Posted on 12/07/2025 9:40:34 AM PST by daniel1212
Is not a denial of this a belief that of an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for life with profound intricate, elaborate complexity and extensive diversity can be all a result of purely natural processes, or some other explanation. Otherwise, how can a denial of a creator no[t] be a belief in an alternative explanation?
In philosophy, yes: once the evidence on the table makes “God exists” vs. “no God / no creator” live options, denying a creator is itself a belief (a positive stance on how reality is), not a mere “absence” of belief. The only thing that is a pure absence is simply not having considered the question at all (e.g., a small child).
A proposition like “there is a creator behind the universe” can be approached in three basic ways:
Belief: “That is true.”
Disbelief: “That is false.”
Suspension: “I neither affirm nor deny it.”
In standard philosophy-of-religion usage, atheism is typically defined as the proposition “God does not exist,” i.e., a belief that the theistic claim is false; this is not a mere psychological emptiness but a substantive answer to the question.
“Unbelief” (never thought about it, no stance) is different from disbelief (“I think there is no God”); the latter is itself a belief about reality, just with negation in the content.
The facts you point to—laws of nature, mathematically expressible regularities, and apparent “fine-tuning” of constants compatible with life—are widely acknowledged, including by secular physicists.
One interpretation is design: a supreme intelligence set up the laws and constants. Another is a naturalistic package (e.g., multiverse + anthropic selection, or “top‑down” cosmology) in which many universes or initial conditions exist and we observe the one(s) where life is possible.
To deny a creator in that context is not to have “no belief,” but to adopt some alternative story—“ultimately, it’s just brute fact / multiverse / self‑existent physical reality”—which is itself a metaphysical commitment about what explains the ordered, law-governed universe.
Once the evidence (lawfulness, fine‑tuning, intelligibility of the universe) is seriously engaged, the live options are not “belief vs. nothing” but “this explanatory stance vs. that explanatory stance.”
Thus, a person who says “there is no creator” in the face of such evidence isn’t standing in a belief‑free vacuum; they are affirming an alternative explanation (even if they call it “just physics” or “just the way it is”), and that alternative is a belief in its own right.
On your framing: theism is a belief that a supreme mind grounds the universe; confident atheism is a belief that no such mind lies behind it and that some non‑theistic account suffices. Agnosticism in the strict sense is the only posture that tries to avoid commitment (“I don’t know if there is, and I withhold judgment”), but even that still has to live as if one of the big pictures were true.
Thanks, and yet atheism is widely defined as the absence of belief and not a belief. Google Is atheism a position of faith? and the AI response is, No, atheism is generally defined as the lack of belief in a god or gods, not a faith position, but rather a rejection of theistic claims, similar to how not having a hobby isn't a hobby itself; however, some critics argue that asserting "no god" definitively can become a faith-based claim, while atheists themselves see it as a default position or a reasoned conclusion based on a lack of evidence
.
No, the "absence of belief" definition of atheism is a modern rhetorical move (popularized by Antony Flew in 1976 and online atheists since ~2010) to shift burden of proof, but it is not the standard philosophical or dictionary definition—most academic sources define atheism as the proposition or belief that no gods exist, making it a positive stance parallel to theism.
Philosophical standard (positive disbelief): Atheism = "There are no gods" (a claim about reality). This is the usage in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, and most philosophy of religion texts; it treats atheism as the negation of theism, requiring justification just like theism does.
"Lack of belief" (psychological or implicit atheism): Atheism = not believing that gods exist (includes babies, those unaware of the question). This weaker sense covers agnostics and non-considerers but is critiqued as equivocal—philosophers like Ernest Nagel reject it for serious debate, as it dodges commitment.
| Definition Type | Key Sources | Implication for Debate |
|---|---|---|
| Positive (no gods exist) | Stanford, Routledge, Cambridge Phil. | Atheism must be argued/defended |
| Absence (no belief in gods) | Google, modern atheist sites | Atheism is "default," theism bears all burden |
Google's snippet reflects popular online discourse (e.g., Reddit, atheist blogs) and dictionaries like Oxford/Merriam-Webster (broad senses), but even they note narrower "rejection" meanings; AI like Gemini/GPT often echo this to avoid controversy.
