Man if every time I typed a sentence I had to explicitly list out my assumptions and caveats we'd never actually be able to communicate. I can't claim it's objectively true, at best I can say it is true as far as I am aware and if my own assumptions are accurate. Maybe you do indeed have a way to observe reality separate from your mind and senses. If so, I'd like to see some evidence of that.

Rocag said:

---

Man if every time I typed a sentence I had to explicitly list out my assumptions and caveats we'd never actually be able to communicate. I can't claim it's objectively true, at best I can say it is true as far as I am aware and if my own assumptions are accurate. Maybe you do indeed have a way to observe reality separate from your mind and senses. If so, I'd like to see some evidence of that.

---

His point is that you have to operate contrary to your beliefs, and in accordance to a separate set to square the circle. Every statement you make that undermines your premise should require additional explanation. What you just said is very different from the post I quoted.

The irony is, of course, you think your senses would perceive things the way mine do, and that 'voila, a proof' would actually lead you to a different conclusion. Why would you think that our perception is the same, and that you would agree to accept such a proposition?

The Banned said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I have no issue with agnosticism. I would also like to say that I fully accept some level of uncomfortable ignorance exactly because I would rather avoid pretending something must be true based on insufficient reasoning in order to avoid the discomfort.

---

Both atheism and theism require an immaterial element that can never be weighed, measured, prodded or poked. The fact that existence just IS is an immaterial reality that must exist for atheism to work, and that is not something one can measure at all. But most atheists just waive away this problem like it is no problem at all. I agree with the OP to an extent because of issues like this. I'd probably just word it differently.

Agnosticism is the only position one can take without inserting a personal faith in an unprovable answer.

---

So, when I said that I look at the origins of abstract ideas like logic, that I give some thought to naturalist ideas, and some thought to supernatural ideas and then conclude that I don't know and can't fully explain or feel confident enough to make absolute claims. . . . you interpret this as pretending there is no problem?

Explain further what discrepancy you are claiming between the two posts. Be specific.

It sounds like some of the difference here may just be linguistic. We sometimes phrase things that we believe to be true as such without acknowledging the inherent degree of uncertainty. That's what I was getting at with my response.

I'm not exactly sure I understand the point you're trying to make in your second paragraph. In my experience, most people seem to experience reality in generally similar ways. I would not claim that everyone experiences it in exactly the same way or that mine and yours are the same. I can never truly know how you perceive things, I can only try to piece that together from your descriptions.

AGC said:

---

Rocag said:

---

You either don't know what idealism is or have completely failed to comprehend what I am saying. I absolutely do not think that reality is primarily mental and quite frankly I am not sure how you could read what I've written and come to that conclusion. It's truly baffling. I am explicitly saying the opposite. Objective reality exists but our experience of it is subjective.

You say we don't operate on relativism. I strongly disagree, furthermore I'd argue that relativism is all we have to go on to begin with. We have no way observing reality that isn't filtered through our own limited senses and mental processes. Therefore our understanding of reality is inherently relative, even if reality itself is objective.

I don't feel the need to explain exactly how and why reality behaves the way it does. It's a good question, but I think the best answer we have at the moment is "We don't know". That doesn't mean God has to be the answer, just that we don't have all of the answers. And you've failed to prove that a world without god couldn't behave in a predictable manner, I'm not even sure how you would go about proving such a thing. You can assert that that is the case, but that isn't proof.

I also feel the need to point out that atheism is commonly split into strong and weak atheism. Most atheists would probably fall into the "weak atheist" camp. I lack belief in any gods, but do not claim with certainty that absolutely no gods exist.

---

So your relativistic argument is objectively true, that we all operate said way?

---

If everything is relative, there are no true morals. I could not live that way. Guess I am different.

What do you hope to gain from this thread? Is this a "I'm bored so I'm going to go on Texags and PWN some atheists"?

I'm always happy to explain my positions to the best of my abilities. You believe something and I think it sits on shaky ground. I believe something and you think it sits on shaky ground. I'm not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me - the best we can do here is learn from each other. But, in order to do that you might have to stop telling me what I believe (or Rocag for that matter) and misrepresenting my position.

Quote:

---

Here's the definition of atheism from Oxford:

Quote:

---

Quote:
disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

---

That's epistemology my friend. And I remind you that disbelief is an exercise of logic to which atheism has no basis for. To be an "atheist" requires the very principles that Christianity provides. Do you see the absurdity in that?

---

Dictionary.com defines it as a lack of belief in the existence of God. This is the definition I would use for myself. You could have known that if you had asked me instead of assuming.

