To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

[Sherlock Holmes]

To be clear the title of this thread is false.

There are currently several purported definitions of atheism, personally I always use the real one, the established one, the one used historically in books on theology, philosophy and so on, the one that's been around for hundreds of years.

But there are some who like to use a different definition one made up one afternoon by Antony Flew in the 1970s in a rather obscure book The Presumption of Atheism.

Nobody paid much attention to this until relatively recently where it became fashionable amongst militant atheists, some of whom even insist that Flew's definition is the true definition.

You can read more about this hand waving and other foot stamping here.

It's also worth noting that there are plenty of atheists who rely on the historic definition and do not agree with this attempt to redefine it, so any pretense that all atheists adopt the "lack of belief" view is false, many atheists do not share that definition at all.

[TRANSPONDER]

It doesn't need to be. The burden of proof is on the Theist to demonstrate that it IS the expression of a god (in any meaningful sense, an intelligence beyond humans or even a half -way corporeal advanced ET alien race, at the least), otherwise the god -claim has no force, credibility or logical validity.

[William]

All things implied need to be demonstrated as true.

It has yet to be demonstrated that nature is NOT the expression of a god if one is implying that is the case.

Nature can be said to be an expression of a god if a god is defined as that which is able to express itself through nature.

Therefore, if someone defines a god as such, then it can be implied that nature is an expression of a god.
Or;
If someone does not define a god as such, then it cannot be implied that nature is an expression of a god.

It matters not who implies what, demonstration is still required before the implication can be supported by incontrovertible evidence.

The onus is not on any particular position which implies, but on providing support for whatever is implied.
Being in one position or another does not exempt the one implying from providing supporting evidence.

God-statements or non-god statements have equally no force, credibility or logical validity without accompanying supportive evidence. They are opinions.

The statement "nature is NOT the expression of a god" and the statement "nature IS the expression of a god" are both unsupported opinions and in order for one to be accepted over the other, incontrovertible evidence needs to be provided.

Otherwise they remain, equally, opinions about possibilities.

[TRANSPONDER]

No. Those who claim that nature is a something or other of God or a god or Cosmic Mind or anything else that people think of as being 'God' (not evolution, physics or natural law, but an intelligence at least) has the burden of proving that is what it (credibly) is. Of course if you are willing to post here that by 'God' you men natural processes without intelligence, volition or forward planning, Then I might consider your argument as having merit.

[William]

No. Those who claim that nature is a something or other of God or a god or Cosmic Mind or anything else that people think of as being 'God' (not evolution, physics or natural law, but an intelligence at least) has the burden of proving that is what it (credibly) is. Of course if you are willing to post here that by 'God' you men natural processes without intelligence, volition or forward planning, Then I might consider your argument as having merit.

My argument has merit regardless of your personal opinion to the contrary.

Unless you can show me why it doesn't have merit, it does.

The universe most obviously exhibits natural processes with intelligence, volition and forward planning, as clearly can be seen by us within this particular expression of that...here on this planet.

There is merit in the idea that this planet was meant to be as it now is. There is no merit in the belief that it was a mindless accident.

There is merit in the idea that this planet was meant to be as it now is. = 664
Energies Renewed Inspiration Initiative Progress New Project

There is no such thing as true randomness = 428
Information which we see as heavenly objects

[Bust Nak]

No! If I simply believe Jesus rose from the dead and go on to explain why I believe as I do based upon the evidence, I have no burden to demonstrate.

If you don't make assertion, then sure. The premise here is theist assert their belief that God exists, as they typically do, hence a burden.

A person does not own a burden simply because they believe. Rather, the burden rests upon those who make claims.

Okay, that sounds fine.

[Bust Nak]

[1] Regardless of my view. Aligning my view with what is incontrovertible.
Neither non-theism nor theism is incontrovertible so neither position can be define as 'true'.

