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

[whar]

"We can't measure consciousness but we trust that it's there. "

There many ways to measure consciousness. In fact from a simple medical standpoint there are 8 different levels of consciousness. Even in the sense you are using the term my senses deliver massive amounts of evidence of my own and others consciousness. Evidence is entirely based on what can be perceived, either through our senses or our reason.

 

[Fosheezy]

I've never heard one sound reason as to why it's logical to assume the ultimate source eternal being has to have a creator to exist just because he's the ultimate creator. I seriously don't know how yall brains aint never collapse trying to rationalize the implications behind what that would mean. How do you never end up vomiting in r/l behind such reasoning?

So it's illogical to ponder about the origin of such a creator and apply the very same logic many theists use to argue for said creator's existence?

If that's the case then how logical is it to assume that there is something out there that has an eternal existence, without incontrovertible evidence?

We're considering the idea of the existence of an eternal creator being. And in itself the very idea of eternal doesn't allow for the possibility of origin. We might not have the ability to fathom that, but we do have the ability to understand enough to accept and believe it. So the argument is that it's not possible for an eternal being to have an origin. Therefore it isn't reasonable to assume the Ultimate Creator has a creator. I'm just explaining the way the belief works.

What if I told you that very idea is a myth? I'm not aware of anything in this universe that's truly "eternal."

I don't think there's any such thing as eternal physical matter as all matter has a starting point and eventually fades. So the ultimate creator if exists would have to be a spiritual being. Not something you can see but you can feel and see the effects of. like wind.

So you saying god is blowing its hot breath all around us? Interesting. I didn't know Wind was a being.

it's a metaphor. used to help some understand spiritual aspects of this world.

There's several theories as to what involves the nature of God, but I'd advise staying away from the theories that attempt to describe God as simply an energy or force and not an actual being with unparalleled character.

 

[BoogaSuga]

Being non religious is actually the most logical belief system

 

[Jabu_Rule]

The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.

If someone claims there is a God then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of God's non-existence.

I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of God. Despite not really know if there is a God or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of God to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of God argument is not about religion either.

Most here are arguing against the theist position which most religions hold. Truncating theistic religion doesn't help the God argument. Creating erroneous scenarios that conflict with reality doesn't help either.

I did point out in a previous post that an unfortunate aspect of the argument that it is mostly the religious that hold it. But it doesn't mean that the argument supports religion. If anything, it means the religious are more in favor of the argument for an explanation for God's Existence than the religion they serve. It's like saying that because the cosmological argument is logically sound and true, then we should all worship Thor. The cosmological argument and Thor are two different issues. And you may not like the outcome of the answer, but it doesn't make it erroneous.

My statements apply to the non religious as much as it applies to the religious that fall under the umbrella of theism. Their central claims are the same. It is that claim that I've been contesting this entire time because it is presented without evidence, and it is a grand conclusion based on faith rather then research. The additional drivel that religions present is only icing on the cake to illuminate the propensity to grasp at straws and abridge information to fit ones desires.

Have you even studies the claims of monotheistic religions? Though they stress the existence of a deity, at it's core, they teach something very different from each other. And there is more to the aspect of evidence than what you can see, hear, taste, touch and feel. We can't measure consciousness but we trust that it's there.

Monotheistic religions are the biggest offenders. If we were discussing polytheism, then it probably would be less clear cut because of how they apply their Gods to various occurrences. All monotheistic religions believe in a singular point of contentious goal focused occurrence for the beginning of the universe and they add filler to how it interacts. How do you define consciousness? All of those things that you mentioned helps us to form and craft our consciousness dependent on external relative stimulation. If you had none of those things out the gate, you wouldn't have consciousness. You wouldn't be able to learn and you wouldn't have thoughts. You would die in a year.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

I've never heard one sound reason as to why it's logical to assume the ultimate source eternal being has to have a creator to exist just because he's the ultimate creator. I seriously don't know how yall brains aint never collapse trying to rationalize the implications behind what that would mean. How do you never end up vomiting in r/l behind such reasoning?

So it's illogical to ponder about the origin of such a creator and apply the very same logic many theists use to argue for said creator's existence?

If that's the case then how logical is it to assume that there is something out there that has an eternal existence, without incontrovertible evidence?

