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

[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.

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.

Sure they have. It's always been this way. All you have to do is honestly look into the writings of say the Holy Bible to see this is false. On what grounds do you reject the writings of testimony of the well established, proven prophets of God? Proven by their ability to prophesy accurately to the T, and by the miraculous works they did. Just because it's not being done over and over for every non believer doesn't mean the first time wasn't real. The evidence has been brought forth. Now it's Atheist job to show and prove how the evidence is false. Not asking to prove that God doesn't exist (which is impossible for Atheist to do). Just either disprove the authenticity of the writings or prove that these writers' testimony is false. Then you would have a logical basis for a counter-argument.

When you examine it closely, Atheism as system of non-belief-belief is just not logical.

 

[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.

Sure they have. It's always been this way. All you have to do is honestly look into the writings of say the Holy Bible to see this is false. On what grounds do you reject the writings of testimony of the well established, proven prophets of God? Proven by their ability to prophesy accurately to the T, and by the miraculous works they did. Just because it's not being done over and over for every non believer doesn't mean the first time wasn't real. The evidence has been brought forth. Now it's Atheist job to show and prove how the evidence is false. Not asking to prove that God doesn't exist (which is impossible for Atheist to do). Just either disprove the authenticity of the writings or prove that these writers' testimony is false. Then you would have a logical basis for a counter-argument.

When you examine it closely, Atheism as system of non-belief-belief is just not logical.

You said all that to say nothing. Your fabled false pretending prophets have shown no scientific evidence to support their ultimate claim. Everything else has been proven to be fabrications, embellishments and misdirection and even if it wasn't, it still holds no value because it offers nothing more then hearsay and no supporting evidence. And No, delusions of grandeur and flagrant conditioning schemes do not apply. That book of fables is just that. Matter of fact, wise prophets profess on street corners everyday b. You people really do throw around that logic word to flagrantly.

 

[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.

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.

Sure they have. It's always been this way. All you have to do is honestly look into the writings of say the Holy Bible to see this is false. On what grounds do you reject the writings of testimony of the well established, proven prophets of God? Proven by their ability to prophesy accurately to the T, and by the miraculous works they did. Just because it's not being done over and over for every non believer doesn't mean the first time wasn't real. The evidence has been brought forth. Now it's Atheist job to show and prove how the evidence is false. Not asking to prove that God doesn't exist (which is impossible for Atheist to do). Just either disprove the authenticity of the writings or prove that these writers' testimony is false. Then you would have a logical basis for a counter-argument.

When you examine it closely, Atheism as system of non-belief-belief is just not logical.

You said all that to say nothing. Your fabled false pretending prophets have shown no scientific evidence to support their ultimate claim. Everything else has been proven to be fabrications, embellishments and misdirection and even if it wasn't, it still holds no value because it offers nothing more then hearsay and no supporting evidence. And No, delusions of grandeur and flagrant conditioning schemes do not apply. That book of fables is just that. Matter of fact, wise prophets profess on street corners everyday b. You people really do throw around that logic word to flagrantly.

The claim of the prophets was that the message they deliver was from the Creator. This was confirmed at the time they spoke the message, not years later. They don't try to prove God's existence. And neither are the writings an attempt to try and prove God's existence. The writings assume that the reader already believes and knows this.

There is plenty of supporting evidence. It's not hearsay when multiple people who never met each other agree and testify to the same things. Like I said, either disprove the authenticity of the writings or prove that the writers' testimony is false. This hasn't been done. And not only, that. Also, what constructive arguments does Atheism offer regarding this matter?

People on the streets aren't performing miracles. They aren't prophets. That's over for. Prophets no longer exist in this time and age.

Atheism as a non-belief-belief system just fails and isn't logical.

 

[whar]

"Prophets no longer exist in this time and age."

Convenient that. 2000 years ago it was easy to believe in God. His son was walking around. The dead walked the earth. There were prophets around every corner that God was inspiring with his message.

Now none of that.

Forget the fact the Ezekeil predicted Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre. But he never did. (Best he could pull off was a negotiated peace). (26:7-14) Forget the fact Isiah said the Nile would dry up. It never did. (19:1-8) No we must prove the Prophets wrong!

If you make the positive assertion that the prophecy has come true and the bible is inspired by God then you must provide evidence to support that statement. If you can not then you are trying to sell me on a teapot orbiting saturn and I should believe you "just cuz".

