Atheists often suggest that theirs is the default position, that there is a presumption of atheism. This places the burden of proof on the theist; if the theist is unable to make a persuasive case for the existence of God, then the atheist is justified in his atheism. The case for the presumption of atheism may be made in two ways, one resulting in a presumption of weak atheism, and the other in a presumption of strong atheism.
If I believe in god and show strong evidence that he must exist if physical reality exist and that evidence is logicaly sound then the only way to ignore that evidence is to evoke faith in dispute of my claims (the physical universe can or does exist without conscious observation) this requires faith because there is no way to verify its claims yet we have verifiable evidence that the universe does not exist as "physical" until a counscious observation is made, also, science seems to indicate that the physical universe existed prior to human consciousness.
2007-12-21 20:30:20 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Is this a paradox?
2007-12-21 20:30:44 · update #1
to orion
lead, follow or get out of the way eh?
2007-12-21 21:11:03 · update #2
also I do not agree with your lie as a substution of truth. A lie is purposeful in intent the truth is the closest aproximation of reality that can be achieved. Where it may lack completeness this is not the same as a lie.
One can know and will know the truth.
2007-12-21 21:20:28 · update #3
most of us ignore them they go away
2007-12-21 20:38:55 · answer #1 · answered by crazzijimsmith 7 · 10⤊ 0⤋
There are several arguments against atheism. Millions of persons have experienced a variety of out of body and nde which cannot be explained by science. Then one needs to define what they mean by God. If love is the definition then who could be atheist? How about truth or light? Science seems to confer their existence. Actually, the Copenhagen interpretation could be used as evidence for God. With Copenhagen the physical does not exist until observed and God isn't evident unless one looks for him. I find that it is the definition of God that turns most atheists off. If they keep looking they will probably find one that works for them.
The physical universe existed before human consciousness but not before 'consciousness'.
2007-12-22 08:24:11 · answer #2 · answered by cwrockbttm 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
'The truth is the agreed upon lie'
I could rationalize, & argue for or against the existance of god. But I choose not to because I don't believe I would be proving much more than how clever(or not) I am, in my ability to convince others of my opinion.
2007-12-22 05:04:46 · answer #3 · answered by insignificant_other 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Pretty much yes.
2007-12-22 04:48:28 · answer #4 · answered by Caleb F 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