Why the biblical atheist deny God exists.

@yrger Philosophy is largely an exercise of the human consciousness to explain itself and how it interacts with the world.

An example of how it interacts with the world would be the field of philosophical ethics.

An example of trying to explain itself gets into the field of epistemology.

Not sure what you are trying to get at here because philosophy is unable to prove that a permanent spirit creator exists. Philosophy is good at exercising critical thought, but it doesn't prove anything.

@yrger Don't write with precision?! You don't even know how to use the frigging reply button!
As for philosophy it is a field of study meant to increase critical thinking skills over questions that often have no objective answer. Philosophy can't give soild answers to questions as it's not meant to.

@ViciDraco


What is according to you the difference between science and philosophy?

@yrger Science is the process of using observable, repeatable evidence in order to formulate educated assumptions as to how the world works. One of the key elements of science is falsifiability, which is the ability to identify situations which if found to be true will prove the current working assumption false.

Philosophy is typically more involved with questions such as why the world works. It is often focused on finding meaning or purpose. The processes are thought exercises done in order to suppose answers.

At the end of the day though, scientific outcomes are demonstrable. Philosophic outcomes are not.

@ViciDraco

Hi Vici, give a concrete example in the objective world outside of words in your mind, on:

"Science is the process of using observable, repeatable evidence in order to formulate educated assumptions as to how the world works. One of the key elements of science is falsifiability, which is the ability to identify situations which if found to be true will prove the current working assumption false."

@yrger In Science we have the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is an educated guess as to how diversity among lifeforms has appeared and changed over time. Using fossil records at first, and then being backed by observable occurrences in our own world, we have been able to make numerous predictions about what should exist in the gaps of our fossil record. Though not proven true, we have found additional fossils over time that meet the predictions and reinforce the model.

Philosophy uses deductive reasoning to try to arrive at truthful statements. If all humans are primates and I am a human, then I am a primate. The thing is that the premises need to be built upon well supported science or mathematics. The process of scientific inquiry reinforces the premise that I am human. The scientific process reinforces the premise that humans are primates. We could do all kinds of experiments to show that scientifically I am a primate. Or we could use reason to deduce that I am a primate because we have knowledge of the starting premises through science.

An example where philosophy falls apart is the cosmological argument, which is something you are leaning heavily into without directly reinforces it.

The cosmological argument states that
1) Things exist.
2) All things that exist must have a cause
3) Therefore, there must be something that caused everything else to exist
4) That thing is God

The big problem resides with premise 2. We don't know that all things must have a cause. But if we take that as true, we reach another line of deductive reasoning that shows the flaw in the argument.

If all things that exist must have a cause, then God must have a cause as well.

If God does not have a cause, then God should not exist.

If God does exists but has no cause, then things can exist without cause and argument 2 is invalid and thus we cannot deduce further from it.

@ViciDraco

Hi ViciD, who or what agent is ultimately the inventor and thus owner and operator of the processs you call evolution?

@yrger Why do you believe there needs to be an inventor or operator?

@ViciDraco

Why don't you believe there needs to be an inventor or operator?

@yrger Why should I believe there needs to be an inventor or operator?

Who or what invented or operates the inventor or operator?

@ViciDraco

Hi ViciD, I ask you about ultimately who or what invented the process of evolution.


Please understand the word, ultimately.

@yrger and I am saying it was not invented.

@yrger Let me clarify.

The physical processes controlling evolution have always existed. Those processes only operate under specific conditions. When the conditions were met, the processes could operate.

Such is the same as gravity and every rule of physics.

@canusernamebemyusername

yrger · 80-89, M
Hi everyone and in particular atheists here, what is the fallacy of the socalled circular logic?


First, it is not a fallacy, except to atheists who do not think and act correctly.


Let us suppose that a stranger states: "The dog is similar to a wolf." Then he turns his statement around and says: "The wolf is similar to a dog."

"The dog is similar to a wolf."
"The wolf is similar to a dog."

That according to atheists who do not know how to think and to act correctly, that is the fallacy of circular logic, because the two statements do not state anything new.


Hi readers, you see, the stranger is first describing the wolf or the dog, so that another stranger who does not know what a wolf lools like or a dog looks like, he can now use the description of the dog or the wolf, now go to the objectve reality outside his mind to look for the wolf or the dog, having now known what a wolf or a dog looks like, i.e. look for the concrete existence of the dog or the wolf.


The error of atheists is that they don't go to the objcetive reality to look for evidence of God in the say neighborhood, where we can see babies and roses which are ultimately created by God.

@canusernamebemyusername

yrger · 80-89, M
Hi everyone and in particular atheists here, what is the fallacy of the socalled circular logic?


First, it is not a fallacy, except to atheists who do not think and act correctly.


Let us suppose that a stranger states: "The dog is similar to a wolf." Then he turns his statement around and says: "The wolf is similar to a dog."

"The dog is similar to a wolf."
"The wolf is similar to a dog."

That according to atheists who do not know how to think and to act correctly, that is the fallacy of circular logic, because the two statements do not state anything new.


Hi readers, you see, the stranger is first describing the wolf or the dog, so that another stranger who does not know what a wolf lools like or a dog looks like, he can now use the description of the dog or the wolf, now go to the objectve reality outside his mind to look for the wolf or the dog, having now known what a wolf or a dog looks like, i.e. look for the concrete existence of the dog or the wolf.


The error of atheists is that they don't go to the objcetive reality to look for evidence of God in the say neighborhood, where we can see babies and roses which are ultimately created by God.

@ViciDraco I have a new thread on "The God of nature and the God of supernature, please go there.