 

[zombie]

The concepts have a source

The source is religion

Religion is discredited by our observations and contradicted on a regular basis, often backtracking and accepting scientific truths years upon years later

This damages the credibility of the sources, making it less probable that they are true

Multiverse theories are not unprovable

Planck satellite data shows that the distribution of 13 billion year old microwaves are not uniform, indicating that there is something affecting their dispersion, which could be other universes

As our technology develops more tests will be performed either proving or disproving it

Scientific accounts do not show something is coming from nothing

you are misrepresenting the view

It just leaves us with a question as to how these universes came into being, which will need to be established

You made so many assumptions in your conclusion there

Prove them

How is the creator of the universe male?

How does it have a will?

How does it make material from immaterial?

Unless you have any evidence of them, which you do not, you can't draw those conclusions

it's a begging the question fallacy

those concepts can exist outside of religion you don't need to have a religion to believe that some kind of a god created all of existence. Right now i question if you even know what the meaning of the word religion is. In this thread i am not arguing for the existence of a personal god the kind you would find in a religion only the possibility of there being a omnipotent creator.

There are so many multiverse theories that they contradict themselves much the same way the various religions of the world contradict themselves. Now there is a theory that there is no multiverse http://www.wired.com/2014/08/multiverse/

No matter what technology, no matter if we prove or disprove the multiverse the problem still exits that that something cannot come from nothing all finding out if there is a multiverse will do is push the problem back.

I called god a "he" for ease of discussion because technically speak an omnipotent god would not be a HE,SHE or an IT. A true god by it's nature would have to be omnipotent and you cannot be omnipotent without a will. Being omnipotent means your will is material, my evidence for the possibility of this deity is the same evidence you have for your multiverse.

These accounts of a creator could hypothetically exist outside of religion but in reality they do not



You are doing nothing to prove it is more logical than atheism

If something coming from nothing is a problem then it defeats your own account of the universe's origin

How can you know any of that about the deity?

I lean towards science's accounts because of the fact that

a) our best and brightest back it, and probability wise they are more likely to have it right

b) there is no observation of a deity or intention

c) data we have collected is indicating something unaccountable by a creator

4) complexity can be explained by natural processes and a deity is not necessary to answer such questions, making it a less credible alternative

What evidence do you have for omnipotence? Prove your claims

I never said anything about the accounts of any creator i talked about concepts and their rationality or irrationality apart from any religion. in reality the belief in such concepts are called deism which is the belief that god can exist without there being a need for the divine and that the observation of the universe is all that is need for the possibility of a creator to exist

i said many posts ago the only rational position is a true agnostic one, pay attention. for an omnipotent being his will is not nothing his will is reality. The something coming from nothing is a troubling issue for scientifically backed atheist not theist. and like i told you before i am not trying to prove god exists i am however trying to prove that atheist backed by science is not rational

How can i know anything about a deity??? well for there to be a true deity he/it would have to be omnipotent and from that point certain can be said about it also human consciousness dictates that we believe in the immaterial we are born with the knowledge that the world we see is not all there is that something lurks under it and we want to communicate with it somehow. Even atheist do this and don't even recognize it.http://www.science20.com/writer_on_...s_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982

A) IF you are talking about the multiversal universe theory you are wrong our best and brightest don't back it they simply propose it as a solution one of many solutions.

B) You cannot know that and there does seem to be fine tuning to the universe

C) That makes no sense restate what you mean if you even know

D) That just proves nothing but the same thing can be said about the multiverse we don't need the fantastical unobservable belief in multiple universes to solve the problem of how the universe came into being.

 

[LUClEN]

That's not what deism means.

How do you know know a deity must be omnipotent?

A) I was referring to atheism

B) where are these observations then? Show me the data

C) the explanation of big bang waves is unaccountable by theism

D) multiverse is a theory of a natural phenomena, theism is not.

 

[zombie]

from wikipedia

Deism (i/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a Creator, accompanied with the rejection of religious knowledge as a source of authority

In other words you don't need religion to believe in god is what deism if basically about.

A) SO to you once a position becomes popular you believe in it's truth???

B)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#String_theory

C) MY argument really has little really do with theism there is a huge difference between deism and theism one connotes a certain subjective understanding and the other does not

D) of course not for something to be a natural occurence it would have to be part of a system and governed by certain laws an omnipotent god would not be bound by any system.

 

[LUClEN]

We seem to have conflicting definitions.

