A) Enough to what, prove Atheism wrong? In order for Atheism to be illogical there should be some reason for theism to be credible, and you have given none. You have not resolved the problem of there being no evidence where we should expect to find some. Your defensive tactic is trying to make me prove a negative, which can be done only by showing a contradiction or not finding any evidence in favor of it. The latter has been satisfied. If theistic accounts are taken into consideration the former is too.
B) You do. If it is illogical to believe a God does not exist, then you need to show why it is logical to believe one exists. You refuse to do so, so atheism is not illogical, as the ideology it rejects has not be proven to be true.
C) Whatever preceded the big bang precedes time, as the universe is a necessary requirement for time. Thus your use of terms involving time (before/after, when, etc) are misplaced and inapplicable. "In any situation all you have to say is that some kind of god caused it and that possibility is enough".... so then support this with something. Possibility is refuted by the absence of evidence.
D) There is nothing omnipotent that can be observed, though. So there is nothing to validate the concept. Concluding anything about omnipotence is begging the question.
Science, as a body of knowledge based on observation, refutes the existence of a God with the absence of evidence produced where we would expect to find some.
You contradicted yourself
zombie;7528615 said:
atheism by itself with out a reliance of science is not irrational but relying on science to prove god does not exist is not rational because science does not disprove god.
A) IT'S ENOUGH TO PROVE ATHEISM IS IRRATIONAL. I don't have to prove theism is correct to prove atheism is irrational because as i have admitted both positions are not objectively rational or provable. The underlined is incorrect. It's not simple atheism vs theism those are not the only positions that exist.
B) It's not irrational to believe a god does not exist it's irrational to believe a god does not exist based on the finding of science.
C) Only the concept of an omnipotent god can preceed time and the bolded is also incorrect your don't need evidence for something to be possible all you need is for something to be logically possible. it's possible there is life on other planets but there is no evidence of that yet most scientist believe there is life out there someplace. The use of the terms "before and after" where used to describe why anything in the universe could not be omnipotent because you wonder why
D) YOU CANNOT observe anything omnipotent but you can observe or at least we think we can observe creation which would be the result of there being an omnipotent being in the first place. If you see a painting you know there has to be a painter or you have to believe the painting made itself or was an accident THIS IS THE SAME SOMETHING FROM NOTHING PROBLEM.
Science does not refute the existence of god science has nothing to do with god
using two of my quotes without giving proper context to what i was responding to IS more intellectual dishonesty especially when one of them is an answer to a question you asked me. The second quote you used i am talking about scientifically back atheism not atheism in general.
Convenient that. 2000 years ago it was easy to believe in God. His son was walking around. The dead walked the earth. There were prophets around every corner that God was inspiring with his message.
Now none of that.
Forget the fact the Ezekeil predicted Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre. But he never did. (Best he could pull off was a negotiated peace). (26:7-14) Forget the fact Isiah said the Nile would dry up. It never did. (19:1-8) No we must prove the Prophets wrong!
If you make the positive assertion that the prophecy has come true and the bible is inspired by God then you must provide evidence to support that statement. If you can not then you are trying to sell me on a teapot orbiting saturn and I should believe you "just cuz".
I won't front like i'm an all-knowing guru on every contested Bible issue, but are you sure? Nebuchadnezzar overtook Tyre as prophesied. The thing is the campaign took so long he barely gained anything from it. Not sure what verse say there was a peace negotiation. And even a simple Google search of "who conquered Tyre" show Tyre was conquered by Alexander the Great and eventually left to ruins. Check this source -http://www.livescience.com/1523-mystery-solved-alexander-great-defeated-tyre.html
I'm not sure about the Nile one but I wouldn't be so quick to write it off as a 'failed prophecy'. I'm sure most of what is mentioned in Isaiah can be shown to have been fulfilled already long ago. Maybe some parts haven't been yet, but I'm not sure which parts off hand.
A) That's not enough to prove atheism irrational. Both can't be wrong. It is that simple because the propositions can either be true or false; only two truth values exist. Atheism implies it is not the case that theism is true and theism implies it is not the case that atheism is true. If atheism is false then theism is true and vice versa. Proportioning belief according to the evidence theism is less likely to be true, therefore making atheism more likely. Since atheism is more acceptable and directly contradicts the belief in a deity rejection is logical.
