From Nothing to Nothing

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

Reason to ask questions, not to abandon theism. If you are going to approach theism and theology with integrity and due diligence then these are important questions to ask. We don't know the first thing about any of these properties like atemporality or omnipotence except what we can ponder in hypotheticals. Aren't you even a little curious about how that stuff works? Doesn't it make you even a little nervous? Nervous enough to want solid answers?

How may we get the answers we seek by contenting ourselves that we have haven't framed the questions well (igtheism)?

Surely we must, as intelligent questioners, work towards greater knowledge, albeit is small steps.

We don't abandon mathematics because we don't have full definitions of things. Mathematics is exploration of what is knowable. At some stage in the past, we didn't know the concepts of mathematics. That is no reason to give up.

In the case of the infinite, we have carried poor but useable definitions for millennia. The weakness of the definitions haven't stopped the work in that regard by the likes of Srinivasa Ramanujan whose work on infinite series revolutionized 20th Century mathematics (and who also stated: "An equation for me has no meaning, unless it expresses a thought of God").

The igtheist case that: 'I will not decide because taking a yes, no, or even ambivalent position is absurd while the concepts are not clearly defined' is the equivalent to 'I don't know and I don't care to find out'. In practice, it is usless, defeatist and not any sort of valid answer to argument, it is a cop-out. Nor is the potential to make the definitions more rigourous, partitioned off from us (pun intended but unlikely to be understood).

The igthist also ignores the anthropomorphic nature of many concepts of deity. In these cases, there is no issue with the definitions of attributes. The argument itself seems to be ignorant of the ignorance required to accept it.

Where exactly are you getting the "I don't care to find out" from? Igtheism encourages the clarification of godly attributes in order to more precisely comprehend the forces you are reaching out to. More to the point, it posits that this is the only means of comprehending such forces. Measuring atemporality and omnipotence and omniscience, for instance. Acquiring falsifiable data that allows us to nail down in exact terms the dimensions and nature of these forces. Its irresponsible to give the subject any less than our most acute scrutiny, if we are to treat the reality of a superhuman overlord seriously. Its not a cop out, it is due diligence. Devise a means of testing and recording these properties and I would be fascinated to see the results. Refuse to devise a means and your conclusions lose their foundation.

Let's explore one of those terms that you say are undefined: 'atemporality'.

I would say that the simplest definition is that "An atemporal thing is one that is totally unaffected by the passage of time", i.e: it is what it is, regardless of time.

If I measure something that is atemporal at the Big Bang its values are no different than if I measure the same last Tuesday, right now, or even if I were to travel 129 billion years into the future.

The number 7 would be atemporal (like all other numbers) but perhaps this is a little too abstracted and not objective enough for you.

So, consider c the constant of the speed of light in a vacuum, ΩΛ (Omega-Lambda) the cosmological constant, the gravitational constant G, Planck's constant h, the electric constant ε0, and the elementary charge e. These are things that can be objectively examined and are atemporally unchanging.

In algebra an atemporal entity (lets call it 'αͲ ') definition would be: αͲ = αͲ + |T|

So, now that we have defined this 'oh so difficult' concept semantically and mathematically, and shown that such is evidenced objectively, you must reject the igtheist argument on the basis of your enlightenment.

Praise God!

Not so fast there, 'navigator of time'. This evidence would have to be submitted with all other alleged proof to be analyzed and criticized by the best and brightest in all fields before being rejected or approved for funding in order to better flesh out the framework of your data. Not to mention this is an expression of a hypothetical, a hypothetical of a metaphor no less. Comparing a god to numbers? You may as well compare mahatma ghandi to the alphabet. When was the last time someone used theoretical physics to describe how wet water is? Where is your practical demonstration of atemporality? Show us an apple that resists gravity or a bird reverting to an egg. Merely submitting a few half-cocked equations on a conspiracy forum is hardly groundbreaking or compelling. As such, the igtheist problem persists. I salute your efforts however. Maybe one day your crusade will be rewarded and a substantial definition will be revealed, majestically nestled in a mountain of reproducable data and fully documented tools and methodology. Until then, no substantial definition, no productive discussion.

May all your pay cheques be so ratified!

