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

[LUClEN]

If you accept the existence of weak atheism all your post make no sense Zombie.



" It is obvious that strong atheism cannot be logically supported, simply because it is impossible to prove strong atheists usually attempt to shift the burden onto theist by essentially asking the theists to prove the atheist position wrong"

Both the Theist and the Deist have yet to make a convincing case for the existence of a deity. An unsupported claim can be dismissed without support.

I do not see how your argument that atheism in any form can be irrational. The best you come to is strong atheism is currently mistaken in reaching its conclusion that sufficient evidence exists to exclude the existence of God. This argument would be wrong not irrational.

Believing in anything omnipotent is irrational as belief in a being without boundaries to its power leads to irrational conclusions. Basically a belief that a being exists that can do the impossible. Therefore the impossible is possible which is irrational just base on the language.

WHY would you say that????? i have maintained that both strong atheism and theism are not rational, my argument is against strong atheism and strong atheist misuse of science. i don't agree with the underlined because on what evidence are you dismissing the claim??? lack of evidence is not enough to make an absolute claim like strong atheism does. if any statement is logically consistent then that logic itself is enough credibility for the statement to be real that is not a conformation that the statement is real only that it could be real and this possibility no matter how small is enough.

Strong atheism is irrational because it asserts an illogical absolute without proof, in fairness theism does the same thing. In this thread i had no interest in making a case for a deity all i concerned myself with was the clear irrationality of strong atheism.

there is no such thing as the logically impossible to an omnipotent being.

That epistemological critique of strong atheism is applicable to most anything if we really consider the source and nature of knowledge. There are few things, if any, about which we can be absolutely certain. Claiming to know a god does not exist without any shadow of a doubt is no less rational than saying we know we exist, or that the sun will rise tomorrow. We have strong evidence for these beliefs but nothing guarantees their correctness.

This uncertainty is so prevalent in even the most basic forms of human understanding that we can even say you can not be absolutely certain that strong atheism is irrational, because you would need to be absolutely certain that we do not have enough evidence to determine whether or not a deity exists.

 

[whar]

Strong atheism does not assert certainty about God.

Weak atheism = insufficient evidence exists to believe there is a God therefore I do not believe there is a God

Strong atheism = sufficient evidence exists to preclude the existence of a god therefore I do not believe there is a God.

I am a 'strong atheist' regarding a personal God. I am 'weak atheist' regarding a Deistic God. (A god that created the universe and then does nothing else.)

I could be wrong on both positions.

As for the dismissing of claim we come back to Russel's Teapot. If I assert a Teapot orbits Saturn you are right to dismiss my claim without offering any evidence. If I simply demand you believe me I am being unreasonable. I must first provide some information that my claim is valid. If I state that voices from beyond told me of this teapot or I found a really old book that says there is such a teapot I have not produce reasonable evidence. If I show you a picture of a teapot taken from a probe orbiting Saturn then I have begun to establish my position.

In the case of Strong Atheism I could make the argument that quantum mechanics provide evidence that a god does not exist. I could use the failure argument of religion and god as explanatory device through out history. I could use M-theory and brane big bang theory to support a conclusion of god being a figment of our imagination. Non of these arguments are irrational. The best you can argue is they are unconvincing.

By the same token the Deist is not irrational. His argument is simply unconvincing to me.

 

[LUClEN]

Strong atheism does not assert certainty about God.

Weak atheism = insufficient evidence exists to believe there is a God therefore I do not believe there is a God

Strong atheism = sufficient evidence exists to preclude the existence of a god therefore I do not believe there is a God.

I am a 'strong atheist' regarding a personal God. I am 'weak atheist' regarding a Deistic God. (A god that created the universe and then does nothing else.)

I could be wrong on both positions.

As for the dismissing of claim we come back to Russel's Teapot. If I assert a Teapot orbits Saturn you are right to dismiss my claim without offering any evidence. If I simply demand you believe me I am being unreasonable. I must first provide some information that my claim is valid. If I state that voices from beyond told me of this teapot or I found a really old book that says there is such a teapot I have not produce reasonable evidence. If I show you a picture of a teapot taken from a probe orbiting Saturn then I have begun to establish my position.

In the case of Strong Atheism I could make the argument that quantum mechanics provide evidence that a god does not exist. I could use the failure argument of religion and god as explanatory device through out history. I could use M-theory and brane big bang theory to support a conclusion of god being a figment of our imagination. Non of these arguments are irrational. The best you can argue is they are unconvincing.

By the same token the Deist is not irrational. His argument is simply unconvincing to me.

