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

[Jabu_Rule]

Its wild how you all rely on science when its convient but then jump to conclusions rather then let scientist to continue their investigation. This evidence is what ex

Don't generalize me, it's weakening your argument.

I actually didn't mean to post that. It was something that i wrote but it was still at the bottom when i was quoting. Regardless, i don't see how pointing out that people are jumping to conclusions and grasp at science only when convenient is an invalid argument.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

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.

But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe

ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist

essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity

THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.

You're talking about an english definition from some dictionary somewhere that's subject to change. A definition is not a law and simply calling something a monster doesn't make it any less real.

once again do you know what an adjective is??? the word monster is used to describe an imaginary creature that people find to be disgusting/big or it is used to describe something the is very large or powerful.

You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

Go back to school please.

No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.

I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.

The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a god isn't fabricated.

Prove that it's possible for something to be created spontaneously without external interference. Provide examples.

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/08/16/the-physics-of-nothing-the-phi/

This is experimental fact. We can artificially create a vacuum chamber (like the world’s largest one, above) that is — while imperfect — good enough to detect the physical effects of these spontaneously created particle-antiparticle pairs.

Take a vacuum, and inside of it, place two parallel, uncharged metal plates.

In the absence of these vacuum fluctuations, you would expect the force between the plates to be dominated by gravitation. But if you bring these plates close enough together, you find that these vacuum fluctuations cause the plates to attract one another! This attractive force is purely quantum in nature, and is the surefire experimental evidence — that’s been around since 1948 — that this is the physical nature of nothingness.

Now, combine this with the one thing this empty spacetime is allowed to do: expand.

 

[onthafly]

So is the argument being made now

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.

But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe

ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist

essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity

THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.

You're talking about an english definition from some dictionary somewhere that's subject to change. A definition is not a law and simply calling something a monster doesn't make it any less real.

once again do you know what an adjective is??? the word monster is used to describe an imaginary creature that people find to be disgusting/big or it is used to describe something the is very large or powerful.

You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

Go back to school please.

No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.

I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.

The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a god isn't fabricated.

Prove that it's possible for something to be created spontaneously without external interference. Provide examples.

I never said it was. Prove that the universe was actually created and wasn't always in existence in one form or another.

 

[Ajackson17]

Y'all are tangled in strings....striinngs

string theory is just interpretation of data there can literally be 5^10000 answers to the same problems with string theory. and i am being serious out of every book written by a scientist that i have read none of them confirm the existence of a multiverse they all say it's just a thought experiment or that it's math on paper.

It was in reference to Ultron lol not the string theory, it needs more testing and results.

 

[Stiff]

http://i.word.com/idictionary/god

And again back to the main point. There's nothing irrational or illogical about not believing in a perfect being that needs to be worshipped. Regardless of what your definition of a god may be, you don't know what that particular atheists definition of god is nor do you know that atheists beliefs of how the universe was created to call his beliefs illogical or irrational.

OP said nothing about perfect being that should be worshiped. Maybe you should reread it.

Bottom line, unless something has existed for infinity it had to have been created. Created implies that there was a creator. The burden is on atheists to prove that there was no creator, not the other way around.

That is a logical leap because you do not know if a creation process was necessary as if it is building a house. You do not know the ultimate nature or process that began the universe or if there is a defined beginning as we understand it.

It's not a logical leap. Nothing that's ever been observed in existence is self-generated from nothing. But it's logical for you to assume that the origin of existence is?

I didn't say it was generated from nothing and neither has any scientist. You just don't understand what they are speaking on. Regardless, you do not know the origin of the universe or the various states that it could exist in or whether it is infinite unto itself. I've already presented the theory of an expanding and collapsing universe. Nobody knows basically.

Wrong.
=93

Vilenkin does not say it was created from nothing.

He just says that the laws of physics as we understand them would permit the universe to come from nothing

the only requirement being that the laws of physics would have to exist prior to our universe's inception

Of course he doesn't say the universe was created from nothing because he has no scientific basis to.

So then why did you straw man him? It was claimed that no scientist says the universe came from nothing but you allege this is wrong and implicate Alexander Vilenkin. It's an erroneous association as he never says that.

He says it's possible that the universe came from nothing. There's no way anybody could KNOW WITH ABOSLUTELY CERTAINTY the origin of the universe so he can't technically say the universe was created from nothing. There's no science that can prove that, that departs from science into the realm of philosophy. Not a straw man.

 

[Stiff]

So is the argument being made now

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.