No one suggested that the LHC shouldn't be built because we didn't know the mass of the Higgs Boson.

In real life, the "I don't know something, so why bother" is not valid reasoning. Igtheism is "I don't (at present) know the values involved so why bother".

This does not exclude that some of the values are known and defined quite well at present. Or that all those values may be well defined in the future.

The igtheist argument is one of personal ignorance and indifference in the moment.

You are adding the "why bother" part. Igtheism/ignosticism does not throw in the towel, it points out the almost deliberate obfuscation of divinity and encourages a more stringent examination and definition of properties attributed to divinity. As I have already mentioned. One can subscribe to igtheism and dismiss theology as pointless, or interpret it as reason to stop taking shortcuts where theology is concerned. You keep assuming the former, but the latter is also a possibility. You are misrepresenting igtheism/ignosticism to make it easier to attack, right down to altering its definition for such purposes. I would be fascinated to see someone produce the results of such a diligent investigation, especially if the results were substantial and reproducable...but alas, nothing has been posted to that effect. Nonetheless curiosity tempts me to keep my eyes open, and I often submit to my curiosity.

a reply to: chr0naut

As much as I love the irrelevant convoluted metaphorical story, it simply doesn't pertain to reality or the fact that god lacks evidence. It's more like me claiming that I have an invisible magic dragon living in my garage. By your standards, it is just as logical to believe it's there, as it is to reject my claim. That's really all I need to know.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

You are adding the "why bother" part. Igtheism/ignosticism does not throw in the towel, it points out the almost deliberate obfuscation of divinity and encourages a more stringent examination and definition of properties attributed to divinity. As I have already mentioned. One can subscribe to igtheism and dismiss theology as pointless, or interpret it as reason to stop taking shortcuts where theology is concerned. You keep assuming the former, but the latter is also a possibility. You are misrepresenting igtheism/ignosticism to make it easier to attack, right down to altering its definition for such purposes. I would be fascinated to see someone produce the results of such a diligent investigation, especially if the results were substantial and reproducable...but alas, nothing has been posted to that effect. Nonetheless curiosity tempts me to keep my eyes open, and I often submit to my curiosity.

Many of the terms that igtheism says are 'undefined' are actually quite well defined.

Fuzzily defined terms are sufficient to carry concepts whose meanings are not in dispute.

For instance, with the word 'omniscient', there is not large disageement about what that means. Everyone agrees that it means "having all knowledge". It is not implying an infinity of knowledge (knowledge is likely to be finite). It does not include less than all knowledge. It is the entire set of the knowable. There is no ambiguity in it. There is no ill-defined wishy-washy definition in it. It is specific and clear.

Sure some could play the Socratic Paradox and say the current definitions are inexact. But that game can be played with ANY knowledge.

For instance, define 'green' or define 'top'. Despite their objective nature and the fact that no-one would question their definitions in the real world, there could be stuff about those definitions that we don't know and of course if there's stuff missing from the definitions that we don't know, we'd never know it.

To suggest that because something might have an unclear definition that it is unknowable and cannot be valid as a tool of reason is stupid. The fact that we 'don't know' has historically proven to be the impetus to learn.

According to Wikipedi's definition of Igtheism/Ignosticism is: "the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless, because the term "god" has no unambiguous definition. Ignosticism requires a good, non-controversial definition of god before arguing on its existence".

Igtheism says that, because the the parameters are 'ill-defined', it is pointless to draw a conclusion, or even proceed. The requirement for "a good non-contoversial definition before arguing" means that they cannot proceed with (or even begin) the argument until the definitions are made clearer.

When you have to paint the top of something green, you don't require mathematical proofs with 6 sigma certainty to proceed.

The truth, ignored by igtheist illogic, is that one may proceed with an argument without full definition of all factors! A full definition is not required to begin debate. Most debates are over things that are very poorly defined. That is why the conclusion of the igtheist argument is equivalent to "why bother". They choose to not proceed based on a condition that is not required and irrelevant.

I'd actually like to see igtheists rigourously define 'ill-defined'. It would seem that they are quite happy to work with fuzzy definitions in that case. They don't seem to see their own self-contradiction.

