Special pleading: in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view.

I’m all up for listening to different viewpoints respecting differing opinions and ideas of course. As for having my faith tested … go ahead I’m willing to entertain all arguments without being zealous or evangelical in my attempts. — Deus

There was never* a theist who claimed otherwise. But then the argument did not go their way...

*oh, except for @3017amen. But no one pays any attention.

Just making an assumption I do not think the almighty would reveal himself to everyone all at once. Perhaps to the occasional individual. — Deus

But you stated it as fact and said it's the reason for atheist.

Existence itself buddy where did we come from…poof pops the universe out of nowhere don’t you find it interesting. — Deus

Questions are fine. It's the answers that are often the problem. Hence God of the Gaps.

I'm pretty happy with 'I don't know' for most of those currently unanswerable questions. Was there a starting point? Maybe not. We don't know. Was there nothing before something? We are not certain. We can't readily define what nothing is. Do all things have a cause? Maybe not. We can't say for certain.

To say 'God did it' has no explanatory power. It's using a mystery to explain a mystery. Might as well say the Magic Man did it. Or aliens...

To say 'God did it' has no explanatory power. It's using a mystery to explain a mystery. Might as well say the Magic Man did it. Or aliens... — Tom Storm

I agree. And if God happens to be an emergent feature of the universe it would also be false.

But you stated it as fact and said it's the reason for atheist. — Cheshire

Well, an inquiry into "facts" is ideal if anyone wants to borrow that word. Because often non-facts are confused or masked as facts.

Sorry i came back, it was tempting.

There was never* a theist who claimed otherwise. But then the argument did not go their way... — Banno

Don’t worry I’m not a special snowflake who cannot handle opposing views in fact I like them and find them interesting to say the least.

I'm pretty happy with 'I don't know' for most of those currently unanswerable questions. Was there a starting point? Maybe not. We don't know. Was there nothing before something? We are not certain. We can't readily define what nothing is. Do all things have a cause? Maybe not. We can't say for certain. — Tom Storm

Well this is what’s interesting about it our predecessor, God, who existed before we did. We sure as hell did not pop into existence by accident some God had a hand in all of this can assure you of that. My interest as a theist is not so much why he created us, he just loves it maybe, perhaps we are his first creation. What really spurs me on in my theism is understanding him who created him. I’m happy with I don’t know too

Well, an inquiry into "facts" is ideal if anyone wants to borrow that word. Because often non-facts are confused or masked as facts. — skyblack

The word in the this case was to highlight undue emphasis not confuse the matter.

We sure as hell did not pop into existence by accident some God had a hand in all of this can assure you of that. — Deus

Really, if this was shown to be false you would stop believing?

Don’t worry I’m not a special snowflake who cannot handle opposing views in fact I like them and find them interesting to say the least. — Deus

and yet...

God, who existed before we did. We sure as hell did not pop into existence by accident some God had a hand in all of this can assure you of that. — Deus

...bland assertion. Can you do better?

Really, if this was shown to be false you would stop believing? — Cheshire

Not at all! My faith goes beyond that through first hand experience or religious experience which was refreshing to say the least.

What really interests me is how did existence itself came to be was god prior to it. What is he anyway ?

Not at all! My faith goes beyond that through first hand experience or religious experience which was refreshing to say the least. — Deus

So, what is the point of leaning on this need to inject one's religion into a secular science?

...bland assertion. Can you do better? — Banno

Bland you say ? Let me spice it up for you. Let’s imagine the concept of eternity or eternal existence…no beginning no end … difficult to wrap my little human brain around … yet this is the possibility that we are facing we did not come from nothing and by nothing I mean the big bang there has always been something that has existed whether that be god or whatever you wanna call it. This eternal existence is fascinating it would have lead to an intelligence not much unlike ours but a few generations of big bangs ago before perhaps there was big bangs … there’s a theory I’m sure about this …cyclical big bangs.

So, what is the point of leaning on this need to inject one's religion into a secular science? — Cheshire

Apologies …

Apologies … — Deus

I'm not offended just curious. If I had subjective undeniable evidence, then this whole "what part did God do" song and dance would be unnecessary. I think you are looking for a reason to believe it; or it appears as the case.

I'm not offended just curious. If I had subjective undeniable evidence, then this whole "what part did God do" song and dance would be unnecessary. I think you are looking for a reason to believe it; or it appears as the case. — Cheshire

Not at all my faith is firm here I just enjoy a bit of written jousting.