[2] In this case I am referring to the incontrovertible evidence that word-strings can be sorted into lists based upon the numerical values they share, as "an identified reality".

Aligning my view with what is incontrovertible = 511
[What I just wrote]
Such a Mind can prove its existence to the individual = 511
[a recent comment I made re The Cosmic Mind]
Good and evil co-exist without either being dominant = 511
[A statement of opinion which has not been shown to be incontrovertible]

Aligning my view with what is incontrovertible = 511
Such a Mind can prove its existence to the individual
Good and evil co-exist without either being dominant

Okay, so certain sentences add up to the same number if you assign a number to each letter. This is evidence of God?

What makes this true/truth?

Well, as Realworldjack pointed out, it's not true, it's a very sloppy attempt of saying those who makes the claim has the burden. It's not true because believing something isn't the same as claiming something. But to answer the meat of your question, a statement is true when it matches objective reality.

What incontrovertible evidence has been produced which show one side of this conflict is correct and the other incorrect?

This is a question of morality. Good vs evil, not strictly about correct vs incorrect.

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #126]

Okay, so certain sentences add up to the same number if you assign a number to each letter. This is evidence of God?

This is evidence that true randomness does not exist, therefore the universe is not the product of a mindless [random] accident. Anything which is not a mindless accident may be thought of as 'evidence of god' - depending of course on how one defines god.

For example, some may not see it as 'evidence of god' if they define god as a mindless random accident.

A statement is true when it matches objective reality.

How can I know that this statement is true other than to try and match it with objective reality?

Getting back to how one defines god - if one defines god as something which is not observed in objective reality, then one can claim that the statement 'god exists' is not true.

But it is not true ONLY because of how god has been defined therein.

If I define god as the mind behind objective reality and therefore the reason objective reality exists as it does, my statement is true, because it matches perfectly with objective reality.

Theism does indeed define god in this manner and always has done. However, it is also true that some theists define god in terms which are not matched with objective reality.

One such term is what PK brought up in another thread today - the idea that god hates gays.

This does not match with objective reality.

So that cannot be said to be a true definition of god...or one of gods characteristics as it were...

What incontrovertible evidence has been produced which show one side of this conflict is correct and the other incorrect?

This is a question of morality. Good vs evil, not strictly about correct vs incorrect.

What incontrovertible evidence has been produced which shows one side of this conflict is moral and the other immoral?

For example, what is immoral about there being a mind behind this reality experience?

Why is it even regarded as a "problem of evil"?



What incontrovertible evidence has been produced which shows one side of this conflict is moral and the other immoral? = 1111

[so far I have no other word-strings under this value - I just like that it adds to 1111.]



Objective reality = 181
Large Hadron Collider
Welcoming answer
Beaming Out Beaming In
It’s Our Nature
Good Here There Evil
Sustainability
Willful ignorance

[Bust Nak]

This is evidence that true randomness does not exist, therefore the universe is not the product of a mindless [random] accident. Anything which is not a mindless accident may be thought of as 'evidence of god' - depending of course on how one defines god.

For example, some may not see it as 'evidence of god' if they define god as a mindless random accident.

How exactly does a bunch of sentences having matching numbers associated with them evidence of true randomness not existing? And even if reality is deterministic, you still haven't ruled out mindlessness.

How can I know that this statement is true other than to try and match it with objective reality?

Don't know, just believe it through faith I guess.

If I define god as the mind behind objective reality and therefore the reason objective reality exists as it does, my statement is true, because it matches perfectly with objective reality.

At best it is consistent, you can't say it matches until you can rule out mindlessness.

What incontrovertible evidence has been produced which shows one side of this conflict is moral and the other immoral?

No such evidence can exist because morality is matter of opinion. I however can give you incontrovertible evidence that it is indeed my opinion that my side is moral and the other immoral. My testimony should suffice for that much.

For example, what is immoral about there being a mind behind this reality experience?

I don't think that much is immoral.