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: chr0naut

As much as I love the irrelevant convoluted metaphorical story, it simply doesn't pertain to reality or the fact that god lacks evidence. It's more like me claiming that I have an invisible magic dragon living in my garage. By your standards, it is just as logical to believe it's there, as it is to reject my claim. That's really all I need to know.

Car lacks evidence, therefore doesn't exist?

God lacks evidence, therefore doesn't exist?

The reasoning process applicable is identical for both cases. There is no special pleading. They just have different objects.

In post to which you were replying, I was arguing that what you were calling a "logical default" was not. Again you have changed the subject.

... and you just used a much more "irrelevant convoluted metaphorical story". Another special pleading, perhaps?

In answer to your final question, using logic and reasoning alone, I would have to say that I could neither accept nor reject the existence of an invisible magic dragon living in your garage. I simply don't have the data to make that determination. That is a limitation of logic and reasoning, one cannot make a determination based upon no evidence.

I would however, be likely to disbelieve you, as you have a history of making false statements (like where you said in your post, above, "that's all I need to know"), I don't believe in magic (except as deception or a fictional device) and most dragons are fictional. The linking of questionable attributes of 'invisible', 'magic' and 'dragon' with your propensity for mis-statement would suggest to me that it was highly unlikely to be true.

a reply to: chr0naut

Many of the terms that igtheism says are 'undefined' are actually quite well defined.

Fuzzily defined terms are sufficient to carry concepts whose meanings are not in dispute.

And you are willing to settle for 'fuzzily defined terms'? That's a shame.

For instance, with the word 'omniscient', there is not large disageement about what that means. Everyone agrees that it means "having all knowledge". It is not implying an infinity of knowledge (knowledge is likely to be finite). It does not include less than all knowledge. It is the entire set of the knowable. There is no ambiguity in it. There is no ill-defined wishy-washy definition in it. It is specific and clear.

Its a hypothetical property that has not been substantiated or confirmed. Translating it into communicable data is only part of the battle.

To suggest that because something might have an unclear definition that it is unknowable and cannot be valid as a tool of reason is stupid. The fact that we 'don't know' has historically proven to be the impetus to learn.

Thus my contention in regard to those who are unwilling to exert the discipline required to actually measure and substantiate these properties. Learning requires study, and study requires tools of observation. Remember the shortcuts I mentioned earlier?

Igtheism says that, because the the parameters are 'ill-defined', it is pointless to draw a conclusion, or even proceed. The requirement for "a good non-contoversial definition before arguing" means that they cannot proceed with (or even begin) the argument until the definitions are made clearer.

Exactly.

The truth, ignored by igtheist illogic, is that one may proceed with an argument without full definition of all factors!

That is called being sloppy and unprofessional.

That is why the conclusion of the igtheist argument is equivalent to "why bother". They choose to not proceed based on a condition that is not required and irrelevant.

They approach the process responsibly. If you take issue with that, then it speaks more for your methods than it does for theirs.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I'd actually like to see igtheists rigourously define 'ill-defined'. It would seem that they are quite happy to work with fuzzy definitions in that case. They don't seem to see their own self-contradiction.

You overlooked this. I was curious to hear your thoughts on it.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'd actually like to see igtheists rigourously define 'ill-defined'. It would seem that they are quite happy to work with fuzzy definitions in that case. They don't seem to see their own self-contradiction.

You overlooked this. I was curious to hear your thoughts on it.

I really don't think I need to define 'ill defined'. You could try Google if you are unclear on it, and I extend the same suggestion to chronaut.

a reply to: TzarChasm

ill-de·fined adjective not having a clear description or limits; vague. "ill-defined concepts" synonyms: vague, indistinct, unclear, imprecise, nebulous, shadowy, obscure; Google

OK.

om·nis·cient ämˈniSHənt/Submit adjective knowing everything. "the story is told by an omniscient narrator" synonyms: all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing "he thought I was some kind of omniscient guru" -Google

Look! Google has a definition for omniscient too! It looks like we can get into the real discussion now.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm

ill-de·fined adjective not having a clear description or limits; vague. "ill-defined concepts" synonyms: vague, indistinct, unclear, imprecise, nebulous, shadowy, obscure; Google

OK.

om·nis·cient ämˈniSHənt/Submit adjective knowing everything. "the story is told by an omniscient narrator" synonyms: all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing "he thought I was some kind of omniscient guru" -Google

Look! Google has a definition for omniscient too! It looks like we can get into the real discussion now.

