The tolerant atheist

Have you given serious thought to whether atheists do critical thinking to arrive at their atheist heart and mind?

What is critical thinking?

Here, to my own stock knowledge, critical thinking is grounded on truths, facts, and logic, so that any kind of thinking that is not grounded on truths, facts, and logic, that is not critical thinking, but fallacious thinking.

The way I see it, atheists are into fallacious thinking, never critical thinking.

Give me one argument of atheists for the non-existence of God.

Here's some critical thinking for you: the person making the claim bears the burden of proof. The greater the claim, the greater the evidence required. You claim that there's a god, but I don't see one, nor the necessity for one. If you want me to believe/know that there is one, it's up to you to provide sufficient evidence for it, not for the atheist to disprove it.

How to prove the existence of God on critical thinking?

First before anything else, we must concur on the concept of God; do you know that, because unless we, you and I, have the same concept of God, then it is useless as we are not talking about the same thing.

Here is my concept of God, the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

When you know that concept, then we can proceed to prove i.e. to look for God in the universe; can you understand that?

What I notice with atheists is that they are always dodging serious critical thinking, insisting like that the party making a claim must prove his claim -- it is not really that simple: party making a claim must prove it.

Have you ever read something like the party in possession is more weighty than the party without any possession, that means the party with an opinion is more intellectual than the party without any opinion except denials.

That is correct generally, party making a claim etc., but the party that is into the exchange in the anti camp must know what it is to prove from critical thinking; otherwise even if the party making the claim has proven the claim, the opponent party will not know that the claim is already proven, because he does not know what is in concept the thing to be proven: what he has are cliches and insults against the object to be proven, and also engaging himself in flippancies, instead of taking to critical thinking.

So, first, do you have a concept of God, if you do, then we can work on your concept and my concept, to come to a mutually agreed on concept of God; from that point onward I will show you that God exists, and you will see it if you are intellectually honest and conversant with critical thinking, grounded on truths, facts, and logic.

You will realize at this point that you are now looking for ways and means to make up more cliches and flippant utterances, instead of taking up genuine thinking, on truths, facts, and logic, to delve on the question, Does God exist?

Next escape route for atheists, they will proclaim that it is impossible to prove a negative, so you don't have to do anything at all, but to make negative statements and say no need to prove them because it is impossible to prove a negative.

About that more, if and when you bring up that escape route.

Now, another cliche or slogan of atheist masters: certainly you were not born a theist, although you were born without any knowledge arrived at from contacts with truths, facts, and the use of logic, that is not the same as being born an atheist -- except that your atheist masters have succeeded to condition you to not ever think on truths, facts, and logic, but to swallow slogans which mean nothing but are fallacious words, catering to your emotion of self-arrogance, like very baby is born an atheist.

Okay, are you willing to postulate, at least get acquainted though not accept it, that the concept of God that does God justice is that God is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Study that concept and tell me what objections you have against the concept as concept; mind you, I am not asking you to accept the concept as already representing the reality of God, but just as a concept, like a treasure map is a mental guide to know how to get to the site of a treasure if indeed there is a treasure in the site indicated in the treasure map, so also the concept of God, it is a map which if you can read the concept as like a map, by which you and I can go forth and arrive at the existence of God.

Okay, examine my concept of God, the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning, what objections do you have against such a concept of God.

When you are going to transmit your post, see whether you really have replied to the question immediately preceding these last words from me.

Wake up ! Was that sense of 'self' forged in a vacuum ? Of course not ! It was acquired as 'one amongst others' in a community of 'believers' with a self reinforcing theistic language. If you had been born in Tibet, you would not have a 'God' concept in the sense of 'an intelligent creator'. Your axiom of 'the beginning' is a psychological 'act of faith'. The 'Big Bang' is merely a useful construction in physics.

Of course you could play the game of arguing that your 'God' selected your community of birth, but that would be pretty childish don't you think ?
Ah but can you still think clearly given your indoctrination ? That's the key question.

I can see this is going to be a wild ride.



I suppose you're next going to claim that out of all the universe, your god was not created. In logic, this is called "special pleading." Defend yourself. Give us the evidence, reviewable and falsifiable.

In your particular case, Fresky, I would have to give the following key answer: "Naw, fraid not."

I can kinda see your point, though.

Since I'm an American, I hate Limeys.

Now, if I was a Limey, then I would hate Limeys, and I would move to America.

But if I was born a mongoloid idiot, who knows? Then I might not hate Limeys.

Oh, fresco, you seem to have drunk the kool-aid, truly...have your critical faculties left you?

Note that 'utility' needs no defense. There is no denying that 'God' is useful to many. The problem only arises when that parochial utility turns into social perniciousness towards others. That has no defense.

Well, if it were phrased as an appeal to pragmatics, then it would need to be defended. That is, if the argument were made, 'This god is useful, therefore it exists.' Or, 'Belief in this god is useful, therefore it is a true belief.'

Thanks everyone for your replies.

I am asking you for objections which are grounded on truths, facts, and logic.

I am sorry to tell you folks that you have not presented any objections that are founded on truths, facts, and logic, that shows that you are not accustomed to think and write from critical thinking, the working of the mind in reasoning with truths, facts, and logic.

Now, my concept of God is a proposal, if you have any objections grounded on truths, facts, and logic, put them forth in this manner:

Read my concept of God proposed to you for your examination to come to objections against the concept, but objections must be grounded on critical thinking, i.e., based on truths, facts, and logic.

Here is the concept again: God in concept is the creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning.

Produce your objections which will show how my concept is contrary to truths, facts, and logic.

Don't go far and wide, just show how the concept of creator and operator of the universe and of everything with a beginning is contrary to a truth or a fact or logic.

And keep in mind that my concept is a proposal, it is not anything at all already proven to be representing the reality of God's existence.

Forgive me, but when you write, please examine whether you are into dodging the issue instead of focusing your mind on the objections you have against the concepts, from your knowledge of truths, facts, and logic.

Did you skip my post, then? Or maybe you just don't like it? It's the one about special pleading, which is, y'see, about logic.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html

You write as though you were the author of this thread--you are not. Furthermore, you discursus has no relation to the topic that the author of this thread offered. Finally, claiming that there is such a thing as a god is an extraordinary claim. No one is obliged to disprove the claims of others. Those who make claim have the burden of providing evidence at least, if not actually proving their claim. Those who make extraordinary claims assume an extraordinary burden of proof. You offer absolutely no evidence for your claim. Come back to see us when you have, at the very least, a logical basis as evidence for your claim. In fact, why don't you meet the standard you propose, and offer us "truths, facts, and logic."

I do assert (elsewhere) that 'utility' is the basis of 'existence'. But that thesis is not essential to the thread. What matters IMO is degree of consensus about utility (or existence), which in the case of a 'God' concept is relatively low compared to 'scientific' constructs.

I would not venture an opinion on whether utility is the basis of existence, though I do find the statement evocative. I do agree that the god hypothesis is relatively impotent, though. Scientific constructs being evidence-based, and all. Stll thinking...

I doubt that science commands a wider consensus than God. In any case, i'd love to see some stat about that. Just claiming its true doesn't cut it.

Good call. Consensus is worth exactly nothing when it comes to theism (or just about anything else).

Or for philosophy geeks: It's an argumentum ad populum - invalid.

Which is why the existence of God is not a scientific question, contrary to some militant atheists.

Would all of those dogmatic religionists please die and come back and tell us what the face of God's looks like. You ARE a true believer, aren't you?

Yes, what Fresco means by "consensus" is argumentum ad populum. "It's true because people agree it's true". By this (wrong IMO) measure, God must exist...

Correct.