Are Atheists "Philosophically Limited"....?

You are arguing against a strawman. That isn't what I'm saying. It is if someone from another planet saw an robotic automobile assembly line and concluded that was the sole reason for the automobile's existence. This hypothetical being could then examine all of the equipment and draw all sorts of conclusions about how it was built and how it works and he might conclude that there was nothing more to it than what he could examine.No matter how much he examines the assembly line it isn't go to lead him to the designer of that particular automobile assembly line let alone Henry Ford who designed the first one. Another strawman. That is the "god of the gaps" argument which is not my position. God is outside of your black box and science can poke around that black box and find out all sorts of things about it but that isn't where God is.

Yea but then he looks at a robot on the assembly line and it has some strange hieroglyphic on it it says Ford, not knowing what that is he looks around the assembly line and finds a picture of a man with a car and the same name hieroglyphic ford. And everywhere he finds that picture it has the same hieroglyphic ford what could it be and he concluded that that spells out the name of someone connected with the assembly line. But lacking a Rosetta stone to translate the language he can never be sure but it is a reasonable guess (hypothesis) as it is based on tangible evidence. Edited by frako, : No reason given.

It is a metaphor you know.However, lets go with it. Let's say that there is sign on it that a group of aliens have trouble understanding. One believes that it points to someone named Henry Ford and is an example of his intelligence. Someone else says that no it isn't relative and has no meaning and that the assembly line exists on it's own and is the final product of a series of natural processes. Still other aliens say that the sign is ambiguous and so we can't know how it came into existence. However they all agree that the assembly line should be studied to the maximum degree possible in order to learn all that they can about it.Just in case you've missed it, it is till a metaphor.

Tomato, potato. Potato, tomato. Faith in knowledge? Wow. I have knowledge of knowledge. No need for faith.Do I accept that your flavor of god may be hiding in our ignorance? Do I accept that someone else's flavor of god may be hiding in our ignorance? The actual question should be do I give a R. norvegicus sphincter whether anyone's flavor of deity(s) are hiding in the copious dominions of human ignorance.What I accept is that religionists of every theism require the darkness of ignorance to say their god is present in (chose an area of ignorance) because it sure isn't revealed in our knowledge. Science in general, and I specifically, do not care that you need to hide your god somewhere. You do. Religion developed to try to cope with the unanswered questions. Every time a priest said that the proof of their beliefs was over there, someone went and looked and it wasn't there. The more our knowledge grew, true god-of-the-gaps, the priests had to keep pointing elsewhere.These days, with the explosion of knowledge, you have been getting you butts kicked at every turn. We understand your need to find deeper more inaccessible places to hide the evidence of your deity so that you are not constantly having to face just how wrong you and your creeds have been. I can understand your feeling that science is trying to actively "ignore the gaps in our knowledge in order to sustain the hope that some deity is not there."The christian martyr complex, the conspiracy of the great scientific cabal is out to purposely and pointedly frustrate your beliefs. Science is out to snatch away your divine hiding places by ... what? ... learning new things in all aspects of our existence without any regard to your nor anyone else's concept of god. Oh, for shame!I do not care what god you are trying to hide. I do not care where you try to hide it. I do not care about these side tracks.The observation was made, and you and GDR, have unwittingly confirmed, that religion requires the dark shadows of ignorance to sustain its fantasies. I am content.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : fixt ooppses

This is understandable, coming from you. But why must any hint of belief in theism necessarily be dependent on ignorance? Look again at Sagans statement:

quote:

---

From this distant vantage point, the Earth might not seem of any particular interest. But for us, it's different. Look again at that dot. That's here, that's home, that's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there — on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

---

The fact is that up to this point, all knowledge and insight from human history originates at one microcosmic point in the vast universe. With that sort of scale in play, I question the faith that we put in ourselves and the idea that belief in an un evidenced (objectively at least) God is to embrace ignorance. Objectively? No. Subjectively? The jury is still out.Edited by Phat, : added jabberwocky

Since your god is not evidenced anywhere in our knowledge then its evidence must be hidden elsewhere. Since it is not in the light where we can see you have no other option than to point to where we cannot see. You say your god is somewhere inaccessible to present technologically-enhanced human cognition. To your credit you try to dress the area as one where we can never see. So, you can never be shown to be wrong. The god of the ultimate inaccessible gap in knowledge. The place of our forever ignorance.How could anyone entertain such a thing? I know, I know... faith.The point is, GDR, that without that area of ultimate forever ignorance to hide its evidence you would have no deity. The evidence of its existence will have vanished. Your theism requires that area of ignorance to survive."I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."Breaking news. Faith or not, without evidence you are nothing.