But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe

ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist

essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity

THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.

You're talking about an english definition from some dictionary somewhere that's subject to change. A definition is not a law and simply calling something a monster doesn't make it any less real.

once again do you know what an adjective is??? the word monster is used to describe an imaginary creature that people find to be disgusting/big or it is used to describe something the is very large or powerful.

You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

Go back to school please.

No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.

I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.

The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a god isn't fabricated.

Prove that it's possible for something to be created spontaneously without external interference. Provide examples.

I never said it was. Prove that the universe was actually created and wasn't always in existence in one form or another.

I can't prove that the universe was always in existence in one form or another, but most currently held beliefs in science states that it wasn't.

All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago.

Source:http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

If you know something that most cosmetologists don't know, maybe you should speak up.

 

[onthafly]

So is the argument being made now

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.

But you have no way to know for certain that it does not exist in our vast universe

ergo you can't refute it, only show that it is more probable it does not exist

essentially the same conclusion we drew regarding a deity

THE WORD imaginary means it's not real there is zero chance that an imaginary thing can exist if it can no matter how small the probability then it's not imaginary. also something being called a monster is a subjective opinion.

You're talking about an english definition from some dictionary somewhere that's subject to change. A definition is not a law and simply calling something a monster doesn't make it any less real.

once again do you know what an adjective is??? the word monster is used to describe an imaginary creature that people find to be disgusting/big or it is used to describe something the is very large or powerful.

You're obviously not getting the point. Whether it's sn adjective or noun, a name given to something doesn't disprove it's existence. Some people may refer to some well known sea creature as the lockness monster because it's what they know it as. Just because somebody comes along later and defines it as something else doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

Go back to school please.

No thanks. Not if the illogical arguments that you've provided are any indication on what kind of education schools are providing these days. And I take it that since you're resulting to insults rather than logical arguments that you're not capable of coming up with one.

I am resulting to insults because you are wasting my time with a stupid argument you know the meaning of a word should be used based on the context of the argument.

The only stupid argument being made is that atheism is illogical. Common sense should tell you that can't provide evidence to disprove the existence of any kind of omnipotent being. Nvm the fact that you've failed to disprove some made up creature. Provr that your concept of a god isn't fabricated.

Prove that it's possible for something to be created spontaneously without external interference. Provide examples.

I never said it was. Prove that the universe was actually created and wasn't always in existence in one form or another.

I can't prove that the universe was always in existence in one form or another, but most currently held beliefs in science states that it wasn't.

All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago.

Source:http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

If you know something that most cosmetologists don't know, maybe you should speak up.

First off, a theory doesn't equal proof. Secondly, this theory only suggest that the timeline we know now which it refers to as real time had a beginning that started with the end of a vertical timeline calked imaginary time. It doesn't suggest that the universe came from nothing and imaginary time which it states is just as real as real time is essentially just another way of describing the universe in a different form.

 

[Stiff]

First off, a theory doesn't equal proof..

I concur.

Secondly, this theory only suggest that the timeline we know now which it refers to as real time had a beginning that started with the end of a vertical timeline calked imaginary time. It doesn't suggest that the universe came from nothing and imaginary time which it states is just as real as real time is essentially just another way of describing the universe in a different form

I'm taking a leap here and please correct me where I'm wrong: so without any evidence or scientifically supported theories you've reached the conclusion and hold the belief that the universe has existed for an eternity in some form and thus did not need a creator?

 

[onthafly]

First off, a theory doesn't equal proof..

I concur.

Secondly, this theory only suggest that the timeline we know now which it refers to as real time had a beginning that started with the end of a vertical timeline calked imaginary time. It doesn't suggest that the universe came from nothing and imaginary time which it states is just as real as real time is essentially just another way of describing the universe in a different form

I'm taking a leap here and please correct me where I'm wrong: so without any evidence or scientifically supported theories you've reached the conclusion and hold the belief that the universe has existed for an eternity in some form and thus did not need a creator?

I haven't reached any conclusion. I just asked you to prove that the laws of conservation of energy and mass don't apply to the universe. I'm also going to correct my post. The article says that the beginning of real time can be determined by the state of imaginary time, not necessarily the end of imaginary time.

 

[Stiff]

First off, a theory doesn't equal proof..

I concur.

