A question for atheists . . .

[37818]

What you actually have is assertions for God, and equivocations for God. No evidence - just a shell-game.

Two things for you to note: I know God, as every genuine Christian does. So I am not alone in this. Second, the uncaused existence that just is, has no God. God's Hebrew Name means [self] Existent. [Isaiah 44:6]

[JimL]

Two things for you to note: I know God, as every genuine Christian does. So I am not alone in this. Second, the uncaused existence that just is, has no God. God's Hebrew Name means [self] Existent. [Isaiah 44:6]

How do you know god? Does he speak to you? If so, how do you know its god?

[Tassman]

Two things for you to note: I know God, as every genuine Christian does. So I am not alone in this.

And children "know" there's a Santa Claus, as every "genuine" child does.

Second, the uncaused existence that just is, has no God. God's Hebrew Name means [self] Existent. [Isaiah 44:6]

Oh well, if Isaiah says so......

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Two things for you to note: I know God, as every genuine Christian does. So I am not alone in this.

You know that we don't believe that claim, right? Before we'll be convinced that you actually know God, you'll have to convince us that God exists.

Second, the uncaused existence that just is, has no God. God's Hebrew Name means [self] Existent. [Isaiah 44:6]

Well, no. The Tetragrammaton doesn't have a clear meaning. While it is quite likely derived from a Hebrew verb meaning "to be," it's a bit of a stretch to translate it as "existent," and it is completely beyond the linguistic evidence to translate it as "self existent."

[37818]

I see no reason why this should be the case. If you want to claim that it is the case, you'll need to support that claim.

So are saying the reason given for our intelligence to easily come from non-intelligence given over a finite time is not a good enough reason for a god like intelligence to come from non-intelligence given an infinite time?

For what claim?

For intelligence coming from non-intelligence. It claimed a lack of evidence for God.

We might equally point to any number of people, including myself, who were Christians but became atheists after being introduced to the evidence. . . .

Evidence there is no God? The number one reason I cannot be an atheist is that I do in fact know God. You having been a former professing Christian, how did you think that you had known God? How would you at that time provided a non-Christian with the means to actually know from God Himself?

. . . Obviously, you would not see this as being a particularly powerful argument for atheism; so I'm not sure why you think it is a particularly powerful argument for theism or deism.

I mentioned it because it was the reason atheist Antony Flew became a deist. And that JimL in post #34 mention the agument from design of a designer.

I'm quite familiar with the information which supposedly brought Flew to deism. I find it wholly unconvincing. If you are trying to convince atheists that we are mistaken, you'll need a better argument than this.

Ok.

I am interested in atheist arguments here on how intelligence comes from non-intelligence.

Two things to note:
Is it impossible for intelligence to come from other intelligence?
Why must it not be impossible for intelligence to come from non-intelligence?

[37818]

. . . because it is possible that the nature of our physical existence and Natural Law is uncaused and eternal.

All physical laws have to do with the finite and temporal. What evidence is there that physical existence and Natural Law is uncaused?

. . . because by the definition of objective evidence you have no evidence.

So we can rule out personal experience, witness of of others, and reason. On!y an objective physical experiment that anyone can do counts then.

Most likely no one 'knows' God, we believe on faith.

Faith on faith alone is fallacy.

The ultimate nature of God is unknown by mortals.

Because that god has no existence.

Flew actually reached this same conclusion concerning his belief in Deism.

Can you quote what he said on that?

It is possible that uncaused existence has no God.

Why would uncaused existence need a God?

The fundamental reason God is God is unknown to human speculation.

In your opinion.

Atheists believe there is no objective evidence for the existence of God, and see no reason to believe, because of this. Inconsistent beliefs over the millennia of human beliefs based on ancient mythology and questionable text further reinforces their doubt.

Existence exists. All traditional arguments are for the "existence" of God. Existence is not what needs proof.

Yes, some become deists, theists or some kind of Christians . . . , than again some 'deists, theists or some kind of Christians . . .' become atheists and agnostics.

Because knowing about God, they never actually knew God.

So what ?!?!!? Deism is a long way from theism, and believes in this context God is not involved, if God exists and is unknowable. Also, theists do become atheists. Actually, as a matter fact the belief there is Deist God not remotely involved in the affairs of God's Creation is closer to atheism or agnosticism than theism.

Again not actually knowing God. And not wanting to.

Arguing from the selective popularity of the conversion from one belief to another is a fallacious argument. The change of belief one way or another goes neither way as far as objective evidence.

Yeah, disallowing knowing from God Himself.

[shunyadragon]

All physical laws have to do with the finite and temporal.

Actually very very false. There is nothing in physical laws nor science that limits their application to the finite and temporal.

Scientific references please to support this assertion.

What evidence is there that physical existence and Natural Law is uncaused?

There is absolutely no evidence either way. I have always said that our physical existence and Natural Law is possibly uncaused and eternal.

So we can rule out personal experience, witness of of others, and reason. On!y an objective physical experiment that anyone can do counts then.

Personal experience, witness of others remains anecdotal, not convincing, and to conflicting among different people who believe differently. Reason is also problematic, because again many different people use reason and logic to justify divergent and conflicting beliefs.

Objective evidence may be tested uniformly and repeated over time, and reliable.

Faith on faith alone is fallacy.

No, claiming a belief by faith as fact is the problem, because many many people make many divergent and conflicting claims that their faith is factual.

By definition a belief in faith is not a fact.

Because that god has no existence.
Can you quote what he said on that?

Read Flew, it is the reason he did not claim to be a Theist.

Why would uncaused existence need a God?

An uncaused existence would not need a God by definition.

In your opinion.

I have no reason to believe otherwise, because there are too many conflicting claims that negate the claim that God or Gods are knowable in any absolute sense as you claim.

Existence exists. All traditional arguments are for the "existence" of God. Existence is not what needs proof.

Traditional arguments for God are not in any way conclusive and convincing.

Because knowing about God, they never actually knew God.

Again not actually knowing God. And not wanting to.

I gave the facts of people converting both ways. There is no way you can judge the reasoning and knowledge of others. Flew's claim of Deism remains far from any form of Theism.

Yeah, disallowing knowing from God Himself.

Nonetheless . . .

Arguing from the selective popularity of the conversion from one belief to another is a fallacious argument. The change of belief one way or another goes neither way as far as objective evidence.

[Roy]

What you actually have is assertions for God, and equivocations for God. No evidence - just a shell-game.

Two things for you to note: I know God, as every genuine Christian does. So I am not alone in this. Second, the uncaused existence that just is, has no God. God's Hebrew Name means [self] Existent. [Isaiah 44:6]

I note that again you have only assertions and equivocations. No evidence.

[Roy]

So are you arguing mammalian embryos are a case non-intelligence which become an intelligence?

They are - unless you think sperm and eggs are intelligent. Do you?

[37818]

No, I do not think that is case. There is a difference between "existence" that just "is" and caused existence even on the premise there being no God.

Why introduce the premise that there is a god?

How in your mind reintroducing the premise there is no God to be introducing the premise there is?


Two reasons, one I am a Christian theist. Two, in knowing God, I know Him to be that "Existence" that just "Is." [Acts 17:28]

[JimL]

How in your mind reintroducing the premise there is no God to be introducing the premise there is?


Two reasons, one I am a Christian theist. Two, in knowing God, I know Him to be that "Existence" that just "Is." [Acts 17:28]

So the reason of your knowing is because the bible says so? Thats not knowing, thats believing! Btw, that passage also says that we live in him, which taken literally would mean we are one and the same thing as our cause. In other words it pantheism.

[37818]

No, there is no difference between "existence" that just "is" an caused existence. They are both one and the same eternal thing. The stuff you are made of "just is", even when you no longer "is".

Well, you believe there is no difference between what has no beginning [uncaused] and that which has a beginning [caused]. You are just wrong. One is eternal [uncaused] the other is finite and temporal [having a cause].

[JimL]

Well, you believe there is no difference between what has no beginning [uncaused] and that which has a beginning [caused]. You are just wrong. One is eternal [uncaused] the other is finite and temporal [having a cause].

No, the effect, i.e. the caused thing, is temporal with respect to itself, but it is eternal with respect to its cause. Again, the stuff you are made of is eternal, even though its particular form, i.e. you, is temporal. Just as it is the case that something can not come from nothing, nothing can not come from something.

[shunyadragon]

No, the effect, i.e. the caused thing, is temporal with respect to itself, but it is eternal with respect to its cause. Again, the stuff you are made of is eternal, even though its particular form, i.e. you, is temporal. Just as it is the case that something can not come from nothing, nothing can not come from something.

It is interesting that I agree with this, and that God Created our physical existence as eternal. Of course, I realize your extremely agnostic, if not atheist, concerning this view of an eternal physical existence.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

So are saying the reason given for our intelligence to easily come from non-intelligence given over a finite time is not a good enough reason for a god like intelligence to come from non-intelligence given an infinite time?

Well, I would disagree with the idea that our intelligence came "easily" from non-intelligence, but otherwise: yes. The fact that biology brought us to our current state does not imply that biology can therefore bring about any given state, with enough time.

For intelligence coming from non-intelligence. It claimed a lack of evidence for God.

Claims about a "lack of evidence for God" are a whole different subject. We are talking about the idea that intelligence can arise from non-intelligent components. No one said that a lack of evidence for God implies that intelligence came from non-intelligence. We've said that biochemistry implies that intelligence comes from non-intelligent components.

Evidence there is no God? The number one reason I cannot be an atheist is that I do in fact know God. You having been a former professing Christian, how did you think that you had known God? How would you at that time provided a non-Christian with the means to actually know from God Himself?

When I was a Christian and believed that I had a personal relationship with God, I recognized that it would be impossible for me to "provide a non-Christian with the means to actually know from God Himself." When I was a Christian, I would have said that only God could provide such means to someone.

I mentioned it because it was the reason atheist Antony Flew became a deist.

Again, who cares?

Is it impossible for intelligence to come from other intelligence?

I see no reason to think that it is impossible. I just don't see any reason to think that human intelligence derive from some other source than nature.

Why must it not be impossible for intelligence to come from non-intelligence?

Who here has claimed that it "must not be impossible for intelligence to come from non-intelligence?"