Thing is if the concept of a deity is separated from a religion none of these contradictions we'd find applicable to them are relevant to a religionless deity

 

[zombie]

A) If you are talking about strong atheism then specify. Using atheism as a general term does not indicate to what exactly you are referring.

The absence of evidence gives us an answer, and it is not in favor of theism.

B) "strong atheism is not logical because if there is 1 half of one percent chance that god exists then strong atheism is discredited" How is this probability calculated then? You would seem to have no means of showing that there is any percent chance of God existing.

D) Your third option does not affect the reality of the situation: either a deity exists or it does not. There are only two options in this scenario - a lack of knowledge of it does not affect what is actually the case.

1) The uncertainty principle does not refute objectivity, it is more related to your second point in our inability to accurately track subatomic particles.

2) You're right on our ability to observe the world being dubious in its efficacy, but there is no evidence of anything we can not observe with the aid of instruments is there? We know that other animals have better senses than us because we have instruments which can function better than these animal's senses. You could say that there is no proof we can detect everything, but that seems to be an appeal to ignorance.

3) The irrationality of some explanations of the world seems to come from gaps in our knowledge. What is irrational about things we know and understand very well? I can think of nothing as once a system or theory is fully developed, tested and verified there is nothing irrational about it.

Science does not seem capable yet. Science, combined with personal experience, logic, history and more is capable of shedding light on the existence of a creator, the validity of religion (the source for belief in a deity), and the origins of the universe. You say probability is unimportant but I disagree: "a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence".

A deity appears to violate our laws of nature as we observe and understand them. Since we have mountains of evidence in favor of our laws of nature, and little in support of a deity, in Humean fashion it is clear which idea is more likely and which should be rejected.

A) IF you were paying attention you would know that i am talking about strong atheism because it's evident in my argument.

B) see what i said to @whar about logic in my last post. once something is logically possible that is enough so that you cannot rule out it's existence without evidence so any absolute statements about it's non existence is irrational.

C) I reject you preposterous notions that there can only be two positions, even in atheism there is more than one position. All answers to every question are yes,no, maybe or i don't know. The absence of evidence give you nothing you cannot make an absolute.

1) I SAID THAT REALITY IS NOT OBJECTIVE AND CONSISTENT the uncertainity principle is an example of this inconsistentecy.

2) there are numerous things that we cannot observe and even if we could observe them by the use of tools there is no way to be sure these tools are accurate plus like you admitted the reality of what we do observe is dubious.

3) the problem is that the science behind the theories that support strong atheism cannot be tested because we don't understand this science very well at all. But one thing is for sure the universe had a start.



science combined with personal experience is not science. Are you sure you want to appeal to history?? because for most of history man believed in god. so what has more validity thousands of generations of man or a few scientist that have come to no absolute conclusion on how something can come for nothing??? and by the way religion does not have to be the source of a belief in a god so don't lie we already went through this with deism.

we don't have mountains of credible evidence for our laws of nature we are just starting to think we understand these laws at the level we would need to in comprehending the origins of the universe. That is why any absolute statement is irrational, one possibility being more likely than another possibility is not enough to make rational absolute statements.

 

[zombie]

Strong atheism does not assert certainty about God.

Weak atheism = insufficient evidence exists to believe there is a God therefore I do not believe there is a God

Strong atheism = sufficient evidence exists to preclude the existence of a god therefore I do not believe there is a God.

I am a 'strong atheist' regarding a personal God. I am 'weak atheist' regarding a Deistic God. (A god that created the universe and then does nothing else.)



I could be wrong on both positions.

As for the dismissing of claim we come back to Russel's Teapot. If I assert a Teapot orbits Saturn you are right to dismiss my claim without offering any evidence. If I simply demand you believe me I am being unreasonable. I must first provide some information that my claim is valid. If I state that voices from beyond told me of this teapot or I found a really old book that says there is such a teapot I have not produce reasonable evidence. If I show you a picture of a teapot taken from a probe orbiting Saturn then I have begun to establish my position.

In the case of Strong Atheism I could make the argument that quantum mechanics provide evidence that a god does not exist. I could use the failure argument of religion and god as explanatory device through out history. I could use M-theory and brane big bang theory to support a conclusion of god being a figment of our imagination. Non of these arguments are irrational. The best you can argue is they are unconvincing.

By the same token the Deist is not irrational. His argument is simply unconvincing to me.

