A Letter To A Theist

I think you misunderstand the point I was getting at. There is no reason for a lack of reason, the lack of reason IS the reason.

Let me try and explain it a different way. I was born without any knowledge of the world. I had no knowledge of any sort of deity. Now, growing up things get told to you that you accept or reject. I accept things I am given good reason to suppose are true, and reject things I am not given good reason to suppose are true. The burden of proof is on the one introducing the claim i.e. the one claiming that there is a god. I am yet to come across a convincing reason to believe in a deity of any kind.

It's quite simple. You are the one making the claim. I am simply saying that you haven't convinced me.

Seeing as you are claiming to hold the absolute objective truth, the single most important piece of knowledge that one can ever obtain, I am going to give you the greatest amount of scepticism that I possibly can. Especially seeing as many other people are offering the same claim, and choosing one when none are right is equally as deleterious, I want to make sure that I've got it right. In that light, not being sceptical would be quite frankly equivalent to insulting you as it shows no respect for the severity of your claim.

Now, I do have a few philosophical reasons for not believing in a deity, but as we all know, philosophy is just sophistry and for every argument there is a rebuttal and a counter-rebuttal etc etc. I dont give too much credit to philosophical arguments on either side.

As to your point on evolution, I understand it fully, but I do not find it convincing. You are basically saying that for evolution to take place there needs to be certain things already here i.e. life. Where do they come from? A valid scientific question, but I do not think God is a valid scientific answer. To answer those questions we need to look at abiogenesis, quantum mechanics etc. Right now your answer of God is stemming from a lack of naturalistic answer. I do not think that is intellectually honest. We do not have positive supernatural evidence, simply lack of naturalistic explanation. It's the same situation as what happened with disease before germs were discovered.

I personally choose to admit when I do not know an answer rather than postulate one to explain a gap. Scientific answers are much more fulfilling to be simply because we can show them to be real. Take Hawking's wave function law for example. The early inflationary era, the density fluctuations in the background radiation discovered by the COBE satellite, the large scale homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, the fact that the universe is nearly flat etc. all confirm the hypothesis that the universe began UNCAUSED in accordance with the law. With the law in place there was a 95% chance that this would happen, and our universe was one of the most probable to have occured.

(MY SCIENCE IS RUSTY, PLEASE CORRECT ANY MISTAKES)

I see these questions as scientific questions. These dilemmas are not answered by a postulated answer from a lack of other answers. They are answered with positive, falsifiable evidence. God does not have that. The concept works off ambiguous philosophical claims and gaps in our knowledge. You can still hold that a god is behind everything, but at no point should the god actually BE a part of that equation. Unless, of course, there is positive falsifiable evidence for it.

Even if a god did exist, wouldn't we want to know how he made his creation?

This is by no means an even half-complete description of my perspective, but I hope that gives you some insight.

~Clutch

Category:

Education

Tags:

• An
• Open
• Letter
• To
• Theist
• Arguments
• Atheist

[nosson77]

Its a common misunderstanding what god is. god is just the name we give to the cause of everything, if you agree that the universe needs a cause then you are a theist, i you want to call that cause the force thats fine but your argument is over a name and the behaviour of this force, not the existence of the force.

[Clutchology]

I disagree. To convolute the meaning of theism to encompass 'cause of the universe' you are bastardising the theist position. There is a vast difference between a conscious, omnipotent entity and other explanations like, say, a multiverse. Differences accounted for in language.

And what about the position of 'I dont know?' I do not know if there is a cause or what it would be. Does this also construe theism to you?

Yes, God is just a name. But is a name much more specific than just 'cause'.

[nosson77]

Clutch

well you disagree with the facts.

there are many kinds of theists. desists, monotheists, polytheist, pantheists, panethesits, only a sertain interpretation of monotheism says that god is a conscious, omnipotent entity.

A multiuniverse is not a cause its a description.

if you say that you don't know if there is a cause then you are an agnostic

[Clutchology]

Actually, I am not wrong.

A theist is someone who believes in a conscious creator god. It is but one type of religious philosophy. Pantheists, deists etc. are other types. Monotheism and polytheism are forms of theism, not separate religious philosophies.

