Is atheism a valid default paradigm?

Is atheism a valid default paradigm of existence in the absence of Incontrovertible proof of an opposing paradigm? I don’t think so. The basic problem is what I term the “ultimate mystery” of existence. That is, the concept of “No beginning” which seems unfathomable to the human intellect. Why is there existence itself?

If atheists can ask theists to prove that a person who never had a child cannot have a grandchild (i.e., something from a nonexistent offspring), then the theist can justifiably ask the atheist to prove that there is no God. If a man has no hands, then the fingerprints left at the scene of the crime can’t be his: what other proof is needed? Atheism is asserting a positive statement: there is no creator. This is not the same as saying that one doesn’t know if there is or isn’t. The atheist must defend his or assertion just as a theist must. The atheist must demonstrate how matter/energy (for example) can exist without having had a beginning or antecedent cause the same as the theist must for God.

K: so how do I prove that there is no god? as for matter/energy existing, it seems clear that
matter/energy has a beginning… big bang… I don’t need to show how matter/energy
exists without a beginning because I don’t believe that matter/energy can exist without
a beginning… Atheist are not asserting a positive statement, we are asserting a negative
one… there is no god and how would you go about proving a negative statement…
as for example of a man having no hands and the fingerprints can’t be his, that is correct,
however the classic definition of a man is having hands and having fingerprints…
where are the hands of god and where are the fingerprints of god? one might say
god is this and this and this… ok, show me the fingerprints… but how would I show you
from the lack of fingerprints that god does not exist…god exist because …
would make sense, god doesn’t exist because… makes less sense, indeed,
to say god doesn’t exist because there is no evidence makes the most sense instead
of trying to say, god doesn’t exist because we can’t find the fingerprints. dicey at best
now I am trying to stay within the arguments you raised… I personally would
argue from a different standpoint…

Kropotkin

Advocate of the devil says as long as they dont define what god is they cant prove he doesnt exist, so yeah it doesnt work. Agnosticism is the only valid opening for a skeptic that still wants to define himself in terms of something he doesn’t do rather than what he does do vis a vis the exalted he talks about (not) existing.

Hard to define and to negate, God is like the Force in Skywalkers, the mind behind chemistry, the unconscious mind which isnt even different from the Sun that feeds it. Its scary.
Buddha says were a flame, but were in the sun. We’re shielded from what we are so that we can be. Atheism is just the radical conservative side of ultimate hiddenness, fear of light.

Abeardedmanintheskyism is valid but thats not what they are called now, so I must make this annoying argumentation.

Don … I ‘see’ atheism as a self defense mechanism … it prevents corrosion of the temerity adherents have towards materialism.

One can just as easily see “theism” as a self-defense or defense mechanism.
Without the so-called love and support of a personal God or any kind of god, the world can be a lonely, scary, unloving place to be without a self-sustaining identity and strong sense of flowing self.

I don’t understand the particular language of ~~~Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods. It is a lack of belief in gods.

Can someone explain that to me. I don’t see much of a difference in that language. What is the missing link?
For me, to “disbelieve” something means the same as having a lack of belief.
I am an agnostic. I have no belief. That to me is a lack of belief.

Can you explain the origin of the big bang? It just was (or is if you believe in eternalism), not unlike: “God always was, always is and always will be”?

Atheism as opposed to agnosticism (at least in the commonly (an incorrectly) understood definition of the word, “I don’t know; insufficient data” ) is making a positive statement. It is asserting positively that there is no God. I don’t understand your objection to this assertion.

The “fingerprints of God” (or more precisely, a creator of some kind; the creator could be an extra-dimensional computer programer) are exactly what my philosophical proof of a creator posted here (under philosophy) purports to point to. This is how I counter the often raised argument that asking an atheist to prove there is no God is not unlike asking him or her to prove there are no fairies. There is absolutely no logical reason why fairies should exist in the absence of proof that they do. However, the question of why anything at all exists—indeed, why there is existence itself—remains unanswered. Therefore, the creator hypothesis remains a valid option to be refuted. It can be refuted by proving that another paradigm is true.

Barbarian wrote:

“Agnosticism is the only valid opening for a skeptic…”

Agreed, but again, in the commonly (mis)understood meaning of the word. Agnoticism as formulated by Thomas Huxley (he simply appended an “a” to Gnostic (knowledge)) is a rejection of Gnosticism, mysticism, in which the former incorporates the latter. He stated that man can only know what he can perceive through his physical senses. Thus, in actuality agnosticism too is a positive statement, the assertion that mysticism is not valid.