You did not answer how you know a deity must be omnipotent

A) No that is a fallacy (appeal to majority). I am saying that it is more probable scientists are right based on history, resources, and the nature of science. Since both atheism and theism cannot be correct, and there is more evidence in favor of the former through discredation of the latter it is more likely to be true.

B) The universe preceded life, hence the universe obviously being hospital to it. Your link does not provide any evidence of a deity, just that the universe which has life in it is suited to have life in it. That is a redundant point. Worse, that link about fine tuning contains refutation to your stance:

Victor Stenger argues that "The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon

C) A deity does not explain our observations either

D) How do you know that an omnipotent god would not be bound by any system?

 

[zombie]

We seem to have conflicting definitions.

You did not answer how you know a deity must be omnipotent

A) No that is a fallacy (appeal to majority). I am saying that it is more probable scientists are right based on history, resources, and the nature of science. Since both atheism and theism cannot be correct, and there is more evidence in favor of the former through discredation of the latter it is more likely to be true.

B) The universe preceded life, hence the universe obviously being hospital to it. Your link does not provide any evidence of a deity, just that the universe which has life in it is suited to have life in it. That is a redundant point. Worse, that link about fine tuning contains refutation to your stance:

Victor Stenger argues that "The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon

C) A deity does not explain our observations either

D) How do you know that an omnipotent god would not be bound by any system?

clearly you have a reading comprehensions issue the meanings of deism that you gave are the same as i gave.

a deity would have to be omnipotent because if it were not it would have to be a creation of some sort thus it could not be omnipotent.

A) You just agreed with me SAYING THAT SOME THING IS MORE PROBABLE JUST BECAUSE OTHER HAVE DECIDED THAT IS based on their studies is exactly what i accused you of.

B) In this letter YOU did not ask me for evidence of a deity you asked me for evidence of the fine tuning of the universe the links i gave you show that there is evidence for this fine tuning and for the 4th time let me say that i am not attempting to prove god that is not what the thread is about in the first place, pay attention. I GAVE YOU a wikipedia link they always give both positions on a contested issue.

but being intellectually dishonest you plucked what you wanted from the link and ignored the rest in fact i doubt you looked at the whole thing

C) this makes no sense

D) To be omnipotent you cannot be bound by anything.

 

[zombie]

I have no intentions of trying to prove god i have however proven that atheism is not a rational position nor is theism the difference is that theist admit it because irrationality is usually built into most religions. Atheist live by there own fallacies but don't admit it

 

[LUClEN]

We seem to have conflicting definitions.

You did not answer how you know a deity must be omnipotent

A) No that is a fallacy (appeal to majority). I am saying that it is more probable scientists are right based on history, resources, and the nature of science. Since both atheism and theism cannot be correct, and there is more evidence in favor of the former through discredation of the latter it is more likely to be true.

B) The universe preceded life, hence the universe obviously being hospital to it. Your link does not provide any evidence of a deity, just that the universe which has life in it is suited to have life in it. That is a redundant point. Worse, that link about fine tuning contains refutation to your stance:

Victor Stenger argues that "The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon

C) A deity does not explain our observations either

D) How do you know that an omnipotent god would not be bound by any system?

clearly you have a reading comprehensions issue the meanings of deism that you gave are the same as i gave.

a deity would have to be omnipotent because if it were not it would have to be a creation of some sort thus it could not be omnipotent.

A) You just agreed with me SAYING THAT SOME THING IS MORE PROBABLE JUST BECAUSE OTHER HAVE DECIDED THAT IS based on their studies is exactly what i accused you of.

B) In this letter YOU did not ask me for evidence of a deity you asked me for evidence of the fine tuning of the universe the links i gave you show that there is evidence for this fine tuning and for the 4th time let me say that i am not attempting to prove god that is not what the thread is about in the first place, pay attention. I GAVE YOU a wikipedia link they always give both positions on a contested issue.

but being intellectually dishonest you plucked what you wanted from the link and ignored the rest in fact i doubt you looked at the whole thing

C) this makes no sense

D) To be omnipotent you cannot be bound by anything.

Your definition = the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a Creator, accompanied with the rejection of religious knowledge as a source of authority

Those images show that the definition means that deism holds a creator as separate from the universe, and uninvolved in it.

A) I never appealed to a majority. I said our scientists back it, and explained in detail why it is more likely they are correct over theists.

