is required in order to send folks to hell. I would not like to be a theologian; very tricky job. — Devans99

Yes, the common theological notions of heaven and hell are very counterproductive. Presentism can account for heaven and hell in a much more real and direct way.

So if the arguments for a start of time are excepted, presentism is impossible, implying 'more than only now exists'. That sounds a lot like Eternalism. Some of the physicists believe in Eternalism/Spacetime. Einstein famously believed free will was an illusion. — Devans99

I don't think eternalism excludes free will or morality, but that is only because I believe they are not products of objectivity. I should further explain...the existing human is a paradox insofar as he represents a point where time and eternity intersect. In time, anything is possible, but eternally, it has all been written. Or, maybe it is the reverse, God knows.

The past real only versions of eternalism obviously supports free will.

The future real versions of eternalism exclude free will. So morality becomes rather a difficult subject under these models of time.

@Christoffer
@Devans99

I can't believe how civilised this conversation has been so far. Awesome!!! :up:

It been clean fun so far. Thank you also for your contributions!

You would first need to provide supporting arguments for your bare assertions, which you haven't done, and also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so they'd have to be damn good arguments. Given that you've failed to meet this burden in spite of repeated requests — S

The subject of the thread is not whether God exists, it is about the discourse between theists and atheists and I have answered that; they cannot agree on the definition of reasonable argument.

Granted, I have made assertions but I have made them purely as suggestions. Namely, that knowledge can be attained through non intellectual means. If this, in principle, is true - which it is - why should atheists scoff when theists assert that they have knowledge through non intellectual means? Art, music, carnal knowledge, sensory knowledge etc are non intellectual means to knowledge about the world.

You may also consider the difference between pure knowledge and images of knowledge because this has a lot to do with the way humans know things. For example, consider x^2 for x over a given range. That is an abstract, mathematical concept. Now consider a graph, on paper, of x^2. The graph is a physical image of the mathematical concept. So, consider this carefully because much human knowledge is by way of image rather than direct knowledge; metaphor as opposed to pure knowledge. This is what art and myth are and much science makes use of this kind of imagery (in science it is called a model).