The Big Bang is speculative. It's an unsettled area of physics, so it's not really a foundation for anything and hasn't been digested by the scientific method.

oki - but... that is also the fact with the rest we --- assume - in regard to all that exists... so the BB is not the only theory we have in regard to what we believe

wut

ejem... you know... when and if we have studied (years in my case) epistemology and the theories of science at the uni - we aught to know that we ---- assume. Because simply put and in brief the "process" of proving something is as follows:

you learn how to view something according to someones theory (a bit like the Bible you know - some one writes down some theory about some phenomenon)
then you deepen your knowledge in regard to that theory and others similar
then you propose - on that very basis - something
know you look for what you have predicted
when you find what you expected - you might say: it is proven

What?
The theory you know, of which you expect something? Yeah... right... so?

Perhaps, Hanover, as moderator, and in consideration of the debate to date, you might advise 3017 that if he does not participate by some time that you specify, you shall be forced to rule him as having withdrawn from the debate, and 180 the winner — tim wood

180 asked to leave it open a bit longer to see if 3017 has more to say, so with that I'll leave it open a bit longer.

If I may I will resume this threads debate:

Atheists put their faith in theories and methods given to them from the Roman Catholic Church and its clergy: Mendel, Bacon etc: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists

And have no definition of the god they refute = unknown god is refuted.

And thus this is logical?
Would have fooled me...:rofl:

And science is very much what we normally within philosophy call: begging the question...

Well... where does that all leave an atheist?

Because as far as I know the judo-christian stand is, has always been: no one knows God or can define him absolutely... so what part in that sort of statement does an atheist reject? — Iris0

I'd reject the notion that God isn't well defined under the various traditions, even if there remain some unknowns. I also think there are substantial enough differences between Jewish thought and Christian thought on this that you can't group God under a single Judeo-Christian definition.

I do agree though that for meaningful debate on whether acceptance or rejection of God is rational, you must have a working metaphysical definition of "God," with the debate then centering on the epistemological question of whether the position taken is rational, or is at least consistent with the manner in which other things are said to be known.

The atheist's position is a negation, but it's affirmative to the extent it says "I have reviewed the facts, and there is no God," which makes his position far more difficult than the agnostic's.

That would be the same as if — Iris0

No, it would not be the same as if....

there are lots of things we do assume exist but cannot be defined nor describe completely - our consciences is one of these things - and we have several of those within theoretical physics - but you would not say they do not exist (take black holes - they are only recently "seen" or said to actually exist) - and within physics they keep on looking for them because they believed - so if an atheist does not look how are they going to find? — Iris0

You'll find lots of conversations about consciousness on here and people frequently have to define what they mean: a panpsychist, a solipsist, a dualist and a neuroscientist aren't likely to agree much on what it is, but they know why they mean. Or some of them do, anyway. There are ample philosophical and scientific papers in journals that rely on a common understanding of what consciousness is.

do agree though that for meaningful debate on whether acceptance or rejection of God is rational, you must have a working metaphysical definition of "God," with the debate then centering on the epistemological question of whether the position taken is rational, — Hanover

The OP mentioned logic. Rationality is a different issue.

Belief in God can be embraced in either fashion: rationally or irrationally.

Rationality doesn't require more than that one believes experts endorse it.

For instance, everyone believes the earth is a sphere, but few could explain why. Their belief is rational due their faith in experts.

It is irrational to assert a proposition one doesn't understand, though. So an atheist should have a very clear idea of what they're rejecting. Otherwise, they are guilty of irrational belief.

because...?

The atheist's position is a negation, but it's affirmative to the extent it says "I have reviewed the facts, and there is no God," which makes his position far more difficult than the agnostic's. — Hanover

I had my own conversation with 3017 a while back where I put forward my own complete review of all the different things one might mean by “God”, and reasons to reject either (1) that such a thing exists or (2) that such a thing is rightly called “God” in a sense that can differentiate between theists and atheists:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7860/on-the-existence-of-god-by-request

thank you, have listen carefully and often to Antonio Damasio and Christof Koch among others... yes... there are many concepts we use daily that we cannot give account of or define: reality for instance... so...yes

I would say that logic is based on the - faculty - of rationality.