B) You are deflecting a burden of proof. All you established is that life has certain requirements. This is a meaningless, redundant observation as life is conditional, and since life exists the conditions are obviously met. Provide some evidence for your claims though. You are making claims and not establishing the validity of them

The fine tuning of the universe is not connected to a deity by many of those quoted in that wiki entry. In order for this at all to be an argument proving theism credible it is necessary for the link between that article and the validity of theism to be established.

C) We have tons of data and observations of things unaccountable by a deity: dark matter, black holes, inexplicable radiation patterns, and more. Your argument requires theism, because atheism is the rejection of it, so if you are not going to establish its credibility you have nothing to refute atheism

D) And how do you know that this applies to a creator of the universe?

In order for atheism to be irrational theism needs to have some credibility. Refusing to show why it is credible is basically admitting defeat. An acknowledgment that it has no credible support and is therefore less likely to be true than Atheism. Since atheism is more likely to be true and both cannot be true theism can be rejected.

 

[zombie]

We seem to have conflicting definitions.

You did not answer how you know a deity must be omnipotent

A) No that is a fallacy (appeal to majority). I am saying that it is more probable scientists are right based on history, resources, and the nature of science. Since both atheism and theism cannot be correct, and there is more evidence in favor of the former through discredation of the latter it is more likely to be true.

B) The universe preceded life, hence the universe obviously being hospital to it. Your link does not provide any evidence of a deity, just that the universe which has life in it is suited to have life in it. That is a redundant point. Worse, that link about fine tuning contains refutation to your stance:

Victor Stenger argues that "The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon

C) A deity does not explain our observations either

D) How do you know that an omnipotent god would not be bound by any system?

clearly you have a reading comprehensions issue the meanings of deism that you gave are the same as i gave.

a deity would have to be omnipotent because if it were not it would have to be a creation of some sort thus it could not be omnipotent.

A) You just agreed with me SAYING THAT SOME THING IS MORE PROBABLE JUST BECAUSE OTHER HAVE DECIDED THAT IS based on their studies is exactly what i accused you of.

B) In this letter YOU did not ask me for evidence of a deity you asked me for evidence of the fine tuning of the universe the links i gave you show that there is evidence for this fine tuning and for the 4th time let me say that i am not attempting to prove god that is not what the thread is about in the first place, pay attention. I GAVE YOU a wikipedia link they always give both positions on a contested issue.

but being intellectually dishonest you plucked what you wanted from the link and ignored the rest in fact i doubt you looked at the whole thing

C) this makes no sense

D) To be omnipotent you cannot be bound by anything.

Your definition = the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a Creator, accompanied with the rejection of religious knowledge as a source of authority

Those images show that the definition means that deism holds a creator as separate from the universe, and uninvolved in it.

A) I never appealed to a majority. I said our scientists back it, and explained in detail why it is more likely they are correct over theists.

B) You are deflecting a burden of proof. All you established is that life has certain requirements. This is a meaningless, redundant observation as life is conditional, and since life exists the conditions are obviously met. Provide some evidence for your claims though. You are making claims and not establishing the validity of them

The fine tuning of the universe is not connected to a deity by many of those quoted in that wiki entry. In order for this at all to be an argument proving theism credible it is necessary for the link between that article and the validity of theism to be established.

C) We have tons of data and observations of things unaccountable by a deity: dark matter, black holes, inexplicable radiation patterns, and more. Your argument requires theism, because atheism is the rejection of it, so if you are not going to establish its credibility you have nothing to refute atheism

D) And how do you know that this applies to a creator of the universe?

In order for atheism to be irrational theism needs to have some credibility. Refusing to show why it is credible is basically admitting defeat. An acknowledgment that it has no credible support and is therefore less likely to be true than Atheism. Since atheism is more likely to be true and both cannot be true theism can be rejected.

I got my meaning of deism from one of the same sources that you used mine was just more deep but anyway here is a much better definition "Deism is a free-thought philosophy that sees an order and architecture to the universe that indicates a Creator. However, deism makes no positive assertions about the nature of that Creator except what can be determined by reason and observation of the universe. This enigmatic Creator is sometimes referred to as "Nature's God"." - John Armstrong

A) the scientist make up the majority we are taking about.

B) The burden of proof is not one me because I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE GOD I AM ONLY PROVING THAT ATHEISM IS NOT RATIONAL. You want to have a different discussion clearly because you are not focused on the topic at all.