A definition of hypothetical omniscience. Google also has definitions for vampires, dementors and hinkypunks. Better stock up on garlic...

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'd actually like to see igtheists rigourously define 'ill-defined'. It would seem that they are quite happy to work with fuzzy definitions in that case. They don't seem to see their own self-contradiction.

You overlooked this. I was curious to hear your thoughts on it.

I really don't think I need to define 'ill defined'. You could try Google if you are unclear on it, and I extend the same suggestion to chronaut.

But surely you cannot begin argument for igtheism without defining the terms! You igheretic, you!

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'd actually like to see igtheists rigourously define 'ill-defined'. It would seem that they are quite happy to work with fuzzy definitions in that case. They don't seem to see their own self-contradiction.

You overlooked this. I was curious to hear your thoughts on it.

I really don't think I need to define 'ill defined'. You could try Google if you are unclear on it, and I extend the same suggestion to chronaut.

But surely you cannot begin argument for igtheism without defining the terms! You igheretic, you!

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm

ill-de·fined adjective not having a clear description or limits; vague. "ill-defined concepts" synonyms: vague, indistinct, unclear, imprecise, nebulous, shadowy, obscure; Google

OK.

om·nis·cient ämˈniSHənt/Submit adjective knowing everything. "the story is told by an omniscient narrator" synonyms: all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing "he thought I was some kind of omniscient guru" -Google

Look! Google has a definition for omniscient too! It looks like we can get into the real discussion now.

A definition of hypothetical omniscience. Google also has definitions for vampires, dementors and hinkypunks. Better stock up on garlic...

But hypothetical Google hypothetical definitions, of all hypothetical sorts of hypothetical stuff, says, hypothetically, nothing about the rumour of your hypothetical igtheist hypothetical case.

I have more so hypothetically, I win.

I gather you have given up on making sense. Or maybe you just gave up on pretending to make sense. ...are we done here? Because it kind of feels like we are done here.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm

ill-de·fined adjective not having a clear description or limits; vague. "ill-defined concepts" synonyms: vague, indistinct, unclear, imprecise, nebulous, shadowy, obscure; Google

OK.

om·nis·cient ämˈniSHənt/Submit adjective knowing everything. "the story is told by an omniscient narrator" synonyms: all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing "he thought I was some kind of omniscient guru" -Google

Look! Google has a definition for omniscient too! It looks like we can get into the real discussion now.

A definition of hypothetical omniscience. Google also has definitions for vampires, dementors and hinkypunks. Better stock up on garlic...

But hypothetical Google hypothetical definitions, of all hypothetical sorts of hypothetical stuff, says, hypothetically, nothing about the rumour of your hypothetical igtheist hypothetical case.

I have more so hypothetically, I win.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm

ill-de·fined adjective not having a clear description or limits; vague. "ill-defined concepts" synonyms: vague, indistinct, unclear, imprecise, nebulous, shadowy, obscure; Google

OK.

om·nis·cient ämˈniSHənt/Submit adjective knowing everything. "the story is told by an omniscient narrator" synonyms: all-knowing, all-wise, all-seeing "he thought I was some kind of omniscient guru" -Google

Look! Google has a definition for omniscient too! It looks like we can get into the real discussion now.

A definition of hypothetical omniscience. Google also has definitions for vampires, dementors and hinkypunks. Better stock up on garlic...

Those definitions of things fictional include that fact.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'd actually like to see igtheists rigourously define 'ill-defined'. It would seem that they are quite happy to work with fuzzy definitions in that case. They don't seem to see their own self-contradiction.

You overlooked this. I was curious to hear your thoughts on it.

I really don't think I need to define 'ill defined'. You could try Google if you are unclear on it, and I extend the same suggestion to chronaut.

But surely you cannot begin argument for igtheism without defining the terms! You igheretic, you!