Epistemology is a branch of Philosophy that studies knowledgelike its nature, sources, limits, and justification. A specific belief about one question is not an epistemological system. Something like empiricism or rationalism counts as an epistemology. For Christians, you've got ideas like Reformed Epistemology or Presuppositionalism or Revelationalism. These are systems that deal with differing ideas about things like how it is that humans can know truth about God. I'm sure you can provide more examples and describe those far better than I could. The point is that a single lack of belief in something is not the same as a philosophical set of rules for understanding knowledge.

And again, this paragraph above. . . it all feels like a debate you are trying to win so you can tell your friends about the atheist you pwned online. I am telling you what I believe, you are messing it up and then telling me how absurd it is. You, my friend, are like the Christian version of the atheist meme with the smug ******* saying 'debate me, I'm an atheist'.

Rocag said:

---

Explain further what discrepancy you are claiming between the two posts. Be specific.

It sounds like some of the difference here may just be linguistic. We sometimes phrase things that we believe to be true as such without acknowledging the inherent degree of uncertainty. That's what I was getting at with my response.

I'm not exactly sure I understand the point you're trying to make in your second paragraph. In my experience, most people seem to experience reality in generally similar ways. I would not claim that everyone experiences it in exactly the same way or that mine and yours are the same. I can never truly know how you perceive things, I can only try to piece that together from your descriptions.

---

I bolded an entire paragraph of your words; what's to be specific about? You were abundantly clear that your conclusions are not relative. There's nothing to parse.

Edit: for example, the word inherent being utilized with relative to refute an absolute is an oxymoronic statement. One can't make sense of a world with no perceptible absolute to even state that something could be inherent: else, an absolute or objective would exist and clearly be perceptible. It flies in the face of something being true 'as far as you are aware', from the follow up post.

Nah, I don't claim any kind of objective certainty on the subject. I can say I believe something without asserting I know it to be absolutely true and that's the case here. I do believe that all humans must filter their experience of reality through their own physical limitations, but certainly if you have evidence otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it.

Edit: Again, I am in no way asserting reality does not objectively exist. I believe it does.

Rocag said:

---

You either don't know what idealism is or have completely failed to comprehend what I am saying. I absolutely do not think that reality is primarily mental and quite frankly I am not sure how you could read what I've written and come to that conclusion. It's truly baffling. I am explicitly saying the opposite. Objective reality exists but our experience of it is subjective.

You say we don't operate on relativism. I strongly disagree, furthermore I'd argue that relativism is all we have to go on to begin with. We have no way observing reality that isn't filtered through our own limited senses and mental processes. Therefore our understanding of reality is inherently relative, even if reality itself is objective.

I don't feel the need to explain exactly how and why reality behaves the way it does. It's a good question, but I think the best answer we have at the moment is "We don't know". That doesn't mean God has to be the answer, just that we don't have all of the answers. And you've failed to prove that a world without god couldn't behave in a predictable manner, I'm not even sure how you would go about proving such a thing. You can assert that that is the case, but that isn't proof.

I also feel the need to point out that atheism is commonly split into strong and weak atheism. Most atheists would probably fall into the "weak atheist" camp. I lack belief in any gods, but do not claim with certainty that absolutely no gods exist.

---

Once again, the laws of logic are not contingent, they are necessary. You are using logic which is a universal principle we all operate on every moment of our life. Explain how the universal principle of logic arises from within the natural world, but are not contingent on it?
Universals can't derive from the material world because that would mean there was a time when creation existed without the universal which is not possible. How can creation create its own constants for physics? They cannot be contingent because they are necessary for creation itself. And yes, that is an argument that without God who transcends creation, there are no possibility of universal principles. You need transcendence. Why are you so opposed to something beyond the natural world?

I appreciate you saying "we don't know", and I'm not saying that facetiously. I really do want you to ponder on this because I think you will realize that at the end of the day, atheism (and whatever 'ism' you want to use) will not ever rationally explain the universe.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Bob_Ag said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Lots of arguments on this forum boil down to "Assuming Christianity is true, I will now prove atheism is false" when we get right down to it.

---

No, I'm saying Christianity is necessary for anything to be true. It provides a framework that coheres with reality.

Atheism can't be true because it's not possible. It has no mechanism for reality.

---

This is rather obviously false. It's so obviously false that I'm amazed you are making the argument with no self reflection.

Even if we were to accept the flawed premise at the foundation that would only get you deism, not theism, much less Christianity.

But the foundational idea that an atheist must pretend at knowledge of how and why the universe exists the way it does to be justified in holding certain presuppositions is as silly as claiming a theist must pretend to understand exactly why god made the universe exactly as he did in order to justify theism.