C) i am not talking about theism if anything i am talking about deism, this is the bullshit i am talking about we actually don't have any proof for any of those things there are huge flaws with scientifically backed atheism. To begin with

Science is the study of the physical and natural world. Science operates on three basic assumptions: (1) reality is objective and consistent; (2) human beings have the capacity to perceive reality accurately; and, (3) rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. [2]

SCIENCE itself has shown that

Point 1) is not absolute. Consider the uncertainty found in Quantum physics Furthermore, the human mind itself is far from objective and consistent, yet the mind is part of the natural world. If even one part of our reality does not meet this first assumption, then we are required to admit there are limits to a solely scientific explanation of the universe.

Point (2) Humanity's capacity to fully perceive reality is highly doubtful. First, we are part of the universe and our vantage point is necessarily limited. It is like explaining water to a fish that has lived its entire life in the depths of the ocean. We don't know anything else. Additionally, our senses are rather limited, even when compared to other animal species.

Point (3) states there are rational explanations for elements of the real world and that certainly seems accurate, but as we have seen above there are no absolutes.

Because science is based on assumptions that are only partially valid and because science is limited to study of the natural world alone, it is inappropriate to use science as a reason for asserting there is no evidence for a Creator.

D) ONLY A CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE COULD BE OMNIPOTENT.

The last thing you wrote is simply not true because both positions are not rational none of there positions are more likely to be objectively true than the other. You are asking me to show proof that the irrational (theism) is rational all the while you hold onto your own irrational ( atheism) belief.

 

[LUClEN]

We seem to have conflicting definitions.

You did not answer how you know a deity must be omnipotent

A) No that is a fallacy (appeal to majority). I am saying that it is more probable scientists are right based on history, resources, and the nature of science. Since both atheism and theism cannot be correct, and there is more evidence in favor of the former through discredation of the latter it is more likely to be true.

B) The universe preceded life, hence the universe obviously being hospital to it. Your link does not provide any evidence of a deity, just that the universe which has life in it is suited to have life in it. That is a redundant point. Worse, that link about fine tuning contains refutation to your stance:

Victor Stenger argues that "The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon

C) A deity does not explain our observations either

D) How do you know that an omnipotent god would not be bound by any system?

clearly you have a reading comprehensions issue the meanings of deism that you gave are the same as i gave.

a deity would have to be omnipotent because if it were not it would have to be a creation of some sort thus it could not be omnipotent.

A) You just agreed with me SAYING THAT SOME THING IS MORE PROBABLE JUST BECAUSE OTHER HAVE DECIDED THAT IS based on their studies is exactly what i accused you of.

B) In this letter YOU did not ask me for evidence of a deity you asked me for evidence of the fine tuning of the universe the links i gave you show that there is evidence for this fine tuning and for the 4th time let me say that i am not attempting to prove god that is not what the thread is about in the first place, pay attention. I GAVE YOU a wikipedia link they always give both positions on a contested issue.

but being intellectually dishonest you plucked what you wanted from the link and ignored the rest in fact i doubt you looked at the whole thing

C) this makes no sense

D) To be omnipotent you cannot be bound by anything.

Your definition = the belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a Creator, accompanied with the rejection of religious knowledge as a source of authority

Those images show that the definition means that deism holds a creator as separate from the universe, and uninvolved in it.

A) I never appealed to a majority. I said our scientists back it, and explained in detail why it is more likely they are correct over theists.

B) You are deflecting a burden of proof. All you established is that life has certain requirements. This is a meaningless, redundant observation as life is conditional, and since life exists the conditions are obviously met. Provide some evidence for your claims though. You are making claims and not establishing the validity of them

The fine tuning of the universe is not connected to a deity by many of those quoted in that wiki entry. In order for this at all to be an argument proving theism credible it is necessary for the link between that article and the validity of theism to be established.

C) We have tons of data and observations of things unaccountable by a deity: dark matter, black holes, inexplicable radiation patterns, and more. Your argument requires theism, because atheism is the rejection of it, so if you are not going to establish its credibility you have nothing to refute atheism

D) And how do you know that this applies to a creator of the universe?

In order for atheism to be irrational theism needs to have some credibility. Refusing to show why it is credible is basically admitting defeat. An acknowledgment that it has no credible support and is therefore less likely to be true than Atheism. Since atheism is more likely to be true and both cannot be true theism can be rejected.