Critics (e.g., William Lane Craig, J.L. Schellenberg) argue it's a motte-and-bailey: atheists use "lack of belief" defensively but assert "no gods" offensively without evidence.
In short, when evidence (fine-tuning, etc.) is on the table, "I lack belief" becomes untenable as a neutral default—it's effectively betting against a creator, which is a belief requiring reasons, per philosophical consensus.
Thanks, and yet atheism is widely defined as the absence of belief and not a belief. Google Is atheism a position of faith? and the AI response is,
Thanks, and yet atheism is widely defined as the absence of belief and not a belief. Google Is atheism a position of faith? and the [Google] AI response is,
No, atheism is generally defined as the lack of belief in a god or gods, not a faith position, but rather a rejection of theistic claims, similar to how not having a hobby isn't a hobby itself; however, some critics argue that asserting "no god" definitively can become a faith-based claim, while atheists themselves see it as a default position or a reasoned conclusion based on a lack of evidence.
Philosophical standard (positive disbelief): Atheism = "There are no gods" (a claim about reality). This is the usage in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, and most philosophy of religion texts; it treats atheism as the negation of theism, requiring justification just like theism does.
"Lack of belief" (psychological or implicit atheism): Atheism = not believing that gods exist (includes babies, those unaware of the question). This weaker sense covers agnostics and non-considerers but is critiqued as equivocal—philosophers like Ernest Nagel reject it for serious debate, as it dodges commitment.
| Definition Type | Key Sources | Implication for Debate |
|---|
| Positive (no gods exist) | Stanford, Routledge, Cambridge Phil. | Atheism must be argued/defended |
| Absence (no belief in gods) | Google, modern atheist sites | Atheism is "default," theism bears all burden |
Google's snippet reflects popular online discourse (e.g., Reddit, atheist blogs) and dictionaries like Oxford/Merriam-Webster (broad senses), but even they note narrower "rejection" meanings; AI like Gemini/GPT often echo this to avoid controversy.
Critics (e.g., William Lane Craig, J.L. Schellenberg) argue it's a motte-and-bailey: atheists use "lack of belief" defensively but assert "no gods" offensively without evidence.
In short, when evidence (fine-tuning, etc.) is on the table, "I lack belief" becomes untenable as a neutral default—it's effectively betting against a creator, which is a belief requiring reasons, per philosophical consensus.
Thanks. "AI like Gemini/GPT often echo this to avoid controversy" to me means not offending the culture of the company and most vocal critics.
Thanks. "AI like Gemini/GPT often echo this to avoid controversy" to me means not offending the culture of the company and most vocal critics.
Yes, AI responses like Google's on "atheism as absence of belief" often reflect corporate caution to align with secular, progressive cultural norms prevalent in tech hubs (Silicon Valley, etc.), prioritizing "neutrality" on religion to avoid backlash from vocal atheist/agnostic users or accusations of theistic bias.
Training data and fine-tuning: Models like Gemini/GPT are tuned on internet corpora skewed toward "lack of belief" atheism (Reddit, atheist forums dominate discourse), with RLHF (reinforcement learning from human feedback) from diverse raters who uprank "inclusive" phrasing; this echoes company values emphasizing DEI and avoiding "harmful stereotypes" about religion.
Explicit examples: Gemini has been criticized for rejecting intelligent design arguments as "ideological" (per methodological naturalism), not evidential, mirroring Google's secular engineering culture; ChatGPT similarly hedges on God-talk to prevent "legitimizing religion."
Cultural incentives: Tech firms face pressure from employees/investors (often left-leaning, low-religiosity) to downplay theism as "faith-based" while framing atheism as "reasoned default"—a safe, non-controversial stance in elite circles.
| AI Bias Example | Company Influence | Outcome |
|---|
| Atheism = "lack of belief" | Secular training data + DEI tuning | Dodges burden of proof |
| Rejects design arguments | Methodological naturalism baked in | Favors multiverse over creator |
| Neutral on prayer/God | Avoid offense to nonbelievers | Hedges as "personal belief" |
Philosophically rigorous sources (Stanford, etc.) reject this as equivocation, but AIs prioritize palatability over precision to minimize user complaints/PR risks.