Not rejecting would mean that it is improbable that atheism is true, but also improbable that theism is true. It would result in saying it is not the case that a god exists and it is not the case that a god does not exist. That is illogical.
What alternatives exist to yes or no? Maybe? We have no evidence of maybe that outweighs our evidence of no. Maybe does not even exist as a logical truth value.
B) With naturalist interpretations of the world we can make correct predictions about the natural world without taking a deity into consideration. These scientific findings contradict the existence of such a being, making atheism more likely.
C) How do you know "Only the concept of an omnipotent god can preceed time" ? This seems like begging the question, unless you have some kind of reason for it.
zombie;7528615 said:
the bolded is also incorrect your don't need evidence for something to be possible all you need is for something to be logically possible. it's possible there is life on other planets but there is no evidence of that yet most scientist believe there is life out there someplace.
That is an argument from ignorance. You are saying since we do not know something is impossible then it must be possible. However we can not know it is possible, we do not have the necessary information to say it is possible.
However, aliens can not exist and not exist, and the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence (although not very strong), so it is more probable that they do not exist. Since they can not exist and not exist, and existence is less likely based on the proportions of the evidence.
→→ adendum: it seems we have found small microorganisms that can survive in space[1][2], thereby making it more probable that aliens exist, provided the definition is simply a living organism that originates anywhere else but Earth. This also makes panspermia more credible.
zombie;7528615 said:
"The use of the terms "before and after" were used to describe why anything in the universe could not be omnipotent because you wonder why"
→ Those terms are inapplicable. There is so much uncertainty about what happens at the quantum level, and how the laws of causation would even exist without a universe that saying it is necessary for an uncaused cause to exist is not necessarily true. If there is no universe, and therefore the laws of causation no longer operate the way we understand them to in our universe there are other possibilities. A future event could have caused it; which would normally be incoherent but for all we know might or might not be the case with the universe.
Furthermore the idea that something can not come from nothing also relies on laws in our universe, but when looking at the cause for the universe this is not necessarily true, because the laws may not exist or may be different. Therefore invoking a dichotomy where either everything has a preceding cause and it goes on forever, or there is an uncaused cause that starts the chain, is not applicable, because the dichotomy would only exist if the laws of the universe do and far as I can tell these would not exist. Unless you can show how it is more probably for it to be the case that they would that logical argument falls apart.
D) The thing about your painting example is we understand paintings. We know painters make paintings because we have seen this happen. We do not necessarily know deities make universes, we have never seen it. If you want to invoke the argument that the universe exists therefore there is a reason for it I agree with that. We are not able to say anything about the reason for its existence however, because we do not know. Unlike the painting we do not know have the information necessary to determine how it came to exist. Ultimately, there is nothing inherent in the universe that informs us of its origin.
In the OP, and in one of your posts, atheism in general is touted as being illogical. This is contradicted by you saying that only a specific line of reasoning within atheistic thought is illogical.
I think most of us can agree by now that atheism is perfectly logical and very rational in an accident prone, flawed, fucked up universe such as this. I can see why many here think something other then a "god" made this world. After much reading, atheism seems very logical, even if I'm not a true atheist.
I think most of us can agree by now that atheism is perfectly logical and very rational in an accident prone, flawed, fucked up universe such as this. After much reading, atheism seems very logical, even if I'm not a true atheist.
Thing is, in order for atheism to be illogical theism needs to be more credible because of their inverse relationship. Probability wise we could compare the two possibilities and say there is a 50% chance of either being true. Seeing as there is no evidence for a deity, this makes atheism a bit more likely. We can say it makes it 5% more likely, and theism 5% less likely. Then we have atheism being 55% probable, and theism being 45%. Since atheism is more likely, and if atheism is more like to be true then theism is more likely to be false: by way of contradiction it is a logical stance.
There seems to be nothing that can tip the scales to favor theism, so the rationale for atheism can not be disputed
I think most of us can agree by now that atheism is perfectly logical and very rational in an accident prone, flawed, fucked up universe such as this. I can see why many here think something other then a "god" made this world. After much reading, atheism seems very logical, even if I'm not a true atheist.
A) That's not enough to prove atheism irrational. Both can't be wrong. It is that simple because the propositions can either be true or false; only two truth values exist. Atheism implies it is not the case that theism is true and theism implies it is not the case that atheism is true. If atheism is false then theism is true and vice versa. Proportioning belief according to the evidence theism is less likely to be true, therefore making atheism more likely. Since atheism is more acceptable and directly contradicts the belief in a deity rejection is logical.
