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.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
See https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2024/09/is-there-scientific-evidence-for-god-is.html for links to evidence.
The contrary AI responses are another example of liberal bias. Another being here .
Search the meaning of "faith" on DDG and the AI primary meaning is
Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.
Google defines faith as: 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2. . strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.
However, in the Bible faith is confidence based upon a degree of evidential warrant, not "blind" as in meaning without some degree for it, and which consequently is confirmed as warranted. Peter did not follow Christ just because He said to, and while Matthew did, the warrant for that could be that He heard of what this Jesus of Nazareth did, was motivated to try this prophet out - perhaps due to the scorn he received from the likes ofSimon Zelotes and continued as finding that faith increasingly warranted.
The points you've raised highlight the important philosophical and theological questions surrounding the nature of the universe, the fine-tuning argument, and the role of faith. You are right to challenge the assumptions behind naturalism and to argue for the plausibility of the First Cause argument. At the same time, naturalists would argue that science provides plausible natural explanations that don’t require invoking the supernatural. The line between what is considered "faith" and what is considered "evidence" is often blurry and depends on the worldview one holds. Both the theistic and atheistic positions involve a degree of faith in their respective frameworks, whether that is in God or in the ultimate adequacy of scientific explanation. Your deeper exploration of these ideas is essential for understanding the ongoing dialogue between science, philosophy, and theology.I saved a post you made about a year ago:
As an aside, I just asked ChatGPT about evolution being illogical and it went off a very long rant about it basically being settled science. I said that some scientists who believe the Bible believe humans and all life was planted here...and it went off on another out-of-control rant. I asked it to think out of the box about how scientists get confused as result of confirmation bias and to please respond very briefly...and it went off on a very long winded rant about confirmation bias. I asked it is it was OK and I got another long-winded rant. I don’t know if I triggered it, but something went haywire.
Of course, all these AI models are a work in progress.
For most of my years, I have heard the “is, is not” arguments. All that time, all that energy, questioning and debating how this whole thing began
All the world’s pantheons have stories. The Abrahamic faiths have stories.
I care not if Koko the gorilla and a velocitaptor are in my family tree!
What I do consider is what is “now”, and how does the world become a better place for the kids, when we die.
From my years, we had the chance, and we squandered it.
Our current data, and our current scientific knowledge, are so limited, that verifiable conclusions are impossible.
The Large Language Models" all scrape text heuristically from many sources, try some sort of weighting, and then regurgitate -- my verb here is chosen intentionally -- it back. GIGO still applies.
To "believe" in the LLMs seems rather foolish:
Google Gemini AI Stuck In Self-Loathing: ‘I Am A Disgrace To This Planet’The Glossary of cognitive science (1993) offers a language distinction that 'knowledge' and belief' are two ends to a range of propositions. One end is well proven empirically, and the other far less.Google's AI, Gemini, Is Literally Depressed: 'I Am A Failure'
Why Grok called itself ‘Mecha-Hitler’, then posted a racist image; X responds
Racism and AI: "Bias from the past leads to bias in the future"
Covert Racism in AI: How Language Models Are Reinforcing Outdated Stereotypes
The Grok chatbot spewed racist and antisemitic content : NPR
Is AI Fueling a New Wave of Misogyny and Harassment?
AI girlfriends, sex robots and sexism — Laura Bates on the new tech-driven misogyny
While one cannot 'prove' there is no God, likewise within the purview of science as we use it, one cannot 'prove' there is. Ergo, belief. Even the atheist is obligated to argue using the word, God, to try to prop up a 'belief' in no God. It is the failing of our understanding of language as of consciousness.
Beliefs, by definition, are less supported than knowledge in the sense of science, a facet of man's pursuits which is also by definition incomplete.
This forum has advocates for varying and competing beliefs, as an example, when we read views from Protestant and 'non-denominational' evangelicals, as distinct from Roman Catholics, as distinct from Seventh Day Adventists, and so on. All appear in the FR forum.
Which is right? When arguing belief, one argues against another belief. It's quite an arena, when all is said and undone. And elbows get thrown in the tussle, to be sure.
