Of COURSE not!
WE wanna be the 'god' in our life!
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.
People care about you and they try to convey to you a message they have received.
The message might be wrong, but it might be right.
So what do you do? You insult those who convey this message to you.
As said, I am done here.
It is not my intent to insult you or your beliefs in any way.
However—I think you would not be pleased if I tried to persuade you of my views (whatever they were) with emotional blackmail/threats of future harm in the afterlife.
Well ok. But the 7th day Sabbath is in Genesis. Says something about God blessing it and making it a holy day . I think to show he’s the creator. Just say no to evolution....but thank you now...
You've been very intellectually dishonest.
Christianity warns you of the dangers you face. Not me. I simply conveyed it to you and you accuse me of emotional blackmail/threats.
As said, I have to be done here because no one can deal with a dishonest person.
When you get an answer to the following, something will...
"GOD, if you are really out there, please let me know."
Pascals Wager
Fascinating!
.
The Correct understanding of Who
Christ Is and His Authority in this
World gives Believers Access to Life beyond the Grave in Paradise lost by Adam and Eve.
.
This thread has several posters that are watching Time Slipping away.
“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.”
But why didn’t god do that without killing his only son? If you were god and had a bunch of sinners to deal with, you would fix that by killing your only son?? That is one of the most absurd, cruel and illogical thing any one would do, especially if you had power to fix things other ways. He could have waved his hand and said “OK, all sins are foregiven”, no?
And why was that his only son? I thought we were all his sons and daughters. Are some of his sons more privileged than others?
Oh, and by the way he was just kidding when he “sacrificed” his son, cause he knew he would come back to life a couple of days later. Not much of a sacrifice, just a bit of magic, no?
There are many religions in the world.
There are many versions of Christianity.
Apparently you have picked one of those with the fire and brimstone.
But try to do that with Google. Meanwhile, my debates with atheists usually manifested hard-to-reason recalcitrance, as in determined unbelief, rejecting the God even as a hypothesis. As Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger details journey from skeptic to 're-conversion' to Christianity, and who debated atheists on forums as Quora,
Unlike atheists who outright deny the existence of God, Sanger was open to exploring the possibility. "I was always willing to consider seriously the possibility that God exists. They [atheists] were not," he explains. "The atheists said that they simply lacked a belief that God exists, but their mocking attitude screamed that God indeed did not exist."But I can be unreasonably stubborn with God.
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.
I have hardly ever seen that being a problem. TradCaths favor the Douay-Rheims which is usually quite close to the KJV. Usually we go to the original languages if warranted. . when discussing the rapture, for example, one finds at least three distinct and differing stances.
But I referred to basic fundamental beliefs, and distinctive doctrines that are basically treated as salvific.
without language, can one have a relationship with God? It is a serious question.
Not without communication.
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.
Yes, though some Christians try to make him one. But I quoted Sagan in supporting a systematically ordered universe, which an atheist had scoffed at. But there is disorder because there is order to reveal aberrations.
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, You wrote "Uncaused Cause" with that capitalization as well. Bravo.
Yes, back in past capitalization could be very prevalent.
"unalienable Rights." ...No wonder why so many of the political Left and the utterly corrupt would eat away at them,
For them, "unalienable Rights" refers to the PC protected class, which even includes basis that upon subjective feelings and behavior. LGBTQAI+++ is essentially class as a religion. Nor any kind the founders would sanction.
As you say, we can " proceed from there to compare competing identities of that cause." Sounds darn fine to me.
Yes, and a pleasure to converse with one of th few who debate atheists.
Don’t over think it. ;)
LLMs just make things up by attempting to predict the best the next token given the current context, the prompt and partial answer.
They have built-in randomness to make their responses appear less rote.
