JC wrote:[
I don't know how to answer that without coming off condescending. When someone tells me they don't believe in God it sounds like "I don't believe in common sense."
I don't believe in common sense. Appeals to common sense are ways for someone to attempt to justify his own beliefs without providing any reasoning for them.
Now here's what I mean by that... life begets life, according to biogenesis. So we take a basic rule of science and couple it with philisophy (prime mover) and now we have a foundation for what Christians call God.
I agree to a certain degree. It is documented that life cannot arise spontaneously, as Pasteur fairly easily disproved. I don't see how that translates into ideas of abiogenesis which has a different approach in discussing how life may have formed on Earth.
Are you arguing that God is a physical being who fits the standard scientific definition of life? That would seem a little unorthodox, to me, if I'm right in where you're pointing.
I don't see how "prime mover" is an adequate philosophy that can be coupled with science. Science is naturally a methodology which assumes that all things empirical are explainable through the laws of nature.
In short, your foundation isn't built on solid grounds.
However, I've met some very simple individuals who understood these principles intrinsicly, without even knowing there are academic arguments that support them. It just seems nonsensical to me when someone says they believe that everything came from nothing and ultimately ends in nothing.
I don't really know any atheists who believe that everything came from nothing and ultimately ends in nothing. That appears to be a usual strawman that I've noticed theists enjoy positing on many atheists. It would be like me assuming that you are a Muslim because you claim you believe in God.
To assert that non-life gave birth to life and nothingness gave way to intelligence is akin to saying "I don't believe in cats and dogs because I don't like the way they smell."
Unless one has adequate reasoning for what they believe, which you obviously don't take into consideration.
I personally don't believe in God, but I don't claim to know how life arose, because I don't. My presumption is God didn't create life by proxy that I don't believe he exists. I don't think it's proper to beg the question that because life exists, God must exist because you believe only God could have created life.
I also don't believe that nothingness gave way to intelligence, which doesn't seem to be a very accurate criticism of atheism either.
I see a lack of evidence for what naturalists claim.
I'm not a strict naturalist, by any means, but I wonder that since your examples of what you think naturalists claim appears to be a little off that your criticisms of naturalism are unfounded. And it also depends on which naturalistic philosophy one adheres to, because those are varied as well.
Suffice it to say, you're painting atheists (and naturalists) with a very broad and unfounded brush.
What now is the deciding factor? Is it not personal preference?
Logic would dictate that parsimony would be the deciding factor.
I sometimes wonder why an atheist will jump at any perceived flaw in the theist/Christian position, rather than waiting to see if the "flaw" actually pans out. Only a personal preference would elicit such a "gut reaction" response. It's the more passive, agnostic-type atheist that I think is actually looking for truth.
I sometimes wonder why a theist will jump at any perceived flaw in the atheist position, rather than waiting to see if the "flaw" actually pans out. I will actually cite you as an example. You see the flaw through your foundation of "biogenesis" and "prime mover".
And I would wonder, are you a passive, agnostic-type theist?
I have a similar bent myself. However, I tend to only gravitate toward discussions that will ultimately have an impact on the way I live my life. Call me a pragmatist. 8)
If there is any truth to be found in Christianity, it will have an impact on the way I live my life.