Secondly, this theory only suggest that the timeline we know now which it refers to as real time had a beginning that started with the end of a vertical timeline calked imaginary time. It doesn't suggest that the universe came from nothing and imaginary time which it states is just as real as real time is essentially just another way of describing the universe in a different form

I'm taking a leap here and please correct me where I'm wrong: so without any evidence or scientifically supported theories you've reached the conclusion and hold the belief that the universe has existed for an eternity in some form and thus did not need a creator?

I haven't reached any conclusion. I just asked you to disprove that the laws of conservation of energy and mass don't apply to the universe. I'm also going to correct my post. The article says that the beginning of real time can be determined by the state of imaginary time, not necessarily the end of imaginary time.

Why would I do that?

 

[onthafly]

Meant prove typing on a phone.

 

[Stiff]

That's not possible. Question though, are you an atheist?

 

[onthafly]

That's not possible. Question though, are you an atheist?

No. Not religious either. Personally I believe that god exists in every living thing. I just disagree with the statement that atheism is illogical.

 

[onthafly]

That theory is an Interesting read though.

 

[Stiff]

That's not possible. Question though, are you an atheist?

No. Not religious either. Personally I believe that god exists in every living thing. I just disagree with the statement that atheism is illogical.

It's illogical because it takes a leap in logic that's not supported by evidence. I absolutely believe that Christianity is illogical as well and I'm saying that as a believer in Christianity.

Nobody in here wants to admit to being an atheist, but everyone wants to defend it. Atheism is as dogmatic as most theism is.

 

[onthafly]

That's not possible. Question though, are you an atheist?

No. Not religious either. Personally I believe that god exists in every living thing. I just disagree with the statement that atheism is illogical.

It's illogical because it takes a leap in logic that's not supported by evidence. I absolutely believe that Christianity is illogical as well and I'm saying that as a believer in Christianity.

Nobody in here wants to admit to being an atheist, but everyone wants to defend it. Atheism is as dogmatic as most theism is.

What leap in logic are you talking about? Until someone introduces the concept of a god to you and you start believing it then you're atheist by definition whether you call yourself that or not. There's nothing illogical about not believing in god or a god that created the universe especially if that person has never seen concrete evidence of a god.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

That's not possible. Question though, are you an atheist?

No. Not religious either. Personally I believe that god exists in every living thing. I just disagree with the statement that atheism is illogical.

It's illogical because it takes a leap in logic that's not supported by evidence. I absolutely believe that Christianity is illogical as well and I'm saying that as a believer in Christianity.

Nobody in here wants to admit to being an atheist, but everyone wants to defend it. Atheism is as dogmatic as most theism is.

Theism by its very nature is a simple belief. The Dogma is attached to religion. Atheism as murky as the word is, is simply the denial of the beliefs posited by theist because of the lack evidence. Simple as that. All that strong and weak atheist crap poisoned the well. You are a atheist by the very nature of your position that theism is illogical. Or isn't it? I'm not sure that that is your stance because, instead of supporting the argument that God as presented has no backing evidence or Scientific or Mathematical theoretical support, you are exclusively arguing in support of it being the only accurate theory and dismissing all scientific investigative attempts. I'm not with any of these labels. Prove it, actually show your attempts to prove it, or stfu.

 

[onthafly]

On the other hand, a person claiming to know the origins of the universe whether based on science or religion and holding a position that he would never change even in the face of evidence would be illogical. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god or gods and there's nothing illogical about lacking belief in something that hasn't been proven to exist.

 

[onthafly]

Let me use an example. The theory you posted on that Steven Hawkins website proposes that the universe is self contained and you don't need to look to an external factor for the creation of the universe. That's just one unproven theory as is the idea that an external being with no beginning or end created the universe. Why is it illogical to lack belief in one of those contradicting theories and not the other? Unless you're saying that both atheism and theism is illogical in which case the only way to be logical is to be agnostic.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

Let me use an example. The theory you posted on that Steven Hawkins website proposes that the universe is self contained and you don't need to look to an external factor for the creation of the universe. That's just one unproven theory as is the idea that an external being with no beginning or end created the universe. Why is it illogical to lack belief in one of those contradicting theories and not the other? Unless you're saying that both atheism and theism is illogical in which case the only way to be logical is to be agnostic.

What they are presenting is not a theory. It is hypothesis. It's like presenting the topic to your thesis paper and never turning it in. We learned this in basic science. Using it any other way is just colloquial. Basically, it's not just a defined term, it's the results of the practice of the scientific method created for accurate presentation and study through experimentation based on observable and measurable evidence which is peer reviewed. It is presented with evidence and once proven without a doubt, it is law.