Plus all the public chat bots have hidden/built-in pre-prompts that influence their responses as well.
| Feature | Roman Catholic | Eastern Orthodox | Anglican/Episcopal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Origins | Traces back to St. Peter and Rome; centralized under the Pope | Split from Rome in 1054 (Great Schism); centered in Constantinople and national patriarchs | Originated in England (16th century Reformation); retains Catholic liturgy but with Protestant influence |
| Leadership | Pope in Rome has supreme authority (papal infallibility, universal jurisdiction) | Patriarchs lead autocephalous (independent) churches; no single supreme leader | Archbishop of Canterbury is symbolic head; authority is decentralized, national churches govern themselves |
| Scripture & Tradition | Bible + Sacred Tradition; Magisterium interprets | Bible + Holy Tradition; emphasis on continuity with early church | Bible is central; tradition valued but interpreted more flexibly |
| Sacraments | Seven sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, Confirmation, Confession, Marriage, Holy Orders, Anointing of the Sick) | Same seven sacraments, but theology differs (e.g., Eucharist seen as mystical mystery) | Generally recognizes two “dominical” sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist), though some Anglicans accept seven |
| Eucharist Belief | Transubstantiation: bread and wine become Christ’s body and blood | Real presence as divine mystery; avoids defining mechanics | Range of views: some Anglo-Catholics affirm real presence, others see symbolic meaning |
| Language & Liturgy | Latin historically, now vernacular; highly structured liturgy | Ancient liturgies (e.g., Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom); often in local languages | Book of Common Prayer; liturgy varies from high-church (Catholic-like) to low-church (Protestant-like) |
| Governance & Accountability | Centralized hierarchy; scandals tied to secrecy and clericalism | Decentralized, local accountability; scandals less globalized but still present | Synodical governance; bishops + lay councils; more transparency in many regions |
Catholicism offers the deepest continuity with Rome but is burdened by centralized authority and scandals.
Orthodoxy preserves ancient liturgy and theology with less papal control, appealing if you want “Catholic feel” but more local accountability.
Anglicanism blends Catholic ritual with Protestant reforms, offering flexibility and often stronger transparency in governance.
If your goal is “Catholic, but less scandal”, Orthodox and Anglican traditions may feel closer to what you’re seeking. Orthodoxy keeps the mystical depth, while Anglicanism provides liturgical richness with modern accountability structures.
Do you want an answer, or are you only actually interested in whining like a toddler about how much you hate the God you don’t believe in?
And the flip side of that coin is:
The thing aquila48 has a lot of trouble believing is that God is really all that concerned about whether GOD cares about him. Is aquila48 really that sure?
Of COURSE not!
WE wanna be the 'god' in our life!
When I do not know something, and it really interests me, I will search for it, track it down, and weigh the facts.
There’s a book - The Path - that our men’s group is reading:
https://www.bible.com/reading-plans/60529-the-path-what-if-the-way-of-jesus-is-differ
(spoiler - there are a LOT of books about “The Path”)
“after what I consider “
Christianity is about the Creator and the Creator’s standard of good. Human’s all have their own standard of good and bad. If everyone judges what is good or bad then there truly is no good or bad, just confusion about what is good and bad based on who says so, and that’s part of the fallen world we live in.
IF believers in God (Creator) die and it truly didnt matter who’s standard mattered it’s no real big loss, they still lived a good life by their standard.
If someone who rejects the Creator and Creator’s standard dies and it turns out it mattered because Creator had a standard of good and bad, then it was the person’s choice to dismiss the opportunities the Creator tried to reach out to them and they rejected the opportunities to know the creator before end of life. You cannot argue then that you didnt know, you were given opportunities.
plenty of atheists or people of other beliefs have taken time to investigate and ended up believing in Jesus. If you want to check any out and limit your own time investigating check out YouTube I happened upon people from sciences, various other religious beliefs, atheist, people who had NDE, medical people who had amazing experiences helping patients, the little kid who’s story lead to the book and movie Heaven is for Real, etc.
Lee Strobel is one I recall - The Case for Christ (book and movie) - he said his years of looking into whether God exists and Jesus was who he said he was, resulted in him realizing it would take more faith to NOT believe, there was just too much credible evidence to support that Jesus lived was crucified and rose from the dead just as he said he would to be the redeeming way for us to reunite with God the Father in relationship while alive, and for eternity.
J. Warner Wallace was another. He investigated lots of info too.
Having a pivotal moment that changed my life lead me to believe and I prefer life with God in it than what I considered was “good” life before. it’s the reason for my tagline.
No one can force you, neither does God, he gives you a life time and chances along the way. But you can’t say when you face him that you didnt know, or had no choice about it.
(Just don’t get the AI trained on Jewish responses to that question)
IF one takes OT statements as gospel.
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.