Not rejecting would mean that it is improbable that atheism is true, but also improbable that theism is true. It would result in saying it is not the case that a god exists and it is not the case that a god does not exist. That is illogical.
What alternatives exist to yes or no? Maybe? We have no evidence of maybe that outweighs our evidence of no. Maybe does not even exist as a logical truth value.
B) With naturalist interpretations of the world we can make correct predictions about the natural world without taking a deity into consideration. These scientific findings contradict the existence of such a being, making atheism more likely.
C) How do you know "Only the concept of an omnipotent god can preceed time" ? This seems like begging the question, unless you have some kind of reason for it.
zombie;7528615 said:
the bolded is also incorrect your don't need evidence for something to be possible all you need is for something to be logically possible. it's possible there is life on other planets but there is no evidence of that yet most scientist believe there is life out there someplace.
That is an argument from ignorance.You are saying since we do not know something is impossible then it must be possible.However we can not know it is possible, we do not have the necessary information to say it is possible.
However, aliens can not exist and not exist, and the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence (although not very strong), so it is more probable that they do not exist. Since they can not exist and not exist, and existence is less likely based on the proportions of the evidence.
→→ adendum: it seems we have found small microorganisms that can survive in space[1][2], thereby making it more probable that aliens exist, provided the definition is simply a living organism that originates anywhere else but Earth. This also makes panspermia more credible.
zombie;7528615 said:
"The use of the terms "before and after" were used to describe why anything in the universe could not be omnipotent because you wonder why"
→ Those terms are inapplicable. There is so much uncertainty about what happens at the quantum level, and how the laws of causation would even exist without a universe that saying it is necessary for an uncaused cause to exist is not necessarily true. If there is no universe, and therefore the laws of causation no longer operate the way we understand them to in our universe there are other possibilities. A future event could have caused it; which would normally be incoherent but for all we know might or might not be the case with the universe.
Furthermore the idea that something can not come from nothing also relies on laws in our universe, but when looking at the cause for the universe this is not necessarily true, because the laws may not exist or may be different. Therefore invoking a dichotomy where either everything has a preceding cause and it goes on forever, or there is an uncaused cause that starts the chain, is not applicable, because the dichotomy would only exist if the laws of the universe do and far as I can tell these would not exist. Unless you can show how it is more probably for it to be the case that they would that logical argument falls apart.
D) The thing about your painting example is we understand paintings. We know painters make paintings because we have seen this happen. We do not necessarily know deities make universes, we have never seen it. If you want to invoke the argument that the universe exists therefore there is a reason for it I agree with that. We are not able to say anything about the reason for its existence however, because we do not know. Unlike the painting we do not know have the information necessary to determine how it came to exist. Ultimately, there is nothing inherent in the universe that informs us of its origin.
In the OP, and in one of your posts, atheism in general is touted as being illogical. This is contradicted by you saying that only a specific line of reasoning within atheistic thought is illogical.
LETS GET SOMETHING stright the form of atheism i am talking in all my posts in this thread is scientifically backed atheism . maybe i did not make myself clear enough so i am making myself clear now, I am talking about strong atheism. It is the positive assertion that there is no god. there is no likely, probable or maybe involved in strong atheism. strong atheist rely on science to back up there claims. It is obvious that strong atheism cannot be logically supported, simply because it is impossible to prove strong atheists usually attempt to shift the burden onto theist by essentially asking the theists to prove the atheist position wrong. However, that is not the theists’ burden. BECAUSE theism itself is also unprovable it's like asking me to prove the inverse of what's unprovable. the strong atheist position excludes a potentially true explanation from consideration unnecessarily.this position is irrational because science makes no claims about god and that is why most atheist fall into what is known as weak atheism both theism and atheism are irrational because both assert things that cannot be proved. Your response is loaded with personal opinion about that is acceptable and you cannot limit the positions there can be more than just true or false. in this discussion just like in quantum physics there can be more than one solution to the problem.
B) something being more likely is not good enough of a proof to say god absolutely cannot exist.
