I recently hear this put forward by a top astrophysicist in a debate and thought it may be interesting to see others thoughts on it.
If theism were really true there’s no reason for God to be hard to find. He should be perfectly obvious whereas in naturalism you might expect people to believe in God but the evidence to be thin on the ground.
Under theism you’d expect that religious beliefs should be universal. There’s no reason for God to give special messages to this or that primitive tribe thousands of years ago. Why not give it to anyone? Whereas under naturalism you’d expect different religious beliefs inconsistent with each other to grow up under different local conditions.
Under theism you’d expect religious doctrines to last a long time in a stable way. Under naturalism you’d expect them to adapt to social conditions.
Under theism you’d expect the moral teachings of religion to be transcendent, progressive, sexism is wrong, slavery is wrong. Under naturalism you’d expect they reflect, once again, local mores, sometimes good rules, sometimes not so good.
You’d expect the sacred texts, under theism, to give us interesting information. Tell us about the germ theory of disease. Tell us to wash our hands before we have dinner.
Under naturalism you’d expect the sacred texts to be a mishmash—some really good parts, some poetic parts, and some boring parts and mythological parts.
Under theism you’d expect biological forms to be designed, under naturalism they would derive from the twists and turns of evolutionary history.
Under theism, minds should be independent of bodies. Under naturalism, your personality should change if you’re injured, tired, or you haven’t had your cup of coffee yet.
Under theism, you’d expect that maybe you can explain the problem of evil – God wants us to have free will. But there shouldn’t be random suffering in the universe. Life should be essentially just. At the end of the day with theism you basically expect the universe to be perfect. Under naturalism, it should be kind of a mess—this is very strong empirical evidence.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@LucyAustralopithecus
You had me at "under theism". Bravo. And for once I read the whole of a lengthy OP. GFU!
This is one of favorite style arguments. I seriously have nothing to add or subtract. Spot on LucyAustralopithecus.
@Lucy
*clap-clap-clap-clap-clap....* Outstanding! *clap-clap-clap...*
Your odds of embracing any particular religion is largely a result of geography.
Should you be born in an area where Hinduism prevails - that's the most likely contamination you' ll pick up.
In fact - I will bet long money against anyone able to prove a single case of someone spontaneously acquiring a religion that is unknown in the area where they live.
Were there actually a genuine deity - you would see such cases as commonplace - unless of course that deity likes playing with a stacked deck.
When you say “Under theism”, you put in assumptions which are very much misguided.
You say there is no reason for God to be hard to find? Sacred texts would include something about germs? Religious beliefs to be universal? You are actually assuming what God would do. Most precisely, you’re assuming God would do what you would do if you were God.
I have to agree, which means Lucy now has two theists which disagree with her statements about Theism. How does that work?
I wouldn't expect anything less
How many theists do you think would agree with your theism statements? Because if its not many...
"I have to agree, which means Lucy now has two theists which disagree with her statements about Theism. How does that work?"
Since neither one of you has offered anything beyond a bare rejection, I'm inclined to side with her as she offered logical rational arguments.
As opposed to actually claiming to KNOW what god wants you mean. What LucyAustralopithecus is saying are all logical rational conclusion of a different definitions we have all seen theists use for the deity they claim is real.
However to show us where she went wrong, why not offer refutations of her logic?
"You are actually assuming what God would do."
Well if someone claims god is omniscient and that he inspired a message and is omnipotent then of course you can infer the message should reflect those traits. If someone claims their deity is perfectly merciful and created everything then obviously we can infer ubiquitous random suffering is a logical contradiction. If someone claims a deity is unchanging and perfect and has contacted a few humans, mostly from ancient superstitious and illiterate Bedouin tribes, then of course we can logically infer this is not a benevolent act if it then hides from people elsewhere.
"you’re assuming God would do what you would do if you were God."
No she wasn't, she was drawing logical conclusions of how a deity defined in a particular way would behave. If we can't use reason then we have nothing, faith is about as much use as a chocolate teapot in validating the truth of any claim.
@JoC: "you’re assuming God would do what you would do if you were God."
Since all gods were created by people in man's image, that seems to be a reasonable approach.
@LUCY Austropolpithecus: You got that lengthy list from Sean Carroll who favors Atheism What you didn`t include was a response from William Lane Craig his opponent in the debate in New Orleans.
@AB Re: "You got that lengthy list from Sean Carroll..."
Wow, AB. Figured that out, huh? Especially since Lucy actually made it clear she got the list from somebody. Oooo-we! You should be a detective. You never cease to astound us with your perceptive insights.
Oh, and AB, as far as the rebuttal from the debate "opponent", it is likely most folks on here could already tell you the opponent's arguments without ever seeing the actual debate. lol
@tin-mam: I was watching at home live stream 2 years ago when the debate took place Both presenters made important points but As I say continually The Atheist is to dogmatic to certain that there is no GOD. You really can`t state that, That`s why I take the neutral position, LOL when Atheist like to pretend that there is no GOD.
AG you have NEVER EVER taken a neutral position. You wouldn't know a neutral position if it hit you in the ass!