We're considering the idea of the existence of an eternal creator being. And in itself the very idea of eternal doesn't allow for the possibility of origin. We might not have the ability to fathom that, but we do have the ability to understand enough to accept and believe it. So the argument is that it's not possible for an eternal being to have an origin. Therefore it isn't reasonable to assume the Ultimate Creator has a creator. I'm just explaining the way the belief works.

What if I told you that very idea is a myth? I'm not aware of anything in this universe that's truly "eternal."

I don't think there's any such thing as eternal physical matter as all matter has a starting point and eventually fades. So the ultimate creator if exists would have to be a spiritual being. Not something you can see but you can feel and see the effects of. like wind.

So you saying god is blowing its hot breath all around us? Interesting. I didn't know Wind was a being.

it's a metaphor. used to help some understand spiritual aspects of this world.

There's several theories as to what involves the nature of God, but I'd advise staying away from the theories that attempt to describe God as simply an energy or force and not an actual being with unparalleled character.

I don't deal in Metaphors. Come at me with some real data. What evidence do you have for any of those things you mentioned and how are they even considered theories? Are they employing some sort of quantum mechanics as a foundation for a reproducible theoretical simulation?

 

[LUClEN]

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

It would seem we are not certain on that

We do not have a full theory of quantum gravity

we can trace the universe back 13 billion some odd years but at a certain point we simply have no way of knowing what exactly transpired nor how it was initiated



It would also seem that if the birth of the universe marks the beginning of time, then whatever happened prior to it that led to the creation of everything we experience would have had to happen outside of time

which in is unintelligible imo

We could speculate about what it is that could be responsible for this

and if for reference sake we call it God, it still does not establish any of the assumptions made in the OP

1) We see no evidence there was intention or purpose when the universe was created

2) Nor is there undeniable evidence of a deity which would render atheism illogical

3) There is also an issue where something which has always existed or created itself is more believable when it's deity rather than the universe itself. What evidence is there for the latter than the former, when both rest on an equally absurd assumption if contrasted to things we have observed?

The bolded should be the end of the conversation. WE don't have the information to say a god exist or not. therefore using science to bolster one's atheism is not rational.

1) WE SEE NO EVIDENCE that there was not an intention behind the universe the universe being hostile to life is no evidence.

2) there is no undeniable evidence that any kind of deity does not exist.

3) the thing is we know that the universe had a starting point so we know the universe has not always existed. however the same cannot be said for a deity because we can not objectively rule out his existence using science.

people can decide to be irrational atheist but many atheist have to much of pride to admit this plus they like to feel superior to theist which is arrogant and foolish because when you get down to it both positions are not rational. AT LEAST THEIST ADMIT to not be objectively rational.

How is it irrational to say something can not be shown to exist when there is no evidence for it in over 2000 years of human history?

If it was true we would expect evidence

and it it was false we would not expect any

So given that there is none which stance is better supported by the evidence, or lack there of?

Assuming the conclusion is a fallacy, so right off the bat theism is illogical

In your example you stress the lack of information

Now this could be another fallacy if the argument is: We don't know, therefore theism

It's an appeal to ignorance

 

[alissowack]

The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.

If someone claims there is a God then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of God's non-existence.

I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of God. Despite not really know if there is a God or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of God to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of God argument is not about religion either.

Most here are arguing against the theist position which most religions hold. Truncating theistic religion doesn't help the God argument. Creating erroneous scenarios that conflict with reality doesn't help either.

I did point out in a previous post that an unfortunate aspect of the argument that it is mostly the religious that hold it. But it doesn't mean that the argument supports religion. If anything, it means the religious are more in favor of the argument for an explanation for God's Existence than the religion they serve. It's like saying that because the cosmological argument is logically sound and true, then we should all worship Thor. The cosmological argument and Thor are two different issues. And you may not like the outcome of the answer, but it doesn't make it erroneous.

My statements apply to the non religious as much as it applies to the religious that fall under the umbrella of theism. Their central claims are the same. It is that claim that I've been contesting this entire time because it is presented without evidence, and it is a grand conclusion based on faith rather then research. The additional drivel that religions present is only icing on the cake to illuminate the propensity to grasp at straws and abridge information to fit ones desires.

