Originally posted by epiphinehas
Fair enough:

Eternal -> without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing
Infinite -> immeasurably great in every respect
Spirit -> having a incorporeal conscious life
Necessary -> self-existent; having the reason for its existence in itself
Omniscient -> all-knowing; knows only true propositions
Omnipotent -> all-powerful; able to accom ...[text shortened]... e existence of the universe

"God" will refer to the person possessing the above attributes.

Such a "person" is just a product of theoplacia and it lacks of concrete being. The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions, not on healthy or unhealthy monsters rooted in one's sixth
😵

Originally posted by rwingett
There is no such thing as a case for atheism. There are only cases against theism. The two are not synonymous.

A little odd to only be able to define yourself by the disbelief of something else.
Since there is no reason to be an Atheist by itself, I guess than the sole reason
to be one is to be against another belief system. This sort of takes all the
reason out of being able to look at evidence in any light other than the one that
supports your views being against theisim. I suppose that also means there is
no way you can accept anything as evidence for God, because to accept any
means the door is now open for a belief in God, so a strong bias, just no real
reason for being an Atheist.
Kelly

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It has been suggested in these forums that the case for atheism is so strong that anyone who isn't an atheist deserves to be ridiculed.

If this is truly the case, atheists, won't one of you please prove that atheism is true for us in this very thread, so that we may avoid your ridicule? If the truth of atheism is so far beyond a shadow of a doubt tha ...[text shortened]... t must be exceedingly easy to prove. Right? Right.

Atheists, you have the floor...

As an atheist, I would not claim it can be proven god does not exist. It is notoriously difficult to prove a negative in many areas outside purely mathematical inquiries, and even more difficult if the thing one is endeavoring to prove the nonexistence of has not been precisely defined. In my mind, the main problem with the god concept -- any "living" god will do, but the biblical god is the primary focus of most in these parts -- is that it fails to explain satisfactorily the origin of the universe. It's a cheat: "God created the universe. QED." You all know what comes next: "Who created GOD?" The theist will say, "God is timeless. He has always been and will always be." But then, surely we could say the same of the universe itself?

Anyway, it can be reasonably argued, I think, that the biblical god is highly improbable; but it cannot be proved that god is impossible. Lucky for god.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Fair enough:

Eternal -> without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing
Infinite -> immeasurably great in every respect
Spirit -> having a incorporeal conscious life
Necessary -> self-existent; having the reason for its existence in itself
Omniscient -> all-knowing; knows only true propositions
Omnipotent -> all-powerful; able to accom ...[text shortened]... e existence of the universe

"God" will refer to the person possessing the above attributes.

OK, it is your thread, I suggest let's go with that. No additional claims allowed, none subtracted. Are the theists OK with that? Be sure. No claims about Jesus or humans' condition here, nothing about the Fall...

Eternal -> without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing
Infinite -> immeasurably great in every respect
Spirit -> having a incorporeal conscious life
Necessary -> self-existent; having the reason for its existence in itself
Omniscient -> all-knowing; knows only true propositions
Omnipotent -> all-powerful; able to accomplish anything that is in accord with its own nature
Omnipresent -> ubiquitous; present everywhere at the same time
Omnibenevolent -> morally perfect; the ultimate standard of goodness
Creator of the universe -> responsible for the existence of the universe

Originally posted by RJHinds
Your answer appears to be that there is no case for atheism.
I judge it to be a false religion. Even the atheist agree with that.

The atheist has agreed that there is no case for atheism on this forum.
It is I that Judge it to be a false religion. The atheist think it is a
non-religion. But it is still false whether you consider it a religion or not.

Originally posted by Soothfast
In my mind, the main problem with the god concept -- any "living" god will do, but the biblical god is the primary focus of most in these parts -- is that it fails to explain satisfactorily the origin of the universe. It's a cheat: "God created the universe. QED." You all know what comes next: "Who created GOD?"