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

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

 

[LUClEN]

A) If you can prove the tea pot does not exist then why exactly can't the deity be disproved? By the same sort of lacking evidence, inherent absurdity of the claims, and contradictory observation it seems we can make arguments refuting both that are equally compelling, therefore making it rational to reject a deity with at least the same certainty with which we would reject Russell's teapot

B) Technically it is not necessary that it is logically possible, or at least you have yet to establish that. Just because we do not know of anything that undeniably refutes the possibility of a deity does not mean that it is logically possible for one to exist. If we do not know that as you say then deriving that it is the case because we do not know it is not the case is an appeal to ignorance fallacy.

C) As far as beliefs are concerned you are correct. However regarding the physical reality of a situation there are only two options when considering a deity's existence: our belief or knowledge of it is a completely irrelevant factor in that truth.

1) The uncertainty principle posits that we can not accurately measure two traits of a particle without sacrificing some certainty about those traits. This is not indication of it failing to be objective, it seems to be the nature of measurement and observation. As we are unable to get these precise measurements we can not conclude that it is not objective, because we do not know. Again this is an appeal to ignorance.

2) "But one thing is for sure the universe had a start." According to the evidence we have now this seems to be the case, but that is not for sure. It is a probability based on information we do have.

Science combined with personal experience is not science.

Personal experience = observation. Observation is an integral part of science, and can serve as a way to learn about the world without the formality of the scientific method.

Are you sure you want to appeal to history?? because for most of history man believed in god.

You are going to kill your argument if you use that as your rebuttal to history. Historically the sciences have proven wrong many beliefs that people claimed came from a deity. Heliocentricity, a natural hierarchy among the races of man, evolution/natural selection, homosexuality being unnatural or rare among mammals, etc.

Historically science has been the driving force behind our growing knowledge, not deism. Its track record makes it much more credible, and historically there does not appear to be any time when theism has been able to shit on science; yet the opposite happens often.

Also the bold is a fallacy: appeal to majority

we don't have mountains of credible evidence for our laws of nature

So we do not have evidence about why Earthquakes happen, or what causes rain, nor how stars are made? Poppycock.

That is why any absolute statement is irrational, one possibility being more likely than another possibility is not enough to make rational absolute statements.

I am as certain that God does not exist as I am that there is no parrot on my head

 

[zombie]

listen @trashboat you are boring me to tears you have basically been asking me the same questions over and over misrepresenting my positions leaving out anything in my posts that are inconvenitent to you or out right lying.

this whole thread comes down to the following

No-one has proof only what they believe is most likely. A strong atheist is no different to a theist in that regard. So it has nothing to do with who has the “burden of proof”, but it simply comes down to evidence. If you think there is no evidence for God nor can they be, then you are strong atheist which is an irrational position. to be a hard atheist, you have to ignore the evidence be it logical or scientific that the universe has a start and so therefore has to have an omnipotent creator or at least that possibility cannot be ruled out, since you cannot rule out that possibility strong atheism is irrational.

the universe having a start is not a possibility it is fact it's as believable as any scientific theory. are you familiar with the findings of Borde, Guth, Vilenkin? Their findings show that ANY model of ANY expanding universe requires a definitive space / time boundary. these men are all atheist by the way. The conclusion they reached is that ANY model of an expanding universe, must have a start that includes all the following theories:

Oscillating universe –

. Baby universes –

. Multi verses –

. The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario –

. The Chaotic Inflationary universe –

. Brane-cosmology –

. Inflationary multi-verse –

. Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum –

. The many worlds hypothesis –

. The black hole hypothesis –

. Quantum gravity models –

. Vacuum fluctuation models –

. Imaginary time and imaginary space –

“It is said that an Argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a Proof is what it takes to convince an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of the cosmic beginning.”

Alex Vilenkin, “Many Worlds In One – The Search for Other Universes,” 11

I was not talking about events like earthquakes and i suspect you know that, i was speaking about the laws of nature that governed the very early universe. A deity cannot be disproved because it cannot be absolutley described unlike the teapot or parrot . personal experience does not equal observation when it comes to science which always attempts to remain objective as much as it can. putting what you personally feel into an observation corrupts the observation.

history disproved religious beliefs but not the concept of god which was my point religion has nothing to do with the argument at all. and alot of the early scientist were either theist or deist what the fuck are you talking about.

 

[zombie]

If matter / energy, space / time did not exist until the Singularity (Big Bang theory) then, unless one believes that matter can create itself, or that nothing can create matter we are left with an immaterial Creator / Cause. A Creator / Cause that is beyond nature, i.e. supernatural. Supernatural is anathema to strong atheism.

now i am not saying that we can prove this cause i am saying that it exists and that is enough to make strong atheism irrational.