Have you even studies the claims of monotheistic religions? Though they stress the existence of a deity, at it's core, they teach something very different from each other. And there is more to the aspect of evidence than what you can see, hear, taste, touch and feel. We can't measure consciousness but we trust that it's there.

Monotheistic religions are the biggest offenders. If we were discussing polytheism, then it probably would be less clear cut because of how they apply their Gods to various occurrences. All monotheistic religions believe in a singular point of contentious goal focused occurrence for the beginning of the universe and they add filler to how it interacts. How do you define consciousness? All of those things that you mentioned helps us to form and craft our consciousness dependent on external relative stimulation. If you had none of those things out the gate, you wouldn't have consciousness. You wouldn't be able to learn and you wouldn't have thoughts. You would die in a year.

When I asked the question, I didn't mean it as way to disprove the attributes. I meant it as a compare and contrast between the monotheistic religions of the world. Christianity is not Judaism or Islam. The role that God serves is fundamentally different from each other.

I'm not saying you can't have consciousness, but you can't measure it. Now...I will say I said this about consciousness I may have done it prematurely for if there is any truth to @whar post, then I'm wrong. But, the point I was hoping to make that there are things unseen to us that we don't question it's existence, but we know it's there.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.

If someone claims there is a God then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of God's non-existence.

I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of God. Despite not really know if there is a God or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of God to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of God argument is not about religion either.

Most here are arguing against the theist position which most religions hold. Truncating theistic religion doesn't help the God argument. Creating erroneous scenarios that conflict with reality doesn't help either.

I did point out in a previous post that an unfortunate aspect of the argument that it is mostly the religious that hold it. But it doesn't mean that the argument supports religion. If anything, it means the religious are more in favor of the argument for an explanation for God's Existence than the religion they serve. It's like saying that because the cosmological argument is logically sound and true, then we should all worship Thor. The cosmological argument and Thor are two different issues. And you may not like the outcome of the answer, but it doesn't make it erroneous.

My statements apply to the non religious as much as it applies to the religious that fall under the umbrella of theism. Their central claims are the same. It is that claim that I've been contesting this entire time because it is presented without evidence, and it is a grand conclusion based on faith rather then research. The additional drivel that religions present is only icing on the cake to illuminate the propensity to grasp at straws and abridge information to fit ones desires.

Have you even studies the claims of monotheistic religions? Though they stress the existence of a deity, at it's core, they teach something very different from each other. And there is more to the aspect of evidence than what you can see, hear, taste, touch and feel. We can't measure consciousness but we trust that it's there.

Monotheistic religions are the biggest offenders. If we were discussing polytheism, then it probably would be less clear cut because of how they apply their Gods to various occurrences. All monotheistic religions believe in a singular point of contentious goal focused occurrence for the beginning of the universe and they add filler to how it interacts. How do you define consciousness? All of those things that you mentioned helps us to form and craft our consciousness dependent on external relative stimulation. If you had none of those things out the gate, you wouldn't have consciousness. You wouldn't be able to learn and you wouldn't have thoughts. You would die in a year.

When I asked the question, I didn't mean it as way to disprove the attributes. I meant it as a compare and contrast between the monotheistic religions of the world. Christianity is not Judaism or Islam. The role that God serves is fundamentally different from each other.

I'm not saying you can't have consciousness, but you can't measure it. Now...I will say I said this about consciousness I may have done it prematurely for if there is any truth to @whar post, then I'm wrong. But, the point I was hoping to make that there are things unseen to us that we don't question it's existence, but we know it's there.

Regardless of how they convey the nature of the being in each monotheistic religion, they all believe in a singular being. I'm saying consciousness couldn't exist without input aided through organelles and that right there is measurement of its limitation. You can also monitor brain activity which orchestrates those organelles. I ask again, how do you define consciousness? People argue over the nature of consciousness everyday B.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

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

It would seem we are not certain on that

We do not have a full theory of quantum gravity

we can trace the universe back 13 billion some odd years but at a certain point we simply have no way of knowing what exactly transpired nor how it was initiated



It would also seem that if the birth of the universe marks the beginning of time, then whatever happened prior to it that led to the creation of everything we experience would have had to happen outside of time

which in is unintelligible imo

We could speculate about what it is that could be responsible for this

and if for reference sake we call it God, it still does not establish any of the assumptions made in the OP

1) We see no evidence there was intention or purpose when the universe was created

2) Nor is there undeniable evidence of a deity which would render atheism illogical

3) There is also an issue where something which has always existed or created itself is more believable when it's deity rather than the universe itself. What evidence is there for the latter than the former, when both rest on an equally absurd assumption if contrasted to things we have observed?