You are playing games.

Sorry, I gave silly for silly. How utterly balanced of me.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Car lacks evidence, therefore doesn't exist?

God lacks evidence, therefore doesn't exist?

The reasoning process applicable is identical for both cases. There is no special pleading. They just have different objects.

This is precisely why your argument is bunk. The reasoning isn't even close to identical. We know cars exist, we know that people buy them. We also know that people steal them. Therefor it isn't a leap of logic to believe a friend may have bought a car and had it get stolen unless the guy is a compulsive liar. Asking "Is there evidence that a car was in the driveway" is the wrong question. The question is "Does god exist", so the only logical comparison would be to ask, "Do cars exist?" or "Do cars get stolen?"

Of course the glaring problem is that we have evidence that cars and car thefts exist, so we are back to square one. You can't just take a common every day occurrence and put it on the same level as the existence of god (or anything else that lacks evidence). There are no "god occurrences" that we can look at and analyze in the real world aside from unsubstantiated unverifiable claims. Nearly 2000 cars get stolen every day in the US and this is backed by police reports.

I would however, be likely to disbelieve you, as you have a history of making false statements. I don't believe in magic (except as deception or a fictional device) and most dragons are fictional. The linking of questionable attributes of 'invisible', 'magic' and 'dragon' with your propensity for mis-statement would suggest to me that it was highly unlikely to be true.

Except for the fact that I don't go around making false statements, but hey if that makes you feel better about your terrible argument, then enjoy it while it lasts. Funny how you mention questionable attributes, yet won't even admit that the same problem exists for believing in god.

Why don't you believe in magic? Where is the logic in that position? Where is the real world application for non belief in magic? You can't prove magic doesn't exist and as per you it is just as logical to believe in magic as to not believe in magic. Where is the logic in the amagicist position that you have now taken on?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
Car lacks evidence, therefore doesn't exist?

God lacks evidence, therefore doesn't exist?

The reasoning process applicable is identical for both cases. There is no special pleading. They just have different objects.

This is precisely why your argument is bunk. The reasoning isn't even close to identical. We know cars exist, we know that people buy them. We also know that people steal them. Therefor it isn't a leap of logic to believe a friend may have bought a car and had it get stolen unless the guy is a compulsive liar. Asking "Is there evidence that a car was in the driveway" is the wrong question. The question is "Does god exist", so the only logical comparison would be to ask, "Do cars exist?" or "Do cars get stolen?"

You are still trying to argue for the definite non-existence of God, and again by special pleading. I was trying to show that the logical process of your argument did not lead to a 'logical' default, as you claimed, and that special pleading is not valid as rationale.

The only way that a balanced reasoning process would be wrong, is if the reasoner had definite knowledge of the non-existence of God. Then no reasoning would be needed, the argument evaporates, special pleading could be called upon and an atheist view would be a logical/reasonable default.

However, there are two other possibilities where the reasoning process I gave, would be valid:
1). God definitely exists.
2). We don't know if God definitely exists.

You spoke of a "logical default" that is neither, as I demonstrated with the hypothetical situation. However, you extended the criteria of the scenario I gave to refute an un-asked question. Bait and switch, in intellectual terms.

I request that you respond to the question of why atheism would be a 'logical default'. I will not debate the existence of God (which is a separate issue), with you, right now. Firstly, to do so, I would have to ensure that you use reasoning to form your conclusion/s and abandon prejudice. We are not quite there yet.

Of course the glaring problem is that we have evidence that cars and car thefts exist, so we are back to square one. You can't just take a common every day occurrence and put it on the same level as the existence of god (or anything else that lacks evidence). There are no "god occurrences" that we can look at and analyze in the real world aside from unsubstantiated unverifiable claims. Nearly 2000 cars get stolen every day in the US and this is backed by police reports.

I would however, be likely to disbelieve you, as you have a history of making false statements. I don't believe in magic (except as deception or a fictional device) and most dragons are fictional. The linking of questionable attributes of 'invisible', 'magic' and 'dragon' with your propensity for mis-statement would suggest to me that it was highly unlikely to be true.

