Atheism isn't a belief?

Thus, you had no choice in writing that. And I have no choice in writing this. And, the predetermined effect of my being faced with determinism is:Screw this -- I'm gonna do something else.

I performed your experiment with no results. Can you explain?

It would be nice if that thread could be promoted to discussion; I have a few thoughts on that - mostly that you incorrectly assume a deterministic universe, when it's abundantly clear that we live in a nondeterministic one - but I don't think they're on topic, here.

No, complex ordered things are definitely unusual and therefore unlikely.If you want a real non sequitur there are plenty in your post.Asking for evidence when I haven't actually said that there is any - and go on to say that there isn't.This is a non-sequitur, too: "You say above that he'd complex and radically different. This means too that evidence would be complex and radically different"So is your assertion that my statememtn that there is no significant evidence or any likelihood of their being any "implies you have an explaination for first cause. A naturalistic one at that." Because I don't need one to make that statement - even if we assume that there is some sort of first cause and have no idea what it is, it does no mean that there is any significant evidence for the existence of a God or any likelihood of discovering it.

Most things are. Humans ain't too bright. That would negate your 'first cause', since you're positing the cause of the cause. It also isn't reasonable to presume a reason, as accidents happen. It was that presumption that resulted in that false conclusion in the first place. The difference between humans and chimps or dolphins ain't that much.
Let's see... humans, pound for pound, are just about the weakest animal on the planet, with mediocre eyesight and hearing, and a practically nonexistent sense of smell. Humans are also on one planet circling one star in a galaxy of 100,000,000,000 stars, in a universe with 100,000,000,000 galaxies. Or it's random, or humans are just deluding themselves.
As the human capacity for self-delusion is well-documented, this is the most probable. As humans can't agree on God's characteristics, this brings the probability that they have a singular, external source down to just about zero.

quote:

---

So, I do not believe there is a god. It is not the case that I believe only naturalistic explanations are possible, merely that no evidence has been presented to suggest that supernatural explanations have merit.

---

And iano has yet to provide any hint at evidence in two threads now and starting a third one in which I'm sure he will still claim not to have to provide any reasonable evidence.I enjoyed your post.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

purpledawn:

quote:

---

I enjoyed your post.

---

Thank you. I enjoyed thinking it through.

Neither do I. My point was that if someone doesn't know: first cause/no first cause/if first cause then nature of first cause etc, then there is a difficulty in saying "I know there is no God". Saying that implies knowledge of the way things are which show that no God is required. That there is a valid, other explanation. But in this case, and a very important one at that, there is no explanation - yet you say "I know".
And I've just asked on what basis. If hunch, if assuming that because natural explains so much it will eventually explain this (or can be assumed to be able to explain it at some point) then fair enough. But "I know" requires a different level of evidence. Proof, not to yourself of course - but when the statement is made to others.

Sorry PY, you did. I can see this will run and run If the agnostic had equal belief in God/no God and it was none in either case, what's the difference between them and the athiest who has no belief in either too. The difference isn't major, it's so subtle that I can't see any difference at all. Zero chance on what basis? Zero evidence I'll warrant. But there is zero naturalistic evidence for why and how we are here - yet we are here. If zero evidence either way then the athiest is indeed in the middle position. To have a sway either way involves either a reason or blind assumption. If blind assumption/faith/belief - call it what you will - then okay. If reason what is that?

Tell me what it is GS and I'll tell you if I believe it. If it is anything to do with Ocams Razor though, I've already indicated why I think that that is an insufficent support of the atheist postition.

---

"..and everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Acts 2:21)

A slight aside: the goal of the search is to find correct answers - which is subtley different from answering the questions correctly. Answering the question correctly puts the emphasis on the searchers ability to discern correct from incorrect and the searcher may well be wrong. Finding the right answer could be taken to put the emphasis on the answer itself to provide, from itself, proof to the searcher that the answer is indeeed correct. Not a big deal just a subtle difference. But it illustrates the point that the main role in providing the correct answer to the quest "Does God exist" falls to God and not the searcher. The searcher can only seek but cannot necessarily find. Only if God reveals himself will the searcher find. Thus "seek and you will find" can be seen in this lightThere is, as you say. no reason to think there must be a God. There is ample reason to think there may be a God. And it is this 'may', a may which is a way (possibly the only way) of finding answers to those questions which decides someone to set off on a quest. To seek the answers...

He has a great way of illustrating things..does God. He told some fishermen "...and I will make you a fisher of men" Hope the bloke you read about got the parallelism All of what you subsequently say on the evolution of belief in God is perfectly reasonable. It fits as neatly as does biological evolution. The pieces of the jigsaw are starting to form a definite image - but the conclusion is formed before the jigsaw is complete. Or to put it another way...*ut**he**oncl***on*is*f*rmed*b*for**t*e*jig*a**i**om**et*I've often heard objections against God based on what has been done in his name: The Inquisition, Crusades, Indulgences, Papal Corruption etc. None of these things - of man - say the slightest thing for or against about God. Man making up gods says nothing for or against the existance of God. The OT has God parting the Red Sea to lead the Jews out of captivity. Before the last Egyptian charioteers body was washed ashore, the Jews were fashioning a idol from gold.What has what man does got to do in the slightest with Gods existance or no? What can man do to affect the existance of God in the slightest. You may feel that this is the best fit but you will no doubt agree it is not the only possible fit. Nor do you seem to have you any moorings from which to punt off down the path in saying that man-made God is the most likely fit.Athiests are as you say thoughtful people. I agree that they are - here especially. But there is some more that can be said about that:- thoughtfulness alone is an inadequate tool to understanding how the supernatural would be (thoughtfulness uses natural tools so what use for evaluation of the supernatural?) Your 'bump-in-the-night supernatural' is simply a caricature of something you don't pose tools to evaluate the existance of or not.- theists are thoughtful too. So thoughtfulness (or lack thereof) is not a prequisite to believing or disbelieving God.

Sorry PK. This was the way I intended it to be read. And the Bible does say why people are inclined to disbelieve - irrespective of evidence one way or the other. The Bible holds that lack of evidence is not the reason people don't believe in God (of the Bible). And it says it all over the place. My reference to ancient/nomad written was an off-topic counter a commonly held view as to why the Bible is irrelevant. Naturally, I don't share that view.

Not quite, 'I' had no choice, but given that I believe in God, I did have a choice. You did too...but only because God exists - that you don't believe in him alters that not at all. Funny to think though, as an athiest "Screw this -- I'm gonna do something else" was predetermined 4,500,000,000 years ago. Or so the argument goes....That's freeekin WILD!!!

So what is this wonderful explanation that the Bible offers and is there any evidence that it is true ?