The bolded should be the end of the conversation. WE don't have the information to say a god exist or not. therefore using science to bolster one's atheism is not rational.

1) WE SEE NO EVIDENCE that there was not an intention behind the universe the universe being hostile to life is no evidence.

2) there is no undeniable evidence that any kind of deity does not exist.

3) the thing is we know that the universe had a starting point so we know the universe has not always existed. however the same cannot be said for a deity because we can not objectively rule out his existence using science.

people can decide to be irrational atheist but many atheist have to much of pride to admit this plus they like to feel superior to theist which is arrogant and foolish because when you get down to it both positions are not rational. AT LEAST THEIST ADMIT to not be objectively rational.

How is it irrational to say something can not be shown to exist when there is no evidence for it in over 2000 years of human history?

If it was true we would expect evidence

and it it was false we would not expect any

So given that there is none which stance is better supported by the evidence, or lack there of?

Assuming the conclusion is a fallacy, so right off the bat theism is illogical

In your example you stress the lack of information

Now this could be another fallacy if the argument is: We don't know, therefore theism

It's an appeal to ignorance

Don't get tripped up in their argument. It's not a matter of proving their ultimate claim false. It's a matter of them backing up what they present as accurate. Atheism is an affront to blind faith.

 

[Swiffness!]

And yet we have a wide spread belief that an entire Universe can be put into existence randomly.

Thing is.................

there are an infinite amount of universes.

 

[LUClEN]

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

It would seem we are not certain on that

We do not have a full theory of quantum gravity

we can trace the universe back 13 billion some odd years but at a certain point we simply have no way of knowing what exactly transpired nor how it was initiated



It would also seem that if the birth of the universe marks the beginning of time, then whatever happened prior to it that led to the creation of everything we experience would have had to happen outside of time

which in is unintelligible imo

We could speculate about what it is that could be responsible for this

and if for reference sake we call it God, it still does not establish any of the assumptions made in the OP

1) We see no evidence there was intention or purpose when the universe was created

2) Nor is there undeniable evidence of a deity which would render atheism illogical

3) There is also an issue where something which has always existed or created itself is more believable when it's deity rather than the universe itself. What evidence is there for the latter than the former, when both rest on an equally absurd assumption if contrasted to things we have observed?

The bolded should be the end of the conversation. WE don't have the information to say a god exist or not. therefore using science to bolster one's atheism is not rational.

1) WE SEE NO EVIDENCE that there was not an intention behind the universe the universe being hostile to life is no evidence.

2) there is no undeniable evidence that any kind of deity does not exist.

3) the thing is we know that the universe had a starting point so we know the universe has not always existed. however the same cannot be said for a deity because we can not objectively rule out his existence using science.

people can decide to be irrational atheist but many atheist have to much of pride to admit this plus they like to feel superior to theist which is arrogant and foolish because when you get down to it both positions are not rational. AT LEAST THEIST ADMIT to not be objectively rational.

How is it irrational to say something can not be shown to exist when there is no evidence for it in over 2000 years of human history?

If it was true we would expect evidence

and it it was false we would not expect any

So given that there is none which stance is better supported by the evidence, or lack there of?

Assuming the conclusion is a fallacy, so right off the bat theism is illogical

In your example you stress the lack of information

Now this could be another fallacy if the argument is: We don't know, therefore theism

It's an appeal to ignorance

Don't get tripped up in their argument. It's not a matter of proving their ultimate claim false. It's a matter of them backing up what they present as accurate. Atheism is an affront to blind faith.

I can't prove a conclusion false by rejecting it's premises

That would be the fallacy fallacy

I can show how it is illogical to draw those conclusions based on the supporting arguments though

thereby highlighting the irony of this thread

 

[alissowack]

The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.

If someone claims there is a God then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of God's non-existence.

I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of God. Despite not really know if there is a God or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of God to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of God argument is not about religion either.