I got my meaning of deism from one of the same sources that you used mine was just more deep but anyway here is a much better definition "Deism is a free-thought philosophy that sees an order and architecture to the universe that indicates a Creator. However, deism makes no positive assertions about the nature of that Creator except what can be determined by reason and observation of the universe. This enigmatic Creator is sometimes referred to as "Nature's God"." - John Armstrong

A) the scientist make up the majority we are taking about.

B) The burden of proof is not one me because I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE GOD I AM ONLY PROVING THAT ATHEISM IS NOT RATIONAL. You want to have a different discussion clearly because you are not focused on the topic at all.

C) i am not talking about theism if anything i am talking about deism, this is the bullshit i am talking about we actually don't have any proof for any of those things there are huge flaws with scientifically backed atheism. To begin with

Science is the study of the physical and natural world. Science operates on three basic assumptions: (1) reality is objective and consistent; (2) human beings have the capacity to perceive reality accurately; and, (3) rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. [2]

SCIENCE itself has shown that

Point 1) is not absolute. Consider the uncertainty found in Quantum physics Furthermore, the human mind itself is far from objective and consistent, yet the mind is part of the natural world. If even one part of our reality does not meet this first assumption, then we are required to admit there are limits to a solely scientific explanation of the universe.

Point (2) Humanity's capacity to fully perceive reality is highly doubtful. First, we are part of the universe and our vantage point is necessarily limited. It is like explaining water to a fish that has lived its entire life in the depths of the ocean. We don't know anything else. Additionally, our senses are rather limited, even when compared to other animal species.

Point (3) states there are rational explanations for elements of the real world and that certainly seems accurate, but as we have seen above there are no absolutes.

Because science is based on assumptions that are only partially valid and because science is limited to study of the natural world alone, it is inappropriate to use science as a reason for asserting there is no evidence for a Creator.

D) ONLY A CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE COULD BE OMNIPOTENT.

The last thing you wrote is simply not true because both positions are not rational none of there positions are more likely to be objectively true than the other. You are asking me to show proof that the irrational (theism) is rational all the while you hold onto your own irrational ( atheism) belief.

A) They are, and at present our academics are the most capable of uncovering truth and leading fruitful investigations. This makes them the most likely candidates of uncovering the truth.

B) If you can not prove theism to be credible the rejection of it is not logical, hence my attempts to see something substantial.

C) Discrediting our ability to know the natural universe detracts from the credibility of all knowledge, including that of a creator. This does nothing to strengthen one view over the other, it weakens them both.

D) How do you know this? What confirms that only a creator of the universe can be omnipotent?

Atheism is the rejection of theism

If you can't prove the assertion credible, or more probable than atheism there is no reason to adhere to it.

Particularly when simple modus tollens logic can show the belief is incredible.

 

[alissowack]

"Prophets no longer exist in this time and age."

Convenient that. 2000 years ago it was easy to believe in God. His son was walking around. The dead walked the earth. There were prophets around every corner that God was inspiring with his message.

Believing in God was not as easy as you might think in respect to Christianity. If the people of the time truly accepted that Jesus was the Son of God, his own people wouldn't have crucified him. Jesus supposedly did a lot of miraculous things to at least have people consider it. But, the "magic" was not enough.

 

[zombie]

@Trashboat

A) those academics you are putting your faith in have come to no concensus about the truth they have only created many "truths".

B) NEITHER theism or atheism are objective or rational. You clearly have not been paying attention i have been saying over and over that i have no intention to in this discussion to elevate theism over atheism only to prove that atheism is irrational

C) i AM NOT TRYING to discredit our ability to know the universe i am discrediting any certain and objective conclusions we make about what we think we know. the statement "there is no god" is not backed up by science and when atheist try to use science to push their thought system it does a disservice to society.

all we can know for sure is that we exists and that the universe appears to as well AND IF it does then that means certain things have to be, either the universe was created by some thing or it's all an accident/eternal. Which one is more likely is a matter or opinion sure we can discredit certain theories and theist systems but theism itself as a concept we cannot because god can only be pushed back further and further while maintaining his omnipotence.

D) Logic. only a creator of the universe can be omnipotent because everything else would be a creation if you are created you cannot be omnipotent because you would lack the ability to escape your creation in other words you would be in the timeline. Do you understand what the word omnipotent means??

You cannot prove atheism credible nor can i prove theism credible but doing so was never my intention all i did was prove atheism to be irrational therefore there is also no need to adhere to it, That's it end of story.