 

[LUClEN]

listen @trashboat you are boring me to tears you have basically been asking me the same questions over and over misrepresenting my positions leaving out anything in my posts that are inconvenitent to you or out right lying.

this whole thread comes down to the following

No-one has proof only what they believe is most likely. A strong atheist is no different to a theist in that regard. So it has nothing to do with who has the “burden of proof”, but it simply comes down to evidence. If you think there is no evidence for God nor can they be, then you are strong atheist which is an irrational position. to be a hard atheist, you have to ignore the evidence be it logical or scientific that the universe has a start and so therefore has to have an omnipotent creator or at least that possibility cannot be ruled out, since you cannot rule out that possibility strong atheism is irrational.

the universe having a start is not a possibility it is fact it's as believable as any scientific theory. are you familiar with the findings of Borde, Guth, Vilenkin? Their findings show that ANY model of ANY expanding universe requires a definitive space / time boundary. The conclusion they reached is that ANY model of an expanding universe, must have a start that includes all the following theories:

Oscillating universe –

. Baby universes –

. Multi verses –

. The Cyclic Ekpyrotic Scenario –

. The Chaotic Inflationary universe –

. Brane-cosmology –

. Inflationary multi-verse –

. Bubble universes floating in a sea of false vacuum –

. The many worlds hypothesis –

. The black hole hypothesis –

. Quantum gravity models –

. Vacuum fluctuation models –

. Imaginary time and imaginary space –

“It is said that an Argument is what convinces reasonable men, and a Proof is what it takes to convince an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of the cosmic beginning.”

Alex Vilenkin, “Many Worlds In One – The Search for Other Universes,” 11

I was not talking about events like earthquakes and i suspect you know that, i was speaking about the laws of nature that governed the very early universe. A deity cannot be disproved because it cannot be absolutley described unlike the teapot or parrot . personal experience does not equal observation when it comes to science which always attempts to remain objective as much as it can. putting what you personally feel into an observation corrupts the observation.

history disproved religious beliefs but not the concept of god which was my point religion has nothing to do with the argument at all. and alot of the early scientist were either theist or deist what the fuck are you talking about.

Nice copy paste arguments.
http://recoveringagnostic.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/in-defence-of-strong-atheism/

Good to know that I've pushed you beyond your capabilities.

1. What points am I ignoring? If anything you are the one ducking questions. You make claims, I question the source of that knowledge, and then you either abandon it or beg the question to answer it. I call out numerous fallacies and you fail to show exactly how the interpretation is incorrect and iron out the errors in logic. It appears as though you wont' answer the questions because you know doing so will result in a circular logic fallacy or undermine your overall argument.

2. You completely abstained from responding to any of this:

Existence is an issue separate to omnipotence, making several issues arise. One is that speaking strictly of the concepts of existence and omnipotence, it is possible for an omnipotent being to not exist at the universe's concept, and begin to exist later. Being the most powerful does not mean you have to exist all the time. The only way that would be a necessary connection between the two, is if the omnipotent being was the only theory for the origin of the universe, but it is not. Once again this seems like begging the question. Not only that, but it seems there is a circular reasoning akin to the ontological argument as you did not show how "Only the concept of an omnipotent god can preceed time". You are drawing this inference from the definition, but how is the definition supported?

"you cannot rule out any logical possibility"

→ A deity existing is less probable than it not existing when belief is proportioned to the evidence. We can not rule it out with absolute certainty, as agreed above, but we can reject it with greater probability than we can accept it. Since the atheist stance fits better with our lack of evidence, and directly contradicts the existence of a deity why is it that it cannot be ruled out then? The better supported view contradicting another is evidence against that other view.

You discredit multiverses and string theory saying they are just theories and not fact, but consider our incomplete theories of the origin of the universe (which do not even properly account for quantum gravity) as fact. This seems to be a self serving bias wherein you will accept the conclusion the universe needs a starting point because it supports your belief in a deity but reject these other notions because they do not suit your argument.

3. Natural laws refer to more than just the origin of the universe and we have immense support for them, and none for a deity. They contradict the notion of a deity and since there is much more evidence for them this works as support against its existence.

4. "A deity cannot be disproved because it cannot be absolutley described"... how do you know this? Where does the source of this knowledge come from if it can't be described? You seem to be undermining your own point there

5. "personal experience does not equal observation when it comes to science which always attempts to remain objective as much as it can. putting what you personally feel into an observation corrupts the observation."...So you're saying the things scientists experience are not part of science? That makes no sense. Scientists are people and they experience the world as people. I never mentioned feelings, I discussed observations. To discredit an observation based on feelings is to discredit them all.