Most here are arguing against the theist position which most religions hold. Truncating theistic religion doesn't help the God argument. Creating erroneous scenarios that conflict with reality doesn't help either.

I did point out in a previous post that an unfortunate aspect of the argument that it is mostly the religious that hold it. But it doesn't mean that the argument supports religion. If anything, it means the religious are more in favor of the argument for an explanation for God's Existence than the religion they serve. It's like saying that because the cosmological argument is logically sound and true, then we should all worship Thor. The cosmological argument and Thor are two different issues. And you may not like the outcome of the answer, but it doesn't make it erroneous.

My statements apply to the non religious as much as it applies to the religious that fall under the umbrella of theism. Their central claims are the same. It is that claim that I've been contesting this entire time because it is presented without evidence, and it is a grand conclusion based on faith rather then research. The additional drivel that religions present is only icing on the cake to illuminate the propensity to grasp at straws and abridge information to fit ones desires.

Have you even studies the claims of monotheistic religions? Though they stress the existence of a deity, at it's core, they teach something very different from each other. And there is more to the aspect of evidence than what you can see, hear, taste, touch and feel. We can't measure consciousness but we trust that it's there.

Monotheistic religions are the biggest offenders. If we were discussing polytheism, then it probably would be less clear cut because of how they apply their Gods to various occurrences. All monotheistic religions believe in a singular point of contentious goal focused occurrence for the beginning of the universe and they add filler to how it interacts. How do you define consciousness? All of those things that you mentioned helps us to form and craft our consciousness dependent on external relative stimulation. If you had none of those things out the gate, you wouldn't have consciousness. You wouldn't be able to learn and you wouldn't have thoughts. You would die in a year.

When I asked the question, I didn't mean it as way to disprove the attributes. I meant it as a compare and contrast between the monotheistic religions of the world. Christianity is not Judaism or Islam. The role that God serves is fundamentally different from each other.

I'm not saying you can't have consciousness, but you can't measure it. Now...I will say I said this about consciousness I may have done it prematurely for if there is any truth to @whar post, then I'm wrong. But, the point I was hoping to make that there are things unseen to us that we don't question it's existence, but we know it's there.

Regardless of how they convey the nature of the being in each monotheistic religion, they all believe in a singular being. I'm saying consciousness couldn't exist without input aided through organelles and that right there is measurement of its limitation. You can also monitor brain activity which orchestrates those organelles. I ask again, how do you define consciousness? People argue over the nature of consciousness everyday B.

But there is more to it than that. If it was just that, then every monotheistic religion would agree. Theism doesn't just deal with the singularity. It deals with the will and intent of the deity which if you compare and contrast it the monotheistic religions, you will find that some do not match up. It's like saying a red apple is the same as a green apple. You see that they are apples, but ignore the colors associated with them.

The measuring consciousness thing...@whar already pointed that out that it can be done and I am yet to look into it. But if I have to say one thing...we may be able to measure consciousness, but we can't why there is consciousness in the first place. I was using the argument for consciousness to make a point about not knowing the physical attributes of something, but trusting that it is there. It wasn't to get into deep thought about what conscious is which is what you want me to do. Maybe I should have picked a better example.

 

[Fosheezy]

I've never heard one sound reason as to why it's logical to assume the ultimate source eternal being has to have a creator to exist just because he's the ultimate creator. I seriously don't know how yall brains aint never collapse trying to rationalize the implications behind what that would mean. How do you never end up vomiting in r/l behind such reasoning?

So it's illogical to ponder about the origin of such a creator and apply the very same logic many theists use to argue for said creator's existence?

If that's the case then how logical is it to assume that there is something out there that has an eternal existence, without incontrovertible evidence?

We're considering the idea of the existence of an eternal creator being. And in itself the very idea of eternal doesn't allow for the possibility of origin. We might not have the ability to fathom that, but we do have the ability to understand enough to accept and believe it. So the argument is that it's not possible for an eternal being to have an origin. Therefore it isn't reasonable to assume the Ultimate Creator has a creator. I'm just explaining the way the belief works.

What if I told you that very idea is a myth? I'm not aware of anything in this universe that's truly "eternal."

I don't think there's any such thing as eternal physical matter as all matter has a starting point and eventually fades. So the ultimate creator if exists would have to be a spiritual being. Not something you can see but you can feel and see the effects of. like wind.