Atheism isn't dogmatic at all. How is requiring real proof dogmatic?
I am beginning to think that you have brain damage. I already know that you have a mental disorder or two or three!
As I stated repeatedly here; I Am a former Christian who has decided on Agnosticism. That is my way of life here. I no longer attend church but I occasionally read the new testament. T he reason for my conviction that you and other atheistic are dogmatic is by reading your post. I f they aren`t biased I don`t know then what is. Let me ask you a question are you coming from a place of certainty concerning Gods existence or not? Aren`t your post mostly Anti-theist in nature? By you cussing me and other contributors to this web site that to me shows the power of your dogmatic convictions .Rather you like me or not doesn`t bother me but please stop verbally attacking me. What you`ll get from me is my sincerity of heart. I stand for the truth, Rather you accept that truth or not.
AB, are you agnostic about Thor? Zeus? Poseidon? Or do you call yourself agnostic only about the judeo-xtian god?
Dogmatic just because I don't accept a claim that has NO basis in truth facts or evidence.
You claiming to be anything but a christian apologist is laughable. You aren't agnostic. You aren't a "former" christian.
I have no dogmatic convictions. And yes I am certain that there is no proof of a god as of yet. I positively certain about that.
You don't stand for the truth. You have never been neutral. I doubt very much that you even know what sincerity is.
And I will fucking cuss any fucking time I fucking decide to do so. Does it hurt your ears, burn your eyes? GOOD, fucking fantastic!
You're a troll a christian apologist, a liar and many more things but you are definitely NOT agnostic or neutral! You have no idea what neutral is. You think FOX is "fair and balanced" just because they say so. Well, that's not how it works bub!
@mykcob4: Since you state That your positively certain that there is no proof for GODS existence wouldn`t you say that is a dogmatic assertion? As for telling me my preference of Agnosticism and that I have chose to leave the Christian faith is laughable. Wouldn`t you conclude that taking the neutral position in regards to GODS existence by stating I`m agnostic now show that I`m no longer Christian. Since I stopped attending church services. Just because I take the role on these threads as devils advocate for the Christian community doesn`t make me a Christian here.As for my political persuasions Yes I watch and thoroughly enjoy fox news and Fox business, I am a die hard Republican and so conservative, I helped get Donald Trump elected president here in new York. I as a former enlistee and Veteran of the US Navy am A die HARD REPUBLICAN. I believe in conservatism causes and ideology .I love my Country And my Flag and my President.
@mycob 4 As a Marine for 24 years why do you state an Anti God Anti USA Anti President position? most vets that I know since I belong to the Veterans administration are pro Country. Why would you put in 24 years as a Marine and risk your life and then just for the benefits that you received. I t doesn`t jive with me here. By berating the Congress and the president like you do shows me that you have animus towards this Country. Are you a Communist then? A humanist? Very CLEARLY. Most of Texas residents are republican They Love there God And there Country. But I can observe very well by your posts not you. So Sad for you Mycob 4.
Do you watch Alex Jones?
@Pseud-Agnostic Believer
Calling me "AntiUSA is INSANE!
You think being conservative makes you a patriot and that not being a conservative makes you anti-American? If you do then you don't know a damned thing about what this nation is all about.
Most Texans are racist and Rednecks does that make them "American"?
I "berate the president because he committed treason by colluding with Russia to steal the Whitehouse, he obstructed justice, AND all of his "policies" are populace nationalist racist Fascist NAZI and clearly UNAMERICAN.
You don't have to "love god" to be an American patriot! "There shall be no religious test" U.S. Constitution!
BTW Votevets was and still is against Trump and calling for his impeachment!
You and Trump and the repukes are a disgrace to this nation. If you are a vet, and I highly doubt that, you'd see that glaring fact! Because they are nothing more than greedy hypocritical liars cheats and bastards preying on the IGNORANCE of dumbasses like YOU!
You say that you belong to the VA. I know that is a lie. What job do you have with the VA asshole?
You're a fucking unAmerican idiot!
@Pseudoagnosticbeliever
You are NOT neutral and you aren't playing the devil's advocate!
1) there is no devil and the opposite of christian is not atheist you fucking ignoramus!
2) You watch Faux Noise because you're a complete and utter idiot that laps up the racist fascist NAZI populist nationalist bullshit.
3) Trump LOST New York goofball.
4) You don't love your country. You only love your fucked up self!
@AB Re: " I was watching at home live stream 2 years ago..."
Dang, dude. I have to admit I am genuinely impressed. You remember something you watched two years ago? I wish MY memory was that good. Hell, I can barely remember something I may have watched two DAYS ago. lol
William lane craig made next to no good arguments, he tries to debate physicists without any major knowledge on the subject.
that is how his every argument regarding this with sean carroll was dismissed very easily.
It seems that @agnostic believer is too dogmatic in his certainty of what makes a true American.
I said as much in the opening statement1
Sean Carroll actually favours naturalism.
Naturalism is an interesting philosophy but kind of confusing.
Pages