6. "history disproved religious beliefs but not the concept of god which was my point religion has nothing to do with the argument at all. and alot of the early scientist were either theist or deist what the fuck are you talking about"... history refutes claims that allegedly come from this deity. If the only reason I would ever think an invisible man lives in the sky is because of the people perpetuating that idea, as soon as they are discredited the idea itself has no leg to stand on. Moreover, those same early scientists believed arsenic healed headaches, that Blacks are inherently inferior to Whites, that the world is flat, etc.

7. "If matter / energy, space / time did not exist until the Singularity (Big Bang theory) then, unless one believes that matter can create itself, or that nothing can create matter we are left with an immaterial Creator / Cause. A Creator / Cause that is beyond nature, i.e. supernatural. Supernatural is anathema to strong atheism."...How do you know that those are the only options that exist? Where is that information coming from? You present a conditional argument but have no way to prove your antecedent, which prevents you from proving your consequent.

 

[zombie]

Nice copy paste arguments.
http://recoveringagnostic.wordpress.com/2013/04/09/in-defence-of-strong-atheism/

Good to know that I've pushed you beyond your capabilities. The only thing you pushed is my patience you keep asking the same shit over and over i got sick of it and of the lies and misrepresentations true corrupt lawyer shit



1. What points am I ignoring? If anything you are the one ducking questions. You make claims, I question the source of that knowledge, and then you either abandon it or beg the question to answer it. I call out numerous fallacies and you fail to show exactly how the interpretation is incorrect and iron out the errors in logic. It appears as though you wont' answer the questions because you know doing so will result in a circular logic fallacy or undermine your overall argument.

2. You completely abstained from responding to any of this:

Existence is an issue separate to omnipotence, making several issues arise. One is that speaking strictly of the concepts of existence and omnipotence, it is possible for an omnipotent being to not exist at the universe's concept, and begin to exist later. No it's not Being the most powerful does not mean you have to exist all the time. Being omnipotent is not just about being the most powerful. one of it's concequences is you would always have to had have existed because if something creates you then that means you are not omnipotent because you would not be able to undo the act of your own creation. UNDERSTAND

The only way that would be a necessary connection between the two, is if the omnipotent being was the only theory for the origin of the universe, but it is not. it is the most logical one

Once again this seems like begging the question. Not only that, but it seems there is a circular reasoning akin to the ontological argument as you did not show how "Only the concept of an omnipotent god can preceed time". You are drawing this inference from the definition, but how is the definition supported? there being a possibility of there being a omnipotent being is supported by existence itself as there is no other way something can come from nothing without the existence of this being

"you cannot rule out any logical possibility"

→ A deity existing is less probable than it not existing when belief is proportioned to the evidence. We can not rule it out with absolute certainty, as agreed above, Ok that's the end of it you just lost the debate that's all i need to prove strong atheism is irrational nothing else i write even matters now because once that is established i have prove my point. but we can reject it with greater probability than we can accept it. That is your personal opinion

Since the atheist stance fits better with our lack of evidence, and directly contradicts the existence of a deity why is it that it cannot be ruled out then? The better supported view contradicting another is evidence against that other view.

It's not enough to have the better supported view you have to have the actually proof that god cannot exist if you want to make strong atheism rational because strong atheism is a definitive stance.

You discredit multiverses and string theory saying they are just theories and not fact, but consider our incomplete theories of the origin of the universe (which do not even properly account for quantum gravity) as fact. This seems to be a self serving bias wherein you will accept the conclusion the universe needs a starting point because it supports your belief in a deity but reject these other notions because they do not suit your argument.

3. Natural laws refer to more than just the origin of the universe and we have immense support for them, and none for a deity. They contradict the notion of a deity and since there is much more evidence for them this works as support against its existence.

4. "A deity cannot be disproved because it cannot be absolutley described"... how do you know this? Where does the source of this knowledge come from if it can't be described? You seem to be undermining your own point there

5. "personal experience does not equal observation when it comes to science which always attempts to remain objective as much as it can. putting what you personally feel into an observation corrupts the observation."...So you're saying the things scientists experience are not part of science? That makes no sense. Scientists are people and they experience the world as people. I never mentioned feelings, I discussed observations. To discredit an observation based on feelings is to discredit them all.

6. "history disproved religious beliefs but not the concept of god which was my point religion has nothing to do with the argument at all. and alot of the early scientist were either theist or deist what the fuck are you talking about"... history refutes claims that allegedly come from this deity. If the only reason I would ever think an invisible man lives in the sky is because of the people perpetuating that idea, as soon as they are discredited the idea itself has no leg to stand on. Moreover, those same early scientists believed arsenic healed headaches, that Blacks are inherently inferior to Whites, that the world is flat, etc.