So you saying god is blowing its hot breath all around us? Interesting. I didn't know Wind was a being.

it's a metaphor. used to help some understand spiritual aspects of this world.

There's several theories as to what involves the nature of God, but I'd advise staying away from the theories that attempt to describe God as simply an energy or force and not an actual being with unparalleled character.

I don't deal in Metaphors. Come at me with some real data. What evidence do you have for any of those things you mentioned and how are they even considered theories? Are they employing some sort of quantum mechanics as a foundation for a reproducible theoretical simulation?

It's not that difficult man.

Atheists have the same evidence everybody else has - whether it's testimonial, circumstantial, physical, whatever - including all the religious writings, both uninspired and inspired. Atheists draw their conclusions from the available evidence and believers draw theirs. Get an understanding of spiritual things first, or not. Then either believe based on the available evidence or reject it, make your choice.

 

[zombie]

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

It would seem we are not certain on that

We do not have a full theory of quantum gravity

we can trace the universe back 13 billion some odd years but at a certain point we simply have no way of knowing what exactly transpired nor how it was initiated



It would also seem that if the birth of the universe marks the beginning of time, then whatever happened prior to it that led to the creation of everything we experience would have had to happen outside of time

which in is unintelligible imo

We could speculate about what it is that could be responsible for this

and if for reference sake we call it God, it still does not establish any of the assumptions made in the OP

1) We see no evidence there was intention or purpose when the universe was created

2) Nor is there undeniable evidence of a deity which would render atheism illogical

3) There is also an issue where something which has always existed or created itself is more believable when it's deity rather than the universe itself. What evidence is there for the latter than the former, when both rest on an equally absurd assumption if contrasted to things we have observed?

The bolded should be the end of the conversation. WE don't have the information to say a god exist or not. therefore using science to bolster one's atheism is not rational.

1) WE SEE NO EVIDENCE that there was not an intention behind the universe the universe being hostile to life is no evidence.

2) there is no undeniable evidence that any kind of deity does not exist.

3) the thing is we know that the universe had a starting point so we know the universe has not always existed. however the same cannot be said for a deity because we can not objectively rule out his existence using science.

people can decide to be irrational atheist but many atheist have to much of pride to admit this plus they like to feel superior to theist which is arrogant and foolish because when you get down to it both positions are not rational. AT LEAST THEIST ADMIT to not be objectively rational.

How is it irrational to say something can not be shown to exist when there is no evidence for it in over 2000 years of human history?

If it was true we would expect evidence

and it it was false we would not expect any

So given that there is none which stance is better supported by the evidence, or lack there of?

Assuming the conclusion is a fallacy, so right off the bat theism is illogical

In your example you stress the lack of information

Now this could be another fallacy if the argument is: We don't know, therefore theism

It's an appeal to ignorance

Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrational, and god is a logical possibility it is also quite possible that an omnipotent god simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himself. I don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a god would not have to leave any, except our existence i know our simply being ALIVE is not enough for you but really that's all there is and can ever be.

we don't know if god exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a god cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.

there are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited.

 

[LUClEN]

Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrational

Saying it is impossible is, but saying that there is no evidence for it and therefore more preferable views is not

god is a logical possibility

As is Russell's teapot

it is also quite possible that an omnipotent god simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himself

Proof?

If you're going to believe anything that is possible contradictions are inevitable

Atheism is also possible

if your argument is all possibilities are logical then rejecting atheism is illogical

I don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a god would not have to leave any

Why would there be no evidence for something that is true?

That is literally one of the only requirements

except our existence

How is this evidence of God and not a flying spaghetti monster?

we don't know if god exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a god cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.

Theism posits certainty, not possibility

If all possibilities were to be believed in accordance to the evidence in favor of them theists would have to also accept atheism as equally believable, which would contradict their view

there are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited.

No it has not been discredited

We have no working theory of quantum mechanics to do that

 

[zombie]

Not believing in a logical possibility just because you lack information is irrational

Saying it is impossible is, but saying that there is no evidence for it and therefore more preferable views is not

one view being more preferable or not is a matter of opinion

god is a logical possibility

As is Russell's teapot

it is also quite possible that an omnipotent god simply does not want humans to have objective proof of his existence and could be actively trying to hide himself

Proof?