As far as logic goes. The rules of logic can absolutely be justified empirically by observation. That they hold in the future is the idea of induction and everyone arrives at that presupposition one way or another without proof.

---

Nope, deism does not get you a knowable and personal God that can communicate. For us to operate on the universal principles that God supplies, he must be knowable and communicable which deism rejects. Christianity specifically is the framework that provides for actual existence.

I think its fair to question the worldview of atheists. I don't think Christians are asking for exact details of their metaphysic. We are asking how its logically possible to have a material universe that arises from within itself and simultaneously creates the immaterial laws that govern its creation and existence. Have you ever thought about how an unintelligent physical world can have the non-physical principles ready to go that even allow for its existence?

Christians take a lot of flack for their explanation of the universe, but at least we are brave enough to put it out there. For atheists, its always the hope that the unintelligent universe will provide the secret answer to rationalize impossibility. If it's impossible today, it's still impossible tomorrow.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

What do you hope to gain from this thread? Is this a "I'm bored so I'm going to go on Texags and PWN some atheists"?

I'm always happy to explain my positions to the best of my abilities. You believe something and I think it sits on shaky ground. I believe something and you think it sits on shaky ground. I'm not going to convince you and you aren't going to convince me - the best we can do here is learn from each other. But, in order to do that you might have to stop telling me what I believe (or Rocag for that matter) and misrepresenting my position.

Quote:

---

Here's the definition of atheism from Oxford:

Quote:

---

Quote:
disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

---

That's epistemology my friend. And I remind you that disbelief is an exercise of logic to which atheism has no basis for. To be an "atheist" requires the very principles that Christianity provides. Do you see the absurdity in that?

---

Dictionary.com defines it as a lack of belief in the existence of God. This is the definition I would use for myself. You could have known that if you had asked me instead of assuming.

Epistemology is a branch of Philosophy that studies knowledgelike its nature, sources, limits, and justification. A specific belief about one question is not an epistemological system. Something like empiricism or rationalism counts as an epistemology. For Christians, you've got ideas like Reformed Epistemology or Presuppositionalism or Revelationalism. These are systems that deal with differing ideas about things like how it is that humans can know truth about God. I'm sure you can provide more examples and describe those far better than I could. The point is that a single lack of belief in something is not the same as a philosophical set of rules for understanding knowledge.

And again, this paragraph above. . . it all feels like a debate you are trying to win so you can tell your friends about the atheist you pwned online. I am telling you what I believe, you are messing it up and then telling me how absurd it is. You, my friend, are like the Christian version of the atheist meme with the smug ******* saying 'debate me, I'm an atheist'.

---

Honestly the gain from this thread would be for atheists (and others) to think more deeply about their metaphysic and how its logically inconsistent. I'm not trying to pwn you, but I do want to explicitly call out things that are simply not possible. If I come off smug, I apologize.

Fine, I'll concede your point on epistemology and the definition of atheism. That doesn't mean atheists don't have an epistemology that reflects their metaphysic of believing there is no God (and all that that entails). You can't separate those two things and that's the real point I'm trying to make. However, to do that requires the use of logic and a completely fair question is to then ask how does that metaphysic produce absolute principles that govern creation, but are somehow not contingent, but are in fact necessary and objective. There's no rational mechanism for that.

And yes, I saw your responses above, so I get where you stand on this and I appreciate that. But, I do hope however you can get to a point where you will reject atheism and will see that Christianity is the framework for what is real.

Bob_Ag said:

---

Honestly the gain from this thread would be for atheists (and others) to think more deeply about their metaphysic and how its logically inconsistent. I'm not trying to pwn you, but I do want to explicitly call out things that are simply not possible. If I come off smug, I apologize.

Fine, I'll concede your point on epistemology and the definition of atheism. That doesn't mean atheists don't have an epistemology that reflects their metaphysic of believing there is no God (and all that that entails). You can't separate those two things and that's the real point I'm trying to make. However, to do that requires the use of logic and a completely fair question is to then ask how does that metaphysic produce absolute principles that govern creation, but are somehow not contingent, but are in fact necessary and objective. There's no rational mechanism for that.

And yes, I saw your responses above, so I get where you stand on this and I appreciate that. But, I do hope however you can get to a point where you will reject atheism and will see that Christianity is the framework for what is real.

---

This ended up much longer than expected - sorry. . . .

