i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
The JW answer is that while God has the power to see the future, he restricts his exercise of this power in order to leave room for the free will of humans in relation to his purpose. So God wasn't pretending not to know the outcome when he tested people in the Bible. He really doesn't know if any particular individual will serve him faithfully or not until it unfolds.
Yes.
They use the singer's illustration.
This is very close to molinism.
i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
I'm not using denial as a pejorative term.
I deny the calvinist concept of God and I deny the JW concept of God.
I don't see a problem with the word "denial" in this context.
I deny these concepts because I know and understand them. It's not about lacking something about these concepts.
i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
"How would you then define someone who lacks belief in deities for lack of sufficient evidence, but stops short of saying "deities do not exist"? Do you have a term for that?
I think you can't put lack and reason together. I think the correct would be denial and reason.
If you don't care about the reason (why I don't have a vagina; why I'm not an Asian; why I was not born in the 19th century; etc..) you can say you lack the motivation to even question these "no" realities.
But if you want to find a reason so you must be in denial of these realities.
Also the evidence issue again. What kind of evidence someone who lacks something would even care about?
Idk but I think defining atheism as a "lack" would bring a problem of epistemology.
When such problems arise usually a method is used to test its contingency.
For example, sex exists without rape. But rape doesn't exists without sex. So rape is contingent to sex. Rape doesn't exist by itself.
If you apply this logic to theism and atheism you'll easily notice that atheism needs the existence of theism. It doesn't exists by itself. So it's very strange the "lack" definition. I think the "denial" definition makes more sense.
"Lack" imply an "I don't care" attitude.
New atheism is much better defined as denial. Probabilistic denial because they say there's PROBABLY no God.
i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
Another straw man argument is to define "atheism" as denial of god's existence. Most atheists won't subscribe to that statement.
Really? Tell me more...
I know the Four Horsemen tried to call themselves as "bright".
But the A on atheism means no and no means denial.
Maybe you are referring to those who lack belief in God.
Well I know there are people like these but they're not activists. These people are more nihilist in the true sense. They would never bother to debate in an Internet forum. Or these people wanted to believe but can't even though they keep trying. Usually these people don't identify themselves as atheists.
If someone is an activist it must be an apologist or a denier.
If someone lacks something I don't think it would try very hard to boast its position.
There's a very clear difference in attitude between denial and lack/absence.
If someone lacks a vagina in its body would be very strange if this one identified as an avaginist.
Only denial moves a person to identify itself with a Greek "A".
i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
i've accepted my agnosticism, but doesn't mean I'm comfortable with it.
Pascal's wager for you, EdenOne.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
Mathematics and the scientific method are metaphysical in nature.
Scientific method is metaphysics applied to the physical world only.
The scientific method is built upon several axioms.
Every axiom is metaphysical. Axioms are taken to be true through pure faith.
Sometimes mathematical principles can be used by the scientific method.
i'll be starting a series "answer this:" with thought-provoking questions for debate.
your arguments for and against are most welcome.. i'll start with this: .
why would an omnibenevolent and omniscient god put us through tests of faith?.
Please keep in mind my own agnosticism. I'm not taking sides here, merely instigating debate.
Really?
You looks like an atheist to me.
If you really reached agnosticism then the only thing you must be concerned is the Pascal's wager.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
I suggest we stick to the theological assumptions intended by the OP.
Evidently.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
If you can prove this, you will be the most famous, rich, popular person in the universe! Please provide the evidence.
It's already mathematically proved by Einstein.
The singularity is the point "where" all physical laws collapse (including space and time).
Metaphysics = beyond physics.
So the cause of the singularity must be metaphysical.
atheism = self defeating.
first may we define our terms.
the word atheism comes literally from the greek, alpha the negative and theos [for god], therefore “negative god” or there is no god.
Because a first cause is a logical necessity.
Infinite regress is logically impossible.
The first cause of the physical universe is the Big Bang.
The cause of the Big Bang is metaphysical.
The first metaphysical cause is God.