If you're going to believe anything that is possible contradictions are inevitable

Atheism is also possible

if your argument is all possibilities are logical then rejecting atheism is illogical

i am not saying everything is possible only that ruling out things that are logically possible is an irrational position

I don't see why you think we should EXPECT to find evidence a god would not have to leave any

Why would there be no evidence for something that is true?

That is literally one of the only requirements

the problem for your position is that if there is a god and that god is omnipotent and if he chooses not to leave any evidence of his existence then it is impossible for you to find your requirements.

except our existence

How is this evidence of God and not a flying spaghetti monster?

well, we know what spaghetti is and it cannot fly in fact god cannot be anything we totally define him as because anything we can describe has in it's very nature a limit and the god we are speaking of is omnipotent

so he literally cannot be in totality a flying monster of any sort.

we don't know if god exists or not but he might therefore theism is a valid possibility is the argument i am making and saying that it's not is irrational because we don't have the sum total of information needed to say a god cannot exist. The only rational position is agnosticism.

Theism posits certainty, not possibility

If all possibilities were to be believed in accordance to the evidence in favor of them theists would have to also accept atheism as equally believable, which would contradict their view

all possibilities are not to be believed for what they are only the rational ones atheism would only be believable if it were rational but it's not unlike theism which can be rational or irrational.

there are too many problems with the scientific theories that claim the universe popped into existence and the eternal universe theory has been discredited.

No it has not been discredited

We have no working theory of quantum mechanics to do that

science cannot escape an moment of creation because the universe is expanding we know it has a start point all the multiverse theories are basically thought experiments and the universe coming from "nothing" posits that the laws of this physics existed before the universe

 

[dr funky resurrected]

It's called a mirage. Or a hallucination. Especially after being stuck in the desert for days.

Hence the reason people believe in the fairy tale that is "God" it's just a mass hallucination

 

[dr funky resurrected]

i agree w/ t/s

I do not agree w/ t/s

 

[Jabu_Rule]

I've never heard one sound reason as to why it's logical to assume the ultimate source eternal being has to have a creator to exist just because he's the ultimate creator. I seriously don't know how yall brains aint never collapse trying to rationalize the implications behind what that would mean. How do you never end up vomiting in r/l behind such reasoning?

So it's illogical to ponder about the origin of such a creator and apply the very same logic many theists use to argue for said creator's existence?

If that's the case then how logical is it to assume that there is something out there that has an eternal existence, without incontrovertible evidence?

We're considering the idea of the existence of an eternal creator being. And in itself the very idea of eternal doesn't allow for the possibility of origin. We might not have the ability to fathom that, but we do have the ability to understand enough to accept and believe it. So the argument is that it's not possible for an eternal being to have an origin. Therefore it isn't reasonable to assume the Ultimate Creator has a creator. I'm just explaining the way the belief works.

What if I told you that very idea is a myth? I'm not aware of anything in this universe that's truly "eternal."

I don't think there's any such thing as eternal physical matter as all matter has a starting point and eventually fades. So the ultimate creator if exists would have to be a spiritual being. Not something you can see but you can feel and see the effects of. like wind.

So you saying god is blowing its hot breath all around us? Interesting. I didn't know Wind was a being.

it's a metaphor. used to help some understand spiritual aspects of this world.

There's several theories as to what involves the nature of God, but I'd advise staying away from the theories that attempt to describe God as simply an energy or force and not an actual being with unparalleled character.

I don't deal in Metaphors. Come at me with some real data. What evidence do you have for any of those things you mentioned and how are they even considered theories? Are they employing some sort of quantum mechanics as a foundation for a reproducible theoretical simulation?

It's not that difficult man.

Atheists have the same evidence everybody else has - whether it's testimonial, circumstantial, physical, whatever - including all the religious writings, both uninspired and inspired. Atheists draw their conclusions from the available evidence and believers draw theirs. Get an understanding of spiritual things first, or not. Then either believe based on the available evidence or reject it, make your choice.

Actually, scientist have presented actual evidence to their claims (which aren't the claims that they know what started everything) where as theist haven't. It is that serious when the world over has falling for the trick. There is no available evidence and i'm not presenting anything. I'm dismissing what is presented to me because it's a hypothesis with no backing and a grand conclusion based on no evidence.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

The Teapot argument does not make that challenge to religion (I added the additional claims). It is based on the role of evidence in our beliefs. As Trashboat mentioned Hume delved deeply into the subject while Russel's analogy is just a simple way to discuss it.