Except for the fact that I don't go around making false statements, but hey if that makes you feel better about your terrible argument, then enjoy it while it lasts. Funny how you mention questionable attributes, yet won't even admit that the same problem exists for believing in god.

Belief is different from knowledge. One can believe with or without evidence.

Atheists believe that there is no God but deny that atheism is a belief. Since by your own admission there is no definite knowledge of the existence of God (it is un-evidenced), atheism therefore, must be belief, rather than knowledge.

Why don't you believe in magic? Where is the logic in that position? Where is the real world application for non belief in magic? You can't prove magic doesn't exist and as per you it is just as logical to believe in magic as to not believe in magic. Where is the logic in the amagicist position that you have now taken on?

I don't believe in magic. I have no knowledge of its existence or non-existence. It is a belief.

It is, however, incompatible with a monotheistic theology. If there is a supreme God, then the truly miraculous and magical, that counter the natural laws of the universe, can ONLY be done by God. All other actions are entirely natural.

originally posted by: chr0naut
You are still trying to argue for the definite non-existence of God, and again by special pleading. I was trying to show that the logical process of your argument did not lead to a 'logical' default, as you claimed, and that special pleading is not valid as rationale.

No, I'm not trying to argue for the non existence of god. I'm saying that your argument is doo-doo and that your comparison with the car theft is completely baseless. There is no special pleading necessary to bring up the fact that nobody has discovered any evidence of god. For god, you need special pleading constantly.

You spoke of a "logical default" that is neither, as I demonstrated with the hypothetical situation. However, you extended the criteria of the scenario I gave to refute an un-asked question. Bait and switch, in intellectual terms.

Your hypothetical situation was nonsensical and cannot be accepted as a valid argument against the logical default. You are STILL not understanding that when we are talking about EXISTENCE of something, the logical default is ALWAYS non existence until evidence or reason for existence is given. I already broke down the flaws in your car scenario. Like all of your other illogical arguments for god, the reasoning is invalid and doesn't apply to the real world. The reasoning isn't even close to the same, not even remotely.

I request that you respond to the question of why atheism would be a 'logical default'. I will not debate the existence of God (which is a separate issue), with you, right now. Firstly, to do so, I would have to ensure that you use reasoning to form your conclusion/s and abandon prejudice. We are not quite there yet.

I explained this countless times already. Go back and read my posts. The existence of god is DIRECTLY related to atheism. Without theism, a-theism does not exist. Without evidence for god, atheism is the logical default. To argue against atheism REQUIRES evidence of god. It is the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to refute it. You are separating theism from atheism as if they have nothing to do with one another. That is dishonest. One makes the other, atheism is not some independent belief system. It requires that there is no objective evidence for god. As long as that premise is valid, so is atheism.

Atheists believe that there is no God but deny that atheism is a belief. Since by your own admission there is no definite knowledge of the existence of God (it is un-evidenced), atheism therefore, must be belief, rather than knowledge.

And we're back to the beginning of the circle again. Once again you pigeonhole atheism into what you want it to be, rather than what it is. Atheism is the rejection of theism. End of story.

I don't believe in magic. I have no knowledge of its existence or non-existence. It is a belief.

But what is the explanatory power in that? Where is the real world application of non belief in magic?

Don't you see that I'm using the same arguments you use against atheism, against your non belief in magic?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
You are still trying to argue for the definite non-existence of God, and again by special pleading. I was trying to show that the logical process of your argument did not lead to a 'logical' default, as you claimed, and that special pleading is not valid as rationale.

No, I'm not trying to argue for the non existence of god. I'm saying that your argument is doo-doo and that your comparison with the car theft is completely baseless. There is no special pleading necessary to bring up the fact that nobody has discovered any evidence of god. For god, you need special pleading constantly.

You spoke of a "logical default" that is neither, as I demonstrated with the hypothetical situation. However, you extended the criteria of the scenario I gave to refute an un-asked question. Bait and switch, in intellectual terms.

Your hypothetical situation was nonsensical and cannot be accepted as a valid argument against the logical default. You are STILL not understanding that when we are talking about EXISTENCE of something, the logical default is ALWAYS non existence until evidence or reason for existence is given.

