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.
Yep. They are there.
It’s almost like a psyop to chase people away and ridicule those who want to look into it.;-)
It has been scientifically proven that nothing decided to create everything.
Terence McKenna called the Big Bang science’s one free miracle.
Lol.
When it comes to first principles, AI has nothing to offer and never will.
Yes, but atheists deny that their position is one of faith, while overall defining the latter as belief in the absence of evidence. However, aside from being like a baby who cannot believe milk comes from a cow since he is not capable of such reasoning nor has knowledge of such, in order to logically be an atheist as a person capable of deciding to believe in what he/she is taught, then to be a atheist is a position of faith, even blind faith in the case of a ignorant communist who simply believes what he/she is taught, and more so when faced with evidence that challenges his position.
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.
Comparing the debate btwn theists and atheists being analogous to debates btwn religious flying the Christian label, In former, using scientific discoveries alone means debating the meaning of physical evidence and extrapolations from such, however limited.
In the latter, the fundamental debates btwn evangelicals and Catholics is not due to what Scripture itself teaches using sound principals of exegesis out of a quest to follow that Word of Truth wherever it leads, but the debate is effectively due to the Catholic belief that it alone authoritatively defines what Divine revelation consists of and means. And she defines that body of Truth as also existing on Oral Tradition, and both of which are cited here to support her premise that she alone authoritatively defines what Divine revelation consists of and means
Thus, those defending the Catholic position in which their one true church is itself an object of faith, when seeking to validate distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, and with Acts through Revelation especially revealing how the NT church understood the gospels), then such are compelled to force Scripture to validate their beliefs.
While atheists can charge that creationist do the same with scientific evidence (and both see bias confirmation), yet they can support their basic position (that, not only do effects have a cause, but that ultimately an Uncaused Cause is required, that being a Creator-God) and more via secular sources. And proceed from there to compare competing identities of that cause.
The 7th day Sabbath in Genesis. Commemorating creation by a loving God.
When we honor that holy Sabbath day of rest......we utterly rebuke AI and Darwinism.
Jesus made the universe then he made the Sabbath day. For man.
:-)
If you look into it, you will find that that isn't the way it works.
The Christian message is that our world has fallen into self-destruction and needs a savior to rescue those who want to be rescued. That faith presents a body of evidence that such a Savior has been provided.
It is difficult if not impossible to reach a conclusion as to the accuracy of this claim without analyzing it.
One thing is certain. You will die. And then you will learn the truth.
Unfortunately, the body of evidence Christianity presents indicates that at that point, it will be too late to embrace your Savior.
Just little details, of course. Nothing to worry about...but where you spend eternity.
Maybe it is just nonsense. But how will you know unless you take the time and diligent effort to disprove it.
As an aside, people on their deathbeds aren't usually jovial and dismissive of this decision. Those who are dismissive are only those who think it won't happen to them (dying that is).
Do your homework. Your eternal life hangs in the balance.
“But how will you know unless you take the time and diligent effort to disprove it.”
You can’t, that’s my point!
“Your eternal life hangs in the balance.”
I’ll take my chances, just like you are. You have no idea that what you believe is true - it’s just a belief, just like kids may believe in Santa Claus. And if your god is so petty that he would condemn me to eternal hell after what I consider to have lived a “good” life, simply because I say I don’t know if he exists, then he’s not only insecure but extremely vengeful. Not a guy I’d care to around with.
And by the way exactly what would I be doing in heaven for eternity, play the harp? What would you envision your eternal life in heaven to be like? What would you do day and day out, if they even have days?
No, that is not most logical, since you then would have a exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for life with profound intricate, elaborate complexity (more so as we discover more) and extensive diversity, all of which testify to a Creator - along with humans being both supreme in intelligence and overall ability, yet vulnerable, to whom are given the ability to make moral choices and moral laws, which are beneficial when followed but negatively consequential effects when broken, and which thus speak of need for a power greater then himself - yet such would have no real meaningful purpose under your amoeba scenario.