7. "If matter / energy, space / time did not exist until the Singularity (Big Bang theory) then, unless one believes that matter can create itself, or that nothing can create matter we are left with an immaterial Creator / Cause. A Creator / Cause that is beyond nature, i.e. supernatural. Supernatural is anathema to strong atheism."...How do you know that those are the only options that exist? Where is that information coming from? You present a conditional argument but have no way to prove your antecedent, which prevents you from proving your consequent. [/quote]

YES SOME OF MY ARGUMENTS ARE FROM THAT website but that does not make them any less valid the facts still remain that strong atheism is an irrational stand point. i copy pasted from there because saying the same shit over and over again is boring so it's much easier to use someones words when they match mine.

I answered every question you asked multiple time already you just find ways to ask me the same shit you have not called out any fallacy what you do is reinterpret what people say into a fallacy

like i told you many posts ago multiveral theories are unimportant because all they so is push back the start of creation, even if they are real just move the goal post. I accept the universe having a definitive start because it does not rely on the creation of more unneeded theory that solves nothing and only pushes back creation to another universe. The problem remains that the universe is not eternal and something cannot come from nothing.

3) I WAS clearly talking about the laws that govern the early universe not fucking earthquakes and existence is enough evidence for the possibility for there to be a deity and a possibility is all i need to prove my point.

4) I know this because a deity would have to be omnipotent therefore it would have no absolute description i answered this question already it's one of the concequences of omnipotence .

5) A scientist personal observation applied to their science is invalid.

6) The deity of deism makes no claims and theist at least learned christian ones never believed god was a man in the sky that was always a minority position saying otherwise that's just another lie and misrepresentation from you.

7) WELL THE ETERNAL universe theory can go nowhere so that only leaves one other alternative.

 

[beenwize]

If matter / energy, space / time did not exist until the Singularity (Big Bang theory) then, unless one believes that matter can create itself, or that nothing can create matter we are left with an immaterial Creator / Cause. A Creator / Cause that is beyond nature, i.e. supernatural. Supernatural is anathema to strong atheism.

now i am not saying that we can prove this cause i am saying that it exists and that is enough to make strong atheism irrational.

Question after the Exodus how long were the Israelites in the wilderness?

 

[zombie]

If matter / energy, space / time did not exist until the Singularity (Big Bang theory) then, unless one believes that matter can create itself, or that nothing can create matter we are left with an immaterial Creator / Cause. A Creator / Cause that is beyond nature, i.e. supernatural. Supernatural is anathema to strong atheism.

now i am not saying that we can prove this cause i am saying that it exists and that is enough to make strong atheism irrational.

Question after the Exodus how long were the Israelites in the wilderness?

that question has nothing to do with the topic. that is a question about a particular religion. for my argument in this thread all i have to prove is that the "statement there can be no god/there is no god" is irrational. And to do that all i have to do is prove that there is even the slightest possibility that any kind of god can exist.

 

[LUClEN]

YOU CANNOT observe anything omnipotent but you can observe or at least we think we can observe creation which would be the result of there being an omnipotent being in the first place.

You used circular logic to explain how you know the above. You say we can not observe anything omnipotent but then say "the meaning of the fucking word when put into practice implies certain things logically", yet you can not know that because by your own admission we can not observe it. Logically we know the characteristics of objects by our observations of them (trees, sports, stars) - or in instances where the object does not exist (unicorns, superheroes) we make them up. Since we have no way to know anything about the object, and no way to conclude whether or not it even exists, the scenario seems to indicate that you are just making it up.

LOGIC dictates that to be omnipoetent you have to exists at least AT the start outside of time because everything else would exist in time and time cannot exist without the universe nothing can except an omnipotent being.

You can't know that omnipotence even exists so you have no way of verifying any details about it or precluding anything regarding a deity.

YES SOME OF MY ARGUMENTS ARE FROM THAT website but that does not make them any less valid the facts still remain that strong atheism is an irrational stand point. i copy pasted from there because saying the same shit over and over again is boring so it's much easier to use someones words when they match mine.

I never said the argument is invalid, I just showed that it was coming from someone else. Coincidentally they are also a theist. Surprise surprise.

The problem remains that the universe is not eternal and something cannot come from nothing.

A deity is something, therefore cannot come from nothing. Seems you defeated your own argument.

3) I WAS clearly talking about the laws that govern the early universe not fucking earthquakes and existence is enough evidence for the possibility for there to be a deity and a possibility is all i need to prove my point.

You did not prove possibility, though. That is the problem.