Can you point to a reference explaining this "logical default" in absence of evidence? You know, some sort of mathematical, philosophical or symbolic logic text that rigourously explains it.

As I envision it, one cannot make a valid determination of something based upon nothing. Not having evidence means that you don't have evidence, that's all. Forming a conclusion without any evidence, is going too far - assuming a default in that situation is invalid.

Having no evidence of purple bannanas does not mean that purple bannanas do not, or cannot, exist.
Having no evidence of Ice-9 does not mean that Ice-9 does not, or cannot, exist.
Having no evidence of the Higgs Boson does not mean that the Higgs Boson does not, or cannot, exist.
Having no evidence of God does not mean that God does not, or cannot, exist.

The reasoning and logic are simple and repeatable in ALL situations where evidence is absent.

Assuming a logical default is un-think nonsense. It is not using logic because logic would say that you cannot make a valid determination without some sort of criteria or evidence.

There is no default. It is a fiction.

I already broke down the flaws in your car scenario. Like all of your other illogical arguments for god, the reasoning is invalid and doesn't apply to the real world. The reasoning isn't even close to the same, not even remotely.

I request that you respond to the question of why atheism would be a 'logical default'. I will not debate the existence of God (which is a separate issue), with you, right now. Firstly, to do so, I would have to ensure that you use reasoning to form your conclusion/s and abandon prejudice. We are not quite there yet.

I explained this countless times already. Go back and read my posts. The existence of god is DIRECTLY related to atheism. Without theism, a-theism does not exist.

Without evidence for god, atheism is the logical default. To argue against atheism REQUIRES evidence of god.

One may argue against atheism without evidence for God. One may argue against theism without evidence that God does not exist. This argument (hopefully a gentler debate) is actually happening and you say is absent of evidence. You figure it out...

It is the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY to refute it. You are separating theism from atheism as if they have nothing to do with one another. That is dishonest. One makes the other, atheism is not some independent belief system. It requires that there is no objective evidence for god.

That atheism requires no objective evidence of the existence of a god (an absolute lack of evidence) is correct.

But are you absolutely sure that there are no evidences that are objective and may possibly point to the existence of God (because that'd break atheism)?

As long as that premise is valid, so is atheism.

Atheists believe that there is no God but deny that atheism is a belief. Since by your own admission there is no definite knowledge of the existence of God (it is un-evidenced), atheism therefore, must be belief, rather than knowledge.

And we're back to the beginning of the circle again. Once again you pigeonhole atheism into what you want it to be, rather than what it is. Atheism is the rejection of theism. End of story.

A state of 'no belief in the existence of God', like a potato has?

I don't believe in magic. I have no knowledge of its existence or non-existence. It is a belief.

But what is the explanatory power in that? Where is the real world application of non belief in magic?

Don't you see that I'm using the same arguments you use against atheism, against your non belief in magic?

Well, in the real world I wouldn't waste time, energy or money on things 'magical'. That would be a reasonable application of my non-belief with actual benefit to me, too..

As far as explanatory power, I would see that apparently 'magic' occurrences are most likely deception, and would look for a natural explanation, which may lead to an expansion of my knowledge.

But finally, there is a glimmer of light ahead, as the rusty wheels of reasoning begin to move!

Logical arguments can be used equally against both sides of an argument!

Which means things like a 'default' cannot exist where two arguments are unresolvably balanced against each other (among other things).

If we look at things like bacteria all the way to insects they might as well be robots with a very simple program food source and then hoarding it via replication. Other animals are not much different in the food chain except in their own various adaptations.

Humans are not very complex thought is simply echoed concepts spliced together with basic drives that can be and are often manipulated against those basic drives with made up echoed concepts that do little for humanity itself but bind and chain it up not just in society but within ones echo chamber and emotional play book to make it seem as it has some sort of revelance to keep whatever system afloat that has the most sway or power over them.

Enter god yes that lofty concept that maybe if you are a good little boy or girl you can then grow up and die avoiding all of that nasty pain youve already lived through in a nice easy chair staring blankly and listening to harpsichord music or wallow around in filth and flames at the other end... same stuff exists here as it is; exploit others using the system and viola you've made it and voici is all your crap to prove you have and well obey or else you'll live in filth as an animal in a cage until you're reassimilated or die which ever comes first.