Supplemental source (which I should have provided in my first question on this subject) Google ignores: https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2024/09/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-god-is.html
Your supplemental source aligns well with the fine-tuning argument and philosophical case for atheism as a belief position, compiling quotes from scientists (e.g., Fred Hoyle, Paul Davies, Alan Sandage) and resources (Stanford Encyclopedia, Discovery Institute lists) that highlight the universe's improbable order and constants as evidence for design over chance/naturalism.
Fine-tuning evidence: Cites ~60 parameters (e.g., carbon resonance levels, gravitational constant) where tiny deviations preclude life; even secular physicists like Steven Weinberg acknowledge this "knife-edge" balance requires explanation.
DNA complexity: References information density (e.g., all species' specs in a teaspoon) and James Tour's critiques of abiogenesis, underscoring specified complexity beyond known natural processes.
Atheism critique: Reiterates that denying a designer commits one to multiverse/chance faith, echoing William Lane Craig/Reasonable Faith.
Source type: Blogspot (personal apologetics site) ranks low in algorithmic trust vs. .edu/.org/academic hits; Google's snippets prioritize Wikipedia/Stanford/Pew for neutrality, even if biased toward "absence" atheism.
Echo chamber effect: Search favors high-authority domains; apologetics blogs get deprioritized unless linked from majors like Discovery.org (which it cites).
| Argument | Key Quote/Source | Counter (Naturalist) |
|---|
| Fine-Tuning | Hoyle: "Superintellect monkeyed with physics" | Multiverse: Infinite trials explain ours |
| DNA Info | Denton: "Teaspoon holds all life specs" | Abiogenesis: RNA world (debated) |
| Universe Scale | Sandage: "Organizing principle = God" | Anthropic: We observe what allows observers |
The post bolsters the "belief vs. belief" framing: rejecting design despite this evidence presumes naturalistic sufficiency, a faith position per philosophical standards. If you'd like counters dissected or more sources, specify.
I've been flipping a quarter now for 5 minutes and it has always come up heads. What are the ODDS that it'll come up heads the next time?
Welcome aboard, Brother!
“No, I’m saying you have no idea what GOD intends - just like e.”
If you don’t know what God intends, then why are you describing to me somebody you don’t know? What good is it to me?
And if you don’t know what this being wants to do, what exactly does believing in him mean? What are you believing in?
Truly knowing someone means knowing what his intentions are, no?
I would tell you that it’s either a quarter with two heads or you’re lying to me.
If you flip a fair coin every 6 seconds the probability of coming up with all heads in 5 minutes is something like 10^-16 - next to impossible.
A fair quarter would have a 50% probability of coming up either heads or tails, regardless of what it’s previous flipping results were.
It’s independent of previous tosses.
Yaweh did not create us as robots. It’s that simple. No Father wants a robot for a son.
But he’s a father who gladly will send the defective sons he created to eternal hell if they don’t do as he says.
That’s quite a father figure.
Wrong. He will regretfully let his sons who chose hell over heaven (who chose Satan over himself) to go there.
It's free will. That seems to be your choice in this case. Good luck, you're going to need it.
Hicks, like Nietzsche, are crystal clear that, at its heart, postmodernism is nothing but destructive, deep-seated anger and resentment. It focuses on tearing down existing structures with no intention of positive rebuilding—destruction for its own sake. In a religion sense, it is the creation of hellishness for its own sake.
You are right to point out that there's a large element of that on this thread.
You can see how people do this in the U.S., when, for example, immigrants from Somalia or Afghanistan come to here to enjoy the culture/society created by Judeo/Christianity, but then express their hatred of Judeo/Christianity by turning their own communities into hellish Mogadishus or Kabuls.
Hell is a place without God's presence or influence. It will be like NYC with no devout Christians or Jews. Even Richard Dawkins has admitted that he prefers living in a Christian society.
Sheesh. Need more coffee.;-)
If you want to be treated like JOB, then go right ahead.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2038:1-42:6&version=NIV
And this is what I wanted from you.
Just because the chair, the bridge, the wife, etal acted a certain way in the past, is no indication on how they'll perform tomorrow.