Oh, I am all for thinking more deeply and challenging my own worldview. However, I do believe that having a fully internally consistent system of metaphysics which explains everything is hugely overrated. Having a worldview that offers an explanation and is internally consistent offers zero guarantee of correctness. A fantasy world like in Lord of the Rings could offer something like a fully internally consistent creation narrative and rules and laws explaining the the most fundamental metaphysical nature and characteristics of reality. That, of course, doesn't make it correct.

I want to build on Rocag's first paragraph directly above in my own way -

It seems to me that we all operate with some level of base level presupposition. That is to say we all hold ideas that we do not prove, but rather use as a starting point in order to reason about anything at all. Presuppositions are unavoidable from a practical sense and how we justify them varies.

Take something like a presupposition about the value of inductive reasoning. The sun has risen every day that I have observed, therefore I expect it to rise tomorrow. Seems reasonable and straight forward, right? Of course, I can't see the future. And I don't actually KNOW, the way an omniscient source would know, that the sun will rise tomorrow. But, it is entirely justified from a pragmatic point of view to believe the sun will rise tomorrow. SO - I believe the sun will rise tomorrow despite the fact that I don't actually know that it will because I grant justification to a sort of reasoning which predicts this to be the case.

So, I have my own set of presuppositions. Nothing formalized, but roughly the following: I believe the natural world is our primary reality or at least the reality we have access to. Knowledge comes through observation and reason (empiricism). The universe operates according to consistent laws. Moral systems can be grounded without religion. Beliefs should be proportional to evidence, and in some cases pragmatism. And a reliability of human reason, but which acknowledges its own limitations.

Now, you can go through these and pick them apart. You wouldn't be the first. We are talking about base assumptions which cannot be proven. . . it should be easy to pick them apart.

Hopefully this isn't controversial, but I would say that you also operate using base level presuppositions. And they are equally just assumptions that cannot be proven. Maybe you think they are more justifiable. . . thats fine. But, what are these presuppositions? That the universe depends on God. Purpose and moral truth comes from God. That fundamental laws of reality, nature, and logic are derived from God. You tell me what your presuppositions are, I don't want to put words in your mouth.

The point I am working toward is this. You hold a set of base level assumptions which is your starting point for your reasoning. And those assumptions can only be subjectively justified, but not proven. You simply believe them to be reliable for describing reality. And so when you start from an assumptive position of "Logic derives from the Christian God" its no real wonder why you come to the conclusion that an atheist using logic is borrowing from Christianity.

If you want to make sense of a materialist or empiricist position, then you have to recognize that we don't start from the base assumption that all forms of logic are derived from God. I'm not asking you to agree with my base level assumptions - just saying that unless you are willing to consider reality from a different set of presuppositions, then of course my positions will seem absurd. Your base level presuppositions might as well include that atheism is absurd. And so your comments just become redundant statements about your presuppositions.

And so how does an atheist justify the existence of abstract concepts like logic? I don't have an answer, just ideas. Maybe its simply a material product of human evolution and cognition. Maybe its just a feature of the natural world or necessary in the same manner in which theists conclude God must be necessary. And maybe there is a God who is the source of rules of logic and reason. I don't proclaim that there must not be a God. I'm open to the idea that there could be a Creator - even if I think the Christian description of God is faulty. This takes me back to my original paragraph. I am okay with uncertainty. I'd like to know the answers, but I accept uncertainty as a reality that every person has to deal with. I am much more comfortable with 'I don't know' than I am with accepting a fully internally consistent set of metaphysical laws which I don't actually believe to be true.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I have no issue with agnosticism. I would also like to say that I fully accept some level of uncomfortable ignorance exactly because I would rather avoid pretending something must be true based on insufficient reasoning in order to avoid the discomfort.

---

Both atheism and theism require an immaterial element that can never be weighed, measured, prodded or poked. The fact that existence just IS is an immaterial reality that must exist for atheism to work, and that is not something one can measure at all. But most atheists just waive away this problem like it is no problem at all. I agree with the OP to an extent because of issues like this. I'd probably just word it differently.

Agnosticism is the only position one can take without inserting a personal faith in an unprovable answer.

---

So, when I said that I look at the origins of abstract ideas like logic, that I give some thought to naturalist ideas, and some thought to supernatural ideas and then conclude that I don't know and can't fully explain or feel confident enough to make absolute claims. . . . you interpret this as pretending there is no problem?

---

No. I was agreeing with your approach and contrasting it to the approach of a full bore "atheist". Firmly planting your flag in the "there is no God" camp requires one to waive away foundational issues as no big deal, where as you (agnostic) are not fully committing to one camp or the other precisely because of those major issues you know you can't answer. Your view is more intellectually honest than full on atheism.