Do you think that physics satisfactorily explains the origins of the universe? To use your example; what was before the big-bang?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Ah, but it isn't as easy as that. Merely stating that the case for theism is too weak to be believable does not make it so. You need to demonstrate that it is too weak to be believable.

Actually, I don't. It is the default position. It is you that has to demonstrate otherwise.

Did you demonstrate that the case for believing in fairies was weak before you stopped believing in fairies?

Originally posted by divegeester
Do you think that physics satisfactorily explains the origins of the universe? To use your example; what was before the big-bang?

Yes, I would like to know what this big bang is and what caused it, too?
Does physics have anything to say about that?
References please.

Originally posted by JS357
OK, it is your thread, I suggest let's go with that. No additional claims allowed, none subtracted. Are the theists OK with that? Be sure. No claims about Jesus or humans' condition here, nothing about the Fall...

Eternal -> without beginning or end; lasting forever; always existing
Infinite -> immeasurably great in every respect
Spirit -> having a incor ...[text shortened]... standard of goodness
Creator of the universe -> responsible for the existence of the universe

There are certain versions of the problem of evil (e.g., the evidential problem of evil—Lemonjello and I will have to tackle that in a different thread) Christian theology in particular is well-equipped to deal with, nevertheless I will refrain from invoking anything having to do with the Judeo-Christian religion in defense of theism simpliciter.

I also want to stress that I do not claim to be able to prove God's existence, it is my contention, rather, that God's existence is more reasonable than his non-existence; ergo, the case for God's existence does not fail simply because it does not prove God's existence—in other words, lack of proof for God's existence does not vindicate atheism, any more than lack of proof for God's non-existence vindicates theism. The point of this thread is to see exactly what the best arguments for atheism are, how compelling they are, and whether or not they succeed in making theistic belief as ridiculous as some in these forums think it is.

That said, I'm ready when you are. And, please, friends—be you atheist or theist—please refrain from making comments unless you, too, are willing to abide by the agreed upon guidelines of this thread. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Originally posted by Soothfast
As an atheist, I would not claim it can be proven god does not exist. It is notoriously difficult to prove a negative in many areas outside purely mathematical inquiries, and even more difficult if the thing one is endeavoring to prove the nonexistence of has not been precisely defined. In my mind, the main problem with the god concept -- any "living" go d is highly improbable; but it cannot be proved that god is impossible. Lucky for god.

The theist will say, "God is timeless. He has always been and will always be." But then, surely we could say the same of the universe itself?

But, of course, you can't say the same about the universe itself, because the universe began. According to the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorem, the implication of Big Bang cosmology is that the universe, at some point in the finite past, was condensed to a point of infinite density—the boundary of space-time. As such, the universe cannot be eternal; i.e., the universe is contingent—it did not have to exist.

Further, the initial conditions of the universe could have been different, i.e., it is conceivable that our universe could have been governed by a completely different set of laws, different cosmological constants, etc. The fine-tuning of our universe for life cries out for an explanation. Most atheists reach for the multiverse hypothesis next, but in order to explain the fine-tuning evident in our universe it is far simpler to postulate one unseen God than an infinity of unseen and unseeable universes.

In short, nothing you have mentioned here has shown that God's existence is highly improbable.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually, I don't. It is the default position. It is you that has to demonstrate otherwise.

Did you demonstrate that the case for believing in fairies was weak before you stopped believing in fairies?

Atheistic naturalism has never been proved to be true. Simply because you and I are born without belief in God is not a sufficient reason to call atheism the default position either. If we were unreasoning beasts, without the capacity for rational thought, perhaps. But, alas, we are self-aware, rational creatures who form beliefs about the world. As such, we are responsible for weighing the evidence, asking pertinent questions, and arriving at conclusions. This enterprise of the mind is what ultimately determines our beliefs, without any reference whatsoever to the so-called "default position" we once shared with unreasoning beasts. You might as well claim that atheism is the default position because ceiling fans lack belief in God.