If you want to argue that a cause is, by definition, god, then you are free to present your case. But by simply stating so I have no reason to believe you, and I can reject it out of hand.

[Clutchology]

To clear up a few things:

The actions of a multiverse are one of the theories as to the cause of the universe. It is more than simply a description.

I would only be an agnostic if your definition of god holds. Until it does, by all other definitions I am an atheist. For further discussion, if you must label me, I will be labelled as such until a convincing argument for your definition can be given.

Thank you.

[toobsucker]

"Clutchology-No, merely that it is possibly scientifically valid. Abiogenesis fits the epistemological criteria to be judged as a scientific question. God does not, and as such can never be a valid scientific answer. That is what I meant by that quotation."

1)Abiogenesis does not even work on paper or PC simulations

2)Ok lets get this straight

God (another life in our universe that is vastly superior to us ) can NOT exist

And what line of reasoning are you using for this?

[Clutchology]

I hate using this, but you are yet again strawmanning me.

1) That is not the point. The fact that it can be scientifically analysed is what is important. God cannot. All I can do is direct you to Dr. Szostak and his studies on the subject. He knows more than both of us.

2) I never once argued that, so I will not defend it.

I'm tired of trying to explain myself to you when you continue to attack points I do not adhere to. Goodbye. Come back when you can critique a position I actually hold.

[isreasontaboo]

"Since all the atheist videos get so high ratings while all the christian videos get really low ratings"

I have a more logical explanation: theists are afraid of dissent so they don't even visit a channel that has opposing views. They remain trapped in their bubble of delusion and only view theistic propaganda that feeds them what they want to hear.

[garbagemann1234]

I have much sorrow for you The true experience of God is not in your grasp! I can't sit here and describe it for you...it is just beyond all I could ever say. There is so much more to life than words, thoughts...it comes down to one's experience. And how you can go to such lengths to try and tell someone what their experience is...it is a bastardization of the human mind! I will pray for you, no matter how much you don't care. Please, go in peace! Cease this childish nonsense!

[SheisLiLuca]

You can use quantum mechanics to confirm or deny anything, because it has no natural laws. You cannot proof anyone wrong, or right by your OWN definition of factual knowledge. So other than a great debate you are only trying to make a rose out of a stone. You are both right. now prove THAT wrong.

[D4R3W]

@AliceCure

Dont call it an arguement, call it a brief discussion. If there is a small chance something will occur, and it occurs, it isnt a miracle by default. Is winning the lottery a miracle? No, someone has to win. The same can be said about these so proclaimed miracles. It only makes sense that out of the millions of the people who visit the Lourdes, someone will have had to talk out of there and was cured from a desease that they mightve been cured of whether or not they visited the cave.

[AliceCure]

@D4R3W You wanted me to name a miracle? Ok one I can think of is the healings at Lourdes, France. It doesn't just happen by chance. Why would it? Why are you turning it into an argument? I'm just making statements.

[D4R3W]

@AliceCure

You didn't give me that one miracle i asked for..

If everything has a cause and effect then so must a god. Which leads to an infinite regression. You can't then add that god does not have a cause, because that goes against your first arguement that everything has a cause and effect. If god can be an exception then so can the universe.

[AliceCure]

@D4R3W There is always a cause and effect behind everything weather we know it or not. Things don't just happen for no reason. There is no such thing as chance. Chance only exists in the mind. Please understand I'm not trying to cause conflict. I'm just stating a point. That's fine if you disagree.

[D4R3W]

@AliceCure

Give me one miracle. One miracle that cannot be explained by chance. Have you seen an amputees limb grow back?

[Debking79]

Why?

[Debking79]

@fairguynova LMAO!!!

[fairguynova]

Misunderstanding? Is the bible not written clearly?

[nosson77]

yea you are wrong

theism comes from the word theos meaning god, anyone who believes in god is a theist, pantheists believe in god so they are theists, someone on wiki agrees with me.

here is my case evidence for god is from what he does not from what he is. what he does is the same thing as saying the cause.

Many theists don't define what god is at all, the only definition is what he does.

i find it funny that you are an atheist when the information you have on theism is from atheists