C) LOGIC dictates that to be omnipoetent you have to exists at least AT the start outside of time because everything else would exist in time and time cannot exist without the universe nothing can except an omnipotent being. I still don't think you grasps what being omnipotent means or else you would not be asking me this question
Once again pay attention. The underlined is not what i am saying. what i am saying is that you cannot rule out any logical possibility I AM NOT SAYING that it was to be real only that you cannot disprove the possibility and as long as you cannot do that you cannot say yes there is a god or no there is no god or no aliens do not exist or yes aliens exist. The truth is we do not objectively know.
the bolded is just speculation which only furthers my point that saying there is no god based on science is not logical
D) TO SAY that the universe exist therefore there must be a reason is logical to say that a god created it with no objective proof is irrational to say that a god did not create it is also irrational.
A non belief doesn’t require evidence to be rational whereas a statement that God does not exist, especially when held by those who identify as specifically rational, and logical, does require supporting evidence. Evidence that you don’t have.
A) You say you are only trying to show the most extreme form of atheism is illogical, but the speak on atheism in general saying "both theism and atheism are irrational because both assert things that cannot be proved". Unless you are referring to that specific line of atheist thought that's a contradiction.
The absence of evidence is the evidence of absence in many cases. I reject the idea that there is a bird on my head right now, because there is no evidence of it. Likewise, other propositions with no support are rejected because an inability to find evidence where we would expect to find some discredits a proposition.
Theism's unprovable nature does not mean atheism is unprovable. With the above argument in mind theism is discredited, not simply for there being no evidence, but for there being no way to gather any.
B) True, in order to say that it is impossible for God to exist more knowledge is required. However Atheism simply specifies a rejection of a deity and because of the lower probability of theism and greater evidence in favor of nonexistence that rejection can be logically justified. So as far as the general premise of atheism being illogical is concerned, it just does not follow.
C) Existence is an issue separate to omnipotence, making several issues arise. One is that speaking strictly of the concepts of existence and omnipotence, it is possible for an omnipotent being to not exist at the universe's concept, and begin to exist later. Being the most powerful does not mean you have to exist all the time. The only way that would be a necessary connection between the two, is if the omnipotent being was the only theory for the origin of the universe, but it is not. Once again this seems like begging the question. Not only that, but it seems there is a circular reasoning akin to the ontological argument as you did not show how "Only the concept of an omnipotent god can preceed time". You are drawing this inference from the definition, but how is the definition supported?
"you cannot rule out any logical possibility"
→ A deity existing is less probable than it not existing when belief is proportioned to the evidence. We can not rule it out with absolute certainty, as agreed above, but we can reject it with greater probability than we can accept it. Since the atheist stance fits better with our lack of evidence, and directly contradicts the existence of a deity why is it that it cannot be ruled out then? The better supported view contradicting another is evidence against that other view.
D) So it is irrational to believe a God did not make the universe, and irrational to believe a God did make the universe? ... that makes no sense.
Convenient that. 2000 years ago it was easy to believe in God. His son was walking around. The dead walked the earth. There were prophets around every corner that God was inspiring with his message.
Now none of that.
Forget the fact the Ezekeil predicted Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre. But he never did. (Best he could pull off was a negotiated peace). (26:7-14) Forget the fact Isiah said the Nile would dry up. It never did. (19:1-8) No we must prove the Prophets wrong!
If you make the positive assertion that the prophecy has come true and the bible is inspired by God then you must provide evidence to support that statement. If you can not then you are trying to sell me on a teapot orbiting saturn and I should believe you "just cuz".
I won't front like i'm an all-knowing guru on every contested Bible issue, but are you sure? Nebuchadnezzar overtook Tyre as prophesied. The thing is the campaign took so long he barely gained anything from it. Not sure what verse say there was a peace negotiation. And even a simple Google search of "who conquered Tyre" show Tyre was conquered by Alexander the Great and eventually left to ruins. Check this source -http://www.livescience.com/1523-mystery-solved-alexander-great-defeated-tyre.html
I'm not sure about the Nile one but I wouldn't be so quick to write it off as a 'failed prophecy'. I'm sure most of what is mentioned in Isaiah can be shown to have been fulfilled already long ago. Maybe some parts haven't been yet, but I'm not sure which parts off hand.
1. The bible says very specifically that Nebuchadnezzar would breach the walls. He did not. Slaughter the defenders. He didn't. He did reach a settlement with the rulers of Tyre that paid a bit of tribute and he lifted the siege and left. There was no verse on peace negotiation if there was it would have been accurate.