I need to clarify my argument, Ill give you that I do not recall ever saying religious beliefs are founded on ignorance: I said areas of ignorance exist. This is fact. I don't think it is necessary to insert the concept of a God into them. I do, however, believe as a general rule for life that the longer I live (a mere 22 years at this point ) I discover how much I do not know about something I thought I had such an incredible grasp on in the past. Certainties become not-so-certainties. The list of questions grows longer. I think most would attest to this phenomenon. I do not know your story specifically, Straggler. But If I did, or could watch a motion picture of your life, I'm sure I would come across moments when you honestly were not sure about something you previously held to be true. This is where I am currently, and therein lies my argument: I am always willing to go back, reexamine the evidence and my reasons for belief, and then come to a conclusion. Are you willing to do the same thing?That is what this discussion is about, and what I believe Phat was speaking to in his original post. A mutual forgetting of presuppositions and coming together to discover, through the process of the journey, a new truth perhaps? Sure. This is valid. However, do not let the track record of broken humanity determine truth for you, friend. Sure, religion said "God is in the lightning," and when we looked he wasn't there. But sometimes we look for things in the wrong places The real issue here, is not that we have failed to find God in the gaps religion said he was in. The problem lies on my side of the spectrum, with Christians. We have failed to present an accurate representation of Jesus, and for that I am truly sorry.So, in summary, I do not need God to be in the areas of our ignorance. He is easily accessible, and has already revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ. Perhaps not in the way we would like though - RaphEdited by Raphael, : No reason given.

But that's not the claim of God is it? It is important when talking about God we clearly define our concept of God. So great is the ambiguity of "god" in your statements that I am not so sure I believe in the god you propose does not exist. This is why I attempted to state my perspective earlier, in order to define for you my thought process for this "god" you have argued cannot be found in the areas of our ignorance.I have demonstrated in my response to Straggler that my concept of god does not at all rely on the "darkness" or gaps in knowledge. God is clearly defined and revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.Perhaps what you have observed is that "religionists of every theism require the darkness of ignorance to say their god is present," but this isn't really about religionists, from my perspective. It is the "something more" freely offered and easily accessible. God doesn't live in the darkness, friend Though it often seems like He does. As I have asserted, God has no need to hide . If we go back far enough, we might realize this. Perhaps "religion" developed to cope with unanswered questions. But Christ-followers weren't concerned with unanswered questions. The question has been answered. Jesus. I do not need to point to some area of darkness and say "ha! God is there!" because he has clearly and accessibly revealed himself. Here we have a pretty big straw man being flogged. I love science. I see absolutely no problem with increasing in knowledge of how the world works. This increase of knowledge however, has no part in discrediting my faith. It merely informs me how my faith works. So this is pretty unfortunate. As I mentioned, my concept of God simply is not anything like the one you are so adamantly opposing. I am sorry you have made this conclusion. Although from examining your argument one might conclude you had already made this conclusion before this discussion began . Shall we not continue the journey?Regards!- Raph

Not just atheist but anti-theist-are-us to be sure. My language is rather pointed and unyielding which leads many to accuse me of arguing from a staunchly personal presupposed view on the subject.I wouldn't be arguing the subject if I didn't have my own view. If no one argued from such a perspective this board would not exist. Or, at best, it wouldn't be as much fun. Because, as I have stated, the evidence of religions' reality, the evidence that their deities, principles and beliefs are more than the products of fertile imaginations, is woefully missing.This gets back to the discussions on what is evidence, objective vs subjective, hard data vs personal emotion, etc.The fact is, as I have stated, that when challenged to show any hard objective data, there being none in the face of the objective knowledge available to us, the theist must retreat and insist such evidence exists but not in present objective knowledge. They must insist this evidence lies within their own minds where they feel the presence and can talk to their favorite conception of a deity. Some place in which the rest of us cannot go, see, verify. Some place of which the rest of us are ignorant. Or they must point to the gaps in our objective knowledge, such as abiogenesis or the singularity, and insist that their god(s) are evidenced in the majik it worked there. Again, hidden from us by our ignorance.Without the (supposed) existence of this evidence outside our reach the theist cannot hold their deities, principles and beliefs valid (except by insisting such is real regardless of evidence, even hidden evidence, insisting it is "just because" which is fantasy or delusion.)Real life intervenes. Gotta go. Sorry. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I try to be precise in my language, even to the point of pedantic. I have not argued that some deity cannot be found in our ignorance. I agree with this, but this has not been broached in my observations here. My argument is that it is the theist that needs our areas of ignorance to which they can point and say, "god is there." Or more accurately, " the evidence of the existence of my flavor of god is in the majik workings here." Of course I did. That is why I brought it up in response to Phat. Did i give any indication that I was somewhat timidly tentative in any of this? Are you timidly tentative in your response? Could we even be having this discussion if either of us were not confident in the conclusions we both bring to this forum?Further, does this mean I am not open to some enlightened learning from the presentation of valid evidence or from a model firmly grounded in what we already know?So far I have not seen any. What I have seen and pointed to are those statements by my religionist colleagues that confirm my observations. I have no reason to modify the conclusions I opened with in this discussion.That is not pig-headed or close-minded. It is the logical result of the lack of any contrary evidence. for the thousandth time with the thousandth priestOK. Let me have it. Show me the evidence of the existence of your favorite deity. Show me something that unfailingly screams, "God is real and here he is."Give me evidence, mind you, not your platitudes or articles of faith. Note: I did not ask you why I should believe. I ask you to show me your god.You say your god has clearly and accessibly revealed himself. I, and 2/3's of the rest of the world, apparently missed the show. Show me this clear and accessible god.Further: I am a scientist by training and by nature. How will I know this evidence you present is viable? Multiple independent lines would be good. Sources detached from any self-interest in the data would be helpful.I'll wait.