 

[Jabu_Rule]

"Prophets no longer exist in this time and age."

Convenient that. 2000 years ago it was easy to believe in God. His son was walking around. The dead walked the earth. There were prophets around every corner that God was inspiring with his message.

Believing in God was not as easy as you might think in respect to Christianity. If the people of the time truly accepted that Jesus was the Son of God, his own people wouldn't have crucified him. Jesus supposedly did a lot of miraculous things to at least have people consider it. But, the "magic" was not enough.

That had nothing to do with believing in God and had everything to do with not believing a false prophet unless it was convenient. The people who crucified Jesus (if it even occurred) believed in their own deities and miracles. So did the people Jesus was a part of before going off message. There has been a few Jews that claimed to be the Messiah throughout the history of Judaism.

 

[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.

Sure they have. It's always been this way. All you have to do is honestly look into the writings of say the Holy Bible to see this is false. On what grounds do you reject the writings of testimony of the well established, proven prophets of God? Proven by their ability to prophesy accurately to the T, and by the miraculous works they did. Just because it's not being done over and over for every non believer doesn't mean the first time wasn't real. The evidence has been brought forth. Now it's Atheist job to show and prove how the evidence is false. Not asking to prove that God doesn't exist (which is impossible for Atheist to do). Just either disprove the authenticity of the writings or prove that these writers' testimony is false. Then you would have a logical basis for a counter-argument.

When you examine it closely, Atheism as system of non-belief-belief is just not logical.

You said all that to say nothing. Your fabled false pretending prophets have shown no scientific evidence to support their ultimate claim. Everything else has been proven to be fabrications, embellishments and misdirection and even if it wasn't, it still holds no value because it offers nothing more then hearsay and no supporting evidence. And No, delusions of grandeur and flagrant conditioning schemes do not apply. That book of fables is just that. Matter of fact, wise prophets profess on street corners everyday b. You people really do throw around that logic word to flagrantly.

The claim of the prophets was that the message they deliver was from the Creator. This was confirmed at the time they spoke the message, not years later. They don't try to prove God's existence. And neither are the writings an attempt to try and prove God's existence. The writings assume that the reader already believes and knows this.

There is plenty of supporting evidence. It's not hearsay when multiple people who never met each other agree and testify to the same things. Like I said, either disprove the authenticity of the writings or prove that the writers' testimony is false. This hasn't been done. And not only, that. Also, what constructive arguments does Atheism offer regarding this matter?

People on the streets aren't performing miracles. They aren't prophets. That's over for. Prophets no longer exist in this time and age.

Atheism as a non-belief-belief system just fails and isn't logical.

Ignorance is bliss.

 

[LUClEN]

@Trashboat

A) those academics you are putting your faith in have come to no concensus about the truth they have only created many "truths".

B) NEITHER theism or atheism are objective or rational. You clearly have not been paying attention i have been saying over and over that i have no intention to in this discussion to elevate theism over atheism only to prove that atheism is irrational

C) i AM NOT TRYING to discredit our ability to know the universe i am discrediting any certain and objective conclusions we make about what we think we know. the statement "there is no god" is not backed up by science and when atheist try to use science to push their thought system it does a disservice to society.

all we can know for sure is that we exists and that the universe appears to as well AND IF it does then that means certain things have to be, either the universe was created by some thing or it's all an accident/eternal. Which one is more likely is a matter or opinion sure we can discredit certain theories and theist systems but theism itself as a concept we cannot because god can only be pushed back further and further while maintaining his omnipotence.

D) Logic. only a creator of the universe can be omnipotent because everything else would be a creation if you are created you cannot be omnipotent because you would lack the ability to escape your creation in other words you would be in the timeline. Do you understand what the word omnipotent means??

You cannot prove atheism credible nor can i prove theism credible but doing so was never my intention all i did was prove atheism to be irrational therefore there is also no need to adhere to it, That's it end of story.

A) They have reached consensus for many things. The origins of the universe is still unsolved but there is no evidence indicating a deity is responsible. The absence of evidence is the evidence of absence in many cases. This is necessary to reject unsubstantiated, unprovable and nonsensical theories, like Freudianism.

B) Provide something substantial to support theism over atheism. The absence of evidence indicates nonexistence.

C) "god can only be pushed back further and further while maintaining his omnipotence"... How do you know this?

D) I do, but you seem to be pulling definitions out of nowhere. What observations support your conclusion about omnipotence?