Meaning the creator of the amoeba says, "I will make my power and wisdom manifest but not enable the amoeba to recognize this and seek the ultimate Source of it. If I provide the amoeba with abilities that can both help him and hurt him, with laws and a conscience that have consequential effects, but not allow hm to express gratitude to a creator nor seek His approval nor recourse to mercy from the same.
No, God did not so love morally senseless amoebas that He sent His Son so that those who choose the Light over Darkness may have eternal life.
“Your eternal life hangs in the balance.”
I cannot read your mind so cannot judge your intent—but it still sounds like a threat—emotional blackmail.
“Do this or God will shoot your dog.”
I see that you found a way to insert your perpetual compulsive cultic contention for your Sabbathtarianism ethos into a thread about atheism versus evidence for God. Thanks for the argument against being a member of your cult. Otherwise, you have long ago merited being ignored as another cultist, though sometimes provoking a response.
“eternal life”
That is not logical.
“He sent His Son “
D8d G9d create his Son?
You can listen or you can just keep whining.
You must figure out if this warning—and it is quite real—is something you need to heed.
First up, thanks for a cogent comment, which is refreshing.
We might have differing experiences, but when I have debated an atheist, moving them to 'confess' their's is also a statement of belief has been relatively easy, structurally. For one particularly ardent atheist, I pointed out his repeated attempts to proselytize for his belief was a parallel, rather than opposing, stance. As I still see him occasionally, I am among the few he toys with about his 'belief,' for so it is. Letting a atheist get away with saying their's is not a belief is missing a bet rhetorically. One cannot even form the argument, atheism, without the word theism. I'd venture to say he is slowly amending his thoughts, given patience with him. We'll see.
As to weighing into controversies between "sola scriptura" as a formal stance and "prima scriptura," I tend to let individuals hash that out. After all, from the so-called "great schism" of 1054 ( before the Protestant revolutions, there having been more than one ) one can be driven back to questions such as "which Bible" -- 66, 73 or 81 -- is THE Bible. Rather a bit like "which translation" is THE translation. It becomes problematic as one finds schisms within schisms. After all, when discussing the rapture, for example, one finds at least three distinct and differing stances.
Of course, it comes down to language. In another period in my life, I had the chance to query a number of theologians as to those deep aphasias which destroy one's language facility. Question: without language, can one have a relationship with God? It is a serious question.
From different stances, I got back two views from a number of them. The initial view from all was "no." Why? Theology, scripture, apologetics, debate and liturgy of various forms are all conducted in language. "Our Father..." "The Creator." Language.
All then amended their views to "yes" as follows. Intuition. Not being willing to close avenues to God to language alone. It's a subtle thing, to be sure. I'll go with their views, which coalesce into a view. They were Protestant by denomination, non-denominational Christian, Roman Catholic and two Jews too. All who conduct their thoughts, thinking, study and prayer in language.
A small reflection. Even Darwin capitalizes "Creator," as he writes in a conclusion of his theory -- for it only a theory -- "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Not advocating for him, but merely pointing out the use of language even in that text. That quote, by the way, is rarely cited because the Social Darwinists find it an anathema to their lunacy.
And of course, our wonderful Declaration of Indepedence relies on -- "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Definitely advocating for that founding document.
You wrote "Uncaused Cause" with that capitalization as well. Bravo.
Beyond this, one founds one's faith -- beliefs -- on one's "scriptura" and how it is read and understood. This nation's Creator who has "endowed" us with that striking perspective -- "unalienable Rights." Liberty. No wonder why so many of the political Left and the utterly corrupt would eat away at them, as they would tear away at our Creator, our Uncaused Cause.
As you say, we can " proceed from there to compare competing identities of that cause." Sounds darn fine to me.
Best wishes.
You are at it again.
Please don’t shoot my cat too.
Lol.
A warning is not a threat. I warn my friends. Sorry if I counted you among my friends.
So you can skip the need to correct me.
I am done here.
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.