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

[Rubato Garcia]

So we just need a better theory. I'd buy that, maybe the Big Bang isn't the answer either but that doesn't validate Creationism. One explanation being more "adequate" than the other doesn't mean they aren't both wrong.

Well in this case one of them HAS to be right. Either the universe created itself or something created the universe. Most astronomers agree that the universe hasn't existed forever because of the way its expanding.

It could have created itself in other ways than the Big Bang, that's the point I was making since you don't think that's an adequate theory.

 

[StillFaggyAF]

i agree w/ t/s

 

[zombie]

science has moved away from the big bang theory it's no longer the leading theory in many ways now many scientist claim that the universe came to be from quantum fluctuations in a vacuum without boring you this theory basically states that this universe exists because it was possible for it to exist

 

[LUClEN]

Your argument fails on a couple grounds

Those are all man made objects you mention in the OP

It injects a bias into the analogy similar to the intelligent design argument

"When I see a watch I know a human made it, therefore the universe has a maker too"

Except watches are human creations

If you had no prior experience to watches, say you were a papoose that had never seen one before, you would not necessarily know it is a human creation

the bias of your experiences with watches informs you that humans made it

Much like it would in your example

Your conclusion that the universe needs a creator because of its complexity fails to realize it's own shortsightedness:

If the complexity of the universe necessitates an intelligent designer then surely the complexity of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being does too.

So then you say what, that God made himself? Then you commit the same alleged transgression you just criticized.

 

[zombie]

in order for the laws of the universe to create the universe they must have an existence apart from the universe.

 

[Stiff]

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.

 

[Stiff]

Your argument fails on a couple grounds

Those are all man made objects you mention in the OP

It injects a bias into the analogy similar to the intelligent design argument

"When I see a watch I know a human made it, therefore the universe has a maker too"

Except watches are human creations

If you had no prior experience to watches, say you were a papoose that had never seen one before, you would not necessarily know it is a human creation

the bias of your experiences with watches informs you that humans made it

Much like it would in your example



Your conclusion that the universe needs a creator because of its complexity fails to realize it's own shortsightedness:

If the complexity of the universe necessitates an intelligent designer then surely the complexity of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being does too.

So then you say what, that God made himself? Then you commit the same alleged transgression you just criticized.

See my reply to BoldChild about the underlined.

To the bolded,I say the explanation of a Supreme Being that always was answers this. Science says that because of the way the Universe is expanding, it most likely had a definite point in space/time where it "started". It's not likely that the Universe has always existed. The existence of a theoretical (for the sake of argument) Creator that predates the existence of the Universe would clear this up, because it itself wouldn't need a creator because it always was, unlike human life, the universe, and the man-made objects in the o/p .

 

[Stiff]

in order for the laws of the universe to create the universe they must have an existence apart from the universe.

And that's impossible. The very idea of the Universe coming from "nothingness" violates Newton's(?) law that states that energy is neither created nor destroyed

 

[Stiff]

science has moved away from the big bang theory it's no longer the leading theory in many ways now many scientist claim that the universe came to be from quantum fluctuations in a vacuum without boring you this theory basically states that this universe exists because it was possible for it to exist

is there a name for this theory ? @zombie‌

 

[zombie]

in order for the laws of the universe to create the universe they must have an existence apart from the universe.

And that's impossible. The very idea of the Universe coming from "nothingness" violates Newton's(?) law that states that energy is neither created nor destroyed

QUANTUM fluctuations in a vacuum is not one single theory but it is essential for all quantum theories that deal with the creation of the universe there must be a harmonious relationship between Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and quantum fluctuations for these theories to be true. this presents a problem because the creation of subatomic particles by quantum fluctuation cannot be observed only the effects of their brief existence can be observed . the uncertainty principle limits the time that the particles created by quantum fluctuation can exist. The greater the energy of the fluctuation the less time it's corresponding particles may last and that is why the subatomic particles created by quntum fluctuations come into being and disappear so quickly.

if the universe were created by quantum fluctuations then the universe which has to have a lot of energy would pop out of existence very quickly. scientist propose a zero energy universe but that is a whole next load of complex bullshit.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

If you set a table and chair and you ask a aboriginal in Australia upon first contact with the European, about it's purpose without explanation or demonstration, they would ponder for eternity, or use it for something completely, go do something they actually care about rather then stare at foreign objects, or use it for something unintended. They may have independently developed something similar because the concept is universal. The concept of the table in unimportant to an ant other then the fact that it contains breadcrumbs. It's still an object with angles and a surface. That table serves no purpose to the tree that is now a table.

 

[The Lonious Monk]

I'm a believer and all, but believing in God isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.

 

[Stiff]

I'm a believer and all, but believing in God isn't really logical. That's kinda the point. You're supposed to operate based on faith which means you believe even if you don't have a logical reason to do so.

Believing in God isn't logical or believing in the Abrahamic incarnation of God?

 

[Rubato Garcia]

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.

 

[Stiff]

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.

If you're an atheist, answer this for me, and anybody who's an atheist feel free to answer this as well: Why do you adamantly deny the possibility of intelligent design of the universe when there's no solid evidence that disproves it?

 

[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

 

[Rubato Garcia]

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.

If you're an atheist, answer this for me, and anybody who's an atheist feel free to answer this as well: Why do you adamantly deny the possibility of intelligent design of the universe when there's no solid evidence that disproves it?

I wouldn't call myself an atheist...but agnostic is too far the other direction. "Doubtful agnostic" would be more appropriate. I think the existence of a God-like being is somewhat possible, but if so, it's nowhere near the way people imagine it to be. Man created God in his own image.

 

[Rubato Garcia]

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

 

[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.

 

[LUClEN]

Your argument fails on a couple grounds

Those are all man made objects you mention in the OP

It injects a bias into the analogy similar to the intelligent design argument

"When I see a watch I know a human made it, therefore the universe has a maker too"

Except watches are human creations

If you had no prior experience to watches, say you were a papoose that had never seen one before, you would not necessarily know it is a human creation

the bias of your experiences with watches informs you that humans made it

Much like it would in your example



Your conclusion that the universe needs a creator because of its complexity fails to realize it's own shortsightedness:

If the complexity of the universe necessitates an intelligent designer then surely the complexity of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being does too.

So then you say what, that God made himself? Then you commit the same alleged transgression you just criticized.

See my reply to BoldChild about the underlined.

To the bolded,I say the explanation of a Supreme Being that always was answers this. Science says that because of the way the Universe is expanding, it most likely had a definite point in space/time where it "started". It's not likely that the Universe has always existed. The existence of a theoretical (for the sake of argument) Creator that predates the existence of the Universe would clear this up, because it itself wouldn't need a creator because it always was, unlike human life, the universe, and the man-made objects in the o/p .

If the Universe has a starting point then that being would seemingly need to exist outside of space and time in order to create it. How exactly would such a being function?

It's a huge assumption to believe that it is even possible when as far as I know it is not.

Also, atheism derived from skepticism is not resolved by your issue

If beliefs are to be based on evidence, and there is none for a God, then the belief is not reasonable