Fun conversation but I think the assertion fails before any of the replies

"Not one argument against God that doesn't borrow from Christianity" is an extraordinary claim, and you don't even attempt to justify it. Entire traditions of philosophysecular ethics, analytic philosophy of logic, naturalistic accounts of mindexist independently of Christianity. Pretending they don't exist isn't an argument, it's handwaving.

The claim that atheists "relativize logic" is especially confused. Logic isn't something people arbitrarily relativizeit's a formal system. You'd need to show why logic requires a Christian metaphysical grounding, not just assert that it does.

"Materialism cannot explain the universe" is another conclusion with zero supporting reasoning. What specifically fails? Cosmology? Consciousness? Causation? Just saying "it can't explain it" doesn't engage with any actual work in philosophy or science.

Then you pivot to "atheism causes cultural degradation and nihilism," which is pure rhetoric. It's a sweeping generalization with no evidence, no mechanism, and plenty of obvious counterexamples. At that point it stops being philosophy and becomes ideological venting.

Using terms like "metaphysic" and "relativize" doesn't make this rigorous. If anything, it highlights the lack of substancebecause none of the key claims are defined, defended, or even meaningfully argued.

If you want to make a philosophical case, you actually have to do the work: define your terms, present a structured argument, and engage with opposing views. This does none of that.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

---

"Nope, deism does not get you a knowable and personal God that can communicate. For us to operate on the universal principles that God supplies, he must be knowable and communicable which deism rejects. Christianity specifically is the framework that provides for actual existence."

Ah I see what you are trying to argue, you didn't make it clear earlier. The basic premise here is that you cannot justify universal principles without a god, and very specifically a personal god who explains those universals.

This is about 5 kinds of false that I'll briefly touch upon:

First, unless you are presupposing your Christian god (which is bizarre) you need most of your presuppositions to even accept the existence and communication of a deity.

Second: Christianity doesn't offer any direct communication on most of the presuppositions we are talking about. They are merely inferred by his creator role. Therefore a deist god works just fine.

Third: no god is necessary. These are presuppositions. They cannot be logically determined from more basic principles.

Fourth: relying on the divine is circular reasoning. You need to suppose your existence and senses ect to support the existence of god. You then use god to justify the senses. It's a loop.

Fifth: things like induction and existence are always presupposed in any system and things like logic and the laws of the universe have empirical justification. Giving atheist philosophers all they need. Have you never found it curious how overrepresented atheism is in philosophy?

Is that approval? Or side eye for stealing your thing?

Bob_Ag said:

---

Of the many absurdities that come with unbelief, the biggest is probably that there is not one argument the atheist can make against the existence of God that doesn't borrow directly from the Christian worldview. The best they can do is play word games that relativize logic and ethics despite knowing these cannot be relative for any metaphysic to work. Materialism cannot explain the universe, no matter how much they suppress the truth.
The unfortunate fact is that atheism has directly led to the degradation of culture due to its pessimistic nihilism. It has removed purpose from multiple generations now. It is truly an absurd belief system.

---

Absurd: acting in a way that is wildly irrational, illogical, or foolishly unreasonable, often to the point of being laughable or nonsensical. It describes things contrary to common sense, such as ridiculous ideas or behavior.


Let's score this at home:

R= Rational
IR= Irrational

L= Logical
IL= Illogical

RE= Reasonable
F= Foolishly unreasonable


Summary of Genesis 6:9-9:17

God was mad that mankind was acting in a manner that he didn't like so he caused a 40 day/night rain storm that covered the entire earth with water. This flood killed all living things on earth except Noah, his sons, and daughter-in-laws. At God's direction, Noah built a boat that held his family and two of every type of animal on earth (more if they were tasty). Noah and crew floated about and eventually found land at the peak of Mount Ararat. They disembarked and began repopulating the world. God told them that the earth and all of its creatures belonged to man. God then gave them a few rules to live by and created a rainbow to remind mankind that God would never do that again.

How would you score this on the absurdity scale?

Quote:

---

Have you never found it curious how overrepresented atheism is in philosophy?

---

Generally believers with a philosophical bent become theologians. Why would that peak anyone's curiosity?

I don't actually believe theologians are plentiful enough to explain away that discrepancy. And no I wouldn't find it curious that theologians of a particular religion are in fact accepting of that dogma. That makes tons of sense. My point to this poster is that they were trying wrongly to claim that there was a fundamental and obvious logical fallacy in accepting both atheism and various presuppositions. If such were the case I'd expect atheists to be dramatically underrepresented in the field, wouldn't you. Kind of like young earth creationists in biology or geology specialities.