If someone claims there is a God then they must provide sufficient evidence for a reasonable person to accept it. The atheist is under no burden to provide proof of God's non-existence.

I'm not really saying that the argument is challenging religion. I'm saying that it is arguing against people using logic behind the existence of God. Despite not really know if there is a God or not, I am yet to have someone who doubts the existence of God to at least say that the logic is sound. It like...the existence of God argument is not about religion either.

Most here are arguing against the theist position which most religions hold. Truncating theistic religion doesn't help the God argument. Creating erroneous scenarios that conflict with reality doesn't help either.

I did point out in a previous post that an unfortunate aspect of the argument that it is mostly the religious that hold it. But it doesn't mean that the argument supports religion. If anything, it means the religious are more in favor of the argument for an explanation for God's Existence than the religion they serve. It's like saying that because the cosmological argument is logically sound and true, then we should all worship Thor. The cosmological argument and Thor are two different issues. And you may not like the outcome of the answer, but it doesn't make it erroneous.

My statements apply to the non religious as much as it applies to the religious that fall under the umbrella of theism. Their central claims are the same. It is that claim that I've been contesting this entire time because it is presented without evidence, and it is a grand conclusion based on faith rather then research. The additional drivel that religions present is only icing on the cake to illuminate the propensity to grasp at straws and abridge information to fit ones desires.

Have you even studies the claims of monotheistic religions? Though they stress the existence of a deity, at it's core, they teach something very different from each other. And there is more to the aspect of evidence than what you can see, hear, taste, touch and feel. We can't measure consciousness but we trust that it's there.

Monotheistic religions are the biggest offenders. If we were discussing polytheism, then it probably would be less clear cut because of how they apply their Gods to various occurrences. All monotheistic religions believe in a singular point of contentious goal focused occurrence for the beginning of the universe and they add filler to how it interacts. How do you define consciousness? All of those things that you mentioned helps us to form and craft our consciousness dependent on external relative stimulation. If you had none of those things out the gate, you wouldn't have consciousness. You wouldn't be able to learn and you wouldn't have thoughts. You would die in a year.

When I asked the question, I didn't mean it as way to disprove the attributes. I meant it as a compare and contrast between the monotheistic religions of the world. Christianity is not Judaism or Islam. The role that God serves is fundamentally different from each other.

I'm not saying you can't have consciousness, but you can't measure it. Now...I will say I said this about consciousness I may have done it prematurely for if there is any truth to @whar post, then I'm wrong. But, the point I was hoping to make that there are things unseen to us that we don't question it's existence, but we know it's there.

Regardless of how they convey the nature of the being in each monotheistic religion, they all believe in a singular being. I'm saying consciousness couldn't exist without input aided through organelles and that right there is measurement of its limitation. You can also monitor brain activity which orchestrates those organelles. I ask again, how do you define consciousness? People argue over the nature of consciousness everyday B.

But there is more to it than that. If it was just that, then every monotheistic religion would agree. Theism doesn't just deal with the singularity. It deals with the will and intent of the deity which if you compare and contrast it the monotheistic religions, you will find that some do not match up. It's like saying a red apple is the same as a green apple. You see that they are apples, but ignore the colors associated with them.

The measuring consciousness thing...@whar already pointed that out that it can be done and I am yet to look into it. But if I have to say one thing...we may be able to measure consciousness, but we can't why there is consciousness in the first place. I was using the argument for consciousness to make a point about not knowing the physical attributes of something, but trusting that it is there. It wasn't to get into deep thought about what conscious is which is what you want me to do. Maybe I should have picked a better example.

It's more like saying you have a red and green apple in your bag, but i'm not going to show you. You should just believe that i do. It isn't the defining attributes of the characteristics that is at question, it is the ultimate claim of a central figure with characteristics or non if you so choose. The issue at hand is making claims and not showing your hand. That's cool in a game of poker. You have to define consciousness before you can measure it. It's why we can't identify what we would consider consciousness in other animals because they don't interact with the world like we do even though they communicate in their own language.