Deat DSDM, Tas Walker is a Creationist & his opinions aren't me wiping my posterior with.

AJ: "Default positions don't change. If you use reasoning to arrive at a different position, then it's no longer a default position. You don't get to invent your own default position, and your suggestion that you do contradicts your claim that you arrived at your current position using reasoning."

It depends on how you arrive at your default position. My understanding of atheists position is as follows: let's take as our starting position that we agree to use reason and think through our positions, as well as others' positions, critically and rationally.

Along comes someone with a claim that there exist fairies. Atheists are saying that the default position cannot be "fairies exist" because the claim is not falsifiable.

Let me quote from Stenger's "God: the Failed Hypothesis" who draws upon Karl Pooper's distinction between empirical statements that are refutable and statements that are irrefutable. The former are described as "restricted existential statements". The latter are pure existential statement which apply "to the whole universe and is irrefutable simply because there can be no method by which it could be refuted".

cont....

cont..

For example, “ "There exists a pearl which is ten times larger than the next pearl." If this statement were restricted the words "There exists to some finite region in space and time, then it may of course become a refutable statement. For example, the following statement is obviously empirically refutable: “At this moment and in this box here there exist at least two pearls one of which is ten times larger than the next largest pearl in this box.” But then this statement is no longer a strict or pure existential statement: rather it is a restricted existential statement. A strict or pure existential statement applies to the whole universe, and it is refutable simply because there can be no method by which it could be refuted. For even if we were able to search our entire universe, the strict or pure existential statement would not be refuted by our failure to discover the required pearl, seeing that it might always be hiding in a place where we are not looking" (Popper quoted in Stenger, p27)

Stenger concludes from this:

"By this criterion, it would seem that the existence of God cannot be empirically refuted because to do so would require making an existential statement applying to the whole universe (plus whatever lies beyond). But, in looking at Popper's example, that this is not the case for God. True, we cannot refute the existence of a God who like the pearl in Popper's example, is somewhere outside the box, say, in another galaxy. But God is supposed to be everywhere, including inside a single box, no matter how small, we should either find him, thus confirming his existence, or not find him, thus refuting his existence.”

So how does Stenger arrive at the default position of “God does not exist”? By defining god as part of space and time. But this does not refer to a god to which I'm referring.

cont...

cont..

The god I’m referring to created space and time and is eternal. The god has purpose in creating space and time, just as human beings have purpose in art, politics, literature, raising a family, going to work, marching in the streets, etc.

The basis of an explanation of the universe that is rational but not based on science, is that god created the universe for a purpose: that we may learn through experience the meaning of worshipping him. This entails choice but not causation since god remains the cause of everything. This is the god that I think is consistent Islam , as well as Judaism and Christianity (although Dan may correct me).

This is not a scientific explanation because science deals with causation and causation requires time (cause precedes effect), while god is eternal. Nevertheless it is an explanation.

So my default position is that there is god. It began when I read the Qur'an and I said "You speak to me" (i.e. I did not pre-judge). At this point it was like a home-coming after years in the wilderness in that it there were verses that confirmed personal convictions. Now everywhere I look I find purposeful activity and not something that is a by-product of randomness.

Nevertheless, it is always possible that the initial and continued existence of the universe can be by chance, just as we cannot rule out throwing a coin 1 million or so times and getting heads every time. It just seems very unlikely.

As for the Qur'an, it insists on the use of reason and invites you to challenge its veracity which is the position I adopt. So far I have not been let down.

The preceding 3 posts, by the way, also addresses the following statement from madmick

"All the theories of evolution and the origins of the universe have gaps and flaws but they are works in progress and most scientists are humble enough to admit this while they work at filling them. Contrast this with the bigoted, smug attitude of the religious who can blithely assert that everything we can't explain is "God's Work"

The inability of atheists or science to disprove the existence of God does not, in any way, lend weight to the proposition that He (or She) exists. Belittling those who are working to expand human knowledge and comparing them to believers in magic is ridiculous" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18201

Firstly, I do not postulate a "god of gaps". I am not saying, that god explains what science does not explain. Rather, the "laws of nature" describe the result of god's will.

Secondly, human choice is not causative in space and time. Nevertheless it determines the degree to which we draw closer or more distant to Allah.

If you want to see what your status is with god, look at what you are doing.

AJ,
To see one example of an atheist whose attitude is to look the other way when evidence is presented unfavourable to his preferred outlook, look no further than Jayb's last statement.

----

As for theology that says God sends people to Hell for not believing in him, this isn't correct. It's partly a misunderstanding of the word 'belief'. There are clearly two types of belief. There is belief that God exists, and there is a salvation belief which entails the saving knowledge of God, and submission to his will.

Biblically speaking, God's existence is considered obvious. So there's no great merit in believing that. In fact, James 2:19 says emphatically, "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder." So believing that there is one God (i.e. belief in his existence) isn't sufficient for salvation. Therefore, not believing it isn't going to be a crucial factor. God will condemn people, as he so determines, because he is righteous and holy, and as Judge of the earth, he will judge people according to their wrongs committed. Yet he has made a way of salvation for those who believe on him, that is, belief in the gift of forgiveness and grace that he has made available in Christ.

Therefore, there is a clear distinction in the definitions of the word 'belief'. A simple belief that God exists doesn't make much difference either way. That kind of belief is already expected. For God holds all people morally accountable before him for their actions and decisions.

---

Regarding the default position, or burden of proof, I proposed the 'sun' analogy, as I thought it might represent the picture more clearly.

proposition: the sun exists (affirmative), sun doesn't exist (negative). Assuming the negative, and then attempting to argue for the affirmative, it would still be near impossible to prove the proposition in any absolute sense.

Similarly, many view God as sufficiently obvious not to have to assume his non-existence. But really, starting with any assumption stifles the possibility of productive discussion favourable to the contrary view