4) I know this because a deity would have to be omnipotent therefore it would have no absolute description i answered this question already it's one of the concequences of omnipotence .

You say it would have no description, but then describe it as omnipotent. Contradiction.

5) A scientist personal observation applied to their science is invalid.

So the things a scientists personally observes in the lab is invalid? Now you're just being reckless.

6) The deity of deism makes no claims and theist at least learned christian ones never believed god was a man in the sky that was always a minority position saying otherwise that's just another lie and misrepresentation from you.

It seems you have made several claims about this deity including intentionally creating the universe, possibly existing and being omnipotent.

7) WELL THE ETERNAL universe theory can go nowhere so that only leaves one other alternative.

You do not know that. It just at present fails to account for other universes. Rather than take the agnostic position you advocated for you are trying to conclude a deity could exist without adequate knowledge.

 

[beenwize]

If matter / energy, space / time did not exist until the Singularity (Big Bang theory) then, unless one believes that matter can create itself, or that nothing can create matter we are left with an immaterial Creator / Cause. A Creator / Cause that is beyond nature, i.e. supernatural. Supernatural is anathema to strong atheism.

now i am not saying that we can prove this cause i am saying that it exists and that is enough to make strong atheism irrational.

Question after the Exodus how long were the Israelites in the wilderness?

that question has nothing to do with the topic. that is a question about a particular religion. for my argument in this thread all i have to prove is that the "statement there can be no god/there is no god" is irrational. And to do that all i have to do is prove that there is even the slightest possibility that any kind of god can exist.

Ok. Just answer the question.

 

[zombie]

YOU CANNOT observe anything omnipotent but you can observe or at least we think we can observe creation which would be the result of there being an omnipotent being in the first place.

You used circular logic to explain how you know the above. You say we can not observe anything omnipotent but then say "the meaning of the fucking word when put into practice implies certain things logically", yet you can not know that because by your own admission we can not observe it. Logically we know the characteristics of objects by our observations of them (trees, sports, stars) - or in instances where the object does not exist (unicorns, superheroes) we make them up. Since we have no way to know anything about the object, and no way to conclude whether or not it even exists, the scenario seems to indicate that you are just making it up.

we have no way of knowing anything that's why i said we think we can observe creation in essence everything is in question except the questioning so we cannot rationally reject any logical possibility even superheroes

LOGIC dictates that to be omnipoetent you have to exists at least AT the start outside of time because everything else would exist in time and time cannot exist without the universe nothing can except an omnipotent being.

You can't know that omnipotence even exists so you have no way of verifying any details about it or precluding anything regarding a deity.

i know omnipotence exists because i think i exist which is the only thing i can prove and since i know i did not make myself or anything else i think i can observe then the possibility remains that something else made me which is enough to prove strong atheism to be irrational.

YES SOME OF MY ARGUMENTS ARE FROM THAT website but that does not make them any less valid the facts still remain that strong atheism is an irrational stand point. i copy pasted from there because saying the same shit over and over again is boring so it's much easier to use someones words when they match mine.

I never said the argument is invalid, I just showed that it was coming from someone else. Coincidentally they are also a theist. Surprise surprise.

irrevelent

The problem remains that the universe is not eternal and something cannot come from nothing.

A deity is something, therefore cannot come from nothing. Seems you defeated your own argument.

A deity would not be any kind of a "THING" things are creations.

3) I WAS clearly talking about the laws that govern the early universe not fucking earthquakes and existence is enough evidence for the possibility for there to be a deity and a possibility is all i need to prove my point.

You did not prove possibility, though. That is the problem.

Yes i did and you agreed that we cannot rule out the logical possibility therefore losing the debate and anything we say now is unimportant to that fact.

4) I know this because a deity would have to be omnipotent therefore it would have no absolute description i answered this question already it's one of the concequences of omnipotence .

You say it would have no description, but then describe it as omnipotent. Contradiction.

omnipotence is not a physical description

5) A scientist personal observation applied to their science is invalid.

So the things a scientists personally observes in the lab is invalid? Now you're just being reckless.

A personal observation is not just seeing something and writing it down, that would just be an observation personal observation is your input and evaluation on those findings

6) The deity of deism makes no claims and theist at least learned christian ones never believed god was a man in the sky that was always a minority position saying otherwise that's just another lie and misrepresentation from you.

It seems you have made several claims about this deity including intentionally creating the universe, possibly existing and being omnipotent.

You are confusing my position with that of deism i simply used deism as an example to show the irrationality of strong atheism

7) WELL THE ETERNAL universe theory can go nowhere so that only leaves one other alternative.