Why are we here?
What happens to us after we die?
Why are we moral?
Why do humans believe in the existence of deities?
How do you explain certain personal experiences?
Etc. Etc.These are the sort of gaps into which you and other Christians place your God. Without these gaps all you have is an amalgam of ancient myths retold in the old Testament and the tale of a bearded conjurer who gave a fairly inspirational speech on a mount in the new Testament. So how do I access Him without recourse to plugging Him into some gap that involves 'looking within' or whatever?

Your religion - Christianity - does not exist in a vacuum. It has a clear history, from the Old Testament to the New, littered in ignorance. The Judeo religions, and all religions for that matter, have their foundation in ignorance. Genesis IS evidence of human ignorance.Since science has explained most of the things in our universe, you hang your hats (your God) on the origin of the universe. What you guys like to call "outside" the universe. Read what GDR wrote, you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.In other words, you don't use God to explain biological life (some still do) or planetary formation, or galaxy formation, by saying "God did it" anymore. You found an area of human ignorance (the origin of the universe) to say that's what God created - or could have created, depending on which one of you guys is answering.But let us test that: Do you think the cause for the universe is God? If so why?- Oni

Why do you believe there will be an infinite processes when it comes to how life emerged?Do you believe there are an infinite series of processes to the formation of rain?- Oni

I appreciate this. I think I have a better understanding of where you are coming from now. Perhaps it would be beneficial to state that my argument is not the common "god of the gaps" one. I believe I have a problem maintaining a train of thought in argument, and I must admit, I am in over my head here. I have allowed you to sidetrack me from my main argument. But that's ok, I find much value in the journey of things A valid point. I admit, I too bring presuppositions and a priori to the conversation. I only mentioned this because that is what we are discussing, really. My argument is still: On this forum (not the world at large) there are "believers," who in general, are fine accepting the authority of science, the importance of knowledge, and the areas in which our faith falls short. The atheists (in general) on this forum tend to be a little less open to the possibilities the other side has to offer. I am not presenting a "god of the gaps" argument. I am arguing that there are gaps between the open-mindedness presented in our population.Intelligent proponents of ID would argue that ID is not a "god of the gaps" argument, it is merely inference based on data. This is not my argument. As I have stated, the "god of the gaps" argument is not what I am debating at this time. In my OP I stated this: You responded with all the reasons why you do not need to have an open mind about this discussion, mainly because you are right, and I am wrong. You gave me the trend you have personally experienced with believers, instead of carefully examining what I had to say:

quote:

---

If they didn't have this infinite roll of labels they could not maintain the fiction. One could not be a theist. There has to be someplace where this god's work was done.

---

quote:

---

Correction. A heavy preponderance of evidence leads to this conclusion. It is hardly "presupposed". Theism is fantasy. The archives of this forum are chuck full of theism's denials of observed facts...- msg 159

---

Is that what I was saying? Was I denying the role of science or saying God is in an unknown box somewhere? I am not trying to be facetious here, you have been respectful and coherent in your responses. I appreciate this But it appears previous experience has created a perception of creationists in your mind. In other words, the past has colored your perception. This is fine. The same is probably true for all of us. But you have also exhibited that my thesis was correct, leaving me with really no foundation to stand on: Since, in your mind, there is no contention, is it really worth it for me to attempt to present a logical argument? I am not trying to slither out of your challenge, friend. Perhaps we can begin a new thread? What I am saying is that at this time my hypothesis has been corroborated.Regards!- Raph

You keep saying that.The reason we have "faith in ourselves" is because we're the most reliable friend we have. All gods are deadbeat dads, "friends" who aren't available when we have furniture to move.You may believe in a god who is always there for you but in reality there is none. You're "philosophically free" to beleve he's somewhere out there but realistically it doesn't make a damn bit of difference if he is.