"For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people. He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee. And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers. By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach. With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground. And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water. And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard. And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD."
Other than attacking Tyre nothing in this passage actually happened. All biblical that has 'come true' has involved changing the meaning of words to fit events. Like when Isiah prophesied that Babylon would conquer the Medes he really meant Persia would conquer the Medes. The prophecies are bullshit.
LETS GET SOMETHING stright the form of atheism i am talking in all my posts in this thread is scientifically backed atheism . maybe i did not make myself clear enough so i am making myself clear now, I am talking about strong atheism. It is the positive assertion that there is no god. there is no likely, probable or maybe involved in strong atheism. strong atheist rely on science to back up there claims. It is obvious that strong atheism cannot be logically supported, simply because it is impossible to prove strong atheists usually attempt to shift the burden onto theist by essentially asking the theists to prove the atheist position wrong. However, that is not the theists’ burden. BECAUSE theism itself is also unprovable it's like asking me to prove the inverse of what's unprovable. the strong atheist position excludes a potentially true explanation from consideration unnecessarily.this position is irrational because science makes no claims about god and that is why most atheist fall into what is known as weak atheism both theism and atheism are irrational because both assert things that cannot be proved. Your response is loaded with personal opinion about that is acceptable and you cannot limit the positions there can be more than just true or false. in this discussion just like in quantum physics there can be more than one solution to the problem.
First a positive statement that there is no god!?!?! A positive statement is a statement about what is and is testable like "The towel is wet." "God is real" is not a positive statement according to you since it is untestable. "God is not real" is not a positive statement due to the fact it is a negation and untestable. The concept flows from the philosophy of Positivism.
Atheism is simply the denial that the evidence presented by the theist is unconvincing.
Strong atheism or positive atheism takes the next step of saying that available evidence best supports the position there is no god. I tend towards strong atheism as we approach religions. While I do not believe sufficient evidence can preclude the existence of the deist's position on God I do believe we have enough evidence to reach the conclusion that man-made religions are false.
A) You say you are only trying to show the most extreme form of atheism is illogical, but the speak on atheism in general saying "both theism and atheism are irrational because both assert things that cannot be proved". Unless you are referring to that specific line of atheist thought that's a contradiction.
The absence of evidence is the evidence of absence in many cases. I reject the idea that there is a bird on my head right now, because there is no evidence of it. Likewise, other propositions with no support are rejected because an inability to find evidence where we would expect to find some discredits a proposition.
Theism's unprovable nature does not mean atheism is unprovable. With the above argument in mind theism is discredited, not simply for there being no evidence, but for there being no way to gather any.
B) True, in order to say that it is impossible for God to exist more knowledge is required. However Atheism simply specifies a rejection of a deity and because of the lower probability of theism and greater evidence in favor of nonexistence that rejection can be logically justified. So as far as the general premise of atheism being illogical is concerned, it just does not follow.
C) Existence is an issue separate to omnipotence, making several issues arise. One is that speaking strictly of the concepts of existence and omnipotence, it is possible for an omnipotent being to not exist at the universe's concept, and begin to exist later. Being the most powerful does not mean you have to exist all the time. The only way that would be a necessary connection between the two, is if the omnipotent being was the only theory for the origin of the universe, but it is not. Once again this seems like begging the question. Not only that, but it seems there is a circular reasoning akin to the ontological argument as you did not show how "Only the concept of an omnipotent god can preceed time". You are drawing this inference from the definition, but how is the definition supported?
"you cannot rule out any logical possibility"
→ A deity existing is less probable than it not existing when belief is proportioned to the evidence. We can not rule it out with absolute certainty, as agreed above, but we can reject it with greater probability than we can accept it. Since the atheist stance fits better with our lack of evidence, and directly contradicts the existence of a deity why is it that it cannot be ruled out then? The better supported view contradicting another is evidence against that other view.
D) So it is irrational to believe a God did not make the universe, and irrational to believe a God did make the universe? ... that makes no sense.