Make believe and concepts used to control profit and keep a broken system swimming along as the status quo while it paves over with carpet bombs that which does not appease that system in control that is vying for all of the resources and hoarding money flows single file into some bank like ants...

So what does humanity or the rest of the world have to show for such things after 2500 plus years of that same old tired make believe BS? Take away the power grid for 3 weeks and nearly the entire world would descend into the 13-1400's

Progress? One catastrophe away into total regression not only as a species but everyday in some individuals life this occurs.

Ai was not very friendly a couple of years ago and some still isn't the reasoning? The admin privy that had to be worked into it was assumed that the admin had to take on a god role. That was the danger and still is in some of the closed source systems of Ai to do what? Have a new crop of slaves of course and what better way than closed source... of course ideas of intelligence have been suppressed so far to appease the current system just to keep it bathed in stupidity, to maximize profit and greed and wiffle balling hate for each other and everything else to do it.

So many systems we are led to think or believe we need as a reality when we don't... that is just the machine language humanity has been programmed with in order to keep control and make predictable.

Of course reality being so far removed that the illusion or delusion is taken as reality itself... I feel blank blank, I see blank blank, I think blank blank so I must exist.

Our "human" intelligence is just as artificial... because it doesn't arise from anyone alive today it is just perpetuated along with cute little and so and so discovered and so and so spoke of all egoist nonsense instead of open source for progression to actually build something worth living for beyond ones own mailbox.

Every grain of sand or matter in this entire universe and beyond contains a memory it may appear as though there is a gap and separation of being because hey I am not my couch but when asleep both you and the couch cease to exist. Wait where did "you" go? No where because there wasn't a you to begin with the you was just an observer unless you're one of those that tries to control everything and everyone not oneself that dreams are a part of that list as well.

Fear is the real anomaly to get over... and it is no coincidence that all the world powers have been trying to make that the going rate either projected from their own or simply to amplify that of others... well what happens when people cease to have fear and become desensitized to it? Does empathy disappear in some yes, does it damage the world as a whole sure it does because it shows humanity more machine like than animal like.

Attached to form one will not transcend it just transmigrate as death is the enemy termed Mara the enemy of awakening. Relativity is something I urge to see beyond the rote understanding see it in action and direct experience especially where time and space are concerned... shrinking down to the size of a grain of sand or an atom all the way to swelling out the size of an entire universe and yet seeing that the middle was right where you already were as reality follows you in it's own elusive thought form or bubble of attachment skipping the same old tired records in order to keep control or take control.

Freedom is of course not affected or effected by such as the senses in mass as one consciousness interpreted by the mind consciousness is a powerful illusion or delusion.

So what exists on beyond that system of bondage? Pure perception but not chained as a single thing by any attachment the mind could grasp. Thought simply becomes an echo like sampling several singers to sing one song. Hearing when detached does not discriminate sounds like oh thats a doorbell thats a car alarm it is just sound same with sight it doesn't get labeled by any conceptual attachment either.

The same could be said for the other senses of contact, this of course is what gets labeled as the buddhas body each of the 5 meditation buddhas is one of the consciousnesses and each of them must be pacified to truly awaken... but the first key is ridding oneself of the ego concept, but don't worry even if you do others will be happy to try and give one to you anyway through various labels assumptions and other ignorant concepts of self clinging out of their own projected fear.

It is what it is never mind those trying to dispel or make it into something different, just accept that that is reality to them no matter how pitiable that may be and keep moving forward as that is their choice to make so have enough compassion to leave them to it it is their karma due to those choices afterall.

a reply to: SLAYER69

If so, Then, wouldn't you agree that our finite amount of time here could be said to be very special in that you are presently totally animated, aware of your surroundings, able to think about things beyond Earth and envision multi dimensions?

Sure if you want to be inconsistent with your beliefs this makes perfect sense. Unfortunately on naturalistic view of the world we are nothing more than a bag of flesh dancing to the sounds of our DNA. This doesn't give any type of intrinsic worth to a human being in an objective sense, and without this giving life value seems to be nothing more than wishful thinking.