[William]

[Replying to Bust Nak in post #128]

How exactly does a bunch of sentences having matching numbers associated with them evidence of true randomness not existing?

Because I created a topic for the purpose of providing the evidence and discussing the conclusions which could be drawn, I have answered your questions there.

Re: Generating Messages and the number values of word-strings.

What incontrovertible evidence has been produced which shows one side of this conflict is moral and the other immoral?

No such evidence can exist because morality is matter of opinion. I however can give you incontrovertible evidence that it is indeed my opinion that my side is moral and the other immoral. My testimony should suffice for that much.

If I were to accept your testimony as written, I would also have to accept the testimony of the gospels regarding the resurrection of Jesus.

Rather, what I do is accept such testimony temporarily - in good faith if you will - until more evidence arrives on the table which will shift the faith through fact, whereby we can remove it from the discussion as irrelevant or proceed with if the evidence supports it.

For now, I can agree that morality apparently is a matter of opinion.
I would ask you to consider with me, other opinions on the matter.

Some have argued that we do not require a god in order to have morals - which is to say that no such Cosmic Mind exists as an explanation for why we developed morality.

Since we developed morality from opinion, we can agree that opinion is shaped through circumstance, and since our collective circumstance is one in which we are currently still in the process of getting to know, we are forced to adapt often by changing our opinion to suit said circumstance, because we base our criteria on aligning our opinion with the thing we call reality. The Universe.

So therein it is the universe which is shaping our opinion and thus our morals.

If our universe is really just a chaotic misshapen mindless mess of a thing, we draw a blank on being able to answer the question as to WHY we are using an apparent mindless mess of a thing to shape our opinions and morals and how come we think that is going to solve the hard problems we current face as a specie.

Whereas, if we choose to adopt the notion that there is a Mind to that apparently mess up thing - those questions are answered as follows...

;

We shape our opinions and morals through understanding that we are here for that reason.

Not that reason alone, but that reason initially.

We succeed as a permanent specie or we fail as a temporary one, while involved within said "The Universe" depending on how we [each] actually reflect the Universes intentions through our [individual] behavior.

The Universe can only have intention if the Universe also has a Mind.

So we [each] make up our own Mind re that and proceed accordingly.

If I am correct in my [ongoing] calculations, my opinion - shaping my morals - has to be able to know what the Universe's intentions are in regard for itself.
Since I just can't tell by looking at its form, I have to dig deeper.
If there is a Mind to it, then I have to be able to discover it and converse with it and therein, find out for myself.

I have done this [for myself] and proceed with sharing that information with the rest of my connections [our minds here together].

And this has to be done peaceably because everyone at the table has yet to prove that their morality really is "The One", and we should know already by now that Warfare isn't the way to go about it.

If you truly can provide incontrovertible evidence that your opinion that your side is moral and the other immoral is in the correct place, I will examine that evidence and give you a preliminary conclusion.

For now;

From our side, we see two sides fighting, and a species dying...it doesn't look good for those sides and our side offers possible solution...


Mind To Mind.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #129]

In good faith, if you will = 240
…And Loving That Knowing…
Out and about in the open
Language, Symbol and Alchemy
The number one nine two
Planet Earth is a prison
The Hamitic Hypothesis

A chaotic misshapen mindless mess of a thing = 395
The Philosophy of Quantum Theory

[chuckles]

We succeed as a permanent specie or we fail as a temporary one = 547
When The Opportunity Presents Itself To Do So...

I have to dig deeper = 153
William songs
A Bridge over Time
Eternal Watcher
Inter-Dependent
What Is Normal?
Event String
First Source
The Overarching
A Beautiful Song
Measurements
The Chestahedron

We should know already by now that Warfare isn't the way to go about it = 725
We know not what we are because what we think we are gets in the way of it all

Mind To Mind. = 115

Encounter
In Training
Positive
Functional
Intelligence