As long as the absence of evidence where we would expect to find some is the evidence of absence atheism is not illogical.

 

[zombie]

@Trashboat

A) those academics you are putting your faith in have come to no concensus about the truth they have only created many "truths".

B) NEITHER theism or atheism are objective or rational. You clearly have not been paying attention i have been saying over and over that i have no intention to in this discussion to elevate theism over atheism only to prove that atheism is irrational

C) i AM NOT TRYING to discredit our ability to know the universe i am discrediting any certain and objective conclusions we make about what we think we know. the statement "there is no god" is not backed up by science and when atheist try to use science to push their thought system it does a disservice to society.

all we can know for sure is that we exists and that the universe appears to as well AND IF it does then that means certain things have to be, either the universe was created by some thing or it's all an accident/eternal. Which one is more likely is a matter or opinion sure we can discredit certain theories and theist systems but theism itself as a concept we cannot because god can only be pushed back further and further while maintaining his omnipotence.

D) Logic. only a creator of the universe can be omnipotent because everything else would be a creation if you are created you cannot be omnipotent because you would lack the ability to escape your creation in other words you would be in the timeline. Do you understand what the word omnipotent means??

You cannot prove atheism credible nor can i prove theism credible but doing so was never my intention all i did was prove atheism to be irrational therefore there is also no need to adhere to it, That's it end of story.

A) They have reached consensus for many things. The origins of the universe is still unsolved but there is no evidence indicating a deity is responsible. The absence of evidence is the evidence of absence in many cases. This is necessary to reject unsubstantiated, unprovable and nonsensical theories, like Freudianism.

B) Provide something substantial to support theism over atheism. The absence of evidence indicates nonexistence.

C) "god can only be pushed back further and further while maintaining his omnipotence"... How do you know this?

D) I do, but you seem to be pulling definitions out of nowhere. What observations support your conclusion about omnipotence?

As long as the absence of evidence where we would expect to find some is the evidence of absence atheism is not illogical.

A) The point is they are far from consensus on the origins of reality for the purpose of my intentions of this thread THAT is enough

B) i DON'T Have to do that,DOING SO IS not my purpose in this thread. All i need to do is show the irrationality of atheism because even if there is no god that does not make scientifically backed atheism rational for the reasons i listed.

C) BECAUSE UNLESS SCIENCE CAN COME TO A CONSENSUS on how something can come from nothing the possibility that a god cause it somehow will remain. If you say the universe was made by the big bang, well OK what was before THE BIG BANG. IF you say the universe was created when two universes collided AS some quantum theories state where did they come from??? if you say in was a quantum flucuuation created where did it come from and what caused it??? in any situation all you have to say is that some kind of god caused it and that possibility is enough.

D) the meaning of the fucking word when put into practice implies certain things logically

atheism by itself with out a reliance of science is not irrational but relying on science to prove god does not exist is not rational because science does not disprove god. You are taking what is know as a hard atheist position and no disrespect but not even the most famous atheist like dawkins are dumb enough to take that position.

You seem to want to goad me into a atheism vs theism debate but even if you win such a debate it will won't make the atheism you described rational

 

[LUClEN]

A) Enough to what, prove Atheism wrong? In order for Atheism to be illogical there should be some reason for theism to be credible, and you have given none. You have not resolved the problem of there being no evidence where we should expect to find some. Your defensive tactic is trying to make me prove a negative, which can be done only by showing a contradiction or not finding any evidence in favor of it. The latter has been satisfied. If theistic accounts are taken into consideration the former is too.

B) You do. If it is illogical to believe a God does not exist, then you need to show why it is logical to believe one exists. You refuse to do so, so atheism is not illogical, as the ideology it rejects has not be proven to be true.

C) Whatever preceded the big bang precedes time, as the universe is a necessary requirement for time. Thus your use of terms involving time (before/after, when, etc) are misplaced and inapplicable. "In any situation all you have to say is that some kind of god caused it and that possibility is enough".... so then support this with something. Possibility is refuted by the absence of evidence.

D) There is nothing omnipotent that can be observed, though. So there is nothing to validate the concept. Concluding anything about omnipotence is begging the question.

Science, as a body of knowledge based on observation, refutes the existence of a God with the absence of evidence produced where we would expect to find some.

You contradicted yourself

atheism by itself with out a reliance of science is not irrational but relying on science to prove god does not exist is not rational because science does not disprove god.

Good so that means atheism is not logical.