The atheist's position is a negation, but it's affirmative to the extent it says "I have reviewed the facts, and there is no God," — Hanover

The atheist affirmation begins before that. The affirmation begins when the atheist affirms that they have a qualified method of addressing the question. And then, from that first affirmation, using that method they declare to be qualified, they then go on to some level of doubt or outright rejection of the theist claim.

I'd be interested to know if anyone wishes to try to journey beyond the theism vs. atheism debate. Or is that debate a comfortable familiar routine which provides the entertainment users seek? Is the debate as it is sufficient, and thus there is no problem here which requires a solution?

As example, a card game that has predictable rules. Some people might find the old game boring and wish to invent a new game, whereas others would prefer to play the game they already know.

Perhaps such a question needs it's own thread?

The OP mentioned logic. Rationality is a different issue. — frank

I know, and I'd step back from that because we don't prove things by pure logic alone in many instances (ala Descartes) without reliance upon some empirical data or some amount of faith. If I can't prove God exists by logic alone (ala Anselm), that is no more a problem than that I can't prove trees exist by logic alone.

irrational to assert a proposition one doesn't understand, though. So an atheist should have a very clear idea of what they're rejecting. Otherwise, they are guilty of irrational belief. — frank

If you have no justification for your belief, your knowledge is lacking (where K=JTB). If you have no definition for what you're rejecting, your belief is incoherent.

What about this:
One criteria for the contingent existence of matter is their substantial change. All that arises starts its existence or perishes - does thus not exist with necessity - but can or can not exist.
Some things are contingent without having come into existence because if we think that something non necessary exists we do not have to assume that this x also has arisen in time.
To cause something to exist is not the same as that same something has arisen at some point of time and that this same something is maintained in the existence.
That which is contingent exist must if we follow that line have come into existence ultimately caused by that which is not contingent.
If we accept that the universe could or could not exist and thus does not exist with necessity - then we must assume the existence of the Absolute.
The absolute exists by necessity and is the cause of its own existence and causes all other contingent to come into existence.

had my own conversation with 3017 a while back where I put forward my own complete review of all the different things one — Pfhorrest

Clicked on the link, but didn't see your comments. What page of the thread are you referencing?

I'd be interested to know if anyone wishes to try to journey beyond the theism vs. atheism debate — Foghorn

As in what?

the card game being the metaphor x you suggested a journey beyond?

Are you satisfied with the theist vs. atheist debate in general? Are members in general? I don't mean the particular debate being discussed in this thread, but all such debates. Answering this question is the first step.

If a reader finds themselves satisfied with the theist vs. atheist debate in general, then there is no problem which requires a solution. No need to go further. That debate is readily available on every philosophy forum already.

If a reader is not satisfied with the theist vs. atheist debate, then there are various possibilities. Maybe they are already searching for an alternative, maybe they already have an alternative, maybe it hasn't occurred to them that an alternative could be possible. Maybe they wish to invest time in this, maybe they don't.

the card game being the metaphor x you suggested a journey beyond? — Iris0

Apologies, don't understand your question.

I do not understand your suggestion --- :wink:

I will explain ... how can we go beyond the words we use to explain what we have - learned, and thus also go beyond what we know?

Are you satisfied with the theist vs. atheist debate in general? Are members in general? — Foghorn

I asked what you proposed, not for an exploration of satisfaction levels.

I do not understand your suggestion — Iris0

Not a suggestion. A question. Do readers find the theist vs. atheist debate in general to be an adequately satisfying investigation of such issues?

I asked what you proposed, not for an exploration of satisfaction levels. — Hanover

The price tag for hearing what I would propose is to answer the question, which readers are free to do or not as they wish, with my blessings in any case.

No - my first question in this thread was due to the debate where everyone seems to assume someone - whom they are not able to define ... so my answer to your question and suggestion to discuss the core of the matter --- is yes. I am interested to really know... who is God - the logically refuted one by atheists ---

And forgive my poor English ... but you will have to suffer it as it will not be any better...than this.