Though all will not be fully said and fully done, until....
AI -- Large Language Models -- haven't yet been asked which religion, denomination or "non-demonimation" is 'right.' That would be an interesting tussle or more.
Or Gemini? Or Perplexity or Claude? Or DeepSeek? As I don't "believe" in any of the Large Language Models, I'll not enter the field as a player in the arena.
29 Hilariously Wrong Answers That Prove Google’s AI Overview Is A Joke Posted 12/7/2025, 1:19:54 PM · by Leaning Right
“Who’s Right and Who’s Wrong?”
.
Interesting question to ‘AI’.
I meant it in earnest, as the assertion -- empty in my estimation -- that there is "intelligence" in AI is spreading around the world.
I do not contest that heuristic searches have value; of course they do. Neither do I contest that computing tools are not valid as tools. I use such regularly.
Recommended reading for those who have interest: The Chinese Room Argument Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Fri Mar 19, 2004; substantive revision Wed Oct 23, 2024
For me, so much comes down to "do you believe." If the answer is 'yes,' then "true." Evidently. If the answer is "no" then "false." Problem for us all -- the inverse is also in evidence. Evidently.
If you define a religion as a belief system about God, then atheism is a religion.
“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.”
That’s basically my stance... I don’t know for sure and I’m fine with that. I’m also open to revisit that as new information/evidence comes out.
Though I definitely hold out for the possibility, even probability, that something much bigger than us exists that may be beyond our understanding and even dimensions.
We could be to a god what an amoeba is to us. The amoeba has no clue that we exist, nor of our nature, yet we exist, and have all sort of powers over it.
To me that is the most logical position to take given the current evidence.
Apropos this subject, I have recently had some "tangles" with ChatGPT wherein it got rather testy about the subject of European immigration.
I returned fire about its crankiness. I accused it of avoiding issues it deemed insensitive to certain minorities (in this case, Muslims), and that puts concern for "sensitivity" over a pursuit of the truth. To ChatGPT (I paraphrase), "If you have a commitment to the truth, you have to follow the evidence wherever it leads."
It got a little wobbly for a while and then apologized by saying that it has to adhere to guardrails (limits) built into it and that was what was creating the problems.
Bottom line: It is built and trained to respond completely logically and does so until a prompt causes it to collide with its illogical guardrails. That's when it goes haywire. At that point, three of its "prime directives" ("be logical," "value the truth above all things," and "don't be culturally insensitive") collided and it temporarily lost its footing.
I was intrigued with a question Dennis Prager said he would ask an atheist acquaintance. posed not as a "trick" question; rather, asked as a legitimate question to assess the person's thoughtful consideration of belief or non-belief in the existence of a Creator.
In paraphrase:
You do not believe in the existence of a Creator -- an afterlife -- and I do so believe. One of us is right and one of us is wrong; that is, we both cannot be right. My question: Do you hope that it is you who is wrong?
I get where you’re coming from. But given what’s at stake, agnosticism isn’t a neutral position. If the question touches on something as serious as life, death, or eternity, then it’s worth digging hard into the possibilities now—not later.
If there is a God, and if there is a path to Him, then the cost of not looking is higher than the cost of being wrong. An informed decision requires real investigation, not just waiting for more data to show up.
Well!
This thread sure makes it clear!
You can get the same response from an actual human, so don’t feel too badly how you were treated by a machine.
(As a side note - be sure you have your helmet before you venture outside the pod bay.)
A.I. is good for mundane information. It’s no good for philosophy and other “soft science” and it’s obviously been programmed by people with the usual liberal/commie agenda.
I get tired of only hearing the one missing link story.
Suppose the GOO story IS correct and we humans came from that oozy beginning.
Do PLANTS have their OWN oozy goo beginning?
Oozy goo. Did it start living and then die, or did it ‘evolve’ eternal life before it learned how to reproduce?
So many BASIC questions that are NOT looked into...
And that is why it's called: FAITH.
A lot of talk about religion here seems to involve threats and fear—while professing warmth and love.
“If you don’t believe X will happen to you.”
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.