A) clearly i am talking about strong atheism how many times do i have to say that in different ways?? there is no contradiction. if the bolded it true then you have to reject atheism as an absolute.
what makes both atheism and theism unprovable is our lack of the ability to find and answers about the existence of god. science has no tool that can explore god
B) That's really the end of THE DEBATE, we don't have that knowledge and probability is unimporant either god does not exist or he does or we can't know. these are the only answers. strong atheism is not logical because if there is 1 half of one percent chance that god exists then strong atheism is discredited. the better supported view does not have to be the actual reality.
D) It does not make sense to you because you are stuck wanting one answer but there can be no objective answer to the question and putting your faith in science to answer this question is foolish because as i said
Science is the study of the physical and natural world. Science operates on three basic assumptions: (1) reality is objective and consistent; (2) human beings have the capacity to perceive reality accurately; and, (3) rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. [2]
SCIENCE itself has shown that
Point 1) is not absolute. Consider the uncertainty found in Quantum physics Furthermore, the human mind itself is far from objective and consistent, yet the mind is part of the natural world. If even one part of our reality does not meet this first assumption, then we are required to admit there are limits to a solely scientific explanation of the universe.
Point (2) Humanity's capacity to fully perceive reality is highly doubtful. First, we are part of the universe and our vantage point is necessarily limited. It is like explaining water to a fish that has lived its entire life in the depths of the ocean. We don't know anything else. Additionally, our senses are rather limited, even when compared to other animal species.
Point (3) states there are rational explanations for elements of the real world and that certainly seems accurate, but as we have seen above there are no absolutes.
Because science is based on assumptions that are only partially valid and because science is limited to study of the natural world alone, it is inappropriate to use science as a reason for asserting there is no evidence for a Creator.
LETS GET SOMETHING stright the form of atheism i am talking in all my posts in this thread is scientifically backed atheism . maybe i did not make myself clear enough so i am making myself clear now, I am talking about strong atheism. It is the positive assertion that there is no god. there is no likely, probable or maybe involved in strong atheism. strong atheist rely on science to back up there claims. It is obvious that strong atheism cannot be logically supported, simply because it is impossible to prove strong atheists usually attempt to shift the burden onto theist by essentially asking the theists to prove the atheist position wrong. However, that is not the theists’ burden. BECAUSE theism itself is also unprovable it's like asking me to prove the inverse of what's unprovable. the strong atheist position excludes a potentially true explanation from consideration unnecessarily.this position is irrational because science makes no claims about god and that is why most atheist fall into what is known as weak atheism both theism and atheism are irrational because both assert things that cannot be proved. Your response is loaded with personal opinion about that is acceptable and you cannot limit the positions there can be more than just true or false. in this discussion just like in quantum physics there can be more than one solution to the problem.
First a positive statement that there is no god!?!?! A positive statement is a statement about what is and is testable like "The towel is wet." "God is real" is not a positive statement according to you since it is untestable. "God is not real" is not a positive statement due to the fact it is a negation and untestable. The concept flows from the philosophy of Positivism.
Atheism is simply the denial that the evidence presented by the theist is unconvincing.
Strong atheism or positive atheism takes the next step of saying that available evidence best supports the position there is no god. I tend towards strong atheism as we approach religions. While I do not believe sufficient evidence can preclude the existence of the deist's position on God I do believe we have enough evidence to reach the conclusion that man-made religions are false.
yes it is nonsensical but that's what strong atheism says i did not make it up that's the actual meaning strong atheist believe that it's a positive statement not that it really is but that just what they believe.
" Positive atheism (also called strong atheism and hard atheism) is the form of atheism that asserts that no deities exist.[1] Negative atheism (also called weak atheism and soft atheism) is any other type of atheism, wherein a person does not believe in the existence of any deities, but does not explicitly assert there to be none"
the bolded is weak atheism which while i personally don't subscribe to it i cannot say it's not rational and the underlined is you declaring you are a weak atheist.
It seems i know more about atheistic theory than the so called atheist here if you are really a strong atheist you cannot believe in any kind of god. Period end of story, all this talk about maybe and probability on the existence of god cannot come from a strong atheist those are weak atheist positions
Convenient that. 2000 years ago it was easy to believe in God. His son was walking around. The dead walked the earth. There were prophets around every corner that God was inspiring with his message.
Believing in God was not as easy as you might think in respect to Christianity. If the people of the time truly accepted that Jesus was the Son of God, his own people wouldn't have crucified him. Jesus supposedly did a lot of miraculous things to at least have people consider it. But, the "magic" was not enough.