Arcturus wrote:

"I don’t understand the particular language of ~~~Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods. It is a lack of belief in gods. Can someone explain that to me. I don’t see much of a difference in that language. What is the missing link?

“For me, to ‘disbelieve’ something means the same as having a lack of belief. I am an agnostic. I have no belief. That to me is a lack of belief.”

Yes, you just accurately defined agnosticism (subject to the caveat in my last response to Barbarian) as opposed to atheism which positively denies the existence of God. Peter is curiously not the first self-professed atheist I have encountered who denies this definition of their paradigm. By doing so, they reposition themselves as agnostics.

Not all atheists think there is definitely no God only probably so and most of them are agnostic anyway

I agree … with a twist.

We are known more by our actions than by our words. The people who profess a belief in God … supported with participation in some religious rituals … yet … at the same time embrace consumerism and one or another ideology … political, economic, finance … expose their duplicity.

Leaving us with a very large community of atheists … as well as a very large community of hypocrites.

Leaving a very small community of true believers …

“True believers” don’t consume and don’t engage in politics, economics or finance?

What do “true believers” do?

I dunno Phyllo … never met one … and it seems impossible to separate fact from fiction in the historical accounts of those who may have been true believers.

For example … legend suggests some of the nuns who lived in one of St Teresa (Avila) convents complained about her fear of starving to death … the convent relied on alms.

St Teresa apparently answered … we should be so lucky.

Is this story true?

Speaking for myself … I’m working on it but seems I’m still at square one.

Reminds me of the Arab axiom … trust in God but tie your camel tight. :slight_smile:

St Teresa : Does she represent what God wants or expects from the “true believer”?

The default is agnostism - no belief one way or another.

Some of us have that “mystery” absolutely resolved.

That is certainly true (as we often run across here).

Well, I can do that. It doesn’t take an atheist. I suspect that you are presuming a false dichotomy.

“Some of us have that ‘mystery’ absolutely resolved.”[

“Well, I can do that. It doesn’t take an atheist. I suspect that you are presuming a false dichotomy.”

Indeed?! Well, don’t leave us hanging! Pray enlighten us (or at least me).

Thank you.

That is a long story that I have been talking about on this forum for years. I call it “Rational Metaphysics: Affectance Ontology”. But the false dichotomy that I referenced would be the notion that “either the universe had a beginning or conversely, there is no God”. That is a false notion.

God, being the cause of the universe and being eternal, is the very reason that the universe has always existed and always will. Wherever there is the cause, there is immediately the result (else there wasn’t sufficient cause). The concept of the Big Bang started as a joke, caught on due to a catholic priest seeing the utility of it, and has been promoted for socio-political-religious reasons ever since. The BB is an absurd, irrational impossibility.

God did not “begin the universe” God is the reason for or cause of (aka “First/Prime Cause”) of the universe. God is the very fundamental principle from which all existence stems.

I don’t see how you discerned that I was positioning such a dichotomy from anything I’ve written here or elsewhere. I actually agree with you entirely in substance, but differ in form. The difference between us (apparently) is how we view “God.” See my post under Philosophy on the “Why is consciousness?” thread in which I position undifferentiated, universal Consciousness as what you refer to as God, rather than an anthropomorphic, personal deity. This is accordance with the Eastern ontological view predicated upon the Upanishads.

However, my paradigm doesn’t preclude The occurrence of the Big Bang or other (seemingly) physical phenomena. I simply view them as manifestations of Consciousness with no fundamental reality of their own. The illusion of material realty, however, is so powerful that we experience them as it they were real as for all intents and purposes, they are, just as we can be freighted out of our wits, for example, by a nightmare.

I don’t refer to God as “universal consciousness”. To me, consciousness is an emergent property of the affectance that forms the physical universe.

Mine does.

I suspect a definition of “reality”, “physical reality”, or “existence” would be in order. You seem to be either a solipsist, relativist, perceptionist, or mentalist (or some combination thereof).

I refer to the metaphysical paradigm based upon the Upanishads as “corporate solipsism,” as opposed to what I term “radical solipsism.” Again, see my aforementioned post, if interested. For now, rest assured that I believe that you exist as I wouldn’t be wasting my time communicating with a figment of my imagination. :slight_smile:

Ohhhh … don’t count on that one … (said the guilt complex to the paranoid) :-"
:laughing: