Why Atheism is Not Logical or Rational (no bible thumping)

[zombie]

All definitions of strong atheism clearly state that strong atheism definitively states that god cannot exist the bolded is the same as saying there is no god you are splitting hairs. as for the underlined you cannot be both you have to choose because if the god of deism is real it could personal but have no need to actually do anything from our standpoint because it could have created all of time at once.

i can logically prove that a teapot is not orbiting saturn we have evidence that the universe began and did not always exist everything could be a figment of our imagination except the fact that we exist but you cannot use quantum mechanics to disprove god and i will show you why later

Since "Strong" atheism include positive, hard, as well as strong you will have to concede there is no single solid definition. Mine is strong atheism = evidence shows there is no God while a weak atheism = no evidence supports the existence of a God.

I can be both depending upon the God.

A Deistic God is one that creates the universe and steps back and does nothing else. A Personal God is one that answers prayers and will alter the course of events to provide better or different outcomes for individuals in the universe. If you make this God one that does this 'all at once' at the moment of the universe's creation I would argue sufficient exists to dismiss this God.

Personal God - I am a strong atheist.

Omnipotent God - I am a strong atheist.

Omniscience God - I am a strong atheist.

Benevolent God - I am a weak atheist.

Creator God (deistic) - I am a weak atheist.

The first 3 I believe the universe has provided sufficient evidence to show they do not exists. Something that is not Omnipotent or Omniscience but we could call God that could not answer prayers via miraculous event, I do not have enough evidence to dismiss however no evidence supports the conclusion so I disregard it. Creator God is the same, no evidence supports so I dismiss.

Strong atheism, hard atheism, positive atheism are all the same, the weak vs strong label signify how convinced you are nothing more. You can make up your own meaning if you want to but it will be just yours.

evidence shows there is no god is the same as saying there is no god both are absolute statements and have the same dubious conclusion and all absolute statements about god are irrational because god cannot be defined or has so many potential definitions that you would have to find evidence to disprove all of them not only that you would have to find evidence to disprove their logical possibility.

You cannot be unsure on a benevolent god and sure on a the non existence of personal god at the same time because to be benevolent in some respect you have to be personal. simply not having enough evidence is not enough to make an absolute statement on the existence of any kind of god.

 

[alissowack]

I never really understood these degrees of atheism. It seems to make atheism not be what it says it is. It's like why deny the existence of a deity and yet reserve grounds in which you can accept the possibility. Understandably, a person can represent something and have ideals contrary to it they hold to, but something like atheism doesn't leave room for the contrary. It's like when a theist make their claims. Atheists are not expecting them to take a strong or weak approach. There's not going to be grounds where an atheist agrees with an aspect of the existence of a deity.

 

[LUClEN]

science has shown that the chain cannot go one forever so there must be a start point.

That does not explain how you get to the belief that it is omnipotent. But moreover we don't know what happens when we get to a certain point: we have no working theory of quantum gravity. We can only trace expansion back so far.

The very first thing being omnipotent is possible because i am not and anything i think i can observe is not and since we know all things have there opposites then it's logical to conclude that the opposite of my limited being is an omnipotent being

That's unreliable. It's just an assumption. You're also not a woman. Maybe the universe was created by a woman, because it is the opposite to you. It's just completely arbitrary.

The only knowledge needed is our limited existence.

How does this tell you anything about the creator of the universe? Knowledge of our existence can give us knowledge of ourselves? So how exactly are you deducing anything else from this?

The eternal universe does not side step creation or causality at least not according to alexander vilenkin because any expanding universe has to have a start.

Expansion needs a starting point. Using the inflation models at present Vilenkin, Guth and Borde have shown that this is not possible for expansion to go on infinitely into the past. But this is only pertinent to the kinds of physics that presently exist and is far from closing the issue. Using general relativity to conclude this makes little sense as it is not fit for these kinds of scenarios.

Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating -- or just expanding sufficiently fast -- must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime

The authors extrapolate on this more

What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event. The boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which can be determined from the appropriate instanton. Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary

In the absence of definitive answers and proper models it would seem that with what we have there is a starting point for expansion, but in a proposed multiverse scenario whether or not each and every universe is expanding is unknown. A universe that is not expanding could be the source of expanding universes for all we know.

Appealing to Vilenkin's expertise hurts your argument too, because he says it is absolutely possible for a universe to come from nothing.

 

[zombie]

science has shown that the chain cannot go one forever so there must be a start point.

That does not explain how you get to the belief that it is omnipotent. But moreover we don't know what happens when we get to a certain point: we have no working theory of quantum gravity. We can only trace expansion back so far.

The very first thing being omnipotent is possible because i am not and anything i think i can observe is not and since we know all things have there opposites then it's logical to conclude that the opposite of my limited being is an omnipotent being

That's unreliable. It's just an assumption. You're also not a woman. Maybe the universe was created by a woman, because it is the opposite to you. It's just completely arbitrary.

The only knowledge needed is our limited existence.

How does this tell you anything about the creator of the universe? Knowledge of our existence can give us knowledge of ourselves? So how exactly are you deducing anything else from this?

The eternal universe does not side step creation or causality at least not according to alexander vilenkin because any expanding universe has to have a start.

Expansion needs a starting point. Using the inflation models at present Vilenkin, Guth and Borde have shown that this is not possible for expansion to go on infinitely into the past. But this is only pertinent to the kinds of physics that presently exist and is far from closing the issue. Using general relativity to conclude this makes little sense as it is not fit for these kinds of scenarios.

Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating -- or just expanding sufficiently fast -- must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime

The authors extrapolate on this more

What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event. The boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which can be determined from the appropriate instanton. Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary

In the absence of definitive answers and proper models it would seem that with what we have there is a starting point for expansion, but in a proposed multiverse scenario whether or not each and every universe is expanding is unknown. A universe that is not expanding could be the source of expanding universes for all we know.

Appealing to Vilenkin's expertise hurts your argument too, because he says it is absolutely possible for a universe to come from nothing.

LOL AT YOU USING THAT VIDEO

i don't know why the fuck you would even use that video at the end of it he says that the laws that created the universe would have had to exist before the universe and would exist without it which only backs up my point that the universe would have to have come from something outside of EXISTENCE. Your wanting to argue over that thing being intelligent/omnipotent or not it irreverent AND WE don't have knowledge of ourselves we only thing we do but we could be wrong both science and religion start with unprovable assumptions. You just choose to believe the assumptions of science over religion because they make more sense to you to other people that would not be so

and IN ANY CASE you LOST THIS debate WHEN YOU ADMITTED THAT there could be the possibility of there being any kind of god or that we could not know. Atheism is illogical because it is an appeal to ignorance.

 

[zombie]

Only intelligence produces intelligence

 

[LUClEN]

science has shown that the chain cannot go one forever so there must be a start point.

That does not explain how you get to the belief that it is omnipotent. But moreover we don't know what happens when we get to a certain point: we have no working theory of quantum gravity. We can only trace expansion back so far.

The very first thing being omnipotent is possible because i am not and anything i think i can observe is not and since we know all things have there opposites then it's logical to conclude that the opposite of my limited being is an omnipotent being

That's unreliable. It's just an assumption. You're also not a woman. Maybe the universe was created by a woman, because it is the opposite to you. It's just completely arbitrary.

The only knowledge needed is our limited existence.

How does this tell you anything about the creator of the universe? Knowledge of our existence can give us knowledge of ourselves? So how exactly are you deducing anything else from this?

The eternal universe does not side step creation or causality at least not according to alexander vilenkin because any expanding universe has to have a start.

Expansion needs a starting point. Using the inflation models at present Vilenkin, Guth and Borde have shown that this is not possible for expansion to go on infinitely into the past. But this is only pertinent to the kinds of physics that presently exist and is far from closing the issue. Using general relativity to conclude this makes little sense as it is not fit for these kinds of scenarios.

Many inflating spacetimes are likely to violate the weak energy condition, a key assumption of singularity theorems. Here we offer a simple kinematical argument, requiring no energy condition, that a cosmological model which is inflating -- or just expanding sufficiently fast -- must be incomplete in null and timelike past directions. Specifically, we obtain a bound on the integral of the Hubble parameter over a past-directed timelike or null geodesic. Thus inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the inflating region of spacetime

The authors extrapolate on this more

What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event. The boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which can be determined from the appropriate instanton. Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary

In the absence of definitive answers and proper models it would seem that with what we have there is a starting point for expansion, but in a proposed multiverse scenario whether or not each and every universe is expanding is unknown. A universe that is not expanding could be the source of expanding universes for all we know.

Appealing to Vilenkin's expertise hurts your argument too, because he says it is absolutely possible for a universe to come from nothing.

LOL AT YOU USING THAT VIDEO

i don't know why the fuck you would even use that video at the end of it he says that the laws that created the universe would have had to exist before the universe and would exist without it which only backs up my point that the universe would have to have come from something outside of EXISTENCE. Your wanting to argue over that thing being intelligent/omnipotent or not it irreverent AND WE don't have knowledge of ourselves we only thing we do but we could be wrong both science and religion start with unprovable assumptions. You just choose to believe the assumptions of science over religion because they make more sense to you to other people that would not be so

and IN ANY CASE you LOST THIS debate WHEN YOU ADMITTED THAT there could be the possibility of there being any kind of god or that we could not know. Atheism is illogical because it is an appeal to ignorance.

He says the universe can come from nothing. That's in direct conflict with your claim that it "would have to have come from something outside of existence". Nothing is not something; it is the opposite.

Atheism falls short of an appeal to ignorance as attempts to gather evidence where there should be some yield no support for theism's claims. It is not that deities are denounced in lieu of evidence indicating otherwise, but rather a claim made based on the evidence against them. As positive beliefs in this regard demand more than negative ones the probability favors atheism. Epistemological issues arise from any allegations of certainty regarding a particular problem, and while atheism is no different adhering to a view which is more likely is not completely irrational. It is the more rational choice.

the nothing as defined by scientists is not the common usage that average people use. but even by that definition the universe cannot come from nothing for the reasons I already detailed

This is refuted by our understanding of quantum mechanics and even by Vilenkin whose expertise you evoked

You were unable to flesh out your entire argument without contradiction. Inquiries into parts that seemed problematic resulted in even more issues arising. You made claims like " WE don't have knowledge of ourselves we only thing we do" after posting "The very first thing being omnipotent is possible because i am not". Well if you do not have knowledge of your self you have undermined your own postulation.

After numerous posts describing the deity you then claim that "A deity cannot be disproved because it cannot be absolutley described unlike the teapot or parrot" which completely undermines everything you have claimed about this deity. Again this appears to be an attempt to make the argument you are trying to show is possible as vague as possible, so as to have a leg to stand on in your stance. The problem then becomes that you have made it so general that it becomes incoherent as you ultimately look like you are describing something that you admit you can not describe. It is utterly unintelligible. You have receded so far into the forced ignorance of this deity that everything you have said about it is refuted by its very nature. What begins as a way to keep the concept unprovable and prevent falsifiability in order to stop any attempts at disproving it ends up being the detriment to your own philosophy.

In any event, saying something with absolute certainty without adequate evidence is not rational from a perspective which necessitates people proportion beliefs to the evidences. However, saying something is the case when it is more likely to be false is even more irrational. Hard Atheism does appear to be less rational than agnosticism in this regard, but not nearly as irrational as theism.

 

[zombie]

@trashboat

He says the universe can come from nothing. That's in direct conflict with your claim that it "would have to have come from something outside of existence". Nothing is not something; it is the opposite.

Atheism falls short of an appeal to ignorance as attempts to gather evidence where there should be some yield no support for theism's claims. It is not that deities are denounced in lieu of evidence indicating otherwise, but rather a claim made based on the evidence against them. But you have no evidence against god

As positive beliefs in this regard demand more than negative ones the probability favors atheism. Epistemological issues arise from any allegations of certainty regarding a particular problem, and while atheism is no different adhering to a view which is more likely is not completely irrational. It is the more rational choice.

the nothing as defined by scientists is not the common usage that average people use. but even by that definition the universe cannot come from nothing for the reasons I already detailed

This is refuted by our understanding of quantum mechanics and even by Vilenkin whose expertise you evoked

You were unable to flesh out your entire argument without contradiction. Inquiries into parts that seemed problematic resulted in even more issues arising. You made claims like " WE don't have knowledge of ourselves we only thing we do" after posting "The very first thing being omnipotent is possible because i am not". Well if you do not have knowledge of your self you have undermined your own postulation.

After numerous posts describing the deity you then claim that "A deity cannot be disproved because it cannot be absolutley described unlike the teapot or parrot" which completely undermines everything you have claimed about this deity. Again this appears to be an attempt to make the argument you are trying to show is possible as vague as possible, so as to have a leg to stand on in your stance.

The problem then becomes that you have made it so general that it becomes incoherent as you ultimately look like you are describing something that you admit you can not describe. It is utterly unintelligible. You have receded so far into the forced ignorance of this deity that everything you have said about it is refuted by its very nature. What begins as a way to keep the concept unprovable and prevent falsifiability in order to stop any attempts at disproving it ends up being the detriment to your own philosophy.

In any event, saying something with absolute certainty without adequate evidence is not rational from a perspective which necessitates people proportion beliefs to the evidences. Thank you for saying this for the second time and admitting that hard atheism is irrational

However, saying something is the case when it is more likely to be false is even more irrational. Hard Atheism does appear to be less rational that agnosticism in this regard, but not nearly as irrational as theism. HARD ATHEISM BEING MORE RATIONAL THAN THEISM IS irrevelant to the argument. [/quote]

In that video The man said that the universe somehow was created by the laws that existed before the universe like god a law has no physical being but i would not call it nothing. the overall point i was trying to make in this thread is that anything we think we know is cannot be ultimately proven that means science and god. so i nor anyone is going to be able to give you a good description of any being that could be god all i or anyone can do is create possibilities and that;s enough to make hard atheism irrational unless science and disprove all possible possibilites. but it cannot and that is why it is one of the reasons why it is irrational to be a hard atheist because talking about god and his nonexistence or existence like they are absolutes is madness. and the probability being that god does not exist is not good enough. A deity cannot be fully described but it can be given indefinite attributes, yes this is very vague and the nature of any discussion about god has to be, when will you atheist understand that

 

[zombie]

@trashboat do you believe in multiversal theory and if you do which one do you believe in???

is it possible for a god to exist???

 

[LUClEN]

But you have no evidence against god

We can look into space and see nothing indicating a deity exists.

Experiments in the natural sciences based on models and theories which exclude such a deity continue to prove themselves reliable, showing that in our natural world there is nothing that infers a deity exists.

The idea of a deity is supernatural and contradicts our understanding of nature. Along with our knowledge of the natural world comes a growing body of evidence in support of the laws of nature. When the laws of nature are contradicted by the idea of deity and there is far more evidence proving the laws correct than there is proving the deity exists; the contradiction therein refutes theism.

Historically theists have been incorrect about many things that science has successfully enlightened us to, making it clear that theism is unreliable.

Theism provides no testable hypotheses, which suggests rather loudly that it is completely made up.

To say a deity exists is to make a positive claim, which requires some positive evidence. Since there is none available skepticism dictates that the claim be rejected until there is some.

I do not subscribe to the view that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, as I use the absence of evidence to draw conclusions which end up being correct all the time. I know of know reason why a deity should be treated any differently in this regard than any other knowledge I try to verify.

Thank you for saying this for the second time and admitting that hard atheism is irrational

I am still as sure that no god exists as I am that there is no bird on my head, and that there is no teapot orbiting Saturn.

HARD ATHEISM BEING MORE RATIONAL THAN THEISM IS irrevelant to the argument

No it is not. The OP stated that it is irrational, and while this is true when the aforementioned conditions are met, he is not in the position to degrade anyone because of this due to his own beliefs being even more irrational.

In that video The man said that the universe somehow was created by the laws that existed before the universe like god a law has no physical being but i would not call it nothing.

If God = Laws then you have a case. I already said that if the definition of a deity is stripped down enough a deity can be shown to be the more logical possibility. However, no interpretation of deism that I have ever come across is willing to forgo that much about their deity.

the overall point i was trying to make in this thread is that anything we think we know is cannot be ultimately proven that means science and god. so i nor anyone is going to be able to give you a good description of any being that could be god all i or anyone can do is create possibilities and that;s enough to make hard atheism irrational unless science and disprove all possible possibilites. but it cannot and that is why it is one of the reasons why it is irrational to be a hard atheist because talking about god and his nonexistence or existence like they are absolutes is madness. and the probability being that god does not exist is not good enough. A deity cannot be fully described but it can be given indefinite attributes, yes this is very vague and the nature of any discussion about god has to be, when will you atheist understand that

The issue with this is how do you even deduce that it is possible? It would seem we have no evidence disproving the dragon's of lore. Delving deeper into this we could say that since the only evidence of them that exists is human created (text, film, imagery, etc) it is probable that they are merely the product of human imagination. Putting this observation to the side, we have a view where they could possibly exist. However, once the association with human imagination is made the absurdity of such an idea becomes more apparent. Unfortunately for the theist a similar argument can be made for deities.

What we seem to end up with is the only evidence showing it to be possible a deity exists is people saying that is the case. There is nothing to show the possibility is possible.

do you believe in multiversal theory and if you do which one do you believe in???

At present I am inclined to believe multiverses is possible, based on an inductive assumption that I am continually surprised by the limitlessness of the universe and it would be more consistent with the history of this surprise if there were multiple universes. Brane cosmology makes the most sense to me and seems to fit best with our current physics.

I presume you reject it?

is it possible for a god to exist???

Define God. Until some clear parameters are set it is impossible to know what exactly I am speculating on.

 

[zombie]

But you have no evidence against god

We can look into space and see nothing indicating a deity exists.

Experiments in the natural sciences based on models and theories which exclude such a deity continue to prove themselves reliable, showing that in our natural world there is nothing that infers a deity exists.

That's not good enough to make a statement like god does not exist and we can barely look into space and mostly we do not understand what we are seeing

The idea of a deity is supernatural and contradicts our understanding of nature. Along with our knowledge of the natural world comes a growing body of evidence in support of the laws of nature. When the laws of nature are contradicted by the idea of deity and there is far more evidence proving the laws correct than there is proving the deity exists; the contradiction therein refutes theism.

our understanding of nature is flawed and the idea of a deity does not have to contradict those laws because we don't have a good understanding of them in the first place, there are too many holes to exclude the possible existence of ant kind of god.

Historically theists have been incorrect about many things that science has successfully enlightened us to, making it clear that theism is unreliable.

Theism provides no testable hypotheses, which suggests rather loudly that it is completely made up.

just because something is not testable that does not mean it is not real and an appeal to human history is flawed because science being more reliable than theism does not disprove god.

To say a deity exists is to make a positive claim, which requires some positive evidence. Since there is none available skepticism dictates that the claim be rejected until there is some.

All you need is a logical possibility rejecting any position with out disproving it is irrational and strong atheism is also a positive claim that's why another name for it is positive atheism

I do not subscribe to the view that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, as I use the absence of evidence to draw conclusions which end up being correct all the time. I know of know reason why a deity should be treated any differently in this regard than any other knowledge I try to verify.

certain kinds of knowledge cannot be verified the very nature of the concept of god should tell you that it cannot be objectively proven some things can only be subjectively proven

Thank you for saying this for the second time and admitting that hard atheism is irrational

I am still as sure that no god exists as I am that there is no bird on my head, and that there is no teapot orbiting Saturn.

It is actually possible to verify those things the same cannot be said about god.

HARD ATHEISM BEING MORE RATIONAL THAN THEISM IS irrevelant to the argument

No it is not. The OP stated that it is irrational, and while this is true when the aforementioned conditions are met, he is not in the position to degrade anyone because of this due to his own beliefs being even more irrational.

His beliefs are more irrational to you and people like you, once you admit that hard atheism is irrational i feel like i've done my job and any thing else we talk about is just curiosity and i don't feel like he was degrading you at all

In that video The man said that the universe somehow was created by the laws that existed before the universe like god a law has no physical being but i would not call it nothing.

If God = Laws then you have a case. I already said that if the definition of a deity is stripped down enough a deity can be shown to be the more logical possibility. However, no interpretation of deism that I have ever come across is willing to forgo that much about their deity.

In a way god is his law and the law is god, in a sense god is his will and his will is law because once he wills it it is that's what the bible says.

the overall point i was trying to make in this thread is that anything we think we know is cannot be ultimately proven that means science and god. so i nor anyone is going to be able to give you a good description of any being that could be god all i or anyone can do is create possibilities and that;s enough to make hard atheism irrational unless science and disprove all possible possibilites. but it cannot and that is why it is one of the reasons why it is irrational to be a hard atheist because talking about god and his nonexistence or existence like they are absolutes is madness. and the probability being that god does not exist is not good enough. A deity cannot be fully described but it can be given indefinite attributes, yes this is very vague and the nature of any discussion about god has to be, when will you atheist understand that

The issue with this is how do you even deduce that it is possible? It would seem we have no evidence disproving the dragon's of lore. Delving deeper into this we could say that since the only evidence of them that exists is human created (text, film, imagery, etc) it is probable that they are merely the product of human imagination. Putting this observation to the side, we have a view where they could possibly exist. However, once the association with human imagination is made the absurdity of such an idea becomes more apparent. Unfortunately for the theist a similar argument can be made for deities.

But it is possible do deduce if the dragons of lore did not exist or if they did exist because dragons can be described they have physical beings to talk about god you have to talk about the non physical

What we seem to end up with is the only evidence showing it to be possible a deity exists is people saying that is the case. There is nothing to show the possibility is possible.

there being a logical possibility is enough

do you believe in multiversal theory and if you do which one do you believe in???

At present I am inclined to believe multiverses is possible, based on an inductive assumption that I am continually surprised by the limitlessness of the universe and it would be more consistent with the history of this surprise if there were multiple universes. Brane cosmology makes the most sense to me and seems to fit best with our current physics.

I presume you reject it?

i reject people saying it's fact but not it's possibility

is it possible for a god to exist???

Define God. Until some clear parameters are set it is impossible to know what exactly I am speculating on.

the greatest being conceivable, the first intelligence and the will of reality.

 

[onthafly]

OP your analogy is retarded and you're clearly bible thumping. We would only logically conclude that a man must have made that table because we know for a fact that tables are man made and not naturally occurring. That says nothing about who or what had a hand in making something that does occur naturally. You assume that because something complex exists that it had to have been created by some mystical being called god rather than nature because like many other people you've been brainwashed by the European way of life into believing that man can do better than nature. Plant life just seemingly happens out of nowhere without man playing a hand in it despite the fact that farmers go through a lot of effort to grow crops in an environment that they wouldn't normally grow in. You call it god, the rest of us choose not to be brainwashed by religion.

 

[onthafly]

That's a false equivalence.

The desert and the table.

1. We are Human.

2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.

3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.

How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.

The Universe and Earth.

1. We are Human.

2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.

3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.

We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.

I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.

As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.

Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and God. At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.

BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god has no existence then he very well could exist.

The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that god exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're god doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.

 

[zombie]

That's a false equivalence.

The desert and the table.

1. We are Human.

2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.

3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.

How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.

The Universe and Earth.

1. We are Human.

2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.

3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.

We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.

I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.

As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.

Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and God. At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.

BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god has no existence then he very well could exist.

The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that god exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're god doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.

I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things, you want to fight christians go to another thread i was talking about god that god does not have to be the christian one.

This thread was about the illogical nature of atheism I HAVE PROVEN IN THIS thread that hard atheism/atheism that is backed by science is not a logical position to stand on.

 

[zombie]

OP your analogy is retarded and you're clearly bible thumping. We would only logically conclude that a man must have made that table because we know for a fact that tables are man made and not naturally occurring. That says nothing about who or what had a hand in making something that does occur naturally. You assume that because something complex exists that it had to have been created by some mystical being called god rather than nature because like many other people you've been brainwashed by the European way of life into believing that man can do better than nature. Plant life just seemingly happens out of nowhere without man playing a hand in it despite the fact that farmers go through a lot of effort to grow crops in an environment that they wouldn't normally grow in. You call it god, the rest of us choose not to be brainwashed by religion.

don't be an idiot if something does not occur naturally then only an intelligence could have created it and that actually says a lot about the person who created it. plant life does not happen out of nowhere there are rules that govern where plants can grow where they cannot. You don't even need a religion to believe in god I hate when you jackasses bring up that brainwashed argument it's stupid as fuck.

 

[LUClEN]

That's a false equivalence.

The desert and the table.

1. We are Human.

2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.

3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.

How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.

The Universe and Earth.

1. We are Human.

2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.

3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.

We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.

I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.

As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.

Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and God. At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.

BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god has no existence then he very well could exist.

The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that god exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're god doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.

I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things

No you can't

 

[onthafly]

That's a false equivalence.

The desert and the table.

1. We are Human.

2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.

3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.

How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.

The Universe and Earth.

1. We are Human.

2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.

3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.

We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.

I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.

As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.

Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and God. At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.

BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god has no existence then he very well could exist.

The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that god exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're god doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.

I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things, you want to fight christians go to another thread i was talking about god that god does not have to be the christian one.

This thread was about the illogical nature of atheism I HAVE PROVEN IN THIS thread that hard atheism/atheism that is backed by science is not a logical position to stand on.

Please do disprove the flying spaghetti monster. You said you were a christian in you're thread so whether or not you claim to be referring to the christian god right now it's obvious which one you believe to be responsible for all of creation. You can't prove that a god exists all because god is just a man made title.

 

[zombie]

That's a false equivalence.

The desert and the table.

1. We are Human.

2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.

3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.

How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.

The Universe and Earth.

1. We are Human.

2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.

3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.

We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.

I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.

As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.

Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and God. At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.

BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god has no existence then he very well could exist.

The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that god exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're god doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.

I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things

No you can't

yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.

 

[onthafly]

OP your analogy is retarded and you're clearly bible thumping. We would only logically conclude that a man must have made that table because we know for a fact that tables are man made and not naturally occurring. That says nothing about who or what had a hand in making something that does occur naturally. You assume that because something complex exists that it had to have been created by some mystical being called god rather than nature because like many other people you've been brainwashed by the European way of life into believing that man can do better than nature. Plant life just seemingly happens out of nowhere without man playing a hand in it despite the fact that farmers go through a lot of effort to grow crops in an environment that they wouldn't normally grow in. You call it god, the rest of us choose not to be brainwashed by religion.

don't be an idiot if something does not occur naturally then only an intelligence could have created it and that actually says a lot about the person who created it. plant life does not happen out of nowhere there are rules that govern where plants can grow where they cannot. You don't even need a religion to believe in god I hate when you jackasses bring up that brainwashed argument it's stupid as fuck.

So you agree that nothing that occurs naturally was created by intelligent design then. Plant life doesn't occur out of nowhere but it doesn't take an intelligent man to make a plant grow. Man just has a habit of forcing things that aren't natural. All atheism means is that you don't believe in a god. You're the one who confused enough to think that if man didn't create it then it has to be god. the whole concept of god was created by man to deify African kings. I consider myself spiritual by I don't allow superficial labels like god a religion to define my beliefs. If an atheist chooses not to believe in something that you can't prove to them then there's nothing illogical about that. You sir are brainwashed and that's why the only things you can believe in are god and man.