That had nothing to do with believing in God and had everything to do with not believing a false prophet unless it was convenient. The people who crucified Jesus (if it even occurred) believed in their own deities and miracles. So did the people Jesus was a part of before going off message. There has been a few Jews that claimed to be the Messiah throughout the history of Judaism.
The Jews believed in the God of the Bible. They didn't believe that Jesus was everything he said he was. My point is to say that many people died for their belief in God. There is nothing convenient about facing persecution or death for something that may or may not be true.
If you accept the existence of weak atheism all your post make no sense Zombie.
" It is obvious that strong atheism cannot be logically supported, simply because it is impossible to prove strong atheists usually attempt to shift the burden onto theist by essentially asking the theists to prove the atheist position wrong"
Both the Theist and the Deist have yet to make a convincing case for the existence of a deity. An unsupported claim can be dismissed without support.
I do not see how your argument that atheism in any form can be irrational. The best you come to is strong atheism is currently mistaken in reaching its conclusion that sufficient evidence exists to exclude the existence of God. This argument would be wrong not irrational.
Believing in anything omnipotent is irrational as belief in a being without boundaries to its power leads to irrational conclusions. Basically a belief that a being exists that can do the impossible. Therefore the impossible is possible which is irrational just base on the language.
If you accept the existence of weak atheism all your post make no sense Zombie.
" It is obvious that strong atheism cannot be logically supported, simply because it is impossible to prove strong atheists usually attempt to shift the burden onto theist by essentially asking the theists to prove the atheist position wrong"
Both the Theist and the Deist have yet to make a convincing case for the existence of a deity. An unsupported claim can be dismissed without support.
I do not see how your argument that atheism in any form can be irrational. The best you come to is strong atheism is currently mistaken in reaching its conclusion that sufficient evidence exists to exclude the existence of God. This argument would be wrong not irrational.
Believing in anything omnipotent is irrational as belief in a being without boundaries to its power leads to irrational conclusions. Basically a belief that a being exists that can do the impossible. Therefore the impossible is possible which is irrational just base on the language.
WHY would you say that????? i have maintained that both strong atheism and theism are not rational, my argument is against strong atheism and strong atheist misuse of science. i don't agree with the underlined because on what evidence are you dismissing the claim??? lack of evidence is not enough to make an absolute claim like strong atheism does. if any statement is logically consistent then that logic itself is enough credibility for the statement to be real that is not a conformation that the statement is real only that it could be real and this possibility no matter how small is enough.
Strong atheism is irrational because it asserts an illogical absolute without proof, in fairness theism does the same thing. In this thread i had no interest in making a case for a deity all i concerned myself with was the clear irrationality of strong atheism.
there is no such thing as the logically impossible to an omnipotent being.
A) If you are talking about strong atheism then specify. Using atheism as a general term does not indicate to what exactly you are referring.
The absence of evidence gives us an answer, and it is not in favor of theism.
B) "strong atheism is not logical because if there is 1 half of one percent chance that god exists then strong atheism is discredited" How is this probability calculated then? You would seem to have no means of showing that there is any percent chance of God existing.
D) Your third option does not affect the reality of the situation: either a deity exists or it does not. There are only two options in this scenario - a lack of knowledge of it does not affect what is actually the case.
1) The uncertainty principle does not refute objectivity, it is more related to your second point in our inability to accurately track subatomic particles.
2) You're right on our ability to observe the world being dubious in its efficacy, but there is no evidence of anything we can not observe with the aid of instruments is there? We know that other animals have better senses than us because we have instruments which can function better than these animal's senses. You could say that there is no proof we can detect everything, but that seems to be an appeal to ignorance.
3) The irrationality of some explanations of the world seems to come from gaps in our knowledge. What is irrational about things we know and understand very well? I can think of nothing as once a system or theory is fully developed, tested and verified there is nothing irrational about it.
Science does not seem capable yet. Science, combined with personal experience, logic, history and more is capable of shedding light on the existence of a creator, the validity of religion (the source for belief in a deity), and the origins of the universe. You say probability is unimportant but I disagree: "a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence".
A deity appears to violate our laws of nature as we observe and understand them. Since we have mountains of evidence in favor of our laws of nature, and little in support of a deity, in Humean fashion it is clear which idea is more likely and which should be rejected.
