grateful: god created the universe for a purpose: that we may learn through experience the meaning of worshipping him.

I propose, that "if" a God did create the entire Universe & everything in it, then, A God would not even be interested in Humans enough to even think about wanting Humans to Worship him/her/it. The God would have just created Humans & left us up to our own design & go on our merry way. No Heaven or Hell, these are man s invented devices designed for the elite to control the masses.

DSDM: 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.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Using Religion (belief) as a means of controlling the Masses. "Submission to his will," is really the "Dogma" behind the various Religions. It's all about "Money" & Control.

DSDM: Biblically speaking, God's existence is considered obvious.

With the emphasis on "Biblically Speaking." Considering all Religion's Bible's are "Man" inspired. The Interpretation of every word of each "Bible" is interpreted by every Religion differently. Every person Interprets their own Religions Bible to suit their own particular view with-in the framework of what they are "demanded" to believe by their own particular Religious Sect.

grateful,

Default positions are not something that we arrive at individually. The default position is an objective one. It’s always disbelief.

<<Atheists are saying that the default position cannot be "fairies exist" because the claim is not falsifiable.>>

No, the default position cannot be "fairies exist" because the default is always one of disbelief. It has nothing to do with what is and is not falsifiable. The reason the default position is always one of disbelief is because of the burden of proof, and the burden of proof is what it is because it would be absurd to go around believing any and every claim we heard. We’d inevitably end up holding contradictory beliefs.

<<So how does Stenger arrive at the default position of “God does not exist”?>>

We arrive at conclusions, not default positions. The default position is a starting point, not a conclusion.

<<But this does not refer to a god to which I'm referring.>>

It doesn’t matter what kind of a god it is that you’re referring to. You could worship a rock in your backyard for all I care, the principles remain the same regardless.

<<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…>>

How is that rational?

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

Again, the principles remain the same. If you’ve pushed your god into obscurity so that science cannot investigate it, then it just makes an, ‘is no evidence’, into a, ‘cannot be any evidence’. Either way, the end result is still ‘no evidence’ and disbelief is therefore justified.

How is it that you can have disbelief as your default position with regards to every other claim, and yet when it comes to potentially the most import claim, you start with the assumption that a god exists?

By the way, you were an atheist as a baby. This fact alone discredits your claim that anything but disbelief could be a default position.

Dan,

Jayb’s dismissive attitude towards creationist claims is reasonable given that creationists have never once provided any evidence for their beliefs without distorting or omitting facts. But even if a great flood was a legitimate interpretation of all that you posted, then it still wouldn’t be reliable evidence for your god any more than disproving evolution would be, and to mistake it as such would be to appeal to a false dichotomy.

Thanks for clarifying your beliefs on Hell. It was basic protestant theology that I’m very familiar with. Unfortunately, it doesn’t do anything to negate my point, however. Saying that it’s not enough to just believe; that one also needs “a salvation belief which entails the saving knowledge of God, and submission to his will” only strengthens my point, because one cannot get to that point without a basic belief in that god first.

To say that a basic belief “is already expected” is to say that this god expects us to be unreasonable, as it goes against the notion of disbelief as the default position and the concept of the burden of proof.

<<proposition: the sun exists (affirmative), sun doesn't exist (negative).>>

No no. The above is ‘guilty‘ and ‘innocent’. I’m talking ‘guilty’ and ‘not guilty’. That is, ‘not guilty’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘innocent’, it just means that there’s not enough evidence to conclude ‘guilt’. In other words, not believing something doesn’t necessarily mean accepting the opposite.

<<…it would still be near impossible to prove the proposition in any absolute sense.>>

Again, no-one’s asking for absolute proof of anything. Absolute certainty is a useless red herring, and may not even be possible, depending on how one defines knowledge.

<<..starting with any assumption stifles the possibility of productive discussion favourable to the contrary view>>

Correct, which is why we start with disbelief, rather than a belief that the opposite is true.

Hi Dan

Tas Walker is a young earth creationist who earns his living writing and preaching about young earth creationism, not as a geologist. Can you point to any atheist, agnostic or non-fundamentalist geologist who holds similar views about a global flood? Or an atheist, agnostic or non-fundamentalist biologist who believes that all life came into being in less than a week? Or an atheist, agnostic or non-fundamentalist physicist who believes that the sun, moon, earth and cosmos were formed in a couple of days?

Dear Dan,

I personally don't care whether or not Noah's flood occurred: this or any other event for that matter wouldn't affect my love of God one iota.

Now suppose for a moment that this forum could convincingly prove to you that the biblical flood never happened, would that cause you to stop loving God? How sad then!!

What about Jesus dying on the cross, or his rising from the dead? There are certain historical events that are so deeply embedded within the biblical narrative as to be inseparable from the message.

Christianity is an historical faith. God acted in history. It would be nice if God simply said, ‘Everyone just be nice to each other,’ and then we might or might not pay attention. But that isn’t Christianity. The Christian gospel is about God intervening in history to bring things to completion.