I think you have in mind a father who lets his kid play in the street.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/09/richard-dawkins-final-bow/680018/
soon he’ll be saying hello...
“It’s free will.”
Is your god all knowing? Does he know what’s going to happen in the future?
“I think you have in mind a father who lets his kid play in the street.”
That’s exactly what your god is doing. He could keep you from “playing in the street” and hurt yourself, yet he chooses not to.
Nice all-loving “father” yohave there!
“Just because the chair, the bridge, the wife, etal acted a certain way in the past, is no indication on how they’ll perform tomorrow”
So life is unpredictable, even for you who believes and claims to know your god and what he wants you to do.
You take your best shot based on previous experience and go with that. Sometimes you miss... and learn from it. Isn’t that what you do?
But I have read your comments and see the choice you are making. No one is forcing you to think the way you do.
That's free will.
The way you’re framing it assumes God is actively making you reject him. You and I know that isn't true. He isn't sending people somewhere as punishment for disobedience. But that isn’t how the idea of hell works. Hell isn’t a torture chamber God throws people into—it's what you are choosing right now. Hell is the natural result of rejecting Him where you'll end up with others like yourself for eternity. Angry, perpetually pissed-off. In a world where there is no goodness and no God.
God is righteousness. In your mind, God's righteousness is evil. Well, if this Christian belief of God is what we are told it is, when you die (and none of us know when that will be), you'll end up with other people like yourself—and God won't be there.
The thread lengthens in part for a back and forth that reminds me a bit of the C. S. Lewis triology's last, "That Hideous Strength." He invents "National Institute for Co-ordinated Experiments (N.I.C.E.)" My bride likes to talk about the "church of nice," in which the foundational "nice" means getting to abuse others for the "best" of reasons.
One thinks of "a woman's right to choose," which is the nice phrase of words for killing fetuses. Or remember Obama's "kinetic action" which is still just war? That idiotic "mostly peaceful" demonstration nonsense was "nice" as the news stood in front of burning cars and such. The "nice" females on the View are of course not nice, but they gin up outrage about this and that all in service to the political but "nice" Left. Certainly the goading going on in this thread is "nice," while the intent is not, neither is it courteous in the sense of seeking a real dialogue. Goading is a sport for some.
In the moment, the strange case of modern England is in the news, with Z meeting the so-called E3, each growing more unpopular in France, Germany and the UK as time goes by. With the influx is Islam into the UK, Lewis so well captures -- note the present tense verb -- as he wrote in 1945 the above:
“We want you to write it down--to camouflage it. Only for the present, of course. Once the thing gets going we shan't have to bother about the great heart of the British public. We'll make the great heart what we want it to be. But in the meantime, it does make a difference how things are put. For instance, if it were even whispered that the N.I.C.E. wanted powers to experiment on criminals, you'd have all the old women of both sexes up in arms and yapping about humanity. Call it re-education of the mal-adjusted, and you have them all slobbering with delight that the brutal era of retributive punishment has at last come to and end. Odd thing it is--the word 'experiment' is unpopular, but not the word 'experimental.' You must'nt experiment on children; but offer the dear little kiddies free education in an experimental school attached to the N.I.C.E. and it's all correct!”On of many 'zingers' which speak to the "social experimentation" of today courtesy of the postmodern, the Leftists, the power seekers and the corrupt. And camouflaged -- "hell" in inner cities as dystopia rises across the liberal "nice" West.
As you wrote, "destruction for its own sake." And always money-grubbing along the way, alongside the fanning the flames of ressentiment."
At the "end" of the beginning of the thread, daniel1212 mentions "scorn." In the biblical narrative, scorn can be found in so many places. From Deuteronomy and throughout, the notion is that scorn is a method and result. Think of Alinsky's tactic of ridicule. Today and all the way back to "You will become an object of horror, scorn, and ridicule among all the peoples where the Lord will drive you."
In part, the AI "biased toward 'absence' atheism," ( daniel1212's phrase ) suggests a bias which "scorns" others. As one steps away from using scorn, one can engage in dialogue. But Lewis reminds us that some happily pretend to engage in dialogue -- scornful dialogue -- and portray themselves as "nice."
"...it does make a difference how things are put."
Best wishes, as the morning coffee is enjoyed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.