Not at all my faith is firm here I just enjoy a bit of written jousting. — Deus

Treating a belief in God as a bit of sport seems odd to me.

Treating a belief in God as a bit of sport seems odd to me. — Cheshire

God is ok with that that’s all I can say. Odd though ? Probably

Meh. The physicists have an explanation in terms of asymptote causation - there's a paper on it by Stephen Hawking. Preceding causes occur in shorter periods of time, giving an infinite causal chain in a finite period.

But now we are going off in the direction of arguments for god, not the distinction between theism, atheism and agnosticism.

The physicists have an explanation in terms of asymptote causation - there's a paper on it by Stephen Hawking. Preceding causes occur in shorter periods of time, giving an infinite causal chain in as finite period. — Banno

Thanks I will look it up :)

But now we are going off in the direction of arguments for god, not the distinction between theism, atheism and agnosticism. — Banno

Noted

God is ok with that that’s all I can say. Odd though ? Probably — Deus

You mean you are ok with it. "He" agree with everything you think?

It depends a lot on the risk.

Let's take a look at (Blaise) Pascal's (founder of probability with Pierre de Fermat) wager.

.......................God exists......................God doesn't exist
Theist............Infinite gain..................Finite loss
Atheist..........Infinite loss...................Finite gain

Being an agnostic implies the chances of god existing is 50/50. Given these odds, the expected value for a theist (+ infinity) is greater than the expected value for an atheist (- infinity). You should bet your money on theism and not atheism.

Agnosticism isn't as reasonable/rational as it's made out to be. That's because agnosticism hinges on possibility alone. Pascal's wager, because it uses probability (math), manages to produce a clearer picture of the situation, making a decision possible. The verdict is, agnosticism and atheism are guilty of crimes against logic!

Indeed sir, Pascal’s wager does it for the gain. I did not wish to get involved in that as a loving diety would not cause his creatures and doom them to non existence even if they were atheist hence me trying to avoid the wager.

My question is purely from a non gain perspective but rather a gain towards knowing his nature and that he exists if he does exist and present himself after we are dead if he decides to do so. He could if he likes decide not to present himself even to believers although i doubt that.

@Deus

I am not condoning what's being said and done in this thread, not that it's important whether I do or not. Just clarifying. It's common to see people jump into bandwagons, steal the logic, arguments, and words one uses or makes....but you know when someone agrees to be fine with "non-knowing" then they shouldn't even be speaking about things as if they know. And then backtrack and say "oh i am fine with not-knowing". After spending a day going back and forth this kind of dishonesty is just silly. Don't you think?

On a more serious note, i think you will agree that "not-knowing" cannot be claimed by any TDH, as it requires one to exhaust the entire field and go beyond the frontiers by one's own effort. So it isn't a cheap and weak claim like "oh i am ok with not-knowing". Only someone that has exhausted the limits of knowing can make that claim, right?

BTW this is in regards to what someone else had said.

BTW this is in regards to what someone else had said. — skyblack

No kidding.

HI Tom

there has always been something that has existed whether that be god or whatever you wanna call it. — Deus

The Eternal Basis has to be, for 'Nothing' cannot be, much less 'be' a source of anything, as you note, showing that its existence of the Eternal Basis has no alternative, in that existence has no opposite. This, then, seems to be a stable position based on the ultimate default condition, which we both accept. More defaults will come into play, such as that composites can't be Fundamental.

What is Eternal, then, has to be ungenerated and deathless, unmakeable and unbreakable. I would also note that there can be no design point for the Eternal Basis, given no Beginning.

…

For certain, 'God' cannot be so, as Fundamental, not an evolved Alien, for a Being who plans, thinks, designs, and implements requires a System of Mind—and systems violate the Fundamental Art in that they must contain parts that have to be more fundamental than the system. 'God' is a contradiction.

Not even a proton can be fundamental, for quarks are its composite parts, but a quantum field could be, as continuous waves oscillating.

Napolean said 'I feel like a rock thrown in time". The universe is not bound by philosophical ideas like necessity and contingency. Things have potential because of the actuality that they are. The world is the rock and we are the time.

So you left out "I don't believe that god doesn't exist"...presumably a weak form of atheism. — Banno

Yeah, someone of that opinions is either a weak atheist or a theist, so it ends up just a grouping of two of the other positions.