For instance, a rational creature, such as ourselves, might find the fact that the world exists rather than not a remarkable thing, and through long consideration of that fact arrive at the notion that there must be some reason why it exists, which might lead him down a path to belief in a creator God. Now, who is to say, definitively, that the "default position," when confronted with the evidence of our senses, is that there is no reason for our existence? Similarly, who is to say, definitively, that the "default position," when confronted with the evidence of our senses, is that there is a reason for our existence? To claim, definitively, one way or the other merely begs the question.

The universe does not contain within itself the explanation for its existence, therefore atheism cannot be considered the "default position" by any stretch of the imagination.

Originally posted by rwingett
If that is your definition of god, then the 'problem of evil' remains a potent argument against it. I won't go through all the details of it here yet again, but will simply observe that Christian apologetics has so far failed to adequately sidestep it.

By all means, let's get into the details. On the contrary, theistic apologetics has adequately dealt with the problem of evil. That said, on a very fundamental level, after it fails as an argument, the problem of evil remains a powerful defeater for God's existence because of its appeal to emotion, but emotion is not a reliable arbiter of truth and should not be considered as such by any rational person. So I admit that the problem of evil may serve as a defeater for God's existence for certain individuals, but not on purely rational grounds.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
As such, we are responsible for weighing the evidence, asking pertinent questions, and arriving at conclusions.

I didn't claim it was the default belief for any of the reasons you suggest. I claim it because it is essentially true by definition. Unless and until one gains belief in an entity, the default position is lack of belief in that entity. When that entity is called 'God' then the name for that default position is 'atheism'.
So until you ask 'pertinent question' and until such questions are proven 'pertinent', the default position is atheism. It is up to you to convince me that your questions are pertinent and not for me to disprove it.

For instance, a rational creature, such as ourselves, might find the fact that the world exists rather than not a remarkable thing, and through long consideration of that fact arrive at the notion that there must be some reason why it exists, which might lead him down a path to belief in a creator God.
Notice that the 'rational creature' in question started with the default position of atheism and only after being faced with a problem and finding a specific solution did he change his stance?

Now, who is to say, definitively, that the "default position," when confronted with the evidence of our senses, is that there is no reason for our existence? Similarly, who is to say, definitively, that the "default position," when confronted with the evidence of our senses, is that there is a reason for our existence? To claim, definitively, one way or the other merely begs the question.
I have not claimed definitively one way or the other. I have claimed that prior to the question being asked or the answer being sought, the default position is atheism. It is for you to convince me that there should be a reason for our existence and that that reason is the one you are promoting (God).

The universe does not contain within itself the explanation for its existence, therefore atheism cannot be considered the "default position" by any stretch of the imagination.
Atheism is not an explanation for the universes existence. It is the lack of belief in God as an explanation.

Originally posted by KellyJay
A little odd to only be able to define yourself by the disbelief of something else.
Since there is no reason to be an Atheist by itself, I guess than the sole reason
to be one is to be against another belief system. This sort of takes all the
reason out of being able to look at evidence in any light other than the one that
supports your views being agai ...[text shortened]... ow open for a belief in God, so a strong bias, just no real
reason for being an Atheist.
Kelly

The term 'atheism' literally means 'to be without theism' (a=without, theism=belief in a god or gods). If there were no theists then the term 'atheism' would make no sense. It exists solely as a reaction to theism. Being an atheist tells you nothing about what I am or what I believe, it only tells you one thing I don't believe. That being said, there are any number of reasons for being an atheist. And they all boil down to the fact that the theist has failed to adequately demonstrate the validity of his case.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
By all means, let's get into the details. On the contrary, theistic apologetics has adequately dealt with the problem of evil. That said, on a very fundamental level, after it fails as an argument, the problem of evil remains a powerful defeater for God's existence because of its appeal to emotion, but emotion is not a reliable arbiter of truth ...[text shortened]... s a defeater for God's existence for certain individuals, but not on purely rational grounds.

No thanks. It's been rehashed on this forum a million times already. Needless to say, though, I disagree with your assessment of the problem. if you think the problem of evil has been overcome then you simply don't understand it.