Is Atheism faith?

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

It contradicts mainstream scientific theory, which indicates that every instant of the universe is caused by a previous instant of the universe, meaning there is no instant of the universe created by god.

That's not proof.

That god didn't create the universe isn't sufficient proof?

[Zottistan]

That's not proof.

That god didn't create the universe isn't sufficient proof?

It isn't. I didn't create the universe, as far as I'm aware, yet here I sit.

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

That doesn't mean that a god-like being doesn't exist within the universe.

We're talking about god, not beings similar to god, which will have to be more clearly defined in any case.

[The Scientific States]

That's not proof.

That god didn't create the universe isn't sufficient proof?

We don't know that some "God" didn't create a universe. For all we know, a "God" could exist, that didn't create the universe.

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

That god didn't create the universe isn't sufficient proof?

It isn't. I didn't create the universe, as far as I'm aware, yet here I sit.

It also doesn't belong to the typical definition of Zottistan that Zottistan created the universe.

[Furious Grandmothers]

That's not proof.

That god didn't create the universe isn't sufficient proof?

Unless your special definition of the term god somehow includes "creator of the universe" or something.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Surely, using that model one could state that Gnostic Atheists and Gnostic Theists / Deists use belief to back up their position, while Agnostic Atheists and Agnostic Theist / Deists base their lack of 100% certainty on the simple fact that no one can know as there is no evidence to back either side of the argument, but rather based on faith?

Sure, if you felt like lying you could say that.

Would you care to explain your logic behind that statement?

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

That god didn't create the universe isn't sufficient proof?

We don't know that some "God" didn't create a universe. For all we know, a "God" could exist, that didn't create the universe.

This is starting to depend on semantics. When I indicate that there is proof god does not exist, I am referring to the typical definition of the word god. If you want to define god as something else, then go ahead, but this wouldn't take away from the proof that god didn't create the universe.

[Zottistan]

That doesn't mean that a god-like being doesn't exist within the universe.

We're talking about god, not beings similar to god, which will have to be more clearly defined in any case.

So, the Christian interpretation of god?

It isn't. I didn't create the universe, as far as I'm aware, yet here I sit.

It also doesn't belong to the typical definition of Zottistan that Zottistan created the universe.

It's not a necessary criterion for a being to meet to be considered a god. Most of the gods in the Greek pantheon didn't create the universe.

[The Scientific States]

We don't know that some "God" didn't create a universe. For all we know, a "God" could exist, that didn't create the universe.

This is starting to depend on semantics. When I indicate that there is proof god does not exist, I am referring to the typical definition of the word god. If you want to define god as something else, then go ahead, but this wouldn't take away from the proof that god didn't create the universe.

Again, you haven't shown us proof. I don't believe in a God, but I don't think you know what proof means. Proof means you know exactly what happened. We can't be sure that a God didn't create the universe. You've given valid evidence that he/she didn't create the universe, but not proof.

[Neo Rome Republic]

So, the Christian interpretation of god?

The universe being the product of an Intelligent Designer is a Theistic/Deistic interpretation.

[Zottistan]

So, the Christian interpretation of god?

The universe being the product of an Intelligent Designer is Theistic/Deistic interpretation.

Not necessarily. It's an interpretation, but there are others.

[Neo Rome Republic]

The universe being the product of an Intelligent Designer is Theistic/Deistic interpretation.

Not necessarily.

Yes, it is.

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

So, the Christian interpretation of god?

The argument has implications on anybody who thinks god created the universe, whether it's the Christian, Islamic, and Jewish god, or some other Deistic conception of god. It may not have any implications on every single definition of god that one can bring up, but if there is an atheistic explanation of why the universe exists, then this is sufficient to justify atheism.

It's not a necessary criterion for a being to meet to be considered a god. Most of the gods in the Greek pantheon didn't create the universe.

We've driven off from your original argument. You tried to reduce my argument to absurdity by saying that you exist despite the fact that you didn't create the universe. I countered by showing that it doesn't belong to your definition in the same way that god does. Is it necessary that we define god in such a way? Absolutely not. When I said god, I am speaking of the culturally relevant definition that billions of people believe in.

[Cannot think of a name]

No one believes this.

I admire your optimism, and am envious of your naiveté.

I am wearied by your cynicism and your smugness tires me.

[Kubrath]

The universe being the product of an Intelligent Designer is Theistic/Deistic interpretation.

Not necessarily. It's an interpretation, but there are others.

Are you implying that the hypothesis of the ID can also be made by people who are not theists/deists? How come?

[Eliminativism Without Tears]

This is starting to depend on semantics. When I indicate that there is proof god does not exist, I am referring to the typical definition of the word god. If you want to define god as something else, then go ahead, but this wouldn't take away from the proof that god didn't create the universe.

Again, you haven't shown us proof. I don't believe in a God, but I don't think you know what proof means. Proof means you know exactly what happened. We can't be sure that a God didn't create the universe. You've given valid evidence that he/she didn't create the universe, but not proof.

It is a proof, because a logical contradiction is being presented. It's not as if it's an inductive argument; The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

[Kubrath]

Again, you haven't shown us proof. I don't believe in a God, but I don't think you know what proof means. Proof means you know exactly what happened. We can't be sure that a God didn't create the universe. You've given valid evidence that he/she didn't create the universe, but not proof.

It is a proof, because a logical contradiction is being presented. It's not as if it's an inductive argument; The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

The trouble with logic is that it's man made.

[Zottistan]

Not necessarily.

Yes, it is.

For deism, sure, but not for theism.

It's not a necessary criterion for a being to meet to be considered a god. Most of the gods in the Greek pantheon didn't create the universe.

We've driven off from your original argument. You tried to reduce my argument to absurdity by saying that you exist despite the fact that you didn't create the universe. I countered by showing that it doesn't belong to your definition in the same way that god does. Is it necessary that we define god in such a way? Absolutely not. When I said god, I am speaking of the culturally relevant definition that billions of people believe in.

So you've proved a certain interpretation of god doesn't exist, which in no way proves that there is no god.

[Cannot think of a name]

Of course there is.

No, there isn't. There is no "proof" for or against God.

Prepare to accept the possibility of Elbotor, the Funginator. No proof he doesn't exist, and that's all we need to accept the possibility, right? We don't weigh things on 'likely' or anything like that.

[The Scientific States]

It is a proof, because a logical contradiction is being presented. It's not as if it's an inductive argument; The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

The trouble with logic is that it's man made.

That, and you presented that it wouldn't make much sense, but according to Christians "God works in mysterious ways."

It seems like we're arguing a debate based entirely off definitions.

[Beta Test]

If Atheism is a religion, off is a TV channel.

[Zottistan]

Not necessarily. It's an interpretation, but there are others.

Are you implying that the hypothesis of the ID can also be made by people who are not theists/deists? How come?

No, I'm saying that being a theist does not necessarily make one a believer in intelligent design of the universe.

[The Scientific States]

No, there isn't. There is no "proof" for or against God.

Prepare to accept the possibility of Elbotor, the Funginator. No proof he doesn't exist, and that's all we need to accept the possibility, right? We don't weigh things on 'likely' or anything like that.

Pardon? I'm simply saying that we have no actual proof that a god doesn't exist. It's unlikely, very unlikely, that a god exists.

[Aurora Novus]

Of course there is.

No, there isn't. There is no "proof" for or against God.

That depends on your definition of God.

If you are speaking about a deistic deity, then no, you can never "prove" nor "disprove" such a deity. But specific claims about specific gods, or in other words, theistic deities, are entirely capable of being proven false. And they have been.