 

[onthafly]

That's a false equivalence.

The desert and the table.

1. We are Human.

2. We know for a fact humans make tables and chairs.

3. We know for a fact Humans set table and chairs.

How do we know this? Because we are human and have observed other humans doing so, or have even done so ourselves. So it's pretty logical to assume someone set it up.

The Universe and Earth.

1. We are Human.

2. We don't know for a fact that there is some being out there capable of creating Universes.

3. If said being exist, we don't know for a fact if he is some omnipotent observer.

We are human, and have not observed or witnessed a being capable of doing this. So imo it is not as logical as the table incident to assume someone created, since we don't have the above information.

I touched on this earlier. You could replace table with something more advanced that maybe a person wouldn't be familiar with. Say a person was wandering through the desert in the 1960's and stumbled upon a modern laptop. Now they'd never seen anything like this, and they'd be unfamiliar with it's origin. But it'd be unlikely they'd assume that it created itself in the desert.

As for the bolded, I said nothing of omnipotent observer.

Why don't you replace the table with something natural like lightning? People used to not understand how it was created so they made up Zeus. Now we know better because of research. Same with the Earth and God. At some point you learn enough to where you don't have to leap to mythical explanations.

BUT THE problem is that earth like the table has a limited existence in this universe and god does not

No existence is different from limited existence so you may be right

can you prove that god has no existence??? because i can prove that a table exists and if you cannot prove that god has no existence then he very well could exist.

The issue here is that you can prove that a table exists but you can't prove that god exists. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Not on the sceptic that you've got to prove it too. I'd hate to be that guy that starts talking about the flying spaghetti monster but try disproving it's existence along with every other ridiculous thing that somebody thinks up and you'll understand why it's not my job to prove that you're god doesn't exist. I don't go around trying to convert people. That's what christian missionaries do.

I can disprove a flying spaghetti monster and all those ridiculous things

No you can't

yes i can to begin with a monster is clearly defined as an imaginary creature that is typically large, ugly, and frightening.

So does that mean monster trucks aren't real too? A definition of a word is just that. It's not a law written in stone.

 

[zombie]

OP your analogy is retarded and you're clearly bible thumping. We would only logically conclude that a man must have made that table because we know for a fact that tables are man made and not naturally occurring. That says nothing about who or what had a hand in making something that does occur naturally. You assume that because something complex exists that it had to have been created by some mystical being called god rather than nature because like many other people you've been brainwashed by the European way of life into believing that man can do better than nature. Plant life just seemingly happens out of nowhere without man playing a hand in it despite the fact that farmers go through a lot of effort to grow crops in an environment that they wouldn't normally grow in. You call it god, the rest of us choose not to be brainwashed by religion.

don't be an idiot if something does not occur naturally then only an intelligence could have created it and that actually says a lot about the person who created it. plant life does not happen out of nowhere there are rules that govern where plants can grow where they cannot. You don't even need a religion to believe in god I hate when you jackasses bring up that brainwashed argument it's stupid as fuck.

So you agree that nothing that occurs naturally was created by intelligent design then. Plant life doesn't occur out of nowhere but it doesn't take an intelligent man to make a plant grow. Man just has a habit of forcing things that aren't natural. All atheism means is that you don't believe in a god. You're the one who confused enough to think that if man didn't create it then it has to be god. the whole concept of god was created by man to deify African kings. I consider myself spiritual by I don't allow superficial labels like god a religion to define my beliefs. If an atheist chooses not to believe in something that you can't prove to them then there's nothing illogical about that. You sir are brainwashed and that's why the only things you can believe in are god and man.

I believe in god so to me what we understand to be nature( the rules of reality) is a creation of god the bolded is bullshit people believed in gods before there were kings in africa. all over the planet from as far back as any one can trace people believed in gods and the supernatural and that goes for people who had no real contract with africa.

you are commenting on me but you have not been paying attention to the fucking thread it's not weak atheism that is illogical it's hard atheism.