You do not know that. It just at present fails to account for other universes. Rather than take the agnostic position you advocated for you are trying to conclude a deity could exist without adequate knowledge.

I was and remain agnostic on being able to prove the objective existence or non existence of god.

do you have an alternative to the creation event??? because the eternal universal theories do not escape it only push it back so we cannot answer the questions by using them.

 

[zombie]

If matter / energy, space / time did not exist until the Singularity (Big Bang theory) then, unless one believes that matter can create itself, or that nothing can create matter we are left with an immaterial Creator / Cause. A Creator / Cause that is beyond nature, i.e. supernatural. Supernatural is anathema to strong atheism.

now i am not saying that we can prove this cause i am saying that it exists and that is enough to make strong atheism irrational.

Question after the Exodus how long were the Israelites in the wilderness?

that question has nothing to do with the topic. that is a question about a particular religion. for my argument in this thread all i have to prove is that the "statement there can be no god/there is no god" is irrational. And to do that all i have to do is prove that there is even the slightest possibility that any kind of god can exist.

Ok. Just answer the question.

I don't know i never looked into that deeply enough to give you a decent answer

 

[LUClEN]

we have no way of knowing anything that's why i said we think we can observe creation in essence everything is in question except the questioning.

We have no way of knowing anything, yet the questioning is knowable?

i know omnipotence exists because i think i exist which is the only thing i can prove and since i know i did not make myself or anything else i think i can observe then the possibility remains that something else made me which is enough to prove strong atheism to be irrational.

You exist, I agree. Something made you, I agree. The thing that made the thing that made you was made by another... this makes sense too. So how exactly do you get to the end of this chain and conclude that the very first thing is omnipotent? You can not conclude that about it, all you can conclude is that it can start the chain, and do whatever it is that is necessary in order to initiate it. Omnipotence supposes a power to do anything, but there is nothing we can ascertain from this that indicates omnipotence.

Also there is no way to conclude that the chain does not go on forever.

omnipotence is not a physical description

For all intents and purposes we are assuming that there is a chance that an uncaused cause exists. There is no way to deduce omnipotence from this though. Omnipotence may not be a physical description (although you have no experience of it so it could possibly be a physical description according to your logic) but it is still a description which would require knowledge of some kind.

do you have an alternative to the creation event??? because the eternal universal theories do not escape it only push it back so we cannot answer the questions by using them.

The eternal universe theory side steps creation altogether. Once an uncaused cause exists, or something eternal is possible, then so does it become possible for there not to be a creation event for that uncaused cause.

 

[zombie]

we have no way of knowing anything that's why i said we think we can observe creation in essence everything is in question except the questioning.

We have no way of knowing anything, yet the questioning is knowable? pay attention obviously i am saying all we can know that we think we exist.

i know omnipotence exists because i think i exist which is the only thing i can prove and since i know i did not make myself or anything else i think i can observe then the possibility remains that something else made me which is enough to prove strong atheism to be irrational.

You exist, I agree. Something made you, I agree. The thing that made the thing that made you was made by another... this makes sense too. So how exactly do you get to the end of this chain and conclude that the very first thing is omnipotent? science has shown that the chain cannot go one forever so there must be a start point.



You can not conclude that about it, all you can conclude is that it can start the chain, and do whatever it is that is necessary in order to initiate it. Omnipotence supposes a power to do anything, but there is nothing we can ascertain from this that indicates omnipotence.

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



Also there is no way to conclude that the chain does not go on forever. SCIENCE HAS DONE THIS ALREADY.

omnipotence is not a physical description

For all intents and purposes we are assuming that there is a chance that an uncaused cause exists. There is no way to deduce omnipotence from this though. Omnipotence may not be a physical description (although you have no experience of it so it could possibly be a physical description according to your logic) but it is still a description which would require knowledge of some kind.

The only knowledge needed is our limited existence.

do you have an alternative to the creation event??? because the eternal universal theories do not escape it only push it back so we cannot answer the questions by using them.

The eternal universe theory side steps creation altogether. Once an uncaused cause exists, or something eternal is possible, then so does it become possible for there not to be a creation event for that uncaused cause.

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

 

[zombie]

every concept has an opposite and all that's need is for these concepts to be logically possible once that is established then even if they cannot be proved to be actual then rejecting their possibility is irrational.

so the statement there is no god is an irrational one the statement there is a god is also

 

[whar]

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

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

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

I can be both depending upon the God.

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

Personal God - I am a strong atheist.

Omnipotent God - I am a strong atheist.

Omniscience God - I am a strong atheist.

Benevolent God - I am a weak atheist.

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

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